Should there be gun control in the United States

[Therumancer]

I think the question is irrelevent as it's far to devisive an issue to find any middle ground on.

Obviously, there ought to be some form of gun control seeing as a gun (as in a firearm or weapon) has evolved radically from it's incarnation over 200 years ago when the right to bear arms was added to the bill of rights.

That said, the entire question revolves around certain perspectives on how you interpret why the rule exists.

If you believe it's for personal defense, then no weapon other than handguns or shotguns are really necessary.

If you belive it's for national defense against a foreign invader, then one can point to the National Guard (The modern Militia) and the Federal armed services.

If you believe it's for defense against a tyranical government, then civillians ought to have access to any military weapons they want to purchase.

And for each argument or counterpoint there is always some statistic from the other side. Some lives may be saved by tight gun control but murder rates and violent crime never seem to slack when gun control is enforced. Criminals tend to have guns regardless and tighter controls would do little more than drive up the black market price, doing little more than delaying their acquisition. As such, doing nothing seems immoral and doing something seems reprehensible.

The purpose of guns is to kill people efficiently, and as I have pointed out that right is primarily in the hands of citizens in case it ever needed to be deployed against a goverment out of control. There ARE other safeguards in existance, which is why it seems unlikely that the military could ever take over the country like has happened elsewhere (our military being made up from the general populance being a big part of it, in theory anyone can become a General or an Admiral though we have unwisely been moving away from this and making the military smaller and more 'elite' than it should be... but that's another discussion), but the idea is that our nation is secure due to redundant measures.

Also understand that an armed populance means that anyone who actually invaded America successfully (say if some new technology became availible to render WMDs irrelevent and China made a big for world domination with it's huge population) holding it would be an absolute nightmare. "Red Dawn" is an old and somewhat cheesy take on the basic principle, but basically with an armed and schooled population we'd produce gueriellas that make the ones in Afghanistan and Iraq look like pantywaists. Sure you've got the national guard and military, but if things ever got that serious the more guns the better. The whole "militia" concept was always a part of national defense, and that is why a lot of groups use that term specifically. Besides if we were ever REALLY invaded chances our we would have lost most of our actual armed forces trying to prevent them from getting here. That means it would likely turn into a gueriella war, and if the enemy has the manpower to try this (only China really has it) then every single gun/gueriella/resistance fighter becomes very badly needed.


It also has to do with policing because every time someone says something about how a certain suggestion would tun the country into a police state, I have less worry because as long as the people are armed there are limits to how widescale the abuse of power can be. If the police started actually rounding people up randomly, eventually the general populance would start gunning them down, and frankly there just aren't enough police to do anything if everyone is really against them. Of course the fact that the police ARE from the people themselves rather than effectively isolated from the reduces the chance that the police would ever follow truely off the wall orders anyway.

As far as the SCALE of weapons goes, as I said, the purpose of a gun is to kill. Letting people only have fairly "ineffective" weapons is simply a method of trying to "declaw" the right to bear arms. Generally speaking a criminal is going to have the most effective weapons possible and you need the best weaponry possible for your own defense. Not to mention part of the point is that those weapons might in theory be used against the police and/or some of the military.

Oh sure it makes it fairly easy to murder someone if you really want to, but then again we have a reactive justice system to start with, and the police are more than capable of dealing with individuals or even small groups of individuals even if they have equivilent weapons.

As you might guess from some of my other posts, I am actually pretty pro-law enforcement. However I think the danger of policing an armed population does a lot to curb police excesses. There are excesses now, but not as many as I think there would be otherwise.

I can sort of support registration for the purpose of weapons tracking. But I see no real reason why your typical citizen can't have an Assault Rifle or Sub-Machine Gun. The regulation of automatic and high calibur pistols is even more ridiculous.

I also happen to be a firm believer than an armed society is a polite society. Rather than the goverment deciding who has the right to carry a gun around in public, it should decide who DOESN'T have that right due to an existing criminal record or whatever. Most citizens should be able to pretty much carry around whatever they want. As comical as the thought of a guy packing a couple of assault rifles to go down the street for a cup of coffee is, realism is going to prevail since most people wouldn't want to tote such weapons around regularly as there is little need. Rather most people would simply have sidearms, and would probably choose to display them publically since everyone will simply assume everyone else is armed (unlike now where by default we assume people are not packing guns, unless we're in a profession like Law Enforcement).

Also I'll be blunt, I make no pretensions that you need a Galil assault rifle "to hunt deer" the whole purpose is to kill people. If you kill people for the heck of it your going down even with an assault rifle, but if the time comes and you need it, well you've got it.

