The great gun-control debate

So, I'm interested to hear all your opinions on gun policy at a national level; whether you be Canadian, American, or whatever.

I peronally believe that people should have the right to own guns. Putting an outright ban on them, as many people support, would IMO only arm the criminals and leave the general public defenseless. Too often I've seen failed policies (in law, and especially schools) that rely on de-clawing everybody with the false notion that you can actually control the entire general public.

In practice, however, what I've witnessed is the good, honest, law-abiding folk who follow the rules, and the bad folk to live to victimize, flouting the rules and establishing a possition of dominance over the now-defenseless honest people.

After all, would an outright ban on guns not seem a bit similar to the outright ban on drugs? What you would have is, basically, a "war on guns"; and we all know how well America's wars on this and that social issues go. The last century has shown us that when you try to outright ban something, you just establish a massive black market; arming the bad guys, creating a new billion dollar industry for criminals, creating more enforcement headaches for the police.

Getting down to specifics:

I think rifles are the basic; what every sane, law-abiding citizen should be entitled to.

Shotguns... I'm not so sure about. Do we really need to hand out weapons that utterly destroy the opposition? I think a bullet will suffice, no need to disintegrate the burglar's head.
However, I have no firm possition on shotguns, I haven't given it a lot of thought.

Handguns... there's another interesting one. In our last election here in Canada, the Liberal government proposed a total ban on handguns should they be elected. The Conservatives won though, so that never went through.
As I see it, handguns really serve no other purpose but to kill people. You don't hunt with a handgun, and a rifle can suffice for defence. Handguns are, of course, much smaller and easier to conceal on one's person. I'm actually inclined to support a ban on handguns.
As I said, a black market would of course come up and criminals would get their handguns, but it would still be a lot more difficult to get their hands one. The reason I support this but not an outright gun ban, is because you can't stop criminals from getting guns, so the public does need some means of defending themselves. But, you can reduce the availability of handguns, and while plenty (but much less) criminals would get their hands on handguns, we'd still have a means of defending ourselves in the home with the rifles/shotguns.
Anybody feel free to counter me on this one, especially, because I'm absolutely open to changing my opinion on this one. This is just where I'm leaning.

Automatic assault weapons I believe should be completely banned. There's just no legitimate use for them, and giving people AK-47's is just insane IMO.


Now as for a society where handguns, shotguns, all that stuff is allowed, I support allowing the general public to carry handguns on their person. As I see it, criminals are going to be a lot less ballsy about mugging someone or robbing a store in public, when anybody around them could whip out their gun and blow them away. I've seen so many surveilance tapes of robbers hitting convenience stores full of people and just running off with the loot. If the other people in the store all had guns, he wouldn't stand a chance. It would be a way for the general public, who tend to adhere to a civilized society, to keep the victimizers in line.

Frankly I grow tired of this society of victim's we're raising. It's about time we start teaching our kids that good people need to be strong in the face of those who victimize the weak, not try to create a magical pretend society where everybody is neutered and defenseless; because then it's only the good and honest who are left defenseless.


So, all opinions are welcome. Lets try to be friendly, respectful, and have a civil discussion... and above all there is to be no shooting each other ;) .

Oops, made a typo. Could a mod please change the first poll option to "all guns, of any type, should be banned"?

i cant really take a side on this
im very against guns and would never own one if i didnt feel i needed to
but the saying "If you outlaw guns only the outlaws will have them" comes to mind
and it makes sense, also its our constitutional right to bear arms, so i dont really know

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 420_24/7

i cant really take a side on this
im very against guns and would never own one if i didnt feel i needed to
but the saying "If you outlaw guns only the outlaws will have them" comes to mind
and it makes sense, also its our constitutional right to bear arms, so i dont really know

---

I actually forgot about this saying, I only heard it once years ago. But it's a great saying, I love it!:D

can you honestly say that rifles are ok but shotguns not so much on the grounds that you don't need to "disintegrate the burglar's head".....you obviously don't know anything about guns...a 50cal. will take a mans head off at well over a mile away(research that before you say it's not true) "As I see it, handguns really serve no other purpose but to kill people. You don't hunt with a handgun"....we have deer seasons for pistols here in the us.......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf_The_Grey

Oops, made a typo. Could a mod please change the first poll option to "all guns, of any type, should be banned"?

