AD-17 - The Right to Bear Arms

[Mundungus Fletc]

Originally Posted by unconvinced

Just out of interest what are the laws in the US regarding shooting or attacking people who brake into your home? I know they are kinda murky in the UK and, unfortunatly, seem to favour those doing the braking in

They're not that murky - for a successful prosecution you have to have done something that 12 ordinary people believe is unreasonable force - like shooting a burglar in the back when he is running away

[katsumi]

I think that the "right to bear arms" thing in the states has given birth to a crazy gun culture. And as a nation you have far more crimes committed with guns than do other nations.
Canada is a good point of comparison, as a lot of our laws are similar and our cultures are pretty much the same. Our Charter or Rights and Freedoms grants us the right to bear arms, strictly speaking, but that right isn't really that important here. And per capita, the number of crimes committed with guns in Canada is drastically less.
Gun legislation is a good thing, provided it is well organized and actually serves a purpose (Canadian gun registry wasting millions of tax dollars is an example of bad gun control).

I think statistically speaking the average citizen who uses a weapon for self-protection is more likely to have that weapon used against them during the commission of an offence than he/she is of successfully subduing the offender with his/her weapon.
I have heard that from a number of sources, though I don't have any links for you here.

I find it kind of strange (and rather frightening) that the right to bear arms is such an important right in your country -- more so than the right to get married. Ya'll would rather have your guns than have equal rights... Kind of baffling.

[canismajoris]

Originally Posted by Midnightsfire

Youe words imply that you've never shot a gun before, or taught anyone how to shoot defensively.

You aim in the center of your target and shoot twice. You never attempt to "play" at being a marksman. That usually gets you killed.

I think there's a difference between learning to shoot and learning to kill. At knife range, for example, it's not hard to be a good marksman--especially if we operate under the assumption that legal gun carriers have fired the weapon before passably.

[Midnightsfire]

Originally Posted by unconvinced

Just out of interest what are the laws in the US regarding shooting or attacking people who brake into your home? I know they are kinda murky in the UK and, unfortunatly, seem to favour those doing the braking in

The laws in all states allow the use of deadly force against certain violent felonies.
And to support your other point; Shopkeeper fined for fighting back against thieves
Sadly, that is just one of many I've been reading that supports the point that victims in the UK seems to get the shaft.

Some curious news:

Knife crime doubles in the UK

Canadian polls show little support for more gun control, and support for easing what exists.

Weapons sell for just £50 as suspects and victims grow ever younger

British victimization studies understate crime rates
"the British Crime Survey, has since its inception had an artificial cap: no one may report having been a victim of more than five crimes in a year. Victimization No. 6 and beyond are simply discarded.
a study by Professor Graham Farrell of Loughborough University finds that it means the real violent crime rate is 82% higher than what is being reported -- 4.4 million incidents per year rather than 2.4. That comes just from adding back in people who are being victimized 5+ times a year."

Brits turn to crossbows for selfdefense

[OldLupin]

Originally Posted by unconvinced

Just out of interest what are the laws in the US regarding shooting or attacking people who brake into your home? I know they are kinda murky in the UK and, unfortunatly, seem to favour those doing the braking in

In rural Delaware, it is given a lot of leadway, partially due to the wide seperation from police stations for many people and partially due to citizens' demands. If someone breaks into my home, armed or not, I am within my rights to shoot them and kill them on sight. Any invasion of a home constitutes threat to life or limb and allows for armed retaliation without the requirement of attempting to establish if the invader is armed. Protection of property is less clear cut, but in the past few years there have been a couple of buisness owners who have employed a gun in defending their buisnesses and niether was charged with a crime, though admittedly I am unfamiliar with all the facts of those cases. Ironically if someone defends themself with a gun and no criminal charges are filed, the story tends to miss media attention.

[katsumi]

Canadians are sick of the gun control debate because our stupid gun registry is a money guzzler with little to no purpose whatsoever. It is completely ineffective and therefore wasteful.

On the same token, Canadians generally don't care too much about the right to bear arms. We are not a gun culture the way that America seems to be. In fact, most Canadians who do argue in favour of looser gun laws are those who are hunting fans. We have a lot of those over here. Come deer and moose season, Canadians don't give a fart about gun control.

But as I say, it's just not something that we really care about either way. Our criminal justice system is so lopsided right now, favouring criminals over victims, that it's dangerous for Canadians to take up arms to protect themselves in the first place. If I were to shoot an intruder I'd be scrutinized under that blanket of "reasonable person" and "reasonable force" -- which I think is quite ridiculous considering reason doesn't enter into it when your home has been invaded...

