NationStates Jolt Archive

As of right now it is on page 8, it's titled Guns! I am urging all UN delegates look at it and hopefully approve it. It's setup to where i'm sure everyone will like it. This proposal could start a new era in gun control.

I think we're really going out on a limb here if we are going to mandate gun control in member nations. Land mines are one thing, as they may get left behind by an invading aggressor, so I can support a ban on land mines. Gun control, while practiced within the borders of Galbonkia (we have no guns) is a matter completely up to the governments of our member nations. While I despise guns, I cannot vote for any resolution foisting gun control in the laps of sovereign nations.

It's a good thing The Kingdom of Skullzz is no longer a UN member. You wish to take away our guns? They are as integral to our society as the torture that you are banning, which is why I left the UN in the first place. Your international organization seems to want to take away the entire way of life for the citizens of Skullzz.

Anything that might hurt my strong, arms manufacturing economy gets a no.

Though Jaru has no like for Wepeons we have seen the Horrors of what Prohibition can do. The Raids,The naborhoods in flames fighting the Drug wars.. The Crack Federal agents coming down in their black helicopers. The Poison Sprayed on crops regardless of what kind of crop it was or weather or not their were people in the feilds or not.Even in U.S. History we have seen this happen. No The prohibition of Arms will only make matters worse..I would hate to see the black market become the sole controler of wepons in the world..

It's a good thing The Kingdom of Skullzz is no longer a UN member. You wish to take away our guns? They are as integral to our society as the torture that you are banning, which is why I left the UN in the first place. Your international organization seems to want to take away the entire way of life for the citizens of Skullzz.

I DO NOT wish to take away you guns, just limit them to only people of age and who have a clean police record. I say once again I DO NOT WANT TO TAKE YOUR GUNS AWAY!

Police are illegal and unconstitutional in Jaru..

Your so called "Gun Control" limits not the criminals who use them, but the citizens that protect themselves with them. The Tsalagi cannot allow our law abiding citizens to take the risk of being murdered without being able to defend themselves. We must also not allow the Defense of the Tsalagi to be weakened to any extent.

The right to defend ourselfs is a basic, inalienable right, that must be held sacred.

The Leadership of the Tsalagi does not support any such bannishment, or restrictions on our weapons.

Tawodi Watie
Principle Chief of the Tsalagi

...

We congratulate you for your optimism, evident in the thread title.

Unfortunately, as you have seen, some people are just hard to please.

Any attempt by the U.N. to impose or enforce gun control on member nations is an infringement of national sovereignty, and as such cannot be allowed,

Once again this is just another U.N. positioned proposal that theoretically grants the U.N. a tighter hold on members, A

nd is redundant anyway,

AS THERE IS ALREADY AN ISSUE WHICH DEALS WITH THIS EXACT PROBLEM.

Jeez, people should think a little bit more before they go spraying around their pointless proposals in pixels on our screens.

Yours respectfully, A Rep of Komokom.

Not posting the proposal always makes me suspicious.

Guns!

Category: Gun Control; A resolution to tighten or relax gun control laws.
Decision: Tighten

Proposed by: Alienware


Description: Gun control is simple. Here are the rules for my proposal.

1.Buying/selling firearms
a)Must be over the age of 21 to buy a firearm.
b)Can only sell firearms back to a firearms retail store.

2.Owning a firearm
a)Must keep fiream and ammo in two seperate safes.
b)Only owner of firearm(s) allowed to know combination to the safes.
c)All firearms must be registered under the owners name and social security number.

3.Children and firearms
a)Children below the age of 12 not allowed to operate a firearm.(not even under supervision)

This is the effect way to control firearms.



Approvals: 8 (Perseity, The Corellian System, Kahta, Reich ROTC, Damienopea, Brain-dead people, Helfania, Christopher IV)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 123 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Fri Dec 12 2003

Moving on to debate...

Why is this an international issue that the United Nations should legislate for all of its members?

1.Buying/selling firearms
a)Must be over the age of 21 to buy a firearm.
b)Can only sell firearms back to a firearms retail store.

Over 21? What about 18? In Santin, a person is considered an adult at the age of 18 -- that means they can drink, join the military, own property, and are accorded all of the rights of a citizen of their country. I see an odd hypocrisy in allowing people to die in war and vote to determine the fate of their country, but not own guns to defend themselves with.

Guns can only be sold to retailers? That's not very well considered -- literally interpreted, you just banned the sale of all firearms. That aside, what's the definition of a "firearms retail store?"

2.Owning a firearm
a)Must keep fiream and ammo in two seperate safes.
b)Only owner of firearm(s) allowed to know combination to the safes.
c)All firearms must be registered under the owners name and social security number.

Gun and ammo seperate? In safes? So, basically, useless for home defense (legal use), but still quite fine to run out and shoot people with (illegal use)? I've never understood this plan -- if your goal is to keep guns away from children, there are much more direct methods of accomplishing that.

Only the owner can know the combination? So I couldn't tell my wife if her name isn't on the papers? I can't tell my roommate? I can't tell my adult son? If there are multiple gun owners in a home, we have to get two seperate safes to keep our codes seperate?

Registration under name and social security number? Right. Addresses might be good for this silly little process some people call "police investigation" or "return of stolen goods," the two primary reasons for registration of guns. And not every nation has this odd process you call "social security," I hope you realize.

3.Children and firearms
a)Children below the age of 12 not allowed to operate a firearm.(not even under supervision)

So now you're telling people how to raise their kids, too?

I really don't see why this is an international issue that should be up for UN consideration.

It's a good thing The Kingdom of Skullzz is no longer a UN member. You wish to take away our guns? They are as integral to our society as the torture that you are banning, which is why I left the UN in the first place. Your international organization seems to want to take away the entire way of life for the citizens of Skullzz.

I DO NOT wish to take away you guns, just limit them to only people of age and who have a clean police record. I say once again I DO NOT WANT TO TAKE YOUR GUNS AWAY!

Of age? OF AGE?!? We train our children in small arms use from the age of 12, in our public school system. We have never had a school shooting in the history of The Kingdom. Almost every person over the age of 12 has their own gun, some are even started younger by their parents.

It's a good thing The Kingdom of Skullzz is no longer a UN member. You wish to take away our guns? They are as integral to our society as the torture that you are banning, which is why I left the UN in the first place. Your international organization seems to want to take away the entire way of life for the citizens of Skullzz.

I DO NOT wish to take away you guns, just limit them to only people of age and who have a clean police record. I say once again I DO NOT WANT TO TAKE YOUR GUNS AWAY!

Of age? OF AGE?!? We train our children in small arms use from the age of 12, in our public school system. We have never had a school shooting in the history of The Kingdom. Almost every person over the age of 12 has their own gun, some are even started younger by their parents.

If they are allowed to be trained at twelve, why are you proposing that they not even be allowed to touch a gun, even under supervision of an adult? You need to cover your bases Homie.

Not always this respectfully,
Corrin of Kel-Moria

It's a good thing The Kingdom of Skullzz is no longer a UN member. You wish to take away our guns? They are as integral to our society as the torture that you are banning, which is why I left the UN in the first place. Your international organization seems to want to take away the entire way of life for the citizens of Skullzz.

