Is it just me, or weren't we a hell of a lot more brutal toward each other when we only had sharp things to kill each other with?

That's totally not what I meant to imply in my post.

I was criticizing the argument that "law-abiding citizens" should have a right to bear firearms. Of course, every criminal was a law-abiding citizen before he became a criminal. Because frankly, if a firearm is used to inflict lethal injury, it's usually a crime; thus the perpetrator becomes a criminal. I might also add that "criminals" are usually kept in prisons and don't even have a chance to fire a gun in the first place.

However, this seems to be a concept unfamiliar with people living in a black and white world with no color inbetween.

"Just hand out guns to us fine folks. Only a criminal would abuse a gun." -__-

I am not what you call 'anti-gun' but I find that a lot of them get into the wrong hands. In America, more people die from gun-related violence a year then a few hurricane seasons.
The media always has news of a gun murder here and there and it keeps people in fear that someone is gonna bust into their home and shoot them, so they take the right to bear arms seriously and get a gun. The shoot-first law in Florida is just creepy… real criminals now have a easy loop hole to jump through to get out of jail time, they can shoot a random person and say that he/she where attacking or threatening them.

I hardly ‘ever’ heard of someone getting shot here in my province. Everyone in my family have shot-guns. We keep them in a closet in the basement unloaded, and are only taken out in hunting seasons like moose or sealing. The same story can be heard across Canada.

I guess what I am trying to say is… why do Americans love guns so much and why are they always shooting each other? Gun murders are on the rise in Toronto, and most of the guns involved where smuggled from the states.

[QUOTE=lordjames]Is this supposed to be witty? And why the fuck are you capping words that have no business being capped?[quote]

Well, sir, if you can't provide conclusive proof that my use of allcaps is harming anyone, I am compelled to continue. After all, asking someone to stop doing something just because it's stupid and pointless is a completely unreasonable way to behave.


Really? You're new to this critical-thinking thing, aren't you. See, to me, this is the awesome thing, the sticking point. To me, a criminal is somehow who commits a crime. I've committed crimes in my life; I am therefore by definition a criminal. Whereas for the gun-club crowd, a "criminal" is a separate class entirely, one which necessarily excludes them. Criminals are something vile, which lurks on the periphery of one's vision, stalking your every footstep. It's difficult for me to comprehend a worldview where criminality is viewed not as a behavior but as a racial trait, but there it is. The fun part comes along when your teenage kid steals the gun in order to mug somebody for drug money. Hey-ho, preventin' the criiiiiiimes.

I mean, are you nuts? Nearly everyone is a criminal of some kind. Police departments wouldn't be able to get their funding without the guarantee that most people will try to bypass the speed limit. All you're doing is drawing an arbitrary line in the sand regarding which forms of criminality are more icky than others.

Cars have an intended nondangerous purpose. And do strings, and knives, and red balloons, and cuckoo clocks. The only nondangerous functions of a gun are "sport shooting" (AKA killing things you probably don't intend to eat, you know, for kicks) and target shooting, which is hard to fathom as anything beyond a kind of frustrated practice for the "real thing". I mean, if you guys really think it's so hot to make holes in things, I have this awesome new invention to show you! It's called the electric drill, and—

Of course I don't *know* that, neither side of the debate can prove a thing.

But you are honestly saying that less guns would not result in less people getting hurt, because it's just an asinine theory that it would reduce such incidents?

How many kids shoot themselves or someone else by accident each year, using a firearm which is owned by their upstanding citizen parent? Let's say this figure is 1. Is it really completely unreasonable, and ass-backwards to believe that the odds are lessend for this situation if there wasn't a gun in the house?

Would the kid instead be guaranteed to go out and find one of Manis Tricuspis' criminals. Have them sell a black market gun, and then accidentally shoot someone? Or would they make their own gun, then accidentally shoot someone? Which one of these scenarios is the one that would neccessarily occur in order to keep the number of incidents at least as high as the year before gun regulation?

You do see that both sides of the issue make their assumptions based on little-to-nothing, and then just tell the other side to put up or shut up right?

I would dare say, though, that people making their own guns with primitive machinery would increase the occurence of firearm accidents. =)

I'm not sure if that's at all what people are saying. I mean, I'm not Gumby or David, after all. The argument in regards to gun registry, though, is based on its actual effectiveness in regards to law enforcement. I mean, with no fool-proof way to track any firearm made, it's impossible to know who has an unregistered firearm. I suppose we could "audit" people on their firearms possession, but that would be an illegal search of property. Then again, the judge would already be on the side of the agency.

The other problem with gun control, is that from a practical standpoint, it doesn't make a lick of sense. How can you honestly determine what lead-spewing pipe is more dangerous than the next lead-spewing pipe?

The last gun ban bill that wasn't renewed was based on gun aesthetics as opposed to any measure of lethality. Of course, if it would be based on terms of lethality, you'd have to settle for an acceptable "lethality threshold." So if everyone can, say, only own a .22, there's no real point in possessing a right to bear arms, and if you draw the line at hunting weapons, you've still got high-powered rifles and shotguns.

