# Gun Control **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 15, 2000, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control/17984 "2000-03-15T05:16:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![SuaveSkin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/977dab/32.png) [@SuaveSkin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaveSkin)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2000, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control/17984/1 "2000-03-15T05:16:00Z")
ok…all you people out there FOR gun control… RIGHT ON! I live in america and personally think that there is way too many people who take advantage of our “right to own guns” or so they think and many people arn’t very educated about it. “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.” a well regualted militia. When this law/amendment/right (whatever you prefer) was made…it was intended for an army aka well regulated militia. I dont think we should ban handguns just learn to use them right. People say well it’s our right. Yes it is, but all rights come with responsibilitys…i.e. you have the right to drive a carbut you DON’T have the right to drive on the wrong side of the road! catch my drift? now automatic weapons… that’s a different story… these should be banned. why? well you tell me why not? what’s the purpose of a machine gun? population control? hunting? are you really that bad of a shot? comon you have to agree with me on that one at least. Thank you for taking the time to look at this and if you have time lpease respond. I like a good argument. Thank You SUAVESKIN ---
**Author:** ![Action\_Jackson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c68b51/32.png) [@Action\_Jackson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Action_Jackson)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2000, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control/17984/2 "2000-03-24T06:16:00Z")
As to automatic weapons, the purpose of the militia is to fight enemies of the people. They most likly will have automatic weapons so it would be a good idea to have them also and maybe a few RPGs. If the 2nd amendment was defended as much as the 1st, we would all be required to keep nukes in our homes. * * * ILLEGITIMUS NON CARBORUNDUM EST ---
**Author:** ![SingleDad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9e8a1a/32.png) [@SingleDad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SingleDad)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2000, 6:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control/17984/3 "2000-03-24T06:49:00Z")
**SuaveSkin:** Hold onto your hat, you’re in for a bumpy ride. I’ll do what I can to help, and point out the egregious errors in yours and your oppositions’ statements. Of course, if you’re just trolling, you’ll be gone soon enough. Some suggestions: Use proper grammar, sentence structure and paragraph structure. Stick to simple declarative sentences, and separate different points into different paragraphs. Cecil Adams is considered a strong authority here. Always research [The Straight Dope Archives](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/index.html), specifically: [Original intent of Second Amendment](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/950210.html) [Original intent of Second Amendment (cont’d)](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/950303.html) Make _damn_ sure that if you post an assertion that’s statisically testable, that you cite those statistics. Keep to the high ground: avoid using propaganda, especially inflammatory anecdotes. If you’re serious about defending your position, I’m happy to help. Don’t troll out on me. * * * If Cecil Adams did not exist, we would be obliged to create Him ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2000, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control/17984/4 "2000-03-23T19:07:00Z")
OK, let’s rock. SuaveSkin, you say: > [@](#): > > When this law/amendment/right (whatever you prefer) was made…it was intended for an army aka well regulated militia. What is your basis for the belief that “militia” and “army” are the same thing? Are you aware that at the time the Second Amendment was drafted, the militia was composed of able-bodied men, and there was no standing army? If you accept my interpretation, would you like to re-state your position? And if you do not, please explain why you do not. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2000, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control/17984/5 "2000-03-23T21:44:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by SuaveSkin: > **…I live in america and personally think that there is way too many people who take advantage of our “right to own guns” or so they think and many people arn’t very educated about it. “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.” …(lots of stuff cut)… > SUAVESKIN** You are so right. There are also way too many people abusing the right to speak and practice their religions freely. And too damned many people abusing their right not to testify against themselves. Too many people taking advantage of the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures and the right to a speedy trial in front of an impartial jury. And too God damned many women, blacks and orientals taking advantage of those stupid amendments that let them vote. Have I made my point yet? No? Ok, hang on, I have more. > [@](#): > > AMENDMENT I > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of _ **the people** _ peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. > AMENDMENT II > 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. > AMENDMENT IV > The right of _ **the people** _ to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. > AMENDMENT IX > The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by _ **the people** _. > AMENDMENT X > The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to _ **the people** _. (bolding & italics mine) Do you see any sort of pattern? Yeah, that’s