RM95 and I decided it's time for another epic political debate, so this is my topic of choice. I'd like to hear what everyone's views on gun control are -- primarily: (1) In an ideal world (supposing you could eliminate all present guns if you wanted to, ignore the 2nd amendment, etc), what kind of gun laws would you like in the US? (2) Given the reality of where we stand, what kind of gun control system would you like to see here in the US (ranging from all guns illegal to all guns legal)? My personal opinions: (1) Ideally, I would have no problem with a total ban on handguns and such. I'm not sure the exact laws in Europe, but they seem to work extremely well. Even in countries like Ireland where you have organized terrorism, gun deaths are minimal. While some of this crime is replaced by knives and such, I think there are two big plusses. First, your average street criminal (random crime is our biggest problem today) is less likely to commit a crime armed with a knife compared to a gun -- the security is not the same. Secondly, for those crimes committed, the survival rate would be far higher when your opponent has a knife over a gun. (2) The reality is that for #1 to work, we'd have to assume there aren't 150 million guns already in existence all over the place. Since that isn't the case, my solution falls apart. I would first like to see us enforce current gun laws far more aggressively and see where that leaves us. Beyond that, I have no problem with handgun registration - I don't see why its a bad thing. Sporting rifles are fine with me, although I'm not a fan of shooting animals for pleasure. Assault weapons and such should be banned completely. I think possession should be a jailable offense (I don't know if it is or not). One question for gun-supporters, especially those that support legal assault rifles. Where do you think the line should be drawn -- for example, if assault rifles are legal, should grenades be also? What about bazookas? Or personal tanks and mini-nuclear missiles? Basically, where do you draw the line and why there? It's a question I've always wondered but never really asked. ------------------ http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.
Ban the guns. Ban all of them. A gun kills. It is a mechanism without intent, yes... but it functionally accomplishes only a destructive purpose. A gun in the hands of a righteous man may benefit society in the short term. The problem is, the initiative is ever on the side of a law-breaker. Law-abiding citizens, by definition, aren't going to fire first. Besides, reducing the common denominator of weapony doesn't put the "good guy" at a disadvantage. Rather, it simply makes the entire struggle less dangerous. I know the old adage "if you ban guns, only law-breakers will have them." Problem is, fewer guns is still a good thing even if you accept this theory. In countries where it's very difficult to higher a gun, you generally have *very* few murders. Killing someone with a knife is more difficult, and less likely to happen so easily. Furthermore, it's a step more human. A gun creates a degree of alienation between the person, action, and result that isn't present so much with other weapons (and still less with hands). I could prattle on, but I'd prefer to reply to the raving that will soon come . ------------------ Why is it that everytime BC defeats a major conference opponent, that opponent promptly goes on a losing streak? PS. Notre Dame sucks
Why bring my name into this? Kagy's been so happy lately, I'd hate to bring his heart rate back up. I really have no problems with handguns and sporting rifles. I do believe there should be a waiting period before being able to purchase a handgun along with certificates earned for proper use of the handgun you wish to purchase, but I also understand why people have them. I don't see any need for assault weapons. They just make it easier to kill. ------------------ www.swirve.com...The reason Al Gore invented the internet.
Why are sporting rifles okay but not assault rifles. The only difference, if you go by current laws, is the number of rounds in the magazine. So does that mean it is okay to kill five people but not fifteen. If any gun is legal, all of them should be legal. Weapons of mass destruction, on the other hand, have no practical self defense application. You cannot fight off an attacker with a nuclear weapon, and a grenade or bazooka will at least mess up your home. Maybe there should be some sort of proficiency test required before you are allowed to purchase a firearm. I also think that a waiting period is very reasonable. No one suddenly needs a gun for self defense. If you need a gun immediately, it is probably to go kill somebody. ------------------ Don't come in Bullard's house!
Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Guns just let you kill people without all of the effort involved in say, knifing or strangulation. ------------------ In Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock.
Earthquakes don't kill people, buildings kill people. I still think that you shouldn't build buildings in dumb areas. You shouldn't build a house above a bank cut. You shouldn't ignore the geological history of an area. What were we talking about? Oh yeah, guns. Ban non sporting weaponry. For every 250 people that are killed by handguns, one person kills another in self defense. This isn't about bambi ("he's coming right for us"). For some reason, handgun murder advocates always think that it's about hunting. It's not. Noone is going to take away your ability to kill a pregnant doe. Noone is going to take away your ability to shoot a baby bird. You can do all of those things... just make sure the warden belongs to your hunting club. ------------------
One question as to whether the "perfect world" scenario would work would be whether the government could really control the flow of firearms (there will always be firearms made somewhere) to people who want them. As we've seen time and again, making something illegal doesn't make that item disappear. Firearms would seemingly be easier to control than something like drugs (since guns are harder to make), but could we really cut off all flow of firearms even if we wanted to? Comparing the gun laws and gun-related crime in Europe may not be a good comparison. It may well be cultural differences that account for a good bit of our gun crime rather than the availability of firearms or other weapons (I read a study that noted the US has a significantly higher percentage of people killed in stabbing deaths than European countries). For all we know, banning guns (if we could) might not make much of a dent in crime at all. It's an interesting topic because oftentimes things that look like solutions end up causing more problems and vice versa. As for specifics regarding gun laws, I don't mind short waiting periods and background checks. I'd like to see that extended to gun shows, etc. since it helps enforce existing laws (the background checks are to prevent people who aren't supposed to have guns from getting guns). But I'm not a gun owner, so maybe I'm not the right person to ask. ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page
Weapons of mass destruction, on the other hand, have no practical self defense application. You cannot fight off an attacker with a nuclear weapon, and a grenade or bazooka will at least mess up your home. Here's where things get a bit mucky. Assault weapons & machine guns could be considered weapons of mass destruction -- they let you kill several people in just a few seconds. Shooting one of these weapons could also mess up your home. Trickier question now -- should so-called "cop killer" bullets/weapons be legal? (If I understand correctly, these are simply more effective at destroying your insides once they penetrate your body) If so, should miniature handheld nuclear bullets be legal (supposing they were developed)? Basically, they would explode inside your body, but not do any damage outside of it. If one should be legal, but not the other, why? ------------------ http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.
