Gun Control

[das1330]

This article has reminded me once again of the problems with American gun laws in prosecuting the innocent and allowing the guilty to go free. What is your opinion of gun laws around the world?

[Dax]

I think our laws down here are good. I don't know them, as I've only ever seen guns at mate's places and don't plan to get one or use one any time soon, but yeah. Nothing too horrible's happened (recently at least :s)

[Orpheus]

I see things this way personally: You cannot really respect the power of a gun until you've fired one yourself. It's basically a controlled explosion going off in your hands, and the projection of a chunk of metal at well over 1000FPS. I do agree on having them restricted to an extent, but not banned. They're something good, but it'll depend on the user, not the weapon.

 

That news article is a load of crock though. If that dude didn't sell to an alien, then he shouldn't be charged. As far as I know, it should be treated as the gun dealer sold to someone who had a valid driver's license, and it should have ended there. There is no evidence as far as I know that shows that the dealer had any intent of selling to an illegal.

 

"Agents witnessed the Defendant (Copeland) negotiate a price for a handgun with Hipolito Aviles, who then handed cash to a second Hispanic male, who then handed Aviles' cash and his own identification to the defendant," the prosecution said in court documents.

 

Aren't eyewitness reports terribly inaccurate? And unless the courts can prove that the dealer was trying to sell to the illegal alien, then there should be no charges placed. Isn't this country supposed to be based on "innocent until proven guilty", or is that a crapshoot and the court systems are merely a formality to say that you don't have a chance?

[Giordano]

the court systems are merely a formality to say that you don't have a chance?

In my experience, that is exactly true.

[magekillr]

Gun control in general: I support it. There's no reason not to, really.

 

Countries such as Pakistan/India: Gun control makes little to no sense.

 

Europe's gun laws: Mainly successful because of their culture.

 

America: America is an outlier because our citizens are, frankly, trigger-friendly nuts when it comes to guns. So gun control only works as well as the culture will allow. While I think national gun control laws would reduce crime, they'd hardly do what I want them to do, which is to change our citizenry's views of them. To combat this I argue for more education rather than gun control.

 

So, basically, in America, I'd probably get like a C+ rating from the NRA or something, maybe even a B, and I hate guns. I've fired them plenty of times, but I could never use one in "self-defense." There's no chance in hell I could shoot a living thing, let alone a human.

[Shiny]

I don't know much of gun control laws in New Zealand, but whatever laws they have in place are effective, because I don't hear/see of many gun-toting maniacs around the streets. :thumbup:

[Kriegsmier]

"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." Take the people's guns that shouldn't legally own them. And take all of those illegal guns off the streets....but i'm keeping mine. I hold that right by the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution to the United States, and I purchased them legally. ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ Americans owning guns is what won us the American Revolution, and its been our history ever since. So again, ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ.

 

While the situation is fishy, I side with the gun dealer. He is in the state of Texas and was presented with a Texas DL. In Texas for a FTF (Face to Face purchase) all he needs to see is residence in Texas. Texas law only mandates you to not knowingly sell a firearm to someone whom cannot legally possess the firearm. The seller is not responsible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the eligibility of the purchaser. If it was in a gun shop yes, you would have to fill out the 4473, and NCIS check. Also, it should be noted that the only requirements to purchase in a shop in Texas is being of age and a Texas DL....a gun show isn't much different. Wrongfully arrested IMO.

[assassin_696]

The question is, if the Constitution was rewritten today would the modern equivalents of the founding fathers still write in the 2nd Amendment? Nobody questions the fact that it's a constitutional right to be able to bear arms, the question is whether or not it's really what's best for America today.

[obfuscator]

I support gun control. The average citizen has absolutely no need for something that's only purpose is explicitly to kill.

 

Note: Exceptions of course are acceptable, such as hunters and collectors.

[Lenticular_J]

The question is, if the Constitution was rewritten today would the modern equivalents of the founding fathers still write in the 2nd Amendment? Nobody questions the fact that it's a constitutional right to be able to bear arms, the question is whether or not it's really what's best for America today.

Nobody these days has the power to make a Constitution. Everyone would just argue about whether or not the writer's second cousin's ex-girlfriend posed nude in college.

 

Gun crime, surprisingly, isn't bad here. Everyone and their dog has one, most families have a whole bushel. Knives are a big problem. Carrying a pocketknife is something I've been doing for a long time - it would suck to use in a fight, but much better than my fists.

