h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

There have been a couple of postings that touched on gun control under other entries. I thought it would be good to bring all those people into one debate.

I am opposed to most gun control measures. I don't think that criminals and the police should be the only ones allowed to carry firearms. The more armed citizens we have, the more dangerous it is for predators to commit crimes.

I think we have become too restrictive in the United States about gun ownership and the carrying of concealed weapons. I believe that most law abiding citizens are responsible enough to handle firearms. Most people realize that if they are going to exercise their right to bear arms, then they also take on a great deal of responsibilty.

Some people are scared of people who carry or own guns. I carry a firearm with me almost everywhere I go. I have never shot anyone. I've never recklassly brandished the weapon. When I argue with my wife, I never go for my pistol. I've never shot myself ina fit of depression.

I do think that the criminal use of fireams should be dealt with harshly. Project Exile (A project in Virgian where gun crimes are prosecuted federally. Convicts get at least five years in prison.) seems to be very effective in deterring criminals from using firearms.

America is the freest nation on Earth. I think we've shown that when people are allowed to be free and resposible for their own actions, things turn out for the best.

"America is the freest nation on Earth. I think we've shown that when people are allowed to be free and resposible for their own actions, things turn out for the best."

A couple of questions arise from that one:
1. On what ground do you claim that America is the freest nation on Earth?
2. What constitutes freedom? Is it the Nations freedom you are talking about, or the people's?
3. Is freedom only of the good?
4. How on earth do you dare claim that things have turned out for the best in USA? Have you been around the planet? Seen how other people are doing things, and wether or not they are happy with it?

Anywhoo, a gun is a tool. A powerfull tool. It's implementation is killing, either to gather food, or to destroy an enemy. By that power, shouldn't guns be used by hunters and soldiers?

Right after I wrote that, I read an article that we were merely in the top ten of 'freest country'. I think we were #4. We are a fairly free nation. We can say pretty much what we want, we can move anywhere we want, the police can't detain us for totally arbitrary reasons, we generally have the right to own firearms, and so on. I think we are a fiarly free nation.

I am refering to the freedom of individuals. I'm not sure a nation can have freedom. The ability of a government to do something is power, not freedom.

This nation is relativly free, it's clearly the most powerful economic and military power on Earth. I think we're doing pretty well. I'm not aware of any other country doing as well as we are. My travels are pretty much limited to the US and third world nations. If there is a better place to live, I'm not aware of it. I'd like to know where it is.

Guns should be used by hunters and soldiers. The power of firearms should not be limited to them.

Guns can be used to kill. They can also be used to defend people. The mere threat of a firearm can be a very powerful deterent. I think that citizens should have the power to defend themselves from predators.

Right off the top, I'd like to apologize for my questions (at least #4). I was in a rotten mood. More power to you for answering so civilly.

I'll try to adress the issue at hand..

It seems to me that the USA is a fairly martial nation. I may be wrong, I've never been over, and the only person I know from USA fled to Norway to avoid enrollment during the Vietnam War... Nonetheless, I have a feeling it's a fairly violent society. Somehow, restricting gun-ownership in USA now, would be denying the brute his club. It wouldn't be nice, the brute needs the club to survive.
Maybe my aversion to uncontrolled gunownership comes from me living in a nation with a very tight guncontroll, and consequently few crimes involving real guns. (There have been a few episodes with robbers wielding waterguns... ) The ones involving real guns are most often restricted to wars between rivalling (is that a word?) gangs, or other criminal groups...
Anyways, it's two different worlds. I'm sure you guys are doing allright over there. I just hope I never have the need to carry a gun again...

>It seems to me that the USA is a fairly martial nation. I may be wrong, I've never been over, and the only person I know from USA fled to Norway to avoid enrollment during the Vietnam War... Nonetheless, I have a feeling it's a fairly violent society.<

That's an interesting statement. We are definitly a violent nation, but we are probably the nation most reluctant to get invovled in a war. We were dragged kicking and screaming into the World Wars. Even now, we're the nation most reluctant to contribute troops to places like Bosnia.

