Should gun control laws focus on education rather than banning guns?

[megashawn]

Seems like this was a good subject on the last PF. I got to thinking about it because of this story:

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/5732349.htm

Basically, this is a person with the point of view that all guns should be destroyed. He cites children killing other children, teachers and such, mostly using there parents guns.

I was raised around guns. I've never killed anyone, purposelly or accidental. I've never met a person I would want to kill. The key to gun safety is, as with anything, good education.

Ok, so the kid used his dad's gun to kill a teacher. He found the key for the gun safe. Did the guns have trigger locks on them? Why was he able to find the safe key? Obviously this particular case was a planned murder, and regardless of the measures taken to secure the guns, the kid had plotted it. I know I could get into anything of my parents.

And think about it. Kids are everymore getting smarter younger. I mean, there are kids who can program, race, play piano, you name it, on the level of professional adults. Whats to say a violent criminal isn't going to get started sooner as well?

People like this guy, thinking removing guns completely will solve the problems. First of all, how many deaths have there been in situations that he described? I'm sure not near as many as the number of people killed in violent crimes in a month. I'm also sure its not as many as criminals deterred or caught due to the victim possessing a gun.

I mean, get rid of guns. Ok. I got a paintball gun, can shoot 450 fps. I can do some mods to it and make it shoot damn near .22 rifle speeds. Now I have a lethal weapon, and fully automatic. You going to get rid of those as well?

Honestly, there should be a class in school on proper gun safety. Just in case parents don't teach it themselves. As to the bad seeds that for some reason or another decide to kill another, well, it probably is due to the reasons the above author notes at the end of the article. Removing guns will do little or nothing to change that fact.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The reasons that I am in favor of private gun ownership:

1). An armed populace can overthrow a corrupt government. Although I must admit that this may be out of date, I think in principle this may still be an effective lever. Obviously, with the modern weapons at the government's disposal, this argument grows very weak.

2). An armed populous may be the last defense in the event of a large scale invasion.

3). Civil authority can break down at times. Guns may be needed for basic defense and survival.

4). Personal defense.

5) A variation on several statements above; the government cannot guarantee a reasonable level of safety for many citizens

The way I read the constitution and some supporting arguments, I think that it was intended that citizens should own weapons. I don't feel that the reasons for this have changed.

 

[GENIERE]

"A gun is a tool, no better and no worse than the man who is using it". (from Shane).

 

[jb]

"guns don't kill people, I kill people" (from the big guy's shirt in Happy Gilmore)

why destroy all guns? they won't decide to up'n revolt and start shooting people. and it takes a finger to pull the trigger.

and if there were no guns, i bet you'd read about a lot more knifing incidents at schools. guns just make killing more convenient.

 

[russ_watters]

To be fair, the guy did NOT specifically say all guns should be destroyed. Clearly that's not achievable, so there isn't much point in discussing it even hypothetically.

My personal view is that the 2nd amendment is obsolete as written and needs to be changed. Ivan, you said your #1 is "weak" and you're right. #2 fails for the same reason. I think they DID apply in 1789 and were valid points, but they just confuse the issue today.

3, 4, and 5 are valid (you forgot hunting and target shooting) and I think the types of weapons allowed in the hands of civilians should reflect their uses.

 

[megashawn]

Ultimately, after the hand-wringing subsides, we will do nothing. Because to do something would require us to start with the millions of guns that populate every city block, every small town, every suburban neighborhood in the country.

And that's something Americans are unwilling to do. We cherish our guns, it seems, more than we cherish our children. How did our priorities get this twisted?

Taken from the linked site.

To me, these paragraphs imply that this seems to be the only solution.

He didn't come right out and say it, but the whole article is implying it.

I agree that some modification could be done. For instance, what purpose does hand gun serve? Killing or target practice. You can try to hunt with one, and I wish you luck.

Personally, I don't desire to own a handgun. I prefer rifles, shotguns, etc.

Another cool idea about guns comes from Stuck Mojo:

"A gun is no more responsible for killing a person then a shovel is for digging a hole."

I can't believe there's been no real opposition.

