Gun Control (v.2)

I decided to start this because it was turning into a debate in another thread that had nothing to do with it and i did'ent want to have it get locked.

KK EDIT: See last post.

 

The government should never take away our guns! Look at the statistics in Australia where it's already occured. Crime's up, robberies are up, and it just doesn't work. The more freedoms our gov't takes away from us, the more we get closer to communism and tyrranical control.

 

In the interests of public safety, guns very much need to be regulated. You can't let just anyone own a gun. Screening and training are neccesary if we are to be safe.

 

Well there are 2 sides to look at this.One way is that if the person is a gang member then they shouldn't give them a gun.But if not then they should keep it.

 

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." ? Thomas Jefferson

Some regulation of firearms is only common sense, but there's a fine line between safety and unconscionable government interference.

 

You can't let just anyone own a gun.

So what kinds of requirements are we talking? White male landowners, that sort of thing?

 

The government should never take away our guns! Look at the statistics in Australia where it's already occured. Crime's up, robberies are up, and it just doesn't work. The more freedoms our gov't takes away from us, the more we get closer to communism and tyrranical control.

Can you back this with stats? I would be really interested to know, because seeing as I live down here I haven't heard anything about crime going up since they took away SOME guns.

Actually, I'm fairly sure that Australia has much lower crime rates then America does.....

In Australia the only guns (correct me if I'm wrong) that someone can't own are automatic and semi-automatic guns unless you have a special license (and have stringent standards concerning how you store your guns). This happened after the Port Arthur Massacre in Southern Tassie when a man went on a shooting rampage and killed many people.

We don't often (I can't think of any really recent ones) have people who go 'postal' and go on killing sprees. We do have gun related murders and robberies though.

Kithera

 

Actually, I'm fairly sure that Australia has much lower crime rates then America does.....

Right you are. The U.S. has one of the highest crime rates of any country so it doesn't take much to surpass us in that category.

I took a hunter safety course, which of course included instructions on how to properly handle and maintain a firearm. I think a gun licence isn't out of the question - for those who want to keep it for safety and not hunting purposes, a strict written test (say, 90% or better to pass it) and an approved simulation should be mandatory before acquiring a firearm.

GO 'CLONES!

 

Until the day the following things happen I'm all for 100% the banning of all guns in America.


1. 2nd ammendment is re-written to fit the times and to not talk of Militia's which is what the 2nd ammendment was intended for. Anyone who knows anything about American History knows that in 1789 up until around 1848 we had no real organized army to speak of in America. The only armed forces we had were made up of common citizens specifically males 17 to 45 years of age able bodied men who had their own firearms and who were properly training in the basics of military training. So when Jefferson said what he did with "The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." ? Thomas Jefferson

He was speaking of and I agree with him that you have to allow your population to bear arms because they are your only line of defense against domestic and foreign envasion. Thomas Jefferson isn't speaking to 20th century mankind here that can go and buy a gun and doesn't have to learn how to use it properly and use it recklessely. He certainly isn't speaking of the firearms we have today which is avaiable to the general public. It's important to also know that Jefferson's comment there is addressed to the Federalists who were for a strong federal government, something he was strongly against. So keep that in mind when using that quote from him. Also who is to say Mr. Jefferson is all knowing and is right about everything. For if you think he is always right just because he has been labeled as a founding father then your sadly mistaken. Remember this was the same Jefferson who owned slaves and as much as he wrote and talk of equal rights and ending slavery he never actually did anything to
stop it.

So in the 18th and 19th century world the way the 2nd ammendment is phrased and used is proper, but no in today's society.


2. Mandatory gun safety classes must be taken before anyone can buy and legally own a gun in America. Think of it as a test to get your drivers license. You must know how to take that gun apart and put it back together, and must know how to clean it and then finally learn how to fire it. Until this happens we are letting any Joe Blow out there with no military training obtain weapons which can cause a lot of harm if not handled properly. In the end what good is a gun for protection if you don't know how to use it?

3. Mandatory safety locks on all weapons. This is especially important if kids are in a house where guns are present. Guns need to be locked up in a case or gun case with lock and key and have a trigger lock on them.

