Question for Americans

[big beans]

"Gun control? It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters."

- Sammy the Bull

Exactly. Gun control does little to prevent criminals, who for the most part obtain their weapons illegally, from buying firearms. Gun control, instead takes the weapons out of the hands of responsible citizens who wish to use them for self-defense.

Some may disagree with me on this, but I think it would be more benificial to America in general if children were exposed to firearms from a young age. Teaching firearm safety to children from an early age, would promote firearm responsibility, and largely prevent accidental shootings.

[Oliver Dale]

Honestly, based on the studies I've seen, at least in 'civilized' society, there hasn't been much to convince me that even law abiding citizens need to be owning guns (okay, I can yield to hunting rifles). Even if they do want them though, they can get them. Hence it being legal.

[mr_thebrain]

i own a rifle. my dad and i made it from a kit. it's a .45 muzzle loader. i use it mostly for target practice, cuz it is enjoyable. sometimes i use it to go hunting, but it's been years since i've had the time or money to do that. my dad owns a few muzzle loaders, and one .22 luger pistol. the luger is something we only use for target practice, and only because it's a fun little gun to shoot. We would happily give up the pistol as long as we were left the muzzle loader. We kind of regard high powered rifles as cheating. muzzle loaders at least provide a challenge and some doubt.

*shrug* i'd be happy if they only allowed muzzle loaders. you definately wouldn't be seeing any school shootings. at least not in such a way that more than one kid got hurt/killed. most fun related deaths would be due to user error. you would still be able to kill people, but your killing spree would be quite short.

the problem: if you were to outlaw all handguns and rifles that were not muzzle loaders, how would you be able to ensure that everyone who owned high powered handguns and/or rifles turned in their guns? it's not like you can have a cop go into every home and confiscate their weapons.

my point is that changing our laws on guns is impractical. maybe great in theory. implimentation is close to impossible.

you can change the age of lawful purchase and ownership, you can try to enforce it, to a degree. do you raise or lower the age? there are benefits and problems with any choice you make.

alcohol is a lot easier to change. you still run into the benefits/problems though.

[Jebus]

Not to mention the shoot-outs there'd be in the streets with NRA hillbillies screaming "From my cold dead hands!"

[eriador]

No, ^--that--^ is the problem.

In Europe, where the drinking age is much lower (16, 18, sometimes lower), drinking is seen as a social activity, where somebody would have a glass of wine with dinner with friend or family. In the US, drinking has become something which is self contained, you drink to get drunk.

If it weren't for this attitude that Americans have it would be more acceptable to lower the drinking age.

I'll thank you very much not to dump us all in the same category as the French. Quite a few of us Europeans do, in fact, just drink to get drunk.

Well, I'm sorry. Once again that is based on discussions about this topic I've been in before and a stereotype perpetuated by American culture. But that's the way I see it and that's what I've heard other (more knowledgeable) people say.[/i]

[anonshadow]

Also, I don't think that the "Oh lets go ahead and give guns to angsty teenagers" argument is very valid here. If someone wants to commit a violent crime, or even hurt his/herself, restricting their access to firearms won't do much to prevent them. They will simply find other means such as a knife, or any other household item that they have easy access to, to commit the crime with.

By that logic, we shouldn't restrict nuclear weapons, either. Because, after all, if we do, the teens can just go out with a knife.

Guns are very different than most other weapons that you might find in your house. A knife cannot kill as many people as a gun can--a person with a knife needs to get in close range to use it, which can allow the person to be disarmed. That isn't to say that a knife cannot kill and cannot be dangerous, but a knife is a different creature entirely. A teen armed with a knife is not capable of a Columbine; a teen armed with a gun is.

Restricting firearms on the basis of an erroneous argument only succeeds in punishing those who wish to own and responisbly use their firearms for hunting, target or competitive shooting, or home defense purposes.

It is possible to get a gun when they are restricted. It isn't even exceedingly difficult to get a gun as long as you haven't committed some sort of crime. And, honestly, I would rather the hunter have to wait an extra week and do a little more paperwork to get his gun than to give one to someone who will use it to negative purposes.

[Dr. Mobius]

Jeebs, I don't think Ireland counts as being European in this case. In fact, I wouldn't doubt it if it were the Irish immigrants that started the whole drinking to get drunk tradition on this side of the pond.

[eriador]

Immigrants in the first half of the 19th century did play a big part in the history of alcohol in America, the introduction of Beer!

I don't know about the Irish though...

