Too much, do you think?

[Kymera]

I can understand being a victim. I know some victims and I've been a victim. Increasing the number of guns does not seem to be the way to combat the threat of violence.

Sure, just about anything can be a deadly weapon if it is used with that intent. I could also use a grenade as a paperweight. Is it made for that purpose? Most people would say no, but it works just as well. Guns make killing easy. How easy? So easy a child could do it.

On machine guns, I'm pretty sure that there is a ban on sales of automatic weapons to civilians for a long time. A little research later... 1986, Reagan enacted a federal ban on automatic weapon sales to civilians. An entire class of weapon was rendered inaccessible to the common citizen, and only weapons manufactured before that date and are considered transferable can be sold and require the approval of the federal government. So machine guns are illegal to buy except for models before 1986.

Anyway, I applaud you for actually being proactive about gun safety. You are the exception. Most people don't get oil changes for their cars, or even know how to use most of the features therein. i wonder how many people had parents that wouldn't set the VCR clock so it just flashed 12:00 until it became obsolete. My point is that while you have instilled the tragic responsibility that accompanies gun ownership to your family, the majority of people have not. These are the people who are on TV, teary eyed because they shot a family member who went downstairs at night to get a drink.

I mentioned that I was a victim of violence earlier, what I did to make myself feel safe again is that I took self-defense classes and forced myself to be more aware of my surroundings. If I don't feel safe, i go another way. Will it save me 100% of the time? No, but it has worked so far. Would I feel safer with a gun? No. Most of the time you can't walk with a gun anyway, and if you're surprised you can't get to it, and have probably armed your assailant. In situations where a gun would be useful, you can't carry it and a gun in your closet is of little use to you when you're at the bank.

I guess my point is that for all the people who are worried about the ability to purchase and carry weapons the places and opportunities for their legal use make it virtually pointless to own one. The flip side would be to allow people to carry a weapon anywhere that receives federal funds, so the states can still restrict gun proliferation somewhat. I'm not so sure that would go over well either.

I was asked my person view and here it is.
I feel that guns are inherently dangerous, even when used responsibly, and in the care of someone responsible. I point you to the video of the guy giving a gun safety lecture who accidentally shot himself in the leg. I'm sure you've seen it.
I feel that guns make it easy and impersonal to kill someone.
I feel guns are the only thing available to the general populace whose only function is to destroy life when used properly.
I feel that people would be safer if they increased the security around their house, instead of leaving the door open and buying a gun.
I also feel that the knowledge that the populace is unarmed is dangerous.
I feel that having the option to purchase a gun guarantees a free populace.
I feel a gun should never leave the house unless someone is hunting for food, not"sport", fighting an illegal occupation of our country or going for training/practice.

This is a non-exhaustive list. Guns are a complex issue and requires a complex answer. People who say that they are for or against guns have not expended the mental energy to have a proper discussion about it.

[Niclo Iste]

My argument is, let me have my guns. I'd rather an equal playing field when the criminal has a gun. There is a saying "Never bring a knife to a gunfight" and there is a lot of good reason to heed such a saying. Furthermore prohibiting gun ownership only applies to law abiding citizens. Do you really think a criminal cares that it's illegal to own the gun? Chances are he never intended on registering it in the first place.

One could argue statistics in one degree or another, if we want to go with the left and say "Guns help crimes happen" they are right, to a degree. Guns may make it easier but crimes are committed because the individual wanted to. Not because the gun said to do it. We could also argue for the right and say "Guns deter crimes". That to a degree is also correct. However if your criminal is insane, drugged up, or plain devoted to committing his crime the gun does little to decrease their desire to commit the crime. I prefer my philosophy of 12 guage buckshot being able to stop anyone in their tracks. Mind you if someone is coming at me with any intent of physical harm I'll do what I to take them down with me, even if they have a gun.

