Gun Control Debate

[TEMPLAR67]

Killing someone on purpose is murder, whether they are in your home or not. Also, name one possession that is worth either you or them dying over...

Our Soldiers kill ppl on purpose, are they murderers?
One possession i would kill for, hmmm.....perhaps my lcd tv, somebody tries to take that, they're toast.

Lastly, if someone breaks in waving a gun then yeah you have a case for self defense. But if they stand there with a look of panic on their face and make a run for the door, if you shoot them then it is cowardly and assault and if they die then it is murder

if they run i would just hit them in the leg or something so they couldnt get away and it would serve them as a reminder to not do that again.

You take a chance if you choose a line of action that increases the probability that you or your family gets hurt. So far there is no evidence to show an increased risk versus another line of action, for example running.

is that your answer to every problem that faces you. run...that is very cowardly.

You have to understand that this is not research, even though it is claimed as such. This is a collection of anecdotes that are selected by a lobby organization.

im sure if you wanted to you could find th source of their research if you wnated to and judge form there.

For example if some low brow hillbilly who can barely communicate in his native tongue has a gun it might be more dangerous than if someone uses a gun responsibly for hunting etc.

now thats true, but lets not bash hillbillies:laugh:

[mr_sir]

Our Soldiers kill ppl on purpose, are they murderers?
One possession i would kill for, hmmm.....perhaps my lcd tv, somebody tries to take that, they're toast.

Soldiers or armed police with guns are an entirely different matter as they are employed to protect the masses. Further, soldiers and police are trained to kill only when it is self defense (something which has already been explained by members of the armed forces, or former members). They are not shooting people simply because they took an lcd tv.

Also, if you shot someone in the leg, you could still sever a major artery leading to their death, so again I have to ask: What is the point in risking killing someone just over a possession when your life is not in immediate danger?

[Gilliatt]

is that your answer to every problem that faces you. run...that is very cowardly.

I guess relying on guns to protect yourself against an unarmed house robber just in case he might be is much more courageous.

[TEMPLAR67]

Also, if you shot someone in the leg, you could still sever a major artery leading to their death, so again I have to ask: What is the point in risking killing someone just over a possession when your life is not in immediate danger?

the artery is a chance i am willing to take. I will risk their death because i will not allow myself to be stepped on by petty criminals, will you.

I guess relying on guns to protect yourself against an unarmed house robber just in case he might be is much more courageous.

and although i can feel your sarcasm, yes, it is.

[mr_sir]

It takes more courage to be a hero without a gun than with one, and it takes even more courage and self discipline to be level headed enough to know when backing away is the safer and better option. Possessions can be replaced, more than often by the insurance policies you are paying for, lives can never be replaced. It all depends on how much value you place on life. To me life is a miraculous thing, and I do not believe you can ever justify risking killing someone unless your own life or somebody else's is in danger. This is why I do not agree with shooting someone just because they are stealing a tv, but I do agree with what soldiers do. A soldier is a heroic and courageous person who puts their life on the line on a regular basis to protect others not possessions, someone shooting someone because they are stealing a tv is coward.

[Xandax]

Our Soldiers kill ppl on purpose, are they murderers?<snip>

If they shoot an unarmed man which pose no threat to himself, while in civilian state, then yes.

<snip>
im sure if you wanted to you could find th source of their research if you wnated to and judge form there.<snip>

No, that is what we ask *you* to do before making various random claims as factual.
Yet, you do not do it, but simply ignore the fact that the majority of your claims (if not all) are subjective anecdotes and bias, holding no actual value in any real debate.

[Chanak]

...and although i can feel your sarcasm, yes, it is.

I've been staying out of this thread, but I can't help but point something out concerning this comment.

You do understand that you utilize quite a few " " in your posts, right? That's a sarcastic smilie. You use that smilie liberally in your responses to others, making light of their statements in a negative way. From what I have observed in the back and forth, the same treatment has not been returned to you, even though you appear to dish it out liberally to others.

Perhaps you ought to think about how you're coming across to others.

[fable]

Templar67, if you make statements or accusations of a factual nature in this thread or any others, you're going to have to provide support with data when asked. It's the way things are done, here. It certainly can be fun to make remarks that excite a lot of people, but when you are repeatedly asked questions that you ignore, especially for background support of your statements, the time has come to ante up.

This applies, as I wrote above, to all non-gaming threads where fact is in dispute instead of matters of personal belief.

