Gun Control, who needs it?

[Flatlander Fox]

After watching the original Rock-n-Roll wildman (Ted Nugent) kill a wild boar with a pistol, the thought came to my mind:

Do people like Ted need to be carrying around fully automatic weapons?

Or even pistols for that matter?

This question goes out to everybody, not just Americans...

Do you think that the workers at the Hauptbahnhof would be more friendly if they thought you were packing heat?

Or would the annoying French waiter in Paris be perhaps nicer if he suspected you would blast him for an insult?

Basically, should people have the right to carry firearms?

 

[jiml_63]

I want gun control....it will allow me to hit my target with the first shot...:shottie:

 

[Apollo]

Personally, I see little need for people to own guns. The two legitimate reasons I can think of for owning a gun would be for protection (especially in the home) and for the "sport" of hunting. Of course if nobody had access to guns (which would be near impossibe to accomplish in the U.S.) then the need for one to use as protection disappears, and I think hunting is wrong for moral reasons. In a perfect world (meaning people didn't break into your house wielding a shotgun) I'd say they should be completely controlled, and maybe allow some sort of a system where they are rented and you and a guide can then go hunting for a length of time, the guide there to show you the way and to watch the gun.

 

[Ren]

Originally posted by Apollo
Personally, I see little need for people to own guns. The two legitimate reasons I can think of for owning a gun would be for protection (especially in the home) and for the "sport" of hunting. Of course if nobody had access to guns (which would be near impossibe to accomplish in the U.S.) then the need for one to use as protection disappears, and I think hunting is wrong for moral reasons. In a perfect world (meaning people didn't break into your house wielding a shotgun) I'd say they should be completely controlled, and maybe allow some sort of a system where they are rented and you and a guide can then go hunting for a length of time, the guide there to show you the way and to watch the gun.

I totally agree!

 

[ApocalypseKurtz]

Fundamentally, I support the right to bear arms. If we the people had no firearms, and the government did, they would have complete and unconditional power over us. In order to protect us from a dictatorship, we need the right to bear arms. As for modern America, I don't really like the NRA because it is the #1 supporter of the Republicans, but fundamentally I support the right to bear arms. I still think we should have some gun laws such as barring convicted violent felons from owning guns and a waiting period.

 

[Zwelgje]

I am against the right to bear arms. In my homecountry (The Netherlands) guns are not allowed and I think that's a good thing. When you are walking down the street and you encounter anyone you won't have the fear he might be carrying a gun. Personally I would feel very uncomfortable if I knew many people were walking around carrying guns.
And the argument by ApocalypseKurtz that the government has unconditional control over us if they are the only ones with guns....well
We don't live in the Middle Ages anymore dude.

 

[t92300]

My opinion
I think that pistols and automatic weapons should be banned the only use for these is illegal activities

Rifels and shotguns should be allowed because they are used for sport (clay target and target shooting) also pest control and general hunting

Fundamentally, I support the right to bear arms. If we the people had no firearms, and the government did, they would have complete and unconditional power over us. In order to protect us from a dictatorship, we need the right to bear arms. As for modern America, I don't really like the NRA because it is the #1 supporter of the Republicans, but fundamentally I support the right to bear arms. I still think we should have some gun laws such as barring convicted violent felons from owning guns and a waiting period.

I also agree with ApocalypseKurtz on this one


some thing to think about read the following it came from the K house e news 16 of october 2001 (khouse.org I think)

Two weeks after the September 11 attacks, officials with the Airlines Pilots Association began requesting that sky marshals be placed on planes, that cockpits be made more secure, and that the pilots have permission to carry guns. On Thursday, October 11, the U.S. Senate approved a bill that included provisions to place sky marshals on board flights and to allow pilots to be armed as long as they are properly trained and the Federal Aviation Administration has approved the weapons.

The Bill must first pass the House of Representatives, however, and there are currently concerns about other measures included in the Bill. Several congressmen are opposed to the Bill's provisions to replace the baggage screeners with federal agents. House Majority whip Tom Delay of Texas has said that he does not want to put 18,000 bag screeners on the federal pay roll.

The House is busy working on a bill that has yet to be introduced. The bill would call for a public-private partnership where federal managers set standards for private screeners. This would allow high standards to be mandated, while keeping the cost for the screeners in the private sector.

Meanwhile, the California Rifle and Pistol Association has rented 300 billboards across the state as part of their campaign to educate the public regarding the benefits of keeping the law-abiding populace armed. Their slogan, "Society is Safer When Criminals Don't Know Who's Armed" will lead the way in informing Californians regarding the practical value of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution.

