next »

[bio_prof_]

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.

Actually, it doesn't look to me as if Gennimom was arguing *for* wild-west shootouts,

Yeah, I just caught that. I'm not thinking straight today. Sorry gennimom.

[chiclette]

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.

[onomatopoeia]

Until gun-control advocates can successfully explain to me how they'll compel the lawless to observe these particular laws, I'll keep thinking that it's better for the law-abiding and responsible to have some power as well. 

Respectfully, this is not the point.  No rational gun-control advocate would ever claim that a particular set of laws will prevent all gun-related crime.  But that, in itself, does not mean that such laws ought not exist.  After all, laws regarding murder and rape fail to prevent those two crimes--but it's still a good thing for those laws to exist.

I'm not arguing that we should outlaw or ban all guns.  I believe in hunting, and I believe that a home-owner should be able to own a gun if he/she wants.  But I also believe that we could be much more stringent about our laws (e.g., I don't believe that the gun show loophole has been closed yet).

The notion of legalizing concealed weapons is deeply, deeply disturbing to me on many levels.  Even if it could be successfully argued that such concealed weapons helped to prevent crime (and I don't think it can be successfully argued), for me that would still be going a step too far.  After all, there are many, many things that we could be doing to prevent crime, such as imprinting a barcode & tracking chip on each newborn baby.  At some point, however, we must realize that more important values are at stake than merely self-protection and the prolongation of life.

[eumaios]

I still think it is a brilliant idea to restrict bullets. Guns can't kill without bullets.

Bullets are easy to make, or at least a lot easier than firearms. Sure, we could pass all sorts of laws regulating ammunition. As a practical matter, though, restricting ammunition is impossible.

My brother has a great idea.  In accordance with some interpretations of the 2nd Amendment, individuals should have the right to keep and bear arms.  But, they should be the firearms available to the framers of the Constitution.  Imagine the VT shooter stopping to reload his musket ....

Keep your powder dry.

Obscure, but still the first dog in space

This has been my argument for years.

Guns are always, always bad.  In particular, automatic and semi-automatic weapons, and pistols in general, should be banned completely.  They serve no purpose other than murder.  I am willing to tolerate rifle ownership for hunters who can prove they have passed legitimate gun safety training.  In order to get a hunting license, hunters should have to pass a course every year in proper gun use.  I am speaking as someone who in fact learned how to do that very thing while living abroad (the house I borrowed contained a hunting rifle, and I figured I had better know how to use it, just as I learned how to use the rather different clothes laundering implements).

No, guns are not always, always bad. I grew up in a home that had lots of firearms. No crimes, no accidents. Lots of targets with holes in them, lots of broken clay birds, and a few pheasants and geese for Sunday dinners.

Now let's talk about terminology. An automatic weapon is one that continues firing as long as the shooter holds the trigger--as a machine gun does. Automatic weapons are already illegal for practically anyone to own. A person who is willing to jump through enough hoops and spend a lot of time and money might--might, mind you--convince the government that he qualifies for the special, rarely issued federal license that allows him to own, say, a Tommy gun. I have met one such person in my life. The number of legally owned full-auto weapons in this country is tiny. The rare full-auto firearm that ends up in the hands of a criminal passed through a string of felonies before the final owner got it.

A semiautomatic firearm is also called an autoloader. The gun uses some of the energy of the fired round to cycle the action; that is, the firearm ejects the spent cartridge or shell and loads an unfired round into the chamber. A semiauto is not a machine gun. It's nothing like a machine gun. A semiautomatic long gun is no more powerful than a bolt-action or pump-action rifle or shotgun that uses the same ammunition. An autoloading pistol will fire as fast as the shooter can pull the trigger, but so will a double-action revolver. A person with a semiautomatic shotgun can fire three (in some cases, five) rounds more quickly than I can fire an equal number of shots with a pump-action shotgun, but the difference is perhaps a second. A good shooter can work a pump gun very nearly as fast as an autoloader works its own action. I've seen it done; heck, I've done it. The term "semiautomatic" does not mean "superpowerful paramilitary assault-rifle blaster."

Autoloaders do indeed have a purpose other than murder or greater firepower. A gas-operated semiautomatic 20-gauge shotgun, for instance, has noticeably less recoil (kick) than a 20-gauge pump gun or over-and-under. That's why my mother the Sunday-school teacher used to shoot semiautos: they let her continue to enjoy skeet shooting with my dad long after arthritis began to wreck her joints.

The maniac at Virginia Tech was able to shoot so many people because his 9mm handgun has a magazine clip. This is the important difference between a semiauto pistol and a revolver. When a semiauto runs out of ammunition, the shooter hits an eject lever to drop the empty magazine, slams in a full magazine, and works the slide to chamber the first round and cock the action. With training, a person can do it very quickly. Reloading a revolver with a Speed Loader takes two or three seconds longer--but it really is a question of seconds.

Enough. I just think that people should understand the terms they use.

