Thoughts On Gun Control?

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 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

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.

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

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.

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...

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.

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 🙂

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 🙂

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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

Well you guys are very friendly.JM 🙄 😆

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.

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

The Snowdrop Campaign was founded after the Dunblane Massacre in March 1996 to call for major restrictions on the ownership and use of handguns in the United Kingdom. Founded by friends of the bereaved families and so called because because March is snowdrop time in Scotland, it successfully gained over 705,000 signatures to a petition within 6 weeks. A parallel petition by shooting organisations against any tightening of the law gained less than a tenth this number of signatures over a longer period.

Following presentation of the petition and a notable speech by one of the founders, Mrs Ann Pearson, to the 1996 Labour Party conference, the new 1997 Labour government of Tony Blair passed laws for a near-total UK-wide ban on handguns.

The petition was also notable for being perhaps one of the first campaigns to make extensive use of the internet for distributing material. Extensive use of the then relatively new medium of email allowed the petition to be rapidly distributed as a Word document widely across the UK. Because of slight differences in the layout of the internet and photocopied forms used the organisers were able to estimate that between a quarter and a third of all forms had been sent by email at some point.

5 Aims of the Petition

That recreational firearms be removed from peoples homes and communities and that the weapons of rapid destruction be banned from private ownership.

Specifically -"That the law relating to the ownership and usage of firearms be introduced or amended such that:-

1 - All firearms held for recreational purposes for use in authorised sporting clubs be held securely at such clubs with the firing mechanisms removed. 2 - The private ownership of handguns be made illegal. 3 - Certification of all firearms be subject to stricter control.

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!

gun control is bad