Your views please

[epiphany65]

Oh?

Licensure provides a future tyrrannical government with a handy list of who to round up and what to confiscate.

Of course that could never happen here . . .

Oh?

It makes their job somewhat easier, but don't you think they'd do it regardless? And do you think they'd assume everyone is law-abiding and neglect to search the homes of those who hadn't applied for a license? Besides, citizens living under a tyrant would be likely to go beyond just guns. I mean, if they could get their hands on some magnesium or something.

 

[rgraham666]

The biggest problem with 'guns protect us from our government' argument is that it assumes that everyone will be agreed that the tyranny is a bad thing and everyone will fight against it.

There's nothing that says a person with a gun won't pick up that gun and use it to support the tyranny. A lot of people like tyranny. Especially if it lets them kill 'the other' with impunity.

 

[JagFarlane]

Your source for reliable UK information is a site devoted to support of the second amendment and which is paid for by gun adverts.

Here are some actual rates for homicide using a Gun.

USA 37.2 per million per year
Italy 16.6
England 1.1
Australia 4.4
Germany 2.2
Switzerland 5.8
Japan 0.2

I agree with some of the points you make particularly within 1 and 2 above but when you suggest that the level of violent crime in England is 7 or 8 times greater than USA that is clearly so absurd you damage rather than support your argument. You have a decent basis for your case but not the ridiculous numbers you quoted.

To be fair I got my numbers from Guncite which is also a site devoted to supporting the second amendment. However on this site they present the difficult numbers but then also present detailed arguments to support their contention that gun posession alone is not causal.

Sorry but I couldn't get the Guncite link to work.

Ummmm first off I have to point out that there are only 303 million people in the USA, so your numbers are off.
Secondly, take note of all the sources that I provide. The first source provided in the first post sites numbers used by the British Office of Home Security. The second site states numbers published by Interpol. The third site is a Welsh site stating the numbers provided, all from different years, 2006, 2001, and 2008 accordingly.
You also seem to fail to take into account the violent crimes that happen in the areas suggested. You still have IRA actions in Ireland for one. For two, there has been a growing number of knife attacks in England.
Also, you are failing to take into account the fact that the numbers stated are per 100,000 individuals. That is a more fair number to judge things by when you consider the populations. In England in 2006, for example, the population was 60 million people vs the 300 million people in the US. Naturally the numbers will be larger due to the larger population.

 

[Weird Harold]

The biggest problem with 'guns protect us from our government' argument is that it assumes that everyone will be agreed that the tyranny is a bad thing and everyone will fight against it.

There's nothing that says a person with a gun won't pick up that gun and use it to support the tyranny. A lot of people like tyranny. Especially if it lets them kill 'the other' with impunity.

Gee, Rob, that sounds just like the American Revolution's problems with Tories/Crown Loyalists.

You know which revolution I mean, the one fought against "English Tyranny" byt the authors of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights? The one that turned from protest to revolution when the English Army marched on Concord Lexington to seize their weapons?

It is also a verifiable fact that every Tyrannical government since then has first outlawed private ownership of guns -- often after a period of "gun control" involiving registration or taxation of individual weapons, which produced a list of privately held guns to check off when it came time to seize the guns.

In today's apathetic world of high-tech military weapons, civilian firearms are a pretty weak defense against a government, but it was a clear intent of the authors of the second ammendment to make it possible, no matter how unlikely.

Some of us -- Roxxy et al -- are a bit more paranoid about government tyranny, but the constant efforts to restrict us for "the good of the children" or "for our own good" keep the thought of revolution alive.

 

[iamincognito45]

Lisa, you seem to assume that supporting strict gun control for non-criminals equals supporting lax gun control for criminals. Sorry, but that's just plain fallacious.

One of the rationale in countries that enforce strict gun control is that if every Joe Schmoe doesn't have an arsenal at home, and every other store doesn't sell guns and ammo, there will be less weapons in circulation and less weapons for the criminals to get their hands on.

And guess what, it actually works. A weapon is much harder to obtain illegally, much harder to sell illegally and is treated like particularly "hot" black market goods, being traded very nervously by the bad guys. And on average, much fever firearms in the hands of criminals. Because people know that if they see a gun, it's most likely an illegal one, and they call the fuzz. Illegal guns are so rare that people are not afraid to get shot by a burglar - you're just as likely to get hit by lightning.

Now would that work in the US? Doubtful, because the situation is different, there are all those guns there already and you can't put the genie back in the bottle, so to speak.

But the idea itself is not all that idiotic, and it's NOT the same as being soft on criminals.

