Right to bear arms?

[Dunefar]

What sort of rights do you think people should have to owning guns and why? Don't worry about the laws here, just what you think should be the standard.

[Dunefar]

I voted for minor restrictions. Why the really lethal stuff has no need to be sold, the majority of people can responsibly own guns. Sure, there's going to always be dregs, nuts and crimes of passion, but those will happen with or without handguns. Let people arm themselves.

[Luther Lansfeld]

I voted for the third option. I feel like handguns adequately cover protection from intruders and such if you feel it needed, and rifles are good at hunting of course. Heavier stuff feels needlessly dangerous.

[Cmdr_King]

Second option.  Your right to arms being at the top of the list of rights you give up when convicted of various crimes strikes me as quite reasonable, although I'm not sure that any more preemptive restrictions are for the best.
Less certain on the line for the types of arms; on the one hand, an essential element of the right to arms is as a check against tyranny both foreign and domestic, so things effective against tanks etc. would be required to maintain that factor.  On the other, since such weapons have no other remotely legitimate use, having it amongst the population is asking for trouble related to black markets, the slipping through of cracks, and so forth.

[NotMiki]

Voted option 2, though I'm on the fence about assault weapons.  To me, far more important than the type of weapon restricted is the background check aspect.  It wasn't really part of the question, but I believe guns should be as traceable as possible, like cars.

As I understand it, there are essentially 2 types of black market: one foreign, Mexico, that wants assault weapons and one domestic that wants concealable handguns.  Both are very problematic, but I think they can be better resolved by tight sales restrictions and heightened checks on large-scale buyers than outright bans on certain types of weapons.

[Laggy]

Voted option 2, though I'm on the fence about assault weapons.  To me, far more important than the type of weapon restricted is the background check aspect.  It wasn't really part of the question, but I believe guns should be as traceable as possible, like cars.

I was going to post but Jim really just said it for me so I am lazy.

[superaielman]

Second option. I don't think it's remotely possible to control illegal arms in the country, but we should do our best to track legal arms.

[Ultradude]

Voted option 2, though I'm on the fence about assault weapons.  To me, far more important than the type of weapon restricted is the background check aspect.  It wasn't really part of the question, but I believe guns should be as traceable as possible, like cars.

I was going to post but Jim really just said it for me so I am lazy.

[Dhyerwolf]

I don't really know enough about guns to really say the difference between 2 and 3, but those ones generally sounds reasonable to me.

[Taishyr]

For reference, I'm the one person who voted fourth option, but that's my personal opinion. so. whatevs.

[Jo'ou Ranbu]

Voted fourth option and find it would be the most appropriate in an ideal world. In practice, I'd be fine with the third option. Most people are -not- responsible enough to handle firearms, and it's way too deadly an implement to be handed forth lightly, but in any sort of culture where the right to bear arms is even slightly ingrained, that kind of control would be both fruitless and excessive.

[Taishyr]

See Snow. In practice second/maybe third is the only sane option, but he pretty much hit on why the fourth strikes me as generally optimal.

[Clear Tranquil]

Yeah sadly. I kinda feel that way about the fourth option too since firearms have been banned in Scotland for a while now but yeah. It's probably a necessary evil.

[Yoshiken]

Voted fourth option and find it would be the most appropriate in an ideal world. In practice, I'd be fine with the third option. Most people are -not- responsible enough to handle firearms, and it's way too deadly an implement to be handed forth lightly, but in any sort of culture where the right to bear arms is even slightly ingrained, that kind of control would be both fruitless and excessive.

Yeah, I've nothing much to add here. This was pretty much what I was thinking, just phrased better.

[Jo'ou Ranbu]

Voted option 2, though I'm on the fence about assault weapons.  To me, far more important than the type of weapon restricted is the background check aspect.  It wasn't really part of the question, but I believe guns should be as traceable as possible, like cars.

Jim also raises a very, very good point regarding weapon traceability and the role played by background checks. These should be as extensive and comprehensive as possible in addition to whatever is taken as a policy. It just can't stressed enough how huge a responsibility carrying a gun is in way too many ways, and it feels like people gloss this over frighteningly often and easily.

