Gun Control, who needs it?

[MrPresident]

If the 2nd amendant gives everyone the right to bear arms then how can there be any gun regulation? Does the amendant give an American as much right to have a antique rifle as a semi-automatic uzi. You can't say that this amendant gives you the right to bear arms and then say that you can only have certain arms.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by MrPresident
Does the amendant give and American as much right to have a antique rifle as a semi-automatic uzi.

If the militia line of arguments bear out, Then assault rifles and other military small arms would be more protected that collector's guns or hunting weapons. There is not enough decided case in this are for any rational person to make confident predictions of what the eventual, if ever, holdings will be. The SCOTUS had strenuously avoided taking cases that bear direct on the core 2nd amendment meaings. Most court ruling at all levels that could have be 2nd amendments cases have been decided on other issues and ground without ruling on the gun issues. The fenderal courst have avoided it like the plague.

 

[joespaniel]

Nobody in the civilian world needs those kind of killing-machines.

Handguns are bad enough, seeing as how most people couldnt hit a cow if they were riding it.

If the right to bear arms is all-inclusive, I want my own hydrogen bomb.

 

[ApocalypseKurtz]

Originally posted by joespaniel
Nobody in the civilian world needs those kind of killing-machines.

Handguns are bad enough, seeing as how most people couldnt hit a cow if they were riding it.

If the right to bear arms is all-inclusive, I want my own hydrogen bomb.

Assuming they were legal to buy, the bomb would cost you a cool $1 billion or so.

 

[MrPresident]

Nobody in the civilian world needs those kind of killing-machines.

What about hunters? Farmers? People who want to commit crime? People who like the feel of a gun? NRA members? Supporters of the 2nd Amendent?

Oh wait you said need not want.

 

[knowltok2]

Originally posted by MrPresident
If the 2nd amendant gives everyone the right to bear arms then how can there be any gun regulation? Does the amendant give an American as much right to have a antique rifle as a semi-automatic uzi. You can't say that this amendant gives you the right to bear arms and then say that you can only have certain arms.

Shout "fire" in a crowded building and then point to the first amendment for protection. You won't get it. The same arguement can be applied to the second amendment on limiting it. Rights can be limited when the societal need outweighs the person's need for that right. On this grounds anti gun people have a firm arguement, and it can be open for discussion. On grounds that the framers didn't intend individuals to own weapons, I don't think they have a leg to stand on.

 

[MrPresident]

On grounds that the framers didn't intend individuals to own weapons, I don't think they have a leg to stand on.

Does it really matter what the Framers intended? In the Constitution on counting the population to determine how many congressmen each state gets they define a black person has being 3/5 of a white person. It is clear that the Framers thought a black person worth less than a white person but is this revelant today? I don't think so.

 

[VoodooAce]

I was just wondering....has any W. European nation ever allowed their citizens to own guns and then taken them away?

Regardless, the way I look at it is like this. If I buy a gun and bring it into my home, the chance that my son or one of his friends will find it and shoot themselves goes up.

From 0% to somewhere above 0%. That's enough to convince me.

And I'd feel much safer for myself and my son if all of my neighbors felt the same way.

 

[knowltok2]

Originally posted by MrPresident

Does it really matter what the Framers intended? In the Constitution on counting the population to determine how many congressmen each state gets they define a black person has being 3/5 of a white person. It is clear that the Framers thought a black person worth less than a white person but is this revelant today? I don't think so.

Under the way that US constitutional law is set up, yes it does matter. The law is set up to remain as is until changed. I believe you will find that the 3/5 thing has been changed, and doen so within the constitutional frame work. We cannot lightly decide that the Amendment means this or that today based upon what we think today. If we deem that it needs changed, there is a system in place to change it.

Originally posted by VoodooAce
Regardless, the way I look at it is like this. If I buy a gun and bring it into my home, the chance that my son or one of his friends will find it and shoot themselves goes up.

From 0% to somewhere above 0%. That's enough to convince me.

And I'd feel much safer for myself and my son if all of my neighbors felt the same way.

There's a lot of things I'd feel much safer on if all of my neighbors felt the same as I did.

