Gun Control, who's for it?

oldraven has a point that gun registry is not very effective as gun control.

CC -- it's a bit like trusting people with automobiles, in a way. They have to be trained to use them, and then after that we're on our own, driving defensively against potential flaws in others' operation of the vehicle. We ourselves can't unconditionally guarantee anything either as drivers, but we think we can.

So what's the difference? The necessity of possession and use of the item. The size of our country and the diversity of activity make independent transportation crucial. So a car is a necessary evil to the majority, even though it's possession and use is potentially lethal, as an unintentional side characteristic. We must similarly weigh what the necessity is of a lethal weapon that has no other purpose than to kill or threaten to kill (in defense or as a deterrant, or to provide food). How often is it necessary to have the potential of killing? How does that stack up, statistically, against the potential of unnecessary, accidental or malicious harm due to misuse? I think we thrashed this out once before that not all places in this country have an equal ratio of need to risk, and that's why it should be determined state by state. Notice I'm not saying "never necessary," or even "never strongly preferable". But it is a ratio of risk to gain, and if some form of control or restriction is determined, after a proper assessment of risk versus gain, for any given region by legitimate legislation it needs to be adhered to, and punished commensurately with the potential loss (human life?) if it's not. The same as driving with an unfit vehicle, or under the influence, or without a license or proper insurance, should be and under the right circumstances is punished to the max under the law.

You are right! I agree that if someone buys a gun and looks to use it has no business posessing a gun.

The differences between owning a gun and owning a car as I see it are:

You have to be able to pass a test to drive a car legally. You also have to register the car on a yearly basis.

Owning a car isn't a right, it's a privilage.

If you kill someone with your car the chances are good you will lose your license.

A car is used for transportation. A gun is used to kill.

I don't trust a lot of drivers out there either. But there are at least a few restrictions in place on who can own and operate a car. The only restrictions to buy a gun are age and a background check.

I think it's interesting that we would require a test to drive a car, but not to own a gun.

All I can say is that a gun is a great deterant. Here's an example. Why back in the early 90s were thugs in Miami car jacking foreign tourist? Because they knew they for sure had no gun. That's the confession of more then 1 car jacker. The crime rate in Florida actually dropped in Florida as a whole when the allowed the ccw law came in in the late 80s early 90s and to much of the displeasure of the anti-gun folks, there was NO increase in crime involving hand guns. Actually in my carrier I see more people die or who are severly injured by automobles then guns. I've been a Paramedic for 10+ years here in Florida and I've sheeted on scene or sent to the hospital more incidents involving things other then guns. In fact, I've treated only 1 person in my 10+ years who was shot by a ccw permit holder and he was in his right to use that force. Thats' right 1 in 10+ years. I also work in a level 2 trauma center and we do see a lot of traumatic injuries but injuries from guns can't touch the number of injuries or deaths from automobles and other mechinisms. Everyone is so scared of guns. I think it's pathetic since we are in more danger of getting killed by other means then getting shot.
Alaska and Vermont have probably the most lax gun laws and look at the crime rate in those states. Look at Washington DCs crime rate. It's sky high. But they have one of the strictest gun laws. Controlling guns won't control the thugs from getting guns. New Orleans found that out quick when they took the guns from the Law biding citizens while the thugs ruled the city with their guns. All I can say if a disaster hits here in Tampa. My guns are staying with me. If anyone tries to hurt me, or my family, or tries to take something from me that I've worked hard for, I won't hesitate to use my gun. God forbid that situation ever occurs. But I sure don't want to be without a gun when I need one. The 2nd ammendment is the original homeland security.

The differences between owning a gun and owning a car as I see it are:

You have to be able to pass a test to drive a car legally. You also have to register the car on a yearly basis.

Owning a car isn't a right, it's a privilage.

If you kill someone with your car the chances are good you will lose your license.

A car is used for transportation. A gun is used to kill.

I don't trust a lot of drivers out there either. But there are at least a few restrictions in place on who can own and operate a car. The only restrictions to buy a gun are age and a background check.

I think it's interesting that we would require a test to drive a car, but not to own a gun.

You say cars are used for transportation. Yes they are but as I said before, I see more killed by cars here in this part of Florida every year then with guns owned by law biding citizens and ccw permit holders. But you don't hear people calling for the ban of cars. Cars can be just as deadly a weapon as a gun and as of latly it's being used more so then a gun to commit violent crimes. I'll show you the statistic if you'd like.

I agree, cars are dangerous. In fact, I believe that it should be far more difficult than it is to get a drivers license. There have been laws passed and discussed to do exactly that.

