For or against?
 

OK since I am tired of catering to the weak arguments of some anti-gun idiots that are too fucking stupid to stay on topic in my firearms thread about what firearms the population of GFF would like to own we shall come here and listen to their argument in the proper place.

So are you for or against firearms and why? Maybe because someone told you to think that way or maybe because you just don't like others having the right to protect their family and home? Sooooo babble away with all the overdone arguments you want.

SEE DEVO IS A SANE PERSON!!! WHY CAN'T ALL THE ANTI-GUN NUTS UNDERSTAND THAT?!?

And those illegally obtained weapons wouldn't have been so readily available if they weren't bought and sold by people as a hobby.

I have no problem with firearms, but I don't see any sense in having one for 'protection' either. If you want to hunt, then fine. If you want to feel badass and know that you can shoot a burglar and have delusions about being a hero-in-waiting, then that's something I don't relate to.

The strangest thing about the subject in my view is how adamant people are that they just need to have guns, lots of guns. And big f'n guns too. I mean, the logic gets lost along the way pretty quickly from where I'm sitting. But I guess it's always hard to explain the draw of penis enhancing purchases.

But I love your opening post. If I'm not pro-gun, then it's really just that I want to endanger your family and infringe on your rights. I mean, yeah, that's why people do things, just to piss off another group.

I personally can not think of many situations where having a gun is necessary or safe. Can someone enlighten me?

Pistol? Sure.
Shotgun? I can see it.
Hunting Rifle? Why not.

Assault Rifle? RPG? You can all go to hell unless I'm allowed to build myself a nuclear power plant and/or bomb.

It all comes down to differences in opinion, really.

If you don't want a gun, don't have one. If you want a gun, then you have the legal right to own one.

We have that freedom here in the United States. That some people think it's unnecessary for people to own firearms is fucking irrelevant. Rights don't exist until you decide that they aren't necessary anymore.

I don't think "freedom" counts as a valid argument. If I had true freedom I could smoke a burner at the bus stop while fucking a girl in the face in front of a cop, but I can't do that! Well, I can, if I want to go to jail.

That said, any given right can begin or end where a law does. Because of that, there at least should be more reasoning to behind why one does have the right to own a lethal weapon besides, "because of freedom".

Your argument falls because of this:

Me owning a firearm does not in any way, shape, or form infringe upon your rights or freedoms. Unless I use that firearm against you, it likely never will.

There is a fundamental difference between owning a firearm and what the hell you're talking about.

Do any of you actually live in dangerous neighbourhoods?

Don't piss out with 'irrelevant'.

Dude, sit down, relax and drink some shampoo. One fine day, even you will figure out the obvious: Why's there so much crime in the States? Because every fucking person is allowed to own a gun. You know, not everyone who pretends to use it "for self-defense" only uses it only for that.

My thoughts exactly.

In fact, they wouldn't even need to steal them or smuggle them in, they could just make their own if they really wanted to. It's not that difficult to make a firearm, some in fact are VERY simple (single-shot weapons for example).

See above. If somebody wants a gun badly enough, they can get one, illegal or not...

It has nothing to do with being a "hero". Simple fact is, when you call the cops, it takes them time to get to you. It maybe be 5 or 10 min before the police arrive. Alot of shit can go down in that time. I for one don't want to be left helpless while I await the arrival of law enforcement...

Isn't that the case though?

Guns are no more dangerous than anything else in these modern times. Cars are a great example. They're big and dangerous, yet everyone has them and 99% of the people who drive them manage not to kill anyone. It's the same with firearms, yes bad things can happen if you're stupid with them, but 99% of gun owners are very safe, responsible people.

As far as necessity, well the odds of someone ever having to use their gun are pretty small (maybe 1 in 500?). However, you don't know if you'll be that one guy that needs it untill the shit hits the fan. Therefore I argue it's better to have one, just to be prepared. It's like having airbags in your car... you'll probably never need them, but if you ever do you'll be glad they are there...

True, and thats why I think drugs should be legalized (maybe not the really hardcore drugs). It's not fair to punish everyone because a few people do stupid things. I think it's very hypocritcal (spelling?) that we as a society say it's okay to get drunk but it's not ok to get high. This is, however, a totally different subject...

There are plenty of reasons why a responsible citizen would want a firearm. Self defense and hunting being the main ones, but there are others, such as collecting historic firearms or target shooting...

Very good point. How does my owning a gun harm you? It doesn't...

EDIT:

About the question "why is there so much crime in the US"... Before you open that can of worms, you might want to do some research... the US crime rate has been going steadily DOWN for many years now... while it remains high in countrys where firearms are illegal (such as the UK)...

Again, what the fuck? How often does the average American expect to have to deal with law enforcement authorities in their lifetime?

Say the right wasn't enshrined in a bill and a buyback scheme (SHOCK) was doing the rounds in congress? Is this argument really as piss-weak as I think it is, or is defence of person and property actually an everyday problem in your country?

That's cool, that's cool... I mean you know if you're starting like that, I don't really know what to say; it's not like because the crime rate has been going steadily DOWN, it makes the States a safer place to live. There's still almost as much crime as in all European countries together.

I don't think it's so much the guns, it's the paranoia the masses are deliberatly kept under by mass media and politicians. Scared people will easier do your bidding, i.e. consume or approve of certain things. So of course you feed them an endless line of ominpresent terrorism, crime, video game inspired amok kids, satanic metal, cholesterol... naturally they will all want a gun (or other weird things).

Some interesting facts I found in about 30 seconds by doing a google search of "US crime rate":

From the Department of Justice:

From the FBI:

Yet, when I do another search of "UK crime rate", I see things like this:

From the BBC:

I actually had a hard time finding any offical data on the UKs crime rate... the best I could come up with were newspaper articals like the one I quoted above.

So what is my point in all this? My point is that banning guns isn't going to prevent crime. The reverse is also true, legal gun ownership isn't going to increase crime. Therefore, if you're arugment is "baning guns will stop crime", I'd say it's a weak argument...

The following two paragraphs came first and second in the "worst analogy of all time" contest I've been running.
Cars are built with a primary purpose: moveing you around. They have been adapted for other uses like ram raiding bottlestores and running over your ex girlfriend.
Gun are also built for a primary purpose: killing humans! Other uses since discrovered include: oh wait none, guns are only good at destroying life.

Owning a gun is not at all like airbags in you car.
Airbags are there so that in the case of an accident they will cushion you and save you life.
People carry guns just incase they have to KILL SOMEONE.

But the classic stupidity came from Night Pheonix
Wait wait wait let's have a look here. Eleos argument fails because GUNS don't infringe on other people freedoms except when they're shooting bullets at you.

Eleo complained that you couldn't get high and fuck in public. Who's freedoms do those impose on?

I'm sick of this protecting my house and family line too. News: unarmed people don't get shot at. So people come invade your home, big deal. they take your stuff, you call the cops, the cops catch them and insurance replaces all your valubles. Drama over. Would you prefer to have a leathal gun battle in your own home? Fuck your pride.

I love how partisan politics can turn a complex issue like firearm control into such inane "FOR" or "AGAINST" options. Really helps to reinforce that whole "YOU'RE WITH US, OR YOU'RE WITH THE TERRORISTS" mentality.

That being said, I'm all for the ownership of pistols/rifles/shotguns. However I don't think you should be allowed to buy assault rifles such as an AK-47 publicly without at the very least a through background check. If at all. Do you really need a AK for duck hunting? Isn't that over doing the whole "protection" issue just a tad? Just who are you "protecting" yourself from that requires that much firepower?

Why is everyone so damn paranoid about being maimed/shot/killed anyway? Comparing the murder/suicide rates can only lead to one plausible conclusion. The biggest threat to your life is yourself. Or dying in a car accident. Not terrorists, not communists, not even criminals. But you! Be afraid!

That was probably the sanest and most non-belligerent thing that got said in this thread. Congrats! :) *edit* oops guess not had to read some posts beyond yours. */edit!*

I recommend you try a legal challenge for your 2nd amendment rights to nuclear arms! I mean all you need is a little plutonium right?

*edit*
I call bullshit on that. Cars can be used for multiple purposes. Most cars have 15 gallon tanks. Five gallons of gasoline is equal to about a stick of TNT. You can legally buy as much of that substance as you want for your bomb building pleasure! Don't think it's possible? Learn a little chemistry. Yet most accidents involving cars are accidents no? You're sitting on such destructive firepower... and it's usually a accident when fatalities occur.

Quit being so paranoid.

So at the very least - neither of those things infringe on people's freedoms. Still doesn't make me any less right.

This lets me know you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

You know what? If you feel fine with just letting someone run through your house, more power to you. But there are those of us who feel the need to, have the ability to, and will defend their home with lethal force and the law allows us to do so. Don't like it? Doesn't matter. If it isn't you who is getting hit in the chest with that .45 I keep by my bed because you decided you wanted to play thief in the night, why do you even give a fuck?

So basically your ethics are defined more or less by what is and isn't legally sanctioned and you value your HDTV more than human life.

OK

Ethics would indicate NOT to come into my home when I am there to rob it or do harm to me. So don't use ethics when it comes to criminals CAL, it doesn't work. They will never abide by our laws or any set of reasoning other than they want what you have and will take it from you by force. Ever wonder why police are armed at all times? For their protection, the same reason why I have firearms in my home. I hope I never have to use them but in the off chance I do, I know that my family and I will be save. CAL if you think I give one bit of damn for that piece of shit would tried to hurt my family you are a fool.

Ok, first of all, knowing that one crime rate is going down, and the other going up doesn't say anything about how big they are in relationship to each other. Also, try to do some more research on what kind of crimes you are talking about, not all involve guns.

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/810522.stm, they are talking about a report saying that Britain is more violent than the USA (it's from 2000, but I didn't have the time to search for more recent figures):

I believe these figures do show quite clearly that making gun-ownership legal is a bad idea.

Some people are not interested in harming or killing anyone. Poverty leads to desparation, but not necessarily to homicidal tendancies. There's a good chance that the guy who is stealing your stuff has a hard time getting by in life and just needs to make a quick buck for whatever reason.

I'm not saying it's right for him to do that, but he doesn't deserve to die.

And I actually agree with you on that point, Minion, but ONLY if he chooses to wait until there's nobody home before coming in to steal my stuff. I'm not going to kill anyone over material things. However, if he comes into my house while I'm obviously there, the crime changes from a "burglary" to a "home invasion."

Wiki "home invasion" if you want. Do a little research on some other websites, as well. The general consensus (backed up by statistics) is that when someone breaks into your home and does it despite of or because of the fact that you're in it, they've come to harm you - not to steal your crap.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I hear about home invasions at least once a month in my area, and they often involve a rape or battery. Also, as I stated in the other thread, I have children at home who I will protect whether the bleedinghearts like it or not.

Yes, but Alice, since you mention statistics, one has to wonder if, statistically speaking, your children are safer with the gun (which they could accidentally kill themselves with) or without the gun (how likely are you to be the victim of a home invasion)?

That's true, but I take common-sense precautions with my gun. It's hidden, for one thing, and never stored loaded (although the clip is hidden in a separate area of the same room). Also, my kids know better than to ever touch the gun, even if they were able to find it, which is highly doubtful.

I do hear about kids finding guns and accidentally shooting each other, and I agree that it's definitely a risk. I guess it's up to each individual whether they feel that their children are more likely to be harmed by an intruder or by an accidental shooting.

I know that my kids have been taught gun responsibility. I trust them not to snoop around in my room and find my gun and play with it MUCH more than I trust the crazies in my area not to come in and harm me or my children.

So why was my post deleted? It was a cynical argument, yeah, but still an argument.

I don't see why my contribution to this thread warrants deletion while this

is considered to be fine.

I'm just wondering. Do you suppose the crimes in your area are random crimes or are they perhaps more often premeditated crimes with specific targets? In other words, would you really get screwed with if you didn't screw with anyone?

Hmm...maybe not. And if I didn't have kids I might risk it, you know, for the sake of scientific research.

Heh, I'm just saying. Because around here, I've sometimes considered walking around with a baseball bat just to deter possible assailants, but I would think that in the boonies, if someone takes the effort to travel all the way to your house, they must at least know you and if they liked you, well, they'd probably find someone else to rob.

But Minion, what if someone followed me home to rape me? Is that such a stretch? Lots of people in my area know that my husband has been deployed for a while, and even if they didn't, it's not all that unheard of for some insane rapist to follow a woman home and rape and sometimes kill her.

Although I will admit that we've had this gun since we first got married. Also, I was raised in a home with guns, so it's something I don't even think about. It just seems like the logical thing to do to have a gun in your home for protection.

I've been poor and homeless before, Minion, so don't give me shit. There are places you can get a warm bed at night and a hot meal in the day. Besides the fact that there are many food banks (churches) that offer free food to the poor when they can't afford to feed themselves. So I consider what you said be an excuse, something I will not accept as a reason why they are stealing my possessions .

This isn't to say I am just going to shoot someone for stepping into my home illegally. The only time it is justifiable to shoot an intruder is if they are attacking you or point a firearm at you. Otherwise I'd just corner the guy and make him lay down on his face while I hog tie him at gun point while I wait for the cops to show up and take this person away.

Rock: I don't know what you are talking about your post being deleted...

Well okay. Do you keep a gun in your glove compartment, too? You should, otherwise when you get out of the car, the guy will probably outrun you and rape you anyway.

The point is, yes, all this stuff happens. But then, a lot of things that we never prepare for are possible. What's the number 1 killer in this country? It's not thieves or rapists; it's heart failure. How many people (espeically in the South) do anything to prevent that? It's just a question of values. These people allegedly care so much about taking care of themselves, but ironically ignore the things that are most likely to kill them, like poor dieting and lack of exercise and smoking.

Double Post:
So, every homeless man's situation is exactly the same as yours and if you could handle it so could they? There are places where you can get food, but not enough of them and there are a lot of homeless people. Many of them die every year. Why is this, if it's so easy for them to take care of themselves?

Yeah well, Devolution, I am well aware of the fact that in total numbers, the United States of America has - surprisingly enough - a higher crime rate than the Vatican or Vanuatu... I was talking about the amount of crime per inhabitant, and that's a statistic you guys still rock.

Minion their situation doesn't have to be the same as mine, but just because they choose to be out there doesn't make it right for them to steal, nor will it make me feel any pity for these people when they try and steal my things. They made the decision to come into my home, they will pay the concequences of their actions for invading my home.

