An idea about gun control. Let me hear you opinion

[Acuben]

After hearing some stories of some people about to commit suicide by buying gun and planning to kill his whole family as result of hardships in his life (fortunately he changed his mind and got over it). and some stories on news of gun shots.

So my idea is
What would happen if there was a law to temporary enforce restriction of getting a gun license by checking one's current background such as amount of debts, relationship with family/neighbors/people at work, condition of business if one owns a private business, or signs of depression.
Such that if one is in huge debts recently, if one's business failed recently, if one started suffering from depression recently, divorced recently, he/she temporary cannot get a gun license. Duration can be arguable
Because not everyone who ends up using guns are bad people. They just lost control of their life for a short moment which ended up ruining their/other's life. (I'm not talking about gang-related gun crimes here)
But suppose (for example) you work at a gun store and someone who's wife died in end of Sep 2010, failed his business in the beginning of October 2010, and wounded up in huge debt on Oct14 2010 and asking you for a gun or how to obtain a license on Oct 17, 2010. Something to go "HMMMM..." about.
Yes they already check one's background like criminal records, etc, but I mean in other perspective.

Now this isn't refined idea for I don't know any background about guns and its legal issues and what's actually happening. I'm sure many of you do. It doesn't mean I support this idea(yet?) It's more like "what if...?" claim so I can learn more about arms. Ya I don't even know the process of getting the gun license :P
Or is there such law like this and I'm just not aware of it? Something to take consider/research/notetomyself(?XD)/etc...
1.statistical view of how many people die each year by guns (I hear very roughly 6000/year with half of them being under 20, but this could be wrong figures!)
...and how many of them are not caused by accidents and gang related crimes.
2. of the people who commit suicide/kill their family members out of sympathy(their depends, b/c they don't want their kids to live their life fatherless/begging/etc)
what are the causes?
like...
Financial reasons? (is it the most common one?)
Bad grades in school?
laid off from job?
relationship between loved one?
3. current gun control laws
4. process of obtaining gun license
5. how much resource it would take and how many people would benefit

---
Anyways because my lack of outside knowledge, law enforcements, and actual usefulness of guns, this could sound like a stupid idea for some (or more...) of you.
So if there's any problem with this claim, let me hear it.
Like for example, if such law is enforced, what could be problem? What did I fail to notice or consider?

Or whether it's a good or bad idea
I welcome any criticism. I won't be hurt if you say it's a stupid idea-just mention why

edit: oh and if you think your opinion counts more than others, feel free to mention it. like "I work as a lawyer", "I have Ph.D in..."

 

[JaredJames]

What would happen if there was a law to temporary enforce restriction of getting a gun license by checking one's current background such as amount of debts, relationship with family/neighbors/people at work, condition of business if one owns a private business, or signs of depression.
Such that if one is in huge debts recently, if one's business failed recently, if one started suffering from depression recently, divorced recently, he/she temporary cannot get a gun license.

I'm going to tackle this head on. I'm not a fan of guns but I'll argue as if I was.

Firstly, the cost of doing this would be incredibly high and it wouldn't be something easily done.

Checking amount of debts?
A persons house is robbed. He has no insurance and so has to pay every penny he has, plus some to 'restock'. He is now in a few thousand debt and his job isn't high paying. He wants a gun to protect his house from future robbery. How is monetary worth a good way to judge this case?

Check relationships with people?
You have a person who doesn't have any living relatives, they have argued with their neighbours and are doing a night shift job to earn just enough money to survive. How would it work here?

Signs of depression?
A lot of people don't show immediate signs of depression and can appear perfectly fine up until the point of suicide. Again, how would you work with this?

There are two many variables and it would cost substantial amounts to perform all of these checks effectively (remember, you would need trained professionals to asses income vs debt, psychological state and friends/family relationships). I can't see it working.

 

[Gokul43201]

People will start buying guns while everything is still fine and dandy ... just in case their patent for a zero point energy harvester is rejected and they need one to go on a rampage afterward.

 

[Acuben]

People will start buying guns while everything is still fine and dandy ... just in case their patent for a zero point energy harvester is rejected and they need one to go on a rampage afterward.