LD was right. No, or very few ideas, in and of themselves are idiotic. Yes there are many guns in the US. That fact alone makes much of the premise of effectiveness of gun control challenging.

But I do find it interesting that you suggest that gun control is NOT supporting lax gun control for criminals while still suggesting that illegally obtained guns are considered 'hot' black market goods. What part of legally and responsibly owned guns is inconsistent with your assertion "Because people know that if they see a gun, it's most likely an illegal one"? Where I live, both are true. A great many people own guns legally AND responsibly. And if you see a gun, it IS IN FACT, most likely an illegally one.

The point being, legally and responsibly owned guns are NOT the problem. Illegal and irresponsibly owned guns ARE the problems. Yet the fact is, in the US, THIS is not treated as a serious problem. It certainly is not aggressively investigated or prosecuted. The easy solution by those afraid of that which they do not understand is to try to legislate against it. As opposed to enforcing laws already in existence.

It's odd to me that all the civil liberty voices crying out against cameras in public venues, personal searches at the airport, and arguing for citizen rights applied to illegal aliens and foreign terrorists, etc. are the same people that decry legal and responsible ownership of guns by law abiding citizens.

I'm NOT more afraid of getting shot by a burglar than I am about getting struck by lightning. I think the point is, is a burglar more afraid of getting shot for breaking into my house than HIS getting struck by lightning?

 

[iamincognito45]

But is the U.S. even trying to fix the big problems?

It seems to me, no. For the most part Americans seem to be happy with a country so dangerous that weapons are required for personal safety. If this means endemic violence at levels no other country in the developed world suffers, they regard it as a necessary price to pay.

That's your choice. I disagree with it.

What exactly is THE problem? Illegal violence and criminal activity? If that is your answer, then I will agree that we are doing very little to address THE problem. An overly liberal judicial system that favors criminal rights over those of victims is a problem. As is the lax enforcement and prosecution of said violent and criminal activity.

Weapons are not required for personal safety. That is something each person needs to decide for themselves. But it is something currently allowed and the very thing many want to defend. Their RIGHT to defend themselves, should they chose to do so.

That's my choice, and you are welcome to disagree.

The biggest problem with 'guns protect us from our government' argument is that it assumes that everyone will be agreed that the tyranny is a bad thing and everyone will fight against it.

There's nothing that says a person with a gun won't pick up that gun and use it to support the tyranny. A lot of people like tyranny. Especially if it lets them kill 'the other' with impunity.

For the most part, guns are far better protection against others wishing to do us or our property harm than they are against our government. This is an argument for the need to retain the right to protect yourself and your property when the government cannot or is unwilling to do so. (see post above)

However, in the event that civil unrest becomes serious enough to result in an uprising against the government on a nationwide scale (i.e. not on a small scale like some psycho fringe group that pops up from time to time), the government will in fact find it difficult to 'control' the uprising. Oddly enough, even in this scenario, the bigger problem will come from the have nots trying to take, violently if necessary from the haves when the government fails to provide for them because they are in incapable of providing for or defending themselves. Once again, guns will be used to protect ourselves, our loved ones and our property from others first, THEN from the government.

 

[SeaCat]

Okay so many of you here do not advocate the licensing of firearms owners, just as I do not advocate the registering of firearms.

I have even seen one or two people here speaking about some of my other ideas, so lets go with them.

We don't license the owners. Anyone can own and/or carry. You buy it and you can pack it.

We will however have to have laws governing the use of said firearms. What laws would you like to see and how would they be enforced?

Cat

 

[DesertPirate]

Self defense, better be able to prove it!
That is the only use other than hunting and target shooting I would consider.

 

[iamincognito45]

I suppose if guns are banned, I can always head down to Home Depot and pick up some parts for around the house.

http://mirror.linnwood.org/flamethrower/

 

[Weird Harold]

We will however have to have laws governing the use of said firearms. What laws would you like to see and how would they be enforced?

I would prefer that all reference to fireams, "gun crimes," or any other distinction by weapon type -- other than a distinction between crimes involving "a threat of deadly force" vs "a threat of bodily harm."

IMHO, the Ideal legal code would consist of "An' it Harm no Other, Do as thou wilt."

Punishment for "harming another" should be commensurate with the amount of harm; not precisely an-eye-for-an-eye but definitely a "let the punishment fit the crime" level of equibility. Punishments should be doubled for intentional harm over the same amount of harm due to negligence.

Note, there is no mention in that philosophy of any distinction based on any objects involved in causing any harm.

