NationStates Jolt Archive

what are some of your views on gun control?
I am extremely against it, before WWII the Nazis implemented gun registration and then when the war started they invaded all the homes of the non-nazi citizens and took the guns

I don't see why we should trust people with automobiles, gasoline, matches, and other items that can kill a whole bunch of people and not trust them with guns. Personally I like guns. I frequently carry one despite that getting caught with it in my state will land me in jail.

Gun Control means using both hands.

I support gun control to a reasonable extent. While the Bill of Rights ensures the right to bear arms, I don't think the average citizen should be able to, say, go to the store, and buy an M-4.

I don't see why we should trust people with automobiles, gasoline, matches, and other items that can kill a whole bunch of people and not trust them with guns. Personally I like guns. I frequently carry one despite that getting caught with it in my state will land me in jail.
those other things aren't designed to kill (or at the very least, they're not designed to cause serious bodily harm)

I support gun control to a reasonable extent. While the Bill of Rights ensures the right to bear arms, I don't think the average citizen should be able to, say, go to the store, and buy an M-4.
Why not? When the Bill of Rights was written the average person's rifle was equivalent to the average soldier's rifle. Why shouldn't that be true today?

what are some of your views on gun control?
I am extremely against it, before WWII the Nazis implemented gun registration and then when the war started they invaded all the homes of the non-nazi citizens and took the guns
Not another gun control thread. :eek:

I couldn't vote in your poll because you didn't have an option for "effective" gun control.

here is a good article to read about a little country called switzerland and how it has one of the lowest violent crime rates, and surprise :eek: 1/4 of the population has guns
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1566715.stm

Not another gun control thread. :eek:

I couldn't vote in your poll because you didn't have an option for "effective" gun control.

What is "effective" gun control?

what are some of your views on gun control?
I am extremely against it, before WWII the Nazis implemented gun registration and then when the war started they invaded all the homes of the non-nazi citizens and took the guns


Those citizens would have been unable to resist the nazi war machine with a few second rate handguns. Had they attempted to they would most likely have gotten themselves killed.

those other things aren't designed to kill (or at the very least, they're not designed to cause serious bodily harm)
So what? Guns aren't designed to be used in crime. They're not designed to be murder weapons any more than a bunch of parts from a hardware store, some Potassium Nitrate and sulfur from a chemistry set and some ground charcoal are designed to be used in a pipe bomb.

I don't see what design has to do with anything. It's the intent of the end user that counts. I've owned pistols for about ten years now. I've never shot anybody. A pistol in my hands is less of a risk to society than a set of car keys in many other people's hands.

"Their swords, and every other terrible instrument of the soldier, are the birth right of an American. ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or the state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

--Tench Coxe, noted federalist and friend of James Madison

Gun Control = Criminals Have Free Reign
Gun Control = I Have No Control

F*ck That

Those citizens would have been unable to resist the nazi war machine with a few second rate handguns. Had they attempted to they would most likely have gotten themselves killed.

And how many divisions did the Warsaw Jews tie up? How many did the French resistance? The Greek?

I'm personally a fan of the Swiss system:

Male citizens are conscripted to the military, issued a SIG 550, and given training in its use. (there's your well-regulated militia, too.)

Edit:Arg, instaposted!

I don't see what design has to do with anything. It's the intent of the end user that counts. I've owned pistols for about ten years now. I've never shot anybody. A pistol in my hands is less of a risk to society than a set of car keys in many other people's hands.
as they say "if guns kill people, then spoons made rosey odonnell fat"

The Nazis started off by arming demobolised soldiers and civilians to create a right-wing militia aimed at limiting the power of the government. Sound familiar? :D

The Soviet Union also didn't have much in the way of gun control. In urban areas, they were illegal, but in the countryside, they were commonplace. Little facts of life like packs of feral dogs and the need to hunt, meant that my grandfather's WW2-era rifle stayed legally in service right up to his death shortly before the collapse of communism.

What is "effective" gun control?
Proper registration.
Secure storage.
Training.
Waiting period.
Limits on quantities.
Increased penalties for use of firearms in the commission of a crime.