right, the words THE PEOPLE. I think it’s fairly clear that in each instance, it is talking about THE PEOPLE, not the government. For example, let’s make the same substitution in any of these other amendments that you make with the 2nd: AMENDMENT IV The right of _ **the government** _ to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated… Nope, doesn’t seem to work. Let’s try another one: AMENDMENT I Congress shall make no law respecting…the right of _ **the Government** _ peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Huh. That doesn’t work either. The 2nd Amendment is no different. It speaks CLEARLY, in plain English, of the people. The same people mentioned in the other instances: > [@](#): > > …The right of _ **THE PEOPLE** _ to keep and bear arms _ **SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED** _. I honestly do not understand why this is so difficult for otherwise intelligent, educated, logical, and reasonable adults to understand. A couple other minor points: > [@](#): > > You also said: > \*\*a well regualted militia. When this law/amendment/right (whatever you prefer) was made…it was intended for an army aka well regulated militia. > \*\* From the United States Code, Title 10, Section 311, paragraph (a), > [@](#): > > **The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are commissioned officers of the National Guard.** That means WE are the militia. You, me, everybody described in that paragraph. > [@](#): > > You said: > **now automatic weapons… that’s a different story… these should be banned. why? well you tell me why not? what’s the purpose of a machine gun? population control? hunting? are you really that bad of a shot? comon you have to agree with me on that one at least.** No, I don’t agree with you there either. True, a machine gun has no place in hunting. But the 2nd Amendment doesn’t have anything to do with hunting. Its purpose is to defend the Nation against a government that is bent on robbing _ **the people** _ of Liberty. The reason all people have the right to arm themselves with any weapons they choose is that, in order to defend yourself against your government, you need weapons on the same playing field, or at least the same sport. The colonists used the same rifles that the British Army used against them. They weren’t restricted to bows or rocks. They were using State-of-the-art Military rifles. And _When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them_, it will be necessary for them to be armed to the same degree as their oppressors. Remember the “shot heard round the world”? The American Revolution was sparked by the British Army marching to seize the Armory at Lexington. To close, let’s find out what the framers of the Constitution really had on their minds when they drafted it: > [@](#): > > The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt." > – John Philpot Curran: Speech upon the Right of Election, 1790. > [@](#): > > “If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.” > – Samuel Adams at the Massachusetts Constitutional Convention > [@](#): > > “I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedoms of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” > – James Madison > [@](#): > > “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.” > – Patrick Henry, Virginia’s Ratification convention, 1788 > [@](#): > > “I know not what course others may take but as for me: give me liberty or give me death.” > – Patrick Henry > [@](#): > > “It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own.” > – Thomas Jefferson Don’t forget that Gun control and citizen disarmament started the first revolution. ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2000, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control/17984/6 "2000-03-24T00:43:00Z")
The history of the militia in the United States: [http://www.militia-watchdog.org/faq3.htm](http://www.militia-watchdog.org/faq3.htm) ---
**Author:** ![SingleDad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9e8a1a/32.png) [@SingleDad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SingleDad)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2000, 8:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control/17984/7 "2000-03-24T08:03:00Z")
**Joe\_Cool:** > [@](#): > > You are so right. There are also way too many people abusing the right to speak and practice their religions freely… The [Straw Man](http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html) fallacy. Unfortunately, Suave, you’re trying to argue the _Constitutionality_ of gun control. That’s a pretty weak argument, and Joe\_Cool’s refutation is very strong. There are really only two tactics to take: To argue for a radical reinterpretation of the Second Amendment, or to argue for its repeal. I take from your original post that you are arguing the former: The “well regulated militia” being more strongly operative than in the current interpretation. This is a very difficult argument to make, and really matters only when it’s made to the Supreme Court. I’ve found it more effective to argue for the _repeal_ of the Second Amendment, making the text of the Constitution, its interpretation by the Supreme Court, and the intentions of the Founders irrelevant **as authorities**. I wish to point out to the gun-control opponents that the **reasons** the Constitution and the Founders remarks that speak to those reasons still remain a relevant argument. * * * If Cecil Adams did not exist, we would be obliged to create Him. ---
**Author:** ![SingleDad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9e8a1a/32.png) [@SingleDad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SingleDad)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2000, 8:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control/17984/8 "2000-03-24T08:05:00Z")
Oh and Joe: > [@](#): > > Don’t forget that Gun control and citizen disarmament started the first revolution. Let’s hope a second one is not necessary. Unproven, and somewhat inflammatory. If you have a case, make it. If you have to resort to propaganda and veiled threats, you will only weaken your position. * * * If Cecil Adams did not exist, we would be obliged to create Him. ---
