Guns

[filkertom]

On the previous thread, gun rights issues came up.

I'm one of the ones who favors the distribution copy of the Second Amendment: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." (The original version, as ratified by the House and Senate, reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Amazing what a difference two commas and a couple of capital letters makes.)

I do not own a gun, and intend never to own a gun. I think handguns and automatic and semi-automatic weapons need to be controlled much better than they are; I'd be happy if non-sport-shooting handguns were banned.

I do not believe that concealed weapons make a polite society; I believe they make it easier to shoot people. I absolutely do not believe they should be permitted in national parks and such.

I think anyone getting a gun of any type or size should have a thorough training course before they're allowed to take the darn thing home.

I do not have a problem with sport hunting, although I have a preference toward those who eat what they kill rather than just shooting up the woods. I still don't think automatic or semi-automatic weapons should be used for hunting.

I think registration has to be much more stringent, and I think gun shows should be frickin' shut down until they can account for their weapons and their sales.

Guns don't kill people; people use guns to kill people.

Thoughts?

(PLEASE KEEP IT POLITE. I suspect that no one is gonna change anyone's mind on this one, but it was getting interesting in the previous thread, so I thought it deserved its own space. Any cranky or crazy shit [my choice] gets you banned for two weeks. I only say this so that no one is surprised if it happens. I don't anticipate it, I don't want it, I can't think of anybody who's gonna do it, I get sick to my stomach thinking about it, and there will be multiple warnings if necessary, but I will do it.)

Comments

[selenesue.livejournal.com]

An elegant solution for those who love to hunt more than they can personally eat: "Hunt.Fish.Feed." a new program where hunters donate their game to homeless shelters. Press release on recent event here:

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=ind_focus.story&STORY=/www/story/02-18-2009/0004974955&EDATE=

I'm with you, brother

[dakiwiboid.livejournal.com]

Though I always get flamed to hell and gone when I say so. I hate the idea that people keep pushing at me that the safest way to live with my neighbors is to be prepared to shoot them.

[eleri.livejournal.com]

what you said.
The whole "The Constitution says I get to have my guns!" mindset completely misses the context in which the Constitution was written, by a people who often lived on the edges of wilderness, and needed their guns for survival, *and* who were in a state of rebellion against a government who wanted them hamstrung.

[stevemb.livejournal.com]

The problem with training and registration requirements is the history of using them as a backdoor technique of de facto prohibition. Actually, the Heller decision might be helpful at breaking the logjam; throwing out abusive regulations makes more room, politically speaking, for reasonable ones.

[stevemb.livejournal.com]

I don't think we can really give any weight to that sort of "context" argument. By that reasoning, the First Amendment, which was written when "the press" meant big honking gizmos that one "pressed" by hand, doesn't really apply to radio, TV, the Internet, etc.

[mimiheart.livejournal.com]

My father recently (within the last 10 years) became a crazy Christian. By crazy Christian, I mean, not the normal, 85% of Christians that make up the majority of the country. He's one of those who thinks that because it was on WND it's true. Along with becoming a crazy Christian, he became a crazy conservative. Growing up, my father was moderate to left. He voted for Ross Perot, then Clinton. He voted for Gore in 2000 before he went insane. Now he's a card-carrying member of the NRA. In and of itself, I don't have a problem with the NRA. I'm setting this up for a reason.

My brother is almost 19. In the last year, he's tried to kill himself twice, and has been in and out of various mental health hospitals at least three times. He's a danger to himself and others. I've been around him when he's raging and I don't let my kids go to my father's house when I know my brother will be there.

My father thinks that it is a good idea for my brother to own a gun. My brother owns more than one gun. I don't know the type of guns my brother owns. I know some of them are for hunting. I know at least one of them is a handgun. I do know that my brother knows how to use them--he's been to a firing range before. For my brother's birthday, my father is giving him another gun.

My problem isn't with guns. It's that people (in general) don't use common sense when getting guns. I won't have a gun in my house AT LEAST until my children are fully grown. And then, maybe, I'll think about it.

[bayushisan.livejournal.com]

I'm not one of the people who use hunting as basis for my belief that the second Ammendment is just as important as the First; though I do admit that hunting is a small part of that.

Firstly I believe that people have the right to defend themselves, their homes, and their loved ones from a violent intruder or situation. It's pleasant to think about but such situations to happen and there have been times when one person could have made the difference by having a firearm on hand to stop a random shooter. It's not pleasant to think about, nor should it be.

