|
| Thread: Gun Control |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 · NEXT» |
|
Jebus
Promising
Supreme Hero
TheJester akaJeebs akaJebfoo
|
posted October 21, 2005 06:59 PM |
|
|
Gun Control
Well seeing it as many of the "gun control comments" in the amendment thread are unwelcome (and most of my comments seem unworthy of even a simply reply or smiley ), I thought I'd create this thread to see what our active members feel about gun control.
I apologize if there is already a thread in regards to this, but I was really just wanting to see what the present members think on the subject.
______________________
I for one, feel that the right to bear arms is outdated.
We live in a society that is trying to cut down on weapons in any form. We have law enforcement and home security now. I don't need to sleep with a 6 shooter under my pillow or have a shotgun in my closet.
I've already expressed my concerns in gun related accidents previously.
(Im not addressing "hunting" riffles for sport but if you want to make some point on this go ahead.)
I'd be interested in hearing what you guys think on this. What are some of the solutions to this?
Do you feel the need to own a gun for protection in the country where you are? What are the laws there? How do you feel about going to the States knowing that any Joe/Jane American might be guarding their home with a sawed off?
J
____________
"You went over my helmet??"
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted October 21, 2005 07:14 PM |
|
|
I feel that if and when guns in the hands of criminals becomes much worse, that all good people should beable to have the best gun technology.
Good people should have the best guns although that may be hard to exactly determine.. The how, related to this is complex and not even worth another thread, as in how to determine who recieves the best guns, and how to keep it away from criminals.
____________
What are you up to
|
|
Russ
Promising
Supreme Hero
blah, blah, blah
|
|
posted October 21, 2005 07:17 PM |
|
Edited By: Russ on 21 Oct 2005
|
Well, I'll just repeat what I said on the other thread then.
I live in Toronto. As you may have suspected it is a part of Canada  , where guns are only allowed for hunting and are strictly regulated.
HOWEVER. You would be surprised how f*ng easy it is to buy a gun on the street here. My highschool friend used to sell em. Well, he used to sell em AFTER finishing high school, of course, he wasn't passing AKMs under the desk to the other kids while the teachers weren't looking
But anyways, my point is: there are SO MANY guns south of the border and it is SO EASY to smuggle them across that any punk with some cash can buy one.
Gun control is good and I like it in general, because no matter how easy they are to get, guns are still illegal and you can go to jail for owning any gun besides an authorized hunting rifle. So, a lot of people won't risk buying a gun. And that means that not many people own them. Which means that if you were to get into an argument you will get punched in the face instead of getting shot. However, I don't think we should outlaw hunting rifles just because 2 girls with 1/2 a brain decided to shoot themselves. Guns are cool and fun to play with
|
|
Jebus
Promising
Supreme Hero
TheJester akaJeebs akaJebfoo
|
|
posted October 21, 2005 07:28 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I don't think we should outlaw hunting rifles just because 2 girls with 1/2 a brain decided to shoot themselves. Guns are cool and fun to play with
carefull now...(if you were referring to my suicide examples)
one was my friends younger sister (who may have been raped but never came forward, obviously)
and the other was a really fun loving, generous friend of mine... probably felt rejected by her peers.
...both were straight A students.
I feel that with ALL guns beeing illegal (except law inforcers and registered hunters), you're right in saying at least buying one would be deterred seeing it as if you get caught, you get charged.
So I guess that means that there aren't many banks out in TO that give away riffles with every new checking account?
____________
"You went over my helmet??"
|
|
Russ
Promising
Supreme Hero
blah, blah, blah
|
|
posted October 21, 2005 07:57 PM |
|
|
Quote:
one was my friends younger sister (who may have been raped but never came forward, obviously)
and the other was a really fun loving, generous friend of mine... probably felt rejected by her peers.
Ok, my bad, got carried away here, but anyways, the guns weren't the reason they committed suicide. Jumping from the rooftop, cutting veins, poisoning themselves, etc would work just as well if they were so determined.
This is different from "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument, btw. Because it is much harder to kill someone who does not want to die without using a gun. When you want to die, all means are pretty much similar.
Quote:
So I guess that means that there aren't many banks out in TO that give away riffles with every new checking account?
