How much gun control do you really want?

Great Debates
1

I was talking with a friend about anti-gun organizations such as HCI, the VPC, etc., and he pointed out that they never tell their true agenda. HCI, for instance, says they want “sensible” gun control, but I’m confident that if they had their druthers, they’d make ownership of any handgun illegal, and put extreme restrictions on long guns. In other words, England. The thing is, they won’t admit it. I, on the other hand, am perfectly willing to put my cards on the table.

My question is: how little (or much) gun control do you want? For the purposes of this question, assume that through the unassailable logic of your arguments that you’ve managed to convince the leaders and judiciary of your country to adopt any level of weapons control that you wish. What level of weaponry would you allow an average citizen to own with minimal paperwork? (We won’t get into concealed carry for now)

The scale below can’t describe all situations; in Australia, for instance, they’re outlawing bayonets…but you can still get a bolt-action rifle. Still, it should give a good representation of how one feels on the subject. Here goes: what would you allow?

  1. Nothing. If it’s designed as weapon, you can’t have it. (Any number of dictatorships)

  2. Knives/Swords. (England)

  3. “Hunting” weapons (rifles/shotguns, no semi-autos) (Chigago/New York)

  4. Handguns (California…for the moment)

  5. Military-styled semi-autos (Most of the USA)

  6. Fully automatic weapons (Switzerland)

  7. Infantry weapons (disposable anti-armor rockets, hand grenades, mortars, portable surface-to-air missiles)

  8. Crew served weapons (tanks, fighter/bombers, artillery)

  9. NBC weaponry (nerve gas, biological weapons, nukes)

As for myself, I’d go up to level 6 without hesitation, but beyond that…I dunno. Maybe level 7, but probably not.

2

First up, I’ll admit I’m biased - I live in Australia, and I’m pretty happy with the current restrictions.

I cannot for the life of me understand the logic in going past level 3 on gorillaboy’s list. What in all seven hells does a civilian need a handgun, or semi/fully automatic firearm for? (Apart from homicidal rampages - I did admit I was biased!).

To be totally honest, I wouldn’t even alow people to own a level 3 firearm without showing extremely good cause first. (Agricultural worker, recreational shooter (meaning a member of a registered club) being two that jump to mind, but not much else).

Obviously, I can’t get involved in 2nd amendment rights, as I don’t have the foggiest, but I’d love to hear a seperate justification from that for owning any weapon above level 3 on gorillaboy’s list.

3

What in all seven hells does does the state need to prohibit law abiding citizens from owning a handgun, or semi/fully automatic firearm for?

Well, I’ll be honest too. I wouldn’t allow the state to prohibit it’s citizens from owning a level 3 firearm without showing extremely good cause first.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: in a free society, citizens are not required to justify themselves or their actions to the state. Rather, the state must justify it’s actions to it’s citizens.

4

::sigh::

Only one reply, and ALREADY somebody mentions “But why do you need it?”

I’ve been in so many gun debates that this is starting to seem like the “-gry” question…

Same reason why a “civilian” needs free speech, free information, and freedom of worship. Among other things.

5

I want to control them all!!! Bwahahahahahah!!!

:smiley:

Sorry… couldn’t resist… we now return you to your scheduled thread…

6

I’m about to make myself unpopular, but then I remember junior high real well so this won’t feel that strange.

Probably 3 or 4, and I’d still like to see some semblance of paperwork, etc, for that. I say with bias and limited personal perspective on my part, just thinking about the gun ownership among people in my intimate acquaintance. They’re either hunters or have a marksmanship hobby. I am sure they’d be willing to submit to a small level of one-time oversight/registration/bureacratic b.s. to own what they’ve got. I guess I do know other gun collectors who collect stuff up to level 6 (or beyond but they don’t tell me) but, well, I guess I don’t think squelching their hobby is such an infringement on their life/liberty/p.o.h. that it outweighs what I see as social benefits to having a restrictive norm for gun ownership. I know they’d not be happy to hear me say that.

Believe it or not, there really are people (okay, at least one of me) that support certain forms of gun control yet don’t have a secret agenda to see all guns taken away or forbidden. Interesting thread. And remember, it’s a poll. Let’s not nitpick on each other’s explanations. We’re each entitled to what the other side sees as our misguided, pointless rationalizations for our positions.

7

I’m going to get sick of typing IMO every sentence, so imagine that I’ve typed it after every full stop.

