Gun Control

I think one of the biggest problems which leads to gun violence is lack of parenting, and the pussification of today’s men. My generation, the one immediately before it, and the current crop coming up, are all at the tail end of the feminist movement. The feminist movement served to demonize testosterone and ban anything remotely masculine(not macho, there is a difference), dangerous, or reckless(read=fun). Don’t let your boys wrestle, they should sit quietly and do their school work like the little girls do. Taking away dodgeball, turning sports into an “everybody wins, there are no losers” environment has done nothing but further the cause.

To paraphrase Craig’s Dad in Friday, ‘In my day this was all you needed(holds up fists). You win some, you lose some. But you lived to fight another day.’ Most of today’s crop of men(notice there haven’t been any females on school shooting rampages) have been pussified to the point where they are afraid to take their licks and learn from them. Kick my ass on the playground, fine, tomorrow I’ll bring in Dad’s gun and we’ll see who the man is. Beat me at Nintendo(this actually happened), I’ll run next door and grab my .22 and show you who the winner is. Kids get picked on nowadays, it seems, they don’t ask Dad to show them some boxing moves in the backyard before supper, or ask to take karate lessons. Instead, they get their grubby little hands on a gun and take down as many people as they can.

On the gun control issue, it has been proven repeatedly that more guns actually does=less crime. The gun control lobby spent millions of federal money in a study of gun control and crime, trying to prove that gun control reduces crime. When they couldn’t find any evidence whatsoever to give the results they wanted, instead of admitting that gun control accomplishes nothing they merely stated that the issue needs more research.

In two separate counties in Georgia in the late 80s, early 90s(don’t remember exact year), they enacted a temporary state law for one year, which required every household with someone over the age of 18 to have a rifle or shotgun in the house, and every household with someone over the age of 21 to have a handgun in the house. During this time period, there was a drastic reduction in violent crimes in those two counties. Because the criminals all went to the neighboring counties, where they had a better chance of hitting someone who didn’t have a gun. But you never hear about stuff like that, because it doesn’t fit into the liberal medias agenda.

Hmm, I saw my name tossed out a long way back by some ignoramus…

Anyway, I am for penalizing those that are illegally obtaining guns or using them for illegal purposes. Those people that are law abiding should not have their rights crimped because of those that aren’t law abiding.

So, something like having a license to buy or own a gun is fine. That coupled with spot checks would identify those that are carrying illegally. Getting the guns out of the criminals hands should be the priority.

As others have said, banning guns in general just disarms the law abiding, but does nothing at to deal with those that aren’t. Any plans put forth should be structured in such a way that the law abiding are impacted the least.

[quote]vroom wrote:
Hmm, I saw my name tossed out a long way back by some ignoramus…

Anyway, I am for penalizing those that are illegally obtaining guns or using them for illegal purposes. Those people that are law abiding should not have their rights crimped because of those that aren’t law abiding.

So, something like having a license to buy or own a gun is fine. That coupled with spot checks would identify those that are carrying illegally. Getting the guns out of the criminals hands should be the priority.

As others have said, banning guns in general just disarms the law abiding, but does nothing at to deal with those that aren’t. Any plans put forth should be structured in such a way that the law abiding are impacted the least.[/quote]

Ok, who has taken over vroom’s posts? This can’t be the real vroom. It makes so much sense, and logical, and not the current leftist position. Can’t be vroom, just can’t be!

But on the chance that it is vroom, well said.

what really gets me is that the same ppl complaining about eroding rights and the patriot act turn around and support gun control. HELLO! That is eroding our rights…

[quote]DA MAN wrote:
what really gets me is that the same ppl complaining about eroding rights and the patriot act turn around and support gun control. HELLO! That is eroding our rights… [/quote]

Does this mean that you don’t support the Patriot Act? I believe a woman should have the right to choose because those are freedoms too. Does this mean you now agree with me?

[quote]snipeout wrote:
Now here is something that bothers me and I know has been discussed a few times. I have a problem with gun control and all these liberal politicians and how they plan on getting tougher on guns and gun laws.

