ok people..the smoking Gun...your take on Gun control...

You mention Japan and how they have very little guns. They also have like 5,000 times less gun related deaths than us as a country.

The point I was trying to make about suicide and murder is that its often instinct, and having the gun available and ready doesn't help the cause or calm emotions.

Put all this aside for a moment:
-what is the harm in gun control to the law-abiding citizen that wants a gun to protect themselves, hunt or anything legal? how does a safety lock violate your constitutional rights? how does ending the loophole violate constitutional rights? where in the constitution does it say its okay to have automatics and assault rifles? can we have nukes to?

I don't understand how someone can be so adamantly against gun control as the NRA is. Money is an issue.

 

"Those released after serving time for murder or non negligent manslaughter were nearly 5 times more likely than other prisoners to be rearrested for homicide."

This page has provided strong evidence that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are not going to result in more murder, robbery, and domestic violence. We already have laws prohibiting felons and juveniles from possessing firearms. What has been missing is swift, certain and severe punishment for violating these laws. (For example there is a 10 year penalty for a felon found in possession of a firearm, yet how often is this law enforced?) In other words, criminal control, not gun control would seem to be the sensible solution. To see where enforcement of the numerous, already existing laws is working and achieving dramatic results in reducing gun related violence and homicide, see enforcing the laws we already have.

And yes, I'd say that American's have a more violent culture than most other countries. But we need to get the weapons away from the criminals, and lock up the worst criminals for much longer times than we do now. Those statistics are SCARY, people.

5 times more likely to commit murder.

If you want to more efficiently save innocent lives, get off your high horse, and tell your politicians to enforce the laws and prosecute the criminals. It'll save a lot more INNOCENT lives in the long run.

 

TPMrules, the rules against automatic weapons and advocating locks and such are not what most pro-gun people are arguing against. They are arguing against this attitude:

Guns are bad...and should be taken away from evryone..there is no need for a gun

The reason some people are so uneasy about the gun control that you speak of is that we fear that it will open more of a precedent for gun control. After we have had these rules in place for a few years, they will keep getting more and more strict until guns are banned entirely. I don't want this to snowball to something that takes a constitutionally guaranteed freedom away from me.

 

I am in favor of limited gun control. I realize the need to keep firearms out of the hands of felons and the mentally ill, but the total abolition of guns that some bleeding heart liberals want is absurd. The Constitution specifically states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms will not be infringed." Trying to abolish guns flies in the face of the Second Amendment.

Gun education, not eradication, will help solve the problems of gun accidents. The National Rifle Association advocates gun safety, but the special interest groups trying vainly to eradicate America of guns do not (to my knowledge).

 

skawookie - but no gun control is about that. guns are bad, but occasionally necessary. those that need them should have them, others shouldn't get them only to cause accidents. either way, gun control is only there to ensure safety and responsibility.

 

Well said, skawookie.




TPM, you'll notice that I had already said I'm fine with safety locks and background checks and the like.

But I am afraid of the precedent that registration, tracking and lisencing could lead to. Stormtroopers knocking on my door.


And historically speaking, the Brits did try to take the guns away from the Colonists. So they wouldn't be used against them. Didn't Hitler do the same thing?


The people need to have the ability to defend themselves, even if it is against an unjust and corrupt government. History has proven that.

 

Well for my 2 cents:

1. I don't own a gun, I have no desire to get one.

2. I believe taking away guns is not going to solve anything. Criminals will have no problem getting guns.

3. I also don't like the idea of the government taking away rights from its citizens. To me it can just keep snowballing from there.

Well thats about it.

 

TPM --you're close. Really close to the right answer.

skawookie - but no gun control is about that. guns are bad, but occasionally necessary. those that need them should have them, others shouldn't get them only to cause accidents. either way, gun control is only there to ensure safety and responsibility.

either way, gun education, not gun-control is only there to ensure safety and responsibility. Education the the key to the solution.

And the NRA does a very good job of educating the public about safe firearm use. Does your favorite anti-gun lobby teach people to be safe? Or do they just focus on feeding your fears?

 

I believe that I have the right to buy a Glock and I also believe that other people have the right to buy a Glock. In other words, I am extremely anti gun-control.

 

I love my Glock 17. 17 round magazine, because I got it BEFORE Clinton. And I know HOW to use it. Safely.


Why?
1) Because I can.

2) Because I can safetly use it.

3) My wife knows how to safely use it.

4) If it comes down to it, and I need to defend MY family, I want the odds stacked in MY favor.

 

obey wann,
What does the NRA think of the safety lock rule? Or the loophole legislation? Or registration? Or waiting periods? These are all logical things that do not at all prevent you from taking comfort+safety in your glock, but are things that are often seen as evil by the NRA and its followers.

