gun control

SLAM: debunk creationism, pseudoscience, and superstitions. Discuss logic and morality.

Moderator: Alyrium Denryle

What's your opinion?

Poll ended at 2003-02-12 12:07pm

To quote Charleton Heston of the NRA "It's man GOD-GIVEN right to own guns!"
14
36%
Only the police and the military should be able to own guns
5
13%
Let people own handguns and hunting rifles and ban all the ridiculous guns (uzi's, automatics and semi-automatics)
17
44%
Guns should only be allowed in the country where you need them if you have to hunt for food, shoot a wolf, etc
3
8%
 
Total votes: 39

User avatar
Shrykull
Jedi Master
Posts: 1270
Joined: 2002-07-05 09:11pm

gun control

Post by Shrykull »

So, what do you think of it? Do we have any hunters here or anyone who regularly practices shooting? On the other side do we have anyone who's ever been shot or had a friend or relative die because of a shooting? People say that if we took guns away, only the criminals would have guns, unless of course, we cut off the manufacturing, and confiscate the already existing ones. Other than using a gun, I think the only other way to rob a bank (even though they almost ALWAYS get caught) or a store would be with a Machete or trying to beat the clerk down and get the money (in which case he could keep a bat or something behind the counter and have a silent alarm) But what about some places where you need a gun, like if you lived in the wild and had to hunt for food?
User avatar
C.S.Strowbridge
Sore Loser
Posts: 905
Joined: 2002-07-03 05:32pm
Location: Burnaby, BC, Canada
Contact:

Post by C.S.Strowbridge »

I don't quite fit in any of the above. I agree with a friend of mine, who is a hunter. Rifles and shotguns are fine, but any other gun is useless. That includes Mac 10's, assault rifles and handguns.

Also, I think there should be stricter tests to see if you could handle a gun.
User avatar
Stormbringer
King of Democracy
Posts: 22678
Joined: 2002-07-15 11:22pm

Post by Stormbringer »

I am all for allowing guns but we need to have strict licensing and enforcment of the laws. The problem is not the guns but who has them.

I think are gun laws as they stand are ridiculous and full of lopeholes. What we need to do is work hard to keep guns out of criminal hands and come down on those that do use them illegally.

It's a ridiculous over simlification to think that simply banning guns will make gun crime go away. And it's also stupid to think that ever gun owner is just waiting for a chance to kill and maim.
Image
User avatar
Utsanomiko
The Legend Rado Tharadus
Posts: 5079
Joined: 2002-09-20 10:03pm
Location: My personal sanctuary from the outside world

Post by Utsanomiko »

I agree mostly with Stormbring on this subject. Gun control laws that only effect law-abiding gun owners (as in ones that don't file down the numbers, etc) are just uselessly retarded. The main point is to keep them out of the hands of criminals, which is theoretically reduced by background checks, waiting periods, etc.
By His Word...
User avatar
Knife
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 15769
Joined: 2002-08-30 02:40pm
Location: Behind the Zion Curtain

Post by Knife »

I don't fit in any of the choises. I believe that you should be able to purchase just about any gun you want with the exception of MachineGuns and higher. If a collector wants a M60 he needs to buy/pay for a special licence for it. But if Joe Smoe want a AR 15 he should be able to buy it.

As far as the laws needed, I think that most laws we have now are adaqute. What we need now is ENFORCEMENT of the laws. No matter how many feel good, warm and fuzzy laws they make, it don't mean shit if they don't enforce them. Personally I think that there should be a list of people who can't have guns instead of a list of people who do have guns.

As far as Heston's quote, just take God out of it and I'm cool with it.
They say, "the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots." I suppose it never occurred to them that they are the tyrants, not the patriots. Those weapons are not being used to fight some kind of tyranny; they are bringing them to an event where people are getting together to talk. -Mike Wong

But as far as board culture in general, I do think that young male overaggression is a contributing factor to the general atmosphere of hostility. It's not SOS and the Mess throwing hand grenades all over the forum- Red
Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi
What Kind of Username is That?
Posts: 9254
Joined: 2002-07-10 08:53pm
Location: Back in PA

Post by Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi »

If you start a gun turn-in program, criminals aren't going to flock there to turn their firearms in. I say think up of laws that would target the criminals and not the law-abiding citizens. Background checks aren't all that effective, since a person with no criminal record just might kill someone with a gun. Or, a criminal could just avoid the background check altogether, and buy a gun illegaly. Do black market dealers ask for a background check?
BotM: Just another monkey|HAB
User avatar
aerius
Charismatic Cult Leader
Posts: 14770
Joined: 2002-08-18 07:27pm

Post by aerius »

We have enough laws as it is, in fact I think we have too many of them, and the fact is they don't freakin' work at reducing gun crime. The goal of gun control should be to keep guns away from criminals and to remove guns from their possession. What we have now fails miserably at both.

