I don't think the issue here is gun ownership, crime, or national defense. It will never become a law anyway. The issue is that a legislator can propose a bill and have his congress take a formal vote on it, no matter how outlandish it is. That is what is great about democracy (just about the only thing). ------------------ http://www.gaffordstudios.cjb.net/
I just keep pictuing the old (new?) Bob Newhart show. Imagine Bob and George, armed to the teeth, fending off hoards of invading people from Rhode Island, trying to take over the Stratford Inn. ------------------ Stay Cool...
To me it is all where you draw the line regarding the second amendment, and on the issue of "gun control" the 2nd amendment is far too often used as a catch all to say any weapon for any person goes. For instance: Most reasonable people (scholars/laymen) believe it is not a violation of the 2nd amendment to prohibit the citizenry from having nuclear weapons for their individual defense (this obviously is an "arm"--i.e., nuclear "arms" race). Obviously we just can’t let every person have their own nukes because the threat to the nations livelihood is at stake. Most people believe prohibiting citizens from owning a 18th century single shot style muskets is a violation of the 2nd amendment. If you want to prohibit this kind of gun ownership (single shot gun) by any American, you would have to abolish and/or change the 2nd amendment to legally do so. So the question to me, given we do have the 2nd amendment as part of our laws, is where do you draw the line in terms of which kinds of weapons past constitutional muster? My own opinion is the very subjective view that weapons that can kill a whole lot of people very fast (nukes, bombs, machine guns, maybe even a 10-shot handgun) was not the idea the framers had in mind when they talked about a well-armed militia. Of course this is my view other will see it differently--this is one area where are real diologue on guns, or wepaons if you prefer, should occur. Personally, if I decided to own a gun for protection (probably won't) it would a nice shotgun or rifle where I would have a much greater chance for immediately stopping (both in accuracy and power) someone threatening my household and a much lower likelihood for an accident. Another issue apart from the 2nd amendment that should be discussed heavily is on the liceasening and registration of handguns. We have a lot of procedures in place to try to limit public risks associated with our freedoms (pilots, drivers, lifeguards, liqueur servers), I don't see the big deal about doing the same with guns to minimize collateral damage if you will (e.g., requiring safety training, age restrictions, trigger locks, requiring soundly designed products, having laws in the books against GDWs-“gunning while intoxicated”). The only argument I have heard against regulation is faulty. This argument goes like this--that because there is a 2nd amendment that allow citizens to bear arms, somehow its regulation would be unconstitutional (regulation does not equal prohibition). But the bill of rights does not identify the only rights or freedoms that are supposed to be protected, the framers intended to only GIVE the government powers specifically proscribed to it by constitution. In the true spirit of the constitution you have just as much right to drive a car or fly a plane as you do to have a gun. [This message has been edited by sir scarvajal (edited June 26, 2000).]
Just wanted to add a Australian example of our reaction to gun killings and an attempt at gun control. Several years ago, in tasmania (the little island part os oz), Martin Bryant went crazy with some guns at Port Arthur (historic site) and killed 35 people and wounded 20 people. This is australias worst ever mass murder/massacre. As a result there outcry at gun regulations by the majority of the population, at the time gun laws in Australia were thought to be pretty good, but the public spoke and unlike in the USA, the government acted. Although there was protests from Gun groups and the national party, but within days the government introduced much stricter national gun control laws, relating to the purchasing and owning of a fire arm. Specifically, within two weeks of the killings, the government introduced legislation banning possession, manufacture and sale of all automatic and semiautomatic weapons and pump-action shotguns. It introduced an extensive gun registration system; a 28-day waiting period between obtaining a gun permit and buying a weapon; a provision that all first-time permit applicants receive firearm training; and new requirements that weapons and ammunition be stored separately. Additionally, the government established the world's most comprehensive gun buyback program, offering to pay anyone fair market value for any of the newly banned guns. When it ended Sept. 30, more than 640,000 guns had been turned in by owners who collected the equivalent of more than $267 million. The government has set aside nearly $95 million more to compensate gun-shop owners for lost business. When the total is tallied, the program is expected to cost every Australian taxpayer about $57 Here's an interesting article on it from was post http://www.nor.com.au/users/gaiaguys/washpostguns.htm Smeg ------------------ Mango is the Smeg of Bizarro World
Specifically, within two weeks of the killings, the government introduced legislation banning possession, manufacture and sale of all automatic and semiautomatic weapons and pump-action shotguns. What does this accomplish? Isn't there a ban equal to this in the US on drugs? Is that stopping anyone from possessing, manufacturing, or selling drugs? It introduced an extensive gun registration system; a 28-day waiting period between obtaining a gun permit and buying a weapon; a provision that all first-time permit applicants receive firearm training; and new requirements that weapons and ammunition be stored separately. How does this affect someone who steals a gun or buys it on the black market? What if I get robbed and killed while I'm waiting for my 28 days? The only people these laws affect are people who obey the laws. Criminals don't care about laws, that's why they're called criminals. This is why the gun control lobby will never make sense to me. Also, I hate Rosie O'donnell. I wanna eat her children. ------------------ Too-Rye-Aye! [This message has been edited by TheFreak (edited June 26, 2000).]
