The 2nd Amendment and Gun Control

[Sinophile]

As previously mentioned in this topic, the Second Amendment was written when the gap between what the army had, and what a private citizen owned wasn't nearly as large. To keep the same balance of power with today's military, We'd have to allow private citizens to own stealth fighters, attack helicopters, tanks, rocket launchers, and portable nuclear devices. Considering that an average fighter jet costs about $90million, that means only about 1/100th of the richest 1% of American can afford these things even if they were legal. Thus, I believe that for most purposes, the gun control issue is moot.

Secondly, Let us look at the 9/11 attacks, and compare them with Pearl Harbor.

 

Pearl Harbor:

3,000+- lives lost, a couple battleships

Japan had over 300 aircraft.

 

9/11:

25 Al Qaeda terrorists with boxcutters

Just as many lives, and even more economic damage

 

 

This brings me to another point, Even if every weapon more dangerous than a vegetable peeler were to be banned, what will keep someone from concocting some sort of weapon out of common household materials(E.G. drain cleaner, butcher knives, chainsaws).

[Balagor]

2.5"... wow. I think I have a few pocket knives bigger than that.

 

That being said, I read on a random non-offical website that the EU actually has a higher crime rate than the US. Your violent crimes (murder, etc) are lower, but as a whole, crime is higher. I'm not sure whether this is true or not, and I'm having difficulty confirming it via Interpol or any other sort of official source, so I'm hesitant to take it as a fact.

 

EDIT: And yes, you understood the question perfectly.

 

I have read those sites too. I think they are close to the truth, but bare in mind there will be local variations. One can not say the US murder crime is high, and the EU counterpart is low. We speak about huge continents with huge populations.

The figures on those sites, however do match the crime rate in my country, Denmark. We have approx. 30-40 murders per year, in a population on 6 million. That is low.

Our violence rate is also rather low, but has incresed during the past 10 years. As for burglery, I think it is the same, at least in big city ares. I live in rural area, and can still leave my house without locking my door.

What does this have do do with weapon policy? I will not advocate for a non weapon policy, nor a pro weapon policy. What we do not know, since nobody did the research, is what got here first? High level of crime, then a urge to carry weapons, or did the carry of weapons force more violent crime upon us.

[RZ1029]

Well how do you feel about this:

 

I live in the US, I currently own three automatic weapons. However, those three automatic weapons are registered with the ATF and they have the legal **right** to come to my door, at any time of day, and demand they be shown where the weapons are being kept, whether they were loaded, where the ammunition is, do I have a trigger lock on it, etc. I also pay over $300 in taxes PER YEAR, just because I own the gun.

 

I also own a few hunting rifles of various calibers and three pistols. One I no longer use, one I concealed carry, and another I keep at home. I had to apply for a license to buy the gun, then I had to apply for a license to carry the gun. That's the part that kind of bugs me, it's redundant. Also, by a state law, I'm supposed to register all my firearms with my homeowners insurance. I'm not interested in them knowing exactly what I own. And I don't mean 'oh, i've got a few guns', they need the make, model, serial number and caliber of every firearm.

 

EDIT: Also, just thought I'd mention, to get those assault rifles, I went through three background checks TWICE (I bought two on one occasion, and one on a second) by the ATF, the local police, and the state police. I assume that the state police probably also checked with federal authorities of the non-ATF sort (FBI, namely).

Edited December 18, 2010 by RZ1029

[JimboUK]

I think people should be allowed to possess firearms, subject of course to police checks. However those with a criminal record or mental health issues should not. We have the some of the strictest gun controls in the world here in the UK but all it's done is left decent people defenceless. Drug gangs and the like still have firearms, those that don't carry knives that they're not afraid to use. Actually knife crime is higher in the UK than it is in the states, proof that if you make one weapon hard to get people will just use something else.

 

2.5"... wow. I think I have a few pocket knives bigger than that.

 

That being said, I read on a random non-offical website that the EU actually has a higher crime rate than the US. Your violent crimes (murder, etc) are lower, but as a whole, crime is higher. I'm not sure whether this is true or not, and I'm having difficulty confirming it via Interpol or any other sort of official source, so I'm hesitant to take it as a fact.

 

EDIT: And yes, you understood the question perfectly.

