Thoughts On Gun Control?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



long pig
I am not a fan of killing people. I'm not a fan of terrorists. I'm not a fan of criminals. I'm not a fan of gun control.

I try to understand the logic behind gun control. I, like most people, do not want terrorists to attack our country or criminals to murder people. I don't even own a gun and have fired guns on very few occasions. I'm not a member of the NRA or plan on ever joining. I just do not understand the logic behind gun control. Recently the .50 caliber sniper rifle was banned in California. The .50 caliber sniper rifle is one mean gun. At 1.5 miles, it still has the power of a .44 magnum at point-blank range. Do I think any civilian is ever conceivably going to face a deer or opponent with enough body armor to justify the use of this rifle above any other less powerful rifle? Not really. The proponents of the bill claim that despite its 5 1/2 ft length making it an unlikely choice for most criminals and its nearly perfect record, it is still dangerous since it could end up in the hands of terrorists. A terrorist with a weapon powerful enough to pierce Bradley fighting vehicles (as it did at Waco) is a scary thought.

The problem with citing the Waco incident is that the reason federal agents were there in the first place was because David Koresh, leader of the Branch Davidians, was stockpiling illegal weapons and explosives. Though the .50 caliber sniper rifle was legal, he didn't seem to care about the laws banning the rest of his arsenal. The true logic behind limiting gun control isn't really because we need militias in case the state becomes too powerful or because there are armies of Black and Hispanic people waiting at our doorstep to steal our money and rape our daughters. The logic is simply that criminals tend not to care about violating the law and gun control does no more than disarm the law abiding citizenry and unfairly restricting the rights of people who have done no harm.

In addition to not being able to defend ourselves against some criminals we may one day have to fight a race of giant alien spiders.

I ask you KMCers, before the next time you say that guns in America should be banned or have greater governmental control, think about the other side of the arguement. You never know, a gun one day could save your life...or end it.

What do you think?



Skeletor says "Oh behave!"

forumcrew
i think guns are used in self defense far to rarely for that to be the main reason here.. i can all but garuntee more children find guns, or a domestic dispute gets out of hand or someone is too drunk playing around and theres an accident with a gun more often then someone breaks in and trys to kill you and you have to use your gun to defend yourself

BullitNutz
I support reasonable gun control.

You won't need a freakin' M60 machine gun mounted on your vehicle unless it has tracks and a few inches of armor. I can understand your run-of-the-mill handguns and rifles, but we can all see the harm that can be done by citizens being able to own bazookas.

I'm opposed to the banning of all guns because we'll need them at some point or another. There is no historical precedent that tells me that for some reason or another, the US government simply won't try and take over one day. Checks and balances don't mean jack if you have a 2/3 majority in the Congress, the Judicial branch on your side, and your party's president in the White House. Given, the US military has the ability to hold off a force equipped with handguns and rifles, but it's a finite number. Take the number of people in the military and subtract that from 300 million. Take the answer to that and divide it in half, to compensate for people who don't have guns, won't fight, or are children, or any other reason. Feel free to fiddle with the military figure to compensate for the number of soldiers that won't shoot US citizens, who defect and fight against the military, etc. The answer still remains: They cannot reasonably stop an armed revolution. What makes anyone think that for some reason, the military is somehow invulnerable to guerilla tactics while at home, anyway?

For this reason, I'd prefer to go with the "Switzerland" option. Almost no restrictions, high ownership rates, relatively strong social pressure to own and regularly use firearms (strong national heritage of shooting expertise) and high availability of a wide array of firearms.

Nobody ever f*cks with the Swiss. In 1939, just before Hitler launched World War II, Switzerland hosted the International Shooting Championships. Swiss president Philipp Etter told the audience, which included representatives from Nazi Germany:

"There is probably no other country which, like Switzerland, gives the soldier his weapon to keep in the home.... With this rifle, he is able every hour, if the country calls, to defend his hearth, his home, his family, his birthplace.... The Swiss does not part with his rifle."

Switzerland won the service-rifle team championship. The lesson was not lost on the Nazi observers. They didn't invade Switzerland.

forumcrew
unfortunatly the swiss could be eliminated by planes droping bombs on them and then an invasion rolling in.. the Nazi's also had nothing against the swiss. and the swiss are a totaly different people and culure.. try that in america and it will just cause more violence

BullitNutz
Originally posted by forumcrew
unfortunatly the swiss could be eliminated by planes droping bombs on them and then an invasion rolling in.. the Nazi's also had nothing against the swiss. and the swiss are a totaly different people and culure.. try that in america and it will just cause more violence

Think about that again. You're trying to say that a simple bombing will take out the population of a country that builds shelters in mountains (think 3 or 4 NORAD-style installations, but bigger) and has a citizenry willing to defend their country. First, the armed citizen force has at least basic training in the use and maintenance of their firearms. It's law. Second, all males are expertly trained in the use of the indigenous terrain against an invading enemy. Third, the mountainous terrain, I assume, hides all sorts of nifty anti-aircraft weaponry.

Ergo, bombing would be damn hard, at best. Invasion would be damn near impossible because the manpower of the citizenry is completely fluid. If bombing starts, they can hop in their cars and get out of the cities. Failing that, they can walk, run, ride bikes, even hide in the nearby hills. The bulk of the army would be protected (they have a standing army) in the mountains, no matter what. I'd guess the only option would be a few nukes/chems/bios in the major population centers in order to decimate the civillian population, thus removing the primary advantage of the citizen militia.

You're trying to tell me that Hitler didn't have anything against Switzerland? I doubt he had anything against most of the countries the Nazis invaded. They were just strategically important. If a centrally located country with a decent amount of in-country strategic base locations, sheltered by mountains is not strategically important, I'm John f*cking Wayne.

Moving on to the cultural differences, I feel those could be overcome by gently re-engineering the population. Hell, Republicans have yanked the US political spectrum several degrees to the right in the past 40 years or so. Look at Nixon's policies. He was more liberal than Clinton, and he was a conservative at the time.

Imperial_Samura
I support reasonable gun control, such as certain banned types, certain groups with restricted or prevented access to fire arms etc, as really they don't make the world safer (civilian wise). Australia, as an example had a significant drop in gun related crimes after the introduction of strict gun laws. Also, there are few sets of statistics that I have seen that suggest having a gun in the home serves as some form of protection from criminals, rather that it increases chances of accidental shootings...

BullitNutz
Accidental shootings are more often than not a result of someone not treating a firearm correctly. The proper way to handle a firearm (that is, when you're not planning on killing anyone) is to treat it as if it's loaded. Even if you know for a fact that it's not. Pull that slide back and check the chamber, even if the mag is ejected and you've shucked that last round out. If more people were educated on firearm safety, accidental shootings would drop through the floor. They wouldn't disappear completely, but if there was at least a reasonable degree of education, even in children, people wouldn't need to go through all the trouble of locking their guns up.

