Gun Control

[Menegrothx]

Also if South Africa and Jamaica are going to be used as examples of a places with harsh gun laws, lets talk about Japan and South Korea as well. They have some of the harshest gun control regulations in the world, they also have some of the lowest rates of gun related deaths in the world.

I think Singapore has a quite low crime rate too and owning an illegal firearm leads automatically to death penalty over there. My point isn't that ban guns ->criminals take over, it's that there are places with high gun ownership/unresctritive gun laws that have low amount of gun violence. I'm just pointing out that gun control didnt really fix the real problem in those countries (socio-economic issues), so they didnt really gain any security from loosing a little freedom. If freedom can work under the right circumstances (I'm not talking about just guns here, but it's one good example), it's better to have it than to not have it, right?

We could have a lot more freedom if the circumstances were right in general - mainly if people were more intelligent, less selfish and not so damn shortsighted. The idea of making the human race more intelligent has been a taboo subject since WW2 though and requires a fair amount of facism, so I guess we'll have to settle for what we have when it comes to freedoms:P

[MrPopo]

Question: does the gun law cover tanks? I know this might sound silly, but I wonder if a rich person could buy a tank or a fighter jet.

Yes they can, but in general they have to have their weapons removed/rendered nonfunctional.

[DinnerX]

Question: does the gun law cover tanks? I know this might sound silly, but I wonder if a rich person could buy a tank or a fighter jet.

Yes they can, but in general they have to have their weapons removed/rendered nonfunctional.

Well, there goes that childhood dream.

Given that it is apparently not difficult to accept that it is a good idea to regulate access to using things - such as vehicles - that can be used intentionally or accidentally to cause damage to 3rd parties... I really do not see why so many people apparently object to some restrictions on the right to own and operate guns - as if the entire idea was unreasonable! And the license should be stricter for more serious stuff like those capable of automatic fire. Is anyone in the thread really objecting to this? Please explain to me why...

I don't think anyone is objecting to mild regulation here. Waiting periods, required safety courses, background checks, and the banning of certain weapons, aren't really a problem for a good citizen. Or at least, I don't think they are.

[BoringSupreez]

Well we have really strict gun laws, as far as I am aware no pistols of any kind are allowed any more. This kind of annoys the marksmen out there, and does nothing to deter the people that get hold of their guns illegally anyway.

But the fact is that we rarely see the levels or random violence seen at the Batman screening. Sure we still have murderers and hate crimes, but we rarely have the kind of attacks on random passers by that are seen in America. Personally I think that restricting the availability of guns can only help. Criminals will still be able to get them, but with less guns around it will be harder.

Can you imagine the London riots if you guys had guns?

I don't want to imagine what Athens would be like right now if we had guns like the Americans. I really believe that when social unrest appears in the states it will be impossible to contain it without it getting very VERY messy.

Part of the reason we are guaranteed the right to own guns by our constitution is exactly so that we will have plenty of guns when social unrest comes. The second amendment is a safeguard for the people in case the government needs to be dealt with by force.

I'm very for owning guns. I also think that gun laws in the US are too strict as they are. I think fully automatic weapons should be legal, and weapons permits should be as easy to get as a fishing license. People with criminal records shouldn't be barred from owning guns (if we can't trust them with guns they shouldn't be walking the streets).

It shouldn't surprise you that I really like Switzerland's way of requiring everyone to own a gun. If several people in any given area are going to be carrying weapons, it's a lot more dangerous for criminals to try and go on a killing spree like the one in Colorado.

[DinnerX]

People with criminal records shouldn't be barred from owning guns (if we can't trust them with guns they shouldn't be walking the streets).

But they are walking the streets. In IL at least, the prisons are so crowded people are getting turned loose when they probably shouldn't be. Making it a little harder for them to get guns at a mild inconvenience to the rest of the populace doesn't seem like a bad thing.

[BoringSupreez]

People with criminal records shouldn't be barred from owning guns (if we can't trust them with guns they shouldn't be walking the streets).

But they are walking the streets. In IL at least, the prisons are so crowded people are getting turned loose when they probably shouldn't be. Making it a little harder for them to get guns at a mild inconvenience to the rest of the populace doesn't seem like a bad thing.

