Gun Control

Ok, i"d like to add a few thoughts to the “criminals will get firearms anyway” arguement.
First question is, are we talking about fanatics and terrorists here, or about the “usual” robber, gang member etc. ?

For the first, sure, no weapons ban will have any effect there.
For the second… which i think most people have in mind when they announce the above claim:
These criminals are not criminals “for fun”, but as an occupation. Thus, they want to earn money with it. Outlawing guns makes forces them into the black market, raising the prices significantly.
So, to stay profitable, these criminals have to either commit more crimes … (which doesn’t happen, if you look at the worlds’ statistics) … or they will stick to “cheaper” guns/weaponry. That means, instead of a fully automatic assault rifle they maybe buy (and later use) just by a .22 handgun. (the difference between outlawing guns and drugs is that the gun-user is not addicted, and thus has a choice!)

Sure, any criminal will get any weapon, and any weapon he likes, if he wants to pay the price. But, do we really have to keep the prices down for them? Make it easier for them to get the weapons, just because they would get them anyway? That’s like saying: hell, any terrorist can get hands on handgrenades… we should make them legal…

To sherman:
It seems that this “none of my business” talk is used quite a lot.
Is it my business wether a head of any country tries to improve his armed forces by getting hands on WMDs?
Why is the second so different from the “other peoples firearms are none of my business”? Just because it’s not a personal but national scale?
I don’t understand that difference. Firearms and WMDs are made for one purpose. Please explain.

@sherman28:

Look there is going to be gun control in the US. Like it or not.
It’s politically unfeasible to roll back any gun control legislation such as the Assault Weapons ban. (When that ban was due to expire this Summer
Pres. Bush extended it.) As a sportsman I can tell you that a Military caliber isn’t really that advantageous when hunting deer. Also I don’t need to fire a magazine of 30 rounds at an animal i’m intending to eat.
In short I don’t keep assault weapons because they don’t suit my purpose.
I don’t think it is wrong for people to want to own one.
With all due respect to F alk, people motives for firearms ownbership are their own and none of my business.

i can basically agree with most of this. I think it’s a little ridiculous to go on a witch-hunt where farmers and hunters, as well as reservation natives are concerned. I think it would be good to:

1. Have these weapons registered, traceable, etc.
2. Ensure that the owners have had appropriate firearms training, with emphasis on safety and storage
3. For those people living in the city who hunt - their weapons should be secured in a central locker.

I get aggravated with people who have (in their mind) a picture of
a “typical gun owner” and start recklessly throwing lables around.

I think i have more a picture of reckless people in my mind. Most of these people own guns.

I find it ironic that folks who label THEMSELVES “Pro-Choice”
seem to have a hard time accepting the choices that others make.

for the record (and the upteenth time) i am a Christian. A member of a very conservative sect primarily made up of farmers. I am pro-life in nearly every respect, particularly when it comes to the rights of the unborn. (my cousin is currently in risk of failling out of medical school because of his anti-abortion beliefs - a current prayer item amoung the “Christian Medical and Dental Society”)

F alk and Crypt:

Crypt I find that story about your couisin extremely interesting.
Would you mind (if it isn’t too personal) posting more about it?
Maybe send a private message? I DESPISE intolerance such
as that you are describing and am very interested in what you
can relate -again only if you are comfortable describing the situation.
-As far as Guns, well Some of the items you mentioned are already
in place. In Florida when I purchase a firearm the sherrif’s office is notified
immediately. Even when purchasing a hunting arm I am obligated to go thru the same background check procedures as someone purchasing
an “assault weapon”. In order to hunt I have to pay a fee to the
County. In NY where I am from originally, I would have to obtain many different licences to hunt. For example, Deer season lasts from this weekend in October to that weekend in November. I am required to take
a “Deer Hunting” Class put on by the State of NY-which is mostly safety training. In order to hunt small game I am obligated to pay another fee.
have to obtain a different License, but no class is required. So from my experience I’d have to say that the Government is really involved.
I am also a law abiding citizen. As Has been noted very well by others most gun crimminals rarely go thru 1% of the trouble I go thru to hunt
down here and Florida is a right to carry state! I think maybe you can understand why RESPONSIBLE, LAW ABIDING folks get a little
twisted up when others want to come along and make more regulations.

