What Is Your Position On Gun Control ?

[Jguy101 0]

I'm pro-gun control because clearly anything that can kill needs to be watched closely.

 

The problem is though, that people who are killing people with guns are the ones not following the laws in the first place.  The gun registration and all of that is all well and good, but the problem is, only the law abiding citizens actually register their gun.

 

Criminals buy their guns on the black market or whatever, so they never register.  What we really need to do is stop the illegal sellign of guns.  that way people whio intend or are likely to kill can't get guns. 

 

Beefing up gun laws only affects those that follow them in the first place.

 

Another thing that neds to be stressed is gun-education.  I'm not saying everyone needs to know how to use a gun, but we should teach kids how not to shoot themselves or their friends.  I'm for gun locks aswell, soley to stop accidents.

 

One posible solution i thought of would be not allowing regular citizens to purchase live ammunition.  only those with a hunting license or law enforcement can purchase real bullets.  everyone else should buy rubber bullets that dont kill but can still be used for recreation. rubber bullets still work at the shooting range, and nobody dies.

 

I'm a bit of an idealist and i hope that some day guns are all together wiped out, at least in the use of killing.  i sitll find guns to be really cool.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But if everybody can only buy rubber bullets, then how could anybody defend themselves?

 

Oh, and Adamsgi: Not only does the UK have tight gun laws, there's also a very high robbery rate. People are left defenseless against criminals that are obviously getting their guns illegally. In the US, only 12% of guns used ina crime are bought legally, so if guns were banned, those people would just buy their guns illegally, while law-abiding citizens are left defenseless.

[Shogi 0]

But if everybody can only buy rubber bullets, then how could anybody defend themselves?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

dude, rubber bullets HURT. shoot somebody enough times and im sure theyd gladly leave.

[Jguy101 0]

dude, rubber bullets HURT. shoot somebody enough times and im sure theyd gladly leave.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, but apparently if people are high enough, they wouldn't feel the pain...one high guy was rampaging through some guy's hosue, and he kept on shooting him, but he kept coming, so he had to shot for the chest....

[adamsgi 0]

Jguy101 Posted Mar 24 2005, 12:14 AM Oh, and Adamsgi: Not only does the UK have tight gun laws, there's also a very high robbery rate. People are left defenseless against criminals that are obviously getting their guns illegally. In the US, only 12% of guns used in a crime are bought legally, so if guns were banned, those people would just buy their guns illegally, while law-abiding citizens are left defenseless.

JGuy, I am well aware of the crime rate in the UK, being British, and living near Manchester....

I think you lost my point, in that regardless of whether I was allowed to own a gun, I still could not legally use it to "defend" myself. Quite frankly, anyone who shoots someone should have to deal with the consequences. Killing people should never be justified - and you can never guarantee that you will not kill someone if you shoot them. Until we can deal with the social problems that cause gun-related crime (drugs, greed, isolation etc) there will always be someone using one to get what they want.

But there is the supposed argument that if the homeowner has a gun it may deter people from robbing their houses. This argument is flawed because if it was the case, there would be hardly any robbery in the US, whether armed or not. And having a gun to protect yourself is pretty pointless if you have already been shot dead.

You also say that 12% of guns used in crime are bought legally. Get rid of legal gun ownership and you will have technically reduced your gun crime by 12%. Any government would love to be able to do that.

One of the major problems that the world faces today is that less and less people are valuing human life. Some dregs of society think nothing of killing another person. Is this due to desensitisation by the media, or just a general decline in morals? Or is it because we are descending into an animalistic hell where only the ruthless mobs will survive?

(Sorry for being a 'tad' dramatic )

[Jguy101 0]

JGuy, I am well aware of the crime rate in the UK, being British, and living near Manchester....

 

I think you lost my point, in that regardless of whether I was allowed to own a gun, I still could not legally use it to "defend" myself.  Quite frankly, anyone who shoots someone should have to deal with the consequences. Killing people should never be justified - and you can never guarantee that you will not kill someone if you shoot them.  Until we can deal with the social problems that cause gun-related crime (drugs, greed, isolation etc) there will always be someone using one to get what they want. 

 

But there is the supposed argument that if the homeowner has a gun it may deter people from robbing their houses.  This argument is flawed because if it was the case, there would be hardly any robbery in the US, whether armed or not. And having a gun to protect yourself is pretty pointless if you have already been shot dead.

 

You also say that 12% of guns used in crime are bought legally.  Get rid of legal gun ownership and you will have technically reduced your gun crime by 12%.  Any government would love to be able to do that.

