Gun Control

[Pete]

In America (and other countries, I'm sure) today, there are many issues with gun control, largely dealing with military-style guns known as assault weapons. A congressional ban on these weapons had expired in 2004, allowing stores to sell 19 more types of weapons and various accessories and conversion kits, including increased magazine sizes, flash suppressors, and even lugs for attaching bayonets.

My question is this: Do you find this necessary? Do we really need assault weapons, or even bayonets for our rifles?

Personally, I fully support the second amendment, and the right to bear arms, but I believe that there should be some kind of limit to what you can purchase. For a soldier, fighting a war, yes, assault weapons are good and very necessary. They should have everything that they can get their hands on to be able to to the best possible job that they can do. While the wars fought may be of a questionable nature, it is only natural to want to see your own troops come back in one piece. (Please, let's not turn this into a debate on wars!)

For Joe Schmo walking down the street, I feel that carrying a Ruger or an AK-47 with banana clips and bayonet might be a tad bit unnecessary and even downright dangerous. While I feel that everyone should have the right to protect themselves, there should be some sort of line to be drawn. If you are in such a position where your life is in such danger, I don't feel that an assault rifle is so necessary, such a a change of venue or lifestyle. Granted, some people cannot avoid the danger, such a president's and other high ranking officials, and for the good of national security, it makes sense to have a military detail covering security.

Assault weapons would even appear to take the sport out of hunting. I'm no hunter, though I've fired various guns before (1911 Colt, a Glock, a .22-caliber rifle [don't remember the make], and a 12-gauge shotgun), I cannot see how going into the woods with such a rifle can be anything of a sport if the animal has zero chance of surviving due to a barrage of bullets. I do however see the sport in hunting with single action rifles, because in essence, you only get that one "perfect" shot at an animal, and it's up to you to track it and put yourself in the best position to make the best shot for the best kill. Using an assault weapon, in my opinion would only give you a Rambo like mentality, where you just point and fire at whatever moves, because the probability of a hit in shooting five rounds at a moving deer would be greater than firing one. Maybe people don't actually do this, but I'm trying to cover my bases here with hypothetical situations.

Anyways, your thoughts

[Lai]

As with you, I support the second amendment, but it's hard to decide how far you can let it really go. The constitution does allow arms, and all of the guns you brought up do constitute as "arms," so you really can't disallow those without going back on the Bill of Rights. (Note, not disagreeing with anything you say, just kind of typing as I think)

I agree with the notion that there's no reason for people to really carry those types of weapons on the streets, but that doesn't mean that the person doesn't have the right. For Joe Schmo, his reason might be simply that he wishes to exercise his right to do it. You can't really argue with a guy who's celebrating his freedom. As for the hunting bit, I can only assume the level of power people feel when they're holding a gun of such power in their hands. I would agree that it takes the sport out of hunting, but I'm also not a hunter so my opinion is far from objective.

No matter what kind of law you apply, there is always going to be a way around it. If you ban guns completely, you completely disregard the Bill of Rights. It's not that I absolutely love the thought of anyone (within reason) being allowed a firearm, but the fact is that it was one of the founding principles our country was built on. If it said "the right to bare geese", as ridiculous a notion as that is, I would just as quickly jump to defend our right to bare a flock of as many geese as we please.

I really don't think there is a proper solution. It's going to be a problem that will be ever evident, and people are always going to be upset about it. It's just one of those things, unfortunately.

[Aerif]

Well, you ask if it is nescarry to carry these heavy weapons that are considerably more dangerous than the normal sort of gun that any American has the right to buy. But truly, in my opinion, allowing the citizens of the US to buy, even simple handguns, is a step to far.

Of course, an ammendment allowing anyone to buy a bigger, more powerful, unnessecary gun is just wrong. Since I feel that any law allowing it's citizen's right to carry guns is silly, it doesn't come as any surprise to you that I dislike the idea.

Does America even need guns? From across the pond in Europe it just looks like the only things guns do, are to cause pain. If you feel the need to keep a gun in your home to defend against intruders, why don't you just install an alarm system that will call the police. After all, shooting the intruder is worse a crime than the intruder was commiting.

