your opinion on gun control

In My Humble Opinion
42

Well, these things are already illegal. As are “straw purchases” where a person who may legally own a gun purchases one for someone who cannot. You might also be interested to learn that a significant number of guns are stolen from military bases.

This site claimed in December 2002, that more than 1.7 million guns were stolen in the previous 10 years.
http://www.agsfoundation.com/press_121702.htm

This PDF from the same site also claims that out of 286,000 firearm thefts in 1999-2000, there were a mere 708 federal prosecutions. This despite better than 10% of stolen guns are recovered withing one year. Sounds like the solution isn’t more laws and restrictions, but more prosecution of the existing laws.
http://www.agsfoundation.com/media/AGS-fin.pdf

43

  1. The BATF is requested to trace more than 200,000 firearms annually. A trace is generally requested by a local police force when they recover a gun known, or suspected, to be involved in a crime. They can trace the gun back to the original dealer and then forward through the sales records which licensed dealers are required to keep. If the gun has been sold privately, this chain can break down completely, or only show gaps if the gun at some point returns to a licensed dealer.

  2. Both - see Viking’s post about the massive cost overruns for just such a system in Canada. I’m also concerned with what happens to law-abiding owners when the recorsds are faulty (again look at the Viking’s post about the quantity of these in the Canadian system). Plus, guns used in crime are most often (some estimates range as high as 95%) acquired illegally. Thus, there will be no records of utility of in any database on the vast majority of crime guns recovered. The BATF does, however, keep a central database of guns reported stolen.

In short, too little return on too great an investment, coupled with too great an opportunity for serious life-altering errors. What happens when the cops show up at my door and tell me that one of my guns has been used in a murder because their data is faulty? Scary proposition.

  1. Again, storage requirements vary from state to state, and even more radically from city to city. Ohio has no storage requirements. Me, I have a number of guns stored at my father’s house in his gun safe. I also have some in my apartment in locked cases (which would present no difficulty opening) and some simply in stashed in the nightstand - one of them loaded at times. To get to them, an unauthorized person would have to broach to locked doors. I also live alone, so casual handling by other occupants isn’t an issue.

  2. I’m note sure how to answer this, but I have never really considered self-defense to be a motivating factor in any gun purchase.

  3. I’m loathe to speak for anyone else, but if registration of my guns is required, I won’t do it. Nor would I turn over any guns if they were to be banned. The extent to which I would cooperate would be if a Firearm Owner’s Identification Card were ever to be required to purchase a gun, I’m certain I would obtain one. But only because additional gun purchases would become impossible through licensed dealers. But “serious trouble?” No. I guess I’d have to give 'em up if the cops came to my door with a legal search warrant and authority to seize them. But, I think we’re a long way from that. Although there are those who’d be pleased to see that happen.

  4. You’re asking, I think, “Why own guns?” Right? Well, for me, it’s because I find them to be an enjoyable hobby (I use them for nothing but various forms of target shooting). And since the American people have been afforded the opportunity to own guns for whatever reason suits their fancy, and I think, even encouraged to own guns since the founding of the country, I choose to do so. As long as I use them responsibly, why should anyone have the abiltity to take that enshrined right away from me?

Again, good questions, enigmatic.

44

I’m not really asking why people want to own guns, it’s more a case of understanding some of the reasons given. I have a lot of sympathy with the shooting for a hobby thing. I am willing to except the necessary evil of abolishing hobby shooting in order for gun controls here, but as I have said I enjoy plinking at cans with my air pistol and under other circumstances could easily see myself going to an alley to enjoy shooting (although I probably wouldn’t want to keep a gun in my house). Likewise although myself would not go out hunting for sport I don’t really see any major problems with the activity.

I’m a little unconvinced about the usefulness of fire arms for self defence (does anyone have any good unbiased statistics on this)but I accept people actually living in America are better placed to make their minds up on the neccesity of this.

The things that seem most disturbing to me are the militia type movements (as portrayed by the media over here) and I was wondering whether anyone could shed any light on such organisations. They can’t all be gun mad crazies determined to take the goverment down or repel an imminent commie invasion can they ?