While Sarah Brady, chairperson for The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, believes that stricter gun laws and tighter background checks are important steps for protecting citizens, CRPA spokesperson Chuck Michel argues that "in the hands of law abiding citizens, guns are a deterrent to crime." If a criminal sees an NRA sticker on the truck in front of a house, it is easy for him to make the decision to go on to the next house over. In the 40 states where concealed firearm permits are more easily accessible, crime rates are down because there is a deterrent to would-be criminals. If there is a risk that a victim could be armed, a criminal is less likely to attempt an assault. According to Michel, "Guns are used five times more often to save a life than they are misused to take one. In short, guns save lives."

t92300

 

[BlueMonday]

I'm a gun moderate. As a gun owner (several pistols and rifles) I know full well both the uses and dangers of owning a gun. However, unlike the gun toting nuts I most certainly believe that there should be control over gun types, where guns can be taken, and who can get access to guns. Make no mistake, guns are possibly the most dangerous day-to-day objects we encounter. This is really such a massive issue I can't really express fully my feelings on it but I'll try to sum it up.

Pistols have their place as weapons of protection. I hear a lot of people saying "Who needs protection when we have police around?" and I'm stunned that people can fool themselves into believing that at the split second they get into a mortal situation a police officer will appear. That's why I keep pistols in my home. Something bad might happen, or might not, but I'm sure that if it does a cop isn't going to just be there when I need him and it's goin to come down to what I do.

Now of course for rifles and shotguns I see them as necessary too. I see hunting as legit and being something that I do every now and then feel that regulation here shoudl be no more stringent than it is on handguns if not less so. A rifle is pretty well useless in a self-defense situation and quite ostentatious on the urban landscape.

For automatic weapons, I don't see them as neccesary on either the urban or rural landscape but I can't really see what makes them so much worse then single shot models. In anyone's hands a .22 pistol can kill you just as dead as a 7.76mm automatic weapon. I do not deny that an automatic weapon is far more dangerous than a semi-automatic so I say keep them legal under permit but make them (and the permits) VERY hard to get. Despite popular misconception, a fully-automatic weapon is pretty easy to get right now. All you have to do is apply for a "class 3" permit, pay a fee, and go buy one from a manufacturer. A friend of my brother's has a class 3 permit and the guy has got about a dozen submachine guns, assualt rifles, and a full auto shotgun (bad MOJO).

Here's a disturbing statistic: Half of the machine guns in the U.S. are owned by private citizens and not by the military (by machine guns I don't mean sub-machine guns and assault rifles -instead I'm talking about military issue SAWs, LMGs, and HMGs).

 

[MrPresident]

I do not agree that everyone has a fundamental right to bear arms. Mainly because it means that someone has as much right to bear a pistol, a machine gun, rocket laucher, and so on up the destructive scale. People may think that this is me being ridiculous but you tell me where you draw the line. Is it okay to own a pistol but not a shotgun because one is more powerful? Do you have a fundamental right to own a weapon that only function is to kill? because a pistol and a nuclear bomb are the same in that respect. The argument that a gun provides a citizen with the means to protect themselves is totally misguided. Think of all the leaders who have been assasinated by someone with a gun. These people have the best bodyguards available and some if not all of them would be carrying guns. Also if no-one had a gun a knife would be as an alternative for self-defence. The hunting argument is a particular thorny one because it usually leads to a debate about the legitmacy of hunting. However I will try to avoid that by saying you can hunt without guns, for example fox hunting in the UK. Also do you need to kill the animal? are you hunting for you food or for fun? if it is the latter than you could use someone like a paintball gun, just a thought. As for the argument that people need guns to protect them from the government is just paranoid. Do you think that a pistol will do anything if the government decides to set up a dictatorship, remember the army has bigger weapons than pistols. Do you suggest we all own tanks just in case? I think not. Anyway I'm not bothered about a coup e'tat in the UK because the army's guns don't work and if they did then someone would go wrong with the tanks etc. Sometimes it is useful to live in a country with terrible organisation skills. I'll live you with my final thought. The figures may be wrong (they could even be so wrong as to make me seem foolish but the message is the same), about 1,000 people die in Europe of guns and in the US I think its about 30,000. Remember Europe has a population of 320 million to the US's 280 million. I think gun control is needed not because people don't have a fundamental right to bear arms but because people are killing each other and it needs to stop.

