NationStates Jolt Archive

I've noticed that, at least in the U.S., people in urbanized areas tend to be more resistant to the continuation of legalized and/or unrestricted gun ownership, whereas in rural areas even people who don't own guns are more in the NRA crowd.

I'm wondering if this difference in attitude just reflects the role of guns in people's environments. In rural communities, guns are more inclined to be used for hunting and self-protection, whereas in urban areas guns represent violent crime. I grew up in a rural area and a lot of families relied on the game they hunted to keep food on the table. My parents didn't hunt but we kept a gun in our house for protection because we were 12 miles from the nearest police station--this meant that if an emergency arose, we could count on there being a 15 to 30 minute delay between the time we dialed 911 and the arrival of a police officer. Plus, if someone chose to invade our home, it's not like anyone would be able to hear us scream before the intruder slit our throats.

Now I live in a large city; I still keep a gun in my home because with so many more people around I feel more vulnerable than when I was a kid in the middle of nowhere. I believe it makes my family safer because I am better equipped to deal with a dangerous situation that would affect me, my family, or those around me.

Because I see a lot more violent crime in the city than when I was younger and in the country, I can totally understand that people are afraid of being victims and thinking that they would be safer if guns were illegal to possess. But would that, in reality make you any safer? Wouldn't a psycho with a firearm be just as likely to come at you with a knife as he would a gun? Isn't blaming guns for violence like blaming a pencil for bad spelling?

True, very true.

If guns are outlawed, it is true that only criminals would have guns, because by merely possessing a gun you are a criminal. But that doesn't measure criminal intent.

As for living in a dangerous area and wanting to have a means to protect yourself...I can understand that fully.

If guns are outlawed, it is true that only criminals would have guns, because by merely possessing a gun you are a criminal. But that doesn't measure criminal intent.

As for living in a dangerous area and wanting to have a means to protect yourself...I can understand that fully.

I was about to say that. You stole my thought. Bastard.

I live in a more-or-less rural area, and almost everybody has a gun. Of course, our close proximity to Texas does somewhat explain that trend.

If guns are outlawed, it is true that only criminals would have guns, because by merely possessing a gun you are a criminal. But that doesn't measure criminal intent.

Well, yeah... but the point is that law-abiding citizens wouldn't own guns; only those willing to break the law in a significant way would be armed.

The way I see it is that there are plenty of people right now who illegally possess firearms. I could say with a degree of certainty that of those in illegal possession, I wish that none of them had their guns. Yet, if guns were outlawed, since law-abiding citizens would forfeit ownership, we could expect that the people who currently illegally possess firearms would suddenly make up a substantial portion of gun owners.

the problem with keeping a gun in the house for protection when you have children is that you need to keep it locked up. a locked up gun isnt very useful when the killer just broke your door in.

in a rural area a locked up gun can still be used to kill skunks.

the problem with keeping a gun in the house for protection when you have children is that you need to keep it locked up. a locked up gun isnt very useful when the killer just broke your door in.

in a rural area a locked up gun can still be used to kill skunks.

No, you need to teach your kids about firearm safety. Most "accidents" happen when the parents try to hide the gun and don't tell the kids about it.

No, you need to teach your kids about firearm safety. Most "accidents" happen when the parents try to hide the gun and don't tell the kids about it.

Agreed. I could shoot a rifle by the time I was 8. Only people who don't know how to use guns have "accidents."

We should simply give much tougher sentences on criminals who use guns. Outlawing them is never going to happen but we should have no sympathy for those who decide to go around shooting people. The fact that gun murders are so prevalant must be because people don't fear prison.

We should simply give much tougher sentences on criminals who use guns. Outlawing them is never going to happen but we should have no sympathy for those who decide to go around shooting people. The fact that gun murders are so prevalant must be because people don't fear prison.

But it's much easier to blame an object and coddle the poor "victims of society" that are forced to use them in crime.

Wouldn't a psycho with a firearm be just as likely to come at you with a knife as he would a gun? Isn't blaming guns for violence like blaming a pencil for bad spelling?

You're much more likely to fend off an attacker who is armed only with a knife than you are with someone who has a gun. Your chances of surviving a stabbing are also better than your chances of surviving a bullet.

Most Western nations have tougher gun laws than the U.S., and they also have lower murder/violent crime rates. Guns make committing crime too easy, especially by those who lack great physical strength.

If guns are outlawed, perhaps only criminals will have guns, but they can also be arrested merely by being caught having one. This in and of itself should prevent a lot of violent crimes before they have a chance to happen.

Agreed. I could shoot a rifle by the time I was 8. Only people who don't know how to use guns have "accidents."
when you have kids you will find out that children get into EVERYTHING. the only way to keep your kid from playing with your gun is to keep it locked up and keep the key with you at all times.

I could see owning a rifle or a shotgun, but hand guns and fully automatic weapons just aren't needed for hunting or home protection.

You're much more likely to fend off an attacker who is armed only with a knife than you are with someone who has a gun. Your chances of surviving a stabbing are also better than your chances of surviving a bullet.

Most Western nations have tougher gun laws than the U.S., and they also have lower murder/violent crime rates. Guns make committing crime too easy, especially by those who lack great physical strength.

If guns are outlawed, perhaps only criminals will have guns, but they can also be arrested merely by being caught having one. This in and of itself should prevent a lot of violent crimes before they have a chance to happen.

Do you actually have sources for survivability? Most gunshots are not fatal.

If they can be arrested beforehand, why aren't the 20,000 laws already on the books doing any good as they're not supposed to have them in the first place?

when you have kids you will find out that children get into EVERYTHING. the only way to keep your kid from playing with your gun is to keep it locked up and keep the key with you at all times.

But if you teach the kid about the danger and uses of a gun, he's less likely to go point it at somebody. I knew exactly what a rifle is capable of back then, and still do. I didn't go around waving guns at people either.

I'm the youngest, so when I reached 10 years old, my parents stopped locking up the guns.

I could see owning a rifle or a shotgun, but hand guns and fully automatic weapons just aren't needed for hunting or home protection.


Fully automatic weapons have been heavily regulated since the 1930's.

A handgun is perfect for home-protection as they are smaller and can be handled by individuals easier than a rifle or shotgun.

I bought one for my mother after my father passed away and trained her on its use.

when you have kids you will find out that children get into EVERYTHING. the only way to keep your kid from playing with your gun is to keep it locked up and keep the key with you at all times.

Have kids, have guns, am teaching them safety. Then they won't "play" w/ it. As stated previously, the ones who "play" w/ them are the ones that have had them hidden from them and never taught properly.

But that would involve parental responsibility.

Have kids, have guns, am teaching them safety. Then they won't "play" w/ it. As stated previously, the ones who "play" w/ them are the ones that have had them hidden from them and never taught properly.

But that would involve parental responsibility.

Parental responsibility? What's that? I thought the new thing is to ignore your kids and let them do what they want because otherwise you're "smothering" them or some such nonsense.

But if you teach the kid about the danger and uses of a gun, he's less likely to go point it at somebody. I knew exactly what a rifle is capable of back then, and still do. I didn't go around waving guns at people either.

I'm the youngest, so when I reached 10 years old, my parents stopped locking up the guns.
so they were lucky

you know that children and teens do stupid things ALL THE TIME.

if you havent personally done something that had a possibility of killing you then you know someone else who has.

Parental responsibility? What's that? I thought the new thing is to ignore your kids and let them do what they want because otherwise you're "smothering" them or some such nonsense.

Right. It takes a village (of television stations and video games) to raise kids in the modern world.

Do you actually have sources for survivability? Most gunshots are not fatal.

If they can be arrested beforehand, why aren't the 20,000 laws already on the books doing any good as they're not supposed to have them in the first place?

The arguments for gun ownership all seem to boil down to this: "I don't feel like I'm a man unless I've got my trusty gun by my side." You're more of a man, in my opinion, if you can face life without your gun.

so they were lucky

you know that children and teens do stupid things ALL THE TIME.

if you havent personally done something that had a possibility of killing you then you know someone else who has.

No, he was the norm. So called "accidents" are as rare as the baby drowning in the bucket myth.

Alot of those "stupid things" (laying down in the freeway, jumping parking garages) are not the fault of the highway or the garage but of poor parenting and some Darwinian selection.

The arguments for gun ownership all seem to boil down to this: "I don't feel like I'm a man unless I've got my trusty gun by my side." You're more of a man, in my opinion, if you can face life without your gun.

When the going gets tough, resort to ad-hominem's.

I guess my wife, mother, and Mother in Law (also gun owners)also feel more like "men" then?

No, he was the norm. So called "accidents" are as rare as the baby drowning in the bucket myth.

Alot of those "stupid things" (laying down in the freeway, jumping parking garages) are not the fault of the highway or the garage but of poor parenting and some Darwinian selection.

Freeways and parking garages aren't made with the express purpose of killing other human beings.

Criminals wont use guns if the police and society don't use them. It all boils down to the societys attitude to them. In Ireland we have a low murder rate (One of the lowest in the world) and Gardaí (Police) do not carry weapons, only special branch do, which are very high ranking detectives. I feel more comfortable without guns. When I went to France recently, I was put off trusting the police because they all had guns, what if one of them went AWOL?

When the going gets tough, resort to ad-hominem's.

I guess my wife, mother, and Mother in Law (also gun owners)also feel more like "men" then?

Sounds like a lovely family. I hope we live in separate states. :rolleyes:

Freeways and parking garages aren't made with the express purpose of killing other human beings.


Neither are most firearms. Most are made w/ the express purpose of hunting, target shooting, etc. It's when they are used "illegally" or stupidely is when murder/crime/"accidents" occur.

I've noticed that, at least in the U.S., people in urbanized areas tend to be more resistant to the continuation of legalized and/or unrestricted gun ownership, whereas in rural areas even people who don't own guns are more in the NRA crowd.

FYI, Suburban areas are heavily republican. The only people that tend to vote democrat are the back east states and big cities.

I'm wondering if this difference in attitude just reflects the role of guns in people's environments. In rural communities, guns are more inclined to be used for hunting and self-protection, whereas in urban areas guns represent violent crime. I grew up in a rural area and a lot of families relied on the game they hunted to keep food on the table. My parents didn't hunt but we kept a gun in our house for protection because we were 12 miles from the nearest police station--this meant that if an emergency arose, we could count on there being a 15 to 30 minute delay between the time we dialed 911 and the arrival of a police officer. Plus, if someone chose to invade our home, it's not like anyone would be able to hear us scream before the intruder slit our throats.

Now I live in a large city; I still keep a gun in my home because with so many more people around I feel more vulnerable than when I was a kid in the middle of nowhere. I believe it makes my family safer because I am better equipped to deal with a dangerous situation that would affect me, my family, or those around me.

Because I see a lot more violent crime in the city than when I was younger and in the country, I can totally understand that people are afraid of being victims and thinking that they would be safer if guns were illegal to possess. But would that, in reality make you any safer? Wouldn't a psycho with a firearm be just as likely to come at you with a knife as he would a gun? Isn't blaming guns for violence like blaming a pencil for bad spelling?

Blaming guns for crime is akin to blaming spoons for making R-O-sie O-donnel FAT.

Personel responsibility. I have 2 guns (and parts for 3 more) yet I do not go out and commit shootings and mayhem.Why? I am a law abiding citizen, d'uh.

Criminals wont use guns if the police and society don't use them. It all boils down to the societys attitude to them. In Ireland we have a low murder rate (One of the lowest in the world) and Gardaí (Police) do not carry weapons, only special branch do, which are very high ranking detectives. I feel more comfortable without guns. When I went to France recently, I was put off trusting the police because they all had guns, what if one of them went AWOL?

Right. In the US, criminals tend to be a bit more violent. Banning guns here tends to just lead to haydays for criminals.

Sounds like a lovely family. I hope we live in separate states. :rolleyes:

More Ad-hominems.

No, he was the norm. So called "accidents" are as rare as the baby drowning in the bucket myth.

Alot of those "stupid things" (laying down in the freeway, jumping parking garages) are not the fault of the highway or the garage but of poor parenting and some Darwinian selection.
i guess i just know too many people on the wrong end of darwin then.

even the kids of "good" parents do stupid things.

Neither are most firearms. Most are made w/ the express purpose of hunting, target shooting, etc. It's when they are used "illegally" or stupidely is when murder/crime/"accidents" occur.

But most crime and a good portion from accidents come from handguns which have nothing to do with hunting.

Blaming guns for crime is akin to blaming spoons for making R-O-sie O-donnel FAT.

Personel responsibility. I have 2 guns (and parts for 3 more) yet I do not go out and commit shootings and mayhem.Why? I am a law abiding citizen, d'uh.

Guns aren't responsible for crime per se, they just make it easier. Could those two kids at Columbine have killed all their classmates without guns? I doubt it. They would have remained just two disenchanted kids. Scary in some ways, perhaps, but not capable of mass murder.

But most crime and a good portion from accidents come from handguns which have nothing to do with hunting.

"Most" crime is committed w/o a weapon. "Accidents" occur through negligence. Also most crime committed w/ weapons were illegal to begin w/.

Over 2 million crimes/year are stopped by legal owners.

More Ad-hominems.

And more childish attitudes on your part. Admit it, if someone seriously suggested confiscating your firearms, you'd throw a fit like a two year old child, and then probably start shooting. And now I'm hoping we live on separate continents.

Guns aren't responsible for crime per se, they just make it easier. Could those two kids at Columbine have killed all their classmates without guns? I doubt it. They would have remained just two disenchanted kids. Scary in some ways, perhaps, but not capable of mass murder.

Illegally obtained guns. Of course you don't hear about the cases where these incidents are stopped by legal owners. That wouldn't be good newsreporting.

And more childish attitudes on your part. Admit it, if someone seriously suggested confiscating your firearms, you'd throw a fit like a two year old child, and then probably start shooting. And now I'm hoping we live on separate continents.

And more assumptions and Ad-hominems. Got anything better than insulting me?

I personally believ guns should be mandatory, atleast 1 gun per houshold.

Question: Would you shoot at anyone who most likely has a gun and WILL shoot back? no. Would you should at some one, even if you killed them, other people will most likely shot at you.


make sense.

"Most" crime is committed w/o a weapon. "Accidents" occur through negligence. Also most crime committed w/ weapons were illegal to begin w/.

Over 2 million crimes/year are stopped by legal owners.

I should have been more specific. I meant violent crime, like murder. Besides, illegal or not those guns were mad available and given how many out there there are they must have been acquired easily.

Illegally obtained guns. Of course you don't hear about the cases where these incidents are stopped by legal owners. That wouldn't be good newsreporting.

It's not difficult to obtain illegal firearms when there's such a plethora of legal ones. The more difficult we make it for everyone to obtain firearms, the fewer there will be, and violent crime, at least those ending in someone's death, will drop accordingly.

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

It's liberal gun laws and a fearful society that has the US the way it is. Look at Canada, Europe and Aussietrailia. The US is not the worst though, look at Colombia which is #1.

Murders
Colombia 0.61 per 1000 people
United States 0.04 per 1000 people
Ireland 0.00 per 1000 people

And more assumptions and Ad-hominems. Got anything better than insulting me?

Actually, I don't want to insult you. No telling what you'll do if I piss you off too much.

It's not difficult to obtain illegal firearms when there's such a plethora of legal ones. The more difficult we make it for everyone to obtain firearms, the fewer there will be, and violent crime, at least those ending in someone's death, will drop accordingly.

I guess that's why crime has dropped the past 15 years w/ over 2 doz states passing concealed carry laws and an increase in legal ownership by almost 100 million.

I guess that's why crime in Toronto has been on the rise since the registration?

I should have been more specific. I meant violent crime, like murder. Besides, illegal or not those guns were mad available and given how many out there there are they must have been acquired easily.

The majority of the murders are criminal on criminal. How would disarming Law-Abiding Citizens lower the crime rate.

Punish the criminals.

Actually, I don't want to insult you. No telling what you'll do if I piss you off too much.

And more. I guess you really don't have a defense to your arguement then.

I've noticed that, at least in the U.S., people in urbanized areas tend to be more resistant to the continuation of legalized and/or unrestricted gun ownership, whereas in rural areas even people who don't own guns are more in the NRA crowd.

Because I see a lot more violent crime in the city than when I was younger and in the country, I can totally understand that people are afraid of being victims and thinking that they would be safer if guns were illegal to possess. But would that, in reality make you any safer? Wouldn't a psycho with a firearm be just as likely to come at you with a knife as he would a gun? Isn't blaming guns for violence like blaming a pencil for bad spelling?
Correct. Support for banning guns is not a rational reaction, but an emotional one. People think that by banning guns that they will make them disappear. America has so much murder because Americans are violent wackos.

Canada, Switzerland and Israel don't have such murder rates, despite the fact that their populations are rather heavily armed by comparison with others.

