The Official Second Amendment / Gun Ban Thread

Meg · March 4, 2008

Originally posted by: GMT

a ban of guns would lower it, that's a fact aswell.quote>

Actually, that is speculation. Banning alcohol didn't lower alcohol consumption. Why would guns be different?

I'm not trying to be difficult. Seriously, what would the difference be?

But it's also a fact that it would never happen...quote>

Not anytime soon anyway.

hamsterTK · March 4, 2008

okay, semantics/typo there. Getting rid of the means to an end is what I meant

The "easiest"? How?quote>

Because banning and destroying small handguns is a whole lot easier than immediately undoing decades' legacy of social problems...

small steps first.

Actually, that is speculation. Banning alcohol didn't lower alcohol consumption. Why would guns be different? I'm not trying to be difficult. Seriously, what would the difference be?quote>

Alcohol is something anyone can drink and enjoy and it is a big part of most cultures. Conversly most decent people don't look towards shooting people as a source of entertainment.

Meg · March 4, 2008

Originally posted by: hamsterTK

Because banning and destroying small handguns is a whole lot easier than immediately undoing decades' legacy of social problems...

small steps first.quote>

Small steps first is good, this is true.

I just don't see banning and destroying small handguns as "easy". To be honest with you, I don't see how it can be done.

edit:

Originally posted by: hamsterTK

Actually, that is speculation. Banning alcohol didn't lower alcohol consumption. Why would guns be different? I'm not trying to be difficult. Seriously, what would the difference be?quote>

Alcohol is something anyone can drink and enjoy and it is a big part of most cultures. Conversly most decent people don't look towards shooting people as a source of entertainment.quote>

I was talking about the effectiveness of the ban, not the rationale behind it.

hamsterTK · March 4, 2008

I think the failure of prohibition was otherwise law-abiding people flaunting the law. So the rationale was behind it.

Who's to say the public's reaction to a gun ban will be so similiar to prohibition. Besides that happened in the 20's and people's beliefs probably varied from ours

Voar Tok · March 4, 2008

Originally posted by: hamsterTK

Who's to say the public's reaction to a gun ban will be so similiar to prohibition. Besides that happened in the 20's and people's beliefs probably varied from oursquote>

Maybe and maybe not. The parents of my mom's mom (aka, my great-grandparents on my mom's side) brewed beer in their basement during the prohibition. My grandmother distinctly remembers two things about that. One was that her parents had decided that the law was stupid and they were going to brew the beer anyway. Two was that no one was allowed to talk about it because her parents impressed upon them the need to keep their mouths shut (because it was illegal).

People still continue to smoke before they're eighteen, drink before they're twenty-one, go 35 in a 20 zone, and all sorts of other stuff because they think the law is stupid. None of the smokers or alcohol drinkers were addicted before they tried it the first time, so addiction didn't play a role in that initial decision to flout the law.

Doesn't seem to me like we've changed very much.

As to why one can say that the public's reaction to a gun ban could be pretty much an outright catastrophe, just mention the words "gun ban" to the NRA and see what they say. I mean, I'm not even a part of the NRA, think they go overboard on this, and otherwise don't agree with either side of the argument to it's fullest degree. What sort of a reaction do you see me putting forward? I'm not the only one.

deadwoods · March 4, 2008

The second amendment part is fairly easy to interpret. To keep a militia that can deploy quickly, the populace should keep and actively practice with weapons at home. At a time when there was no active permanent military force and active reserves, this would have been appropriate. If folks keep weapons at home and are proficient with them, they can be rapidly activated. However now the US has permanent full-time forces as well as multiple levels of part-time forces (reserve, national guard, etc.) that are regularly trained so they can quickly deploy, so the need for the general populace to do this is no longer there.

As I mentioned in another thread, I have no issues with responsible people owning small arms. Those that treat weapons with respect and store them appropriately. The issue I have is where kids can easily get weapons and go shoot up others at school or a domestic argument becomes more than breaks and bruises because there is a loaded handgun within reach. I think if there wasn't the level of innocent shootings in the US, no-one would have a problem with the level of ownership. But the wrong people are getting weapons. This is the first issue.

The second issue is the "arms race" that goes on between those that want to protect themselves and those that want to do harm. In many countries burglars may carry weapons, but the chance of getting shot in your home due to a failed burglary is very low. But in the US, as I understand the argument for guns by many, there is a much higher chance of being shot, so you need a bigger gun or more guns to shoot them before they shoot you. This is not a problem in most countries.

