Gun laws.

[Usnota]

I do not beleive in gun control at all because, it is a freedom that we as americans can choose to excersize, if I remeber my brilliant histroy teachers lectures, the 2nd ammendment was put into place to give the people some method of protection agasint the govern ment, however, and back then america relied heavily on citizen militas, and u cant fight the brittish military without guns, can u?

My personal belief towards this sitiuation, though is far simpler, have any of u actually seen the people that run our country? I want some type of protection from that! I however don't own a gun, beacuse i am only 15 and my parents are pro-gun control

... And the town that i live in is Temecula, CA, and i hate it

 

[ReepNeep]

I don't think America should pull out, that country needs you there now and if you pull out now it would ruin the nation for decades to come.

I might be a pacifist but i do know a bit about politics and logistics.

On another note, i've always thought the second amendment was there so that the populace could rebel should the government become convoluted, oppressive and bureaucratic.

That is EXACTLY what it intended for. Having citizen soldiers ready when the nation is invaded is a distant concern compared to the very real threat of our own government. The founding fathers had just smashed one dictatorship and were genuinely worried about their own creation growing into another.

 

[werepossum]

SNIP
I am not against people owning guns, I am against them having them in a community. If there are children within 50 miles of your home, you should not have a gun. If a man breaks into your house in the middle of the night, a bat works just as well if you don't walk like an elephant.
SNIP

Just to make up a few examples that could of course never possibly happen in the real world -what if there are four men breaking into your house? What if they have bats too? What if you're in a wheelchair, or a fifty kilo woman with two small children, or elderly?

I have no problem with pacifism, but I have a big problem when people attempt to force their preferred helplessness on me. I don't greatly fear for my safety - for instance, I don't keep loaded guns around the house, although snapping in a clip or dropping a couple shells into a shotgun doesn't take much time - but what about people in, say, Detroit? Statistically you're more likely to die a violent death in Detroit than serving in Iraq. Certainly it would make it harder for bad people to kill you if you had a way to disarm every single person, but then assuming being disarmed didn't suddenly make them good people they'd have plenty of time to do whatever they wanted to do. (It's kind of like New Orleans; people don't call in gunshots because they no longer have any expectation that notifying the police will help. Calling 9-1-1 is for when it's not an immediate threat to you - or for when you have no other choice.)

Another thing - guns do more than kill. Besides being pleasurable for sport shooting and hunting, often simply presenting a gun will deter the aggression. One of our school shootings ended because a teacher ran several blocks to get his legally owned pistol (because of course you can't have a gun on a school campus unless you're a cop or a psychotic killer), then ran back and confronted the gunman who dropped his weapon. Of course the totally unbiased national media, except for a handful of newspapers, failed to mention that little item, preferring to concentrate on the two students who tackled the gunman after he had been disarmed by the armed teacher. Even a strung-out druggie can often recognize that you have the power to hurt or kill him and will move on to easier pickings. When convicted carjackers in Florida were surveyed to find out why they were preying on - robbing, beating up, often killing - foreign tourists, using both guns and simpler weapons like knives and improvised clubs, there were only two parts to the answer: They have money. And they don't have guns. Guns deter predators. Seems like a pretty simple concept to me.

To those who say hunting is not a valid reason to be armed, remember that the same arguments apply to gaming. Kids get all hopped up on violence playing violent video games and watching violent movies, and then they act out that violence on others! Computer games breed violence, and gaming computers use lots of energy and therefore cause global warming! Computers are used for identity theft! Computers are used for child pornography! Why should any individual be allowed to own a computer when you can easily get your excitement and necessary information from the safe, properly monitored computers at the public library?

When you help deprive others of their preferred freedoms, you also move your own preferred freedom up in the queue. Sooner or later, thine own ox shall be gored.

 

[utimagus]

from: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

from: http://www.ngb.army.mil/media/factsheets/ARNG_Factsheet_May_06.pdf

The Army National Guard (ARNG) is one of the seven reserve components of the United
States armed forces. It is also the organized militia of 54 separate entities: the 50 states,
the territories of Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
and the District of Columbia.
Administered by the National Guard Bureau (a joint bureau of the departments of the
Army and Air Force), the ARNG has both a federal and state mission. The dual mission,
a provision of the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Code of laws, results in each Soldier
holding membership in both the National Guard of his or her state and in the U.S. Army
or the U.S. Air Force.

