The great gun-control debate [Archive] - Green Grass Forums

Gandalf_The_Grey

11-03-2007, 06:18 PM

So, I'm interested to hear all your opinions on gun policy at a national level; whether you be Canadian, American, or whatever.

I peronally believe that people should have the right to own guns. Putting an outright ban on them, as many people support, would IMO only arm the criminals and leave the general public defenseless. Too often I've seen failed policies (in law, and especially schools) that rely on de-clawing everybody with the false notion that you can actually control the entire general public.

In practice, however, what I've witnessed is the good, honest, law-abiding folk who follow the rules, and the bad folk to live to victimize, flouting the rules and establishing a possition of dominance over the now-defenseless honest people.

After all, would an outright ban on guns not seem a bit similar to the outright ban on drugs? What you would have is, basically, a "war on guns"; and we all know how well America's wars on this and that social issues go. The last century has shown us that when you try to outright ban something, you just establish a massive black market; arming the bad guys, creating a new billion dollar industry for criminals, creating more enforcement headaches for the police.

Getting down to specifics:

I think rifles are the basic; what every sane, law-abiding citizen should be entitled to.

Shotguns... I'm not so sure about. Do we really need to hand out weapons that utterly destroy the opposition? I think a bullet will suffice, no need to disintegrate the burglar's head.
However, I have no firm possition on shotguns, I haven't given it a lot of thought.

Handguns... there's another interesting one. In our last election here in Canada, the Liberal government proposed a total ban on handguns should they be elected. The Conservatives won though, so that never went through.
As I see it, handguns really serve no other purpose but to kill people. You don't hunt with a handgun, and a rifle can suffice for defence. Handguns are, of course, much smaller and easier to conceal on one's person. I'm actually inclined to support a ban on handguns.
As I said, a black market would of course come up and criminals would get their handguns, but it would still be a lot more difficult to get their hands one. The reason I support this but not an outright gun ban, is because you can't stop criminals from getting guns, so the public does need some means of defending themselves. But, you can reduce the availability of handguns, and while plenty (but much less) criminals would get their hands on handguns, we'd still have a means of defending ourselves in the home with the rifles/shotguns.
Anybody feel free to counter me on this one, especially, because I'm absolutely open to changing my opinion on this one. This is just where I'm leaning.

Automatic assault weapons I believe should be completely banned. There's just no legitimate use for them, and giving people AK-47's is just insane IMO.

Now as for a society where handguns, shotguns, all that stuff is allowed, I support allowing the general public to carry handguns on their person. As I see it, criminals are going to be a lot less ballsy about mugging someone or robbing a store in public, when anybody around them could whip out their gun and blow them away. I've seen so many surveilance tapes of robbers hitting convenience stores full of people and just running off with the loot. If the other people in the store all had guns, he wouldn't stand a chance. It would be a way for the general public, who tend to adhere to a civilized society, to keep the victimizers in line.

Frankly I grow tired of this society of victim's we're raising. It's about time we start teaching our kids that good people need to be strong in the face of those who victimize the weak, not try to create a magical pretend society where everybody is neutered and defenseless; because then it's only the good and honest who are left defenseless.

So, all opinions are welcome. Lets try to be friendly, respectful, and have a civil discussion... and above all there is to be no shooting each other ;) .

Gandalf_The_Grey

11-03-2007, 06:21 PM

Oops, made a typo. Could a mod please change the first poll option to "all guns, of any type, should be banned"?

420_24/7

11-03-2007, 06:24 PM

i cant really take a side on this
im very against guns and would never own one if i didnt feel i needed to
but the saying "If you outlaw guns only the outlaws will have them" comes to mind
and it makes sense, also its our constitutional right to bear arms, so i dont really know

Gandalf_The_Grey

11-03-2007, 06:27 PM

indicagrower

11-03-2007, 08:50 PM

Psycho4Bud

11-03-2007, 09:08 PM

Oops, made a typo. Could a mod please change the first poll option to "all guns, of any type, should be banned"?

No problem...........

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

mfqr

11-03-2007, 09:19 PM

Some day we might need these guns for real purposes. Self-defense and possibly some day when we must rise up against the powers that be, or be oppressed. Whenever that will happen, and it will, we might need guns. The rest of you can disarm yourselves and leave the weapons to the government. Because, of course, they should be able to have guns, and we shouldn't. We're obviously too stupid to have them. LOL. That's all I have to say. Anyone who wants to argue what I say will be arguing to nothing, as I will not reply. I have said all I have to say.

WakingDream

11-03-2007, 09:31 PM

Outlawing guns will not save people's lives. Gun laws only keep guns away from law abiding citizens.

the_candyman_707

11-03-2007, 09:51 PM

i don't see any reason to ever own a gun
if u say "for self protection" you wouldn't need the gun if others didn't have guns
f people want to hunt they should do it with other weapons having a gun is a completely unfair advantage, kinda defeats the purpose of hunting too

the only reason i think that we should be allowed to have guns is so we have the ability to overthrow the government if necessary.

Zcomp

11-03-2007, 09:53 PM

The gov. walks around with unlimited weapons. Where are we when they turn on us? Left with out equal defense, thats where. The foundation of democracy has been reduced to the term "Civil Disobedience", Why do we accept defeat?

Gandalf_The_Grey

11-03-2007, 11:02 PM

No problem...........

Have a good one!

Thanks P4B:thumbsup:

i don't see any reason to ever own a gun
if u say "for self protection" you wouldn't need the gun if others didn't have guns

Do you actually believe you can take all the guns away? As was said earlier, outlaw guns and only outlaws have them.
What about the elderly, disabled, and small women? Heck, what about anybody really. If 3 big guys launch a home invasion into your property, should we be left defenseless? Guns aren't just for protecting against guns.

can you honestly say that rifles are ok but shotguns not so much on the grounds that you don't need to "disintegrate the burglar's head".....

As I said, I didn't have a firm possition on this one.

you obviously don't know anything about guns...

That's a gross over-generalization.

a 50cal. will take a mans head off at well over a mile away(research that before you say it's not true)

I don't doubt it. Still, most rifles aren't going to take a head off and they are a bit of overkill. Anyway I don't have any great objection to shotguns, it was just a thought. Keep 'em legal for all I care.

we have deer seasons for pistols here in the us.......

I'm sure the hunters will live if they have to use a rifle. Far more often than less, rifles are used for hunting and all you need. Pistol deer hunting just seems unncessary.

yokinazu

11-03-2007, 11:08 PM

the only way theyll take my gun away is to pry it outa my cold dead hand.
guns are tools. its like the old saying " guns dont kill people, people kill people"
and as far as shotguns well its much easier to kill birds and small game with a shotgun than a rifle. s why my 12 guage has a goose barrel but i do use a 410 on rabbit and squirrel.
also ask your self this how strange is it that me , a liberal and a hippie owns guns and enjoys hunting

OLDE ENGLISH '800

11-03-2007, 11:08 PM

made me think of this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ABGIJwiGBc

happiestmferoutthere

11-03-2007, 11:21 PM

I am an American, a female, and a Democrat ( one of them damn liberals!), and I own a gun. Yes, it is registered. I think I'd be a fool not to have one. These are not pretty times. I would only use it to protect myself, but make no doubt about it, I would use it if I had to. I DON'T look for trouble, but I'm ready for it.
I target shoot, also. And thats very fun.:gunfighter2:
( Btw my gun is a 22 auto long rifle hand gun.).

Zimzum

11-04-2007, 01:42 PM

I chose the allow all but assault weapons. Why assault when a weapons main use is for defense? However I'm all set with all those people who would be walking around with the John Wayne mentality. Unfettered gun control might work somewhere like East Nowhere, TX with a population of 500-1000, but in New York City and its population of 9 million its a whole new ballgame. It doesn't help when rappers are promoting gangs and violence and parents are not parenting. I believe there are better ways to curb or eliminate violence other then arming our citizens. Ending the drug war will cut crime by leaps and bounds.

I would rather see people armed to defend themselves against government then each other.

