The GUN thread

[Liesje]

I ride the fence here. I come from a family with a long history of hunting and outdoor sportsmanship. I think it's important to note that hunting rifles aren't exactly the kinds of guns used by gangs and serious criminals. I don't the point of anyone besides a law inforcement officer being allowed to posses a handgun or concealed weapon.

I haven't read many responses yet, so maybe this has been noted, but I don't understand why some people think guns should be banned because hunting is cruel. I'm guessing said people do not live in the place with the highest car-deer accident ratio in the world. The white tail population here is so overwhelmingly out of control; there are WAY WAY more deer here than before these parts were populated by humans (the reason why is b/c the natural predator of deer - wolves - are gone).

I would however support a law that says ANY gun (unless being carried by a law inforcement officer) must be kept in a certified, locked gun container.

After knowing someone who grew up under Communist dictatorship, I could never support an absolute ban on all guns. I may have long ago, but this said person has made me much more aware of how lucky we are in the States and how important some of our rights are even if we don't realize it.

 

[BostonAnne]

I haven't read many responses yet, so maybe this has been noted, but I don't understand why some people think guns should be banned because hunting is cruel.

I haven't read many responses yet, so maybe this has been noted, but I don't understand why some people think guns should be banned because hunting is cruel. I'm guessing said people do not live in the place with the highest car-deer accident ratio in the world. The white tail population here is so overwhelmingly out of control; there are WAY WAY more deer here than before these parts were populated by humans (the reason why is b/c the natural predator of deer - wolves - are gone).

I think hunting in history was a necessity. Now, it seems like a cruel sport if it is done for the thrill. I guess some hunters may be doing it to keep a tradition or re-live what it was like in the past. That's a gray area for me since I don't believe hunters in the past were wrong to hunt for their survival. The problem is that we are so populated now that it can be dangereous to hunt.

The reason why wolves are gone is because we are afraid of them and made them gone or took over their territory and eliminated them. So now we complain about the deer population and justify that it's ok to hunt because there are too many?

I'm on the fence, leaning towards "no" about the guns for hunting thing.

 

[zoney!]

The problem is that we are so populated now that it can be dangereous to hunt.

The reason why wolves are gone is because we are afraid of them and made them gone or took over their territory and eliminated them. So now we complain about the deer population and justify that it's ok to hunt because there are too many?

A couple of things...

Hunters are not free to go out and "bag" as many deer as they want. Most state DNRs keep a pretty good tally on the deer population in their respective states - and have limited hunting seasons if they saw a dip in population numbers. If we did not have hunters, the deer population could potentially grow out of control, leading to a number of problems (traffic accidents, etc.).

Many of these controls (State DNR, etc.) were not in place when the wolf population had its troubles.

I am not a hunter myself, yet understand why deer population controls are in place.

 

[zoney!]

.... there are no signs of affluence(visible to me from the roads and interstates I was on or the towns I visited)

Unless it is passing you in the left lane in a Mercedes Benz C class, you aren't going to see affluence on a highway (the affluent don't build along the highway).

 

[kobayashi]

this is a bizarro thread. its all upside down.

the manufacture of guns should be closely regulated. this shouldn't just be limited to assault rifles and the more intense weaponry.

it would take an eon to be brought under control, but gun trade ins and tighter restrictions on sales and ownership can bring the gun market in line and a lot less illicit ones in the hands of people who mean harm.

this is a tangent but something truly saddening is the number of american guns that are on the streets of canada. the crime statistics reported above do not, unfortunately, reflect the extent to which weapons sold in the U.S. are used on the streets of Toronto (where a majority of Canadian gun murders occur). no firm stats are maintained, but i have read estimates that more than half of toronto's gun homicides are carried out with guns brought into canada illegally.

this, of course, does not mean tighter border controls would end gun violence in canada. but tighter restrictions would reduce the american supply and drive the cost of a gun up so they are less readily available.

whenever i read american drug authorities complaining about canada's 'lax' marijauna policies, i cringe that canada cannot make a comparable issue out of the disparity between our gun control legislation.

 

[STING2]

Have you seen the poverty rates in North Dakota?

I know this is WAY off topic, but I just spent six days in North Dakota about six miles from the Spirit Lake Reservation of the Souix Indians. There are a number of reservations in the Dakotas that account for some of the most impoverished areas in the United States. Fortunately, you do not see a lot of gun violence.

Sorry for the tangent....back to your gun talk!

I'd say on average that most counties in North Dakota that have a high rate of gun ownership have a much smaller rate of poverty than inner cities where most gun violence happens. It is a fact that the most impoverished area's in the United States are the inner city area's. That does not mean there is not poverty in North Dakota or elsewhere.

