Thoughts On Gun Control?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

No arguments here.

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.

Before the shootings, Harris and Klebold illegally acquired and drastically modified a TEC-DC9 semi-automatic handgun, a rifle, two sawed-off shotguns, and built 99 improvised explosive devices of various designs and sizes. Even before the massacre began, the two perpetrators committed numerous felony violations of state and federal law, including the National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act of 1968.

All four guns were illegally obtained by straw purchases. Robyn Anderson bought the rifle and two shotguns for Harris and Klebold, but was never charged for her violations of federal gun laws. Mark Manes and Philip Duran were found guilty of supplying the handgun to the two youths and received prison terms.

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.

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.

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.

What about the Swiss?

Originally posted by Echuu
What about the Swiss?

What about the Swiss?

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.

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

Lower than the States would you believe?

-AC

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.

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

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..

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.