Gun control debate

[santo=dorf]

Guns suck.

 

How come we just can't trust guns to only the hands of government officials, local police, and our armed services?

 

I'm sure criminals would still find ways to get guns, so make SEVERE penalities for possessing and/or selling them.

 

What does the second amendment really mean? It was written when the British was invading our country. We have been attacked at Pearl Harbor and on 9/11, and armed citizens couldn't stop that.

 

Are there any other uses for a gun besides to hurt or kill?

 

However I believe it's a complete fantasy to rid the US of guns, but I am against current gun control laws because they take the guns out of the hands of the good people who are worried about their safety.

[StrangeSox]

Banning guns just leaves guns in the hands of criminals. Look at Britain and Australia. Violent crime has gone up since the bans.

 

And the whole point of the 2nd amendment is that we can't trust the government.

[NorthSideSox72]

Banning guns just leaves guns in the hands of criminals. Look at Britain and Australia. Violent crime has gone up since the bans.

 

And the whole point of the 2nd amendment is that we can't trust the government.

^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

I was all ready to make one of my lengthy posts in response to this thread, but SS pretty much summed up my views right there.

[Balta1701]

Dude, you having an AK-47 is not going to stop a government armed with tanks, F-16's, and A-bombs.

 

It's also worth noting a couple things about the Brits. While yes, the long-term trend of a rise in violence has not seemingly been affected, yet anyways, by the gun ban...they're starting off from a MUCH lower level of violence. From Wikipedia:

 

In 2005/06 there were 766 offences initially recorded as homicide by the police in England and Wales (including the 52 victims of the 7 July 2005 London bombings),[15] a rate of 1.4 per 100,000 of population. Only 50 (6.6%) were committed with firearms, one being with an air weapon.[16] The homicide rate for London was 2.4 per 100,000 in the same year (1.7 when excluding the 7 July bombings).[17]

 

By comparison, 5.5 murders per 100,000 of population were reported by police in the United States in 2000, of which 70% involved the use of firearms (75% of which were illegally obtained).[18] New York City, with a population size similar to London and similar firearms laws with almost all firearms prohibited to normal citizens (over 7 million residents), reported 6.9 murders per 100,000 people in 2004.[19]

 

The rise in UK gun crime is a long term trend that is apparently unaffected by the state of UK firearms legislation. [20] Before the 1997 ban, handguns were only held by 0.1% of the population,[21] and while the number of crimes involving firearms in England and Wales increased from 13,874 in 1998/99 to 24,070 in 2002/03, they remained relatively static at 24,094 in 2003/04, and have since fallen steadily to 21,521 in 2005/06. The latter includes 3,275 crimes involving imitation firearms and 10,437 involving air weapons, compared to 566 and 8,665 respectively in 1998/99.[22] Only those "firearms" positively identified as being imitations or air weapons (e.g. by being recovered by the police or by being fired) are classed as such, so the actual numbers are likely to be significantly higher. In 2005/06, 8,978 of the total of 21,521 firearms crimes (42%) were for criminal damage.[23]

In other words, it's going to be really hard to compare one side of the pond to the other here, IMO. They're starting off from a place where their largest city sees a factor of 4 fewer gun crimes per capita.

[southsider2k5]

The gun control arguement reminds me a lot of the free speech arguement. One side chips away at the "rights" (depends on what your definition of constitutional rights are here) little by little, while the other side swears that you can't have any laws impeading guns at all, otherwise you are violation of the constititution.

[NorthSideSox72]

Dude, you having an AK-47 is not going to stop a government armed with tanks, F-16's, and A-bombs.

 

Of course not. But even today, having an armed public versus an unarmed public does still make a difference in the amount of power the government has. That particular line of argument has to be looked at from the broad view, not the one-guy-with-gun view.

 

It's also worth noting a couple things about the Brits. While yes, the long-term trend of a rise in violence has not seemingly been affected, yet anyways, by the gun ban...they're starting off from a MUCH lower level of violence. From Wikipedia:

 

In other words, it's going to be really hard to compare one side of the pond to the other here, IMO. They're starting off from a place where their largest city sees a factor of 4 fewer gun crimes per capita.

 

I agree the Brits are not really a good parallel. I prefer the U.S. examples - cities with gun bans (or handgun bans) have never had a postive effect in bringing down crime. Crime, however, is not really the key to a 2nd amendment discussion (except in a very indirect way). Neither is hunting.

 

Its a simple weighting of freedom versus public safety. Waiting periods don't restrict freedoms in any meaningful way, but they may reduce crime a bit, so that seems OK. Keeping munitions like bazookas off the street is obviously a good risk mitigation, even though in reality it stands directly against the 2nd amendment. Those are reasonable, and the payoff is worth the price.

 

But bans on certain types of weapons, municipal bans on guns, and registration of weapons have all been proven to do nothing to make the country safer. So why on earth would you do those things, since they infringe on Constitutionally granted freedoms?

