"Guns are the cause"

[Michael823]

“You won’t get gun control by disarming law-abiding citizens. There’s only one way to get real gun control: Disarm the thugs and the criminals, lock them up and if you don’t actually throw away the key, at least lose it for a long time… It’s a nasty truth, but those who seek to inflict harm are not fazed by gun controllers. I happen to know this from personal experience.”
~Ronald Reagan

But how do the "thugs" get these weapons? I doubt they have a hookup with the manufacturers.

 

[Chip]

Most often they are stolen, or at very least old cheap unregistered guns that have been changing hands for years. You aren't going to get those people to turn their guns in, frankly, you're not going to get ME to turn mine in! It is a right, not a privilege for US citizens. The government doesn't need to be the only ones with guns, that's exactly why our founding fathers made it 2nd priority only to speech.

 

[Jeff Linkchorst]

It's not about what big brother takes. It's about re-defining what it means to "bear arms". Why not commute in tanks to work, toss grenades into the sky on the 4th of July, or bury bouncing betty's to keep intruders off of our property?

You can't compare those. I like the idea of a mine field. It will make cutting the grass interesting. jk

As Chip mentioned you can't buy fully autos. You can purchase semi-autos though. They should not punish the law biding citizens. They should fully punish the person pulling the trigger. I am all for bringing back the firing squad. If the person is clearly the guilty party.

 

[rexracer]

Well, I've read this whole thread and there have been some good points on the side of the 2nd, and not so many against.
First, murders are not caused by guns. People have been killed during crimes, over women, and accidentally long before guns were around. We are great at finding ways to kill each other. What happened in Arizona was terrible, but that guy would have done something similar even without a gun. What if he had shown up without a gun, so had driven his SUV through the crowd with the throttle floored? Would the result have been better? Maybe if a law abiding, legal gun owner had been there, and armed, he wouldnt have shot so many people. I would like to think that if I had been there, and armed, he wouldn't have gotten off near as many shots.
On the subject of those shootings, I did hear in the news that his gun was "a legally purchased handgun" but what I didn't hear was that it was legally purchased by him.
I don't know all of the statistics on guns and gun owners, but I do know this. Concealed carry permit holders are one of the most law abiding groups of people in the country. Also, in places where gun ownership has been banned, gun violence and crime has gone up. Even criminals agree that they are more likely to commit crimes where it's illegal for citizens to have guns.
I was brought up in a very anti-gun household. Most would consider me a liberal, though that label doesn't really fit me, especially with the current liberal agenda. Like most young boys, I had a fascination with guns and blowing things up. Let's face it, if explosions weren't so cool, they wouldn't spend so much money to fill our movies with them. I started shooting late in life. A good friend of mine has had a carry permit for 15 years, and as time went on, I thought it would be a good idea to learn how to shoot, and operate a gun. Unlike some here, I don't really trust the government, and I don't believe the police can protect me and mine, even if they wanted to. What do you think would happen if the power grid went down for even a week. I'll tell you what. People would go nuts, and a certain percentage would take what they want, and I'm not talking about just "things". No power, food would run out, people would be fighting for their lives. I have thought about these things, and I knew I would want to protect my family, but I still wouldn't be comfortable picking up a gun because of my upbringing. Then the news hit about the home invasion in Cheshire, CT. That's only 45 minutes from my house. It made national news because the scum who did it beat a man and killed his wife and 2 daughters. Next time I was at my friend's house, he got out one of his pistols and I started learning. That was 3 years, 5 guns and about 20,000 rounds ago. I now have my own carry permit, which is needed in CT to buy a handgun, and am competent and confident that I can protect myself and my daughter if needed. I also know that if things get bad, I can protect myself, and get game if needed.
You may think I don't need a gun to protect myself, and I hope I never do, but I can't count on anyone else so I'll keep my guns. One more thing for those who think the government, or the police will protect you. Here's a little known fact that everyone should know. The police are not required to protect you. I'll say it again. The police are not required to protect you from anybody. That means that if a bad guy breaks into your house, and kills your wife and you call the police and tell them, and tell them that your kids are next, they don't even have to show up!! It's been proven in court many times. People have called 911 repeatedly while people were being raped and killed, sometimes for hours, and the cops never came. When the survivors tried to sue, they were told that the police are not required to show up. Tell 'em you're armed and will use deadly force if needed, and I bet they'll come...go figure.
The main reason for the 2nd in our constitution is so the people can protect themselves against tyranny from the government and those in power. You can argue that citizens are so outgunned that it makes no difference, but that's assuming that all the grunts in the military would go along with firing on US citizens. I don't think that's the case. I don't see our soldiers supporting a government that would do that, so I think it would be much more even than you might think. I think a more probable scenario would be a breakdown in social services, like power, transportation and commerce.

