Gun rights/control/ownership

[Misha]

Despite the tragedy and my heart is broken even to refer to it. Gun laws or the "banning" of guns will not get them off the streets. Teenage gangs in Boston are constantly shooting and killing their rivals and innocent bystanders. It's a war zone in certain parts of the city. Did they get their guns legally? Hell no. I can't see taking a gun away from a law abiding citizen (with of course no record or mental health issues) trying to protect his or her family. Sad as it is to say mass murderers (who usually turn the gun on themselves at the end of the madness) will continue to hunt and kill those they feel have "hurt" them. We see violence in families, at work and now, sadly, even in an elementary school. But these kinds of murderers are like terrorists there is very little that can stop them as they're willing to die to get their "revenge" as sick as it is. We are a violent, angry society and I'm afraid taking guns away concealed or otherwise will only get more innocents killed.

[blah]

I was saying that you being "uncomfortable" around something doesn't mean it should be illegal.

And I maintain that it is rather sensible to be uncomfortable around an object that has but one purpose - kill - and that it makes sense to remove it from close proximity.

 

You seem to have taken what I wrote as more agressive than I meant for it to sound. It might be that I'm not a native speaker or I just blundered, I'm sorry. I'm interested in this discussion and your replies, otherwise I wouldn't post. I don't do it to change your mind, (I hope) I'm not delusional.

 

I would like to know why you think I am wrong. You buy a gun and carry it around where there are other people. You are aware that a gun has the power to kill. You are aware that accidents happen, no matter how careful you are, that's what accidents are. You are aware that you could end up in a situation where you're not in control, where someone could take the gun from you and use it in a way that you not intended. Or steal it. You are aware that there is no other purpose for a gun than killing, you can foresee that any potential consequences are harmful, this isn't even an adverse consequence, it is the only consequence.

 

How does that not fit the quote?

 

In German law, killing in self defence isn't always condoned. Self defence is defined as (clumsy translation, sorry) "Self defence is the defence that is required to turn away a current, illegal assault from oneself or others."

 

If you do more than is required or the assault is no longer current, you're punished. Your actions also have to be appropriate, otherwise you're punished.

 

I think killing is very rarely required or appropriate. In my mind, there is no room for killing. I know, that will be my greatest disadvantage should I ever end up being in a situation that does require me to use violence. But it is a choice I make about the way I want to live, how my mind works, what is in my thoughts, my attitude, my treating other people.

 

In your mind, there is room for it, you said so. "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." The idea is there. I agree, 'making up excuses' wasn't the best way to phrase it.

 

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 know. But I still think it is weird to be like "Oh there are people who kill, we can't change that. But why have them use things they have to divert from their intended use, why bother and not just give them things that are especially designed to get the job done efficiently."

Edited December 15, 2012 by blah

[catstaff]

(snip)

 

I would like to know why you think I am wrong. You buy a gun and carry it around where there are other people. You are aware that a gun has the power to kill. You are aware that accidents happen, no matter how careful you are, that's what accidents are. You are aware that you could end up in a situation where you're not in control, where someone could take the gun from you and use it in a way that you not intended. Or steal it. You are aware that there is no other purpose for a gun than killing, you can foresee that any potential consequences are harmful, this isn't even an adverse consequence, it is the only consequence.

 

(snip)

You buy a car and drive it around where there are other people. You are aware that a car has the power to kill. You are aware that accidents happen, no matter how careful you are, that's what accidents are. You are aware that you could end up in a situation where you're not in control, where someone could take the car away from you and use it in a way that you not intended. Or steal it.

 

So does that mean we should ban cars? I was able to find numbers for total gun deaths as well as total car crash deaths for the year 2005, the only year I could find numbers for both without spending hours on google.

 

According to http://www.car-accidents.com/pages/stats.html there were 42,636 deaths by motor vehicle accident in the US in 2005.

 

According to http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states there were 10,158 gun-related homicides, 789 accidental deaths by firearm, and 17,002 suicides by gun in 2005, for a total of 27,949 deaths by gun in the US in 2005.

 

So, if you leave the suicides out of the picture... I'm going to make the assumption that most car crashes do not happen due to the desire of the driver of a vehicle to kill himself... that leaves 10,947 gun deaths in the US in 2005 that were caused through someone's carelessness or deliberate recklessness. (Yes, I consider anyone carrying a gun who draws first to be acting recklessly.) Not quite 11,000 careless or reckless deaths due to guns, as compared to over 42,000 of careless or reckless deaths due to cars.