Mississippi Steve

11-04-2007, 05:38 PM

I own many weapons.... none of which are assault weapons. They are all for either hunting, sport, or defense.

Gun control is being able to hit you target. Proficienacy is the key.

95% of the auto-pistols on the street are weapons of war, and as a rule, revolvers are not. I don't figure that John Q Public has a need for assult weapons or other weapons of war. Leave those for law enforcement and military.

FWIW, the target is from my 30-06 @ 200 yards and the bull only measures 1 inch

Ozarks

11-04-2007, 05:48 PM

I just got back from 10 months working in New Orleans, carried a 45. (yes I'm just a private citizen) Louisiana recognizes my home State's carry permit.

Its not NY but there wasn't any problem, I just laugh at people who say I shouldn't own/carry a gun , any gun because "they think" so:D

Dutch Pimp

11-04-2007, 05:59 PM

"Better to have it, and not need it..... than it is to need it and not have it"

delusionsofNORMALity

11-05-2007, 03:38 AM

i don't see any reason to ever own a gun
if u say "for self protection" you wouldn't need the gun if others didn't have guns

"Better to have it, and not need it..... than it is to need it and not have it"

aside from those demented few who either believe that it is our god given right to wander around armed to the teeth or that we should all be required to give up our guns and bow down to the almighty power of the state, we all fit into one of the above two categories.

one side seems to believe that the government is capable of magically gathering up all of the guns in the nation and protecting the honest citizens from any dangers that may remain. where they came by this devotion to the infallibility of our government i will never know, but they seem to be willing to put their safety and their future in the hands of institutions that have proven time and again that they are both incompetent and corrupt.

the other side seems to have a similarly undying faith in the abilities of the common man. they seem to believe that the folks in their neighborhood are perfectly capable of subduing their baser instincts, even though domestic violence is commonplace and many of us don't even have enough patience to wait for the next green light. they also seem to think that everyone has the capacity to handle a firearm. i don't know who y'all hang out with, but most folks i know shouldn't be trusted with a sharpened stick let alone a fully automatic tec-9 with a 36 round clip.

i haven't the faintest idea which side is right, though i suspect the answer lies somewhere in between. i voted for all guns to be legal because i revel in chaos and because i find the idea of housewives wandering the supermarket aisles with uzis in their shopping carts perversely amusing.

trynagethigh

11-05-2007, 04:02 AM

Better to have them and not need them then to need them and not have them!

Frickr

11-05-2007, 04:34 AM

can you honestly say that rifles are ok but shotguns not so much on the grounds that you don't need to "disintegrate the burglar's head".....you obviously don't know anything about guns...a 50cal. will take a mans head off at well over a mile away(research that before you say it's not true) "As I see it, handguns really serve no other purpose but to kill people. You don't hunt with a handgun"....we have deer seasons for pistols here in the us.......

actually alot of people that hunt bears also carry handguns, because if the bear charges, you cant always get a round in your rifle yet alot aim it, where you can pull out your pistol, and shoot the bear before it gets to you. and i use a 22 pistol alot for hunting rabbits. i also use a 12 gauge shotgun to hunt pheasent, and a .270 to shoot deer. i believe if everyone had a gun, and there would be less shootings in school. lets face it, half these kids that are picked on, if they come to school and try to schoot everyone up, only to be shot by a teacher thats got a 9mm under her desk, you thikn they would go through with it? if in the situation, where someone has a gun, would you feel safer if you had a gun to protect yourself, or would you rather just duck and hide? the highschool i went to, if you walked through the parkinglot, there would be 2 or 3 rifles hanging in the back windows of pickups. nearly everyone here has a gun. and needless to say there has been 2 shooting deaths in the past 15 years. (murder suicide) we need to protect the right to bare arms amendement. if we let them take that away, what next? our right for free speach? our right to drive a car? our right to even think for our selves?

Gandalf_The_Grey

11-06-2007, 08:28 PM

actually alot of people that hunt bears also carry handguns, because if the bear charges, you cant always get a round in your rifle yet alot aim it, where you can pull out your pistol, and shoot the bear before it gets to you.

The way I see it, if you want to eat meat then go out and buy some meat. But, if you want to hunt your meat, I think we should alot the animal a certain amount of respect and not remove any and all possibility of it being able to fight back. Human beings spent hundreds of thousands of years hunting with bow-and-arrow and/or spear, never guaranteed to be safe in every sense.
Now we do have a safe way of getting our meat, going to the supermarket. But I think if you're going to carry on the hunting tradition, to make that kill your self and subject the animal to suffering, at least keep in the spirit of things. Otherwise the animal deserves to die in a more quick-and-painless manner.

I don't mean this to degrade the actions of you or anybody who hunts with backup pistols and the such, my uncle is an avid hunter and eats only meat that he kills himself. I have a lot of respect for that. This is just my philosophy on the matter.

In other news; I made a sticky, horray!:D

cannavore

11-06-2007, 09:56 PM

if you dont own a gun, who do you look to to protect yourself and your family? the cops? HA! just like they protected those kids at Viginia Tech, waiting outside the building for that nut to either 1. run out of bullets or 2. kill himself. the police dont protect anyone. they only clean up the mess afterwards. another example is the petit family in cheshire connecticut. were the cops able to help them? ask the husband. if they owned a gun the story may not have ended so tragically.

Gandalf_The_Grey

11-07-2007, 01:51 AM

I'm a bit disappointed though that none of the people who voted for a ban on all guns have presented an argument. I promise not to jump all over you! It would be really interesting to understand the other side's perspective on this.

ATrain

11-07-2007, 02:17 AM

What about the UK? Haven't they proven that taking guns away from the general public can drastically reduce firearm related deaths?

ATrain

11-07-2007, 02:19 AM

if you dont own a gun, who do you look to to protect yourself and your family? the cops? HA! just like they protected those kids at Viginia Tech

But would there have been a Virginia Tech incident in the first place without guns?

meatw4d

11-07-2007, 02:27 AM

But would there have been a Virginia Tech incident in the first place without guns?
That kid would have found them anyway.

How do you smoke pot? It's illegal man.

On another note,
Shotgun's are good for hunting birds. That's why they should stay legal.

And why not keep one in your home? Gives you a better shot at hitting the burglar, rapist, etc...

ATrain

11-07-2007, 02:34 AM

That kid would have found them anyway.

Yeah, he might have. But current gun laws made it easier for him to get a hold of those guns. Anyway we can make it more difficult for shooting sprees like that to happen is fine by me.

I think the system in place in the UK clearly show that taking guns away can work.

ATrain

11-07-2007, 03:10 AM

meatw4d

11-07-2007, 03:25 AM

ATrain

11-07-2007, 04:05 AM

Just to toss some numbers out there:

Overall, homicides are committed primarily by someone known to the victim. In 1998, of the 431 homicides solved by the police, 45% of victims were killed by an acquaintance, 40% by a family member and 15% by a stranger.
The Daily, Thursday, October 7, 1999. Homicide statistics (http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Stats/murder.can.1998.html)

And what are the odds of being murdered anyway? 40% higher of a chance is still slim!

That doesn't do much to prove your argument in favour of gun ownership? If there are statistics that say that guns in the home cause more violence, be it by family member or outside individual, isn't that enough for us to take them out of homes?

meatw4d

11-07-2007, 04:08 AM

ATrain

11-07-2007, 05:03 AM

...Guns are just the most convenient way of killing somebody. I'm sure they'd turn to the kitchen knives if they didn't have a handy firearm around. And I dunno about you, but I'd rather take a cap to the head than a knife... anywhere.

Think about it. There are only so many restrictions you can put on weapons before it stops doing any good. It's called the law of diminishing returns.

Read about how many crimes in medieval England were punishable by death. It didn't do shit for stopping crime.

I think what the statistics show is that guns breed more violence in general. So they may turn to knives next but that level of violence would probably be lower than what exists now. And it would probably be harder for someone to kill 15 people in a spree with a knife. Hopefully :wtf:

As for the restrictions I think Great Britain has provided a working example of who extreme gun restrictions can work and can lower homicides.

mfqr

11-07-2007, 05:28 AM

Yeah, he might have. But current gun laws made it easier for him to get a hold of those guns. Anyway we can make it more difficult for shooting sprees like that to happen is fine by me.

