Gun rights/control/ownership

[Shienvien]

The entire function of a gun is to kill things. People using other objects that aren't meant to kill things to kill people is different.

How does what is a thing "meant for" change anything? I keep hearing that argument, but it makes no sense to me at all - or, more rightfully, my brain just dismisses it for purely emotional claim with no actual ground. The ending result is the exact same, after all: if the thing has been used to commit murder, someone was killed with the aid of that thing.

By the same logic, one could claim that a bomb which has gunpowder in it is automatically somehow worse than one containing cleaning-agents and fertilizers, because the contents of the latter weren't meant to be used for creating explosions...

(Lets say that the first bomb was used for special effects in a movie, with no one harmed, and the latter was used for blowing up a house full of people. Which explosion is clearly worse?)

 

- The function of a thing is determined by how it is used. Given I've only used my gun only for target practice, it is not a murder-weapon; if that drunken man at a party had been allowed to take a car for running people over like he intended, that car would have been a murder-weapon. And so forth.

 

 

@Tikindi: I personally would prefer gun ownership not periodically taxed (above the fee which is taken for the registering/licensing/permit renewal process, anyway)

 

@fuzzbucket: I assume you mean psychopathy as the inability to feel empathy? (Sociopathy?)

[philpot123]

Well given that the gun wasn't his own, but his mothers, I would say that a tightening of regulations so that a gun must be stored in a securely locked cabinet if it is not with the person it is registered to would probably have prevented him getting his hands on them in the first place.

I agree that guns which are not kept accessible for defense or on one's person SHOULD be kept locked up in a gun safe. I don't agree that the government has the right to mandate such common sense measures. It's simply not within their rights in my estimation.

 

Further, having laws about what I can and can't do with my guns in my home would be utterly useless unless you have some method of house-to-house enforcement. You simply cannot say that any sort of "gun lock" legislation would have prevented this, because we have no way of knowing if that regulation would have been followed. SHOULD I keep my guns locked up? Yes. SHOULD the government have the right to regulate the locking up of guns in one's home? I don't think so. And there's where we differ

[Syaoransbear]

How does what is a thing "meant for" change anything? I keep hearing that argument, but it makes no sense to me at all - or, more rightfully, my brain just dismisses it for purely emotional claim with no actual ground. The ending result is the exact same, after all: if the thing has been used to commit murder, someone was killed with the aid of that thing.

By the same logic, one could claim that a bomb which has gunpowder in it is automatically somehow worse than one containing cleaning-agents and fertilizers, because the contents of the latter weren't meant to be used for creating explosions...

(Lets say that the first bomb was used for special effects in a movie, with no one harmed, and the latter was used for blowing up a house full of people. Which explosion is clearly worse?)

 

- The function of a thing is determined by how it is used. Given I've only used my gun only for target practice, it is not a murder-weapon; if that drunken man at a party had been allowed to take a car for running people over like he intended, that car would have been a murder-weapon. And so forth.

 

 

@Tikindi: I personally would prefer gun ownership not periodically taxed (above the fee which is taken for the registering/licensing/permit renewal process, anyway)

 

@fuzzbucket: I assume you mean psychopathy as the inability to feel empathy? (Sociopathy?)

Because if something is designed to do something, manufacturers are going to make it more efficient at what it is designed to do. I don't see cars being made with spikes on the front for running over people, or knives being made more aerodynamic for throwing them at people. Are guns being made more efficient at killing? They sure are.

 

Where I live, you have to go through several gun safety courses to obtain a license to get a gun. Why is there so much fuss about it? It's not that hard, and you get the benefit of being taught gun safety and how to actually shoot a gun. How is that a bad thing?

Edited January 8, 2013 by Syaoransbear

[Shienvien]

I don't see cars being made with spikes on the front for running over people, or knives being made more aerodynamic for throwing them at people. Are guns being made more efficient at killing? They sure are.

Cars have gotten considerably faster and more powerful over years, and thusly more potentially deadly. Also, the things they install against kangaroos and deer running across the road will pretty much increase the chances of the impact killing a human, too.

And, I believe the guns that can be legally obtained haven't gotten much more deadly in the last two decades or so.

 

Where I live, you have to go through several gun safety courses to obtain a license to get a gun. Why is there so much fuss about it? It's not that hard, and you get the benefit of being taught gun safety and how to actually shoot a gun. How is that a bad thing?