As for animal hunting, I don't really have any problems with traditional hunting guns. However I believe that these should be the only legal times that an American may posess a fire-arm.

To sum up: Why even have guns in the first place? Shooting someone will just get you into more trouble than they where originally going to get into.

[Sinister]

I think that with specially issued licenses you should be able to, upon occasion...shoot one in a range for recreation purposes. I say this merely because this is a favorite hobby out here and is much a part of the American love for freedoms. But I think that it is ridiculous to own one.

At home I have a fifty-caliber pistol.... That's right 50. That's too much gun anyway. I only own it because it is ridiculously impractically huge and it makes a loud bang. It represents probably my shallowest side. But Tao help me I love making watermelon mist with it.

But yes...the ban should be renewed with some possible revisions. In my opinion, no one, save those whose occupation demands it, should toy with these heavy weapons of war.

-Sin

[Walter Sobchak]

If you feel the need to keep a gun in your home to defend against intruders, why don't you just install an alarm system that will call the police. After all, shooting the intruder is worse a crime than the intruder was commiting.

You would be dead before they got there.

I always say that if everyone had a gun, there would be less crime, and its true. There is a reason that Virginia Tech went on as long as it did. Columbine as well. Students didn't have weapons (I am not saying the Columbine students should have) and the security was either unarmed or too spread out.

Europeans can't really comment on the American situation correctly because they don't understand it. Unfortunately, there is a terrible culture of violence in this country and that doesn't seem to stop. If you ban weapons, the guys who bought them from the USSR after it fell won't be returning them. Same with those who get them from somewhere else. You are putting your citizens at risk.

Also, the second amendment is designed to allow the common folk to resist invading countries or to rise up and overthrow their government, if they so choose. I wouldn't want to live in a country where the populous could not do that if they tried.

[Lai]

Of course, an ammendment allowing anyone to buy a bigger, more powerful, unnessecary gun is just wrong. Since I feel that any law allowing it's citizen's right to carry guns is silly, it doesn't come as any surprise to you that I dislike the idea.

It's just the system that's been in place ever since the drafting of the constitution. Times were much different back then, obviously, and there weren't as extreme weapons as there are today. They were still working with muskets and one-shot rifles back then.

[Furore]

I'm sort of torn on guns here myself. Guns are illegal in most cases here apart from rifle clubs and hunting and the like. Oh and farmers can get a license too I believe. Now it'd be all good and well if no-one could get their mitts on a firearm, but as it is, there are many places where those with the money or the lifestyle can get their hands on a gun, most often with some ammunition and a filed away serial number...

And most of these people get a gun with intent to use it to harm someone. That's the problem. These guys have guns. What do the people they're after have to defend themselves with? A knife, a baseball bat, something slower and less capable than a firearm.

I'd welcome guns here myself. But then I'd feel that a lot of Australian law would have to change to accommodate them. And we'd need to actually have a decent penalty for someone abusing a gun...

Oh and to end this little reply of mine, I have to say that if it were all possible, I'd gladly love an end to all non melee weapons in general. I just see them as an unnecessary evil I guess. Evil in that they don't really give the opponent a fair chance to strike back. And there's no fun in ending a conflict that fast anyways...

[Sasquatch]

God created man. Sam Colt made them equal.

That's what a personal firearm is. An equalizer. When a six-foot-three, two hundred and thirty pound man wants to rob the little old lady walking down the street, it's because he knows he can. If the little old lady has a gun, however, she presents more of a threat to him than he is to her, thus, she is safe.

As El Wray mentioned, statistics show a decreased crime rate in areas with more concealed carry rights. There are even counties that require every home to have a firearm, and crime rates in these districts are low, while surrounding districts are high.

Assailants always prefer their victims to be unarmed. This includes governments.

While I I don't see a reason for people to own heavy artillery or grenade launchers, I see no problem with automatic weapons. In the hands of law-abiding citizens, they pose no threat. Remember, it's the person who does violence with the gun, not the gun that causes the person to be violent.

A large problem with the gun-control crowd in America is that most people don't know what they're talking about. "Assault weapons", for example, are used to kill less people every year than are people's bare hands. And not everybody can just go out and buy a machine gun. It takes a long time, and a couple difficult-to-obtain permits and licenses to even own an automatic weapon.

