AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2007-04-17, 12:47   Link #1
whatever001
improving self-control
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Talking steps we can take on gun control

the second amendment of US constitution states

"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."

=======
each person have their own interpretation on these words, but we can still take steps that won't violate 2nd amendment to control guns in US.


e.g.
turn "sale" into "rent", the 2nd Amendment only indicates "keep and bear arms", it didn't say anything about ownship, just like the army "rent" the weapon in the hands of the soldier. The gundealer will "rent" the gun their costumers, so they need to check back once in a while. This will be the pre-step before completely banning the gun sales(which may lose a lot of jobs).

more control on the ammo used on the guns, I doubt the 2nd amendment affect ammunition though,

we need more ideas.. plz post your own opinions here.. no pro-gun rally plz
whatever001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-04-17, 13:09   Link #2
kayos
RETIRED
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Wouldn't owning and renting still be in the same catergory... I mean you still have and can get possession of it. Unless you plan on banning personal firearms altogether then it would be illegal to posses one. And anyone that is caught with one will definitely go to jail and have their weapon confiscated.

But still there's alway ways to get illegal firearms.
kayos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-04-17, 13:23   Link #3
Kyuusai
9wiki
*Scanlator
 
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: State of Denial
Send a message via AIM to Kyuusai Send a message via MSN to Kyuusai Send a message via Yahoo to Kyuusai
Any measures taken to control firearms must be practically useful, otherwise they are merely harassment.

Renting or loaning guns wouldn't have any practical effect that I can imagine. It certainly wouldn't have stopped the tragedy at Virginia Tech.

The US has many gun laws that are purported to make people safer, but in actuality only exist to harass gun owners. The recently expired "Assault Weapons Ban" law is a good example: Gun owners were left to wonder if they were in violation of the law just for owning a gun with the wrong sort of bolt! In actuality, what the law did was ban certain guns that, though functionally the same as a hunting rifle, merely looked scary, or ban guns manufactured with certain features that made them SAFER.

Registration sounds good, but it doesn't stop shootings, and it is the first step toward mass confiscation (violating the second amendment).

I haven't seen any GOOD gun control laws in a long, long time--and the good ones were generally just better enforcement of other existing laws. I won't say some one can't come up with some, though.
Kyuusai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-04-17, 14:20   Link #4
JagdPanther
WE ARE.... PENN STATE....
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Nazareth, PA
Age: 26
Send a message via AIM to JagdPanther
In terms of gun control, I want to point to this article:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070417/...ting_repeat_dc

Third paragraph of that article, folks. That's what happens with "gun control."

Quote:
Japan has very strict gun control laws and illegal firearms are mostly in the hands of "yakuza" gangsters or registered hunters.
Real safe, huh?

Rest in Peace, Mayor.

Hoo-ah!
__________________
A good plan violently executed today is better than a perfect plan executed at some indefinite point in the future. –General George S. Patton, Jr.

Avatar v. 36.0: Fighter Squadron 84. The VF-84 "Jolly Rogers."
JagdPanther is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-04-17, 14:23   Link #5
whatever001
improving self-control
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayos View Post
Wouldn't owning and renting still be in the same catergory... I mean you still have and can get possession of it. Unless you plan on banning personal firearms altogether then it would be illegal to posses one. And anyone that is caught with one will definitely go to jail and have their weapon confiscated.

But still there's alway ways to get illegal firearms.
let's think about that mathematicly, according the logic of there's always ways to get illegal firearms, same to both Japan and US, but Japn only have 53 gun shooting cases last year and two third of them are gang related.. US have a population about 300 mil about 2~3 times larger, and let's say American are 10 times worse in comparison.. how many is that, little bit over 1000? what's the number of shooting in NYC alone... yes.. people can get illegal firearms anyway... but it will be much hard for them commit crime with firearms..

owning and renting is in the similar category in order to make it more appeal to the american public.. and as a result, total ownership of firearms should slowly decrease as a result, since less/no "new" gun is legally tranfer its ownership to public... after all, we do have more guns than the ppl in US... so we need to do it step by step...


