Gun Ownership Rights

[The Leaper]

Big case up before the Supreme Court today on gun rights. I'm interested in hearing where people stand.

One interesting note from the case...the girl from Virginia Tech who was nearly killed in the tragedy there is the one opposing gun rights. However, in the CNN bit last night about the case, she was never questioned why she believes banning guns is a solution...when guns WERE banned on the campus of Virginia Tech, and by most accounts that ban was a large reason why the massacre was as sizeable as it was. By the time law enforcement WITH guns were able to adequately combat a law breaker looking to kill the innocent, 32 had died.

"No one here is trying to fight against your right to have a gun," she said in a soft voice. "What we want is for dangerous people not to get access to one, and today it is just too easy. We cannot keep sacrificing innocent people because you have a fear that you're not going to have your right to own a gun."

The bottom line is that criminals don't care about laws...and will have guns regardless. Believing that a law preventing gun ownership will stop dangerous people from having guns is foolishly naive. Dangerous people are dangerous because they have no respect for the law.

Personally, I'm in favor of strict regulations on gun ownership...including background checks and mandatory training on how to use a firearm properly. I'm also in favor of restricting powerful weapons...I see no need for individuals to have automatic weapons.

However, the DC law restricting the ownership of all handguns is stupidity IMO.

[hoosier]

Re: Gun Ownership Rights

One interesting note from the case...the girl from Virginia Tech who was nearly killed in the tragedy there is the one opposing gun rights. However, in the CNN bit last night about the case, she was never questioned why she believes banning guns is a solution...when guns WERE banned on the campus of Virginia Tech, and by most accounts that ban was a large reason why the massacre was as sizeable as it was. By the time law enforcement WITH guns were able to adequately combat a law breaker looking to kill the innocent, 32 had died.

I have no idea what kind of restrictions were in place against guns or handguns at Virginia Tech, but I'm assuming guns weren't allowed at all. If that was the case, are you really suggesting that if a ban hadn't been in place, this kind of massacre could have been prevented? How? Would students show up at class packing heat?

Two thoughts: First, free access to guns on campus is never going to be allowed by most universities, not in a thousand years (at least outside of Texas). Second, the idea that allowing civilians to carry concealed weapons is going to reduce gun violence is, IMO, absolutely absurd and not supported by any study that I'm aware of.

[hoosier]

Re: Gun Ownership Rights

The bottom line is that criminals don't care about laws...and will have guns regardless. Believing that a law preventing gun ownership will stop dangerous people from having guns is foolishly naive. Dangerous people are dangerous because they have no respect for the law.

Personally, I'm in favor of strict regulations on gun ownership...including background checks and mandatory training on how to use a firearm properly. I'm also in favor of restricting powerful weapons...I see no need for individuals to have automatic weapons.

However, the DC law restricting the ownership of all handguns is stupidity IMO.

DC law doesn't prevent gun ownership, it restricts it--you can't own a handgun or carry a concealed weapon. That still leaves rifles and shotguns for hunting and defense of home, while making it more difficult to carry a concealed weapon on the street. That was DC's attempt to reach a compromise between public good and individual liberties. What's interesting to me is that the Right, which is ordinarily all about states' rights, here decides that the Federal gov should step in to overturn local legislation--the Republicans have been doing that to DC for years, and in many other areas that have nothing to do with gun control.

[The Leaper]

Re: Gun Ownership Rights

I have no idea what kind of restrictions were in place against guns or handguns at Virginia Tech, but I'm assuming guns weren't allowed at all. If that was the case, are you really suggesting that if a ban hadn't been in place, this kind of massacre could have been prevented? How? Would students show up at class packing heat?

At Virginia Tech, I'm not talking about students packing heat. I'm talking about the college security detail...which also could not carry weapons because of the ban.

32 people DIED because 10-15 minutes had to go by before actual law enforcement individuals with the firepower to stop an armed madman arrived.

That is inexcusable. The reason places of education are where these massacres take place is because the crazies doing the shooting KNOW they will face the least amount of resistance there.

[Zool]

Maybe its time to ramp down production of handguns? Does anyone really need a Desert Eagle or a .50cal?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqOeDW5wu_E

I agree with Leap that you're never going to eliminate guns, but handguns are pretty much designed with 1 purpose and its not target practice.

[The Leaper]

Re: Gun Ownership Rights

That still leaves rifles and shotguns for hunting and defense of home

Rifles and Shotguns can only be owned if they are maintained in a condition where it is impossible to use them in self defense...meaning dismantled and/or locked by safety devices.

In terms of home defense, if an intruder invades your home, you don't have time to sit there and assemble your rifle or fumble with a trigger lock to protect yourself.

There is no reason to make handguns illegal...providing strict regulations are placed on who can own and register them and that proper training is mandated. Do you really think criminals in DC really aren't packing heat anymore because of this law? Only LAW ABIDING CITIZENS are impacted by this kind of a law.

[The Leaper]

I agree with Leap that you're never going to eliminate guns, but handguns are pretty much designed with 1 purpose and its not target practice.

Any gun is designed with 1 purpose.

It is pretty difficult to kill 32 people with a single shot handgun Zool. Even Dirty Harry would have to spend a good amount of time on that one.

It is pretty easy to kill 32 people with an automatic weapon. Those are the weapons that have no logical bearing on society. Why does anyone need an automatic weapon to protect their family?

[Partial]

I think Chris Rock had it right when he said:

Don't go to parties with metal detectors
Sure it feels safe inside; but what about
all those niggaz waitin outside with guns?
They know you ain't got one..

Same principal applies to most situations. Regardless of the presence of metal detectors.

[The Leaper]

Re: Gun Ownership Rights

Second, the idea that allowing civilians to carry concealed weapons is going to reduce gun violence is, IMO, absolutely absurd and not supported by any study that I'm aware of.