I was wondering about that too actually, but is that the case?
(I'm not saying you are wrong btw)

but there are two cases.
Those who normally do not have gun in their house and decided to go rampage all of sudden.
Those who normally do have gun in their house purchased by either themselves or family members and then decided to go to rampage all of sudden.

Do most people actually have guns at their houses though?
I'm only familiar with specific background so I don't really know ^^

jarednjames: oh ya, money... good point.

(remember, you would need trained professionals to asses income vs debt, psychological state and friends/family relationships). I can't see it working.

I didn't know that you need professionals to do that ><

----
So is it just a stupid idea? :P

 

[JaredJames]

I didn't know that you need professionals to do that

It's no different to the requirement of a trained surgeon to perform an operation.

You need people who are qualified to make a judgment, particularly regarding someones mental state.

 

[Newai]

This would be an annoyance for collectors. My father buys one about every few months. At 70 years of age, it wouldn't take long for him to develop a hostility to this kind of repeated investigation. At which point he certainly wouldn't qualify for a gun. And if they're so upset about their circumstances that they want to kill, if they don't have a gun then they'll find some other way. I think another way to accomplish what you are trying to do is by pooling resources into outreach programs, hotline help phone centers, community programs, identifying and addressing the stressors that lead up to these conflicts.

There are guns.
There are knives.
There are baseball bats.
There are automobiles.
There are fists.
There are poisons.
Who needs a gun? That's just a convenience.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

People shouldn't be allowed by buy a gun unless they've used the one they already have.

 

[Evo]

Every day in the news, there is some family that's shot each other because of an argument. If the didn't have guns in the house, all of those people would probably stil be alive. On the other hand, let's think of the gene pool.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

If the didn't have guns in the house, all of those people would probably stil be alive.

Or they might have been hacked, burned, poisoned, drowned, electrocuted, or driven over a cliff or into a brick wall. The gun didn't make the person crazy. Some people just throw their kids into a river, or lock them in a car and drive it into a pond.

 

[Pythagorean]

It sound class-based. Unfortunately, successful people with good financial and social standing can still have personal and emotional issues.

If you try to invade a family's privacy to find out the buyers relationships with family, the family will have any number of reasons to take the buyers side since they are family.

 

[Acuben]

Among people who were planning to kill their family members/suicide, most people who are close to me to feel free to tell me their story are Korean American (since I'm Korean) and most Koreans do not have a gun in their house. They told me me when they had some "split seconds" dangerous moment and that if they had a gun, they would have (ofc everyone's story's different) shot their family and themselves, but as they were thinking of a way to kill their family/themselves, they changed their minds.
But you see this is only story of a minority group and doesn't speak for the whole population which is the reason why I'm asking here.


So it seems like (but it's probably too soon to make this conclusion) that if it takes time to buy a gun, it can give time for people to "change their minds"
ofc, they would be another group of people who would thinking of, and enforce other methods.

What Evo and Ivan are both true.
There are two groups of people.
1. Those who will change their minds if they had time
2. Those who won't
Question comes down to, how many people would actually "change their minds" from murder/suicide if they were forced to have at least some time before thinking of an alternative method if guns weren't available.


I agree with Pythagorean: Successful people have issues as well.

 

[lisab]

I usually don't wade into gun debates--it's a bit like arguing religion or politics; usually, no one is interested debate - they just want to clobber the other person with their opinion .

But even though I have no dog in this fight......here's my $0.02.

If you go a bit deeper into this issue, Acuben, I think you hit on a big fissure that is in the US.

One side believes the government should do what it can to protect its citizens, even if that means protecting them from themselves.

The other side believes rights are given to them not by government, but by god. Even the second amendment, they believe, is a god-given right.

So you can imagine why a "sanity test" would not be popular amongst the second group: they would argue government has no right to come between them and their god-given rights.

But I'm no gun nut, this is just what I glean from reading gun debates.

 

[mugaliens]

I took the time to read through this thread, not once, but twice, slowly and carefully, especially after seeing what I observed the first time through.

I've been a member, mod, or admin on many forums over the last twenty-five years, and gun issues are definitely one of the more touchy subjects, with people holding wide-ranging opinions from outright hatred of any dangerous instrument larger than a sewing needle to outright hatred back from the other extreme. One thing I've noticed is that the closer one gets to either extreme, the less likely one is to find rational or fact-based comments.

