The Big Gun Control Rant

[Iku-Turso]

Feel free to discuss the pros and cons of the politics of gun control in here. A neverending topic, which in itself deserves a separate thread. Go.

[Proteus_za]

You know, on another forum I visit, there was a whole long debate on the subject.

The long and short of it is, one guy was arguing that he should be allowed to own an assault rifle. And I just cant see why he would need one. I can understand why someone might want a pistol or shotgun, or even rifle, for home defense. Or target shooting. But an assault rifle, or any automatic or semi automatic weapon, is not the kind of weapon I think a civilian should be allowed to own.

I guess most Americans are very anti gun control because its part of your Bill of Rights (isnt it?). But.... I dont see it as a fundamental right, I dont know why. I guess I think any gun owner has a responsibility to ensure that his gun is properly used. Nobody should be sold a gun, or ammunition, without proving that they a) know how to use it, b) wont misuse it. Some say that its necessary for civilians to own guns so that if the government starts causing trouble, they can band together and form a militia. But.... in these days, I dont think small arms will be much use against whatever the government is packing, and I think civil disobedience is much more effective (ie withold taxes and stall the economy).

On the other side of the coin, I dont believe in disarming police, like the UK has done. In the UK, the police arent really even allowed to use tasers! No wonder they get killed by thugs all the time, all they have are bullet proof vests and night sticks! They need to carry sidearms at all times.

[Taluntain]

We've had a bunch of long gun debates here over the years. They all end up the same way (they don't). Just like abortion or death penalty discussions.

Anyway, I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "politics of gun control", but the topic usually tends to be more fitting for AoDA because the legal aspects of it usually come before the political.

[Silvery]

Legality and politics is all well and good but there are other issues here:

criminals have guns
people don't feel safe
they can't legally buy a gun
they illegally buy a gun in the name of 'protection'
they now own an illegal gun
suddenly, they can decide to give out their own justice
in order to escape retribution, they join with the 'criminal underworld'
criminals own guns

[LKD]

So the solution is "roll over and become the criminals <female dogs>?"

Aside from that, what about the thousands, if not millions, of legal gun owners, not only in the US but elsewhere? Is it just to punish them for the actions of a few, especially when we proceed to NOT punish actual perpetrators effectively?

I say that in order to get a gun, you should pass a course and pass a thorough criminal records check. You should also have to pass a psych exam. Once you have done that, you should eb able to access reasonable guns. I have to say, I'm not so sure about fully automatic assault rifles or suchlike, but handguns are fun for sport, and there's no need to keep them out of the hands of people with absolutely no criminal record who have proven their responsibility.

[Silvery]

I wasn't meaning everyone who has a gun is like that, sweetheart.
It's just that that seems to be the excuse a lot of people come out with to justify owning a gun (up to the point where they become criminals) or they trot it out to explain that socirty is at fault for making them criminals!

[Chandos the Red]

Just like abortion or death penalty discussions.

You forgot gay marriage, Tal. That one probably has its own server.

[martaug]

hehe, bad chandos, what do you mean 1 server? more like an even dozen.

[T2Bruno]

I remember following a pick-up on the highway once in Texas. He had a gun rack (with two rifles) in the rear window and bumper sticker that read "I do what the voices in my head tell me to do."

[Gnarfflinger]

Gun Control is a sticky subject. On one hand, you have people that legitimately require firearms. I wouldn't want them to be denied. On the other hand, there are those that would use the guns to commit crimes. Some control is needed, but let's be reasonable with it...

What I propose would be a way to review the candidates. Look at their needs. A farmer might need a rifle to kill a predator that threatens his crops and livestock, or to put down a mortally wounded or terminally ill creature. Something like a .22 should handle that. A hunter may need a more powerful rifle to take down the object of their hunt. A sportsman may choose a different gun yet for target shooting. Maybe have someone that can assess the needs of the candidate and recommend the appropriate firearm.

As for military and Law enforcement, they should have whatever arms are necessary and proper to the objective at hand. If that's a .44 magnum, taser and a shotgun for cops, then so be it. Specially trained officers may need other guns (like snipers, swat teams). That's subject to review. As for the Army, I would assume that assault rifles would be standard, with other arms as training and missions warrant.

From there, training in legalities and safety should be MANDATORY for the issue of any liscence or permit involving firearms. Let's face it, guns are designed to kill, and when used recklessly or improperly, they are dangerous.

Finally, get REAL tough on gun crime. I don't care if a criminal that uses a gun to commit a crime ever gets out of the cage he's going to be locked in...

[Iku-Turso]

@Tal: Hm, yes true, it might be a better idea to put this thread into the AoDA.

[LKD]

or they trot it out to explain that socirty is at fault for making them criminals!

Well, this is the thing you've hit on the head, Silvery -- western democracies need to stop seriously entertaining utterly stupid statements of defense -- we need to stop looking for excuses for bad / antisocial / criminal behaviour and actually punish the perpetrators. No more blaming your behaviour on "society" or "poverty" or "my bad childhood" or "whitey" for that matter. All of those may be factors but they sure as hell aren't excuses.

