Gun Control

great timing for this little story...

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...674285957.html November 13, 2003 - 11:12AM No charges will be filed against a Colorado homeowner who shot to death a neighbour who was threatening him at his door because the killing was justified under the state's "Make my day" law, a prosecutor said today. "Citizens of our state have a right to absolute security in their homes," Weld County assistant district attorney Thomas Quammen said. The Colorado legislature in the 1980s passed a law that gives immunity to homeowners who take deadly action against someone breaking into their homes. The law is commonly referred to as "Make my day" in a reference to the Clint Eastwood movie Sudden Impact in which his Dirty Harry detective character dared a criminal to shoot back and "Make my day". The shooting occurred on November 2 after Richard Hammock went to the home of his neighbour Eric Griffin whom Hammock believed shot his dog with a pellet gun. Hammock was holding a wooden pole. "The evidence we had was that the deceased came over, was angry, was shouting, was being provocative," Quammen said. The homeowner went to the door and told Hammock to go away and locked a glass door. But Hammock then broke through the glass pane and Griffin shot him. "If someone is breaking into your house ... you are entitled to use force, including deadly force," Quammen said. "Our hands are tied on this," he said, referring to the state law that provides immunity from criminal prosecution and even immunity in civil suits. He said besides calls from the media, the district attorney's office in Greeley, Colorado was also getting phone calls from the public mostly supporting the district attorney's decision not to prosecute.

[Faceman]

Originally posted by Maelakin: As a gun owner, I have another valid reason I should be allowed to continue owning my firearms. A gun is a tool. The reason for possession of that tool is irrelevant. Most instances of injury and death due to owning a gun comes not from malicious intent, but from the misuse of the tool. Education would result in less instances where a gun results in bodily injury. Every year, irresponsible and reckless automobile drivers kill more people than guns even come close to killing. Like a gun, cars are a tool we use. When improperly used the result can often times be tragic. Just as I can decide to take my gun and shoot another, I can take my car and hit another, often having the same effect, death. Does this mean that we should also have a ban on automobiles? The bottom line is that removing the right to own firearms does nothing but promote an illusion of pacification. In addition, it removes a personal liberty I should always have, the right to protection. Understand also that a guns protection comes mostly from the threat of its use, not the actual act of using it.

A gun is a tool.
But what for?
Handguns, submachineguns, MGs or assault rifles are tools,
tools specifically designed for killing people most efficiently.
Killing or hurting people however is by default illegal, so it's just logic to ban something if its sole purpose is something illegal.
This is why we call them arms rather than tools.
The main purpose of an automobile is to move people from one place to another, something perfectly legal and necessary. This is why a car doesn't compare to a gun. If we put a ban on cars, the economy would collapse, if we put a ban on guns there would just be the usual backlash you get when you forbid something.
This is also, why I'm against a ban on hunting rifles, or hunting arms (big calibre handguns, knifes) in general. These are useful items.
A H&K MP5K however does not serve any legal useful purpose.

I understand, that many are concerned with their protection, and that a gun is "used" often as a threat. To serve and protect there's the police. I don't know how that works with you overseas but in my country they're pretty decent folks, and they're pretty fast. Of course you want to protect yourself as well as possible, but in a society you sometimes have to trade your own good for the common good, which in this case is to protect it from gun owners, not as responsible as you.
Then again there's a lot of non-lethal protection equipment out there as I stated, and as I also stated above: If you both have got a gun: start praying!
Maybe I'm a little less concerned about all that because crime here is really low, especially violent crimes. Maybe I would talk differently if I had been robbed at gunpoint once or at least knew somebody who was. But from my perspective guns are not really necessary and they pose a threat = They pose an unnecessary threat.
Let me add, that while I think it is an important debate - especially in the US - I also second that the causes of the problem have to be addressed rather than "solving" the problem by banning guns.
While a ban might not be extremely efficient, fromm my viewpoint a ban (at least on paramilitaric weaponry) would be logical and do more good than bad.

[johnny]

It's an extra lock on the door, it's as simple as that.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Faceman: A gun is a tool. But what for? Handguns, submachineguns, MGs or assault rifles are tools, tools specifically designed for killing people most efficiently. Killing or hurting people however is by default illegal, so it's just logic to ban something if its sole purpose is something illegal. This is why we call them arms rather than tools.

