Gun Gontrol

[Rain]

Sigh, more proof that America has a gun problem, just because a document is old and therefore 'tradition' doesn't mean it's right, Guns are designed for killing and nothing more , regardless of your right to carry a gun what about others right not to be shot by it. Guns should be left to wars alone.


[/rant]

 

[ama55]

Well put Camisado.

 

[Rhazdel]

Note that I am all for stricter gun control laws. But it really irks me when people look at a problem and see only black and white. The world doesn't work that way, people.

Agreed. I think gun control laws are too relaxed and should be regulated, but the reason it was written into the Constitution is to protect the people from their government.

Dictatorial regimes sometimes do this.

If the government is the only one to have access to weapons, what is to stop them from doing anything they want?

I am all for more strict control, but it is not up to the government to say that we cannot buy them.

 

[Rain]

If the government is the only one to have access to weapons, what is to stop them from doing anything they want?

And it's that kind of paranoia that makes America so reliant on guns. And yes I do believe on completely removing guns from people, but I don't think it's a childish view at all, just an idealistic view. Obviously it's impossible to completely remove guns from America or any country for that matter seeing as the U.K has a growing gun control problem, although it will never be anywhere near as bad as it is in America were they seem to be pretty much handed out on every street corner for people's "protection" when all there "protecting" themselves from are other people with even bigger guns who are "protecting" themselves from others as well.

 

[Volrath]

Hmm.....the problem isn't so much guns as a whole, but assault weapons. I saw on the news that the pistol the student used in the massacre was designed to shoot like an automatic weapon, with a clip that holds much more ammo than your average pistol. It was one of the many weapons banned in 1994, when President Clinton and Congress passed a ten-year bill designed to keep some of these powerful weapons off the streets.

However, this ban conveniently expired in an election year, and Bush and the Republican Congress were all too happy to let it die and score some points with the NRA crowd.

Some people feel safer with a regular pistol in their house in case someone breaks in....which I guess makes sense, depending on where you live. And many families have a tradition of handing down things like hunting rifles from generation to generation, and there's nothing wrong with that. My father inherited a bunch of antique rifles from his father, who passed away about 20 years ago. As far as I can tell, they've never left the cabinet they're placed in, serving more as a memento for my late grandfather.

However, an AK-47 assault rifle or an automatic pistol is not used to kill deer. Some of these extreme weapons have no place in any civilized society, in my opinion. They are designed for killing humans...and nothing else. That said, our main focus should be on why we seem to be so inclined to use guns to kill one another, rather than only on their presence.

 

[Rain]

I never rely on the media as a source for anything but I believe the events of yesterday speak volumes.

 

[Rhazdel]

However, an AK-47 assault rifle or an automatic pistol is not used to kill deer. Some of these extreme weapons have no place in any civilized society, in my opinion. They are designed for killing humans...and nothing else. That said, our main focus should be on why we seem to be so inclined to use guns to kill one another, rather than only on their presence.

Completely agreed. The gun he was using (a Glock, for those who know) has auto-fire capabilities and a 10-round clip (15 round clip for law-enforcement). These guns have actually been the source of much controversy for the following reasons:

The Glock is made up of mostly plastic parts. The slide is the only real part of the gun that is metal. This makes them hard to detect with metal detectors. This also makes them very lightweight and easy to handle, and easy to conceal, as well. They have auto-fire capability, which means they keep firing as long as the trigger is being pulled.

That's why they fell under the assault weapons ban.

And, I agree with you, Volrath, that assault weapons serve no other purpose than to kill people. Under the assault weapons ban, you are still allowed to purchase and own an AK-47, but with restrictions.

You cannot own a "banana clip" (large clip that holds many more rounds than a normal clip). (Most) assault rifles also have the capacity to switch between full-auto and semi-auto via a selector plate. Legal "civilian issue" rifles have the selector switch either welded into the semi-auto position or replace the selector switch entirely with one that does not have full-auto capabilities.

I think these weapons should be banned for civilian use. Plus, many gun ranges do allow you to pay to use full-auto weaponry in their facility (you rent it from them). So, the people that argue that full-auto is more fun, can still get their kicks in a controlled environment.

There is no reason these weapons should be allowed on the street.

 

[Rain]

And I completely agree with Volrath, assualt weapons have no place in home defense,

No gun should have a place in "home defense", police are there for a reason.

I give up trying to defend my point, so let's just let it go.

 

[Grandor]

I disagree, Camisado. While police may be there for a reason, some of their response times tend to be slow. Then you have a bullet in your head because they didn't get their in time. I find everyone should have the right to a gun, just not to go around killing people.

 

[holloway]

Camisado, it's impossible for these debates to go anywhere .

