[PAX] Gun control

[Xander]

There's been many times when this has been discussed on various forums. Figured I'd see what you guys think.

Basically there seems to be two assertions behind defending gun ownership
1 - You're safer because you've got a gun to defend yourself with.
2 - You're able to protect your freedoms from a corrupt government.

Now without any other context in place neither of these two defences hold any merit.
1 - You wouldn't need a gun if the other guy didn't have one... unless you're shooting them out of panic, fear and the assumption that it's your right to.
2 - You can't defend yourself against any government with the backing of the military without having an entire military force at your disposal and if the government doesn't have the backing of the military then it's unlikely you're going to need firearms.

So why does it stand?

Personally I have two suggestions.
1- The prevalence of guns and the difficulty of disarming the populace. Basically there's too many guns out there to ever get rid of them to a sufficient degree to treat the situation as being disarmed. Therefore it is likely that criminals will be armed, it is likely that any government body related to the corrupt centre will be armed etc etc etc.
2 - Places where guns are allowed usually produce vast quantities of firearms (the states being the prime example). It would undermine local industries to outlaw their products so from a financial point of view it's better to keep them legal.

Now the question is, have I missed anything?

What I'm trying to do is work through the last ghosts of previous discussions hopefully without getting people all riled up and raging.

 

[Gaze]

Good points, sounds balanced. Love to see where this discussion goes.

 

[Xander]

Good points, sounds balanced. Love to see where this discussion goes.

Thanks. Having just been told the whole PAX vs PUG thing I'm thinking this one should be PAX but with the proviso that I don't mind people refuting what I've said...

So anyone reading this, please do argue but can we try and stay friends? Puhlease?

Edit - Nuts.. can't add the prefix... unless you just add it to the title of course...

I do wonder if I've kind of nipped my own thread in the bud though. A little too well sown up in the opening post perhaps?

 

[Deathjam]

added pax tag, so no-one be a trolly cock, ta

 

[Puck]

I'm going right off on a tangent to suggest that flowers should be planted on every street - as many flowers as possible. It has been proven somewhere - in the East - Japan, or China maybe (specifics not my strong point) that the prevalence of flowers has a direct impact on reducing the levels of crime in a given neighbourhood. So let's swamp the streets with flowers and see if anyone feels that they need a gun after that.

 

[Xander]

Deathjam,
Ta.

Jammed them up good

 

[Deathjam]

I'm going right off on a tangent to suggest that flowers should be planted on every street - as many flowers as possible. It has been proven somewhere - in the East - Japan, or China maybe (specifics not my strong point) that the prevalence of flowers has a direct impact on reducing the levels of crime in a given neighbourhood. So let's swamp the streets with flowers and see if anyone feels that they need a gun after that.

wouldn't everyone just start nicking the flowers instead?

 

[Xander]

I'm going right off on a tangent to suggest that flowers should be planted on every street - as many flowers as possible. It has been proven somewhere - in the East - Japan, or China maybe (specifics not my strong point) that the prevalence of flowers has a direct impact on reducing the levels of crime in a given neighbourhood. So let's swamp the streets with flowers and see if anyone feels that they need a gun after that.

An excellent suggestion. This is one reason I find Coventry depressing. There are a few nice green areas (as no doubt you know) but each one seems to be a hangout for drug dealers and mouth breathers. Perhaps if we had more of these areas we could outnumber the detractions?

Certainly more worth a shot than the idea that more rules will lead to a happier country

 

[testing]

There's been many times when this has been discussed on various forums. Figured I'd see what you guys think.

Basically there seems to be two assertions behind defending gun ownership
1 - You're safer because you've got a gun to defend yourself with.
2 - You're able to protect your freedoms from a corrupt government.

Now without any other context in place neither of these two defences hold any merit.
1 - You wouldn't need a gun if the other guy didn't have one... unless you're shooting them out of panic, fear and the assumption that it's your right to.
2 - You can't defend yourself against any government with the backing of the military without having an entire military force at your disposal and if the government doesn't have the backing of the military then it's unlikely you're going to need firearms.

So why does it stand?

Personally I have two suggestions.
1- The prevalence of guns and the difficulty of disarming the populace. Basically there's too many guns out there to ever get rid of them to a sufficient degree to treat the situation as being disarmed. Therefore it is likely that criminals will be armed, it is likely that any government body related to the corrupt centre will be armed etc etc etc.
2 - Places where guns are allowed usually produce vast quantities of firearms (the states being the prime example). It would undermine local industries to outlaw their products so from a financial point of view it's better to keep them legal.