 

And a side note, from Wikipedia:

For another comparison, Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world, with somewhere between 1.2 to 3 million guns in the private residences of its approximately 8 million citizens. In 2006 there were 34 recorded murders or attempted murders with a gun, representing a firearm homicide rate of 1 per 250,000.

 

And from the Huffington Post on July 24, 2012:

Switzerland has the third-highest number of guns per capita on earth, but still a low murder rate.

 

So it seems to me that the gun ownership laws don't make much difference one way or another. Switzerland has almost as many legal guns per capita as the US does, yet has a much, much lower rate of gun-related homicide.

 

The real problem, IMO, is that the US as a whole has a culture of violence. Whether or not guns are in the hands of law-abiding citizens is irrelevant, as the vast majority of gun-related crimes are committed by people who cannot legally own guns, with guns they've obtained illegally.

[MysticTiger]

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.

And to the drug runner who has to take out the 'competition' to make more money, firearms are essential. For the convenience store robber to steal his money, firearms are essential. For the man who wants to mass murder people, firearms are essential. Etc.

 

Not only good intentioned people have guns that are essential to what they're doing.

 

You buy a car and drive it around where there are other people. You are aware that a car has the power to kill. You are aware that accidents happen, no matter how careful you are, that's what accidents are. You are aware that you could end up in a situation where you're not in control, where someone could take the car away from you and use it in a way that you not intended. Or steal it.

 

So does that mean we should ban cars?

 

Cars are dangerous weapons, HOWEVER, they are NOT intentioned to be that. They're intentions are to have a person get from point A to point B faster than walking or riding a horse. I don't think anyone, aside from Suicide Bombers, thinks 'I'm buying a car so I can run over those who threaten my life!'.

 

So it seems to me that the gun ownership laws don't make much difference one way or another. Switzerland has almost as many legal guns per capita as the US does, yet has a much, much lower rate of gun-related homicide.

Switzerland is also number 7 on a list of the countries with the most confortable, least stressed out citizens. You can't tell me that anger and stress doesn't affect someone's judgment with a loaded handgun. Basically, Switzerland is like a responsible adult and America is like a 5 year old child having a temper tantrum because they want to shoot something. Switzerland clearly is more responsible with the mental health of it's citizens.

Edited December 16, 2012 by MysticTiger

[philpot123]

And to the drug runner who has to take out the 'competition' to make more money, firearms are essential. For the convenience store robber to steal his money, firearms are essential. For the man who wants to mass murder people, firearms are essential. Etc.

 

Not only good intentioned people have guns that are essential to what they're doing.

The Yakuza don't have to use firearms to do their illegal deeds. People rob convenience stores with knives. A man in China stabbed 20+ schoolchildren yesterday.

 

Look at the statistics of how many people legitimately defend themselves with guns every day, every year.

Edited December 16, 2012 by philpot123

[MysticTiger]

The Yakuza don't have to use firearms to do their illegal deeds. People rob convenience stores with knives. A man in China stabbed 20+ schoolchildren yesterday.

 

Look at the statistics of how many people legitimately defend themselves with guns every day, every year.

The Yakuza is Japan. Their influence is based on culture, whereas american gangs and mafia are based on power due to money and guns. People rob convience stores with knives, sure. But it's a lot easier to escape someone with a knife and a lot harder to die by one. You get stabbed, you're more than likely going to be able to recover then if you got shot. Especially with a rifle or a shotgun.

 

Look at the statistics of people who legitimately murder people with guns every day. I see it everyday on the news. I NEVER hear of someone defending themselves with a gun, but I sure hear of enough 'drive by shootings' in which owning a gun for defence does absolutely nothing. There was a man the other day who opened his door and got shot in the head instantly. The use of a gun for defence was pointless there as well.

[philpot123]

Look at the statistics of people who legitimately murder people with guns every day. I see it everyday on the news. I NEVER hear of someone defending themselves with a gun, but I sure hear of enough 'drive by shootings' in which owning a gun for defence does absolutely nothing. There was a man the other day who opened his door and got shot in the head instantly. The use of a gun for defence was pointless there as well.

You never hear it because they don't put it on the news. There are FAR more instances of self-defense than there are murders. There's a huge discrepancy between studies, but even the most conservative statistics (which are highly questionable) state over 100,000 legitimate uses of firearms in self defense every year in the US. The questionable ones on the other end of the spectrum say as much as 2.5 million. Reasonable estimates are somewhere around 400,000-800,000 crimes deterred per year with firearms. Read up on it. Don't expect anti-gun news media to happily report when someone defends themselves with a gun. That's silly.