I've seen pro-gun websites flame individuals at the mere hint of gun control, and I've seen science forums flat out ban people for mentioning guns at all. Thus, it's rather refreshing to be a member of a science-based message forum where the topic is not only allowed, but where it's discussed rather calmly.

Hopefully, these trends will continue!

In the meantime, I'd like to add my $0.02, observations gleaned over the years:

1. Whether or not a society needs gun control depends largely on the nature of that society. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics#Gun_safety_and_gun_laws", complete with nine good references, highlights the differences between two very similar countries, and how both restrictions and crime rate reactions differed significantly between the two.

2. Here in the U.S., most accidents and suicides involving guns would be prevented if adults simply kept their firearms either on their person (properly holstered) or in $35 gun safe. Mine retailed for $50, but I got it for $30, and it has both a key and a six-digit keypad entry code. Both are needed to open it, but it takes less than five seconds.

3. Whether one is for or against guns or gun control, the fringes of both sides contain the greatest amount of stereotyping and the least amount of fact-based thought or rational thought. That doesn't mean there aren't problems in the middle, either, as there are, but most of those problems rest with the confusion created by the irrational factlessness voiced louded at the fringes.

4. Here in the U.S., most gun control laws affect the trade and use of firearms by law-abiding citizens, but have either little or even a negative affect on the trade and use of firearms by criminals. With gun laws having become more restricting in the 70s and 80s, before relaxing again in the 90s and 00s, we now see there is a very distinctive and positive correlation between fewer gun control laws and decreases in crime.

The OP asked, "Or is there such law like this and I'm just not aware of it?"

Yes, there is, and the vast majority of guns legally sold today in the U.S. are through dealers, gun shows, and pawn shops, all of which are required to perform the background check before making a sale. It doesn't cost much, just $15 here in Colorado, and takes less than half an hour in most cases. The check requires two picture IDs and some additional information not found on most IDs. It's fairly thorough, checking through both criminal and mental health databases. Roughly 7% of all applicants are denied, most due to disqualifying criminal history. If someone still needs a firearm for self-protection against a known and immediate threat, the individual can, in most locales, appeal to the local county sheriff, who may and often does choose to issue a waiver, provided the nature of the disqualification doesn't involve ongoing criminal activity, such as feeing outstanding warrents, etc.

Given the above, combined with 28 years of familiarity with firearms, 20 years of carrying a firearm almost daily, and having known many dozens of fine people with similar backgrounds and practices, I am of the most sincere opinion on the following three points, which is applicable only here in the U.S.; they may be applicable elsewhere, but not having extensive knowledge of the issue in other countries, I can't speak for the citizens of those other countries:

1. A very limited amount of gun control is necessary to help avoid firearms from inadvertantly falling into what I call the "innocently" wrong hands, i.e., those who're underage or mentally unstable. You're never going to stop a criminal from obtaining a firearm, as there are simply too many other criminals out there willing to conduct illegal sales. The absolute best form of gun control rests squarely on the shoulders of the owner. Learn how to handle a firearm safely, including safe storage around minors, as well as how to handle one properly in and around any and all situations where you might have occasion to use it.

2. None of the dire predictions of more restrictive gun control activists have come true. In fact, the reverse has occurred, including declines in crime where gun controls were relaxed, as well as a reduction in the number of accidents and suicides, as gun owners have become more safety-conscious.

3. If you're ill at ease with either firearms or the use thereof, you should never feel any pressure to go out and purchase a firearm for self-protection. A familiarization class might help, but then again, it might not. It should be entirely up to you. The corollary, however, is that if you are familiar with firearms and the proper use thereof, you should never feel any pressure to keep them locked away if they'd be better served in a properly-holstered location on your person while you're out and about.

Regardless, with 23 murders year to date here in Colorado Springs, and with armed assaults several times that rate, I'm not about to head out my door unarmed. Interestingly, I usually open carry, that is, in a visible holster, a practice which is somewhat rare, but perfectly legal in 43 of our 50 states, and common enough around here that none of the locals grab their kids, or run in terror when I walk into a local restaurant. If anything, it occasionally sparks questions about the laws, local shooting ranges, etc.