 

[Greadius]

Its nice to use Europe and the U.S. as the examples for gun control...
What about nations like Iraq? China? North Korea? Which nations do their gun control laws line up with?
Tyrants fear guns, because they know that who has weapons has power. One of Hitler's first acts as Chancellor was to outlaw private weapons.

Now, I'm not a gun nut, I don't think rocket launchers qualify as guns, and I'm pretty sure automatic rifles are painfully unnecessary. Concealed weapons licenses are fine with me.

As far as guns and crime go... criminals don't go to a gun shop and buy them, they get them illegally, and they possess them illegally, and the use them illegally. Generally, criminals do the same thing with cars, yet we're not asking for cars to be outlawed (they're used in crimes). Heck, knives are used in crime too, lets outlaw those!

 

[Sixchan]

Wasn't the original intention of the right to bear arms, to let people join a well organised armed citizen's militia? If a war is about to start with the government, then join the town militia and unlock the militia's armoury. But during peacetime I don't think people should have access to guns.

 

[Flatlander Fox]

I think I read somewhere that the two kids who shot up Columbine High broke around 420 gun laws.

So gun control laws are useless unless enforced.

I personally think that guns save more lives then they take.

 

[amadeus]

Gun control laws don't matter when nobody does anything about them.

 

[Zwelgje]

Originally posted by Greadius
As far as guns and crime go... criminals don't go to a gun shop and buy them, they get them illegally, and they possess them illegally, and the use them illegally. Generally, criminals do the same thing with cars, yet we're not asking for cars to be outlawed (they're used in crimes). Heck, knives are used in crime too, lets outlaw those!

Congratulations on using the most stupid argument I have ever seen in a discussion. If you compare guns with cars and knives then you really must be.....well I'm not gonna go further on that on.
Basically guns are only used in situations where there is threat of violence or when violence is already going on. It is true that cars and knives can be used in such situations but I can think of a million other uses for knives and cars........

 

[CornMaster]

Originally posted by ApocalypseKurtz
Fundamentally, I support the right to bear arms. If we the people had no firearms, and the government did, they would have complete and unconditional power over us.

I think that arguement is a little weak.

Last I checked I couldn't buy Nuclear missiles, Tanks, biological weapons, Aircraft carriers at my local gun shop.

If the government wanted to control us...they could. Simple as that.

Not saying that they would win, if a fight broke out....but your shot gun, and their bomber runs are going to different amounts of damage.

I'm against carring of arms. Totally!

 

[Ohwell]

I personally own a few antique pistols from the early 20th century, fully loaded and ready to used if needed. I think gun control is great, but guns should be allowed in homes for protection. And as BlueMonday pointed out, rifles should be more lenient as they are useless unless you are hunting.

A complete background check should be used, to determine the persons past experiences, and age. The age should be 25 and you would have to work for some important buisness or government agency, no fast food workers. Your entire family would be checked as well, to determine if their is any form of insanity in the family. Your gun would be kept in your home, if you are caught with it you would be put in jail for a small time and given a fee.

I would also say their would have to be a caliber limit, so the shotr would not be fatal. The less deaths the better.

 

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by CornMaster
I'm against carring of arms. Totally!

Even when they save lives?

 

[Zwelgje]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Even when they save lives?

Guns don't save lives, they were designed to kill and that's what they do.

 

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by civ1-addict
Guns don't save lives,

There are aprox. 2 million defensive gun uses each year.

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by CornMaster
Last I checked I couldn't buy Nuclear missiles, Tanks, biological weapons, Aircraft carriers at my local gun shop.

True, but in general, most countries are not in a position to deploy nuclear missles, tanks, bioweapons and aircraft carriers against dissidents. Some are...

When I think of guns laws, I can't help but think of a speech I heard once from one of Blair's policy gurus, speaking to an audience of students about the benefits of globalization. As he noted, governments have done far worse things to people historically than corporations. I immediately thought of guns when he said it: likewise with criminals. Governments have done far worse things to people than criminals have, cumulatively, as well. So why not let people defend themselves against governments if they need to? Maybe Jean Chretien will have to drop a small nuke on King West Village when he's in his sixth term and decides its time to round up all the people like me. Maybe my shotgun won't stop the nuke. But the shotgun is a start.

To extend this rambling a bit farther:

If there is a place that needs stronger gun laws, it's South Africa. If there was a place that needed weaker gun laws, it was South Africa.

There lies the rub.