Gun rights/control/ownership

[MedievalMystic]

Not everyone does drugs. But if the drugs are available and sitting there before them, then they might well use them. I personally believe the same when it comes to guns. A person might not necessarily plan on hurting anyone and might be a perfectly peaceful person in normal situations, but if given a gun and if scared, there's a very high liklihood that they'll use that gun and end up hurting someone. I think fear plays a big role in the use of guns and in a lot of situations, if the gun wasn't present, there would be less injuries. Obviously not every situation is going to end peacefully, but I think the cases where people carry around guns for "self control" often escalate because of their own fear and people end up getting hurt unnecessarily.

 

I look at it this way, StormWizard. If anything or anyone ever causes me to feel enough fear that I suddenly feel the need for a gun in my hand, and I end up shooting someone because I feel enough fear to believe with everything I've got that my life is in danger, then as far as I'm concerned they deserved it. And I'm not prone to hysteria. Guns are serious business. Responsible gun owners don't treat them like toys or whip them out at every single argument or disagreement. People that own guns feel emotions, fear and anger incuded, but 9 times out of 10, the first thing we're going to do won't be to reach for our firearms if there's an altercation. It would take something HUGE to get me to get my gun out. I'm not going to grab a gun and head for the neighbors house because his dog crapped in my yard for the millionth time. lol

 

To me this is more about people and their characters, not the fact that guns are available. Somebody could put a mound of crack in front of me and 100 people might do it. 100 more won't ever and I'm one of those. There always have been, and always will always be, good guys and bad guys and to me, simple as that sounds, that's what it really boils down to. I like to think I'm one of the good guys. And I really don't want the bad guys to have an advantage over me, and so since they have guns, I'll have guns. The differnce is I won't use mine unless it's for a sport and used responsibly, or to save my life. I won't suddenly snap because someone cut me off in traffic after a bad day, or blow my co workers away because they annoy me. I don't ever want to be without the option to defend myself against the real monsters of this world. There always have been monsters, and there always will be, and imo, that's just a simple, unescapable fact.

 

That oversimplifies things a lot, but as much as I've thought about both sides of the issue, that's just what it comes down to for me, and imo, people will kill other people one way or the other till the end of time, depressing as that thought is.

Edited December 15, 2012 by MedievalMystic

[Shienvien]

It would take something HUGE to get me to get my gun out.

 

Same here. For me, if I get a gun out, it is for shooting at inanimate targets. However, just in case, I'll want to have the right co carry it, too, say, if I have to walk alone through the streets of some foreign country at night. I will not be pulling it out on something that looks suspicious, but only as the last resort when I am certain I would otherwise be attacked, and even then I will only fire at a person if they continue to advance.

[StormWizard212]

I know that there are a lot of people who own guns and are extremely responsible owners of them, but in my eyes, that just doesn't make up for the portion of society that isn't responsible with their firearms. I don't want to offend anyone here who is pro-gun or has their own for that matter, so I just want to clarify what I meant in my previous post. I definitely don't believe that everyone who owns a gun is a raging lunatic who'll whip them out at any disagreement, but I think simply having them available does present that risk in certain situations. Most times the situation might be resolved peacefully, but there's still that small percentage where something can go wrong, and it's that margin that concerns me.

 

In the world we live in, I understand the need for protection. It's extremely important as there are a lot of dangers out there that we face daily. But I just don't see guns as being the solution. I'd like to believe that for every situation that requires a gun for protection, there could be another more peaceful way to protect oneself against the danger without potentially putting others in harm's way in the process. Call it naive if you will, but I refuse to believe that something as violent as a gun is the most peaceful solution there is.

 

I do not believe in the death penalty either, which I think a lot of this boils down to. Some people might say that in certain situations it's fair or justified to take another's life, but it's something I'm firmly against. I don't think it's our right as human beings to take the life of any other human, regardless of their crimes. I'm not sure if others agree there's a link, but I think it's central to the argument of guns which is why I've brought it up. Hopefully I'm not just repeating others here!

[PointOfOrigin]

Same here. For me, if I get a gun out, it is for shooting at inanimate targets. However, just in case, I'll want to have the right co carry it, too, say, if I have to walk alone through the streets of some foreign country at night. I will not be pulling it out on something that looks suspicious, but only as the last resort when I am certain I would otherwise be attacked, and even then I will only fire at a person if they continue to advance.

Pretty sure you can't carry a gun with you in foreign countries. Most of them aren't that lax with gun control.

