Gun control

Gun control

Nothing is more precious than life. The invention of guns makes it easier to take ones life. A single pull of a trigger can decide between life and death. Such lethal weapons are easily available in our society. They can be bought legally at federally owned or private gun stores, and at gun shows. There are far too many guns floating around the United States. With more than 200 million handguns produced in the United States, there is a chance that some of them may fall in the wrong hands. From time to time, sensational shootings provoke public outrage, resulting in the ratification of strict gun control laws. However, due to reactions by gun right proponents, the effectiveness of the governmental action to enforce these gun control laws is deterred. Americans have a long affection for guns based upon their heritage of hunting, sporting, and self-protection during colonial times. In addition, the United States won independence from Great Britain using the guns they possessed. Currently, according to the National Rifles Association (NRA) poll, eighty-nine percent of Americans believe they have a constitutional right to hold guns. Gun control opponents also use to argue that gun ownership is a right granted and protected by the United States Constitution, and that tough gun control laws encroach on those rights. In its entirety, the Second Amendment reads: “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.” Despite claims from people in favor of guns that it is the citizens’ right to own and carry a weapon, the right to keep and bear arms by individuals is not protected by the constitution. The Second Amendment states that it is the right for a militia to have weapons, not everyone. The constitution clearly talks about a “well-regulated Militia”. According to the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, a militia is a trained military force whose members do not belong to a regular army but operate like one, especially to defend their country in an emergency. Today’s version of the “well-regulated Militia” is the National Guard. The constitution means it is the right for the National Guard, the arms forces, and law enforcers to hold guns, not the civil population. Widespread gun ownership lead to an increase of gun related deaths. Even with previous gun control laws in effect, such as the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Brady Law), as indicated by the CDC’s WISQARS Injury Mortality Reports, there are 29,569 gun deaths in the United States in the year 2004 alone. It is the second leading cause of deaths after motor crash and, in several states (Firearm Injury Center at the University of Pennsylvania, “Gun Violence Is a Serious Economic and Public Health Problem”, Current Controversies: Guns and Violence, 2005 p. 21). Stricter gun control laws should be put into place since guns lead to deaths of young people due to unintentional gunfire, economic costs on society, and unsafe societies.

From my essay I wrote for class.

I suppose it depends on the situation. I drive through a lot of rural areas,and if you're in a farmhouse in the middle of nowhere it might be a while before the police show up. Probably too late to do you much good. So, quite a number of farmers are armed, out of necessity. If somebody comes onto the property intent on making trouble, the farmer has to be able to handle it himself simply because the law is too far away and will take too long to get there.

In the city it might be a little different, but maybe not as much as you'd like to think. Criminals, by and large, don't pay a whole lot of attention to any laws you might enact to make their chosen profession harder. The police can't possibly be everywhere, though when they catch you speeding you might be inclined to argue that point. You just might wish you had a weapon to defend yourself.

So, you have a choice. If you want to go about unarmed, you certainly have that choice. A quick read of the local paper suggests that the other choice, being armed so you can defend yourself, should also be on the table. You can't depend on being able to call the police when you really need them, or on them showing up on time if you do get the chance to call them. I don't fancy that having the officer show up to write the reports over your dead body is going to do you much good.

Guns are not just for use on people, they're a tool like any other. Farmers use them on predators and hunting too... In the case of personal protection one could use a variety of tools other than a gun, and in fact removing the guns doesn't necessarily remove violent crime, someone could easily use a hammer. However, if you plan to defend yourself in that way and someone else has a gun you'd better either be really good with a hammer or a really fast runner.

There's a problem with the availability of guns but the problem isn't that they are available. People and social issues are the worry. The tool someone intent on violence will use can be anything and it takes more skill to use a handgun than a knife. Inexperienced shooters aren't accurate, especially if they hollywood/gangsta roll the pistol. Prolly even as much a danger to themselves as you.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

You just might wish you had a weapon to defend yourself

I still don't know about this. If I'm confronted with with gang members or other criminals, whipping out out a gun instead, instead of cooperating and calling the police, would be a good why to get myself murdered instead of mugged. The already have their guns drawn, are more practiced in the use of firearms, etc. Besides, the Kellermann study informs us that guns are 2.7X more likely to be used is a homicide against a family member than in defense of the home.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Besides, the Kellermann study informs us that guns are 2.7X more likely to be used is a homicide against a family member than in defense of the home.

