Guns

[MustangRyan]

Child Access Prevention laws already exist. They still don't stop stupid people from being stupid. Then again, nothing stops stupid people from being stupid.

 

[Saidur_Ali]

What this calls for is jail terms for anyone who leaves a loaded gun lying around so 5 year old kids can pick them up and shoot their siblings with it. Stupidity such as this needs to be weeded out of the gene pool through incarceration. Would you leave a bottle of bleach lying around for a kid to play with? A can of turpentine? Some hunting knives?

If it is brushed aside with no punishment then I do think it needs to be stricter. A parent could otherwise give a loaded gun to a child who could kill anyone "accidentally" who goes on their private property. The rifle was bought for him as gift maybe to play around with.

They don't let 5 year olds walk into Wal-Mart and buy rifles no matter what state you're in; and there's little that can be done to legislate out stupid people like their parents who left a loaded gun laying around the house.

I read somewhere that isn't the case regarding unlicensed dealers in some states, is that not true?

I think there could be something done to legislate this out especially regarding age and maybe also punishments due to negligence being made clear so parents will think twice before they start buying these guns for their young child.

 

[Tornado]

I think the end result in this case should be enough to keep parents from leaving loaded guns around. If they need to be threatened with jail time after the fact to keep their kids from having the ability to shoot each other, there's already something fundamentally wrong in the household.

 

[FoolKiller]

If you want to generalise like that, then lets just let the misinformed Americans

Interesting choice of words.

continue blowing each other away, when in fact it is possible for a nation to function without every citizen being armed to the teeth with deadly weapons.

Now who is generalizing or being misinformed? Less than half the homes in the US have a gun of any kind.

Are you referring to this?

Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act

Commonly referred to as the "Assault Weapons Ban," this bill banned the manufacture, possession, and importation of new semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices (or magazines) for civilian use.

Criteria for semiautomatic assault weapons that fall under the ban are provided as well as a list of 19 specific firearms.

Prohibits juveniles from possessing or selling handguns and directs the attorney general to evaluate proposed and existing state juvenile gun laws.


Sounds pretty sensible to me,

First, the act did more than that. Second, his point was that it didn't work. We still had school shootings. Columbine happened five years after this was implemented.

I don't live there, and wouldn't want to If I felt the need to have firearms in my home to feel safe. This is merely an observation/opinion and know there are valid arguments for both sides of the fence. That's just mine from an outside of the bubble perspective.

I don't want to live in a place where I need fire insurance on my house, but even though I don't need fire insurance I have it, just in case the extremely rare tragedy strikes. Similarly, many gun owners live in very safe neighborhoods, but they have a gun in the very rare event they need to defend their home. I've personally never seen a gun used in a threatening or illegal manner, but I know many of my neighbors have them, including the police officer who lives within sight of my home.

I have never been the victim of a criminal act, but I keep something that could be used as a weapon near my bed, know all the blind spots in my home, keep a table leg tucked between my car seat and door, mentally note all exits when I walk into a room, and don't sit with my back to the door of any room when possible. I don't do this because I am scared or expect to be attacked, but because "the world is made for people who aren't cursed with self-awareness" and occasionally some douchebag will take advantage of that.

Owning a gun has little to do with being scared. It has a lot to do with being prepared. In fact, I find the person who gets a gun after being a victim of a crime, and is now very nervous and jumpy, to be far more of a risk than the guy who owns 50 guns and goes target shooting a few times a month.

This case is another reason for stricter control: 5-year-old boy accidentally shoots, kills 2-year-old sister in Cumberland County

That's a case for better parenting. Let me counter your case with my own.
http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=9062720

If it is brushed aside with no punishment then I do think it needs to be stricter. A parent could otherwise give a loaded gun to a child who could kill anyone "accidentally" who goes on their private property. The rifle was bought for him as gift maybe to play around with.

I think you missed where the problem that caused this tragedy was. They stored the gun by propping it up in the corner. That shouldn't be done with a BB or pellet gun. An air soft gun could potentially kill a two-year-old child.

I read somewhere that isn't the case regarding unlicensed dealers in some states, is that not true?