I DO NOT wish to take away you guns, just limit them to only people of age and who have a clean police record. I say once again I DO NOT WANT TO TAKE YOUR GUNS AWAY!

Of age? OF AGE?!? We train our children in small arms use from the age of 12, in our public school system. We have never had a school shooting in the history of The Kingdom. Almost every person over the age of 12 has their own gun, some are even started younger by their parents.

If they are allowed to be trained at twelve, why are you proposing that they not even be allowed to touch a gun, even under supervision of an adult? You need to cover your bases Homie.

Not always this respectfully,
Corrin of Kel-Moria

You need to learn to read a wee bit better.

"Respectfully,"
The DSQ

I DO NOT wish to take away you guns, just limit them to only people of age and who have a clean police record. I say once again I DO NOT WANT TO TAKE YOUR GUNS AWAY!

Wait a minute -- you don't mention criminal records anywhere in the proposal. Where'd that bit come from?

If they are allowed to be trained at twelve, why are you proposing that they not even be allowed to touch a gun, even under supervision of an adult? You need to cover your bases Homie.

Not always this respectfully,
Corrin of Kel-Moria

You are officially a giant doofus. I never proposed that they not be allowed to touch a gun, in fact, I wouldn't restrict infants from owning guns. You completely misread the entire thing and somehow got the idea that I am pro-gun control, when in fact I am probably the most extremely against it here.

I must say, gun control is a controversial issue and needs to be addressed. I do not, however, feel that it can be a UN mandate but rather up to each country on its own.

The UN is not a dictatorship rule, therefore, for its memebers to interfer on a local scale is unacceptable. We are here to mandate international issues, not inforce values or morale.

I must say, gun control is a controversial issue and needs to be addressed. I do not, however, feel that it can be a UN mandate but rather up to each country on its own.

The UN is not a dictatorship rule, therefore, for its memebers to interfer on a local scale is unacceptable. We are here to mandate international issues, not inforce values or morale.

It's a good thing The Kingdom of Skullzz is no longer a UN member. You wish to take away our guns? They are as integral to our society as the torture that you are banning, which is why I left the UN in the first place. Your international organization seems to want to take away the entire way of life for the citizens of Skullzz.

I DO NOT wish to take away you guns, just limit them to only people of age and who have a clean police record. I say once again I DO NOT WANT TO TAKE YOUR GUNS AWAY!

Of age? OF AGE?!? We train our children in small arms use from the age of 12, in our public school system. We have never had a school shooting in the history of The Kingdom. Almost every person over the age of 12 has their own gun, some are even started younger by their parents.

If they are allowed to be trained at twelve, why are you proposing that they not even be allowed to touch a gun, even under supervision of an adult? You need to cover your bases Homie.

Not always this respectfully,
Corrin of Kel-Moria

You need to learn to read a wee bit better.

"Respectfully,"
The DSQ

I am not the only one. You probably didnt notic, but the post about the gun ats a 12 was stated AFTER the Quote. That means it was HIS message that was written, not the Skullzz Gentleman

As of right now it is on page 8, it's titled Guns! I am urging all UN delegates look at it and hopefully approve it. It's setup to where i'm sure everyone will like it. This proposal could start a new era in gun control.

I will look at it but if I even see it even slightly violating my beliefs in my interpretation of the 2nd Ammendment to teh US Constitution, then I will not support it,

for a better expalnation of my beleifs see the EP Articles of Confederation, here
http://s1.invisionfree.com/forums/The_East_Pacific/index.php?showtopic=181


Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
This Amendment extends to the right of the Private Citizen to own and keep Arms and expressly forbids Congress to make any law infringing upon the rights of the Private Citizen, they may however restrict ownership of such weapons as fully automatic capable weapons and certain High explosives.

There is a certain RL UN precedence. There exists a Firearms Protocol to the UN Convention against Transnational Organised Crime that requires of its signatories certain steps with regard to the marking and registration of firearms, as well as a wide range of cooperative measures that in practice constitute a certain level of control and restrictions in the trade of firearms.

cheers

Guns!
Description: Gun control is simple. Here are the rules for my proposal.

1.Buying/selling firearms
a)Must be over the age of 21 to buy a firearm.
b)Can only sell firearms back to a firearms retail store.

2.Owning a firearm
a)Must keep fiream and ammo in two seperate safes.
b)Only owner of firearm(s) allowed to know combination to the safes.
c)All firearms must be registered under the owners name and social security number.

3.Children and firearms
a)Children below the age of 12 not allowed to operate a firearm.(not even under supervision)

This is the effective way to control firearms.

You know, he is right, he isn't trying to take away guns. He just wants them to be as useless as possible for one of their main purposes, home protection (the other being to protect yourself from the goverment). The best way to protect folks from accidents with guns is for them to be trained from an early age, by their parents, to respect the instrument and its uses. Will there be folks killed from accidents? Sure, but there are folks killed from accidents in cars everyday and we don't talk about banning them. Besides, don't folks have the right to remove themselves from the gene pool if they do something stupid?

no criminal (or anyone else for that matter) can aquire a lethal ordanance that someone has not made. if one is so determined to have one as to make their own the will likely either kill themselves in the proccess or learn skills that can be put to more positive and constructive purpose.

the one infallable 'gun control' is therefore quite simply not to manufacture guns (or allow their importation)

remember when the honest citizen and the criminal both have guns the criminal still has the edge that the honest citizen must of conscounse hessitate while the ruthless criminal with less to loose is more likely to fire first, and possissing lethal force increases, not decreases the likelyhood of becoming a victum of it, as has been consistently and reliably statisticly demonstrated.

unless drilled and trained in thier proper use and care and responsibility that goes with them and possessing cultural values in practice that preclude their careless and wanton deployment, the notion of an armed populas being a safe populas is a fantasy.

=^^=
.../\...

I DO NOT wish to take away you guns, just limit them to only people of age and who have a clean police record. I say once again I DO NOT WANT TO TAKE YOUR GUNS AWAY!

Wait a minute -- you don't mention criminal records anywhere in the proposal. Where'd that bit come from?


It's COMMON SENSE not to sell a firearm to any person(s) that have a criminal record! Think before you make responses next time. ANd from your first post int this thread you said that people who are 18 can drink? Hello!!!!!!! Thats 21, you can smoke when your 18!!!

no criminal (or anyone else for that matter) can aquire a lethal ordanance that someone has not made. if one is so determined to have one as to make their own the will likely either kill themselves in the proccess or learn skills that can be put to more positive and constructive purpose.

the one infallable 'gun control' is therefore quite simply not to manufacture guns (or allow their importation)

remember when the honest citizen and the criminal both have guns the criminal still has the edge that the honest citizen must of conscounse hessitate while the ruthless criminal with less to loose is more likely to fire first, and possissing lethal force increases, not decreases the likelyhood of becoming a victum of it, as has been consistently and reliably statisticly demonstrated.

unless drilled and trained in thier proper use and care and responsibility that goes with them and possessing cultural values in practice that preclude their careless and wanton deployment, the notion of an armed populas being a safe populas is a fantasy.

