You should've seen this coming with all the recent shootings

[Dagobahn Eagle]

With the recent series of school shootings, and the influx of new members to the Senate (such as Emp. Devon and J. Onasi), I thought it'd be an idea to bring this subject up again.

 

 

Thread topic: Are you for or against gun control, and if for, to what extent?

 

 

I'm personally against gun ownership for home defense (as they are 43 times more likely to kill someone in the house than a burglar, they do not exactly provide safety), and I'm definetly against owning Firearms of Mass Destruction (AK-47s and the like), as there's simply no need for civilians owning such things.

 

Hunting and sporting I'm less decided on. Perhaps you could buy be allowed to buy a rifle if you had a permit and made an oath to use it only for hunting or sports, and to never leave it armed at home and keep the ammunition out of reach of children.

 

As for the old "guns keep the government from taking away our democracy"-argument, that is of course a fallacy. The US military of today has everything from stealth planes to carriers, from tanks to cruise missiles. A bunch of civilians with various sorts of firearms would do nada. Iraq is a good example on how "well-regulated militias" of fantical Muslims and Saddam loyalists, armed even more heavily than the NRA members in the US, are failing to drive out the Coalition occupants.

 

Furthermore, if there's one thing the Bush presidency has proven, it is that authoritarian elements (need I give examples?) can easily be introduced into a country, no matter how many guns the residents have. "All you have to do is declare that the nation is under attack, and accuse the pacifist of being cowards and of exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in ever country".

 

PS: 1. It might be a good idea to go quickly through the old threads on the subject, such as the old Gun Control thread.

 

Edit: 2. One of the sources on Göring's "All you have to do..."-quote. Felt it didn't deserve it's own post all by itself.

[Mace MacLeod]

Absolutely for. If gun ownership made people safe, the US would be the safest place on the planet. You like shooting things? Join the army. That's what it's there for.

 

And the full quote is: "Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. ...Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." --Hermann Goering, 1946.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Two more related threads:

Guns - please vote.

The ban on assault weapons - lifted?

[TK-8252]

Please don't step on my right to own a gun. If I want it for defense, a collection, hunting, or just hey, maybe because I want one, that is my constitutional right. Even if the justification for owning a gun isn't to build a militia, there's still no legitimate reason to change the Constitution just for a utopian ideal (no guns).

 

There are studies that show that gun ownership decreases gun violence (a deterrent to crime - would you rob someone if you think they could have a gun?), but then there's studies that show the opposite. So it's not really provable either way if they make us safer or not, so why not side with giving people more freedom as opposed to taking away a freedom that many people use lawfully every day?

 

Banning guns isn't going to make guns go away entirely - it just means that law-abiding citizens won't have them. Criminals will still have guns, because they can smuggle them into the country. Look at that shooting in Canada recently - the guy had an automatic weapon, didn't he? So much for Canada's gun control!

 

My family is considering getting a pistol in the house for defensive purposes... sure you'll say to just get a security system, but once someone is inside the house, there's not much that you can do. That's why having a pistol, as dangerous as it may be, at least gives you a feeling of being in control.

 

Plus... if China invades, at least the people can fight them guerilla style.

[Q]

^^^

Couldn't have said it better myself, TK.

 

BTW: No offense, really, but why do citizens of other nations care whether or not US citizens have the right to own firearms anyway?

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Please don't step on my right to own a gun.

Rights aren't absolute things that have to be universally accepted. Canadians have the right to free health care, American right-wingers (the same people who want less gun control) fight the introduction of that right to America with all their strenght.

 

In Norway we have the right to go whereever we want to, even on private property, as long as it's not on cultivated fields or near a house. So in other words, I can hike in the mountain behind my house, even though some of it is privately owned, but I can't walk through the backyard of the guy who owns it. Don't you want that freedom in the US, too, if you're so crazy about rights?

 

And let's not get into the right to own a slave, the right to walk around nude in the streets...

 

Right doesn't make right.

 

If I want it for defense, a collection, hunting, or just hey, maybe because I want one, that is my constitutional right.

Right does not make right;).

 

There was a time when drinking alcohol was unconstitutional, which resulted in the 23rd amendment, which kicked out the 18th one. Did you see the NRA (if they existed then:o) go bananas and protest the "attacks on the constitution"?

