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

[Moon Bee]

Can that check be done in today ?

 

[Art]

This pole is biased with a bunch of "NO's" from people that are not american and thus should not vote.

I thought we had a thread about this already. If you don't like guns that's fine, then don't buy one. You can cry all you want about it, but the majority of Americans don't agree with your views. If you don't like it, to damm bad. You can either (a), not buy a gun, or (b) not live in America. If the time comes that AMERICANS feel we should not have guns, we will amend the constitution.

Ahem Cyrus "NO" in the poll means you keep your guns.

 

[Cyrus]

Crap, I meant to say Yes. Dammit!

Hey, it wasnt a pole on intelligence.

 

[turbo]

This pole is biased with a bunch of "NO's" from people that are not american and thus should not vote.

I thought we had a thread about this already. If you don't like guns that's fine, then don't buy one. You can cry all you want about it, but the majority of Americans don't agree with your views. If you don't like it, to damm bad. You can either (a), not buy a gun, or (b) not live in America. If the time comes that AMERICANS feel we should not have guns, we will amend the constitution.

You have two walls in this thread, the anti-gun people, and the pro-gun people (myself included). Complain all you want about the media and rap music and every other excuse you want to make, and keep overlooking the fact of responsibility. The guy who shot the students at VT was the one responsible, not guns, nor the media, nor male sexuality or whatever stupid nonsense was brought up in that thread before it got locked.

This thread is pointless.

Today, I went to my local gun shop and picked up 4 20-round boxes of 175gr, 10mm auto cartridges for my new Glock 20. They are Silvertip hollow-points with scored jackets. I bear no animosity to my fellow man, but if they are in my house posing a threat to my wife and myself they're going to get the very best reception that I can give them. I have never aimed a gun at a person, and when I hunt deer, I either use my single-shot Ruger Model 1 .45-70 or a Winchester lever-action with only one cartridge loaded. If one shot is not sufficient, then I do not posses the skill to give the animal a clean kill and should not be hunting at all.

 

[scorpa]

What many Euorpeans and city fail to realize is the the vast majority of the US land mass is rural in nature. So for many a gun is not a toy, but a tool. It is necessray for protection of crops and herds. While most of the population is urban, that which is not has very different needs.

A few years back, in Oregon, the women folk of Portland and Eugene decided that hunting Cougar with dogs was cruel and should be halted. The fact that it is the ONLY effective way of hunting cougar failed to impress them.

It is no longer safe for women and kids to walk in the woods

I completely agree with this. I made this point what seems like hundred pages back now (this thread moves fast!) but people seemed to disagree by saying such things as 'well there are other ways to scare a predator off'. People who don't live that lifestyle just do not understand that people do not just consider guns toys and that the majority of people use them as tools.

 

[drankin]

Can that check be done in today ?

If you are talking about the background check, yes. In most states, before you purchase your gun, they run your name and # against a federal database.

If any more restrictions come from this, it should be that you have to be an actual American national in order purchase a firearm. I mean, just that fact that we have been attacked in our own country (9-11) should make this a no-brainer that only Americans should be allowed their Constitutional right to bear arms here. Yes, I understand that 9-11 wasn't gun related, not my point. How many non-Americans have to kill Americans on our own soil for this to be obvious?

 

[Evo]

I don't have the link here, but I believe there are over 200 million registered guns in the US, now compare that to the number of murders commited with guns.

I just did a few posts earlier: https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1305638&postcount=240

Here are the numbers

"In 1994, 44 million Americans owned 192 million firearms" That's out of almost 300 million people.

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf

Homicides by gun have fallen drastically since the mid 90's, although gun ownership has increased.

Homicides by Handgun and other gun

1976 8,651 3,328
1977 8,563 3,391
1978 8,879 3,569
1979 9,858 3,732
1980 10,552 3,834
1981 10,324 3,740
1982 9,137 3,501
1983 8,472 2,794
1984 8,183 2,835
1985 8,165 2,973
1986 9,054 3,126
1987 8,781 3,094
1988 9,375 3,162
1989 10,225 3,197
1990 11,677 3,395
1991 13,101 3,277
1992 13,158 3,043
1993 13,981 3,094
1994 13,496 2,840
1995 12,050 2,679
1996 10,731 2,533
1997 9,705 2,631
1998 8,844 2,168
1999 7,943 2,174
2000 7,985 2,218
2001 7,900 2,239
2002 8,286 2,538
2003 8,830 2,223
2004 8,299 2,355

Source: FBI, Supplementary Homicide Reports, 1976-2004.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/weaponstab.htm

 

[Art]

I'm going to weigh in a little bit even though I haven't previously on this thread.

