About Guns

[Ice]

I'm just curious as to why you seem to deny that people indeed have guns used for sport? I know a lot of people who's guns are solely used for firing ranges. Its not a small percentage. Outside of the police officers I know, nobody I know has their guns for the purpose of killing people or self defense. I would liken it to people who collect bows and arrows because they enjoy archery.

[JohnnyB]

A little OT from the debate, but the other night I was out drinking with a good buddy here in Shanghai, and when we left the bar we'd been drinking at we noticed a gun range pretty much next door. We wandered in, reasonably drunk and with me still carrying a beer, and they let us fire off some handguns at some targets on the range. Pretty cool. I figure I did pretty well for a drunk guy with no experience, and it was just kind of crazy that you could walk into a place in downtown Shanghai, on one of the busy upscale shopping streets, drunkenly write down a name and passport number that for all they know is fake and fire off some rounds from a gun of your choice.

Anyways, just thought it might be an interesting story in this topic.

[Itse]

"It should be clear that no physical object is in itself aggressive; any object, whether it be a grenade, a knife, or a stick, can be used for aggression, for defense, or for numerous other purposes unconnected with crime. It makes no more sense to outlaw or restrict the purchase and ownership of grenades than it does to outlaw the possession of knives, clubs, hatpins, or stones."

I just wanted to point out what complete nonsense the original posting is. This is not a discussion of knives, it's a discussion of guns. I have a need for knives every time I cook dinner, I've never had a use for a gun in my life.

The point of limiting handgun sales is not stop "criminals" using them, at least not directly, although for political reasons this is unfortunately the public argument.

It's to stop "normal people" from using them. This is because people really just don't do anything useful with them, but instead they do lots of things they shouldnt.

Most crimes are not done by professional "criminals". Violence is mostly between people who know each other, for example beating your spouse. The rest of it is largely done drunk. None of those situations really have room for good pro-gun arguments. A gun for example isn't likely to protect you from rape, as it's propably done by someone you know and trust(ed).

The good samaritan argument is really pretty laughable, as the number of actual LEGAL gun use in protection of others done by civilians is so low as to be non-existant. People simply don't witness crimes on a regular enough basis for guns to have a significant impact. People mostly witness crime done by people they know. Most crimes people witness are not of the violent type anyway, so adding guns to the equation is simply not legal, let alone morally defendable.

It's also much more common for guns to be used against their owners than it is for them to be used in self-defense, so basicly not having a gun protects you from extreme cases of violence better than having one. (Also if you don't have a gun I would guess you're more likely to do the sensible thing, which is either run or do nothing. Trying to pull out a gun in panic mode isn't usually a good idea.)

As to protection from "random" violence, I've experienced "random" street crime four times in my life, and none of those situations would have had room for gun use, as all situations simply started to fast and surprisingly. (I've been mugged once and three times someone has tried to rob me.)

As to guns used for sport, you don't need a .357 for sport, smaller calibers will do nicely.

Do we really need to approve of something just because some people do it for fun?

You could have lots of fun competitions with grenades too, why are those not legal to have around?

[PIMking]

I love firearms. I honestly dont think its right (here in the states) to ban them but Im more interested in security purpose. If it makes the general population safer with out firearms Im for it. The problem is the gangs will still get them. From mexico black market or what ever means. They need better data bases on who owns one what type all that stuff.

This is another abortion argument.

[pepper24]

Originally Posted by PIMking

This is another abortion argument.

In this case it's more of a Canada/rest of the Western World vs. US debate. I think most Canadians are ok with guns for hunting and target practice (sport) but don't understand the need of a gun for protection. In Canada it's not in our constitution. Personally, I think Americans take their 2nd amendment too literally and use that to thrive in a state of fear.

I own 2 guns, a rifle for hunting and a handgun for the shooting range. I keep my handgun at my shooting range. I read a great article a few years ago out of the US that keeping guns at home they're more likely to kill your own family (accidentially going off, young kid snoops around and finds it etc.) than being used on a criminal breaking into your house. Since I don't need a gun to protect my family from criminals, I don't need them at my home.

