NationStates Jolt Archive

It's a pretty sacrilegious joke. It refers to the Jewish holiday commemorating the Tenth Plague, when the Angel of Death killed every firstborn Egyptian child, but passed over the Jewish households that had followed directions.

America has the 15th highest annual crime rate. The next year, the criminals are still in prison, aren't they?

It's a pretty sacrilegious joke. It refers to the Jewish holiday commemorating Tenth Plague, when the Angel of Death killed every firstborn Egyptian child, but passed over the Jewish households that had followed directions.

Oh yeah, that thing..


America has the 15th highest annual crime rate. The next year, the criminals are still in prison, aren't they?

Maybe we're just really good at catching our criminals and that's why we have so many in jail?

It's a pretty sacrilegious joke. It refers to the Jewish holiday commemorating Tenth Plague, when the Angel of Death killed every firstborn Egyptian child, but passed over the Jewish households that had followed directions.

America has the 15th highest annual crime rate. The next year, the criminals are still in prison, aren't they?

I think it would be a CRIME rate, not the AMOUNTOFPEOPLEANNUALLYINPRISON rate...

Maybe we're just really good at catching our criminals and that's why we have so many in jail?

Wait a minute, which side are you on again? I can't tell...

And Eataine, the incarceration rate is irrelevant. We do not have the highest crime rate.

And Eataine, the incarceration rate is irrelevant. We do not have the highest crime rate.

Give me some evidence for that please and I shall believe you.

Wait a minute, which side are you on again? I can't tell...

I am on whichever side suits me. Parts of each side, mostly.

And our criminal rate has nothing to do with any of this, really. What prisons are they taking this data from? All of them? I doubt many people in Juvinile Prisons are in there for gun-related mishaps.

We do, however, have the highest amount of gun fatalities. But do we really have more guns per person than any other nation? Is it some other social problem that we're dealing with and not the fact that people have guns?

We do, however, have the highest amount of gun fatalities. But do we really have more guns per person than any other nation? Is it some other social problem that we're dealing with and not the fact that people have guns?

Good point. I have thought of that but I thought that this is at least a mayor part about it.

Multiple-year sentences.

Sorry, try again.
Whenever the U.S. murder rate is compared with that of other countries, as it often is, the figures reveal a far greater frequency of gun-related deaths in the U.S. than elsewhere. In 1996, for instance, 30 people were killed with handguns in Great Britain, 106 in Canada and 211 in Germany. In the U.S., 9,390 died this way. In Japan,15.

Many of the victims of American gun violence have been children as well. A recent study by the Centers for Disease Control shows that American children are nearly 12 times more likely to die from a gun injury than children in 25 other industrialized countries combined. They are 11 times more likely to use a gun to commit suicide and nine times more likely to die from an unintentional shooting.

Whenever the U.S. murder rate is compared with that of other countries, as it often is, the figures reveal a far greater frequency of gun-related deaths in the U.S. than elsewhere. In 1996, for instance, 30 people were killed with handguns in Great Britain, 106 in Canada and 211 in Germany. In the U.S., 9,390 died this way. In Japan,15.

Many of the victims of American gun violence have been children as well. A recent study by the Centers for Disease Control shows that American children are nearly 12 times more likely to die from a gun injury than children in 25 other industrialized countries combined. They are 11 times more likely to use a gun to commit suicide and nine times more likely to die from an unintentional shooting.
Why do people always quote gun related deaths. What about non gun related deaths? I want to know how much a gun really makes a difference.

You can hang somebody with a rope, should we be afraid of anyone who owns a rope?
You can kill someone with a bat, should we be afraid of all baseball players?
Many people are killed by cars, should we be afraid of car owners?
etc....Well, genius, guns are manufactured with the EXPLICIT intent of causing death or bodily harm. Baseball bats are made with the purpose of sport, ropes to tie stuff together and cars are made for transportation.
( although you could use a rifle as a baseball bat or a boat paddle)
However, guns are sensitive because they are only really good for killing people. I certainly don't think that anyone but military personnel need semi-automatic weapons. Next thing you know, they'll want explosives and machine guns.
Great. I certainly RELISH the thought about people having rapid-fire MK 103 30mm cannon and Sa-7 homing missile launchers for "self defense"

Why do people always quote gun related deaths. What about non gun related deaths? I want to know how much a gun really makes a difference.
Because this is a gun control thread? If you can't differentiate the numbers then I can't help you there.

Whenever the U.S. murder rate is compared with that of other countries, as it often is, the figures reveal a far greater frequency of gun-related deaths in the U.S. than elsewhere. In 1996, for instance, 30 people were killed with handguns in Great Britain, 106 in Canada and 211 in Germany. In the U.S., 9,390 died this way. In Japan,15.

Many of the victims of American gun violence have been children as well. A recent study by the Centers for Disease Control shows that American children are nearly 12 times more likely to die from a gun injury than children in 25 other industrialized countries combined. They are 11 times more likely to use a gun to commit suicide and nine times more likely to die from an unintentional shooting.

They should butt out of this; guns are not a disease.

U.S. population: 300,000,000
German population: 82,500,000
Canadian population: 31,500,000
British population: 60,000,000

Uhh, Paxania. Look at the proportionality between the two sets of figures you quoted. Per capita, there's lots of gun deaths.

Personally, I don't believe that semiautomatic weapons are where the line should be drawn: Assault weapons would be good to be outlawed if the actual definition of such made any sense. The magazine ban can save police lives, and people's. Frankly, most people that go in to shoot up your local McDonalds or post office or school are so distraught or just clueless that they shoot *really* badly. Having them have to reload after ten rounds certainly doesn't handicap sportsmen, and really can save a lot of lives.

Most defensive engagements with handguns occur at point blank range and involve fewer than four shots fired.

For someone as 'liberal' as I, I think we need sane and literate gun control. Not feel-good legislation or knee-jerk bans, but Bush's promise to roll back the assault weapons ban strikes me as purely insane. Frankly, I don't want to see any more Uzis out there than there have to be.

They should butt out of this; guns are not a disease.

U.S. population: 300,000,000
German population: 82,500,000
Canadian population: 31,500,000
British population: 6,000,000

You bloody fool- six million in Britain? You're 42 million short, at least. And don't stop there, give a percentage.

30 gun deaths in Britain, 9390 in USA- That's 313 times as many.

That would be a stretch even if we were comparing Britain to China, that only justifies a 30-fold increase. Unless the USA has a population of 15 billion(What, are they on two issues a day?) there's a definite problem there that needs looking at.

Eating fried chicken daily isn't a disease, but I dare say it won't do someone with heart disease much good.

Actually, Bush promised to renew the ban if Congress does. However, such a bill would never survive the House at least, even if they did have more than 3 days to do so.

These so-called "assault weapons" are used in less than one or two percent of gun crime, which accounts for only 27% of violent crime. Seriously, how often do you hear about someone shooting up the local McDonald's or post office? How often?

Whether you know it or not (and I'm not saying you don't), the guns you are referring to are semi-automatic weapons. Guns don't work like they do in the movies. You want to ban guns that fire once each time the trigger is pulled. Besides, didn't Colin Ferguson reload, like, 3 times?

Anyway, the real issue is that these guns are still legal. How could there be any effect on crime by banning guns that are still legal? The ban covers mean-looking guns with scary black stocks and bayonet mounts. The guns remain on the market with minor cosmetic differences.

By the way, machine guns have been strictly regulated since 1934, in case you haven't read the entire thread.

Your argument has no facts.

Because this is a gun control thread? If you can't differentiate the numbers then I can't help you there.
Yes I know this is a gun control thread. But there are so many ways that people can kill each other, other than just using a gun. So if you really want to make your statistics worth anything you would also compare gun death rates to other causes of death. And if you don’t realize the relevancy of that, than I can’t help you.

They should butt out of this; guns are not a disease.

U.S. population: 300,000,000 = 1 death for every 31,948 people
German population: 82,500,000 = 1 death for every 390,995 people
Canadian population: 31,500,000 = 1 death for every 297,169 people
British population: 60,000,000 = 1 death for every 2,000,000 people

Bolding is mine. The defense rests.

Something people are not realizing is the second before the 'Assualt' weapons ban went into effect. Every gun that was made on the list was 100% legal still after the ban went into effect... so all the orginal AK's, Mac 11 cobrays, mac 10's, Uzi's and every variety of ar-15's, all the tec 9's and calico liberty 100's were not effected by this bill one bit.... it only effects the guns made from that day until hmm well were in the single digit number of days now.
That is why this ban was only a feel good and happy ban for the people that cared so much about our liberty. Oh well in 9 days I will promise there will be an enourmous influx of Law abiding Americans excercising thier right to own the same weapon they could have legally owned before. Any law abiding American could still throughout the ban buy these weapons from whoever owns them now. Just now they will be at a much more discounted rate. I think the gun makers and dealers capitalized enough the last 10 years.

Not to mention that the arms manufacturers made minor cosmetic changes that have kept the guns completely legal.

Whenever the U.S. murder rate is compared with that of other countries, as it often is, the figures reveal a far greater frequency of gun-related deaths in the U.S. than elsewhere. In 1996, for instance, 30 people were killed with handguns in Great Britain, 106 in Canada and 211 in Germany. In the U.S., 9,390 died this way. In Japan,15.

Many of the victims of American gun violence have been children as well. A recent study by the Centers for Disease Control shows that American children are nearly 12 times more likely to die from a gun injury than children in 25 other industrialized countries combined. They are 11 times more likely to use a gun to commit suicide and nine times more likely to die from an unintentional shooting.

This is a very disengenous use of statistics.
Of those 9000 gun related deaths:
How many were deaths caused during the commision of other crimes?
How many were the result of misuse or mishandling?
How many were the result of Law Enforcement personnel utilizing guns legally?
How many were the result of gun use in the defense of lives?
How many were the result of suicide?

If you look at statistics in a different light....
There are 300,000,000 guns in the US, 99.9% of which will not be used to commit a crime.
Over 2,000,000 times each year, guns are used in home or personal defense.
2,000,000 lives defended with guns vs. 9000+ deaths. 212 lives protected for every gun related death.

Guns dont kill people, guns save people.

Maybe we're just really good at catching our criminals and that's why we have so many in jail?

Maybe it's because a lot of American States imprison people for things that aren't really Crimes, or if they are, don't warrant imprisonment- ie, possession of small amounts of Marijuana, not paying your parking fines, prostitution, and so on?

what happens when u point a gun at someone :) :sniper:. ill fricken tell u what happens THEY DIE :eek: Honestly i sit here and read this CRAP about needing guns to defend people... its this simple: guns=death, more guns=more death, a bunch of stupid gun crazy americans that wont leave there homes without at least 3 conceiled weapons=A fricken lot of death thats what.

Welcome to the forums!

You act as if a gun were a bar of highly enriched plutonium. Point it at "someone" and "it" dies?

This is a very disengenous use of statistics.
Of those 9000 gun related deaths:
How many were deaths caused during the commision of other crimes?
How many were the result of misuse or mishandling?
How many were the result of Law Enforcement personnel utilizing guns legally?
How many were the result of gun use in the defense of lives?
How many were the result of suicide?

If you look at statistics in a different light....
There are 300,000,000 guns in the US, 99.9% of which will not be used to commit a crime.
Over 2,000,000 times each year, guns are used in home or personal defense.
2,000,000 lives defended with guns vs. 9000+ deaths. 212 lives protected for every gun related death.

Guns dont kill people, guns save people.
Yeah and you are saving that at the rate of:

1 death for every 31,948 people

I think you are missing the point? Less guns = less murders by guns.

Where did you get the 2 million gun usage statistic?

The 9,390 gun deaths were for murder stats only. The other gun related deaths in the US are not included in that number.

my point is guns arent a tool, they arent useful for anything except killing, excuse me for being a little vocal on the issue but a friend of mine was caught in the crossfire of one of u nuts a few years back as u were aiming for someone fleeing after they broke into your house and nicked off with a few hundred dollars worth of computer gear. so yeah i kinda have a bit of an oppinion on the matter.

Originally Posted by Paxania

so only 30 people a year die in the UK?

so only 30 people a year die in the UK?
With guns...yes.

Most crime does not involve guns.

I'd pick myself with a gun over two guys with crowbars in a fight any day.

my point is guns arent a tool, they arent useful for anything except killing, excuse me for being a little vocal on the issue but a friend of mine was caught in the crossfire of one of u nuts a few years back as u were aiming for someone fleeing after they broke into your house and nicked off with a few hundred dollars worth of computer gear. so yeah i kinda have a bit of an oppinion on the matter.

I accept "nuts" as a suitable replacement for "gun owners".

Excuse me, but guns are a tool. I am very sorry for your friend (I hope it was not a fatal injury), but guns are useful to an incredible amount of people. Don't punish the many for the actions of the few. People kill people; should we wipe out humanity?

Gun control is actually very tedious.

Typically, once firearm/non-firearm deaths are looked at, non-sucide deaths are about equal for any given latitude. Whether or not a given population has legal access to firearms does not affect the overall crime rate. And in fact, statistics from the US tend to indicate that the so-called "shall issue" states tend to have a significantly lower rate of violent crime. There was a study done by Yale university to that effect a few years ago.

In any event, even if this was not true, the constitution of the US clearly mandates that citizens have the right to carry guns (bear arms).

Gun control advocates who state that is does not rely solely upon a strict "clause bound" interpretation of the second ammendment,i.e. the clause should be interpreted as a single stand alone without reference to the the rest of the constitution or any other sources. (we have all heard the "well regulated" argument ad nauseum ).

Well fine, if the consitution should be interpreted that way the following observations can be unequivocaly made:

1. The first ammendement begins "the congress shall make no laws"
obviously this means that only the federal government is prohibited from establishing a religion, impeading a free press or preventing assembly to petition the government in respect of legitimate grievances. In other words, any state can establish a state religion, prevent demonstrations and censor the media.

2. Abortion, which is mentioned no-where in the constitution, is purely a matter left to the states. There is no constitutional right to "privacy" which would ensure that in any state must allow a womans right to choose.

3. Contraception, see, Griswold v. Connecticut , is, again, another matter left purely to the states. So any state could criminlize the use of contraceptives.

4. A federal minium wage is unconstitutional (dormant commerce clause).

5. Seperate is equal.

6. Pretty much every big infra-structure project undertaken in the last 100 years is unconstitutional as it violates the fifth ammendment.

7. No social security (see 4.)

8. No medicare/medicaid (see 4.)

9. I could go on but,

10. No Marbury v. Madison which means no Mchloch v. Maryland which means pretty much every US supreme court decision or federal court decision involving constitional rights is void. Therefore under Ammedment IX of the constitution of the US gun control is a state right anyway. ($1,000,000 to the plucky individual who can find the words "judicial review" in the original consitution.)

Plainly, from the above, the constitution has never been interpreted in clause bound fashion. On the other, hand sensible meaning must be given to its words, otherwise it is no more than a "splendid bauble." Additionally there is no superfluity, Mchuloch v. Maryland., thus "the peoples right to bear arms shall not be infringed" has to mean something positive and inhere to an individual right.The only logical imterpretation is that US citizens, are in fact allowed to keep and posses guns of any description .

Fine, disagree if you will, but you cannot do it fairly without denying many many rights that have been "mysteriously" read into the constitution. In other words, no guns, no freedom of religion.

Now that is probably upsetting to many folks. May I commend you to article V of the US constitution. The II ammendment can be nullified any time, - if you get the votes.

(oh also, thatsawyer v. texas I agree with it, but where does that come from.)

Bolding is mine. The defense rests.

Mmmm, crime rate is up but death by gun is down. Crimminal waves gun in your face while he/she/it rapes, robs or breaks a bone or two of yours.

Gosh golly, sign me up for that. <dripping with sarcasm>

Crimminal tries that on me and he/she/it will get a gun in thier face...

No rape. No robbery. No bones broken.

GREAT POST LACADAEMON.

Mmmm, crime rate is up but death by gun is down. Crimminal waves gun in your face while he/she/it rapes, robs or breaks a bone or two of yours.

Gosh golly, sign me up for that. <dripping with sarcasm>

Crimminal tries that on me and he/she/it will get a gun in thier face...

No rape. No robbery. No bones broken.
You know the old saying? He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword. Just change sword to gun. The greater number of guns, the greater chance of being shot. Fairly straight forward reasoning?

In any event, even if this was not true, the constitution of the US clearly mandates that citizens have the right to carry guns (bear arms).

It actually states that for the protection of a state by use of a militia a person may own a gun. The first clause of the Second Ammendment acts as a qualifier for the second clause, not independently.

Gun control advocates who state that is does not rely solely upon a strict "clause bound" interpretation of the second ammendment,i.e. the clause should be interpreted as a single stand alone without reference to the the rest of the constitution or any other sources. (we have all heard the "well regulated" argument ad nauseum ).

Well fine, if the consitution should be interpreted that way the following observations can be unequivocaly made:

I'm going to have to disagree here for a little bit:

1. The first ammendement begins "the congress shall make no laws"
obviously this means that only the federal government is prohibited from establishing a religion, impeading a free press or preventing assembly to petition the government in respect of legitimate grievances. In other words, any state can establish a state religion, prevent demonstrations and censor the media.

It actually says "Congress shall make no laws..." not "The Congress..." It does not mean only the Nationals Congress of the United States, but all congressional (including state legislatures) lawmaking bodies in the U.S.

2. Abortion, which is mentioned no-where in the constitution, is purely a matter left to the states. There is no constitutional right to "privacy" which would ensure that in any state must allow a womans right to choose.

There is no way to maintain a log of pregnancies to prevent abortions without violating the 4th and 5th ammendments.

3. Contraception, see, Griswold v. Connecticut , is, again, another matter left purely to the states. So any state could criminlize the use of contraceptives.

I'd have to look into this, but you might just be right.

4. A federal minium wage is unconstitutional (dormant commerce clause).

In what way does a federal minimum wage violate the commerce clause?

5. Seperate is equal.'

That's just semantically faulty. "Seperate can be equal," you might say, but is not necessarily and experience has shown us that rarely if ever is it actually. The Supreme Court, the final word in this country on the interpretation of laws has ruled that Seperate is not equal and no specific clause in the Constitution says otherwise.

6. Pretty much every big infra-structure project undertaken in the last 100 years is unconstitutional as it violates the fifth ammendment.

I'm going to have to ask you to explain how infra-structure violates the fifth ammendment.

7. No social security (see 4.)

8. No medicare/medicaid (see 4.)

Again with the commerce clause?

9. I could go on but,

10. No Marbury v. Madison which means no Mchloch v. Maryland which means pretty much every US supreme court decision or federal court decision involving constitional rights is void. Therefore under Ammedment IX of the constitution of the US gun control is a state right anyway. ($1,000,000 to the plucky individual who can find the words "judicial review" in the original consitution.)

Well I think we've proved in a sort of roundabout way here that reading individual clauses of the Constitution as stand-alones is silly.

Plainly, from the above, the constitution has never been interpreted in clause bound fashion. On the other, hand sensible meaning must be given to its words, otherwise it is no more than a "splendid bauble." Additionally there is no superfluity, Mchuloch v. Maryland., thus "the peoples right to bear arms shall not be infringed" has to mean something positive and inhere to an individual right.The only logical imterpretation is that US citizens, are in fact allowed to keep and posses guns of any description .

You go on about how we cannot read single clauses without context or reference and then say that "shall not be infringed" should be taken alone. The ammendment must be taken as a whole rather than split into parts or the intent is destroyed. The framers included the second ammendment to protect against potential tyranny by a national government. The did not particularly care if people were allowed to bear arms as much as they felt it necessary that the people be able to defend themselves against their government if the need arose. The National Guard, which acts essentially as state militias did in the time of the framers is more than adequate protection for the states so the need for individuals to be armed in a disorganized fashion (not in organized militias) is unecessary. Therefor it can be concluded that the second clause of the second ammendment need not apply because it's qualifing "if" statement is not met.

Fine, disagree if you will, but you cannot do it fairly without denying many many rights that have been "mysteriously" read into the constitution. In other words, no guns, no freedom of religion.

Now that is probably upsetting to many folks. May I commend you to article V of the US constitution. The II ammendment can be nullified any time, - if you get the votes.

I disagree with your assesment that no guns implies no freedom of religion because the wording and situation of the clauses regarding each are very different.

As for voting the ammendment nullified, that is an idea which has stayed off the lips of politicians for reasons I don't know.

It actually says "Congress shall make no laws..." not "The Congress..." It does not mean only the Nationals Congress of the United States, but all congressional (including state legislatures) lawmaking bodies in the U.S.


The Constitution of these United States defines what "Congress" is and it defined it as the House of Representatives and Senate. The framers of the "Constitution" used precise wording and if they meant state legislators they would have put it in the wording of the amendments.