Perhaps.

However, there is also no real evidence you can point to that not allowing concealed carry will reduce gun violence or protect innocent citizens.

The availability of handguns is not the issue. While DC bans handguns, guns are readily available in either Virginia or Maryland...a mere stones throw away. Yet the suburban areas of DC in Virginia and Maryland do not face the same rate of gun crime that DC has...DESPITE the easier access to weapons.

The issue is having people not respect the law...mostly due to economic conditions where young people see crime as a better way to escape poverty than being a law abiding citizen. It has very little to do with access to guns. Criminals will find access to guns...regardless of how long it takes.

[Partial]

I have read countless studies that crime goes down big time when concealed weapons are allowed. I would think this would be the case, though I don't exactly have the "criminal" mindset.

IMO, most people don't commit crimes out of necessity but out of greed. In that case, I would certainly hope that they'd be smart enough to realize it's not worth getting blasted away over.

[hoosier]

Re: Gun Ownership Rights

I have no idea what kind of restrictions were in place against guns or handguns at Virginia Tech, but I'm assuming guns weren't allowed at all. If that was the case, are you really suggesting that if a ban hadn't been in place, this kind of massacre could have been prevented? How? Would students show up at class packing heat?

At Virginia Tech, I'm not talking about students packing heat. I'm talking about the college security detail...which also could not carry weapons because of the ban.

32 people DIED because 10-15 minutes had to go by before actual law enforcement individuals with the firepower to stop an armed madman arrived.

That is inexcusable. The reason places of education are where these massacres take place is because the crazies doing the shooting KNOW they will face the least amount of resistance there.

Yeah, clearly the rent-a-cops should be armed. I doubt anyone would have a problem with that.

[Zool]

I agree with Leap that you're never going to eliminate guns, but handguns are pretty much designed with 1 purpose and its not target practice.

Any gun is designed with 1 purpose.

It is pretty difficult to kill 32 people with a single shot handgun Zool. Even Dirty Harry would have to spend a good amount of time on that one.

It is pretty easy to kill 32 people with an automatic weapon. Those are the weapons that have no logical bearing on society. Why does anyone need an automatic weapon to protect their family?

So we should only protect people in groups? If people are by themselves without a pistol of their own, fuck em. They get what they get.

All guns are designed to put holes in meaty substances, but pistols are designed to do it discreetly.

Shit, I gotta go. The Redcoats are coming and my right to bear arms is still coming in handy 230 years later.

[hoosier]

Re: Gun Ownership Rights

Second, the idea that allowing civilians to carry concealed weapons is going to reduce gun violence is, IMO, absolutely absurd and not supported by any study that I'm aware of.

Perhaps.

However, there is also no real evidence you can point to that not allowing concealed carry will reduce gun violence or protect innocent citizens.

The availability of handguns is not the issue. While DC bans handguns, guns are readily available in either Virginia or Maryland...a mere stones throw away. Yet the suburban areas of DC in Virginia and Maryland do not face the same rate of gun crime that DC has...DESPITE the easier access to weapons.

The issue is having people not respect the law...mostly due to economic conditions where young people see crime as a better way to escape poverty than being a law abiding citizen. It has very little to do with access to guns. Criminals will find access to guns...regardless of how long it takes.

I agree completely with your assessment of the social and economic context in which gun violence happens. And I also agree that it's hard to find objective evidence to form an argument for or against gun restriction--hard, but maybe not impossible. When DC passed its handgun ban in 1976 it did experience a 25% decline in gun-related violence (but not other violent crimes), which suggests that the ban did have a positive effect on reducing violence. Gun-related violence went up again in the 1980's due to crack--but it might well have been much worse if there hadn't been a ban. NYC, which banned handguns in the early 20th century, ranked among the lowest in gun related deaths for most of the past century. These two examples aren't conclusive proof that handgun bans work, but I think they suggest that handgun bans in urban areas are promising and should be tested further.

[The Leaper]

Re: Gun Ownership Rights

When DC passed its handgun ban in 1976 it did experience a 25% decline in gun-related violence (but not other violent crimes), which suggests that the ban did have a positive effect on reducing violence.

Which is why I'm absolutely in favor of firm restrictions on who can own and register a handgun. In essence, what those bans did was make it harder for criminals to access guns...which is why you saw a brief decline in crime, then eventually saw it rise back up again as criminals ADJUSTED. Did this really protect innocent civilians long term? I don't think so. It took guns away from them LONG term...while it only took guns away from criminals SHORT term.

There are just as many studys and examples where INCREASING the ability of law abiding citizens to own and carry guns also curtailed violence and crime in a community. The thugs aren't entirely stupid...they will target those they know don't have the ability to defend themselves.

I'm all in favor of making it damn near impossible for someone with a criminal record or history of mental illness to own a gun. I also find the need to possess automatic weapons illogical and a danger to society when they fall into the hands of those who wish to kill dozens of innocent people.

However, I do not believe that taking guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens looking to have a way to defend themselves and their family against those who will disregard the law at all costs is part of the answer to reducing violence.

[3irty1]

I think the Tech situation has more to do with the confusion. You can blame the campus for handling it poorly but that's just not something a college should have to worry about. Wasn't it like 20 minutes before anyone even knew what was going on? I don't know that it would have made much difference having armed people on campus.

Still I feel that it is already illegal to do illegal to commit violent crimes with guns... what good does it do to make owning guns illegal? So criminals have to break two laws instead of just one?

I don't want to see any more gun control laws. Try enforcing the ones we already have instead. I don't see how anyone can see this as anything except slowly taking away people's rights. People seem to be stuck in an anti-gun mentality but guns are not a bad thing. They are not just for criminals and they are not just for wackos who go to weekly militia meetings.