The best thing to have in your house is a nice shotgun with a very audible pump mechanism. Even if it's not loaded, the "ka-CHAK" sound of that slide would send all but the most hardened intruder running. Otherwise, a nice, heavy semiautomatic handgun would work fine. Rack the slide on that and they know you mean business.

Jackie Malfoy
Originally posted by long pig
I am not a fan of killing people. I'm not a fan of terrorists. I'm not a fan of criminals. I'm not a fan of gun control.

I try to understand the logic behind gun control. I, like most people, do not want terrorists to attack our country or criminals to murder people. I don't even own a gun and have fired guns on very few occasions. I'm not a member of the NRA or plan on ever joining. I just do not understand the logic behind gun control. Recently the .50 caliber sniper rifle was banned in California. The .50 caliber sniper rifle is one mean gun. At 1.5 miles, it still has the power of a .44 magnum at point-blank range. Do I think any civilian is ever conceivably going to face a deer or opponent with enough body armor to justify the use of this rifle above any other less powerful rifle? Not really. The proponents of the bill claim that despite its 5 1/2 ft length making it an unlikely choice for most criminals and its nearly perfect record, it is still dangerous since it could end up in the hands of terrorists. A terrorist with a weapon powerful enough to pierce Bradley fighting vehicles (as it did at Waco) is a scary thought.

The problem with citing the Waco incident is that the reason federal agents were there in the first place was because David Koresh, leader of the Branch Davidians, was stockpiling illegal weapons and explosives. Though the .50 caliber sniper rifle was legal, he didn't seem to care about the laws banning the rest of his arsenal. The true logic behind limiting gun control isn't really because we need militias in case the state becomes too powerful or because there are armies of Black and Hispanic people waiting at our doorstep to steal our money and rape our daughters. The logic is simply that criminals tend not to care about violating the law and gun control does no more than disarm the law abiding citizenry and unfairly restricting the rights of people who have done no harm.

In addition to not being able to defend ourselves against some criminals we may one day have to fight a race of giant alien spiders.

I ask you KMCers, before the next time you say that guns in America should be banned or have greater governmental control, think about the other side of the arguement. You never know, a gun one day could save your life...or end it.

What do you think?



Skeletor says "Oh behave!"

I have to say I argee.I am againt gun control and think that guns should not be taken away.Dispite some dangers with guns.I want to ask you a question is it the kid's or the gun's fault?
The answear is simple it is neither it is the parent's fault for not paying attention to the kids and what they do and stoping them from even consider useing a gun for anything.
Also the first thing Hiter did in world war two was take away the guns from everyone(I read this in the histroy books)So to have complete power.
So if the guns are taken away from us we are powerless and anything could happen to us.JM smile

BullitNutz
Originally posted by Jackie Malfoy
I have to say I argee.I am againt gun control and think that guns should not be taken away.Dispite some dangers with guns.I want to ask you a question is it the kid's or the gun's fault?
The answear is simple it is neither it is the parent's fault for not paying attention to the kids and what they do and stoping them from even consider useing a gun for anything.
Also the first thing Hiter did in world war two was take away the guns from everyone(I read this in the histroy books)So to have complete power.
So if the guns are taken away from us we are powerless and anything could happen to us.JM smile

I agree that firearms should not be banned for the same purpose: To make the politicians think twice about ever overstepping their bounds. To make them think twice about trying to re-write rules to gain a stranglehold on the government. To make them think twice about lying to the people.

However, I'm more fearful of this administration than I ever was of Clinton's. They've made me much more aware of the dire need of the populace to keep itself well-armed in order to protect our liberties when they order the military to detain domestic citizens.

Do I feel that every citizen has an inherent right to shoot anyone they please? No.

Do I feel that a firearm should be used as anything other than a last resord in order to protect life, limb, family, and property? No.

But do I feel that it is every citizen's duty, as much as voting regularly, to own and know how to use a firearm? Very much so.

I wish I had the right to blast any bible-peddler who showed up on my doorstep, but the time isn't right yet.

KharmaDog
Hand guns are made to kill people. Automatic weapons are made to kill people. To own a hand gun or an automatic weapon, is a totally unnecessary thing.

It seems that many folks in the united states have an unhealthy obsession or fascination with their guns and their rights to own them. I would guess that this culture of guns is from how the U.S. was born, out of people standing up for themselves and fighting for their freedom. What I think people have forgotten is that it was the will and the strength of the people who fought for freedom that made this happen, not guns, they were just a tool, a means to an end.

I laugh when people say that they NEED a gun to defend their country. Anyone ignorant enough to think that the U.S. will ever be invaded knows nothing about the geographic nigh impossibility of that, or the fact that nuclear weapons, sheer size of the country and population, or that you have the fricken most effective army in the world won't let that happen.

If anyone can beat all those odds, John Q. Public standing on his porch with his M-16 (which he was never properly trained to use) is not gonna stand much of a chance.

BullitNutz
It's not about "John Q. Public" on his porch with his gun, when people like me speak of defending ourselves against a tyrannical government. It's about John Q. Public and a few million of his well-armed friends on their porches with their guns, making sure the government doesn't try and take more power than the people allow it.

On all other fronts, I prefer a more "European" style of government... Universal health care, various other forms of the government doing it's job of serving and protecting the voters that put them there. I wouldn't mind paying more taxes if it meant I could be taken care of in a hospital no matter what, I wouldn't mind paying more taxes if it meant I breathed cleaner air and drank cleaner water. I wouldn't mind paying more taxes if it meant my kids could go to a university even if I couldn't pay their way. I'm rather liberal socially, but I also believe a government can be free of corruption, transparent, and doing a good job at the same time.

KharmaDog
Originally posted by BullitNutz
It's not about "John Q. Public" on his porch with his gun, when people like me speak of defending ourselves against a tyrannical government. It's about John Q. Public and a few million of his well-armed friends on their porches with their guns, making sure the government doesn't try and take more power than the people allow it.


It's a noble thought, but I dont't see it ever happening. You think a militia of unorganized citizens is going to beat your military? Do you even think that your gov't would allow such a movement to take seed?

They know every citizen that has a gun. They know every citizen's political affiliation. The can know every citizen's communications through email, phone or internet. They even know every citizen's spending patterns.

More people buy guns than vote. The vote is the most powerful thing an American citizen has, yet not everyone chooses to use it.

Echuu
I don't know; guerilla tactics can be pretty effective. Look at Vietnam, or when russia invaded afganistan.

Fishy
Yeah but will the US population feel like that? Will something like that ever realisticly speaking happen? I think not, still thats besides the point.

A goverment where the opposition has weapons or not can not stand against a large group of people that want them gone. Look at any modern day example, most goverments that were overthrown recently were overthrown without weapons.

