Gun Control

arbilad · Head Chef

Gun Control

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

I selected option number 4 from the list. Not exactly the wording I would use, but probably the best fit for how I feel. Citizens should be able to own fire arms without a lot of heavy regulation, but sufficient to prove there is a real need (even if it is just hobby of collecting). The vaguary of "prove they need one" is unfortunately subjective and would easily be open to abuse in implementation of a government policy / law. I infer minimal licensing to not mean much different than a fair and honest background check. Since you have to have a license to drive, I don't see the problem with requiring a fire arms license if in so doing, it sets a minimum standard of showing the individual is responsible with regards to the use of fire arms.

Mahonri · Senior Bucketkeeper

I think it should be law that every citizen own and know how to operate a gun.

If that were the case, crime would go away.

arbilad · Head Chef

Mahonri wrote:

I think it should be law that every citizen own and know how to operate a gun.

If that were the case, crime would go away.

Well, certain categories of crime, anyway. I don't think, for instance, that corporate fraud will go away just because everyone is armed.

Mahonri · Senior Bucketkeeper

Yeah, of course you are right... I need to get better at my sweeping generalizations.

Get rid of porn and drugs and alcohol and there would be much less 'crime' also.

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

I grew up with guns. I got a .22 for my 12th birthday and then my Dad gave me his .308 for my 16th birthday. We had shotguns and took our Labrador bird hunting every chance we got.

In the military, I qualified with an M-16 and a 9mm every year. I really liked shooting the 9.

And yet, I really have no opinion on gun control.

Weird.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

i will regret the day when we cannot trust our neighbors to have weapons, cuz one can never trust the government to do the right thing... seeing as how that's made up of humans too...

--Ray

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

Normally I never carry a gun, but years ago in gun unfriendly Massachusetts a friend and I were walking along a dirt road in a forest and passed by 5 or 6 guys enjoying a case of beer and whatever else they had. As we got about 20 yards past them, they began throwing empty bottles at us and coming toward us. We ran a bit and 2-3 of them chased us. I was carrying a small pistol in my pocket, and one shot into their case of beer scared them off.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

And you guys didn't get charged with anything?!

I'm not saying your firing of your weapon was right or wrong, but even a celebrity in California got charged with unlawful discharge of a firearm for firing a warning shot at a neutral spot when someone was coming at him in his home with a blunt instrument...

California and Massachussetts aren't that different politically... Well, maybe since it was out in the woods and they were drunk / stoned / up to no good to begin with, they didn't feel it prudent or think to file a complaint with the authorities.

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

Sadly, Cat raised some serious points. But first, 1962 was a different era. And having been a bus boy in a bar a few years previous as a teenager, I realized we were under attack with dangerous weapons and probably would have been acquitted if even charged. But that was 1962. In 1975, a Lynn, Massachusetts policeman who handed me my renewed Massachusetts pistol permit told me that if I or my wife had to shoot an intruder, to be sure he was shot inside the house, or apartment in our case, and if we had to shoot him outside, to be sure to drag him inside before calling police.

Re. the Trolley Square shooting in SLC, if a non-law enforcement or security person with no CCW permit had shot the perp with a concealed pistol, that person might well do time. Probably would in CA or MA.

About 20 years ago a small black man did 5 years for shooting a big, muscle bound attacker who, as it turned out, had a history of violent assault, but whose father was a judge.

I have read several articles in recent years about efforts of the United Nations to impose prohibition of private gun ownership on Americans.

In 1976 we were living in North Yorkshire, England, when a convicted murderer escaped from court with a gun and a hostage. Nearly a week later he was tracked down in the North Yorkshire moors, still armed and with the hostage. The police on the scene had only one or two firearms beetween them to handle the situation, and so went knocking on doors to borrow shotguns from the locals. One of those guns got him. So now, 30 years later, most gun owners have had to give up their guns.  A friend from those days informs me criminals are using guns more frequently these days.

Does anybody else here belong to the NRA or GOA?

Homestar Runner · Senior Member

lundbaek wrote:
About 20 years ago a small black man did 5 years for shooting a big, muscle bound attacker who, as it turned out, had a history of violent assault, but whose father was a judge.