 

My stance on this is a middle. If you want to legally own a gun, you have to be trained with it and go through a medical check up.

[philpot123]

Out of curiosity, what are the requirements for legal ownership of a gun in USA? Do you have to go through some psychological test in order to get a license?

Gun ownership and gun carry are two completely different ballgames. There is no license required for gun ownership, at least, not on the federal level. Licenses are required for concealed carry in most states, and some states allow you to open carry without a license as long as you're above a certain age.

 

Federal requirements for rifle purchase only state you must be 18 and not a convicted felon. States impose other standards, like you can't purchase a rifle if you have a violent misdemeanor. Also, some states allow you to OWN a rifle if you're under 18 with parental permission. The 18 and up requirement is for purchase of a firearm from a private party or a firearms dealer.

 

Federal requirements for the purchase of a handgun are 21+ at the time of purchase, no felony. Again, some states can impose different standards. I'm under 21, but I own a legal handgun, because I'm legally allowed to purchase a handgun from a private party at the age of 18 in my state.

 

As far as CARRYING a gun, that varies widely from state to state. In my state, you must have a clean background check, no felonies or violent misdemeanors, be over 21, and have a certification of completion from a licensed handgun safety/use training course. There is no minimum length for the course required, so it can be a one day seminar or a week long intensive training exercise. It sounds easy in states like mine to get a permit, but it's not often done. Less than 4% of the population in my state has a CCL.

 

I know that there are a lot of people who own guns and are extremely responsible owners of them, but in my eyes, that just doesn't make up for the portion of society that isn't responsible with their firearms.

 

The number of responsible gun owners far outweighs any careless owners or intentional harm done. Hundreds of thousands of gun owners DIDN'T shoot anyone yesterday, and probably never will.

 

What would you suggest as an alternative to a gun? A blunt object to bludgeon someone to death with in self-defense? That's less violent? Sorry, but if someone breaks into my house with the intention of doing harm, they aren't getting very far. I have a legal right to defend myself and my property, and I am under a moral obligation to protect my family. I'm not going to put myself at a disadvantage in a self-defense situation. Have you ever had to fight off an attacker? Someone who is hell bent on causing you harm?

 

 

 

Let me go ahead and say, please take this response as somewhat detached from yesterday's incident. I want to discuss the concept of gun control in principle, not in regards to yesterday's shooting. Too soon, too inconsiderate. And I don't want to politicize this tragedy.

Edited December 15, 2012 by philpot123

[MedievalMystic]

But I just don't see guns as being the solution

 

I don't either. I see them as a last resort. But I definitely want the option.

 

 

Call it naive if you will, but I refuse to believe that something as violent as a gun is the most peaceful solution there is.

 

Sometimes there is no peaceful solution. It's not because the good guys don't try or that people wouldn't choose peace, but because the bad guys cross the line in such a way that the only thing left for either side when all avenues of peace are exhausted, like it or not, is violence.

 

If some lunatic with a gun has hostages and is making threats, I want an experienced sniper called in to take that guy out at the safest possible moment for the hostages. There is no talking and reasoning with some people, no peace to be had no matter how much we might want it otherwise. Sure, people will always try to go a none violent route first, but if all those options fail...

 

 

People should always go the peaceful route if they can, and should always keep striving for the greater good. But until it actually works to rid the world of bad guys, I'll just stay armed.

[Shienvien]

Pretty sure you can't carry a gun with you in foreign countries. Most of them aren't that lax with gun control.

Plenty of countries actually do allow it, or at the very least do with the right permit. (Of course you can't simply take a firearm along without bothering to find out the local laws first.)

[PointOfOrigin]

Thanks philpot123. From what I get from your posts, it seems to me that gun ownership is way too lax. And even gun carry is to vague. There should be at least a minimum length for the course. One day really isn't enough time for proper course. One week fro the other side, sounds good enough.

 

Plenty of countries actually do allow it, or at the very least do with the right permit. (Of course you can't simply take a firearm along without bothering to find out the local laws first.)

 

That's a catch - with the right permit. And it seems that most of Americans do not have one. And trust me, there is enough people trying to cross a border with firearm. It's insane how many people do not check the laws when they go somewhere.

[philpot123]

Thanks philpot123. From what I get from your posts, it seems to me that gun ownership is way too lax. And even gun carry is to vague. There should be at least a minimum length for the course. One day really isn't enough time for proper course. One week fro the other side, sounds good enough.

 

 

Remember that in my state (Tennessee), most anyone who is getting a handgun carry permit will have shot guns their entire life. The number of people who are truly inept at the use of a gun that are ACTUALLY getting a permit is likely very small.

