Guns? What are your feelings?

[t.c.cgi]

So, let's recap . If you want to make the world a better place, you will:
1. Let everyone obtain guns and carry them concealed on their bodies if they so choose.
2. Spend more money on the police force than on "correctional" facilities.
3. Bring back the death penalty. The death penalty is not about killing people. It's a social contract - "you can kill anyone you want, but you'll be shot for it". And it tends to be more persuasive than prison.
4. Make your prisons as bad as possible. Better yet, rent a bit of Siberia from the Russians. Send the prisoners there, and don't even bother guarding them. If they survive and manage to crawl back to civilisation - they've paid their dues. And they won't want to go back.
5. Leave religion alone. Yes, religious fanatics are dangerous, but in the greater scheme of things, a religious society will always be safer than a secular/atheist society.

You're my hero. I'd vote for you any day.

 

[BigsWickDagger]

QUARTO: Well said per usual.

Both sides in this debate raise some interesting points. Clearly this remains a very divisive issue and will so for some time to come. Still, I have found and continue to find myself leaning more in the direction of ownership rights.

I own 3 guns: one rifle, one pistol, and one "assault-style" weapon (Clinton-era definition). I purchased my rifle and pistol within 6 months of each other. I was living in Florida. I had to pay for and go through a background check and complete a "cooling off" period each time before I could pick up my gun. I was given a 24 hour window during which time I could assume ownership of my gun. If I missed that opportunity for any reason the process would start over and I'd have to pay again, go through another background check, etc. It was a bit of a hassle (though yes, a good idea) and I can see how it might discourage some folks from buying a firearm- the legal way.

The "assault-style" weapon? I bought it at a gun show before legislation the Clinton administration was pushing became law. The hand writing seemed to be on the wall, and it felt like the right thing to do at the time. As I've gotten older and a bit wiser (hopefully) I'm a little less sure that my decision was a sound one. I don't know that I'd do it again. However, I did know a lot of people at the time who were pissed at the government's decision to further curtail the right of a law-abiding citizen to own a gun(s) of his choosing. A few of them went out and did the same thing I did.

Some question the relativity of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as it pertains to our lives in Twenty-First Century America. They ask it we need it. I think it would be nearly impossible to eliminate it or even change it substantially, even though it was written at a different time in our country's history when our domestic reality was much more fragile, uncertain, and infinitely more hostile. Gun ownership for millions of U.S. citizens has become as American as baseball, apple pie, hot dogs, and so on. That will not change with the stroke of a pen.

Criminals will always find ways to get guns. Curtailing the right of the ordinary Joe to possess a firearm will not stop that. I completely agree with Quarto when it comes to prisons, sentencing, and the death penalty. Putting some real teeth into these things will not discourage every criminal, but it will cause more law breakers to think twice before they act.

 

[McGruff]

*sighs* Never mind, McGruff. Never mind. It's not worth it.

Striker, I agree with your point there. Why aren't people allowed to carry weapons visibly, then? This is a serious question, by the way.

I would suggest reading over Quarto's recent post, he sums it up quite well.

There are several reasons why it has been decided that concealed carry is preferable to allowing people to walk around with a pistol on their belt. One is that a discreetly carried gun is there if you need it, but does not draw the public attention that would surely result from walking into Starbucks obviously armed. Also, without a triple-retention holster or something similar, it is very easy to sneak up behind someone and snatch the gun from someone's belt, while it's much harder if the gun is hidden in a pocket, a bellyband, or in a shoulder or ankle holster. If only open carry were allowed, criminals could easily spot who was armed and who was not, negating the point I made earlier about concealed carry laws making the streets safer even for those who choose not to. Actually, here in California it is legal to carry openly without a permit so long as the handgun is in plain view and is UNLOADED. Of course this is not practical in the real world because anyone doing so would be immediately proned out at gunpoint by the cops until the legality could be determined. Then the same thing would happen again down the street.

It's not that simple. I think it's a bad idea for anyone within a 10 mile radius of my house to have a gun, and I'm willing to settle for as close to that as possible (ie: as little guns as possible)

Maybe you could start by putting something like this in your front yard.

 

[Eder]

I think most people in my neighborhood can't read english. Bummer.

