weapons...why?

[progenie]

Hi!

A sociological question.

I live about 5000 Km far from USA (I'm italian) and I would to know if is true that U.S. citizens can possess weapons without any problem. If you want you can go into an army store and ask for a Colt or a Beretta... you pay and they give you the gun. No permissions, no exams, nothing! Is because an article or emendament of your Constitution or something like this, right?

If this is true my question is: why?

Do you agree?

Don't you think this can be dangerous? I think to psicologically instable people or kids that can accidentally find daddy's weapon or simply to bad people: I suppose they are very dangerous with a gun in their hands.

In Italy (but more generally in all West Europe) this is impossible. If I want a gun (and I'm not in Army or a Policeman or... a mafia guy) I must get a permission which is really difficult to obtain (for example jewelers can get it because of their particular job). "Normal" people can't buy weapons (and obviously can't use them). What do you think about?

I appreciate any kind of comment (negative or positive). I need to look at different points of view.

Bye

Marco

[Charlie_M]

In the US it is permissible for citizens to own most kinds of guns.

Basically the government does not place very many restrictions on "law abiding citizens" who want to own a gun.

I dn't know for sure but I think that a person who has been convited of a major crime (any crime that is considered a "felony" in the US) is unable to buy a gun (they check your background before you can take the gun home).

Some states have a waiting period. The idea is that you must go to the store, state your intention to buy the gun, and then go back some number of days later to pick it up. I'm not 100% sure but I believe the intent of this law is to prevent a "crime of passion". Like for example if a guy is so upset as his wife that he can't see straight, if he goes to buy the gun to kill her, he has to wait until he cools off before he can get the gun. The idea is that by then he won't want to kill her any more. I have no idea if the waiting period has achieved its purpose or not.

Many people in the US like to hunt animals for sport (like hunting a deer for example and using the meat to feed your family). Those people usually fight any restrictions on gun ownership.

They also say that if you make owning guns a crime, then only the criminals will have a gun. In other words, if you make it illegal to own a gun, then you still can never stop a criminal from owning a gun because he is a lawbreaker anyway and will find a way to get the gun. There is always a way to do a thing like that if you are committed.

Then other people (mostly people who do not hunt) say they think it's silly for us to own guns in this day and age. It was originally instated as an ammendment to our constitution that people can have guns so that any citizen could be called upon to take up arms against an enemy if needed. We are past that point now we have a professional army for that.

So... this debate comes up whenever there is an election. One guy takes one side the other guy takes the other and they debate. It is a lot of bullshit really. Mostly all it does is help people who feel strongly about the gun issue to identify who their favorite guy is.

My own opinion is that there is enough truth on both sides of the argument that it may never end.

I think the way the law stands today is probably fine. It probably would be better if there were greater uniformity across states in the law. I like the idea of background checks but it's also true that a person who cannot obtain a gun legally because he is a felon, will likely do so illegally and this kind of activity is outside the reach of the law. Yes you can punish the guy but usually the gun ownership goes undetected until the guy actually does something destructive with the gun, and of course by then it's too late to punish him for owning the gun becuase now you have something much bigger to punish him for. But it does seem to me that a law against owning guns wouldn't reduce that kind of problem. Just my honest opinion and I don't really care about it since I don't own a gun myself.

I don't really feel a need to own a gun, I don't hunt or anything like that. Also I would never forgive myself if my kid got at it one day and did something to hurt himself or one of his friends or something. My son is a good boy, but he is full of curiosity and mischief, and you just never can tell what a kid is going to do - even with a gun safe. Plus there are days when my wife might shoot me if there was a gun in the house!

Charlie

[thesilentdrummer]

Well, I think there are certain classes of guns that you can buy right away. As the power of the gun increases, there are certain licenses that people need to apply for. for example, I am certain that you need a license to posses an automatic weapon.

Gun control is a major topic of debate in the U.S.

[bubba]

Hi Fellas:
All states forbid felons from possessing guns. Semi automatic weapons are mostly treated like revolvers as far as each state's laws are concerned. Fully automatic weapons (machine guns - Uzi, Ingram, etc.) are licensed by the federal government only. Many sellers get around gun laws by selling at "gun shows". As more states go on line to do more thorough instant background checks, it should be more difficult for assholes to buy guns legally. There are still the gun shows.

Peace: bubba

[TAlderson]

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

-The Second Amendment to the US Constitution

Basically, the idea behind this is that if the citizens are not armed they may be vulnerable to attacks, both from foreigners and from people in the US. Therefore, you are allowed to carry a gun for personal protection. However, there are background checks made, to make sure you are A) not a criminal and B) not crazy. Whether they work or not is a different story... (see shooting, Virgina Tech)

-Tyler

[progenie]

Hi guys!

Thanks a lot for your answer.

Also thanks because you understand my doubts without prejudices.

Obviusly also in Italy there are a lot of fellons (funny... this is a new english word for me but identical to an ancient italian word "felloni" which means the same) and a lot of illegal weapons (expecially from old comunist countries) to buy at very low prices. Every day TV and newspapers tell about every kind of crimes.

An increasing part of italian people (in effect now is still a little part) are asking for weapons liberalization because they think this could give them more "security".

We are facing a lot of immigration from east europe, asia and africa and many italians think most of those immigrants are dangerous (many italians today seem to forget that many of us live all over the world because they was emigrants). In effect a little part of today immigrants is dangerous as exactly as a little part of italian emigrants was.

Many people ask for weapons (guns and rifles) to defend theirs family, theirs home. My question is if this is useful or not.

A friend of mine is a sort of governative agent and he lives in Rome. He can't walk without his gun (information for police department... he is not a fellon... he got permission! ). He feels himself constantly unsafe but in effect he was never threatened by anyone in his life! Can weapons become a kind of useless mania?

