Is it Time for the US Government to Ban Gun Ownership?

[0TheSwerve0]

So you're saying societies should be static?

 

[Kurdt]

Well what I can't understand is people complaining about massacres and then not wanting to do something simple to solve the problem. But if that's the way you want it. :tongue:

 

[Type 7]

Have you noticed the Google ads at the top of the page above the poll? One says "lowest price sniper rifles." Just thought I'd point it out in the hope that it would spur further debate. Don't stop the entertainment now; I've still got popcorn left! :rofl:

 

[Evo]

Wow, now there's a blatantly racist comment. There are plenty of Asian people in this country who are US citizens and attend college. You have no evidence that most Asians who attend college in the US are expatriates.

No, not racist at all, simply stating that the news said he was Asian. Many Asian's in our colleges are on student Visa's. Some are Us citizens, true. If he was on a student visa, he could not legally buy a gun. That applies to anyone on a student visa. You don't realize that I am probably the most non-racist on PF, having fought many battles to get racism stopped here.

 

[cristo]

Guns are not to make a safe situation. They are to make a safer situation. If I try to kill the intruder with a gun then yes there is a chance he will kill me first, but there is also a chance I will kill him first. If I don't have a gun, I have no chance at all. 1 in a million chance of winning is still better than 0 in a million. I won't even include deterrence since that cannot be measured (accurately).

Well, at the moment a criminal breaking into a house in an attempt to steal from the owner will know that there is a chance that the owner carries a gun. If a ban is enforced, then the criminal breaking into an average person's house knows that there is a far lesser chance that the owner carries a gun-- in fact if he's breaking into a law abiding citizens's house, then there is a very very small chance that the owner will be carrying a gun. Now, since we're talking probabilities here, in which case do you suspect that there is more likelihood for the burglar to shoot you on sight, rather than simply threaten you with the weapon?

 

[Quaoar]

No, not racist at all, simply stating that the news said he was Asian. Many Asian's in our colleges are on student Visa's. Some are Us citizens, true. If he was on a student visa, he could not legally buy a gun. That applies to anyone on a student visa. You don't realize that I am probably the most non-racist on PF, having fought many battles to get racism stopped here.

Many, not all; not even most. That's why it's a little dangerous to say he probably couldn't buy the gun.

 

[cristo]

I think cops should be able to have guns, but I'm not sure if you were implying that they should or shouldn't so I won't argue that point. I'm assuming you just mean the average person.

I don't believe that the average policeman should carry a gun, no. However, I believe that the US police force cannot turn back and be disarmed, as that would do more harm than good.

 

[Type 7]

No, not racist at all...You don't realize that I am probably the most non-racist on PF, having fought many battles to get racism stopped here.

Frankly, I think it was a cheap shot to suggest otherwise.

Now let's get this debate back on topic.

Proposed: Elmer Fudd would not have tried to kill Bugs Bunny if Bugs had a concealed weapons permit and routinely carried a Colt 45.

Discuss.

 

[ukmicky]

Frankly, I think it was a cheap shot to suggest otherwise.

Now let's get this debate back on topic.

Proposed: Elmer Fudd would not have tried to kill Bugs Bunny if Bugs had a concealed weapons permit and routinely carried a Colt 45.

Discuss.

Sorry i totally disagree with that statement.
A colt 45 is a short range weapon is it not ,whilst i believe i am correct in stating that my mate Elmer, Mr fudd to you carried a rifle which was accurate over long distance.


Please think and get your facts right next time before you post

 

[scorpa]

Frankly, I think it was a cheap shot to suggest otherwise.

Now let's get this debate back on topic.

Proposed: Elmer Fudd would not have tried to kill Bugs Bunny if Bugs had a concealed weapons permit and routinely carried a Colt 45.

Discuss.

Hmmm I think Elmer would have thought twice about it, although he was very determined. I think we need to decide whether his desire to kill Bugs will overpower his need for self-preservation.

 

[Astronuc]

Elmer Fudd carried a shotgun.

Yosemite Sam carried two pistols - ostensibly Colt 45's.

 

[scorpa]

Sorry i totally disagree with that statement.
A colt 45 is a short range weapon is it not ,whilst i believe i am correct in stating that my mate Elmer, Mr fudd to you carried a rifle which was accurate over long distance.


