The Gun Control Debate

[Caladan 19]

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.

Exactly. That's the reason that statistically, a woman who buys a handgun to protect herself is *more* likely to have that gun used on her than she is to defend herself successfully? Why? Because she probably bought the gun in response to a threat by an abusive husband or boyfriend, doesn't have much training, and here's the kicker, he's an as$hole who doesn't mind harming people, and she isn't. So she pulls out the gun with no training and is easy to disarm, and escalates the situation because now a screaming match is a screaming match with a gun.

Personally, I am not for banning, but I think that if I need to spend six months on a learner's permit in order to drive, which has been described as a right in several court decisions, and *does* actually affect my quality of life, basic training for handgun ownership should be mandatory. And so no one's stuck in a situation where they need a gun but don't have time to get a permit (those 0.2% of cases where a waiting or training period would harm someone), I'd like to see it as part of a public high school curriculum. Like driver's ed, but for guns. Learn safety, how to clean it, how to aim it, how to fire it. (My high school had a rifle range, so securing weapons is not a problem that can't be over come.

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.

They've done that here, too. Funny thing, that was always my parents' policy -- no friends in the car till I'd had my license for a year. Now it's state law because what kills teen drivers is being distracted.

[Peikko 1,575]

2006/7 FACTS UK

Gun crime

Gun-related crime kills, maims and intimidates, and is frequently linked to gang activity and the illegal drugs trade in the UK. We are committed to tackling gun crime to ensure the safety and security of all British citizens.

A snapshot of gun crime

Contrary to public perception, the overall level of gun crime in England and Wales is very low – less than 0.5% of all crime recorded by the police.

Facts & figures

The number of overall offences involving firearms fell by 13% in 2006/07 compared to the previous year.

Firearms were involved in 566 serious or fatal injuries in 2006/07, compared to 645 the previous year - a drop of 12%.

The number of armed robberies involving guns dropped by 3%

There were 13% fewer serious and fatal injuries related to gun crimes in 2006/07.

The number of reported crimes involving imitation guns dropped by 15% in 2006/07.

The number of reported crimes involving air guns dropped by 15% in 2006/07 over 2005/06.

(Source: Crime in England and Wales 2006/07; Homicide, Firearm Offences and Intimate Violence 2006-07.)

Source.

Edited February 17, 2008 by Purple_Hibiscus

[britty 1]

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.

Actually you can. My brother lives in South London and you can buy as many as you want in that area. In fact he has been offered a gun on a few occasions. Also North London is now doing a roaring business in illegal firearms. There are regular shootings in the Willesden / Harlesden area (always in the local paper), and if you know the right people and you have a couple of hundred pounds, you can get whatever you want.

[Heracles 417]

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.

Why is regulation such a dirty word? It is the foundation of every civilized society. I think an anything goes society is just as bad, if not worse, than a highly regulated society. Being safe and living a good life is not taken away through regulation; as some would have us believe. Quite the contrary actually and the 25 other countries with higher living standards than those of the US are proof of that. It is all about balancing laws and personal responsibility with freedom. That is, giving the right to live free to people who deserve it rather than the criminals. Until that is reformed in the US, banning guns, cars, planes, knifes, kabob sticks etc will do nothing to reduce the high rate of violence, crime, murders etc.

[britbird 4]

If you mean can you legally buy a gun in the UK, then yes you can, but it's incredibly restricted and pretty much limited to things like shotguns.

Here's the information from the always helpful (though admittedly sometimes not quite on point) Wikipedia:

All firearms in the United Kingdom must be licensed on either a firearm certificate (FAC) or a shotgun certificate.

Shotguns are defined in UK law as smoothbore firearms with barrels not shorter than 24" and a bore not larger than 2" in diameter, no revolving cylinder, and either no magazine or a non-detachable magazine that is not capable of holding more than two cartridges.[3] This effectively gives a maximum three round overall capacity, while shotguns with a capacity exceeding 2+1 rounds are subject to a firearm certificate. Shotguns thus defined are subject to a slightly less rigorous certification process.

A firearm certificate differs from a shotgun certificate in that justification must be provided to the police for each firearm; these firearms are individually listed on the certificate by type, calibre, and serial number. A shotgun certificate similarly lists type, calibre and serial number, but permits ownership of as many shotguns as can be safely accommodated. To gain permission for a new firearm, a "variation" must be sought, for which a fee is payable, unless the variation is made at the time of renewal, or unless it constitutes a one-for-one replacement of an existing firearm which is to be disposed of. The certificate also sets out, by calibre, the maximum quantities of ammunition which may be bought/possessed at any one time, and is used to record the purchasing of ammunition (except, optionally, where ammunition is both bought, and used immediately, on a range).

To obtain a firearm certificate, the police must be convinced that a person has "good reason" to own each gun, and that they can be trusted with it "without danger to the public safety or to the peace". Under Home Office guidelines, gun licences are only issued if a person has legitimate sporting or work-related reasons for owning a gun. Since 1946, self-defence has not been considered a valid reason to own a gun. The current licensing procedure involves: positive verification of identity, two referees of verifiably good character who have known the applicant for at least two years (and who may themselves be interviewed and/or investigated as part of the certification), approval of the application by the applicant's own family doctor, an inspection of the premises and cabinet where guns will be kept and a face-to-face interview by a Firearms Enquiry Officer (FEO) also known as a Firearms Liaison Officer (FLO). A thorough background check of the applicant is then made by Special Branch on behalf of the firearms licensing department. Only when all these stages have been satisfactorily completed will a licence be issued.

