Your views please

[rgraham666]

A blog entry about one of my favorite stories that is germane to this debate.

Also, once again, I will say how odd I find it that people would live in a place where your fellow citizens are such a danger to you that carrying a weapon is a necessity of survival.

 

[Weird Harold]

Trusting people on faith to be responsible with a firearm, which, again, was created to do one thing only--to kill--is not responsible.

I find it interesting how most people chose to overlook this point.

I don't choose to overlook that point, I just consider it an uninformed, prejudiced opinion that has no basis in fact or relevance to the intrusion of government regulation into what I am permitted to own.

Sure there are plenty of other things you could own that have the potential to cause death and destruction to others - cars, chainsaws, kitchen knives... But all of those inventions have other primary uses. Firearms are different. Why should it be anyone's "right" to own something that serves no purpose other than to kill other people?

The firearmes I own are not built, designed, or intended "to kill other people" although any of them could be used for that purpose, they are all built, designed and intended to kill things other than people -- with the debateable exception of the revolver's design intent. It is built, designed and intended as a close-in defense tool.

Are you that afraid of life that you need to have the power of death and your fingertips?

What are you so afraid of Guns that you need to control what I may or may not own.

You aren't afraid my neighbor's Bow and Arrows -- which is built, designed and intended for the same purposes as my firearms; i.e. throw a rock harder, faster and more accurately than it can be thrown by hand -- yet you are afraid that mere possession of a lethal weapon will erode my ability to make rational decisions or you are so afraid of the small percentage of iresponsible idiot who own guns that you have to punish the vast majority of responsible gun-owners to protect you from people who don't abide by any laws or use common snense in the first place.

If you are concerned about "gun violence" then target the people who cause gun violence, and not responsible law-abiding citizens -- preferably by writing effective legislation that doesn't discriminate based on the tools used but deals with the actions of the person who used them.

I've tried to ask this in threads here and in other places since the beginning of time, without ever getting a straight answer. et's see if you have better luck than me.

"You can...uh...do other things with guns too. Like...uh...open locks and stuff."

You can do the same thing with a firearm that you can do with a bow, crossbow, sling, slingshot (catapult,) or any other projectile weapon -- you can throw a rock, harder, faster, and further than you can with your hand. The only real difference with Firearms is that you can throw rocks with more efficiency from a smaller package, the basic principle and intent is otherwise the same.

Why is it that "Guns" are the only weapons that are the subject of specific restrictive legislation?

Is a doorjamb more damaged by a solid kick that rips it apart or by a precisely placed bullet that shatters the lock? (which, fwiw is a waste of ammunition in most cases.) Should the burglar be punished more for how he broke down the door than for the fact that he broke it down in the first place?

What is a weapon? Sword, dagger, gun, landmine... It's a tool designed to maximize the effect of violence.

A weapon is a tool to direct, focus and concentrate force. It's a device to replace mankind's meager natural weapons with something more effective. In the case of projectile weapons, a device to extend mankind's reach by aiding in the throwing of rocks through mechanical advantage.

I'm not saying guns are not sometimes needed. But they are what they are, and when they're needed they are a nessecary evil.

The way some people seem to have affection for weapons, is downright creepy.

I own guns, but I'm against "gun control" -- especially restirctions on simple ownership -- because "gun control" is a stupid, irrational and ineffective Prohibition of an object in fearful response to actions involving said object that have nothing to do with the object itself.

"Gun Control" does nothing to adress the issue of irresponsible and criminal people doing deliberate or accidental violence to their fellow humans except punish those who aren't contributing the problem and resent the infringement on their lives over the actions of others.

And to get back on topic, there are a lot of volatile tools, substances and such that I need a license and proper training to handle. From cars to chemicals to kids in a classroom. Why not weapons?

Because weapons, for the most part, don't present any danger to the general populace if they are not acted on by a human being. Firearms generally don't leak toxic vapors or explode when subjected to static electricity and in the very rare cases when untended, privately-held firearms do leak toxic vapors or explode, the direct damage is not worth a mention by the news media.

I"m far more concerned for my personal safety about illegal meth-labs in my apartment complex than I am by the probablility that there are more handguns, legal or illegal, in this apartment complex than there are occupioed apartments.

I'm more concerned about the idiots who drunkenly speed through the apartment complex to take out the gas meters on the building they crash into than I am by the fact that there might be an illegal gun in their car or on their person when they crashed.

I don't require a license or certification to buy reloading supplies, including gunpowder, nor are there any legal requirements for insuring safe storage of gunpowder by private individuals. There are storage requirements for commercial enterprises dealing with "bulk amounts" of gunpowder, but the minimum amount required to invoke the regulations is far above the amount it would be dangerous to store improperly in a multi-family dwelling or dense neighborhood of single family homes on small lots.