 

One of the major problems that the world faces today is that less and less people are valuing human life.  Some dregs of society think nothing of killing another person.  Is this due to desensitisation by the media, or just a general decline in morals?  Or is it because we are descending into an animalistic hell where only the ruthless mobs will survive?

 

(Sorry for being a 'tad' dramatic  )

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dude, as I said, gun crime wouldn't really go down. People would either buy their guns illegally, or use knives. Plus, law-abiding citizens wouldn't be able to own them, so they couldn't defend themselves.

 

Also, 'bout killing people: you believe that if some drug addict who's high, 6' 7", and running towards you with a knife, you have to let him kill you sintead of defending yourself?

[adamsgi 0]

Also, 'bout killing people: you believe that if some drug addict who's high, 6' 7", and running towards you with a knife, you have to let him kill you sintead of defending yourself?

Not exactly. I didn't say I wouldn't defend myself - there are many ways one can do that without having to resort to stabbing/shooting/killing someone. As a Buddhist and therefore living according to a non-violent philosophy, I would not kill someone intentionally. If I pushed the 6'7" drug addict out of the way and he fell on his knife and died, then there is nothing I could do about it. If anything I would probably call an ambulance and try and help him until it arrived.

And before anyone says "it's easy to say that, wait until it happens"....

In June 1997, I was walking home from work and saw a girl I knew. I went up to her and said hello. Her boyfriend came out of a shop and invited me back to theirs for a drink. I didn't really want to, but thought it would be rude to say no, so I said I would stop by for one. As the time went on, She apparently spoke to him like a piece of dirt (I didn't hear what she said, but it must have been bad) and because she was female, he "couldn't take it out on her", so he took it out on me instead. During the 5 hour assault that I underwent, in which he kicked me in the face (breaking my nose several times) and holding a bread knife to my throat (which left a serated line across my throat), he constantly wanted me to hit him. I refused. I did nothing at all to provoke him further. I don't remember how it happened exactly, but I managed to get out and went to the hospital.

The key thing in that experience I learned was that if I had hit him back, he would have killed me. In fact I found out from the girl (who subsequently dumped this guy) that 5 minutes after I left, he came looking for me with the bread knife intending to kill me. I firmly believe that it was because I stayed calm, and didn't provoke the situation, that the opportunity to leave came before it was too late.

So in the case of the drug addict. What if I did have a gun. What if I shot him. But what if it didn't kill him, and instead he stabbed me to death out of anger, when all he wanted to do in the first place was scare me into handing over my wallet?

[Jguy101 0]

You claim that if you ahd hit the guy, he would have killed you. However if you had a gun, you may have been able to use it and defend yourself. Also, why didn't his girlfried do anything? She could've pulled out a lamp or something and knocked him out.

 

Oh, and when I gave you the drug addict situation, I meant high on drugs as in high, not high as in height. Most likely, the guy wouldn't care about your wallet. He'd be on some mad rampage and all he wanted to do was kill you.

 

Also, you can't forget hunting.

[MajesticTreeFrog 0]

You claim that if you ahd hit the guy, he would have killed you. However if you had a gun, you may have been able to use it and defend yourself. Also, why didn't his girlfried do anything? She could've pulled out a lamp or something and knocked him out.

Or, the guy may have seen it and not done anything. OR, he may have waited to take it, and then he would have been in an even worse position. I am not saying anything for or against here, just pointing out that things can cut both ways.

 

Oh, and when I gave you the drug addict situation, I meant high on drugs as in high, not high as in height. Most likely, the guy wouldn't care about your wallet. He'd be on some mad rampage and all he wanted to do was kill you.

The vast vast majority of drugs do not send people on kill rampages. Those that do(pcp) only do it in a very small percentage of the population who just happen to react strangely. A person who is freaking out like this is probably not a continual user, ie addict, because this behavior would have gotten them noticed. I am sure there are exceptions, but the point is that this is a weird weird scenario and not a good test for or against gun control simply because of its low statistical relevance vis a vis crime and the need for arms in general.

 

In any case, some crazy person out to kill you is really the least of your worries. Usually it is very very sane people out to kill/mug/rape/whatever. (If you can call that sane) These people, if you have a gun, are likely to do one of two things: A ignore you and look for an easier target, or B Kill you immediately instead of just threaten/beat up.

 

So, granted that with option A(the most likely) you are better off, the B option is extremely bad. Also, the more guns people are carrying, the easier it is to steal one and have an unregistered gun floating around. Which is also very very bad.