---

No problem...........

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

Some day we might need these guns for real purposes. Self-defense and possibly some day when we must rise up against the powers that be, or be oppressed. Whenever that will happen, and it will, we might need guns. The rest of you can disarm yourselves and leave the weapons to the government. Because, of course, they should be able to have guns, and we shouldn't. We're obviously too stupid to have them. LOL. That's all I have to say. Anyone who wants to argue what I say will be arguing to nothing, as I will not reply. I have said all I have to say.

Outlawing guns will not save people's lives. Gun laws only keep guns away from law abiding citizens.

i don't see any reason to ever own a gun
if u say "for self protection" you wouldn't need the gun if others didn't have guns
f people want to hunt they should do it with other weapons having a gun is a completely unfair advantage, kinda defeats the purpose of hunting too

the only reason i think that we should be allowed to have guns is so we have the ability to overthrow the government if necessary.

The gov. walks around with unlimited weapons. Where are we when they turn on us? Left with out equal defense, thats where. The foundation of democracy has been reduced to the term "Civil Disobedience", Why do we accept defeat?

Quote:

---

No problem...........

Have a good one!

---

Thanks P4B:thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_candyman_707

i don't see any reason to ever own a gun
if u say "for self protection" you wouldn't need the gun if others didn't have guns

---

Do you actually believe you can take all the guns away? As was said earlier, outlaw guns and only outlaws have them.
What about the elderly, disabled, and small women? Heck, what about anybody really. If 3 big guys launch a home invasion into your property, should we be left defenseless? Guns aren't just for protecting against guns.

Quote:

---

can you honestly say that rifles are ok but shotguns not so much on the grounds that you don't need to "disintegrate the burglar's head".....

---

As I said, I didn't have a firm possition on this one.

Quote:

---

you obviously don't know anything about guns...

---

That's a gross over-generalization.

Quote:

---

a 50cal. will take a mans head off at well over a mile away(research that before you say it's not true)

---

I don't doubt it. Still, most rifles aren't going to take a head off and they are a bit of overkill. Anyway I don't have any great objection to shotguns, it was just a thought. Keep 'em legal for all I care.

Quote:

---

we have deer seasons for pistols here in the us.......

---

I'm sure the hunters will live if they have to use a rifle. Far more often than less, rifles are used for hunting and all you need. Pistol deer hunting just seems unncessary.

the only way theyll take my gun away is to pry it outa my cold dead hand.
guns are tools. its like the old saying " guns dont kill people, people kill people"
and as far as shotguns well its much easier to kill birds and small game with a shotgun than a rifle. s why my 12 guage has a goose barrel but i do use a 410 on rabbit and squirrel.
also ask your self this how strange is it that me , a liberal and a hippie owns guns and enjoys hunting

made me think of this
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ABGIJwiGBc[/YOUTUBE]

I am an American, a female, and a Democrat ( one of them damn liberals!), and I own a gun. Yes, it is registered. I think I'd be a fool not to have one. These are not pretty times. I would only use it to protect myself, but make no doubt about it, I would use it if I had to. I DON'T look for trouble, but I'm ready for it.
I target shoot, also. And thats very fun.:gunfighter2:
( Btw my gun is a 22 auto long rifle hand gun.).

I chose the allow all but assault weapons. Why assault when a weapons main use is for defense? However I'm all set with all those people who would be walking around with the John Wayne mentality. Unfettered gun control might work somewhere like East Nowhere, TX with a population of 500-1000, but in New York City and its population of 9 million its a whole new ballgame. It doesn't help when rappers are promoting gangs and violence and parents are not parenting. I believe there are better ways to curb or eliminate violence other then arming our citizens. Ending the drug war will cut crime by leaps and bounds.

I would rather see people armed to defend themselves against government then each other.

I own many weapons.... none of which are assault weapons. They are all for either hunting, sport, or defense.

Gun control is being able to hit you target. Proficienacy is the key.

95% of the auto-pistols on the street are weapons of war, and as a rule, revolvers are not. I don't figure that John Q Public has a need for assult weapons or other weapons of war. Leave those for law enforcement and military.