What is the answer? I don't know. As many have said the US as a whole will never accept gun control whilst they believe gun ownership is a right. I believe the US does have a gun problem, and until this is accepted there will continue to be these senseless innocent deaths. Those that own/want weapons need to accept a level of responsibility around ownership so that their weapons aren't used in the wrong way and used by the wrong people. There needs to be a better way to determine whether a person is appropriate to own a weapon.

pursuit1 · March 4, 2008

guns aren't the problem... its all the violence we are exposed to everyday, in movies, TV and the media. Movies make guns cool. shooting and killing someone is made to look like no big deal, its entertainment. People get killed with knives, axes, cars, baseball bats etc. Do we need ax control? Do we need to ban knives? Should you have to register your baseball bat? There are far more responsible gun owners than not. If you take away the right of someone to protect themselves crime WILL skyrocket. Do think taking away guns is going to stop innocent people from being killed? NO..people overcome and adapt. If someone wants to kill other people they will just find other means. Its been proven over and over again in towns were concealed carry is allowed and even encouraged, that crime has decreased. Gun deaths have actually gone down in those areas. Do people get needlessly killed by a gun? Yes.. but drunk drivers kill thousands of innocent people everyday.Should we totally ban alcohol? Half of the teenage deaths in the US are caused by inexperienced teen drivers on high speed roads. So no drivers licenses to anyone under 25..right? Every time the government bans something they create crime. They create an underground market. Just like they did with alcohol in 20's and drugs today. I know people who have gotten rich selling pot and cocaine. Sure ban guns.. then the only persons that will have them are the ones who are out rob, steal and kill. They don't care about the law. I was in law enforcement, and private security and never once fired my weapon in the line of duty.. I own pistols..never once have I ever used it on another human being. The people who want to ban guns..or anything else for that matter..always use the extreme incidents. They always make things out to be far worse than they are. Scare tactics has always been the way to get what they want. A ban on guns is not and will not ever be the answer.

Gun control was started in Germany when Hitler was in charge..once the government had control of the guns..look what happened. And if you don't think that could happen in the US you'd better think again. The US government has been doing little test scenarios in some small towns in recent years, using the children against the parents to find out who had weapons in their homes. It was supposed to be urban training for the military..they have been also getting that training in Iraq..house to house taking weapons. Read the Patriot Act. This country is heading down a road that we, our children and grand children are all going to regret. Gun control is just the start.. believe me. Those who want guns taken away will call all this paranoid fantasy. All I can say is research it for yourself, because I didn't believe it at first either.

patriots_1228 · March 4, 2008

noone except the government should be allowed to sell or produce weapons. That way, the only people who can get weapons are those who have passed numerous tests and background checks to make sure they will use it responsibly. Its similar to a situation in school where they will take away such and such because a few idiots abuse it, but everyone else uses the privelage responsibly, however, they can no longer have it because of those idiots.

krbe · March 4, 2008

Where is the militia they're talking about in the second amandment? And if they exists, what does "well regulated" mean? Those crazy gun banners in Europe actually don't ban guns; they just try as best as possible to make sure that you're not crazy before buy, that you attened organisations that are well regulated or that you're a part of a well regulated militia. My grandfather has ten guns at home; perfectly legal, given that he's not a fruit cake, not a criminal and a member of the local hunting club.

And you can't compare an alcohol ban, which is used for your own enjoyment, with a gun ban which sole purpose is to kill.

And if you don't have a big gun when you meet a criminal; does that mean that he'll kill you (and be eligble for life in prsion/capital punishment) or knock you out (and recieve a couple of years in prsion instead)?

pursuit1 · March 4, 2008

Originally posted by: krbe Where is the militia they're talking about in the second amandment? And if they exists, what does "well regulated" mean? Those crazy gun banners in Europe actually don't ban guns; they just try as best as possible to make sure that you're not crazy before buy, that you attened organisations that are well regulated or that you're a part of a well regulated militia. My grandfather has ten guns at home; perfectly legal, given that he's not a fruit cake, not a criminal and a member of the local hunting club.

And you can't compare an alcohol ban, which is used for your own enjoyment, with a gun ban which sole purpose is to kill.

And if you don't have a big gun when you meet a criminal; does that mean that he'll kill you (and be eligble for life in prsion/capital punishment) or knock you out (and recieve a couple of years in prsion instead)?quote>

The militia is the National Guard..regulated means rules about when and where they can operate

hym · March 4, 2008

Originally posted by: krbe

And you can't compare an alcohol ban, which is used for your own enjoyment, with a gun ban which sole purpose is to kill.quote>

Actually, alcohol isn't used solely for enjoyment; some use it for malicious intent.

