US Election Weekly Voter Poll: Gun Control

[Serconea]

What do you think?

[Grub (Lenlyvit)]

The 2nd Amendment -- "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. "

[TheSensitiveNewAge]

I'm in favor of both. I do not think people should have anti-tank weapons or Browning .50 caliber machine guns. Yet I think people should be allowed to carry concealed handguns with a few regualtions (such as, no convicted felons carrying pistols) and the right to own a rifle or a shot gun should not greatly infringed upon.

[Otupia]

GUNS KILL

[Sheynat]

I'm about the same as TSNA. No assault rifles, but to a certain extent, regulation of firearms is a violation of the second amendment.

[Kellopalopalis]

At this time, gun control for the most part would be unconstitutional, which is why the 2nd amendment should be repealed.

[Serconea]

Just for information about the UK's gun laws:

www.crimereduction.gov.uk/violentstreet4.htm

And its impact:
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3868411.stm

[RichfieldMN]

I also support the repeal of the 2nd amendment but have reservations about gun control too.

We could outlaw guns which would affect all citizens but those who comit felonies are those who do not have legal registered guns and these crimes would still continue.

How do you take the illegal guns of the streets ?

[Bad Infinitum]

Normally this wouldn't affect me, I deal with assault rifles and heavy machine guns on a daily basis. However, the gun control debate has become so severe, the Pentagon has done extensive research into non-lethal weaponry. Once the war in Afghanistan started, several units were outfitted with such weapons. They failed.

As for civilians, lawmakers have no right to repeal one of the most solid and undisputable amendments. If people were no longer protected under the consitution, guns would be readily available still, and the only thing that would change is the murder rate would be higher.

There are no positives to outlawing firearm ownership. NONE.

[New Age Guilds]

i say that people should be allowed guns for hunting, and for other sport. the guns should be unloaded at all times until the season kicks in and the y should constantly check users. this is for rifles.
i beleive u should be allowed a hand gun, but must go through rigorous tests and screening to be allowed one. you should also have gun edd in school but not he way they teach sex eed.
" u may want to have sex know, but remember, if you have sex you WILL get pregnat and YOU will die"

[The Pillsbury Doughboy]

Unloaded until the season starts? How would people practice? Besides, it would be very difficult to make shure people have unloaded guns. Police would have to check every registered gun owners house to check, and by the time they asked to see the gun, the owner would unload it. A gun ed class in school would be a problem. Some kids don't care about owning a gun, so the class would be pointless to them, and to have a decent class they would have to bring guns to the school. Even if the gun was unloaded, parents would make a big deal about it.

[New Age Guilds]

okay, they do not have to have it unloaded, but it should be in a secure place. police could put tags on the guns and monitor them, to see if they do anything iational. as for gun edd, it would just be a 4 week course, telling students how to cope with firearms, and stuff like that

[Sheynat]

I can't believe people on this thread are talking about repealing the second amendment. I absolutely cannot believe it. I'm a staunch liberal, but when I hear my fellow liberals seriously discuss repealing the second amendment it gets me really, really mad. You repeal the second amendment, because it's outdated; well, you can make the argument that the Fifth Amendment is outdated as well. After all, violent criminals have been able to avoid giving valuable testimony. Even child rapists! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!!!111 And from there, who knows? Maybe the First. After all, we can't allow people to go around insulting each other, or the government; it gets in the way of the government doing its work. Repealing one of the original ten amendments is a stupid, stupid idea. It establishes a precedent that absolutely must not be established; namely, that if you can come up with a compelling enough reason (not necessarily a good reason, just one that you can guilt-trip people into agreeing with), you can repeal any amendment at all. Repealing the eighteenth worked because it was a unique case, never expected to happen again in American history. Repealing the second establishes the precedent that amendments may be added and removed at will; and that the original ten are subject to removal. They shouldn't be subject to modification; much less removal. And on top of that, PAI is correct. There is no benefit to banning gun ownership, especially not in a culture as violent as ours. In the U.S., all it would do is guarantee that the only people who have guns are exactly the people you don't want owning guns; and nobody will be able to do anything to stop them.

[Bad Infinitum]

Thank you, Sheynat. You're exactly right. If you're going to take out the second, you might as well repeal free speech too. I mean, people might get offended!

