Guns, society, moral judgements...bring it on here!

[V]

V - surprised to hear that not only because of your compulsory military service as a youngster, but also considering the city where you live and the terrible (statistically-supported) reputation it has...

Oooooppsss.. now I feel a complete stupid..

Of course I have handled a gun assembled it and disassembled it and shot many times in target shooting.. I've been 18 months in the Military and was sleeping with my gun daily..

BUT as you can see I have not even remotely thought about it because the gun was not a personal choice.. was the tool of a soldier. No one says ban the guns from the army.. that would be stupid.. And if you have seen the Simpsons episode when Lisa hopes for world peace and the kodos come and conquer earth with wooden sticks..

Anyway.. where I live is a bit of a the Wild West of UK BUT I do not go anywhere not safe and try to mind my own buisness

[dieselpower]

Docblackrock - I said "not so easy" that is not the same as "hard". Feel free to comment but please don't put words in my mouth.

[docblackrock]

Docblackrock - I said "not so easy" that is not the same as "hard". Feel free to comment but please don't put words in my mouth.

Well since you're splitting hairs anyway, I'll put it another way.....it's worringly EASY. That better?

[dieselpower]

I bow down to your superior knowledge in these matters.

[kosemkamtsan]

two points here:

1: the 2nd ammendment. read it. here it is: "A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

You see, this is about the necessity to form militias in defense of the people from our own military. That is the context of which one can have a firearm comes. Sounds to me like the founders wanted us to be able to have guns, but that their use, and not their ownership be regulated. So if their use is regulated to necessetate the forming of militias in defense of a national army gone crazy, it follows that we should not be walking around with guns. However, it also follows that we be allowed to have guns in our home. However, guns should not leave our home unless for use in hunting or for use in militia-related activities.

2: The notion of the second ammendment is derived from England at a time when there was no police force and it was required every able body bear arms to defend themselves.

[capt_cope]

Show me where it mentions regulation of use. The way I read it, it appears that the only stipulation as to the right of the people to keep and bear arms, is that right shall not be infringed. While organized militias don't trip my trigger, it's our right, much as it is our right to keep and bear arms. But where you are going astray here is assuming it's a symbiotic relationship. It isn't. An effective militia requires the right to keep and bear arms. However, the right to keep and bear arms does not require any relation to a militia. The amendment wasn't worded: "The right to keep and bear arms being the security of a free state, the right to form a well regulated militia shall not be infringed. However, even militia members must remove their arms when crossing in 500 feet of a school, and before entering an establishment with a class B liquor license." Had something to that tune been written I might agree with you. The founding fathers may not have been able to foresee the troubles that right has caused, but then they didn't see the internet coming when they wrote something about free speech.

2nd Amendment. Comprehend it mmmkay?

[HauteHippie]

What an original idea.

[andreww]

So you live your lives based on what some log cabin living yokels wrote over 200 years ago? Seems a little silly to compare the wild new frontiers that your forefathers dealt with, with modern day society. One thing I will agree with is that the U.S. has already f_cked it up, and there is no turning back.

For those old enough to remember

Edited November 14, 2007 by andreww

[capt_cope]

So you live your lives based on what some log cabin living yokels wrote over 200 years ago? Seems a little silly to compare the wild new frontiers that your forefathers dealt with, with modern day society. One thing I will agree with is that the U.S. has already f_cked it up, and there is no turning back.

For those old enough to remember

">

[andreww]

So you've admited that more laws aren't going to solve gun-violence, which leads us right back to a lack of responsibility as the root cause.

On the contrary, I think much harsher laws are needed. Unfortunately your government is in the back pocket of the NRA, so that will never happen. America is a lost cause, and one day owning a gun will be a necessity and not an option. Sadly, since the days when Archie Bunker made those "profound" comments, life has gotten much more violent. People will shoot you for your car. Gangs randomly shoot people on the streets. And, children walk into schools armed to the hilt and start blasting classmates. Non of these things were even thought of back in the early seventies when people like myself were ignored by gun loving 2nd amendment quoters.

And btw, about not wanting to change the principals adopted by your forefathers? There is a reason they are called "amendments".

amendment |əˈmen(d)mənt|

noun

a minor change in a document.