[CeeBee]

I feel that guns are inherently dangerous, even when used responsibly, and in the care of someone responsible. I point you to the video of the guy giving a gun safety lecture who accidentally shot himself in the leg. I'm sure you've seen it.

A gun is as safe (or unsafe) as the person handling it. That guy was handling a chambered Glock, the main safety feature of a Glock is your brain. I have one. I only chamber the round when I want to shoot.

I feel that guns make it easy and impersonal to kill someone.

As opposed to using your bare hands? Or a baseball bat? Or a knife?

I feel guns are the only thing available to the general populace whose only function is to destroy life when used properly.

Counter-example: swords. But you know the saying: "Don't bring a knife to a gun fight"...

I feel that people would be safer if they increased the security around their house, instead of leaving the door open and buying a gun.

A security system can do so much. A determined individual can cut the wires before entering a house. Even with a working security system... when seconds count police are only minutes away.

I feel a gun should never leave the house unless someone is hunting for food, not"sport", fighting an illegal occupation of our country or going for training/practice.

That highly depends on where you are going. I feel safer with my gun if I'm walking my dog at night (even if I know my 90lbs lab would probably give his life to protect me).

[Kymera]

Okay, i see we're going to use the old I'm-only-responding-to-specific-quotes-method, instead of putting forth a cohesive argument.

A gun is as safe (or unsafe) as the person handling it. That guy was handling a chambered Glock, the main safety feature of a Glock is your brain. I have one. I only chamber the round when I want to shoot.

Exactly. I may not know you personally, but I'm fairly certain you have not gotten 100% on every test you've taken. The brain is an imperfect object, you can't remember everything you've ever done, nor can you think as clearly under the stress of certain circumstances. Further, I was not talking in specifics, my point is the broader gun issue. You may be competent to handle a gun, but even competent people make mistakes. You may, in fact, worry about someone else having a gun because you know them to be generally irresponsible and careless. If you do worry about those people you may in fact be a closet supporter of gun control.

As opposed to using your bare hands? Or a baseball bat? Or a knife?

Yes. When you have to get close, exert a significant amount of energy and experience something personally it is quite different. Run over a squirrel with your car, then crush one in your hand. In both situations, the end result is the same, but the the personal feeling of it is different. you may not even be able to kill the squirrel in your hand, or even with a bat because it is much more personal than using a car to do it.

A security system can do so much. A determined individual can cut the wires before entering a house. Even with a working security system... when seconds count police are only minutes away.

The point is deterrence right? An alarm system is probably more of a deterrent than a gun. You advertise that the home is alarmed, and a burglar will probably seek another easier target. If the person is determined enough to cut the wires, if they even can, most security systems have a cell backup option (mine does), chances are they're prepared for your gun too.

That highly depends on where you are going. I feel safer with my gun if I'm walking my dog at night (even if I know my 90lbs lab would probably give his life to protect me).

Again, this is a personal preference, that has little bearing on the actual issue. I was asked my personal feelings and I provided them. You refer to only one of many examples I listed. If you feel safer walking your dog, who you admit would attempt to maul anyone that appeared to threaten you, with a gun, through a neighborhood that you chose to live in, I would wonder why anyone would need to have two ways to kill or maim someone while out for a stroll on their own street?

My argument is, let me have my guns. I'd rather an equal playing field when the criminal has a gun. There is a saying "Never bring a knife to a gunfight" and there is a lot of good reason to heed such a saying. Furthermore prohibiting gun ownership only applies to law abiding citizens. Do you really think a criminal cares that it's illegal to own the gun? Chances are he never intended on registering it in the first place.

Where did the criminal get the gun from? Chances are he didn't make it himself. The gun was made legally, and probably acquired legally by someone who then sold it to the criminal for an inflated price. There are few illegal guns in this country, but plenty of ways to get one illegally. If I wanted a gun, but I didn't feel like waiting to get a license through the proper channels, I could get one by having a friend in another state with almost criminally negligent gun laws buy it for me, and ship it to my house. Voila! Instant illegal gun.

