Campquake Senate

I'm having to write a research paper for english about Gun Control. The question I'm trying to answer is:

"Does gun control protect or harm people, and does owning firearms, handguns in particular, make society safer?"

Since I know some of you here are hunters, and gun collectors, and this topic has somewhere been touched before, but I can't find it, so I'm asking everybody to reply with their own oppinions AND/OR facts that would help contribute to this paper. I've got this book published back in 1997 that has some really good information in it about both sides of the argument, but I would like something from today.

So come on you political gun fanatics, post your thoughts and help me get this 5 page paper going!!

Thank you in advance (I hope)

Owning a gun does not make you any safer than not owning a gun. Weapons can always be taken from and used against you. Your valuables can always be taken when you're not around. And the sign on your fence reading "Beware of Smith and Wesson" is meaningless when your away from your home. The criminal isn't thinking; "Man, I shouldn't rob 1023 Main Street because the owner has a gun." They're thinking; "1023 Main Street has a Plasma TV, some video games, and a laptop computer. That's a good score if I can pull this off."

Not to long ago someone posted a video of an old lady who wanted to stay home during a flood. The police wanted to evacuate her. She stood behind her gun, and said no. But it didn't stop the police, they tackled her, and took her away. Gun's aren't even a strong enough symbol to protect your rights any more.

Guns in the hands of police doesn't make society any safer either. I'm sure there some deterrant, but criminal minded individuals are not always the brightest star in the sky. Police may shout, "Freeze or I'll blow your head off" and the bad guys will still flee! Or they'll hop in to a car and really cause the public damage. Its like a dad who tells his kids, "Quit jumping on the couch or I'll glue your feet to the floor!" It's meaningless; an idle threat now days. Besides, most police would rather use non-lethal weapons any way. Beanbag guns, tasers, and pepper spray are quickly becoming the weapon of choice. They are effective in taking down a criminal, can be used against tree huggers, and are non-lethal. Which means the policeman won't have a guilty concience if he uses it, and won't have to file mounds of paperwork or face a judge if there's a wrongful death lawsuit.

Listen to Chris Rock on Gun Control, I think he puts it exactly the way I think it should be: http://www.audiocomedy.net/standup/rock ... trol.shtml
*WARNING* Explicit language is used in the link above. Turn your speakers on.

I think the question is backwards.

In fact having the ability to own a gun is a right.

The question should become:

"Does taking away liberties and freedoms protect or harm people, and does espousing the removal of freedoms make society safer?"

Through the information I have looked through, the problem is not with the right to bear arms, it's with bearing handguns in particular. You don't see a criminal carrying a large rifle around with him when he's robbing a store or commiting a crime, it's always a small weapon, almost always a hangun.

Many people argue that their avid hunters and they need their guns to go hunting, but don't you do that with hunting rifles? I don't see a problem with that. I see that people are having too easy access to small, concielable firearms, both semi-automatic and automatic (scary). Here's and interesting study:

Some years ago (in the 90's) a seven year study was conducted that basically compared the cities of Seatle, Washington in the US, and that of Vancouver in Canada. The reason they picked these cities is because they're almost identical: same demographics, average income, population, ethnic distribution, poverty, size, government, economics, you name it it's very close and similar. The only difference were the gun regulations. Vancouver had very strict regulations on owning hanguns, and they're gun-crime rates were extremely low, almost non-existant. Seatle on the other hand had almost no regulation, and their gun-crime rates were out of control. I don't want to stress the fact that it is the cause, but there's nothing else that could cause this. In one instance, a man in Seatle opened fire on passing cars because one of them honked their horn at him. Could it be just the people? It just seems too coincidental.

One more interesting fact (I think) before I stop ranting. Those that own hanguns are 3-5 times more likely to be shot by family members, neighbors, or themselves. One case I saw on this was of a family of three, parents and a daughter. The parents were out, and the daughter called them to tell them that she would be at a friends house. When the parents came home, they heard noises from upstairs. The father instinctively grabbed his .378 MAGNUM!!! and went upstairs to investigate. When he got near a closet door where the noise came from, his daughter and her friend jumped out from the closet in surprise, and the father shot and killed his daughter.