 

The figures I managed to dig up do show a much higher crime rate in the E.U compared to the U.S. The figures for Homicide involving a firearm were significantly lower in the E.U, 4 per 100,000 in the U.S and 0.15 per 100,000 in the UK.

[RZ1029]

This brings me to another point, Even if every weapon more dangerous than a vegetable peeler were to be banned, what will keep someone from concocting some sort of weapon out of common household materials(E.G. drain cleaner, butcher knives, chainsaws).

 

Napalm... you can make it in your garage, easily. I'm not going to tell you how, though. Though you do make a good point regarding military weaponry and the original intent of the 2nd Amendment. However, with that evolution, I think there are some things that should never be allowed. Say they could make a tank for $150 USD, I don't want that to be legally available to ANYONE who isn't in the military and not currently on duty. (AKA... you know... at war?) Some things just don't belong in the hands of civilians. Besides, if it ever were to come to a revolution, I highly doubt anyone with a brain would be going gun-for-gun with the government, that's just asking to be killed.

 

EDIT: Also... when I go camping, I'd like to have my axe with me. Kind of a pain to chop down a tree with a veggie peeler.

 

@Jim

That's a little disconcerting. I'm not really sure which I'd prefer. I'm less likely to be shot, but I've got a decent chance of being stabbed. I'm tempted to say the bullet would be less painful, but some people just can't aim. I am a little surprised though, that your crime rate (overall, of course) is higher than the US. Kind of makes me wonder whether an armed society is (in general, always exceptions) a polite society, and all that's ever reported on is the darker side of that armed society.

 

@Balagor

I live out in a country-ish area of the Eastern US. I'd feel decent about walking out the door and leaving my door unlocked as well. I live in a spread-out suburban neighborhood that's semi-empty. I can't say that's true if I lived in the inner-city about 2 hours from my house. But I also know that, living where I do, most everyone around me either hunts or at least owns a gun. I've always felt that it's a pretty big reason we never have problems around here, but you're right. Are there no problems because we have guns, or did we just never have any problems and guns came along anyways? (The opposite, but a similar argument, if I phrased that correctly.)

Edited December 19, 2010 by RZ1029

[Vindekarr]

Well one of the UK's problems is sprawling slums, and a culture of gang violence in said slums.

 

Sure, the US has plenty of those too, but it's got many more areas that dont have them.

 

In those parts of the cities, particularly the poorest districts of London, you just cant escape it. I've been to London myself, if you dont want to be part of that kind of culture, tough luck, the city is so tightly packed, that you simply cant opt out even if you want to.

 

Slums. Spiraling unemployment. Rampant racial tensions. Poor people packed into tiny sardine can areas full of strife that they cant escape. That breeds violence like a rotten fruit breeds fungus.

 

When you cant get a legitimate job, have been raised to think that anyone of a diferent colour is a threat, are surrounded by thugs and have neither money nore any hope of escape, chances are you end up as a thug yourself.

 

Frankly I dont see any reason screened, trained civilians cant own handguns, historic weapons, replicas, and some longarms. My only point of contention is with some of the states that have chosen to make any gun legal.

 

Civilians shouldnt be allowed to own any sort of RPG, machine gun, antimaterial rifle, flak cannon, anti-armoured cannon, recoilless cannon, minigun, flamethrower, or any other sort of jumbo sized, fully automatic/explosive/anti vehicle weapons. Likewise for grenades, they're legal in some states of the USA, they sure as hell shouldnt be.

 

Because why the hell does a civilian need grenades, antimaterial rifles, machineguns, and cannons anyway? it's crazy to let them own those. They're a danger to their neighbours, because what;s more dangerous than a drunk redneck guy with a mingun and fifty thousand rounds of ammo? not a lot.

 

As for knives, why bother? anything with an edge can kill. A shiv is basicaly a sharpened rock, but they can kill quite easily. Restricting combat knives will save no lives whatsoever, because you can kill people with a sharpened toothbrush, and most of those whon would try, wouldnt be using some six thousand dollar tungsten/titanium thing of beauty, they'd be using a rusty dinner knife and a lot of anger.

