Gun control - where is it leading us?

Kacey

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
16,462
Reaction score
227
Location
Denver, CO
I started to post this in response to another thread, Atlanta Airport Bans Guns, but I decided it would sidetrack the discussion and started a new thread instead. I put it here instead of Firearms because the issue touches everyone.

The question is... is this where we're headed - or is it what those who write anti-gun laws are trying to prevent?

From Time Enough for Love, by Robert Heinlein, when the main character, Lazarus Long, is visiting his hometown of Kansas City in 1916 (ignore the time travel issue; the novel is science fiction):

He recalled another time he had visited his old hometown - what century? - sometime during the Diaspora, he thought - when a citizen venturing out into its filthy canyon streets wore a steel helmet simulating a wig, a bulletproof vest and codpiece, spectacles that were armor, gloves that covered brass knucks, and other concealed and illegal weapons - but rarely went out into the streets; it was more discreet to stick to transportation pods and go outdoors only in the guarded suburbs - especially after dark.

But here and now guns were legal - and no one wore them.

The first paragraph is, I think, what many people are worried might happen; the last one points out what happened in the past. It seems to me that the latter situation worked better. The question is - why? Because of population pressure? More people = more opportunities to kill each other? Because the "common person" didn't want to have to worry about guns? Because owning a gun became less common due to changes in society - certainly, fewer people go out hunting for meat today than they did in the past. When people starting keeping guns for hunting, there was no licensure... now the laws are massive and complex, and appear to be aimed at keeping people from owning guns legally - which takes us down to "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" - which, AFAIC, is a dangerous situation - a more dangerous one that allowing law-abiding citizens to own guns and cracking down on criminals instead.

What do other people think?
 

Darksoul

Black Belt
Joined
Jul 30, 2004
Messages
513
Reaction score
58
Location
Rochester, NY
-I've heard this very topic debated a lot lately. People will always point to statistics to prove their side of the arguement but that hardly solves anything. I personally have a big problem with the gov't cracking down on those who follow the rules and obey the laws. Unfortunately, this topic has many facets.

-If we take the most often looked at part, criminals with guns, I'd like to think that most understand that if someone is going to commit a crime with a firearm, he/she is probably not going to get a gun permit and purchase one legally, allowing a background check. That might happen before the crime, however, although I think that is rare. Black market, the catchphrase used to purchase and trade that which is illegal. Thats often the source for weapons and drugs.

-I watched part of the show from Gordon Spurlock, 30 Days? and it showed a woman, big anti-gun person, living with gun advocates. She was completely terrified of guns, and when she shot a rifle for the first time, she ended up sobbing, quite horrified. However, later in the show, she met a couple who had defended their home and family against a would be attacker, by using their licensed firearm. It was a revelation for her.

-Firearms for protection may not be for everyone but I disagree with others who would not choose legal guns for themselves while restricting others the option for self defense. I know people who would rather die than take up a gun and defend themselves from an attacker, simply because they don't believe in killing. If you want to live, you have to defend yourself sometimes, and if someone is coming at me, especially with a gun, than I want the same advantage.

-Now another facet to this, some will point out the higher rate of suicide or accidental shootings in households with guns, often time with kids or teens involved. If you're going to have a gun, be trained to use it, keep it locked up, know the laws pertaining to self-defense, teach your kids its not a toy, all the common sense things that should be obvious.

-I'll say one thing, if we ever get invaded by aliens, I want to be prepared as much as possible. Not likely to happen, I know. But I also just moved to Littleton, CO, home of Columbine High School, and we all know what happened there. So many things to look at with gun control, and I'm sure we could debate this til the end of the world. In the mean time, I'm going to go pet my 12-guage.

Andrew
 

celtic_crippler

Senior Master
Joined
Jan 15, 2006
Messages
3,968
Reaction score
137
Location
Airstrip One
Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

What does this mean to you? To me, it means freedom from a tyranical government. If you allow the government to take away the people's ability to defend themselves from tyranny, then you end up with a tyranical government.

I'm a Jeffersonian/Libertarian and feel strongly that the government needs to make every decision in fear of the people. When the governmnet stops fearing the people, then they have nothing to keep them in check and I feel that we've already headed too far down that road in the U.S.

Penn & Teller summed up the idiocy of gun control laws: Some of this is Rated "R" for language
http://youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM&feature=related
http://youtube.com/watch?v=PhyuJzjOcQE&feature=related

I'm seriously glad I live in Georgia at the moment.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Cryozombie

Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Feb 11, 2003
Messages
9,998
Reaction score
206
Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


What does this mean to you?

To me?

That A well regulated milita is neccessary to the security of a free state. THEREFORE THE PEOPLE NEED THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS BECAUSE THE STATE HAS A MILITIA, and they need to be safe if the state becomes Tyrannical and attempts to use said milita against its people.
 

MJS

Administrator
Staff member
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
30,187
Reaction score
430
Location
Cromwell,CT
I started to post this in response to another thread, Atlanta Airport Bans Guns, but I decided it would sidetrack the discussion and started a new thread instead. I put it here instead of Firearms because the issue touches everyone.

The question is... is this where we're headed - or is it what those who write anti-gun laws are trying to prevent?

From Time Enough for Love, by Robert Heinlein, when the main character, Lazarus Long, is visiting his hometown of Kansas City in 1916 (ignore the time travel issue; the novel is science fiction):



The first paragraph is, I think, what many people are worried might happen; the last one points out what happened in the past. It seems to me that the latter situation worked better. The question is - why? Because of population pressure? More people = more opportunities to kill each other? Because the "common person" didn't want to have to worry about guns? Because owning a gun became less common due to changes in society - certainly, fewer people go out hunting for meat today than they did in the past. When people starting keeping guns for hunting, there was no licensure... now the laws are massive and complex, and appear to be aimed at keeping people from owning guns legally - which takes us down to "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" - which, AFAIC, is a dangerous situation - a more dangerous one that allowing law-abiding citizens to own guns and cracking down on criminals instead.

