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

[scorpa]

Actually it's legal. It's just a bullet proof vest, basically. Some hunters use them, and some home defense experts recommend using them if someone breaks into your house, like you would have time to put it on. I've seen them for sale in mail order (and I guess internet) police supply catalogs. Lots of cool stuff.

Really that is interesting. I had no idea you could buy that sort of thing. Not sure why you would want one for hunting, unless you are hunting with Dick Cheney of course.

 

[Kurdt]

I can't be said enough, stricter gun laws don't help folks protect themselves. It might work in other countries simply because they don't have millions of guns in circulation as we do. If you disarm us, then the bad guys are armed and we are not. It's that simple. Law abiding responsible citizens need to retain the right to defend themselves.

Then how do you break the cycle?

 

[Type 7]

The site says the vest will withstand the .223 and 7.62x39, which I can believe, but I wouldn't want to be the one who tested it against the .308. That seems a little optimistic. But maybe so.

 

[Type 7]

Not sure why you would want one for hunting, unless you are hunting with Dick Cheney of course.

Exactly. There are lots of Cheneys out there during deer season. Down south we call them beer hunters.

 

[drankin]

Then how do you break the cycle?

There is no cycle. There are evil people out there. If folks (just a few even) exercised their right to carry, and that school was not a "gun-free" zone, that guy would probably be much more reluctant to run through the halls and shoot people because he would know that there are people that will be shooting back. If I had been there and carrying, I may not have lived through it but, I'd make sure he didn't kill any more people. I would have gone after him until he was down.

 

[Type 7]

Then how do you break the cycle?

I'm afraid you don't. Like the high cost in fatalities associated with the automobile, Americans seem to accept gun violence as the price to be paid for that particular liberty.

 

[ShawnD]

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.

I can't seem to find any information supporting what you've said. All I can find is bias information coming from non-government sites (I don't think Canada even posts this stuff on the internet).

http://panda.com/canadaguns/#atc

Carry of a handgun, whether open or concealed, requires an Authorization to Carry Restricted Firearms and Prohibited Handguns (download form CAFC 680 here).

This particular license is almost impossible to get. It's issued to armored car personnel and occasionally to trappers and other workers in the bush. Authorizations to Carry are unique is that there is no appeal from a refusal of an application for an ATC; "no" means no.

There is a third type of Authorization To Carry, described in Firearms Act section 20(a):

For the purpose of section 20 of the Act, the circumstances in which an individual needs restricted firearms or prohibited handguns to protect the life of that individual or of other individuals are where
o (a) the life of that individual, or other individuals, is in imminent danger from one or more other individuals;
o (b) police protection is not sufficient in the circumstances; and
o (c) the possession of a restricted firearm or prohibited handgun can reasonably be justified for protecting the individual or other individuals from death or grievous bodily harm.

Basically it says you can't get a handgun unless you buy one from the US and own it illegally. All handguns are "restricted" or "prohibited" meaning you need 2 separate licenses to own one. The first license is the normal one you need to own a normal rifle or shotgun, which requires a training program and passing an exam (like getting a driver's license). The second license is one you get by demonstrating that you absolutely need a handgun, which pretty damn hard.

 

[Dr Transport]

Then how do you break the cycle?

Lock them up and limit their appeals to prevent them from getting out of jail.

 

[scorpa]

I can't seem to find any information supporting what you've said. All I can find is bias information coming from non-government sites (I don't think Canada even posts this stuff on the internet).

http://panda.com/canadaguns/#atc


Basically it says you can't get a handgun unless you buy one from the US and own it illegally. All handguns are "restricted" or "prohibited" meaning you need 2 separate licenses to own one. The first license is the normal one you need to own a normal rifle or shotgun, which requires a training program and passing an exam (like getting a driver's license). The second license is one you get by demonstrating that you absolutely need a handgun, which pretty damn hard.