Now i'm not for total gun ban, i realise its impossible... I do support a ban of a lot of unnecessary weapons though. As well as a stricter control of them. Apparantly the US does not keep track of who has weapons for a very long time, something thats incredibly stupid. In Holland they check what weapons you have, they even check how many bullets you buy. And how many you fire every time your at a gun course or some other place were you can legally shoot at things (very few have those rights anyways)

Everything is checked, now this doesn't mean crime by guns won't happen anymore, of course it does. It just means its harder to do so, and a lot harder to get away with it. Because everybody that has a weapon like the one that was used to shoot somebody will be checked, and if for instance a few of his bullets are missing and the bunch he bought are from the same stock as those used to shoot the person he will be arrested...

Or at the very least put up as one of their prime subjects. Of course you can still get guns the illegal way, but there only very rarely happen crimes with legally bought guns. Guns are not illegal here, they are just harder to get and harder to use when its against the law. A system like that would probably really help the US as people are hardly ever stupid enough to buy a gun then use it to shoot people when they know the goverment could be at their door step as soon as they analyze the bullet...

Come on how idiotic would you have to be to use something like that?

MC Mike
I don't have a gun, never will get one, and tend to laugh at the people who have them for empty reasons.

Jackie Malfoy
Well you guys are very friendly.JM roll eyes (sarcastic) laughing

leonheartmm
in the us alone, more people have died from domestic guns than both the world wars and the vietnam war combined. now i believe in freedom of the people todo what they want and even though guns are extremely cool and likeable, {im a HUUUUGGEE FAN of guns myself} it still doesnt compare to the amount of people that get killed because of them. guns for civilians should be BANNED, to any1 and every1, even gangs or people who are seen with guns should be forcibly relieved of them or placed under arrest, and the import of guns other than for the police or armed forced should be banned, this way slowly even the gangs etc who have guns will be relieved of them and since no civilian import is allowed{n the laws should be strict on these} most of the wrong people will not be able to get them even illegally.

frodo34x
Rather than guns, everyone should be given a Katana and taught how to use it.

On a more serious note, I'm against gun ownership. As much as I love war films and FPS's, I don't see why the general public should be armed. Then again, I am heavily biased by my parents, my mother having been a founding member of the Snowdrop Petition, a petition started in 1996 which led to the ban of handguns in the UK.

Wikipedia article

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by frodo34x
my mother having been a founding member of the Snowdrop Petition, a petition started in 1996 which led to the ban of handguns in the UK.

Your mother is a very wise woman!


I am against gun ownership - what is it with Americans and guns - give everyone a gun, then when they go and blow up a school its a tragedy!

RedAlertv2
gun control is bad

SlipknoT
I own 2 handguns, but I need to get rid of them

Capt_Fantastic
Bill Maher quoted President Bush as stating that the original rules governing social security have to change with th etimes and that the country had changed in ways that the original founders of the program could not have foreseen. He then asked why the same logic could not be applied to the gun laws.

This isn't a country of muskets and bows and arrows anymore. It only takes one bullet to kill a deer, a man, a horse, a goat, a chicken, a president, and unruely husband or wife. Why do people need to own rocketlaunchers, handgrenades or machine guns capable of firing hundreds of rounds per minute?

Echuu
Here's my problem with the whole gun control thing.

A conceiled weapon will protect someone against a criminal if they know how to use it properly. If you ban a gun from a person they won't be able to defend themselves from a criminal who can get their hands on a gun though they have been banned.

People shouldn't be able to get heavy weaponry that the military uses. That's just stupid.
I think that there are more smart law abiding gun owners than naught but the ratio is getting to where there are more and more stupid people and criminals.
My idea of gun control is cracking down on criminals being able to get their hands on em and having anyone who owns a gun to be required to go through safety classes before and after they have their gun. Maybe even yearly.

Afro Cheese
Really people are more likely to kill someone with a gun they bought illegally than one they bought legally, cause there's less of a chance you'll get caught afterwards. If you shoot someone with a gun your bought legally and registered, they can trace it to you.

Jeff_Atello
I'm am for complete gun control, to the point of banning them. I find them to be crude, inhumane, and pointless. Sad thing is, I understand that if anybody wanted to get one, it wouldn't be very difficult. I'm with Chris Rock, who said we should make the bullets really expensive. There would be no more unwanted casualties. If you're going to shoot someone with a $5000 bullet, then they really did something wrong. I think all fights should be fought with knives, if anybody is going to fight at all. I will never own a gun, I'm against hunting, and all that stuff. But I recognize that the law will never change, and we'd be worse off if it did. I do think there should be strict laws, however. Much more thorough background checks at the very least.

BullitNutz
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
...It only takes one bullet to kill a deer, a man, a horse, a goat, a chicken, a president, and unruely husband or wife. Why do people need to own rocketlaunchers, handgrenades or machine guns capable of firing hundreds of rounds per minute?

Because there are what, like 650 members of congress, plus their SS agents, plus guards, etc;

Capt_Fantastic
Originally posted by BullitNutz
Because there are what, like 650 members of congress, plus their SS agents, plus guards, etc;

touche

Ou Be Low hoo
'Gun Control in the US' is an example of the current prevalence of oxymorons.

BullitNutz
Originally posted by Ou Be Low hoo
'Gun Control in the US' is an example of the current prevalence of oxymorons.


Just like American Democracy.

Our government is a f*cking joke.

long pig
Please, if you're not an American this isn't about you, you really have no say and your "opinion" is moot.

BullitNutz
I'd like to think that thre was a way to make sure we could trust the government to the point that we didn't need firearms to make them keep their promise. I still feel that one can deter intruders without having to shoot them, but the majority of Americans don't vote, and enough voters don't vote intelligently enough to be able to elect a government that stays in its own yard. Because so many of us don't do our civic duty, many of the rest of us have to own firearms to make sure that the government doesn't become too totalitarian.

I don't mind background checks and waiting periods and bans on certain types of weapons. However, I don't think we're mature enough as a society to be able to elect politicians that aren't corrupt. I wish I didn't feel the need to own a firearm, but it's how I was raised.

Lana
Originally posted by long pig
Please, if you're not an American this isn't about you, you really have no say and your "opinion" is moot.

Anyone is allowed to have and post an opinion.

I personally am all for gun control. Ever look at any stats of crime rates and murder in countries where guns are illegal as compared to the US?

(sorry I don't have links for any of these stats, they were shown to me, I'll try and see if I can find some)

Lana
http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/Cda-US.htm

Comparing US and Canada

http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/gunaus.htm

Gun homicides dropping sharply in Australia after tough gun control laws

http://www.endevil.com/guncontrol.html

Comparing stats of several countries

I can't find the page I had seen before, I'll try to get it later.

