Gun Control

Squid, surprise, surprise, I say NO!!!!

#1, you can't take the Genie out of the bottle. There are too many guns to get rid of them.

#2, there are many ways to kill and it is not a good idea to take away a means of defense for the common person. There is a reason a gun is called the "Great Equalizer".

#3, If, God forbid, this country was attacked en masse, I would like a large citizenry (the underground) to be armed and ready.

#4, and more likely, I DO believe the majority of citizens are honorable, and a large catastrophe (read Katrina or say...bird flu pandemic) will over power our civil authorities and, until the military can establish control, we (read police) will need a well armed public to restore order.

#5, if you ban guns, only criminals will have guns.

So, in utopia, no guns would be nice. But we are not in utopia....we cannot even GET there from here.

The ANSWER to crime, IMHO, is decent citizens owning and carrying guns.

 

I think you'd just be banning a symptom.

I could give up my soldering gun, but not my glue gun.

 

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. I read a statistic once about how many people are killed with baseball bats or kitchen knives and it astounded me. Banning guns would only result in a bare minimum of reduced deaths, most all real criminal activity would continue with guns which provides the bulk of the statistsics anyway.

Banning guns would make many very liberal folks I know feel much better about themselves. The same way they feel when they get schools to teach in Spanish. How do the "do-gooders" feel when those same kids can't get a job when they grow up because they don't speak english?

I can hear it now,"don't those criminals know that guns are illegal?" Simplistic approach yes, but in my opinion right on the money.

 

Don't forget, the founding fathers made an income tax illegal too.

 

Armed overthrow was NEVER the intention. An armed populace was necessary because there was no standing army and little or no funds to support a standing army. Remember, many of the framers of the Constitution had been witness to the oppression a standing army can impose on the people.

The state national guards are what has become of the original idea of allowing the people to retain their arms. Unfortunately, the states found they didn't want to support their own guard organizations and allowed them to become co-opted by the Federal Governement in exchange for money . The fact that many Guard Units were in Iraq instead of New Orleans during and after Katrina is a sad example of this folly.

As someone who was raised around guns, who hunted, who participated in organized target shooting (reasonably well) and who worked for a police department, I don't want to see guns banned. Criminals and others that want a gun will get a gun. Banning guns has the same effect as installing a burgler alarm... it keeps the amateurs from damaging the property, nothing else.

At the same time I have no major issues with making gun ownership and the purchase of ammunition more accountable. I have never purchased a gun where I needed to have possession in a few days. Sadly, we have become a nation where people feel constantly threatened. The current administration plays on this fear. Because of this, people that own a gun "for protection around the house" are more willing to use that gun and it often results in a family member or friend being killed or injured when something goes "bump" in the night. h34r:

 

I disagree completely. The founding fathers armed the populace for the day when a standing army was created. I shaded in bold the reason why the founding fathers guaranteed the right to bear arms.

 

Well, I lived in Utah for almost 18 years. Compared to other states, Utah has one of the most "liberal" gun laws in the nation. The gun law (USC 63-98-102)preamble starts:

"(1) The individual right to keep and bear arms being a constitutionally protected right under Article I, Section 6 of the Utah Constitution, the Legislature finds the need to provide uniform civil and criminal firearm laws throughout the state.
(2) Except as specifically provided by state law, a local authority or state entity may not:
(a) prohibit an individual from owning, possessing, purchasing, selling, transferring, transporting, or keeping a firearm at the individual's place of residence, property, business, or in any vehicle lawfully in the individual's possession or lawfully under the individual's control; or
(B) require an individual to have a permit or license to purchase, own, possess, transport, or keep a firearm.
(3) In conjunction with Title 76, Chapter 10, Part 5, Weapons, this section is uniformly applicable throughout this state and in all its political subdivisions and municipalities.
(4) All authority to regulate firearms is reserved to the state except where the Legislature specifically delegates responsibility to local authorities or state entities.
(5) Unless specifically authorized by the Legislature by statute, a local authority or state entity may not enact, establish, or enforce any ordinance, regulation, rule, or policy pertaining to firearms that in any way inhibits or restricts the possession or use of firearms on either public or private property."

Note that - as far as Utah is concerned - it's far worse to *restrict* gun ownership than to allow all able-bodied citizens to own a weapon.

When my folks still lived in Utah, they both had CC permits, and frequently carried. My Dad taught me to shoot at a very young age, and around the same time I joined the National Guard out of high school, I also had a CC. Can't recall my parents or myself ever being in a situation where we even had to think about using the weapon.

On the issue of self defense, I firmly support the Libertarian policy. If somebody breaks into your home, throw them on a table saw and fire it up, I don't care. Just make damn sure you're not caping a family member by mistake.

There are notable differences in homicide rates - overall - when one contrasts the United States and Canada. Overall, the homicide rate is 1/2 in Canada. Some areas have much lower rates, for example rural Utah is much safer than most of Manitoba, and SLC is far safer than Winnipeg.

This is a complex topic though. I'm not convinced that weapons per se have 100% correlation to homicide or assault rates. A DOJ study from the 1980's - "The Creation of Dangerous Violent Criminals" by Dr. Lonnie Athens - appears to support a complex causality (Family history, income, genetics, etc etc).

There is also the "Swiss Paradox" to bring up. The Swiss are neutral but also armed, yet have a lower overall homicide/assault rate than Canada does.

Interesting topic. No easy answers though.

 

me, i'd prefer if people broke into my house that i could shoot their asses.

rather than being kidnapped (as someone here recently was) during a home invasion or diving out the second story window into the bushes and running away with a broken arm or something.

call me coldhearted. but someone comes to mess with me, i don't like to let them off easy.

 

Being an NRA supporter and ex law enforcement I say NO! Like I've read: If guns are banned from law abiding citizens only the criminals will have them. BTW, I love the new "Castle Doctrine" in FL. We no longer have to run from the perps. As far as I'm concerned if someone wants to rob or kill me I'll won't even have to think about it before offing the lowlife.

 

Had to vote NO.

But in Dick Chenny's case... :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

If guns were outlawed only outlaws would have guns!!! Where would you hide, the police station? I prefer to have a gun and live at home

 

America is a violent society, with all too many paper tigers; and people who are brave with a gun in their hands, but are otherwise cowards.

NO to guns, YES to mandatory *long* jail time for possesion.
I carried an automatic rifle all the time for years. I realized it was no panacea for learning to rely on myself.

 

Speaking as a person living in a country that does not permit people to have guns, the crime rate is much lower in the UK and we used to have guns like you.

Guns were outlawed in the 1820's and the only guns that we are now allowed (since about 1990) is a shotgun (again this is with a special liense)

You are 24x more likely to be subject to a gun crime in the US than in the UK.

We do have armed police and there are armed robberies as criminals can still get hold of guns, but since the public do not have access to guns, they do not defend themselves against gun crime. The result is that gun crime is rare. but when it happens, we simply submit to the aggresser. Having a gun to defend yourself puts you in a position where you are likely to get into deeper trouble.

In the US, there are simply too many guns to get rid of and people have to want to get rid of guns for it to be effective.

With regards to the argumant of having guns to defend your country against foreign powers, it is highly unlikely that anyone would think about attacking mainland USA in great numbers. (terrorism being the most effective way)--you only have to look at 9/11 to see that.

The US forces have more than enough fire power to defend the homeland. In any event, there are many western powers (UK, France, Italy etc. that would jump to the defence of America)

There is no simple answer...... perhaps one day common sense will prevail