That's what I found to be so hilarious in "Bowling For Columbine", you Canadians being armed to the teeth as well but with far less gun related crime. It has to come down to an attitude problem on the (US) Amercians' part, doesen't it?

At least in my area of the country the majority (90+%) of violent crimes with a gun are committed by people who are into a number of other things that are less than legal, drugs and gangs being two examples.

I get the feeling you care more about reducing criminal violence figures than actually bringing about a further degree of community safety.

Either that or you're merely pissed you mightn't be able to go quail hunting with an M60 because democracies have this niggly habit of legislating for majorities.

Yeah I like the way the pro gun lobby automatically assumed Bowling for Columbine is some pro gun controls movie when the Canadian example goes on to prove that it's not. But then again rarely are gun owners smart enough to have deductive reasoning.

Like i said, gun/weapons are the devils work. The world doesnt need them, " For they are one of the roots to destruction - $Till LegendaryU2K "

Now of course there are other reasons why we dont need guns, another reason. Well when the government goes out thier way to spend billions of dollars on weapons instead of using that money to end poverty, something is serious wrong and as always mankind is foolish in all of thier ways.

Guns are for the weak - Untouchable2K

Can we spend a few billion dollars on swords, though? Because, I mean, they're pretty fucking cool.

Ugh, first of all, comparing crime rates based on a country's gun-laws is ludicrous, because you completely ignore other contributing factors. Culture has a lot to do with it, I will agree that Americans have a much more violent culture than most European countries, however, I won't say that it's because we have "loose" gun-laws. Though I would make an argument for the converse.

On the other hand, saying that you want to own a weapon for self-defense is also kind of lame. First of all, you're bringing a tool used for the killing of living things, and at the very least this tool will cause serious injury. This is a risk factor to your family in and of itself. Secondly, I don't know of many home invasion robberies that happen while the victims are at home. Criminals are generally opportunists, their object is to get what they want with as little risk or effort on their part as possible.

The other argument is that other tools we use everyday are dangerous as well and some people have equally dangerous hobbies. I'll agree with that, but it doesn't necessarily justify the case, either.

I don't particularly care myself whether my neighbor owns a gun or not. As long as he doesn't point it at me.

Ultimately, yes, criminals commit crimes. That's why they're criminals. Gun control laws aren't going to completely eliminate gun-violence either, because there's always a way to procure items illegally. Drugs are illegal, but they're pretty damned prolific. Even in countries with tough gun control laws, there are still crimes committed with guns, if it were as simple as eliminating them from the retail market (hoping that this would eliminate the street availability of guns), then why are there still crimes committed with guns in countries like Japan?

Of course, I don't think I really have to explain the concept behind escalation and such. Paranoia breeds a sense of need, people procure arms both legally and illegally.

Really, the problem isn't with guns, it's with the violent nature of humans. Murder and other violent crimes can still happen without guns. Stabbing someone is a lot more difficult than shooting someone (assuming you can properly aim the weapon to begin with), but that doesn't seem to stop people form committing murder with knives.

To be honest, I don't really see why you need fully automatic weapons for home defense. If you lay down that much firepower, inside of your home, or on your property, there isn't going to be much left assuming you're successful in stopping the intrusion.

Then again, most crime isn't committed with fully-automatic weapons like you see in the movies, they're too expensive to purchase and maintain (rounds, required maintenance, etc).

Pistols, yeah, they're lethal but they're certainly more practical for home defense than shotguns or rifles. I don't understand the need to hunt with guns, there are many other ways to hunt animals, but then again, I do know that there is a necessity for keeping away mountain lions and such away from your home.

I don't have a big problem with current gun control laws, it keeps honest people honest.

I once worked for a company that designed and manufactured scopes for handguns and rifles. Naturally, the company is very pro-NRA, simply because outlawing guns hurts their business.

On a realistic side, I'm pro-freedom to defend oneself, and pro-freedom to hunt. And yes, this includes firearms. Now, I'm not going to bring-up questions about rights and all that political crap. Rather, I'm going to point this out in a realistic light.

Do you need a gun to defend yourself? No, you can also always take Judo. Do you need a gun to hunt? No, and there are several bows on the market arguably more accurate than many firearms. However, let's look at the issue like this:

Why shouldn't guns be legal?

The most importand, and most voice opinion/reason, is that they are too dangerous. Let's face it: So are automobiles.

Which is where my solution comes into play. Why have a manditory 3-day waiting period for owning a gun? To keep you from killing someone in "the heat of the moment", background checks, etc. So why is that all you need to do to obtain a gun?

Requre all prospective gun owners, all current gun owners, and the immediate family members of gun owners/pgo's to take gun safety classes. Familiarize people with their gun. Teach people that they are not toys. Have professionals demonstrate exactly what a gun can do to a person. Seeing someones' head shot on TV is one thing; seeing a manniquins' head full of tapioca pudding and ketchup get shot is quite the other. Teach people how to use their gun.

