Is it Time for the US Government to Ban Gun Ownership?

[0TheSwerve0]

I seem to remember that police in certain parts of Ireland didn't even carry guns. Is this common in other countries? I have no idea if this is the case in certain parts of the U.S.

 

[cristo]

On the flip side, would you rather rob a home that is absolutely 100% assured to be gun-free, or would you try to rob the home of a well-armed citizen? The citizen is on the defense and you're trying to sneak around. When the burglar and home owner are equally armed, there is an inherent advantage of being on the defensive. If you take away the home owner's gun so now only the criminal has a gun, the balance of power shifts in favor of the criminal.

But the power balance is always going to be with the criminal! He's in your house, and is already breaking the law; he's nervous and so is far more likely to shoot. I also suspect that many criminals will be more handy with a gun than the average citizen. If he knows that you don't own a gun, will he be less likely to shoot you? I suggest yes!

Cristo, I believe that more guns are fired by the criminals that break into homes when the homeowner is unarmed. Either they don't want to leave a witness, or they're just plain cruel.

I think you may have missed my point. Since the current laws allow an ordinary homeowner to own a gun, then if the criminal encounters the homeowner he has to assume that the homeowner is armed. Whilst statistics may show that more unarmed homeowners are shot, my point is that in the eyes of the criminal it doesn't matter whether the homeowner is actually carrying a gun-- he has to assume the "worst."

There is of course no way to prove this; statistics do not tell us whether the criminal doesn't want to leave a witness, or whether he assumes the owner has a gun. I simply suggest that it is the latter.


Anyway, this discussion is not likely to change anyones mind on the matter-- people who believe it is their right to own a gun will defend this to a death. I am simply of the opinion that the ownership and carriage of guns should be legally permitted by only trained persons. I believe that if you carry a gun, you are asking for trouble.

 

[radou]

No I am not saying that, but the American Society is very much more masculine than that of the Swiss, in fact anywhere in Europe.

Are you sure about that?

Personally, I don't know why people are so afraid of guns. Where I lived in Arizona most of the men wore pistols or revolvers on their sides as they walked around the town. Every other pick-up truck had a rifle rack in the back. Guns were all over the place. Criminals had them too. They didn't mess with the town and the town didn't mess with them. The criminals mostly shot other criminals.

Man, I can't even imagine such a picture.

Elmer Fudd carried a shotgun.

Yosemite Sam carried two pistols - ostensibly Colt 45's.

He had taste and style.

I have a Walther P38 in one location in my house (9mm Luger) and a Glock 20 (10mm auto) in another. I am a pacifist, but if you are in my house and pose a threat to me and mine, you will leave on your back. Maine has a problem with home invasions with druggies looking for Oxycontin and I am not going to let my wife or myself become statistics.

Then again, such facts make me want to change my vote from "yes" to "no".


This thread only makes me happy that I live in such a small and peaceful country.

 

[daveb]

Let's suppose for argument's sake that everyone were allowed to carry guns. How do we know, in the end, that although there would likely be less people killed in single instances of rampages since the gunman would be shot after killing only a few folks, there wouldn't be more rampages overall, leading to more deaths? The argument that everyone should be allowed to carry guns unrestricted in any manner, and this would de-motivate peole to go on rampages is a strawman argument. We have no idea how many more people would resort to gun violence. When someone is so angry that they are willing to kill someone, I highly doubt (personal opinion only) they are thinking clearly enough to realize that they too could in turn be killed by someone else.

Additionally, the argument that fear of guns is what creates gun free zones is irrelevant. There are numerous people who would be more terrified if guns were allowed to be carried willy-nilly. On the other hand, there would be numerous people who would feel more safe. We have no idea if the level of fear would increase or decrease.

What is sensible is, as Russ stated, sensible legislation to regulate gun ownership. Yes, criminals will always be able to acquire guns, regardless. Background checks are reasonable to ensure it makes it more difficult for the criminal (or habitual lunatic) to acquire them. Mandatory gun safety classes for regular folks, with renewals every couple of years. Just like a driver's license is regulated for the safety of society overall (theoretically to insure a person knows how to drive responsibly), so should a gun ownership license.