The BBC had this special report on earlier about Europe v America on guns, and neither side of the Atlantic can see why the other side cannot see their arguments. It was shown perfect by this American and Brit arguing about guns and it almost epitomised the argument:

"Ok, so how on earth does giving guns to the majority fight against gun deaths?"
"But you have a gun, so if someone comes at you, you're able to defend yourself from becoming the victim"
"But the guy with the gun probably bought it from a gun shop. He got the gun from a legal place with relative ease"
"But there are background checks. Anyway, he'd have got hold of it somehow if he wanted one!"
"But we don't have guns legal over here and gun crime is generally kept to gangs and not general crime. Anyone is a potential criminal, and gunshops make it worse".


Etc, etc.

 

[holloway]

(Raiju just proved what that report showed methinks :p.)

Also, Raiju, whilst you're trying to address the root cause, what if it can't be stopped? People have been saying they need to address the root cause since Columbine- 10 years ago. Perhaps it's time to stop trying to address the root cause of the gun crime and either do it or remove the firearms from the equation. Say that most weapons are not bought in shops that are used in crime, but I can safely say that having any amount of guns being legally made or imported will increase the number of illegal firearms available, whether through police mishaps, as you said, or store robberies etc.

And you replied to someone who said that "guns are made to kill. End of" and said that it wasn't for that, but to defend yourself. Now, in my eyes, whether self defence or not, you're still attempting to kill or seriously wound. In a civilised society, dragging yourself to the level of the attacker isn't much better.

 

[arcthemonkey]

I'm going to go ahead an say it - Camisado, you are completely ignorant of the real world.

If guns were outlawed, then only outlaws would have them. You say people shouldn't have guns in their homes to defend themselves with, because the police will take care of it? I'm sure that everyone who's ever been killed in a home invasion had plenty of time to call the police and wait for the 5-30 minutes for them to arrive.

An armed citizenry is also the only way to preserve any semblance of democracy. We carry weapons to defend ourselves from the government, if necessary. If guns were only allowed in the hands of the military, revolution would be impossible. A democracy where the citizens are not allow to arm themselves is a dictatorship.

Who is going to take away the millions of guns in the country? Is someone going to drive a big truck from house to house collecting them? I hope you would volunteer to explain to the families of the people working this operation that that their deaths were necessary.

The only way it could be reasonable to take away our guns is if, somehow, every gun on the planet was gone. This will never happen, and we will always - ALWAYS - need guns.

 

[holloway]

But...guns are banned over here and I don't hear of guys climbing in and capping people.

 

[BlueScope]

It isn't your place to tell someone that they can't defend themselves, that they should sit there and let themselves be raped, robbed, and/or murdered while they wait for the police.

Noone says you shouldn't defend yourself, you just don't necessarily have to do it with firearms. Of course, most things won't help you against a gun, but if guns really were forbidden, there's quite a small chance someone will actually threat you with one (and don't tell me now that you don't have to register guns and all that... the country I'm living in has banned guns except for hunting and sports business, and I've never ever seen a gun nor heard from a person owning one).

In general, I think weapons aren't needed if they aren't intended to be used. Therefore, if you buy a gun, you intend to use it, which is something compareable to planned murder (which is common sense for me). Therefore, it's an easy topic for me: Everyone should be allowed to have the weapons he or she needs; like a hunter needs his rifle to balance things out, a butcher needs his butcher knife to make money in his business, and I need my sword to keep practicing Kenjutsu... but if a hunter could use a slingshot to do his job, he should use that instead of a rifle. If a butcher could use scissors to cut flesh with, he should use it instead of the knife. My case is a bad example, as wooden swords are almost as dangerous as real blades, but yeah, I do practice with Bokuto, of course. Now if someone could defend him- or herself with something he or she can't cause unnecessary damage, would that be such a bad thing?

 

[Andy6000]

I found somewhere a while back that the general amount of crime in London was like 40% lower than New York, and that like 5% of crimes committed in London were with guns, where like 60% used guns in New York. Those numbers aren't right, but they're relatively close enough to get my point across. Making it a lot more difficult to get a gun/import one and whatnot will (in the long run, not instantaneously) decrease the general level of the crime and violence and whatnot.

Now, getting rid of guns altogether is of course, just silly, because you know, you're not going to be able to. Ideally, yeah it's fabulous, just like if all the nations of the world gathered together to end world hunger and cancer.

Overall, I'd agree with Raiju. Just get rid of these assault weapons, and try a lot harder to make sure they don't end up in the wrong hands, and make damn well sure that if those wrong hands get them, they find out where they got them, and put an end to it. I'd support torture for that, but you know, that'd be kind of bad.