[kasigi]

I have firearms, I respect them. I shoot practical pistol, practical shotgun and general plinking. My kids have been brought up up to respect them as well and I have absolutely no issue with guns.

To me, a firearm is a piece of sporting equipment. I've been through stringent safety training and the mere thought of actually pointing a gun at someone makes me feel sick. I have a few blank firers and a couple of airsoft pistols and I handle them in exactly the same way I would with the real things. Finger off the trigger, double and triple check to ensure they're empty etc etc.

[andreww]

I really wonder kasigi, why you feel you need to use a pistol? Certainly a rifle suits your needs far better than a handgun.

[kasigi]

Not for practical pistol or iron plate shooting, no.

[TeeJay]

Personally, I like guns. I like shooting. It is the one of the few 'natural gifts' I was born with (the other being able to mimic foreign languages with near perfection [even if I don't necessarily understand what I am saying, it will be understood by someone else]) I've always wanted to belong to a gun club and take part in pistol shooting, but thanks to the knee-jerk reactions to the Dunblane Massacre, have never been able to do so. What people failed to realize or acknowledge, was that the cause of that massacre was not the guns used, but the mentally unstable paedophile who was (for utterly incomprehensible reasons) granted a firearms licence. Obviously there is a problem with illegally acquired weapons which is something which needs better controls, however, there is no reason why that should impede on people who wish to legally own a firearm, and prove that they are suitable and trustworthy to do so. People are trained, tested and licenced to drive cars, yet there are still more deaths annually from driving-related accidents than firearms, but people are not calling either for cars to be banned, or for licenced drivers to be continually monitored and tested (when in all fairness, a person's vision or co-ordination could suddenly deteriorate below an acceptable level without their knowledge, which routine testing would detect and then remedy)

As for the issue of British police carrying firearms, my personal opinion, is that all police officers should be trained in the use of, and carry a sidearm at all times. Had she carried a firearm, PC Sharon Beshenivsky would not be dead. On my admitedly limited trips abroad, I have always felt much safer to see local police carrying guns, than I feel 'at home', where the police aren't allowed to carry anything more offensive than a baton and a pepper spray... In Spain, even the 'local police' were packing P99's for their routine patrols, and, compared to the Guardia Civil, they're little more than glorified trafic wardens. My other issue with police firearms, is that the firearms units are not adequately trained, and do not have enough 'day to day experience' with responding to firearm-related incidents to be able to react without getting goosed up on adrenaline and shoot someone coming out of a pub carrying a table-leg. Perhaps an exchange training programs to countries where they would deal with those situations day in day out would then enable them to actually carry out their duties without a repeat of the Jean Charles de Menezes fiasco...

Sorry for the rant, but this is an issue I feel very strongly about, and find incredibly frustrated that nothing is likely to ever change rationally on the issue.

[andreww]

Look, nobody ever said there was anything wrong with sport shooting, But what if I were say to you that you must leave and store your weapons at the shooting range? Most gun owners would have a fit. This is the problem I see with this issue, that gun owner spew out good intentions, and how they are the perfect weapon owner. But deep down the just feel powerful having that gun in their bedside table, ready to blast some imaginary intruder.

As to your comments about proving yourself trustworthy? Impossible. I am for the most part sane (if you ignore my rather odd watch obsession), law abiding, intelligent, good looking, etc. Those facts wont change if I decide tomorrow that I want to go shoot all the people at my workplace will it?

My honest take on this issue is that you need to make guns accessible to those that need them for recreational use, but not have them in the home. The waiting period needs to be significant, at least a month, and licensing should be graduated over a period of years. Gun related crimes (including simple possession) need to be treated seriously, with stiff minimum sentences.

The consequences of gun misuse are serious, and thats how the issue should be handled.

[flamemax]

I have a couple of comments on this matter, as much as I have tried to stay out of it, for obvious reasons; someone who is convinced that guns are bad or vice versa will usually stick to their guns, no pun intended.

FYI I do not own a hand gun, or a hunting rifle, but I like having the option

Criminalize guns and the only people who will have guns will be criminals, how safe is that?

