Gun Control Question

[seldear]

As I understand it, Australia has relatively strict gun control laws. I'm not sure exactly what those laws are, never having required the use of a firearm. (Any of the Aussies know?)

US Constitution's Second Amendment? Gun registration?

And where do you stand on the matter of "the right to bear arms" and why? Would love to hear from all sides of the fence and the pond.

Comments

[angelsasha.livejournal.com]

Guns are for killing. That's what they were designed and built for. If you have no need to kill, you have no need for a gun. By which I mean "you need to not have a gun" (subtly different to "you do not need to have a gun").

If you are a police officer or a member of the armed forces, you may need a gun for your work. So your work provides you with one. That's fine.

If you are a farmer you might need a gun to protect your livestock or crops. So you buy one and register it through strictly controlled channels. That's fine.

The only reason I could think that someone would own a gun and not need it for killing is people who shoot for sport (target practise). I'd never want to shoot a gun for sport, but I guess I don't have an issue with people shooting target practise if they want to. So you buy and register one through strictly controlled channels and you keep it at a gun club, not in your home. That's fine.

There is no other reason that springs to mind for which anyone should ever be allowed to have a gun.

[seldearslj.livejournal.com]

I also find myself wondering a little about the cultural divide between the Brits/Aussies and the Americans in this angle.

Most of the Americans that have answered below are for gun ownership that isn't necessarily linked to work (police, farmer) or sport (hunting, target practise).

[allisnow.livejournal.com]

The only reason I could think that someone would own a gun and not need it for killing is people who shoot for sport (target practise).

What about self-defense?

[skydiver119.livejournal.com]

I don't know all the ins and outs because, well i don't have a gun, don't want a gun so i don't care. :)

but i believe that there are limits as to the type of guns that your 'average joe' can possess, the high powered nasty stuff, along with some ammunition that's never gonna be used for hunting but is 100% anti people.

there are supposed to be controls in place. background checks and the like before you can have a gun. also you're supposec to be registered and have a license.

but, just like illegal drugs, there are illegal guns. and those can't be controlled largely because we import so frakking much and have so much border to watch that it's impossible short of turning the country into an armed state.

things like this virgina tech always bring up gun control...but the control is there and he bought his gun legally. sure, there were warning signs that this man had issues...but unti he actually does something, there wasn't anything they could do. You can't lock a person up for life because they might go nutters. and you can't ban tehm from buying weapons for the same reason.

and if he really wanted a gun, there are plenty of illegal ones around. you just gotta know where to go.

our 'right to bear arms' came from us being the rebels and fighting for our freedom hundreds of years ago, and it'll never change. And no matter how much people try to control it, it'll never be controlled.

and for every case like cho's there's a 'robbery averted because bystander had a licensed weapon and shot the robber' case. (we just got concealed carry passes, legally - with a license and permit - i could walk the streets with a gun in my bag...of course every building also has the right to put up a 'no guns allowed' sign and i'd have to NOT bring my gun into the building...so our concealed carry is basically little more than teh right to carry them outside and on public property)

I grew up with guns in the house. my dad had a lot of them. We were taught not to play with them, they weren't toys and we respected that.

in some cases it's not gun control taht needs to be done, but gun education. and people like cho are gonna hurt people. he's smart enough, had he not been able to get a weapon he'd have done something else...last time i looked you could get step by step instructions for making bombs on the net

[sjhw-tolerance.livejournal.com]

Pretty much what D said. I have to stand by our Bill of Rights and the right to bear arms.

It gets to be too simplistic to lay the blame for what happened on the supposed 'easy' availability of guns in the US and Virginia in particular. That poor boy would have managed to find a way to carry out his plan whether he bought his guns legally or not.

[tv-elf.livejournal.com]

Agreed. Well, except I didn't grow up with guns. Dad was a Reservist, but kept that aspect mostly out of the house. (He did manage to hook me on MREs.)

I'm not a fan of guns, but there are times and places where they are needed.

"Gun control" is as real as the Easter Bunny in my mind. We like to tell ourselves that if we just add this one more hoop to jump through, things like Virginia Tech won't happen. That can be a dangerous fallacy. If you want a gun, you can get one. And, as we just learned, it isn't all that strict.