The vast majority of gun owners do try to be responsible. The NRA does offer safety classes and anyone applying for a liscense has to pass a police taught safety course and I don't really have a problem with that. I do support concealed carry laws because, while yes, there will be some who are stupid about it; the majority of people who would carry would try to be respobsible.

The other reason I think the second Ammendment is so important is so that the people can protect themselves should the government go too far and become a repressive regime. It's not outside the realm of possibility and the people being able to rise up and put a stop to it is important.

I consider myself something of a realistic pacifist. I would love for there to always be peaceful solutions and for the police to always arrive on time. Unfortunately these things are almost never the case. Sometimes one person who happens to be carrying a legal concealed weapon can save dozens of people from someone going on a kill spree.

Personally I hate guns; but I also support a citizen's right to own them for self defense and defense of home and family.

[shockwave77598.livejournal.com]

Guns don't kill people either. It's the hole left behind by the bullet, just as it is with the hole left behind by a knife. What we need are hole controls...

Being serious though, they are simply tools. They can be used for good or ill. My home has some protection (though I never give details on defenses) because, like it or not, the bad guys out there have guns too. And since criminals are very bad about obeying the law, simply saying "No guns allowed" will do nothing but create a flock of sheep for the wolves to prey upon. So as much as making a gun-free civilization may sound appealing, like Shangrila, it can never be reached.

What I would like to see is Deputization of whoever can properly wield a weapon, so long as they use a special holster. Said people are ordinary folks and they are unpaid volunteers, like a volunteer fire department. They are allowed to have their pistols in their holsters in plain sight as they are considered to be law enforcement. But they must use special holsters which have a screeching alarm that turns on whenever the gun is drawn. To turn off the alarm requires a key that only the paid police will have. This will bring back the good part of the wild west, the part where bad guys didn't try to rob folks because the good folks would be packing the same heat as the crooks were. Today, unfortunately, any thief can rob someone at will because they know they are the only one with a gun. Make it so more volunteer law enforcers are on the street and packing, and the thugs WILL think twice.

[ziactrice.livejournal.com]

Well... for me, being able to carry a concealed weapon would give me tremendous peace of mind if I did go out camping for a week and hiking about the back emptiness of a public park by myself. It may be that I feel this way because I am a 5'4" woman who has been on the wrong end of a man's fist more than once, however.

[valarltd.livejournal.com]

If privately owned guns were really going to be effective against military-grade weaponry, which includes everything from microwaves that fry you via the coins in your pocket to nukes, do you think we would still have them?

The reality of the intruder scenario is the homeowner fumbling for gun and ammo and safe lock as the intruder shoots him.

[bryanp.livejournal.com]

On the previous thread, gun rights issues came up.

Yeah, I responded in that thread, but I didn't want to take that too far in there as that wasn't really the focus of the thread. Of course now you start this as I'm about to go offline and may not have time to come back today. So, I'll hit this as fast as I can. ;)

I do not own a gun, and intend never to own a gun. I think handguns and automatic and semi-automatic weapons need to be controlled much better than they are; I'd be happy if non-sport-shooting handguns were banned.

As is your right, although obviously I disagree with the latter sentiment.

I do not believe that concealed weapons make a polite society; I believe they make it easier to shoot people.

The problem I have is that the only people those laws affect are law abiding citizens. A "no guns allowed" sign doesn't affect the kind of people who are the reason I choose to sometimes carry.

I absolutely do not believe they should be permitted in national parks and such.

See above, plus the addition of bears etc.. One purpose of tool using is to equalize ourselves with creatures who have more efficient natural weapons. If I ran across an angry animal in the woods I will do the exact same thing I would do with a person - attempt to disengage and/or run away if at all possible. However, if I do not have that option I prefer to have tools with me to even the odds.


I think anyone getting a gun of any type or size should have a thorough training course before they're allowed to take the darn thing home.

Training is a good thing and you will never hear me speak against it.

I do not have a problem with sport hunting, although I have a preference toward those who eat what they kill rather than just shooting up the woods.

I'm not a hunter, but I agree entirely.

I still don't think automatic or semi-automatic weapons should be used for hunting.

I'm not aware of anyone who hunts with a actual automatic (machine gun) weapon. Most firearms hunting in this country is done with bolt action, lever action, single-shot, and black powder rifles, with a smattering of handgun hunters.(most of those using very large, heavy revolvers chambered in cartridges such as .454 Casull, .500 Linebaugh, .500 S&W, not exactly a gang banger weapon).

