Effectiveness of Gun Control?

[80sU2isBest]

I don't think this is all gun control will do. I don't share the same sentiments of paranoia and hopelessness for humanity.

You know, you've been sarcastic and rude to me this thread, but I haven't been to you. What gives?

 

[redhotswami]

On the street where I grew up, a kid shot and killed his 4 year old cousin. If I could go back and give up my right to own guns so that that could've been prevented, I'm fine with it.

A harsh reality I'm all too familiar with. That's why I too advocate so much for gun control. I'd rather be prohibited to own assault weapons than to lose another neighbor, child, friend to an accidental gun related death.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Banning assault rifles is reasonable. Banning all guns is not.

 

[redhotswami]

You know, you've been sarcastic and rude to me this thread, but I haven't been to you. What gives?

Whoa whoa. That statement wasn't intended to be sarcastic and rude to you. However since that is how it made you feel, I apologize. I understand though, because I interpreted your "type handmade guns in google" as a sarcastic and rude response, because I took it as you assuming I knew nothing of the topic. Thats why I responded with the "gee thanks" or whatever. But with you saying "I haven't been to you", I see now that wasn't your intention.

Such is how things roll in communication limited to text.

Anyway, the "paranoia and hopelessness in humanity" isn't intended to be sarcasm. That's honestly how I feel. When people tell me they feel the need to own guns to protect themselves from other people...honestly, I don't know what else to call that but paranoia and hopelessness. I know that bad things can happen, but I try very hard to give people the benefit of the doubt, and to have faith in them. That's just the way I was brought up. Those are my spiritual principles, is all.

I'm not saying I do it all the time. I'm certainly not perfect. I even put up a defense mechanism with you when I thought you were being sarcastic with me. However...I could never use a gun as a defense mechanism.

I feel as though owning a gun to protect oneself from other people is too fearful of a way for me to live. I don't want to go through life weary of others and mistrusting them to the point where I feel like I need the gun. I don't value my life over anyone else's and could never shoot a gun at someone to exercise that.

 

[redhotswami]

Banning assault rifles is reasonable. Banning all guns is not.

I edited my post I was trying to use a different term bc I was tired of typing gun all the time. But I didn't want it to be misinterpreted, so I changed it back to "gun".

 

[Liesje]

Banning assault rifles is reasonable. Banning all guns is not.

I support banning ANY gun that is not one kept by a law enforcement officer or is not a hunting rifle. I don't support a citizen's rights to carry concealed guns. I don't support a citizen's right to keep a handgun at home for "protection." All hunting rifles should be strictly regulated and required to be kept in locked gun cabinets.

 

[maycocksean]

I don't know. I'm pretty convinced that tighter gun laws and more restricted access to guns means less gun violence and less gun deaths. I'd be curious to know if Switzerland's gun laws are as loose as those in the United States.

There's actually a third group that concerns me far more than the dichotomy between the "law-abiding gun owners" and the "gun-toting criminals." It's a third group--good people who own a gun who have too much to drink, or who lose their temper and do something they'll later regret, the children of law abiding gun owners who pick up a weapon not properly stored, the law abiding gun owner who in a fit of rage or resentment becomes a gun toting criminal. It's this wide ranging third group that is my reason for supporter gun control laws.

I've been there. My high school buddies growing up in Central Florida were all avid gun owners and collectors. I have lots of fond memories of heading out to the wilds to do some target shooting and I've had a chance to shoot just about every gun imaginable. And I won't say it wasn't fun. We were generally a responsible group, and we certainly never thought to commit any crimes with our guns (though, I know we did do some unwise things in our handling of guns, being teenagers and all. We were lucky that no accidents happened). What changed my perspective on gun control was when one of my best friends, a stand up guy if ever I've met one, almost shot some people at a party because he'd mistakenly thought they'd molested his girlfriend. By the grace of God, his dad showed up and was able to wrestle him into his car before he shot someone. This is a good, decent guy who got really pissed and had a gun. In fact it's this sense of "I need a gun to protect myself and my loved ones" that can lead to the near-tragedy typical of this third group of gun owners.