I disagree with your assertion that guns are tools specifically designed for killing people most efficiently. There are PLENTY of other uses of guns - especially handguns and rifles.

I thoroughly enjoy target shooting with my guns - as do many Americans. And there are many types of professional competitions designed specifically for the shooting of targets. A good friend of mine has competed (and won) in several skeet shooting competitions. I've seen many competitions on TV for handguns. Everything from who can hit the most targets at the farthest distance to who can actually draw their weapon, shoot a number of targets, eject and reload a clip, and shoot some more targets.

While I don't participate on that level, I certainly enjoy going out in the country and blowing a bunch of holes in cans and bottles. I don't own guns for the purpose of "killing somebody more efficiently", I own guns because I like to shoot guns - pure and simple.

While I agree your argument has more merit regarding machine guns or para-military weapons, you seem to have either forgotten (or simply don't know) that these weapons ARE banned from the general populance already. There is no way for an ordinary private citizen to legally purchase an M16 or any other paramilitary weapons (to the best of my knowledge anyway).

Another thing....you invalidated Maelakin's argument about automobiles being used to kill people because you said that isn't the "primary purpose" of automobiles. OK, fair enough...but in your post refuting all the "common arguments" against gun control, you said this....

Originally posted by Faceman: You are limiting my freedom, I use my gun only for sports: And I used the nuclear reactor in my backyard for educational purposes.

Now THERE'S a perfect example of comparing apples to orangutans if I ever saw one. Guns and nuclear reactors have absolutely ZILCH in common with each other. So don't criticise arguments of others when you have made an even more exaggerated comparison of your own.

As for the argument of home defense, I fervently disagree with you on this, because I have faced the possibility of an armed person breaking into my house. When I was in college, a fellow that was running from the police ended up coming down our driveway (we lived at the end of a dirt road at the time). When the man realized he had come to a dead end, he jumped out of his truck, pulled a rifle from behind the seat, and briefly looked towards the house (apparantly trying to decide if he should try to break in or not). Fortunately, he decided to simply run into the woods instead.

I was sitting in my bedroom watching the whole thing through my window. The only reason I wasn't completely terrified of this guy coming into the house was the fact that I knew my dad was in the living room watching him too, and had his pistol ready in case the guy did come towards the house. I assure you, he would never have made it to the front porch. I didn't have a gun in my room that night...but I did the night after - and I've had one in my room every night since then too.

If we HADN'T been gunowners and the guy HAD come into the house, my parents and I would have had NO OPTIONS, other than to become the hostages of a desparate man on the run from the police. You said earlier that "two guns equal one corpse". Again, you're wrong. It only takes ONE gun to equal one corpse. The question is "Which one do you want to be?". If you aren't the one with the gun, you're the other one.

[Faceman]

