NationStates Jolt Archive

Rules and Disclaimer: The standard rules apply as in all of my "My Thoughts On:" threads, this is my personal opinion and is not intended to offend. If for some reason an opinion of mine or another offends you, I ask that you take a break fromt he computer before posting so as to leave anger from this thread. This thread is intended for cool-headed debate and I request that sarcasm be restricted in it's use. Please be respectful of the opinion of others and refraim from personal insult or mockery.

That said, you are free to express your own opinion, conditional on your respect for others.

---------------------------------------------------

Let me begin by saying I am not "anti guns", I am not saying there aren't Liberals out there who are, just that I am not one of them. I have, on occassion, fired a weapon and consider myself an all-right shot.

However, I do support gun control. This is important because guns do one major thing, they escalate the potentional for harm.

For Example: I have a friend whos neighbour, on occassion, will become quite drunk and abusive to passersby. Most of the time this is restricted to hurling beerbottles, however he will also threaten people with knives, piano-wire and once a katana.

Just imagine if this man could legally own a firearm.

Guns are really not useful for personal protection, we base this on the assumption we would descover a intruder when they entered our premise, criminals don't carry their own guns and that we would be lucid enough that time of night to operate a firearm.

I am not saying that firearms should be banned, far from it. I do however believe that like all items capable of harm the person requesting it should be rigorusly screened and be registered on some kind of list.

[/end opinion...for now]

I do however believe that like all items capable of harm the person requesting it should be rigorusly screened and be registered on some kind of list.

[/end opinion...for now]

I agree, people who wish to own:
cars,
knives,
trucks,
razors,
electrical devices,
rope,
prescription narcotics,
forks,
pencils,
knitting needles,
alcoholic beverages,
glass bottles,
sheet metal,
drills,
routers,
screwdrivers,
icepicks, and
dogs (did I leave out anything that might harm someone requesting it?)

should all have to register their ownership of these items with the goverment. That way, only the criminals will have unregistered items and won't dare use them.

I agree, people who wish to own:
cars,
knives,
trucks,
razors,
electrical devices,
rope,
prescription narcotics,
forks,
pencils,
knitting needles,
alcoholic beverages,
glass bottles,
sheet metal,
drills,
routers,
screwdrivers,
icepicks, and
dogs (did I leave out anything that might harm someone requesting it?)

should all have to register their ownership of these items with the goverment. That way, only the criminals will have unregistered items and won't dare use them.

What's the big deal with registering your gun if you're a law-abiding citizen? What do you have to worry about? I own two guns, and I can appreciate the fact that they're deadly weapons, and I can understand the desire of the government to have them registered. I just don't see what the big deal is for people opposed to gun registry.

What's the big deal with registering your gun if you're a law-abiding citizen? What do you have to worry about? I own two guns, and I can appreciate the fact that they're deadly weapons, and I can understand the desire of the government to have them registered. I just don't see what the big deal is for people opposed to gun registry.

Because criminals will not register.

did I leave out anything that might harm someone requesting it?
Some more just for fun...
hammers
cats(those claws be sharp)
snakes(poisonous ones at least)
saws
garbage disposals
pools
vacuums
glass
metal
anything hard
anything sharp
the list can just keep going and going

Because criminals will not register.

What does that have to do with it? Why does that make you not want to register?

Because criminals will not register.
What? You mean criminals who already are not following laws would break more? But...they are good people, they're just misunderstood.

One potential problem I see with having a nat'l gun registration (I'm still undecided as to whether or not it's a good idea) is that the government might abuse their power and start taking guns away from people whose politics they didn't agree with. Farfetched, I know, but it's still a scary thought. I do, however, fully support background checks, and believe that getting rid of them would be an extremely poor idea.

What does that have to do with it? Why does that make you not want to register?
It's not that we don't want to register. It's just that the registration is kinda useless since the whole idea of registering is to keep track of criminals who aren't registering anyways.

It's not that we don't want to register. It's just that the registration is kinda useless since the whole idea of registering is to keep track of criminals who aren't registering anyways.

Thanks for answering for me! Glad to know others get it.

I agree with you...I'm essentially a Liberal Libertarian...and I beleive in guns, I have quite a collection myself. But I've always believed in control. If you are truly a law-abiding citizen, then there should be no trouble in waiting a day or two while you're being cleared to buy one.

I also beleive that, unless you're in a Militia, there truly is no need to own an assault rifle. I can do as much harm to an invading soldier with my Bolt-Action .270, than I can with a semi-automatic weapon.

And really, who needs an AK-74 to kill a deer?

I can kill one with my truck...Lol.

One potential problem I see with having a nat'l gun registration (I'm still undecided as to whether or not it's a good idea) is that the government might abuse their power and start taking guns away from people whose politics they didn't agree with. Farfetched, I know, but it's still a scary thought.

Scary and farfetched, maybe, but a reason the Founding Fathers put the 2nd Amendment into our constitution? Absolutely.

Guns are really not useful for personal protection, we base this on the assumption we would descover a intruder when they entered our premise, criminals don't carry their own guns and that we would be lucid enough that time of night to operate a firearm.This anecdote isn't meant to stand in for an opinion on gun ownership and registration--it's just meant as an example of what can happen.

A former professor of mine, not even a month ago, accidentally shot his own mother in a very similar circumstance. He'd picked her up and brought her to his house for Thanksgiving, went to bed and forgot she was there, and heard a noise. He picked up his .38 pistol and shot the intruder in the chest--his mother. She hadn't died last I heard and he wasn't going to be charged with anything, but it's certainly a good example of what can happen if you're not fully cognizant of what you're doing when you own a gun.

Now, it should be noted that he is the type of person who would be able to own a gun regardless of what registration laws were in effect--he's a professor with a clean record--so registration wouldn't have changed this situation one bit. Poor judgment was the cause of this tragedy.

It's not that we don't want to register. It's just that the registration is kinda useless since the whole idea of registering is to keep track of criminals who aren't registering anyways.

But you can recognize a criminal, can't you? They all these shifty faces and lurking, bloodthirsty expressions.

Oh cut it. A criminal is a person who has broken at least one law at least once. It is not a man who gets deliberate pleasure out of eating babies (though it includes those as a subset). Who are "the criminals"? Same as "the terrorists"? You cannot point them out as a group. Because as a group, they don't exist. Specifically not as a group who get a kick out of owning illegal weapons.

The most harm is not caused by the deliberately illegal use of a weapon, but by irresponsible use of an unregistered weapon. A 15-year old who shoots himself or his sister while playing with a gun, a sixteen-year old who shoots his parents or goes into school to shoot his classmates due to a psychological disorder. These people would not purchase a gun if it were against the law. They are as rational, law-abiding and normal as anyone of us is, most of the time. The rest of the time, you don't want to put a weapon into their hands.

Yeah, but AK's are FUN! I don't own one, and likely never will, but just because a gun has no 'practical' purpose, doesn't mean we shouldn't be allowed to use it. No one wants to ban the guns I own, since most of them are bolt actions, but they're really not all that good for hunting, and I wouldn't use them for that anyway. But just because I don't do anything 'useful' with my guns, is that any reason I shouldn't be allowed to own them? Like you said, you can kill someone just as easily with your bolt-action .270, so if you're going to allow some guns, why not 'assault weapons'?

note: I noticed you used the term 'assault rifle.' It's not really all that important, but 'assault rifle' is a technical term referring to any select-fire, intermediate caliber rifle. 'Assault weapon' is a legal term referring to (basically) any semi-auto rifle with a detatchable mag with a capacity of greater than 10 rounds. Like I said, it's not really important, but there is a difference.

But you can recognize a criminal, can't you?
You don't actually have to recognize a criminal. In America once you go to jail it gets put on record, so when you go to buy a gun and that is shown on your record no gun for you. Now granted, this doesn't cover potential criminals, however, in America you are innocent until proven guilty so you are not allowed to pre judge people like that.


The most harm is not caused by the deliberately illegal use of a weapon, but by irresponsible use of an unregistered weapon. A 15-year old who shoots himself or his sister while playing with a gun, a sixteen-year old who shoots his parents or goes into school to shoot his classmates due to a psychological disorder. These people would not purchase a gun if it were against the law. They are as rational, law-abiding and normal as anyone of us is, most of the time. The rest of the time, you don't want to put a weapon into their hands.
This is why people should lock their guns, however we cannot force that, at least I don't think we can, I might be wrong. People are free to do with their property as they wish, as long as no other person comes to harm as a direct result of their actions.

Because criminals will not register.

oh, but they do. some criminal organizations such as the mafia and other drug cartels are more often than not headed by influencial members of the business or political community. and these people conduct legal enterprises so as to mask their more ominous undertakings. they may pretend to abide by gun registry as a facade, but undernath you'll find most of their henchmen carrying the weapons registered to them. true, gun control is a must as guns do more harm than good in the hands of a private citizen. why not impose an overall gun- ban? that should lessen the incidence of gun related violence. that coupled with a stringent rules against violators should go a long way. besides, as mauiwowee said, more often that not people would be too lucid to use them when an intruder comes in the middle of the night.

teenagers are not the only ones who end up with guns legally registered with an adult, registered guns could also be stolen and end up in the hands of criminals who ill not hesitate to use them.

And really, who needs an AK-74 to kill a deer?

I can kill one with my truck...Lol.

So should the truck be banned?

Every year, millions of people are killed by old age. When does this happen? When people have lived a long time; when they've had a lot of life. So when people have had too much life, it kills them. The government must put a stop to life, to prevent the deaths of countless innocents worldwide!

This anecdote isn't meant to stand in for an opinion on gun ownership and registration--it's just meant as an example of what can happen.

A former professor of mine, not even a month ago, accidentally shot his own mother in a very similar circumstance. He'd picked her up and brought her to his house for Thanksgiving, went to bed and forgot she was there, and heard a noise. He picked up his .38 pistol and shot the intruder in the chest--his mother. She hadn't died last I heard and he wasn't going to be charged with anything, but it's certainly a good example of what can happen if you're not fully cognizant of what you're doing when you own a gun.

Now, it should be noted that he is the type of person who would be able to own a gun regardless of what registration laws were in effect--he's a professor with a clean record--so registration wouldn't have changed this situation one bit. Poor judgment was the cause of this tragedy.

OT Just goes to shoe that education doesn't necessarily mean smart. He "forgot" his mother was there !? Probably some Freudian thing going on.

I had a professor that told the class about a friend of his who was "special forces" assigned to Cambodia during 'Nam. BUT (and here's the kicker) he can't get VA benefits because all the work he did was "top secret" and he wasn't given his out papers. Some people will believe anything.

teenagers are not the only ones who end up with guns legally registered with an adult, registered guns could also be stolen and end up in the hands of criminals who ill not hesitate to use them.

If a gun was stolen the first thing I'd do would be report it. I mean if I owned a gun for a start I wouldn't make it easy to steal and even though it was stolen I would keep ammunition in a different place. I don't want to sound insulting but this is common sense. If the gun was registered they would no where the murder weapon originated and therefore you can track the killer with a greater amount of ease

OT Just goes to shoe that education doesn't necessarily mean smart. He "forgot" his mother was there !? Probably some Freudian thing going on.

