Now, I’m sure this has been done many times, but still:
Why do so many US citizens dislike the idea of restrictions being placed on their ability to purchase small pieces of artillery?
What on earth do you do with them?
What would be so bad about losing them?
The major problem I see with gun control is its implimentation. As the bumper-sticker puts it, “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” While the law-abiding will submit, the underground gun trade will flourish.
Secondly, some people have a substantial amount of money invested in their gun collection, and are going to be righteously pissed if they stand to lose it.
Thirdly, the vast majority of people who own guns will never use them against another person. It seems vaguely unfair to me to punish the whole for something that a small minority are doing.
To the Americans who fight hard to keep their guns, the guns themselves are merely symbolic. To them the gun symbolizes frontier “freedom”–really more like Libertarianism. It’s like when a little kid insists on putting her ketchup on her happy meal all by herself. Even if she gets red goo splattered all over everything, she can still proudly say that she did it herself. In the same way, pro-handgun people don’t care how much red goo gets splattered as a side effect, at least they’re able to say that they successfully defied the authority that insists the world would be a safer place with fewer concealable guns in it.
yawn
Cite please that “many” US citizens want small artillery de-regulated.
As Lissa fails to point out, the silly cliche “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns” gets to the heart of matter.
Of course, if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns: that’s exactly the point. As it stands, it’s much more difficult to tell who’s an outlaw and who’s not, because we can ALL have guns. If certain kinds of guns are outlawed, than the mere ownership of those guns will make their owner a scofflaw, and subject to the consequences of his lawbreaking. In other words, once certain types of guns are outlawed, there will no longer be any gray area, and all such guns can be confiscated and destroyed. As it stands, since it’s currently legal for some people to own them, the legality of their ownership must first be determined before they can be removed from circulation. This problem becomes much simplified by the banning of certain types of guns, which are useless to hunters but very useful to “outlaws.”
There’s no need to be snooty. I’m not citing because I was very very vague therefore felt I didn’t need to - there are a number of Americans who are anti-gun control yes? Or do I need to cite that?
And I’m assuming the yawn was because threads like this have been done to death. Well, I’m sorry about that, but I never read them, and I did put up a disclaimer about that straight off.
Still, it’s a good start isn’t it? If you have a gun, are you not making yourself more likely to be shot at yourself?
But don’t the majority of gun owners never use them at all? Or are there actually an awful lot of hunters in the US? (I’m not being rhetorical, I have no idea)
Again, DrNick, no one will take your practical arguments to the logical extreme with you, since they break down. It’s not a practical objection, it’s a symbolic one.
And yes, banning certain types of guns by law is just the first step. But gun geeks will object to that as if it were the only step: their objections, such as “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns,” only take into account the moment of change that will occur once that first step is implemented, and refuse to acknowledge the ongoing process that will take place from that point forward. I.e., the confiscation of those guns from those newly created outlaws.
Yes it has, it’s been done to death. Still, it helps to while away the hours…
There are many unquantifiable and variable cultural factors that come into consideration, but the simple facts are that first of all, no-one likes having anything taken off them. Secondly, no-one likes to have restrictions on anything that they do placed on them (although a lot of people quite like restricting others). Finally, they have a bit in their constitution that says that they can have guns, and they quite rightly don’t take mesing around with it lightly.
In my experience, you shoot paper targets and tin cans with them, or bunny rabbits and other edible wildlife, as well as creatures that make a nuisance of themselves, or clay pigeons. It seems relatively common in the US to keep them for “home defence”. I’m not a great fan of this as it essentially means “shooting people”. On the other hand, over here we deny people their right to self defence and bang them up when they put up a fight. Essentially, if the state is doing its job of protecting people, the “home defence” argument goes out of the window. If it doesn’t, well, you have to have an argument.
You couldn’t shoot bunny rabbits, tin cans, paper targets or clay pigeons. Plus, you’d be really annoyed as some bugger has just come and taken your toys away, and you couldn’t show your kids “the gun that granpa used to drive the Injuns off the land”. And most annoying, it means that the sanctimonious gits and opportunistic politicians have won.
