Guns, GUNS, GUUUNNSS!!!!

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

After listening a tiny remark in a polite conversation today after a rehearsal I got thinking that this one is worth debating in a rational* way: Pros and Cons of guns, regulation, limits (or lack thereof), etc. Do the classical arguments for and against hold water?

Who want's to take a side on this one? 

*something virtually impossible anywhere else.

[ivor]

Can I be pro?  I'm sure you'll beat me.

[Opsa]

Naw, we'll just shoot ya.

[Griffin NoName]

I'd like a starting pistol.

My alarm clock just failed to get me to a meeting; I turned up one hour late having slept through it just as everyone was leaving.

[beagle]

Without guns the evil redcoats would come back. We're just waiting for the day you forget to reload.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Well, my stance is that personal weapons of mass destruction ought to be strictly regulated.  Otherwise....

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Oooo, but we're not here to talk about stances...

So far, MB and Bob are playing in favor of guns, and beagle and Griffin are equivocally against or is this a yanks vs brits kind of thing? 

Despite my own stance I'll play with the boys*, so lets start:

There is no moral justification to prevent self defense nor reason for it to be constrained by the state.

*no beagle, I didn't forget you're a boy

[Swatopluk]

I am for extremly restrictive regulations. Anyone who wants to own a firearm needs to prove that
a) (s)he is technically able to handle the thing
b) (s)he is 'morally' sound and responsible
That means mandatory training at least on the level necessary to get a driving licence. Regular renewal of licence required*.
Any conviction for e.g. DUI or other irresponsible acts should lead to loss of licence. Depending on severity that should be temporarily or for life.
All firearms have to be personalized and registered. If there is a way to do the same for ammo, it should be followed.
Loss of weapon has to be reported immediately or the owner can be held responsible for any abuse. Negligence in this regard is to be punished (e.g. leaving your handgun in your car visibly).
Strict purpose related regulations should be in place (i.e., where and how can you carry what arm**).
Other, less lethal, means of self-defense should be encouraged.
At the border of no-gun zones there should be secured keeping facilities in order to defang the deadbeat argument that one has to carry the weapon in because otherwise somebody could steal it from the car etc.

*I would propose the same for driving licences
**more leeway for hunting weapons in the country, strict no-gun areas in certain other places.

[Aggie]

Without guns the evil redcoats would come back. We're just waiting for the day you forget to reload.

They carry Tasers these days...  wait, that's the other Royal boys in red.

Agree with Swato to a large degree, because he's largely described Canadian gun laws wrt handguns; for example:
-Must be locked and the trigger secured at all times
-Can be legally carried only from home to a legal shooting range, and must be transported in a locked box.

I'm from a meat-hunting family (learned to shoot at 5 & got my first gun at 10) and strongly support the availability of sporting rifles/shotguns, but I don't buy into most of the arguments for carrying weapons publicly for any other reason (in a safe society - I have been glad all security guards in the Philippines carry guns on a couple of occasions).  Home protection?  A good 12-gauge is enough, and make it a pump-action for the audible deterrent properties of that ol' shick-shick. I generally support keeping handguns legal, but for target-shooting usage only (or law enforcement), and don't think there's any reason to pack heat.

I hates the long gun registry in Canada, mostly in terms of dollars wasted for results obtained. 

[beagle]

So far, MB and Bob are playing in favor of guns, and beagle and Griffin are equivocally against or is this a yanks vs brits kind of thing? 

No strong opinions really.  It's one of those things that seems a big issue in the States but is off the radar here. I have no problem with German/Canadian style licensing for hunting/sport but am just glad I don't live somewhere where people need one for self defence. They don't work here in Midsomer anyway; they just poison you instead.

Personally I've only ever shot clays, and most of those survived unscathed.  Standing around in the cold, mud and rain so you can pretend to be to the manor born is one of those pleasures I can take or leave.

[Pachyderm]

As a keen shot, I am all in favour of the safe, controlled and regulated use of guns, as indicated in posts above. Don't get the need for fully-automatic military style assault weapons for "home defence". Isn't that what the Police are for?

I love shooting. Mostly clays, but have no problem with hunting for food. Hunting to get your photo taken, standing proudly over the recently deceased carcass of whatever it was is not for me.

However, there are those who want to do it, and to cater for them, do it as part of the usual population controls. It is necessary to cull sometimes, and why not use this to generate some income for the Park/Reserve/Farm or whatever?

Had a blazing row with a fellow biologist about that one. I tend to the realistic (hence being a consultant, she was very definetely in the "AWww, isn't it cute. Save the animals" section, and in her own words "Couldn't get her head around the need for population control". She has a degree in Biological Sciences, and a tendancy to ignore one of the most basic facts in biology. She slotted seamlessly in as a volunteer at the Wildlife Trust...

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

I am for extremly restrictive regulations.....

Fine.

Who's gonna pay for all the enforcement?  Who gets to decide *when* the regulations are enforced or given a polite *wink-wink* and ignored? 

As for "that's what the police are for" there is a average 30 minute wait for police to actually show up, if it's in a common neighborhood (last time I checked).  This is strictly within cities.  If you live outside of a city?  The wait extends to hours or days even ...

A lot can happen in that time.