"Gun control" apparently means something else in American. Namely, "banning guns".

Guns are machines designed to kill people. It's a contradiction to require a driver's license but no gun license. When there are guns on the streets, they're going to be used. So, requiring a membership in a shooting or hunting club is not unreasonable. These are the legitimate reasons to own guns, and clubs provide voluntary, self-regulating "gun control".

Revoking gun licenses from criminals is an effective method to reduce crime. Most people aren't going to commit more violations than one. There are very few hard-core criminals and gun control wouldn't affect them anyway, but it works for the "garden variety" criminal.

Traceability should reduce murders, also.

those other things aren't designed to kill (or at the very least, they're not designed to cause serious bodily harm)

Careful with that logic. I can think of several guns that are not designed to kill. Hell, I could make a pretty good argument that any gun that was made with an eye towards accuracy was designed to put a small blob of metal on a small target from a distance.

Most people who use guns in America don't use them to kill people. They use them to shoot clay, paper, pumpkins, and the occasional edible animal. Not a single fire arm I own was bought with the intent or expectation of killing someone. One was inherited and first came to this country as a trophy of war, one was bought so I could better bond with my father in law, one was bought because I find long range target shooting relaxing, etc. Now, if the chips were down, any of them could kill or cause bodily harm, but so could any of the knives in my kitchen. Harm comes from intent, and one man's thirteen inch chef's knife is another man's stiletto.

Those laws will keep guns away from criminals about as well as Prohibition kept alcohol away from Al Capone.

"Gun control" apparently means something else in American. Namely, "banning guns".

Guns are machines designed to kill people. It's a contradiction to require a driver's license but no gun license. When there are guns on the streets, they're going to be used. So, requiring a membership in a shooting or hunting club is not unreasonable. These are the legitimate reasons to own guns, and clubs provide voluntary, self-regulating "gun control".

Revoking gun licenses from criminals is an effective method to reduce crime. Most people aren't going to commit more violations than one. There are very few hard-core criminals and gun control wouldn't affect them anyway, but it works for the "garden variety" criminal.

Traceability should reduce murders, also.
Dude, I've never owned a gun legally. Most criminals don't buy their guns legally and wouldn't register them. All you'll succeed in doing is tying the average citizen up in red tape. The criminals will still be well armed.

I support gun control to a reasonable extent. While the Bill of Rights ensures the right to bear arms, I don't think the average citizen should be able to, say, go to the store, and buy an M-4.

The average person cannot walk into a store and purchase an M4. They can buy a semi-automatic civilian clone of the M4. Fully automatic weapons are heavily regulated.

What is your issue with the civilian equivilant of the M4? If its rate of fire, any semi-automatic hunting rifle has the same rate of fire. If its the caliber you know nothing of ballistics. If its because it looks like a weapon of war then that's nothing more than asthetics.

Proper registration.
Secure storage.
Training.
Waiting period.
Limits on quantities.
Increased penalties for use of firearms in the commission of a crime.

And the only one that actuall is towards criminals is the last one. All the others have been used to limit the rights of those who actually follow the laws and have never been shown to reduce crime.

Secure Storage: Has recently been shown to not deter criminals. Is merely a "requirement" to make it to expensive to own firearms and can only be enforced by warrantless home inspections.

Training is good but making it mandatory either leads to joke requirements or so strict/limited availability that its purpose is nullified.

Waiting Period: Totally useless as "crimes of passion" , there sole justification are more of a myth than anything else. Just another deterrent measure towards legal ownership.

Limits on quantities: "May" reduce "straw purchasers", but since that is illegal anyway, is just more beaurocracy.

Those citizens would have been unable to resist the nazi war machine with a few second rate handguns. Had they attempted to they would most likely have gotten themselves killed.

Um, the colonies stood up to the English war machine fairly well.