Also think of it this way (as odd as it is). As a real estate agent or whatever, would you scam someone if you knew that if pushed far enough the guy your cheating is armed and knows how to find you? Oh sure, you have a gun too, but are you going to want to risk your life in a firefight for a few bucks?

The police make it so that pure might doesn't prevail, but the definate empowerment of a fully armed society also means that people have to be more respectful of others. There are always the police, and even if your "Billy The Kid" all it takes is one bad day if you push your luck too often. As a result people become far more... polite (as I put it).

>>>----Therumancer--->

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Excellent post, and while I generally agree with your reasoning, my point was not to win an argument but rather point to the futility of an argument of this sort. Neither side has the moral high ground to stand on, and even if one supports the right to bear arms their own position is generally for a limited set of approved weapons based on the perspectives I listed.

That said, most of the anti-gun laws do not exist because of any proven danger, but rather because of a percieved danager. The original assault weapons ban chose weapons based on how they lookd rather than their performance, price, accessability or any other more objective factors. People constantly lobby to get the large bore rifles (such as any rifle that fires a .50 cal BMG round) outlawed because of what harm such a weapon might cause. Rarely do such people ever consider that these weapons are so incredibly massive and unwieldy that even their use in warfare is naturally limited. Yes, you can punch through an inch of steel at 200 yards with such a rifle rendering all civil defense mechanism irrelevent, but on can achieve a similar effect with a well aimed 7.62mm rifle using proper ammunition.

My basic perspective is simple. First, we have the right to bear arms for defense, both from within and without. That people murder one another with guns is irrelevent - they can do so with any number of implements. Second, the assault weapons ban has not seemingly had any real effect at limiting the use of assault weapons in criminal activities - at best it may have driven up the price. The use of such weapons is naturally limited simply because it is difficult to conceal most weapons classified as "assault weapons". Third, given that a function of the right to bear arms is to allow the violent overthrow of a government run amuck, it stands to reason that the civillian population must have access to any weapon sold on the open market. If someone wants to own a tank and they can afford it, who are we to say no, especially when you consider the extreme cost of even an ancient and utterly ineffective Main Battle Tank, such as ubiquitous T-55 is still so exhorbinately expensive that it's circulation is naturally limited, and look at the simple fact that a tank is one of the least subtle weapons ever devised by man.

Most weapons that people rally to outlaw simply are not useful for the commission of the average, run of the mill crimes. Either their expense is too high, or they are too difficult to conceal to be of use to your average criminal. The common case of automatic (or modified semi-automatic) weapons being used in gang warfare just points to how ineffective and wasteful the measures have been at keeping the weapons from the hands of criminals who have the combination of utter disregard for sublety and access to large enough quantities of cash to make the acquisition easy.

There is some merit to Heinlin's famous line that you quote - "An armed society is a polite society". In days long past, even impugning the honor of another man an offense worthy of mortal combat. History if nothing else seems to point to a simple fact - the greater the difference between the capacity to inflict harm between a people and an oppressor just lets the tyrant press the boot ever tighter.

But that's just my perspective. The problem with the argument, to reiterate is simply that it is based on perspective. It has been proven that one cannot stop criminals from having guns of course, but allowing them more ready access to a higher grade of weapons is certainly a double edged sword. There is an equal argument for the either position from a moral standpoint which is where most people make their judgement on the issue, and while study after study comes along to support one side or another, neither seems to have deliverd a decisive argument on the matter. Even if they did, I'm not convinced it would make any difference or cause a meaningful shift in the attitudes of those who choose to involve themselves in such a debate.

 

[Velocirapture07]

I'm just going to chime in here with a couple of points. First, one of the reasons we have the second amendment is specifically so that the people can take out the government in open rebellion if the Feds get too big for their britches. Our founding fathers were, obviously, very keen on the idea of citizens being able to determine their own government, by whatever means necessary. Having the very group that the right to bear arms was in part made to control exercise that much control over the weapons is akin to putting the fox in charge of guarding the chicken coop.

It doesn't make any sense to frame the gun control debate with arguments about state coercion when the U.S. government controls thousands of nuclear warheads, planes, tanks and bombs.

The whole of the armed forces would never be behind a military endeavor against the United States itself. This has been witnessed numerous times in unstable countries where this type of thing is commonplace. One half of the military begins a coup, and another part works against them to restore order.

The idea that the government is some all powerful and unstoppable force does not hold up in America. Politicians rely on our support and the government is checked at every turn. This is why small government is so damn important - it prevents it from becoming too pervasive and influential. As per the constitution the citizens must always retain their power.

The United States is an unstable country where coups are commonplace? The power of citizens in the U.S. has nothing to do with the contents of our gun lockers and everything to do with those of our ballot boxes. Separation of powers, rule of law, strong civilian institutions, and a professional, diverse volunteer military all contribute.