Fully automatic weapons have been heavily regulated since the 1930's.

A handgun is perfect for home-protection as they are smaller and can be handled by individuals easier than a rifle or shotgun.

I bought one for my mother after my father passed away and trained her on its use.

A handgun is perfect for indoors, however smaller caliber handguns have proven woefully poor as defensive weapons. Several insurgents in Iraq were taking 5 and 6 six shots before dieing...of 9mm ball.

Get one of the 4 major calibers-9mm, 40, 45, 357 and put some good ammo into it.

I'm saving up for a Glock 21, IIRC, which is a 45.

Although if you can handle it, an AR15 or AK rifle would be a good choice for home defense. You've got 30rds of ammo and a 55grain 3200 FPS projectile at your disposal to protect your family.

Tools are great.

I guess that's why crime has dropped the past 15 years w/ over 2 doz states passing concealed carry laws and an increase in legal ownership by almost 100 million.

I guess that's why crime in Toronto has been on the rise since the registration?

Yeah, the concealed carry laws. Great stuff. Now we have to post signs in restaurants and libraries asking people to please not bring their guns inside. Next thing you know, it'll be like the wild West, with shoot-outs on the street, not that's it hasn't become that already.

I've noticed that, at least in the U.S., people in urbanized areas tend to be more resistant to the continuation of legalized and/or unrestricted gun ownership, whereas in rural areas even people who don't own guns are more in the NRA crowd.

I'm wondering if this difference in attitude just reflects the role of guns in people's environments. In rural communities, guns are more inclined to be used for hunting and self-protection, whereas in urban areas guns represent violent crime. I grew up in a rural area and a lot of families relied on the game they hunted to keep food on the table. My parents didn't hunt but we kept a gun in our house for protection because we were 12 miles from the nearest police station--this meant that if an emergency arose, we could count on there being a 15 to 30 minute delay between the time we dialed 911 and the arrival of a police officer. Plus, if someone chose to invade our home, it's not like anyone would be able to hear us scream before the intruder slit our throats.

Now I live in a large city; I still keep a gun in my home because with so many more people around I feel more vulnerable than when I was a kid in the middle of nowhere. I believe it makes my family safer because I am better equipped to deal with a dangerous situation that would affect me, my family, or those around me.



It's kinda odd what you say because if the stats and your evidence are to be suggested then you were not a victim of crime and neither were your family in the countryside.

However you chose to have a gun, despite the fact that the chances of you being a victim of crime there (in line with nearly all countries around the world) is much much less than the big city. However despite the evidence you chose to own a gun because you felt/were isolated from others.

Your point about city dwellers wanting to ban guns because they associate it with crime has some credibility I think. However are the country folk and city dwellers not trying to solve the same problems but from different angles. Are both not equally irrational as each other?

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

It's liberal gun laws and a fearful society that has the US the way it is. Look at Canada, Europe and Aussietrailia. The US is not the worst though, look at Colombia which is #1.

Murders
Colombia 0.61 per 1000 people
United States 0.04 per 1000 people
Ireland 0.00 per 1000 people

No, it's a violent gang-culture, illegal immigration, and illegal drugs that has the situation the way it is. Not claiming causality, but crime has dropped significantly along w/ loosening firearm laws.

I was about to say that. You stole my thought. Bastard.

I live in a more-or-less rural area, and almost everybody has a gun. Of course, our close proximity to Texas does somewhat explain that trend.


Are you afraid Texas will invade?

Yeah, the concealed carry laws. Great stuff. Now we have to post signs in restaurants and libraries asking people to please not bring their guns inside. Next thing you know, it'll be like the wild West, with shoot-outs on the street, not that's it hasn't become that already.

You watch to many movies. The "Wild West was actually much safer than walking down the street in Washington DC today.

And did you know that stores that post those signs tend to get robbed MORE after CC laws are passed?

And more. I guess you really don't have a defense to your arguement then.

No, what I'm really saying is that you, and people like you, truly frighten me. One of these days you're going to get really mad at someone, and maybe that someone is a little too big and strong for you to punch him in the mouth, and that's when you'll bring out your little "pal." And if all society thinks like that, and there's mounting evidence that it does, then we're back in the stone age.

Yeah, the concealed carry laws. Great stuff. Now we have to post signs in restaurants and libraries asking people to please not bring their guns inside. Next thing you know, it'll be like the wild West, with shoot-outs on the street, not that's it hasn't become that already.

Yeah, if I owned a restaurant or some other business I certainly wouldn't want people bringing guns into my place.

You watch to many movies. The "Wild West was actually much safer than walking down the street in Washington DC today.

?

Now that I don't doubt. Of course, I think more people in DC have guns today than they did in the old West, even if we're talking per capita.

No, what I'm really saying is that you, and people like you, truly frighten me. One of these days you're going to get really mad at someone, and maybe that someone is a little too big and strong for you to punch him in the mouth, and that's when you'll bring out your little "pal." And if all society thinks like that, and there's mounting evidence that it does, then we're back in the stone age.

So you're afraid of someone who chooses to defend himself and the life of his family ?

You automatically assume that someone w/ a firearm is going to use it in an illegal manner?

Casebook Hoplophobe.

Yeah, if I owned a restaurant or some other business I certainly wouldn't want people bringing guns into my place.

Yeah I can imagine lots of drunk people with guns being a great idea. :rolleyes:

One thing I can't grasp with people who want freedom for firearms is that they seem to believe that everyone who would own one is a perfectly rational individual...the evidence at the moment proves that that is not the case.

It needs to be socially unnacceptable, not illegal to carry a gun. Make them Illegal tommorow and your right, crime would go up. But why does the US allow the sales of guns that are not for hunting? This reminds me of that wacko in MM Film Bowling for Columbine! You' know the one who harboured Timothy Mc Veigh wasn't it?

So you're afraid of someone who chooses to defend himself and the life of his family ?

You automatically assume that someone w/ a firearm is going to use it in an illegal manner?

Casebook Hoplophobe.

Strange how you ask questions but clearly have already made up your mind about this person? :rolleyes:

Now that I don't doubt. Of course, I think more people in DC have guns today than they did in the old West, even if we're talking per capita.

Only the criminals have handguns in DC. Long arms are rare and made unusable. Guess which city has been the murder capital almost straight for 15 years running? Guess which city has the strictest "gun control"?

I could see owning a rifle or a shotgun, but hand guns and fully automatic weapons just aren't needed for hunting or home protection.

Yeah, but by concealing it, you can carry a handgun with you on the street without freaking everyone out.

But yeah, I choose to have a rifle in my home because (1) it looks more intimidating and I'd rather scare someone away than shoot them away, and (2) there's no possibility of a misunderstanding as to whether I'm pointing it at someone or not.

Strange how you ask questions but clearly have already made up your mind about this person? :rolleyes:

Strange how this person has spent most of this thread making Ad-hominem attacks against me. :rolleyes:

Yeah I can imagine lots of drunk people with guns being a great idea. :rolleyes:

One thing I can't grasp with people who want freedom for firearms is that they seem to believe that everyone who would own one is a perfectly rational individual...the evidence at the moment proves that that is not the case.

Must be why our country is famous for its psychopatic serial killers. Of course they normally don't use guns but it is simply a fact that the US is a violent society.

And more childish attitudes on your part. Admit it, if someone seriously suggested confiscating your firearms, you'd throw a fit like a two year old child, and then probably start shooting. And now I'm hoping we live on separate continents.

If someone suggested it they're an idiot. If the Gubmint thinks they can trample on the 2A they'll think they can trample on the rest too.

No, I won't start shooting when someone suggests confiscating my firearms. I'll wait until they're at my front door.

Easier that way.

unnofficially, 7.62x39 works great on JBTs

Now that I don't doubt. Of course, I think more people in DC have guns today than they did in the old West, even if we're talking per capita.

But wait, you just stated that CC laws would make things like the "Wild West" . That would mean safer than before.

The arguments for gun ownership all seem to boil down to this: "I don't feel like I'm a man unless I've got my trusty gun by my side." You're more of a man, in my opinion, if you can face life without your gun.

My rifle has saved my life on more than one occasion, so I suppose that, in your book, I would be more of a man dead without a gun. If that's actually your impression, I can literally live with that.

I own three rifles and a shotgun, all of which are for hunting. I've been working with firearms since I was atleast four years-old and not once have I had an 'accident' with them. They were never locked up, usually the rifles were kept in leather 'cases' in my father's bedroom. As numerous people have typed out on here: If you know what a firearm is capable of and are aware of how it operates (depress trigger, gun go boom, hole in whatever was struck) then you will most likely be alright. There are some people out there, and always will be, that will one day decide to be macho, point a weapon at someone to feel big...and we all know what happens next. There are other cases where somebody decides to take a gun to work/school and randomly pick off people. And you know, it's going to happen no matter what. Do you really think a potential criminal would even care if their weapon was illegal? I mean, if they are already comitting murder and god knows what, will one minor law put a hindrance on their plan? "Oh my! Well I planned to kill my neighbor but I guess guns are illegal. Can't do that anymore, nope." Reminds me of the new drinking & driving add where some drunk pulls up by a cop, hold out their hands and say, "Hyuk, arrest me ossifer. I had one too many,". It'll never happen folks. I live in Canada where we are supposed to register guns. Well you know, that won't impede a criminal. And firearms will pass hands so quickly. My seven magnum was sold to a good friend, whom then sold it to someone else, et cetera et cetera. Seems to me that makes it easier to possibly frame someone. Guns which were made to kill people though, military weapons, should never be sold publicly. Handguns are good for urbanites as you really can't cart about a shotgun or rifle unnoticed, plus they are easy to fire with minimal recoil(save for the truely awe inspiring handguns which many need a tripod to even fire). Machine pistols shouldn't be sold publicly, what good is an Uzi other than doing a drive-by? And to whomever typed that being stabbed would offer higher survivability than being shot. It depends. Anyone with slight knowledge of the body, or anyone having military training, would know where to deliver a lethal stab or where to fire a fatal bullet. So lets just hope all our criminals are rather low on intelligence. :sniper:

Blaming guns for crime is akin to blaming spoons for making R-O-sie O-donnel FAT.

Personel responsibility. I have 2 guns (and parts for 3 more) yet I do not go out and commit shootings and mayhem.Why? I am a law abiding citizen, d'uh.


I presume that the section you put in bold wasn't suppose to be a quote; but you just didn't know how to separate it out. Right? I'm not sure of what your point with the bold typeface was anyway, but that's ok because I don't have to understand everything :)

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Look at the cruades, dumbasses. Most bloody battles EVER, not a single firearm..... oh, I'm sorry, Did I just ruthlessly destroy anti-gun thoughts compleatly.

Guns aren't responsible for crime per se, they just make it easier. Could those two kids at Columbine have killed all their classmates without guns? I doubt it. They would have remained just two disenchanted kids. Scary in some ways, perhaps, but not capable of mass murder.


You're half right. The Columbine kids had rigged some propane explosives under the school's second floor library that failed to detonate. Had they been successful, the number of casualties from that incident would have been quadrupled.

So you're right in that they "couldn't" have killed all their classmates without guns because they were too stupid to do so successfully. But you're wrong in that they had the means, motive, opportunity, and willingness to cause mass casualties via non-firearm activities. The only thing that saved those particular people was the perpetrators' own ineptitude.

Edit: And before anyone challenges me on it, here is a link showing pictures of the bombs in the school. http://columbine.free2host.net/damage.html .

I'm not aware of any objectional material at this link. Let me know if there is a problem with it.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Look at the cruades, dumbasses. Most bloody battles EVER, not a single firearm..... oh, I'm sorry, Did I just ruthlessly destroy anti-gun thoughts compleatly.

How are wars and violent acts commited by criminals the same thing?

And more childish attitudes on your part. Admit it, if someone seriously suggested confiscating your firearms, you'd throw a fit like a two year old child, and then probably start shooting. And now I'm hoping we live on separate continents.

Nice flame. Charming. Where are the mods when you need them? :)

It's not difficult to obtain illegal firearms when there's such a plethora of legal ones. The more difficult we make it for everyone to obtain firearms, the fewer there will be, and violent crime, at least those ending in someone's death, will drop accordingly.

That's fine, but let's talk about my specific situation. As said in the original post, when I was growing up, we lived in the middle of nowhere and couldn't possibly get help there before it would be too late if we needed it. Having a gun in our house provided more protection in case a violent criminal came and attacked us. My mother is not a particularly large woman and if she was home alone, the only thing she could count on to protect her if someone decided to rob, rape and murder her would be our firearm. Our dogs would probably yap at the intruder, which would give her just enough time to call the police before an assailant could come in, end her life, take what he wanted, and leave with five minutes to spare.

There were two circumstances where my folks were in danger. The first time, a local psycho didn't like that our dogs barked at night. He literally lived a half mile down the road (the nearest house) but felt that he needed absolute stillness to sleep (the guy was also a drug dealer and a total jack***; he just didn't like our dogs because they would bark at his clients when he was doing his drug business at all hours of the night). One night, he decided he'd had enough, so he came over with a baseball bat when just my mom and I were home, bludgeoned one of our dogs to death, and started beating on the side of the house screaming how he was going to kill us. I was only a kid. My mom grabbed our rifle and walked out the front door and without even lifting it to point, faced him down without saying a word. He shouted and screamed and my mom just stared at him, keeping enough distance to shoot if he came at her. He ran off and was later arrested and put away for a long time.


Why shouldn't we have been allowed to possess a firearm? This is not a rhetorical question.

Yeah, the concealed carry laws. Great stuff. Now we have to post signs in restaurants and libraries asking people to please not bring their guns inside. Next thing you know, it'll be like the wild West, with shoot-outs on the street, not that's it hasn't become that already.

I kid you not--I once saw a sign posted outside of a Texas church to this effect.

Why shouldn't we have been allowed to possess a firearm? This is not a rhetorical question.

No, you're supposed to rely on the police and restraining orders so he could be arrested (if found) and put in jail for a few months after raping/beating/killing you both.

I kid you not--I once saw a sign posted outside of a Texas church to this effect.

You mean Texan preachers don't teach on the holiness of firearms? :eek:

You mean Texan preachers don't teach on the holiness of firearms? :eek:


Firearms aren't holy, they leave holies. :p

You watch to many movies. The "Wild West was actually much safer than walking down the street in Washington DC today.

And did you know that stores that post those signs tend to get robbed MORE after CC laws are passed?

Can you present evidence to this effect? It may be true, but I have no way of knowing that.

Actually, it would be great if anyone posting stats on this thread could back it up, one way or the other. I'm not saying that any of it isn't true; I would just appreciate having the reference.

No, what I'm really saying is that you, and people like you, truly frighten me. One of these days you're going to get really mad at someone, and maybe that someone is a little too big and strong for you to punch him in the mouth, and that's when you'll bring out your little "pal." And if all society thinks like that, and there's mounting evidence that it does, then we're back in the stone age.

Nice flame :) You're on a streak m'man :)

But why does the US allow the sales of guns that are not for hunting?

Because we're not concerned about our right to defend ourselves, not our right to hunt. Simple enough? :)

Nice flame :) You're on a streak m'man :)

A bit hostile maybe but I wouldn't go that far. Hoos Bandoland is simply making a point enthusiastically, very understandable since I have similar feelings of how society can end up. Of course maybe he is going to far to some, who knows?

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Look at the cruades, dumbasses. Most bloody battles EVER, not a single firearm..... oh, I'm sorry, Did I just ruthlessly destroy anti-gun thoughts compleatly.

Charming :)

Can you present evidence to this effect? It may be true, but I have no way of knowing that.

Actually, it would be great if anyone posting stats on this thread could back it up, one way or the other. I'm not saying that any of it isn't true; I would just appreciate having the reference.

Don't have stats handy but here's a news article..

http://www.wyomingnews.com/news/more.asp?StoryID=105894&arch=true

...It's well documented that the American West was filled with firearms.

"They were rarely used to the dramatic effect that Hollywood uses for its dramatic stories or that are read about in Western novels," Kassel said.

The reason we remember stagecoach robberies, gun fights, train robberies and duels is because they were the exception and not the rule: exceptions like Billy the Kid, Big Nose George, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, the Johnson County War and the Wyatt Earp shoot out at the OK Corral....




and a couple of books:

Prassel, F.R., The Western Peace Officer: A Legacy of Law and Order, (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1972),
Foder, E. and Fisher, R.C., (Eds.), Old West, (New York: David McKay Company Inc., 1976

Mcloughlin, D., Wild and Woolly: An Encyclopedia of the Old West, (New York: Barnes and Noble Books, 1996),

The UK banned firearms after a phsycopath went on a killing spree in a school. Events like that have happened more than once in the US, yet it is still 'every mans right to bear arms'. Are you prepared to put the lives of your kids in danger in the mistaken beleif that you could actually pull the trigger on somebody if they attacked you? Gun crime has dropped in Europe, yet the Americans still beleive in the infallibility of the constitution.

