Gun Control-What's your stance?

[white avenger]

My take:

If you feel that you need a gun to protect yourself-or your home-that's fine.

But you'd have to have a background check and be LICENSED to carry a gun-same as we do when driver's licenses are given out(after you've taken courses,etc.).

Remember: Just because you can,doesn't mean you should.

WA: I remember reading in a magazine some time ago that the NRA,about 30 years ago,wasn't all gung ho about protecting the 2nd Amendment. They were more moderate in their rhetoric,etc.(I could be wrong,but that's what I remember.)

Background checks and lisencing are fine as long as the process is consistent and kept confidential, but it has been illustrated more than once in the past that there is a potential for abuse by the agency administrating the testing. Likewise, registration of weapons serves no real purpose other than compiling a potential list for future confiscation at the whim of those in power at the time.

And it was 40 years ago, I believe, just after the passing of the Gun Control Act of 1968, that the gun owners' community first began to seriously oppose federal government interference with and re-interpretation of Article 2 of the Bill of Rights. That was only the second time in the history of this nation that the federal government had taken it upon itself to interfere with the right of citizens to keep and bear arms, and the decision was completely arbitrary and did absolutely nothing to address the issue of the illegal use or ownership of firearms, but instead only placed useless restrictions on honest citizens.

 

[ckg927]

WA: You misunderstood....I'm not up for registering weapons. Just the people who can carry them.

And,just as if your driver's license can be suspended or revoked if you're caught driving drunk,so too should your license to carry a gun be suspended or revoked if you're caught committing a crime with a gun...including,but not limited to,robbery or murder.

 

[Blondie Bear]

I think that some people have a vague notion (or fully formed notion) that guns have a mind of their own. That owning one will corrupt you and turn you into a criminal. That it's INEVITABLE that a gun owner will eventually snap and go on a rampage. Guess what? It's not. A gun is an inanimate object. It cannot jump up and force you to do its evil bidding. I admit, when my hubby first bought a pistol (he'd owned a few rifles and a shotgun before that), I was nervous having it around. But after a few days of it being in the house, either in his holster, sitting next to him, or in the gun safe, and nothing untoward happening, I realized what I just said. The gun will not hop up and kill me. The gun will not force me to kill someone else or myself. The gun is a lump of steel, plastic, and springs that cannot do anything that its handler doesn't cause to happen.

Also, owning a gun does not INDICATE that you are already a bad person and have bad intentions. I own a pistol. I really really really never ever want to have to use it except at the range. I don't know if I could kill somebody, but by GOD, I am not going to let them kill me first if I can prevent it. And as Rowan Hawthorne pointed out, often drawing the weapon makes the other person go away, because THEY don't want to die, either.

Studies in jails have shown that criminals are less likely to attack if there's the slightest chance that their intended victim is capable of protecting themselves. They have also shown that criminals do not care about, much less obey, gun laws. In fact, they love gun control because it makes THEIR job easier. Criminals tend to be cowards. They're taking the easier way of getting food, drugs, money, whatever--taking them away from those of us that have worked for them. If you have the ability to defend yourself, a criminal will not bother you, because s/he is a coward, not a Marine.

/soapbox

 

[white avenger]

WA: You misunderstood....I'm not up for registering weapons. Just the people who can carry them.

And,just as if your driver's license can be suspended or revoked if you're caught driving drunk,so too should your license to carry a gun be suspended or revoked if you're caught committing a crime with a gun...including,but not limited to,robbery or murder.

The problem with that is that almost all robberies, murders, assaults, and any other crime committed with guns that are not registered by criminals who are not licensed and never had to undergo a waiting period before getting their gun because they either stole it from an honest person or bought it in an alley from an illegal dealer.

In a perfect world, passing a law making something, like robbery, rape, or murder illegal would mean that it would never be done. Unfortunately, we both know that this is a far from perfect world, and making the law abiding citizens helpless from the predators will only serve to make it worse.

 

[Tueuse de Vampires]

I think that some people have a vague notion (or fully formed notion) that guns have a mind of their own. That owning one will corrupt you and turn you into a criminal. That it's INEVITABLE that a gun owner will eventually snap and go on a rampage. Guess what? It's not. A gun is an inanimate object. It cannot jump up and force you to do its evil bidding. I admit, when my hubby first bought a pistol (he'd owned a few rifles and a shotgun before that), I was nervous having it around. But after a few days of it being in the house, either in his holster, sitting next to him, or in the gun safe, and nothing untoward happening, I realized what I just said. The gun will not hop up and kill me. The gun will not force me to kill someone else or myself. The gun is a lump of steel, plastic, and springs that cannot do anything that its handler doesn't cause to happen.

I agree that not every gun owner will eventually abuse their weapon, BUT what I'm saying is that people are often controlled by emotions, not reason. Who here can honestly say they have never done anything rash, driven by emotions? I can't. These are the problematic moments. Just think about it, if you've really lost it, can't think straight anymore, feel like killing someone for a moment, are you saying there is not a chance you would take the weapon and do something you later regretted? even if you wouldn't do anything like this, there are tons of people out there that would. How many crimes are committed in the heat of the moment? Most people who committed these crimes probably wouldn't have thought about ever doing something criminal, just as soon as they were driven by emotions they couldn't think straight anymore. And I know you can do stupid things without guns, but no need to make it easy.