Yes you have a lot of urban centers especially in Central America :lolsign:

Look, the United States is like 25 times larger than Germany, but has only three times more inhabitants so what about you don't tell me anything about urbanity?

And don't even try to start with this ethnical shit, we have niggers and jews over here, too.

Right. People live in the streets and risk their lives stealing other people's junk because it's so much more glamorous than having a decent job and being able to afford things.

You didn't really answer my question. Why can't some of them get it together? Are there enough resources out there for ALL of the homeless in this country?

And this statement is helpful in which way?

Yeah, those roving Jewish street gangs are a big problem.

How big are the black populations in german cities? How about the meth problem among white trash Germans?

The crime problem isn't caused by guns, but they do increase it. Banning guns would be useless, as there are too many out there anyway. Better enforcing of the laws and actually keeping scum locked up and executing those who need it, in a timely fashion, would do more to lower the problem.

Instead of a background check on a gun buyer, it would sure be nice if there could be a test to determine the buyers dumbass quotion. No, I'm sorry, you are way to stupid to be buying a gun.

Because without guns people basically could not kill each other and would have no desire to do so anyway.

I'm still going by the logic that less guns mean less crime. How can you even refute this? I mean, criminals aren't exactly born as criminals and you can't really predict who becomes a criminal. It might just as well be this Gumby person who claims he needs a shitload of guns to "protect himself".

What kind of a stupid argument is saying that "criminals" will be getting their guns illegally nonetheless!? I'm willing to bet that most of these killings have been carried out with legally purchased and owned weaponry.

With more guns being publically available, the probability of abuse is much higher than in a society with strict gun control.

I wouldn't quite agree on the bit about the desire but there's a quote from Frank Miller that pretty much nailed the ramifications of a society with broad access to firearms:

"A gun is a coward's weapon, a liar's weapon. We kill too often because we made it too easy, sparing ourselves the mess and the work."

There's lots of black people, if that's what you mean.

And Central America has a significant crime problem. Jamaica, I believe, has only one urban center, yet they have one of the highest murder rates in the world.

The fact of the matter is that none of us are criminologists. Determining whether or not the presence of guns increases crime is impossible, yet we can statistically establish that an absence of guns does not eliminate crime, or criminal intent.

In fact, we've had crimes since we've had laws. Murders used to be commited primarily with knives and swords. Does the multiple use of a dagger justify its banning? Some ancient civilizations would say so, but now that we have guns, versatility is all of a sudden an important element.

And what of bows? You could use them to hang your dry-cleaning, but how many uses for them involved something outside of maiming and killing a human being?

Of course, in ancient times, "gun control" was a simple matter of production. Your average Joe didn't have access to a furnace, or advanced smithy. Nor could he even afford its products. Rebellion was practically impossible without monetary backing, or an industrial base, and those rebellions that succeeded were committed to the selfish wishes of individuals or oligarchies.

There was never really a true "People's Rebellion" until the advent of the gun. There have never been free societies before the gun. The gun, as they say, is the Great Equalizer, and the base threat of force it provides is what, I feel, makes the right to bear arms so important. It forces law to remain legitimate, it forces governments into serving their people.

Is owning an AK any different from owning a shotgun? Does a 30 round magazine make it any easier for me to kill people? What if I just carried a lot of guns?

Then again, I believe that criminalizing the possession of anything is ridiculous, since it's impossible to determine intent until use. I am, after all, some dumb Libertarian.

I suggest you do some research before you come back, you seem to be rather misinformed.

Minion: If you think people will not kill each other when there is a lack of firearms you are lacking a gasp of reality because if that were true countries that banned the use of firearms would have ZERO murders, but the simple fact is that isn't true.

Bradylama: I have a quote for you, since you seem to have your head screwed on straight. "An armed man is a citizen: an unarmed man is a subject." - Unknown

It's called a joke. I know it's confusing because I am arguing both sides (since I take issue with some points raised by both sides), but I thought my tone was pretty obviously sarcastic.

What if my aunt had balls... gah nevermind.

Alice, chances are really good that a gun won't help you prevent or stop a rape. Unless you pay attention to your surroundings, a rapist can approach you from behind and stick a knife to your throat. That's typically how rapes occur. At this point no gun is going to help you. What will help you is a little knowledge of self defense. Ask your husband for a little self defense training. They still teach all military recruits some basic Judo moves.

Rapists, like most criminals typically go easy targets. So don't make yourself an easy target yeah? Don't get caught out and alone late at night. Don't loiter around that dark alley. Finally, if you're caught in that situation don't scream "RAPE!" scream "FIRE!!!!" Somebody's more likely to come assist. It's as easy as that.

Last, a criminal following you home is just some paranoid fantasy out of a movie. Or a home security system commercial. Do you know which houses in your neighborhood contain guns? Probably not. Does a criminal? Definitely not. Why risk it if you're going after easy targets?


Yes. It's very different. Because at that point you now out-gun every law enforcement officer minus a SWAT team. Unlike the German Politzer who carries around SMGs, American police officers are inadequately equipped.

I can agree with you on your second point. But I'm a stupid libertarian too. :(

Actually I think the analogy is near perfect. Both Cars and Guns are mechanical devices that when used improperly or not treated with respect can become VERY deadly. There are millions of guns in this country. There are also millions of cars in this country. The funny thing is that more people die in car wrecks than in gun fights... so maybe we should outlaw private ownership of motor vehicles?

The airbag/handgun analogy isn't quite as good, but it's still works. Both can be life savers in an emergancy situation, both are something you hope you'll never need to use, but both are something good to have, just in case the worst should happen...

Thats funny, I use my guns for lots of things, other than killing people...

I call bullshit on this one.

Pride has nothing to do with it. What if Mr. Bad Guy wants more than just your TV? What if he wants to rape your girlfriend/wife/mom/sister/daughter? You have no idea why he's in your house, and giving him the benifit of the dout isn't too smart if you ask me...

I mentioned this in the firearms topic in general disscussion, but I'll say it again here. When you're out on the streets, using a gun to defend yourself should be your VERY LAST RESORT. You should run if possible and avoid confrontation. BUT, when someone breaks into your home, things change. You have to assume that the invader is out to harm you and your family. I wouldn't hesitate to kill a home invader, not for one second.

I think the AK-47 argument is a weak one. As others have pointed out, I can kill you just as dead with a pistol or a shotgun, so what differance does it make?

As for the background check, I agree with you, and in fact, to buy ANY gun, you do have to have a background check. There is a loop-hole in the law however that I feel needs to be closed: Used Guns. If I buy a gun, I have to have a background check. But say after a few years I decide to sell that gun, I can sell it to anyone without doing a backgrond check on them. I think you should have to prefrom a background check anytime a firearm changes ownership, not just when you buy one new from the dealers...

The goverment. I bet the Jews would have loved to have had AKs when the Nazis came knocking on their doors...

Because, sadly, in the real world bad things can happen to good people.

I'm talking about violent crime rate, that includes murder, assualt, and rape.

Also, I'm not sure I get your point. Are you saying that a crime has to involve a gun to be considered a crime? So it's okay if I kill you with bow or sword, but not a gun?

So what? Alot of people have a hard time, that doesn't mean it's okay to break into someones house.

Minion, you seem that think that criminals are really a bunch of nice guys at heart, that they're simply mis-understood. I don't buy that...

What are you trying to say here, that all gun owners are fat chain-smokers? LOL...

I'd like to see some actual numbers here. I don't think that the US has as high a crime rate per person as what most people seem to think it does...

I wish there were some sort of "gun education" in public schools. We teach kids how to be safe with sex, but not with guns... whats up with that?

I can only assume that you're joking... crime (including murder) has been around long before firearms...

I can refute that. It's simple. Guns don't cause crime. They are simple objects. Sometimes guns are used in crimes, but they are never the cause of the crime. I'm suprized that more people don't understand this...

Criminals, by definiton, don't obey the law. So what makes you think that they'll obey gun laws?

I believe that you are either justified in killing someone, or you aren't. The weapon that you use is irrelavlent...

Again, I don't understand this line of thought, that it's "honorable" to kill someone with a blade, but "cowardly" to do the same thing with a bullet... the end result is the same, so what differance does it make?

I agree, and I'm actually thinking about changing my offical political party to Libertarian myself, LOL...

I'm not sure if thats true or not, but if it is, it's very sad...

When I was in middle school they offered a gun safety coarse and at the end of it I received a gun safety card... before I left that middle school the program was coming to an end. This is what happens when you have people in charge of a school who are Anti-gun; the basics involved in using a firearm are not taught to our children.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

It is a bad thing. It's bad because kids that have no fucking idea what they're doing sometimes get their hands on guns. There'd be fewer "accidents" if kids were told how to properly handle a firearm...

Sometimes I'm still a little surprised at some things due to my not being from the US. Here it'd be laughable to teach kid's gun safety, or how to shoot etc. as a matter of course in public school. But apparently it's just the opposite wherever David and Gumby are..

On the subject of killing intruders because they are 'the bad guys': There are degrees to being a bad person or criminal. I think Minion's point is that just because someone will steal (bad), does not mean that they will rape/murder (more bad). So the argument that they *might* do worse than steal, so you ought to kill 'em, y'know, just in case, sounds a bit harsh to me. Shoplifters aren't executed for a reason, and so on.

On the subject of availability of firearms: Yeah, weapons are easily bought illegaly. My argument against this, is that if every joe sixpack didn't buy gun(s), then there would be a whole hell of a lot less made. A whole hell of a lot less stolen/lost/resold illegaly. Those illegaly obtained weapons have to come from somewhere, and they are only made because there is a legal demand for them.

On the subject of 'guns don't kill people': If you are in a confrontation, and someone pulls a weapon it escalates to situation. What might have been a fist fight turns into a killing. So one's response of carrying a weapon, and pulling it when they are 'in trouble' has a great chance of increasing their risk in that situation. I've been in this kind of situation before, and what was a manageable situation got immediately out of control because someone wanted to pull a weapon.

And just so we are clear, I don't think that guns should be banned. I think that the population should think a little more clearly about why they are buying and using them. I hear an awful lot of excuses about owning them, maybe instead of excusing the behaviour you might examine for yourself why you 'need' them.

Also, what other uses for your guns have you found? I'm reminded of Homer trying to get a cat out of the tree... You cook with them? Clean with them? Seriously, as far as I know, they only do one thing, put a hole in whatever you shoot 'em at. Please elaborate on all the other practicle things you do?

Because kids should have access to guns! Okay!

Man, I love it when people don't read my entire post. Go back and read the very next line that you neglected to quote.

I think it has mopre to do with how much more easily someone can convince themselves to shoot someone over say beating them to death with a baseball bat. The former jsut requires pulling a trigger form a relatively safe distance whereas the latter means you need to get up close to summon and put a lot of physical effort into ending up with lot more blood and sweat on you as a result. Not to mention the greater physchological commitment required to hit somone over and over as opposed to pulling a trigger once. And the whole fact that guns don't offer a lot of option on how lethal the force is you use. I mean there's really only one option if things have escalated to the point of gun drawing as you can't really just knock someoen out with one.

Nigga plz, if I carry anything bigger than a 9mm automatic, I'm already outgunning the police. Your standard shotgun is heavier firepower than what most beat cops would use (though they have to get it off the gun rack).

Besides, if citizens can't own anything that can penetrate Level I armor, how are we supposed to effectively rebel? :'D

The simple solution to this problem would be giving police better body armor, and better firearms, but that costs cash money, and lobbyists love pushing peacenik issues that get the standard police caliber down to 9mm from 45 cal.

It's not a matter of letting kids have guns, it's a matter of shattering the illusion that guns are toys. Something that can only be properly done by a symbol of authority, like your parents.

Maybe it shouldn't be a school thing, but parents with guns should teach their kids how to use them, and why they shouldn't mess with them. Also locked, all that sort of thing.

Shoplifters, on the other hand, are invited onto the property. The same can't be said for a home invader. You also have a clearly defined area of intent with a confirmed shoplifter. With a home invader, the intent could be any number of things. This is why the severity of self-defense on the behalf of the property owner must be entrusted to him or her, to practice at his or her discretion.

This is true. That does not, however, eliminate the demand for black market firearms, which will then come from outside of the country, usually in the form of Soviet Surplus and 3rd World knockoffs. The end result, then, is less firearms overall, but more dangerous firearms.

Use it as a crutch. Clearly you hate cripples.

The way you put it makes alot more sense than the way Gumby and Mr. Numbers presented their argument. I still disagree that it's a great idea to be gung ho about teaching kids how to use guns, but then maybe I have a different idea of what age group 'kids' encompasses.

Too many people blame firearms for bad things. Saying guns kill people is like saying pencils cause spelling mistakes.

I can't believe I posted in the political palace ._.

Yeah, but pencils weren't made to butcher vocabulary.

If I see another "Guns don't kill people" post, it will be deleted.

Guns don't kill people. Bullets kill people.

bullets + high velocity kills people!

Holy shit, I think you may have come up the worst analogy ever. Let's outlaw rocks, they aren't meant for killing, but you can kill people with them. Hell let's outlaw XBOXES, they are also not meant for killing, but you could kill someone by dropping it on their head.

Cars cause deaths, but that's not their purpose. You aren't going to buy a car because of it's perfect grandma killing abilities, you are going to buy a car or vehicle that suits your transport needs. Whether it be a family car for taking the kids to school and sport, a van for deliveries, a ute for carrying shit in the tray or just a small car for travelling for work. Cars aren't meant for killing.

Comparing guns to knives isn't even all that logical. Most knives that people are in possesion of are kitchen knives. Thier purpose? Cutting veggies, cutting pastry or cutting the chicken fillets into smaller pieces. Sure you can get the army knives and the flick-knives in which one of their purposes would be "protection" (stabbing people). But knives have many more practical uses and most would not include killing or stabbing.

Guns however, what purpose do they have? Shooting and killing. You aren't going to buy a gun for it's ability to cut vegetables, you are going to buy s gun for it's ability to kill people. All guns have no other uses than shooting, whether it be shooting cans, shooting animals or humans. You are damaging everything you shoot, you aren't going to shoot something to help it.

