next »

[csh589]

I don't believe they have ever prosecuted anyone, the law does exempt those who religious reasons not too, as wells as those with criminal records.  The law has been on the books in Kennesaw over 20 years and was challenged by the ACLU, but the law stood up to the challenge with on minor modification.

[phlebas2006]

So, how would a complete and total ban on citizen-owned guns look?  Well, there's the sticky 2nd amendment issue.  The best course would be to simply repeal it by another amendment.  If that proved unwieldy, the President could always just declare martial law--you know, because this is an important public safety issue.  We simply can't let this happen again.  But that's a bit extreme.  Let's assume that we successfully repeal the 2nd amendment (which, for whatever reason comes 2nd: just behind free speech and ahead of things like cruel and unusual punishment, the right to counsel, the right not to incriminate oneself, etc.)

Then, maybe we have a national citizenry disarmament day--with a better title, though.  Perhaps "Freedom from Violence" day.  Every citizen would go to a local, federal gun depository to relinquish their firearm to an appropriate agent--probably the ATF.  Or, we could have the ATF come directly to your home to confiscate your gun.  You don't even have to be home to let them in.

Then, once you've turned in your gun, you're given a national ID card to verify that you've complied with the new law--and be eligible for some great lottery prizes, of course.  If you're concerned about carrying this card with you at all times--which would be mandatory--you could instead receive a mark on your forehead or right hand.  In fact, to ensure compliance, perhaps you wouldn't be able to buy or sell unless you had the appropriate mark.

Once you've received your mark, you'd have to attend a mandatory re-education meeting to help you understand properly the reasons for this beneficial new program.  It would be a multi-day event, although "camp" has such a negative connotation that we'd have to name it something else.  "Freedom from Ignorance" weekend.

In order to ensure that existing guns don't continue to circulate on a black market, you'd have a monthly inspection of your home from a designated agent of the government (which would become too burdensome for the ATF, so the UN may be invited to help perform these home inspections.)

Problem solved (snark, snark.)

[chiclette]

I don't want to live in a culture where carrying a weapon is considered normal behaviour.

I personally would rather die trying to preserve freedom, than live in the tyrranical world where it is considered abnormal behavior for a person to have a gun.

If that is how people define "freedom", then I am truly sorry. 

[menotti]

I don't want to live in a culture where carrying a weapon is considered normal behaviour.

I personally would rather die trying to preserve freedom, than live in the tyrranical world where it is considered abnormal behavior for a person to have a gun.

Seriously???  I dream of a world where it is incredibly abnormal behavior for a person to have a gun.  (This doesn't mean I'm totally against gun ownership, though I am, in large part.  I also dream of a world where it is abnormal for infant mortality to be greater than 0.  This doesn't mean that I don't think we should have children's hospitals.)

You seriously think it's a good thing for people to be so scared/the world to be so violent that it's normal to own a gun?

[case_insensitive]

So we want to take guns away from law-abiding citizens. Then the only people who will have them will be the criminals, who WILL find a way to get them, regardless of gun control laws.

Makes sense to me.

NOT.

Gennimom, with respect, I don't understand this perspective. It makes me imagine criminals and regular folks dukcing dowm the street in a runnig fire-fight. How does arming regular citizens improve the situation?

I'm not snarking, I'm really asking.

Compare violent crime statistics in parts of the US where few folks own guns (such as restrictive cities and states - every state has different laws about purchasing, owning guns and concealed carry and so forth, so too do some cities) to parts of the US where almost everyone owns a gun and you'll find that in places where most folks own guns (rural Alabama, for example), violent home invasions are virtually non-existent.  Criminals are lazy and they don't like to fight. They take their violence to places where they are more likely to succeed and less likely to see the business end of a shotgun.

If just one person in Norris or West AJ had been a licenced concealed carrier, this shooting could possibly have been stopped before it got so far.  Life is worth fighting for, as the professor who survived the Holocaust no doubt believed.

