This Is My Boomstick!

[duckula]

Gun control. Second Amendment. Thoughts?

[Hazzle]

I posted this elsewhere before this thread was created so I'll just copy and paste.

Originally Posted by duckula

Perhaps, but the Americans have gun control also. What was being spoken of was even tighter control. Also, since the enaction of the latest firearms regulations in Britain the amount of violent crimes using firearms has increased (possibly due to social changes but hardly a great advert for gun control.

Yes, new thread time.

As pointed out the Swiss gun controls ARE tighter .

And yes, it's almost ENTIRELY due to social changes...I mean the Swiss situation is ALSO entirely due to their society...they don't have much of a standing army, as I'm sure we're all aware of...the US by contrast has a huge army.

[duckula]

Are you saying it's society that's the problem, not the guns?

[Hazzle]

No, I'm saying society is largely responsible for the slight increase (and AFAIK it is just a slight increase) in the rate of firearm crime in this country.

And also that society is the reason why relatively loose gun laws work in Switzerland but do not work in the US...the yanks are thick hot-heads, the Swiss are intelligent and neutral (lest we forget they're BORN sat on top of a fence).

[duckula]

So why don't we address the social problems instead of controlling guns?

[Hazzle]

Originally Posted by duckula

So why don't we address the social problems instead of controlling guns?

Why don't we do both?

[duckula]

Because you don't just ban things. It leads to a rather undesirable state of affairs. There are also other reasons why the Americans and us should have guns.

[Hazzle]

Originally Posted by duckula

Because you don't just ban things. It leads to a rather undesirable state of affairs. There are also other reasons why the Americans and us should have guns.

Preytell...go on...

And seemingly you do just ban things...seen the drugs thread?

Anyway, who said ban guns? I simply said better control...I simply think it's idiotic for a country that doesn't need it to have people having the right to hold arms...the Swiss are an exceptional case as it's their only means of having a force capable of defending their country, but why does the US, with its huge military, NEED its citizens to have the right to have a gun?

Abolish the right, and ALLOW people to have guns subject to control...it's a technical change, but one that would allow effective control. Once the constitution grants the right, it's VERY hard to control it. Having read case law about how a gun law that simply said carrying firearms in a school zone was not allowed was STRUCK DOWN...I just think that's crazy. I don't oppose people having guns, but the government SHOULD be able to say that people can't carry them in school areas.

[duckula]

The reason for the right to have guns is entirely because of that standing army, it allows the population to defend itself against the government.

[Elijahfan]

michael moore's movie, bowling for columbine, talked about the issue of firearms in america and compared it to canada. canada had more guns but less deaths from firearms, which i thought was really interesting. moore pointed out it was probably because of society fear in the US.

[Hazzle]

Originally Posted by duckula

The reason for the right to have guns is entirely because of that standing army, it allows the population to defend itself against the government.

The army isn't merely a tool of the government...if you mean it allows us to protect ourselves from the army you ARE having a laugh...us...untrained...amateurs...against a highly trained military...sod the fact we outnumber them they'd ANNIHILATE us if it came to that. So that argument fails...sorry...try again.

[duckula]

Standing army of 500,000 fighting men (give or take). Population capable of fighting 200,000,000 (approximately). Nice maths. Your knowledge of asymetric warfare is sorely lacking my friend. Even a small group of dedicated individuals (talented amateurs) can cause significant damage to a modern military (see vietnam, afghanistan, iraq, checnya, northern ireland and a multitude of godforsaken hell holes the world over). Try again please.

[Hazzle]

Originally Posted by duckula

Standing army of 500,000 fighting men (give or take). Population capable of fighting 200,000,000 (approximately). Nice maths. Your knowledge of asymetric warfare is sorely lacking my friend. Even a small group of dedicated individuals (talented amateurs) can cause significant damage to a modern military (see vietnam, afghanistan, iraq, checnya, northern ireland and a multitude of godforsaken hell holes the world over). Try again please.

Or we could just list the ENTIRE history of warfare in which talented amateurs have been massacred...a few examples your point does not make, but I'll just fucking concede it as I'm too bloody lazy to list every single invasion that ever succeeded...

And this means people should have a constitutionally guaranteed, and all but uncontrollable right to bear a gun? What's wrong with a government law that people can't have guns in school zones? Also you fail to point out how NOT having the right to bear arms would harm anyone...even CONCEDING your point about all those guerilla wars, most of those people severely lacked training, and since if law and order broke down to that extent we have no obligation to obey the law, we could all pick up arms and we'd be in the EXACT same position as all those guerilla forces.