What gets me is the pointlessness of so much gun violence. Unfettered access to high powered weapons can turn the most unambitious, offkilter dim-wit into a mass murderer. Would Mr Seattle Pizza deliverer cum last action hero have bothered to kill all those people if it wasn't so damn easy?

It is hard to hear the endless parade of rampage stories and not think that some kind of robust control scheme needs to be implemented and enforced to keep guns out of the hands of the asylum crowd.

That is correct, however, how is the home owner suposed to be able to sort the semi-bad guys from the really nasty bad guys at 3am in the dark?

I don't think so. Take weed for example, there is no legal demand for it, but it's still easy to find. Also, prohibition was another example of this. It would be the same with firearms...

You are 100% correct. The ONLY time it's okay to "shoot first, ask questions later" is in the event of a home invasion. As I said before, when you're out on the streets, your gun is your very last resort, you don't pull your gun unless you're going to die if you don't shoot. In reality, carrying a gun is only a tiny part of the "self-defense" puzzle. There's alot more to being safe than just having a pistol. Its a good idea to carry things like a cell phone or flashlight. Learning a martial art is also a great idea. I've been practicing TaeKwonDo for a few years now, and I hope that if I ever have to defend myself, I can use my fist instead of my pistol. The problem with relying on the gun alone, is that if your only tool is a hammer, all your problems will start looking like nails...

What does 'need' have to do with it? I hear this alot "you don't NEED a gun"...

I hope I never NEED one. However, it is possible that I will one day, and if that day comes I want to be prepared. Also, there are many reasons why I WANT but don't NEED one. Target shooting and hunting mainly. Isn't that enough reason?

I've listed "other uses" already many times in this thread... but here goes:

Hunting
Target Shooting
Collecting
Self Defense

When did I say that? They shouldn't, however the fact of the matter is that sometimes they do, and then bad things happen because they don't know what to do in that kind of situation. I like the way that Bradylama puts it, they need someone to teach them that firearms are NOT toys...

Once again I agree. As I said, having a gun is only a small part of being able to protect yourself... if you're only tool is a gun you're very limited in what you can do...

When I say teach kids about guns, I don't mean take them down to the range and have them fire off a few rounds, I mean teach them the saftey basics like "don't point a gun at people"...

Collecting isn't a use.

"Oh, hay! What do you use that gun for?"
"Oh collecting!"
"Right, what do you collect with it?"
"Guns.."

You can collect guns, but guns can't be used for collecting.

CetteHamsterLa: Hitting someone over and over with a baseball bat to kill them is murder. Shooting someone because they are shooting at you is self defense. You make it sound like I as someone who wants a gun to defend my home that I am just out to kill any jackass who breaks into my home. You are dead wrong. I know when a gun necessary and when it is not. Anyone who has been properly taught about firearms knows this as well. This is another reason why our children should receive gun training.

peeack, all American children should be taught respect for a firearm. You seem to think they should never touch them which is stupid. I fired a 30/30 when I was 8. That gun has a lot of kick for a child that age and I have always had a healthy respect for guns. This prevents kids from wanting to play with something that is very much not a toy.

PUG1911: You make it sound like every time someone breaking into a home that the people who are armed will kill this person. That is not the case, if I have to draw a weapon on someone who has broken into my home I would not fire unless it was warranted, ie they have their own gun pointed at me, they try and charge me, or any other aggressive action for that matter. If they turn and run, that is the end of it and I will leave them to the cops to catch them. Gun owners are not cold blooded killers like so many people like to make us out to be. My primary use for a firearm would be target practice, a fine use of a firearm. I also like to hunt, again another use for a firearm that is not used against another human being. But do not think that I will hesitate when some shitbag violates my rights that I will not stand up for myself.

NovaX: I can kill you with just about anything. A sword for example is designed to kill people, a gun however can be designed to do more than. You act as though all guns are used to kill people, the simple fact is that very few of the guns sold in the US are used in violent crimes.

Funny thing is that more people drive a car then own a gun too, but please keep doing your number spinning...

Double Post:
So wait, swords can't be designed for self protection, but guns... can?

Seriously what other use do they have other than killing? Hunting is killing, target practice is just that, practicing for killinga target. And if, as you say, very few guns are used in violent crimes, the simple fact is they are not being used. Guns can't be used in a non-violent manner.

A sword was designed explicitly for fighting with other humans. Firearms however can be designed for hunting as well as weapons of war. So please do not twist my words.

So people never fought wars while using swords or hunted with them either?

This isn't quite the same argument as sex education, so don't try to make it out to be. Obviously it depends on age level, but a kid that knows how to use a gun, what a gun case is, how to undo a gun lock, how to safety off, load and fire, is going to be more danger to others. You know how there's that whole argument that kids are still emotionally developing into their late twenties? Well, I think adolescents with guns is just as bad an idea as trying to lower the drinking age to 18.

Most adolescent judgment is already impaired, so why tempt fate? It's an assumption that just because you can do something, you should. I for one would predict a severe increase in not only gun related violence (crimes of passion) but also a basic increase in criminality. Not by virtue of guns being violent implements, but because you're sanctioning the means of their use by people not sufficiently mature to see that they're put to good use.

Roger roger. Makes it a whole lot easier to trace/track down/incarcerate.

Respect != use.

I got taught not to run out on the road, cause I could get my arse run over. I wasn't taught to drive at age eight, to demonstrate the power of an automobile. Poor analogy I guess, but you can see my point (probably not though). What purpose does an eight year old have ever touching a gun? Here Jimmy, I'm going to teach you how to shoot guns! So you'll no never to shoot guns! I don't get it.

hurrr.

I like guns. I've had exposure and access to guns since I can remember. I got my first one when I was 8 (a good old 4-10 shotgun) and got my first pistol at 13. I've yet to kill anybody with my guns and nobody's killed me with them yet. I do like to go shooting on occasion, but i'm not a freak about it. I'd carry a pistol with me on long road trips and stuff just to be safe, but I've never driven around town playing Wyatt Earp.

I think gun control has really become a scapegoat for bigger problems. People have been killing each other since the dawn of man. People are going to kill people, with guns, knives, and their hands. Saying that guns are the issue here is pretty silly. People are violent creatures, hell, all animals are. The world is not a pretty place all the time. So get over it and quit all the senseless gun bashing.

Guns are pretty remarkable from an artistic and engineering standpoint. The efficiency of a .22 long bullet is pretty amazing. It's actually able to harness near 20 some % of the energy of the explosive inside. It's also amazingly accurate to some distance.

Wait a minute, who started this goddamn thread? Don't you realize that you'll never win over these people? Does anybody recall a time where there was a debate here in the PP over something like this where somebody said:
"Well shit, that was an amazing arguement. I'm just going to have to change the way I think about that one. Thanks for the enlightenment!"?

What about other forms of collecting? Like Coin collecting or stamp collecting? Sometimes people just want to have something for a collection, without any intention of acutally "using" it...

Actually, you'd be suprised... I think something like 50% of the US population are gun owners...

I dis-agree, but I don't think I'm going to be able to change your mind on this one...

And Gumby, you CAN hunt with a sword. I think I read someplace that in the old days africans would hunt lions with swords as a "right of passage". Basicly, if you can kill a big ass lion with a sword, then you're badass enough to be called a "man", LOL...

Skexis, I think you have the wrong idea. I've said this already, but when I'm talking about "gun ed" I don't mean taking kids out the the range and showing them how to shoot...

I would however like to point out that I've been shooting since I was about 5 or 6, and I didn't turn out to be a violent killer. Therefore I think there is something wrong with your argument...

No one is saying there aren't children who can handle a gun intelligently and with restraint. Hell, I've gone shooting myself, as young as 8. Enjoyed it. Would probably buy a gun if I ever had the desire to spend hard earned money so I could shoot recreationally. But how sure are you that your childhood is a representative sample of children everywhere?

Children can be taught by their parents to use guns safely, if the parents wish their children to learn how to use guns. But the parents that take the time to explain consequences probably won't outnumber the ones who stick the gun in a closet and hope that everything will turn out okay, and hope it will never see any use.

I'm not trying to imply that guns make killers out of people. In fact, I specifically said that it's not the "guns' violent nature" that causes the violence. It's a matter of probability, of increasing the availability of their use.

But I guess I am a little hazy on the idea of "gun education." Exactly what do they teach you? What the safety is? What the barrel does? "Point away from face before opening"?

David I thought they used long spears for that... I could be mistaken though.

MeTheGefling: I started this thread to get them out of my DD thread on firearms.

Did you even read what I wrote?
I didn't say you can't collect guns, I am saying guns can't be used for collecting. You pretty much contradicted what you said anyway, "Sometimes people just want to have something for a collection, without any intention of acutally "using" it."

What guns can or can't be used for is irrelevant to this discussion. Hemp making nice rope didn't stop its prohibition.

Yeah, yeah I know. Gangbangers already have access to light smgs like Mac-10's. AKs would make a bad situation much worse for the cops though.

We're supposed to steal credit cards, and like order pizza that they didn't order. Viva la resistance!!!

All too true. I think the Politizer is equipped with former Bundeswehr stuff though. Our Army is bound to have old caches of M-16's lying around. So that's money already spent. Who knows!

So, how do we know what Gangbangers have access to?

My mommy, who was a teacher. Retired now. At one point in her career she taught gang members, rapists, and various other juvenile offenders at a "special" alternative school. She had to be on the look out for the kind of stuff. 'Lest someone shoot up the school.

That's also the source of how I knew that five gallons of gasoline equals to about a stick of TNT. She always brought home stories about how her students were uhh talking about ways to make car bombs out of materials commonly found among the average household. Scary really.

*edit!* Of course she turned them into the police, but that still doesn't change the fact that they probably know how to do that sort of stuff.

Most police now carry AR-15's in place of the traditional shotgun. Other favored patrol rifles are the Ruger Mini 14 and the old M-1 carbine. Some agencies also carry the pistol caliber rifles from Ruger and marlin chambered in .40 or 9mm.

The idea that the police are regularly outgunned is a myth.

I was just clarifying the meaning of that statement to david not making a comment that all guns are used for murder. It's simply easier and takes less commitment to kill someone with a gun is all. Which could potentially make someone already inclined to kill more likely to. In say a home defense situation even if you were needing to fend them off with a bat while it is an inferior weapon you have to admit that you can generally stop a person without killling them while there's less of a guarantee of that with a gun.


Hell I'm not even against guns I just don't believe thay're as necessary or as much of a solution to some problems as soem people try to make it. The whole every problem looks liek a nail when all you have a hammer saying causes problems when people replaces hammer with gun. And I've known enough people who seem to feel that way to at the very least make me uncomfortable with just any idiot beign able to get one.

I wasn't trying to imply that it was. My childhood was far from average in that respect. In addition to guns, I've also had firsthand exposure to scientific research involving high explosives as well as commercial blasting, which isn't something that the other kids in first grade did on the weekends with their dads.

"What'd you do over the weekend."

"I helped my dad blow up a beaver dam, and next weekend we're going to turn some marshy area into a duck pond for the park rangers."

no kidding, although the police will claim that they're "outgunned" all the time. they claimed they were "outgunned" during the Columbine shootings.

Yes I see your point but it does not discourage me from having the desire of owning a firearm. I have received a lot of training with weapons, both from the civi world and from the military. I know how and when to use a weapon to defend my family and I. This is why I am very pro gun ed in school. If more people were properly educated on firearms we'd have less accidents, particularly with children.

Nor should it that was hardly my point. You can have all the firearms you want it's your choice. I'm just saying maybe at a minimum they should screen more carefully who can get guns and add a higher requirement of courses to get a license. I don't know exactly what the current requirements are I imagine they vary from state to state but they need to make damn sure every aspect of what people need to know and be trained in is covered before the person can lay hands on a gun. And I'm still not sure how much people need say an assault rifle for either hunting or self defence so I'm a might shaky on whether they should be allowable but I must admit they are nifty.

The rest was just clearing things up for david as he was misinterpriting the one Sin City quote as being some bullshit about using honourable weaponry.

Then how about you inform me, then? Honestly, I'd like to see some facts presented to this discussion and solid proof that legally purchased and owned guns would never be used for murder.

This news just in: Ancient Greeks had guns!
LOL! Oh wait no.

Look here's the difference between swords and guns. If someone came at you with a sword not only could you fight back but the fight would be noble and fair in a sense.
I say noble because only noble men were armed and when they did challenge and dual to the death it was a fair contest.
With a gun bang you're fucking dead. If you're regular home invader comes in guns blazing. If he even sees you reach for a gun he'll shoot you dead before you even get it from your bedside drawer, or your blazer pocket. You're a gonna.

At least if you're unarmed you can surrender. But hey home invasions everyday.

Also lol guys the guy that robs your home with a gun isn't a hardend criminal from the underworld with all the secret links to get the latest in illegal weaponry. They're normally young men who had a shit upbringing, dropped out of school and can't even organise opening a bank account.

The gangs, the mafia are the ones with the links, the ones who'll illegally obtain weapons and here's the thing, they don't come after you, they go after rival gangs. If you're shot by the mafia you're most likely a crook yourself and deseved it. I can assure you, since Australia banned guns semi automatic and consealable guns the vast majority of people shot are bikies and underworld figures.

Pretty much spot on.
In a country where lethal weapons are unavailible, if you really wanted to kill someone who have to goto pretty extrodinary lengths, lengths most people aren't prpared to goto. If you live in the states, you just gotta buy the gun buy the bullet and bang. Piss easy.

I'd hardly call the Ancient Greeks a free society.

So how do you feel about Dueling pistols?

Dueling pistols is pretty cool actually but people arn't up for it today.

I think it's because it's illegal.

Imagine Dick Cheney and John W. Snow in a pistol duel.

Dick Cheney shoots his second. Why lie.

I was just suggesting a modern version of the Hamilton vs Burr duel.

Rock, I suggested that you do some research on this matter before you continued this debate. Also no one in their right mind would say that no legally purchased guns would be used in crime. That

These were all found in a 2 minute google search.
Statics
Lowest violent crime rate in 30 years. Gun ownership is up.
1999 state comparison of crime rates
American Enterpise Institute for Public Policy Research

There were about 500,000 guns sold last year. Last year there were only about 31,200 violent crimes that involved guns. This does not take into account all of the guns that were sold in the past 100 years that are still in current circulation of the gun market. You do the math; VERY few of the guns on the market are actually used in violent crimes. Then when you look at the fact that our crime rates are going down to 30 year record lows after out assault weapon ban was lifted while the Great Britain which completely outlawed handguns in 1997 have sky rocketing crime rates.