 

[daveb]

Also, sayiong gun ownership is a right that should be completely unrestricted is utter nonsense. We have the right of free press, free speech, etc. but these are regulated under specific circumstance for the safety of society. Why then, can't guns likewise be regulated under specific circumstances?

The argument that we need guns to protect us from the tyranny of government is somewhat absurd as well. The government has tanks, mortars, and all kinds of weapons to put down any kind of revolution.

 

[daveb]

But that's Europe. We aren't Europe and we don't want to be European. My point is that if people really like European ways and laws then they should consider moving over there and changing their nationality. People come over here from Europe all the time for the exact same reason.

I find this to be an outrageous statement. It is the not only the right but also the duty of every citizen of the U.S to question the direction it is heading and the laws which bind it together. I would argue that the basis of America is not gun ownership, nor even the Constitution directly (remember, alcohol was at one time banned by the Constitution, and many segments of society were not allowed to vote), but the changing nature of the Consitution and its ability to adapt to changing cultural circumstances (one could say its evolving nature). If one day the Constitution were amended to one day ban all guns, does that mean all those who advocate gun ownership should move to another country and renounce citizenship?

 

[Anttech]

Are you sure about that?

Yes I am... Would you like to counter my arguement?

 

[daveb]

Elmer Fudd carried a shotgun.

Yosemite Sam carried two pistols - ostensibly Colt 45's.

And the coyote possessed all manner of bombs, guns, and otehr weaponry, yet failed to massacre the gun avoiding roadrunner...perhaps we should only allow bad shots to carry weapons

 

[daveb]

If folks (just a few even) exercised their right to carry, and that school was not a "gun-free" zone, that guy would probably be much more reluctant to run through the halls and shoot people because he would know that there are people that will be shooting back.

Um...he turned his own weapon on himself, so he probably wasn't afraid of someone killinghim. Many of the rampages in America end in the perpetrators killing themselves, so this is an inrrelevant argument (now, if you had omitted the "reluctant" part, your argument would hold more weight).

 

[cristo]

which would leave him totally helpless if he is in a dangerous situation...

Or... you could have a specific armed response unit in the police force, where the members will be trained so they can use their gun efficiently, and safely, and where they are retrained every month or so to keep them up to scratch.

I know. If anything, we should be giving our police even more powerful guns (and more hours of thorough training to go with it).

Yea.. great idea; let's force the criminals to get more powerful guns by upping the firepower of the police...

I personally have several large capacity magazines for my assault rifle. There is absolutely no reason why I should not be able to keep them. None.

Some might say that there is absolutely no reason why you should need to keep an assault rifle, let alone a large capacity magazine.

So, that being understood, to restrict the ability to have guns in places like a university, when they are everywhere else, simply puts the people there at risk. Which has been the case today.

This is utterly ridiculous; a university is a place of learning. Letting students take guns to school will only escalate the problem. Instead of having one crazed gunman, you will have dozens of "sensible" gunman, which will end up in a mass shoot-out!

officers without guns is like an army without soldiers

I think a lot of policeman would be highly insulted if they heard the general public saying that without their guns they are useless!

 

[Kurdt]

Well, according to Fox News (I know, I know) it looks like the shooter may be a Chinese man from Shanghai with a student visa. If true, that means he acquired the guns illegally. In other words, gun control would have done nothing but disarm folks that could otherwise defend themselves. In fact, here is a unfortunate example! Gun control was exercised at this university! And guess what? People were helplessly executed!

The argument could be that, eventually gun control would begin to work over a long period of time after all weapons were confiscated (impossible but a lot could be removed from circulation). Now, how many defenseless people have to be robbed, raped, or murdered by guns in the meantime because they did not have their firearms because they are law abiding citizens?