I prefer living in Colorado, where a year or two ago, we had a man defend himself with a gun, and fataly wound a bad guy. The bad guy had made threats against his life, said he was going to come back and kill the man's family. The man shot him in the back as the bad guy was driving away. I don't recall if he wasn't convicted at trial, or if the charge was dismissed somewhere along the way. But the deciding body found that he was acting in self defense.

HSR

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

Gun control laws almost never work because criminals don't by their very nature follow gun laws. They make people feel good like they are doing something. As far as shooting an attacker, I would rather be judged by 12 than carried out by 4.

As for the incident in Utah. If it weren't for the off duty cop, how many more would have been killed? How many firearms laws did the killer violate? How many would he have killed had the mall been in Texas where concealed carry is much more popular?

Personally, I think you should be able to own just about whatever small arms you want. Automatic, grenades, whatever. If you use them on someone or something illegally, then you pay criminally and possibly civily. I'll take personal responsibility over the nanny state anyday.

Just for kicks. Go into a gun store sometime. I find that the folks shopping in and working in a gun store are the most polite folks in the world. I hear more people minding their Ps and Qs in a gun store and being Christlike than in church.

arbilad · Head Chef

That reminds me of a joke I heard. I don't think it's too risque, but if anyone has a problem with it, let me know.
A lady reporter was covering a scout camp. She was interviewing the scoutmaster for her story when she noticed that nearby the scouts had started practicing with rifles. She complained to the scoutmaster, "You're giving them all the equipment they need to be killers!"
The scoutmaster replied, "Ma'am, you have all the equipment to be a whore, but instead you're a reporter."

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

Exactly Arb! There was actually a move in the last couple years to ban knives in the UK. Many crimes are still committed there with guns even though the law abiding populace is prohibited from owning them but knives are becoming an instrument of choice for crimes. Finally the restuarants and professional cooks made such a stink that it was dropped. Can you imagine trying to be a chef without a knife. The proposed law really illustrated how crazy the whole idea of banning tools is just because some criminals choose to misuse them. If the knife ban had passed, could the car ban have been far behind. More people are killed by automobiles than firearms each year.

arbilad · Head Chef

I remember articles about that at the time. They even had some quotes from butchers saying that they don't really need knives that big. You can find people who will say anything you want.
I understand that Australia has a problem with people using swords. Criminals still use guns, of course, but they've also started using swords.

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

arbilad wrote:

I understand that Australia has a problem with people using swords. Criminals still use guns, of course, but they've also started using swords.

THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

I thought gun control meant using both hands!

LEVE · Veteran Member

Here's my idea of gun control:

Dead Stupid

arbilad · Head Chef

A similar incident happened at a gun range I used to go to in Sunnyvale, CA. The robber walked in intent on killing people. He did not succeed in killing anyone but himself. I don't know if anyone there was shooting a .50 caliber Desert Eagle, but I know that they had it available for rent on the range. When that thing fired it sounded like a cannon going off. Even through the sound dampening barrier.

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

Gun control is hitting what you're shooting at.

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

LEVE wrote:

Here's my idea of gun control:

Dead Stupid

That's priceless. It probably took years of heavy drinking and drug use to attain that level of stupidity!

Reminds me of the old moral dilema:

Are you a Democrat, Republican or Texan?

Here is a test that will help you decide. The answer can be found by posing the following question:

You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, an illegal alien terrorist with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, raises the knife, and charges at you.

You are carrying a Glock cal 40, and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do?

Democrat's Answer: Well, that's not enough information to answer the question! Does the man look poor! Or oppressed? Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack? Could we run away? What does my wife think? What about the kids? What does the law say about this situation? Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children? Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me? Should I call 9-1-1? Why is this street so deserted? We need to raise taxes, have paint and weed day and make this happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior.

Republican's Answer: BANG!

Texan's Answer: BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! Click.....(Sounds of reloading) BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! Click Daughter:"Nice grouping, Daddy! Were those the Winchester Silver Tips or the Hollow Points? Son: Can I shoot the next one! Wife: You Ain't Taking That To The Taxidermist!