Please think and get your facts right next time before you post

Yes but it would be harder to get a shotgun down a rabbit hole.

 

[ShawnD]

Shawn I remember hearing about that slurpee thing on the news a few years back. Weren't some kids stealing it from the science lab or something like that?

Yes. Copper Sulfate is used in a lot of beginner science experiments because of what copper can do (batteries, corrode zinc, change to colorless when you add zinc, etc). Kids stole it from the lab so they could poison people with it edit: Oh wow this thing was 3 pages during my lunch break and now it's 8 pages.

 

[ShawnD]

Pair of 9 mms? Three people rush the loon, and one gets shot. They've got to be prepared to, "Ohmigod!" hit him, maybe break a couple bones. It's called education: the operator of a firearm has to aim at each target and pull the trigger, and tenths of seconds are required for each shot by a skilled user --- how long's it take to cover the five yards between me and him? Second? Couple shots? He hits one of three in a hurry at a moving target, he's NHL material.

This will never happen due to something called by Bystander Effect. When there are many people involved in a situation, people are less likely to try to help. They all just expect somebody else to help. People might attack after the loon has already killed a few people.

 

[ShawnD]

Well, at the moment a criminal breaking into a house in an attempt to steal from the owner will know that there is a chance that the owner carries a gun. If a ban is enforced, then the criminal breaking into an average person's house knows that there is a far lesser chance that the owner carries a gun-- in fact if he's breaking into a law abiding citizens's house, then there is a very very small chance that the owner will be carrying a gun. Now, since we're talking probabilities here, in which case do you suspect that there is more likelihood for the burglar to shoot you on sight, rather than simply threaten you with the weapon?

I see what you are getting at, and it does make sense.
On the flip side, would you rather rob a home that is absolutely 100% assured to be gun-free, or would you try to rob the home of a well-armed citizen? The citizen is on the defense and you're trying to sneak around. When the burglar and home owner are equally armed, there is an inherent advantage of being on the defensive. If you take away the home owner's gun so now only the criminal has a gun, the balance of power shifts in favor of the criminal.

As to whoever asked why the US has lots of crime despite everybody owning guns, that's only half-true. While many Americans own guns, most states do not have concealed carry laws, which means a good 99% of citizens walking around are not carrying guns at that time. If you point at some random person on the subway, you can bet your life on the fact that he does not have a gun on him, assuming you are in a state that does not allow concealed weapons. If you're in a place like Texas, it might be the other way around (Texas allows concealed weapons).

 

[drankin]

I see what you are getting at, and it does make sense.
On the flip side, would you rather rob a home that is absolutely 100% assured to be gun-free, or would you try to rob the home of a well-armed citizen? The citizen is on the defense and you're trying to sneak around. When the burglar and home owner are equally armed, there is an inherent advantage of being on the defensive. If you take away the home owner's gun so now only the criminal has a gun, the balance of power shifts in favor of the criminal.

As to whoever asked why the US has lots of crime despite everybody owning guns, that's only half-true. While many Americans own guns, most states do not have concealed carry laws, which means a good 99% of citizens walking around are not carrying guns at that time. If you point at some random person on the subway, you can bet your life on the fact that he does not have a gun on him, assuming you are in a state that does not allow concealed weapons. If you're in a place like Texas, it might be the other way around (Texas allows concealed weapons).

Most states (35) http://www.packing.org/state/report_shall_issue.php are "Shall-Issue" states. Meaning the shall issue a concealed carry permit to anyone eligible. I would encourage anyone who can to get their permit even if they don't plan to carry regularly. The more people who have their permits, the tougher it will be for that right to be taken from you.

 

[edward]

What we need to get rid of are the high capacity clips. You can buy a 30 round clip for just about any semi automatic hand gun made for under thirty bucks.

As far as rushing the guy, hand guns are notoriously inaccurate in a rapid fire situation because of the recoil of the weapon. A fixed target is even difficult to hit during rapid fire. Most people don't realize this.

 

[Evo]

Well, at the moment a criminal breaking into a house in an attempt to steal from the owner will know that there is a chance that the owner carries a gun. If a ban is enforced, then the criminal breaking into an average person's house knows that there is a far lesser chance that the owner carries a gun-- in fact if he's breaking into a law abiding citizens's house, then there is a very very small chance that the owner will be carrying a gun. Now, since we're talking probabilities here, in which case do you suspect that there is more likelihood for the burglar to shoot you on sight, rather than simply threaten you with the weapon?