Cerek,
I agree with you only on some parts.
I have absolutely nothing against target shooting and if I owned a gun, or was invited to do some I would love to. However, that's not the purpose handguns were invented for. Guns are weapons, and the first handguns have been invented for killing people. Maybe this is misrepresented in some movies, but I honestly don't think that the people in the wild west used their Peacemakers primarily for shooting competitions.
AFAIK there are a lot of guns out there specifically designed for competitions, but some others (and these are the ones I would ban) have to do nothing with target shooting. Be it short-barreled submachineguns (e.g. a Scorpion or a MicroUzi) or really small and inaccurate pistols (like the wild west's classic Derringer). Furthermore modern gun design still includes factors like "stopping power" and they are a buying argument for many people.
I admit, that I don't know which guns exactly are allowed in the US, but I thought to understand that bans are only on single weapons and that some assault rifles ARE available on the free market, as are submachineguns and other full auto weaponry.
This is for example not the case in my country where private persons are only allowed to own handguns (revolvers, or semi-auto pistols) and hunting rifles.
My nuclear reactor example was over the line (i.e. more comical than serving its purpose). So let me rephrase:
Guns are dangerous. Guns can be used for legal entertainment as well as for illegal acts.
Based on the severity of the acts easily possible to commit with a gun (i.e. murder) AND the fact that the specific design of the gun was optimized for that act AND the fact that every other use of it is merely entertainment, based on that facts I'd strongly consider to put a ban on that stuff.
There's a ban on base-jumping currently as far as I understand. It is also a sort of entertainment or a sport, how you call it is up to you. However it is forbidden because it is dangerous. A gun is much more dangerous than a base-jump, so the logical conclusion would be to ban guns.
-
Another example for law (this time in my country) that I don't get on that part is the production and sale of "bongs". Pipes (Hookahs) specifically designed for smoking marihuana/cannabis. While this drug is illegal over here, there is a flourishing business of people selling bongs. These objects cannot be reasonably used for anything else than smoking pot, so why are they on the market? Hell, you can even buy the plants legally here and everything you need to grow pot at your home. The ONLY thing that is illegal is harvested marihuana itself. This - in my eyes - is hypocrisy. There is no other reasonable use for all this than producing and smoking an illegal drug, so I can't figure (actually I can but that's beside the point ) why these things are still legal.
-
So I hope you agree with me that IF a gun has no other use than entertainment, a ban to avoid the dangers connected with private gun ownership may be considerable if these dangers get out of hand.
-
However you argue that a gun has another purpose too, defense/protection. I have already stated several time that there are non-lethal protection weapons (Tazer guns, HighVoltage shockers, Tranquilizer Guns,...) available.
For my very simplicistic equation I got to say, that IMHO not many people (even criminals) shoot right away. They shoot if they are threatened. Something that you can accomplish by carrying a gun. If you don't have a gun, you may become a hostage, but may well stay alive if you keep cool. If you decide to go all Bruce Willis on the guy there's a good chance you're script might not be as nicely written as his. This is my point of view on the case, and one of the main reasons why I don't own a gun.
As I already said, maybe I'm also not so concerned with protection, because my country has incredibly low crime rates. I can walk through any part of my city at any time given time without fear for pickpocketing, mugging or robbing. Only one family I know has been broken into their home (when they were on vacation) and only one person I know has ever been victim to fraud. So maybe I have an easy view on this from a safe haven, but I think it's logical and so I follow it [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 11-14-2003, 08:07 AM: Message edited by: Faceman ]

[Cerek the Barbaric]

On the issue of home defense. I don't completely agree with you that a burglar with a gun will only shoot if/or when he feels threatened. I've seen plenty of videos from convenience stores where the person behind the counter gave the money to the crook, and the crook shot at them anyway. I saw another video where a man was working late and his young wife had stopped by to visit with him. She was playing video games off to the side when two men came in to rob the store. Her husband gave the guy all the money in the register and did everything the guy asked. But as the robber and his partner turned to leave, the guy - for NO REASON - raised his gun and shot the wife as he walked out of the store. She was sitting on a stool with her hands over her head, not threatening him in any way...yet he decided to put a bullet in her anyway as he walked out. The wife - who was pregnant - was killed. The man lost his newlywed wife AND their unborn child.

I'm sorry, Faceman, but I will NOT leave the safety of my family up to the whims of a crook that breaks in my house.

You mentioned all the "non-lethal" alternatives. Guess what? Non-lethal or not, the robber will still feel "threatened" by them...so he's going to use lethal force while all I can do is hope the Tazer knocks him out before he can fire.

Nope, sorry, no way. The reason homewners get injured when they face a burglar is because most of them "freeze" when they actually are faced with the decison to pull the trigger. But - as I said before - I've already faced the threat of an armed gunman breaking into my house, and I can tell you for a cold hard fact that I WILL shoot him where he stands and I will drop him like a rock. I've been shooting pistols since I was a young boy, and at the risk of sounding egotistical, I am a very good shot. I typically shoot at my targets from a distance of 50-60 ft...and I will hit my target at least 70% of the time. That's shooting at a 20oz coke bottle from 50ft away. You put a human-sized target inside my house, where they will be no more than 25ft away (at the very most), and I can say with absolute assurance that I won't miss a single shot.

And if somebody does break into my house, I'm not going to sit around and wait to see if they decide to present a danger to my family or if they just want to grab some stuff and leave....if they break into my house, I automatically assume they ARE a threat to my family and I WILL protect my family with lethal force. No questions asked.

[Skunk]

The United States is a very special case when it comes to gun controls. No-one knows precisely how many guns are in circulation; conservative estimates put the number as approximately 1 gun for every two people in the country.