**Author:** ![Danielinthewolvesden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ce7236/32.png) [@Danielinthewolvesden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Danielinthewolvesden)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2000, 10:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control/17984/9 "2000-03-24T10:26:00Z")
As a psuedo-libertarian. I am against many gun laws. Most do nothing to prevent violence/crime, and they add a burden onto the law abiding citizen, and worse, can turn a law-abiding citizen into an inadvertant criminal. However, some weapons, such as bombs, cannons, machine-guns, nerve gas- present a danger to society all out of proportion to any possible value. Filling out a form when you 1st buy a gun also seems a small price to pay. However, ex-post facto demanding registration of guns, and thus making criminals out of those who cannot/willnot comply, is unfair. Banning the manufacture or import of certain guns seem not to be unfair, but banning the possesion of such weapons by those who purchased them legally is not. Unfortunatley, the gun control debate seems to have 2 sides only: A- ban them all, & B- Lets us buy & own anything at anytime. Is there no one else in the “middle”? (I am probably slightly leaning toward the pro-gun camp, myself, but…) ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2000, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control/17984/10 "2000-03-25T06:22:00Z")
I wouldn’t put machine guns in the same category as nerve gas. In Israel and (I believe) Switzerland, fully automatic firearms are completely legal for civilians to posess. Much of the stigma associated with fully-automatic rifles stems from imagined scenarios of a madman opening up on full auto and killing hundreds of people as he keeps the trigger pulled over the course of several minutes. In real life, the magazines for military assault rifles (such as the M-16) usually have a capacity of only 20-30 rounds of ammunition. (There are a few 100-round giant magazines out there, like the drum magazine on the old Thompson submachine gun, but these are very heavy and largely impractical.) Fired on continuous full-auto, a normal military-sized magazine will run out of ammo in a few seconds. Furthermore, most rounds fired on full-auto will miss their targets; ironically, the madman with a machine gun will hit fewer people than the madman with a semi-automatic, because a semi-auto will give him more incentive (and more of a chance) to aim each shot. He would have to be _bulging_ with pre-loaded magazines to sustain a shooting spree with a machine gun. (Either that, or use a chain-fed gun, which would be even heavier than an assault rifle with a 100-round giant magazine.) ---
**Author:** ![Joe\_Cool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ecb155/32.png) [@Joe\_Cool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joe_Cool)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2000, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control/17984/11 "2000-03-24T20:35:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by SingleDad: > \*\*Oh and Joe: > > Unproven, and somewhat inflammatory. If you have a case, make it. If you have to resort to propaganda and veiled threats, you will only weaken your position. > \*\* Granted that seizing the armory wasn’t the only reason for the revolution, but it is a simple matter of historical fact that it was the spark which ignited the actual battle. There had been no overt hostilities until the attempt to seize the armory. At that point the colonists made the decision to proceed from an uneasy peace into all-out war, the choice between submitting to the wishes of the King and taking up arms to defend Liberty, based on the British attempt to disarm them. Was my statement inflammatory? Perhaps. My apologies for that. But that does not make it any less factual. * * * ## Mere Life is not Victory. Mere Death is not Defeat. Joe Cool ---
**Author:** ![Joe\_Cool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ecb155/32.png) [@Joe\_Cool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joe_Cool)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2000, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control/17984/12 "2000-03-24T20:42:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by SingleDad: > \*\ ***Joe\_Cool:** > > The [Straw Man](http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html) fallacy…\*\* Singledad, I’m trying to read your link, but can’t get through. I will though, when I’m able. * * * ## Mere Life is not Victory. Mere Death is not Defeat. Joe Cool ---
**Author:** ![SingleDad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9e8a1a/32.png) [@SingleDad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SingleDad)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2000, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control/17984/13 "2000-03-24T23:35:00Z")
**tracer:** From [The Swiss and their Guns](http://ssanz.org.nz/articles/swiss.html) (which is quoted from American Rifleman and posted by a pro-gun organization in New Zealand: > [@](#): > > Gun ownership in Switzerland defies the simple categories of the American gun debate. Indeed. The document paints a picture of a nation in which the historical culture both strongly reduces the motivations for crime, and in which the proper usage of guns has become ingrained into the national psyche. “_{pro-gun Americans}_ cannot expect to win the American gun argument with the Swiss example.” Indeed not. None of the culture prevalent in Switzerland, the long tradition of the populace defending the nation, the historical roots in the community, and the authoritarian Swiss culture obtain in America. The article makes other conclusions which I disagree with, but their analysis of gun-owning conditions in Switzerland seems thorough