-- Edited by salesortonscom at 16:42, 2007-02-20

Valhalla · Profuse Pontificator

I voted the last one that includes military weapons. I know some people think that is crazy, it's not. The Second Amendment is not about hunting, it is about preserving rights. At the time it was written, citizens had the same hardware the government had. No, I am not saying you should be able to buy WMDs, but it makes the country stronger, reduces crime, and lets the government know that there is a line that cannot be crossed.

I served my mission in Switzerland, and almost all men are in the military, really a militia type organization. They kept their military weapons at home, explosives, grenades, etc. The crime rate in Switzerland was not very high.

Our freedom is important and the first step in taking it away is to take away the means of preserving it. Gun control is not about preventing crime, it is about controlling people. Murder is against the law, actually and vigorously enforce laws against persons, not against inanimate objects that are for our protection.

If the police were able to be everywhere, there would not be much crime, but they cannot. A man has a God-given duty to take care of his own and preserve his freedom.

arbilad · Head Chef

Cat mentioned licensing guns being reasonable because we license drivers, but there are some stark differences. The regulations on guns are, in many ways, more strict than they are for driving cars.
As I understand the law, you do not need a driver's license to drive on private property. If I wanted my 11 year old son to tear around the yard in our 4wd vehicle, there is no law (that I'm aware of) preventing it. It's when we're talking about public roads that he needs to fit the government requirements and be licensed to be able to drive.
With guns, you can't shoot them even on your private property if there's a chance that you might hit someone else. To carry a gun out in public, in most places, you need a government permit.
So far it sounds like they're about the same, with guns being more restrictive on private property. But consider this: I can buy a car anywhere and anytime I want as long as I have the money or someone will grant me a loan. To buy a weapon, you need a background check.
I don't know of a municipality that will put me in prison for keeping my car unlocked, but most places will punish you for keeping a gun where children can get at it (only an idiot would keep a loaded gun where a kid can get at it anyway). No one complains if you buy a military style vehicle (such as a hummer), but even a weapon that looks military (even though it isn't) has been illegal and looks like it will be illegal again.
I could go on, but I think I've made my point.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

arbilad wrote:
No one complains if you buy a military style vehicle (such as a hummer)

I may not complain about if you buy one, but you may see me grumbling under my breath if I get behind you and you're driving around in one of those hummer monstrosities out on the street?

Dang, those H2's and H3's are worse visual obstructions for drivers of smaller vehicles than say a Yukon or a Denali or a Suburban or a 12 passenger Econoline Van!

It is really hard to crick yer neck just right where you can look up and see the light at an intersection when you're staring right into the rear axle of a Hummer!

I think we have perhaps a higher proportion of those civie Hummer things per capita here in the Motown area than any where else besides maybe Gov. Terminator's garage...

Now, what really gets me is people driving around in the civie versions of the Abrams tank and Bradley fighting vehicles... It's like they think they own the road, and then they do worse damage to the roads than the jerks who put on the illegal studded winter tires, and you just pray they don't try to pull into the parking spot next to yours or attempt onstreet parallel parking. It just isn't even worth it to get a quote from the body shop after being on the short end of that stick...

For the record, I am not in favor of banning gun ownership. I don't see a need for anyone to privately own equipment that is essentially meant for combat, but hey, if that floats folks boats, more power to them as long as there is a public record of that ownership in the form of a license. I don't see licensing as a deal breaker. It is pretty much a matter of public record in der Schweiz that the men's militia equipment is gonna be in the home. But, we've had some instances in our history that come to mind where, right or wrong, the government has changed that sort of paradigm... Whiskey Rebellion while Washington was still in office, and Harpers Ferry and John Brown, Bleeding Kansas, The Civil War, Prohibition and the organized crime syndicates of the time.

And I'll shut up now before I reveal myself for being a bigger fool than I am...

