GUNS: pro/anti

[nyeti nyeti]

I don't know how canada, which kinda used to be america, grew up a bit on the whole wild west thing, which has never fully ceased to be a reality here.

and Jed Clampett has to have a gun, that's how you get rich, you shoot at some food, and up frum the groun come a bubblin crude

oil, that is...

sorry. I need to take a three hour tour on a boat on the south seas

no, wait...

[Kladeos]

I'm quite happily Canadian, and I lean left-wing. I do believe in gun control, and I do acknowledge the argument that strict(er) gun control laws take guns out of the hands of the lawful. However, I would not feel safe if civilians like myself had concealed weapons. Guns are designed to kill, and are only used to kill and wound. I don't think that any civilian should feel the need to carry a device designed to kill on their person for personal safety reasons. While it's true that pepper spray and tasers can only do so much, and that there aren't always police when you need them, more guns on the street means more gun crime. Making guns more accessible to the public in general makes it easier for criminals to access them. It also makes it easier for someone who would not normally have the means for an illegal gun to buy one legally to use for illegal purposes.

When I am less tired I will skip off and pull some stats from somewhere describing how Toronto has considerably less gun crime than a US city of the same size. In the meantime, I will shake my fist at all the illegal guns leaking in from the US border.

[Kladeos]

I am of the opinion that all guns but handguns for self-defense (and guns that are specifically designed for hunting, in the case that a person hunts for food) should be illegal. Guns are scary. But---there is a problem in US culture about guns, too. Canada has significantly more gun owners than the US, but also has significantly less deaths resulting from gun violence.

Really?

[ChildOfTheLight]

I am of the opinion that all guns but handguns for self-defense (and guns that are specifically designed for hunting, in the case that a person hunts for food) should be illegal. Guns are scary. But---there is a problem in US culture about guns, too. Canada has significantly more gun owners than the US, but also has significantly less deaths resulting from gun violence.

Really?

No chance. The US has something like 270 million guns (for 300 million people.)

more guns on the street means more gun crime.

Not so. Every US state that has legalized "shall issue" concealed carry (meaning, approximately, that a permit must be issued if the applicant is not a felon, mentally ill, or otherwise ineligible) has seen a decrease in crime -- above and beyond the decrease that happened across the US as a whole after 1991.

[Silverblue]

As an Australian, like the majority of other Aussies, I am firmly pro-gun control. It is culturally appropriate for us to have guns relegated to tools used by farmers and police, and those who shoot other people are regarded as anomalies even if they are police themselves. There are also knife control laws here, though of course it is much easier to make a knife than a gun, but in general I feel safer on the street now than I did before the introduction of these laws.

Anecdotal evidence is generally useless in such cases, as we most of us have our opinions formed by such things and are unlikely to change if presented with other pieces of anecdotal evidence. But here we go anyway since everyone loves telling their own bit: I have been attacked once with intent to sexual assault, but was able to get away because a couple of bystanders got involved - two of them against six attackers and four or so people cheering the attackers on but not being involved. The only weapons involved were fists. I felt more 'enabled' to run and escape because the level of violence involved meant I was on a fairly even ground, and because 'far enough away not to be hit' meant a distance of a metre. The verbal threats were still there, but the physical threat was vastly lower.

Difference in culture is a big thing - I felt much less safe in America and Russia than I did in Italy at night on my travels. Some of that was the general culture, some of that were the visibility of weapons. This is quite a shock if you come from a culture where you do not see a gun on the average security guard, bouncer, or traffic cop. Or on any civilians, ever. Our police carry weapons, but they tend to be de-emphasised. The Victorian police here have a very bad reputation as it is thought that they shoot people far too often and not for sufficiently extreme reasons.

[ChildOfTheLight]

Response to several comments on the hate crimes thread:

Who's Miyazaki?

A film director. In Princess Mononoke, Lady Eboshi was commenting that they needed to make the guns much lighter so the women could use them, to which her workers insisted they didn't think they could manage that and still have a functional gun.

Extremely false.

I'm not saying that, I'm saying that strength isn't the only deciding factor in a fight. Someone needs to develop a fighting style that'll let a smaller, lighter opponent have an easier time of beating a larger, stronger opponent while focusing on the strengths of the female body.