 

Even if the justification for owning a gun isn't to build a militia, there's still no legitimate reason to change the Constitution just for a utopian ideal (no guns).

Reducing the number of firearms deaths each year from 11 000 isn't legitimate?

 

There are studies that show that gun ownership decreases gun violence (a deterrent to crime - would you rob someone if you think they could have a gun?), but then there's studies that show the opposite. So it's not really provable either way if they make us safer or not, so why not side with giving people more freedom as opposed to taking away a freedom that many people use lawfully every day?

 

Banning guns isn't going to make guns go away entirely (...)

So? Banning rape didn't make rape go away entirely. Banning theft hasn't made burglars go away.

 

- it just means that law-abiding citizens won't have them. Criminals will still have guns, because they can smuggle them into the country.

 

Look at that shooting in Canada recently - the guy had an automatic weapon, didn't he? So much for Canada's gun control!

Indeed, look at the shooting in gun-control Canada. Just about the only one of its kind in I don't know how long?

 

My family is considering getting a pistol in the house for defensive purposes...

Let's say there's a new fire-fighting system for private homes on the market. Let's not get into details as to how it works, but it's supposed to be wonderful in taking out fires starting in your home. It allows you all the "effectiveness" of a squad of fire-fighters, so that you can easily take out the fire yourself before the slow fire department people arrive.

 

The problem is that it's been proven to start 43 times more fires it puts out. Would you buy it? I don't think anyone but a pyromanic lunatic bent on actually burning down his house would. Why's it not the same for firearms?

[TK-8252]

Rights aren't absolute things that have to be universally accepted. Canadians have the right to free health care, American right-wingers (the same people who want less gun control) fight the introduction of that right to America with all their strenght.

 

Free health care?? Who pays for the doctors and the medicine?

 

In Norway we have the right to go whereever we want to, even on private property, as long as it's not on cultivated fields or near a house. So in other words, I can hike in the mountain behind my house, even though some of it is privately owned, but I can't walk through the backyard of the guy who owns it. Don't you want that freedom in the US, too, if you're so crazy about rights?

 

Private property rights.

 

There was a time when drinking alcohol was unconstitutional, which resulted in the 23rd amendment, which kicked out the 18th one. Did you see the NRA (if they existed then:o) go bananas and protest the "attacks on the constitution"?

 

Ehh I don't see why the NRA would need to protest for the right to alcohol. It's not related to their cause.

 

Reducing the number of firearms deaths each year from 11 000 isn't legitimate?

 

No it's not, because it's not proven that gun prohibition is going to actually reduce gun-related deaths. Just like drug and alcohol prohibitions... come on, everyone drinks and smokes weed, at least at my school. Banning it does nothing except burden the legal system.

 

So? Banning rape didn't make rape go away entirely. Banning theft hasn't made burglars go away.

 

The difference is that rape and theft are acts that directly hurt people. Simply owning a gun and having it stashed in a closet does not hurt anyone. And don't make me bring up the old "guns don't kill people, husbands that come home early do people kill people" line...

 

Indeed, look at the shooting in gun-control Canada. Just about the only one of its kind in I don't know how long?

 

But it still happened. People still have automatic weapons with the intention of using them to murder, even in Canada.

 

Let's say there's a new fire-fighting system for private homes on the market. Let's not get into details as to how it works, but it's supposed to be wonderful in taking out fires starting in your home. It allows you all the "effectiveness" of a squad of fire-fighters, so that you can easily take out the fire yourself before the slow fire department people arrive.

 

The problem is that it's been proven to start 43 times more fires it puts out. Would you buy it? I don't think anyone but a pyromanic lunatic bent on actually burning down his house would. Why's it not the same for firearms?

 

Perhaps those people who are using it to start fires are just retarded, and can't figure out how to use it correctly.

[Mace MacLeod]

There are studies that show that gun ownership decreases gun violence (a deterrent to crime - would you rob someone if you think they could have a gun?), but then there's studies that show the opposite. So it's not really provable either way if they make us safer or not, so why not side with giving people more freedom as opposed to taking away a freedom that many people use lawfully every day?

