Gun Control.

I'm writing a debate paper for class on gun control. The professor assigned us all different topics, as we weren't allowed to choose. That caught me by surprise because I had some decent feelings towards most of the topics he was giving out, but gun control is one that sways me from side to side sometimes. I wanted to know what you guys thought of it.

Personally, I don't like being around guns because of the fear that someone might pick it up jokingly and think it's not loaded when it is.


What are your thoughts on them? For or against? If you vote, please post why.


FYI, don't get crazy with each other on the topic. And don't post stupid things you've done with guns like "teehee, I was so hardcore and shot my neighbors cat/dog/leg/vacuum cleaner."

Thanks BB's.

Im from Texas, you know my vote.

I think we should be allowed to have guns, but the screening process for who should own a gun should be very strict and carry a 2 week waiting period (isn't it just a few days now?). Any previous felonies, or violent misdemeanors should disqualify anyone from being able to own a firearm. I'm not exactly sure what the requirements are for being able to own a gun (besides age), but if those are the requirements, then that's good with me.

I think you need to be more open with your poll. It isn't quite as black and white as that.
Owning a gun is a protected right in the constitution. But what kind of guns, and how we screen buyers is changing. I think it is crazy that people have problems with waiting periods.

More open? As in adding what kind of option to vote?


Benner...no, I don't know why.


What about statistics? Comparing how many people are killed with guns as opposed to other ways of murder, etc. People often say "Guns don't kill people. People kill people."

yea everyone has the right to bear arms (teehee). Do i think it should be legal for an 18 yr old to walk into a store and buy an ak47... no. No one needs an AK or a tec9. I also think waiting periods are a great idea. I didn't vote in your poll

I think that even if guns didn't exist murder still would. People were murdered before there were guns, right? What was the weapon of the time--swords, clubs, rocks, etc? Sooner or later guns will be primitive and it will be lasers or something.

guns are as safe as the people owning them, i like to hunt, therefore i need a gun, and have guns, as for your example if a gun is laying around, and people are able to pick it up, someone there wasnt very safe, im going to assume the gun owner.

if you ban guns, your going to have one hell of a mess on your hands, it will never happen.

[quoteebdde99601="Veek"]More open? As in adding what kind of option to vote?


Benner...no, I don't know why.


What about statistics? Comparing how many people are killed with guns as opposed to other ways of murder, etc. [bebdde99601]People often say "Guns don't kill people. People kill people."[/bebdde99601][/quoteebdde99601]
I think people kill people, but guns make it damn easy. You dont have to feel your bat crushing someone's skull or you dagger ripping through flesh... you just stand a safe distance back and pull a trigger.

[quote79dc3ec755="Veek"]More open? As in adding what kind of option to vote?
[/quote79dc3ec755]
Less Gun Restrictions
More Gun Restrictions
Ban Guns All Together
Ban Certain Types of Guns (e.g. Assault Rifles)
Allow Conceal & Carry

There are many different issues surrounding guns. It isn't just "For or Against Guns."

I have very strong opinions on the subject, having been a gun owner for over 30 years. ) I've posted about them in another thread here somewhere, in one of the election topics where we were discussing liberal vs conservative or something like that.

I could literally talk/type for hours on a subject like this, but I just don't have the time and energy to put into it right now, so I'll have to go look that post up and quote it here. )

[b179ae77a4b]Edit[/b179ae77a4b] Found my earlier post. It's brief because the subject wasn't just about gun control, but it gives you an idea of my position