As Martaug mentioned in another thread, what we actually have is a violence problem, and violence is committed by people, not by inanimate objects. The people who are committing these violent acts need to be stopped, on way or the other. Target the criminal, take away HIS guns and his ability to get them, but leave the non-criminals alone.

[joacqin]

LKD this is off-topic but the main reason "liberal democracies" are as you claim "soft" on crime isn't that they are are bleeding hearted wussies. It is because believe it or not it is the approach that tends to work best in minimizing crime and turn criminals into non-criminals. Brutalizing criminals and crime really doesn't work, the only gain is the sense of satisfaction people get from vengeance. Yes it might be frustrating to see criminals be "cuddled" but from a pragmatic point of view it is a lot more efficient in keeping crime down than chopping off hands or locking people up for hundreds of years. The US has way harsher penalties than Canada, do they have less crime? Iran is really tough on crime and I do not have any idea about how much crime they have except that whatever official numbers they give I wouldn't trust but the only way to lower crime through harsher penalties is to go all the way into the police state and extremely harsh measures for any crime. Would you want to see your child get his hand cut off because he stole an apple from your neighbours apple tree?

[Ziad]

Originally Posted by LKD

Target the criminal, take away HIS guns and his ability to get them, but leave the non-criminals alone.

You do realise this is a form of gun control. Not all advocates of gun control want to prevent everyone from having a fun. Some of them want to make it a little more difficult for anyone to walk in and buy a gun as if they were buying beer. Which, in light of certain people who had a known history of problems and should not have been allowed to buy one (the Virginia Tech incident springs to mind), may not be such a bad idea.

[Sir Fink]

Virginia Tech isn't the best example. In hindsight, we can say he shouldn't have been allowed to buy a gun. But, if we didn't allow gun ownership for anyone with a history of mental illness, that might mean no guns for someone who at any point in their life was on even a mild anti-depressant.

"You had a Valium prescription 10 years ago? Sorry, no gun for you."

[martaug]

Half of all murders are commited by people on conditional release(parole or probation) - "probation & parole violators in state prison" - survey of state prison inmates - Bureau of justice

81% of all homicide defendants had an arrest record
67% had a felony arrest record
70% had a conviction record
54% had a felony conviction record
Brian Reeves "felony defendants in large urban counties" bureau of justice nov 2001

As far as only police having guns, almost 11% of police shootings kill an innocent person - only about 2% of shootings by citizens kill an innocent
C cramer & D kopel "shall issue: the new wave of concealed handgun permit laws"-oct 1994

In 2000, 20% of US homicides occured in just 4 cities that have 6% of the population, New York, Chicago, Detroit & Washington DC. - most of which have/had a virtual prohibition on private handguns - FBI Uniform Crime Reports sep 2001

Many of the countries with the strictest gun laws have the highest rate of violent crimes. Great Britian & Australia, which have virtually banned gun ownership, have the highest rates of robbery, sexual assault & assault with force of the top 17 industrialised nations - Dutch Ministry of Justice, Criminal victimization in 17 industialised nations, 2001

Sadly, firearm use in Great britain has doubled in the decade since handguns were banned - "weapons sell for just 50pounds as suspects & victims grow ever younger" - The Times, Aug27, 2007

As far as murders per capita the us is 24th overall & 8th for murders by firearms
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...ers-per-capita
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...rms-per-capita

[NOG (No Other Gods)]

Well, it would seem rehabilitation isn't working that well. I don't suppose you have any statistics from the old method? Joacqin, why do you say that corporal or severe punishment doesn't work? Just because we gave it up doesn't necessarily mean it didn't work, it just means we thought we had a better idea. We may have been wrong (wouldn't be the first time).

Now I'm not saying we need to go back to the days of chopping off hands, but hard labor in the prisons? Sure.

[T2Bruno]

martaug, I believe those statistics exclude acts of domestic violence. It also fails to account for all gun related deaths, such as accidental shootings and suicides. All of these things should be weighed in arguments about gun control. It's not just the crime aspect that is important.

That said, I believe the main focus should be on enforcement of current laws. Too often criminal charges involving weapons are dropped in favor of convictions in other crimes (most notably drugs) -- IMO, gun related charges should never be dropped or allowed to be reduced as a plea deal. Always enforce the harshest standards for weapon charges and make it very painful to commit a crime while possessing a weapon.

[NOG (No Other Gods)]

T2, you're right that those statistics don't specify gun-related violence or accidents, but why would you think they exclude domestic violence that ends in murder?

[joacqin]

Again, as was my main point but which I did not stress enough. Are there less crime in countries where criminals aren't "cuddled"? Is there less crime in "tough" USA than in "soft" Canada? I only go on my perception here and that is never reliable but it is my firm perception that the countries with the "softest" laws are generally a lot safer than countries with "tougher" laws.

[T2Bruno]

NOG, often intimate homicide is left off criminal data because it tends to skew statistical interpretation of the results (domestic violence does not always follow the same trends as other violence). It is also possible intimate homicides are included in martaug's data -- in which case, I stand corrected.