Imagine the damage one could do with a big pickup truck and a bus stop loaded with people, the pickup truck drive could potentially wipeout a dozen lives in a heartbeat.

Bottom line is, guns don't kill people, people kill people.

I have never killed a person, nor do I ever intend to, but let me tell you this; if ever I put my mind to it, it will happen, guns or no guns.

Peace out!

Robb AKA Falmemax

[kasigi]

Look, nobody ever said there was anything wrong with sport shooting, But what if I were say to you that you must leave and store your weapons at the shooting range? Most gun owners would have a fit.

Absolutely. It would make my sport a lot more difficult because I shoot at ranges all around the country and my 'home' range is an hours drive away. It would add a couple of hours onto a competition and those days are crammed full enough as it is.

[capt_cope]

And there is no reason for anyone to use their fast cars off of the track. Lets make them store them there. And since they are so dangerous, let's add a month waiting period, and make the licensing much more stringent. After all a mishap in a car going over 100mph is a serious one, likely to include fatalities. Same goes for mudding trucks, atvs, and anything else that is dangerous. There is a need for them in sport, no doubt, but personal ownership just isn't safe. After all a perfectly sane man could take a drink and decide it's time to take his Camero out for a spin. Killing an innocent family for NO reason. Not even their car.

And with this, I'm done with this argument. You obviously have your opinions, and will continue to back them with flawed logic. There is no way to debate a circular argument. You state that the us is beyond help. There are too many illegal guns already. But yet more laws are needed. How about simply enforcing the laws already on the books? If these idiotic laws WERE enforced/enforceable, there wouldn't be any illegal guns on the street. Period. Perhaps you've never faced a man with a gun before, but having had that experience, I can tell you this: I have never EVER felt so powerless for my own well being in my life. Here in Wisconsin you can't carry a concealed weapon, which leaves the law abiding citizen with nothing to defend himself against an assailant. I got lucky, the little pile of [censored] didn't decide he wanted to do anything to me. I was in a public park, in the middle of a photo shoot, and had he wanted to the kid could have walked off with my work's camera, our mac book, and a bag of lenses. So you can preach stricter laws all you want, but they won't do a damn thing but make more victims. That kid was not 21, he couldn't have legally owned that berretta, and even if he had, he legally couldn't have walked down the middle of a bike trail waving it in the air. And for the record, I called the cops, it took the local PD and swat team 10 minutes to get to where I was, and another 5 to catch up with the kid. Had he been out to prove something I'd be dead, my boss would be dead, and the models would be dead too. Why? Because idiotic laws strip law abiding citizens of their right to defend themselves. There is an overall violence problem in the US (IMO) and there are far too many assholes walking around with guns. And the way I see it, you can cower in fear and come up with feel good laws that convince people there is no WAY anyone could have a gun on them, or you can can stand up and fight for your right to protect yourself.

[TeeJay]

Look, nobody ever said there was anything wrong with sport shooting, But what if I were say to you that you must leave and store your weapons at the shooting range?

That was one of the proposals for UK gun clubs to function under, the problem, was that a lot of small clubs could not afford to install the security systems necessary to ensure that all guns remained on the premises and were 100% securely stored, which meant they had to close. According to the letter of the law, target shooting is still a totally legitimate, legal, and possible sport. The problem, is the actual reality of the situation, where clubs have to close due to being financially unable to comply with the law.

But deep down the just feel powerful having that gun in their bedside table, ready to blast some imaginary intruder.

Utterly false generalization. I've studied martial arts for 21 years. I don't need a gun to feel safe either at home or in public. That's not to say that there aren't a few people who want to stand in front of the mirror with a gun muttering "You talking to me??" or "Good Evening, Mish Munneh-penneh..." But those are not the majority of shooting enthusiasts, and not the kind of people who should be licenced to own a firearm in the first place, which was the point I was making about Th0mas Hamilton. The man should never have been let near a firearm -or children- in the first place. The fact that he was, was the problem, not the guns themselves.

As to your comments about proving yourself trustworthy? Impossible. I am for the most part sane (if you ignore my rather odd watch obsession), law abiding, intelligent, good looking, etc. Those facts wont change if I decide tomorrow that I want to go shoot all the people at my workplace will it?