Again, I'd like to thank everyone here for keeping this thread rational and low-key. :)

- mugs

 

[Acuben]

Yes, there is, and the vast majority of guns legally sold today in the U.S. are through dealers, gun shows, and pawn shops, all of which are required to perform the background check before making a sale. It doesn't cost much, just $15 here in Colorado, and takes less than half an hour in most cases. The check requires two picture IDs and some additional information not found on most IDs. It's fairly thorough, checking through both criminal and mental health databases. Roughly 7% of all applicants are denied, most due to disqualifying criminal history. If someone still needs a firearm for self-protection against a known and immediate threat, the individual can, in most locales, appeal to the local county sheriff, who may and often does choose to issue a waiver, provided the nature of the disqualification doesn't involve ongoing criminal activity, such as feeing outstanding warrents, etc.

- mugs

That's just what I wanted to know. thank you :)
although.. when you said it's fairly thorough, do they check more than criminal records and mental health database?

 

[mugaliens]

That's just what I wanted to know. thank you :)
although.. when you said it's fairly thorough, do they check more than criminal records and mental health database?

No, they don't. Current laws forbid against further checks. If legislators tried passing changes, current votors would prevent it from going through. There's a reason gun laws have relaxed over the last twenty years - it's what the majority of voters have wanted. They don't want it to start reversing, again.

 

[airborne18]

I have a ton of guns and had them for years. Though I don't get to the range that much. And I am a life member of the NRA.

So all of the disclosure is done.

I personally am not who is extreme on the subject and I can understand both sides of the debate.

I think you need to separate handguns from other firearms. Personally I think anyone who is buying a handgun should have to have taken a firearms safety course first. Something they only have to do once in their life. Some states require it for a carry permit anyway.

It is legal to force hunters to take a hunting safety course, though it does not impact the purchase.

The issue I have is with those who buy handguns for self defense, or any gun, who does not have good gun safety habits.

If you really are not a gun person and you go off and buy a gun for around the house you really are asking for trouble. Most people don't have the disposition to actually shoot someone, so the gun is really just a weapon for an intruder to use or steal.

And if you have kids, then you really should not have a gun around unless you are willing to teach them or have them attend a kids gun safety program. Of course a lot of the states require gun locks if you have kids in the house.

Plus the endless legal issues if you don't understand how to defend yourself with a gun.

The method in place now with the instant check is actually not a bad system. It is actually better than the 3-5 day wait period most states have, and it instantly verifies identity.

Most gun dealers are actually very good about ferreting out the people who probably should not have a gun. There is too much fallback on them if they don't.

My mom worked for someone who owned several businesses, and one was a gun shop. She had to do all the records, and believe me, the state and federal law enforcement were at our house going through records. I can't imagine it has gotten easier with gun dealers.

 

[drankin]

After hearing some stories of some people about to commit suicide by buying gun and planning to kill his whole family as result of hardships in his life (fortunately he changed his mind and got over it). and some stories on news of gun shots.

So my idea is
What would happen if there was a law to temporary enforce restriction of getting a gun license by checking one's current background such as amount of debts, relationship with family/neighbors/people at work, condition of business if one owns a private business, or signs of depression.
Such that if one is in huge debts recently, if one's business failed recently, if one started suffering from depression recently, divorced recently, he/she temporary cannot get a gun license. Duration can be arguable



Because not everyone who ends up using guns are bad people. They just lost control of their life for a short moment which ended up ruining their/other's life. (I'm not talking about gang-related gun crimes here)
But suppose (for example) you work at a gun store and someone who's wife died in end of Sep 2010, failed his business in the beginning of October 2010, and wounded up in huge debt on Oct14 2010 and asking you for a gun or how to obtain a license on Oct 17, 2010. Something to go "HMMMM..." about.
Yes they already check one's background like criminal records, etc, but I mean in other perspective.

Now this isn't refined idea for I don't know any background about guns and its legal issues and what's actually happening. I'm sure many of you do. It doesn't mean I support this idea(yet?) It's more like "what if...?" claim so I can learn more about arms. Ya I don't even know the process of getting the gun license :P
Or is there such law like this and I'm just not aware of it?