Ciao

Marco

[brandondrury]

Don't you think this can be dangerous? I think to psicologically instable people or kids that can accidentally find daddy's weapon or simply to bad people: I suppose they are very dangerous with a gun in their hands.

Yes, guns are dangerous. So are cars. Even worse, SO ARE SWIMMING POOLS!! In the book Freakanomics, the author states that there are 500 times as many swimming pool drownings are there are accidental shootings.

Then other people (mostly people who do not hunt) say they think it's silly for us to own guns in this day and age.

What does "this day and age" mean? An age where we are too "civilized" to have an excessively oppressive government? Please!!

We are past that point now we have a professional army for that.

This depends on who's side the professional army is on. History has shown that there is little correllation between an army's actions and the views of it's people.

I think the way the law stands today is probably fine. It probably would be better if there were greater uniformity across states in the law.

I disagree. The last thing we need is a stronger federal government. It's easy to forget that the federal government should be limited in power and states can make up their own minds because everyone just assumes the federal government has infinite power. Well, no they don't. We should keep it that way.

But it does seem to me that a law against owning guns wouldn't reduce that kind of problem.

A law against owning guns does a few things. It reduced the amount of guns the law abiding citizens have. This may reduce the number of accidental shootings (which may make swimming pools 1000 times more dangerous than guns instead of just 500). It will force people hell bent on murdering in the heat of passion to get creative and maybe slightly less effective.

The big one! Everyone will know that the good guys no longer have guns. Maybe some asshole wants to break in my house and steal my microphones. Well, he has to at least consider that I have a gun in my house. He may not care, but I have no doubt that the notion that everyone MAY have a gun has a drastic reduction in crime. It's a stalemate of sorts.

Whether they work or not is a different story...(see shooting, Virgina Tech)

The laws will never have any effect on people who aren't afraid of getting caught or don't care if they get caught. The only way to completely end all tragedies like this is to shackel everyone up in chains.

Many people ask for weapons (guns and rifles) to defend theirs family, theirs home. My question is if this is useful or not.

I don't think many people who have guns for defense are really going to shoot the bad guys in the face. In my town, I'd bet that 75% or more houses have guns in them. Does my house have guns in it? What difference does it make? The bad guys don't know either way.

Brandon

[TAlderson]

Originally Posted by brandondrury

I disagree. The last thing we need is a stronger federal government. It's easy to forget that the federal government should be limited in power and states can make up their own minds because everyone just assumes the federal government has infinite power. Well, no they don't. We should keep it that way.

Well phrased.

Originally Posted by brandondrury

The laws will never have any effect on people who aren't afraid of getting caught or don't care if they get caught. The only way to completely end all tragedies like this is to shackel everyone up in chains.

True, true. Just pointing out that every policy has its drawbacks. In this case, it's that a crazy dude got hold of guns legally. Maybe he would have been stopped if it had ben harder to get them. Or, maybe he would have gotten creative, and blew up the building instead, killing more people.

-Tyler

[brandondrury]

Just pointing out that every policy has its drawbacks. In this case, it's that a crazy dude got hold of guns legally. Maybe he would have been stopped if it had ben harder to get them. Or, maybe he would have gotten creative, and blew up the building instead, killing more people.

I agree 100%. Every policy does have it's drawbacks. Some are more concerned that the policies themselves are more destructive than the crimes they are attempting to stop. I fall into this category in most cases.

Man, I HATE the fact that 30 something relatively innocent college kids got blown away. But running out (like a bunch of chickens with their heads cut off) trying to piss on the liberty our forefathers faught in bloody wars for is not just sickening, it makes me want to puke. (All the extreme liberal braindead motherfuckers incapable of coherent thought or even the dream of cognitive reasoning can AT LEAST watch Band of Brothers and pretend to see what it;s like for a Nazi to blow your best buddy's leg right off his body. Our parents, grandparents, greatgreatgreat grandparents gave up so much so that we can get fat in air conditioned homes or talk on our cell phones. People in this country have had their leg's amputated with hacksaw with nothing more than a stick to bite on just so we'd have the right to bitch about gas prices on a stupid internet forum.)

And then people want to throw that freedom away to a government that will take as much as we are willing to give it (and then some).

Then check out these numbers:
http://www.driveandstayalive.com/inf.../stats-usa.htm

Am I horrified by the 30 something people who were shot up in Virginia? Yes.

Am I horrified by the 43,000 people who die in car crashes each year? Yes.
In fact, I'm 1433 times as horrified the deaths in car crashes than I am with the school shootings. I think our government should spend exactly 1/1,433rd of the money on stopping wackjobs as it does improving car safety. Imagine you had kids. Are you more worried about terrorists or a Chevy Cavalier?

http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/s/smoking/deaths.htm
"400,000 deaths annually in the US (Mayo Clinic) "
I'm 13,333.33 times as horrified by the deaths of smoking than I am the school shooting.

The bottom line is at least a half of million people die from something tragic each year. Does it suck? 100%. But let's not get so hung up on sensationalist incidents that we piss away everything to cater to our own egos (and make ourselves feel like we actually have some sort of purpose). When enough queers who can't think get together to piss away our rights is the day that all of us have to go back to getting our legs blown off just some other dumb motherfucker can piss those rights away down the road.

Brandon

[Charlie_M]

Brandon I made that same argument about Iraq one fine day (comparing casualties to those we lose on the highways every year).

I think my friend may not ever speak to me agan. Too bad. Logic rules.

The objective is either worth it or it's not. Every soul we lose is tragic. That's a seperate issue. Focusing on the fatalities in Iraq does nothing more than identify which side you're on in the debate.

Anyway... don't want to take us off topic but the similarities in the argument bore mentioning I thought.

Charlie