Firearms (in Debates)

How does the CB community feel about firearms? Do you think that they should be legal? Legal, but restricted (no "assault" -- read, scary looking -- rifles)? Or banned altogether?
I don't care so much from a Second Amendment-perspective (we could go on all day about that), but from a personal point of view. Thoughts?

I think they should be totally legal, but that you should have to go through a bunch of hoops before you can get them, simply because they are just as dangerous as any 2000lbs killing machine car could be.

Also, I think the more insane and deadly a weapon is, the more hoops and training you should have to go through before you can get one. That way the only people who have them are people who really know what the hell they are doing.

You can't separate the 2nd Amendment from the personal viewpoint of many gun owners.

That being said, I would be ambivalent about the matter if guns weren't so pervasive already. Seeing as how they're commonplace with U.S. criminals, they must remain legal for non-felon citizens.

This is coming from someone who grew up around a competition skeet shooter and avid hunter. I only shoot about once a year, and the only guns I own are a .22 and a Yugo SKS.

Ah, and to follow you line of questions, I do support the existing ban on assault weapons and requirement/monitoring of FFL licenses (which should be more expensive).

Legal with add-ons.

Limitations on ammo purchases. Better track keeping on guns and ammo. Take the camo shotguns and rifles out of Wal-mart.
Don't know how tight the scrutiny is on mental health background checks. Open that section up for more probable denials.
Raise the minimum sentences for certain offenses within city limits.

Yep. I'm a proud second amendment supporter here.

foolish and idealistic as it may be I'm a big fan of not punishing everyone for the crimes a few may commit

Not certain what laws are like everywhere but here in Canada once found guilty of certain charges you face a 10 year ban on firearms. This is a good rule. However a determined individual can arrange a gun should he/she be motivated to do so through other means (illegal).

However I feel that any person (Unstable people/children/criminals/etc. excluded) should be allowed to own and use a firearm where permitted with proper training.

Any person wanting to do harm does not have to have a gun to do so, there is vary many ways besides guns and if they did not exist there would be another item to do so.

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

People across the ocean from me might be interested in UK gun law.

And you will find that most people here are perfectly fine with it.

I really wish people would seperate the 2nd ammendment from their personal feelings on the matter. It clouds the whole issue with drivel (oh boy it's in the constitution, no need to have any other semblence of a point! They took our jobs! Der de DERRR!!). I personally don't like guns. Always been much more a fan of staves, axes, etc. Both because it would really suck to kill someone by accident, and because if somebody had to die, there's not much fun in a point and click interface when compared to bludgeoning the life out of someone or looking them right in the eyes as their existence fades.

All that said, I still believe guns should be legal, but there should be more requirements for legal ownership. On the grounds that most gun-related problems are caused by illegally-owned and/or unregistered guns and/or guns owned by the completely incompitent. Unfortunately there will always be a power struggle between good and evil both in society and inside each person that makes up that society. To remove the weaponry from those on the side of good would tip the scale in a very unfortunate manner.

I have a real aversion towards guns. If you point a fake gun at me I will go crazy. If you point a "finger" gun at me I will try to eat your finger. But, if our guns are taken away then we won't be able overthrow the government if we need to! Thats what I always think about. They'll have guns and we won't.

As an avid gun collector and recreational hunter i love firearms. Its hard to find anything else that can get you 130 pounds of meat for .38 cents. That being said, no i don't think that just any schmuck should have easy access to that much destructive force. I don't know how it is in other states but here in NY its not really easy to purchase a rifle, let alone a handgun. You can't just walk into a store and purchase a rifle/shotgun off the shelf you must fill out a form and get a check ran on yourself. A pistol permit is even more restrictive to get. A firearm is just another tool that is only dangerous when in the hands of an incompetent idiot. Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

In Georgia and Tennessee, all you have to do is walk into a gun show, throw down cash on an individual's booth, and walk out with the firearm or your choosing (barring assault weapons). Private (non-business) sellers are exempt from background checks.

If you're a felon who can't buy from a gun dealer, no big deal. Just check the local paper and select from a plethora of AR-15s.

Same in Missouri^

Generally speaking, the desire to own a firearm should be sufficient evidence for the authorities to conclude that you are not fit to do so.

G_Beee kind of ninja'd me, what I was going to say is, the number of guns far outweighs the number of people with a good reason, and a sufficient maturation level, to own one.