 

I'll answer my own question: fear and gut reaction. Guns are scary, and they should be. But that doesn't mean we should let that fear cloud our judgement. The 2nd amendment is there for some very good reasons - so we need some very, very good reasons to go cutting away at it. And I have yet to see anyone make any good, logical (not emotional) arguments for doing that cutting.

[mr_genius]

Word has it the guy was on a student visa. Can someone with a student visa legally buy a gun in the United States? I hope not.

[Texsox]

I do not believe a well armed militia means any American has a right to own a firearm. They are not part of a militia. So I think it is wrong to hang our hats on the Constitution. I don't believe the framers of the Constitution had Joe Sixpack with an arsenal of guns in mind when they were writing. They were thinking of men hunting for food and an all-volunteer army ready to defend the country. Of course at that time, the country could not afford a standing army.

 

I believe there are some firearms that should be banned, fully automatic for one.

 

I believe it is wrong to take my guns away because some people use them in crimes. Those people are criminals, I am not. I have never committed a crime with a gun or otherwise and should not be punished. Anymore than prohibition to end drunk driving.

[IlliniKrush]

guns save life (dot) com

 

Best site ever, good signage on the roadways too

[StrangeSox]

guns save life (dot) com

 

Best site ever, good signage on the roadways too

 

Roses are Red

My Gun is Blue

I am Safe

How About You?

[EvilMonkey]

Could the passage of this law have helped tp prevent the VA shootings?

http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/wb/xp-50658

Gun bill gets shot down by panel

HB 1572, which would have allowed handguns on college campuses, died in subcommittee.

By Greg Esposito

381-1675

 

A bill that would have given college students and employees the right to carry handguns on campus died with nary a shot being fired in the General Assembly.

 

House Bill 1572 didn't get through the House Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety. It died Monday in the subcommittee stage, the first of several hurdles bills must overcome before becoming laws.

 

The bill was proposed by Del. Todd Gilbert, R-Shenandoah County, on behalf of the Virginia Citizens Defense League. Gilbert was unavailable Monday and spokesman Gary Frink would not comment on the bill's defeat other than to say the issue was dead for this General Assembly session.

 

Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was happy to hear the bill was defeated. "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."

Del. Dave Nutter, R-Christiansburg, would not comment Monday because he was not part of the subcommittee that discussed the bill.

 

Most universities in Virginia require students and employees, other than police, to check their guns with police or campus security upon entering campus. The legislation was designed to prohibit public universities from making "rules or regulations limiting or abridging the ability of a student who possesses a valid concealed handgun permit ... from lawfully carrying a concealed handgun."

 

The legislation allowed for exceptions for participants in athletic events, storage of guns in residence halls and military training programs.

 

Last spring a Virginia Tech student was disciplined for bringing a handgun to class, despite having a concealed handgun permit. Some gun owners questioned the university's authority, while the Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police came out against the presence of guns on campus.

 

In June, Tech's governing board approved a violence prevention policy reiterating its ban on students or employees carrying guns and prohibiting visitors from bringing them into campus facilities.

[Texsox]

The problem with this speculation is all the what ifs. In the preceding weeks and months would other kids have been killed in separate incidences because more guns were on campus. We'll never know. We also don't know how many would have been killed in this situation in crossfire and mistaken identity. The last thing several cops have told me in this situation do they want to hear are innocents are also carrying guns and shooting. That causes them to hesitate and possible put themselves in greater risk trying to figure out who is the bad guy and who is trying to help

[Jenksismyhero]

I believe it is wrong to take my guns away because some people use them in crimes. Those people are criminals, I am not. I have never committed a crime with a gun or otherwise and should not be punished. Anymore than prohibition to end drunk driving.

 

Bingo.

[Texsox]

Bingo.

 

It's somewhat ironic, but I agree with the gun control advocates on almost everything except taking away my guns

 

The home protection argument I rejected as soon as I had kids. To be effective, you may have only seconds to wake up and have your gun ready. That means loaded with one on top and no locks. A dangerous recipe with kids around. By the time you grab. load, and unlock it is probably too late.

 

I don't want every hot headed asshole to have a gun next to him while he drives. I don't think someone needs a gun while shopping at WalMart. Hunting, Skeet, Trap, Target shooting, lots of fun, and can be accomplished while your guns stay locked in the trunk between your range and home.

 

And I would encourage anyone who has never shot a gun to find a local range and fire off a few before judging.

[hitlesswonder]

I don't see how anyone right now can argue against a concealed carry law. You can see the result of guns being banned on the VTU campus. I don't see how there can be any debate on this subject.

[BigSqwert]

I don't see how anyone right now can argue against a concealed carry law. You can see the result of guns being banned on the VTU campus. I don't see how there can be any debate on this subject.

I can argue against. I wouldn't feel safe if everyone at school carried a concealed gun.

[StrangeSox]

That's just a flawed argument based on emotions and not reason.

 

Besides, its not like they'd be handing out guns at the doors. Only people who really wanted to get CCW permits and pay several hundred dollars for guns would be carrying.

