Politics Gun control

[Mycernius]

I suppose this is really a question that has come about by a few factors. One was Se 7 ens post on 'Its getting scary', and yet another school shooting in a US high school and has been bothering me for some while. As a lot of people on this post are American perhaps you could enlighten me. Most of us know about the Americans right to bears arms as in the second amendment:
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
which seems to be a result from Article 1, section 8, clause 15:
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions
As it seemed to a a sensible view to take in 1791 when the second amendment was ratified. To protect a small, new country, the best way was to arm its citizens.It gives you an instant army. This practice was followed in European countries for several hundred years, such as the law for all Englishmen to practice archery after church on sundays, until a professional standing army was present. This practice in the UK has now long since vanished, although it does still stand in the statute books.
America is now a powerful military country and it strikes me, on the outside, that the need for a militia or armed public is outdated. I know the NRA are a powerful body in the US and will fight for any regulation against gun control, but with the current shootings, especailly in schools, and gun crime in general, isn't about time that these old laws are updated for modern times and stricter gun control is bought in? George Bush would probably talk about Terrorists, his favourite word, but apart form the World Trade Centre attack, all other attacks on the General American public have been committed by their own citizens, usually white and christian (correct me if I am wrong) not islamic terrorists. A generally unarmed public doesn't increase crime or decrease crime, see Japan and the UK with their very tight gun laws, yet this seem to be an argument that is trotted out by the NRA. Do you agree that the American Gun laws should be tightened up or is proper education needed for the younger generations? Please keep it polite as this topic could cause a few upsets. Thanks

 

[Ma Cherie]

Well that's what happens when you live in a country that's ran by stupid Repubilcans. kashii: It's unfortunate that I happen to live in a state, Missouri. And it makes me angry that Matt Blunt our govener decides that gun control is more important than medicade, decrease college tuition, and other things that benefit us more than guns. And that the school shootings issue, as far as I'm concerned this is a deeply rooted social issue that we need to deal with. But obviously these social issues aren't important. kashii: What I'm saying here is that I don't understand why gun laws are even a priority. When there's other issuses that need to be dealt with.

 

[Doc]

@Mycernius

Actually it was never about having a standing army at all. It was about each individual state wanting to defend themselves. When the US Constitution was created, the founding fathers were really creating a document for themselves, not really for the people. It was mainly created to protect their own self interests. However, when they wrote the Constitution, the wording is so inclusive, that you can't help but be liberal about it and add or change it over time. The second admendment is still the most misunderstood admendment in The Bill of Rights to this day. It's also the most controversal.

As for tighter gun laws, there really would be no point in having them. People are going to do whatever it takes to get around the system. Not only that, but the weapons ban of 1994 was a crock of s***. You couldn't even buy a civil model M16 if you wanted to. You know why? It was because the gun looked "dangerous". No s***! All guns are dangerous! You don't need them to look dangerous when they already are dangerous! Not only that, but civil model weapons are designed to not be made into assault weapons. Doing so will have your ass in jail, and believe the government keeps tabs.

Besides the only reason why the law was inacted in the first place was because of the f***ing LAPD and the SWAT incident in 1991. Not only that, but the weapons the criminals had were ILLEGAL in the first place! Doh! You didn't need a weapons ban, and even when got one there's still going to be people getting around it! Besides even if you can own automatic weapons legally in this country you wouldn't want to because you literally give up your rights as an Amercian citizen. The US BATF can come to your house any time of day or night, and check and seize any weapons they don't like.

Tougher guns laws still won't do anything. I mean kids will find a way to get a hold of their parents rifle, shotgun, or pistol without the parents knowing. It's bad enough that we had to give up our damn 15 round clip for a f***ing 10 or 8 round clip. We may as well not even have a gun if we don't have the maximum allotted amount for rounds in a clip. The fact that you have to make longer sights, slides, etc. for a pistol because they don't want it to look like a military pistol pisses me off enough as it is. Of course there are always ways around that as well too with gunsmithing, and it's totally legal too.