Something to take consider/research/notetomyself(?XD)/etc...
1.statistical view of how many people die each year by guns (I hear very roughly 6000/year with half of them being under 20, but this could be wrong figures!)
...and how many of them are not caused by accidents and gang related crimes.
2. of the people who commit suicide/kill their family members out of sympathy(their depends, b/c they don't want their kids to live their life fatherless/begging/etc)
what are the causes?
like...
Financial reasons? (is it the most common one?)
Bad grades in school?
laid off from job?
relationship between loved one?
3. current gun control laws
4. process of obtaining gun license
5. how much resource it would take and how many people would benefit

---
Anyways because my lack of outside knowledge, law enforcements, and actual usefulness of guns, this could sound like a stupid idea for some (or more...) of you.
So if there's any problem with this claim, let me hear it.
Like for example, if such law is enforced, what could be problem? What did I fail to notice or consider?

Or whether it's a good or bad idea
I welcome any criticism. I won't be hurt if you say it's a stupid idea-just mention why

edit: oh and if you think your opinion counts more than others, feel free to mention it. like "I work as a lawyer", "I have Ph.D in..."

It's just not practical and too subjective. Ultimately, you would be trampling upon the Constitutional rights of many and most likely not make much if any difference. Anyone owning a gun, regardless of their personal circumstances could go on a rampage. You just can't separate the wheat from the chaff at such a level. There just aren't the resources to diagnose every individual firearm owner.

The statistics show that people die more of so many other things: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm

If actual deaths are the concern then we should focus on what kills people the most.

 

[alt]

I took the time to read through this thread, not once, but twice, slowly and carefully, especially after seeing what I observed the first time through.

I've been a member, mod, or admin on many forums over the last twenty-five years, and gun issues are definitely one of the more touchy subjects, with people holding wide-ranging opinions from outright hatred of any dangerous instrument larger than a sewing needle to outright hatred back from the other extreme. One thing I've noticed is that the closer one gets to either extreme, the less likely one is to find rational or fact-based comments.

I've seen pro-gun websites flame individuals at the mere hint of gun control, and I've seen science forums flat out ban people for mentioning guns at all. Thus, it's rather refreshing to be a member of a science-based message forum where the topic is not only allowed, but where it's discussed rather calmly.

Hopefully, these trends will continue!

In the meantime, I'd like to add my $0.02, observations gleaned over the years:

1. Whether or not a society needs gun control depends largely on the nature of that society. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics#Gun_safety_and_gun_laws", complete with nine good references, highlights the differences between two very similar countries, and how both restrictions and crime rate reactions differed significantly between the two.

2. Here in the U.S., most accidents and suicides involving guns would be prevented if adults simply kept their firearms either on their person (properly holstered) or in $35 gun safe. Mine retailed for $50, but I got it for $30, and it has both a key and a six-digit keypad entry code. Both are needed to open it, but it takes less than five seconds.

3. Whether one is for or against guns or gun control, the fringes of both sides contain the greatest amount of stereotyping and the least amount of fact-based thought or rational thought. That doesn't mean there aren't problems in the middle, either, as there are, but most of those problems rest with the confusion created by the irrational factlessness voiced louded at the fringes.

4. Here in the U.S., most gun control laws affect the trade and use of firearms by law-abiding citizens, but have either little or even a negative affect on the trade and use of firearms by criminals. With gun laws having become more restricting in the 70s and 80s, before relaxing again in the 90s and 00s, we now see there is a very distinctive and positive correlation between fewer gun control laws and decreases in crime.

The OP asked, "Or is there such law like this and I'm just not aware of it?"

Yes, there is, and the vast majority of guns legally sold today in the U.S. are through dealers, gun shows, and pawn shops, all of which are required to perform the background check before making a sale. It doesn't cost much, just $15 here in Colorado, and takes less than half an hour in most cases. The check requires two picture IDs and some additional information not found on most IDs. It's fairly thorough, checking through both criminal and mental health databases. Roughly 7% of all applicants are denied, most due to disqualifying criminal history. If someone still needs a firearm for self-protection against a known and immediate threat, the individual can, in most locales, appeal to the local county sheriff, who may and often does choose to issue a waiver, provided the nature of the disqualification doesn't involve ongoing criminal activity, such as feeing outstanding warrents, etc.