 

[rexracer]

A couple of additional things. Anybody that can buy a handgun and pass the FBI background check can buy a fully automatic (class 3) weapon. Just pay the tax stamp. ($200). I hate all this talk of "assault weapons" Those "assault weapon" bans are some of the stupidest and most ridiculous laws ever, and my state has a bunch. In CT your rifle can't have more that 2 "evil features". A removable magazine, a pistol grip, a bayonet lug, a flash hider, and an adjustable stock are some of those features. You can have a removable magazine and a pistol grip, but then if you add a flash hider it's now a dangerous "assault weapon". A flash hider and an adjustable stock is fine, but add a pistol grip and it's evil. Then there is the list of banned "assault weapons" including the Colt AR-15 (made in CT!) I can buy an AR-15 made by any company except Colt, which is made right here. I can even but a fully automatic .50 cal machine gun, but not a Colt AR-15.
BTW, an assault weapon, by definition, is a select fire weapon capable of semi-auto, 3 round burst,and full auto with the flip of a switch. You can own one here, but it's class 3 so you need a tax stamp, and you had to have owned it before the ban.
I've never heard of a crime being committed with an assault weapon. I believe, nationwide, that assault weapons account for about 1% of gun crimes.

 

[Chip]

I'm building an AR now, and looked into the class 3 permit. And it's $200 PER device! And the ATF is given the right to inspect you at any time without notice to see the condition of the item and it's storage. I wanted a 14.5 inch AR and that's class 3, too. But I can permanently affix a 1.5 inch flash hider on the end and it's legal... are you serious? The most absurd of all is the suppressor (or silencer of movie fame). They are user hearing protection and they are illegal. I'd REALLY like to know how many people were killed with suppressed weapons.

 

[Rich Z]

First, you CAN'T buy an automatic weapon as a civilian, that's a class 3 firearm.

Actually, that is not correct. A citizen of the USA can buy a fully automatic weapon IF

1. they can find one available (meaning it was available for sale to the general public, as in manufactured or imported for such use, prior to 1984),
2. that they can afford it (based on the previous requirement, those automatic weapons that fit that criteria are a very limited pool, and generally VERY expensive. For instance, a transferable M16 will cost you somewhere around $18,000 to purchase.),
3. passes a background check and gets approval from the BATFE,
4. pays a $200 tax stamp,
5. and gets approval from their local sheriff or city police chief.

 

[tsst]

I do think that you, if properly permitted, should be able to own a firearm. I just feel that the term "firearm" is way more vague than it was when this amendment was created, and there needs to be regulations and restrictions that applies to today's society. I think that certain laws would actually benefit gun owners who responsible use them.

I just see no reason to have the average person be able to walk in and purchase a firearm, let alone an automatic weapon, a gun with a clip or magazine that can hold more than 10-12 shots, etc... Guns aren't toys, regardless of how fun they can be to shoot. Responsibility is the most important tradition of owning firearms, to me, and it should be the most sacred. They are designed to kill. I treated every aspect of shooting/hunting as a huge responsibility, and when I turned 12, I was excited to demonstrate that with hunter safety. But even such a basic course isn't required to own a gun. To me, that makes no sense. We have so many murders caused by guns, and so much advancement in forensics to try and put killers to jail, but it's completely pointless if the gun laws don't change. We can't just expect all of the bad people to go away, or to not attack us because "we have guns too". And we can't accept all of these murders on behalf of poor gun legislation as the price we pay for having the right to bear arms. Change is the only option.

I personally feel like people are far too selfish about this issue. I enjoyed, and still would, target shooting and hunting as much as the next person. I have no vested interest, politically, in banning guns, nor do I want to ban them. I just have a practicality about the danger of guns, and how easy it is for the wrong people to attain them, and a little common sense and responsibility with these laws would save so many lives.

