your opinion on gun control

In My Humble Opinion
1

As a newcomer to the SDMB I have been frustrated by the fact that threads concerning particularly controversial issues in which I am interested in expressing my opinion quickly degrade to open argument with little useful being said. Therefore I would like to try something a little bit different. My first attempt to do this ended very quickly as I posted it in the wrong forum, nevertheless I think the idea is sound. I have tried to take on board the suggestions made to me in the original thread and here .

Basically I would like to hear a wide variety of opinions on this topic without the thread getting bogged down in a sniping match, I do however agree that it is hardly fair to express your opinion on a subject and not allow others to criticise it.

Therefore I would ask that for the first 24 hours this thread is open, individuals should post their own opinion on gun control and firearm use to this thread. No quoting or direct reference to other posts should take place, if you disagree with someone’s opinion post your own opinion. If someone’s post lacks cites and punctuation (especially mine) or their argument is full of holes, then please allow the poor quality of the post to speak for itself. If you want to argue with someone else on a point raised in this thread please start another thread to do it. If someone appears to be ignoring these guidelines then please ignore them rather than pointing it out to them. After 24 hours then please feel free to address points raised in any one else’s posts (including mine) or make any other comment you feel is relevant.

As I have said above these are only proposals, I can’t make you do what I want. All I ask is that if you can’t stick to this then could you please consider posting somewhere else or start your own thread. If you have any constructive comments to make please post them to the thread in the “about this message board forum” forum or wait and post them in the main thread after the 24 hours is up.

If this all goes horribly wrong I apologise in advance and hope that people will at least appreciate that I have spent a considerable amount of time trying to figure out the best way of approaching this (and other) subjects without causing major offence. Be assured that I will not try anything like this again if it does not work out.

2

Gun control – a UK perspective

I have to start by saying that I like guns; there is something intrinsically cool about lining something up in the sights and blowing it into itty-bitty pieces. I own an old air pistol and use it to plink at cans occasionally, I feel I understand why people want to own a gun. All of this is basically why I agree with my government’s stance on firearms. When the banning of pistols was initially announced I thought it was an overreaction, an unfair measure that would not achieve any meaningful results and prevent thousands of people enjoying a legitimate hobby. However a good few years down the road I think the decision was the correct one, this country has not suffered from the spate of high school shootings that have plagued other countries. It is of course debatable whether the banning of firearms is solely responsible for this (there have never been that many guns in this country to start with), however I feel that if even one life has been saved then this is worth the price, people can always find a new hobby but you only get one life.

One of the particular problems I see with firearms is the impossibility of adequately controlling who gets them. One of the first things many pro gun people have said to me is “are you implying that I can not be trusted to own a gun”, in the vast majority of cases I do not think anything of the sort but I can’t think of any workable way to restrict guns to those people. I have a cousin (lets call him Bob) he’s a nice enough guy in his own way but I would not trust him with a firearm of any calibre greater than a cap pistol (I’m sure everyone can think of a similar individual). The problem is I can not think of a single factor that could be applied to a registration scheme that would the average reliable trustworthy individual have a gun and also keep them safely out of the hands of Bob (general and persistent dumb recklessness is not a crime).

In most cases owning a gun necessitates keeping it in the house and in my opinion a gun in the house is an irresistible attraction for a young child. I would certainly have found it difficult to resist the temptation to search out the offending firearm and gain the means of access to it (small children are sneaky). Some of you may be thinking that your little Jimmy (or Janey) would never dare to do something like that and you may be right (although I think that you might be underestimating little Jimmy), but as a fairly well brought up, obedient child with excellent parents I would certainly have had a shot at it and probably succeeded. Even If you some how manage to childproof the thing it is still a danger. At some point in their life everyone gets angry and depressed and the presence of a gun must make this far more likely to end in tragedy.

I accept that the UK is a whole different country from the US in regard to crime. I have heard people on this board convinced that lethal force is necessary to defend yourself from certain types of crime in North America, you may be right. However over here at least I cannot think of a circumstance where this would be a good thing.
In this part of my country I am confident that if I hear someone moving around in my house in the night, that if I start to turn the lights on and make some noise the burglars will flee and not come upstairs and murder me in my bed. I am confident that I will not be mugged by someone intending to kill me afterwards (I am fairly confident that I won’t be mugged). I am happy about the fact that if I do fall victim to crime it is unlikely that the perpetrator will be armed with a gun or a replica at worst (I do not know a single person who has ever been held at gunpoint). I am happy about the fact that those criminals who do posses guns mostly use them to kill each other, as doing anything else with them would attract a lot of police attention. I realise that some of this might vary if I was to live in a different part of the country and the above represents only my perceptions about crime (I can’t be bothered to start digging out statistics) but I feel confident in my opinion that I much less likely to be shot living in England as oppose to the USA and that a large part of this of this is as a direct result of the lack of handguns in this country.

