The US constitution and the right to "Bear Arms"

Sparks

The other thing is that any light engineering facility anywhere can make firearms - they're not that complicated. As anyone who's been watching Palin's latest travel show can tell you - halfway up the Kybher Pass, and he's wandering round a village where the main cottage industry is firearms. And not muskets - working replicas of AK-47s, Walther PPKs, fountain pen guns, the works.

Moriarty

Sparks wrote:

Sorry Moriarty, but you're wrong; as the UK and Australia have shown, you can ban a class of firearm, collect all of them and destroy them, and within a few years you'll have an even bigger gun crime problem.

Thing is, you see, criminals don't buy firearms from registered firearms dealers. They smuggle in illegal weapons so they're not easily tracable. Gun laws only affect those who follow them, don't forget.

Smuggled from where exactly? If they're illegal everywhere, the supply of illegal weapons would dry up in the blink of an eye. You can't build an m16 or beretta in your back shed, after all.

Sparks

Yes, you can moriarty. If you can make an AK-47 in a village in the middle of Afghanistan with simple metalworking tools, you can certainly make a gun in your back shed.

Moriarty

Reliable mass production of a weapon that won't blow up in your face every second shot?

Anything to back that up?

bonkey

MadsL wrote:

As we know you don't get out much....

Attack the post, not the poster please.

jc

Sparks

Moriarty wrote:

Reliable mass production of a weapon that won't blow up in your face every second shot?
Anything to back that up?

Try looking at the village in Pakistan that Palin was in for the Himalaya programme recently, it's called Darra.
Now Darra's about the most famous example (on account of it having no other industry but guns and having made them there for over a century), but it's not the only one by a large margin. And the AK-47 is the most popular battlefield rifle in the world because it's a simple, robust design. I mean, prior to the invasion, they were being produced in Afghanistan for cryin' out loud...

bonkey

Look, its a moot point. The reality is that banning personal firearms worldwide ain't gonna happen. Hell, banning weapons in the developed world would be nigh-on impossible.

Restricting the type of weapon, requiring strict education etc. to get a license (I mean - come on...you need to pass a test to drive a car in the US, but not to get a gun license, right?), and so on [would[/i] make some difference in gun-related crime. However, it would still not have any serious impact on criminal (or terrorist) operations, given that their weapons are almost invariably illegal in the first place.

I'm would agree that the only argument for why people need to bear arms is because other people bear arms....but I don't believe that refusing people to legally bear arms will lead to a situation where that need vanishes.

I should also point out that I don't necessarily believe that having more gun-carrying (or gun-owning) people is a better solution than fewer....but I can see that arguments can be made for it. However, I believe it is indefensible to believe that the right to bear arms should not be interpreted as the right to bear arms responsibly. If people want to own a gun for sports use, for personal protection, pest control on a farm, or anything else thats legal, then at the very least should they not be required to have some form of education, with a test at the end...just like the driving test for a car? Or if thats not suitable, I'm sure anyone who has proper firearms training (/nudges Sparks for one) can suggest a reasonable set of pre-requisites?

jc

Sparks

bonkey wrote:

I'm would agree that the only argument for why people need to bear arms is because other people bear arms

Depends on where you live...

I'm sure anyone who has proper firearms training (/nudges Sparks for one) can suggest a reasonable set of pre-requisites?

Well, there are safety courses aplenty out there, run by pretty much every national governing body in every country. And they're not overly complex - the first lesson in the college rifle club (which has been run by teenagers for 40-odd years without a single accident) goes along the lines of "This is a rifle. Hard things come out of this end, very fast". I know that's borderline facetious, but it's actually very close to the mark (I was a range officer in the college club for about seven years, and we had 300-450 kids per year in the club, so you tended to get a lot of practise in training people - the first thing you learn is "keep it simple"). After that, it's just watching them closely and hitting them with a rolled-up newspaper if they do something wrong. It doesn't take very long before they get the idea.

Okay, I'm kidding about the newspaper, you usually just grab them and stop them Mind you, the Army has a slightly less tolerant approach - their training officers are issued with pistols for the purpose of shooting trainees if required to (they are training them with heavy machine guns though )

omnicorp

hmm... but if everyone who legally owned guns for protection gave them up we might have a lot less accidental shootings.