 

[Quarto]

But I'm sure you understand your own language well enough to be able to translate "I would like you to break in and rob me" into Brazilian Portuguese, and then you just have to put it together with that gun icon in photoshop .

 

[Eder]

What happened to....

Whether or not you permit people to carry guns - that's just one factor to consider when discussing crime rates. You cannot really make a valid argument that <any place> is <safer/unsafer> because guns are <legal/illegal>.

?

 

[Maj.Striker]

But I'm sure you understand your own language well enough to be able to translate "I would like you to break in and rob me" into Brazilian Portuguese, and then you just have to put it together with that gun icon in photoshop .

haha, ok, I just had to respond to that...that's got to be THE funniest post I've ever read.

 

[Eder]

Yes, this thread got a lot better since someone finally tried to ridicule someone else for thinking differently.

I knew I shouldn't have bothered at all.

 

[cff]

2. The penalties for crime. If I kill someone and get caught, do I get a bullet in the head, or a twenty-five year stay in a fine hotel facility (sorry... a prison)? If the answer is the latter, up go the crime rates. This is the reason why today in Europe, guns are harder to get than ever before, and murder rates are higher than ever before. You have to either have and vigorously, regularly apply the death penalty, or you have to consider...

There is no data that would indicate this to be true as fas as I know. A person that murders someone else usually falls into one of these categories:
* Planned murder: They are sure they won't be caught, so it doesn't matter what the penalties are
* Runnign amok: They don't care what happens afterwards
* Accidents or because of special circumstances: They don't have the time to think about consequences.

Also AFAIK those states/countries that did (re)allow the death penalty did not see ANY effect on the number of murders.

Its a different topic when you talk about minor crimes. Here harsh penalties HAVE an effect. Besides the immediate effect they also tend to keep people out of heavier stuff. But the death penalty as such is pretty much pointless from a prevention point of view.

 

[Quarto]

Don't be silly, Eder, the point is an absolutely valid one - whether or not you have a gun in your house, nobody in his right mind would put an "I have no gun in my house" sign up. Why? Because it's the same as putting up an "If you break in here, you're guaranteed to get away with it" sign. And that says a lot about guns. It also says a lot about why gun ownership should be legal - even if most people won't choose to own guns (and they won't, people in general don't like guns), potential burglars do not know what they can expect to find in a house in a country where gun ownership is legal. They have to take the risk of death into consideration, and that does have an impact on their decision. Like I said before, the legality of gun ownership is not the sole contributing factor to crime rates - but it nonetheless is a significant contributing factor.

A person that murders someone else usually falls into one of these categories:
* Planned murder: They are sure they won't be caught, so it doesn't matter what the penalties are
* Runnign amok: They don't care what happens afterwards
* Accidents or because of special circumstances: They don't have the time to think about consequences.

Those categories are highly doubtful. If I try to rob someone at gunpoint, something goes wrong, and I kill him, which category does that fall under? Because that's precisely the category that's prevented by the death penalty - anyone who's planning to use lethal force, even the threat of lethal force, for a different crime, will think twice about actually inflicting death when push comes to shove. And certainly, those planned murders you mention - anyone that's planning a murder will also take into account the possibility of things going wrong. Cold calculating killers convinced that they'll absolutely certainly get away with it exist only in cartoons and movies.

Also AFAIK those states/countries that did (re)allow the death penalty did not see ANY effect on the number of murders.

So how is it that those countries that got rid of the death penalty saw an almost immediate rise in murder rates? Besides, today's attempts to reintroduce the death penalty are for the most part pathetically half-hearted. The penalty is brought in, but with crazy restrictions that prevent it from being applied in almost any circumstances. What's more, you have judges who have been taught to consider the death penalty to be wrong and immoral, and therefore they sabotage the system by applying life sentences instead of the death penalty whenever they possibly can. You would only see results if the death penalty was the only possible punishment for murder. The way things are right now, everybody knows that the death penalty is fiction. Hell, even if you end up getting sentenced to death, it seems like you're more likely to die of old age before your appeal rights are exhausted than to be actually executed. So, it's just not much of a threat - it should be a certainty, and a relatively instant one. Of course people's rights to appeal their sentence cannot be curtailed, but when you're talking about people waiting five-ten years for their execution, that's excessive madness.

