The Gun Control Debate

[Alex+R 0]

To enter this debate at this late point...

I'd just like to ask why we don't have laws that punish parents whose children get ahold of a gun in their home. It seems to me that for the gun to be accessible enough to grab when an intruder breaks in, it also needs to be accessible enough for a child to get to. That is how, when I was growing up, my 14-year-old neighbor killed himself and some little kids in the neighborhood accidentally shot one of their friends.

To me, if you're a parent and you want to have a gun to go be macho and shoot defenseless animals, fine (for now). But if it's to protect your family, how can you be sure it will be readily available if you're keeping it safely locked away from children?

Well, I can't answer for irresponsible parents, but my parents and grandfather (as I've mentioned before) made sure I knew better than to EVER mess with a gun. I wasn't curious about them, I knew exactly what they did. It seems that curiosity about the forbidden gun hidden in the closet is what leads to children playing with them and getting hurt.

Yeah... I know people say that a lot, but these people had said they taught their kids. Sometimes the forbidden is just really enticing no matter what. And in the case of the suicide, I don't think there's anything they could have said or done to stop that...it's just that with a gun, you don't have any time to change your mind or be found. My dad is a neurologist and sometimes sees people who tried to kill themselves but just end up severely brain damaged. It's just a horrible way, IMO, for a teen to have access to in terms of suicide.

[rebeccajo 14]

I'm just glad rebeccajo isn't in charge of handing out rights and how we are allowed to use them.

Just be thankful you didn't use her bathroom and leave the toilet seat up by mistake.

Awww. Aren't you going to bless my toilet seat?

No. You're one of the bible-thumpers who stands in judgment of others with your cute little sideswipes that drop into threads now and then.

I think your posts have gotten far out of line. It is not your decision if someone wants a gun to protect their home. You'd have to be an idiot to think that taking out an intruder with a bat is a better idea than a gun. I'm a woman, more than likely the intruder will be a man much larger than me and I want that a$$hole to know not to mess with MY personal space or MY body. I have EVERY right to do that; you seem to want to take that away and have me take my chances with hand to hand combat. Currently, that is the biggest threat in many peoples minds that would necessitate a gun; overthrowing the government not so much, but hey, we have the guns just in case don't we.

And by the way, I don't get off on gunpowder powder and I would be devastated if I ever had to actually shoot someone but if it's me against someone who thinks they have the right to intrude upon me or my personal property, then you bet for damn sure I'd rather be armed. They would get a fair warning I had a gun; hopefully that will be deterrent enough. If not, you can bet I won't be going for the knees. I'm not stupid.

You have your Constitutional right to own that gun.

I have a Constitutional right to speak out about how I feel about it.

My polite comments and inquiries were mocked. That wasn't out of line?

I'm not saying everyone in this thread is an angel but attacking someones viewpoint is quite different from declaring someone a judgment passing bible thumper. It just seems that your anger against some comments ran away from you a bit and you certainly are one who strives to provide a good, balanced reason for all of your viewpoints most of the time. And I still don't see how owning a gun for personal protection is sickening - yes, it does make me "stronger" that someone without a gun, but that isn't something pleasurable, it is simply a factor that may ensure that I don't get taken advantage of. Going to the shooting range is fun, I won't lie, and I see nothing wrong with that past time so long as very serious training measures and safety regulations are in place to train people to respect firearms, not treat them like toys that go boom. My grandfather shot a gallon jug of water the first time I went to the range with him to show me what that gun would do to my head if I didn't take it seriously, so while I can't speak for anyone else, I would 100% say that I am about as responsible of a gun owner as you can get.

Miranda -

After spending time off and on in the thread over the weekend, I've come to the conclusion that for many people gun ownership isn't really about their Constitutional preservations. It's because owning a weapon makes them feel safe in their homes, or because they like to hunt, or because it's fun.

The post wherein the member claimed he owned his gun to protect himself and not others was sickening to me. He comes back to the thread later and expounds upon how he would supposedly, of course, protect others should a time of national oppression actually arise. I think that's back-peddling.