Edited December 19, 2010 by Vindekarr

[ginnyfizz]

Wow Vindekarr, did you go to London in the time of Charles Dickens? Yes, we are a very small island and are bound to be packed in a bit tight. Yes, we certainly have a culture of gang violence, and being the cultural melting pot that we are, there are inter-racial tensions. But sprawling slums? There are some blocks of flats that are not particularly nice, but the old tenements and back to back terraces are mostly long gone, and the homes of the unemployed are garnished with satellite TV, games consoles and every Mod Con. I know this because I work trying to get the long term unemployed to take jobs and they cite their comfortable life on benefit as reason not to.

 

The situation is exacerbated by the fact that the police are so afraid of being accused of discrimination that they will not enter areas of cities where these gangs run riot, thus the illegal gun culture is allowed to thrive. However, when a disabled farmer, on his disabled persons scooter, shoots in the dark (with his legally held 12 bore) at a fox who is having an early Christmas lunch on the said farmers geese, misses, and fills the backsides of some intruders (who had something to do with an illegal cannabis farm being run in a remote shed there) with shot, what happens? The police arrest the poor old fella for attempted murder, confiscate his scooter as evidence and return it to him a week later with a flat battery, and revoke the firearms licence that he has held for years without incident. No more shooting vermin even of the feathered or furred kind.

 

And I've mentioned before about the ludicrous situation that our world class UK shooting teams have to train abroad because of the ludicrously strict controls.

 

And yes, this is on topic. I am making the case as to why I agree with jim_uk that we should be allowed in the UK to possess firearms subject to checks, and I in fact think we should lean more towards the US system. It is true that the gangs don't give two hoots about the licensing laws, so any liberalisation isn't going to make them behave any worse than they already do. Criminals routinely go armed to commit their misdeeds and beat/stab/shoot even non-resisting victims. Too bad if they were to meet me, if we had more liberal gun laws, with a twenty bore ladies game gun levelled at them. They'd have to be feeling very lucky. Retaliation or self defence must of course be proportionate. If there was no obvious weapon I'd just handbag him (you should feel the weight of that thing...).

[bben46]

Just to correct a little misinformation. Yes, some states in the US don't have specific laws for certain weapons. However there is a federal law that requires a special permit (very difficult to obtain) no matter what state you are in. That special permit is required to own a fully auto weapon of any kind. And on that permit EVERY weapon that is in that category must be listed. There is also a special tax on each weapon, and on every dealer who sells these type weapons. Then, when you have this permit you are subject to have your home, as listed on the permit as the place where it will be kept, searched by the BATF at anytime to verify that you have the weapon, it is properly secured and stored and you do not have any weapons not listed on your permit.

 

Some states and municipalities restrict it even further. For example, Chicago, New York and Washington DC all have much stricter gun laws, almost making any legal gun ownership impossible - ironically those are some of the cities with the highest rate of gun crime.

 

There are also federal laws that cover other firearms such as sawed off shotguns and rifles and special ammunition. Live ordnance - hand grenades, mortar rounds anything explosive, etc. These are even more tightly regulated. However, dummy (non explosive inert) hand grenades and shells are not regulated under this law.

 

http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll251/bben46/Oblivion/Complaint.jpg

[RZ1029]

Yeah, the big problem with gun control is the fact that, 97% of the time, it's only the law-abiding citizens who are affected. Criminals, or at least the habitual ones that come with the gang territory, aren't going to be slowed down or stopped by any sort of control. Chances are, they wouldn't buy legally even if gun control wasn't so tight. Gun control just creates a situation where the criminals are armed and the victims are helpless.

 

On a random note, do London cops even carry guns?

 

@Vindekarr

I'd agree with you in 97% of what you said. I disagree on the anti-material rifles. A .50 BMG round would bounce off a tank. Not to mention the sheer expense of something like that. I own a Barrett M98B that cost me over $5,000. However, I also shoot competitively (600+ yards). It's chambered in .338, which was cheaper than their .50 BMG model, and the ammo is way cheaper as well.

 

Which brings up another question: Gun control, should there be exceptions made for shooting teams? By that, I mostly mean Olympic teams.

 

EDIT: Thanks to bben for the clarification, I probably should have mentioned that earlier. Sorry folks, we might be American, but even we can't buy a RPG on every street corner. (Actually, I'm not sure those can't be legally owned at all. I like guns, not explosives.)

Edited December 19, 2010 by RZ1029

[Balagor]

>snip<

 

On a random note, do London cops even carry guns?

 

>snip<

 

A large part of Danish police do not carry guns. 3 cops have been killed since 1965