First off don't blame guns for killings. This is entirely illogical. It's like saying pencils cause mispellings. Blame the people responsible.

Makes for a snappy catch phrase but is very overly simplistic. By the same logic nukes don't kill either so every country should have them and yet the US is adamant this shouldn't happen.

Second off as BobG has been explaining a huge and central part of the US government system is that the people ultimitely rule. The people have the right to overthrow their government hence the reason for the 2nd ammendment. Our founders were paranoid about their rights, this has become a characteristic of Americans. The fastest way to get an American angry is to make them feel like your stomping on their rights.

The argument Europeans make is that society is a lot safer without guns. Heres the key word safety. Europeans want their government to protect them. American's want their government to enforce contracts. Including the contract that is the Constitution. It's a contract with the people saying, here are your rights, and this is what we are authorizing you to do in order to govern us. There is a responsibility for taking care of yourself in the US. Thats why the Bill of Rights doesn't provide for the public safety. It provides for helping the citizen protect himself FROM the government and society(which will naturally seek to prosecute any perceived offece) even if he is guilty of a crime. These are things our Supreme court has argued in famous cases like Miranda Vs Arizona.

This makes for a better argument but is somewhat nullified by how easily Americans rolled over for Bush, trading freedoms for questionably improved security vis a vis The Patriot Act.

ukmicky no offence is intended here but the British Empire does not have a proud history of protecting human rights or other people. It instead has acted in its own interests. As has the US and most European powers..

Agreed which is why it is galling to cynical Europeans when many Americans appear to believe their gov't acts on moral imperatives i.e. bringing democracy to downtrodden people when the rest of the world knows Iraq was about oil.

In regards to the number of gun related deaths in the US. The number is like 14,000. We have something like 50 or 60,000 deaths from cars. The population of the US is 300,000,000. So based on this the vast majority of people in the US are not involved in violent crimes involving guns. And there are a huge number of guns in circulation within the US both automatic and semi-auto..

Yet the number of Americans killed through acts of terrorism are very small compared with either of the causes you have listed and yet look at the expenditure and freedom sapping practices the US public have accepted to avoid a repeat.

 

[Cyrus]

Makes for a snappy catch phrase but is very overly simplistic. By the same logic nukes don't kill either so every country should have them and yet the US is adamant this shouldn't happen.

No, its not. It goes for the exact same principle. Personal responsibility. Some countries are not RESPONSIBLE to have nuclear weapons, the same way some people are not RESPONSIBLE to own guns.

 

[Bystander]

Yup --- didn't leave anything but that filthy Marshall Plan money, assorted base payrolls, civilian employment --- that sort of thing.

Filthy for sure, the UK was a wreak after the war, in which America was able to inject life back into its economy, and collapse all the trade routes the UK owned.

Which trade routes were those? Suez? Jointly owned with France? Nationalized by Nasser? UK went in with U.S. on "freedom of the seas" in the early 19th century. That is, NO ownership.

The UK and many European countries were debted to the US for the next upteen years.

The only European country required to repay funds received under the Marshall Plan was W. Germany, and that debt was paid off in 1971 (3?). UK did have a three gigabuck 2% debt incurred under Lend-Lease from during the war, and there was talk of forgiving that 30-40 years ago --- it was more a matter of pride, and national integrity that it be paid off at the hundred million dollars a year (less than the cost of the accountants, lawyers, and bankers to handle its administration).

The UK just payed back its final installments, a nice thank you don't you think, for taking the brunt of Nazism, filthy, yeah Id agree with that.

Three billion at 2% for 60 years plus another three billion free. Properly managed (like W. Germany) that's a hundred billion dollar gift.

Belgium is still paying back its debts, this is actually a big reason why the taxes are so high here, its a myth that its due to social security etc, most of the money gets pumped into paying the interest, filthy you say, for sure.