As you can see, I have too much information from one side already, I need the other side, which I thank you Aide for, and Neo too. This is my dillema that I'm trying to research. I'll leave off with a quote I found in this book too, or set of quotes so to speak:

"Guns don't kill, people do"
"Guns don't die, people do"

BTW Neo, I have heard that skit by Chris Rock many times, it's a great one... it would work, but it's too drastic, and everybody would probably kill him for it if they ever did do it.

I think you answered your own question Dark -- its not about putting every gun into the same category. Theres a huge difference between owning a rifle for hunting and owning a handgun for "protection".

While hunting has become sport rather than "me get food now!", its still a very valid reason for owning a firearm in the eyes of everyone but those that love animals too much.

The only reason I ever hear to support owning a handgun is "its my rights!" and to me thats not good enough. I know, we're all scared of the slippery slope and that government will slowly remove every right we have, one by one. However, we used to have the right to beat the crap out of someone in the local saloon because we lost the poker game -- was removing that right such a bad thing? heh. Bad example I guess. My point is "its my right" isnt a valid reason. Explain why it should continue to be your right to hide a handgun in the belt of your pants while you walk down the same street I'm walking on, explain why your right to that gun overrides my right to feeling safe.

I was down in the states visiting Sci during the summer -- she told me we werent allowed to go for walks unless we drove across town to the special park area. Then last week she pointed out two places we were at that have had gun-related crime on some Toledo COPS show she was watching. I've never experienced that up here in Canada -- I've been outside really late at night without worrying even the slightest. I used to be downtown Calgary at 530am to make an early class and all you ever saw were other zombie-like people who needed more sleep hehe.

Anyway, there you go.

I think the problem nowadays is what the constitution says: "The right to bear arms," but which arms?? When this was written and created they had written it during a time where all they had were big one shot rifles that needed reloading after every shot, and that's not very practical in today's time. So does the constitution need to be changed then to help specify this? Even if they could do that, they can't without some probably cause.... which sort of doesn't exist at this point.

Anyway... I wish Warf would get back and write his oppinions, b/c I know he's a gun collector and will die protecting his right to bear his arms. So uh... other side, speak up, I can't hear youuuuuuuuu

Ohhhh!

I always thought it was the "right to bare arms"... which explained why all you folks down there wear T-shirts..

makes more sense now

These are good points and I agree with all I've read.

I am equally offended by the State when it removes my rights to stroll in the park after dark, which is in my book kin to this very issue.

The argument about guns should be placed to the side for a moment. Forget it.

Instead, let us talk about legislating for the sake of solving problems.

Opposed to enforcing existing laws and regulations our Western Civilization is quick to use the political moment and throw forward a savior, someone who gets into the spotlight and says, "vote for me because I have done this miracle."

Often this becomes: there is crime and so we have passed this thing that will do away with it. Now whether the new law actually works is a statistical issue for a generational view of the action, because data will not be forthcoming in the short run.

This is a long way of saying we have no idea how things will impact unless we look at it from a distant point in history.

I favor the approach that states simply use the laws that exist. We need to stop playing patty-cake with criminals and throw the book at them. We do have these books already. We don't need more laws. What we need more of is people who will have the backbone to stop playing with people and trying to be compasionate.

Walking into a store and blowing another's head off with a handgun is in no way similiar to making a bad decision, its a horrible and evil decision which should have a consequence equal to the act. Redemption and absolution are available for the soul, but society must be served as well. Serving out continious forgiveness does nothing. And taking away rights does nothing either.

This leaves several arguments such as resolving societal issues which lead to crime as in poverty perhaps, mental disorders, genetic disposition, or simple evil. I see no reason and never have to address proximity to weaponry or handguns versus rifles as the issue. In my book it is a matter of consequence and action.

The State should be punishing criminals and improving the infrastructure, making communities thrive, addressing poverty and gangs, feeding the needy, clothing the sick, and more.

I should not pay for the sins of the State by losing my rights! Whether that be the right to walk in a park, own a handgun, fire off fireworks on Independance Day, speak my mind in public, or disagree with the State. No sir.

Well my 2 cents worth….

I do not own any guns, used to have a single shot shot gun for small bird hunting, gave it up years ago.

The “right” to do or have something should be an issue with everyone. I do not disagree with the right to own fire alarms, just maybe the type. Our own Canadian Government has spent over a billion dollars on fire alarm registration to help control illegal fire alarms and it is pretty much a white elephant. Just type in Bill 68 fire arms into Google and you would have enough reading on both sides of the issue for years.

