Cleon
King of the Pod People
OK, I'll bite.
Like Darth said--vague question. I believe people should (and in the US, do) have the right to own firearms. At the same time, I don't have any problem with reasonable restrictions, like outlawing ownership by convicted violent criminals or those with potentially dangerous mental conditions (such as paranoid schizophrenia).
I believe people should have the right to carry concealed guns, yes. Again, I don't have any issue with reasonable restrictions, like requiring a permit, provided that said permit is not prohibitively expensive or difficult to obtain.
In the United States, I think the obvious answer is "They have no effect." San Francisco prohibits the ownership of handguns, but SF has a violent crime rate of 798.9 per 100,000 people (roughly 0.8%), essentially the same as their neighbor Los Angeles (820 per 100,000 people, again roughly 0.8%).
Internationally, between countries I don't think an apt comparison can be easily made; each country has different cultural, social, political, and economic situations that contribute to the reasons for and bases of violent crime.
In short, I think the issue of violent crime is a sociological issue, and not one that can be easily reduced to gun control laws.
Of course. I would think that would be obvious.
To be fair, that doesn't mean such laws are worthless or ineffective; strict gun control laws would (in theory) mean that guns would be more difficult to get, and thus their numbers (at least in the hands of violent criminals) would be reduced.
Serious weapons mean serious crimes. Nobody, for example, conducts a home invasion with a grenade launcher; the people who want to buy those sorts of weapons have bigger things in mind than stealing my stereo. So from a purely personal perspective, I'm not concerned about my personal safety or my belongings due to people having weapons.
As it stands, firearms ownership is perfectly legal in my neck of the woods, and I haven't been shot yet.
Believe it or not, yes. The city I live in was recently rated the 18th safest city in the United States. My house has an alarm system (installed by a previous owner), and has signs alerting people to fact all over it*.
* Honestly, I think the signs do more than the actual system, but hey, it's only $20 a month.
Personally, I do not currently own a gun, and have never owned one in the past.
I am considering getting one for target shooting, however. If and when I do get one, my answer will be "no" for two reasons:
1. As I stated above, I feel pretty safe.
2. My experience with firearms is limited to shooting an AK-47 at the Gun Store this past TAM. Even with some practice target shooting, I'm not sure that I'd be qualified to know what to do with one in case of an emergency.
3. I'm like Velma--I'm blind as a bat without my glasses. If I'm surprised in the middle of the night and unable to get them on my face in time, there's no way on God's green Earth I'd be able to aim a gun.
I should probably add to my response that in my case, personalizing the situation doesn't really work. Like I said, I don't own a gun, never have, and may never will, though target shooting *is* a lot of fun.
Whose would I carry?
In any event, I live in a safe neighborhood and my job (web developer) doesn't involve a great deal of personal danger. I've really got no reason to carry one in public.
So two "nos" right there.
I think this is a loaded (har!) question. I don't think it's inherently responsible or irresponsible to carry a gun around kids. It's possible to responsibly carry a gun, it's possible to irresponsibly carry a gun.
I can safely and accurately say that there is exactly a zero percent chance my kids will gain access to my gun in any amount of time.
With my gun? 100%.
See my response earlier.
The fact that crime--even violent crime--still occurs in places with extremely strict gun control laws is pretty much proof (forget evidence--it's proof) that crime "would happen anyway."
The question, of course, is not whether "crime would happen anyway," but what effect limitations on legal weapon purchase would affect the crime numbers.
This is another loaded question, and one that's difficult-to-impossible to answer in broad terms.
Violent felonies. This means arson, rape, (attempted) murder, armed robbery, child molestation, assault, etc. Even felony cruelty to animals.
This question always comes up, and it's a complete strawman. Nobody, even the die-hard NRAniks, is saying people should be free to own everything up to a hydrogen bomb.
I have had no formal gun training. My informal training consists of the guy in Vegas telling me he was giving me the AK loaded, and I should aim down because it kicks up.
So the answer is probably "no," although I have little information on the statistics of the gun-handling capability of the average citizen.
Interesting question, and one that I think is much broader than the question of guns.