 

How often are firearms used in self-defense?

 

The Armed Citizen blog

Edited December 16, 2012 by philpot123

[MysticTiger]

You never hear it because they don't put it on the news. There are FAR more instances of self-defense than there are murders. There's a huge discrepancy between studies, but even the most conservative statistics (which are highly questionable) state over 100,000 legitimate uses of firearms in self defense every year in the US. The questionable ones on the other end of the spectrum say as much as 2.5 million. Reasonable estimates are somewhere around 400,000-800,000 crimes deterred per year with firearms. Read up on it. Don't expect anti-gun news media to happily report when someone defends themselves with a gun. That's silly.

 

How often are firearms used in self-defense?

 

The Armed Citizen blog

Sorry, I can't believe those studies. Both are from gun enthusiast sites, one of those sites which profit from the sales of guns. Also, one of them states their information is from the 1990's. That's quite outdated, don't you think?

 

The Harvard Medical School, an accredited non-biased medical research school, lists most of defensive gun statistics as "overestimations".

 

- We find that the claim of many millions of annual self-defense gun uses by American citizens is invalid.

- Criminal court judges who read the self-reported accounts of the purported self-defense gun use rated a majority as being illegal, even assuming that the respondent had a permit to own and to carry a gun, and that the respondent had described the event honestly from his own perspective.

- We found that firearms are used far more often to frighten and intimidate than they are used in self-defense.

- We found that guns in the home are used more often to frighten intimates than to thwart crime; other weapons are far more commonly used against intruders than are guns.

- We found that these young people were far more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use a gun in self-defense, and most of the reported self-defense gun uses were hostile interactions between armed adolescents.

- We found that one in four of these detainees had been wounded, in events that appear unrelated to their incarceration. Most were shot when they were victims of robberies, assaults and crossfires. Virtually none report being wounded by a "law-abiding citizen."

 

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc...-use/index.html

 

My brother was held at gunpoint when he was 15 by a store clerk for stealing a pack of gum. My brother held no weapons. The owner of the store just wanted to intimidate a child, even if he did threaten to shoot. There was absolutely NO reason for this man to have HAD a gun, let alone threaten a child for STEALING A PACK OF GUM. Police had to be called to the store and I believe the man was arrested for bearing a firearm without a permit.

 

Also, the mother of the elementary school shooting was a gun-enthusiast. So, congrats on her. She thought everyone should have a gun and look what happened. She couldn't even trust her own child with one.

Edited December 16, 2012 by MysticTiger

[philpot123]

Sorry, I can't believe those studies. Both are from gun enthusiast sites, one of those sites which profit from the sales of guns. Also, one of them states their information is from the 1990's. That's quite outdated, don't you think?

 

The Harvard Medical School, an accredited non-biased medical research school, lists most of defensive gun statistics as "overestimations".

 

- We find that the claim of many millions of annual self-defense gun uses by American citizens is invalid.

- Criminal court judges who read the self-reported accounts of the purported self-defense gun use rated a majority as being illegal, even assuming that the respondent had a permit to own and to carry a gun, and that the respondent had described the event honestly from his own perspective.

- We found that firearms are used far more often to frighten and intimidate than they are used in self-defense.

- We found that guns in the home are used more often to frighten intimates than to thwart crime; other weapons are far more commonly used against intruders than are guns.

- We found that these young people were far more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use a gun in self-defense, and most of the reported self-defense gun uses were hostile interactions between armed adolescents.

- We found that one in four of these detainees had been wounded, in events that appear unrelated to their incarceration. Most were shot when they were victims of robberies, assaults and crossfires. Virtually none report being wounded by a "law-abiding citizen."

 

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc...-use/index.html

 

My brother was held at gunpoint when he was 15 by a store clerk for stealing a pack of gum. My brother held no weapons. The owner of the store just wanted to intimidate a child, even if he did threaten to shoot. There was absolutely NO reason for this man to have HAD a gun, let alone threaten a child for STEALING A PACK OF GUM. Police had to be called to the store and I believe the man was arrested for bearing a firearm without a permit.

 

Also, the mother of the elementary school shooting was a gun-enthusiast. So, congrats on her. She thought everyone should have a gun and look what happened. She couldn't even trust her own child with one.