3

OK, I’ll bite:

Personally, I don’t like guns and would prefer to live in a place where they are not legal. Practically, I think this is one issue that needs to be decided at the local level, at least in the US; I accept that there are places in this country where gun ownership is very much part of the culture, and that people who live in these places understandably don’t appreciate having outsiders make the rules for them.

4

Gun control=hold your breath and squeeezzze

5

Well I hate guns. I think they are the weapons of the coward - BUT they are that in the hands of a criminal (or a soldier, but that’s an entirely other point).

I also understand their appeal to sportsmen. I like to collect swords for example and am currently making plans to study western martial arts & fencing styles. So I know that for some people hunting with, or just shooting targets or even just collecting guns can be great fun.

But there can be no doubt that guns currently pose a serious danger.

Pretending that I could tomorrow take whatever steps I wanted to change this, this is what I would do (aka the if I were king scenario):

  1. Create a federal law or a statewide law that severly punishes criminals who use guns. I would say that if you used a gun to commit a crime you automatically receive 10 years in jail without the possability of parole (if found guilty of course). So for a crime you would normally get 20 to life for, you’d get 30 to life for (with 30 years minimum to server).

  2. Anyone wanting to purchase a gun must be liscenced for it. In order to be liscenced one must:
    a: Not have any record of violent criminal activity.
    b: Demonstrated that they understand gun safety regulations.
    c: Be 21 years or older.
    As well, the liscence must be renewed every 4 years or so.

  3. Create a computerized system for tracking and registering guns. Anyone buying a gun must register the gun in their name upon purchase. He must also re-register the guns once every so often (maybe several years).

If a gun is NOT reregister a unit of law enforcement officers track down the user and confiscate the weapons + fines the individual.

  1. Stolen weapons MUST be reported as such ASAP. If this is not done promptly the person will be penalized (jail time + fine). The penalty could be even worse if it can be proven that this negligent action allowed the gun to be used in a crime.

  2. If you are caught with a gun and you are NOT liscneced to carry one, and/or the gun is NOT registered you go to jail. Plain and simple.

The rest of the more common guns laws would still apply.

I figure this could create new jobs to deal with confiscating of weapons/keeping track of registrations, etc. At the same time it is likely to cost a good deal to keep more people in jail and to finance the system. It would be money well spent IMHO.

6

I think it’s weird that two of the above replies begin by talking about how the posters feel about guns instead of how the posters feel about gun control.

I wonder why these posters think their feelings on the one should affect their feelings on the other.

For the record, I think gun control in the US is right about where it should be: felons can’t get guns, but decent folks can with a waiting period and background check, and no one can get a Monster MegaBlaster or anything crazy but can get normal rifles and handguns. I don’t currently own a gun but have been considering getting one since buying a house.

8

I don’t think the idea of gun control is general is necessarily a bad one, but at the same time I also believe based on a fair bit of research and historical reading I’ve done that the founding fathers really did mean for there to be an individual right to keep and bear arms.

I could expand and give a lot more specifics than that, but on the balance I think that’s a nice, concise summary, so I’ll leave it alone. I’m sure in 24 hours there will be someone incredulously asking me how I can believe both of the above simultaniously, so I’ll wait until then!
-Ben

9

I have a healthy respect for firearms, and therefore a healthy fear of them, and that has influenced my position on gun control. I think that gun ownership bears a great deal of responsibility. I very strongly believe in waiting periods and background checks, and sometimes I think they should be more stringent (I know of people who acquired gun(s) quasi-legally). I think that the licensing requirements could be a little tougher, in that you have to show proficiency in use of any firearm before you are licensed to have it (kind of like licensing for cars vs. motorcycles vs. tractor trailers). I think the penalties for those who use guns in the course of committing crimes should be way tougher. I think that people who sell guns to ANYONE without strictly abiding to waiting period and background check standards should be held responsible for any damage caused by the guns they sold, and I think the same should apply to owners whose guns are stolen but not reported (i.e., held responsible for any and all damage) - along with the people who cause the damage. I don’t think that anyone should be allowed to carry concealed firearms.

