News Public opinion regarding US Gun laws.

[SHISHKABOB]

hi I'm a college student in the USA and I would be a little unnerved seeing a person walking down the road with a shotgun out. However, I don't know where Pkruse is from. If I were in his area, I assume I would know about the general opinion on guns and so I wouldn't be so freaked out.

But if I were back in my home neighborhood in southeastern Pennsylvania and I saw a dude with a shotgun on... any road, I would be pretty freaked out. Getting into a pickup truck with a guy and seeing guns in there, well probably not so much, even if it was near my home. Of course, I don't come into contact with firearms very often at all... okay barely at all. The only times I see guns are when they are in the holsters of police officers. And that's not very often.But I mean I definitely understand why guns are such a big deal in parts of the country. 200-100 years ago people very literally *depended* on their guns. It's hard to change such a part of a culture. There are people who really love their guns. They see them as important, they see them as something specifically spoken about in the *constitution*.

I can also see both sides, I think, of the whole gun control debate in the USA. On one hand people say that we should have more gun control because having people walking around with guns strapped to legs, in purses, in cars, etc. is like whoooah man every body be cool. But obviously in these places, as Pkruse has shown us, people are not antsy about the idea that everyone has a gun... because it is a thing for them.

But then I mean... I would be also very much okay if we could live in a society where we just plain didn't need guns. Of course, that is a very idealistic position, but I think idealism is okay as long as it is held in check by a little realism: that realism being that there are dangerous people out there and that getting rid of guns won't stop people from doing bad things. Anyways that's my opinion on guns in the US.

 

[Evo]

I know where Pkruse lives, and I've been there numerous times and the parts of his town that I've been in, I've never seen a gun (I have no idea what part of town he lives in). You have to realize that there are "different" parts of towns that can be their own little worlds.

I grew up in Houston, TX, and back in the old days, rednecks actually had gun racks in the rear window of their pickup trucks where they would store their shotguns. Of course back then it was legal to drink and drive, you could pull up to the drive through window at the liquor store, your shotguns proudly on display behind your head, get a bunch of booze and drive off drinking. YEE HAW!

Except on Sundays, of course. If you wanted to get drunk driving around with your guns on Sunday, you had to buy your booze in advance.

 

[AlephZero]

If we disarm our citizens and police, the criminals will be less inclined to arm themselves for protection? Is that what I am hearing?

What I'm hearing from that quote is that you are living in a society where "the rules" of how to behave are set by the criminals, and you don't seem to have a problem with that.

 

[rootX]

Incidentally, the training police officers in England, Wales and Scotland get in relation to what to do when faced with a firearm is basically to run away and hide behind something. That is an utterly ridiculous situation to be in and I can only imagine how helpless these officers must feel having to wait for armed units that could be 10/20/30 minutes away.

...

I still think it is scandalous to send unarmed officers to incidents with weapons involved

It's a lengthy long discussion but this thing caught my attention. You were talking about police officers in training not all the police officers?

 

[Evo]

...

It's a lengthy long discussion but this thing caught my attention. You were talking about police officers in training not all the police officers?

I think it would have been clearer if he had said "the training that police officers get", he didn't mean officers still in training, IMO.

 

[rootX]

I think it would have been clearer if he had said "the training that police officers get", he didn't mean officers still in training, IMO.

Thanks, you are right.

 

[SHISHKABOB]

What I'm hearing from that quote is that you are living in a society where "the rules" of how to behave are set by the criminals, and you don't seem to have a problem with that.

don't a lot of the restrictions in our lives happen because we are trying to keep ourselves safe?

 

[D H]

You do not need a shotgun for hunting either, so ban those as well.

You've never been hunting, have you?

You do need a shotgun for bird hunting. Most hunters prefer a shotgun over a rifle for small game, and in some states you can't use a rifle for hunting. You have but no choice to use a shotgun.

Besides, hunting is only one reason people own guns. The second amendment isn't there to protect our right to go hunting wabbits.

 

[Pythagorean]

Agreed about shotguns for hunting, but...