I don't know of any proposed regulation to "correct the oversight" that allows me to legally stockpile reloading supplies that would be far more dangerous to my neighbors than three rifles and a revolver sitting unused in a closet ever could be.

I don't have any particular affection for guns, nor so I find any particular appeal in illegal drugs. I do however have a great deal of disgust for the idiots who want to create more problems through Prohibition of Guns and Drugs than both combined have ever caused through the entire history of mankind.

The US learned the lesson of Prohibition with regards to alcohol, but doesn't seem to be able to extend the lessons to anything but alcohol.

Prohibition failed because it didn't address the perceived problems of alcohol abuse. Gun Control and the Drug War are failing for the same reason -- they don't address the problems of human actions and instead concnetrate on the possession of inanimate objects/substances which do nothing at all without human intervention.

 

[impressive]

No more (or less) strict than a driver's license.

A car's a lethal weapon, too.

 

[rgraham666]

As a frequent pedestrian, one who comes that close to being an accident statistic at least once a week, I'd tighten up the rules for driving as much as I'd tighten them up for obtaining a firearm.

 

[Saucy_Sage]

The idea that the government can grant a "license" connotes to me that the activity being licensed is a privilege, not a right. I can drive on my own property all I want, with or without a driver's license. I do need one, though, for the privilege of driving on state-owned roads.

Under the Second Amendment, I have a right to firearms. Having to obtain a license is incompatible with that right.

 

[Weird Harold]

No more (or less) strict than a driver's license.

A car's a lethal weapon, too.

A driver's license is "authorization to use in public," not a prequisite to ownership. Even the license plates are only an "authorization to be used in public."

There is no legal prerequisite I know of anywhere in the world to own a car, only restrictions on what can be done in public, or in "commonly held space." Having your name on the title of property -- cars, houses, land, et al -- is only a method of documenting o wnership, not a prerequisite for ownership.

 

[Safe_Bet]

The firearmes I own are not built, designed, or intended "to kill other people" although any of them could be used for that purpose, they are all built, designed and intended to kill things other than people -- with the debateable exception of the revolver's design intent. It is built, designed and intended as a close-in defense tool.

Don't be a hypocrite. Of course they are designed to kill people.

You can do the same thing with a firearm that you can do with a bow, crossbow, sling, slingshot (catapult,) or any other projectile weapon -- you can throw a rock, harder, faster, and further than you can with your hand. The only real difference with Firearms is that you can throw rocks with more efficiency from a smaller package, the basic principle and intent is otherwise the same.

Very damn few liquor store owners are killed by people carrying catapults. That is simply a ridicules example.

Why is it that "Guns" are the only weapons that are the subject of specific restrictive legislation?

Because they are compact, deadly and too readily available.


BTW, I AM a gun owner. I have pistols in my house and they are for self defense purposes. If some one breaks into my house intent upon harming me or my loved ones I will shoot them dead. THAT is the purpose of my firearms. I may use them for recreational purposes as well, but the damn things are designed and meant to kill people.

 

[Weird Harold]

Don't be a hypocrite. Of course they are designed to kill people.

I'm NOT being hypocritical, of the four guns I own, only the revolver could even be considered as "intended to kill people."

The others are two .270 winchester caliber bolt action rifles and one .22lr Remington semi automatic rifle. The two bolt actions are designe and built for killing medium sized wild game -- deer, antelope, etc -- and the .22 is built and designed for target shooting and small "varmint" hunting -- squirrels, rabbits, rats, etc.

The revolver is a single action Ruger Blackhawk with a long barrel which is a design optimized for cowboys to carry and use from horseback for protectiing herds from snakes, coyotes, and other medium sized predators without requiring them to carry a long gun.

All of them can kill "people" but that is NOT what they were designed built, or purchased to do.

The bottom line is that none of them can kill anything without my (or some other human's) direct, active, participation and none of them have any choice about what to "kill" when I provide that direct, active, human participation -- they just throw a rock at whatever they're pointed at as hard and as fast as they can.

Like you, I would have no qualms about killing anyone who is a threat to me or mine, but I do NOT own guns for that purpose. I do use the revolver for that purpose, since I do own one, but that is NOT the reason I own it.

I have various blunt or sharp objects scattered around my home that are more useful for home defense than the revolver and more accessible.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

I believe it would be in the interest of public safety, similar to licensing cars and their drivers. Of course, it would depend on the level of civility one aspired to in their chosen society.

...

Uh, I don't drive my gun down the road at 60 mph. Your analogy is screwy at best. While I might carry my weapon occasionally, I use my car on the public highways everyday.

 

[R. Richard]

OK, some of you are OK with the idea that the police could register guns. In the past, that sort of registration has led to seizure of privately owned guns.

Now, are you aware that the police are in no way, shape or form legally required to protect you?