They used to use axes... back when that was the more economical option.

Unequivocally, yes, citizens should be able to own guns.

I own quite a few. I mostly use them for hunting or going to shoot snakes during the summer.
I'm quite good with my .308. (Have killed a deer at upwards of 400 yards) My .270 is also quite the excellent rifle as well.

I do question why people would want or need to own assault rifles, however, that right is guaranteed to them to do so in the Constitution.
I own no assault rifle. Just a couple of rifles and an array of handguns. (My grandfather was a high-ranking member of the NRA. My Dad owns half of his guns and I the other half.)

When in dangerous areas of the Mississippi Delta, I bring along my handy 9mm or .44 Mag.

Were any gun control laws enacted on any of the guns/rifles I own, I would ignore them. In fact, as a Latino friend of mine taught me this phrase, I would tell them "Vete a la chingada putas!"

Here we go again with this thread!

I see nothing wrong in the basic principle of being able to own a gun but over the pond you go daft on them. It's like children playing with toys and as an excuse the old hoary one is brought out ....namely, the Consitution. Howevere when that was written it was a vastly different clime and less sophisticated period in a young country. Plus you were expecting us to come back and attack some time and we did. However using that as weak excuse for gun toting is pathetic and you will soon have more guns floating about than people. The net result is awash with gun crime. That part of the Consitution is well outdated for a so-called modern nation. What's the point of police, National Guard,a massive armed force but fall back on this founding years to give people a chance to dangerously play at cowboys. The fact that a large number have a veritable arsenal in their homes shows that one is obvious? I often think of that brain dead jaw man Heston the feuhrere of the gun lobby. Would make you winceow he was fawned over by the big bucks gun lobby.

It is time that America grew up on the matter of too many guns. Heavens even schools are semi-regular shooting galleries with horrible results. With so many guns including big ones floating about you could quite easily save a big fortune on the miltary by redcuing it and using all those would-be Minutemen to "defend". Hey millions of poor could be attended too instead?!

Originally posted by rjhowie:

That part of the Consitution is well outdated for a so-called modern nation.

Thank you for your opinion.
This is our country however, and not yours. You enjoy toting around your wee popguns (shotguns) or not and we will carry one owning our guns (or not). You have rules to suit your country and we ours.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

It is time that America grew up on the matter of too many guns.

This will probably warrant a warning for me, but I don't care. You Brits have a way of putting things well, and I will let some British artwork speak for me. Please enjoy.

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Nothing is more precious than life.

Wrong.
Nothing is more precious than happy life.
Everything has more value than miserable life.
"Life" alone has a value near zero. It is simply a state.

But as for guns...
They exist. The genie cannot be put back in the bottle. <-- Keep that in mind in every discussion on guns.

In some situations, a gun is superior to a knife or a stick, or a skilled bare hand. In others not so. I can kill with a stick. Are you going to take away my sticks?

I don't own any guns, but if the time came where I felt I needed one I am glad that I could get one. It isn't likely to happen (my swords, axes, knives, and sticks are deadly enough) but if it does, thank goodness I can. ... ... still ... if I couldn't, a bow and crossbow would be fairly good substitutes. Do ya wanna ban the bow?

You're not allowed to just walk around with a crossbow like in Walking Dead, you know. :-P (or at least here you aren't) you can own them just fine though.

Let'em try to take away my nunchucks!

It depends on the country. This may work in Europe, Asia and other more docile cultures, but in the USA it would be like a failed prohibition to ban guns. Mexico bans guns and proves what happens when it doesn't work if you look up the gun murder rate.

Seriously, banning guns and banning drugs at the same time would turn into hell on earth with such rich black market industry running about.

This is related with the idea people have about civilization.
I find it curious that I don't use to see American citizens carrying guns around Europe and have never listen no one saying that he wouldn't go here because he can't carry his gun. It seems that something makes them feel safer than back home.
Strange "home".

Originally posted by Belfrager:

This is related with the idea people have about civilization.
I find it curious that I don't use to see American citizens carrying guns around Europe

I've never seen one doing so, either. What do you think this place is, the wild, wild West?

