Gun control poll--please read OP for assumptions.

[Bikewer]

I've been listening to the various arguments for many years; since the Early 60's at least.

On the extreme side of "pro", we have the folks who think that private ownership of firearms, even military firearms, are a "bulwark against tyranny" and see themselves in the same mold as the Minutemen. (The original Minutemen, not the paramilitary nut-jobs of the 1970s)

Then we have the "ban them all" folks who see no private ownership of firearms at all as a good thing.

I imagine most folks fall into the widely-divergent position in the middle. (as do I) Some restrictions and regulations seem to be a good idea. I am all for mandatory safety/use certification; I have personally dealt with situations where utter incompetence was involved.
Although for most citizens the danger of attack, armed robbery, home invasion and so forth are muchly over-exaggerated, we realize that in many areas of the country things are downright dangerous.
I very strongly believe that people have the right to defend themselves, their families, and their property.

 

[Hittman]

This describes my general position, as well. I used to think that this was "libertarian", but the party that goes by that name is way too far out in anarchy-land for me.

I'm a small L libertarian, which means I'm not afraid of compromise, acknowledge a few more legitimate roles for government than the big Ls, and think baby steps are a fine and practical way to get some of our liberty back.

Which means, as far as Big Ls are concerned, I'm a horrible evil traitor with no morals. The biggest reason the Libs haven't gone anywhere in four decades is they waste most of their energy fighting among themselves, comparing the size of their Ls, and spitting on people like me (and I'm guessing, you) who agree with 95% of their ideas.

 

[gumboot]

What about burglarized? Or as you foreigners might say "burgled".

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_bur_percap-crime-burglaries-per-capita

I presume you realise that the overwhelming majority of burglaries occur when the occupant is absent, yes? The only thing a firearm can do in that instance is get stolen to be used in later crimes.

 

[ZirconBlue]

I'm a small L libertarian, which means I'm not afraid of compromise, acknowledge a few more legitimate roles for government than the big Ls, and think baby steps are a fine and practical way to get some of our liberty back.

Which means, as far as Big Ls are concerned, I'm a horrible evil traitor with no morals. The biggest reason the Libs haven't gone anywhere in four decades is they waste most of their energy fighting among themselves, comparing the size of their Ls, and spitting on people like me (and I'm guessing, you) who agree with 95% of their ideas.

Nicely put. That "comparing the size of the Ls" is worthy of a nomination.

 

[gdnp]

What sort of registration do you imagine is going to stop criminals from committing crimes with firearms?

Who ever said that registration would "stop criminals from committing crimes with firearms?"

If a criminal steals a "registered" firearm during a robbery, how does that square with your "only outlaws will have unregistered guns?"

Well, the criminal would have a gun that was not registered to himself, wouldn't he? So he could be charged both with possession of an unregistered weapon and receiving stolon property. Which would make him an outlaw with an unregistered gun, wouldn't it?

 

[Cicero]

I presume you realise that the overwhelming majority of burglaries occur when the occupant is absent, yes? The only thing a firearm can do in that instance is get stolen to be used in later crimes.

By the same logic, burglaries of firearm retail stores also occur when the store is closed. Good reason to outlaw firearm stores?

Perhaps you have heard of intruders hoping to catch the resident of the dwelling home, such as rapists? A women with a firearm poses a considerable deterrent to becoming a victim.

New Zealand is not as zealous about denying its citizens rights to firearms as you seem to be.


http://www.nzherald.co.nz/new-zealand/news/article.cfm?l_id=71&objectid=10557436

 

[gdnp]

What are you arguing from? But here is another instance where a cop accidentally discharges his weapon killing the handcuffed subject.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKKQ-gzc_Yw&feature=related

And another instance of off-duty cop's weapon accidentally discharging:

http://www.wsbt.com/news/local/37403634.html

You said only police should have access to firearms because they possess the requisite knowledge and experience to handle them safely. Now that you have seen this to be an invalid generalization, you have extended your invalid generalization that firearms are just too unsafe for anyone.

"n 1997 the UK banned all handguns except .22. These were to be stored at clubs. The whole process of confiscating virtually all legally held handguns took place between July 1997 and February 1998.