BullitNutz
I understand that if your average Joe can't buy a firearm, the rates of homicide will drop due to the simple fact that there are less people with guns. The problem with here is that it's ingrained in the culture. Unless the government makes plans to buy the weapons from people, they won't want to give them up. I could imagine a slowly phased plan where they first stop selling them, then after a while, start buying them back from the populace, and then finally make them illegal, given that each of these phases is spaced well enough apart as to make sure people have the time to either leave the country or whatnot. Personally I don't mind heavy permitting with guns. I can see the logic of making sure they can trace a weapon to an owner, and making sure you haven't had any violent crimes in the past, whatnot. Hell, I'd be ok with selling my weapons back to the government, as long as they gave me a fair price on them, not even retail, say, if owners had receipts, mark 15% off of that and that's the price. I could see allowances for old guns that are virtually useless, but have been kept in the family for generations, but I could see the logic in keeping things like 9mm hollowpoint-loaded glocks out of the hands of civilians.

Imperial_Samura
Yes. I think the point is gun "control". While I will admit I don't really care for guns, and don't see the need for them in such a way, I would not advocate completely banning them like that, so quickly (maybe one day). But control is needed, and I would say amnesty's work. Coming from Australia, from the country on a farm (most farms in the day had a number of guns) there was initially alot of opposition to gun laws. However, money was offered, and many people admitted - "well, I never really use it, or its old, or maybe it doesn't even work, this works for me, it makes things safer, I get money, so its all good." The buy back scheme worked brilliantly, the laws cut crime and gun related death, and things have been good.

Guns aren't completely gone though. People can still hunt, or engage in the whole shooting as a sport (pistol clubs, clay shooting etc) and have guns, as long as they aren't ridiculously over powered automatics, and if proper storage is provided. A background check, a license, and the chance of things going wrong are greatly reduced.

BullitNutz
See, that's the kind of laws I'd be happy with. We don't need the unregulated possession and usage of guns, but we don't want them to be so harshly regulated that one can't go hunting or competition/recreational shooting, either. I think, though, there's a very slight misconception about US firearm regulations. First, they vary from state-to-state. Some states are what are called "open-carry," meaning you can literally walk into a bank with a rifle on your shoulder, and nobody would think it the least bit weird. Then again, there are very few of these, Montana is the only one I can think of off the top of my head, and there are less than a million people in the entire state, last I checked. That pretty much means that there are so few people, you can go outside (as long as you're not in an urban area) and you'd have a slim chance of hitting someone if you just fired a few rounds off at the horizon.

Here in Florida, you can purchase shotguns and some rifles, I think, at the age of 18. Handguns and the rest come in at the age of 21. Last I checked, you couldn't buy ammunition until the age of 21. They have decent background checks and waiting periods, so you can't buy a gun if you have a violent crime in your history, and the waiting period is pretty much a 'cool-off' period so you can't buy a gun if you're planning on killing someone you're angry at. However, this doesn't prevent the problem of present ownership of a firearm, or the illegal sale of such. Gun shows are notoriously unregulated, but things are being repaired, though slowly. Overall, firearms are better controlled than, say, in Sierra Leone, but not as good as Canada or Europe, or most other first-world countries.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Echuu
My idea of gun control is cracking down on criminals being able to get their hands on em and having anyone who owns a gun to be required to go through safety classes before and after they have their gun. Maybe even yearly.

And how exactly do you propose that in the system where guns ar available to everyone, to have a gun control on ''criminals''?

''Excuse me, are you a criminal, beacuse you cannot buy a gun!''

It seems to me that you are not familiar with your constitution all that good. America had, for 7 years the law where there had to be a background checks on people who bought guns - but there were no databases on the comps to be checked, so that fell through and now the three day waiting period was just that...waiting around.

Now there isnt even a waiting period - you just go in a shop and get a gun - freaky.

I don't know what is with America and all this massive paranoia!

BullitNutz
Google Search for State gun regulations in the US.

A comprehensive breakdown of US federal gun laws.

The federal laws cover the entire country. Think of them as an overlay to the state-specific gun laws.

frodo34x
Originally posted by long pig
Please, if you're not an American this isn't about you, you really have no say and your "opinion" is moot. Why is our opinion moot? If anything, I'd say having people from other countries chipping in would make it more relevant. After all, different cultures will naturally have different opinions. For example, most people I know (especially those over the age of 30 or so) are heavily against the ownership of guns, for obvious reasons (see my earlier post). However, am I wrong in thinking that owning a gun is often encouraged by American soceity? I may mell be wrong, so please, correct me if I am.

I reckon it's not the ownership of guns thats the problem, it's the general view of soceity towards guns that causes problems. If owning a handgun became legal in Britain, I doubt very many people would buy one (well at least not round where I live). Round here, it would be socially unacceptable to own a gun, although possibly to an extreme. After all, part of the reason I'm not allowed a BB gun is because of the negative stigma guns get over here.

Capt_Fantastic
Hey, I assure you, criminals are just as likely to get a gun as non criminals. There were 33 men from the top 40 on the terrorist watch list that had legally applied for a handgun and were approved to get one. And let's face it, you can buy guns by the truck load at gun shows. Who runs these gun shows? Fanatical supporters of the NRA. That add that said if you buy pot, then you support terrorism. Well, If you're a fanatical member of the NRA, then you support terrorism too.

WindDancer
The government has no right to interfere with an individual's right to own firearms as long as the individual is not harming or intimidating fellow citizens. Anyone carrying a gun with the intention of committing a crime like robbery, murder, kidnapping, etc...should be restricted from owning a gun and should be held responsible for any damage done to the victim. Gun control is a good way to stabilize the current situation with illegal guns. But to ban guns? No, it doesn't work. No matter how you scramble the topic there will always be illegal guns in the streets.

frodo34x
Like I said before, I think it's all down to the soceity, rather than the laws.

WindDancer
But you cannot hold society responsible. It just doesn't work. It all comes down to the individual. There is no such thing as a violent society. But there is such thing as violent individuals in society. And like I mention in previous post an individual with criminal intentions to use a gun should be held responsible.

Echuu
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
And how exactly do you propose that in the system where guns ar available to everyone, to have a gun control on ''criminals''?

''Excuse me, are you a criminal, beacuse you cannot buy a gun!''

It seems to me that you are not familiar with your constitution all that good. America had, for 7 years the law where there had to be a background checks on people who bought guns - but there were no databases on the comps to be checked, so that fell through and now the three day waiting period was just that...waiting around.

Now there isnt even a waiting period - you just go in a shop and get a gun - freaky.

I don't know what is with America and all this massive paranoia!

Yes I realize that but if the government would maybe invest a little more money they could crack down on criminals getting theor hands on guns. The point I was trying to make is that they SHOULD have longer waiting periods and required classes and backround checks for when you get a gun. They should start putting this things back into order, even if they have to spend a little more to make the databases work right.

Capt_Fantastic
Originally posted by WindDancer
The government has no right to interfere with an individual's right to own firearms as long as the individual is not harming or intimidating fellow citizens. Anyone carrying a gun with the intention of committing a crime like robbery, murder, kidnapping, etc...should be restricted from owning a gun and should be held responsible for any damage done to the victim. Gun control is a good way to stabilize the current situation with illegal guns. But to ban guns? No, it doesn't work. No matter how you scramble the topic there will always be illegal guns in the streets.

