Guns? What are your feelings?

[Maj.Striker]

Alright, I hope this won't be too controversial of a topic but I know we have diverse global culture involved here at CIC so I thought I'd get some opinions from the crew on the concept of owning guns in general. I will first state my opinion and you can accept it as is...disagree, agree whatever just please keep it civil and make your argument reasonable.

I personally believe there is nothing wrong in owning a gun, I think it is a right provided for (in the USA) by the 2nd Amendment. It is not a mandatory right wherein you HAVE to own a gun but it your right as a citizen of the United States. I do however, think that there should always...always be a background check before someone can purchase a gun. If that person does have a violent history then they should not be allowed to purchase a gun...simple as that. If the person is morally upstanding citizen with a clean record and mental capacity to handle a gun properly then there should be no reason whatsoever for allowing the person to purchase the gun. I don't think there should be any restrictions on what type of guns you can buy EXCEPT for potentially explosive or similar weapons. I think there is nothing wrong with someone who is thoroughly documented in owning a fully automatic weapon.

Okay, now some reasoning behind my opinon. According to the Justice Department gun related crimes have steadily decreased since 1993 and have now reached the lowest plateau they have ever been at since many decades. According to the justice department last year, of the gun related crimes 80% of them were committed with weapons that were obtained by illegal sources. This I think is a huge statistic because it means that if every gun store in America were immediately shut down and all guns that had been legally purchased were confiscated there would still be a massive amount of weapons out there obtained by illegal means. This now means that no law abiding citizen has a gun but a vast majority of criminal elements still do. Not a good situation to imagine. This statistic also tells me that very few of the people that go to a gun store/gun show and buy their weapons get involved in a gun related crime. So this means there is a great number of responsible Americans out there that own guns and know how to handle them...

When talking with people about the values of allowing for the purchase of guns and those who are very anti-gun in their outlook they most often say that they don't trust their fellow man enough to want guns to be available. They say that if they get into an argument with them then they're afraid the other person will pull out a gun and kill them just because they were arguing over whether it was too hot out. I find this argument a little weak. If the person is just going to pull out a gun and shoot them then that same person would have grabbed a tire iron and caved in the side of their skull. I'm not sure if I'm stating this properly but what I'm trying to say is that if the person doesn't have the mental restraint to refrain themselves from pulling a gun trigger then they aren't going to have the restraint to stop themselves from grabbing a knife and stabbing someone.

I think everyone (above the age of 21) should have the right to carry a gun (subject to a background check and mental capacity). However I don't think people should wear their guns concealed...I think it should be in the open where people can see it. I tell you whenever I see someone with a holster under their arm I'm a lot more respectful. As I think most of the general populace would be.

Ok enough of my opinions I have many more reasons but I'll save those for later...what are your thoughts?

Wait, I will say this, there are some nations that have very very rigid gun control laws and as a result have a great deal less gun related crime (Japan comes to mind). Although guns aren't typically involved Japan's crime death rate is still about 1 for every 100,000 in their population (at last check America's was about 3.2).

 

[Eder]

I don't usually post to topics like these, but today I feel like making one tiny little exception.

They say that if they get into an argument with them then they're afraid the other person will pull out a gun and kill them just because they were arguing over whether it was too hot out. I find this argument a little weak. If the person is just going to pull out a gun and shoot them then that same person would have grabbed a tire iron and caved in the side of their skull...

The reason I'm against letting any "upstanding citizen with a clean record and mental capacity to handle a gun properly" get a gun is not that I'm afraid they'll intentionally kill an innocent person.

Suppose my best friend gets mugged by some knife-wielding criminal on the street. That's one situation in which, under the normal run of things, my friend would lose his wallet and then go home or to a police station. This is probably the most common crime anywhere in the world, and in the worst case scenario the criminal and the wallet are never found again, and the victim has to go thru the hassle of getting a few documents re-issued.

Now, what if my best friend had a gun in his pocket? Well, he might try to react - pulling out his gun and hurting a passer-by or, even worse, trying to pull out his gun and, in doing so, getting himself stabbed by the criminal, who then walks away with my friend's money and my friend's gun (probably cursing himself for having commited a much more serious crime than what he had in mind, but hey, he was gonna get shot).