With both of those, only the National Guard is allowed to have weapons as it is comprised of the Militia's of the 50 State and various Federal Territories.

Because the second ammendment has never been incorporated onto the States, they may regulate as they see fit as long as the states support their State militia. Interestingly enough, if the Supreme Court recently had voted to uphold the Washington D.C. legislation that ruling would have no impact on the States as Washington D.C. is a Federal territory and not a sovereign entity. Unlike States which under the Constitution hold sovereignty.

 

[werepossum]

SNIP
The attack on Pearl Harbor was a precision strike on military targets with the aim of crippling the US Pacific Fleet to the point that the US would be unable to bring serious challenge in the Pacific.

There were two things that went wrong with it from their perspective;
1: They didn't sink any of our carriers. This is especially important because battleships were nearly worthless by comparison.
2: They underestimated just how stubborn we can be about these things.

SNIP

What we did to Japanese cities near the end of the war was several orders of magnitude beyond anything the Japanese did to us. We basically leveled every major city in Japan, civilian targets or not. We used primarily firebombs specifically because they would start the mass fires that Japanese architecture was particularly vulnerable to. The goal of American air raids was to burn the city to the ground, civilians and all. Add the gratuitous nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and we subjected them to far worse than they ever even had planned for us.

You also seem to talk about 9/11 as if it was the beginning of the 'explosive' relationship we have with that part of the world rather than the perhaps inevitable result of decades of antagonism from both sides, but I don't feel like getting into that one.

Go read a history book. *EDIT* Hell, even wikipedia would be a good start for you.

OT
Three things - they failed to realize how resourceful we could be. Several of those ships were repaired in weeks; some were even re-floated and repaired after being sunk. Ironically, prior to Pearl Harbor we shared the naval strategy of the United Kingdom, the then-acknowledged master of the seas, that carriers were nice but battleships were still king of the naval battle. Sinking so many of our battleships forced to us concentrate our operational strategy on carrier warfare. This led to their catastrophic defeat at Midway, which essentially sealed the war in the Pacific for the Japanese. This is really ironic because whilst our naval gunnery was not up to Japan's even with more and better radar, our air combat skills were quite good.

I disagree about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, though. Those bombings and the widespread conventional bombings that preceded them were, in my opinion, extremely tuitous. I utterly reject the concept that civilians manufacturing war materials are sacrosanct or that military lives are somehow worth less than civilian lives, and should be sacrificed to avoid killing the enemy's civilians. I wouldn't intentionally target civilians or condone terror attacks, but if that's needed to stop the flow of war materials I have no problem with leveling cities. Remember that most American soldiers and sailors were conscripts or civilian draftees just minding their own business before Japan attacked. Nations make war, and nations should suffer the consequences. I think this desire to sterilize war and limit its casualties to a military caste is very dangerous.

 

[werepossum]

One of our school shootings

This here was the clencher for me. In the UK, school shootings are an event so rare that whenever one occurs, it plays out in the media, amongst the public, and in Parliament for weeks and even months. The Dunblane massacre on its own was enough to warrant a full government investigation into gun control, and a full ban on handguns. Since then, I don't know how many school shootings we've had, but it isn't many.

Over in America, however, school shootings happen seemingly every other week, and yet no-one seems to ask the question, maybe things would be a bit better if there weren't so many handguns on the market. If you want to keep a shotgun in your cupboard in case the burglars come after you, fine, but what reasoning do you have for handguns?

Several of our school shootings have been with rifles or shotguns. As to handguns, sometimes people feel the need to carry personal protection. Women who fear being raped, people who for business purposes carry large sums of money, people who have to be in bad neighborhoods, people who are physically unable to aim and fire a shotgun - all these people feel more comfortable with handguns. Also, a pistol can be carried discretely, unlike a shotgun. A man carrying a shotgun in the mall might make some of you more nervous types jumpy, even if there's been some armed robberies or murders in the parking lot. lol And they're convenient for shooting 'coons that get too aggressive (rabies threat!)