Here is my major problem, when you toughen up on gun control all you really do is take gun’s out of the honest citizens hands. Do liberals really think that criminals walk in to your local gun shop and attempt to legally obtain a handgun? As a polic officer in the state of New Jersey it took me 11 weeks to be approved to buy my off duty weapon even though I already carry a department issued weapon. Now if I’m a criminal all I have to do is know someone who knows someone and bang I have a gun.

I guess what I’m asking from the liberal base on this board is to explain to me why you believe so heavily in taking gun’s out of the honest citizens hands when the criminal element will always have same day access to a gun. On a whole where gun control isn’t as strict(i.e. Texas) violent crime is lower. On the flipside in states where control is tight there is much mre gun related violence(i.e Cali, NY and NJ).
[/quote]

While I agree in that Americans should ideally be allowed to own guns I don’t believe for a second that higher rates of gun ownership will not lead to more crime or more violence. Heres why…

I concede to your point that criminals will be able to get guns either way, but that is a given and does not concern my arguement. The major problems with more responsable gun owners owning more guns is that those guns will be more accessible to others like their children and visitors to their home. Most school shootings I know of were not committed by people who were criminals before the fact but by immature teens or by toddlers who didn’t know any better. These crimes would not happen as often if those guns were not in the homes in the first place.

Also, if more homes have guns or if homes have more guns, it is just that more likely that a criminal who robs your home while you are away will be able to aquire a firearm.

Ther obvious counter arguement is, “Hey, I keep my guns locked up so nobody can use it.” Here’s the problems with that.

  1. Human Error: Even the most responsable or us make mistakes. Once is all it takes for a child to get it for someone to get hurt or killed. And your kids know every inch of your house better than you do.
  2. A thief can take a locked up handgun and unlock it later.
  3. Keeping your guns locked up defeats the purpose of having a gun for home protection. The criminal coming in the back door is not going to let you run to your dresser, get the key, then run to your closet, unlock your firearm, load it and run back downstairs.

Here’s another key arguement in favor of gun control: Guns increase the DEGREE of violence when a crime is committed. Even if the rate of violent crime remained exactly the same, those cimes will be more likely to be fatal if they are committed with a gun rather than fists, baseball bats, or even knives. If you rear-end Jack Nicholsen on the highway, rather than him pulling his 9-Iron from his golf bag and hitting you, he is going to pull a 9mm from his glove box and shoot you. Rather than beating the shit out of the guy you just caught fucking your wife, you may shoot him, rather than being stabbed by a mugger, you may be shot. Guns make violent crimes more fatal.

Lastly, I recall reading a statistic that it is more likely for a gun owner or his/her family to be killed with their own gun than to use it successfully in self-defense. That is by no means an arguement against gun ownership. If people feel more comfortable owning a gun and it is legal, than that is their porogative, but they should not deny the risks.

[quote]Dorso wrote:
3) Keeping your guns locked up defeats the purpose of having a gun for home protection. The criminal coming in the back door is not going to let you run to your dresser, get the key, then run to your closet, unlock your firearm, load it and run back downstairs.

[/quote]

This was a very good point. It is hard for me to believe that all of these people with locked up guns who also have kids in the house have easy access to their gun should they actually need it RIGHT NOW. I usually keep a knife on me. It is more out of habit, however, I do know that if I ever actually needed my knife in self defense, I would not have the time to unlock the knife from a hidden well guarded compartment…thus why I keep it on me. This is HOW kids get guns and until someone can explain that one to me, I am at a loss as to why parents need so many guns just lying around the house.

For the record, this isn’t just about educating your kids about gun use either. My dad had a loaded rifle hanging on the wall in our den when we were kids. I never took it to school to kill anyone…however, as one poster above eluded to, times have changed to the point where kids don’t really “fight” anymore. They get picked on and teased and ganged up on, but very rarely do two kids who actually know how to throw punches even have the opportunity to go at it face to face. That is why there are so many cases of school shootings.

You can’t introduce more guns into a society that has made it completely improper to handle things with any sense of courage (since courage has gone the way of “testosterone” in society) and not expect negative consequences. That is where the largest problem is. You would end up with way too many cowards running around with guns who would never have any sense of knowing how to handle serious situations without one.

Bottom line, I’m not against guns, I am against stupid people who would rush to own one.