In that scenario my friend would have hurt/killed some bypasser or gotten himself killed while trying to defend his wallet... all because the state granted him permission to carry a gun, giving him the illusion that he was capable to defend himself with it.

If you wanna give everyone military training to teach them how to a) properly handle a gun, b) keep your cool in a life-threatening situation, and c) be completely aware of your surroundings as to not hurt anyone you don't mean to while using a gun... that's fine. But a background record that merely proves that you're sane and that you've never *intentionally* hurt any innocent person doesn't automatically qualify you to have any business holding a gun. At most, it proves that you'll try to use the gun only to defend yourself.

I prefer running the risk of getting killed by a criminal than running the risk of getting killed by a criminal or by someone who was trying to defend themselves from one, thank you very much. Guns belong in the hands of people who have had years of training to handle them.

So that's my opinion - I think in theory I agree with your view, Striker, but my definition of "capacity to handle a gun properly" is much, much more strict than most people's seem to be.

 

[t.c.cgi]

I personally own a single rifle, and my family owns a small assortment of weapons. So I think where I stand on the issue is pretty obvious.

I can't speak for other states, but in Florida you have to have a concealed weapons permit to do such, and to get that you have to take a class that covers the do's and do-not's. There is also a hands-on test to ensure that you know how to handle a gun. You get one shot from a pistol laying on the counter in front of you. No practice, you don't get to see the gun, and you can't take your time. Pick it up, shoot, and put it down. If the guy in charge thinks you did it right, there you go.

So, for FL at least, not any Joe can pack a glock in his pants (legally) without having to first display competence on a written and hands-on test. Shooting by-standards was covered in the class and they made it perfectly clear that you can be charged for things like manslaughter in addition to any civil cases that can be brought against you by anyone at the scene, including the criminal. That's some big stuff to weigh in your mind before you pull your piece out.

Developing proper habbits when using a gun is as simple as going to the range and not dicking around like some kid.

 

[Death]

My view on gun control?

Use both hands.

Somewhat more seriously, while I don't currently own or possess a gun, I believe that people that possess a basic competency should be allowed to own and carry personal weapons (pistols and rifles, primarily; I don't count Ma Deuces as "personal weapon", nor a howitzer or rocket launcher ) if they so desire, and it's not the government's business to know what someone owns without a warrant or other legal method of "checks and balances".

(As for the anti-gun politicians, notice how most of them are protected by people carrying...




wait for it...




yep, a gun. Says something right there, I think.)



As for the Japan example, remember Aaron Levenstein's comment: "Statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is enticing, but what they conceal is vital."



For the record, although gun issues can (and not-infrequently do) wind up becoming shouting matches, I'm not going to close this thread at the moment, though if it starts to get hairy I may respond not with gunfire, but the clickety-click of a keyboard, closing the thread and/or banning particularly offensive individuals.

("Offensive" as in being insulting to people on the board or not, exceptionally condescending or patronizing, or anything of that nature; simply disagreeing with me doesn't count.)

 

[Wolf Dog]

My view on gun control?
...and it's not the government's business to know what someone owns without a warrant or other legal method of "checks and balances".

Why shouldn't the government know? To me, the idea of licensing guns makes sense. Just like vehicles, they are things that people own that can cause a lot of damage if used irresponsibly. For both, I think a means of holding people accountable is prudent.

 

[Death]

Speaking solely from a US perspective, the difference between a gun and a car, at least as relates to the specific subject of licensing, is that the latter isn't a constitutionally guaranteed right.

Licensing or other government-granted permissions to use guns are often, as carried out in the US, used by anti-gun politicians as a method to restrict gun ownership, by withholding licenses/registration. In some cases, this is done contrary to the law, such as in Los Angeles, where the LAPD continue to refuse to issue any gun permits to anyone at all, in violation of a direct and explicit court order (I forget the court, offhand) that they are to issue permits to those who qualify under exiting law.

And, for the record, I think there's a lot that the government doesn't need to know (which is damn near everything they want to know), but the subject of this thread is guns, so I limited myself to that specific issue in my last post.