 

I used to be very ambivalent about the issue. Now I feel that brutally restricted arms are something I cannot allow. Even though I'm starting to feel that pacifism might be a good idea.

[magekillr]

The question is, if the Constitution was rewritten today would the modern equivalents of the founding fathers still write in the 2nd Amendment? Nobody questions the fact that it's a constitutional right to be able to bear arms, the question is whether or not it's really what's best for America today.

 

This is actually false. There's a lot of debate about what it means, and I'd argue that it's not a right to individually bear arms. In the context with the law and the intent of the founders, it's clearly about the ability for an army to be raised, as Jefferson did not want a national military for fear of being involved in other country's conflicts or in the case of a tyrant imposing a police state.

 

The Latin etymology also seems to suggest this:

 

By legal and other channels, the Latin "arma ferre" entered deeply into the European language of war. Bearing arms is such a synonym for waging war that Shakespeare can call a just war " 'justborne arms" and a civil war "self-borne arms." Even outside the special phrase "bear arms," much of the noun's use echoes Latin phrases: to be under arms (sub armis), the call to arms (ad arma), to follow arms (arma sequi), to take arms (arma capere), to lay down arms (arma pnere). "Arms" is a profession that one brother chooses the way another choose law or the church. An issue undergoes the arbitrament of arms." ... "One does not bear arms against a rabbit...

 

"Bear Arms" refers to military service, which is why the plural is used (based on Greek 'hopla pherein' and Latin 'arma ferre') one does not bear arm, or bear an arm. The word means, etymologically, 'equipment' (from the root ar-* in verbs like 'ararisko', to fit out). It refers to the 'equipage' of war. Thus 'bear arms' can be used of naval as well as artillery warfare, since the "profession of arms" refers to all military callings.

 

And how far does one take it if one believes in the individual right? Do individuals have the right to own a tank? Etc.

 

Though I don't see it as a protected individual right, you're not going to see me argue in favor of much gun control in the US because of how Western Cowboy people are about their guns. The time to change this mentality with gun control measures has long since passed.

[Giordano]

The question is, if the Constitution was rewritten today would the modern equivalents of the founding fathers still write in the 2nd Amendment? Nobody questions the fact that it's a constitutional right to be able to bear arms, the question is whether or not it's really what's best for America today.

With the way we're supporting our military, I'll bet the founding fathers would support more guns.

[Kriegsmier]

The question is, if the Constitution was rewritten today would the modern equivalents of the founding fathers still write in the 2nd Amendment? Nobody questions the fact that it's a constitutional right to be able to bear arms, the question is whether or not it's really what's best for America today.

 

This is actually false. There's a lot of debate about what it means, and I'd argue that it's not a right to individually bear arms. In the context with the law and the intent of the founders, it's clearly about the ability for an army to be raised, as Jefferson did not want a national military for fear of being involved in other country's conflicts or in the case of a tyrant imposing a police state.

 

The Latin etymology also seems to suggest this:

 

By legal and other channels, the Latin "arma ferre" entered deeply into the European language of war. Bearing arms is such a synonym for waging war that Shakespeare can call a just war " 'justborne arms" and a civil war "self-borne arms." Even outside the special phrase "bear arms," much of the noun's use echoes Latin phrases: to be under arms (sub armis), the call to arms (ad arma), to follow arms (arma sequi), to take arms (arma capere), to lay down arms (arma pœnere). "Arms" is a profession that one brother chooses the way another choose law or the church. An issue undergoes the arbitrament of arms." ... "One does not bear arms against a rabbit...

 

"Bear Arms" refers to military service, which is why the plural is used (based on Greek 'hopla pherein' and Latin 'arma ferre') – one does not bear arm, or bear an arm. The word means, etymologically, 'equipment' (from the root ar-* in verbs like 'ararisko', to fit out). It refers to the 'equipage' of war. Thus 'bear arms' can be used of naval as well as artillery warfare, since the "profession of arms" refers to all military callings.

 

And how far does one take it if one believes in the individual right? Do individuals have the right to own a tank? Etc.

 

Though I don't see it as a protected individual right, you're not going to see me argue in favor of much gun control in the US because of how Western Cowboy people are about their guns. The time to change this mentality with gun control measures has long since passed.

 

No because a tank is against federal and state laws. Simple handguns and long guns are not. Technically yes the constitution would give you the right to have a tank, but laws will not allow it so it supersedes it. You have to remember, militia back then was volunteers, so they provided their own weapons, own uniforms, etc. So really, it is talking to the individual. Individuals have the rights to bear arms so then if the need arises they can form that well regulated militia. The militia is not "owned" by the government, simply controlled and organized by such, hence the well regulated part. So they really have no right to disarm the militia.