What do other people think?

Guns have been around for a very long time. Many people have them, so I don't see that right being infringed. What I see is people wondering why they can't carry anywhere, anytime, anyplace. I think this has been asked before, although not sure if its been answered...what is the need to carry anywhere, anytime, anyplace? Comfort and security? The need to get involved in something, such as preventing a crime in progress? To prevent a crime against yourself? People say all the time that the odds of us having to use our martial arts training is slim. Yet, we 'carry' our training with us everywhere, so in the event we need it, we can use it, and we have the options of using it on the low end ie: a controlling method, all the way to the high end, ie: serious bodily injury, maiming. So we carry our gun, with the same intent...to use it if we need it. IMO, there is only one extreme with a gun. People comment on police related shootings that the cop should have shot the bad guy in the leg, yet, they're trained for center mass. Will the average gun owner shoot the leg or center? Will the crime require the use of the gun?

In that other thread, I linked a few stories of unruly, intoxicated people on planes. Do we want them having a gun, readily available to hold on the flight staff who is refusing to give them a drink?

I'm sure, despite my repeating that I'm not against guns, my posts come across that way. That is not the case. If someone wants to own a gun, knock yourself out. However, I think that the questions asked, are important ones. IMHO, someone saying that its our right to bear arms, is not answering the question.
 

Adept

Master Black Belt
Joined
Nov 6, 2004
Messages
1,225
Reaction score
12
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Remember the rest of the world, guys.

Britain and Australia have all but criminalised all forms of gun ownership.

For some of us it's not just a question of where and when we can carry, or even if we can carry. It's a question of simply owning a firearm at all.
 

Marginal

Senior Master
Joined
Jul 7, 2002
Messages
3,276
Reaction score
67
Location
Colorado
Remember the rest of the world, guys.

Britain and Australia have all but criminalised all forms of gun ownership.

For some of us it's not just a question of where and when we can carry, or even if we can carry. It's a question of simply owning a firearm at all.
The question then becomes, are you all wearing armored glasses, desperately scrambling to your transportation pod to avoid death at gunpoint, and being menaced by thugs with guns constantly?
 

celtic_crippler

Senior Master
Joined
Jan 15, 2006
Messages
3,968
Reaction score
137
Location
Airstrip One
Hmmm...I'm surprised this didn't make it over from KT

jay said:
A quick check of NationMaster.com shows that:

Assaults per 1000 US = 7.57 UK = 7.45
Total crime victims US = 21.1% UK = 26.4%
Total crime per capita US= 80.06 per thousand UK = 85.55 per thousand
Homicide rate US = 9.1 per 100 thousand UK 14 per 100 thousand

It would appear that one has a greater chance of being a crime victim or being murdered in the UK than in the US. Hum? I think I will keep my weapons.

It doesn't appear from this data that gun control laws actually work to reduce violent crime does it?
 

tshadowchaser

Sr. Grandmaster
MT Mentor
Founding Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 29, 2001
Messages
13,460
Reaction score
733
Location
Athol, Ma. USA
What does this mean to you? To me, it means freedom from a tyranical government. If you allow the government to take away the people's ability to defend themselves from tyranny, then you end up with a tyranical government.
I totaly agree with that statement

If we take guns away some one will find a different way to kill and maim his neighbors. All taking the guns away dose is open this country up to invasion from countries that have a military
 

Sukerkin

Have the courage to speak softly
MT Mentor
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Sep 15, 2006
Messages
15,325
Reaction score
493
Location
Staffordshire, England
Those statistics are on the surface quite damning.

A significant factor that they do not show is population density. We're, to steal an American phrase, 'stacked like cordwood over here' and higher density always leads to higher violence.

Another significant factor is that it is starting to be suspected that the rise in violent crime we have is disproportionately carried out by non-indigenous people i.e. our unrestricted immigrant tide of multifarious cultures, some of which have very different ideas of what is an appropriate way to deal with disagreements.

As ever with statistics, beware of the source and make sure of the assumptions.

That said, I am firmly in favour of a population armed and trained. It might not turn us into wolves or sheepdogs but prey that can bite is always going to be less attractive to predators than that which cannot defend itself.
 

Ahriman

Green Belt
Joined
May 10, 2008
Messages
161
Reaction score
12
Location
Debrecen, Hungary
"when a citizen venturing out into its filthy canyon streets wore a steel helmet simulating a wig, a bulletproof vest and codpiece, spectacles that were armor, gloves that covered brass knucks, and other concealed and illegal weapons"
Want to laugh? Me and mine differ from this description only because we don't wear helmets and use steel for armour (so far only knife-proof, but we are working on the firearm-proofed ones), and we try to carry less illegal stuff. Weapon control takes us here - where those who care about their lives are forced to break the law more or less.
...
Oh, and crime statistics aren't always that relevant - at least here some people die unseen. The most recent I know about was a cca 17-18 years old guy of ethnic minority - he was literally beaten to death, and no one cares.
 

Big Don

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Sep 2, 2007
Messages
10,551
Reaction score
189
Location
Sanger CA
Unreported crimes fall through the cracks. I have drawn down on two different occasions when a neighbor's abusive ex came around. I didn't call the cops, neither did he, did I overt an assault, oh yeah, did I fire? NO. Guns don't have to be fired to be useful.
 

Latest Discussions

Top