[barend]

The central idea of gun control is that it will reduce the number of gun related crimes. If a criminal has a gun in an gun controlled environment he knows he has the upper hand and that the gun is just there to give him authority of the situation. He won't actually need to use it.

If people who obey the law don't have guns, that's less guns likley to fall in the hand of a rober, child, etc. If you have a gun and are angry enough at someone, you have the means to kill them in less time that you need to cool down and think logically about the situation.

Saying gun control is retarded is more retarded than a kid with downsindrome trying to hang himself with spagetti.

I love the assumption that if everyone gets rid of their guns then all the lowlifes will storm the streets and kill them all with their illegal guns.

If you take guns out of peoples houses you prevent regular people who have a bad day from making it a worse day. You prevent curious kids from blowing away themselves and friends. You prevent people who get into drunken arguments from hurting the ones they love. You prevent would be vigilantess from exacting justice on the wrong person. ETc. etc. etc.

Seriously you cannot believe that owning a gun makes you safer. How long does it take to shoot someone? HOW FUCKING LONG?!? It's instant. click-bang-you're dead. If you have a gun on you and someone wants you dead, you'll just be a dead person with a gun tucked into his trousers. If someone threatens you with his gun and asks for money, you can give him your money... OR you can pull out a gun. but can you pull out a gun quicker than someone can pull the trigger of a gun already pointing at your face? Can you?

Probably not...

Guns aren't really doing anyone any favours. I'm sorry but it's time America grew up and realised this.

[civilian_number_two]

The argument for universal gun possession goes like this: take sensational story of the day from the news, then say that if the victims had had guns in those situations then they wouldn't have suffered. Many of the situations are of dudes with knives raping young women, so of course in those cases the gal may have benefited from having a gun. But the same scenarios where the dude had a gun instead of a knife would have played out pretty much the same. So they're generally weak arguments at best. The sensational story of the day used for the argument is seldom the one where the child gets shot in the schoolyard by the kid who took mom's gun to class.

The exaggerated counterargument goes like this: would schoolyard shootings be less likely were we to allow all children to go to school with fully loaded handguns? Would universal gun possession lead to less shootings, as the argument goes, or to more, as common sense dictates?

It's nonsense on both sides, but I agree with the idea of gun registry. That is, I may have a legal handgun, and I may store it in my home, in exchange for two provisions. One, I register the gun with the police, and allow them to fingerprint me for potential criminal identification, and two, I take a mandatory gun safety class, none of whose advice I need actually follow. But just knowing that the average homeowner was aware that bullet in the chamber with the safety off might lead to a child's accidental death would make me feel better every time I opened a newspaper and looked for the sensational story of the day.

[Jordan]

I say let hunters have their rifles. Restrict machine guns, assualt rifles, and hand pistols to WW1/2 heirloom owners. Don't sell any person-killing-specific gun on the streets since they have no emotional or sporting value.

Buying guns for personal safety is fucking hilarious. Cops and soliders practice shooting these things all day long. How many civillians practice shooting the guns they buy to the point they're trained enough to use one. Sure, you can just point and shoot but how safe is this making you? There are not enough rapists or robbers in Canada or the US to create this kind of fear that you need a gun by your side. I think cowboy mentality is romantic and all, but seriously, leave the shooting up to the cops. If you're a girl walking down the street and you get raped, chances are you won't realize the danger until your male rapist has you in some kind of hold, struggling for the gun at this point may now increase your chances of getting killed even greater. If some one is in your house and stealing stuff and you wake up, call the cops. If you wake up with a gun by your head, you're already to late to draw and shoot. IF you're a store owner in a shitty part of town, sure buy a gun. But just remember this, by the time you realize you've got a robber with a gun pointed at you, chances are if you jump for your piece, he'll shoot you. There is just no real situation where a gun dramtically increases your chances of survival, unless your a cop or soldier.

[J m HofMarN]

Evidently, you haven't actually been to those places.

Hollywood exaggerates and exploits, yes. But that place exists. In several cities. I've been there. I have friends that grew up there. I've seen the gang fights, I've seen people get in the way that didn't know not to, and what they got for it.

Please don't be so naive to think there aren't violent sectors of cities!

I believe that I said I'd been there. And yes those places exist. But why should people avoid the inner city or only travel with a gun there? I mean it isn't like the place is Beirut or something. The vast majority of people who die in gang related crime are, surprise, gang members. Do shots go wrong? Sure. Cars crash too, but people still have to travel busy, dangerous highways. And they dont attach rocket launchers to their cars to do it.