I can kinda agree on point 1 being obsolete, but point 2 seems to me to be of utmost importance. I mean sure, and invading force would pay hell to get off the beach, but the few that managed, wouldn't make it to far from it.

Take our guns away and it will be like the simpsons episode where the Aliens came to take over with a board with a nail in it.

 

[FZ+]

My opinion is that some more gun control is required, though complete banning isn't really an option. You probably all know my reasons, so I'm not going to go on about this and start too big an an argument over it.

Just point out however in that Simpsons episode, the aliens didn't invade with a plank with a nail in it - they were driven off by Moe holding a plank with a nail in it.

"They'll keep building bigger planks, with bigger nails... until one day they make a plank so big, they will destroy themselves! Mwhahaha..."

But really... I really doubt the large scale invasion stuff. With the new terrorism orientated warfare of recent years, lots of weapons around seem to be a bad thing. (Consider the washington sniper thing.)

 

[selfAdjoint]

The police cannot protect you from crime. They always arrive after the crime has been committed. I think any woman who lives alone should seriously think about getting a handgun and learning how to care for and shoot it. If she doesn't have kids around she could keep it loaded, chambered and on safety, handy to her hand.

Guys and guns are a different story. They have a much worse record of doing damage to themselves and others if they have a gun available.

 

[megashawn]

True, but your forgetting a key element to the stupid behavior probably 9 times out of 10. Beer.

There is game somewhere on the net, called Alcohol and Ammo. Searching at yahoo or something should find it. Good example.

What kind of gun controls do you think are in order? Make it more difficult to acquire a gun? Limit guns to bolt action rifles?

 

[Adam]

As a former soldier, I personally do not trust civilians with guns. EVERY mook civilian I've seen who says "I have REAL training!" doesn't actually have real training. They are generally trained by complete tossers. Civilians are too dangerous to trust with guns.

Consider:

1) Gun for home defence. If someone breaks in with a gun, do you think he/she will sit there and wait for you to go get your own gun? The only way the gun will work for home defence is if you have it on you at all times, and you are home at all times. And then you have to be certain that you will never have an accident with it. And then you have to ask yourself if you are willing to kill with that gun, if you are willing to end a person's life simply to save your big screen TV.

2) A common argument for private gun ownership is "If I have a gun, people will be too scared to steal from me, threaten me, insult me, or do anything which I might possibly interpret as a threat to me or someone I like". Yay. Great goal there, you monkeys. You want to live in a society in which everyone is too scared to do anything? A society in which YOU are scared to say the wrong thing, knock on the wrong door at the wrong time, et cetera? Pathetic.

3) Another reason for private gun ownership: "We need them in case the big bad evil gummint turns corrupt and beams mind-control rays into our heads from the television". I have news for you: the goverenment is already corrupt, it already feeds you lies, it already taxes you unfairly, and it already pays politicians and large corporations an unfair amount. Are your guns preventing it? No.

4) Here in Australia we have very limited private gun ownership. And you know what? Even reducing the figure for our smaller population, we have far fewer gun crimes than the USA. Guns don't kill people. But guns make it easier for idiots to kill people. It's really friggin simple. If you come at me with a knife or a stick, I won't be too worried. If you come at me with a gun, there's not a damn thing I can do. And even if I also have a gun, all it takes is for you to shoot before I do. There's no skill involved (most criminal gun use takes place at a range of under three metres), no rights and constitutional guarantees. You can have all the guns you want, and it won't stop someone shooting you. If someone pops up beside your car door pointing a gun at your face, you will NOT have the luxury of opening your glove box, pulling out a pistol, and turning it to face the scumbag. You'll simply get shot if you try it.

And now to address points raised by others:

I was raised around guns. I've never killed anyone, purposelly or accidental. I've never met a person I would want to kill.

Hitler never killed anyone until he killed someone. My point being that the USA health care system is full of people shot by their own father's and such, parents shot by kids, kids shot by other kids. Prior experience in killing has nothing to do with it.

The key to gun safety is, as with anything, good education.