You know the old saying? He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword. Just change sword to gun. The greater number of guns, the greater chance of being shot. Fairly straight forward reasoning?

How many adult Colonials owned guns? How many Colonials were shot by guns?

How many governments in the 20th century had strict gun control? How many civilians were killed by said same governments?

After you are done with your homework, you can retract your opinion.

The Constitution of these United States defines what "Congress" is and it defined it as the House of Representatives and Senate. The framers of the "Constitution" used precise wording and if they meant state legislators they would have put it in the wording of the amendments.

The phrase "The Congress" is used a number of times in the document in reference to the national Congress. I believe that they used precise words to match their intentions and I believe they ommitted "the" to mean all congressional organizations, not just the national Congress.

I dunno, the gun issue could be like the nuclear weapons issue. Unless you're an extremist of one brand or another, you're afraid to start something that blows up the world. Think of the Cuban missile crisis. People think that that was almost the end of the world. But was it? No. Both sides were afraid to push the button because of retalliation. Think the same idea with guns. If concealed weapons permits and gun control regulations were more lax, more people would have guns. If a whole bunch of people had guns, others would be less inclined to use one for any reason because of the retalliation by other people with guns. I admit this could turn into a scenario with gun battles in the streets but it may have merit.

I dunno, the gun issue could be like the nuclear weapons issue. Unless you're an extremist of one brand or another, you're afraid to start something that blows up the world. Think of the Cuban missile crisis. People think that that was almost the end of the world. But was it? No. Both sides were afraid to push the button because of retalliation. Think the same idea with guns. If concealed weapons permits and gun control regulations were more lax, more people would have guns. If a whole bunch of people had guns, others would be less inclined to use one for any reason because of the retalliation by other people with guns. I admit this could turn into a scenario with gun battles in the streets but it may have merit.

Here's the issue with using the "an armed society is a polite society" logic: With nuclear weapons, there is a very small group of nuclear powers and it is in the best interest of everyone to prevent the use of nuclear weapons. Now imagine if every person on the planet had access to a nuclear weapon. We wouldn't be here very long. The same is true of guns on a smaller, but wider scale. If every person had a gun people would think twice about using their own gun, but if they did get angry enough (and we know they do because people use guns all the time) then all hell would break loose.

While a 7.2 per 100,000 isn't necessarily a great rate, it is significantly lower than a number of US cities that do not have any form of gun control whatsoever.

What say you now?

It's also significantly higher than many cities that have CCW, where ordinary citizens can carry handguns.

I supose playing the statistics game won't really get either of us anywhere...

Craig

Well, genius, guns are manufactured with the EXPLICIT intent of causing death or bodily harm.

Bollocks. Absolute crap.

How about talking about a subject that you know something about?

A gun isn't made with the intent to kill any more than a car is made with the intent to run people down.

Are you saying a .22 single shot bolt action riflt has been designed to kill?

Then there's the fact that all a gun is designed to do is fire a bullet. A bullet can be made to be anywhere from firing absolutely nothing to a non-lethal round to a highly penetrating round.


Baseball bats are made with the purpose of sport, ropes to tie stuff together and cars are made for transportation.
( although you could use a rifle as a baseball bat or a boat paddle)


Guns are made with the purpose of paper target shooting, hunting, clay shooting. You think every one who buys a gun wants to kill someone?


However, guns are sensitive because they are only really good for killing people.

HAH! What a stupid statement!

Tell that to the millions of hunters and target shooters who shoot BILLIONS of rounds every year without killing anyone.

Craig

[i]Whenever the U.S. murder rate is compared with that of other countries, as it often is, the figures reveal a far greater frequency of gun-related deaths in the U.S. than elsewhere.

How about looking at the actual statistics?

Map & Graph: Crime: Murders with firearms (per capita) (Top 100 Countries)
View this stat: Totals Show map full screen

Country Description Amount
1. South Africa 0.74 per 1000 people
2. Colombia 0.52 per 1000 people
3. Thailand 0.31 per 1000 people
4. Zimbabwe 0.04 per 1000 people
5. Mexico 0.03 per 1000 people
6. Costa Rica 0.03 per 1000 people
7. Belarus 0.03 per 1000 people
8. United States 0.02 per 1000 people
9. Uruguay 0.02 per 1000 people
10. Lithuania 0.02 per 1000 people

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir_cap

HAH! What a stupid statement!

Tell that to the millions of hunters and target shooters who shoot BILLIONS of rounds every year without killing anyone.

Craig

I remain unconvinced. Hunters still kill things, human or animal. How many people own guns simply for shooting targets? That is, shooting targets for fun, with absolutely no intent to practice shooting living things better?

I think you are missing the point? Less guns = less murders by guns.


Why does Switzerland, a country that requires a military-style rifle, plus ammunition, in every home, enjoy a very low homicide rate?

Why does Israel, a country where perhaps 10 percent of citizens possess permits to carry concealed weapons, enjoy a very low murder rate?

Why do gun-control proponents fail to mention countries with homicide rates higher than ours, including Brazil and Russia, with very restrictive gun-control laws?

Why does Washington, D.C., a district whose laws make it illegal to buy, possess, transport or acquire a handgun, experience the highest per capita murder rates in the nation?

Why does Canada, a nation of 31 million citizens, with official estimates of 7 million guns -- although other experts place the number at 25 million -- enjoy a low per capita murder rate?

Why did America, a hundred years ago, when citizens could purchase guns anonymously and with few of today's restrictions, enjoy a murder rate of 1.2 per 100,000, versus the 5.5 rate in 2000?

Craig

I remain unconvinced. Hunters still kill things, human or animal. How many people own guns simply for shooting targets? That is, shooting targets for fun, with absolutely no intent to practice shooting living things better?

So should we ban knives because they are used to harm animals? Ban meatworks?

Unless you say that harming an animal should be illegal, you can not use it as a reason to want to ban guns.

And there are many people who only shoot targets. I shot .22 indoor smallbore for a year and met many whose only rifle was their single shot .22 bolt action (or should that be cop-killer, fully-semi-ultra-automatic, saturday night special, ultra concealable, assault weapon? ;) )

Surely you can't honestly believe that the millions of firearm owners around the world are all looking for people to kill?

Craig

Tell that to the millions of hunters and target shooters who shoot BILLIONS of rounds every year without killing anyone.

I'm skipping most of what you said because it's basically the same thing repeated, but...

Hunting is killing, so guns designed for hunting are designed for killing. Fundamantally guns are designed to propel metal slugs to cause destruction from a distance. Whether it is destroying the flesh of a deer, a piece of paper, or a person is not a matter of the producer's intent.

That fewer shots are fired in anger than in practice or for relaxation and entertainment in no way reduces in impact of those shots that kill people.

How about looking at the actual statistics?

Map & Graph: Crime: Murders with firearms (per capita) (Top 100 Countries)
View this stat: Totals Show map full screen

Country Description Amount
1. South Africa 0.74 per 1000 people
2. Colombia 0.52 per 1000 people
3. Thailand 0.31 per 1000 people
4. Zimbabwe 0.04 per 1000 people
5. Mexico 0.03 per 1000 people
6. Costa Rica 0.03 per 1000 people
7. Belarus 0.03 per 1000 people
8. United States 0.02 per 1000 people
9. Uruguay 0.02 per 1000 people
10. Lithuania 0.02 per 1000 people

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir_cap

The U.S. is the first country on the list in the first world (since much of Mexico shouldn't really be called first world). Of countries with similar levels of education, average per capita income, and general level of development the U.S. has far by far the most gun deaths per capita.

I remain unconvinced. Hunters still kill things, human or animal. How many people own guns simply for shooting targets? That is, shooting targets for fun, with absolutely no intent to practice shooting living things better?

Actually, most guns are bought with the intent to use them only in firing ranges.

So should we ban knives because they are used to harm animals? Ban meatworks?

Unless you say that harming an animal should be illegal, you can not use it as a reason to want to ban guns.

And there are many people who only shoot targets. I shot .22 indoor smallbore for a year and met many whose only rifle was their single shot .22 bolt action (or should that be cop-killer, fully-semi-ultra-automatic, saturday night special, ultra concealable, assault weapon? ;) )

Surely you can't honestly believe that the millions of firearm owners around the world are all looking for people to kill?

Craig

No no, this mini-thread started because someone was basically saying that cars served a purpose while guns did not. I was merely stating that guns don't really have an equivilant purpose. Cars transport people, knives prepare food and help rescue hostages tied to chairs. They have the capacity to kill.

The purpose of a gun is to kill, it seems. That's what they were invented for. They have secondary uses: flare guns, recreation in the form of target shooting, I'm sure the list goes on. Still, they are literally killing machines. I'm not saying that's a reason to ban them. I'm saying that a car's use in society makes them more justifiable then guns.

Why does Switzerland, a country that requires a military-style rifle, plus ammunition, in every home, enjoy a very low homicide rate?

Why does Israel, a country where perhaps 10 percent of citizens possess permits to carry concealed weapons, enjoy a very low murder rate?

Why do gun-control proponents fail to mention countries with homicide rates higher than ours, including Brazil and Russia, with very restrictive gun-control laws?

Why does Washington, D.C., a district whose laws make it illegal to buy, possess, transport or acquire a handgun, experience the highest per capita murder rates in the nation?

Why does Canada, a nation of 31 million citizens, with official estimates of 7 million guns -- although other experts place the number at 25 million -- enjoy a low per capita murder rate?

Why did America, a hundred years ago, when citizens could purchase guns anonymously and with few of today's restrictions, enjoy a murder rate of 1.2 per 100,000, versus the 5.5 rate in 2000?

Craig

Education. Education is the primary difference. In Switzerland, where everyone is required to learn to use a rifle they have a low level of gun violence because everyone understand the proper use of guns.

When you get right down to it, gun control laws don't have nearly as much affect on gun death statistics as do poverty and education. Brazil and Russia have high levels of gun violence because their people are often uneducated and poverty forces them into violence. Canada, in contrast, enjoys very little poverty, comparitively, and the necessity of guns in many parts of the nation (rifles to protect against wild animals in the wilder parts of the country) means that gun education is better than many other countries. Gun violence statistics rarely have anything to do with gun control legislation and often indicate other social factors.

Also, a large part of the increase in gun deaths is due to the fact that people live in closer quarters today than ever before. A hundred years ago the population density in the U.S. was less than 1/4.5 (roughly 1.2/5.5 or the ratio of gun deaths from then and now) and large population centers did not exist in the extremes that they do today.

Bollocks. Absolute crap.

How about talking about a subject that you know something about?

A gun isn't made with the intent to kill any more than a car is made with the intent to run people down.

Are you saying a .22 single shot bolt action riflt has been designed to kill?

Then there's the fact that all a gun is designed to do is fire a bullet. A bullet can be made to be anywhere from firing absolutely nothing to a non-lethal round to a highly penetrating round.
are you that stupid or is it my imagination, lets analyze what you said
you called the FACT that guns are designed for the specific intent of causing death or bodily harm crap.. yeah your pretty damn stupid.
A CAR IS MADE TO DELIVER A PERSON FROM POINT A TO POINT B. guns are SPECIFICALLY designed for the killing and/or injuring of a person or animal. and non lethal round are still mean to injure a person, not as severely as a hard bullet, but they will be signicantly bruised for a while. and those are recent developments, guns are designed and created to kill. period, except reality



Guns are made with the purpose of paper target shooting, hunting, clay shooting. You think every one who buys a gun wants to kill someone?
BULL. SHIT. the man who created the tommy gun said it was made in hopes that it would end wars bcause it was so deadly, wow THAT sure worked. guns are DESIGNED TO KILLL. anything else you do with them is coincidental. guess what, HUNTING IS KILLING. clay shooting and other target shooting is ultimately training for the act of hunting or killing something.


HAH! What a stupid statement!

Tell that to the millions of hunters and target shooters who shoot BILLIONS of rounds every year without killing anyone.

Craig
HUNTING. KILLS. ANIMALS.

my god

Actually, most guns are bought with the intent to use them only in firing ranges.
provide proof for that, and in addition, explain why you need to buy a lethal weapon for purposes of target shooting.

The U.S. is the first country on the list in the first world (since much of Mexico shouldn't really be called first world). Of countries with similar levels of education, average per capita income, and general level of development the U.S. has far by far the most gun deaths per capita.
If you take the 17 OECD countries then your statement is correct, the US has the highest per capita gun related murder rate.

Logic for Gun Control


This is one of the best comeback lines of all time. It is a portion of National Public Radio (NPR) interview between a female broadcaster and US Marine Corps General Reinwald who was about to sponsor a Boy Scout Troop visiting his military installation.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: So, General Reinwald, what things are you going to teach these young boys when they visit your base?

GENERAL REINWALD: We're going to teach them climbing, canoeing, archery, and shooting.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible, isn't it?

GENERAL REINWALD: I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the rifle range.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?

GENERAL REINWALD: I don't see how. We will be teaching them proper rifle discipline before they even touch a firearm.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: But you're equipping them to become violent killers.

GENERAL REINWALD: Well, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but you're not one, are you?

The radio went silent and the interview ended.

How many adult Colonials owned guns? How many Colonials were shot by guns?

How many governments in the 20th century had strict gun control? How many civilians were killed by said same governments?

After you are done with your homework, you can retract your opinion.
There would be no need to retract my opinion. The facts speak for themselves. Where there is gun control there are less murders?

Someone earlier asked me to check out New York city, which has gun control (since 1980's), and the number of murders there has sharply declined from a high of over 2,245 (1990) to 584 (2002). While it is true that crime in general has decreased over the last decade in the US, it is significant to note the drop in murders in New York.

The web site that I include here shows New York City with an 8.1 ratio of murders per 100,000 population, which ranks 113th on the list of US cities.

In 1990, New York City ranked 29th, with a murder ratio of 31 per 100,000.

http://www.morganquitno.com/cit01rank.pdf

KIDS AND GUNS IN AMERICA

The Problem

As the rate of gun violence dramatically increased during the 1980s and early 1990s, American children paid the price. From 1984 to 1994 the firearm death rate for 15-19 year olds increased 222% while the non-firearm homicide death rate decreased almost 13%. While deaths from gunfire have been decreasing since 1994, firearms are still expected to overtake motor vehicle accidents as the leading cause of death among American children.

Kids and Guns: Key Facts

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=kids

For every child killed with a gun, four are wounded.[2]

According to the Centers for Disease Control, the rate of firearm death of children 0-14 years old is nearly twelve times higher in the U.S. than in 25 other industrialized nations combined. The firearm-related homicide rate is nearly 16 times higher for children in the U.S. than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. The suicide rate of children 0-14 years old is twice as high in the U.S. as it is in those same 25 other industrialized countries combined. Interestingly, there is no difference in the non-firearm suicide rate between the U.S. and these other countries. Virtually all the difference is attributable to suicides committed with guns in the U.S.[3]

Over 3,500 students were expelled in 1998-99 for bringing guns to school. Of these, 43% were in elementary or junior high school. This means that, in a 40-week school year, an average of 88 children per week nationwide are expelled for bringing a gun in school. And these figures include only the children who get caught.[4]

During 1999, 52% of all murder victims under 18 in the U.S. were killed by guns. In 1986, guns were used in 38% of such murders. In 1999, 82% of murder victims aged 13 to 19 years old were killed with a firearm.[5]

In 1998, more than 1200 children aged 10-19 committed suicide with firearms. Unlike suicide attempts using other methods, suicide attempts with guns are nearly always fatal, meaning a temporarily depressed teenager will never get a second chance at life. Nearly two-thirds of all completed teenage suicides involve a firearm.[6]

In 1998, 3,792 American children and teens (19 and under) died by gunfire in murders, suicides and unintentional shootings.[7] That's more than 10 young people a day.

The National Guard, which acts essentially as state militias did in the time of the framers is more than adequate protection for the states so the need for individuals to be armed in a disorganized fashion (not in organized militias) is unecessary. Therefor it can be concluded that the second clause of the second ammendment need not apply because it's qualifing "if" statement is not met.

Look it up, our 'National' guard has nothing to do with a 'states' malitia. The IRR would be the closest thing that you are reffering to and still they are not related to any states malitia's, only 'National'. You or I trying to reinterpret the Second ammendment is laughable, look at the past and current interpretation if you need a guide.


As for voting the ammendment nullified, that is an idea which has stayed off the lips of politicians for reasons I don't know.

Maybe because they would not be politicians any longer if they went against the wishes of the majority of our states populaces..... just an idea. Why do you think Kerry is trying to appeal to gun owners more than past Democratic canidates? Maybe history taught him a lesson?

I still do not understand the minority of the states hoopla about someone owning a ak-47 or a snub nose revolver or any other tool that can be used to do harm to an individual or save thier lives. You can sit here any say there is no use for a 100 round drum for a semi-auto rifle and I can sit here and say the law say's I do not need one as long as its use stays legal.

If you do not believe me that you are commiting suicide when you call for gun bans or more restrictions here in America, look at Al Gore and him losing the votes of his own state along with other democratic leaning states (west virginia for example, Florida would of been a non issue). The only conclusion that came from both ends (democrats and republicans) was that it came down to Al Gores stand on gun issues in these states.

You and I and every American is most likely passionate about our feelings in this area.. That does not make my or your argument anymore right or wrong, But my argument has one thing going for it that yours does not. The current and past interpretations to our second Ammendment. Change the interpretation or try to change the minds of millions upon millions of Americans that enjoy having that gun in thier house (for whatever reason they like, as long as it stays legal).

Also admit that the assualt weapons ban did nothing more than a feel good paper law for the complainers, since if you ran out and bought any gun on the list within a second before it taking effect it was as legal a gun as the daisy red ryder.

8 More days till it expires and millions of Americans will have a nice new shiny 'assualt' weapon in thier homes. I suppose we will see so many more shootings than before right? I guess we will see but im betting you are as wrong about that as you were about the ban doing anything effectivly to fight crime. I have been saving up for the last 10 years just so I can go get as many new style 'assault weapons as possible, I have my list. (why because I can)

Here, in the Netherlands, we do not need a semi-automatic shotgun in our houses to feel ourselves safe. Maybe the fact that in America you do need them, is reason to think something could be wrong?

"Here, in the Netherlands, we do not need a semi-automatic shotgun in our houses to feel ourselves safe. Maybe the fact that in America you do need them, is reason to think something could be wrong? "

Here in America you don't need a 'reason' to own that semi-auto shotgun, But you do need a reason to tell someone why they shouldn't have it. That is called freedom. Like it or not in the USA you get to have some freedoms that others in foriegn countries can not understand. That is why we are a different country obviously. If your individual populace wants to have certain freedoms here in America, then you get to have those freedoms, no explanation needed.

"Here, in the Netherlands, we do not need a semi-automatic shotgun in our houses to feel ourselves safe. Maybe the fact that in America you do need them, is reason to think something could be wrong? "

Here in America you don't need a 'reason' to own that semi-auto shotgun, But you do need a reason to tell someone why they shouldn't have it. That is called freedom. Like it or not in the USA you get to have some freedoms that others in foriegn countries can not understand. That is why we are a different country obviously. If your individual populace wants to have certain freedoms here in America, then you get to have those freedoms, no explanation needed.
i'd much rather live in the netherlands than here, there are cool people there and the government isnt run by up-tight "born again" 60 year old christian men who are scared of change and black people

8 More days till it expires and millions of Americans will have a nice new shiny 'assualt' weapon in thier homes. I suppose we will see so many more shootings than before right? I guess we will see but im betting you are as wrong about that as you were about the ban doing anything effectivly to fight crime. I have been saving up for the last 10 years just so I can go get as many new style 'assault weapons as possible, I have my list. (why because I can)
i dont recall a lot of military assault weapons being used in homicides before, so i suppose the assault weapons ban was doing its job.

i'd much rather live in the netherlands than here, there are cool people there and the government isnt run by up-tight "born again" 60 year old christian men who are scared of change and black people

If that were true then I would much rather live there as well. The government is run by the people we put in it. I know many under 60 year old men that are scared of change and black people from all different countries. Your statement just means that you would fit in more with the crowd in the netherlands than here. Some feel they fit in much more here than there. I am all for every person finding happiness wherever they go. I have found mine right here in Oregon. I hope you can find yours in one of the 50 states as well.

i dont recall a lot of military assault weapons being used in homicides before, so i suppose the assault weapons ban was doing its job.

I agree there was no influx of homicides by them before the ban or during the ban or will there be after it expires in 8 days. It was nothing more than a feel good law since it didnt do anything at all. The common citizen could still go to any private gun owner that had the ak that was banned (that specific gun was never banned only the ones made after that one) and buy that ak with no background check what so ever and no paper work what so ever.