[Kellopalopalis]

Sheynat said:

I can't believe people on this thread are talking about repealing the second amendment. I absolutely cannot believe it. I'm a staunch liberal, but when I hear my fellow liberals seriously discuss repealing the second amendment it gets me really, really mad. You repeal the second amendment, because it's outdated; well, you can make the argument that the Fifth Amendment is outdated as well. After all, violent criminals have been able to avoid giving valuable testimony. Even child rapists! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!!!111 And from there, who knows? Maybe the First. After all, we can't allow people to go around insulting each other, or the government; it gets in the way of the government doing its work. Repealing one of the original ten amendments is a stupid, stupid idea. It establishes a precedent that absolutely must not be established; namely, that if you can come up with a compelling enough reason (not necessarily a good reason, just one that you can guilt-trip people into agreeing with), you can repeal any amendment at all. Repealing the eighteenth worked because it was a unique case, never expected to happen again in American history. Repealing the second establishes the precedent that amendments may be added and removed at will; and that the original ten are subject to removal. They shouldn't be subject to modification; much less removal. And on top of that, PAI is correct. There is no benefit to banning gun ownership, especially not in a culture as violent as ours. In the U.S., all it would do is guarantee that the only people who have guns are exactly the people you don't want owning guns; and nobody will be able to do anything to stop them.

I can't believe that amendments are beyond rational discussion. The suggestion that an idea is any more valid, let alone completely valid, because it is an amendment is utterly absurd. When we subscribe blindly to an idea, ignoring its merits, with whatever justification, we have lost all reason.

[Sheynat]

I don't think gun control is a bad idea solely because it's an amendment; I actually thought about it. I know people, personally, who have saved their lives and that of others with a gun, whether by inspiring fear in the criminal or ending his life. I've never been in that situation myself; I don't even own a gun. I think gun control is a bad idea because, well, I've explained it. I'm definitely no NRA member; I like gun control right where it is, with maybe concealed pistols a little more accepted. I definitely oppose people walking around with AKs and anti-tank weaponry. I sympathize with your point, Kellaopalis (at least I think I do; not sure if I got your point), but I don't "blindly follow" this idea. I've sat down and thought about it and I just can't see an upside to banning guns. If you can, I'd be glad to hear it, but don't expect to make me an advocate of gun control. You're right that placement in the Bill of Rights doesn't make an idea utterly valid; for example, the First Amendment could be construed to state that you can believe whatever you want, but you are legally required to believe something. The eighteenth amendment was crap, and the proposed amendment to ban gay marriage is also crap. There have been, possibly will be, and to some extent, there are bad ideas in the Constitution. Again, I believe the first ten should be inviolable not because they're completely right, but because little "corrections" can lead to bigger "corrections", and that's beside my personal beliefs about guns.

[Kellopalopalis]

The problem is that guns are not very effective at preventing violence. A gun in a home is 4 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting, 7 times more likely to be used in a homocide and 11 times more likely to be used in a suicide than to be used in self defence. When a person is home during a burglary (only 25% of burglaries) and a gun is fired, only 2% of the time the intruder is hit. It is more likely that a family member will be mistakenly shot or that the intruder will take the gun and use it to shoot someone.

[Sheynat]

This is true; I do have to yield on that. A properly kept gun minimizes, but does not eliminate the risk; and a properly kept gun is also difficult to prepare for a fight, in that you must unlock the gun, load it, turn off the safety and chamber a round, rather than just seizing the weapon from your endtable drawer, killing the safety and bangbangbang. Unlocking the place you keep it and loading it can add maybe, five, ten seconds to the loading time. Basically, the wisdom of keeping a weapon depends on your circumstances. If you live in a wealthy, surburban area, then it's not too wise. If you have small children, or you live with people prone to violence, the gun should go immediately. However, there are circumstances in which keeping a gun is a favorable thing (at least in my opinion). For example; a high-crime area.That's why I favor the right to bear arms. True, it's not likely you will ever need to use the thing; but it's not likely you will ever need to use a seatbelt to save your life. Further, having the gun turned on you can be prevented by things like trigger-locks; and the next generation of pistols is designed to be usable by only one person. One in particular will fire only if a ring worn by the user comes in contact with a chip on the pistol grip. And finally, the real effectiveness of a gun comes from the fear the intruder feels when a warning shot is fired. If the intruder is halfway sane, the fear alone will be enough to compel him to surrender. Out of curiousity, where did you get those statistics? I don't challenge them, they do seem correct, I'm just interested. Well, except for the 2 percent one; the ranges we're talking about don't seem to allow for that little accuracy.