You don't believe a site that lists many known, credible studies into the use of firearms in self defense in an unbiased list format? Even the ones that have the lowball statistic numbers? You don't believe a website that offers NEWS STORIES OF SELF DEFENSE, with links to the original news sites on it?There's nothing further to say if you can't even believe citations of stories that appeared in local newspapers

Edited December 16, 2012 by philpot123

[Mommy_Kitty]

So it seems to me that the gun ownership laws don't make much difference one way or another. Switzerland has almost as many legal guns per capita as the US does, yet has a much, much lower rate of gun-related homicide.

Yes Switzerland has a big number of registred guns at home but that is in big part becouse of the military law they have there.

Gun politics in Switzerland are unique in Europe. Switzerland does not have a standing army, instead opting for a peoples' militia for its national defence. The vast majority of men between the ages of 20 and 30 are conscripted into the militia and undergo military training, including weapons training. The personal weapons of the militia are kept at home as part of the military obligations; Switzerland thus has one of the highest militia gun ownership rates in the world.

 

All the militia weapons that are stored at home make about 1/3 of all weapons they have at home, at approx 800 000 militia guns stored at home.

 

And the law that allows them to have guns at home is much stricter than the one in US, it is stated by law that every one can have a gun at home, but all the permits to posses or purchase a gun are not so easyly obtained, and all weapons must be recorded, so the government knows who has guns at any given time. And only a handfull of models that are manual repetition rifels ment for sports and hunting can be purchased without a license, but otherwise they need permits to get them.

 

And most of the guns that people have and are not held by militia are for target shooting and hunting witch were not designed for killing people, And most guns that are legaly obtainde in US are not sports or hunting weapons, but weapons designed for combat and kill people, not to shoot on targets or animaly.

 

But what about the country at the other end of the spectrum? What is the role of guns in Japan, the developed world's least firearm-filled nation and perhaps its strictest controller? In 2008, the U.S. had over 12 thousand firearm-related homicides. All of Japan experienced only 11, fewer than were killed at the Aurora shooting alone. And that was a big year: 2006 saw an astounding two, and when that number jumped to 22 in 2007, it became a national scandal. By comparison, also in 2008, 587 Americans were killed just by guns that had discharged accidentally.

 

To get a gun in Japan, first, you have to attend an all-day class and pass a written test, which are held only once per month. You also must take and pass a shooting range class. Then, head over to a hospital for a mental test and drug test (Japan is unusual in that potential gun owners must affirmatively prove their mental fitness), which you'll file with the police. Finally, pass a rigorous background check for any criminal record or association with criminal or extremist groups, and you will be the proud new owner of your shotgun or air rifle. Just don't forget to provide police with documentation on the specific location of the gun in your home, as well as the ammo, both of which must be locked and stored separately. And remember to have the police inspect the gun once per year and to re-take the class and exam every three years.

 

After typeing all that i came to conclusion that GUNS DONT KILL, BUT PEOPLE DO, and if it is stated in law that every one in a country can own a gun they will own one no mather if it is legal or ilegal, and if no one checks the person holding a gun than such things happen as the mass killings US has every year. The law that wuld prevent people of the US to buy or own a weapon for no reason, shuld not be the one that wuld only ban weapons, but a law that wuld educate yung people and children that you dont need guns at all if you are only a common person than the amount of ilegal weapons will allso drop dramaticaly. In US it is not the law that allows owning a gun that is problematic, but the mentality of people, and theyr understanding of the law, and i`m willing to bet you that 70% of all the illegal weapons owners are thinking like this, the law says i can own a weapon but they dont want to sell one to me, i know i will get an ilegal one couse the law says i can have a weapon, and no one will check up on me couse weapons dont have to be registred.

And if you change the law this kind of thinking will slowly go away as people will se that they dont need to own a weapon, but that cant and will not change ower night, but it is a long process that takes time.

Read this artice and see the general thinking of people in US.

http://piersmorgan.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/1...-guns-not-more/

Edited December 16, 2012 by Mommy_Kitty

[RWyvern]

After typeing all that i came to conclusion that GUNS DONT KILL, BUT PEOPLE DO

Guns do kill. That's their sole purpose. What one has to think about is who can handle a gun without doing any unnecessary harm.

[Mommy_Kitty]

Guns do kill. That's their sole purpose. What one has to think about is who can handle a gun without doing any unnecessary harm.

Well guns do kill, but not on theyr own, a person holding it needs to trigger in to kill in 99% of times, and there are only a handfull accidents that happned due to gun fireing on its own without no one triggering it.