Originally posted by Belfrager:

This is related with the idea people have about civilization.
I find it curious that I don't use to see American citizens carrying guns around Europe and have never listen no one saying that he wouldn't go here because he can't carry his gun. It seems that something makes them feel safer than back home.
Strange "home".

There's a lot of Americans who don't walk around with guns. Even in Texas, which is supposed to be notoriously gun-crazy. I don't own a gun, for example, though you see in my post above I come out in favor of the right to own one.

It's a funny thing, we hold these gun debates and it gives Europeans the idea that here in America we're all walking around like it's the old West, with six-shooters on our belts ready for the quick-draw in the street at noon. Of course, it's not anywhere close to being like that. Surprisingly few folk own guns, and few of those carry them on a daily basis. Not even in the inner city, where gang-bangers do give the average citizen reason to arm himself because the gangs are usually well armed, or so the story goes. (Note: Most gang-bangers aren't packing either, unless they're going to use the gun. If they are just walking down the street and get picked up by police, having a gun on them makes what could have been a simple incident turn into a gun violation just for being armed-- most gang-bangers have prior records, and ex-cons generally aren't allowed to legally have guns.)

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

There's a lot of Americans who don't walk around with guns.

Probably the majority, I suppose.
One thing I can tell you, I feel perfectly confident about walking on the streets of any American city the same way I do it here or when I've lived at Rio de Janeiro or even at civil war situations.
People are equal all over the place. Common sense and having your eyes open it's better than any weapon.

So, what explains that American gun defenders lobby it's so powerful, if not civilizational aspects?

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

It's a funny thing, we hold these gun debates and it gives Europeans the idea that here in America we're all walking around like it's the old West, with six-shooters on our belts ready for the quick-draw in the street at noon.

But to be fair, I think we understand that even the Old West wasn't like that.

Besides, we're more worried about what happens when we knock on someone's door than walking past them in the street.

Although we also worry about what kind of person thinks that carrying guns makes anything safer.

Originally posted by xyzoneon:

It depends on the country. This may work in Europe, Asia and other more docile cultures, but in the USA it would be like a failed prohibition to ban guns. Mexico bans guns and proves what happens when it doesn't work if you look up the gun murder rate.

More docile cultures? Who's got the TSA security theater? Who's got the Patriot Act? Americans are extraordinarily litigious people, but just because we don't take action in the same way doesn't mean we're docile. For example, the fact that lawyers can take a percentage of a settlement payment as their honorarium is one of the things that enhance this situation, and it isn't allowed here* with the express purpose of preventing such litigiousness. Heck, look at France: from their perspective Americans are probably incredibly docile, almost never striking. And that's part two right there: if you want to make such broad, sweeping generalizations as European and Asian culture, then American culture is a European culture. To imply that Asian culture is docile and uncreative sounds like a 19th century stereotype, but objections to that should probably be phrased by other people than me.

Originally posted by xyzoneon:

Seriously, banning guns and banning drugs at the same time would turn into hell on earth with such rich black market industry running about.

Gun control and drugs control isn't banning guns and banning drugs. For example, the hunting is often mentioned. Well, you can get a hunting license. I will point out though, that the mass murder last year was committed by someone with a gun license, so you shouldn't think that I'm suggesting that licenses will solve everything. Still, if any random schmuck without any gun experience can go into a store and buy 'em, that's bound to be more dangerous than if you need to demonstrate that you're responsible enough and possess certain skills.


* Whenever I say here I tend to more or less reference the Benelux and Germany, though certain situations may not necessarily apply in all these countries. I certainly don't mean to be implying anything regarding other European countries unless I explicitly mention them.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Besides, we're more worried about what happens when we knock on someone's door than walking past them in the street.

I've knocked on thousands of doors without ever having been greeted by a gun (I used to deliver newspapers).

People have the strangest ideas about us.

If anybody's going to use the Constitution to argue for gun right, don't. The Constitution, as stated in my first post, only mentions gun for militias, and that is the national guard not the people. Gun should be more tightly control and not sold to every Tom, Dick, and Harry.

