Gun control/2nd Amendment

[alva]

Astonishingly enough, if all these weapons are forbidden to the public, they'll get much less produced, and much less spread.

Probably, but not in the US. Too many guns are already here.

This doesn't mean that it is irreversible IMHO. maybe not in the next 2 or 3 years, but it can be done.

In theory, I'm all for having/carrying/owning guns or whatever you want to have/do(wether it be guns, drugs,whatever)

The trouble is, it doens't work quite well in practise...

Nice sig btw:

[Sava]

well, guess what, they're dead, we're not. They lose.

Boris, I think you're my favorite Apolytoner.

[Boris Godunov]

Stop with the flattery, I'm not gonna sleep with you.

[Sava]

Okay, I'm going to go look at some naked women to affirm my heterosexuality now...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Handguns should only be legal in rural areas.

Isn't that a bit... harsh.

I mean, who decides what is a rural area? And why shouldn't urbanites have the right to protect themselves if rural people do?

Shouldn't it be reversed? Hunting rifles only to people in rural areas and handguns for all. That would make much sense. Hunting rifles are more used in rural regions.

[Sava]

Isn't that a bit... harsh.

I mean, who decides what is a rural area? And why shouldn't urbanites have the right to protect themselves if rural people do?

Shouldn't it be reversed? Hunting rifles only to people in rural areas and handguns for all. That would make much sense. Hunting rifles are more used in rural regions.

I'm not set in stone on this issue. But let me explain my thinking on the whole rural/urban thing. The overwhelming vast majority of urban gun violence comes from handguns. Rifles still have the potential to be used in urban violence. But... if you've ever handled and fired a rifle (especially a bolt action) it's not easily concealed, and does not have a high of rate of fire. It's a lot easier to shoot 4 or 5 people, maybe even 10, with a handgun, than with a hunting rifle.

Semi-automatic rifles (like the one used in the sniper attacks) should have greater restrictions than bolt-action rifles, BTW.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well, I'd allow handguns and non-auto rifles whereever, with the necessary licensing restrictions, but I don't think you can restrict handguns to a region, because it is WAY easy to smuggle them, and I think that handgun ownership needs to be protected, because criminals will get them anyway. People deserve to own a protection device.

[Boris Godunov]

The question with handgun ownership for me are conceal and carry laws. Give me the heebeejeebies.

[Sava]

If I may, respectfully, I think your perception on the demographics of gun violence is a little off. Most acts of gun violence occur from legally purchased and owned weapons. The stereotype that only criminals with illegal weapons commit crimes is false one.

With the implementation of fingerprint ID safeties, and other technologies, the amount of illegal weapons would decrease and the cost of acquiring them would increase which would also help decrease the amount of illegal weapons. The amount of deterrence involved in owning a firearm is very little. And instances in which the possession of a firearm stops a crime are rare. Most illegal weapons come from the theft of legally purchased weapons.

Banning handguns (the purchase and possession of) is a trade-off. But despite the sacrifice, the end result is of far greater importance.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Most acts of gun violence occur from legally purchased and owned weapons. The stereotype that only criminals with illegal weapons commit crimes is false one.

Much of the hubbub comes from criminals that own illegal weapons. Automatic weapons are illegal, yet the kids at Columbine had them.

Furthermore legal buyers of handguns usually don't use them in murders. They are stolen and then used by those people. You think by banning handguns you'd eliminate that? People would easily get handguns.

Banning handguns (the purchase and possession of) is a trade-off. But despite the sacrifice, the end result is of far greater importance.

Not to me. I think the liberty to be able to own handguns is more important. What is security without freedom?

[Sava]

Perhaps, some day, this issue can be debated properly, with more facts and studies easily available.

[David Floyd]

The freedom to own handguns is unquestionable. Read the 2nd Amendment. Same argument for automatic weapons. Ordnance falls under property rights, not the 2nd Amendment, and hence is not relevant to this topic.

If the Founders wanted gun control, they would have written a specific clause in the Constitution allowing it. They would not have passed the 2nd Amendment as a blanket protection of individual rights, and then just assumed we knew they supported governmental interference on that particular issue, given their general attitudes towards big government.

However, as has been pointed out, they did write in a mechanism for change. They might not agree with the changes, but they did create a mechanism for allowing change. That mechanism is the Constitutional amendment. Basically, if the vast majority of Americans want gun control, they can have it, simply by passing an amendment overturning or rewriting the 2nd.

Until that Amendment is passed - which I doubt it could be, at least not for a long time - then gun control certainly violates the spirit and letter of the 2nd Amendment.

Any major problems with that position?

[Boris Godunov]

DF: See my post wherein I point out the FFs are all dead as dodos, so their desires mean diddly/squat to modern society.

[Sava]

Yeah, huge problem with that position... unless you believe the founding fathers had a crystal ball and saw the future developments in firearms and weapons.

But I'm not going to discuss this topic with you any more David. You think it's okay for people to own nuclear weapons, missiles, and machine guns. And I've known you long enough to know better than to waste my time.

Anyways, in the end, I believe common sense will defeat the misguided, strict view of the 2nd Amendment that many people have.

[Boris Godunov]

So you didn't really want to discuss this, you just wanted to state your view and tell everyone else they are wrong?

Well, guess that's how it usually works here...