LOL, to funny! I never understood the fascination with guns. Why have something that is made to kill another human being? Statistics show that you're more likely to get injured by your own gun then protect yourself with it. And it is more likely that someone would break in and rob you or hurt you before you got to your gun. Never mind the numerous children that get hurt and killed. No thank you, don't need a gun. And I sure don't need a nut running around with a gun! ------------------ Dream a deadly Dream. . . [This message has been edited by RocksMillenium (edited February 27, 2001).]
I thought exploding bullets were outlawed in 1812?** Wow, I was way off. Expanding Bullets were outlawed for use in war in 1899 at the Hague Convention. ------------------ The Rockets will be the NBA champions. Believe. [This message has been edited by Puedlfor (edited February 27, 2001).]
One analysis of those statistics I saw noted that the stat is only true if you include suicides, which is sort of dubious. Certainly if a person is suicidal, he may well kill himself some other way if a gun were not available. ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page
Actually, mrpaige, that isn't necessarily true. Gun suicides are unique to men and men are only about 20% as likely to attempt suicide as women, however, men are FAR more likely to succeed than women. This doesn't necessarily add to the discussion on gun bans, but I thought it was worth it to point out. ------------------ "You know what they say about the music business. Here today, gone TODAY! - Chris Rock at the MTV Music Video Awards
In an ideal world, guns would not exist because violence would not exist, therefore, no need for weapons of any kind. ------------------ "You know what they say about the music business. Here today, gone TODAY! - Chris Rock at the MTV Music Video Awards
But if a man was suidicial and no gun was available, he may well choose to still kill himself, just by another method. The question is: would those suicides not happen if there weren't a gun available? Maybe, maybe not. I'm just pointing out that the study in question that came up with the stat that people are more likely to harm themselves than an intruder included suicides. When suicides were taken out of the equation, the stat doesn't hold up any more. I just disagree with the idea of using that stat (that you're more likely to injure yourself with a gun than to protect yourself with it) when there are dubious "facts" backing it up. The statement needs to include the qualifier that it includes people who chose to take their own lives. As it stands, the statement implies that one is more likely to accidentally injure or kill himself or a loved one with a firearm than they are to successfully defend themselves or their property from intruders. (Another part of that study mentioned that the people who came up with the original stat about people being more like to harm themselves than an intruder only counted situations where the homeowner killed the intruder as successful protection of the home. Surely one can successfully defend their home with a firearm without actually having to produce a corpse of the intruder for it to count). ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page [This message has been edited by mrpaige (edited February 27, 2001).]
Where are all the population control people on this issue!? ------------------ "Relax... kids swallow quarters all the time. If she craps out two dimes and a nickel then start worrying!" -Grumpier Old Men
Here in UT I hear some horrible report about some kid shooting someone (parents or worse another kid) more often than I hear about a cowboy protecting his family. Guns are for fear. If you watch COPs and you think that you can keep all of the evil little criminals at bay with a gun, then have at it pansy. Just make sure that the law makes you accountable for your little brat when s/he takes the gun to school. ------------------
Of course. As a college student have you not figured out the was the media works yet? Which headline sells more copy, do you think? Plus this doesn't include unreported instances where the threat of a gun used in self defense scared off attackers. These are usually not reported at all. And if you think that every one lives in the city where average response time to a 911 call is a few minutes then you're living in a dreamworld. Believe it or not, some people live in counties where there is maybe one cop/highway patrollman in the enitre county at night. What if he hasa flat tire when you call? What if he is at another call? What if he's just too far away? Have fun attacking an armed intruder with a frying pan. Then you can call people a pansy. dylan ------------------ [This message has been edited by dylan (edited February 27, 2001).] [This message has been edited by dylan (edited February 27, 2001).]
What we hear about most often doesn't necessarily reflect the total picture. You wouldn't necessarily hear a story about a guy who produced a gun and scared off a burglar. But you'll always hear when a kid shoots someone (usually always, anyway). Unless there is some unusual twist to the 'protecting one's family from an intruder' story (or the homeowner actually does kill the intruder), the story isn't likely to make the news in most cities. I'm more interested in the actual statistics surrounding such crimes and crime prevention in our neighborhoods. I'm no fan of guns, either, but that doesn't mean I should rely on misinformation or "what I heard" to shape the debate. I'm an analytical person, I want hard data and facts to back up the opinions. If we rely on what we "think" or what we "feel" or what we "heard" about an issue rather than relying on facts, we might well end up making the situation worse (either by giving opponents a way to discredit our arguments, or by enacting laws that don't do anything, or worse, make matters worse). But that's just what I think. What do I know? ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page
I had a crowbar, he had a pistol in his belt, which I didn't know at first. He ended up unconcsious with a broken collarbone. FYI - When Achebe refers to UT, it meants UTAH, not University of Texas. ------------------ The Rockets will be the NBA champions. Believe.
