Should handguns be banned/severely controlled in America?

[Count of Montesano]

Before the recent V-Tech shootings, I had a pretty laissez faire attitude towards gun control - keep military grade weapons off the streets but otherwise let respectable citizens own handguns and rifles.

Now I'm not so sure. I'm not sure if any citizen should be able to buy a handgun without a comprehensive background check, firearm training, and possibly a psych eval. I still support people being able to own rifles and shotguns for hunting and self-defense, fully recognizing that in many rural parts of America a rifle is a useful and even necessary item. I also support the right for people to hunt. But I'm not sure the easy access to handguns makes anyone safer - as the only reason for a handgun is to shoot other people, even if you're carrying it for self-defense.

What do you all think? I'm ignoring the obvious First Amendment debate at the moment and just asking, should access to handguns be extremely stringent?

PS - I'd be willing to accept people being able to own a handgun and shoot it at the range, with the caveat that the gun must be locked up at the gun range facility after the shooter is finished.

[RZZZA]

and shooting other people is always wrong, isnt it?



NOT!

But I'm not sure the easy access to handguns makes anyone safer - as the only reason for a handgun is to shoot other people, even if you're carrying it for self-defense.

safety hysteria! Nobody must ever die, we must live in eden where death and pain and grief dont exist!

The fact that you and I can die at any moment is what makes life special.

[Ulf]

why stop at handguns?

[William the Bastard]

Guns have become a symbol to US citizens of the Ultimate Freedom. I know the sentiment is right trying to convince them to get rid of them but you are more likely to get them to ban the "Stars and Stripes". As it ain't gunna happen.

[Lord Rahl]

Guns aren't a problem anymore than vehicles or alcohol. If they are used responsibly then they aren't a problem. In most states, I am guessing since this is law in Texas, criminals can't own handguns until they have been out of jail and checked up on for 5 years (I believe this is true). You'll all read more about what I think about this issue in the new Helios.

[Lemo_26]

I am a proud gun owner. To me it would be devestating if the government took away all guns. Incase you havent noticed drugs are illegal in america but some how people still get them. So if you make guns illegal all youd do is take away the ability for law abiding citizens to defend themselves.....


and it would be the 2nd amendment debate, not the first..thats just a silly mistake

[Ulf]

and it would be the 2nd amendment debate, not the first..thats just a silly mistake

The Second Admendment, if read properly, applies to states rights to supply themselves with a militia in certain situations. It is too often applied to a single person's rights to own a weapon. I fear for the future of American kids that grow up under parents that misread the 2nd Admendment

[RZZZA]

The Second Admendment, if read properly, applies to states rights to supply themselves with a militia in certain situations. It is too often applied to a single person's rights to own a weapon. I fear for the future of American kids that grow up under parents that misread the 2nd Admendment

its interpretive, as all americas laws are.

A well regulated militia, beign necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


The people, as opposed to the militia. The people need to check the militias (government).


edit: heh, I love the Family Guy take on this. The founding fathers are standing around a table and one of them goes "You think we should rewrite that second amendment to make it clearer?" and another founding father replies "How could it possibly be misinterpreted, every citizen has a right to keep bears' arms in their home."

[Ulf]

its interpretive, as all americas laws are.

A well regulated militia, beign necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


The people, as opposed to the militia. The people need to check the militias (government).

People, as intended by the Framers to mean the State. The right of the State to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The Bil of Rights is only interpretive because people today do not understand the mindset of the Framers.

[William the Bastard]

because people today do not understand the mindset of the Framers.

As a chippy I wood guess pine for the frame!!! LOL

[RZZZA]

People, as intended by the Framers to mean the State. The right of the State to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The Bil of Rights is only interpretive because people today do not understand the mindset of the Framers.

I disagree, if they had meant the state or he militia theywould not have said "The right of the people...." They would have said "the right of the militias"...

At this time America was having a lot of problems with militias, they specifically meant that average people have the right to bear arms in order to help fight these loyalist militias. (loyal to the crown)

[Kuang]

I am a proud gun owner. To me it would be devestating if the government took away all guns. Incase you havent noticed drugs are illegal in america but some how people still get them. So if you make guns illegal all youd do is take away the ability for law abiding citizens to defend themselves.....


and it would be the 2nd amendment debate, not the first..thats just a silly mistake

Interresting, your'e a proud gun owner and you compare them to Drugs?

Of course you CAN get one, but the difference here is, that Drug-Users do use over a long period of time, knowing the Scene and the Dealers.
People going all balistic instantly, don´t.

