Right To Bare Arms?
Jammer
Join Date: 2002-06-03 Member: 728Members, Constellation
Join Date: 2002-06-03 Member: 728Members, Constellation
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Guns, not 'arm' arms.</div> Since I have this knack for introducting topics and then getting trounced... why not bring it into the wonderful world of guns?
US has the right, UK and many European nations don't. Which system is better? Can gun control work? Are guns needed otherwise? I'll check in later. I've found putting my views first only makes it one giant 'Jammer is dumb'-athon... <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
US has the right, UK and many European nations don't. Which system is better? Can gun control work? Are guns needed otherwise? I'll check in later. I've found putting my views first only makes it one giant 'Jammer is dumb'-athon... <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
<i>Hint : Tanktops leaves your arms bare, while you bear your arms.</i>
Civilians proven responsible by sufficient background checks should have the right to own and use guns. (I'll leave the definition of "sufficient" in this statement up for debate to the rest of you.) Simple skeet shooting, stationary target practice, and hunting are stress-releiving, skill-requiring, social, and (when done properly) safe activities.
However, they are also activities which do not by any stretch of the imagination require things such as:
Armor-piercing and other specialty ammunition types
Fully automatic weaponry
Weaponry for use with needlessly large caliber rounds for the purpose at hand
Flash and/or sound suppressors
Restrictions on weaponry should be based on things including (but not limited to) age, type of weapon, and ammunition. In addition, for ecological reasons, people intending to hunt should do so with a proper hunting license.
Restrictions for weapon use/posession by enlisted or reservist military is something I'll leave to someone more familiar with the subject (/me points to MonsE, SpyderMonkey, and others)
Restrictions for weapon use/posession by law enforcement agents should be based on the task at hand. SWAT members should use decent weapons to keep the lives of themselves and innocents safer, but Joe Donut-eater doesn't need a Pancor Jackhammer to enforce traffic tickets.
The US just needs to re-adjust existing gun laws to fit common-sense stuff like all of the above; I see no current need for an all-encompassing gun ban or all-encompassing right to own any weapon you please.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
IMO, deer should be hunted all year long, I think that there are too many of them for their own good. Lousy stinking kamikaze.... (but thats for another topic)
Anyway, I am an american and I own a gun, many of my friends own guns, one even has a license to own historic guns (i.e. some guns that normal ppl can't own). We own pistols, shotguns, and rifles (and I have mentioned before, POTATO GUN!). I enjoy shooting my guns, just at targets, its a recreational activity.
Now lets say that somebody wants a gun, but they can't get it on thier own for reasons, so they:
A: Have somebody else buy it for them
B: Get it from the black market
C: Any other ways I can't think of
So, if they desperately want a gun, they will get it. Gun control will never work as long as there corruption in our society. There is no way, even banning guns for civilian use will not work, there are still guns out there that people will not "report", and the ammo is no problem becasue I know alot of people that make their own. So what do we do? Well, at least IMO, the current gun control is probably the best you can get.
(another off topic, DARE (some anti drug program) has been proven not to work, but the U.S. government still spends ~$20 million/yr on it)
Its understandable that with a post colonial history, the US' founding fathers would want to enshrine a safety net against remote rule, and no taxation without representation etc. but in this day and age, it seems like an anachronism. Can anyone cite any post-emancipation examples of American dictatorships that were thwarted merely because the population were all toting Saturday night specials?
Hunting and sport shooting is a seperate issue for a seperate thread, but I think Jammer wanted our views on handguns and the like - correct me if I'm wrong.
/edit, spelling.
Ok off to bed 4 meh. Don't trash the place while I'm asleep.
...
I hate you all. I really do.
<!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Mods... thanks...