[Fixed quote editing. – MEB]
I made a bit of a hash of that quote editing there. I didn’t mean to quote the OP twice at the start for no reason. Sorry.
No, not really. I don’t think there’s any substantial evidence that ownership of a gun makes that person more likely to be shot by someone else. It may be more likely that I’ll shoot myself in an accident, but that’s my own damn fault. I don’t need the government to be my mommy.
No, the vast majority of gun owners do use their guns. Just not against other people. They use it for sport shooting, hunting, or whatever.
Consider in 1996 (the last year I have a record for), there were about 30,000 gun deaths in the United States. Over half of them were suicides, about 40% were homicides, and less than 5% were unintentional.
Now there are 44 million gun owners in the US, and something like 200 million firearms. So we have something like .015% of all guns involved in homicides and .068% of all gun owners involved. Absolutely miniscule percentages. So why punish the literally 99.9% of owners who are responsible and will never be involved in an incident?
In short, being afraid of gun ownership is silly.
The real way to significantly reduce gun violence is to legalize drugs, since drug wars are one of the leading causes of gun homicides, and fund inner-city schools enough to give those kids a chance out of poverty besides crime. There really is no evidence that gun control laws do much either way to reduce crime in the United States.
Here’s the splattered red goo that gun owners are willing to live with.
The 2nd ammendment guarantees the right to bear arms, with good reason. As such, any restriction of this right, including the banning of assault weapons and armour piercing bullets, is unconstitutional. It’s also a bad idea, for the same reason that the right to bear arms is a good idea in the first place. You don’t have the right to bear arms to protect you from burglers, you have it to protect you from the government. Yes, some people will be killed by guns. This is unavoidable, and is a small price to pay for freedom.
:rolleyes:
The second amendment gives us the right to “a well regulated militia,” not Bubba with double holsters.
And the constitution, in its day, also connived at slavery, but it was acknowledged that times had changed and this was no longer defensible. The frontier days of guns-as-everyday-tools-of-survival have long past, so this argument is no longer valid.
The OP was snooty. I was just responding in kind.
Citing that would be a start. However, that’s not what you said. You spoke of small artillary pieces.
By this, I can now assume you simply meant all guns?
And in 1998, there were 90,000 accidental deaths, of which 50%, or 45,000 were motor vehicle accidents (http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/causes.html?source=DeathClock).
So, when do we ban cars, or if we don’t, then why is this red goo that car owners are willing to live with different from the red goo that gun owners are willing to live with?
This has been convered in just about every gun control thread on the SDMB. A “well regulated militia” at the time that that was written meant every able bodied male.
You’re right. We’re much smarter today than the founders were. Hand me a piece of that constitution so I can wipe my ass with it! :rolleyes:
You must not live in Washington, DC.
“At that time”–thanks for proving my point.
Your second comment is unworthy of response. You want to reframe it, to tell me which amendments you’d rather wipe your ass with than be protected by, and maybe I’ll respond.
And if I lived in DC the danger you’re referring to is a danger caused by the presence of guns on the streets. Banning all but legitimate hunting rifles would be the first step in solving that problem; adding more guns to the mix is simply ludicrous.
Well no, I was implying things like assault rifles as opposed to handguns, but I can see how there was confusion so I’m sorry about that.
RE: the protecting from govt point.
I don’t see it. Unless you’ve got yourself a tank division (and much more, really) I really do not see how you are going to protect yourself from your govt - the power disparity is just enormous. At best you could hold off some troops for a short amount of time. Unless you’re implying becoming guerrila warriors in some national park. And even then.
Brother! Who opened the cliche cage?
I’d be DELIGHTED if guns were regulated as tightly as cars are! Including emissions limitations, an ignition key, a locked fill-pipe, warning lights…oh, yeah, and annual licensing fees.
(Hey, you made the comparison!)
Trinopus
[Fixed coding. – MEB]