45

They aren’t all that way, athough the media may lead you to believe otherwise. Some of them are just a bunch of guys who enjoy running around the woods with their rifles playing soldier. And there aren’t nearly as many of them as there used to be anyway. The Southern Poverty Law Center (http://www.splcenter.org), who has long kept an eye on things like the Klan and the militias, used to gather intelligence on nearly 800 of these groups. They now collect data on less than 200.

If anyone claims to, they’re lying. Estimates run from a surely inflated figure of 2 million to a just as surely understated 80,000 DGUs (Defensive Gun Use) per year. Although even at 80,000, that’s about 7 times as many defensive uses as gun homicides. (And before someone gets up in arms, I’m making no claim that each of these 80,000 DGUs actually prevented a murder; I find that highly unlikely.)

46

Regarding my first statement, I’m certain that having a gun at least gives one the power to kill. Whether or not its a right to kill is more nebulous (I don’t subscribe to the belief in rights that many others do, but that was discussed in another thread), but it seems to me that having the right to bear arms as protection from other people bearing arms is a bit silly.

I know that if guns were banned tomorrow, there would still be gun murders the day after that, but hopefully 20 years down the line that number would be significantly less. And if that was the case, that would decrease the need for guns, wouldn’t it?

UncleBeer

I didn’t say that. The 2nd amendment certainly entitles (in the legal sense) most people to own guns. I just disagree that that’s how it should be.

&

See what I said to justwannano above (and also try rereading my post perhaps.)

Wow! You took my compliment to a new person to the SDMB, and turned it into an insult towards me that doesn’t even make sense!

47

Gun control means hitting your target.

48
      • Well, I don’t have any statistics, but it’s not the statistics I’m concerned about. I only own a few small-calilber target guns, but two of those are pistols. One is a revolver, purchased partly because they are more dependable for self-defense purposes. I want a gun at home for self-defense, you see, because police have guns. If police thought they didn’t need guns, I would question if I needed one kept loaded also – but I feel my life is just as worthy as a police officer’s, or anybody else’s. So, if it is ever necessary, I feel I deserve the right to defend my own life with the most lethal means available. I’d hate for that to happen (for several different reasons) but if it did, I would. You might suppose that “police have a need for guns” because “they frequently come into contact with violent criminals”. Well, guess what? “Victims” frequently come into contact with violent criminals also–technically, more often than police. You can choose not to be a police officer, but you cannot choose not to be a victim. So why is it police should be allowed the luxury of firearms to defend their lives, while victims should not?
  • I have no real interest in carrying a firearm however. I haven’t ever felt that I needed to, and probably wouldn’t even if I could anyway.
    …
      • Yes they can, but there’s very few people involved in those organizations compared to the total number of gun-owners nationwide. Adding to their unattractiveness, many tend towards an “Aryan/anti-immigrant” stance also. Media outlets in search of a story tend to blow an “emergency” out of proportion (no matter the reality) just to sensationalize their story, and activist organizations set on monitoring such things have a tendency to describe two anti-government guys as a “cell” and three anti-government guys as a “militia”… Kind of like how US news stories tend to portray the entire center of the UK ripped apart by orange-colored IRA bombs.
        ~
49

Quote Qwertyasdfg

Regarding my first statement, I’m certain that having a gun at least gives one the power to kill. Whether or not its a right to kill is more nebulous (I don’t subscribe to the belief in rights that many others do, but that was discussed in another thread), but it seems to me that having the right to bear arms as protection from other people bearing arms is a bit silly.

I know that if guns were banned tomorrow, there would still be gun murders the day after that, but hopefully 20 years down the line that number would be significantly less. And if that was the case, that would decrease the need for guns, wouldn’t it?

Hell Qwerty what are you talking about?
Cain slew Able without a gun.Mark Anthony did in Ceasar without a gun.Atilla the Hun slew many without a gun.
Your crusade to rid the world of killing equipment is a lost cause.
If you have your way will I have to give up my steak knives?
Just think of what Lizzie Borden did with an axe.
A gun is only an instrument. Its how you use the instrument that counts.
IMHO your poorly thought out anti gun sentiments are typical of those publicity seeking members of the antigun group.