=^^=
.../\...

First things first, it's POPULACE, not populas. Second, my armed populace IS a safe populace, because they ARE trained in their use, and everyone here respects the power and responsibility of gun ownership. The statistics you mentioned about becoming a violent crime victim due to firearms ownership also fail to take into account the lack of proper weapons training many gun owners have. The Kingdom of Skullzz has about the lowest crime rate in the region, and the highest number of weapons per capita. You do the math and explain that.

We of Chumba agree. Gun control must be taken into serious consideration. As statistics have shown, countries without proper gun control, even within the west, have shown a high proportion of gun related crime. I urge you, fellow members, friends, to take this matter into serious consideration.

We of Chumba agree. Gun control must be taken into serious consideration. As statistics have shown, countries without proper gun control, even within the west, have shown a high proportion of gun related crime. I urge you, fellow members, friends, to take this matter into serious consideration.

We will never allow for any sort of controlling of our people's right to own firearms. What makes you think your pathetic nation can make others enforce gun controls? :lol:

honestly people screw gun control let me see people with guns vs people without yeah that sounds great for the peace lovers without guns <sarcasm and a gun for me>

I DO NOT wish to take away you guns, just limit them to only people of age and who have a clean police record. I say once again I DO NOT WANT TO TAKE YOUR GUNS AWAY!

Wait a minute -- you don't mention criminal records anywhere in the proposal. Where'd that bit come from?


It's COMMON SENSE not to sell a firearm to any person(s) that have a criminal record! Think before you make responses next time. ANd from your first post int this thread you said that people who are 18 can drink? Hello!!!!!!! Thats 21, you can smoke when your 18!!!

If it's such common sense, why isn't it in your proposal? I don't follow that logic.

And people who are 18 can drink IN SANTIN, since I suppose you missed those two important words. Once my people become adults, they are treated as such.

I think guns should be allowed as long as proper training is given and a licence is given to the proper people for the correct reason.(not register)
Hunting for food is also a good idea!

If they are allowed to be trained at twelve, why are you proposing that they not even be allowed to touch a gun, even under supervision of an adult? You need to cover your bases Homie.

Not always this respectfully,
Corrin of Kel-Moria

You are officially a giant doofus. I never proposed that they not be allowed to touch a gun, in fact, I wouldn't restrict infants from owning guns. You completely misread the entire thing and somehow got the idea that I am pro-gun control, when in fact I am probably the most extremely against it here.

I am apparently once again not the only one. No where did I say that YOU, Skullzz, was agaisnt gun control. Never.

In Gunrovia it is the belief you have the natural right to own firearms, as long as you do not forfiet your rights as a citizen by being a convicted felon (all your rights are lost then). No classes or training should be required to exercise this right, although they are encouraged. Children are also encouraged to be tought about and to properly respect firearms, any law preventing this would be detrimental.

I will vote no to this.

In Gunrovia it is the belief you have the natural right to own firearms, as long as you do not forfiet your rights as a citizen by being a convicted felon (all your rights are lost then).

The de-humanization of non-viable criminals is a policy my nation has been utilizing since it's inception, a fair policy, as it was their choice to leave the citizenry.

More to the point at hand, the axiom, as I am familiar with it, is that an armed populace is a polite populace. This does not mean that life goes by without incident, but the possiblity of violent death at the hand of any of your peers seems to keep things reasonably under control.

Skullz wrote:

"He just wants them to be as useless as possible for one of their main purposes, home protection (the other being to protect yourself from the goverment)."

Just as an aside, I think this is the irreconcilable point of divide on this issue generally. If you accept the above needs as real, then there is no real answer to it from a gun control point of view. On the other hand, many would consider (I frankly I am among them) that a society where there is a real need for private guns for home protection has failed abjectly in the basic task of providing adequate security for its citizens, and that the notion of needing guns to protect yourself against a democratic government is quite simply nuts.

Until they develop teleporters for police to use, there will always be a need to protect yourself. The world will never be rid of criminals, and police cannot be everywhere at once.

That is not in itself a good reason why you need a gun to protect yourself. Why this fear? I've lived in three different countries, and have never felt any need whatsoever to possess a gun for my own protection or that of my family. And in fact, possession of guns for this purpose is not normal in any developed country except the US, so it's not as if it's this is just the normal state of affairs or anything.

Kneeland[/b]]"He just wants them to be as useless as possible for one of their main purposes, home protection (the other being to protect yourself from the goverment)."

Just as an aside, I think this is the irreconcilable point of divide on this issue generally. If you accept the above needs as real, then there is no real answer to it from a gun control point of view. On the other hand, many would consider (I frankly I am among them) that a society where there is a real need for private guns for home protection has failed abjectly in the basic task of providing adequate security for its citizens, and that the notion of needing guns to protect yourself against a democratic government is quite simply nuts.

I was the one who wrote this.

Here in the States there have been several cities that have put ordinances in place requiring all heads of household to own and maintain a firearm as long as they can legally do so. One of the first was a city in Georgia (I don't remember the name). Their population has tripled in the time they have had the ordinance and their crime rate has actually gone down during this growth. The same types of statistics have been seen in all other cities that have followed suit.

There was a study done a few years ago looking into the effects of concealed carry laws. They found the crime rate in states with concealed carry went down. While the crime rate in the counties, in states without concealed carry, bordering these states went up. This means criminals are moving to areas were they have less to fear from citizens. Which tells me there is something to having guns in the home.

. . . a society where there is a real need for private guns for home protection has failed abjectly in the basic task of providing adequate security for its citizens . . .

Good cops will tell you they cannot do this. They can really only react to crimes, they are not there to prevent crime. Japan may be the only society in the world that effectively protects its citizens. And, it is my understading they have a file on every citizen in the country and they conduct interviews twice a year. During these interviews they ask personal enough questions that they know who is having sex with who and how often. You can be locked up for days at a time without charge and their police force has about a 98% confession rate and a 99% conviction race. I don't know about you, but I don't want to live in that kind of society.

As for needing guns to protect yourself from the government. That is the reason behind the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the US. The men who wrote the Constitution recognized they would need the ability to revolt against their government in the future and the only way to do this is to ensure gun ownership for the population. They knew an unarmed public could easily become the victim of a tyrannical government. They believed that an armed public would provide the single greatest protection against government tyranny. So, if ". . . the notion of needing guns to protect yourself against a democratic government is quite simply nuts." Then the founding fathers must have been insane, because that is exactly why they included the 2nd Amendment exists. As the cliche' says "The Second Amendment is the one that guarantees all the others."

I think one term that applies would be “An armed society is a polite society.”

I think one term that applies would be “An armed society is a polite society.”

Why do I have it in my mind that Heinlen said that . . .

Does anybody know where this quote came from?