10
      • The basic problem I see with gun control is that it usually only gets applied to lower and middle-classes. Wealthy and politically-connected people end up making sure they can do whatever they want anyway–this has been the case throughout time. In the case of gun ownership, either they don’t face the same compulsions to be able to defend themselves (they live in wealthy privately-guarded areas) or the requirements for legal ownership involve financial or political permissions that just anybody can’t meet or won’t get. So if you vote for such a thing as gun control and you are not politically-connected and/or wealthy, all you are doing is voting to give up an option that wealthy people will get to keep.
  • If there is anyplace that is using methods to detirmine fitness of ownership that are not based on economic or political requirements, I’d like to hear about it.
    ~
11

If I was your benevolent dictator:

Firearms used for hunting, go ahead and have all you want. It just has to be something you need to hunt with, no bullets that will go through a tank or something that shoots 5 rounds a second or anything. Something that will fell a deer, fine. Something that will fell 100 deer in 15 seconds from 1000 yards, no.

Want a handgun for your own personal protection, fine. Let’s just register them like cars, charge a modest fee to keep the record system, and fire a test bullet for the records. You sell the gun, notify the authorities and the new owner is recorded. Something to take down an intruder, fine. Something to take down 100 intruders wearing bullet proof vests, no.

What is needed more than anything else is common sense. Hunters need to do their thing, some people need the feeling of security that a handgun gives them, some people enjoy collecting just as others collect stamps. Don’t take that away. On the other hand, nobody needs to have firepower that rivals the US Army.

12

I would be for gun control if:

  • it was part of an effective, legitimate, clear cut, carried out policy,
    -there was some type of guarantee that wanting and having gun control was not some broad sweeping vote for socialism
    -there was some gaurantee that there would not be the erosion of other rights I have.
    -that it not be seen as a political victory by liberals
    -that the current in flux of weapons be stopped
    -that a serious disarmament were to occur
    -that it not be drawn or based upon some other countries gun control plan…because the USA presents a set of unique and much more challenging set of circumstances, including numerous urban centers, inlfux of foreigners, etc, etc.
13

While I’m glad to see a number of posters (whom I’ve not seen post in GD on GC) share their views on gun control, I’m a little non-plussed on the number who call for even more restrictions on firearms than we have already. (non-US dopers excluded)

I have been around or handling firearms in one shape or the other since the age of six, as were my brothers, cousins, etc. I got my first shotgun, a christmas present from my grandmother, when I was 14. From a young age, firearms were and are a part of everyday life. A fate worse than a whuppin’ was to mishandle a firearm and not be able to participate in the hunt, a shoot, or a gun related event for days or weeks.

Firearms were and are considered a tool, nothing more, nothing less. Some people use this tool to put meat on the table, some use it to win shooting events, some use it to defend themselves or their families. Driving to school with a shotgun in the trunk, for hunting after class, I can’t recall anyone walking into a high school back in those days (the mid-70’s) and settling a grudge with a gun.

kinthalis suggested if you commit a crime with a gun, you get an extra ten years. Are you any less dead if you’re killed with a knife? A bat? A hammer? If a criminal shoots and wounds you while stealing your wallet, he gets 20 years, but the guy who guts you like a fish gets only 10?

We have hundreds more gun laws on both on the state and federal level since the passage of the 1968 Gun Control Act, and yet crime and gun violence escalated until reaching a peak in the late '80’s, and has been coming down ever since. I for one am a firm proponent of gun control laws when they are proven to prevent crime and keep guns out of the hands of criminals. However, registration, et al., solutions only effect the law-abiding.

In a long ago GC thread, Unclebeer or ExTank posited some questions, which was, to paraphrase, what has changed over the last 20-30 years in this country that could explain the seeming rise in gun crimes or violence. Could it be socio-economic conditions? A sea change in mores and values which can be attributed to media influences or changing lifestyles? I think this could give us some more food for thought than trying figure out further restrictions on a right the citizens in this country enjoy.

14

I think there’s far too much glorification of firearms, particularly in the US, but worldwide. I think adults who like guns are mostly small boys who’ve never grown up and still like smashing things up and making banging sounds.