50

The UK would disagree. Gun crime has gone up. As noted above, we have very strict gun control laws over here, largely as knee-jerk reactions to people running amok (Dunblane, Hungerford et al). Personally, I feel that we’ve gone the wrong way: the proper response should have been to liberalise gun ownership. This sounds counter-intuitive, but consider Dunblane: concerned citizens had to wait for the police to arrive; had they owned firearms, they could have engaged Hamilton themselves immediately.

Our burglary rate is much higher than the US: burglars know that occupants are going to be unarmed. Yes, our death-rate is much lower, but it’s a trade-off debate which we haven’t had yet need to.

Having said that I’m for the liberalisation of firearms, I should say that I’m not in favour of free purchase. I feel that people should have to provide two (perhaps more) other people who say that they are fit to own such a class of firearm, at least one of whom should be a military person of the rank of at least Sergeant for the ranks or Captain if an officer

51

If all guns on this planet VANISHED tomorrow, people would still rob, rape, maim, and kill each other, as we have done for thousands of pre-gun years. Gun control is more a form of propaganda than anything else–it helps convince the masses that their governments are “doing something” about crime.

The problem–violence–is NOT in our possessions, it’s in US! And any program to “do something about crime” which fails to recognize this truth will FAIL!

We like to shift blame… everybody is somebody else’s scapegoat… and inanimate objects are the easiest scapegoats of all, because they can’t fight back.

52

I’m with Justwannano up there, my thoughts on guns and gun control are pretty much just opinion. I don’t have the vast knowledge base regarding regulatory info as some of our dopers do.

My opinion on gun control has always been along the lines of “blaming a gun for killing a man, is like blaming a pencil for misspelling a word”.

I don’t see how gun control really affects the “good” gun owners, other than their having to wait for 3 days. If I recall, aren’t collectors still allowed to purchase the oddball types except for certain assault rifles?

So they have to wait a little longer to get their gun. If they’re reputable people, it shouldn’t be that much of a hardship right?

But I also don’t see how gun control does a whole lot more than present a hassle for the legitimate gun owners, I mean your local criminal isn’t going to register for one, or buy it from a reputable dealer, he’ll either steal it, or buy it off of a “fence” (do they still call them that?

Okay, so they can trace guns that have been stolen back to the original owner.

So, they assist law officials in forensics after the fact? And they make it difficult for criminals to buy from legitimate dealers, thus decreasing somewhat the number of guns getting out there on the streets.

I also don’t see that even the abolishment of all guns would really affect violence all that much, as some other posters have already stated (and with more information backing them than I have), criminals will just use other weapons, what’re ya gonna do, outlaw rocks?

Am I FOR? Or Against? shoot, I don’t even know! LOL, but then the OP asked us our opinion.

Those are mine.

I believe that we have the right to bear arms, but I also believe that WITH that right comes responsibility, and if part of that responsibility is to ensure that you and your gun(s) are registered, I don’t think that’s a bad thing.

53

enigmatic, as UncleBeer answered your questions quite succinctly, I’d like to add my 2 cents.