A lot of good information

You wanted hard facts Rock, there they are. I'm sure there is much more information out there.

I didn't feel like reading the entire thread, but I read the first page or so.

Here is my opinion... I live on a farm of 1000 acres and we fire guns for hunting animals or for sport. I think that guns like shotguns/rifles/etc. are just fine. However I think pistols and military fully automatics are NOT! I live in a rural town of 628 and I have yet to see someone hunt with a pistol or an M-16!
The only incidents we here about handgun crimes are in cities. The people of NYC don't take Friday off and go hunting for elk somewhere in NY state with their concealed pistol, but when they want to feel superior (for whatever reason) they might be inclined to take it or even worse, use it!
Sometimes when I am really angery at someone and I'm talking to them and they are making me extremely pissed, I think, "If I had a pistol, would I shoot this person in the face?" Some times I really think about it, but 5 minutes later I would regret it and the decision for the rest of my life!
I don't know how I would argue on a basis of self defense. Using guns for the purpose of killing someone just gets to me.
It's kind of like the 2nd Sabrina the Teenage Witch episode, Bundt Friday. Jenny says, "I know the world would be alot better if everyone told the truth, but we all know we can't stop someone from lieing."
In this analogy, we can agree that just because you can't tell someone to stop lieing and tell the truth (by using truth sprinkles on their Bundt cakes!!!!) doesn't mean that we can just all lie and not feel any regret from it. Just like lieing is considered a bad thing (which it is!) and a sin for all of your Christian-heads, carrying concealed handguns and military special wepons shouldn't be aloud without a proper excuse (military or whatever).

Thanks,
Joseph

I don't think that "are you for or against gun" the right question (ot i'm probably misunderstanding... anyway)

If you look in canada, what was suppose to cost less than 50M$ (the gun registry) has become a 1G$ (and counting) hole. Ayway, do you really think that criminals register their weapons?

This man has just used a Sabrina the Teenage Witch quote.

I think he's trumped EVERYONE.

Jesus Christ, why don't I just close the fucking thread?

I guess it really depends on where you get your numbers. I saw a figure that Canada has a 50% higher crime rate than the US. But by this link: http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/011218/d011218b.htm there seems to be more agravated assaults, homicides, robberies per capita in the US. Canada's crime rate seems higher for breaking and entering, vehicle theft, and arson. While these are all lumped into the 'violent crimes' category, they are hardly equivalent in terms of violence. Homicide and Aggravated assault are clearly more violent than the theft related crimes.

So, I'm not saying that the pro-gun camp's numbers are wrong, just that they don't match those from Statistics Canada.

I'm not sure I can really take you seriously with a "Sabrina the Teenaged Witch" avatar :/ "Christian-heads"?!? wtf is wrong with you? awwh NVM.

Double Post:
Some types of crime the US has higher numbers than in the UK but we are still on a significant downward trend while many countries that ban or heavily restrict guns are on a sharp upward trend with their crime rates.

I haven't seen anyone prove that there exists a strong correlation between high gun ownership rates and higher rates of murder. The benefits of having a weapon in your home as opposed to not having one far outweigh an outright ban on all weapons purchases within legal channels (because that's as far as government jurisdiction can extend, and its record in dealing with illicit markets for banned goods or substances has been weak) insofar as being able to defend the individual and his property against an armed robber or thug.

Some people argue that certain types of weapons should be banned, as opposed to small handguns would seemingly suffice against a criminal. To this, all we must do is look to the justitication that John Locke and the founders of the constitution gave for granting citizens the right to bear arms, and to use those arms in the event that a corrupt regime takes power and curbs essential freedoms. Just because the government exists in America doesn't mean it will never become corrupt, and no one has the foresight to say for sure that an American government in the future would not roll back those important freedoms. Considering the freedoms that have already been sacrificed in the War on Terror, and other potential freedoms that could be lost in the event of another, more serious, terrorist attack, or the resulting chaos of a nuclear armageddon, or any number of possible events, citizens must arm themselves to confront the potential threats posed by a corrupt government or a population relegated to anarchy. Therefore, placing limitations on the type of weapons that can be purchased only undermines those moral intentions behind the establishment of the second amendment, and puts Americans in a weaker position to defend their liberties against a possible corrupt regime.

and then they'll argue, "oh but that was way back then when you had militias and blah blah blah... people were so uncivilized. the founding fathers really didn't know what they were doing anyways; we should re-write the constitution from the supreme court bench... and fuck john locke, adam smith, and thomas jefferson, we love karl marx and joe stalin!"

somebody just close this. nobody has changed their opinions on anything and they never will.

The possibility of a corrupt government taking power today or in the future in the U.S. is still possible, and therefore citizens should have the right to carry weapons to protect themselves against any corrupt government that could potentially arise or a potential breakdown in civil order.

lordjames, i completely agree with you. the 2nd amendment is the most important right in my book cause it's the only one that allows you protect yourself and your freedoms on an individual level. you're preaching to the choir with me, but the thing is.... this is the gff pp. nobody changes their minds or really listens to anything anybody says! they just keep rambling on and on, trying to be "right." nobody in here will change their opinion on the subject despite how many different angles are shown.

That's just the thing. Neither side of the debate can really prove a correlation. The anti-gun camp believes that logically guns=greater potential for agravated violence. And the pro-gun camp believes that guns don't hurt people, and that they would be constantly victimized by criminals, invaders, government, etc. if they didn't have 'em.

Neither side can prove their case. And to those who have picked a side, it seems entirely logical and common sense to stick to their assumptions. Then they get to play with the numbers and statistics to make themselves appear right.

MetheGelfling, are you suggesting that the PP be closed? Sure debates are not 'won', and sure people just repeat themselves 'till they are blue in the face, but it still provides some insight (and entertainment) as to what people think of an issue. That for the most part one's bottom line beliefs are already established doesn't mean that additional information and comment isn't warranted.

oh no, of course not. I don't mean the political palace as a whole. i just meant this thread. this could go on for like 14 pages of posts of nothing but the same old rehash arguments that people have been regurgitating for forever.

"guns don't kill people, people kill people."
"guns don't kill people, bullets kill people."
"if we didn't have guns then people wouldn't get shot."
"you wanna get capped sucka?!"

now if somebody wants to come in and blow my mind with something new then go for it.

I know what you mean about not changing anyone's mind. However, it's still interesting to hear what people have to say. This is an important issue to me, and so I hope that the thread remains open...

I believe that a someones views on this issue say alot about what kind of person they are.

(Christian-head is an inside joke that our history teacher said. He uses it to get everyone's attention. For example, baseball-heads/music-heads/etc.)


See? The last line tells it all...

Controlling all weapons is overdoing it. Controlling (not eliminating) guns designed to kill other people might help the problem. If your worried about getting shot at night, well, try not to piss people off and if that can't be helped, use a shotgun (you don't have to aim as much anyway...).

Perhaps there is an alternative to controlling weapons to reduce crime. I think it was Rudy Giuliani (mayor, NYC) who reduced crime rates alot. What means did he go by?

oh yeah, "controlling" guns is a new argument. gimme a break. "controlling" guns in the way you suggest is basically registering them with the federal gov't. the only people that this keeps in check are law abiding citizens.

here's a figure for you. as of 1986, there were 150,000 fully automatic firearms legally civillian owned in the US. How many of them were used in crimes? "so minimal as not to be considered a law enforcement problem." Farmer v. Higgins.

It's debatable as to whether or not Giuliani's policies in NYC really had much to do with the reduced crime rates. Before his election there was a reduction in crime already taking place on a national level. It was a bit of smooth politicking to take credit for that. After he received credit for reduction in crime in NYC, other cities around the country attempted similar methods but with very mixed results.

Good lord, why would someone ever need a fully automatic weapon?!?!?!?

Man, it's such a cute argument, you know? I love it.

"Man, if you.... if you make a law, the only people who will obey it are, they're the ones who aren't criminals!"

Shit, man, you guys have GLEAMED THE CUBE. Laws are USELESS against people who don't follow the law!

Prove a correlation? Wow, uh. Do I need to PROVE that having a device that uses explosive force to hurl pointy metal things at people might result in people getting hurt more often? Yeah, that's a real stumper, we'd better get out our scratch paper and do some EQUATIONS.

You see, the 2nd Amendment is the most important of the amendments, as it will allow us to RISE UP and get run over by tanks when the ZOG tries to repeal, uh, the 2nd Amendment? Are there other ones?

5 infantry could take down a tank in Red Alert. Why lie.

The point about law abiding citizens following a registry is because registering a weapon signifies intent to use it. If you register your weapon, chances are you bought it for personal protection, hunting, whatever else people go gaga for.

If, however, you bought a weapon and didn't register it, then the assumtion is that it would be used for some nefarious purpose.

Here's the problem, though. In a national gun registry, how are we supposed to know who has unregistered weapons?

I need a fully automatic weapon like I need a triple bypass surgery. Just because I don't need it doesn't mean that I don't want it, nor does it mean that I have no good reason for doing so.

All of my life my parents have raised me to be not stingy, but just careful on what we buy. I tend to be so different because I talk to people all the time and I don't understand them. What you said makes no sense in my mind (it's actually kind of funny, don't take it offensively). I don't understand human WANT. Sure I want things here and there, but I say to myself all the time, "You don't NEED that so why buy it?" When people I know say, "I just had to buy it, it was 60% off and just cool." I reply sometimes, "I got a better deal than you. I saved 100% by not buying it!"
O dear, I'm getting off subject...

Is this supposed to be witty? And why the fuck are you capping words that have no business being capped?

People that don't obey laws couldn't be deemed law-abiding citizens, could they? Most of the time, depending on the seriousness of the law and in the sphere of certain types of laws (criminal, for example), people that ignore the law are criminals.

Secondly, yes, you do need to prove the correlation. Guns aren't the only "dangerous" things out there, and we could just as easily posit that the presence of those things is the culprit behind the increase in murders (string, knives, cars, etc.).

Just look at the absurdity of this example: The presence of cars is the source of so many drive-by shootings.

Yes, it may have been a material accessory in the shootings, but the source, or even a negligible factor? Comeon.

No, however, you do need to prove that taking such devices away from law-abiding citizens will result in people getting hurt less often. When you meet that burden, feel free to respond. If you can't or won't, then we have nothing further to discuss.

And I suppose I saved 100% by not buying Sabrina the Teenaged Witch DVDs. But I suppose that's where I don't understand your want.

It's like Lil' Abner found an AppleII.

Except that it is common sense, at least intelectually that it would result in people getting hurt less often. What the argument should be, is if it would reduce such numbers by an acceptable amount to justify the loss of 'freedom' or 'fun'. To argue that it *wouldn't* result in less injuries/deaths is just an exageration.

To take the ever popular car example. If there were no cars, people would not be run over, or crash into each other, or drive off the road killing themselves etc. So it would obviously result in less injuries, but it's not something that is practical, or worth the cost.

... Unless of course someone can argue that criminals would still get cars (true), and that they would make up the difference in automotive related injuries.

This whole topic really seems to be argued by the pro-gun camp a little wrong from my point of view. Instead of arguing that guns don't kill people. Hell, they actually help people, and are the most important liberty ever dreamed of. It'd be a whole lot easier to handle the argument that yeah, they kill some people, yeah, it makes killing people easier, but it's worthwhile despite that cost. At least it'd be honest.

What kind of analogy is that. Cars aren't designed with the specific single purpose of harming people.

I mean, what, if there were no guns, would gang members throw pieces of 'string' at one another? Or maybe there'd be a rapid increase in the number of deaths by drive-by knife-throwings; probably, probably.

I like how in the wonderful world of pro-firearm, law-abiding citizens are law-abiding citizens and criminals are criminals.

[capslock]THE WORLD IS NOT THAT SIMPLE, FOLKS.[/capslock]

Pull the trigger, I'm begging you. At least dump the poll.

Also, it's going to happen anyways isn't a valid argument. If something is worth being outlawed, the scale to which the law will be broken is not a factor.

From a legal standpoint, it is that simple. If you break a law, you're a criminal. I'm fairly sure I break the law every day in some way or another, however the argument in the context of Gun Control refers to people that adhere to gun code laws, and not necessarily the speed limit, or drug usage, or internet piracy, or whatever other laws people break every day.

You don't know that at all. You assume that because you strip the right to bear arms from regular citizens that people will get hurt less often, but in truth, you have nothing to back up that claim. If you do, feel free to offer it up.

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.

Yes, Paris was successful since the government is still for the people to some degree.

The point that they are making is just so that the people and state have the option to fight or check the federal government. This gives a power to the state. It gives the means for the state the option to secede from the Union.

Everything does not go as smooth as that, protesting does not work all the time. The Confederate States protested at first but was not heard by the federal government so they tried and failed to secede.

However, there is still a chance that the federal government can have too much power over the state, and it can become oppressive. It is better that you are prepared for the worse as the saying goes.

In the event that there was some sort of uprising, do you think that soldiers everywhere, who conceivably see themselves as patriots, would all be hunky-dory with slaughtering their neighbors?

This is a more complex issue than a show of force. In terms of numbers, we have the army beat. But we're not mobilized, and we're certainly not equipped and trained to try to fight anyone, even if it is on our own ground. Hell, a single tear gas shell into your home and you'd be ready to call it quits.

Union soldiers fought against their Confederate brothers and vice versa.

You should have more faith on war of attrition. They work sometimes.

Underdogs sometimes win if they think the cause is too noble.

Depends on what you are fighting for, I hope you do not quit.

Pathetic. If you really trust your lives to the federal government then so be it, but that is a very foolhardy thing to do considering the track records of the governments in power now across the world.

I love how your retort Arrowhead is that because it doesn't matter any more. What makes you so sure about that?

Dead Horse++ brings up a good point, why shouldn't I have the right to own a firearm? It is a right guaranteed by our constitution, which why I find it funny that all the foreigners are the ones telling us that we can't or shouldn't have guns. Maybe a touch of jealousy at our rights? I don't know, but the simple fact is if you are not American then you really have no say in what we choose to own or allow our people to own.

So basically you're telling me "It happened 200 years ago, and it's a shoe-in today" and "Have faith, because good guys always win in the end."