Unlicensed, legal, dealers are at gun shows and flea markets. How exactly do you expect a five-year-old child to get there by themselves? And do you think so poorly of people who buy, sell, or own guns that you believe they would sell one to a child that young?

I think there could be something done to legislate this out especially regarding age

I guarantee that while they say the gun was the child's, there is no bill of sale or permits (or would be if it were required-depends on where they bought it) in the child's name. Legally, it is the parents' gun. My daughter has an iPad, but guess whose information is on it. It isn't the three-year-old's. They bought a gun that a child could handle, with the intent of teaching the child how to use a gun, probably (based on the part of the state they are in) so he can go hunting with his family members when he gets older.

and maybe also punishments due to negligence being made clear so parents will think twice before they start buying these guns for their young child.

We have negligence laws in Kentucky. I see no reason for this case to be different than leaving a child in a hot car. But that has little to do with them buying him a gun. I was his age when I fired my first gun. Between Scouts and summer camps I had used a wide array of hunting weapons before I had body hair.

 

[Saidur_Ali]

That's a case for better parenting. Let me counter your case with my own.
http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=9062720

Better parenting / guidance could be applied to anything though like them robbers for example but I get what you are saying. Now on to your case, there seems to be a small percentage of cases of justifiable self-defense using guns and a lot more accidental uses of guns.

 

[FoolKiller]

Better parenting / guidance could be applied to anything though like them robbers for example but I get what you are saying.

The robbers were adults. It isn't related...at all. I addressed this more in detail in an edit to my post above.

Now on to your case, there seems to be a small percentage of cases of justifiable self-defense using guns and a lot more accidental uses of guns.

Reported. If a criminal just runs at the sight of a gun and the gun owner just goes to bed instead of spending half the night filling out police reports then you won't hear about it. And the national media doesn't seem to jump on every self defense case the way the do every criminal and accidental gun case, particularly when increased regulation is being debated. I wonder why.

 

[MrSulu]

Interesting choice of words.

Clearly you didn't see what I was replying to with that statement


Now who is generalizing or being misinformed? Less than half the homes in the US have a gun of any kind.

Most, some, a few, all...The actual stat is irrelevant


First, the act did more than that. Second, his point was that it didn't work. We still had school shootings. Columbine happened five years after this was implemented.



And sadly you will continue to do so without radical changes


I have never been the victim of a criminal act, but I keep something that could be used as a weapon near my bed, know all the blind spots in my home, keep a table leg tucked between my car seat and door, mentally note all exits when I walk into a room, and don't sit with my back to the door of any room when possible. I don't do this because I am scared or expect to be attacked, but because "the world is made for people who aren't cursed with self-awareness" and occasionally some douchebag will take advantage of that.

On the contrary, it sounds exactly like you are scared or expect to be attacked, otherwise it would never have crossed your mind, I am sat with my back to my door as I type this, doesn't bother me in the slightest

Owning a gun has little to do with being scared. It has a lot to do with being prepared.

See above reply


In fact, I find the person who gets a gun after being a victim of a crime, and is now very nervous and jumpy, to be far more of a risk than the guy who owns 50 guns and goes target shooting a few times a month.

No argument there, the fact that any of it can happen in the first place is the issue

At the end of the day, I am not in your country, I can not see how this works day to day and don't have your personal experiences in the matter.

I appreciate we have different laws and opinions regarding firearms, and my viewpoint is of how it could be, which is a damned sight better than how it actually is. 👍

Edit - Sorry about the choice of font colour in the replies, its quite hard to see!

 

[Saidur_Ali]

The robbers were adults. It isn't related...at all. I addressed this more in detail in an edit to my post above.

This is why I said that I get what you are saying.

Reported. If a criminal just runs at the sight of a gun and the gun owner just goes to bed instead of spending half the night filling out police reports then you won't hear about it. And the national media doesn't seem to jump on every self defense case the way the do every criminal and accidental gun case, particularly when increased regulation is being debated. I wonder why.

What about the cases when a gun is fired in self-defense, seems to be very few cases for justifiable ones?

 

[FoolKiller]

Edit - Sorry about the choice of font colour in the replies, its quite hard to see!