[list=1]
[li]Basically what UB said. Of interest since the Malvo ambush shootings in the DC area, there was a lot of talk of “ballistic fingerprinting”, where each firearm manufactured would have a round fired through it and that firearm and round would be registered in a central database. This (although the anti’s love the idea) effort was tabled after a study from a California body that determined that it was unworkable (in a nutshell).[/li]
[li]Two reasons. Yes, the cost would be enormous and would take away law enforcement resources better utilized elsewhere. For a prime example of the expense without benefit, see Canada’s current efforts. The second reason is “paranoia” due to the slippery slope arguement of registration leading to confiscation. This became reality in California when owners of “assault weapons” were required to register their firearms in the mid-90’s. IIRC, CA banned “assault weapons” in 2000 which required owners to either, move out of state, ship their arms for out of state storage, or turn them in, with the knowledge that if they didn’t, the government knew where to find them.[/li]
[li]Laws vary from state to state. My FIL has three long guns in a traditional display rack over the fireplace, unlocked. I used to have a nice glass display case, but got rid of it for a real safe as my collection has become more valuable. But there are loaded firearms in my residence that are not locked.[/li]
[li]Unfortunately the media sensationalism is very real. I think UncleBeer or ExTank in a old GC thread quoted a stat that in the year such and such, there were 256 negative news stories compared to 36 items where firearms were shown in a positive manner. As for a person’s perception of danger, considering where I live and where I go, I do not have a feeling of being killed or being placed in a situation where I might have to use deadly force. For a number of people, carrying and never having to use beats not carrying that one time and having a need to defend themselves.[/li]
[li]While there are a number of bills being introduced that are anti-gun, the sentiment of many gun owners I associate with is that there doesn’t seem to be a danger right now (emphasis on right now). However, if there was some fluke legislation passed that banned firearms or some such, there will be a large portion of the population who will become criminals overnight. The NRA has approximately 5 million members, but what a lot of people don’t realize is that there are a number of gun groups in this country with relatively significant memberships who have views, shall we say, to the right of the NRA. And I do not include self-proclaimed militias.[/li]
[li]Both. One of the common arguements is that one side says the 2nd just means that you can be armed when performing under the guise of a militia, while a counter arguement is that “the people” means the same thing in other amendments, meaning the people have right to bear arms regardless. Some view the 2nd as an antiquated relic, others view it as worst-case scenario if our government goes sour.[/li][/list=1]

54

Quote Canvas Shoes
I don’t see how gun control really affects the “good” gun owners, other than their having to wait for 3 days

What we are concerned about ,well at least I am, is that the anti mentality will run away with my rights. There are professional people merely seaking publicity that have jumped on the anti band wagon. Actors and the like whose job it is to convince the public that fiction is reality are plying their trade on the masses.

We’ve seen the gun control advocates take more and more.

There is a thread started about Saturday Night Specials. (search saturday night special)I haven’t seen the movie so I cannot comment in the thread but it sounds like the cop is saying that first we took away the Saturday Night Specials now we are after the other guns. One at a time.

55

K my two cents is gun control laws do not work

I grew up in an farming community…the boys all carried pocket knives(some pretty wicked blades too) right to school(myself included) and as far as I know no one ever used a knife in a fight…it simply never occurred to anyone to do so

Half the pickups in the parking lots of the local high school had gun racks with deer rifles and the bullets in the glove compartment and yet no one ever went nuts and started killing people

Practically everyone I knew(including myself) had access to shotguns, rifles, and handguns growing up and despite having the same amount of child abuse…spousal abuse… seeing the same violent movies everyone else did no one used those guns on members of their familys

This was BEFORE all the gun control laws…now there are HUNDREDS of laws and more everytime another nut goes on a rampage and things seem to me to be getting WORSE not better

How do all the advocates for MORE gun control laws explain this?

The only gun control laws I would really support is licensing fire arms and making people take and PASS a gun safety class like we do with automobiles…registering their weapons and paying a yearly fee to pay for the safety class…taking one test shot from all firearms so if the gun is ever used to commit a crime the bullet can be traced to the gun

There will always be those who cannot deal with the stress of everyday life and blaming EVERYONE for the crimes of those few who abuse firearms seems to me to be pointless and counterproductive

56

I could be quite wrong here, but from what I know of ballistic fingerprinting, a test shot'' taken now will look very different from what a shot from the same rifle will look like 2 years and 500 rounds later, as the fingerprinting’’ depends on minute imperfections in the barrel which will change as the gun ages. And if you have nefarious intent, you can easily hasten that process by slugging the bore with a bit of emery or other abrasive…

But if anyone knows more about the process, feel free to enlighten us. Either way, I’m just a mite concerned about how much it would cost to store x million test bullets… And assuming you do, how are you proposing to find the one out of x million that matches the one you just picked up at a crime scene?

57

You’re quite right, viking. These points were mentioned in the CA study, including the possibility of the cost of a statewide database being in the millions, with a nationwide one starting with the big letter B. Not only that, but the comparison of the grooves/rifling is quite subjective at best, and would probably take a couple of Cray’s a day or two to come up with approximate matches that would then need human intervention for analysis.

