your opinion on gun control

[Crafter_Man]

I’m a member of the “gun culture.” I have guns, I shoot guns, I love guns. Suffice to say, I believe gun control of any kind is inherently evil.

Would I be for gun control if it resulted in less crime? No. I couldn’t care less about any correlation between “gun control” and “crime.” (Scholarly evidence suggests that more gun control may actually increase crime. But even if the opposite were true, I would still be against gun control. Freedom isn’t free.)

When it comes to my right to keep and bear arms, I am an extremist. Do I have a right to own an M-16? Yep. Do I have a right to own a 20 mm Solothurn anti aircraft gun? Sure - give me two. Does a felon have a right to own a fully automatic 50 BMG? Absolutely, as no free man should be denied his right to bear arms. Do I have the right to store 10,000 rounds of .308 in my basement? You bet.

And if that weren’t enough, I couldn’t care less about what any court, judge, or legislator says about it. I have a God-given right to purchase, keep, bear, and shoot any firearm I want, and an inalienable right to forcibly resist anyone who seeks to take this right away .

[amarone]

*Originally posted by qts *
**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.**

The police in the US state “if you must get a gun to defend youself, get a shotgun. The odds of you hitting someone are far greater than if you are nervously waving a pistol.” I have personally been in a meeting with the police where they gave this advice.

**

I’d suggest self-defence is a perfectly adequate reason for owning a firearm.**

I am not debating views as to what should or should not be a good reason. I was merely stating the fact that self-defence has not been a legal reason to get a gun in the UK for a long time. Many Americans seem to be under the impression that people have been rendered defenceless by the handgun ban. That is simply not true - as they were defenceless beforehand also.

**

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?**

I agree - but it all adds to my point - we don’t and in recent history never have used guns to defend ourselves, therefore the handgun ban has not been a factor in crime levels in the UK. Pistols had to be locked away too, so they were also of limited use in self-defence.

**

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. **

Hmm - it is not often that someone gives a cite that completely blows away the point they were trying to make. You have cited one specific category, which I will return to later. I looked first at burglaries, as that is the area usually cited by pro-gun advocates (the ability to defend yourself in your home). The survey you cite states:

BCS estimates that overall domestic burglary fell by 23 per cent since 1999. This fall
is slightly larger at 26 per cent if one limits the coverage to burglaries with entry (with or
without loss) or just burglaries with loss.

Also from the report, looking at overall crime:

• Between 1999 and 2001/02, all BCS crime fell by 14 per cent, which is a statistically significant
reduction. This figure includes statistically significant falls in domestic burglary (down 23 per
cent), vehicle thefts (down 14 per cent) and common assaults (down 28 per cent).
• Comparing individual offence categories between 1999 and 2001/02, statistically significant falls
were observed for theft from vehicles (16 per cent) and attempted thefts of and from vehicles (14
per cent). Decreases for burglary with entry (26 per cent), burglary with loss (26 per cent),
attempted burglary (19 per cent), attempts with no loss (21 per cent) and other household theft
(21 per cent) were also statistically significant.
Crime in England and Wales 2001/02
• Since 1995, the BCS has reported a fall in crime at each survey. There was a 22 per cent fall in
the crime measured by the BCS over the last five years from 1997 to 2001/02

Maybe the supposed increase in crime in the UK is just in violent crime? Nope.

• The BCS violence estimate has fallen by 22 per cent since 1997 and 17 per cent since 1999,
both falls being statistically significant [a chart in the document shows even bigger falls since 1995, but no numbers given].
• The increase in violent crime recorded by the police, in contrast to the estimates from the BCS,
appears to be largely due to increased recording by police forces. Taking into account recording
changes, the real trend in violence against the person in 2001/02 may have been a reduction of
around five per cent

There has, however, been an increase in robberies.

Within the broad category of recorded violent crimes, the number of robberies recorded by the
police increased by 28 per cent in 2001/02. The number of robberies does not so far appear to
have been significantly affected by changes in police recording practice, although it may have
been affected by increased reporting by the public.

With respect to overall crime levels:

Almost one-third of respondents (30 per cent) believed that crime had risen ‘a lot’, and a further
third felt that crime had risen ‘a little’ over the previous two years. This is despite the total
number of crimes reported to the BCS falling by 14 per cent between 1999 and 2001/02.

And:

The fall in violent crime may seem surprising, given media attention to violent crime.
However, the BCS suggests that violent crime in general has been falling for some time.
Although BCS estimates present an average experience of violence, it is possible that the
very rare but more extreme incidents of violence have increased at the same time. It is the
latter that are more often reported in the media.