I believe that we should be able to buy any firearm we want other than belt-fed heavy machine guns, those you'd need a special permit to get. If you're a law abiding citizen who has the qualifications, there's no reason to restrict your choice of firearms.
Image
aerius: I'll vote for you if you sleep with me. :)
Lusankya: Deal!
Say, do you want it to be a threesome with your wife? Or a foursome with your wife and sister-in-law? I'm up for either. :P
User avatar
Einhander Sn0m4n
Insane Railgunner
Posts: 18630
Joined: 2002-10-01 05:51am
Location: Louisiana... or Dagobah. You know, where Yoda lives.

Post by Einhander Sn0m4n »

The real purpose of gun control laws isn't Gun Control, it's Gun CONTROL! There's a reason all these laws have no impact on crime whatsoever, yet they SEVERELY fuck over Joe Citizen's rights to own guns/self defense/etc. We don't want what's happening to Britain to happen here. It's literally Orwellian there!
Image Image
User avatar
J
Kaye Elle Emenopey
Posts: 5824
Joined: 2002-12-14 02:23pm

Post by J »

Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:The real purpose of gun control laws isn't Gun Control, it's Gun CONTROL! There's a reason all these laws have no impact on crime whatsoever, yet they SEVERELY fuck over Joe Citizen's rights to own guns/self defense/etc. We don't want what's happening to Britain to happen here. It's literally Orwellian there!
Thanks to brainwashing by the media and government politicians, the general public equates gun control with crime control, and believes that more restrictions will lead to less crime. Sadly this is a complete lie that politicians use to get themselves elected on the "we're tough on crime" platform, and thanks to the incessant brainwashing the public will believe and vote for them. If they truly wanted to get tough on crime they'd be arresting and locking up or executing all the serial offenders that are loose on the streets on technicalities or what not.
User avatar
Exonerate
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4454
Joined: 2002-10-29 07:19pm
Location: DC Metro Area

Post by Exonerate »

Let people keep hunting rifles, shotguns, handguns, but limit access to military arms(read: M-16, M4-A1, etc)

BoTM, MM, HAB, JL
User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29842
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Post by MKSheppard »

C.S.Strowbridge wrote: Rifles and shotguns are fine, but any other gun is useless. That includes Mac 10's, assault rifles and handguns.
Oh please shut the fuck up. There is no difference between a semi auto
hunting rifle and a AR-15 except the AR-15 looks a lot meaner....
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
User avatar
Sea Skimmer
Yankee Capitalist Air Pirate
Posts: 37389
Joined: 2002-07-03 11:49pm
Location: Passchendaele City, HAB

Post by Sea Skimmer »

Exonerate wrote:Let people keep hunting rifles, shotguns, handguns, but limit access to military arms(read: M-16, M4-A1, etc)
The logic behind that being what? Restrict the weapons types that are least used in crimes? Pretty stupid logic.
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
User avatar
Exonerate
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4454
Joined: 2002-10-29 07:19pm
Location: DC Metro Area

Post by Exonerate »

So we should just ban all guns? :roll: There's a big difference between a shotgun and an M-16... One allows for very widespread damage.

BoTM, MM, HAB, JL
HemlockGrey
Fucking Awesome
Posts: 13834
Joined: 2002-07-04 03:21pm

Post by HemlockGrey »

Hunting rifles and shotguns should be available to anyone who has a clean record, has passed a shooting competence and psych test, gotten their license, so forth and so on.

Handguns should be restricted a bit more. Dunno how. I'll work it out eventually.

Automatics and such should be available to gun collectors and their ilk but at a rather high price; in addition to extensive psych/shooting competence test, clean record, and a license renewal every few months.

