NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm against gun control. Banning guns will not solve any problems. Most gun owners are not criminals. Criminals will still get guns. Cocaine is illegal, marijuana too. I could buy either one off the street.

(carried over from previous thread)
Ah, but you assume that the only way to get a gun is to buy it legally. According to your logic I shouldn't be able to buy ecstasy anywhere because there isn't a legal supply. $20 says if I really wanted to I could find someone selling it. The problem literally ends up being that old cliche: If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them. They don't seem to have any problem aquiring them in chicago where guns are essentially illegal. Prohibition of any physical thing is almost a guarantee that the black market for it will grow in leaps and bounds.
that is a good point. however, making guns illegal will, you concede, result in fewer members of the law-abiding public having guns. Only criminals will have guns because they will be able to aquire them illegaly. That is the situation we have in the UK.
Why then does the USA have many times more gun-related deaths per 1000 (i forget the figures) than the UK? If only outlaws had guns in the UK, and the law abiding public can be trusted with guns in the US, this should mean that the figures would be roughly the same - in both countries only outlaws will be using guns and thus shooting each other to roughly the same degree?
This is not so.
Surely this means, therefore, that the "law-abiding public" who 'only use guns for legal purposes' are shooting the shit out of each other (to coin a phrase). I say again, if guns were illegal, people would not be able to shoot each other.

(carried over from previous thread)

that is a good point. however, making guns illegal will, you concede, result in fewer members of the law-abiding public having guns. Only criminals will have guns because they will be able to aquire them illegaly. That is the situation we have in the UK.
Why then does the USA have many times more gun-related deaths per 1000 (i forget the figures) than the UK? If only outlaws had guns in the UK, and the law abiding public can be trusted with guns in the US, this should mean that the figures would be roughly the same - in both countries only outlaws will be using guns and thus shooting each other to roughly the same degree?
This is not so.
Surely this means, therefore, that the "law-abiding public" who 'only use guns for legal purposes' are shooting the shit out of each other (to coin a phrase). I say again, if guns were illegal, people would not be able to shoot each other.
Let's remember that Canada has more guns per capita than the USA and they have a lower murder rate per capita. The guns aren't the problem. We US citizens just happen to be violent.

(carried over from previous thread)

that is a good point. however, making guns illegal will, you concede, result in fewer members of the law-abiding public having guns. Only criminals will have guns because they will be able to aquire them illegaly. That is the situation we have in the UK.
Why then does the USA have many times more gun-related deaths per 1000 (i forget the figures) than the UK? If only outlaws had guns in the UK, and the law abiding public can be trusted with guns in the US, this should mean that the figures would be roughly the same - in both countries only outlaws will be using guns and thus shooting each other to roughly the same degree?
This is not so.
Surely this means, therefore, that the "law-abiding public" who 'only use guns for legal purposes' are shooting the shit out of each other (to coin a phrase). I say again, if guns were illegal, people would not be able to shoot each other.

Americans are simply better murderers than the UK are. The UK has a higher crime rate than the U.S. in almost every catagory, at least according to this source : http://www.undcp.org/pdf/crime/seventh_survey/7pc.pdf

I think we should all voluntarily ban all weapons of all types.

But, will someone please explain to me why in states that have passed concealed carry permits that the number of justifiable homicides have gone up, but the overall violent crime rate is down significantly?

I think we should all voluntarily ban all weapons of all types.

But, will someone please explain to me why in states that have passed concealed carry permits that the number of justifiable homicides have gone up, but the overall violent crime rate is down significantly?
I won't voluntarily give up any of my weapons. As for the second part of your post, it seems the criminals are getting killed instead of being able to attack their victims at will.

Well, if people might be carrying a gun you are less likely to mug them for no reason because you hit them and they turn around and go :mp5:

Let's remember that Canada has more guns per capita than the USA and they have a lower murder rate per capita. The guns aren't the problem. We US citizens just happen to be violent.
ah. umm...
well you got me; beaten fair & square.

however i still say that if guns were illegal, and the only way to get them would be from the black market, this would put off your average person - just too much effort.
Im pretty sure I could find a gun for sale on the black market here in the UK, for example, but its too risky and too much of a pain in the arse.

Well, if people might be carrying a gun you are less likely to mug them for no reason because you hit them and they turn around and go :mp5:

and then it's turned into an even worse end result! if someone tries to mug you you can either beat the crap out of them or call for help to beat the crap out of them. you don't NEED to shoot them.

ah. umm...
well you got me; beaten fair & square.

however i still say that if guns were illegal, and the only way to get them would be from the black market, this would put off your average person - just too much effort.
Im pretty sure I could find a gun for sale on the black market here in the UK, for example, but its too risky and too much of a pain in the arse.
There are so many ways to kill people. Why ban one? People will just gravitate to the others.

and then it's turned into an even worse end result! if someone tries to mug you you can either beat the crap out of them or call for help to beat the crap out of them. you don't NEED to shoot them.
You do if you are weak and alone. Or if you are being mugged by a gang.

I won't voluntarily give up any of my weapons. As for the second part of your post, it seems the criminals are getting killed instead of being able to attack their victims at will.

Ya, think about that.

My point is we should not need weapons. We shouldn't need to have to defend ourselves from each other. We shouldn't have to be ready to kill one of our fellow members of society. The only weapons that should eventually 'need' to be produced should be target and hunting (I'm counting bows and crossbows as well). If everybody responded to every situation with loving kindness and compassion, then guns would just be an interesting paperweight.

Sadly this isn't so. :(

And if we were all peace loving people eventually some group would realize they can make these things called 'guns' and defeat all the people that don't have guns. Simple power hungry, technologically powerful tactics.

There are so many ways to kill people. Why ban one? People will just gravitate to the others.
Reportedly knife violence is up in UK (and they're banning those too.)

And if we were all peace loving people eventually some group would realize they can make these things called 'guns' and defeat all the people that don't have guns. Simple power hungry, technologically powerful tactics.

But if that group were people, then they would realize the sorrow and futility caused by violence. They would also realize that power is an illusion.

Ya, think about that.

My point is we should not need weapons. We shouldn't need to have to defend ourselves from each other. We shouldn't have to be ready to kill one of our fellow members of society. The only weapons that should eventually 'need' to be produced should be target and hunting (I'm counting bows and crossbows as well). If everybody responded to every situation with loving kindness and compassion, then guns would just be an interesting paperweight.

Sadly this isn't so. :(
holy crap dude! thats me all over!

I'm as pacifist as they come, but I don't see how banning guns will fix anything. Even pens can make pretty nasty weapon.

Reportedly knife violence is up in UK (and they're banning those too.)
Banning knives? That works so well in prisons.

But if that group were people, then they would realize the sorrow and futility caused by violence. They would also realize that power is an illusion.
this is the sort of stuff i was saying in that other marijuana thread a few days back - if everyone smoked pot then this would change people's attitudes, for the better - like how you have described

But if that group were people, then they would realize the sorrow and futility caused by violence. They would also realize that power is an illusion.
Maybe they would realize that they could frighten you into giving them whatever they want through the threat of violence.

Have you guys even ever shot a gun? DO you know how much fun it is? But anyways...

Americans are more violent then every other super power. So what?

The reason that the crime rate is going down in concealed carry states is obvious. Criminals are too scared to attack people because they dont know if they have a gun or not, so they are too scared to even try. Which is smart.

Fellas, lay off that old everyone is good crap! People are not good. We are for the most part a bunch of greedy selfish bastards. It aint gonna change, so get used to it.

im not for banning guns, i'm for increased gun safety and gun control. i just don't understand why some people feel that the bigger the gun they have the safer they are. plus it's 40 times more likely that you die accidentally by your own gun than using your gun to kill a home invader.

Let's remember that Canada has more guns per capita than the USA and they have a lower murder rate per capita. The guns aren't the problem. We US citizens just happen to be violent.

Are all US citizens violent or are there any specific groups that are more violent than others?

im not for banning guns, i'm for increased gun safety and gun control. i just don't understand why some people feel that the bigger the gun they have the safer they are. plus it's 40 times more likely that you die accidentally by your own gun than using your gun to kill a home invader.
That's a faulty statistic. It includes shootings ruled to be suicides, and it includes all the suicides that MEs label "accidental" to spare the family pain and guilt.

Let's remember that Canada has more guns per capita than the USA and they have a lower murder rate per capita. The guns aren't the problem. We US citizens just happen to be violent.
Actually if you take out purely inner city black on black killings and thtyen take out that portion of the population as well you would notice our firearm murder rate drops to be right around Canada's. The murder rate in the inner cities is disproportionate because of a social problem, and guns are basically outlawed in most of those areas anyway so gun control is rather silly.

Are all US citizens violent or are there any specific groups that are more violent than others?
I don't know. I would assume that it's just some groups. I know some people who woudn't hurt a fly. Then again I know some who would kill you as soon as look at you.

Have you guys even ever shot a gun? DO you know how much fun it is? But anyways...

Americans are more violent then every other super power. So what?

The reason that the crime rate is going down in concealed carry states is obvious. Criminals are too scared to attack people because they dont know if they have a gun or not, so they are too scared to even try. Which is smart.

Fellas, lay off that old everyone is good crap! People are not good. We are for the most part a bunch of greedy selfish bastards. It aint gonna change, so get used to it.

i wonder why were so violent with such pacifists like you. you have to put your own love of firing guns behind the fact that they tend to make our society a more hostile place.

Actually if you take out purely inner city black on black killings and thtyen take out that portion of the population as well you would notice our firearm murder rate drops to be right around Canada's. The murder rate in the inner cities is disproportionate because of a social problem, and guns are basically outlawed in most of those areas anyway so gun control is rather silly.
Kind of my point. We have social problems that the rest of the developed world don't have to deal with. That makes us violent.

That's a faulty statistic. It includes shootings ruled to be suicides, and it includes all the suicides that MEs label "accidental" to spare the family pain and guilt.

it does include that, but that doesn't account for the 40x difference.

Maybe they would realize that they could frighten you into giving them whatever they want through the threat of violence.

Don't you see? That if people stopped thinking of violence as an option, and if force is relegated to history, then wouldn't the implements of violence be naturally relegated to history as well?

i wonder why were so violent with such pacifists like you. you have to put your own love of firing guns behind the fact that they tend to make our society a more hostile place.
Guns make people hostile? That's hard to beleive. My best friend is one of the most hostile people I know. He actually managed to kick the crap out of one of the ushers at the last wedding we attended. He doesn't own a gun. Says if he did he'd end up shooting someone on the highway.

it does include that, but that doesn't account for the 40x difference.
Considering the relatively few accidental deaths by firearms, it probably accounts for a big percentage.

Guns make people hostile? That's hard to beleive. My best friend is one of the most hostile people I know. He actually managed to kick the crap out of one of the ushers at the last wedding we attended. He doesn't own a gun. Says if he did he'd end up shooting someone on the highway.

i didn't mean that guns make people hostile. the problem is hostile people getting guns.