This was a surprise to me - I, too, had felt that crime had increased dramatically. I must listen to too much talk-radio. My point has been that the handgun ban was not a factor in increased crime levels, because there hardly were any handguns (160,000) in the first place and we didn’t use them for self-defence anyway. It sounds like there is no actual increase in crime, but a decrease. My view is going to be consistent, though: the handgun ban was not a factor in decreased crime levels, because there hardly were any in the first place and we didn’t use them for self-defence anyway.

[Elysian]

Hah, I did an entire semester project on gun control. I interviewed people, conducted a survey, and needless to say consulted many sources on either side of the subject.

From my experience, people who are against guns generally are pretty rabid about it, and generally know nothing about guns and gun control. They see a threat and immediately counter it by insisting that all guns should be outlawed.

Politicians know this and use this to get votes. Pretty natural tendency.

Go to any anti-gun website and you will see purple prose and inflammatory stories about children being gunned down. No good, hard facts.

After you check out one of those websites, pick up a book by John Lott. Any of them. And don’t just believe what he tells you – go out and verify the facts for yourself.

That’s what convinced me

[Cartooniverse]

Gun Control, not Guns themselves? Okay. This thread is tailor made for me.

The appalling lack of reality-based gun control in the United States of America has become worse and worse in the last few decades. The fact that the N.R.A. has a firm grasp of the White House and basically can issue edicts on what kinds of gun laws need to be relaxed or eliminated, knowing that there is a great likelihood that their wishes will be carried out in toto makes the entire situation that much more frightening.

The 2nd Ammendment argument is straw man at best. A well organized militia is your local police department. A well organized militia is your State Police and National Guard Unit. A well organized militia is not every individual who has decided that they are empowered with the right to kill in a split second.

Can you kill someone in a fit of rage with a gun strapped your hip, as is permitted by law in at least one state in the USA? Yes you can.

Can you kill someone during a drunken argument by pulling a gun out of your purse? Yes you can.

Can you kill someone with a gun if in fact all private gun ownership were illegal, and the penalties for having a gun illegally were gargantuan? No, you simply can not. You have to have a gun in your hand to murder someone with it.

Check the stats. The murder rate in the USA directly due to use of guns is appalling.

There is, IMHO, absolutely no place for firearms in the hands of private individuals. Not in the home, not in the car, not in the pocketbook or backpack, not on the hip or in a hidden shoulder holster.

It’s not about gangs, or drug dealers, or urban violence, or any other catch-phrase that the N.R.A. adores throwing out at people who believe as I do. It’s really very simple. Gun makers make guns and make tens of millions a year at it. They are wealthy and powerful, and dictate legislation as they see fit.

When that climate changes, perhaps the news stories will stop flowing each week that feature young children whose brains were blown out by accident. Stories of automatic gunfire spraying through our schools. Stories of simple storekeepers, mowed down for eleven dollars in the till. Stories that are all true and SO numerous that cite is not necessary. Find a city with a population of over 250,000. Find one week’s newspapers. Read the news stories. You will find a gun killing that would have been prevented, had all privately held guns been outlawed.

What’s my take on gun control? In the United States of America, there IS essentially no gun control.

:mad:

Cartooniverse

[Crafter_Man]

*Originally posted by Cartooniverse *
What’s my take on gun control? In the United States of America, there IS essentially no gun control.

And I think there’s too much gun control in the U.S.

I won’t rest until there’s an M16 in every home…

[artemis]

*Originally posted by amarone *
The police in the US state “if you must get a gun to defend youself, get a shotgun. The odds of you hitting someone are far greater than if you are nervously waving a pistol.” I have personally been in a meeting with the police where they gave this advice.

A bit OT:

Those cops didn’t know what they were talking about. At any distance under 10-12 feet (in other words, the distances at which most crimnal encounters are likely to be occurring), the diamter of spread of the shot pattern from a shotgun is under 2 inchs. You DO have to aim a shotgun accurately in order to hit an assailant. And since shotguns have long barrels, they’re more difficult to maneuver and aim accurately in close quarters, such as inside a home.

If a person is “nervously waving a gun around”, he/she hasn’t had sufficient training to successfully use any weapon in self-defense. The solution is better training, not switching to a supposedly “easier to use” weapon which really isn’t easier to use at all.

[Tony_Montana]

*Originally posted by Crafter_Man *
**And I think there’s too much gun control in the U.S.

I won’t rest until there’s an M16 in every home… **

I own an AK, does that count? If so I’m doing my part…

-TM proud member of the bloodthirsty, violent , sociopathic, murderous black rifle club :dubious: :rolleyes:

Oh and since I own a car I have a right to run your ass over in a split second.