But that's another topic, I think. Our laws as regards self-defense are a sore spot for me.

I think that there should be restrictions on who can own a weapon -- period. If you have ever committed a violent crime, you should not be able to obtain any kind of gun. If you have committed any kind of crime involving a weapon, even if no one was physically harmed, you should not be able to obtain a gun of any kind. If you have been up for review for mental competence regarding a crime you have committed, whether violent or not, you should not be able to obtain a gun.

Giving guns to just anyone is careless. You forfeit your right to bear arms the moment you take up arms against an innocent victim -- or at least that's how it ought to be.

[OldLupin]

Originally Posted by katsumi

I think that the "right to bear arms" thing in the states has given birth to a crazy gun culture. And as a nation you have far more crimes committed with guns than do other nations.
Canada is a good point of comparison, as a lot of our laws are similar and our cultures are pretty much the same. Our Charter or Rights and Freedoms grants us the right to bear arms, strictly speaking, but that right isn't really that important here. And per capita, the number of crimes committed with guns in Canada is drastically less.
Gun legislation is a good thing, provided it is well organized and actually serves a purpose (Canadian gun registry wasting millions of tax dollars is an example of bad gun control).

I think statistically speaking the average citizen who uses a weapon for self-protection is more likely to have that weapon used against them during the commission of an offence than he/she is of successfully subduing the offender with his/her weapon.
I have heard that from a number of sources, though I don't have any links for you here.

I find it kind of strange (and rather frightening) that the right to bear arms is such an important right in your country -- more so than the right to get married. Ya'll would rather have your guns than have equal rights... Kind of baffling.

Gun culture predates the Constitution in the U.S. and has been prevalent since we became territories of the British Empire. The stats actually show that most guns won't be used in either crime or defense actively, but the odds of having your own weapon used against you are far less than having a criminal use a weapon that isn't yours against you. The way in which some statistics are presented can be misleading.
While I appreciate disagreement with the right to bear arms as a fundamental tenant of a free nation, people can disagree with U.S. law and policy without accusing anyone of not wanting equality or somehow choosing guns over equality. We all know how specious that type of rhetoric is. That isn’t the choices made or even available. While some don’t understand why Constitutionally guaranteed rights are so important to most Americans, even those who don’t like guns in the least, they might do better to make an attempt to understand that importance before spewing commentary that is uninformed, off topic and insulting in nature.

[katsumi]

That isn’t the choices made or even available. While some don’t understand why Constitutionally guaranteed rights are so important to most Americans, even those who don’t like guns in the least, they might do better to make an attempt to understand that importance before spewing commentary that is uninformed, off topic and insulting in nature.

I'm not sure what you mean here, Lupe. I might have missed something in your last post (or I can't tell what "that" is referring to in your first sentence). I do understand wanting to protect Constitutionally guaranteed rights -- if I didn't I wouldn't have brought up the right to get married (which I'm sure we can all agree falls under the "pursuit of happiness" heading). I just don't quite understand a culture that will push so hard for one right and not for another which is equally important.

I don't think I have been inaccurate in saying that the United States has seen more of a push to preserve the right to bear arms than it has seen a push to preserve equality. But maybe it's that those in favour of preserving the right to bear arms are more vocal about it...
Either way, I do agree that it was a bit off topic.

Having said that, did you see my next post? I did discuss what I thought should be done regarding gun control or regulation. I do not feel that what I have suggested is unreasonable. Do you have any thoughts on that?

[OldLupin]

Originally Posted by katsumi

Having said that, did you see my next post? I did discuss what I thought should be done regarding gun control or regulation. I do not feel that what I have suggested is unreasonable. Do you have any thoughts on that?

Originally Posted by katsumi

Giving guns to just anyone is careless. You forfeit your right to bear arms the moment you take up arms against an innocent victim -- or at least that's how it ought to be.

Yes, you are right in wanting those restrictions and I believe every state in the U.S. has agreed with you. There are several laws that govern limits on gun ownership and unfortunately not all of them are aggressively enforced. Your requirements are not only good common sense restrictions, but are outright mandatory to maintain reasonable controls over firearms. I think we are closer in opinion than it may have seemed before.
Your last comment is a wise and important distinction that I think we all agree with, though specifics tend to separate us. There are actions, illnesses and circumstances where gun ownership has to be reasonably restricted and criminal history as well as potential/possible mental illness are very good parameters to use. Domestic violence is another reason for denial of gun ownership in most places and I am firmly in favor of that restriction as well.
From your post I can see some of where the perceptions are different from your situation to mine. I too see the local legal system as far favoring the criminal, but the scrutiny you describe isn’t as much a factor where I live. I can definitely see where that can be a factor in this issue. I agree also with the use of the word “reasonable” in reference to circumstances that are anything but, is just unrealistic. That would be a good thread for debate.