Because free speech, free information and freedom of worship, among other things, are not designed to kill.

The reason the state needs to prohibit law abiding citizens from owning these types of firearms, is that you can’t guarantee that they won’t be used for the original intended purpose. And whilst they remain unnecessary, it makes no sense to me to allow free circulation of a homicidal device.

8

I agree with Weird Al & Spoof. I don’t see any justification for a government to attempt to disarm its citizens. How can you tell an honest citizen that he’s not entitled to have a gun with which to defend himself vs. criminals?

9

The problem I see with this claim is that there are countries (e.g., UK and Australia) where the general population seem to be doing just fine without guns. It seems obvious, then, that unlike certain other ‘unalienable rights,’ gun ownership is not really necessary for the well being of the citizenry. I would certainly agree that citizens in a free society need free speech and freedom of religion, “among other things.”

For me, the best argument for why US citizens should be allowed to have guns is simply this: it’s in the Constitution. It was granted to us from the beginning, and they’d better have a damn good reason to take it away.

As to the OP, however, on a very personal level, I’d be quite comfortable with limitations being set at level 3.

“But Finch, didn’t you just say that it’s in the Constution that they shouldn’t be able to take our guns away?”

Why, yes I did. But that doesn’t change the fact that I distrust most people. No, not in a conspiratorial, “they’re all out to get me” sort of way - more in a “I think people are generally irresponsible” kind of way. People do stupid things. And when you throw guns into the mix…I shudder.

Yes, I know that most gun owners are responsible with them. But it won’t be one of you responsible types that causes the next death(s).

Yes, I know that even if guns are outlawed, criminal types would still be able to get them through the black market.

Yes, I know that guns (especially hand-guns) are useful for self-defense. Although, I’d really like to know what the statistics are regarding how many crimes have actually been prevented because the potential victim was armed. Unfortunately, I don’t think those sorts of statistics are easy to gather, simply because those instances are probably not often reported.

So, after all this rambling, what is my stance? On a philosophical level, take it up to level 6 on gorillaboy’s scale. On a personal level (i.e., the one no-one gives a rat’s ass about), take it down to level 3, nation-wide.

And before the gun advocates come after me, please keep in mind that the “level 3” thing is an opinion only, in response to the OP, and not meant to be any sort of valid argument for gun control.

10

Ok, I would stop at level three on the list.

In other words, you believe that we should go to level 9. If not, then you do see some justification for government restrictions on weaponry.

11

Yes, but all those things can lead to situations where it is possible that people may be maimed or killed.

Marijuana is illegal in the U.S. people still smoke pot. I have a razor blade. I can kill people with it. I own a bat, I can bash someones skull in. I have the means necessary to build a rather damagng bomb with items that are totally legal to buy. I can kill you with my bare hands. I can do any number of things to hurt you or anyone else. Just because I don’t have a gun it doesn’t mean that I will not commit a crime. Just because I do have a gun it doesn’t mean I will commit a crime. It takes a special person to use a gun to kill people. People who were molested by their parents, lived in squalor, or were brought up without any morals system. They are sick individuals. I, however am not. A retarded human being might hurt himself or others with a butterknife because he doesn’t understand what he’s doing, lets ban all butterknives. Oh wait, criminals use cars for getaways after robberies or as a means to transport illegal items, lets make it illegal to own a vehicle.

Taking guns away from people who will not commit a crime only denies them the right to have protection. Then U.S. police department doesn’t exist to protect individual people, it exists to arrest criminals and investigate crimes.

There will always be criminals. Criminals will allways have weapons. If not guns they can easily make bombs, or, if they are organized enough, and have the resources, manufacture their own guns.

12

In regards to the OP:

Level 5 is good for me. Level 6 is kinda just askin for trouble.

Let the people have guns. Guns are cool. They go bang and propel a little piece of lead really really fast and make quite a first impression on people.

Once you get up to levels 6 and 7, though, you’re at the point where unless a person is trained to handle the power held within the tool he might abuse his given power. And besides, you don’t need a hand grenade to make a boom. Just mix up some good old TNT.

13

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by The Fromesiter *
**

You hit it on the head there. It’s really pretty simple to understand that criminals would still have guns after gun prohibition. As for which number I would choose on that list, probably 5, with 6 being an option only after thorough background checks. A messed up kids having a chance to use there parents’ hand guns in a school shooting is one thing, but a kid walking into a caferteria with a friggin tommy gun in each hand would be ridiculous. Maybe 6 would only be an option to those with no kids under 18 and absolutely no felonies committed by ANYONE in the household.