[quote179ae77a4b="dmorris68"][b179ae77a4b]Gun Control[/b179ae77a4b] I'm a huge gun fan, have been shooting all my life, and I am licensed to carry a concealed weapon (which I do pretty frequently). However I recognize the need for certain restrictions while still adhering to the spirit of the 2nd Amendment. As such, I support a limited amount of gun control, primarily mandatory instant background checks and prohibition of convicted felons, violent offenders, substance abusers, and mental patients to possess firearms. I also support holding gun owners responsible for securing their weapons from children and anybody else untrained in proper handling. I could possibly even be swayed to support a minimal waiting period, if I could be convinced that it would have a positive effect on crime, but I'm not convinced it would be statistically effective. Although it could be argued that, statistics be damned, if it saved only a single life per year, it would be worth it -- you'd surely think so if that life saved was a loved one.[/quote179ae77a4b]

"Guns dont kill people, people do"

-Akon


Im totally for guns. I grew up in a family where my father hunted and i actually own a gun of my own. Its a 1970's side by side 20 gauge, i love it (they dont make side by side shoutguns anymore, they make them over/under).

[quotec7113da52f="zr2152"](they dont make side by side shoutguns anymore, they make them over/under).[/quotec7113da52f]
Not quite. Side-by-sides became rare many years ago because they were much more expensive to produce, driving prices high. You could still buy them, they just cost a small fortune. However in recent years, thanks to newer and more efficient engineering and construction techniques allowing for higher production at lower costs, they have made quite the comeback. Many manufacturers, both domestic and overseas, make side-by-side doubles. For example, Ruger, Charles Daly, Weatherby, TriStar, H/K, etc.

TEST (not really, I DP'd on accident)

[quote1520333d95="Veek"]More open? As in adding what kind of option to vote?

[b1520333d95]
Benner...no, I don't know why.[/b1520333d95]


What about statistics? Comparing how many people are killed with guns as opposed to other ways of murder, etc. People often say "Guns don't kill people. People kill people."[/quote1520333d95]

Simple, everyone in Texas owns a gun. I love to hunt, shoot stuff, blow stuff up, and set things on fire. I like to hunt deer, hogs, squirrels, rabbits, rattlesnakes, dall sheep, turkeys, basically anything that moves. Kill em' and grill em' baby! twisted

I'm for guns if they are purchased and owned legally by a law abiding citizen. Guns are good, it's just some people use them for bad things. Like mentioned before, if guns didn't exist, people would still murder using knives, swords, or some other item.

If somehow guns were made illegal, it would cause a lot of trouble because the law-abiding citizens would have to give up their guns, but the people who are going to use them for killing are going to keep theirs, leaving the law-abiding citizens defenseless. Bad people are going to have guns no matter what. The only way to defend against them is allow people who will use guns for good to have them.

^
Not necessarily. In the U.K. no one can have a gun at all, and although they still have murders, they have far fewer. Gangs don't use guns, but they use some pretty nifty shanks.

And although home owners would not have guns to defend themselves, the police would have a much easier time stopping crime.

[quoted91b7c431e="ilanbg"]^
Not necessarily. In the U.K. no one can have a gun at all, and although they still have murders, they have far fewer. Gangs don't use guns, but they use some pretty nifty shanks.

And although home owners would not have guns to defend themselves, the police would have a much easier time stopping crime.[/quoted91b7c431e]
Whoa. Some misleading and some outright incorrect points here.

Only [id91b7c431e]handguns[/id91b7c431e] have been banned in the UK, since the school massacre in Scotland in 1997. Rifles and shotguns are still allowed, but must be licensed.

Despite the severe handgun restrictions, handgun crime in the UK is increasing at alarming rates. In 2003, gun crime increased 35% over the year prior, and it has continued to climb.

http//news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2656875.stm

Conversely, gun crime in the US is on the decline. You also have to consider the social dynamic in the UK is very different, and they are a much smaller population than the US, so you have to be careful comparing simple numbers when you say their crime rate is far lower than the US.

That BBC article also notes the following

[quoted91b7c431e] 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. [/quoted91b7c431e]
But we don't have to go to the UK to see the futility of harsh gun control as a method of fighting crime. Here in the US, we have a few jurisdictions, such as Washington DC, with laws just as strict if not moreso than the UK. A private citizen cannot, under almost any circumstance, possess a firearm in DC, yet they have one of the nation's highest crime & murder rates. Same for Detroit and Chicago.

