Gun Control

[PureX]

It has been invaded. And also, not everyone lives in fear.
The facts are, guns on the black market are widely available, and usually they are smuggled in from another nation.
It would be a criminals dream world, if they could go from house to house, business to business, without the fear of the owners having a gun. For them, it would be the next best thing since "security" flood lights.

I'm sorry Luke, but I think you're wrong.

If guns were made illegal, their price would skyrocket on the black market. Right now, they are not being smuggled in, they're just being resold illegally. In Chicago, the street gangs were getting their guns by sending a couple of their guys with clean records out to the suburbs to buy them in numbers. They'd bring them into the city and re-sell them to their buddies. Thus, avoiding any sort of background check. The gun shop owners knew what was going on, of course, but they were selling lots of guns, and were not doing anything illegal, so they didn't care. But if guns were made illegal to the public, Those gun shops wouldn't be there, and the gangs would have to pay much higher prices to people who are risking prison to sell guns.

 

[Apex]

I disagee. People here don't own guns, the police aren't armed, some criminals do have guns. We live without the level of fear it appears there is in the USA

Why do a lot of people out side of the US think we live in fear? I never have lived in fear nor have I ever known anyone who has lived in fear. I don not believe that if I step out on the street everyone is going to pull out a gun and shoot me for no reason.

 

[Apex]

You expelled the British and gained independence from them, you weren't invaded by them. Japan mounted an air-attack on Pearl Harbour, they didn't invade.

Along with what Aasimar said, look up why the White House is called the White House. The British captured DC and burned it to the ground. They painted the White House white to cover up the burn marks.

 

[sandandfoam]

Why do a lot of people out side of the US think we live in fear? I never have lived in fear nor have I ever known anyone who has lived in fear. I don not believe that if I step out on the street everyone is going to pull out a gun and shoot me for no reason.

The arguments put forward against gun control are one of the things that give people outside the US the impression that you live in fear.

 

[sandandfoam]

Along with what Aasimar said, look up why the White House is called the White House. The British captured DC and burned it to the ground. They painted the White House white to cover up the burn marks.

I was wrong, I read up on the war of 1812 and see you were invaded 195 years ago following an American attempt to invade Canada.

 

[yossarian22]

Why doesn't someone find the statistics for homicides by firearms in the US, and find them for a bunch of other countries that do not have firearms, such as Australia, and so forth? Then we can compare, and then try to make more definitive statements.

Do you know where to get data from other countries? I have only worked with US census data.

 

[PureX]

The arguments put forward against gun control are one of the things that give people outside the US the impression that you live in fear.

I don't think it's as simple as "living in fear". I think the American culture has adopted violence as a mean of eliminating aspects of life and other people that we want to ignore. We want to label our problem citizens "criminals" and then simply shoot them when they interject themselves into our lives. And with this delusion in our minds, we are able to dismiss their reality from our consciousness.

THAT'S why we want those guns, so badly. That's why we want to imagine that all the "bad guys" have them, and so will be justified in shooting them, first. That way we don't have to ask who those "bad guys" are, and why they exist, and if we hold any responsibility for them, or to them. Labels are mechanisms of dismissal. And so are the guns. They eliminate problems for us so that we don't have to engage them conscientiously.

 

[McBell]

I don't think it's as simple as "living in fear". I think the American culture has adopted violence as a mean of eliminating aspects of life and other people that we want to ignore. We want to label our problem citizens "criminals" and then simply shoot them when they interject themselves into our lives. And with this delusion in our minds, we are able to dismiss their reality from our consciousness.

THAT'S why we want those guns, so badly. That's why we want to imagine that all the "bad guys" have them, and so will be justified in shooting them, first. That way we don't have to ask who those "bad guys" are, and why they exist, and if we hold any responsibility for them, or to them. Labels are mechanisms of dismissal. And so are the guns. They eliminate problems for us so that we don't have to engage them conscientiously.

The Flat Earth Society -- Home

 

[Shadow Wolf]

But if guns were made illegal to the public, Those gun shops wouldn't be there, and the gangs would have to pay much higher prices to people who are risking prison to sell guns.

But, the guns already in their possession will still be there. And if all else fails, it's not that difficult to make your own gun and ammo. I can imagine alot of gangs making guns that would blow up in their faces, but there would be people out there who could, and probably would, easily illegally manufacture and sell guns. Probably abit more than they currently cost, but guns will always be obtainable. But for the guy making the guns, it would be a gold mine. You also have to take into consideration corrupt police officers who will confiscate guns before they are destroyed, and have a middle man sell them on the black market.
And, some guns are indeed smuggled into this nation, and more would be if they are made illegal. Most aren't, but some are.