I think our violence stems from a long history on the violent frontier. We were neglected by England. When England noticed us, and tried to tax us, we revolted. Then we spent the next 120 years expanding through the west, with a quick break in the 1860's to have a brief debate about state's rights. Our people were constantly exposed to the violence inherent in nature and in interpersonal relations.

We used to be a nation that tends to gave liberty and expected responsibility. That has slowly died away.

Nowadays, it's hard to say anything for sure about America. We have so many sub-cultures its kind of confusing. Each state has it's own culture, and then there are other cultural threads that exsist within states and across state lines. I grew up in free thinking progressive state (Oregon), and now I live in a very conservative and very freindly state (Georgia). It's all pretty weird.

Anyway, I don't think guns are as bad as you might expect. I almost never leave the house without a firearm. I've yet to shoot anyone that I didn't mean to.

This posting became rather long. Skip the first two chapters (there goes my english proficiency...) if you want to get to the point...

>We are definitly a violent nation, but we are probably the nation most reluctant to get invovled in a war.<

Maybe I don't recall correctly, but the US of A has deployed troops on foreign lands quite often these last fifty years or so... Bay of Pig, Vietnam, Korea, Kuwait, Somalia (it was Somalia wasn't it? That African mess-up...) and now Bosnia. Some of these wars have been international efforts (At least Bosnia and Kuwait) and others have been American-only efforts. It's tempting to say Vietnam, but I guess France has to take it's share of the blame... To me, it seems that USA is more than willing to enter frays where American investments are at stake. Many other nations are doing the same, so I won't use that against you (England vs. the South American Islands whose name escapes me f. ex.), but to say that USA is most reluctant to get involved in wars is going a bit far...
The first world war is most foggy to me. (Blasted norwegian history-education! Starts off history at 1920...) The second one is clearer, and USA wasn't as much reluctant as deliberating... After all, why should USA care about the fire in Europe as long as it didn't affect them? After a while, it did affect them: Freightships were sunk and the outrageously high prices for american goods (not to blame, Norway did the very same during the first of the two big ones: raise prices to the impossible to milk the warring nations...) didn't get paid... Of course USA entered WWII. The war was mostly won when Hitler entered Russia (tried to blitz Russia... so much for military brilliance) and USA did the only right thing: Become the heroes, send a bunch of troops over to fight and die, send the Marshall aid that forced Europe under USA's wings, and gain much of the foothold Germany was hoping for...
But that hasn't anything to do with Gun-Control. I'm sorry. I'll try to stick to the point..

USA has a violent history, but does that justify a violent present? Many nations have been forced to fight for it's life. Most of Europe was a battlefield after the fall of the Roman Empire, through the middle ages, the dark ages and even the Renaissance. During the 18-hundreds people hoped for a brighter future, but the vision was torn apart by bloody civilwars and colony-wars. Not until after WWII, was Europe relativly peacefull. (Of course, over where Yoguslavia used to be, there has only been peace when Tito reigned... sad place..)
What I'm trying to say, is that everyone has a violent past, but that doesn't justify being violent today, does it? Maybe it's because we here in Europe saw what came of WWII that made us into a peaceloving bunch of hippies. Maybe it's because USA hasn't had a war on own land for oh so long, that has made you forget the terrors of war. I don't know, but I'm quite sure I'm digressing pretty badly...

>I almost never leave the house without a firearm. I've yet to shoot anyone that I didn't mean to. <

_Have_ you shot anyone? I don't think I've ever needed to... I think the difference might be there...

Deppploying troops is rarely a popular idea in this country. Most of those conflicts were hotly debated here. We've gotten involved, but I think we're basically an isolationist nation.

I'm not saying that since we have a violent past, that we should have a violent future. We just have a violent past with a strong tradition of gun ownership.

No, I haven't shot anyone. That's something I say to kids sometimes when they ask.

Hehe, I would hope deploying troops were unpoular in all nations at all times...

Tradition of gun-ownership... That's not really a good tradition, now is it? Maybe it would be wise to slowly choke that tradition to get a slightly less violent neighbourhood.

Nice to hear you haven't shot anyone. I guess I'm still a kid, though....