I agree. I have no problem with a man who owns a gun and keeps it in a secure location, away from his children; and maintains that gun for self defense. But, why does a man need to own four hand guns? Why does a man need to own 16 assault riffles?

I understand that not everyone in this country lives the same life I do. I don't hunt for my food. I understand that some do. So a man that lives in the mountains and hunts for the food that keeps his family alive is more than welcome to own a hunting riffle. Perhaps he has a son that wants to live the same kind of life, issue him a permit when he turns 16 and let him buy his own gun and go hunting with mountain man dad. The dad doesn't need to own a box of grenades, 12 assault riffles and a cannon.

I agree completely with the notion that a man can own a ('A' as in a single) gun. I'll even agree with th eright of a gun collector to own antique weapons. When was the last time you heard of a kid getting into his grandfathers cun cabinet and shooting up a school with a musket riffle? But there huge stockpiles of weapons...even just multiple handguns...are crazy.

WindDancer
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
I agree. I have no problem with a man who owns a gun and keeps it in a secure location, away from his children; and maintains that gun for self defense. But, why does a man need to own four hand guns? Why does a man need to own 16 assault riffles?

It basically turns into a hobby. Then it becomes a collection. People have different tastes in collections and sometimes guns become a collection item.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
I understand that not everyone in this country lives the same life I do. I don't hunt for my food. I understand that some do. So a man that lives in the mountains and hunts for the food that keeps his family alive is more than welcome to own a hunting riffle. Perhaps he has a son that wants to live the same kind of life, issue him a permit when he turns 16 and let him buy his own gun and go hunting with mountain man dad. The dad doesn't need to own a box of grenades, 12 assault riffles and a cannon.

See this is what some people don't like. And that is introduce and educated young kids on the topic of firearms. Most people tend to think that introducing or even educating teens on the basics of guns is horrible thing. Which is quite contrary. The idea is to educate the teens on the subject of guns. Is not about teaching them that they can be the quickest gun fighter or that guns are cool. Is about informing them the risks of owning guns. I'll just simply say that before owning a gun EVERYONE (including adults) should be properly educated on the gun safety.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
I agree completely with the notion that a man can own a ('A' as in a single) gun. I'll even agree with th eright of a gun collector to own antique weapons. When was the last time you heard of a kid getting into his grandfathers cun cabinet and shooting up a school with a musket riffle? But there huge stockpiles of weapons...even just multiple handguns...are crazy.

Pretty much we agree on the subject. And I'll be honest I like guns. But I defenetly don't support the idea that everyone has the right to own a gun. There has to be certain restrictions before owning a gun. And some restrictions should include a limit.

Capt_Fantastic
Originally posted by WindDancer
It basically turns into a hobby. Then it becomes a collection. People have different tastes in collections and sometimes guns become a collection item.

I understand that. I agree with antique firearms being a collection. I could even undertand single shot rifles. Hey, I collect Star Wars action figures. I have thousands of them. But, your kid can't get in to a SW figure collection and shoot up his school


Originally posted by WindDancer
See this is what some people don't like. And that is introduce and educated young kids on the topic of firearms. Most people tend to think that introducing or even educating teens on the basics of guns is horrible thing. Which is quite contrary. The idea is to educate the teens on the subject of guns. Is not about teaching them that they can be the quickest gun fighter or that guns are cool. Is about informing them the risks of owning guns. I'll just simply say that before owning a gun EVERYONE (including adults) should be properly educated on the gun safety.

I agree, there's nothing wrong with educating people on gun safety. But, take the kids that blew away Columbine. It wasn't what they learned about guns that motivated them to do this. As I have said before, it isn't what you hear...it's how loudly you hear it. I can't say there weren't times I would have loved to walk through my school spraying bullets. But it didn't become something I gave any serious thought to. I calmed down...I didn't obsess over it. It didn't become a reason for me to get up and go to school. And those kids(I think they got the guns from one of the grandfathers of the kids...stories may be running together though) broke in to the cabinet where the grandfather kept the weapons. So, teaching gun safety is fine. Keeping your assault riffles under lock and key is fun...but they don't seem to work. So, the price we pay for a few bad apples...is that none of us get to stockpile weapons.



Originally posted by WindDancer
Pretty much we agree on the subject. And I'll be honest I like guns. But I defenetly don't support the idea that everyone has the right to own a gun. There has to be certain restrictions before owning a gun. And some restrictions should include a limit.

You're right. I wasn't clear. I didn't literally mean 'every single man'. Clearly mental patients, people with a history of viloence, etc. should not be allowed to own hand guns. Much less someone on a terror watch list.

WindDancer
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
I agree, there's nothing wrong with educating people on gun safety. But, take the kids that blew away Columbine. It wasn't what they learned about guns that motivated them to do this. As I have said before, it isn't what you hear...it's how loudly you hear it. I can't say there weren't times I would have loved to walk through my school spraying bullets. But it didn't become something I gave any serious thought to. I calmed down...I didn't obsess over it. It didn't become a reason for me to get up and go to school. And those kids(I think they got the guns from one of the grandfathers of the kids...stories may be running together though) broke in to the cabinet where the grandfather kept the weapons. So, teaching gun safety is fine. Keeping your assault riffles under lock and key is fun...but they don't seem to work. So, the price we pay for a few bad apples...is that none of us get to stockpile weapons.

The Columbine incident was indeed a tragic and horrible experience. There is no denial that something wrong was going to happen in that school. There were prior warnings, but no one took them seriously. Eventually those teens would have gain access to guns/explosives/knives some way or another from some place. Maybe even illegally. What I learn from the Columbine shootings is that after the smoke had clear (no pun intended) the blame game begin. People pointed their fingers and blame music, video games, movies and of course guns. When a tragedy strikes we pay more attention to the aftermath rather than the warning signs. Is just something we all have to work on.

Capt_Fantastic
No arguments here.

frodo34x
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
And those kids(I think they got the guns from one of the grandfathers of the kids...stories may be running together though) broke in to the cabinet where the grandfather kept the weapons. Wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_Massacre


Originally posted by WindDancer
But you cannot hold society responsible. It just doesn't work. It all comes down to the individual. There is no such thing as a violent society. But there is such thing as violent individuals in society. And like I mention in previous post an individual with criminal intentions to use a gun should be held responsible. I'm not saying soceity should be held responisble. What I'm saying is that it comes down to soceities view on the possesion of weapons, rather than the laws.

Capt_Fantastic
Originally posted by frodo34x
Wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_Massacre


Don't be an ass. I admitted that my wacko youth blowing away schoolmates stories might be running together. But, my point still stands.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by BullitNutz
The problem with here is that it's ingrained in the culture.

Key sentance here. It is in American culture - its sad, deluded and very dangerous, but it is the culture.

Echuu
What about the Swiss?