Incidentally, the madman at Virginia Tech appears to have been a South Korean national here on a student visa. As far as I know, a foreign national cannot walk into a gun shop in the U.S. and purchase handguns. And MSNBC reported that the killer had two handguns, a .22 and a 9mm, both with the serial numbers obliterated. So, some person or persons as yet unknown committed a series of felonies by putting firearms into the killer's hands. The gun-control laws already in place didn't work because at least one criminal broke them to furnish weapons to the maniac who shot all those people at Virginia Tech. No one has brought up this part of the story.

As for firearms being "too easy to get" in this country, let's remember that they used to be much, much easier to buy. Within my lifetime, most rural hardware stores sold rifles, shotguns, and pistols over the counter with no questions asked. Sears and Roebuck used to sell rifles and shotguns. Until the mid-1960s, a person could buy all sorts of guns by mail order. Buying firearms legally is a whole lot harder than it was 45 years ago. What has changed, what has gone horribly wrong in our country, is not the availability of weapons.

[saucebox]

Until gun-control advocates can successfully explain to me how they'll compel the lawless to observe these particular laws, I'll keep thinking that it's better for the law-abiding and responsible to have some power as well. 

Respectfully, this is not the point.  No rational gun-control advocate would ever claim that a particular set of laws will prevent all gun-related crime.  But that, in itself, does not mean that such laws ought not exist.  After all, laws regarding murder and rape fail to prevent those two crimes--but it's still a good thing for those laws to exist.

With equal respect, I'm not sure that this response (or the observation that people often injure themselves and others accidentally with guns) actually answers my question. I acknowledge the disciplinary, rhetorical, and punitive power of laws even if they do not succeed as deterrents. Nevertheless, the problem with anti-gun laws (and why they are *different* from laws against rape and murder) is that they apply both to those who would *not* commit crimes with such an instrument -- or could even protect themselves and others -- and those who would. As an act, owning a gun has a moral and criminal instability that raping and illegal murder (distinct from legal killing in self-defense) never have. My original question, still unanswered, is how we justify removing a source of power from the law-abiding when we know that the lawless have no problem wielding that power illegally.   

[dolljepopp]

The NYPD did (or commissioned) a study covering 20 or 25 years on the sources of guns confiscated by the police over the same period (roughly late '70s - early '80s to after the turn of the century). It was released in 2004 or 2005.  I didn't read the whole study, but I read several articles about it and remember some of the findings.  I haven't gone back to find it, so I won't have the numbers exactly right to the third decimal point, but they will be close.

NYC has, as most people probably know, very strict gun laws.  NYC is also currently one of the safest cities in the US, possible the world.  (FBI crime statistics from, again, I think 2004, ranked it in the low 230s of the 250 largest cities in the United States.  If I am remembering correctly, this included most cities with populations of at least 100,000 or so.  In other words, fewer than fifteen cities were safer.)

Quite a reversal from the 70s and 80s.  What role the NYC gun laws had in that reduction I won't hazard to guess and have not personally researched.

The NYPD study traced confiscated guns over the period to determine where they were originally purchased.  Overwhelmingly (more than three-fourths), the guns originally were purchased in a cluster of southern states with far less stringent gun laws.  Overwhelmingly, the guns were originally legal purchases -- later illegally brought into the city.  As I recall, most of the guns were traceable to original point of sale.

I have heard persons who oppose "gun control" (a term I hate, FWIW) say (although not in these fora) that if every plcae had gun laws like New York, then every place would have New York's crime.

The facts seem to suggest that this would mean an overall decline in crime in most places and a further decline in crime in New York, as fewer guns would be bought elsewhere and brought to New York.

According to the endless coverage of yesterday's tragedy, over 29,000 people a year die of gunshot wounds in the US every year.  Although I have seen in a couple of places the breakdown of accidents, suicides, homicides, etc., I can't quote it exactly, but I remember that over half are homicides.  The NRA, among others, says that personal firearms save many lives every year.  Maybe they do.  More than 14,000?  I'd like to see that evidence, if so.

As I said, I hate the term "gun control" (and, for that matter, regarding another hot issue, both "pro-choice" and "pro-life").  I hate "gun control" because no two of us likely mean the same thing when we say it.  One says it means an outright ban of all guns.  Another says it means registration of all guns, but a ban on some.  Whatever.  According to CNN (sorry), there are 200 million guns in the US, divided among roughly one-third of all households (the number of persons that own guns fell into the minority in the '80s and declined rapidly in the '90s, although three million new ones are manufactured every year).

I've lived in neighbourhoods where many people owned guns.  I knew this in one because they regularly fired them at each other.  The only thriving local legal businesses were fast food joints and funeral homes.

I wish I were joking.

When I started high school, there was this nice kid named Chris in my English class.  He was smart and funny and had a big smile and flirted with all the girls.  He sat near me and I thought it would be cool to have him as a friend.  A week into classes, his mother and her until-that-moment-law-abiding boyfriend got into an argument.  Chris stepped between them and the boyfriend shot him in the face.

Our teacher told us the next day.  Most of us hadn't known because a kid getting shot and killed was a commonplace enough event that we hadn't picked up on the fact that this time it had been a classmate.

A few years later, a distant cousin who had lived in our neighbourhood for a while was murdered by her boyfriend.