[katsumi]

You know what? It really would!

I actually work within the criminal justice system, and having seen what kinds of terrible things people do to each other, I think I tend to lean more on the harsher side of gun restriction where past criminal behaviour is concerned. I do think that certain types of guns should just be banned outright, as there is no real practical purpose for them other than killing a lot of people at once. I think that certain guns should be restricted or completely prohibited altogether.
Hand guns, on the other hand, should be allowed provided they are stored properly, etc. It would be nice if there was some kind of way of enforcing gun safety.

But semi-automatic weapons that can fire of 30 rounds in a minute are just monster-machines and I see no reason why anyone who is not in the military should have one at all. We see a lot of criminals in gangs stockpiling the things, and it can only be bad.

I agree that we're likely a lot closer on this issue than we had heretofore thought. (Wanted an excuse to use the word heretofore. hahaha).

[Morbius]

1.In light of recent events and what appears to be a daily occurrence in towns and cities across the US, do you believe that the right to bear arms can still be upheld or do you think it is time to toughen up gun laws?

Yes, the right should be upheld. We need to enforce laws currently on the books and not add more draconian laws.

2. Is it necessary for a citizen to own a gun or guns?

No it is not "necessary" to own a gun. If you do not like guns or do not have an interest in shooting then thats fine. However the folks that enjoy guns and shooting should be allowed to do so without harassment.

3. What situations do you believe are right for a person to use a gun in anger?

There are no situations where a gun should be used in anger. Anger clouds judgement and mistakes are made. Adequate and continuing training for folks who carry for personal protection. The decision to employ deadly force often occurs in a split second. Training can help to make the process less accident prone. Training as well can help the person better recognize developing situations and avoid them therefore possibly negating the need for deadly force in the first place,

4. If gun control is more a case of guns out of control, should the system as it stands be redeveloped into one of more collective responsibility? So for example, if you are a first-time gun owner, in order to own a gun and before you undergo a background check you must have one or even two sponsors, gun owners themselves with no criminal record, with a stipulation that the sponsors will be held in some way, accountable for the actions of the individual should the gun be used in anger?

Ultimately we are all individually responsible for our actions in anything we do. Guns are no different. There are better ways. First, as mentioned above, we need to enforce laws currently on the books. Second, education and training to raise awareness.

5. Should there be a pyschological and other such evaluations in place for future gun owners to undertake? Maybe a program of training for all first-time gun owners?

Psych testing would seem to be unrealistic however training is always a good thing as long as it is appropriate and realistic as far as length and content.

6. Should authorities do more to clamp down on the sale of guns privately or at specialised fairs that cater for gun owners?

Most states already have laws on the books prohibiting private sales of guns. Again, lets fund more law enforcement and use the laws already in place.

7. If you do not believe the law needs changing or that guns should be regulated better, what solutions do you propose to combat events like these from ever happening again?

It is a sad commentary but facts are facts. The criminal element by their very nature will if they want to, obtain guns illegally. These are the folks we need to crack down on. Not the legal gun owner. ALL fifty states should should be "shall issue" states when it comes to obtaining a Concealed carry permit.

You can legislate all the gun control laws you want and while the average Joe/Jane will abide by them, the criminal element won't therefore Joe/Jane become victims.

Robert Heinlein said it best "An armed society is a polite society"

As a responsible gun owner and competitiive shooter, I would rather be judged by twelve than carried by six.

[ladykrystyna]

It is a sad commentary but facts are facts. The criminal element by their very nature will if they want to, obtain guns illegally. These are the folks we need to crack down on. Not the legal gun owner. ALL fifty states should should be "shall issue" states when it comes to obtaining a Concealed carry permit.

You can legislate all the gun control laws you want and while the average Joe/Jane will abide by them, the criminal element won't therefore Joe/Jane become victims.

Robert Heinlein said it best "An armed society is a polite society"

As a responsible gun owner and competitiive shooter, I would rather be judged by twelve than carried by six.

Great post . . . all of it. I agree with every word you wrote, especially this last part.

Making more laws to address a problem is a band-aid and is usually done for show by the politicians and they mean nothing. If the law does not actually have the consequence of stemming the bad behavior it's trying to control, then it's completely pointless. There are tens of thousands of gun laws on the books across the U.S., and like our immigration laws, are not being enforced. So we ask for more laws?!? It's completely illogical.