 

Given the amount of armed robberies on campus here lately, maybe these thugs would think twice if they knew their victim my also be packing.

[Texsox]

I don't see how anyone right now can argue against a concealed carry law. You can see the result of guns being banned on the VTU campus. I don't see how there can be any debate on this subject.

 

I would be more than happy to debate. When you leave your classroom and see a guy down the hall carrying a gun, shooting, he quickly turns as he hears you approaching, do you shoot at him?

 

Too bad, you just murdered someone, that's a guy shooting at the *real* shooter.

 

Now picture the scene when you apologize to his mother for killing her son because you thought he was the shooter, or apologizing to a husband because you missed the shooter and killed an innocent bystander.

 

How much regular practice and training do you have with your weapon? Are you looking at the background in case you miss? Imagine twelve people running around with guns when the cops arrive? Who do they shoot first?

[BigSqwert]

That's just a flawed argument based on emotions and not reason.

 

Besides, its not like they'd be handing out guns at the doors. Only people who really wanted to get CCW permits and pay several hundred dollars for guns would be carrying.

 

Given the amount of armed robberies on campus here lately, maybe these thugs would think twice if they knew their victim my also be packing.

Well you can live in a world based in fear but I'd rather have a no gun policy at school or work.

 

I would be more than happy to debate. When you leave your classroom and see a guy down the hall carrying a gun, shooting, he quickly turns as he hears you approaching, do you shoot at him?

 

Too bad, you just murdered someone, that's a guy shooting at the *real* shooter.

 

Now picture the scene when you apologize to his mother for killing her son because you thought he was the shooter, or apologizing to a husband because you missed the shooter and killed an innocent bystander.

 

How much regular practice and training do you have with your weapon? Are you looking at the background in case you miss? Imagine twelve people running around with guns when the cops arrive? Who do they shoot first?

Excellent points.

 

I really don't think a shoot out ala the old wild west is the answer.

[Texsox]

That's just a flawed argument based on emotions and not reason.

 

Besides, its not like they'd be handing out guns at the doors. Only people who really wanted to get CCW permits and pay several hundred dollars for guns would be carrying.

 

Given the amount of armed robberies on campus here lately, maybe these thugs would think twice if they knew their victim my also be packing.

 

I am certain you would feel safer that the paranoid guy who you just accidentally brushed into is now screaming at you and *might* be carrying a weapon. Of course you could pull out your gun to protect yourself. But then three other guys, who don't know if you're some wacko pull out theirs and we have a party!

 

The true thugs know that honest people are hesitant to pull a trigger and kill someone. Texas executes hundreds, has a concealed permit system, and Texas isn't safer than any other state.

 

Y'all ain't taking my guns, but hundreds of guns in that building would not have prevented this and may have made it worse.

[southsider2k5]

I really don't think a shoot out ala the old wild west is the answer.

Well you can live in a world based in fear...

[BigSqwert]

Well you can live in a world based in fear...

Meaning?

[mreye]

One more gun in the hands of a responsible person on that campus would have stopped this.

[southsideirish71]

I would be more than happy to debate. When you leave your classroom and see a guy down the hall carrying a gun, shooting, he quickly turns as he hears you approaching, do you shoot at him?

 

Too bad, you just murdered someone, that's a guy shooting at the *real* shooter.

 

Now picture the scene when you apologize to his mother for killing her son because you thought he was the shooter, or apologizing to a husband because you missed the shooter and killed an innocent bystander.

 

How much regular practice and training do you have with your weapon? Are you looking at the background in case you miss? Imagine twelve people running around with guns when the cops arrive? Who do they shoot first?

 

Bingo.

 

I am for a persons right to have arms to protect their house, or to hunt. But conceal and carry is a dangerous mix. The average person doesn't have a gun on them when they walk around, so when tempers rise and maybe with the presence of alcohol how many fights will turn into gun battles. As a former law enforcement person I can tell you, if I had a call on a man with a gun and then came into a situation with a gun drawn and saw him. If he pointed it at me I would of killed him. How am I supposed to know that this is Jimmy the good Samaritan gun guy, versus the bad guy who just shot a bunch of people. I wouldn't. I can tell you this, no matter how man times you do it as an officer. The minute your gun comes out of your holster, your adrenaline pumps. But then again, maybe it was because I knew that the minute my weapon was pulled that something could happen at a moments notice. One bad move or bad decision on either my side or the other persons side could lead to tragedy.

[BigSqwert]

One more gun in the hands of a responsible person on that campus would have stopped this.

Really? If that person pulled out their gun what if others thought that he/she was part of the shooting spree and they decided to shoot at that person. Wouldn't chaos ensue? How do you know who the good guy is when you hear shots being fired and you see someone holding a gun down the hallway? Do you just shoot at anyone holding a gun?

 

Where do we draw the line? A crazed shooting can occur anywhere not just at a school. Should people bring guns to Chuck E Cheese for their kid's birthday party in case a crazed gunman comes by?