(of course, one thing must be pointed out here, before someone calls me a crazy fascist or something - the death penalty should apply always, but only to first-degree murders; manslaughter is different, because the intention to kill is not there)

 

[cff]

Criminals will always find ways to get guns. Curtailing the right of the ordinary Joe to possess a firearm will not stop that. I completely agree with Quarto when it comes to prisons, sentencing, and the death penalty. Putting some real teeth into these things will not discourage every criminal, but it will cause more law breakers to think twice before they act.

Very true - criminals will find ways. At least those that are professionals. However ask yourself one question: How many criminals are well organized and how many are just people without hope that do the wrong thing? The second group is surely the larger one and that group does NOT have easy access to firearms if they were forbidden. OTOH the first group WILL KNOW how to handle the guns better then you do and thus drawing a gun against those will most likely put you in more danger then not having a gun beforehand. It is not as straightforward as it seems. And as I said before, the death penalty is a very bad method of prevention.
As far as prison goes - hey I am with you. At the very least they should cover their own cost by working!

 

[cff]

Don't be silly, the point is an absolutely valid one - whether or not you have a gun in your house, nobody in his right mind would put an "I have no gun in my house" sign up. Why? Because it's the same as putting up an "If you break in here, you're guaranteed to get away with it" sign. And that says a lot about guns. It also says a lot about why gun ownership should be legal - even if most people won't choose to own guns (and they won't, people in general don't like guns), potential burglars do not know what they can expect to find in a house in a country where gun ownership is legal. They have to take the risk of death into consideration, and that does have an impact on their decision. Like I said before, the legality of gun ownership is not the sole contributing factor to crime rates - but it nonetheless is a significant contributing factor.

Sorry - but do people in your country try to break in a house when the inhabitants are there?! Or in other words - a good alarm system (or even a fake one) woud do you MUCH more good then any gun with respect to that. At least in my country.

 

[Quarto]

Sorry - but do people in your country try to break in a house when the inhabitants are there?! Or in other words - a good alarm system (or even a fake one) woud do you MUCH more good then any gun with respect to that. At least in my country.

In my country, generally not - but when I lived in Papua New Guinea, it was a frequent procedure, as was highway robbery. In both cases, the criminals were armed with machetes, and in many cases they counted on the inhabitants being there, because apart from just taking the money, they wanted to rape the women. There is only one way of dealing with such people, and it does not involve sitting quietly and hoping they'll go away without hurting you. And alarm systems are only a good repellant if there's any chance that someone will respond to the alarm.

 

[McGruff]

http://www.crimedoctor.com/homeinvasion.htm

 

[Percy]

Just my views from across the pond.

I understand that there are a lot of people here who are pro-gun and value their right to defend their home and the right to bear arms etc.
I'm not that familiar with US history but I believe that you've all been born and raised up in a culture where people are allowed to own and see/use guns in everyday life.
Perhaps, its a case of "I need to own a gun to protect myself because every criminal walking the street have one"?
Suppose that someone is able to wave a magic wand and suddenly, all guns disappeared but your own (incl criminals). Would you still keep your gun or would you get rid of it?
If a robber approached your home, would a baseball bat not serve the same purpose now that he doesn't have a gun?
What I'm trying to get at, is the want to own a gun due to the fact that you might be robbed by someone using one too?

Here in the UK, living with the no-gun culture and to me, personally, I feel safer walking our streets. In that, should I be mugged, its unlikely that it will be by someone with a gun and as such should I resist, maybe I get hurt badly, but I feel the chances that I actually die are much much less.

 

[t.c.cgi]

A point missed is the blind assumption that guns are only used in the taking of life situations. Yes, that's what they're meant for, or at least so I'm told. Cars are also meant for driving to work, but people race them, and not just on TV. If my house is ever broken into sure my weapon will be brought into the equation... I won't go hunting for the guy like Elmer Fudd but if he picks door number 3 he's gonna get a surprise.

No, the reason I own a weapon is for the reacreational aspect. From my POV, banning a gun would be the same as banning football. In countries where gun ownership is not allowed I think this is overlooked too much. Just because something was designed with breaking a commandment in mind doesn't mean you absolutely have to use it for that. Going shooting is the only outdoor recreational activity I enjoy.

Perhaps what should be looked at is stress levels, responsibility, or other improved virtues of those who shoot either for competition, hunting, or just plain target practice.