I had a professor that told the class about a friend of his who was "special forces" assigned to Cambodia during 'Nam. BUT (and here's the kicker) he can't get VA benefits because all the work he did was "top secret" and he wasn't given his out papers. Some people will believe anything.
Oh, the guy is plenty smart--he just woke up startled in the middle of the night and reacted instinctively instead of thinking the situation through. If he hadn't had his pistol in his bedside table and had been forced to get it from the closet, for instance, he'd have probably remembered that his mother was in the house before he shot anyone. Instead, he woke up, pulled the gun and fired before knowing what the situation was.

One potential problem I see with having a nat'l gun registration (I'm still undecided as to whether or not it's a good idea) is that the government might abuse their power and start taking guns away from people whose politics they didn't agree with. Farfetched, I know, but it's still a scary thought. I do, however, fully support background checks, and believe that getting rid of them would be an extremely poor idea.

As an example, this used to be a fear expressed by Republicans. It is now (as evidenced by some discussions on Democratic Underground), a fear of Democrats.

Some DEMOCRATS on DU have been discussing obtaining firearms and learning how to use them, in the event that the government "finally comes to get them". Sound like Republicans? No, they sound like Americans.

It's not a silly fear. Anyone can abuse power, and anyone can fear that abuse.

I don't think the registration is necessary. If you want to limit sales to law abiding citizens, or to non-felons, we're doing that already - but the criminals are NOT obeying the law, and are obtaining firearms in any case. You can screen people at the time of purchase without registering their firearms.

Statistics come from the US Department of Justice. They apply to the US.

While firearms constitute a major percentage of the weapons used in homicide, the majority of firearm deaths are suicides, which would occur in any case - the person would have found another method.

But, 93 percent of violent crime in the US is perpetrated by people who are NOT armed with a firearm. In most cases, the violent attacker is using his bare hands and superior strength. In most cases, police arrive after everything is over.

2.5 million violent crimes are prevented each year by armed civilians who merely display a firearm - not fire a firearm, not kill or wound anyone.

Cities that have the highest restrictions on firearm possession (licensing, registration, restriction) have much higher levels of violent crime than locales that allow "shall issue" concealed carry permits.

80 percent of felons that ARE armed obtain their firearms through completely illegal means.

I would take it as a given that:
a) police are not reliable as a means of preventing an imminent attack
b) criminals are largely unarmed when they attack
c) armed citizens intervene and stop many violent crimes that would otherwise occur, since the police will not respond in time
d) places where civilians are not armed opens them to the violence that would have been prevented if some of them had been armed
e) criminals don't generally buy their guns from a store

I would take it as a given that any serious restriction on the ownership of firearms over what we already have would:

a) increase the level of violent crime (also seen in the UK and Australia)
b) have no effect (or little effect) on criminals obtaining guns, since they steal or smuggle them in anyway
c) disarm the law-abiding and leave them at the mercy of criminals

In 2001, the Wall Street Journal’s favorite mayor, Brett Schundler, ran for governor of New Jersey on a platform of vouchers to help inner-city children attend better schools in the suburbs. The now notorious Democrat Jim McGreevey beat him badly because white suburban moderates shunned this Republican who put the welfare of urban minority children ahead of their own. These homeowners were scraping together big mortgage payments precisely to get their kids into exclusive suburban school districts insulated from what they saw as the ghetto hellions that Schundler hoped to unleash on their children. They had much of their net worths tied up in their homes, and their property values depended on the local public schools’ high test scores, which they feared wouldn’t survive an onslaught of slum children. So they voted Democratic to keep minorities in their place.

The endless gun-control brouhaha, which on the surface appears to be a bitter battle between liberal and conservative whites, also features a cryptic racial angle. What blue-region white liberals actually want is for the government to disarm the dangerous urban minorities that threaten their children’s safety. Red-region white conservatives, insulated by distance from the Crips and the Bloods, don’t care that white liberals’ kids are in peril. Besides, in sparsely populated Republican areas, where police response times are slow and the chances of drilling an innocent bystander are slim, guns make more sense for self-defense than in the cities and suburbs.

White liberals, angered by white conservatives’ lack of racial solidarity with them, yet bereft of any vocabulary for expressing such a verboten concept, pretend that they need gun control to protect them from gun-crazy rural rednecks, such as the ones Michael Moore demonized in “Bowling for Columbine,” thus further enraging red-region Republicans.

My guns,


You know I rather like you, ole buddy, but why only 'serious' curtailment?

If you make it a simple and unbending rule that ANYONE possessing anything more lethal than a steak-knife dissapears into a labour-camp for the rest of his or her natural life, the problem is REALLY solved.

And while we're at it: what's the point of having prisons where inmates can train themselves to become more adept criminals?

Break their spirit AND their bodies, make sure that the first crime is also the last one ever commits.

I don't 'do' solutions unless they're bloody well 'final'. Anything else is not a solution.

In 2001, the Wall Street Journal’s favorite mayor, Brett Schundler, ran for governor of New Jersey on a platform of vouchers to help inner-city children attend better schools in the suburbs. The now notorious Democrat Jim McGreevey beat him badly because white suburban moderates shunned this Republican who put the welfare of urban minority children ahead of their own. These homeowners were scraping together big mortgage payments precisely to get their kids into exclusive suburban school districts insulated from what they saw as the ghetto hellions that Schundler hoped to unleash on their children. They had much of their net worths tied up in their homes, and their property values depended on the local public schools’ high test scores, which they feared wouldn’t survive an onslaught of slum children. So they voted Democratic to keep minorities in their place.

The endless gun-control brouhaha, which on the surface appears to be a bitter battle between liberal and conservative whites, also features a cryptic racial angle. What blue-region white liberals actually want is for the government to disarm the dangerous urban minorities that threaten their children’s safety. Red-region white conservatives, insulated by distance from the Crips and the Bloods, don’t care that white liberals’ kids are in peril. Besides, in sparsely populated Republican areas, where police response times are slow and the chances of drilling an innocent bystander are slim, guns make more sense for self-defense than in the cities and suburbs.

White liberals, angered by white conservatives’ lack of racial solidarity with them, yet bereft of any vocabulary for expressing such a verboten concept, pretend that they need gun control to protect them from gun-crazy rural rednecks, such as the ones Michael Moore demonized in “Bowling for Columbine,” thus further enraging red-region Republicans.


BINGO! Democrats who want to use crypto-racist speak about this issue will often decry "Saturday night specials" and "cheap guns". These guns are largely purchased by poor urban dwellers who have no other means of defense.

Why is it that a Republican who mentions "states' rights" is accused of racism and when a Democrat mentions "Saturday night specials" will not be accused of racism - even though that is exactly what it is?

The whole panoply of programs starting from the Great Society to the present day - a staggering expenditure for nothing - has only served to nail minorities to the floor in the depths of the worst parts of the city, while whites were moving to the suburbs. Democrats have only served to impoverish multiple generations of poor, creating vast pools of people who feel obligated to vote for Democrats in order to continue receiving handouts of one sort or another, giving up their very freedom and all of their pride in the world's most subtle and massive screwjob.

I do not believe that firearms for personal protection or hunting should be banned. However I believe those that want to purchase guns should have to be licensed. Just as with car ownership government should require that a firearms safety course be required before gun ownership is allowed. It seems many accidental shootings could have been prevented with proper instruction.

Just as with car ownership once the license has been obtained there would be no unreasonable restrictions on the purchase of firearms. I do not believe automatic weapons should be allowed as there is no reasonable legal reason for people to have these arms.

If the government becomes oppressive it is a silly idea that the people will rise up and overthrow using few automatic weapons against the full force of the U.S. government. This is just a poor excuse for owning weapons for which there is not a VALID reason. "Red Dawn" was a movie, wake up.

But you can recognize a criminal, can't you? They all these shifty faces and lurking, bloodthirsty expressions. ... Oh cut it. ... You cannot point them out as a group. Because as a group, they don't exist.

You're completely wrong. There is a very small group of people (0.1% or less) who commit most of the violent crime. Each of them typically has committed many, many major violent crimes (whether they got caught or not). For some reason, when they were growing up they failed to learn whatever it is that makes most of us feel bad about hurting other people... they don't feel anything. It seems like that is something that you learn before you're 15, maybe even before you're 10, and people who don't get it then never do. People who have it almost never commit violent crimes. People who don't have it commit violent crimes fairly regularly, and typically will have dozens in their (known) record. (statistic: something like 85% of murderers have previous felonies on their record) There is almost nothing (maybe severe brain damage) that can make a person switch groups.

Some of the don't-feel-anything group can avoid hurting people in regular society by using rational reasoning and following a rigid code... a lot of them end up in the military, usually in the units that see the most action. These guys primarily don't commit in violent crimes because it is "beneath their dignity" and "dishonorable", not because it would make them feel bad on a visceral level, like it would most people.

You'd be surprised how much of violent crime occurs between (career) criminals, and how much of that is gang-related... the stats are that not only are 85% of murderers already felons, but that 60% of their victims are... which is absolutely astounding. And 80%-plus of crime is considered gang-related. So yeah, both violent criminals and career criminals are very distinct groups.

I do not believe that firearms for personal protection or hunting should be banned. However I believe those that want to purchase guns should have to be licensed. Just as with car ownership government should require that a firearms safety course be required before gun ownership is allowed. It seems many accidental shootings could have been prevented with proper instruction.

Just as with car ownership once the license has been obtained there would be no unreasonable restrictions on the purchase of firearms. I do not believe automatic weapons should be allowed as there is no reasonable legal reason for people to have these arms.

If the government becomes oppressive it is a silly idea that the people will rise up and overthrow using few automatic weapons against the full force of the U.S. government. This is just a poor excuse for owning weapons for which there is not a VALID reason. "Red Dawn" was a movie, wake up.

Plenty of Democrats used to call Republicans silly for saying that people could rise up with private arms. Now I see Democrats saying exactly those statements on Democratic Underground.

The same people who give the insurgents Iraq credit for any gain they make in Iraq - the same people who cheer when an American is killed and claim the war in Iraq is unwinnable - are likely to be the first to claim that private ownership of arms would never prevent tyranny by a government.

I agree, people who wish to own:
cars,
knives,
trucks,
razors,
electrical devices,
rope,
prescription narcotics,
forks,
pencils,
knitting needles,
alcoholic beverages,
glass bottles,
sheet metal,
drills,
routers,
screwdrivers,
icepicks, and
dogs (did I leave out anything that might harm someone requesting it?)

should all have to register their ownership of these items with the goverment. That way, only the criminals will have unregistered items and won't dare use them.
this ought to be funny

dogs MUST be registed, prescrption narcotics are registered by the very fact they are PRESCRIPTION, vehicles MUST be registered

wow good job captain smartass, you failed

and the rest are just stupid

It's not that we don't want to register. It's just that the registration is kinda useless since the whole idea of registering is to keep track of criminals who aren't registering anyways.
no, its that you dont want to register

if you didnt care, you wouldnt give a shit and would stop bitching

and even if criminals dont register, dont you think it will be easier to find them? wow, they used so and sos gun, go to so and sos house, find gun is stolen, etc etcetc until get to guy who stole it

this ought to be funny

dogs MUST be registed, prescrption narcotics are registered by the very fact they are PRESCRIPTION, vehicles MUST be registered

wow good job captain smartass, you failed

and the rest are just stupid


Well, the 9-11 hijackers did rather well with boxcutters. So I'm sure that if we consider guns bad and dangerous, then we'll really have to register knives.