I'm very anti-gun, but the point about people relying on hunting for food keeps me from wanting to outright ban them. What makes me mad are things like lifting the assault weapons ban. You don't need an automatic gun for hunting, or for anything besides war really.
Perhaps if guns were banned, a systematic way of allowing certain guns to people that need them, and they would only be allowed to use them in certain areas?

No, you're supposed to rely on the police and restraining orders so he could be arrested (if found) and put in jail for a few months after raping/beating/killing you both.

Ohhh yeaaah! Good point :) Assuming that we weren't killed that night, if my mom had gone to the courthouse the next day and gotten a restraining order, she could waive that in front of his face the next time he came over That'd keep us safe :)

The UK banned firearms after a phsycopath went on a killing spree in a school. Events like that have happened more than once in the US, yet it is still 'every mans right to bear arms'. Are you prepared to put the lives of your kids in danger in the mistaken beleif that you could actually pull the trigger on somebody if they attacked you? Gun crime has dropped in Europe, yet the Americans still beleive in the infallibility of the constitution.

Crime has dropped in the US and there are more guns than before.

I'm prepared to defend the lives of my wife and children from someone attempting to harm them.

A bit hostile maybe but I wouldn't go that far. Hoos Bandoland is simply making a point enthusiastically, very understandable since I have similar feelings of how society can end up. Of course maybe he is going to far to some, who knows?

Now that i've looked it over, I agree with your analysis. This particular entry probably didn't constitute a flame.

I'm very anti-gun, but the point about people relying on hunting for food keeps me from wanting to outright ban them. What makes me mad are things like lifting the assault weapons ban. You don't need an automatic gun for hunting, or for anything besides war really.
Perhaps if guns were banned, a systematic way of allowing certain guns to people that need them, and they would only be allowed to use them in certain areas?

Did you know that the "Assualt Weapon" Ban only affected Semi-auto rifles (one pull, one shot) that "looked" like the military rifles?

The UK banned firearms after a phsycopath went on a killing spree in a school. Events like that have happened more than once in the US, yet it is still 'every mans right to bear arms'. Are you prepared to put the lives of your kids in danger in the mistaken beleif that you could actually pull the trigger on somebody if they attacked you? Gun crime has dropped in Europe, yet the Americans still beleive in the infallibility of the constitution.

Changing the Constitution would be... difficult.

Crime has dropped in the US and there are more guns than before.

I'm prepared to defend the lives of my wife and children from someone attempting to harm them.

Listen, a man breaks into your house at night and murders your family. You can't defend them. A man shoots you in the back of the head. You can't defend yourself. A man puts a gun against your kids head. You can't defend him/her, yet the guy who wants to kill them can get a gun as easily as buying a car. Are you in control, just because you have a gun in your house?

Listen, a man breaks into your house at night and murders your family. You can't defend them. A man shoots you in the back of the head. You can't defend yourself. A man puts a gun against your kids head. You can't defend him/her, yet the guy who wants to kill them can get a gun as easily as buying a car. Are you in control, just because you have a gun in your house?

A guy breaks into my home and meets me standing there w/ a shotgun. I'm in control.

A guy breaks into my home and tries to rape my wife or children. He meets her standing w/ a rifle. She's in control.

Having a firearm to defend your family gives you more control over the situation than not having one.

Since the criminal "can get a gun as easily as buying a car" even though he's most likely already breaking the law, how would disarming me and my family lower crime?

Did you know that the "Assualt Weapon" Ban only affected Semi-auto rifles (one pull, one shot) that "looked" like the military rifles?
Actually I didn't. But that still doesn't change my opinion on it, because it lasted almost ten years (I believe Clinton passed it) and there didn't seem to be many problems.

Listen, a man breaks into your house at night and murders your family. You can't defend them. A man shoots you in the back of the head. You can't defend yourself. A man puts a gun against your kids head. You can't defend him/her, yet the guy who wants to kill them can get a gun as easily as buying a car. Are you in control, just because you have a gun in your house?

I wish to refer you to post #73.

Actually I didn't. But that still doesn't change my opinion on it, because it lasted almost ten years (I believe Clinton passed it) and there didn't seem to be many problems.

Those types of firearms are rarely used in crime. The majority of the "banned" ones are most commonly used in competitive target shooting.

Crime also started dropping several years before the ban went into place.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040816-114754-1427r.htm


The federal assault-weapons ban, scheduled to expire in September, is not responsible for the nation's steady decline in gun-related violence and its renewal likely will achieve little, according to an independent study commissioned by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ).
"We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation's recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence," said the unreleased NIJ report, written by Christopher Koper, a professor....

A guy breaks into my home and meets me standing there w/ a shotgun. I'm in control.

A guy breaks into my home and tries to rape my wife or children. He meets her standing w/ a rifle. She's in control.

Having a firearm to defend your family gives you more control over the situation than not having one.

Since the criminal "can get a gun as easily as buying a car" even though he's most likely already breaking the law, how would disarming me and my family lower crime?

I guess you and your wife are light sleepers in these scenarios.

A guy breaks into my home and meets me standing there w/ a shotgun. I'm in control.

A guy breaks into my home and tries to rape my wife or children. He meets her standing w/ a rifle. She's in control.

Having a firearm to defend your family gives you more control over the situation than not having one.

Since the criminal "can get a gun as easily as buying a car" even though he's most likely already breaking the law, how would disarming me and my family lower crime?

Wow, you must have a gift of claravoyancy in yout family. Who else could predict a robery and wait for the criminal with a loaded shotgun? Americans think that they're immortal with a gun in their hand, but their more vunerable that the average westener.

I guess you and your wife are light sleepers in these scenarios.

I wouldn't suggest that guns are for everyone. But even for people who choose to not own firearms, I strongly recommend that everyone have a dog in their home. Dogs can be awesome intruder alarms/deterants.

I guess you and your wife are light sleepers in these scenarios.

She is but unusual noises (glass breaking etc.)wake me quickly.

Wow, you must have a gift of claravoyancy in yout family. Who else could predict a robery and wait for the criminal with a loaded shotgun? Americans think that they're immortal with a gun in their hand, but their more vunerable that the average westener.

I also keep a fire extinguisher handy. Does that make me clairvoyant?

I hear a door jam snapping or glass breaking, I go and check w/ the shotgun.

Banning them would just make me and my family more vulnerable to the criminals who would want to harm us.

I wouldn't suggest that guns are for everyone. But even for people who choose to not own firearms, I strongly recommend that everyone have a dog in their home. Dogs can be awesome intruder alarms/deterants.

If you're rural, Geese are good too.

I also keep a fire extinguisher handy. Does that make me clairvoyant?

I hear a door jam snapping or glass breaking, I go and check w/ the shotgun.

Banning them would just make me and my family more vulnerable to the criminals who would want to harm us.

Keep your precious gun close at heart. I have an old 91/30 Mosin Nagant locked up in a local gun club, and I feel a lot safer with it there. Illegal firearms are almost impossible to get in England, so even the most dangerous criminals don't usually own them. In America, every psycopath can feel free to snipe at strangers from their cars.

The UK banned firearms after a phsycopath went on a killing spree in a school. Events like that have happened more than once in the US, yet it is still 'every mans right to bear arms'. Are you prepared to put the lives of your kids in danger in the mistaken beleif that you could actually pull the trigger on somebody if they attacked you? Gun crime has dropped in Europe, yet the Americans still beleive in the infallibility of the constitution.

Gun crime went down, that true. Almost all other crime went up. I guess that means that its ok to beat someone to death, stab them, or strangle them, just as long as you don't shoot them.

Keep your precious gun close at heart. I have an old 91/30 Mosin Nagant locked up in a local gun club, and I feel a lot safer with it there. Illegal firearms are almost impossible to get in England, so even the most dangerous criminals don't usually own them. In America, every psycopath can feel free to snipe at strangers from their cars.

And yet there is still gun crime in the UK. Violent crime is higher than most US cities, farmers are being arrested for trying to get "travelers" off their property, and teachers are arrested for threatening vandals, and the police are shooting unarmed citizens.

As for the DC "Sniper", how would keeping me from legally owning a gun have prevented that?

And yet there is still gun crime in the UK. Violent crime is higher than most US cities, farmers are being arrested for trying to get "travelers" off their property, and teachers are arrested for threatening vandals.

As for the DC "Sniper", how would keeping me from legally owning a gun have prevented that?

The DC sniper would never have killed if he didn't have a gun fool. There is gun crime in the UK, I admit, but it's still lower than in most US states. American children are taught to handle firearms from a young age, and frankly that scares me.

The DC sniper would never have killed if he didn't have a gun fool. There is gun crime in the UK, I admit, but it's still lower than in most US states. American children are taught to handle firearms from a young age, and frankly that scares me.

The children that are taught to handle firearms when young are safer and better shots than most police.

So keeping me from getting them legally would have stopped the DC "sniper"?

They were caught and sentanced. I take it you believe in preemptive policing? Should the other 80 million legal firearm owners be punished because of the actions of 2 people?

The children that are taught to handle firearms when young are safer and better shots than most police.

So keeping me from getting them legally would have stopped the DC "sniper"?

They were caught and sentanced. I take it you believe in preemptive policing? Should the other 80 million legal firearm owners be punished because of the actions of 2 people?

I can't be bothered anymore, but I'll leave you with this message:

I'M TALKING ABOUT THE DC SNIPER BEING ABLE TO GET A LEGAL FIREARM, NOT YOU NEANDERTHAL MAN.

I can't be bothered anymore, but I'll leave you with this message:

I'M TALKING ABOUT THE DC SNIPER BEING ABLE TO GET A LEGAL FIREARM, NOT YOU NEANDERTHAL MAN.

He didn't have it legally. The store that he bought it from broke the law and didn't do the required background check.

When the going gets tough, resort to Ad-hominem attacks.

I can't be bothered anymore, but I'll leave you with this message:

I'M TALKING ABOUT THE DC SNIPER BEING ABLE TO GET A LEGAL FIREARM, NOT YOU NEANDERTHAL MAN.

Ok, lets ban all firearms in the US. Now, with the open borders the US has, and the fact that we can't keep anything out of this country, how do you propose keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals when they can get them illegally and the average person can't.

Ok, lets ban all firearms in the US. Now, with the open borders the US has, and the fact that we can't keep anything out of this country, how do you propose keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals when they can get them illegally and the average person can't.

plus the fact that the illegally owned firearms don't just "magically" disappear after more legislation is passed.

Ok, lets ban all firearms in the US. Now, with the open borders the US has, and the fact that we can't keep anything out of this country, how do you propose keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals when they can get them illegally and the average person can't.

I guess we'll have to find ourselves some competant Feds.

I guess we'll have to find ourselves some competant Feds.

Isn't that an Oxymoron?

Isn't that an Oxymoron?

My thoughts exactly.

The topic of this thread is exactly right.
But the thing is, that's a good thing. It lets you identify the criminals very easily. Got a gun? You're a criminal.

Guns *do* kill people. While they do need someone behind them who is willing to use it, a gun makes killing much easier.

What about all the crimes prevented by gun ownership? What about all the crimes *enabled* by gun ownership? How many dipsticks get a feeling of power when they get a gun and so figure they can go out and do whatever they want?

But if I have a gun, I can protect myself from a criminal who has one.
If you go for a gun when there's a criminal who already has one drawn on you, you're dead. At least you are if the criminal is thinking straight.

The only way a gun protects you is if you're up against a criminal who doesn't have one. While gun ownership is legal, supply is plentiful and difficult to combat. While gun ownership is legal there exist more holes in the system allowing people like the sniper to acquire weapons easily. While gun ownership is legal, a criminal who gets the drop on you is more likely to kill you as a preventative measure.. just in case you have a gun you can get to when you wake up.

Crime won't go away if guns are banned, but it certainly won't go away if they're not, and it's a lot easier for criminals to not only kill you, but to justify killing you to themselves as a "You or me" situation when they're legal.

Now.. tasers and stun type weaponry on the other hand.. those suckers should be handed out like popcorn.

The topic of this thread is exactly right.
But the thing is, that's a good thing. It lets you identify the criminals very easily. Got a gun? You're a criminal..

Then why do criminals manage to have them now?

Guns *do* kill people. While they do need someone behind them who is willing to use it, a gun makes killing much easier..

If they really want to they'll find a way to do it anyway.

What about all the crimes prevented by gun ownership? What about all the crimes *enabled* by gun ownership? How many dipsticks get a feeling of power when they get a gun and so figure they can go out and do whatever they want?.

More are prevented than "enabled". Are saying that guns cause crime?

But if I have a gun, I can protect myself from a criminal who has one.
If you go for a gun when there's a criminal who already has one drawn on you, you're dead. At least you are if the criminal is thinking straight..

By definition a criminal is not thinking straight. Most Law abiding citizens practice more w/ thier firearms and are better shots.


The only way a gun protects you is if you're up against a criminal who doesn't have one. While gun ownership is legal, supply is plentiful and difficult to combat. While gun ownership is legal there exist more holes in the system allowing people like the sniper to acquire weapons easily. While gun ownership is legal, a criminal who gets the drop on you is more likely to kill you as a preventative measure.. just in case you have a gun you can get to when you wake up..

As for not being able to defend yourself against a criminal who has one, care to back that up? I canpost dozens of examples of people who defended themselves against armed intruders.


Crime won't go away if guns are banned, but it certainly won't go away if they're not, and it's a lot easier for criminals to not only kill you, but to justify killing you to themselves as a "You or me" situation when they're legal..

SO how many people have to die before the "guns go away"? Do you feel citizens defending themselves "force" criminals to perform illegal acts? SHould I take the locks off of my doors because it "forces" the criminal to break in?

Now.. tasers and stun type weaponry on the other hand.. those suckers should be handed out like popcorn.

Did you know that the areas w/ the strictest gun control also heavily restrict items such as mace, tasers,and stunguns? Did you know that many PD's are dropping the use of tasers etc because of abuse, lack of effectiveness, or as being to pontentially lethal?

I can't be bothered anymore, but I'll leave you with this message:

I'M TALKING ABOUT THE DC SNIPER BEING ABLE TO GET A LEGAL FIREARM, NOT YOU NEANDERTHAL MAN.

way to be!

If you take away guns you allow criminals to gain power, if you keep them you get acidents but you can protect yourself

I beleve that guns are essencial to people's protection, but besides, when have we ever had things that were completely safe (*pokes mercury thermometers and knives*) Just have to educate your child on what a gun is capable of and hope everything goes well

Hum..... Tazers would be a good idea, except if you don't hit them with perfect accuracy your dead

If you take away guns you allow criminals to gain power, if you keep them you get acidents but you can protect yourself

I beleve that guns are essencial to people's protection, but besides, when have we ever had things that were completely safe (*pokes mercury thermometers and knives*) Just have to educate your child on what a gun is capable of and hope everything goes well

But as stated before, that would involve parental responsibility and invovlement w/ the child.

Can't have that.

Hum..... Tazers would be a good idea, except if you don't hit them with perfect accuracy your dead

And most of the areas that restrict firearms restrict those as well.

But as stated before, that would involve parental responsibility and invovlement w/ the child.

Can't have that.
If they can't spend time with their own kid why the hell did they have one

If they can't spend time with their own kid why the hell did they have one

People don't think. Or maybe they believe they'll make time for the kid and the time just doesn't seem to come.

Well, when your child finds that gun because you made some human mistake and shoots his mother, you speak about gun ownership again.

50 Bucks says you'll never need the gun in your entire life.

Well, when your child finds that gun because you made some human mistake and shoots his mother, you speak about gun ownership again.

50 Bucks says you'll never need the gun in your entire life.
Ya, but what if you would need it and it could save your family's life with one shot

Well, when your child finds that gun because you made some human mistake and shoots his mother, you speak about gun ownership again.

50 Bucks says you'll never need the gun in your entire life.

"What if" emotional arguements are flawed.

When you come home and find your kids dead and your wife being raped, you speak about gun ownership again.


Pay up. I've already used one to chase away a pack of coyotes attacking our dog.

American children are taught to handle firearms from a young age, and frankly that scares me.

Actually, American children (And I speak as an American teenager) "learn" how use firearms by watching movies. Our children watch movies like the recent Four Brothers and think they can go shoot a firearm. In my city (San Antonio, Texas) drive by shootings are terrible events. Because no one really understands the consequences of shooting, combined with little or no knowledge of which house to hit, entire blocks have been shot up. Usually little kids playing in their yards or sleeping in their rooms get hit.

Young Americans don't seem to understand that every bullet fired has to stop somewhere.