Edited December 15, 2012 by philpot123

[MysticTiger]

It's hard to have a debate when some people have this "everyone should own a gun" mentality deep in their mind. It must be a state-by-state thing, as I've noticed people who live more South tend to be all for guns and people who live in the northern states tend to be less for guns. It's not always the case, of course, but it really does seem that way most of the time.

 

I hate guns. I hate not feeling safe because some Joe blow next to me is concealing a firearm and could snap at any time. I hate not feeling safe because some idiot could come into my store and rob me at gunpoint without any problem at all. I really think only Police Officers should have them and I think there should be a high penalty for carrying one if you're not. Much like I believe raising taxes a lot higher on non-essential addictive items- such as Cigarettes and Alcohol- is a good idea to help with deficits. However, there's people out there who believe you should raise taxes on books and food before alcohol. It's hard to change minds of people who look at certain items as essential to their life. To some people, guns are essential. Just as, to some people, Alcohol and Cigarettes are essential.

[philpot123]

It's hard to have a debate when some people have this "everyone should own a gun" mentality deep in their mind. It must be a state-by-state thing, as I've noticed people who live more South tend to be all for guns and people who live in the northern states tend to be less for guns. It's not always the case, of course, but it really does seem that way most of the time.

 

I hate guns. I hate not feeling safe because some Joe blow next to me is concealing a firearm and could snap at any time. I hate not feeling safe because some idiot could come into my store and rob me at gunpoint without any problem at all. I really think only Police Officers should have them and I think there should be a high penalty for carrying one if you're not. Much like I believe raising taxes a lot higher on non-essential addictive items- such as Cigarettes and Alcohol- is a good idea to help with deficits. However, there's people out there who believe you should raise taxes on books and food before alcohol. It's hard to change minds of people who look at certain items as essential to their life. To some people, guns are essential. Just as, to some people, Alcohol and Cigarettes are essential.

To the dozens of women a week who protect themselves from rapists with a concealed handgun, firearms are essential. To the 18 year old mother who protected her son from an armed intruder with a firearm, guns are essential. Etc.

[blah]

To the dozens of women a week who protect themselves from rapists with a concealed handgun, firearms are essential. To the 18 year old mother who protected her son from an armed intruder with a firearm, guns are essential. Etc.

You know what, that's a risk I'll take.

 

Carrying around an item that is solely designed to kill is in fact not normal for me and I don't want to establish that kind of idea in my thinking.

 

Not that I even could, permits are hard to get here and I'm convinced that is a good thing.

 

What's more, I have trouble getting my hairspray out of my bag the right way up, let's not even talk about a gun. If I had one, I'd end up being shot with it by my attacker.

[philpot123]

You know what, that's a risk I'll take.

 

Carrying around an item that is solely designed to kill is in fact not normal for me and I don't want to establish that kind of idea in my thinking.

 

Not that I even could, permits are hard to get here and I'm convinced that is a good thing.

 

What's more, I have trouble getting my hairspray out of my bag the right way up, let's not even talk about a gun. If I had one, I'd end up being shot with it by my attacker.

And you have just as much of a right to not carry a gun as I do to carry one

[blah]

And you have just as much of a right to not carry a gun as I do to carry one

Usually I would agree wholeheartedly.

 

But people who carry guns make me nervous. I don't know if one day, they'll freak out. And then the gun's going to do a lot more harm than my hairspray. Hairspray accidents are also less dangerous than gun accidents.

 

In my opinion, even if the right is there, it should only be granted as long as other people's rights do not suffer from that. And my right to live feeling safe suffers significantly if there are people surrounding me, that think killing someone is an okay option.

[Shienvien]

I don't think killing someone is an acceptable option unless is in the very last act of self-defense, and I am for guns.

 

There are many people who will be lot less safe when guns are not available - is their safety less important? Pepper spray, for instance, is *not* going to stop an attacker. I know what this stuff feels like when it gets in the eyes, and I tell you, it barely did more than made my eyes watery and me blink a lot more frequently than usual.

(Also, some hairsprays can make a person blind - however *not* immediately. So it is still not going to help you much if you were attacked, but the eventual outcome could be even more unpleasant.)

Edited December 15, 2012 by Shienvien

[Kith]

And my right to live feeling safe suffers significantly if there are people surrounding me, that think killing someone is an okay option.

I think that this is the heart of the disconnect. The gun owners that I know do not think that killing is an "okay" option at all; however, if it is a choice between them being dead and their attacker being dead, they will want to be the one still breathing afterwards.

