Inevitable gun control argument thread....

[IglooDame]

I remember this coming up before. My appologies!

More honest questions:

But on a related note, are citizens in the US allowed to own fully automatic-firing weapons? If not, what is the rationale between banning them and not other 'scary looking' guns?

They are allowed, but full-auto (so-called "Class III" by the BATF) are many times more expensive (because they must have been manufactured before 1986, IIRC, and because of tax stamps) and require a much more rigorous background check.

ok to change it around a bit, is a handgun much use against a hunting rifle or shot gun at a distance of over 30 feet? Is the only good defense against a rifle another one?

It depends on the skill of the shooter, but in principle yes a pistol shooter's accuracy starts dropping quite a bit at 30 feet, and go beyond 70 or 80 feet and you're probably safe from 3/4 of pistol shooters (just find cover or keep moving). Even at close range, I'd much prefer a shotgun to a pistol, but I can't conceal a shotgun in my vest pocket. But, at 30 feet and up, the tactical options are probably more numerous, unless you're having a shootout in an open field or something.

 

[Che Guava]

See my response to Shane. I think that people in general tend to exaggerate police's abilities with the pistols they carry, and underestimate CCW holders' abilities with the pistols they carry.

Regardless of the reality of the situation now, do you agree that it would be easier to institute and maintain better training for firearms with a police/security force than with individual citizens...

And I'd think that the people in those classrooms would have very much liked to have their own death distributor while the psycho was walking around unopposed

Yes, but I bet even more that that they wished that he didn't have access to his own death distributor....

 

[Rik Meleet]

Besides, it's not gun usage that leads to crime, it's the criminal element that leads to crime. Why should I, as a legal citizen of my country, be barred from defending myself in a safe manner? Am I expected to put my life into the hands of others?

By not putting your safety in the hands of others you are effectively putting your unsafety in the hands of others.
The problem is that guns are not the "safe manner" you refer to.

Freedom of gun ownership is an American concept, and I am constantly irritated by the foreign layer of this forum trying to apply their countries' principles to America. America was built upon the freedom to use guns, not Europe.

School shootings are an American concept as well. I'm glad you are more irritated by the foreign layer of this forum trying to apply their countries' principles to America, than to gun-killings in your own country. It saves you from having to consider your values.

And yes - I was being sarcastic. Perhaps even cynical.

 

[azzaman333]

Guns should never be in the hands of ordinary people. It's too hard to ensure guns don't fall into the wrong hands.

Guns are going to fall into the hands of crims either way, so we might as well allow the public to protect themselves.

 

[IglooDame]

That may well be true, but we both know that there's a lot more to gun handling than just the ability to blindly hit a bullseye. The other factors (security regulations, danger of ricochet, when to shoot, selecting the proper target, etc) are IMHO much more important, and I'm willing to bet that police officers are much better trained in this regard that the average gun owner.

I think I need to make one thing clear - when I talk about something other than home defense or just general right-to-keep-and-bear-arms, I'm referring to people that carry concealed weapons day-to-day. In all but two states and the District of Columbia, one can at least theoretically obtain permits to do so (and in Alaska and Vermont, one does not need a permit). These people, of whom I personally know at least a dozen, take it very very seriously, and I would not bet that the average police officer is superior to them in those regards.

 

[classical_hero]

Why even debate it? It's a guaranteed right, regardless of what anyone's misinterpretation of the Constitution is. Try and take my guns and I'll defend that right with said guns.

Y'all have a nice day.

That is what is wrong with America. Because of a relic of the Independence days, we have people jumping up and down saying that I will defend my right. I say that gun ownership is a privilege that many American just do not know how to use. I have no problem with some people owning guns, but the gun culture in America is just wrong. Guns have only one purpose and that is to injure and kill. There is no second use for it. I remember when Australia banned guns for some people that were used to having guns were afraid that only the bad guys would have them and thus making it unsafe for the rest of the populations. Well it has been a number of years from that time and the streets are safer from being shot, but there generally has not been much of a gun culture here in Australia.

 

[IglooDame]

Regardless of the reality of the situation now, do you agree that it would be easier to institute and maintain better training for firearms with a police/security force than with individual citizens...

I see it a bit like the difference between conscript and volunteer armies - the police are on a spectrum between disliking guns, and doing the minimum necessary to qualify with their firearm. The individual citizens are carrying because they want to and understand that they're only going to be using it to defend their lives, not day-to-day as part of their job. Obviously one can mandate more police training pretty readily, but why don't they already do so?

My opinion on this is definitely colored by my own experience in the Navy, getting annual training with a pistol, and carrying it on watch every day the ship was in port. I was, fundamentally, untrained to use it, even though I was perfectly clear on the circumstances in which I could (legally) use it, richochets, targeting, etc - heck I was one of the inport watch trainers in those regards. But after having gotten out of the Navy, I now carry one because I want to, and evaluating myself then and now, is truly like night and day.