I think some people in here actually think that you must now have a background check in order to buy a gun... it is up to the states and here in Oregon you can buy any gun from any private citizen with no record of that transaction what so ever (this state as well as many others, take registration as being a infringement) also no background check all legal. You have different people in each of the 50 states and they get to decide thier laws to each of thier own. I dont think people realize what it takes in order to get a Constitutional ammendment ammended or appealed. It does not come down to a majority of the people of this country even, it comes down to the majority of the people through each individual states represenatives. Good luck! Because after this ban expires I am willing to bet the studies will show it as being ineffective to anything other than infringment of a right, and giving the few people a sense of false security (just as the anti-gun crowd says a gun does for a person). Well they must of taken the idea from us, and see it does not work. I think people that use any weapon (including a bill that bans) to feel more secure about themselves or others, really have a low
self-esteem.

They had one apeice and I'm sure most would agree, that was more than enought to kill the amount of people they did.

They also had pipe-bombs. If the gov't had taken their firearms, they would have still killed scores of people......or are you going to regulate all the contents of a pipe-bomb, now?

Who am I to tell you? I'm a citizen of the United States of America, and I have a damn right to be safe. I don't want semi-automatic firearms to be in the hands of ordinary citizens such as yourself.

So you're saying you have the right to deny me my rights? The Second Amendment promises that all American citizens have the right to bear arms. You're going to deny me my rights?

Moreover, why don't you have the gov't ban all knives, baseball bats, crow bars, lead pipes, et al? They're used far more often in assaults and murders than firearms are.

Firearms are things for the military and the police. Both of which having formal educations and deep background checks.

Oh, so you want a police state.....I see...thanks for clarifying your position.....

8 More days till it expires and millions of Americans will have a nice new shiny 'assualt' weapon in thier homes. I suppose we will see so many more shootings than before right? I guess we will see but im betting you are as wrong about that as you were about the ban doing anything effectivly to fight crime. I have been saving up for the last 10 years just so I can go get as many new style 'assault weapons as possible, I have my list. (why because I can)

Please define an 'assault' weapon for me. Less than .02% of all gun crimes are committed with 'assault' weapons......

BULL. SHIT. the man who created the tommy gun said it was made in hopes that it would end wars bcause it was so deadly, wow THAT sure worked. guns are DESIGNED TO KILLL. anything else you do with them is coincidental. guess what, HUNTING IS KILLING. clay shooting and other target shooting is ultimately training for the act of hunting or killing something.


I would hardly call the 'Tommy Gun' a weapon designed to end all wars. You're referring to the Browning Machine Gun. Secondly, yes, hunting is killing. Why should I be denied my rights to hunt? Have any of you ever heard of over-population in the animal world?

To anyone who seeks to deny me of my right to defend my home, my family, and my property from a criminal, I have to ask you....why do you care so little about human life? Do you want me to be stolen from, injured, or worse yet, killed, by an intruder? Do you want my little sister to be stolen from, injured, raped, or worse yet, killed by an intruder? Why do you care so little about the rights of others? Don't I have the right to self-defense?

If a criminal breaks into my house, he's in for a world of hurt. I will give my life to defend my family, my rights, and my property. Be that from any criminal or a tyrannical gov't.....

Me!

I remain unconvinced. Hunters still kill things, human or animal. How many people own guns simply for shooting targets? That is, shooting targets for fun, with absolutely no intent to practice shooting living things better?

There are several types of guns that have been designed for the sole purpose of shooting paper targets, I believe the model 52 S&W .38 for one. It only shoots bullets called wadcutters. These type of bullets are crap for doing damage to a living creature, but cut very very clean circular holes in paper targets, for ease in scoring.

To anyone who seeks to deny me of my right to defend my home, my family, and my property from a criminal, I have to ask you....why do you care so little about human life? Do you want me to be stolen from, injured, or worse yet, killed, by an intruder? Why do you care so little about the rights of others? Don't I have the right to self-defense?

You should be happy since they don't want you to have that right, but we do. Screw em and anyone else that wants to tell a person how and by what means they live thier life. Don't you see, we have won and will continue to win when it comes to our Constitution. Our rights are there to stay so I say flaunt it in thier faces as much as you can. To bad sucka's! 8 more days.

are you that stupid or is it my imagination, lets analyze what you said

True to form, Chess Squares has to resort to calling anyone who disagrees with him stupid.

you called the FACT that guns are designed for the specific intent of causing death or bodily harm crap.. yeah your pretty damn stupid.

There he goes again :rolleyes: Ultimately, the original purpose of guns developed in the middle ages was to increase the damage causing potential of the avg fighter. In recent years however, as the increase in popularity of target shooting, and indoor range shooting, firearm designers have gone to great lengths to design guns specifically for target/range shooting.


A CAR IS MADE TO DELIVER A PERSON FROM POINT A TO POINT B. guns are SPECIFICALLY designed for the killing and/or injuring of a person or animal. and non lethal round are still mean to injure a person, not as severely as a hard bullet, but they will be signicantly bruised for a while. and those are recent developments, guns are designed and created to kill. period, except reality

You are, as usual, speaking from emotion and not from reasoning. Firearms are, today being designed for target shooting more and more




BULL. SHIT. the man who created the tommy gun said it was made in hopes that it would end wars bcause it was so deadly, wow THAT sure worked. guns are DESIGNED TO KILLL. anything else you do with them is coincidental. guess what, HUNTING IS KILLING. clay shooting and other target shooting is ultimately training for the act of hunting or killing something.

Shooting at targets are ultimately training for shooting at targets. Rarely have I seen someone stand perfectly still like a target when being shot at. If someone wanted to train to killing something, they would shoot at something that is moving.

[QUOTE=Chess Squares]HUNTING. KILLS. ANIMALS.

my god

AND. THIS. IS. A. BAD. THING?

Your god? thought you were secular?

Dont get rid of your guns, you'll need them to defend yourself from the FBI when they break into your house trying to find that "subversive" library book.

I agree there was no influx of homicides by them before the ban or during the ban or will there be after it expires in 8 days. It was nothing more than a feel good law since it didnt do anything at all. The common citizen could still go to any private gun owner that had the ak that was banned (that specific gun was never banned only the ones made after that one) and buy that ak with no background check what so ever and no paper work what so ever.

I think some people in here actually think that you must now have a background check in order to buy a gun... it is up to the states and here in Oregon you can buy any gun from any private citizen with no record of that transaction what so ever (this state as well as many others, take registration as being a infringement) also no background check all legal. You have different people in each of the 50 states and they get to decide thier laws to each of thier own. I dont think people realize what it takes in order to get a Constitutional ammendment ammended or appealed. It does not come down to a majority of the people of this country even, it comes down to the majority of the people through each individual states represenatives. Good luck! Because after this ban expires I am willing to bet the studies will show it as being ineffective to anything other than infringment of a right, and giving the few people a sense of false security (just as the anti-gun crowd says a gun does for a person). Well they must of taken the idea from us, and see it does not work. I think people that use any weapon (including a bill that bans) to feel more secure about themselves or others, really have a low
self-esteem.
do you claim thats a good thing? it should be completely and utterly illegal to obtain guns from anywhere but an authorized gun store and with a background check

They also had pipe-bombs. If the gov't had taken their firearms, they would have still killed scores of people......or are you going to regulate all the contents of a pipe-bomb, now?



So you're saying you have the right to deny me my rights? The Second Amendment promises that all American citizens have the right to bear arms. You're going to deny me my rights?

Moreover, why don't you have the gov't ban all knives, baseball bats, crow bars, lead pipes, et al? They're used far more often in assaults and murders than firearms are.
not every gun is semi automatic, he said he wouldnt want you having a semi+ automatic gun, you are not a trained individual and in no way need a gun like that which is designed for the purpose of fighting and killing, that, however, in no way limits you ability to buy rifles, muskets, shotguns, revolvers, and non semi auto handgun



Please define an 'assault' weapon for me. Less than .02% of all gun crimes are committed with 'assault' weapons......
because assault weapons have been banned for some time until now



I would hardly call the 'Tommy Gun' a weapon designed to end all wars. You're referring to the Browning Machine Gun. Secondly, yes, hunting is killing. Why should I be denied my rights to hunt? Have any of you ever heard of over-population in the animal world?
i dont think your paying attention to the point

There are several types of guns that have been designed for the sole purpose of shooting paper targets, I believe the model 52 S&W .38 for one. It only shoots bullets called wadcutters. These type of bullets are crap for doing damage to a living creature, but cut very very clean circular holes in paper targets, for ease in scoring.
why dont you buy a paintball gun, or a bb gun, or pellet gun. and if it can cut paper, it can do damage enough to a living creature, humans and small animals

You are, as usual, speaking from emotion and not from reasoning. Firearms are, today being designed for target shooting more and more

yet that is not the purpose for guns as a whole, you can design guns to do different things, that doesnt mean the intended purpose for the upper majority of all guns is for the killing and harming of an individual, animal of human, and even THEN the firearms designed for target shooting can and WILL do damage to the human body, a paintball will leave one hell of a nasty bruise and in some cases break the skin

why dont you buy a paintball gun, or a bb gun, or pellet gun. and if it can cut paper, it can do damage enough to a living creature, humans and small animals

You are evading the point however. You stated, emphatically infact, that guns are designed to kill.

I pointed out that this is false.

If you want to talk about "damage enough to a living creature", why dont you talk to about Archery. Or swords, or baseball bats, martial arts, cars that go faster than 1 mph, etc. etc. They can all do "damage enough to a living creature, humans and small animals"

You are arguing from emotion, but have no basis in reality.

You might try reality sometime.. it's actually a good thing.

yet that is not the purpose for guns as a whole, you can design guns to do different things, that doesnt mean the intended purpose for the upper majority of all guns is for the killing and harming of an individual, animal of human, and even THEN the firearms designed for target shooting can and WILL do damage to the human body, a paintball will leave one hell of a nasty bruise and in some cases break the skin

Still not the point. I was countering your assertion that firearms were designe for a single solitary purpose. That is simply not true.

So, you are arguing that we should ban paintball guns. What about every other item/activity that might, possibly cause harm to a human body, or animals?

If that is indeed your wish, lock yourself in a padded room, in a straightjacket, velcro strapped down to a bare matress on the floor. Have your food brought to you. That is the only way you can be completely protected from injury.

Paxania: --- "Actually, Bush promised to renew the ban if Congress does. However, such a bill would never survive the House at least, even if they did have more than 3 days to do so.

These so-called "assault weapons" are used in less than one or two percent of gun crime, which accounts for only 27% of violent crime. Seriously, how often do you hear about someone shooting up the local McDonald's or post office? How often?

Whether you know it or not (and I'm not saying you don't), the guns you are referring to are semi-automatic weapons. Guns don't work like they do in the movies. You want to ban guns that fire once each time the trigger is pulled. Besides, didn't Colin Ferguson reload, like, 3 times?

Anyway, the real issue is that these guns are still legal. How could there be any effect on crime by banning guns that are still legal? The ban covers mean-looking guns with scary black stocks and bayonet mounts. The guns remain on the market with minor cosmetic differences."---


If you were talking to me, I'm well-aware of the difference between semiautomatic firearms and automatic ones. (Actually, I agree with you on the fact that the assault weapons ban is ill-defined and needs tightening up. A lot of the definition is what *looks* like an assault weapon, which is obviously highly flawed and meaningless, but it does prevent the huge production of these weapons that were starting to flood the market when the ban was enacted. As can be said, if you *really* want one for legitimate purposes, well, then, you can buy a pre-ban one legitimately. The point is to make them rarer and harder for criminals to get. )

Really, it's the magazine capacity and relative concealability of something like an Uzi or a Mac that makes it dangerous, not so much the automatic fire. Frankly, I can fire those pretty damn fast, and with a 32 round magazine, one can kill and maim a lot of people, and that's *all* they're good for.

And, how often do you hear about a McDonalds' getting shot up? A lot less since around the time of the Brady Bill, I'll tell you that much.

How many dead, maimed, and paralysed people are acceptable casualties for the mere *convenience* of people who want to play Rambo?

There's a lot of stupid gun control laws out there, ...that doesn't mean gun control laws are *bad,* it means the laws need improvement.

I'm actually reasonably pro-gun, but having lived a rather rough life, I really don't see the need for all this heavy hardware to defend onesself. It's a right-wing fantasy, nothing more. If I live in an area I feel to need one, give me a Sig or a revolver or whatever's appropriate, maybe a shotgun or carbine in some rural places, and, I'm pretty confident.

I don't see why all these cowboys aren't.

If you were talking to me, I'm well-aware of the difference between semiautomatic firearms and automatic ones. (Actually, I agree with you on the fact that the assault weapons ban is ill-defined and needs tightening up. A lot of the definition is what *looks* like an assault weapon, which is obviously highly flawed and meaningless, but it does prevent the huge production of these weapons that were starting to flood the market when the ban was enacted. As can be said, if you *really* want one for legitimate purposes, well, then, you can buy a pre-ban one legitimately. The point is to make them rarer and harder for criminals to get. )

Really, it's the magazine capacity and relative concealability of something like an Uzi or a Mac that makes it dangerous, not so much the automatic fire. Frankly, I can fire those pretty damn fast, and with a 32 round magazine, one can kill and maim a lot of people, and that's *all* they're good for.

And, how often do you hear about a McDonalds' getting shot up? A lot less since around the time of the Brady Bill, I'll tell you that much.

How many dead, maimed, and paralysed people are acceptable casualties for the mere *convenience* of people who want to play Rambo?

There's a lot of stupid gun control laws out there, ...that doesn't mean gun control laws are *bad,* it means the laws need improvement.

I'm actually reasonably pro-gun, but having lived a rather rough life, I really don't see the need for all this heavy hardware to defend onesself. It's a right-wing fantasy, nothing more. If I live in an area I feel to need one, give me a Sig or a revolver or whatever's appropriate, maybe a shotgun or carbine in some rural places, and, I'm pretty confident.

I don't see why all these cowboys aren't.

You make a lot of assertions that I personally dont believe to be true.

What "flood of the market" was happening?
And "a lot less" hearing about shooting up McDonalds than before the Brady bill? Any statistics on this, or is it simply your opinion?

As for the "right wing fantasy" about needing high powered firearms for defense, you make a gross generalization. Defense is simply one argument for the ownership of guns. Recreation is another. Simply the exorcising ones second amendment rights in another.

Rather than attempt to "tighten gun restrictions", which I have to assume means tightening restrictions on gun ownership in general. I would suggest tightening laws on the criminal use of guns.

A gun lays on the table doing nothing, until someone decides to use it. That use could be legal, or illegal. Instead of focusing on the tool, focus on the illegal activities involving guns.

Pretty simply logic, no?

I think using 'simple logic' for a highly complex and technical safety issue is exactly why no one's happy with the laws we have.

And, well, if you don't remember the Eighties, you don't remember the eighties. The marketing statistics on the weapons I cited would speak for themselves. It was my assertion, in fact, that you don't need a thirty round magazine for any sporting use. And if you really want one, you can still get one, so I don't see why any oddball who thinks it's sporting to hunt with an AK or something is so put out.

It's the *numbers* and *ready availability of these things that's the problem. There's already something like two or three guns for every man woman and child in the United States, anyway.

Rationality is needed on *both* sides of this.

You are evading the point however. You stated, emphatically infact, that guns are designed to kill.

I pointed out that this is false.

If you want to talk about "damage enough to a living creature", why dont you talk to about Archery. Or swords, or baseball bats, martial arts, cars that go faster than 1 mph, etc. etc. They can all do "damage enough to a living creature, humans and small animals"

You are arguing from emotion, but have no basis in reality.

You might try reality sometime.. it's actually a good thing.
wrong, guns as an overall are designed to kill, they can be TWEAKED to do less damage than kill, but even with guns tweaked as to not kill, a shot placed correctly or enough of a shot will STILL kill


i dont talk about them because they are irrelevant, we arnt talknig about them, but lets do that

archery - designed to kill, the arrows can be tweaked so as to be better for target shotting, but overall are designed to kill something, or severly wound if you dont get a kill shot

swords - designed to kill, period. you may not use them to kill, there are ones designed for training, those can still cause bodily harm if use without care.

knives - not necesarily designed to kill, knives have now become more of a general purpose utensil than an avatar of death

baseball bats - designed to hit a ball, hard. they can be used to kill something, that is not there design

martial arts - created and taught to the intended purpose of self defense, without injury, well severe injury, or murder. yes, there may be moves that can and will kill if performed in a certain way, but martial arts as a whole is not intended to cause the death of an opponent

cars - designed to deliver a person from point A to point B. if they hit something, yes it will die by the COINCIDENTAL fact it is a large object moving at X amount of speed. if a tree is cut down and falls on you accidently, is the tree trying to kill you or are you a victim of various coincidences in the laws of science?

oh please, arguing from emotion, this is all fact and logic, sorry you cant understand the fact weapons are designed to kill and non weapons are not ultimately designed to kill

Still not the point. I was countering your assertion that firearms were designe for a single solitary purpose. That is simply not true.

So, you are arguing that we should ban paintball guns. What about every other item/activity that might, possibly cause harm to a human body, or animals?

If that is indeed your wish, lock yourself in a padded room, in a straightjacket, velcro strapped down to a bare matress on the floor. Have your food brought to you. That is the only way you can be completely protected from injury.
wth are you reading, i am implying no such thing, ALL i said was that why dont you use bb guns or pellet guns or paintball guns for target practice instead of weapons of murder? and i also said there is NO reason for an ordinary person not part of the military or other protection force to have a semi-automatic or automatic weapon in their posession, and half the time people should not have ANY gun in their posession as they are not trained to use it and have it stored improperly

You make a lot of assertions that I personally dont believe to be true.

What "flood of the market" was happening?
And "a lot less" hearing about shooting up McDonalds than before the Brady bill? Any statistics on this, or is it simply your opinion?
the brady bill was put into law as a result of several automatic weapons homicides in california

As for the "right wing fantasy" about needing high powered firearms for defense, you make a gross generalization. Defense is simply one argument for the ownership of guns. Recreation is another. Simply the exorcising ones second amendment rights in another.
you do NOT need an assault weapon for protection. you want protection with the same fire power against a single intruder in your home or a person attacking you on the street? go to the gun store. buy a handgun. it will kill or maim just as well as an assault weapon. assault weapons are for the extreme purpose of being used in combat situations, they are NOT for recreation and NOT for defense as you imply it.

Rather than attempt to "tighten gun restrictions", which I have to assume means tightening restrictions on gun ownership in general. I would suggest tightening laws on the criminal use of guns.
that makes somewhere around 0 sense, im pretty sure if you kill some one with a gun you go away for a long time, if you commit a crime and it has an added gun charge you get a good many extra years. BUT what is the point of tightening laws on criminal use of guns while laxing gun ownership and use laws? the criminal use of guns will be changed because ownership laws are lax. Not to mention the fact we dont need to tighten abuse laws if we tighten and perfect laws in which keep the guns out of the hands of criminals. you should NOT be able to buy a gun without a background check and anywhere else than a registered gun store.

A gun lays on the table doing nothing, until someone decides to use it. That use could be legal, or illegal. Instead of focusing on the tool, focus on the illegal activities involving guns.

Pretty simply logic, no?
your argument is devoid of realistic logic, you want to take the belt away from the skinny man to give it to the fat man to help him keep his pants up.

do you claim thats a good thing? it should be completely and utterly illegal to obtain guns from anywhere but an authorized gun store and with a background check

No I dont claim it a good thing I know it is a good thing (anytime a freedom is trusted with good faith and there is no breech in that faith its a good thing). When was the last time you heard of someone in Oregon commiting an illegal killing of someone with thier privately owned firearm (you see Americans dont deter freedoms to benifit the criminals)? Or vermont? Or Alaska? These are all states that are among 45 of the 50 States that do not use any kind of uniform approach to restricting law abiding citizens freedoms with any kind of tool. The states(its resident citizens) have the say on what the private citizens do within that state.

When we have a freedom that is protected (or interpreted in past and present interpretations) Then the burden of proof falls on the people that want to restrict that freedom. Not the free individual since they have what they want and have no complaints.

Also for it to actually effect all 50 states you are going to need evidence that proves it to be a national security issue (good luck since the majority of feds are pro Constitutional in the current and past interpretations of our Second ammendment) Especially the more and more Bush stacks the intelligence and judges with more and more conservative leanings toward our Constitution. Good Luck.

In 7 1/2 more days the burden of proof will once again shift completly onto you guys. Again good Luck.

you should NOT be able to buy a gun without a background check and anywhere else than a registered gun store.

Apparently America disagrees with you, so I suggest you take it up with them. It is up to the states to change thier policy towards your way of thinking (the burden of proof falls on whoever wants to restrict a freedom in anyway). So I suggest you petition the 45 states who want to have thier own say on regulation and background checks for guns and law abiding Americans. Once again Good Luck!

