Should we have gun control? Would it save lives? Is it possible?

__________________
InterfaithForums.com-Where your ideas and beliefs count.

I live in New Zealand where we have strict controls over guns - more information if you are interested in the policies:

http://www.police.govt.nz/service/fi.../arms-code.pdf

Pages 15 or so onwards cover the legal stuff.

We generally do not have police or others armed and I think the only time I have seen anyone armed in public is when going out on an international flight and that was only once, although police get weapons training and some police cars do have guns in them along with an armed offenders squad that might get called out in dangerous situations. Generally it does work, most people using guns do it for hunting or at a shooting range and are registered and trained, but unfortunately it doesn't remove all risk of misuse of arms or someone in possession of an legal or illegal firearm using it to commit crimes or running amok so you have to be realistic that sometimes guns will be used wrongly whatever the law. What it does do though is that most people I know have never been near a gun let alone shot one and it does reduce the risk by a large margin of suicides, crime or massacres using guns. I have to say though that NZ has always had pretty strict arms laws and an unarmed police force.

I think it is possible that gun control can save lives, and it is possible but I don't really know what the situation would be for a country that has always had arms, maybe it would be too ingrained and too much to try and regulate ownership and use.

__________________
Nothing in life is to be feared. It is only to be understood. Marie Curie

Canadian law is not as strict as NZ law. Our police are armed. There are few controls on rifles and shotguns, mostly used by hunters and farmers. Handguns are more strictly controlled, with a controversial national gun registry coming into effect a few years ago.

Many Canadians, including myself, support stricter gun control. We have had our share of mass killings such as the Montreal massacre which is still commemorated annually as well as some school shootings. And in many cases the weapons used were legally acquired.

In my area, however, (Toronto) the greatest concern is the volume of guns smuggled across the border from the US. Some of the most tragic and senseless shootings, including those of innocents caught in a cross-fire, have occurred here and often the weapon was one that crossed the border illegally.

Nevertheless, the relative strictness of our gun laws vis-a-vis those of the US is reflected in a much lower use of guns generally. On a per capita basis gun-inflicted deaths (whether criminal, suicide or accidental) is 0.0125% of the US rate.

Does gun control save lives? Unquestionably, yes!
Is it possible? Generally, yes. Most nations have found it to be possible.
Is it possible in the US? Good question.

In the American west back in the 1800's, many towns finally got to the point whereas they forced people to turn over their guns when entering the town or going to a place of assembly after learning the hard way what happens when everyone and their mother has a gun they're carrying. It seems we have forgotten that lesson here. The idea that we'll have a safer community if everyone has a gun is denied by the research.

And it stands to common sense. If you're an honest law-abiding citizen with a gun supposedly to protect yourself, and someone who is rather evil whom also has a gun is approaching you, what are you going to do? Pull out your gun and shoot him? That's called "murder", and you as a law-abiding citizen are not going to do that.

He, on the other hand, can pull his gun out (or not) whenever he sees that you're not prepared. If you attempt to retaliate, he's got the edge on you by far. Obviously there can be exceptions to the rule. But according to a large study done in the Atlanta area over a series of years, they found that one is far more apt to be killed if he/she attempts to retaliate. Instead, they found 911 works much better.

__________________
"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."-- Einstein

Well first off, in every country where there has been strict gun control mandated.. gun related crime has skyrocketed.
This is only one of many many articles and research papers that one can find talking about this:

www.sfu.ca/~mauser/papers/saf/GCAW290702.doc.pdf

Reason being that the criminal element has no competition because the law abiding citizen has no means of protection against a firearm. Gun control seems to only protect law abiding citizens from law abiding citizens.

Lets look at the opposite. I actually live in Kennesaw, GA where it is required for a home owner to have a firearm. When that law was put into place in 1982 everyone said the city would destroy itself and that there would be shootings in the streets because everyone would settle arguments "old west" style... you know what happened? Crime fell by 89% and has stayed there ever since. In reality it it very easy to opt out of the gun law but the fact of the matter is criminals are not stupid. They don't pray on the people in this city because you don't know who has a gun and who doesn't. It's a little like putting the home security sign in front of your house when you don't really have the system. Will a robber take the chance... probably not.
The law in Kennesaw was passed in retaliation to a law in Morton Grove, IL which banned all guns. After the law was passed in Morton Grove crime went through the roof. Once again the criminal knew that the people could no longer defend themselves.