I know he was able to get a gun, the whole point of this thread being hypothetically if gun control was in place he would not have been able to because they would be much rarer. This is why this argument is flawed. And yes if you do introduce tighter controls some people are going to get hurt but its the only way to break the cycle as I put itbefore and stop these senseless massacres. Perhaps allowing security staff with guns on campus would reduce the number killed, but that is all they would do, reduce the number not stop it. The people that do these kinds of things are clearly mentally unstable as they tend to comit suicide in the end and I doubt an armed guard would be a detterrant. The way to stop it is to reduce the amount of guns available, and the way to do that is to stop ordibnary citizens from owning one. And yes there will be problems because america is so overloaded with guns that it will be very difficult to reduce the population of guns. Just because its dificult though doesn't mean one should shy away from it.

 

[Anttech]

And yes there will be problems because america is so overloaded with guns that it will be very difficult to reduce the population of guns. Just because its dificult though doesn't mean one should shy away from it.

What you are saying make total sense really, but I don't think it would be difficult, rather it would be impossible, especially if America is to stay a democracy. It seems that the society there in general is very masculine and so bent on perceived freedoms especially when concerning expressions of ones manliness it would be impossible to disarm them by the use of Argument alone. Thus the only way would be to force them, which would be collapsing democracy there.

My Opinion

 

[hypatia]

Gun control did not stop the mass murder in Hungerford UK in 1987. The UK is so very small, so much easier to control, yet it did not stop the crazy person from getting a gun.

 

[Anttech]

That was a fluke, and happened 20 years ago, what you see in America is now very predictable. It happens every few months!

 

[hypatia]

Sunday February 18, 2007 One man was killed in east London yesterday while another three were injured in two separate shootings in Manchester.

New killing as scale of gun crisis is revealed


Mark Townsend, crime correspondent
The Observer


A new wave of shootings, including one murder, was being investigated by detectives this weekend as it was revealed that specialist firearms officers are being deployed on London's streets hundreds of times a week in an attempt to curb the violence.
One man was killed in east London yesterday while another three were injured in two separate shootings in Manchester. Yesterday's incidents come amid fierce debate among politicians, police and community leaders following the murder of three south London boys in a fortnight, over how to stop gun crime spiralling out of control and claiming ever younger victims.


Article continues

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The operational head of Scotland Yard's specialist firearms unit, Superintendent Bert Moore, told The Observer that in December firearms officers were deployed on 2,232 occasions. 'The figures on average are between 2,200 and 2,500 a month.
The total number of calls, including potentially mistaken reports of firearms, stood at 11,725 for last December - almost 400 a day.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2015788,00.html

And the UK is only as large as the state I live in, Imagine it 50 times larger. It seems in ratio, their gun problems are as large as ours.

 

[russ_watters]

It is interesting to see how a lot of people retreat to extremes without a whole lot of logic. Neither banning guns outright or making them available for anyone over 18 or with a fake ID at Wal Mart will eliminate mass murders and banning them outright just doesn't fit with the way this country works and wouldn't prevent them altogether anyway.

The side in favor of arming everyone is overestimating the ability of scared teenagers to defend themselves and, of course, is also overlooking the fact that making guns ubiquitous would turn thousands (tens of thousands?) of bar fights into gunfights every year.

 

[russ_watters]

And the UK is only as large as the state I live in, Imagine it 50 times larger. It seems in ratio, their gun problems are as large as ours.

Bad math: the UK is 1/5 the population of the US.

 

[Anttech]

Yes hypatia what is your point? We know that Gang banging happens, I will be first to admit that London has a problem with that (11 million in 1 city). Do you want me to go googling for all the Gang related killings in LA for example I can find? Gun crime however is contained in the UK, as compared to America.

Sigh this is pointless, even if I am trying to make a point it always comes back to this idoitic argument. By posting this you arent undermining anything, nor are you enforcing the Guns = Safety hypothises.

 

[russ_watters]

That was a fluke, and happened 20 years ago, what you see in America is now very predictable. It happens every few months!

Well since this is the worst ever, you could say this hasn't ever happened before.

More realistically...

Mass (>10 or so) killings probably happen about once in a year or two in the US, so they don't really affect the calculus of gun law at all.