That said, hunting with a semi auto isn't that big a deal. Lots of people have bought cheap SKS rifles to hunt deer. The ballistics of that "evil assault rifle" round, 7.62x39, are actually quite close to those of the .30-30 Winchester that is used in so many lever rifles. They became popular because, until recently, the rifles were inexpensive and so was the ammunition. It wasn't some sort of Rambo thing.

I think registration has to be much more stringent,

I disagree. Registration is the first step towards confiscation.

(continued next comment, apparently I exceeded LJ's limit of 4500 characters)

[bryanp.livejournal.com]

(continued)


and I think gun shows should be frickin' shut down until they can account for their weapons and their sales.

Okay, here's the golden ticket. There are two types of sales at gun shows: Licensed dealers and private individuals.

If you are buying from a licensed dealer you have to go through the exact same process as if you were in their store. You sit down, show identification, fill out a form 4473, they call in the background check and you wait until it's approved. The form is kept on file by the dealer. This may vary a bit based on state laws, but that's the least restrictive variation such as is practiced in Tennessee where I reside.

Private sales between individuals. Here's the sticking point. This is what is being described when people mention the so-called "gun show loophole." When someone says they want to "close the loophole", what they are saying is that they want to outlaw private sales between individuals. They may not realize it, but that is the only practical way to do so. There is no difference between a private sale at a gun show and finding someone through the local classifieds with an add that says "For sale: S&W 638 .38spl revolver, 98% condition." The gun show merely facilitates a lot of people with that interest being together at the same time. Sort of like a heavy metal dealer's room. Besides, the last gun show I went to the only thing I bought was a bag, a package of paracord and some sweet jalapeno relish. ^_^

Guns don't kill people; people use guns to kill people.

Indeed. Or as I prefer to say, there are no dangerous weapons, only dangerous people.

[valarltd.livejournal.com]

What you said.

A gun is made for one purpose: to kill.
Debate anything you like, that fact is inescapeable.

I have nothing against hunters. More power to 'em, as long as they eat the kill.

But an armed society is only polite to those it's not sure it can outdraw. For all that the Old West is the iconic society, most people in the discussion have never even cracked a Louis L'Amour, let alone a book of history about it.

[awfulhorrid.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately there's a lot of stupidity on both sides of this argument. I like to think I'm a responsible gun owner, but consider I haven't actually had either of my rifles out of their cases in ... er ... four years, I'm not sure how much weight my views would hold!(*)

The main problem I have with trying to pass more regulations is that by definition criminals don't follow the laws. (An unfortunate example is the regulation of narcotics and other drugs.)

Even if you do shut down stores and shows, guns are amazingly easy to manufacture even in a garage workshop. I guess one could start down the road of banning gun powder (and tightly regulating the ingredients thereof), but at that point I think even relatively sane people like me think the idiot conservatives may be on to something.

Now I'm absolutely with you on education! I'm absolutely in favor of having a license similar to a driver's license that essentially says "Yes, I've passed a safety course," although I'm a bit leary of having to register individual weapons.

(* - Of course that brings up the question of where did I put that ammunition? I know I didn't store it with the rifles ...)

[bayushisan.livejournal.com]

Still people have a right to defend themselves and their homes. Not every gun owner keeps things locked up. Responsibility also entails making sure that your children are aware of what's in the house and that such things are to be treated with respect. Educate them about the dangers and they'll be less likely to do something stupid.

My own father told me that there were guns in the house when he used to hunt. He also told me that if I messed with them I'd be in trouble the likes of which I'd never seen. Needless to say I never messed with them.

I stand by my ealier point.

[ebenbrooks.livejournal.com]

I'm with you, bro.

[ericthemage.livejournal.com]

Criminals already don't follow the law, so gun registration only affects law abiding citizens. Disarming law abiding citizens gives criminals a better chance at succeeding at their crimes, because they know that they will face less resistance. So more gun registration only creates more opportunities for criminals to act.

If guns cause crime, then mine are defective.

[valarltd.livejournal.com]

Home defense would be exactly why I keep a baseball bat by the door and a quarterstaff to hand. Much faster than trying to unlock a safe, find a gun and load it.

[morpheus0013.livejournal.com]

There is little if anything for me to disagree with here. Except I probably have a dimmer view of hunting than you do, but that's largely a result of where I live. I'm tired of the "sport hunters" (and "elk ranchers," those folks who make their living keeping wildlife captive so people with more money than brains or soul can fly in, shoot a caged animal, and go home feeling like A Mighty Hunter) bitching about how the wolves have lowered elk populations and caused migration of the herds. THAT'S BECAUSE THE ELK WERE OVERPOPULATED AND IN THE WRONG PLACES, YOU BONEHEADS. People who bitch because they can't make the money off nature they used to, when nature is righting itself without their help, piss me off.