I think we're really going out on a limb here if we are going to mandate gun control in member nations. Land mines are one thing, as they may get left behind by an invading aggressor, so I can support a ban on land mines. Gun control, while practiced within the borders of Galbonkia (we have no guns) is a matter completely up to the governments of our member nations. While I despise guns, I cannot vote for any resolution foisting gun control in the laps of sovereign nations.

The States of Stephenson feel the same way.

This resolution not only goes against the people of Emberlon's basic right to bear arms, it also leaves our nation vulnerable to attack by rogue nations (which there will be a lot more of if this resolution is put to the vote and passes) which we would have no way to defend ourselves from.

Alsace, Chief Political Advisor

I think one term that applies would be “An armed society is a polite society.”

Why do I have it in my mind that Heinlen said that . . .

Does anybody know where this quote came from?

You are right, it did come from Heinlen, but I cannot remember which book it was...

You can eliminate the middle men and make the military and the police one organization. Then, if someone uses a gun in a matter you don't like, "take care" of them.

There you go. There are three true classes in pretty much any society. There is the general public, the ruling class and those put in charge of mediating the general public and the ruling class to keep them from going crazy and killing each other. I think that the idea of Eye for an Eye is awesome. If someone shoots someone and kills them, then shoot them and kill them. If someone pokes you in the eye, poke them back! Corrin (Kel-Moria) has a good point. An armed society is a polite society. In countries where the police carry large automatic weapons in the streets, there are not too many instances of say.. gang violence, or even much violence at all.

Look at Switzerland! The minute you are 18 you are given a gun and told to keep it ready at all times. You do not hear of Switzerland having too many problems and gun issues. It is only an issue because people are making it one.

"Good cops will tell you they cannot do this. They can really only react to crimes, they are not there to prevent crime. Japan may be the only society in the world that effectively protects its citizens. And, it is my understading they have a file on every citizen in the country and they conduct interviews twice a year. During these interviews they ask personal enough questions that they know who is having sex with who and how often. You can be locked up for days at a time without charge and their police force has about a 98% confession rate and a 99% conviction race. I don't know about you, but I don't want to live in that kind of society. "

Of course the police can't prevent crimes from happening - that's not the point. The point is, do you reasonably need to keep a gun in your house to protect yourself against that risk, and if you do, how come the risk is so much greater than it apparently is in comparable countries?

The Japanese example is pointless. The fact is that NO OTHER DEVELOPED WESTERN STATE THAN THE US allows private citizens to own firearms for the purpose of home protection, and people are not missing that privilege. It is also a fact that Europe, Canada, Australia and so on not only has significantly lower numbers of people being killed by gunfire annually, but also significantly lower levels of crime. Among Western states, the US has both by far the most liberal gun laws and also the highest crime levels. It actually takes a bit of an effort to even understand what the gun control issue is about in the US, because the reasoning behind seems so utterly alien to people who otherwise belongs to cultures that are largely similar to that of the US. Elsewhere (Canada, Europe, Australia etc) gun control simply is not an issue, and never has been. The use and ownership of firearms has been restricted for as long as anyone can remember, as a matter of course. It is about as controversial as putting speed limits on roads. And I have yet to hear of anyone who sleeps badly at night in fear of crime because of it. Whatever your opinions on gun control in the US, what you at least need to realise is that internationally speaking, in societies who are generally analogous to the US in all major aspects, gun control is a matter of course to such an extent that it is not even an issue. A society with restrictions on guns is not some far-off utopia - it is reality everywhere except in your country, in societies of different historical, social and political backgrounds. It does not seem to make people feel unsafe, it coexists with with much lower crime rates than what is found in the US, and it is not the product of socialism or scary police state instincts, unless you would countries like Britain, Canada and Australia in that category.



"As for needing guns to protect yourself from the government. That is the reason behind the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the US. The men who wrote the Constitution recognized they would need the ability to revolt against their government in the future and the only way to do this is to ensure gun ownership for the population. They knew an unarmed public could easily become the victim of a tyrannical government. They believed that an armed public would provide the single greatest protection against government tyranny. So, if ". . . the notion of needing guns to protect yourself against a democratic government is quite simply nuts." Then the founding fathers must have been insane, because that is exactly why they included the 2nd Amendment exists. As the cliche' says "The Second Amendment is the one that guarantees all the others.""

Well, like Homer Simpson put it, "If you don't have a gun, the Queen of England can just walk into this kitchen and start ordering you around. Would you like that, huh?" Perhaps the world has changed a bit since the late 18th century.

cheers

"An armed society is a polite society. In countries where the police carry large automatic weapons in the streets, there are not too many instances of say.. gang violence, or even much violence at all. "

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Haha, right. Colombia, Israel, El Salvador, the Phillipines, Nigeria, boy those are nice places, and so safe too.

You can hardly say that Nigeria or Columbia is run the same way as Switzerland. One country is neutral when it comes to everything, while the others are all extremist nations with one sort of agenda or another.

"An armed society is a polite society. In countries where the police carry large automatic weapons in the streets, there are not too many instances of say.. gang violence, or even much violence at all. "

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Haha, right. Colombia, Israel, El Salvador, the Phillipines, Nigeria, boy those are nice places, and so safe too.

It could if everyone did as they are told...

I think one term that applies would be “An armed society is a polite society.”

Why do I have it in my mind that Heinlen said that . . .

Does anybody know where this quote came from?

You are right, it did come from Heinlen, but I cannot remember which book it was...

You are definitely correct-I think it may have been The Moon is a Harsh Mistress or The Cat Who Walks Through Walls....been a while since I have read any RAH.

Oppressed Possum, you are awesome. I love your sarcasm and find it very refreshing in a forum full of anal righties and lefties. *salutes*

The fact is that NO OTHER DEVELOPED WESTERN STATE THAN THE US allows private citizens to own firearms for the purpose of home protection, and people are not missing that privilege.


oh is that right? gee i guess those people i spoke to from the UK and the fact that the UK now has the highest crime rate in leading economies means people dont miss guns. i know i wouldnt if i was being robbed.

The fact is that NO OTHER DEVELOPED WESTERN STATE THAN THE US allows private citizens to own firearms for the purpose of home protection, and people are not missing that privilege.

Waiiit... so Germany, France, Switzerland, and Canada aren't developed Western states? I mean, I just checked right now to be double-sure, and they all allow firearms. I think someone did a little funny researching.

While I support the sentiment, the issue of gun control should really be left to the individual countries, instead of the UN mandating everything.

Gun Control would make a great addition to the daily issues, though.

An interesting (true) story. A small New England town, nearby a certain unnamed college, had an astounding violent crime rate. Every citizen was given a firearm, licensed to carry a gun (through classes), and trained in gun safety. The crime rate was literally down 94% in three weeks, after 10 muggers, 8 burglers, and 1 rapist were shot. Of the 19, 11 survived, because the citizens admittedly aimed at arms and legs. The rapist was shot in the "sensitive" areas, and died of blood loss by the time the ambulence got there. The rapist turned out to be from the unnamed nearby college, as did 2 of the muggers and 1 burgler.

The town has since repealed these policies, and the crime rate is back up.