 

And don't forget about defending yourself from the King of England. You want him pushing you around. Huh, do ya?


Seriously, I have no problem with people wanting to defend themselves, But firing a lead projectile at a target seems like a pretty crappy form of defence. It's the 21st Century. There should be something better than guns.

 

Good point Homer. Aren't there non-lethal guns, ie stun guns, rubber bullets? Are those available to the public.

obeywann
What are the political advantages for gun control? I can think of many for going against it. I am sure gun control is not good for gun businesses, and there is a great faction of people who blindy oppose it. But what alterior motive could gun control supporters have as people seem to suggest? Why steal people's guns as we are accussed of?

 

TPM --I don't personally care about the political advantages, nor the $$$ thing. Don't know and don't care.


While I DO support a LOT of things the NRA fights for, I do NOT agree with every stand they make.

I don't agree with many of the special interest groups in this country, because they are extremist in nature.

As I have repeatedly said, I'm fine with gun locks, and other forms of reasonable gun control. I am more for education and safety instruction. Responsibility. Not extremist views.

I'm against the extremist idea that all guns are bad and must therefore be benned.

And why don't I use a taser instead of my glock for home defense? Simple. I can take the guy down BEFORE he gets to within arms' reach with my glock. I don't know of too many "phasers set on stun" guns that have any kind of decent range.

Besides, my sign says "Violators will be shot. Survivors will be prosecuted.". They are warned BEFORE they enter my house.


(that was in humor. But I want to remind people, that before this gets too heated, let's keep it cool and professional, OK?)

 

But what alterior motive could gun control supporters have as people seem to suggest? Why steal people's guns as we are accussed of?

How about some of your friends in this thread who think all guns are bad no matter what, and must therefore be taken away?

IMHO, the gun control lobby wants to use simple gun control laws as an entry point to more and more controls on guns, until they finally get ALL guns taken away from the masses.

Can I prove that? Nope. But it's my gut feeling. It's all hardcore political BS, IMHO. Organizations like the ACLU, the NRA, or other hardcore (either far right, or far left) all too often sway to the extremes and lose sight of the intent of the issues.

Yes, I'm generalizing. But basically, I think that many organizations push extremist issues becasue those issues get them the most $$$, power, control or whatever, and they lose sight of the fundamental issues. And that is a shame.

The NRA does a fantastic job of teaching hunter and firearm safety. But they are just as guilty as the anti-gun lobby for the stalemate that stops reasonable gun control issues from being enacted.



But I've said it before, and I'll say it again: You'll save a lot more lives by encouraging the enforcement of existing laws, and harsher punishment for known offenders than you will by pushing to get more gun control laws passed.

And I'd bet that the NRA would agree with that point. (BTW, I am NOT a card carrying member of the NRA. )

 

We could ban guns and eventually in generations and generations it might have a positive outcome, but the risk is not worth the reward. It would be like trying to hook a 1 iron. But I don't think anyone who supports gun control is one step away from supporting getting rid of all guns.

Guns do suck in the same way war sucks. And I feel the same way about both, they should be used only when necessary.

 

Like it or not, GUNS are here to stay in America. It is too ingrained, too institutionalized, to take away from our culture. Like someone said on this thread...the risk is not worth the reward.
To think that the 2nd Amendment was only pretaining to fighting off the British is stupid. The founding fathers would have said otherwise if that were the case. The 2nd amendment was put in so that the PEOPLE would be able to defend themselves from a currupt government, even their own new one if need be. Now, because of the 2nd amendment, law-abiding citizens are able to defend themselves from those who would commit crimes with them.
Like it or not, guns have always been around and will continue to be around. Our culture, the American culture cannot be compared to other nations when dealing with guns. Taking the guns away will not solve any problems.
"The Second Amendment was meant to accomplish two distinct goals, each perceived as crucial to the maintenance of liberty: First, it was meant to guarantee the individual's right to have arms for self-defense and self-preservation. Such an individual right was a legacy of the English Bill of Rights. This is also plain from American colonial practice, the debates over the Constitution, and state proposals for what was to become the Second Amendment. In keeping with colonial precedent, the American article broadened the English protection. English restrictions had limited the right to have arms to Protestants and made the type and quantity of such weapons dependent upon what was deemed "suitable" to a person's "condition." The English also included the proviso that the right to have arms was to be "as allowed by law". Americans swept aside these limitations and forbade any "infringement" upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
-The following is excerpted from To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right, Joyce Lee Malcom, Harvard University Press, 1994-
There are many documented cases where citizens haveing guns deters crime and saves lives. The police cannot protect you 100% of the time, nor can the government itself.

I would rather fight fire with fire, than be burned.

Ciou-See the Sig

 

Man, you Yanks are a parnoid people.

"I need a gun to protect myself"

From who? The boogyman?