I think the system in place in the UK clearly show that taking guns away can work.

Then again, I've heard that in the UK you see kids walking around with samurai swords and shit. LIP has told some stories of that. And don't even say that samurai swords can't be as lethal. :)

You take one type of weapon away, they use another, or find a way to illegally get the banned ones!

Then those people can be a huge threat to the general public.

Even though I am not a big believer in this huge "terrorist" threat, I will use it as an argument, since most people believe it to be true. What would you do to defend yourself against terrorists?

Gandalf_The_Grey

11-07-2007, 07:00 AM

What about the UK? Haven't they proven that taking guns away from the general public can drastically reduce firearm related deaths?

I'm not sure what the rates are. I usually hear mixed reports, some nations with total gun control having lower gun-death rates, some having higher. But I would rather look at the overal murder rate. I often here gun-death numbers touted as though if guns weren't available, all 50,000 people that were killed with guns wouldn't have been murdered. But I'm sure many of those murders would have been carried out by other means if the guns weren't available. How many? Unfortunately, that's impossible to find out.

Nailhead

11-07-2007, 08:05 AM

But would there have been a Virginia Tech incident in the first place without guns?

Or maybe you should ask, would Virginia Tech have happened if the guy knew every teacher and student was armed just as much as he was? Of course not, kids that go on school shootings do so for attention and they know it will be the only time in their life they will be more powerful than their peers.

If everybody owned a gun, everybody would be on a level playing field with the criminals, and the criminals would second think going rambo if they knew others were packing heat as well.

Virginia Tech, Columbine, 9/11, all could have been prevented if we didn't have such strict gun laws.

mfqr

11-07-2007, 12:25 PM

Don't you think that if the VA Tech shooter didn't have access to guns that he just may have found another way to murder people? :)

ATrain

11-07-2007, 04:44 PM

Or maybe you should ask, would Virginia Tech have happened if the guy knew every teacher and student was armed just as much as he was? Of course not, kids that go on school shootings do so for attention and they know it will be the only time in their life they will be more powerful than their peers.

If everybody owned a gun, everybody would be on a level playing field with the criminals, and the criminals would second think going rambo if they knew others were packing heat as well.

Virginia Tech, Columbine, 9/11, all could have been prevented if we didn't have such strict gun laws.

I think that is downright insane. Think of the murder rates America has when maybe say 80 million people have guns. If everybody has a gun more and more people would turn to violence to solve their disputes. Virginia Tech and Columbine happened BECAUSE of easy access to guns, not because not enough people have them.

Don't you think that if the VA Tech shooter didn't have access to guns that he just may have found another way to murder people? :)

Maybe, but I'd rather force him to try and find another way then just picking up everything he needs at a corner gun store. Anything we can do to limit incidents like those should be done. It seems to me like the argument has become, they'll probably find another way if they can't use guns so why bother, but all these incidents so far use guns. We can worry about the samurai sword rampages later...

I guess I see it like this. Guns breed violence. Why not do everything we can to limit that violence?

002

11-07-2007, 05:39 PM

good use banning will have.....it'll just become a smuggled commodity $$$ just like everything else illegal and hidable

dogs cant smell clean guns

Nailhead

11-07-2007, 05:52 PM

I think that is downright insane. Think of the murder rates America has when maybe say 80 million people have guns. If everybody has a gun more and more people would turn to violence to solve their disputes. Virginia Tech and Columbine happened BECAUSE of easy access to guns, not because not enough people have them.

I think it is insane to try banning guns which only prevents access to the responsible ones, but does little to prevent guns from getting into the hands of criminals. Those that want it, will always get it if the desire is great enough. You shouldn't even be suggesting a ban on every gun because that is just impossible, criminals will always find away around the law, and in the end the only people you are really restricting access to are the law abiding citizens, the very people that are the most responsible to be owning guns.

I also never said people should resort to violence to solve their problems, murder would still be illegal, but if you are protecting yourself from a criminal you should be legally allowed to defend yourself and your family.

I live in California which has some of the toughest gun laws in the country. But despite the laws, a lot of people still have guns that aren't registered. It seems that most of the people that own guns here in California are the people that shouldn't be, and the responsible ones that should own them, don't because they believe all the anti-gun bullshit about how guns cause crime. The reality is that gun laws hurt citizens from being able to defend themselves. We need less gun control laws and put some god damn fear into these coward criminals that are so quick to pull a gun!

yokinazu

11-07-2007, 06:22 PM

first i woud like to point out it is my constitunional right to own a gun.
next why do we have this right? well that was put there by our founding fathers to 1. let the citizens of this country defend themselves against occupying force and 2. so that if this contry was to get so far outa hand as to becom a dictatorship that we as a people can rise up and overthrow our goverment.
basicaly it made every citezen responsible for defendig their rights.

meatw4d

11-07-2007, 09:36 PM

I guess I see it like this. Guns breed violence. Why not do everything we can to limit that violence?
Maybe you'd be right if it would actually limit violence.

I'll ask the question again and then I'm done replying.

How hard is it to buy marijuana? It's illegal...

You can throw away your civil liberties if you want, but don't take us down with you. When your defenseless children, grandchildren, etc... are oppressed by the government and victimized by criminals, then they can thank you.

ATrain

11-08-2007, 04:18 AM

and in the end the only people you are really restricting access to are the law abiding citizens, the very people that are the most responsible to be owning guns.

The reality is that gun laws hurt citizens from being able to defend themselves. We need less gun control laws and put some god damn fear into these coward criminals that are so quick to pull a gun!

I wrote this earlier and I think it shows that guns in the household are not a good idea.

~ A 2003 study in the US showed that having a gun in the home increases the risk of someone in the household being murdered by 41 percent. (Homicide and suicide risks associated with firearms in the home: a national case-control study)

Considering the massive amount of gun violence clearly people aren't afraid to defend themselves and lessening gun laws would only further our decline into a sort of civil war. We just shouldn't have so many gun related deaths each year :(

first i woud like to point out it is my constitunional right to own a gun.
next why do we have this right? well that was put there by our founding fathers to 1. let the citizens of this country defend themselves against occupying force and 2. so that if this contry was to get so far outa hand as to becom a dictatorship that we as a people can rise up and overthrow our goverment.
basicaly it made every citezen responsible for defendig their rights.

When so many citizens are being killed because people are exercising their constitutional rights, something is seriously fucked up :wtf:

Maybe you'd be right if it would actually limit violence.

I'll ask the question again and then I'm done replying.

How hard is it to buy marijuana? It's illegal...

You can throw away your civil liberties if you want, but don't take us down with you. When your defenseless children, grandchildren, etc... are oppressed by the government and victimized by criminals, then they can thank you.

It's actually not that hard to buy marijuana. Buts guns and weed are two totally different things, and the government recognizes that (At least my government recognizes that). So if a country was to attempt it they would need to put forth more effort than is being devoted to eliminating marijuana. But the payoff would be worth it :)

Oh, and when your gun goes off when your kids are playing with it, they can thank you.

yokinazu

11-08-2007, 05:14 AM

my kid has been taught gun safty and we both know that you dont store a loaded gun. my kid knows better than toplay with HER OWN GUN much less daddys. my 12 year old daughter has enough common sense to know what a gun is for and what it is capable of. like i said before we need to educate kids. ever notice that its the inner citie kids runin around shootin each other. and us hill williams that use a gun as a tool dont seem to be doin the dive bys. maybe its because we were taught gun safty and how to shoot from a very early age.
now you will more than likly say well kids are goin to try to act cool and show off the gun for their freinds or somthing of that nature. well the answer to that is my gun safe.
and if we take away the 2nd ammendment why not the 4th or the 5th hell for that matter just burn the whole constitution.

420_24/7

11-08-2007, 05:18 AM

How hard is it to buy marijuana? It's illegal...

People can't grow guns...