Quote:
Originally Posted by JagdPanther View Post
In terms of gun control, I want to point to this article:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070417/...ting_repeat_dc

Third paragraph of that article, folks. That's what happens with "gun control."


Real safe, huh?

Rest in Peace, Mayor.

Hoo-ah!
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/world/4722423.html
Two-thirds of the 53 shootings Japan saw in 2006 were gang related, according to the National Police Agency.

same news, with little bit more infomation.. Japan have 130 million ppl while US only have 300 million...

<redundant comment has been deleted by a mod>

Last edited by monir; 2007-04-17 at 14:40.
whatever001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-04-17, 14:29   Link #6
WhiteWings
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Santa Clara, California
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatever001 View Post
the second amendment of US constitution states

"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."
Well, this law was made while the entire US was pretty much a wild frontier filled with hostile (or not) native americans, wild animals, possibly hostile neighbours... Do we even really need this law now today?
__________________
"Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anybody driving faster is a maniac?" – George Carlin
WhiteWings is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-04-17, 14:56   Link #7
Kyuusai
9wiki
*Scanlator
 
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: State of Denial
Send a message via AIM to Kyuusai Send a message via MSN to Kyuusai Send a message via Yahoo to Kyuusai
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteWings View Post
Well, this law was made while the entire US was pretty much a wild frontier filled with hostile (or not) native americans, wild animals, possibly hostile neighbours... Do we even really need this law now today?
Well, the law itself recognized an inherent human right to bear arms so much that it didn't even mention the need for living in the wild, but focused on the need for the security of the state provided by the people, which meant fighting against foreign invaders or corrupt government.

But that aside, though the rural areas aren't as wild as they used to be, they're not all tame like the cities are. Where I come from it's not as common as it used to be to, say, shoot a bobcat or a bear that decided to take a dislike to you, but it's not out of the ordinary at all.
Kyuusai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-04-17, 14:57   Link #8
kayos
RETIRED
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
How about this idea, have a grace period of 1 year for a trade-in of guns for stun gun. It's not as lethal but it can still protect you. After the grace period is over, all guns are illegal except for law enforcement of course. Who ever is caught with it afterward:

1st offenders - 10 years
2nd offenders - 20 years
3rd offenders - Life or Death penalty (whatever float your boat)

No one will learn unless the punishments were harsher. (sorry for the gibberish)

EDit:

I thought yakuza ran japan from the shadow so it's not surprising that they are the ones with illegal firearms. (too much movies, sorry)
kayos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-04-17, 15:02   Link #9
Kyuusai
9wiki
*Scanlator
 
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: State of Denial
Send a message via AIM to Kyuusai Send a message via MSN to Kyuusai Send a message via Yahoo to Kyuusai
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatever001 View Post
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/world/4722423.html
Two-thirds of the 53 shootings Japan saw in 2006 were gang related, according to the National Police Agency.

same news, with little bit more infomation.. Japan have 130 million ppl while US only have 300 million...
This is true, but Japan has a far smaller problem with violence (or any other crime), period.

The US is one of the least homogenous nations in the world, and it has its peaceful and violent areas. Legal firearm ownership is, for the most part (there are a few exceptions) concentrated in different areas than the high crime areas.

The real question is "How many violent gun crimes would still be committed without guns?", which should be compared to the answer "How many violent crimes are prevented because of guns?", and then that should be weighed against the heavy option of removing the ability to be responsible for one's self in the name of the greater good.
Kyuusai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-04-17, 15:04   Link #10
Kyuusai
9wiki
*Scanlator
 
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: State of Denial
Send a message via AIM to Kyuusai Send a message via MSN to Kyuusai Send a message via Yahoo to Kyuusai
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayos View Post
How about this idea, have a grace period of 1 year for a trade-in of guns for stun gun. It's not as lethal but it can still protect you. After the grace period is over, all guns are illegal except for law enforcement of course. Who ever is caught with it afterward:

1st offenders - 10 years
2nd offenders - 20 years
3rd offenders - Life or Death penalty (whatever float your boat)

No one will learn unless the punishments were harsher. (sorry for the gibberish)
Well, while better than nothing, stun guns really are not generally effective weapons, which is why they're only part of the police force's arsenal.

