200 years out of date!!!

[simay77]

As A Man From An Almost Completely Non Gun Owning Society It Confounds Me That The Law Has Not Changed In Relation To The Ability To Buy Guns In The U.s. This Is A Law That Goes Back 200 Yrs. Surely It Makes Sense To Not Be Able To Buy Guns. I Know That Some People Will Say That You Can Kill People With Cars, But That Makes No Sense Whatsoever. Just Because It Is Possible To Kill Ourselves With Items Like Pens Or Hammers, Doesn't Meen It Should Be Possible To Purchase Products Which Have Been Manufactured For One Reason And One Reason Only - To Kill.

 

What Is Everyones Opinion On Gun Laws???

[Boerseun]

First off, welcome to Hypo, simay!

 

Secondly, Please Do Not Capitalize The First Letters Of Every Word - It Makes It Kinda Hard To Read...

 

Thirdly, I'm totally opposed to guns. As you said, a handgun has only one function, and that is to deprive someone else of his life by hurtling tiny stones at them at a sufficient speed to make them spring a few leaks.

 

The car analogy used by the pro-gunners falls apart when you consider that a car was made for a very different purpose - when it kills someone, it was an accident. When a gun kills someone, it's a piece of machinery simply doing what it was designed to do. It's sickening, really.

[Tormod]

Welcome to Hypography! Another European here.

 

And I'm also in the anti-gun camp.

[simay77]

Thanks for the welcome, and I'll sort out that capital letters thing!

[Freddy]

I am not anti-gun but am pro gun control. Please do not assume that gun laws in all states are the same. It is very difficult to buy a handgun in MA. Welcome to the forum.

[Queso]

I could walk into a store in Bradenton, FL and buy a semi-automatic AK-47 in less than an hour.

 

I also hear gunshots all the time.

 

:doh:

[simay77]

''I am not anti-gun but am pro gun control. Please do not assume that gun laws in all states are the same. It is very difficult to buy a handgun in MA. Welcome to the forum.''

 

So a short out of state drive is all thats needed then!!! Thanks for the welcome.

[C1ay]

Which Have Been Manufactured For One Reason And One Reason Only - To Kill.

 

False. I've been a gun owner and user since I was a teenager, 30+ years ago, and I've never murdered anybody with one. I've enjoyed hundreds and hundreds of hours of target practice and skeet shooting for sport. I've enjoyed hundreds of hours of hunting and many great meals from my guns. There are millions more like me. Why should we be punished because of the occasional psycho that abuses the tool?

 

On the car argument suppose someone bought a car for the express purpose of running down a crowd of people. Would that make the car bad? No. It does show that it doesn't matter what the car was designed for, it's just another tool in a killer's arsenal.

 

Psychos that want to kill crowds of people will find a way and punishing everyone else because of it is not a solution. What will you do when some psycho walks into a mall with a gallon of gasoline and detonates it, ban gasoline?

 

Prohibition of anything fails and promotes black markets. Prohibition did not stop alcohol abuse and has had minimal effect of drug abuse and control. It won't work for guns either. Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns and the rest of us will be one step closer to defenseless...

[IMAMONKEY!]

Maybe we should all just wear body armor

 

Welcome to the forums!!

[Freddy]

So a short out of state drive is all thats needed then!!! Thanks for the welcome.

Actually, the state of MA thought of that so they have agreements with neighboring states to hold MA residents to the same restrictions and steps that MA has. My dad lives in NH and could buy a handgun with less hassle and give it to me, but that would be illegal in both states.

[GAHD]

Maby it should be manditory for everyone to carry a semi-auto with an 8-round mag; then the playing feild is atleast somewhat level.

[Turtle]

Like C1ay, I have used & owned guns since I was a child; as a boy I earned a 5th degree Sharpshooter certification from an NRA sponsored shooting program. While I do see the appeal of shooting, as well as the value in owning & using hunting firearms, we have in the US too wide an arena in regards to types of firearms.

 

There is little if any legitimate use of handguns in hunting, and in fact the only handgun I know of that meets the regs for hunting off the shelf is the .44 auto-mag. (the standard is so many foot/pounds of energy at a given distance). Handguns have been, and remain, primarily for use against people. In the recent murders at Virginia Tech, the murderer had purchased magazines for the 9mm handgun that hold 30 rounds, twice that of many standard magazines. In my opinion there is no legitimate argument for allowing the availability of such a setup.

