Is owning Guns good or bad?

[Booko]

Do Americans freak out when they come to Europe and can't bring their guns with them?

What would I need a gun for in Europe?

Shootings by police in the USA is very common. and rarely makes headlines.

Uh...Terry...those shootings make the headlines all the time. Mostly it's local news, but it's out there. When it's a really notorious case, like the recent case here in Atlanta where a 90-year old woman was killed by cops who busted into her home ostensibly looking for drugs, that makes national coverage. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if the European press picked up a story like that.

Criminals shoot very few civilians in Europe. they carry Guns for use against each other.

I have no stats on this, but I thought that most gun crimes here were also criminals shooting criminals.

The idea that Americans are all running about with guns (which I'm not implying you've said!) is really rather quaint...like the idea that we all live in really big houses and own horses too. I got that all the time when traveling in Europe. Of course, that's when the "contact" with this society was more watching our teevee programmes and not talking to any real live Americans. Perhaps things have changed a bit in the digitial age.

Why do Americans feel the need to, when it causes so many of their fellows deaths.

Does anyone have any stats on what percentage of Americans actually own guns? I'm not under the impression it's really that many, and most of those go hunting. But that could just be an accident of where I've lived, too.

 

[Booko]

Strathclyde is one of the most dangerous areas in Scotland... that has been the case all my life.. Their preferred tool is the Knife or razor. Though they are now taking to using guns in their fights.
East London is a dangerous area for black youth crime... but mostly it is against their own gangs. it has little impact on the rest of the population.

Such areas are patrolled by armed police. all police wear body armour.

In 1980 I lived north of London, in Rye House. And one night walking toward the pub a gang of 3 skinheads were beating up this woman maybe in her 40s or 50s, just for the hell of it. NO ONE came to her aid EXCEPT one unarmed stupid American chick.

None of your cops were anywhere around to stop this.

And none of the residents gave a damn this woman had just been assualted.

I didn't feel any more or less safe there than I do here.

 

[Booko]

All laws limit personal freedom. What is so special about guns, that they should be exempt?

Because we recognized from our own exerience with King George III that the only reason we got our freedom from tyranny is because we had guns. And we mistrust gov'ts, ANY gov't, enough to realize that it too can lapse into tyranny.

Aside from that, I know people who, if you decided to take away their guns, would be taking away their livelihood. It's not very common here today to find people who depend on hunting for part of their food source, but there still are such people.

Not everything here is so tame as it is in Europe.

As we have seen recently, even Government members are good at shooting others whilst hunting....How many other hunting "Accidents " are there each year?

And if he were anyone else, the cops would've interviewed him, discovered he was dead drunk, and he'd be sitting in the calaboose about now.

And please don't get me started on the sort of "hunting" that Government member was about.

It is not Just idiots who are unsafe with guns.

What makes you think our Government members aren't idiots? :sarcastic

 

[Booko]

You don't have gun licenses? Even when guns were readily available here we had to be licenced.

Nope. Any damfool can go buy a gun. You have to be 18 years old at least, can't be a convicted felon, and can't have been committed before.

I don't have a problem with licensing.

 

[Quoth The Raven]

The idea that Americans are all running about with guns (which I'm not implying you've said!) is really rather quaint...like the idea that we all live in really big houses and own horses too. I got that all the time when traveling in Europe. Of course, that's when the "contact" with this society was more watching our teevee programmes and not talking to any real live Americans. Perhaps things have changed a bit in the digitial age.

Nup.
The South consists entirely of women in crinolines and big hats, alternating between fits of the vapours and saying,'Tomorrow is another day'. Atlanta burns to the ground thrice weekly.
In the west, we have the cowboys and indians, in a constant battle for supremacy, as well as mining camps like Deadwood, carving civilisation out of the wilderness with their guns and colourful uses of profanity. And prostitutes, let's not forget them.
Large cities are full of disaffected black youth, who if gifted can dance their way to a better life and get the girl, though there will be misunderstanding and hardship along the way.
I think that's about covered it...cept I'm sure somewhere up in the mountains is at least one man with sparse teeth and both eyes on the same side of his head, who can say with all authority,'Ma daddy married his sister, but it din't affect me.'

I'm all out of stereotypes.

