The GUN thread

[BluberryPoptart]

I am resisting temptation to go off track in EYKIW by taking this here. I have never seen a good gun/gun control thread since I've been here! How about it!

Here's my position: I am personally anti-gun but pro-choice on gun ownership for others. I am against hunting myself. I do believe we need guns for our own protection in case of burglars. But overall, I believe that it's wrong for the government to take the guns away from citizens, a right our forefathers felt strongly that we should have, because an unarmed country is much more likely to be a country easily controlled.

I also believe, as the old bumper sticker said, that when guns are outlawed, only outlaws willl own guns, because living in America I can tell you, the crooks, the theives, the drug dealers, the killers WILL get their guns, on the streets, out of trunks in back alleys, steal them, etc. Guns CANNOT be controlled completely, so while the criminals have them, we should be able to, too.

While I don't personally like the idea of uzis and AK47's being legal and think they could serve no good purpose except to drug dealers and white surpremicists, banning those is kind of like the beginning of getting them all, the way some of you feel about partial birth abortion being banned, catch my drift?

So now come on and attack me, I know you're going to. I just want to see what you wild and crazy guys and girls will do with this controversial topic!

 

[u2granny]

My father and father-in-law were both gun collectors. We don't even have a squirt gun in the house. That pretty much sums up my feelings.

 

[BVS]

Well personally I believe the 2nd ammendment to be outdated or at least very misinterpreted.

I don't believe anyone should own any type of assault weapon, seriously why would any law abiding citizen need one?

I believe hunting rifles and handguns should be legal but have tighter waiting periods, tighter restrictions on obtaining them, and stiffer penalty for pocession. It's ridiculous when you can spend more time with pocession of pot than you can a gun in some instances.

I believe the argument that criminals will obtain guns on the black market a very weak one. Yes some guns will trickle into the black market impossible to stop. But if "assault" rifles were banned the supply would eventually run out. I mean where do you think the guns come from in the black market, they come from the major gun manufacturers, not gang members building them in a basement.

 

[pax]

I'm okay with guns, actually. I do have a big problem with outlawing them wholesale, although I do agree with bans on certain assault weapons and automatics. But I see nothing wrong with someone having a couple of guns for target shooting or self-defense, provided they are trained in how to use them and keep them safely stored away from small children.

So I'm pro-choice on guns, one could say, but with a lot of caveats.

 

[Popmartijn]

I also believe, as the old bumper sticker said, that when guns are outlawed, only outlaws willl own guns, because living in America I can tell you, the crooks, the theives, the drug dealers, the killers WILL get their guns, on the streets, out of trunks in back alleys, steal them, etc. Guns CANNOT be controlled completely, so while the criminals have them, we should be able to, too.

Yes, I think it's true what the bumber sticker said (who knew those things could tell the truth). By outlawing guns, outlaws will mostly be the only one to have guns. However, I then reach a totally opposite conclusion as you have. I really do think that it is then safer that others don't have them. If they do, it will lead to more deaths. Either the victims try to reach their guns and get shot, or are too slow so they get shot. Or they make a wrong movement and get shot, because the criminal thinks they're going to reach for a gun. As tough and stomach-turning it may be, once you're being held at gun point, it's best not to protest, but give up the cash. It is your highest chance of survival.

While I don't personally like the idea of uzis and AK47's being legal and think they could serve no good purpose except to drug dealers and white surpremicists, banning those is kind of like the beginning of getting them all, the way some of you feel about partial birth abortion being banned, catch my drift?

I don't think this limited gun control has to be the beginning of the end (although I wouldn't mind personally). As you say, they really serve no good purpose at all. Not for self defense at least. So why allow them? When you have a gun, you are more inclined to use it (another reason why I am actually in favour of total gun control). And there is never a reason to use an Uzi.

Oh, and I will ignore your drift...

C ya!

Marty

 

[BVS]

Re: Re: The GUN thread

Oh, and I will ignore your drift...

Yes let's please have one thread kept on topic.

 

[pax]

Yes, please.

 

[Sheltie]

I dont own a gun but I like the idea of having the option to own one. In todays society, we need to be able to protect ourselves if we feel a need. I feel lucky to live in a community where I feel safe but I know that is not case for everyone.

 

[STING2]

This is one issue where I fall to the left of most people in the forum. I don't think civilians should be able to own guns. I think the job of Policemen and other security specialist are made more difficult by the mass number of guns in society. The video of bank robbers who were so well armed they outgunned police and shot up the bank, neighborhood and several Policemen when confronted is a perfect example of the problem.