“Q11. How much is it costing?

A.The Federal Government under former Justice Minister (now Health Minister) Allan Rock said it would cost a total of $85,000.000.00. They now admit to spending almost 1 Billion and costs will definitely go over LUFA's original estimate of $1.5 Billion if we don't stop this waste of tax-payers' money. The Federal Government is hiding the costs in various other government departments. They are doing a better job of hiding the truth than a drug cartel laundering money.”
I have stated before though, that we as Canadians have a lot less fire arms (hand guns) per capita than our US neighbors. To see any law abiding citizen in my province even have a gun with them would be a rarity. I am in Winnipeg for work 5 days a week and live within 15 km’s of the murder capital of Canada, but I feel safe on our streets.
“According to a report by Statistics Canada, Canada's homicide rate jumped in 2004 after reaching a 30 year low in 2003. Five of the nation's largest census metropolitan areas accounted for the majority of last year's increase. Winnipeg has the highest per-capita murder rate among the county's nine largest urban areas. Homicides by census metropolitan area per 100,000 population.
Winnipeg 4.89 Edmonton 3.39 Vancouver 2.58 Calgary 1.91 Toronto 1.80 Montreal 1.73 Ottawa-Gatineau* 1.14 Hamilton 1.30 Quebec 0.84
*refers to the Ontario part of Ottawa-Gatineau census metropolitan area
SOURCE: STATISITCS CANADA”
According to the latest crime statistics provided by the FBI, Washington led the nation in murders per capita in 2002 with 45.8 per 100,000 citizens, edging out 2001's murder capital, Detroit, by 3.8 murders.
Okay were would you like to live - Winnipeg with 4.89 per 100,000 or DC with 45.8 per 100,000?
Most crimes and murders are carried out with hand guns, so the question is should there be a ban all hand guns – sure the critics out there then say then only the criminals will have them – but then could not the manufacture of guns be much more tightly controlled?
To me I think the real question is, are the “guns” really the problem or the people?

Let me pose some questions on these juicy and awesome comments

Buzzed wrote:To me I think the real question is, are the “guns” really the problem or the people?

How would you judge people to be unfit or fit to become a problem? Should this include those that are mentally ill, whether maniacs, mentally handicapped (retarded), scitzos, and other mental disorders?

And what about all these alternative safeties people are thinking of for guns? AKA: hand print recognition sensors, non-lethal bullets, and my personal favorite, a computer within the gun that detects what the gun is pointing at and refuses to fire if it's pointing at a person or some vital organ on a person (very hard to make, sounds more like science fiction to me).

A.D.C. wrote:This leaves several arguments such as resolving societal issues which lead to crime as in...

What about complete accidental acts? I've seen cases of three year olds kill others because they found this cool looking object that makes loud noises and showed it to somebody. You can't expect somebody as young as that to know right from wrong. So is this the parent's fault, even if the gun isn't theirs? (sometimes it is, and I think they are at fault for it too)/

And how about those people that really are somewhat not right in the head and say they were reinacting scenes from video games? Lots of people have taken this as a stepping stone to suing the video game companies for making violent video games. In my oppinion the fault lies in the person who couldn't tell from reality and virtuality.

And about other things you've said Aide, I comepletely agree. The laws of this country are put in for a reason. The judicial system works independantly from the other gov't systems and in no way should they have more power over another. Yet lately I have seen court cases where Judges make a decision, but the senates now have the power to overule the judges and make their own decisions. This should not happen. The judicial system is what has the final say in most matters, and they are losing their power to corrupt systems of gov't. If it doesn't please the senate, they find ways to make it not happen. This isn't right at all.

Buzzed wrote: I do not disagree with the right to own fire alarms

Uh... yeah I got one of those too...

Thank you very much so far for the oppinions and facts everyone, it's just the kind of stuff I need.

D.A.R.K.[CotC] wrote:

A.D.C. wrote:This leaves several arguments such as resolving societal issues which lead to crime as in...

What about complete accidental acts? I've seen cases of three year olds kill others because they found this cool looking object that makes loud noises and showed it to somebody. You can't expect somebody as young as that to know right from wrong. So is this the parent's fault, even if the gun isn't theirs? (sometimes it is, and I think they are at fault for it too)/

And how about those people that really are somewhat not right in the head and say they were reinacting scenes from video games? Lots of people have taken this as a stepping stone to suing the video game companies for making violent video games. In my oppinion the fault lies in the person who couldn't tell from reality and virtuality.