Assault weapons would even appear to take the sport out of hunting. ... I cannot see how going into the woods with such a rifle can be anything of a sport if the animal has zero chance of surviving due to a barrage of bullets. I do however see the sport in hunting with single action rifles, because in essence, you only get that one "perfect" shot at an animal, and it's up to you to track it and put yourself in the best position to make the best shot for the best kill.

While I'm not a hunter, the object of hunting isn't to wound an animal and track it, it's to kill it as quickly as possible. This alleviates the mess, there's less work involved, and more meat is maintained in good quality.

Using an assault weapon, in my opinion would only give you a Rambo like mentality, where you just point and fire at whatever moves, because the probability of a hit in shooting five rounds at a moving deer would be greater than firing one.

An irresponsible person (in this case, I'll just call them a dumbass) with a bolt-action will still be irresponsible (again, dumbass) with any other firearm.

If you feel the need to keep a gun in your home to defend against intruders, why don't you just install an alarm system that will call the police. After all, shooting the intruder is worse a crime than the intruder was commiting.

The alarm system costs more, requires upkeep, and is nowhere near as effective. It's not like you see on television commercials, where and window is broken and the phone rings five seconds later to tell the family that the police are a minute away. More often than not, the mere presence of a gun is enough to end the situation -- as in, the intruder doesn't have to be shot to stop, just see that he might be.

And in many places, shooting the intruder is not "worse a crime than the shooter was commiting", as one would be defending themselves and their property. (We're not talking about California here, where a man can cut his leg as he breaks into a place through the skylight and sue the owner, we're talking about the real world.)

It's just the system that's been in place ever since the drafting of the constitution. Times were much different back then, obviously, and there weren't as extreme weapons as there are today. They were still working with muskets and one-shot rifles back then.

How do you figure that "times were different" in that sense? Everybody, even the military, could have "muskets and one-shot rifles". This means that the Constitution allows for the populace to be armed as well as the military is.

[Lai]

How do you figure that "times were different" in that sense? Everybody, even the military, could have "muskets and one-shot rifles". This means that the Constitution allows for the populace to be armed as well as the military is.

That's a good point. I didn't really think of it like that. I was only really thinking about it in the sense that it'd be very hard to really get that whole mass-shooting kind of effect. I also don't know what the crime rate was, as far as robbery goes, so I was going by an uneducated assumption that it was much lower then than it is now.

[Walter Sobchak]

College can be a pretty stressful time for a lot of people, especially in the highly competitive schools with the "elite" majors. This is purely hypothetical, but the argument can be made that firearms in an extremely high stress situation can be a deadly combination.

Yes, but a lot of college students can get a gun anyway. Cho did.

When a six-foot-three, two hundred and thirty pound man wants to rob the little old lady walking down the street, it's because he knows he can.

Exactly.

What do you think gets robbed more? A 7-11 where the employee doesn't fight back, or a family owned convenience store that stands to lose everything? Cop shows always show these people fighting back, and they arm themselves in case.

True. For this reason, I wouldn't doubt that the typical hunter would turn down an automatic weapon in favor of their hunting rifle. Sure, maybe we'd all try it a couple times, but in the end it's more about quality of shot, not quantity.

They had a scene about that in the Sopranos. I don't hunt, but I guess they feel that an assault weapon would be unsportmanlike.

[Pete]

James, I agree with you and disagree on the idea of students carrying weapons on campuses. In one sense, it does make sense and could potentially work to prevent massacres like Virginia Tech, by stopping them long before they get the chance to get off the ground. At the same time, you saw how unstable Cho (the VT killer) was, and what he was able to do with the weapons he had. College can be a pretty stressful time for a lot of people, especially in the highly competitive schools with the "elite" majors. This is purely hypothetical, but the argument can be made that firearms in an extremely high stress situation can be a deadly combination. I'm not even going to go into high school, because as we all know, the littlest bump in the road can become the end of the world, with how hormones and mood swings go.