The point I'm making is not that there arent dangerous places in cities, but that these places and their occupants shouldnt be looked down on or avoided. And they certainly shouldnt be used as justification for owning a gun. I wouldnt much like it if someone pointed at the area I grew up in and used it as a reason for wanting to have an assault rifle. If youre that worried that you wont travel through a certain area without a gun then that says more about you than about the area. If I expect trouble I'll take an armament with me, and I've done that once or twice before, but I dont just decide I need a weapon because I'm going to a certain place as a rule.

This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 22 April 2008 - 02:53 AM

[Casual]

I think banning guns was one of the smartest things the UK ever did. I say this as someone who takes an interest in guns and is quite knowledgeable on the subject (warfare comes into my degree a lot and military intelligence may well be a career path for me). My interest in guns however comes from my liking of fantasy violence, real violence I don't like so much. The Dunblane tragedy is what got guns banned in the UK in the first place, the guy who did it owned the gun legally and was a member of a handgun club so he knew how to use it responsibly. Whenever I hear about some jackass spouting off about his right to own a gun I think of 16 children and one teacher who would be here today if gun ownership had been illegal back then. The only people who have guns in the UK today are hardcore criminals who are interested in bigger and more profitable things than stealing my TV. Allowing assault weaponry to come into civilian hands would be foolhardy in the extreme, while some defensive argument could be made for hand guns the only reason for owning an M16 would be to lay siege to Baghdad or engage in wholesale slaughter for fun. So do I feel less "free" because I cant own a gun? Perhaps, but I also feel a lot safer knowing no one else can either. Assault weapons belong purely in the hands of the soldiers and other trained professionals.

[Slade]

Casual: Civ2 read your mind.

The rest of it: Argh, too much to respond to. So I won't.

[Spoon Poetic]

JM: I wasn't meaning to sound like I was arguing those places are a good reason to own guns. It was just your sarcastic bit about submarines and stuff made it sound like you didn't think violent places existed, and you were mocking the thought that someone might avoid certain areas due to their potential for violence. Now that you have explained, I understand and agree with your point.

I believe in gun regulation, gun safety, etc. - but living where I do, I know actually trying to ban all guns would cause way more problems. Basically I am in agreement with Civ's plan. Make it hard to own guns, so it really has to be worthwhile. Make it traceable. Also only certain guns should be allowable (not stuff like AKs and Uzis). Strict safety classes, etc. I'll never own a gun personally, no reason to.

[J m HofMarN]

Spoon - Of course I was being sarcastic because this is the scenario I was responding to.

I try to stay out of the downtown area in case some insane crackhead tries to wail on my car with a crowbar, and then I have to resort to shooting him, and then I go to jail for committing a racist hate crime.

It not only assumed that downtown areas are populated by insane crackheads who randomly assault vehicles for no reason, but also that it is necessary to shoot them for hitting your car. Let's ignore the bit that prods at hate crime legislation. A sensible person could maybe say they avoid the inner city because of poor roads, traffic, and the risk of car jacking, but no one can say they avoid downtown areas due to an assumption that there are insane crackheads everywhere who make their living by hitting cars with things.

[civilian_number_two]

Exactly, Jm. And that's the fiction that fuels the fear culture of the gun lobby. Insane crackheads are out to hit your car, families of criminals will invade your home and torture you, if you stay too long too close to blacks or hispanics you will asplode. So you beter have a gun, because if everyone in our society had a gun at all times, then the country would be civilised.

I was just thinking of that insane period we call the Wild West, and its most legendary locale, Wyatt Earp's Dodge City, Kansas. I think this is the legend in the mind of a number of gun activists, the idea of a lawless land where every man must travel armed (they believe that the downtown areas of modern American cities resemble Dodge City at its peak lawlessness, proof positive that they are themselves rural types who avoid cities). Lawmen like Wyatt Earp are famous for taming places like this, and you know how they did it? By passing and enforcing laws against traveling within town carrying a gun. Not against gun ownership, note, but against carrying a loaded gun while in the city. Lawlessness toned down after such laws got passed. That's right, the wild cities of the Old West were toned down by gun control.

Outside spasely populated middle class Vermont and Alaska, we have no test of unrestricted gun possession after that period of famous lawlessness. Sane people in those days learned that restricting gun possession (not talking about ownership) meant fewer gunfights. Fewer gunfights meant better commerce, and the place became safe for families to settle. And so on. Now with that history behind us, we still have folks raised by movies who believe that our cities are lawless places with gunfight potential at every turn. And those folks believe that the only possible way to tone down the violence they believe is taking ove rour cities is for everyone to go about armed at all times.

