[HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Gun Safety ( was:Cold dead hands/Columbine)

Kathryn Cawte kcawte at blueyonder.co.uk
Mon Aug 4 12:18:39 UTC 2003


 bboy_mn

 
In addition, if anyone would like to start arguing the Constitutional
issues related to guns, I'm primed and ready for that. Sadly, very few
people understand the Bill of Right in even the most basic and
fundimental way.
 

 Me -

Well I was taught that there is doubt about exactly what the writers meant
when they said 'right to bear arms' anyway, but I don't know if that's right
 However I think it should be pointed out that when it was written the US
was still a frontier country with no police force or real standing army (I
could be wrong on that last point). Guns were needed for hunting for food,
protection from wild animals and protection from/apprehending bandits/Native
Americans/anyone else that was considered a threat. You couldn't dial 911
for help you had to do it yourself. The standard method of apprehending
dangerous people was for the sheriff to round up local citizens to do it.
Guns were inaccurate (not sure about hunting rifles but other guns certainly
were) and unreliable, unlike today. You had to be fairly close to your
target to be sure of hitting it and you couldn't carry fully loaded because
they had a tendency to go off if you did, I understand that it was common to
have the weapon mostly loaded and set to an empty chamber. And the term
drive-by shooting could only be applied to a man on a horse.

What may have been reasonable when it was written is not reasonable now. The
Constitution is ammended all the time - what makes this particular part of
it any more sacred than the rest. When it said all men are created equal it
didn't include anyone who wasn't white. It also really did mean men. There
is already some element of gun control I believe - not all makes of gun are
legal to own. While I have no problem with hunting rifles I do have a
problem with owning other forms of gun. I don't know what we in the UK
decided on gun control but I know they were debating only allowing handguns
for shooting to be kept at registered shooting ranges in approved locked
metal cabinets. I see no reason for owning an automatic or semi-automatic
weapon. I do not believe in keeping handguns in the home for defense -
statistics show (and I'm being terribly sloppy and not looking them up but I
know I saw them on a Discovery Channel show about crime) that if you have a
gun in your home the chances of you or a family member or friend being shot
with it (either accidentally, by being mistaken for an intruder or
deliberately) are far higher than the chances of shooting an intruder. If
America must hang on to its guns then I think control should be tightened to
the point where it needs to be shown that anyone who has a gun has had a
serious amount of training in how to use it, how to keep it safely etc.
Accidents will still of course happen.

The NRA says that guns don't kill people, people kill people, that's true
but unfortunately you can't ban people (which would be the safest option) so
the most you can do is take their guns away from them. It won't stop all gun
crime, of course it won't, criminals will still get hold of guns illegally
but if by owning a gun you are committing a crime it does make it easier to
control. You don't have to wait until someone has been shot to arrest them,
simply by catching them with a gun you can arrest them.

K




More information about the HPFGU-OTChatter archive