Sasquatch, what you say does make sense. It isn't the gun itself that is the problem, but the owner. The major problem with this though, is that police forces and military forces have to keep inventing and using new and more advanced/powerful weaponry because criminals and enemy combatants are constantly one-upping them. It's a seemingly never ending cycle. In reality, a gun is only as dangerous as it's owner. I do feel though, that there should be some sort of mental screening outside of background checks and a couple of days waiting period. Hell, there might be, but I just don't know.

Also, about hunting, that was a poorly worded sentence on my part. I know you're not supposed to wound an animal and then follow the blood trail.

As for home alarm systems, while I do find them to be useful, particularly if you're out of town and nobody is watching your home, they do take some time to alert the proper authorities. While I'm no criminal, I've done enough reading (uggggh sociology class) to kind of understand the motivation for criminals doing breaking and entering. In short, most criminals only carry guns for intimidation purposes, because they really don't want to hurt anyone, they just want your stuff. This is mostly because murder/manslaughter/etc adds many years to a prison sentence.

Anyways, I hate to cut this short, but I gotta run!

[Merlin]

While I'm not a hunter, the object of hunting isn't to wound an animal and track it, it's to kill it as quickly as possible. This alleviates the mess, there's less work involved, and more meat is maintained in good quality.

That really makes no logical sense whatsoever. Hunting is no longer done for the purpose of putting food on the table, unless you live in an area where that is the only means or have beliefs that such a method is necessary.

What Pete mentioned was correct in that the sport of hunting is about tracking an animal, often for quite some time, looking for the best possible opening to make a clean shot. The object is to kill the animal in one shot so it does not suffer. Also, one-shot kills keep the carcass intact for mounting, food, or whatever else they wish to use it for. If you "pump it full of lead" you really aren't hunting, you're slaughtering defenseless creatures and are nothing more than a sadist.