The 2nd amendment is outdated, because it was designed for a country that had no standing military at the time. Saying that times have changed is an understatement.

Looking at the United Kingdom and Ireland, one can see the dramatic difference in deaths do to gun violence. While 50 people a year die in Gun Violence in the UK and Ireland, over 10,000 people die in the USA every year from Gun Violence. Clearly, the United Kingdom and Ireland have superior policies in regards to guns and gun violence.

Its about time the government brought in heavy restrictions on gun use, but a ban would be best. If people want to hunt or do the target practice thing, they can do it at a facility or area where at the end of the day, the guns are returned to safe storage.

This country should be trying to reduce gun violence to the level it is in Ireland and the United Kingdom. The best way to do that is to gradually disarm the population.

There are very good reasons citizens are not allowed to own Tanks, Artillery, Anti-Tank Missiles etc. With 10,000 US citizens killed every year by guns, there are also good reasons to restrict their use by the population or in fact ban them.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I do have a big problem with outlawing them wholesale, although I do agree with bans on certain assault weapons and automatics. But I see nothing wrong with someone having a couple of guns for target shooting or self-defense, provided they are trained in how to use them and keep them safely stored away from small children.

So I'm pro-choice on guns, one could say, but with a lot of caveats.

Ditto this post. Guns should be treated the way driving is-if you have your license and are responsible with it and everything, you keep the gun, if not, you get it taken away.

Personally, though, I've never owned a gun, and nobody in my family has ever owned a gun, and I have no desire to own a gun. I'd be way too scared just holding it.

Angela

 

[u2granny]

Ditto this post. Guns should be treated the way driving is-if you have your license and are responsible with it and everything, you keep the gun, if not, you get it taken away.

Personally, though, I've never owned a gun, and nobody in my family has ever owned a gun, and I have no desire to own a gun. I'd be way too scared just holding it.

Angela

If I can stab myself prying ice cream from a container, I would probably end up hurting myself.

 

[Scarletwine]

I agree partially with Sting on this one except I feel the second amendment also protects us from our own military. We as citizens need to insure that we never become a military dictatorship. The current strength of our military and comments by Gen. Franks about martial law imposition further the need for citizen arms.

I'm for tha assault weapons ban obviously. I support waiting periods, tighter controls, and closing gun show loopholes.

That said we have guns in my house for hunting. I enjoy fresh Pheasant occasionally and like deer jerky. The deer here in Ohio are in no need of protection and due to the lack of predators are overruning even the rural areas. I allow limited hunting on my land usually bow hunters cause I like giving the deer a fighting chance. I used to hate hunting when I first moved here from the east coast (hated killing Bambi lol), but over time have tolerated it.

 

[BostonAnne]

This is one issue where I fall to the left of most people in the forum. I don't think civilians should be able to own guns. I think the job of Policemen and other security specialist are made more difficult by the mass number of guns in society. The video of bank robbers who were so well armed they outgunned police and shot up the bank, neighborhood and several Policemen when confronted is a perfect example of the problem.

The 2nd amendment is outdated, because it was designed for a country that had no standing military at the time. Saying that times have changed is an understatement.

Looking at the United Kingdom and Ireland, one can see the dramatic difference in deaths do to gun violence. While 50 people a year die in Gun Violence in the UK and Ireland, over 10,000 people die in the USA every year from Gun Violence. Clearly, the United Kingdom and Ireland have superior policies in regards to guns and gun violence.

Its about time the government brought in heavy restrictions on gun use, but a ban would be best. If people want to hunt or do the target practice thing, they can do it at a facility or area where at the end of the day, the guns are returned to safe storage.

This country should be trying to reduce gun violence to the level it is in Ireland and the United Kingdom. The best way to do that is to gradually disarm the population.

There are very good reasons citizens are not allowed to own Tanks, Artillery, Anti-Tank Missiles etc. With 10,000 US citizens killed every year by guns, there are also good reasons to restrict their use by the population or in fact ban them.

Excellent post STING2. It makes more sense to me to ban guns than to try and restrict purchase. So many people slip through the cracks. Some of our worse villians may not have had access to the black market and would not have been denied access to a permit. I'm talking about people that become phycotic and kill their spouses, co workers, neighbors.

I really do think that it is then safer that others don't have them. If they do, it will lead to more deaths. Either the victims try to reach their guns and get shot, or are too slow so they get shot. Or they make a wrong movement and get shot, because the criminal thinks they're going to reach for a gun. As tough and stomach-turning it may be, once you're being held at gun point, it's best not to protest, but give up the cash. It is your highest chance of survival.