The UK has an upcoming bill on the registry of kitchen knives - anything longer than 4cm is going to have to be registered to an individual.

So it's probably not that silly for someone who believes that inanimate objects compel people to do bad things.

Even though objective evidence in the US shows that 93 percent of violent acts are not committed with the use of a firearm. Even though the majority of violent acts in the US are done with bare hands.

Oooh. We should start testing people for size and muscle mass (and any knowledge of any fighting technique), and force them to take estrogens and close bodybuilding and martial arts studios, so that we can wussify any men strong enough to cause a problem.

We'll have to ban weightlifting equipment as well. No one really needs to be built like Arnold, do they?

Good idea. Because right near where I live, some of the 9-11 hijackers trained constantly at the gym so they could overwhelm passengers through brute strength...

ok how many peopel die by the result of violent acts without the aid of some sort of weapon as compared to violent acts with guns

and i may be wrong ,but dont traiend martial artists actually have to register...

also if i recall, the hijackers had something in addition to the boxcutters that was derived from reports coming from people with cells on the plane.

and if all they had were box cutters and managed to take over that shows the intelligence level of people on a plane. "well we are all going to die or i could get stabbed...hmm, fuck it ill just sit here"

i have an idea that will make killing two birds with one stone a child's feat


ban all guns. require every person to take martial arts, paid for with tax dollars of course, but what are tax dollars for your safety?

this fixes: killings with guns, the majority of normal weapons threats, and obesity which in turn fixes a whole crapload of other problems. and in addition there is discipline that comes with martial arts.

Well, the 9-11 hijackers did rather well with boxcutters. So I'm sure that if we consider guns bad and dangerous, then we'll really have to register knives.

The UK has an upcoming bill on the registry of kitchen knives - anything longer than 4cm is going to have to be registered to an individual.

So it's probably not that silly for someone who believes that inanimate objects compel people to do bad things.

Even though objective evidence in the US shows that 93 percent of violent acts are not committed with the use of a firearm. Even though the majority of violent acts in the US are done with bare hands.

Oooh. We should start testing people for size and muscle mass (and any knowledge of any fighting technique), and force them to take estrogens and close bodybuilding and martial arts studios, so that we can wussify any men strong enough to cause a problem.

We'll have to ban weightlifting equipment as well. No one really needs to be built like Arnold, do they?

Good idea. Because right near where I live, some of the 9-11 hijackers trained constantly at the gym so they could overwhelm passengers through brute strength...

Hell and damnation! That is EXACTLY what I just don't understand about the US. How the F is possible that a bunch of middle eastern types who definetely looked like they did not subscribe to the idea that the only good arab is a wussified and castrated arab were not terminated upon entry?

Are you folks THAT security-unconscious?

It is just as bad as that Fortuyn-case in Holland.
a VEGETARIAN applies for a hunting-license, and leaves the police-office ALIVE?

ok how many peopel die by the result of violent acts without the aid of some sort of weapon as compared to violent acts with guns

and i may be wrong ,but dont traiend martial artists actually have to register...

also if i recall, the hijackers had something in addition to the boxcutters that was derived from reports coming from people with cells on the plane.

and if all they had were box cutters and managed to take over that shows the intelligence level of people on a plane. "well we are all going to die or i could get stabbed...hmm, fuck it ill just sit here"

1. 63 percent of criminals use no weapon at all in the US when doing a violent crime. 7 percent are committed with a firearm. Of all firearm deaths, roughly 1 in 4 are murders - the vast majority are suicides, which would have resulted in death in any case.

2. Martial artists, contrary to popular opinion, do not have to register in the US. Most martial arts, except those persons trained to an exceptionally high degree, have been proven in tests and on the street to be largely inferior to a person with minor competence with a handgun.

3. Some, but not all, of the hijackers had pepper spray. And on Flight 77, they claimed that they had a bomb, which made everyone stay in their seats.

4. Ok, I'm game. We can wrestle, and I'll have a box cutter. Do you really want to get cut, even if it's not fatal? I've used knives in fights before, but only as a distraction (and an extremely effective distraction it is). It usually enables me to beat the crap out of someone while they spend the whole time obsessing with what I have in my hand.

1. 63 percent of criminals use no weapon at all in the US when doing a violent crime. 7 percent are committed with a firearm. Of all firearm deaths, roughly 1 in 4 are murders - the vast majority are suicides, which would have resulted in death in any case.

2. Martial artists, contrary to popular opinion, do not have to register in the US. Most martial arts, except those persons trained to an exceptionally high degree, have been proven in tests and on the street to be largely inferior to a person with minor competence with a handgun.

3. Some, but not all, of the hijackers had pepper spray. And on Flight 77, they claimed that they had a bomb, which made everyone stay in their seats.

4. Ok, I'm game. We can wrestle, and I'll have a box cutter. Do you really want to get cut, even if it's not fatal? I've used knives in fights before, but only as a distraction (and an extremely effective distraction it is). It usually enables me to beat the crap out of someone while they spend the whole time obsessing with what I have in my hand.


1) that wasnt the question

3) the bomb theory proves my point "we can all die or all die, ill just sit here" and bingo, there you go pepper spray. it wasnt solely box cutters, you just undercut your own attempt at a point previously

4) when the choice is my life v my life, i wouldnt really care.

Plenty of Democrats used to call Republicans silly for saying that people could rise up with private arms. Now I see Democrats saying exactly those statements on Democratic Underground.

The same people who give the insurgents Iraq credit for any gain they make in Iraq - the same people who cheer when an American is killed and claim the war in Iraq is unwinnable - are likely to be the first to claim that private ownership of arms would never prevent tyranny by a government.

Silly is silly no matter who says it.

As for your second point, if these weapons existed prior to the U.S. invasion why did they not prevent Sadam from taking over Iraq in the first place? Your point is proved false by your own statement.

It is most likely those guns of which you speak come from the arsenols left behind by Sadam or neighboring countries sympathetic to the cause. It is just as silly to think these insurgent attacks will force the U.S. out of Iraq. U.S. deaths are extreemly small when you look at the number of Iraqees killed. The U.S. has heat seeking weapons, smart bombs, tanks, airforce etc. etc. It is overwhelming force vs pea shooters.

Compare that to the government enforcing it's will on it's own soil...you haven't begun to see overwhelming force. Besides the way our system of government is set up this bizzaro idea of the government turning on it's citizens is pure fiction. A paranoid fantasy.

Because criminals will not register.


Criminals are going to get guns ect. wether or not they break the law what do they care they are "criminals" . dont punish the law abiding for the malicious acts of criminals. i remember a time when my life was saved by my father because he happened to be "carrying". so tell me why should the government or any one else be able to take away my right as an american citzen to carry fire arms?? will they ever??? i think NOT!!

Criminals are going to get guns ect. wether or not they break the law what do they care they are "criminals" . dont punish the law abiding for the malicious acts of criminals. i remember a time when my life was saved by my father because he happened to be "carrying". so tell me why should the government or any one else be able to take away my right as an american citzen to carry fire arms?? will they ever??? i think NOT!!
whoah there cowboy ,because you would have to register a firearm doesnt mean you cant have one

I am convinced that people who favor gun control have never had a personal need for one. They don't find guns interesting, or a valid hobby, and have a personal fear of being around one.

They view them as dangerous (moreso than a chainsaw or welding torch), and feel that somehow they imbue their owner or holder with a desire to do harm to some random individual.

I also believe that they a) find personal confrontation distateful or fearful, and b) have never had a major personal confrontation involving life or death

The more they fit this pattern, the more restrictions they favor.

Also, for those who fear inner city poor people (by this, I am using the modern Democrat term for "blacks"), disarming the people that they secretly despise is a major factor in wanting firearms restrictions. Hence the use of terms like "Saturday Night Special" and the promotion of gun buy-backs that only work in extremely poor areas (they offer less than 100 dollars for a gun voluntarily turned in, and run these programs in the poorest of neighborhoods). These programs are promoted, voted for, and passed only by Democrats, who to me are closet racists, especially those from the Northeast.

I am convinced that people who favor gun control have never had a personal need for one. They don't find guns interesting, or a valid hobby, and have a personal fear of being around one.

They view them as dangerous (moreso than a chainsaw or welding torch), and feel that somehow they imbue their owner or holder with a desire to do harm to some random individual.

I also believe that they a) find personal confrontation distateful or fearful, and b) have never had a major personal confrontation involving life or death

The more they fit this pattern, the more restrictions they favor.

Also, for those who fear inner city poor people (by this, I am using the modern Democrat term for "blacks"), disarming the people that they secretly despise is a major factor in wanting firearms restrictions. Hence the use of terms like "Saturday Night Special" and the promotion of gun buy-backs that only work in extremely poor areas (they offer less than 100 dollars for a gun voluntarily turned in, and run these programs in the poorest of neighborhoods). These programs are promoted, voted for, and passed only by Democrats, who to me are closet racists, especially those from the Northeast.

I am convinced that people who are afraid of gun control have something to hide.

They view them as safe (moreso than a chainsaw or welding torch), and feel that somehow they imbue their owner or holder with a desire to do harm to commies, or trespassers, or government agents.

I also believe that they a) find personal confrontation to be a sport, and b) seek out major personal confrontation involving life or death

Also, for those who fear rural poor people (by this, I am using the modern Republican term for "constituants"), arming these people that they secretly despise is a major factor in not wanting firearms restrictions. Hence the use of terms like "Militia" and the promotion of automatic gun sales that only work with the extremely paranoid and uneducated (they use terms like government oppression, and twist the first amendment to their delutional wants). These programs are promoted, voted for, and passed only by Republicans, who to me are open racists, especially those from the Southeast.

Just as silly an arguement but I couldn't resist. :)

I am convinced that people who favor gun control have never had a personal need for one. They don't find guns interesting, or a valid hobby, and have a personal fear of being around one.

They view them as dangerous (moreso than a chainsaw or welding torch), and feel that somehow they imbue their owner or holder with a desire to do harm to some random individual.

I also believe that they a) find personal confrontation distateful or fearful, and b) have never had a major personal confrontation involving life or death

The more they fit this pattern, the more restrictions they favor.

Also, for those who fear inner city poor people (by this, I am using the modern Democrat term for "blacks"), disarming the people that they secretly despise is a major factor in wanting firearms restrictions. Hence the use of terms like "Saturday Night Special" and the promotion of gun buy-backs that only work in extremely poor areas (they offer less than 100 dollars for a gun voluntarily turned in, and run these programs in the poorest of neighborhoods). These programs are promoted, voted for, and passed only by Democrats, who to me are closet racists, especially those from the Northeast.
i grew up around guns, i learned to use one when i was like 5. im probably a good of a shot as you are after a couple shots to figure out what im doing wrong at start. your problem is you are ignorant. you think all people who favor control are big city boys who dont know which end of the gun the bullet comes out and that control means BANNING. no, look up the definition of the word control

I'm sorry, but this whole wrestling/martial arts thing is dumb.

What about someone who is a parapelegic? What about someone who has severe arthritis?

If you want security on an airplane, make everyone sit in their underwear. No one is going to start a fight or hijack a plane dressed only in their tighy whiteys.