Now as a side note to all of this lets look at shootings. Shootings that happen on college campuses, as well as high schools, churches, and even some government buildings have one thing in common. They are gun free zones. Once again there is no competition in these areas. At a high school there might be one or two security guards or police officers if you are in a very large school or an affluent area and of course the security guards don't carry unlike actual real cops in most cases. How fast would the VT or Northern Illinois issue been taken care of if the students who had firearms permits and who were responsible citizens had their arms on them?? We know it will take way to long for any kind of policing authority to respond to calls such as these. Once they do respond it is already mass chaos and a communications nightmare on the scene. Just like Public Enemy said: "911 is a joke".

These situations need to be thought of in a similar manner to CPR classes and good Samaritan type laws. Just as a person would administer CPR or other first aid to a fellow citizen in need in absence of medical professionals.. so would a person protect others in need who are not armed in absence of security or policing professionals.

None of this covers one of the true intents of the "Right to Bear Arms" as per the American Constitution. The fact that one has a right to protect their self. This includes protecting oneself from criminals, animals, or even government. For the record, the first thing any despot or dictator did before taking over or ruling over a people like a draconian, was to ban weapons so the people could not resist or fight back. Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao Tse-tung, Kim Jong-il and Idi Amin are all examples of this strategy.

By banning guns you take away the right for someone to defend their life. That is a right I would rather have, in my humble opinion, because I would rather have control, responsibility and personal accountability over my self protection that letting someone else do it for me.

"If guns kill people, does that mean that pencils misspell words?"
~?

"The beauty of the 2nd amendment is it will not be needed until the government tries to take it away"
~Thomas Jefferson

__________________
metta,
Fr. B.

That information is incorrect. The Morton Grove gun ban only was on handguns and people who had their handguns prior to the law being passed were grandfathered in. As far as the crime rate is concerned, let me post something here as found in Wikipedia:

"The Village of Morton Grove was selected by Family Circle magazine as one of the nation's "10 Best Towns for Families." The article appears in the magazine's August 2007 edition. The publication announced the results of its search to identify the best communities across the country that combine big-city opportunities with suburban charm, a blend of affordable housing, good jobs, top-rated schools, wide-open spaces and a lot less stress.

Family Circle partnered with On Board, a New York City research firm providing real estate and demographic data to assemble a list of 1,850 towns with populations between 15,000 and 150,000 and a large concentration of households with an average income of $65,000. From that number, 800 localities were selected based on family-friendly criteria, including cost of living, jobs, schools, health care, air quality, green space and crime rate. Family Circle assessed which towns best met those standards and ranked them according to state. The winners were selected from the highest-rated towns in the top 10 nationwide" (Morton Grove, Illinois) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


Notice where it says that this also includes the "crime rate".

I live a short 20 minute drive from Ontario, Canada, and they have very strict gun control there. I only wish we had a crime rate as low as they do. I can, and have, walked the streets in some of the major cities there at night with only a little concern. In many American cities, doing much the same is called "target practice".

And the idea that laws like the Morton Grove law disarms citizens is just a smokescreen. Citizens are still allowed to have long-guns in their houses, and they are much more preferable over handguns when it comes to protection. However, according to the studies, 911 works best.

__________________
"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."-- Einstein

Not true in Canada. In fact your own linked article speaks of the drop in violent crime in Canada.

I'm in favor of strict gun control. Bring back corporal punishment, that's what I say. Show those lousy, little derringers whose boss!

I don't think any gun under 19 years of age should be allowed to drink..or smoke. The last thing we need is a bunch of drunk to the gill colts or baretta's wandering around all over the place, looking for trouble.

And, while your at it, you should close all the amusement arcades and pool halls, too.

__________________
Grassaf, Eolas

The typical response time in a 911 call is much longer than you might think. This depends on the time and the area. Where I live it may take 20 minutes and that is in a city of 1 million plus. The officers are spread too thin and if it is a busy night you are on your own, by the time the police arrive it is to deal with victims and not perps.