Now, to sum up my rant I was pretty much playing Devil's Advocate there. Personally I think there should be tighter gun laws to keep guns out of the reach of children, but I think all these weapon bans are starting to get a little ridiculous. Mainly with the pistol and rifle regulations (making them look less "dangerous"). However, I do believe people will always find a way around a law if they did ban firearms. It's just become a part of American culture, and nobody is willing to give it up. Besides you could make an admentment, but you can never rewrite the Constitution banning firearms. Why? It's because that's how our system is set up, and you can always appeal an admendment.

@Ma Cherie

Don't even get me started on Matt Blunt. It's bad enough I voted for him. I figured he was more moderate than conservative, but I guess I was wrong. This tutition hike is starting to piss me off. I was wanting to go to UMR, but with all the University of Missouri campuses raising the rates, I think I'm going to have to go to Webster or somewhere else in St. Louis from now on. BTW, just so you know I'm an independent not a partisan member.

Doc:ramen::happy:

 

[No-name]

Mycernius-
Good constitutional analysis. In my government class, we have to do all these weird contortions to say that the Second amendment doesn't really mean what it says, but even a high school senior can see through this.

We need better education, enforcement of the current laws and better (not necessarily more restrictive, but simply more enforceable and effective) laws.

 

[Mycernius]

@Mycernius

Actually it was never about having a standing army at all. It was about each individual state wanting to defend themselves. When the US Constitution was created, the founding fathers were really creating a document for themselves, not really for the people. It was mainly created to protect their own self interests. However, when they wrote the Constitution, the wording is so inclusive, that you can't help but be liberal about it and add or change it over time. The second admendment is still the most misunderstood admendment in The Bill of Rights to this day. It's also the most controversal.

I understand the way it was written. Powerful people need protecting especially after they had just won a war against a superior military force. There was always a risk that they might come back and take the country back state by state instead of it all in one go, and next time you might not get help from outside interests ie: the French and Spanish

As for tighter gun laws, there really would be no point in having them. People are going to do whatever it takes to get around the system.

We do get them same thing happen in the UK, but overall the majority stick to the law.

The US BATF can come to your house any time of day or night, and check and seize any weapons they don't like.

Land of the free?

Now, to sum up my rant I was pretty much playing Devil's Advocate there.

No probs. I am, after all, an outsider looking in on your society. What appears to be logical to me or another foreigner, is that we do not have to live with these laws or government. I'm sure there are many things that Non-British people find odd about the UK. We post on here to learn about each other and the various oddities in each others countries
It is nice, though, to see various people positions on what is probably very heated topic in the US. Rants are good for the soul :wave:

 

[CC1]

Mycernius-
Good constitutional analysis. In my government class, we have to do all these weird contortions to say that the Second amendment doesn't really mean what it says, but even a high school senior can see through this.

We need better education, enforcement of the current laws and better (not necessarily more restrictive, but simply more enforceable and effective) laws.

Very good post. Education is definitely the key...I grew up in a house full of guns. We used them regularly for hunting. I shot my first gun at the age of 5, and I have never thought of trying to kill another person! (with exception to my time in the military!) I also have never had even the slightest accident with a weapon. I look at shooting as a hobby/sport, and if it is done correctly, can be both safe and fun.

That being said, I see no reason why anyone would need any weapon that is either semi-automatic or automatic! I don't care what anyone says, these are nothing but assault weapons and there is no need for a civilian to own one.

As for my interpretation of the second ammendment? I don't think that they intended for it to actually mean that everyone has the right to own a gun! I believe that it was intended (as was mentioned earlier) to be able to field an immediate militia.

Just my opinions...good thread, I can definitely see this one getting out of hand later! :relief:

 

[Doc]

An American citizen can own an assault weapon on two conditions:

1.) They were or are in the military, law enforcment, and government agencies with a qualified Class III licence.

2.) You are a weapons collector, spend $250 on a Class III licence, pay over $100 each year to renew it, and forfet all rights as an American citizen.