Actually, the only US studies that support guns decreasing levels of gun violence are those ones sanctioned by the NRA, and if you believe those guys, I've got a bridge to sell you. Most of the studies done are in academic journals which I can't link to, but the vast majority of research shows that the more guns in a society, the more shootings. The only exception to this is places like Switzerland, where everyone has to serve in the military and be ready to form a militia and people are comprehensively trained in weapons use and storage. As I said, if all of the US's precious, precious guns really did help make them safe, it'd be the safest place on Earth.

 

Banning guns isn't going to make guns go away entirely - it just means that law-abiding citizens won't have them. Criminals will still have guns, because they can smuggle them into the country. Look at that shooting in Canada recently - the guy had an automatic weapon, didn't he? So much for Canada's gun control!

Actually, the vast majority of illegal and criminall-owned wepaons are smuggled up from the US. Thanks, guys. The guns that are typically owned in Canada are rifles and shotguns, and it's handguns which are the weapons of choice for criminals. Here's a breakdown of weapons used in crimes in the US: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm

Here's an article on the gun ownership in Canada and its effect on crime: http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/rs/rep/1998/wd98-4a.html

Aaaaaaand here's a comparison of Canadian and American crime rates:

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/011218/d011218b.htm

 

My family is considering getting a pistol in the house for defensive purposes... sure you'll say to just get a security system, but once someone is inside the house, there's not much that you can do. That's why having a pistol, as dangerous as it may be, at least gives you a feeling of being in control.

There's another meta-analysis that I can't link to that I actually included in my own research when I was still in university. It's a very interesting study that added up all the police reports that dealt with homeowners or shop owners who whipped out guns on criminals. Less than once in ten met with positive results, ie: shot the robber, drove the robber away. In better than 90% of the circumstances where a private citizen confronted a perp with a gun, the perp took the gun from them and either shot them or finished robbing them then got away with a shiny new gun. Better than 90%.

That's why having a pistol, as dangerous as it may be, at least gives you a feeling of being in control.

Yeah, it's a feeling of being in control. It's a feeling of being safe. It's not the same thing as actually being safe. You're far, far more likely to blow away your wife, your kid, your dog or you yourself than you are to shoot an intruder if you buy the damn thing. Carrying a gun in your waistband only makes you feel safe until you blow your balls off with it.

 

Plus... if China invades, at least the people can fight them guerilla style.

That's what your army's for. That's why Dubya and his buddies are pumping billions and billions into your armed forces, remember?

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Free health care?? Who pays for the doctors and the medicine?

Private property rights.

My point exactly. Just that something's a "right" doesn't mean it should be 100% accepted. Same with the righ to own a gun. No one can say that "it's my right, so it's OK and shouldn't be challenged". Rights aren't always right.

 

Ehh I don't see why the NRA would need to protest for the right to alcohol.

Why not? I thought they were out to defend the constitution (ie. the 18th amendment). But judging by how they stand idly by while Bush picks the whole Constitution apart, I suppose you're right.

 

And don't make me bring up the old "guns don't kill people, people kill people" line...

Please don't. Worst, most nonsensial cliché ever.

 

Perhaps those people who are using it to start fires are just retarded, and can't figure out how to use it correctly.

Or perhaps it's not that safe a device. Face it, you don't have to be retarded to have a firearms accident.

 

Actually, the vast majority of illegal and criminall-owned wepaons are smuggled up from the US. Thanks, guys.

You'd also be surprised by how many foreign partisan groups, terrorists included, set up shop in the US, buy guns there, and then ship them off to their country to use them against whatever enemy there is to fight.

 

Which is why it makes so much sense for the PATRIOT ACT to check for library records and not gun purchases:p.

[Spider AL]

I've returned from my holiday in the fair continent of North America. Was nice.

 

As regards "gun control", the issue is not as cut and dried as both "camps" would have us believe. The US already has some degree of gun control, in the form of cool-off periods for handguns, firearms licenses, etcetera. The issue is to what degree should gun ownership be allowed/monitored by the state. To answer this question, I'll use a couple of real-world examples.

 

First, bringing in more stringent gun-law is no cure for gun crime. Here in the UK where I live, handguns are illegal, heavy rifles are illegal, and only airguns and shotguns for farmers and those sorts of things are allowed. And even for those, you need a license and a specific job-related purpose for using them. We do have small-bore rifle clubs still as far as I'm aware, but once again those require licenses. Pretty heavy gun control, yes? Yes.