 

[epiphany65]

OK, some of you are OK with the idea that the police could register guns. In the past, that sort of registration has led to seizure of privately owned guns.

Now, are you aware that the police are in no way, shape or form legally required to protect you?

Do you honestly believe that registering a gun would prevent a fascist gov't from going door-to-door to search for and confiscate guns? A piece of paper will not protect you from an illegal search and seizure.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Do you honestly believe that registering a gun would prevent a fascist gov't from going door-to-door to search for and confiscate guns? A piece of paper will not protect you from an illegal search and seizure.

But the constitution does exactly that.

 

[epiphany65]

But the constitution does exactly that.

Yes, but you've got a President who has said that the constitution is "...just a goddamned piece of paper" and an Attorney General who says it doesn't guarantee you the right to habeas corpus. One's rights can be taken away or suspended overnight by desposts and dictators despite the constitution. This is the source of some gun owners fears, and rightfully so.

 

[oggbashan]

But the constitution does exactly that.

The German Nazi Party won power in accordance with their constitution.

They then changed the constitution so that they stayed in power and arrested their political opponents, gradually so that people didn't object until it was too late.

In the 1930s many Germans had guns. They never used them against their government or even seriously opposed their government.

What makes US citizens feel they are more enlightened than 1930s Germans were?

Og

 

[DesertPirate]

There was a town in Ohio that took gun control in the other direction. They made it mandatory to have a firearm in the home and know how to use it. The crime rate fell so fast it was funny. When everyone is armed, criminals go elsewhere.
This happened in the early 90's as a comment on Clintons policies.

 

[epiphany65]

There was a town in Ohio that took gun control in the other direction. They made it mandatory to have a firearm in the home and know how to use it. The crime rate fell so fast it was funny. When everyone is armed, criminals go elsewhere.
This happened in the early 90's as a comment on Clintons policies.

That's interesting. Like most Canadians, I'm in favour of very strict gun laws, but there's quite a bit of real-world evidence that the exact opposite tact works very well at times. It makes me question my beliefs. I find it vexing.

 

[DesertPirate]

That's interesting. Like most Canadians, I'm in favour of very strict gun laws, but there's quite a bit of real-world evidence that the exact opposite tact works very well at times. It makes me question my beliefs. I find it vexing.

Washington DC had the most restrictive gun laws in the US for 30 years untill the Supreme Court struck them down this year.
They also had the highest violent crime/murder rate in the country.

Gun control doesn't work.

 

[rgraham666]

All I can think of is how much fun I could have with a string of firecrackers in that Ohio town.

 

[DesertPirate]

All I can think of is how much fun I could have with a string of firecrackers in that Ohio town.

You might be surprised to find out they actually think first.

 

[cloudy]

Owning a gun doesn't make you stupid, and Rob - you know this. Colly owned guns and was very against gun control.

 

[oggbashan]

Statistics for homicide with a firearm, adjusted for population, show that in 2004/5 the US had 34 times the UK rate. Switzerland had 3 times the UK rate.

We in the UK have more road deaths than total homicide by all means.

The US is paying a high price for gun ownership (legal or not).

Og

 

[R. Richard]

What makes US citizens feel they are more enlightened than 1930s Germans were?

Og

The best answer that I can give you is to read a book by J. Frank Dobie titled, 'The History of The American Frontier.' It's not about cowboys and Amerinds and shoot 'em up. It analyzes the impact of the American frontier on the development of the United States as a nation.

The book has been out of print for some time, but the answer to your question will be found there.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

There was a town in Ohio that took gun control in the other direction. They made it mandatory to have a firearm in the home and know how to use it. The crime rate fell so fast it was funny. When everyone is armed, criminals go elsewhere.
This happened in the early 90's as a comment on Clintons policies.

A town in Georgia did the same thing, although they never enforced it. Kenesaw, Ga. passed a law that all homeowners had to own a handgun for self protection. Crime rates dropped in that township also.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Yes, but you've got a President who has said that the constitution is "...just a goddamned piece of paper" and an Attorney General who says it doesn't guarantee you the right to habeas corpus. One's rights can be taken away or suspended overnight by desposts and dictators despite the constitution. This is the source of some gun owners fears, and rightfully so.

Yes, I was being sarcastic...I should have added to my post.

 

[Weird Harold]

Statistics for homicide with a firearm, adjusted for population, show that in 2004/5 the US had 34 times the UK rate. Switzerland had 3 times the UK rate.

We in the UK have more road deaths than total homicide by all means.

The US is paying a high price for gun ownership (legal or not).

Og

Ogg, Switzerland has more has a higher percentage of homes with guns than the US does because they have a true militia where every adult male is required to keep and maintain a weapon in his home.

The US may have more guns in the homes that have guns and a higher per capita rate of gun ownership, but there is nothing even close to the consistency of operable guns in the hands of trained shooters that exists in Switzerland.