Contrast those numbers with states that allow much more relaxed gun control laws, and in particular those states with "shall issue" licensing laws. "Shall issue" states, where any law abiding adult citizen who passes a background check and (in some states) completes a training class, can legally carry a concealed handgun on their person. Those states have shown a steady decline in gun crime, and criminals surveyed have stated that the primary reason is because they're afraid their victims may be armed.

Kennesaw, GA is a suburb of Atlanta, about 60 miles south of me. Kennesaw is the only city in the nation that to this day has a city ordinance on the books that [bd91b7c431e]requires[/bd91b7c431e] all of its law-abiding citizens to own a firearm. That's right it's a [id91b7c431e]legal requirement[/id91b7c431e] that every household possess at least one firearm (handgun, rifle, or shotgun). Despite being in Atlanta's back door, and Atlanta having a very high crime rate, Kennesaw is one of the safest towns in the US. Hardly any violent crime to speak of. Why? Every potential burgler, mugger, and rapist knows that nearly every homeowner is armed. Yet we don't have homeowners running around shooting each other.

And contrary to your post, legal handgun ownership in no way affects law enforcements ability to stop crime. Why would it? In most states and jurisdictions, police are in favor of legally armed citizens, for the reasons mentioned before (reduced crime rates). Also consider the survivability concern would you rather be a cop in an area where you know that if the bad guys overpower or take you by surprise, that you can find armed help nearby? I would much rather have that option than the other, where I know I'm screwed if I lose my gun, run out of ammo, etc.

I was reading an article recently where a policeman was overpowered by the side of the road during a traffic stop. The suspect had the cop on the ground, on top of him, and they were struggling for the officer's weapon. A passerby stopped and ran to the officer's aid, drawing his legally licensed handgun, and shot the suspect. He almost certainly saved that officer's life.

Many of you may be too young to remember, but some may remember the Pearl, MS school shooting several years ago. This was a few years before Columbine. One of the assistant principals was licensed to carry a handgun, but of course all states ban private carry on school property. So he kept his Colt Gov't Model locked inside his vehicle. When the shooting occurred, he ran to his truck to get his .45, and chased down the teen shooter who was fleeing the scene in a vehicle. The principal subdued the suspect until police arrived. The irony is that if he had been allowed to carry his weapon in the school, there is a chance he may have been able to save some lives.

In the Lubby's Cafeteria shooting in Lufkin, TX (IIRC) many years ago, a woman was eating with her elderly parents. At the time, Texas was not a shall-issue state, but did allow citizens to keep guns in their cars. Being a law-abiding citizen, she kept hers locked in the glove box. A disturbed man drove his pickup into the front window of the restaurant, got out and then slowly and methodically walked from person to person, shooting them. This woman watched in horror, helpless, as the man stood over her mother and father, and murdered them. All the time, she was thinking about her gun, 50 feet away in the parking lot. She later became a Texas congresswoman and was largely responsible for Texas passing a shall-issue concealed carry law, that would have allowed her to have her gun with her that day, and quite possibly saved many lives.

It is a common myth, purported by the anti-gun zealots, who want everyone to believe that private gun ownership is the cause of all crime. But legal gun owners aren't criminals by definition, and are not the people we need to worry about. Those we should worry about are the criminals who, also by definition, could care less that their gun was illegal. Let's enforce the gun laws we already have, instead of creating new ones, and make the penalties even more harsh than they are now.

I love guns, you need protection from them crazy folk.

I don't have much of an opinion on Gun Control but I will tell an anecdote by dad told me when I was younger.

He went to go buy a gun at either Walmart of Kmart, and there was this 18 year old kid in front of him. The kid was with his mother. When it was his turn, he had to ask his mother when and where he was born, what his address was, and tons of basic questions. Then, the seller asked him if he had any criminal record, he said no. But then his mom reminded him that he had a restraining order from his father, issued by the father. That kid walked out with a gun.

