Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Test Subject
Original Poster
#1 Old 16th Aug 2007 at 5:06 AM
Default Gun Control
Whats your opinion on gun control?

I think People should be allowed to own guns but under strict gun control. saying they'll do it on the black market is like saying legalizing hunting endargered animals because people will do it anyway.
Advertisement
Lab Assistant
#2 Old 16th Aug 2007 at 6:42 AM
I say people should be allowed to have guns, but there should be stricter laws about who can have them and what the punishments are if these weapons are obtained illegally and/or used to cause harm.

For example, I think that the person's psychological background should absolutely be evaluated. Someone who has a tendency to feel extreme anger or depression shouldn't necessarily not be allowed to have a gun, but precautions should be taken. And by anger and depression I don't just mean getting angry - I mean out of control rage that stems from a psychological problem and that classifies such a person as potentially dangerous, especially if he or she has access to firearms.

Personally, I don't like guns. People say that they need them for defense, but if nobody had guns, we wouldn't need to defend ourselves in that manner. That being said, this argument is basically pointless, since there is no way that we can ensure that nobody has guns - there's always ways to obtain them, even if it's not legal.

I just think that buying a gun should be process that ensures that the buyer is not going to use it to harm others, except in the case of self-defense. Those persons responsible for the Columbine and Virginia Tech tragedies were obviously not of sound mind, and perhaps if a psychological examination had taken place, they could have been prevented. Of course, like I said, there will be those who will obtain guns other ways (taking one from a parent or other legal gun holder, for example) but we should at least try.

What if the Hokey Pokey IS what it's all about?

"Ma'am, your eyes look red. Have you been drinking?"
"Officer, your eyes look glazed. Have you been eating donuts?"
Top Secret Researcher
#3 Old 16th Aug 2007 at 6:58 AM
I think that guns should be regulated, but not so much that a black market becomes appealing for people.
I think to buy a gun (at all) you should have to either demonstrate that you are capable of using a gun safely or take some kind of state funded class. (paid for by a tax on bullets).
Also when you purchase a gun you should have to sign a legally binding statement that you'll only use the gun for whatever it's intended activity is (hunting, sport shooting, etc.) and self defense. I beleive that the penalty for violating that statement should be a large fine the first time (and the usual civil penalties for breach of contract) and another class on responsible gun use (the gun owner pays for this one). The next time, they lose the gun and all ability to purchase another one, and it becomes a crime to provide them with a firearm. Unless they manage to join the military.
Of course, if someone commits a crime of gun violence, they should get schlepped to jail for a very long while.
As long as people use guns responsibly, they're tools. And like any other tool they can be used improperly. You wouldn't ban the use of steak knives because people had been, and could again be stabbed. So you shouldn't hyper regulate guns becasue people have been and could again be shot.

The humor of a story on the internet is in direct inverse proportion to how accurate the reporting is.
#4 Old 16th Aug 2007 at 7:40 AM
My stance is that what really needs to be done is to simply enforce the current laws. The whole reason for the VA Tech shootings was due to a loophole that prevented Cho's psychological problems from showing up on the background check. In both that, and the Columbine shootings, there were also plenty of warning sign given... but as usual the problem was ignored until it was too late, and then the problem switched from one of preventative measures to control, in effect punishing those who were not responsible for the tragedies. People who own their weapons legally aren't the problem... I recently heard a figure of about .2% (two-tenths of one percent) of those firearms are used in a crime.
Field Researcher
#5 Old 16th Aug 2007 at 10:44 AM
Hoo boy, I wish I knew where my old JComm term paper was, this was our topic, and I was the only person in the class who had actually ever handled a gun. If I could I'd have statistics and references. A note on my position on this topic: I am a gun owner, but my gun is only used for target shooting. If I could have I would have taken my gun into the final debate just to be able to demonstrate how gun safety items are used, but that was against campus regulations so I only took the trigger lock (I always remove the bolt when I pack up my gun, so a trigger lock is a little pointless, plus it was locked in the basement of the ROTC building).

FurryPanda - I totally agree about gun safety classes, and statistics do exist showing that if everybody is given some basic knowledge of firearms (even non-owners) the rate of firearm involvement in crime and accidental death is lowered.