Guns will never be banned in the U.S. It'll never happen. There are MILLIONS of guns around the entire country and not one owner of those guns will voluntarily give them up (unlike in countries like Australia, which still astounds me!). So the politicians make up stupid laws about sizes of magazines, etc. that do nothing to really protect people (except maybe armor piercing rounds which I have to say are pointless to the average citizen). A bullet is a bullet and one can kill you, just as 30 can. The politicians use the "oh how terrible" factor and push these things through and nothing changes.

Common sense is the only way to go on this. Criminals do NOT get their weapons at the local gun store and if they do than the gun store is criminal and should be shut down. And there are already laws that take care of that.

Look at the VA Tech tragedy - if VA had followed it's own laws, that kid would most likely not been able to obtain a weapon (or at least he would have had enough difficulty to make him scrap his plan) in the first place. Then again, guns are not the only weapons. Terrorists don't often use guns, especially if they are looking for mass destruction. So if you want someone dead, you'll find a way - knife, bombs, guns, baseball bats (a family friend was killed with one when his jewelry store was robbed), poison, etc.

So when we say "guns don't kill people, people kill people" that's what we mean.

Getting rid of guns doesn't get rid of the underlying problem - poverty, lack of role models, that get kids into gangs; lack of education about conflict resolution, and I'm sure there are more reasons why America may seem more violent (including the fact that we have over 300 million people in this country and our population is probably the most diverse in the entire world - culture clashes, which include gang warfare, abound.)

[aussieboy]

Originally Posted by Morgoth

Due to recent events in the USA and in order to alleviate the pressure to debate the issue I am re-starting this thread. Obviously this debate will include political viewpoints on both sides of the spectrum, but I respectfully ask that sensitivities to the events in Virginia be brought to the forefront of your mind before anyone decides to go into a rant at the expense of those who died. A first offence in this thread will carry a warning and an unlimited ban from the DoIMC forum, to be re-instated at the discretion of the Admins.

So, the US Bill of Rights states in the Second 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.

Questions

1.In light of recent events and what appears to be a daily occurrence in towns and cities across the US, do you believe that the right to bear arms can still be upheld or do you think it is time to toughen up gun laws?

2. Is it necessary for a citizen to own a gun or guns?

3. What situations do you believe are right for a person to use a gun in anger?

4. If gun control is more a case of guns out of control, should the system as it stands be redeveloped into one of more collective responsibility? So for example, if you are a first-time gun owner, in order to own a gun and before you undergo a background check you must have one or even two sponsors, gun owners themselves with no criminal record, with a stipulation that the sponsors will be held in some way, accountable for the actions of the individual should the gun be used in anger?

5. Should there be a pyschological and other such evaluations in place for future gun owners to undertake? Maybe a program of training for all first-time gun owners?

6. Should authorities do more to clamp down on the sale of guns privately or at specialised fairs that cater for gun owners?

7. If you do not believe the law needs changing or that guns should be regulated better, what solutions do you propose to combat events like these from ever happening again?

1. It can and it will. For every Virginia Tech and columbine, there are millions more cases of people being responsible with and respectful of the awesome power of the firearm.

2. In my opinion, owning a gun is like voting. It's your right, but you don't have to exercise it if you don't want to.

3. Self-defence of life, family or property. The police, no matter how good they are, often only arrive after the commission of a crime.

4. No. You abuse your right to bear arms, you and only you should be responsible. you do the crime, you do the time.

5. Yes. People should be taught how to properly exercise their rights, just as our schools teach us how to exercise all the other rights in our Constitution.

6. Basically they should check if they are legitimate, i. e. they're not smuggling anything or using it to finance criminal operations.

7. Firstly, crack down on crime. That's what a life sentence or in some cases capital punishment is for. Secondly, work to remove the reasons for crime in the first place; i.e. urban redevelopment programs, more attention to our wrecked education system.

[Wright1771]

Here in OZ the only ones to carry arms are members of the ADF, the Police and members of the public who are registed members of a gun club.

[Tenshi]

Originally Posted by aussieboy

3. Self-defence of life, family or property. The police, no matter how good they are, often only arrive after the commission of a crime.

Defense of property. There's nothing what is worth risking your life for or hurting other people IMO. Things can be replaced, but a life not.

you do the crime, you do the time.

What do you mean here? That people who use guns (legally included) are criminals?

[flimseycauldron]

Originally Posted by ladykrystyna

Getting rid of guns doesn't get rid of the underlying problem - poverty, lack of role models, that get kids into gangs; lack of education about conflict resolution, and I'm sure there are more reasons why America may seem more violent (including the fact that we have over 300 million people in this country and our population is probably the most diverse in the entire world - culture clashes, which include gang warfare, abound.)