Studies in jails have shown that criminals are less likely to attack if there's the slightest chance that their intended victim is capable of protecting themselves.

Okay, so let's give everyone a gun and let criminals attack these groups of people that aren't allowed to carry any...like children and teenagers. Would that be any better?

 

[Rowan Hawthorn]

Okay, so let's give everyone a gun and let criminals attack these groups of people that aren't allowed to carry any...like children and teenagers. Would that be any better?

Criminals already attack those groups of people - in criminal terms, "Weaker" = "Victim". Prevent adults from being able to own their best means of defending themselves and all you do is double the size of the "Weaker" group, therefore you double the size of the "Victim" group. How is that better?

Think of it this way: If you were a criminal, who would you rather target as a potential victim: you - or me?

 

[palabravampiress]

I agree that not every gun owner will eventually abuse their weapon, BUT what I'm saying is that people are often controlled by emotions, not reason. Who here can honestly say they have never done anything rash, driven by emotions? I can't. These are the problematic moments. Just think about it, if you've really lost it, can't think straight anymore, feel like killing someone for a moment, are you saying there is not a chance you would take the weapon and do something you later regretted? even if you wouldn't do anything like this, there are tons of people out there that would. How many crimes are committed in the heat of the moment? Most people who committed these crimes probably wouldn't have thought about ever doing something criminal, just as soon as they were driven by emotions they couldn't think straight anymore. And I know you can do stupid things without guns, but no need to make it easy.



Okay, so let's give everyone a gun and let criminals attack these groups of people that aren't allowed to carry any...like children and teenagers. Would that be any better?

I'm sorry, but your reasoning in this is simply not in accordance with the law. We punish citizens with the removal of their rights after crimes have been committed and proven in a court of law, not in advance just in case they one day go off their rockers and decide to commit crimes.

When you apply this reasoning to any other object, it stops making sense. Should we enact computer control laws because the computer is a nefarious object that people might use for the purpose of stealing or hacking? Almost everyone I know who owns a computer has committed at least one crime with it. Does that mean computers should be banned? Almost everyone I know has at one point or another (whether accidentally or on purpose) committed a crime (a traffic violation) with a car. Should cars be banned (of course, we already have to register and insure those, but still)? It is just as easy to mug someone with a sharp kitchen knife or even with a fishing knife or some other bladed tool as it is to do so with a gun; should we all have to register our knives? Should knives be banned for everyone today just in case a few knife owners are driven mad tomorrow and use their knives for the purpose of committing crime? Some objects are potentially more dangerous than others, but nearly *any* object can be used in a dangerous manner by a determined human. To place limitations and restrictions on citizens in anticipation of a possible crime really does create an undue burden and become a clear violation of civil rights. It puts us in an "are your papers in order?" society in which citizens don't have rights; instead, they have to petition the government for permission before they do things.

You may not like guns. A lot of citizens may not like guns. That's fine. There's no law saying you have to have one. But there *is* a law that says I'm allowed to have one. You don't get to take that away just because it makes you uncomfortable. I don't know when or why some people suddenly seem to think it works that way, but they need to go back to school and retake American Government. You only get to take my rights away if I use that gun to commit a crime -- even if you don't appreciate or make use of or even like that right, yourself. Why is that so hard for people to understand?


The worst part is that supporters of gun control laws never want to address that issue, probably because there really is no good way to refute it. They want to say Guns = bad. They want the law to protect the rights they like or use, but punish other citizens for making use of laws they don't like or use. They want to have their cake and eat it, too, but they don't want to look at the legal ramifications of their campaign.

 

[Blondie Bear]

I agree that not every gun owner will eventually abuse their weapon, BUT what I'm saying is that people are often controlled by emotions, not reason. Who here can honestly say they have never done anything rash, driven by emotions? I can't. These are the problematic moments. Just think about it, if you've really lost it, can't think straight anymore, feel like killing someone for a moment, are you saying there is not a chance you would take the weapon and do something you later regretted? even if you wouldn't do anything like this, there are tons of people out there that would. How many crimes are committed in the heat of the moment? Most people who committed these crimes probably wouldn't have thought about ever doing something criminal, just as soon as they were driven by emotions they couldn't think straight anymore. And I know you can do stupid things without guns, but no need to make it easy.

This is about personal responsibility. If you know you have a tendency to settle things with violence, then don't carry a gun. No big. Alcoholics have to stay away from alcohol, drug addicts have to stay away from drugs, violent people have to stay away from situations in which they may engage in violence. BUT not every confrontation you get into has to escalate into violence. How many times have you swung at someone for pissing you off? How often does an argument escalate into physical violence? I personally have never been in a fistfight. No one has ever pissed me off that badly. Therefore, I can be reasonably certain that I will never shoot someone "in the heat of the moment." If you can't trust your emotions enough to do that, then don't give yourself the opportunity to kill someone. That's fine. But do NOT infringe on MY personal liberties because you can't trust you. Because I CAN trust me.