So I agree that it was necessary to respond to ridiculous hyperbole with more of the same. I don't see anythig wrong with Jm's justified sarcasm in this case.

PS: Jm, I think it's hillarious that you're quoting me in your sig. In context, that line made sense, but out of context, it's ridiculous.

[J m HofMarN]

Civ- Yeah, actually reminds me of a bit at the start of Tombstone where they mention that cattle towns had murder rates higher than modern New York or Las Angeles.

As for the signature, yeah it is pretty ridiculous out of context. The idea was kind of that people would go "what the hell would justify saying something that silly?" and then once they saw the topic; "Oh. Soething infinitely sillier..."

Edit: Though in retrospect a link would help. It shall be done.

This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 23 April 2008 - 12:48 PM

[Dr Lecter]

The fact is, that other countries have guns and don't kill each other at the rate that they do in America. So the problem is with America, not gun control.

Although, I'm not trying to argue against taking guns off the streets...

This post has been edited by Dr Lecter: 16 May 2008 - 05:37 AM

[Deucaon]

If you outlaw weapons then wouldn't only criminals have weapons? Wouldn't arms dealers and traffickers profit tremendously from this while major arms manufacturers go out of business and thus create massive unemployment? How do you propose taking the weapons off the varus militia groups in the US?

Isn't this the same argument as Prohibition or the War on Drugs?

[Dr Lecter]

You need to attack the causes that make people want to have a gun in the first place. Most countries that have legalised gun ownership have some kind of a reason, the only reason in America is to protect yourself from another American with a gun. Just heavily tax ammunation and use the cash to fund counter-gun police.

To quote Chris Rock: "People would think before they killed somebody, if a bullet cost $5,000"

[civilian_number_two]

Deucaon, you're raising a pretty old argument. You might as well say "If you outlaw rape, won't only outlaws rape?" And yes, I suppose only they would.

The question generally isn't about outlawing guns anyway, only about restricting carry laws and making registration mandatory. If carrying a gun were illegal, than being seen with a gun would be probable cause. Making it legal to carry guns everywhere would mean lawmen would have to get used to seeing folks walking around with siderms. And then we're back to Dodge City.

The original question wasn't about banning all guns, but about banning civilian ownership of assault weapons. I doubt doing so would lead to massive unemployment. The majority customers of such weapons are militaries, not individuals.

[Deucaon]

Deucaon, you're raising a pretty old argument. You might as well say "If you outlaw rape, won't only outlaws rape?" And yes, I suppose only they would.

The question generally isn't about outlawing guns anyway, only about restricting carry laws and making registration mandatory. If carrying a gun were illegal, than being seen with a gun would be probable cause. Making it legal to carry guns everywhere would mean lawmen would have to get used to seeing folks walking around with siderms. And then we're back to Dodge City.

The original question wasn't about banning all guns, but about banning civilian ownership of assault weapons. I doubt doing so would lead to massive unemployment. The majority customers of such weapons are militaries, not individuals.

Looking at some statistics...

In the United States during 1997, there were 15,289 murders. Of these, 10,369 were committed with firearms.

In the United States during 1997, there were approximately 7,927,000 violent crimes. Of these, 691,000 were committed with firearms.

As of 1992, for every 14 violent crimes (murder, rape, etc…) committed in the United States, one person is sentenced to prison.

Americans use firearms to defend themselves from criminals at least 764,000 times a year. This figure is the lowest among a group of 9 nationwide surveys done by organizations including Gallup and the Los Angeles Times.

In 1982, a survey of imprisoned criminals found that 34% of them had been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim."

Washington D.C. enacted a virtual ban on handguns in 1976. Between 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.'s homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose 12%.

221,443 concealed carry licenses were issued in Florida between October of 1987 and April of 1994. During that time, Florida recorded 18 crimes committed by licensees with firearms

It is not necessarily for self defence only but also as a deterrent. If you wanted to rape or rob someone, would you risk it knowing that there is a chance that person is armed? Would you attack someone's house if there was a chance they had an assault weapon?

This isn't the Old West we are talking about here, law enforcement has armoured vehicles not horses. By taking away the ability for ordinary people to defend themselves you are making them a target for crime. Criminals will have weapons no matter what the laws are.