Considering the relatively few accidental deaths by firearms, it probably accounts for a big percentage.

well it's still a hell of a lot more likely for someone to ACCIDENTALLY shoot themselves or a family member than shoot a home invader.

well it's still a hell of a lot more likely for someone to ACCIDENTALLY shoot themselves or a family member than shoot a home invader.
Owning a car makes you more likely to die in a car accident. So what.

Owning a car makes you more likely to die in a car accident. So what.

cars aren't made to kill things.

cars aren't made to kill things.
But they do. So what.

Guns make people hostile? That's hard to beleive. My best friend is one of the most hostile people I know. He actually managed to kick the crap out of one of the ushers at the last wedding we attended. He doesn't own a gun. Says if he did he'd end up shooting someone on the highway.

This one kinda sez it all, what? :D

This one kinda sez it all, what? :D
He's already purposely hit another car. They just couldn't prove it was intentional.

If you outlaw guns then only outlaws will have guns. It's true, I can go downtown right now and buy illegal firearms.

society would also pretty much stop without cars. civilians without guns on the other hand, that's a different story.

and your comparison is practically irrelevent since nobody actually TRIES to get into an accident.

if you outlaw guns then only outlaws kids will accidentally shoot themselves.

Regardless of how much we wish otherwise, the human population will always contain those who seek to take what they want by force. Some are common criminals, some run for public office. We need guns to protect ourselves from both varieties.

Regardless of how much we wish otherwise, the human population will always contain those who seek to take what they want by force. Some are common criminals, some run for public office. We need guns to protect ourselves from both varieties.

so are you saying you wish we didn't need guns?

society would also pretty much stop without cars.

Uh, no it wouldn't. As a matter of fact, in many places we would be better off without cars.

What I don't get is why so many people seem to be so opposed to some ideas that are just ment to make guns safer. A while ago someone here sugested having gun liscense like we have for cars and people went ape shit. Why is it such a bad thing to require thaat people show them selves capable of handling a gun before leting them have one. We do the samething with cars and no one bitches about that?

Uh, no it wouldn't. As a matter of fact, in many places we would be better off without cars.

where?

Do I wish the world were a completely peaceful place full of gum drops and rainbows? Sure, why not. But there will alway exist humans who will seek to take what they want by force. They have always existed, they exist now, and they will continue to exist. No amount of wishing or social engineering will change that. Given that, we need guns.

society would also pretty much stop without cars. civilians without guns on the other hand, that's a different story.

and your comparison is practically irrelevent since nobody actually TRIES to get into an accident.
Actually there have been a few cases of people running over their cheating spouses. Also, cars can be replaced with public transportation if people REALLY wanted to be safe.

Do I wish the world were a completely peaceful place full of gum drops and rainbows? Sure, why not. But there will alway exist humans who will seek to take what they want by force. They have always existed, they exist now, and they will continue to exist. No amount of wishing or social engineering will change that. Given that, we need guns.

thats what police are for. thats what the military is for. I AM NOT FOR BANNING GUNS I AM FOR IMPROVED GUN CONTROL.

society would also pretty much stop without cars. civilians without guns on the other hand, that's a different story.

and your comparison is practically irrelevent since nobody actually TRIES to get into an accident.
People in New York City get along just fine without driving.

thats what police are for. thats what the military is for. I AM NOT FOR BANNING GUNS I AM FOR IMPROVED GUN CONTROL.
Can the police be everywhere all the time?

i wonder why were so violent with such pacifists like you. you have to put your own love of firing guns behind the fact that they tend to make our society a more hostile place.

My dad is the biggest pro-2nd amendment with a large private collection of firearms. He is one of the kindest and biggest hearted people that I have met in society yet, and thats no exaguration.

Besides, there are about 80 million gun owners in America. If the government tried disarming that, good luck and good fight to every poor soldier and government official that chooses to disarm them. (PlEASE dont turn that last comment in a right vs. left war).

"What I don't get is why so many people seem to be so opposed to some ideas that are just ment to make guns safer. A while ago someone here sugested having gun liscense like we have for cars and people went ape shit. Why is it such a bad thing to require thaat people show them selves capable of handling a gun before leting them have one. We do the samething with cars and no one bitches about that?"

Because licenses can be revoked. Rights cannot. The ability to defend youself in the most efficient way available to you is a basic human right. Therefore a license to exercise a right is either unenforcible or immoral.

Actually there have been a few cases of people running over their cheating spouses. Also, cars can be replaced with public transportation if people REALLY wanted to be safe.

accidents are caused by people who don't understand the amount of power they have. the same reason why gun accidents happen. that's why we need more gun control.

Can the police be everywhere all the time?

http://www.jpfo.org/ That's a nice site tearing Gun Control down, with about 5-20 Failed 911 calls where it ended in a house breakin and murder. The Police can't be everywhere like someone above said.

accidents are caused by people who don't understand the amount of power they have. the same reason why gun accidents happen. that's why we need more gun control.
I was talking about people who intentionally ran over their cheating spouses.

I'm against gun control. Banning guns will not solve any problems. Most gun owners are not criminals. Criminals will still get guns. Cocaine is illegal, marijuana too. I could buy either one off the street.

Control != ban

My dad is the biggest pro-2nd amendment with a large private collection of firearms. He is one of the kindest and biggest hearted people that I have met in society yet, and thats no exaguration.

Besides, there are about 80 million gun owners in America. If the government tried disarming that, good luck and good fight to every poor soldier and government official that chooses to disarm them. (PlEASE dont turn that last comment in a right vs. left war).

well then your dad seems like a good guy. i'm not talking about people like that.

Banning guns wouldn't do anything, since banning stuff doesn't remove it. People don't get less violent when you block the common people from something, they just find other ways to do the same task. People can be quite resourceful...

I was talking about people who intentionally ran over their cheating spouses.

that hardly EVER happens in comparison to gun violence.

"Originally Posted by Poonanay
thats what police are for. thats what the military is for. I AM NOT FOR BANNING GUNS I AM FOR IMPROVED GUN CONTROL.

Can the police be everywhere all the time?"

What happens when the government (i.e. the military and the police) are themselves the tyrants? Think Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia. Had those populations not allowed themselves to be disarmed, the holocost and the purges could never have happened. Those two events alone killed more people than all the gun murders and accidental shootings combined. If you want to be safe, keep your guns and know how to use them.

accidents are caused by people who don't understand the amount of power they have. the same reason why gun accidents happen. that's why we need more gun control.

Which is why most Legal gun owners are avid hunters and people who know how to use a gun.

Besides, accidents arn't the reason why Gun Control is in place, it's "controlling crime".

Because licenses can be revoked. Rights cannot. The ability to defend youself in the most efficient way available to you is a basic human right. Therefore a license to exercise a right is either unenforcible or immoral.

Guns are not necessary in self-defense, so restricting access to guns is not taking away the ability to defend yourself.

You must also remember that your rights only extend as far as another person. If someone has demonstrated themselves to be dangerous to others, they should not be given an item that makes them *more* dangerous to others. However, if someone demonstrates that they are responsible, know how to use/clean/store a gun properly, and are not an iminent danger to other citizens, they should be able to have a gun.

"Originally Posted by Poonanay
thats what police are for. thats what the military is for. I AM NOT FOR BANNING GUNS I AM FOR IMPROVED GUN CONTROL.

Can the police be everywhere all the time?"

What happens when the government (i.e. the military and the police) are themselves the tyrants? Think Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia. Had those populations not allowed themselves to be disarmed, the holocost and the purges could never have happened. Those two events alone killed more people than all the gun murders and accidental shootings combined. If you want to be safe, keep your guns and know how to use them.

well they weren't democracies, and they were were under a tyrannical rule.

"What I don't get is why so many people seem to be so opposed to some ideas that are just ment to make guns safer. A while ago someone here sugested having gun liscense like we have for cars and people went ape shit. Why is it such a bad thing to require thaat people show them selves capable of handling a gun before leting them have one. We do the samething with cars and no one bitches about that?"

Because licenses can be revoked. Rights cannot. The ability to defend youself in the most efficient way available to you is a basic human right. Therefore a license to exercise a right is either unenforcible or immoral.
If your worried about defending your self learn martial arts. While the 2nd amendment doees grant gun righs it does so because of "the necesity of a well regulated milita" We license cars because in the hands of the reackless they are dangerus the same is equaly true of guns.

"Which is why most Legal gun owners are avid hunters and people who know how to use a gun."

Most legal gun owners, at least in America, are NOT hunters.

where?

How about Venice? It also seems that Copenhagen, Amsterdam and Toronto are all moving in that direction.

I Am Not For Banning Guns! I Am For Further Gun Safety And Control!

that hardly EVER happens in comparison to gun violence.
I never said it did. Someone else said that nobody intends to get into a car accident. He was wrong. Banning guns just makes people find other ways. Cars, knives, poison, pipe bombs, beatings, etc.

How about Venice? It also seems that Copenhagen, Amsterdam and Toronto are all moving in that direction.

i wonder why...oh ya! BECAUSE TO GO THROUGH VENICE YOU NEED A BOAT! the u.s. needs cars more than almost anything else.

"Originally Posted by Poonanay
thats what police are for. thats what the military is for. I AM NOT FOR BANNING GUNS I AM FOR IMPROVED GUN CONTROL.

Can the police be everywhere all the time?"

What happens when the government (i.e. the military and the police) are themselves the tyrants? Think Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia. Had those populations not allowed themselves to be disarmed, the holocost and the purges could never have happened. Those two events alone killed more people than all the gun murders and accidental shootings combined. If you want to be safe, keep your guns and know how to use them.

Lol, couldn't resist.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v313/nycto/4guns.jpg

I never said it did. Someone else said that nobody intends to get into a car accident. He was wrong. Banning guns just makes people find other ways. Cars, knives, poison, pipe bombs, beatings, etc.

I AM NOT FOR BANNING GUNS! WHY CAN'T YOU GET THAT INTO YOUR HEAD?! i know it would make your argument easier but im for gun safety and control.

i wonder why...oh ya! BECAUSE TO GO THROUGH VENICE YOU NEED A BOAT! the u.s. needs cars more than almost anything else.
Not NYC.

"Which is why most Legal gun owners are avid hunters and people who know how to use a gun."

Most legal gun owners, at least in America, are NOT hunters.

and people who know how to use a gun,
My dad has probably about 25 different guns and doesn't hunt, I know.

"If your worried about defending your self learn martial arts. While the 2nd amendment doees grant gun righs it does so because of "the necesity of a well regulated milita" We license cars because in the hands of the reackless they are dangerus the same is equaly true of guns."

It is not your place to tell me how I should defend myself. Also keep in mind that the term militia, at the time of the writing of the American Constitution, meant every able bodied male.

To a reckless person ANYTHING can be dangerous. A car, a gun, a pillow. That argument is non-sequitor. The simple fact is that gun control and registration leads to confiscation which leads to governmental mass murder. This is a historical pattern.