>Tradition of gun-ownership... That's not really a good tradition, now is it? Maybe it would be wise to slowly choke that tradition to get a slightly less violent neighbourhood.<

Why? I own a gun. My neighborhood is pretty safe.

Actually, I have several. I have one next to my bed for unwelcome late night (or more likely mid day visitors since I sleep during the day and work at night), I have one in the garage (it's my grandfather's souvenier from WWII), and I have two bnext to the front door. These are for taking when I leave the house. Which one depends on where I'm going: one for work, one for other occasions. I also have a couple of different holsters, depending on my wardrobe. The one for other occaision has an ankle holster, an inside the pants holster, and one for carrying it openly.

Still, no intentional or accidental shootings. Some of them have been used to prevent assaults (Actually, they haven't been, but other guns that I used to have were).

*liberal enters room*

I'm sorry, i just can't see the logic in mass gun ownership. you don't have any children that live with you, do you 2 bit? school age children? how would you feel about one of them taking one of your guns to school and threatening their classmates with it, or heaven forbid actually shooting someone?

responsible gun ownership is an oxymoron. and responsible child-rearing is not failsafe, as children are subject to their environments which includes a media that doggedly reports instances just such as those i aim to prevent. a child that knows where to get a gun and that is subject to media exposure presents a *possible* situation that is impossible to resist for some kids.

the only answer is complete restriction of private gun ownership. sorry.

No, I don't have children. I have oft wondered how I would have to change my life if my wife's birth control failed. Someday, she's going to get tired of laughing hysterically when she sees me naked, and we've never bothered to buy more conventional birth control. In that event, if we did have children, I might have to figure out how I'd secure my guns.

We have the one next to the bed. My work gun is left in its holster, which might be dropped anywhere in the house. My social gun, the small one I wear with civilian clothes is usally next to the door. All are always loaded and none have external safties. Guns are pretty safe unless someone actually handles them.

Responsible gun ownership is not all that difficult. I keep my doors locked, and I don't play with guns. I think that pretty much covers the gun safety in this house.

As for people with children, I think a lot of it has to do with how you rasie a child. When I grew up, I always knew where my dad kept his rifle and his pistol. I knew where the ammunition was. I never had a problem.

Kids that have taken guns to school have had serious problems. I think dealing with the kids would be easier than dealing with the guns. In the long run, you prevent the violence and the turmoil in the child. The impression I have, is that these kids gave off all sorts of indicators before hand, and no one paid attention. The kids in Colorado could have been detected easily by just going in their bedroom and seeing bomb making materials and guns.

If school kids do bring firearms to school, then mass gun ownership becomes critical. In 1997 (I think that's the right year), the United Statees had 8 school shootings. Two were stopped by citizens with firearms before the police arrived. It is my opinion that armed citizens help keep us all safe.

"If school kids do bring firearms to school, then mass gun ownership becomes critical. In 1997 (I think that's the right year), the United Statees had 8 school shootings. Two were stopped by citizens with firearms before the police arrived. It is my opinion that armed citizens help keep us all safe."

As far as I know, there have been one school shootout in the UK, and none in the rest of Europe. Ever. (I might be wrong, but I really can't remember any more). In Europe there lives 750 million people. In USA there are how many? 400 million? The statistics are frightening.

You say that two out of six school shootings were stopped by people with guns, and you use that as reason to keep guns with the people. But don't you see that someting is terribly wrong in a society that allows _six_ school shootings in a year?

I live in a vary secure nation, I know that. Perhaps things have gone terribly wrong in the US already, and there actually is a need for everyone to be armed. But doesn't that remind you of old times, when we were all out killing our food?

"Guns are pretty safe unless someone actually handles them."

Well, isn't that the point? I have no problem with guns in museums behind glass where they can't be handled as part of an exhibit on our nation's bloody history.

YOU keep your doors locked and YOU don't play with guns, but what about the other millions of gun owners? Can you speak for them, too? And you freely admit that your guns lay about your house unrestricted, where any visitor to your home would have access to them. Are you prepared to accept responsibility for them, also?

