Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Gun Control?

  1. Ban all guns

    10 vote(s)
    29.4%
  2. Ban all hand guns

    2 vote(s)
    5.9%
  3. Ban Concealed Weapons Only

    3 vote(s)
    8.8%
  4. Current Gun Laws are just fine-Thank you

    19 vote(s)
    55.9%
  1. Jan 20, 2005 #1
    San Francisco is proposing a law that will ban handguns for its residents excluding, of course, the police, military, security and other jobs that require one to own a handgun.

    I can find no reason for anyone to have a handgun at home or even carry one around. I know this is a hot topic, but thought it would be interesting to see what others' opinions are on the subject.

    For the general public:
    Do you think people should own guns?
    Do you think people need to own guns?
    Do you think current gun control laws (Federal) are a true form of control? -- okay obviously I have a bias based on how the question is posed.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 20, 2005 #2
    Banning hand guns just gives criminals more advantage than they already have. I own several guns. I can tell you that since I have owned a handgun I have realized how easy it is to carry one concealed. If criminals knew that most people would cease to carry because it is illegal then doesn't that give them advantages? The way it is now you NEVER KNOW who is carrying. Doesn't this give the general public an advantage because it is less likely a criminal will try to pull something knowing that he could get a shell in the back of his head because someone could have a gun? Do you really think gun laws will keep criminals from getting guns? There are alot more uses for guns than shooting people. If shooting people is the only reason you can think of then YOU are the cold blooded one, not the honest people who choose to own guns and use them responsibly and in some cases actually wear them out. You act as if every gun ever sold has an owner who is just waiting to use it in a murder. I will also tell you that if guns are banned information will pop up everywhere on how to make your own gun. It's really not that hard to make one with some basic metalworking equipment. Guns are too much part of society in the U.S. to change the way people feel about them.
     
  4. Jan 20, 2005 #3
    To be fair, I should have added a fifth poll choice -- Current Gun Laws need to be revised -- as it is the poll does not consider many aspects of the current gun laws that I find disturbing.

    For instance, the law requires one to registered and be licensed to own a gun, yet there are no provisions requiring gun owners to update their license when they move or sell their gun. This is a huge loop hole within gun control in my opinion. Another problem is that the turn-around for background checks is only 24 hours -- is that really sufficient time? With such a powerful item, I think more time should be required.

    Plus state to state laws differ greatly and I find all sorts of possible dangers that allow criminals to acquire guns too easily.
     
  5. Jan 20, 2005 #4
    The idea, of course, is that banning hand guns would keep it away from criminals. I imagine this is a high expectation, but making guns very difficult to acquire makes me feel safer.

    I don't agree with your philosophy. The legality of a concealed weapon (very few states allow it) does not deter a criminal from purchasing, owning, or using a gun. Criminals, however, will use guns differently from the general public. Criminals use this weapon for control, to make threats and to carry out those threats. For the most part, criminals do not act on logic. There is usually a desperate driving force behind their crimes. Guns help them achieve those goals. But guns are the most deadly tools available to them. Again, making such an item as difficult to acquire as possible weakens a criminals advantage.

    No. Certainly not in its current form.

    But in Washington DC where handguns were made illegal in 1976, the murder rate dropped by 25% the next year. I believe stricter gun laws do make a difference. This can also be seen around the world. Japan which restricts guns all together has one of the lowest murder rates for a highly populated country.

    I know there are a lot of uses for guns. But a hand gun, in my opinion, has little use. If you like hunting, use a rifle. If you want to protect your home, use a rifle or shotgun. A hand gun can be substituted. Like you said, it is way too easy to conceal a hand gun, which makes it an attractive choice for criminals.

    I didn't say anything negative about the general public's use of guns. I think you are reading too much into my post. I will say, however, that guns by definition are a weapon created to damage and kill. The intent of a gun owner may be to protect oneself, which is fine by me. Nevertheless, the owner should be very aware of a gun's abilities. It is not your average self-defense weapon. When used the results can be absolute.

    The intent of gun control is to make it as close to impossible for a criminal to own a gun. We can't stop criminals from making a gun or a bomb for that matter. But most people would agree that bombs should be illegal. It's making the item as non-accessible to criminal as possible that is most important.