 

[Ptarmigan]

I am a pro-gun and a firm believer in the Second Amendment. I believe people should own a gun.

 

[McGruff]

The reason I'm against letting any "upstanding citizen with a clean record and mental capacity to handle a gun properly" get a gun is not that I'm afraid they'll intentionally kill an innocent person.

Suppose my best friend gets mugged by some knife-wielding criminal on the street. That's one situation in which, under the normal run of things, my friend would lose his wallet and then go home or to a police station............

You're making a lot of assumptions about a scenario that could unfold in any number of ways. Sure, he may get lucky and the knife wielding criminal may be content with merely scoring a wallet. Or he may get the wallet and stab your passive friend on general principle. Or he may go on to commit future armed robberies where some other innocent victim is killed. In any case, the best result would be for the bad guy to meet his end with a well placed double-tap.

Not to mention that everyone who lives in a state which allows honest citizens to carry concealed weapons benefits from it whether they choose to have a gun or not. Criminals are generally cowards who prefer helpless victims, and will think twice about taking on someone walking down the street simply because they don't know if the potential victim is armed or not. When right to carry legislation is passed, the violent crime rate invariably falls by somewhere around 20%. Anyone needing further real life examples can find about a gazillion here: http://www.nraila.org/ArmedCitizen/Default.aspx

 

[Moonsword]

I'm in favor of liscensing and registration, personally. I'm also in favor of a cooling-off period before purchase is approved. If you qualify under the law, yes, the registration should be issued. That isn't at question, in my opinion.

That said, let me point out that I have no personal objection against someone owning a firearm, within reasonable limits and subject to certain minimum standards of both competence and background. If you meet them, than you can own a firearm. If you don't, then you can't.

EDIT: Applying that standard to the LAPD situation Death quoted, the LAPD is in violation of the law. A court has pointed that out and ordered them to cease. The LAPD is therefore wrong.

EDIT 2: I'd be real careful before qouting a source like the NRA for statistics, McGruff. Their view on the situation could very easily influence the statistics, even without them realizing.

 

[McGruff]

But all those true examples of people successfully defending themselves with firearms are not created by the NRA, just collected by them from numerous media sources around the country.

 

[Maj.Striker]

Good thoughts guys, thanks for keeping it civil so far. Just some follow up replies I wanted to comment on. In my state (Iowa) you have to take a training course and supply a reason as to why you would want to carry a gun. I think the training course is an excellent and very necessary idea to demonstrate your competence. (i.e. that you know how to handle a gun properly...most course do train you or at least cover a situation in which you might find yourself trying to be mugged or accosted in some way by a criminal element). What I don't agree with is that I have to provide a reason as to why I want to carry a gun. I realize I can only speak in regards to US law but the constitution's 2nd amendment says that it's my right...no further reason should be necessary. As a citizen of the US, I've been to an instructor course that says I'm competent you should give me my permit...end of story. Death's reference to Los Angeles is almost exactly what I'm referring to...the police department is violating the law in not allowing qualifying citizens to have CCWs (concealed carry weapon permits I belive). New Jersey I understand is the same way.

I think Eder's example is a good one, there is a good chance that the situation like he described could go down exactly like he said. However my suggestion would be that anyone who carries a gun carries it in the open where people can see it. My question would be...if the criminal sees a guy walking down the street with a gun on his side...do you think he's going to try messing with him just for a wallet? I really really doubt it. My next question would be in regards to rape (not trying to get too in depth here) but when some vagrant grabs a girl and tries to rape her...a gun might be best defense she's got. A gun garners attention and respect. If criminals see someone with a gun I think they would be a lot less likely to try to accost that person. Since I don't know of any states in the union that allow people to carry their weapons out in the open I doubt if there could be any statistics on this aspect of our conversation though. Good thoughts though.