As an earlier poster said, though, gun ownership carries a heavy responsibility (as does ownership of many tools).  If someone came into a gunowner's house when he's not home, they must not be able to steal the gun. Safes and locks are easy ways to stop this.  Responsibility, as in almost every aspect of life, is important.

[case_insensitive]

So we want to take guns away from law-abiding citizens. Then the only people who will have them will be the criminals, who WILL find a way to get them, regardless of gun control laws.

Makes sense to me.

NOT.

An age old argument.  Go into one of your classrooms, though, and ask your students by raise of hands.  "How many of you know someone who successfully defended themselves or others from an actual threat because they had a gun?"  Then, "How many of you know someone who had been accidentally injured by a gun?"  My wife did this in a class discussion about gun control.  No one raised their hand for the first question but many raised their hand for the second.  The risk of bodily harm to self or property just doesn't exist to an extent that needing a gun for defense is realistic.  One is far, far more likely to accidently hurt himself or a loved one with a gun than to use, or even need, one to defend himself.

Thats a bit of a red herring as most folks who carry concealled legally are never going to talk about it publically. That's part of being concealed.

Plus, you are ignoring the deterrent factor I referenced above.

[case_insensitive]

I agree with gennimom. Whether you agree with gun control or not is not the issue. The issue at stake is the fact that criminals will find a way to get and use guns, leaving everyone else unprotected. At least this way there is some form of regulation.

Exactly. How could keeping guns away from law abiding citizens have stopped this crime?  He is a criminal. He is not a citizen, apparently. He had no legal way to get a gun. He got the guns illegally.  2nd Amendment isn't applicable here.

[case_insensitive]

A gun ban may not take all guns out of the hands of all criminals, but it will lower the incidence of suicide and domestic murders (see stats posted on the Meet-Greet thread), and it will prevent children from accidentally harming themselves or deliberately harming their classmates.  Let's start where we can, for pete's sake.

I don't want to live in a culture where carrying a weapon is considered normal behaviour.

If you did, 30 or more people wouldn't have died yesterday.

Why don't we outlaw cars, too? (many  more die through car accidents and negligence than through any type of gun incident.  And, chainsaws (many folks killed by these each year).  And, swimming pools (lots of children drown because of inattentive parents).

Just because you don't want a gun, doesn't mean you should decide no one else should have one.  That's getting pretty close to a society that begins to resemble some we fought against in WW2, for example.

If someone came into your house and pointed a gun at your wife or husband or child, what would you do?  If you don't have any way to fight back, you will be able to do nothing.  Think about that.  If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

Let's think about weapons in general as an analogy.  Weapons are bad. They kill people. Let's outlaw all weapons and destroy all our war materiel, so no one can be shot or blown up or killed in war.  Sounds good, doesn't it?  But, who's going to make sure 100% of earthlings do this?  No one.  So, the ones that still have the weapons and have no compunction against using them will wreak havoc on those who willingly gave them up.  Believe me, there are individuals and groups like that and there always will be.

[busyslinky]

So we want to take guns away from law-abiding citizens. Then the only people who will have them will be the criminals, who WILL find a way to get them, regardless of gun control laws.

Makes sense to me.

NOT.

Gennimom, with respect, I don't understand this perspective. It makes me imagine criminals and regular folks dukcing dowm the street in a runnig fire-fight. How does arming regular citizens improve the situation?

I'm not snarking, I'm really asking.

Compare violent crime statistics in parts of the US where few folks own guns (such as restrictive cities and states - every state has different laws about purchasing, owning guns and concealed carry and so forth, so too do some cities) to parts of the US where almost everyone owns a gun and you'll find that in places where most folks own guns (rural Alabama, for example), violent home invasions are virtually non-existent.  Criminals are lazy and they don't like to fight. They take their violence to places where they are more likely to succeed and less likely to see the business end of a shotgun.

If just one person in Norris or West AJ had been a licenced concealed carrier, this shooting could possibly have been stopped before it got so far.  Life is worth fighting for, as the professor who survived the Holocaust no doubt believed.