Here in Saipan, gun ownership is limited to rifles. Hand guns are only allowed to be handled by law enforcement as far as I know. And I can tell you that while there is the occasional gun death, they are very rare, especially the "third group" type deaths that I've described above. We have crime here, much of it tied to the gambling industry, but it's not like armed criminals are free to run roughshod because of the unarmed and defenseless population.

Last year three people were murdered behind the school where I teach. They were stabbed to death by a disgruntled gambler during a dispute that turned ugly, and the murderer was shot by a police officer during the altercation. I'm glad that the officer was armed with a gun and glad that the killer wasn't. If the killer had had a weapon he would have been able to kill more people before he was stopped, it would have placed him on equal footing with the officer thus placing the officer in more danger (as it was he was stabbed in the arm), and a stray bullet could have harmed one of our students who were just yards away when this happened (I don't know of too many stray knives).

I agree with Lies.

 

[toscano]

What always gets me about anti-gun control nuts is that they don't want their "rights" being infringed upon, that "big brother" is tracking them.

Yes, same said crowd, like the rest of us, will stand in line for hours at the DMV to register our cars, get our records checked, be tested that we can use the potentially dangerous piece of equipment in a competent manner, prove that we are indeed still the registered owner, carry insurance for the equipment, do not have DUI's, etc. Yet somehow to do the same for guns is some kind of inalienable-rights infringement ? Wackos....

 

[BVS]

What always gets me about anti-gun control nuts is that they don't want their "rights" being infringed upon, that "big brother" is tracking them.

Yes, same said crowd, like the rest of us, will stand in line for hours at the DMV to register our cars, get our records checked, be tested that we can use the potentially dangerous piece of equipment in a competent manner, prove that we are indeed still the registered owner, carry insurance for the equipment, do not have DUI's, etc. Yet somehow to do the same for guns is some kind of inalienable-rights infringement ? Wackos....

What always gets me is it's "peace loving christians" who always need the guns...

Wackos

 

[redhotswami]

I think guns end up hurting way more people than they intend. Very good point about the gambling murder.

but it's not like armed criminals are free to run roughshod because of the unarmed and defenseless population.

Very interesting. If all guns are outlawed, I don't think that will mean the law-breakers will run amock killing unarmed people. Since it is outlawed, it will be enforced. I'm not saying it will be impossible to get (or build) a gun, but it will be less accessible and thus result and less gun deaths, be they accidental or intentional.

 

[toscano]

What always gets me is it's "peace loving christians" who always need the guns...

Wackos

I'm sure you can provide a source showing that the majority of gun-related homocides are caused by peace-loving Christians.

Failing that I'm sure you can provide a source showing it's self-avowed "peace loving Christians" who are the only ones who need guns.

Wacko.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Whoa whoa. That statement wasn't intended to be sarcastic and rude to you. However since that is how it made you feel, I apologize. I understand though, because I interpreted your "type handmade guns in google" as a sarcastic and rude response, because I took it as you assuming I knew nothing of the topic. Thats why I responded with the "gee thanks" or whatever. But with you saying "I haven't been to you", I see now that wasn't your intention.

Such is how things roll in communication limited to text.

Thanks. And I apologize for making you feel I was being rude to you. My intention was just to pint you to a source that had lots of info about homemade guns, but I can see why you would think otherwise.

Anyway, the "paranoia and hopelessness in humanity" isn't intended to be sarcasm. That's honestly how I feel. When people tell me they feel the need to own guns to protect themselves from other people...honestly, I don't know what else to call that but paranoia and hopelessness. I know that bad things can happen, but I try very hard to give people the benefit of the doubt, and to have faith in them. That's just the way I was brought up. Those are my spiritual principles, is all.

But I think that you misunderstand people who support the right to own guns. Most of us aren't sitting here worrying and fearful that someone's gonna break into our houses and kill us. We're no "paranoid" about that. But we do know that bad things happen, and believe in the right to be prepared to defend ourselves in case, God forbid, something like that does happen.

 

[80sU2isBest]

What always gets me is it's "peace loving christians" who always need the guns...