It is WAY too easy to get a gun.

Look how much power you have when you own a gun. You have the power to walk out of your house and end lives on a whim. When you hold a gun you hold everyone's life within 50 yards in your hands. They've GOT to be harder to acquire.

Considering the minuscule percentage of legal gun owners who commit gun related crimes, I'd say that it isn't really that big of an issue.

You can take my guns when you pry them from my cold dead fingers.

OK, Chuck Heston, relax... *smile*

Slayer- I'm not so much talking about legally acquiring a gun. They're just way too easy to acquire, legally or illegally. Also remember, every (maybe a very small percentage aren't) weapon was either made in this country legally or shipped to this country legally.

Tal- Bad Tal. Why do people, especially Americans, think we have some sort of innate "right" to own something with no other purpose but to cause maximum harm? Protection? Maybe our priorities are just different then. Because if a burglar came in, with his own gun of course, and told me to shut up and stay still while he robbed me, I wouldn't go dashing off for my piece to put up a fight. I'd shut up and sit still while he robbed me, then call the police when he left if he left me in a position to do so.

If you knew me, you'd be surprised I don't support gun rights, but I just have a real problem with guns. I just can't think of a good reason to have one.

My comment was more directed at Beee.

As of right now, there are 0 guns in my house... i have small children that like to get into things. When they are older and more responsible i will teach them the laws and safe handling of such powerful weapons.

I own guns more as a psychological thing than anything else. I convince myself that i will be able to protect my family from anything that happens, up to and including a terrorist take over.

Now that may sound "redneck" but I honestly don't care.

As always, I'm the idealist. My answer is to simply abolish guns, period. We don't need them as a species, they cause incredible harm and bring only a minimal amount of good.
My main problem is the power they give one who may not be ready to handle it. Guns ENABLE. Someone in a ghetto might be strapped for cash, what to do? Get a bloody job? Naw, i got a 9mm, I'll just go rob a gas station. I CAN because I have a gun.

For a long-winded, fictional example of what I mean, read Men at Arms by Terry Pratchett.

If you abolish guns, the only people who will have guns will be the ones that don't abide by the laws... the ones who shouldn't have guns to begin with.

Yeah let's do that.

By abolish, I don't mean "prohibit", I mean stop producing them. World-wide. And destroy all existing firearms. That way the issue is not legal. There would be no issue, because there would be no guns.

Except for the massive stockpile in existance that would be hidden from burning. (I know you're referring to an ideal scenario only).

Tal is right. Any contradiction is wrong by simple logic ^.^

To dispell some misinformation for non-U.S. residents and those too young to own or just not knowledgeable:

There is no such thing as a general "gun licence." It's up to local governments to decide if licensure is required. Often, it's not.

A Federal Firearms Licence (FFL) is generally used to buy a sell firearms and ammunition through the mail. Dealers and gunsmiths often carry them, but most civilians never have a need.

A Concealed Carry (or Carry Concealed, CC) permit is generally just purchased by those who wish to keep a sidearm with them in public places. You don't need a CC to keep a pistol in your car, barring local laws.

I do not have a gun licence of any type, aside from a hunting green card (mandatory safety course) that I picked up when I was twelve. Neither of my guns are licenced, I do not have any permit, and nothing is registered. And it's all perfectly legal.

IIRC you can machine an AK-47 without too much difficulty, so unless you plan to ban machine shops too, you're out of luck.

Badfish,

Guns can be a means for the weaker to protect themselves against the strong. My Grandfather and my wife both used guns to protect themselves from large men with weapons - one had a knife and one tire iron. Neither of the them discharged the gun, but by having available with the knowledge of it proper use, they were able to defend themselves and quite possibly saved their lives.

Guns can and are used by criminals, but they are also used by law abiding people to protect themselves.

Yes, they bring about a minute amount of good-still only through the harm they are capable of doing. Remember though that removing guns means the balance of power remains the same as per Hatchet's good vs evil analogy (good and evil both now lack guns as opposed to both having them) but the game is a lot less dangerous. On the whole.

Yes, the game would be alot more dangerous for the weaker people. In you scenario, the 6'3 250# thug would have still had a tire iron, however, my 5'2 110# grandfather would have nothing that he could effectively defend himself with. I would possibly have lost my grandfather 15 years before I did.