 

My husband has unfortunately been in at least 4 life-threatening situations that had nothing to do with his job (he is a soldier). The first was a hate crime that nearly hospitalized him and left scars. He obtained his concealed carry permit afterward, and used the presence of the gun to avert the other three instances before it could come to actual violence. He has, thankfully, never had to fire it at anyone, and I hope he never does... but after what he's been through, I cannot in good conscience tell him that he is wrong to carry.

[Shienvien]

He obtained his concealed carry permit afterward, and used the presence of the gun to avert the other three instances before it could come to actual violence. He has, thankfully, never had to fire it at anyone, and I hope he never does... but after what he's been through, I cannot in good conscience tell him that he is wrong to carry.

 

This is exactly what I've been thinking of when I have been speaking of the existence of a gun on the potential target being a determining factor. Most attackers will back down when simply pulled a gun out on since they do not want to be shot.

[philpot123]

Usually I would agree wholeheartedly.

 

But people who carry guns make me nervous. I don't know if one day, they'll freak out. And then the gun's going to do a lot more harm than my hairspray. Hairspray accidents are also less dangerous than gun accidents.

 

In my opinion, even if the right is there, it should only be granted as long as other people's rights do not suffer from that. And my right to live feeling safe suffers significantly if there are people surrounding me, that think killing someone is an okay option.

Some people are uncomfortable around black people. Some people are really nervous around lawn mowers. There are even people with a morbid fear of my pet dog.

 

Your feelings about guns shouldn't affect my right to own and carry one. No one has a constitutional right to be comfortable all the time, but everyone has the constitutional right to carry a gun.

[TikindiDragon]

There are many people who will be lot less safe when guns are not available - is their safety less important? Pepper spray, for instance, is *not* going to stop an attacker. I know what this stuff feels like when it gets in the eyes, and I tell you, it barely did more than made my eyes watery and me blink a lot more frequently than usual.

While, unfortunately, it is almost impossible to compare violent crime levels between countries (due to the fact that almost every country records violent crime in a different manner - and what falls under a 'violent crime' statistic in one country may not be recorded as such in another) I can quite happily say that I feel a lot safer in cities in the UK than I have ever felt when visiting cities in the States.

 

I would also like to observe that one thing that *can* be compared easily is the intentional homicide (unlawful death intentionally inflicted upon a person by another person) rate. In the UK the intentional homicide rate is estimated at 1.2 per 100,000 of the population - in the US it is 4.2 per 100,000 of the population. Which means that, wether you carry a gun or not, you are nearly four times more likely to be murdered in the US (where the gun laws are extremely lax) than you are in the UK (where the gun laws are pretty tight).

 

So... yeah. Looking at that I'd say I think I'm a lot more safe here, where guns are not available, than I am when I go visit my folks in the States where guns *are* available.

 

Edit to add: wiki citation for the data. It's also interesting to note that, at the bottom of that article, is a breakdown of the intentional homicide rate per state in the US. Where my grandparents are in Florida apparently has a rate of 5.5 per 100,000 of the population, and it's worse where my aunt is in Maryland at 7.7 per 100,000 of the population. Yeah.... definately feeling safer here in the UK where most people don't keep guns.

Edited December 15, 2012 by TikindiDragon

[philpot123]

Edit to add: wiki citation for the data. It's also interesting to note that, at the bottom of that article, is a breakdown of the intentional homicide rate per state in the US. Where my grandparents are in Florida apparently has a rate of 5.5 per 100,000 of the population, and it's worse where my aunt is in Maryland at 7.7 per 100,000 of the population. Yeah.... definately feeling safer here in the UK where most people don't keep guns.

Maryland has very strict gun control, by US standards. Interesting that their homicide rate is above average in the US, is it not?

[TikindiDragon]

Maryland has very strict gun control, by US standards. Interesting that their homicide rate is above average in the US, is it not?

Individual State gun control laws are more than a little pointless as there is nothing stopping a person legally buying one in one state then simply crossing the border into another. It would be a bit like banning the purchase of, say, alcohol in London and then being suprised when people simply go out of town to buy it. It's also interesting to note that several countries bordering the States (noteably Mexico and Jamaica) claim that the vast majority of illegal firearms seized in their countries have come from the US.

 

Incidently, Phil, I'm a little suprised that you seem so willing to kill in defence of your person and family given that I know you consider yourself a commited Christian. I seem to recall that Biblical teachings are quite clear on that particular subject.