I am just saying that it still could happen so it is better to be prepared for the worst. Once something is gone like freedom to own a gun, it is very difficult to get back until it is too late.

Civil war isn't the same thing as a civil uprising anyways, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make there.

I mean, regardless of whether you have a gun or not, my point is that your ability to affect any change in the government (much less by force) is laughable. Most caretaking of the government is doen by watchdog groups and the media, since the government now (as opposed to 200 years ago) have to project a certain semblance of order if they don't want other countries trying to take advantage of civil disorder.

Should any civil uprising ever come about, I doubt very much that homeowner Bob and his 12-gauge will have any desire to meet even a street cop armed with riot gear.

Guns are fine. I'm not trying to pry them from your soon to be cold dead fingers. But the argument that you need guns to protect yourself from big brother is ludicrous.

I am just pointing out the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, and why it should not be infringed. This is not my arguments but merely stating what the framers have in mind. If you have something against the framers intention, you can always propose an amendment to change it.

The point I made with the Civil War is just an example why owning a gun is important as the framers have intended. This gives a means for the state the defend what they think they need to do.

By the way, civil war is just basically civil uprising to a large scale.

If I am the only one doing it, yeah, there is no point. But, if the Southern States or Northern States or whatever tried doing it, they might have a chance. Wait, Southern State attempted that already and almost succeeded.

This works because the government still care for the people at some level, but to think about it, there is still a posibility that a powerful political person to take full control.

But, if there is 1 million Bob with a 12-gauge because the government is oppressing them, that is a force that is difficult to stop.

Again, these are not my arguments. I just quoted Mr. Lee, Mr. Madison, and the second amendment.

It's a hypothetical, maybe you've heard of them. As if the Right exists explicitly to fight King George.

On the other hand, having the world's strongest military power would make citizenry that much easier to suppress in the unlikely event of a Coupe de Tat. Not to mention that we have an overstretched Army, and don't have the proper deployment to protect ourselves from any kind of present invasion. Hell, the Mexicans could probably get as far as Arkansas at this point (if it weren't for those ignorant, gun-loving Texans rite).

Is Mexico likely to invade? Not at all. However, it's not entirely impossible for them not to in the course of future events. Not to mention the very real danger of the Chinese crossing the Bering Straits and invading North America through Alaska. Alaska would normally be easy to defend, if we had soldiers there to defend it. The argument that the United States Navy would intercept a Chinese fleet is also rendered moot by the fact that it can't be everywhere at once, and that China is rapidly modernizing its military force and attempting to construct a Blue Water Navy.

The likelihood of a Chinese invasion of North America is unlikely given present circumstances, but the energy crisis is only going to get worse. We have oil, the Chinese don't. Put two and two together and you're looking at a potential invasion.

I imagine a Meth Head can get a gun with the Government telling him not to already. Nevermind, either, that a Meth addict invading my home is looking for valuables he can pawn with which to buy more Meth. Sure it isn't threatening to me, but how would I have known that? I'd prefer to shoot first and ask questions later thx.

Exactly. If we did arm to protect ourselves against the government, the ATF would burn our house down.

The thought that a representative government will remain benevolent is naive at best. Nations don't last forever.

Not that I'm arguing for Rikimaru here, but have you seen Dr. Strangelove, Skate? The mad general who orders his bomber wing to attack Russia in the movie tells his base defense force that the Commies have attacked the United States, and that they would send themselves disguised as American soldiers to try and seize the Air Base. The soldiers, since they trusted their commander, hated Commies, and are willing to accept the idea of a Nuclear Exchange, readily comply and attack the Airborne troops that try and re-take the Air Base.

It's not exactly the same situation, but when you're placed in a command-control situation, and presented with highly unusual circumstances, soldiers tend to put their faith in their commanding officers. The idea of dissenters is rendered null, as dissenters are branded as Commies, or Terrorists, or Traitors, and shot. Dissent has to be in the majority, which is never a guarantee.

Okay, are you comfortable with the idea of practicality? Who's going to feed clothe and supply these one million angry homeowners? Who will lead them? Who will ensure they don't break and scatter at the first sight of a column of U.S. trained troops with a tank at their head?

Yeah, that's the rub, isn't it? Your arguments are outdated.

I understand the concept you're trying to get across, but I think face to face gunning down of American citizens will cause a lot of soldiers to start questioning exactly why the government feels that level of violence is necessary. Call me an idealist, I guess.

No, and you're perfectly right. The way things are now, American soldiers are independant enough to be instilled with a sense of morality that goes beyond the orders of a superior officer. If, for instance, a soldier thinks that a direct order defies something set in place by the Geneva Conventions, then he does not have to follow that order.

However, with the little, or no education concerning the rules of war being instilled in our soldiers at the present, I think you can see how things could change for the worst.

By what standard, exactly? Are Newtonian concepts of Gravity merely outdated because they were established a long time ago?

Not entirely, but Newtonian physics does become less and less certain at certain levels. Hence the theories of general and special relativity.

I have no idea where this will lead to. Why not just look through history? You will see that many angry people can do a lot of things against one government even though it is impractical.

Did you ever take history lesson?? (sorry, that was a cheap shot)

Since the Constitution was written by the people that I quoted which whose argument you said are already invalid, by continuing that logic, you are saying that we should scrap the Constitution.

I have nothing to say to that anymore. I have no idea where you got that idea that those arguments are outdated.

Because his interpretation of them remains grossly underdeveloped. It is hinging on the idea that technology has not changed.

The constitution is an expression of ideals. The idea that you can take back power from the government personally is very nice; it appeals to everyone's sense of individuality.

Putting this idea into action needs to consider a lot more than faith in your fellow man.

Well, the Bill doesn't explicitly mention the individualistic nature. In fact, a Militia would be a community of individuals. Regardless, over a hundred million firearm owners is supposed to act as more of a deterrent than a legitimate threat to the establishment. It only becomes a threat when people are like-minded in will, and it'd take quite a bit to push them over that edge.

Yeah, I wasn't trying to use the constitution as a source, just making a general comment on our desire for individual freedoms.

That's really what I want Riki to understand. Sure, it's always possible that you could form a people's army and contest government control. But how likely is it that they could create a self-sufficient rebellion using what they buy at wal-marts and gun catalogues?

I don't see how it is "common sense". The presance of a firearm is not was causes people to get hurt. It's people who do stupid things with firearms, for example leaving a loaded pistol within reach of a small child...

Well, here in the real world, the police don't actually catch all the bad guys. And even when they do, the bad guys don't go off to jail forever, they get let out sooner or later...

Actually it's not a "shoot first" law, it's a "stand your ground" law.

All that really means is that if you REASONABLY feel someone is about to kill you, you have the right to defend yourself. That doesn't sound so bad to me...

Actually, I believe that the word "criminal" refers to people of commit felonys. I don't think of someone who gets a parking ticket as a "criminal"...

I find this whole "cars have a nondangerous purpose" argument laughable. To those of you who are in favor of banning guns: why do you want them banned? I'm sure most of you would say "because they hurt/kill people", and that "fewer people would be hurt/killed if guns were banned". If your goal is to save lives by banning dangerous machines, then logically you MUST be in favor of banning cars. So why arn't you in favor of banning cars? You then use the "you can do things with them that don't involve anyone dying" argument. Again, guns are the same way, there are alot of things you can do with firearms that won't kill anyone. So please explain to me how they are different?

Thats exactly why they should teach kids NOT to shoot themselves in schools.

Why do people assume that the US is such a violent place? I don't believe that we are somehow more violent by nature than people from other nations. I'd still love to see those crime rate numbers... I could be wrong but I have a feeling that the numbers will back me up on this one...

You can't legislate saftey. Either people will be smart (and therefore safe) or they won't. Stupid people can find all sorts of ways to hurt themselves or others, with or without guns.

First off, the majority are gun owners (at least in the US).

Secondly, wouldn't you be pissed too if someone told you that you can't have something because you MIGHT do something bad with it? That would be like me saying that you shouldn't be allowed to own a computer, because you might use it pirate movies or music. Nevermind the fact that you've owned computers for X number of years and never done anything illegal with them. You MIGHT do something bad in the future, therefore you have no right to own a computer...

I've been shooting for nearly 20 years now. I've never once shot anyone or held up a bank or anything of the sort. Explain to me how taking away my firearms will make the world a safer place?

My point exactly. As long as people are responsible with them, why should anyone care if they have guns?

I don't recall anyone sujesting the use of a full auto for home defense... thats just plain stupid, as you've pointed out...

Again, all the more reason to have saftey classes in schools...

While technology has changed, human nature has not. I believe that the founders wisdom is just as valid today as it was 200 years ago...

Actually, I believe on of the reasons that the Japanese didn't invade hawaii or the west coast in WWII was because they knew that the citizens were well armed...

What if that same meth-head has a knife or bat? And what if I'm a 75 year old granny? Are you saying that a gun wouldn't be a good thing to have in that situation?

Also, the Meth-head is already breaking the law. What makes you think he (or she?) would obey a gun law when they won't obey other laws?

I think the goverment is more dangerous now than ever before. The current leadership seems determined to take away as many rights as possible in the name of "protecting" us from terrorists...

Not if you have a gas mask :p

I think I said this before, but I'll say it again: I bet the Jews would have fared better in Nazi Germany had they been armed...

There are many examples of powerful, organized armys being defeated by untrained locals with guns. Two that come to mind very quickly are the amerian war for independance, and the veitnam war...

This is not the 1700's, and Bumfuck, suburbia does not exactly facilitate guerilla warfare.

Stupid people will always be there. The entire point about considering the consequences of gun ownership is to reduce the means they have of amplifying their stupidity. They would have done something stupid yes, but the odds of it being a fatal stupid, would be reduced.

And I'm not promoting banning guns, only promoting people properly think about things before they do them. Arugments like 'We should have a milita', well fine, have a militia. Doesn't mean that those outside of the militia need a gun. 'The founding fathers had guns, I wanna be like them.'... Uh, ok. 'Only stupid people and criminals use guns with poor judgement', if this is true, then what's the solution? Kill/lock up all the criminals, stupid people, maybe those who are likely to be criminals or borderline stupid?

There are a precious few reasons to have a gun. There are piles upon piles of excuses to have them though.

Also, the issue with the 'stand your ground' law, is that there is are no ground rules as to what is reasonable. It's written in a manner to leave that up to the sole discretion of the court.

Criminals are those who have comited a crime. Just because you don't count some crimes, doesn't make it any less so.

You can legislate safety, traffic laws would be an example. Now again, I'm not suggesting that firearms need aditional legislation, only that people should take safety into their own hands and be more practicle/cautious. Oh, do you know why traffic laws had to be implimented? Because people were too impractical, wreckless, and stupid to be ressponsible with their vehicles.

People AREN'T responsible with them. Some are, some aren't. It's those that aren't responsible, that are a concern. Just because you may be trusted with a death dealing boomstick, doesn't mean that everyone will make choices as to it's use as well as you have.

Heh. An interesting conclusion. You'd be amazed at how many rights other countries have. There isn't exactly a monopoly on 'freedom' by the US, despite what headlines might say. And if others were jealous of the 'right to bear (fire)arms', I'd imagine they would look to changing their laws instead of speaking against yours. You have a point though, nobody but your countries own citizens have a right to set policy. And you have every right to plug your ears and pretend as though the rest of the hasn't a voice if you wish. But the jealousy thing is pretty laughable.

Rikimaru, no one is suggesting that your constitution be abandoned. What I personally suggest, is that whenever one consults a source, they should re-examine how appropriate it is today. To quote an old source, or a well respected source is nice, but shouldn't be the end. Otherwise it's blind faith that those that came before know better than those that are here now. Sometimes true, sometimes not.

Track records? There you go into history which is largely irrelevant.

Because, again, this isn't the XVIIIth century anymore. Guns or no guns, people in democratic nations are not afraid of their governments nor do they have reason to be.

Very funny!

You shouldn't have the right because of the danger it puts you all in.

Look at your stupid self: You argue that you have the right to bear arms which makes gun ownership good, but at the same time you admit that the danger is from other gun owners! That's absurd and a circular argument at best!

I don't dignify such "you're not American so you don't know what you're talking about" arguments with a retort. Keep that shit on the Jerry Springer show, thanks.

Double Post:
Replace the loaded pistol with a cauliflower sprout and the child isn't in danger now is he? Guns are very dangerous.

Semantics. Thanks to that law, it is no longer the judge and jury that decide whether the shooter's life was in danger if he/she pleads "self defense". Now all the shooter has to do is claim that he/she felt his/her life was in danger without any solid reason, e.g. the commission of a felony. In my opinion, that's just completely unacceptable.

Someone who commits a misdemeanor is also a criminal, in common English anyway - my dictionary doesn't make a distinction.

Then you, sir, are a loonie.

Because their SOLE purpose is to hurt/kill people.

Let me see you drive your handgun to work. Let me see your handgun carry the groceries home.

Because none of these "a lot of things you can do with firearms" are necessary parts of life by any stretch of the imagination. On the other hand, what you do with a car is very much necessary.

True, but in countries where people are not armed, that point is moot.

Guns make it a hell of a lot easier, and on top of that more likely that they'll kill rather than hurt.

That's as stupid as your previous car argument.

Computers have thousands of uses. Guns are made specifically with the intent of doing harm.

And I'd love to see you try to kill somebody with your computer.

Because the firearms are made to do harm. Because you can very easily accidentally injure/kill someone with them. Because somebody can steal your firearms from your house when you are away and hurt/kill with them. Because neighbourhood children may get a hold of one of your firearms and hurt/kill someone while playing with them.

How can we say that they are responsible?

So I suppose you could at least admit that there's no point for a private citizen to own a fully automatic weapon, then? And no I wouldn't take that as your stance slipping.

As I've already shown, the founders' wisdom is not as valid today as it was 200 years ago. The world is very different from what it was 200 years ago.

And you have nothing to back it up, so it remains just that: a belief.

How many 75 year old grannies do you know who are gun owners?

If the Meth-head has a gun, then for crying out loud don't put up a fight. You'll only get your dumb ass shot.

The government will be replaced in two years, so keep your safety on.

That's an interesting bit of "what if".

The Vietnamese were not "untrained", let me be the first to tell you that.

How does me having the right to own a firearm put everyone in danger?

Because people get shot by firearms.