If proper firearm training, or at least safety, classes were offered, maybe then children and young adults would be smarter.

And before we make any more laws (in America, at least) concerning firearms, I personally think we should enforce the current gun laws. I mean, what's the point in making more laws if no one's going to enforce those either?

Speaking just for myself I don't have the slightest idea how to use a gun. But... you just point and pull the trigger right? I'm sure I'll hit something!

Speaking just for myself I don't have the slightest idea how to use a gun. But... you just point and pull the trigger right? I'm sure I'll hit something!

*click* Wait, not loaded.
*click* Wait, safety's on
*click* Wait, not cocked
;)

*click* Wait, not loaded.
*click* Wait, safety's on
*click* Wait, not cocked
;)
DOn't forget *click BOOOM*

*click* Wait, not loaded.
*click* Wait, safety's on
*click* Wait, not cocked
;)

I think I can take it from here, thank you. :D

For a machine gun its:
*set it down and camoflage yourself*
*Put barrel on depending on the machinegun*
*attach the ammo*
*make sure if it has a safty its off*
*aim*
*start blasting*

And most of the areas that restrict firearms restrict those as well.

I looked into tazer ownership back in February 2005, so my information may be slightly dated, but as of that time ther wasn't a single state in the United States that has any restrictions on the possession of Tazers whatsoever.

"What if" emotional arguements are flawed.

When you come home and find your kids dead and your wife being raped, you speak about gun ownership again.


Pay up. I've already used one to chase away a pack of coyotes attacking our dog.


Yeah, I completely forgot about wild animals! I've had to shoot rattlesnakes twice. The next best alternative would be a shovel, but there's a lot more risk of it jumping at you if you get close enough to whack it.

Speaking just for myself I don't have the slightest idea how to use a gun. But... you just point and pull the trigger right? I'm sure I'll hit something!

It's pretty easy, but you want to know how to use it properly (1) so you can use it at all and (2) so you don't have any accidents. But as I said, it's pretty darn easy to operate and use safely if you know how.

Then why do criminals manage to have them now?
Straw man. I never said they wouldn't.

If they really want to they'll find a way to do it anyway.
And if someone really wants to break into your house, they'll find a way to do it. Does this mean we shouldn't bother with locks and legislation saying you shouldn't do it?

More are prevented than "enabled".Really? Prove it. You find me the statistics that say how many crimes are enabled because of guns. There aren't any. Not because it doesn't happen, but because nobody asks.Are saying that guns cause crime?I'm not saying guns cause crime, I'm merely pointing out that the "guns prevent crime" argument is inherently flawed because we do not really have good comparisons on what crime would be in the same region if guns were outlawed. What I am saying is that guns cause what crime there is to be more lethal.

By definition a criminal is not thinking straight. Most Law abiding citizens practice more w/ thier firearms and are better shots.Ah, I take it you've seen studies on this? What's that? You haven't? You're just pulling a supposition from your behind? Hm. That's interesting. Here's my supposition: Given a random sample of the population, we currently have no information one way or the other on who would be more practiced, thus, it makes sense to assume that the criminal is at least as skilled as the gun owner, and, (and this is the tricky part you seem to have missed) already has their weapon ready for use.

As for not being able to defend yourself against a criminal who has one, care to back that up? I canpost dozens of examples of people who defended themselves against armed intruders.Congratulations. I can look at the Florida homicide rolls and post dozens of examples of people who didn't. The difference? My list is comprised of dead people, because of how legalized gun ownership make murdering easier and less risky than not murdering.

SO how many people have to die before the "guns go away"?That's an interesting question. From the way the US is going, I'd say far too many. Perhaps the question to ask is how many people have to die before the hard transition is even begun?

Do you feel citizens defending themselves "force" criminals to perform illegal acts? SHould I take the locks off of my doors because it "forces" the criminal to break in?Hey, you were the one saying if they want to be violent they'll do it anyway as a justification for not banning guns, so according to your logic, you might as well take the locks off. Now, what I am saying is that criminals who suspect their victims may have lethal force available are far more likely to use lethal force.

Did you know that the areas w/ the strictest gun control also heavily restrict items such as mace, tasers,and stunguns? Yes, I did, and I think it's stupid. Did you know that many PD's are dropping the use of tasers etc because of abuse, lack of effectiveness, or as being to pontentially lethal?No, I didn't, and I'm willing to bet that you don't either. However, even if you do have some examples, police departments are a different animal as they are allowed to carry (and supposedly well trained in the correct use of) a far more efficient killing weapon. Naturally tasers are less effective. This is why they should be allowed for the general public, but firearms should not be.

Maybe it's just me, but I'd prefer to see five robberies where everybody lives, than just two robberies that end in deaths, even if only one of those deaths is an innocent.

Wow, you must have a gift of claravoyancy in yout family. Who else could predict a robery and wait for the criminal with a loaded shotgun? Americans think that they're immortal with a gun in their hand, but their more vunerable that the average westener.

Europeans seem to think that they're immortal under the protection of their police.

Can someone please tell me why the fact that you can't always be prepared for everything means that you should never be allowed to prepare for anything? Maybe there will come a time where the criminal breaks in and kills you while you sleep. Obviously you couldn't do anything about it then. Having that gun in your house just adds to your chances, it does not make you invincible. I agree that you're rather unlikely to be 'waiting there with a shotgun' all the time. Still, why should you not have the opportunity to have that weapon? It may help. If you get in a situation where it doesn't, that's life.

Under your logic, the fact that any crimes at all ever happen means that we should scrap whatever's being done to fight crime, since it obviously isn't working.

Yeah, the concealed carry laws. Great stuff. Now we have to post signs in restaurants and libraries asking people to please not bring their guns inside. Next thing you know, it'll be like the wild West, with shoot-outs on the street, not that's it hasn't become that already.

question: do you ever walk outside anywhere or are you just trolling?

Straw man. I never said they wouldn't.

So the laws in place already don't prevent criminals from illegally posessing guns, so more laws would? How does disarming people who actually follow the law prevent criminals from keeping theirs?


And if someone really wants to break into your house, they'll find a way to do it. Does this mean we shouldn't bother with locks and legislation saying you shouldn't do it?

Nope, but I'll make things more difficult by having locks and a firearm to greet them with.

Really? Prove it. You find me the statistics that say how many crimes are enabled because of guns. There aren't any. Not because it doesn't happen, but because nobody asks.I'm not saying guns cause crime, I'm merely pointing out that the "guns prevent crime" argument is inherently flawed because we do not really have good comparisons on what crime would be in the same region if guns were outlawed. What I am saying is that guns cause what crime there is to be more lethal.

I never stated that "guns prevent crime". You're the one who stated that firearms "enable" criminals. Where is your "supposition" being pulled from? The stats for how many citizens w/ firearms have prevented crime has already been posted multiple times. Read the thread.

Ah, I take it you've seen studies on this? What's that? You haven't? You're just pulling a supposition from your behind? Hm. That's interesting. Here's my supposition: Given a random sample of the population, we currently have no information one way or the other on who would be more practiced, thus, it makes sense to assume that the criminal is at least as skilled as the gun owner, and, (and this is the tricky part you seem to have missed) already has their weapon ready for use.

Asnwering your own question? If there's "no information" how do you know? Is your "supposition" supposed to be valid? Just because you've apparently done little to no research on the topic doesn't mean that others haven't as well.You can "assume" anything you want. How often do you thing criminals w/ illegal firearms go to the range to practice? How many criminals w/ illegal firearms are actively engaged in shooting sports? The average gun owner fires more rounds that the average police officer(40) during a year.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123134,00.html

Congratulations. I can look at the Florida homicide rolls and post dozens of examples of people who didn't. The difference? My list is comprised of dead people, because of how legalized gun ownership make murdering easier and less risky than not murdering.

My list is comprised of people who are alive. Post yours. Are you saying the majority of crimes are committed by legal gun owners? Prove it.

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

That's an interesting question. From the way the US is going, I'd say far too many. Perhaps the question to ask is how many people have to die before the hard transition is even begun?

And US crime is decreasing as ownership is increasing. Still no causality but disarming LAC's won't help.

Hey, you were the one saying if they want to be violent they'll do it anyway as a justification for not banning guns, so according to your logic, you might as well take the locks off. Now, what I am saying is that criminals who suspect their victims may have lethal force available are far more likely to use lethal force.

So let's disarm the police. You're still stating that defending yourself "forces" criminals to commit crimes.

Criminals disagree:

In states with widespread gun ownership and tough punishment for gun misuse, criminals surveyed were often unarmed: 54% in Oklahoma, 62% in Georgia, 40% in Maryland, 43% in Missouri, and 35% in Florida. In Massachusetts, however, only 29% of the felon-respondents were unarmed. In that state, it is difficult lawfully to acquire a firearm, and the illegal carrying of a firearm, rather than the criminal misuse of a gun, is subject to the mandatory penalty. The survey data indicate that the criminals' fear of an armed victim relates directly to the severity of the gun laws in the state surveyed. Where gun laws are less restrictive, such as Georgia and Maryland, criminals think twice before running the risk of facing an armed victim; they are much less concerned in Massachusetts.

Fifty-six percent of the felons surveyed agreed that "A criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun;" 74% agreed that "One reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot."

A 57% majority agreed that "Most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police." In asking felons what they personally thought about while committing crimes, 34% indicated that they thought about getting "shot at by police" or "shot by victim."

-survey of imprisoned felons conducted by Professors James D. Wright and Peter H. Rossi.


Yes, I did, and I think it's stupid. No, I didn't, and I'm willing to bet that you don't either. However, even if you do have some examples, police departments are a different animal as they are allowed to carry (and supposedly well trained in the correct use of) a far more efficient killing weapon. Naturally tasers are less effective. This is why they should be allowed for the general public, but firearms should not be.

37 states have Carry/Concealed Carry laws for citizens.

Less effective as in not stopping the criminal. Try not being dense.

http://www.wesh.com/news/4226264/detail.html
http://www.azcentral.com/specials/special43/articles/0122taser22.html
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/news/072105_ap_ns_taser.html
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/local/states/florida/counties/broward_county/12316651.htm

And this is just after a quick search.

Maybe it's just me, but I'd prefer to see five robberies where everybody lives, than just two robberies that end in deaths, even if only one of those deaths is an innocent.

Howabout rapes? Would you trust someone who has just broken into your home to not kill you and/or rape your anyway? I won't take that chance.

Europeans seem to think that they're immortal under the protection of their police.

Can someone please tell me why the fact that you can't always be prepared for everything means that you should never be allowed to prepare for anything? Maybe there will come a time where the criminal breaks in and kills you while you sleep. Obviously you couldn't do anything about it then. Having that gun in your house just adds to your chances, it does not make you invincible. I agree that you're rather unlikely to be 'waiting there with a shotgun' all the time. Still, why should you not have the opportunity to have that weapon? It may help. If you get in a situation where it doesn't, that's life.

Under your logic, the fact that any crimes at all ever happen means that we should scrap whatever's being done to fight crime, since it obviously isn't working.

its still unlikely mate, you probaly think guns are cool and cant wait to be jhon wayn when a theif brakes in, you more likely to die in a car accident, why hasnt the nation done more about that?

as an english subject...you can get knifed and have your head stomped on, and not have the police being interested, but guns are more of americas identy than a case of freedoms and security.....all americans should have guns, thats why they are so cool

I looked into tazer ownership back in February 2005, so my information may be slightly dated, but as of that time ther wasn't a single state in the United States that has any restrictions on the possession of Tazers whatsoever.

Add The Peoples Republic of Illinois to the list.

http://safetyessentials.com/stun-guns-stun-guns-and-taser-laws.html
http://www.personalsafetysecurity.com/air_tasers_laws.htm

we would all be easy picking,s for criminals if they knew we were all un armed !!!!

Well, duh. of course only criminals would have guns if they're outlawed. :rolleyes:


Oh, look, the sky is blue!

*hands Brian's Test a scooby snack*

and yes americans are a little into guns ,so just let you all remember that like you did in ww11 when you needed help

Now I don't want to insult anyone, but, what kind of fool posts on a public forum that they don't keep guns? When I was a kid, I was a little socialist thief. Me and my friends use to break into houses and I justified it by saying, "they are rich and the insurance will cover it." We did get into houses that were occupied as well. That was sometimes perferable as you could then get bank cards and such with pin numbers. If anyone confronted us with guns, we ran. We also had guns but never actually had to get them out as people are sheep. I quit after getting caught once. I had to write an apology. The guilt was something i didn't know I could feel, but I did feel it, and it ended my criminal career.

I can guarantee you that 9 in 10 times you will have a chance to pull out a gun on someone breaking into your place. You will hear them or they will just knock at your door as we did. If you don't know them have a gun ready.

Using European countries to compare crime rates with America is naive. Western european population is older than that in America. Crime is committed mostly by young men right? If the unemployment of europe were brought to america there would literally be civil war much less crime. Give europe a few more years. Immigrant populations and soaring taxes ought to bring out more crime. Immigrants will possibly be able to bring population back up. Wait until your pensioners outnumber your young men, you'll see skyrocketing crime.

Besides, a government that fears guns in the hands of it citizens is a government that isn't worth keeping around. Without a gun, how in the hell are you going to shoot people that need to be shot? I cheer uproariously when i hear that some criminal got shot or killed in a car chase. Without guns there would be no way for me to get off when a law abiding citizen caps a human animal. Don't you hate when a bullet is waisted on thin air when we all know there are people out there who need to be shot?

And another thing, what are we going to do about keeping cars out of the hands of criminals?

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

It's liberal gun laws and a fearful society that has the US the way it is. Look at Canada, Europe and Aussietrailia. The US is not the worst though, look at Colombia which is #1.

Murders
Colombia 0.61 per 1000 people
United States 0.04 per 1000 people
Ireland 0.00 per 1000 people
Those stats are for murders of all types, and the US ranks 24th, but when you include firearms, the US moves up to 4th place. Only 1. South Africa 31,918 (2000), 2. Colombia 21,898 (2000), and 3. Thailand 20,032 (2000) have more.

Murders with firearms (per capita), the US is 8th.

Those stats are for murders of all types, and the US ranks 24th, but when you include firearms, the US moves up to 4th place. Only 1. South Africa 31,918 (2000), 2. Colombia 21,898 (2000), and 3. Thailand 20,032 (2000) have more.

Murders with firearms (per capita), the US is 8th.

And the three top all have severe restrictions on private ownership.

Guns are there for protection. That's reasonable. But if you improve your education and public security systems then the need for guns diminishes, no? So go and improve your education and public security systems, Americans, before you meddle with Iraq's eduation and public security systems.

Guns are there for protection. That's reasonable. But if you improve your education and public security systems then the need for guns diminishes, no? So go and improve your education and public security systems, Americans, before you meddle with Iraq's eduation and public security systems.

I agree w/ you. However, the "need" for firearms isn't only for protection.

I wish we could rely on police. Several SCOTUS decisions, however, have openly stated that the police have no (read NONE) obligation to protect the individual. This can apply even in the cases of Restraining Orders unless local law states otherwise.

Even afterwards, it's not guaranteed. I live about 20 minutes drive from the nearest town. You figure in reaction time, we're talking 30 min+ before the police can arrive. Until then, we're on our own.

I agree w/ you. However, the "need" for firearms isn't only for protection.

I wish we could rely on police. Several SCOTUS decisions, however, have openly stated that the police have no (read NONE) obligation to protect the individual. This can apply even in the cases of Restraining Orders unless local law states otherwise.

Even afterwards, it's not guaranteed. I live about 20 minutes drive from the nearest town. You figure in reaction time, we're talking 30 min+ before the police can arrive. Until then, we're on our own.

Perhaps it is inevitable that some of you need guns. But it doesn't change the fact that the easier for people to get guns, the more dangerous potentially the society becomes.

What's a police force for if they aren't to protect individuals?

Perhaps it is inevitable that some of you need guns. But it doesn't change the fact that the easier for people to get guns, the more dangerous potentially the society becomes.

What's a police force for if they aren't to protect individuals?

I've wondered the same thing.

The "official" reason is that they are there to protect "society".

What it basically boils down to is to make it nearly impossible to sue the police when they drop the ball.

My mother just obtained her full concealed carry permit in NY state.
I guess maybe its time for me to do all the paperwork and get mine.

If guns are outlawed, only criminals will have guns.....