Actually, it is painful on my iPhone. Plus, when you put your response in the quoted text it won't be automatically quoted in the reply. You'll excuse me if I don't respond, since I can't read your responses and don't want to go through the hassle of trying to copy and paste any points I would respond to.

What about the cases when a gun is fired in self-defense, seems to be very few cases for justifiable ones?

If the primary point of owning a gun as self-defense was to fire first and ask questions later, you'd have a point. But the fact is that the goal is to prevent any violence. You show your gun and the potential criminal leaves. These people aren't cowboys. They have day jobs and families. Killing isn't their first defensive action, nor should it be. How do you measure success when success mans nothing happens? How do you measure criminals avoiding a house they know has a gun owner?

But since you insist.
An interactive map that covers uses from warding of animals to attempted rapes and murders: http://www.cato.org/guns-and-self-defense

And a Businessweek article citing multiple studies with the most conservative being 100,000 per year and the most generous being over 2 million per year. http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-12-27/how-often-do-we-use-guns-in-self-defense

And as both point out, it is an impossible number to really nail down, because when it works best results in nothing newsworthy happening.

EDIT:
The most anti-gun estimate has self defense use at 100,000 per year. That exceeds murders, suicide, and accidental deaths combined, according to this anti-gun page.
http://www.policymic.com/mobile/art...debate-6-chilling-facts-about-guns-in-the-u-s

 

[XS]

What I don't understand about the self defense argument is that it has been proven time and time again that a nervous, amateur gun owner is more likely to miss their target and send a stray bullet who knows where. I'm not going to lie that the sight of a gun is usually powerful enough to deter most attackers, but most frightened people are shoot first as questions later. Now we had tasers at my store I used to run and twice over five years did they send a robber running out the front door. You don't risk hurting anyone else, and a taser does a better job at immobilizing an attacker than a gun - it's instantaneous, as fast as electricity travels through the body. Not to mention you don't have any George Zimmerman fallout for killing your attacker, and good tasers have a close-range stun gun built in too. Are there situations where a gun would be more effective than a taser? Sure, but let's just say I've never felt unsafe, in any part of town or at work, with a taser.

 

[Zenith]

What I don't understand about the self defense argument is that it has been proven time and time again that a nervous, amateur gun owner is more likely to miss their target and send a stray bullet who knows where.

One time a shooter murdered another man in NYC and some nervous guy with a gun shot at the murderer with his handgun and ended up hitting 9 innocent bystanders out of his 16 rounds fired at one person.

The man I'm talking about was a police officer in front of the Empire State Building. The professionals that we trust with guns don't seem to be as highly trained as many would like to believe.

I'm not going to lie that the sight of a gun is usually powerful enough to deter most attackers, but most frightened people are shoot first as questions later.

According to Dr. Kleck's gun study, over 55% of the time a gun is drawn in a defensive scenario the assailant stops the attack and no shots are fired.

Now we had tasers at my store I used to run and twice over five years did they send a robber running out the front door. You don't risk hurting anyone else, and a taser does a better job at immobilizing an attacker than a gun - it's instantaneous, as fast as electricity travels through the body. Not to mention you don't have any George Zimmerman fallout for killing your attacker, and good tasers have a close-range stun gun built in too. Are there situations where a gun would be more effective than a taser? Sure, but let's just say I've never felt unsafe, in any part of town or at work, with a taser.

Tasers are single shot so you had better hope you don't come up against multiple assailants or miss, they also won't penetrate thick clothing and have a very limited range.

Mace is another alternative but those cannot be readied as quickly as a gun or taser and can rebound into the user's eyes if sprayed into the wind or at short range.

Additionally there are numerous cases of mace or tasers failing to subdue an attacker despite a clean hit.

If you can fnid a device that guarantees me the same capability to defend myself safe as a gun without the possibility of killing the attacker, I'll be happy to use it. Currently no such item exists.

 

[Joel]

What I don't understand about the self defense argument is that it has been proven time and time again that a nervous, amateur gun owner is more likely to miss their target and send a stray bullet who knows where.

I'm kinda doubting the validity of this. Source?