Before Criticising, how many gun related mass murders have happened in the US, and what actions have been taken, the general consensus appears to be the owning a gun is perfectly necessary and ok, what a joke. It is just like the nuclear weapon argument during the cold war, and how stupid was that, if they are going to have nuclear weapons then the only way to stop them is to have a our own and this theory has worked well. Well, these actions taken by our government have helped in Australia, and maybe if people in the US didn't accept that owning guns is ok then changes could happen in US. ------------------ Mango is the Smeg of Bizarro World
You know the old sayings, Smeg: "Kill or be killed" "If you can't beat them, join them" "Do you feel lucky, punk?" "Go ahead...make my day" "The martians have landed!" "Today...we celebrate our Independence Day(with guns)!" "If you will not live by the gun, die by the gun!" "(Lady) My that's a big gun you have. (Guy)"Thanks(as he pull's his pea-shooter out)...Do you want to pull the trigger?" All favorite sayings in Vermont...where guns will be in every household . In the time it took to type this post, 25 people have died from gun shots....3/4 of them in Vermont Surf ------------------
BK: Just out of curiosity, do you have any idea how many homes were actually defended by guns last year? I would like to see that stat next to the number of people who had their guns stolen by criminals or people who were killed or injured by guns in the act of a crime. ------------------ "No one gets out ALIVE!" SaveOurRockets.com
BK: I was trying to point out the fact that more guns leads to more guns, leads to more violence (intentional, accidental, etc). If a junkie comes into your house unarmed to steal something and you shoot at him - thinking he is a major threat - and kill him, is that a good thing? Sure, he was breaking the law, but did he deserve to die (and did you deserve the right to kill him?). Also, I was pointing out that, even if you are in the 5% that "knows how to use a gun" and will not let an accident happen, how do you know how you will behave in a crisis situation, such as havin your life threatened - you could just as easily shoot yourself in the foot. This is in no way saying you are an idiot or coward or anything, I am just saying you do not know how you will behave until you are in it. If a junkie comes into your house with a gun just to steal (to buy more drugs or whatever), that does not mean he would try to kill you. But if you pull a gun... A friend of mine has a son who broke into a house with a friend. He had a gun for some unknown reason(he knew the house was unoccupied). The owner, who was an avid gun collector, came home in the middle of the robbery, sensed something was wrong, and pulled a gun out of his car and went charging into the house firing. He wounded the unarmed friend but missed the son. The son fired back and killed the man. Now the son is on death row. Two people will have died over a stupid robbery. If they had not had guns, they would both have been alive because the kids would have run away (they were not pros by any means). That was the point I was trying to make. ------------------ rimbaud post-a-thon 2000 [This message has been edited by rimbaud (edited June 27, 2000).]
Smeg: crime rate in Australia-- higher, or lower, since the gun confiscations? Be honest, now. Talk about over-reaction. Guns inspire an emotional and frankly irrational hysteria from a large percentage of the population (I am not referring to any poster within this thread), and that makes it extremely difficult to have an honest discussion of the merits of gun control. People that seize on exceptionally rare events such as Columbine as a call for ever tighter restrictions on gun ownership can rarely, in my experience, cite any specific benefits of said restrictions. Instead, it becomes (on both sides) a trade-off of tired cliches. I'm totally serious about this. Columbine happens, and idiots like Rosie O'Donnell and the vapid Clairol-brained soccer moms of this country respond (in their best Lifetime Channel Movie-of-the-Week Heroine voice), "Even ONE MORE DEATH IS TOO MANY!" Do you know why the NRA seems to be so unwilling to accept any change whatsoever in the right of gun owners? Because the impetus of those proposed changes is almost always either political or irrational (or both) in nature. It is not a matter of the NRA being completely inamenable to change; rather, they are simply playing the game. Neither side has the best interests of the American populace in mind, although the million weepy-eyed Moms might insist otherwise. I'll be honest, though: if the issue is objectively examined, if emotion is set aside, and if we can agree to take the facts at face value, I think the argument for additional gun control (with notable exceptions) evaporates pretty rapidly. OK, with that rant aside, I've found this thread to be extremely enjoyable because it's being debated factually rather than anecdotally. Let's see... there were two more things I wanted to touch on... Jeff, I want to find a non-partisan source before I answer that question. I can tell you how many times the NRA says homes are defended with guns, and their stats may or may not be accurate. Everyone-- HCI, the NRA, everyone-- can find stats to back up their arguments. There's a professor at Yale, I believe, who is sort of the Johnathan Zogby of gun control stats. I'm trying to find his take on the matters we've discussed. When I get the time, I'll post what I find. rimbaud, my tolerance for trespassers on my property after hours is remarkably low. If someone is in my house (or in my driveway admiring my car) without my permission after 10 PM, I do not have time for an encounter session or interview to determine their intentions. I don't care if the kid wants to redistribute my DVD player to pay for a nickel bag, and I don't care if he wants to kill me. Either way, I'm going to shoot him. That would probably cost him his life. But, he made the decision to break into my home. Too ****in' bad. ------------------ You bring the bullets, I'll bring the wine.