But, assuming they were as effective... why should the police have greater arms power than ordinary citizens if the citizens' arms are adequate?
Kyuusai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-04-17, 15:06   Link #11
Nightbat®
Deadpan Snarker
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: The Neverlands
Age: 37
That law was made to make sure the US government could be kept in check by the 'common people'

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
Second Amendment: declares "a well regulated militia" as "necessary" to maintaining a free state, and as explanation for prohibiting infringement of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
I wish we had that here


Does one really think pulling guns out of hands of 'normal' people will prevent criminals from getting one?

You only take away the ability to defend yourselves

...or you wanna take a shooter out using hard language and pictures of your naked granny?

and ponder on this: would 33 people have died if there were a few among them that did carry a gun and be able to take out the shooter?
__________________
Nightbat® is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-04-17, 15:07   Link #12
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 56
There are also cultural differences between Japan and the US that muddy the water. Switzerland and several other countries have extremely high rates of gun ownership but conversely very little crime or gun violence. In the US, it is more an issue of cultural problems, economics, and, quite frankly, our poor situation with mental healthcare.

Historically, everytime a new gun control law has passed it has been full of logical loopholes and unintended consequences (we could argue that *most* laws passed in the last 40 years have had that problem ... DMCA, PATRIOT act, copyright extensions, etc).

Americans have a very strong sense of the basic human right to defend oneself from attack. That explicitly means you have the tools that equalize your situation with the threat. My wife is familiar with martial arts but weighs in at 95 pounds soaking wet and is only 4'11" ... possession and long training with her gun means it is fairly unlikely someone is going to successfully mess with her.

When visiting Japan and even in Canada, we don't really feel like we need a gun simply because of the cultural situation (though both appear to be having trouble using that as a shield to crime lately). However, in the US -- where the police are *LEGALLY* free from coming to my assistance or have any liability to protect me (see multiple court rulings), I want some way for people to personally defend themselves with adequate tools.

I suspect if you solve the mental health issues, the economics, and the training issues (I have no problem with requiring gun owners to participate in regular training and militia exercises just as part of good civil defense) the 'gun violence' issue will fade away.

I like to point out that in the case of the University of Texas sniper issue... it was mostly the *local civilian population* who brought their rifles and helped pin the sniper down until a police officer and an armed civilian were able to sneak up the ladder and nail him in the tower he was bunkered in.

Rather than gun *control*, I'd rather see required *training* and more active civil defense requirements. I'd also like to see children *trained* in how to react in terrorist situations (the recent event being equivalent to a slow-motion suicide bomber). Many of the deaths appeared to have occurred just because the crowd were simply frozen in place ... that happens when you haven't trained or planned for something.
Vexx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-04-17, 15:18   Link #13
kayos
RETIRED
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyuusai View Post
But, assuming they were as effective... why should the police have greater arms power than ordinary citizens if the citizens' arms are adequate?
Because they face greater risks than your average citizens, why not let them have little bit of leverage over the criminals.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightbat® View Post
would 33 people have died if there were a few among them that did carry a gun and be able to take out the shooter?
Would it be a better place or a scarier place to have a classroom of students with guns.
kayos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-04-17, 15:22   Link #14
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 56
Depends on how well trained they are....