Do I wish guns didn't exist? Sure. But I will defend a person's right to have one.

[marag.livejournal.com]

::sigh:: I think it's very complicated, but I'm a big fan of registering. You need to register with the state to own and drive a car, so at the *very* least, gun owners should have to register and be checked out before they buy a gun.

I'm not opposed to hunting and such, but there's no reason for the average person to need to own a semi-automatic weapon or kevlar-piercing bullets.

[seldearslj.livejournal.com]

So the present situation is that people can own a gun, but the state doesn't have to know that they own a gun?

Is that what you mean by registering?

[allisnow.livejournal.com]

You need to register with the state to own and drive a car, so at the *very* least, gun owners should have to register and be checked out before they buy a gun.

And yet there's no explicit right to private transportation in the Constitution ;)

Registering will never pass for the same reason a national ID won't... Americans are cagey about their privacy, especially when it comes to the govt. Must be some holdover from the Revolution ;)

I don't have a gun, but if I did I would not necessarily want (1) a government agency to tell me if I'm good enough with it to be allowed to own it, or (2) for a government agency to be able to pull up a list of gun owners in the country and see me there. Why? Because I don't.

Also -- yes, people DO have to register to own a car, and pass a test to drive it, and yet how many kagillions of car accidents are there in the US?

[havocthecat]

Interesting. The issue's so fricking huge in the States that I can't imagine not having at least a basic idea of what the legal issues are surrounding possessing a firearm.

At the very least, I'd think you might want the knoweldge for writing purposes. :) I made my brother take me out to the range and show me how to use a handgun one day so that I could at least write it halfway accurately. (He was a small arms instructor at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy before he became an officer.)

[seldearslj.livejournal.com]

Actually, amilyn took me range-shooting the last time I was in Chicago.

I can see how that kind of power might be addictive - the adrenaline rush of shooting was a little scary - and that was just at paper targets.

But, yeah, I'm a little interested in the rules about owning a handgun in the US.

[tv-elf.livejournal.com]

Oh, give the Supreme Court time... They have just erased another women's right. They'll get to this too. ;)

Hmm, did I say that out loud?

[allisnow.livejournal.com]

No offense, but I could sooo tell you were from Canada before I even checked your profile ;)

The Constitution is very clear -- you can practice a religion, even if it's stupid... you can stand on the sidewalk and tell people the end is near without being arrested... you can protest whatever the hell you want as long as you do it peacefully... and you have the right to bear arms. The colonists didn't write that INTO the Constitution so they could get rid of the British -- that's completely backwards.

[saramund.livejournal.com]

No one has the "right" to deal with anything that could kill someone without the proper training to back it up.

Thank you - I think that's the best cohesive arguement to gun-control yet.

[shallanelprin.livejournal.com]

Second Amendment was put in place basically so the citizens could overthrow the government (like we did to England) if such a need ever occurred. I don't really see that happening anytime soon.

As for gun registration - I'm all for it. I think you should prove that you actually know how to handle a firearm before you're allowed to buy one as well.

The amusing thing to me is people always call for more gun control, but fail to realize most of the gun laws on the books are rarely enforced. Passing more law does no one any good if there's no follow through. Personally, in the States I think all stricter gun control laws are good for is keeping guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. The criminals don't care that the law says and if they want a gun, they're darn well going to get one. The only place extremely restrictive gun laws work is in countries where there are literally no guns to be had. It would take a lot of time, effort and money as well as people being willing to fork over their firearms for that to happen in the US.

As for what happened at Virgina Tech - if he couldn't have gotten a gun maybe he would have just killed himself or maybe he would have built a bomb. There's no way of knowing.

[seldearslj.livejournal.com]

I guess the argument for 'guns out of the hands of the general public' is that the killer at VT might have killed himself without the access to guns, but wouldn't have caused a carnage in the process.

Remind me of the first five Amendments to the Constitution?

1. free speech, 2. arms, 3. ???, 4. ???, 5. silence in the face of incrimination?