[pepper24]

Originally Posted by Ice

I'm just curious as to why you seem to deny that people indeed have guns used for sport? I know a lot of people who's guns are solely used for firing ranges. Its not a small percentage. Outside of the police officers I know, nobody I know has their guns for the purpose of killing people or self defense. I would liken it to people who collect bows and arrows because they enjoy archery.

I am not sure if you were addressing to me as I was the previous post but either way I'll respond.

I own 2 guns, a rifle for hunting and handgun for the shooting range. In these controlled situations I am pro-gun and enjoy both sports that my guns allow me to enjoy.

[RubberDuck]

I own guns and I purchased them with no intention to ever kill anything. I have never shot or killed anything in my life and never intend to do so. I used to enjoy target shooting but I'm wondering if I need to re-think my hobby. Seeing as I'm not a killer or hunter I'm starting to wonder why I bought something that has only one real purpose.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by jammies

Ultimately, yes. The implicit threat of the gun has to have some legitimacy or they are useless - if you have a gun and are not willing to shoot it if necessary, it is of limited efficacy.

That being said, I'm perfectly happy with the police having guns so that I don't have to have one.

Not that often that I argue against you Jammies but police do not possess guns with the intent of killing someone. Anyone including a police officer who shoots someone with the intent of killing them would be charged with murder. Police shoot people to stop the commission and continueation of an offence, not with the intent of killing them, although, death is a frequent outcome.

[flamesfever]

Before the new gun registration program, Canada already had very strict laws relating to the ownership of restricted or easily concealable weapons.

Back in the 70's as a geologist doing coal exploration, I was going to be working above treeline all summer in grizzly country. And as I was going to be carrying a lot of equipment, I would not be able to pack a rifle. I therefore decided to purchase a 357 magnum pistol to be able to protect myself in the event of a grizzly attack. In order to purchase the pistol I had to have an interview with the Chief of Police in Calgary which lasted over an hour, and in spite of him trying to discourage me, he finally agreed to allow me to purchase one. As I have had no further use for it, I recently took it in to the police for disposal.

I believe the registering of all guns including rifles and shotguns used for hunting is a complete waste of time and money. As the Captain pointed out above, it is money that should be used for law enforcement purposes.

[Boblobla]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Not that often that I argue against you Jammies but police do not possess guns with the intent of killing someone. Anyone including a police officer who shoots someone with the intent of killing them would be charged with murder. Police shoot people to stop the commission and continueation of an offence, not with the intent of killing them, although, death is a frequent outcome.

The real issue is if Tasers are deadlier than guns.

I AM FOR A BAN OF TASERS, SCREW THIS HANDGUN DEBATE.

I am on the side agreeing that regardless of a ban on firearms people who need guns will find a way to buy them.

[PIMking]

Originally Posted by pepper24

In this case it's more of a Canada/rest of the Western World vs. US debate. I think most Canadians are ok with guns for hunting and target practice (sport) but don't understand the need of a gun for protection. In Canada it's not in our constitution. Personally, I think Americans take their 2nd amendment too literally and use that to thrive in a state of fear.

I own 2 guns, a rifle for hunting and a handgun for the shooting range. I keep my handgun at my shooting range. I read a great article a few years ago out of the US that keeping guns at home they're more likely to kill your own family (accidentially going off, young kid snoops around and finds it etc.) than being used on a criminal breaking into your house. Since I don't need a gun to protect my family from criminals, I don't need them at my home.

I understand completly were you are coming from. I dont hunt I rather go to the store and get a hunk of cow instead of sitting in the cold waiting for an animal that I can shoot. I love the sport part and target shooting I just think thats fun.

The problem with the majority of americans that have them at home dont use a gun safe or locks. They also leave them loaded at all times. Another part of that is that they dont teach the kids respect for a weapon with such force. I wasnt born in this country I came here from germany. I do love this country and what it hasa to offer. But I think you should have to pass a course and numerous backround checks to get a weapon. Also make crimes with a gun or any type of firearm a manditory jail sentance. No plea deals nothing like that Everyone goes to jail.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Montana Moe

How often are the police on scene as a crime is being committed? Seriously???