The whole point of guns is protection of self against others with bad intentions. Think about this: 100 guys armed with pistols no matter where they went, who are honest upstanding and contributing members to society are probably never going to just snap and shoot someone. One person with criminal intent with a sandwich knife could do irreparable harm to many.

Now I'm going to be nasty. People who want to ban guns, or ban knives that are too big or other inanimate objects that might cause harm are insensitive pussies. Did I just say that? Yep. And before you get your knicker in a twist, read further.

The reason we have a problem with guns and crime in this country isn't because of the guns. It's because of idiotic conservative or liberal policies that want to blame the symptom for a problem and not deal with the actual problem. Hence: pussies. It is soooo much easier to say: ban all the guns than to really work to fix the problems.

Here's the first problem: the inane and pointless war on drugs. Many of the people who die or are shot is because the prohibition on mostly natural substances has force their sale on the black market to have artificially inflated prices. If drugs were legalized and regulated the prices would fall out from underneath them. Example: marijauna. Marijauna is a plant. It's a weed and it used to and still does in many places grow wild in this coutry. So what should be a worthless plant, now has an illegal commercial value. Any first year economics student could tell you that.

Second problem: We have deficient public health care and especially deficient public mental health care facilities in this country. If My Gun Not Yours number are right (and I have no reason to believe that they are not), 40,000 people die from gunshots on average every year. Approximately 31,000 of those were suicides. 31,000?!?! Holy Crap!! So, how exactly is the gun banning thing going to save those people? Here's the answer: it won't. How about Kip Kinkle (the Oregon school shooter) or the Columbine shooters or any of the others? They all, without exception, had one thing in common: they were formerly under the care of mental health professionals. Kip Kinkle was prescribed medication (Prozac) and it was working, he was pulled off of that treatment and the rest is history. People who are depressesed or disturbed or have serious psychological disorders are not only a threat to themselves (suicide) they are a threat to others. I can almost gauruntee that at some point, the kid who shot Dimebag Darrell was under the treatment of mental health professionals at some point, and I'm sure there are other examples that can be found by reading through some of the older posts in this very thread.

It's much harder, and much more expensive to institute a comprehensive mental health program in schools and in companies. Mental health benefits in most insurance plans are not very good or thorough, and required high deductables that people who are just hanging in there sometimes cannot afford. It's much easier to blame an object than it is to look at the fallibility of people. It's much easier to try and apply a quick solution to problems than it is to get to the root. And the root of most of the violence caused by guns in this country isn't from the guns themselves, but from actions brought on by mental illness. It's very expensive and tedious and nebulous to treat mental disorders, but by not even trying, we are losing thousands of lives per year.

Whenever someone is shot, by themselves or by someone else, it is a tradgedy. Not only for the person killed, but for the families of those that have died. The point missed by most people on both sides is the root of the problems. The sheer number of firearms in this country (400 million if I remember right) should point to that gun violence isn't near the problem that say, is inflicted by automobiles. That huge amount of guns, combined with the fact that most gun deaths are suicides should kinda tip people off that something else is wrong.

Sorry for the rant, but this gun control issue seems ancillary to some of the real problems we face, yet don't want to deal with. Fix the underlying causes of these problems and the 'gun problem' will fix itself. So, go ahead and ban all guns. Do it. It won't make a f**cking bit of difference.

But when the murder rate goes up, and the suicide ratte remains the same, don't say I didn't warn you when you took the easy way out.

I am convinced that people who are afraid of gun control have something to hide.

They view them as safe (moreso than a chainsaw or welding torch), and feel that somehow they imbue their owner or holder with a desire to do harm to commies, or trespassers, or government agents.

I also believe that they a) find personal confrontation to be a sport, and b) seek out major personal confrontation involving life or death

Also, for those who fear rural poor people (by this, I am using the modern Republican term for "constituants"), arming these people that they secretly despise is a major factor in not wanting firearms restrictions. Hence the use of terms like "Militia" and the promotion of automatic gun sales that only work with the extremely paranoid and uneducated (they use terms like government oppression, and twist the first amendment to their delutional wants). These programs are promoted, voted for, and passed only by Republicans, who to me are open racists, especially those from the Southeast.

Just as silly an arguement but I couldn't resist. :)

No, in my case my wife and I require guns to survive.
We view them as far more reliable and effective protection than the police and courts, who have not protected my wife from being raped, stabbed, and beaten by an ex-husband. Who did not protect our house from being burned to the ground. Who to this day will not involve themselves until, as a magistrate put it, "someone is actually dead".
They imbue us with a sense of safety that we did not have before, since our attacker is quite aware that we are armed, and has voiced his now extreme fear of running into us.
Personal confrontation happens. If you're not able to deal with it, especially if your opponent desires bodily harm, you're going to get harmed in a major way.

Of course, those that favor gun restrictions would rather that my wife and I were either burned or beaten to death.

No, in my case my wife and I require guns to survive.
We view them as far more reliable and effective protection than the police and courts, who have not protected my wife from being raped, stabbed, and beaten by an ex-husband. Who did not protect our house from being burned to the ground. Who to this day will not involve themselves until, as a magistrate put it, "someone is actually dead".
They imbue us with a sense of safety that we did not have before, since our attacker is quite aware that we are armed, and has voiced his now extreme fear of running into us.
Personal confrontation happens. If you're not able to deal with it, especially if your opponent desires bodily harm, you're going to get harmed in a major way.

Of course, those that favor gun restrictions would rather that my wife and I were either burned or beaten to death.
not your wife, but you getting beaten to death im sure i could live with on my conscience. go throw your ignorant pity party somewhere else and look up the definition of the word control

not your wife, but you getting beaten to death im sure i could live with on my conscience. go throw your ignorant pity party somewhere else and look up the definition of the word control

under most gun control plans, the first thing to go is concealed carry of weapons.

which we rely on.

I guess it's ignorant if you would rather that a criminal proceed with violence.

under most gun control plans, the first thing to go is concealed carry of weapons.

which we rely on.

I guess it's ignorant if you would rather that a criminal proceed with violence.
"most"

you admit every plan is not the same. therefore how can you condemn them all in one fell swoop

"most"

you admit every plan is not the same. therefore how can you condemn them all in one fell swoop

We don't allow everyone to vote, even though we claim "universal suffrage" Children, the insane, felons, and foreigners don't have the right to vote.

So, let's say I view gun ownership, and self-defense, and concealed carry, as a right, no different than voting.

OK, no guns for children, the insane, felons, and foreigners. We already have that in the NICS system, where you have to do the computer check every time you buy a gun.

No other restrictions are necessary. Waiting periods have been proven not to work. The "assault weapon ban" banned nothing. No fully automatic weapon legally sold in the US since 1934 has ever been used in the commission of a violent crime. Any other laws restricting carry or possession seem to raise violent crime. So - to help out my law:

Punishment for a child possessing a firearm outside of the instruction and supervision of an adult: imprisonment of their parents until their youngest child reaches adulthood and permanent loss of child custody.

Punishment for possession of a firearm by the insane, felons, or foreigners: death by hanging.

Punishment for giving a firearm to someone in the "no guns" category: death.

I would also add that if you are carrying (concealed or openly), and a violent crime is committed in your presence, you would (unlike today) be legally liable to stop the crime. Right now, if I didn't feel like helping someone whom I knew was anti-gun, I could just tell the felon, "go ahead and rape their ass" and walk away with NO REPERCUSSIONS. I think I would want to prevent that as well.

We don't allow everyone to vote, even though we claim "universal suffrage" Children, the insane, felons, and foreigners don't have the right to vote.

So, let's say I view gun ownership, and self-defense, and concealed carry, as a right, no different than voting.

OK, no guns for children, the insane, felons, and foreigners. We already have that in the NICS system, where you have to do the computer check every time you buy a gun.

No other restrictions are necessary. Waiting periods have been proven not to work. The "assault weapon ban" banned nothing. No fully automatic weapon legally sold in the US since 1934 has ever been used in the commission of a violent crime. Any other laws restricting carry or possession seem to raise violent crime. So - to help out my law:

Punishment for a child possessing a firearm outside of the instruction and supervision of an adult: imprisonment of their parents until their youngest child reaches adulthood and permanent loss of child custody.

Punishment for possession of a firearm by the insane, felons, or foreigners: death by hanging.

Punishment for giving a firearm to someone in the "no guns" category: death.

I would also add that if you are carrying (concealed or openly), and a violent crime is committed in your presence, you would (unlike today) be legally liable to stop the crime. Right now, if I didn't feel like helping someone whom I knew was anti-gun, I could just tell the felon, "go ahead and rape their ass" and walk away with NO REPERCUSSIONS. I think I would want to prevent that as well.
im sure its nice in the 19th century, but since you lvie there no need to dictate what we can or cant do here a couple centuries ahead

im sure its nice in the 19th century, but since you lvie there no need to dictate what we can or cant do here a couple centuries ahead

Well, here in the US, the police are not obligated to provide protection. There's a Supreme Court decision that states that just because you call, just because someone is attacking you, the police NEVER have to show up, and NEVER are required to investigate.

Never. I've had this quoted to me by magistrates. So I believe it now.

In that light, if I was not permitted a weapon, what would you have me do when attacked? Would you provide me a guard 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, at my request?

I think not. And I don't think it's practical to assume that you can guarantee the safety of every individual, and that the government will provide that safety. Especially when statistics prove otherwise - that people with guns suffer less violent crime, and people without guns suffer at least a tripling in victimization.

If recent stats are anything, the police in the UK are as useless as those in the US at preventing something, or intervening in time to stop something. Like their US counterparts, they show up after Batman and Robin have done their thing.

No, in my case my wife and I require guns to survive.
We view them as far more reliable and effective protection than the police and courts, who have not protected my wife from being raped, stabbed, and beaten by an ex-husband. Who did not protect our house from being burned to the ground. Who to this day will not involve themselves until, as a magistrate put it, "someone is actually dead".
They imbue us with a sense of safety that we did not have before, since our attacker is quite aware that we are armed, and has voiced his now extreme fear of running into us.
Personal confrontation happens. If you're not able to deal with it, especially if your opponent desires bodily harm, you're going to get harmed in a major way.

Of course, those that favor gun restrictions would rather that my wife and I were either burned or beaten to death.

See some of my earlier posts. I have nothing against gun ownership for personal protection. My only desire is that gun owners be licenced in order to prove that they are properly trained in the use of said gun. This is in order to keep those unable or unwilling to use that gun safely from owning a gun. I realize that there are illegal ways of obtaining a gun, but that can be said of anything that is illegal. But, if it stops one five year old from killing their sister or a professor from mistaking his mother as an intruder, it will be worth it. I think that is a small inconvienience for those who want to own a gun. With my idea it would be easier for a law abiding citizen to get a gun because once you have the licence you would not have to wait for a background check, the licence is your proof of worthiness. I have yet to hear a reasonable arguement against this idea. Most are just paranoid ramblings about the government will come and take your guns etc...

I know of very few people, liberal or otherwise who would eliminate all guns. Most just want to make sure they are used safely.

I do NOT, however, think that automatic weapons should be legalized as they are unnecessary for personal protection and the idea of rising up against a corrupt government is laughable.

As for your situation I hope that monster tries to break in again and you shoot him between the eyes. If I were in your situation I would do the same.

I am already substantially better trained than most police. I don't think I should be required to go to a class.