 

But that doesn't help us when it comes to gun crime. Gun crime in the UK is steadily increasing and has been increasing for years. Violent yob culture and frankly, yes, foreign gangsters coming to our shores have been seemingly responsible for this rise. It's easy to get hold of pistols illegally in the UK. It's relatively easy to get hold of something fully automatic, for god's sake.

 

Our national legal debate on the topic of guns really started in 1996, when an event called the Dunblane Massacre occurred. It was an incident in which a disgruntled child molester shot and killed some sixteen children and one staff member in a school in Scotland. Following this incident and some other firearms-related news stories, handguns were banned completely nationwide.

 

In the years that followed, handgun crime soared. Since that incident to this day, gun crime levels have increased every year. (source: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims/reducing-crime/gun-crime/)

 

Introducing tougher laws won't necessarily cut gun crime. End of story. Since criminals by definition disregard laws, only better policing can cut gun crime. And frankly, our police have their hands tied over here. But I digress.

 

* * *

 

Now that we've had an example of how harsher gun-control ISN'T the panacea for all woes, let's examine how it CAN work to save lives.

 

There are around thirty-thousand firearms related deaths a year in the US, and over half of all these are suicides. This is according to all the numbers that I have been able to find on the internet, and specifically on the NCIPC website.

 

Therefore it is arguable that banning legal ownership of guns would reduce the number of suicides in the US. Suicide by gun is quick and easy, and frankly more often fatal than other methods of self-destruction. So banning guns = less successful suicides. But really, these people DO want to kill themselves. So keeping them alive- to me- is less important than keeping say... victims of crime alive.

 

Secondly, accidental deaths by firearm. The odds are tiny that you will die by accidental shooting. Under a thirtieth of all firearms related deaths in the US are tagged as "unintentional". But these statistics don't tell you whether the accidental death was some drug-dealer cleaning his illegal piece while being coked up, or a father accidentally shooting his child, mistaking them for a burglar.

 

Regardless, if guns were banned then yes, the accidental death by firearm rate would definitely shrink. By how much? Who knows?

 

But my gut tells me that most accidental shootings are due to stupidity. Didn't put the gun back in the safe. Didn't lock the safe. Didn't unload the weapon before cleaning it. And as much as I pity fools, I do not think legislation exists to protect the stupid from their own idiocy.

 

* * *

 

Lastly does owning a gun prevent one from being the VICTIM of crime? Well to be honest, yes and no.

 

Yes if you carry your gun everywhere with you and practice drawing it from wherever you holster it with military precision... AND if you know basic self-protection like spatial control, awareness, body-language cues etcetera etcetera.

 

NO, if you buy a gun and keep it in your drawer, or don't know how to use it against another human being, or COULDN'T use it on another human being, or if you just wander the streets daydreaming and couldn't see a mugger coming even if he were to run straight towards you and lamp you in the face with a big wet fish.

 

Sadly most people will never be capable of defending themselves, REGARDLESS of what weaponry they're given. There are natural victims in the world.

 

* * *

 

So there you have it. In short, the debate is NOT one of "gun control" versus "total lack of gun control", nor is it a simple question as to what effect each type of control would have on death and crime rates. Personally I'm in favour of public ownership of firearms, with good solid licensing requirements. I wish we in the UK weren't so anti-gun, because in the UK, criminals DO have guns... but I'm not allowed to have one. Specifically because I'm one of the good guys.

 

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Introducing tougher laws won't necessarily cut gun crime. End of story. Since criminals by definition disregard laws, only better policing can cut gun crime. And frankly, our police have their hands tied over here. But I digress.

I'd say banning or heavily restricting guns is one of the things that prevents gun crime. But it's akin to removing the training wheels of a little kid's bicycle without giving the child any balance training. There's going to be some falls.

 

Therefore it is arguable that banning legal ownership of guns would reduce the number of suicides in the US.

Exactly. Suicide isn't something you do lightly. Lots of people are kept alive by the fact that they don't know of a good, easy, quick way to do it.

 

Suicide by gun is quick and easy, and frankly more often fatal than other methods of self-destruction.

And, of couse, even when not fatal, it tends to ruin your life pretty effectively. A gash to your wrist can be stitched, leaving nothing more than a scar that can be hidden with an armband or whatever. A shotgun shell to your head... Let's not go there.