Almost never, but I'm doubtful that the answer is to have an armed citizenry. The point is that the police, the courts, and the law should deal with crime, and despite the pro-gun rhetoric, there is no provable correlation between gun ownership and violent crime rates OR prevention.

Personally I'm not necessarily against personal gun ownership, but I don't understand the mindset of people that think widespread gun ownership is some kind of answer to the problem of violent crime. This argument seems to depend on anecdotal evidence or "well what if some dude invaded your house with a gun" stories, neither of which is proof of anything, because they are considered in isolation and not coupled to other possible effects of gun ownership.

I would suggest that cultural and economic factors have far more to do with violent crime than gun ownership laws, and that certain cultures might be better served by tighter gun laws, and other cultures better served by looser laws. In no case, however, do I think that the idea that having a gun is "necessary" to protect oneself from violent criminals is a good one - if you live in a place where this seems reasonable, I suggest that maybe there is a large dysfunction in society that needs addressing more than you need guns.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Not that often that I argue against you Jammies but police do not possess guns with the intent of killing someone.

Well I might not be explaining myself very well - I'm not saying there is an INTENTION to use guns to kill, but that ultimately there has to be that POSSIBILITY. Police don't carry guns to shoot tree branches and thereby save stranded kittens, they are tools that allow the escalation of legitimate force to injury or death. Obviously the less that this final escalation has to happen, the better, but that threat has to - and does - exist.

[tussery]

Originally Posted by PIMking

I do love this country and what it hasa to offer. But I think you should have to pass a course and numerous backround checks to get a weapon.

Yeah, it would be great if when you bought a gun they have to run a background check to make sure you aren't a convicted felon and can own a gun... Oh wait that is what the NCIS system is for. As for a course I do believe a gun safety course should be something every gun owner should take. I don't know how many times I have been in a gun store only to have people swing a barrel and inadvertently point the thing at me. Rule #1 treat every firearm as if it is loaded. Rule #2 Do not point a firearm at something unless you intend to destroy it. I can not as a supporter of this countries Bill of Rights say it should be mandatory to require gun safety training.

Yes guns were designed to kill, and personally as someone who only weighs 117lbs and can not fight. I would gladly take the small risk (I have a better chance of winning the lottery) of being killed or injured by an AD and level the playing field of any one who ever threatens my life in any way.

[Montana Moe]

Originally Posted by jammies

Almost never, but I'm doubtful that the answer is to have an armed citizenry. The point is that the police, the courts, and the law should deal with crime, and despite the pro-gun rhetoric, there is no provable correlation between gun ownership and violent crime rates OR prevention.

Personally I'm not necessarily against personal gun ownership, but I don't understand the mindset of people that think widespread gun ownership is some kind of answer to the problem of violent crime. This argument seems to depend on anecdotal evidence or "well what if some dude invaded your house with a gun" stories, neither of which is proof of anything, because they are considered in isolation and not coupled to other possible effects of gun ownership.

I would suggest that cultural and economic factors have far more to do with violent crime than gun ownership laws, and that certain cultures might be better served by tighter gun laws, and other cultures better served by looser laws. In no case, however, do I think that the idea that having a gun is "necessary" to protect oneself from violent criminals is a good one - if you live in a place where this seems reasonable, I suggest that maybe there is a large dysfunction in society that needs addressing more than you need guns.

I agree completely with most of what you are saying. I certainly don't think that having everybody armed is the answer. Due to socioeconomic factors, violent crime is here, and likely here to stay. It isn't because of guns, but guns are a part of the problem. Does anyone here seriously think even an all out ban would get guns off the street?

What I would like to see is people that are educated, trained, and proficient in firearms be able to exercise their right to protect their family and property from violent crime should they be willing to accept that responsibility, and the risks that come with it.