    I do not believe guns are so ingrained into the US populations society that laws cannot be changed to be stricter.
     
  6. Jan 20, 2005 #5
    Raven. I think you and I are just from such completely different lifestyles that we will not agree on this. I HAVE used both guns and bombs as a civilian for things other than illegal damage to property and killing. The bomb part might come a little hard to believe, but it is true. I myself was not the one to 'light the fuse'. I hired 2 men who had the proper credentials to obtain the materials. I watched, it was very interesting. I can tell you are probably someone who has never actually used a gun. Protection of property with a shotgun or rifle? Yeah, that might work when you see someone coming up the sidewalk to your house, but dropping them right there is considered murder. The advantage of a handgun is it is easily pointed. Take the time needed to swing a rifle around at your victim and you will be shot first because they will see it long before they would see a handgun. The element of surprise is taken away with larger guns.

    I will add that I have also made my own bow and arrow. It's very easy. A cross bow is not much more difficult to make and just as deadly as a gun. The problem is NOT the weapons. It is the people who have a motive to use them.
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2005
  7. Jan 20, 2005 #6

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    My platform:

    1. Close the loophole, have a national database of gun transactions that is kept up to date. Justification: "Well regulated militia".

    2. Concealed carry. Justification; "Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
     
  8. Jan 20, 2005 #7

    EL

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    It must really be hard to live in the states. Enemies in every corner of the streets...just waiting to kill you and your family.
    Of course you need guns to protect yourselves.

    Here people are just so naive, they never carry any guns at all. It makes me feel so unsafe! And our crime rates are so high compared to yours...:yuck:
     
  9. Jan 20, 2005 #8
    I personally think guns should have been banned a long time ago, especiall handguns. I would be fine if rifles and other hunting guns were still allowed, but I see no real good use for handguns.

    Averagesupernova, what uses do guns have? (This is a serious question btw.)
     
  10. Jan 20, 2005 #9
    Obviously a skewed view of the U.S.

    You can't possibly be serious. If you are thinking this way then why not ask what use is anything? Target practice, hunting? Oh wait, I know. You are going to ask what is the use of target practice with a handgun when there are no uses for them. Well why the hell do we have races like the Indy 500? No one is actually going to get out on the road and drive that way right?

    Example: Tall tree branch breaks off in a storm. I safely blasted it where it was still attached with a 12 gauge. 4 shots and it came down. I could have hired someone to come with a bucket truck, climbed it myself or whatever. Just remember guys, your freedom ends where someone elses begins. I believe it is unreasonable to require your neighbor to give up his weapons because you have an unreasonable fear of them.
     
  11. Jan 20, 2005 #10
    Well I meant reasons other than the obvious (target practice, hunting). And yes I know, what is the use of a football, well to play football. See but footballs are not used to kill people. Hunting I can understand, you like to hunt, its a sport. This should limit hunters to only buying rifles, or guns that are strictly for sport, I guess shotguns if you hunt ducks. The question is can an alternative ammo be used that will not injure humans, but will still hurt/incapacitate/kill your game? Also the same goes for target practice. Do you really need to use steel, or whatever bullets are made out of, for ammo? Could you use an ammo that would not kill humans, but would still work for target pracitce?

    Your example is terrible, imo, shooting a tree. Personally I would have cut it down with a saw, or used a rope and pull it down. Yes I know, the tree could have landed on me or whatever, but I would find a workaround. Woops I missed the tree, hope the stray bullet/s do not kill anyone.
     
  12. Jan 20, 2005 #11

    LOL Ah yes. Once again you have answers for something you know nothing about. It was unsafe to saw. I thought I made that clear. Use a rope? Not only unsafe in the circumstances to get the rope up there, but I couldn't pull it anywhere. Crowded conditions. You weren't there, you wouldn't know other than taking my word for it. Tell you what. The next time I have to shoot something that in my judgement could be done in a different but possibly unsafe method, I'll give you a call. By your comment about bullets killing someone you have proven how little you know about guns. 12 gauge (what I used) is a shotgun. They shoot a number of pellets out of a shell and not bullets. Also, any moron who shoots a gun should know that you never point a gun at anything you don't want to shoot. This includes what is in the background. I am a firm believer in exposing kids to guns on a limited basis. Kids that grow up with guns have a much better understanding and respect for them than those who do not, such as yourself.
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2005
  13. Jan 20, 2005 #12
    Well sorry, I do not know you or the situation. You said you used a gun to take down a tree, that just sounded a bit crazy to me, and I would not be surprised if people actually did do that sometimes without considering other alternatives. However, if you considered every alternative and were forced into shooting it, then that is understandable, and acceptable.