When you hear about People getting atacked with Guns, how many of them were able to defend themselves with their own?
I think defense with Firearms is just Illusional, of course it works once in a while, but in most self-defense situations the situation is over too quick to draw a gun and shoot, if you have it on you, and not under your Pillow.
Im working as an Bouncer, and have had some tricky Situations, believe me Knives(was not jet attacked by one, peeehhhww) and Sticks are the real threat for an Civillian. When someone want´s to stab you it´s over in seconds, and there is no Martial Art or Gun, that prevents you from that(there´s an interesting Video @ youtube, search for -realistic knife defense- and you see what i mean).

Next thing is, that a lot of people think, due to their cultural heritage(not only in America), that problems are/can be solved by force, so they try.

[Juno]

Maybe we should stop trying to restrict freedom and start treating the problem.

But don't listen to me, think of the children!

[Ulyaoth]

And what's the problem? That people have guns?

[Gwendylyn]

Now I'm not so sure. I'm not sure if any citizen should be able to buy a handgun without a comprehensive background check, firearm training, and possibly a psych eval.

Generally agreed, but my knowledge of current gun restrictions, and the effects of those restrictions, is limited. I'll leave implementation of gun control to those who are more knowledgeable.

But in reference to the shooting, the murder weapon was illegally gained. If it had be legally gained, then an outcry for stricter gun control would certainly follow logically from this event. An illegal weapon, though, implies that we need to be stricter in cleaning up the illegal guns floating out there rather than further restricting law-abiding citizens' gun ownership.

[Count of Montesano]

@Ulf - large areas of America are still, for lack of a better term, wilderness. People living in remote rural communities still need some kind of firearm in case they need to defend their livestock and themselves from any number of pests and predators, from coyotes to cougars to rattlesnakes. Rural farmhouses might also need firearms because police presence is not quick coming; there might be only one sheriff's deputy responsible for patroling half a rural county in places like Montana or Idaho. I also support the right for people to hunt, knowing that a lot of working class families in the country rely on game meat.

@ RZZA - I'm not being hysterical or trying to create some liberal Eden. I'm just pointing out that handguns are way too easy to get in most states. They are also the weapon of choice in most cases of gang violence, rampage killings, carjackings, convenience store hold-ups, etc, etc. I'm not naive enough to believe America can go to a "no-gun" policy like Japan, but just look at the difference between gun crime in US and Canada, which from my understanding restricts handguns but still allows rifles.

• There are an estimated 7.4 million firearms in Canada, about 1.2 million of which are restricted firearms (mostly handguns). In the U.S., there are approximately 222 million firearms; 76 million of the firearms in circulation are handguns.
• For 1987-96, on average, 65% of homicides in the U.S. involved firearms, compared to 32% for Canada
• For 1987-96, the average firearm homicide rate was 5.7 per 100,000 in the U.S., compared to 0.7 per 100,000 for Canada.
• For 1989-95, the average handgun homicide rate was 4.8 per 100,000 in the U.S., compared to 0.3 per 100,000 for Canada. Handguns were involved in more than half (52%) of the homicides in the U.S., compared to 14% in Canada.
• For 1989-95, the average non-firearm homicide rate was 3.1 per 100,000 people in the U.S., compared to 1.6 per 100,000 for Canada.

[Scorch]

@ RZZA - I'm not being hysterical or trying to create some liberal Eden. I'm just pointing out that handguns are way too easy to get in most states. They are also the weapon of choice in most cases of gang violence, rampage killings, carjackings, convenience store hold-ups, etc, etc. I'm not naive enough to believe America can go to a "no-gun" policy like Japan, but just look at the difference between gun crime in US and Canada, which from my understanding restricts handguns but still allows rifles.

• There are an estimated 7.4 million firearms in Canada, about 1.2 million of which are restricted firearms (mostly handguns). In the U.S., there are approximately 222 million firearms; 76 million of the firearms in circulation are handguns.
• For 1987-96, on average, 65% of homicides in the U.S. involved firearms, compared to 32% for Canada
• For 1987-96, the average firearm homicide rate was 5.7 per 100,000 in the U.S., compared to 0.7 per 100,000 for Canada.
• For 1989-95, the average handgun homicide rate was 4.8 per 100,000 in the U.S., compared to 0.3 per 100,000 for Canada. Handguns were involved in more than half (52%) of the homicides in the U.S., compared to 14% in Canada.
• For 1989-95, the average non-firearm homicide rate was 3.1 per 100,000 people in the U.S., compared to 1.6 per 100,000 for Canada.