Now the question is, have I missed anything?

What I'm trying to do is work through the last ghosts of previous discussions hopefully without getting people all riled up and raging.

Hi!
Just wanted to point out a couple of issues on both the pro and con side of gun control. I live in the states, in a state where it is ridiculously easy to own a gun. Personally, I would love to live in a utopia where there were no weapons whatsoever. But, reality being what it is, I suppose we must take what we get. With that in mind:

Con Gun Control:
1. Gun control doesn't work; criminals get guns anyway (as you mentioned) Disarming law-abiding citizens simply gives non-law-abiding people the upper hand. I think this is the #1 con.
2. People use guns (and sometimes bows and arrows) for hunting. It's a legitimate and popular sport, and, somewhat ironically, hunters are often the best conservationists. (Maybe not too popular with PETA, though.) I recently had some venison at a holiday party this way! The deer population can get out of control here. This group of gun owners is generally not at all a problem to society, in fact they can be considered beneficial.
3. Recent headlines where would-be-victims shot intruders. I think the numbers are somewhat overblown, but people can and do defend themselves with guns. A sticker saying "This house protected by Smith and Wesson" on the front window should give a would-be intruder pause.

Pro Gun Control:
1. I personally know an instance where a person who was being treated for manic-depression and schizophrenia was able to obtain a pistol by walking into a Bass Pro Shop and waiting a short time to be "reviewed". A tragedy occurred shortly afterward. It seems ridiculous to me that guns are so easy to obtain by people who simply should not have them.
2. People may think they're safer with guns, but may not be sufficiently trained to either use them properly or keep them safely.
3. Paranoia. Gun owners may not have the mental health necessary to discern between, say, their harmless neighbor and a tool of the corrupt government overlords.

Anyhoo, that's my two cents. (Oh... god... must be international.) That's my two Euros!!! LOL~

 

[testing]

I'm going right off on a tangent to suggest that flowers should be planted on every street - as many flowers as possible. It has been proven somewhere - in the East - Japan, or China maybe (specifics not my strong point) that the prevalence of flowers has a direct impact on reducing the levels of crime in a given neighbourhood. So let's swamp the streets with flowers and see if anyone feels that they need a gun after that.

Oh, oh, oh, YES! This is a great idea!!! Great idea. I like flowers sooooooooooooooooooooooooo much better than guns. Brilliant. Put all the gardeners in charge of the government. You're a genius!

(In case you're thinking I am being facetious, you should know that my little corner of the world is already swamped with flowers and nobody has ever gotten shot. Coincidence? I don't think so.)

Oh, and dammit, someone did nick my petunias once. I could've shot them.

 

[Xander]

Thanks. (I would go into more detail but I'm failing with words right now in this particular arena).

Hi!
Just wanted to point out a couple of issues on both the pro and con side of gun control. I live in the states, in a state where it is ridiculously easy to own a gun. Personally, I would love to live in a utopia where there were no weapons whatsoever. But, reality being what it is, I suppose we must take what we get. With that in mind:

Con Gun Control:
1. Gun control doesn't work; criminals get guns anyway (as you mentioned) Disarming law-abiding citizens simply gives non-law-abiding people the upper hand. I think this is the #1 con.

This is the #1 reason why you can't get rid of them but it's not really a true defence of the principle of gun ownership as a concept. In the UK it's apparently quite easy to buy a gun on the black market but the penalties for having one are so harsh and the response to a gun incident are so rapid and extreme that few ever use them. Even the criminals. If you knew that guys trained like your SWAT guys would arrive at the merest mention of a gun and that any prosecution would be that much harsher would you risk it?

2. People use guns (and sometimes bows and arrows) for hunting. It's a legitimate and popular sport, and, somewhat ironically, hunters are often the best conservationists. (Maybe not too popular with PETA, though.) I recently had some venison at a holiday party this way! The deer population can get out of control here. This group of gun owners is generally not at all a problem to society, in fact they can be considered beneficial.

Well that reasons some firearms but you could limit what you can buy if it were just for hunting. I mean a composite bow is quite powerful but less useful for robbing banks (just off the top of my head).

Of course it gets really concerning because some people see hunting as a reason to go and get a .50cal rifle or a .454 revolver and that's just plain overkill!