Yes, but I bet even more that that they wished that he didn't have access to his own death distributor....

Yep, but which wish is one they'd have under their own control to grant?

 

[Gladi]

I think I need to make one thing clear - when I talk about something other than home defense or just general right-to-keep-and-bear-arms, I'm referring to people that carry concealed weapons day-to-day. In all but two states and the District of Columbia, one can at least theoretically obtain permits to do so (and in Alaska and Vermont, one does not need a permit). These people, of whom I personally know at least a dozen, take it very very seriously, and I would not bet that the average police officer is superior to them in those regards.

Well from my personal experience both in Europe and USA. In USA I saw people who owned pistols for self-defense taking more care than people owning rifles for rare moments hunting or just out of tradition- I was in a rural area and pretty everybody owned a gun, but not everybody knew how to handle it. It is similar to how people here in Czechia or Slovakia may have cold weapons at home, but will not know how to use them properly. On the other gun owners in these parts are mostly well educated on guns, because they have real interest in them.

 

[Flak]

I just got through a nice argument with my office mates over gun control. I think moments like this truly reveal just how foreign I am to these guys (1 American pro-private-gun-ownership vs 6+ English anti-gun-ownership).

 

[Che Guava]

I see it a bit like the difference between conscript and volunteer armies - the police are on a spectrum between disliking guns, and doing the minimum necessary to qualify with their firearm. The individual citizens are carrying because they want to and understand that they're only going to be using it to defend their lives, not day-to-day as part of their job. Obviously one can mandate more police training pretty readily, but why don't they already do so?

My opinion on this is definitely colored by my own experience in the Navy, getting annual training with a pistol, and carrying it on watch every day the ship was in port. I was, fundamentally, untrained to use it, even though I was perfectly clear on the circumstances in which I could (legally) use it, richochets, targeting, etc - heck I was one of the inport watch trainers in those regards. But after having gotten out of the Navy, I now carry one because I want to, and evaluating myself then and now, is truly like night and day.

I guess this is where theory and reality don't exactly coincide. Using my own common sense, it seems to me that having guns in the hands of people who's job entails properly handling firearms would be the best solution, but I gues that ins;t always the reality.

I think police should have extensive firearm training and be required to practice and recertify often. WHy dont they do that already? Good question...

Yep, but which wish is one they'd have under their own control to grant

They're all old enough to vote, right?

 

[puglover]

The government should have no power over our right to bear arms. It's that simple.

The vast majority of gun owners are not violent people. It's not the fault of the weapon that people commit atrocities like this, it's the living environment and their worldview.

 

[Gladi]

The government should have no power over our right to bear arms. It's that simple.

Only because of the constitution? Or is there any human reason why?

 

[puglover]

Only because of the constitution? Or is there any human reason why?

I strongly believe in a small government. Giving the government control over our weapons gives it too much power. I believe there should be some gun control regulation, but the right to purchase weapons should be kept an American right.

 

[Dragonlord]

Just for the record, I seem to be one of the few Europeans not automatically opposed to private gun ownership... but then, I lived in the US as a kid, so I may be infected

Seems to me the optimum response to this sort of situation isn't either of the two extremes:

- Banning legal carrying of firearms for all won't stop a maniac like this, obviously... unless you enforce it with metal detectors and armed guards at all possible entrances. Pretty hard to do and very expensive...

- Allowing anyone at all (read: students) to carry concealed firearms on campus at all times opens the door to all kinds of accidental shootings, drunken firings sprees and impulse shootings.
We're talking about the same students who like to go on drinking binges, aren't we?

The obvious logical response would be to have selected responsible people be encouraged to wear concealed firearms... sort of like air marshals. This could include teachers/professors and students, provided they had passed some kind of stringent tests, at least as stringent as drivers' licenses.

After all, you don't need a whole roomful of gun-toters to stop a maniac - one or two would be enough.

And for the total gun sceptics: I was just reading up on the history of shooting sprees over the last years and there were a couple of cases - one was in a US shopping centre - where a person with a concealed weapon was coincidentally nearby at the start of such a killing spree. In the shopping centre it was a cop in civvies... and he killed the maniac after only a few seconds, with 'only' 4 or 5 dead. Could have been dozens just as easily as this case...

 

[IglooDame]

Just for the record, I seem to be one of the few Europeans not automatically opposed to private gun ownership... but then, I lived in the US as a kid, so I may be infected

Seems to me the optimum response to this sort of situation isn't either of the two extremes:

- Banning legal carrying of firearms for all won't stop a maniac like this, obviously... unless you enforce it with metal detectors and armed guards at all possible entrances. Pretty hard to do and very expensive...