 

[PureX]

You don't have gun licenses? Even when guns were readily available here we had to be licenced.

No, the gun lobby here has some unexplainable power over our politicians, so much so that even the most sensible propositions regarding gun regulation are ignored. And as a result, gun violence in this country is extremely high, because any idiot can buy a gun.

 

[Radio Frequency X]

No, the gun lobby here has some unexplainable power over our politicians, so much so that even the most sensible propositions regarding gun regulation are ignored. And as a result, gun violence in this country is extremely high, because any idiot can buy a gun.

The three most important gun regulations are gun registration and licensing, mandatory gun education (including gun cleaning, gun safety, and gun use), and mandatory waiting periods for all weapons.

These measures do not restrict the right to bare arms, but do protect the public in a variety of ways. The Gun Lobby has made a habit of looking rather insane, as if their products aren't dangerous. There is no right to privacy inherent in our democratic system and as such, while we should have the right to bare arms, the government has a right to know what arms and who has them.

I don't know if guns are classified by their intended use, but they should be.

 

[PureX]

The three most important gun regulations are gun registration and licensing, mandatory gun education (including gun cleaning, gun safety, and gun use), and mandatory waiting periods for all weapons.

These measures do not restrict the right to bare arms, but do protect the public in a variety of ways. The Gun Lobby has made a habit of looking rather insane, as if their products aren't dangerous. There is no right to privacy inherent in our democratic system and as such, while we should have the right to bare arms, the government has a right to know what arms and who has them.

I don't know if guns are classified by their intended use, but they should be.

I agree. I really do not want to see guns banned. I believe we should have the right to own them, as the Constitution says. But it's insane to imagine that such lethal and easy to use weapons as guns should not be strictly regulated. I think the real problem we have with the regulations we so far enacted is that they are divorced from the actual responsibility involved in owning and using a gun, safely.

It seems very simple to me. If a citizen wants to own a gun, and they are a responsible and reasonable human being, they will recognize the need for them to take a serious training course on the use of deadly force and to be certified that they have successfully assimilated the information therein. Once that's done, they would get a license to own and to carry a gun. We could even offer different levels of certification for different gun users, say a level "C" certification for long guns for hunters and sportsmen, a level "B" certification for short barreled guns for home protection and for gun collectors, and a level "A" certification for carrying a semi-automatic hand gun on one's person. And each of these certifications would involve extensive legal training in exactly what circumstances these weapons can be used, and how they must be carried and stored, etc., as well as extensive psychological testing and background checks (tailored to the level of certification) as well as extensive actual field training in the use, care, and storage of the weapons.

Owning a gun brings with it a great responsibility. And I think it's time that we start making sure that the people who own and buy guns understand, and both can and will accept that responsibility. If we can do this with automobiles, and airplanes, we can certainly do it with guns.

 

[Booko]

Nup.
The South consists entirely of women in crinolines and big hats, alternating between fits of the vapours and saying,'Tomorrow is another day'.

I hate to break it to you, QTR, but the South is still full of wimmen having the vapours. :areyoucra

Atlanta burns to the ground thrice weekly.

On average, it does, when you consider it burns to the ground daily during the summer and on alternate days during spring and fall.

In the west, we have the cowboys and indians, in a constant battle for supremacy, as well as mining camps like Deadwood, carving civilisation out of the wilderness with their guns and colourful uses of profanity. And prostitutes, let's not forget them.

Hm...now I mostly see cowboy hats on Mexicans. As for prostitutes, well there's Nevada where they're legal, eh?

Large cities are full of disaffected black youth, who if gifted can dance their way to a better life and get the girl, though there will be misunderstanding and hardship along the way.

Ah, but there are sections in any urban city full of disaffected black youth who don't so much dance they're way out as rap their way out. That assumes they don't die first from club violence (big in Buckhead here on weekends), drug overdoses, or if they don't sign an abysmal record contract that gives them little of the profit for their work. Truly, black artists often do better here selling their wares out of car trunks than they do through the "reputable" music business model.

I think that's about covered it...cept I'm sure somewhere up in the mountains is at least one man with sparse teeth and both eyes on the same side of his head, who can say with all authority,'Ma daddy married his sister, but it din't affect me.