You don't have children, but as a right-to-carry advocate, how do you feel gun control should be handled around children? What precautions need to be taken to insure that a child NEVER handles a gun? Educating your own children is but one small fraction of the equation. You, as a gun owner, will be responsible for any of your child's friends in your home. What if their parents have told them nothing of handgun safety?

Yes, kids who take guns to school have problems. But not all of them are at all evident on the surface. The two kids in Colorado gave their parents no reason to suspect them. This may have been going on in their homes, but they had no cause to invade their childrens privacy by inspecting their rooms. Other children have been described as "a very nice boy, we would have never suspected there was a problem." One other thing to consider, is the kids that don't have problems, that find a gun in daddy's/uncle's/grandpa's/mom's/babysitter's nightstand/pocket/handbag/closet/hidey hole, and played with it/showed it to their friend/sister/brother/cousin when it accidentally went off. And the gun owners who had removed the clip or emptied the ammunition but forgot/didn't know about the round in the chamber.

I'm sorry, but there are just too many variables to ever ensure 100% safe private gun ownership.

School shootings are a funny issue. I think there are probably easier ways to deal with them than gun control. These kids throw off all kinds of warning signs before hand. I think it would be better to watch for and deal with their underlying problems. It not only prevents the violence; it helps the child as well.

I don't think everyone needs to have a gun. In general, I think we would be safer here if more people were armed. It's a matter of persoanl responsibilty and responsibilty towards society. If a violent felony occurs inmy presence, I would prefer the oppertunity to act rather thant to be a victim or a helpless witness. Even if I were to be in that situation, it may not be safe to use the weapon. However, I'd feel responsible if I witnessed a crime that I could have prevented if I was armed.

John Lott conducted a study of the the concealed carry laws. He found that when citizens armed themselves, they it had a Disproportionate affect on crime. It not only made that person safer, but it kept others safer as well. Perps know that cops can't be everywhere. They know that citizens are everywhere, and they scared of the ones that are armed.

With that in mind here's a thing I got from the CalibrePress Newsline that I'd like to share:

In May, 37-year-old convicted murderer John Woolard and 42-year-old Roy Harper (serving 88 years for several robberies) escaped from a Mississippi prison. Over the course of a few days, they made their way to Indiana, but just recently Harper explained in a letter to The Times newspaper in Munster, Ind., what brought him and his pal to town.

Apparently, they discovered that they'd been featured on a segment of Fox-TV's "America's Most Wanted" show within a few days of the escape.

Harper writes in his letter last week: "We made the decision to head to the northeastern part of the country when we discovered we had been on 'America's Most Wanted.' . . . Our reasoning was that the greatest threat to us was being recognized by a citizen who had seen the show, and we felt it was less likely we'd run into any armed citizens in the Northeast as opposed to say, the South or West. Too many citizens in the South and West carry guns."

I didn't read your last post very carefully.

When I have vistors over that I don't know very well, I put all the guns away. Most of my... scartch that all of my friends are smart enough not to handle a firearm without assuming it was loaded, since they all know perfectly well that they are.

Along with the right to carry firearms comes a great deal of responsibility. I can't speak for all gun owners, they have to take responsibility for their own actions. They have to take appropriate measures to protect their weapons. As for me, I am the protection for the weapons. Parents with kids have to take additional precautions. If you have a weapon where a kid might get to it, then you have to should keep it all the way unloaded and probably locked. There have been a lot of stupid accidents by idots and children who have accidental discharges because they don't check the chamber (That's day one gun safety. Heck I know it, and I've never taken a gun saftey course.)

The parents of those idots at Columbine had no right to privacy from their parents. Thier parent's were recklessly irresponsible by not at least going into these kids rooms from time to time. These are kids who had been pointed out to the Sheriff's office as problem kids. Their was an obvious problem, and the parents copuld not have been very ivolved in their children's lives. They deserve to be sued into poverty.

>Along with the right to carry firearms comes a great deal of responsibility. I can't speak for all gun owners, they have to take responsibility for their own actions. They have to take appropriate measures to protect their weapons. As for me, I am the protection for the weapons.<

There is a great deal of responsibility involved. The problem is that some people don't take it seriously. Even one instance of accidental handling by a child is unacceptable.