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

arbilad wrote:

Cat mentioned licensing guns being reasonable because we license drivers, but there are some stark differences. The regulations on guns are, in many ways, more strict than they are for driving cars.
As I understand the law, you do not need a driver's license to drive on private property. If I wanted my 11 year old son to tear around the yard in our 4wd vehicle, there is no law (that I'm aware of) preventing it. It's when we're talking about public roads that he needs to fit the government requirements and be licensed to be able to drive.
With guns, you can't shoot them even on your private property if there's a chance that you might hit someone else. To carry a gun out in public, in most places, you need a government permit.
So far it sounds like they're about the same, with guns being more restrictive on private property. But consider this: I can buy a car anywhere and anytime I want as long as I have the money or someone will grant me a loan. To buy a weapon, you need a background check.
I don't know of a municipality that will put me in prison for keeping my car unlocked, but most places will punish you for keeping a gun where children can get at it (only an idiot would keep a loaded gun where a kid can get at it anyway). No one complains if you buy a military style vehicle (such as a hummer), but even a weapon that looks military (even though it isn't) has been illegal and looks like it will be illegal again.
I could go on, but I think I've made my point.

Of course the really compelling argument is that the right to own a car is not specifically mentioned in the constitution but the right to bare arms is. Personally I like bare arms especially of the female variety. A license will not stop a criminal from using a car or a firearm to kill another person. In the end, it's just a piece of paper. Doing a background check and a waiting period on someone who already owns five other guns at home does nothing to prevent crime either. I guess the paperwork and license can be used to give the criminal a nice papercut as he stands over your bleeding, expiring body as he takes a few seconds to reload his Clinton clip.

arbilad · Head Chef

Jason, while that is indeed a very compelling argument, I didn't mention it because then it would sound like I was denigrating the right to drive a car. Remember, the bill of rights specifically states that just because a certain right is not included in that list doesn't mean that it's not a right or that it's a less important right.
Of course, if it came down to choosing between the right to bear arms and the right to drive, the right to bear arms would win hands down in my opinion.

Valhalla · Profuse Pontificator

The problem with a public record is that it makes registration easier by the government, then they can take them. Government should fear its people, always, the people should never fear the government. The government belongs to the people and is nothing without them.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

I agree with you there Valhalla... problem with that actually working properly in our society is that we not only fear our government, but we fear our neighbors too... So, we are taught to look to the government to protect us from the neighbors we fear... yeah, I don't know the answer. Would be nice if we didn't even have to worry about any of this stuff... I think if laws were enforced better and criminals punished instead of sent up to the country club for life, there would be a lot less incentive for misuse of firearms and the committing of crime in the first place.

arbi, what's your opinion on bare arms while bearing arms while driving?

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

Imagine yourself with firends or family or others who know who you are in a crowded mall with a loaded pistol in your pocket and no license to carry a concealed pistol. Some other guy starts shooting at people. You are carrying your pistol illegally. What would you do, considering you could not get away without being identified, could conceiveably do time for carrying without a permit, and were confident you could shoot the perp? Would you shoot the perp or keep the pistol in your pcket and clear out

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

I'd use my mad Chuck Norris skillz to disarm him, then I'd render him unconscious with a roundhouse kick to the face.

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

Roper wrote:

I'd use my mad Chuck Norris skillz to disarm him, then I'd render him unconscious with a roundhouse kick to the face.

Ahh, the old Boot To The Head Technique I learned in Tae-Kwon-Leep (http://beagleweb.com/fun-taekwanleap.html)

I would use the gun, even unregistered. Better to be judged by twelve than carried out by six.

arbilad · Head Chef

salesortonscom wrote:

Roper wrote:

I'd use my mad Chuck Norris skillz to disarm him, then I'd render him unconscious with a roundhouse kick to the face.
Ahh, the old Boot To The Head Technique I learned in Tae-Kwon-Leep (http://beagleweb.com/fun-taekwanleap.html)

I would use the gun, even unregistered. Better to be judged by twelve than carried out by six.

I have a similar attitude, but with the added bit that I would feel, in such a situation, that I have a civic duty to help. Even if I served a few years time, it would be easier to explain to my Lord when standing in front of Him if I had used the opportunity to defend His children.