Capt_Fantastic
Originally posted by Echuu
What about the Swiss?

What about the Swiss?

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Echuu
What about the Swiss?

Yeah, what about them?

They have a huge gun owenership, yet the people who die from guns is rediculously low.

Alpha Centauri
People who die from gun crime in the UK is ridiculously low.

Lower than the States would you believe?

-AC

Capt_Fantastic
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
People who die from gun crime in the UK is ridiculously low.

Lower than the States would you believe?

-AC

I believe. You guys haven't been settling all your fights with guns the way we have.

Alpha Centauri
I was being overly sarcastic and obvious.

There's a connection between guns not being legal and a low death toll from gun crime you know?

-AC

Afro Cheese
Do they have as much organized crime in England as they do in America? I mean some countries that have guns legal are fine... it's not necessarily what makes our murder rate so high.

I think it's the whole gang culture that exists here... go to any given city or even some small towns in America and you will find people who are in gangs, sell drugs, have illegal/unregistered weapons, etc..

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
People who die from gun crime in the UK is ridiculously low.

Lower than the States would you believe?

-AC

If we take the people that die from gun crime in Britain, and by that ratio expand Britain's population to the size of America, (so Britain's population equals American population) the death by gun crime in America would still be still 6 times higher.

Alpha Centauri
Yep.

Who want's a Bill Hicks quote? I do! I know you all do too.

"Apparantly, there's NO connection between having a gun and shooting someone....and NOT having a gun.....and NOT shooting someone. According to the government there's no connection and you'd be a fool/communist to make one."

-AC

lil bitchiness
Ahahahaha!!

Like Eddie Izzard said

''As NRA says ''guns don't kill people, people kill people'' But I think guns help! You just standing there going ''BANG'' isn't going to kill a whole lot of people''

Capt_Fantastic
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Ahahahaha!!

Like Eddie Izzard said

''As NRA says ''guns don't kill people, people kill people'' But I think guns help! You just standing there going ''BANG'' isn't going to kill a whole lot of people''

Yes.. ..I was watching that concert the other night
He F**KING ROCKS. My Aunt made a copy of it before I moved. I keep watching it over and over again. My room mate is gay, and he'd never seen it.

It..It's just..well...the Rebels sir...they're here. And they've brought a flag.

lil bitchiness
I ****ing LOOOVE Eddie Izzard!

I watched ''Dressed to Kill'' yesterday again - so good.

''So I was ''splshy splashy and she was splashy splashy back, which the equivelent to ''would you like some coffee''

lol

Alpha Centauri
Which reminds me....

I burned your CDs Milla smile. Mix CD is almost done. Made you a Bill Hicks one also.

-AC

Tex
I'll probably get a gun when I get my own posh digs. Its probably very unnecessary and an added hazard but I'll feel more comfortable knowing I have one as opposed to not having one if circumstances warrant.

I'm in favor of reasonable gun control; automatic assault rifles should only be limited to law officials and the military.

Alpha Centauri
Ironic that you say you'd feel more comfortable having an unnecessary added hazard around.

-AC

Tex
Its far more comfortable than being ass raped in the middle of the night. stick out tongue

smoker4
Bill Hicks and Eddie Izzard in the same thread, i love it laughing out loud smokin'

Alpha Centauri
Originally posted by Tex
Its far more comfortable than being ass raped in the middle of the night. stick out tongue

Yes that's humourous and stuff wink.

Still, my point was that it's very ironic that you find comfort in having something in your possession that is a self-proclaimed unnecessary and hazardous tool that is designed to kill.

-AC

Tex
The British are solely to blame for America's gun craze obsession! schmoll

Sexy James Bond and his big golden guns (in conjunction with his scantly clad East European Bond beauties) have forcefully brainwashed us into the gun loving culture we are today! mad

British beasts! tongue10

lil bitchiness
I wonder what is it with Americans and being paranid?

Is your media that bad, that you are so scared that you have to keep guns in your home, so that someone does not come into your house in the middle of the night and kill you?

If someone was going to come to your house in the middle of the night and rape you/kill you, they will do so regardless of wether you have a gun or not. There are two possibilities -

You either are keeping gun on the safe place, as supposed to, so by the time you run to get it - you'll be already dead, or you're not keeping a gun at the safe place, but near you, and thus if a mysterious murderer does not kill you in the middle of the night, an accident from your own ''protection'' will.

Alpha Centauri
I can understand the theory but it doesn't seem realistic or practical, at all.

"I'm gonna keep this dangerous, unnecessary and hazardous item around my house incase I need to kill someone in defence of myself. Despite it being likely to do more harm than good. Despite me just saying it was a hazard....oh crap."

-AC

SlipknoT
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I wonder what is it with Americans and being paranid?

Is your media that bad, that you are so scared that you have to keep guns in your home, so that someone does not come into your house in the middle of the night and kill you?

If someone was going to come to your house in the middle of the night and rape you/kill you, they will do so regardless of wether you have a gun or not. There are two possibilities -

You either are keeping gun on the safe place, as supposed to, so by the time you run to get it - you'll be already dead, or you're not keeping a gun at the safe place, but near you, and thus if a mysterious murderer does not kill you in the middle of the night, an accident from your own ''protection'' will. Well not if your strapped at all times

Alpha Centauri
Hahahaha.

Ironic also how it's called the greatest nation on Earth by a large quantity of its inhabitants yet they feel so unsafe that they have to be "strapped at all times."

-AC

BackFire
"Is your media that bad, that you are so scared that you have to keep guns in your home, so that someone does not come into your house in the middle of the night and kill you?"

Yes! Our media is horrible. If you turn on the news in America all you hear about are crimes, someone got raped in murdered, someone got robbed, some little girl got kidnapped, someone else got raped and murdered, possibly by the same guy as the first one. Of course, they try to even it up by having some sappy story about a doggy who was caught in a sewer and rescued by a brave man or something, but it just doesn't work. Next time you're in America, turn on the 10:00 news, fear is the main theme of almost every news broadcast.

I don't even watch the news, it's always the same shit. No point in watching it anymore. Except, of course, for the Daily Show, which is the best source of news in this country.

Afro Cheese
Yeah I don't watch the news either... the real news is too depressing and is really repetitive.

But, I wouldn't go and say that having a gun is most likely going to work to your disadvantage. If you know how to use it, in most cases it will help if there is a burglar in your house. If you are an adult who lives by themself, you can keep it somewhere fairly accessible and have time to grab it before the burglar finds it. As long as you're aware of the intruder before they are in your room, of course. If you're not, then you'd be screwed with or without a gun.

SlipknoT
Not if your bigger than the intruder

Alpha Centauri
I wonder if there will come a time in America where you just put the guns down.

Anyone? Surely it'd be a better world.

-AC

Capt_Fantastic
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I wonder if there will come a time in America where you just put the guns down.

Anyone? Surely it'd be a better world.

