The right to own Guns!

Great Debates
1

I know we should not think for poeple and take decicions for them. But when every week I hear news of poeple getting killed by gunmen in the steets, in schools, in pub, in bloomingdales etc… I start beliving that in certain cases the State should. The State could for example ban or limit gun ownership by the public.
(It’s not the 13 year old kids who go to the shops and buy guns, no, it’s their parents, who then come home and show their children the new Colt 45 and say: “You see this beuty son. It’s real cool. But don’t you toutch it. It’s dangerous.” And then leave it on the living room table)

Guns are for protection! Well if the man coming through the door, which you would normally shoot, because he’s packing, isi’nt wearing a gun around his back then maybe you’ll think again.

Happy hunting!

2

Wouldn’t touch this one with a ten foot pole.

Just thought I’d jump on and hitch a ride when it goes to GD where it belongs.

3

I don’t have anything factual or even anecdotal to bring to this discussion, just my opinion, which is that handguns don’t serve much of a purpose for civilian use.

What exactly would a civilian use a handgun for that a rifle wouldn’t be equally good for? Hunting and home protection are out. Yeah, a rifle can be used to kill as quickly as a handgun, but they’re a whole lot harder to hide.

I like the idea of gun control because I’ve never seen a good arguement against it. It seems like a win-win situation. People get to keep the guns if they’re so inclined, but more controls are placed on people who shouldn’t have guns in the first place. How is this bad?

Seriously - maybe I’m missing a major problem with gun control. If so, let me know.

4

Private detectives, process servers, security officers, and bodyguards are all civilians, yet there are times when they need to be armed. I agree that handguns are not the best choice for hunting or self defense (when compared to a rifle) but they are easier to carry. Folks who have to carry guns for employment go through rigorus training and licensing standards.Now this:

In 1993 2 assailants (both large men) damn near crushed my throat in with a tire iron. Had I not produced a handgun which scared them off, I would not be writting this. I’d be dead! I am not making this up. So it will be impossible to convince me that pistols should be banned. It would be like trying to convince someone that seatbelts are unnecessary when their life had been saved by them.

Now, if your suggesting people be allowed to walk around carrying rifles and shotguns…

5

I support legislation to regulate the manufacture, sale, and possession of tire irons.

There’s nothing in the Constitution that guarantees your right to keep a tire iron in your nightstand drawer.

6

FunkDaddy… this may seem as an attack, but it really isn’t, it’s just plain curiosity…

Have you ever used a handgun and/or rifle?

I have. A rifle is very effective at aiming at objects that are farther away, but its’ added length would make it difficult to use in close quarters (like a bedroom or hallway, for example). In order to turn around, for instance, chances are you’d have to raise the barrel of a rifle towards the ceiling in order to keep it from smashing into the wall, and this leaves you vulnerable.

A handgun is designed for close-range use. It’s small size isn’t necessarily designed only for concealability, but for mobility as well. A rifle would be easier for an intruder to grab away from you than a handgun. A handgun is easier to keep in a small place, ready for use, than a rifle. In addition, a handgun is easier to hide from children than a rifle. In essence, a handgun is designed for indoor, small-space use, while a rifle is designed for outdoor, open-space use.

Here’s some arguments… a lot of aspects of gun control tote the banishment of handguns altogether, leaving homeowners with a rifle as the only means of home defense. Well, if an intruder breaks in packing a handgun (which is easy to procure off the black market, unfortunately… a black market created by current gun control), he has the advantage. That sort of gun control empowers those willing to break the law and weakens those willing to follow the law.

Other aspects of gun control advocate stronger background checks for gun ownership. The main argument for that is that once something gets regulated, no matter how slightly, it becomes easier to add even more regulations down the road.

The biggest problem with current gun laws is that they’re NOT ENFORCED properly. There should be stiffer penalties for those willing to commit a crime with a gun, not more laws that punish only those that obey the law. And as for those “irresponsible parent” stories… I imagine that those are quite blown out of proportion in terms of actual events and how often they occur by those who advocate more gun control. When a kid accidently shoots himself thinking a gun is a toy, you hear about it for months afterward, which makes the whole thing seem commonplace when, in actuality, it really isn’t.