Not true, the cops will still have them and it be harder for 'criminals' to aquire firearms with strict regulation. Truth is most weapons used in crimes started out as legally purchased weapons.
Yeah, you'll never get rid of all illegal weapons, but you can sure choke off the major source.
Why not simply make it almost impossible to own or purchase handguns. They're the biggest problem. Most likely to be used in crimes, most likely stolen, most likely to be involved in accidental shootings and least used for legitimate sport. You can satisfy your 'home defense' needs with a shotgun or a shortbarreled rifle quite easily (just to silence that sector that always screams for guns in the home, even though 'Home defense' weapons are ten times more likely to be used for a crime or in the shooting of a family member than they ever are to be used for their intended purposes). Sure someone can still break in and steal your shotgun and use it to stick up a liquor store, but it's not as easy to do and get away with with a gun that big, even if they spend the time to cut it down. Why make it easy for some one out to commit a crime by giving them access to easily concealable and transportable weapons?

Straw man. I never said they wouldn't.


And if someone really wants to break into your house, they'll find a way to do it. Does this mean we shouldn't bother with locks and legislation saying you shouldn't do it?



Really? Prove it. You find me the statistics that say how many crimes are enabled because of guns. There aren't any. Not because it doesn't happen, but because nobody asks.I'm not saying guns cause crime, I'm merely pointing out that the "guns prevent crime" argument is inherently flawed because we do not really have good comparisons on what crime would be in the same region if guns were outlawed. What I am saying is that guns cause what crime there is to be more lethal.

Ah, I take it you've seen studies on this? What's that? You haven't? You're just pulling a supposition from your behind? Hm. That's interesting. Here's my supposition: Given a random sample of the population, we currently have no information one way or the other on who would be more practiced, thus, it makes sense to assume that the criminal is at least as skilled as the gun owner, and, (and this is the tricky part you seem to have missed) already has their weapon ready for use.

Congratulations. I can look at the Florida homicide rolls and post dozens of examples of people who didn't. The difference? My list is comprised of dead people, because of how legalized gun ownership make murdering easier and less risky than not murdering.

That's an interesting question. From the way the US is going, I'd say far too many. Perhaps the question to ask is how many people have to die before the hard transition is even begun?

Hey, you were the one saying if they want to be violent they'll do it anyway as a justification for not banning guns, so according to your logic, you might as well take the locks off. Now, what I am saying is that criminals who suspect their victims may have lethal force available are far more likely to use lethal force.

Yes, I did, and I think it's stupid. No, I didn't, and I'm willing to bet that you don't either. However, even if you do have some examples, police departments are a different animal as they are allowed to carry (and supposedly well trained in the correct use of) a far more efficient killing weapon. Naturally tasers are less effective. This is why they should be allowed for the general public, but firearms should not be.

Maybe it's just me, but I'd prefer to see five robberies where everybody lives, than just two robberies that end in deaths, even if only one of those
deaths is an innocent.

Here's something for you WATERKEEP, in case you didn't know: Most gun owners PRACTICE more often than the Police and are far better shots. Here's my little picture for you:

http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/6665/dec220146se.th.jpg (http://img399.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dec220146se.jpg)

This is a 200 yard target from a range I went to a few weeks back. Mind you, that's 600 FEET (if I remember correctly, 1 yard=3 feet). I shot it with THIS rifle:


The rifle in the Picture is a 1944 USGI (United states general issue) Springfield Armory M1 Garand rifle. The first Semi-automatic battlerifle ever to come into widespread use. Mine was carried into Korea and then sent to the armory for a rebuild after it came back in 1953. New barrel installed.

http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/5898/garandinbathroom7ia.th.jpg (http://img399.imageshack.us/my.php?image=garandinbathroom7ia.jpg)

Also, please note that if a burglary were to occur in my house, there is not a spot in my house where there is a straight line of sight longer than 10 yards. If you break into my house, you will die.I would do the same to protect my father and mother from any bastard who thinks they can violate my castle and plunder me treasure...err, I mean possessions.

I also own one of those eeeevil "Assault weapons" but I won't post a picture of it here because I Know you guys would be scared of it....after all, we don't need guns anymore because we have the police, right?

If guns are outlawed, only criminals will have guns.....


Not true, the cops will still have them and it be harder for 'criminals' to aquire firearms with strict regulation. Truth is most weapons used in crimes
started out as legally purchased weapons.

Yeah, you'll never get rid of all illegal weapons, but you can sure choke off the major source. So you want to take away my right to keep guns in my house? Mao, Stalin, and hitler would like you

Why not simply make it almost impossible to own or purchase handguns. They're the biggest problem. Most likely to be used in crimes, most likely stolen, most likely to be involved in accidental shootings and least used for legitimate sport.





You can satisfy your 'home defense' needs with a shotgun or a shortbarreled rifle quite easily

My girlfriend is not capable of shoulder any of my rifles-the length of pull is too long for her and they are too big, plus recoil is horrible for her. She would be much better served by a small glock handgun than a shotgun or rifle, something that is foolproof (Have you ever heard of someone FUBARING a glock?).

(just to silence that sector that always screams for guns in the home, even though 'Home defense' weapons are ten times more likely to be used for a crime or in the shooting of a family member than they ever are to be used for their intended purposes). You are aware that pools are one of the most common causes of DEATH for young children? You are 100% MORE likely to drown in your OWN pool than someone who doesn't own or use a pool! Who would have thought about THAT? Why would anyone need a pool? We must band together as concerned citizens and BAN these horrible recessed notches in the earth that are filled with water! Think about the children we could save! BAN POOLS! DO IT FOR THE CHILDREN!


Sure someone can still break in and steal your shotgun and use it to stick up a liquor store, but it's not as easy to do and get away with with a gun that big, even if they spend the time to cut it down. Why make it easy for some one out to commit a crime by giving them access to easily concealable and transportable weapons?

You are also aware that someone could even more easily steal your car, which is already parked outside or in an easy to get into garage, and steal your car, which is more dangerous in their hands than a gun? Why? Because when you call in to the police that your car was stolen and they get spotted, they WILL RUN from the police and drive through anything to get away. Why? It's not their car, it's yours, and they don't care about it. It's disposable, and they want to get away. I saw we require ALL cars to be kept at a central location heavily guarded by police, who must issue a license after a THOROUGH background check! If you have access to public transportation, you can't have a car.

I swear we have more closet communists and BOR-rapers on this website than the DNC.

No guns do not need to be outlawed, thats not the solution to the problem. The U.S. has the largest number of gun deaths a year out of all of the countries. You could even combine the other countries gun deaths a year they would still not equal ours. So yes we have a problem. Enforcing better registration laws is a good step forward seeing as how it's the unregistered weapons thats that tend to be involved in crimes. There is nothing wrong with RESPOSIBLE gun ownership. I own two guns myself. Fully automatic weapons are not at all needed to be legalized except to military, F.B.I., C.I.A., N.S.A.,S.W.A.T. and even maybe the police could have them at the sation for extreme circustances. Yes we have a problem but moving in either extreme wont help things. What I have always wondered personally is why police don't do more raids on illegal guns, those are the ones that's end up being involved in crimes. There is also a problem with the legal system not being strict enough about punishments for guns, for instance if you get arrested for armed robbery and you serve your time you can still purchase a gun. I think after you did something like that you have blown your second amendment rights. So in short I'm not anti guns I'm just anti some people getting their hands on them who never should.

in case you didn't know: Most gun owners PRACTICE more often than the Police and are far better shots. Uh, you speak for all gun owners now?... statistically you're full of shit. Most gun owners don't practice, almost all law enforcement officers are required to.This is a 200 yard target.....snip the chest thumping show and tell....
So you can shoot a rifle...lots of us can. They're so much more accurate than handguns...even in the hands of a novice. I haven't fired a gun in years and I can probably put down a good group with a well sighted rifle, but I'd probably have to spend a week at the range to keep em all in the rings with a handgun of average barrel length.

If Guns are outlawed, ARF-COM and IBTL will become an outlaw

Here's something to help you guys realize why I fight so hard against the disarmament of America.

"A gun will only be taken from the woman and used against her"

http://www.pix8.net/pro/pic.php?u=107085NsEe&i=607151

http://www.pix8.net/pro/pic.php?u=107085NsEe&i=607134

http://www.pix8.net/pro/pic.php?u=107085NsEe&i=607136

http://www.pix8.net/pro/pic.php?u=107085NsEe&i=607137

http://www.pix8.net/pro/pic.php?u=107085NsEe&i=607138

http://www.pix8.net/pro/pic.php?u=107085NsEe&i=607141

http://www.pix8.net/pro/pic.php?u=107085NsEe&i=607143

http://www.pix8.net/pro/pic.php?u=107085NsEe&i=607144

IANSA? Come and get them, you blue UN bastards!

http://www.pix8.net/pro/pic.php?u=107085NsEe&i=607148

You are also aware that someone could even more easily steal your car, which is already parked outside or in an easy to get into garage, and steal your car, which is more dangerous in their hands than a gun? Why? Because when you call in to the police that your car was stolen and they get spotted, they WILL RUN from the police and drive through anything to get away. Why? It's not their car, it's yours, and they don't care about it. It's disposable, and they want to get away. I saw we require ALL cars to be kept at a central location heavily guarded by police, who must issue a license after a THOROUGH background check! If you have access to public transportation, you can't have a car.

I swear we have more closet communists and BOR-rapers on this website than the DNC.
Hmmmm...well we need a license to operate a car, you have to pass a test and register it every year, not to mention subject to fines and confiscation for modifications.....why don't we apply that to guns....

Uh, you speak for all gun owners now?... statistically you're full of shit. Most gun owners don't practice, almost all law enforcement officers are required to.

And because one guy who shoots at an intruder and misses means we are ALL sucky shots?

So you can shoot a rifle...lots of us can. They're so much more accurate than handguns...even in the hands of a novice.


Not everyone can handle a rifle. Whatabout those who are wheel-chair bound? The small in stature? Those who are afraid of the recoil and noise? EVERYONE has the right to self-defense.


I haven't fired a gun in years and I can probably put down a good group with a well sighted rifle, but I'd probably have to spend a week at the range to keep em all in the rings with a handgun of average barrel length.

It doesn't matter in a life or death situation, which most of the time goes down within a few feet. I don't own a handgun but I will bet that at a few feet if I were to shoot an intruder I would hit him. What about Kitty Genovese? And what about the Jews who were attacked by Bufford Furrow? If I remember correctly they sued the PD involved but lost, because the Courts ruled that Police did NOT HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO PROTECT THEM, JUST THE PUBLIC IN GENERAL

Oi. I step out for a moment, and suddenly the thread just takes off.

Ok, responding to some of the people in this thread:

About Texas invading:

They always looked shifty to me. Damn Texans and their cowboy hats! Ahem, back to seriousness: No. It's just that Texans have this thing about guns in general, and it kind of spills over.

About my family being lucky as to never have a gun accident:

Not likely. We were trained that a gun is a deadly weapon. You never point the barrel at someone, EVER. This was drilled into us from day 1. It's not luck. It's training There's a difference, if you didn't know that.

Yes, Americans are fanatical about guns. You can have them when you pry them out of our cold dead hands. :D

Again, back to seriousness. I keep getting sidetracked, so sorry.

Here is the point:

There is no proof that eliminating legal guns will reduce crime at all. However, there is a small amount of evidence that widespread gun ownership actually decreases crime. Which one of those would you rather bet on? I'll take the one with a little evidence rather than the one with NO evidence.

Hmmmm...well we need a license to operate a car, you have to pass a test and register it every year, not to mention subject to fines and confiscation for modifications.....why don't we apply that to guns....

You have a consitutionally right to own guns, but not a constitutional right to drive a car on public streets. The Gubmint cannot prevent you from going places.....you can walk.

There is already registration going on in NYC, it's something you have to do to own a pistol or rifle in NYC. It's VERY hard to get one because not only are the PD bureacrats arrogant morons but they have a socialist mindset that the people have to depend on them for protection, and the questions are very hard to answer.

Oi. I step out for a moment, and suddenly the thread just takes off.

Ok, responding to some of the people in this thread:

About Texas invading:

They always looked shifty to me. Damn Texans and their cowboy hats! Ahem, back to seriousness: No. It's just that Texans have this thing about guns in general, and it kind of spills over.

About my family being lucky as to never have a gun accident:

Not likely. We were trained that a gun is a deadly weapon. You never point the barrel at someone, EVER. This was drilled into us from day 1. It's not luck. It's training There's a difference, if you didn't know that.

Yes, Americans are fanatical about guns. You can have them when you pry them out of our cold dead hands. :D

Again, back to seriousness. I keep getting sidetracked, so sorry.

Here is the point:

There is no proof that eliminating legal guns will reduce crime at all. However, there is a small amount of evidence that widespread gun ownership actually decreases crime. Which one of those would you rather bet on? I'll take the one with a little evidence rather than the one with NO evidence.

My gosh there is someone here with a brain.

I was never trained on how to use a gun or handle one. I trained myself, by memorizing the basic rules of firearm ownership.

So you want to take away my right to keep guns in my house? Mao, Stalin, and hitler would like youUh, no I don't and no they wouldn't. I want to seriously limit yours and everyone's access to handguns. Keep your M1 and the rest of your long guns. You wouldn't seriously stop any invasion or threat to our way of life with handguns anyway. You can't stop trained troops with grandpa's .38, a Glock or a Magnum. You need range and for that you need rifles.My girlfriend is not capable of shoulder any of my rifles-the length of pull is too long for her and they are too big, plus recoil is horrible for her. She would be much better served by a small glock handgun than a shotgun or rifle, something that is foolproof (Have you ever heard of someone FUBARING a glock?).Real life statistics...not your fantasy bullshit... handguns miss 80% of the time at distances over 10 feet. That's statistics from real gunshots fired at real people in real life. That includes those fired by trained individuals. Get your girlfriend a model 97 chambered in a pistol caliber like .357. not much kick, good knockdown and available in a 16 inch barrel. It'll cost less than the Glock too.

You have a consitutionally right to own guns, but not a constitutional right to drive a car on public streets. The Gubmint cannot prevent you from going places.....you can walk.

There is already registration going on in NYC, it's something you have to do to own a pistol or rifle in NYC. It's VERY hard to get one because not only are the PD bureacrats arrogant morons but they have a socialist mindset that the people have to depend on them for protection, and the questions are very hard to answer.
A right to own does not preclude regulation, the government can and does place conditions on the rights we are guaranteed by the constitution.

No, somewhere buried in that glaring sarcasm was a point. Guns are dangerous, yes. But, with proper training, you can avoid being an idiot when using one. I'm sorry you were never trained, but don't put the rest of the country in your category, unless you have some statistics from a valid source that you would like to add.

Side note: I'm glad that you took the initiative to memorize the basic rules. In leiu of common sense, rules work really well.

The NRA has 4 million members. So out of 90 million or so gun owners, at the VERY LEAST there are 4 million trained gun owners. There are far more than 4 million trained gun owners, but we DO know about 4 million of them.

I'm not a member of the NRA, but I am a 'trained' gun owner.

A right to own does not preclude regulation, the government can and does place conditions on the rights we are guaranteed by the constitution.

Granted, the goverment can make some laws that say that certain people cannot have guns-the mentally unstable, felons, domestic abusers, those under 18, and background checks when going through FFLs (NOT for private sales), but anything else is ripping apart the constitution.

I'm not a member of the NRA, but I am a 'trained' gun owner.

Same here. I don't like the NRA's politics. That's why I'm not a member.

Uh, you speak for all gun owners now?... statistically you're full of shit. Most gun owners don't practice, almost all law enforcement officers are required to.
So you can shoot a rifle...lots of us can. They're so much more accurate than handguns...even in the hands of a novice. I haven't fired a gun in years and I can probably put down a good group with a well sighted rifle, but I'd probably have to spend a week at the range to keep em all in the rings with a handgun of average barrel length.

I've already posted that over 20 million Firearm owners practice shooting sports. Police qualify once or twice a year shooting about 40 shots. Any other is ussually done on their own time. Where's your proof?

I agree w/ you. However, the "need" for firearms isn't only for protection.

I wish we could rely on police. Several SCOTUS decisions, however, have openly stated that the police have no (read NONE) obligation to protect the individual. This can apply even in the cases of Restraining Orders unless local law states otherwise.

Even afterwards, it's not guaranteed. I live about 20 minutes drive from the nearest town. You figure in reaction time, we're talking 30 min+ before the police can arrive. Until then, we're on our own.

Exactly. This is the main thrust of my argument.

Same here. I don't like the NRA's politics. That's why I'm not a member.

I like the NRA's politics, however they don't act or flex their muscle as often as they should.

I'm a member of the Garand Collectors association though, sometime I'll join the NRA.

the problem with keeping a gun in the house for protection when you have children is that you need to keep it locked up. a locked up gun isnt very useful when the killer just broke your door in.


Yup. Keep it on you instead.


in a rural area a locked up gun can still be used to kill skunks.

Too true--unless they break down your door, wearing combat webbing and carrying an UZI. Normally, they're fairly laid back, but damn, pee in their cheerios just once....

No, you need to teach your kids about firearm safety. Most "accidents" happen when the parents try to hide the gun and don't tell the kids about it.