Dude, I've never owned a gun legally. Most criminals don't buy their guns legally and wouldn't register them. All you'll succeed in doing is tying the average citizen up in red tape. The criminals will still be well armed.
In the past two years, over $4 Million in firearms were stolen in Virginia alone. That seems like there is a very poor accountability factor in the owning and/or storage of firearms.

Where do those guns end up? On the street of course.

Dude, I've never owned a gun legally. Most criminals don't buy their guns legally and wouldn't register them. All you'll succeed in doing is tying the average citizen up in red tape. The criminals will still be well armed.
Crime is more common than you think, but most criminals are "average joes". The hard-core criminals you fantasize about exist mostly in TV series. Some really dangerous criminals exist, but they're outside the debate, since their situation is not going to change, just as you said. The average criminal is benign, and will comply if threatened with a large fines or a jail sentence for possession of unregistered weapons.

And that "red tape", as I said, I like the self-regulating system where gun owners are members of a shooting or hunting club. The "red tape" is not as bad if consolidated with a voluntary organization.

I'm personally a fan of the Swiss system:

Male citizens are conscripted to the military, issued a SIG 550, and given training in its use. (there's your well-regulated militia, too.)

Edit:Arg, instaposted!


Darn skippy, I concur. Not only that they have to join a local gun club to keep up on marksmanship.

what are some of your views on gun control?
I am extremely against it, before WWII the Nazis implemented gun registration and then when the war started they invaded all the homes of the non-nazi citizens and took the guns

And the British government is at this very moment plotting to become a faschist regieme! They took the guns away over 30 years ago. It can only be days away now!

Wake up nit. That was over 50 years ago. In Europe all over the place there are nations with gun control and none of them turning into dictatorships. If you actually care about an issue, read up about it

In the past two years, over $4 Million in firearms were stolen in Virginia alone. That seems like there is a very poor accountability factor in the owning and/or storage of firearms.

Where do those guns end up? On the street of course.
In the year 2000 one thousand tons of cocaine were imported into the US from South America. Ban guns and a similar ammount of firearms will make their way here.

And I'm from a country with a very high gun ownership rate but a low murder rate. The reason is rather simple: gun control and mandatory organization and training (we have also conscription).

"Gun control" apparently means something else in American. Namely, "banning guns".

since every "gun control' measure has led to this directly or indirectly, yes.

Guns are machines designed to kill people. It's a contradiction to require a driver's license but no gun license. When there are guns on the streets, they're going to be used. So, requiring a membership in a shooting or hunting club is not unreasonable. These are the legitimate reasons to own guns, and clubs provide voluntary, self-regulating "gun control".

So lets repost the drivers license/gun license comparison. DK, you still have that.

A "membership" is just defacto registration/tax so the Gov't can come collect them at their leisure. I consider home/self-defense to be a legitimate reason and being a member of some club has nothing to do w/ that.

Revoking gun licenses from criminals is an effective method to reduce crime. Most people aren't going to commit more violations than one. There are very few hard-core criminals and gun control wouldn't affect them anyway, but it works for the "garden variety" criminal.

You think most criminals buy thier guns legally, that they register them? I guess that's why gun crime has skyrocketed in the UK, right?

Traceability should reduce murders, also.

How, since the criminals don't buy them legally anyway and tracing it after it's stolen is more for paperwork than anything else. Just another defacto registration.

Crime is more common than you think, but most criminals are "average joes". The hard-core criminals you fantasize about exist mostly in TV series. Some really dangerous criminals exist, but they're outside the debate, since their situation is not going to change, just as you said. The average criminal is benign, and will comply if threatened with a large fines or a jail sentence for possession of unregistered weapons.

And that "red tape", as I said, I like the self-regulating system where gun owners are members of a shooting or hunting club. The "red tape" is not as bad if consolidated with a voluntary organization.
Bullshit. I face some serious jail time if caught with a gun. I still carry one. I know criminals. Mainly drug dealers. They can't own guns legally because some have been convicted of felonies and the rest just don't bother with the paperwork. They face severe penalties if caught, but they still own guns.

And I'm from a country with a very high gun ownership rate but a low murder rate. The reason is rather simple: gun control and mandatory organization and training (we have also conscription).