[Ode to a Grasshopper]

Everyone stop picking on TEMPLAR, the gentleman cracks me up and you'll scare him (you are a him, right?) away. Demanding logic and reasoning and factual evidence in debate, humph. What, are you all philosophers now?

Our Soldiers kill ppl on purpose, are they murderers?

At the risk of being controversial, technically yes, they are murderers. Officially sanctioned, institutionalised murder is what they do for a living. State executioners, and a lot of the meat industry are technically murderers too. Please note I have no -or at least very few- moral objections to this, or to eating meat, but they are still murderers.

Soldiers or armed police with guns are an entirely different matter as they are employed to protect the masses. Further, soldiers and police are trained to kill only when it is self defense (something which has already been explained by members of the armed forces, or former members). They are not shooting people simply because they took an lcd tv.

Rubbish. It's still institutionalised murder, regardless of how purportedly noble the motivations behind it. Deliberate killing is murder.
If anyone wants to start a separate thread on this I'm happy to bicker about it there between uni assignments.

[fable]

Let's keep a civil tongue in these debates, and that includes not using name-calling.

As for Templar67, he won't be with us for a while. So taking cheap potshots at him wins no favors. That said, if anybody wants to debate the points he's raised, or points of your own in relation to this thread, feel free to do so.

[Chanak]

I laid out the bones of a gun control system in another thread, but feel it is worth delving into more thoroughly here. Although I don't personally own any firearms, I've had experience using a variety of them - so I believe I have a firm grasp on what each type was designed for.

That's the key to an effective gun control system. A firearm is a tool. It is a tool designed to take the life of a living target. Barring that, the projectile is designed to cause grievous injury to tissue, thereby incapacitating the target.

Engineers design a firearm to fulfill certain roles and accomplish certain goals. I think that firearms should be restricted to those roles by law. High capacity magazines were specifically designed for military use and should therefore only be allowed to be used by the military, and law enforcement personnel.

By the same token, any firearm that uses high capacity magazines should also be restricted to the military, and law enforcement. Semi-automatic and fully automatic firearms were originally manufactured for and used by the military in combat. As law enforcement agencies are paramilitary in nature and fulfill similar roles to the military in civilian life, I think they should also be allowed access to these weapons.

A private citizen has absolutely no justification to possess a semi-automatic or fully automatic firearm. They are not military personnel nor members of a law enforcement agency. The only legal reason a private citizen should be able to possess a firearm is for the hunting of game. As a number of firearms were specifically designed for that purpose, ownership should be restricted to those particular guns. For example: bolt action rifles, breech-loading rifles and shotguns, and revolvers with a barrel at least 6" or longer in length, .44 or .45 caliber. I'm not entirely sure about .357 magnum revolvers. Those were initially made for police agencies...the ballistics of a magnum round is quite different from a standard load. I'm definitely sure regarding .44 magnum rounds...those should be restricted to military and law enforcement use only. Pump shotguns with a 5 shell capacity would be permissible. Lever-action rifles would also be permitted.

It should also be illegal for any private citizen to carry a concealed firearm, period.

Other criteria for gun ownership:
- 21 years of age or older
- A citizen of the United States, or legal resident alien
- Possession of a valid hunting license in the state of residency

The type of firearm a hunter would be legally allowed to purchase and own would be determined by the hunting license(s) they possess. For example, someone with only a license to hunt duck would not be allowed to purchase a lever-action rifle, nor a revolver. However, someone with multiple hunting licenses would be able to purchase and own firearms appropriate to the game covered by each license.

Originally, I had envisioned a separate gun ownership license. However, that doesn't make much sense in light of this fact: in my system, the only legally justifiable reason for a private citizen to own a firearm is to use them in the hunting of game. It makes sense to me that the control and regulation of firearms be joined together with wildlife management. The hunting license is your permit to purchase and own a specified type of firearm.

A mandatory waiting period of 60 days should be imposed on all hunting license applicants. A complete background investigation should be done and if any sort of felony, diagnosis of mental illness or hospitalization for such an illness within the past 10 years is found, the applicant should be denied the license. In addition, the establishment that sells the licensee a firearm should be required to conduct an additional background check with a minimum 7 day waiting period attached to the purchase. This might sound crazy or redundant, but it serves a purpose.