May I suggest (Because I like you ) that if you have not, you instruct your son in proper gun safety? I can see your point about not having a gun in your house, and have absolutely no problem with it, but it is possible that someday your son will come into contact with the forbidden fruit on his own. When and if that day comes, knowledge of how a gun works and proper gun safety etiquette may well save your son from himself or one of his friends. Your son will know not to ever trust another individual's word on whether a gun is loaded or not. He will also know that a gun is never pointed at anyone regardless. These facts should be drilled into everyone.

I fear that it is kids who don't know these rules that wind up playing with guns and getting shot. As I child I would have left immediately if someone pointed a gun at me, even if they said, or if I knew it wasn't loaded. It is just something that you don't do. I think that many kids who wind up shot don't know these rules. I could of course be wrong.

Once again, I can totally respect your opinion about guns, and their dangers. I just hope that you give your son the knowedge that can help make guns safer.

 

[MrPresident]

May I suggest (Because I like you ) that if you have not, you instruct your son in proper gun safety?

Surely by that thought process you should also teach your son how to take drugs properly, how to drive a car, how to operate heavy machinery, how to smoke tobacco, the proper way to drink alcohol, how to act with a stripper etc....

I think that teaching your son how to fire a gun is not the smartest idea. Maybe you should think about teaching how that guns kill and that is their own purpose. If there were no guns then kids wouldn't be able to kill themselves by accident. I live in a country where most guns are illegal and I have never in my entire life hear of any person accidentally shooting themselves, kid or otherwise. By the way I have also never had to trust someone whether a gun is loaded or not but if they were pointing it at him I probably wouldn't be inclined to do so.

 

[knowltok2]

Originally posted by MrPresident

Surely by that thought process you should also teach your son how to take drugs properly, how to drive a car, how to operate heavy machinery, how to smoke tobacco, the proper way to drink alcohol, how to act with a stripper etc....

I think that teaching your son how to fire a gun is not the smartest idea. Maybe you should think about teaching how that guns kill and that is their own purpose. If there were no guns then kids wouldn't be able to kill themselves by accident. I live in a country where most guns are illegal and I have never in my entire life hear of any person accidentally shooting themselves, kid or otherwise. By the way I have also never had to trust someone whether a gun is loaded or not but if they were pointing it at him I probably wouldn't be inclined to do so.

I appreciate that you live in a country where guns are illegal and accidental shootings don't happen. I also appreciate that you think America should be that way. However it is not. Accidental shootings do happen, and they tend to happen with kids too. That may bolster your arguement for making them illegal, and that is fine, but VoodooAce must raise his son considering the objective reality of his world, not a vision of how it should be. That reality includes neighbor children whose parents may have guns. Those parents may not be as rational and intelligent about guns as he may wish them to be, and their children may have access to the guns. Kids play, and they play with forbidden fruit. Better to know what it can do, and the proper way of dealing with it instead of having to deal with the situation with ignorance.

As to your first point, I consider this ludicrous. The analogy is that if you don't want your child to do drugs, you educate him or her about them. The effects on the body, the effects on the mind. The dangers, what can go wrong, etc. You do not just repeat, " Drugs are bad, don't do drugs." Most people require a bit more than that when making an informed decision.

Continuing on, yeah, I should teach my child how to drive a car when the time comes. I think it will make him or her safer than simply saying, "well, your sixteen, you can drive now, but keep in mind, cars can be dangerous."

I can also do better than telling my child that alcohol is bad. Especially when he or she will grow up seeing me knocking back a Guiness or three now and again. The child will drink, and while I am not going to teach him how, avoiding that subject until the kid wraps the family car around a tree doesn't strike me as the best way either.

In short, I think raising a child with the information and the capacity to make a rational decision is better than simply creating an automaton that that I have filled with catch phrases such as "Guns are evil. Just Say No. Don't drive drunk. Speed kills. Smoking is stupid. etc." These are valid expressions, but a thinking person needs information and knowledge to truely accept them as good common sense.

Also, teaching proper gun safety includes teaching that guns kill. It does not even have to include shooting, but I think that that can help illustrate the point. People in the US have a good chance of encountering guns in their lifetime. If they do, they can either do so with knowledge gained from a responsible source like a gun safety class, or from Gansta rap and Hollywood. I guess I just figure that the preference should be obvious.