So the 2nd Amendment was put in place so that an overbearing government could be removed if it failed to serve the needs of the people? And has turned more into an 'inalienable right'?

I'm a little curious about another thing too: do Americans see the possible removal of the 2nd Amendment as perilous to the other Amendments? The idea being that once they remove the right to a weapon (perceived self-defence) then they can remove free speech and so on?

[slm76.livejournal.com]

Given recent events, I feel everyone needs to have proper training before they're even near a gun and that it should be illegal to hand someone a gun who's not had the proper training. My neighbour was killed in a shooting accident just a few weeks ago by a kid who'd never handled a gun before.

Members of my family have guns. On each occasion, when I've gone to their homes, the guns have been locked up in a lockable gun cabinet. Heath has been brought up in a hunting environment. Everyone has to go through a Hunter Safety course before they get a hunting license.

For hunting, a shotgun or something equivilent is okay. Provided, of course, that a person had had a background check and proper training. It ought to be like driving a car, or something.

Would I ever handle a gun myself? Probably not. Would I be okay with Heath having one, like his father and his uncles own guns? Sure. I know he'd keep it locked up. Like I said, he was raised in a family that goes hunting and regularly has the kids go through the Hunter Safety course. My sister-in-law's husband is a state trooper and he bought his wife a gun. They go to the range sometimes. But whenever I've been there, I've never seen the weapons; they keep them out of the way of the child.

What I cannot understand is the fascination with automatics and semi-automatics. No one needs those except the military, surely.

The VT killer bought his weapons legally. There's the problem; the lack of controls and laws on gun shops and gun shows. If he bought it recently, there should have been a check on police reports and mental health. Except, for the fact that health issues are confidential. And goodness knows many people think their privacy is more important than someone's life being at stake.

Ultimately, the question is, is there a way to stop the likes of Cho purchasing weapons legally without hindering the regular Joe who goes deer-hunting with his buddies every November?

[allisnow.livejournal.com]

My neighbour was killed in a shooting accident just a few weeks ago by a kid who'd never handled a gun before.

I'm sorry for your neighbor's family, but that wasn't the gun's fault... it was the fault of the person who decided to handle a gun without familiarizing themselves or, if they're a minor, the people who gave the gun to him.

People love comparing gun ownership to gun ownership, but they're completely different -- there is no right to drive (or ride a horse or buggy or the 18th century equivalent) in the Constitution.

Until there is better communication between agencies and departments (and doesn't THAT sound familiar) there will be incidents like this.

[beatrice_otter]

Do you know why there's a second amendment? In case the government fails to respect the first one.

There are four boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.

[allisnow.livejournal.com]

Do you know why there's a second amendment? In case the government fails to respect the first one.

So true!

[skydiver119.livejournal.com]

I"m all for folks needing training to handle weapons. To me it's common sense, like taking drivers ed to drive a car.

But the problem here isn't the law abiding citizens that register and get their guns legally. For the most part, those folks are safe (random hunting accidents aside)

A good chunk of our crimes are committed by folks with illegal weapons. Stolen gun, illegally imported guns. automatic weapons that no one but the military is supposed to have. And how in the hell can we control that? We can't even keep the frakking illegals from spilling across the border by the thousands. We can't keep the tons of heroin and cocaine from coming in. We can't even keep pirated dvd's and cd's off the streets.

The thing is, unless we turn this country into an armed and locked down dictatorship with closed borders, there's no way to control it.

It's easier to control a border when you're an island. :)

We americans want our freedoms. We want our first amendment. We want to talk and im and e-mail without big brother spying on us (any more htan they already do)...and the price we pay for htat freedom....for the abilty to jump in the car and drive to another state without getting permission from the govt and a permit...is to know that 'bad guys' will take advantage of that freedom to be bad guys.

and every time we let fear push us into surrendering more of our rights, we take one step closer to becoming one of those societies that were the oh so nasty future in so many old movies. Cause every time we beg the govt to 'protect' us we put our fates in the hands of fellow humans...who are imminantly corruptable and completely untrustworthy.