So even by your own logic you've yet to make your case out. Try again

[duckula]

Not having the right to have guns would mean that the government who did could exert total control over you. The other reasons for having guns is hunting, sport and self defence.

[Hazzle]

Originally Posted by duckula

Not having the right to have guns would mean that the government who did could exert total control over you.

Err...nope...because once the government become a threat to you you have no reason to obey the law...the fact it's illegal wouldn't stop people. My only point was people should be ALLOWED to bear arms, not ENTITLED to without ANY control, which is more or less the status in the states (and don't give me the "Guns are controlled" bs because statistics show what little controls exist simply don't work, things fall through the cracks and USEFUL controls like no guns in places like schools can't be passed...how logical is that?!)

The other reasons for having guns is hunting, sport and self defence.

And I said you should be allowed to have guns...just not entitled to. Why do you need to hunt in school? Or for self-defence? I mean ffs if people had guns in UK schools you'd be dead by now You'd be a RIGHT pain to go to school with

[duckula]

Why shouldn't you be able to defend yourself in a school zone?
Guns are controlled. The regulations are fairly tight infact.
The reason it is a right enshrined in the constitution is so that the government cannot disarm you legally. The other reason for not allowing gun control is to maintain the sanctity of the constitution.

[Hazzle]

Originally Posted by duckula

Why shouldn't you be able to defend yourself in a school zone?

Because a) There's no need to b) It causes a fair amount of rather famous incidents where bullied kids kill a fair few people and c) people like you and I would either be dead or murderers

Guns are controlled. The regulations are fairly tight infact.

I know they're controlled...nowhere NEAR tight enough though...or the plethora of gun related deaths wouldn't be occuring, would they?

The reason it is a right enshrined in the constitution is so that the government cannot disarm you legally.

Nope...no need for that..what you fail to realise is once people are armed, if the government tried to disarm you, with the view to oppressing you, you have no obligation to obey the law, and once you're armed they cannot FORCE you to, because, as you so rightly pointed out, you could fight back...so you lose...sorry mate . Once a stature enables people to hold arms, that right will be hard to exitinguish, but easy to regulate...although what do I know, I'm only someone who's studied law...including US constitutional law...of course an Engineer knows better about how to regulate and use law

The other reason for not allowing gun control is to maintain the sanctity of the constitution.

Circular argument...sorry...always a loser. The Constitution has to be an evolving document so that it can suit the society of its time...the consistution HAS been an evolving document, look at prohibition, look at abortion rights, look at gay sex, flag burning...I could go on. However the 2nd Amendment seems to the be the ONLY one where the Supreme Court refuses to allow it to be modified to suit modern society's needs.

[duckula]

On the constitutional point, any gun control that runs contrary to the second amendment but is allowed to stand (you can argue this as any gun control) means that the text has been undermined. If you wish to enact gun control, amend the constitution.

On the matter of keeping the right to bear arms a right I say this. If you make them a privilege it is easy to whittle down the privileged until they are an easily contained group. You impose yourself (you being the government) incrementally (first they came for the jews and all that). Then you have a population that is almost entirely unable to resist your control. This is not to suggest that current governments would wish to do that, merely that future ones should be prevented from doing it. The current fad for liberal democratic governments may only be a historical blip. The road to the darkness is long and well lit.

As for the plethora of gun deaths, the majority are suicides or carried out with illegal weapons (the gangs in LA and other places did not pick up their Tec-9s at the local Guns R Us).

On defending yourself in a school zone. First it is my understanding that these laws extend to a region outside the school in a manner similair to drug free zones where drug offences are more harshly dealt with. This area usually extends a thousand feet or so (my memory on this is a little hazy). Should we deny those that live near schools the right to protect themselves?

And if we are talking about the high school shootings, how far would the kids at Columbine got if the rest of the students were armed or the teachers were. The only way a person would be allowed a gun on school property would be with a concealed carry licence which only adults can have (open carry is often treated under breach of the peace statutes).

Finally, on American gun laws. There are limits to who can buy guns (no kids, no felons, no wife beaters). Waiting periods for guns. Controls on what features a gun has (barrel length, bayonet lugs etc.). In order to possess fully automatic weapons and silenced weapons you require permission from local law enforcement and a sign off from the BATF.

[Hazzle]

Originally Posted by duckula

On the constitutional point, any gun control that runs contrary to the second amendment but is allowed to stand (you can argue this as any gun control) means that the text has been undermined. If you wish to enact gun control, amend the constitution.