And if you don't have a big gun when you meet a criminal; does that mean that he'll kill you (and be eligble for life in prsion/capital punishment) or knock you out (and recieve a couple of years in prsion instead)?quote>

As I've understood it, when faced with an intruder in the home, it is always the best course of action to assume the individual is willing to use lethal force. I known of police officers operating on the same premises when they've had to search a home where the intruder might still be inside.

Frankie_Grove · March 4, 2008

Banning guns would be punishing the masses for the actions of a few. I am appalled that so many people fail to see that banning guns does not solve any problems.

I get the impression that most Europeans think that we just freely give guns out to everyone, and on a daily basis. There are actually some very extensive precautions that take place. The vast majority of guns that are used in crimes were illegally acquired anyways. So a lot of guns used by criminals already are being trafficked in illegally, which is an indicator that the black market is already quite influential.

If you make guns illegal, more people are going to want them. I am pro-gun, but I also believe that certain weapons should not be legal to acquire, such as assault weapons.

Oh and, the Militia is NOT the National Guard.

DuskTrooper · March 4, 2008

2743829.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=17A4A

GMT · March 4, 2008

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Originally posted by: GMT

a ban of guns would lower it, that's a fact aswell.quote>

Actually, that is speculation. Banning alcohol didn't lower alcohol consumption. Why would guns be different?

I'm not trying to be difficult. Seriously, what would the difference be?quote>

Apart from that you can't compare these 2 things at all, it's a simple matter of cause and effect:

The harder it get's to get something, the less people try to get it. And those who still try it certainly don't want them for good...

Ok, the how-to of a gun ban in the us, where statistically seen 2/3 of the inhabitants own a legally aquiered gun, and every 100th already sits behind bars for other crimes, it's hard to make something, that has been normal for ever since, a crime.

How to dispose the weapons? how to control it? how to give a nation the feeling of guns are illegal when they're used to them as just as legal a thing as a car or tv or whatever?

How to treat those who don't wanna give away their piece? put them behind bars aswell?

But it's also a fact that it would never happen...quote>

Not anytime soon anyway. quote>

No, not because of above questioned points...

further, a gun ban wouldn't change the people's attitude towards crimes.

That is the real problem behind it.

I mean, take a look at Swizerland. My grand-uncle lived there for like almost all his life, and he got himself a gun because someone tried to break into his appartment.

It's as easy in as in the us to get a gun, shooting in Swizerland is as a sport comparable to soccer in Germany or the UK, or football n baseball in the US.

Nevertheless, they have a drastically lower percentage of armed assaults and shootings than the us have, so it must have something to do with the attitude towards crime.

I think we must split the people in 3 groups:

- those who own a gun as a criminal mean

- those who own a gun for self-protection and maybe to fortify their poor self-esteem

- those who own a gun to protect themselves from the other 2 groups

a gun ban would help to make it harder to get one for those who only need it for criminal intensions.

It's so much harder to kill someone in close combat with a knife or whatever than to simply shoot him.

It's so much harder to rob a bank, gasstation, supermarked with a knife than with a gun

and so on...

so if it gets harder for them to get a gun because it's illegal, it's of course a good step towards a safer life, imho a way better step than being able to fight back with the same means.

Prevention has always a better influence and therefore better results than fighting back, cause if you need to do latter, it's in most cases too late anyways. (no need to talk about the personal feelings... if I would kill someone in self-defense I wouldn't feel as comfortable anymore as I did without, although I'm juristically innocent...)

But this all leads back to the previous question(s) I wrote:

How to do this... better how to achieve this in a nation like the USA where guns are as normal as a car... no, even higher set than a car cause the constitution allows them?

Meg · March 4, 2008

Making something illegal does not make it more difficult to obtain.

Apparently the black market in Europe is nothing like the black market here. I find it puzzling that people think that making something illegal will actually get it off the streets. All it does is shift it to the underground market.

Originally posted by: manticorefan

Can anyone name something that has been successfully banned in the US?quote>

I have been thinking about this question. The best I can come up with is Cuban cigars. Cuban cigars are banned here, not because they are cigars but because they are Cuban. Since other cigars are readily available, there isn't a big need to traffic in the Cuban ones.