"It's a law that says we can have guns"

used to be a law saying you could have a bunch of black people do all your work for you while you beat, raped, and starved them.

wk

 

What on earth does slavery have to do with gun control? The fact that slavery used to exist in the US in no way makes our right to own firearms any less valid. The two aren't even related. Your attempt to associate being a gun owner with being a brutal slave owner and rapist is absurd and troll-esque.

 

Connection? Simple. Both are stupid.

LOL, a newbie called me a troll

wk

 

[bThere are approximately 192 million privately owned firearms in the U.S. ? 65 million of which are handguns.i

Currently, an estimated 39% of households have a gun, while 24% have a handgun.ii

In 1998 alone, licensed firearms dealers sold an estimated 4.4 million guns, 1.7 million of which were handguns.iii Additionally, it is estimated that 1 to 3 million guns change hands in the secondary market each year, and many of these sales are not regulated.iv

Gun Deaths and Injury ? The United States Leads the World in Firearm Violence

In 1998, 30,708 people in the United States died from firearm-related deaths ? 12,102 (39%) of those were murdered; 17,424 (57%) were suicides; 866 (3%) were accidents; and in 316 (1%) the intent was unknown.v In comparison, 33,651 Americans were killed in the Korean War and 58,193 Americans were killed in the Vietnam War.vi

For every firearm fatality in the United States, there are two non-fatal firearm injuries.vii

In 1996, handguns were used to murder 2 people in New Zealand, 15 in Japan, 30 in Great Britain, 106 in Canada and 9,390 in the United States.viii

In 1999, there were only 154 justifiable homicides by private citizens in the United States.ix

Gun Violence ? Young Lives Cut Short

In 1998, more than 10 children and teenagers, ages 19 and under, were killed with guns everyday.x

In 1998, gunshot wounds were the second leading cause of injury death for men and women 10-24 years of age ? second only to motor vehicle crashes.xi

In 1998, firearm homicide was the leading cause of death for black males ages 15-34.xii

From 1993 through 1997, an average of 1,409 children and teenagers took their own lives with guns each year.xiii

Each year during 1993 through 1997, an average of 1,621 murderers who had not reached their 18th birthdays took someone's life with a gun.xiv

Guns in the Home ? A Greater Risk to Family and Friends

For every time a gun is used in a home in a legally-justifiable shooting [note that every self-defense is legally justifiable] there are 22 criminal, unintentional, and suicide-related shootings.xv

The presence of a gun in the home triples the risk of homicide in the home.xvi

The presence of a gun in the home increases the risk of suicide fivefold.xvii

The Economic Costs of Gun Violence ? All Americans Pay a High Price

A study of all direct and indirect costs of gun violence including medical, lost wages, and security costs estimates that gun violence costs the nation $100 billion a year.xviii

The average total cost of one gun crime can be as high as $1.79 million, including medical treatment and the prosecution and imprisonment of the shooter.xix

At least 80 percent of the economic costs of treating firearm injuries are paid for by taxpayer dollars.xx,xxi

Last updated: 1/16/01


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cook PJ, Ludwig J. Guns in America: Results of a comprehensive national survey on firearms ownership and use. Police Foundation. Washington DC. 1996.
National Opinion Research Center, The University of Chicago, 1997-1998 National Gun Policy Survey. September 1998.
US Department of the Treasury. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Commerce in Firearms in the United States, February 2000. Available at: http://www.atf.treas.gov.
Cook PJ, Ludwig J. Guns in America: Results of a comprehensive national survey on firearms ownership and use. Police Foundation. Washington DC. 1996.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for Health Statistics. Unpublished Data from the National Vital Statistics System, 2000. Also available from CDC Wonder at: http//wonder.cdc.gov.
Combat Area Casualty Figures. Center for Electronic Records. National Archives.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Nonfatal and fatal firearm-related injuries ? United States, 1993-1997. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 1999;48:1029-1034.
Foreign data provided by each country's embassy. Data for the United States from: Crime in the United States,

 

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/flight.risk/weapons.html

Ok, sorry, I do not know how to post a link, but I found this interesting. There should be NO guns found at ANY airport.

 

Obey Wann : the only reason you want a guns is 'cause you're a psycho, mate!

There was a great scene in Third Rock from the Sun. Sally and the weird guy were trying to get a driving license. The weird guy says something like : "All this trouble for a driving license! Written tests, practial tests, eyesight tests, photographs and standing in line for ages! Imagine how difficult it must be to get a gun!

I think the stats for Britain and Scandinavia speak for themselves. We don't have lots of gun deaths. Simple.

My idea for who should have guns is this: if you WANT one, then you shouldn't be allowed. Guns should only be used by professionals: soldiers and policemen.

As the stats above showed, only 154 justifiable homicides by private citizens. Having a gun doesn't stop you from being a victim.