Capt'n Midnight

Gun ownership rates are similar in US and Canada, yet 25,000 americans get killed by each other in a bad year. that's a 9/11 every month or a Vietnam or Korea in two years. Canadians don't seem to have this problem. Switzerland is a place where adult males had to have military firearms at home again murder rate was nothing like USA.

Stats. show that if there is a gun in a house it will most likely be used in a suicide or accidental shooting, using it to shoot an intruder is less likley and anyway an intruder could be more ready willing and able to use a weapon.

If you enforce laws where EVERYONE must carry a gun at ALL times then some crime rates dorp. But AFAIK suicide rates don't.

In the US three times as many cops commit suicide than get killed on the job.

Sparks

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Gun ownership rates are similar in US and Canada, yet 25,000 americans get killed by each other in a bad year. that's a 9/11 every month or a Vietnam or Korea in two years. Canadians don't seem to have this problem. Switzerland is a place where adult males had to have military firearms at home again murder rate was nothing like USA.

Facts that indicate that the firearms themselves aren't the problem.

Stats. show that if there is a gun in a house it will most likely be used in a suicide or accidental shooting

Those stats have been challanged quite thoroughly and shown to be quite slanted. Admittedly by the NRA, but their numbers do tally.

If you enforce laws where EVERYONE must carry a gun at ALL times then some crime rates dorp. But AFAIK suicide rates don't.

And psychological research (and experience in Canada) shows that removing the firearms from ownership doesn't affect the suicide rates either, just the methods used.

bonkey

omnicorp wrote:

hmm... but if everyone who legally owned guns for protection gave them up we might have a lot less accidental shootings.

True, but you still seem to be blurring the distinction between "a possible solution which isn't ever going to happen" and "a possible solution which could actually be implemented".

Look, if everyone on the planet had a change of heart and all became pacifists, this problem would also go away, wouldn't it? But is that gonna happen? No, its not. So theorising about it being a solution is daft. Its not a solution...its a fantasy that has no probability of becoming a reality.

Similarly, all the legally-owning-a-firearm people are not going to accept their guns to be just collected and removed. Its just not going to happen. If you think it is, and that its possible, then maybe you should outline how you'd go about doing this. Bear in mind wile formulating your plan that it is generally recognised that the Democrats implementing the so-called assault-rifle ban was a (if not the) key contributor in them losing the senate majority last time round. So just how popular do you think moves towards an all-out ban will make either political party....cause your plan has to account for this.

jc

bonkey

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

In the US three times as many cops commit suicide than get killed on the job.

And unless there's evidence showing that they do this because they carry a gun, or because others carry guns, it would seem to be irrelevant to the discussion at hand....other than showing that non-self-inflicted fatal GSWs aren't even the biggest killer of cops...let alone of people in general.

jc

arcadegame2004

Similarly, all the legally-owning-a-firearm people are not going to accept their guns to be just collected and removed. Its just not going to happen. If you think it is, and that its possible, then maybe you should outline how you'd go about doing this. Bear in mind wile formulating your plan that it is generally recognised that the Democrats implementing the so-called assault-rifle ban was a (if not the) key contributor in them losing the senate majority last time round. So just how popular do you think moves towards an all-out ban will make either political party....cause your plan has to account for this.

I would just like to point out that polls showed 55% backing for the ban on assault-weapons in the US. Also, I recall a referendum in recent years in California which backed tougher restrictions on guns (I think background-checks being extended to gun fairs though I am not certain). After the Columbine massacre, I also recall similar polls calling for tougher restrictions. I think that most Americans, when it comes to guns, as with so many other issues, are the hostages of the lobby-groups in Washington, be it the pro-Israel lobby, the gun lobby, the Cuban-American lobby, and so on. They make it pretty impossible to change the American Constitution in any way whatsoever, and that is not an exaggeration.

I am interested in how Sparks and some others on this forum square their backing for liberal gun-laws with the demands that the IRA decommission?

Sparks

bonkey wrote:

Look, if everyone on the planet had a change of heart and all became pacifists, this problem would also go away, wouldn't it? But is that gonna happen? No, its not.

Er, excuse me?
JC, I am a pacifist. I don't even swat flies! But you come to take away my target shooting sports equipment (and that's what it is, despite the rhetoric you sometimes hear people use to describe it), and I'll fight you all the way to the supreme court and the Dail. The worst thing on my criminal record is a library fine for a few overdue books; so why should I be prevented from training towards a dream of going to the Olympics?

arcadegame2004 wrote:

I would just like to point out that polls showed 55% backing for the ban on assault-weapons in the US.