I'm not a fan of handguns for protection myself, perhaps because even though I'm not at all a large man people tend to be strangely wary of me (the power of ugly?) and because I try to stay out of bad neighborhoods and bad situations. Sometimes for work I have to be in areas where drive-by shootings are common, but I don't feel the need to be able to fire back should that ever occur. Also, bird shot tends to spend all its energy inside the body and is greatly slowed down by Sheetrock walls, whereas rifle or pistol bullets can easily penetrate Sheetrock walls without losing much energy and therefore endanger neighbors and bystanders more if the target is missed (or completely penetrated, a big problem with .41 and .44 Magnums.)

Notice how even though I don't particularly want something, I feel no desire to deny it to others? I think banning something that can be used for either good or evil is a very bad practice. If your citizens can't be trusted with firearms, why the hell should they be trusted with the vote?

Full disclosure: I do have pistols. I just don't consider them as a needed or primary defense for myself.

 

[ReepNeep]

OT
Three things - they failed to realize how resourceful we could be. Several of those ships were repaired in weeks; some were even re-floated and repaired after being sunk. Ironically, prior to Pearl Harbor we shared the naval strategy of the United Kingdom, the then-acknowledged master of the seas, that carriers were nice but battleships were still king of the naval battle. Sinking so many of our battleships forced to us concentrate our operational strategy on carrier warfare. This led to their catastrophic defeat at Midway, which essentially sealed the war in the Pacific for the Japanese. This is really ironic because whilst our naval gunnery was not up to Japan's even with more and better radar, our air combat skills were quite good.

I disagree about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, though. Those bombings and the widespread conventional bombings that preceded them were, in my opinion, extremely tuitous. I utterly reject the concept that civilians manufacturing war materials are sacrosanct or that military lives are somehow worth less than civilian lives, and should be sacrificed to avoid killing the enemy's civilians. I wouldn't intentionally target civilians or condone terror attacks, but if that's needed to stop the flow of war materials I have no problem with leveling cities. Remember that most American soldiers and sailors were conscripts or civilian draftees just minding their own business before Japan attacked. Nations make war, and nations should suffer the consequences. I think this desire to sterilize war and limit its casualties to a military caste is very dangerous.

I'm not so naive to think that cities should be off limits. The problem is the way they went after the infrastructure. They chose leveling the city over just the industrial areas. They were indescriminately(sp) destroying targets with no military value that could have been avoided without much trouble.

There is something really perverse and almost inhuman about intentionally shooting someone who is unarmed. If they're standing next to someone who is however, it happens. Shipyards, power plants, airfields, refineries, industrial areas are all fine and logical targets for air raids. Residential areas in major cities are not.

I know that naval doctrine at the time favored the battleship as the most valuable. It also happened to be flat out wrong. The Bismark, the scariest battleship ever made, was hunted by the entire British Atlantic fleet. The thing won slugging matches against multiple British capital ships with hardly any trouble. What took it out? A simple, bi-plane torpedo bomber. Ships were basically helpless against aircraft, whether the brass realized it or not.

/threadjack (sorry)

 

[werepossum]

from: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

from: http://www.ngb.army.mil/media/factsheets/ARNG_Factsheet_May_06.pdf

The Army National Guard (ARNG) is one of the seven reserve components of the United
States armed forces. It is also the organized militia of 54 separate entities: the 50 states,
the territories of Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
and the District of Columbia.
Administered by the National Guard Bureau (a joint bureau of the departments of the
Army and Air Force), the ARNG has both a federal and state mission. The dual mission,
a provision of the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Code of laws, results in each Soldier
holding membership in both the National Guard of his or her state and in the U.S. Army
or the U.S. Air Force.

With both of those, only the National Guard is allowed to have weapons as it is comprised of the Militia's of the 50 State and various Federal Territories.

Because the second ammendment has never been incorporated onto the States, they may regulate as they see fit as long as the states support their State militia. Interestingly enough, if the Supreme Court recently had voted to uphold the Washington D.C. legislation that ruling would have no impact on the States as Washington D.C. is a Federal territory and not a sovereign entity. Unlike States which under the Constitution hold sovereignty.