I am already substantially better trained than most police. I don't think I should be required to go to a class.

You know that but I don't, and I doubt if it would kill you to prove that by taking a test. That way it's fair for everyone.

P.S.
I don't know about where you live but I was under the impression that if you had reason to fear for your life there was a permit you could get that would allow you to wear carry a gun. I could be wrong as I have never tried.

Hell and damnation! That is EXACTLY what I just don't understand about the US. How the F is possible that a bunch of middle eastern types who definetely looked like they did not subscribe to the idea that the only good arab is a wussified and castrated arab were not terminated upon entry?

Are you folks THAT security-unconscious?
Doesn't that make you go "hmmmmm?"

The permit to carry concealed requires either training or proof of training. Therefore, I didn't have to take the class.

Carrying openly in Virginia requires no permit since July.

Owning a gun doesn't always mean you want to shoot it. I know many collectors who would not fire any of their weapons for fear of destroying their value as collectibles.

Silly is silly no matter who says it.

As for your second point, if these weapons existed prior to the U.S. invasion why did they not prevent Sadam from taking over Iraq in the first place? Your point is proved false by your own statement.Not only do you have to have guns to resist an oppressive government, you actually have to use them. Saddam was not universaly hated as the USG and American media have implied.

It is most likely those guns of which you speak come from the arsenols left behind by Sadam or neighboring countries sympathetic to the cause. It is just as silly to think these insurgent attacks will force the U.S. out of Iraq. U.S. deaths are extreemly small when you look at the number of Iraqees killed. The U.S. has heat seeking weapons, smart bombs, tanks, airforce etc. etc. It is overwhelming force vs pea shooters.It seems you've discovered the "resistance is futile" argument. You'd be a fool to apply that to Iraq. Those American troops that have died are really dead. There are thousands wounded. When you consider how much it costs the US to continue to maintain that overwhelming force, the effectiveness of poorly trained, poorly armed militias cannot be sneezed at. You may be right that my government is not going to pull troops out of Iraq, but the numbers of dead and wounded have certainly increased the number of us who would like to see that happen.

Compare that to the government enforcing it's will on it's own soil...you haven't begun to see overwhelming force. Besides the way our system of government is set up this bizzaro idea of the government turning on it's citizens is pure fiction. A paranoid fantasy.
Where the hell do you live? The US government is not about to turn against it's citizens because it already is against us.

Not only do you have to have guns to resist an oppressive government, you actually have to use them. Saddam was not universaly hated as the USG and American media have implied.

It seems you've discovered the "resistance is futile" argument. You'd be a fool to apply that to Iraq. Those American troops that have died are really dead. There are thousands wounded. When you consider how much it costs the US to continue to maintain that overwhelming force, the effectiveness of poorly trained, poorly armed militias cannot be sneezed at. You may be right that my government is not going to pull troops out of Iraq, but the numbers of dead and wounded have certainly increased the number of us who would like to see that happen.

Where the hell do you live? The US government is not about to turn against it's citizens because it already is against us.

I have the same government as you.

Don't misunderstand me, I am not a Bush supporter at all. I was against the war with Iraq from it's inception. I believe the country is going in the wrong direction. Yes those soldiers are really dead, those Iraqees are really dead. What you need to do is put this in perspective of history. How many U.S. soldiers died before the end of the Vietnam war? What we have in Iraq is a situation which the U.S. government will allow to continue for many more thousands of deaths. The U.S. will prevail because no one wants another humiliation like the loss of Vietnam. We are in now and won't come out without a victory. So yes resistance is futile, unless they get more backing and arms from other countries. It's simply a matter of time and collateral damage. But Iraq has nothing to do with this thread.

Just as Saddam was not universally hated (Though I don't doubt he was hated by a majority since he only seemed to care about the Sunnis which were a minority) neither is the Bush administration. Out of what, like 300 million americans only 60 some million cared enough to vote and then less than half of those voted against him. Of those that voted for Kerry or someone else what percentage cares enough to go to war against the U.S. government? I doubt if you could calculate such a small number.

Now most of the militia gun fanatic types are extreme right wingers. The majority probably think the goverment is doing a great job. So how many people does that leave to overthrow our government. A very small handfull. Mostly the criminally insane. So again I say the idea of legallizing automatic weapons to overthrow our government is lunacy of the highest order.

The government is not against us. We are going through a faze that happens every so often in this country where some radical thinking nuts control the government. Think McCarthyism and you'll understand (or look it up if you don't). Sooner or later reasonable people will go to the voting booth and get rid of these parasites. It's nothing to go hyperspastic over. If it weren't for the mess in Iraq it would almost be laughable. As it has been said: You get the government you deserve. That's what we have now...a government elected due to American apathy. And the world pays the price.

The permit to carry concealed requires either training or proof of training. Therefore, I didn't have to take the class.

Carrying openly in Virginia requires no permit since July.

Owning a gun doesn't always mean you want to shoot it. I know many collectors who would not fire any of their weapons for fear of destroying their value as collectibles.

Then the law seems to be working quite well for you. I don't see a problem.

I'm sorry, but this whole wrestling/martial arts thing is dumb.

What about someone who is a parapelegic? What about someone who has severe arthritis?

If you want security on an airplane, make everyone sit in their underwear. No one is going to start a fight or hijack a plane dressed only in their tighy whiteys.

The whole point of guns is protection of self against others with bad intentions. Think about this: 100 guys armed with pistols no matter where they went, who are honest upstanding and contributing members to society are probably never going to just snap and shoot someone. One person with criminal intent with a sandwich knife could do irreparable harm to many.

Now I'm going to be nasty. People who want to ban guns, or ban knives that are too big or other inanimate objects that might cause harm are insensitive pussies. Did I just say that? Yep. And before you get your knicker in a twist, read further.

The reason we have a problem with guns and crime in this country isn't because of the guns. It's because of idiotic conservative or liberal policies that want to blame the symptom for a problem and not deal with the actual problem. Hence: pussies. It is soooo much easier to say: ban all the guns than to really work to fix the problems.

Here's the first problem: the inane and pointless war on drugs. Many of the people who die or are shot is because the prohibition on mostly natural substances has force their sale on the black market to have artificially inflated prices. If drugs were legalized and regulated the prices would fall out from underneath them. Example: marijauna. Marijauna is a plant. It's a weed and it used to and still does in many places grow wild in this coutry. So what should be a worthless plant, now has an illegal commercial value. Any first year economics student could tell you that.

Second problem: We have deficient public health care and especially deficient public mental health care facilities in this country. If My Gun Not Yours number are right (and I have no reason to believe that they are not), 40,000 people die from gunshots on average every year. Approximately 31,000 of those were suicides. 31,000?!?! Holy Crap!! So, how exactly is the gun banning thing going to save those people? Here's the answer: it won't. How about Kip Kinkle (the Oregon school shooter) or the Columbine shooters or any of the others? They all, without exception, had one thing in common: they were formerly under the care of mental health professionals. Kip Kinkle was prescribed medication (Prozac) and it was working, he was pulled off of that treatment and the rest is history. People who are depressesed or disturbed or have serious psychological disorders are not only a threat to themselves (suicide) they are a threat to others. I can almost gauruntee that at some point, the kid who shot Dimebag Darrell was under the treatment of mental health professionals at some point, and I'm sure there are other examples that can be found by reading through some of the older posts in this very thread.

It's much harder, and much more expensive to institute a comprehensive mental health program in schools and in companies. Mental health benefits in most insurance plans are not very good or thorough, and required high deductables that people who are just hanging in there sometimes cannot afford. It's much easier to blame an object than it is to look at the fallibility of people. It's much easier to try and apply a quick solution to problems than it is to get to the root. And the root of most of the violence caused by guns in this country isn't from the guns themselves, but from actions brought on by mental illness. It's very expensive and tedious and nebulous to treat mental disorders, but by not even trying, we are losing thousands of lives per year.

Whenever someone is shot, by themselves or by someone else, it is a tradgedy. Not only for the person killed, but for the families of those that have died. The point missed by most people on both sides is the root of the problems. The sheer number of firearms in this country (400 million if I remember right) should point to that gun violence isn't near the problem that say, is inflicted by automobiles. That huge amount of guns, combined with the fact that most gun deaths are suicides should kinda tip people off that something else is wrong.

Sorry for the rant, but this gun control issue seems ancillary to some of the real problems we face, yet don't want to deal with. Fix the underlying causes of these problems and the 'gun problem' will fix itself. So, go ahead and ban all guns. Do it. It won't make a f**cking bit of difference.

But when the murder rate goes up, and the suicide ratte remains the same, don't say I didn't warn you when you took the easy way out.

Hear, Hear.. Well stated and reasoned! I agree. The problem is not guns or how many of them or what type they are, it is the people that possess them and their underlying problems that our society tends to brush off or ignore rather than address.

Rules and Disclaimer: The standard rules apply as in all of my "My Thoughts On:" threads, this is my personal opinion and is not intended to offend. If for some reason an opinion of mine or another offends you, I ask that you take a break fromt he computer before posting so as to leave anger from this thread. This thread is intended for cool-headed debate and I request that sarcasm be restricted in it's use. Please be respectful of the opinion of others and refraim from personal insult or mockery.

That said, you are free to express your own opinion, conditional on your respect for others.

---------------------------------------------------

Let me begin by saying I am not "anti guns", I am not saying there aren't Liberals out there who are, just that I am not one of them. I have, on occassion, fired a weapon and consider myself an all-right shot.

However, I do support gun control. This is important because guns do one major thing, they escalate the potentional for harm.

For Example: I have a friend whos neighbour, on occassion, will become quite drunk and abusive to passersby. Most of the time this is restricted to hurling beerbottles, however he will also threaten people with knives, piano-wire and once a katana.

Just imagine if this man could legally own a firearm.

Guns are really not useful for personal protection, we base this on the assumption we would descover a intruder when they entered our premise, criminals don't carry their own guns and that we would be lucid enough that time of night to operate a firearm.

I am not saying that firearms should be banned, far from it. I do however believe that like all items capable of harm the person requesting it should be rigorusly screened and be registered on some kind of list.

[/end opinion...for now]

Actually, we have guns first and foremost to prevent the Gov't from becoming totalitarian. As it is "implied" in the 2d Ammendment, it is to ensure the current government, and to overthrow it if it ever becomes necessary.

I agree though, gun control is important, but I do not consider taking the right away (which we can't do anyway) the right course of action. Mandatory gun locks are a great idea. Tightening up on time between purchase and ownership of firearms would help too. The biggest thing, would be to crack down on black market trades, and make selling unregistered firearms a felony that requires at least 40 years in prison. (Sure, it's a felony, but I think when a 25 year old hot shot gets out just in time to start dying, people will catch on. ^^)

Actually, we have guns first and foremost to prevent the Gov't from becoming totalitarian. As it is "implied" in the 2d Ammendment, it is to ensure the current government, and to overthrow it if it ever becomes necessary.