That philosphy does NOT eliminate the right to self-defense, even to the extent of sef-defense with deadly force/deadly consequence. BUT... you better be able to prove it was self-defense.

 

[rgraham666]

Cat, I've thought about this and I can come to only one conclusion.

A society where practically everyone past voting age carries weapons is one that has admitted that it is a society where violence is an expected, and probably preferred, method of dealing with conflicts and solving problems.

At that point the people in it will quickly be divided into one of two categories; the quick and the dead.

All the laws and social mores human beings dream up will be unable to stop this.

 

[Weird Harold]

A society where practically everyone past voting age carries weapons is one that has admitted that it is a society where violence is an expected, and probably preferred, method of dealing with conflicts and solving problems.

I'm confused just a bit. Where has anyone suggested that practically "everyone past voting age" does or should carry a weapon? Those of us who oppose gun control do so because we believe that responsible people should be premitted to own anything they want and that controls should be placed on actions, not objects.

As for everyone carrying a "weapon," I carry one all the time -- the problem is while the object hasn't changed in the twenty-plus years that this particular object has been a constant companion, it has only become a "weapon" fairly recently. The "Weapon" in question is a 3cm penknife made by Buck. The blade locks for safety, so it is now classed as a weapon, regardless of it's length.

I'm against gun control because I resent being treated as a dangerous criminal because the idiots that can afford to get elected to congress are afraid that I will suddenly start foaming at the mouth and carving people into (very small) pieces. After all, other people have used very small blades that lock into position to commit horrendous crimes, so anyone who would actually carry a similar object must be right on the verge of similar violence.

The definition of "weapon" has consistently gotten stricter to the point where the Boston Market commercial where an office building panics because a lady brough "real food" for lunch and is using a table knife for it's intended purpose of cutting food into bite sized pieces is almost a plausible scenario.

 

[SeaCat]

I'm confused just a bit. Where has anyone suggested that practically "everyone past voting age" does or should carry a weapon? Those of us who oppose gun control do so because we believe that responsible people should be premitted to own anything they want and that controls should be placed on actions, not objects.

As for everyone carrying a "weapon," I carry one all the time -- the problem is while the object hasn't changed in the twenty-plus years that this particular object has been a constant companion, it has only become a "weapon" fairly recently. The "Weapon" in question is a 3cm penknife made by Buck. The blade locks for safety, so it is now classed as a weapon, regardless of it's length.

I'm against gun control because I resent being treated as a dangerous criminal because the idiots that can afford to get elected to congress are afraid that I will suddenly start foaming at the mouth and carving people into (very small) pieces. After all, other people have used very small blades that lock into position to commit horrendous crimes, so anyone who would actually carry a similar object must be right on the verge of similar violence.

The definition of "weapon" has consistently gotten stricter to the point where the Boston Market commercial where an office building panics because a lady brough "real food" for lunch and is using a table knife for it's intended purpose of cutting food into bite sized pieces is almost a plausible scenario.

Harold,

In the hospital where I work the staff are banne from carrying anything that might be considered a weapon. Yes this does include pocket knives irregardless of their blade length.

Any Scissors have to be the blunted tip kind. (ONly M.D.'s are allowed to have the sharply pointed little ones they use for removing stitches, and even these are carefully acounted for.) Maintenance are allowed to have such things as screwdrivers, but they have to be kept in locking tool boxes. All pens have to be plastic bodied pens. No pens with metal bodies, ie. Parker, Cross, Shaeffer or Mont Blanc. (The only reason they don't make us use Crayons is because the state wont approve them for the paperwork.) Believe it or not these rules were pushed through by my very own supervisor.

Oh and don't get me started on the hospital policy of using violence for any reason including Self Defense on Hospital Property.

Cat

 

[iamincognito45]

Cat, I've thought about this and I can come to only one conclusion.

A society where practically everyone past voting age carries weapons is one that has admitted that it is a society where violence is an expected, and probably preferred, method of dealing with conflicts and solving problems.

At that point the people in it will quickly be divided into one of two categories; the quick and the dead.

All the laws and social mores human beings dream up will be unable to stop this.

I have to respectfully disagree. Rather than a propensity of all to unbridled violence, I rather think you would be surprised to find a greater degree of calm. I believe the vast majority of violence is perpetrated by armed criminals against unarmed victims. The criminals feel impunity, confident that they will not be met with equally violent resistance. They feel empowered, not afraid for themselves.