If you remove firearms, you just revert back to another level weaponry. After all, there was no violence between people before firearms were invented. I have watched the Deadliest Warrior on TV, the overwhelming idea that it has left me with is that man is very very good at killing another man.

In essence, this is my point. I'm not saying that this innate tendency we ALL have towards violence is ever going to go away. That's far too optimistic. However, guns are too much for humans to handle. Every bullet in the chamber is a potential life snuffed out.
And remember, I'm still speaking in idealistic terms. I don't think guns are even the end of it by any means. We've already surpassed guns by lightyears with newer and better weapons of mass destructive force. Again, way too much for us to ever be truly mature enough as a global society to handle.
It's because we have this tendency towards violence that I object to guns as I do. At least with primitive weaponry, you had to TRULY want to kill someone to do the job properly. Now it's just a slip of the index finger. Like I said, guns enable. They enable the wielder to make just one little slip up with devastating consequences, and I don't trust people enough to have that power.

It's a moot point -- you could compare BadFish's ideal scenario to England and decide which is better, but it's impossible to reach that point as even a complete and total ban on civilian firearms in the U.S. would only affect new sales. I don't know of a single person who would actually cough up an unregistered gun.

There's purpose to speaking idealistically, don't say it's moot. The OP wanted a personal point of view of how I feel about firearms, so I pretty much intentionally left out any discussion of how to actually bring about any change and just stated what I thought should be. I don't know how to make it happen, I'm useless that way.

I can understand you point and I do not necessarily disagree. However, in the current state of man's evolution, people need a way to defend themselves. It would much better if there was not that need and we could live amicably beside each other. Until that time comes I will still see the need for an effective method for the weak to protect themselves from the strong.

Right now a gun is very effective for that. When my grandfather pulled his revolver, the thug backed down, got back into his car and left. No one was hurt and a dangerous incident was averted.

If your grandfather had a tazer, the situation could have been averted in much the same manner. He may actually have had to fire it to subdue the attacker, yes.
Things would likely have gone badly for your grandfather if guns did not exist. I will not try to contest this. But from a utilitarian standpoint, guns cause *so* much more harm than they prevent.

Strum, I don't feel the need to have a gun to defend myself.

Burglars very very rarely cary firearms in the UK.
However, if a burglar felt there was a good chance he was breaking into a house where the occupant had a firearm, I'm sure he'd bring one to defend himself whilst carrying out the burglary.

Fair enough. As I said in my initial post, I'm ambivalent about guns. I could live in a gun-banned society without it affecting me one iota.

That being said, here's a pic of my low cost, formerly included in the assault ban, Yugo SKS. It's not mine, but it's the same model. The bayonette is normally folded back, and the weird mechanism that's sticking up is the grenade sight. Yep, it launches grenades as well as bullets. I bought it out of appreciation of WWII weapons and it lives in a gun safe that's not even at my house. And it's a ton of fun.

A Tazer could have worked. It would have required the distance between them to be much less. If it was a wired tazer, he would have needed to be within 15ft and you have only one shot. It is a contact tazer, well, he would have had to be within contact. In either case, someone would have been hurt. As it was, not one was hurt at all.

GBeee, nor do I. I actually keep my SOG Tomahawk around to protect the family or to fight my way to get something bigger. However, my grandfather was a small man as it my wife a small woman. Without guns or another effective weapon, they would have little to protect themselves against someone my size.

There was a city just north of Atlanta, Georgia, where they passed a law that all homes must have a firearm. Crime has fallen dramatically and since been named one of the top 10 cities for families. The crooks did not use guns, they did not go to those houses.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia

Wow, what an incredibly unconstitutional law! The second amendment works both ways.

Almost wish I'd have lived there. I'd do everything in my power to stop such a horrible law from passing! Looks like people truly are sheep...

I will admit, I do not know how it was able to survive the legal challenges, but it did and still in effect today. You are able to opt out, if you wish and sign a form. It is one of the safest places around.

Strum, I didn't mean I don't need a gun to defend myself because I'm super cool and know kung fu :)
I simply meant I (read anyone) don't need a gun because I live in a society where guns just aren't on the agenda.