Studies have been done that have shown that the counties with the highest rates of gun ownership also had very low poverty rates, thereby discrediting the claim that gun ownership reduces deaths from fire arms in the United States.

 

[STING2]

Yes, I have. I have noticed that after you leave Minnesota and until you reach the west coast, there are no signs of affluence(visible to me from the roads and interstates I was on or the towns I visited) I don't mean all poverty, yes the poverty is there, but I did not see any affluent or even semi upper middle class neighborhoods like you see in the east, midwest and west coast. No offense, but it appears things are of somewhat cheaper quality out there because people simply don't have the money (again only judging by what I saw personally don't bash for generalizations) Yes, there are all socioeconomic level everywhere, but there seems to be more poverty or lack of affluence in that region. Yes the reservations are heartbreaking. The ones in the southwest are even worse. Suicide and alchohalism rates are high, but violence is not. It seems to be a problem unique to the US inner cities. Even the poor of Appalachia don't have the high murder rates of the city though they do have the poverty. Of course, you can have your weirdo who freaks out and goes on a rampage anywhere, or your wife killer in Utah, but in general, it's an inner city thing.

Typically, the most impoverished area's in the United States are in the inner cities. Yes there are area's outside the cities that experience poverty, but it is not to the degree that is seen in the inner cities. Drive through any inner city area and look at the number of homeless people compared to what you see on the roads from the Mid-West to the West Coast. Can you honestly tell me that you saw loads of homeless people along any of those roads?

 

[Angela Harlem]

It seems some of you are suggesting self policing. What a novel ideal.
/sarcasm

 

[STING2]

I ride the fence here. I come from a family with a long history of hunting and outdoor sportsmanship. I think it's important to note that hunting rifles aren't exactly the kinds of guns used by gangs and serious criminals. I don't the point of anyone besides a law inforcement officer being allowed to posses a handgun or concealed weapon.

I haven't read many responses yet, so maybe this has been noted, but I don't understand why some people think guns should be banned because hunting is cruel. I'm guessing said people do not live in the place with the highest car-deer accident ratio in the world. The white tail population here is so overwhelmingly out of control; there are WAY WAY more deer here than before these parts were populated by humans (the reason why is b/c the natural predator of deer - wolves - are gone).

I would however support a law that says ANY gun (unless being carried by a law inforcement officer) must be kept in a certified, locked gun container.

After knowing someone who grew up under Communist dictatorship, I could never support an absolute ban on all guns. I may have long ago, but this said person has made me much more aware of how lucky we are in the States and how important some of our rights are even if we don't realize it.

Would you say that people in the United Kingdom and U2's Ireland really feel less safe and less free because they don't have the 2nd amendment? Dublin has its share of crime, especially with the recent surge in growth, but its highly unlikely that you or anyone is going to be shot to death in downtown Dublin. Unfortunately, that cannot be said for most American cities.

 

[Angela Harlem]

I actually find that view slightly offensive. I've only skimmed some of these replies, but a few people seem to mention what state a country ends up in if it bans all handguns. We had an amnesty a while back, and have had subsequent buy-backs a few times since then. And you know what? We're freer than America because we dont shoot each other in the alarming numbers you lot do. Your ammendment is all fine and dandy, but it doesn't change much of your day to day safety. America has a problem with violence, and allowing citizens to carry a dangerous weapon is NOT going to help that.

On a side note, I am really glad to be able to agree with you completely STING

 

[Oregoropa]

I think America citizens should be allowed to have guns equal to those of the American Infantry soldier. This is one of the check and balances instilled into the American Democratic system.

I do believe in waiting periods and backgroound checks on all weapons.

 

[TylerDurden]

I actually find that view slightly offensive. I've only skimmed some of these replies, but a few people seem to mention what state a country ends up in if it bans all handguns. We had an amnesty a while back, and have had subsequent buy-backs a few times since then. And you know what? We're freer than America because we dont shoot each other in the alarming numbers you lot do. Your ammendment is all fine and dandy, but it doesn't change much of your day to day safety. America has a problem with violence, and allowing citizens to carry a dangerous weapon is NOT going to help that.

On a side note, I am really glad to be able to agree with you completely STING

STING (there's a first for everything )
Angela

Aside from sheer population size, there is very, very little that really seperates US 'society' from Australian or Canadian in the context of this argument. It's not like Australia doesn't have huge inner city, low income, crime heavy areas. It's not like we don't have a serious drug problem, and drug related crime problem. Sydney, where I (and Angela) live, is about the size of Chicago population wise and has all the problems of a city that size.