{quote]On a whole where gun control isn’t as strict(i.e. Texas) violent crime is lower. On the flipside in states where control is tight there is much mre gun related violence(i.e Cali, NY and NJ).
[/quote]

Oh yeah, and this seems like an Ad Hoc arguement to me. There are plenty of other reasons Texas might have a low rate of gun violence (and I will trust you on that). Low population density, employment and housing, religious conviction, and people in Texas use chiansaws or bury their enemies alive.

I would bet your assumtion is correct but that evidence doesn’t prove the low gun violence is caused by higher rates of gun ownership.

Security Expert Offers Tips on Preventing Break-Ins
Oct. 20, 2005
Every year, there are an alarming number of home invasions by burglars who are not afraid to break into homes even when people are present, and in some cases, to use violence.

And be sure and die in a convienient spot for the “chalk outline guy”.

Police: Two Teens Break Into Restaurant Owner’s Home
October 11, 2005
The homeowners awoke to the sound of their dog barking, but before they could make it downstairs, the teens used neck ties to tie them up in the hallway, Geraldino reported.

“We woke up, my fiance’ ran down the hallway and they ran into each other,” the victim said. “Then they asked us to strip down naked and they tied us to chairs very tight with neck ties.”
http://www.nbc4i.com/news/5078335/detail.html

Wichita Massacre
At about 11 PM on the freezing cold night of December 14, 2000, Reginald Carr, 23, and Jonathan Carr, 20, invaded the home of three young Wichita men who had two female guests. The Carr Brothers forced all of them to strip naked. They beat the men and raped the women.

In addition to repeatedly raping the women, the Carr Brothers have been found guilty of forcing them to perform sexual acts on each other, sodomizing one of them, and forcing the three male victims to perform sex acts with each of the women. Then the Carr Brothers robbed them and brutally murdered four of them.

According to a lone survivor’s horrifying pre-trial testimony, after sexually tormenting them, the Carr Brothers took the friends individually to an ATM machine and forced them to withdraw as much cash as possible. Then, the Carr Brothers transported their naked victims to a remote soccer field and forced them to kneel in the snow before shooting them execution-style in the head, and then running them over with a truck. After leaving their victims for dead, the Carr Brothers returned to the men’s apartment and stole appliances, bedding, and china.
http://www.wichita-massacre.com/

Home Invasions in Elbert County
October 14, 2004
“The suspect went to the house on Longcreek Road and tried to kick the front door in. The elderly women let the suspect know she had a gun and when she did, he took of running. Minutes later, there was another home invasion on Middleton Road and she shot at the suspect and he left,” says Sheriff Barry Haston.

He thinks the invasions are connected because the houses were six miles away from each other. The sheriff says the man didn’t steal anything from the second home, but did try to rape the woman. Sheriff Haston says having the guns kept those women alive.
http://www.wneg32.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WNEG/MGArticle/NEG_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031778537908&path=

Granny’s Got a Gun… and Uses It
A 66-year-old grandmother is giving new meaning to the saying, “Don’t Mess With Texas.”

Or - “If you’re a woman living alone, set a pair of men’s work boots outside your door.”

[quote]snipeout wrote:
The original intent of my post was to attempt to point out that no matter how the government attempts to control law abiding citizens rights to own guns, the bad guys will always be able to get them on demand. Do I agree with background checks? Absolutely. Do I think that waiting times should be reduced? Definitely, with regards to quickly yet still safely completing the background check.

[/quote]

Why do waiting times need to be reduced? And if they can’t be reduced safely do you still support reducing them?

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
snipeout wrote:
The original intent of my post was to attempt to point out that no matter how the government attempts to control law abiding citizens rights to own guns, the bad guys will always be able to get them on demand. Do I agree with background checks? Absolutely. Do I think that waiting times should be reduced? Definitely, with regards to quickly yet still safely completing the background check.

Why do waiting times need to be reduced? And if they can’t be reduced safely do you still support reducing them?
[/quote]

Why do law abiding citizens have to wait upwards of 20 weeks just to receive a permit to purchase when anyone can buy a gun same day off the street. The problem being that these permit papers sit on desks for months. Not a big deal unless you are say a cop in NJ who more or less needs to carry off duty and you have to wait 11 weeks just to get your permit to buy your off duty weapon.

