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

Gee, I can not believe that I am the one posting this...I thought that this would be one of the first threads here!!!!

Ok people...what are your takes on:

Mandatory registration
gun show loop holes
sale of all fire arms
and anything else pertaining to this issue..

I will post my thoughts at a later time...

have fun!!!

 

People and guns don't mix.

 

hmm...i believe that there should be control to a point (i am a gun owner by the way). i definitely believe that mandatory registration is a good thing. hell, we have to register our vehicles so i see no problem in registering our guns. i think gun show loop holes should be closed because they absolutely undermine the existing laws that we have. i see no use in some of the firearms on the market today. i mean, the guy from the ny jets who was caught with a .233 buschmaster (i think that is the right name). what did he need that for. it looked like something out of rambo for god's sake. i don't believe in the "we need the gun for hunting" argument. maybe if the deer was armed with a rifle yes, but he's not so no.



i don't a gun, let alone many guns to necesitate a gun rack - wayne

 

I like guns.

I like shooting guns.

My friends like shooting guns.

I saw a man stabbed several times with a knife almost die.

Someone I knew was nearly shot to death.

I think we're a violent society, regardless of the tools we use.

"Remember, it's the repeating criminal, not the repeating firearm."

 

The more gun control, the better, I say. Really, I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would be against it.

 

Guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people.

Seriously, American's tend to cling to an outdated law created to defend against British invasion. They say they need guns to protect themselves. From what? I have no idea. Canadians don't feel the need to own guns, and we're perfectly safe.

wk

 

This is an interesting one. As a Brit living in a society with very strict gun laws I do not see the need for the man on the street, so to speak, to carry a fire arm. I truley believe that this takes nothing away from our basic freedoms and rights as humans. Britons are no less free than our American cousins. The less guns out there the better, IMHO.

We do not need guns to protect our freedom as there are many safe guards against this in our society. Granted, there are some people in our communities who, for certain reasons, need to carry guns. Ground Keepers, Farmers, Vets etc etc.... but this is due to the nature their role in our society not because they have a right to bear arms.

I think this highlights a flaw in your written constitution. On the whole it is a great thing to lay down in writing the rights of the people. However, many Americans cling to a part in the constitution that was written hundreds of years ago for the needs of the times. When a fledgling nation needed the people to have a right to have guns to protect itself. This is not the 18th century and hence the constitution should not be seen in this context.

 

anyone wanting to own a gun should have to go through vigorous psychological screenings every 3 months.

it's not guns that kill people. it's wackos with guns that kill people.

 

I agree with DA. I think that ownership and use of guns by civilians only increases their risk. As I've said before, there was one case in New York where police were sent to an armed robbery. When they got there, the robbers were so well prepared for an armed response that they'd come with weapons that far outstripped the ones the police had.

Also, IMHO a burglar is far more likely to come armed and shoot first if he's expecting the people in whatever house he's burgling to have access to guns.

 

Ok, here are a couple of scenarios that I hope will make sense. I also hope it is a good idea of why I do not advocate gun control.

Scenario 1: A Society with Gun Control
I am angry at my History teacher and want to kill him. (BTW, my history teacher would appreciate the point of this post, and wouldn't mind being the subject of my little thought experiment) My teacher is a law abiding citizen, and does not own a gun because of the laws. I really don't care about a certain law in my country against murder, so why should I care about a gun control law? I acquire a gun illegally, take it to his house, and shoot him.

Scenario 2: Similar to the 1st
Let's say that I cannot acquire a gun legally. I'm sure I could still think of a few inventive ways to take him out. I might face some more personal danger to myself, but could still suprise and kill him.

Scenario 3: A society with little gun control
I go and acquire a gun legally, and have it registered. I might even acqure it illegally, and not register it so that I have a better chance of not being traced. Either way, when I show up at my teacher's house, I discover that he has a gun too. I can take a chance at being quicker on the trigger than he is, and risk being shot and killed myself. I could try to sneak up on him and shoot him without him knowing, but if I were discovered at any time during then, I would certainly be shot. It would simply be too much of a risk to try and kill him.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that the fact that you have a gun can be just as much protction as shooting someone with it, if it makes a potential murderer think twice before trying anything. A murderer would be much more concerned with their own safety than they would be about breaking an anti-firearm law.

Just for the record, I hold no ill will against my history teacher, and actually like him a lot. I would never even think about killing him.

 

Let's face it, you can still kill a person without a gun, but guns make it a lot easier to kill a person. It's a lot easier to kill a person from 30 ft away than point blank.