Reminds me of the following supposedly true story:

A man (unarmed as it turns out) woke up one night to noise in his backyard:  sure enough, some thugs were breaking into his outdoor garage, and preparing to make off with his tools.  He calls 911.  He is greeted with,

"It is very late, and we just do not have anyone to send.  Sorry.  Maybe in a couple of hours or so."

"That's okay" he says, and hangs up.

He waits about a minute, then calls 911 again.  "Nevermind sending the police.  I just shot them all.  Whenever you get the chance, you can send the meat wagon" and hangs up again.

Within minutes, there were several cop cars and a helicopter.  The ambulance can be heard whining in the background on the way....

The lead policeman complains, "I thought you said you shot them!"

The man responds, "I thought you said you didn't have anyone to send."

The thugs were all arrested....

...however?  This would only work one time...

[Swatopluk]

Over here cars are taxed (revenue is theoretically used to keep the roads in working condition or to build new ones). Driving licences come with a fee. Gun training could be done by certified private instructors (again as with drive training for cars).
Regulations are always only as strong as their enforcement independent of area, so if it can work with cars, why not with guns?
Okay, I am well aware that there are some regions in the world where these type of regulations would not work due to corruption of the state and the mind of the (or at least too many) citizens but not all the world lies between Panama and the 49th Parallel* 

As for guns as anti-burglar devices, I am very sceptical about that. Many a family member lost his/her life because (s)he was mistaken for a burglar/intruder**. A home taser might be a better (though very imperfect solution). Shooting burglars/intruders (with a lethal weapon) except in direct self-defense is imo not justified. Mere defense of property should be no excuse for manslaughter/murder/killing with intent. Again I know that this view is not shared by many US citizens (including lawmakers).

Lawmakers that pass laws allowing guns in places of alcohol consumption should be held fully responsible for the results (accessory of manslaughter). As proposed in my earlier post: Hand your guns in, when you enter the no-gun zone, and get it back when leaving unless in a state that would preclude responsible action, like intoxication. Then it should either stay or be handed over in a disabled condition only.

*Mexico got infected too, so the Rio Grande would be the wrong Southern border
**I leave out other gun related accidents. Those can happen with any weapon especially if handled irresponsibly (like leaving them lying around loaded in the presence of kids).

[Aggie]

As for "that's what the police are for" there is a average 30 minute wait for police to actually show up, if it's in a common neighborhood (last time I checked).  This is strictly within cities.  If you live outside of a city?  The wait extends to hours or days even ...

A lot can happen in that time.

I do not necessary dispute the possible role of firearms in home defense (as a last resort), especially in rural areas, but IMHO even quite restrictive rules on training, licensing and transportation do not disallow a gun owner to keep a weapon at home. IMHO, regulations on trigger locks and/or locked storage are not serious restrictions to home defense use (provided one doesn't mind a gun safe in the bedroom ).

I personally do not support the right to carry (loaded and/or unlocked) handguns, due to human nature; it's bound to cause more unwarranted shootings than it prevents. But on the other hand, urban handgun bans to the degree that some cities implement them (i.e. Toronto closing down shooting ranges when we already have VERY STRICT carrying and transportation regulations) is naive; the people carrying firearms for the purpose of committing crimes are not going to stop carrying because it's a crime.  I do support harsher penalties for unlawful possession and use of handguns - but that's in the same breath as my support for harsher penalties for drinking and driving, especially where it results in death (sentences for killing while drunk behind the wheel are pathetic). 

Urban gun restrictions are, however, very popular with urban voters who rarely hear about legitimate and safe gun use, but DO hear about illegal gun violence on a regular basis.


Canada currently requires a license (following a training course) for both possession and acquisition of firearms; formerly, possession was permitted provided you didn't buy it yourself. There are no re-testing requirements, although I do believe the license expires every 5 years or so and must be removed, plus must be kept up-to-date with current home address, similar to a driver's license.  Handguns here require additional licensing if I recall correctly (in theory, long guns require registration, but the system is a mess and it's not enforced). I'm not up to date on my firearms license at the moment.

The only downside to the necessity of licensing is that it creates a database of gun owners which (paranoid owners presume) could be used as an excuse to allow the police otherwise unlawful entry into one's home. The database does not concern me per se, but the prospect that one could be arbitrarily searched because they are a legal gun owner does.



Pachy:  Over here, the biggest proponents of appropriate population control (both in terms of culls and on hunting closures) and of habitat protection are hunters themselves: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ducks_Unlimited
We want to see healthy, huntable populations, so we tend to support temporary bans or restrictions on hunting to achieve this.

Exceptions to this tend to be those who have an interest in big-game tourist hunting of trophy animals (i.e. grizzly bears - why do you need to kill a grizzly when numbers are low? Black bears OTOH are plentiful and tasty, and DO need some population control around human populated areas).

ROFL on educated bunny-huggers who should know better about population dynamics.

[Swatopluk]

Show them some of these and they may accept the need of control (tell them that crosses and garlic don't work on them) 

http://www.wissen.de/wde/generator/substanzen/bilder/sigmalink/m/mo/mos_/moschustier_1829244,property=zoom.jpg

The picture above is genuine.
The one below looks a a bit suspect though

http://www.blackstate.gr/Pics/Cool/letsflyawaycomeflywithmeSM.jpg