Doesn’t sound like a big deal to non law enforcement but when you are forced to live in the same county you work in you tend to run into some of the scum you lock up or keep locked up when they are out on bail. I have to wait 11 weeks to protect myself and my wife but the same scum I keep in jail can get a gun 3 minutes after they make bail.

[quote]snipeout wrote:

Why do law abiding citizens have to wait upwards of 20 weeks just to receive a permit to purchase when anyone can buy a gun same day off the street. The problem being that these permit papers sit on desks for months. Not a big deal unless you are say a cop in NJ who more or less needs to carry off duty and you have to wait 11 weeks just to get your permit to buy your off duty weapon.

Doesn’t sound like a big deal to non law enforcement but when you are forced to live in the same county you work in you tend to run into some of the scum you lock up or keep locked up when they are out on bail. I have to wait 11 weeks to protect myself and my wife but the same scum I keep in jail can get a gun 3 minutes after they make bail.[/quote]

-Wow!! I might actually agree with you on something.

Are cops in your county required to carry when off duty?
If so, then that is way too long to wait. Police officers should have their permits expedited, since they’ve already gone through the necessary background checks prior to employment.

Heck, even if not required to carry, police officers should be able to slide to the front of the line in states where the laws are so strict. Hopefully, any negative information would have been discovered before they were allowed to become cops.

As for the other law abiding citizens, a waiting period isn’t a bad idea. Just because criminals can get their hands on something, doesn’t mean everybody should be able to. That’s why they’re criminals.

[quote]AZMojo wrote:
snipeout wrote:

Why do law abiding citizens have to wait upwards of 20 weeks just to receive a permit to purchase when anyone can buy a gun same day off the street. The problem being that these permit papers sit on desks for months. Not a big deal unless you are say a cop in NJ who more or less needs to carry off duty and you have to wait 11 weeks just to get your permit to buy your off duty weapon.

Doesn’t sound like a big deal to non law enforcement but when you are forced to live in the same county you work in you tend to run into some of the scum you lock up or keep locked up when they are out on bail. I have to wait 11 weeks to protect myself and my wife but the same scum I keep in jail can get a gun 3 minutes after they make bail.

-Wow!! I might actually agree with you on something.

Are cops in your county required to carry when off duty?
If so, then that is way too long to wait. Police officers should have their permits expedited, since they’ve already gone through the necessary background checks prior to employment.

Heck, even if not required to carry, police officers should be able to slide to the front of the line in states where the laws are so strict. Hopefully, any negative information would have been discovered before they were allowed to become cops.

As for the other law abiding citizens, a waiting period isn’t a bad idea. Just because criminals can get their hands on something, doesn’t mean everybody should be able to. That’s why they’re criminals.
[/quote]

We are not “required” to carry off duty, just respond to any incident we see take place wihle off duty. Take that for what it is worth, not to mention the amount of people who make bail and are not happy to see you and your wife out enjoying themselves.

[quote]snipeout wrote:
We are not “required” to carry off duty, just respond to any incident we see take place wihle off duty. Take that for what it is worth, not to mention the amount of people who make bail and are not happy to see you and your wife out enjoying themselves. [/quote]

You don’t keep your gun while off duty?

[quote]vroom wrote:
Hmm, I saw my name tossed out a long way back by some ignoramus…[/quote]

Awww, I’m touched. You noticed me :slight_smile: It was the vroom-esque language of the “intellectual progressive” that caught my eye. You know, “nuances” and “black and white” and the like. It sounded just like you!

In general, though, I do agree with the part of your post I didn’t quote. I am a little wary of the licensing part, though, because you then have de-facto registration, which effectively enables the government, should it change its tune on gun rights, to round up all weapons (from the good guys of course, since it is only they who would have obediently gone and gotten themselves licensed). For example, after Hitler’s rise to power (or more correctly, his ELECTION to power), it was gun registration – in the name of “public safety” of course – that enabled the Gestapo to go door-to-door rounding up guns, leaving the population defenseless (and I think we all know what happened next). Not saying it WOULD happen, but we need to be mindful that it COULD happen. Beware the government that wants to help you…

Also, what is your proposed plan for “spot checks”? Police at the door to look for unlicensed weapons at a time of their choosing? Thanks, but if that’s “public safety”, I’ll take freedom over “safety” any day.