Unfortunately, having had military firearms education, I have found EVERY civilian unarmed combat and firearms instructor I've ever seen to be grossly incompetent. And even in the military, we don't have privately owned L1A1's hanging off us like handbags. All gun use is strictly controlled.

Ok, so the kid used his dad's gun to kill a teacher. He found the key for the gun safe. Did the guns have trigger locks on them? Why was he able to find the safe key? Obviously this particular case was a planned murder, and regardless of the measures taken to secure the guns, the kid had plotted it. I know I could get into anything of my parents.

Exactly. What you're saying is that regardless of what security measures are taken, people will find a way to use the things if they want to. Solution? No guns. You're spot on, dead right. The only way to prevent it is to not have the guns therre.

And think about it. Kids are everymore getting smarter younger. I mean, there are kids who can program, race, play piano, you name it, on the level of professional adults. Whats to say a violent criminal isn't going to get started sooner as well?

Kids are as capable now at any given age as they were 500, 1000, or 5000 years ago. However, the technology available changes. Kids today learn different things than they did 5000 years ago. Instead of learning to hide from sabretooths and hunt mammoths, they learn to shoot people on the Nintendo. Mozart composed his first opera at 13, I believe. Spartan children were learning to kill from the age of seven. Basically, this discussiion of age adds nothing at all to the debate.

I mean, get rid of guns. Ok. I got a paintball gun, can shoot 450 fps. I can do some mods to it and make it shoot damn near .22 rifle speeds. Now I have a lethal weapon, and fully automatic. You going to get rid of those as well?

1) If you're the kind of idiot that modifies a paintball gun to do such things, then you definitely shouldn't have any kind of projectile weapon. You provide a good argument for further restrictions.

2) Paintball guns, too, should require registration and a training course, at the very least.

Honestly, there should be a class in school on proper gun safety. Just in case parents don't teach it themselves. As to the bad seeds that for some reason or another decide to kill another, well, it probably is due to the reasons the above author notes at the end of the article. Removing guns will do little or nothing to change that fact.

Conjsider an alternative. Teach kids ethics from their first years of school. teach them something about decent behaviour. Don't kill. Don't steal. Don't rape. Imagine all the gun-related deaths that might be avoided. Better that than simply sticking your finger in the dyke by telling them how best to handle a bad situation. Better to avoid that bad situation entirely, and work toward a culture in which people do not need to live in fear.

 

[Adam]

1). An armed populace can overthrow a corrupt government. Although I must admit that this may be out of date, I think in principle this may still be an effective lever. Obviously, with the modern weapons at the government's disposal, this argument grows very weak.

An armed populace can create civil war. And no, Billybob the redneck with his varmint rifle will not stop an Abrams.

2). An armed populous may be the last defense in the event of a large scale invasion.

Do you have any idea how stupid that is? I'm sure it looked good on Patrick Swayze's Red Dawn, with the Wolverines taking out Russians all over the place, but outside of movies you need to think about such things a bit more. If an invading force can take out your nations military, do you really think a few gumpies with hunting riflers can take it all back? Look at Iraq. Yes, the few armed civilians resisting the invasion/occupation are killing a few soldiers and causing trouble. But they are NOT taking back Iraq. The USA is without doubt the dominant force in Iraq. The real world shows us what this idea results in: the occasional death, that's all.

3). Civil authority can break down at times. Guns may be needed for basic defense and survival.

You've been watching too much Rambo. See every other thing I've posted thus far.

4). Personal defense.

You've been watching too much Rambo. See every other thing I've posted thus far.

5) A variation on several statements above; the government cannot guarantee a reasonable level of safety for many citizens

1) What would you consider reasonable? Everyone having guns? And none of them killers, until someone pisses them off just a tad too much?

2) Would you be safer in America today if nobody but the police and military had guns? Look at the numbers of accidental gun deaths, manslaughter when people just go a tad off the deep end, and premeditated murders. Think about it.

The way I read the constitution and some supporting arguments, I think that it was intended that citizens should own weapons. I don't feel that the reasons for this have changed.