Also a good tactic. :)

You're much more likely to fend off an attacker who is armed only with a knife than you are with someone who has a gun. Your chances of surviving a stabbing are also better than your chances of surviving a bullet.


Really? In the US, you have a 76% chance of surviving a gun shot wound (150,000 treated and live annually, and there are 35,000 deaths related to bullet wounds annually--including suicides--which greatly outnumber murders with firearms). What are the stabbing stats?


Most Western nations have tougher gun laws than the U.S., and they also have lower murder/violent crime rates.


It's not the gun--we also have a higher rate of non-gun related murders. It's the society.


Guns make committing crime too easy, especially by those who lack great physical strength.


I'll disasgree that they make ANY crime "easier". They DO make it so a physically weaker target can fend of a much more powerful agressor.


If guns are outlawed, perhaps only criminals will have guns, but they can also be arrested merely by being caught having one. This in and of itself should prevent a lot of violent crimes before they have a chance to happen.

Did murder stop when guns were mostly banned in the UK? Did it drop all that much? Same question for all the other countries that had a majority ban on firearms...

I don't know the answer.

when you have kids you will find out that children get into EVERYTHING. the only way to keep your kid from playing with your gun is to keep it locked up and keep the key with you at all times.

My dad had guns. I did NOT get into them. Not once. And I didn't have to be beaten not to mess with them, either. They were never locked up.

I could see owning a rifle or a shotgun, but hand guns and fully automatic weapons just aren't needed for hunting or home protection.

Those aren't the only reason for having firearms. Protection against government oppression (internal or external). A force of 80 million infantry would make any government balk at trying to take over.

so they were lucky

you know that children and teens do stupid things ALL THE TIME.

if you havent personally done something that had a possibility of killing you then you know someone else who has.

The point is, just because your kids would have issues relating to monkeying with everything doesn't mean everyone's kids do.

All of my family and cousins grew up with firearms. None of the kids messed with the guns without permission--ever. No deaths, no woundings, no accidental firings, no nothing. I don't know of anyone directly (only in sensationalist news headlines) that has ever had a problem with children and guns.

A force of 80 million infantry would make any government balk at trying to take over.

Yes but without the will to use those fire arms those 80 million are just people who talk shit...and as the average american seems to weight 300lbs I imagine they would make pretty good slow moving targets.

This is often used as an arguement in the US...somehow by owning a gun they are protecting their freedoms...unfortunatly unless you use it the gun is just a piece of decoration in your home.

I'll join the NRA sometime. I not only like their politics, I love them. When you talk about stealing our guns to protect us from crime, you piss me off. Most violent crime is probably related to drugs and the drug subculture anyway. Let them shoot each other. We can arrest the survivors as soon as they finish killing each other off. If getting rid of violent crime takes getting rid of my rights, screw you.

What other steps are you willing to take to get rid of violence in a free society? Freedom is dangerous, jerks. Why should I have to register with the government to exercise a right guaranteed by my constitution? Seems to me only the socialist states like California and those of the North East need to register their weapons, after all, any fool who loves socialism probably isn't smart enough to safely own ANYTHING dangerous. Just look what they do with their votes. Socialist have certainly proven that voting is dangerous, they have voted to weaken property rights. Remember in the last session of US supreme court, they found that it is ok for local governments to confiscate land from and give away land to private individuals.

Don't forget, the right to keep and bare arms was to protect us from the government. Anybody remember the Serbs when Milosevic wouldn't step down? The Serbs had the right to keep and bare arms. Didn't any of you feel good when they forced Milosevic to leave? No one even resorted to violence and there were huge crowds.

The arguments for gun ownership all seem to boil down to this: "I don't feel like I'm a man unless I've got my trusty gun by my side." You're more of a man, in my opinion, if you can face life without your gun.

See, that's not why I have guns. I love several people in this world very much. So much that it doesn't matter what it takes, I would spend every dollar, every minute, every ounce of energy to keep them alive and well.

The firearm adds an extra dimension in getting them out of a situation they may only have a .001% chance of facing. But the lives of those I love aren't up for bet. I will take any option that would help me protect them. Their lives are priceless.

I wouldn't just put 95% effort into protecting them.

Freeways and parking garages aren't made with the express purpose of killing other human beings.

And neither are guns. Do your research. Millions more game animals are taken each year in the US by hunters than there are murders.

Sounds like a lovely family. I hope we live in separate states. :rolleyes:

Wow. You really think they'd just look at you and shoot, don't you? If you don't attack them, you've got nothing to worry about. Way to be scared of an inanimate object, dude.

But most crime and a good portion from accidents come from handguns which have nothing to do with hunting.

Oh? Pretty much any caliber more powerful than the .357magnum was designed for hunting, not for defense against humans. Too much oomph.

Guns aren't responsible for crime per se, they just make it easier. Could those two kids at Columbine have killed all their classmates without guns? I doubt it. They would have remained just two disenchanted kids. Scary in some ways, perhaps, but not capable of mass murder.

Yup, they just would have waited to find out how McVeigh made that nifty fertilizer bomb and used that. It wasn't guns that cause Columbine--it was fucked up kids.

And more childish attitudes on your part. Admit it, if someone seriously suggested confiscating your firearms, you'd throw a fit like a two year old child, and then probably start shooting. And now I'm hoping we live on separate continents.

If someone forcibly tried to take my firearms, that would be against the US constitution, and yes, according to the Declaration of Independence, I'm OBLIGATED to start shooting because the government was corrupt.

http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/pol-leg/res-eval/other_docs/factsheets/canus/default_e.asp

Yup, they just would have waited to find out how McVeigh made that nifty fertilizer bomb and used that. It wasn't guns that cause Columbine--it was fucked up kids.

Nice side step of the issue... :)

http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/pol-leg/res-eval/other_docs/factsheets/canus/default_e.asp

Nobody ever said the US had lower crime. And what are those numbers now, almost ten years after the last set of data. US crime continued to drop. What did Canada's do after the 1.5 Billion dollar registry was installed?

A handgun is perfect for indoors, however smaller caliber handguns have proven woefully poor as defensive weapons. Several insurgents in Iraq were taking 5 and 6 six shots before dieing...of 9mm ball.


That's because it's FMJ. It goes in, it goes out. There aren't hollow points in war.


Get one of the 4 major calibers-9mm, 40, 45, 357 and put some good ammo into it.


Don't forget the 10mm.


I'm saving up for a Glock 21, IIRC, which is a 45.


Yup, mine sits in a bed holster every night.


Although if you can handle it, an AR15 or AK rifle would be a good choice for home defense. You've got 30rds of ammo and a 55grain 3200 FPS projectile at your disposal to protect your family.


Or a 122-158 gr in the case of the AK. :)


Tools are great.

And useful. :D

Nice side step of the issue... :)

Actually, as stated earlier, they had planted a bomb in the school. It just failed to go off.

No, what I'm really saying is that you, and people like you, truly frighten me. One of these days you're going to get really mad at someone, and maybe that someone is a little too big and strong for you to punch him in the mouth, and that's when you'll bring out your little "pal." And if all society thinks like that, and there's mounting evidence that it does, then we're back in the stone age.

You really don't know gun owners, do you?

Now, this is something I've noticed with being on NS for a couple of years now. It seems that some countries seem to get into brawls a lot more than those of us in the US.

We don't just generally go in swinging when someone says, "Your momma".

If we are carrying a weapon, we generally try to avoid any kind of confrontation at all. We don't escalate. We get out.

The misconceptions of the brainwashed never cease to amaze me.

Must be why our country is famous for its psychopatic serial killers. Of course they normally don't use guns but it is simply a fact that the US is a violent society.

And there is the problem. It's not the tool. It's the society that allows murderers and psychopaths to go about society, committing these heinous acts.

If someone forcibly tried to take my firearms, that would be against the US constitution, and yes, according to the Declaration of Independence, I'm OBLIGATED to start shooting because the government was corrupt.

:headbang:

I've come around to the point of view that you probably have a right to own and possess firearms. I've also been persuaded that it is bad policy to ban or over-restrict firearms.

But I thought you had learned better than to claim a Second Amendment right to own and possess firearms.

And, no, you don't have an obligation to shoot-up ATF agents because you don't like the consistent 70 years of caselaw denying your alleged right or a law passed by a majority that may impinge on your alleged right.

Comments on the pro-gun side in threads such as these that make me want to consider yet again the wisdom of allowing some of you to possess such deadly weaponry. Keep up the fight, you may turn me back into pro-control.

:headbang:

I've come around to the point of view that you probably have a right to own and possess firearms. I've also been persuaded that it is bad policy to ban or over-restrict firearms.

But I thought you had learned better than to claim a Second Amendment right to own and possess firearms.

And, no, you don't have an obligation to shoot-up ATF agents because you don't like the consistent 70 years of caselaw denying your alleged right or a law passed by a majority that may impinge on your alleged right.

Comments on the pro-gun side in threads such as these that make me want to consider yet again the wisdom of allowing some of you to possess such deadly weaponry. Keep up the fight, you may turn me back into pro-control.

I've put too much work into you to let you start "re-thinking" things.

Go and review the recent SCOTUS restraining order debacle again. That will make you feel better.

The second amendment is not alleged.

I'll join the NRA sometime. I not only like their politics, I love them. When you talk about stealing our guns to protect us from crime, you piss me off. Most violent crime is probably related to drugs and the drug subculture anyway. Let them shoot each other. We can arrest the survivors as soon as they finish killing each other off. If getting rid of violent crime takes getting rid of my rights, screw you.

What other steps are you willing to take to get rid of violence in a free society? Freedom is dangerous, jerks. Why should I have to register with the government to exercise a right guaranteed by my constitution? Seems to me only the socialist states like California and those of the North East need to register their weapons, after all, any fool who loves socialism probably isn't smart enough to safely own ANYTHING dangerous. Just look what they do with their votes. Socialist have certainly proven that voting is dangerous, they have voted to weaken property rights. Remember in the last session of US supreme court, they found that it is ok for local governments to confiscate land from and give away land to private individuals.

Don't forget, the right to keep and bare arms was to protect us from the government. Anybody remember the Serbs when Milosevic wouldn't step down? The Serbs had the right to keep and bare arms. Didn't any of you feel good when they forced Milosevic to leave? No one even resorted to violence and there were huge crowds.

Actually I didn't. But that still doesn't change my opinion on it, because it lasted almost ten years (I believe Clinton passed it) and there didn't seem to be many problems.

Crime rates started dropping before the ban. It had no effect. It can also be noted that crime rates haven't risen since the ban expired....

And neither are guns. Do your research. Millions more game animals are taken each year in the US by hunters than there are murders.

People use guns to kill people which is why they are used in the military. Except for hunting they are used to kill HUMANS! Freeways are used to drive on and parking garages are used to park in. When people use analogies like those it really annoys me for they are totally seperate things.

Keep your precious gun close at heart. I have an old 91/30 Mosin Nagant locked up in a local gun club, and I feel a lot safer with it there. Illegal firearms are almost impossible to get in England, so even the most dangerous criminals don't usually own them. In America, every psycopath can feel free to snipe at strangers from their cars.

And how often does that actually happen? :rolleyes:

I've put too much work into you to let you start "re-thinking" things.

Go and review the recent SCOTUS restraining order debacle again. That will make you feel better.

:)

The second amendment is not alleged.

I'll join the NRA sometime. I not only like their politics, I love them. When you talk about stealing our guns to protect us from crime, you piss me off. Most violent crime is probably related to drugs and the drug subculture anyway. Let them shoot each other. We can arrest the survivors as soon as they finish killing each other off. If getting rid of violent crime takes getting rid of my rights, screw you.

What other steps are you willing to take to get rid of violence in a free society? Freedom is dangerous, jerks. Why should I have to register with the government to exercise a right guaranteed by my constitution? Seems to me only the socialist states like California and those of the North East need to register their weapons, after all, any fool who loves socialism probably isn't smart enough to safely own ANYTHING dangerous. Just look what they do with their votes. Socialist have certainly proven that voting is dangerous, they have voted to weaken property rights. Remember in the last session of US supreme court, they found that it is ok for local governments to confiscate land from and give away land to private individuals.

Don't forget, the right to keep and bare arms was to protect us from the government. Anybody remember the Serbs when Milosevic wouldn't step down? The Serbs had the right to keep and bare arms. Didn't any of you feel good when they forced Milosevic to leave? No one even resorted to violence and there were huge crowds.

Unfortunately, due to many decisions by SCOTUS, the 2nd convienently doesn't fall under the the 14th, even though it should. There is also lots of "precedent", as faulty as it may be, that has been used to erode legal ownership over the years.

Similar to how police are not obligated to protect you even when they are and "public use" now means for private enterprise.

The DC sniper would never have killed if he didn't have a gun fool. There is gun crime in the UK, I admit, but it's still lower than in most US states. American children are taught to handle firearms from a young age, and frankly that scares me.

How do you know that? Maybe he would have used the rest of his military training and murdered by night, silently, with a knife instead?

Just because you're limiting your perspective, doesn't warrant calling someone else a fool. It sounds like you're the one lacking the wisdom to see all sides.

People use guns to kill people which is why they are used in the military. Except for hunting they are used to kill HUMANS! Freeways are used to drive on and parking garages are used to park in. When people use analogies like those it really annoys me for they are totally seperate things.


Strange, I don't hunt and I use my firearms frequently. Never has a human ever been killed or even injured by them (except some ringing in my ears and a bruise on my shoulder). Maybe they're defective.

Nobody ever said the US had lower crime. And what are those numbers now, almost ten years after the last set of data. US crime continued to drop. What did Canada's do after the 1.5 Billion dollar registry was installed?

See for yourself. (http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/media/program_statistics/default_e.asp)

50 Bucks says you'll never need the gun in your entire life.

I certainly hope I don't ever need to use one. But if the need is there, I'd be a bit happier with actually having one, than being in that situation and not having one.

See for yourself. (http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/media/program_statistics/default_e.asp)


Because an agency created for firearm prohibition would never tip the info in favor of their cause, right?


There are all kinds of violent crime, just because it goes down doesn't mean it's because of guns. just becasue it goes up isn't because of guns. association does not indicate causality.


@ Zaxon: Better to have and not need, than to need and not have. also, for everyone who says guns aren't needed; neither are computers, refrigerators, cars, or central air. but we still have all that.

Speaking just for myself I don't have the slightest idea how to use a gun. But... you just point and pull the trigger right? I'm sure I'll hit something!

Wow...never fired a pistol, and you think you'll hit something? Try it sometime.

First, figure out where the safety is--disengage it.

Now, you SQUEEZE the grip wrong, and you'll miss. You flinch, you'll miss. You pull the trigger the wrong way and you'll miss.

FIRE a pistol before spouting off on how easy it is to hit things.

Then learn a bit about ballistics, to actually know what a bullet may or may not do.

There is no such thing as a homing bullet yet. Until then, pistol shooting is challenging--it's part of the fun of target shooting.

I looked into tazer ownership back in February 2005, so my information may be slightly dated, but as of that time ther wasn't a single state in the United States that has any restrictions on the possession of Tazers whatsoever.

Wisconsin has banned tazers since their inception.

See for yourself. (http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/media/program_statistics/default_e.asp)

And that has done what to crime levels?
What about the millions of firearms that were estimated to be in private hands that "aren't" registered. In 1995, the Canadian DOJ estimated 3.5 million owners. That is 1.5 million off somewhere. in 2001, they "lowered" their estimate to 2.4 million. Convienent. THat's still 400,000 owners off. Other surveys had it over 5 million.

That's not even including the actual number of firearms.

1.5 billion for about 15,000 rejections

$100,000 / each rejection

Yes but without the will to use those fire arms those 80 million are just people who talk shit...and as the average american seems to weight 300lbs I imagine they would make pretty good slow moving targets.

This is often used as an arguement in the US...somehow by owning a gun they are protecting their freedoms...unfortunatly unless you use it the gun is just a piece of decoration in your home.

See there's the rub. Many of us would use them. :)

Unfortunately, due to many decisions by SCOTUS, the 2nd convienently doesn't fall under the the 14th, even though it should. There is also lots of "precedent", as faulty as it may be, that has been used to erode legal ownership over the years.

Similar to how police are not obligated to protect you even when they are and "public use" now means for private enterprise.


I know you mean very well, but I am anal-retentive when it comes to this stuff.

The good news is that SCOTUS hasn't ever actually held that the 2nd is not incorporated within the 14th. It just hasn't ever decided it either way -- and under the current law of incorporation -- it isn't part of the 14th unless SCOTUS expressly decides it is. So, it isn't as bad as you thought, Kecibukia.