I AM NOT FOR BANNING GUNS! WHY CAN'T YOU GET THAT INTO YOUR HEAD?! i know it would make your argument easier but im for gun safety and control.
Ok, what kind of gun control?

Not NYC.

new york is nothing like the rest of the country.

BLASPHEMY! :mad: Forget not the words of the Founding Fathers! :D

it does include that, but that doesn't account for the 40x difference.
*sighs* That stat actually is the number of murders by "aquaintances" well over 70% of that statistic constitutes the likes of drug dealers and gang bangers killing one another. That when combined with the "accidental" suicides drops that statistic drastically. Also, long guns are about 4 times more dangerous than hand guns, especially when it comes to accidents. Unless one is very purposeful about shooting a handgun a person is actually quite unlikely to kill someone.

If your worried about defending your self learn martial arts. While the 2nd amendment doees grant gun righs it does so because of "the necesity of a well regulated milita" We license cars because in the hands of the reackless they are dangerus the same is equaly true of guns.

Militia's are controoled differently from then and now. Militia then was the common man or farmer or whoever that owned a gun that would volenteer to service for a emergancy and would return to their home any time they wanted. Militia's now are known as the National Guard and are under State Government control, and goes through military training and is forced to spend (2 years I think) just like the military.

keeping track of sold guns, further background checks, tests on someones ability to handle a firearm safely.

new york is nothing like the rest of the country.
I know, but if they can have an effective public transportation system, most other cities could.

"keeping track of sold guns, further background checks, tests on someones ability to handle a firearm safely."

Why do feel the need to keep track of sold firearms? So you can confiscate them later on, perhaps?

keeping track of sold guns, further background checks, tests on someones ability to handle a firearm safely.
As long as it's treated as a right, not a privelage that might be OK. Drivers licenses in the US are considered a privelage. They can be revoked without a hearing in court, and are subject to too many regulations and penalties.

If you have a safe country with happy and friendly people is there really a need for something like guns? I mean i completly have weed in my country the people are happy and high. we dont need guns hahaha. but seriously if you are running your country correctly you dont need them except for military purposes but if you ban them people want them its like banning weed in the US now everyone wants it and get arrested for it. so make people feel like they dont need one and you should be fine but if you ban them you will only cause problems

yay for guns must kill people :mp5: :gundge: :sniper:

keeping track of sold guns, further background checks, tests on someones ability to handle a firearm safely.

How would that help? If i'm plotting something and have nothing on my record that wont help. And firearm safety tests are just like my license test. I drived perfect at it, but I can street race and speed and pass red lights all I want outside the test. We already keep track of LEGAL pistols now.

If you have a safe country with happy and friendly people is there really a need for something like guns? I mean i completly have weed in my country the people are happy and high. we dont need guns hahaha. but seriously if you are running your country correctly you dont need them except for military purposes but if you ban them people want them its like banning weed in the US now everyone wants it and get arrested for it. so make people feel like they dont need one and you should be fine but if you ban them you will only cause problems
People have a lot of things they don't need. Many of those things can kill.

If your worried about defending your self learn martial arts. While the 2nd amendment doees grant gun righs it does so because of "the necesity of a well regulated milita" We license cars because in the hands of the reackless they are dangerus the same is equaly true of guns.

And people who use martial arts recklessly? Ban it!

BLASPHEMY! :mad: Forget not the words of the Founding Fathers! :D

ya never forget the right for a militia to bear arms

And people who use martial arts recklessly? Ban it!
Try it and I'll kick your ass ;)

If your worried about defending your self learn martial arts. While the 2nd amendment doees grant gun righs it does so because of "the necesity of a well regulated milita" We license cars because in the hands of the reackless they are dangerus the same is equaly true of guns.
To learn any martial art well enough to properly take down an attacker takes quite a lot of time and effort. This is compounded by the fact that if your attacker is at all trained, it doesn't even have to be martial arts training, you need an even higher skill level. And if you are a lot smaller than your opponent knowledge of martial arts means much much less unless your a real xpert.

It is not your place to tell me how I should defend myself. Also keep in mind that the term militia, at the time of the writing of the American Constitution, meant every able bodied male.

And *you* must keep in mind that at the time the 2nd Amendment was written, young males were *all* brought up knowing how to use a gun. It was part of the education that they all received.

This is not true in our society today, so it is not out of line to ask that someone demonstrate knowledge of the proper use/cleaning/storage/etc. of a gun before it is given to them.

Don't forget Switzerland everyone. All males are forced to know how to use and own a gun incase of invasion. They are prepared for anything. They have a very low crime rate and last time I checked, Nazi Germany itself refused to invade them for this primary reason.

"If your worried about defending your self learn martial arts. While the 2nd amendment doees grant gun righs it does so because of "the necesity of a well regulated milita" We license cars because in the hands of the reackless they are dangerus the same is equaly true of guns."

It is not your place to tell me how I should defend myself. Also keep in mind that the term militia, at the time of the writing of the American Constitution, meant every able bodied male.

To a reckless person ANYTHING can be dangerous. A car, a gun, a pillow. That argument is non-sequitor. The simple fact is that gun control and registration leads to confiscation which leads to governmental mass murder. This is a historical pattern.
Yes it meant every able bodied male because pretty much every able bodied male was supose to be in the state milita. It doesn't mean militas as a buch of guys geting togther to form a milita hence the REGULATED bit. personaly that state milita thing is what I think they should go back to if you want a gun you can have one so long as you join the milita and under go the necesary training. An while not everything can be used as a weapon not everything is meant to be a weapon and while not every one that owns a gun owns it for the purpuse of useing it as a weapon that remains the reason of the guns existense.

"keeping track of sold guns, further background checks, tests on someones ability to handle a firearm safely."

Why do feel the need to keep track of sold firearms? So you can confiscate them later on, perhaps?

yes that's exactly what i meant captain jump to conclusions (sigh)

Don't forget Switzerland everyone. All males are forced to know how to use and own a gun incase of invasion. They are prepared for anything. They have a very low crime rate and last time I checked, Nazi Germany itself refused to invade them for this primary reason.
Yeah, and they have real assault rifles. Not some weak ass pistols and shotguns.

To learn any martial art well enough to properly take down an attacker takes quite a lot of time and effort. This is compounded by the fact that if your attacker is at all trained, it doesn't even have to be martial arts training, you need an even higher skill level. And if you are a lot smaller than your opponent knowledge of martial arts means much much less unless your a real xpert.

To learn how to properly and efficiently take care of and use a weapon takes time and effort. This is compounded by the fact that you could kill yourself or someone else if you don't know what you are doing.

And *you* must keep in mind that at the time the 2nd Amendment was written, young males were *all* brought up knowing how to use a gun. It was part of the education that they all received.

This is not true in our society today, so it is not out of line to ask that someone demonstrate knowledge of the proper use/cleaning/storage/etc. of a gun before it is given to them.
Maybe gun safety should be taught in the public schools.

Yeah, and they have real assault rifles. Not some weak ass pistols and shotguns.

I have a AR-15 and AK-47, semi automatic. I'd consider that a Assualt Rifle.

And *you* must keep in mind that at the time the 2nd Amendment was written, young males were *all* brought up knowing how to use a gun. It was part of the education that they all received.

This is not true in our society today, so it is not out of line to ask that someone demonstrate knowledge of the proper use/cleaning/storage/etc. of a gun before it is given to them.


The government did not get involved back then and should not get involved now. If the government can regulate it they can ban it. When they ban it we are defenseless. Well over 100 million people died at the hands of their own governments in the 20th century following "reasonable" gun control.

Be safe. Keep you weapon handly.

The government did not get involved back then and should not get involved now. If the government can regulate it they can ban it. When they ban it we are defenseless. Well over 100 million people died at the hands of their own governments in the 20th century following "reasonable" gun control.

Be safe. Keep you weapon handly.

170 million to be exact.

I have a AR-15 and AK-47, semi automatic. I'd consider that a Assualt Rifle.
My point is that they have effective weapons and few criminal shootings. Much less fatal criminal shootings.

Maybe gun safety should be taught in the public schools.

It used to be in my area of the country, until it was deemed to be politically incorrect.

Maybe gun safety should be taught in the public schools.

But not as a part of war, as a sport, then I'd be all for that. Schools in this country should have shooting teams. I actually think it would be good for kids.

Anyone ever read 1984?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v313/nycto/5guns.jpg

Miniguns and tac-nukes for private citizens - that was the founding father's real dream for America! :p


...that was a joke, BTW...

how can you say that an assault rifle is more useful than a pistol at defending yourself from a criminal? they both would kill him just the same.

Maybe gun safety should be taught in the public schools.
No problem with it I don't care if people have guns I just don't want people who don't know how to use them to have them.

if gun safety were taught in public schools then kids would start to be encouraged to buy guns when they grow up.

Miniguns and tac-nukes for private citizens - that was the founding father's real dream for America! :p


...that was a joke, BTW...
I want strategic nuclear weaons. And a nice long range delivery system.

how can you say that an assault rifle is more useful than a pistol at defending yourself from a criminal? they both would kill him just the same.
The difference in stopping power is significant. Granted it's heavily dependent on ammo selection.

if gun safety were taught in public schools then kids would start to be encouraged to buy guns when they grow up.
good.

Can anyone buy a gun in Canada?

The difference in stopping power is significant. Granted it's heavily dependent on ammo selection.


That is entirely dependent on the gun. A .44 Magnum has much more stopping power than an AR15 with its .223 round. However, a rifle is accurate over much longer ranges.

Maybe gun safety should be taught in the public schools.

Maybe it should. Maybe then I would know enough about guns to own one myself.

The government did not get involved back then and should not get involved now. If the government can regulate it they can ban it. When they ban it we are defenseless. Well over 100 million people died at the hands of their own governments in the 20th century following "reasonable" gun control.

Be safe. Keep you weapon handly.

This is silly. What you mean is that the government can *try* and ban it.

If the government ever tries to ban guns, you shoot the people that come to get your guns - plain and simple.

Of course, if the government ever really wanted your guns, they have bigger guns, so you'd be screwed anyways.

im not for banning guns, i'm for increased gun safety and gun control. i just don't understand why some people feel that the bigger the gun they have the safer they are. plus it's 40 times more likely that you die accidentally by your own gun than using your gun to kill a home invader.
Increased gun control? Could you be more specific? Do you think Chicago need more gun control? How about Alaska?

EDIT: I call BS on the "40x more likely" figure. Absolute nonsense.

good.

hehe i knew youd say that.

i think that teaching kids gun control which would lead to kids being encouraged to own guns would lead to a very violent fearing community.

This is silly. What you mean is that the government can *try* and ban it.

If the government ever tries to ban guns, you shoot the people that come to get your guns - plain and simple.

Of course, if the government ever really wanted your guns, they have bigger guns, so you'd be screwed anyways.

I agree with you that should the government ever come for our guns we would be completely justified in fighting back, because once the guns are gone we are powerless.

