The right to keep and bear arms

[Monkeroony]

I live in Nottingham in the UK, a place that until recently was pretty notorious for its gun crime.

I think it was still less than 10 people a year being shot but it is still a high number for any medium sized city.
Of course it was due to a gang leader that these shootings were happening, I have no doubt that if the guns weren't available then they would have had no problem stabbing people to death.

The same thing applies here with the recent Cumbrian shooting, if the guy didn't have a shot gun I still think he would have used a knife.

In-fact now that I think about it, knife crime is pretty serious here in the UK, whereas gun crime is not.

[Sharky]

I live in Nottingham in the UK, a place that until recently was pretty notorious for its gun crime.

I think it was still less than 10 people a year being shot but it is still a high number for any medium sized city.
Of course it was due to a gang leader that these shootings were happening, I have no doubt that if the guns weren't available then they would have had no problem stabbing people to death.

The same thing applies here with the recent Cumbrian shooting, if the guy didn't have a shot gun I still think he would have used a knife.

In-fact now that I think about it, knife crime is pretty serious here in the UK, whereas gun crime is not.

Knife crime will obviously go up anywhere guns are hard to come across, because some people ARE just going to kill someone no matter what.

But I think if guns were more available and easy to find for the average joe a lot more people would be killed. It is MUCH harder to go on a killing rampage with a knife...

It isnt so much about saying 'hey people will kill anyway' its more so giving them less of a means to kill more people.

Imgine we said, 'well people are going to kill anyway we might as well all have tactical nukes in our back yard becuase you cant stop killers from killing!'

[George]

Rampage kills are very rare. Mostly when someone murders someone is personal reasons like revenge or gang related.

That being said, gun laws in California are retarded:
http://crime.about.com/od/gunlawsbystat ... aws_ca.htm

[MadeManG74]

I think that most people here agree that the real issue is laws surrounding the control of guns rather than guns being available at all.

I do think that America needs to overhaul their laws concerning guns. Having automatic weapons for sale is just ridiculous in my opinion, there is no practical use for a gun like that whatsoever outside of killing someone, and therefore they shouldn't be sold to the public. Even with less dangerous guns like rifles, I think they should introduce far more strict laws on who can buy them and regarding their maintenence and storage.

[Emmett The Crab]

Having automatic weapons for sale is just ridiculous in my opinion, there is no practical use for a gun like that whatsoever outside of killing someone, and therefore they shouldn't be sold to the public.

True, but you can say the same thing about handguns.  You can have fun shooting them in a range, but their true purpose will always be to use them against other people.

[George]

No automatic weapons? What if bears with uzi's come out with bullet proof vests?
[youtube:2vugjlxh]osgrd1MPb7I[/youtube:2vugjlxh]
You doomed us.

[MadeManG74]

Having automatic weapons for sale is just ridiculous in my opinion, there is no practical use for a gun like that whatsoever outside of killing someone, and therefore they shouldn't be sold to the public.

True, but you can say the same thing about handguns.  You can have fun shooting them in a range, but their true purpose will always be to use them against other people.

Yes they can be used to kill people, but pistols are also for target shooting. It's an Olympic event, even. There is no such sport that involves the use of Automatic weapons though, which is why I think they should be illegal (as they are in Australia) since there is no legitimate reason to own one other than to kill somebody.

The point is, IF a handgun is sold, the owner should have to prove it's for target shooting like they do in Australia. If you own a pistol, you need to take it to a club for a 'scored shoot' at least six times a year. You have to go an additional two times a year for each caliber pistol you may own after your first. If you don't do that, then you aren't using it for shooting and you have no reason to own a gun, so your licence is revoked.

Same deal with Rifles, Australia doesn't allow Semi-Auto rifles, only bolt action. You need to take a rifle to the range four times a year OR go to official hunting grounds/meetings (not sure how often) or your licence will be revoked.

On top of this, like I said you must keep it stored in a safe that is bolted to the ground or extremely heavy so it cannot be stolen, and the firing pin and ammunition must be kept in a seperate locking compartment.

I think this is a fine compromise to allow legitimate sport shooters and hunters to own their firearms responsibly.

[Sega Uranus]

A lot of people over the world, like Americans collect guns of all different kinds, many cannot be properly fired anymore but for the older ones it is not always so easy to find bullets for anymore. Under the rules Australia holds, how would anyone be able to have this kind of collection anymore? It is not like you can just tell them to get rid of or destroy their collections, that would not be fair and would get a lot of people extremely upset. The same could be said for people who collect other kinds of weapons. Having a mace out in the open is badass, but I am sure a lot of people would not want it legal to have this too, and it is not like you can open up mace ranges all over the world to set those kind of rules up.