Also, think of the accidents that happen with kids and guns. I don't think any parent meant for their kids to find the family gun and use it.

I don't think having your own gun makes you safer and I love the idea of people that would like to use guns to go to a target range or designated hunting area to pursue their hobby. I went to the local police station when I was a teenager and learned to shoot a rifle. I think my boyfriend did at the time, so I joined him. I don't see why that can't be enough for gun enthusiasts.

 

[STING2]

I agree partially with Sting on this one except I feel the second amendment also protects us from our own military. We as citizens need to insure that we never become a military dictatorship. The current strength of our military and comments by Gen. Franks about martial law imposition further the need for citizen arms.

I'm for tha assault weapons ban obviously. I support waiting periods, tighter controls, and closing gun show loopholes.

That said we have guns in my house for hunting. I enjoy fresh Pheasant occasionally and like deer jerky. The deer here in Ohio are in no need of protection and due to the lack of predators are overruning even the rural areas. I allow limited hunting on my land usually bow hunters cause I like giving the deer a fighting chance. I used to hate hunting when I first moved here from the east coast (hated killing Bambi lol), but over time have tolerated it.

The second amendment does not protect citizens from the military because it does not allow citizens to arm themselves with weapons and training that would be effective against the military. That was not the case 200 years ago when what the average soldier was armed with was not significantly different than what the average citizen was armed with. Once again, times have changed.

 

[BluberryPoptart]

Looking at the United Kingdom and Ireland, one can see the dramatic difference in deaths do to gun violence. While 50 people a year die in Gun Violence in the UK and Ireland, over 10,000 people die in the USA every year from Gun Violence. Clearly, the United Kingdom and Ireland have superior policies in regards to guns and gun violence.

Consider too the vast difference in population. UK has about 52 million, we are coming up on 300 million. Consider also that some places in Wyoming and the Dakotas have more guns per capita the small population and have never had a murder, while the bigger cities kill hundreds each year. I honestly believe that drug related crime is the reason for this, not the guns themselves, as the western states prove.

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

Yes, I think it's true what the bumber sticker said (who knew those things could tell the truth). By outlawing guns, outlaws will mostly be the only one to have guns. However, I then reach a totally opposite conclusion as you have. I really do think that it is then safer that others don't have them. If they do, it will lead to more deaths. Either the victims try to reach their guns and get shot, or are too slow so they get shot. Or they make a wrong movement and get shot, because the criminal thinks they're going to reach for a gun. As tough and stomach-turning it may be, once you're being held at gun point, it's best not to protest, but give up the cash. It is your highest chance of survival

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.

 

[BostonAnne]

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.

If you feel as strongly about this as your post is suggesting to me, I'm curious as to why you are personally anti-gun. I have a habit of misunderstanding what you mean and I'm confused once again.

 

[BostonAnne]

The second amendment does not protect citizens from the military because it does not allow citizens to arm themselves with weapons and training that would be effective against the military. That was not the case 200 years ago when what the average soldier was armed with was not significantly different than what the average citizen was armed with. Once again, times have changed.

So, if we did ban guns - what should we do to insure that we don't become a military dictatorship? Scarletwine brought up a good point.

 

[STING2]

Consider too the vast difference in population. UK has about 52 million, we are coming up on 300 million. Consider also that some places in Wyoming and the Dakotas have more guns per capita the small population and have never had a murder, while the bigger cities kill hundreds each year. I honestly believe that drug related crime is the reason for this, not the guns themselves, as the western states prove.

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



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.

Even taking the fact that the United Kingdom population nearly 60 million is 5 times smaller than the USA, if you were to proportianlly extrapolate how many deaths the United Kingdom would have it had 300 million people, you would have 250 people killed per year compared to the United States which has 10,000.

The reason that states such as Wyoming and the Dakotas have smaller number of deaths from firearms is because the poverty rates in these area's are so much smaller than the inner cities. Firearm deaths and other crimes happen in area's that have higher levels of poverty which is the cities. Most people with guns in Wyoming and the Dakotas have not experienced gun violence not because they are armed to the teeth but because few people in those area's are attempting crimes or firearm violence do to the higher standard of living.

The guy in Florida would not have had to hire anyone to murder the people if he had a gun and was prepared to use it. It would have been faster and would have had a higher probability of success. Its true that your not going to prevent murder by disarming citizens of their guns, but the evidence from the United Kingdom and Ireland shows that you will significantly reduce it.