Reindeer911 - Yes, current regulations are poorly enforced and need to be better utilized.

The problems that come in here are pretty simple. First, as soon as anything receives any amount of government regulation it becomes a potential black market commodity, that's just how the human race functions. What is the point of a legally binding contract about how you will use the gun if ways of breaching that contract already hold heavy penalties under law without it? Having a weapon with you when you commit a crime, even the most simple theft, raises it to armed whatever at least, even if the weapon is entirely unused. Enforcing the current laws is a wonderful dream, but comes with considerable costs. People slip through all the time because there isn't the money to do thorough checking.

As far as psych evaluations... don't make me laugh, we're working hard on it, but psychology is not a science, and every evaluation is, of necessity, filtered through the perceptions of the evaluator, sure there are some very clear indicators of trouble, but there's also a lot of much more subtle things that can get lost or misinterpreted due to human error. The mind is far to complex to accurately say much of it at all. (BTW, I'm a psych major.)

My stance is for gun education rather than increased regulation, as said, most legal owners are not the problem.


Hmm, not terribly organized... maybe I can look for my paper this evening.

"Segregate the sinful sexes..." "Wait, how many sexes are there?" "Two." "It's not enough I say, go out and order some more."
#6 Old 16th Aug 2007 at 12:03 PM
I am pro gun-control. Here it is illegal to have a gun unless you have a valid game license. I'm afraid that if we were to make guns legal, i.e. everybody could buy one, many people would do just this, even though they have no need for it. And then we would see a rise in gun related crime. :einstein

This is just my opinion, I know I'm biased.. It can be hard to relate to this topic because of my near gun-less society.

Buuuuuut.. since we just can't get rid of all guns, I'm all for the teachings of gun safety. Like, the percentage of households in Canada which owns a gun is quite high, but gun-related crimes like murders are not as high as in the US (source needed, I know). My guess is that most of the guns there are used for e.g. hunting etc, and the families teach their children at a young age about safety, thus making the children see the gun as a tool and not merely a weapon.

However, this is just what I THINK, and not something I know, so correct me if I'm wrong but don't flame me :-)

/Katrine

Ps. Going to the US for the first time this sunday!! Wooohooo Viva Las Vegas BABY! :yippee:
#7 Old 17th Aug 2007 at 1:13 AM
Hooray! 5000th gun control debate.

I'm basically in agreement with Reindeer, I'm against further gun control.

Quote:
I think that guns should be regulated, but not so much that a black market becomes appealing for people.
I think to buy a gun (at all) you should have to either demonstrate that you are capable of using a gun safely or take some kind of state funded class. (paid for by a tax on bullets).
Also when you purchase a gun you should have to sign a legally binding statement that you'll only use the gun for whatever it's intended activity is (hunting, sport shooting, etc.) and self defense. I beleive that the penalty for violating that statement should be a large fine the first time (and the usual civil penalties for breach of contract) and another class on responsible gun use (the gun owner pays for this one). The next time, they lose the gun and all ability to purchase another one, and it becomes a crime to provide them with a firearm. Unless they manage to join the military.
Of course, if someone commits a crime of gun violence, they should get schlepped to jail for a very long while.
As long as people use guns responsibly, they're tools. And like any other tool they can be used improperly. You wouldn't ban the use of steak knives because people had been, and could again be stabbed. So you shouldn't hyper regulate guns becasue people have been and could again be shot.


I'm in agreement with you, but I also disagree with the statement of purpose part. To me it's basically like a gun salesman going "ARE YOU GOING TO USE THIS GUN FOR CRIME" and the potential killer basically going "LOL NO". Not that many people, especially (most) criminals, are that dumb. The extra fine part to me is kind of stupid, what if the criminal used a bomb? Would he need to have an extra fine just because he used a bomb? A criminal is a criminal in my mind, not a criminal that uses a certain weapon.