Frickr

11-08-2007, 05:43 AM

if all the guns were banned what would the sheep and cattle ranchers do when coyotes come and start killing all of their lambs and calves? run otu there and try to knife the thing? guns are useful, people just need to be educated.

Nailhead

11-08-2007, 06:49 AM

I wrote this earlier and I think it shows that guns in the household are not a good idea.

~ A 2003 study in the US showed that having a gun in the home increases the risk of someone in the household being murdered by 41 percent. (Homicide and suicide risks associated with firearms in the home: a national case-control study)

Considering the massive amount of gun violence clearly people aren't afraid to defend themselves and lessening gun laws would only further our decline into a sort of civil war. We just shouldn't have so many gun related deaths each year :(

Again, murder is, and should always, be illegal. The problem with America's violence is not that we have too many guns, but that our laws are too weak on violent offenders. We should blame the shooter, not the gun itself. It does us no good to ignore the true cause of crimes if we take the blame off of the person that caused that crime. If we actually had tough laws to prosecute and convict violent offenders, we would not have so many gun related deaths per year.

When so many citizens are being killed because people are exercising their constitutional rights, something is seriously fucked up :wtf:
Murder is not a constitutional right, most violence involving guns is not dealing with issues of self defense or citizens defending their rights. The problem is lack of justice.

Oh, and when your gun goes off when your kids are playing with it, they can thank you.
You are under the assumption that anyone with a gun is stupid, if you are dumb enough to keep a gun in a house with children without it being locked up separately from the ammo, then you shouldn't have kids. The problem here is not the gun itself, but the absence of common sense from the parent, this is just taking blame off who is at fault, the parents. Most of your arguments seem to put the blame on the gun rather than the individual operating the gun. A gun can be a dangerous weapon, but so can a car, knife, rope, bat, etc. You can't stop crime if you don't look at the root cause, and the root cause is not the weapon but the motive. Find the motive, and you can stop crime, but if you stop the weapon, the motive remains and the crime doesn't go away.

America will never ban all guns, any government action trying to do so would certainly cause a revolution, the idea isn't even worth toying with.

ATrain

11-08-2007, 08:28 PM

Again, murder is, and should always, be illegal. The problem with America's violence is not that we have too many guns, but that our laws are too weak on violent offenders. We should blame the shooter, not the gun itself. It does us no good to ignore the true cause of crimes if we take the blame off of the person that caused that crime. If we actually had tough laws to prosecute and convict violent offenders, we would not have so many gun related deaths per year.

You are under the assumption that anyone with a gun is stupid, if you are dumb enough to keep a gun in a house with children without it being locked up separately from the ammo, then you shouldn't have kids. The problem here is not the gun itself, but the absence of common sense from the parent, this is just taking blame off who is at fault, the parents. Most of your arguments seem to put the blame on the gun rather than the individual operating the gun. A gun can be a dangerous weapon, but so can a car, knife, rope, bat, etc. You can't stop crime if you don't look at the root cause, and the root cause is not the weapon but the motive. Find the motive, and you can stop crime, but if you stop the weapon, the motive remains and the crime doesn't go away.

America will never ban all guns, any government action trying to do so would certainly cause a revolution, the idea isn't even worth toying with.

Regarding your comments concerning laws and violent offenders I agree with you. But guns are also apart of that problem. You can't really deal with one without dealing with the other but statistics show that guns increase the risk of violence. That can't be ignored.

My comment about guns going off when children are playing with them was directed at meatw4d who said the following: "When your defenseless children, grandchildren, etc... are oppressed by the government and victimized by criminals, then they can thank you." It wasn't meant as a general statement about gun safety and children.

And banning guns is an idea worth toying with when they are directly involved with so much violence. Anything that is that large a part of American deaths each year should be examined and possibly banned.

Oh, and I don't buy the excuse that people have guns in their possession to protect themselves from "terrorists". How many terrorists have been captured or killed in America because of the guns citizens own?

meatw4d

11-08-2007, 10:05 PM

Anything that is that large a part of American deaths each year should be examined and possibly banned.
I know I said I wouldn't reply, but I couldn't help it.

Ban driving!!

:beatdeadhorse:

texas grass

11-08-2007, 10:27 PM

everyone should have the right to own any type of gun

its all about GUN RESPECT
PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE GUNS DONT KILL PEOPLE
rule#1 dont ever point a gun at any living thing unless you plan to use it
if people were to respect that rule less people would get hurt

guns are for lookin pretty hunt sport and self defense

texas grass

11-08-2007, 10:38 PM

another thing is if guns are illegal they will still be on the black market and they will still be around, but just a good family house hold wont beable to defend themselfs, what are they supposed to do call 911 and wait 10 minutes, tell the robbers to wait 10 minutes to start shooting til the cops get their with equal ammunition

Nailhead

11-09-2007, 11:01 AM

Regarding your comments concerning laws and violent offenders I agree with you. But guns are also apart of that problem. You can't really deal with one without dealing with the other but statistics show that guns increase the risk of violence. That can't be ignored.

Guns do increase the risk of violence, and if more responsible people owned guns they would be shooting the criminals that deserve it. I have no problem seeing violence against criminals increase ;)

And banning guns is an idea worth toying with when they are directly involved with so much violence. Anything that is that large a part of American deaths each year should be examined and possibly banned.
Banning guns is against the US constitution, it will never happen without a revolution which would result in far more violence than giving guns to every citizen would. Trust me, I am an American, and I know the American mentality. There is a good reason we have that saying "If you want my gun, you will have to take it off my cold, dead body." Giving up our guns would be giving up on a core American right, it just won't happen.

Oh, and I don't buy the excuse that people have guns in their possession to protect themselves from "terrorists". How many terrorists have been captured or killed in America because of the guns citizens own?
Exactly, it is illegal to have firearms on airplanes. However, if the crew on the airlines were armed in the rare event of a hijacking, they could have defended themselves, as well as their hijackers targets. 9/11 could have been prevented if the crew was allowed to have a system of self defense.

But the primary reason people should own guns isn't so much because of terrorism, terrorism is extremely rare, but what isn't rare are robberies, freeway shootings, etc. Many of these instances could be settled by an armed citizen, but instead we must rely on an over-stretched police force and weak laws that don't serve justice and therefor don't discourage criminals from their behavior.

Ozarks

11-12-2007, 12:00 AM

Oh, and just to toss a few numbers out there...

~ A 2003 study in the US showed that having a gun in the home increases the risk of someone in the household being murdered by 41 percent. (Homicide and suicide risks associated with firearms in the home: a national case-control study)

This is a prefect example of the bad side of the internet, discredited nonsence gets repeated over and over again.

Handguns are 43 times more likely to kill a family
member than a criminal

Fact: Of the 43 deaths reported in this flawed study, 37 (86%) were suicides.

Other deaths involved criminal activity between the family members (drug deals gone bad).

Fact: Of the remaining deaths, the deceased family members include felons, drug dealers, violent spouses committing assault, and other criminals.

Fact: Only 0.1% (1 in a thousand) of the defensive uses of guns results in the death of the predator.100 This means you are much more likely to prevent a crime without bloodshed than hurt a family member.

~ Domestic violence is more likely to be lethal if there is a gun in the home. For women, the risk of being killed if there is a gun in the home is increased by 172 percent. (Firearm Related Deaths: The Impact of Regulatory Reform)

Females are more likely to be murdered when a gun is in the home

Fact: This â??studyâ? used three non-random counties, a limited (266) case file, began with only cases where a death was involved, and had many other statistical weaknesses.

Fact: This â??studyâ? also notes that the majority (54%) of the homicides were committed without firearms.

Fact: This â??studyâ? concluded that â??household use of illicit drugs and prior domestic violence increase the risk of homicide.â?

You are more likely to be injured or killed using a gun for self-defense

Fact: You are far more likely to survive a violent assault if you defend yourself with a gun. In episodes where a robbery victim was injured, the injury/defense rates were:

Resisting with a gun 6%
Did nothing at all 25%
Resisted with a knife 40%
Non-violent resistance 45%

Guns are not effective in preventing crime against women

Fact: Of the 2,500,000 annual self-defense cases using guns, more than 7.7% (192,500) are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse.