Also something you are apparently not understanding is that each individual state has the final say on any restrictions of freedoms or deciding on what will be a freedom within thier own state. Good example is the Death With Dignity law in Oregon. All 49 states can disagree with the state of Oregon on this issue and still they have not and can not stop them from performing thier own states duties (to date I know at least 200 people have used this law). The only way something can just all of a sudden come to a stop will be if it is of the nature of National Security. States rights is a beautiful thing and unbeatable since even when you have 49 states against something but that one for it and it does not entail a National Security interest, to bad so sad=states rights. Live your own life the way you want and let others live thiers, im not asking you im just telling you what is required under states rights.

I would hardly call the 'Tommy Gun' a weapon designed to end all wars. You're referring to the Browning Machine Gun. Secondly, yes, hunting is killing. Why should I be denied my rights to hunt? Have any of you ever heard of over-population in the animal world?

I'd think that the humans are WAAAY over populated in some countries. Why not shoot them?

Here in America you don't need a 'reason' to own that semi-auto shotgun, But you do need a reason to tell someone why they shouldn't have it. That is called freedom. Like it or not in the USA you get to have some freedoms that others in foriegn countries can not understand. That is why we are a different country obviously. If your individual populace wants to have certain freedoms here in America, then you get to have those freedoms, no explanation needed.

Well, firstely, because they are dangarous, designed to kill humans or animals (I personally dont approve of either thing) and you do not need them for 'self defense' here. No one here is going to break into your house heavely armed, and you do not need to take your shotgun and turn the whole place into a warzone. They way I hear you talking, it seems that you do need to be armed to feel safe in America. And guess why? Because _there_ those kind of weapons are legal to have. _Here_ not. And _there_ you say anyone can break in your house and kill you. _Here_, such things don't happen.

Obviously a different country, indeed...

Apparently America disagrees with you, so I suggest you take it up with them. It is up to the states to change thier policy towards your way of thinking (the burden of proof falls on whoever wants to restrict a freedom in anyway). So I suggest you petition the 45 states who want to have thier own say on regulation and background checks for guns and law abiding Americans. Once again Good Luck!

Also something you are apparently not understanding is that each individual state has the final say on any restrictions of freedoms or deciding on what will be a freedom within thier own state. Good example is the Death With Dignity law in Oregon. All 49 states can disagree with the state of Oregon on this issue and still they have not and can not stop them from performing thier own states duties (to date I know at least 200 people have used this law). The only way something can just all of a sudden come to a stop will be if it is of the nature of National Security. States rights is a beautiful thing and unbeatable since even when you have 49 states against something but that one for it and it does not entail a National Security interest, to bad so sad=states rights. Live your own life the way you want and let others live thiers, im not asking you im just telling you what is required under states rights.
you suggest ignoring obvious safety for the promotion of the will of the easily swayed and ultimately stupid majority?

And _there_ you say anyone can break in your house and kill you. _Here_, such things don't happen.

Thats right I must of forgot, criminals abide by the law everywhere but here in America. Ok do you got some stats to prove that you have no criminals breaking into homes where you are?

I will bet you this, a criminal in your country is more likely to be a repeat offender, because we just use a 39 cent bullet to solve that problem. See no more repeat offender, you get a once in a lifetime shot at being a dumb ass here before we flush you down the toilet bowl.

Just imagine the drain on our tax payers if we didnt allow our citizens to kill criminals intent in doing harm, our prisons are flooded enough already.

Gotta say, when conservatives turn the right to have a weapon that can kill a whole lot of people without reloading into a civil rights issue, it's pretty funny they have a problem letting me get married, talking about all kinds of nebulous and spurious 'harms to society' that would supposedly cause, but well-documented gun deaths aren't enough for them to accept a bit of *regulation on how easily someone can own the weapons of mass murder.*

Double standard, anyone?

you suggest ignoring obvious safety for the promotion of the will of the easily swayed and ultimately stupid majority?

I suggest that the states are right in ignoring your wants in needs over its resident citizens.

Gotta say, when conservatives turn the right to have a weapon that can kill a whole lot of people without reloading into a civil rights issue, it's pretty funny they have a problem letting me get married, talking about all kinds of nebulous and spurious 'harms to society' that would supposedly cause, but well-documented gun deaths aren't enough for them to accept a bit of *regulation on how easily someone can own the weapons of mass murder.* Double standard, anyone?

I can not say for other conservatives, but the ones I know could careless about a state allowing its populace to marry queer or straight. As long as it is left up to the states to decide in freedoms(with a exception to a few dumbasses that want to control like the anti-gun nuts that wants to control) they dont care what you do as long as you dont harm another in that process and the people of your state agrees on it.

I suggest that the states are right in ignoring your wants in needs over its resident citizens.
no, you suggest that it is better to allow the citizens to do whatever they please while ignoring obvious safety risks by doing so. freedoms only go so far.

Hasn't anyone quoted Benjamin Franklin in this argument yet?

Why hasn't anyone commented on my solution of banning criminals?

How is there any relation between the Assault Weapons Ban and a drop in crime if the "banned" weapons remained available?

no, you suggest that it is better to allow the citizens to do whatever they please while ignoring obvious safety risks by doing so. freedoms only go so far.

Wrong, I agree with our entire countries process of freedoms when it has nothing to do with National Security. Let the states decide. You have to provide the burden of proof that joe smoe down the street that owns a AK-47 but dont use it for any illegal activity doesnt deserve that right that he currently has. He has to do nothing but wait for you to try to find a reason to restrict his freedom in the name of National Security. Otherwise you had better become a resident of all 50 states in your lifetime while instituting your wanna be gun laws into each of them. Freedoms go as far as the states allow them to(within the boundry's of our Constitution and in acceptance of our national security). You are trying to insinuate that your logic is of more common sense than what the states have decided. Go run for office in one of those states and tout your logic and let me know how good you do. Logic does not create a universal thought process on our freedoms. It is the individuals(of a state) through the process of our country that create the logic for each of thier own states.

No I dont claim it a good thing I know it is a good thing (anytime a freedom is trusted with good faith and there is no breech in that faith its a good thing). When was the last time you heard of someone in Oregon commiting an illegal killing of someone with thier privately owned firearm (you see Americans dont deter freedoms to benifit the criminals)? Or vermont? Or Alaska? These are all states that are among 45 of the 50 States that do not use any kind of uniform approach to restricting law abiding citizens freedoms with any kind of tool. The states(its resident citizens) have the say on what the private citizens do within that state.
there are less violent crimes with guns per capita in new york than in alaska, there are slightly less in orgeon than in new jersey.

sources: calculator, http://geography.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/tab05.txt, http://neahin.org/programs/schoolsafety/gunsafety/Gun%20Safety%20PDF%20Files/StateGunCrimesChart.pdf

Wrong, I agree with our entire countries process of freedoms when it has nothing to do with National Security. Let the states decide. You have to provide the burden of proof that joe smoe down the street that owns a AK-47 but dont use it for any illegal activity doesnt deserve that right that he currently has. He has to do nothing but wait for you to try to find a reason to restrict his freedom in the name of National Security. Otherwise you had better become a resident of all 50 states in your lifetime while instituting your wanna be gun laws into each of them. Freedoms go as far as the states allow them to(within the boundry's of our Constitution and in acceptance of our national security). You are trying to insinuate that your logic is of more common sense than what the states have decided. Go run for office in one of those states and tout your logic and let me know how good you do. Logic does not create a universal thought process on our freedoms. It is the individuals(of a state) through the process of our country that create the logic for each of thier own states.
there is zero reason for some one not part of a trained security force to be in posession of a weapon such as an AK-47, if he wants to own a revolver or pistol or rifle or shotgun, fine let him, but there is ZERO reason to own an AK-47, legally or illegally, unless you are part of a trained defense organization: police, military, militia, etc. they are not for hunting, or target practice or defense of ones home from burglars, you can do that with a Colt .45

there are less violent crimes with guns per capita in new york than in alaska, there are slightly less in orgeon than in new jersey.

There you go, you just disproved your theory that Gun Control hampers criminal activity. New york(lots of gun laws) is safer than Alaska (with no gun laws) and new jersey(major gun laws) is more dangerous than Oregon (has hardly any gun laws).

What this does prove is that Gun laws dont do anything to curtail criminals, they are criminals for a reason and they will never listen to a paper law or a capital punishment law until you have performed the last deed of taking thier lives. Since we in the states allow you to take thier lives when they perform a deed that could very well harm you or another. The problem has been solved. Petition the 50 states if you have a problem with it. Recieve the proper amount of signatures and follow the set guidlines for the process to be enacted, otherwise your just blowing smoke up the ass of all 50 states.

There you go, you just disproved your theory that Gun Control hampers criminal activity. New york(lots of gun laws) is safer than Alaska (with no gun laws) and new jersey(major gun laws) is more dangerous than Oregon (has hardly any gun laws).

What this does prove is that Gun laws dont do anything to curtail criminals, they are criminals for a reason and they will never listen to a paper law or a capital punishment law until you have performed the last deed of taking thier lives. Since we in the states allow you to take thier lives when they perform a deed that could very well harm you or another. The problem has been solved. Petition the 50 states if you have a problem with it. Recieve the proper amount of signatures and follow the set guidlines for the process to be enacted, otherwise your just blowing smoke up the ass of all 50 states.
note, alaska is more dangerous in comparison with new york than new jersey is in comparison with orgeon

which proves that your not right, but it does not prove me right. it means you cant sit around pointing out inane things like that declaring yourself to be right unless you do the research.. and learn to read. and if you do both of those, you realise you are no more correct than me and vice versa

i dunno how you can say im disproved in your post without admitting you are disproved also.

there is zero reason for some one not part of a trained security force to be in posession of a weapon such as an AK-47, if he wants to own a revolver or pistol or rifle or shotgun, fine let him, but there is ZERO reason to own an AK-47, legally or illegally, unless you are part of a trained defense organization: police, military, militia, etc. they are not for hunting, or target practice or defense of ones home from burglars, you can do that with a Colt .45

Are we forgetting something? Here you do not need a reason to exercise your freedoms, but you do need a reason to clamp down on them. The burden of proof will always fall on who wants to restrict that freedom. So take your burden of proof and take it up with the states or the NSA, otherwise its just your dumb opinion that means chit to everyone else.

there is zero reason for some one not part of a trained security force to be in posession of a weapon such as an AK-47, if he wants to own a revolver or pistol or rifle or shotgun, fine let him, but there is ZERO reason to own an AK-47, legally or illegally, unless you are part of a trained defense organization: police, military, militia, etc. they are not for hunting, or target practice or defense of ones home from burglars, you can do that with a Colt .45
There are several reasons for owning such weapons and training for the use of such weapons. However these reasons are all contingent. Just because things are all fine and dandy now in this country, doesn’t mean that they always will be that way.

Are we forgetting something? Here you do not need a reason to exercise your freedoms, but you do need a reason to clamp down on them. The burden of proof will always fall on who wants to restrict that freedom. So take your burden of proof and take it up with the states or the NSA, otherwise its just your dumb opinion that means chit to everyone else.
there is a limit to freedom, lest we forget. that is reality, where you live is not reality

There are several reasons for owning such weapons and training for the use of such weapons. However these reasons are all contingent. Just because things are all fine and dandy now in this country, doesn’t mean that they always will be that way.
not for an ordinary citizen. an ordinary citizen has no reason to be in posession of a military issue weapon. why cant you asses be happy with rifles and handguns and shotguns?

not for an ordinary citizen. an ordinary citizen has no reason to be in posession of a military issue weapon. why cant you asses be happy with rifles and handguns and shotguns?
Because they aren't as effective as an assault weapon.

Umm. . .thats a well practiced militia, not a well regulated one.

From Webster's II, Office Edition

regulate - v 1. To direct or control in agreement with rules or laws. 2. To adjust the amount, rate, or flow of.

So, according to that, a regulated militia is one that is controled by an outside force (i.e. government).

You're using the accepted definition by today's vernacular. www.dictionary.com has the definitions as follows:

reg·u·late Audio pronunciation of "regulated" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rgy-lt)
tr.v. reg·u·lat·ed, reg·u·lat·ing, reg·u·lates

1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.
2. To adjust to a particular specification or requirement: regulate temperature.
3. To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning.
4. To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits.

200 years ago, the definition was that of numbers three and four. This is what is meant by the constitution--the Federalist Papers back it up.

Because they aren't as effective as an assault weapon.
YOU DONT NEED AN ASSAULT WEAPON.

and thats bullshit to begin with. all guns kill. a .38 will kill just as efficiently as an AK-47, period.

there is a limit to freedom, lest we forget. that is reality, where you live is not reality

You're right. My freedoms extend to me and my belongings. Yours extend to you and yours. Stay away from mine--you have no right to touch 'em.

there is a limit to freedom, lest we forget. that is reality, where you live is not reality

Well I guess the USA is not in reality by your definition... again you do not need a reason to exercise your rights or freedoms but you do need one to hamper them in any way or form. If it is a good reason and the voting public of your state agrees or the NSA then it might be considered a reason to hamper down on that freedom. Still the burden of proof falls on those that want to hamper that freedom, never on the ones that want to use it. Read our Federlist papers like many on here have and reread our Constitution (hopefully you could pass basic college reading comprehension) Then look for current interpretations to what ever freedom you want to restrict and see if you can work with it from there. Otherwise your opinion means nothing but to those that agree with you and want that change. Unless you can convince an entire voting public within your state or anothers that your way is the better way.

You're right. My freedoms extend to me and my belongings. Yours extend to you and yours. Stay away from mine--you have no right to touch 'em.
you obviously dont get the point, im surrounded by subintelligent apes

Well I guess the USA is not in reality by your definition...
there is a limit and regulation to your freedoms, you do not have the right to say whatever you damn well please, it isnt protected: "fighting words", libel, and slander are not protected under the first amendment. distributing or saying things so as to incite violence are not protected under the first amendment. accept the fact that GENERAL ownership of MILITARY weapons is not protected by the second amendment

again you do not need a reason to exercise your rights or freedoms but you do need one to hamper them in any way or form. If it is a good reason and the voting public of your state agrees or the NSA then it might be considered a reason to hamper down on that freedom. Still the burden of proof falls on those that want to hamper that freedom, never on the ones that want to use it. Read our Federlist papers like many on here have and reread our Constitution (hopefully you could pass basic college reading comprehension) Then look for current interpretations to what ever freedom you want to restrict and see if you can work with it from there. Otherwise your opinion means nothing but to those that agree with you and want that change. Unless you can convince an entire voting public within your state or anothers that your way is the better way.

and how dare you tell me to read the federalist papers, i have a much better knowledge of the rules and regulations of this nation as i had a years worth of government class for the we the people competition, being in the same class as the second amendment group i listened for hours about the second amendment in addition to indepth study of the cosntitution, federalist papers, philosphers and founders. when you have done the same come back and see if you can some how still tell me you can do whatever the fuck you want because there is a general protection of it in the constitution

not for an ordinary citizen. an ordinary citizen has no reason to be in posession of a military issue weapon. why cant you asses be happy with rifles and handguns and shotguns?

Again you dont need a *reason* to exercise your rights, but you do need one to stop that from being a right. Why I have the guns I have is because I can. If the law says you can do something then the last time I checked you do not need a reason to do it, but you do need a reason to why I can not. Please come back to reality.

YOU DONT NEED AN ASSAULT WEAPON.

and thats bullshit to begin with. all guns kill. a .38 will kill just as efficiently as an AK-47, period.

You're right, I don't need one and all guns can kill. However it would still be better to have an assault rifle. Assault rifles are more efficient than other rifles, pistols and shotguns. They hold plenty of ammo, are easy to reload and have a good firing rate.

*Minor edit*

YOU DONT NEED AN ASSAULT WEAPON.

and thats bullshit to begin with. all guns kill. a .38 will kill just as efficiently as an AK-47, period.

Obviously, you know nothing about firearms. There is a world of difference between a pistol round and a rifle round. And even more difference between the two platforms which they were made to be projected from.

For instance, shooting at paper, which is my wont in the firearms realm, at 100 yards, I would need a LOT more practice with a revolver that shot .38 special rounds than an AK-47, or any other semi-auto rifle, that shot 7.62X39mm rounds. Rifles are inherently more accurate.

And not all guns kill, either. There are mountains of reports of people (mostly perps) that survive gunfire from police officers and law-abiding members of society, with multiple rounds in or through them.

Was it you who posted earlier in the thread that someone should learn to read and know the facts before responding to the thread? Just checking.....

Again you dont need a *reason* to exercise your rights, but you do need one to stop that from being a right. Why I have the guns I have is because I can. If the law says you can do something then the last time I checked you do not need a reason to do it, but you do need a reason to why I can not. Please come back to reality.
reason - there is no logical reason for an ordinary citizen to own an assault weapon
reason - there are limits to freedoms, period
reason - assault weapons are ultimately more dangerous to you and anyone around you than a single shot weapon

You're right, I don't need one and all guns can kill. However it would still be better to have an assault rifle. Assault rifles are more efficient than other rifles, pistols and shotguns. They hold plenty of ammo, are easy to reload and have a good firing rate.

*Minor edit*
actually, in all reality they are far LESS efficient than a normal single shot, unless you cant aim

the weapon spray and RoF waste a lot of expensive ammo. a single shot gun, other than a shotgun at long medium range, is far more efficient at the job of killing or maiming in any sense of the word

Obviously, you know nothing about firearms. There is a world of difference between a pistol round and a rifle round. And even more difference between the two platforms which they were made to be projected from.

For instance, shooting at paper, which is my wont in the firearms realm, at 100 yards, I would need a LOT more practice with a revolver that shot .38 special rounds than an AK-47, or any other semi-auto rifle, that shot 7.62X39mm rounds. Rifles are inherently more accurate.
and im not arguing anything different from that, i have no idea what you are getting at. but rifles are ultimately for hunting, if your reason for having a weapon is personal defense, a pistol will suit your need perfectly fine, unless you plan to be sitting on your porch sniping people down the street with a pistol because they mgiht be burglars. you ASSUME i know nothing about firearms ONLY because i have not brought up inane irrelevant points.

And not all guns kill, either. There are mountains of reports of people (mostly perps) that survive gunfire from police officers and law-abiding members of society, with multiple rounds in or through them.
guns are designed to kill, of course if you shoot some one in the leg they are going to die, but a bullet or two to the torso or above will more than likely kill your ass unless you are VERY lucky.

Was it you who posted earlier in the thread that someone should learn to read and know the facts before responding to the thread? Just checking.....
yeah, you should

there is a limit and regulation to your freedoms, you do not have the right to say whatever you damn well please, it isnt protected: "fighting words", libel, and slander are not protected under the first amendment. distributing or saying things so as to incite violence are not protected under the first amendment. accept the fact that GENERAL ownership of MILITARY weapons is not protected by the second amendment

The limit is set by guidlines and currently what you want is not under the guidlines. You can have any preban assualt weapon as it is your *right* to do so currently in this country. In 7 and 1/2 days then you will be able to buy any post and future banned ones as a right as well! Get over it and try to change it but this time at least do a better job than last time, geesh..

and how dare you tell me to read the federalist papers, i have a much better knowledge of the rules and regulations of this nation as i had a years worth of government class for the we the people competition, being in the same class as the second amendment group i listened for hours about the second amendment in addition to indepth study of the cosntitution, federalist papers, philosphers and founders. when you have done the same come back and see if you can some how still tell me you can do whatever the fuck you want because there is a general protection of it in the constitution

Good then I should be able to have faith in you for having the ability to understand what you just wrote as being retarded. Since the conception of our Constitution our rights have been given some limitations (no shit sherlock?) . Currently you can own a pre ban assualt weapon as every law abiding American has this *right* to do so. In 7 and 1/2 days you will have the *right* to buy whatever you were missing out on in the last 10 years while that freedom was hampered. So save up yo money and spend away, I feel so bad that Americans having this right ruins your day. :(

The limit is set by guidlines and currently what you want is not under the guidlines. You can have any preban assualt weapon as it is your *right* to do so currently in this country. In 7 and 1/2 days then you will be able to buy any post and future banned ones as a right as well! Get over it and try to change it but this time at least do a better job than last time, geesh..
again, what the fuck is it with you gun nuts and the "I MUST HAVE A FUCKING UBER ASSAULT WEAPON OR IM NOT SAFE AHAHAHA IM FUCKING CRAZY AHAHA" people complaining that they cant get assault weaponry dont need ANY gun at all



Good then I should be able to have faith in you for having the ability to understand what you just wrote as being retarded. Since the conception of our Constitution our rights have been given some limitations (no shit sherlock?) . Currently you can own a pre ban assualt weapon as every law abiding American has this *right* to do so. In 7 and 1/2 days you will have the *right* to buy whatever you were missing out on in the last 10 years while that freedom was hampered. So save up yo money and spend away, I feel so bad that Americans having this right ruins your day. :(
i honestly hope you die by an M4 round, in all honesty. i hope every gun nut fighting for the destruction of the bradley law dies by a round from a previously banned weapon.

a single shot gun, other than a shotgun at long medium range, is far more efficient at the job of killing or maiming in any sense of the word
How so?

there is a limit and regulation to your freedoms, you do not have the right to say whatever you damn well please, it isnt protected: "fighting words", libel, and slander are not protected under the first amendment. distributing or saying things so as to incite violence are not protected under the first amendment. accept the fact that GENERAL ownership of MILITARY weapons is not protected by the second amendment



and how dare you tell me to read the federalist papers, i have a much better knowledge of the rules and regulations of this nation as i had a years worth of government class for the we the people competition, being in the same class as the second amendment group i listened for hours about the second amendment in addition to indepth study of the cosntitution, federalist papers, philosphers and founders. when you have done the same come back and see if you can some how still tell me you can do whatever the fuck you want because there is a general protection of it in the constitution


Oh, I see...you took a class....oh, then you MUST be more knowledgeable than the rest of the plebes responding to your very precise, logical, reasoned responses.