[Bonaduce Alander]

Is it possible to change your vote?
I want to move mine over to Right to bear arms.

[Kellopalopalis]

It is justified to have guns in some circumstances. Though gun control must be stritly regulated, which is why the 2nd amendment must be repealed. I got those statistics from the Brady Campaign to Stop Gun Violence. The statistic about the 2% came inderectly from Journal of the American Medical Association.

And no, it's not possible to change your vote.

[Bad Infinitum]

I'd like to hear some points, that can't be countered, for banning guns. Even just one.

[Sheynat]

Again, I disagree on the idea of repealing the second amendment on the grounds of the precedent it establishes; but I'm clearly not going to convince you on that issue, and no way are you convincing me, so I'm going to move on. As for the statisitics coming from the Brady Campaign, did they compile these themselves? Generally, if the statisitics were compiled by a group with an agenda, they can't be trusted; as an individual with a bias tends to conciously or unconciously skew the results toward what he desires them to show. I'm not saying they're absolutely untrue because, again, except for the 2 percent thing, they sound reasonable. I'm going to look up their website and look into it.
And Kel's right, the best you can do is make a post to the effect that you voted wrong.

[Kellopalopalis]

The research (at least what I quoted) wasn't done by the Brady Campaign, but was used on its site.

I don't think there exist any "points" regarding anything which can't be countered.

[Bad Infinitum]

Exactly. Especially not in this debate.

Even if the second amendment was repealed, that's not going to stop guns in the slightest. It'll just make them illegal. People will still have them, perhaps even more people. Cops will still carry them, gangsters will still carry them, people will still die, people will still hunt. It changes nothing, all it does is clog up prisons and waste police officers' time that could be better spent fighting drugs, something not protected by the US Constitution.

[Sheynat]

Exactly. Look at the drug war. They're illegal, and yet used. Illegalization of guns would be just about the same as prohibition. You'd create a black market and spend millions investigating gun charges and pursuing charges.

[Down under there]

Good work, everyone. You scored another vote for Right to Bear Arms. I have a question for you all though: have you heard of the new gun law in Virginia? People are going to lunch with handguns on their hips. That seems like it's not a good idea. One drunken argument, the gun comes out, and someone gets killed. I think the gun should stay at home, although I'm open to argument.

[Serconea]

My policy would be to ban the sale of handguns and only allow farmers and hunters to carry rifles. I don't mind arming police officers, although it's not the British tradition.

In the UK, we have a lot of problems with replicas being turned into working firearms. There are calls to ban replica firearms, but the problem is defining a replica.

[The Pillsbury Doughboy]

If people aren't killing each other with guns, they'll kill each other with rocks. If you really want to harm someone or yourself, you'll find a way.

[Down under there]

It's a lot easier to make a mistake or accident with a gun than it is with a rock...

[TheSensitiveNewAge]

People may be at more risk on average if they own a gun than those who do not. However, the average includes idiots who think a pistol is as simple as a mouse, i.e. point and click. All of my ancestors up until my parents generation, and then most of them, had or have guns. There has never been an accident with a firearm in my family because all the kids through the ages were taught that guns are tools, though possibly dangerous they can be handled safely. I had a great-aunt who scared off a would-be rapist. I had greatgrandfather who never worried about race riots (in Chicago, 1910s, between immigrints such as Hungarians, various Slavs, Itlains, and more) because of his trusty double-barreled shotgun that he also used as a shephard. Also, my grandmother (his daughter) had a gun by the back door in case someone threatened her or her family. There will always be morons who are a waste of air, and though they may harm an innocent with a gun, that should not affect my right to keep a rifle or a shotgun to defend myself and my loved ones.

"Those who trade freedom for temporary safety, deserve niether." -Ben Franklin