Fact: When a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of rape attacks are completed,compared to 32% when unarmed.

Fact: The probability of serious injury from an attack is 2.5 times greater for women offering no resistance than for women resisting with a gun. Men also benefit from using a gun, but the benefits are smaller at 1.4 times more likely to receive a serious injury.

Fact: 28.5% of women have a gun in the house.

Fact: 41.7% of women either own or have rapid access to guns.

Fact: In 1966, the city of Orlando responded to a wave of sexual assaults by offering firearms training classes to women. Rapes dropped by nearly 90% the following year.

Nailhead

11-12-2007, 08:59 AM

I just want to add that the reason why our right to bear arms is so important is that it keeps the government from getting to big and controlling. When every citizen is armed, the government fears the people, and that is the way it was meant to be, not the people afraid of the government.

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

Mississippi Steve

11-16-2007, 02:35 AM

Food for thought;

**In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953,
about
20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated. **
**------------------------------**
**In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5
million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated. **
**------------------------------**
**Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of
13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were
rounded up and exterminated. **
**------------------------------**
**China** established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million
political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated **
**------------------------------**
**Guatemala** established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981,
100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated. **
**------------------------------**
**Uganda** established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000
Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated. **
**------------------------------**
**Cambodia** established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one
million educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up
and exterminated **
**-----------------------------**
**Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century
because of gun control: 56 million. **
**------------------------------**
**It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by
new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their
own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500
million dollars. The first year results are now in: **

**List of 7 items: **
**Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent **
**Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent **
**Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)! **

**In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300
percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the
criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns! **

**While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in
armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the
past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is
unarmed **

**There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of
the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public
safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was
expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The
Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it. **

**You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians
disseminating this information. **

**Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes,
gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens. **

**Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late! **

**The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind
them of this history lesson. **

**With guns, we are 'citizens'. **

**Without them, we are 'subjects'. **

**During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they
knew most Americans were ARMED! **

Nailhead

11-16-2007, 08:03 AM

^Excellent post! By the way, I don't own any guns, (yet), but my friend has a decent little collection. I always joke with him that I'm going to his house when China invades us lol

Gandalf_The_Grey

11-19-2007, 08:03 PM

I'm really surprised by what a vast majority supports allowing assault weapons. Would anybody like to enlighten me as to why you feel they're necessary? Assault weapons are generally automatic right?
I just don't understand it. Having Ak's available, you could mow down 30 people with ease and take on a whole group of cops. I would think handguns, shotguns, and rifles are more than sufficient for defense.

Mississippi Steve

11-19-2007, 10:07 PM

Handguns, shotguns, and rifles are for sport.........

Assault weapons are weapons of war..... they are best left to law enforcement and military

LaidZeppelin

11-20-2007, 04:52 AM

ITS NOT ABOUT THE OUTLAWS HAVING GUNS IF THEIR IS A GUN BAN
the problem is you take away a citizens guns, now that citizen must fully rely on the government for their protoection. If the government want to force you to do something, they can cause the citizens dont have guns. Why do you people just say "America nope we will never be fascist state, cause its America. Its happened before, many democracies have become fascist regimes and its always done through laws, executive orders, and presidential directives. Everything hitler did to obtain power was legal. Dont take your freedom for granted. Everyone should have guns. Our democracy is a system of checks and balances and an armed citizenry is that check on government and according to HR 1955 i could be considered a terrorist for that statement.

pwn3dy0

12-18-2007, 05:45 AM

Gun Control doesn't work. Drugs are illegal, yet people continue to use them. What people fail to grasp is psychopathic serial killers who shoot women shopping in malls don't abide by gun laws. Hell, Virginia Tech was a "gun free zone". Hence the reason he killed 20 or so people with a 9MM.

In todays world it is not only a right for responsible trained citizens to own a firearm and get a concealed carry, it is becoming a responsibility. A defenseless public is not a safe one.

Statistics in the United States show that criminals are more likely to rob/rape you/murder you if you aren't armed. On top of that, Twice as many children are killed playing football in school than are murdered by guns.

Lastly, over 56 million people have been murdered by their own governments in the 20th century.

Also, I think we've all read the horror stories of holocaust victims hiding defenseless in dumpsters and attics, only to be escorted to deathcamps by the nazis.

wickerbill

12-21-2007, 04:55 PM

I voted other, I'll explain, there probably more guns in this country than people, you will never confiscate all of them, the overwhelming majority of gun owners never break the law or ever use a gun against another human being or animal for that matter, most people own a gun for home protection, hunting, shooting sports, or are collectors. Although I no longer hunt, we are part of the eco-system, predators if you will and serve to thin the population of animals which otherwise mother nature will thin in a much more cruel way than a well aimed shot. People that do have guns should be educated on safety, how the weapon works, what it is capable of, etc. This is not to say everyone should be allowed gun ownership, but the huge number of gun owners are responsible law abiding citizens. One of Hitler's tactics was to outlaw personal gun ownership. I will state that I used my GI Bill to go to gunsmithing school so maybe I am biased.:)

psychocat

12-21-2007, 05:29 PM

Exactly, it is illegal to have firearms on airplanes. However, if the crew on the airlines were armed in the rare event of a hijacking, they could have defended themselves, as well as their hijackers targets. 9/11 could have been prevented if the crew was allowed to have a system of self defense..

Firing a gun in a pressurised plane would be insanity , hit a window or put a hole in the fuselage and the plane is going down. You also have the problem of a hijacker relieving a member of the crew of thier firearm and using it against them.

I just want to add that the reason why our right to bear arms is so important is that it keeps the government from getting to big and controlling. When every citizen is armed, the government fears the people, and that is the way it was meant to be, not the people afraid of the government.

If you believe that then you are very naive , your goverment does not fear you in the least and if there was an uprising you can bet your bottom dollar that they would stamp on it just like them there Yankees did when the south decided they wanted freedom from the north.

If guns weren't so freely available then perhaps the US would see less school massacres and accidental deaths.

More guns means it's easier for the retards to get hold of them.

Herreic68

12-21-2007, 05:40 PM

Wow I have to say I am pretty impressed by the results of the poll so far. Long-barreled guns, handguns, and assault weapons should be allowed has a rather large lead. Donâ??t forget that in the US we are given this right not only to protect ourselves from criminals but also from government that becomes oppressive and tyrannical. I'm not saying that the US is those things just that our founders understood that one day it could be and it will be that citizens restore freedom.

psychocat

12-21-2007, 05:44 PM

MadSativa

12-21-2007, 07:48 PM

I love guns they are one of the best art forms.

Gandalf_The_Grey

12-21-2007, 07:49 PM

psychocat

12-21-2007, 10:22 PM

So what are you saying psychocat, that because the government is stronger, citizens shouldn't have any ability to fight back? Uprisings and government overthrows do happen in many countries, many times throughout history. Yet all of a sudden the constitution a minor priority in the US these days; and people wonder why things are going to hell.

As for airplanes, maybe the pilots could be armed with those shooting tazers.

That isn't what I said I was simply pointing out that the last time the American southern states tried forcing the goverment they achieved nothing except lots of dead Americans.
The US goverment would come down hard on anyone they even suspected of planning an uprising , a call to arms would be met with Apache attack choppers and other seriously kick arse weaponry.

Cyclonite

12-21-2007, 11:43 PM

Im a firm believer in the second amendment, I have the right to protect myself however I choose from a quick reaction handgun I keep close by to a multi purpose S&W 500 that acts as a rifle handgun and shotgun (With a slug) at the same time with a convenient to carry 10" barrel:stoned:.....then again I also think I should be able to put claymores around the perimeter of my property.

Vote Ron Paul if you want to keep your right to carry....screw all them freedom hating bastards that think they know whats best for us.

Guns used in crimes aren't obtained legally in most cases...if someone wants to go on a rampage they can do it with a homemade zip gun....homemade pipe bombs knives scissors whatever, where there is a will there is a way. Education and responsible ownership is the key.