FWIW, the target is from my 30-06 @ 200 yards and the bull only measures 1 inch

I just got back from 10 months working in New Orleans, carried a 45. (yes I'm just a private citizen) Louisiana recognizes my home State's carry permit.

Its not NY but there wasn't any problem, I just laugh at people who say I shouldn't own/carry a gun , any gun because "they think" so:D

"Better to have it, and not need it..... than it is to need it and not have it"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_candyman_707

i don't see any reason to ever own a gun
if u say "for self protection" you wouldn't need the gun if others didn't have guns

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dutch Pimp

"Better to have it, and not need it..... than it is to need it and not have it"

---

aside from those demented few who either believe that it is our god given right to wander around armed to the teeth or that we should all be required to give up our guns and bow down to the almighty power of the state, we all fit into one of the above two categories.

one side seems to believe that the government is capable of magically gathering up all of the guns in the nation and protecting the honest citizens from any dangers that may remain. where they came by this devotion to the infallibility of our government i will never know, but they seem to be willing to put their safety and their future in the hands of institutions that have proven time and again that they are both incompetent and corrupt.

the other side seems to have a similarly undying faith in the abilities of the common man. they seem to believe that the folks in their neighborhood are perfectly capable of subduing their baser instincts, even though domestic violence is commonplace and many of us don't even have enough patience to wait for the next green light. they also seem to think that everyone has the capacity to handle a firearm. i don't know who y'all hang out with, but most folks i know shouldn't be trusted with a sharpened stick let alone a fully automatic tec-9 with a 36 round clip.

i haven't the faintest idea which side is right, though i suspect the answer lies somewhere in between. i voted for all guns to be legal because i revel in chaos and because i find the idea of housewives wandering the supermarket aisles with uzis in their shopping carts perversely amusing.

Better to have them and not need them then to need them and not have them!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by indicagrower

can you honestly say that rifles are ok but shotguns not so much on the grounds that you don't need to "disintegrate the burglar's head".....you obviously don't know anything about guns...a 50cal. will take a mans head off at well over a mile away(research that before you say it's not true) "As I see it, handguns really serve no other purpose but to kill people. You don't hunt with a handgun"....we have deer seasons for pistols here in the us.......

---

actually alot of people that hunt bears also carry handguns, because if the bear charges, you cant always get a round in your rifle yet alot aim it, where you can pull out your pistol, and shoot the bear before it gets to you. and i use a 22 pistol alot for hunting rabbits. i also use a 12 gauge shotgun to hunt pheasent, and a .270 to shoot deer. i believe if everyone had a gun, and there would be less shootings in school. lets face it, half these kids that are picked on, if they come to school and try to schoot everyone up, only to be shot by a teacher thats got a 9mm under her desk, you thikn they would go through with it? if in the situation, where someone has a gun, would you feel safer if you had a gun to protect yourself, or would you rather just duck and hide? the highschool i went to, if you walked through the parkinglot, there would be 2 or 3 rifles hanging in the back windows of pickups. nearly everyone here has a gun. and needless to say there has been 2 shooting deaths in the past 15 years. (murder suicide) we need to protect the right to bare arms amendement. if we let them take that away, what next? our right for free speach? our right to drive a car? our right to even think for our selves?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frickr

actually alot of people that hunt bears also carry handguns, because if the bear charges, you cant always get a round in your rifle yet alot aim it, where you can pull out your pistol, and shoot the bear before it gets to you.

---

The way I see it, if you want to eat meat then go out and buy some meat. But, if you want to hunt your meat, I think we should alot the animal a certain amount of respect and not remove any and all possibility of it being able to fight back. Human beings spent hundreds of thousands of years hunting with bow-and-arrow and/or spear, never guaranteed to be safe in every sense.
Now we do have a safe way of getting our meat, going to the supermarket. But I think if you're going to carry on the hunting tradition, to make that kill your self and subject the animal to suffering, at least keep in the spirit of things. Otherwise the animal deserves to die in a more quick-and-painless manner.

I don't mean this to degrade the actions of you or anybody who hunts with backup pistols and the such, my uncle is an avid hunter and eats only meat that he kills himself. I have a lot of respect for that. This is just my philosophy on the matter.