The fact is that NO OTHER DEVELOPED WESTERN STATE THAN THE US allows private citizens to own firearms for the purpose of home protection, and people are not missing that privilege.

Waiiit... so Germany, France, Switzerland, and Canada aren't developed Western states? I mean, I just checked right now to be double-sure, and they all allow firearms. I think someone did a little funny researching.

Hooray! Someone does their research! Way to go!

England used to allow people to own guns. Since outlawing them, stabbing related deaths are WAY up. There was a motion to ban knives, but it never made it out of commitee. I think the resteraunt lobbyists killed it.

I don't think their police force carries guns either. Doesn't make sense to me, but then, I'm in West Point, and have a medal for marksmanship. I recently switched from Marine Sniper training to officer training. (I'm not very good at hiding, which is half of being a sniper. I'm too big to hide.)

you never fire for non-lethal shots. i dont know if i believe that part of the story cause in most cases if you are firing a gun you are just pulling the trigger as fast as you can.

in any case, well over 90% of the time a shot isnt even fired

I will agree with everyone but Krisinuria.

I know for a fact that at the moment there is a statistical gun-to-family ratio of 3/1. 3 Guns per family. And if I recall, despite strange Health Care systems, Canada is a developed Western Nation. And anyways, as my sister was saying, Those countries listed were all high violence, Military Extremist, hot zones. The fact is, if you have a gun, and you know everyone else in the room has a gun, then you are that much less likely to pull it out and use it on someone, being as everyone else is likely to "Light yo ass up."

And also, as stated earlier, most crimes aren`t even committed with a gun in said Western Countries.

Israel - Hmmm, Democracy in the middle of a large amount of Islamics, the only really free place in the Middle East. And even then, it is nowhere near American Democracy. Being as most of the other governments in the area are ruled by either a royal class or a noble class, people are used to that type of rule. And just like in Iraq, many prospered in these countries at the cost of others. They are not exactly conducive to changes that would take their power away.

Being as I havent really checked up on Israels situation lately, my facts may be a bit off. I apologize for this. And Mr. Possum is pretty cool. Sarcasm like that is usually lost on many many people.

I think one term that applies would be “An armed society is a polite society.”

Why do I have it in my mind that Heinlen said that . . .

Does anybody know where this quote came from?

You are right, it did come from Heinlen, but I cannot remember which book it was...

You are definitely correct-I think it may have been The Moon is a Harsh Mistress or The Cat Who Walks Through Walls....been a while since I have read any RAH.

Yeah. The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. I almost remember the scene...

It's a good thing The Kingdom of Skullzz is no longer a UN member. You wish to take away our guns? They are as integral to our society as the torture that you are banning, which is why I left the UN in the first place. Your international organization seems to want to take away the entire way of life for the citizens of Skullzz.

I DO NOT wish to take away you guns, just limit them to only people of age and who have a clean police record. I say once again I DO NOT WANT TO TAKE YOUR GUNS AWAY!

Keilani teaches its younger generations to use guns at an early age, mainly ten, but parents can teach their kids to use them at their own descretion. We do indeed have an occassional problem, but we deal with it swiftly and it happens to be a rare occurence. The control should be in the nations, NOT the UN, and I for one am glad that I don't have to worry about the UN changing my way of life. The Chiefess and elders of Keilani fully supports Skullzz, and current UN nations who will see a drastic change in their nations if this is passed by the UN.

Challis Inkari
Councillor of Keilani

My siblings were both stressing absolutely correct facts. An armed society, is a polite society, minus those corrupted chaotic countries still at civil wars that have been continued for years. Research yoru history a little more, Columbia is full of war-lords and drug addicts with a government almost as powerful as an American rat. Israel, Africa, Pakistan, any hostile heavily armed country is a different situation. They don't even have police, they have 'armed military MPs' so basically military men enforcing the law. Then the gurreillas fight back in a militia military style and that's just civil war with heavy guns.

Canada and Switzerland on the other hand, are at complete civil obedience and you know why? Not because everyone has a gun, that's the sub-point. It's because the government as lame as it may be, is in charge. When the people aren't killing themselves for freedom, then you can look to everyone being armed with non-illegal, semi-automatic at best weaponry. No one in Canada shoots anyone in Canada, because everyone in fucking Canada will shoot back at anyone in fuckin Canada.

America is a bad example, because our crime rates are so high. Realistically, crime rates, and death rates have gone down which is miserable for the economy but oh well. Because more and more people are getting guns thanks to wonderful people like Ashcroft (Hint sarcasm.) Gangs aren't around anymore, though violence in the world is all about gangs, so if there aren't any violent congregations there simply isn't any violence. Gangs rule the world, everything is a gang. The government, is a gang isn't it? Isn't our military a gang? Or our police force? Realistically, there is strength in numbers. It makes you braver, and stronger on a personal level. And on a widespread level. Guns simply make these groups even more powerful.

I say give everyone a gun. Shit, I'll take two or four or a hundred. I love guns, and guns are the right way to go. I know more people in England where guns are illegal that carry them and use violence than anywhere else. So what it boils down to is preference, either everyone has a gun, or no one has a gun except the 7 foot men in camoflauge fatigues armed with M4s and 141s with grenade launchers, snipers perched in towers at every corner and there is an all age non-military curfew of dusk where violation of any law what-so-ever is resulted in immediate capital punishment, not taken to trail. This military police force is judge, jury, and executioner...

So, are you guys trigger happy, or person happy? *Smirks.*

TRIGGER!!!!!!!!

My siblings were both stressing absolutely correct facts. An armed society, is a polite society, minus those corrupted chaotic countries still at civil wars that have been for years. Research your history a little more, Columbia is full of war-lords and drug addicts with a government almost as powerful as an American rat. Israel, Africa, Pakistan, any hostile, heavily armed country is a different situation. They don't even have police, they have 'armed military MPs' so basically military men enforcing the law. Then the gurreillas fight back in a militia military style and that's just civil war with heavy guns.

Canada and Switzerland on the other hand, are at complete civil obedience and you know why? Not because everyone has a gun, that's the sub-point. It's because the government as lame as it may be, is in charge. When the people aren't killing themselves for freedom, then you can look to everyone being armed with non-illegal, semi-automatic at best weaponry. No one in Canada shoots anyone in Canada, because everyone in fucking Canada will shoot back at anyone in fuckin Canada.

America is a bad example, because our crime rates are so high. Realistically, crime rates, and death rates have gone down which is miserable for the economy but oh well. Because more and more people are getting guns thanks to wonderful people like Ashcroft (Hint sarcasm.) Gangs aren't around anymore, though violence in the world is all about gangs, so if there aren't any violent congregations there simply isn't any violence. Gangs rule the world, everything is a gang. The government is a gang isn't it? Isn't our military a gang? Or our police force? Realistically, there is strength in numbers. It makes you braver, and stronger on a personal level. And on a widespread level. Guns simply make these groups even more powerful.