Cristo, I believe that more guns are fired by the criminals that break into homes when the homeowner is unarmed. Either they don't want to leave a witness, or they're just plain cruel.

I'll have to try to find statistics, but just from watching the news, in the great majority of murders, the victim did not have a gun.

 

[Type 7]

Elmer Fudd carried a shotgun.

That is correct. As moderating instigator of this debate, perhaps it falls upon me to define terms.

Elmer's weapon: double-barreled shotgun of apparent 12 gauge (there's room here to argue that Elmer was unnecessarily using too powerful a gun as most rabbit guns are a much smaller gauge, perhaps in violation of Geneva Convention), which can fire two shots before reloading, although he frequently fired dozens (new high tech secret weapon?), effective range about forty yards

Bugs' weapon: semi-automatic pistol with a magazine capacity of 6 plus one in the chamber (I think), so seven shots before reloading, with a lethal range of hundreds of yards, albeit inaccurately

Yosemite Sam carried two pistols - ostensibly Colt 45's.

Yosemite Sam's guns were six-shooters, so twelve shots normally fired haphazardly into the air while dancing wildly.

Would a strategic alliance with Sam be in the best interest of either Bugs or Elmer? Should they gang up on Sam and take his ranch?

Should Bush send Condoleeza Rice to institute unilateral talks?

What would Jesus do?

Discuss.

 

[Ki Man]

I don't believe that the average policeman should carry a gun, no. However, I believe that the US police force cannot turn back and be disarmed, as that would do more harm than good.

which would leave him totally helpless if he is in a dangerous situation...

 

[edward]

Cristo, I believe that more guns are fired by the criminals that break into homes when the homeowner is unarmed. Either they don't want to leave a witness, or they're just plain cruel.

I'll have to try to find statistics, but just from watching the news, in the great majority of murders, the victim did not have a gun.

That is sad but true, we have entered a new era with the criminal element not wanting to leave a witness. You can read about it all of the time anymore. I think that the increase in drug use is connected to this.

 

[drankin]

which would leave him totally helpless if he is in a dangerous situation...

LOL, there is noway we would ever disarm our cops! For one, they would all quit!

 

[Kurdt]

Well guys all I can say is it works elsewhere and judging from this thread, the guns aren't the problem, its the attitude toward them.

 

[scorpa]

What we need to get rid of are the high capacity clips. You can buy a 30 round clip for just about any semi automatic hand gun made for under thirty bucks.

As far as rushing the guy, hand guns are notoriously inaccurate in a rapid fire situation because of the recoil of the weapon. A fixed target is even difficult to hit during rapid fire. Most people don't realize this.

It must be just a Canadian thing but here it is as far as I know illegal to have a 30 round clip. I am probably wrong on this but I think you technically only supposed to have a clip that holds 3 rounds.

 

[Ki Man]

Lets say you have a cop on patrol when there is a cal for an armed robbery... he is the nearest to the scene of the crime and can be there in less than a minute. do you expect him to sit outside of the home with a bullhorn and try to talk the robber out of it until someone who does have a gun can come search the house?

tazers arent the magical sollution to all of your disputes. a man with a semi hiding in a house can't be brought down with a tazer

 

[ShawnD]

It must be just a Canadian thing but here it is as far as I know illegal to have a 30 round clip. I am probably wrong on this but I think you technically only supposed to have a clip that holds 3 rounds.

The laws in Canada are a lot more strict than the US. It's basically never legal to carry a concealed weapon in Canada. Hand guns are almost always illegal. Automatic weapons are always illegal. To be able to buy any kind of gun or ammunition, you need to take a government exam about guns and gun safety. I don't personally like the whole thing but I can see why it was put in place; there's really nothing more dangerous than a moron with a gun. The key word is moron, not gun.

 

[Type 7]

To be serious for a moment, in other words to make an actual contribution before EVO cracks her whip (thank you may I have another), I would like to hear from one of the Brits about the police in the UK (do they still call them bobbies) carrying guns. It used to be that they did not, however my understanding is that now many of them do, and they also have SWAT teams, perhaps by another name. I'm thinking about the incident where the man refused to stop for the police and they gunned him down on suspicion of being a suicide bomber. Tragically they were mistaken. Did that incident cause the public to decry the gun carrying policy of the police?