This is silly. What you mean is that the government can *try* and ban it.

If the government ever tries to ban guns, you shoot the people that come to get your guns - plain and simple.

Of course, if the government ever really wanted your guns, they have bigger guns, so you'd be screwed anyways.

Vs. somewhere around 80 million? No. Plus a lot of the military supports the 2nd amendment, plus they would refuse to fire against their own citizens. The government would be kind of helpless if you ask me.

Increased gun control? Could you be more specific? Do you think Chicago need more gun control? How about Alaska?

i adressed it in specifics. thanks for reading.

Regardless of how much we wish otherwise, the human population will always contain those who seek to take what they want by force. Some are common criminals, some run for public office. We need guns to protect ourselves from both varieties.

Exactly.

Vs. somewhere around 80 million? No. Plus a lot of the military supports the 2nd amendment, plus they would refuse to fire against their own citizens. The government would be kind of helpless if you ask me.
I agree. It would be hard to disarm the US citizens.

im not for banning guns, i'm for increased gun safety and gun control. i just don't understand why some people feel that the bigger the gun they have the safer they are. plus it's 40 times more likely that you die accidentally by your own gun than using your gun to kill a home invader.

The problem is neither gun safety or gun control. You see we have countless numbers of gun control laws in the US.The problem is none of or very few of the laws are getting enforced.

I agree with you that should the government ever come for our guns we would be completely justified in fighting back, because once the guns are gone we are powerless.

You *do* have an unhealthy attachment here though. No one is "powerless" without a gun.

"This is my rifle
This is my gun
This is for pleasure
This is for fun."

i love how you go through these things without reading into the retorts battery changer. if you want to do something productive tell us why you support your opinion instead of just saying thats right or thats wrong.

You *do* have an unhealthy attachment here though. No one is "powerless" without a gun.

"This is my rifle
This is my gun
This is for pleasure
This is for fun."

No unhealthy attachment, just an understanding of what happened to populations who allowed themselves to be disarmed. They WERE POWERLESS against the murderous thugs who called themselves their government.

The American Founding Fathers understood this, which is why we have a 2A. It 'aint about duck hunting.

What I don't get is why so many people seem to be so opposed to some ideas that are just ment to make guns safer. A while ago someone here sugested having gun liscense like we have for cars and people went ape shit. Why is it such a bad thing to require thaat people show them selves capable of handling a gun before leting them have one. We do the samething with cars and no one bitches about that?

1st read the Constitution. 2nd read The Federalist Papers. Then come talk to me about why you have to have a License to drive a car, you don't need to have a license to own a car. I believe you will also see why you don't have to have a license to own a gun also.

I dont have guns, but wouldnt get rid of my knives for anything, and nobody would be able to take them from me either

thats what police are for. thats what the military is for. I AM NOT FOR BANNING GUNS I AM FOR IMPROVED GUN CONTROL.

Then tell your police force to ENFORCE THE GUN CONTROL LAWS WE HAVE!

http://www.jpfo.org/ That's a nice site tearing Gun Control down, with about 5-20 Failed 911 calls where it ended in a house breakin and murder. The Police can't be everywhere like someone above said.

Seems the Jews learned from Hitler what Gun Control is really about!!!!!

New Lexington, Ohio: A rape victim stopped her attacker by shooting him.

Flint, Michigan: A 68-year-old wheelchair-bound resident shot a violent intruder who had broken into his home.

Onondaga, New York: The attacker who was striking someone with a shovel was shot by the friend of the victim.

The fear over public-school shootings is legitimate, but Kmart's response, even if it is motivated by those attacks, is not. Since the shootings started in the fall of 1997, 32 students and 3 teachers have been killed in any type of shooting at elementary or secondary schools, an annual rate of 1 death per 4 million students. This includes deaths from gang fights, robberies, accidents, as well as attacks such as the one at Columbine. By contrast, during that same period, 53 students died playing high-school football. Is Kmart's next response to not sell any sports equipment?

eveyone should realize that banning guns wont do anything I've seen more illeagal knives (switchblades, butterfly knives etc.,) then I can count guns will be no difference if they are banned

well they weren't democracies, and they were were under a tyrannical rule.

Need to check the facts again. Germany was a Democracy til they banned the individual ownership of guns. Hitler claimed that if you get rid of the guns then there will be no crime. What he was thinking is the same thing Sarah Brady says. Take the guns from the masses and you can rule them with an iron thumb.

This year will go down in history! For the first time a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police will be more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future.


Adolph Hitler 1935

"[I]t is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

— Reichsmarschall Hermann Goering

Of course, if the government ever really wanted your guns, they have bigger guns, so you'd be screwed anyways.

It's not the Iraqi army that is stopping America securing Iraq. It's civilians and militias with AKs.

how can you say that an assault rifle is more useful than a pistol at defending yourself from a criminal? they both would kill him just the same.
A rifle is much more accurate and powerful than a pistol. And an "assault" rifle generaly has a 20-30 round magazine capacity. Without great skill you need to be within 20 or so meters to have hit a target with a pistol. With a typical rifle you can hit 200 meter targets without too much training. With a rifle you can usually incapacitate a target with one shot, whether or not he's wearing body armor. One or two pistol shots is not often enough to stop someone, especially if he is wearing body armor, on PCP, or massive.

It's not the Iraqi army that is stopping America securing Iraq. It's civilians and militias with AKs.

...because the US military is trying not to harm civilians.

If they really wanted to, they could secure Iraq - easily. The problem is that *many* innocent people would die in the process.

To destroy "gun control" before more law abiding Americans are murdered by criminals or madmen helped by "gun control", you need to get hold of the evidence as presented in "Gun Control": Gateway to Tyranny. You can then challenge the media, the most aggressive backers of "gun control". Ask media personalities in your city or town why they back Nazi based laws. You can demand repeal of GCA '68 and the thousands of state and local laws based on it. You can help to erase "gun control", Hitler's last legacy.

GCA '68 puts your life at risk right now. You have a constitutional civil right to be armed in order to protect yourself, because under U.S law the police have no duty to protect the average person:

The Nazi Weapons Law of 1938 replaced a Law on Firearms and Ammunition of April 13, 1928. The 1928 law was enacted by a center-right, freely elected German government that wanted to curb "gang activity," violent street fights between Nazi party and Communist party thugs. All firearm owners and their firearms had to be registered. Sound familiar? "Gun control" did not save democracy in Germany. It helped to make sure that the toughest criminals, the Nazis, prevailed.

The Nazis inherited lists of firearm owners and their firearms when they 'lawfully' took over in March 1933. The Nazis used these inherited registration lists to seize privately held firearms from persons who were not "reliable." Knowing exactly who owned which firearms, the Nazis had only to revoke the annual ownership permits or decline to renew them.

In 1938, five years after taking power, the Nazis enhanced the 1928 law. The Nazi Weapons Law introduced handgun control. Firearms ownership was restricted to Nazi party members and other "reliable" people.

The 1938 Nazi law barred Jews from businesses involving firearms. On November 10. 1938 -- one day after the Nazi party terror squads (the SS) savaged thousands of Jews, synagogues and Jewish businesses throughout Germany -- new regulations under the Weapons Law specifically barred Jews from owning any weapons, even clubs or knives.

Finding the Nazi Weapons Law whetted our appetite. We wanted to know who implanted this Nazi cancer in America. We began by probing the backgrounds of lawmakers who championed "gun control". We focused on those whose bills became part of GCA '68. GCA '68 as enacted closely tracks proposals dating to August 1963. We felt that if the culprit were a lawmaker -- or a congressional staffer -- he or she would know Germany, German law and possibly even speak German. He or she probably would have spent time in Germany on business or during military service. Alternatively, if the culprit were not a member of Congress or a staffer, there would be testimony at the hearings to that effect.

Most potential suspects were quickly eliminated; they had no apparent ties to Germany. But one lawmaker caught our attention.

An old "Who's Who" entry showed he had been a senior member of the U.S. team that prosecuted German war criminals at Nuremberg in 1945-46. Thus, he had lived in Germany just after the Nazi period. His official duties required him to look at Nazi records, including Nazi laws. In 1963 he led the effort to greatly expand the Federal Firearms Act of 1938.

We then got a break. We told a legal scholar of our findings. He was intrigued. He sent us an extract from the record of hearings held a few months prior to the enactment of GCA '68. At the end of June 1968, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee to investigate Juvenile Delinquency -- chaired by Thomas J. Dodd (D-CT) -- held hearings on bills: (1) "To Require the Registration of Firearms" (S.3604). (2) "To Disarm Lawless Persons" (S.3634) and (3) "To Provide for the Establishment of a National Firearms Registry" (S.3637), among others.

U.S. Representative John Dingell (D-MI) testified at these Senate hearings on "gun control". Senator Joseph D. Tydings (D-MD) chaired some of these hearings, in Dodd's absence.

Rep. Dingell expressed concern that if firearms registration were required, it might lead to confiscation of firearms, as had happened in Nazi Germany. Tydings angrily accused Rep. Dingell of using "scare tactics":



" ... we are enclosing herewith a translation of the Law on Weapons of March 18, 1938, prepared by Dr. William Solyom-Fekete of [the European Law Division -- ed.] as well as the Xerox of the original German text which you supplied" (Subcommittee Hearings, p. 489, emphasis added).

This letter makes it public knowledge that at the end of June 1968 -- 4 months before GCA '68 was enacted -- Senator Thomas J. Dodd, now deceased, personally owned a copy of the original German text of the Nazi Weapons Law.

Dodd could have acquired the German text of the Nazi Weapons Law during his time at Nuremberg. But he had no need to do so.

Dodd did not personally handle the prosecution of Nazi Interior Minister Wilhelm Frick, who signed the Nazi Weapons Law. The case against Frick was presented by Robert M.W. Kempner, Assistant Trial Counsel for the United States (see 'Trial of the Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal,' cited as TMWC, Vol. V, pp. 352-67, Nuremberg, Germany, 1947).

Nor should the Nazi Weapons Law otherwise have come to Dodd's attention. The Nazi Weapons Law was not used as evidence against Frick (see Kempner's speech, TMWC, V, pp. 352-67 and 'Index of Laws, Decrees, Orders, Directives, and the Administration of Justice in Nazi Germany and Nazi Dominated Countries', TMWC, Vol. XXIII, pp. 430-33). The Nazi Weapons Law is not listed among documents submitted as evidence to the Tribunal by the American prosecutors (see Vol. XXIV, pp. 98-169).

Gun Control = Genocide

The Gunrunner

All creatures, from the largest whale down to the smallest bacteria, have the innate ability and willingness, to defend themselves. Contrary to the perversion preached by psychiatrists (that man's basic urge is for sex), “survival” is the basic goal of all living things.

To suppress this most basic instinct will ensure the destruction of that group, race or society. Yet that is exactly what certain humans who have political or social power over other humans have been doing for thousands of years. They do so because they “know what's best for you” and can justify killing you to prove it.