Any person who has spent more than three years in prison is automatically banned for life from obtaining a gun licence.[4]

Any person holding a gun licence must comply with strict conditions regarding such things as safe storage. These storage arrangements are checked by the police before a licence is first granted, and on every renewal of the licence. A local police force may impose additional conditions on ownership, over and above those set out by law. Failure to comply with any of these conditions can mean forfeiture of the gun licence and surrender of any firearms to the police.

The penalty for possession of a prohibited firearm without a certificate is currently a mandatory minimum five year prison sentence and an uncapped fine.[5]

In addition, the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 increased restrictions on the use, ownership, sale and manufacture of both airguns and imitation firearms.[6]

[PlatyPius 5]

According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -

* a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%

* a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%

* family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%

...

During the offense that brought them to prison, 15% of State inmates and 13% of Federal inmates carried a handgun, and about 2%, a military-style semiautomatic gun

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

[john & jean 37]

By saying no one under twenty five be allowed to own a weapon then should we not allow the same join the military?Are poeple under twenty five going to be prevented from voting? The presesnt miliyary is in large made up of people under age twenty two who might add fight and die for our rights.

[britbird 4]

By saying no one under twenty five be allowed to own a weapon then should we not allow the same join the military?Are poeple under twenty five going to be prevented from voting? The presesnt miliyary is in large made up of people under age twenty two who might add fight and die for our rights.

That argument doesn't quite follow. The military and those under its umbrella are covered by different regulations. Also, military members are very rarely allowed access to military weapons if they are not engaged in military operations. People in the military do not generally 'own' the weapons allocated to them by the government.

You might also look to the exceptions made in order for Police Officers to carry weapons. Private citizens are not alllowed to own handguns in the District of Columbia (for the moment at least, we shall see what the Supreme Court has to say on the matter), yet there are plenty of police officers, of course, who walk around in the District with handguns.

In short the argument that banning younger age private citizens from owning multi fire guns would impact upon people joining the military is a non starter.

[natty bumppo 289]

From where I am at in my life right now though, I'm rather glad there never was a gun in my home. As it was in the past, I was pushed and shoved enough. I hate to think how a weapon in my home might have worsened the situation. Or - if he had been licensed to carry. He was - on most days - a rational individual. Rational enough to have passed any examination a state agency would have given him. But he also had enough public altercations (iincluding one wherein he was ticketed for battery) to make me glad he didn't carry a weapon.

Maybe this will provide some info in regards to domestic violence and firearm possession ...

In the US, a conviction for a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence or anyone who is under a restraining (protection) order for domestic abuse is prevented from legally owning or possessing per the Lautenberg Amendment.

Source

[rebeccajo 14]

From where I am at in my life right now though, I'm rather glad there never was a gun in my home. As it was in the past, I was pushed and shoved enough. I hate to think how a weapon in my home might have worsened the situation. Or - if he had been licensed to carry. He was - on most days - a rational individual. Rational enough to have passed any examination a state agency would have given him. But he also had enough public altercations (iincluding one wherein he was ticketed for battery) to make me glad he didn't carry a weapon.

Maybe this will provide some info in regards to domestic violence and firearm possession ...

In the US, a conviction for a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence or anyone who is under a restraining (protection) order for domestic abuse is prevented from legally owning or possessing per the Lautenberg Amendment.

Source

My ex was never convicted of anything. He was ticketed for battery. He paid the ticket and went on.

[natty bumppo 289]

From where I am at in my life right now though, I'm rather glad there never was a gun in my home. As it was in the past, I was pushed and shoved enough. I hate to think how a weapon in my home might have worsened the situation. Or - if he had been licensed to carry. He was - on most days - a rational individual. Rational enough to have passed any examination a state agency would have given him. But he also had enough public altercations (iincluding one wherein he was ticketed for battery) to make me glad he didn't carry a weapon.

Maybe this will provide some info in regards to domestic violence and firearm possession ...

In the US, a conviction for a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence or anyone who is under a restraining (protection) order for domestic abuse is prevented from legally owning or possessing per the Lautenberg Amendment.

Source

My ex was never convicted of anything. He was ticketed for battery. He paid the ticket and went on.

ticketed? he paid a fine and life moved on ? no formal action taken? was this in the UK ? (this is another topic ... and appears to be very sensitive for you so I' ll stop here ... sorry ) DV is an ugly thing ... glad you are out of that situation.

[rebeccajo 14]

From where I am at in my life right now though, I'm rather glad there never was a gun in my home. As it was in the past, I was pushed and shoved enough. I hate to think how a weapon in my home might have worsened the situation. Or - if he had been licensed to carry. He was - on most days - a rational individual. Rational enough to have passed any examination a state agency would have given him. But he also had enough public altercations (iincluding one wherein he was ticketed for battery) to make me glad he didn't carry a weapon.