4. Heavy enforcement on the sell of illegal firearms and the black market. Anyone caught using a gun or having a gun in anyway which isn't properly registered goes to jail. If a person uses a gun in any crime it's an automatic 30 years in jail. It doesn't matter if you shoot or don't shoot. Add a year for every bullet in the gun at the time of the crime. This will keep honest citizens from being prosecuted by the law and will crack down on the slime who use guns to pray on citizens.

Until all 4 or I'll tell you what 2 of them are done I will be for the banning of all guns.

I don't buy into this lame excuse thrown out by the NRA and others about the government will enslave us all if we have no guns. That is complete BS, because we are not a free society now. We have more freedom than any other country in the world but we still must pay taxes, we have to be a certain age to drink and smoke, we have to be 18 to vote, if we want to add on to our house or build a house we must get permission from local government authorities and get permits,you have to have a license to drive, you have to have a licence to get married, etc.......
If the government wanted to take over this country first off it wouldn't happen, because we have something in this country called Checks and balances. No one in this country and government is all powerful and makes all the decisions. Second our military is made up of our own citizens and I doubt any soldier in th

 

From what I gather, Australia's crime rate has increased since the gun ban they
passed (http://nraila.org/FactSheets.asp?FormMode=Detail&ID=30).

The UK has very strict gun laws, and their violent crime rate is increasing despite a ban on handguns while the U.S. violent crime rate is dropping as more states adopt concealed-carry laws(http://nraila.org/FactSheets.asp?FormMode=Detail&ID=78).

When you look atthe combined suicide-murder rate, the U.S. ranks below a lot of other countries (http://nraila.org/Articles.asp?FormMode=Detail&ID=72). Quite frankly, I do not think guns are the problem at all, and I take VERY strong exception to the notion that I have to have rights restricted because of the actions fo some nutcase or criminal that went through a revolving-door justice system.

There are ways to deal with crime without going after law-abiding gun owners. I expect those measures to be pursued with the maximum effort possible. Yes, stuff happens, but I had nothing to do with it, so don't try to put restrictions on me for what others do.

 

I just thought I'd play Devil's Advocate here, but those to links are for the NRA who spin information to fit their agenda. They are one of the biggest lobbyist in Washington and even Former President Bush ripped up his membership to the NRA after terrible comments the president of the NRA said years ago.

So that information like most information has a bias to it, and most of the time there is no escaping that.

The NRA will not even support trigger locks on guns for some of the dumbest reasons I've ever heard. I know plenty of people who were card carrying members who ripped up their memberships after they did that, one would be my younger brother.

 

Despite how you interpret the Second Ammendment, there are three reasons why you should never tolerate a government that tries to disarm it's citizens. History has shown that anytime a government does this, it is for their own gain. The leftist in Germany called for banning of guns to, but the criminals in the Nazi party certainly weren't giving up theirs, so guess what, with guns in hand they took control of the government. Yes, that is a simplistic explanation, but I can go into depth if need be.

Reason 1: No country, in which all citizens are armed can be conquered by an opposing army.

Reason 2: Criminals are less likely to strike, because they are generally cowards, unless they know for sure that their victim is unarmed. Having a liberal gun ownership policy deters all but the most hardened criminal.

Reason 3: Your government. I know it sounds paranoid. But I'm sure people like me spoke out the many other times it happened in history and were greated with the same cynasism. As an unknown author once wrote "A politician is honest, with a gun to his head, if it gets in his hand, he will rob you blind."

Most of the deadly martial arts weapons that exist on the street today, exist because one Japanese Emperor sent his warlords and their Samurai around to collect all the swords from the peasents. Why, so he could over-tax the farmers without fearing all out armed resistance.

I do however agree with the licence idea. Frankly I think gun safey should be taught in school, the same way it is in Switzerland. My wife's father, a detective, taught his daughters to shoot at young ages. He left his service revolver loaded on the dining room table and told them never to touch it. Or he would kill them. My wife said she never did.

BTW more kids drown in pools each year than are killed by handguns.

 

BTW more kids drown in pools each year than are killed by handguns.



Interesting . . . how is that relevant? The kids are still dead .

 

"Most of the deadly martial arts weapons that exist on the street today, exist because one Japanese Emperor sent his warlords and their Samurai around to collect all the swords from the peasents. Why, so he could over-tax the farmers without fearing all out armed resistance."