What exact forms of "gun control" are there?

I'm curious. I don't know Finnish laws well.

Most murders in the US are committed w/ illegal firearms anyway.

Gun control is a good idea. Sadly, it will not be a practical solution in the US, because the country is overflowing with guns.

Gun control is still a good idea in other countries, though.

as they say "if guns kill people, then spoons made rosey odonnell fat"

Massive diffrence

A gun is a tool used specificly to kill, damage or destroy. It has no other purpose.

A spoon is used to feed. It doesnt specify what however.

Its perfectly easy to eat without a spoon. Its a lot harder to kill without a gun

Guns are dangerous and should be controled. Public ownership should be out of the question. Just look at the UK. We are not allowed to own guns in public. We have a 14 times lower murder rate per 1000 than America

Massive diffrence

A gun is a tool used specificly to kill, damage or destroy. It has no other purpose.

A spoon is used to feed. It doesnt specify what however.

Its perfectly easy to eat without a spoon. Its a lot harder to kill without a gun

Guns are dangerous and should be controled. Public ownership should be out of the question. Just look at the UK. We are not allowed to own guns in public. We have a 14 times lower murder rate per 1000 than America

Yes, lets look at the UK. It had lower crime rates even before the "gun control" schemes yet now it is skyrocketing. In the US, however, ownership is skyrocketing and yet crime continues to decrease.

An armed public poses a greater threat to itself than the threat professional criminals pose to it. A person will survive a drunken punch delivered on impulse. A person may not survive a drunken gunshot delivered on impulse. You can cut short a beating. You can't ease off the impact of a bullet. There are only a very small number of people in any society, who will always use guns whatever the circumstances, and will have no regrets. The majority use guns simply because they had the opportunity at that moment, and would certainly regret it later. Restricting gun availability reduces the casualties.

The debate really comes down to a cultural value - is it more important for people to feel safer, than to be safer? It's pure politics.

Massive diffrence

A gun is a tool used specificly to kill, damage or destroy. It has no other purpose.

A spoon is used to feed. It doesnt specify what however.

Its perfectly easy to eat without a spoon. Its a lot harder to kill without a gun

Guns are dangerous and should be controled. Public ownership should be out of the question. Just look at the UK. We are not allowed to own guns in public. We have a 14 times lower murder rate per 1000 than America
Guns can be used for any number of purposes other than crime. Target shooting, self defense, hunting, collecting, et cetera. Design is a stupid argument. Any number of things that aren't designed to kill can be used to kill rather efficiently. How hard is it to mix up a batch of black powder and blow someone up? Does it take a genius to make a Molotov cocktail? Are any number of different poisons not readily available?

Crime is more common than you think, but most criminals are "average joes". The hard-core criminals you fantasize about exist mostly in TV series. Some really dangerous criminals exist, but they're outside the debate, since their situation is not going to change, just as you said. The average criminal is benign, and will comply if threatened with a large fines or a jail sentence for possession of unregistered weapons.

Clearly you've never been to a bad neighborhood in the States. Hard-core criminals do exist, and as someone who has lived in one of the largest cities in the country I can tell you from experiance that violent street gangs exist. Granted, their existance is the fault of government paternalism (prohibition creates crime? I'm shock. no, really ;) ), but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

I would definately agree that most property crime is committed by "average joes." The problem is that violent crime is not generally something that anyone does. It is far less risky to steal a car or rob a home when the owners are at work than it is to pull a gun and demand a wallet. Guns are necessary to defend against those kinda of individuals who, while rare, do exist. Also, I'd like to point out that the only time I have had to point a gun at a human being was in a neighborhood where the property value for a 36'x120' lot was over a a million dollars. The neighborhood had great police coverage, but a dark alley is a dark alley and a rapist is a rapist. The real world is unplesant.

I don't have a gun right now (because of my kids) but I like the idea that I have the right to have one in the future. I don't think most of the gun laws now work because they aren't enforced, I wouldn't favor making any new laws, because I think all it will do is mess with my rights, and probably wouldn't address the actual problem, which is that criminals are getting guns illegally.