Please.

Evidently, you must be getting a bit worked up with your unsubstantiated "reasons" listed above, and your lack of verbal control in your posts. Those aren't reasons. Those are statements. Statements are nothing without proof to back them up. And yes, the Federalist Papers DO back up the second amendment and how all able-bodied males ('cause we didn't let women do a thing back then, so it applies to all adults NOW--as it should) were to be part of the militia. We didn't have a standing army then. The citizens were the protectors of themselves and this country. Just because the military won't disband, like it's actually supposed to, doesn't mean our rights went out the window.

reason - there is no logical reason for an ordinary citizen to own an assault weapon
reason - there are limits to freedoms, period
reason - assault weapons are ultimately more dangerous to you and anyone around you than a single shot weapon

You still dont need a reason to exercise a right, you only need reasons to hamper them.

You still dont need a reason to exercise a right, you only need reasons to hamper them.

You still dont need a reason to exercise a right, you only need reasons to hamper them.

I know of not one gun store in any of the 50 states that asks you to list a reason for exercising your right. You can walk into a gun store and not even say a word but "How much is that one, I'll take it." is that a good enough reason? Cause it is for all 50 states.

again, what the fuck is it with you gun nuts and the "I MUST HAVE A FUCKING UBER ASSAULT WEAPON OR IM NOT SAFE AHAHAHA IM FUCKING CRAZY AHAHA" people complaining that they cant get assault weaponry dont need ANY gun at all




i honestly hope you die by an M4 round, in all honesty. i hope every gun nut fighting for the destruction of the bradley law dies by a round from a previously banned weapon.

And conservative firearms owners are the supposed evil ones? That kind of spew is exactly what I DON'T wish upon anyone else.

I hope you are NEVER in a situation where you, being unarmed, would need a firearm. I hope I never have to use mine in a defensive situation, either. Remember:

1) It has been supported by the Supreme Court of the United States that the police are not responsible for protecting individuals. They don't have to save you.

2) The police cannot possibly be there in five seconds, when you actually need them.

For some reason, everyone seems to forget that we did get along without police forces for the first 100 years of this country's existence. But now, there are misguided individuals that think people elected and performing a particular function have more rights than the general populace.

It really isn't meant to be that way.

and im not arguing anything different from that, i have no idea what you are getting at. but rifles are ultimately for hunting, if your reason for having a weapon is personal defense, a pistol will suit your need perfectly fine, unless you plan to be sitting on your porch sniping people down the street with a pistol because they mgiht be burglars. you ASSUME i know nothing about firearms ONLY because i have not brought up inane irrelevant points.

Actually, pistols are very poor in terms of defensive capabilities, and in reality are only appropriate for concealed/open carry and use in situations where a larger firearm would be cumbersome and inappropriate for individuals defense IE: off-duty or non-military persons going about their day-to-day business. A rifle with a short barrel or an entry-type shotgun, preferably with an 8-round capacity, would be more appropriate in most at-home defense situations. Of course, over penetration is a concern in MOST housing situations, so a shotgun utilizing ammunition unlikely to penetrate several layers of drywall will generally get the nod. However, it is important to note that rifles were utilized during the LA riots by some business owners to secure their places of business, and probably their homes. So there is certainly a place for semi-automatic rifles.

I could, of course go on and disassemble the 'justification clause' argument used by OurEarth and a few others, but they likely know the limitations of their argument, so the waste of time and space is unnecessary. Their proposed "simple" interpretation is a fallacy as a result of the restraints it would place on the rest of the amendments, and nothing more.

Oh, I see...you took a class....oh, then you MUST be more knowledgeable than the rest of the plebes responding to your very precise, logical, reasoned responses.

Please.

Evidently, you must be getting a bit worked up with your unsubstantiated "reasons" listed above, and your lack of verbal control in your posts. Those aren't reasons. Those are statements. Statements are nothing without proof to back them up. And yes, the Federalist Papers DO back up the second amendment and how all able-bodied males ('cause we didn't let women do a thing back then, so it applies to all adults NOW--as it should) were to be part of the militia. We didn't have a standing army then. The citizens were the protectors of themselves and this country. Just because the military won't disband, like it's actually supposed to, doesn't mean our rights went out the window.
have you studied the constitution, philosophers, federalist papers, and founder in depth for a year straight then placed in the top ten in the NATION in a competition on them?

ok then

yes, there was a standing army, it was established by teh constitution, the militia were part of the state government, they were controlled by the state governments to protect the states and their people from the tyranny of the federal government if it ever happened.

and how many people now are part of the STATE MILITIA, no how many? how many states even have militias, but how many states have people with multiple guns in their house. and yes, the 2nd amendment is backed up by the framers. but the purpose for every purpose to have a gun in their house was to be able to use it for the protection of their state and its people, they were to be WELL TRAINED in its use and to be TRAINED for combat, maybe not hard training, maybe marching once a month. but that is the point, to be proficiently trained in a weapon to protect the people of your state, it wasnt to just be for the fact because you want one. and not only that, the militia's weapons were to be made of those commonly available to the people, that does not include military issue weaponry, but it doesnt include handguns and shotguns and rifles

and im not arguing anything different from that, i have no idea what you are getting at. but rifles are ultimately for hunting, if your reason for having a weapon is personal defense, a pistol will suit your need perfectly fine, unless you plan to be sitting on your porch sniping people down the street with a pistol because they mgiht be burglars. you ASSUME i know nothing about firearms ONLY because i have not brought up inane irrelevant points.


guns are designed to kill, of course if you shoot some one in the leg they are going to die, but a bullet or two to the torso or above will more than likely kill your ass unless you are VERY lucky.


yeah, you should

Hoo boy....okay, back to research. How many individuals shot by police officers die? Less than half. A good majority of those have torso wounds.

I assumed you knew nothing about firearms because you spouted off a VERY uniformed statement about pistol and rifle calibers. Easy assumption to make when the one who spouted it off was wrong.

You still dont need a reason to exercise a right, you only need reasons to hamper them.

You still dont need a reason to exercise a right, you only need reasons to hamper them.

You still dont need a reason to exercise a right, you only need reasons to hamper them.

I know of not one gun store in any of the 50 states that asks you to list a reason for exercising your right. You can walk into a gun store and not even say a word but "How much is that one, I'll take it." is that a good enough reason? Cause it is for all 50 states.
i just gave you 3 reasons, stop being an ignorant dumbfuck. is it jsut me or do all cosnervatives believe if you repeat something enough it will be true. do you people live in fucking oz or something?

again, what the fuck is it with you gun nuts and the "I MUST HAVE A FUCKING UBER ASSAULT WEAPON OR IM NOT SAFE AHAHAHA IM FUCKING CRAZY AHAHA" people complaining that they cant get assault weaponry dont need ANY gun at all

Wooo, come back from the deep end partner. You get all worked up over someone having a right that you happen to disagree with. I have not challenged your drive of your dreams (I think you are very noble) I just challenge you to understand that here in America you dont need a reason to exercise a right, only need a reason to hamper them. Now once you find the good reasons (that you think should be followed) then present them the proper way via the proper channels. Otherwise its just a wish.

Actually, pistols are very poor in terms of defensive capabilities, and in reality are only appropriate for concealed/open carry and use in situations where a larger firearm would be cumbersome and inappropriate for individuals defense
oh, thats inane bullshit. a pistol can just as well kill a person or seriously wound them as a shotgun or do you suggest every robber or thug with a gun is heavily armored as well?


I could, of course go on and disassemble the 'justification clause' argument used by OurEarth and a few others, but they likely know the limitations of their argument, so the waste of time and space is unnecessary. Their proposed "simple" interpretation is a fallacy as a result of the restraints it would place on the rest of the amendments, and nothing more.
and you are making the extreme exceptions interpretation, everything should be legal because there is a 1 in a million chance that something will happen. um no thats not how it works. a normal rifle can do the job of an assault rifle, unless you are at war, and it would still work there assuming the opponent has a similar weapon. you only need an advanced a weapon as your opponent

Hoo boy....okay, back to research. How many individuals shot by police officers die? Less than half. A good majority of those have torso wounds.

I assumed you knew nothing about firearms because you spouted off a VERY uniformed statement about pistol and rifle calibers. Easy assumption to make when the one who spouted it off was wrong.
like i said already once, it depends WHERE you are shot. and i assume you have some sort of fact sheet to back your ass up

Wooo, come back from the deep end partner. You get all worked up over someone having a right that you happen to disagree with. I have not challenged your drive of your dreams (I think you are very noble) I just challenge you to understand that here in America you dont need a reason to exercise a right, only need a reason to hamper them. Now once you find the good reasons (that you think should be followed) then present them the proper way via the proper channels. Otherwise its just a wish.
i have presented the reason to hamper the rights. there is plenty enough reason in the fact an assault weapon is 10 times more dangerous than a normal weapon and can do more bodily harm to more people than a single weapon can is more than enough reason to continue there ban, i think i should go look up and relate to you the cause of the brady bill

Originally Posted by Faithfull-freedom
You still dont need a reason to exercise a right, you only need reasons to hamper them. You still dont need a reason to exercise a right, you only need reasons to hamper them. You still dont need a reason to exercise a right, you only need reasons to hamper them. I know of not one gun store in any of the 50 states that asks you to list a reason for exercising your right. You can walk into a gun store and not even say a word but "How much is that one, I'll take it." is that a good enough reason? Cause it is for all 50 states.

i just gave you 3 reasons, stop being an ignorant dumbfuck. is it jsut me or do all cosnervatives believe if you repeat something enough it will be true. do you people live in fucking oz or something?

What am I suppose to do with your reason? Write them down enough times and it becomes law? Do you not see how retarded you are making yourself out to be? If you think these are good enough reason to hamper a freedom then present them. Hurry you got less than 7 and 1/2 days now! :p

Amedment II, Billof Rights, United States Constitution

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 allows states to form a militia, and, I don't know why people miss this, but I'll make it nice and bold for you.

the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed

And if you are still not convinced....

United States Code

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > Sec. 311.


(a)

The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b)

The classes of the militia are -

(1)

the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2)

the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia


By the way, (2) is reffering to the United States male adult population not in active duty or in the National guard


In other words, there might have been a loophole (which there was not in this case -- there were in other areas, but not here), but according to United States code, if you are 17, a male, and a citizen, you have the right to own any kind of gun you choose.

Also, regulated means, in this case, to be properly trained. Which basically means that the states reserve the right to force National guard training on the populus, even though membership to the reserves is not cumpulsory.

THis code also allows the draft.

a single shot gun, other than a shotgun at long medium range, is far more efficient at the job of killing or maiming in any sense of the word
How so?
Ahem

Nonsense. The FBI made the switch from 9mm to 10mm in the 80's as a result of the lack of 'stopping power' produced by the 9mm. It resulted from a number of specific instances which I can outline if you desire. Later they moved again to the .40 S&W, as a result of complaints concerning the recoil of the 10mm.

If you research further one can also extrapolate from braod statistics that the chance of being killed by a center-mass *toros* shot from a handgun is roughly 14%; this compares to a nearly 80% chance coming from a twelve gauge. This information can be verified using a simple google search, or if you prefer real books; it can be found in "Understanding Violence".

Additionally, if single-shot weapons were truly more 'efficient' and we really must extrapolate this to mean successful in engaging targets, and not simply mean ammunition conservation, then the military would still be making greater use of them. One need only look at the PSG-1 to view a semi-automatic rifle capable of sub MOA at 600 meters +.

again, what the fuck is it with you gun nuts and the "I MUST HAVE A FUCKING UBER ASSAULT WEAPON OR IM NOT SAFE AHAHAHA IM FUCKING CRAZY AHAHA" people complaining that they cant get assault weaponry dont need ANY gun at all




i honestly hope you die by an M4 round, in all honesty. i hope every gun nut fighting for the destruction of the bradley law dies by a round from a previously banned weapon.

Your consistant flaming is quite annoying, really.

First off, you openly wished for people who wish or do own an assault rifle to die, which is flaming and a terroristic threat, and in my country, can get you arrested, and here, can get you banned.

Second, your consistant insulting of those who differ from your opinion is uncalled for, childish, and immature.

And I see you do it a lot.

Now, I'm not going to bother to report you to the mods just yet, but, if enough people get fed up with you (or I get REALLY mad), I will.

Nonsense. The FBI made the switch from 9mm to 10mm in the 80's as a result of the lack of 'stopping power' produced by the 9mm. It resulted from a number of specific instances which I can outline if you desire. Later they moved again to the .40 S&W, as a result of complaints concerning the recoil of the 10mm. If you research further one can also extrapolate from braod statistics that the chance of being killed by a center-mass *toros* shot from a handgun is roughly 14%; this compares to a nearly 80% chance coming from a twelve gauge. This information can be verified using a simple google search, or if you prefer real books; it can be found in "Understanding Violence". Additionally, if single-shot weapons were truly more 'efficient' and we really must extrapolate this to mean successful in engaging targets, and not simply mean ammunition conservation, then the military would still be making greater use of them. One need only look at the PSG-1 to view a semi-automatic rifle capable of sub MOA at 600 meters +.

Exactly, also as someone else has pointed out. Handguns are not used as a primary defensive home weapon in most cases, a shotgun is. Handguns are usualy utilized by means of being comfortable to carry (ccw,chl,ect..) or open carry where a rifle is not sufficient. This is what the law allows and obviously endorses from having over 35 states with ccw (especially shall issue) laws and few with no requirements at all. So as a *right* you can have that shotgun for defensive measures inside the home, carry that handgun outside the home or buy any weapon including that assualt weapon solely because it is a right and you do not need reasons to exercise a right, only to hamper them.

http://members.aol.com/Falconnn/Brady.html
http://www.guncite.com/bradybilljun22.html
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/faqs/?page=awb

not every gun is semi automatic, he said he wouldnt want you having a semi+ automatic gun, you are not a trained individual and in no way need a gun like that which is designed for the purpose of fighting and killing, that, however, in no way limits you ability to buy rifles, muskets, shotguns, revolvers, and non semi auto handgun

Do you even know what a semi-automatic firearm is? FYI, there's a big difference between semi and fully-auto firearms. Yes, I am a trained individual. Stop assuming you know anything about me. You're scared to death of a piece of metal. It's rather pathetic.

because assault weapons have been banned for some time until now

Technically, there is no such thing as an 'assualt' weapon. That is a term fabricated by the anti-gun elite. It doesn't exist. They also continually change its 'definition.' However, by their current definition, 'assualt' weapons acount for less than .02% of gun crime. Full-auto firearms have been banned since their creation. You cannot legally own a fully-automatic rifle. Moreover, no criminal wants to own a fully-auto rifle. It's expensive, it's inaccurate, it's bulky, and it attracts unwanted attention......

i dont think your paying attention to the point

I understood his/her point, but I was correct him/her....

Me!

Ahem
i explained it in the post if you would learn to read

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/faqs/?page=awb

You DQ'd yourself as soon as you posted that link as a credible source.....

Run a Google on gunfacts.info.....

Me!

i explained it in the post if you would learn to read

Irrelevant ad-hominem. Stop attacking people....

Me!

Nonsense. The FBI made the switch from 9mm to 10mm in the 80's as a result of the lack of 'stopping power' produced by the 9mm. It resulted from a number of specific instances which I can outline if you desire. Later they moved again to the .40 S&W, as a result of complaints concerning the recoil of the 10mm.

If you research further one can also extrapolate from braod statistics that the chance of being killed by a center-mass *toros* shot from a handgun is roughly 14%; this compares to a nearly 80% chance coming from a twelve gauge. This information can be verified using a simple google search, or if you prefer real books; it can be found in "Understanding Violence".

Additionally, if single-shot weapons were truly more 'efficient' and we really must extrapolate this to mean successful in engaging targets, and not simply mean ammunition conservation, then the military would still be making greater use of them. One need only look at the PSG-1 to view a semi-automatic rifle capable of sub MOA at 600 meters +.
protecting yourselves from thugs and robbers is not the army, i dont think you crazy gun nuts understand that simple fact. you are not engaging with the vietcong or the nazis or the red army. you are protecting yourself from some person with a brain sadly smaller than yours who is trying to take something or other from you. you need nothing larger than that which can wound said person severely.

So, which assertion on the Brady sites would you like to see mangled first? Having read through the brady resources previously; I can honestly say that they seek only to inspire fear and assert a lack of understanding of their own legislation.

In truth, all the upcoming sunset of the assault weapon ban is going to permit gun owners to do is purchase substandard shoddy firearms like the tec 9 at still-inflated prices, pay less than 100.00 dollars for full-capacity clips for handguns, and put a folding stock on long guns for convenience sake.

Your consistant flaming is quite annoying, really.

First off, you openly wished for people who wish or do own an assault rifle to die, which is flaming and a terroristic threat, and in my country, can get you arrested, and here, can get you banned.

Second, your consistant insulting of those who differ from your opinion is uncalled for, childish, and immature.

And I see you do it a lot.

Now, I'm not going to bother to report you to the mods just yet, but, if enough people get fed up with you (or I get REALLY mad), I will.
i see no reason why people who argue for anarchy should not be told anarchy will kill them. maybe wishing it on them is too much, but im tired of the stupidity

protecting yourselves from thugs and robbers is not the army, i dont think you crazy gun nuts understand that simple fact. you are not engaging with the vietcong or the nazis or the red army. you are protecting yourself from some person with a brain sadly smaller than yours who is trying to take something or other from you. you need nothing larger than that which can wound said person severely.

Stop with the ad-hom's for God's sake. Debate civilly or don't debate at all....moreover, if someone is going to break into my house, I want that person dead....not injured......

Me!

http://members.aol.com/Falconnn/Brady.html
http://www.guncite.com/bradybilljun22.html
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/faqs/?page=awb

Now present this information via the proper channels to achieve you desired outcome. Presenting an opinion to any of us is no different than us presenting ours to you (Except we dont go wild ape shit and all crazy over your views even when your view is an attempt of hampering one of our rights, we still treat *you* with respect). Have a good day dude, I gots to go do some gardening.

protecting yourselves from thugs and robbers is not the army, i dont think you crazy gun nuts understand that simple fact. you are not engaging with the vietcong or the nazis or the red army. you are protecting yourself from some person with a brain sadly smaller than yours who is trying to take something or other from you. you need nothing larger than that which can wound said person severely.

If I believed personal anecdotes would somehow make reality sink in for you; then I would ask you to visit the gravestone of somehow who meant a great deal to me, and suggest the same thing to them. However, as stated, stories of a personal nature, much like the hyperbole used by you, have nothing to do with the issue at hand. All they do is encourage an emotional response.

Do you even know what a semi-automatic firearm is? FYI, there's a big difference between semi and fully-auto firearms. Yes, I am a trained individual. Stop assuming you know anything about me. You're scared to death of a piece of metal. It's rather pathetic.
you assume all people are trained in the use of the fire arm in their home. stop assuming that because you are everyone else is. sccared of a piece of metal? im scared of idiots like YOU who would use said piece of metal to kill or wound me or some one else.
semi-automatic: a weapon that will automatically reload a round into the chamber after being fired
full atuomatic: a weapon that will fire continuously as long as the trigger is suppressed
and then there are guns that automatically fire a 3 round burst at a single squeeze of the trigger



Technically, there is no such thing as an 'assualt' weapon. That is a term fabricated by the anti-gun elite. It doesn't exist. They also continually change its 'definition.' However, by their current definition, 'assualt' weapons acount for less than .02% of gun crime. Full-auto firearms have been banned since their creation. You cannot legally own a fully-automatic rifle. Moreover, no criminal wants to own a fully-auto rifle. It's expensive, it's inaccurate, it's bulky, and it attracts unwanted attention......
bullshit. everyone but the NRA gun nuts admit there is such a thing as an assault weapon. and of course they count as less than .02% of gun crime. THEY HAVE BEEN BANNED FOR 10 DAMN YEARS, some longer than that. if you intent is to kill people and nothing more, an assault weapon is the your best choice, crimes of passion and mental instability are facilitated quite nicely by fully automatic weapons

You DQ'd yourself as soon as you posted that link as a credible source.....