Consitutions are not textual documents...they have spirits...they are to be read purposively not literally...this is shown in the Supreme Court rulings on Substantial Due Process, Abortion, Privacy (there is NO right of privacy in the TEXT of the constitution). Thus one has to read the PURPOSE of the consitution and the context of it...and when one does that the consitution CAN be allowed to evolve to match society. Amending the constitution is a drastic step that should ONLY be taken if you wish to remove the right entirely.

On the matter of keeping the right to bear arms a right I say this. If you make them a privilege it is easy to whittle down the privileged until they are an easily contained group. You impose yourself (you being the government) incrementally (first they came for the jews and all that). Then you have a population that is almost entirely unable to resist your control. This is not to suggest that current governments would wish to do that, merely that future ones should be prevented from doing it. The current fad for liberal democratic governments may only be a historical blip. The road to the darkness is long and well lit.

So your case is that there should be NO gun control AT ALL? Because restricting gun ownership at ALL already makes it a privilege...so your argument would actually argue that American gun control goes too far? Is that your intention? So convicted felons should be allowed to possess them, after all, they can be oppressed by their government too, and like you argue, it's simply a slippery slope. What about parolees? See where your argument fails now?

As for the plethora of gun deaths, the majority are suicides or carried out with illegal weapons (the gangs in LA and other places did not pick up their Tec-9s at the local Guns R Us).

Which is an argument for even tighter gun controls. Thank you. It simply proves that having the gun controls at present isn't doing enough to prevent the possession of illegal weapons...

On defending yourself in a school zone. First it is my understanding that these laws extend to a region outside the school in a manner similair to drug free zones where drug offences are more harshly dealt with. This area usually extends a thousand feet or so (my memory on this is a little hazy). Should we deny those that live near schools the right to protect themselves?

No, some were restricted simply to the school itself and the sidewalk outside. These too were held unconstitutional.

[quote]And if we are talking about the high school shootings, how far would the kids at Columbine got if the rest of the students were armed or the teachers were. The only way a person would be allowed a gun on school property would be with a concealed carry licence which only adults can have (open carry is often treated under breach of the peace statutes). [quote]

So you're saying the kids at Columbine should've been killed? Y'see I'd much rather ensure NOONE at that school had been killed...this is where we differ. I'd much rather there were no weapons present at the school...

Finally, on American gun laws. There are limits to who can buy guns (no kids, no felons, no wife beaters). Waiting periods for guns. Controls on what features a gun has (barrel length, bayonet lugs etc.). In order to possess fully automatic weapons and silenced weapons you require permission from local law enforcement and a sign off from the BATF.

Aye...but surely this ALL runs afoul of your EARLIER point that the need for consitutional basis is based upon ensuring it's a right open to all...but it's not...hah...so you see you can only argue one of two ways...either it shouldn't have a consitutional basis...as I argue...or it should and there should be NO gun control...is that what you argue?

I sincerely hope not.

Oh...and do you know what causes the huge volume of illegal weapons in the US? It's actually the fact that there IS a right to bear arms AND drug controls...having the two together creates the problem, because people who are NOT entitled to bear arms will insist on bearing them anyway.

[Dyce_Blue]

The only reason we ever needed to carry guns in America in the first place was to be protected from wild animals and the French.

If no one else had a gun, we wouldn't need them for protection. There have been two shootings within a 3 mile radius of my house in the past day. Even if harsher gun control is put into effect, one can still buy them out of the back of a car in a dark alley if it was necessary. I see this everyday when I drive through the crime-ridden neighborhood that surrounds UH.

In a rural setting, there is a need for guns. There are all sorts of things that can happen out there. In a perfect world though, guns wouldn't be necessary in urban areas. They are really only used now to protect from other guns. I would never buy a gun, because there is all sorts of paperwork needed to acquire one legally. Plus, I am pretty proficient in the art of the baseball bat (farthest homerun: 404 ft.).

My house has been broken into a couple of times and my family's cars have been vandalized or burgled a half dozen times. If these people would have been carrying guns, and I went out there with a Louisville Slugger, I would have been shot.


Gun control is increasingly more important these days because of the unnecessarily deadly ammunition and whatnot. Armor piercing (cop-killer) bullets are more prominent now, as well as bullets with hollow tips. Hollow tip bullets leave a very small entry wound, but the exit wound is up to a foot in diameter depending on the range of the shot. With all of these dangerous acoutrements available, ammo, as well as guns should be tightly controlled.

Rappers talking about their Desert Eagles (illegal gun), cop-killers, hollow tips, and gats doesn't really alleviate the situation either. It just seems a little hopeless...