An armed public poses a greater threat to itself than the threat professional criminals pose to it. A person will survive a drunken punch delivered on impulse. A person may not survive a drunken gunshot delivered on impulse. You can cut short a beating. You can't ease off the impact of a bullet. There are only a very small number of people in any society, who will always use guns whatever the circumstances, and will have no regrets. The majority use guns simply because they had the opportunity at that moment, and would certainly regret it later. Restricting gun availability reduces the casualties.

The debate really comes down to a cultural value - is it more important for people to feel safer, than to be safer? It's pure politics.

And yet there is NO evidence an armed populace increases crime.

Taking away the guns only makes some "feel" safer but doesn't make them "be" safer.

since every "gun control' measure has led to this directly or indirectly, yes.
But you want to argue about "banning guns". That's a straw man argument. Banning guns as itself is not an agenda, except for some groups in the USA.

A "membership" is just defacto registration/tax so the Gov't can come collect them at their leisure. I consider home/self-defense to be a legitimate reason and being a member of some club has nothing to do w/ that.
If your hobby is shooting, then you have a legitimate reason to own a gun. No one contested this. But does the random joe have the necessary training on safety? More government programs won't solve this, but co-operation between the government and the private local will.

You think most criminals buy thier guns legally, that they register them?
Yes, most criminals are average joes and will buy their guns legally. Hard-core criminals won't, and we've already agreed on that they're not going to be affected either way, so they're not in the scope of this discussion.

Yes, lets look at the UK. It had lower crime rates even before the "gun control" schemes yet now it is skyrocketing. In the US, however, ownership is skyrocketing and yet crime continues to decrease.
Actually, most crime in the UK is on the way down. Gun crime is the exception, as it is largely caused by a change in the composition of the organised criminal community - more violent foreign outfits (Jamaica, Balkans, Eastern Europe) have gained footholds in the drugs, stolen goods and money laundering trades, and domestic criminals are having to catch up to stay competitive. The vast majority of gun crimes are "scum-on-scum" offences - ie since the general public do not have guns, they do not use guns on each other, and gun violence is limited to a very small closed community.

A woman was shot dead in my town over Christmas, an exceptionally rare event as she was not involved in crime. She was killed not by a criminal against whom she had no defence, but by her husband.

But you want to argue about "banning guns". That's a straw man argument. Banning guns as itself is not an agenda, except for some groups in the USA.

It is an international agenda, look at the statue in front of the UN building and listen to IANSA


If your hobby is shooting, then you have a legitimate reason to own a gun. No one contested this. But does the random joe have the necessary training on safety? More government programs won't solve this, but co-operation between the government and the private local will.

The average gun owner shoots more often than the police. I support training, I trained my wife and mother, but oppose mandatory training because gov't have and will use it to restrict all ownership.



Yes, most criminals are average joes and will buy their guns legally. Hard-core criminals won't, and we've already agreed on that they're not going to be affected either way, so they're not in the scope of this discussion.

Wrong, the FBI has shown that over 80% of criminals obtain their guns illegally so more measures affecting those who follow the laws do no good.

And yet there is NO evidence an armed populace increases crime.

Taking away the guns only makes some "feel" safer but doesn't make them "be" safer.
Somehow I think he meant it the other way around.;)

Massive diffrence

A gun is a tool used specificly to kill, damage or destroy. It has no other purpose.

A spoon is used to feed. It doesnt specify what however.

Its perfectly easy to eat without a spoon. Its a lot harder to kill without a gun
Even if I go along with your argument here, what about that makes guns bad? There are situations where it is perfectly legitimate, and sometimes even desirable, to "kill, damage or destroy", aren't there?

What exact forms of "gun control" are there?

I'm curious. I don't know Finnish laws well.