[Lady Door]

I don't like guns for the same reason I don't like cars: someone being inattentive or careless for a few seconds could get quite a few people killed very easily.

I voted the fourth option. But... I'm also an unabashed idealist and I spend all my time reading about worlds where guns are still unknown, so take that as you will.

[superaielman]

The fourth option isn't practical at all, yeah.

America is now estimated to have between 238 million and 276 million firearms, compared with some 250 million legally owned guns, or 84 for every 100 people, recorded in a July 2001 survey.

The country with the second-highest gun ownership is Yemen, with between 33 and 50 firearms per 100 people, followed by Finland with 39 per 100, the new survey said.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0709-03.htm

The best way to help stem the flow of illegal arms is fixing gun show loopholes.  You can clamp down however much you want on legal arms, it is not going to have an appreciable impact on gun crime. Or see Washington DC and Baltimore.

[Jo'ou Ranbu]

The main thing that strikes me here, though, is not stemming the flow of illegal arms and gun crime - while trying to keep it down is a good thing, trying to tie that with the clamping on legal weapons straight off feels like completely missing the point, and if that's how you're going to try to control weapon crime as a main approach, you're obviously headed for egregious failure. Tightening the control over legal weapons should be, first and foremost, a measure to enforce responsibility on legal weapon users and minimize things like the unfortunate accidents that stem from careless usage and handling of these things. Too many people (even over here, where obtaining a gun legally is far more difficult than it is in the US, and they're far more onerous) treat guns as if they were toys, and that kind of mentality leads to ultimately unnecessary and honestly unsurprising grief. It's much like people should be far more aware of how much responsibility they have while driving, yet aren't.

[Dark Holy Elf]

Voted the fourth option, considered the 5th, but nah, because I'm quite cool with hunting rifles and the likes.

Don't see any really good reason for handguns to be legal. Having one to defend yourself from crime provably does more harm than good (the chance of you warding off a criminal is exceeded by the chance of you accidentally firing on yourself, having your kids steal the thing and get hurt, or causing a criminal to use greater force in response to your threat), and even if it didn't, it would be worth banning them to keep them out of the hands of criminals. It's no real secret that the US has way more issue with gun crime than almost any other country, and gun crime sucks because, well, it kills people where other weapons don't.

Yes, I'm aware the US already has fifty billion guns, but cracking down on them now is how you improve that number in the future. Not that anyone in politics seems to care about anything past 3-4 years or so, sadly.


EDIT: The fact that anyone could even consider assault weapons legal just baffles me. IT'S A WEAPON DESIGNED TO KILL LARGE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE AT ONCE. Unless you have some deluded vision of yourself singlehandedly killing a bunch of terrorists Jack Bauer-style, then there's just no reason for a civilian, non-criminal to own one of these things.


EDIT2: The point Jim raises about guns being as traceable as cars is good. If you must have firearms be legal because of a flawed consitutional amendment, then treat them as you do cars: something you have to show responsibility in order to operate. i.e. I see nothing wrong with demanding a gun-owner's license (and evidence of firearm training, similar to driver's ed) and for each gun owned to be documented in some sort of central registry. Some states have this, but to my understanding, not all.

[Jo'ou Ranbu]

EDIT: The fact that anyone could even consider assault weapons legal just baffles me. IT'S A WEAPON DESIGNED TO KILL LARGE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE AT ONCE. Unless you have some deluded vision of yourself singlehandedly killing a bunch of terrorists Jack Bauer-style, then there's just no reason for a civilian, non-criminal to own one of these things anyone ever to own one of these things, outside dire circumstances.

Just added a bit of emphasis. I find the very idea of owning a gun dangerous as fuck (my father owns one since I was a child and I really wish he didn't. We never had any unfortunate accidents with it, but it's the principle). Having designated warfare equipment at the reach of civillians is asking for a disaster, given how poorly people often handle even the weakest guns.