All the gun control in the world won't get illegal weapons off the streets. and the issue is so pervasive that unless we start executing eveyr single criminal without a trial, illegal weapons along with illegal drugs will be a part of life.

The way things are going, those few rights guaranteed in the bill of rights are gonna be the only civil liberties we're gonna have left...those of us that don't run off to canada :)

[allisnow.livejournal.com]

It's easier to control a border when you're an island. :)

AHA! You've just solved the border control issue!

Forget a wall... start digging a moat!

[lyore.livejournal.com]

OK, my go at Aussie Gun Control (and this could be wrong, I'm working from not fully informed memory here):

After the Port Arthur Massacre, the gov. banned semi-automatic rifles and pump action firearms (although I believe semi-automatics are still legal, maybe). They had a big 'Buy Back' scheme, and a general amnesty for a year (we don't care how you got the gun, just turn it in and we'll pay your for it).

Right now, I think gun rights are effectively based on the concept of 'reasonable need' to own one. So people in shooting clubs, people with a license and permission to hunt, security employees, and farmers, etc. But IIRC the laws, or at least the interpretation of laws, is different from state to state, and that there is a fair bit of difficulty in transferring registration between them.

As to the US gun laws/gun culture? I don't like it, and I believe that the need addressed in the second amendment is outdated (in that it was supposed to keep the government in check, but given the progress in weapons, citizens with rifles would have a tough time overthroughing the white house). However, I have to grudgingly admit I can see the point of people saying the right to carry concealed would have made a difference in this situation. I don't like it, I think it is a case of treating the symptoms not the disease, but I can see the point, and if, overall, laws like that would reduce the number of casualties, would it be a bad thing?

I guess it comes down to this: we don't, in Australia, live in a society where the pervasiness of violent crime makes it a reasonable expectation that we will have to defend ourselves with lethal force - physical violence, on occassion, but not generally lethal force. Whereas the US seems to.

Wow, that was a long-winded comment, wasn't it? But you did ask :) Forgive any ambiguity in the response - I'm home sick today, and my mind is still a little fuzzy from the drugs.

[seldearslj.livejournal.com]

However, I have to grudgingly admit I can see the point of people saying the right to carry concealed would have made a difference in this situation.

As I read somewhere: carrying concealed weapons would only have endangered those who went into heroism.

The first person who pulled their concealed weapon on the shooter might know who the shooter was, but what about the second person who pulls their weapon and walks into the situation? Killers don't generally walk around with "serial killer" tattooed on their forehead.

Maybe it would have helped - we'll never know - but the other side is that it might also have made things even worse.

I think I find myself in agreement with saramund up above. The fact that there's a gun in the household "for self-protection" automatically escalates the situation.

That said, I think the culture of the US is gun-heavy and to try to remove that amendment - perceived as a right to the Americans, and possibly perceived as opening the door to the removal of other civil liberties - would only end up in revolt.

Then again, a culture like Switzerland has a gun-in-the-household culture, but a very different crime and national profile to America. So maybe the problem really isn't the guns but the people.

*ducks and hides from the Americans*

[beefree88.livejournal.com]

I think it's not just about what's allowed or what's illegal.
You can deal with/punish a relatively small percentage of citizens if the rest of the society sopports you.You can't enforce a law againts the will of the majority.So if most of the citizens believe that you can trust only yourself to defend your body and property, and you do have a chance to protect yourself if you have a firearm, than they'll own a gun legally or not.
Reality shows that guns (even the ones bought for self defence)have more chance to be used for agression or accidentally hurting somebody than actual defence.Most ppl never have to face a situation when they actually need to use a gun, and target practice doesn't prepare you to handle a situation. If it really happens something it won't be like you saw your heroes behave in your fav tv show or movie.

[seldearslj.livejournal.com]

I also wish for someone other than the NRA to be a voice for sensible gun ownership but that's just me.

What's the NRA line, if you don't mind me asking?

I have fired a handgun before and it was an incredible rush - even just at paper targets. I'm glad that such weapons aren't easily available in Australia, because I like to think of myself as a reasonable person (with a mildly addictive personality) and even the possibility of being able to do that kind of damage to another human being - even one I disagree with, or dislike - scares me.