As for CC1's argument, I would like to counter that by saying that our country has grown up with weapons. It's a part of our culture. Not only that, but I think you would change your mind about a firearm (especially a semi-auto) when somebody comes into your home and kills your family. What are you going to use? A bat? A club? You'd be dead too. In certain areas of living and certain situations it's good to have a firearm for protection. The whole pacifist point of view doesn't work when you're the one who gets harmed in the end by a psycho. Yet on the same token I don't think peopl need to be carrying firearms with us where ever they go. However, I will admit there are times I feel like having one with me in St. Louis because of the murder rate from car jackings.

Doc:ramen::happy:

 

[CC1]

As for CC1's argument, I would like to counter that by saying that our country has grown up with weapons. It's a part of our culture. Not only that, but I think you would change your mind about a firearm (especially a semi-auto) when somebody comes into your home and kills your family. What are you going to use? A bat? A club? You'd be dead too. In certain areas of living and certain situations it's good to have a firearm for protection.
Doc:ramen::happy:

You don't need a semi-automatic to protect yourself. It only takes one shot to kill or seriously injure! As for your example...Don't worry, my dog will do a good number on them first, by the time the dog alerts me, a bat will be enough of a weapon for me!

I'm not saying guns don't have a place in society, but the types of guns for sale to individuals should definitely be limited. It would be unrealistic to believe that all guns could be removed from society...even if they could, would you really be any safer? Probably not! There are enough mentally challenged individuals out there...against some of them you really couldn't protect yourself no matter what you do!

 

[Doc]

You don't need a semi-automatic to protect yourself. It only takes one shot to kill or seriously injure! As for your example...Don't worry, my dog will do a good number on them first, by the time the dog alerts me, a bat will be enough of a weapon for me!

I'm not saying guns don't have a place in society, but the types of guns for sale to individuals should definitely be limited. It would be unrealistic to believe that all guns could be removed from society...even if they could, would you really be any safer? Probably not! There are enough mentally challenged individuals out there...against some of them you really couldn't protect yourself no matter what you do!

Well if you were stuck with a firearm which one would you pick: Colt Single Action Army (single action revolver) or a Springfield Armory 1911A1 (single action semi-auto)? Personally I'd pick the 1911A1, but then again I'm a quick response shooter on revolvers so I don't think it would really matter. Actually if you lived in a very, very bad part of town that no matter how hard you try to can't move out of, I would pick the gun over the dog and bat considering that people in those neighborhoods are the ones who get illegal access to assault weapons anyway. Don't argue about police action either because in a lot major cities they don't do crap in neighborhoods like these. Not only that, but I'm sure rape victims would love to give you a piece of their mind too on the matter.

If you think they should limit the sell of type of weapons, then what guns should they sell? Speaking of semi-autos I would like to comment that 9X19mm are worthless. I've seen people in my town shot 12 times and still not go down. Semi-auto bad? Heh, depends on the caliber man, depends on the caliber. Now if you said that a semi-auto 12.7mm firearm is bad, then I would agree with you. Look I'm a gun fan. It's pretty obvious. However, I don't condone the NRA nor do I condone the illegal or legal use of assault weapons. However, if I could go out and a buy a civilian model M4A1 for competition shooting then by God I will. They're not made to be assault weapons anyway, and if somebody goes around the law their ass is grass pretty quick. Personally I'm up for some new regulations, but I would like to see all the restrictions and options first before I put my vote out there.

Doc:ramen::happy:

 

[CC1]

Well if you were stuck with a firearm which one would you pick: Colt Single Action Army (single action revolver) or a Springfield Armory 1911A1 (single action semi-auto)? Personally I'd pick the 1911A1, but then again I'm a quick response shooter on revolvers so I don't think it would really matter. Actually if you lived in a very, very bad part of town that no matter how hard you try to can't move out of, I would pick the gun over the dog and bat considering that people in those neighborhoods are the ones who get illegal access to assault weapons anyway. Don't argue about police action either because in a lot major cities they don't do crap in neighborhoods like these. Not only that, but I'm sure rape victims would love to give you a piece of their mind too on the matter.