Duke87 · March 4, 2008

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Originally posted by: manticorefan

Can anyone name something that has been successfully banned in the US?quote>

I have been thinking about this question. The best I can come up with is Cuban cigars. Cuban cigars are banned here, not because they are cigars but because they are Cuban. Since other cigars are readily available, there isn't a big need to traffic in the Cuban ones.

quote>

I know someone who went to Canada, stocked up on Cubans, and sneaked them back into the US.

Still, he was smoking them himself in his own home, not selling them or anything, and it was a unilateral effort- so it's not quite the same thing as there being a black market.

The point does come out of this, though, that due to our large borders, we really can't effectively ban something so long as it is not also banned in Canada and Mexico, and those bans are both enforced. That's what I'd say is the single biggest reason why our bans on drugs don't work. People smuggle them in from Mexico, where there is a ban but it isn't really enforced.

Canada already has a gun ban, so if nothing else, us banning them would drastically reduce the number of guns smuggled into Canada.... Mexico's still wide open, though, so it solves nothing for us. Not to mention there's still the matter of ports. Airplanes and airports are pretty secure (thank 9/11 for that), but seaports and container ships are rather vulnerable. Lots of stuff gets smuggled in that way, too.

Still- the fact remains that given how common and accepted guns are in this country, and how many people there are who would rather take their gun and shoot people with it than give it up willingly, a gun ban simply isn't practical because implementing it isn't practical. It'd be too drastic a change, too suddenly. And, even if you could implement it, could you really effectively enforce it? It's doubtful. American culture and history is big on civil disobedience. After all, it was a big part of the civil rights movement, and other movements before it. If people disagree with a law, they simply won't follow it.... and that's considered acceptable by society. Hell, it's even encouraged. We look at it as standing up for your rights, not disobeying authority.

Our philosophy has always been "government by the people, of the people, for the people". In other words, they only get to do things because we want them to. They're not the boss of us, we're the boss of them. If they displease us, we get to fire them from their jobs by not voting for them. So, naturally, no law can ever be effective so long as there is a significant portion of the population that disagrees with it.

Gun bans have indeed worked in other pats of the world.... but they will not work in America since it's a completely different situation. A gun ban is a very square peg... and while Europe and whatnot may have plenty of nice square holes ready for it, America is a very round hole. It just won't fit, no matter how hard you try and shove it in.

Does America have a problem with violence? Yes, definitely. Will attempting to ban guns solve that problem? No. And I daresay it will likely just make it worse. Like how if a parent tells a teenager they're not allowed to do something, they're just going to want to do it more- if the government bans something, people just want it more. Having something be forbidden fruit just makes it look that much tastier.

Dodge44 · March 4, 2008

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Originally posted by: manticorefan

Can anyone name something that has been successfully banned in the US?quote>

I have been thinking about this question. The best I can come up with is Cuban cigars. Cuban cigars are banned here, not because they are cigars but because they are Cuban. Since other cigars are readily available, there isn't a big need to traffic in the Cuban ones.

quote>

I know someone who went to Canada, stocked up on Cubans, and sneaked them back into the US.

Still, he was smoking them himself in his own home, not selling them or anything, and it was a unilateral effort- so it's not quite the same thing as there being a black market.

The point does come out of this, though, that due to our large borders, we really can't effectively ban something so long as it is not also banned in Canada and Mexico, and those bans are both enforced. That's what I'd say is the single biggest reason why our bans on drugs don't work. People smuggle them in from Mexico, where there is a ban but it isn't really enforced.

Canada already has a gun ban, so if nothing else, us banning them would drastically reduce the number of guns smuggled into Canada.... Mexico's still wide open, though, so it solves nothing for us. Not to mention there's still the matter of ports. Airplanes and airports are pretty secure (thank 9/11 for that), but seaports and container ships are rather vulnerable. Lots of stuff gets smuggled in that way, too.

Still- the fact remains that given how common and accepted guns are in this country, and how many people there are who would rather take their gun and shoot people with it than give it up willingly, a gun ban simply isn't practical because implementing it isn't practical. It'd be too drastic a change, too suddenly. And, even if you could implement it, could you really effectively enforce it? It's doubtful. American culture and history is big on civil disobedience. After all, it was a big part of the civil rights movement, and other movements before it. If people disagree with a law, they simply won't follow it.... and that's considered acceptable by society. Hell, it's even encouraged. We look at it as standing up for your rights, not disobeying authority.

Our philosophy has always been "government by the people, of the people, for the people". In other words, they only get to do things because we want them to. They're not the boss of us, we're the boss of them. If they displease us, we get to fire them from their jobs by not voting for them. So, naturally, no law can ever be effective so long as there is a significant portion of the population that disagrees with it.