Edit: Just to touch on the NRA. I would admit that if NRA quotes any statistics it's definitely going to be in favor of their opinon. I mean, that only makes sense, I'm not going to quote you a fact or statistic that completely undermines my position on a matter am I? However, the NRA does have statistics that come from logical respected sources so you can't completely discount it simply because it came from the NRA, you just have to consider it in context. Also, I find it quite disturbing that whenever someone mentions the NRA everyone gets this visual picture of a bunch of rednecks toting shotguns and tossing back shots of moonshine and hollering. Virtually every member of the NRA that I've met were respectable distingushed members of the local community who had a very cautious and safe nature in regards to gun safety and taught respectable appreciation for them to those around. I'd be willing to bet that almost anyone who is a member of the NRA knows responsible gun handling.

 

[Moonsword]

*sighs* Never mind, McGruff. Never mind. It's not worth it.

Striker, I agree with your point there. Why aren't people allowed to carry weapons visibly, then? This is a serious question, by the way.

 

[Edfilho]

I am mostly anti-guns, in general. But I got to the conclusion that it is wrong to FORBID law abiding citizens to have legal guns if they want. It is not democratic to do that. The huge majority of the guns used in crimes are ilegal anyway.

The government MUST keep a very strict policy on getting guns. But it shouldn't be forbidden.

 

[Eder]

My question would be...if the criminal sees a guy walking down the street with a gun on his side...do you think he's going to try messing with him just for a wallet? I really really doubt it.

If he likes your gun better than his, and he thinks he can take you, there's always the possibility he might try messing with you for the gun, and the wallet would be just a bonus.

You're making a lot of assumptions about a scenario that could unfold in any number of ways. Sure, he may get lucky and the knife wielding criminal may be content with merely scoring a wallet. Or he may get the wallet and stab your passive friend on general principle. (...)
Criminals are generally cowards who prefer helpless victims, and will think twice about taking on someone walking down the street simply because they don't know if the potential victim is armed or not.

So most criminals are cowards, but they will still kill people just for the heck of it? Nah, I do believe that a robber is, in 99% of the cases (personal experience tells me 100% - I'm being nice here ), just a robber... someone who wants your money and who has no desire to become a murderer and increase his prison time tenfold should he ever get caught. And I don't think that pulling out a gun will help the robber keep his cool.

I've been robbed about a dozen times in my life (yes, I'm still 21, but this is a big city), in different situations, by different types of criminals, with different types of weapons (and by the same weaponless guy *twice*, too ) and I'd never try to be a smartass in these situations. I do not believe that the average citizen will have the calm to think of all the variables involved in a situation like this, and I strongly believe it's more likely that he'll fuck something up than that he'll save his ass or waste the criminal or stop a crime from being committed. Better to lose 20 bucks and my favorite leather jacker () than to not live to see Standoff finished, thank you.

I agree with you that a gun *might* save your life should you be faced with a criminal who you're *sure* is going to kill you (in that case you should by all means try to fight for your life). But for each of those cases, I see a thousand robberies in which having a gun means to me the potential to escalate the situation to something much more dangerous, unnecessarily - in 99% of the cases people would just get back home with less money.

 

[Delance]

Gun control means no guns for the little guy. People on the upper stratus and bad guys always have a way to use guns.

As with almost anything, it can also be used for evil. If you think it’s a bad idea to have a gun, don’t have one. People have assault weapons on their homes on Switzerland and don't use them at random. Banning guns don't prevent gun violence, that can be easily demonstrated.

 

[Sarty]

I own an FID card in Massachusetts(not yet old enough for a pistol permit) and the qualifications was to sit through a 4 hour class and then take a test on the class. My father owns a class A pistol permit to carry concealed, but he never does. He had to go through 2 classes and 2 tests, one was written the other was at a shooting range demonstrating that he knew the proper safety techniques and more importantly they watched his mannerisms with or around guns. Some people can be excellent shots and know exactly what they SHOULD do with guns, but they are idiots when they have a gun in their hand, like my cousin.

Anyways, my point is that I disagree with Eder's opinion that a robbery victim could make things worse by pulling a gun. In Massachusetts at least, you have to prove that you are more than competent with a gun to be able to carry one, the chances that they hurt someone other than the criminal are minimal IMO.

My father, brother, and myself all own identical AR-15's which we use in the local high-power rifle league. All 3 of use our guns purely for recreation, and not even hunting, just for competition or when we just feel like going down to the range to shoot a few rounds. I don't see anything wrong with people having that ability.