In other news; I made a sticky, horray!:D

if you dont own a gun, who do you look to to protect yourself and your family? the cops? HA! just like they protected those kids at Viginia Tech, waiting outside the building for that nut to either 1. run out of bullets or 2. kill himself. the police dont protect anyone. they only clean up the mess afterwards. another example is the petit family in cheshire connecticut. were the cops able to help them? ask the husband. if they owned a gun the story may not have ended so tragically.

I'm a bit disappointed though that none of the people who voted for a ban on all guns have presented an argument. I promise not to jump all over you! It would be really interesting to understand the other side's perspective on this.

What about the UK? Haven't they proven that taking guns away from the general public can drastically reduce firearm related deaths?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cannavore

if you dont own a gun, who do you look to to protect yourself and your family? the cops? HA! just like they protected those kids at Viginia Tech

---

But would there have been a Virginia Tech incident in the first place without guns?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ATrain

But would there have been a Virginia Tech incident in the first place without guns?

---

That kid would have found them anyway.

How do you smoke pot? It's illegal man.



On another note,
Shotgun's are good for hunting birds. That's why they should stay legal.


And why not keep one in your home? Gives you a better shot at hitting the burglar, rapist, etc...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by meatw4d

That kid would have found them anyway.

---

Yeah, he might have. But current gun laws made it easier for him to get a hold of those guns. Anyway we can make it more difficult for shooting sprees like that to happen is fine by me.

I think the system in place in the UK clearly show that taking guns away can work.

Oh, and just to toss a few numbers out there...

~ A 2003 study in the US showed that having a gun in the home increases the risk of someone in the household being murdered by 41 percent. (Homicide and suicide risks associated with firearms in the home: a national case-control study)

~ Domestic violence is more likely to be lethal if there is a gun in the home. For women, the risk of being killed if there is a gun in the home is increased by 172 percent. (Firearm Related Deaths: The Impact of Regulatory Reform)

:postexcuseme:

Just to toss some numbers out there:

Overall, homicides are committed primarily by someone known to the victim. In 1998, of the 431 homicides solved by the police, 45% of victims were killed by an acquaintance, 40% by a family member and 15% by a stranger.
The Daily, Thursday, October 7, 1999. Homicide statistics


And what are the odds of being murdered anyway? 40% higher of a chance is still slim!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by meatw4d

Just to toss some numbers out there:

Overall, homicides are committed primarily by someone known to the victim. In 1998, of the 431 homicides solved by the police, 45% of victims were killed by an acquaintance, 40% by a family member and 15% by a stranger.
The Daily, Thursday, October 7, 1999. Homicide statistics


And what are the odds of being murdered anyway? 40% higher of a chance is still slim!

---

That doesn't do much to prove your argument in favour of gun ownership? If there are statistics that say that guns in the home cause more violence, be it by family member or outside individual, isn't that enough for us to take them out of homes?

...Guns are just the most convenient way of killing somebody. I'm sure they'd turn to the kitchen knives if they didn't have a handy firearm around. And I dunno about you, but I'd rather take a cap to the head than a knife... anywhere.

Think about it. There are only so many restrictions you can put on weapons before it stops doing any good. It's called the law of diminishing returns.

Read about how many crimes in medieval England were punishable by death. It didn't do shit for stopping crime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by meatw4d

...Guns are just the most convenient way of killing somebody. I'm sure they'd turn to the kitchen knives if they didn't have a handy firearm around. And I dunno about you, but I'd rather take a cap to the head than a knife... anywhere.

Think about it. There are only so many restrictions you can put on weapons before it stops doing any good. It's called the law of diminishing returns.

Read about how many crimes in medieval England were punishable by death. It didn't do shit for stopping crime.

---

I think what the statistics show is that guns breed more violence in general. So they may turn to knives next but that level of violence would probably be lower than what exists now. And it would probably be harder for someone to kill 15 people in a spree with a knife. Hopefully :wtf:

As for the restrictions I think Great Britain has provided a working example of who extreme gun restrictions can work and can lower homicides.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ATrain

Yeah, he might have. But current gun laws made it easier for him to get a hold of those guns. Anyway we can make it more difficult for shooting sprees like that to happen is fine by me.