This is not quite true - the recent Supreme Court ruling explicitly declared the Second Amendment to be a personal right, not a State right, as is the case with all the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Had it upheld the DC gun ban, that would have been legal precedent unless the ruling explicitly stated the gun ban was upheld simply because the district of Columbia is not a state. Any state is free to regulate any right, but SCOTUS is the final arbiter of all rights, explicitly guaranteed or not. States do not have ultimate power simply for being states, although I'll certainly agree that the founders never anticipated a federal government (or Supreme Court) anywhere near as strong as what we now have.

The idea of some that the Second Amendment only guarantees the People the right to be armed in service of the State has always baffled me, and even honest liberal constitutional scholars admit the founders' intentions were to guarantee a personal right rather than a State right. To think otherwise requires you to believe that the founders suddenly confused the People for the State and that conscription into armed forces is a privilege someone might take away rather than an obligation to be forced onto the People at the State's need. If a state militia would satisfy the Second amendment, then a state newspaper would satisfy the First. Notice the Second Amendment nowhere states that the militia is to be regulated by the State, merely that it be well regulated and that it is necessary to the security of a free state. Militias at the time were not necessarily State-run or -funded organizations.

 

[Shivari]

Well I really don't see how if we're invaded everyone that owns a handgun in the area would be able to suppress an army. Not every civilian owns a gun either, so it's not like the entire force of a city would be there, and if I saw troops and tanks roaming down my street I'd stay the fuck out of the way, not run at them with a pistol and play hero.

Also people here say we need to "protect" ourselves. But what are we protecting ourselves from? Other guns. You need the 2nd amendment to protect yourself from it. It's an odd situation.

But although I would love for this country to ban guns, we never will. People would be stuborn and freak out about it for silly reasons. But oh well.

 

[Silver]

Posts like this truly disgust me. This entire topic is about Gun Control in America, not Australia.

No, actually the topic is only gun control. America is the first country that comes to mind, and one of the more interesting one, but that doesn't make comparisons to other countries or discussing how it is in other countries wrong.

 

[Saskwach]

One of our school shootings

This here was the clencher for me. In the UK, school shootings are an event so rare that whenever one occurs, it plays out in the media, amongst the public, and in Parliament for weeks and even months. The Dunblane massacre on its own was enough to warrant a full government investigation into gun control, and a full ban on handguns. Since then, I don't know how many school shootings we've had, but it isn't many.

Over in America, however, school shootings happen seemingly every other week, and yet no-one seems to ask the question, maybe things would be a bit better if there weren't so many handguns on the market. If you want to keep a shotgun in your cupboard in case the burglars come after you, fine, but what reasoning do you have for handguns?

Comparing the number of school shootings countries have is like comparing the number of peacocks and concluding there must be more birds because there are more peacocks. Sure, peacocks are far more noticeable, but they don't tell the whole story. They barely even tell us a part of the story.
You made an interesting point: why are handguns legal when they have no really good reason to be used? I disagree but I see your point. British legislators agreed with you in 1997 when they effectively banned handgun possession. This study was commissioned in 2000, and it looked at the spread of crimes by firearm type, to see if handgun crimes had been reduced by 1997's legislation: ignore the site itself and scroll down to the links. [http://www.countryside-alliance.org.uk/shooting-campaigns/reports/research-into-illegal-firearms-in-the-uk/]
The paragraph on handgun crime rates, from the fourth paper:
"The use of handguns in all firearm crimes, whilst showing a substantial reduction in 1998-1999 from its high in 1993 increased during 1999-2000 to a volume only exceeded in 1992 and 1993. Since 1990 the level of crime involving handguns has not deviated very far from the overall average for the period. There was a small reduction in the use of handguns between 1996 and 1998-1999 but this was not maintained in 1999/00. This is particularly noteworthy in the Firearm (Amendment) Act of 1997 which resulted in the removal of in excess of 160,000 handguns from individuals who had held them legally. The long-term impact that the 1997 legislation is likely to have on the use of handguns in crime cannot be judged with any accuracy at this time but the short-term impact strongly suggests that there is no link between the unlawful use of handguns and their lawful ownership."
So while the study came too soon after the legislation to prove definitively the effects of the legislation, it proved that there is no simple reduction in handgun crime (and might even be an increase) when handguns are banned.
This is the central claim I'm trying to make, which I think has been ignored by many for good reason; it's hard to argue with the sources I've given here and in previous posts. It's all well and good to say guns are vicious things that make crime easier to do, but if you can't prove that banning guns will cut down crime- and cut it enough that the massive expenditure couldn't be better spent elsewhere- then we're all wasting our time here.