 

But really, these people DO want to kill themselves. So keeping them alive- to me- is less important than keeping say... victims of crime alive.

Except they don't think clearly. Most of them are mentally ill, after all. Or to put it another way, you'd be surpsied by how many people try to commit suicide and then regret it once they're given the help they need and realize psychiatry isn't all about evil mind-reading patronizers. Score one for getting psychiatry out of the closet. But that's for another thread.

[Spider AL]

I'd say banning or heavily restricting guns is one of the things that prevents gun crime.

A sweepingly general statement with little or no meaning there, Eagle. Are you trying to say:

 

a: That increasing controlling legislation WILL cut gun crime, (clearly nonsense, I cited the UK handgun crime statistics as one example of why it's nonsense)

b: That increasing controlling legislation will cut gun crime if combined with some other measure(s), (please specify what other measure(s).)

 

But it's akin to removing the training wheels of a little kid's bicycle without giving the child any balance training. There's going to be some falls.

What? I'd say that citing my own country's experience as an example, after banning legal ownership of handguns completely, handgun crime continued to rise year after year for the past... what... eight years. Let's face it, that's a little more than "some falls". It's a complete failure, and frankly the measure was merely introduced to shut the public outcry up following some school killings. After all, gun owners who go through background checks and licensing are never going to be the big problem. It'll always be the crims with their illegally obtained weapons that are the big problem.

 

Except they don't think clearly. Most of them are mentally ill, after all.

Most are depressed. Many people who are depressed enough to contemplate suicide choose the difficult way. The difficult way is to live. Call depression a mental illness if you like, but depression does NOT eradicate free will, any more than drug-addiction does. We all have choices. Choose to kill yourself... and live with your decision. Are you strong enough to live? The answer to this question determines whether or not you live.

 

And finally to address the main thrust of your post, as I said, yes, suicide rates might indeed drop sharply if guns were banned in the US. What I'm NOT certain about, is whether that would be a great thing or not.

 

I read a short sci-fi story once about an alien society that had achieved perfect stability by providing all its people with a quick and easy method of killing themselves. They ended up with a much smaller but infinitely better adjusted race of aliens.

 

you'd be surpsied by how many people try to commit suicide and then regret it once they're given the help they need

No Eagle, I really wouldn't be surprised, because I know all about it. Trust me. My stance on suicide might be different to your own, but that does not mean that it is based on inexperience concerning the topic, nor does it indicate faulty logic.

 

Call me brutal, but I do actually look on life as a game. And just like in a game, there are those who have the strength of character necessary to carry on when the chips are down, and those who quit when they still have a good chance to win. That's on them. They bear the weight alone. Nobody can "drive" you to press that quit button. The last click is yours. Always.

[toms]

This only ever seems to be an issue in the states. Other countries have guns, or not, and thats that.

 

It seems to me that the problem isn't GUN OWNERSHIP, its GUN MANUFACTURE. US weapons companies seem to be producing weapons at a rate that they couldn't possibly sell them at... if it wasn't for them relying on the fact that a large number will get stolen or end up in the wrong hands. Its like the way cellphone sales growth depended on the high theft rate of mobiles.. and handset makers and networks resisted putting in place measures to block stolen phones.

Gun companies seem to similarly rely on the theft and loss of weapons to keep their market growing.. and similarly fail to create systems to prevent the theft and use of stolen guns that funds their profits.

 

Liberals in the US should give up on ever attempting to get a ban on guns, the people there have too much of a romantic, fetishistic relationship with the idea of guns to ever give them up.

 

IMHO they should go for the total opposite approach. Compulsory gun ownership for all adults. Every adult gets a government funded double barrelled shotgun and 4-6 shells. All come with some form of gun lock, pin code and embedded serial number that can be linked to the owner. All must be re-registered once per year.. and failure to do so or report a theft results in a fine.

 

Tax on all additional weapons and ammo should be increased exponenitially.. though approved weapons clubs and schools can get reductions on this tax. All weapons and ammo are embedded with registration numbers linked to the seller and the owner.

 

People can register at schools or gun clubs and check out weapons.. but the process is thorough and the gun club is responsible for all actions.

 

This way everyone gets their precious consitutional gun.. but they are controlled like cars and they are weapons that can be used for home defence and deterent, but not for shooting sprees.