 

[BluberryPoptart]

BostonAnne- I am personally against guns because I am afraid of them and I oppose hunting. But I do believe they are necessary for protection in certain cases. While I am afraid to have one anywhere near me, my sister, who commutes 30 miles to work and drives home late at night, would not leave home without her little pistol under the seat. She should have that right. I also agree that if guns were all taken away or kept locked up somewhere we would be more in danger of a military dictatorship. As long as the general public is armed I believe our freedom is safer. The crime in the inner cities due to drugs is something else that needs to be addressed seperately. We should not ban all guns because of that violence, and as I said too murders are not going to stop because there are other weapons.

 

[STING2]

So, if we did ban guns - what should we do to insure that we don't become a military dictatorship? Scarletwine brought up a good point.

Well, whether you have the second amendment or not, citizens would not be capable of stopping the military with hand guns and rifles. It is the military that is dedicated to preventing the very outcome you are concerned about.

 

[Klaus]

Well, whether you have the second amendment or not, citizens would not be capable of stopping the military with hand guns and rifles. It is the military that is dedicated to preventing the very outcome you are concerned about.

STING2

Popmartijn also

And if you are armed and want to stop someone criminal, chances are verry high that we will be killed.
We can look at statistics of different countries to find out - the more weapons civilians have, the more civilians get murdered.

 

[BostonAnne]

BostonAnne- I am personally against guns because I am afraid of them and I oppose hunting. But I do believe they are necessary for protection in certain cases. While I am afraid to have one anywhere near me, my sister, who commutes 30 miles to work and drives home late at night, would not leave home without her little pistol under the seat. She should have that right. I also agree that if guns were all taken away or kept locked up somewhere we would be more in danger of a military dictatorship. As long as the general public is armed I believe our freedom is safer. The crime in the inner cities due to drugs is something else that needs to be addressed seperately. We should not ban all guns because of that violence, and as I said too murders are not going to stop because there are other weapons.

Thank you for the explanation. I'm afraid of guns too, unless I was supervised while using. I'd never own one and I also hate the thought of hunting.

Does anyone know of a link to show the rate of crime prevented because citizens had guns? All I ever hear is stories of things gone bad because a citizen had a gun - Child found it, the weapon was stolen, the gun owner turned bad, the gun was brought out in self defense but it made matters worse. I don't remember reading stories of people thankful that they had that gun to save themselves.

 

[BostonAnne]

Well, whether you have the second amendment or not, citizens would not be capable of stopping the military with hand guns and rifles. It is the military that is dedicated to preventing the very outcome you are concerned about.

Makes sense to me. GO military dedicated to preventing the outcome GO!

 

[Scarletwine]

I know MM is polemtic but he had some good stats on gun violence in Canada versus the US with very similar gun owning % of population. STINGS right it's the violence of the particular society not gun ownership. Drugs do account for part of it, but poverty is a greater contributing factor.

 

[BluberryPoptart]

I also said the inner cities drug problem was the reason for the violence more than the guns, since states with more guns have less crime.

Which leads me back to my old buddy, GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE DO!

 

[BluberryPoptart]

The reason UK and Ireland and even Canada don't have the murder rate we do is the same reason Wyoming and the Dakotas don't have the murder rate: the inner city drug culture which is so prevailent in US big cities and not so much in other countries or more rural areas.

Not to derail my own thread again, but these drug related shootouts are akin to the booze shootouts and gangland violence of prohibition, and legalizing and regulating drugs would do more to stamp out the culture than any gun laws!

 

[zoney!]

Dakotas have smaller number of deaths from firearms is because the poverty rates in these area's are so much smaller than the inner cities.

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!

 

[BVS]

Well this is a first in FYM. I agree 100% with Sting. I think a full out ban would be hard and take a long time, but I do believe it's what we would eventually need.

As for protection against the military...good luck, I don't think you and your assault rifle has a chance against say....a tank.

As for personal protection, your chances are small. Unless it was like the old west and you carried your arms on your hip, you are at a huge dissadvantage with someone who suprises you with a gun in your hand.

Murder will not end with the ban of the gun. But I'd take my chance with a weapon that forces you to make contact with me rather than something that allows them to stand 50ft. away. At least I could try and run.

 

[BluberryPoptart]

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!

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.

 

[anitram]

Well this is a first in FYM. I agree 100% with Sting.

Although there have been times I've agreed with him before, they have been rare and it's great to be at 100% on an issue.