and plausible. **tracer:** [quote] Much of the stigma associated with fully-automatic rifles stems from imagined scenarios of a madman opening up on full auto and killing hundreds of people as he keeps the trigger pulled over the course of several minutes. [quote] **Joe\_Cool:** By the same token, World War I started because of a handgun in the hands of a madman. It’s a weak argument. All wars have complex causes. The inflammatory part is the veiled threat tp start a rebellion if your interests are abridged. * * * If Cecil Adams did not exist, we would be obliged to create Him. ---
**Author:** ![SuaveSkin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/977dab/32.png) [@SuaveSkin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaveSkin)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2000, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control/17984/14 "2000-03-25T00:15:00Z")
well i never said ban automatic weapons for miltia, but for the people. the miltia has every right to have any type of gun! ---
**Author:** ![SuaveSkin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/977dab/32.png) [@SuaveSkin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaveSkin)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2000, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control/17984/15 "2000-03-25T00:18:00Z")
able bodied men in some form of organized group not nesseceraly an “ARMY” that doesn’t mean every single person can own a gun just those in the miltia. ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2000, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control/17984/16 "2000-03-25T00:41:00Z")
I consider myself “in the middle” on this argument. It is a fairly easy target to hit considering how extreme the “wings” are. I do not believe that any personal weapon which fits into the category “firearm” should be denied to competent, law-abiding citizens. I think that every gun should be registered and that losing control of your gun and failing to notice that fact and report it to the proper authorities in a timely manner should be a felony with no punishment save the removal of your right to bear arms. > [@](#): > > Filling out a form when you 1st buy a gun also seems a small price to pay. However, ex-post facto demanding registration of guns, and thus making criminals out of those who cannot/willnot comply, is unfair. I disagree. If the law of the land becomes registration then those who “will not comply” have made themselves criminals. There is nothing unfair about requiring compliance with new laws. Registration does not infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms. It simply adds an element of accountability. That ii appropriate. Taking the power to kill into your hands is a choice which should be accompanied by great responsibility. * * * - The best lack all conviction The worst are full of passionate intensity. \* ---
**Author:** ![SuaveSkin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/977dab/32.png) [@SuaveSkin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaveSkin)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2000, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control/17984/17 "2000-03-25T00:50:00Z")
today i talk about the Effectiveness of Gun Control because many people belive it wont work: Expectations about the effectiveness of stricter gun control were measured by six questions: If there were stricter regulations for authorized firearms owners, would you say that the violent crime rate would increase, decrease or stay the same? Do you agree or disagree that Gun control laws affect only law-abiding citizens as criminals will always be able to get firearms? Do you agree or disagree that stricter gun control would greatly reduce the level of violence against women in Canada? How effective do you think stricter regulations would be in Reducing suicides? Reducing homicides? Reducing accidents? While a slight majority felt that stricter regulations for gun owners would not affect the violent crime rate, and three-quarters felt that criminals would still be able to get guns, opinion was about evenly divided on whether violence against women would be reduced. On the other hand, 44% percent thought stricter regulations would be effective in reducing suicides, 68% in reducing homicides, 74% in reducing accidents. These answers have to be characterized as wishful thinking. Very few of our respondents know what the current regulations are, probably fewer still know much about the dynamics of firearms homicide, suicide and accidents. 1991: estimated total number of guns in Canada that were used in violent crime, 0.3%. gun control is working for canada why wont it worik for america? thanx 🙂 -suaveskin biliography: Cdn-Firearms: Research related to “gun control” ---
**Author:** ![SuaveSkin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/977dab/32.png) [@SuaveSkin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaveSkin)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2000, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control/17984/18 "2000-03-25T00:59:00Z")
[Http://teapotusask.ca/cdn-firearms/HTML/reaserach1.html](Http://teapotusask.ca/cdn-firearms/HTML/reaserach1.html) forgot to post the address, sorry! please respond if you have time. I appreciate it thanx -suaveskin ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2000, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control/17984/19 "2000-03-25T01:09:00Z")
The estimated **number** of guns was 0.3%?! How much is 0.3% of a gun? That’s, what, a little sliver of the handgrip? ---
**Author:** ![SuaveSkin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/977dab/32.png) [@SuaveSkin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaveSkin)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2000, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control/17984/20 "2000-03-25T01:13:00Z")
that is meant to say gun deaths … sorry -suaveskin [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control/17984.md?page=2)