It is true that when no weapon is involved, a skilled fighter can win against someone bigger, especially when "win" means "get away unharmed." But that's when no weapon is involved, and is nowhere close to a sure thing anyway.

"Second, raw data from the 1979-1985 installments of the Justice Department's annual National Crime Victim Survey show that when a woman resists a stranger rape with a gun, the probability of completion was 0.1 percent and of victim injury 0.0 percent, compared to 31 percent and 40 percent, respectively, for all stranger rapes (Kleck, Social Problems, 1990).

Not all rapes are strange rapes, though. Only about 31%, that doesn't protect against the majority of rapes.

No, it only means that particular study didn't address the other 69%.

Besides, the case under discussion was. The full quote read:

Today, many women (quite reasonably) fear the threat of attack by a physically stronger man, and a firearm could prevent many of these attacks. Take the case of the “North Side Rapist” in Chicago, a city where hand guns are banned, as an example: The rapist broke in to the womens homes, and at least one of the women heard him break in and then climb the stairs. Had this woman had a handgun, she almost certainly could have stopped the rapist before it was too late. This would have prevented her from enduring such a horrific crime, as well as preventing the rapist’s future victims from experiencing the same thing. Instead, Chicago law prevented her from being able to defend herself, and gave the advantage to the rapist/home-invader. Women in areas with gun rights are able to defend themselves every day. This is not an isolated incident, and similar events happen every day across the county. Even more women are attacked or even killed by former boyfriends and husbands, and even with a restraining order and police protection, they are still vulnerable.

It's not unconstitutional.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

This isn't "everyone should be allowed to carry fire arms and go off and shoot each other all willy nilly" it's "since a militia is necessary, members of it should be allowed to keep guns but it should be well regulated".

Actually, when that amendment was written, "militia" meant "all white male citizens, age 18-45" (under current law, it means all male citizens, age 17-45) and "well-regulated" meant "trained and well-armed", or, as [url=http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm]this explanation[/quote] suggests, the more general "in proper working order."

People should certainly not be allowed to shoot each other willy-nilly. That tends to result in death or at best serious injury.

[Recursive Paradox]

I really have to say that I don't feel strong gun control offers that much in terms of benefits. Short of preventing felons and individuals who can't operate a weapon safely, preventing access to weapons in America only keeps them out of the hands of law abiding citizens and not criminals.

After all gun control does not touch the black market or even really the gray market.

The reason why I only mention America is the cultural issue. Some cultures are very anti gun to begin with and so regulation of guns works because even the criminals have these views. Since I can't speak as to the cultures outside of America I can only make statements based on America's culture.

Our culture values self defense and our culture values weaponry. Criminals here will generally have some kind of deadly weapon and will probably use it. There's also the issues with trust for police officers and the law. Because many of us do not trust police (and in parts of America that lack of trust is painfully earned by the corrupt police forces there) we carry weapons both as a deterrent and as a lethal method of stopping an attacker who won't stop otherwise.

Knowing someone has a gun means that mugging them, robbing them, raping them or attempting to kill them would be more difficult and easy targets are wanted more by criminal elements. This sort of ties back to America having a somewhat convenience and even in some cases a laziness based culture.

I also look at my own situation, a transwoman's situation, in which a dangerously large segment of the male cisgendered population is undeniably out to kill me and a dangerously large segment of the law enforcement in my country doesn't care that my life is in that much danger.

These two issues combined makes it really very necessary that I possess lethal self defense because the hatred and bloodlust against people like me is so high that I can't be sure that anything short of a lethal or critical wound will stop them.

And seeing some of the material about this and knowing about the brutality of these crimes, I'd rather stop them far away from me then wait for them to close into taser or pepper spray range. It that means killing them, so be it. One less homicidal bigot in the world I need to worry about.

[EJA]

...I would not feel safe if civilians like myself had concealed weapons. Guns are designed to kill, and are only used to kill and wound. I don't think that any civilian should feel the need to carry a device designed to kill on their person for personal safety reasons. While it's true that pepper spray and tasers can only do so much, and that there aren't always police when you need them, more guns on the street means more gun crime. Making guns more accessible to the public in general makes it easier for criminals to access them. It also makes it easier for someone who would not normally have the means for an illegal gun to buy one legally to use for illegal purposes...

I agree with this statement.