People own guns for many different reasons and sometimes for several reasons at once. First of all it is my right under the constitution and IMO the discussion about banning them should end there. But besides that I owned them because I enjoy the sport of target shooting. I conducted myself in a safe manner and never put anyone in harms way. I also felt I had the right to protect myself and my family. So gun ownership isn't just because of the right spelled out in the constitution but the fact that it is makes any talk of outlawing them because of the other reasons people own them moot. I am sorry that you don't agree but you really don't have the right to judge others because of the reasons they choose to have a gun.

First amendment.

Sure you have the right to speak but you know that isn't what I meant. Now your just sidestepping what I said without addressing my point.

Gary, I don't think I am at all.

You said for me to question you is moot PURELY because of the Second Amendment.

I say the First Amendment PURELY gives me that right.

I guess this illustrates the problem when the foundation of an argument is based purely upon a basic right granted us in the Constitution.

It sounds to me like you are saying there are no shades of gray to question gun ownership, but there are shades of gray to my right to speak against it.

I don't think that's a level playing field.

[natty bumppo 289]

To enter this debate at this late point...

I'd just like to ask why we don't have laws that punish parents whose children get ahold of a gun in their home. It seems to me that for the gun to be accessible enough to grab when an intruder breaks in, it also needs to be accessible enough for a child to get to. That is how, when I was growing up, my 14-year-old neighbor killed himself and some little kids in the neighborhood accidentally shot one of their friends.

To me, if you're a parent and you want to have a gun to go be macho and shoot defenseless animals, fine (for now). But if it's to protect your family, how can you be sure it will be readily available if you're keeping it safely locked away from children?

First ... suggest you become educated on child endangerment laws and home firearm safety.

Second ... does shooting defenseless animals mean ... you don't eat meat and there is no reason to eat meat ?

[rebeccajo 14]

To enter this debate at this late point...

I'd just like to ask why we don't have laws that punish parents whose children get ahold of a gun in their home. It seems to me that for the gun to be accessible enough to grab when an intruder breaks in, it also needs to be accessible enough for a child to get to. That is how, when I was growing up, my 14-year-old neighbor killed himself and some little kids in the neighborhood accidentally shot one of their friends.

To me, if you're a parent and you want to have a gun to go be macho and shoot defenseless animals, fine (for now). But if it's to protect your family, how can you be sure it will be readily available if you're keeping it safely locked away from children?

Well, I can't answer for irresponsible parents, but my parents and grandfather (as I've mentioned before) made sure I knew better than to EVER mess with a gun. I wasn't curious about them, I knew exactly what they did. It seems that curiosity about the forbidden gun hidden in the closet is what leads to children playing with them and getting hurt.

Yeah... I know people say that a lot, but these people had said they taught their kids. Sometimes the forbidden is just really enticing no matter what. And in the case of the suicide, I don't think there's anything they could have said or done to stop that...it's just that with a gun, you don't have any time to change your mind or be found. My dad is a neurologist and sometimes sees people who tried to kill themselves but just end up severely brain damaged. It's just a horrible way, IMO, for a teen to have access to in terms of suicide.

Could it be, Alex, that because guns are more accessible as a commodity (hell they are even in WalMart) that simply more people buy them? And they buy them for that 'self-defense' mantra we hear the NRA so eloquently expound? But they don't REALLY know about gun safety. They buy the damn thing, hide it in the dresser drawer, and hope the kiddos never find it. Kind of like hiding the booze.

[Heracles 417]

The question is more "Why should you have to lock it away from your children?"

People in the US have owned guns for centuries. Until recently, kids knew to leave the guns alone. Hell, *I* grew up in a house with 30+ rifles on the living room wall and 15+ handguns. Ammo was in the cabinet toward the hall. I didn't shoot myself or anyone else. Why? Because I was taught about guns when I was young. I was also taught that messing with the guns would result in me getting my ####### kicked. I left the guns alone, and so did millions of other kids; from the 1700s until the last 20-30 years. Now, suddenly, kids are blasting away at everyone. Why? Bad parenting? Parental fear of being arrested for spanking kids? Video games? An entire generation of kids with a sense of entitlement? ???

