Guns, Guns, Guns...

DocHorror · Post by **DocHorror** » 2003-03-07 08:21am

Okay, considering the sheer amount of gun crime in the US at the moment. Why do you think of the right to bear arms? Is it a good thing?

Is it even necessary in the present (though Id like to avoid the 'we need guns to protect us from the gun crime' arguement.

Basically, why not make gun ownership illegal? Aside from the constitional right to bear arms, what is the the necessity for gun ownership in the US, would the place be worse with out them?

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2003-03-07 08:41am

You know, you've just made Sheppard's day. Abandon all hope, the moment he sees this.

DocHorror · Post by **DocHorror** » 2003-03-07 08:47am

Probably, but some kind of coherant answer or debate would be nice though...

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-03-07 08:54am

I'm surprised you haven't been swamped already.

DocHorror · Post by **DocHorror** » 2003-03-07 08:58am

Me too, though Im not trying to start a fight or a slagging match.

Some rational opinions would be nice...

Batman · Post by **Batman** » 2003-03-07 09:13am

Well, bringing that question up with Shep around does fit with Doc's location

Personally, I think tighter controlled gun ownership might have made a difference before there was a quadrillion of the bloody things around.
As it stands now, 'If having a gun is a crime only criminals will have guns' could actually apply.

Furthermore, let's assume for the moment we can treknobabble all those guns out of existence.
Criminals don't commit crimes because they have guns, they have guns because they want to commit a crime, so I'd expect not a decline of crimes,
but a shift to other potentially dangerous household implements-related crimes.

DocHorror · Post by **DocHorror** » 2003-03-07 09:23am

Criminals don't commit crimes because they have guns, they have guns because they want to commit a crime, so I'd expect not a decline of crimes,
but a shift to other potentially dangerous household implements-related crimes

Aye, thats true, without guns you would expect there to be an increase in stabbings & beatings. But you do have a decrease in people 'planning' a crime because they fear that without a gun they wouldn't be able to pull it off.

However you have to wonder whether the level of violent crime is because of access to guns or because of some other societal factor.

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2003-03-07 09:35am

And gun control is a joke every criminal knows where he can get a gun.

Batman · Post by **Batman** » 2003-03-07 09:47am

DocHorror wrote: However you have to wonder whether the level of violent crime is because of access to guns or because of some other societal factor.

While I would hesitate to attribute the actual number of violent crimes as such to easy gun access, the percentage of them that involves a gun is certainly increased by it.
When you're about to do something the other involved party is likely to physically take exception to, you want all the bang you can get for the buck you're trying to steal.

Would the absence of guns mean a decline in crime? I doubt it.
It would mean a drecrease in shootings, methinks. As gunning down half a dozen people is tons easier than clubbing them to death with a baseball bat, that would still be a good thing.
Alas, as I said earlier, the guns are there, banning them now is not going to make much of a difference.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-03-07 09:54am

Simply put gun control keeps guns out of law abiding citizens hands. A criminal but definition does not obey the law. They do not care about gun control because they are getting guns through black market means. What the US needs are two things. First, it needs inteligently created gun "control" laws that place specific requirements on getting a hold of certain guns. This would include back ground checks through a univseral system as well as other programs. Second, they need anti-gun crime laws like Project Exile in Virginia which has produced a sharp decline in gun crimes in Virginia while not encroaching on private gun ownership at all.

(shameless advertisement)

And here is my idea on logical gun control.

First and foremost, I have to say that I am a firm believer in the 2nd amendment. That said, that does not mean every person should be able to walk into a grocery store and buy an M-16. There is a difference between the right to own a weapon and owning a weapon.

As far as I am concerned, people have the right to own cars within the US. Just because they have that right does not mean they can use that car. You have to fill out ownership forms, titles, and even have to get licensed to use the thing. The United Kingdom even goes a step further where if you get a license on an Automatic transmission, that’s all you can drive. If you get a license on a stick shift, you can also drive automatics.