I'm going to have to ask you to try again and this time actually make a connection between the rights of law-abidiing citizens and the fact that people get shot.

There's no need for a connection. People get shot by firearms. It's a simple fact nobody can deny.

Why should anyone have the right to have tanks? People get killed by tanks.

Of course no one can or is going to try to deny it....

But as such, you've shown me no compelling reason as to why law-abiding citizens should be stripped of their rights. And given that you've refused to do so, it leaves me to believe that there is no compelling reason why Americans should lose their 2nd Admendment rights other than you simply not liking the fact that people can own firearms.

See, the problem I'm having with this argument is the concept of a "law-abiding citizen". I've already elaborated on it in this thread. There's no common definition of a "law-abiding citizen" and nobody can tell a criminal from a law-abiding citizen before they have actually committed a crime. This is why I think nobody should be allowed to have such a weapon in the first place. I think the chances of abuse outweigh the positive aspects of having a gun by far. Besides, I think a positive aspect can only be achieved with a gun that's never actually fired.

I don't know how you feel about this, but I just couldn't entrust a person with a gun just because they claim to be "law-abiding citizens". There is no scientific way to even prove this, so you're basically argueing to trust random with deadly weapons. I'm just not comfortable with that and will probably never understand where this trust comes from given the relatively high amount of homicides that involve firearms legally purchased by your a law-abiding citizen.

As an example, I wouldn't want to live in a neighbourhood with the thought of guns being stored in every household - no matter how peaceful and trustful this neighbourhood might be. I prefer to be relatively certain that the place I'm living in is just free of guns. Maybe it's just a matter of trust and I don't feel like taking unnecessary risks.

After combing the thread, could you post up the source that tells you about the 'relatively high amount of homicides that involve firearms that are legally purchased'?

It's the exact oposite of trusting each other. It's distrusting your neighbours, and your government that fuels the desire. It's been argued that they are to protect yourself from the 'bad guys', whether that be criminals, invading armies, or the government. The only person that one can trust is one's self. And even then, we are often wrong. It always brings to mind the statistic about 90%+ of adults believing themselves to be above average inteligence.

THE GUN

Suivant-next!

No. You have been shown the reasons and you refuse to accept any of them.

Really. Who did?

That's cute.

When you show me evidence that me having the right to own a gun causes people to get shot I'll start to consider what you say.

Ok, *you* having a gun wouldn't be even remotely an issue because you are so careful, and let's just say it, awesome.

Does it not strike you as even remotely possible that others do not act as responsibly and downright awesome as yourself or the other gun owners in this thread?

Again, please keep in mind that I am not advocating removing one's right to own a firearm. So it doesn't exactly ruin one's case to admit that they are a danger in the wrong hands. Though that hasn't happened yet.

What do you call that, "circular avoidance"? If you're not considering what I say, then how do you find the evidence?

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

There you go.

Australia initiated a voluntary gun buy-back program, and as a result, in only one year, gun-related crime and death stats dropped significantly.

Arrowhead seems to have forgotten all about me. C'est la vie. :'(

Those numbers can be easily construed, particularly when the American crime rate has decreased without gun control laws. The resulting conclusion, then, is possibly that an increase in living standards has decreased the overall crime rate, or that the prospect of easy cash would lower the number of gun-related crimes.

Did the gun buy-back only apply to legally registered firearms? Did Australia even have a gun registry?

Night Phoenix's challenge is impossible to meet. The factuality of him owning a firearm does not in any way prove or increase the danger of those around him, because possession does not imply intent.

It is impossible to prove the case of gun control with statistics, because you can put a spin on any numbers. Hell, I just did.

Does a presence of a firearm increase your likelihood to get a chunk of lead in your brain? Yes. Obviously if there were no firearms around, that danger would be non-existant. However, that does not mean that the presence of the danger, or the chance of it coming to fruition is in any way significant to the average person, nor does it debunk the deterrent that an armed citizenry creates.

You could argue that it's hard to wage guerilla warfare in Suburbia, but I would beg to differ. Nobody knows the surrounding area more than its locals, and soldiers from New England are going to be just as lost in Kansas as they would be in Columbia as far as familiarity goes. Tanks aren't the end-all threat either, because you can easily flank a tank in any urban environment, even the suburban ones. Of course, that doesn't eliminate the nuclear threat, but using nuclear weapons as an effort to quell dissent is retarded on so many levels I don't feel I have to go into.

The fact of the matter is, I'm still more likely to die in a car crash than a gun-related accident, or a gun-related crime. (the former, admittedly, is practically impossible because I do not own a firearm) While the gun does not have a utilitarian function outside of putting holes in things, it's that deterrent that ultimately guarantees even the most basic of freedoms.

Have you ever been convicted of or accused of committing a crime?

No?

There you go.

Just because you own a gun doesn't mean you are more likely to commit a crime, or to even use it. Just as purchasing a hammer doesn't make you more likely to become a carpenter.

If you buy a hammer, you are much more likely to use the hammer than someone who doesn't own one. And you can extrapolate that to also mean that you have a higher chance of hitting your thumb with a hammer, than someone who doesn't own one.

I'm sure this can apply in some way...

What

Yeah, people are always buying hammers without any intent of engaging in carpentry. Why would anyone do that? Why would you buy a hammer unless you wanted to pound some nails? Why would you buy a piece of hardware unless you intended to work with it?

People own tools because they are operating under a reasonable expectation that they might be called upon to use such tools. I don't know anyone who owns a hammer but is morally opposed to hammering things.

Again, by that logic we should also ban power tools and automobiles...

The reason that we don't is because the VAST majority of people are smart enough and safe enough that it's not really a concern...

Agreed... thinking is normally a good thing after all.

Again, this question of "reason" or "need" pops up. Why should it matter? I want a gun, and I'm not going to do anything dangerous with it, so why should it matter?

I fail to see the problem with that. The whole reason we have trials is to determine if someone is guilty or not. The court will decide if you acted reasonably or if you killed someone in cold blood. This is actualy the way the law works in many states, it's nothing new. I'm suprised that this Florida law was made into such a big deal by the media...

It's not that I personally don't count them. There is a distinction between felonys and lesser crimes that the law makes, not me. If it still bothers you, replace the word "criminal" with "felon"...

Then why do car accidents still happen? Trust me on this one, you can't legislate saftey...

Again, the VAST majority of people ARE responsible with them. If you take into accont the number of guns and gun owners in the US, the number of gun accidents or crimes commited with a gun are very low in comparison.

I'm not Rikimaru, but I would like to say that I trust guys like George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, etc... more than I do Bill Clinton or George Bush.

How is history irrelevant? Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it after all...

Again, I point to the example of the Nazis...

What if the poor kid chocked on the cauliflower? Almost anything can be dangerous if used improperly...

Actually it's just the oposite. Now you have to prove to the judge and jury that you acted REASONABLY. If you can't prove that, then you're in deep doo-doo

We've been over this one before... I've personally used my firearms many times, but never once have I hurt/killed anyone. Therefore I'd say you need to re-evaluate your thinking on this one...

I think not. There are plenty of people who get by just fine without a car. Owning a car is far from being a "necessary part of life"...

The object itself has nothing to do with intent, only the person using it can have any intention to do anything.

It wouldnt' be easy, but I'm sure it's possible... whats your point though?

There are all "what ifs". I can use "what if" arugments for banning just about anything. I can also use "what if" arugments to support almost any position.

I think that, what this whole debate boils down to, is that you personally don't like the idea of me having access to firearms. That isn't enough to convince me that I'm wrong. I'll use the computer example again. If I personally had a problem with you having access to computers, would you care? No, you'd say "I'm not doing anything wrong, therefore you have no right to bitch". It's the same with me and my firearms. I'm not doing anything wrong, so what gives you the right to take them away from me? If you can somehow convince me that the world would be a better place if I didn't have any firearms, I'd change my stance on this issue.

I have no problem with private citizens owning full autos. I personally don't want one, but I can see why someone else might. After all, they're really cool, and alot of fun...

Actually, I read an article about this once, I just can't find the source. It was a well-know Japanese millitary leader, I forget who exactly (Admiril Yamamoto maybe?) who said that they wouldn't be able to occupy the US because there would be "a rifle behind every bush" or something like that...

2

Not if you shoot them first. Besides, what if their intention is to kill you anyway?

True, but how do we know that it will be an improvement? Maybe in 2 years we'll be even worse off... what if Hillary becomes the next president?

Hey, if your arguments are based on "what ifs", then mine can be too :p

So people should be considered guilty untill proven innocent? I thought it was suposed to be the other way around...

I know the car example is being used alot, but I'll use it once again: You trust random people with cars, why not guns? Cars kill more people than guns do after all...

You guys say that us pro second amendment types are paranoid...

Life is about taking risks. You take a risk just by getting out of bed each morning. You take a risk every time you step out side...

And what reasons might those be? Because they make you feel uncomfortable? Thats not much of a reason if you ask me...

Of course there are some people out there who really shouldn't have access to firearms. However, they are in a very small minority. Again, if you look at the number of accidents compared to the number of guns, it's a very small precentage...

I think someone else has already said this, but here in the US crime rates dropped as well, without any change in gun laws. Therefore I'd argue that it wasn't nessisarily the buy-back program that caused Australia's drop in crime...

So all traffic laws should be repealed, because they don't actually reduce traffic incidents.

That is all I wanted to hear. You notice it took eight (8!) pages before someone in the pro firearm camp admited that the availability of firearms does present a risk, however minor.

Could you stop trying to discount foreign sensibility with bullshit arguments and irrelevant US statistics?

There are democracies in the world who would mediate the intersection of individual liberty and the public good instead of blithely defend an ultimately destructive freedom because 'everything a man does is innately risky anyway'.

David, you are quoting troo much shit your posts look like a mess. I also think I saw something about the Nazis in there, because you know that's a surefire way to win an argument.

whoa... I hadn't really noticed, but you're right, I went overboard with the quotes there...

I'll keep the quotes to a minimum this time...

My argument hasn't changed. Not once did I say EVERYONE should have a gun. People who have been convicted of felonys for example should not be permitted to own firearms (and they aren't). And there are some people who are just too stupid to use one safely. You can't really weed out the stupid ones though, so that will always be a "risk" as you put it. However, this risk is very small compared to the overall population.

Australian statistics are ok, but US statistics are irrelevant? Why is that?

Because America should be more like Australia. Remember - America is wrong about everything and the lesser nations of the world are always right. Whether it be in regards to foreign policy, the death penalty, socialism, or gun ownership, America is on the wrong side. This is why foreigners are considered 'sensible' by Cal and Americans are full of shit.

Remember always that foreigners think Americans are stupid, arrogant, and completely undeserving of the power they have.

Well you are signifgantly behind the rest of the industrialised world in these regards, often seen as progress. You should try it sometime.

If America was more like Australia you'd have less murders, more equal distribution of income, a more open electoral system, a higher life expectancy, a more educated population and better beer.
Think about it.

Yes, because socialism is the cure to all of society's ills.

No, you're thinking of communism.

Don't even try to change the subject. America might be developed economically but it's highly regressive compared to the rest of the developed world in many other social aspects. Gun control not withstanding.

You say that now but will rue the days of neglect towards the impending unstoppable alien invasion. Those armed will stave off the threat underground. You and your family will be enslaved and separated. The weight of the regret will burn your soul away, you fucking communist.

There's a key element you're overlooking, RAB.

Australia sucks ass.
http://jimallanstudio.com/IMAGES/air...he_patriot.jpg

You know, not everyone considers being socialist as being 'progressive' or beneficial.

U.S> homicide rate is 5.67 per 100,000, Australia's is 1.81. Considering Australia doesn't have an open border bleeding criminals into the country, nor does it have the huge urban centers of the U.S. and it is a mostly homogeneous society, as compared to the large and bvaried etnic populations in the U.S., 1.81 is nothing to brag about. lets compare Australia with a U.S. state with similar demographics..Utah..which has a 1.9 homicide rate. Apple and Oranges.

This seems to be a constant issue in PP. That no country thus far has been 'comparable' to the US. What country would be? It's often disputed that the US either has A)More varied population B) Borders C) Lots of land D) I can't think of anything at the moment.

But my point is, what country can be compared to the US? Otherwise statistics from other countries are deemed worthless for comparison. And that the US's own statistics can't be compared with anything but their own.

I have to admit, though, that comparing these numbers isn't the ultimate solution. It's been pointed out that there are countries with widespread gun ownership and incredibly low firearm homicide rates (Switzerland, Norway).

On the other hand, the overwhelming majority of countries with strict gun control also have very low (firearm) homicide rates (Germany, England, Japan). It would be foolish to claim that there is no correlation between the two.

I agree that there are examples for either case but take Britain for example, even before they completely banned handguns they have had incredibly low crime rate involving guns. So they are a terrible example of what happens when you completely ban weapons like that. A lot of the crime problems in the United States stem from problems that have nothing to do with gun control. Take California for example, they have some of the harshest gun control laws in the United States yet they continue to have horrible crime. California has a large illegal alien problem which I am sure contributes to their crime rates.

Another issue is the education of the public about firearms; far too many people these days seem to be completely ignorant about firearms assuming that they are only used to kill people. This is especially true with the knee jerk reactions that happen in areas where a recent killing(s) have been committed with guns.

Killing animals, killing people, and practicing.

True, people have knee jerk reactions about them, but I don't see how education about guns will make people think that they are used for anything but the three things listed. All it might do for your cause is to get people to marginalize the impact that guns have on violence. The most people can take away from the education is the impression that the weapons are only a very minor factor, and best ignored.

It'll always be hard to comfort people who have just been exposed to shootings. "Guns only killed a *few* people, I mean, geez, put it in perspective." might work fine for those of us that haven't been affected by it recently. But can you imagine it having any effect in a situation like Columbine after their shootings? People don't want to hear that, they want someone/something to blame, wether it's legit or a scapegoat.

Using US statistical trends to attribute or misattribute a decrease in firearms deaths upon another country's introduction of a buyback scheme makes you one of the blunter knives in the draw, but then again:

Timmyyyy

Calling America ethnically diverse is a laugh and a half. Maybe in the border states, and the big cities, but by and large, you won't find Black people outside of the south, and you won't find Poles in Washington state.

Aside from Chinks and aboriginees, though, what else does Australia have?