[ChildOfTheLight]

...I would not feel safe if civilians like myself had concealed weapons. Guns are designed to kill, and are only used to kill and wound. I don't think that any civilian should feel the need to carry a device designed to kill on their person for personal safety reasons. While it's true that pepper spray and tasers can only do so much, and that there aren't always police when you need them, more guns on the street means more gun crime. Making guns more accessible to the public in general makes it easier for criminals to access them. It also makes it easier for someone who would not normally have the means for an illegal gun to buy one legally to use for illegal purposes...

I agree with this statement.

I've already made it clear that I don't, but I'd just like to draw attention to one word: "civilian." That is the word by which military rulers call their subjects, not the one by which governors who are in fact servants of their people call them. That is "citizen." That, perhaps, sums up the difference in philosophy here.

[Kladeos]

...I would not feel safe if civilians like myself had concealed weapons. Guns are designed to kill, and are only used to kill and wound. I don't think that any civilian should feel the need to carry a device designed to kill on their person for personal safety reasons. While it's true that pepper spray and tasers can only do so much, and that there aren't always police when you need them, more guns on the street means more gun crime. Making guns more accessible to the public in general makes it easier for criminals to access them. It also makes it easier for someone who would not normally have the means for an illegal gun to buy one legally to use for illegal purposes...

I agree with this statement.

I've already made it clear that I don't, but I'd just like to draw attention to one word: "civilian." That is the word by which military rulers call their subjects, not the one by which governors who are in fact servants of their people call them. That is "citizen." That, perhaps, sums up the difference in philosophy here.

Funny that. I don't consider the military having much of an effect on me, but you're right. "Civilian" does imply one who is meant to be protected more than the general "citizen", though, as opposed to those who work as security, police or in the military.

[Kladeos]

I realized that worded that poorly. The last sentence should say:

"Civilian" more than "citizen" implies someone who is meant to be protected. Civilians don't work in security, the police force or the military while citizens might.

[heldenautie88]

I support gun rights, although not for the same reasons right wingers do. I'm a revolutionary socialist and I believe that the state having a monopoly of arms only serves to be an instrument of oppression of the people. Therefore I agree with the right of the people to defend themselves when the state declares war on us. I'm not really down with the NRA line of "those criminals will stop at nothing" because the term "criminals" among the right wing is so often an excuse to be racist.

[ChildOfTheLight]

I support gun rights, although not for the same reasons right wingers do. I'm a revolutionary socialist and I believe that the state having a monopoly of arms only serves to be an instrument of oppression of the people. Therefore I agree with the right of the people to defend themselves when the state declares war on us. I'm not really down with the NRA line of "those criminals will stop at nothing" because the term "criminals" among the right wing is so often an excuse to be racist.

You would probably call me "right wing" (though "libertarian" would be closer) and I'll be the first to affirm that "the state having a monopoly of arms only serves to be an instrument of oppression of the people" is true, as a matter of historical fact. Governments murdered 170 million people in genocides in the 20th century (and it's much more depending on whether you count wars, and which ones.) In every case guns were made illegal for "civilians" (or heavily restricted -- which means only the well-connected had them, which is nearly the same thing) first. "I agree with the right of the people to defend themselves when the state declares war on us" is the essence of the Declaration of Independence, and the classical liberal philosophy which underlies it.

Indeed, criminals, be they public or private, will always arm themselves.

[heldenautie88]

I support gun rights, although not for the same reasons right wingers do. I'm a revolutionary socialist and I believe that the state having a monopoly of arms only serves to be an instrument of oppression of the people. Therefore I agree with the right of the people to defend themselves when the state declares war on us. I'm not really down with the NRA line of "those criminals will stop at nothing" because the term "criminals" among the right wing is so often an excuse to be racist.

You would probably call me "right wing" (though "libertarian" would be closer) and I'll be the first to affirm that "the state having a monopoly of arms only serves to be an instrument of oppression of the people" is true, as a matter of historical fact. Governments murdered 170 million people in genocides in the 20th century (and it's much more depending on whether you count wars, and which ones.) In every case guns were made illegal for "civilians" (or heavily restricted -- which means only the well-connected had them, which is nearly the same thing) first. "I agree with the right of the people to defend themselves when the state declares war on us" is the essence of the Declaration of Independence, and the classical liberal philosophy which underlies it.

Indeed, criminals, be they public or private, will always arm themselves.