I say give everyone a gun. Shit, I'll take two or four or a hundred. I love guns, and guns are the right way to go. I know more people in England where guns are illegal that carry them and use violence than anywhere else where guns are legal. So what it boils down to is preference, either everyone has a gun, or no one has a gun except the 7 foot men in camoflauge fatigues armed with M4s and 141s with grenade launchers. Snipers perched in towers at every corner and there is an all age non-military curfew of dusk where violation of any law what-so-ever is resulted in immediate capital punishment, not taken to trail. This military police force is judge, jury, and executioner... But we'll call them 'policemen' to avoid copyright infringement...

So, are you guys trigger happy, or person happy? *Smirks.*

TRIGGER!!!!!!!!

"You can hardly say that Nigeria or Columbia is run the same way as Switzerland. One country is neutral when it comes to everything, while the others are all extremist nations with one sort of agenda or another."

No, but in Switzerland the police don't patrol the streets with automatic weapons. Countries where they do generally are anything but safe. Which is probably the reason why the police patrol the streets armed with automatic weapons.

"Canada and Switzerland on the other hand, are at complete civil obedience and you know why? Not because everyone has a gun, that's the sub-point. It's because the government as lame as it may be, is in charge. When the people aren't killing themselves for freedom, then you can look to everyone being armed with non-illegal, semi-automatic at best weaponry. No one in Canada shoots anyone in Canada, because everyone in f--- Canada will shoot back at anyone in f--- Canada. "

"My siblings were both stressing absolutely correct facts. An armed society, is a polite society, minus those corrupted chaotic countries still at civil wars that have been for years. Research your history a little more, Columbia is full of war-lords and drug addicts with a government almost as powerful as an American rat. Israel, Africa, Pakistan, any hostile, heavily armed country is a different situation. They don't even have police, they have 'armed military MPs' so basically military men enforcing the law. Then the gurreillas fight back in a militia military style and that's just civil war with heavy guns."

Which may be why the police, paramiltary or otherwise, is patrolling the streets with heavy weapons, which it was completely ludicruosly suggested is something that would designate a safe society. And I don't think I am the one in need of historical research.

:lol: You think the reason Canada is safe is everyone has a gun and would use it? Canada actually has one of the strictest gun control legislations in the world. Also there seems to be some strange conception that the Swiss are a people armed for their own personal protection. Perhaps you are confusing this with the mobilisation system of the Swiss army, under which reservists keeps military firearms at home to facilitate speedy mobilisation. These are of course not for personal use, and are strictly regulated and controlled. It's not as if they're walking around with SiG rifles, or would use them if they hear someone breaking into their house.

"And if I recall, despite strange Health Care systems, Canada is a developed Western Nation."

Yes it is. It also has one of the world's most restrictive gun legislations.

"And also, as stated earlier, most crimes aren`t even committed with a gun in said Western Countries."

No, they arent't - except in the US, which also has by far the most liberal gun control regime among them. Think there might be a connection?

"Waiiit... so Germany, France, Switzerland, and Canada aren't developed Western states? I mean, I just checked right now to be double-sure, and they all allow firearms. I think someone did a little funny researching."

You think this is a real argument? Of course they do. Nobody bans firearms altogether. The point is they enforce strict regulation of firearms and do not permit people to keep guns for their own personal protection - unlike in the US. Which may have something to do with the fact that gun-related deaths per capita, whether from crime or accident, are minuscule in all of these countries when compared to the US.

"oh is that right? gee i guess those people i spoke to from the UK and the fact that the UK now has the highest crime rate in leading economies means people dont miss guns. i know i wouldnt if i was being robbed."

Sorry, but if the UK suddenly has a violent crime rate comparable to the US, things have changed in a big way in a short time. Any proof to back up that assumption?


You guys just don't get it, do you. The rest of the Western world simply is not anything like America in this respect. The examples you quote are instructive in themselves. Something like a town making it mandatory to own firearms for personal protection is quite simply totally inconceivable IN ANY OTHER WESTERN COUNTRY. And if some town nevertheless came up with such an idea, they'd have the Justice Ministry down on them like a ton of bricks immediately. And even if the Justice Ministry slept, the citizens simply would not be able to just go out and buy a gun for such a purpose, no matter what the local authorities decided. Of course, the US doesn't neccessarily have to everything just like everybody else, so by all means have your own opinions. But if you think there is no fundamental difference between the way this issue is approached in America and what is the practice elsewhere, you are simply living in another world.

Though Jaru has no like for Wepeons we have seen the Horrors of what Prohibition can do. The Raids,The naborhoods in flames fighting the Drug wars.. The Crack Federal agents coming down in their black helicopers. The Poison Sprayed on crops regardless of what kind of crop it was or weather or not their were people in the feilds or not.Even in U.S. History we have seen this happen. No The prohibition of Arms will only make matters worse..I would hate to see the black market become the sole controler of wepons in the world..


Bravo!

Kristirania: Any proof about that statement on the swiss police?

"Kristirania: Any proof about that statement on the swiss police?"

How about having been to Switzerland without seeing any such thing, as well as the fact that the notion of Swiss police routinely walking around with heavy automatic weapons in the strees is about as plausible as Swiss banks opening their vaults and starting to hand out all the money?

Any proof about the assumption that Swiss police ARE patrolling the streets with automatic weapons?

"Kristirania: Any proof about that statement on the swiss police?"

How about having been to Switzerland without seeing any such thing, as well as the fact that the notion of Swiss police routinely walking around with heavy automatic weapons in the strees is about as plausible as Swiss banks opening their vaults and starting to hand out all the money?

Any proof about the assumption that Swiss police ARE patrolling the streets with automatic weapons?

Uhhh Homie, I read that last page over very carefully a few times, and NOWHERE does it say that the Swiss patrol the streets with heavy automatic weapons.

My siblings may have mentioned other countries, but they definately did not say that the Swiss was doing this.

And I did not say that having Military patrols down the street would keep everything safe. I said, "An Armed Society Is A Polite Society," Which isnt quite saying that there are military men/women walking down the street with heavy weapons. My brother did NOT state that they ARE either, he just mentioned a hypothetical situation.

"You think this is a real argument? Of course they do. Nobody bans firearms altogether. The point is they enforce strict regulation of firearms and do not permit people to keep guns for their own personal protection - unlike in the US. Which may have something to do with the fact that gun-related deaths per capita, whether from crime or accident, are minuscule in all of these countries when compared to the US."

You may also notice Homie, that these countries arent set up in the same way as the U.S. They have much much smaller populations in most areas. If you look at statistics that are liberally scattered around the internet, then you will notice where most gun crimes occur. Major Population Centers. Sorry if it sounds a little racist, but there are more people getting capped in Harlem than Upstate or Queens.

To argue with the point about how other Western Countries dont have mandatory gun ownership, you have to get into the arguement of what qualifies as a Western Nation. We arent the only ones who arent getting all their facts straight. We are all basing arguments off of what we know, and what we have seen.

TRIGGER!!!!!! Nice speech.

Corn, Matt, I think ya got your points across bros. I figure gun violence to be because people make such a big f-cking deal about guns. It is like sex, you make a big deal about sex and everyone goes nuts the second it is mentioned, like a taboo. Everyone is like, OH MY GOD!!! GUNS!! WE SHOULD BAN THEM! THEY KILL PEOPLE!