Loaded questions. You're on your own there, Claus.
This varies by state and municipality. I think it's usually something like 16 for rifles/shotguns, and 21 for handguns, which seems reasonable to me. (The reason for the lower age for rifles/shotguns is the tradition, especially in more rural areas, for fathers to take their sons hunting.)
Nope.
No, actually, I think that line of thinking is insipid. Guns don't kill people, people kill people, but guns make it a heluva lot easier. You don't hear of very many drive-by shootings via compound bow.
You often see the comparison between the question of guns and the question of motor vehicles. Well, cars don't kill people, people who get into car crashes kill people. That doesn't mean cars should be banned any more than it means that everyone should be free to own/drive one without restrictions like licenses or insurance.
There's really no way to answer that question. It's never happened before.
What an odd question. Technically, I'm already a convicted criminal; I average a traffic ticket about once every three years. I wind up committing a crime pretty much every day; anyone who tries to obey the speed limits on Georgia highways is asking to become a speed bump.
You mean like my alarm system? Yeah, I suppose I could possibly use it, but then I'd be spending that $20 a month for an actual service...
I don't own any guns.
No, of course not.
No. I think people should be free to defend themselves, but I also think people should be free to make the decision themselves about whether they need/want to do so.
Guns are not safe. They are not toys.
Anyone who says guns are safe is full of crap, whether they're pro-gun or anti-gun. Guns are dangerous. If you're going to own one, you need to do so responsibly. Safe and responsibly ownership of guns mitigates the danger, just as safe driving mitigates the danger of a 1.5-ton piece of metal hurling down the road at 70 mph.
As I said, I think the roots of violent crime are sociological--that is, they can't be summed up in a simple "guns are available"/"guns aren't available" situation. The fact that violent crime still exists in places where privately-owned guns have been outlawed shows that legality is not the main basis of the equation. The question is twofold:
1) What role, if any, does availability play in the quantity/severity of violent crime, and
2) Does that offset the right to self-defense, hunt, engage in sports like target shooting, etc?
1) will not be answered anytime in my lifetime, I don't think. Even if someone does figure it out, people are so invested in their opinions on the subject that the answer will simply be ignored.
Comparable in what sense? I seriously don't understand the question.
I don't own a gun.
Depends on the situation.
Obviously. "Possession of a firearm while committing a felony" is a crime in itself (I believe Subgenius has some choice words on the subject). Armed robbery is a more serious offense than simply burglary.
The heart of the question is, "if someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night, how do you know whether he falls into the 'willing to fire a gun' or 'just wants to steal but not hurt' category?"
She doesn't need a permit to get a gun. In any event, I really don't care what Britney Spears does. Please don't bring the Skank Pack* into this. We hear enough about them as it is.
(* Paris, Lindsay, Britney. I figured someone had to come up with a name for this little gaggle of ditzes.)
I like Darth's answer--"shooting."
But to answer the question, "it depends." Different guns are designed for different purposes. The AK-47 is built for small-scale warfare. The 10-gauge shotgun is designed for shooting waterfowl. Handguns are designed for target shooting or personal defense.
Which is not to say you can't use a gun for something other than what it was designed for. There's nothing saying you can't go hunting with a 9mm, for example. It's just not ideally suited for the purpose.
Repetitive. As I said, I think the age 16 for rifles/shotguns, 21 for handguns limitation is perfectly reasonable.
Depends on the school.
In the US, companies set those sorts of policies for themselves. Every company I have worked for, from my high school "McJobs" to multi-billion dollar financial firms, has had a firm policy of "no weapons at the workplace."
I have no problem with a school, company, or other institution banning weapons from their grounds.
N/A.
I think Subgenius might have some input on the subject.
In any event, I don't think any of the above should result in jail time, whether the person in question owns a weapon or not. The only time I think firearm ownership should result in a heavier sentence is when it's actually part of the crime itself (such as armed robbery).
That said, if someone commits a violent crime (such as rape), I think his right to own firearms should be revoked, whether or not they were used during the crime. Fortunately, I believe that is the law in most (if not all) states.