So why do you think we don't have gun problems here? We have a criminal gun problem, and when I say that, I mean a criminal gun problem that would be 0.05% the size of your criminal gun problem. What we don't have is gun deaths. If someone gets shot, it's still headline news here.

I have one friend who has a grandfather who owns a gun. It's the gun he was given/used as a soldier in WWII. I don't know anyone else who owns a gun.

The 'self defence' line is one argument, owning one small handgun in your house, but in the US ordinary people build up small arsenals. Why? So when someone robs you, you have time to consider and assess the situation, measure up your opponents size and weight, consider your firearm options and make an appropriate decision? Is it because you really believe that one day you are going to have to take on a military dictatorship and fight some civil war between US citizens and the US military?!?!? Or you believe that gun bans are the first sign of a larger plot for those communist bastards at the UN to take over the US and therefore you must arm yourselves to the teeth for the inevitable? The feeling of security you would get from having a gun in your house I understand, the need to build and arsenal of high powered guns I can't fathom.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Guns should be reserved for hunting, farming and sports. The damage that a bullet does to flesh is really bad, it rips and tears up everything in its way leaving pulp behind it, and then theres the complications. Basically I cannot think of a legitimate reason to maintain assault weapons or handguns in an urban environment - less guns will mean less violent crime, there will always be illegal weapons on the streets but if you reduce quantity then the overall gun violence will drop, people cannot blow a partners brains out in a fit of anger if there isnt a gun in the house. If you want to stick by the US constitution then use Muskets!

Anyway, I want energy weapons, you cant set a Glock 17 to stun.

 

[BVS]

I think America citizens should be allowed to have guns equal to those of the American Infantry soldier. This is one of the check and balances instilled into the American Democratic system.

Well if you want a true checks and balance shouldn't you allow them tanks as well?

 

[BluberryPoptart]

Unless it is passing you in the left lane in a Mercedes Benz C class, you aren't going to see affluence on a highway (the affluent don't build along the highway).

That's why I said 'towns I visited' too. I was also off the road and went through towns and cities of all sizes. In the east, you DO see all types of housing from the interstates. Maybe not the Jersey turnpike, to look at that I'd swear nobody lived in the state, but take I-95 up the eastern corridor and you will see everything from slums to affluence to average suburbs to farms, right along the road. And by 'affluence' I didn't mean actual 'rich' people but more like 'yuppies', houses that cost upwards of 150-200 grand here in the east. The houses I've seen in the west are more comparable to lower or lower middle class neighborhoods of the east, that's what I meant.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Another thing, who needs a gun if you want to kill somebody? Those people in FL were beaten with baseball bats and stabbed.

Exactly. Are we going to ban those, too, since some people have used them to kill people?

Banning things doesn't work, people. It just doesn't. Alcohol was banned back in the 20s because some people felt it was a danger to others and stuff, and we all know how well that idea worked out. If guns were banned and somebody really, honest to god wanted one, they'd still find a way to obtain it.

Originally posted by BluberryPoptart
I cannot see the logic in this. I'm sorry, if the fucker coming to rob me has a gun, I want one too. If I was the fucker coming to rob, I'd be much less likely to carry out the crime if I thought the guy in the house or the store had a gun too. But mostly I think guns are needed for protection, such as women traveling alone in cars at night, or staying home alone at night. The option should still be there.

Yep. I can fully understand somebody having a gun around to protect themselves from an intruder. I agree with those who say that having an arsenal of weapons isn't necessary, but I can understand keeping a simple handgun around.

Also, since hunting was brought up in this thread, my thoughts on it are this: Hunting for food purposes, fine and dandy. Hunting so you can put some animal's head on your wall, that I will never understand.

Angela

 

[Leeloo]

Dublin has its share of crime, especially with the recent surge in growth,

surge in growth have anything to do with several U2 fans from interference moving to Dublin?

 

[najeena]

Guns are for killing, and I hope to never set eyes on one, let alone have one in my home. The second amendment made sense hundreds of years ago, but now just makes it easy for folks to kill each other and call it their constitutional right. There are non-lethal ways to enforce the law. Nets, tasers (sp?), etc.- all workable, just not as easy as shooting someone.

 

[nbcrusader]

The second amendment made sense hundreds of years ago, but now just makes it easy for folks to kill each other and call it their constitutional right.

No one claims a constitutional right to kill another (except for abortion).

There are principles behind the 2nd amendment that are not outdated.

 

[Popmartijn]

I cannot see the logic in this. I'm sorry, if the fucker coming to rob me has a gun, I want one too.

Why? So you can run to your closet, nightdesk (sp?) or wherever you've stored it when the criminal is holding you at gun point. Do you have kids? If so, would you feel comfortable keeping the bullets with (in) the gun? If they you keep them separated, how much time does it take you to load it? How good do you shoot? Are you prepared for the blow? How well are your shooting skills, can you take the criminal out with one shot, so he doesn't shoot back?