Maybe this will provide some info in regards to domestic violence and firearm possession ...

In the US, a conviction for a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence or anyone who is under a restraining (protection) order for domestic abuse is prevented from legally owning or possessing per the Lautenberg Amendment.

Source

My ex was never convicted of anything. He was ticketed for battery. He paid the ticket and went on.

ticketed? he paid a fine and life moved on ? no formal action taken? was this in the UK ? (this is another topic ... and appears to be very sensitive for you so I' ll stop here ... sorry ) DV is an ugly thing ... glad you are out of that situation.

No, it was over here. (I'm the USC). He was written a ticket like a traffic citation and paid the fine. I never did quite get it.

IE - the incident did not involve me. He showed himself in a public place and got rough with a store clerk.

[DeadPoolX 9]

Leaving gun control aside for a moment - does anyone else wonder why it is that this sort of school shooting rampage appears to occur with much greater frequency in the US than in other countries? Gary mentioned the media earlier - and I don't doubt that plays a part in promoting these incidents - but I find it hard to think of an incidence where (any) mass murder would not be newsworthy - so it seems well... very unlikely that this is simply a case of over-reporting. Rather, it does seem to be happening with great frequency.

I really don't think school shootings occur at nearly the same frequency the media (or the average person) would have us believe. According to criminal justice statistics, school shootings in the United States are -- believe it or not -- actually a relatively isolated and rare phenomenon. This doesn't mean they don't happen, of course. But a new shooting isn't taking place every day, twice a day, either.

The media loves to hype this sort of thing up, mostly because it's fantastic news. It generates interest and that's good for news shows, news papers, news magazines, news radio shows and news on the Internet. As Number 6 said, the media likes to spend an inordinate amount of time detailing these crimes, so we end up know the perpetrator almost personally. Perhaps some people find these stories that interesting, but what probably ends up happening is somebody, somewhere, decides they can do "better" and becomes a copycat.

Interestingly enough, I've noticed that the media focuses far more on the criminals than the victims. Maybe this is because more information is released about them or perhaps it's because the media feels that victims aren't "interesting enough." Whatever the intent is, those who deserve our time end up getting passed over in favor of morbid curiosity.

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.

I don't like to hunt; never have and most likely never will. However, I see absolutely nothing wrong with owning a gun to "feel safe" in our homes. What's so bad about having a handgun for self-defense? I have trouble understanding why anyone would necessitate the need for something as powerful as an AK-47 when they're in a suburban area and defending their home, but handguns?

I don't know who said what you're referring to there, but as far as I know, a homeowner wouldn't legally be able to go to someone else's house, knock down the door and "shoot the bad guys" if the people living there were under some sort of an attack. While homeowners may have the right to defend themselves, their family and their home, they do not have many rights beyond that involving firearms or violent means -- such as they cannot chase a criminal down the street or fire at a criminal from a window or set traps for a potential criminal. The same holds true in going to someone else's house and taking it upon yourself to "act as law enforcement" in the situation at hand. Once outside of your home, you have lost the right to use that weapon in the manner previously described. The best the first homeowner could do is call the police if he or she suspected anything.

I suppose the one possible exception could be if the homeowner had a CHL; however, I don't know for sure, since I've never owned one. Someone else here would be far better equipped to answer that than I would.

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.

She has a point.

Really? So according to the First Amendment, I'm free to judge others however I choose, for whatever reason I deem appropriate? Fantastic! This should be fun.

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.

You do have to remember that when the Second Amendment was written, the U.S. military was little more than "seasoned militia" and the technology of the time didn't grant militia or armies access to weaponry much better than what the private citizen could afford to own. So the Second Amendment was a very real defense against a military uprising.

Today, the idea that handguns, shotguns and hunting rifles could stand toe-to-toe with high-tech military hardware is, for lack of a better word, laughable. However, the Second Amendment has slowly changed over time to mean something different anyway, going from "pure protection from tyrannical government" to "defending ourselves from the criminal element." The U.S. Constitution is, at it's core, a very malleable document which can be (and often is) interpreted differently according to the times and by those who read it.

Edited February 17, 2008 by DeadPoolX

[EKO1 0]

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.

No Back-peddling here. Just the facts. I have not been trained to protect the masses. Nor do I want to be trained to protect the masses. I am not a policeman nor do I want to be a policeman. I have accepted the responsibility to get proper training and to have continuous training to protect myself and my family. Firearm training is just part of the whole picture. The biggest part of personal protection is not putting yourself in a position to be a victim. I will probably never be in a position to protect someone other than myself or my family. I stay away from areas and situations where people become victims. And if you (plural) happen to be in those areas or situations. I won’t be there to help because I am somewhere else. Not because I am a coward or don’t care. It is truly because I stay out of those situations and areas.

By the way. I have served my country in the military. But that is not the same as the militia and I imagine that you have disdain for both. But, that is an assumption, straighten me out.

“and eventual personal ridiculue of me.”

Not once have I ridiculed you. But I have twice been called a “donkey” by you. Sorry I don’t cuss. I’m a bible thumper.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

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.