202 replies to this topic

[Jok3r]

I saw a couple threads along these lines get locked because they got too political, so lets avoid that. I just saw something in the news about people taking concealed weapons to college. This is a discussion on gun control, but lets avoid politics (no talking about 2nd amendment rights, although you can cite the second amendment if you want)
~SLG

[Whitey]

Guns should be legal with license.
Concealment should be legal with license.

I know I can be trusted with a firearm. Therefore, I should be able to own one. I know many who couldn't be trusted with one, all the more reason I should have one. Why take away the possible defensive means of a man? You can argue that if you take away the defense means of one, you take away the offensive means of another, but you don't. Criminals, say, ones who might get into a shootout, have no issue committing those crimes. What will prevent them from illegally purchasing firearms? But a law-abiding citizen will not purchase firearms and thus be at a disadvantage.

If every one person in your community had a gun on their person at all times, would you, honestly, have the gonads to pull one out and shoot at somebody? Bear in mind that the majority of people would uphold the law and point their guns at you. It is not mutually assured destruction when no faction is going to set in motion the reaction. In this case, if one person tried to set it in motion, that person would be eliminated and the public would move on with their lives.

-Boidy

[Jok3r]

For the most part, I agree with you. Guns, and Concealment, should be legal with a license. The background checking going along with that license, should be very intense, but, you should be able to own a gun. However, the last part is not entirely true. Most of the serial killers/shooters we see these days are suicidal. Being shot will not stop them. However, if they are eliminated before they can do much damage, that is definitely for the better.
~SLG

[Whitey]

If somebody is going to kill, they are going to kill, regardless. But if everyone has a gun, it makes it that much easier to put an end to the problem.

-Boidy

[Jok3r]

Precisely. If you can end a rampage, how many people didnt get shot?
~SLG

[AllStarZ]

Concealment should not be legal, because it offers as much opportunity for abuse. Furthermore, why should anyone be bringing guns to a school anyways? Isn't a school supposed to discourage their usage?

[Whitey]

Who said anything about schools? Ideally, I'd say all civilians should be issued firearms. Schools could have specialized, out-of-class "gun lockers" that are given one-per-person for storage of said issued firearms.

If guns were mandatory, all people would have them, and at classes, all lockers would be filled. Correct? So if one locker was not filled, that person could be investigated. Correct? Could this not potentially solve many problems?

[AllStarZ]

L.P. Boidy, on 22 Feb 2008, 0:07, said:

Who said anything about schools? Ideally, I'd say all civilians should be issued firearms. Schools could have specialized, out-of-class "gun lockers" that are given one-per-person for storage of said issued firearms.

If guns were mandatory, all people would have them, and at classes, all lockers would be filled. Correct? So if one locker was not filled, that person could be investigated. Correct? Could this not potentially solve many problems?

Flawed. Doesn't solve a damn thing. Doesn't mean he still can't be packing after he has signed in a weapon. Or he could avoid signing in altogether, head to class, and hold the class hostage.

Best solution lies in solving the root problem. Because you don't hear anyone going on school rampages in Australia and Great Britain every year or so. The problem lies with our societies.

Besides most of the weapons used in massacres are legal.

[Whitey]

Because they can be obtained legally. If they couldn't, most weapons used in massacres would be illegal.

Anyway, if the solution lies within society, why change gun laws if they aren't going to help? Isn't that just going to do nothing, as my own solution would do? (Yes, I was trying to make a point, you see, if one action doesn't solve anything, what the hell is the opposite going to do? Nothing, because they don't have ANY effects.)

-Boidy

[AllStarZ]

And because they can be obtained legally, it doesn't matter anyways.
http://en.wikipedia....ki/Kimveer_Gill
Look out for people with serious apparent social problems.

Encourage parents to spend more time with their kids, and put schooling on a more individual basis. Have a student check in with a guidance counsellor every week or so.

All you're doing is reducing the severity of the symptoms. You try to reduce the impact of a problem after it is already happened. Granted you should, but if you're going to ignore the cause then it's going to keep happening over and over again. And people will continue to die or get hurt.

Edited by AllStarZ, 22 February 2008 - 05:38.