And large calibers shouldnt be discriminated against, my father uses a .457 round for hunting caribou and this is a very large bullet. And pistols are great fun and are agruably the most effective for home defense because of thier size. And dont start the stopping power argument, most senarios where a homeowner points a gun at a tresspasser ends with nothing more than a call to the police. And being shot with anything is a very disorienting to have happen to you. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
On caliber size: agreed, .475 rounds are a respectable size. However, I expected in advance that someone could mention a scenario I couldn't think up off the top of my head. Hence I put the second half of this point:
"...needlessly large caliber rounds for the purpose at hand"
If the purpose at hand is hunting big game such as caribou, I'll assume a smaller round simply won't do the job in a clean and humane way, so .475 wouldn't be "needlessly large" at all. We agree there.
Next: I personally know a police trainer who came close to hitting a family member with a pistol round that went through a wall, so I can see why these fragmentary rounds are good for home defense. Since I don't know enough about them myself, would you mind explaining to me how these fragmentary rounds differ from traditional ones when they hit unarmored or lightly-armored human flesh?
The home tresspasser scenario -- or as I like to think of it, scenarios plural -- is interesting to me because there are so many variations to try to debate over. Pointing a gun at a tresspasser is no doubt effective when they don't have one to counter with, but if they do? I'll agree that many such situations, with and without an armed tresspasser, end with a call to the police (or less desirably, the hospital). But an equally or more important question at this point is "would it have been more effective to invest on a theft-deterrent system, or a weapon?" So many variables, so little time...
police should be allowed to carry single-shot bullpup size rifles and swat should be able to have SMG's, but I deffinately favor an all-out ban on handguns
you can practice shooting with all sorts of long barrel rifles, in fact I'd say it's more sportsman like to use a rifle than a freaking handgun
handguns as a personal defense is not excusable... get a tazer, get mace... carrying a long barreled rifle in public should automatically invite scrutiny, concealed carry is crap... ugh... sorry I'm venting now
I personally disagree with guns, but I believe that an all-out ban is unconstitutional and a restriction of American freedoms
Welcome to Ohio, where traffic cops wear bullet proof vests.
Seriously thought Guns do alot more good then harm imo.
you can practice shooting with all sorts of long barrel rifles, in fact I'd say it's more sportsman like to use a rifle than a freaking handgun
handguns as a personal defense is not excusable... get a tazer, get mace... carrying a long barreled rifle in public should automatically invite scrutiny, concealed carry is crap... ugh... sorry I'm venting now
[...] <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Personally, I've always considered the most honorable and respectable hunters or sport shooters to be the ones who use compound bows instead of any type of gun. If you're skilled and patient enough to get food by methods similar to those used by Native Americans before the United States version of the holocaust, you've earned your meal.
As for concealed guns, I'm wondering how many people who've answered this thread think concealed carrying rights should be restricted to plainclothes (a.k.a. undercover) law enforcement officers. It's an idea I don't think I've heard someone try to argue against yet.
I personally disagree with guns, but I believe that an all-out ban is unconstitutional and a restriction of American freedoms <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You can't carry a long barrel in your purse. Tazers you have to hit the person in one shot. If you miss there is no other chance. Also the taser has to have both electrodes enter the person. If you have anything that can stop a bb and insulated to stop an electric current the person is screwed. Mace isint aloud to be sold to the public only 10% rest is pepper spray. Also you have to get the assaulter in the face with Mace. This will not alway imobolize an assaulter.
I think the real problem is that people grow up without ever firing or knowing how a weapon works how to treat it saftly and what it is for.
Do you have any research to back that up? My impression was that most of those scenarios end with a dead/wounded homeowner/family member.
As far as hunting goes, humans have been successfully hunting since before recorded history. It is not necessary to own firearms to hunt, and I'm not sure if in the U.S. there is any language addressing hunting on anything other than a state level. There are countless ways to kill animals from every culture, so no matter what firearms laws are passed, I don't see how hunting becomes impossible. No one is going to starve for lack of firearms, there are just too many ways to bait and trap animals without needing a great deal of skill.
As far as keeping the government in check- too late. Maybe in the U.S. the 2nd Amendment should have read, "the right to keep and bear STATE-OF-THE-ART WEAPONS shall not be infringed". Even if EVERYONE had an "assault rifle", it wouldn't be enough. The Taliban and the Iraqis had all this and much more, and got stomped. The only respectable rebellion I can think of here in the states would be to somehow destroy the communications, supply, and maintenance systems of the military, which would probably not be done by fighting fair and trading bullets. That would be suicide.