Fonebone

“Proud to be too stupid to see everything vroom’s way”

Dorso most of your arguements make no sense and you contradict yourself. If you want to talk about statistics here are some for you.

In 1997 the UK imposed the worlds most oppressive gun control laws. In the first 5 years after that the number of gun crimes doubled and has gone up significantly every year since. Last year the increase was 12 percent.

A 12 percent increase in a rate that more than doubled in the first five years is more than a 25 percent increase over the preban rate. In one year!!!

I think these are statistically significant numbers that clearly shows that rather than lowering violent crime, gun control raises it.

The reason why is simple. By unilaterally disarming the law abiding citizenry the government gave an additional benefit to any criminal who can get his hands on a gun. Because they no longer have to worry about getting shot in self defense.

So rather than being a disincentive to criminals so they don’t get guns, these laws have become an incentive to the criminals to get guns. They have also made the law abiding citizen a much juicier target, because the crooks know they won’t be armed.

It also makes it easier to intimidate people so they don’t report crimes to the police, which in turn makes the police much less effective. Witness intimidation is a huge problem in the UK. Because people can’t defend themselves even in their own home.

Here is another staticstic for you. By High School age every child in the UK has been assaulted with a knife.

Every weekend in the UK large numbers of young women are admitted to an emergency room to be treated for glassing.

Last month the BBC reported that Scotland (part of the UK)is now the worlds most violent country. You are more likely to be assaulted, stabbed (the Scots love their knives)or shot in Scotland than any other country in the world.

Canada is another country where gun crime is taking off despite very restrictive gun control.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2005/09/15/1218800-cp.html

One last thing Dorso, dead is dead. Gun, knife or golf club it doesn’t matter. One won’t make you any deader than the other.

If you don’t think it is violent to beat someones head in with a golf club you are way wrong. I witnessed such an assault two months ago. It was one of the cruelest things I have ever seen in my entire life.

As Ted Nugent says 911 and a middle finger will only get you so far.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
snipeout wrote:
We are not “required” to carry off duty, just respond to any incident we see take place wihle off duty. Take that for what it is worth, not to mention the amount of people who make bail and are not happy to see you and your wife out enjoying themselves.

You don’t keep your gun while off duty?[/quote]

Due to departmental policy we can not carry our duty weapon off duty, they don’t want to assume the liability. I do get to take my duty weapon home I am just not authorized to carry it out of uniform.

The funniest thing about all of this to me is just exactly how random the gun control laws are in this country. If I want a handgun I am required to “cool off” for 7 days, however, I can walk out of a store with a shotgun and handle my business that same day. Personally, I would rather take a 9mm round than 00 buck out of a 3 1/2 inch magnum 12 gauge any day of the week.

Ha, I would be willing to bet that the majority of you gun control types have no idea what I’m even talking about right now (the latter would be much move devastating), and therein lies the problem. As with the majority of the laws in this country, gun control legislation is proposed by politicans who are largely uneducated regarding firearms and their capabilities. Ignorance (shaking my head).

So to my pro-gun friends out there, don’t waste your breath. You can’t have an intelligent debate with a group of people that don’t understand the subject matter.

Most people who oppose guns are afraid of them. I would be willing to bet that if more people who opposed guns had the chance to learn about them and their proper use the pro-gun population would increase greatly. So to those of you that haven’t had the opportunity, I encourage you to take a shooting class. I think your perspective will change.

Fonebone,

Enough already.

I was not talking about registering gun owners, I was talking about having a license to own a gun. There is a big difference. The license means you passed a knowledge test so that you aren’t likely to shoot yourself or family members by accident.

The fact you have a drivers license does not mean you have purchased a car. It means you are allowed to drive. See the difference?

It also doesn’t mean that anyone has to build a national database of how many guns you buy. There’s this little thing known as privacy which I don’t support eliminating.

We don’t have to copy the vehicular system completely, just because there is some aspect of it we can draw from.

As for spot checks, what does it matter what they are, as long as they are done across society fairly. By this, I mean people who carry show a license and keep going. People who carry and don’t have a license, busted.