If you think they should limit the sell of type of weapons, then what guns should they sell? Speaking of semi-autos I would like to comment that 9X19mm are worthless. I've seen people in my town shot 12 times and still not go down. Semi-auto bad? Heh, depends on the caliber man, depends on the caliber. Now if you said that a semi-auto 12.7mm firearm is bad, then I would agree with you. Look I'm a gun fan. It's pretty obvious. However, I don't condone the NRA nor do I condone the illegal or legal use of assault weapons. However, if I could go out and a buy a civilian model M4A1 for competition shooting then by God I will. They're not made to be assault weapons anyway, and if somebody goes around the law their ass is grass pretty quick. Personally I'm up for some new regulations, but I would like to see all the restrictions and options first before I put my vote out there.

Doc:ramen::happy:

All over the place aren't you?

It wouldn't matter what weapon I take, it would be enough. I have held guns since I was a kid, and I have shot competition for years. As for being shot 12 times and not going down? A double pump to the head will definitely take someone down! (I was on a reaction team and hostage rescue for 6 years also) The instance that you mention was either someone who couldn't shoot, or was afraid to harm! (or the other person was on some form of drugs) People who are obviously afraid of guns also should not own a gun! It probably wouldn't matter if a rape victim has a gun or not...they are usually jumped from an advantageous position, and it is unlikely that they could draw a weapon anyway.

*I had written more on the topic, but it is late (6:45am) and I have been up for too long...I will respond more later on the topic. I do see your POV however!*

 

[Doc]

All over the place aren't you?

It wouldn't matter what weapon I take, it would be enough. I have held guns since I was a kid, and I have shot competition for years. As for being shot 12 times and not going down? A double pump to the head will definitely take someone down! (I was on a reaction team and hostage rescue for 6 years also) The instance that you mention was either someone who couldn't shoot, or was afraid to harm! (or the other person was on some form of drugs) People who are obviously afraid of guns also should not own a gun! It probably wouldn't matter if a rape victim has a gun or not...they are usually jumped from an advantageous position, and it is unlikely that they could draw a weapon anyway.

*I had written more on the topic, but it is late (6:45am) and I have been up for too long...I will respond more later on the topic. I do see your POV however!*

I've been with guns since I was four. Basically I'm pretty damn good with handguns. As for your comments I figured you were going to say those things. Like I told Mycernius, I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here. You set up one side of the argument, and I set up the other. The point is trying to find a middle ground of interest. I may come off as a gun nut, a conservative, and a card carrying member of the NRA in my posts, but that's far from the truth. I'm just setting up some constructive criticism that's all. To get people to think rather than go nuts in a controversal topic such as this one.

However, I admit that the total pacificistic point of view on the gun control agrument really pisses me off. It feels like we're trying to emulate the 1960's again with the whole "Make Love, Not War" debate. (Yeah and look what happened there!) I'm also pretty annoyed with the whole "invading American's rights" with gun control on the conservatives side of the debate. Extremes are just not my thing. I have to say in the middle of the road much like our government is set up to be, because if I don't I'll probably end up in a ditch just like the other psychos, extremists, and fundamentalists. See what I mean? So I'm not trying to start a flame war here, just a friendly debate on the issue that's all.

Doc:ramen::happy:

 

[Mycernius]

It strikes me on various issues raised in this thread that the best way forward is education in schools. If you have a generation grow up with a greater responsibilty towards guns then the laws on gun control could be gradually tighten over the years instead of enacting a draconian law that no-one will abide by. It seems that it is within the law of the US to repeal an amendment by making another, as seen with amendments 18 and 21 which were the ones dealing with prohibition. But any law dealing with gun control in the US must be federal not up to individual states. What is the point of one state banning guns when all you have to do to get one is cross the state line.
What also doesn't help is the media and the government making out that armed response is the best way forward. One way could be looking at other countries that have fairly lax gun control, but do not have the problems with them. The best example I can think of is Canada. Canadians do not go around and shoot each other with the regularity that Americans do. They might have tighter controls, but from what I have seen from visiting Canada they are still very easy to get hold of. It might be a solution :?

 

[No-name]

I wouldn't care about Gun control in our country at all except for one thing: we keep shooting each other. I grew up with guns and used to own several, but it has become kind of obvious to me that my people don't have the collective maturity to have easy access to firearms.