[big beans]

By that logic, we shouldn't restrict nuclear weapons, either. Because, after all, if we do, the teens can just go out with a knife.

Guns are very different than most other weapons that you might find in your house. A knife cannot kill as many people as a gun can--a person with a knife needs to get in close range to use it, which can allow the person to be disarmed. That isn't to say that a knife cannot kill and cannot be dangerous, but a knife is a different creature entirely. A teen armed with a knife is not capable of a Columbine; a teen armed with a gun is.

I think its very possible for a few kids to run through a school and stab several students. That is not very hard to imagine at all. I do agree that knives are quite different than firearms, but not entirely. A knife can still kill you the same as a gun; it is still capable of the same kind of damage.

It is possible to get a gun when they are restricted. It isn't even exceedingly difficult to get a gun as long as you haven't committed some sort of crime. And, honestly, I would rather the hunter have to wait an extra week and do a little more paperwork to get his gun than to give one to someone who will use it to negative purposes.

I definately agree here but that wasn't my point. I guess my original statement was a bit unclear. Waiting periods and backround checks and that sort of restriction are certainly a positive. But by restriction I was referring to the criminalization of ownership or usage of a certain type of firearm such as a pistol, or something else more along those lines.

[vendor]

if the legal drinking age is lowered, auto insurance will skyrocket.

[anonshadow]

I think its very possible for a few kids to run through a school and stab several students. That is not very hard to imagine at all. I do agree that knives are quite different than firearms, but not entirely. A knife can still kill you the same as a gun; it is still capable of the same kind of damage.

Sure. No question about it. But you have a much better chance of defending yourself against a person with a knife, because a person with a gun doesn't even have to come near you. The widespread damage and devastation just isn't the same with a gun as it is with a knife. You cannot shoot a knife through a lot of the things that you can shoot a gun through; people have the ability to run away; unless you're very physically powerful, you will likely be disarmed quickly. And even if you are physically powerful, sooner or later someone else will be, too. Whereas with a gun? The only real way for the average 16 year old to make a gunman stop shooting is with another gun.

definately agree here but that wasn't my point. I guess my original statement was a bit unclear. Waiting periods and backround checks and that sort of restriction are certainly a positive. But by restriction I was referring to the criminalization of ownership or usage of a certain type of firearm such as a pistol, or something else more along those lines.

Well, there are some kinds of guns that there is no need for the civilian population to have. What's wrong with restricting them?

[eriador]

Well, there are some kinds of guns that there is no need for the civilian population to have. What's wrong with restricting them?

Exactly. Why does the NRA want to allow people to buy assault rifles? It seems to me that nobody needs a gun named after a violent crime. I can't think about any reason to let the general public have access to those?

[AnthonyByakko]

My thought on gun control is the same I have on flag-burning - I have no need nor any desire to ever burn a flag; but if my government ever made it illegal to do so (which they have very nearly done recently), it would be the first thing I'd do. Right now, I have no need to own a gun, but if they tried to make it illegal, I'd make damn sure I had one. As Walt Williams put it, "I don't know about you, but if you ever hear that Williams' guns have been confiscated, you'll know that Williams is dead."

[eriador]

Wait, are you serious??

Your reaction to the banning of assault weapons would be buying an assault rifle?!?!

I hope that nobody else thinks that way, or we're screwed.

[mr_thebrain]

the sad truth is that a lot of people feel that way. it's not that it's illegal and they want so break the law or anything. it's a form of protest. you feel that you have a right to do something, and that right is being taken away, you stand up for your right.

btw flag burning isn't always in protest. in fact it's how you dispose of old, worn out flags. but i don't remember if just anyone can do it. and like around here, most people just take them to the post office for them to take care of. *shrug*

[hive_king]

Anyone can, it's just how you do it that matters. You're supposed to be reverent about it, almost like a funeral.

[mr_thebrain]

thanks

[AnthonyByakko]

Wait, are you serious??

Your reaction to the banning of assault weapons would be buying an assault rifle?!?!

I hope that nobody else thinks that way, or we're screwed.

Yep. As a law-abiding citizen with no criminal record, there is no reason why I can't own a gun; and if the government says otherwise, they've spat in the face of Thomas Jefferson and they aren't worth my respect anyways. So yes, I would then feel no other choice but to acquire a weapon for protection from the tyranny of my own government.

[anonshadow]

Wait, are you serious??

Your reaction to the banning of assault weapons would be buying an assault rifle?!?!