I agree though, gun control is important, but I do not consider taking the right away (which we can't do anyway) the right course of action. Mandatory gun locks are a great idea. Tightening up on time between purchase and ownership of firearms would help too. The biggest thing, would be to crack down on black market trades, and make selling unregistered firearms a felony that requires at least 40 years in prison. (Sure, it's a felony, but I think when a 25 year old hot shot gets out just in time to start dying, people will catch on. ^^)
ooh ooh better yet lets TAX PEOPLE to fund EQUAL EDUCATION

oh shit, i said tax didnt i. that will never work

One potential problem I see with having a nat'l gun registration (I'm still undecided as to whether or not it's a good idea) is that the government might abuse their power and start taking guns away from people whose politics they didn't agree with. Farfetched, I know, but it's still a scary thought. I do, however, fully support background checks, and believe that getting rid of them would be an extremely poor idea.

And that is exactly what the 2d Amendment is for. If the government tries to restrict your constitutional right, you revolt. That is why it is in the Bill of Rights. It is part of the Constitution, and it would be unconstitutional for a governement body to try and supress that right. The government doesn't give its citezens any rights, remember that. The Constitution, and every USC, is designed to limit what the government can do.

My thoughts on gun control:

Personally I favor some sort of control, but I have observed that gun control doesn't work as well as I'd like it to. . .

So I am for the most part anti-gun control; the one thing I might institute is a background check and that's it

I am convinced that people who favor gun control have never had a personal need for one.

Yes. Many people have a "moment of clarity" at some point when they are the victims of violent crime. Sad but true.

I would say not even necessarily "need" but "can they actually imagine themselves holding one"... most people who would honestly say "yes" would not be in favor of banning them.

They don't find guns interesting, or a valid hobby, and have a personal fear of being around one.

YES! It's called hoplophobia (fear of weapons) and is in the same category as arachnophobia (fear of spiders)... both utterly irrational phobias, although based on just a grain of real possible danger.

For most people, a weapon means "survival" at some visceral level dating back from when sabertooth tigers roamed the night... you want to have it in your hand or in your pocket, it is reassuring even though you rationally know you probably won't need it. A few people feel revulsion instead.

Also, for those who fear inner city poor people (by this, I am using the modern Democrat term for "blacks"), disarming the people that they secretly despise is a major factor in wanting firearms restrictions. Hence the use of terms like "Saturday Night Special" and the promotion of gun buy-backs that only work in extremely poor areas (they offer less than 100 dollars for a gun voluntarily turned in, and run these programs in the poorest of neighborhoods). These programs are promoted, voted for, and passed only by Democrats, who to me are closet racists, especially those from the Northeast.

Yes, there is definitely more than a little of "poor people disarmament" going on. It's not just the Northeast, here in California is also really bad in that regard. Some cities have ordnances banning cheap guns explicitly on the basis of price... unbelievable.

As an aside, I've seen surprising number of (usually older, obviously not "gangsta") black people being very interested in guns around here... I think it's for self-defense, they live in very dangerous neighborhoods but don't want to leave.

The reason why a lot of people assume that control=ban is because most of the people who are vocal about (more) control see it as a good first step towards a ban. Some of the top people in "Handgun Control Inc" (formerly "Million Mom March") have actually gone and said that. So have the nice folks at "Campaign Against Gun Violence". So have Senators Feinstein and Schumer, and even Oprah. Based on that expressly stated position of the proponents of "control" it is not an unreasonable assumption that "control" is a codeword for "ban eventually".

I think we have more than sufficient control at the moment. I agree that some people (e.g. violent felons) probably shouldn't be able to have guns - and they can't, right now. I agree some types of weapons (e.g. grenades) shouldn't be available - and they aren't, right now. But I don't think that any extreme enforcement measures are needed, nor that they would work if enacted. I really don't think that licensing regular people or requiring training from them or requiring particular methods of storage or testing guns for "safety" or registering guns and/or gun owners are in any way helpful.

On registration in particular: it is completely worthless for solving crimes. Its only practical use is confiscation. And that's a damn good reason to be against it.

The reason why a lot of people assume that control=ban is because most of the people who are vocal about (more) control see it as a good first step towards a ban. Some of the top people in "Handgun Control Inc" (formerly "Million Mom March") have actually gone and said that. So have the nice folks at "Campaign Against Gun Violence". So have Senators Feinstein and Schumer, and even Oprah. Based on that expressly stated position of the proponents of "control" it is not an unreasonable assumption that "control" is a codeword for "ban eventually".

I think we have more than sufficient control at the moment. I agree that some people (e.g. violent felons) probably shouldn't be able to have guns - and they can't, right now. I agree some types of weapons (e.g. grenades) shouldn't be available - and they aren't, right now. But I don't think that any extreme enforcement measures are needed, nor that they would work if enacted. I really don't think that licensing regular people or requiring training from them or requiring particular methods of storage or testing guns for "safety" or registering guns and/or gun owners are in any way helpful.

On registration in particular: it is completely worthless for solving crimes. Its only practical use is confiscation. And that's a damn good reason to be against it.

In a nutshell, that's exactly the way I feel about it. "Control" has been used too many times in other countries to lead to banning. "Reasonable measures", such as registration, have been used in the US as defacto bans (Washington DC 1977/8, Chicago, 1982) on handguns. "Assault weapons" gave a evil image to types of guns once known as "sporters". It's all just nickle and diming.

One mistake you made. The MMM and HCI are separate. HCI is now known as the "Brady Campaign".

To put this at its most extreme, if white Democrats want to keep black people from having guns, then white Republicans want to shoot black people with guns. It cuts both ways.

To put this at its most extreme, if white Democrats want to keep black people from having guns, then white Republicans want to shoot black people with guns. It cuts both ways.

As a white republican, I am comletely offended by that. I have never heard such arrogance in my entire forum days, well, other than the proposterious claim that the sky is falling.

Race as nothing to do with gun control.

It's not that we don't want to register. It's just that the registration is kinda useless since the whole idea of registering is to keep track of criminals who aren't registering anyways.
Here's the beuty of it, everyone who owns a gun but doesn't register it is obviously a criminal (I'm partially serious here) and everyone who legally owns a weapon and then causes a death with it can be easily identified.

Actually, we have guns first and foremost to prevent the Gov't from becoming totalitarian. As it is "implied" in the 2d Ammendment, it is to ensure the current government, and to overthrow it if it ever becomes necessary.

I agree though, gun control is important, but I do not consider taking the right away (which we can't do anyway) the right course of action. Mandatory gun locks are a great idea. Tightening up on time between purchase and ownership of firearms would help too. The biggest thing, would be to crack down on black market trades, and make selling unregistered firearms a felony that requires at least 40 years in prison. (Sure, it's a felony, but I think when a 25 year old hot shot gets out just in time to start dying, people will catch on. ^^)
Just to make sure there was no confusion, I did not say guns should be seized. Merely they must/should be regulated.

What I said was meant sarcastically in response to another poster who claimed that all Democratic programs are motivated by a racist desire to keep blacks out of the suburbs and who suggested that that is the reason for gun buy-back programs in the inner city. A more serious and hopefully less offensive way of phrasing my post, was that I am personally troubled by the desire for self-defense among gund control opponents. While I understand the need for one to protect oneself at a moment of danger, I sometimes worry that the belief is part of a larger ethic that the moment an individual committs a crime, they are automatically deprived of all rights and thus killing them is a better solution than allowing them to be arrested.

What I said was meant sarcastically in response to another poster who claimed that all Democratic programs are motivated by a racist desire to keep blacks out of the suburbs and who suggested that that is the reason for gun buy-back programs in the inner city. A more serious and hopefully less offensive way of phrasing my post, was that I am personally troubled by the desire for self-defense among gund control opponents. While I understand the need for one to protect oneself at a moment of danger, I sometimes worry that the belief is part of a larger ethic that the moment an individual committs a crime, they are automatically deprived of all rights and thus killing them is a better solution than allowing them to be arrested.

Interesting. I would have taken it to another extreme. I would accuse the placement of buy-back locations being in inner cities as a sign that local governments distrust low-income people with restraint, and blame the lower-educated and lower-income people for distrusting the local law enforceements, and taking things into their own hands. Ultimately, that would leave democrats supposedly trying to remove guns from both the poor who don't trust the police, and the rich who can by them off. calculating the mentality of most middle-income families, they don't normally desire guns in their homes. That would be an interesting hypothesis.

Just to make sure there was no confusion, I did not say guns should be seized. Merely they must/should be regulated.

I agree. I feel however that it is the unlawful purcase and selling of unregistered arms that cause more problems then the unlocked. I think buckling down on illegal trade would ultimately reduce gun-related violence. Furthermore, I think any situation between 2 persons who both have weapons, should be viewed by registration. This person registered, that person did not. That person is wrong. And that crimes in which an unregistered weapon is involved should automatically add 10 years to any sentence, including "not-guilty" verdicts (since they failed to register in the first place).

As a white republican, I am comletely offended by that. I have never heard such arrogance in my entire forum days, well, other than the proposterious claim that the sky is falling.

Race as nothing to do with gun control.

Then explain why no gun buy-back programs have ever been conducted in white suburbs. They have only been conducted in black inner city neighborhoods.

It sounds to me like "disarm poor black people". It sounds paternalistic. Especially when you don't do it to more affluent white people.

I agree. I feel however that it is the unlawful purcase and selling of unregistered arms that cause more problems then the unlocked. I think buckling down on illegal trade would ultimately reduce gun-related violence. Furthermore, I think any situation between 2 persons who both have weapons, should be viewed by registration. This person registered, that person did not. That person is wrong. And that crimes in which an unregistered weapon is involved should automatically add 10 years to any sentence, including "not-guilty" verdicts (since they failed to register in the first place).

You need to address the following problem:

According to the latest US Department of Justice statistics, 93 percent of violent crime is conducted WITHOUT a firearm. That's not an NRA statistic - that's the Dept of Justice. Firearms registration would have little effect on that figure.

I have been in the actual situation where displaying a firearm (not shooting, you will note) has prevented an act of violence being perpetrated on me. More than once. So has my wife. According to DOJ (not Handgun Control or the NRA), this takes place 2.5 million times per year. These are situations where a gun is NOT FIRED. So the argument that we're making executions on the street is not a valid one. We're preventing violence on a large scale - larger than the police - because perpetrators are largely unarmed and they know where the line is drawn.

Short of turning the nation into a police state, you won't have enough police to protect my wife and I from our predator, who is still out on the street, even though he has tried to kill us numerous times. The courts and police DO NOT WORK LIKE CSI.

I don't really object to a general license, as we might have for cars. Sure, make sure I'm not a felon or crazy person. But, the same DOJ statistics say that 80 percent of firearm acquisitions by felons are by theft or smuggling. So licensing isn't going to stop that.

I do object to registration, because every gun control organization in the US has declared openly that registration is a prelude to confiscation.

Registration has never been shown to prevent crime. Criminals don't register. They don't obtain licenses. They commit the vast majority of shootings and the vast majority of violent crime.

In the US, of all firearm deaths, about 1 in 4 are actual shootings of one person by another. The rest are suicides.

Roughly, that leaves us about 10,000 potential homicides.

Of those that remain, about 1 in 10 are accidents. Down to 9,000.

Then there is gang violence. Now although some innocent bystanders are hit in their violence, the majority of deaths are still other gang members. We might also add that they do not obtain their weapons at the store. In DC., the majority of gang firearms come from the DC police. Interesting, eh?

That's about 6,000 per year, so we're down to 3,000.

There are about 2500 legitimate shootings - deaths inflicted by firearm by police or civilians in justified situations. So we're down to 500.

On the average, mind you, that's 500 per year. In a country where there are several hundred million firearms.