Impossible? I think not. At least, not impossible to give reasonable assurances. For example, UK teachers must be CRB checked in order to work in schools, and for every county they work in, they require a valide CRB check from that county's police force, and, if they don't work in a school for more than (I believe) a three month period, they must be re-checked. Now I admit, that is not a 100% fool-proof system, but, it is certainly a reasonable one, and one which a prospective gun owner should be made to undergo.

My honest take on this issue is that you need to make guns accessible to those that need them for recreational use, but not have them in the home. The waiting period needs to be significant, at least a month, and licensing should be graduated over a period of years. Gun related crimes (including simple possession) need to be treated seriously, with stiff minimum sentences.

The consequences of gun misuse are serious, and thats how the issue should be handled.

I quite agree there. The issue, as I mentioned above, is that technically, guns are accessible to those who want them for sporting purposes, the problem is also down to the clubs not being able to ensure adequate security, and also, the restrictions placed on pistols above .22 calibre makes for a very narrow range of available firearms for use. To compare it to watches, although we all have our favorite marques, we still have other items in our collections, and firearms would be no different, in that someone might well be able to go along with shooting a .22 target pistol, but, it would also be fun to shoot a .44 Magnum one week, or give a Beretta 92Fa try, or even compare the Walther P99 to a Sig Sauer P228... None of those things would be permitted under UK law, and, as long as those firearms were owned by properly licenced (and the key issue here is proper licencing procedure) individuals, and stored in suitable locations, there is no reason to restrict the calibre to .22...

[Edit to add]

As mentioned above, it is not the law-abiding people who carry concealed weapons in public, but criminals, carrying illegally owned guns... Legislation means nothing when people simply ignore it and carry on regardless. As mentioned above, all that means, is that it results in the legitimate enthusiast being penalized for the actions of a criminal minority...

[Edit]

Hit 12 instead of 21.

Edited April 12, 2008 by TeeJay

[iceberg1459]

Human is human with or without guns...

Im personally against it because i cant see a positive purpose of a gun, makes everything even worse..

[Newdoc]

Human is human with or without guns...

Im personally against it because i cant see a positive purpose of a gun, makes everything even worse..

I agree in that people will do what they will do, but at the same time, why enable someone who intends to do harm with a tool to do it so well?

and by the by, iceberg, your signature is the s***

[Richard Tracy]

There are paranoid, violent, streaks in America that will take a few more generations to resolve.

Our country was founded on violence, hatred and injustice, however those issues are being hidden behind the rhetoric of hunting, or crime.

Truth is, though most won't admit it, many of those who refuse to give up their hand guns, train to shoot and kill, and stock rounds, are doing so in preparation for some race war that will never happen unless they themselves take the initiative.

The gun lobbyist are pushing this whispered treat into the ears of people because it's a huge money making business, that is utilizing twisted statistics of race and crime to bolster their claims and keep the paranoia stoked up and their bank accounts full.

Fact is, crime is direct result of poverty, and over 95% of the victims of crime are violated by someone from their own culture.

Also Statistics comparing licensed misuse of guns, i.e. school shooting, family arguments, accidental shootings, road rage, ect are far more than the gun that saved a life.

As for the argument that America has gone beyond a cure, I say it's not true.

It's never too late.

To do nothing, only makes America a more dangerous place every hour that goes by.

The world was once much more dangerous with nukes, and we are now fighting to curb the introduction of more nuclear weapons..

I agree that laws won

[sssurfer]

Humanity is like a cancer (or, at best, a virus). Once it affects one area, it affects others... thus you need to start understanding this universal truth because,

[Richard Tracy]

Humanity is like a cancer (or, at best, a virus). Once it affects one area, it affects others... thus you need to start understanding this universal truth because,

[P4GTR]

I'm not going to harm anyone, I know that.

I do not trust or feel safe in todays society. My country is in a recession that is borderlining on a depression.

What if I see the end of the world in my lifetime?

What if I have to rely solely on myself for survival?

What if it comes down to my family, or the other guy thats trying to take from it?

What if someone breaks into my home, how am I supposed to defend my family? Police?

I'd rather be prepared for the worst and hope for the best. I'd rather have a tool and not need it then need a tool and not have it.