Nope :-( otherwise I'd have a nice neat collection of rifles by this time practising my aim and keeping the neighbors awake 24/7. Mmmm... GUNZ!!!!
|
|
Jebus
Promising
Supreme Hero
TheJester akaJeebs akaJebfoo
|
|
posted October 21, 2005 08:08 PM |
|
|
fair enough... just wanted to clarify the "1/2 a brain" comment.
actually come to think of it, I've had 2 accounts with TD, canada trust (before they amalgamated),
BMO and now TD again, and PC financial!
Crap, i could start my on little rebellion there!!
Now I've got a question:
If I get multi accounts with a bank that gives out riffles, should I get an upgraded model or firring capability? And if I go with mutual funds, a mortgage or RRSP's should i get a free scope, carrying case and amo??
(see cuz in Ontario, PC financial will only give you free groceries the more you use services with them so I'm a little confused)
____________
"You went over my helmet??"
|
|
Khayman
Promising
Famous Hero
Underachiever
|
posted October 21, 2005 08:34 PM |
|
|
Jebus,
There are bad people in the world. Those bad people will always have access to some type of gun, because there are millions-upon-millions of firearms already on the streets. After production, there is absolutely no accountability in regards to their re-distribution and re-sale, not to mention the black market transactions.
Although the chance of becoming a victim of a violent crime may be extremely small, especially if you live in a low-crime neighborhood, please allow me to ask you the following question:
What are you going to do when one or more of those bad people with guns break into your house during the middle of the night, with the intent of not only robbing you of your material possessions, but also with the intent of harming (to include murder and rape) you, your wife, and your children?
If your answer is "Dial 911" and put your lives in the hands of local law enforcement, then you are a more trusting and optimistic individual than I am.
____________
"You must gather your party before venturing forth."
|
|
Jebus
Promising
Supreme Hero
TheJester akaJeebs akaJebfoo
|
|
posted October 21, 2005 09:20 PM |
|
|
well I figure if they've gotten by the security system and have killed my dog, it's probably too late to pull out my riffle / 6 shooter or other, to try to defend myself and my family. If they were smart, they'd wait to abduct my family when we're away from home (i.e. when my kid is walking alone, or my wife is coming home late).
Simply put, those cases of abduction/rape/theft in the home are rare in Canada. And after evaluating the amount of gun related crimes in the states compared to Canada (percentages folks not actual cases), I think I'd sleep more soundly knowing that my neighbour doesn't have a gun, thus minimizing the chances of a local "stand off" in the street when one guy's dog doesn't want to shut up and the other guy gets mad and shoots it.
(oh... and I have a sword collection.)
____________
"You went over my helmet??"
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted October 21, 2005 10:24 PM |
|
|
We do not allow guns to be owned by the enormous majority of our people in the UK. Only people who need them for their work are allowed them such as Farmers, and they have very strict conditions to abide by. Frankly I like this as I dislike guns and do not see the attraction in owning or using them. There are issues with violent crime in the country but I have no desire to seek a solution in using a firearm on someone or threatening to do so.
On the other hand I don't think this would suit other countries and cultures in which the ownership of guns is more entrenched in the national psyche. I do think though that a healthy dose of regulation and control of the ownership and use of guns is a good idea regardless.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Khayman
Promising
Famous Hero
Underachiever
|
posted October 21, 2005 11:36 PM |
|
|
Could not resist...
PH wrote:Quote:
There are issues with violent crime in the country but I have no desire to seek a solution in using a firearm on someone or threatening to do so.
Hey, PH...France called. They want their philosophy back.
In all seriousness, I actually have a true story to share with you. We had an intruder in our house just a few months back (in August) while my entire family and I were upstairs asleep. The thief broke into our house (door was locked but not bolted, so the lock must have been picked). He or she stole my laptop ($1800), some cash ($27), and a watch ($60). Now, keep in mind, I live in a very nice neighborhood, where some folks still leave their houses and doors unlocked (not so much anymore).
My belief is that those 'bad' people (that I spoke of earlier in this topic) prey on the naive and trusting, otherwise known as the rich and unsuspecting. Although I am far from rich, I am surrounded by others who are quite wealthy, which by default, now makes me an easy target, especially for professional thieves.
As a result, I often find myself pondering the following question:
What would I have done if the thief, instead of taking my valuables, was interested in taking my children?
My answer thus far is that I may willing to take my chances with local law enforcement when it comes to my material possessions. They can always be replaced, and therefore, I do not deem it necessary to risk my life or the lives of my family for such items. However, when my life or the lives of my family are in lethal danger, there is not a doubt in my mind that I would be willing to risk my own to save them. If I could safely store a firearm in my household, I would.