Wanna cite on that? Here’s one… I grew up in a household of seven boys… my dad had guns in the house, not exactly lying around, but not exactly difficult to get to. If those “horror stories” about kids accidently shooting themselves were true, you’d think, statistically, one or two of us would’ve died over the years. Seeing as how we HAVEN’T… well, you get the idea.

7

well, there is one reason aginst gun control laws, the Constitution. And another reason, they do not work. A third? Crime goes up or down based primarily on the Economy, right now crime is way down.

Handguns are almost never used to kill people or commit crimes. Here in the City Big, there are almost no rifle ranges. If you want to shoot for fun, you can only use a handgun. Handguns are also collected. A fairly large % are never intended to ever be shot. And it is a little hard to carry a rifle concealed for self defense, and people have legit uses for same, with permits & everything.

But, THOR, before you post, you shouls check the threads & the archives. there are at least 3 recent G-C debates here in GD a while ago, and Cecil himself has sounded off about it. And Cecil is NEVER wrong… :smiley:

8

I’ll apologize in advance for the length of this post.

Nope… which I why I asked honestly for points to be made against gun control. Some good points were made… I agree with a couple of them. I live in Canada, and we’re introducing stricter gun control right now - everyone’s busy registering and whatnot. I like it, but it’s obvious I’m biased. :slight_smile: I’m not debating solely on fact here, but also on my opinion (you have fair warning).

I’ll give you the point that you do not want to try swinging that rifle around inside. It’s not the ideal home-defense weapon - hell, I play paintball with paintguns considerably smaller than a rifle and they’re still quite unwieldy. However, DITWD made the point that crime rates are going down, which can be used to argue both sides.

I think that if the gun owner isn’t planning to do anything illegal with his gun (like 99.99% of the gun owners out there) then they don’t have to worry about further regulation of guns after registration occurs - what’s the big concern? All the time I see gun owners worried about regulation, but I don’t get the fuss. There’s not much of a furor here about it, and Newfoundland has a ton of gun owners (lots of forests for hunting in). Then again, our PD only got guns 2 years ago or so… most people here are busy living the quiet life. :slight_smile:

With regards to the stories of kids nabbing parent’s guns and blowing away other kids, I agree - totally blown out of whack. I don’t think they’re more commonplace now than ever and either way, they’re uncommon.

pkbites- I realize that some professions presume carrying a firearm (I didn’t really consider them among the civilian population; I should have been more specific).

I think in a lot of cases, it’s very easy for the unarmed masses (read: me) to advocate gun control; but the problem goes a hell of a lot further than guns. Homicide rates have been going down (since the 1970s here in Canada, not sure about the US), and it’s never been incredibly prevalent here. Mostly people are just seeing more crime on TV and getting paranoid.

The biggest reason I like background checks for gun purchases is for ex-cons getting guns. Yeah, I know… he’s only going to go get it on the street anyhow, but selling a gun to someone with a criminal record just doesn’t seem intelligent to me. I understand that this person has paid their debt to society, but owning a gun is a right that should be forfeited upon being convicted of a felony (in my opinion). Anyhow… that’s somewhat off-topic and more of a rant anyhow. :slight_smile:

Also a little OT, a couple of excellent texts on the subject of homicide and/or the way the media exploits us with it are “Men of Blood” by Elliott Leyton (deals with homicide, specifically with the reason that England has some of the lowest rates in the world), and “Violence and Public Anxiety” (the name(s) of the author(s) escapes me at the moment).

9

pkbites

One time I was thrown clear of my car before it fell off a cliff. Fortunately I was saved because I wasn’t wearing my seat belt! Since the lack of a seat belt saved my life, I will use pkbites’ logic and demand that all seat belts be banned!

This is otherwise known as the fallacy of anecdotal evidence.

Let’s dissect some of SPOOFE’s “arguments”, actually the most concentrated collection of fallacies in a single paragraph I’ve seen in quite some time.

Locks, alarms, and 911 are all means of home defense. This is the fallacy of the excluded middle.