As for the rest, it really isn't the whole point of guns as a defense tool. They're the great equalizer, an 85 year old grandma is able to defend herself with a gun against anyone, even though she'd be hopelessly overpowered by a man in his 20's.

I understand that tasers are useful and you've had success, but they simply aren't powerful enough for most people to defend their lives with. If you don't hit the person with the first shot, it's game over.

The fact is as far as defending your home from intruders, the best tool is a firearm.

 

[Exorcet]

a nervous, amateur gun owner is more likely to miss their target and send a stray bullet who knows where.

Assuming its true, then maybe then you could solve it by removing amateur shooters. I don't think trying to make people fear guns is going to lead to much good. Instead they should become more familiar with them. That goes for everything though I suppose.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

In an ideal world, they would be totally banned and no one would have an issue with it.

And in an ideal world there would be no violence and no pain and suffering and just an abundance of benevolence. So let's not do this song and dance about a hypothetical. No reason for would have, could have, should have...

Unfortunately they are so deep rooted in American society that a blanket ban would be futile, they could probably never get them all.

Could you give a reason for what evidence is out there that leads you to this? Well yes if there was a ban there is a great likelihood that they wouldn't get them all, it's common sense. Criminals or people preparing to perpetuate criminal acts would probably hold on to theirs, also you'd have to change the constitution.

Then again why not give it a go? if you never try you never will. It may take decades, and in the long run everyone would be better off. The constitution/amendments (the right to bear arms bit) aren't written in stone it's getting a bit old and outdated now, although the majority of it is still valid and valuable of course. Maybe its time for a few updates before it turns into another bible! (only a joke please don't take that seriously)

Yes great idea, why not fund things that may potentially never work, and still not stop death rates by a plethora of weapons and not just guns. I mean hell trying things that have been proven not cost effective or helpful in the past and doing them again under different writing will do the trick. I mean going to Iraq was a major success, right!? No they aren't written in stone, but the constitution is the foundation of our society, what you're doing is misconstruing everything else based on violent acts done by criminals and saying "if we take away guns from the citizens violence will stop" yes because Odin/Zeus/God/Allah/Yahweh knows that if guns were gone from people that actually live life by not breaking laws violence would stop. People believe in this country that Life and Liberty are tantamount features given by the constitution and such amendments you hate (seem to), provide that if needed. Not sure if you have ever heard about gangs, there is a show called Gang Land you should watch it on Youtube, it might help you gain perspective. However, can you please tell me and others why it's old an outdated?

Can I ask you this, are you Peirs Morgan??? Let me guess you'll spin it and wonder why us pro-gun people haven't said the Bostonians could have been saved if they too had guns.

Don't know much about the gun law in US but things should be done to prevent so many accidental shootings occurring. I think there should be more age restrictions in being allowed to use a gun, as I understand some of the laws depending on the state, there is no minimum age for long guns.

Interesting you don't know much about gun laws and it probably can be stretched that you don't know much about our laws in general. So what baffles me is that instead of educating yourself then making a comment you just run with whatever spews from your mind onto the keyboard and into this forum...

Yet again you're quite wrong, all states have a simple regulation when it comes to guns; you have to be 21 to buy a handgun and 18 to buy a long gun (rifle and shotgun). Now I person can be given a gun by a parent or family member prior to this, but they can't legally own or be in possession of it until they become of age. Thus it becomes the responsibility of the parent to take care of and watch over the child when using the gun. It is also their duty to make sure the gun is in a safe and secure area that the child can't get to it.

All in all the only thing I see making people happy is if citizens were perhaps given munitions that Riot Police have, non-lethal but very powerful and painful applications that don't cause death. Still if it takes at times 4 .45 bullets to stop a meth addict from robbing and hurting you because the Drugs there on > your gun, it brings into question if non-lethal riot ammo matters. I'm not going to say every bad guy is drug induced, but this are scenarios that people are plagued with in certain (many) parts of the country. Not everyone can live in Suburbia and be safe as some here blissfully believe.