I am sure you can see where I am going with this. I think that people who want to own a gun have to follow some pre-conditions to own a gun. They have to take gun safety classes, they have to pass tests, have to have a safe place to store the weapons, they have to have a free record (no felonies in the record), etc… It might take some time, but once you have the license, that allows you to buy guns. There would be a variety of licenses, pistol (semi-auto or revolver), shotgun, rifle (bolt and lever or semi-auto), etc… You would have to get licensed for each thing you want to get. But once you have the license, you are free to buy weapons from registered dealers without problem. They can take your license and run it through a database instantly to see if you are qualified. Registering the weapon is a snap, and you can take it home. In other words you jump through all the hoops well before hand, then it gives you a free reign later on. If you can’t pass all the requirements, no license, no guns.

Now, people who invest a fair amount of money into a license, or guns, do not want their investment wasted. Money is valuable. People who want a gun to commit a crime want something fast and easy, and already have a record. They wouldn’t be able to use this system to get weapons. Those with the license will be relatively well off and don’t want to loose what they have. To help encourage them, each license would also be taxed to a small degree.

Now, what about Assault Rifles, high powered rifles, sub machineguns, and other military grade weaponry? Before 1996 the US allowed people to buy new military grade weaponry or fully automatic weaponry. I have seen pictures of people with their collections with the likes of a Steyr Aug, CAR-15, MP5-SD, and AK-47. Even today you can still buy pre-ban weapons. It requires something called a fully automatic license. I think something along these lines should continue. An expensive collectors license for those who want something other then normal weapons. A Collectors license would be very expensive. If someone wants an M16 or P90, they have to save a bloody fortune. The weapons themselves sell for several THOUSAND dollars. The license itself would also have to be several thousand dollars. People would have to make a major investment to get such licenses, but if they can afford it, they certainly don’t want to loose it.

Basically I think that people have the theoretical right to own weapons, but that is only if they can follow the rules and safety procedures.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2003-03-07 10:08am

actually i´m not that convinced anymore that outlawing guns would have a big effect in the usa. the us is so flooded with guns that criminals could get a gun just as easily as now.

i just had an idea which might solve it but i´m not sure since i haven´t thought about it long enough

it would have to be a long term project lasting 10, 20 maybe even 50 years. give the gun industry hard limits for production amount. they may only produce guns for military, police, hunters (who have to get a real hunters education which is not easy to acquire).
at the same time make it illegal to buy new guns. legal owners of guns may keep their guns until they´re broken or for 10 years ( 10 years is a made up number it would have to be about as many years as an average gun is usable). put hard penalties on illegal gun ownership.

you basicly have to get rid of the enormous amount of guns which is in the usa before you can outlaw them. as long as every idiot can get a gun - legally or illagally - you can´t really outlaw them because you need the possibility to protect yourself the other guns.
that counts in case a gun actually makes life safer, which i don´t know because there are loads of good arguments pro and con "safer by having a gun"

Batman · Post by **Batman** » 2003-03-07 10:21am

Interesting scheme, Alyeska, thanks for sharing. Do you have any more info WRT Project Exile?
How many of the gun crimes in the US are commited with legally owned guns?
Making legal access difficult is not going to matter if most of them are stolen anyway.

On a sidenote, Shep still hasn't shown up. Did he die on us or something?

Strafe · Post by **Strafe** » 2003-03-07 10:45am

Ideally I wished we lived in a world where we could get rid of guns. Now being realistic I know that will never happen. Instead I opt for a "Bowling for Columbine" view (Michael Moore is the man, nuff said), where it's not the guns per se, but the culture we live in. Heck Canada has as many guns as the US does, but they don't go killing each other to the extent we do.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-03-07 10:47am

Batman wrote:Interesting scheme, Alyeska, thanks for sharing. Do you have any more info WRT Project Exile?
How many of the gun crimes in the US are commited with legally owned guns?
Making legal access difficult is not going to matter if most of them are stolen anyway.