Criminals don't care if the gun is illegal, but you care about getting shot. Even if you carry your gun on you, and you're surprised by a gun wielding criminal, your gun doesn't leap into your hand cocked and ready to fire. Even if you're holding your gun in you hand, with a round chambered, and your hand is at your side, the criminal's gun is already pointed at you. In either situation, it would probably be better that you didn't have a gun since if you twitch the wrong way you're the one who would likely be shot. Further, shooting someone in the back as they run away with your wallet is assault or murder, not self-defense.

One could argue statistics in one degree or another, if we want to go with the left and say "Guns help crimes happen" they are right, to a degree. Guns may make it easier but crimes are committed because the individual wanted to. Not because the gun said to do it. We could also argue for the right and say "Guns deter crimes". That to a degree is also correct. However if your criminal is insane, drugged up, or plain devoted to committing his crime the gun does little to decrease their desire to commit the crime. I prefer my philosophy of 12 guage buckshot being able to stop anyone in their tracks. Mind you if someone is coming at me with any intent of physical harm I'll do what I to take them down with me, even if they have a gun.

I agree, statistics are a difficult animal, however, they tell a story: Guns make it easy to kill people, and they kill more people than any other weapon. The deterrence is a non-issue unless you advertise that you are carrying a gun, or have one easily accessible in your house. The practical issue is that individually, I am sure there are millions of great, responsible gun owners, but there are also millions of irresponsible people who probably should not have them. Look at the process we have to go through for our cars: we have to register them, insure them, have them inspected at some interval to show that we are operating a vehicle the state considers safe and even reregister them to show that they still belong to us. When we sell the car, the person we sell it to has to register it to show that they are accepting ownership of the vehicle. I'm not a gun owner, but I'm fairly certain there is no such procedure for guns. The people who purchase them do not have to show any level of proficiency, demonstrate that they are maintaining it, or even register it every couple of years. This lends itself to the illegal gun scenario I showed above. The lack of any sort of periodic registration lends itself to the very illegal gun that shows up in your hypothetical. there could even be a DHR (Department of handguns and rifles) where are of this takes place. An entire building filled with people carrying all sorts of guns should be perfectly safe. After all, no one would want to try anything since everyone is armed.

[CeeBee]

I would wonder why anyone would need to have two ways to kill or maim someone while out for a stroll on their own street?

Because I can!

In both situations, the end result is the same, but the the personal feeling of it is different. you may not even be able to kill the squirrel in your hand, or even with a bat because it is much more personal than using a car to do it.

I beg to differ. Talking from personal experience here...

Even if you're holding your gun in you hand, with a round chambered, and your hand is at your side, the criminal's gun is already pointed at you. In either situation, it would probably be better that you didn't have a gun since if you twitch the wrong way you're the one who would likely be shot.

However in a different scenario with knife-yielding assailants a gun can quickly turn the tables in your favor.

The people who purchase them do not have to show any level of proficiency

That may depend on the state, but where I live you need to complete a safety course and pass a test before being issued a permit.

demonstrate that they are maintaining it, or even register it every couple of years. This lends itself to the illegal gun scenario I showed above.

Some 300,000 guns are stolen each year from private citizens alone.
Far more people are being killed with those "registered and inspected vehicles" than with guns each year.

[houseisland]

This is all very interesting.

In Canada we have very restrictive gun control laws. They are a PITA for people who live in rural areas, but they really have no impact on the majority of urban dwellers, except collectors and hobbiests. Most urban people just don't care.

We have always had severe restrictions on handguns. The restrictions on rifles and shotguns are relatively new.

I have owned and used rifles, shotguns, and pistols. I own none now because I have no need for them and there is nowhere I can use them now anyway, at least not easily. I do not need them for self defense. I no longer go hunting, not because I have any objection to the activity, but because it is no longer practical.