Gun bans have indeed worked in other pats of the world.... but they will not work in America since it's a completely different situation. A gun ban is a very square peg... and while Europe and whatnot may have plenty of nice square holes ready for it, America is a very round hole. It just won't fit, no matter how hard you try and shove it in.

Does America have a problem with violence? Yes, definitely. Will attempting to ban guns solve that problem? No. And I daresay it will likely just make it worse. Like how if a parent tells a teenager they're not allowed to do something, they're just going to want to do it more- if the government bans something, people just want it more. Having something be forbidden fruit just makes it look that much tastier.quote>

Very well spoken, you're dead on.

north country dude · March 4, 2008

Originally posted by: hamsterTK

Okay let's say there is a ban on all handguns. How do you propose to enforce this new law?quote>

because Guns need bullets, duh.

Ban the sale of ammunition and other accesories for small arms and over time they would be used less and less regardless of how many people owned them. Even if the black market continues to bring in bullets then they will cost more and criminals will be conservative in how they use their weapons.

Also nobody ever said anything about sending the gestapo to take everyone's guns. Gun buyback programs and amnesty periods would come up from time to time for otherwise law abiding people with no record then possesion could just bring a misdeanor.

quote>

Not true. Even I can make bullets. I have the knowledge, and it requires very simple equipment to do so. Heck, Afghanistan tribesmen make whole AK-47's and ammunition from scratch all the time.

Interesting that the most lethal, simple to use, assault rifle in the world is so easy to duplicate.

Below is a reprint of my response to the same topic in another forum:

How many thousands of accidental shootings are there? Would these have occured when people would not have a right to bear arms?quote>

Fewer than there are deaths by automobile accidents, drownings, workplace accidents, etc. It's not a very good point.

You cannot legislate mandatory protection from every single "accident" that can possibly occur to an individual. You can try, but this only leads to a more oppressive form of government.

The result is that the criminal might not want to take that risk and will start shooting/killing just to avoid being shot him or herself; just to be on the safe side.quote>

This is an arbitrary conclusion and presupposes what an average criminal is likely to do. It is proven more likely that an average criminal will do everything he or she can to avoid being in that situation. If a criminal suspects that the victim is armed with any type of weapon (ie; taser, mace, knife, knowledge of unarmed combat, etc.), the criminal will move on to a perceived 'less threatening' target or victim. Hence being armed, is shown to be more of a deterrent to becoming a victim of violent crime than being unarmed.

Try this, Criminal knows store clerk will be armed with shotgun so the crim will be armed with a more powerful shotgun or even a semi automatic which I understand you can get at Wal Mart.quote>

Not in this country. Purchase of any semi-automatic weapon requires a background check and waiting period. There are many, many Federal Laws regulating the purchase and ownership of handguns and semi-automatic weapons in the US. This practice has some variation from state to state. But I know that I cannot walk into "any" store and purchase a handgun or semi-automatic.

This is not to say that there are not 'loopholes' in any situation, and that it would be impossible for me to do so, just that it would be illegal.

I use 'handguns' in this statement, because that is what is truly at issue here, since I'm sure that ownership of sporting rifles and shotguns is, although heavily regulated, not entirely illegal to own in the UK and Europe. Most crimes are committed by criminals with handguns rather than rifles or shotguns. (sawed-off shotguns are illegal to own, period.)

You can make it illegal to own handguns or even regulate it to the point where it is effectively il

your_adress_here · March 4, 2008

Is it just me, or is it only Americans that are against banning guns?

Frankie_Grove · March 4, 2008

Originally posted by: your_adress_here Is it just me, or is it only Americans that are against banning guns?quote>

Well I'm sorry that you have a problem with us standing up for what we believe...Even those against guns will (hopefully) make points for both sides and not be so biased.

krbe · March 4, 2008

Originally posted by: Frankie_Grove I get the impression that most Europeans think that we just freely give guns out to everyone, and on a daily basis. There are actually some very extensive precautions that take place. The vast majority of guns that are used in crimes were illegally acquired anyways. So a lot of guns used by criminals already are being trafficked in illegally, which is an indicator that the black market is already quite influential.

Oh and, the Militia is NOT the National Guard.quote>

You might not give them out freely, but the majority of states don't care about submitting names to National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which would have stopped the guy that killed people at Virginia Tech from obtaining his weapons.

And if not the National Guard is the militia; where are they?