Total compensation paid of 95 million pounds.

The ban did not reduce number of active shooters. Pistol clubs turned to shooting pistol calibre carbines, which are more powerful and have higher capacity magazines.

The UK has reported an increase in homicide with pistols.

Greenwood (2006) concluded that in terms of crime; ‘the ban on handguns is neither here nor there in the equation’.

In research published by the UK Home Office in 2006, of 80 firearms offenders interviewed,57% (n=41) of them used handguns.

It is reasonable to conclude that the banning of possession of firearms or certain categories of firearm only affects those who posses and use them lawfully – those who use them unlawfully are already outside the law."

I still fail to see what point you are trying to make. Presenting cases where trained police officers accidentally discharge their weapons is not supportive evidence that guns are safe enough for ordinary citizens, with no mandatory training, to own. Likewise, posting data on how banning of handguns did not eliminate handgun murders does nothing to support your contention that handguns are safe in the hands of the general public. Do you have any data on the number of accidental shootings after the handgun ban?

 

[Tricky]

I've been listening to the various arguments for many years; since the Early 60's at least.

On the extreme side of "pro", we have the folks who think that private ownership of firearms, even military firearms, are a "bulwark against tyranny" and see themselves in the same mold as the Minutemen. (The original Minutemen, not the paramilitary nut-jobs of the 1970s)

Then we have the "ban them all" folks who see no private ownership of firearms at all as a good thing.

I imagine most folks fall into the widely-divergent position in the middle. (as do I) Some restrictions and regulations seem to be a good idea. I am all for mandatory safety/use certification; I have personally dealt with situations where utter incompetence was involved.

I agree completely with this, Bikewer. Issues like guns and abortions tend to polarize people and make them all sound like extremists, but in reality, most people are somewhere in the middle. I made a poll to verify this some years ago that asked people to judge their tolerance for weaponry, ranging from absolutely no guns to anything up to nuclear weaponry. Most of the people fell somewhere in the middle, though as I recall it was more bimodal, with people falling to the middle of each "side" and few falling exactly in the middle.

But I'm like you in that I see both pluses and minuses to guns. I grew up in a hunting family and I know how important gun safety is. I've also seen my family's guns be stolen by criminals in burglaries, so it doesn't really matter how damn good they were at gun safety, the crooks got them anyway. But one thing stands out. The US has a very high rate of gun crimes and gun deaths compared to other first-world nations. I find it hard to believe that the solution is getting more guns into the hands of the citizens.

I very strongly believe that people have the right to defend themselves, their families, and their property.

That is also something I agree with in principle, but the specifics get very iffy. How much right do they have to defend themselves? What weaponry should they be allowed to do this with? Where is the line between defense and homocidal paranoia? These are not easy questions even for reasonable people. It makes it yet harder when extremists dominate the dialogue.

 

[Cicero]

Who ever said that registration would "stop criminals from committing crimes with firearms?"



Well, the criminal would have a gun that was not registered to himself, wouldn't he? So he could be charged both with possession of an unregistered weapon and receiving stolon property. Which would make him an outlaw with an unregistered gun, wouldn't it?

Please. The owner would have reported the left of the firearm and its serial number. If the thief were ever caught with the stolen goods, it would be obvious the weapon didn't belong to them once the police checked the hot sheet. At that point, I imagine he would be considered an 'outlaw" whether or not the firearm was registered in some fashion you have never explained.

If he were caught with a TV set that he stole from the same premises, if the owner did not have the serial number of the TV, identification would make it problematic.

 

[Pardalis]

You said only police should have access to firearms because they possess the requisite knowledge and experience to handle them safely. Now that you have seen this to be an invalid generalization

I'm sorry, but two cases of police accidently firing their guns on Youtube doesn't constitute proof in my book. You still seem to be making an argument from anecdote.

you have extended your invalid generalization that firearms are just too unsafe for anyone.

Which has always been my contention.

The ban did not reduce number of active shooters. Pistol clubs turned to shooting pistol calibre carbines, which are more powerful and have higher capacity magazines.

The UK has reported an increase in homicide with pistols.