Hunters don't rush out into a forest and start blasting an automatic at anything that moves. This isn't Grand Theft Auto or Halo. Hell, if you want to compare hunting, its a lot like fishing. Its a long, often time-consuming task that requires a great deal of patience.

~~~~~
In any case, that really is not the main issue of this topic, so I will switch my thoughts towards that.

One thing that has been made quite clear is that cities that have mandatory arms in every home have a sufficiently lower crime rate that it should be investigated further. I mean its quite easy to understand... Lets say a criminal pulls out a gun in a bank and threatens to shoot the place up if they dont give up the money. If almost every person pulls out a gun and points it at his ass... I think he would get the picture. He might take out one or two people, but he's going to be dead and other criminals would be thinking long and hard before they tried the same stunt.

The problem with this is it could lead to "bar fight mentality" taken to a whole new level. Lets take your average scuffle at a bar. Two jackasses fight over some girl and go to blows. Soon afterwards the whole bar is a disaster with random people beating each other up for no reason other than other people were doing it. The same goes for riots. What starts out as some harmless football fan spirit becomes an all-out riot where cars are destroyed, buildings are broken into and raided...

Now take keep those two images in your mind and put a gun in every person's hand. I don't think I need to explain further on that.

Also another problem is that none of those people are trained in gun safety and proper usage. An old lady with a pistol isn't that scary if she's sitting there shaking in her boots unable to figure out how to disable the safety. Or take Virginia Tech. A bunch of college students pulling out guns to take out a crazed student with automatic weapons could lead to just as many deaths from crossfire. The guy wanted to die anyway, so going down in a blazing gunbattle would have been fine by him. He would not have put down his arms.

So really, where are we left? Nowhere. The whole thing is one giant conundrum. Trying to solve the problem could just as easily create 10 more. Do I have the perfect solution? Nope. I don't think any of us do. I can only hope that we elect people who are intelligent to make the right decisions. Of course, the likelihood of that occuring is extremely low, but that is another topic in and of itself.

[Sasquatch]

James, I agree with you and disagree on the idea of students carrying weapons on campuses. In one sense, it does make sense and could potentially work to prevent massacres like Virginia Tech, by stopping them long before they get the chance to get off the ground. At the same time, you saw how unstable Cho (the VT killer) was, and what he was able to do with the weapons he had. College can be a pretty stressful time for a lot of people, especially in the highly competitive schools with the "elite" majors. This is purely hypothetical, but the argument can be made that firearms in an extremely high stress situation can be a deadly combination.

True, and something like that could definitely cause more bloodshed. But for instances when somebody just whips out a gun and starts shooting and somebody else is there with a personal firearm, it usually doesn't turn into a shootout -- instead, the situation stops before more blood can be spilled.

Sasquatch, what you say does make sense. It isn't the gun itself that is the problem, but the owner. The major problem with this though, is that police forces and military forces have to keep inventing and using new and more advanced/powerful weaponry because criminals and enemy combatants are constantly one-upping them.

Actually, most law enforcement agencies are moving towards non-lethal weaponry more than more powerful, lethal weapons. While I don't have a problem with shooting somebody that tries to, say, take people hostage until their "demands" are met, apparently some people frown upon that. The prime example against this, of course, is the North Hollywood Bank Robbery Shootout, when bank robbers had (illegally obtained, of course) fully-automatic weapons and thousands of rounds of ammunition. After discovering that the robbers were also wearing body armor, police officers had to buy rifles and ammunition from local pawn shops because their service sidearms weren't powerful enough. (Why one of 'em couldn't hit the head is beyond me, but still.)

Either way, law-abiding citizens without guns are no threat, just like law-abiding citizens with guns, no matter if they have a .22 pistol or an M2 .50-calibur machine gun.

I do feel though, that there should be some sort of mental screening outside of background checks and a couple of days waiting period. Hell, there might be, but I just don't know.

Most places have waiting periods for firearm purchases, and prettymuch all have mandated background checks, which include mental health history. I don't know if you really could make somebody go through a psychiatric evaluation before purchasing a gun.

That really makes no logical sense whatsoever. Hunting is no longer done for the purpose of putting food on the table, unless you live in an area where that is the only means or have beliefs that such a method is necessary.

Unless you're referring to exotic hunting, you're wrong. While sport may be part of it, very few hunters don't eat their kill. And while it's not exactly necessary, it is usually cheaper, and it combines food with sport. But it's not all sport, not at all.

What Pete mentioned was correct in that the sport of hunting is about tracking an animal, often for quite some time, looking for the best possible opening to make a clean shot.

Again, unless you're referring to exotic or big-game hunting, no. Most hunters hunt for food and enjoy it, not hunt for enjoyment and get food as a side-bonus. This is why there are stands, blinds, bait, towers, etc. -- because most hunters wait for prey to come to them. The old days when a man with a spear or a bow and arrows used to track an animal through the woods until he got close enough to kill it are, for the most part, long gone.

The object is to kill the animal in one shot so it does not suffer. Also, one-shot kills keep the carcass intact for mounting, food, or whatever else they wish to use it for. If you "pump it full of lead" you really aren't hunting, you're slaughtering defenseless creatures and are nothing more than a sadist.

True. For this reason, I wouldn't doubt that the typical hunter would turn down an automatic weapon in favor of their hunting rifle. Sure, maybe we'd all try it a couple times, but in the end it's more about quality of shot, not quantity.

The problem with this is it could lead to "bar fight mentality" taken to a whole new level. Lets take your average scuffle at a bar. Two jackasses fight over some girl and go to blows. Soon afterwards the whole bar is a disaster with random people beating each other up for no reason other than other people were doing it. The same goes for riots. What starts out as some harmless football fan spirit becomes an all-out riot where cars are destroyed, buildings are broken into and raided...

Now take keep those two images in your mind and put a gun in every person's hand. I don't think I need to explain further on that.

I think that's a pretty extreme view, don't you? Besides, nobody mentioned requiring everybody to carry a firearm. And when drunks in a bar or soccer fanatics become brawlers and rioters, they are no longer innocent, law-abiding civilians, are they?

Also another problem is that none of those people are trained in gun safety and proper usage.

Most states require safety courses to acquire firearms licenses. Same goes for Concealed Carry permits. So it's highly unlikely that somebody would buy a gun, load it, stick it in their purse, and forget about it until they needed it, then not know how to use it.

Or take Virginia Tech. A bunch of college students pulling out guns to take out a crazed student with automatic weapons could lead to just as many deaths from crossfire.

Except that this hasn't really happened before, whereas one responsible citizen with a concealed firearm stopping a gunman from killing more people has happened before.