[Tony_Montana]

*Originally posted by artemis *
**A bit OT:
And since shotguns have long barrels, they’re more difficult to maneuver and aim accurately in close quarters, such as inside a home.
**

What of short-barreled pistol-gripped (riot)shotguns? I’ll take that for home defense over pistols anytime. Loaded thusly: 00 buckshot, slug, 00 buck, etc

[John_Harrison]

*Originally posted by Cartooniverse *
The 2nd Ammendment argument is straw man at best. A well organized militia is your local police department. A well organized militia is your State Police and National Guard Unit. A well organized militia is not every individual who has decided that they are empowered with the right to kill in a split second.

US Code - TITLE 10, Subtitle A, PART I, CHAPTER 13
Sec. 311. - Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b)The classes of the militia are -

(1)the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia

Can you kill someone with a gun if in fact all private gun ownership were illegal, and the penalties for having a gun illegally were gargantuan? No, you simply can not. You have to have a gun in your hand to murder someone with it.

So, just make guns illegal and they will go away? Like it works for illegal drugs? :rolleyes:

Check the stats. The murder rate in the USA directly due to use of guns is appalling.

I wonder how the decreasing homicide rate in spite of the increasing gun supply and more states passing CCW laws fits into this “stat”.

When that climate changes, perhaps the news stories will stop flowing each week that feature young children whose brains were blown out by accident. Stories of automatic gunfire spraying through our schools. Stories of simple storekeepers, mowed down for eleven dollars in the till. Stories that are all true and SO numerous that cite is not necessary. Find a city with a population of over 250,000. Find one week’s newspapers. Read the news stories. You will find a gun killing that would have been prevented, had all privately held guns been outlawed.

I noticed you failed to include the people that use fireams in self defense. Typical.

[viking]

I’ll add my off-topic experiences to help quash the illegal guns=no guns argument.

Beer is legal. Pot is not (well, it sorta is now, but wasn’t when this story took place). I’m at an outdoor concert. I want a beer. Half-hour lineup to buy a beer ticket, then another half-hour lineup to trade beer ticket for beer. During that hour, I got offered pot 7 or 8 times.

So how exactly does making something illegal make it difficult (let alone impossible) to obtain?

[BF]

amarone wrote:

My point has been that the handgun ban was not a factor in increased crime levels, because there hardly were any handguns (160,000) in the first place and we didn’t use them for self-defence anyway. It sounds like there is no actual increase in crime, but a decrease. My view is going to be consistent, though: the handgun ban was not a factor in decreased crime levels, because there hardly were any in the first place and we didn’t use them for self-defence anyway.

If you scroll up and read one of my earlier posts, I made this point, which was that the handgun ban in the UK was a kneejerk reaction to a couple of isolated incidences that had no bearing on criminal misuse of firearms before or after the ban.

Oh, and Cartoonivers, that was absolutely rich. I guess you haven’t checked out some of the pro-gun sites where people are gnashing their teeth because Bush may sign an extension on the assault weapon ban?

[BF]

Oops, that should be Cartooniverse.

[amarone]

*Originally posted by BF *
**amarone wrote:
If you scroll up and read one of my earlier posts, I made this point, which was that the handgun ban in the UK was a kneejerk reaction to a couple of isolated incidences that had no bearing on criminal misuse of firearms before or after the ban.
**

I’m extending your point by adding “or any other crimes” after “firearms”.

[justwannano]

Quote Amarone
The police in the US state “if you must get a gun to defend youself, get a shotgun. The odds of you hitting someone are far greater than if you are nervously waving a pistol.” I have personally been in a meeting with the police where they gave this advice.
The cops have to make a general statement which covers their ass if they are wrong.I know some pretty cool headed gun owners.As A matter of fact all the gun owners I know have cool heads. My guess they would hit only what they are aiming at.

Quote cartooniverse

Can you kill someone in a fit of rage with a gun strapped your hip, as is permitted by law in at least one state in the USA? Yes you can.

Cartooniverse,cartooniverse,cartooniverse
Haven’t you read what they have been saying above. Most antis know nothing about guns.
It would be extremely difficult ,darned near impossible actually, to kill someone with a gun strapped to your hip.You can’t just point your leg at them and fire.

[Cartooniverse]

Gosh. I’m laughing so hard. Here, let’s go visit Don’s grave. He had his brain and brain stem blown away by a teenager who decided to shove the barrel of his pistol against Don’s face and pull the trigger, for a bag of cash just withdrawn from the bank. Yeah, smart boy. HE remembered to draw it off from his leg.

Oh gosh, you are one amusing person !!! Yes, wink, wink, wink. I love the wink at the end, therefore showing everyone reading that you sure showed me !!! Yep, ya did !!! Nice job. Uh huh, I sure did mean that you would discharge a firearm while it was still holstered. Yep. Sure did. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by BF

Oops, that should be Cartooniverse.