 

[Kurdt]

The police in the UK do not carry guns. There are specially trained units that deal with firearms. The incident you are referring to was between one of these teams and a man they mistook for a suicide bomber, through some shaky intelligence.

The regular police however will never have a firearm and it is just the few highly trained officers that use firearms for specific situations.

 

[Ki Man]

The reason the sweds can handle having so many guns is because their society is structured differently. Go to LA and start handing out guns left and right, you will have some problems there. 4 out of 5 criminals get a hold of their guns illegally. Getting rid of the criminals would be far more effective than getting rid of guns

Society reform first, then gun reform.

 

[Type 7]

The police in the UK do not carry guns. There are specially trained units that deal with firearms. The incident you are referring to was between one of these teams and a man they mistook for a suicide bomber, through some shaky intelligence.

The regular police however will never have a firearm and it is just the few highly trained officers that use firearms for specific situations.

Ah, okay, thanks. I was under the impression that the police were just the regular ones who happened to be on duty at the scene.

Bad intelligence, huh? Well we Yanks know a thing or two about that.

 

[scorpa]

The laws in Canada are a lot more strict than the US. It's basically never legal to carry a concealed weapon in Canada. Hand guns are almost always illegal. Automatic weapons are always illegal. To be able to buy any kind of gun or ammunition, you need to take a government exam about guns and gun safety. I don't personally like the whole thing but I can see why it was put in place; there's really nothing more dangerous than a moron with a gun. The key word is moron, not gun.

To have a handgun you have to belong to a gun club...which means you pay 30 bucks a year and no prob. Probably depends on the handgun though.

 

[Kurdt]

Ah, okay, thanks. I was under the impression that the police were just the regular ones who happened to be on duty at the scene.

Bad intelligence, huh? Well we Yanks know a thing or two about that.

The whole event was rather unique really. I assume you are reffering to Jean Charles de Menezes. The facts are still being disputed really, but the gist of it is that they were after the people behind the failed 21/7 bombing attempt and MEnezes fitted the description of one of the guys. He was also an illegal immigrant and so when police confronted him he naturally ran to the tube to try and get away. The police being a bit flighty because of the bombing attempt the day before and because of the fact they thought he was one of the bombers naturally thought he was going to comit suicide in the underground and shot him.

It was a conspiracy of bad intelligence bad timing and unfortunate circumstances really. But there we go.

 

[Ki Man]

Anyone remember the North Hollywood Bank Shoot-out?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=bijFwHuvl-0"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout"

It took the officers quite a while to take them down because their handnguns (and the shotguns that some carried around in their trunks) were ineffective against the robbers, and some officers had to rush to a local gunstore and borrow their automatics. a downed oficer near the bank could not be reached until a group of officers commandeered an armored money-transfering truck and used that to reach the downed officer and take him out of the kill-zone.

officers without guns is like an army without soldiers

 

[Kurdt]

Anyone remember the North Hollywood Bank Shoot-out?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=bijFwHuvl-0"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout"

It took the officers quite a while to take them down because their handnguns (and the shotguns that some carried around in their trunks) were ineffective against the robbers, and some officers had to rush to a local gunstore and borrow their automatics. a downed oficer near the bank could not be reached until a group of officers commandeered an armored money-transfering truck and used that to reach the downed officer and take him out of the kill-zone.

officers without guns is like an army without soldiers

This isn't about officers without guns. Its already been stated that US cops couldn't do their job effectively without them. What its about is saying could stricter gun controls reduce the kinds of crimes witnessed this morning. If stricter gun laws were in place then perhaps the regular police force would not need to carry guns. But that is a bit beyond the original topic, which is to explore whether the US would be safer with stricter gun controls or not.

 

[edward]

Anyone remember the North Hollywood Bank Shoot-out?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=bijFwHuvl-0"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout"

It took the officers quite a while to take them down because their handnguns (and the shotguns that some carried around in their trunks) were ineffective against the robbers, and some officers had to rush to a local gunstore and borrow their automatics. a downed oficer near the bank could not be reached until a group of officers commandeered an armored money-transfering truck and used that to reach the downed officer and take him out of the kill-zone.

Actually the police weapons were not effective because the robbers were wearing full body armor. The police went to a sporting goods store to get a high powered rifle and armor piercing bullets.