None owed to the U.S. --- sounds like you've got some real crooks minding your store for you.
(snip)

_______________________________________________________________

the only question remaining is whether the U.S. should adopt the European preference for mega-scale mass murders through revision of the second amendment, or continue facing micro-scale events.

(snip)Perhaps I missed all the posts of Europeans here stating they were all for mega-scale mass-murdering, if so I apologise.

Haven't noticed any Europeans bragging about mortality due to mass murder during the 20th century --- European management of European affairs during the 20th century certainly didn't prevent Hitler or Stalin from exacting the tolls they did.

(snip) Although first you should really make your mind up, either what happened was a "micro-scale event" or "indiscriminate mass murder."

"mega-scale mass murders through revision of the second amendment, or continue facing micro-scale events

(snip) "23 year old S. Korean senior English major committed indiscriminate mass murder on the campus of Virginia Tech" --- 33 fatalities, a micro-scale event; "A. Hitler a 40-50 some year old landscape painter and WW I veteran committed indiscriminate mass murder on the continent of Europe" --- 6 million plus victims, a mega-scale event; "J. Stalin a 30-60 some year old former Okrana agent, bank robber, and sawed-off runt committed indiscriminate mass murder on the continent of Europe" --- estimates range from 1-3 times Hitler's total, another mega-scale event.

_______________________________________________________________

And Europeans cannot look at their own history.

"Bull**** ?" Hardly --- the U.S. went into the Balkans to stifle assorted mass murder operations the Europeans were entirely too gutless to deal with less than 20 years ago. When we leave, the mass murders will resume, and the EU will still be too gutless to deal with it.

You like to use the word European as in the above text and in the rest of the post the above was from . As an English man I'm also a European, so i take it your including me and the rest of the UK citizens when you call the Europeans gutless.(snip)

Wouldn't dream of insulting "perfidious Albion" by including it with Europe. Crecy, Agincourt, Henry VIII, E-Beth I did a really admirable job of purging the European influence from "The Isles."

I wouldn't under any circumstances class the UK as gutless but are in fact one of the few countries which can legitimately say they have a proud record in regards to standing up for those unable to protect themselves.
I take it the word European was used in error.

Given the UK's history with the EEC, France during the Falklands, sudden reconciliation with the development of the North Sea fields? Europe is Europe, and the UK is a whole other political entity, too often misused by its "continental neighbors."
________________________________________________________________

This only happened in the Hollywood makeovers.

In the real world the US joined in WW1 for a few reasons. A major one was the interception of a telegram from Germany to Mexico offering to support Mexico in a war against the US and a second reason was Britain agreed to give the US it's bases in the Carribean.

"The Zimmerman telegram?" You know better than that.

In the end Britain was less than happy with the outcome as the US took so long to mobilise, the war was nearly over before a reasonable sized US force arrived in Europe.

Give us the rest of the story --- Wilson may have been a dreamer, but he knew better than to turn U.S. troops over piecemeal to Haig and Joffre to be turned into rat fodder.

Because of this delay the US only contributed in one campaign (using French made weaponry as the US at that time didn't have a lot of their own).

The French 75 was at that time the best field piece in the world (the German 77, a copy, was by some accounts as good), there was reticence to risk capture of John Browning's masterpieces (some sources say the M-2 was actually there, some don't --- never got that one resolved --- same-same re. BAR), hence the use of the Chauchat --- John Bull wouldn't license or otherwise allow us the use of the Lewis gun. We weren't too happy either.

During this campaign the US were the only army which failed to take their objective but did take heavy casualties as they tried to demonstrate to the Europeans the benefits of open warfare as opposed to trench warfare. So how exactly did the US save the day?

Wilhelm saw "the writing on the wall" --- at which point the last German offensive of the war was launched to end things before the Yanks got to the front in force; it involved overextension of supply lines through torn up country, but bogged down short of any strategically decisive point (Paris?). When the allied counterattack took place, the German army was out of men, food, ammunition, and everything but willpower to conduct an orderly time-consuming, fighting withdrawal to lines still well within France.

People seem to forget in the early 20th century it was the European nations which were the world's superpowers.