>Parents with kids have to take additional precautions. If you have a weapon where a kid might get to it, then you have to should keep it all the way unloaded and probably locked.<

It should be kept all the way unloaded and DEFINITELY locked. seperately. as in rounds and firearm in TWO seperate locations. on opposite ends of the house. maybe even on different floors.

The fact that these incidents happen, for whatever reasons, suggests to me that maybe more legislation is necessary for gunowners with children. i also think it would be a wonderful idea for it to be necessary to show documented PROOF that you have been through a gun safety course and passed BEFORE your are able to PURCHASE a gun. it would also be great if you had to update that proof annually, or on some other interval. gun owners should be held completely responsible for anything that their GUN does.

>Their was an obvious problem, and the parents copuld not have been very ivolved in their children's lives. They deserve to be sued into poverty.<

yes, parents need to be held responsible for their children. however, children, as human beings are posessed of free will. therefore it is impossible to hold them COMPLETELY responsible. Parents do not deserve to be "sued into poverty." Nor does anyone else. but the legal and judicial system allowing people to sue anyone at any time for anything and any ammount is a whole other can of worms, a whole other forum, and i'm not going to get into that here.

I think your methods of gun safety are kind of paranoid. You lose the whole value of having a firearm if you have to go through the whole house to defend yourself from an intruder. There are much easier ways that will keep the weapons safe.

Annual recertification of firearms safety courses isn't necissary either. This stuff is not that difficult. It would also require registration, which I see as a waste of time. It may also be unconstitutional to require people to register the weapons they already have.

If a person isn't responsible, we have ways of addressing that with ctriminal and civil sanctions.

I don't understand how you can think that a parent shouldn't be held responsible for a child, but they should be responsible for what another person who possesses free will does with an inanimate object.

If I thought the parents were completely responsible, I'd advocate a criminal prosecution. I think that an ordinary responsibility of a parent is to visit the room of their child. If for no other reason that they should visit their children in their natural enviroment. If your child is as emotionally disturbed as these kids seem to have been, I think it's a parents responsibility to saerch their child's room.

If parents don't get invloved with their children, and take ordinary precautions, then they should be held responsible for what their children do.

When t comes to tools of killing, paranoia is not a bad thing, it's a preferred way of life. It's the only way to avoid accidents.
In keeping loaded guns in your house for protection, there are a few points to consider. First off, if someone breaks into your house at night, through your livingroom or frontdoor, they would have free access to loaded firearms, registred on your name. That's a bad thing. If you have a break in while you are away, will there be any guns available for the thieves? If the thieves are 17 year old speed-addicts, do you want them to get a hand on your guns?

Recertification serves one purpose. It's a reminder of what a gun can do to a person. Seeing pictures of people shot through the face with a 7.62 was a great reminder for me to be carefull with my rifle. I'm guessing you wouldn't need such recertification, as you are a fairly responsible guy, and in your line of work you get to see the ugly side of humanity. Other people might own guns because they thinks it's a cool thing to have. They have no respect for the terrible power a gun has. Those people might think twice if they had a thorough (spelling?) safety-course every year or so.

I can't go into to parental responsebility, though. I'm still only a kid.

i don't see my views as unneccessarily paranoid. if we lived in a society where unrestricted gun ownership led to no violent problems, then maybe i would hold different views. but we don't. at this point in time, anyone can obtain a gun from a number of sources regardless of what his or her training or history or intended use is. i feel even better knowing that there are areas where guns are illegal that do not have the problems we do.

As far as having to go through the house to defend yourself, i think that's a bit unrealistic. it has been proven that merely the sight of a gun is a deterrent, as the person on the wrong end has no idea whether or not the gun is actually loaded.

>I don't understand how you can think that a parent shouldn't be held responsible for a child, but they should be responsible for what another person who possesses free will does with an inanimate object.<

A parent is held partially responsible for a child, as they are responsible for what influences their children come under. how the children react to the influences is dictated by free will. people should be held completely accountable for what is done with their firearms because if a crime is committed with their weapon by another person with free will, the owner of the weapon is responsible in some way for the other person coming into posession of their weapon.