 

[rojse]

Do you know where to get data from other countries? I have only worked with US census data.

You'll find links to their statistics websites if you look up the government portal for a particular country.

 

[McBell]

But, the guns already in their possession will still be there.

Hence my question earlier post #85 of his thinking that all guns will just poof away when his law goes into effect.
because that is what it seems he thinks will happen.

 

[PureX]

But, the guns already in their possession will still be there. And if all else fails, it's not that difficult to make your own gun and ammo. I can imagine alot of gangs making guns that would blow up in their faces, but there would be people out there who could, and probably would, easily illegally manufacture and sell guns. Probably abit more than they currently cost, but guns will always be obtainable. But for the guy making the guns, it would be a gold mine. You also have to take into consideration corrupt police officers who will confiscate guns before they are destroyed, and have a middle man sell them on the black market.
And, some guns are indeed smuggled into this nation, and more would be if they are made illegal. Most aren't, but some are.

Guns will always be obtainable. We know this. But what matters is how difficult they are to obtain. Specifically, how difficult they are for drunks, junkies, the emotionally unstable, and the nuts to get hold of. If we were to make guns illegal to the public, there would have to be some sort of turn-in, or buy back program to take in all those illegal guns. And a lot of people would abide by the law and turn in their guns. Chicago used to offer to buy guns from the public for as little as $20, no questions asked about where they came from, and thousands of people responded. Believe it or not, a lot of people will and do abide by the laws.

And honestly, the number of people who could actually build their own gun is VERY, VERY low. And people clever and skilled enough to do so are not that likely to be a problem with them. It's having guns so readily and cheaply available that any hothead, after getting a belly full of beer and a bad attitude as a result of drinking too much, and who makes a really bad decision because alcohol does that to us, that he can easily pick up a gun and kill someone, is the problem. The fewer the guns that are out there, and the more responsibly they are being kept, the fewer people will die as a result of guns and stupidity.

I, personally, do not advocate making guns illegal. But I do strongly advocate for making gun owners learn how to be far more responsible with guns than they currently are now, by making them take courses, pass tests, and be certified to own deadly weapons. I also strongly advocate for making it illegal to sell any gun to anybody who does not have a valid license to own one. And along with these gun laws, I would advocate for very tough fines and prison sentences for those who dare to violate gun laws.

I don't believe we need to ban guns. But I do believe that we need to start taking them MUCH more seriously than we have in the past. Far too many of us are being killed by the needless misuse of guns, and we can put a stop to most of this. And we can do so without banning guns from responsible citizens.

 

[Reverend Rick]

You keep insisting that; "The problem is, we already have all these gun laws in place and they don't work. The solution is not more of the same old same old, that only takes the guns away from stable law abiding folks and allows only the outlaws to have guns." But I AM NOT PROPOSING MORE OF THE SAME OLD GUN LAWS. I am proposing that we scrap the old laws all together because they are not working, and we start over. And what I am proposing as the foundation of this new start is A NEW GOAL. The problem with the old gun laws is that they don't address the real issue, or they address it inconsistently, and ineffectively, because they weren't put in place as part of a single comprehensive program of deadly weapons control.

In spirit, we agree. I don't want unstable people owning guns either. My opposition to gun laws is because they shift the burden on law abiding folks. I should be responsible and keep my guns in a safe and not available to some kid next door who breaks my window and goes through my things when I am not home. People should have alarm systems as well. This will not happen however. The next gun law will be the reinstating of magazine capacity laws. That will affect owners of expensive high capacity weapons like Glocks.

To get it right, we first have to face the real problem, directly. And the real problem is NOT THAT PEOPLE OWN GUNS. The problem is that irresponsible people are able to get guns and/or own guns, both legally and illegally. And as a result, they misuse them, and kill people: themselves, others, and both. So the solution is not to stop responsible people from buying and owning or even carrying guns. The solution is to stop irresponsible people from being able to do so. And although this will never be 100% achievable, it IS the proper goal of weapons control. and it is worth implementing, because even though we can't stop everyone who should not have a deadly weapon from getting one, we can stop a lot of people who should not have them from getting them.