First off the only members of society even allowed to carry swords or any weapon in Japan were Samurai because it was out of respect and was a titled earned after years of training. It was a status and to a point I agree with that. If you have earned the right to carry a weapon which you have mastered then by all means you can carry it all you want.

What I don't like and hate is people buying weapons and they don't know how to use it and ends up getting someone killed because of stupidity and lack of knoledge. Just having a right and not using that right to your fullest advantage is a waste of a right. Just because it says you can have a gun, doesn't mean that you can just go out and buy one and never learn how to properly use it. That goes for just about anything you buy. What good is a car if you don't know how to drive it. What good is a home theatre system if you don't know how to use it. The same goes for a gun. That is why I must insist on mandatory training. If the NRA was smart they would jump on this and I know they have gun training classes already but they are volunteer. Make it mandatory and you can teach classes 5 days a week and make lots of money by making good law abiding citizens more efficient killers.

Having any weapon in my book requires you to master it. That means when the day comes when you have to use it, you not only get the jump on the opponent but it ends before it begins.

 

Ugh, this again.

Once more, to require citizens to take "standardized tests" to enact their rights, it wouldn't a right anymore, would it? It would be a privilage.

By your assesment of how people enact their rights, everyone should be given "standardized tests" to use their Freedom of Speech, but that ain't gonna happen.

Rights limit the government's control over it's citizens. Giving the government the power to designate who gets what Rights, increases their stranglehold.

And no, DPG, though I do not believe the national government would immediately enslave us, taking away the 2nd amendment is a big step in that direction. A history major should know that.

Ciou-See the Sig

 

Yes I am a History major and I do not agree with that at all.

Owning a gun shouldn't be a right. I don't see anywhere in the Bible, or Curan, or any other religious scripture promoting guns as a natural born right.

Now a natural born right is defend your life, however people have done this centuries before and after the creation of guns were invented. So saying a gun is the answer or having the right to bear arms is pure non-sense. There are plenty of alternative methods to owning a gun and protecting yourself at the same time.

Having and owning gun should be nothing more than a privllage and it's almost that way now. If you commit a crime or have a history of mental illness you cannot own a gun. You still have to pass a background check and be a certain age to own one. So like a car which is a weapon you should be required by law to know how to use that weapon. If you don't have what it takes to know that gun backwards and forwards then you have NO BUSINESS OWNING OR EVEN TOUCHING A GUN!!!! Anyone in their right mind would agree to that. What good is a weapon if you don't know how to use it????

I don't understand why your so against people being required to learn how to use a weapon properly. Not everyone has been a hunter, or had military or police training with a gun. That is scary as hell knowing that Joe Blow owns two or three guns and oh by the way doesn't know how to use them.

 

Moriarte, allow me to repost my earlier thought on the topic (and reiterate that you misinterpreted my original idea):

It used to be our constitutional right to own black people. The Founding Fathers knew that things would change, that they didn't get it perfect; that's why we have the amendment system in the first place.

There are too many accidental gun deaths in this country, from stray bullets, accidental discharges, cases of mistaken identity ("burglars" who turn out to be the shooter's children--it's happened) and children who never learned any better. Teaching new gun owners lessons in responsibility would help to curb that. Does that alone not merit consideration--and at least a stronger rebuttal than general principle?

I have a little brother, and the way I see it, his right to live overrules some other kid's right to find his daddy's loaded, poorly hidden gun and play cowboy.

On an unrelated topic, Moriarte, if you'd like to elaborate on your feedback to my script, I'm all ears.

 

"I have a little brother, and the way I see it, his right to live overrules some other kid's right to find his daddy's loaded, poorly hidden gun and play cowboy."

I agree 100%. I will take the life of my child or little sister over someone's petty right to own a gun and have it laying around for a kid to show my kid or sister and shoot them.

The right to life by far outweighs the right to own a gun.

 

Wait, wait, wait... I've got a cliche in my coat for this :: pulls out several words :: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

As much as I hate to use this, it's right. If someone wants to kill another person, they'll do it. If we didn't have guns, they'd use knives or bows and arrows, I we didn't have any of that, they'd use rocks, and if heaven forbid all the rocks leave, they'd use their bare hands.

So, if the gun control issue is about public safety, I suggest a rethink. It'll just make the murders more bloody, not decrease they're number.