IMO most people are not mature enough to own a gun and are too influenced by popular media like movies which promote a shoot-em up-die-hard type of mentality. This is a difficult issue, but could be solved by adopting policies similar to Switzerland and Israel where it is mandatory to be involved in the local militia/military. Typically thieves and others will not want to break into a home that is protected with a lethal deterent.
The commandment is do not murder, not, do not kill. Big difference.

1)
Ok so drop Morton Grove from the record...(long guns will be mentioned later) So how is it that still in Kennesaw where gun owning is the norm, crime still has fallen dramatically.. and people are not knocking each other off? What about Washington D.C.? Many people have said over and over that the gun control experiment there has been a total disaster because gun related crime is still way high..


FBI, "Crime in the United States," Uniform Crime Reports (October 28, 2002)

City Murder rates: 25 years after DC's ban

Washington, DC: 46.4 per 100,000
Arlington, VA: 2.1 per 100,000
(Arlington is just across the river from D.C.)

Total VA metropolitan area: 6.1 per 100,000



People in DC claim that criminals get there guns over the border in VA where guns are allowed..but this overlooks one point: If the availability of guns in Virginia is the root of D.C.'s problems, why does Virginia not have the same murder and crime rate as the District? Virginia is awash in guns and yet the murder rate is much, much lower.

Now it has been mentioned before that gun-locks would be a safe alternative to keep accidental deaths down in a household.. and the claim is that it takes 3.5 seconds to unlock the gun. A Supreme Court justice did make the comment.. "it takes me 10 seconds just to find my glasses and turn the light on.."
This is a bit of a moot point.. reason being that LONG GUNS (as metis mentioned) are only good depending on the actual writing of the law...
------------------------------
D.C. Gun Ban Proponents Ignore the Facts
by John R. Lott, Jr. and Maxim Lott
FOX News

"The DOJ constitutional argument is similar to that of D.C. It argues that since the government bans machine guns, it should also be able to ban handguns. And they claim that D.C. residents still retain a right to self-defense because the city doesn't ban locked shotguns and rifles. Locks, they claim , "can properly be interpreted" as not interfering with using guns for self-protection.

Factual errors underlie the rest of the argument — for in D.C., rifles and shotguns become illegal as soon as they are unlocked. That means the city can prosecute anyone who uses one in self-defense, even if it was locked before the incident. Is that a "reasonable" restriction on self-defense? Gunlock requirements are also associated with more deaths and more violent crime as they make defensive gun uses more difficult. (Machine guns are also not banned, btw)"
-----------------------

2)
Homicide has decreased in Canada but not violent crime.. the article states that both have fallen in the US not just one. Now while I agree that gun laws are not the only factor in this, but it is a factor just like the rest of the variables.

3)
As far as 911 goes.. it is still a joke. If 911 was so responsive and great why bother training people in CPR and first aid?! The ambulance will be there in time, right? Does anyone here think a violent crime happens any slower than a massive heart attack or major traffic accident? I have many friends who are Police, EMT, and Firefighters and even SWAT.. and they all agree that gun ownership is ok because it may prevent a crime from even happening.

That is the one statistic that no one knows because it isn't required to be reported. If a crime happens involving a gun it is reported.. but if a crime is deterred by the potential victim having a gun.. it is really never reported or logged. i wonder what the ratio of 'crime caused by guns' / 'crime deterred by guns' would be?

4)
As far as a militaristic society goes.. no thanks. As a side note there is a big problem in the military right now in dealing with gang members. They join up and hang out for 4 or so years then get out. They then come home and train their fellow gang members in military tactics. The last thing we need is for mandatory military service to train all the wrong people. The police dept. doesn't need to look like the SEALs to deal with a gas station hold up.


When it comes to the 'gun related death' numbers per year... the statistic that isn't mentioned separately to often, is suicide. Last I looked suicide was the majority of the gun related death numbers...."Suicides typically make up 56.5% of all gun deaths according to the Bureau Of Justice Statistics."..

__________________
metta,
Fr. B.