[Obscure_Trash]

Might it not be time to actually ask yourself how many of these shootings in the US are carried out with legally obtained guns? I suspect that the answer is most if not all of them. Doesn't that tell you something? And doesn't that blow the argument about criminals getting guns anyway mostly out of the water?

Language in comments: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/0...s-investigation Mother Jones investigated 61 mass shootings. 48 of the shooters got their legally, 11 illegally, and 2 were unknown.

 

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?

 

Once of age, fill out some paperwork, have a background check, and voila. It hasn't taken more than half an hour for my bf to get any of his guns (rifles or handguns).

To concealed carry in my state you have to be 21, pass an extensive background check (much more extensive than buying - these can often last around half a year), and pass a shooting qualification. Here you have to be able to shoot, I think, a piece of paper (8.5" x 11") at 3 and 7 yards with 25 rounds. Asked my bf, he provided. :3

 

EDIT: Units are helpful.

 

I will note, here, that the school rampages carried out with knives in China have a significantly lower body count than those carried out with guns in the US. 10 of the 21 Chinese rampages listed here resulted in no deaths. That list also notes only one, single occasion (in China) where more than 10 were killed in a rampage carried out with a melee weapon. Unlike the rampages carried out with guns. Only 3 on that list killed more than 20 people - all carried out with guns, in the US. 5 of the 'top ten' by body count happened in the US. So, yeah... looks like the rampages carried out with guns kill significantly more people than those carried out with knives. So if they're going to do it anyway, I'd rather they tried with a knife and not a gun. Fewer lives to ruin.

 

I found this interesting: http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/12/14...sing/?mobile=nc

 

One important caveat to keep in mind: The number of people seriously wounded did increase 47 percent over the last decade, but the country’s population increased by a significantly greater amount over the same period. As a result, the rate of violent crime actually dropped over the last two decades, as did the murder rate — though medical advances could very well be holding the murder rate lower than it otherwise would be.

 

~

 

Thoughts from my gun nut boyfriend:

-The trend is that mass shootings happen in gun-free zones and we need to protect those

-Standards for buying and carrying a gun are far too lax

-To carry, people should have to be continually training and continually meet qualifications

-There is no simple answer (and I'll add: but that doesn't mean that there isn't an answer)

 

Myself, I think this is definitely something that needs addressed. I'm interested in ideas on how to protect gun-free zones and I believe in tightening restrictions to own and shoot guns. I'll also note that outright banning guns...well, prohibition of alcohol didn't go well, can you imagine how prohibition of guns, especially with guns a part of American culture at this point, would go? And although I did not agree with the original way it was worded, after discussion with a friend, I agree that we need to have help more available to those in bad situations, with mental illnesses, or with personality disorders.

 

Well guns do kill, but not on theyr own, a person holding it needs to trigger in to kill in 99% of times, and there are only a handfull accidents that happned due to gun fireing on its own without no one triggering it.

 

This reminds me of this story: Likely language in the comments http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-22...king-space.html

7 year old boy killed in his car when his dad tried to place his handgun in the console.

Edited December 16, 2012 by SockPuppet Strangler

[Shienvien]

7 year old boy killed in his car when his dad tried to place his handgun in the console.

It could happen only due to serious neglect of gun safety rules. If the father had paid any mind to such, it would not have happened.

 

To those people who claim that guns are only for killing: I use mine for target practice, so in the end, at least mine is meant for target practice, and not killing. What a thing is meant for only depends on what its holder intends to use it for. Nothing else.

 

 

 

[TikindiDragon]

Myself, I think this is definitely something that needs addressed. I'm interested in ideas on how to protect gun-free zones and I believe in tightening restrictions to own and shoot guns. I'll also note that outright banning guns...well, prohibition of alcohol didn't go well, can you imagine how prohibition of guns, especially with guns a part of American culture at this point, would go? And although I did not agree with the original way it was worded, after discussion with a friend, I agree that we need to have help more available to those in bad situations, with mental illnesses, or with personality disorders.

Incidently I think you'll find that most, if not all of us, arguing against the current US gun culture are in favour of mugh tighter regulations, and not outright bans.

 

Back story note: I was born and raised in the UK. You all know that. I first fired a gun under the supervision of my friend's Dad on his small holding when I was under 10. I'm a very good shot, and have taken part small-bore rifle shooting on ranges. I've been a beater on organised pheasant shoots. I've also, in the capacity of an airport security guard, handled firearms transfers where people are flying with their guns. By English standards I have not only had a lot of contact with guns, but I am decidedly more pro-gun than many in my country.