The USA constitution warrants the STATES maintaining "well-regulated militia". You are not a state. You are not a well-regulated militia. The USA is, remember, a collection of separate sovereign entities which agreed to function together under one federal authority. The right to militia forces is there to allow those separate states the ability to defend themselves from the federal authority if necessary.

 

[radagast]

Adam,
IMO, your culture has skewed your views (as I'm sure mine have). In the US, the highest incidences of gun crime are in the areas that have the strictest gun laws. The lowest in areas with the greatest degree of private gun ownership.

US figures only: Excluding the incidences involving alcohol, areas with higher gun ownership tends to have a lower, per capita, incidence of accidental and children related gun injury - presumably due to greater familiarity and respect for guns and their potential.

The numbers of crimes prevented by handguns is much higher, in the US, than statistics would indicate. Handgun prevention of crime hasn't been a kept statistic, but communities that are starting to keep them are finding much higher numbers than even gun ownership proponents believed. Even crimes prevented via gun, where the criminal is the one shot appears as if it's a criminal related gun injury in most localities statistics.

I am sure Aussies have a lower incidence of gun violence than the US, you have a different culture. Culture has a profound impact on violence in general, as well as the specific means. We have virtually no sword assaults here. Japan is a different story.

While you have you're opinion on our constitution, both the founding fathers, as well as the supreme court interpret it differently than you.

 

[FZ+]

In the US, the highest incidences of gun crime are in the areas that have the strictest gun laws.

Aren't we rather confusing cause and effect here? We have laws against murder, and look, people kill each other happens! So if we legalise murder, no more killing will result!

Also, more incidences of gun crime may be because more incidents are counted as gun crime.

Ok, I'll resume being silent now.

 

[Adam]

IMO, your culture has skewed your views (as I'm sure mine have). In the US, the highest incidences of gun crime are in the areas that have the strictest gun laws. The lowest in areas with the greatest degree of private gun ownership.

Could I see some stats to support this please?

The numbers of crimes prevented by handguns is much higher, in the US, than statistics would indicate. Handgun prevention of crime hasn't been a kept statistic, but communities that are starting to keep them are finding much higher numbers than even gun ownership proponents believed. Even crimes prevented via gun, where the criminal is the one shot appears as if it's a criminal related gun injury in most localities statistics.

If you aren't basing this on recorded numbers, what are you basing it on? NRA advertising campaigns?

 

[Zero]

Did anyone ever think that everyone is skewed on this one, and the answer lies somewhere in the middle? Even Bill O'Reilly thinks there should be gun control, after all. No one really needs a gun, except police and the military. I believe that you should have to go to a class, and get licenced for a weapon for the exact same reasons we require restrictions on drivers. Cars may be dangerous; guns are designed specifically to be dangerous.

 

[Adam]

I think what it really boils down to is that there are people out there who simply love the big BOOM in their hands. Like watching an explosion in an action movie is cool, they enjoy the BOOM. It's just a fun little hobby. And all the talk of rights and laws and defence and such is just the smokescreen crap they use to defend their hobby, regardless of how many people are actually dying.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Adam
As a former soldier, I personally do not trust civilians with guns. EVERY mook civilian I've seen who says "I have REAL training!" doesn't actually have real training. They are generally trained by complete tossers. Civilians are too dangerous to trust with guns.

Yes they are a very challenging device…very hard to figure out. I had to practice for weeks!

1) Gun for home defence. If someone breaks in with a gun, do you think he/she will sit there and wait for you to go get your own gun? The only way the gun will work for home defence is if you have it on you at all times, and you are home at all times. And then you have to be certain that you will never have an accident with it. And then you have to ask yourself if you are willing to kill with that gun, if you are willing to end a person's life simply to save your big screen TV. [/b]

Yes we are only worried about killing people for our TVs. What other great insights do you have to offer?

2) A common argument for private gun ownership is "If I have a gun, people will be too scared to steal from me, threaten me, insult me, or do anything which I might possibly interpret as a threat to me or someone I like". Yay. Great goal there, you monkeys. You want to live in a society in which everyone is too scared to do anything? A society in which YOU are scared to say the wrong thing, knock on the wrong door at the wrong time, et cetera? Pathetic.

