My "political" question.

[tizzo]

So... I was just reading the "Obama and Oprah" thread and the issue of handguns came up, so I started thinking... I get the logic where if nobody had one there would be no need and all that. I get it and I saw it in NZ and it really does work, well if the law has been implemented all along.
It wouldn't work here except on paper, and some people are happy with that, BUT, and here's my question.
If the president, the government, the whoever, bans weapons and imposes a serious consequence, and then I get robbed at gunpoint (cause we hafta all agree that there will be some guns still out there), can't I then sue whoever made the law cause they didn't own up to their end of the bargain? I mean, if guns are illegal, and your ordered to get rid of yours, then SOMEBODY has to be responsible for making sure that all the guns are accounted for and disposed of properly right?? You can't just ask everyone to toss their protection and just "trust" that everyone will do it.
So who would be accountable?? The police? What about their guns? I just don't see this thing working all the way through. I mean we look at a gunless country and see peace, so I can see how people think it would work but it just wouldn't. Actually, the more I ponder it, even honest people would break the law to find a gun cause they know their at a disadvantage by obeying the law...
I'm so confused!!

.

 

[itom37]

The person who robbed you is responsible. We're an overly litigious society that needs to stop displacing responsibility when we can't punish whoever is actually guilty enough to satiate our need for revenge. I'm not sure it's even possible to sue a legislative body for a law that it passed... I guess that law can be deemed unconstitutional, but that's a little different.
There are convenient real-life examples of how to analyze this situation. Consider the VT shooting a year ago. If guns were allowed on campus, it's entirely possible that the extent of the tragedy would have been far less. Should we then blame the school for imposing a law that prohibits firearms on school grounds? Of course not. The idea of a campus full of armed semi-adults is rather terrifying, and sitting in Philosophy 232 seeing my classmate's gun holster on his or her hip makes me feel far less safe, which is the opposite of the intended effect, if we use school shooting logic. Whether or not college campuses would be more safe is a matter of conjecture, but somehow I think not.
The idea behind the gun ban is clearly safety. It means well, but I think it's pretty stupid. Pardon the cliche, but guns don't kill people, people kill people. There is no danger from a gun unless there is a) a not terribly nice person attempting to cause harm with it or b) improper care of the gun, which is simply neglect of their responsibility by the gun owner.
If we were a gun free country would we be safer? Personally, on a whole, I think so. I don't like guns and would prefer that everyone felt the same way. That not being the case, I think responsible people should be able to keep guns and do what they please with them... shoot beer cans, squirrels, similarly motivated criminals, whatever, so long as they show they know how to respect that responsibility.
Why am I on this forum at 3 am spouting out half-intelligible, sleepy-person political pontifications is the real question we should be asking.
Vote Libertarian! Not that it's ever possible in this country.

 

[brandon7491]

banning guns would never pass in the United States what so ever. The people would be in an outrage and then the country would go down hill from there. As u can see with most liberals they want you to put your trust in them aka "the government" they want to make you feel dependant on them for protection,food,health care,hell they tell you what bags to use at the food store. My point i am trying to get across here is that its not practicle. Guns are very good and i think everyone who qualifies should have the right to own one. Now back to the issue of what happens if guns were taken away. Well all the law abiding citizens would give them up "With a hassle ofcours" they would have all their trust in local inforcement like the liberals want. Now what about the criminals? Do people really think that they will say "Oh sure we wont have any guns take them" WRONG! they will find any way to get them whether its on the black market or shipped in illegally, thats what makes them a criminal. They already do it with drugs,wepons,rare animals,even stuff with the reefs. The USA would be more chaiotic with out them. I agree with itom37 on the fact that the fatalities would be less if people could carry guns on the VT campus

 

[renogaw]

if there ever were a way to completely get rid of every single gun in the united states, people would still find ways of getting guns. Not only that, you'd have some pretty pretty powerful manufacturers going out of the states and OUT of under the control of the state's regulations. imagine how many fully automatic guns would be around then?
I think the current laws are fine (background checks, waiting periods) for the most part. It's not the legal people you have to worry about though, its all the hoodlums and crackheads and gangbangers who are getting guns into 12 year olds hands and telling them to go kill someone to be cool. try controlling those people before banning guns. oh wait, that's almost as impossible as banning all guns...

 

[scsinet]

Originally Posted by itom37
If we were a gun free country would we be safer? Personally, on a whole, I think so.