Originally posted by wikipedian:

If anybody's going to use the Constitution to argue for gun right, don't. The Constitution, as stated in my first post, only mentions gun for militias, and that is the national guard not the people. Gun should be more tightly control and not sold to every Tom, Dick, and Harry.

That's not conclusively the case, and nobody wants to take on challenging that in court. The passage is open to interpretation, you could read it as you did, but alternatively (and more accurately I feel, although I think it's wrong), that an effective militia can only be formed if the populace are already armed.

I'll say this, times change and situations change. At the time the Constitution was written, we had a relatively small population and if you were going to have an effective militia, just about everybody who could carry a rifle needed to be able to carry one. It's not quite that way today, we don't have the British about to show up and the natives have mostly been herded onto reservations. Still, the 2nd Amendment is what it is, and is worded just ambiguous enough to give rise to the debate about what, exactly, it means. So, Wiki, I have to disagree with you about that.

About situations: I understand in some parts of the world the situation exists today where every able-bodied citizen is considered to be part of the militia and is expected, therefore, to have access at least to arms. According to the lie I heard Israel is like that, and so is Switzerland. I'm not absolutely sure that's true, like I said it's according to the lie I heard.

Are you suggesting that we have minutemen ready to attack at any moment? Here in the UK, there is very low gun crime (but high knife crime). Guns are more dangerous than knives since you can attack anybody from far. Also, guns are harder to trace than knife, I think.

Having a gun makes it easier to take a life. Angry at someone, take a gun and shoot em, only to regret later.

Originally posted by wikipedian:

If anybody's going to use the Constitution to argue for gun right, don't. The Constitution, as stated in my first post, only mentions gun for militias, and that is the national guard not the people. Gun should be more tightly control and not sold to every Tom, Dick, and Harry.

Er, ahh... one other problem. When the Constitution was written, several members had it in mind that at some point the government they were setting up might get "too big for its britches" and need to be overthrown. Only an armed citizenry can do that, as a general rule. Trusting that government forces, and only government forces, should be armed is the surest way to dictatorships that can be found. Our founding fathers weren't overly trusting of the government-- not even of the one they were setting up.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

According to the lie I heard Israel is like that, and so is Switzerland.

I think that is not the case at those countries. The Army service is almost for life, a week or so each year. Not a bad idea and it would solve Europe problem of lacking a decent army but totally different from a militia.
At least as I do understand a militia.

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Are you suggesting that we have minutemen ready to attack at any moment? Here in the UK, there is very low gun crime (but high knife crime). Guns are more dangerous than guns since you can attack anybody from far. Also, guns are harder to trace than knife, I think.

Having a gun makes it easier to take a life. Angry at someone, take a gun and shoot em, only to regret later.

Sorry about that, but the bolded... I suppose Capital Guns are more dangerous than guns, simply because they're apt to be larger. Taking on an M-1 tank with a 30-06 rifle isn't going to get you very far.

For the rest-- it reads like gun-grabber hysteria. Guns actually turn out to be relatively easy to trace. When you fire a bullet, the rifling in the barrel leaves a tell-tale marking on the bullet that identifies the gun it was fired from. If/when the authorities find the suspected weapon, they fire it into a special chamber that allows them to retrieve the bullet and match it with one retrieved at the crime scene. If the scoring on the bullets match, then you know you have the gun that was used in the crime. From then on, it's just a matter of placing the weapon in the hand of the perp, same as with a knife, an axe, a hammer or a baseball bat.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Originally posted by xyzoneon:

It depends on the country. This may work in Europe, Asia and other more docile cultures, but in the USA it would be like a failed prohibition to ban guns. Mexico bans guns and proves what happens when it doesn't work if you look up the gun murder rate.

More docile cultures? Who's got the TSA security theater? Who's got the Patriot Act? Americans are extraordinarily litigious people, but just because we don't take action in the same way doesn't mean we're docile. For example, the fact that lawyers can take a percentage of a settlement payment as their honorarium is one of the things that enhance this situation, and it isn't allowed here* with the express purpose of preventing such litigiousness. Heck, look at France: from their perspective Americans are probably incredibly docile, almost never striking. And that's part two right there: if you want to make such broad, sweeping generalizations as European and Asian culture, then American culture is a European culture. To imply that Asian culture is docile and uncreative sounds like a 19th century stereotype, but objections to that should probably be phrased by other people than me.

