guns, public opinion, restrictions - or not

I've been trying to make some sense (personally) of the recent threads about 'black guns', and related. I've posted this as a separate thread because I don't think it's (only) about black guns.

Talking about guns in society, there are some facts that seem to be agreed andl supported by evidence, notably that most gun crime is committed with unregistered weapons, and that most registered users do not commit gun crimes. However, there have been some terrible crimes committed by registered users, with registered weapons (for example, Dunblane, Dawson College).

Also, Government action is driven by public opinion, and that opinion could take (some) guns away (it happened in UK after Dunblane it happened in Australia). Politicians don't like to be unpopular with voters, otherwise they'd be out of a job (I'm not going to say if that'd be a good thing or not). If politicians have to pick between being unpopular between two groups of people, they'll generally go with the majority.

Other things seem to be more a matter of principle, and open to debate, including that here are some people that should never have access to a firearm (for example, people with mental illness so severe that it impairs their judgement, people with a recent history of violent crime, young children). How you implement this principle is open to debate (probably there's a number of different ways, some better than others) - but the principle itself seems sound.

But what about another principle held by some (at least), that there are some firearms that should not be available to any user, whether that user is registered or unregistered (for example fully automatic weapons, as currently). This is where it seems to get tricky, because the immediate response (and quite rightly) is - 'so, where do you draw the line?'. There's been quite a discussion on the board about this.

But isn't the immediate issue really 'Do you believe in this as a principle?'. If the answer is yes, then it's a matter of accepting that implementing the principle will be about judgement and compromise, and will necessarily be imperfect. But, if the answer is no, it's about standing up for your rights. So, on this principle there appear to be two points of view:

1. Some will take a libertarian approach, crudely put as 'why shouldn't any weapon be available to any registered user - if someone is seen as capable of being responsible enough to own a gun, why shouldn't they own any gun they want to? And related to this, the view that if some guns are disallowed, pretty soon most (or all) guns will be disallowed.

2. Others will say that it's a matter of risk management, that we know that some registered users and registered guns will be used in awful events (it's happened in the past) and to manage the impact of these events when they do occur we should not allow weapons that cause high numbers of casualties in short periods of time (for example, no full autos). That way, injury can be minimised in the time that it takes law enforcement to deal with the situation.

What'll drive political action is public perception, and the willingness of the public to balance personal freedoms against the risks that those freedoms can sometimes bring. And (probably) any more events like Dublane and Dawson College will leave the public less wiling to accept the risks associated with the right and freedom to own firearms.

But, isn't there also opportunity here? On this board over the last few days a number of members have suggested public engagement and education. What other actions could the gun community take? What about campaigning for more severe sentencing for gun crime (didn't somewhere in the US automatically double sentencing for any crime involving a gun)? What about working with law enforcement to devise innovative ways to prevent guns being available illegally? Aren't there other proactive actions?

Anyway, I'm trying to think through some of this stuff.

So, questions:
1. Are there some guns that shouldn't be available to any user?
2. If so, what are they (fully automatics, as currently)? If not, how should gun owners stand up for their rights?
3. What can the gun community do to in a proactive way in this debate?

I think now is the time to say enough is enough and somehow the public needs to be educated that legal gun owners are not the problem and restricting guns does nothing to stop crime. Giving up any more guns will accomplish nothing....and I do mean nothing.

Is there an epidemic of crimes involving machine guns and/or AR15 styled rifles in Canada? No. I wish politicians could just be honest about this instead of going for the impression that they're actually doing something about real crime. A woman strangled her teenaged daughter to death in Calgary ths week, laws can only do so much. People have to realize the nanny state can't protect them from evil people all the time and that in life there is a "@#%$ happens" quotient that no amount of legislation can ever change. Bottom line, "Cowboy-up" people.

The problem with gun crime is there is no answer. 97.5% of statistics are made up on the spot or twisted in such a way to make the individual using them appear to be right.

People kill people. Fact. Guns make it easier to kill people. Fact. There is too many factors to use statistics to prove much. Some statistics say guns make us safer, some to say guns increase the risk of accidental death or misuse (it's easy to pull a trigger). I don't have the answers and I don't pretend to.
It's much more of a societal problem stemming from social problems. The question is not whether if death would had occured had a gun not been there. The question is why it occurred in the first place. Poverty leads to higher crime rates. We can't deny that. Unfortunately I tend not to side with socialists because I don't believe in the principle of forcefully taking portions of everyone's salary and using it to fund these so called "social programs".

Switzerland are fairly socialist. They have astronimically low gun crime. My best guess is to wager that people are generally happier and have no reason to go hold up the local 7-11.

It's an incredibly complex issue. It's far too complex to measure through mere statistics.

Guns don't make it easier to kill people other than the physical effort expended which is how Samuel Colt made men equal. The really difficult part is deciding to kill someone in the first place. Cain slew Abel with the jaw-bone of an ass. We are always being told that guns make it easier so that we all buy into the lie. Having a healthy schlong makes it easy to be a rapist, but most men are good and wouldn't consider it. Same argument.

Had me up to the inane rapist part, you do know that rape is about power and fear and little to do with sex right? So your healthy shlong has absofreakingly nothing to do with it.

Sure it does, in both cases we're talking about an object, controlled by the mind. "scuse the pun but if your head aint in it, it won't happen.

What the do-gooder's fail to realize is it really has nothing to do with guns, rather the breakdown of society.
People(all people) are most comfortable in small groups of similar nature. When it was villages and towns, murder was rare. People also cared about their neighbors well being, if for no other reason than it directly affected THEIR community.(why do you think service clubs began forming as cities got large?)
The bigger communities get, the more fragmented people get, and the less they care about each other. In a city you commonly drive by someone having car problems. In a rural area, you don't.
Fragmentation of core groups soon leads to feelings of alienation, loneliness, frustration; and there lies the problem.
Doesn't matter wether it's random gun violence, or some other form of personal attack, if the instigator had the feeling of belonging to a core group, and the support(or even guilt of doing wrong against it), this type of thing would be extremely rare.
Then again, the odd person is just simply wired wrong, and will never fit into any society. Trying to sort these folks out is a waste of time. That, I think is the REAL reason to have a death penalty. Think of it as a last resort cull.
So; no, restricting guns won't make a damn bit of difference in the long run. Next it'd be knives and crossbows, soon we'd be banned from using forks.

pointed knives have already been banned in Britain unless you are a registered chef

By Osterb "97.5% of statistics are made up on the spot or twisted in such a way to make the individual using them appear to be right."

THAT was funny, and sadly, all too true. I live in a small town with 3 gunshops, and 2 more nearby. Public perception here is very different from other areas. Unfortunately, the segment of people who we need to hit with some education aren't the slightest bit interested in what we have to say. I don't think it's because they disagree, but because they don't care, and aren't interested in learning. We have to keep at it, but how do you force education on someone?

Too true. True gun prohibitionists cannot be reasoned with. Guns were designed for killing. Full stop, no argument. They're a tiring breed.

Too bad we have no bill of rights... like our southern neibors.

--Ken

Ken. That picture sums it all up right there. We are being asked to surrender something simply because other people have an irrational fear of guns.