 

Likewise, no hunter needs an assault rifle, nor do ordinary citizens. The target shooting, collecting, and hobby arguments hold no sway with me. While I don't see any serious move to outlaw such firearms, I would not be opposed to it, nor some restrictions on buying & selling ammunition. There is no legitimate use of a hollow point pistol round other than killing people, for example.

 

As I say, thinking we can outlaw and then collect & eliminate the firearms in the US is a pie-in-the-sky idealistic dream under the current conditions. If we don't start baking it now however, no one is getting dessert. :) :)

[CraigD]

What Is Everyones Opinion On Gun Laws???

I’m for them, and for laws in general, good laws in particular, and laws that apply to the creation of laws expecially.

 

In the US, gun laws are specifically subject to a specific section of its supreme legal code, the Second Amendment to the US Constitution:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Compared to other sections of the Constitution, the Second Amendment is remarkable in that it is one of the few that not only restricts the ability of the federal and the various state legislatures from enacting a class of laws, but explains the reason for its inclusion (albeit an ambiguous and syntactically strained one).

 

So, in the various states of the US, banning gun ownership is clearly prohibited by the nation’s highest law. Various courts have set a precedent that the Second Amendment does not prohibit the states from passing laws managing gun ownership – for example, requiring background checks, prohibiting gun ownership by felons, and banning types of weapons and accessories for which it’s deemed the threat outweighs the legitimate benefit, such as sawed-off shotguns, fully automatic rifles and large magazines.

 

This does not mean that guns cannot be absolutely banned in the US, only that before the various states do so, an amendment repealing the Second Amendment must be passed by a two thirds majority by both houses of Congress, and ratified by the legislatures of two thirds of the states. After and only after this is done will the various state (or possibly local) legislatures be free, but not required, to pass gun ban laws. It’s to be expected that if the Second Amendment were repealed, some but not all states would outright ban gun ownership, making for the possibility of people strongly in favor or opposed to guns to “vote with their feet” by choosing to live in states where the laws match their opinions.

 

IMHO it’s critical for the government of the US (and other nations) to follow their own laws. Guns and other legally protected sources of danger may threaten and lead to the untimely death of a small proportion of society, but the abandonment of the rule of law by government threatens the whole society, risking the untimely death of a vastly larger portion of it.

[simay77]

''False. I've been a gun owner and user since I was a teenager, 30+ years ago, and I've never murdered anybody with one. I've enjoyed hundreds and hundreds of hours of target practice and skeet shooting for sport. I've enjoyed hundreds of hours of hunting and many great meals from my guns. There are millions more like me. Why should we be punished because of the occasional psycho that abuses the tool?''

 

I'm sorry mate, but there is no way you can classify a gun - any kind of gun - (unless you're talking about a nail gun) as a 'tool'. Unless you mean to finish that with 'tool of death'. A gun is NOT a tool. It is a weapon. An instrument of death. Plain and simple. They fire projectiles designed for maximising injury to human bodies. Seriously, they are not hammers or spanners or wrenches. WEAPONS.

And your argument that just because YOU haven't killed anyone wtih YOUR guns doesn't automatically imply that they should be free for people to purchase. I am usually against banning anything (alcohol/marijuana), but when you're talking about a 'tool'/weapon that is made to kill people (this is still the case weather you have used it for this purpose or not) I strongly disagree.

I don't want to punish you or your kind, but surely the greater good is more important than your hours and hours of fun on a shooting range?

[Qfwfq]

Why should we be punished because of the occasional psycho that abuses the tool?

Over here, guns are highly regulated, yet many people legally enjoy shooting for sport, including hunting. Also it doesn't seem to make us so tremendously prone to getting shot by criminals; personally I don't think the balance is in favour of letting people freely keep guns.

 

Compared to other sections of the Constitution, the Second Amendment is remarkable in that it is one of the few that not only restricts the ability of the federal and the various state legislatures from enacting a class of laws, but explains the reason for its inclusion (albeit an ambiguous and syntactically strained one).