The more control that is enforced, the better, I say.

 

"I think that ownership and use of guns by civilians only increases their risk."

Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck analyzed data from the Department of Justice (1979-1985 National Crime Survey public use computer tapes). He found victims that defended themselves with a gun against a robbery or an assault, had the least chance of being injured, or of having the crime completed. Doing nothing, trying to escape, reasoning with the offender, or physical resistance (other than with a gun), all had higher probabilities of injury and crime completion. Using more recent data, Lawrence Southwick Jr. found that "victims using guns were consistently less likely to lose cash or other property than other victims, and also establishing that this was true regardless of what weaponry was possessed or used by the offenders." Another study also "found that burglaries in which victims resisted with guns were far less likely to be completed."

Source: Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997.


"IMHO a burglar is far more likely to come armed and shoot first if he's expecting the people in whatever house he's burgling to have access to guns."

In studies involving interviews of felons, one of the reasons the majority of burglars try to avoid occupied homes is the chance of getting shot. (Increasing the odds of arrest is another.) A study of Pennsylvania burglary inmates reported that many burglars refrain from late-night burglaries because it's hard to tell if anyone is home, several explaining "That's the way to get shot." (Rengert G. and Wasilchick J., Suburban Burglary: A Time and a Place for Everything, 1985, Springfield, IL: Charles Thomas.)

By comparing criminal victimization surveys from Britain and the Netherlands (countries having low levels of gun ownership) with the U.S., Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck determined that if the U.S. were to have similar rates of "hot" burglaries as these other nations, there would be more than 450,000 additional burglaries per year where the victim was threatened or assaulted. (Britain and the Netherlands have a "hot" burglary rate near 45% versus just under 13% for the U.S., and in the U.S. a victim is threatened or attacked 30% of the time during a "hot" burglary.)

Source: Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997.

 

A great, great majority of gun related deaths are instinct, either suicide or murder. Another thing to keep in mind is that typically the less gun laws a state has, the more accidental deaths it has by handguns, and there really isn't anything much more heartbreaking and avoidable than an accidental handgun death. Just something to keep in mind, I'll probably enter this debate a little later.

 

Nice info, Lord_Sidious.

If you take away all of the weapons from the law abiding citizens, then only the criminals will be armed.

Anyone wanting an unarmed populace is asking to have a populace of victims.



Let's try to remember one little thing here: Criminals break laws. Period. You can legislate ANYTHING, but by definition, criminals break laws. Murder is against the law. So whether they use their bare hands, or a 9mm, they are still breaking the law.

I'd rather have a chance to defend myself than become the victim, just because some bleeding heart liberal thinks they know more about how to run my life than I do. Don't legislate my choices, and I won't legislate your choices, OK?



If y'all don't like guns, fine. Don't buy one. Don't go shooting. But it IS our right to have them, and that RIGHT needs to be defended. Just as much as free speech, or anything else in the Bill of Rights.

 

I think we should ban all guns, then we would have no more gun problems. Just like we have no drug problems.

 

Obey Wann, you said it so much better than I ever could have.

 

Guns dont kill people....people kill people.

They just make that loud noise.

Guns are bad...and should be taken away from evryone..there is no need for a gun..there are far to many accidental deaths!

The NRA is one of the most insane organizations ever!!!!!!!!

 

Two things:
1) Pro-gun people talk as if the only way gun is used is by criminals in crimes, or people using their guns as defense against criminals. Couldn't be farther from the truth.
2) How does gun control stop a law-abiding citizen from obtaining a gun for protection? Since when does a safety lock or waiting period mean 'you're stealing our guns!!!!'?

 

TPMrules23, besides those uses previously mentioned and hunting, what other uses would one have for a gun?


EDIT: Goofy looking typing mistake

 

I really can't see why a person who is for the protection of other human beings would be against better gun control. I honestly believe that fatality and deaths that occur because of gun related accidents could be prevented in a much stronger manner, if only for the basic ideal that it would cut down on deaths.

 

More facts/research that will explain the following statements made. Note that while the statements are true, they are not viable arguements for more gun control. Source: guncite.com

"A great, great majority of gun related deaths are instinct, either suicide or murder."

On suicide:
If we could magically make all guns disappear, would the number of suicides decrease? Probably not. Excerpted from Dr. Gary Kleck's, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control (p 285, Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York 1997):

The full body of relevant studies indicates that firearm availability measures are significantly and positively associated with rates of firearm suicide, but have no significant association with rates of total suicide.
Of thirteen studies, nine found a significant association between gun levels and rates of gun suicide, but only one found a significant association between gun levels and rates of total suicides. The only study to find a measure of "gun availability" significantly associated with total suicide...used a measure of gun availability known to be invalid.