Depends.
Like Darth said--vague question. I believe people should (and in the US, do) have the right to own firearms. At the same time, I don't have any problem with reasonable restrictions, like outlawing ownership by convicted violent criminals or those with potentially dangerous mental conditions (such as paranoid schizophrenia).
I believe people should have the right to carry concealed guns, yes. Again, I don't have any issue with reasonable restrictions, like requiring a permit, provided that said permit is not prohibitively expensive or difficult to obtain.
In the United States, I think the obvious answer is "They have no effect." San Francisco prohibits the ownership of handguns, but SF has a violent crime rate of 798.9 per 100,000 people (roughly 0.8%), essentially the same as their neighbor Los Angeles (820 per 100,000 people, again roughly 0.8%).
Internationally, between countries I don't think an apt comparison can be easily made; each country has different cultural, social, political, and economic situations that contribute to the reasons for and bases of violent crime.
In short, I think the issue of violent crime is a sociological issue, and not one that can be easily reduced to gun control laws.
Of course. I would think that would be obvious.
To be fair, that doesn't mean such laws are worthless or ineffective; strict gun control laws would (in theory) mean that guns would be more difficult to get, and thus their numbers (at least in the hands of violent criminals) would be reduced.
Serious weapons mean serious crimes. Nobody, for example, conducts a home invasion with a grenade launcher; the people who want to buy those sorts of weapons have bigger things in mind than stealing my stereo. So from a purely personal perspective, I'm not concerned about my personal safety or my belongings due to people having weapons.
As it stands, firearms ownership is perfectly legal in my neck of the woods, and I haven't been shot yet.
Believe it or not, yes. The city I live in was recently rated the 18th safest city in the United States. My house has an alarm system (installed by a previous owner), and has signs alerting people to fact all over it*.
* Honestly, I think the signs do more than the actual system, but hey, it's only $20 a month.
Personally, I do not currently own a gun, and have never owned one in the past.
I am considering getting one for target shooting, however. If and when I do get one, my answer will be "no" for two reasons:
1. As I stated above, I feel pretty safe.
2. My experience with firearms is limited to shooting an AK-47 at the Gun Store this past TAM. Even with some practice target shooting, I'm not sure that I'd be qualified to know what to do with one in case of an emergency.
3. I'm like Velma--I'm blind as a bat without my glasses. If I'm surprised in the middle of the night and unable to get them on my face in time, there's no way on God's green Earth I'd be able to aim a gun.
I should probably add to my response that in my case, personalizing the situation doesn't really work. Like I said, I don't own a gun, never have, and may never will, though target shooting *is* a lot of fun.
Whose would I carry?
In any event, I live in a safe neighborhood and my job (web developer) doesn't involve a great deal of personal danger. I've really got no reason to carry one in public.
So two "nos" right there.
I think this is a loaded (har!) question. I don't think it's inherently responsible or irresponsible to carry a gun around kids. It's possible to responsibly carry a gun, it's possible to irresponsibly carry a gun.
I can safely and accurately say that there is exactly a zero percent chance my kids will gain access to my gun in any amount of time.
With my gun? 100%.
See my response earlier.
The fact that crime--even violent crime--still occurs in places with extremely strict gun control laws is pretty much proof (forget evidence--it's proof) that crime "would happen anyway."
The question, of course, is not whether "crime would happen anyway," but what effect limitations on legal weapon purchase would affect the crime numbers.
This is another loaded question, and one that's difficult-to-impossible to answer in broad terms.
Violent felonies. This means arson, rape, (attempted) murder, armed robbery, child molestation, assault, etc. Even felony cruelty to animals.
This question always comes up, and it's a complete strawman. Nobody, even the die-hard NRAniks, is saying people should be free to own everything up to a hydrogen bomb.
I have had no formal gun training. My informal training consists of the guy in Vegas telling me he was giving me the AK loaded, and I should aim down because it kicks up.
So the answer is probably "no," although I have little information on the statistics of the gun-handling capability of the average citizen.
Interesting question, and one that I think is much broader than the question of guns.