Oh and it should be noted that there are stats last taken by National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, showing 138 accidental shooting fatalities. Car accidents being a hundred times that. So for those jumping on this new sensation because all the media wants to make it big right now due to the gun issue on The Hill, perhaps some homework will provide insight. It should also be noted Drownings were much h

 

[Jet Badger]

Reading this thread it seems that the "Land of Freedom" is a goddamn scary place to live in. Maybe it has more to do with your societys way of thinking rather than the actual guns being a problem? Personally I have never even held a gun and the most serious weapon the people I know have is a pepper spray/teargas kind of thing. Although anyone(over the regulated age) is free to go and buy a handgun, it isn't a fashion accesorry must-have. Heck I don't even remember the last time I've heard about someone being shot on the news.

 

[nobuffalo]

Reading this thread it seems that the "Land of Freedom" is a goddamn scary place to live in.

It's not, it's a great place to live. 👍

In fact just a real quick search brought this up and if it's any thing to go by it appears Lithuania has a homicide rate almost double that of the US. There are lots of different factors though so I'm not sure just looking at the rates is the best way to go about it. Either way the US is generally not a scary place to live. Gun murder is a very popular subject here in the media.

 

[Michael88]

Heck I don't even remember the last time I've heard about someone being shot on the news.

Criminals in your country don't have guns?

 

[Exorcet]

Reading this thread it seems that the "Land of Freedom" is a goddamn scary place to live in.

I wouldn't say so, being shot has never really been a realistic threat for me. I've only seen guns fired at shooting ranges, ever. And if I needed to, I could buy one for protection, but I've never needed to. As far as I know, no one personally connected to me (family, friends, acquaintances) has ever been directly affected by a shooting or even a gun.

Maybe it has more to do with your societys way of thinking rather than the actual guns being a problem?

That sounds like something much more important to focus on then guns themselves. Guns don't make people want to shoot up a place. Taking them away probably won't do much to the people who are going to use them to break the law.

 

[Jet Badger]

It's not, it's a great place to live.

In fact just a real quick search brought this up and if it's any thing to go by it appears Lithuania has a homicide rate almost double that of the US. There are lots of different factors though so I'm not sure just looking at the rates is the best way to go about it. Either way the US is generally not a scary place to live. Gun murder is a very popular subject here in the media.

Yeah, that's a thing we are not-very-proudly leading in...

Criminals in your country don't have guns?

Depending on the criminal. Usually they only have briefcases and personal drivers

 

[nobuffalo]

Yeah, that's a thing we are not-very-proudly leading in...

So why then comment on it as if crime or our society's way of thinking is somehow worse here?

Unless of course you meant the opposite and that that is how it's portrayed in this thread.

 

[Xavier2342]

Assuming its true, then maybe then you could solve it by removing amateur shooters. I don't think trying to make people fear guns is going to lead to much good. Instead they should become more familiar with them. That goes for everything though I suppose.

Well said... 👍

 

[FoolKiller]

Gun murder is a very popular subject here in the media.

It should also be noted that gun crime is mostly contained in large urban centers, and then only within certain parts of the cities. Every city has that area you shouldn't go.

But most media reports during times of gun debate focus on the rural areas, where the stereotyped gun rights advocates live. Honest media would report on the fact that places like Chicago have multiple a day, despite their strict gun laws.

 

[a6m5]

Reading this thread it seems that the "Land of Freedom" is a goddamn scary place to live in.

It can be. Poverty & drugs seems to be couple of major causes.

Maybe it has more to do with your societys way of thinking rather than the actual guns being a problem?

That is the obvious people in denial don't see & others with...... challenged perspective, or has not lived in the States can't seem to see. People who want to do harm can still get job done without guns, and that's if they somehow can't get the guns. Guns are everywhere here & Americans are quite ingenious, too. Gun ban would be as effective as the War on Drugs in this country.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

It should also be noted that gun crime is mostly contained in large urban centers, and then only within certain parts of the cities. Every city has that area you shouldn't go.

But most media reports during times of gun debate focus on the rural areas, where the stereotyped gun rights advocates live. Honest media would report on the fact that places like Chicago have multiple a day, despite their strict gun laws.