Idealists have nice ideas, but they hardly ever work out. You remember that school shooting in Russia? Yeah that was a lot worse.

 

[Lene]

I think in the context of the school shooting, well colleges are typically gun free zones. Even if you had a gun, you wouldn't have been able to bring one on campus.

The Russian School shooting was a terrorist attack wasn't it? Someone tell me if I pulled that one out of nowhere.

I also think comparing the amount of crime and then comparing the amount of gun crime in the way that you did is pretty misleading Andy6000.

Speaking of statistics, it would be an interesting idea to see how many gun crimes are committed by people who own guns legal, and how many aren't. If it's the former, then maybe the process of acquiring a gun needs to be revised. If the latter, then I think gun control may be taking guns out of the hands of the wrong people. And like people said, a lot of people with guns would not give them up.

 

[holloway]

Er..Lene, how? How is comparing crime rates to Gun Crime rates misleading?

Edit: And I have noticed how the US media is saying "The worst school shooting ever". Yeah maybe in America, but I seem to remember Beslan getting next to nothing and 356 people died.

 

[Petros]

You know, there's more to guns than killing people, right? What about people who rely on weapons to fend off feral animals or carnivores or feed their families? Should we just write them off?

The US is hardly the only country with a tradition of keeping weapons, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and many more, they all allow their citizens the right to own guns. The problem is much deeper and more complex than the simplistic and childish "we should just take all the guns away."

Note that I am all for stricter gun control laws. But it really irks me when people look at a problem and see only black and white. The world doesn't work that way, people.

I read this and yeah, I agree with you, the problem is deeper than having the guns. But obviously the problem has become so bad that the idiots are making it seem bad. If a nation like the United States can't be trusted to wield weapons without things like Virgina Tech and Colimbine, then they shouldn't be trusted to wield them at all and should be banned from public ownership until such time that these idiots who use them in such a way learn to control themselves and not take life so frivelously.

 

[Roman Candle]

It's not the guns killing people - it's people killing people

I can't believe you said that :D That's the kind of thing I say to people as a joke. Good one.

The problem isn't a legal one, it's an attitude one. While America still thinks it could be a good thing for guns to be so prevalent, it will never be able to curb it's gun crime problems. I mean, come on! Get a fucking grip!

A gun represents an unprecendented amount of power which anyone can use. You can take that gun out of your pocket while you're walking down the street and kill whoever the fuck you want. On top of that, you cannot pull you punch, as it were. Once you've pulled the trigger, that's it, it's done. "Wait I've changed my mind!" - Too late.

On the other hand, not everyone can actually use the gun they've brought for protection. Look at the shocking number of people shot with their own handguns in the US, and you may get an idea.

Think about it in terms of another issue. Can you imagine if there was a learning drug was availlable over the counter, to teenagers? Now, some people use it first; their performance in school goes up. That puts everyone else at a disadvantage. So soon everybody's using it. Then the people that can't afford it, don't want to use it, or object to its use, are stuck.

The same situation has come up for guns. Say some people get guns, and they rob houses with them. So people get scared; soon everybody's sleeping with a gun under their pillow. But that means that a robber without a gun is at a disadvantage. So they have to get hold of a gun. So now everbody has a fucking gun. Where do you go from there? The more guns are availlable, the more it raises the stakes. In the US, burglars have guns, and it's normal. In the UK, you'd be pretty fucking shocked if the guy burgling you pulled a gun. I think that pretty much says it all, really.

Let's put it this way. The US has a huge problem with guns. Lot's of other places don't. So, clearly, the US needs to do something, (like pull out it's thumb). The solution is not to outlaw guns - that's what comes when the problem is gone. The solution is what will bring the US into a state where it can practically be disarmed.

Oh, as for whoever said "We need guns to protect ourselves from the government" - that's even worse than "Guns don't kill people, people do!". I mean, are you stupid? Unless you plan to pull a Booth, the people you'd be fighting wouldn't be beaurocrats, they'd be the army. And if you think that kind of paranoia is justifacation for holding the kind of gun that would be useful in fighting the American army, then you've really gone off your rocker. Although, having said that, you never know - it might just blow itself up for you; it'd make a nice change from blowing us up.

 

[Volrath]

Edit: And I have noticed how the US media is saying "The worst school shooting ever". Yeah maybe in America, but I seem to remember Beslan getting next to nothing and 356 people died.

Most American news that I have watched concerning the incident does specify that it's the worst school shooting in the country, not the entire world. If anyone forgot to mention that, it was probably just a passing mistake. Not that America is above framing issues like we're the only country on Earth, but I don't necessarily think we're doing that this time.

Edit: And Raiju, you know nuanced viewpoints aren't allowed on the internet! :p