 

[Anttech]

It is interesting to see how a lot of people retreat to extremes without a whole lot of logic. Neither banning guns outright or making them available for anyone over 18 or with a fake ID at Wal Mart will eliminate mass murders and banning them outright just doesn't fit with the way this country works and wouldn't prevent them altogether anyway.

The side in favor of arming everyone is overestimating the ability of scared teenagers to defend themselves and, of course, is also overlooking the fact that making guns ubiquitous would turn thousands (tens of thousands?) of bar fights into gunfights every year.

I aggree with you Russ...

 

[cristo]

Sunday February 18, 2007 One man was killed in east London yesterday while another three were injured in two separate shootings in Manchester.

But you're comparing two different things-- Anttech was talking about mass shootings, like the one that occurred yesterday, and you've quoted a few individual incidents, the likes of which are not broadcast to the world from the US since, I'd imagine, they are not rare.

 

[Anttech]

Well since this is the worst ever, you could say this hasn't ever happened before.

More realistically...

Mass (>10 or so) killings probably happen about once in a year or two in the US, so they don't really affect the calculus of gun law at all.

I think its more, I may be wrong. But school killings is definately higher than 1 or 2 per year right now in the USA.

And yes I know its the worst ever, but I was meaning school/University killings.

 

[russ_watters]

Well...what was the last mass murder in the US before this one? I can think of only one that comes close in the past couple of years, the Amish school shooting in October, which killed "only" 5. When was the last time we had one that killed more than 10?

 

[hypatia]

Opps yes, sorry bad math, guess I was thinking land mass. My point Anttech, is that gun control does not stop killing. If you call it contained or not, dead is dead, no matter what country you live in.

 

[Moonbear]

Lack of guns didn't stop the 9/11 terrorists from killing thousands in the WTC, nor did it stop Tim McVeigh from killing hundreds in Oklahoma City. Access to firearms isn't the problem. The individual people insane enough to want to kill others and who don't care if they die in the process are the problem, and they will find a way no matter how many restrictions you put in place.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't know if it makes me more or less cynical, but with on the order of 15,000 murders a year, I don't think either 9/11 or Oklahoma City are relevant here. The murder problem is much bigger than either of them and small changes in legislation can have a big effect on what is essentially a statisical problem. That's why the 'a lunatic will always find a way' argument doesn't apply here. It is true, just not relevant.

 

[Anttech]

Opps yes, sorry bad math, guess I was thinking land mass. My point Anttech, is that gun control does not stop killing. If you call it contained or not, dead is dead, no matter what country you live in.

Nice, now why don't you go back and read some of my posts, because it seems you didnt, as I never argued that gun control stops killing.

 

[Bystander]

But the power balance is always going to be with the criminal! He's in your house, and is already breaking the law; he's nervous and so is far more likely to shoot. I also suspect that many criminals will be more handy with a gun than the average citizen. If he knows that you don't own a gun, will he be less likely to shoot you? I suggest yes! (snip)

"More handy?" Not likely. The practice time required with a particular type of weapon to be "handy" is far in excess of the time the "instant gratification" crowd is willing to spend. The time required with a specific piece to be able to hit anything at any distance over 10-15 meters (yards) is far in excess of the attention spans of the breaking and entering, armed robbery types.

"Less likely to shoot?" Your "yes!" is based on the assumption that people who commit armed robbery are rational --- which, is not generally the case.

 

[Kurdt]

The individual shootings in the UK are part of the gang culture that has been adopted here and are not really relevant as the killing are between rival gangs and that will always happen. The UK has had the Hungerford mass murder in 87 and the Dunblane disaster in 97 (I think it was 97). In one case (dunblane) the man involved had a license to own firearms, and Michael Ryan was ex-armed forces who owned a gun shop. Both were mentally disturbed, so there was a failure in the system, but as Russ points out, there have been proportionally lower incidents.

 

[turbo]

I think there is only a state or two that allows automatic weapons to be owned by everyday citizens. Everywhere else it's very difficult to obtain the required permits. But, this incident did not involve automatic weapons.