 

I agree, Darthmomm, that there shouldn't be ANY guns found at airports (in the passenger screening areas).

Period. Meaning that people shouldn't be bringing guns with them in the passenger compartment of the airplane unless they are authorized.

And I hope/wish the screeners would catch EVERY gun that people try to bring into the terminal. Unfortunately, they don't. Why? Because you have McDonalds rejects making minimum wage working the screening points, but that's a whole 'nother argument.



As far as the rest of your statistics, again, I'd say education and enforcement of existing laws will get you more bang for your buck than creating new legislation.

Suicides: Point: the person CHOSE to end their life. The gun is just the tool used to do what they already decided to do. Suicide prevention education to teach people the warning signs as well as educating the populace (i.e. parents) to properly secure their guns better would be better than "banning all guns, because guns are bad", or whatever.

In 1998, firearm homicide was the leading cause of death for black males ages 15-34.xii

What are the percentages of these that were drug or gang related? Last time I checked, trade, distribution, posession and sales of illegal drugs was exactly that. Illegal. They don't give a rip about what laws you want about gun control, they'll just steal them, or get them on the black market. Therefore additional "gun control" still only hurts the law abiding citizens.

From 1993 through 1997, an average of 1,409 children and teenagers took their own lives with guns each year.xiii

Shouldn't we be more concerned as to WHY these kids are killing themselves than with HOW??? I care for the lives and WHY they want to end their lives. How is simply the tool used to give them the desired result. We should focus more energy on prevention and education here.

Each year during 1993 through 1997, an average of 1,621 murderers who had not reached their 18th birthdays took someone's life with a gun.xiv

Couple of points here. 1) Murder is ILLEGAL. Period. End. Of. Sentence. If they have made the decision to kill someone, then they'll do it regardless of whatever "gun control" laws you want to put on the books.

2) Last time I checked, it is illegal to purchase a gun if you are under 21. I waited until I was 21 before I purchased my first handgun. I did the background check and all that jazz.

So therefore,all this statistic proves is either that kids are getting guns illegally (i.e. breaking the law), or they are getting the guns from their homes because they are improperly stored.

Solution: Crack down on minors in posession of firearms, and increased public awareness about firearm safety.


Couple of other issues: Loopholes. Yes they exist. Yes, they should be closed. such as gun shows, or whatever. I don't know the exact details, but I'm sure there are ways around the system. That should be corrected.

Stronger checks before purchasing a handgun? Yeah, it would probably help. I'd be really pissed off if I found out that a convicted felon was able to walk in, purchase a gun, and commit murder that day (or at any point.)

The problem is that there isn't enough coordination between the local law enforcement, FBI, mental institutions and the like, to provide a thourough, accurate check system. Sad but true. It should be fixed.


(Along a similar note, did anyone else see the Dateline/60 minutes? episode recently about how easy it is to get a driver's lisence (leagal) through illegal means? With fake SSN's and fake birth certificates and such. It basically proved that if someone is willing to pay the right $$$, they could get legal identification, and therefore dodge all arrest warrants, criminal history, etc associated with their former name) --I found that very interesting, and sad, that it is so easy to "create a new life" and get rid of the old.

 

LOL, Suart --that's becasue you know me personally. Well virtually, but on a personal note.

As the stats above showed, only 154 justifiable homicides by private citizens. Having a gun doesn't stop you from being a victim.

From my point of view, that is only a half truth, because it doesn't show how many crimes were prevented by the victim having a gun, and the criminal running away w/o getting shot, etc.

Sure, there were only "154 justifiable homicides", but what if you were able to prevent the crime from happening in the first place, because you were a "high risk target". As I've said before, I'd prefer to have the ability to defend myself, than just be the hapless victim, as some would prefer it.

If the firearm is in the posession of a law abiding citizen who is properly trained and educated in the safety, use, storage and when it is acceptable to use it, then the firearm is of no danger to anyone around them, save for the criminals who are stupid enough to go after them.

It is when the individual is uneducated, untrained, or unsafe that the firearm is a danger to those around them.


But on a personal note, I have been in the military, I have had firearms training, and I'm going into the Army National Guard as a Military Policeman, so I fit most of your recommendations for someone who should have a firearm.


As far as England, Scandinavia, etc goes, I think a lot of it goes with cultural history and mindset. We Americans like our John Wayne westerns where poppa shoots the bad guy to make things safe for the wife and kiddies.

We grew up playing "cops and robbers", or "cowboys and indians", or <uh-oh> Star Wars --having Luke blast Stormtroopers all day long. Ever notice that virtually every single SW figure comes with at least 1 weapon?

If you all (in Europe, etc) don't have criminals and drug dealers carrying MAX-11's and AK-47's, then consider yourself lucky.