The city in Georgia where firearm ownership is REQUIRED of all residents has one of the lowest crime rates in the country. Hardly the free for all body count you suggest. I often find myself surrounded by gun owners with loaded firearms at the shooting range. Oddly enough, no one get's shot save the incredibly rare accident. Certainly there are no intentional shootings. Why? Because these people are responsible owners, knowledgeable in safe gun handling. I feel safe there. Not afraid.

One of the problems in today's society, is that too much violence is tolerated and not rigorously prosecuted. Acts of violence are too often met with resigned acceptance and compassion for the criminal. Surely there was something that led him to such violent behavior. It's not their fault. They need to be nurtured and understood and forgiven and released. Time after time, after time. What happened to personal responsibility and accountability for one's actions?

 

[iamincognito45]

Self defense, better be able to prove it!
That is the only use other than hunting and target shooting I would consider.

That philosphy does NOT eliminate the right to self-defense, even to the extent of sef-defense with deadly force/deadly consequence. BUT... you better be able to prove it was self-defense.

Certainly, this is almost always the case. But self defense, or proof of being directly threatened is not always required for the lawful use of deadly force. Some specific state laws and Castle Doctrines allows for certain circumstances where the use of deadly force is allowed even without being threatened in the traditional sense.

There have been some very celebrated cases recently where this has proven true.

 

[SeaCat]

Certainly, this is almost always the case. But self defense, or proof of being directly threatened is not always required for the lawful use of deadly force. Some specific state laws and Castle Doctrines allows for certain circumstances where the use of deadly force is allowed even without being threatened in the traditional sense.

There have been some very celebrated cases recently where this has proven true.

And there have been some of those where I did not agree with the self defense claim.

One of these was here in Florida not too long ago.

A guy got into an argument with a couple of young guys. They left. Later on he was walking his dog with a friend of his when these young guys showed up again in a car. They drove at him and he felt threatened. He pulled his piece and fired at the car which then veered off the road, hit a tree and stopped.

Up until this point I agreed with the self defense plea.

Unfortunately he then walked up to the car and fired several more rounds into the car. Two people died.

To me this was not self defense. The threat had been neutralised. In my mind his walking up to the car and firing into it was pure murder and he should have been prosecuted.

Cat

 

[Kikori]

1.) No criminal record relating to dangerous / offensive behavior.
2.) Must make a minimum income (ask me why or message me privately and I'll explain, if this is offensive to anyone)
3.) Must go through training for proper handling.
4.) Must consent to some form of public or community service along with or pertaining to the firearm, such as neighborhood watch.

 

[Weird Harold]

...proof of being directly threatened is not always required for the lawful use of deadly force. ...

The defintion of what self-defense consists of is critical. You have to know what constitutes self defense and what is excessive use of force in your particular jurisdiction.

I an ideal world -- and those "castle doctrines" you mention -- a person can act proactively in self-defense based on the assumption of criminal intent by virtue of a person being in place or performing an action that are normal precursors to criminal violence.

I probably should have added that there is room in a rational world for a defense of "justifiable homicide" -- Which I personally would have applied to Seacat's example of finishing off someone who had just tried to kill me so they can't go get another car and try again.

 

[iamincognito45]

And there have been some of those where I did not agree with the self defense claim.

One of these was here in Florida not too long ago.

A guy got into an argument with a couple of young guys. They left. Later on he was walking his dog with a friend of his when these young guys showed up again in a car. They drove at him and he felt threatened. He pulled his piece and fired at the car which then veered off the road, hit a tree and stopped.

Up until this point I agreed with the self defense plea.

Unfortunately he then walked up to the car and fired several more rounds into the car. Two people died.

To me this was not self defense. The threat had been neutralised. In my mind his walking up to the car and firing into it was pure murder and he should have been prosecuted.

Cat

I understand why not everyone would agree with what happens in those circumstances and all of the situations around their 'lawful' actions. Yet again, who is the one at fault here? The boys that drove at the man? Or the man who 'defended' himself?

The defintion of what self-defense consists of is critical. You have to know what constitutes self defense and what is excessive use of force in your particular jurisdiction.

I an ideal world -- and those "castle doctrines" you mention -- a person can act proactively in self-defense based on the assumption of criminal intent by virtue of a person being in place or performing an action that are normal precursors to criminal violence.

I probably should have added that there is room in a rational world for a defense of "justifiable homicide" -- Which I personally would have applied to Seacat's example of finishing off someone who had just tried to kill me so they can't go get another car and try again.

Oh I agree and completely understand what you are saying. Even the theft of property can be perceived as a threat to someone and their livelihood.

Regarding Seacat's example, I understand why he feels that way but I happen to agree with you for the same reason.