I hate to say it, but I worked on the Appalachian Service Project with the U. Methodists one year, helping to fix up houses to be winter worthy. We worked in the back hills of Tennesee, and yes, the families we worked for were (are you sitting?) the Hatfields and the McCoys. I got a mite dizzy from the heat one day and when I settled down, they put me to work with a shotgun killing the rats as they came out of the woodpile. I've seen smaller dogs in my life than those <unprintable> creatures.

I'm all out of stereotypes.

You forgot the fat sherriff in Georgia, preferably somewhere about Macon or so.

We should start a thread on national stereotypes, just to goof. I wonder what silly ideas we Americans have of where you live? Undoubtedly crocs are involved, but there may be a few more I'm not thinking of at the moment.

Hm...Australia and Georgia do have one thing in common, though -- we both started off as British penal colonies. :biglaugh:

 

[Booko]

No, the gun lobby here has some unexplainable power over our politicians, so much so that even the most sensible propositions regarding gun regulation are ignored. And as a result, gun violence in this country is extremely high, because any idiot can buy a gun.

I think it's because they got Chuckles Heston as their spokesman, and the politicians got him confused with Moses.

It must have been off putting, thinking about the possibility of a plague of frogs...

 

[Booko]

I don't know if guns are classified by their intended use, but they should be.

To some extent, they are. Anyone can go buy a .22 rifle down at the local Wal-Mart, provided they're old enough.

However, getting something like an AK-47 requires LOTS of special permits. You have to be a very serious gun collector to bother going through all that paperwork. The one guy I know, he's ex-military (not a militia kook or anything) and has one he keeps locked up at the gun club. It had to be modified to make it legal, though anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of gun-smithing could fix it up to be fully automatic again.

 

[Booko]

It seems very simple to me. If a citizen wants to own a gun, and they are a responsible and reasonable human being, they will recognize the need for them to take a serious training course on the use of deadly force and to be certified that they have successfully assimilated the information therein. Once that's done, they would get a license to own and to carry a gun. We could even offer different levels of certification for different gun users, say a level "C" certification for long guns for hunters and sportsmen, a level "B" certification for short barreled guns for home protection and for gun collectors, and a level "A" certification for carrying a semi-automatic hand gun on one's person. And each of these certifications would involve extensive legal training in exactly what circumstances these weapons can be used, and how they must be carried and stored, etc., as well as extensive psychological testing and background checks (tailored to the level of certification) as well as extensive actual field training in the use, care, and storage of the weapons.

It really would not be that difficult to come up with such a scheme, and I would heartily approve if we did. There's a huge difference between guns intended for hunting and semi-auto handguns. It's a lot harder to conceal a hunting gun, for starters.

There are some technical difficulties with background checks, by way of being able to access data required for the legal and psychological checks.

It's much easier to do the check to see if someone has a record, but when you're crossing state lines, the computers don't talk to each other very well, despite that project started years ago.

Doing the psychological check is even more difficult, because you run up against hurdles of putting people's private medical records out there, and of course if someone has an undiagnosed untreated psych problem, they won't show up on a psych check.

But these are not insurmountable problems.

 

[PureX]

You forgot the fat sherriff in Georgia, preferably somewhere about Macon or so.

We should start a thread on national stereotypes, just to goof. I wonder what silly ideas we Americans have of where you live? Undoubtedly crocs are involved, but there may be a few more I'm not thinking of at the moment.

Hm...Australia and Georgia do have one thing in common, though -- we both started off as British penal colonies. :biglaugh:

The funny thing about steriotypes is that they can be both so true and so wrong at the same time. Some of the nicest people I've ever met in my life were from the deep south. Wonderful, kind, intelligent, good-humored, creative, ... I can't say enough good about those folks. Yet at the same time, there were a few occasions when I heard some racist and sexist remarks come out of their mouths that I would never have heard said even on the meanest streets of New York or Chicago. That's just the way it is, I guess. We're all both good and bad, even at the same time. I think it's important that we remember this.

 

[PureX]

It really would not be that difficult to come up with such a scheme, and I would heartily approve if we did. There's a huge difference between guns intended for hunting and semi-auto handguns. It's a lot harder to conceal a hunting gun, for starters.