You keep insisting that the laws, even reasonable and proper laws, can't possibly work. And this is simply wrong. They can't work perfectly, but no law can work perfectly. That doesn't negate the value or effectiveness of having laws, however. Most people do follow them most of the time. And that makes the difference.

You also keep assuming that I'm proposing that we take guns away from responsible citizens, and I AM NOT proposing that. I'm merely proposing that responsible citizens learn how and when to use deadly force, just like a cop has to do, and then be tested and certified, just as any cop has to be, that they do in fact know when and how to use a deadly weapon. And this process wouldn't need to be as advanced for sporting guns. Just as your driver's license now has codes to allow you to drive larger and commercial vehicles after a specific course and test, or not to, so would your gun license. But what I am also proposing is that just as with a police officer, this license is under constant scrutiny. If you get a DUI, for example, you have PROVEN that you are irresponsible with potentially deadly machinery and therefor pose an unacceptable threat to the public safety. And as a result, you don't just lose your license to drive a car, but you also lose your license to own a gun. You will either turn it in, along with the license, or sign it over to a friend who is properly licensed to own guns. If you do not do so, or you keep a gun in your possession, anyway, and you are caught with it, you will face very stiff fines and penalties, and you will be charged with a felony, and will lose the right to possess a gun forever. This would also apply to any drug conviction and to any other kind of felony conviction.

If you manage to behave responsibly say, for the next three years after the DUI, then you can retest, and if you pass, have your gun license reinstated.

We agree. I think there should be more training for citizens and police officers alike.

This testing, by the way, should involve psychological testing, just as it does with the police. Over the years, the police academies have discovered that they attract certain kinds of unstable people who should never be given authority over other people, and should especially never be given the right to carry or use deadly weapons. And they've gotten pretty good at spotting these people and weeding them out. And this is exactly the kind of process we need to employ with anyone who wants to get a gun license. It's not fool-proof, but it does work most of the time.

It is real easy for a police officer to have a clean record when the person has only been an adult a very short time. Young officers childhood records are sealed many times. I like your idea for reinstatement. It gives a person who has made a mistake a possibility to redeem themselves.

The truth is that these unstable people are usually pretty easy to spot. And when we read about many of the people who end up killing other people in fits of drunken rage, or high on drugs, or who have been stalking and or violent, etc., it almost always turns out that lots of other people knew they were having problems, they just didn't tell anyone about them. A hands on course in use and testing for a gun license would give people who are trained to spot such problems in others the time and opportunity to do so. And I am certain it would weed out a fair number of people who we would not want to have access to deadly weapons. It's working fairly well for the police, and it could easily be expanded.

I want people who want to own hand guns for self and other protection to be able to do so. But I want them to do it right, and to be highly trained, like cops, when they pull that weapon out. And I also want them to know how to treat a deadly weapon when it's not being used, or carried, the same way a cop has to take special precautions and responsibility for his weapon when off duty.

And I believe that the result of this kind of weapons oversight, and certification, would not only weed out many of those irresponsible people who want to own guns, but shouldn't, it would raise the level of awareness and care that the responsible citizens will give to the heady responsibility of gun ownership.

Actually I believe we can do much better by expanding training for police officers. I do not believe they are highly trained. I believe they have the bare minimum of acceptable training and more money should be spent to train and supply them with state of the art equipment. When Bill Clinton wanted 100,000 more officers on the street, I was thinking, we don't need more officers, we need better paid and trained officers.

And the result would be that guns would be much harder for ANYONE to get, but especially for drunks, dope heads, hot heads, stalkers, and otherwise emotionally unstable people. If they are really determined, they will probably find a way to get one, but when someone is really determined to kill someone else, it's difficult to stop them. This is rare, however. Most killings are not that pre-meditated, and are not carried out by people that are all that clever and persistent. And so most of these people would find it a lot more difficult to get hold of a gun than it currently is.

Guns would be sold on the 'black market', but they would become more and more expensive as the availability of guns tightened. Joe Twelvepack, who can now very easily obtain a gun for $50 will find that he doesn't have the $500 being demanded on the black market. And as a result, then next time he gets drunk and in a fight with someone at the local pub, he wouldn't have a pistol handy to go staggering back into the bar with to 'get even'. Or when Mr. Brokenheart takes it into his drug induced delusional mind to kill his "girlfriend" because she didn't realize that she WAS his girlfriend, and so went out with someone else, he won't have a gun just lying around to grab and chase her down with. Nor will he find anyone else's gun just lying around, either. The point is that guns will be tougher to get, black market or not. They'll be more expensive, and they'll be better guarded by those who own them. And that will save a lot of lives.