Parallel to this, reasonable people with guns aren't really the problem. I mean I'd love to own a gun and would fully support a change in the law over here that mean't I could have one... of course if it also meant that other people could have one... then I'd have to think about it. I mean I know I'm responsible.. I'm just not so sure about them.

3. Recent headlines where would-be-victims shot intruders. I think the numbers are somewhat overblown, but people can and do defend themselves with guns. A sticker saying "This house protected by Smith and Wesson" on the front window should give a would-be intruder pause.

True but equally did those intruders really need to be shot? Sure they're asking for it but to use lethal force straight off isn't really tolerated by any official institution without a declaration of war and even then they take prisoners!

Pro Gun Control:
1. I personally know an instance where a person who was being treated for manic-depression and schizophrenia was able to obtain a pistol by walking into a Bass Pro Shop and waiting a short time to be "reviewed". A tragedy occurred shortly afterward. It seems ridiculous to me that guns are so easy to obtain by people who simply should not have them.

Oh the real nail biter is how do you know unless they've been tested? And how do you tell a sociopath?

2. People may think they're safer with guns, but may not be sufficiently trained to either use them properly or keep them safely.

Oh hell yeah. One of the prerequisites for car operation is a license but not for a gun? Where the aptitude test? Where's the health and safety high vis jacket squad?

3. Paranoia. Gun owners may not have the mental health necessary to discern between, say, their harmless neighbor and a tool of the corrupt government overlords.

Oh yeah target identification should be part of the test. A critical part!

Anyhoo, that's my two cents. (Oh... god... must be international.) That's my two Euros!!! LOL~

Thanks. It needs the perspective of someone in the middle of it to be honest. Otherwise it's too easy to bash.

I would point out though that I love guns more than flowers but less than dogs.. just for clarification

 

[testing]

(-:
Yeah, the whole hunting thing is silly. If you are taking out a deer with some kind of horrifically powerful semiautomatic weapon, then that is NOT sport. My friend uses bows and arrows, he's really good, and at least that way the deer has a fighting chance. And also, the deer is really part of their food supply, it is not just being killed soely for fun. Though he does love to go out there in the middle of the woods, Man against Deer. Why, I don't know, I just try to accept people's oddities.

Sometimes, I think I don't love anything more than flowers... sigh.

But re. gun control, there has got to be a happy medium.

 

[testing]

True but equally did those intruders really need to be shot? Sure they're asking for it but to use lethal force straight off isn't really tolerated by any official institution without a declaration of war and even then they take prisoners!

I must say, that for myself personally, if someone decided to break into my house, especially when my children were there, I would not hesitate to shoot him/her, simply because I do not see how I could defend myself or my children based on strength alone. I'd try to get myself and my children away first, but assuming that didn't work? What's left? My brute strength? I don't think so.

Also, in my country, the intruder would almost certainly have a gun or some other kind of weapon. I would try for non-lethal force, of course, and I wouldn't do it straight off the bat, but yeah, I would not hesitate to shoot an intruder. I'd consider breaking and entering (presumably with a weapon) to be sufficient declaration of war to justify it.

Hopefully I will never be in this kind of situation, it's not as if I like violence or killing, but I would defend myself and my children. Period.

 

[enigma]

Wow - this is a subject where i am usually in the minority as far as the greater populace is concerned, but herein my state, where we really have no guns laws I am in the majority - I firmly believe in the right to bear arms. I have many of my own. I used to hunt. I am used to seeing people with rifles in their vehicles, or strapped to their leg at breakfast at Friendlys or the local diner. I find it interesting that the two states that have basically no gun laws also have among the lowest crime rates.

Criminals are going to get guns, no matter what. They are not going to follow the "rules". Criminals will have guns no. matter. what. So to take away regular citizen's guns is only hurting the good guys.

That having been said, I do believe that the system is flawed ~nods to the mental person someone mentioned~ And there are so many tragedies. People need to be smarter. I think licensing is a good idea. But it should not hamper those of us who have done nothing wrong, who keep our guns locked up, who have taken a safety course....
Everyone I know has guns. I have 15 myself ranging from a 9mm to a 20gua to a 30.06... (handgun, shotgun, rifle, jic) I have been shooting since I was 6 years old. But considering the prevalence of guns this is considered responsible. My 7 yo daughter just started on the .22. But this is New England Farm Country up here. 4-wheelers and 4x4's cows and deer, moose and bear. Meh.