I don't find it syntactically strained, only a non-sequitur. During my military service I shot with semi and fully automatic guns and threw a few grenades, but I sure can't legally buy them and carry them around.

[freeztar]

I hold the Second Ammendment dear!

I don't own a gun and never have (probably never will), but I don't think overstepping the constitution is a good idea. I agree that things such as 30 round clips should not be in circulation and that background checks (perhaps more stringent ones) are necessary.

Banning does not stop use and in some cases can actually increase it. Pot smoking is alive and well here in the US even though it has been banned for 70 years or so.

I don't know the statistics (I'll try to find something) but I would be willing to bet that most fatal crimes involving guns were firearms off the black market.

[CraigD]

Which Have Been Manufactured For One Reason And One Reason Only - To Kill.

False. I've been a gun owner and user since I was a teenager, 30+ years ago, and I've never murdered anybody with one. I've enjoyed hundreds and hundreds of hours of target practice and skeet shooting for sport. I've enjoyed hundreds of hours of hunting and many great meals from my guns. There are millions more like me. Why should we be punished because of the occasional psycho that abuses the tool?

I'm sorry mate, but there is no way you can classify a gun - any kind of gun - (unless you're talking about a nail gun) as a 'tool'. Unless you mean to finish that with 'tool of death'. A gun is NOT a tool. It is a weapon. An instrument of death. Plain and simple. They fire projectiles designed for maximising injury to human bodies. Seriously, they are not hammers or spanners or wrenches. WEAPONS.

I think both sides of this debate raise some correct, and some incorrect, points:

• Guns and ammunition are designed only to kill – true. Although some specialized exceptions exist (ie: a shotgun loaded with rock salt or a beanbag; a tranquilizer dart gun; an artillery piece used to scatter leaflets over a target; etc.) most guns are designed to kill something. Although practically every gun is capable of killing a human being, most are better suited to killing smaller animals. That many people have fired thousands of rounds only at targets, using weapons poorly suited to anything but shooting at targets, and will never kill an animal or human being with a gun, does not change the fact that by far the majority of guns manufactured are designed to kill some sort of living thing.
   
  
• Guns are not tools – false. In the general sense in which its most commonly used by present-day internet users, a tool is anything that increases the amount of a particular kind of task that a person (or, more generally, any person-like thing) can do. A hammer is a tool. A computer is a tool. A gun increases the amount of killing that a person can do, so is also a tool.
   
  If you consider dictionaries valid prescriptions of word meaning, note that one of the definitions listed by the wordseek (Hypography’s affiliated dictionary service) entry for “tool” is “a weapon”.
  

There is little if any legitimate use of handguns in hunting, and in fact the only handgun I know of that meets the regs for hunting off the shelf is the .44 auto-mag. (the standard is so many foot/pounds of energy at a given distance). Handguns have been, and remain, primarily for use against people. In the recent murders at Virginia Tech, the murderer had purchased magazines for the 9mm handgun that hold 30 rounds, twice that of many standard magazines. In my opinion there is no legitimate argument for allowing the availability of such a setup.

Turtle raises the compelling point, I think, that handguns (pistols) and handgun ammunition, with only a few exceptions, are designed exclusively for killing human beings. Compared to long guns (using the term in its more broad meaning that includes rifles and shotguns of ordinary length), handguns perform poorly at this task, but make up for it by being easily carried, so that they are available immediately when needed. This ease of concealment and access is also detrimental, as it enhances the effectiveness of crimes such as robbery, or the recent Virginia Tech massacre

 

US law, however, preserves the right of civilians to legally kill people under certain circumstances, such as when attacked in their homes or places of business. Although some argue that longguns could serve this legitimate use equally well (which I believe to be the case in a home), others argue that only handguns can provide people with the necessary quick access to best defend themselves as allowed by law. While I don’t believe the latter argument is supported by sound scientific data, it does, at present, have the support of our laws.

 

Given the legal precedent determined by various courts, banning all handguns would not, I believe, violate the Second Ammendment. Some states, such as Massachusetts, have already have done so, practically if not in technical legal fact.

 

PS to simay77: To quote previous posts, click on the quote button, or surround the quoted text with

tags. You may edit the text within the quote tags to reduce its length. The resulting post is easier to read, and if correctly specified, include a pretty link to the quoted post.