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