What's left? What realistic reasons remain to have firearms? For me the answer is small-time self-defense. Despite the inability of firearms to help much against the completely random or well-orchestrated hit, a lot of life's little troubles are somewhat predictable. Not predictable to the day, but many times it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see trouble brewing. If you're backpacking in grizzly country, your odds of getting attacked are low, but not abysmally low (like your chances of getting outside help in time are.) If the guy who raped your wife ten years ago just got out, he's a free man, and he might be a little pis$ed about how she testified against him. (If he comes crashing through your bedroom window, he's probably not back to borrow a cup of sugar, and you probably don't have time to call and wait for the cops.) If you routinely move around money or expensive goods as part of your job, you might want to keep your options open when someone starts acting weird.
None of what I've just said is far-fetched to me. I've been around wild animals, I've seen how courtrooms operate, etc, and it seems incredibly naive to think everything and everywhere is totally under control and 99% safe. Government can only protect the majority- it is up to each of us to continually be aware of when we are safely in the shadow of that majority, or when we are in the open. If you are in the backcountry, know someone wants to hurt you but can't do anything about it, are a woman walking at night, are carrying bags of cash from your 7-11 franchise- you're in the open. Firearms are just one of many options you might need to utilize to take control and take responsibility for your safety and needs. If you live in a log cabin 30 minutes from the nearest fire station, for god's sake get a back-up generator, a pumping system, and a fire hose! You're not in the same protective shadow of the majority.
Now, I said earlier I thought that handguns were best suited socially for the role of self-defense. For one thing, just because you think you are at elevated risk at times, doesn't mean you know for sure if or when something is going to happen. It is impractical and socially distracting to lug around a huge rifle when you can carry a light, compact handgun. There is also the issue of how many things you want the round to go through- in general, handguns are chambered for smaller rounds that don't go through everything in sight. We don't really want people carrying deer rifles around in the city for protection, because those larger cartridges are going to send the bullet a lot farther and with a lot more force. In the U.S. you can only legally shoot a person if you believe you are in mortal danger and can't retreat (might vary a little by state.) In general I'd say that if you have to look through a scope to aim at your enemy, you still have room to retreat.
I do not go around armed, nor do I have instant access to a firearm at home. That's my choice, based on what I perceive to be a lack of predictable threats that I can do much about. If someone wants to execute me from behind while I buy a Coke, I don't think being armed will make much difference, as I can't live my life for years and years expecting death around every corner. That sort of defeats the purpose. I try to focus on stuff I can do something about, like blood pressure, cardiovascular health, nutrition, etc.
But, I wish to retain my right to do whatever I need to do, should my government fail to protect me. I've seen geographic areas where the government just physically is not there, so whatever "law" I want to live under I have to bring with me. Back in civilization, the government keeps things pretty stable for me, so I don't worry about it much, but I've definitely seen the loopholes and failings for other people, and if the day comes when the government can not or will not help me, I will improvise as best I can. That goes for anything- if I or my wife come down with a neurological disease that ends in suffocation, assisted suicide will be taking place whether it's legal or not. Or, if the pharmacy won't give out enough painkillers, by golly we'll grow weed. The law is a real makeshift, shoot-for-the-middle attempt at a solution- if it serves you well your whole life, great, it's easier that way. But you have recognize that the law always has sizeable gaps of coverage in terms of being helpful or fair, so don't be too hard on people who take matters into their own hands.
France only allows light calliber hunting rifles , nothing else... other weapons are only carried by policemen/militaries , though people can use some of them at shooting range (needing several different permissions first) and yet we recently had a mad man killing dozen people in the city council at Nanterre. He managed to go through all tests (he wasn't depressive back then) and stole a Glock pistol from there.
A moronic neo nazi also tried to shoot our president with a 22 long rifle (weapon got caught in time fortunately)
I wish gunpowder hadn't been invented...
<span style='color:red'>***Locked.***</span>