Guns aren’t big or clever, and people should stop acting like they are and using totally false arguments to defend them. If you like guns because they make a big noise, say so. Don’t say “we need them to overthrow an unjust government” or “it’s part of our way of life” or “it makes people drive more courteously” because that’s all so ridiculous. Shooting a gun is not a sport or a great skill: shooting a longbow is a skill which requires years of practice and physical strength; shooting a gun is like using a TV remote control.

And just because America was founded on guns, doesn’t mean you still need them: it was also founded on racist doctrines and genocide, but you’ve managed to grow out of that. The argument about self-defence is more complex (saves lives, but results in lots of deaths), but I think encouraging people to carry guns will make people think that violence is an answer to all life’s problems.

15

Like the bumper sticker says, gun control is being able to hit your target.

16

refusal wrote:

It’s this kind of blanket bs that turns any gun debate into a rancorous shout down. I’ll be sure to let all the females in my shooting squad know that their enjoyment of the shooting sports is due to penis envy and that their years of practice to achieve the high level of skill they now have is just so much tripe.

17

All of the aruments I’ve seen against gun control make one very dangerous (and, IMHO incorrect) assumption:

Humans always act rationally.

18

And yet there are shooting sports in the Olympics. Hmmmm.

Frankly, I gotta say, for this being the Straight Dope and a supposed battle to stamp out ignorance, I sure see a lot of it promoted here in this thread. In fact, much of what the gun control proponents advocate, is already law. So your grand schemes of reducing, or eliminating, gun crime and violence through legislation are for naught, which should lead rational observers to the inevitable and simple conclusion that more gun control does not necessarily correlate well with (let alone cause) reduced crime and violence. Especially in a nation where more than 200 million guns are owned by more than 65 million law-abiding citizens.

My opinion? Background checks for purchasers, much as we do now; a safe-handling test (and not one designed by politicians, but by firearms experts and no markmanship - hell the cops can’t even pass some of those) for those wishing to engage in concealed carry; and stiff, swift and certain penalties for the criminal use of firearms. And that’s it.

19
      • Another couple practical problems with gun crime in the US is that a disproportionate amount of it is committed with illegally-aquired guns and a disproportionate amount of it is committed by minorities, namely low-income blacks. If the US could exclude inner-city crimes in its statistics, the national figures would be much lower.

Politicians sweat and squirm when cornered with these facts however, because they refuse to admit the problem and so everything they propose completely misses the problem areas and portions of society. Kind of like how when AIDS was first running rampant in the US and Canada, and it wasn’t politically-correct to say “the solution needs to target the gay community”–so for a while, nothing got accomplished in the way of education or solutions. Well, inner-city crime is still going nowhere, because nobody wants to admit that it might be a “poor black” problem.

So US politicians have a choice: they can choose between advocating disarming “coloreds” or disarming poor people, so they choose to disarm poor people every time by proposing gun control that has economic or politically-sanctioned requirements, such as either making gun permits really expensive, or requiring you to have “the sheriff’s permission” to get a permit. And it’s amusing and sad at the same time.


[quote]
....In a long ago GC thread, Unclebeer or ExTank posited some questions, which was, to paraphrase, what has changed over the last 20-30 years in this country that could explain the seeming rise in gun crimes or violence. Could it be socio-economic conditions? A sea change in mores and values which can be attributed to media influences or changing lifestyles? I think this could give us some more food for thought than trying figure out further restrictions on a right the citizens in this country enjoy.... - BF
[/quote]

 - Well, you *could* start off by noting that the areas of the US that have the most individual welfare consumption tend to have the highest crime rates. . . . . .
~
20

I live in the US, and I am a Democrat (our somewhat more liberal than Republican party.) The one thing that continually embarasses me about my party is gun control. In my quiet central Indiana neighborhood, several folks walk for exercise before dawn. If one of those little old ladies feels safer wearing a 9mm Glock, that’s fine with me.

21

After re-reading the OP, particularly this:

I think most people would agree with you to a point. However, the UK historically has never had an “epidemic” of crimes committed with firearms long before the Dunblane and other tragedies. Banning personnel ownership of firearms was a knee-jerk reaction to Dunblane and did nothing to remove firearms from the criminal element. As a matter of course, now the black market in firearms and replica guns which can be converted to working order is skyrocketing, as is the number of “hot” burglaries (burglaries attempted while someone is home) are on the rise.

As has been stated in before (loosely), comparing crime rates in the UK (and types) to those of the US is akin to comparing fish to bicycles.