Why are guns made to kill?

[Rolfe]

Errrr has something changed that I've missed? You can keep guns at your home provided they are adequately secured. At least rifles and shotguns and their ilk. And their ammunition too.

So I can shoot things near to home

What you do have to do is convince the local police that you have a good reason for wanting to have the gun. Since this includes sport and vermin control this is pretty straightforward for most people. Self defence is not a good reason, incidentally.

Yeah, I knew I was missing the hunting bit. I have repeatedly pointed out that hunting is quite common and quite popular. (10,000 pheasant chicks, in just one premises? No wonder I keep almost hitting the damn things in the car! In England it was partridges. Squillions of the damn things.)

I was thinking more about the sort of gun hoarding seen in the US.

I know the police are very tight with gun licences. I used to teach at a veterinary school. The farm/horse departments had a gun for use in euthanasia. Despite the fact that this was a reputable establishment, part of the University of London, staffed by professionals who could be struck off in a heartbeat for improper care and storage of any of their gear (including gallons of lethal drugs), the cops visited every six months to check the licence, storage and condition of that gun.

Try asking your local cop shop for the sort of assault rifles these guys are talking about, stored in your home. Or a hand gun....

Rolfe.

 

[richardm]

Try asking your local cop shop for the sort of assault rifles these guys are talking about, stored in your home. Or a hand gun....

Well, that's fair comment. I think the British police form for assessing suitability to own an assault rifle consists of one question: "Do you want to own an assault rifle?". If you answer "yes" then you're automatically considered unsuitable. As for handguns, even requesting the form is asking for chokey.

 

[gumboot]

Firstly,

I disagree with the comments that suggest "humans have always killed each other, this whole empathy thing is new" (not a direct quote).

I think the opposite is true. Humans, historically speaking, seldom killed each other (even when that was our intention, such as in war). Humans are in fact biologically evolved not to kill each other.

Guns, however, make it much easier for a human to overcome the natural resistance to killing.

Now, on to guns...

I think it's very important to make a clear distinction between calling for the banning of guns, and calling for gun control. They are not even remotely the same thing.

If someone calls for controls on guns, it is dishonest to claim "Why don't you demand they ban cars?"

Cars are not banned, but they are controlled. They have to be registered, they have to be certified as safe, their actual operation is strictly restricted (road rules) and their user has to be certified as competent to operation them. Failure to comply with these controls can result in the vehicle (or your right to operate said vehicle) being removed.

The degree to which guns are controlled varies a great deal from country to country and state to state, but surprisingly the controls on motor vehicles are quite similar the world over.

No one has a problem with these controls on motor vehicles. You don't see the American Automobile Association demanding that there be no speed limits (or do you?). You don't see them demanding that unregistered cars be allowed on the roads. You don't seem them claiming that driver licenses are unconstitutional.

Why is that? And why are guns different? (Let's not forget that cars, at least, are a useful practical tool that virtually everyone uses every day of their lives, which cannot be said of guns).

Let's play pretend. Imagine that all firearms have to be registered. Imagine that all firearms have to receive a certificate saying they are suitable for use (this would cover restrictions on certain types of guns, just as car fitness certificates cover illegal modifications to cars). Imagine all gun owners have to be certified as competent to use a firearm, which involves a multi-choice test on a "gun code" and a practical test on actual usage. Imagine there's this "gun code" that determines rules for how you're allowed to use your gun.

Assuming that the gun code does not prevent you partaking in sporting and recreation activities with your firearm, how would any of these controls actually limit a gun owner's ability to enjoy their firearms for recreational purposes? (Which, we're told, is all the vast majority of firearms are used for.) They wouldn't. So why are people so against them?

The second amendment.

And what, really, is the significance of the second amendment? Is it protecting the right to hunt? Or to do sport shooting? No. It's protecting the right to use deadly force to overthrow the government. Now that might be hindered by gun control.

So the question is, really, do you feel a need to overthrow your government by force? Or has the second amendment been rendered obsolete. That's really the crux of the gun control debate, isn't it?