Even though the ban didn't ban assault weapons. A rather telling point, that.

Look, an "assault rifle" is a specific thing, with a specific history. It's a rifle that has a high-capacity, detachable magazine; fires a round intermediate in power between a pistol and a rifle round; and can fire in fully automatic mode or burst-fire mode. They originated at the end of the second world war with the StG-44 rifle developed by the Germans for use in Russia, and evolved from there. They have a specific purpose and are designed in a specific way for a specific reason (namely to engage the enemy at ranges up to 200m in modern combat where artillery or tanks or other heavy weapons are used).

But the assault weapons ban in the states didn't ban those types of weapons, because the ban only applied to semi-automatic firearms. I mean, if you actually wanted to ban assault rifles from civilian ownership, very few would have protested. But the ban itself just targeted "scary-looking" firearms. And who the hell decides what's scary looking? I mean, I have no problem with rifles, but shotguns scare the bejaysus out of me: yet there are many thousands of others who feel the opposite way, all of whom know as much, if not more than me about firearms. If you can't get consensus on that, what good is the law then? And don't forget - the ban didn't ban the firearms on the basis of calibre or muzzle energy or lethality - it banned them on the basis of cosmetic features. Basicly, it was a bad, half-assed law that shouldn't have been written in the first place.

I think that most Americans, when it comes to guns, as with so many other issues, are the hostages of the lobby-groups in Washington

I doubt that Arcade, there are too many people in the NRA, too many people who own firearms in the country as a whole, for that to be true.

I am interested in how Sparks and some others on this forum square their backing for liberal gun-laws with the demands that the IRA decommission?

There's no question at all. I own two rifles. I own them because I love target shooting. I dream of winning medals in sport for Ireland one day. I don't own firearms for use on humans in criminal acts. The two aren't even the same thing - your question is pretty close to asking how a formula one driver squares his support of racing with his belief that ram-raiding is wrong!

bonkey

arcadegame2004 wrote:

I would just like to point out that polls showed 55% backing for the ban on assault-weapons in the US.

And yet, the political party which backed the ban lost political support, and those that opposed it gained support directly as a result.

The problem is that while many people supported the ban, it wasn't gonna make them vote for the Democrats if they didn't do so already. On the other hand, there's plenty of people who changed their vote away from teh Democrats purely and solely because they opposed the ban.

The net result is very clear. If you are one of the two major political parties in teh US, supporting gun-control legislation regardless of how notionally popular it is will cost you votes.

I think that most Americans, when it comes to guns, as with so many other issues, are the hostages of the lobby-groups in Washington, be it the pro-Israel lobby, the gun lobby, the Cuban-American lobby, and so on. They make it pretty impossible to change the American Constitution in any way whatsoever, and that is not an exaggeration.

Yes and no. They are hostages to those groups while those groups are willing to exercise their voting power based on the given isssue. If enough of the public turned around and said "I will vote for whoever puts these restrictions and bans in palce, regardless of any other issue" - if enough of the public were, in effect, as focussed on this issue as the NRA et al are - then they would no longer be "held hostage".

They are only as powerless as they allow themselves to be. While they see other issues as more important in determining who they vote for, then they are subject to the influence of those who see no greater reason for supporting/opposing a political party.

jc

p.s. Sparks - touche on the bears point. However, I'm you will concede the underlying point I was trying to make.

omnicorp

well, would you or would you not like tougher restrictions on non-sport guns? (exc. hunting, nasty barbaric thing that).
I would, shooting a person who tries to rob your house unarmed is a bit over-the-top, I think and hunting, well, let's not drag THAT in...

Sparks

Frankly omni, I could live with the firearms acts (1925, 1964, 1971 and so on) as written. I would argue that it's better to licence the person not the gun, and for a five-year period, not a one-year period, and I've said so to the DoJ (they're looking for submissions on the Firearms Acts right now); but that's more logistics than substantive change. I think that the under-16s issue needs to be fixed (the suggestion I've heard put forward was a licence that allows under-16s to own a firearm, but not to own/store/buy ammunition - the idea is that the club or the parent hangs onto that because no under-16 ought to be off shooting solo) because if it isnt', we're at a disadvantage in sports shooting; I think that the laws that exist need to be enforced better and that means paying for specialised training for gardai on firearms law.