I hope that nobody else thinks that way, or we're screwed.

Yep. As a law-abiding citizen with no criminal record, there is no reason why I can't own a gun; and if the government says otherwise, they've spat in the face of Thomas Jefferson and they aren't worth my respect anyways. So yes, I would then feel no other choice but to acquire a weapon for protection from the tyranny of my own government.

So you've got a nuclear arsenal in your basement too, huh?

[AnthonyByakko]

Don't be silly.

That wouldn't fit in my basement.

Besides, I don't have a Constitutional right to a nuclear arsenal; but sure enough, I DO have one for guns! Look at that![/i]

[eriador]

Wait, are you serious??

Your reaction to the banning of assault weapons would be buying an assault rifle?!?!

I hope that nobody else thinks that way, or we're screwed.

Yep. As a law-abiding citizen with no criminal record, there is no reason why I can't own a gun; and if the government says otherwise, they've spat in the face of Thomas Jefferson and they aren't worth my respect anyways. So yes, I would then feel no other choice but to acquire a weapon for protection from the tyranny of my own government.

That might be a justifiable reaction if the item in question were a shotgun or a rifle (or even a handgun), but assault rifles have one purpose: killing people. I don't think that your idea of protest is killing people, which would be just about the only reason to buy an assault rifle (yes it sends a message, but so does smoking pot, long hair, tie die, etc.) Also, if the government were to ban assault weapons, you wouldn't be legally allowed to buy an assault weapon anyway, which nullifies your point about being allowed to own a gun.

Also, how would banning assault rifles be spitting in T. Jefferson's face (aside from the second amendment, which I don't think counts)?

[Hegemon]

I always figured that the right to bear arms simply meant that you could keep grizzly appendages on hand...

[AnthonyByakko]

I always figured that the right to bear arms simply meant that you could keep grizzly appendages on hand...

Family Guy already took care of that.

[AnthonyByakko]

That might be a justifiable reaction if the item in question were a shotgun or a rifle (or even a handgun), but assault rifles have one purpose: killing people.

That's incorrect. The purpose of an assault rifle is to propel metallic projectiles at thousands of feet per second, at a rate of dozens of projectiles a second; as opposed to handguns, which, while also proppelling metallic projectiles thousands of feet per second, do so at a rate much slower. An assault rifle, in my possession, would have the same purpose - I, however, would have the purpose of protecting myself not only from criminal elements, but from an oppressive government who, if it is already assuming the exclusive right to automatic weapons, will shortly begin assuming other rights (the right to ban gay marriage? the right to ban stem cell research? the right to taxation without representation? the right to unreasonable search and seizure?). With the recent Bush-signed legislation regarding terror-suspects, habeas corpus can now be legally withheld, for the first time in American history. Anyone - American citizens included, can be detained, interrogated, tormented unto confession, and have that confession used to jail them indefinitely, so long as they are applied a label of "enemy combatant." You think this is a joke, son? The slippery slope argument ain't so funny when you're sliding towards the Fourth Reich.

Also, how would banning assault rifles be spitting in T. Jefferson's face (aside from the second amendment, which I don't think counts)?

Thomas Jefferson is well known for his vehement defense of the right of the people to arm themselves. He would roll over in his grave right now.

*edit - for those not in the know, habeas corpus is the right to be tried in court, for your charges to be made known to you and the people, and your right to defend yourself from the charges. The last person I know of to try and suspend habeas corpus was Lincoln, in the Civl War - and even then his attempt was shot down by the Supreme Court. But as another founder, James Madison said, "If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."

[eriador]

I agree with just about every point you made, except for that an assault weapon is necessary to protect yourself from "criminal elements" and an "oppressive government." The fact is that you, sitting at home with a gun (which was designed to send lots of little pieces of metal at high speed into somebody else and kill them) can do just about nothing against a sufficently determined enemy. If you really thought that having an assault rifle was necessary to your freedom, you would be living in Montana with a militia.

As to Jefferson, yes, it would be disturbing to him, but really, in that opinion, he's just one more American who thought that way. His personal beliefs have no bearing on the policy that the government should follow, which is usually implied when somebody invokes one of the founding fathers. Thank you for clarifying.

[AnthonyByakko]

I agree with just about every point you made, except for that an assault weapon is necessary to protect yourself from "criminal elements" and an "oppressive government." The fact is that you, sitting at home with a gun (which was designed to send lots of little pieces of metal at high speed into somebody else and kill them) can do just about nothing against a sufficently determined enemy. If you really thought that having an assault rifle was necessary to your freedom, you would be living in Montana with a militia.