There's no 100% failsafe method of preventing a firearm from landing in the hands of a person with a criminal record or who otherwise poses a danger to themselves and others (unless we ban them entirely, which in light of modern wildlife management in the United States is not a practical idea). All we can do is strive to be as diligent as humanly possible with the process. The initial check should be the most comprehensive and would include accessing the applicant's medical records, as well as standard databases such as INTERPOL. The secondary check would be conducted when the applicant attempts to purchase a firearm, and while not as comprehensive as the first, should be done nevertheless. We want to catch anyone that might otherwise fall through the cracks. Alot can happen in a month's time.

As long as a licensee maintains their license (which should be renewable on a yearly basis), they would only need to be subjected to a secondary sort of check when they renew. If they allow their license to lapse, they should be required to undergo the initial application process again. Also, if their license lapses, they should be required to surrender their hunting firearms within 60 days of the license expiration date.

EDIT: Of course, the above would likely never happen here, despite the fact that a majority of Americans support more stringent gun control measures. The reason is simple: gun$ are big money, and big money runs American politics. That is how a fringe group such as the National Rifle Association can pull such weight in Washington. They also prey upon people in a variety of ways...by convincing them that the US Constitution guarantees them the "right" to bear arms (it does not), by scaring them into believing gun control = taking their liberty away (it does not, though the same folks who support the NRA in Congress voted for the Patriot Act, which does), by maintaining that we need guns to defend ourselves from criminals (even though statistics don't prove such a notion true) etc., etc.

[Vicsun]

Chanak: so, you are opposed to owning a firearm for self-defense? Furthermore, how does your system prevent a (legal) firearm holder from selling the firearm to criminals? Should he prove it's still in his posesion when the license is renewed, and if yes how would it treat lost firearms? I'm also interested in knowing how laws currently prevent legally purchased guns being sold to criminals, if you know anything about that.

You also said the constitution doesn't guarantee the right to bear arms. How do you interpret "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?

[Claudius]

Vicsun, you forgot the first part of that ammendment "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, (now your part)"

[TEMPLAR67]

@chanak, Im curious to know how your gun control policy would treat people already in possession of the weapons you believe should be restricted, would people be forced to turn them in, or would you include a measure to fully reimburse those people, or would you allow those who already lawfully own the firearms you would see restricted to keep them and just not allow them to be imported or made anymore.

@mr spanky

Everyone stop picking on TEMPLAR, the gentleman cracks me up and you'll scare him (you are a him, right?) away.

im not sure if you or fable edited that, but dont say that again

[Vicsun]

Vicsun, you forgot the first part of that ammendment "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, (now your part)"

I'm not sure how that makes a difference really. I just quoted the operative part of the amendment, rather than the justification for it, since it seemed more relevant.

That said, having skimmed the Wikipedia article on the second amendment, it appears that there's some disagreement as to what 'the right to bear arms' means, with the non-obvious meaning being a quasi-collective right of persons serving in a militia, not the individual right of a citizen to carry a weapon in order to be able to form a militia should the need arise (which is how I've always interpreted it). That said, Wikipedia also mentions that thirty-one states have explicitly chosen to include the right to arms for 'individual right', 'defense of self', 'defense of home' or similarly worded reasons in their respective constitutions, so an outright ban of firearms not designed for hunting would still be mostly illegal.

As far as my limited understanding goes though, it's not a clear cut case of "the constitution does not guarantee a "right" to bear arms" as Chanak portrays it, though it is very likely he is right and the current interpretation of the text by various courts does not guarantee anyone the right to carry a gun for the purpose of self-defense. Or he's wrong and it does - I don't really want to do any more research on a topic I'm not particularly interested in.

What I don't understand is why the American constitution is enshrined and treated as a holy script rather than a legal document. I think the second amendment was short sighted and is no longer relevant; whether the constitution guarantees the right of individuals to carry firearms for self defense makes little difference outside of a courtroom, unless you take the document and its creators to be infallible. We all agree on the fact that carrying arms is legal, we're arguing on whether it should remain that way. What the constitution says has no bearing on this, as the constitution has no authority on what's right or wrong.

edit:

...or else!

*waves fist threateningly to the computer screen*

[TEMPLAR67]

...or else!

*waves fist threateningly to the computer screen*

very funny, i forgot to add the, "or else" part, thanks:laugh:

[Claudius]

Vicsun,

The first part makes a difference because it explains that the reason we have a right to bear arms is in order to construct a militia. Furthermore, this is only a reason IF such a militia is necessary.

Its not anymore and neither is the right to bear arms anymore necessary. Of course debatable and various states might have different things to say in their law.

I get what you are saying about the constitution though I disagree with it. The constitution is the law of the land. Do you prefer anarchy? A judge is limited by what the constitution says. Otherwise he is too powerful. A momentary god. And whats worse probably an imperfect one.