Well, I think our methods of punishing criminals needs to be overhauled... but disregarding that, I still think people with records should be allowed to own guns. If they're determined to kill someone they're going to find a way to do it. I mean, if they're willing to break the law by murdering I don't think they'll have any qualms about buying a gun illegally. It seems like a pointless regulation.

[Forlorn Drifter]

It shouldn't surprise you that I really like Switzerland's way of requiring everyone to own a gun. If several people in any given area are going to be carrying weapons, it's a lot more dangerous for criminals to try and go on a killing spree like the one in Colorado.

I'm still somewhat suprised by the fact that nobody in the theatre had any sort of gun... hell, they have open carry AND CHL there. I don't see why nobody had one...

I do believe there should be restrictions on guns, and we currently have enough, I feel. Actually, I'm pretty happy with how it is nowadays in the US for guns. I believe open carry needs to be more widely accepted. Waiting periods on guns... I'v never had to deal with them, so I can't really comment fairly. I like the Texas law for carrying firearms in ones vehicle, and I much prefer it.

Education about firearms is the main thing. Too many people aren't informed, and cause themselves or others harm with firearms.

"If you don't want it dead, don't point the barrel at it." First thing my Dad taught me about firearms.

[dreamcups]

The reason why people can have guns is simply cause someone is getting rich with it. Theres no such think like the "need" of having a gun.

[Ivo]

I really do not see why so many people apparently object to some restrictions on the right to own and operate guns - as if the entire idea was unreasonable! And the license should be stricter for more serious stuff like those capable of automatic fire. Is anyone in the thread really objecting to this? Please explain to me why...

I don't think anyone is objecting to mild regulation here. Waiting periods, required safety courses, background checks, and the banning of certain weapons, aren't really a problem for a good citizen. Or at least, I don't think they are.

(except it shouldn't be "mild" regulation).

I'm very for owning guns. I also think that gun laws in the US are too strict as they are. I think fully automatic weapons should be legal, and weapons permits should be as easy to get as a fishing license.

It shouldn't surprise you that I really like Switzerland's way of requiring everyone to own a gun. If several people in any given area are going to be carrying weapons, it's a lot more dangerous for criminals to try and go on a killing spree like the one in Colorado.

As easy as a fishing license, really? Do you think the same way about driving licenses, they should be as easy as a fishing license?

Also, the sort of criminal that goes on a killing spree doesn't strike me as the type that considers how dangerous it is in order to decide to go for it or not, so I really don't think this type of reasoning is very valid. This type of reasoning gets brought up frequently in this type of discussion.
It is a reasonable factor to bring up and consider but honestly I think the "enabling" effect of it being much easier for people (often without a criminal record) to acquire powerful guns and can then go on a real killing spree (instead of say, some stabbings) vastly outweigh the "disabling" effect of having "regular citizens" that are armed, happen to be at the "right" place at the "right" time and are well trained enough to overcome the disadvantages to stop it (they didn't plan for the event and they didn't initiate it in an advantageous position).
You should also keep in mind that even if a hero does manage to stop a killing spree because the hero also had access to guns, in order for this to really count as a net positive for easier gun access the spree needs to be stopped early enough that the innocents killed are a lower number than the killer would have gotten by through e.g. stabbing.
Killing sprees stopped by armed heroes are newsworthy though, so maybe someone can present a rough count of these against the ones that simply went through.
The proof of which effect is more relevant is in the pudding, as the British may say. Some numbers have already been presented in the thread, although it is true it is hard to compare "like for like" given differences in social conditions and so on, I think only those that don't want to see the elephant in the room are still missing it.

I also want to reiterate: regular POLICE OFFICERS in the U.K. don't carry firearms. That is such a powerful statement that I think it really needs to be given more attention. It is obvious that there that "stopping a killing spree though having other people be armed" is not an important consideration.

Ivo.

[ZeroAX]

Question: does the gun law cover tanks? I know this might sound silly, but I wonder if a rich person could buy a tank or a fighter jet.

Yes they can, but in general they have to have their weapons removed/rendered nonfunctional.

Why? Isn't that unconstitutional? It's a gun, isn't it the right of Americans to own it?

As BoringSupreez says they should allow normal people to even own nuclear bombs. That way if social unrest spreads (or god forbid you become "socialist") people can take matters into their own hands.