Armed intruders breaking into homes is not a common crime, either in the US or countries with strong gun control. Fallacy of misleading vividness.

Three things create a black market: illegality (making it black), and supply and demand. Without a whole freakin’ lot of guns floating around, you don’t have supply. This is the fallacy of the irrelevant conclusion. Making something illegal does not thus make it easy to procure off the black market.

And we come to the hasty generalization. Bravo, SPOOFE! A bravura performance!

Waaaaaaa! I want my gun! I wanna kill people! What, do you want all those slavering lunatics camped outside my door to rape my wife and murder my children? How can you be so cruel!? I have the God given right right to own a dangerous weapon with no accountability whatsoever to enforce my ideas of justice right then! The courts are just pinko liberal criminal-coddling wastes of peaceful and honest citizens money that was stolen from them!

10

OOOOOHHH… Canada… see, whenever I talk about “Gun Control”, I usually base it in America (no offense to Canadians, o’course… it’s just where I live).

I don’t know what the traditional attitude towards guns are in Canada, but firearms have been a REALLY big part of American culture since it’s founding. As a result, a lot of people are hesitant to give up their guns.

Your bit about ex-cons… in the States, anyone with a felony on their record can’t get a gun. Doesn’t matter what the felony is. Of course, like you say, they can still get a gun from a black-market source. Then again, they probably have just as much of a chance of procuring an illegal gun even if they were banned… oh well…

11

Single dad : you say armed assailants breaking into your home is not common? Well, then there are NO “common” violent crimes where guns are used. Crime rate is way down, true. Out here in Silicon Valley, we do have about one “home invasion” a week, usually by Oriental gangs preying on Orientals. They tie-up and torture the inhabitants until they reveal hidden valuables, some killings have occured. The only foiled Home invasion was met by armed resident force. The Police are helpless to prevent these, and rarely catch the criminals. But i guess in an area of 4-5 million, this is still rather rare. But then so are CRIMES involving guns, so why ban them?

There are lots of reasons for owning & using guns that do not involve killing. Few uses ever involve killing.

Gun Control has not ever been shown to reduce crime. And you can’t quote some foriegn county either, until you explain Switzerland.

12

I can think of 1.)hunting and 2.)target shooting. Every other use I can think of either involves killing someone or the gun’s ability to kill someone.

A question for the gun control opponents, since I am on the fence on this one–these debates always have the gun control proponents suggesting or defending laws, and the opponents tearing them up. What laws do you consider reasonable? Are background checks reasonable? Waiting periods? Requiring permits for concealed carry? Or should we repeal them all and let anyone who wants one buy and carry a gun anytime or anywhere?

Dr. J

13

Coming from the deep south, I have a different attitude on gun control than do many of you.

In recent years there have been a number of high profile incidents in this country that the media and gun control advocates have jumped on. School shootings, kids killing kids, even the massacre in the NY Wendy’s last week. These are all horrible events for which we as a society must make reasonable effort to eliminate.

But the key word here is reasonable.

Those kinds of acts are rare and thus acquire a huge media attention. In the U.S. last year the leading killer in youth on youth crime was gang violence. Those “kids” most likely to die in gun related violence are those that are ENGAGED in such acts.

You want to reduce the number of child deaths due to guns in this country? Change the behavior and you change the death toll.

Taking the simplistic approach of “gun control” avoids the problem.

SouthernStyle

14

DoctorJ: I think many forms of gun control are reasonable on face value, but personally I prefer to support that which works.

  1. Background checks. Background checks work. They have and will prevent guns from getting into the hands of those who shouldn’t have them. I fully support background checks.

  2. Registration. Has little to no effect on violent crime.

  3. Waiting Periods. Has little to no effect on violent crime.

  4. Banning concealed carry. Increases violent crime rates.

  5. Education (mandatory). Although few places have mandatory education, it has been shown that those people who receive training with a firearm are far less likely to have an accident with it, or have their family have an accident with it. It seems logical then to have mandatory training. As a “fringe” benefit, they are also more likely use their firearm successfully, if needed, for self protection.