Both of these things happened in nice middle-class neighbourhoods where, I'm sure, any number of people owned guns for personal protection.

A couple of years ago, my parents' best friend's son was shot and killed by a guy who had no criminal record.

John Hinkley had no criminal record.

There are a lot of law-abiding citizens that lose their cool and take the gun they bought for protection and shoot their spouse/partner/children/parents/sibling.

I read somewhere that most gun homicides are committed by people that have no prior criminal history.

So maybe if only the outlaws did have guns, fewer people would die.  Maybe.

My best friend and I (and another guy) spent an evening once talking someone out of blowing his own brains out.  He had the gun in his hand when we knocked on his door.

I know a guy who is permanently disabled from shooting himself in the head.  I know another who passed out one night with a gun in his mouth and his hand on the trigger.  They are both pretty grateful to be alive.

FTR, I don't favour a ban; I don't think it would be Constitutionally sustainable.  But stringent, unified national laws?  Absolutely.  Licencing -- strict licencing, with safety courses and regular reviews and registration and waiting periods and all of that stuff the NRA hates.

If you can't wait a week to get your Glock 9, you probably shouldn't buy it at all.

Anyway, I know we won't change anyone's minds.  Three million more guns will be bought in the US  this year by a smaller and smaller group of people.

Another twenty-five-thousand-plus people will die from gunshots in the US this year.

And, yes, a few dozen, hundred, maybe thousand lives will be saved.  If your loved ones must witness a gun being used, may they be in this latter, much smaller group.

If you'll pardon a little plagiarism:

Guns don't die; people do.

[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.

[dolljepopp]

Incidentally, the madman at Virginia Tech appears to have been a South Korean national here on a student visa. As far as I know, a foreign national cannot walk into a gun shop in the U.S. and purchase handguns. And MSNBC reported that the killer had two handguns, a .22 and a 9mm, both with the serial numbers obliterated. So, some person or persons as yet unknown committed a series of felonies by putting firearms into the killer's hands. The gun-control laws already in place didn't work because at least one criminal broke them to furnish weapons to the maniac who shot all those people at Virginia Tech. No one has brought up this part of the story.

Actually, now they know that he was an immigrant who came to the US when he was eight years old.  He had a green card -- he was a permanent resident who spent nearly twice as much of his life in the US than in Korea.

His guns were apparently legally purchased, as he had no prior criminal record.

[gennimom]

Thank you, engadjunct and saucebox. I think the two of you explained what I meant better than I could. Sometimes I just have to comment on a topic, but I don't always explain myself clearly.

[helpful]

I still think it is a brilliant idea to restrict bullets. Guns can't kill without bullets.

Incidentally, the madman at Virginia Tech appears to have been a South Korean national here on a student visa. As far as I know, a foreign national cannot walk into a gun shop in the U.S. and purchase handguns. And MSNBC reported that the killer had two handguns, a .22 and a 9mm, both with the serial numbers obliterated. So, some person or persons as yet unknown committed a series of felonies by putting firearms into the killer's hands. The gun-control laws already in place didn't work because at least one criminal broke them to furnish weapons to the maniac who shot all those people at Virginia Tech. No one has brought up this part of the story.

You obviously haven't read the recent news stories. He went to high school in Washington, DC suburban area. He didn't come directly from South Korea. And he bought the Glock legally at a gun store.

Before you start opioniating, get the facts!

On gun control, many of us put up stickers on our houses saying we are "protected" by this or that alarm system. The police told me once that it didn't matter if you actually were. Having the sticker deterred robbers in some small measure as they would look for places to rob that didn't have the sticker on their house.

So, making it harder to purchase weapons won't eliminate all weapons. But it sure will make it harder for people to purchase weapons. Seems logical to me.

What is needed is tougher laws that make it harder to purchase weapons. Not allowing, for example, a person over 18 to purchase one pistol a month! (as I read this fellow could have done in Virginia!). Who needs more than one pistol???

[helpful]

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!

[fishbrains]

There is always the classic Chris Rock "bullet control" approach:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ET9PJJEYByA

[bio_prof_]

I love that skit.

Especially when he says "I'm gonna start savin' up, man, so you better watch out..."

[sciguy]

Why is there a right to bear arms in the US?  Because many of the founding fathers wanted the people to be able to rise up in revolution if the government over stepped its bounds.

I believe the Real problem is the culture of violence we live in today.  In movies, TV, media, etc. violence is glorified and the long-term consequences of violence are only shown occasionally.

Responsible people should be able to own guns if they so desire.  I think that truly responsible people would be willing to take part in classes that teach people the proper way to use a gun and how to do so safely and prevent accidents.

Accessibility to legal guns does not make people more violent - though it may allow them to act out violently more easily.

There are places where it is essentially Mandatory for each household to own a gun with ammunition (lookup Kennesaw, GA).  The crime rate there is significantly lower than neighboring communities.

[helpful]

There are places where it is essentially Mandatory for each household to own a gun with ammunition (lookup Kennesaw, GA).  The crime rate there is significantly lower than neighboring communities.

You are kidding, right? What happens if you don't? Do you get thrown in jail? Forced to own a gun?