I'm not sure the 2nd amendment can really do what it's intended anymore. Citizens arming themselves legally against the US army or well-equipped police would be bringing sticks and stones

Maybe the 2nd amendment would be helpful against militia groups... but they operate under the 2nd amendment, so it's a double-edged sword. You may have heard of Schaeffer Fox?

http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2011/11/23/additional-charges-filed-in-alaska-militia-case/

(yes grenade launchers are legal in Alaska... the regulations are on the ammunition)

But regardless, nobody's taking away any amendment to the US Constitution any time soon.

 

[D H]

I wasn't thinking of armed insurrection. That's wacked out militia stuff. They represent a tiny (but scary) fraction of gun owners.

I was thinking of varmints, some of which walk on four legs, others on two. A lot of people other than those wacked out militia types own guns to protect their property and sometimes their lives. I grew up on a farm. I had to shoot varmints (four legged ones) on occasion when I was a kid. My Dad got a bit perturbed when I didn't get a clean kill on the skunk that had taken up residence under our house. Fortunately the shots were good enough that it did die right at the entry of its burrow.

 

[Pythagorean]

Ah, Yeah, furry vermin can definitely be a problem. Here, it's squirrels; they eat everything, but especially annoying is roof insulation; they've even been known to cause fires in cabins. A friend of mine had a giant, old capacitor in his house when this happened. It was unplugged, but the oil reach flash point and blew the roof half off. Though, I'm sure there's a more clever way to deter them than shooting them (never tried any other method, personally, and no need for it in my urban setting).

I don't remember the statistics being good for defending yourself against people with a gun (like statistically, people are more likely to shoot themselves than an intruder, so the cost/benefit doesn't quite work if you're a statistically averaged being). I wonder how many people that shoot themselves have degrees, though (could be an interesting demographic study).

But then again, I don't exactly go strutting through other people's property in my state, because I know everybody has a gun, and a handful of them are that cranky old guy from stereotypes that shoots at people for being on his property. So maybe there's something to be said about reducing potential pre-meditated burglary. Though that would be hard to quantify.

I keep a pair of nunchukas near my door. HI-YA!

 

[CAC1001]

I've always been an advocate for gun control laws being a bit more serious and effective.

You do not need an AR15 to hunt deer. So ban long guns except for hunting rifles.

The AR15 makes a very excellent hunting rifle. And the majority of gun violence occurs with hand guns:

http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/welcome.htm
http://www.vpc.org/studies/unsafe.htm

You do not need a shotgun for hunting either, so ban those as well.

As said, shotguns are a weapon required for certain types of hunting and also make excellent hunting rifles. Also, a right is a right. It isn't about whether one "needs" it.

Defensive handguns are okay in my honest opinion however, extended magazines need to be banned.

What makes a handgun "defensive?" Also, how does one define "extended magazine?" Not all pistols are handguns. There are two-handed pistols as well that can hold larger magazines than a regular handgun.

Agreed about shotguns for hunting, but...

I'm not sure the 2nd amendment can really do what it's intended anymore. Citizens arming themselves legally against the US army or well-equipped police would be bringing sticks and stones

Maybe, maybe not. Look at the fighting in the Middle East in Iraq and Afghanistan. People armed with just rifles, provided they know what they are doing, can give a military a lot of trouble. However, again the Second Amendment is not just about the people being able to overthrow an oppressive government, it is about your right to protect yourself.

 

[CAC1001]

Not an expert on it, but my understanding regarding the whole "right to overthrow the government if it infringes on our rights" thing is that that would only be for a really extreme case. I mean one could argue that the government infringes on somebody's rights, somewhere, every day. Also, provided one overthrew the government, then there's the question of what replaces it? Usually what happens is a tyrannical government that is much worse comes in and replaces it. As such, you would only want to try and literally overthrow the existing government if there was pretty much zero chance that whatever replaced it could be worse.

So even if the existing government was to become what by American standards is really oppressive, you still would not want to try overthrowing it because if you succeeded at this, you'd end up very likely with an even worse government taking over. Now if the government was to somehow get converted into a North American equivalent of the Soviet government under Lenin, then yes you could try overthrowing it by force, because at that point, the worst case scenario is you just end up with another tyrant in charge.

 

[edward]

The bump fire techniques developed during the past few years have changed everything.

Bump fire with an extended magazine.



Now we have the slide stock which supposedly prevents an accidental bump fire. But look what happens with a bit of practice.



At some point a line has to be drawn and politicians won't touch it.