Most gun owners will never have to even point a gun at another human being let alone kill them. The primary use of any firearm that is used outside of war is sport shooting, i.e. hunting, skeet shooting, competition shooting, etc. I don't care if these people want something to blame to think that because less than 1/2% of guns in the United States are used in crimes that the rest of the 99.5% should be taken away is retarded.

Also for those who are outside of the United States, what makes you think that the majority of Americans don't want to have the right to own guns? Don't you think that if there was a large enough movement to get ride of them that they would be gone? But in reality that isn't how it is, we have restriction of how people go about legally buying guns because most people are smart enough to see the sense in that, but the majority of the pressure to get ride of guns comes from a few people who spread lies, i.e. Cop killer bullets as an example. Any sensible American would see that getting ride of our rights is not a smart idea, as chances are you will never get those rights back.

Double Post:
That isn't true. Here in Oregon we have a large population of Asians and Russians. I see black people all the time, not in the same numbers as you do in the south but it isn't like you make it out to be that they all stay in the same place.

Not really, no. I'm sure outcry would arise at the basic principle of altering the constitution, of the ideal of the amendment itself, not to mention lobbying and gun-toting legislators in high places.

Stricter gun control isn't the same thing as forbidding any citizen to own a gun, ever.

And while those populations have a local effect on their communities, "American Society" is by and large, unaffected. My point is that regionally, you can make the case for diversification, but on a national level, we have a by and large white society, dominated by whites, and based around white values.

The problem with gun control, though, is that it tends to trivialize the right if it's effective, or is trivial in and of itself.

It depends, really, on the purpose of the gun control. If, like with the Brady bill, all you're basing your bannings on are aesthetics, then you have a trivial law. If you base it on an actual lethality threshold, though, then not only is the law itself trivial, but you also trivialize the right to own the guns that are left. A gun registry, also, is a huge waste of money, because the only people that will register their weapons would be those who don't intend to commit crimes with them in the first place. The actual benefit it'd give to Law Enforcement wouldn't justify the cost of maintaining the beurocracy required for a gun registry.

Waiting limits, and criminal background checks, though, are perfectly reasonable. I don't see how you could be denied a right to bear arms if the retailer refuses your service based on your background.

Also, I'm not entitled to overnight delivery. You have to pay extra for that shit.

Skexis, we have amended the constitution before. However the right to bear arms was added in the second amendment. Why amend something just to turn around and remove it?

From the way most of the anti gun people would have you believe is that every gun is a terrible danger to everyone around it, especially children because they want to play at the fears of parents. But the statistics don't really match what a lot of these anti-gun groups like to say. There are by far more responsible gun owners than there are wackos out there shooting people.

The Right to Bear Arms wasn't added to the constitution, it was an article of the original Bill of Rights. =/

The only Constitutional Ammendment that's been repealed, as far as I know, was Prohibition.

I'm...not arguing for removing it. I'm saying even if there were a large enough movement that wanted to tighten gun laws (or get rid of guns altogether), it probably wouldn't get done, for the reasons I said.

Please...stop trying to win this by claiming that your statistics are better than their statistics.

Skexis, have you ever actually read the literature that was used as the basis for the assault weapon ban? It was the same as most of the other literature that speaks out against guns, it is very vague, sometimes containing conflicting data, and full of very bias numbers.

Brandylama: Second Amendment?

Double Post:
The Constitution was ratified before the bill of rights was written.

Per square mile perhaps you would be correct, but American population isn't evenly distributed. The major cities are hugely diverse ethnically, and a vast amount of Americans live in these major metropolitan cities, or in the surrounding cities/towns.

And as Gumby wrote, Oregon is a microcosm in itself. The largest city, Portland, is home to European Caucasians (with Germans and Poles in their own sub-cosms), Russians, Chinese, Japanese, African Americans, and Mexicans...and let's not go into individual religious groups. I can't say there are many native French speakers, but you can't have them all. Most of these groups live in "their own areas" within the city, but constantly intermingle. Then in the "outlying areas" the ethnicities become even more obvious. Woodburn, for example, is a prime example of a small(ish) town hosting a large amount of Mexicans, Russians, Euro-Caucasians, and a minority of Asians. Other towns aer set-up in a similar manner, though many of the smaller towns, towns in the "high desert", or aren't along the I-5 corridor are typically less diverse.

You rather missed the point, lad. Yes, you buy the hammer with the expectation to use it, but you don't have to buy a hammer then take up carpentry as a profession because you bought one. The same is true with guns. You don't buy a gun unless you feel there may come a time in which you will need to use it. But you don't become more inclined to become a criminal because you bought a gun.

Guns are a limited use tool, but don't forget that they are only a tool. It still takes a person for a gun to be harmful.

Well, no, guns aren't magical, Charlie, they don't have a curse cast on them which transforms you into an evil man. (And, again, this issue pops up again — the idea of "criminals" as some kind of nebulous OTHER)

No, what is gun is, indeed, is a "limited use tool", where all of its intended uses are basically blowing ragged holes through things. Mostly living things. Whether or not it's CRIMINAL to blow off your teenage son's head when he sneaks in late (because you thought he might be a criminal!) is kind of beside the point.

But GAWRSH, Mickey, I'm not a CRIME-INAL, a CRIMINAL, and that has made all the difference.

Dead Horse++ you almost sound like an Oregonian...

That's not a conclusion. That's a new theory, with no evidence of its own to back it up. Denial is not a river. :P

No to the first question and I don't know the answer to the second.

Such as it is, you're right.

Australia initiated a gun buy-back - and thanks to it, gun crime, injury and death stats dropped across the board, bucking the trend of increase they had been on which prompted them to initiate the program in the first place. Such proof can't be ignored. He can spin it if he likes. It'll just make him look more foolish.

Without statistics, you can't prove anything.

I'd rather have the infinitessimal drop in guaranteedness of my freedoms than the burden of responsibility of owning a firearm, thanks.

And at the same time American gun crime has dropped across the board without the measures the Australian government has put in place. I'm not spinning shit - when you show me evidence that shows that having the right to own firearms causes deaths I'll concede the argument.

You have been given the proof.

You show me your proof of American gun crime dropping. Show me the actual numbers. Quote the study or studies. Otherwise you're still jut blowing hot air as you have been all along.

Arrowhead go back and look at my posts. I posted 4 article links about record low crime rates in the US that continue to drop each year even after our assault weapon ban was lifted.

That or just do a simple google search, you will get your proof.

Not really. It only covers the timeframe between the Brady Act and the lifting of the ban on assault weapons. The only relevance it has is to support the Brady Act.

Double Post:
I'll dig up Gumby's proof, thanks.

How can that not suffice? It clearly shows drop over ~10 years.

There is no debating that there was a drop in crime rate. It doesn't mean that more control on firearms would *not* further decrease violent crime, but that's just another one of those things that you can't answer unless it's attempted. And since it's not desired, it won't be put to the test.

Very weak. Early on, the author neglects to point to specific stats, instead comparing stats without showing them in any form that can be scrutinized. And this is just plain silly:
Comparing averages of Right To Carry states against one state with tight restrictions.

Much better. And I actually believe you now.

Really doesn't say anything on the topic on its own.

Biased as all hell, doesn't cite sources.

But I certainly agree with your overall argument ("Guns should be legal but people really ought to be taught to be responsible with them"?) You'd be right, in that.

Oregonians Unite!

We're the best state in the union, because we don't have sales tax, and we don't have to pump our own gas :p

Anyways, I finally found some info. It would seem that the per-capita crime rate in the US isn't as high as it is in the UK, however the actual homicide rate is higher here. So you're less likely to be the victum of crime in general in the US, but if you are one of those few, you're more likely to die. I found this very interesting...

I feel we are actually close to some sort of compromise on this issue... at the very least the two sides seem to be considering the others point of view. This must be a first for PP...

True. I don't have a problem with things like background checks for example. What concerns me is that one day the goverment might come knocking on my door and demand I turn over my firearms... and that is what some of you are proposing...

Bradylama, I think you're confusing the brady bill with the AWB (assualt weapon ban)

No one is trying to force that responsiblity upon you. As for the proof you're looking for, I posted links to the FBI website showing crime rates at an all time low. You should read the thread before you assume that we're just making stuff up.

Edit: oops I missed your most recent post there. Seems that you found the numbers you were looking for, so nevermind.

Go back to my earlier post and read-up on my proposal for manditory firearm safety education prior to purchasing any firearm.

If the user isn;t stupid, and those in the household are educated in proper safety ettiquite (whicn includes teaching kids that a gun is not a show-and-tell toy for your friends at home), then accidental death or injury incidents WILL drop.

You know, it's rather like sex ed: One side believes teaching children about sex, thereby informing them of both the dangers and the protections, will reduce teenage pregnancy...while another side believes teaching children to just say no to sex completely will stop teenage pregnancy.

In regards to guns, I'm on the former side rather than the latter. An informed public is a public that knows better. But sex? Wrong topic, so don't ask.

Interesting comparison. I know it made me laugh.

I agree with you that education would help reduce injuries and deaths by firearms. It is most amusing though, that you compare it to sex education's abstinence only vs. sex education. The clear difference is that sex is always going to be there, whether we teach kids about it or not. In order to compare the two topics, you'd have to chop off lil' Billy's wang, as the counterpoint of outlawing firearms. And even better than that, you have to argue that billy still has as high a chance of having sex as he would have without having his penis removed.

You're right though, it's off topic. I just couldn't help but smile though.

That's a problem, too. There's always going to be a gun, or a knife, or a bat, or a stapler, or a dry-eraser...we're limited in our ways to kill only by our imagination.

Don't forget body parts. People have died from being headbutted. Now there's "using your head".

:rolleyes: at my own dumb joke.

Guy at my old high school head-butted another kid (both were on the football team, but the head-buttee was rather scrawny) , which sent the head-buttee to the hospital room with a concussion.

...yeah...school made a few new rules after that one.

Why would the school make rules after that one incident?

Just because one person is irresponsible with their headbutting, it ruins it for *everybody* else who would use their heads only to butt appropriately and safely.

Yes, and then you introduce the inevitable problems of any government-run program: apathy, ineffectuality, double standards and bribery. You'd see the same thing that goes on with the DMV; lots of rich folks and pretty girls getting the nod regardless of their competence. Besides, if you make the safety classes mandatory, then gun ownership becomes a privilege rather than a right and that won't satisfy anyone. Furthermore, it limits firearm ownership to whoever can pay for the classes. They'd have to charge a "nominal fee", after all, and charging a nominal fee so that people can make use of their basic constitutional rights is apparently completely acceptable.

See, this always cracks me up, because unlike the gun debate this one is demonstrably one-sided. You can look at any given town or state's teen pregnancy rates before and after the Paranoid Parent Collective freaks out and cancels the sex-ed classes, and the result is always the same. This is all off-topic, of course, but it just shows how useless statistical data is when people just WANT to believe otherwise anyway.

Like environmental and sociological factors have nothing to do with crime rates. What I'm saying is that there isn't enough data being provided to come to a logical conclusion. Assuming that things like income and basic standards of living have remained the same, or even lowered, you have a much better case for the buy-back program. However, the following lends itself better to the buy-back program than either of the above:

And here we have the key. If all firearms are bought back with no questions asked, then you're looking at a situation where the state is openly purchasing illegally possessed firearms. The end result, then, is that there are less guns being possessed by the people that intend to use them.

While this definitely reduces gun-related crime, as your source is oft to point out, how has it affected Australia's overall crime rate? Are Australians honestly any safer thanks to the buy back? How many Australians still have legally possessed firearms after compared to before?

All of these are factors, as people who trade in illegal weapons to the government are probably those looking to make some quick cash in the first place. While they no longer have a gun, that still hasn't eliminated their perceived need to commit crimes.

All situations are created from more than a single cause. Looking at all contributing factors is the only way to effectively make an objective conclusion. For instance, the article that Gumby linked to could be used to support the idea that an increase in gun ownership reduces the crime rate. However, that's highly unlikely, and there's no real logical reason to come to that conclusion.

Well, the beauty of freedoms and rights is that you don't have to excercize them. What you're really looking for is a false sense of security stemming from the lack of trust in your neighbors.

It's ironic that a driving motive for both sides of the camp can stem from an overblown need for safety.

Ironic as it is, that safety from both sides comes from completely different motives, freedom over another social dependence on the government for protection.

Oh, Gumby. Poor, retarded Gumby. Tell us, Gumby: what is the function of the military?

The function of a military is to secure the national interests of a country.

And the military is funded by...

Taxpayers :p

You completely missed the point, Manis Tricuspis. I am well aware of the fuction of the military as I am a part of it. Also I was speaking more of police than the military.

Ok, so what's in the interest of a country? I think the first interest of a country is continuing to exist, am I right?

It's still highly irrelevant, as we rely on socially funded methods of security. Unless you're somehow implying that crime does not impact National Security.

Precisely. You're still paying for your safety. Now, if anyone WANTS to remove themselves from the social safety net, I support their right to do that. No police protection, no fire protection, no social security, no driver's license, no postal service... I can go on and on like this. Hey, fine by me. And in return, no taxes! All you have to do is renounce your citizenship. You can keep LIVING here, but we'll pretend you don't exist! I think that sounds like a fair compromise.


Gumby: As a part of the military, who employs you? Think on this one as long as it takes.

lol you guys are funny.

No I was refering to the fact that people who are pro-gun want the ability to defend themselves rather, than like the anti-gun people, being very dependant on the cops to defend themselves...

In a larger and greater sense, it's the American people that employs you. They give you their trust and they hand down to you the responsibility of defending the nation, its people, and its interests. However, of course, most people will answer that it is the military that employs you.

And Gun ownership isn't restricted to whose who can afford the gun, ammunition, and maintenance? And wouldn't SOME system of pre-education be better than no education at all? Unless, of course, you also have a proposal to fix the DMV, as you exampled. And as far as denying rights, this does no such thing. You can get a gun anytime you want, you just have to prove you know how to handle it. Just like a car, really. Though there is no direct right regarding automobiles (for obvious reasons: These rights were drafted in the 18th century), you still have to have a license in order to drive it.

It's one sided to you, because that is the side you choose. However, there ARE two sides to that argument, and the other side has their own data to back up their claims.