 

 

 

Guns don't kill people, bad decisions do.

[Rainy_Day]

I'm happy with the UK's gun laws. Gun crime still happens, but it is few and far between. Knife crime is more of an issue, but the government can hardly ban them. Most of the knife crime is down to young people carrying them for 'self defence' anyway, or getting into the wrong crowd.

 

So ja, UK gun control is good. I do not care for America's gun laws, guns are only useful to kill, so why is there a need for most people to carry them/own them. :mellow:

[obfuscator]

The question is, if the Constitution was rewritten today would the modern equivalents of the founding fathers still write in the 2nd Amendment? Nobody questions the fact that it's a constitutional right to be able to bear arms, the question is whether or not it's really what's best for America today.

 

This is actually false. There's a lot of debate about what it means, and I'd argue that it's not a right to individually bear arms. In the context with the law and the intent of the founders, it's clearly about the ability for an army to be raised, as Jefferson did not want a national military for fear of being involved in other country's conflicts or in the case of a tyrant imposing a police state.

 

The Latin etymology also seems to suggest this:

 

By legal and other channels, the Latin "arma ferre" entered deeply into the European language of war. Bearing arms is such a synonym for waging war that Shakespeare can call a just war " 'justborne arms" and a civil war "self-borne arms." Even outside the special phrase "bear arms," much of the noun's use echoes Latin phrases: to be under arms (sub armis), the call to arms (ad arma), to follow arms (arma sequi), to take arms (arma capere), to lay down arms (arma pœnere). "Arms" is a profession that one brother chooses the way another choose law or the church. An issue undergoes the arbitrament of arms." ... "One does not bear arms against a rabbit...

 

"Bear Arms" refers to military service, which is why the plural is used (based on Greek 'hopla pherein' and Latin 'arma ferre') – one does not bear arm, or bear an arm. The word means, etymologically, 'equipment' (from the root ar-* in verbs like 'ararisko', to fit out). It refers to the 'equipage' of war. Thus 'bear arms' can be used of naval as well as artillery warfare, since the "profession of arms" refers to all military callings.

 

And how far does one take it if one believes in the individual right? Do individuals have the right to own a tank? Etc.

 

Though I don't see it as a protected individual right, you're not going to see me argue in favor of much gun control in the US because of how Western Cowboy people are about their guns. The time to change this mentality with gun control measures has long since passed.

 

No because a tank is against federal and state laws. Simple handguns and long guns are not. Technically yes the constitution would give you the right to have a tank, but laws will not allow it so it supersedes it. You have to remember, militia back then was volunteers, so they provided their own weapons, own uniforms, etc. So really, it is talking to the individual. Individuals have the rights to bear arms so then if the need arises they can form that well regulated militia. The militia is not "owned" by the government, simply controlled and organized by such, hence the well regulated part. So they really have no right to disarm the militia.

 

 

 

Guns don't kill people, bad decisions do.

 

So if guns were to be made illegal you wouldn't object?

Tanks don't blow up buildings, trigger happy soldiers do.

[Kriegsmier]

Yes I would object. I have no need for a tank thats why I don't care if its illegal. What I do care about is my home protection, and personal protection. I am a concealed carry license holder and carry a gun anywhere I go (except unlawful places like school, stores with posted signs etc). I also love to hunt, shoot on the range, and collect firearms. So yes, I would object strongly if they were illegal. It only takes that one time not carrying to end up dead. Better safe then sorry.

 

Trigger happy soldiers are not the only ones. There are far more crimes in the streets (Oakland, LA, NY, Baltimore) then most people realize. The difference? Those are illegal guns, serial numbers scratched off, and the person using it has no formal training. A little firearms safety classes go along way. I was given my first gun at the age of 12, but I was also taught how to use it properly and was restricted to when I could even touch it. The problem is people making stupid decisions with a gun. Its that stupid decision to leave the safe unlocked with kids in the house, or to shoot the guy that honked his horn at you. Stupid decisions kill people, not guns.

[obfuscator]

Yes I would object. I have no need for a tank thats why I don't care if its illegal. What I do care about is my home protection, and personal protection. I am a concealed carry license holder and carry a gun anywhere I go (except unlawful places like school, stores with posted signs etc). I also love to hunt, shoot on the range, and collect firearms. So yes, I would object strongly if they were illegal. It only takes that one time not carrying to end up dead. Better safe then sorry.