 

[Confed]

I think that the law should treat this the same as with a car.
To be allowed to handle a gun, you should have to take a written exam first, followed by a practical exam.
Written : every owner must know the basis safety rules
practical : training & exam with paint-ball gun, so that people learn how to shoot someone without killing them. (if you know how to stop a criminal without killing him, you will not be so hesitant to fire at him when necessary & killing someone can leave a lot of people traumatised for life, even if they were defending themselves)

If I lived in the U.S., I would want to own a gun (especially in the big cities), but in Belgium violent crimes are not that common (yet?).

 

[Eder]

Don't be silly, Eder, the point is an absolutely valid one - whether or not you have a gun in your house, nobody in his right mind would put an "I have no gun in my house" sign up. Why? Because it's the same as putting up an "If you break in here, you're guaranteed to get away with it" sign.

It's not. See points #2, #3, and #4 of your original post to this thread.

A criminal doesn't only have death to fear. In any half decent country, a criminal will fear being caught by the police and spending 10 years in jail much more than he'll fear a 55-year old accountant who keeps a .38 in his desk drawer while he sleeps - even if that guy could shoot a mouse's ear off from 100 meters away in the one shooting test he had to pass to acquire this gun legally ten fucking years ago.

If the police and the jails in Papua New Guine worked as they should, people who broke into people's houses with machetes to rob them and rape their women would have enough to fear.

Telling criminals that you don't own a gun != not being protected by the law.

There are other variables to consider - as you've argued yourself, for god's sake.

 

[Delance]

But if the country is not half-decent, and if the police and justice don't work, which is the case of Brazil, it's unfair to ask to everyone to rely on them for their safety. It might take hours for the police to respond to an emergency call in Brazil, if at all, even if you live two blocks close to a police station. Criminals might even invade the police station and free their budies.

Such is the case that rich people sponsoring gun control policy run around with armed security. The moment gun-control applies to everyone, incuding people with a lot of money defending gun-control, I might take it seriously as a concept.

 

[BigsWickDagger]

Very true - criminals will find ways. At least those that are professionals. However ask yourself one question: How many criminals are well organized and how many are just people without hope that do the wrong thing? The second group is surely the larger one and that group does NOT have easy access to firearms if they were forbidden. OTOH the first group WILL KNOW how to handle the guns better then you do and thus drawing a gun against those will most likely put you in more danger then not having a gun beforehand. It is not as straightforward as it seems. And as I said before, the death penalty is a very bad method of prevention.
As far as prison goes - hey I am with you. At the very least they should cover their own cost by working!

Professional criminal or non-professional? Hmmm..... I think that is kind of like saying someone is a professional mechanic or a professional teacher. Some are simply better than others to be sure, but what makes one a professional?

I'm sure there are plenty of guys out there who know how to handle a gun better than I do. My pistol is used strictly for home defense. I feel safer having it and knowing I can protect my loved ones and property.

Consider:

In early 1998 I was picked to serve as a juror in a murder trial in Orlando. The defendant was 18 at the time he committed his crime. He and two other guys stole three 9mm pistols and went out for a joy ride on Thanksgiving evening 1996 (an American holiday in November). The three of them stopped at a McDonalds in a very busy tourist area about 10 miles from Disney World. They had rented a limousine and were drinking liquor and snorting cocaine.

The defendant and his buddies went into the McDonalds and got into an argument with another customer. The group of people (the victim was with several friends) wound up out in the parking lot. The argument escalated and threats were exchanged back and forth. Finally the defendant went back to the limousine, got one of the 9mm pistols, returned to the group, and shot the victim four times. He died at the scene.

We found the defendant guilty of First Degree Murder- a premeditated killing. It was one of the hardest things I've been through in my life. The whole thing was simply tragic.

These guys were not "professionals" but they were not "without hope" either. In fact, none of them should have had a gun in the first place, and I believe all 3 had criminal records that would have prevented them from legally purschasing a firearm. My point is that they found a way to obtain them illegally. Again, criminals will always find ways to get guns. That reality shouldn't prevent any law abiding citizen from owning one.

The Death Penalty? I support it mainly because some people deserve to be put to death for their crimes. To a lesser extent, others might not commit a crime if they know what could be their punishment. Both ways it is a deterent.

Just my two cents worth.