 

[randomsomeone]

I'm going right off on a tangent to suggest that flowers should be planted on every street - as many flowers as possible.

Agreed!

 

[enigma]

(-:
Yeah, the whole hunting thing is silly. If you are taking out a deer with some kind of horrifically powerful semiautomatic weapon, then that is NOT sport. My friend uses bows and arrows, he's really good, and at least that way the deer has a fighting chance. And also, the deer is really part of their food supply, it is not just being killed solely for fun. Though he does love to go out there in the middle of the woods, Man against Deer. Why, I don't know, I just try to accept people's oddities.

Sometimes, I think I don't love anything more than flowers... sigh.

But re. gun control, there has got to be a happy medium.

Hunting isn't silly. If a person is not *stellar* with a bow and arrow, and they wound the deer instead of a clean kills, that poor animal will get his fighting chance... to allow the wound to fester and infect and he will die a slow and painful death.

If we did not thin the population, deer would slowly starve from an inbalance of food to animal ratio.

People are not going out there with semi automatic machine guns - that IS silly. They are using rifles. Powerful rifles meant to be very accurate for a one shot kill. This is responsible and humane.

The game we take, we eat, or donate to game suppers that feed the locals and raise money for charity. Many hunters that do not need the meat give it to the local reservation.

Now there are a few asshole hunters that should be shot... I mean slapped!
LOL But the vast majority, who yes, enjoy it, and certainly consider it a sport, adhere to the honor code that goes along with said sport.

 

[enigma]

I must say, that for myself personally, if someone decided to break into my house, especially when my children were there, I would not hesitate to shoot him/her, simply because I do not see how I could defend myself or my children based on strength alone. I'd try to get myself and my children away first, but assuming that didn't work? What's left? My brute strength? I don't think so.

Also, in my country, the intruder would almost certainly have a gun or some other kind of weapon. I would try for non-lethal force, of course, and I wouldn't do it straight off the bat, but yeah, I would not hesitate to shoot an intruder. I'd consider breaking and entering (presumably with a weapon) to be sufficient declaration of war to justify it.

Hopefully I will never be in this kind of situation, it's not as if I like violence or killing, but I would defend myself and my children. Period.

This I totally agree with!

 

[testing]

Hunting isn't silly. ...
People are not going out there with semi automatic machine guns - that IS silly. They are using rifles. Powerful rifles meant to be very accurate for a one shot kill. This is responsible and humane.

Agreed ... I am not a hunter, so I am not sure what guns are being used exactly; the only part I meant was silly, was do you really need machine guns to take out a deer? That seems like overkill, pun intended. I confess to ignorance on this point, thanks for clarifying.

I have only ever killed a deer when one jumped into the side of my car. Literally. And they eat my flowers too.

 

[enigma]

Agreed ... I am not a hunter, so I am not sure what guns are being used exactly; the only part I meant was silly, was do you really need machine guns to take out a deer? That seems like overkill, pun intended. I confess to ignorance on this point, thanks for clarifying.

I have only ever killed a deer when one jumped into the side of my car. Literally. And they eat my flowers too.

LOL - well if they eat your flowers.....

Machine guns are illegal, even in our very loose state.

 

[Xander]

Enigma, bless you for saying what you believe (and I mean that) but I disagree that there's any need to own anything but a light calibre rifle.

Whether or not, given the chance, I wouldn't have everything from an H&K G11 to an M82 Barrett is totally beside the point... *ahem*

More powerful rifles have higher kicks. The only time they're more useful is when the target is a long way away... ie sniping. I know dear are skittish but really? That bad? I'd be surprised.

As for handguns and home defence... truthfully if someone pursued you in to your house wishing ill against you and yours (yours being your family) then I'd be tempted to argue that being shot is too nice and you're doing it wrong. On the other hand, aren't most of them after your VCR and your presence is an inconvenience? If a large enough percentage of the break ins are only intended for robbery then I totally think that lethal force is too much. Get better locks and quit living in a wooden shack with your armoury (joking). The pint being that a well secured home will turn most attackers away without any incident, it's only through having weaknesses in the building that the intruder gets in. Perhaps spending the money there would be wiser and less likely to result in death, cause if he's in and you shoot, I hope you hit cause you just gave him the perfect reason to shoot back and that's bad.