F alk- I would think that as a gun control advocate you would be
delighted by the search for WMD. It (quite literally) is the greatest expression of “Gun Control” ever. My point was a person who is law abiding IMHO, has the right to own an assault weapon if he wants to.
and as a Law Abiding decent person his business is his own.
A decent person has the right to collect whatever the hell he wants in my book as long as that stuff isn’t a threat to me and mine-then a man’s right to be master of his house is absolute. You’ll counter, no doubt, with the example “well what if your neighbor deals child pornography, or drugs etc.” Well, Those items are against the Law to begin with, so my neighbor wouldn’t be so law abiding, would he.

There is no moral equivalency between the Iraqi operation and gun
control in the US. Saddam was a Hilter clone and emonstrated a
massive ammount of indifference toward the mandates of the United Nations and now he doesn’t run things anymore….

Thank God!

@F_alk:

Firearms and WMDs are made for one purpose. Please explain.

Careful F_alk you are starting to sound a bit ignorant. I have several firearms that have absolutely nothing in common with WMDs. And none of the firearms I have has ever been used for the same purpose as a wmd, at least not while I owned it.

@Yanny:

There should be three kinds of guns in this country.

1. Guns designed for hunting
2. Guns designed for policemen
3. Guns designed for the military

I challenge you to name for me one reason why you need a gun other than the three above mentioned reasons, if no one else has a gun.

Well Yanny I Challenge you to name one good reason why I shouldn’t have a gun.

As for your challenge, I like to shoot them and I want to. Come out here some time and I will take you shooting I would be willing to bet you would change your mind.

That offer goes for any of you by the way especialy you anti’s. :)

And as for your story about the kids, I have a 4 year old son and a 3 year old daughter. The problem in that story is that anyone who leaves kids at home alone that young needs to be kicked in the rear. The same thing could have and has happened with cleaning solutions.

@sherman28:

… My point was a person who is law abiding IMHO, has the right to own an assault weapon if he wants to.

What if the laws fodbid owning these guns… would you follow the laws, or take what you think is your right?

… Well, Those items are against the Law to begin with, so my neighbor wouldn’t be so law abiding, would he.

@dezrtfish:

I have several firearms that have absolutely nothing in common with WMDs. And none of the firearms I have has ever been used for the same purpose as a wmd, at least not while I owned it.

What kind of firearms are that, that they have not been designed for killing? Do you think you will use one of your firearms for killing one day? If not, why do you have them then?

@Janus:

… you mentioned buying “cheaper, weaker guns” such as a .22. the caliber in these cases is usually negligible. it has most to do with stopping power, and in the case of the criminals, the simple presence of a gun is usually enough for them to get their way. even if they need to use it, a .22 will kill someone the same as any other caliber,…

exactly, i mention weaker guns. Why do you have to commit more than half of your post to things i didn’t say before you come down to my point?

For the calibre…. first, there is a difference in stopping power in more than you mentioned. Here probably CC or one of our army men can give more information, exp. for killing a .22 is really a bad gun (though better than a knife probably). So, a .22 is way less suited for massive bloodshed and massacres compared to shotguns and automatic rifles.
If the presence of a .22 usually is enough for criminals to get them their way … well, it sounds like they would do so then even if the “others” have handguns of their own.

What kind of firearms are that, that they have not been designed for killing? Do you think you will use one of your firearms for killing one day? If not, why do you have them then?

Statisically speaking, no, I would never use a firearm for killing or be confronted with the chance to use one on a criminal. However, I have them for what they were made for, a deterent. Why do many houses have alarms? Not because in case their house is robbed, the thieves has 5+ minutes to get away before the cops arrive, but because it serves as a psychological deterent.

the idea is that if guns were removed then our criminals would have fun… there is no way to dodge it…

I really wonder why they would have… they must have so much fun in the UK, France, Italy, Germany, Sweden etc. etc. then.
It is really strange that these countries don’t have this explosion in the ratio of people feeling threatened, endangered, victimized by criminals.