Given the above, combined with 28 years of familiarity with firearms, 20 years of carrying a firearm almost daily, and having known many dozens of fine people with similar backgrounds and practices, I am of the most sincere opinion on the following three points, which is applicable only here in the U.S.; they may be applicable elsewhere, but not having extensive knowledge of the issue in other countries, I can't speak for the citizens of those other countries:

1. A very limited amount of gun control is necessary to help avoid firearms from inadvertantly falling into what I call the "innocently" wrong hands, i.e., those who're underage or mentally unstable. You're never going to stop a criminal from obtaining a firearm, as there are simply too many other criminals out there willing to conduct illegal sales. The absolute best form of gun control rests squarely on the shoulders of the owner. Learn how to handle a firearm safely, including safe storage around minors, as well as how to handle one properly in and around any and all situations where you might have occasion to use it.

2. None of the dire predictions of more restrictive gun control activists have come true. In fact, the reverse has occurred, including declines in crime where gun controls were relaxed, as well as a reduction in the number of accidents and suicides, as gun owners have become more safety-conscious.

3. If you're ill at ease with either firearms or the use thereof, you should never feel any pressure to go out and purchase a firearm for self-protection. A familiarization class might help, but then again, it might not. It should be entirely up to you. The corollary, however, is that if you are familiar with firearms and the proper use thereof, you should never feel any pressure to keep them locked away if they'd be better served in a properly-holstered location on your person while you're out and about.

Regardless, with 23 murders year to date here in Colorado Springs, and with armed assaults several times that rate, I'm not about to head out my door unarmed. Interestingly, I usually open carry, that is, in a visible holster, a practice which is somewhat rare, but perfectly legal in 43 of our 50 states, and common enough around here that none of the locals grab their kids, or run in terror when I walk into a local restaurant. If anything, it occasionally sparks questions about the laws, local shooting ranges, etc.

Again, I'd like to thank everyone here for keeping this thread rational and low-key. :)

- mugs

This is the most sensible, rational view I've seen on this issue in ages. Thanks.

And isn't interesting that in some places in the US, Maine for instance, where gun laws are quite lax, the gun crime rate is the lowest - in Maine, it is less than half the national average.

(Disclosure - I'm a member of the SSAA - Sporting Shooters Association of Australia)

spelling edit

 

[Evo]

The statistics show that people die more of so many other things: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm

If actual deaths are the concern then we should focus on what kills people the most.

Right, a couple of people get into an argument, one of them picks up a heart attack and throws it at the people in the room, killing 2 adults and a 3 year old.

 

[JaredJames]

Right, a couple of people get into an argument, one of them picks up a heart attack and throws it at the people in the room, killing 2 adults and a 3 year old.

:rofl:

(Currently wiping Coca Cola off my laptop screen!)

 

[drankin]

Right, a couple of people get into an argument, one of them picks up a heart attack and throws it at the people in the room, killing 2 adults and a 3 year old.

I prefer throwing strokes and Influenza. Makem suffer a little.

 

[mugaliens]

The statistics show that people die more of so many other things: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm

If actual deaths are the concern then we should focus on what kills people the most.

Exactly. For 2007, homicide came in with just 0.76% of the tally. http://www.citizensforaconstitutionalrepublic.com/nemerov6-8-08.html"an interesting article on justifiable homicides (i.e. the use of deadly force to prevent a violent criminal from turning one's self into a dead crime statistic).

 

[Siv]

Right, a couple of people get into an argument, one of them picks up a heart attack and throws it at the people in the room, killing 2 adults and a 3 year old.

That was priceless, Evo !

How many times have we heard the cliche - Guns don't kill people, people do.
Sure, but guns make it ridiculously easy.

Studies show that people hesitate and often avoid killing people (even if its killing one to save five) if the killing involves physically pushing or strangling someone. But they would agree, in the same scenario, if the killing involved flicking a switch to deflect a train. What does that tell us ? That using technology to make killing easier and easier greatly increases someone's chances of actually killing. It detaches us somehow from the process, makes us not fully realize the emormity of what we're doing.