Agreed. A good idea would be for a buy back program. Let's give 500 dollars for every Saturday night special out there. If you really want sticker shock, price a state of the art 1911 45ACP. They go for thousands of dollars.

 

[PureX]

In spirit, we agree. I don't want unstable people owning guns either. My opposition to gun laws is because they shift the burden on law abiding folks. I should be responsible and keep my guns in a safe and not available to some kid next door who breaks my window and goes through my things when I am not home. People should have alarm systems as well. This will not happen however.

If you are as law-abiding as you claim to be, then it will happen.

The thing is that owning a deadly weapon does confer a big responsibility. And if you are a law-abiding citizen, and want to own such weapons, then you should be willing to accept that burden of responsibility. The fact is that the rest of us do not know if you're a law-abiding and responsible citizen or not, and we can't take the chance of giving you deadly weapons without doing our best to find out if you're a responsible citizen or not. So we must insist that people who want to own such weapons know, and prove that they know, how to take on that responsibility. And we also need a means of removing those weapons from your possession if you should show yourself to be irresponsible.

Your basic complaint is that gun laws put a burden on law abiding citizens. And my answer is OF COURSE THEY DO! It's the burden of responsibility of owning deadly weapons. It's not the laws that are causing this burden, it's the nature of the weapons, themselves.

The same is true of driving an automobile. One could easily say that having to get driver's licenses are a burden on law-abiding citizens. And they are right, it IS a burden. But driving an automobile is a dangerous activity, and it endangers everyone, not just the driver. So the rest of us need and expect that people who want to drive automobiles know how to do so safely and responsibly. And we need to have a way of stopping people from driving them if they will not do so safely and responsibly.

Same with guns.

And I agree with you about the police. Most police forces, especially in the cities, have good training academies that produce excellent new police officers. But some of the more rural areas still have too much of a "good 'ole boy, buddy system" that sometimes favors cronyism over skill and training. A perfect example of this was a multiple shooting in Wisconsin recently involving a very young rookie cop and a lover's quarrel. He was 19, I believe, and that's far too young to be an active police officer. There's no way that guy had proper training and testing at that age, and 5 people died as a result.

The next gun law will be the reinstating of magazine capacity laws. That will affect owners of expensive high capacity weapons like Glocks.

Well, it seems to me that if a person is trained and tested and can hit what they're aiming at, they aren't going to need so much amo. But to tell the truth, if a person is trained and tested and licensed, properly, and their weapons are responsibly held, the amount of amo they wish to carry becomes an irrelevant issue. Such a law would be redundant.

 

[Reverend Rick]

If you are as law-abiding as you claim to be, then it will happen.

That is why I fear gun laws so much. It is not about guns at all. It is the concern of having to make a choice between being able to be pro-active in defending one's self and being a law abiding citizen. The two should not be in conflict ever. I have talked to many law enforcement officers who said they would turn in their badges before disarming law abiding citizens. There are two schools of though in law enforcement. The previous and the mindset that only police officers should have guns. Many police know if citizens lose their rights, they will inevitably be next as well.

Well, it seems to me that if a person is trained and tested and can hit what they're aiming at, they aren't going to need so much amo. But to tell the truth, if a person is trained and tested and licensed, properly, and their weapons are responsibly held, the amount of amo they wish to carry becomes an irrelevant issue. Such a law would be redundant.

I used to think like that. I am old school and carried a 6 shooter most of my life. Many police detectives did as well. In this day and age, the more ammo the better plus a back up gun is also a good idea if your in law enforcement.

When the average citizen sees trouble they can try to go the other direction. Law enforcement has to confront every problem. Most citizens want to carry what LE uses. It only makes sense. Any weapon that is proven reliable and accurate should be the weapon of choice among responsible gun owners.

 

[PureX]

That is why I fear gun laws so much. It is not about guns at all. It is the concern of having to make a choice between being able to be pro-active in defending one's self and being a law abiding citizen. The two should not be in conflict ever.

I don't see why these should be mutually exclusive if you understand that owning a gun involves a risk to more than just yourself and your family. It involves a risk to the whole community. And because it does involve such a risk, the community has a right to meddle in your desires. This is what you're really objecting to, I think. But this is the price we all pay to live together in human communities. It's not the "government" playing big brother on you. It's your community doing it through the process of government. And they do have that right. At least they do up to a point.