LIP

12-22-2007, 12:19 AM

Pro Self Defense Posters (http://www.mchenryidpa.com/special/pro-gun/page0008.html)

wickerbill

12-22-2007, 12:35 AM

I've read a lot of posts that say assault weapons are weapons of war, which is true, however so were flintlocks, slingshots, rocks etc. any gun including BB guns can kill. Assault rifles are semi auto, to own a full auto AR, you have to have a class3 license which are expensive and difficult to get. A semi can be converted to auto but 1 it is illegal with a stiff penalty, 2 it can be done to any semi including sporting semis. Someone said it best, responsible ownership & education! I don't know how the rest of you feel, but I'm pretty damn tired of losing rights over some nut job or low life thug as the excuse.:wtf:

akimbo1013

12-22-2007, 01:18 AM

\, to own a full auto AR, you have to have a class3 license which are expensive and difficult to get.

Its really not that hard to get a class 3 license, its like $250 and some paperwork but it takes like 3-6 months. I think full auto assault rifles are completely unnecessary, but whats even more ridiculous are silencers, theres no reason for a civilian to have a silencer. check out this link
Shooters Depot - NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT (“Class 3” weapons ) LEGALITIES (http://www.shootersdepot.com/legalities.html)

Animosity

12-22-2007, 01:44 AM

Guns should never be banned, there is both positive and negative outcomes to banning or letting citizens own guns.

But if we ban weapons, it may slow down crime, but people WILL find a way to get ahold of these weapons. We need guns for self-defense, we need them for hunting, we need them for war. What if we ban guns withen a country and we get invaded by the millions? Then what happens? We're FUCKED!

But there's 100 different prespectives to see it from, this is mine...and i'm sticking with it until the day I die.

wickerbill

12-22-2007, 03:45 PM

Hi Akimbo, my point about the ars was that practically any semi can be converted to auto, I haven't stayed current with licensing laws, but ,having checked out FFL license a few years back as compared to when I got one over 20 yrs. ago it is much more cumbersome with much more red tape, that said, there are collectors ,as you probably know, that collect military weapons exclusively, and they are sticklers about authenticity ie: if it was supposed to have full auto capability they want it, they may never fire the weapon they want it original for historical trueness, and you must admit that the ATF does not make it a walk in the park to get a class 3. The ease or difficulty that is involved in obtaining any firearms license isn't the point, gun ownership is, and what types of guns should be legal is, I content that if someone wants a full auto ,that they need not have an assault rifle, that sporting arms will kill you just as dead and just as fast as an assault rifle so where should the line be drawn? How do you distinguish who will use the gun responsibly and who will not? How much more gov't regs are we willing to bear? The bad guys get the media coverage, but the millions of gun owners who live their lives peacefully don't. When was the last time anyone here was threatened by an assault rifle wielding nut?

akimbo1013

12-22-2007, 04:46 PM

Mississippi Steve

12-22-2007, 05:18 PM

Bill I agree with you, in that someone who is gonna use an assault rifle illegally will get it by illegal means. The license might be kinda easy to get but the guns are still extremely expensive and the only people buying them are gun collectors. You should look through that link I put up, its pretty crazy what all you can get. My favorite is the silenced sniper rifle specifically designed to fit into this bag that looks like an ordinary piece of luggage. What possible legal use could that have. Its like smoking tobacco out of your "water pipe";) I'm not anti-gun in the least, just some guns are just pointless and dangerous for civilians to have

IMHO, assault weapons and supressors are designed and manufactured specifically as weapons of war. There was never any thought about these weapons being used for sport. They were designed specifically for the purpose of killing men at war.

OTOH, revolvers, rifles and shotguns are designed for hunting for meat, self defense, and sport shooting.

No matter what the purpose, without proficiency, you might as well use a club.

Humboldt215

01-17-2008, 04:26 AM

If you can get past my 2 trained attack dogs then defeat me with my weapons, you can have them!

Bravo Zulu!

Nailhead

01-17-2008, 08:08 AM

If you believe that then you are very naive , your goverment does not fear you in the least and if there was an uprising you can bet your bottom dollar that they would stamp on it just like them there Yankees did when the south decided they wanted freedom from the north.

If guns weren't so freely available then perhaps the US would see less school massacres and accidental deaths.

More guns means it's easier for the retards to get hold of them.
Thank you, you just proved my point. The US government doesn't fear the people because they have done a damn good job at taking away our only means of defense against unconstitutional actions. Freedom is not given to us by our government, freedom is natural and the constitution's purpose is not to state what freedoms we are allowed to have, but to restrict the government from taking away the freedoms we are entitled to as human beings.

The 2nd amendment was not put there because people needed them for hunting, they needed, and wanted, them to keep the government in check. The 2nd amendment is key to keeping this government as a republic, and not a fascist state.

I'm really surprised by what a vast majority supports allowing assault weapons. Would anybody like to enlighten me as to why you feel they're necessary? Assault weapons are generally automatic right?
I just don't understand it. Having Ak's available, you could mow down 30 people with ease and take on a whole group of cops. I would think handguns, shotguns, and rifles are more than sufficient for defense.

That's an understandable question, and my simple answer is this:
If the cops can have them, so should the citizens.
Most people that own assault weapons do not use them on innocent people, most are probably ex-military members that find a great joy in unloading a clip in a matter of seconds miles away, or shooting a goat with a 50 cal in the Nevada deserts, (I think 50 cals are legal there).

To put it simply, it is recreation for most, but the idea of a country where citizens can arm themselves as well as any police officer keeps a balance to the powers. I firmly believe many of our crimes are the result of our poor justice system, not the absence of gun restriction! If we really want to reduce crime we need to actually punish those that commit crimes, and not slapping them on the wrist with a fine and letting them out early. That is why we have so much crime, it's not because of our guns. Those that abuse their constitutional right should pay, at the very least anybody that kills another should serve a mandatory life sentence, no parole, no getting out early for "good behavior", the sentence should be final and it should stick. If we made criminals pay for their crimes, we would have far less crime, but as it is we have morons sympathizing with criminals blaming the guns, poor education, race, anything but the actual individual who committed the crime. I think everyone can agree we are way too soft on criminals!

yokinazu

01-18-2008, 04:52 PM

but as it is we have morons sympathizing with criminals blaming the guns, poor education, race, anything but the actual individual who committed the crime. I think everyone can agree we are way too soft on criminals!

dead on, couldnt have said it better myself

im sick of hearing its not my fault its society's fault. wa wa wa

Mississippi Steve

01-19-2008, 03:33 PM

dead on, couldnt have said it better myself

im sick of hearing its not my fault its society's fault. wa wa wa

Guns don't kill people, husbands that come home early do:D

Beefer86

02-14-2008, 02:26 AM

Fear of weapons is a sigh of sexual retardation- Siggy Freud.

I am an avid firearm enthusiast. As for the Virginia Tech massacre, that gun was bought legally and registered, the guy had the reciepts in his backpack.

If you want to kill a bunch of people, there are other means than guns to do so.

Last year the FBI reported that there were over 2 MILLION reported defensive uses of a firearm. Check Fbi.gov. Far more than "offensive" uses.

Israel in 2003 enacted a program in which relative and teachers would carry concealed weapons to deter Palestinian terrorists from targeting their schools after a rash of suicide explosions. Since the program was enacted, NO school children have died while in class.

Switzerland has one of the highest percentages of gun ownership, and all military aged males are required to become proficient with a battle rifle. They also have one of the lowest rates of gun deaths/accidents in the world.

In WW2 Hitler was about to invade Switzerland, but by the time the Swiss heard this, they had already armed every single household with a battle rifle, closed the mountain passes, and told Hitler "Come get us". The reason that Hitler did not invade Switzerland was because his generals convinced him of an "unacceptably high casualty rate"

Also, years after pearl harbor, an American admiral met his enemy in a casual setting postwar. The American admiral asked the Japanese admiral why they did not attack the militarily deficient west coast.

"We dare not invade the west coast of the U.S., because behind every blade of grass, is a battle rifle".

The mass amount of civilian gun ownership would surely deter most from invading us as well.