Not that I disagree with you at all Foolkiller, but Piers Morgan would have you believe that all those men and women perpetuating gang (criminal acts) buy them from the state above which has more relaxed gun regs. Thus if we believe Piers (not sure where he gets this) Illinois is doing their job and thus gangs and other criminals aren't getting guns from Illinois at all.

I must note I do not, never have and from the looks of things never will agree with Piers Morgan, because of the simple fact that he is siding with what is popular in media to force on the general population, and thus attacking the other side with great bias. Though Morgan before this never was a big anti-gun advocate, maybe every anti-gun rant he does per episode is a raise from the CNN execs.

 

[FoolKiller]

Not that I disagree with you at all Foolkiller, but Piers Morgan would have you believe that all those men and women perpetuating gang (criminal acts) buy them from the state above which has more relaxed gun regs. Thus if we believe Piers (not sure where he gets this) Illinois is doing their job and thus gangs and other criminals aren't getting guns from Illinois at all.

I must note I do not, never have and from the looks of things never will agree with Piers Morgan, because of the simple fact that he is siding with what is popular in media to force on the general population, and thus attacking the other side with great bias. Though Morgan before this never was a big anti-gun advocate, maybe every anti-gun rant he does per episode is a raise from the CNN execs.

If Piers Morgan were correct, then there would be no illegal gun sales in Illinois. The irony of claiming one form of crime exists solely because of surrounding states and not another form of crime within the state is kind of laughable.

 

[Johnnypenso]

If Piers Morgan were correct, then there would be no illegal gun sales in Illinois. The irony of claiming one form of crime exists solely because of surrounding states and not another form of crime within the state is kind of laughable.

Pretty much everything Piers Morgan does is laughable.

 

[Touring Mars]

A bit more on the 3D printing phenomenon...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22421185



Obviously, 3D printers are extremely expensive at the moment, but given the massive demand and the virtually limitless applications, it's surely not going to be long before 3D printers and the necessary consumables are affordable... currently, the materials, expertise and designs necessary to make a firearm prohibit all but a tiny fraction of people from crafting their own weapons, but 3D printing - coupled with the availability of designs and know-how now available to the layperson via the web - make this a different matter...

 

[ExigeEvan]

A bit more on the 3D printing phenomenon...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22421185

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DconsfGsXyA">YouTube Link</a>

Obviously, 3D printers are extremely expensive at the moment, but given the massive demand and the virtually limitless applications, it's surely not going to be long before 3D printers and the necessary consumables are affordable... currently, the materials, expertise and designs necessary to make a firearm prohibit all but a tiny fraction of people from crafting their own weapons, but 3D printing - coupled with the availability of designs and know-how now available to the layperson via the web - make this a different matter...

I reckon anyone with a background in tooling could put a single-shot handgun together very, very easily. And that skill has existed for decades and yet I hear very little of people manufacturing their own firearms because it's still easier to get one illegally that'll do the job better.

And due to heat treatments and mechanisms this will remain the case even with 3D printing.

Furthermore, it completely ignores the lack of ammo.

 

[eran0004]

Criminals will always get guns in one way or another. Having stricter gun control may make the weapons harder to obtain, but if doesn't make it impossible to get one.

When it comes to guns owned by regular civilians that's another story. Most people can obviously handle guns well (or else there would be a massacre every day in the US), but some people may just snap and decide to go on a killing spree for one reason or another. Those people are usually not criminals, they're regular people with mental illness and you can't tell who they are or who is in risk of being a threat before they've snapped. For those people to have access to firearms is just insane. Of course you can kill a human being in many different ways, but with a knife you may only get to one or two before you're stopped. With a gun you can get dozens of people before the police even arrives to the scene. That's what makes guns so much more dangerous than other weapons.

In my opinion, having hunting rifles are okay if you're a hunter. Having a gun for self-defense purpose is not okay.

 

[MustangRyan]

In my opinion, having hunting rifles are okay if you're a hunter. Having a gun for self-defense purpose is not okay.

So if a hunter snaps, he can have his gun to kill me. But if I'm a sane non-hunter, I can't have a gun in my house or car (or concealed, when properly certified and in a legal area) to fend him off?

That seems legit.