One might have a sharper effect on firearms deaths if we put Prozac in the water to reduce the number of suicides. Probably the most cost effective. The next biggest effect would be the legalization of drugs, which would sharply reduce gang warfare.

But on a percentage basis, as long as you're not a member of a street gang, you're safer here in the US than you are in Switzerland.

Hear, Hear.. Well stated and reasoned! I agree. The problem is not guns or how many of them or what type they are, it is the people that possess them and their underlying problems that our society tends to brush off or ignore rather than address.

Thank you.

I didn't think anyone would read it because it was so long. I really believe that if you fix the underlying cause of a problem, the surface symptoms will go away.

id love to see where ervyone is getting their numbers, especially the gun nut considering you are trusting his numbers

id love to see where ervyone is getting their numbers, especially the gun nut considering you are trusting his numbers

Department of Justice, Uniform Crime Statistics.

BAM
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_03/xl/03tbl2-10.xls

and i make my own point

my point was: i asked how many murders are committed with firearms as opposed to other types of murder when he said some stupid bullshit

and here we go, more people are killed by guns than all other methods checked put together.

justifiable homicide by guns doesnt even get near 1,000

BAM
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_03/xl/03tbl2-10.xls

and i make my own point

my point was: i asked how many murders are committed with firearms as opposed to other types of murder when he said some stupid bullshit

and here we go, more people are killed by guns than all other methods checked put together.

justifiable homicide by guns doesnt even get near 1,000

Why don't you check out how many violent crimes (not just murders) are committed with firearms as opposed to without firearms.

Also, on the day that I legally get to kill the man that's been trying so hard to kill my wife and I over the past few years, I'll be sure to have the ears sent to Chess Square's house.

In Kennesaw, GA, adults are REQUIRED by law to own guns.

Crime Statistics Report
1982 - 1998

FBI Uniform Crime Report (UCR) statistics for the year 1998 based on incidents of crime per 100,000 population indicate:

Overall Crime for the City of Kennesaw is approx. half the state and national rates.

Burglary incidents are approx. half the state and national rates.

Violent Crime incidents are approx. four times less than the state and national rates.

Violent Crime Burglary Total Index Crimes
Kennesaw: 107 347 2567
Georgia: 553 951 5200
U.S. : 566 862 4616

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

Also, according to the DOJ,
Firearm-related crime has plummeted since 1993.

Nonfatal firearm crime rates have declined since 1994, reaching the lowest level ever recorded in 2002.

After 1994, the proportion of nonfatal violent incidents involving a firearm declined.

So, if guns cause crime, why is it that through a period where firearms ownership in the United States increased, and more states passed laws liberalizing the issue of permits for concealed carry, why has the crime dropped?

Why? Is it because we banned guns like they did in Australia and the UK? Would you like to see the Australian government figures for the rise in violent crime (especially assault and armed robbery) after the gun ban?

Gun bans don't work. See the part near the bottom of the DOJ page listed above that tells you that 80 percent of criminals don't get their guns at the store.

you know, i couldve msade three posts, but i know how the edit button works

and also, i could go around getting statistics biased in my favor without providing any counters, but then again i would hate to have to make my gun go look up more information instead of rambling on in his "im better than you, thus im right" manner

you know, i couldve msade three posts, but i know how the edit button works

and also, i could go around getting statistics biased in my favor without providing any counters, but then again i would hate to have to make my gun go look up more information instead of rambling on in his "im better than you, thus im right" manner

Well then, let's hear a cogent argument from you as to what you would have done in my shoes, if you were being constantly assaulted and threatened with death from an individual who burns your house down.

Under your system, how would an individual avoid death or mayhem?

I must remind you that several magistrates in my county have said on numerous occasions that no one will be interested in the violence until someone is actually dead. So you can't say you'll have better police or courts. The change you propose is eliminating firearm possession - not any other change - so tell me what would happen.

If you were in that position, I suppose you would be quite charred by now.

I have the same government as you.

Don't misunderstand me, I am not a Bush supporter at all. I was against the war with Iraq from it's inception. I believe the country is going in the wrong direction. Yes those soldiers are really dead, those Iraqees are really dead. What you need to do is put this in perspective of history. How many U.S. soldiers died before the end of the Vietnam war? What we have in Iraq is a situation which the U.S. government will allow to continue for many more thousands of deaths. The U.S. will prevail because no one wants another humiliation like the loss of Vietnam. We are in now and won't come out without a victory. So yes resistance is futile, unless they get more backing and arms from other countries. It's simply a matter of time and collateral damage. But Iraq has nothing to do with this thread.I guess you don't understand this, but the resistance in Iraq is militarily significant. It's such a mess there that those who would like to make more war in the middle-east can't. Our forces are seriously tied down there, and continuation of the occupation will require more than just the back-door draft. And the US will not necessarily prevail just because it wants to. It might not be possible to 'win', whatever that means in the case. Bottom line: ordinary people with small arms can be quite effective at stopping highly powerful governments from achieving their goals.

Just as Saddam was not universally hated (Though I don't doubt he was hated by a majority since he only seemed to care about the Sunnis which were a minority) neither is the Bush administration. Out of what, like 300 million americans only 60 some million cared enough to vote and then less than half of those voted against him. Of those that voted for Kerry or someone else what percentage cares enough to go to war against the U.S. government? I doubt if you could calculate such a small number.
You're looking at it wrong. It's not about waging war on the government. It's about having a lethal means of force, should you happen to need it. Unarmed people are easier to push around.

Now most of the militia gun fanatic types are extreme right wingers. The majority probably think the goverment is doing a great job. So how many people does that leave to overthrow our government. A very small handfull. Mostly the criminally insane. So again I say the idea of legallizing automatic weapons to overthrow our government is lunacy of the highest order.

The government is not against us. We are going through a faze that happens every so often in this country where some radical thinking nuts control the government. Think McCarthyism and you'll understand (or look it up if you don't). Sooner or later reasonable people will go to the voting booth and get rid of these parasites. It's nothing to go hyperspastic over. If it weren't for the mess in Iraq it would almost be laughable. As it has been said: You get the government you deserve. That's what we have now...a government elected due to American apathy. And the world pays the price.
You're thoughts on the milita types is interesting. It was easier for a guy like me to find people to agree with when it was the conservative thing to oppose the government. Now that conservatism is basically pro-government, I have almost nowhere to turn. Lefties have an irrational faith in democracy, and still seem to think that government is mostly good. Democracy is a false god. Your vote will not save you. The problems with our government are not a personnel issue, they're systemic. It's not the president, it's the presidency (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/down-presidency.html). The entire government is not out to get you or me, but it is filled with people who have more power over our lives than I'm comfortable with. And many of these people don't give a rats ass about you or me. A typical ranking government official wouldn't hesitate to kill you if he thought it would help him keep his job. You probably think that's nonsense, but why did so many in congress vote to grant the president the dictatorial power to wage war at his discretion? Do you think they all bought the WMD bullshiat? Even then, why delegate their constitutional authority to declare war to the chief executive?

Bottom line: ordinary people with small arms can be quite effective at stopping highly powerful governments from achieving their goals.Except that the insurgents in Iraq wield weapons which are absolutely not legal for civilians to own in the US currently and most arguing against gun control don't seem to want those weapons to be legalized either. RPGs with HEAT warheads, often very modern ones too, very large amounts of military explosives, hand grenades, grenade launchers, light mortars, etc.

If their weaponry was truly limited to handguns, SMGs, rifles and (light/medium) MGs, their ability to shoot down helicopters, let alone jet aircraft, would be nonexistent, and except for the occasional weak improvised explosive or molotov cocktail armored vehicles would be invulnerable as well. The conflict in Iraq would look completely different.

And the same is true for every example that gets drudged up in these discussions: the Aghanis vs. Soviet Union, the Viet Cong, etc.

Race as nothing to do with gun control.

Oh yes it does. The first gun control laws were enacted in the south and were intended to prevent blacks from having weapons. During the civil rights movement, there was an armed group known as "Deacons of Defense" which fought back against the KKK. I believe it was started by several black ministers and most of the members were black WW2 vets. NRA at the time had pretty close ties to the civil rights movement, and Charleton Heston appeared in the same rally as Dr King.

By the way, let's hear it from Condi Rice who grew up in Birmingham, Alabama in the 60's: http://volokh.com/posts/1100845203.shtml

Right now, in states that do not have shall-issue laws, the way that licenses are granted is so obviously racist it is painful (e.g. here in California).

Nothing to do with? Yeah, right.

I am personally troubled by the desire for self-defense among gun control opponents. While I understand the need for one to protect oneself at a moment of danger, I sometimes worry that the belief is part of a larger ethic that the moment an individual committs a crime, they are automatically deprived of all rights and thus killing them is a better solution than allowing them to be arrested.

Interesting. This deserves a good response. I'll try. First off, we like to think of ourselves as "self-defense advocates" not "gun control opponents". Guns are in a sense peripheral to the big issue, which is self-defense.

Yes, this is a part of a larger ethic but it is not the one you think. The belief is that any individual's life, limb and dignity is invaluable, and that any assault on them should meet a vigorous response. We believe life is so valuable that it is actually worth defending.

About "killing better than arrest"... Of course not. I would say that when someone tries to take a life, it is better that they should die than that they should succeed - and those are often the only two choices. Arrest is something that happens much later, if at all.

About "deprived of all rights"... They choose to place themselves outside civilized society. They surrender their rights by their own actions. What happens as a result of that is automatic, there is little choice on anybody's part involved. If someone threatens my family, I have no choice about trying to stop them by any means necessary.

However, I definitely would not shoot anyone who is running away, even though I am well aware that they will probably attack an easier target next time, and that someone innocent may die because I let them get away. The police is unlikely to catch them - relatively few criminals are caught (something like 35% of violent crimes result in an arrest, and even fewer in a conviction), and they are very likely to strike again - most violent criminals are repeat offenders. Despite that, I would still let them get away, because maybe they will change their ways, and especially because I do have a choice in that situation and I couldn't easily live with killing them in cold blood.

I hope that clears things up.

Without exageration, that was easily one of the most intelligent posts I have read on the general forum.

Except that the insurgents in Iraq wield weapons which are absolutely not legal for civilians to own in the US currently and most arguing against gun control don't seem to want those weapons to be legalized either. RPGs with HEAT warheads, often very modern ones too, very large amounts of military explosives, hand grenades, grenade launchers, light mortars, etc.

If their weaponry was truly limited to handguns, SMGs, rifles and (light/medium) MGs, their ability to shoot down helicopters, let alone jet aircraft, would be nonexistent, and except for the occasional weak improvised explosive or molotov cocktail armored vehicles would be invulnerable as well. The conflict in Iraq would look completely different.

And the same is true for every example that gets drudged up in these discussions: the Aghanis vs. Soviet Union, the Viet Cong, etc.
So you're saying that RPGs and SAMs should be legal to own?

you know, i couldve msade three posts, but i know how the edit button works

and also, i could go around getting statistics biased in my favor without providing any counters, but then again i would hate to have to make my gun go look up more information instead of rambling on in his "im better than you, thus im right" manner
See, the problem here is that you don't have any reputable counterarguments at all.