- Allowing anyone at all (read: students) to carry concealed firearms on campus at all times opens the door to all kinds of accidental shootings, drunken firings sprees and impulse shootings.
We're talking about the same students who like to go on drinking binges, aren't we?

The obvious logical response would be to have selected responsible people be encouraged to wear concealed firearms... sort of like air marshals. This could include teachers/professors and students, provided they had passed some kind of stringent tests, at least as stringent as drivers' licenses.

After all, you don't need a whole roomful of gun-toters to stop a maniac - one or two would be enough.

And for the total gun sceptics: I was just reading up on the history of shooting sprees over the last years and there were a couple of cases - one was in a US shopping centre - where a person with a concealed weapon was coincidentally nearby at the start of such a killing spree. In the shopping centre it was a cop in civvies... and he killed the maniac after only a few seconds, with 'only' 4 or 5 dead. Could have been dozens just as easily as this case...

Holy crap, we pretty much agree.

Here's a thought: why not allow only people who have a Virginia Concealed-Carry Permit to carry firearms on-campus? That's precisely the idea that was defeated last year in the Virginia Legislature, in order to make students and parents feel safer.

I note that one must be 21 to have a Virginia CCL, so presumably the binge-drinking fratboys are not legally allowed to carry anyway.

Also, there's word that the murderer locked or chained the exterior doors to the building when he went in, can anyone verify that?

 

[Gladi]

Giving the government control over our weapons gives it too much power. I believe there should be some gun control regulation, but the right to purchase weapons should be kept an American right.

Yeah, but where and how to draw the line?

For example, I could get a permit for working tank here in Czechia (well not ammunition, I give you that). I would need to present evidence that I am member of WWII re-enactment group and require it for re-enactments, have wintesses confimring my integrity as good citizen, pass psychological evaluations, actually know how to drive and shoot the thing and pay not-so-small amount of money (though less than for flying license). I am okay with that. For non-automatic guns it is much easier.

 

[bathsheba666]

I can see why it is in the interests of the gun manufacturers and their business associates that everyone bear arms.

So the number of individuals backing this stance is no doubt a mark of how effective the marketing is.

Why does the phrase.. 'turkeys voting for christmas' come to mind

... whoops...

or 'turkeys voting for thanksgiving' to get it across the pond.

 

[Dragonlord]

Holy crap, we pretty much agree.

Here's a thought: why not allow only people who have a Virginia Concealed-Carry Permit to carry firearms on-campus? That's precisely the idea that was defeated last year in the Virginia Legislature, in order to make students and parents feel safer.

I note that one must be 21 to have a Virginia CCL, so presumably the binge-drinking fratboys are not legally allowed to carry anyway.

Also, there's word that the murderer locked or chained the exterior doors to the building when he went in, can anyone verify that?

Basically, yes, we do agree. Except that, following your link, the requirements for such a concealed-carry permit seem too low in my eyes: it looks like you just have to have completed a gun course - ANY kind of gun course, offered by just about anybody, including the NRA - and you've qualified! I wouldn't give anyone a drivers licence on that basis, not to speak of a concealed-carry permit...
But this is just from that link - maybe the requirements are more stringent in practice?

 

[Grisu]

Holy crap, we pretty much agree.

Here's a thought: why not allow only people who have a Virginia Concealed-Carry Permit to carry firearms on-campus? That's precisely the idea that was defeated last year in the Virginia Legislature, in order to make students and parents feel safer.

I admit I'm ignorant about this, but what are the requirements to get said permit? If it's more than just "hey, a gun on my hip feels cool" then I might actually agree with this too

edit: ok, if I acutally wasn't this lazy I might have read the link in your post before posting but basically I agree with Dragonlord. I'd agree with you on principle, but I guess our opinions would be a bit diverging where it comes to the requirements

I note that one must be 21 to have a Virginia CCL, so presumably the binge-drinking fratboys are not legally allowed to carry anyway.

though you must be 21 to legally binge-drink as well

 

[IglooDame]

Basically, yes, we do agree. Except that, following your link, the requirements for such a concealed-carry permit seem too low in my eyes: it looks like you just have to have completed a gun course - ANY kind of gun course, offered by just about anybody, including the NRA - and you've qualified! I wouldn't give anyone a drivers licence on that basis, not to speak of a concealed-carry permit...
But this is just from that link - maybe the requirements are more stringent in practice?

Actually the NRA course is among the better ones. Why wouldn't it be? Surely the NRA has more interest than most in helping gun owners be safe. That said, I agree that a hunter's class for a carry permit is pretty lame. But that said, New Hampshire doesn't require any training for a CCW permit, and next door in Vermont, they don't require permits in the first place. Other places require psychological evaluations and such. It seems to me that making it expensive to get a CCW (such as requiring a psych eval) disproportionately prevents poorer folks from getting one, and given that they tend to be living in neighborhoods where personal protection is a more significant issue, I'm not a big fan of it.