Whatever it is, it doesn't work. Now it's pretty damn hard to keep a gun close enough to protect yourself because the kid might play with it and blow off his foot. So where DO you put a gun these days? By the time you get a trigger lock off, the intruder is in your house and you're possibly dead. Same with a gun safe. So what's the answer?

This is the time we live in. The other question is why does stuff like this not occur overseas. If guns alone where the root of the problem this would happen everywhere, instead of just in the US.

[Caladan 19]

Criminals aren't stupid, they're not going to go legally buy and register a .45 then go out the next day to rob a bank or kill someone.

These aren't career criminals who are going on these shooting sprees, killing randomly and at will. Check the records of most these shooters have no prior run-in with the law.

This is a good point. There are many reasons (mostly for sport) that I would consider owning a gun, but "in case I happen to be in a school auditorium where a student snaps and goes on a killing spree" isn't one of them. Neither is personal safety. Most violent crime are committed by someone the person knows (often domestic violence, often because there was a huge fight and look, that gun was just on hand, etc.)

So buying a gun for personal protection seems to be 'in case of mass societal breakdown' or 'I have a personal reason to be afraid.' I don't have the latter, and planning for the former is a bit like buying struck-by-lightning insurance.

[rebeccajo 14]

Criminals aren't stupid, they're not going to go legally buy and register a .45 then go out the next day to rob a bank or kill someone.

These aren't career criminals who are going on these shooting sprees, killing randomly and at will. Check the records of most these shooters have no prior run-in with the law.

This is a good point. There are many reasons (mostly for sport) that I would consider owning a gun, but "in case I happen to be in a school auditorium where a student snaps and goes on a killing spree" isn't one of them. Neither is personal safety. Most violent crime are committed by someone the person knows (often domestic violence, often because there was a huge fight and look, that gun was just on hand, etc.)

So buying a gun for personal protection seems to be 'in case of mass societal breakdown' or 'I have a personal reason to be afraid.' I don't have the latter, and planning for the former is a bit like buying struck-by-lightning insurance.

But....interestingly....isn't the former the foundation for the right to own a weapon entirely?

[Alex+R 0]

Criminals aren't stupid, they're not going to go legally buy and register a .45 then go out the next day to rob a bank or kill someone.

These aren't career criminals who are going on these shooting sprees, killing randomly and at will. Check the records of most these shooters have no prior run-in with the law.

This is a good point. There are many reasons (mostly for sport) that I would consider owning a gun, but "in case I happen to be in a school auditorium where a student snaps and goes on a killing spree" isn't one of them. Neither is personal safety. Most violent crime are committed by someone the person knows (often domestic violence, often because there was a huge fight and look, that gun was just on hand, etc.)

So buying a gun for personal protection seems to be 'in case of mass societal breakdown' or 'I have a personal reason to be afraid.' I don't have the latter, and planning for the former is a bit like buying struck-by-lightning insurance.

But....interestingly....isn't the former the foundation for the right to own a weapon entirely?

Hilariously, I think it's to protect yourself from the chaos coming from the government, who might, in this country, *just guessing*, have, no matter what, much better weapons and resources than a private citizen could have.

[Heracles 417]

Could it be, Alex, that because guns are more accessible as a commodity (hell they are even in WalMart) that simply more people buy them? And they buy them for that 'self-defense' mantra we hear the NRA so eloquently expound? But they don't REALLY know about gun safety. They buy the damn thing, hide it in the dresser drawer, and hope the kiddos never find it. Kind of like hiding the booze.

Gun training does not prevent mass shootings, drive-by killings, random killings etc. Why is it that this sort of stuff does not occur anywhere near as much, if at all, in countries who also permit people to own guns? Therefore guns alone are not the problem.

Why do you refuse to accept that? I am sure you can buy a gun in the UK.

[Alex+R 0]

Could it be, Alex, that because guns are more accessible as a commodity (hell they are even in WalMart) that simply more people buy them? And they buy them for that 'self-defense' mantra we hear the NRA so eloquently expound? But they don't REALLY know about gun safety. They buy the damn thing, hide it in the dresser drawer, and hope the kiddos never find it. Kind of like hiding the booze.