A nationwide database is a good idea, but it will probably require most 'gun outlets' to be owned and operatedby the state, like the liquor stores here in PA.
The End of Suburbia
"If more cars are inevitable, must there not be roads for them to run on?"
-Robert Moses

"The Wire" is the best show in the history of television. Watch it today.
User avatar
aerius
Charismatic Cult Leader
Posts: 14770
Joined: 2002-08-18 07:27pm

Post by aerius »

Exonerate wrote:So we should just ban all guns? :roll: There's a big difference between a shotgun and an M-16... One allows for very widespread damage.
Unless you're talking about hosing down a crowd of people with bullets, an M-16 isn't going to cause any more "widespread" damage than a shotgun, and even in that situation it's somewhat questionable. Machine guns and what the media refers to as "assault rifles" aren't the weapons of mass destruction that media lead you to believe they are. The only guns that would cause "widespread" damage IMO are large caliber belt-feds such as the Browning M2HB.
Image
aerius: I'll vote for you if you sleep with me. :)
Lusankya: Deal!
Say, do you want it to be a threesome with your wife? Or a foursome with your wife and sister-in-law? I'm up for either. :P
User avatar
Exonerate
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4454
Joined: 2002-10-29 07:19pm
Location: DC Metro Area

Post by Exonerate »

Actually, I WAS thinking about hosing down a crowd of people. Or something similar to that effect.

BoTM, MM, HAB, JL
tharkûn
Tireless defender of wealthy businessmen
Posts: 2806
Joined: 2002-07-08 10:03pm

Post by tharkûn »

Where is the graduated licensing option?

I.e. the more deadly the gun you want to own the more rigorious the license you have to get?

Personally I think it is stupid that you can buy a gun without any sign of compotency, but you have to take a test to drive a car.

Basically I think you should have a basic gun safety class like drivers ed and first aid in high school which everyone takes unless their parents opt them out. If you pass the test at the end of the class ... viola you are certified to purchase a gun with parental consent. More lethal fire arms require you to go for more advanced licensing. At each level the state has to find a reason NOT to issue you a license (not you have to find a reason TO be issued a license).
Very funny, Scotty. Now beam down my clothes.
User avatar
Knife
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 15769
Joined: 2002-08-30 02:40pm
Location: Behind the Zion Curtain

Post by Knife »

Exonerate wrote:Actually, I WAS thinking about hosing down a crowd of people. Or something similar to that effect.
In witch case a shot gun would be more handy. Realy a M16 or AR15 is a rifle with a 3 round burst and is a 223 caliber(5.56 if you want mm). The civilian models are still semi-auto so you come up with a 22 rifle. OOOHHH, the mass damage that can be done with that. In a tight situation with alot of people, a shot gun is way more deadly than the M16 would be. In alot of cases a modern hunting rifle is just as good as the M16. You can't base your opinions on how the gun looks, can you?
They say, "the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots." I suppose it never occurred to them that they are the tyrants, not the patriots. Those weapons are not being used to fight some kind of tyranny; they are bringing them to an event where people are getting together to talk. -Mike Wong

But as far as board culture in general, I do think that young male overaggression is a contributing factor to the general atmosphere of hostility. It's not SOS and the Mess throwing hand grenades all over the forum- Red
weemadando
SMAKIBBFB
Posts: 19195
Joined: 2002-07-28 12:30pm
Contact:

Post by weemadando »

I support a system similar to Australia's where you can still own guns but there are many restrictions on who can own them and what you can own.

I believe there is a 10rnd magazine limit. You can't own ANYTHING automatic. It was a reasonably well constructed piece of legislation. Some bugs and kinks, but thats to be expected in any such process.

Ownership and license approval is a fairly involved process. You have to have a reason to own the weapon. The application process is about 6 months in length including psychological testing and a 3 month cooling off period.
User avatar
Knife
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 15769
Joined: 2002-08-30 02:40pm
Location: Behind the Zion Curtain

Post by Knife »

How ever some believe that the goverment cannot do that in the US because of the 2nd Amendmet prohibits it.

I still think a list of people who CAN NOT own guns is perferable than a list of people who do own them.
They say, "the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots." I suppose it never occurred to them that they are the tyrants, not the patriots. Those weapons are not being used to fight some kind of tyranny; they are bringing them to an event where people are getting together to talk. -Mike Wong

But as far as board culture in general, I do think that young male overaggression is a contributing factor to the general atmosphere of hostility. It's not SOS and the Mess throwing hand grenades all over the forum- Red
User avatar
Alyeska
Federation Ambassador
Posts: 17496
Joined: 2002-08-11 07:28pm
Location: Montana, USA

Post by Alyeska »

The poll is a faulty one. There should be an option that says "There should be some form of gun legislation, but no ban on guns"

That said, here goes.
Alyeska wrote:I guess its time to give my idea on gun control again.

First and foremost, I have to say that I am a firm believer in the 2nd amendment. That said, that does not mean every person should be able to walk into a grocery store and buy an M-16. There is a difference between the right to own a weapon and owning a weapon.

As far as I am concerned, people have the right to own cars within the US. Just because they have that right does not mean they can use that car. You have to fill out ownership forms, titles, and even have to get licensed to use the thing. The United Kingdom even goes a step further where if you get a license on an Automatic transmission, that’s all you can drive. If you get a license on a stick shift, you can also drive automatics.