And those figures hold up when compared to other countries with strict gun laws, such as Australia.

To be honest, I don't see any reason citizens of the U.S. need to bear arms. The constitution (and thus the bill of rights) was written in a time following a violent revolution (if I'm not mistaken) and this is the problem with a bill of rights in the constitution, it is difficult to change as society does. But you're more likely to die on the road than be murdered, and unless you need it for other purposes (as the count said) then why do you need a gun?

But everyone knows the people of the U.S. will stubbornly cling to the archaic and misinterpreted piece of the constitution, which, by the way, is one of the most misquoted bits of text ever.

[Gelgoog]

And those figures hold up when compared to other countries with strict gun laws, such as Australia.

To be honest, I don't see any reason citizens of the U.S. need to bear arms. The constitution (and thus the bill of rights) was written in a time following a violent revolution (if I'm not mistaken) and this is the problem with a bill of rights in the constitution, it is difficult to change as society does. But you're more likely to die on the road than be murdered, and unless you need it for other purposes (as the count said) then why do you need a gun?

But everyone knows the people of the U.S. will stubbornly cling to the archaic and misinterpreted piece of the constitution, which, by the way, is one of the most misquoted bits of text ever.

unfortunetly europeans still dont understand this philosphy that a democracy is created for the sole purpose of working for it citizens and protecting their rights. a democracy is there to do the bidding of the people, not the people to do the bidding of the state (as in monarchies). therefore the founding fathers realizing that there needed to be concrete rights established that could not be infringed upon by the state as a means of protecting its citizens from autocratic rulers, made the constitution and bill of rights. its amazing the effect this had upon europe at the time ( heck the main reason everyone was against Napoleon is because the monarchies of europe were afraid that his socialist ideas inspired by america would spread around the land and create revolutions there). so no surprise that you've all been conditioned to just sign away your rights when the government as for them.

our constitutional rights are just as valid today as they were back then. the document was designed to be vague in an attempt to not create anything so rigid that it couldnt be interpreted in modern ways. yet its brilliant writer, mr jefferson was forward thinking enough that even hundreds of years later, it needs little to no change. hopefully next time facism raises its head up in europe its people will have some sort of protection ( documents or arms) to thwart its rise. oh wait what might those protections be?

[Lee1026]

therefore the founding fathers realizing that there needed to be concrete rights established that could not be infringed upon by the state as a means of protecting its citizens from autocratic rulers, made the constitution and bill of rights.

Gee, and how in the hell is gun ownership laws supposed to change that? If someone can get the army and the congress to follow them, they WILL have the gun toting population there too.

so no surprise that you've all been conditioned to just sign away your rights when the government as for them.

Other Americans are willing to sign away some unimportant rights for their lives.

the document was designed to be vague in an attempt to not create anything so rigid that it couldnt be interpreted in modern ways. yet its brilliant writer, mr jefferson was forward thinking enough that even hundreds of years later, it needs little to no change.

Or that you think that it needs no change. 2007 is not 1776.

hopefully next time facism raises its head up in europe its people will have some sort of protection ( documents or arms) to thwart its rise. oh wait what might those protections be?

The army? Remind me again what they swore to uphold?

[Admiral Nelson]

unfortunetly europeans still dont understand this philosphy that a democracy is created for the sole purpose of working for it citizens and protecting their rights. a democracy is there to do the bidding of the people, not the people to do the bidding of the state (as in monarchies). therefore the founding fathers realizing that there needed to be concrete rights established that could not be infringed upon by the state as a means of protecting its citizens from autocratic rulers, made the constitution and bill of rights. its amazing the effect this had upon europe at the time ( heck the main reason everyone was against Napoleon is because the monarchies of europe were afraid that his socialist ideas inspired by america would spread around the land and create revolutions there). so no surprise that you've all been conditioned to just sign away your rights when the government as for them.

our constitutional rights are just as valid today as they were back then. the document was designed to be vague in an attempt to not create anything so rigid that it couldnt be interpreted in modern ways. yet its brilliant writer, mr jefferson was forward thinking enough that even hundreds of years later, it needs little to no change. hopefully next time facism raises its head up in europe its people will have some sort of protection ( documents or arms) to thwart its rise. oh wait what might those protections be?

In the very unlikely "fantasy", as a previous poster mentioned, that your government becomes fascist and the populace wants to revolt, let's see how well they can fight against the apache gunships, tanks, and nukes the US government has at it's disposal.

As Cicero said, "We are all slaves of the law that we may be free."

Sometimes, people have to lose their individual freedoms for the greater good of the society as a whole.