Gun training does not prevent mass shootings, drive-by killings, random killings etc. Why is it that this sort of stuff does not occur anywhere near as much, if at all, in countries who also permit people to own guns? Therefore guns alone are not the problem.

Why do you refuse to accept that? I am sure you can buy a gun in the UK.

There is something in our culture here. It must be the Second Amendment, but I'm not convinced that's all it is.

[britbird 4]

The fix is quite simple. No one should have the right to carry a gun in a public place. Then the police should have the right to stop and check anyone suspicious. If it is against some ####### ### 18th century law; then change the law.

Then, no one with any criminal record or any mental condition should have the right to buy or own a gun. Nor should anyone under 25. Effectively keeping the guns out of the wrong hands. Selling or providing guns to such people should be a federal offense.

The police are able to stop and frisk someone they think is suspicious. The police have to give an articulable reason for that stop, and then they have to have an articulable reason for the frisk (ie an articulable reason for thinking the person is armed). In that situation they are only permitted to search for weapons.

Check out Terry v. Ohio. The police don't have a right to do this, it's just an exception to our 4th Amendment rights. (And what I've just said is a very basic overview).

I would like there to be properly enforced laws on controlling the guns that people own in their homes. You want a shotgun? Okay, but you better have a damn good safe that you keep it locked up in. I also think it rather strange that people have to pass a test in order to drive a car, but don't need any form of education in order to own and operate a gun. I also think it very odd that people are allowed to own multiple multi fire weapons. If the argument is 'I need a gun for protection' or 'I need a gun for shooting game', well, okay but do you really need multiple handguns? The police seem to do just fine (at least the ones I know) with a single handgun.

We could get into an argument about the sentence structure of the Second Amendment, but that's something I think I'll leave to the Supreme Court when they take on the DC handgun ban case.

[rebeccajo 14]

Could it be, Alex, that because guns are more accessible as a commodity (hell they are even in WalMart) that simply more people buy them? And they buy them for that 'self-defense' mantra we hear the NRA so eloquently expound? But they don't REALLY know about gun safety. They buy the damn thing, hide it in the dresser drawer, and hope the kiddos never find it. Kind of like hiding the booze.

Gun training does not prevent mass shootings, drive-by killings, random killings etc. Why is it that this sort of stuff does not occur anywhere near as much, if at all, in countries who also permit people to own guns? Therefore guns alone are not the problem.

Why do you refuse to accept that? I am sure you can buy a gun in the UK.

Actually, I don't think you can.

[peejay 327]

Could it be, Alex, that because guns are more accessible as a commodity (hell they are even in WalMart) that simply more people buy them? And they buy them for that 'self-defense' mantra we hear the NRA so eloquently expound? But they don't REALLY know about gun safety. They buy the damn thing, hide it in the dresser drawer, and hope the kiddos never find it. Kind of like hiding the booze.

I usually don't agree with you Rebeccajo, but if someone decides to take on ownership of guns there are responsibilities (as with a myriad of other decisions in life). Unfortunately there are irresponsible parents, pet owners, automobile drivers, etc., etc. The list goes on forever.

Some regulation is in order, but outright banning is not. The one million dollar question is...how much regulation?

Kneejerk ownership of guns is stupid. Buying a hand cannon in response to a a crime incident in your neighborhood and then stuffing it in a drawer to languish when the moment passes is stupid.

It's not like a VCR that you can't figure out how to operate. It's a gun! You best know what to do with it or somebody will feed it to you.

[Heracles 417]

Criminals aren't stupid, they're not going to go legally buy and register a .45 then go out the next day to rob a bank or kill someone.

These aren't career criminals who are going on these shooting sprees, killing randomly and at will. Check the records of most these shooters have no prior run-in with the law.

These shooting sprees simply make the media. Whereas all of the other thousand of people murdered in the US every year by criminals, gangs, etc are simply brushed aside. The fact is that even in a country like Australia which is totally isolated from the rest of the world, in terms of smuggling through the border, it is almost impossible to keep unregistered guns out of the hands of criminals. While regulating the use of guns is common sense, simply banning them and thinking the countries perils will go away is crazy.