~~Aanix

 

Actually if you go to more recent Statistics that are given by a more reputable source then a pro-gun website then you will find that recently (I'm talking 1999-2000) murders/kidnapping and robbery have actually been going down.

From the same site, only 19.5% of murders happen through gun use in Australia in 2000. The proportion of robberies where a gun was used has also dropped from 16% to 6% form 2000 to 2001.

As for the percentage of people murdered in Australia it is 5.4 people out of 100 000.

Okay, but enough of side-tracking the issue.

I don't believe that carrying guns is some god-given right. I do, honestly, believe that they hurt more then they benefit people.

Kithera

 

5.4 people out of 100 000.

... what happens to the other .6 persons?



~~Aanix

 

"As much as I hate to use this, it's right. If someone wants to kill another person, they'll do it. If we didn't have guns, they'd use knives or bows and arrows, I we didn't have any of that, they'd use rocks, and if heaven forbid all the rocks leave, they'd use their bare hands. "

That is why I said that people have always had other ways before guns were even invented to self defense and murder, therefore to say it's a God given constitutional right to bear arms is BS. All that ammedment says is that a "WELL ORGANIZED MILITIA" "BEING NECESSARY" to provide for the common defense. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. All this means is that a citizen who has is allowed to serve in a militia which was the only organized army we had in the beginning and who was properly trained in basic military fundamentals is allowed to have and keep his firearm for the common defense "being necessary when the time is right or when threatened by attack" The right to bear arms shall not be infringed is a reignforcement to make sure that militia's could form up and provide defense when needed. What good is giving citizens the right to bear arms if you don't guarantee it.

I would also like to add a historical moment in our history which clearly shows why people and guns don't mix. Anyone here familiar with the Kansas Nebraska Acts???? It happened in the 1850's which got rid of the Compromise of 1820 dealing with slavery into new territories. Well what they did was divide the territory up. One side would be pro slavery and the other would be anti slavery. Now after this happened both sides began fighting for representation of which system would work better. You had the members of the PRO SLAVERY side a whole mob armed with firearms coming to the elections to make sure that the voting went the way they wanted it to by threats of violence and in some cases violence was used. Some towns were targeted by these mobs with guns infact. So this is a CLASSIC example of why people shouldn't be able to own or have guns. Another would be that if people didn't have guns then maybe the Civil War wouldn't had been so bloody. Now The Civil War was absolutley necessary to finally solve the problem of slavery, sectionalism, etc. However think about folks. If the south hadn't been armed then the conflict could have been avoided. Instead as history has shown the 2nd revolutionary war happened.

 

I dunno, whatever happened to that "free country" thing we're supposed to have?

Democracy isn't freedom of the people, it's freedom of the masses. This thread is going to pointless if enough people vote one way or another. Or, in the most likely case, a large group of geriatric congressman will sit around and decide for us. Either way, individuals don't have freedom, you have to rally up a group to get freedom, a really big one.

~~Aanix the anarchist

 

I?m just going to say here that I?m happy with the gun situation here in Canada.

The first time I ever held a gun in my hands, in fact, the first time I ever saw a gun in real life that wasn?t being carried by a police officer or soldier, was when I was 18. I don?t live a particularly sheltered life. Guns simply are not part of the culture in eastern Canada, and that?s the way that we like it.

Here in Halifax, a medium sized city of about 500,000 when you include the suburbs, gun incidents are rare. A double murder last summer involving a handgun is still talked about. Someone using a gun in a crime is a big deal for us, something completely out of the ordinary.

And that?s the way I like it.

 

Actually, isnt the second amendment starting to be interprited as a right for the people to bear arms, not just a militia, by the Supream Court?

Also, isnt there a law or a constitutional right saying you can not be charged with a potential crime, such as DPF's idea of charging people for how many bullets are in a gun even if not fired?

(I am not sure about that second one, since I can think of several cases where that was contradicted, but I could have sworn I read that it is a law in Political Science.)

With rights come responsibility. Too many people in America are not responsibil. I believe that for a person to buy a gun, they must compleat a through training course, show that they are confortable using a firearm, can ask questions than shoot (not the other way around) and know how to explain to kids not to use guns without their parrents knowing.

American does have a higher crime rate, but I believe that what was said was that the crime rate in other countries with banned guns was increasing from what it was before guns were banned, not that it is bigger than the USA.