 

[Autolite]

If you believe your life is endangered by your job I suggest a simple solution. Rather than endangering the rest of the population - don't take the job.

Oh my! That would look interesting printed on a police recruitment poster. Are you suggesting that we should disarm the police? We can't have them endangering the rest of the population now can we???

 

[Autolite]

If a Canadian private citizen had a gun and used it to defend him or herself from a "gang of homicidal maniacs waving Samurai swords", but just pointed the gun at them and politely asked them to leave, would that be illegal?

I won't pretend to be a lawyer but if I understand the law correctly one might be subject to a "brandishing" charge, which of course is illegal. I am thinking that it would likely be up to the Crown Attorney, (D.A. in the U.S.A), to decide whether or not charges should be laid. "Brandishing" is an offence in the States as well is it not???

 

[JoeEllison]

Oh my! That would look interesting printed on a police recruitment poster. Are you suggesting that we should disarm the police? We can't have them endangering the rest of the population now can we???

As, yes... that silly little strawman. I was wondering when it would show up.

 

[JoeEllison]

I have also known people who hunted because venison is not well available in stores, and do to allergies most common meats where not acceptable.

Yeah, well... exceptions to the rule are just that. Exceptions.

 

[Autolite]

The UK has had many knife control initiatives. Has Canada really ignored knife crime?

AFAIK, under Canadian law it is illegal to murder somebody with a knife. However, as with our mass of ineffectual gun laws, murderers haven't been keeping a heads up with the rules...

 

[Autolite]

The thought that the pimply youth in a petrol station was armed to the teeth would result in me and much of the population over here, I would suggest, avoiding said petrol company promptly, permanently and en masse.

I suppose that's a valid POV. I mean really. When you consider it, the brutal stabbing deaths of a handful of "pimply youths" is a small price to pay for maintaining the illusion of public safety that our current gun control policies provide. I am more than certain that the victims' parents would feel the same...

 

[Autolite]

As, yes... that silly little strawman. I was wondering when it would show up.

I replied to a post that suggested people should not take a job so dangerous that they would need to arm themselves for their own personal protection. Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that employment as a peace officer might fall into that category...

 

[Ranb]

"Brandishing" is an offence in the States as well is it not???

I am not a lawyer either, but I think that anyone in the USA is not going to be indicted for brandishing if they are defending themselves from a sword wielding assailant.

Ranb

 

[YoPopa]

I replied to a post that suggested people should not take a job so dangerous that they would need to arm themselves for their own personal protection. Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that employment as a peace officer might fall into that category...

I'm thinking security firms transferring cash in armored vans. No reason for self defense there. If anyone really wants the money and should ask for it just hand it over. No life is equal to lucre.

 

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

I am not a lawyer either, but I think that anyone in the USA is not going to be indicted for brandishing if they are defending themselves from a sword wielding assailant.

Ranb

This is a bit of a tricky area under Canadian law. I'm not a lawyer, but from my understanding of the Firearms Act, it is a criminal offence to point a firearm at an unacceptable target. This could mean that, at its strictest interpretation, you could be arrested for mistakenly aiming at a mule deer during whitetail season. I would think that, since in the hypothetical scenario, it could be argued that an assailant intending physical harm could be an acceptable target (since killing someone who was assaulting you with a deadly weapon would be justifiable homicide), you would not be charged with a firearms offence.


Let's examine another hypothetical Canadian scenario. One night, you hear a pounding at your back door. It's a potential home invader kicking at your door. You call 911, and are told police are on the way. You can see, though, that the door frame is going to give out soon, and the guy is screaming that he's going to kill you. You grab your keys and run to your bedroom, which has a locking door. You unlock your handgun from its case, and unlock the trigger, you grab your ammunition case and unlock it too, loading the magazine quickly. As you lock the magazine in place, the bedroom door splinters from its frame. You chamber a round, and see the intruder has a large knife. He runs at you. You shoot him dead. The only crime you have committed is having loaded a firearm in a dwelling. It is unlikely that, even in the case that you were convicted, you would even receive a firearms prohibition.


