Easy Access To Guns and Firearms is Wrong!

[Tuumble]

This week I got into an online discussion over the reasons of owning a gun and while I accepted his reasons for wanting one to protect himself and his family it seemed to avoid the real issue that if firearms are hard to get hold of in the first place the danger is significantly reduced.

The thought of buying a gun when you buy your soda pops just sounds crazy to me.

I know you have to be over 18 in the US and have a computer check but this only takes a few minutes it seems. Also, the same system doesn’t apply when a gun owner sells to a ‘private collector’ who could be anyone.

It’s never a clear cut subject but when there are so many ’shoot ‘em up’ video games it’s not surprising that so many young men cross from fantasy to reality.

A gun is a killing machine and should therefore have the strictest of laws to prevent issue. It should take weeks if not months to be able to own a firearm.

I really hope we don’t take the road to accessible firearms in the UK. If guns are not ‘out there’ in the first place they can’t kill anyone.

There is a longer version of this article on my blog.

[Chet]

People kill, not guns. If they don't have guns they will find another way. If you actually study the statistics carefully you will find that areas where people frequently have guns have lower crime. The reason is clear, if the victim is likely to pull a gun and shoot back the criminal thinks twice. The sad fact is that as you regulate them more the criminals will get them but the 'good citizens' won't.

Now all that said I do think people are often irresponsible with guns. They need to be a lot more concerned with children likely having access and take precautions. I don't mean so much keeping them locked up but properly teaching children about them. There are way too many 'accidents' with guns involving children, imho.

[Tuumble]

Originally Posted by Chet

People kill, not guns. If they don't have guns they will find another way. If you actually study the statistics carefully you will find that areas where people frequently have guns have lower crime. The reason is clear, if the victim is likely to pull a gun and shoot back the criminal thinks twice. The sad fact is that as you regulate them more the criminals will get them but the 'good citizens' won't.

Now all that said I do think people are often irresponsible with guns. They need to be a lot more concerned with children likely having access and take precautions. I don't mean so much keeping them locked up but properly teaching children about them. There are way too many 'accidents' with guns involving children, imho.

Chet, judging by your second para you've written about this subject elsewhere - I've not seen it if you have. Can you point me in the right direction?

Your statement about it being people that kill and not guns is true I'll accept but surely it's still way too easy to own a firearm in the US. The more that are out the more risks there are. It's a scalability issue.

Education is important and again I agree with that but actually putting guns in the hands of younsters is a dangerous game. They are exciting items and I believe it gives the holder a feeling of power.

Recently I saw one of those police video shows and was appalled to see the cops just firing random bullets after a traffic violation. That was too trigger happy for the crime committed because innocent people could get caught in the cross-fire.

I understand the 'think twice' attitude as well though that implies everyone owns a gun. While maybe the majority will do in some communities that's not always the case.

The thought of a gun in the pocket of every citizen is just terrifying. It makes it seem like just another item you carry around like a cell phone or iPod.

The accidents you speak of do happen too often. In the UK, the wife of record producer Trevor Horn was accidentally shot by her own son with an air rifle in her own garden. She's still in a coma a year later.

[Chet]

I don't think the piece I wrote about this sometime back is still online anywhere, I'll see if I can find it and maybe put on my blog.

There are no easy answers on this, I am pleased that at least all angles are being considered, I often see people taking a hard stand one way or the other without thinking about all the implications.

Probably the part about criminals getting them more easily worries me the most. As for how easy they are to get in the US, well that varies a lot by which part of the US you are talking about.

I grew up in Alaska and had my first gun at 6. It was standard practice to teach kids about guns early and get them one as soon as they could handle it. But I look at todays kids, those raised in cities with all the media exposure and often lack of supervision and I shudder at the thought of them having access to guns. .... But I certainly wouldn't want kids in Alaska to not have access, then I would reading about them getting killed in other ways.

I just don't see a 'blanket' policy fits all answer.

[silicon toad2000]

I really don't want to detract from the seriousness of this thread but it reminded me of the comedian I think it was chris rock. he said something along the lines...
guns don't kill people and people don't kill people, bullets kill people. If you want to stop people being shot, make the bullets $5000 each. There wont be any accidental deaths then.

saying guns kill people is like blaming my pencil for my bad spelling.

but seriously I agree, guns should not be easy to get a hold of. I don't know about the whole home protection thing, here in oz if you own a gun it must be kept in a gun safe when not in use and disasembled I think.
On the hunting front, I don't believe someone should fire a gun until they have become proficient at preparing and cooking the kill.

