Gun Control/Gun Ownership

I am and always have been against guns, I've expressed this before. The British ban on Handguns was a great idea and the result of a horrific incident. Since then, no such incident has occurred in over 10 years.

In my opinion, banning guns stops Massacres. It will not reduce gun crime, but will stop crimes such as the one we saw in Virginia fairly easily. If kids and deranged people cannot EASILY get hold of guns, their rampages will quickly stop. The fact that in most of the massacres ACCROSS THE WORLD have occurred because the person involved has been able to get a gun easily or has already owned the gun they used.

Gun crime in big cities is a FACT, it will continue always. However, I live in one of the worst Gun Crime areas of London. I have not seen a gun, seen a gun crime or directly experienced anything to do with gun crime - nor has my family. It goes on generally between people who are already basically criminals or in criminal related gangs. It will not stop, as Maharbbal expressed guns are available to criminals if they want them.

However, I believe that if guns are only available in criminal circles, the massacres in schools etc will not happen or are certainly less likely to happen.

As for Gun control in the US, its not easy to do the lobbys in favour of guns are strong. I don't even know if gun control in the US can ever work.

But the fact is, in the UK it does work, it worked overnight.

No private citizen should have the right to wield such lethal force at their whim.

Indeed. This is the problem. People believe they should have the right to kill someone if they threaten their property in anyway. Which I think is ridiculous. Taking justice into your own hands is against that Justice. You should not be dealing out punishments in the street. That is what society is about, what is civilisation if people go around shooting people that commit crimes.

Yes, if your life is threatened - which means if anyone enters your home or attacks you, then you have the right to use what means is neccessary. If they die as a result of that, fine. However, a Gun really does just lead to 'shoot first, ask questions later'. It also leads to criminals doing the same, 'shoot first, rob later'. Personally, I'd rather be mugged by a big guy with a knife, then be mugged by any person with a gun.

Originally posted by Adalwolf What is your stance on gun control and gun ownership? As an American, I view guns as my right. As long as somebody is properly trained and is not a criminal they have the right to own a gun. Furthermore, in the wake of the recent shooting I feel that if several students or teachers had carried a handgun they could have stopped the killers rampage and saved many of the victims lives. This is true for any place where somebody snaps and goes on a rampage: people will have� chance to fight back and defend themselves. Also, if everybody had a gun, people would think twice before trying to do criminal acts such as robbery, rape, breaking and entering, etc. What do you think?

Amen,but most of these are not aware of the real reason our founding fathers created the 2nd Amendment. It is a responsibility though and can be taken away. If someone cannot get a legal gun there are plenty in the black market. China got caught in the late 90's selling ilegal guns to LA gangs- our good trading partner.

I once heard an ex officer from Romania testify that one fear the Russians had of having a coventional war with America is that the citizens are too well armed - Afganistan.

It is a right I will fight for but hopefully only in the political arena.

Why should the right to bear arms be taken away from the majority when its only a few deranged individuals who commit massacres? Isn't that like punishing the entire class when one child is acting up? It doesn't make sense.

Originally posted by eaglecap Amen,but most of these are not aware of the real reason our founding fathers created the 2nd Amendment. It is a responsibility though and can be taken away. If someone cannot get a legal gun there are plenty in the black market. China got caught in the late 90's selling ilegal guns to LA gangs- our good trading partner. I once heard an ex officer from Romania testify that one fear the Russians had of having a coventional war with America is that the citizens are too well armed - Afganistan. It is a right I will fight for but hopefully only in the political arena.

Edited by DukeC - 19-Apr-2007 at 18:55

Originally posted by Adalwolf Why should the right to bear arms be taken away from the majority when its only a few deranged individuals who commit massacres? Isn't that like punishing the entire class when one child is acting up? It doesn't make sense.

You are right Adalwolf, and there are obviously strong opinions from both sides.

However such analogies are really not relevant.

To say that taking away guns is some sort of punishment or means that most the people will miss out I believe is wrong. The concept of ownership of guns is the starting point of the problem, in my opinion. Why can you not look at it from the perspective of a victim. Say, why should we have a deadly weapon that is being used to kill people in such horrendous ways. Something like that?

Does it make sense to own a lethal weapon, that could be played with by a young child, or yourself.

I respect that this issue will NEVER be solved, but I believe there are better arguments for the ownership of guns than this.