[Spider AL]

It seems to me that the problem isn't GUN OWNERSHIP, its GUN MANUFACTURE. US weapons companies seem to be producing weapons at a rate that they couldn't possibly sell them at... if it wasn't for them relying on the fact that a large number will get stolen or end up in the wrong hands. Its like the way cellphone sales growth depended on the high theft rate of mobiles.. and handset makers and networks resisted putting in place measures to block stolen phones.

I agree that mobile phone-related companies should do more to fight phone-thieves, but as far as the analogy goes, it's clear that gun-manufacturers can't do the same things to fight thieves that mobile networks can. You can't prevent a gun from being used after it's been stolen. You can attempt to block a stolen phone, however.

 

You seem to forget that legally owned firearms in the US must indeed be registered. But just like in the good old United Kingdom, that won't stop illegally obtained firearms from being used in crimes.

 

Perhaps cutting the total number of legally obtainable guns in circulation would decrease gun crime... But once again, here in the UK we have NO legally obtainable handguns. Period. And yet, our handgun crime spirals upwards each year.

 

All weapons and ammo are embedded with registration numbers linked to the seller and the owner.

Guns already have serial numbers and their sales are indeed registered. As for a unique customer ID number engraved onto each bullet and casing at the time of sale... Too expensive. Sci-fi expensive, in fact. Totally not going to happen. Unworkable. Insane, in fact.

 

As for compulsory gun ownership, don't you think that people have the right NOT to own a weapon if they so wish? lol.

[Datheus]

Just thought I'd point this out.

 

http://youthviolence.edschool.virginia.edu/violence-in-schools/school-shootings.html

[Dagobahn Eagle]

b: That increasing controlling legislation will cut gun crime if combined with some other measure(s), (please specify what other measure(s).)

Exactly.

 

What other measures? To be honest, I'd be damned if I know.

 

Its like the way cellphone sales growth depended on the high theft rate of mobiles.. and handset makers and networks resisted putting in place measures to block stolen phones.

Not to mention other electronic gadgets. Foolish me lost my $300 digital camera on the street, and no one ever returned it to the police or to anywhere else. Why does my camera not have a PIN code?

 

You can't prevent a gun from being used after it's been stolen.

PIN codes for handguns:p!

 

Call me brutal (...)

As if you needed to ask.

[toms]

You can't prevent a gun from being used after it's been stolen. You can attempt to block a stolen phone, however.

 

I can't see why not. With today's technology it should be simple to integrate some form of locking mechanism into new guns.

 

Perhaps cutting the total number of legally obtainable guns in circulation would decrease gun crime... But once again, here in the UK we have NO legally obtainable handguns. Period. And yet, our handgun crime spirals upwards each year.

 

Spirals upward from "very little" to "just a bit more".

 

Guns already have serial numbers and their sales are indeed registered. As for a unique customer ID number engraved onto each bullet and casing at the time of sale... Too expensive. Sci-fi expensive, in fact. Totally not going to happen. Unworkable. Insane, in fact.

 

True. We wouldn't want to make guns and bullets more expensive... that would be terrible.

 

As for compulsory gun ownership, don't you think that people have the right NOT to own a weapon if they so wish? lol.

 

No. Its in the constitution. If they don't have a gun they are encoraging violent criminals to enter everyone's homes. If they want to not have a gun then they can move abroad.

[Samnmax221]

Guns are a neccesity in my house, as my dad has been in Law Enforcement for 20 years. He's had literally hundreds of people threaten to kill him, many apologize after they sober up mind you.

[swphreak]

I don't think guns should be outright banned. If they were, the noncriminals would be screwed, and the criminals (who are already illegally getting guns) would be even better off.

 

Now, I am for some restrictions. There is no freaking reason why anyone but the military {and possibly law enforcement) should need assault rifles or combat shotguns. Even if people are just "putting them on display." If they want to display a gun, can't they just buy a cheaper, realistic fake gun?

[edlib]

Just thought I'd point this out.

http://youthviolence.edschool.virginia.edu/violence-in-schools/school-shootings.html

Something else to think about: Lawmaker wants more guns in school.... not less. (I.E.: Arm the faculty and staff.)

Could work, I guess... but the idea doesn't exactly leave me with a warm, fuzzy feeling...