 

[palabravampiress]

Blondie Bear agrees: SS is from Germany--they don't have the same laws/rights/ideas there. I agree with you, but she does have a completely different perspective on the thing.

Oh! Good point!

I'm sorry, Social Suicide. I didn't realize.

Your opinion might make more sense in your own country; I'm not sure how that works in Germany.


My opinion only pertains to the United States. I am in no way trying to say that guns should be allowed in your country or in any other country. I am just trying to say that, in the U.S., the rights of the people should not be infringed except by due process of law. If you don't want guns in your country, that's fine.


And with that in mind.... hey! You're from Germany and you were calling my constitution outdated? No fair! Back away from my constitution. lol. I love my constitution muchly. I feel sorta like Buffy did when that blonde vampire had her Mr. Gordo.

 

[RogueHunter]

Its also good to keep in mind that a knife can beat a gun up to a distance of about 15'.

 

[Blondie Bear]

Its also good to keep in mind that a knife can beat a gun up to a distance of about 15'.

What? I'm confused. Can you clarify that?

 

[Kemy]

For the damage they've done, I'm still more for guns than against. I own replica's and several forms of blades and have a knowledge of how to use both.

Sharpened implements and knives predate the gun by a considerable chunk of Human history, yet knives of every size and shape, insanely sharp ones, are available in large quantities in any supermarket you care to walk into, conveniently placed right out in the open for anyone old enough to purchase there and then.

But you basically trust every single person that walks into the store not to just lift one off the rack and go on a killing spree with them, and in nearly 100% of cases, they don't.

Guns are dangerous, obviously, then again so is nearly any other object in your home if used right. I know how to turn a piece of string and two pieces of wood into a bow and arrow, going to make sure I never go near a branch again in my life?

If used right protecting one's home, or at a range with adequate security, guns can be used in mature or proper manner, and most people will do so. I know there are a few idiots and mentally ill people that will miss sue them, but take away the gun and all they'll do is go to the shops and buy a dozen butcher knives. Do not diminish the right of the vast majority of mature individuals because of a small few who abuse this right.

Criminals break the law everyday, we don't just scrap everyones rights and shove them all in jail "just in case". We deal with the odd ones out who break these rules and leave the people who do adhere to them alone.

 

[ckg927]

Its also good to keep in mind that a knife can beat a gun up to a distance of about 15'.

And,if you ever get your hands on a ballistic knife(which are highly regulated and illegal in the U.S. for everyone save for highly trained military personnel),maybe even farther. (However,it works more on the element of surprise than anything else.)

 

[white avenger]

What? I'm confused. Can you clarify that?

I think what RH is referring to if that if I am within arm's reach of you, I can cut you or even kill you with a knife before you can draw and fire a handgun. At a greater distance, however, the advantage goes to the pistol.

 

[Randy Giles]

If nobody could get a gun in the first place people wouldn't need to defend themselves...

Sorry but that's bullcrap. And even if guns were illegal, people would still get them. Or just use other weapons, or even make their own.

 

[Blondie Bear]

Sorry but that's bullcrap. And even if guns were illegal, people would still get them. Or just use other weapons, or even make their own.

Seriously. Look what people in prison manage to do to each other.

 

[RogueHunter]

Its standard training in the police academy that a suspect with a knife can cover 7 yards or 21 feet before a gun can be drawn from a holster and leveled.

 

[Rowan Hawthorn]

Its also good to keep in mind that a knife can beat a gun up to a distance of about 15'.

That depends entirely on the people involved. The last time I had a chance to shoot against a timer, I "killed" two separate silhouette targets at about that distance from a signalled start (i.e., I had to wait for a signal to flash before drawing, so it includes my reaction time) in 35/100 of a second. That doesn't allow a knife man much time to cover the ground and do his work. (There's a reason for the old joke about the man who "brought a knife to a gunfight...")

 

[white avenger]

That depends entirely on the people involved. The last time I had a chance to shoot against a timer, I "killed" two separate silhouette targets at about that distance from a signalled start (i.e., I had to wait for a signal to flash before drawing, so it includes my reaction time) in 35/100 of a second. That doesn't allow a knife man much time to cover the ground and do his work. (There's a reason for the old joke about the man who "brought a knife to a gunfight...")

It also depends on the situation. If somebody stands just out of arm's reach from you waving a Bowie knife around and yelling, "I'm gonna cut you!" you have a much better chance of drawing and firing than if someone in a completely non-aggressive manner walks up, asks, "Can you tell me the time?" and stabs you while you're looking at your watch. The average person, taken by surprise like that, is cut at least, killed at worst. If the man with the knife can get close enough before a threat is realized, no matter how the victim is armed, he's hurt or dead. In that case, bringing a gun to a knife fight is just as dangerous as the other way around.

Note that I said the "average person" above. There are people who can manage to stay at a state of alert for long periods at a time, trained and conditioned to react instantly to a situation like this and stand a far better chance of surviving that that "average person" does. There just aren't that many of them.

 

[ckg927]

Seriously. Look what people in prison manage to do to each other.

And you'll see it every time you watch either "OZ" or MSNBC's "Lockup".