Now that I think about it, I think criminals that have truly changed their ways (take Tookie for instance, who I still believe was innocent) should be able to apply to the government to have their gun rights reinstated, provided that the process is very strict.
Test Subject
#8 Old 17th Aug 2007 at 1:33 AM
Gun control is not one of the issues that I know a lot about, so I can't exactly decide right now if there needs to be a change in policy or if more strict laws should be implemented. But I do know that when people want something, they will go through great lengths to get it. There are already so many guns that people already own that not all can be accounted for. If there were strict rules prohibiting gun sales, maybe some of those gun owners would sell to the highest bidder because they have on their hands a valuable commodity.
I do think the sale of handguns should be more limited than rifles or shotguns, however, though I don't know much about the specifics of either procedure to aquire one or the other.
Lab Assistant
#9 Old 17th Aug 2007 at 1:49 AM
Speaking as someone who grew up near Detroit and was always told guns were a bad thing I have to say that as many people use guns to hurt someone probably double that amount of people have guns for personal protection. My husband is a hunter and I couldnt tell you how many guns we have in our house because his collection is getting bigger every year. I have also seen the paperwork he had to fill out to get his CCW license and it wasn't no walk in the park either. He had to fill out a survey about his mental health and what not and he got questioned when he went before the board to get it about why he had a PPO put on him a few years back. I believe that at least our state is doing all it really can to keep hand guns out of the hands of people who would hurt someone. Now if someone wants to talk about laws on selling them to people who shouldn't have them, that would be a debate. In the state of Michigan my husband can sell me a hand gun even though I'm only 20 but the law states to buy one from a store you have to 21........... I find that to be really dumb. If your 18 and want a hand gun all you have to do is know the right person to sell it to you that isn't a store and you can get one. That is the only thing I think they should work on. The gun laws as they are to posses one are pretty strict.

Visit my site http://geocities.com/fairy_goddess922/


I love Plumbob!!!
Top Secret Researcher
#10 Old 17th Aug 2007 at 7:12 AM
Quote: Originally posted by triplea
I'm in agreement with you, but I also disagree with the statement of purpose part. To me it's basically like a gun salesman going "ARE YOU GOING TO USE THIS GUN FOR CRIME" and the potential killer basically going "LOL NO". Not that many people, especially (most) criminals, are that dumb. The extra fine part to me is kind of stupid, what if the criminal used a bomb? Would he need to have an extra fine just because he used a bomb? A criminal is a criminal in my mind, not a criminal that uses a certain weapon.


Ha, I actually got you to mostly agree with me for once! Anyway, the statement of purpose is to help identify what particular gun is being used for what. If your weapon is only licensed for hunting and you took the gun safety class with an instructor who specializes in gun safety while hunting, it's not going to be as helpful if you decide to take up sport shooting.

As I said in my first post if you commit a crime of gun violence, contract or no contract, you go to prison and lose your right to weapons. The contract is solely to insure that people are properly trained to use the gun for what they're supposed to. If a hunter wants to take up sport shooting, fine with me, but he should have to sit through the same class as the people who got their gun for sport shooting in the first place.

Lastly, what does a criminal using a bomb have to do with gun control?


Quote:
I believe that at least our state is doing all it really can to keep hand guns out of the hands of people who would hurt someone. Now if someone wants to talk about laws on selling them to people who shouldn't have them, that would be a debate. In the state of Michigan my husband can sell me a hand gun even though I'm only 20 but the law states to buy one from a store you have to 21........... I find that to be really dumb. If your 18 and want a hand gun all you have to do is know the right person to sell it to you that isn't a store and you can get one. That is the only thing I think they should work on. The gun laws as they are to posses one are pretty strict.


I agree with you. I think that if you want to distribute a gun and you're not licensed for that, it should also be an offense. I'm not sure if it should be a felony though. On the one hand that would deter black marketeers. On the other hand if a dad goes hunting with his kid and lets the kid shoot, he shouldnt get in felony level trouble. I sort of think the law should be written so that distribution without a license is a felony, but I don't see how they could phrase the law for every situation like the one I just described.