I believe that the second amendment is extremely valuable not only as a tyrannical government checker, but also as a national security protocol.

Oh yeah and then there is the fact that the police are not obligated to save you from anything.

Only you are responsible for your personal safety. If you choose to allow someone you dont know to take care of your safety for you, then that is your choice.

There are two instances in my life when I drew my firearm at low ready and am thankful for my training with it. Never had to fire.

I will continue to bear arms and be apart of that "militia" aged 17 to 41, which Hamilton defined in his federalist papers.

zeitgeist

02-14-2008, 05:41 PM

I dont think taking away guns would make the crime rate go down. There are thousands of other ways to kill a man. Even if it did though we would never do it becasue of our love for guns.
Banning guns is pointless though. It would be the exact same thing as "The War on Drugs"

smok3y

02-24-2008, 01:02 AM

randomname4888

02-24-2008, 01:56 AM

but if everyone had a gun the criminal wouldent break in to your house or mug you if they knew that you had one.

Mississippi Steve

02-24-2008, 02:09 AM

Dont need to ban guns, Just put the price up on bullets.. Like chris rock says in one of his stand ups, if you charged $5000 per bullet, people would think twice before pulling the trigger...

But on the real side, I think guns should be banned period.. Why the fuck do u need to own a gun for? Are you fighting a war? NOPE!

If less people had guns then less people would be getting shot and dying...

Put The Guns Down!:hippy:

Cars kill more people than guns ever did ....ban and confiscate all motor vehicles!!

That has about as much merit as your statement....

BTW... What branch of the military did you serve in?? how many years?? None?? I thought so. Do you have any firearms training?? No??? I thought so. Do you hunt?? No?? I thought so. Before you go off on a tangent and try to tell those of us who *volenteered* to serve, you might want to think twice.... and then walk a mile in our boots. Hundreds of thousands of men and women have made the ultimate sacrifice so you have the freedom to speak your mind an not be persicuted or prosecuted for it. Freedom is *NOT* free. It comes at a terrible price.
Its best not to push a point unless your willing to take up arms to defend those freedoms.

melodious fellow

03-08-2008, 09:54 PM

Hunting is peachy, and perhaps one could stretch the hobby of target practice to possibly include handguns (not IMO, but at least I see the argument)

Now that being said, what in the world does Average John Doe need with an assult weapon?

Just curious... :rastasmoke:

Gandalf_The_Grey

03-08-2008, 10:08 PM

psychocat

03-08-2008, 11:00 PM

but if everyone had a gun the criminal wouldent break in to your house or mug you if they knew that you had one.

So by that logic any area with easy gun laws should see less burglaries , robberies and gun crime than somewhere with tight gun laws. Doesn't seem to be working in the US. ;)

rebgirl420

03-11-2008, 04:09 AM

Same old logical problem. "We should ban all guns" followed by "if nobody had guns..."

SINCE WHEN CAN WE MAGICALLY MAKE ALL THE GUNS DISAPPEAR? They banned marijuana and it's use has exploded. Only in magical fairy la-la land can you legislate something out of existence.

Outlaw the guns, and only outlaws will have them.

That is exactly the common sense that I agree with! Only the criminals will be the ones with guns. The only people being punished are the law abiding citizens.

And frankly I don't feel any safer where guns are illegal to have. Just think about it. If you were a criminal who would you target? A New Yorker? Where no one has a gun to defend themselves. Or Texas, where theres a pretty good chance the person your robbing is going to pull a gun right back at you. Just look at that vigilante down in Texas. His neighbors house was being robbed and he did the right thing. He called the cops, repeatedly told the criminals to stop, and when they didn't he shot them.

That's a damn good neighbor if you ask me.

zeitgeist

03-19-2008, 10:26 PM

He shouldnt have shot them though. He was being an irresponsible gun owner becasue they were no threat to anyone and he killed them as they were running away.

indicagrower

03-20-2008, 12:04 AM

WHY DO YOU NEED AN ASSULT WEAPON??

it's not need...it's want...right now i live in the USA where i can, i will, and i do own assult weapons

psychocat

03-20-2008, 03:35 PM

Iguana

03-26-2008, 11:41 AM

I would like someone to explain this to me:
Less guns = more crime
More guns = less crime
That seems to be the belief of some people.
The statistics prove that belief to be completely wrong wouldn't you say ?
More guns just seems to make it even easier for criminals to get hold of them.

Read the book "More Guns, Less Crime" by John Lott and your questions will be answered.

psychocat

03-26-2008, 12:42 PM

Read the book "More Guns, Less Crime" by John Lott and your questions will be answered.
Unfortunately the actual crime figures show more guns just equals more violent crime.
A Time Line of Recent Worldwide School Shootings — Infoplease.com (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html)

Mississippi Steve

03-26-2008, 12:46 PM

Unfortunately the actual crime figures show more guns just equals more violent crime.
A Time Line of Recent Worldwide School Shootings — Infoplease.com (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html)

So...let me ask this... if all of the legal, registered guns are confiscated, then what are you going to do about all of the illegal guns that are still on the streets?? How are you going to tell folks that they family heirlooms that have been passed down for generations from the war of 1812, the civil war, etc are going to be taken away just because you say so???

DropDeadFred

03-30-2008, 05:49 AM

I'm keeping my guns even if the gov't sayes they're illegal because my guns are the guarantee my rights as an American Citizen. Gov't can say i don't have those rights. Well come down here and try me.
I really don't want to live in the dorm rooms at college because you can't have any weapons. The reasoning behind this is that if no student has a gun no one gets shot. Well who is going to obey that rule students that want to protect themselves and others- YES Students that want to go on a rampage and need to kill lots of people- Probably NOt. All these shootings that have occurred at high school and college campuses could of been stopped before so many people died if someone anyone had had a gun. I feel safe where i go to school because I know that half the kids have rifles,shotguns,or pistols in their vehicle and I'd feel even more safe if they had them on person.

Mississippi Steve

03-31-2008, 12:18 PM

better stock up on bullets... I buy mine by the case... if Hillary makes it into office, bullets are going to be a real scarce commodity

Esoteric416

04-09-2008, 11:26 PM

[QUOTE=i find the idea of housewives wandering the supermarket aisles with uzis in their shopping carts perversely amusing.[/QUOTE]
Hillarious :thumbsup:

Nailhead

04-10-2008, 02:08 AM

I would like someone to explain this to me:
Less guns = more crime
More guns = less crime
That seems to be the belief of some people.
The statistics prove that belief to be completely wrong wouldn't you say ?
More guns just seems to make it even easier for criminals to get hold of them.

You just have that a little confused. This is how it really goes:
less guns = more crime
more guns = less criminals
:thumbsup:

Mr. Clandestine

04-10-2008, 02:24 AM

Here's an interesting little story about a good friend of mine:

My buddy lives in the outskirts of a VERY small town, in a little neighborhood out in the middle of nowhere. There are about 50 homes in this neighborhood. About a year ago, a lot of the homeowners in his neighborhood started moving out for various reasons. All at once, there were suddenly about 20 vacant houses scattered throughout the neighborhood. In less than THREE months, vandals broke into ALL 20 houses, and stripped all of the copper piping, wiring, and anything else that could be taken and sold for profit. The thieves were never caught, but it was suspected that they lived in the neighborhood.

Not long after, the thieves graduated from vandals to burglars and started coming into residents houses while they slept, stealing computers, stereo equipment, and the like. Months went by, they still were not caught. This was a nice quiet community, and most of the homeowners there didn't even own guns. But once their houses started getting broken into, many of them purchased small firearms for home protection. My friend took it upon himself to supply several homes in the neighborhood with cheap 9mm semi-automatic pistols that he got from a surplus dealer. I actually bought one from him, too... just to have a new toy to play with. They were Kel-Tec P-11s. Anyway, the whole neighborhood, minus a few houses, was now armed thanks to him. My buddy then began passing out fliers throughout the neighborhood indicating that the residents were now armed, and reiterated that our state recognized the "Castle Doctrine", because he was sure that the teenagers living in the subdivision had something to do with the break-ins. After those fliers were passed out, not one house has been broken into since.