[LKD]

Joaquin, one thing we all need to keep in mind is that North American societies are quite different than Western European societies. While immigration is increasing worldwide, most European countries are still relatively homogeneous in terms of their population stats. Canada and the US in particular are vast countries with many different cultural groups mashed together with few clear majorities. Plus, we are young countries without the vast weight of history that pervades many European nations.

We don't have a culture that self-corrects -- we threw out mores and other subtle societal sanctions quite a while ago. They don't apply here, more's the pity.

But when it comes to serious crime, what often seems to happen is that the criminal gets a slap on the wrist and then can take off to someplace 1000 km away and act as though it never happened. That's not as likely in a smaller Nordic country.

In any event, we are having a debate right now about the entire "revolving door" concept where violent or serious repeat offenders are picked up and released on bail on a regular basis. This "catch and release" program is annoying the cops and annoying the law abiding citizens, and the precious resources we have are sucked by a few severe deviants. If we actually DEALT with them, maybe even using a gentler European model of rehabilitation, things might improve, but as it is we are so busy worrying about the rights of the criminals that we take NO action, be it brutal or rehabilitative. That gets my goat.

ESPECIALLY when it comes to gun crime. I don't know what would happen to a teen in Sweden who brought a gun to his high school, but I'm pretty sure the authorities would do something that would be effective. Here we wring our hands for a few weeks, then a slick lawyer twists it around so that it's everyone's fault but the actual perpetrator. Then they seek to confiscate the guns of some guy who lives 100 miles away who doesn't even know the kid and never did anything wrong to boot. It's mind boggling, truly it is.

[henkie]

Originally Posted by LKD

Joaquin, one thing we all need to keep in mind is that North American societies are quite different than Western European societies. While immigration is increasing worldwide, most European countries are still relatively homogeneous in terms of their population stats. Canada and the US in particular are vast countries with many different cultural groups mashed together with few clear majorities. Plus, we are young countries without the vast weight of history that pervades many European nations.

Now, I wouldn't exactly say that our population stats are homogeneous. At least not in the Netherlands. If you go to either of our two biggest cities - Amsterdam and Rotterdam - you'll find that being an indigenous Dutch will actually put you in a minority, and if you're looking for the directions you'd better bring along a turkish or moroccan translator.

I know that there are certain parts were this is also the case in the US, but this is just to point out that the homogenity that you seem to think prevalent here isn't quite that present in reality.

I don't know what would happen to a teen in Sweden who brought a gun to his high school, but I'm pretty sure the authorities would do something that would be effective.

I don't know about that. Guns aren't so much part of normal life here, so he'd probably get roasted by school and parents, and might actually listen to it as well, but I wouldn't count on the courts to be overly effective.

As an example of the effectiveness of our courts, a couple of years back, some guy got beaten to death while on a night out in town (it happens more often, but the particulars of this case stuck with me). A group of three people was known to have done it, but in the end they couldn't prove who had given the victim the kick to the head that actually killed them, and the threesome got off with some community duty. Moral of the story: When you kill someone, make sure you do it in a group and in a way that makes it uncertain which of you has dealt the final blow and you'll get off very easy.

On the subject of gun control: Take away the guns and gun related incidents will go down. The only shootings we get in the Netherlands generally stem from organised crime and are blissfully few. I do think, however, that in a country where guns have been legal for the large majority of the people to own, prohibiting guns, or at least making it much more difficult to get one, would do little to nothing in the first years or even decades to reduce gun related incidents. It will take quite a while for the memory that everyone should be able to own a gun to pass from general memory, and I'd think that illegal arms dealing would become quite normal in such cases.

[martaug]

Here in the states henkie, IFAIK,all 3 of those guys would have been charged with murder, since they were accomplices of the overt act (the assault & murder), they are all guilty. I'm sure one of the lawyers here can clarify.

Joacqin, all i can use are stats from the US however from 1960-1980 per capita imprisonment fell from 738 to 227. In the same time period violent crime rates tripled.

T2bruno, i was gonna include suicide rates but nationmaster.com has them broken down into 5 age catagories & i wasn't sure that just adding them up was going to give an accurate number
As far as the murder rate they have 3 tables, firearm, non-firearm & total

I know among the 15-24 range the top 5 are New Zealand, Finland, Switzerland, Canada & Austria http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...tes-ages-15-24

25-34 range is Finland, New Zealand, France, Austria & Belguim
35-44, 45-54, 55-64 finland is #1 & #7 in 65-74
Lotta depressed people in finland

[coineineagh]

Interesting thread. I agree that rehabilitation works better than harsh punishment. It's not a question of whether they deserve a second chance, but what will give the best results. I often work as a doorman in buildings where some of these criminals live under supervision. They can be disfunctionally antisocial, and I often wish they'd just choke on the food I have to bring them. But an atmosphere of "Ooh, do get better, crazy person." will work better than "Haha, we're punishing you!". In the end, their willingness to change is the strongest rehabilitating factor. Harsh punishment doesn't appeal to that, it just incites those on parole to get some payback before the trial. It seems we all agree that at least some kind of action must be taken, because inaction is the worst of all. henkie's example makes me think that maybe lawyers are more harmful than firearms?