14

The primary problem with this control scale is that I want bits and pieces and modifications of them all into my own version. Also, there are some weapons that fall under a category that I wouldn’t want. So, I’ll simply say I’d go up to level 6. Any other level would not fall under gun control, but rather under military ordinance. There’s a big difference, and I do not think any reasonable gun control thread would include these weapons in it.

15

Fromesiter: The marijuana comment’s a good one - the biggest weakness in all gun control arguments is that restrictive laws may not achieve what they set out to do. I’m not going to get into a “how to govern effectively” argument right now, so I will concede that one.

Designed to kill, and leading to a situation where people get maimed or killed are two very different things.

Please re-read the second passage of mine you quoted, and pay speciall attention to the words “Whilst they remain unnecessary”. Yes, razor blades, cars, baseball bats, even your hands can be dangerous… However, they do have other uses that render any restrictions on these items unjustifiable (is that a word???). I can’t say the same for anything above level 3.

16

disclaimer: I do not own a gun, I do not know the internal workings of a gun beyond the basics. I do not understand fully the distinction between different variations of guns. The following it what I have gathered and believe to be the truth.

Guns aren’t all designed to kill. Guns designed for sport shooting aren’t manufactured to have the most destructive effect possible on the human body, they’re made to do other things.

Design is very subjective. Free speech could be construde as a loophole in the law allowing for people or organizations to spread altered or doubtful information and incite a mob to overthrow the government, killing people in the process.

There are electric shavors with no easily accesable blades. Or all men could grow beards and all women would have to use Epil Stop Plus or Nads. We have feet to walk with and bikes to ride. There is also public transportation. No one needs a baseball bat excpet a baseball player, and even then, they can be kept under lock and key unless the players need to practice or play a game. Hands you can have, so maybe I should say “training and knowlede or how to kill a man with ones hands”.

I don’t, however, really even see why necessity is of importance. We don’t need chocolate, it makes us fat, it should be illegal. We don’t need fast food, it clogs our aeries (and makes us fat). We don’t need soft drinks, they rot out teeth (and make us fat). We don’t need supermarkets, they make us fat cause we don’t have to hunt our food through the forest and kill it with a spear. We don’t need a lot of things that we use every day.

17

**

Neither is the right to keep and bear arms. Strictly speaking it is not designed to kill.

You can’t guarantee that free speech won’t be used to slander someone. You can’t gaurantee that some religions might not incite folks to do bad things. The government really can’t guarantee that anything will happen one way or the other.

I know that sometimes our image is that of a bunch of gun toting cowboys who kill each other over poker games and have show downs at high noon. Well ok that’s Texas but that isn’t the rest of the United States.

The truth is that you’re very unlikely to die of a firearm related injury in the United States. You’re more likely to die of an auto accident, cancer, or some sort of heart disease.

Marc

18

Do you think they’d do more damage with a submachine gun? Those guys who robbed that bank in LA had fully automatic assault rifles and they didn’t kill anyone. One the other hand at Columbine you had people using shotguns and they actually killed a few people.

Marc

19

Righty-o then Marc, off you go to Columbine, Dunblane, Port Arthur, Strathfield (the list goes on and on), and explain to the relatives that it’s just bad luck - it was so unlikely for that to happen that it wasn’t a good enough reason to restrict guns.

FYI - The Strathfield Square Massacre was the worst for bodycount to a single gunman on a spree when it happened. Port Arthur overtook it, and I think is still the worst. The decision was made to bring in gun control as a result of these sort of incidents. Since then, no massacres. Crime rate (homicide and attempted homicide) in my state (New South Wales - I don’t know the figures for the rest of Australia) is steady - went up one year, down the next etc… No adverse effect on society for the very simple reason that guns are unnecessary.

20

Well two incidences aren’t enough to determine where gun control starts. And notice I said #5 is where I’d stop (allowing sub-machine guns), I’m just iffy about fully automatic guns. And after reading my post, I find it a little hypocritical. I said that if the full gun control took place, criminals could still get the guns (and they would). That would mean that if some people could get there hands on fully automatic weapons, then criminals have the opportunity to get their hands on them as well (say, by stealing them, though they would be pretty stupid trying to steal from someone with a fully automatic weapon in their house). Therefore, I will have to say I will stop at #5 and don’t start distributing fully automatic guns throughout the U.S.