I don't have info to show you to back that up unforunately, just the experiences of people who own them. When the gun registry came in they made it necessary to join a gun club if you own a restricted weapon. I've never heard of anyone having to demonstrate that they need a handgun.

 

[Ki Man]

I can't seem to find any information supporting what you've said...(I don't think Canada even posts this stuff on the internet).

maybe they want us to assume its all illegal to discourage us from attempting to find firearms

 

[ShawnD]

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

I always wondered why that situation was so difficult to get under control. Don't most cities have sharpshooters for this reason? Even if they made 1 phone call to the military, a single .50 cal bullet to anywhere on the gunman's body, including the "protected" parts, would end it.

 

[scorpa]

I can't seem to find any information supporting what you've said. All I can find is bias information coming from non-government sites (I don't think Canada even posts this stuff on the internet).

http://panda.com/canadaguns/#atc


Basically it says you can't get a handgun unless you buy one from the US and own it illegally. All handguns are "restricted" or "prohibited" meaning you need 2 separate licenses to own one. The first license is the normal one you need to own a normal rifle or shotgun, which requires a training program and passing an exam (like getting a driver's license). The second license is one you get by demonstrating that you absolutely need a handgun, which pretty damn hard.

I just thought of something. I think maybe this is how it works if you owned a handgun PRIOR to the gun registry taking effect. I'm wouldn't doubt that it is as you said now. What about for sport though? Lots of people in quick draw and precision shooting competitions that are just now getting into the sport that clearly don't meet the criteria you listed. I'll have to try to find some info on that.

 

[Kurdt]

There is no cycle. There are evil people out there. If folks (just a few even) exercised their right to carry, and that school was not a "gun-free" zone, that guy would probably be much more reluctant to run through the halls and shoot people because he would know that there are people that will be shooting back. If I had been there and carrying, I may not have lived through it but, I'd make sure he didn't kill any more people. I would have gone after him until he was down.

But the converse of this argument is, that if gun control was in place beforehand then the guy that comitted the offence would not have been able to get hold of a gun to comit the offense thus saving all lives.

 

[Dr Transport]

I've never heard of anyone having to demonstrate that they need a handgun.

I went to graduate school with a girl who was the subject of an attempted rape, she fought the guy off but was afraid to be unarmed for fear he would come back and try to get her because she could identify him. She was issued a carry permit for a pistol within 1 day of reporting the crime. Luckily they arrested the guy and convicted him before she had to use it , I'd rather she'd had to use it so that we don't have to support him in jail.

 

[drankin]

But the converse of this argument is, that if gun control was in place beforehand then the guy that comitted the offence would not have been able to get hold of a gun to comit the offense thus saving all lives.

Well, according to Fox News (I know, I know) it looks like the shooter may be a Chinese man from Shanghai with a student visa. If true, that means he acquired the guns illegally. In other words, gun control would have done nothing but disarm folks that could otherwise defend themselves. In fact, here is a unfortunate example! Gun control was exercised at this university! And guess what? People were helplessly executed!

The argument could be that, eventually gun control would begin to work over a long period of time after all weapons were confiscated (impossible but a lot could be removed from circulation). Now, how many defenseless people have to be robbed, raped, or murdered by guns in the meantime because they did not have their firearms because they are law abiding citizens?

 

[ShawnD]

I just thought of something. I think maybe this is how it works if you owned a handgun PRIOR to the gun registry taking effect. I'm wouldn't doubt that it is as you said now. What about for sport though? Lots of people in quick draw and precision shooting competitions that are just now getting into the sport that clearly don't meet the criteria you listed. I'll have to try to find some info on that.

Be sure to tell me if you find anything. I would love to own a handgun

 

[scorpa]

Be sure to tell me if you find anything. I would love to own a handgun

I will, right in the middle of exams at the moment so it might be a little bit. But I will tell you I personally know different people who own them, and all they needed was their FAC (that's what it is called right?) and membership to a gun club as far as I know.

 

[Manchot]

Baltimore, Newark, Washington DC, New Orleans, St. Louis, and Detroit always top these lists and far outdo the rest of the country when it comes to murder and violent crime.