That's sort of secondary to the gun issue, but...yeah. I'm also not in favour of 11-year-olds having unfettered access to weapony. I'm not in favour of teaching a child that young to use a weapon, let alone giving him his own shotgun for Christmas. (Related to this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/22/jordan-brown-pennsylvania-murder). WTF--a gun is an appropriate Christmas gift for a child?)

[starcat-jewel.livejournal.com]

And since criminals are very bad about obeying the law, simply saying "No guns allowed" will do nothing but create a flock of sheep for the wolves to prey upon.

I don't buy this argument, have never bought this argument, and I really don't like being called a "sheep" (or worse, "sheeple") because I choose not to have guns in my home. It's not like I don't have weapons, or that I wouldn't be willing to use them; it's that I'm not willing to put in the amount of time and effort that *I* consider necessary to use a gun effectively and safely.

If other people want to have guns in their homes for protection and are willing to put in that time and effort, then I don't have a problem with it. People who think guns are the Magic Cure-All scare the shit out of me -- they are exactly the ones who should not be allowed to have them.

As for "more volunteer law enforcers are on the street and packing", the very idea makes my blood run cold. I DO NOT TRUST vigilante justice AT ALL. The correct response to "criminals don't care about the law" is to give the law some teeth as regards using guns in the commission of a crime, but that's not a popular opinion with the gun lobby. However, it fits perfectly with the "guns don't kill people" meme -- if the problem is misuse of the tool, make the punishment harsher for those who misuse it instead of penalizing the ones who don't. Why doesn't that idea have any traction with gun enthusiasts?

If I were the Supreme Author of the Universe, we'd all be living under the Darkover Compact -- no projectile weapons of any kind, and possession of one is grounds for immediate execution. But I'm not, and we're not.

(edited because I can't spell today)

[alymid.livejournal.com]

Funny thing is - I learned gun safety LONG before I ever saw a gun or learned to shoot. As a child I wasn't encouraged to play with toy guys - because the number 1 rule was don't point a gun (loaded or unloaded, play or real) at anything you didn't want to be dead.

When I was older and big enough to handle a small handgun I got to put it into practice - at the range I learned enough to know that it isn't my hobby and left it at that.

[shockwave77598.livejournal.com]

A gun has one purpose: to fire a bullet. What you fire it at varies with the person holding it. I've had to shoot at:

snakes (10ft long water mocassin is deadly - period)
rabid animals
cans
bottles
deer
targets
the occasional watermelon (used to illustrate to kids that guns aren't toys)
fenceposts
signs (I have a misspent youth too...)

Funny thing is, after so many rounds being fired from my guns, not one person was killed or even harmed. Therefore your theory is proven false by example.

[jovan-scorn.livejournal.com]

It may be a far off possibility or a totally implausible one but an argument for private gun ownership I have never seen (and some one can point me to a source if someone else is already discussing it) is it makes the United States a less tempting target for invasion, even a small scale one. Granted it's not the only reason but "having a well armed populace" is just another reason not too.

Far more to the current point the argument that guns cause so many deaths; is that just deaths being cited or deaths and injuries? I can't remember the statistic but it was something like if you can get to an emergency room within ten minutes you'll survive the vast majority of injuries that don't kill you instantly. If that's the case and injuries are being put together with fatalities that would create a greater image of lethality. Of course I'm not saying guns aren't lethal, they have the potential to be very lethal but in the hands of an average shooter in a crisis situation the create an awful lot of injuries that can takes hours to prove fatal. Plenty of time to seek treatment and of course have said bullet wound reported and subsequent arrest made if the injured turn out to be a criminal.

[valarltd.livejournal.com]

Did I say kill people?

I said to kill.
Your water moccasin, deer and rabid animals prove my statement.

[poly-scott.livejournal.com]

Thankfully, when this very question was put to the supreme court, they got it right, and rejected the argument that the right to keep and bear arms was a subordinate clause.

Everyone has an opinion, but if you read some of the things the founding fathers wrote, you might have a different opinion of that context.

Lastly, let me say that I fully support your right to not like, appriciate, or own guns. Just don't try to keep me from being able to exercise my rights to own them, and we'll get along just fine. :-)