On a sidenote, Shep still hasn't shown up. Did he die on us or something?

Sorry, I said all that I know. The Project Exile program is a punishment program for criminals who commit crimes while having a gun on their persons (regardless of having used it or even having shown it). It catches criminals if they have legal or illegal weapons and it caused a sharp drop in crimes commited with guns. Criminals would get an automatic 5 year federal prison sentence no mater what crime they commited. Criminals didn't want to risk 5 years in prison so many just stopped carrying guns. Yet at the same time law abiding citizens weren't infringed upon.

As to the legal vs illegal weapons. When it comes to gun crimes commited with automatic weapons, those are 99.9999% illegal. In the last 20 years only one crime has been comitted with a legal automatic. As for pistols, shotguns, and rifles, several of those have been legal, but most have not been. When legal weapons are used its usually people who have snapped who want to kill people regardless. If a criminal has an illegal weapon, they might have stolen it from a legal source. So one way to curb some gun crimes is to simply lock up your gun safely.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-03-07 10:49am

salm wrote:actually i´m not that convinced anymore that outlawing guns would have a big effect in the usa. the us is so flooded with guns that criminals could get a gun just as easily as now.

i just had an idea which might solve it but i´m not sure since i haven´t thought about it long enough

it would have to be a long term project lasting 10, 20 maybe even 50 years. give the gun industry hard limits for production amount. they may only produce guns for military, police, hunters (who have to get a real hunters education which is not easy to acquire).
at the same time make it illegal to buy new guns. legal owners of guns may keep their guns until they´re broken or for 10 years ( 10 years is a made up number it would have to be about as many years as an average gun is usable). put hard penalties on illegal gun ownership.

you basicly have to get rid of the enormous amount of guns which is in the usa before you can outlaw them. as long as every idiot can get a gun - legally or illagally - you can´t really outlaw them because you need the possibility to protect yourself the other guns.
that counts in case a gun actually makes life safer, which i don´t know because there are loads of good arguments pro and con "safer by having a gun"

I will already state that if such a law were passed I would be a willful criminal. There is no justification to remove guns from the hands of law abiding citizens.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-03-07 10:53am

Strafe wrote:Ideally I wished we lived in a world where we could get rid of guns. Now being realistic I know that will never happen. Instead I opt for a "Bowling for Columbine" view (Michael Moore is the man, nuff said), where it's not the guns per se, but the culture we live in. Heck Canada has as many guns as the US does, but they don't go killing each other to the extent we do.

Why on earth do you want to get rid of guns? What is wrong with me having a gun for self defense, entertainment (yes, sport shooting is fun), and hunting purposes? Are you affraid of what I MIGHT do with the weapon? So you are for punishing people for possible actions, not actions themselves? Do you realize you have a better chance of dying in a car wreck then getting shot by a gun? Do you realize that you have a greater chance of getting struck by lightning, TWICE, then getting killed by legally owned fully automatic weapons? What possible justification do you have that gives you the right to say your sense of security is so much more important then the rights of law abiding citizens? Life is dangerous, get over it. Owning guns (LEGALLY) is one of the less dangerous things in life.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2003-03-07 11:00am

And don't think we can ever stop the shipment of guns into America if we did make it illeagle, Britian Demsorated that like Drugs, Guns are pretty easy to sneak into a Country too

Strafe · Post by **Strafe** » 2003-03-07 11:08am

Alyeska wrote:
Strafe wrote:Ideally I wished we lived in a world where we could get rid of guns. Now being realistic I know that will never happen. Instead I opt for a "Bowling for Columbine" view (Michael Moore is the man, nuff said), where it's not the guns per se, but the culture we live in. Heck Canada has as many guns as the US does, but they don't go killing each other to the extent we do.
Why on earth do you want to get rid of guns? What is wrong with me having a gun for self defense, entertainment (yes, sport shooting is fun), and hunting purposes? Are you affraid of what I MIGHT do with the weapon? So you are for punishing people for possible actions, not actions themselves? Do you realize you have a better chance of dying in a car wreck then getting shot by a gun? Do you realize that you have a greater chance of getting struck by lightning, TWICE, then getting killed by legally owned fully automatic weapons? What possible justification do you have that gives you the right to say your sense of security is so much more important then the rights of law abiding citizens? Life is dangerous, get over it. Owning guns (LEGALLY) is one of the less dangerous things in life.