This is so common that you are the only person that I have ever heard propose this idea.

3) Another reason for private gun ownership: "We need them in case the big bad evil gummint turns corrupt and beams mind-control rays into our heads from the television". I have news for you: the goverenment is already corrupt, it already feeds you lies, it already taxes you unfairly, and it already pays politicians and large corporations an unfair amount. Are your guns preventing it? No.

Yes we should start a civil war instead of vote.

4) Here in Australia we have very limited private gun ownership. And you know what? Even reducing the figure for our smaller population, we have far fewer gun crimes than the USA. Guns don't kill people. But guns make it easier for idiots to kill people. It's really friggin simple. If you come at me with a knife or a stick, I won't be too worried. If you come at me with a gun, there's not a damn thing I can do. And even if I also have a gun, all it takes is for you to shoot before I do. There's no skill involved (most criminal gun use takes place at a range of under three metres), no rights and constitutional guarantees. You can have all the guns you want, and it won't stop someone shooting you. If someone pops up beside your car door pointing a gun at your face, you will NOT have the luxury of opening your glove box, pulling out a pistol, and turning it to face the scumbag. You'll simply get shot if you try it.

So you mean there are times when personal defense might not help? I had never thought of this.

My point being that the USA health care system is full of people shot by their own father's and such, parents shot by kids, kids shot by other kids. Prior experience in killing has nothing to do with it.

Now this is a legitimate point.

Unfortunately, having had military firearms education, I have found EVERY civilian unarmed combat and firearms instructor I've ever seen to be grossly incompetent. And even in the military, we don't have privately owned L1A1's hanging off us like handbags. All gun use is strictly controlled.

It is so sad that no one meets your requirements.

Kids are as capable now at any given age as they were 500, 1000, or 5000 years ago. However, the technology available changes. Kids today learn different things than they did 5000 years ago. Instead of learning to hide from sabretooths and hunt mammoths, they learn to shoot people on the Nintendo. Mozart composed his first opera at 13, I believe. Spartan children were learning to kill from the age of seven. Basically, this discussiion of age adds nothing at all to the debate.

Why has this only a problem in recent years? Kids have a long history of access to guns in this country. Only recently do we see real problems.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Adam

Do you have any idea how stupid that is? I'm sure it looked good on Patrick Swayze's Red Dawn, with the Wolverines taking out Russians all over the place, but outside of movies you need to think about such things a bit more. If an invading force can take out your nations military, do you really think a few gumpies with hunting riflers can take it all back? Look at Iraq. Yes, the few armed civilians resisting the invasion/occupation are killing a few soldiers and causing trouble. But they are NOT taking back Iraq. The USA is without doubt the dominant force in Iraq. The real world shows us what this idea results in: the occasional death, that's all.

Being so highly trained an all, you may have heard of gorilla warfare? We aren't going to attack ourselves. We could face a much lesser opponent; like terrorists.

You've been watching too much Rambo. See every other thing I've posted thus far.

Actually I have never seen one Rambo movie. I did live in Los Angeles however. I know what its like to have an entire city explode in riots and fires just miles from my home. Have you ever heard of the Watts Riots? Why don't you learn something and look it up. Have you ever been surrounded by 10 million people and in a city that lies mostly in ruins due to a 7.1 earthquake; where the police can offer no protection? Have you ever been assualted by an inner city gang? I guess not. This only happens to Rambo.

1) What would you consider reasonable? Everyone having guns? And none of them killers, until someone pisses them off just a tad too much?

Of course. I want everyone killing each other.

2) Would you be safer in America today if nobody but the police and military had guns?

Would I be safer if pigs could fly?

The USA constitution warrants the STATES maintaining "well-regulated militia". You are not a state. You are not a well-regulated militia.

You should learn the whole sentence before passing judgement:
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The USA is, remember, a collection of separate sovereign entities which agreed to function together under one federal authority. The right to militia forces is there to allow those separate states the ability to defend themselves from the federal authority if necessary.