Let me rephrase to your point. Why should I be restricted in anyway from owning, collecting and shooting firearms?

 

[Nanci]

Maybe if a law abiding, legal gun owner had been there, and armed, he wouldnt have shot so many people. I would like to think that if I had been there, and armed, he wouldn't have gotten off near as many shots.
.

One of the initial people to restrain Loughner was legally armed, but shooting him was not necessary. A woman saw him drop a fresh magazine, and she grabbed it off the ground so he couldn't reload. The first guy to grab him had been grazed by a bullet.

Have you heard on the news that he had been researching what it felt like to die from lethal injection? What the conditions were like on death row? History of famous assassins? He was just lucky that he didn't have a prior criminal record and was able to legally purchase a firearm; he was obviously so determined to assassinate Representative Giffords that he would have found a way, legal or not.

 

[Hypancistrus]

And we can't accept all of these murders on behalf of poor gun legislation as the price we pay for having the right to bear arms. Change is the only option.

I personally feel like people are far too selfish about this issue. I enjoyed, and still would, target shooting and hunting as much as the next person. I have no vested interest, politically, in banning guns, nor do I want to ban them. I just have a practicality about the danger of guns, and how easy it is for the wrong people to attain them, and a little common sense and responsibility with these laws would save so many lives.

I think it's not only okay to be selfish about protecting my personal freedom, but a historically mandated necessity.

I do not WANT the government interfering with my life, my choices, my freedoms. I am a law abiding citizen. I am not robbing and murdering people, I live peacefully, and so if I want to collect and enjoy guns, or big snakes, or horses, feed my baby formula instead of breast milk, or eat at McDonald's for breakfast, lunch and dinner every single day and die at the age of 45, then that is my right as a FREE citizen of the United States. The government needs to butt out except in clear instances with it has been granted constitutional power-- securing the borders, etc.

Gun laws exist in every state in the union, and yet we still have gun crime. Here in Maryland it is nearly impossible to own a handgun, and yet most gun felonies are commited with handguns. So clearly, the gun laws in place are either ineffective or not being enforced properly for thugs to have such ready access to guns. Do you really think adding more laws will do anything?? There's a reason why the people commiting these crimes are called criminals, and it isn't because they follow laws....

Let me rephrase to your point. Why should I be restricted in anyway from owning, collecting and shooting firearms?

I am interested in this answer, too. So far the only reason being provided is that YOU should not be able to own, collect and shoot firearms because other people commit crimes against humanity with them.

Have you heard on the news that he had been researching what it felt like to die from lethal injection? What the conditions were like on death row? History of famous assassins? He was just lucky that he didn't have a prior criminal record and was able to legally purchase a firearm; he was obviously so determined to assassinate Representative Giffords that he would have found a way, legal or not.

Exactly. Crazy people of all breeds will find a way to committ their crazy acts-- with or without guns.

http://www.constitution.org/grossack/arrest.htm

I found this article yesterday while contemplating the Libertarian ideals of minimal government involvement. I believe strongly in this and was thinking on the powers given to our state and federal government and whether police powers should be a part of that. Here in Maryland we've had several incidents in the past year where officers have inappropriately discharged their weapons into crowds, dogs, and have killed people in situations where deadly force was not exactly required.

I didn't come to any particular conclusions, but the article was interesting. As a side note, I don't agree with all of the "Constitution Parties" points, but I do share their ideals on some things.

 

[tsst]

... I am interested in this answer, too. So far the only reason being provided is that YOU should not be able to own, collect and shoot firearms because other people committ crimes against humanity with them. ...

You got my point exactly Lauren. In 20+ years of debating gun control I have never received a logical answer to my question. I seriously doubt that will change on here but I still like to ask.

 

[Hypancistrus]

You got my point exactly Lauren. In 20+ years of debating gun control I have never received a logical answer to my question. I seriously doubt that will change on here but I still like to ask.

And the question then bears asking...

People commit heinous crimes with a lot of things. Timothy McVeigh murdered hundreds of people with a bomb composed primarily of fertilizer.

Should I not be allowed to fertilize my farm fields?