Wackos

The truth is that I've never jeard of a paficist, be it a Christian or NonChristian, supporting gun control.

I'll admit that I'm not a pacifist; I believe that sometimes aggressive force is necessary.

 

[80sU2isBest]

I don't know. I'm pretty convinced that tighter gun laws and more restricted access to guns means less gun violence and less gun deaths. I'd be curious to know if Switzerland's gun laws are as loose as those in the United States.

Well, I knew that Switzerland was full of guns, so I looked it up, and found this article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1566715.stm

Guns are deeply rooted within Swiss culture - but the gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept.
The country has a population of six million, but there are estimated to be at least two million publicly-owned firearms, including about 600,000 automatic rifles and 500,000 pistols.

This is in a very large part due to Switzerland's unique system of national defence, developed over the centuries.

Instead of a standing, full-time army, the country requires every man to undergo some form of military training for a few days or weeks a year throughout most of their lives.

Between the ages of 21 and 32 men serve as frontline troops. They are given an M-57 assault rifle and 24 rounds of ammunition which they are required to keep at home.

Once discharged, men serve in the Swiss equivalent of the US National Guard, but still have to train occasionally and are given bolt rifles. Women do not have to own firearms, but are encouraged to.

Few restrictions

In addition to the government-provided arms, there are few restrictions on buying weapons. Some cantons restrict the carrying of firearms - others do not.

The government even sells off surplus weaponry to the general public when new equipment is introduced.

Guns and shooting are popular national pastimes. More than 200,000 Swiss attend national annual marksmanship competitions.

But despite the wide ownership and availability of guns, violent crime is extremely rare. There are only minimal controls at public buildings and politicians rarely have police protection.

Mark Eisenecker, a sociologist from the University of Zurich told BBC News Online that guns are "anchored" in Swiss society and that gun control is simply not an issue.

Some pro-gun groups argue that Switzerland proves their contention that there is not necessarily a link between the availability of guns and violent crime in society.

Low crime

But other commentators suggest that the reality is more complicated.

Switzerland is one of the world's richest countries, but has remained relatively isolated.

It has none of the social problems associated with gun crime seen in other industrialised countries like drugs or urban deprivation.

Despite the lack of rigid gun laws, firearms are strictly connected to a sense of collective responsibility.

From an early age Swiss men and women associate weaponry with being called to defend their country.

 

[redhotswami]

But we do know that bad things happen, and believe in the right to be prepared to defend ourselves in case, God forbid, something like that does happen.

I mean, I can see your statement about having the right to defend ourselves...Like I said, we all have our own defense mechanisms, but I just can't convince myself to that a gun is necessary to defend myself.

And what scares me too is that now it is spilling into our university campuses here in the United States. Utah is starting a trend, and others are picking up on it. Why why WHY does someone think it is a good idea to allow guns in an environment where alcohol pours as freely as the rain? Does it really comfort someone to know he/she can carry his/her gun to class??? Is that really necessary?

 

[Liesje]

The truth is that I've never heard of a pacifist, be it a Christian or NonChristian, supporting gun control.

Oh, and you can add to that list at least 50 of my friends and family. Christians, pacifists, huzzah for gun control. And about half of these people ARE Republicans or otherwise politically conservative. Once you've experienced what these guns can do to your family or your community, you'd understand.


Honestly, my underlying beef with the whole gun control thing is that a lot of people want to ban all guns outright. Like I said, I don't mind responsible people who've been background checked owning hunting rifles. Hunters have to take required safety classes (at least here) before they can use these guns. If some upper middle class guy feels he NEEDS a concealed hand gun to feel safe in his own house, why should HE not have to take classes and learn how to clean the gun, how to use it, WHEN to use it, where to store it, etc? It's just not fair.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Honestly, my underlying beef with the whole gun control thing is that a lot of people want to ban all guns outright. Like I said, I don't mind responsible people who've been background checked owning hunting rifles. Hunters have to take required safety classes (at least here) before they can use these guns. If some upper middle class guy feels he NEEDS a concealed hand gun to feel safe in his own house, why should HE not have to take classes and learn how to clean the gun, how to use it, WHEN to use it, where to store it, etc? It's just not fair.