For others, here is the bad news. Although people argue about it (and I am not going to enter into a debate about it), SCOTUS at least arguably held in 1939, however, that the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect an individual right to own, possess, or use firearms, but rather protects the states' rights to armed militias. Although the meaning of that decision is disputed, SCOTUS has echoed it in other more recent cases. Also, all of the 13 US Courts of Appeal that have considered it interpret the 1939 decision that way (with the exception of one Court of Appeal that has recently waivered).

The state of the caselaw has been pretty consistent for about 70 years that there is no individual right to own, possess, or use firearms protected by the Second Amendment.

I agree this caselaw may be wrong. I won't argue it.

Also, many legal scholars think the 1939 case held differently than the courts interpret it and that the 2nd Amendment does protect an individual right.

I'm merely reporting what is the state of the caselaw. I won't argue it again, but those here that have debated it with me know I am right about at least the consistent holdings of the lower courts. (Again, they may be wrong. Don't yell at me about it.)

EDIT: Beg pardon, Kecibukia, I forgot about the old Supreme Court cases that pre-date the modern doctrine of incorporation. SCOTUS has held that the 2nd Amendment is not a limit on the states, and this appears to still be good law. I don't think if I court wished to uphold the 2nd as an individual right, that it would hesitate to hold that it was incorporated, however.

Nice side step of the issue... :)

It wasn't a side-step. The kids would have found another way to "punish" those that "hurt" them.

They did have explosives, as was previously noted, that failed to go off. Then it wouldn't have just been firearms.

:headbang:

I've come around to the point of view that you probably have a right to own and possess firearms. I've also been persuaded that it is bad policy to ban or over-restrict firearms.

But I thought you had learned better than to claim a Second Amendment right to own and possess firearms.

And, no, you don't have an obligation to shoot-up ATF agents because you don't like the consistent 70 years of caselaw denying your alleged right or a law passed by a majority that may impinge on your alleged right.

Comments on the pro-gun side in threads such as these that make me want to consider yet again the wisdom of allowing some of you to possess such deadly weaponry. Keep up the fight, you may turn me back into pro-control.


Cat, my fight's not with you, but your case law arguments are getting old.

People use guns to kill people which is why they are used in the military. Except for hunting they are used to kill HUMANS! Freeways are used to drive on and parking garages are used to park in. When people use analogies like those it really annoys me for they are totally seperate things.

Hey, you're the one that said they were only made to kill humans. I'll give you another use (one more widely used than killing humans)--competition target shooting.

YOU'RE the one that thinks that's all they're used for. It's not my fault you aren't rooted in reality. I'm just proving you wrong--with facts even.

Actually it more like "I refuse to depend on some else for my and my family's protection."

The arguments for gun ownership all seem to boil down to this: "I don't feel like I'm a man unless I've got my trusty gun by my side." You're more of a man, in my opinion, if you can face life without your gun.

This is a countering to the statement you posted, I'm just responding not trying to start a flame war. Don't respond if you don't want to...

I know you mean very well, but I am anal-retentive when it comes to this stuff.

The good news is that SCOTUS hasn't ever actually held that the 2nd is not incorporated within the 14th. It just hasn't ever decided it either way -- and under the current law of incorporation -- it isn't part of the 14th unless SCOTUS expressly decides it is. So, it isn't as bad as you thought, Kecibukia.


For others, here is the bad news. Although people argue about it (and I am not going to enter into a debate about it), SCOTUS at least arguably held in 1939, however, that the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect an individual right to own, possess, or use firearms, but rather protects the states' rights to armed militias. Although the meaning of that decision is disputed, SCOTUS has echoed it in other more recent cases. Also, all of the 13 US Courts of Appeal that have considered it interpret the 1939 decision that way (with the exception of one Court of Appeal that has recently waivered).

The 2nd Amendment was intended to give the people the power to fight off an oppressive government. Yes, it's been said many times but it's true. The reason the War for independence was fought was to be free of tyranny from a goverment that was trampling over the people's rights-why would the Founding fathers give the STATE the right to keep and bear arms and NOT the people?

The statements made by the founding fathers around that time also supported the idea that the 2A was for the people, not the state.
The state of the caselaw has been pretty consistent for about 70 years that there is no individual right to own, possess, or use firearms protected by the Second Amendment.


I agree this caselaw may be wrong. I won't argue it.

Also, many legal scholars think the 1939 case held differently than the courts interpret it and that the 2nd Amendment does protect an individual right.

I'm merely reporting what is the state of the caselaw. I won't argue it again, but those here that have debated it with me know I am right about at least the consistent holdings of the lower courts. (Again, they may be wrong. Don't yell at me about it.)

Right now what we need is ONE major court victory to secure the fact that the 2nd A is an individual right. However, if it fails and the court rules that the 2ndA doesn't secure an individual right (It does, but even the SC has it's head in the sand) many states will begin wholesale confiscation-even in states where there own constitution has an RKBA :headbang: . Bastards.

Cat, my fight's not with you, but your case law arguments are getting old.

I don't think you've been paying attention to what I said.

I didn't even make a "caselaw argument."

I know you mean very well, but I am anal-retentive when it comes to this stuff.

The good news is that SCOTUS hasn't ever actually held that the 2nd is not incorporated within the 14th. It just hasn't ever decided it either way -- and under the current law of incorporation -- it isn't part of the 14th unless SCOTUS expressly decides it is. So, it isn't as bad as you thought, Kecibukia.

For others, here is the bad news. Although people argue about it (and I am not going to enter into a debate about it), SCOTUS at least arguably held in 1939, however, that the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect an individual right to own, possess, or use firearms, but rather protects the states' rights to armed militias. Although the meaning of that decision is disputed, SCOTUS has echoed it in other more recent cases. Also, all of the 13 US Courts of Appeal that have considered it interpret the 1939 decision that way (with the exception of one Court of Appeal that has recently waivered).

The state of the caselaw has been pretty consistent for about 70 years that there is no individual right to own, possess, or use firearms protected by the Second Amendment.

I agree this caselaw may be wrong. I won't argue it.

Also, many legal scholars think the 1939 case held differently than the courts interpret it and that the 2nd Amendment does protect an individual right.

I'm merely reporting what is the state of the caselaw. I won't argue it again, but those here that have debated it with me know I am right about at least the consistent holdings of the lower courts. (Again, they may be wrong. Don't yell at me about it.)

EDIT: Beg pardon, Kecibukia, I forgot about the old Supreme Court cases that pre-date the modern doctrine of incorporation. SCOTUS has held that the 2nd Amendment is not a limit on the states, and this appears to still be good law. I don't think if I court wished to uphold the 2nd as an individual right, that it would hesitate to hold that it was incorporated, however.

No arguement. You've made the point previously , however, IIRC that by "not" ruling on incorporation, they have defacto unincorporated it.

Modern scholarship (and some cases) are leaning towards the "individual rights" stance. I hope that continues.

This is a countering to the statement you posted, I'm just responding not trying to start a flame war. Don't respond if you don't want to...



Right now what we need is ONE major court victory to secure the fact that the 2nd A is an individual right. However, if it fails and the court rules that the 2ndA doesn't secure an individual right (It does, but even the SC has it's head in the sand) many states will begin wholesale confiscation-even in states where there own constitution has an RKBA :headbang: . Bastards.

I disagree. The present political atmosphere is one of supporting individual firearm rights in most states.

Could/will that change? Probably. However, once the states have passed CC laws, it will be more of a challenge to argue for their removal.

No arguement. You've made the point previously , however, IIRC that by "not" ruling on incorporation, they have defacto unincorporated it.

Modern scholarship (and some cases) are leaning towards the "individual rights" stance. I hope that continues.

Agreed.

(even as to the second part)

1. I object to the idea of a European Constitution. Why? Because, even if it only contains laws that already exist, as proposed, constitutions can clearly lead to a situation a couple of centuries down the line where they are unchangeable because their terms are so deeply ingrained into the psyches of the public. I think this is dangerous as societies change, what was acceptable/neccessary then will not always be so.

2. The US constitution defends each person's "right" to bear arms. Thus a society has grown around this (and other) principle(s). It is one of the key factors in America's inability to give up their guns.

3. Banning guns tomorrow would be a very bad idea for reasons covered thoroughly in this thread.

4. America will almost certainly never be able to give up this "right" as long as it is considered acceptable to own guns for any reason discussed here. America is very different from Europe, Australia, Canada, and pretty much every individual country on Earth. They have a media that convinces them they should be affraid of each other and everyone else, pumping out the propaganda 24 hours a day. They have a government that does nothing to improve the education of the people and a society that believes power to be the ultimate goal in life. The reason they have such a high number of gun-related deaths and injurries is not solely because guns are very easy to acquire, it is also because there is a fundamental difference between us and them in attitudes to violence, the role of the police, crime, safety and protection.

These debates thrive on these boards because no one with an opinion on gun ownership is going to be convinced otherwise. Including me. I am learning to accept that, as a Brit, there is nothing I can do or say that will have an effect on US gun law, and nor would I wish it to, it is their business after all. But I hope that in time they will mature (I simply mean that the USA is a young nation, which it is compared to any European nation) and develop past their current attitudes.

Agreed.

(even as to the second part)

[passes out from shock! ]:eek:

1
These debates thrive on these boards because no one with an opinion on gun ownership is going to be convinced otherwise. Including me. I am learning to accept that, as a Brit, there is nothing I can do or say that will have an effect on US gun law, and nor would I wish it to, it is their business after all. But I hope that in time they will mature (I simply mean that the USA is a young nation, which it is compared to any European nation) and develop past their current attitudes.

You'ld be surprised. Most people I couldn't care less about "converting" . Others (those with an IQ over their shoe size) I make more of a point.

Cat and I used to go back and forth for days and many pages.

It came down to "Historically", the 2nd was meant for individuals. "Legislatively" (especially in the 20th) court decisions opposed the legal right of firearm ownership.

It took a SCOTUS case that was blatantly biased (involving the police ignoring a restraining order and the death of two children) that moved Cat more towards the "pro-rights" side.

I disagree. The present political atmosphere is one of supporting individual firearm rights in most states.

Could/will that change? Probably. However, once the states have passed CC laws, it will be more of a challenge to argue for their removal.

You're right, but the Supreme court has never gone by the political atmosphere in the nation.

You're right, but the Supreme court has never gone by the political atmosphere in the nation.

I phrased that badly.

Let's say tomorrow, the SCOTUS blatanly says "there is no federal individual right to firearms."

The majority of states have or would pass laws as a States level individual right if todays politics continues.

Then it would come down to an alphabet soup conflict as different agencies fought over authority.

I don't think you've been paying attention to what I said.

I didn't even make a "caselaw argument."

I forgot the smilie....I'm sorry, man. :( I did pay attention to what you were saying to Kecibukia, though.

I'm actually surprised that something that was ruled on in 1939 might actually go the way of the free, as opposed to the socialist (given that the kind of socialist presidents, FDR was loading up the SCOTUS previously).

Interesting stuff, man.

I phrased that badly.

Let's say tomorrow, the SCOTUS blatanly says "there is no federal individual right to firearms."

The majority of states have or would pass laws as a States level individual right if todays politics continues.

Then it would come down to an alphabet soup conflict as different agencies fought over authority.

The Supreme court already rules over states' rights issues-such as the Texas Sodomy law they struck down, and the California Medical MJ deal. Most State constitutions already gaurantee a right to bear arms-california is one such place, but they don't honor that do they? Nay, they wipe their socialist arse in it and hang it out to dry.

And that has done what to crime levels?
What about the millions of firearms that were estimated to be in private hands that "aren't" registered. In 1995, the Canadian DOJ estimated 3.5 million owners. That is 1.5 million off somewhere. in 2001, they "lowered" their estimate to 2.4 million. Convienent. THat's still 400,000 owners off. Other surveys had it over 5 million.

That's not even including the actual number of firearms.

1.5 billion for about 15,000 rejections

$100,000 / each rejection

Canadian Crime Levels (http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/c/cr/crime_in_canada.htm)

As for the second part of your statement, you missed the figure at the bottom:

"987,700 firearms have been exported, destroyed, deactivated or have been removed from the Canadian Firearms Information System since December 1, 1998. This helps to ensure a complete and current record of firearms within Canada."

1. I object to the idea of a European Constitution. Why? Because, even if it only contains laws that already exist, as proposed, constitutions can clearly lead to a situation a couple of centuries down the line where they are unchangeable because their terms are so deeply ingrained into the psyches of the public. I think this is dangerous as societies change, what was acceptable/neccessary then will not always be so.

2. The US constitution defends each person's "right" to bear arms. Thus a society has grown around this (and other) principle(s). It is one of the key factors in America's inability to give up their guns.

3. Banning guns tomorrow would be a very bad idea for reasons covered thoroughly in this thread.

4. America will almost certainly never be able to give up this "right" as long as it is considered acceptable to own guns for any reason discussed here. America is very different from Europe, Australia, Canada, and pretty much every individual country on Earth. They have a media that convinces them they should be affraid of each other and everyone else, pumping out the propaganda 24 hours a day. They have a government that does nothing to improve the education of the people and a society that believes power to be the ultimate goal in life. The reason they have such a high number of gun-related deaths and injurries is not solely because guns are very easy to acquire, it is also because there is a fundamental difference between us and them in attitudes to violence, the role of the police, crime, safety and protection.

These debates thrive on these boards because no one with an opinion on gun ownership is going to be convinced otherwise. Including me. I am learning to accept that, as a Brit, there is nothing I can do or say that will have an effect on US gun law, and nor would I wish it to, it is their business after all. But I hope that in time they will mature (I simply mean that the USA is a young nation, which it is compared to any European nation) and develop past their current attitudes.

Okay, a few points....

1) Throwing out the maturity card is just a way to piss people off, and isn't really an effective means to try to pull someone to your side. If you're not trying to pull someone to your side, then you're just being passive agressive.

2) You do realize that those very same newspapers are doing their damnedest to get rid of guns, right?

3) Defense of oneself will always be acceptable--and there's only one tool that equalizes the playing field for personal defense--the firearm.

4) Our police are not responsible for our safety (yes, this was stated before), so personal responsiblity rules, and we need to be able to defend ourselves.

You're right, but the Supreme court has never gone by the political atmosphere in the nation.

Not really true. The Court has, both officially and unofficially, responded to trends in the nation.

1. I object to the idea of a European Constitution. Why? Because, even if it only contains laws that already exist, as proposed, constitutions can clearly lead to a situation a couple of centuries down the line where they are unchangeable because their terms are so deeply ingrained into the psyches of the public. I think this is dangerous as societies change, what was acceptable/neccessary then will not always be so.

2. The US constitution defends each person's "right" to bear arms. Thus a society has grown around this (and other) principle(s). It is one of the key factors in America's inability to give up their guns.

3. Banning guns tomorrow would be a very bad idea for reasons covered thoroughly in this thread.

4. America will almost certainly never be able to give up this "right" as long as it is considered acceptable to own guns for any reason discussed here. America is very different from Europe, Australia, Canada, and pretty much every individual country on Earth. They have a media that convinces them they should be affraid of each other and everyone else, pumping out the propaganda 24 hours a day. They have a government that does nothing to improve the education of the people and a society that believes power to be the ultimate goal in life. The reason they have such a high number of gun-related deaths and injurries is not solely because guns are very easy to acquire, it is also because there is a fundamental difference between us and them in attitudes to violence, the role of the police, crime, safety and protection.

We fought a war to get ourselves seperated from Europe during Colonial times. Of course we are going to be different.

These debates thrive on these boards because no one with an opinion on gun ownership is going to be convinced otherwise. Including me. I am learning to accept that, as a Brit, there is nothing I can do or say that will have an effect on US gun law, and nor would I wish it to, it is their business after all. But I hope that in time they will mature (I simply mean that the USA is a young nation, which it is compared to any European nation) and develop past their current attitudes.

You want us to mature to your level of thinking and do away with our RKBA? Go look at your own Magna carta and look at the way things are now.

The Supreme court already rules over states' rights issues-such as the Texas Sodomy law they struck down, and the California Medical MJ deal.

Apples, oranges, and handgrenades.

In the California medical marijuana case, there is a federal statute. The question was whether Congress had the power to override California's law on the issue. When Congress acts within its realm, federal supremacy usually controls. SCOTUS held the the statute was within Congresses authority (i.e., that it dealt with interstate commerce) and that it was thereby supreme.

In the Texas sodomy case, you have the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment is specifically a limit on the power of the states. When we were talking about incorporation, we were talking about the doctrine by which the Supreme Court has held that most of the Bill of Rights limit the states because of the 14th Amendment. (Prior to the 14th Amendment, none of the provisions of the Bill of Rights applied to the states.) The Supreme Court held that the Texas law violated the 14th Amendment. (If you disagree with incorporation, the 2nd Amendment can't limit the states either.)