Actually the congress controls the armies:
he Congress shall have Power To...

provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Adam
I think what it really boils down to is that there are people out there who simply love the big BOOM in their hands. Like watching an explosion in an action movie is cool, they enjoy the BOOM. It's just a fun little hobby. And all the talk of rights and laws and defence and such is just the smokescreen crap they use to defend their hobby, regardless of how many people are actually dying.

Well this is a nice simplistic interpretation.

 

[megashawn]

1) If you're the kind of idiot that modifies a paintball gun to do such things, then you definitely shouldn't have any kind of projectile weapon. You provide a good argument for further restrictions.

2) Paintball guns, too, should require registration and a training course, at the very least.

Ooh, getting nasty. I guess you missed those two little words, kinda important, "I can", nothing past tense.

So, If your the kind of idiot that can get hung up on me making a point that removing all guns is not possible, because even if you do, it is quite simple to make something better.

Ok, remove all guns. Hah, and you call me an idiot. I realize we're from different countrys, and I'll try to respect the fact that you must not know a damn thing about america.

Anyhow, take all the guns away. Where are we going to start? Let's get all the illegal guns off the street first.

30 years later. We've failed to do so. Why? Because, believe it or not it is not difficult to make a gun. I know of places I can get a gun that does not exist, for half the cost of a legal gun.

I mean, do you honestly believe it is possible to get rid of all the illegal guns? If it is, ok, I'll give up my gun rights. If you can't get the illegal guns out the hands of criminals, there is no way in hell your getting mine.

As a former soldier, I personally do not trust civilians with guns. EVERY mook civilian I've seen who says "I have REAL training!" doesn't actually have real training. They are generally trained by complete tossers. Civilians are too dangerous to trust with guns.

Not sure what army you served in, and no offense to any former/present military, but I've met some of the damn foolish people I've even known, who also served for the military. I work for a guy who got shot in the tail on a military gun range, twice. Ya, I'd say that if stupidity is as common in the military as it is in the rest of the world, chances are your training is no better then mine, or any other citizen.

But perhaps an IQ test or some kind of common sense test should be required for gun permits.

I can agree on some points, but you have to understand that saying "Just remove all the guns" is not a logical solution. You make it sound nice and simple.

Like I say, get all the illegal guns, and you can have my legal ones.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by russ_watters
My personal view is that the 2nd amendment is obsolete as written and needs to be changed. Ivan, you said your #1 is "weak" and you're right. #2 fails for the same reason. I think they DID apply in 1789 and were valid points, but they just confuse the issue today.

I still tend to think that some threats could exist that justify this argument. But again, as I think this was originally intended, this does seem to offer little hope against any true invasion threat.

3, 4, and 5 are valid (you forgot hunting and target shooting) and I think the types of weapons allowed in the hands of civilians should reflect their uses.

Really I have never considered the sport element of guns a very good reason for gun ownership. If this alone were the reason, then I would have a hard time defending the kinds of weapons I favor as legal.

 

[Adam]

megashawn

So, If your the kind of idiot that can get hung up on me making a point that removing all guns is not possible, because even if you do, it is quite simple to make something better.

Actually it is possible, and has happened here, but let's not allow reality to stand in the way of your points, eh?

Ok, remove all guns. Hah, and you call me an idiot. I realize we're from different countrys, and I'll try to respect the fact that you must not know a damn thing about america.

Yay. A rational argument. Really.

Anyhow, take all the guns away. Where are we going to start? Let's get all the illegal guns off the street first.

Start with a simple law: If you're not a police officer or in the military, and you're caught with a gun, you go to jail and you don't come out. Maybe allow special licences for sportsmen and such, after extensive psychological testing and competence testing, and allow them to purchase ammunition ONLY from places where their purchases are recorded, with fingerprinting and such to make sure it's them.

30 years later. We've failed to do so. Why? Because, believe it or not it is not difficult to make a gun. I know of places I can get a gun that does not exist, for half the cost of a legal gun.

Here's a little reality for you again. Making guns is as easy in Australia as it is in the USA. And we are removing the guns from the public here. We hardly ever have any shootings even by criminals.