If I was the fucker coming to rob, I'd be much less likely to carry out the crime if I thought the guy in the house or the store had a gun too.

If they make any kind of trouble, I'll shoot them. Then they can't grab a gun at least. Maybe I shoot them right away, why take the risk?

But mostly I think guns are needed for protection, such as women traveling alone in cars at night, or staying home alone at night. The option should still be there.

Here I can again pose the questions regarding shooting skills (and of course the safety when carrying a loaded gun with you). Additionally, what is wrong it pepper-spray or a stunner then? Or lessons in self-defense?

Just wondering...

Marty

 

[Liesje]

I think hunting in history was a necessity. Now, it seems like a cruel sport if it is done for the thrill. I guess some hunters may be doing it to keep a tradition or re-live what it was like in the past. That's a gray area for me since I don't believe hunters in the past were wrong to hunt for their survival. The problem is that we are so populated now that it can be dangereous to hunt.

A few things....

1) The people I know don't hunt for thrill. My grandpa hunts b/c he has heart problems and can only eat meat w/ little or no fat. Venison is extremely lean and just as juicy and tastey as steak. My dad hunts b/c it costs like $15 for a doe license which means he can get a deer that will feed us meat three times a week for months and months. Meat from the grocery store is expensive. Many people I know who kill more than what they eat give the rest to soup kitchens and shelters.

2) As for overpopulation, there are VERY strict regulations on where you can hunt. You can't just go shooting deer 10 yards from a kids park or someone's backyard. Also, overpopulationa nd urban sprawl does not mean the hunters should have to suffer. There was a bit of controversy in our family b/c my aunt and uncle moved out to some huge suburban gated community. Then my uncle started complaining that they could hear gunshots during deer season. Everyone was like "Back off, yo! The people hunting on their land have lived out there on their family farm for hundreds of years. Who the hell are you to build a huge resource sucking mansion in the middle of nowhere and then expect everyone else's life to stop b/c you have more money and think your way of life is better?!"

3) Where I live I believe you can kill a max. of three deer (2 bucks and a doe or maybe the other way around). You can only hunt at certain times of the year (so the young fawns are not left alone to die). You have to obtain special, more expensive permits to shoot a doe. Even with these limits, there deer population is still growing.

Hunting is not cruel. I'll tell you what is cruel - invading the natural environment of the deer to build strip malls, huge homes, etc, etc. If anything, hunting is a good thing b/c hunters own large sections of land that are left alone and passed on down through the generations, away from the threat of sub-urban sprawl.

 

[Liesje]

Here I can again pose the questions regarding shooting skills (and of course the safety when carrying a loaded gun with you). Additionally, what is wrong it pepper-spray or a stunner then? Or lessons in self-defense?

Just wondering...

Marty

I agree, Marty. I'm a women that travels alone at night. I've never had a car so I walk or bike. I'd never even consider owning a gun, mainly for fear that I'd actually have to use it and then spend the rest of my life wallowing in guilt. Pepper spray is good enough for me any day.

 

[pax]

True enough. I have pepper spray myself and have considered getting a stunner. I'm just not convinced that an outright ban on all guns is the way to go.

 

[Salome]

if you really want someone with a gun to shoot you
then grab your own gun yourself

I don't doubt he/she won't hesitate

 

[verte76]

I don't want to ban guns, but I think caution needs to exercised in the sale of guns. Personally, I would never want to own a gun. Just the thought of it scares me.

 

[Leeloo]

I am not defending it but I don't think some people in other countries really totally understand our culture and way of life people have been used to for years. It's not just the number of people, it's the people themselves.

 

[Angela Harlem]

True enough. I have pepper spray myself and have considered getting a stunner. I'm just not convinced that an outright ban on all guns is the way to go.

Do YOU have training in handling a gun? And I'm not talking a few hours down the rifle range. In the instances some of the replies in here have described, in cases of self defence in the home - Who here has had the type of training the police for example have? Where you are learned on how to cope with a volatile and unpredicable situation from your intruder, where you are dealing with a complete unknown, which is an unknown (to you) human with a GUN? The answer to this is to put a second weapon in the picture, with an ignoramus who doesn't know how to deal with the gun itself OR the ramifications of the situation?

Is this why America has a problem with deaths from guns? Because the concensus is you are more than able to handle this? If you think you are, and you have no where near enough training, then you are wrong.

Guns belong on farms, the military, and the police force. Not on civilians to police themselves, to hunt fellow humans, or to defend against an uprising form your own government.