 

[Saskwach]

Oops.

 

[T.H.O.R]

One of our school shootings

If you want to keep a shotgun in your cupboard in case the burglars come after you, fine, but what reasoning do you have for handguns?

I'm a better shot with a Shotgun..I could be the next Annie Oakley (Or whatever her name was)

But I keep a pistol because my wife feels much more comfortable using a small firearm rather than something that is big and bad enough to leave a bruise on your shoulder if you're not careful.

I'm a terrible shot with a pistol, always have been. In the military I scored some of my highest marks with a rifle/shotgun...but my pistolmanship was piss-poor.

It's all about each individual person. Some people have more talent with one thing in a category, IE: Better shot with a handgun than a rifle, etc. That's why some choose a pistol, I believe.

 

[Tanthalos]

This may or may not be off topic but I just want to inform the world of the "progress" Toronto's neanderthalian mayor David Miller has led our great city to.

In order to cut down on the glorification of guns and illegal handguns the City of Toronto has passed a bi-law allowing no new gunclubs or shooting ranges to be opened within the city limits.

Now we are making progress!

 

[T.H.O.R]

T.H.O.R: not wishing to sound rude, but maybe your wife needs to get down the firing range and practise with a rifle. I don't find a wrench a particularly comfortable tool to use, but that doesn't mean I go grab a tenon saw for the same job. It's a tool. If the best reason you can come up with to keep handguns on the market is 'they don't hurt my shoulder', then pardon me if I snigger. If you're using a gun to defend yourself against burglars (as so many people here heroically envision themselves), then getting out of it with nothing more than a bruised shoulder is something to be thankful for.

Your ignorance here, or rather - your inability to finish reading one of the sentences before jumping to a conclusion here, stuns me slightly.

I never said "My wife doesn't like big guns because she's afraid of a bruise" I actually said "my wife feels much more comfortable using a small firearm rather than something that is big and bad enough to leave a bruise on your shoulder if you're not careful"

It's the small compact size that she is comfortable with. Remember, (and had you read my previous posts you'd know this) My wife was raised to fear guns, and always has. It was a miracle when I simply got her to go to the RANGE with me, much less finally feel comfortable enough to fire a weapon with confidence.

If she doesn't like big guns because they're big, that's fine by me. And I think it would be a bit rude to pressure or force her to do something she's just not comfortable with.

It's like asking someone who drives a motorcycle or compact car to suddenly drive an 18 wheeler. They're not going to be comfortable with it.

My wife can carry a pistol in her purse if she goes out late at night, I'd like to see the purse that fits my SPAS in there. When they make one, Then maybe I'll get rid of the pistol. The size is more convenient, she's more comfortable with it, and for personal protection it is much easier to learn how to shoot a pistol (not to mention ammo is usually cheaper) than a rifle.


There are plenty of reasons for keeping pistols on the market. I simply listed one that is important to most human beings; Comfort.


*EDIT* Yes, my wife and I both have our Conceal&Carry permits.

 

[BallPtPenTheif]

Over in America, however, school shootings happen seemingly every other week, and yet no-one seems to ask the question, maybe things would be a bit better if there weren't so many handguns on the market. If you want to keep a shotgun in your cupboard in case the burglars come after you, fine, but what reasoning do you have for handguns?

Canada has plenty of guns, but they don't have as many school shootings as America.

I think more school shootings happen in America due to the cut throat nature of American Capitalism. we have no strong social safety net, so every aspect of failure is viewed with a sense of severe finality.