-AC

Yes. Once the LORD has returned to judge us where we stand, there will be no more need for guns. or violence. or independant thought.

Alpha Centauri
The "Lord"?

Which lord? I have many.

-AC

Capt_Fantastic
Why, our lord and savior Jesus Christ. The only real lord. Your lords are th edevil in disguise. Repent I say! REPENT!

Afro Cheese
Originally posted by SlipknoT
Not if your bigger than the intruder Assuming they came unarmed... which is unlikely.

I think that's the thing here. Normal people don't want to give up there guns because then people on the other side of law will still have them, and they don't want to be at a disadvantage.

Alpha Centauri
Then become a cop.

-AC

Afro Cheese
Cops don't even have guns in England, do they?

Alpha Centauri
Nope.

This gun crime death toll comparison is no coincidence.

-AC

Afro Cheese
Yeah but look at Canada, guns are legal there and they don't have the same problems we do..

IceWithin
I'd support gun control as long as

-u'd have to take a class on how to use guns, if u pass it u can use on if u dont u wont
-no criminal record
-above 21 years old

erm

SlipknoT
yea and they are less than 1/4 of our population

Afro Cheese
They still have huge cities like Toronto with much less murder and crime than US cities of the same size..

BullitNutz
Originally posted by IceWithin
I'd support gun control as long as

-u'd have to take a class on how to use guns, if u pass it u can use on if u dont u wont
-no criminal record
-above 21 years old

erm

I'd agree, but I still think that you can be 18 and use a firearm in a range with supervision. I'm not talking about someone just going there with you, but you have to have someone over, say, 25 in the lane with you. Of course, they would have to have taken said course.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
They still have huge cities like Toronto with much less murder and crime than US cities of the same size..

Well, nearly every country does. Remember, the US has the highest murder rate of any first-world country, IIRC.

Tex
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I can understand the theory but it doesn't seem realistic or practical, at all.

"I'm gonna keep this dangerous, unnecessary and hazardous item around my house incase I need to kill someone in defence of myself. Despite it being likely to do more harm than good. Despite me just saying it was a hazard....oh crap."

-AC

Guns are only as dangerous and hazardous as their owners.
Which in my case would be very minute.

A risk and responsibility I'm willing to accept for my piece of mind and security.

In America we should be more focused on stopping the social circumstances that lead to violent crime (poverty, abuse, drugs etc) as opposed to blaming the tools used to commit those crimes.

BullitNutz
Originally posted by Tex
In America we should be more focused on stopping the social circumstances that lead to violent crime (poverty, abuse, drugs etc) as opposed to blaming the tools used to commit those crimes.

Though we should be, we sure as hell aren't. That's for damn sure.

But then again, last time government in the US was forcing citizens into poverty (Reagan, Ford, and G. W. Bush administrations notwithstanding) the citizens picked up their muskets and fixed that. But then again, we weren't quite the US back then. Well, maybe we were. It was a transitional period.

Next Venom_girl
"Is using both hands" lol
* * *
But seriously.
Didja hear? Nevada law has recently been changed so that one no longer needs to have their life threatened to justify killing someone. So "He looked at me funny" is now a valid reason under law? Must be fun driving *hums Bad Habit by The Offspring*

Remember that's the same state that has like no gun control laws and drive-through bars.

Moral of the story: If you want to kill someone. Remember, what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas. gun_bandana

BullitNutz
Same thing all ofer the US though.... we're pretty much returning to vigilante justice at a societal, as opposed to a governmental, level now. Sad, really.

sal9000
I am for gun control: use both hands !

lil bitchiness
So let me get this straight -

You need a gun for your own protection and peace of mind if someone attacks you, or brakes in your house or similar.

Ok, so why have Justice System in the first place? Why not have everyone in America just get a gun and takes care of their own problems with the gun.

Its a very tribal system - I don;t actually know why I am suprised about the Death Penalty still being practiced in America, nor the fact that America is the 4th country in the world in executing people - just behind China, Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Your justice system and your laws are reflecting your culture - which is extreamly violent.

Alpha Centauri
It's still not making any sense.

You acknowledge that it's an ADDED risk and responsibility that gives you peace of mind.

If you see someone lurking in your house and flip out from panic, pulling the trigger is the same as if a killer pulled it. It doesn't matter how sane or calm you are normally.

-AC

lil bitchiness
And when have I argued othehrwise?

Alpha Centauri
And when did I specifically address you in the above post? smile

-AC

lil bitchiness
When you postd right after me and said

''It's still not making any sense.

You acknowledge that it's an ADDED risk and responsibility that gives you peace of mind.''

I assumed you're talking to me as you didn't quote anyone else.

Alpha Centauri
I would have quoted you or wrote your name if I was referring to you.

Unless of course, despite us agreeing every step of the way, you believed I had ignored it or something.

No harm, no foul.

-AC

The Omega

lil bitchiness
15 Children a day die from hand gun accidents in America.

Alpha Centauri
They don't call her Milla for nothing.

It happens to be her name.

She's well smart also though smile.

-AC

The Dark Cloud
Given how little attention this issue has gotten in the wake of the Arizona shootings I thought I'd bump this old thread

The Dark Cloud
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
15 Children a day die from hand gun accidents in America.

How many die from abortion, drug addicted mothers, car crashes....etc?

The Dark Cloud
Originally posted by Next Venom_girl
Nevada law has recently been changed so that one no longer needs to have their life threatened to justify killing someone. ]

As a gun owner with a conceal carry permit who's lived in Nevada for nearly 26 years i can say that this statement is false.

Symmetric Chaos
Mostly legal but with regulation:

Licensing, registration, and proof of competency in their use just as there is with cars do. Fully automatic weapons present more danger to bystanders than the target and should be banned from civilian use. Anti-tank weapons and machine guns should similarly be banned.

The Dark Cloud
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Mostly legal but with regulation:

Licensing, registration, and proof of competency in their use just as there is with cars do.

I agree with this







Disagree. when was the last time someone was murdered with an anti tank gun? Even killings with semi automatic rifles is extremely rare. The overwhelming majority of gun violence is committed with small calibre handguns

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
Disagree. when was the last time someone was murdered with an anti tank gun? Even killings with semi automatic rifles is extremely rare. The overwhelming majority of gun violence is committed with small calibre handguns

The way I see it there are three legitimate reasons to own a weapon: self defense, target shooting, hunting/pest control

These are the benefits of ownership. We cannot ignore that there are also attendant risks (accidents and deliberate misuse). For a rifle or handgun I don't think they're large enough to negate the benefits. For a LAW or SAM or nuke the risks of collateral damage far outweigh the benefits, the fact that civilians are rarely use them to kill people is irrelevant.

Automatic weapons also raise the risks without raising benefits to compensate. Because of this I believe they should be banned. Besides if you're life frequently involves suppressive fire I assume you know enough about guns to sit down for ten minutes and change the weapon's action.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The way I see it there are three legitimate reasons to own a weapon: self defense, target shooting, hunting/pest control

And the most important reason of all: Zombie Apocolypse!