    But all you said was this...

    You never said anything about the circumstances other than that you "blasted" it off, and that you could have "climbed it myself or whatever." This is why I lead to my original conclusion.



    edit...
    Yes I know shotguns shoot a number of pellets. I was not refering to your specific example of using a shotgun, that is why I left that comment til the end of my post. That is also why I put a /s at the end of bullets. But I guess, an experienced gun user would not shoot a tree with a handgun, so you got me there.

    You are right, however, I do not know a ton about guns, this is why I want you to enlighten me. I do know the basics though.
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2005
  14. Jan 20, 2005 #13
    Footballs are not used to kill people. This is true. But knives are. Are you going to ban them too? What about air nailers? Doesn't take alot to hook up an air nailer to a small CO2 cartridge with a regulator. And you can buy one without having to wait. Look at what is happening in Iraq. Look at the improvising that is done to obtain the weapons that insurgents are using and look at the success they are having with them.
     
  15. Jan 20, 2005 #14
    Yes it's obvious. One of the most basic rules of all is to know your target and what is behind it and that seems to have passed you by. Could I assume then that you think an individual who knows nothing about driving a car should be making laws regulating them and driving in general?
     
  16. Jan 20, 2005 #15
    Anything can be used to kill people. Knives should not be banned because people use knives for practical reasons; such as, to open a box, cut up celery, etc. For air nailers, that takes knowledge, which most people probably do not have (I am probably wrong about this right?). That would be like saying: Are you going to ban metal, because metal can be used to make a gun which in turn can kill people? Guns are designed and made to kill/destroy things, that is the problem. I do not have any problem with Iraqis improvising weapons, I would probably do the same. You can not stop people from improvising, or creating weapons.
     
  17. Jan 20, 2005 #16
    The problem is this. How close were you to the tree? From the sound of it you shot from a few feet at least. If you shot it from a very close range, then why did you shoot it at all? Why not just cut it down? I always thought shotguns were used for close ranger, not sure how close though, please enlighten me on this. Also, how can you be so sure of what was behind your target? Did you project the trajectory of the pellets? Do pellets work in a special way? What would have happened if you had slipped or something like that while you were firing the gun?

    edit... yes I know, what would happen if you slipped with a saw: What I meant was with the pellets and not if they hit you or not.

    Also, do you live in a secluded area or something. Is this why you knew your trajectory would not hurt anyone?
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2005
  18. Jan 20, 2005 #17
    :uhh:

    At least a few feet? Remember, too high to safely reach.

    What would happen if I slipped? More gun safety rules you obviously have not ever heard of.

    Do you realize that there is probably more damage you can do driving down the highway at 60 Mph if you 'slip' compared to shooting a gun? When you consider the number of hours spent driving compared to shooting it is MUCH more likely.

    How did I know what was behind the target? Well for one thing it was probably about a 65 degree angle to the ground so it was shooting in the air. I own the property for half a mile in the direction of shooting.
     
  19. Jan 21, 2005 #18

    Bystander

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    We know why you shouldn't be allowed to own or be near anything that might function as a weapon --- now, tell the rest of us why we with less murderous natures should not be allowed ownership of firearms for whatever peaceful purposes we choose.
     
  20. Jan 21, 2005 #19

    EL

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Well your posts have definitely cleared things up for me. I hadn't realized the most important use of guns: chopping trees...
    That's a really good argument for everyone to by a couple of guns... :yuck:
     
  21. Jan 21, 2005 #20

    PerennialII

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    It's just for us on the other side of the lake so very difficult to understand the integral part guns have in US society ... the problem as has been pointed out is how to get the situation under control in the US (well, no one else actually has the problem in close to similar magnitude), since by any measure it nowadays isn't, and as good of a case can be made to tighten gun control, it never ceases to surprise me how those efforts are blocked (and usually with arguments having 'freedom' in them ... :yuck: ).
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?