(thats an area where I differ from some... I think everyone should get both extensive training in gun safety and usage, the legal aspects, and general self defense training. I think if students had active training and planning for emergency situations, they might not be 'deer in the headlights' so often.
I also think there's so much effort to be spent in mental health arenas, economics, and general cultural sensibilities that 'gun control' is just an inadequate patch of a much bigger problem. When I was in high school, we had a pistol and rifle club ... students routinely brought rifles to school in their car because they were going hunting or target shooting afterward... and guess what? No one got shot. .... ... mental health, values, cultural sensibilities, community participation, economics)
Vexx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-04-17, 15:29   Link #15
Aoie_Emesai
♪♫ Maya Iincho ♩♬
*Artist
 
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Unnecessary
Age: 28
Send a message via Yahoo to Aoie_Emesai
Training is practically the best way to prevent these kind of things. Bu that doesn't prevent things like this from happening.
__________________

How to Give / Receive Criticism on your work / Like to draw? Come join Artists Alike
Visit my Deviantart Or Blog ~A Child should always surpass his/her parent, Remember.
Aoie_Emesai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-04-17, 15:35   Link #16
Kyuusai
9wiki
*Scanlator
 
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: State of Denial
Send a message via AIM to Kyuusai Send a message via MSN to Kyuusai Send a message via Yahoo to Kyuusai
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayos View Post
Because they face greater risks than your average citizens, why not let them have little bit of leverage over the criminals.
It's not that they face greater risks than a citizen might, but they are obligated to intervene in risky situations. An ordinary citizen still CAN face those risks, though, so why not let them be armed?

Quote:
Originally Posted by kayos View Post
Would it be a better place or a scarier place to have a classroom of students with guns.
There are other classrooms all over the country where the students legally may be armed. You only notice the difference when some one starts trying to attack some one else--not that the attack won't happen because they're allowed to bring weapons, because an attacker clearly doesn't care about the rules, but because in classrooms where it's prohibited, no one will retaliate against the attacker with similar force.


I agree with Vexx on the issue of training. The US constitution's second amendment not only recognizes the inherent right to bear arms, but also obligates the government to provide for the militia to be "well regulated", which, in the language of the day, meant properly trained and equipped! The US local, state, and federal governments have failed in this aspect. I have no problem with such training being mandatory as long as it does not extend to involuntary miltary service. I also have no problem with training being mandatory prior to allowing the ownership of arms, provided that the government is obligated to provide it to every one without exception.
Kyuusai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-04-17, 15:40   Link #17
Jinto
Asuki-tan Kairin ↓
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Fürth (GER)
Age: 33
Its not a matter of gun control. But a matter of weapons being available in the public domain. The statistics show that weapons will be misused if available (it doesn't matter if part of the weapons are used to defend against the threads of guns being misused... its sort of a vicious circle).

The more weapons available, the more misuse... look at the crime death statistics of countries and you can see the trend.

I know, one can kill even with a kitchen knife, but a gun allows to kill far more effectively (and the distance to the victim, the blood is not so close... its easier to kill with gun... cleaner for the shooter, just pull the trigger - inhibition threshold lower).

What was the purpose of the second amendment of 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."

Why? Maybe for revolting against the own government. Hm, could be hard today, army, navy and air force have the heavier/stronger arguments I suppose.
Or maybe fighting against the evil armies invading the US. Oh wait, thats not very likely these days (and all the weapons did not prevent terrorist attacks either).
Well okay, maybe I miss an important point here, and the well regulated Militia is actually good for something these days.

The problem in the USA today.... even if somebody forbids weapons in the public domain, there are still many weapons in the country. All the law abiding people will be defenseless against the misuse of all those weapons. So a weapon ban, does not really help much to prevent misuse of weapons illegaly owned.

So does it help to just forbid weapons? Certainly not. The USA actually has to get rid of the weapons in the public domain in order to prevent such easy misuse (and just forbidding them, doesn't mean the laws can be easily enforced). I don't see how this can be done...

The only way I can think of is, if the law abiding people accept, that the misuse of weapons will go on for much longer then they will be "defenseless" (if the laws forbid guns in the public domain). But once the law enforcement got the majority of such weapons out of the public domain, living will be statistically safer. However, I suppose statistical safety is not very satisfying for gun owners (such people usually want to have conrete safety... and they think they have it in their own hands with their own gun). Besides, I think statistical/abstract safety is a too alien concept for such gun owners, so that will not work. Though I suppose even in the US children will never be allowed to defend themselves with guns... that makes them ideal victims (just an example for how the weakest of the society will be defenseless no matter what in such a situation).