  6. Strict Enforcement. See “Project Exile”.

What concerns me about 2 & 3 is simply that you have to wonder what will happen when it has no effect. Slippery slope may very well be a logical fallacy, but it is to some degree a reality of human nature. I can definitely see the gun control lobby calling for tighter registration and longer waiting periods, until the day comes that they say “Well, you gun owners, we tried highly strict regulations but that didn’t work, I guess we’ll just have to ban them.”

Let’s pursue those things that will work, and not start a wild goose chase from the outset.

15

Allow me to register my vote for the shotgun as the preferred self defense tool. Unsurpassed stopping power, less precision required. Just what granny needs. “I’ll take the Streetsweeper, with optional walker mount.”

I agree w/ DrJ, legit uses are hunting and target. If target is your choice, strict registration, perhaps even storage at target facility, is doable. A tad inconvenient perhaps, but doable. A VERY small minority of hunters use handguns as their primary weapon. The main “benefit” of handguns is that they are easily concealable. Only a minority of the millions of handguns sold every year are going to “collectors.” I consider it undeniable that the primary function of the vast majority of handguns is to kill people.

Of course a big problem for any meaningful gun control is the old 2d amendment. I think it is pretty clear that it was intended to be applied broadly - our founders intended none of that militia-only/standing army weasel room. So is it legitimate to question whether the language ought to be construed differently today in an industrialized country with a primarily urban population of 260 million? Or whether the language should be amended? (Of course, my fave is the 1st, and I don’t want anyone tweaking THAT baby.)

I do not buy the slippery slope, registration necessarily leads to confiscation, argument. I believe guns are inherently dangerous, and see no reason why persons wishing to possess such items should not be held to a very high standard of care. And it doesn’t trouble me that this might “inconvenience” them.

And yes, any illegal use of firearms should be punished severely. (Of course, we’d have to build more prisons, since our current capacity is used for warehousing nonviolent drug dealers and users.)

16 
Instant background checks are reasonable, waiting periods are unreasonable, permits for concealed carry are reasonable.

Marc

17 
It should be noted that the muzzle velocity of your average hunting rifle is much higher then your average pistol. Because of this the chances of a round going through a wall and hitting someone you don't want to hit increases. Especially if you happen to live in an apartment or have family members in the house.

 Inside you're better off with a handgun or a shotgun. And not everyone has the ability to handle a shotgun and are better off with a handgun. So in all legitimate situations a rifle and pistol are not equally good.

Marc

18

One question for gun-control advocates: what is the harm in allowing the law-abiding to own guns?

Keep in mind when answering that it is arguably far safer for a small child to live in a home with a gun than a home with a swimming pool.

19

Could you define “law-abiding,” Max?

One possible harm: if I have never broken a law in my life, and find out my wife is having an affair with her bowling instructor, where is that harm in allowing me to go out and buying a gun to kill them both? After all, I’m law-abiding until I pull the trigger.

20

I hate to burst the bubble of you shotguners but the shotgun is not the ultimate self defense firearm. I suggest reading, for example, “The Truth About Self Protection” by Massad Ayoob for a detailed look at the advantages and disadvantages of the shotgun (certainly a shotgun is a whole lot superior to a rifle, but far worse that a pistol).

I have covered this in some detail in other threads, so you might be able to find it there too but to briefly summarize:

  1. A shotgun is less practical in very close range encounters.

  2. A shotgun is easier to disarm.

  3. A shotgun is not a sure hit. At close range the shot will not have widened very much at all.

  4. Under adrenal stress, pump action shotguns can be difficult to operate.

  5. Gas-powered (automatic) shotguns are prone to jamming, especially if they get dirty.

  6. You cannot conceal a shotgun easily.

  7. Although some shot will not penetrate walls shotgun shots will penetrate windows and can be hazardous to people outside, especially since the shot widens over distance.

  8. Under adrenal stress, shotguns are more difficult to reload.

  9. Shotguns are two handed, which means you cannot have the gun in firing position and have one hand on the telephone calling for help, for example.

  10. Many people cannot handle the kick of a shotgun, and even those who can are unlikely to be able to hit anything after the first shot. Under adrenal stress, a one shot - one hit - one kill is not likely making the shotgun impractical for the realities of a firefight.