I am sure you can see where I am going with this. I think that people who want to own a gun have to follow some pre-conditions to own a gun. They have to take gun safety classes, they have to pass tests, have to have a safe place to store the weapons, they have to have a free record (no felonies in the record), etc… It might take some time, but once you have the license, that allows you to buy guns. There would be a variety of licenses, pistol (semi-auto or revolver), shotgun, rifle (bolt and lever or semi-auto), etc… You would have to get licensed for each thing you want to get. But once you have the license, you are free to buy weapons from registered dealers without problem. They can take your license and run it through a database instantly to see if you are qualified. Registering the weapon is a snap, and you can take it home. In other words you jump through all the hoops well before hand, then it gives you a free reign later on. If you can’t pass all the requirements, no license, no guns.

Now, people who invest a fair amount of money into a license, or guns, do not want their investment wasted. Money is valuable. People who want a gun to commit a crime want something fast and easy, and already have a record. They wouldn’t be able to use this system to get weapons. Those with the license will be relatively well off and don’t want to loose what they have. To help encourage them, each license would also be taxed to a small degree.

Now, what about Assault Rifles, high powered rifles, sub machineguns, and other military grade weaponry? Before 1996 the US allowed people to buy new military grade weaponry or fully automatic weaponry. I have seen pictures of people with their collections with the likes of a Steyr Aug, CAR-15, MP5-SD, and AK-47. Even today you can still buy pre-ban weapons. It requires something called a fully automatic license. I think something along these lines should continue. An expensive collectors license for those who want something other then normal weapons. A Collectors license would be very expensive. If someone wants an M16 or P90, they have to save a bloody fortune. The weapons themselves sell for several THOUSAND dollars. The license itself would also have to be several thousand dollars. People would have to make a major investment to get such licenses, but if they can afford it, they certainly don’t want to loose it.

Basically I think that people have the theoretical right to own weapons, but that is only if they can follow the rules and safety procedures.
I ought to save this particular piece since I have to repost it often enough.
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."

"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
User avatar
Alyeska
Federation Ambassador
Posts: 17496
Joined: 2002-08-11 07:28pm
Location: Montana, USA

Post by Alyeska »

C.S.Strowbridge wrote:I don't quite fit in any of the above. I agree with a friend of mine, who is a hunter. Rifles and shotguns are fine, but any other gun is useless. That includes Mac 10's, assault rifles and handguns.

Also, I think there should be stricter tests to see if you could handle a gun.
A handgun is far from useless. It serves multiple purposes.

Defense weapon
Recreational device
Hunting weapon

For those who can use a handgun safely to do any of the following, I have no problem.
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."

"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
User avatar
Alyeska
Federation Ambassador
Posts: 17496
Joined: 2002-08-11 07:28pm
Location: Montana, USA

Post by Alyeska »

Exonerate wrote:So we should just ban all guns? :roll: There's a big difference between a shotgun and an M-16... One allows for very widespread damage.
Indeed. A Shotgun is often very fatal and can penetrate even the toughest body armor. An M-16 is much less easy to use at close range and has a pitiful cartridge that is weak as hell.
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."

"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
User avatar
Alyeska
Federation Ambassador
Posts: 17496
Joined: 2002-08-11 07:28pm
Location: Montana, USA

Post by Alyeska »

weemadando wrote:I support a system similar to Australia's where you can still own guns but there are many restrictions on who can own them and what you can own.

I believe there is a 10rnd magazine limit. You can't own ANYTHING automatic. It was a reasonably well constructed piece of legislation. Some bugs and kinks, but thats to be expected in any such process.

Ownership and license approval is a fairly involved process. You have to have a reason to own the weapon. The application process is about 6 months in length including psychological testing and a 3 month cooling off period.
Having magazine size restrictions and not allowing fully automatic weapons is pointless. A criminal is not going to pay attention to the laws and will aquire fully automatic weapons and high capacity clips if the want to. All these restrictions do is make life a pain in the ass to the law abiding people.
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."

"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
User avatar
Alyeska
Federation Ambassador
Posts: 17496
Joined: 2002-08-11 07:28pm
Location: Montana, USA

Post by Alyeska »

Knife wrote:How ever some believe that the goverment cannot do that in the US because of the 2nd Amendmet prohibits it.

I still think a list of people who CAN NOT own guns is perferable than a list of people who do own them.
More correctly an equaly enforced structure that places regulations on people thus weeing out those who can not own guns (IE criminals).
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."

"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
Post Reply