[quote7a45cb0b93="Daggoth"]I don't have much of an opinion on Gun Control but I will tell an anecdote by dad told me when I was younger.

He went to go buy a gun at either Walmart of Kmart, and there was this 18 year old kid in front of him. The kid was with his mother. When it was his turn, he had to ask his mother when and where he was born, what his address was, and tons of basic questions. Then, the seller asked him if he had any criminal record, he said no. But then his mom reminded him that he had a restraining order from his father, issued by the father. That kid walked out with a gun.[/quote7a45cb0b93]
To my knowledge, neither K-mart nor Wal-Mart have ever sold handguns, so it must have been a rifle or shotgun. The laws are much more relaxed for them. If he wasn't a convicted felon, and it wasn't a handgun, then the law would probably not prohibit him from buying a longarm because he had a restraining order.

Certainly different for handguns, though -- nearly all states prohibit targets of restraining orders to own a handgun. In addition to ANY convicted felon, those convicted of misdemeanor violent crime (domestic violence, etc.) are also prohibited.

A restraining order can be placed for anything. What if his dad was beating his mom so he beat the shit out of his dad?

[quote5ddbab4aa7="benner410"][quote5ddbab4aa7="Veek"]More open? As in adding what kind of option to vote?

[b5ddbab4aa7]
Benner...no, I don't know why.[/b5ddbab4aa7]


What about statistics? Comparing how many people are killed with guns as opposed to other ways of murder, etc. People often say "Guns don't kill people. People kill people."[/quote5ddbab4aa7]

Simple, everyone in Texas owns a gun. I love to hunt, shoot stuff, blow stuff up, and set things on fire. I like to hunt deer, hogs, squirrels, rabbits, rattlesnakes, dall sheep, turkeys, basically anything that moves. Kill em' and grill em' baby! twisted[/quote5ddbab4aa7]

I have never owned, or fired a gun in the 23 years I've lived in texas, thank you. I grew up with lots of friends who were hunting enthusiasts and plenty that weren't too.

I am defiantly for some gun control, I mean who needs an automatic gun to go hunting or protect their family. I think allowing people to carry concealed hand guns actually prevents a lot of crime too though.

[quote13d82f41f2="dmorris68"][quote13d82f41f2="Daggoth"]I don't have much of an opinion on Gun Control but I will tell an anecdote by dad told me when I was younger.

He went to go buy a gun at either Walmart of Kmart, and there was this 18 year old kid in front of him. The kid was with his mother. When it was his turn, he had to ask his mother when and where he was born, what his address was, and tons of basic questions. Then, the seller asked him if he had any criminal record, he said no. But then his mom reminded him that he had a restraining order from his father, issued by the father. That kid walked out with a gun.[/quote13d82f41f2]
To my knowledge, neither K-mart nor Wal-Mart have ever sold handguns, so it must have been a rifle or shotgun. The laws are much more relaxed for them. If he wasn't a convicted felon, and it wasn't a handgun, then the law would probably not prohibit him from buying a longarm because he had a restraining order.

Certainly different for handguns, though -- nearly all states prohibit targets of restraining orders to own a handgun. In addition to ANY convicted felon, those convicted of misdemeanor violent crime (domestic violence, etc.) are also prohibited.[/quote13d82f41f2]

It wasn't a handgun.

[quote55944f38b3="justinag06"][quote55944f38b3="benner410"][quote55944f38b3="Veek"]More open? As in adding what kind of option to vote?