Sacrificng a lethal weapon for the greater good of society. Surely thats a good thing, not a punishment?

Originally posted by Adalwolf I knew this was going to happen, but I thought I'd voice my opinion, even if it contrary to the majority of AE. I genuinly do like to hear everyone elses opinions, though, even if I do disagree with some of them.

SECOND AMENDMENT

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.

You bring up good points about the Patriout Act (which does take away some civil liberties), and I was hoping someone would bring it up!

If the government is starting to take away civil liberties, now is definatly NOT the time to take away the guns of the populace, otherwise there would be absolutely no deterrent for the government to take away even more liberties.

Again, I end with a quote, but like before, I don't remember who said it:
"And armed populace is the greatest deterrent to a prospective tyrant."

Originally posted by Cezar I mean, if you see two people firing at eachother how do you know who's the "good guy" and who's the "bad guy"? They're not wearing labels or uniforms.

Asking that question is unamerican Cezar

Originally posted by Decebal Ask yourself a question: could this fellow have gone on a rampage and killed 30 people armed with a knife, or a bat? The posession of a gun makes it much easier for this type of people to kill.

Exactly. If no-one has a gun, then it becomes much easier to defend yourself. If your that worried about security in a disarmed society all a person needs is a bow. You can't go on a killing rampage with a bow.

Originally posted by Genghis And indeed, legalized guns does make it easier for criminals to get guns, but they will regardless.

It depends how effective the police are at enforcing a ban. In America I doubt that the police could ever prevent guns getting into criminal hands, making a gun ban counter-productive. Gun bans in more controlled countries are much easier to enforce, and more likely to suceed.

I think this is another argument that you should not perform cross-culture and cross country. For Europe and the South Pacific, gun control is an excellent thing for all the posted reasons. For America and most of the rest of the world, it is impossible to enforce and therefore counter-productive to try. This does not imply that either group is superior to the other, they are just different.

What is the rationale behind the constitutional right to bear arms?

The rational is that if a government becomes tyrannical it is up to the citizens to correct the situation, similar to the mandate of heaven.

No private citizen should have the right to wield such lethal force at their whim.

So we should ban baseballs, fenceposts, automobiles, rat poison? People will find ways to kill each other, we are very good at that.

Ask yourself a question: could this fellow have gone on a rampage and killed 30 people armed with a knife, or a bat? The posession of a gun makes it much easier for this type of people to kill.

Decebal although I respect your opinions, I disagree with your assumption, that only a gun could kill as many people as he did, the information to build a deadly explosive device is found easily enough and the construction of such a devise could easily be concealed until said person attacked. Many of the chemicals in such a devise are easily purchased and harmless, you can't ban something that may be dangerous.

Oh by the way: Damn you red clay for expressing my opinion first.

Gun control in the US is much more complex than it would be elsewhere.  Your dealing with one of the cornerstones of American culture.  The right to carry arms is provided for in the Constitution and there is a substantial percentage of the population that will not allow that to be messed with.  I am not talking about Chuck Heston and his boys either.  Consider this statistic from the early 90's,  The State of Pennsylvania alone had more registered firearms than the US Army owns.  Notice I said registered, in an anonymous survey 40% of the legal gunowners in that state stated they owned more than one unregistered firearm.  And this isn't even the "from my cold dead hands" heartland.

This I thoroughly agree with firearms have been a part of american culture simply because up until just recently america for the most part was still frontier country, and sometimes you only have yourself to rely on in the frontier. Maybe the rest of the world seeing us as cowboys isn't too far off.

IIRC the 2nd Amendment was meant to apply to the right of militias to bear arms and defend the country, it wasn't meant to allow the average citizen to take the law into his own hands.

Wow, DukeC, I stand 100% behind your statements of the real reason of the 2nd Amendment. It is meant to apply to militias of whom every male citizen should belong too and these militias should be controlled by the states and not the federal government (The national guard is not a militia, especially if they can be sent to other nations )

You can't go on a killing rampage with a bow.

I don't know, I've seen what some bow hunters can do.......

Virginia has one of the most relaxed laws on buying a gun, there's no waiting time for one. And you can be considered to have a mental illness, but you have to be mentally incompasitated not to get one in Virginia.

For some reason I believe that this will be changed very shortly.