It is hard, however, to distinguish between sporting firearms and weapons. For example, the M-16 is a weapon. The Anschutz 2013 is a sporting firearm. But those are the two ends of the spectrum. Like most lines, this one gets fuzzier the more you look at it. Is the Colt 1911 a sidearm or a target pistol? Well, it's both - it depends on what you're using it for. It's the most popular target pistol in the US for bullseye pistol shooting; it was also the standard issue US military sidearm for many years. Now granted, most people shooting bullseye with the 1911 have it accurised (rebuilt, essentially) but not everyone can afford that so they shoot it "stock".

In essence, it comes down to intent. What are you shooting at? (I've got a problem with some shooting disciplines that use human or humanoid silhouette targets for instance). But that's damn hard to write a firearms ban to enforce. Of course, shooting at humans (or even pointing a firearm at them, or threatening them with one) is quite illegal and always has been, but that's often overlooked...

As to hunting being barbaric, well, we're omnivores. We eat meat. Which means we kill animals. So, so long as you eat what you kill (with some exceptions for animals you have to kill for pest control - rat isn't the most popular of meats), I don't have a problem with it. Couldn't do it, mind, and I think about as much of trophy hunting as I do of boy racers; but real hunting? Don't have a problem with it.

On the shooting an intruder bit; you do know that in this country you will not be given a firearms certificate for the purpose of defending yourself or your property and that it's illegal to use a firearm for that purpose except in the most dire and extreme of circumstances, right?

omnicorp

well, we're talking about america and I've never heard of anyone eating fox...
And humans are pests if you want to use that argument.

LegacyUser

Sparks wrote:

Remember, 1 in 4 drivers in the US commits an act of violence in their lifetime compared to 1 in 10,000 firearms owners.

how did this comment slip buy without anyone saying LMFAO, what BS is this, 1 in 4 drivers commit an act of violence ?, with their car you mean, 25 % of drivers in the us are tearing down sidewalks running people over, and only 1 in 10,000 firearm owners commits an act of violence ? WHAT, ill say that again WHAT ?, when you buy a gun you become an angel ?, or did you mean commit violence with a firearm, because if thats what you meant you actually should have said

1 in 4 drivers in the US will have an accident, 1 in 10,000 firearm owner will intentionally kill someone with the firearm, and given that most homes in the us have a firearm you are left with thousands and thousands of murders

sceptre

Even without bananayogurt's rant I'm interested in that myself. Sounds like lots of people own a gun and don't own a car (though if gun ownership is as high in the US as my paranoia-tingly-sense thinks it is, that could well be true).

Captain Trips

Sparks wrote:

Okay, so first things first - the US isn't the biggest example of a gun culture, Switzerland is. JC can confirm, but shooting is a rather large sport there. And yet, they have one of the lowest rates of gun crime in the world. It's a cliche, I know, but "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is quite accurate.

Secondly, if you were to make a list of dangerous things that kill people, guns wouldn't make the top ten in most countries in Europe or North America. Cars sure would. Poor diet and lack of exercise would. Alcohol would. Narcotics would. Smoking would.
And yet, guns are the (ironically) easy target.

Maybe because guns are specifically designed to kill people, whereas cars and the other stuff mentioned are not. The logical solution to begin with is to ban the thing designed to kill people and then educate as to the risks of the things that *could* kill.

I agree with the Switzerland comment; poor education and the gun image prescribed in rap culture to the fear-mongering them-thar federlists are gonna take-pa's-land attitudes both contrast sharply with a highly educated population (in comparison).

LegacyUser

I can see both sides of the fence, sparks likes guns, thinks they are kewl and would love to fire off a few rounds from an AK or m16 or desert eagle .5, thats right a 50 calibre handgun, dude i soo wish i could have one . If they were legal here I'd buy one and go shoot some cans, but I'm glad they are not because some whacko might use me as a can.

Sparks, be honest, just say you think guns are cool and you wanna go shoot one.

gandalf

bananayoghurt wrote:

Sparks, be honest, just say you think guns are cool and you wanna go shoot one.

If you actually spent anytime actually reading threads on this forum you would know that Sparks is part of a gun club already and takes part at target shooting.

Sparks can you provide links to your claims please.

LegacyUser

gandalf wrote:

If you actually spent anytime actually reading threads on this forum you would know that Sparks is part of a gun club already and takes part at target shooting.