Which bled themselves to death in Flanders, on the Isonzo, and (sh*t, forgot the name of the damned swamp) on the eastern front.

In WW2 the US remained neutral until Japan bombed Pearl Harbour and even then the US did not declare war on Germany. It was Germany declared war on the US. And if we are all to be honest then we should acknowledge it was Russia mainly who beat Germany.

After Kursk, I'd call it (Hitler vs. Stalin) an even match, but at the same time Joe's temper tantrums were always about "When are you opening the second front?" Brinksmanship? Or, that close? Dunno.

So it is hard to see how you can claim the US saved Europe twice in the 20th century especially as despite vehement protests from Churchill, Roosevelt gave all of eastern europe to Stalin which led directly to the cold war which you also claim to have saved Europe from??

Okay, little "horseshoe nail" history: let's say that following Battle of Britain, some sort of "peace" arrangement is reached between UK and Germ. (iffy); Stalin vs. Hitler (w' no distractions --- peace deal pulls Italy from N. Afr. and Greece) turns into a very even match; Joe wins, he's not going to stop at the Rhine. This all depends on FDR being reined in by Congress re. Europe --- leaves him nothing to gain by starting a brawl in the Pacific --- "what ifs" don't really constitute arguments, but it's probably safe to say that the course of European history would have been radically different without U.S. involvement.

"Cold War?" Started in 1918 at Archangel, Murmansk, and Port Arthur ("Strangle the monster in its cradle" and all that?).

"Saved Europe?" WW I, tipped the balance of military power to the point that Wilhelm had to go for broke --- and, lost --- that's one; no U.S. entry, and it's anybody's guess what happens to Europe --- Spain and Portugal stayed out, Sweden and Norway stayed out --- and everyone else is bankrupt and bled to death --- does the Russian Revolution jump borders west? WW II, arsenal of democracy, balance of power, definitely in Joe's road west of the Rhine, and the UK was not going to liberate France or Belgium on its own --- that's two; post WW II phase of Cold War, we didn't have to stay, help rebuild, nuttin' --- that's three; Balkan mess, not our department, and not a threat, but still large-scale mass murder, and "humanitarian" (worst reason in the world to go to war) concerns dictate that Europeans do something about it --- Mad Madeline had it in for Milosevic, so we took the lead --- not really a fourth save, but picking up after other peoples' messes when they've had more than enough time and opportunity --- maybe you see the point.

 

[gravenewworld]

Why don't we just do what we do with everything else that people have the "right" to use or own, but is bad for them? TAX THE HELL OUT OF IT!

Why not charge $1000 for a box of bullets? That way not many people are going to be able to afford dozens of magazines that they could use to kill people.

 

[drankin]

Why don't we just do what we do with everything else that people have the "right" to use or own, but is bad for them? TAX THE HELL OUT OF IT!

Why not charge $1000 for a box of bullets? That way not many people are going to be able to afford dozens of magazines that they could use to kill people.

Absolutely not. Now, only rich people can defend themselves? I don't think so.

 

[scorpa]

Why don't we just do what we do with everything else that people have the "right" to use or own, but is bad for them? TAX THE HELL OUT OF IT!

Why not charge $1000 for a box of bullets? That way not many people are going to be able to afford dozens of magazines that they could use to kill people.

Learn to make your own bullets...problem solved

People seem to have this idea that everyone out there with a gun is using it to kill others. That is hardly true. As I mentioned before most people use them as a tool. You can use cars to kill people, knives, bombs...ect guns are hardly the only way ...hell you can beat a person to death. Take away the guns and you are only punishing the good people who have them, not the criminals.

 

[Evo]

Why don't we just do what we do with everything else that people have the "right" to use or own, but is bad for them? TAX THE HELL OUT OF IT!

Why not charge $1000 for a box of bullets? That way not many people are going to be able to afford dozens of magazines that they could use to kill people.

Criminals and crazy people would just steal them. When you consider how many people own guns and how few crimes are commited with them (by proportion) the great majority of gun owners are not going out shooting people.

 

[gravenewworld]

then why not require that all magazines for gun have a maximum capacity of say, only 5 bullets?

then charge $1000 per magazine so no one can can afford to carry tons of them. that way people still get their guns and their bullets, and anti gun people get at least some sense of tighter restrictions on guns.

we tax the hell out of cigarettes, but you don't see many people that are addicted to cigarettes breaking into store to steal them.