 

[Eder]

As with almost anything, it can also be used for evil. If you think it’s a bad idea to have a gun, don’t have one. People have assault weapons on their homes on Switzerland and don't use them at random.

It's not that simple. I think it's a bad idea for anyone within a 10 mile radius of my house to have a gun, and I'm willing to settle for as close to that as possible (ie: as little guns as possible).

Your argument is like saying "if you don't want to have lung cancer, don't smoke." Guns aren't something which only affects those who chose to own them.

I don't care if the state deems someone capable of using a gun for some rightful purpose. I simply see no reason to trust anyone with an object that is meant to kill other people.

Banning guns don't prevent gun violence, that can be easily demonstrated.

I agree, but I don't think that has been suggested by anyone here at all...

It's obvious that outlawing guns has no effect on people who have no intention of obeying the law. It's not obvious that giving everyone a gun does not result in a higher number of gun-related deaths.

 

[t.c.cgi]

My father, brother, and myself all own identical AR-15's which we use in the local high-power rifle league. All 3 of use our guns purely for recreation, and not even hunting, just for competition or when we just feel like going down to the range to shoot a few rounds. I don't see anything wrong with people having that ability.

After a stressful week, it's nice to go out to a rifle range and do some cordite meditation. Just you, the gun, and the target. Like playing high-powered darts. Nevermind this "pretend it's your boss" balogni...

 

[cff]

Removing the emotinal aspects of the topic and just looking at the raw data seems to indicate that owning guns by the wide public is a bad idea. The arguments pro guns are in the end always to be more safe. However those countries that widely allow the unrestricted owning of private guns are also those that are the least safe.
So bottom line: There are either more loons that abuse the guns for criminal stuff or there are too many accidents with people who don't know how to handle them (or both). In either case it clearly seems to make a country less safe in the end.

What I strongly object to is to have people under the age of 18 handling guns, which seems to be normal at least in some parts of this world (including some states of the USA).

 

[Quarto]

It's funny how in all these threads, I recall two years arguing the exact opposite to what I'm arguing now. It's also kinda neato, though - I know first-hand all the anti-gun arguments likely to be used here .

Removing the emotinal aspects of the topic and just looking at the raw data seems to indicate that owning guns by the wide public is a bad idea. The arguments pro guns are in the end always to be more safe. However those countries that widely allow the unrestricted owning of private guns are also those that are the least safe.

Could you please provide a source for these statistics? Because as far as I know, statistics indicate the exact opposite. Even that weird anti-gun movie Bowling For Columbine made a big deal about how there are more guns per head in Canada than in the US... and less murders per head.

In any case, the trouble with all anti-gun legislation, is that it doesn't work. You cannot prevent people from owning guns by outlawing guns, any more than you can prevent people from owning drugs by outlawing drugs. Any time you try to outlaw guns, you're just endangering everyone - because it means that anyone who intends to commit crime will still be able to get a gun (by definition, people who intend to commit crime don't care if they have to break a law to get a gun), while people who do not intend to commit crime are deprived of a valid means of self-defence.

Note also that the "if my friend was carrying a gun" argument is based on a false premise - most people in America do not own guns (even though they legally could), simply because they don't know how to use them. It's like with cars - if you don't know how to drive, you don't buy a car, not because the lack of a driver's license prevents you from doing so, but because you realise that you don't know how to use it. So, if your friend was carrying a gun, we can assume that he would take the time to at least learn the basics of gun usage, and therefore the scenario would unfold differently. And if he didn't know how to use a gun, and therefore did not carry a gun... well, then the legal availability of guns doesn't make a difference to him.

Another thing worth noting is that apparently (note - I'm citing from memory here, unfortunately I don't remember what the source is; you'll have to trust me that I'm not making it up ) those states in the US where it is legal to carry concealed weaponry are statistically safer than those states where it is illegal to do so. Why? Because again, most people don't carry guns. Most people want nothing to do with guns. Most people don't trust people with guns. So, if the only way they can carry a gun is if it's visible, prominently strapped on to their belt or something, then they're going to leave it at home. So, less people carry guns, and those that do are easy to identify because you can see the damn gun. On the other hand, if it is permissible to carry concealed guns, then a) more people will carry concealed guns for self-defence, and b) it is harder to tell who carries the gun. In this situation, the average criminal, contemplating a mugging, will hear Clint Eastwood in his head - "do you feel lucky, punk?".