What does that have to do with the legal ability to sell a given gun to civilians? It's clear that within the category of 'arms,' lines have to be drawn. Do we allow pistols? Assault rifles? RPGs? ICBMs?

If you're convinced of the danger of a coup, universal conscription is the policy you should be advocating.

I think you misunderstood me horticulture. Read what I said again and pay attention this time. I'm not worried about a coup here in the U.S...that's ridiculous.

 

[Horticulture]

I think you misunderstood me horticulture. Read what I said again and pay attention this time. I'm not worried about a coup here in the U.S...that's ridiculous.

If you aren't worried about a coup, and limited government is the bulwark of protecting citizens against coercion, what does checking government power have to do with gun control?

Edit: that sounds a bit like I'm trying to put words in your mouth. What I mean is, why did you introduce that topic if not to justify greater gun freedoms?

 

[TheEvilDuck]

Yes, there should be.

This http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFcVwDw4YLE

And I now love you forever. ^^

 

[asinann]

As much as I love America I think they hold to their "right to bear arms" a little to firmly, yes most just have them to keep their familys safe but for every thousand decent people there's one nutter ready to snap.

And when the government needs to be replaced (due to corruption and such)

You are more likely to die in a car accident than a shooting, and we do the same for both: we license them (and children die horrifically in car accident too)

Driving, unlike owning a gun, is not in the bill of rights anywhere, so before you go after guns, go after cars.

 

[Velocirapture07]

I think you misunderstood me horticulture. Read what I said again and pay attention this time. I'm not worried about a coup here in the U.S...that's ridiculous.

If you aren't worried about a coup, and limited government is the bulwark of protecting citizens against coercion, what does checking government power have to do with gun control?

Edit: that sounds a bit like I'm trying to put words in your mouth. What I mean is, why did you introduce that topic if not to justify greater gun freedoms?

Not greater freedoms, just the same ones we've had for years. You can never have too much protection from government sir. Yes the ballot and small government is important, but you can never be too protected. Hell, America was so suspect of power when it was first created that a standing army was not allowed until after the World Wars!

 

[Horticulture]

Not greater freedoms, just the same ones we've had for years. You can never have too much protection from government sir. Yes the ballot and small government is important, but you can never be too protected. Hell, America was so suspect of power when it was first created that a standing army was not allowed until after the World Wars!

What kind of boundaries do you think should be drawn regarding civilian weapons? Even rifles have evolved so rapidly in the postwar era that interpretation of existing gun laws seems to require scrutiny.

 

[Grand_Poohbah]

You can take my gun from my cold dead hands.

 

[tsb247]

people, people, people. Not this again. Sure, you can make gun control as tight as you want, but if someone's going to go breaking the law and shooting someone, they won't check if the gun is legal first.

Just one question: Why do shootings never happen at firing ranges?

Because a shooter is likely to get shot. They also teach responsibility and proper handling and care of firearms at all ranges and gun clubs. If they dont, they don't deserve to be running and I'm pretty sure no one at a range wants to get shot so even if gun safety wasn't a priority, if you didn't follow it, you'd likely be shoved in a trunk for other people's safety. People have been keeping their guns in locked safes seperate from where they keep their ammo long before politicians made it required by law. When you're at a range you exercise proper gun safety or you'll quickly find yourself kicked out, arrested, sued... People in general are responsible individuals. It's (un)common sense.

Guns are tools first, weapons second to the civilized individual. Do you screw around with a power drill? Only if you're incredibly stupid and want a permenant crippling injury.

Thank you for making the tool comparison! Many people don't realize that a hammer is to a nail as a gun is to a bullet. Hammers don't drive nails on their own, and guns don't fire bullets without human interaction. A firearm is only as dangerous as the person wielding it.

Most Americans that can call themselves gun owners are responsible people who shoot for the sheer joy of shooting. While I agree that the laws may need to be policed a little better, I certainly don't see the need to ban or heavily restrict any firearm simply because some moron decided to use on to shoot up his school.

For every nut-job who goes on a shooting rampage, there are thousands of respectable gun owners shaking their heads in disgust. I believe I can speak for the vast majority of U.S. gun owners when I say that safety and responsibility come first, and that while there are certainly a few bad ones that manage to slip through the cracks, there are far more of us who are decent individuals who simply love to shoot.

I would also like to point out that statistically, the cities in the U.S. with the heaviest gun control laws are also the ones with the highest violent crime rates (see Chicago and Washington D.C.).

 

[quack35]

I think so, I read somewhere that you are more likely to be killed by a gun in your own home than using it to defend yourself.