I feel like I need to clarify something about my home town, St. Louis. Statisticians haven't quite figured out how to calculate its crime statistics effectively, because of its status as an independent city (i.e., it's not a part of any county). The problem is that none of its suburbs get counted as part of the city when these figures are calculated, which skews them in a negative way. In fact, outside of Virginia (whose cities are almost all independent), the only other independent cities are Baltimore and Carson City. (Clearly, the same skewing also applies to Baltimore.)

 

[usahockey]

If there were a way to really eliminate all firearms, then I might be for it...but it seems that banning guns would just increase the ratio of armed criminals : armed citizens, which can only be bad. I'm sure that criminals probably consider the idea of the people they're about to rob, rape, or kill being armed, and would be less likely to commit their crime if they know that these people are armed.

I tend to agree with these quotes by Jefferson:

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in Government."

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants, they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."Tyranny in government is always possible. The millions of people who own guns in this country are probably the best reason why we wouldn't have to worry about some potential totalitarian regime/ police state coming to power. Firearms give the people power, and as a last resort...you might need it. The fact is that most gun owners are good, honest, innocent people, who just want to protect themselves and their families from all of the monsters out there who are plastered on the evening news each night. We live in a society of fear, and the only way to fight it is by instilling that same fear into the criminal. Just like nuclear deterrence and MAD on a city-wide scale.

That is what my logical mind tells me, but my emotional side tells me that weapons are evil and should all be destroyed. Until that happens though, it is only practical to possesses the means to defend yourself, namely from those people who wish to do you harm.

 

[scorpa]

I went to graduate school with a girl who was the subject of an attempted rape, she fought the guy off but was afraid to be unarmed for fear he would come back and try to get her because she could identify him. She was issued a carry permit for a pistol within 1 day of reporting the crime. Luckily they arrested the guy and convicted him before she had to use it , I'd rather she'd had to use it so that we don't have to support him in jail.

A perfectly good example of why guns should not be banned. And I agree with the supporting in jail thing

 

[Averagesupernova]

... If not imported, guns are easy to make.

Wow. I'm surprised it took this long for someone to post this. I noticed this thread much earlier today but didn't have a chance to read through it and reply until now. I have stated before in similar threads about making guns not being out of the question if guns were banned. You can be sure that if guns were banned in the USA I would look into machining my own of one sort or another. Archery equipment isn't very difficult to make either. However, archery is inherently difficult to make even quasi semi-automatic. But, it is much easier to make an effective bow and arrow out of everyday materials than a firearm.

 

[turbo]

I have a Walther P38 in one location in my house (9mm Luger) and a Glock 20 (10mm auto) in another. I am a pacifist, but if you are in my house and pose a threat to me and mine, you will leave on your back. Maine has a problem with home invasions with druggies looking for Oxycontin and I am not going to let my wife or myself become statistics.

 

[Averagesupernova]

Apparently no one participating in this thread lives in Wyoming, western SD, parts of Nebraska, where rattlesnakes are very common. There are other vermin in other states I left out that are just as bad.

 

[turbo]

Apparently no one participating in this thread lives in Wyoming, western SD, parts of Nebraska, where rattlesnakes are very common. There are other vermin in other states I left out that are just as bad.

There are other vermin that are far worse. A rattlesnake will not threaten you or attempt to bite you unless you attack it. There are predators here that are far more dangerous and far less predictable (the Oxycontin addicts are bad enough, but the low-lifes hooked on meth are probably worse).

 

[Averagesupernova]

Meth is getting to a big problem in different parts of the USA. Rattlesnakes won't bother you unless you bother them. BUT, they do wander into town from time to time and an unsuspecting child (adults are supposed to know to be careful for this sort of thing) can surprise one that may be sleeping in/under something. If you see one in your yard, shoot it. Wyoming and SD I know for certain have fairly lax gun laws. However, that is not to say that it is legal to discharge firearms in ALL towns and cities.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

I seem to remember that police in certain parts of Ireland didn't even carry guns. Is this common in other countries? I have no idea if this is the case in certain parts of the U.S.