 

[edward]

There are a number of extremist militia groups out there. I can't seem to find an exact number. They are definitely prepared to overthough the government. Ironically they don't all have the same goal or point at which violent action would be taken.

http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2011/september/militia_092211

My son and I were talking and decided all of the pieces are in place for an accidental revolution, or at the very least an accidental attempted revolution.

 

[CAC1001]

The bump fire techniques developed during the past few years have changed everything.

Bump fire with an extended magazine.



Now we have the slide stock which supposedly prevents an accidental bump fire. But look what happens with a bit of practice.



At some point a line has to be drawn and politicians won't touch it.

Well bump firing you can do without any device, it's just more awkward. Bump firing period is not very accurate because the gun jumps around while firing. Generally, I think such devices though are a bad idea public relations-wise for the gun industry. All it takes is one nutcase to use one and then it gets plastered all over as an easy fix to create a "machine gun."

 

[Galteeth]

The question of whether to arm police and whether to arm the populace is separate question, though the two are very much entangled. Certainly, armed police will lead to more shooting deaths by police. National statistics are not recorded in this country.

Here is an article from the New York Times about the trend toward militarization of police-
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/04/s...e-become-militarized.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

[Hyng Dieng]

As Galteeth pointed out in a post above mine, whether to arm police and whether to arm the populace is separate question. Those are two similar but at the same time very different topics, that should be approached differently.

Arming the police is a 'must do' for any country if you ask me. Police is the hand of law and therefore should have means other than just authority of defending that same law. For a policeman to own a gun is not a question of self-defense of the policeman nor is it the question of the willingness of one to engage some serious threats. I personally think it is more of a need in times like these. It's much easier to attack a police officer who doesn't have any guns on him, but a simple baton or a taser than to attack fully armed officer of law. Every criminal, no matter how tough or redneck or whatever the word you may use, will think twice of attacking an armed police officer or rob a store in the vicinity of armed police officers.

Arming the populace on the other hand is a 'must not do' for any country. What is the difference between a common citizen and a police officer in that case? A police badge or the amount of authority? Anyone can flash a badge, but not everyone can wear a gun around his waste. I understand that in the USA lobby of gun owners is very strong. And I don't see their gun regulations to change any time soon. Handguns are to blame for high homicide and suicide rates as the articles posted here suggested. So why then put hunting in front of human life I ask you?

And in the end police force is a government force. And as we all know government (or country, state, constitution whatever word you may use) has a physical monopoly over it's residents or even dare I say minions in order keep everything under law and order. What kind of physical monopoly is there if just every 20th cop on the streets is armed?

 

[Galteeth]

As Galteeth pointed out in a post above mine, whether to arm police and whether to arm the populace is separate question. Those are two similar but at the same time very different topics, that should be approached differently.

Arming the police is a 'must do' for any country if you ask me. Police is the hand of law and therefore should have means other than just authority of defending that same law. For a policeman to own a gun is not a question of self-defense of the policeman nor is it the question of the willingness of one to engage some serious threats. I personally think it is more of a need in times like these. It's much easier to attack a police officer who doesn't have any guns on him, but a simple baton or a taser than to attack fully armed officer of law. Every criminal, no matter how tough or redneck or whatever the word you may use, will think twice of attacking an armed police officer or rob a store in the vicinity of armed police officers.

Arming the populace on the other hand is a 'must not do' for any country. What is the difference between a common citizen and a police officer in that case? A police badge or the amount of authority? Anyone can flash a badge, but not everyone can wear a gun around his waste. I understand that in the USA lobby of gun owners is very strong. And I don't see their gun regulations to change any time soon. Handguns are to blame for high homicide and suicide rates as the articles posted here suggested. So why then put hunting in front of human life I ask you?

And in the end police force is a government force. And as we all know government (or country, state, constitution whatever word you may use) has a physical monopoly over it's residents or even dare I say minions in order keep everything under law and order. What kind of physical monopoly is there if just every 20th cop on the streets is armed?

Was this post supposed to be sarcastic? I honestly couldn't tell.

 

[Hyng Dieng]

It's not. Only the first paragraph is related to your post. I only used your concept of arming the police vs. arming the populace and then elaborated on the matter using my own opinions and statements.

 

[Evo]

This thread has outlived any purpose.