Loaded questions. You're on your own there, Claus.
This varies by state and municipality. I think it's usually something like 16 for rifles/shotguns, and 21 for handguns, which seems reasonable to me. (The reason for the lower age for rifles/shotguns is the tradition, especially in more rural areas, for fathers to take their sons hunting.)
Nope.
No, actually, I think that line of thinking is insipid. Guns don't kill people, people kill people, but guns make it a heluva lot easier. You don't hear of very many drive-by shootings via compound bow.
You often see the comparison between the question of guns and the question of motor vehicles. Well, cars don't kill people, people who get into car crashes kill people. That doesn't mean cars should be banned any more than it means that everyone should be free to own/drive one without restrictions like licenses or insurance.
There's really no way to answer that question. It's never happened before.
What an odd question. Technically, I'm already a convicted criminal; I average a traffic ticket about once every three years. I wind up committing a crime pretty much every day; anyone who tries to obey the speed limits on Georgia highways is asking to become a speed bump.
You mean like my alarm system? Yeah, I suppose I could possibly use it, but then I'd be spending that $20 a month for an actual service...
I don't own any guns.
No, of course not.
No. I think people should be free to defend themselves, but I also think people should be free to make the decision themselves about whether they need/want to do so.
Guns are not safe. They are not toys.
Anyone who says guns are safe is full of crap, whether they're pro-gun or anti-gun. Guns are dangerous. If you're going to own one, you need to do so responsibly. Safe and responsibly ownership of guns mitigates the danger, just as safe driving mitigates the danger of a 1.5-ton piece of metal hurling down the road at 70 mph.
As I said, I think the roots of violent crime are sociological--that is, they can't be summed up in a simple "guns are available"/"guns aren't available" situation. The fact that violent crime still exists in places where privately-owned guns have been outlawed shows that legality is not the main basis of the equation. The question is twofold:
1) What role, if any, does availability play in the quantity/severity of violent crime, and
2) Does that offset the right to self-defense, hunt, engage in sports like target shooting, etc?
1) will not be answered anytime in my lifetime, I don't think. Even if someone does figure it out, people are so invested in their opinions on the subject that the answer will simply be ignored.
Comparable in what sense? I seriously don't understand the question.
I don't own a gun.
Depends on the situation.
Obviously. "Possession of a firearm while committing a felony" is a crime in itself (I believe Subgenius has some choice words on the subject). Armed robbery is a more serious offense than simply burglary.
The heart of the question is, "if someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night, how do you know whether he falls into the 'willing to fire a gun' or 'just wants to steal but not hurt' category?"
She doesn't need a permit to get a gun. In any event, I really don't care what Britney Spears does. Please don't bring the Skank Pack* into this. We hear enough about them as it is.
(* Paris, Lindsay, Britney. I figured someone had to come up with a name for this little gaggle of ditzes.)
I like Darth's answer--"shooting."
But to answer the question, "it depends." Different guns are designed for different purposes. The AK-47 is built for small-scale warfare. The 10-gauge shotgun is designed for shooting waterfowl. Handguns are designed for target shooting or personal defense.
Which is not to say you can't use a gun for something other than what it was designed for. There's nothing saying you can't go hunting with a 9mm, for example. It's just not ideally suited for the purpose.
Repetitive. As I said, I think the age 16 for rifles/shotguns, 21 for handguns limitation is perfectly reasonable.
Depends on the school.
In the US, companies set those sorts of policies for themselves. Every company I have worked for, from my high school "McJobs" to multi-billion dollar financial firms, has had a firm policy of "no weapons at the workplace."
I have no problem with a school, company, or other institution banning weapons from their grounds.
N/A.
I think Subgenius might have some input on the subject.
In any event, I don't think any of the above should result in jail time, whether the person in question owns a weapon or not. The only time I think firearm ownership should result in a heavier sentence is when it's actually part of the crime itself (such as armed robbery).
That said, if someone commits a violent crime (such as rape), I think his right to own firearms should be revoked, whether or not they were used during the crime. Fortunately, I believe that is the law in most (if not all) states.
Depends.