The Declaration of Independence was a revolutionary document in which the American capitalists made their revolution against the English feudalists (it was a feudalist/capitalist mix, but the power was still in the hands of an aristocracy).

The state is an organ of class rule, an organ for the oppression of one class by another; it is the creation of “order”, which legalizes and perpetuates this oppression by moderating the conflict between classes.

[insideout808]

Nyeti Nyeti, I applaud your foresight, I was about to start a huge argument in the "What do you believe?" thread

Here's a more verbose explanation at what I believe:

Laws only apply to the lawful.
That is to say, that gun restrictions, and waiting lists, and concealed carry permits only matter to lawful honest citizens. If I were a criminal, there is nothing stopping me from getting a firearm illegally. But If I am a lawful citizen, I have to submit to backround checks, wait times, and Go through the red tape of getting my CCW.

"Gun Control" Does, Not, Work!
Infact it makes the situation worse. The current system of "Gun Control" only acheives the effect of taking more guns out of the hands of lawful people. It does nothing to impact criminals having guns.

In this manner criminals have more power to rob, steal, hijack, kidnap, rape, murder, the docile public.

If you were about to rob a convenience store, in a world where everyone is packing, wouldn't you think twice about sticking up the clerk, if you knew that granny in aisle 9 is armed, and the guy by the slurpee machine is armed, and the woman at the atm is armed, and the clerk is armed?

Pretty much exactly my stance, but I'll go a bit further and say that there's plenty of documented evidence to support these two statements. Criminals are always going to be able to obtain whatever they need. In areas where gun ownership by law-abiding citizens is approved and not feared the instance of violent crime is statistically really low. I live in one of those types of areas. I could go out and get a carry permit if I wanted and plenty of people here do.

I'll also say that I'm all about gun education. I grew up in a gun-friendly family and I was taught from a very early age what guns were, how they worked, all about safety and consequences, etc. etc. My parents didn't even have the gun collection under lock and key. They did it the "old school" way and just had them in a cabinet or a drawer or a closet. That's how they grew up. I fully realize that a statement like that might take some slack ... that that was irresponsible parenting or something, but take a look at history folks - back before all of us (I assume!) were born, like 50's and before, plenty of households had loaded guns and kids did not mess with them because they were taught all those things I was taught. I know society has changed and there's a lot of reasons why kids would pick up a gun now and for those outside reasons that I don't have control over if I become a parent I will have a gun safe, but I'll still also teach my kid all those things my parents taught me. Gun safety is very important.

[Lyn Aven]

Gun control DOES work if it's properly implemented. It is, of course, not a COMPLETE solution, but it cuts back on gun-related crimes committed in hot blood. For example, with waiting period laws, if you've gotta wait a week to get the weapon, are you STILL gonna want to kill that person by the time you get it? If you do, gun control or not, nothing's going to stop you anyway; if you don't, the law worked.

Gun control that keeps weapons out of the hands of those with a legitimate desire for self-defense, on the other hand, is counterproductive. Laws that restrict carrying a weapon in places where it can't be enforced (for instance, if there aren't metal detectors at every entrance) only mean that the people who are already ignoring the law will have a weapon.

[vespera]

Gun control DOES work if it's properly implemented. It is, of course, not a COMPLETE solution, but it cuts back on gun-related crimes committed in hot blood. For example, with waiting period laws, if you've gotta wait a week to get the weapon, are you STILL gonna want to kill that person by the time you get it? If you do, gun control or not, nothing's going to stop you anyway; if you don't, the law worked.

Well.. crimes of passion are rarely, if ever, committed with newly purchased firearms. When someone loses their mind and has to kill you right that very instant, they aren't going to rationally think they ought to go buy a gun for the slight convenience of an easier kill. They're going to beat you, and stab you, and do whatever they can to make you not alive as quickly as possible.

Even if they go out to a gun shop and find out, booo, I can't buy a gun immediately.. well heck, that would certainly make me even more pissed. If gun control "done properly" prevents murder by shooting, only to have a knife/bat/car kill the victim instead.. is that better? Someone is still dead, and our rights are diminished, with nothing to show for it.

Gun control that keeps weapons out of the hands of those with a legitimate desire for self-defense, on the other hand, is counterproductive. Laws that restrict carrying a weapon in places where it can't be enforced (for instance, if there aren't metal detectors at every entrance) only mean that the people who are already ignoring the law will have a weapon.