 

[drankin]

then why not require that all magazines for gun have a maximum capacity of say, only 5 bullets?

then charge $1000 per magazine so no one can can afford to carry tons of them. that way people still get their guns and their bullets, and anti gun people get at least some sense of tighter restrictions on guns.

we tax the hell out of cigarettes, but you don't see many people that are addicted to cigarettes breaking into store to steal them.

Sorry, no dice.

 

[gravenewworld]

Sorry, no dice.

can you give 3 good reasons as to why someone may need say 15 bullets in a gun as opposed to only 5?

People buy 6 shooters all the time for protection, why not require all guns to carry roughly that same size capacity?

 

[turbo]

Criminals and crazy people would just steal them. When you consider how many people own guns and how few crimes are commited with them (by proportion) the great majority of gun owners are not going out shooting people.

I own quite a few guns. Recently, I decided to sell off a number of them to finance the purchase of a nice digital single-lens reflex camera (A VERY stupid financial move, but I like photography). One guy showed up with not much cash but a VERY hard-stopping Glock M20 chambered for the 10 mm auto and I agreed to trade a Winchester for it. I'm glad I did. Many police departments have declined to adopt this cartridge because they are recruiting minorities and women with smaller hands who have trouble handling the recoil from this round. I am a small person, but with a solid two-handed grip, this gun is very controllable and accurate. My neighbor and I shoot pistols at skeet targets (about 4" diameter) set up on a bank about 30' away and we see how many we can shatter with x shots in y time. It's pretty loose and wooley, but, fun.

Hint: Knock first, politely identify yourself and ask if you can come in. If you don't YMMV.

 

[siddharth]

Homicides by gun have fallen drastically since the mid 90's, although gun ownership has increased.

Are you sure that gun ownership has increased? From the link you gave in your post,

Perhaps as a result of the increasing urbanization of America, the overall prevalence of gun ownership appears to be declining, as is participation in hunting. Proportionately fewer households owned firearms in 1994 than was true in the 1960s and 1970s, and the younger cohorts are entering into gun ownership at slower rates than previous ones.

But, one can see that the Homicides by Handgun and other guns remains fairly constant despite decreasing gun ownership since 1976.

 

[drankin]

can you give 3 good reasons as to why someone may need say 15 bullets in a gun as opposed to only 5?

People buy 6 shooters all the time for protection, why not require all guns to carry roughly that same size capacity?

Give me 3 reasons why I can't carry 300 as apposed to 5 bullets? Add that to charging a $1000 bucks per magazine to hold them as you suggested.

 

[gravenewworld]

Give me 3 reasons why I can't carry 300 as apposed to 5 bullets? Add that to charging a $1000 bucks per magazine to hold them as you suggested.

1.) because you don't have any "right" what so ever to carry that many bullets. you only have the right to ownership of a gun.

2.) because no one needs 300 bullets to kill something

3.) because no one is saying you can't have 300 bullets, but only by the means by which you can use them should be restricted.

 

[Cyrus]

1.) Yes, you do. Because there is no law saying you can't.

2.) You don't need a big gas guzzling SUV, but that doesn't mean you can't have one.

3.) Thats a problem, because then no one can defend themselves against a tyrannical government using 5 bullets at a time.

 

[Evo]

Are you sure that gun ownership has increased? From the link you gave in your post,.

Yes, it says that, but gun applications in 2002 were only 7.8 million, and the year 2003-2004 says 13.7 million guns were purchased. So has the total number of guns gone up while the number of households has decreased?

http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/guncontrol/a/bradychecks.htm

But, one can see that the Homicides by Handgun and other guns remains fairly constant despite decreasing gun ownership since 1976.

No, if you look at the table, homicides with guns has sharply decreased since 1996.

 

[drankin]

1.) because you don't have any "right" what so ever to carry that many bullets. you only have the right to ownership of a gun.

So, our founding fathers wanted us to defend ourselfs with hunks of metal? They should have suggested the right to bear axes or spears. No dice.

2.) because no one needs 300 bullets to kill something.