You're looking more into the use of the word "docile" than intended. I didn't imply it as a necessarily bad thing. Another word might be "civilized", but that seemed more biased in the other direction. The point I was trying to make is not cultural criticism, just realism. There is a large number of people here that would scream bloody murder if guns became (perceptually, much less empirically) banned, and very few that would vehemently support the measure. That's a prohibition recipe for disaster, same as the drugs. I was saying I'm aware that the cultures are different. Just as with anything, any given specific trait can be good, bad or both depending on degree and circumstance.

But since you brought it up, I wouldn't bunch any specific criticism of Europe as a whole since it's so varied between countries. As a whole the only thing I can think of is the hypocrisy of criticizing the USA while emulating part of it, including the bad. (East) Asia, I never said the culture wasn't creative. I would say "obedient". But I digress. None of that was my point, like I said.

Gun control and drugs control isn't banning guns and banning drugs.

Yes, I know. But it's an analog perception and degree. Is it a ban when it's prohibited with exceptions? And if not, how difficult do the exceptions have to be before we call it a ban, in layman's terms? In most parts of the word that people in this country typically refer to as "banning" guns, there are ownership exceptions for special cases. It depends how we choose to define "banned".

Although you certainly have a point that regulation in both cases of guns and drugs seems and is evidently the better choice than a no-exceptions prohibition, and even better than the hypothetical free reign anarchy that prohibitionist like to strawman. But still, the US is not free reign anarchy with guns. There is of course gun regulation, guns aren't legally sold like casual items, and authorities don't typically look the other way if they catch someone with a gun. The opposite is actually true. The question is if more strict rules would fix anything or make it worse. There is also the question of how enforcement is done, which imo is more important within the context of existing, reasonable gun laws. Just writing laws on paper is meaningless and often even counterproductive without effective enforcement.

I will point out though, that the mass murder last year was committed by someone with a gun license, so you shouldn't think that I'm suggesting that licenses will solve everything. Still, if any random schmuck without any gun experience can go into a store and buy 'em, that's bound to be more dangerous than if you need to demonstrate that you're responsible enough and possess certain skills.

IMO, the notion that people can legally buy guns in the US off the shelf is, while not based on zero evidence still sensationalized out of proportion. Most of the gun rampages done in the US and all over the (developed) world were done with guns bought according to domestic laws, including as you mention the Norway guy.

Originally posted by xyzoneon:

But since you brought it up, I wouldn't bunch any specific criticism of Europe as a whole since it's so varied between countries. As a whole the only thing I can think of is the hypocrisy of criticizing the USA while emulating part of it, including the bad. (East) Asia, I never said the culture wasn't creative. I would say "obedient". But I digress. None of that was my point, like I said.

Alright, thanks for clarifying.

Originally posted by xyzoneon:

IMO, the notion that people can legally buy guns in the US off the shelf is, while not based on zero evidence still sensationalized out of proportion. Most of the gun rampages done in the US and all over the (developed) world were done with guns bought according to domestic laws, including as you mention the Norway guy.

It depends on the state. I didn't fact-check this, and I forget what state he was talking about, but my FIL* has an Illinois gun license and a variety of guns. He went to a store in *insert other state* to buy a gun or some ammunition or something and they told him he couldn't 'cause he wasn't a citizen. He has a license/permit/whatever it's called that demonstrates he actually has certain knowledge and skills, yet he couldn't obtain anything in that department, while any citizen from *insert other state* could just go up to said store and buy whatever they wanted without a license.

Of course this is a combination of hearsay and possible misremembering, but I suppose the main point is that the US has many different types of gun control, or lack thereof. Illinois seems to have it down pretty good, while *insert other state* doesn't so much. As far as I'm concerned, in the Netherlands we've gone too far in the direction of banning weaponry, but at least our drugs policy is for the most part reasonable. That's not something you can say for the US much.

* Who's known to exaggerate sometimes.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Are you suggesting that we have minutemen ready to attack at any moment? Here in the UK, there is very low gun crime (but high knife crime). Guns are more dangerous than guns since you can attack anybody from far. Also, guns are harder to trace than knife, I think.