The same is true for war. Hand to hand combat makes it that much harder to kill. Pushing a button to carpet bomb an area makes it so sanitized and distant. People are far more likely to kill.

 

[JaredJames]

Studies show that people hesitate and often avoid killing people (even if its killing one to save five) if the killing involves physically pushing or strangling someone. But they would agree, in the same scenario, if the killing involved flicking a switch to deflect a train. What does that tell us ? That using technology to make killing easier and easier greatly increases someone's chances of actually killing. It detaches us somehow from the process, makes us not fully realize the emormity of what we're doing.

Plus I'd say that it gives a significant confidence boost to be behind the barrel of a gun as opposed to standing holding that blade.

 

[IMP]

My two cents:

First, a person licensed to carry a firearm for self defense is very unlikely to shot someone unless they absolutely have to. Google the stats yourself to find out how many crimes are committed by CHL holders versus the general population. The “cowboy mentality” is just not there regardless of what you may think.

Second, a firearm does not make it “ridiculously easy” to kill someone as Siv put it. To actually pull the trigger would take immense mental strength by most people, and would only be a last resort.

Third, the reason most people got their CHL in the first place was to decrease their chances of being a victim. The “bad guys” don’t seem to mind victimizing anyone, at any time, any where, for any reason. Just turn on the news and watch for an hour. Endless streams of murder, rape, robbery, etc.

You have to realize that criminals do not care about laws, ordinances, etc. When restrictive firearm laws are enacted, you only affect all of us non-criminals. The victims become easier targets.

Owning and carrying a firearm comes with great responsibility. To take someone’s life in defense of yourself or a loved one would haunt you for the rest of your life. But the alternative could be much much worse.

Finally, in response to Siv about the “ease” of killing versus using some other method: the firearm is an equalizer. What I mean by that is: how can you expect a 105 pound woman to use hand-to-hand combat to defend herself from a 250 man determined to rape her? Or how about you versus 4 guys attacking you and beating you with baseball bats? Being armed levels the field to some extent. A big strong bad guy and a 100 pound grandma are much more equal being armed than going at it in hand-to-hand combat.

 

[JaredJames]

how can you expect a 105 pound woman to use hand-to-hand combat to defend herself from a 250 man determined to rape her? Or how about you versus 4 guys attacking you and beating you with baseball bats? Being armed levels the field to some extent. A big strong bad guy and a 100 pound grandma are much more equal being armed than going at it in hand-to-hand combat.

This is the one part of the argument I understand, but don't accept. Or at least, I don't see it reflected in the crime stats. If fire arms really did 'level the playing field' you'd expect there to be more rapes / attacks in places with stricter gun control laws. This isn't the case as far as I've seen so I can't accept that as a valid argument.

 

[IMP]

This is the one part of the argument I understand, but don't accept. Or at least, I don't see it reflected in the crime stats. If fire arms really did 'level the playing field' you'd expect there to be more rapes / attacks in places with stricter gun control laws. This isn't the case as far as I've seen so I can't accept that as a valid argument.

When DC had the gun ban, crime was rampant. Search for the stats yourself. In general, when firearm laws are relaxed crime is reduced. Google, Yahoo, or Bing as you see fit.

And I must reiterate: passing restrictive laws does not affect the criminals, they don't care about pieces of paper being signed. Restrictive laws only affect those who abide.

 

[JaredJames]

When DC had the gun ban, crime was rampant. Search for the stats yourself. In general, when firearm laws are relaxed crime is reduced. Google, Yahoo, or Bing as you see fit.

And I must reiterate: passing restrictive laws does not affect the criminals, they don't care about pieces of paper being signed. Restrictive laws only affect those who abide.

I was referring to comparisons between countries which do not have guns to those which do. UK to US for example. Our non-gun related crime figures are virtually on par.

 

[Evo]

When DC had the gun ban, crime was rampant. Search for the stats yourself. In general, when firearm laws are relaxed crime is reduced. Google, Yahoo, or Bing as you see fit.

And I must reiterate: passing restrictive laws does not affect the criminals, they don't care about pieces of paper being signed. Restrictive laws only affect those who abide.

Explain this list of gun homicides. Missouri has some of the most lax gun laws I know of.

http://www.pitch.com/related/to/Shootings/

 

[CRGreathouse]

Cherries, cherries, all around.