See, the problem here is that you don't have any reputable counterarguments at all.
i have them, forgot where i put them, but i have them. and what difference would it make you people are immune to logic and reason anyway and would provide a) emotional logic (haha) or b) biased statistics

i have them, forgot where i put them, but i have them. and what difference would it make you people are immune to logic and reason anyway and would provide a) emotional logic (haha) or b) biased statistics
If I remember correctly most of the time spent in threads like this for supporters of the second amendment is disproving the stupid crap that your side brings up. Since I'm too lazy to do it myself, this : http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/4.0/GunFacts4-0-Screen.pdf pretty much covers it all.

Then explain why no gun buy-back programs have ever been conducted in white suburbs. They have only been conducted in black inner city neighborhoods.

It sounds to me like "disarm poor black people". It sounds paternalistic. Especially when you don't do it to more affluent white people.

I have lived in what some consider "uptown" where I'm from, so this opinion is a little seperated from the issue. Especially considering in my city, even the "inner city neighborhoods" are filled with people of different races.

Nevertheless, There is no such thing as a "white suburb." the fact that the gun-buy-back programs are in the inner city is because that is where the majority of public violence occurs. By both whites, and blacks. The inner city neighborhoods, the ones run down and "ghetto," are that way because of income, both personal and city, not because of race. "White suburbs" have black people in them... only those who make enough income, however.

I agree that the vast majority of people living in those areas are black, but at the core of the matter, I believe it is based on the areas in which gun violence most frequently occurs, regardless of the race or type of neighborhood.

Oh yes it does. The first gun control laws were enacted in the south and were intended to prevent blacks from having weapons. During the civil rights movement, there was an armed group known as "Deacons of Defense" which fought back against the KKK. I believe it was started by several black ministers and most of the members were black WW2 vets. NRA at the time had pretty close ties to the civil rights movement, and Charleton Heston appeared in the same rally as Dr King.

By the way, let's hear it from Condi Rice who grew up in Birmingham, Alabama in the 60's: http://volokh.com/posts/1100845203.shtml

Right now, in states that do not have shall-issue laws, the way that licenses are granted is so obviously racist it is painful (e.g. here in California).

Nothing to do with? Yeah, right.

We're talking about gun control now... not 40-60 years ago.
(You're right though. I meant for "nothing to do with it" to contradict the ever-so-popular "everything to do with it" argument.) ^^

I do object to registration, because every gun control organization in the US has declared openly that registration is a prelude to confiscation.

Registration has never been shown to prevent crime. Criminals don't register. They don't obtain licenses. They commit the vast majority of shootings and the vast majority of violent crime.



As you may know, the right to bear arms is in the United States Constitution. Meaning: The Supreme Court, not the DOJ, would have to determine that the 2d Ammendment would fundamentally go against the constitution. They can't. Confiscation can't happen, regardless of the fears many people have.

Secondly, no registration will not stop criminals, I agree. If someone will commit a crime, they will almost always do it regardless of consequence. However, enforcing registration forces companies to adhere to a general policy, making it easier to crack down on illegal and black market gun sales.

The purpose of registration is not confiscation, it is to maintain what little order there is at the moment. Confiscation cannot happen until an issue goes to the supreme court when a civilian is ordered to hand over a legally owned hand gun. You can't bring the issue without registration, but then the defense would have a field day saying "If my client has committed no crime with his legally-owned, unused handgun, what justification, Mr. Cheif Justice, would the government have to force my client to turn over his weapon, which is a Constitutional right."

THe 2d Ammendment would have to be completely removed from the U.S. Constitution before the government could dream of confiscation.

b) biased statistics

All statistics are biased. Statistics are meant to show the condition of something. The condition depends on personal viewpoint.

So personal view (of) situation (with) statistics to prove it....

^^

Legal loop holes can be fun.

justifiable homicide by guns doesnt even get near 1,000

So what?

Hardly any defensive uses of guns end up with a corpse.

Just because a person is not shot dead doesn't mean a life isn't saved. I thought you'd like that, in the vast majority of cases, the gun saves a life without taking one!

Why? Because most people won't charge down a person with a gun. Because it's easier to leave through the window you just came in and rob next door then attack the man with a 12g shotgun aimed at your chest.

As you may know, the right to bear arms is in the United States Constitution. Meaning: The Supreme Court, not the DOJ, would have to determine that the 2d Ammendment would fundamentally go against the constitution. They can't. Confiscation can't happen, regardless of the fears many people have.

Secondly, no registration will not stop criminals, I agree. If someone will commit a crime, they will almost always do it regardless of consequence. However, enforcing registration forces companies to adhere to a general policy, making it easier to crack down on illegal and black market gun sales.

The purpose of registration is not confiscation, it is to maintain what little order there is at the moment. Confiscation cannot happen until an issue goes to the supreme court when a civilian is ordered to hand over a legally owned hand gun. You can't bring the issue without registration, but then the defense would have a field day saying "If my client has committed no crime with his legally-owned, unused handgun, what justification, Mr. Cheif Justice, would the government have to force my client to turn over his weapon, which is a Constitutional right."

THe 2d Ammendment would have to be completely removed from the U.S. Constitution before the government could dream of confiscation.

The trick isn't to confiscate. It's simply to make registration mandatory then stop allowing registration. Yes, It's already been done in several places. Then make storage/licensing/taxing/purchasing/etc. so difficult that very few, if any people could even aquire a gun legally.

Litigate them (even if it fails) to the point were people don't want to bother w/ the hassle. Kind of like what various local administrations are trying to do to the entire industry of firearms w/ junk lawsuits and which self described "reasonable" gun control advocates sabotaged legislation to prevent. Most of these same people want to remove the 2nd Amendment completely anyway.

How does registration stop or track crime? A stolen gun will not be registered. Black market imports will not be registered. ILLEGAL GUNS ARE NOT REGISTERED. The only thing registration is good for is the gov't tracking and further control over law-abiding citizens.

What's the big deal with registering your gun if you're a law-abiding citizen? What do you have to worry about? I own two guns, and I can appreciate the fact that they're deadly weapons, and I can understand the desire of the government to have them registered. I just don't see what the big deal is for people opposed to gun registry.



http://store1.yimg.com/I/infowars-shop_1799_2044758


It all starts with registration, and then it ends a decade later with people being bulldozed into pits.

The trick isn't to confiscate. It's simply to make registration mandatory then stop allowing registration. Yes, It's already been done in several places. Then make storage/licensing/taxing/purchasing/etc. so difficult that very few, if any people could even aquire a gun legally.

Litigate them (even if it fails) to the point were people don't want to bother w/ the hassle. Kind of like what various local administrations are trying to do to the entire industry of firearms w/ junk lawsuits and which self described "reasonable" gun control advocates sabotaged legislation to prevent. Most of these same people want to remove the 2nd Amendment completely anyway.

How does registration stop or track crime? A stolen gun will not be registered. Black market imports will not be registered. ILLEGAL GUNS ARE NOT REGISTERED. The only thing registration is good for is the gov't tracking and further control over law-abiding citizens.

As I stated earlier, laws regarding registration help with businesses. Firstly it keeps them obligated to perform a function, which in turn prevents some (though not all) illegal gun purchases it. Secondly, Not every gun involved with a crime is illegally own. In fact, most gun-related violent acts are with registered sidearms.

Furthermore, so what if they make the process dificult. I love the 2d ammendment, and when I leave the military I plan on having my own rifle. However, having a loong and belaboring registration process does not mean confiscation. If you are too lazy to do necessary paperwork, then you are chosing not to own a gun (and I do not mean "you" personally but rather as a general term). What people do not realize is that we need registration. Why? Because what would happen if registration and background checks were no longer required. We don't have to register for prevention, we have to register for ensurance. Law abiding citizens are only law abiding, because there are laws to abide by. ^^

So you're saying that RPGs and SAMs should be legal to own?No. As you may remember from the liberals&guns thread, I don't really have an opinion on gun control in the US, nor would such an opinion be worthy of discussing if it existed.

What I'm saying is the exact same argument about ability to defend yourselves against militaries, foreign or your own, can be applied to RPGs and SAMs as well as mines, hand grenades, machineguns, rifles, SMGs, shotguns and handguns. If the necessity of defense against militaries overrides just about any other concerns, then these weapons should all be legal for civilians to own.

Similarly, if you start with only the 2nd Amendment and assume it meant personal weapons but not cannons back then, it would be equally logical to come to the conclusion that shoulder-mounted SAMs should be legal for civilians to own.

No. As you may remember from the liberals&guns thread, I don't really have an opinion on gun control in the US, nor would such an opinion be worthy of discussing if it existed.

What I'm saying is the exact same argument about ability to defend yourselves against militaries, foreign or your own, can be applied to RPGs and SAMs as well as mines, hand grenades, machineguns, rifles, SMGs, shotguns and handguns. If the necessity of defense against militaries overrides just about any other concerns, then these weapons should all be legal for civilians to own.

Similarly, if you start with only the 2nd Amendment and assume it meant personal weapons but not cannons back then, it would be equally logical to come to the conclusion that shoulder-mounted SAMs should be legal for civilians to own.

I guess that's why a group of civilians in Switzerland can get a government-sponsored loan to buy a 30mm cannon together. Or a MILAN anti-tank missile.

They don't seem to have any problems. Besides, the government gives each adult male a fully automatic high quality "assault rifle".

I guess that's why a group of civilians in Switzerland can get a government-sponsored loan to buy a 30mm cannon together. Or a MILAN anti-tank missile.

They don't seem to have any problems. Besides, the government gives each adult male a fully automatic high quality "assault rifle".Because of the "defense against foreign militaries" issue, yes. And like I implied earlier, I do realize many are for the legalization of such equipment in the US as well. All I'm saying is that such a stance is more logical than defending the ownership of just machineguns but not ATGMs, for example.

And you don't need the quotes around assault rifle. Assault rifles are "selective fire intermediate-power rifles". The term's been around for decades and is very well established, getting rid of it just because of the "assault weapons" bullshit would be a really stupid thing to do.

"selective fire intermediate-power rifles"

I guess then we can remove the AR-15 and all "semi-automatic only" rifles that "look" like assault rifles from the list then. Yay!

I guess then we can remove the AR-15 and all "semi-automatic only" rifles that "look" like assault rifles from the list then. Yay!Yes, you can. Technically, semi-auto-only rifles are not assault rifles. It's bad enough that Hollywood has perverted the meaning of the word "clip".

No. As you may remember from the liberals&guns thread, I don't really have an opinion on gun control in the US, nor would such an opinion be worthy of discussing if it existed.

What I'm saying is the exact same argument about ability to defend yourselves against militaries, foreign or your own, can be applied to RPGs and SAMs as well as mines, hand grenades, machineguns, rifles, SMGs, shotguns and handguns. If the necessity of defense against militaries overrides just about any other concerns, then these weapons should all be legal for civilians to own.

Similarly, if you start with only the 2nd Amendment and assume it meant personal weapons but not cannons back then, it would be equally logical to come to the conclusion that shoulder-mounted SAMs should be legal for civilians to own.

Some wealthy citizens owned cannons in the old days in the USA.

Some wealthy citizens owned cannons in the old days in the USA.Enough so that it counts as evidence that in the original meaning of the 2nd Amendment civilians should be allowed to own the heaviest of weaponry? In which cases you could make a case for each and every tactical weapon in existence, up to cruise missiles with tactical nuclear warheads.