I have to say that with a slight modification, of your statement, I can agree with you.
If you had said: "If we were a gun free country would we have less gun violence?"
I'd have to agree with you.
HOWEVER, I will argue that A) reducing gun violence does not necessarily make things "safer" as a whole, and B) achieving a truly gun free society isn't possible, as renogaw stated as well.
A) Say for example that you were able to remove guns from the hands of everyone - and when I say everyone, I mean everyone - criminals, cops, citizens, everyone. Say that we did find a way to truly get rid of ALL of the guns.
Sure, it would reduce gun violence. Right now we have no death beam violence. Why? Because death beams do not exist, ergo we have a "death beam free country." But we still manage to get along with killing each other using alternatives. The alternative to death beam violence is gun violence. Since we have no death beams, we use guns instead.
So should we get rid of guns, we'll just use knives instead. Should we get rid of those, maybe bats. Should we get rid of those, beatings, drownings, boards with nails in them, clubs, whatever.
The problem is with the violent nature of humans, not with the tools they use to exact that violence.
It's a moot point however because we have no means of truly eliminating the guns, which brings me to my next point...
B) We have no way of truly having a gun free society. Assume for a moment that gun legislation passes that enacts a weapons ban. What do we expect will happen? Will the bank robbers, muggers, murderers, and assassins just throw up their arms (no pun intended) and say "well boys, I guess we're out of the crime business, guns are illegal now and we don't want to break the law by having them." Nope... they'll get their guns. And when they have them, they know that they can commit crimes against any law abiding citizen, because they won't be armed.
Making guns illegal only removes them from the hands of law abiding citizens who would use the guns for law abiding purposes (sport, defense, etc). When violence occurs on our streets, the media always latches on to how easy it was for people to get the gun they used to commit the crime. Nobody ever thinks of whether or not a gun law would have stopped the suspect from getting the gun, or whether the lack of a gun would have prevented him from committing a crime in the first place (remember, people rob banks with bananas all the time). The media was all over how the VT shooter bought the gun that morning (or something like that). Well we know he planned the shooting, so do we know that if he couldn't have purchased it legally, he wouldn't have found other avenues?
And yes, one could arue that banning weapons reduces the numbers available illegally, but it's safe to say that banning weapons would only lead to extensive illegal smuggling of the guns into the country, just as happens now with drugs.
Sorry... this topic gets me heated.

 

[rylan1]

No one said anything about banning all guns.. I believe handguns came up but not all guns. I too think it would be difficult to implement and for people to accept, however; I think there would be less murders. If guns were allowed on campus of VT, that doesn't give me the impression that there would be less deaths... First of all it was a suprise attack in classrooms. Second, I bet there would be more deaths on college campuses if guns were in the hands of young often irresponsible adults whom many of them are binge drinkers. If everyone had a gun it would be like the wild wild west. In countries where guns are banned there are less murders. But because of our history as a nation people want and expect the freedom to do anything they want based on individual rights instead of the betterment (not sure if that is a word) of the group.

 

[pontius]

the constitution gives the right to keep and bear arms. so I'm not giving up my gun, period, end of discussion. whoever the government sends to try to collect my gun better be ready to fight me for it. just because our country is slowly turning into a socialist country doesn't mean I'm turning into a socialist. and no, I'm NOT a "gun nut". I own ONE gun. I don't hunt, target practice for fun, etc. I have a gun for one reason.....to kill anyone that comes into my house uninvited. so that's the opinion of an "average" gun owner. I imagine the view of the millions who actually ARE gun nuts to be even more resolute.

 

[rylan1]

We do have death beams...
tasers!

 

[scsinet]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
If guns were allowed on campus of VT, that doesn't give me the impression that there would be less deaths... First of all it was a suprise attack in classrooms.
If guns were allowed on the VT campus, someone might have been able to respond and shoot the shooter, saving lives.
If I recall, the shooter (Chang I think was his name) ended his rampage because he ran low on ammo. If someone had a gun on campus and tried to stop him, Chang might have killed them instead and had more ammo, and more lives would have been lost.
It's all speculation as to how it would have ended had gun laws been less or more restrictive in this case, just as it is speculation as to how gun law changes will change things in this country.
Second, I bet there would be more deaths on college campuses if guns were in the hands of young often irresponsible adults whom many of them are binge drinkers.
Then the drinking is the problem, and the student's decision to arm himself when undertaking that behavior. Going down this road is like saying "We need gun laws so we can act stupid and not worry about killing anyone."
In countries where guns are banned there are less murders.
Less GUN murders. Also, other countries that ban guns often do not have border setups like we have, making smuggling easy. It's also speculation to compare us to other countries and use that as a guide to how to structure laws, or how to project the outcome of passage of said laws.

 

[rylan1]

There are less murder per capita all together, not just gun murders.
As far as guns on college campuses... its just a bad idea. Alcohol is a problem... and guns would just compound the problem. Not to mention the lifestyles (partying) and relationship statuses and dating game that often cause some sort of conflict. My point is that there is a lot of irresponsible behavior and conflict on college campusues... and I wouldn't want to send my child to a school where guns are prevelant.

 

[scsinet]

Can you give an example country?