[b55944f38b3]
Benner...no, I don't know why.[/b55944f38b3]


What about statistics? Comparing how many people are killed with guns as opposed to other ways of murder, etc. People often say "Guns don't kill people. People kill people."[/quote55944f38b3]

Simple, everyone in Texas owns a gun. I love to hunt, shoot stuff, blow stuff up, and set things on fire. I like to hunt deer, hogs, squirrels, rabbits, rattlesnakes, dall sheep, turkeys, basically anything that moves. Kill em' and grill em' baby! twisted[/quote55944f38b3]

I have never owned, or fired a gun in the 23 years I've lived in texas, thank you. I grew up with lots of friends who were hunting enthusiasts and plenty that weren't too.

I am defiantly for some gun control, I mean who needs an automatic gun to go hunting or protect their family. I think allowing people to carry concealed hand guns actually prevents a lot of crime too though.[/quote55944f38b3]

just b/c you dont believe it should be used in hunting doesnt mean i shouldnt be able to have one, what if im a collector or have an interest like people have interests in swords or even cards. if thats what i like to collect or use as a hobby, why should i be restricted, doesnt sound fair b/c some people are nuts.

"If guns are outlawed, than only outlaws will have guns"

Setting aside the fact that it is a constitutional right to bare arms. For some it is a necessary means of survival. Guns have taken [i2e4d940507]and[/i2e4d940507] saved countless lives, dmorris gave a couple of examples of how a single gun could have and did save lives. People who choose to commite vilolent crimes with firearms would still do so with illegally uptained guns, while the law abiding citizens remain helpless.

[quotec667fce36a="dmorris68"]It is a common myth, purported by the anti-gun zealots, who want everyone to believe that private gun ownership is the cause of all crime. But legal gun owners aren't criminals by definition, and are not the people we need to worry about. Those we should worry about are the criminals who, also by definition, could care less that their gun was illegal. Let's enforce the gun laws we already have, instead of creating new ones, and make the penalties even more harsh than they are now.[/quotec667fce36a]

+Karma for that post

at the beginning of that Michael Moore anti-gun movie, they compared the number of deaths as a result of guns in the U.S. to the UK, Mexico, Canada, and a bunch of European countries (the year was probably around 2000)... U.S. was outrageously high, and it was not just because of our higher population

EDIT anyone know what I'm talking about or have those numbers?

You guys all have solid opinions. dnorris, where can I find that article you talked about? Any articles stating polls/statistics about gun control would rule. )

[quotebe3f6e79a9="Veek"]You guys all have solid opinions. dnorris, where can I find that article you talked about? Any articles stating polls/statistics about gun control would rule. )[/quotebe3f6e79a9]
Which article? I linked to the BBC article. I think the only other specific article I mentioned was the one about the cop being saved by a passerby. It was a news story on one of the news sites, maybe CNN, and was several weeks ago. But you can Google and find tons of similar stories.

You might also research the many books and articles written by Massad Ayoob. Ayoob is a police officer and self-defense expert who has been writing for many years. He has compiled literally thousands of accounts of guns being used in self-defense scenarios. He writes columns for several gun and law enforcement journals, teaches courses at his Lethal Force Institute, and has written several books on the subject.

And like always, you have to be careful with "statistics" from [ibe3f6e79a9]both[/ibe3f6e79a9] sides, because stats can always be skewed to support anybody's agenda. You study them, compare them, but take them with a grain of salt.

[quoteea6c97492c="benner410"][quoteea6c97492c="Veek"]More open? As in adding what kind of option to vote?

[bea6c97492c]
Benner...no, I don't know why.[/bea6c97492c]


What about statistics? Comparing how many people are killed with guns as opposed to other ways of murder, etc. People often say "Guns don't kill people. People kill people."[/quoteea6c97492c]
[bea6c97492c]
Simple, everyone in Texas owns a gun[/bea6c97492c]. I love to hunt, shoot stuff, blow stuff up, and set things on fire. I like to hunt deer, hogs, squirrels, rabbits, rattlesnakes, dall sheep, turkeys, basically anything that moves. Kill em' and grill em' baby! twisted[/quoteea6c97492c]

Yeah, and i'm not 100% sure, but isnt the assault/rape/bulgary significantly lower in Texas? They are all for the right to bear arms and concealed weapons. Criminals are less likely to commit assault if they think the little lady has a .45 in her bag i would imagine.