In a hypothetical 2nd Amendment case, the Supreme Court couldn't hold that states couldn't allow guns. (I guess it is possible, but only in the sense that anything is possible. It isn't within the realm of reality.) It could hold:

a) the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to own and possess firearms and that (throught the 14th) neither the states nor the federal government may violate it;

b) the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right, but it is not incorporated through the 14th, so it only limits the federal government;

c) the 2nd Amendment does not protect an individual right to own and possess firearms.

Option (c) is the current state of the law anyway. SCOTUS reaffirming that version of the law would be a set-back, but it wouldn't change the laws of any state. Nor would it override any state constitution.

Option (a) would be a significant change in the law, but it might not effect most statutes. SCOTUS could easily and would likely hold the right was not absolute.

Most State constitutions already gaurantee a right to bear arms-california is one such place, but they don't honor that do they? Nay, they wipe their socialist arse in it and hang it out to dry.

Setting aside your hyperbole, few these days would argue that any constitutional right -- state or federal -- is absolute. An individual RKBA does not necessarily mean no limits or regulations whatsoever anymore than you have a right to any kind of speech anytime anywhere without consequences.

BTW, I sorry if I hijacked this thread into legaleze. It's an disease. ;)

Canadian Crime Levels (http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/c/cr/crime_in_canada.htm)

As for the second part of your statement, you missed the figure at the bottom:

"987,700 firearms have been exported, destroyed, deactivated or have been removed from the Canadian Firearms Information System since December 1, 1998. This helps to ensure a complete and current record of firearms within Canada."

And I guess you missed this part of your link:
Paradoxically, however, after declining since the late 1970s, Canada's homicide rate has actually increased slightly since the national (Click link for more info and facts about gun registry) gun registry was enacted.


US crime has been decreasing as well w/ an increase in firearm ownership and loosening of laws.

So about 1 million firearms were "removed" (meaning there were errors in the first place. How does that account for the 1.5 to 3 million discrepancy of "owners"?

US crime levels are also at levels near 30 years ago. Trends go that way.

BTW, I sorry if I hijacked this thread into legaleze. It's an disease. ;)

It's OK, we all recognize lawyers are diseased. ;)

1. I object to the idea of a European Constitution. Why? Because, even if it only contains laws that already exist, as proposed, constitutions can clearly lead to a situation a couple of centuries down the line where they are unchangeable because their terms are so deeply ingrained into the psyches of the public. I think this is dangerous as societies change, what was acceptable/neccessary then will not always be so.

2. The US constitution defends each person's "right" to bear arms. Thus a society has grown around this (and other) principle(s). It is one of the key factors in America's inability to give up their guns.

3. Banning guns tomorrow would be a very bad idea for reasons covered thoroughly in this thread.

4. America will almost certainly never be able to give up this "right" as long as it is considered acceptable to own guns for any reason discussed here. America is very different from Europe, Australia, Canada, and pretty much every individual country on Earth. They have a media that convinces them they should be affraid of each other and everyone else, pumping out the propaganda 24 hours a day. They have a government that does nothing to improve the education of the people and a society that believes power to be the ultimate goal in life. The reason they have such a high number of gun-related deaths and injurries is not solely because guns are very easy to acquire, it is also because there is a fundamental difference between us and them in attitudes to violence, the role of the police, crime, safety and protection.

These debates thrive on these boards because no one with an opinion on gun ownership is going to be convinced otherwise. Including me. I am learning to accept that, as a Brit, there is nothing I can do or say that will have an effect on US gun law, and nor would I wish it to, it is their business after all. But I hope that in time they will mature (I simply mean that the USA is a young nation, which it is compared to any European nation) and develop past their current attitudes.

Meh.

Insulting the US and the maturity of those that disagree with you is a rather pathetic and ineffective way to make your point.

It's OK, we all recognize lawyers are diseased. ;)

Oooh. That reminds me. It's time for my medicine.

**whacks self on head with Black's Law Dictionary**

:D

And I guess you missed this part of your link:
Paradoxically, however, after declining since the late 1970s, Canada's homicide rate has actually increased slightly since the national (Click link for more info and facts about gun registry) gun registry was enacted.

US crime has been decreasing as well w/ an increase in firearm ownership and loosening of laws.

So about 1 million firearms were "removed" (meaning there were errors in the first place. How does that account for the 1.5 to 3 million discrepancy of "owners"?

US crime levels are also at levels near 30 years ago. Trends go that way.

Touché, salesmen. Tell me then, how do you explain the US' high crime rates?

I'd like to make it totally clear at this point in time, that my views are not a personal attack on anyone of American nationality (except the person I really REALLY hate - whose name is mentioned somewhere herein).

There are times I am glad I don't live in the States. I live in the UK where guns really are banned. OK, I own an air rifle. Not as lethal as say, a 9mm, but I only ever use it if I'm going out up the the disused millitary rifle range on the top of the mountain, and that's just to shoot at some tatty china bought from a chairty shop for some mild entertainment.

What I don't understand is why the US Constitution has not repealed the "right to bear arms". It was my understanding (don't hate me, I'm foreign!) that they were only supposed to be used for defence of your country, or for hunting. Anyway, who hunts now that there are 24hour supermarkets all over the place? That's a seperate issue.

I don't have a problem with America or Americans on the whole. Actually - tha's a lie. There is one American I hate, and that's your leader. George W(anker) Bush. Why you people always seem to vote for the least intelligent leader, I'll never know.

This seems to be turning into a rant. I apologise and end it here.

Justin.

Touché, salesmen. Tell me then, how do you explain the US' high crime rates?

A violent gang culture, illegal immigration, drugs, lax legal system, poverty, population density, etc. There are quite a few mitigating issues.

I don't claim that firearms are the end all be all of crime prevention. I DO claim, however, that the majority of "Gun Control" laws do nothing to prevent crime but restrict the rights of law abiding citizens.

I'd like to make it totally clear at this point in time, that my views are not a personal attack on anyone of American nationality (except the person I really REALLY hate - whose name is mentioned somewhere herein).

There are times I am glad I don't live in the States. I live in the UK where guns really are banned. OK, I own an air rifle. Not as lethal as say, a 9mm, but I only ever use it if I'm going out up the the disused millitary rifle range on the top of the mountain, and that's just to shoot at some tatty china bought from a chairty shop for some mild entertainment.

What I don't understand is why the US Constitution has not repealed the "right to bear arms". It was my understanding (don't hate me, I'm foreign!) that they were only supposed to be used for defence of your country, or for hunting. Anyway, who hunts now that there are 24hour supermarkets all over the place? That's a seperate issue.

I don't have a problem with America or Americans on the whole. Actually - tha's a lie. There is one American I hate, and that's your leader. George W(anker) Bush. Why you people always seem to vote for the least intelligent leader, I'll never know.

This seems to be turning into a rant. I apologise and end it here.

Justin.

Fair enough. I'm not a Bush fan either.

The Bill of Rights (1st ten amendments to the Constitution) are "God Given" or "inalienable". The theory being that they are "natural" and not "given" to us by the Gov't. The 2nd was partially about defending the nation, not only from outsiders but from itself incase of Governmental tyranny. It has nothing to do w/ hunting.

As to "repealing" it. It would need to be ratified by congress then the states themselves. What arguement (besides it's outdated) would you use to repeal what is considered a "natural" right? After that, which would be the next one to go?

What I don't understand is why the US Constitution has not repealed the "right to bear arms". It was my understanding (don't hate me, I'm foreign!) that they were only supposed to be used for defence of your country, or for hunting. Anyway, who hunts now that there are 24hour supermarkets all over the place? That's a seperate issue.

Wrong. The reason the citizenry has a right to bear arms is that, in the case of the government becoming oppressive, the citizens will have the requisite power to destroy that government and replace it. You can see the spirit of the second amendment by reading the Declaration of Independence (and no, the DoI is not law, no matter how many of you think it is).

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Now, that isn't law, of course; however, it shows the spirit in which the constitution was penned. The right to bear arms has nothing to do with protecting your home or shooting wild game. It is so that the people will be armed in the event that the government becomes oppressive, in addition to being able to defend the nation against other forces.

Fair enough. I'm not a Bush fan either.

The Bill of Rights (1st ten amendments to the Constitution) are "God Given" or "inalienable". The theory being that they are "natural" and not "given" to us by the Gov't. The 2nd was partially about defending the nation, not only from outsiders but from itself incase of Governmental tyranny. It has nothing to do w/ hunting.

As to "repealing" it. It would need to be ratified by congress then the states themselves. What arguement (besides it's outdated) would you use to repeal what is considered a "natural" right? After that, which would be the next one to go?

Then why on earth don't you raise up arms against your Government? Surely Bush is a Tyrant? I don't know which of your laws you would repeal next. All I know is that there are still hundreds of craxy, fucked up laws in this country as well. For example. I'm a Welshman. It is still legal for an Englishman to kill a Welshman on the banks of the River Severn with a longbow on a Sunday. It's just that no-one pays it any attention, and consequently - no Welshmen are ever killed on the banks of the Severn by an Englishman armed with a longbow!

Surely if you don't pay somethign any attention, it goes away! I mean, just look at Tammy Faye! No-one paid her any attention after her husband went down for embezzlement, and most people don't even know who she is now! It has nothing to do with guns, but the message is there!

Then why on earth don't you raise up arms against your Government? Surely Bush is a Tyrant? I don't know which of your laws you would repeal next. All I know is that there are still hundreds of craxy, fucked up laws in this country as well. For example. I'm a Welshman. It is still legal for an Englishman to kill a Welshman on the banks of the River Severn with a longbow on a Sunday. It's just that no-one pays it any attention, and consequently - no Welshmen are ever killed on the banks of the Severn by an Englishman armed with a longbow!

Surely if you don't pay somethign any attention, it goes away! I mean, just look at Tammy Faye! No-one paid her any attention after her husband went down for embezzlement, and most people don't even know who she is now! It has nothing to do with guns, but the message is there!

No, he's(imo) and ass and a borderline zealot but not a tyrant. Congress is still in place, voting has not been restricted, and he mostly supports the 2nd. One could argue there were more domestic tyrannical acts under Clinton (Ruby Ridge, Waco, ect.) but these led to a big reversal in political opinions towards the Gov't and "Gun Control".

It's the presidents/politicians that oppose legal civilian ownership that I feel will lead to tyranny.

As for "Stupid laws" , here's a good link for some:

http://www.justafreak.com/law/index.shtml

A violent gang culture, illegal immigration, drugs, lax legal system, poverty, population density, etc. There are quite a few mitigating issues.

I don't claim that firearms are the end all be all of crime prevention. I DO claim, however, that the majority of "Gun Control" laws do nothing to prevent crime but restrict the rights of law abiding citizens.

Do you think if the continent could get onboard with a gun registration program we would see a better handling of firearms though?

I'm not talking about a ban, merely a setup that would keep track of firearms. One of the great success stories of the Canadian system is that we have discovered that 3 in 4 guns used in crimes that are recovered are registered, which means criminals are getting their guns from law-abiding citizens.

One of the problems Canada has had with registration, aside from stupid expenses (that's a different story), is dealing with arms smuggled in, much the same way the American War on Drugs gets derailed by foreign smuggling. This is why I ask if you guys think a continental program would work better.

Do you think if the continent could get onboard with a gun registration program we would see a better handling of firearms though?

I'm not talking about a ban, merely a setup that would keep track of firearms. One of the great success stories of the Canadian system is that we have discovered that 3 in 4 guns used in crimes that are recovered are registered, which means criminals are getting their guns from law-abiding citizens.

One of the problems Canada has had with registration, aside from stupid expenses (that's a different story), is dealing with arms smuggled in, much the same way the American War on Drugs gets derailed by foreign smuggling. This is why I ask if you guys think a continental program would work better.

As I stated earlier, if there was some sort of way to guarantee a licensing system w/o further restrictions to be emplaced in the future (something the Canadian system is experiencing and the US has dealt w/ in dozens of locals) I might be in favor of it. Unfortunately, history has proven that registration has ALWAYS led to confiscation.

The fault in your arguement is on guns "recovered", not those actually used in all crimes. This is similar to the "Gun Tracing" meme used by the gun banners in the US. It doesn't account for actual usage.

Pre and post-registration, Canadian authorities have no idea how many illegal firearms are out there or where they come from. About 1,500 guns / year are "stopped" at the border. As to what percentage that is, no-one knows.

As I stated earlier, if there was some sort of way to guarantee a licensing system w/o further restrictions to be emplaced in the future (something the Canadian system is experiencing and the US has dealt w/ in dozens of locals) I might be in favor of it. Unfortunately, history has proven that registration has ALWAYS led to confiscation.

The fault in your arguement is on guns "recovered", not those actually used in all crimes. This is similar to the "Gun Tracing" meme used by the gun banners in the US. It doesn't account for actual usage.

Pre and post-registration, Canadian authorities have no idea how many illegal firearms are out there or where they come from. About 1,500 guns / year are "stopped" at the border. As to what percentage that is, no-one knows.

While the statistic on gun recovery is not wholly accurate of guns used overall, it does represent a significant slice, which is surely something that could be targetted by law enforcement officials.

The same is true for stopping guns at the border. Yes, it's impossible to know, but the drug parallel comes in again. It's impossible to know how much gets across American borders each year even though we know how much we stop. That doesn't mean stopping them is a bad thing.

I'd like to make it totally clear at this point in time, that my views are not a personal attack on anyone of American nationality (except the person I really REALLY hate - whose name is mentioned somewhere herein).

There are times I am glad I don't live in the States. I live in the UK where guns really are banned. OK, I own an air rifle. Not as lethal as say, a 9mm, but I only ever use it if I'm going out up the the disused millitary rifle range on the top of the mountain, and that's just to shoot at some tatty china bought from a chairty shop for some mild entertainment.

What I don't understand is why the US Constitution has not repealed the "right to bear arms". It was my understanding (don't hate me, I'm foreign!) that they were only supposed to be used for defence of your country, or for hunting. Anyway, who hunts now that there are 24hour supermarkets all over the place? That's a seperate issue.

I don't have a problem with America or Americans on the whole. Actually - tha's a lie. There is one American I hate, and that's your leader. George W(anker) Bush. Why you people always seem to vote for the least intelligent leader, I'll never know.

This seems to be turning into a rant. I apologise and end it here.

Justin.

It's actually to defend against our OWN government.

Do you think if the continent could get onboard with a gun registration program we would see a better handling of firearms though?

I'm not talking about a ban, merely a setup that would keep track of firearms. One of the great success stories of the Canadian system is that we have discovered that 3 in 4 guns used in crimes that are recovered are registered, which means criminals are getting their guns from law-abiding citizens.

One of the problems Canada has had with registration, aside from stupid expenses (that's a different story), is dealing with arms smuggled in, much the same way the American War on Drugs gets derailed by foreign smuggling. This is why I ask if you guys think a continental program would work better.

Unfortunately, that leads to convenient lists for the government to use when they go rogue to the Constitution. That's the point of the 2nd amendment--to protect against the US government from within.

Unfortunately, that leads to convenient lists for the government to use when they go rogue to the Constitution. That's the point of the 2nd amendment--to protect against the US government from within.

Try Social Security, and the popular conservative one, the selective service list. They've already got you. One more registration event isn't going to make it any worse.

I don't claim that firearms are the end all be all of crime prevention. I DO claim, however, that the majority of "Gun Control" laws do nothing to prevent crime but restrict the rights of law abiding citizens.If we follow this argument to the logical conclusion we wind up with the lawless society. Every law restricts the rights of law abiding citizens. That's what a law is. Something that restricts the rights of the people who obey it.

I actually agree with you that firearms can prevent some amount of crime. Personally, I don't feel it's as large an amount as the pro-gun lobby likes to believe because of how guns empower weak criminals as much as they empower weak law-abiding citizens, but I will agree that there is some crime prevention going on.

I'll also agree that it's stronger in areas with concealed carry laws. Personally, I feel that if guns are legal in an area for the purposes of self-defense, then it simply makes sense to have a concealed carry law so that those without guns are as protected as those with.

However, I still feel that while gun ownership may reduce the quantity of the crimes committed, they greatly add to the lethality of the crimes committed, and this is the primary reason for my stance against them.

Good way to pick the criminals then, ah?

Unfortunately, that leads to convenient lists for the government to use when they go rogue to the Constitution. That's the point of the 2nd amendment--to protect against the US government from within.
Oh, please. This argument has held no water for decades, even less so now with the strong anti-terrorism culture in the US. Your handgun, registered or not, is not going to save you from a rogue US government. Similarly, your attempt at an armed revolution will be classed as terrorism, and you'll find yourself the next Timothy McVeigh.

The only way people can justifiably say that the 2nd amendment is to protect them from the American government is if they also argue that Joe Blow next door should be able to purchase rocket-propelled grenades and SAMs.