[Vicsun]

Vicsun,

The first part makes a difference because it explains that the reason we have a right to bear arms is in order to construct a militia. Furthermore, this is only a reason IF such a militia is necessary.

Its not anymore and neither is the right to bear arms anymore necessary. Of course debatable and various states might have different things to say in their law.

I just never interpreted it that way, though that's an oversight on my part. Would you happen to know what the judicial system has decided the 'correct' interpretation is? I think it's just as likely to mean that people should be allowed to own guns so they can form a militia if the country is threatened by a (foreign) power. I am still completely oblivious as to why what the founding fathers meant matters, though. If we were discussing whether it'd be legal for a state to ban weapons, I'd see the relevance, but we're not discussing legality, we're discussing applied ethics, and what the constitution says has no bearing on that since it's not an authoritative source on what is right and what is wrong.

I get what you are saying about the constitution though I disagree with it. The constitution is the law of the land. Do you prefer anarchy? A judge is limited by what the constitution says. Otherwise he is too powerful. A momentary god.

Yes, criticizing what's written in the constitution means I prefer anarchy.

I think I made my point clear, and I never said the constitution should be scrapped, nor that anarchy is preferable to law. I didn't even come close to implying that anarchy is preferable to law. To reiterate, all I'm saying is that it's okay to think that the constitution, a document written over two centuries ago, might be wrong in one or two of its points and isn't one hundred percent correct on every single issue it addresses.

[Chanak]

@Vic: I don't have much time right now, but I can pretty much sum up my view of that amendment as follows: the U.S. Supreme Court has never interpreted that amendment as meaning that individual citizens have a "right" to bear arms. That said, they pretty much leave such a matter up to individual states as to whether or not citizens can bear arms, and under what circumstances they may do so.

As far as militias go, I've commented on that topic already. They don't exist as they did back when that document was drafted and signed. There was a lack of infrastructure. Military forces were far from standardized or established. Militamen could literally be Pa Jones and Uncle Billy, farmers and cattlemen. If the call for the militia to assemble were sounded, they'd drop their plows and grab their shooting irons out of the house and meet at the town square (or wherever).

Over time (and especially after the Civil War) the militias of the states were organized into the National Guard. Formal training was established and standard equipment was issued to units. Guardsmen were still Pa Jones and Uncle Billy, but it wasn't their shooting irons they were using anymore: it was shooting irons owned by the state. Uniforms given to them by the state. Trucks (or mules) supplied by the state. Etc.

At one point in US history, the National Guard was permitted to fall under the authority of the President in the capacity as Commander-in-Chief. State governors would still exercise control over their units, but the President was empowered to call them into federal service on a temporary basis in times of duress.

So, in short, the militias of the Constitution bear hardly any similarity to the modern National Guard, whose equipment is provided to them by the state itself.

EDIT: I'll get around to other parts of your post to me later on after I catch some desperately needed sleep.

@TEMPLAR67:

@chanak, Im curious to know how your gun control policy would treat people already in possession of the weapons you believe should be restricted, would people be forced to turn them in, or would you include a measure to fully reimburse those people, or would you allow those who already lawfully own the firearms you would see restricted to keep them and just not allow them to be imported or made anymore.

I think a turn-in of restricted firearms would be best with some form of reimbursement given to owners who could furnish a receipt for the purchase of the weapon(s) in question.

[Claudius]

Vicsun,

I am not certain how the supreme court interprets that part of the bill of rights. I am not arguing for banning guns actually, but rather I am pointing out that the founding fathers probably weren't talking about gun collections or hunting when they wrote they guaranteed that right. They had experienced with militia being the victor in a war with the imposing English redcoats and they evidently feared that right to be taken away in future generations to leave us in ill defense.

But I question if mobs of americans armed with handguns would be effective against modern mechanized armies (tanks, air cover, communications, etc). So do we want to apply the right to form a militia as a blanket cover guaranteeing a gun collector the right to have guns. I say it should not be a 'right' like free speach, but it should not necessarily be illegal either. It depends on public opinion which I hope would be influenced in some way by concern over violence.

Actually it appears to me the only defense an unmechanized militia would have if we were taken over by a foreign power would lie in guerilla warfare. Explosives and suicide bombs.

Personally I'd rather just adapt to the conquerors way of life and live peacefully I think the constitution should guarantee my right to practice loving kindness for all people including terrorists.