 

[turbo]

And isn't interesting that in some places in the US, Maine for instance, where gun laws are quite lax, the gun crime rate is the lowest - in Maine, it is less than half the national average.

There is only one family on this rural road (Central Maine) that I know of that has no guns. Most have LOTS of them for hunting, pest-control, target shooting, home defense etc.

I'm down to about 8-9 or so after selling off a very large collection of lever-action rifles. My Christian neighbors down and across the road have a pile of modern guns. The wife is not a shooter or a hunter, but her husband, two sons, and daughter all have shotguns, rifles, pistols, etc. They have a 50-yd range and a 100-yd range on their property, and often host friends and fellow parishioners when they need help/training getting used to new firearms, sighting them in with new sights, scopes, etc...

Due to many generations of people hunting, there are lots of families here that have guns that never even show up on the radar. One day, a couple was cleaning out the husband's uncle's house after he died and they brought in the uncle's favorite rifle to see if it was worth something. It was a martially-marked Henry lever-action. The martial markings were very rare and unconventional, making it a rare find. When my sister's husband's grandfather died, he left a huge impressive collection of Winchester rifles, many with scarce special-order features. He was a Maine guide around the turn of the century, and many of the wealthy "sports" that he guided tipped him with the rifles that they brought for the hunt.

Maine is not a hotbed of firearm crime. The ownership and use of guns is ingrained here.

 

[leroyjenkens]

I had a friend kill himself last Thursday by shooting himself in the head. He was young too, only 22. He was really cool and I wouldn't have thought he was suicidal. He drank a lot and did drugs, so that's what I blame, even though I don't know if he was on drugs at the time. Having a gun so readily available makes it pretty easy for someone to kill themselves or someone else if they suddenly have a mental breakdown.
I think there should be a lot more scrutiny for getting a gun.
I had to jump through hoops for about a month to get a credit card, but I could go down to the gun show and walk out with a gun.
If to buy a gun, people had to go through what I had to go through to get a credit card, people would just build their own guns instead.

 

[turbo]

If to buy a gun, people had to go through what I had to go through to get a credit card, people would just build their own guns instead.

And they would die or permanently maim themselves the first time they shot it. Building guns ain't rocket-science. Building safe, dependable guns that will work for a long time without failure IS rocket science.

Winchester was not a household name because he was a lucky manufacturer who managed to attract talented engineers. There is a lot more behind his fame, including Paterson pistols and revolving rifles, Walker pistols, and Henry repeaters. By the time he had become successful, he had the fame and intelligence to collaborate with the really hot designers, like the Browning clan, and build the best of the best. You can't say "I'm going to make a pistol" and just go out and do it. If you have a machine-shop in your garage, you can try but I'm not going to be within a few hundred yards of you when you test-fire it.

 

[lisab]

I had a friend kill himself last Thursday by shooting himself in the head. He was young too, only 22. He was really cool and I wouldn't have thought he was suicidal. He drank a lot and did drugs, so that's what I blame, even though I don't know if he was on drugs at the time. Having a gun so readily available makes it pretty easy for someone to kill themselves or someone else if they suddenly have a mental breakdown.
I think there should be a lot more scrutiny for getting a gun.
I had to jump through hoops for about a month to get a credit card, but I could go down to the gun show and walk out with a gun.
If to buy a gun, people had to go through what I had to go through to get a credit card, people would just build their own guns instead.

I'm so sorry to hear about your friend .

 

[turbo]

I'm so sorry to hear about your friend .

I am sorry, as well. I would be just as sorry if the friend used self-induced carbon-monoxide poisoning, drugs, strangulation, etc to kill himself.

Anecdotal "evidence" is just that, and it is often used to demonize the method of suicide as an excuse for overlooking the driving force behind the suicide. How many times have we seen newspaper stories about "choking game" deaths that go no further than a short explanation of the facts (assumptions) and then go on to (Pulitzer-wannabe) lengths to "explain" a phenomenon that the writer evidently knows nothing about? Kids die from huffing and a host of other lethal behaviors, but the behaviors all seem to have periods of popularity in the press, despite the fact that they continue when the attention wanes.