[Whitey]

But that is not the issue: Would you agree that gun control is ineffective?

-Boidy

[AllStarZ]

All I'm saying is that guns should stay locked in the house, or in stores, firing ranges, and hunting grounds. As for assault on the streets, there are several non-lethal alternatives that work. Hell, I'll even conditionally support air guns. Now I'm going to bed, this is one of those rare nights I can go to bed relatively early.

Night.

Edited by AllStarZ, 22 February 2008 - 06:04.

[Dauth]

For the UK I would keep them illegal since bringing it in would exarcebate a whole bunch of problems we already have. In the US where is it legal to own (but IIRC illegal to conceal?) I don't see the problem, it is just an issue of culture, however I would like to have some place where I can speak my mind without having some nutjob pull a gun on me for disagreeing with his views. Under Boidy's suggestion it would very quickly turn into mob rule.

[Wizard]

L.P. Boidy, on 22 Feb 2008, 5:37, said:

But that is not the issue: Would you agree that gun control is ineffective?

-Boidy

Yes. So take them away from everyone.

[AllStarZ]

Dauth, on 22 Feb 2008, 3:39, said:

For the UK I would keep them illegal since bringing it in would exarcebate a whole bunch of problems we already have. In the US where is it legal to own (but IIRC illegal to conceal?) I don't see the problem, it is just an issue of culture, however I would like to have some place where I can speak my mind without having some nutjob pull a gun on me for disagreeing with his views. Under Boidy's suggestion it would very quickly turn into mob rule.

Agreed.

Allowing concealed carry is too much a stretch in assuming that people are responsible enough. We're liable to get cases where people get run down and shot dead for stealing an old lady's purse.

[Wizard]

I am sure there are some pro gun supports that would support that ^

Ultimately we as a species aren't responsible enough for anything. I struggle to think of anyone thing we have come across or invented that hasn't be warped or manipulated into something horrible by some minorities. Guns are just easy to do that with.

If it were my decision I would accept that guns cause bad people to carry out bad acts, but with more serious, or easily serious consequences, ergo ban guns completely and the ease with which these acts are carried out, in theory should decrease.

[Rich19]

In the US, where guns are already plentiful, it is best to keep them legal, but limit concealment. Making them illegal would simply leave a massive number of illegal guns in the country, and the responsible civilians more defenceless.

In the UK, where guns are illegal, the laws should stay as they are. There is no need to have legal guns right now, so the only people who would want to buy them are criminals who intend to abuse their power.

[Jok3r]

Well, this is definitely a hot topic. Good. Is concealment right? In some states, its the only way you can own a gun. Guns should be legal. I don't know if it should be mandatory to have them with you at all times however. Isn't that what the tazer is for?
~SLG

[CoLT]

AllStarZ, on 22 Feb 2008, 13:28, said:

L.P. Boidy, on 22 Feb 2008, 0:07, said:

Who said anything about schools? Ideally, I'd say all civilians should be issued firearms. Schools could have specialized, out-of-class "gun lockers" that are given one-per-person for storage of said issued firearms.

If guns were mandatory, all people would have them, and at classes, all lockers would be filled. Correct? So if one locker was not filled, that person could be investigated. Correct? Could this not potentially solve many problems?

Flawed. Doesn't solve a damn thing. Doesn't mean he still can't be packing after he has signed in a weapon. Or he could avoid signing in altogether, head to class, and hold the class hostage.

Best solution lies in solving the root problem. Because you don't hear anyone going on school rampages in Australia and Great Britain every year or so. The problem lies with our societies.

Besides most of the weapons used in massacres are legal.

Actually someone recently did go on a "rampage" at a high school here in Australia. The difference is that he used a knife, not a gun.

I'd say it'd be better for everyone if guns were taken off the streets completely. Sure, there are gun stores here in Australia. You can get a gun license here. You can own a firearm if you want to.
Yet, unlike the US, most people don't have guns. Murders commited here are usually done by other means.
Why is it that America has such a problem with gun-related murders? I don't know.