As an earlier poster said, though, gun ownership carries a heavy responsibility (as does ownership of many tools).  If someone came into a gunowner's house when he's not home, they must not be able to steal the gun. Safes and locks are easy ways to stop this.  Responsibility, as in almost every aspect of life, is important.

Please show studies and statistics that support your reasoning.  Studies have shown otherwise on a country-by-country basis.  See the previous studies I have posted. If you have contrary studies, instead of anecdotal pieces, then please post them.

[case_insensitive]

Hear, hear!

It is a myth pro-gun advocates insist on propagating that 'criminals' are the only ones who use guns "inappropriately". A lot of 'innocent' people use guns inappropriately!

And cars.  And. electric razors. And...

[helpful]

I agree with gennimom. Whether you agree with gun control or not is not the issue. The issue at stake is the fact that criminals will find a way to get and use guns, leaving everyone else unprotected. At least this way there is some form of regulation.

Exactly. How could keeping guns away from law abiding citizens have stopped this crime?  He is a criminal. He is not a citizen, apparently. He had no legal way to get a gun. He got the guns illegally.  2nd Amendment isn't applicable here.

You didn't read any of the articles on this guy. He got the gun legally from a gun shop! He had no criminal record!

The point is, if someone who is on medication for depression, as this guy was, can get a gun legally, that is wrong. There should be more than a criminal record check. There should be some check, at least, to ensure that he is not under the care of the mental health system!

Now, read the articles. Again, I say, he got the gun legally!

[newbie]

A gun ban may not take all guns out of the hands of all criminals, but it will lower the incidence of suicide and domestic murders (see stats posted on the Meet-Greet thread), and it will prevent children from accidentally harming themselves or deliberately harming their classmates.  Let's start where we can, for pete's sake.

I don't want to live in a culture where carrying a weapon is considered normal behaviour.

If you did, 30 or more people wouldn't have died yesterday.

I have complicated views on the gun control issue. Regardless, one thing I struggle with is understanding the causal relationship here that people keep bringing up:

IF carrying a weapon was considered normal behavior in our culture
THEN 30 or more people wouldn't have died yesterday

How is that the case?

[chiclette]

If I lived in a culture where "normal", law-abiding citizens were forbidden to own guns, then the countless women and children who have been killed by their angry husbands/ex-husbands/boyfriends/fathers would still be alive.

The victims of violence perpetrated by non-career-criminals always seem to be forgotten in this debate.

Frankly, I don't think that living in a culture of paranoia and widespread weapons ownership would make me feel any more "free".  Quite the contrary.

Why don't people focus more on the real causes of crime and seek real, long-term solutions, instead of advocating this domestic arms-race?   

[allbutfoundajob]

I don't want to live in a culture where carrying a weapon is considered normal behaviour.

I personally would rather die trying to preserve freedom, than live in the tyrranical world where it is considered abnormal behavior for a person to have a gun.

Seriously???  I dream of a world where it is incredibly abnormal behavior for a person to have a gun.  (This doesn't mean I'm totally against gun ownership, though I am, in large part.  I also dream of a world where it is abnormal for infant mortality to be greater than 0.  This doesn't mean that I don't think we should have children's hospitals.)

You seriously think it's a good thing for people to be so scared/the world to be so violent that it's normal to own a gun?

I am deadly serious.  I do not want to live in a world where government controls all of the instruments of power and the people are defenseless.  I do not want to live in a world where criminals control instruments power and the people are defenseless.  And I am willing to die to ensure that my children and my children's children do not live in such a world either.  Fundamental freedoms such as the right to bear arms, the right to free speech and the right to private property should never be taken away.

[chiclette]

... and p.s.:  My parents suffered under the Nazi regime in Germany.  I'm frankly offended by comparisons between that society, and one in which there would be restrictions on private gun ownership.  This is subscribing to a type of victimology that is just over the top.

There is also, in my view, no comparison between freedom of speech and the "right" to own deadly weapons.