I think forbidding guns doesn't solve the problem, except there is some rethinking about the concept of safety of individuals (gun owners). And I don't see this happening anytime soon.
Jinto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-04-17, 15:42   Link #18
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 56
I'm not blaming the kids..... but the fact the perp wasn't rushed after the 4th or 5th shot or some other response didn't happen says a LOT about lack of training. Unless the individual was a trained combat marksman, its actually damned hard to shoot someone moving toward you quickly... even moreso several someones. However, (again) lack of preparation and training for such events - left everyone frozen in place even while the gunman was dropping a clip and inserting a new one.

Knowing what to do in situations means you *can* predict how you'll react in that situation. I spent a few decades in flight simulation and other types of training helping people *prepare* for unlikely events.... it helps.

Jinto's post is a nice take on the situation. It would be *nice* if no one needed self defense tools on the level of guns.... there's very little practical way to get *there* from *here* without instigating a draconian fascist totalitarian state -- and then you'd just be creating more terrorists with the defenseless population in between them and the government.
Vexx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-04-17, 16:48   Link #19
Kyuusai
9wiki
*Scanlator
 
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: State of Denial
Send a message via AIM to Kyuusai Send a message via MSN to Kyuusai Send a message via Yahoo to Kyuusai
@Jinto-Lin:

I think you make excellent points throughout. I think all of your observations are absolutely correct. Clearly, I've formed particular opinions based on those same observations, but I think it bears mentioning that you've hit on some very, very valid points.

The US's constitutional guarantee to arms doesn't have as much relevance in terms of military force as it used to, that's correct. However, it's not totally useless today. Even somewhat recently, corrupt local governments have been kept in checked by armed citizens, and though small, concentrated groups stand no chance against the full might of the standing military, the fight in Iraq has proven that small, spread out groups of armed people do stand a chance against a more advanced military.

The writers of it, in other commentaries, also noted that the use of personal security was inferred.

I'm certainly very thankful that the threat of foreign invaders is but a dream, but it could happen again someday. Even if that possibility is far away, the right must be there to be prepared for it, and the right existing helps to dissuade it.

I hope that explains how the issue of the constitutional right is viewed in today's light.

If we could do away with all weapons, though, society returns to the hardships of the strong ruling over the weak. It's true that weapons make violence easier, but, as Vexx has provided a good example for, that can mean that some one who is weak can stand against someone who is strong that wishes to do them harm.

I expound on this a good bit more in a blog response here.

It's true that given the option between slightly more violence but the opportunity for personal responsibility for defence or slightly less violence but with no opportunity for personal responcibility for defence, I would with a heavy heart choose the former.
This is for two reasons: Firstly, I strongly believe in the value of personal liberty and personal responsibility. Secondly, when the opportunity for personal responsibility for defence is removed, exactly the wrong sorts of people gain power, whether on the criminal or government level. Cuba is a good example of this: Despite the level of violence in Cuba, one could still reasonably expect to sleep safely in the streets because of the constant police presence, but that same police presence prevents freedom of speech, and exerts its own oppression of the people alongside the government's oppression.
Kyuusai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-04-17, 17:12   Link #20
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 56
During the feudal system... the peasants were usually denied the right to any weapons (which is why in Japan and China, we got all the lovely "ways of the farm tool or open hand" that we have today)... made it easier for the blade/arrow wielding thugs history calls 'rulers and nobles' to maintain control

Adding to the Cuba example... governments can get fond of allowing (underfunding true solutions) a certain amount of violence and personal fear to exist so that the people continue to allow them to expand their control over personal life (sound familiar?). Both left and right leaning governments can be prone to this.
Vexx is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
gun control, guns

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:36.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.