In this instance, the action of firing a gun didn't play any part in criminal deterrence. Just knowing that these nice lil moms & pops were now packing heat was enough to frighten the criminals away. Just my thoughts on the subject.

Take care. :jointsmile:

netdog

04-15-2008, 01:27 PM

netdog

04-15-2008, 01:33 PM

Mississippi Steve

04-16-2008, 12:23 AM

That's all well and good, but define an "assault weapon"...

Assault weapon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon)

pinkyslayer

04-17-2008, 07:58 AM

can you honestly say that rifles are ok but shotguns not so much on the grounds that you don't need to "disintegrate the burglar's head".....you obviously don't know anything about guns...a 50cal. will take a mans head off at well over a mile away(research that before you say it's not true) "As I see it, handguns really serve no other purpose but to kill people. You don't hunt with a handgun"....we have deer seasons for pistols here in the us.......

I agree with Indicagrower completely. I read a quote somewhere, I think a military guy saying "pistols poke holes in things, rifles rip shit apart." A shotgun loaded with birdshot is actually nonlethal much of the time in a self defense setting, but it is certainly almost as effective as a pistol or rifle. Also, shotguns, at least in the US, are used for hunting deer, quail, dove, hogs, turkey, and used for recreational activities like skeet and trap shooting. Also, responsible citizens that take and pass a test in the US are allowed to carry concealed weapons(ie pistols) in their car for self defense. It is impossible to defend yourself out in public against a mugger or carjacker with a rifle, because you cant carry a rifle around with you!!! But I think we would all agree that their needs to be a strict enforcement of the requirements for owning and buying guns, so as to keep the guns out of criminals hands.

netdog

04-26-2008, 12:53 AM

Assault weapon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon)

Exactly, notice no clear definition of assault rifle exists even in that wiki.

Then there's the definition the supposed assault weapons ban used, which in reality didn't define a weapon at all, and didn't actually ban a single weapon.

Mississippi Steve

04-26-2008, 12:28 PM

Exactly, notice no clear definition of assault rifle exists even in that wiki.

Then there's the definition the supposed assault weapons ban used, which in reality didn't define a weapon at all, and didn't actually ban a single weapon.

OK... lets make it simple... assault weapons are those that either have a fully automatic mode, or can be modified to be fully automatic and were designed strictly for military and/or law enforcement use.

Any more questions??? or are you just trying to stir up sh*t??

the image reaper

04-26-2008, 02:49 PM

easiest to express my gun-rights attitude this way: "take away my guns, you'll have to take away my knives and clubs, too ... and then, I'll beat you to death with my bare hands" :wtf: ... oh, shit, and here you thought taking away my guns would make us all sit down and love one another ... :jointsmile:

Nailhead

04-26-2008, 08:56 PM

Exactly, notice no clear definition of assault rifle exists even in that wiki.

Then there's the definition the supposed assault weapons ban used, which in reality didn't define a weapon at all, and didn't actually ban a single weapon.

I used to believe assault weapons are unnecessary and should be banned, then a gun owning friend showed me how easily gun manufacturers and buyers can get around just about all of these silly gun laws. Silly laws such as removing the pistol grip from an AK-47, or not allowing 30 round magazines. You can legally own an AK-47, detachable pistol grip, and 30 round magazine, you just can't have them connected to the gun. (maybe the 30 round clip is illegal to own come to think of it, but I'm sure a lot of people still have them)

Does this make any sense? No, and most gun owners ignore these laws but still remain peaceful, law abiding citizens. So my attitude is that I would rather have law abiding citizens free to arm themselves as much as criminals can. Criminals arm themselves so they can one-up the general public, so if we don't allow them that ability to one-up their targets, you take away their confidence to commit criminal activities.

I often joke with my friend that when China invades, I'm heading over to his house. I'm not afraid of my friend because he owns guns, I've known him all my life and know he would never use them for anything other than self defense, but mostly he just enjoys it as a hobby. If every law abiding citizen owned a gun, criminals would think twice before breaking into someone's house, or robbing a convenient store. Assault weapons are important because that gives our law abiding citizens better accuracy. ;)

Iguana

04-28-2008, 11:35 AM

Unfortunately the actual crime figures show more guns just equals more violent crime.
A Time Line of Recent Worldwide School Shootings — Infoplease.com (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html)

My apologies for the delay in replying. Life is busy.

While each of the items you list are tragedies, listing anecdotal incidents isn't listing crime figures. I can list just as many (if not more) cases where firearms were used to protect the innocent and save lives.

I can state that during the six years since Michigan joined the majority of states that offer citizens a shall-issue Right-to-Carry law the number of firearm-related fatalities has dropped. Criminal activity has dwindled while the number of Michiganders legally licensed to carry a concealed handgun has increased by about six times. Approx. 155,000 Michiganders are now so licensed. These results aren't surprising. John Lott, visiting professor at the University of Maryland, has spent years researching violence in the United States. 2/3rds of the studies he has seen show that Right-to-Carry laws reduce crime. The other 1/3rd show little effect on the status quo. No peer reviewed study has ever indicated that crime increased after passage of such laws. Michigan law requires that those seeking a permit must complete a strict training process and pay a licensing fee. People who comply with such requirements tend not to be offenders. Here are some studies for your examination: Prof. Hans Toch, "Research and Policy: The Case of Gun Control," in Psychology and Social Policy, edited by Peter Sutfeld and Philip Tetlock (NY Hemisphere, 1992); David B. Mustard, "Culture Affects Our Beliefs About Firearms, But Data Are Also Important," 151 U. Penn. L. Rev.1387 (2003) As a young researcher Toch believed that "reducing the availability of the handgun will reduce firearms violence." Thirty years of research later he repudiated that: "When used for protection, firearms can seriously inhibit aggression and can provide a psychological buffer against the fear of crime. Furthermore, the fact that national patterns show little violent crime where guns are most dense implies that guns do not elicit aggression in any meaningful way. Quite the contrary, these findings suggest that high saturation of guns in places, or something correlated with that condition, inhibit illegal aggression." Prof. David Mustard wrote in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review: "When I started my research in 1995, I passionately disliked firearms...My views on this subject were formed primarily by media accounts of firearms, which unknowingly to me systematically emphasized the costs of firearms while virtually ignoring their benefits. I thought it obvious that passing laws that permitted law abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms would create many problems. (But research has convinced me that)...laws that require [Right-to-Carry] permits to be granted unless the applicant has a criminal record or a history of significant mental illness reduce violent crime and have no impact on accidental deaths."

I hope you found this to be informative and consider this in an objective manner.

netdog

04-29-2008, 03:51 AM

OK... lets make it simple... assault weapons are those that either have a fully automatic mode, or can be modified to be fully automatic and were designed strictly for military and/or law enforcement use.

Any more questions??? or are you just trying to stir up sh*t??

No just trying to educate and maybe get folks to think, the term assault weapons is a much misused and misunderstood term.

Any weapon that has a fully automatic mode has been illegal since the 1934 national firearms act, when a tax act was passed. You can still own one, but you have to go through a thorough check and pay the ATF their tax.

This was in large part in response to the violent organized crime wave spawned by prohibition, Alcohol prohibition. Just as gun control now IMHO is a misguided effort to curb crime spawned by our current prohibition and the violent organized crime it has produced.

Most semi auto rifles can be converted to full auto easily, and most have never been in military use. They are just as lethal as any semi auto rifle that looks like it was made for military use.

Which is why congress passed a feel good law and called it an assault weapon ban to pacify the public, after they found out the only thing that differs on a military rifle are superficial things like a bayonet, a pistol grip, and a flash suppressor.

So they banned those "scary looking" parts because their is no functional difference between those rifles and say a the ruger 10-22 or mini 14 that dads buy for their kids at Walmart. The gun dealers just removed those parts and went about their business.

Even today most folks have no idea that any automatic weapon has been very highly regulated since 1934, and have no idea that the "assault weapons ban" didn't ban a single weapon at all.