That's a lot of guns - and criminals will always have easy access to them. Having said that, I believe that we should control gun-ownership as much as possible and that there is really no 'self-defence' reasons for possessing an MI-16. Law-abiding citizens should also not be fearful of paperwork and controls that govern the possession and storage of their firearms, providing that they still have a right to posess hand-guns (for self defence) and rifles for hunting.

Originally posted by Faceman: However you argue that a gun has another purpose too, defense/protection. I have already stated several time that there are non-lethal protection weapons (Tazer guns, HighVoltage shockers, Tranquilizer Guns,...)

These weapons are pop-guns when faced with an intruder is armed with a gun or is simply more physically powerful or in a 'crack' frenzy.
A tranquilier gun will not stop a doped up attacker quickly enough to prevent him reaching you, where he might end up killing you long before the drug kicks in.
Tazer guns are one-shot weapons, if you miss or the darts fail to penetrate heavy clothing, you are doomed. There is no reload. And even if you do hit him, what then? You will only temporarily disable him for a couple of minutes - and then he is up again (and don't kid yourself that you can tie up someone who is violently shaking). You could run - but what if he had entered your home? Are you going to run from there and leave him to take what he wants or escape and come back a few days later with a gun and a mind for revenge?

As I say, I don't like gun-ownership, but one has to be pragmatic with regards to the United States as it *is* a special case by virtue of the sheer number of guns on the streets and the relative ease of access to them that criminals have.

[ 11-14-2003, 08:47 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

[Timber Loftis]

Tasers/Masers have one shot.

[Maelakin]

The example of the automobile is actually a good one. You say that we need automobiles and they provide us with a benefit. Well, we actually do not need automobiles. They are nothing more than a luxury, a convenience.

If the actual reason for supporting a ban on guns is to protect the populace as a whole, then why not spend that money on developing a better mass transit system to remove entirely the need for automobiles? You will save many more lives by following this course of action.

I want to touch upon a few subjects and the counter arguments I have heard.

Self Defense - I have seen it mentioned that in these circumstances all gun ownership creates is a situation where there are two guns and more than likely a dead person. Did you also know that most criminals who are armed automatically attempt to kill their victim if spotted and there is the possibility of being caught? Seems to me the chances are just as good for someone dying whether there are two guns in the situation or one. I prefer to at least have the chance to be the one left alive. The other person made the choice of possibly dying when he/she made the decision to enter my home unlawfully.

When it comes to non-lethal protection, others have already presented good points. However, I have a much simpler point. When you enter my home without my knowledge, you are doing so of your own accord. If I did not invite you to be there, you do not belong there, period. It is not my responsibility to make sure I do not permanently injure or kill someone who has entered my home without my permission.

Sports - If you partake in a sport that uses guns, you should be allowed to own them. In most cases, people who use guns for sporting reasons are some of the safest and knowledgeable owners of guns. In all the people I have met at various ranges, it isn’t the sportsman who is improperly using their arms, it is the common guy or girl who thinks it is either cool to own a gun, or the person who is living in fear and thinks owning gun will give them peace of mind.

If you want to protect people from the harmful effects guns can have, educated them. Don’t remove my right to arm myself because you are afraid of what may happen. Education could solve almost all situations where gun abuse occurs.

If you insist on spending governmental monies to protect the people, refer back to my example of automobiles. They are not necessities; they are luxuries. Use the money to improve the mass transit system and you will have a positive two-fold effect, less auto related deaths each year and cleaner air for everyone to breath.

[khazadman]

You're right on guns Maelakin but wrong on the mass transit thing. In large cities like LA, New York, and Chicago, yeah mass transit makes sense. But not in a small town, or here in the south where we look on vehicle ownership as more of a cultural thing.You must own a car, or more importantly, a truck or suv. You are not complete without it! A good analogy of this would be me, living in Sanford NC(well I used to) wanting to go to the nearest mall. That is in Fayetteville about thirty miles away. Why would I wait for a bus to take me there and then have to wait for another for the return trip when I can hop into my truck and drive there? We have mass transit here in south east Virginia and it is a money pit. And now some brilliant politicians want to put in a light rail between Norfolk and Virginia Beach so we can lose even more money.