Originally posted by: Frankie_Grove

Originally posted by: your_adress_here Is it just me, or is it only Americans that are against banning guns?quote>

Well I'm sorry that you have a problem with us standing up for what we believe...Even those against guns will (hopefully) make points for both sides and not be so biased.quote>

Don't be. European nations also arm their citizens, many with a compulsory draft which last from you're 18 to 45 (women over a certain age migh be required to help out if they don't have children), and some keep them armed when their time in the military is over within their militias (home guards, the Swiss Army). What many Europeans have difficulties to grasp, is why it is so important to have handguns. Why would you insist on you right to have a pistol when you know that your daughter might very well be killed by such a weapon when she attends lectures?

There are guns; and there are guns. Handguns, such as revolvers and pistols, are easy to conceal, and perfect if I want to go on a killing spree on my university. Persons who go on killing sprees aren't criminals either; they buy their weapons at a weapons dealer, or get them from their family if they're young. Rifles and shotguns on the other hand, is easy to spot and unlikely to cause problems in a lecture hall.

Dodge44 · March 4, 2008

And if not the National Guard is the militia; where are they?quote>

Militia is commonly used today to refer to a military force composed of ordinary citizens to provide defense, emergency law enforcement, or paramilitary service, in times of emergency; without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service. Thus we are the Militia.

Frankie_Grove · March 4, 2008

Originally posted by: krbe

Originally posted by: Frankie_Grove I get the impression that most Europeans think that we just freely give guns out to everyone, and on a daily basis. There are actually some very extensive precautions that take place. The vast majority of guns that are used in crimes were illegally acquired anyways. So a lot of guns used by criminals already are being trafficked in illegally, which is an indicator that the black market is already quite influential.

Oh and, the Militia is NOT the National Guard.quote>

You might not give them out freely, but the majority of states don't care about submitting names to National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which would have stopped the guy that killed people at Virginia Tech from obtaining his weapons.

And if not the National Guard is the militia; where are they?quote>

There's a first step, make states submit names to the background checks.

And the National Guard is not a militia, National Gaurdsmen receive the same training as regular soldiers in the Army. The Army National Guard, the Air Guard, and Coast Guard receive training just like their parent branches (Army, Air Force, Navy in this case). During wartime, they can be sent into warzones (which is not right, but they agreed to it when they joined).

A militia is a by definition an untrained unit that can be assembled quickly if needed. If they received training they would technically be a private army, which I believe is illegal under the Constitution.

Originally posted by: krbe

Originally posted by: Frankie_Grove

Originally posted by: your_adress_here Is it just me, or is it only Americans that are against banning guns?quote>

Well I'm sorry that you have a problem with us standing up for what we believe...Even those against guns will (hopefully) make points for both sides and not be so biased.quote>

Don't be. European nations also arm their citizens, many with a compulsory draft which last from you're 18 to 45 (women over a certain age might be required to help out if they don't have children), and some keep them armed when their time in the military is over within their militias (home guards, the Swiss Army). What many Europeans have difficulties to grasp, is why it is so important to have handguns. Why would you insist on you right to have a pistol when you know that your daughter might very well be killed by such a weapon when she attends lectures?

There are guns; and there are guns. Handguns, such as revolvers and pistols, are easy to conceal, and perfect if I want to go on a killing spree on my university. Persons who go on killing sprees aren't criminals either; they buy their weapons at a weapons dealer, or get them from their family if they're young. Rifles and shotguns on the other hand, is easy to spot and unlikely to cause problems in a lecture hall.quote>

I can understand why handguns would be a problem. Even my pro-gun self sees little need to have handguns unless they are collectors items, or somewhere along those lines. I enjoy shooting guns, as well as hunting, but that doesn't mean I'm going to go on a rampage.

Banning guns is more or less a form of censorship, which in my eye is more of hiding from the problem rather than tackling it at the source.

hym · March 4, 2008

Originally posted by: GMT

Ok, the how-to of a gun ban in the us, where statistically seen 2/3 of the inhabitants own a legally aquiered gun, and every 100th already sits behind bars for other crimes, it's hard to make something, that has been normal for ever since, a crime.quote>

Is this 2/3 argument based on there being 200 legally owned million guns in the US? If so, that isn't completely accurate since gun collectors and hunters would skew that conclusion. A study was done several years ago regarding gun ownership in the US and even under "ideal conditions" (as in, no one but the malicious criminal would ever be harmed by the family's handgun), only 48% of American households would own a gun. There may be 200 million legal guns in the US, but many are owned by individuals with needs for multiple gun types (like my uncle who has 3 different guns for different hunting applications), or gun collectors which might own a couple dozen guns of various types. Considering that even under ideal conditions, a little less than half the people polled would own a gun, I really doubt that 2/3 people in the US own a gun.