[openeyes]

I first learned to shoot a gun with my grandfather at age 7 and grew up with the view that "if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns". Firearms can serve as an equalizer for people who are weaker than their would be attackers, such as women and the elderly (and many men as well). Also, as mentioned above, in areas where concealed carry has been promoted the crime rates have fallen. I admire Switzerland for having virtually every able bodied man in the reserves with a machine gun at home. Very little crime there.

If everyone that handled a gun was trained in its use and only used it in a sane manner, things would be fine. Still, in the past couple years I've realized the issue isn't so simple. I've come across people who point shotguns at loved ones when arguing. Such people should never be able to touch a gun again, whether it would save their life or not (though I don't see a realistic way of enforcing this. Are we going to ban steak knives too?). In both cases though, neither had gotten the gun through official channels, and at least one refused to do so. Aside from the costs involved, I could see a benefit to having guns so equipped that they will only fire for the people they're registered to (of course all security measures can be gotten around).

In my own life right now I don't see guns as worth the trouble. I simply stick to safe neighborhoods. Were I going through the wilds of Alaska I would most certainly want access to a gun though.

[Tuumble]

Originally Posted by openeyes

Were I going through the wilds of Alaska I would most certainly want access to a gun though.

I can understand that.

The UK is a bit different - we only have bears in zoos though there is talk of the Beast of Bodmin Moor which is some kind of wild cat.

About as wild as we get here is Hull but that can get pretty scary too!

[Chet]

It is so easy to forget that we don't live in a 'one size fits all' world.

[Tuumble]

Touché!

[openeyes]

Originally Posted by Tuumble

The UK is a bit different - we only have bears in zoos

Here we occasionally have full grown tigers wondering the streets (they're legal for private owners in many states), and it's not unheard of for a black bear to wonder around populated mountain areas. It's grizzlies and polar bears that one would have to worry about, as rather than fearing humans they may actually hunt a person down. All of that's fairly rare though, we mostly have deer wondering around where I live. Even in the heavily populated areas of the US, it's much closer to wilderness than most of Europe.

To some extent, people may be safer if anyone that tested for competency with a weapon and was seen as mentally stable could carry a gun or knife wherever they go (including schools and on airplanes, with glaser safety plugs that wouldn't pierce the hull), except when taking mood altering substances. As it is, in my state it's a felony for anyone affiliated with the university to carry a weapon on campus (for people who have no business being here it's only a misdemeanor), even with a concealed carry permit.

This means that people who wish to abide by the law are fairly defenseless, while those with an intent of doing harm will still carry a weapon whether it's legal or not. Weapons are fairly easy to acquire in many states of the US, but it's often difficult to carry one for self-defense outside one's own property. I don't carry one because I generally don't need one, and it's not worth the legal trouble I could get into for having one with me always.

[gberardi]

Originally Posted by openeyes

To some extent, people may be safer if anyone that tested for competency with a weapon and was seen as mentally stable could carry a gun or knife wherever they go (including schools and on airplanes, with glaser safety plugs that wouldn't pierce the hull), except when taking mood altering substances.

I remember going to get my driver's license. I thought it was way too easy and could understand why so many people on the road can be considered bad drivers.

If there are tests, they better not be too lax. "You have a pulse? Here's your .45."

[Ak47]

Hehe, yeah, my name is Ak47. I like guns.

However, incredibly, i'm a democrat!

I own an ak47, and also a .22 rifle. .22 is a diminunative cartridge- the most popular round in the world. Also, i'm not able to purchase it because i'm not 21 and it CAN fit in a handgun, though it was originally deisgned for a rifle. BUT I can purchse 762x39 ammunition (that used by russia, terrorists, etc in the Ak47 assault rifle) which is much more powerful and damaging. The 762 cartridge can shoot through 8 inches of dense wood, or a 6 inch thick brick while... the .22 cartridge is so small it's known to bounce off skulls when an attacker is fired upon.

Anyone else see the problem with that?

The background checks do work except for mental disorders- there is no check on that information as far as i know- which i do believe it should be implemented.

Also, some states DO require a background check before private sales.

However, as far as "guns should take a long time to purchse" well.. let's just put it this way. I'm a city boy. I could buy a HANDGUN (9mm) on the black market WITH AMMO for less than $100 by the age 13. I could get a .357 magnum with ammo for under $250 on the streets as well.

If criminals can get firearms so easily, do you really want to place more restrictions on those people who are trying to legally purchse them to defend themselves? I don't think the purchase should be restricted for everyone, but indeed there should be more preventative measures of allowing firearms into the wrong hands, mainly those with mental disorders... which is definitely NOT disallowing someone under 21 to be able to buy a .22 round, but still allowing the purchase of a caliber designed to kill people. haha... shooting the ak47 is the most fun thing in the world though.