Granted, this won't keep criminals from getting a gun, nor will it hinder those who REALLY want a gun. Especially since I am completely against a national registry for gun owners (Poland, anyone?). However, it WILL teach normally honest kids that the gun they want to show off isn't a plaything. It will teach responsibility. And it would lower the accidental shooting rates in America.

This is what my old company did. They sponsored people coming to to teach gun safety classes, and they encouraged us to bring in our own guns to learn how they work (and provided guns should we not actually own one). They taught us the parts, how they work, how to clean and care for them. How to hold them (there are lots of stances). How to target. How to shoot properly, and where to aim if you eve point a gun at a person in self defense. That if you point a gun at someone, you better be ready to shoot them, and not using the gun for anything but your last option.

And yes, I do say that I'm quite proud to be one of the best shots in that company's history, having hit a simulated (steel) duck head at fifty feet with a semi-auto pistol 8 out of 9 shots on average. The head, not the body (which is what we were supposed to be aiming at).

Now then, I also don't think ALL guns should be legal. Machine guns? Please, as if those are hunting guns. All they're good for "hunting" are people. Let's use a little common sense. I liked that Brady Bill...and it's a shame it wasn;t renewed while the Patriot Act was...but that's another barrel of fish.

And I'm not one who sees the sport or fun in shooting fish in a barrel.

Here are some points why US have the right to own a gun:

1.) To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.

2.)The advantage of being armed . . . the Americans possess over the people of all other nations . . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several ... [countries], which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.

3.)A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, should not be infringed.

By the way, these arguments are from the best minds of the political world.

If you're not going to read while on Internet then why even have a modem?

Dead Horse, how can there be required classes for all prospective and current gun owners if there is no structure with which to know who has, and does not have one? Without any kind of registry, there can be no way to enforce the course you suggest.

And who's going to pay for that?

Rikimaru, so all those other countries that aren't armed to the teeth don't have freedom? Or is it that they only have a little freedom which is soon to be lost?

Best minds in the political world (It's ever so difficult not to tack on a snide remark)? Who are these best minds? And what was used to back up those assertions?

Cal, Reading is for wimps. Real communication is not in the listening, but in the talking. ;p

Quoted for falsehood.

Libel is always a great way to start a thread. :rolleyes:

You need to stop stroking that gun, Bubba. You're scaring the girls away.

Double Post:
Culture, not history.

Double Post:
From the eighteenth century. When one of the wonders of the modern world was a shitting mechanical duck. Times change. You don't write with a quill anymore. And you don't need a gun to defend your house from King George.

I like how the "Times Change" argument has no bearing on national and home defense whatsoever.

If the British all of a sudden invaded the US, then yes, you would need a gun to defend your home. I don't know if any of you have taken a physics course, but it's fairly hard to stop a bullet with your fist. (contrary to what RAB would have us believe ;))

You fucking crack me up.

The British invading the U.S.... in the twenty first century. Puhlease.

My "Times Change" argument is pointed DIRECTLY at the "national defense" argument. It's just stupid. NEWS FLASH: America is the world's greatest superpower and has the world's most powerful military. Individual citizens DO NOT need weapons for national defense.

As for home defense, well you don't need a gun to protect your home in a country where the government doesn't allow the meth-head who's breaking in to buy a gun.

At least ArrowHead have any idea were I quoted those comes from.

For PUG, I got those from:
1.) Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights
2.)James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in his Federalist Paper No. 46
3.)Second Amendment to the Constitution
Here is the site, at the preface section: http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm

You know that King George is not only the threat, and that is not only the reason why second amendment was created. Let me emphasize the third point: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State ..."

Since the Bill of Rights are for the protection of the people and the states from the thing that they are creating, which was the Union, the second amendment gives the opportunity to check the big government. If you do not have any weapons, how can you and your state fight against the big federal government?

Admittedly, requiring all gun owners to take these classes will be difficult without a national gun registry. Which is why I added all prospective owners. If you want to purchase a gun, then you have to provide proof (certificate, what have you, etc.) of completing said courses.

And if you can afford to buy a gun, then you can afford to take the class(es)/pay for the class(es) yourself.

Even if you can't require current owners to take the classes, forcing new owners to take them will, over time, have the cumulative effect of the majority of lawful gun owners and immediate family taking the classes.

How is this a reason at all? Should the average joe be allowed to carry a gun because of this Militia thing you're talking about!?

It's happening in France as we speak - well, these people aren't exactly fighting a war, but they're actually doing a good job at bringing their message across and putting the government under considerable pressure - without guns.

To be honest, I don't see a lot of Americans protesting against their government. It's just not patriotic. You have no need for guns.

The Union which they were creating. Well it has been a long time now and anybody who isn't buying into a dozen conspiracies will tell you that there is no need to arm yourself against the federal government.