Accidental incidents statistically do not challenge intentional criminal events. I would also postulate that accidential incidents with firearms are less than traffic accidents per year, perhaps even less than deaths aboard other forms of travel, trains, planes, and boats for instance. Not that death of an innocent should be disvalued in any way; rather, to simply outlaw something for accidential causation is flawed thinking, even backwards.

As avid a rights feind as I am I believe strongly in personal responsibility. It is my responsibility to secure and station my weaponry, cutlery, even MY CAR KEYS and the ways I use these things in an adult manner. Conversly I should be held responsible for irresponsible security and stationing. Innocents then do not die by accident but due to adult irresponsibility.

For those that are not right in the head this becomes an individual freedom issue. What qualifies one as being wrong or thick in the head, and what is the qualitative measure of that deficit? This becomes an assessment and functional evaluation in the psycnhiatric arena which may or may not be appopriate. I know many clients who own and operate firearms responsibly, so not all psychiatric concerns negate individual firearm freedoms. This would become the practice of establishing a criterion of exclusion and this is a dangerous area, but IMHO necessary. A depressed and suicidal person is one that could be excluded, but for how long? So this is a big bag of tricks this question is...

As for violence in video games training someone to become a killer I also believe this is a psychiatric issue. Certain personalities may have difficulty dealing with boundaries, and for them certain games, books, movies, and other things might be taboo. For others it does not apply. So the brush can't be as broad as some would like; nor should some discount that repeated and continual exposure to "things" will result in detestation and increased familiarity. The indicator becomes not the game or the act of violence but the individuals perception and mental health.

Again, the mental health of the individual behind the act is the key. Outside a complete social system which provides food, clothing, shelter, monies, medical, dental, and life skills, in a large metropolitan center in the United States for instance, the statistics will be different than a comparible population base elsewhere. To compare population base only, without sampling all other variables is an incorrect study and the use of faulty data. So to say in Canada this is true because 10 million live here, and in a similar city in the U.S. 10 million live here, AND THEY HAVE GUNS, is like comparing apples and oranges. In the end the mental health of the individual is left, or in the case of the accident the irresponsiblity of an adult, not some inanimate object like a gun.

D.A.R.K.[CotC] wrote:Let me pose some questions on these juicy and awesome comments

Buzzed wrote:To me I think the real question is, are the “guns” really the problem or the people?

How would you judge people to be unfit or fit to become a problem? Should this include those that are mentally ill, whether maniacs, mentally handicapped (retarded), scitzos, and other mental disorders?

And what about all these alternative safeties people are thinking of for guns? AKA: hand print recognition sensors, non-lethal bullets, and my personal favorite, a computer within the gun that detects what the gun is pointing at and refuses to fire if it's pointing at a person or some vital organ on a person (very hard to make, sounds more like science fiction to me).

You can have all the guns in the world, they won't do squat without someone to pick them up and use them. Therin lies the problem.

You can have all the guns in the world, they won't do squat without someone to pick them up and use them. Therein lies the problem, it is whom is in control of said fire arms and how they plan to use them. There seems to be far too many arms out there not being used for the good of mankind.

The second paragraph seems to be a lot of Sci-fi, but so was the computer you are now reading this on. So what happens, the “good” guys have all the latest safety items that the “bad” guys bypass, home manufacture or whatever else it takes to cheat the systems and now they are the only ones with lethal weapons.

Take a look at the cheats available for online computer gaming, and for the most part these are “good” guys (gals) playing……….

Ok, like buzzed said, guns are guns, people are the ones who pull the trigger. So maybe not preventing firearms from getting out is the deal, but preventing them from getting into the hands of the wrong people (psycho killers, etc). Then again, we can't tell who is and isn't one. This is such a messed up issue, but something is very wrong in the US or just not being done. There's really no harm in trying, and we all know that nothing is accomplished where nothing is done. So where's the problem? In the people of course. To fix that, it would sound like a totalitarian gov't, which wouldn't be very good. There's many alternatives, but have we ever tried any? Non-lethal firearms are just now being implimented, but only in the police force. There doesn't seem to be a good way to reduce or eliminate gun violence in the US, which is out of control.

So then what can we do?

Should I just go watch Bowling for Columbine or something?