Today, most of the American species of these deviant creatures suffer from the genetic disorder called “Democrat.” However political hybrids who identify themselves as has “Republicans” and “Libertarians” have also been heard recently speaking in favor of restrictions on one's ability to defend oneself.

Where self-defense is restricted, to the same degree survival is also restricted. If a certain class of people is denied the right to defend itself, then that class will die off. This is called “genocide.”

ALL ACTS OF GENOCIDE ARE PRECEDED BY GOVERNMENT RESTRICTIONS OF PERSONAL WEAPONS.

Not one time in the history of this planet have mass murders occurred without the above axiom occurring first. Here's a small list of the deaths attributed directly to a government restriction on personal ownership of weapons and the ability to defend oneself:

1.5 million Armenians, 3 million Ukrainians, 6 million (?) Jews, 250,000 Gypsies, 6 million Slavs, 25 million Russians, 25 million Chinese, 1 million Ibos, 1.5 million Bengalis, 200,000 Guatemalans, 1.7 million Cambodians, 500,000 Indonesians, 200,000 East Timorese, 250,000 Burundians, 500,000 Ugandans, 2 million Sudanese, 800,000 Rwandans, 2 million North Koreans, 10,000 Kosovars. ( http://www.genocidewatch.org/iceg/background.htm)

And we're still counting.

In 1999 Australia mounted a massive gun confiscation effort. Citizens surrendered 640,381 firearms. The results? Homicides are up 3.2 percent; assaults are up 8 percent; and armed robberies have increased 44 percent. In the Australian state of Victoria, homicides with firearms are up 300 percent.

It would be illogical to believe disarmament in America would have a different result. Ask Randy Weaver; ask the Waco survivors; ask the thousands of Americans who yearly have their property confiscated, their lives destroyed, or their family members murdered by city, county, state and federal agents. Government agents are able to kill innocent civilians as a direct result of restrictions on our ability to defend ourselves.

On the other hand, when Florida passed legislation to allow citizens to carry concealed weapons, rape, robbery and assaults went down over 60 percent.

In the 20th century, governments have murdered four times as many civilians as were killed in all the international and domestic wars combined.

The right to self defense, which has been contemporarily compromised, dates back to Biblical and Talmudic times

1. Talmud: “If someone comes to kill you, arise quickly and kill him.”

2. Roman Catholic: “Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow.” Catechism of the Catholic Church (quoting Thomas Aquinas).

3. The Bible: Luke 22:36 - “He who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.”

Exodus 22.2 - “If a thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so he dies, there shall be no guilt for his death.”

4. Cicero: Rome's leading orator, had early argued that the right to self-defense was natural and inborn, and not a creation of the government. “The right to use weapons is a necessary part of the right to self-defense -- any view to the contrary is silly nonsense.”

There are many other religious and philosophical teachings that support the concept that self-defense is a basic instinct and a basic right, and that any words to the contrary are insane and destructive.

Yet many people go around claiming, “We need sane gun control”

Hitler had “sane gun control,” which he implemented in 1938, in preparation for the extermination of millions of Germany's own citizens.

The same process of disarmament that Hitler used has already began in America. In 1968, based on the exact translation of Hitler's 1938 Gun Control Act, Senator Thomas J. Dodd (D-Conn.) pushed into law the 1968 Gun Control Act which was the real start of the American genocide. Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) and Strom Thurmond (D-SC) helped Dodd pass the bill into law ( http://www.jpfo.org/GCA_68.htm)

In the past 10 years, Democrat-led attacks on private ownership of firearms has increased at a psychopathic rate. To convince the sheeple that “guns are evil, bad-bad-bad,” they have come up with many descriptive words: “Saturday Night Special,” “Junk Gun,” “Assault Weapon,” “Non Sporting Purpose” and “Cop Killer Bullets,” to name a few.

The tendency of our media-influenced public is to believe their manufactured concepts apply to real life.

So, when the media hypes a story describing how a drugged-out loser goes to his government school with a gun he stole and shoots another kid, the conditioned response from the media, from politicians and gullible Americans is a knee-jerk demand for more “sane” gun control -- “For the sake of the children,” we are constantly reminded.

Gun sales stopped in February, 2002

Using 9/11 as an excuse, the government allowed the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to change the form that the 1968 Gun Control Act mandates you sign before buying a new gun. They changed this form in early February without warning and without sending out replacements to firearm dealers. This successfully stopped firearm sales NATIONWIDE for over two weeks.

(http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/022002notice4473.htm)

See how easy it is to just shut the door on buying guns with which to defend yourself? It would have been as easy to stop firearms sales permanently. All we need is another government sponsored and created “terrorist attack” and you can bet your last bullet that our politicians won't bat an eyelash as they ban all firearm sales in the U.S.

But I still hear, though a bit softer now, “it'll never happen in America.”

It already has. Many cities throughout America ban the sales of ammunition. Gun shows have been erradicated in many states by passing legislation that prohibits firearm sales on state property. Where are most gun shows held, due to size and cost? State fair grounds.

Another example that shows Hitlerian gun control has already arrived in America can be found in the contracts people back east sign to get “free” housing. If you live in one of the famous failures known as “Public Housing” found in economically depressed areas of the eastern seaboard, you actually have to sign away your Constitutional rights to get this “free” housing. You may not have even a toy gun on the premises and the police can search your home without a warrant.

Nazi Weapons Act of 1938 (Translated to English)

Classified guns for "sporting purposes".
All citizens who wished to purchase firearms had to register with the Nazi officials and have a background check.
Presumed German citizens were hostile and thereby exempted Nazi’s from the gun control law.
Gave Nazi’s unrestricted power to decide what kinds of firearms could, or could not be owned by private persons.
The types of ammunition that were legal were subject to control by bureaucrats.
Juveniles under 18 years could not buy firearms and ammunition.18

United States Gun Control Act of 1968

Introduced term "sporting purpose"
Exempted government entities from the controls, which applied to law-abiding citizens.
Age restrictions of 18 years and 21 years were applied to anyone who wished to purchase firearms and ammunition.
Authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to decide what firearms could or could not be owned by private persons.
The types of ammunition that were legal were subject to control by bureaucrats.
Age restriction of 18 years and 21 years were applied to anyone who wished to purchase firearms and ammunition. (The above comparative information was provided to us by the Jews For the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. It can be read in Gun Control, Gateway to Tyranny by Aaron Zelman).19

Unfortunately, this list goes on and includes literally hundreds of restrictions that were undoubtedly taken directly from Hitler’s Weapons Law. One merely has to read the line by line comparison of the USGCA of 1968 and the Nazi Weapons Law of March 18, 1938. The actions of Democrat Senator Thomas Dodd and those who support his law must raise serious questions from all survivors of the Holocaust. (To see the exact line by line comparison of the Nazi Weapons Act of March 18, 1938, purchase "Gun Control, Gateway to Tyranny" in our Book Section of our Catalogue).20

In order to promote the concept of gun control, many myths are promoted.

MYTH 1:
The only way that violent crime can be reduced is by gun control.
No one has yet explained how gun control will take one gun out of the hands of one criminal who plans a violent crime. There are over 200 million guns available in America, and a violent criminal will simply break the law and obtain and use one anyway.

Actually, guns are used in 400,000 potentially live-saving situations yearly. Thirty-seven thousand lives are taken by guns yearly. Restricting the right to self-defense would only increase the number of deaths yearly. As the famous bumper sticker says, "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

MYTH 2:
More lives are lost in gun accidents than in violent criminal activity.
This is an argument without any foundation. In 1991 homicides accounted for 47% of all gun deaths, suicides 48%, and accidents only four percent. Almost all of these accidents could be prevented with greater gun education and, in fact, the number of accidental gun deaths has been dropping consistently since 1980.

MYTH 3:
The Second Amendment was only designed for organized state militias, not individuals.
In 1788, George Mason, who was primarily responsible for the wording of the Bill of Rights, wrote that the militia should be defined as, "The whole people except a few public officials." The phrase, "right of the people," in the First Amendment and Fourth Amendment is universally taken to refer to all of the people -- as was obviously intended. It should be taken the same way in the Second Amendment.

MYTH 4:
Nations with strict gun control laws have substantially less violent crime that the United States.
In low crime countries like Switzerland, Israel, and New Zealand, guns are more readily available than they are in the United States. Taiwan and South Africa have the strictest gun control laws in the world (imposing capital punishment on those who illegally own guns), but have higher murder rates than the United States. Britain has had strict gun control laws since 1920, but violent crime is on the increase. It is true that there is less violent crime in Britain and Japan than there is in the United States, but there was less violent crime in these cultures before they had gun control, as well.

MYTH 5:
Private gun ownership is to blame for the high teen suicide rate in the United States.
In Great Britain and Japan, where there is more gun control and little private gun ownership, teen suicide has risen by 25% in recent years. The teen suicide rate in the United States has remained constant during the same period.

MYTH 6:
Gun control would make our streets safer.
Twenty percent of our homicides occur in just four cities (with just six percent of our population). These cities -- New York, Chicago, Detroit, and Washington D.C. -- all have strict gun control laws.

In 1982 the Chicago suburb of Evanston, Illinois adopted the strictest gun control laws in the United States. Also in 1982, the Atlanta suburb of Kennesaw, Georgia passed a city ordinance that requires heads of households (with a few exceptions) to keep at least one firearm in the house! Since 1982 murder, armed robbery, and aggravated assault have all increased in Evanston. In Kennesaw incidents of murder, rape, and armed robbery are almost non-existent.

MYTH 7:
Gun registration provides no danger to gun ownership.
In 1967 the New York City Council enacted an ordinance requiring owners of shotguns and rifles to register their guns by make, model, and serial number. They were also required to obtain a permit to possess such weapons. In 1991 the Council outlawed semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. Since the New York police already had records of the owners of such guns, the police were in a position to confiscate these weapons from the private, law-abiding citizens who owned them.

Before World War II, Poland, France, Denmark, Norway and Czechoslovakia all had gun registration laws. When the Nazis invaded, they simply seized these lists and used them to confiscate privately owned weapons. During the same war, Russia invaded Finland. (Russia had a population of 170 million versus Finland’s four million citizens.) Finland had no gun control laws and private ownership of weapons was common. The Finns were able to resist and humiliate the mammoth Russian army.

More than two centuries ago (1764), criminologist Cesare Becaria wrote:

[Gun control laws] disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants. They serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.

1. "You don't need a gun, the police will protect you."

In summary: Police can only act once a crime is occurring or has already been committed. They cannot be held liable for failure to arrive in time to save any particular individual from harm, so long as they aren't someone who has a special relationship with the police, like a protected witness. There aren't, and there ought not to be, sufficient police to act as personal bodyguards for every citizen, 24 hours a day, and any guarantee to that effect would be extremely expensive in terms of both money and liberty.