I support proper registration and people being made prove that they know how to handle a gun. (Either courses concluding with a final test, or, if the person is already familiar with guns, just a test.)

 

I, hoverer, do not support additional taxing or limits on access for law-abiding citizens.

[KageSora]

How does what is a thing "meant for" change anything? I keep hearing that argument, but it makes no sense to me at all - or, more rightfully, my brain just dismisses it for purely emotional claim with no actual ground. The ending result is the exact same, after all: if the thing has been used to commit murder, someone was killed with the aid of that thing.

By the same logic, one could claim that a bomb which has gunpowder in it is automatically somehow worse than one containing cleaning-agents and fertilizers, because the contents of the latter weren't meant to be used for creating explosions...

(Lets say that the first bomb was used for special effects in a movie, with no one harmed, and the latter was used for blowing up a house full of people. Which explosion is clearly worse?)

 

- The function of a thing is determined by how it is used. Given I've only used my gun only for target practice, it is not a murder-weapon; if that drunken man at a party had been allowed to take a car for running people over like he intended, that car would have been a murder-weapon. And so forth.

 

 

@Tikindi: I personally would prefer gun ownership not periodically taxed (above the fee which is taken for the registering/licensing/permit renewal process, anyway)

 

@fuzzbucket: I assume you mean psychopathy as the inability to feel empathy? (Sociopathy?)

A gun is always considered a weapon--it is intended to kill.

 

A pillow is NOT always considered a weapon--while it CAN be used to kill, it was not designed for ending lives.

 

While the use does have to factor in, the purpose cannot just be dismissed as unimportant. Items which were DESIGNED to harm/maim/kill need to be treated differently than items that were designed for other things.

 

Your gun may not be a MURDER weapon, but it is still a WEAPON. Because it was made to be a weapon. You're simply not using it as one at the time being. That doesn't change what it was meant to be.

 

 

I do support restrictions on people who are unfit to own guns. If you can prove that you are fit to own a gun, being of sound mind and such, then I see no reason for you to not own one.

[Shienvien]

Your gun may not be a MURDER weapon, but it is still a WEAPON.

So is any knife, for instance. By law, as soon as you carry one, you are considered armed. Never mind that most knives are not designed to kill, but simply to cut.

Edited January 8, 2013 by Shienvien

[KageSora]

I never said knives weren't weapons. They are. Even those crappy little plastic butter knives. Those things are dangerous, man. Seriously, they hurt.

 

Unlike guns, however, they CAN have other intended purposes--the preparation of food and such, for example.

 

Guns, however, really don't have a purpose outside of being weapons.

[Shienvien]

Guns, however, really don't have a purpose outside of being weapons.

I would not count target practice under using gun as a weapon. Then, it's effectively a sports item.

[philpot123]

I never said knives weren't weapons. They are. Even those crappy little plastic butter knives. Those things are dangerous, man. Seriously, they hurt.

 

Unlike guns, however, they CAN have other intended purposes--the preparation of food and such, for example.

 

Guns, however, really don't have a purpose outside of being weapons.

weap·on

/ˈwepən/

Noun

A thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage.

 

In Scouts, we were always told that Scouts do not make use of weapons. We use firearms. A hammer is a weapon when used improperly, a tool when used properly. A firearm is a tool/sporting device when used for practice, and a weapon when used against a living creature. It's true, though, it is made to function primarily as a weapon. I don't see that as an inherently bad thing, or something that necessarily warrants government involvement.

[KageSora]

Right there, in the definition of weapon, it covers things designed for use in harming or killing.

 

They may not be actively used as weapons when used in a sporting context, but they were designed as weapons. Thus the are still counted as a weapon, IMO.

 

 

Of course, I really don't care if they're weapons or not--either way, I still say we need a better system to keep them out of the hands of people who can't safely own them while not making it overly hard for people who CAN safely use them to own and maintain ownership of them.

 

Actually, the whole "cars can be weapons" too thing amuses me--I'm also in favor of more enforcement of laws/better laws to keep people who have no business driving a car from ending up behind the wheel--ESPECIALLY behind the wheels of semis. Those have some horrible drivers who just Do Not Give A who they run off the road. ;_; Too many people driving who really shouldn't be...