 

[cristo]

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.

But the power balance is always going to be with the criminal! He's in your house, and is already breaking the law; he's nervous and so is far more likely to shoot. I also suspect that many criminals will be more handy with a gun than the average citizen. If he knows that you don't own a gun, will he be less likely to shoot you? I suggest yes!

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 think you may have missed my point. Since the current laws allow an ordinary homeowner to own a gun, then if the criminal encounters the homeowner he has to assume that the homeowner is armed. Whilst statistics may show that more unarmed homeowners are shot, my point is that in the eyes of the criminal it doesn't matter whether the homeowner is actually carrying a gun-- he has to assume the "worst."

There is of course no way to prove this; statistics do not tell us whether the criminal doesn't want to leave a witness, or whether he assumes the owner has a gun. I simply suggest that it is the latter.


Anyway, this discussion is not likely to change anyones mind on the matter-- people who believe it is their right to own a gun will defend this to a death. I am simply of the opinion that the ownership and carriage of guns should be legally permitted by only trained persons. I believe that if you carry a gun, you are asking for trouble.

 

[radou]

No I am not saying that, but the American Society is very much more masculine than that of the Swiss, in fact anywhere in Europe.

Are you sure about that?

Personally, I don't know why people are so afraid of guns. Where I lived in Arizona most of the men wore pistols or revolvers on their sides as they walked around the town. Every other pick-up truck had a rifle rack in the back. Guns were all over the place. Criminals had them too. They didn't mess with the town and the town didn't mess with them. The criminals mostly shot other criminals.

Man, I can't even imagine such a picture.

Elmer Fudd carried a shotgun.

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

He had taste and style.

I have a Walther P38 in one location in my house (9mm Luger) and a Glock 20 (10mm auto) in another. I am a pacifist, but if you are in my house and pose a threat to me and mine, you will leave on your back. Maine has a problem with home invasions with druggies looking for Oxycontin and I am not going to let my wife or myself become statistics.

Then again, such facts make me want to change my vote from "yes" to "no".


This thread only makes me happy that I live in such a small and peaceful country.

 

[daveb]

Let's suppose for argument's sake that everyone were allowed to carry guns. How do we know, in the end, that although there would likely be less people killed in single instances of rampages since the gunman would be shot after killing only a few folks, there wouldn't be more rampages overall, leading to more deaths? The argument that everyone should be allowed to carry guns unrestricted in any manner, and this would de-motivate peole to go on rampages is a strawman argument. We have no idea how many more people would resort to gun violence. When someone is so angry that they are willing to kill someone, I highly doubt (personal opinion only) they are thinking clearly enough to realize that they too could in turn be killed by someone else.

Additionally, the argument that fear of guns is what creates gun free zones is irrelevant. There are numerous people who would be more terrified if guns were allowed to be carried willy-nilly. On the other hand, there would be numerous people who would feel more safe. We have no idea if the level of fear would increase or decrease.

What is sensible is, as Russ stated, sensible legislation to regulate gun ownership. Yes, criminals will always be able to acquire guns, regardless. Background checks are reasonable to ensure it makes it more difficult for the criminal (or habitual lunatic) to acquire them. Mandatory gun safety classes for regular folks, with renewals every couple of years. Just like a driver's license is regulated for the safety of society overall (theoretically to insure a person knows how to drive responsibly), so should a gun ownership license.

 

[daveb]

Also, sayiong gun ownership is a right that should be completely unrestricted is utter nonsense. We have the right of free press, free speech, etc. but these are regulated under specific circumstance for the safety of society. Why then, can't guns likewise be regulated under specific circumstances?

The argument that we need guns to protect us from the tyranny of government is somewhat absurd as well. The government has tanks, mortars, and all kinds of weapons to put down any kind of revolution.