2. "Guns aren't effective defensive weapons, and are more likely to kill their owners or family members than they are useful to defend against criminal attack."

In summary: Whether cited as a "6 to 1" ratio (as in the 1975 'study'), or a "43 to 1" ratio (as in the Kellerman 'study' of 1986), the often- quoted "studies that show" having a gun in the home is a far greater risk to you and your loved ones than to criminals, are a favorite topic of discussion here on t.p.g., if for no other reason than to demonstrate that "gun control" supporters (like our good friend "Pim van Meurs") will go to extraordinary statistical contortions in an attempt to support their flawed premises. The idea that guns (and handguns in particular) are ineffective as defensive weapons shows a distinct lack of imagination.

The basis for comparison in these studies is the ratio of "firearm- related deaths" of household members vs. deaths of criminals killed in the home. The "firearm-related deaths" in the studies include suicides and accidents, neither of which are randomly distributed throughout the population, as the "risk ratios" would imply. Both suicides and accidents are more likely to occur in specific categories of people than they are in the general population. Also, sometimes a "gun cleaning accident" is actually a suicide reported under a name less likely to deny payment from a life insurance company. People who are violent, unbalanced, or involved in a life of crime are much more likely to use their home gun unwisely, and their odds of using it to harm another or themselves are higher than average. If a person is stable, and not suicidal, and not prone to extreme violence, their odds will be far lower than average. The odds of being injured will decrease further with training in safe gun handling, much as firearms accidents have declined in the U.S. population recently due to such safety education. (See 1.3) Another factor inflating the statistics of "firearm-related deaths" in these studies is that legitimate incidents of self-defense against nonstrangers (such as abusive spouses, ex-spouses, or other murderous family members or acquaintances) are counted with "firearm- related deaths" rather than "criminals killed," denying the critical moral distinction between justifiable self-defense homicides and wanton acts of murder.


Assessing the effectiveness of gun use against criminals as "number of criminals killed" is an extraordinary presumption as well, since law enforcement officers aren't judged by such a restrictive standard. Why isn't "criminals deterred" or "crimes completed" or even "criminals wounded or apprehended" a legitimate means of measuring defensive effectiveness?


In point of fact, the reason these "studies" are structured as badly as they are, and are published in medical (rather than criminological) journals, is that the numbers don't work out in favor of the "gun control" viewpoint if considered in these other ways. There's no more reason to judge the ability and effectiveness of armed citizens at fighting crime by the numbers of criminals they kill than it is to do so for the police. Surprisingly, however, the numbers are quite similar (see 3.8).


According to U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics data, having a gun and being able to use it in a defensive situation is the most effective means of avoiding injury (moreso even than offering no resistance) and thwarting completion of a robbery or assault. In general, resisting violent crime is far more likely to help than to hurt, and this is especially true if your attacker attempts to take you hostage, such as sometimes happens in a carjacking situation. Most often in with-gun defenses, criminals can be frightened away or deterred without a shot being fired. Estimates of these types of defensive uses of firearms are wide ranging, but they occur at least as often (if not far more often) each year as misuses of firearms by violent criminals, since violent crimes involving firearms account for only about 40% of all violent crime, and such defensive uses are rarely reported to the police (in some cases because firearms possession in the locality is illegal).


Even if the number of crimes deterred by armed citizens annually is no greater than the number of violent crimes committed with guns each year, in the absence of these self-protective acts, the incidence of violent crime would be far higher (arguably doubled) than it is at present, and injuries to victims would also increase. The annual use of firearms for other lawful purposes, unrelated to self-defense, dwarfs both defensive and criminal uses combined, yet firearms accidents have declined, even as the number of firearms in the U.S. population has increased

"If your worried about defending your self learn martial arts. While the 2nd amendment doees grant gun righs it does so because of "the necesity of a well regulated milita" We license cars because in the hands of the reackless they are dangerus the same is equaly true of guns."

It is not your place to tell me how I should defend myself. Also keep in mind that the term militia, at the time of the writing of the American Constitution, meant every able bodied male.

To a reckless person ANYTHING can be dangerous. A car, a gun, a pillow. That argument is non-sequitor. The simple fact is that gun control and registration leads to confiscation which leads to governmental mass murder. This is a historical pattern.

Lets highlight just a few words in these three Constitutional Amendments.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

What do we learn from this? According to Snorrdonia the right of the people must mean the Militia.

How would that help? If i'm plotting something and have nothing on my record that wont help. And firearm safety tests are just like my license test. I drived perfect at it, but I can street race and speed and pass red lights all I want outside the test. We already keep track of LEGAL pistols now.

Actually they can only legally keep records for any gun for 72 hours at this time. It was established that to keep records longer then that is an invasion of privacy.

hehe i knew youd say that.

i think that teaching kids gun control which would lead to kids being encouraged to own guns would lead to a very violent fearing community.

I live in a town full of guns. Did you know this town has only had 1 homicide buy firearm since it was founded? Can't tell you how many homicides buy knife? I know of at least 3 in the last 8 years.

I own lots of guns. I also never have to buy meat to eat as I fill my freezer full every fall.

The Empire of Presidency says that more police/ military would be the best option to any type of gun law. It solves the whose gunna get protected argument and who is/ isnt alowed to have guns and employment issues.

Guns will never be all out banned in the US. Restricted is another story, KKKalifornia is already on that. I am curious as to way people think that banning guns from citizens that would legally purchase them in the first place would stop steet buys.

To clear up the definition of militia, it was any able bodied man from 16 to 30, at the time. Since life expectancy has changed and humanity seems to be healthier longer, the age limit of 30 would have surely increased.

And when the 2nd Amendment refers to "arms", it means a soldiers arms, a rifle and pistol. Not nuclear weapons, grenades, or howitzers. .50 calibur rifles are of course included, hell, they had bigger bores back then.

Ok, here is a word for word copy of the 2nd amendment

"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."

That is two completely different statements. The first one is... "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed"

The other is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Two completely different statements, just mixed into one for the sake of saving space. One does not have to do with the other!!!

Hmmm...the title of this thread may make the following question a lot easier . . . but . . . the first person to answer this question will get a gift!

The KKK and the NAACP agree on what?

A rifle is much more accurate and powerful than a pistol. And an "assault" rifle generaly has a 20-30 round magazine capacity. Without great skill you need to be within 20 or so meters to have hit a target with a pistol. With a typical rifle you can hit 200 meter targets without too much training. With a rifle you can usually incapacitate a target with one shot, whether or not he's wearing body armor. One or two pistol shots is not often enough to stop someone, especially if he is wearing body armor, on PCP, or massive.

I will agree with that!

My friends who are cops said that 95% of all shootings are 5 to 10 feet!

I hunt deer with no training in shooting long distances and repetivly kill deer at 200-500 yrds!

Best way to stop someone in body armor, 12 ga shotgun with slugs. Aim for the heart and they go out like a light. The precordial thump from the slug stops the heart long enough to incapacitate the person!

To Cowboy Ekt,

And I thought I was knowledgable on the history of gun control. I am impressed.

Thank You!!!!!

I try to keep up with gun control events!!!!!

There is no justifyable reason for a civilian to own a firearm. Period.

The problem with firearms in America is rather like that of Feminism. They are both problems of culture not legislation. Women got equal legislation ages ago, what they dont have is equality in terms of cultural percerption. In Canada as far as I am aware the gun laws are similar to those in the US yet there murder rate is far lower. So the logic is then that it is a cultural problem in the US, not merely the fact that everyone owns guns.

And when the 2nd Amendment refers to "arms", it means a soldiers arms, a rifle and pistol. Not nuclear weapons, grenades, or howitzers. .50 calibur rifles are of course included, hell, they had bigger bores back then.Grenades, grenade launchers, mines, tactical explosives, RPGs & LAWs, ATGMs, shoulder-fired SAMs, etc. are all "soldiers' arms". They can be carried and used effectively by a single soldier. You're going to have to try harder to dodge the question about what weapons you do and do not "need" to fight off oppressors.

Best way to stop someone in body armor, 12 ga shotgun with slugs. Aim for the heart and they go out like a light. The precordial thump from the slug stops the heart long enough to incapacitate the person!What kind of slugs? Deforming (lead alloy) slugs fired from a 2-3/4" 12G are in no way guaranteed to penetrate a level III-A flexible body armor vest. The blunt trauma will be significant through flexible armor, but counting on blunt trauma to the torso from the front to incapabitate your attacker is a very stupid thing to do.

Best way to stop someone in body armor, a powerful rifle firing solids.

There is no justifyable reason for a civilian to own a firearm. Period.

Tell that to my wife. She was beaten, stabbed, and stalked by her ex-husband for six years before she met me. The courts and police did nothing to stop him. Now she has a carry permit and a 357. He knows this.

And now, he stays away. Very far away. He has told people he is now too afraid to keep driving by our house, for fear that he will be killed.

We've done what the courts and police would not, and in the process, we have prevented violence. No one has been killed, but justice has been done.

That is reason enough.

Look, I hate to do this, because it makes me feel like scum, but I have to disagree. And to be fair to me, YOU are the one that started involving anecdotes about your own family

is it not equally possible that in similar circumstances the ex husband would just buy a gun and kill her? Or that she'd shoot a family member by accident thinking it was him?

On a different, unrelated note. Doesn't it seem irrational to people to theorise that guns could help repel an invasion? If the US military, with howitzers, nukes and SAM sites can't stop an invasion, how will an untrained body of hicks possibly stop an invasionary force using cheap mass produced assault class weaponry?

Also, an oft repeated point, but how far can we take gun relaxation? Is everything legitimate? surface to air missiles for example?

If its a culture thing, what is it in America that makes you all so bloodthirsty, more so than all your neighbours?

Look, I hate to do this, because it makes me feel like scum, but I have to disagree. And to be fair to me, YOU are the one that started involving anecdotes about your own family

is it not equally possible that in similar circumstances the ex husband would just buy a gun and kill her? Or that she'd shoot a family member by accident thinking it was him?

At least with her own gun, she has a chance, without her own gun, she's a sitting duck. I may be out of line for suggesting this, but if I were Gun, I would want my girl to go down fighting, instead of begging.

On a different, unrelated note. Doesn't it seem irrational to people to theorise that guns could help repel an invasion? If the US military, with howitzers, nukes and SAM sites can't stop an invasion, how will an untrained body of hicks possibly stop an invasionary force using cheap mass produced assault class weaponry?

Think about that. Most of the 'untrained hicks' are avid hunters, outdoorsmen and a whole bunch of ex-military. Just how many moderately trained would it take to take and hold Appallacia (sp?), you know, Tennesse, W.Va., N. Carolina? A large body of exceptional marksmen in thier native territory that they;ve been hunting on and walking around for years? Can you say 'homefield advantage'?

Also, an oft repeated point, but how far can we take gun relaxation? Is everything legitimate? surface to air missiles for example?

The 2nd amendment was meant to provide for an infantry, not a full standing army, and AA and artilery are clearly not infantry weapons, and aren't really guns at all. SAM's are missles, not guns.