Greenwood (2006) concluded that in terms of crime; ‘the ban on handguns is neither here nor there in the equation’.

In research published by the UK Home Office in 2006, of 80 firearms offenders interviewed,57% (n=41) of them used handguns.

It is reasonable to conclude that the banning of possession of firearms or certain categories of firearm only affects those who posses and use them lawfully – those who use them unlawfully are already outside the law."

You wouldn't happen to have a link?

 

[Cicero]

I'm sorry, but two cases of police accidently firing their guns on Youtube doesn't constitute proof in my book. You still seem to be making an argument from anecdote.

Which has always been my contention.

You wouldn't happen to have a link?

How many cases of a police officer accidentally discharging their weapon would elevate it from the apparently insufficiently evidential worth of anecdotal evidence?

Here is another:

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/03/police-seal-off-uic-building.html

But how about this:

"As unsettling -- and unpredictable -- as such incidents are, a Times analysis of two decades of police records highlights another danger to officers, one little appreciated even by officials who oversee the department: Officers over those years shot themselves or one another nearly as often as they were shot by suspects.

Since 1985, there have been more than 350 accidental discharges by LAPD officers. There also have been more than a dozen so-called friendly fire incidents."

http://www.officer.com/web/online/Top-News-Stories/Friendly-Fire--Discharges-Comprised-43-Percent-of-Shot-LA-Officers/1$32165

Let's see. That's 350 in just one department of one city in one state. Are we aproaching the magical point beyond anecdotal?

 

[Ranb]

Or alternatively his citizens trust their government enough that they don't feel like they need them.

Trust the American governent? Surely you jest.

Ranb

 

[Pardalis]

OK, let's say there is a great number of cases of police officers accidently discharging their weapons. How does that look for proponents who wish every citizen should have their own handgun?

I prefer cops having these accidents than regular people, at least cops have a reason to have possession of a weapon, it's part of their job.

I don't know, but the more people get guns, the more accidents are bound to happen.

 

[Ranb]

I think all guns should be registered and gun owners should be licensed after passing an exam. We do it with cars and drivers.

I do not need a license or exam to buy a car. I need a permit to bring a gun on the road under my shirt though.

Ranb

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I do not need a license or exam to buy a car.

Well, it would be rather hard to get it home without one .

 

[Ranb]

I voted as a liberal desiring less regulation.

Back in 1994, Washington State decided that some of the weapons least used in crime (registered title 2 rifles and shotguns) should be contraband. Prior to 1994, the only people who legally owned these guns were those who paid a $200 tax, had the local sheriff sign off on the application and got a background check by the ATF. The nearly non-existent crime rate associated with these guns was not enough to keep them off of the chopping block; it seems the only reason for them to be banned was to reduce the kinds of guns owned by civilians.

RCW 9.41.220 is an example of another victimless crime.

Ranb

 

[Ranb]

Well, it would be rather hard to get it home without one .

Not when it is a limo and the chauffer is driving me.

Ranb

 

[Cicero]

OK, let's say there is a great number of cases of police officers accidently discharging their weapons. How does that look for proponents who wish every citizen should have their own handgun?

I prefer cops having these accidents than regular people, at least cops have a reason to have possession of a weapon, it's part of their job.

I don't know, but the more people get guns, the more accidents are bound to happen.

Yeah. Let's say. This may sound like heresy to you, but the police do not have any additional Constitutional rights than those guaranteed to a private citizen in the USA. As long as your paradigm for possessing something is whether it is necessary in the performance of one's job, then we best get busy confiscating any equipment used by anyone who has an avocation.

 

[Pardalis]

As long as your paradigm for possessing something is whether it is necessary in the performance of one's job, then we best get busy confiscating any equipment used by anyone who has an avocation.

I know, one could say we could ban knives and baseball bats, since they can be used as weapons, I catch your drift. But aren't firearms especially lethal and hazardous? Aren't they the most commonly used weapon in crimes? Maybe it's because I'm not American, I really don't get the fascination with those things.

 

[Ranb]

In some states the AG exempts the police from prosecution for breaking certain laws. I'm not sure how they can do this. But this keeps the police out of jail for using banned weapons in WA.

Ranb