There are some technical difficulties with background checks, by way of being able to access data required for the legal and psychological checks.

It's much easier to do the check to see if someone has a record, but when you're crossing state lines, the computers don't talk to each other very well, despite that project started years ago.

Doing the psychological check is even more difficult, because you run up against hurdles of putting people's private medical records out there, and of course if someone has an undiagnosed untreated psych problem, they won't show up on a psych check.

But these are not insurmountable problems.

Yes, there would be some difficulties. Yet I keep thinking that the police forces around the nation seem to have gotten pretty good at identifying and weeding out the "power-trippers" among us that tend to gravitate toward wanting to be cops. Every police acadamy in the country can tell a story or two about such people. They're all aware of this phenomena, and of how important it is that these folks never be allowed to become cops. And I have met a number of folks in my own life that I can say with great certainty should not ever be allowed to have a gun. They were not hard to recognize. Alcohol and drug testing, also, would weed out a lot of people who will want guns, and who should not ever be allowed to have one.

I think that if we would just approach this with some common sense, instead of political ideology and emotionalism, we could solve many of these difficulties fairly easily. The key is to tie the certification requirements to the responsibilities involved in owning and handling the specific guns that people want to own. And then to set out some real tough fines and punishments for those who ignore the rules. I think people need to know that they're in deep s*** if they get caught with a gun that they are not certified to own.

 

[computerguy]

Do you think owning guns is good or bad. (generally).

I think the right to own a gun is good, and should be protected.

Would you personally ever own a gun? why?

I have never purchased a gun, but I own three. All three were given to me as gifts when I was a child.

Is an armed populace good or bad? Does it protect against despotism?

In general, I think an armed populace is good. However, I do believe in limited gun control. Personally, I think the Brady bill was a good thing, and should have been upheld.

 

[Comprehend]

To some extent, they are. Anyone can go buy a .22 rifle down at the local Wal-Mart, provided they're old enough.

However, getting something like an AK-47 requires LOTS of special permits. You have to be a very serious gun collector to bother going through all that paperwork. The one guy I know, he's ex-military (not a militia kook or anything) and has one he keeps locked up at the gun club. It had to be modified to make it legal, though anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of gun-smithing could fix it up to be fully automatic again.

If you are talking about an AK-47 that has been modified so that it is only semi-automatic. I don't think there are any special permits needed. I guess there may be a state law for Georgia that I am not aware of, but in Utah and Alabama I know you don't need a permit for a semi-automatic.

If one wanted to purchase a fully automatic gun, they would need a Class-III license which is a dealer license. It allows you to have machine guns and it only costs a couple hundred bucks a year ($300 I think).

Believe me, when I get my first job out of school, I'm buying a license. Then an MP5. It is my dream gun. I was able to shoot it this summer with the Tuscaloosa SWAT team (I have connections). It was awesome. I felt like I cheated on my wife.

 

[Comprehend]

I agree. I really do not want to see guns banned. I believe we should have the right to own them, as the Constitution says. But it's insane to imagine that such lethal and easy to use weapons as guns should not be strictly regulated. I think the real problem we have with the regulations we so far enacted is that they are divorced from the actual responsibility involved in owning and using a gun, safely.

It seems very simple to me. If a citizen wants to own a gun, and they are a responsible and reasonable human being, they will recognize the need for them to take a serious training course on the use of deadly force and to be certified that they have successfully assimilated the information therein. Once that's done, they would get a license to own and to carry a gun. We could even offer different levels of certification for different gun users, say a level "C" certification for long guns for hunters and sportsmen, a level "B" certification for short barreled guns for home protection and for gun collectors, and a level "A" certification for carrying a semi-automatic hand gun on one's person. And each of these certifications would involve extensive legal training in exactly what circumstances these weapons can be used, and how they must be carried and stored, etc., as well as extensive psychological testing and background checks (tailored to the level of certification) as well as extensive actual field training in the use, care, and storage of the weapons.

Owning a gun brings with it a great responsibility. And I think it's time that we start making sure that the people who own and buy guns understand, and both can and will accept that responsibility. If we can do this with automobiles, and airplanes, we can certainly do it with guns.

How much would you say all that training is going to cost? Legal training, psychological testing, background checks (they already do an FBI background check on gun purchases), extensive field training...