Yeahhh.. Washington DC..

I think we all know how well that worked out for them...

[KayleeSaeihr]

Anti-Gun laws seem to work pretty well for Australia.

[Yo'mumma]

Anti-Gun laws seem to work pretty well for Australia.

In as much as Australia has a lower rate of gun crime, yes. Australia has murders - although more of them are carried out with knives, rope, or other weapons than in the U.S.

If somebody wants to kill somebody else, and they don't have a gun, they will use a knife. If they don't have a knife they will use a baseball bat. If they don't have a baseball bat they might try a piece of wood, or their car, or some other weapon. Weapons are everywhere, and murder will happen regardless of whether they are controlled or not.

The U.S. will struggle to implement gun control because so many people have guns, and stand by their right to bear arms. Eventually, gun control laws may become effective, but it will be difficult, and will take some time. You cannot force people to give up their weapons overnight. (Well, you can, but if you do, good luck staying in office.) A gradual implementation may work, however it will not lower the rate of violent crime.

But education will.

To lower the rate of violent crime, America must educate it's citizens, especially those from lower socio-economic backgrounds, to deal with their problems in ways that do not involve violence.

Guns dont kill people, people kill people.

[ReneLynnO]

Hello,
I'll add mine.
Yes, I am a gun owner.
I love my "sixguns" ie:Old West Colt styled guns.
I do reload for 44 mag,45 Colt, and 45-70.
I have hunted, and I do handgun hunting.
But with my mini stroke and diabetes of April 2011, my health ain't too good.
Walking isn't my best...
And, my wife passed away in October 2011.We were together for 21 years and 8 months married.

Sure,I've tried to teach her how to use the handgun.
My loads for her was the 44 Special. she was doing very good as a beginner.

Now, many of my friends have been in or retired law enforcement or the military.
My one scuba partner was a former Army Ranger with combat experience in VietNam.
He then changed to the Green Beret Reserves in San Diego,CA.
Anothe Ranger I also knew in the gun store. He was also in scuba as well.
My other friend, retired as a reserve deputy in this county with 35 years. He's the one that
contacted me.He wanted a shooting partner.That was back in 2006.
Yes, we've been shooting pards.He also was well known in the county and state,as a bullseye champion.
He's since moved to Montana. We've had since then, at least 700 emails.

A lot of people think only LEOS and the military has a use for guns.And us lowly "suspects/serfs/slaves" have no use for guns.Really ?
If someone was going to kill you, what would YOU do ? Just stand there, and be DEAD ? Or if a fighting chance, have him/her to meet their maker ?
Remember, it's either you or him. You HAD better make it him.
Want to reduce crime ? Learn to use a gun,Buy one,so that you will have protection.
Also, law enforcment does NOT protect you as an individual.Protecting yourself is your responsibility.
There are NO laws, that says they are to respond to you.

Look, a lot of this BS styled thinking, is actually getting people killed just because of too many lawyers ruining our countries.
These "lawmakers" would rather see you dead, then the bad guys.
Yet their "excuse" is "We're tough on crime...". "We'll put teeth in these laws...". OK, then why do a majority of these perps goes for a plea bargain, gets out, and does the same thing over and over again ?
Because these perps are money-big bucks to defend them.

I already have years of experience with a former stepson.
He's in the county jail right now.
In for vehicle theft,burglary-that's 2 felonies right there,evading a peace officer;reckless driving, and forgery.
His priors includes drug charges-felonies-charges dropped. (Why ?)
And 2-211's (211PC) in Fruitifornia,are for Armed Robbery-felonies.
With several DUI's.

Yes, I was in training for a deputy.
So,I do know about laws and firearms.

For me ? I don't use a scope on my handguns.
The bullet spread at 100 yards with either a 44 mag or a 45 Colt, is about 10", with full house loads.
So, don't tell me I can't shoot.
At the range near MiraMar Naval Air Station in the 70's:
Had a deputy, a former Green Beret,seen my target. He told me "That's good shooting.".
I said "Thank you. What would my score be ?' He added it up: Out of a possible 300, yours is a 297."

Nuff said....I still can do it again.In nylons and makeup,and feminine...
My ! I need to start buying bras. About a 38 and in a "B" cup.

Anyway, many close hugs to you all.
With love,
Rene Lynn O