Having a gun makes it easier to take a life. Angry at someone, take a gun and shoot em, only to regret later.

Sorry about that, but the bolded... I suppose Capital Guns are more dangerous than guns, simply because they're apt to be larger. Taking on an M-1 tank with a 30-06 rifle isn't going to get you very far.

For the rest-- it reads like gun-grabber hysteria. Guns actually turn out to be relatively easy to trace. When you fire a bullet, the rifling in the barrel leaves a tell-tale marking on the bullet that identifies the gun it was fired from. If/when the authorities find the suspected weapon, they fire it into a special chamber that allows them to retrieve the bullet and match it with one retrieved at the crime scene. If the scoring on the bullets match, then you know you have the gun that was used in the crime. From then on, it's just a matter of placing the weapon in the hand of the perp, same as with a knife, an axe, a hammer or a baseball bat.

Oops a typo. Meant to say guns are more dangerous than knives.

Guns cannot be legally sold like casual items? I once saw a store in Mesa, Arizona, called Guns, Gold, and [I forgot the last word]. There is certainly less restrictions for guns in the US. I think guns should be kept out of the hands of ordinary citizens (only give guns to police and rural farmers). That will reduce gun rampages like Virginia Tech.

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Guns cannot be legally sold like casual items? I once saw a store in Arizona called Guns, Gold, and [I forgot the last word]. There is certainly less restrictions for guns in the US. I think guns should be kept out of the hands of ordinary citizens (only give guns to police and rural farmers). That will reduce gun rampages like Virginia Tech.

You might have a bit of trouble trying to legally buy a gun like a casual item here. Before you can buy a gun, you have to have a "Firearms Owners Identification Card". To get that, you have to submit information to the authorities, who in turn are at least supposed to match that info against a database to see if you've committed any crimes that would forbid you to have a gun. Certain violent crimes, domestic violence crimes and so on are automatic "No". Around here, when you buy a gun it's strongly recommended-- if not required-- that you take classes to learn how the gun works and time at the shooting range comes highly recommended.

I had occasion to learn a little about the FOID card, and there's a surprising list of things that will either forbid you from getting one, or make it void if you already possess one and violate certain laws. Beat your wife, and your FOID card becomes void at once, for example. When the police come on a domestic violence call, they confiscate your guns and your FOID card. Even if you never took the gun out of its case during the incident.

So, it's not as easy as you think. We don't sell guns like chewing gum and a gallon of milk. Surprised?

Originally posted by wikipedian:

I once saw a store in Mesa, Arizona, called Guns, Gold, and [I forgot the last word].

I once saw a store in the UK that sold liquor… yet I doubt they would've sold anything to children. And at MACRO, they only sell you anything if you've got a membership card. Some kind of conclusion can be derived from those factoids.

Girls maybe, or Whiskey, or Goldfish?

I actually meant Makro. My brain was in English mode, so it opted for the c incorrectly.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

I actually meant Makro.

Yes, but you can't buy just one orange, you have to buy an entire box full of oranges.
Maybe we could open something alike in the United States, just for guns...

Yup - or make special deals

One Coffin with every dozen bullets

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Yes, but you can't buy just one orange, you have to buy an entire box full of oranges.Maybe we could open something alike in the United States, just for guns...

I believe Walmart already does that in some locations.

I think this is the shop I saw. Guns and Gold Pawn shop, not Guns, Gold, and [missing word]. http://mesapawn.net/mesagun.aspx

Interesting. Note that you apparently have to pay $15 to legitimately transfer ownership of a gun, presumably even if you're gifting your old one to someone else?

I used to own a spud gun. They're probably illegal now, no doubt.

Originally posted by wikipedian:

If anybody's going to use the Constitution to argue for gun right, don't.

Well, tough Tom titty, I'm going to. The text reads, "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."

Originally posted by wikipedian:

The Constitution, as stated in my first post, only mentions gun for militias

No, it does not. It states, "the right of the people". That means be they militiamen or ordinary citizens. The SCOTUS agrees with me.
You don't like it? Tough cheese.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

that an effective militia can only be formed if the populace are already armed.

Absolutely.

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Gun should be more tightly control and not sold to every Tom, Dick, and Harry.