I mean, do you honestly believe it is possible to get rid of all the illegal guns? If it is, ok, I'll give up my gun rights. If you can't get the illegal guns out the hands of criminals, there is no way in hell your getting mine.

This ridiculous drivel shows clearly that you have not actually read through my previous posts.

1) Those advocating private gun ownership seem to be saying that they would have the guns safely locked away, perhaps with the bullets in another location, to prevent accidents and such.

2) If (1) is done, how could the gun possibly protect you from someone breaking into your house and pointing a gun at you?

It's really easy. The only possible way your own gun is going to save your arse is if: 1) you have it on you, and loaded, at all times; or 2) you can convince the burglar to sit quietly in the living room sipping a cup of tea while you run out the back, unlock the gun cabinet, get out your gun, grab the bullets from the safe, load the gun, and come charging back into ambush the sucker while he's enjoying his cup of tea.

An American friend of mine told me the other day that the number of accidental home shootings (eg. parents shooting kids coming home late, et cetera) is higher than the number of shootings in which a resident was defending home and self from an illegal intruder. I have asked her to find me those stats, the source. It would be interesting to see if she is correct.

Not sure what army you served in, and no offense to any former/present military, but I've met some of the damn foolish people I've even known, who also served for the military. I work for a guy who got shot in the tail on a military gun range, twice. Ya, I'd say that if stupidity is as common in the military as it is in the rest of the world, chances are your training is no better then mine, or any other citizen.

1) I served in the RAN.

2) We generally don't view the American military as good examples of military professionalism. Better than most in the world, true, but hardly the best.

3) Yes, occasionally accidents do happen ON A MILITARY FIRING RANGE! Think about it. It's a location where people are firing ALL THE TIME! Naturally, even if soldiers are 100 times safer than civilians, there will be more accidents on a military firing range if they are firing guns far more often.

But perhaps an IQ test or some kind of common sense test should be required for gun permits.

I agree. Extensive psychological profiling.

I can agree on some points, but you have to understand that saying "Just remove all the guns" is not a logical solution. You make it sound nice and simple.

It is logical, it is simple. It works.

Like I say, get all the illegal guns, and you can have my legal ones.

See my previous response to this inanity.

 

[Bystander]

Originally posted by Adam
(snip)
Start with a simple law: (snip)[/B]

"Aye, there's the rub" --- laws aren't enforced in this country --- bummer. Manson's still eating on the taxpayers' dime, took years to stir-fry Ted Bundy, couple dozen lawyers look to be making a career (and lots of money) on the beltway sniping, and so on.

The U.S. is a violent nation, and keeps detailed statistics on the violence; it's underreported. How about "Oz?"

 

[Adam]

Bystander

We have about a fourteenth of the USA's population, I think, and less than a fourteenth of the USA's gun-related crimes. The Australian Institute of Criminology is a great source of data.

http://www.aic.gov.au

 

[Zantra]

Both sides have made some very valid points, which instead of quoting I'll summarize. It is true that better restrictions need to be placed on gun ownership, and perhaps increasing the severity of illlegal possesion would helf a little. However that bottom line is that, as someone mentioned, guns don't kill people, people kill people. If you take the guns away they'll use knives. Take the knives away they'll use stones. People willing to kill, will ultimately kill by whatever means is available to them. Yes guns are more modern and deadly, but overall it's impossible to eliminate murder. You would have to basically seed out probably a quarter of the population to prevent it. Those with the will can find the means, guns or not. If you eliminate guns, it may be a slight deterrent, but those determined to kill will find alternate methods. On the other hand, I don't see arming everyone as a deterrent to be an effective solution either. Adam made a good point in that unless you have a ccw and sleep with your gun(not likely) you couldn't defend yourself if taken by surprise. Unless you have reflexes like a cat, but then someone that nervous shouldn't have a gun to begin with. That's how people ended up killing their family members by mistaking them for intruders.

In conclusion I don't think banning arms would be a viable solution. The only way to effectively eliminate illegal gun use is to censor the people who would use it with malice. And at this point in time it's not 100 percent effective solution.