The possession of fully automatic weapons is controlled by the federal government (through the ATF). If you want to own a machine gun, you must register it, purchase a permit, and have it transferred to you by a licensed firearms dealer who has paid the yearly fee to allow him to transfer Class III weapons. No state has the right to allow possession of fully automatic weapons - federal law confers that responsibility on the ATF.

 

[Bystander]

The possession of fully automatic weapons is controlled by the federal government (through the ATF). If you want to own a machine gun, you must register it, purchase a permit, and have it transferred to you by a licensed firearms dealer who has paid the yearly fee to allow him to transfer Class III weapons. No state has the right to allow possession of fully automatic weapons - federal law confers that responsibility on the ATF.

Then comes the financial nightmare of trying to keep the damned thing fed as it eats you out of house and home.

 

[Art]

I know he was able to get a gun, the whole point of this thread being hypothetically if gun control was in place he would not have been able to because they would be much rarer. This is why this argument is flawed. And yes if you do introduce tighter controls some people are going to get hurt but its the only way to break the cycle as I put itbefore and stop these senseless massacres. Perhaps allowing security staff with guns on campus would reduce the number killed, but that is all they would do, reduce the number not stop it. The people that do these kinds of things are clearly mentally unstable as they tend to comit suicide in the end and I doubt an armed guard would be a detterrant. The way to stop it is to reduce the amount of guns available, and the way to do that is to stop ordibnary citizens from owning one. And yes there will be problems because america is so overloaded with guns that it will be very difficult to reduce the population of guns. Just because its dificult though doesn't mean one should shy away from it.

With an estimated 200 million guns in circulation in the US a blanket ban on guns would be difficult to implement but perhaps a simpler roundabout solution would be to ban the sale of ammuntion to all but gun clubs who would have to account for their use. Although not an overnight fix the current home inventory of ammunition should diminish reasonably quickly leading to a reduction in gun crime. If a blanket ban on ammunition is unacceptable then perhaps ammunition for home use could be engineered to make it more akin to birdshot i.e. non deadly.

 

[Moon Bee]

* I am only with several words that if the US government prohibits personal gun ownership throughout the whole country, I think no matter whether there are other illegal sources of gun use-import by criminals, the death rate by guns would reduce significantly.
* If there were no gun use, there would be other forms of murders, but to all of the people outside the US, American gun culture is believed to be cruel. Since the viewpoints of different people is different, news via media is grasped differently by various people. A stimulation of small single comment (say, that is for you to think) over a piece of news on the TV I firmly believe may create a great emotional hit on many people in the country.
* Even a small percentage of gun death reduction also creates a new face for the US before worldwide community as well as a new change although possibly very small to the welfare of the country, doesn't it ?

 

[Kurdt]

With an estimated 200 million guns in circulation in the US a blanket ban on guns would be difficult to implement but perhaps a simpler roundabout solution would be to ban the sale of ammuntion to all but gun clubs who would have to account for their use. Although not an overnight fix the current home inventory of ammunition should diminish reasonably quickly leading to a reduction in gun crime. If a blanket ban on ammunition is unacceptable then perhaps ammunition for home use could be engineered to make it more akin to birdshot i.e. non deadly.

I realize the difficulty, that's why I suggested amnesties etc., but there would still be tremendous difficulties. Thats the price you pay if you go that route however, and I still believe that in time it will reduce events like the virginia tech shooting.

 

[drankin]

Right now, we have plenty of "gun control" laws. As Evo posted, there is a long list of restrictions. Known drug users, mental cases, and criminals do not have the right to carry, for example. It is illegal to carry firearms into a liquor establishment, Russ, throw out the bar shootout argument. Even off-duty police officers cannot carry guns in a bar legally (though their on-duty police buddies aren't going to bug them).

Most of you Europeans (Swiss excluded) have a distorted idea of gun ownership which is understandable since most are not familiar with them. Your assumptions of chaos and daily shootouts between everyday citizens is completely rediculous as well as unsupported.

I will not be surprised if at least teachers are encouraged to carry concealed firearms in the near future. As well they should. If you can't trust your own teacher then you may have paranoia issues.