I think that there should be more thorough background checks, certainly.
But it is our inherent right to own guns if we please.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Surprisingly few folk own guns

In Illinois perhaps, but in other states, most people own guns.
I know of a handful of people in my parent's home town that do not own guns, for instance.

I don't agree with Dawg on much these days, but this is one thing we're on the same page on. Yes, the Second Amendment does give the right to keep and bear arms to the people.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Although we also worry about what kind of person thinks that carrying guns makes anything safer.

No doubt there are some cowboys that carry as a status thing or something but these are the people I'd avoid too. Experience around firearms helps you identify the nutters, I mean, there's just some people's home I wouldn't go in.

Originally posted by wikipedian:

If anybody's going to use the Constitution to argue for gun right, don't. The Constitution, as stated in my first post, only mentions gun for militias, and that is the national guard not the people. Gun should be more tightly control and not sold to every Tom, Dick, and Harry.

Originally posted by wikipedian:

the Second Amendment reads: “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.”

Militia was formed from citizens who brought their own weapons. Any skill they offered the force was from their experience with firearms they brought. Kentucky and less famously TN long gunners were prized marksmen from the wilderness areas, prolly didn't hurt they were hunters. More than once dispatching say, a British General with a skilled shot proved more valuable than any cannon fodder practice. The right to form a militia not only means you have a right to organized resistance but its real point is simple, you have a right to protect yourself and each other. The supreme court ruled the right to keep and bear arms is a personal right not meaning only for militia ... And that is also constitutional, if ya wanna flip through it some more. Didn't the Brits have something similar?

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Guns cannot be legally sold like casual items? I once saw a store in Mesa, Arizona, called Guns, Gold, and [I forgot the last word]. There is certainly less restrictions for guns in the US.

Did you try buying one like it was beef jerky? Passing by a store hardly constitutes familiarity with the purchasing process.

I think guns should be kept out of the hands of ordinary citizens (only give guns to police and rural farmers).

The question is whether draconian restrictions would do any good, such as ripping guns away from legal owners if they're not farmers or cops. Or a more important question is if it couldn't actually backfire (no pun intended) and create a pretty terrible black market. In a country with gun programs on documentary channels, I don't see how that's going to fly. Gun rampages aside (would you prefer bombings with ordinary materials?), ordinary crime wouldn't stop and guns would not disappear overnight. Even in the long run, unless you were to shut down the entire gun industry, criminals would still find guns easily enough. Good luck trying to shut down the gun industry. That would be a much more difficult hurdle than the one of public opinion.

Well now, according to thedawgfan the gun fiasco is an Amwerican argument and those of us fortunate enough not to live in that continued shoot out at the giant OK Corral should keep their mouths shut? Based on that rather sillyness then we would have to have seperate threads for each country and just allow thir citizens to have discussions! Resorting tocursing so easily is the first sign of an argument weakness. This is an international forum and at least one place in the world that cannot be controlled by over gun totin' ex-colonists as they usually do in the world. Very neatly the matter of the original need for weapons has been shboved to the side so that boys can play with guns and got shooting each other and the hobby includes in schools. A natural progress one could say? The Contsitution - that bit of paper that many choose to ignoer in the body politic over there (when it suits) wasn't meant to give a green light to people hoarding arsenals in their homes once the revolutionary days passed. Private citizens have more damn firearms (includiing machine guns and other heavy stuffr than the police and National Guard.

There is no need for hundreds of millions of guns and homes having a whole selection. The more there are the more people get killed by gun nutters. Of course I am well aware that the gun itself is not dangerous it is the person who uses it that can be the problem. To use the founding of the country and the stuff in that bit of paper as an excuse to shoot and maim each other in large numbers is plain daft but eher has always been a degree of emotional weakness and juvenile traits in the American race. Why anyway should the right to bear arms still be neccessary in these modern days with such a massive army, navy and airforce never mind the police force? I have no problem with shooting for recreation in say a gun club or gaming but the general gun situation in the USA is plain ridiculous. You harp back to the late 18th and early 19th century to justify the nonsense. Hell mend you that so many die because of this right to bear arms. I blame Hollywood, John Wayne, too much coffee and still to grow up as a country........