Run a Google on gunfacts.info.....

Me!
rofl, it provides the fact for its passing and what it entails basic facts disqualify no one, only in the minds of the blind do facts disqualify people

Irrelevant ad-hominem. Stop attacking people....

Me!
it is completely relevant seeing as how i explained it in the post he is quoting

NO, that is Bullshit, as you so vehemently claim. I've had an SAR-1 Romanian AK sitting in my bedroom for the last three years; a good SEVEN years after your ban took effect. The ban did NOTHING to affect the vast majority of firearms labeled, incorrectly i might add, as 'Assault Weapons'. There has been NO decrease in the numbers of said rifles available and a no increase in price, outside of inflation, on the majority of rifles. Sure, you can't purchase a POS tec 9 or a Galil *oops, that was the 80's ban on imports, nevermind*, but the average citizen has MOST CERTAINLY been able to purchase AR-clones, AK-variants, and so forth for the last ten years. YET, they still account for very little crime.

What gets me is that the Feinstein groups have actually got you, and people like you, believing that 'assault' weapons are suddenly going to POP into existence, spinning around in the center of the street like some GTA leftover. The rifles they and you are so afraid of ARE out there, and HAVE been out there for a long time. And 99.99 % of them are used ONLY in lawful pursuits.

Now present this information via the proper channels to achieve you desired outcome. Presenting an opinion to any of us is no different than us presenting ours to you (Except we dont go wild ape shit and all crazy over your views even when your view is an attempt of hampering one of our rights, we still treat *you* with respect). Have a good day dude, I gots to go do some gardening.
for the love of god, are you dyslexic? read the sites, they give simple stated facts if you read through them. stated numbers are facts, not opinion.

i explained it in the post if you would learn to read
You did no such thing :rolleyes:

crimes of passion and mental instability are facilitated quite nicely by fully automatic weapons

Oh please, stop with the scare-tactic nonsense. The AWB has NOTHING to do with automatic weapons. The legislation affecting the ownership of automatics, and it is quite legal given the proper tax stamps and forms are filled out, was established in 1936 *initial control act* and 1986 *control forbidding future registration of automatics*, and is NOT likely to be overturned anytime soon.

and also, whoever gave me the gunwhatever.fino thing, you jsut DQ'd YOURSELF by providing an NRA link, thanks for playing hypocrite

i see no reason why people who argue for anarchy should not be told anarchy will kill them. maybe wishing it on them is too much, but im tired of the stupidity

Even if you do wish it upon them, keep it to yourself. For your own sake.

Also, I support repealing the Assault Weapons Ban, but I am a strong Nationalist and support government.

I know I'm not an anarchist.

I also know having an assault weapon would be fun for target practice. I am a responsible, intelligent, and MORAL human being, though (and a hunter), so I know not to shoot someone unless my life is threatened.

BUT, if you need an assault weapon to hunt, your aim is total shit, and you shouldn't hunt.

I use pump shotguns for birds, and usually bolt action for deer. Then again, I can shoot a pump faster than most can shoot a semiauto shotgun.

rofl, it provides the fact for its passing and what it entails basic facts disqualify no one, only in the minds of the blind do facts disqualify people

I just want you to be fair to yourself by not making bland statements that you do not follow but expect others to. Like the fact that you do not need a reason to exercise a right but only reasons to hamper them. The assualt weapons ban was a reason that hampered them (you must not of got that). Now that right is going to be free from that hampering in less than 7 and 1/2 days. Present your facts to the correct people, but I must advise you to try to hold your cool together long enough otherwise nobody wants to hear what you have to say.

Oh please, stop with the scare-tactic nonsense. The AWB does NOTHING to automatic weapons. The legislation affecting the ownership, and it is quite legal given the proper tax stamps and forms are filled out, was established in 1936 and 1986, and is NOT likely to be overturned anytime soon.
the AWB prevents the FURTHER production and importation of fully automatic weapons and certain handguns. so despite what you like to believe, more WOULD pop into existance when it is removed sicne their manufacture and importation would be legal. and crimes of passion are quite well facilitated by things like fulyl automatic weapons by the general destruction and damage they can cause.

you assume all people are trained in the use of the fire arm in their home. stop assuming that because you are everyone else is. sccared of a piece of metal? im scared of idiots like YOU who would use said piece of metal to kill or wound me or some one else.

Again, stop with the ad-hominems. They're not needed. Stop calling people who have and are defeating you in this debate 'idiots' and the like. It only makes you look like a child....

It does not take extensive training to own, operate, and maintain a firearm for recreational or self-defense use. Why do you consider so many people to be unintelligent?

Secondly, answer me this. Because I own many firearms, does that mean I'm going to kill someone?


bullshit. everyone but the NRA gun nuts admit there is such a thing as an assault weapon. and of course they count as less than .02% of gun crime. THEY HAVE BEEN BANNED FOR 10 DAMN YEARS, some longer than that. if you intent is to kill people and nothing more, an assault weapon is the your best choice, crimes of passion and mental instability are facilitated quite nicely by fully automatic weapons

Again, read gunfacts.info's e-book, v3.3........according to the anti-gunners, an 'assault weapon' is a "short, compact weapon that fires a round of intermeidate power in between the power of a sub-machine gun and a rifle cartridge." That is the definition of a machine gun, something along the lines of an M-60.....

No sane person would ever use a full-auto weapon for a crime. They'd use either a pistol, revolver, or a shotgun. All three of those are easy to conceal and do not attract a hundredth of the attention of, say, an M-16A2 or AK-47 would......

rofl, it provides the fact for its passing and what it entails basic facts disqualify no one, only in the minds of the blind do facts disqualify people

This sentence doesn't even make any sense. It's unreadable....

it is completely relevant seeing as how i explained it in the post he is quoting

Obviously, you do not know what an ad-hominem is.....

Me!

Even if you do wish it upon them, keep it to yourself. For your own sake.

Also, I support repealing the Assault Weapons Ban, but I am a strong Nationalist and support government.

I know I'm not an anarchist.

I also know having an assault weapon would be fun for target practice. I am a responsible, intelligent, and MORAL human being, though (and a hunter), so I know not to shoot someone unless my life is threatened.

BUT, if you need an assault weapon to hunt, your aim is total shit, and you shouldn't hunt.

I use pump shotguns for birds, and usually bolt action for deer. Then again, I can shoot a pump faster than most can shoot a semiauto shotgun.

you think it would be fun for target practice... that is you whole reason for owning one? that very statement puts me in doubt you are a responsible gun owner

and also, whoever gave me the gunwhatever.fino thing, you jsut DQ'd YOURSELF by providing an NRA link, thanks for playing hypocrite

Wow, I didn't know the FBI merged into the NRA......

Me!

Another point......few hunters would ever use an 'assault weapon,' as it is defined by the Brady Bill -- for hunting......

Me!

the AWB prevents the FURTHER production and importation of fully automatic weapons and certain handguns. so despite what you like to believe, more WOULD pop into existance when it is removed sicne their manufacture and importation would be legal. and crimes of passion are quite well facilitated by things like fulyl automatic weapons by the general destruction and damage they can cause.

You are WRONG. The Assaut weapons ban has NO effect on automatics. Regulations regarding automatics were established in the years I listed. the '94 ban effects only certain mostly-cosmetic features on rifles, the maximum capacity of newly manufactured handgun magazines, and the manufacture of a handful of specific firearms; NONE of which were fully automatic. If you wish to argue please site sources for you information.

If you wish to argue please site sources for you information.

Oh he/she will....and the source will be Sarah Brady's homepage.....

Me!

you think it would be fun for target practice... that is you whole reason for owning one? that very statement puts me in doubt you are a responsible gun owner

Hell yes, I think it WOULD be fun for target practice. I'm also a collector. Defence, yes, but I live in a relatively quiet neighboorhood.

And why do you say that you have doubts because I enjoy shredding things with bullets when I'm bored? THe thing I'm shooting is not living, why the hell do you care?


Also, I just have an intrest in firearms and pyrotechnics. The technology, the physics, and the fun!

Just because I find joy in shooting a target with an automatic weapon does not mean that I'm irrisponsible.

If you care at all you can find the ACTUAL text of the legislation here

http://www.awbansunset.com/history.html

of if you want a more official source try: http://thomas.loc.gov/

Hell yes, I think it WOULD be fun for target practice. I'm also a collector. Defence, yes, but I live in a relatively quiet neighboorhood.

And why do you say that you have doubts because I enjoy shredding things with bullets when I'm bored? THe thing I'm shooting is not living, why the hell do you care?


Also, I just have an intrest in firearms and pyrotechnics. The technology, the physics, and the fun!

Just because I find joy in shooting a target with an automatic weapon does not mean that I'm irrisponsible.

You and I sound like we have a bit in common.... ;)

Me!

Again, read gunfacts.info's e-book, v3.3........according to the anti-gunners, an 'assault weapon' is a "short, compact weapon that fires a round of intermeidate power in between the power of a sub-machine gun and a rifle cartridge." That is the definition of a machine gun, something along the lines of an M-60.....
no i will not read that, it proves my point. i will not read shit touted by the NRA

the definition of a machine gun is a la the bureau of justice
"Any weapon that shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily reloaded to shoot automatically more than one shot without without manual reloading by a single function of the trigger."
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/guic.pdf
i have no idea where you got that definition, it isnt on the BRADY website, you know the one ABOUT THE BILL. good job quoting the NRA

now we consult the brady website.
semi-automatic guns without the assault weapons features are not banned.

here is what the BRADY website says

Q: What is the difference between semi-automatic hunting rifles and semi-automatic assault weapons?

A: Sporting rifles and assault weapons are two distinct classes of firearms. While semi-automatic hunting rifles are designed to be fired from the shoulder and depend upon the accuracy of a precisely aimed projectile, semi-automatic assault weapons are designed to maximize lethal effects through a rapid rate of fire. Assault weapons are designed to be spray-fired from the hip, and because of their design, a shooter can maintain control of the weapon even while firing many rounds in rapid succession.


Q: What are the provisions of the ban?

A: On September 13, 1994, domestic gun manufacturers were required to stop production of semi-automatic assault weapons and ammunition clips holding more than 10 rounds except for military or police use.






No sane person would ever use a full-auto weapon for a crime. They'd use either a pistol, revolver, or a shotgun. All three of those are easy to conceal and do not attract a hundredth of the attention of, say, an M-16A2 or AK-47 would......
WE HAVE A WINNER.
no SANE person would use a full-auto weapon, that, however does not stop all of the mentally UNSTABLE people or people committing CRIMES OF PASSION from using full automatic weapons. OR people pulling major crimes that would require the use of heavy weaponry.

Oh he/she will....and the source will be Sarah Brady's homepage.....

Me!
well lets see, im talkngi about the brady bill. who should i consult about the bill's contents? the brady website? or the NRA? hmm.. decisions decisions, i think i will go to the brady website

Wow, I didn't know the FBI merged into the NRA......

Me!
i will not read shit the NRA touts instead of the bill website itself

no i will not read that, it proves my point. Guy Smith works for the N. R. A.

By refusing to read gunfacts.info, you completely discredit yourself with your rabid refusal to see the other side of this debate....

i have no idea where you got that definition, it isnt on the BRADY website, you know the one ABOUT THE BILL. good job quoting the NRA

I did not quote the National Rifle Association. I quoted the FBI. You have this inane idea that anyone who is pro-gun (pro-fact) works for the NRA......

You can quote Sarah Brady all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that you and her are both wrong......


WE HAVE A WINNER.
no SANE person would use a full-auto weapon, that, however does not stop all of the mentally UNSTABLE people or people committing CRIMES OF PASSION from using full automatic weapons. OR people pulling major crimes that would require the use of heavy weaponry.

Mentally unstable people are prohibited from buying firearms. Case closed....

Me!

well lets see, im talkngi about the brady bill. who should i consult about the bill's contents? the brady website? or the NRA? hmm.. decisions decisions, i think i will go to the brady website

Well, that went right over your head. No rational person can claim that Sarah Brady's website is unbias.....

Me!

Hey, news for everyone. Read the second amendment carefully. The government has the right to regulate whatever firearms it damn well pleases.

According to Thomas Jefferson, the "well-regulated" militia refers to the citizens' ability to resist the established military in the event of tyranny. However, one must also acknowledge that the weapons available today are beyond the imagination of the Founding Fathers. Do we err on the side of protecting ourselves against tyranny, or protecting ourselves against a society that no longer regards responsibility as vital?

It's easy to be zealous about the issue, but it is a complicated question.

It is fair to note that the Constitution is not an absolute document. As Thomas Paine wrote and I'm paraphrasing here, no generation has the right to impose a social contract upon the next - as society changes, so too must the rules we live by. Do we still NEED the Second Amendment? It's a question worth asking.

you have a flaw.

NO WEAPON IS DESIGNED TO BE EVER FIRED AT ANY TIME FROM THE HIP.


EVER.


EVER.


And, to emphisize the point again...

NO WEAPON IS DESIGNED TO BE EVER FIRED AT ANY TIME FROM THE HIP.


EVER.

Anyone that DOES fire from the hip is a complete moron.

By refusing to read gunfacts.info, you completely discredit yourself with your rabid refusal to see the other side of this debate....
this coming from the person who said i disqualified myself solely for providing the brady bill website?



I did not quote the National Rifle Association. I quoted the FBI. You have this inane idea that anyone who is pro-gun (pro-fact) works for the NRA......

You can quote Sarah Brady all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that you and her are both wrong......
touted by NRA, all i need to know. oh yes, facts are facts, ignore opinions all you like, just look at the facts the site provides



Mentally unstable people are prohibited from buying firearms. Case closed....

Me!
wow, really you wouldnt have thought that, you know with the brady bill implementing the 7 day wait period and background checks and all the people shooting up places for firing them

I'm sorry, you're losing me. What EXACTLY do the semi-automatic weapons covered by the foolish AWB have to do with Automatics? I'll tell you; NOTHING.

You have been twisted about by rhetoric. Look, these are all perfectly legal rifles that you or I could walk into a store tomorrow and purchase, regardless of the AWB.

http://www.gunbroker.com/auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=22706832

http://www.gunbroker.com/auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=22698404

Oh, and they have some nice ones; http://www.atlanticfirearms.com/

Now, admit it, the AWB has done nothing to decrease the number of semi-automatic weapons with clips exceeding 10 rounds in circulation.

Well, that went right over your head. No rational person can claim that Sarah Brady's website is unbias.....

Me!
i will claim that portion of the page is as unbias as Guy Smith's, have you even opened it?

this coming from the person who said i disqualified myself solely for providing the brady bill website?

Again, no rational person (which completely excludes you) would ever dare think that Sarah Brady's website is unbias.....

touted by NRA, all i need to know. oh yes, facts are facts, ignore opinions all you like, just look at the facts the site provides

God damn, you're impossible to reason with. Open up your brain and pull out all mention of the NRA. My sources are not the National Rifle Association.....to you, anyone who is pro-gun is "an NRA nutcase."


wow, really you wouldnt have thought that, you know with the brady bill implementing the 7 day wait period and background checks and all the people shooting up places for firing them

Please clean up your English. Run your post through MS Word. That's unreadable.....

Me!

Anyone that DOES fire from the hip is a complete moron.

Shhhh!, I make money selling reloaded brass to the bump-firing guys at the range. Don't tip them off ;)

you have a flaw.

NO WEAPON IS DESIGNED TO BE EVER FIRED AT ANY TIME FROM THE HIP.


EVER.


EVER.


And, to emphisize the point again...

NO WEAPON IS DESIGNED TO BE EVER FIRED AT ANY TIME FROM THE HIP.


EVER.

Anyone that DOES fire from the hip is a complete moron.
fair enough, but there are guns that can be fired without aim from the shoulder, most of the reason you cant fire from the hip is aim and kick

i will claim that portion of the page is unbias, have you even opened it?

Then you're more far-gone than I imagined......you're beyond any hope....facts about guns bounce right off you....you're worse than my Senator, Carl Levin.....

Me!

fair enough, but there are guns that can be fired without aim from the shoulder, most of the reason you cant fire from the hip is aim and kick

Only an idiot would fire from the hip. It's a pointless waste of ammunition, not to mention horribly inaccurate.....

Me!

fair enough, but there are guns that can be fired without aim from the shoulder, most of the reason you cant fire from the hip is aim and kick

Never tried firing an AK from the hip have you? Try to tap out rapid bursts and you'll be lucky to keep your shots out of the dirt. Of course, I can fire my K98 from the hip too, but it kind of defeats purpose; what with not using the iron sites and all.

I'm sorry, you're losing me. What EXACTLY do the semi-automatic weapons covered by the foolish AWB have to do with Automatics? I'll tell you; NOTHING.

You have been twisted about by rhetoric. Look, these are all perfectly legal rifles that you or I could walk into a store tomorrow and purchase, regardless of the AWB.

http://www.gunbroker.com/auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=22706832

http://www.gunbroker.com/auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=22698404

Oh, and they have some nice ones; http://www.atlanticfirearms.com/

Now, admit it, the AWB has done nothing to decrease the number of semi-automatic weapons with clips exceeding 10 rounds in circulation.let me find the site with the pictures and explanations..
http://www.ont.com/users/kolya/AR15/aw94.htm

Then you're more far-gone than I imagined......you're beyond any hope....facts about guns bounce right off you....you're worse than my Senator, Carl Levin.....

Me!
its as unbias as quoting gun statistics 4 years after the ban was put in place

Only an idiot would fire from the hip. It's a pointless waste of ammunition, not to mention horribly inaccurate.....

Me!
that doesnt really matter provided it is an automatic weapon now does it..

its as unbias as quoting gun statistics 4 years after the ban was put in place

Have you read GunFacts.info's e-book, v3.3....yes or no?

Me!

Yeah, that's a really good site; it outlines perfectly how the AWB effects primarily cosmetic features on firearms, and how the 1936 'machine gun act' is the law responsible for effecting Automatic weapons. Now, what I'm confused about is how you could read all of that and still have such an arse-backwards understanding of the law.

Never tried firing an AK from the hip have you? Try to tap out rapid bursts and you'll be lucky to keep your shots out of the dirt. Of course, I can fire my K98 from the hip too, but it kind of defeats purpose; what with not using the iron sites and all.
i jsut said kick and aim... there are guns that can be fired from the hip, heavy RIFLES are not one

Have you read GunFacts.info's e-book, v3.3....yes or no?

Me!
i got to quoting gun statistics from 4 years after the ban and realised it was jsut going to be twisted fact and pro-gun bullshit

also, people, take into account there are other things the brady bill does, most of it being the limitation of the sale of handguns and such to the MENTALLY USNTABLE AND FELONS

that doesnt really matter provided it is an automatic weapon now does it..

Answer me this: Have you ever fired a firearm before? Doesn't matter what make, model, company, caliber....have you ever fired a gun before?

Firing from the hip is not only dangerous and stupid, it's inaccurate beyond explanation. Especially with a full-auto firearm. You'd be shooting the ground instantly (as opposed to shooting the sky when you're holding it to your shoulder). Fully-automatic weapons are incredibly hard to keep steady, hence why most have bi or tri-pods....which is why the M-16 fires a three-round burst....it's more accurate........

Me!

that doesnt really matter provided it is an automatic weapon now does it.

Yes, it does; you don't want to use all your bullets and NOT hit anything do you? Plus, just how many clips do you want to have to carry? Actually, have you seen the men on TV? You know the ones running around in the desert? Have you noticed that they hold their guns, the really automatic ones on their shoulders to fire?

Not that it's a good comparison since they have select fire autos, and the AWB deals with Semi-automatics ONLY.

also, people, take into account there are other things the brady bill does, most of it being the limitation of the sale of handguns and such to the MENTALLY USNTABLE AND FELONS

Ok; so are we talking about the Brady bill or the Assault weapons ban? Because they are two VERY different pieces of legilsation. The Brady Bill is NOT going to sunset, however the AWB sunsets in 8 days.

Firing from the hip is not only dangerous and stupid, it's inaccurate beyond explanation. Especially with a full-auto firearm. You'd be shooting the ground instantly (as opposed to shooting the sky when you're holding it to your shoulder). Fully-automatic weapons are incredibly hard to keep steady, hence why most have bi or tri-pods....which is why the M-16 fires a three-round burst....it's more accurate........