It sounds to me like you would be making it too expensive for poor people to own guns....

 

[Booko]

If you are talking about an AK-47 that has been modified so that it is only semi-automatic. I don't think there are any special permits needed. I guess there may be a state law for Georgia that I am not aware of, but in Utah and Alabama I know you don't need a permit for a semi-automatic.

I'm not very well acquainted with Georgia law -- only Michigan law. I haven't done any hunting since I moved here, having married this urban boy.

If one wanted to purchase a fully automatic gun, they would need a Class-III license which is a dealer license. It allows you to have machine guns and it only costs a couple hundred bucks a year ($300 I think).

Yeah, I know a few guys who collect such things -- all ex military types. And no, they aren't kooky militia types either. That's just the stuff you hear on the news because it makes good copy.

Believe me, when I get my first job out of school, I'm buying a license. Then an MP5. It is my dream gun. I was able to shoot it this summer with the Tuscaloosa SWAT team (I have connections). It was awesome. I felt like I cheated on my wife.

Hahah! I've always preferred me ol' hunting guns.

My brother has dad's old goose gun. That sucker had such a kick it would knock my dad over every time (a 6.5 foot guy? nice trick). So when he was young and stupid he thought it would be a bright idea to stand up against a tree so he wouldn't fall down. So he dislocated his shoulder instead. Ah...youth!

I'm kind of a purest about bows too. My favorite is my Bear 50-lb recurve. I don't have any bells and whistles on it. Target archers get compound bows and load them up with counterweights until it looks like some sort of ET Phone Home antenna, but try moving through brush quietly sometime with a bow like that. No thanks!

And that's my theory on self-defense, too. I know the law, and I know that I am not gonna put myself in the position where I might be in court and be accused of using more force than necessary. I figure it would be hard to argue that some nice lil' ol' lady with a bow would be using "unnecessary force." Any jury would get a giggle out of such a suggestion, I'm sure.

Besides, a bow is silent, and it's a lot harder for someone breaking in to swipe it from me and use it on me, other than coshing me on the head maybe. I figure anything that will take down a deer should do the trick on an intruder, in the unlikely event I need to concern myself with such a thing.

I don't stay up nights worrying about defending myself from anything other than my cats who are vying for the best part of mom to sleep on.

Speaking of which, I have one rather insistent little beastie right now who doesn't understand why mom is still up at 4am. So before he sits on my keyboard again, I suppose I had better go!

 

[Comprehend]

It really would not be that difficult to come up with such a scheme, and I would heartily approve if we did. There's a huge difference between guns intended for hunting and semi-auto handguns. It's a lot harder to conceal a hunting gun, for starters.

There are some technical difficulties with background checks, by way of being able to access data required for the legal and psychological checks.

It's much easier to do the check to see if someone has a record, but when you're crossing state lines, the computers don't talk to each other very well, despite that project started years ago.

Doing the psychological check is even more difficult, because you run up against hurdles of putting people's private medical records out there, and of course if someone has an undiagnosed untreated psych problem, they won't show up on a psych check.

But these are not insurmountable problems.

Yes! We need BIGGER Brother! The more control we give the government over our lives, the safer we will be! :areyoucra


BTW - Have you ever seen the video of the Ronald Reagan shooting? Those Secret Service guys pull Uzi's out of thin air (seemingly) I don't know how they concealed those babies. There are guys with hand-guns in the clip but also guys with machine guns. It is wickedly awesome.

Video of attempt

:magic:

 

[PureX]

How much would you say all that training is going to cost? Legal training, psychological testing, background checks (they already do an FBI background check on gun purchases), extensive field training...

It sounds to me like you would be making it too expensive for poor people to own guns....

How much would you say all those lives saved would be worth? Not to mention all the money saved by the significant reduction in crime that would result in having a well trained population of armed citizens. Sometimes we have to spend a little up front, to get the big payoff in the end.

As for the poor, I'm not sure how we should handle that. On the one hand, I think they should be out looking for a job, instead of worrying about buying and carrying guns, if they can't afford the cost of the certification. On the other hand, we do want the right to own a gun to be open to all citizens, theoretically. So maybe some sort of tax right-off or rebate for poor people would have to be implemented.