Only irresponsible gun use kills people. Teach the people as a society to be responsible with their weapons, and they will be as long as the benefits of such outweight the costs. If they get more by killing each other with guns than to not kill each other with guns, they probably are going to kill each other. But if it behooves them to leave their fellow man alive, then they will probably leave them alive.

So instead of trying to enforce mass legislation on ALL countries about the differing gun problems, go back to your own nation and look at YOUR problems and work to solve YOUR nations gun problems. MY gun problems will not be the same as yours, so a blanket law stating that all nations must have the same laws concerning guns will not help much, but will just piss the rednecks off.

That I would drink to if I had anything worth drinking. OH NO! DRINKING! AHHH! BAN ALCOHOL!

Guns!

Category: Gun Control; A resolution to tighten or relax gun control laws.
Decision: Tighten

Proposed by: Alienware


Description: Gun control is simple. Here are the rules for my proposal.

1.Buying/selling firearms
a)Must be over the age of 21 to buy a firearm.
b)Can only sell firearms back to a firearms retail store. People under 21 in the military use firearms. Anyone 18 or older should be able to purchase a firearm. If they are under 18 then it's up to their parents.

2.Owning a firearm
a)Must keep firearm and ammo in two seperate safes.
b)Only owner of firearm(s) allowed to know combination to the safes.
c)All firearms must be registered under the owners name and social security number. That's ridiculous. You really expect people to have two safes for one gun? People should be able to put a loaded gun in a locked safe if they want to. Also, if the owner wants to tell another person the combination of that safe (maybe his wife), then he should be able to. Thirdly, I vehemently oppose registration. People should be able to buy guns without any hassle. Most people who own guns are responsible.

3.Children and firearms
a)Children below the age of 12 not allowed to operate a firearm.(not even under supervision) Let parents decide how to teach their kids about firearms.

"Uhhh Homie, I read that last page over very carefully a few times, and NOWHERE does it say that the Swiss patrol the streets with heavy automatic weapons."

and

" And I did not say that having Military patrols down the street would keep everything safe. I said, "An Armed Society Is A Polite Society," Which isnt quite saying that there are military men/women walking down the street with heavy weapons. My brother did NOT state that they ARE either, he just mentioned a hypothetical situation. "

Perhaps another go at the reading thing might produce better results. He mentioned a hypothetical situation which was not hypothetical, but a reality in many countries of the world. I then pointed out the ridiculousness of his point, this consisiting in the simple fact that when police is walking the streets heavily armed, this is precisely because their society is anything but safe. With a highly amusing proclivity for utterly missing the point, several posters reacted by pointing out that you can't compare countries like Colombia or Nigeria with countries like Switzerland. I then attempted to point out that, no, you can't, and that is in fact the whole point, which, simple though it may seem, appears to have eluded most of you.

"You may also notice Homie, that these countries arent set up in the same way as the U.S. They have much much smaller populations in most areas. If you look at statistics that are liberally scattered around the internet, then you will notice where most gun crimes occur. Major Population Centers. Sorry if it sounds a little racist, but there are more people getting capped in Harlem than Upstate or Queens."

Above all I notice that you are in serious need of some basic reading in geography. Many European countries in fact have a higher population density than the US. Try taking a look at the map bearing in mind, f.e., that Germany has a population of 82 million and a land area slightly smaller than Montana, and this simple point should come home readily. So if your argument is applicable, which fortunately for you it is not, it would indicate the opposite of what you are attempting to prove.

"To argue with the point about how other Western Countries dont have mandatory gun ownership, you have to get into the arguement of what qualifies as a Western Nation. We arent the only ones who arent getting all their facts straight. We are all basing arguments off of what we know, and what we have seen."

I have employed it to mean the European Union plus the non-member states in Western Europe, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. If you have a better definition, let's hear it.

Matt:

"Corn, Matt, I think ya got your points across bros. I figure gun violence to be because people make such a big f-cking deal about guns. It is like sex, you make a big deal about sex and everyone goes nuts the second it is mentioned, like a taboo. Everyone is like, OH MY GOD!!! GUNS!! WE SHOULD BAN THEM! THEY KILL PEOPLE!"

That's the point I am trying to get across - outside of the US, they don't - because they've had the gun control laws you're getting so excited over in the US for as long as anyone can remember, and it's not even an issue.

"Only irresponsible gun use kills people. Teach the people as a society to be responsible with their weapons, and they will be as long as the benefits of such outweight the costs. If they get more by killing each other with guns than to not kill each other with guns, they probably are going to kill each other. But if it behooves them to leave their fellow man alive, then they will probably leave them alive."

If actual experience is anything to go by, it is a far more effective solution to simply not have as many guns around and/or to regulate and control them more thoroughly. I doubt if the explanation for the vastly different figures is that Americans are inherently more irresponsible than Canadians or Germans.


Finally, personally, I love guns. I remember my G3 service weapon fondly, and it would have been great to have one. But I do not kid myself that it would make society a safer place if I and hundreds of thousands of other citizens did have one. Very much the contrary in fact. And as far as I'm concerned I sleep a lot better knowing the drunken and semi-criminal neighbour almost certainly doesn't have a gun than I would knowing that he probably does, but that I have one too.

I DO NOT wish to take away you guns, just limit them to only people of age and who have a clean police record. I say once again I DO NOT WANT TO TAKE YOUR GUNS AWAY!

Wait a minute -- you don't mention criminal records anywhere in the proposal. Where'd that bit come from?


It's COMMON SENSE not to sell a firearm to any person(s) that have a criminal record! Think before you make responses next time. ANd from your first post int this thread you said that people who are 18 can drink? Hello!!!!!!! Thats 21, you can smoke when your 18!!!

Ummm... I'm not sure if you've realised, but THERE ARE OTHER COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD BESIDES THE USA!!!!!!!!!

In fact, as far as I can gather, most of these "Other Countries" (look in an atlas, you may be surprised how many there are) have drinking ages of either 18 (Australia, New Zealand, Canada, The United Kingdom, Hong Kong, Ireland, and Mexico, to name a few), 16 (Most of Europe from what I'm told by backpacking University friends), or it's not even vaguely enforced (Most of non-islamic Africa, The Former Soviet Union, Turkey, Asia...)

Far too many people on this forum make the assumption that everyone else is an American, which is clearly not the case.

Back on topic, America isn't unique in allowing citizens to own firearms for self-defence. France, Italy, Spain, Papua New Guinea, and Switzerland (to pick a few at random) allow citizens to own guns for self-defence.

Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and The United Kingdom do NOT allow ownership of firearms for self-defence, and as someone pointed out, 3 of those 4 countries have very low gunshot murder death rates.

In fact, in NZ, you can generally count the number of people killed in a year with firearms on one hand and have fingers to spare. Yet the NZ Arms Act allows people to own Military-Style Semi Automatic guns for hunting, and you don't really need to justify owning anything else. You want to own 20 shotguns? Good for you. Just keep your licence up to date.