 

Hunting and range shooting are different things completely - I've got no issue with those. I've never understood why collectors need to have fully functional guns though...if they're serious about collecting they'd want to keep them in as good shape as possible (not firing them).

 

See, the problem with guns is that they incite violence.

If you were walking down the street with $100 in your wallet, and a man came up to you and demanded it, what would you do? You'd probably give it to him, and be short $100.

 

If you had a gun, you'd shoot him, and instead of being down $100, you've now killed someone.

 

Personal protection is fine, but let's leave the firearms to the cops who are really qualified to use them. If you feel the need to carry a firearm for personal protection then I'd say you're likely to use it.

 

Trigger happy soldiers are not the only ones. There are far more crimes in the streets (Oakland, LA, NY, Baltimore) then most people realize. The difference? Those are illegal guns, serial numbers scratched off, and the person using it has no formal training. A little firearms safety classes go along way. I was given my first gun at the age of 12, but I was also taught how to use it properly and was restricted to when I could even touch it. The problem is people making stupid decisions with a gun. Its that stupid decision to leave the safe unlocked with kids in the house, or to shoot the guy that honked his horn at you. Stupid decisions kill people, not guns.

 

As guns are more available legally, it becomes far more easily to get them illegally. A large number of illegal guns captured here are legal guns that have been stolen. No legal guns? Hell of a lot harder to find guns of any sort.

 

You were taught how to use it properly? I'm sure you were, and I applaud that your parents had the sensibility to ensure that. Does nothing to change the fact that many, many people weren't - and that road rage shootings happen in the states. I can't remember a single one ever happening in Canada.

 

Yeah, stupid decisions kill people - so why don't we as a society feel the need to help those inclined to make such decisions? Hell of a big difference between an angry punch and an angry bullet.

[Giordano]

If you were walking down the street with $100 in your wallet, and a man came up to you and demanded it, what would you do? You'd probably give it to him, and be short $100.

 

If you had a gun, you'd shoot him, and instead of being down $100, you've now killed someone.

 

You make it sound like it's a bad thing.

[Kriegsmier]

I find your logic to be ridiculous Y_Guy. No I would not shoot him for trying to rob me of $100. Staring down a barrel is enough for most people, you don't have to pull the trigger, that would be a stupid decision i'm talking about. And collecting and shooting go hand in hand. Not every collector is one that collects a museam type of collection. Some have both. And honestly, if the gun fires its worth a lot more then if it didn't.

 

So instead of taking away guns completely, why not offer training for them? Why not make it a requirement before you purchase them? Either in the form of proving you have the training or having to take the training.

[Dizzle229]

I'm on Kriegs side here, not going to say more on that.

 

Although, if Red Dawn is to be believed, a militia will obtain all the weapons it needs by waiting until the second act.

[paul191600]

*Points to Chicago with it's gun laws*

*Points to [insert redneck community here] with lenient gun laws*

[Alg]

*Points to Chicago with it's gun laws*

*Points to [insert redneck community here] with lenient gun laws*

Gun laws really aren't going to stop serious criminals, I think.

Though there really is no need for a civilian to have a fully automatic rifle.

[paul191600]

*Points to Chicago with it's gun laws*

*Points to [insert redneck community here] with lenient gun laws*

Gun laws really aren't going to stop serious criminals, I think.

Though there really is no need for a civilian to have a fully automatic rifle.

True, point being that gun laws usually only hit the law-abiding citizens while the crooks still have illegal means of obtaining firearms.

[Kriegsmier]

*Points to Chicago with it's gun laws*

*Points to [insert redneck community here] with lenient gun laws*

Gun laws really aren't going to stop serious criminals, I think.

Though there really is no need for a civilian to have a fully automatic rifle.

 

Why? Have you shot one before? They are very fun to shoot. Most of you here against it assume people will be shooting people and you instantly exclude all of us responsible firearm owners. Point is, in responsible hands any type of gun can be safe and a great time. And

[Alg]

Why? Have you shot one before? They are very fun to shoot. Most of you here against it assume people will be shooting people and you instantly exclude all of us responsible firearm owners. Point is, in responsible hands any type of gun can be safe and a great time. And

I'm actually not necessarily for strict gun control, but I just think a line has to be drawn somewhere. I don't see a reason for it, but I'm not going to stop people that do.

You can have guns without violence, and you can have violence without guns.