However, my point was simply that a car is NOT primarily a weapon and yet there are more restrictions placed on car ownership than gun ownership. Why is it that you have to pass a test before you can get a drivers license and you don't have to do anything other than pass a background check for a gun?

I think we can all agree that a gun is primarily a weapon. I mean, I could use it as a hammer, but that's not the intended purpose. I can use a car as a weapon, but the intended purpose is for transportation.

Perhaps some believe that guns are only used by law abiding citizens in the proper way. There are some who see any use of a gun as protection, even if they are protecting themselves from a threat that isn't there, as justifiable. I think people need to be held accountable for errors in judgement that lead to someones death. The 2nd amendment protects the right to own a gun, but not to use it in any given situation.

Strange, isn't it? Puts it quite close to the category of detente, which, as we found with atomic weapons buildup, was a nerve-wracking condition that eventually had to be stepped down with disarmament agreements.

Not that the agreements have turned out to be so reliable or enforceable . . .

Actually, cars are frequently used as primary weapons. In my 30 year career as a paramedic, law enforcement officer and firefighter I've run on just as many homocides committed by automobile as I have committed by firearms.

The argument that everyone needs a car today is so much hogwash. Nearly all communities of any size at all offers some form of public transportation, and if the private ownership of automobiles were to be restricted those public transportation systems would almost certainly be improved to the point where they are reasonably reliable and effective.

The bottom line in this argument though, is that the right to keep and bear arms is a right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and the privilege of owning and operating a motor vehicle is not. It's comparing apples and oranges.
Someone compared the right to keep and bear to detente, but I think they intended to compare it to the cold war theory of MAD (mutually assured destruction). I live in a region where nearly everyone in my community owns and frequently carries firearms, either openly or concealed yet I have never had reason to fear any of my gun-totin' neighbors.

In the course of my employment I openly carry a firearm, have never had to draw it from it's holster, and suspect I'll finish out my career without need to draw it. I don't recall who said it, but the quote that "an armed society is a polite society" seems to have articulated a basic truth.

Thom, very well said. You live in AK. One of two states with the most lax gun laws. Look at the crime rate in Alaska and Vermont or lack there of. Pluse I know you can relate with me since we both work in the same field.

Personally, I would like to see an end to firearms as we know them. Hurling pieces of lead fast enough to penetrate sheet metal seems a waste of energy to me. Frankly, if we could only perfect the phaser like on Star Trek so that we could sever the limbs or torso of our subject (think cauterization) that would cut down on the mess and likely the need for gun control.

I like that idea!

Why we are at it, I think pilots on commercial airliners should be permitted to carry heat. The objection is that the terrorist could get the gun from the pilot. Well at least the pilot has the upper or equal hand. Besides the terrorist on 9/11 had boxcutters. I'm sure those would out do a gun. LOLOL.

I'm surprised of the lack of opposition. I was thinking there'd be a firestorm of debate. Actually I'm impressed with the unity. I'll never agree with everything someone has to say or think. But this subject I've found common ground with just about everyone. Here, with co-workers, church members, etc. Two good books to read. Guns, Crime, and Liberty and Guns, Greedom and Terrorism. Both by Wayne LaPierre. He's the VP of the NRA.

EVERYONE on a plane should have a gun, then let the terrorists try to take over the plane! If you don't own one, one will be provided at no cost for the duration of the trip.

A little much but at the same time not bad! LOLOLOL

I'd normally post something like this in "the Jester's Court" forum but it seems to be in line with the debate in this thread (I have my doubts it even happened).

Marine Corp's General Reinwald was interviewed on the radio the other day and you have to read his reply to the woman who interviewed him concerning guns and children. Regardless of how you feel about gun laws you gotta love this!!!!
It is a portion of National Public Radio (NPR) interview between a female broadcaster and US Marine Corps General Reinwald who was about to sponsor a Boy Scout Troop visiting his military installation.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: So, General Reinwald, what things are you going to teach these young boys when they visit your base?
GENERAL REINWALD: We're going to teach them climbing, canoeing, archery, and shooting.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER: Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible, isn't it?
GENERAL REINWALD: I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the rifle range.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER: Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?
GENERAL REINWALD: I don't see how. We will be teaching them proper rifle discipline before they even touch a firearm.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER: But you're equipping them to become violent killers.
GENERAL REINWALD: Well, Ma'am, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but you're not one, are you?
The radio went silent and the interview ended.
You gotta love the Marines!