Boidy, you mentioned gun lockers at schools and issuing every citizen a gun.
What would that solve?
Even if every student had their guns checked in and stored, would it the situation be better? No. What's to stop someone from walking into the school with their issued weapon and holding entire classfulls of gunless students hostage.

Quote

You can argue that if you take away the defense means of one, you take away the offensive means of another, but you don't. Criminals, say, ones who might get into a shootout, have no issue committing those crimes. What will prevent them from illegally purchasing firearms? But a law-abiding citizen will not purchase firearms and thus be at a disadvantage.

Wouldn't removing the means by which anyone can get a gun be a better option?

If law-abiders didn't have guns and criminals suddenly found that guns were hard to come by... Wouldn't that make everything a lot safer?

Simply put, any person can have a lot of power by simply holding a gun. Shooting someone at distance is just too easy to do. If a person wanted to kill someone, but didn't have a gun to do it with, do you know how much harder it would be to do?

Gun control is not necessary. Taking guns off the streets completely is.

[Alias]

Colt has pretty much summarised everything I have so say about this matter.

Banning guns will not stop murders, but they will certainly reduce them by a significant margin. It's much harder to commit a murder with a knife than with a gun.

Issuing everyone a gun just makes the problem worse - ESPECIALLY in schools. Shootings in schools will increase massively due to issues like some ADD kid not taking his pills, or some overly depressed kid committing suicide, and once someone hears the gunshot - they grab their gun, and then the next guy grabs his and so you end up with an odd situation with everyone armed. Now, this is where accidents happen. Someone gets a nervous hit and pulls their trigger, then everyone else pulls theirs, and instead of having one dead student, you have 20 dead students.

Edited by Alias, 23 February 2008 - 00:32.

[Whitey]

"Wouldn't removing the means by which anyone can get a gun be a better option?"

No. Because when you remove the means by with the law-abiding civilians can get guns, there is a 0% chance that they will get guns. But the percentage is not lowered nearly as much on the criminal side. This would make things... let's see here... less safe, at the expense of tax dollars.

Also pay notice to "ex post facto" laws, in that all firearms in circulation/owned right now would still be legal. Gun control won't help.

Banning guns will not reduce murders. It will adjust the means in which murders are committed.

Oh, and Alias, isn't that just a bit of a far-fetched idea? Even a bit? Or absolutely bloody ludicrous? What about

Quote

KENNESAW, Ga - Several Kennesaw officials attribute a drop in crime in the city over the past two decades to a law that requires residents to have a gun in the house.

In 1982, the Kennesaw City Council unanimously passed a law requiring heads of households to own at least one firearm with ammunition.

The ordinance states the gun law is needed to "protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants."

Then-councilman J.O. Stephenson said after the ordinance was passed, everyone "went crazy."

"People all over the country said there would be shootings in the street and violence in homes," he said. "Of course, that wasn't the case."

In fact, according to Stephenson, it caused the crime rate in the city to plunge.

Kennesaw Historical Society president Robert Jones said following the law's passage, the crime rate dropped 89 percent in the city, compared to the modest 10 percent drop statewide.

"It did drop after it was passed," he said. "After it initially dropped, it has stayed at the same low level for the past 16 years."

Mayor Leonard Church was not in office when the law was passed, but he said he is a staunch supporter of it.

"You can't argue with the fact that Kennesaw has the lowest crime rate of any city our size in the country," said Church, who owns a denture-making company in Kennesaw.

The author of the ordinance, local attorney Fred Bentley Sr., attributes at least some of the decrease in crime to the bill.

"I am definitely in favor of what we did," he said. "It may not be totally responsible for the decrease, [but] it is a part."

Although he is pleased with the outcome, Bentley said he was originally opposed to drafting the law.

"I didn't think it could be written in a constitutional fashion," he said. "Obviously, it was constitutional, because the American Civil Liberties Union challenged it in court and we won."

Jones said the ACLU challenged the law in a federal court just after it was passed. In response, the city added a clause adding conscientious objectors to the list of those exempt.

Although the law is now being credited with a drop in crime, Jones said that was not the law's original purpose. He also pointed out that Kennesaw did not have a big problem with crime before.

"The crime rate wasn't that high to start with. It was 11 burglaries per 1,000 residents in 1981," he said.