The humor of a story on the internet is in direct inverse proportion to how accurate the reporting is.
#11 Old 17th Aug 2007 at 3:18 PM
FurryPanda: I think you missed my point. Why should it matter if a criminal uses a gun for a crime? If a criminal commits a crime with a knife or bomb, he/she's obviously so fucked up that they shouldn't be able to get a gun in the first place.
Mad Poster
#12 Old 17th Aug 2007 at 3:42 PM
Personally, I don't see the purpose of having a gun if you don't need it for your job or say, hunting or target practice. People who say they use it for their own protection, I really don't see them being able to take out their gun should they be held at gun point by some criminal. Besides, when they give you the license, it's not like they license everyone in the house, and practically all housemembers have access to the gun.
Theorist
#13 Old 17th Aug 2007 at 8:59 PM
Enforce the laws we have, and, I like the idea of mandatory gun safety classes...Its kind of like if you want to get a car, you have to know how to drive...I don't think gun safety classes would be too restrictive at all...the NRA offers them all the time, and I am not sure, but some police departments might offer gun safety classes as well, or shooting ranges, etc. There are places for people who want to own a gun to train to shoot them safely, so, I think mandatory classes is a very reasonable suggestion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama on ABC's This Week, discussing Obamacare
What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore
umm...Isn't having other people carry your medical burden exactly what national health care is?
Test Subject
#14 Old 18th Aug 2007 at 12:00 AM
davious, is it the law to attend gun safety classes now? If it isn't, I agree that it should be. It sounds like one of those obscure things that most people wouldn't do unless they were forced to do it. There is no such thing as having too much knowledge in something, afterall.
Field Researcher
#15 Old 18th Aug 2007 at 2:13 AM
I know I haven't heard anything about mandatory gun safety classes, but I think everyone should have them, like spend a week on gun safety/basic handling in high school PE or whatever. Actually, this was something we talked about a lot back when I was active in Rifle Club. It's not just the gun owners that should have a minimum basic understanding, also anybody who lives with them, and as many others as we can catch. I've talked with far too many people who were too scared of guns and a large part is because they are so unknown to non-owners. Yes, respect their destructive potential, but don't flee in blind terror.

"Segregate the sinful sexes..." "Wait, how many sexes are there?" "Two." "It's not enough I say, go out and order some more."
Theorist
#16 Old 18th Aug 2007 at 5:04 AM
no, right now all you need to purchase a firearm is to go through the 7 day waiting period/background check. You don't need to have graduated from a gun safety class.

I would also add, to those that have never fired a gun in their life, it really can be quite fun. For my brother's bachelor party, his best man took us all to his hunt club, where we spent the morning shooting at clay pidgeons (for those that might not know, no, clay pidgeons are not an animal, its a small disc made out of clay). I had never fired a shotgun before, and while I SUCKED, and only hit 5 of 50 targets, I have to say, it was a blast. We weren't going after any animals, weren't fending off dangerous criminals, weren't doing anything but shooting something for the sake of shooting something. It was a riot. I am not an NRA member, don't own any guns, don't plan on owning any guns, and have fired a gun counting the bachelor party, twice in my life. The first was for a marksmanship badge for Cadets (a local Christian Boy Scouts type thing, and my counselor was a retired police officer who set up a shooting range in his basement). So, its not like I am an avid hunter (never been), gun owner, or anything like that. But, man, it was a great time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama on ABC's This Week, discussing Obamacare
What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore
umm...Isn't having other people carry your medical burden exactly what national health care is?
Scholar
#17 Old 18th Aug 2007 at 6:05 AM
Gun control is something way above my head--though one thing has always caught my eye: a common argument against gun control is that a well-armed populace is a surefire safeguard against tyranny.

This is, actually, not true. Private gun ownership was very common in Saddam Hussein's Iraq (and still is). It was no safeguard against tyranny in that nation--the tyrants simply made sure that those who owned most of the firearms were sufficiently loyal/fearful of the efficient police forces.

What it did serve as was a cornerstone of guerrilla resistance. On the eve of of the invasion of Iraq, I remember seeing news footage as thousands of Iraqis rushing to purchase every rifle, every pistol, every bullet from gun dealers throughout the nation. Now, they are effectively using said rifles and bullets against us, the US.

So, gun ownership may not guarantee freedom (because the state will always be better armed and trained than the individual) , but it is the basis of an effective resistance to armed invasion.

Of course, this is a much more mundane issue--gun ownership's effect on daily life, not some far-off enemy invasion.

"We're on sob day two of Operation Weeping-Bald-Eagle-Liberty-Never-Forget-Freedom-Watch sniff no word yet sob on our missing patriot Glenn Beck sob as alleged-President Hussein Obama shows his explicit support sniff for his fellow communists by ruling out the nuclear option."
 
Back to top