Although that might be incorrect, I don't remember where I read it.

 

[dragoniv1]

LOL all gun control would do in america is make civilans be unprotected i mean plwase they cant even stop people from haveing illigal weapons right now like ak's and such and they want to turn attention to the people that have registered and have permits, just an excuse to raise taxes and prices. Just like the stupid seat belt law, dont get me started click it or ticket it give me a break!! I was driveing down the street while back saw 5 cop cars and like 8 cops standing on a corner watching for people without seatbelts...duurrrr what a waste!!!! 8 cops worried about peopl wearing seatbelts as a drug deal, murder, robbery ect. is going on the block over so stupid!!!

 

[The Gardener]

Over 9000 threads have already been made, and the end result is always anti-control shoving all statistics in the faces of the pro-control people only to hav them blatently deny the truth and bring up individual cases where having or not having or maybe both may have possible changed the outcome a little bit for better or worse or maybe both.

So in conclusion, criminals don;t obey the law and thusly passing laws to restrict their access to guns is absolutely fucking ridiculous. And that's my presentation.

 

[Velocirapture07]

No, never. "A well regulated Milita, being neccessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." -Second Amendment of the Constitution. Its our constitutional right to own a gun. If anyone tries to remove or restrict the second amendment it would spark outrage, possibly revolution. Soldiers have to swear an oath to protect the constitution. Infringing the second amdendment is a direct attack on that constitution, and is the duty of the military to act. Hell, its your duty as an American to act.

Banning guns will not make things safer. It will not stop criminals who don't obey the law from getting them. The police cannot always help you, and when someone breaks into your house, it would be good to have a gun. You can play the American sterotype all you want that we kill more people with guns than anyone else, well take away our guns, we'll just find something else to use. Americans are fighters, wither its against our enemies or ourselves.

The founding fathers wanted an armed milita (the public). They wanted the people to be able to abolish the government if it became too oppresive. This is also why god forbid an invasion of our country would be near suicide due to the fact that the people have guns. Politicians and anti-gun people have been pushing the buttons of the second amdendment for far too long. One day they are going to go too far. I hope that day does not come. I just want people to understand that disarming us is the dumbest thing anyone could ever do.

As the great Charlton Heston once said, "From my cold dead hands."

Hell yes dude. Love the pic and your avatar.

 

[Velocirapture07]

Not greater freedoms, just the same ones we've had for years. You can never have too much protection from government sir. Yes the ballot and small government is important, but you can never be too protected. Hell, America was so suspect of power when it was first created that a standing army was not allowed until after the World Wars!

What kind of boundaries do you think should be drawn regarding civilian weapons? Even rifles have evolved so rapidly in the postwar era that interpretation of existing gun laws seems to require scrutiny.

This one is simple. Rifles, and any type of semi-auto weapons (handguns included) should be allowed for civilian use. Fully automatic weapons should not necessarily be given to the citizenry. Everything else I'd say is free range.

p.s.- whats with the flag picture??

 

[Lord_Ascendant]

don't control guns

control the ammo

enough said

 

[Horticulture]

p.s.- whats with the flag picture??

It's the Swiss flag. I heard they have a couple guns there.

 

[tsb247]

Not greater freedoms, just the same ones we've had for years. You can never have too much protection from government sir. Yes the ballot and small government is important, but you can never be too protected. Hell, America was so suspect of power when it was first created that a standing army was not allowed until after the World Wars!

What kind of boundaries do you think should be drawn regarding civilian weapons? Even rifles have evolved so rapidly in the postwar era that interpretation of existing gun laws seems to require scrutiny.

I don't think there should be any limits on what an individual should be able to own (bolt-action, semi-auto, and auto; handguns and long guns). I only think that they should be well regulated when you cross into class III territory (machine guns, suppressors, and destructive devices). I do not believe the individual should be able to own a class III firearm or destructive device without the proper paperwork, background check, and medical history check (mostly for mental health). However, I believe that class III firearms should be legal in every state along with all varieties of rifles and handguns.

In essence, I only think the line should be drawn in the case of specific devices such as mines, rockets and their launchers, and pretty much all other explosives.

I'm all for a well regulated system that gurantees the right to gun ownership with plenty of oversight, but very little limitation on what can be owned. Do I believe in liscencing every firearm? Certainly not, but it would bother me to have to wait a little longer to get one. That would certainly be better than not being able to own one at all.

 

[tsb247]

don't control guns

control the ammo

enough said

Because that has worked so well...

A bullet is a bullet is a bullet. The only reason someone would get killed by one is if someone with malintent fired it at them. Restricting bullets has been tried before and it has failed.