If its a culture thing, what is it in America that makes you all so bloodthirsty, more so than all your neighbours?

We're not bloodthirsty. I would be happy to spend the rest of my days a menace to old cans and paper targets, but should somebody want to invade, take what I have, endanger my person, I would rather take a stand.

I've typed this so many times that I'm getting carpal tunnel, but I'll be happy to type it again:

I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees. The right to bear arms helps to ensure that.

'He who gives up liberty for security gets and deserves niether' -- Ben Franklin

Look, I hate to do this, because it makes me feel like scum, but I have to disagree. And to be fair to me, YOU are the one that started involving anecdotes about your own family

is it not equally possible that in similar circumstances the ex husband would just buy a gun and kill her? Or that she'd shoot a family member by accident thinking it was him?
Do you understand probability? Those things are certainly possible, but are hardly of equal likelyhood.

On a different, unrelated note. Doesn't it seem irrational to people to theorise that guns could help repel an invasion? If the US military, with howitzers, nukes and SAM sites can't stop an invasion, how will an untrained body of hicks possibly stop an invasionary force using cheap mass produced assault class weaponry?
"Hicks" often tend to be better shots than typical professional soldiers. Also the quality of rifles owned by Americans is largely superior to military issue stuff. Also, it's not necessarily an either/or situation. The efforts of the professional military to repel an invasion could be greatly enhance by the efforts of armed individuals and ad-hoc militas. While the US has a powerful military is neither inteded nor deployed for defending the coasts boarders and cities. Depending on what you consider success, there are numerous scenarios where a sucessful invasion of the continental US is possible. They are probably not likely, but things can change. Consider how the US strongly supported Saddam Hussien just months before he became the target of war.

Also, an oft repeated point, but how far can we take gun relaxation? Is everything legitimate? surface to air missiles for example?

If its a culture thing, what is it in America that makes you all so bloodthirsty, more so than all your neighbours?
I can tolerate some restrictions on private ownership of SAM's, I suppose :p
We're taught in our government schools that war is mostly good. In particular, the American revolutionary war remains the ultimate example of how an armed populace can resist and defeat oppression.

My wife is an exceptional shot, and not just standing still shooting at paper targets. She is extraordinarily fast, and has gained an unusual level of confidence after much pistol training.

Her ex cannot legally obtain a gun. The gun laws prevent it.

So she and I are well armed, and he is unarmed. There are legal situations where it would be perfectly legal to gun him down, and he knows it.

He has always known where the bright line was drawn - that's how he stayed out of direct trouble with the police, other than protective orders and dropped charges.

But he knows that she will kill him without hesitation - and she would be legally justified. So he stays away.

Don't you like an ending where no one get hurt - and the bad guys stops his bad behavior? Or would you rather she were beaten some more?

What kind of slugs? Deforming (lead alloy) slugs fired from a 2-3/4" 12G are in no way guaranteed to penetrate a level III-A flexible body armor vest. The blunt trauma will be significant through flexible armor, but counting on blunt trauma to the torso from the front to incapabitate your attacker is a very stupid thing to do.

Best way to stop someone in body armor, a powerful rifle firing solids.
Evidently you don't know what a precordial thump is.

The precordial thump maneuver is an attempt to accomplish a defibrillation or cardioversion without an electrical defibrillator. It doesn't work very well, and it is dangerous because it is easy to break ribs.

Do you remember out in California (I believe was the place) where the gunmen were wearing body armor and fully automatic weapons robbed the bank. Then they went on a shooting spree with the cops. Guess what they learned after the event. They had the one weapon in their cars that would incapcitate the gunmen. It was their trusty 12ga with slugs sitting in the carrier. You see you don't have to penetrate body armor to stop someone. You just need a big enough projectile to land a solid punch on the heart area. 45 won't do it, but a 12ga slug will.

You need to argue your theory above with a bunch of officers. Thats where I got my info from.

Do you understand probability? Those things are certainly possible, but are hardly of equal likelyhood.
"Hicks" often tend to be better shots than typical professional soldiers. Also the quality of rifles owned by Americans is largely superior to military issue stuff. Also, it's not necessarily an either/or situation. The efforts of the professional military to repel an invasion could be greatly enhance by the efforts of armed individuals and ad-hoc militas. While the US has a powerful military is neither inteded nor deployed for defending the coasts boarders and cities. Depending on what you consider success, there are numerous scenarios where a sucessful invasion of the continental US is possible. They are probably not likely, but things can change. Consider how the US strongly supported Saddam Hussien just months before he became the target of war.

I can tolerate some restrictions on private ownership of SAM's, I suppose :p
We're taught in our government schools that war is mostly good. In particular, the American revolutionary war remains the ultimate example of how an armed populace can resist and defeat oppression.

The US armed forces are armed with some of the best sniper rifles. They use to shoot the same rifles we so called hicks shoot deer with.

BTW if we were ever invaded you can bet your ass I will head home to have that homefield advantage also.

I will also say that there is no way in hell anyone will ever invade the US as long as we all still are sporting our guns!!!!!

The 2nd amendment was meant to provide for an infantry, not a full standing army, and AA and artilery are clearly not infantry weapons, and aren't really guns at all. SAM's are missles, not guns.The 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about "guns", it says "arms" as in "armaments". Missiles are "armaments". Hand grenades, grenade launchers, LAWs, ATGMs, mortars (from the light 60mms to the heavy 4.2"s and 120mms), and, yes, shoulder-fired SAMs are infantry arms: they are issued to infantrymen, the majority of them are currently in use in infantry units, they are carried and used by those individual infantrymen.

Evidently you don't know what a precordial thump is.I did not bother to check it in a dictionary then, that is true. I figured it had to do with causing a blunt trauma on the heart, however, which is why I said "The blunt trauma will be significant through flexible armor, but counting on blunt trauma to the torso from the front to incapabitate your attacker is a very stupid thing to do." Not only is a precordial thump not a reliable way of incapacitating a human, you are then counting on your ability to hit the enemy right on the heart which is pretty fricken unlikely.

If you don't hit the enemy on the heart, and he chooses not to fall down from that blunt trauma, you have achieved nothing but a bruise or perhaps a broken rib or two.

On the other hand, if you had, say, a full-length assault rifle in 5.56x45mm firing M193s or M855s, you'd get guaranteed penetration of flexible body armor within several hundred meters, and would still retain very high lethality against unarmored targets within 100-150 meters -- not to mention the huge gain in accuracy over a shotgun firing slugs.

You need to argue your theory above with a bunch of officers. Thats where I got my info from.Just because it comes from police officers doesn't mean its effective. Look at the "street (http://www.firearmstactical.com/afte.htm) proven (http://www.firearmstactical.com/streetstoppers.htm) man (http://www.firearmstactical.com/sanow-strikes-out.htm)-stopper (http://www.firearmstactical.com/marshall-sanow-discrepancies.htm)" bull (http://www.firearmstactical.com/undeniable-evidence.htm)shit (http://www.firearmstactical.com/marshall-sanow-statistical-analysis.htm), that was made up by police officers too. No matter who came up with it, counting on the police officer's ability to hit the target's heart for an unrealiable knock-out effect is pretty naive.

(carried over from previous thread)

that is a good point. however, making guns illegal will, you concede, result in fewer members of the law-abiding public having guns. Only criminals will have guns because they will be able to aquire them illegaly. That is the situation we have in the UK.
Why then does the USA have many times more gun-related deaths per 1000 (i forget the figures) than the UK? If only outlaws had guns in the UK, and the law abiding public can be trusted with guns in the US, this should mean that the figures would be roughly the same - in both countries only outlaws will be using guns and thus shooting each other to roughly the same degree?
This is not so.
Surely this means, therefore, that the "law-abiding public" who 'only use guns for legal purposes' are shooting the shit out of each other (to coin a phrase). I say again, if guns were illegal, people would not be able to shoot each other.
If you take out the young black male(16-24) inner city population and it's contribution to the firearms murder rate the national avg. drops to one a little above Canada's. That group has a murder rate above 29 per 100,000. It's eminitely a social problem caused by the combination of the entitlement wefare state and a rate of single motherhood that is well over 50%, I think it's above 70% but I'm unsure. Pretty much all the guns used by this group are either smuggled into the country illegally or stolen.

and then it's turned into an even worse end result! if someone tries to mug you you can either beat the crap out of them or call for help to beat the crap out of them. you don't NEED to shoot them.
In a city it is much much more effective to yell FIRE than HELP.

new york is nothing like the rest of the country.
In chicago, where guns are pretty much illegal, it's considered a good weekend if there are only 3 gun deaths.

To learn how to properly and efficiently take care of and use a weapon takes time and effort. This is compounded by the fact that you could kill yourself or someone else if you don't know what you are doing.
With a proper teacher, 5 days, 3 hours a day max.

It's not the Iraqi army that is stopping America securing Iraq. It's civilians and militias with AKs.
A militia if it was truly a militia would not target it's own children. Sadr's faction could be considered somewhat legit. They were completely in house and most were truly citizens of Iraq. The chose to fold their cards and accept the new govt. The faction that made the Sunni triangle is at least half made up of outsiders whose purpose has nothing to do with Iraq itself. They are there only to instill terror in the West and kill our soldiers.

All creatures, from the largest whale down to the smallest bacteria, have the innate ability and willingness, to defend themselves. Contrary to the perversion preached by psychiatrists (that man's basic urge is for sex), “survival” is the basic goal of all living things.
Not true for lemmings, and most psychologists no longer follow Freud(the originator of that particular idea) that closely.

There is no justifyable reason for a civilian to own a firearm. Period.
Okay Mein Fuhrer. :sniper:

The US armed forces are armed with some of the best sniper rifles. They use to shoot the same rifles we so called hicks shoot deer with.

BTW if we were ever invaded you can bet your ass I will head home to have that homefield advantage also.

I will also say that there is no way in hell anyone will ever invade the US as long as we all still are sporting our guns!!!!!
Oh, they could INVADE, but we would make what the VC and NVA did to our troops WITH chinese backing look like a friggin cakewalk.

Oh, they could INVADE, but we would make what the VC and NVA did to our troops WITH chinese backing look like a friggin cakewalk.

Amen to that!!!!!

Just because it comes from police officers doesn't mean its effective. Look at the "street (http://www.firearmstactical.com/afte.htm) proven (http://www.firearmstactical.com/streetstoppers.htm) man (http://www.firearmstactical.com/sanow-strikes-out.htm)-stopper (http://www.firearmstactical.com/marshall-sanow-discrepancies.htm)" bull (http://www.firearmstactical.com/undeniable-evidence.htm)shit (http://www.firearmstactical.com/marshall-sanow-statistical-analysis.htm), that was made up by police officers too. No matter who came up with it, counting on the police officer's ability to hit the target's heart for an unrealiable knock-out effect is pretty naive.
Since those reviews are about a grand total of three people saying stupid crap about PISTOL wounds it doesn't exactly back you up. Shotgun slugs are quite the different animal. That and those were intellectuals, not actual cops who had direct experience with the shootings that they tried to use as their "proof".