Illiteracy such as yours is a gift. Use it wisely.

[amarone]

*Originally posted by justwannano *
*Quote Amarone
The police in the US state “if you must get a gun to defend youself, get a shotgun. The odds of you hitting someone are far greater than if you are nervously waving a pistol.” I have personally been in a meeting with the police where they gave this advice.
*
**
The cops have to make a general statement which covers their ass if they are wrong.I know some pretty cool headed gun owners.As A matter of fact all the gun owners I know have cool heads. My guess they would hit only what they are aiming at.
**

If they would, they are unusual. I have spoken to a cop who has fired his weapon in the line of duty. He says that despite all their training, it is incredibly difficult to shoot straight when the target is shooting back and adrenaline is coursing through your system. That is why cops are taught to keep firing.

What makes you think your cool-headed friends would do better?

The cops actually recommended a pump-action shotgun. Part of the reason being you can make a noise that makes it very clear to an intruder even before they get into your room that you are armed.

[AbbySthrnAccent]

I know next to nothing about the current status of gun control laws.

I do however have an opinion. I think there should be some kind of gun control for certain kinds of weapons and the number of weapons a person should have. I think an individual that can show proper training should be permitted a weapon if they want it. I think that even though it’s a constitutional right, it ought to be similar to driving in that it’s a privelege that comes with training and responsibilities and ought to be revoked when abused.

My husband had a rifle that he kept under the bed when we first married. He sold it when we had our first child at my request because my older brother was shot (in the leg) by a friend when he was 12 and I didn’t feel I wanted a gun in the house with children. Now that our son is older and has had some exposure ( However much a BSA merit badge is training.) with a rifle and shotgun we have talked about purchasing a replacement.

[BF]

*Originally posted by AbbySthrnAccent *
** Now that our son is older and has had some exposure ( However much a BSA merit badge is training.) with a rifle and shotgun we have talked about purchasing a replacement. **

Congratulations to your son for getting his Rifle & Shotgun merit badge. If he earned this at camp, there’s a 90% chance he was taught by NRA certified instructors, and should have a very firm grasp of safe handling. Paper and clay target shooting is one of the few sports the whole family can participate in together. Have fun!!

[justwannano]

So Cartooniverse,Who is Don?
What makes you think that Don wouldn’t be just as dead if it wasn’t a sword,or a hammer,or the funny section of the newspaper covering a big rock used as the weapon?
You sir /madam is why Cecil feels it is taking so long.
Amarone
So now it has become a gun battle that you want to barr guns from?
We are talking about gun control.

[Cartooniverse]

I’m a sir.

I attempted to get his Obituary, and have in fact called the local paper that ran it. If I can get an active link, you may be sure I will link it into this thread.

Ignorant? What makes me think that? The gun fired in a split second ( yeah yeah, whatever fucking portion of a second it took. Let’s say that since the muzzle was jammed so hard against his face that it scorched away some skin, it took LESS THAN a second to enter his brain, m’kay? ). A sword would have impaled and would have been removed, likely. Added seconds. A hammer or rock would have taken repeated blows, unless it was one huge hammer. Added seconds.

It was done fast and the get-away was done faster.

You can call me ignorant if you wish, but having lost friends and family to guns, and having faced the serious end of a gun, I’m far from ignorant on the subject. I notice that not one righteous sluglover has decided to take on my assertion that if you take any city over 250,000 you will find one gun murder per week per city.

What’s that called ? “Acceptable losses” ? " Collateral Damage"? ’ Righteous Offensive Maneuvers" ?

Yes, we are talking about gun control. I offered one situation where a man’s live was taken, and wouldn’t have been taken without a gun. You threw in various straw, stone and metal men to try to derail the point of my post. Shame it really didn’t work.

The truth is that a murder took place using a gun. No gun? No bullet into the brain stem. You are the one who is so blindingly ignorant as to desperately deny the simple truth.

Need I really find a few cites of young children, killed by bullets fired by drug dealers and ganstas that penetrated the wall of a home, striking and killing them? I guess you think every single one of those stories is an Ignorant Urban Legend, devoid of truth? Or, perhaps you’re going to tell us all that well, it could have been a big rock, or hammer, or a sword that was hurled 300 yards through a home wall, killing a small child?

One does not barr guns. Remember, girls don’t get intimate with boys who are illiterate- to directly quote Cecil on the subject of articulation in the written form.

When did I say it was a gun battle I wanted to “barr” guns from? I referred to a murder of an unarmed gentleman. Where’s the gun battle there?

Lame try. Got anything better?