I think the system in place in the UK clearly show that taking guns away can work.

---

Then again, I've heard that in the UK you see kids walking around with samurai swords and shit. LIP has told some stories of that. And don't even say that samurai swords can't be as lethal. :)

You take one type of weapon away, they use another, or find a way to illegally get the banned ones!

Then those people can be a huge threat to the general public.

Even though I am not a big believer in this huge "terrorist" threat, I will use it as an argument, since most people believe it to be true. What would you do to defend yourself against terrorists?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ATrain

What about the UK? Haven't they proven that taking guns away from the general public can drastically reduce firearm related deaths?

---

I'm not sure what the rates are. I usually hear mixed reports, some nations with total gun control having lower gun-death rates, some having higher. But I would rather look at the overal murder rate. I often here gun-death numbers touted as though if guns weren't available, all 50,000 people that were killed with guns wouldn't have been murdered. But I'm sure many of those murders would have been carried out by other means if the guns weren't available. How many? Unfortunately, that's impossible to find out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ATrain

But would there have been a Virginia Tech incident in the first place without guns?

---

Or maybe you should ask, would Virginia Tech have happened if the guy knew every teacher and student was armed just as much as he was? Of course not, kids that go on school shootings do so for attention and they know it will be the only time in their life they will be more powerful than their peers.

If everybody owned a gun, everybody would be on a level playing field with the criminals, and the criminals would second think going rambo if they knew others were packing heat as well.

Virginia Tech, Columbine, 9/11, all could have been prevented if we didn't have such strict gun laws.

Don't you think that if the VA Tech shooter didn't have access to guns that he just may have found another way to murder people? :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nailhead

Or maybe you should ask, would Virginia Tech have happened if the guy knew every teacher and student was armed just as much as he was? Of course not, kids that go on school shootings do so for attention and they know it will be the only time in their life they will be more powerful than their peers.

If everybody owned a gun, everybody would be on a level playing field with the criminals, and the criminals would second think going rambo if they knew others were packing heat as well.

Virginia Tech, Columbine, 9/11, all could have been prevented if we didn't have such strict gun laws.

---

I think that is downright insane. Think of the murder rates America has when maybe say 80 million people have guns. If everybody has a gun more and more people would turn to violence to solve their disputes. Virginia Tech and Columbine happened BECAUSE of easy access to guns, not because not enough people have them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mfqr

Don't you think that if the VA Tech shooter didn't have access to guns that he just may have found another way to murder people? :)

---

Maybe, but I'd rather force him to try and find another way then just picking up everything he needs at a corner gun store. Anything we can do to limit incidents like those should be done. It seems to me like the argument has become, they'll probably find another way if they can't use guns so why bother, but all these incidents so far use guns. We can worry about the samurai sword rampages later...

I guess I see it like this. Guns breed violence. Why not do everything we can to limit that violence?

good use banning will have.....it'll just become a smuggled commodity $$$ just like everything else illegal and hidable


dogs cant smell clean guns

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ATrain

I think that is downright insane. Think of the murder rates America has when maybe say 80 million people have guns. If everybody has a gun more and more people would turn to violence to solve their disputes. Virginia Tech and Columbine happened BECAUSE of easy access to guns, not because not enough people have them.

---

I think it is insane to try banning guns which only prevents access to the responsible ones, but does little to prevent guns from getting into the hands of criminals. Those that want it, will always get it if the desire is great enough. You shouldn't even be suggesting a ban on every gun because that is just impossible, criminals will always find away around the law, and in the end the only people you are really restricting access to are the law abiding citizens, the very people that are the most responsible to be owning guns.

I also never said people should resort to violence to solve their problems, murder would still be illegal, but if you are protecting yourself from a criminal you should be legally allowed to defend yourself and your family.

I live in California which has some of the toughest gun laws in the country. But despite the laws, a lot of people still have guns that aren't registered. It seems that most of the people that own guns here in California are the people that shouldn't be, and the responsible ones that should own them, don't because they believe all the anti-gun bullshit about how guns cause crime. The reality is that gun laws hurt citizens from being able to defend themselves. We need less gun control laws and put some god damn fear into these coward criminals that are so quick to pull a gun!