[Love]

Originally Posted by Ak47

If criminals can get firearms so easily, do you really want to place more restrictions on those people who are trying to legally purchse them to defend themselves?

One the one hand, I feel like we should lock all guns up. I know someone who was a victim of gun violence. That said, in that case, the shooter probably got his gun illegally. I feel that people who use guns illegally will be able to get them anyway.

I had the opportunity to talk with some hunters while working at a nature center. The people I spoke to were remarkably calm, and appreciate nature probably more than the common person. I also learned that hunter groups also sponsered nature protection sites. These men and women used their guns as responsibly as one could expect.

I feel like most people in-between hunters and criminals who have guns probably do not need them. That belief is probably colored by the time that I heard people with guns in their homes are more likely to die from guns. I think that people are already pretty irrational beings, and that to put a powerful tool into the arms of an irrational person is not a smart idea. However, that's just my belief--I don't really know the characters of all the inbetween types.

My two cents.

P.S. I think the $5000 bullet sounds pretty darn good.

[Dharma]

My favorite Scott Adams quote (creator of Dilbert):

I've heard that many people are hoarding cash and food just in case civilization collapses. My strategy is to hoard guns and ammo so I can take the cash and food from the people who didn't do a good job thinking through the "collapse of society" concept.

You create your own reality. If you want to throw gun violence in there, go ahead.

[Ak47]

^in reply to that quote as well-

someone has serious lack of moral judgement. even if civilization collapses, it's only right to use weapons to defend yourself. if someone attacks you, then kill them and take their food- otherwise, wth man? how injust... that's just as bad as killing someone for no reason. how about you hunt for food instead of murdering eachother for it? it'd take the same amount of ammo... afterall YOU have the guns to hunt with- they don't.

as for cash, if civilization collapsed it'd be useless both in this country and outside it unless it's a foreign currency.

[llong]

This is one of those issues where Americans and their UK cousins will never see eye to eye.

[Ak47]

Originally Posted by Love

One the one hand, I feel like we should lock all guns up. I know someone who was a victim of gun violence. That said, in that case, the shooter probably got his gun illegally. I feel that people who use guns illegally will be able to get them anyway.

I had the opportunity to talk with some hunters while working at a nature center. The people I spoke to were remarkably calm, and appreciate nature probably more than the common person. I also learned that hunter groups also sponsered nature protection sites. These men and women used their guns as responsibly as one could expect.

I feel like most people in-between hunters and criminals who have guns probably do not need them. That belief is probably colored by the time that I heard people with guns in their homes are more likely to die from guns. I think that people are already pretty irrational beings, and that to put a powerful tool into the arms of an irrational person is not a smart idea. However, that's just my belief--I don't really know the characters of all the inbetween types.

My two cents.

P.S. I think the $5000 bullet sounds pretty darn good.

People dying in their own homes is 99% of the time caused by non-utilization of standard safety procedures- and also by improper storage. For instance- keeping a loaded revolver is pathetically stupid if you have children in the house. An autoloader could be a different story- as a young child wouldn't be able to rack the slide to load the chamber on a larger gun. I'm an adult and have quite strong hands and i even have trouble with some high pressure calibers. Anyway, once their old enough to be able to rack the slide perhaps- they should be old enough for you to have already taught them out to handle a firearm safely (i.e. not picking it up and immediately placing your finger on the trigger- not looking down the barrel, etc). If i had a kid personally though, i'd keep the gun handy, and the loaded magazine out of reach of him.

Perhaps another issue, theives getting to your firearms before you do. Keep them all locked up and unloaded, all the time. The only exception i'd personally make to this rule is one in your bedside table for easy access while you're in bed- since most theives will break in during the night.

[Tuumble]

I find the thought of having a gun in the home with live ammunition 'to hand' quite chilling to be honest.

The thought of taking another humans life whether they are threatening me or not is just incomprehensible to me.

[llong]

Originally Posted by Tuumble

The thought of taking another humans life whether they are threatening me or not is just incomprehensible to me.

Then I hope you are never put in that position.

[Tuumble]

Originally Posted by llong

Then I hope you are never put in that position.

indeed.

[Erock]

Originally Posted by Love

P.S. I think the $5000 bullet sounds pretty darn good.

Haha. Nice. I was going to make that joke but you beat me to it.