Me!
trained and prepared you CAN fire a pistol from the hip with ludicrous accuracy

also the BAR
http://www.jodavidsmeyer.com/combat/military/weapons-BAR.html
http://www.vpc.org/studies/hosethree.htm
http://www.hndlink.org/weapons.htm
and anyone other auto put on a sling

I'm almost impressed; you did a little bit of reading. Hip firing with a pistol IS certainly possible; of course most people that are good at it, spend several thousand rounds *and as a result several hundred dollars* a week getting good at it, and it is unfortunately a skill which declines without use; so you have to keep the practice up.

The BAR was an excellent rifle, and there are some trick shooters which are good with it and other firearms; however we're not talking about individuals who have spent hundreds of hours training now are we? We were talking about individuals suffereing from severe dementia and psychotic outbreaks weren't we? Personally, I'd much rather one deranged individual take potshots with an AK under his arm while I'm in the room; than have a single marine climb a tower with a rifle....That ring any bells; because it should.

fair enough, but there are guns that can be fired without aim from the shoulder, most of the reason you cant fire from the hip is aim and kick

And accuracy.

And accuracy.
...aim.

I'm almost impressed; you did a little bit of reading. Hip firing with a pistol IS certainly possible; of course most people that are good at it, spend several thousand rounds *and as a result several hundred dollars* a week getting good at it, and it is unfortunately a skill which declines without use; so you have to keep the practice up.

The BAR was an excellent rifle, and there are some trick shooters which are good with it and other firearms; however we're not talking about individuals who have spent hundreds of hours training now are we? We were talking about individuals suffereing from severe dementia and psychotic outbreaks weren't we? Personally, I'd much rather one deranged individual take potshots with an AK under his arm while I'm in the room; than have a single marine climb a tower with a rifle....That ring any bells; because it should.
On January 17, 1989, Patrick Purdy killed 5 small children, and wounded 29 others and 1 teacher at the Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton, California, using a semi-automatic version of the AK-47 assault rifle imported from China. That weapon had been purchased from a gun dealer in Oregon and was equipped with a 75-round "drum" magazine. Purdy shot 106 rounds in less than 2 minutes.[4]

The pretty tight gun controls here in CANADA allows us to leave our homes' doors unbarred at day.

No stress with guns = less of a physical burden = live longer (better nerves).

In the end, it's all a matter of mentality. The matter is clear, just make it an habit not to own a gun, and no one will want a gun. After all, it's not a real need, since my own family does live without it.

Strange how people get high for their old habits.

I regret that I was not better able to assist you in your understanding of firearms and their relation to us Chess Squares. You have been misled by some of the propaganda surrounding the Assault Weapons Ban and other legislation, but that isn't to say that there isn't mindless rhetoric on both sides. However, I hope that you recognize that the criminal acts must be dealt with individually, and the perpetraitors rather than the items involved held responsible.

For every instance of criminal firearm use you can find; there are ten where a firearm is used in a lawful defensive matter. Having been involved personally in such a situation I recognize them as both tools for protection and instruments of recreation.

I have to leave now, and make my way to work, but I hope you have changed your views at least a little, and recognize the responsible nature of most gun owners and on some level at least accept the fact that we're not psychotic and that merely 'looking mean' doesn't make a gun into an automatic military weapon.

Oh, and should you ever find yourself behind the stock of a firearm with a barrel shroud; do yourself a favor, and ignore the Brady site. The shroud will NOT protect you from serious burns following continuous fire.

Have a nice evening.

I regret that I was not better able to assist you in your understanding of firearms and their relation to us Chess Squares. You have been misled by some of the propaganda surrounding the Assault Weapons Ban and other legislation, but that isn't to say that there isn't mindless rhetoric on both sides. However, I hope that you recognize that the criminal acts must be dealt with individually, and the perpetraitors rather than the items involved held responsible.

For every instance of criminal firearm use you can find; there are ten where a firearm is used in a lawful defensive matter. Having been involved personally in such a situation I recognize them as both tools for protection and instruments of recreation.

I have to leave now, and make my way to work, but I hope you have changed your views at least a little, and recognize the responsible nature of most gun owners and on some level at least accept the fact that we're not psychotic and that merely 'looking mean' doesn't make a gun into an automatic military weapon.

Oh, and should you ever find yourself behind the stock of a firearm with a barrel shroud; do yourself a favor, and ignore the Brady site. The shroud will NOT protect you from serious burns following continuous fire.

Have a nice evening.
i had already reasoned out my position on guns before ever reading the assault weapons ban, its fairly simple logic

and did you read the site with the pictures? it explains which are banned and which arnt and why

On January 17, 1989, Patrick Purdy killed 5 small children, and wounded 29 others and 1 teacher at the Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton, California, using a semi-automatic version of the AK-47 assault rifle imported from China. That weapon had been purchased from a gun dealer in Oregon and was equipped with a 75-round "drum" magazine. Purdy shot 106 rounds in less than 2 minutes.[4]

Aww, crap gotta answer this one first. If he'd had your average hunting rifle; say a .308 bolt, and fired from a prone position it would have been ALOT worse. 106 rounds in two minutes, with five kills and 30 injuries; not exactly what can be considered accurate.

http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html

Here is a link to some examples of firearms being used to thwart robberies, or otherwise defend ones self.

Tycoony; I hope you and your family can continue to live peacefully without intrustion by elements intending you harm. And that you never have need of a firearm to defend your life or theirs. But when the situation presented itself to me; I was greatful that I was able to secure my own life and that of my loved ones.

But do you really think the gun control has anything to do with the peaceful environment? Do you think that a criminal element would really feel the need to obey your gun laws?

I'm so going to be late for work. Yes, I read the site and even posted a response; did you miss it?

It was nothing new to me; I'm very familiar with the ban and how little it actually does. But then, I have more than a passing familiiarity with firearms.

Chess Squares, you didn't answer my question.....see below....

Answer me this: Have you ever fired a firearm before? Doesn't matter what make, model, company, caliber....have you ever fired a gun before?


Me!

...aim.

Aiming is impossible when firing from the hip.

Unless you have a correctly calibrated laser pointer. But, because of the lack of control, the laser sight won't do jack shit.

I dont feel the Governemnt has the right to ban any type of small arm from law abiding citizens(and yes I know exactly what falls under the term small arms, and I still mean it).

Why stop with small arms? Surely, the constitiutional right to bear arms should allow access to anti-tank weapons and surface-to-air missiles? After all, it was put into the constitution primarily to protect the citizens from foreign invasion or a corrupt dictatorship coming into power.

How are you going to defned against APCs, MBTs and ground attack aircraft with an M16?

Obviously, you should be allowed to own landmines, mortars and grenade launchers too. And flamethrowers, in case the "enemy" dig tunnels underground.

Why stop there? Private citizens should have access to tanks, APCs, attack choppers, jet fighters - heck, why not even a nuke or two, just to be sure.

Just so I can keep up with the gun nut tradition

7 days 3 hours 35 minutes

Why stop with small arms? Surely, the constitiutional right to bear arms should allow access to anti-tank weapons and surface-to-air missiles? After all, it was put into the constitution primarily to protect the citizens from foreign invasion or a corrupt dictatorship coming into power. How are you going to defned against APCs, MBTs and ground attack aircraft with an M16?
Obviously, you should be allowed to own landmines, mortars and grenade launchers too. And flamethrowers, in case the "enemy" dig tunnels underground. Why stop there? Private citizens should have access to tanks, APCs, attack choppers, jet fighters - heck, why not even a nuke or two, just to be sure.

Do you not understand the concept of freedom either? Freedoms and rights are inherant in this country and Privaledges are earned.

Every right exists without reason, but a reason must be presented in order to limit that right. The assualt weapons ban was nothing more than a limit on a freedom, just as the limitations on obtaining certain weaponry that you have spoken of. All the way down to (if it was possible) if we were limited to only owning a 6 shot revolver. So as it stands right now in *reality* our freedom with the second ammendment allows you to own any assualt weapon created before 94 on the list, and now in 7 days 3 hours 28 minutes you will have the *right* to own all that you were missing out on in the last 10 years as far as the list goes. Now who is to say that a year or 10 years from now we have another assualt weapons ban. Then our freedom has become a bit less free is all.

Tycoony; I hope you and your family can continue to live peacefully without intrustion by elements intending you harm. And that you never have need of a firearm to defend your life or theirs. But when the situation presented itself to me; I was greatful that I was able to secure my own life and that of my loved ones.

But do you really think the gun control has anything to do with the peaceful environment? Do you think that a criminal element would really feel the need to obey your gun laws?

I think 3 words are enough here. Laws are enforced.
The "situation" wouldn't have "presented to you" hadn't the "elements intending your harm" had a gun in their possession. Would it? If "your" laws were properly (and I insist, PROPERLY) enforced, like throughout the country's borderlines and the key weaponry distribution spots, you'd certainly not have needed a gun to defend yourself, since you wouldn't have had to defend yourself at all.

Why stop with small arms? Surely, the constitiutional right to bear arms should allow access to anti-tank weapons and surface-to-air missiles? After all, it was put into the constitution primarily to protect the citizens from foreign invasion or a corrupt dictatorship coming into power.

How are you going to defned against APCs, MBTs and ground attack aircraft with an M16?

Obviously, you should be allowed to own landmines, mortars and grenade launchers too. And flamethrowers, in case the "enemy" dig tunnels underground.

Why stop there? Private citizens should have access to tanks, APCs, attack choppers, jet fighters - heck, why not even a nuke or two, just to be sure.

Wow. The slippery slope argument... :headbang: :headbang:

It has been proven false everywhere. Dont' start here -- it'll just piss more people off.

Aww, crap gotta answer this one first. If he'd had your average hunting rifle; say a .308 bolt, and fired from a prone position it would have been ALOT worse. 106 rounds in two minutes, with five kills and 30 injuries; not exactly what can be considered accurate.

http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html

Here is a link to some examples of firearms being used to thwart robberies, or otherwise defend ones self.

Tycoony; I hope you and your family can continue to live peacefully without intrustion by elements intending you harm. And that you never have need of a firearm to defend your life or theirs. But when the situation presented itself to me; I was greatful that I was able to secure my own life and that of my loved ones.

But do you really think the gun control has anything to do with the peaceful environment? Do you think that a criminal element would really feel the need to obey your gun laws?
how many crimes of passion are committed by a trained fire arms expert with a rifle?

Chess Squares, you didn't answer my question.....see below....



Me!
yes

Do you not understand the concept of freedom either? Freedoms and rights are inherant in this country and Privaledges are earned.

Every right exists without reason, but a reason must be presented in order to limit that right. The assualt weapons ban was nothing more than a limit on a freedom, just as the limitations on obtaining certain weaponry that you have spoken of. All the way down to (if it was possible) if we were limited to only owning a 6 shot revolver. So as it stands right now in *reality* our freedom with the second ammendment allows you to own any assualt weapon created before 94 on the list, and now in 7 days 3 hours 28 minutes you will have the *right* to own all that you were missing out on in the last 10 years as far as the list goes. Now who is to say that a year or 10 years from now we have another assualt weapons ban. Then our freedom has become a bit less free is all.
freedoms are limited. do your research before being an uneducated ass

If "your" laws were properly (and I insist, PROPERLY) enforced,

Our laws are properly enforced, if you have a problem with a law change it. As it stands now it is completly up to the states on how much restriction they put forth on the private citizen of thier state. The assualt weapon ban did nothing as far as one law abiding citizen buying a firearm from another law abiding citizen without creating a record of it ever happening (to protect privacy). You still can put an ad in the paper and say AK-47 for sale and the first person to show up with the required cash has themselve a nice shiny AK-47 (no background check, no questions asked unless the owner of that tool wants to do a background check or ask any questions). I think this could be a mistake having so much faith in imperfect man, but on the flip side its something we should all strive for. This is the law of our land, if you dont like it change it. Remember please, that rights exist without reason, but it takes a reason to limit that right. :)

And besides. You don't need a semi-automatic to hunt.

No.. but it would be useful if your holding back a tyrannical government that went bad. The citizens must be able to defend themselves against the governemt in a worse case scenerio.

freedoms are limited. do your research before being an uneducated ass

*Freedoms* are only limited when you bring *reason* enough to limit that Freedom through the proper channels of our government. That means that a freedom(right) exists without reason (the burden of proof is on you to limit it) so you must have a reason to limit that freedom. Please son, have an education before making your ass sound like a 2 tooth hillbilly moron.

"Duh, I told ya so."

Chess what you do not understand is you are not just dealing with gun nuts (or the specified nut for whatever freedom people try to restrict) when you take up arms against someones freedom or right. You are going after every freedom loving American that does not have bias towards our rights.

I personally am just as much of a believer in an Americans right to gay rights (even though I find it utterly disgusting I still support a fair shake by a vote of your state) and also a womans right to choose (even though I find this also utterly disgusting). It really makes no difference to me what so ever if I agree with the right or freedom in any way or another. I will fight for everyones right's and freedoms especially when I do not agree with them, because history has shown me that those that are usualy in the minority of the opposition are in need of the most support for thier freedom.

You could defiently say that this country is biased toward the very freedoms and rights that exist in it today. They really do shift the burden onto the people that want restriction. I will die believing that this is the best way to deal with our freedoms. Because it is what the American people want.

Chess what you do not understand is you are not just dealing with gun nuts (or the specified nut for whatever freedom people try to restrict) when you take up arms against someones freedom or right. You are going after every freedom loving American that does not have bias towards our rights.

I personally am just as much of a believer in an Americans right to gay rights (even though I find it utterly disgusting I still support a fair shake by a vote of your state) and also a womans right to choose (even though I find this also utterly disgusting). It really makes no difference to me what so ever if I agree with the right or freedom in any way or another. I will fight for everyones right's and freedoms especially when I do not agree with them, because history has shown me that those that are usualy in the minority of the opposition are in need of the most support for thier freedom.

You could defiently say that this country is biased toward the very freedoms and rights that exist in it today. They really do shift the burden onto the people that want restriction. I will die believing that this is the best way to deal with our freedoms. Because it is what the American people want.
im taking up arms against peoples rights?

i do believe all i have said its that the ordinary citizen should not have access to military issue weapons unless they are in a trained organization: militia, national guard, police, etc.

and freedoms are LIMITED to what is sensible. military weapons for everyone is not sensible

I believe registration and strict monitoring of AUTOMATIC weapons should be done, but everything else is fair game, except for one thing:

If you were ever convicted of a felony or violence with a deadly weapon, you may never own a gun as long as you live.

im taking up arms against peoples rights? i do believe all i have said its that the ordinary citizen should not have access to military issue weapons unless they are in a trained organization: militia, national guard, police, etc.
and freedoms are LIMITED to what is sensible. military weapons for everyone is not sensible

If you want to limit a right that is in place (even ones that you think are stupid). That is your opinion and there are a million to match in defense any amount you can throw out. Currently under our freedoms you can own and have access to the weapons that you want to limit, so you are trying to take away a current right. Sensibility from you is not the same as the next person, do you not understand that what you see as being unreasonable ,someone else will see as being very reasonable (all under the law, opinions are not universal dude). So it still falls on you to provide the proof and need to limit a current right.

I am just saying that you should try to take an approach that is more nuetral otherwise people do not listen to what you have to say. If you do not believe me ask any person in here. If I am talking to someone that is already biased on a issue that I have any reservations or wants of understanding then what this person says wont hold to much truth to me. That person forces an intelligent person to find out what the truth is instead of taking some dumb ass biased punk that wants to push thier view onto someone else. I see you no different than a religous wacko that wants to push thier religion when you try to say simply that because I would not choose to own a assualt weapon then you shall not have the ability to even make a decision for yourselve. Because I think it is not sensible to have an abortion then you shall not even have a right to make up your own mind. Sound familiar? Thats you just on the flip side freedom hater. lol :)

If you want to limit a right that is in place (even ones that you think are stupid). That is your opinion and thier are a million to match in defense any amount you can throw out. Currently under our freedoms you can own and have access to the weapons that you want to limit, so you are trying to take away a current right. Sensibility from you is not the same as the next person, do you not understand that what you see as being unreasonable ,someone else will see as being very reasonable (all under the law, opinions are not universal dude). So it still falls on you to provide the proof and need to limit a current right.

I am just saying that you should try to take an approach that is more nuetral otherwise people do not listen to what you have to say. If you do not believe me ask any person in here. If I am talking to someone that is already biased on a issue that I have any reservations or wants of understanding then what this person says wont hold to much truth to me. That person forces an intelligent person to find out what the truth is instead of taking some dumb ass biased punk that wants to push thier view onto someone else. I see you no different than a religous wacko that wants to push thier religion when you try to say simply that because I would not choose to own a assualt weapon then you shall not have the ability to even make a decision for yourselve. Because I think it is not sensible to have an abortion then you shall not even have a right to make up your own mind. Sound familiar? Thats you just on the flip side freedom hater. lol :)
im tired of this, ill just ignore you too

Wow. The slippery slope argument... :headbang: :headbang:

It has been proven false everywhere. Dont' start here -- it'll just piss more people off.

Can I see where it's been proven false? Some evidence?

Anyway, my point wasn't actually "slippery slope", if anything it was "backwards slope" - i.e. what the public can get their hands on is already more than what they need for any (IMHO) reasonable purposes.

Anyway, my point wasn't actually "slippery slope", if anything it was "backwards slope"


Completly man, this is the 'common sense' that we need from both sides. If we could all agree on a uniform aproach either through the states or in a federal light then we would both possbily be able to get what we want.

If we just realize that if we start off with any freedom with no restrictions what so ever, through out time we will decide how much to restrict and how much to allow. Obviously ICBM's and all those crazy toys are left to country's to deal with thier ego's. The small arms are something that each society needs to embrace with some knowledge from both ends and a common resolve. Other wise we just have these constant pissing matches by saying 'my side is better' blah blah blah with the same old rhetoric from the both of us. I agree we need to look at certain freedom's at certain times and decide as a generation (restrict that restriction to a decision from each generation though) what we would like and not like out of concerns for ourselves and each fellow American.

Well, I'm all for responsible, regulated gun ownership.

To me the most relevant issues are:

1. Do the general public genuinely need to own semi- or full-auto firearms?
2. Is home defence really a legitimate reason to own a gun?
3. How thorough should the registration process be?
4. What regulations should be in place regarding gun storage?
5. On what basis should someone be disallowed form owning any firearms?

I'll give my own (brief) opinion on each -

1. No. For hunting and target shooting purposes, bolt action or double-barrelled weapons are sufficient. IMHO, these are the only two legitimate reasons for owning a gun (outside of security personnel, farmers or other occupations that require it). If you want to get your rocks off blasting away on full/semi auto (and I'll be the first to admit, this IS a lot of fun), regulated firing ranges could be set up where you hire a gun on site, and return it when finished.
2. No. If you don't feel safe in your own home without a gun, something is seriously f****ed up in your society. Instead of demanding to own an AK, you should be demanding more of your police force (and/or more police) and more of your government in terms of welfare and rehabilitation programs. If you still feel unsafe - buy a guard dog; fit your home with deadlocks and security shutters; get an alarm system.
3. Registration should be required for all guns - no one should own a gun that is not registered. Personally, I'd like to see ballistics records kept for all registered guns, and for gun license applications to be accompanied by a basic psyche evalutation.
4. Guns kept at home should be kept in a locked gun safe - to keep them out of the reach of children, and to help keep them out of the hands of potential thieves. Also, to help prevent rage killings i.e. husband comes home and finds wife in bed with the milkman. (see also my answer for number 2)
5. Anyone with a (violent) criminal history, and/or history of serious mental illness should be disallowed.

I know this will make me unpopular with many, but these are just my opinions.

5. Anyone with a (violent) criminal history, and/or history of serious mental illness should be disallowed.

Isn't this already in effect?

Well its dove season now which mean me and all my buddies our gettin our shotguns (SEMIauto and pump) of our walls and headin out to the field to get some dove. I

Isn't this already in effect?

Quite possibly - I'm not sure if it's uniform accross all states.

I see the "YES" side has picked up momentum. I am surprised that it is almost 50/50. Keep talking!!

If you think about it, people only have guns to:

A. Hunt animals (moderately acceptable and performed throughout history)

B. Defend themselves against other people with guns (if no one had guns, kind of self-defeating)

C. Defend themselves against a tyrannical government. (Meant to mean 'England' during the revolution, but NRA hicks have come to think that their own elected government will oppress them with guns. Wtf?)

Personally, I enjoy an occasional airsofting (safe pellet guns) with my friends in the park, but have no desire to own a real short-barreled shotgun. Where I live, gun crime is an exceptional low, and I happen to help keep it that way.

Well, I'm all for responsible, regulated gun ownership.

To me the most relevant issues are:

1. Do the general public genuinely need to own semi- or full-auto firearms?
2. Is home defence really a legitimate reason to own a gun?
3. How thorough should the registration process be?
4. What regulations should be in place regarding gun storage?
5. On what basis should someone be disallowed form owning any firearms?