My father spent 30 years in the police force with the majority of his time as a detective. Over the 20 years he was licensed to carry a firearm during his service he was called to a situation where it was required on only a handful of occasions - and not one of them resulted in a firearm being drawn, let alone discharged.
Sure there were occasional armed robberies, but again they were extremely rare and always worthy of major news coverage. It's not normal.

I understand the US will never be gun free to the extent that the UK is, simply because history is dictating the future. It's a pity imo.

Sure, but it would also be safer if any number of other things had been done. A pure "ends justifies the means" conclusion is specious at best. Cutting off hands would also probably reduce a lot of crime, but that's not something I would ever want to have happen...

If it were known that every house had a long blade, and all inhabitants were knife experts, crime would have dipped, too. Wouldn't have been much of an endorsement for the Second Amendment, though.

Finally, if even one single person is injured by a gun in this town (by accident), was it worth it? We have plenty of examples of massive, onerous policies in place that follow the "if it just saves one life..." mentality (car seats come to mind -- yes, I know they probably save more than just one life, but they are a prime example of HUGE costs in money, time, and convenience that are forced upon people for the "common good"), so if this gun policy destroys just one innocent life, how is that consistent with the "common good"?

What about hunting BF?

In reality Sut, that law probably saves more than one life.

What is BF?

Don't praise a white christian dominated suburb with racial issues. The fear of native american uprising keeps them in line.

Badfish, as for what we're hunting, anything really, deer, rabbits, squirrels, etc.

You're just trying to trick us, so you can colonize us again.


As Slayer said, I don't consider it a huge issue considering how few people restricting guns would save.

I actually don't think that's a terrible idea. Granted I don't really want a gun in my home, but honestly, what idiot is going to rob a house where every house has a gun. If I was in this town, I'd probably lock up the gun and throw away the key because I don't trust myself to not screw up. That said, the possibility that I didn't lock away my gun would deter plenty of people.

Badfish, a tazer may be an acceptable alternative in some situations, but not all. If I was ever going to own a weapon myself, it'd probably be a tazer because I doubt I could bring myself to kill someone. That said, I'm glad that some sane people are comfortable enough to carry a gun.

There is no point banning guns when they can be acquired illegally so easily. With sufficient background checks and required training, I think it's perfectly alright for people to own guns.

I don't disagree, Titan. My main point is simply to say there is an old saying: "You can't put a price on safety," when in reality, we do so every day. Just risking a drive on a potentially snowy road is an upside/downside decision. Same for car seats. I think they are far too onerous and far too invasive, but hey, it's for the kids, right? Can't put a price on that, says the norm.

So, while I understand how being armed to the teeth would probably reduce certain crimes, I still do the upside/downside on it. Downside? Simply having a larger concentration of deadly pieces of steel in a population means, statistically, that accidents are more likely to happen. When one does, what should this community do? Shrug? Get rid of the law? Require more training? It's a quagmire because it has been forced.

It is a bit of a stretch into the field of economics (and no, I am not trying to escalate an argument here), but this is a form of behavioral socialism, isn't it? Even if I didn't want to have a gun in this town, I probably would, because I don't want to be odd man out. Don't want to be lumped in with only felons and the mentally incompetent? Child seats are far different, I realize, but it is still behavior legislation. Anyone can have a kid -- no license or test required, but then certain safety measures are mandated on an individual level? Leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

And also has nothing to do with firearms. *smile* Sorry!

No I mean, yeah what if one of those crimes that it decreases is a murder? What if someone protects him or herself with a gun and saves his or her life? I'm not saying this is the case or even arguing for the law. I'm just saying it's a possibility. As for eliminating all guns, that's just silly.

Oh, on that I meant accidents and only accidents. Innocent lives being lost. As a parallel, our legal system is set up as "Innocent until proven guilty", even if that means to keep innocent people out of jail, we end up letting some guilty people go, too. That was a conscious choice to align with the spirit of the Constitution.

This gun law is exactly the opposite of that, preferring to err on the side of deadly force.

I don't think getting rid of all guns is doable, but that doesn't dismiss GB's point that having fewer guns, as a society, makes some of these discussion points practically moot. And that isn't just his opinion, that appears to really be the way things work in other parts of the world (kind of like health care *ducks*).