Edited January 8, 2013 by KageSora

[Kestra15]

Cars have gotten considerably faster and more powerful over years, and thusly more potentially deadly.

And in response, driving tests have become more robust and the penalties for even the smallest infringements have increased.

[Fuzzbucket]

There are also car massacres.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isla_Vista_massacre

 

for one.

 

and another:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/news/cardiff-car-murder (it's hard to search them as I keep hitting drive-by shootings and video games...)

 

Someone determined to kill - and probably paranoid on top - will use whatever s/he can get.

 

But great big automatic weapons can do WAY more human damage than a car - and are also much harder to avoid, and much easier to conceal till the last minute.

 

 

[~Kat~]

Joe Biden On Gun Group Meeting: 'The President And I Are Determined To Take Action'

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/09/j...26pLid%3D255117

 

Read some of the comments at the bottom.

[Vhale]

I had meant to come back after the holidays and add a note, but hated to resurrect it. But as it is, I had an interesting conversation with my sibling. Her brother-in-law goes to garage sales. While there, he asked the people if they happen to have some old guns they'd like to get rid of. Apparently, fairly often they do. He buys them and resells them. No background check. Could be cash if he wanted. It's not something I would have thought of as a potential way to make a living. But it shows how prolific guns are in our society, when you can pretty much go door to door and buy them heh. Hence, the problem with any kind of registration. The cat is really out of the bag, so to speak.

 

Personally though, I'm all for having the states getting a unified directory together to at least put people with active restraining orders, mental illness such as schizophrenia etc, on it.

[skauble]

This has probably been mentioned before, but what I don't really get is that many of the same folks out there who have been railing about having the right to bear arms being necessary to protect against the tyranny of government are often the very same people arguing against any kind of cuts in the defense budget that has created a military that there is absolutely zero chance they can defend against.

 

This is our military budget in comparison to other countries:

 

 

I don't care how many guns you fill your basement with, that kind of military might is going to crush you with little to no effort – and given things like drone strikes and our various types of missiles, I'm guessing no effort at all.

 

Honestly, I think that if we ease up – just a bit – on the “OMG we have to fight the government” rhetoric, we could actually have some much more productive conversations. Because, yeah, I'm a liberal, but that doesn't mean I don't get where people are coming from on this.

 

I've always argued that freedom is inherently dangerous. I know that, to a lot of people outside of this country, it seems like a poor trade off, but it actually has an incredible amount of meaning to us and, to a certain point, we're willing to accept an added amount of risk. And, IMO, that's a very difficult line to walk – where one person's rights, of any type, begin to encroach on another citizen's right to live without those rights serving a greater overall purpose.

 

That's why the discussion about guns is imperative - so we can find that line, so we can reason it through and understand why we're placing it wherever it ends up. And the fact that some people and/or organizations seem so determined to stop it is rather disturbing to me.

 

As for bringing up cars, that's actually an argument for regulation. Because sure, one way of bringing it up is that it could be a potential weapon. However, the other, arguably more relevant manner is to note the fact that specific, targeted regulations - of drivers, roads, vehicles, alcohol consumption, policing, etc. - have hugely dropped the number of deaths over decades, especially when one takes into account the increase in driving over time. Very few things lend themselves to supporting a certain level of control, restriction, and public pressure as the case of America and it's love affair with the automobile does.

 

Also, the NRA - as an organization, not it's individual members - is kind of nutty and not helping the case of gun owners in this whole thing. I believe that there should be advocates for all the sides in this, but the NRA is on its way to becoming counter-productive to it's members' interests.

[blah]

I've always argued that freedom is inherently dangerous. I know that, to a lot of people outside of this country, it seems like a poor trade off, but it actually has an incredible amount of meaning to us and, to a certain point, we're willing to accept an added amount of risk. And, IMO, that's a very difficult line to walk – where one person's rights, of any type, begin to encroach on another citizen's right to live without those rights serving a greater overall purpose.

I fully agree with the "I've always argued that freedom is inherently dangerous" sentiment. That is actually the very first argument for guns that I can't say anything against, because I really do agree. And I find freedom to be worth it.