It all comes down to how one tackles an issue. For example. Studies and statistics show that young kids are much more likely to get killed or be involved in car accidents based on the number of passengers they carry. I know back home they recently passed a law ensuring that anyone under 21 is not allowed to cruise with more than one passenger. Therefore rather than banning cars or kids from driving they enacted law to protect them as well as others on the road. Consequently they are protecting the number one right of any human being, to live free of harm.

[PlatyPius 5]

From BBC UK News:

Why Britain needs more guns

By Joyce L Malcolm

As gun crime leaps by 35% in a year, plans are afoot for a further crack down on firearms. Yet what we need is more guns, not fewer, says a US academic.

"If guns are outlawed," an American bumper sticker warns, "only outlaws will have guns." With gun crime in Britain soaring in the face of the strictest gun control laws of any democracy, the UK seems about to prove that warning prophetic.

For 80 years the safety of the British people has been staked on the premise that fewer private guns means less crime, indeed that any weapons in the hands of men and women, however law-abiding, pose a danger.

Government assured Britons they needed no weapons, society would protect them. If that were so in 1920 when the first firearms restrictions were passed, or in 1953 when Britons were forbidden to carry any article for their protection, it no longer is.

The failure of this general disarmament to stem, or even slow, armed and violent crime could not be more blatant. According to a recent UN study, England and Wales have the highest crime rate and worst record for "very serious" offences of the 18 industrial countries surveyed.

But would allowing law-abiding people to "have arms for their defence", as the 1689 English Bill of Rights promised, increase violence? Would Britain be following America's bad example?

The 'wild west' image is out of date

Old stereotypes die hard and the vision of Britain as a peaceable kingdom, America as "the wild west culture on the other side of the Atlantic" is out of date. It is true that in contrast to Britain's tight gun restrictions, half of American households have firearms, and 33 states now permit law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons.

But despite, or because, of this, violent crime in America has been plummeting for 10 consecutive years, even as British violence has been rising. By 1995 English rates of violent crime were already far higher than America's for every major violent crime except murder and rape.

You are now six times more likely to be mugged in London than New York. Why? Because as common law appreciated, not only does an armed individual have the ability to protect himself or herself but criminals are less likely to attack them. They help keep the peace. A study found American burglars fear armed home-owners more than the police. As a result burglaries are much rarer and only 13% occur when people are at home, in contrast to 53% in England.

Concealed weapon can be carried in 33 states

Much is made of the higher American rate for murder. That is true and has been for some time. But as the Office of Health Economics in London found, not weapons availability, but "particular cultural factors" are to blame.

A study comparing New York and London over 200 years found the New York homicide rate consistently five times the London rate, although for most of that period residents of both cities had unrestricted access to firearms.

When guns were available in England they were seldom used in crime. A government study for 1890-1892 found an average of one handgun homicide a year in a population of 30 million. But murder rates for both countries are now changing. In 1981 the American rate was 8.7 times the English rate, in 1995 it was 5.7 times the English rate, and by last year it was 3.5 times. With American rates described as "in startling free-fall" and British rates as of October 2002 the highest for 100 years the two are on a path to converge.

Woman with gun

Gun crime rates between UK and US are narrowing

The price of British government insistence upon a monopoly of force comes at a high social cost.

First, it is unrealistic. No police force, however large, can protect everyone. Further, hundreds of thousands of police hours are spent monitoring firearms restrictions, rather than patrolling the streets. And changes in the law of self-defence have left ordinary people at the mercy of thugs.

According to Glanville Williams in his Textbook of Criminal Law, self-defence is "now stated in such mitigated terms as to cast doubt on whether it still forms part of the law".

Nearly a century before that American bumper sticker was slapped on the first bumper, the great English jurist, AV Dicey cautioned: "Discourage self-help, and loyal subjects become the slaves of ruffians." He knew public safety is not enhanced by depriving people of their right to personal safety.