 

Who thinks this is a good idea?

[TK-8252]

Something else to think about: Lawmaker wants more guns in school.... not less. (I.E.: Arm the faculty and staff.)

Could work, I guess... but the idea doesn't exactly leave me with a warm, fuzzy feeling...

 

Who thinks this is a good idea?

 

That's ****ing insane. Even the most pro-gun people are freaked out at such an idea.

[Spider AL]

You see, it looks as though StarWarsPhreak has actually considered the pros and cons of the issue before making any conclusions as to what opinion to espouse. More people should follow suit.

 

Originally posted by Toms:

 

I can't see why not. With today's technology it should be simple to integrate some form of locking mechanism into new guns.

Are you seriously suggesting that a mechanism that can be remotely activated and will in some way reliably render a specific firearm unusable would be an EASY thing to invent, manufacture and install into all new guns?

 

What would this device do to lock the gun up that couldn't be easily reversed with a screwdriver, a lump of chewing gum and a can of WD-40? It's hard enough to get a reception with your mobile phone, what if the police send the locking signal to the serial killer's 9mm (The one he happened to legally obtain and register just before he began his killing spree) and he's going under a bridge at the time?

 

I wish it were feasible. I really do. Maybe in twenty years' time.

 

Originally posted by Toms:

 

Spirals upward from "very little" to "just a bit more".

Nobody said we were a warring African state. But despite your scoffing even you have seemingly accepted that there has been a rise since the tighter controls were brought in. QED, I think.

 

Originally posted by Toms:

 

True. We wouldn't want to make guns and bullets more expensive... that would be terrible.

We're not talking "more expensive". We're talking "Only Richard Branson can buy ammunition".

 

The casings already have identifying marks on them, mark you. Now you want to put a machine that can separate a cartridge into its component parts, engrave a long customer serial number into both the casing and the base of the bullet itself, put the bullet back together in a workable form and spit it out the other end. Then you want to make this machine quick and reliable enough to perform these functions on say... a hundred rounds for each customer (If a customer wants to do minimal practice with their snazzy new handgun AND have a few rounds left over afterwards, a hundred is no great number) in under a decade.

 

Then you want to make every store that sells ammunition in the US buy one of these machines and use it for every customer who needs a bullet.

 

Even if this were possible, the cost would be large. LARGE. And that cost would have to be transferred to the customer. Do you want people who don't have the money to move out of a danger area to be the only people who can't afford legal ammunition?

 

Like I said, insane.

 

Originally posted by Toms:

 

No. Its in the constitution. If they don't have a gun they are encoraging violent criminals to enter everyone's homes. If they want to not have a gun then they can move abroad.

Now you're just being a silly billy.

[Windu Chi]

Something else to think about: Lawmaker wants more guns in school.... not less. (I.E.: Arm the faculty and staff.)

Could work, I guess... but the idea doesn't exactly leave me with a warm, fuzzy feeling...

 

Who thinks this is a good idea?

That ludicrous idea, Lawmakers have will turn schools into prisons.

Which, today is almost close to that reality.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Now you're just being a silly billy.

Not really, he's just taking your arguments and turning them upside-down. A parody, as it were.

 

Unless I'm mistaken, of course.

 

The casings already have identifying marks on them, mark you. Now you want to put a machine that can separate a cartridge into its component parts, engrave a long customer serial number into both the casing and the base of the bullet itself, put the bullet back together in a workable form and spit it out the other end. Then you want to make this machine quick and reliable enough to perform these functions on say... a hundred rounds for each customer (If a customer wants to do minimal practice with their snazzy new handgun AND have a few rounds left over afterwards, a hundred is no great number) in under a decade.

 

Then you want to make every store that sells ammunition in the US buy one of these machines and use it for every customer who needs a bullet.

Yeah, 'cause of course they can't add numbers to the components as they assemble them.

[Emperor Devon]

I'm for gun control. The postive effects of stopping the sale of guns are much better than the negative ones. You can find stories everywhere about people who killed themselves or caused accidents with firearms they have at home.

 

Hunting isn't entirely safe. People can sign all sorts of contracts, but accidents or poor usage of such weapons is something that's unavoidable.

 

If stopping the sale of lethal weapons and saving lives means you can't go out and shoot rabbits, boo hoo.