Not to mention how much it would cost to go to all current gun-owners and have them submit their firearms for the test casing.

58

…no to gun control.

It is useless to argue the point. People set on controlling gun access to law-abiding folks simply don’t understand the criminal mind. It’s pointless to even discuss it with them.

Gun-control advocates see the world in simplistic terms.
They do not understand the danger of a criminal mind, or what makes it tick. They’re sure THEY will never be a victim. Question: what WILL you do when you hear the front door getting kicked in at 2 in the morning by a druggie and a couple of his buddies? Oh, that’s right. Call the cops. If you can.

Law-abiding citizens should be able to purchase weapons for self-defense, including assault rifles. The founding fathers were concerned about FREEDOM and the means to preserve it. Not just deer hunting. Don’t tell ME what I need. I’ll make my own decisions about that.

Gun control advocates are afraid of and ignorant of weapons. Most have not likely even picked one up.

If they are truly devoted to eliminating firearms, and feel they do not have any defensive value, may I suggest a sign in your front yard proclaiming your home free of firearms?

See…I got sucked into this, even though I know better than to argue with anti-gun people. I won’t change their mind, and they sure as hell won’t change mine.

59

Burglary rates in the UK had been falling for 4 years before the handgun ban, and continued to fall at about the same rate for the four years afterwards (after which, I have no statistics - I am using Home Office statistics from July 19, 2001, covering to March 31 2001 - no link as it is a pdf I downloaded some time ago). If the rate has gone up in the last 2 years, it can hardly because it took criminals 4 years to work out that handguns had been banned.

Secondly, note that I refer to the ban on “handguns”. Shotguns are still legal. In fact, there are over 2 million shotguns in private ownership in the UK. Compare this with 160,000 handguns (many of which were held at gun clubs) that were eliminated by the ban. Do you really think that burglars will be emboldened by the fact that only 92% of the guns in private hands are still out there?

In arguing aganst gun control, many Americans point to increases in crime in the UK now that we can “no longer defend ourselves”. We have not used guns to defend ourselves personally for many years. You have to get a license/certificate to own a gun. You have to give a reason for wanting to own a gun, and self-defence has not been a valid reason since 1946.

60

I just know already that I’ll get blasted for this, as my opinion on the use of guns falls somewhere close to the realm of “taking down the government and repelling commie invasions” as someone so blithely put it earlier.

Quite frankly, you cannot aggresively persecute an armed populace. As long as this one right is intact, other “unacceptable” violations of human rights would not be possible. The only problem is that they’re doing a pretty good job of stripping this right away layer by layer. This is the point where most pro-gun people will give a “If the Jews were armed, the Holocaust wouldn’t have happened” bit. I won’t, though, becuase its cliched. :wink:

I also think that at times an armed coup de’tat might be the best thing for a country. The only difference between me and many of those militias is that I don’t think we (the US) is anywhere NEAR close to that point. Sure the Constitution is grossly disregarded, often, but dont try to tell me that we’re being OPPRESSED.

But keeping that scenario in the realm of possibility isn’t paranoia, just… uh, vivid imagination. It has happened to developed countries in the 20th century, remember.

61

Amarone, the Home Office statistics are widely disbelieved: many crimes simply go unregistered and governments of all hues are well-known for fiddling statistics.

A shotgun is not a distance weapon and would have been little use against Hamilton.

I’d suggest self-defence is a perfectly adequate reason for owning a firearm. You state that there are circa 2 million shotguns out there. That’s approx 3% of the population. Of those in private, not sporting-club hands, I expect that these are concentrated in rural communities - pest control being a usual reason for their requirement - and many owners will have more than one gun. So your typical burglar, approaching a town house, is almost guaranteed that the occupant will not be armed. Further, firearms owners are not allowed to keep their firearms loaded. Guns and ammo must be stored seperately and safely. Cite. How quickly do you think you’d be able to muster a firearm in response to an incident?

As this site notes, robberies have increased markedly. You can’t easily go around carrying a shotgun, but a handgun can be easily accessible in a case or purse or glove compartment.