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Well now, according to thedawgfan the gun fiasco is an Amwerican argument and those of us fortunate enough not to live in that continued shoot out at the giant OK Corral should keep their mouths shut? Based on that rather sillyness then we would have to have seperate threads for each country and just allow thir citizens to have discussions! Resorting tocursing so easily is the first sign of an argument weakness. This is an international forum and at least one place in the world that cannot be controlled by over gun totin' ex-colonists as they usually do in the world. Very neatly the matter of the original need for weapons has been shboved to the side so that boys can play with guns and got shooting each other and the hobby includes in schools. A natural progress one could say? The Contsitution - that bit of paper that many choose to ignoer in the body politic over there (when it suits) wasn't meant to give a green light to people hoarding arsenals in their homes once the revolutionary days passed. Private citizens have more damn firearms (includiing machine guns and other heavy stuffr than the police and National Guard.

There is no need for hundreds of millions of guns and homes having a whole selection. The more there are the more people get killed by gun nutters. Of course I am well aware that the gun itself is not dangerous it is the person who uses it that can be the problem. To use the founding of the country and the stuff in that bit of paper as an excuse to shoot and maim each other in large numbers is plain daft but eher has always been a degree of emotional weakness and juvenile traits in the American race. Why anyway should the right to bear arms still be neccessary in these modern days with such a massive army, navy and airforce never mind the police force? I have no problem with shooting for recreation in say a gun club or gaming but the general gun situation in the USA is plain ridiculous. You harp back to the late 18th and early 19th century to justify the nonsense. Hell mend you that so many die because of this right to bear arms. I blame Hollywood, John Wayne, too much coffee and still to grow up as a country........

OK, I get the shortage of guns in the UK. OK, so when you get to the point where you want to do each other in over there, what is your weapon of choice? Please don't try to fob me with the idea that you're more peaceful over thataway, I strongly suspect the stats would prove somewhat different. People kill each other there too--- so, what's your weapon of choice? Knives? Bludgeons? Defenestrating people? Maybe we should insist on a third-floor windows ban, or insist that anybody who pushes somebody else out the window should be more severely punished.

We don't strut about claiming the right to arms dear Chicagoan. We have an army, navy and airforce to do that as we are living in the 21st century not the 18th. Catch up.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Well now, according to thedawgfan the gun fiasco is an Amwerican argument and those of us fortunate enough not to live in that continued shoot out at the giant OK Corral should keep their mouths shut? Based on that rather sillyness then we would have to have seperate threads for each country and just allow thir citizens to have discussions! Resorting tocursing so easily is the first sign of an argument weakness. This is an international forum and at least one place in the world that cannot be controlled by over gun totin' ex-colonists as they usually do in the world. Very neatly the matter of the original need for weapons has been shboved to the side so that boys can play with guns and got shooting each other and the hobby includes in schools. A natural progress one could say? The Contsitution - that bit of paper that many choose to ignoer in the body politic over there (when it suits) wasn't meant to give a green light to people hoarding arsenals in their homes once the revolutionary days passed. Private citizens have more damn firearms (includiing machine guns and other heavy stuffr than the police and National Guard.

There is no need for hundreds of millions of guns and homes having a whole selection. The more there are the more people get killed by gun nutters. Of course I am well aware that the gun itself is not dangerous it is the person who uses it that can be the problem. To use the founding of the country and the stuff in that bit of paper as an excuse to shoot and maim each other in large numbers is plain daft but eher has always been a degree of emotional weakness and juvenile traits in the American race. Why anyway should the right to bear arms still be neccessary in these modern days with such a massive army, navy and airforce never mind the police force? I have no problem with shooting for recreation in say a gun club or gaming but the general gun situation in the USA is plain ridiculous. You harp back to the late 18th and early 19th century to justify the nonsense. Hell mend you that so many die because of this right to bear arms. I blame Hollywood, John Wayne, too much coffee and still to grow up as a country........

This is a subject on which otherwise sensible people become shrill and illogical. On both sides.
It is like religion. No good comes from discussing it.

Originally posted by tt92:

This is a subject on which otherwise sensible people become shrill and illogical. On both sides.
It is like religion. No good comes from discussing it.

Ignoring the problem doesn't seem logical to me, either. The only hope of real solution is discussion. What else is there? Maybe we can have pistol duels.