 

This doesn't change the fact that I think the laws in the US need some major tightening. The number of guns you have over there that are flat out illegal here is stunning. Many of them (and I've handled them when they've been in transit through the country but not stopping) are classified as 'Munitions Of War' and require special handling procedures.

 

I don't want to stop people hunting. I absolutely believe that a farmer should have the right to own a shotgun to keep pests down on his property. But you are never going to convince me that a civilian needs to own semi- or fully- automatic rifles. Nor are you going to convince me that you need semi-automatic pistols with large clips. None of those weapons are about pest control, or sport (both of which can easily be accomplished where the gun holds less than 5 rounds), they are about one thing, and one thing only - killing or injuring other humans. And I am afraid that anyone's paranoia about criminals doesn't, to me, justify owning something thats sole purpose is to kill other humans.

 

Edit to add: Nice wiki page giving a summary of UK firearms laws. Please note that this is the sort of control I think should be enforced in the US. Not the kind of outright ban on everything some of you seem to think I'm arguing for.

Edited December 16, 2012 by TikindiDragon

[Kestra15]

As ever, for those who claim having gun ownership prevents shootings, I have yet to see someone who carries out a shooting in a school gunned down by a fellow classmate/teacher in the opening few rounds. I still oppose such freely-available gun ownership.

Edited December 16, 2012 by Kestra15

[Obscure_Trash]

Incidently I think you'll find that most, if not all of us, arguing against the current US gun culture are in favour of mugh tighter regulations, and not outright bans.

I don't believe I read anyone here who did support a ban, either, actually? But I did skim. I will note that it is the USA that has the very extreme two sides of the spectrum and why I felt compelled to say that. The Sandy Hook ES shooting has brought out the people saying "see, this is why we should have looser restrictions and more people carrying guns" and those saying "see, this is why we shouldn't have guns at all". Which is sad because then we get caught up in petty arguing rather than discussion on how legislation could be better. Not that politicians are really addressing the legislation at all.

 

It's late and I'm still bogging through the long threads that popped up in S/R while I was gone, but I am definitely going to check out the wiki link! I do think it'd be smart if the US would adopt practices from other countries who experience less violence in this way than we do.

 

As ever, for those who claim having gun ownership prevents shootings, I have yet to see someone who carries out a shooting in a school gunned down by a fellow classmate/teacher in the opening few rounds. I still oppose such freely-available gun ownership.

 

The Mother Jones article I linked was really arguing this , too. In the 62 mass shootings they analyzed, not one was stopped by a civilian with a gun.

 

It could happen only due to serious neglect of gun safety rules. If the father had paid any mind to such, it would not have happened.

 

I was really following the line of thought of: accidents are rare - but they do happen!

 

But yeah, that was a serious negligence on the father's part.

 

To those people who claim that guns are only for killing: I use mine for target practice, so in the end, at least mine is meant for target practice, and not killing. What a thing is meant for only depends on what its holder intends to use it for. Nothing else.

 

I think the point is that they were made for killing, although, yeah, people do use them for other things like shooting inanimate targets.

[Shienvien]

I have yet to see someone who carries out a shooting in a school gunned down by a fellow classmate/teacher in the opening few rounds.

And how could a shooter be stopped by a second gunner when it is a zone wherein guns can only be present illegally? Any such second gunner, even if the one ended up saving a dozen lives, would go to prison him/herself, I'm afraid. Also, 'I was carrying a gun just in case' would barely save them if nothing at all happened, but someone noticed the gun.

 

 

On the matter of regulations - I am actually for gun registering and permits, but not for restricting access to those with no criminal background or mental instability.

[blah]

You buy a car and drive it around where there are other people. You are aware that a car has the power to kill. You are aware that accidents happen, no matter how careful you are, that's what accidents are. You are aware that you could end up in a situation where you're not in control, where someone could take the car away from you and use it in a way that you not intended. Or steal it.

MysticTiger already anwered it and they're right. The foreseen consequence of buying a car and using it for what it was designed, is to get from A to B. The foreseen consequence of buying a gun and using it for what it was designed, is death.

 

It could happen only due to serious neglect of gun safety rules. If the father had paid any mind to such, it would not have happened.

It could only happen due to handing guns out freely to people who haven't proven they have had adequate training.