Who's to say there's not a militia here, and that I am a part of it? Seriously though, despite the fact that I as a lone person would not stop a "sufficiently determined enemy", I would want (and have the right) to fight back.

As to Jefferson, yes, it would be disturbing to him, but really, in that opinion, he's just one more American who thought that way. His personal beliefs have no bearing on the policy that the government should follow, which is usually implied when somebody invokes one of the founding fathers. Thank you for clarifying.

Actually, Jefferson's opinions, moreso than any other man in history, do indeed affect the policy of American government. The man wrote our founding documents, and his personal belief in individual rights permeate every word therein. The Constitution, his master work, is what all other governmental policy is supposed to be based on - I fail to see how his personal opinions are not highly relevant.

[eriador]

Fighting back would be stupid though...

And the reason that Jefferson's opinions don't matter is that he is only one of the writers of documents that are the most powerful force in American government, which means that they are more significant than the people who wrote them. Jefferson may have held these beliefs, but unless they're explicitly written in, they have no official bearing on the Constitution or American law.

[AnthonyByakko]

Fighting back would be stupid though...

And the reason that Jefferson's opinions don't matter is that he is only one of the writers of documents that are the most powerful force in American government, which means that they are more significant than the people who wrote them. Jefferson may have held these beliefs, but unless they're explicitly written in, they have no official bearing on the Constitution or American law.

But... they are explicitly written in. You've read the Constitution, yes?

[Oliver Dale]

Wait, are you serious??

Your reaction to the banning of assault weapons would be buying an assault rifle?!?!

I hope that nobody else thinks that way, or we're screwed.

Yep. As a law-abiding citizen with no criminal record, there is no reason why I can't own a gun; and if the government says otherwise, they've spat in the face of Thomas Jefferson and they aren't worth my respect anyways. So yes, I would then feel no other choice but to acquire a weapon for protection from the tyranny of my own government.

This is a fairly juvenile opinion. Not only are you being obstinate for the sole purpose of being obstinate, you're being illogically so. One could use your apparent reverence of Jefferson's wisdom against you. He did, in fact, create the constiution with the flexibility to be changed because he realized that the world would not always reflect his contemporary technological and society norms.

Unless of course you actually think owning a gun could save you from a truly tyranical or oppressive government. In which case you're not juvenile, you're delusional .

[anonshadow]

Don't be silly.

That wouldn't fit in my basement.

Besides, I don't have a Constitutional right to a nuclear arsenal; but sure enough, I DO have one for guns! Look at that![/i]

Where does it say, "guns"?

It says arms.

...the right of the people to keep and bear arms...

The doesn't necessarily mean just guns. Nuclear weapons also fall under that category.

[Hegemon]

Well an originalist interpretation would be that they could only legislate for things that they were aware of at the time. That would rule out the allowance of nukes. However, along the same lines of reason, it might also rule out modern guns.

That being said, I also imagine that the right was meant to refer to personal weapons. Things such as guns or knives. I think that because of this, even right after the revolution, cannons and the like would have been disallowed from private ownership.

[mr_thebrain]

true, you didn't see many farmers with cannons in their barns.

[anonshadow]

Well an originalist interpretation would be that they could only legislate for things that they were aware of at the time. That would rule out the allowance of nukes. However, along the same lines of reason, it might also rule out modern guns.

Freedom of religion includes religions that didn't exist or that the founding fathers weren't aware of; freedom of speech covers forms of communication that didn't exist at that time. So why shouldn't the same be true of arms?

I see it as an issue of moderation--you can't have nukes because it's the equivalant of yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theatre. However, when people start whining on about how they deserve the right to own assault rifles, I feel like I need to point out that by the argument of "the right to bear arms", if you aren't including any restrictions, nukes are also included.

[eriador]

Fighting back would be stupid though...

And the reason that Jefferson's opinions don't matter is that he is only one of the writers of documents that are the most powerful force in American government, which means that they are more significant than the people who wrote them. Jefferson may have held these beliefs, but unless they're explicitly written in, they have no official bearing on the Constitution or American law.

But... they are explicitly written in. You've read the Constitution, yes?

Please clarify. What rights, and where?

[AnthonyByakko]

Nothing can save you from an oppressive and tyrannical government. You can only try and prevent it from becoming as such. Which would probably include and neccessitate the fierce protection of the (remaining) rights one has.