 

Mind you, it doesn't inspire any desire in me to actually own a gun, it also doesn't give me the faintest clue why I would need one or how I could justify owning one and carrying a gun is in my opinion a poor way to express freedom, but everyone has to deal with their own conscience and choose their way of life.

 

It also brings me back to a point I've raised before though, you know, about walking that line. "Recklessness" is defined by American Law, it's on Wikipedia even and I maintain that the way guns are currently given out to people is reckless by that definition and therefore overstepping the line.

 

About the NRA - they always remind of PETA. Slightly too crazy to be taken seriously.

[Vhale]

I can agree with that. My personal view is that either extreme is usually a bad idea. Complete freedom to me, would be anarchy. Because if someone wanted to go key everyone's car on the block, who cares?

 

I feel half of the rhetoric is people selling something. The NRA has been trying to get silencers deregulated to "protect" hearing heh. Because the next toy a gun enthusiast really needs is a silencer. Because, freedom.

 

No, because money...

 

http://www.salon.com/2012/12/30/silencers_...latest_big_lie/

http://www.silencersarelegal.com/

 

Oh, and this was funny =p

[MinervaClay]

Just like any polarized and heated political topic, both sides kind of have their head up their rump, to be honest.

 

Both sides actively claim "Here's studies that show MY view of gun control was effective in these countries!", without real view of the demographic and difference in culture involved in the shift. There are countries where it got better, crime-wise. There are countries where it got worse. Everyone can cherry pick what studies they want.

 

There are those who claim it's to battle the government, if the need arises. As shown above, that's just ridiculous. Right now they can snipe you with a drone from thousands of miles away before you ever even realize it. There's no handgun, shotgun, rifle or semi-automatic that's going to stop that. If a tank rolls through your neighborhood, nothing in your inventory is going to prevent it from doing its damage.

 

Actually, it's partisan politics that let facts just like this get lost to a horrific quagmire. We're so busy being left or right leaning, and for the most part arguing over issues that are minor in the face of the grand scale of things (in America), that we lose sight of what's actually going on. Our food and water supplies are poisoned, our medical systems are corrupt, our banks are hashing out money to us that doesn't exist but as big IOUs, and we're too busy arguing over who's allowed to have butt sex or get married or who should pay for birth control and not.

 

SO let's just remove "fighting the government" from the equasion. It's a pipe dream that lost relevence around the turn of the century into the 1900s. They know you, they know what you do, what you eat, where you go, and how many times you fart in a day if they so see fit.

 

Now, on the case of gun control lowering crime: Each country needs to be able to treat it on an individual, case by case basis. There are some countries where gun rights and ownership wasn't so fundamental to the culture, and so free to begin with, where stripping gun ownership may actually be a valid idea to trim crime rates. In America, however, that's just ridiculous.

 

Also the media polarizes its opinions on this too. For all the recent fuss about semi-automatic weapons after the elementary school shooting, the killer didn't actually... use a semi-automatic.

 

Do I think everyone should have rights to a semi-automatic? Nope. Do I think they need to be banned entirely? Nope.

 

All things in moderation, with proper regulation. There are always going to be blips in the system. It's always unfortunate when these occur, and twenty people die from a maniac. It's always something that makes us raise our hackles and say, "We need more control". The question is where and who do we shift the control to? Many people defend themselves and their families successfully with guns each year; just this year another theater shooting abruptly ended when a concealed carry owner popped the criminal, non-fatally, and nobody died. Many people would be far more ballsy about their crimes, knowing "these lawful citizens probably don't have the weapons I do."

 

Criminals don't usually buy their guns legally. They won't magically opt to throw them in the disposal bin when the rest of us have to, and they won't be tracked. They are knit tightly into american culture and, at this point, complete removal is out of the question.

 

Stringent standards are more important. I personally would support AMMO control. There's a form of it out there involving making the bullets go bad after a certain amount of time... but I don't support that. Someone who's planning to commit a crime probably isn't going to wait two, five years to go on a crazed homicidal rampage and pop themselves in the head. However, determining the amount of ammo a person has based on profession, and needs (IE: someone who has a hunting license and lives in a reclusive region and has been evidenced to game for a living, has more need than a woman walking down the road with her defensive gun in her purse to avoid being raped), could effectively ration bullets and make it less likely for someone to be able to enter areas with big drums they just blow all over the place, and would even make criminals have to start rationing their use.