 

[MrPresident]

All I am saying is that if you teach someone to use something, do not be surprised to learn that they have. For example, some children involved in one of America's shootings at a school were taught how to shoot a gun a the age of 10. When they were faced when a problem (maybe bullying etc) that are common at school they considered using a gun as a solution. This would not have happened if they had never been taught to use a gun. I am not saying that gun safely lessons are a bad idea, personally I think they have a lot of merit. However you cannot compare saying don't take drugs to don't fire a weapon. Drugs are a personal choice that is usually initally made in the spirit of expermentation (not that I in anyway condone drug use). This is not the same with firing a gun. Children should be taught to stay away from guns and be shown the effects of using one. Sure if you must teach them what a loaded and unloaded gun looks like. All I am saying is that if you do that then you must teach a child how to properly inject themselves. Both are not encouraging use but both are teaching, "in the event that you do use them.....".

 

[knowltok2]

Originally posted by MrPresident
All I am saying is that if you teach someone to use something, do not be surprised to learn that they have. For example, some children involved in one of America's shootings at a school were taught how to shoot a gun a the age of 10. When they were faced when a problem (maybe bullying etc) that are common at school they considered using a gun as a solution. This would not have happened if they had never been taught to use a gun. I am not saying that gun safely lessons are a bad idea, personally I think they have a lot of merit. However you cannot compare saying don't take drugs to don't fire a weapon. Drugs are a personal choice that is usually initally made in the spirit of expermentation (not that I in anyway condone drug use). This is not the same with firing a gun. Children should be taught to stay away from guns and be shown the effects of using one. Sure if you must teach them what a loaded and unloaded gun looks like. All I am saying is that if you do that then you must teach a child how to properly inject themselves. Both are not encouraging use but both are teaching, "in the event that you do use them.....".

To me you have to weigh potential dangers. I think it is much more likely that a child will come into contact with firearms and benefit from knowledge of how to use them and how they should be safely handled, than to spin emotionally out of control and go on a shooting spree out of the awareness of a parent that is paying attention and is an active part of their childs life. As a parent I will take my chance that I can instill enough of a basic sense of right and wrong to avoid a killing spree even if the child learns the killing skills of the SAS.

A difference could be that I don't view firearms as inherently evil, whereas anything that you are going to inject in yourself in some back room is. Therefore I do not equate teaching about guns as the same thing as how to inject yourself.

Children are going to learn about guns. They are going to see them on TV, and hear about them in music. There is a substantial chance that they will think they are 'cool'. Burying your head in the sand and telling your children that "Guns are bad, don't touch guns." to me doesn't address the full reality of the situation. "because my dad told me not to." is not the logic a child needs to combat the peer preasure they will face as they grow up. They need the self confidence that comes with knowledge, unless you expect that they will automatically obey everything you tell them, simply because you are the one telling them.

 

[sgrig]

Sorry if this has been answered in this thread before. But why would anyone who does not intend to kill people want a gun? (ok, maybe except hunters, but they are a very small minority)

Somebody might say - for self-protection, but imo, having a gun on you makes you even more vulnerable. It makes the attacker's job even easier, because the gun could be used against its owner. A criminal might not hesistate killing you using your own gun, while you might not have the guts to kill the attacker. (Of course maybe Americans are so iron-willed that they would not hesitate killing somebody who attacks them, but in Europe I think that's not the case)

 

[knowltok2]

Originally posted by sgrig
Sorry if this has been answered in this thread before. But why would anyone who does not intend to kill people want a gun? (ok, maybe except hunters, but they are a very small minority)

Somebody might say - for self-protection, but imo, having a gun on you makes you even more vulnerable. It makes the attacker's job even easier, because the gun could be used against its owner. A criminal might not hesistate killing you using your own gun, while you might not have the guts to kill the attacker. (Of course maybe Americans are so iron-willed that they would not hesitate killing somebody who attacks them, but in Europe I think that's not the case)

You answered your own question about seld protection with those three little letters: IMO. Self protection is a big reason, and many people do not have the opinion that they are more at risk. It is also theoretically possible to scare someone with a gun without shooting them. If I am in my home and I hear someone downstairs I can yell out that I have a gun. If they don't leave immediately, I can fire what is called a 'warning shot' to let them know that I am not making it up. If they start up the stairs after said warning shot, then I have the option of shooting them.