Haha, Texans always say, "From my cold dead hands" when you mention this subjects.

I don't think all guns should be sold, there is just no need for some of them.

What happens when you take away all of the planet's weapons(okay I might be exaggerating here)? You get good ol' hand to hand combat. Thats something I'd support as opposed to letting some guy walk around 'packing heat' ready to bust a cap in someone.

When you prohibit certain things (not everything) it can lead to a dangerous black market. We [bcc1cad540b]already[/bcc1cad540b] have a black market for guns. Any opinions on how banning fire arms (except from police and military) would effect the situation?

remember prohibition? yea that didnt work.

Why dont you just use current events as a reason why people should own guns or why they shouldnt.

Case 1- Drunken NBA player Stephen Jackson tries to act hardcore outside of a strip club and fires 10 shots in the air after he was run over by a car. In this case, you could argue the nba player himself who is a miscreant should not be carrying guns because he isw a iurresponsible idiot whos known for starting brawls in NBA arenas. On the other hand you can argue that players need hired security to carry weapons in case of situation when they are put in danger.

Case 2- More recent case in New York where a young guy, well actually older than a lot of you (23), was shot and killed outside a strip club by NYPD detectives on the day of his wedding. Police have yet to find a weapon on the suspect but somehow managed to fire 51 shots at the victims automobile. In this case you could definetely argue that people should be able to carry weapons due to police irresponsibility and agression. On the other hand you could argue that if the victim did have a licensed gun then the police's actions may seem justified.

case 3- atl -old grandma shot in a no knock warrant raid. Old lady thought she was getting robbed in violent neigborhood and shot at non uniformed officers striking three of them before getting fatally struck herself. Dont know which side you could argue here but your professor may like it if you incorporate current events where people have been adversely efected by the actions of guns.

Is it unreasonable to require all gun owners to own gun-locks and/or safes where guns can be kept?

I'm sort of in the middle on this issue and I think that requiring gun owners to have a way to prevent their guns from being stolen or used by children would go a long way in ensuring gun safety (besides training classes, etc).

Thanks good2speed, I added those examples last minute. Not on paper, but as verbal examples which the students remembered hearing about.

I am from Canada, and the lower crime and murder rate compared to US is nice. ) (No to guns)

[quoteb3d6db7552="zdub08"]at the beginning of that Michael Moore anti-gun movie, they compared the number of deaths as a result of guns in the U.S. to the UK, Mexico, Canada, and a bunch of European countries (the year was probably around 2000)... U.S. was outrageously high, and it was not just because of our higher population

EDIT anyone know what I'm talking about or have those numbers?[/quoteb3d6db7552]

moore is a fucking tool. heres a good site showing some his tactics.

http//www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html[]http//www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

i hate how people can make films like this.. make the public freak out over something and then they all become "moved" and almost hypnotized after watching it. after people saw that movie im sure everyone went out calling heston a racist bastard, waving some newly bought anti-gun flags and blaming america for something else new. meanwhile moore pockets cash based on his manipulation methods and fancy video editing.

guns dont kill people, people kill people. the criminals are always going to get their hands on the guns regardless of the law. why not give innocent citizens the fair opportunity to protect themselves? most people in law enforcement agree with this because they know criminals are going to be armed no matter what the law is.

this thread reminds me of the Family Guy episode where the world comes to an end because of Y2K and the place where the griffins go to start a new quohog (i forgot how to spell) they get rid of the guns because they dont think that they would need them

then the stewies mutated babies come and kill the townspeople after the burn the guns.


I love Family Guy

http//www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/12/08/town.guns.reut/index.html

Looks like another town trying to follow in Kennesaw, GA's footsteps.