 

[renogaw]

Originally Posted by SCSInet
Will the bank robbers, muggers, murderers, and assassins just throw up their arms (no pun intended) and say "well boys, I guess we're out of the crime business, guns are illegal now and we don't want to break the law by having them."

or they'll do what happened down in florida... robbers will go in and say "i'm terminally sick and want some money" and the teller will give them money...
I am completely against gun bans, with the exception of fully automatics (i mean, what on earth do you really need one of those for) even though i don't or wont ever have a gun. there's a place for guns, whether recreational or protection, and i feel better knowing the cops have guns when they are needed.

 

[1journeyman]

As Pontius pointed out, the Constitution makes it very clear Americans have a right to bear arms.
As others have pointed out, criminals will always have guns.
The VT shooting was a horrible tragedy. I tend to agree that a responsible adult on campus with a gun could have ended that much more quickly. Take the recent shooting in Colorado as an example. One armed security guard prevented a mass murder.
Humans have been murdering each other since our species began. While the USA does have a high crime rate, I think this is much more related to the amount of freedom and prosperity we have as a society.

 

[scsinet]

Originally Posted by renogaw
or they'll do what happened down in florida... robbers will go in and say "i'm terminally sick and want some money" and the teller will give them money...
I am completely against gun bans, with the exception of fully automatics (i mean, what on earth do you really need one of those for) even though i don't or wont ever have a gun. there's a place for guns, whether recreational or protection, and i feel better knowing the cops have guns when they are needed.
I really have no take on automatic bans.
They are very infrequently used by anyone except professional criminals in the execution of a crime. If pro criminals want them, they'll get them.
I'm not for it or against it, I really don't think that a ban or no ban will make any difference when we talk about assault weapons.

 

[scsinet]

I've got everyone's second amendment right here.

 

[shogun323]

Nice!!! That is hilarious!!!!
Banning handguns would be rediculous and only effect law abiding citizens. If ever the Government wanted to take my guns, my response will be, "oh those things? I sold them years ago"

 

[clown boy]

There will be war first.........

 

[tizzo]

oh boy I sincerely didn't mean to open this can of worms and I guess suing somebody was extreme.
What I simply wanted to know is, if the government really did try to ban guns, who or what division would oversee the details? Where would everybody end up sending their weapons? The police dept doesn't seem to me competent enough to handle its current duties and also these.
I realize it would prolly never happen butbpeople are always ruling out candidates because of their stance on this so I'm trying to play it out in my mind to see if I should even consider this issue when reseaching the candidates.

 

[renogaw]

wouldnt even worry about it because there's NOTHING they will be able to do about it.

 

[lovethesea]

read this, it just happened in STL. Kinda along the lines of what you are talking about. The pizza guy delivered in a REALLY bad neighborhood, and ended up being held up.........
St. Louis Post Dispatch.
The pizza delivery driver who fatally shot a robber last week could have faced discipline over the incident had he not resigned, a Domino's spokesman said Wednesday.
Although the driver was being praised by bloggers with comments such as "Score one for the good guys," many corporations, like Domino's, prohibit armed employees.
Employees sign an agreement in which they agree not to carry a weapon, Domino's corporate spokesman Tim McIntyre said, a policy designed to protect both the public and employees.
"We're driving down … streets. We're going to people's homes. We're also a workplace," he said. Advertisement
McIntyre added that police had told the company, "There are too many cases in which a person's own weapon has been used against them."
The manager of the University City franchise, which is independently owned, declined to speak to a reporter, and the driver could not be reached for comment. Authorities have not identified him.
Domino's trains employees to minimize their risk, both before and during a robbery, McIntyre said. Drivers are told to carry a cell phone and avoid wearing jewelry or carrying valuables or more than a small amount of cash — typically $20. They're also taught to keep driving if they have doubts about an address and call to verify that the address is legitimate or return to the store, he said.
If robbers approach, drivers are told to "turn over the pizza and empty your pockets."
"The best way to save yourself from harm is to get the situation over as quickly and efficiently as possible," he said. "That typically will result in us needing to replace a pizza but not having to deal with a tragedy."
Domino's also offers security training to other pizza companies to minimize everyone's risk by limiting the potential payoff to would-be delivery robbers.
McIntyre said he didn't know what the former delivery driver told his manager when he resigned. "That's probably an experience he didn't want to confront anymore," McIntyre said.
The driver shot Brian Smith, 19, of the 600 block of Ferguson Avenue in Ferguson, on Dec. 27. His alleged accomplice, Rodney Reese, 18, fled with the pizzas, soda and the driver's wallet, police said, and was later charged with first-degree robbery, two counts of armed criminal action and second-degree murder because he was allegedly involved in a fatal crime.
McIntyre said any punishment would not have been "because he (the driver) defended himself. It would be because he violated a policy that he agreed to follow."
"We completely expect to be criticized," he added.