While I agree with you that getting rid of guns will not rid us of the underlying problems, it does not help controling the underlying problems, either. I have never owned a gun, and never plan on owning a gun. Why? Because I refuse to put myself and my family in the position of needing one.. If I don't condone violence, then why allow a gun, which can only cause or exacerbate violence, into my house? As far as defending my property, there is not one thing I own that can't be replaced. As far as defending my family why on earth would I live a lifestyle that puts my family in jeopardy in the first place? A gun MAY save my life in a threatening situation, or the mere presence of said gun MAY also kill me, or get me killed by the opposing gun, in the same situation. Having a gun is no guarantee that it can or will protect you no matter how careful you are with it.

[Midnightsfire]

I personally know of several people who have had to defend themselves.

I recall one acctractive lady whose door was being smashed in by several drunks. They tore that door off the hinges fairly quickly. She in turn hospitalized them.

[flimseycauldron]

Originally Posted by Midnightsfire

I personally know of several people who have had to defend themselves.

I recall one acctractive lady whose door was being smashed in by several drunks. They tore that door off the hinges fairly quickly. She in turn hospitalized them.

I am glad that your friend could defend herself and that things seemed to work out well for her...however, just because a gun helped in this situation does not mean that it will help in all situations, particularly when all the parties involved also have guns. For every person who find themselves in need of a gun there is another person for whom a gun has led to disaster.

[Midnightsfire]

Originally Posted by flimseycauldron

however, just because a gun helped in this situation does not mean that it will help in all situations, particularly when all the parties involved also have guns. For every person who find themselves in need of a gun there is another person for whom a gun has led to disaster.

One person's opinion...

Statistically in the US, odds are unfortunately in the direction that a person will be the victim of a violent crime.

[OldLupin]

Originally Posted by flimseycauldron

While I agree with you that getting rid of guns will not rid us of the underlying problems, it does not help controling the underlying problems, either. I have never owned a gun, and never plan on owning a gun. Why? Because I refuse to put myself and my family in the position of needing one.. If I don't condone violence, then why allow a gun, which can only cause or exacerbate violence, into my house? As far as defending my property, there is not one thing I own that can't be replaced. As far as defending my family why on earth would I live a lifestyle that puts my family in jeopardy in the first place? A gun MAY save my life in a threatening situation, or the mere presence of said gun MAY also kill me, or get me killed by the opposing gun, in the same situation. Having a gun is no guarantee that it can or will protect you no matter how careful you are with it.

I am curious what “living a lifestyle that would put my family in jeopardy in the first place” means. What factors are avoidable that eliminates the possibility of criminals deciding to break into your home, or attack you in public? I understand that prudent prevention can reduce the possibility, but there is no total avoidance strategy that I am aware of. I live in a low crime rural area, yet there is still crime and a criminal element. My parents owned a home in a nice neighborhood, yet it was broken into 3 times. Apparently criminals can get their hands on vehicles and travel and nice neighborhoods are good targets. Regardless, how would all people who wish to avoid victimization be able to do it, with the number of criminals walking around out there?
As to defending property, that is a distinction difficult to make. Am I defending property by shooting someone who breaks into my home? Or if they are breaking into my truck, do I assume that they have no intention of coming into my home or doing anyone harm? Why should they be allowed to break and steal with impunity? Yes I can replace the items taken, but can I eliminate the fear such a violation inspires in my family? The idea that the victim is partially responsible is something I don't believe in. No one is "asking for it", and most people victimized aren't doing anything irresponsible to get targeted.
In the end, if the criminal is a killer, they will kill. The presence of your firearm doesn’t change the make-up of the criminal. If you are unwilling to use a firearm, then it is a good idea not to have one, but thinking that there is a “lifestyle” that eliminates the risk of becoming a victim of violent crime is unrealistic, IMO.

Originally Posted by flimseycauldron

I am glad that your friend could defend herself and that things seemed to work out well for her...however, just because a gun helped in this situation does not mean that it will help in all situations, particularly when all the parties involved also have guns. For every person who find themselves in need of a gun there is another person for whom a gun has led to disaster.

So how does being unarmed against armed attackers benefit the victim? As the penalty for crimes is significantly more severe for crimes in which a firearm is used, why would a criminal carry and use one in the commission of a crime, if they are unwilling to shoot someone with it? In a situation where attacked by armed assailants, when would it be better not to at least have the opportunity to escape and/or defend yourself?