Taking into consideration that I have children in the house, I have arrived at the following conclusion: The chances of my children endangering themselves (if they were to somehow find access to my gun) would be greater that the chances of my family being in lethal danger from an household intruder.
If I lived by myself, then I would definitely keep a firearm in my house. All kidding aside, this is the way it was before I was married, and this is the way it would be if I was still single...If there was ever an intruder inside my home, they would be given a chance to identify themselves. If they were unable to identify themselves, then they would be shot and killed without any further questions. If you do kill an intruder in your home, then there is only one story to be heard...yours. Here in the United States, you have the right to protect yourself and your home by use of deadly force. As ridiculous as this may sound to many of you non-Americans, it is best to make sure that you kill the intruder and not just injure them, otherwise you open yourself up to lawsuits and further retaliation. Shoot to kill, and by all means, make every shot a well-placed one.
Remember, here in the United States (where nobody claims any responsibility for their actions)...Guns do not kill people and people with guns do not kill people, but rather it is the gun manufacturers that are responsible for killing people.
____________
"You must gather your party before venturing forth."
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted October 22, 2005 12:28 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Hey, PH...France called. They want their philosophy back
Well you know us Euros, we stick together these days 
As for the serious point you made, I believe that recently in the UK there was a brief discussion about that very issue. The Government basically said that using reasonable force to repel an intruder was ok, but it had to be proportinate to the violence used (or threatened) by the intruder. They stopped just short of giving specific examples naturally and implied that each case would need to be reviewed if necessary by the courts who would have the final decision.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Jebus
Promising
Supreme Hero
TheJester akaJeebs akaJebfoo
|
|
posted October 22, 2005 05:40 AM |
|
|
I'd like to thank both of you (and others)
thus far... keep it up, I'd like to hear more...
____________
"You went over my helmet??"
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted October 22, 2005 05:48 AM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 21 Oct 2005
|
In America It's Important To Have Loyalty To Freedom Of Objectivity
I think PrivateHudson describes a very influential direction of thought. It is so influential, in fact, that it is the philosophy of choice for every police department that I have ever known and been exposed to. This philosophy is called, "Less than Lethal" force. It does not adequately describe itself to its own rules however. Under the descriptions that I've read, (such as those for LVPD) this "less than lethal" force is described word for word as PrivateHudson has written. It is a description of necessary force per proper evaluation of the circumstances at hand. Proportionate is indeed a good and accurate adjective to help people understand this philosophy.
Likewise, I live in America. And while many gun laws are dependent on the state boundary lines, many more are federal in design. I support Gun-owners but am not one myself. I support necessary police force (such as tear gas and specialized s.w.a.t. teams) but do not own mace, pepper spray, or something of that nature. I myself am a principled man (which I think is the best modern civilized defense). I do not immediately judge those who do wrong or illegal acts. I simply stop them if I must but do not actively seek to protect myself in such a way as with weapons. That's what I think those things are; defensive sprays, bludgeoning devices, and guns. I think they aren't simply for defense but also can be abused as a weapon. That's why I will never support or vote for pilots or Air Marshals to carry a gun. If a perpetrator so chose; he/she could actually get control of the very weapon that might have been carried to prevent him/her from committing the crime. A weapon is a weapon; in defense or offense. Weapons enhance the possibility for a destructive outcome to all happenstance.
I personally believe that I can save more lives by reducing the possibility for total destruction. If I try to stop a man with a gun then I am a hero. If I die trying then I am a hero. If I actually stop him then I am a hero who lives to talk about it. But if I see a man with a gun, revert back to my military training, draw a previously concealed firearm, shoot him three times in the body and twice in the head without so much as breaking a sweat in the small space of thirty seconds. . . what am I then? Am I really a hero? Or am I a strange man who carries secret gun in public areas showboating frightening precision and skill with a deadly weapon. Oh but I had a license to carry the weapon. Does that make me any safer? Does it make the community safer? I am not a law enforcement official. I am simply an average man who knows a frighteningly great deal about use and concealment of a deadly weapon.
This is the problem with guns. Even if the person carrying the gun means no harm and is a licensed carrier, does that mean someone won't take it from them and use it for other purposes? And despite all the differences, I would not hesitate even a single instant to step forward to defend other peoples’ rights to bear licensed firearms and other legal weapons.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted October 22, 2005 08:06 AM |
|
|
Consis
I don’t know if you meant it to come across this way, but you make it sound like the majority of gun owners actually carry them around with them, ready to whip them out at any sign of trouble. I've never heard any statistics on it, but my guess is that only a very small percentage of (legitimate) gun owners actually carry them.