I'll give my own (brief) opinion on each -

1. No. For hunting and target shooting purposes, bolt action or double-barrelled weapons are sufficient. IMHO, these are the only two legitimate reasons for owning a gun (outside of security personnel, farmers or other occupations that require it). If you want to get your rocks off blasting away on full/semi auto (and I'll be the first to admit, this IS a lot of fun), regulated firing ranges could be set up where you hire a gun on site, and return it when finished.
2. No. If you don't feel safe in your own home without a gun, something is seriously f****ed up in your society. Instead of demanding to own an AK, you should be demanding more of your police force (and/or more police) and more of your government in terms of welfare and rehabilitation programs. If you still feel unsafe - buy a guard dog; fit your home with deadlocks and security shutters; get an alarm system.
3. Registration should be required for all guns - no one should own a gun that is not registered. Personally, I'd like to see ballistics records kept for all registered guns, and for gun license applications to be accompanied by a basic psyche evalutation.
4. Guns kept at home should be kept in a locked gun safe - to keep them out of the reach of children, and to help keep them out of the hands of potential thieves. Also, to help prevent rage killings i.e. husband comes home and finds wife in bed with the milkman. (see also my answer for number 2)
5. Anyone with a (violent) criminal history, and/or history of serious mental illness should be disallowed.

I know this will make me unpopular with many, but these are just my opinions.
All sounds very reasonable to me.
For home defence a shot gun is better than any other weapon anyway. as many American homes are not the brick or stone we are used to in the UK one of the possible issues with other waepons for home defence is the chance of killing or injuring some one outside unconnected with the incident. Uless you let people use glacer other other high energy transfer ropunds. Also you don't have to be too accurate with a shot gun if the chokes are removed. and it is a sure way of telling the guy down stairs that you do have a weapon when you chamber a round in your pump action shotgun. But really unless you are in the middle of the bush I don't see why you should have a weapon for home defence.

Well, I'm all for responsible, regulated gun ownership.

To me the most relevant issues are:

1. Do the general public genuinely need to own semi- or full-auto firearms?
2. Is home defence really a legitimate reason to own a gun?
3. How thorough should the registration process be?
4. What regulations should be in place regarding gun storage?
5. On what basis should someone be disallowed form owning any firearms?

I'll give my own (brief) opinion on each -

1. No. For hunting and target shooting purposes, bolt action or double-barrelled weapons are sufficient. IMHO, these are the only two legitimate reasons for owning a gun (outside of security personnel, farmers or other occupations that require it). If you want to get your rocks off blasting away on full/semi auto (and I'll be the first to admit, this IS a lot of fun), regulated firing ranges could be set up where you hire a gun on site, and return it when finished.
2. No. If you don't feel safe in your own home without a gun, something is seriously f****ed up in your society. Instead of demanding to own an AK, you should be demanding more of your police force (and/or more police) and more of your government in terms of welfare and rehabilitation programs. If you still feel unsafe - buy a guard dog; fit your home with deadlocks and security shutters; get an alarm system.
3. Registration should be required for all guns - no one should own a gun that is not registered. Personally, I'd like to see ballistics records kept for all registered guns, and for gun license applications to be accompanied by a basic psyche evalutation.
4. Guns kept at home should be kept in a locked gun safe - to keep them out of the reach of children, and to help keep them out of the hands of potential thieves. Also, to help prevent rage killings i.e. husband comes home and finds wife in bed with the milkman. (see also my answer for number 2)
5. Anyone with a (violent) criminal history, and/or history of serious mental illness should be disallowed.

I know this will make me unpopular with many, but these are just my opinions.

Hey, cool. That's exactly how things are regulated in germany, and just look on the statistics it works quite well for everyone, I don't have to lock my door at night, I don't need to be afraid of some wacko's shooting me on a MCDonalds because I have the wrong looks and most importantly 9 of 10 psychopaths can't get their hands on guns because its just difficult to get one.

:cool: Yes, I definitely feel saver with that regulations. And besides I don't want to live in a country where kids can buy shotguns AND ammunition in a supermarket as soon as they're 16, just to rob the booze shop or local gas station for some bottles of beer...

The problem a lot of people seem to have is realising America is NOT the only country in the world where people can own firearms- New Zealand, for example, has a ridiculously low Murder Rate, yet it's still perfectly legal to own an AK-47 or an AR-15 for Hunting. Hell, you could own a semi-auto only Lewis Gun if you wanted to.

Australia, on the other hand, has strict gun laws and comparatively high rates of gun crime.

IMO, all Gun Control does is piss off legitimate firearms users, cost the public lots of money, and fail to keep guns out of the hands of Criminals.

are you that stupid or is it my imagination, lets analyze what you said
you called the FACT that guns are designed for the specific intent of causing death or bodily harm crap.. yeah your pretty damn stupid.
A CAR IS MADE TO DELIVER A PERSON FROM POINT A TO POINT B. guns are SPECIFICALLY designed for the killing and/or injuring of a person or animal.


Please tell me how a .22 bolt action single shot rifle is designed to kill?

Guns are made for all kinds of purposes. Stop being so damn stupid.


and non lethal round are still mean to injure a person, not as severely as a hard bullet, but they will be signicantly bruised for a while. and those are recent developments, guns are designed and created to kill. period, except reality


Except reality? Yeah, you are right, except for in reality.

Call me stupid and you can't even write english?


guns are DESIGNED TO KILLL. anything else you do with them is coincidental. guess what, HUNTING IS KILLING. clay shooting and other target shooting is ultimately training for the act of hunting or killing something.


Hahahah!

Funny, the .22's down at my local range have done a hell of a lot of punching holes in paper and haven't killed anyone. Neither have the people firing them.

Oh, by the way, are Bows and Arrows and Archery just as evil as guns?

Paintball? The shotput? Javelin?

The are all teaching you to cast a projectile, so they must be training you to kill, right?

And a baseball bat is just as "designed to kill" than a target rifle.

A bat is designed to hit a ball, a target rifle is designed to shoot targets. Misused, both cause death.

Craig

Why does the UK have so much less gun crime than the US?Let me think...

for the love of god, are you dyslexic? read the sites, they give simple stated facts if you read through them. stated numbers are facts, not opinion.

Yeah....the Bradys giving out facts. Right. They include 24 year olds in their CHILDREN stats.

They most certainly do NOT use facts.

Why does the UK have so much less gun crime than the US?Let me think...

If it's not guns it WILL be something else. Violence doesn't stop just because you change the weapon.

Please tell me how a .22 bolt action single shot rifle is designed to kill?

Guns are made for all kinds of purposes. Stop being so damn stupid.



Except reality? Yeah, you are right, except for in reality.

Call me stupid and you can't even write english?



Hahahah!

Funny, the .22's down at my local range have done a hell of a lot of punching holes in paper and haven't killed anyone. Neither have the people firing them.

Oh, by the way, are Bows and Arrows and Archery just as evil as guns?

Paintball? The shotput? Javelin?

The are all teaching you to cast a projectile, so they must be training you to kill, right?

And a baseball bat is just as "designed to kill" than a target rifle.

A bat is designed to hit a ball, a target rifle is designed to shoot targets. Misused, both cause death.

Craig


Craig, don't waste your breath (or in this case finger motions). It's obvious that Chessy is a kid who is either in, or just got out of college, has zero life experience, and has been just hammered with false facts and lies, to the point that s/he sucked it all in and believed it.

S/He knows nothing about guns, and will absolutely refuse to look at any other side, other than his/her own. Maybe in time, s/he might see that there are two sides, and come around. Maybe not.

All I know is ten years ago I was spouting the same anti-gun rhetoric. It wasn't until I got older that I started to look around, stopped assuming I knew everything just because I read some things, and realized that what all my professors INTERPRETATIONAL AGENDA (yeah, that's exactly what it is) told me wasn't necessarily true.

For someone who wants to argue, Chessy has some real issues keeping the conversation civil, to maintain the other half of the argument. Then again, it is an age-old leftist method of "winning". When the over-emotional, under-statted argument fails to sway anyone, start attacking the other person verbally (or outright violence), and they'll drop out, leaving the defacto "winner", supposedly.

Chess: You still have a helluva lot to learn about trying to spread your opinion.

I feel that a semi-automatic rifle is a perfectly reasonable hunting rifle. Why ban it? Most criminals prefer handguns. The last I heard, they didn't require gun safety classes for any gun sale, so perhaps they should think about doing that instead of banning them. Maybe they should film gunshot victims in the emergency room, to drive the idea home, that if you get shot, this is what you'll go through. If you shoot someone, this is what they'll go through. Think about it before you take the safety off.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lott/lott30.html

Anti-gun nuts love to talk about the comparison between the UK and the US, so let's compare them....

"Crime was not supposed to rise after handguns were banned in 1997. Yet, since 1996 the serious violent crime rate has soared by 69%: robbery is up by 45% and murders up by 54%. Before the law, armed robberies had fallen by 50% from 1993 to 1997, but as soon as handguns were banned the robbery rate shot back up, almost back to their 1993 levels.

The 2000 International Crime Victimization Survey, the last survey done, shows the violent-crime rate in England and Wales was twice the rate in the U.S. When the new survey for 2004 comes out, that gap will undoubtedly have widened even further as crimes reported to British police have since soared by 35%, while declining 6% in the U.S."

Remember, guns don't kill people, rappas do.

I remember hearing a story about Ronnie Kray's (London gangster) funeral. I guess a police officer was speaking to one of the gangsters present, and told him that the difference between the two of them was that he had a gun. The gangster smiled sweetly, and pointed out that the difference was that the policeman's gun was legal.

i think that ALL semi and full auto weapons should be banned. Single shot rifles only.. that way we could prevent a large scale massacre like that at columbine and many other schools and even homes. I do not think the public can be trusted with any semi or rapid fire weapons as proven time and time again as the death toll rises all over the world day by day as individual citizens shoot eachother for numerouse reasons ranging from accidents to blind rage, to insanity. Of couse a gun may fall into the hands of a sensible person but we are refering to how many people could be killed with a semi-auto weapon in the hands of a maniac, 0 kills for sensible, 10 kills for insane- it doesnt balance. In my opinion guns should be kept by the military and police.. the public can access them at ranges or designated fields, private controlled shooting/hunting clubs and not to own one individually or especially not to keep it at home. i am not saying this to be bias at all for those who are hateing the words i am writing. First of all i love guns! I own two rifles, one semi auto and the other bolt action, i go airsofting regularly and am always interested in the new foreign design of guns. I am willing to give both of them up in a second if someone offered to place more legal restrictions on gun laws, and take guns out of public hands (including my own). Remeber, if everyone disarms there is not much to fear by the way of gun related crime. Other countries already have and in many places gun crime is practically non existant, as the world's only hyperpower, the united states, set an example to the rest of the world and disarm the citizens.

Ha ha. I looked at the forum and saw that there was a post on this thread by a guy called "Europeanunion" and without knowing anything else about him thought "I bet this dude wants to ban all guns". Sure enough....

Did you read the article I posted? Of course you didn't. You were too busy telling people how long their dog's tails should be to worry about something as irrelevant as the actual facts about gun crime....

Hahahah!

Funny, the .22's down at my local range have done a hell of a lot of punching holes in paper and haven't killed anyone. Neither have the people firing them.

Oh, by the way, are Bows and Arrows and Archery just as evil as guns?

Paintball? The shotput? Javelin?

The are all teaching you to cast a projectile, so they must be training you to kill, right?

And a baseball bat is just as "designed to kill" than a target rifle.

A bat is designed to hit a ball, a target rifle is designed to shoot targets. Misused, both cause death.

Craig


Arrows, like javeline, as the particularity to stop the blood when shot on or in someone/something(if the projectile stays in the body) so it's less dommageable than bullets.

Except for Legolas, bows can't kill ten men in 2 secondes, guns can.

Baseball bats don't have a range, guns does, so it's ten time more dangerous. I'v been hit by a baseball bat and it barely stuns.

Columbine would never have happened if the students were armed with bows, javelines, and baseball bats.

Bear

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lott/lott30.html

Anti-gun nuts love to talk about the comparison between the UK and the US, so let's compare them....

"Crime was not supposed to rise after handguns were banned in 1997. Yet, since 1996 the serious violent crime rate has soared by 69%: robbery is up by 45% and murders up by 54%. Before the law, armed robberies had fallen by 50% from 1993 to 1997, but as soon as handguns were banned the robbery rate shot back up, almost back to their 1993 levels.

The 2000 International Crime Victimization Survey, the last survey done, shows the violent-crime rate in England and Wales was twice the rate in the U.S. When the new survey for 2004 comes out, that gap will undoubtedly have widened even further as crimes reported to British police have since soared by 35%, while declining 6% in the U.S."

Remember, guns don't kill people, rappas do.

We can make say statistics almost every thing. For example, some reporter of Canada played with them so the Canada, who was 23th in medals rank, made us 2th, playing with numbers.

Voila!

statistics are interesting but problematic.

example (made up).. crime rose by 6 percent in england and dropped by 6 per cent in the united stated.. england is far smaller than the united states and has far fewer people and there are very few guns circulateing compared to the united states. that means england crime rate has risen meaning only about 1000 more cases yet in the united states if crime had risen the same 6 per cent then that would brobably mean 7,000 new cases which is still about 6000 more than the UK (made up statistics but you know what example i am trying to make). the crime rate in the united states is far far higher in the united states anyway due to many more factors than britain so there may be 100,000 cases in NYC and would have dropped and the 30,000 crime rate in london may have risen meaning that the united states and its gun related crimes is still far higher than britain.

i am taking both sides here if you don't relise that but i'm pointing out that these types of statistics are innacurate and cannot be compared properly unless both nations are practically clones of eachother in every respect from the same number of people to the number of circulating firearms. beware of statistics

I agree. But there are examples where the nations are virtually clones of each other. For example, the UK just before and just after our local mafia (govt) banned handguns resulting in a rise in violent crime. There are many similar stories from other countries. One thing to remember isn't to ask about "gun crime" but all violent crime in general. Banning guns might well decrease gun crime but lead to an increase in general violent crime (knifings, muggings etc, and especially rape).

Please tell me how a .22 bolt action single shot rifle is designed to kill?

Guns are made for all kinds of purposes. Stop being so damn stupid.

guns are designed to WOUND or KILL, stop being stupid please
tell me the purpose of a .22 bolt action rifle

small game hunting, can be used for target practice as well. seeing as how i HAVE killed something with a .22 that means they are designed to kill

and again, even a PAINTBALL gun can wound some one, stop being stupid gun nuts people. reality is there, just look at it.




Except reality? Yeah, you are right, except for in reality.

Call me stupid and you can't even write english?
yeah, your pretty stupid



Hahahah!

Funny, the .22's down at my local range have done a hell of a lot of punching holes in paper and haven't killed anyone. Neither have the people firing them.
go stand down range and have some one aim at you, see if you die or are wounded when shot.


Oh, by the way, are Bows and Arrows and Archery just as evil as guns?
bows are designed to kill, as per the invention of guns they are mainly used in games of skill, but there ARE bow hunting seasons, if you shoot an arrow at some one, they are injured. despite what you dumbfucks thing, people will die or be injured if shot by an arrow or a bullet. just because people arnt being shot at in gun ranges doesnt mean the guns arnt dangerous, how fucking stupid are you people?

Paintball? The shotput? Javelin?

The are all teaching you to cast a projectile, so they must be training you to kill, right?

A bat is designed to hit a ball, a target rifle is designed to shoot targets. Misused, both cause death.

Craig
name one rifle designed to shoot targets only. the design of all guns is to move a projectile through the air to a target. a human being can be a target. and "target rifles" are small game rifles.

Yeah....the Bradys giving out facts. Right. They include 24 year olds in their CHILDREN stats.

They most certainly do NOT use facts.
go to the doctor, see what is the oldest you can see a pediatrician

and you are claiming the guy smith person is using facts? he is quoting stats FOUR YEARS after the assault weapons ban, yeah i do suppse the nubmer of deaths by assault weapon wouldve dropped by then

Craig, don't waste your breath (or in this case finger motions). It's obvious that Chessy is a kid who is either in, or just got out of college, has zero life experience, and has been just hammered with false facts and lies, to the point that s/he sucked it all in and believed it.

S/He knows nothing about guns, and will absolutely refuse to look at any other side, other than his/her own. Maybe in time, s/he might see that there are two sides, and come around. Maybe not.

All I know is ten years ago I was spouting the same anti-gun rhetoric. It wasn't until I got older that I started to look around, stopped assuming I knew everything just because I read some things, and realized that what all my professors INTERPRETATIONAL AGENDA (yeah, that's exactly what it is) told me wasn't necessarily true.

For someone who wants to argue, Chessy has some real issues keeping the conversation civil, to maintain the other half of the argument. Then again, it is an age-old leftist method of "winning". When the over-emotional, under-statted argument fails to sway anyone, start attacking the other person verbally (or outright violence), and they'll drop out, leaving the defacto "winner", supposedly.

Chess: You still have a helluva lot to learn about trying to spread your opinion.
its obvious im surrounded by simpletons who have no idea of the history and purpose of a gun, the bow and arrow, or any other WEAPON.

nor do they understand the reality of FACTS and the difference between facts and TWISTED facts

addition: didnt you just say you grew up and stopped assumgin you know everything? you might want to reread your bullshit post. the WHOLE of it is based around an ASSUMPTION of who i am that is wholly inaccurate

I feel that a semi-automatic rifle is a perfectly reasonable hunting rifle. Why ban it? Most criminals prefer handguns. The last I heard, they didn't require gun safety classes for any gun sale, so perhaps they should think about doing that instead of banning them. Maybe they should film gunshot victims in the emergency room, to drive the idea home, that if you get shot, this is what you'll go through. If you shoot someone, this is what they'll go through. Think about it before you take the safety off.
good luck getting all handguns banned, or even the glock alone

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lott/lott30.html

Anti-gun nuts love to talk about the comparison between the UK and the US, so let's compare them....

"Crime was not supposed to rise after handguns were banned in 1997. Yet, since 1996 the serious violent crime rate has soared by 69%: robbery is up by 45% and murders up by 54%. Before the law, armed robberies had fallen by 50% from 1993 to 1997, but as soon as handguns were banned the robbery rate shot back up, almost back to their 1993 levels.

The 2000 International Crime Victimization Survey, the last survey done, shows the violent-crime rate in England and Wales was twice the rate in the U.S. When the new survey for 2004 comes out, that gap will undoubtedly have widened even further as crimes reported to British police have since soared by 35%, while declining 6% in the U.S."

Remember, guns don't kill people, rappas do.
if you must quote facts quote .gov sites or non partisan statistics sites or i could care less

addition: international crime vicitmization survery based on telephone calls, not recorded information

I am an avid gun owner, carry a concealed weapon at all times, and have a class 3 machine gun liscence. I do believe my right to own firearms, being a law abiding citizen, is worth fighting for. Charlton Heston put it better than I ever could..."Cold Dead Hands.." No one is taking any of the 46 rifles or 19 handguns I own without a big fight.

So if there is a ban on handguns or semi-automatic weapons, look in the news. I swear I will make Ruby Ridge look like a insignificant scuffle. Federal, State, County, and City law enforcement officials will just have to stand by......

I am an avid gun owner, carry a concealed weapon at all times, and have a class 3 machine gun liscence. I do believe my right to own firearms, being a law abiding citizen, is worth fighting for. Charlton Heston put it better than I ever could..."Cold Dead Hands.." No one is taking any of the 46 rifles or 19 handguns I own without a big fight.

So if there is a ban on handguns or semi-automatic weapons, look in the news. I swear I will make Ruby Ridge look like a insignificant scuffle. Federal, State, County, and City law enforcement officials will just have to stand by......
i dont even have to try, you people just post and justify the case for the banning of guns

why is that?

Leave me and my rights alone, and I will leave well enough alone. Not that hard of a concept really, push me and I will push back (ten fold).

why is that?

Leave me and my rights alone, and I will leave well enough alone. Not that hard of a concept really, push me and I will push back (ten fold).
you are probably the oxymoron guy

i think that ALL semi and full auto weapons should be banned. Single shot rifles only.. that way we could prevent a large scale massacre like that at columbine and many other schools and even homes. I do not think the public can be trusted with any semi or rapid fire weapons as proven time and time again as the death toll rises all over the world day by day as individual citizens shoot eachother for numerouse reasons ranging from accidents to blind rage, to insanity. Of couse a gun may fall into the hands of a sensible person but we are refering to how many people could be killed with a semi-auto weapon in the hands of a maniac, 0 kills for sensible, 10 kills for insane- it doesnt balance. In my opinion guns should be kept by the military and police..

One using a semiauto is not going to cause a massacure because u can still only have so many bullets in the gun at one time, semiautos are not like full auto where you have a ling strand of bullets, you have a magazine. And disarming everyone would take the guns away from everyone but the criminals. If your protecting your family you can;t always wait for the police or the milatary to show up.