 

The overall point is that everything here is a huge balancing act with potentially many unintended consequences, especially over time. Simplistic stuff like PCP crazies are completely irrelevant.

 

If you want to have a real discussion, check out the effects on crime with open carry laws and how they change over time. The effect is very similar to the war on drugs(ie works in the beginning, then crime evolves and is either the same or outright violent:see option .

 

 

Also, you can't forget hunting.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Most sane gun control people differentiate between handguns(concealable and generally good for shooting people) and rifles which are less concealable and have the relevant range to be good for hunting.

The sane gun control people only want controls on handguns and things like machine guns and assault rifles, which have no real civilian use other than collections.

[Jguy101 0]

1) Machine guns require a Firearms Retailer's license to own in the US, and it has since the 30's.

2) Ever heard of a hunting handgun?

3) I don't get this whole "assault weapons" thing. The ban itself just banned cosmetic accessories like bayonet mounts.

4) As for the drugs part, here's this:

A Hollis, N.H., man was awakened to screaming in his backyard. The homeowner, Donald Narkis, grabbed his gun and headed downstairs when he heard glass breaking in the kitchen. Narkis fired in the direction of the intruder, who, undettered, continued to advance as he screamed and smashed furniture. together with his armed daughter, Narkis ordered the intruder onto the floor, but the man wouldn't stay down. Narkis fired again, but the shot hit next to the intruder's leg. When polive arrived on the scene, the intruder, identified as Peter Camplin, complained, "that psycho tried to shoot me." Camplin, who had moved into the neighborhood only months previously, was found to have a significant amount of cocaine and alcohol in his system.

[deviant youth 0]

i think that there should be some gun control but i think right now it is too strict. but as with anything there is going to be ups and downs. one group will say one thing and another will have a valid comeback so there is no one who can really say which is right.

[qwijibow 0]

In england, a burglar knows the home owners dont have guns.so the criminal is very rarely armed. if the criminal is armed, he knows all he has to do is show the gun, and the home owner will back down, no-one is seriously injured.in america, the burglar knows that the home owner may hae a gun, and he knows that the home owner WILL shoot him if he sees him.The home owner is scared the burglar has a gun, and will shoot him if he can.you have 2 guys creaping about in the dark, both think they will be killed, unless they shoot first... some1 is going to get shot !burglars who carry guns dont want to add murder to there breaking and entering charge.In england, the only people who get shot are the gang members who carry guns themselves.its common sence.

[Axis 0]

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.I don't particularly like guns, but I don't think that making them illegal will help anything. By making guns illegal you basically say that only the criminals can have guns. They will have them wheither it is allowed or not.I don't want to see people walking down the street caring guns, but I think they would be able to have them with the current laws that are in place. My only request is better and more strict background checks for those who wish to perchase guns.

[MajesticTreeFrog 0]

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

 

I don't particularly like guns, but I don't think that making them illegal will help anything.  By making guns illegal you basically say that only the criminals can have guns.  They will have them wheither it is allowed or not.

 

I don't want to see people walking down the street caring guns, but I think they would be able to have them with the current laws that are in place.  My only request is better and more strict background checks for those who wish to perchase guns.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Its all about INTELLIGENT gun control. Rifles and such are fine. Heavy assault weapons you just do not want lying around for anyone other than the military. Handguns are harder. There are advantages and disadvantages, and they change over time. This is why comparisons with Europe are hard. They haven't had guns like us for a very long time, if ever. They also have a different culture around violence and a different legal system. Implementing the same laws as they have will not necessarily have the same effect.

 

That said, I think taking the more powerful handguns off the market is a good idea. Light pistols work just fine for self defense, and modern medical tech is VERY good at saving and restoring people who get prompt attention from those wounds.

[mitchellmckain 0]

I am an American and America does not make sense to me either. I think country is insane, hypocritical and ruled by gun manufacturers. The reason for gun control is not complicated it is quite simple. Do we really want any people who wants it, including children, to readily be able to aquire the power to kill lots of people very quickly? Does this really require a great deal of thought?The same people who are against gun control also get all excited about other countries developing weapons of mass destruction. hypocrits!Are they completely insane or totally blinded by their own greed?

[bigredrosen 0]

Just wondering what the position tended to be here...

 

I'm an NRA member, so naturally, I'm against it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i have nothing against hunting, its part of the food chain. however, every person owning a gun must register, and im 100% against people who wont/dont.