The trick is to make it difficult for the criminal to carry a gun, but easy for the law abiding to carry a gun. This would “even up the odds” a bit for the law abiding. It’s been way too long since anyone took steps in this direction.

Don’t let your paranoia get in the way of trying to find effective ways to combat criminals - without unfairly effecting non-criminals.

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Dorso most of your arguements make no sense and you contradict yourself. If you want to talk about statistics here are some for you.

In 1997 the UK imposed the worlds most oppressive gun control laws. In the first 5 years after that the number of gun crimes doubled and has gone up significantly every year since. Last year the increase was 12 percent.

A 12 percent increase in a rate that more than doubled in the first five years is more than a 25 percent increase over the preban rate. In one year!!!

I think these are statistically significant numbers that clearly shows that rather than lowering violent crime, gun control raises it.

The reason why is simple. By unilaterally disarming the law abiding citizenry the government gave an additional benefit to any criminal who can get his hands on a gun. Because they no longer have to worry about getting shot in self defense.

So rather than being a disincentive to criminals so they don’t get guns, these laws have become an incentive to the criminals to get guns. They have also made the law abiding citizen a much juicier target, because the crooks know they won’t be armed.

It also makes it easier to intimidate people so they don’t report crimes to the police, which in turn makes the police much less effective. Witness intimidation is a huge problem in the UK. Because people can’t defend themselves even in their own home.

Here is another staticstic for you. By High School age every child in the UK has been assaulted with a knife.

Every weekend in the UK large numbers of young women are admitted to an emergency room to be treated for glassing.

Last month the BBC reported that Scotland (part of the UK)is now the worlds most violent country. You are more likely to be assaulted, stabbed (the Scots love their knives)or shot in Scotland than any other country in the world.

Canada is another country where gun crime is taking off despite very restrictive gun control.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2005/09/15/1218800-cp.html

One last thing Dorso, dead is dead. Gun, knife or golf club it doesn’t matter. One won’t make you any deader than the other.

If you don’t think it is violent to beat someones head in with a golf club you are way wrong. I witnessed such an assault two months ago. It was one of the cruelest things I have ever seen in my entire life.

As Ted Nugent says 911 and a middle finger will only get you so far.[/quote]

I understand the point you are making. The relationship or probable relationship between gun ownership and deterrance of crime has already been brought up several times in this thread. What I was trying to do was provide some of the arguements in favor of “gun control” (which is a really vague term btw). I think you falsely assume that because I posted some of these arguements that I am in favor of gun control which is not really the case. There are good arguements on both sides and there are infinite degrees of what people believe is a reasonable solution. That is why this issue is so interesting. It is not simply a matter of one’s moral beliefs which often divide an issue in a black and white sort of way. This really takes some thinking and gun laws are almost certain to be a compromise in the US.

BTW, I don’t think that you are helping your position by claiming that guns are not as likely as knives or bats, etc. Yes, “dead is dead,” but you are really playing the fool here. One is more likely to be killed in an altercation with a criminal with a gun than one with a knife or bat. It is easier to defend yourself or run away from a person with a bat or knife. You cannot run away from a bullet. A person with a knife or bat has to be within reach to be effective which gives the victim a better chance of defending himself than if the criminal had a gun which can be used from far away.

A 15 year old gand member who has never fired a gun before can drive by a crowd 30 feet away and probaly hit 10 people, killing a few, in a matter of seconds. Do you really want to make the claim that the same thing could be done with a bat or knife? You wouldn’t be taken seriosly any more. You alrealy know that guns are more effective weapons. That is why we don’t issue golf clubs to our military, pocket knives to our police officers, or try to go deer hunting with our Louisville Sluggers. The valid arguements against gun control are strong enough without having to resort to claiming that knives and bats are just as effective weapons as guns. If that was the case nobody would care about gun restriction because bats and knives are just as effective methods of home protection. That would kind of curb the whole arguement for gun ownership in the first place wouldn’t it?

Anyway, although I found the statistics in your post interesting and convincing, I don’t think you mentioned what part of my original post didn’t make sense or where I contradicted myself. Sorry if I did a poor job with the arguements I originally posted.