Needs? Why restrict my ammo capacity because you don't think I "need" it. Maybe I want to practice in the event I need to defend myself, family, or some other helpless victim against a gang of armed thugs? Or worst yet, I actually "need" 300 hundred rounds to keep a bunch of gang-bangers at bay. Because, you know those thugs have "full" capacity magazines!

3.) because no one is saying you can't have 300 bullets, but only by the means by which you can use them should be restricted.

You haven't given any good reasons to restrict my ammo capacity. Just reasons why you don't think I "need" it. The truth is, I don't "need" it. I'm a damn good shot. But, as soon as you start restricting what I can use, where does it stop? That's the real concern of law-abiding, gun owning Americans.

anyhow, goodnight for now...

 

[gravenewworld]

1.) Yes, you do. Because there is no law saying you can't.

2.) You don't need a big gas guzzling SUV, but that doesn't mean you can't have one.

3.) Thats a problem, because then no one can defend themselves against a tyrannical government using 5 bullets at a time.

1.) There is no law that says you have the right to a driver's license. It is a privilege, not a right.

2.) You can still own 300 bullets.

3.) The day America ever becomes a tyrannical government is the day America ceases to exist.

 

[Cyrus]

1.) There is no law that says you have the right to a driver's license. It is a privilege, not a right.

2.) You can still own 300 bullets.

3.) The day America ever becomes a tyrannical government is the day America ceases to exist.

1.) Yes, there is something in the constituion that does say I can. Gun ownership is not a privilage, its a right! BIG DIFFERENCE!

3.) Have you seen the things Bush is doing?

Yeah, I want guns around...cuz guys like GW would do much much worse.

 

[gravenewworld]

So, our founding fathers wanted us to defend ourselfs with hunks of metal? They should have suggested the right to bear axes or spears. No dice.

And a six shooter doesn't provide protection how?

Needs? Why restrict my ammo capacity because you don't think I "need" it. Maybe I want to practice in the event I need to defend myself, family, or some other helpless victim against a gang of armed thugs? Or worst yet, I actually "need" 300 hundred rounds to keep a bunch of gang-bangers at bay. Because, you know those thugs have "full" capacity magazines!

If you were ever in a shoot out against a bunch of people in a gang, you would probably be dead anyway. You wouldn't last to be able to use 300 bullets, unless you carried an assault rifle, which are banned anyway.

You haven't given any good reasons to restrict my ammo capacity. Just reasons why you don't think I "need" it. The truth is, I don't "need" it. I'm a damn good shot. But, as soon as you start restricting what I can use, where does it stop? That's the real concern of law-abiding, gun owning Americans.

anyhow, goodnight for now...

and you don't have any good reasons for unlimited ammo capacity. you still have a fully functional weapon with just 5 bullets.

 

[gravenewworld]

1.) Yes, there is something in the constituion that does say I can. Gun ownership is not a privilage, its a right! BIG DIFFERENCE!

Exactly, gun ownership is a right. It mentions nothing about the right about how many bullets one can own or how much ammo a gun should legally be allowed to carry. I never said you should take away someone's right to a gun.

 

[Cyrus]

Assult weapons are no longer banned grave.

And that is not the sprit of why we have guns in the constitution. Its was put there explicity to keep the government in check. At the time of its writing, all citizens had full military weapons (muskets).

I think the constitution had in mind what exists in Switzerland. I.e. everyone having a full-on assult weapon in their house.-the standard military weapon of our time.

 

[ShawnD]

we tax the hell out of cigarettes, but you don't see many people that are addicted to cigarettes breaking into store to steal them.

While people don't rob a store for the sole purpose of cigarettes, it's not uncommon for thieves to steal cigarettes while they are robbing a 7-11.
Liquor stores also seem to have huge problems with robbery. Damn drunks.

It should probably also be pointed out that having a clip of 5 still makes it easy to kill 1 person. Humans are not rhinos, you don't need to shoot them more than once, or maybe twice, or maybe 9 times (lol 50 cent). Regardless of how many bullets you have, you only need 1 to kill somebody, which means the law would do absolutely nothing. Next thing you know, gangs are making extended clips (don't people already do this?) and the media would pick it up as "assault weapons now with assault clips!"