Sparks can you provide links to your claims please.

well there you go, you answered my question, sparks likes shooting guns, all his comments are bs, he just likes shooting guns and nothing will get in the way of it, even dead people

Sparks

Banana, my sport is Olympic Target Shooting. That's me in the photo up the thread (not the guy with the M-16). I'm on the committee of the National Target Shooting Association (I'm the PRO). I run the targetshootingireland.org website. I helped run the DURC for several years. I own a .22 calibre rifle and an air rifle, both of which are used for Olympic shooting. I moderate the shooting forum on these boards. I've been the Team Manager for the Irish team at a World Cup, I've won a national championship, I was on the national squad for several years. None of this is a secret, I've never hidden any of it, ever.

In short, I do have some knowlege of firearms and target shooting. This doesn't make my comments bull****; it makes them informed.

And so far as I'm aware, I don't have any serious psychological problems. The worst thing on my record would be library fines.

The 1 in 4/1 in 10,000 line is from an article originally written by Michael Williamson, here, but I've not found his reference yet. However, there were about 6.2 million car accidents in 2002; and about 500,000 firearms crimes in 2003 according to US government sources (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm and http://www.car-accidents.com/pages/stats/2000_killed.html), so the numbers aren't wholly out of whack.

And Banana, can I just point out that those comments above are bordering on personal insults.

Sparks

omnicorp wrote:

well, we're talking about america and I've never heard of anyone eating fox...

But foxes are considered pests by those who farm meat animals.

vibe666

can't be arsed to read all the way through the thread (yeah, i know. i'm a bad person:rolleyes:) and just wanted to add that every time i hear the phrase 'the right to bear arms' i can't help but think of a bunch of poor old grizzly's left bleeding in the woods with nothing to pick up their salmon with. not to mention a bunch of rednecks with big furry arm warmers with sharp claws on the end of them.

maybe it's just me. maybe it's just late and i can't sleep.

but just maybe i might be right. you didn't think of that did you?

was this a serious topic?

sorry. i'm going now.

actually, maybe i'll stay if that's okay. seriously though, read the last couple of pages and i have to say that i think banana was a bit over the top there (sorry banana, but it was a bit harsh).

so what's wrong with wanting to shoot a gun? it doesn't automatically mean you want to kill people does it? what about archery? a bow and arrow doesn't have any other use apart from shooting stuff. they're just as deadly (as deftly illustrated by rambo) as a gun, but nobody thinks twice about them being an olympic sport and if i decided one day that i wanted to 'arch?' for my country nobody would bat an eyelid. so why are guns different?

i agree that nobody needs an assault weapon (or just anything that looks scary) because you really don't need them. you don't need one to go hunting or pest control and you sure as hell don't need them for target shooting. in fac tthe only thing you really need them for is killing a lot of people really quickly, and aside from anti-terrorist units and the army i don't think anyone has a need, so get rid of them.

but there are plenty of people out there who enjoy shooting without breaking any laws, ever so lets just make sure there are laws to prevent the wrong sorts of guns getting out there at all and the right sort of guns from getting into the wrong hands and then leave them alone and the rest of us can get on with whatever we happen to like doing.

omnicorp

Sparks wrote:

But foxes are considered pests by those who farm meat animals.

But we:
Pollute the Earth
KILL our own kind (not a lot of species do that purposely)
Have the occasional bright idea such as the A-Bomb (see above)
Start wars (above)
Cause animals to go exctinct (as a dodo)
Kill animals for fun (not for food, survival, protection, FUN)
Neglect our own kind (3rd World countries, then Bill Gates. Damn, this is Microsoft computer system)
Cause peoples lives to be misery (Bullying etc.)

Foxes...
Kill farm animals for food and erm... carry disease like most animals including us, humans.

So, do we NEED guns for hunting?

Sparks

So, do we NEED guns for hunting?

Hmmm. Well, I guess it depends. Do you think setting snares and then going round each snare every few days with a big rock to smash their skulls in isn't cruel? Or maybe hunting with hounds? Or laying down poison? Or gassing them? Or perhaps you like to chase them down and bite their heads off yourself?

Me, I think a .270 calibre ballistic tipped round is about the most instantaenous way of killing a fox, and if it's dead before it knows what hit it, that's about as humane as you're likely to get...

BTW, the only thing on that list up there that is unique to humans is the atomic bomb. Everything else from murder (chimps and other primates) to wars (ants, chimps) to slavery (ants) to bullying (chimps, all big cats, dogs) is practised by other species as well as us.