Erock

[Chet]

So $5000 a bullet - great for those who live in cities. But how would manage to ensure a person in Alaska (or any of the many still mostly wild parts of the world) can protect themselves from bears/wolves - whatever the local wildlife problem? And even if was a 'photography' safari would you really venture into some parts of the world without at least one person having a gun and the abiltiy to use it?

[silicon toad2000]

the $5,000 bullet was a joke from chris rock (i think), not to be taken seriously or analysed in any way

[Tuumble]

Please remember my original point related to general home use of firearms rather than in the wilds. That's a totally different issue altogether.

If you are referring to home use am I missing something here? Doesn't owning a gun or weapon, something that can kill or maim, seem inherently wrong to anyone?

Is it just the 'knowing it's there' giving you a feeling of security that you could defend yourself if necessary?

Surely if they were less accessible there wouldn't be so many out there and subsequently it would be a reduced threat. A reduced threat then negates the need for a firearm for the normal law abiding household.

Has anyone considered that the criminal will carry a weapon BECAUSE you might own one thus DEFENDING himself?

Knowing how to use a gun means you have the skill and dare I say, CONFIDENCE, to KILL someone. That scares me.

If you're aiming for a leg to merely stop them, then well, maybe...

However, gun shot wounds are not nice in any circumstances and I can't say I like the thought of bullets flying around when my children are in the house. It could affect them for years to come.

This looks to be a pointless discussion in many ways because Never the Twain Shall Meet.

[Chet]

In the UK what you say would make a lot of sense. The question of self defense for reasons other than against other humans doesn't come up. However I would note here that in the US the whole 'right to bear arms' came about because the people wanted to be sure they were never again subject to an oppressive government because they didn't have the means to fight back (just something to think about).

For a place like the US the question is more complicated, sure you don't need to defend yourself from bears in the streets of NY but laws tend to get applied to the country as a whole so other circumstances need to be considered.

One thing that at least used to be taught about guns -
Don't have a gun unless you mean to use it.
Don't pull a gun unless you mean to fire it.
Don't fire a gun unless you mean to kill.
(I may have misquoted a bit but you get the idea)

I grew up with guns, I don't have one now, I doubt I ever will again.

[Tuumble]

Someone sent me this.

---------

This is one of the best comeback lines of all time. It is a portion of National Public Radio (NPR) interview between a female broadcaster and US Marine Corps General Reinwald who was about to sponsor a Boy Scout Troop visiting his military installation.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: So, General Reinwald, what things are you going to teach these young boys when they visit your base?

GENERAL REINWALD: We're going to teach them climbing, canoeing, archery and shooting.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible, isn't it?

GENERAL REINWALD: I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the rifle range.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?

GENERAL REINWALD: I don't see how. We will be teaching them proper rifle discipline before they even touch a firearm.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: But you're equipping them to become violent killers.

GENERAL REINWALD: Well, Ma'am, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but you're not one, are you?

The radio went silent and the interview ended.

Ouch!

[openeyes]

Originally Posted by Tuumble

This is one of the best comeback lines of all time. It is a portion of National Public Radio (NPR) interview [...]

Excellent. Were it not an urban legend I'd write the General in for president in '08. We need more honest and clear thinking leaders.

[Chet]

What I don't understand about that is why is archery ok? A bow is a deadly weapon too.

[openeyes]

Originally Posted by Chet

What I don't understand about that is why is archery ok? A bow is a deadly weapon too.

As is a chef's knife. Or a hammer. An axe. A shovel. A maglite flashlight. The hard edge of a table. Asphalt. A stilleto heel. A boot. Or most anything used with the proper intent really. Each has a more wholesome use as well though, just as guns/bows can be used for recreational shooting (target practice, hunting). I grew up using various guns, a bow, shuriken, and a blowdart gun for target practice. All great fun.

[Tuumble]

Originally Posted by openeyes

As is a chef's knife. Or a hammer. An axe. A shovel. A maglite flashlight. The hard edge of a table. Asphalt. A stilleto heel. A boot. Or most anything used with the proper intent really. Each has a more wholesome use as well though, just as guns/bows can be used for recreational shooting (target practice, hunting). I grew up using various guns, a bow, shuriken, and a blowdart gun for target practice. All great fun.

Mmmmm, Yee-aaa-hh, I get where you are coming from but a guns primary function is to fire a high velocity object at something.

I don't remember ever seeing anyone duelling with tables in the Westerns though that may have been fun to watch.

Do you reach for your pump-action stilleto whenever anyone in high heels comes onto your property?

I'm being flippant which I apologise for.

Remember I'm not saying that guns should be banned but more tightly controlled. It just shouldn't be so easy to get them.