A bunch of my students one year assembled a bomb out of Tidy Bowl toilet cleaner, aluminum foil, and a plastic Sprite bottle and set it off in the school. It blew up a trashcan in an unused restroom-- but had it been in an occupied room, someone could have been hurt.

Sprite, toilet bowl cleaner and aluminum foil can be purchased at a Walmart WITHOUT a permit.

Guess that should change, huh??

The Beltway Snipers used a high powered rifle to murder people in the Capitol area several years back, but they would not have been so "successful" without the car they used to conceal themselves. Also, people use cars to run over hapless acquaintances all the time.

Guess we really do need to have just public transportation. Or horses... maybe we can go back to horse and buggy.

Then again, trample damage is both real and quite capable of killing others.

Alas... the rabbit hole is indeed deep.

 

[kathylove]

I am glad you brought up the fertilizer explosive issue. I was sure I remembered that it was the key component. I have never tried to research how to make one, but I imagine that the deranged college student in Az could have Googled it, if no guns were available to him. I have heard that it is not all that difficult.

I am getting the distinct impression that more and more Americans are getting disgusted - and distrustful - of our bloated Federal government. And with good reason! It was already said earlier, but I have to agree with the statement about the drug war. All it has accomplished (as far as I can tell) is to make some criminals rich and powerful - and more violent, to make the government more powerful, to take away more freedom (Google search and seizure laws), to spend HUGE AMOUNTS of taxpayer money on law enforcement and incarceration, yet anyone who wants to buy drugs can still easily get them. Not surprisingly, we saw the same results with alcohol during Prohibition times. So why would I think the results would be any different if we ban guns (or pythons, or cigarettes, or junk food, or anything else that somebody deems dangerous, yet lots of people still want to buy)?

Yes, it is a cliche to say "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" - but that doesn't mean it isn't TRUE! Maybe Europeans are much more trusting of their governments - not sure why, since all governments are made up of humans with human faults. But I don't trust any government with more power or money than is absolutely necessary. And I generally trust BIG government even less than a SMALL government.

I guess if you live in a country where there are not jillions of already existing guns to deal with, maybe it is a little more difficult for criminals to get guns. Guess they will have to get fertilizer instead, lol! Crazies will do whatever it takes, I am sure!

I have read that Switzerland has a long history of every household being armed, and it not causing a lot of criminal problems. If so, I am not sure if it is because they are a smaller country, because their population is more homogeneous than ours, or just that they have less crazy people. But it is certainly true that what works in one culture doesn't always work in another one - at least not in exactly the same way. I don't know what the answer is, but it is NOT to give the government any power than they already have.

 

[tsst]

And the question then bears asking...

People commit heinous crimes with a lot of things. Timothy McVeigh murdered hundreds of people with a bomb composed primarily of fertilizer.

Should I not be allowed to fertilize my farm fields?

A bunch of my students one year assembled a bomb out of Tidy Bowl toilet cleaner, aluminum foil, and a plastic Sprite bottle and set it off in the school. It blew up a trashcan in an unused restroom-- but had it been in an occupied room, someone could have been hurt.

Sprite, toilet bowl cleaner and aluminum foil can be purchased at a Walmart WITHOUT a permit.

Guess that should change, huh??

The Beltway Snipers used a high powered rifle to murder people in the Capitol area several years back, but they would not have been so "successful" without the car they used to conceal themselves. Also, people use cars to run over hapless acquaintances all the time.

Guess we really do need to have just public transportation. Or horses... maybe we can go back to horse and buggy.

Then again, trample damage is both real and quite capable of killing others.

Alas... the rabbit hole is indeed deep.

The downward spiral will never end using the "safe" but ever so specious argument.

Here are some are some dangerous items we need looked into. :shrugs:
http://rawjustice.com/2010/09/13/12-most-unusual-murder-weapons-used-in-real-life/

The list of things used to kill another human being is near endless. I would venture that NOT ONE single murder was committed by any of those items but rather (using Mike's term) the nutter that chose to use it.

Even Alice may not know how deep the rabbit hole is!

 

[Hypancistrus]

The downward spiral will never end using the "safe" but ever so specious argument.

Here are some are some dangerous items we need looked into. :shrugs:
http://rawjustice.com/2010/09/13/12-most-unusual-murder-weapons-used-in-real-life/

The list of things used to kill another human being is near endless. I would venture that NOT ONE single murder was committed by any of those items but rather (using Mike's term) the nutter that chose to use it.