While the poll is closed, I'll put my vote here. I'm definitely for firearms, and am livid about a lot of the senseless gun control legislation. All that and I'm on the left. Well, I may be left, but I also work in law enforcement and see first-hand plenty. Gun control laws do only hinder and hurt honest citizens. The scum I've dealt with have no problem getting whatever guns they want.

Now I heard somewhere, can't remember where, that's there's legislation on the table to make a law that can punish gun owners if their gun is stolen and subsequently used in a crime, with the owner being considered equally guilty. This is just plain ridiculous. Think about it. You're on vacation, your gun locked up nice and tight where your kids can't get to it but it's also useless to you if someone breaks into the house. Well, someone breaks in while you're not there, breaks into your case, steals the gun, then goes and kills people. Now you come back and you find yourself charged with all the murders. Can you say "retarded"?

Yes, the military employs soldiers. The military is in turn commissioned by the government, which is composed of (mostly) elected officials who are selected by— YES! The citizenry! The same citizenry that the military, in securing the interests of the nation, is protecting! It's all so beautiful!

See, to me, the phrase "anti-gun" is misleading. I'm not "anti-gun". When someone's "anti-abortion" that usually means they think abortions are wrong and should never be allowed. But I don't feel that way about guns! I can think of a lot of good reasons a person should have a gun. They could be a soldier, a policeman, a secret agent... or maybe they're just a rustic, living off the land. That's not a problem! What I (and probably most "anti-gun" people) object to is the notion that every single citizen of the nation has a "right" to handheld cannons just because.

I don't depend on the police for my safety, either. I live in a rural area; the police would be highly unlikely to arrive in time to save anybody. But no one has ever broken into my house (with or without a gun of their own), nor do I have any reason to fear that anyone would want to. No, the most significant danger I have from criminals is the fear that one of the yahoo hunters tramping around the woods near my home will reflexively shoot me or my family or one of my pets. And indeed, this happens to someone in the general neighborhood every year or two, some asshole in the hospital and some other asshole in the pokey because of their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to shoot at the deer (and miss).

The Flat Earth Society is also operating under the delusion that all debates are two-sided. Good for them! The world needs more idealists.

That rule should be used in a case-by-case basis. You can't condemn all gun-owners who have had their guns stolen and used in the commission of a crime to be responsible ALL THE TIME. However, sometimes, people should be penalized for leaving a gun in insecure places where it is likely to be stolen.

To me, it just seems obvious.

"Well, the gun used in the killing belongs to Joe Smith."

"We should arrest Joe Smith, in that case!"

"WTF NO THAT'S PERSECUTION OF GUN OWNERS"

I mean, hello? I'm not a POLICE COP but it seems like determining the origins of the weapons used in a crime is a PRETTY CRUCIAL STEP!

And yet the Abstience policy is still mandatory in how many Federally Funded schools again?

It doesn't mean that side is completely right, and it doesn't mean that side is completely wrong. After all, the Abstinence Only group holds their belief strongly in religion, and religious freedom of definately something you wouldn't want to step on in America. For you to disregard their stance is akin to my disregarding yours simply on the basis that I don't view "Right to Bear Arms" the same as you do.

See how the "I am right because I just am!" idea falls flat on its face? Debate becomes nothing more than a shouting match.

So, really, you've argued the implemntation of gun education...but not the idea(l). Which is exactly the opposite of how you feel about sex ed, apparently, though you would meet severe opposition on your views based on others views and religious beliefs were you try to impliment your apparent beliefs onto others.

You see how the similarity works now?

Double Post:
Only if the owner knowingly allowed his weapon to be used in a crime.

Now then, if it had been stolen from the owner, then the owner is clearly not liable. You WOULD make arguements about how the gun was stored, etc., in regards to such a theft, and some states do have such laws. But if the owner had taken reasonable steps to secure their weapon, yet the weapon is stolen (or taken in other, extenuating circumstances) and used in a crime anyways, then how is the Owner at fault?

"Hey, someone stole my baseball bat from the locker room and used it to beat Billy to death...why are you taking me to jail instead of/with the guy that stole and used it criminally?"

Right, exactly, my gun was "stolen" from my "locked gun case" which "only I had the key to" and then it was used to "rob and kill and old lady" "completely without my knowledge".

Honestly!

The important part of the bill is whether or not exceptions are made for those whose guns have been reported stolen.

The idea of the bill is to crack down on gun show salesmen who sell off their merchandise without going through the proper channels. If the firearm gets tied back to Mountain Joe at the Farris County Gun Show, he should be held accountable for any crimes commited with said weapon.

Which all ties into my earlier point about illegal guns having come from at least somewhat legitimate sources. The criminals aren't making their own weapons, and they don't come out of thin air. They are stolen from, or sold by, the 'good' citizens. Edit, and good companies etc.

I think it's ironic that the argument that anti-gun control people are using is that they need their guns for protection when the lack of gun control is what is causing the need for protection in the first place.

Exactly...

But then again, the same could be said of the pro-gun side... just replace the word "neighbor" with "goverment"...

This is why I am very much in favor of laws that will help keep guns out of the hands of the "bad guys". I'm just opposed to laws that would also keep them out of the hands of upstanding citizens...

It's not just about protecting yourself from gun-toting crooks. I'd still use a gun if someone came at with with a knife or bat. And don't forget the big, bad goverment...

Also, it's about fun. I enjoy hunting and target shooting, and see no reason why I shouldn't be able to continue to do so...

I enjoy fishing with dynamite, and see no reason why...

I enjoy leaping nude out of airplanes, and see no reason why...

I enjoy playing loud rap music in the middle of suburban neighborhoods at 4 AM, and see no reason why...

I have a Twinky, I don't need a gun when I have a Twinky. Twinkies require no maintenance and have a shelf life of forever.

Why do I have a Twinky? Well, in case I get attacked by ninjas... FROM SPACE!

Twinkies are easily mass-produced and cause no harm to humans, well, if you ingest them they might. They're linked to obesity.

What I want to know is, how can the nation of supposed enlightenment and moral superiority which is supposed to be spreading THE FREEDOM all over the world be in such bad shape? We have all kinds of major health problems, a lot of it due to poor diets and the resulting SHELF-ASS. We also can't seem to stop killing each other. And, for all of our PURE HEART and CHASENED RESTRAINT why do we have a higher incidence of substance abuse than in other countries? It's a mystery.

Well, see, the FREEDOM necessarily includes the FREEDOM of corporations to operate without any meaningful regulation.

But what does that have to do with anything, Dr. Polemic McYellowfever?

It has to do with spread of controversy and asian lesbian pornography-- the cornerstones of a productive, cohesive society.

I think the obsession with possessing firearms is the same with the insistance upon owning ridculously large stationwagons known as SUVs. It's not that there's any particular reason to own one, it's simply another totem compensation for phallic inadequacy.

That's what I used to think. But it was explained to me that those that live in the US rockies *need* their SUVs. It was explained to me that before they were available people were unable to travel in those areas in the winter because mortal cars weren't up to the job. And since they *need* them, it justifies it for the rest of us. Seemed like bullshit to me, but the popular opinion was against me on that one.

Nobody needs an SUV. The people who settled those areas got there on fucking horses.

A while ago I was seriously considering purchasing a side-by-side shotgun and a .357 revolver in the event that the petrodollar crashes and the country descends into chaos. Or I could just have a small penis.

And what else was stolen when your home was burglarized?

The cynisism doesn't suit you, especially when your words are hollow and your logic fuzzy.

So if, say, someone steals your car and uses it during a Bank Robbery, you should be held accountable as well for providing the criminal the means to carry out their crime.

Fuzzier than 7-year-old Jello...

Unrelated rant... Anyway, I’m not interested in whether it’s guns that really kill people, or if it’s the people pulling the trigger. However, people who are injured (and not necessarily fatally) in gun related activity still turn up at emergency departments in hospitals. I think it’s something that’s often overlooked, but nonfatal firearm injuries create an enormous public health-care burden in the US. One published study (Cherry, Annest et al; Annals of Emergency Medicine 98) showed that nonfatal firearm injuries treated in hospital emergency departments outnumbered firearm fatalities by 3 to 1. In terms of child morbidity (only cos I’m on a Paediatric rotation), for every 1 child who dies in an unintentional shooting, Sinaur, Annest et al (JAMA 96) estimate 10 children are treated in hospital emergency rooms for non-fatal unintentional gunshot wounds.

Apologies for crappy referencing aside, the implications of firearms (and associated regulation/control etc) are not limited to just mortality and crime statistics. I think it’s safe to assume that a background level of criminal activity exists in all societies, so gun related death and crime will almost always be a feature no matter how restrictive the laws are. However, I’m led to believe that the areas where there could be some benefit to be had in terms of gun control are the non fatal injuries, and subsequent benefits of reallocation of trauma services… although that’s a completely different topic altogether.

Wow someone who actually uses references in PP, props to you Pez!

I agree that there should be some regulation and control as to who can own a firearm (i.e. people convicted of a felony, history of violence, etc) and I as a citizen am willing to pay the price (taxes) for those accidents for the continued right to own guns, though I believe if we spent that money on education of our youth about guns we wouldn't have so many accidents. Oregon for example has the second best funded education system in the United States yet they have made gun education in public schools a no-no with in the last 10 years. I personally recieved a hunters safety course in 6th grade that involved learning those basic skills on an air rifle. We all took guns very seriously and didn't play around with them.

Whoa. You're saying that gun education used to be a regular class in schools until recently? I thought you were proposing something new which hadn't been in place before.

Pez, do you have the numbers on your study? Like, how many are unintentionally injured, and how many die? The ratio is interesting, but it'd be even better to have the rough totals.

Yes this isn't something new... They were two classes if I remember correctly, one focused on hunters safety with a firearms (we used air rifles but it makes the point) and I believe they had another classes that more focused on bow hunting/safety and the techniques in field dressing animals. This was in middle school.

Everyone who took those classes came out very knowledgable about the subject because we were all VERY engaged in what was being taught. These classes from what I could gather had been taught long before I ever went to that school. The schools in the area had similar programs as well until it was stopped state wide :/

That's interesting I'd never heard of anything like that. I'd think we'd have had something similiar down in Oklahoma as predominant as hunting is here and yet there's nothing like it. Then again we have a terrible education system. It's a good idea I admit but it at the very least needs to be combined with a fairly strict screening process for gun buying.

Oregon has a terrible education system as well, this is the reason why those classes are no longer taught.

Makes sense. This is, after all, a time when music and art aren't taught in some schools. In such places that don't teach those classes, I doubt Gun Safety 101 even merits discussion by the board.

Well, being from Texas, I naturally have a pro-gun bias. But I believe gun control is too weak. I also believe that it's sort of missing the point. Allow me to explain.

Many people should not be allowed to have guns. Background and psychological tests need to be more thorough and the process required to own a gun needs to be much longer and more exhaustive. This should help keep guns out of the wrong hands. But criminals can still obtain guns illegally and even if they can't, those intent on murder will just use something else. The real problem is not that we're not doing a good job of keeping guns away from the wrong people. The real problem is that there is an astronomical number of bad dudes out there, compared with crime statistics from the first half of the twentieth century. Corresponding with that is a rise in people who feel aimless in life, the invention of television and mass media, rise in drug use, hippies, irresponsible parents, and a rise in atheism. I don't believe in coincidences. This is all connected and the end result is that there are many people who have little moral guidance and to whom life is cheap and may be taken from someone else. I could write a dissertation on this, but just to illustrate my point I'll give a few brief notes.

Television: many studies have shown alarming spikes in crime that correspond to the introduction of television (especially modern TV) to a region that previously did not have it.

Atheism: When people do not believe there is a god, then all law becomes man-made and subject to revision, as opposed to the eternal law one would expect from a perfect deity. Furthermore, atheists do not see a fellow man as created, they see him as an advanced animal, just a monkey that talks. As a consequence, human life becomes cheap. As a side note, there is no such thing as a true athiest. No matter how much someone tells himself he is an atheist, if you throw him into a foxhole with bullets and shrapnel flying inches from his face, he will yell out to every god he ever heard of to save his life. Why is that?

Poor education: There is not only a poor academic educational system, but teachers also often fail to instill values, ethics, and morals into children. Considering that children spend more waking hours at school than at home, this is a big mistake. Apathetic parents don't help the situation.

Bottom line is the world is fucked up and that's the real reason guns are such a problem. That being so, I would like a gun for protection along with some unarmed combat training and some prayers. I live in Houston and I've noticed that most violent incidents involving firearms are committed by either blacks or Hispanics. With the blacks, it isn't hard to figure out why. Just go listen to rap. Hispanics have a thing with gangs so a lot of kids get pulled into bad company

lol I'm suprised that someone hasn't screamed bigot at you gunner k2.

I have to ask you this, what happens if they put your testing system into effect for buying guns and it comes to light that by their psychological tests they say you should not be able to own guns? Are you still going to take the word of a some head doc that you are unfit to own a gun?

Your ideas are illogical, putting people though a test to see if they are stable is not the answer because every test can be cheated on. All that does it make it harder for myself or any other sane intelligent American to own a gun. That doesn't keep it out of the hands of crazies because they like criminals will always have a source of such items.

I have no problem with back ground checks to make sure criminals aren't buying guns but psychological tests? Seems like a wasted effort.

What the hell I mean really? While I agree that more rigorous background checks and licensing requirements are the solution not outright banning guns most of that posts contains some of the most batshit insane backwoods redneck indoctrinated bullshit I've ever heard. Bloody texans.

So do I and while you are correct that the majority of the murders in Houston are black on black crime, it's not the result of rap music, its an entire cultural degradation in the black community from resons too numerous to list. The influx of 150,000 mostly black folks from New Orleans doesn't help much. Go a few miles north to Montgomery county and you'll find the majority of murders are committed by white meth heads..a huge problem in rural Texas. Hispanics...for their large percenatge of Houston's population, are relatively peaceful, most of the crime there being of the domestic variety.

I agree, to a certain point anyway. There are already some psychological requirements in a way though, aren't there? Like, if a court finds you legally incompetent/insane, doesn't that prevent you from obtaining a gun or at least put a legal roadblock in your way?

Actually that is not true. Unless there has been a ruling that because of your mental state you are not allowed to own a gun, there is nothing stopping someone from buying one. Any violent criminal history involving a gun also will keep you from being able to buy a gun (as it should be). That background check they do is to make sure that you are not a felon and that you do not have a history of violent crimes even if the conviction was only on a misdemeanor charge.