1

Talk about a subject boxed in fanactical personal opinion and wrapped up in inconsistent legal opinion …

It is a fact that if guns were off the streets there would be less shooting deaths … of course, there are still knives, bricks, steel bars and other assorted instruments of mayhem. And, again, this arguement has been consistently used by pro-gun advocates but it has holes. Guns kill faster and from a distance that desensitizes the killer. Maybe if the killer had to get down and dirty they might have less of a stomach for it…

The other real arguement used is that criminals will always break the law and obtain weapons … John Allan Mohammed couldn’t legally own a weapon but he still shot people. Is this a reason not to ban guns? People use it as a reason to decriminalize drug use … people who want to use will so why make it illegal? Of course, their use doesn’t directly kill anyone but then neither does gun ownership.

For the record I don’t own any weapon more powerful than my cynicism.

2

Hm, that’s an interesting point about decriminalizing drugs. But while the activity surrounding drug dealing and drug use may affect people not involved in the act itself (an argument for decriminalization), ultimately drugs themselves are only going to have a *direct* affect on the person taking them, aren’t they? (Unless, of course, someone goes crazy when they’re high and decides to kill someone else - in which case, let’s hope they don’t have access to a gun.)

The whole purpose of a gun, on the other hand, is to hurt or kill something or someone *else*. Of course, guns are not always used this way - they may just be used for target practice, for sport, for “fun”. But using a gun for enjoyment or sport does not change the fact that the concept of pain and death are inherent in a gun’s very existence. And I just don’t think that the “harmless” pleasure innocent people may getting from blasting away at a target in the shape of a human being outweighs the danger of allowing so many weapons to be in general circulation in the United States.

Yeah, sure, laws or no laws, if you really want to get hold of a gun, you will be able to. But I would venture to guess that the highly calculated acts of violence involving guns are far outnumbered by the number of shooting deaths that come about because someone has spontaneously grabbed a gun that they either just happened to have lying around already (legally) or that they were able to buy on the spot, no questions asked (legally). Furthermore, in my mind it would stand to reason that if you make it harder for normal people to access guns, you’re also making it harder for criminals to access guns. But maybe that’s just a wacky idea of mine.

At the moment, I’m just happy that I live in a country where even most of the policmen don’t carry guns (and yes, there are shootings now and then, but when I walk down the mean streets of Brighton - or even London - I don’t feel anywhere near the same level of fear as when I go to a mall in Tucson).

3

It is interesting that, when a calm mind examines the question, one can not help but always see the other side of the arguement for or against.

Again, I have no invested interest either way but remember that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom (although an occupied nation by some accounts) and the IRA has had no problem acquiring quite a stash of weapons …

I think the focus on gun ownership is truly part of the problem. The core of the discussion is humanity’s inherently violent nature and the ease with which a gun allows that nature to present itself. I have walked the streets of East San Jose, South Dallas, Los Angeles and many other dark areas all over the world (and yes even the cruel streets of Tucson where I have family LOL) but it is not the fear of a gun or any other weapon which made me be especially careful but my common sense that I was in a place where I was the stranger and, therefore, percieved as a threat or someone to be threatened.

I understand and respect your speculation that inaccesibility to weapons on the whole may reduce the criminal use but I fear any government which reduces my rights and feel we must tread carefully lest we truly end up telling some “Handmaiden’s Tale” in a “Brave New World”…

Cheers

On a happier note just got back from 2 weeks in Edinburgh … what can be more scary than being on the streets when all the pubs close a 3 AM and the crowds literally pour out the doors!

4

Funny you should mention the IRA - I mean, where has the vast majority of their weapons or the money for those weapons come from? That’s right - the good old U.S. of A and the Americans of Irish descent who, as Jeremy always says, “would do anything for Ireland except live there”.

Anway…I can certainly understand the argument that there is no reason for responsible gun owners to not have guns. I mean, I feel very, very, very strongly about guns, and in my ideal world, nobody would have guns. But in the real world, I know that people like to hunt, etc., and rationally I have to say that I think they should have the ability to do that, even though it goes against my own beliefs regarding guns.

So really, I’m not expecting a flat-out ban on all firearms in America. In fact, I will go along with the pro-gun folks and say that the laws that are in place already need to be enforced. But am I alone in thinking that there’s something weird about being able to purchase assualt rifles or carry concealed weapons?

As regards rights being taken away… well, you don’t have the right to do a lot things, really. You don’t have the right to own a nuclear weapon, or to drive down the highway in a tank, or to destroy someone else’s property just because you feel like it. So it really comes down to the Second Amendment, doesn’t it? And we could argue ad infinitum about the exact meaning of it and whether it even has any relevance to the United States as it is today. I have my doubts in this regard, which is why I balk at the idea that anyone has the fundamental *right* to buy a gun in the first place. As I see it, this “right” to bear firearms has just gone completely out of control. After all, the Founding Fathers were talking about muskets, not AK-47’s.

Rather than human nature, I wonder if the problem is not with the nature of America itself. There are apparently loads of gun owners in Switzerland, nearly no gun laws - and nearly no gun crime. But then, Switzerland is not America. So you’re right, really - gun ownership is not the ultimate problem. The ultimate problem is that America somehow produces a frightening number of people willing to carry out utterly cold-blooded crimes. Even I can see that the root cause of much of the violence carried out with guns is not the gun itself, but rather the problems in the very social fabric of the United States.

But I still maintain that tighter controls on guns and gun use would at least allow us to make some inroads into tackling the bigger problems. I think the ease with which guns can be acquired and used leads to a blase attitude towards guns and, ultimately, violence.

Anway, I’ve certainly gone on, haven’t I? :-) I’ll bet Edinburgh was nice - I was there as a teenager and would love to go back again now. But I’ll tell you what’s scarier than crowds pouring onto the streets in Edinburgh at 3 AM: getting kicked out of the pubs in Brighton at 11 PM! Why is Scotland always putting England to shame that like? :-)

5

i Dont think they should be gun owner ship because many people (most which are children) gets killed either in a accident or somthing else.

6

Well if people would lock up their weapons properly we would never have the problems like kids getting shot and accidents to that matter. People who hunt and use guns for sport or "fun" have the right to use, own and operate the weapon, the bad guys hmm.. maybe more of a strait up system that punishes them really hard..