[Magetastic]

EDIT2: The point Jim raises about guns being as traceable as cars is good. If you must have firearms be legal because of a flawed consitutional amendment, then treat them as you do cars: something you have to show responsibility in order to operate. i.e. I see nothing wrong with demanding a gun-owner's license (and evidence of firearm training, similar to driver's ed) and for each gun owned to be documented in some sort of central registry. Some states have this, but to my understanding, not all.

I voted for the fourth option. Rifles are also cool with me, and handguns also questionable.

[Sierra]

I voted for the third option. I feel like handguns adequately cover protection from intruders and such if you feel it needed, and rifles are good at hunting of course. Heavier stuff feels needlessly dangerous.

Pretty much. I'd go with option four if I thought it was actually feasible. I don't expect the prevalence of guns to just evaporate, American culture being what it is, but regulation sufficient to keep them away from people who clearly shouldn't have them just strikes me as sensible.

Gun ownership has always been rather perplexing to me, especially people who make a hobby out of it. I just totally fail to understand the attraction or what possesses people to think that they need them, at least in most circumstances. And no civilian needs assault weapons. That's just insane.

[Grefter]

Voted 4, is pretty much how Australia works  (This is owning only, not operation, out in rural areas operation obviously is far more widespread).  You can in fact disarm a country from Automatic weapons down to this level, we did it in the mid 90's after there was a fairly prominent massacre (low body count compared to the States, but it was Tasmania, so you have to try pretty hard to find 16 people let alone shoot them) and it just got clamped down onto really hard.  It is probably a tad excessive as there is some old models of rifles that were used in WW2 that are technically illegal now purely due to the rounds they use and they are pretty much just hunting rifles (You can see this in our politics though, when we get super conservative protective Australian politics goes pretty far).

But you know, it can in fact work, you just need the general consensus behind it which you are not going to get in the US because of how ingrained the gun culture is.

Having designated warfare equipment at the reach of civillians is asking for a disaster, given how poorly people often handle even the weakest guns.

This though.  Big this.  It is the responsibility of someone who DOES own a fire arm to be proficient with it so that when the situation does come up to use the damned thing it is of any freaking use whatsoever.  Just checking apparently to even own handgun here you need to be an active member of a shooting club (apparently, no idea how policed that is).  Actually passing the check to get one is apparently not to hard, but you have to want one to get one and it takes time.  Honestly, it has ended up working relatively well.  We haven't had a massacre on that same scale in over a decade, mostly relegated to murder suicides taking out the whole family these days for body count news stories.

Edit - Yes yes yes I know the scale and scope in the States is no where near as practical as it was here, but if it is what society wants then you can make it work.  Same shit as the health care argument.  Broad sweeping massive social change is expensive and difficult but does not mean it cannot be done.

[Excal]

I suspect a large part of the resistance to gun control in the states stems to the mentality which caused the second amendment to exist.  ie. That you can't even trust your government, and if you're not ready to, at a moment's notice, take arms to defend the government you want, then you don't deserve that government.

So, I'd suspect that'd include things like letting the government have too much knowledge on where the guns are, and who's good at using them.

As for myself, I'm very much in #3.  I generally disagree with that sort of mentality, and as such, outside of living in a war zone, I can't see any point in having assault weaponry.  I generally don't care so much about handguns either, though yes.  Licensing is key on this one, and am in full agreement that you should be able to show that you're trained, and that said training is up to date.

As for hunting rifles, they're painfully obvious in the city, and useful in the country for legitimate reasons.

[Idun]

I picked #2. In short, guns have the potential to be dangerous depending on the responsibility of the owner. They should be tracked, in case of issues such as improper use - hopefully the tracking idea will make some owners consciously aware of the repercussions quickly. So I'm in part with Miki. As what's going on currently in Ga, I would prefer for gun owners to not have deliberately concealed weapons in public settings such as restaurants, malls, etc. Once we start asking for civilians to control crime like that (such as seeing a guy stealing something and someone wants to 'teach them a lesson'), I think we start asking for a ton of issues. Question is, them being revealed may incite panic. Who knows. I'm not a supporter of guns in general, but I do believe that if people can protect themselves from threat of violence (who knows, they could be the suckiest shooter ever with a permit), they should have the capability of doing so.