 

And all of you people arguing for self-defence - I'm pretty certain, if someone was to rob my shop, I'd just give them what they want. I have an insurance. Or rather, my father does. He is a jeweler and all of his employees have strict order to comply with the wishes of criminals and not play hero and get themselves into danger. With his job, he is part of the group of people who could obtain a permit to carry a gun here by the way. In his shop only. He hasn't and he doesn't want to.

 

The same with people breaking into my home. You bet I'll pretend to be fast asleep and let them leave with my laptop and sterling cutlery all they want.

 

I am not for banning guns, I hope it didn't come across this way. I have friends who are hunters and I see nothing wrong with it, it's important for the balance in forests. But I also know the time and money they invested to get there. The amount of training and studying they did. The guns they have, are kept at home, safely locked up. They are registered, when they die one day, an offical will show up and collect the gun. There is a limit on what kind and how many guns they're allowed to have. There are only two keys to the weapon storage cabinet and they've made sure to pick a colleague to give the second key to. They don't carry weapons around in cities, they do it in forests.

 

As others have said, culture is an important factor, too. In Germany, guns aren't really "cool". I have found a link to some pictures for you, that shows an example of people that are typically associated with guns here, it illustrates my point I believe.

 

Switzerland isn't so much different in that, since that was discussed earlier.

 

It's obviously a lot different in the USA and changing it, would take a lot of time, but I believe it would be worth it.

[Shienvien]

And all of you people arguing for self-defence - I'm pretty certain, if someone was to rob my shop, I'd just give them what they want. The same with people breaking into my home. You bet I'll pretend to be fast asleep and let them leave with my laptop and sterling cutlery all they want.

If you can get out of the way, and if no one else is in danger, of course it is more sensible to - for example - retreat to the bathroom, lock the door from inside (though, again, I'd rather have a gun in hand, just in case it's the kind of madman who will break down that locked bathroom door, too), and let the robber leave unhindered.

 

BUT, there are also the robbers who will slice your throat simply because you are a witness, especially if you happen to see their face, there are people whose aim is not the robbery, but killing firsthand...

Also, are people supposed to simply 'tolerate' rape too? For rapists will barely walk away without doing a person any harm if left unbothered.

 

 

It could only happen due to handing guns out freely to people who haven't proven they have had adequate training.

In which case the lack of a 30-minute adequacy test is at fault, not the presence of guns. You don't hand a car for driving to a person who can't tell the gas and the brake pedal apart, either.

[TikindiDragon]

In which case the lack of a 30-minute adequacy test is at fault, not the presence of guns. You don't hand a car for driving to a person who can't tell the gas and the brake pedal apart, either.

Which, obviously, is one of the main reasons for gun control laws. It's a hell of a lot more difficult to get a driving licence than it is to get a gun, or even a permit for conceald carry, in a lot of places in the US. I'm all for proper licencing - including checks, written tests and practical ones (which would actually be even more of a requirement than we currently have in the UK).

 

Although I will again observe that I don't feel 'self defence' is a valid reason to own a live-firing gun. If you just want to have a 'gun' as a deterrant then there are plenty of very appearence-accurate blank-firing guns available. Same look, just can't hurt anyone unless you actually press it to their temple and pull the trigger.

[Shienvien]

Which, obviously, is one of the main reasons for gun control laws. It's a hell of a lot more difficult to get a driving licence than it is to get a gun, or even a permit for concealed carry, in a lot of places in the US. I'm all for proper licencing - including checks, written tests and practical ones (which would actually be even more of a requirement than we currently have in the UK).

In my mind, the following should be mandatory for obtaining a permit, repeated after, say, every five years:

- Age restriction (since someone below 18 handling a gun without supervision does not seem like a good idea)

- Background check (no guns to people with history of violent crime)

- Gun competency test (after the person has already taken a proper gun handling course, if the one was not familiar with guns beforehand)

- Mental check (including testing for anger management issues and severe depression)

For buying a gun:

- Valid license.

- Valid identification.

- Each gun would be registered by name (and if you don't report your gun stolen and someone commits a crime with it, you will suffer a penalty since your gun is your responsibility)

 

 

Just quick thoughts on what I'd see as a decent system. I don't quite agree with people being able to buy guns from supermarkets no matter one's age or past, either.

 

 

Although I will again observe that I don't feel 'self defence' is a valid reason to own a live-firing gun. If you just want to have a 'gun' as a deterrant then there are plenty of very appearance-accurate blank-firing guns available.