Cube, most burglaries happen during the day, by crooks smart enough to break in when they know there is no one home. I speak from experience, as my house in STL got robbed and the crook left most of the valuable stuff (read: easy to cash in somewhere, safe to pawn) right at the back door because something (not me, I didn't get home till later) must have scared him off. Sure enough, the police said almost all thieves did their work during weekdays in broad daylight after seeing that people lived alone, had no alarm system, and were always gone for day jobs (preferably parking on the street so they could see when the car was gone). All of that was true for me -- bingo, robbed.

I could have had a small gun safe in the house, and all that would have meant is that they would have carried it off at worst, and had a good chuckle at best. In subsequent talks with several alarm system folks, some of them said when they lived in the City they would leave a wad of cash right on a central counter. A portion of thieves are folks just looking for quick cash, so they would take the quick cash then run -- no vandalism, no breakage. My experience supported that idea, because even jewelry out in plain sight was left when I got robbed -- they couldn't even risk pawning something easily carried like that.

ANYWAY, I still don't see the point at all in having a gun around a house where you probably won't even be there to use it (i.e. common robbery). Furthermore, if I were a criminal, it wouldn't deter me in the least. But then, I'm smart, and I hear GA public education really sucks. Maybe they are on to something. Keep folks dumb and then use "shock and awe" to protect the town...

That's true. I've had my family's house robbed during the day too. I've been robbed twice from leaving my bag unattended, and once when my car was broken into. I doubt it would have mattered if there was a gun in any of those cases.

However, I'm fairly sure the accidental death rate from guns is minuscule. Thought you do make a good point, that deterrence won't necessarily stop people.

In this area plenty of students have been robbed at gun point in my neighborhood, and I can't help but think that wouldn't happen if it wasn't so obvious that students don't carry guns, why? Because they aren't allowed to.

Arming everyone (body-wise) is a whole other matter. The way I've seen it implemented (Missouri, STL area) seemed pretty silly to me, considering almost every establishment said no firearms allowed inside. Even if I did want to carry, I'd sure get damn tired of putting my holster on and off all the time. I just don't see the point of that.

Yes, gun accidents are a "miniscule" fraction, but defining how small of a fraction is "big enough" to worry about is the hard part. I don't think car seats are worth it, either, but I must be in the vanishingly small minority considering I have never seen anyone do anything about getting a handle on that policy. It won't be long before children up to 100 pounds are forced to be strapped into huge, expensive, inconvenient seats. And while I don't agree with it (admittedly because I haven't had to deal with it), I know people who have gotten rid of perfectly good cars and had to get larger, less efficient vehicles just to handle the seats for two (just two!) kids. That's ridiculous. That's the "price on safety".

Let's go ahead say there are zero robberies due to the deterrence of guns in the home. Everyone has all their stuff, safe and sound (but just stuff). Then a kid gets shot, accidentally. Would that have happened anyway? I don't know. Was it worth it? I don't know. What if the child lives, but is paralyzed? Worth it? I don't have answers, this is just food for thought (and also why the ends justifying the means is rarely, if ever, the whole explanation...) Just my contribution to analysis paralysis. *smile*

You know in Missouri, if someone breaks into your house and you feel threatened, deadly force is legal Sut?

As far as I know, that is legal almost everywhere, no? And taken to the extreme (self-defense) would be legal in places not even my own property (That's why I mentioned that most people aren't home during burglaries, so it wouldn't matter anyway...) None of my points were meant to portray something that would happen if I were home. Myself, I have a collapsible baton and hand-held stunner, though I would be loathe to use either. Unless I really felt I had the advantage (surprise, size), I'd be more likely to have my defenses used back on me than vice versa (I have absolutely no grandiose notions about my own battle prowess). I will admit, that is one advantage of a gun (also why accidents with guns can be a lot worse).

I don't live in MO any more, anyway... I will never have to even remember where my baton is, where I currently live.

The US has a stockpile of fear and anger over imaginary attackers at your door step.
Put the guns down and get a 6 pack of bear spray.

I think firearms should be legal, simply difficult to obtain, and disallowed to those who commit certain crimes.

Without guns, how would we have awesome videos like this?? Kenneth Aspestrand

I don't think it should be required, but I definitely don't think it should be restricted.

it seems to me like us americans are too easily manipulated by our fears. guns really don't protect us from the kind of control that we are allowing ourselves to fall victim to and thus may be giving us a false sense of security as overthrow insurance.

Being a gun claiming to be a commie I find your statements true somewhat. ;)