When I lived in a rural area, deer, moose, and game birds added to the winter larder, and hunting was cost effective. I could buy Kobe beef more cheaply per pound than what game would cost me now.

My family still have a variety of firearms, all registered, all with trigger locks, all locked in firearms safes, ammunition locked up separately.

On my mother's side of the family, there is a history of police service. My grandfather was a career officer. He was a crack marksman with rifles and pistols. He never shot anyone. He never even drew his service revolver in the line of duty, although he once took it off and laid it down to gain the trust of someone holed up in a hotel room with several rifles. He successfully talked the guy out. Brain and diplomacy first. Gun last.

The RCMP small arms trainer, who instructed one of my cousins who became a Sheriff, told the class that the survival rate for victims of violent crime who are armed is generally lower than for those who are not armed. He said he and almost every experienced criminal can tell if someone is packing a pistol, unless it is something like a little Barretta 25 Cal. The protocol for dealing with potential victims who are armed is to shoot first and ask for the money later. He said that as a peace keeper, if you rely on your gun rather than your wits, you will end up a dead peace keeper.

In Vancouver, we have a handgun problem. It is because, Americans have relatively few restrictions on guns and because they/you seem to have an insatiable appetite for BC-grown, high-yield bud. And we live right across the street from you. You pay big bucks for BC bud. You get some of your money back with handgun sales. We have Sikh young men, pimped up like Gangsta rappers. We have Chinese, Vietnamese, Latin American, etc. young men pimped up like Gangsta rappers. We have white young men pimped up like Gangsta rappers. Gangs sometimes fall along ethic lines. Sometimes they are multiracial. All the young men want Glocks. So far they mostly just shoot each other. Young man shot up, burned to crisp, in an expensive car abandoned in a field. Typical. A week or two later there is a revenge killing. Young man in an expensive car killed in a hail of bullets at a stop light. And on it goes. There are few instances of innocent bystanders getting killed. There are a fair number of instances of the Sikh dudes not being able to read house numbers and doing drive by shootings on the wrong houses - literacy doesn't seem to be required for gun operation.

I liked guns as objects of craftsmanship, particularly well-made ones. And I liked shooting them. But I don't miss them much at all. If I were to move back to a rural area, I would probably apply for a permit for rifles and shotguns. I don't really care about handguns.


____________________________________________



It is my pure and virtuous heart that
gives me the strength of ten!

[Guts3d]

I have read all the arguments both for and against gun ownership, but I cannot help but feel that gun ownership is and should always be an inalienable right. I carry a pistol almost everyday, and not once have I had an urge to pull it out and go on a rampage. I avoid fights, and even the possibility of getting into a fight while carrying, as if arrested, I probably would never see my weapon again. I applaud the people who say that they won't have anything to do with guns, but at the same time I say get the HELL out of my life, I choose to be armed and safe. I don't want anyone to be able to make decisions for me, whether it be what car I drive, which church I attend, or if I can or cannot have guns. As pointed out in a previous post, more people are killed by automobiles, yet no one wants to ban them. As Charlton Heston said " From my cold, dead hands! "

[El_Squid]

gun ownership is and should always be an inalienable right.

Guts, you have nailed the crux of the biscuit, summarized succintly.

Everyone opposed to private gun ownership is entitled to their opinion and can refuse to own guns, as is their right, but it should be a matter of choice, as clearly stated by the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

[Guts3d]

A criminal can buy a knife at nearly any store, no I.D. needed, and use it as either a cooking tool, ( as is intended ) or use it as a weapon. The difference is THE USER. They choose to mis-use the tool, so blame should lie with the defective person who commits a crime. Otherwise, we should ban all knives, and since cars are used to kill people, let's ban those. While we are at it, lets ban cancer, blunt objects, carbon monoxide, falls from great heights, ( gravity ) and anything else that might be used as a weapon. One reason Japan didn't invade the U.S. in World War 2 because so many citizens were armed. Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto - “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.”