The laws by the way seem arbitrary and unenforceable- some are written with good intentions in mind, but do little in the way of real protection. Waiting periods and background checks are good, but why not register the ammo? Technology exists to micro-inscribe numbers on inexpensive plastic bits that go inside the ammunition- bullets, casings and even shotgun pellets. ID the ammo and then use an internet database to register each and every purchase. This would allow police to determine who originally bought the bullets and when and where.

 

[Mycernius]

I wouldn't care about Gun control in our country at all except for one thing: we keep shooting each other. I grew up with guns and used to own several, but it has become kind of obvious to me that my people don't have the collective maturity to have easy access to firearms.

Maybe you should question why this is. Better education about guns seems to be the best way forward.
I thought the whole point of an amed populace was to protect the country. They manage it well enough in Switzerland. Everyone conscripted into the army keeps their gun at home. Why don't they kill each other on a regular basis? What is it about American society?

The laws by the way seem arbitrary and unenforceable- some are written with good intentions in mind, but do little in the way of real protection. Waiting periods and background checks are good, but why not register the ammo? Technology exists to micro-inscribe numbers on inexpensive plastic bits that go inside the ammunition- bullets, casings and even shotgun pellets. ID the ammo and then use an internet database to register each and every purchase. This would allow police to determine who originally bought the bullets and when and where.

The idea is sound, but it come down to cost. Could congress be willing to put the money up for the idea? If so would the gun lobby and civil liberty groups object?

 

[No-name]

Education certainly has to be job one. But I think we need basic changes in the way we think as a people, the way the media communicates "news", and our basic relationships to power and authority. (I guess this is a way of saying I don't know what to do.)

The little plastic tags are cheap to manufacture, and would add a few cents to each round. You would have to ensure that they don't affect the performance or safety of the bullet. And you would have to come up with a manufacturing protocol. I think what the researchers determined is that the tags could be added to the primer. Some would embed in the back of the bullet, and some would get spread out along the path of the bullet.

In Bowling for Columbine, Michael Moore explored the fact that Canadians don't tend to shoot each other like we do.They have fairly easy access to guns and about the same level of ownership as Americans, but they aren't killing each other in the same number. He didn't come up with a clear answer, except that Canadians aren't as scared as we are.

 

[Dutch Baka]

that was a good movie bowling for columbine!!! ,, just love michael....dislike bush

btw.. anybody heard/saw the joke about bullitcontrol from CHRIS ROCK... .. thats a good opinion from him..

 

[bossel]

Education certainly has to be job one. But I think we need basic changes in the way we think as a people, the way the media communicates "news", and our basic relationships to power and authority.

Yeah, there seems to be something essentially wrong in the US nowadays. Just yesterday there was this news about the girl which had a tantrum at kindergarten. The teachers were obviously so incompetent that they had to call the police. Police came & what did they do? Handcuff the girl (for which they needed 3 police, BTW, speaking of competence) & take her to her mother.

I remember other cases where kids were banned from school or arrested for rather harmless behaviour. Maybe the US authorities' stance on education should be reviewed. If you treat kids like criminals it is no wonder if they grow up to be criminals.

 

[Ma Cherie]

I will point out that the reason for school shootings has hardly anything to do with our lack of proprer gun laws. I feel that it has to with the social problems facing this nation. Of course the reason why Canadians don't shoot each is because they probably aren't facing the same social issues like the US. And bossel, do you think we're only nation that's screwed up? We simply need find the source of the problem of recent school shootings.

 

[No-name]

School shootings are really really rare. They get big headlines because they are unusual. Drive by's, convenience store robberies, bar fights are far more common than school shootings. The usual mode of gun violence is either someone shooting themself, or family members shooting each other, or some kind of neighbor dispute. Most victims know their shooters.

 

[bossel]

And bossel, do you think we're only nation that's screwed up? We simply need find the source of the problem of recent school shootings.

School shootings? They are only a minor (?) aspect of the major social problems in the US. They get the biggest attention, but they are only a symptom, not the cause. I didn't even think of school shootings when I wrote my previous post.

Of course the USA is not the only screwed up nation, but among the developed countries it seems to be screwed up the most, esp. when it comes to socialisation of kids.