I agree though that there is no reason one should be able to own automatic weapons.

[MadeManG74]

Well, years ago when they banned Semi-Auto rifles, I think the government had a buy-back program. As for antique guns, or collectibles, I think that you can get special licences to buy them, and as usual they have their own restrictions and regulations. They might need to be inspected to ensure that they aren't capable of firing or if the ammunition is readily available.

[crackdude]

[Emmett The Crab]

Any of those things would be a step in the right direction.

[MadeManG74]

Any of those things would be a step in the right direction.

Arming bears you mean? I agree.  

[Toggi3]

I am going to chime in to this flame attracting topic.

I consider myself overall politically moderate, however one of my most conservative positions is guns.

In certain states/countries (such as the UK) that enact strict gun control people who defend themselves or have any means to defend themselves are treated as criminal.  You cant own mace, you cant carry a baton, you cant have a blade, and you certainly cant have a gun.  How can you reasonably protect yourself from assault or rape?

I am getting a little off topic, but basically what it boils down to is you need a way to defend yourself.  even if it means you might be defending against a greater threat because of your mere ability to defend yourself.  The police arent your bodyguards.  They cannot protect you all the time and escort you forever.  When someone calls you and says they are going to kill you, its much better that you own a gun than to depend on the police who are always minutes away when seconds count.

I also believe guns give the government something of a reason to fear it's own citizens.  Which is a very important counterbalance in my opinion.  The second ammendment of the US constitution I would say is the one that guarantees all other provisions in the bill of rights.


I am a gun owner, I own a CZ VZ-82 9x18 'Makarov caliber' pistol,  I have a conceal carry permit and go everywhere with it.

I dont particularly *need* a gun everyday, and I hope I never have to actually use one on anyone.  But personally, I'd rather have and not need than need and not have.  and a right not exercised is in effect a right lost.

Gun owners on the whole are good people, and I would advocate that more people carry a firearm, anyone who is capable should in fact, and that everyone be acquainted with gun operation and maintenance by the age of 16.

You can argue all you want that we are better off without them, I will take my chances.  They aren't difficult to obtain anywhere in the world, and even if they were all confiscated they are simple enough to manufacture for the black market to handle, in effect, only law abiding citizens who could responsibly own a gun wont have the ability to obtain one, people outside the law will always be able.  This is *especially* true in a country like the US with so many guns.  Look at the gun crime in Chicago and tell me if the law abiding citizens of that city are better off without guns.

A society that is free doesn't need to justify why it owns items for self defense.  We are competent and fully capable of making that decision for ourselves without someone else's permission until proven otherwise and not before, whatever the statistics.

[Emmett The Crab]

Toggi, you make some good points, and I guess it boils down to individual rights vs. the good of the community.  Those other countries you mentioned are much safer, and have a tiny fraction of the gun-related fatalities that we do.  Gun owners make the argument that if you make guns illegal, only criminals will have guns.  That's true, but in a fit of rage, some guy who lost his job isn't going to kill everyone in his office with a baseball bat...  A person who isn't a criminal to start with.  A gun lets you act on your emotions in an instant, and you don't get to think about what you're doing until it's too late.

My opinion on guns is very unpopular where I live, where people think it's crazy that I don't own a gun.  

Statistically you are more likely to get shot with your own gun in a home defense situation then to actually defend yourself.  No one likes to think of themselves in terms of a statistic like that, but you will never know if you can kill a person until you are put in the position where you have to.

Also, the second amendment is kind of an if/then statement.  If an organized militia is necessary (like the redcoats are coming and we don't have an army) then the government won't take your guns away.

[MadeManG74]

Statistically you are more likely to get shot with your own gun in a home defense situation then to actually defend yourself.  No one likes to think of themselves in terms of a statistic like that, but you will never know if you can kill a person until you are put in the position where you have to.

This is my main concern as well. While Toggi3 makes some very good points, I find it odd that you feel the need to carry a gun at all times. I live in what is considered a bad neighborhood (we've had a drug dealer arrested in our back-yard once, 'turf war' arguments at the end of the street, and a house was molotov'd last year in our street too), but even so, I've never felt a strong desire to be armed, and never really felt that I would want to keep guns in my house. As Emmet said, I feel that they would more likely be used against me in some way than allowing me to genuinely defend myself (not to mention that having weapons seems like it would cause things to escalate in violence sometimes).

I do agree though that if the right restrictions are in place, then legal gun owners pose very little threat as they must be law abiding and very well educated in gun safety and maintenance.