 

[John Galt]

Also people here say we need to "protect" ourselves. But what are we protecting ourselves from? Other guns. You need the 2nd amendment to protect yourself from it. It's an odd situation.

Ugh, it's already been said here that guns are not the only things that we defend ourselves from. However, you clearly did not read any of this before posting so I will reiterate. In the case of a home invasion perpetrated by several people unarmed save for their own strength and maybe a couple bats. A single home owner would be hard pressed to defend himself when the odds are stacked like that. However, simply gesturing a gun at a person will deter them from harmful action, waving a bat when there's four other people in your house does nothing of the sort. Then there are some people who could not defend themselves with any means besides firearms. The elderly and disabled would not do well in a knife fight, or a gunfight for that matter if they were armed with something they lacked the dexterity to use. Therefore, the only practical way to protect oneself if you're not able-bodied or you are outnumbered would be to use a firearm. And remember, deterring a criminal with a gun and shooting to kill are two different things.

 

[werepossum]

Werepossum: People like carrying protection on the streets? What's wrong with Mace spray? Fuck up a mugger's eyes, then run for it while he's still blind. Or those new descreet tazer things. Fuck it, even a rape alarm will do the job. Why does protection have to involve bullets?

T.H.O.R: not wishing to sound rude, but maybe your wife needs to get down the firing range and practise with a rifle. I don't find a wrench a particularly comfortable tool to use, but that doesn't mean I go grab a tenon saw for the same job. It's a tool. If the best reason you can come up with to keep handguns on the market is 'they don't hurt my shoulder', then pardon me if I snigger. If you're using a gun to defend yourself against burglars (as so many people here heroically envision themselves), then getting out of it with nothing more than a bruised shoulder is something to be thankful for.

Mace and pepper spray are highly overrated. I know two separate guys, neither of whom are necessarily bad people (although both are certifiable bad asses), who were Maced and proceeded to beat the crap out the man who Maced them. A man who is tough and prepared for it will not be stopped, and a man on PCP won't even notice it. Alcohol or other drugs can help as well, but PCP is the absolute worst. One part of AIT is learning to function in a tear gas environment; Mace isn't much different.

As to rifles, they are probably the worst personal defense weapon unless you're expecting to be attacked out in an open pasture. Except for some rimfires, rifles are generally more powerful than any handgun and have much more penetrative power. A round that misses your target can go through walls without much loss of energy, endangering people all around you. Sometimes even rounds that hit can over-penetrate and hit bystanders, neighbors, even family members in other parts of the house. I wouldn't encourage anyone to use a rifle for self defense - a pistol or shotgun is a much better choice. (A possible exception would be a high-powered rifle with rat shot, which at close range hits as hard as a slug, almost always sheds all its energy inside the target, and poses less danger to bystanders.) A .357 Magnum handgun has about the same loudness and brightness inside a dark house as a flash-bang grenade, and just the sound of a pump shotgun racking in a shell - probably the most feared sound in the criminal world - is often enough to send criminals running. But beyond that, why would you ever encourage someone to adopt an uncomfortable tool when a comfortable tool works? In the case of guns, the most comfortable weapon for a particular person is usually the best for self-defense, within those guidelines of stopping and penetrative power, because you're more likely to hit your target (and therefor less likely to hit something unintended.)

Also, at personal defense ranges almost anyone can learn to fire a pistol with acceptable accuracy if properly taught, especially if a laser sight is added. Laser sights also have the side affect of sometimes calming aggression. Assuming an assailant isn't high, that little red dot on his chest might go a long way toward convincing him that freezing or retreating is a better course than advancing and assuming you don't have the guts to shoot him.

 

[ReepNeep]

I suppose the question is whether you are willing to entrust your very life to a weapon that is designed to cause discomfort, or one that is designed to cause serious injury or death. Against someone on PCP nothing short of dismemberment or a hit to the central nervous system will put them down anyway. Better know your judo.

 

[Somethingironic]

Guns are designed with a sole purpose:

TO KILL

Technically anybody who owns a gun, has at one point felt that they were in enough danger to warrant owning a device capable of taking another life.