According to the Kennesaw Police Department, the city's most recent crime statistics show 243 property crimes per 100,000 residents in 1998, or .243 per 1,000.

The city's crime rate continues to be far below other metro Atlanta city's with similar populations, like Decatur. In 1998, Decatur recorded 4,049 property crimes per 100,000 residents.

Jones said one motivation for the council passing the ordinance had to do with publicity.

"It was done in response to a law passed by Morton Grove, Ill., outlawing gun ownership within the city limits," he said. "Several council members were upset Morton Grove had gotten a lot of attention with their ordinance so they decided to top them.

"They figured the gun ownership ordinance would knock that city right off the front pages. They were right."

Jones said the ensuing publicity surrounding the law has given Kennesaw worldwide name recognition.

"I have been to Australia and Europe and when I tell people I am from Kennesaw they recognize the name as the place that requires everyone to own a gun," he said.

But Stephenson said the issue was not publicity-driven but issue-driven.

"We believed in the right of people to own guns," he said.

Jones said he has sold 550 copies of a 1994 book about the first-of-its-kind law, "The Law Heard 'Round the World."

He said the law in its final form has many loopholes, so not everyone is required to own a gun.

"There are many outs," he said. "When you look at it, almost anyone could fit into one of the exempted groups."

Kennesaw Police Chief Dwaine Wilson said no one has ever been prosecuted under the ordinance.

Among those exempt are residents "who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine." Others exempt include the physically and mentally disabled, paupers and those convicted of a felony.

The law contains no clause addressing punishment for violating the law. If convicted, City Clerk Diane Coker said punishment would be determined by the general penalty clause of the Kennesaw Code Ordinance - probably a fine of about $100.

Jones said the unusual law has not deterred anyone from moving to Kennesaw.

"Our population has increased just like everyone's in Georgia in the past 20 years," he said. "The law really hasn't done any harm to the city's growth."

The city's population in 1998 was recorded at 14,493 - a sharp increase over the 8,936 residents recorded in the 1990 census.

Cobb Chamber of Commerce president Bill Cooper said odd laws are typically not counted as strike against a city when a business is looking to relocate.

"These laws don't have laws don't have an impact on a company's decision to move to Cobb County," Cooper said.

"Many communities have strange laws that are out of date. Businesses look at many factors when relocating, such as quality of life, education, infrastructure and available workforce."

Bentley said the law actually may have helped business development.

"Kennesaw is home to more manufacturing businesses than any other Cobb city," he said. "Companies have said they want to be located in conservative areas."

And Kennesaw isn't the only city in Cobb with an unusual law on the books.

According to Jeff Koon, who runs a Web site specializing in funny laws, Dumblaws.com, Acworth has a ordinance requiring residents to own a rake.

In Marietta, it is illegal to spit from a car or a bus, but perfectly legal to spit from a truck.

Challenge this.

-L.P. Boidy

Edited by L.P. Boidy, 23 February 2008 - 00:39.

[Alias]

L.P. Boidy, on 23 Feb 2008, 11:35, said:

Banning guns will not reduce murders. It will adjust the means in which murders are committed.

Someone is much more likely to survive after getting stabbed then after getting shot.

[Whitey]

Who on earth would stab only once? Are you kidding? And knives don't run out of ammo.

[AllStarZ]

L.P. Boidy, on 22 Feb 2008, 19:42, said:

Who on earth would stab only once? Are you kidding? And knives don't run out of ammo.

Julius Caesar got stabbed several times and only one of the wounds was fatal. Cuts and stabs can be cleaned and sewn shut, but a bullet requires much more medical attention to remove. Also, you need physical strength behind a knife. A gun does not. Knives can run out of "ammo" far more quickly than a gun can, because it is dependent on the strength of the user.

Furthermore Kennesaw is even smaller than my town. Yet we have no concealed weapon ordinance and crime is barely existent. And there is the distinct possibility that crime levels dropped simply because the criminals themselves might not own firearms.

Edited by AllStarZ, 23 February 2008 - 02:03.

[Whitey]

So you think it's just a random coincidence that they have almost zero crime?