I agree with you. People who are going to own a gun should have to pass background check and training.

 

[80sU2isBest]

I mean, I can see your statement about having the right to defend ourselves...Like I said, we all have our own defense mechanisms, but I just can't convince myself to that a gun is necessary to defend myself.

If someone were in the act of trying to harm my family or friends, I know I could bring myself to shoot that person.

 

[Liesje]

If someone were in the act of trying to harm my family or friends, I know I could bring myself to shoot that person.

That's definitely your personal choice, but many people don't feel the same way. I had a gun drawn on me as a little kid, right at my own house. My dad could've busted out his muzzleloader and started pointing back. Instead he backhanded the kid across the face and let the cops deal with the rest.

Honestly, I don't think I'm prepared to make assumptions about what I could or couldn't do. When you're in the situation, nothing is how you expected it to be.

I try to remember my grandpa, who I love deeply and greatly admire. He's the biggest pacifist in the entire family, yet he was the one that's survived the most wartimes, he's the one that was pounded unconscious with a crowbar while his son was getting beat down next to him with a broken beer bottle, he was the one who had a knife pulled on him, he's the one who's seen his kids shot at, beaten, threatened, and verbally harassed. His own safety and that of his family has been put on the line countless times, and yet the most violent thing I've ever seen him to is whack a fish against the boat so it died before it got filleted. If grandpa could survive all those years defending himself and seven others in a FAR more hostile environment then I'll ever know, I don't see why I need to put the safety of others, mainly children, at risk so I can have a hand gun lying around the house for "protection".

 

[redhotswami]

The truth is that I've never jeard of a paficist, be it a Christian or NonChristian, supporting gun control.

oooh oooh! me!

 

[redhotswami]

If someone were in the act of trying to harm my family or friends, I know I could bring myself to shoot that person.

And I think that's probably the fundamental difference between us. After having a gun pointed in my face, or even having friends/family being shot at....I could NEVER ever do the same to someone else. Too many close to me have been the victims of gun violence. I don't want my own hands to cause anyone else to suffer the loss and pain I've felt.

Like Lies said...sometimes in the heat of the moment we could do some things we never thought we would do...but I really really don't think I could shoot someone, no matter how threatened I or someone I loved felt.

 

[BVS]

I'm sure you can provide a source showing that the majority of gun-related homocides are caused by peace-loving Christians.

Failing that I'm sure you can provide a source showing it's self-avowed "peace loving Christians" who are the only ones who need guns.

Wacko.

No, just the biggest supporters of gun ownership. The reason criminals have guns.

 

[BVS]

The truth is that I've never jeard of a paficist, be it a Christian or NonChristian, supporting gun control.

Live under a rock?

 

[80sU2isBest]

Live under a rock?

I didn't type what I intended to type. What I typed was:

"The truth is that I've never jeard of a paficist, be it a Christian or NonChristian, supporting gun control."

What I meant to type was

"The truth is that I've never heard of a paficist, be it a Christian or NonChristian, who doesn't support gun control."

 

[80sU2isBest]

And I think that's probably the fundamental difference between us. After having a gun pointed in my face, or even having friends/family being shot at....I could NEVER ever do the same to someone else. Too many close to me have been the victims of gun violence. I don't want my own hands to cause anyone else to suffer the loss and pain I've felt.

If killing someone is what it takes to prevent that person from killing my family, I'd have to do it. The attacker has free will - he didn't have to commit the evil of trying to kill someone else.

If someone were trying to kill my family and a policeman showed up, I would expect him to try to stop the person and kill him if necessary. Why should I expect a cop to do something that I would be unwilling to do myself if the cop weren't around?

 

[BVS]

I didn't type what I intended to type. What I typed was:

"The truth is that I've never jeard of a paficist, be it a Christian or NonChristian, supporting gun control."

What I meant to type was

"The truth is that I've never heard of a paficist, be it a Christian or NonChristian, who doesn't support gun control."

That makes more sense...