Also, wasn't the argument of those in question that lighter faster bullets worked better?

Going back to the crime figures, it seems to me that if you compare the England and Wales figures with the US figures (i'm looking at the 1999 figures) you can see that you are more likley to be the victim of a violent crime in the US than the UK. However you are far more likely to be the victim of a buglary or auto crime in the UK. There are two major factors that deter gun crime in the UK; the the fact that hand guns are contraband makes then very expensive on the black market and that the police will only bring a gun if they have reason to suspect you have one.

The first basically financially deters the burglars and auto-theifs from getting firearms therefore reducing the risk to the victims of their crimes and the second reduces the perception amoungst criminals thet they need carry them.

No doubt people and police die here because they are not allowed to carry handguns in the same way that people in the US die because they are, but I do believe, and the evidence backs me up, that in a society with less guns there are less gun related deaths.

In the end however, it's society's choice. If your country is willing to accept the risks either way then as a law abiding citizen you should act within the law and accept the majority's wish without to much chastisement. Here in the UK we keep our guns on farms or in shooting clubs not at home or in the car and, for us at least, it seems to work well.

Going back to the crime figures, it seems to me that if you compare the England and Wales figures with the US figures (i'm looking at the 1999 figures) you can see that you are more likley to be the victim of a violent crime in the US than the UK. However you are far more likely to be the victim of a buglary or auto crime in the UK. There are two major factors that deter gun crime in the UK; the the fact that hand guns are contraband makes then very expensive on the black market and that the police will only bring a gun if they have reason to suspect you have one.

The first basically financially deters the burglars and auto-theifs from getting firearms therefore reducing the risk to the victims of their crimes and the second reduces the perception amoungst criminals thet they need carry them.

No doubt people and police die here because they are not allowed to carry handguns in the same way that people in the US die because they are, but I do believe, and the evidence backs me up, that in a society with less guns there are less gun related deaths.

In the end however, it's society's choice. If your country is willing to accept the risks either way then as a law abiding citizen you should act within the law and accept the majority's wish without to much chastisement. Here in the UK we keep our guns on farms or in shooting clubs not at home or in the car and, for us at least, it seems to work well.
Switzerland has a rate of about 1.1 murders per 100,000 and look at their gun situation.

Since those reviews are about a grand total of three people saying stupid crap about PISTOL wounds it doesn't exactly back you up. Shotgun slugs are quite the different animal. That and those were intellectuals, not actual cops who had direct experience with the shootings that they tried to use as their "proof".Might want to remove all those feet from your mouth... Martin L. Fackler is a retired Colonel of the US Medical Corps. He served as a combat surgeon in Vietnam. He is America's foremost expert on terminal ballistics and has witnessed more injuries caused by firearms than an average police officer could ever hope to (if you can hope such a thing). Duncan McPherson is in technical reserve in LAPD, working with actual bullet wounds there.

Shawn Dodson is a reserve police officer, tanker and rifleman in the Army Nat'l Guard and a gunner/loader in the Navy. Maarten van Maanen doesn't even touch issues of terminal ballistics in his review, he only shows that the figures published by Marshall & Sanow simply cannot be true. Additionally, there are several cases where people Marshall & Sanow claimed to have used as sources were contacted, and in several cases they said Marshall & Sanow grossly misinterpreted what they had told them, and in some cases Marshall & Sanow just plain made stuff up and created fictional sources for it.

And regardless of each reviewer's background, they just plain make sense. They can support what they say through tests that can be repeated, all their arguments are scientifically sound, etc. No such thing can be said about the crap spouted by Marshall & Sanow.

Also, wasn't the argument of those in question that lighter faster bullets worked better?Whose argument? Marshall & Sanow don't seem to have a clue what their argument is, seeing as how every other time they say light and fast is good and every other it's heavy and slow that is they key.

The people discrediting Marshall & Sanow are just saying you need to penetrate deep enough into a human to get to major blood vessels inside the thoracic cavity and make a big hole in them -- it doesn't matter whether you do this with a light and fast or a slow and heavy round.

There's nothing magical about terminal ballistics, it's a combination of physics and biology. It just happens that every now and then some jackasses think they can ignore both and just make up neat little theories about the issue. Then when they are shot down, they claim they are being attacked by "intellectuals", i.e. educated people who know what they're talking about.

Anyway, the only purpose of my post was to show that just because a police officer says something doesn't make it true. Of course the "street proven man-stopper" bullshit has nothing to do with shotguns -- conventional shotgun slugs will always penetrate deep enough into humans and will leave behind huge wound cavities.

This isn't because shotguns are somehow separate from pistols, however. The wounding mechanics of shotguns are mostly equal to those of handguns -- low velocity compared to rifles, which means the pressure waves have very little to do with the permanent cavity caused. Shotguns are just overall more powerful, firing much heavier bullets of far greater diameter at similar or slightly higher velocities.

Might want to remove all those feet from your mouth... Martin L. Fackler is a retired Colonel of the US Medical Corps. He served as a combat surgeon in Vietnam. He is America's foremost expert on terminal ballistics and has witnessed more injuries caused by firearms than an average police officer could ever hope to (if you can hope such a thing). Duncan McPherson is in technical reserve in LAPD, working with actual bullet wounds there.

Shawn Dodson is a reserve police officer, tanker and rifleman in the Army Nat'l Guard and a gunner/loader in the Navy. Maarten van Maanen doesn't even touch issues of terminal ballistics in his review, he only shows that the figures published by Marshall & Sanow simply cannot be true. Additionally, there are several cases where people Marshall & Sanow claimed to have used as sources were contacted, and in several cases they said Marshall & Sanow grossly misinterpreted what they had told them, and in some cases Marshall & Sanow just plain made stuff up and created fictional sources for it.
My point about idiots was pointed at Marshall and Sarnow, along with that women in the first link.

My point about idiots was pointed at Marshall and Sarnow [...]Okay, that's reasonable. They cannot be called idiots often enough. Calling them intellectuals is an insult to people who like to think, however.

What woman, though?

Tell that to my wife. She was beaten, stabbed, and stalked by her ex-husband for six years before she met me. The courts and police did nothing to stop him. Now she has a carry permit and a 357. He knows this.

And now, he stays away. Very far away. He has told people he is now too afraid to keep driving by our house, for fear that he will be killed.

We've done what the courts and police would not, and in the process, we have prevented violence. No one has been killed, but justice has been done.

That is reason enough.

How come we dont have this problem in the UK. The problem in America is not the guns themselves but the culture of guns. People need to remove the idea that guns are nessecary for self defence. We dont have them in the UK and we do fine.

Neo, women are beaten, stabbed, and stalked in the UK. Half the women in my wife's anti-stalking Internet group are living in the UK.

The police there aren't doing a good job of protecting them, either.

Most men who do this to women in the US aren't armed with guns when they do it. Getting caught following a woman around with the intent of frightening and threatening her constantly is one thing if you're unarmed, and another if you're carrying a gun.

These freaks know how to avoid being arrested so they can continue to terrorize their victims. And if you don't think this is happenning in the UK, you're sadly mistaken.

Anyway, the only purpose of my post was to show that just because a police officer says something doesn't make it true. Of course the "street proven man-stopper" bullshit has nothing to do with shotguns -- conventional shotgun slugs will always penetrate deep enough into humans and will leave behind huge wound cavities.


For starters I wasn't talking terminal ballistics. But with the above statement you might try to convince the cops that what they are learning in all 50 states is just a bunch of BS and that you know more then they do.

For starters I wasn't talking terminal ballistics. But with the above statement you might try to convince the cops that what they are learning in all 50 states is just a bunch of BS and that you know more then they do.You mentioned what you consider an effective way to engage an armored opponent with a firearm, so to discuss that further obviously included discussing terminal ballistics. I didn't really go into it even then.

The "street proven man-stopper" thingy was just there to show that police officers can be wrong. And yeah, if all police officers in the US are being taught that the most effective way to engage an armored opponent is to hit him/her right on top of the heart with a shotgun slug, then you should be really worried about the idiots that train your law enforcement personnel.

Neo, women are beaten, stabbed, and stalked in the UK. Half the women in my wife's anti-stalking Internet group are living in the UK.

The police there aren't doing a good job of protecting them, either.

Most men who do this to women in the US aren't armed with guns when they do it. Getting caught following a woman around with the intent of frightening and threatening her constantly is one thing if you're unarmed, and another if you're carrying a gun.

These freaks know how to avoid being arrested so they can continue to terrorize their victims. And if you don't think this is happenning in the UK, you're sadly mistaken.

The MURDER rate per 100 in the US is over 14 times higher than that in the UK. Your problem is that everyone has guns.

Hmmm...the title of this thread may make the following question a lot easier . . . but . . . the first person to answer this question will get a gift!

The KKK and the NAACP agree on what?
That blacks can't be trusted with firearms? Or something similar.

The MURDER rate per 100 in the US is over 14 times higher than that in the UK. Your problem is that everyone has guns.


Canada has as many guns per capita as the states, yet the murder rate is at a european level, guns are not the problem.

I have a .22 :fluffle: here in canada...

Actually if you take out purely inner city black on black killings and thtyen take out that portion of the population as well you would notice our firearm murder rate drops to be right around Canada's. The murder rate in the inner cities is disproportionate because of a social problem, and guns are basically outlawed in most of those areas anyway so gun control is rather silly.


Thats complete bullshit, post a link to prove that....

A national one...

Neo, you still haven't given me a satisfactory answer.

My wife was stalked, beaten, and stabbed for six years.
Her stalker is her ex-husband.
The courts cannot hold him, as the police don't work hard on DV cases.
The police cannot arrest him, as life is not like CSI.
He can't buy a gun, or possess one.

But until a couple of years ago, the stalking and beating was almost daily.
Now she owns a gun, he knows it, and he stays away. Far away.

Unless you're planning on providing her with a set of guards, 24 hours a day for the rest of her life, we're not giving up the gun. Because the beatings would start again the minute she was alone and unarmed.

Neo, you still haven't given me a satisfactory answer.

My wife was stalked, beaten, and stabbed for six years.
Her stalker is her ex-husband.
The courts cannot hold him, as the police don't work hard on DV cases.
The police cannot arrest him, as life is not like CSI.
He can't buy a gun, or possess one.

But until a couple of years ago, the stalking and beating was almost daily.
Now she owns a gun, he knows it, and he stays away. Far away.

Unless you're planning on providing her with a set of guards, 24 hours a day for the rest of her life, we're not giving up the gun. Because the beatings would start again the minute she was alone and unarmed.


Ahhhhh, maybe this would be a difference in canada VS the UK and the states but if something like this happened in canada or atleast alberta I have no doubt that friends of the stalked women would beat the shit out of the stalker and make him poo blood for months.....