I used to buy and sell a lot of cars. And it was common for me to walk around carrying several thousand dollars in cash. Sometimes when I went to a bad part of town, or even an unknown part, I would carry a gun. But for the very reasons you've sited, I quit doing it. I just decided that if I went somewhere I felt a need to carry a gun, I had no business going there.
I strongly support the right to both own and carry a gun. But I also strongly believe that just because someone CAN own/carry a gun doesn't mean they SHOULD own/carry a gun.
Like all the other rights we enjoy, there comes a certain responsibility along with that right. Anyone owning a gun, or considering buying one, should take an honest look at themselves and ask questions. What's my motive? Can I safely handle the responsibility? Do I have a bad temper? Do I drink too much? etc etc
And leaving a gun where kids can get to it is completely idiotic. That's as stupid as people who leave kids alone in a car with the engine running.
Khayman
Quote:
but rather it is the gun manufacturers that are responsible for killing people.
Not much longer. The House just passed the bill to stop frivolous lawsuits of gun manufacturers. The Senate is expected to follow. Surprisingly, it had a fair amount of bipartisan support.
____________
|
|
Khayman
Promising
Famous Hero
Underachiever
|
|
posted October 22, 2005 03:22 PM |
|
|
Good Discussion!
Consis wrote:Quote:
If I try to stop a man with a gun then I am a hero. If I die trying then I am a hero. If I actually stop him then I am a hero who lives to talk about it. But if I see a man with a gun, revert back to my military training, draw a previously concealed firearm, shoot him three times in the body and twice in the head without so much as breaking a sweat in the small space of thirty seconds. . . what am I then? Am I really a hero?
Individuals who carry guns should never be considered heroes unless they overcome overwhelming odds against a numerically superior force.
As for reverting back to your military training, drawing a previously concealed firearm, and shooting him three times in the body and twice in the head without so much as breaking a sweat in the small space of thirty seconds. Well, chances are you are a Marine instead of an Airman or Army Medic.
Very good points by everyone so far, even if you are all naive tree-hugging, dolphin-saving, granola-eating pacifists.
____________
"You must gather your party before venturing forth."
|
|
grendal
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted October 22, 2005 03:41 PM |
|
|
I personally believe in gun elimination (not gun control). I understand its embedded in some cultures, but with lots of time it can eventually be "uncultured".
I lived in Toronto until recently (I live in a nearby community now called Peterborough). Although gun control is fairly strict, it still doesnt prevent senseless killings. Here, gun crimes are committed 50% of the time with ones crossing the border illegally and the other 50% is committed with guns stolen from registered legal gun owners. (as reported by the Toronto metro police). Mostly by kids who have joined gangs. These gangs have recently become a serious problem in Toronto.
Ive had an ongoing argument with the Sun newspaper up here (including them publishing a couple of letters). They argue stiffer penalties will resolve the issue. For me there is much more to it than that. Places like the US have shown this by itself isnt a solution. Yes, stricter guns laws (im referring to manadorty sentences for crimes involving guns. I once saw a farmer given 2 years probation for shooting at a neighbour on his property. Absurd!) is part of the solution. However gun control still makes them available to the criminals. What is needed is a ban on gun ownership. This includes stricker border security, the removal and destruction of guns owned now, and community programs to give the youths that belong to gangs something to do. (coincidentally, the cancellation of these youth programs by our previous tory government coincides with the increase in gun crimes in the last couple of years.)
Of the countries i know of, England does it best. They do have an added advantage of only having a border with water.
To appease legitimate reasons for owning a gun I would allow farmers under very strict conditions to borrow a gun from the government. I also would set up government facilites (gun clubs), which would allow citizens to purchase and store their guns there. (never taking them outside the facility). This facility would have a gun range for the target shooting that many people enjoy. I would also have a couple of these facilities in remote regions so the hunters can enjoy that hobby as well. No guns would be allowed to leave these facilites. There also would be no involvement of the private sector.