 

[80sU2isBest]

That makes more sense...

I can definitely see how what I originally wrote would have you thinking "What is that nut smoking?"

 

[maycocksean]

80's thanks for the informaton on Switzerland. I found it quite fascinating.

The key things that stuck out for me where the following:

This is in a very large part due to Switzerland's unique system of national defence, developed over the centuries.

Instead of a standing, full-time army, the country requires every man to undergo some form of military training for a few days or weeks a year throughout most of their lives.

Between the ages of 21 and 32 men serve as frontline troops. They are given an M-57 assault rifle and 24 rounds of ammunition which they are required to keep at home.

Once discharged, men serve in the Swiss equivalent of the US National Guard, but still have to train occasionally and are given bolt rifles. Women do not have to own firearms, but are encouraged to.

This is actually what the authors of the bill of rights had in mind when they included the second amendment. They were pretty distrustful of large standing armies controlled by a strong central government and I suspect they may have found a "well-regulated" militia to be a valuable guard agaisnt tyranny. Had this concept lasted, perhaps something similar to what Switzerland has is what we would have in this country.

However, the reality is we have nothing like the organizational or cultural structure in place to facilitate the wide-spread ownership of military style weaponry in the U.S. The key factor in Switzerland, I think, is the training and focus on gun ownership as part of one's military responsiblities. Granted it carries over into shooting for sport etc, but it seems everyone is well-trained, and has an engrained sense of responsiblity. In a sense, the "restrictions" are built in culturally so to speak, so that actual gun restriction laws are unnecessary. The whole way guns enter the lives of the Swiss is in a regulated fashion.


This part really struck me as well:

Despite the lack of rigid gun laws, firearms are strictly connected to a sense of collective responsibility.

From an early age Swiss men and women associate weaponry with being called to defend their country.

I'ts this sense of collective responsiblity and the sense that the ownership of guns is for the defense of their country that is lacking in the United States and thus make gun control laws necessary. In a country as focused on individual independence as we are, the whole concept of collective responsiblity has less sway in my opinion.

I'm kind of fascinated by Switzerland as a whole, really. Here's this country that's quite wealthy, doesn't have the crime, drugs, urban issues etc that other countries do. And yet it's isolated. It's not a major player on the world stage, so to speak. I always kind of assumed in order for a country to be well-off, "developed" it had to be hugely powerful as well. Do you suppose the founding fathers envisioned that the U.S. would end up being somewhat like Switzerland instead of the global behemoth it is today?

Sorry that's a bit off-topic.

Anyways, I think this issue is ruined by the "nuts" on both sides of the issue. 80's I appreciate your willingness to recognize the need for some sort of regulations regarding gun ownership. And Lies, I appreicate your making allowances for hunting rifles etc. It seems like this is one of those debates where the "no kind of guns ever" voices and the "all kinds of guns at any time" voices drown out more moderate views.

 

[Liesje]

Anyways, I think this issue is ruined by the "nuts" on both sides of the issue. 80's I appreciate your willingness to recognize the need for some sort of regulations regarding gun ownership. And Lies, I appreicate your making allowances for hunting rifles etc. It seems like this is one of those debates where the "no kind of guns ever" voices and the "all kinds of guns at any time" voices drown out more moderate views.

I agree. I grew up with gun violence and come from a family of outdoorsmen. Both experiences have shown me that hunting rifles and guns that are designed for defense just aren't the same and don't often overlap. I support gun control and if it came to an all-or-nothing decision, I'd have to go with nothing. Hunters are also quite skilled with bows, in fact most of my family are far more accurate this way. Banning hunting rifles would create a host of other environmental problems, at least here in Michigan, but I guess if that's what it would take to get weapons out of the hands of people who use them on people, I could live with that. But like you're saying, the all-or-nothing attitude really makes absolutely no sense, from either side of the issue.

 

[A_Wanderer]

No, just the biggest supporters of gun ownership. The reason criminals have guns.

And the case study of our ban shows that when we take away that gun ownership the criminals still have guns and the dent on gun violence is minor. Do wars happen because countries have armies?