Your argument seems so invalid, because your “prophecies” of how it would be without guns are not happening in so many countries.

@F_alk:

@dezrtfish:

I have several firearms that have absolutely nothing in common with WMDs. And none of the firearms I have has ever been used for the same purpose as a wmd, at least not while I owned it.

What kind of firearms are that, that they have not been designed for killing? Do you think you will use one of your firearms for killing one day? If not, why do you have them then?

As a mater of fact I have a target rifle that when you look through the sights has a field of view of about 3 inches at 100 feet. It is designed spacificaly for target shooting, and wouldn’t be very good for any thing else.

I also have a .410 shotgun that is loaded with very smal shot. I use it for snakes and rodents, and it probably wouldn’t kill a man unless he was very close.

I have an air rifle witch is pretty efective at killing pigons. I have been shot with one that was similar and allthough it hurt alot I survived the wound.

The only things I plan on killing with my firearms are animals. As far as humans are concerned TG is right, intimidation works much better as a defence than force.

alright chaps… look at this hot off the press…

http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=34&tmpl=fc∈=US&cat=Gun_Control_Debate

GG

From the above mentioned article:
"The CDC said the report suggests more study is needed, not that gun laws don’t work. But the agency said it has no plans to spend more money on firearms study.

… In fact, since a 1996 fight in Congress, the CDC has been prohibited from using funds to press for gun control laws. "

Why would the Center for Disease Control need to study firearms?

Gee I wonder why their funding got cut off!

@sherman28:

Why would the Center for Disease Control need to study firearms?

Gee I wonder why their funding got cut off!

I don’t think it’s at all inappropriate.
We (the medical/scientific community) study diseases in other contexts. Viruses, smoking, cancer, heart disease (as well as ITS antecedents - blood pressure, cholesterol, genetics, DM, homocysteine, etc.) as well as millions of other “determinants of health” and reasons for people to show up in the hospital. Why not study firearms? A gunshot to the abdomen requires an emergency laparotomy. If it doesn’t kill someone, it requires that the patient be in hospital for a minimum of 3 days. Why NOT study the proliferation of firearms, within the context of gun control legislation? Why look at seatbelts in car accidents, the effects of smoking and legislation that way, child health in the context of child abuse, etc.?
If we study these things in the context of health, why not gun control? Unless, of course, there is political pressure driving by powerful pro-killing-devices to NOT study the ramifications on public health by these devices. I mean, of everything in the environment, few things are as effective at determining someone’s health than a gunshot.
The CDC is not just about Lhassa feber, Ebola, HIV, but it is about health and disease control. We need these things looked at. It falls under epidemiology, and pressure to ignore findings concerning the health of a population, pressure to terminate funding based on these findings should be considered by anyone concerned with acheiving health of a population, as being very worrisome.

@sherman28:

F alk and Crypt:

Crypt I find that story about your couisin extremely interesting.
Would you mind (if it isn’t too personal) posting more about it?
Maybe send a private message? I DESPISE intolerance such
as that you are describing and am very interested in what you
can relate -again only if you are comfortable describing the situation.

i’m not ignoring you. I’m awaiting the word on the results of his appeal. (the ironic thing is that he is possibly the most intelligent person i know - he’s 6 years younger than me - as well a very compassionate person with a passion for medicine)

Ok CC- When you are ready to, thant’s cool-

And yes my feelings were getting hurt! (just kidding! )

Still disagree with you on the CDC- but I see where you are coming from.

I’m still i high school student, so I wont pretend to be the smartest person in the world. Hunting is big in my family, and it always will be. Stricter gun control will make life harder fo the average joe who doesn’t plan on knocking over a seven eleven. While i agree that Ownership of things like an AK-47 or a Thompson’s sub machine gun SHOULD be more carefully watched. Even semi-auto sidearms need to be more carefully monitored.
However, this will be like the prohibition: people WILL find a way. As an American, i know from experience that we are a hard bunch to lick (i hate that expression). They’re trying to control drugs, arent they? not going to well, if i say so myself.