These folks go through federal background checks, adhere to federal, state, and local regulations, and have to go through another check to get a concealed weapons permit if they so choose.

Is this the majority of legal gun owners? I don't know. PIMKing brought up good points about some folks not locking them up, keeping them loaded, etc.

Bottom line for me, again:

Enforce current gun laws
Improve federal background check system if neccessary (I think it is)
Emphasize handgun familiarization class before purchase
Strict regulation of concealed carry permits/require classes for CCW


Nothing is going to change with violent crimes until the cultural and economic issues are addressed. As you correctly stated Jammies, this is the real problem. Until then, I'm not going to rely on a reactive police force, or a lax justice system to protect me, sorry.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

Before the new gun registration program, Canada already had very strict laws relating to the ownership of restricted or easily concealable weapons.

Back in the 70's as a geologist doing coal exploration, I was going to be working above treeline all summer in grizzly country. And as I was going to be carrying a lot of equipment, I would not be able to pack a rifle. I therefore decided to purchase a 357 magnum pistol to be able to protect myself in the event of a grizzly attack. In order to purchase the pistol I had to have an interview with the Chief of Police in Calgary which lasted over an hour, and in spite of him trying to discourage me, he finally agreed to allow me to purchase one. As I have had no further use for it, I recently took it in to the police for disposal.

I believe the registering of all guns including rifles and shotguns used for hunting is a complete waste of time and money. As the Captain pointed out above, it is money that should be used for law enforcement purposes.

Thats a nice story and you did the right thing in the end but I'll say this! your very lucky a grizzly attack didn't happen. your chances of survival would have been better with a can of spray.

[driveway]

I understand why the framers of the US Constitution decided to include the 2nd amendment when they did. I also understand why people feel so strongly that it is a right worth protecting.

However, I think that the United States would be better off if the right to own guns had never been enshrined in the Constitution.

I like that there are relatively few guns in Canada, and no one is allowed to carry a concealed firearm. It makes me uncomfortable whenever I am in a concealed-carry state, and it would take an amazing job or amazing woman to get me to consider moving to one. I would raise holy-hell if anyone tried allowing concealed-carry in Canada.

Private citizens should be allowed access to firearms, that said, I think guns are extremely dangerous and, like any dangerous item or substance, it is entirely within the purview of the government to place restrictions on the acquisition and possession of them.

[Montana Moe]

Originally Posted by driveway

Private citizens should be allowed access to firearms, that said, I think guns are extremely dangerous and, like any dangerous item or substance, it is entirely within the purview of the government to place restrictions on the acquisition and possession of them.

I agree with this statement completely, and I'm glad the U.S. government does so.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by driveway

I like that there are relatively few guns in Canada, and no one is allowed to carry a concealed firearm. It makes me uncomfortable whenever I am in a concealed-carry state, and it would take an amazing job or amazing woman to get me to consider moving to one. I would raise holy-hell if anyone tried allowing concealed-carry in Canada.

Private citizens should be allowed access to firearms, that said, I think guns are extremely dangerous and, like any dangerous item or substance, it is entirely within the purview of the government to place restrictions on the acquisition and possession of them.

Some people are allow to carry concealed weapons, you can get a permit to do so. There are many people out there who carry concealed weapons that do not have permission and could careless about any laws. Of course, the prevalence would be much less than some state that has these laws but there are many criminals out there that have these weapons on them. You are fooling yourself if you think people in Canada do not carry these kinds of weapons.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by driveway

I understand why the framers of the US Constitution decided to include the 2nd amendment when they did. I also understand why people feel so strongly that it is a right worth protecting.

I haven't really followed this debate very closely, but whenever I read that argument the thing that always comes to mind for me is one of the quotes on the walls at the Jefferson memorial in D.C.:



Just makes it seem terribly ironic that you occasionally see people try to justify their right to own a gun in virtue of the intentions of founding fathers.
I realize I'm begging the question in thinking it's ironic, but it's still what comes to mind for me.