 

Petty criminals, at least. I'm sure a black market would develop, but the general people you have to worry about busting in your window at five in the morning and slitting your throat when you see their face? They won't have as much to waste on their crimes.

 

That's just my view, though.

[~Kat~]

Melinda Herman, Mom Who Shot Intruder, Inspires Gun Control Foes

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/09/m...26pLid%3D255162

 

I am a responsible gun owner, and from this story here, is why we own guns in my family.

 

We will NOt be a Victim in this household.

[luckynicole659]

For every crazy serial killer with a gun, there are over 400 million law abiding citizens with guns.

 

Just because theres a few "weirdos" doesnt mean we should have all our protection taken away.

[Obscure_Trash]

So...instead of responsibly contacting 911/the police, she contacted her husband (who made sure to take the time to remind her how to use a gun and then encouraged her to continuously shoot a man), then she shot a man an extraneous number of times in front of her children, and she's being heralded as a responsible gun owner?

 

I'm glad that she and the children stayed physically safe from the intruder, but really? That's supposed to be an example of responsibly using a gun?

 

Quite frankly, that's terrifying.

 

I'm certainly not going to deny that people have saved themselves with guns or that having a gun saved people from even being intruded, but I think that in this case having a gun in the house controlled her actions. Her mind was preoccupied with the gun and how it could protect her rather than trying to get safely out of the situation without having to use the gun.

Edited January 11, 2013 by SockPuppet Strangler

[Shienvien]

Stringent standards are more important. I personally would support AMMO control.

And the quantity of ammo one can buy being limited is a thing I definitely would not support. For one, target practice is a thing which can swallow up enormous quantities of rounds in one go, but is completely harmless if done properly. Besides, rounds are much harder to track than guns. If they get limited, they might simply start changing hands after being bought more often.

 

About the news report... Based on the fact that it was written that she locked the door when she and her children went hiding, it comes across as if the intruder had somehow broken through the said door. But, she continued shooting when the man pleaded for his life? Seriously?

Edited January 11, 2013 by Shienvien

[Alylovesyou]

I'm between sides on this one. Not having guns would mean less crime, but then criminals might resort to knives. Not having guns would mean less massacres (Sandy Hook; Aurora). I think automatic guns should be illegal because they have no use whatsoever except for the military. I mean think about it, if you went out to hunt ducks, would you use an M-16? If someone tried to rob your house, I think an automatic weapon would be unreasonable. Silencers are another thing, unless you happen to hunt in a forest that is extremely close to a highway(dumb idea anyway), they are just helpful tools for psychopaths and murderers.

 

My point ~ I think semi-automatic guns should have some limitations but legal, and automatic guns should be illegal except for the military. I think whenever someone has a mental disability it should be illegal for them to own any firearms. I also think that previous criminals that have been found guilty of robbery, murder, or any other crime involving a gun, that it should also be illegal for them to own firearms for the next 15-30 years (depending on the crime.) Americans do, however, have a right to own guns and this should not be taken away from us; there is a reason the founding fathers made this an amendment.

[Obscure_Trash]

I think whenever someone has a mental disability it should be illegal for them to own any firearms.

 

This is a prevalent thought in a lot of places, but the mentally disabled or the mentally disordered are actually much, much more likely to be victims of violent crime than the perpetrators. I feel like people use 'they were mentally disabled/disordered' as a cop out so we don't have to deal with the fact that people do bad things. =(

[MinervaClay]

I'd much rather have my ammo controlled than my guns, short of, say, the existing levels of gun control (automatics being illegal etc).

 

Here's a form of ammo control:

 

Psychiatric evaluation on anyone requesting more than a single magazine of a hand sized gun, paid for by the individual. A one time test, or perhaps once every (decent spread of years). Everyone has the rights to a few bullets in self defense. Everyone after that has to take the responsibility of paying for a psych exam if they want to be able to unload a good amount of them at a range or wherever the excuse may be.

 

Bullets being exchangeable is true, but so are guns.

 

--Also, what passes as responsible gun useage is frightening at times.

 

I'm the black sheep in my family for not being like "YAY GUNS! NEED MORE GUNS!" I respect them and their place in society but I'm not the kind to panic whenever minor regulations get spoken of, and I can at least understand the other side of the debate.