That is just one scenario, but it is possible to have a different opinion about self protection than yours. Not that they are great things, but what is the purpose of a country's nuclear weapons? It really isn't to vaporize cities and armies, it is to keep other countries from doing the same to your country. A gun in my home is not for me to kill someone with, or to force them to do what I want, it is to keep them from doing those things to me. I may succeed and I may fail, but many people draw comfort knowing that they have the chance.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by knowltok2

It is also theoretically possible to scare someone with a gun without shooting them.

Much more than theoretical. Nearly all uses of lawfully carried weapons to prevent crimes do not invole shots fired, onwly drawing or display of the weapon.

The crocked statistiscians of the gun control lobby always leave the non firing use of lawfuly carried weapons when they compare accidentel shooting to lawful shootings.

 

[amadeus]

What's wrong with a gun if it's in the hands of a RESPONSIBLE person? That's a point that is never emphasized by anti-gun activism.

There's no need for further gun legislation...all it is, is simply a waste of paper by our representative government, because the current laws that we have are not being enforced by arms dealers, etc.

The crackdown on arms going to criminals isn't going to be from within, it's from the sources abroad that are bringing in the weapons.

Also, in my opinion, you need to crack down on illegal drugs (marijuana, cocaine, heroin, etc.) before violent crimes decrease. It's proven in studies over and over again -- if you live in a community with a high drug use rate, you'd better hit the ground every time you see a black sedan drive by.

 

[MrPresident]

Okay a gun is used by many for self defence. I can understand that. What I don't understand is that these people are opposed to a complete ban on firearms (igorning the constitutional arguments). If no-one had a gun then you would not need a gun to defend yourself. I know many people will see this is "pie in the sky" but if you don't even try to accomplise it then how will you know it cannot be done. People said that humans would never walk on the moon but JFK had a different vision and it was fulfilled, why can't this be done to the ban of firearms.

A difference could be that I don't view firearms as inherently evil, whereas anything that you are going to inject in yourself in some back room is.

Does the place where you inject yourself affect whether or not a drug is evil? Many drugs that are injected have enomormous medical value. However I will assume you meant drugs like heroin etc. The difference between me and you is that I don't consider these inherently evil (I also don't consider firearms inherently evil). These drugs must have some benefits, however short-lived, otherwise people would not take them. The same could be said of tobacco, they kill but people still smoke. I class firearms the same as Class A drugs (and tobacco) in that their use should be significantly limited. Remember that Heroin was legally on sale at the turn of the 20th century as a painkiller.

 

[knowltok2]

Originally posted by MrPresident
Does the place where you inject yourself affect whether or not a drug is evil? Many drugs that are injected have enomormous medical value. However I will assume you meant drugs like heroin etc. The difference between me and you is that I don't consider these inherently evil (I also don't consider firearms inherently evil). These drugs must have some benefits, however short-lived, otherwise people would not take them. The same could be said of tobacco, they kill but people still smoke. I class firearms the same as Class A drugs (and tobacco) in that their use should be significantly limited. Remember that Heroin was legally on sale at the turn of the 20th century as a painkiller.

Yes I was reffering to heroin, etc. Just because it may have a short term benefit does not make it bad news. My criteria is that I view heroin use as a bad thing in almost every concievable circumstance. A gun on the other hand can have many positive benefits.


The problem with a complete ban on guns is the same problem with unilateral disarmerment. It may be great in theory, but no one believes that the other people will comply. Certainly criminals aren't going to just turn them in when the law is passed.

Lefty: I was being sarcastic, but you are completely correct.

 

[MrPresident]

The problem with a complete ban on guns is the same problem with unilateral disarmerment. It may be great in theory, but no one believes that the other people will comply. Certainly criminals aren't going to just turn them in when the law is passed.

I accept this completely. A complete ban on guns in America is at least, in ever, a long time away. However that doesn't mean that certain steps cannot be taken now. Steps such as banning automatic weapons etc, restrict the sale of firearms (or even ban the sale), ask for people to hand in their existing guns for destruction. A complete ban on guns will never be done in one big law it will be done in small stepping stones. The problem I have is that people don't want to even get the process going, they cling to the belief that the founding fathers wanted them to be able to blast someone's head off. Also as a side point, wouldn't a knife (or several knives) be as useful in defence as a gun?