[philpot123]

Individual State gun control laws are more than a little pointless as there is nothing stopping a person legally buying one in one state then simply crossing the border into another. It would be a bit like banning the purchase of, say, alcohol in London and then being suprised when people simply go out of town to buy it. It's also interesting to note that several countries bordering the States (noteably Mexico and Jamaica) claim that the vast majority of illegal firearms seized in their countries have come from the US.

 

Incidently, Phil, I'm a little suprised that you seem so willing to kill in defence of your person and family given that I know you consider yourself a commited Christian. I seem to recall that Biblical teachings are quite clear on that particular subject.

Still. It's a state that issues permits at the discretion of officials (read: they hardly issue permits), and it has higher crime rates than my state, where anyone with a clean background can get a permit. Also, Maryland is surrounded by most of the strict gun-control states. It really just doesn't work, not with the volume of guns we have in America. There's too many ways to obtain them illegally for laws restricting the legal purchase of them to have an effect on crime.

 

The Bible is very clear that MURDER is wrong, and killing should be avoided. But there are Biblical concessions for self-defense and home defense. It is not sinful to kill in self-defense.

Edited December 15, 2012 by philpot123

[blah]

Some people are uncomfortable around black people. Some people are really nervous around lawn mowers. There are even people with a morbid fear of my pet dog.

Dude. I assume you just phrased that clumsily and you did not mean to imply that being around black people has the same potential for mortal danger as being around guns. The thing is, lawnmowers have a purpose - mow lawns. Guns have a purpose, too - kill.

 

No one has a constitutional right to be comfortable all the time, but everyone has the constitutional right to carry a gun.

That depends on where you're living. Constitutions vary wildly all across the world. Of course, you can insist that this makes the American constitution as valid as all the others and it's true. I just wonder what goal I would like - make people comfortable all the time or give them guns.

 

It is not sinful to kill in self-defense.

Okay.

 

"Recklessness usually arises when an accused is actually aware of the potentially adverse consequences to the planned actions, but has gone ahead anyway, exposing a particular individual or unknown victim to the risk of suffering the foreseen harm but not actually desiring that the victim be hurt." link to full wikipedia article

I think this is exactly what you do when you carry a gun.

 

"the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty" (mens rea)

 

When you carry a gun, you allow the idea of killing someone and it being okay into your mind. You're already making up excuses to use violence when no dangerous situation is in sight. Do you think that's sinful? Do you think it's unlawful?

Edited December 15, 2012 by blah

[philpot123]

Dude. I assume you just phrased that clumsily and you did not mean to imply that being around black people has the same potential for mortal danger as being around guns. The thing is, lawnmowers have a purpose - mow lawns. Guns have a purpose, too - kill.

 

 

That depends on where you're living. Constitutions vary wildly all across the world. Of course, you can insist that this makes the American constitution as valid as all the others and it's true. I just wonder what goal I would like - make people comfortable all the time or give them guns.

 

I was implying nothing about the danger of any of them. A lawn mower or a man of any color or a dog is just as safe/dangerous as my gun sitting in its holster. I was saying that you being "uncomfortable" around something doesn't mean it should be illegal.

 

Okay.

 

"Recklessness usually arises when an accused is actually aware of the potentially adverse consequences to the planned actions, but has gone ahead anyway, exposing a particular individual or unknown victim to the risk of suffering the foreseen harm but not actually desiring that the victim be hurt." link to full wikipedia article

 

I think this is exactly what you do when you carry a gun.

 

"the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty" (mens rea)

 

When you carry a gun, you allow the idea of killing someone and it being okay into your mind. You're already making up excuses to use violence when no dangerous situation is in sight. Do you think that's sinful? Do you think it's unlawful?

 

You THINK this is exactly what someone does when they carry a gun, and you are quite frankly wrong. Do not tell me I make up excuses to use violence please. My gun has never harmed anyone, and Lord willing it never will. I have never implied using a gun to kill except in cases as is necessary to preserve the life of the one being attacked is okay.

Edited December 15, 2012 by philpot123

[Shienvien]

I just wonder what goal I would like - make people comfortable all the time or give them guns.

Not giving them guns will not stop them for killing. There was a serial killer who used a baseball bat and targeted completely random people in a park, for instance.

 

I would also like to observe that one thing that *can* be compared easily is the intentional homicide (unlawful death intentionally inflicted upon a person by another person) rate.

Also tends to be based on interpretation - such as where does the line of 'intentional' go. Also does not take account of cultural and economical differences.