If you had a loaded gun beside your bed and shot an intruder, that would change things. I doubt you'd be charged with murder or even manslaughter, but I bet they'd charge you with a slew of firearms storage offences, and you'd likely be barred from handling firearms.

 

[Mobyseven]

I replied to a post that suggested people should not take a job so dangerous that they would need to arm themselves for their own personal protection. Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that employment as a peace officer might fall into that category...

You're aware that there are countries that don't arm all their police officers, right?

 

[Autolite]

You're aware that there are countries that don't arm all their police officers, right?

Kudos for those countries. However, I would suspect that such countries might deal with the criminals that they catch far more severely than they do here in Canada. As I mentioned in a previous post, I lived for several years in Winnipeg. I would suggest that anyone whose is opposed to the idea of an armed police force live in such a city for a few years. I would be interested to learn if there would be any reconsideration of that particular viewpoint...

 

[Autolite]

I'm thinking security firms transferring cash in armored vans. No reason for self defense there. If anyone really wants the money and should ask for it just hand it over. No life is equal to lucre.

That's a commendable attitude. As a matter of fact I've been thinking of starting a such a security company. I would advertise the fact that none of the security officers will ever be armed! Would you care to invest in my fledgling enterprise???

 

[volatile]

Firstly,

I disagree with the comments that suggest "humans have always killed each other, this whole empathy thing is new" (not a direct quote).

I think the opposite is true. Humans, historically speaking, seldom killed each other (even when that was our intention, such as in war). Humans are in fact biologically evolved not to kill each other.

Guns, however, make it much easier for a human to overcome the natural resistance to killing.

Now, on to guns...

I think it's very important to make a clear distinction between calling for the banning of guns, and calling for gun control. They are not even remotely the same thing.

If someone calls for controls on guns, it is dishonest to claim "Why don't you demand they ban cars?"

Cars are not banned, but they are controlled. They have to be registered, they have to be certified as safe, their actual operation is strictly restricted (road rules) and their user has to be certified as competent to operation them. Failure to comply with these controls can result in the vehicle (or your right to operate said vehicle) being removed.

The degree to which guns are controlled varies a great deal from country to country and state to state, but surprisingly the controls on motor vehicles are quite similar the world over.

No one has a problem with these controls on motor vehicles. You don't see the American Automobile Association demanding that there be no speed limits (or do you?). You don't see them demanding that unregistered cars be allowed on the roads. You don't seem them claiming that driver licenses are unconstitutional.

In the UK, at least, you are also required to register your car with the government, and tell them when you sell it. With guns in America, there is no such requirement to record sales AFAIK. In a previous gun control thread, I remember someone (Ranb?) being aghast at the suggestion that gun owners be required to register their guns and tell the FBAFT when they sell them.

So the question is, really, do you feel a need to overthrow your government by force? Or has the second amendment been rendered obsolete. That's really the crux of the gun control debate, isn't it?

It seems to me that if an armed militia took up arms to overthrow the government, they'd all be brandished terrorists and the NRA and most patriotic, constitutionally-obsessed gun owners would be the ones on the government's side. Do you agree?

 

[gumboot]

Kudos for those countries. However, I would suspect that such countries might deal with the criminals that they catch far more severely than they do here in Canada.

I doubt it. New Zealand police don't carry firearms and our treatment of criminals is embarrassingly soft. I'd be quite appalled if your treatment of criminals is even softer.

 

[gumboot]

It seems to me that if an armed militia took up arms to overthrow the government, they'd all be brandished terrorists and the NRA and most patriotic, constitutionally-obsessed gun owners would be the ones on the government's side. Do you agree?

Yes most probably. And one has to ask, if your country is really being enslaved by an evil dictatorship, and you honestly feel the need to use armed force to overthrow them, is the fact that your firearm is registered really going to stop you? Because it shouldn't.

 

[volatile]

That's a commendable attitude. As a matter of fact I've been thinking of starting a such a security company. I would advertise the fact that none of the security officers will ever be armed! Would you care to invest in my fledgling enterprise???

Security firms in the UK are not armed.