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
These are the benefits of ownership. We cannot ignore that there are also attendant risks (accidents and deliberate misuse). For a rifle or handgun I don't think they're large enough to negate the benefits. For a LAW or SAM or nuke the risks of collateral damage far outweigh the benefits, the fact that civilians are rarely use them to kill people is irrelevant.

Automatic weapons also raise the risks without raising benefits to compensate. Because of this I believe they should be banned. Besides if you're life frequently involves suppressive fire I assume you know enough about guns to sit down for ten minutes and change the weapon's action.

Agreed. Well put. That's pretty much my sentiments, as well.

King Kandy
Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
How many die from abortion, drug addicted mothers, car crashes....etc?
Hmm... you're right, we can in no way fix more than one problem at once.

dadudemon
Originally posted by King Kandy
Hmm... you're right, we can in no way fix more than one problem at once.

How many children die, each day, from knives or other sharp objects?

Bardock42
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The way I see it there are three legitimate reasons to own a weapon: self defense, target shooting, hunting/pest control

These are the benefits of ownership. We cannot ignore that there are also attendant risks (accidents and deliberate misuse). For a rifle or handgun I don't think they're large enough to negate the benefits. For a LAW or SAM or nuke the risks of collateral damage far outweigh the benefits, the fact that civilians are rarely use them to kill people is irrelevant.

Automatic weapons also raise the risks without raising benefits to compensate. Because of this I believe they should be banned. Besides if you're life frequently involves suppressive fire I assume you know enough about guns to sit down for ten minutes and change the weapon's action.

Do you exclude collecting generally, or do you just think it's not an important reason?

Bardock42
Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
How many die from abortion..

None

Rogue Jedi
Originally posted by dadudemon
How many children die, each day, from knives or other sharp objects? 26,957.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Bardock42
Do you exclude collecting generally, or do you just think it's not an important reason?

I hadn't considered that. It seems like as legitimate a reason as target shooting. I suspect it may upset my preference for saying that people shouldn't be allowed to own automatic weapons (as some people might want historical accuracy but never shoot the guns at all).

Bardock42
I suppose there could be a weapon licence that authorizes you to buy any kind of weapon but not ammunition for all of them?

you get thorns
I find gun control extremely important. I was taught at a very young age to hit what I aim at.

Trollesque
Originally posted by Bardock42
None

Haha that thread was hilarious.

ADarksideJedi
I do not think that the goverment should take away everyone's guns.We should be allowed to have them if we want and if everyone's guns are taken away then it will be like Hitler when he took away everyone's guns away during world war two.

The Dark Cloud
Originally posted by Bardock42
None

I agree with you...but many would not

Grate the Vraya
If we made all guns illegal, then we would truly only be preventing law abiding citizens from being able to purchase them. Criminals would simply find another way to get ahold of them, just without government tax. So now, the law abiding citizens have no way to protect themselves unless they become very good at throwing knives, and the federal government is no longer able to tax the weaponry that the criminals purchase. It doesn't solve anything. It only creates more problems.

Quiero Mota
http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u55/WatchOut_02/gun_control_demotivator.jpg

Deja~vu
Originally posted by Grate the Vraya
If we made all guns illegal, then we would truly only be preventing law abiding citizens from being able to purchase them. Criminals would simply find another way to get ahold of them, just without government tax. So now, the law abiding citizens have no way to protect themselves unless they become very good at throwing knives, and the federal government is no longer able to tax the weaponry that the criminals purchase. It doesn't solve anything. It only creates more problems. You can buy guns on the black market anywhere here.

Deja~vu
Originally posted by dadudemon
How many children die, each day, from knives or other sharp objects? And don't forget fast foods.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
26,957.

Actually, I think you're right. The only thing I could find was a vague rounded stat that said "30,000."

So more people die from knifing incidents than they do guns or am I mistaken about that?


Regardless, that's WAAAAAAAAY too many deaths. We need to have tons of knife control: if we take away most guns, the knifing incidents would skyrocket to fill the void (hai2u, Glasgow). But, is that even reasonable? Like someone pointed out, the US peeps seem to be more violent, in general, than other nations.

Deja~vu
Not to make any excuses for people, but one of the reasons that people here commit crimes are because of the background checks. People that have any felonies and now misdemeanors are denied jobs. Also, they run your credit. They figure that if you don't pay your bills, then you aren't a responsible person, whether or not the whole state is filing bankruptcy. So, when the cream of the crop gets the only jobs, the others are left feeling hopeless and angry. There are also people here committing federal crimes instead of state crimes knowing that the federal prisons have better food, a place to sleep and you can spend some time outside. The county jails have mold on the food, are over crowded and you never get to go outside.

I've worked in the legal system and have talked to many people on both sides of the fence and it is so depressing to see it all.

When people have nothing and have nothing to lose and you mix that with anger and low self esteem you get a dangerous mix. Guns talk real well in those instances unfortunately.

RE: Blaxican
I'm pretty sure America's so violent because our country is made up of minorities.

Rogue Jedi
Originally posted by dadudemon
Actually, I think you're right. The only thing I could find was a vague rounded stat that said "30,000."

So more people die from knifing incidents than they do guns or am I mistaken about that?


Regardless, that's WAAAAAAAAY too many deaths. We need to have tons of knife control: if we take away most guns, the knifing incidents would skyrocket to fill the void (hai2u, Glasgow). But, is that even reasonable? Like someone pointed out, the US peeps seem to be more violent, in general, than other nations. My guess was a stab in the dark.


Get it?

dadudemon
Originally posted by Deja~vu
Not to make any excuses for people, but one of the reasons that people here commit crimes are because of the background checks. People that have any felonies and now misdemeanors are denied jobs. Also, they run your credit. They figure that if you don't pay your bills, then you aren't a responsible person, whether or not the whole state is filing bankruptcy. So, when the cream of the crop gets the only jobs, the others are left feeling hopeless and angry. There are also people here committing federal crimes instead of state crimes knowing that the federal prisons have better food, a place to sleep and you can spend some time outside. The county jails have mold on the food, are over crowded and you never get to go outside.

I've worked in the legal system and have talked to many people on both sides of the fence and it is so depressing to see it all.

When people have nothing and have nothing to lose and you mix that with anger and low self esteem you get a dangerous mix. Guns talk real well in those instances unfortunately.

People with really bad credit are denied because they are, supposedly, much more likely to commit a violent crime with a weapon.


I would like to see a study to back that up, though. Hearing about and knowing about it are two different things.

Deja~vu
You need to spend some time in our court rooms to really see what's going on. I'm not going to do any research for you because it's all over the TV, Papers and all you have to do is talk to anyone in Michigan.

BTW, 3 of anything is a felony. 3 speeding tickets is one too...I guess that would make you a violent person.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.