Whoa, slow down and reread my post without the diatribe.

I said ideally I wish we lived in a world without guns. I also wish we lived in a world without war/famine/disease/sadness etc etc. Catch my drift? I want to live in a world that doesn't need guns. (And i'm not talking about hunting. When I mean guns I don't mean hunting rifles)

And like I said in my post I didn't advocate the total banning of guns anyways.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-03-07 11:09am

Strafe wrote:
Alyeska wrote:
Strafe wrote:Ideally I wished we lived in a world where we could get rid of guns. Now being realistic I know that will never happen. Instead I opt for a "Bowling for Columbine" view (Michael Moore is the man, nuff said), where it's not the guns per se, but the culture we live in. Heck Canada has as many guns as the US does, but they don't go killing each other to the extent we do.
Why on earth do you want to get rid of guns? What is wrong with me having a gun for self defense, entertainment (yes, sport shooting is fun), and hunting purposes? Are you affraid of what I MIGHT do with the weapon? So you are for punishing people for possible actions, not actions themselves? Do you realize you have a better chance of dying in a car wreck then getting shot by a gun? Do you realize that you have a greater chance of getting struck by lightning, TWICE, then getting killed by legally owned fully automatic weapons? What possible justification do you have that gives you the right to say your sense of security is so much more important then the rights of law abiding citizens? Life is dangerous, get over it. Owning guns (LEGALLY) is one of the less dangerous things in life.
Whoa, slow down and reread my post without the diatribe.

I said ideally I wish we lived in a world without guns. I also wish we lived in a world without war/famine/disease/sadness etc etc. Catch my drift? I want to live in a world that doesn't need guns. (And i'm not talking about hunting. When I mean guns I don't mean hunting rifles)

And like I said in my post I didn't advocate the total banning of guns anyways.

And what about guns for entertainment? In such a world, you would not need to live without guns because people wouldn't use them illegally. Thus having them for hunting and entertainment would be just fine.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-03-07 11:10am

Mr Bean wrote:And don't think we can ever stop the shipment of guns into America if we did make it illeagle, Britian Demsorated that like Drugs, Guns are pretty easy to sneak into a Country too

Guns are easier to get into the US then drugs. They don't stink and can't be spotted by drug sniffing dogs as easily.

Post by **NecronLord** » 2003-03-07 11:23am

Alyeska wrote:First and foremost, I have to say that I am a firm believer in the 2nd amendment.

You think the UK is going to invade the USA?

Utsanomiko · Post by **Utsanomiko** » 2003-03-07 12:43pm

NecronLord wrote:
Alyeska wrote:First and foremost, I have to say that I am a firm believer in the 2nd amendment.
You think the UK is going to invade the USA?

2nd Amendmant? You mean he thinks we should be forced to house soldiers even during peacetime?

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2003-03-07 02:02pm

2nd Amendmant? You mean he thinks we should be forced to house soldiers even during peacetime?

Damn strait Hefferner! Move over we are taking the Masion!!

Cpt_Frank · Post by **Cpt_Frank** » 2003-03-07 03:03pm

salm wrote:legal owners of guns may keep their guns until they´re broken or for 10 years ( 10 years is a made up number it would have to be about as many years as an average gun is usable). put hard penalties on illegal gun ownership.

Actually it's not that easy, if you don't use your weapon much and treat it with care it can remain in good condition for 100 years and much longer.

Utsanomiko · Post by **Utsanomiko** » 2003-03-07 03:28pm

Well, we could always just deal with guns the same way we dealt with pot or crack...