This pattern of results supports the view that where guns are less common, there is complete substitution of other methods of suicide, and that, while gun levels influence the choice of suicide method, they have no effect on the number of people who die in suicides.

As further evidence that gun ownership is not correlated with total suicide rates see international violent death rate table. For example, Japan, where gun ownership is extremely low (less than 1% of households), total suicide is higher than in a high-gun ownership country like the United States.
From 1972 to 1995 the per capita gun stock in the U. S. increased by more than 50%. Gary Kleck in Targeting Guns (p 265) comments on this huge increase: "This change might be viewed as a sort of inadvertent natural experiment, in which Americans launched a massive and unprecedented civilian armaments program, probably the largest in world history. During this same period, the U.S. suicide rate was virtually constant, fluctuating only slightly within the narrow range from 11.8 to 13.0 suicides per 100,000 population...At most...this huge increase in the gun stock might have caused a mild increase in the percentage of suicides committed with guns, which shifted from 53.3 in 1972 to 60.3 in 1994, and thus a mild corresponding increase in the gun suicide rate." (See gun supply chart).

In 1972 the suicide rate was 11.9 per 100,000. After this "arms build-up" the total suicide rate remained unchanged at 11.9 in 1995.


On homoside:
"Looking only to official criminal records, data over the past thirty years consistently show that the mythology of murderers as ordinary citizens does not hold true. Studies have found that approximately 75% of murderers have adult criminal records, and that murderers average a prior adult criminal career of six years, including four major adult felony arrests. These studies also found that when the murder occurred "[a]bout 11% of murder arrestees [were] actually on pre-trial release"--that is, they were awaiting trial for another offense."

"The fact that only 75% of murderers have adult crime records should not be misunderstood as implying that the remaining 25% of murderers are non-criminals. The reason over half of those 25% of murderers don't have adult records is that they are juveniles. Thus, by definition they cannot have an adult criminal record."

Sources cited by the above excerpt:

An FBI data run of murder arrestees nationally over a four year period in the 1960s found 74.7% to have had prior arrests for violent felony or burglary. In one study, the Bureau of Criminal Statistics found that 76.7% of murder arrestees had criminal histories as did 78% of defendants in murder prosecutions nationally. In another FBI data run of murder arrestees over a one year period, 77.9% had prior criminal records. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Rep. 38 (1971).
The annual Chic

 

" You can't commit mass murder with a Chinese throwing star."

" . . . (The second ammendment) says, 'A well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state the government shall not infringe...' The words regulated and militia are in the first sentence! I don't think the framers were thinking of three guys in a Dodge Durango... I do know that if you combine the populations of Great Britian, France, German, japan, Switzerland, Sweden Denmark and Australia, you'll get a population roughly the size of the United States. We had 32,000 gun deaths last year. They had 112. You think it's because Americans are more homicidal by nature or do you think it's because those guys have gun control laws??

 

I'm not for NO laws when it comes to gun control. Not one bit.

I don't have a problem when it comes to safety locks. Or even background checks. I encourage that.

What I AM against is the notion that people want to take away ALL guns. I will fight that to my dying breath, if need be.


Do you need to get a liscence to drive a car? Yes. Should we need a lisence to own a gun? Possibly, yes. I'd like to know that everyone who had a gun, was properly trained to use it. But that only works for the law abiding citizens.


If you're talking about kids getting their hands on guns and taking them to school, or using them in drug deals, gangs, etc, ..... well, once again, they're already breaking the law. We should prosecute the existing laws, not create new ones.

If we can't keep people from breaking the laws already on the books now, then why add more rules to the books? They'll get broken right along with murder, breaking and entering, armed robbery, drug dealing, etc.

The NRA isn't ALL bad, just like the ACLU isn't all bad (well, maybe they are. )The NRA does a very good job of educating people who to properly and safely use firearms.


If people were better educated about the use, and safety of firearms, then there would probably be far fewer accidental deaths.

 

The gun laws in the States are insane.
A couple of years ago the Australian police asked everyone to hand in any firearms they owned (not licensed)
They got a huge mountain, including assorted rocket and grenade launchers.
The NRA just likes to kid itself that guns don't kill people. A gun can kill someone without a person. The standard Australian rifle for the military is notorious for misfires without being held. Several officers have been killed by peopleless guns.
Take that, NRA!

 

The number of gun deaths in those countries mean nothing. Was the number of homicides less than in the US?