In most cases - unless the other has a good reason to suspect that it's a blankshooter, or is truly a lunatic with no survival instincts bent on causing as much damage as possible -, yes. (I can't imagine the trouble of having to prove that it is just a blankshooter when the real things can not be carried, though...)

Edited December 16, 2012 by Shienvien

[MedievalMystic]

Although I will again observe that I don't feel 'self defence' is a valid reason to own a live-firing gun. If you just want to have a 'gun' as a deterrant then there are plenty of very appearence-accurate blank-firing guns available. Same look, just can't hurt anyone unless you actually press it to their temple and pull the trigger.

 

I think I'll stick with the real thing. If some stranger comes into my house with malicious intent, I'm really not going to give a tinker's damn about whether or not they get 'hurt'. In fact, if they come into my house, it's a given. If anyone threatens me or mine with bodily harm or violence, on my property or wherever, and their aggressive, violent behavior causes me to fear for my family's lives, my intent will be to hurt them/stop them/kill them. I don't tend to feel compassion or mercy for the predators and monsters of this world. If they all got shot and killed tomorrow I wouldn't bat an eye.

 

And I can almost guarantee that, to a man, gun or no gun, let some animal that's crawled out of the dregs of humanity come into YOUR(anyone in general) house and threaten YOUR family, and I don't care if it's a gun, a baseball bat, a knife, or a cast iron skillet, when push comes to shove nobody will be thinking one whit about the well being of their attacker, and whether or not he lives or dies.

 

That being said, I do think guns should be harder to get and that every single person that wants one should be scrutinized in depth.

Edited December 16, 2012 by MedievalMystic

[TikindiDragon]

In my mind, the following should be mandatory for obtaining a permit, repeated after, say, every five years:

- Age restriction (since someone below 18 handling a gun without supervision does not seem like a good idea)

- Background check (no guns to people with history of violent crime)

- Gun competency test (after the person has already taken a proper gun handling course, if the one was not familiar with guns beforehand)

- Mental check (including testing for anger management issues and severe depression)

For buying a gun:

- Valid license.

- Valid identification.

- Each gun would be registered by name (and if you don't report your gun stolen and someone commits a crime with it, you will suffer a penalty since your gun is your responsibility)

 

See, if you had a look at the link I posted that's braodly the sort of requirements already in place in the UK (note we are considered to have quite strict gun-laws). Plus each person requires two references of good and stable character in order to be given a permit. There's also the requirement to state why you need a gun, because that will effect conditions on your licence (for instance someone that had a gun only for sport target shooting would not be allowed expanding rounds - someone that had a gun for deer stalking would). Obviously in the UK 'self defence' is not a valid reason, although I gather you think it should be.

 

But tighter control of who can have guns, why they can have them, and how they must store them (in the UK this must be in a securely locked cabinet that is bolted to the wall and not easily visible through the windows) is in no way the same as an outright ban. I'm still baffled as to why so many people in the States seem to think that those of us arguing against their current system must obviously be in favour of outright bans

 

In most cases - unless the other has a good reason to suspect that it's a blankshooter, or is truly a lunatic with no survival instincts bent on causing as much damage as possible -, yes. (I can't imagine the trouble of having to prove that it is just a blankshooter when the real things can not be carried, though...)

 

All guns here in the UK have serial numbers, and said serial numbers are listed on the licence. Theoretically proving that you are carrying a blank firing gun as a deterrant should be as simple as producing your licence for it (incidently laws in the UK over blank firing guns that can't visually be distinguised from live-firing guns are the same as they are for live-firing guns, as several were used in hold-ups). There's also the possibility of deactivating a live-firing gun - which in many cases doesn't change it's appearence, but does mean it's permanently incapable of firing rounds. Again, such guns require deactivation certificates. So, theoretically, it should be just as easy as producing your licence. That said keeping one in your car would still be illegal here, so...

[MysticTiger]

"Parents will be burying their children over Christmas and you're telling me guns are still your “human right”?"

 

That pretty much sums up my entire argument.

 

At the end of the day, guns are made to kill. I don't care if you carry around one for 'self-defence'. At the end of the day, you're carrying around a weapon meant to kill. And if you are carrying a loaded one, you are admitting you'd be willing to kill anyone you see as a threat to yourself. And to me, that's basically putting you on the same level as those 'bad guys' you claim to be protecting yourself against. You're all carrying a weapon with the intent to kill.