Originally posted by: SkiGeek Making something illegal does not make it more difficult to obtain.quote>

Not to sound like I'm trying to tag team anyone, but this comment is very, very much true, and imho, probably needs to be repeated incessantly. Just so I don't have to retype the whole comment, the stuff I've written below is true.

Regrettably, it is impossible to completely restrict access to those who shouldn't have guns or whatever. The black market is just that pervasive. Guns are illegal on most (if not all) university campuses in the US. Has that kept students from bringing (and sometimes keeping) guns into their rooms? No. You have to be 21 to drink, and in most universities, if your roommate isn't 21, you can't have alcohol in your room regardless of whether it's legal for you to drink. Has that stopped underage drinking and students storing alcoholic beverages in their rooms? No. Everyone I know either has a roommate that illegally keeps alcohol in his/her room, or knows someone who has a roommate that illegally keeps alcohol, and last semester, we had an 18 year old guy busted for keeping over 15 bottles of various alcoholic drinks in his room. Marijuana and several other drugs are illegal in the US. Do college students have them anyway? You'd better believe it. Someone in my residence complex was smoking marijuana earlier today. On the second floor in one of the residence halls, you can smell the marijuana odor basically 24/7. Usage is widespread enough that you don't even have to look for it, it comes looking for you. Unfortunately, the black market has guaranteed that even if it's made illegal, it will still be available for use, guns included.quote>

north country dude · March 4, 2008

Originally posted by: krbe You might not give them out freely, but the majority of states don't care about submitting names to National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which would have stopped the guy that killed people at Virginia Tech from obtaining his weapons.quote>

Define majority. Again, this just proves that it becomes an issue of enforcing laws that already exist within this country, and not creating more laws.

There are guns; and there are guns. Handguns, such as revolvers and pistols, are easy to conceal, and perfect if I want to go on a killing spree on my university. Persons who go on killing sprees aren't criminals either; they buy their weapons at a weapons dealer, or get them from their family if they're young. Rifles and shotguns on the other hand, is easy to spot and unlikely to cause problems in a lecture hall.quote>

While handguns are easily concealed, and therefore heavily regulated in the US, the rest of the above statements are incorrect.

1) People who go on killing sprees are criminals by their very actions. They are breaking the law.

2) Again, enforcement of currently existing laws requires money and manpower. Effective enforcement of these laws would also have prevented these violent crimes.

3) In several instances of school/university shootings, rifles and shotguns were also used.

4) While there may not have been an effective State law regarding how these unstable people acquired the firearms they used, they violated many Federal laws in doing so.

As Ski Geek has reiterated several times, it is impossible to enact a complete and total ban on firearms, no matter what country we are talking about. The ability to manufacture any type of personal firearm is possible by anyone with the knowledge of how to do so.

Those Afghanistan tribesmen I spoke of earlier, aren't college or even grade school graduates. Some are illiterate children, yet they can duplicate and manufacture almost any type of firearm. Any type, from automatic handguns to fully automatic AK-47's, plus the ammunition.

While a total ban on firearms is impossible, moderate gun control does exist in many parts of the US, yet, those are the same areas that crimes with firearms are at their worst. If you try to say that it's the areas that have relaxed gun control laws supplying them, why are those same areas with relaxed laws reporting less crime involving firearms?

Also, while this is certainly a very serious and complex issue regard the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, that is the topic, and simple answers to this issue won't be found in a total ban on firearms.

Unless you enact a tyrannical and totally oppressive form of government to enforce the complete ban on all firearms, it will not happen,...ever.

krbe · March 4, 2008

Originally posted by: Frankie_Grove Banning guns is more or less a form of censorship, which in my eye is more of hiding from the problem rather than tackling it at the source.quote>

I think the problem with American both pro- and anti-gun advocates is that they believe a gun "ban"

fukuda · March 4, 2008

Originally posted by: krbe

So our "gun ban" is actually not a ban, just some tighter regulation of the persons that do own them.quote>

Yes.. Only hunting fans and people practising gun related sports have guns (and policemen, of course )

Here, no one feels the need of having guns for self-defence, as there is no gun crime, and the place is quite safe. There are no cultural/ethnic ghettos that could be dangerous and the crime rate is low nearly everywhere.