Even Alice may not know how deep the rabbit hole is!

I think the primary argument against things like that is the fact that guns allow for numerous people to be killed in quick sucession during a single incident. It's pretty hard to walk into a classroom building and knife or spatula 32 people to death at once. So I can understand when people say that you can't compare guns to bowling balls, chain saws, etc.

But you CAN compare guns to bombs. And unfortunately with the advent of sick people on YouTube and the internet, ANYONE with a modem and a PC can access information on how to build their own bomb with common, every day household ingredients.

Hell, the two punks that shot up Columbine built their bombs (weapons of mass destruction) in the one kids bedroom in a house he shared with his parents.

 

[rexracer]

...

I have read that Switzerland has a long history of every household being armed, and it not causing a lot of criminal problems. If so, I am not sure if it is because they are a smaller country, because their population is more homogeneous than ours, or just that they have less crazy people. But it is certainly true that what works in one culture doesn't always work in another one - at least not in exactly the same way. I don't know what the answer is, but it is NOT to give the government any power than they already have.

Maybe it's because the Swiss are taught responsible firearms handling from a young age, instead of being taught fear, or nothing at all. Also, since every household has a gun, and the people know how to use it, it's a great deterrent to crime. They've found the same drop in crime in areas of the US where many citizens have carry permits. And a rise when handguns are made illegal. Want to try an experiment? Let's have firearms training in High School, with handgun and pistol permit classes in Collage, with carry permits when you pass. Allow concealed carry on campuses and when that first generation hits 30, we'll see what happens to the crime rate. If violent crime goes up (it won't) then we'll talk about new gun laws.

 

[Hypancistrus]

Let's have firearms training in High School, with handgun and pistol permit classes in Collage, with carry permits when you pass.

I can imagine the uproar from parents not wanting their children exposed to danger. I used to inspect summer camps for the State of MD, and the amount of redtape that our inspection process entailed for camps that did live firearm training with their campers was ridiculous-- enough so that most camps simply did away with firearms training.

Ironically they still allowed horseback riding, swimming and wall climbing.

 

[tsst]

I think the primary argument against things like that is the fact that guns allow for numerous people to be killed in quick sucession during a single incident. It's pretty hard to walk into a classroom building and knife or spatula 32 people to death at once. So I can understand when people say that you can't compare guns to bowling balls, chain saws, etc.

But you CAN compare guns to bombs. And unfortunately with the advent of sick people on YouTube and the internet, ANYONE with a modem and a PC can access information on how to build their own bomb with common, every day household ingredients.

Hell, the two punks that shot up Columbine built their bombs (weapons of mass destruction) in the one kids bedroom in a house he shared with his parents.

The bold being key in that primary argument. Jeffy Dahmer and Ted Bundy killed 17 and 30 respectively without guns.

The main point we both seemingly share is that none of these items did the killing, the people (nutters) did. Outlawing a gun, a knife, a Chevy or a spatula will not stop a nutter. :shrugs:

 

[Tavia]

I think part of the problem with what taught to children right now is the mix of messages they get about guns. On the one hand, they are evil, not to be touched and able to get intense reactions from parents. Then on the other hand you have the fact that they are a huge part of American culture, look at American history, from when Europeans first settled here to about, say, the '50s. Also look at the video games, the TV shows and the movies being shown now. Who are overwhelmingly the cool people? The ones who have guns. So on the one hand they have turned guns into something mysterious and illicit and on the other hand it is a symbol of power and coolness, possibly more even than alcohol or cigerettes or drugs. Is it any wonder if most kids that have never seen a gun in person before will play with a gun if they come across one unsupervised?
(pardon any spelling errors, I'm just getting used to the touch screen on my new device)

 

[Hypancistrus]

The bold being key in that primary argument. Jeffy Dahmer and Ted Bundy killed 17 and 30 respectively without guns.

The main point we both seemingly share is that none of these items did the killing, the people (nutters) did. Outlawing a gun, a knife, a Chevy or a spatula will not stop a nutter. :shrugs:

No, I totally agree with you. I was just trying to play devil's advocate for the "other side." Regardless, I concur that it is the human who is at fault, and the human who ought to be dealt with legally-- not the tool used.