(it must be reiterated at this point that laws which prevent people from carrying concealed guns also only affect law-abiding citizens - a criminal, by definition, will not worry himself about such minor details as the illegality of what he's doing; he'll carry a gun if he wants, and you can bet it won't be visible)

However, most importantly of all, it must be pointed out that this debate is entirely pointless, because it's removed of any context. Whether or not you permit people to carry guns - that's just one factor to consider when discussing crime rates. You cannot really make a valid argument that <any place> is <safer/unsafer> because guns are <legal/illegal>. You can argue that the legality/illegality of guns contributes to the safety/unsafety of a given place, but you absolutely must remember about all the other details. Here's a few that must be kept in mind:

1. The efficiency of the police force. If you commit a crime and don't get shot by a law-abiding gun-wielding citizen in the process, how likely are you to get away with it altogether? If the answer is "very", up go the crime rates.

2. The penalties for crime. If I kill someone and get caught, do I get a bullet in the head, or a twenty-five year stay in a fine hotel facility (sorry... a prison)? If the answer is the latter, up go the crime rates. This is the reason why today in Europe, guns are harder to get than ever before, and murder rates are higher than ever before. You have to either have and vigorously, regularly apply the death penalty, or you have to consider...

3. The quality of prison life. I described prisons above as fine hotel facilities - this was of course partially a joke, but only partially. Here in Poland, the government spends 1300zl per prisoner per month. The minimum wage is 800zl. Prisoners occasionally go on a strike (and are successful) about the quality of the food (though the meals they get, they could never afford living outside of prison) and about other minor details like the fact that they only get one colour tv to a cell, et cetera. Sure, you get your ass raped once or twice in the first few months, but that's a small price to pay for this kind of upgrade. If the bottom 20% of the population realises that commiting a crime and getting caught will improve their lives, they're facing a win-win situation. Either they rob someone and get away with it, getting more money to spend and such, or they rob someone and go to prison for a few years of rest and relaxation from the hardship of their lives. So, you do the math - how many more are likely to try it?
Things are different, on the other hand, when prisons are the living hell that they rightfully ought to be. That is, when they're not regarded as correctional facilities to improve people, but rather as purgatories to make people pay for their sins. If your prisons are overcrowded nightmares where the food sucks and you share your cell with two dozen other man and fifty million cockroaches... the result will be that a) if you're not impoverished and truly despate, you'll think twice about commiting crime, and b) if you decide to commit a crime, you'll minimise it. You'll threaten people with knives when robbing them, but you won't leave a scratch on them. Because if you get caught, you want the people you robbed to tell the court that really, you were pretty nice about that whole robbery thing, and ten years is too much, six months will be fine. And finally...

4. Religion. If I'm atheist, and I get away with a crime, I'm free. If I'm a Christian (or Muslim, or Jew, or Buddhist - don't matter in this case), and I get away with a crime... I'm going to hell, buddy. So who's more likely to commit a crime - an atheist, or a religious person? Ergo, in a religious society, you will get less crime, and again you will have that minimisation effect. If God's gonna be judging you, you want him to judge you for robbery, not robbery and murder.


So, let's recap . If you want to make the world a better place, you will:
1. Let everyone obtain guns and carry them concealed on their bodies if they so choose.
2. Spend more money on the police force than on "correctional" facilities.
3. Bring back the death penalty. The death penalty is not about killing people. It's a social contract - "you can kill anyone you want, but you'll be shot for it". And it tends to be more persuasive than prison.
4. Make your prisons as bad as possible. Better yet, rent a bit of Siberia from the Russians. Send the prisoners there, and don't even bother guarding them. If they survive and manage to crawl back to civilisation - they've paid their dues. And they won't want to go back.
5. Leave religion alone. Yes, religious fanatics are dangerous, but in the greater scheme of things, a religious society will always be safer than a secular/atheist society.