Australia, on the other hand, is a different story. In most states, it's not worth your while even trying to get a gun licence. The only three that don't treat all gun owners as criminals are Queensland, the Northern Territory, and Victoria. Queensland and NT have the most "lenient" of the gun laws (and that's not saying much- you still have to get permits for EVERY SINGLE gun you want to buy, and you have to have a gun licence to own and Air Rifle or a BB gun...).

What worries me is the fact that people have an objection to keeping ammo and the gun in a different place. To me (and I've been shooting since I was 12), it's just common sense! Having a loaded 12 gauge shotgun under the bed or in the cupboard is just asking for trouble, for so many reasons, the least of which being that a child could find the gun, or it could fall over and go off...

On a more in-game note, trying to force any form of Gun Control on any nation is bound to be unpopular, so don't even try. I proposed a very sensible Antique Arms Act which basically said any gun either more than 100 years old and/or incapable of firing modern cartridge ammo was not to be considered a weapon, or have the ownership or trade restricted in any way. I received numerous telegrams of support for such a sensible proposal, but it still failed to make quota.

Rant over... For now... :twisted:

First of all, I am not Matt. I am Alex. Fenixius is Matt. Second of all, Canada has more guns than the U.S. Enough guns in fact that if they were evenly distrubuted, then every adult would have 2.5 guns. I found that very interesting. Kind of like every household having 2.5 kids. Which half do they get? The top half or the bottom half.

As for the rant, I think I can break it down. Kristinuria wants more regulation, less personal freedom on the matter. Most of the regular people that I have seen arguing, with probably a few exceptions I am sure, want more personal freedom, less regulation.

I got to leave it down to personal responsibility myself. You cannot count on rights that you cannot protect yourself. That includes your right to life. All the laws in the world cannot protect you because all it is, is writing. Nothing is going to stop a man with a gun from using it if he wants to, short of the threat of equal or greater harm happening to him than he wants to impose on you. Such as the chance that his target might fight back. Less guns only means that people with the means to get them (I.e. those with money and power) are the only ones with them. Just another way to cause fear and strife between the classes (Marx Conflict Theory).

Those with power and money will always find a way around the laws because they are the ones that make them. What is to stop these people from abusing this power? Regulation is just another way to set it up for people to abuse the power they have over everyone else by saying who can do what and when.

I personally, will not act like people owning guns are committing a crime by merely possessing them until they actually go out and shoot someone. Of the millions of people who actually own them, the actual number of deaths, even in the United States (which is pretty high) does not, in my opinion, constitute a good enough reason to restrict gun sales. All it does is tell me that the Criminal Justice system should make the crime of murder have a stiffer penalty to defer the act.

Change the act, not the means. Changing the means will not defer the act. Just makes it a little harder.

we of LoreSong are somewhat neutral on this question. While we feel a person should be able to protect himself or herself, we wonder about guns in that they're very impersonal. Ancient Japan taught us that an armed society is typically a polite one, but only up close. Perhaps it's an issue of range that should be considered? What happens when you have to look your victim in the face?

Here's my thoughts on the subject. Feel free to ignore my rambling, as I really don't care what you think, as long as you don't try to make me agree with you.


I'm from Texas. About a third of the people down here own a firearm of some kind.

If you shoot someone breaking into your home, you get a friggin medal. There's a club called the "Dead to Rights Club." You get in when you shoot someone who is robbing you, someone else, your home, or your workplace. You even get a sign to put in your yard that says you're in the club. You still get in if you only wound them.

In Texas, you are just as safe in your home as in a police station. You can leave your bike outside overnight, and no one will take it. Try that in New York, or California, and odds are it'll be gone before long.

Part of being a Texan is knowing how to use a gun. My mom owns an aluminum .22 semiautomatic pistol. My dad owns a .35 revolver, with a modification that lets it fire magnum or standard ammo, and a .22 bolt action hunting rifle. My brother (24 years old) owns a .50 Desert Eagle. He loads it with hollow point ammo, just in case he misses an intruder (so the bullet won't kill someone in the next house). My uncle owns a nice little Italian shotgun. I don't know the maker, but it's a 12 gauge pump-action, and very well balenced. My other uncle doesn't own a gun, because he married a liberal.

We have more home security than anyone else I know. And no one in my family has ever had a gun-related accident. Even my dad, who is accident prone.

"Part of being a Texan is knowing how to use a gun. My mom owns an aluminum .22 semiautomatic pistol. My dad owns a .35 revolver, with a modification that lets it fire magnum or standard ammo, and a .22 bolt action hunting rifle. My brother (24 years old) owns a .50 Desert Eagle. He loads it with hollow point ammo, just in case he misses an intruder (so the bullet won't kill someone in the next house). My uncle owns a nice little Italian shotgun. I don't know the maker, but it's a 12 gauge pump-action, and very well balenced. My other uncle doesn't own a gun, because he married a liberal."

Probably a Beretta, or maybe even an old Benito.

I think a little clapping is in order for the Texan gentleman and my sister Alexander.

My uncle owns a nice little Italian shotgun. I don't know the maker, but it's a 12 gauge pump-action, and very well balenced. My other uncle doesn't own a gun, because he married a liberal.

Many pump-action shotguns in the US are made by Benelli. It's quite a popular make.

I'm not sure why the UN should be deciding on gun control. It seems like a domestic issue to me. It wouldn't matter much to any other country whether anyone in your country has guns or not.

It makes sense to restrict those convicted of felonies whose convictions have not been overturned; it makes sense to restrict those hospitalized for mental illness, also, from owning guns.

I believe it makes sense to give each gun a tracking number, as we do with cars. And, just as every so often, you have to have your car inspected to determine that it's safe for public roads, a gun, too, should be inspected by a qualified gunsmith, to ensure that it is reasonably accurate and in proper working order.

Perhaps it makes sense to restrict open transport of heavy infantry weapons, like squad guns, or cannon of various kinds; I would think it makes sense to restrict explosives, including explosive ammunition for small arms. (Well, okay, medium arms.)

I'm not sure why the UN should be deciding on gun control. It seems like a domestic issue to me. It wouldn't matter much to any other country whether anyone in your country has guns or not.

Cal, if you haven't noticed, the NS-UN has a need to tell folks how to run their country. Your sentiment has been mentioned by countless folks on as many topics/UN proposals and the arguments appear to be ignored or dismissed. The NS-UN, however, shows itself to be no different than the real UN who attempts to do the same thing. In fact, the real UN has a sculpture of a revolver with the barrel tied in a not. It is there to symbolise the UN's goal of outlawing guns in every country in the world (yes, including the United States).

On the up side, whatever the NS-UN does doesn't affect those states that are not members.

The proposel's better then previous one's but not good enough.

This may seem illogical...but I am gonna say it anyways.

Guns dont kill people, death kills people. Its a proven fact. Ask your doctor. You cant die from a bullet. You can die from Cardiac Arrest, Organ Failure, and Major Hemorrhage; That small piece of metal aint the problem. And besides, I only use my machine gun in the safety of my own home and car. I aint hurtin nobody!