krbe · March 4, 2008

Originally posted by: north country dude

Originally posted by: krbe You might not give them out freely, but the majority of states don't care about submitting names to National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which would have stopped the guy that killed people at Virginia Tech from obtaining his weapons.quote>

Define majority. Again, this just proves that it becomes an issue of enforcing laws that already exist within this country, and not creating more laws. quote>

28 out 50 when this article from the IHT was written one year ago (Virginia later joined); according to this article from the Milwaukee Journal Senitel 18 states didn't send in mental background information the 27th February. Bush signed a law the 8th January that would encourage states to participate in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System in order not to lose federal crime money (but the NRA made sure that veterans with mental health problems can obtain weapons).

This isn't about laws; it's about a mentality that allows mentally disturbed people to get hold of weapons and then kill people at schools with them.

There are guns; and there are guns. Handguns, such as revolvers and pistols, are easy to conceal, and perfect if I want to go on a killing spree on my university. Persons who go on killing sprees aren't criminals either; they buy their weapons at a weapons dealer, or get them from their family if they're young. Rifles and shotguns on the other hand, is easy to spot and unlikely to cause problems in a lecture hall.quote>

While handguns are easily concealed, and therefore heavily regulated in the US, the rest of the above statements are incorrect.

1) People who go on killing sprees are criminals by their very actions. They are breaking the law.quote>

GMT · March 4, 2008

the 2/3 are based on the statistics of 300mio people owning 200mio legal guns, and not on actual figures.

But nice to know that 200mio guns are owned by about 150mio people.

Makes it even more curious to understand why.

And I don't get all this europeans blabla here.

It's not that europeans are against guns. heck, take a look at all the sport activitities with guns like shooting clubs.

It's just that most european countries have much harder laws concerning this.

Take german laws (just a rough cut, in fact it's a very complicated law written on about 100 pages incl all extensions):

- Military weapons such as assault rifles, full-automatic guns and sniper rifles and all kind of explosive weapons and ammunition are prohibited for private ownership

- Other weapons are cathegorized and require different licenses, depending on things like the ammunition or if it's a pistol or a rifle

- We need to be registered with a legal shooting club for 1 year with a constant supervised practical use of handguns almost like practical training on how to use and maintain the gun

- Then we have to pass a test comparable to a graduation test to make sure that we are physically and mentally able keep and use a handgun, giving you something like a license that allows you to legally own and use certain types of handguns and rifles, depending on which type of license. (note: the legal, private use is limited to shooting ranges or for hunting)

- You have to pass a 10 year background check with a 100% clean record (theoretically it's possible to deny the license if you got a speeding ticket)

- If you pass the test and are legit to own and use a gun, you have to be able to verify regular use of it (I think to make sure you stay familiarized with the handling)

- You are limited to 2 handguns of any caliber, either pistol or revolver. Rifles are not limited in quantity but therefore limited through caliber and loading mechanism (semi-automatic is the upper limit)

- You must keep the weapons in gun racks that are approved to hold the certain type of gun

- You must carry the gun and the ammunition seperately, the gun must be locked and unloaded and there has to be a special trigger-lock attached. The gun must be carried invisible aswell.

And see, only about 0,3% of all crimes are performed with guns, but only 10% of them with legal guns (just in case you want to come up with the black markets again, black markets are black markets, no matter if in the us or in europe or in papua new guinea)

And the figures for crimes with legal and illegal weapons both are going down, from 1995 to now about 50%, and considerably below 1000 (about 600 crimes with both legal and illegal guns last year)

Nevertheless, there's the same discussion about a full gun ban here in germany aswell, but the UK gun ban from 1997 shows that a full ban doesn't change anything, because it'll only affect legal ones.

I mean, maybe it looks like I'm contra-guns, but I'm certainly not because I myself own 2 handguns (9mm) in full compliance of german laws (what's acutally a rather expensive fun with all the restrictions and things you have to do for it).

I just think that a harder law for owning guns and even for using guns (take FL where you're allowed to shot when you feel threatened... to feel doesn't necessarely mean to be) wouldn't hurt the US that much.

From school I still know there're more laws concerning guns in the US than just the 2nd amendment (a rather big part when it comes to us politics when english is a major you graduate in), but compared to most european laws, US laws are miniscule

Frankie_Grove · March 4, 2008

Originally posted by: GMT the 2/3 are based on the statistics of 300mio people owning 200mio legal guns, and not on actual figures.