____________
Life is full of frustrations, heroes should help release it!
|
|
Jebus
Promising
Supreme Hero
TheJester akaJeebs akaJebfoo
|
|
posted October 22, 2005 08:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
To appease legitimate reasons for owning a gun I would allow farmers under very strict conditions to borrow a gun from the government. I also would set up government facilites (gun clubs), which would allow citizens to purchase and store their guns there. (never taking them outside the facility). This facility would have a gun range for the target shooting that many people enjoy. I would also have a couple of these facilities in remote regions so the hunters can enjoy that hobby as well. No guns would be allowed to leave these facilites. There also would be no involvement of the private sector.
Can't believe I agree with someone from TO!
actually those are pretty good solutions imo..
what would you propose for increasing boarder security?
____________
"You went over my helmet??"
|
|
Khayman
Promising
Famous Hero
Underachiever
|
|
posted October 22, 2005 10:26 PM |
|
|
Guns = Power and other equations...
I can dream of your world as well, HOWEVER...
Don't you think that you would be placing too much power and responsibility in the hands of the government?
Remember, the politicians and other governmental leaders would not only control all of the firearms and their distribution, but they would also have the power of their military at their disposal as well. One of the reasons that we (as United States citizens) are granted the right to bear arms is to prevent the evolution of a tyrannical government (not that our government doesn't already have its own not-so-subtle tyrannies).
I believe that a government should never hold total power over its people.
On a side note, that is the sole reason why I will continue to vote Republican until the day I die. We Americans are forced into a two party system, and I would rather be a indentured servant to a capitalistic society than a slave to a socialist government.
Republican = Capitalist
Democrat = Socialist
Independent = Indecisive or Nihilist
Talk about stereotyping! Ok, back on topic...
____________
"You must gather your party before venturing forth."
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted October 22, 2005 11:58 PM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 22 Oct 2005
|
Khayman,
I'm may have been an airman, but much of my training was administered by and with Army, Navy, and Marine combat experts. During my time at these various schools, it was a common joke not to call me by my name. I was always referred to as "Airforce". ('Hey Airforce get your butt over here! Stop dragging *** in this heat! Just because it's hotter than two rats boofin in a wool sock don't mean you can slack off, you lazy scurvey dog! Are you a skater? Are you trying ta skate yer panzy little Airforce butt through our school for men?')
I don't know what you guys called them, but that method of shooting was referred to as a "take-down" drill. Our instructors (commonly called ~CADRE~). . . they warned us too. They said if we ever did that outside of being ordered to then we'd go to jail; no questions asked.
That's one of the biggest reasons why I don't have guns in my house. Aside from the fact that my kids might gain access or any other reason, I know that my training would take over if someone broke in and I was holding the gun. I worry that a homeless person may break in simply looking for food. I couldn't live with myself if I killed a man for being hungry. There will be no guns in my house as long as I have anything to say about it.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
grendal
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted October 23, 2005 04:33 PM |
|
|
Jebus
Quote:
Can't believe I agree with someone from TO! Quote:
LOL Maybe its because i moved away
As for the border security, im not sure there is much we can do to prevent this. We cant really control the drug trafficing, so the guns would be just as difficult. What i would like to see the government try is attempting to hold the gun companies responsible. From what i have read recently this is what they are going to attempt. However, i doubt it will have much effect on companies in America. Ideally id love to see some sort of unique composite put in the material of guns and have scanners to detect this composite. (similar to the nuclear bombs scanners).
Khayman
Quote:
Don't you think that you would be placing too much power and responsibility in the hands of the government? Quote:
I think that too much power and responsibility (with respect to the military) is already in the hands of the government. If someone decided to use the might of the American military, those arms the ordinary citizens have would be relatively ineffectual in preventing it. This is why i consider the "right to bear arms" portion of the second ammendment obsolete. Unless of course you take the meaning of "arms" to include tanks smart bombs, cruise missles, war planes etc.
A prime example of the American military might against conventional fire arms is Iraq. By all accounts America is in control of Iraq and will be forever if they so choose. The insurgents in the overall picture are like gnats. They are annoying but really have no chance of beating America (no offense intended here).
This is a new age and the deterrents to tyrannical rule has changed IMO. A free and vibrant media is needed. A strong and well developed national guard for each state is a major deterrent (this is the second portion of the second amendment that i think still applys). Finally the intelligence and foresight of your Forefathers (absolutely amazes me how they came up with this) to separate government into 3 separate bodies with unique powers for each, makes it extremely tough for some tyrant to take control.
If a tyrant can take control of the media, the national guard and the 3 legislative bodies, then those firearms the ordinary citizens have will be irrelevant.
____________
Life is full of frustrations, heroes should help release it!
|
| |
|
|