Most murders in the US are committed w/ illegal firearms anyway.
The Wikipedia article is reasonably good, although it says little about the results.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Finland

Actually, most crime in the UK is on the way down. Gun crime is the exception, as it is largely caused by a change in the composition of the organised criminal community - more violent foreign outfits (Jamaica, Balkans, Eastern Europe) have gained footholds in the drugs, stolen goods and money laundering trades, and domestic criminals are having to catch up to stay competitive. The vast majority of gun crimes are "scum-on-scum" offences - ie since the general public do not have guns, they do not use guns on each other, and gun violence is limited to a very small closed community.

A woman was shot dead in my town over Christmas, an exceptionally rare event as she was not involved in crime. She was killed not by a criminal against whom she had no defence, but by her husband.

The majority of gun crime in the US is "scum-on-scum" as well.

Everything I've seen has crime increasing and gun crime increasing due to chavs (sp?) and nothing to do w/ foreigners. Do you have other data?

I could post hundreds of examples of people defending themselves w/ firearms including women who were being attacked.

The Wikipedia article is reasonably good, although it says little about the results.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Finland

Interesting. Now since you've claimed causality, what were the crime/murder rates BEFORE the 1998 laws and what were the laws regulating firearms before that?

Against it. Registration is almost always followed by confiscation.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=466670

Let's see. The single most intensly controled enviornment on the planet and the badguys still get guns.

Oh yeah. Gun Control works. :rolleyes:

a lot of innocent people get shot because for instance psychotic teenagers can get their hands on a gun like they could get their hands on a can opener. it's not right is it? a gun is just made to shoot iron bullets in to a man's flesh and harm/kill him that way.

a lot of innocent people get shot because for instance psychotic teenagers can get their hands on a gun like they could get their hands on a can opener. it's not right is it? a gun is just made to shoot iron bullets in to a man's flesh and harm/kill him that way.

And do you have anything to back this up or were you just rambling?

a lot of innocent people get shot because for instance psychotic teenagers can get their hands on a gun like they could get their hands on a can opener. it's not right is it?
Riiight. Blame the media for their disproportional coverage of gun violence in the US.
Here (http://www.rense.com/general62/gns.htm) are some perspective-making statistics about guns:
The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.
As opposed to accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year: 120,000.

Interesting. Now since you've claimed causality, what were the crime/murder rates BEFORE the 1998 laws and what were the laws regulating firearms before that?
The 1998 law was an update. Laws usually gather so many amendments over time that they become byzantine mazes, and complete overhauls of modernization are done often. The actual changes were minor; it was a "consistency edit". The policy itself has been in force since the 1970's, and the murder rate has been stable for the same time. Source: http://www.om.fi/optula/uploads/8aje3o5e7qyyx.pdf

Violent crime has been increasing since the 1980's, but this is unconnected to guns, and is due to the major economic depression in 1992-93 (massive unemployment).

Everything I've seen has crime increasing and gun crime increasing due to chavs (sp?) and nothing to do w/ foreigners. Do you have other data?
Articles in the Guardian over the past few years, highlighting changing trends in gun crime, particularly in London.

And to give an example, just down my road while I was living in Manchester, a guy originally from North Africa, who had been living in London for a short period of time, came up to Manchester for a friend's wedding, and was shot dead by a hitman who was never found. Whatever the story was, I doubt anyone involved was innocent.

The British public do not need arming. We get one gun death per million population per year. The cost of arming everyone so a woman could in theory shoot dead her husband before he squeezed the trigger, would be thousands of deaths which currently do not take place.

*rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble!!*
I still think its a heck of a lot easier to kill people with knives, rope, blunt objects, screwdrivers, heck the list can stretch for miles and miles of things that can kill. I know someone who is now in jail waiting trial for beating a man to death with a baseball bat, from a drunken argument. No gun, bat. So lets go ban baseball bats!

The 1998 law was an update. Laws usually gather so many amendments over time that they become byzantine mazes, and complete overhauls of modernization are done often. The actual changes were minor; it was a "consistency edit". The policy itself has been in force since the 1970's, and the murder rate has been stable for the same time. Source: http://www.om.fi/optula/uploads/8aje3o5e7qyyx.pdf

Violent crime has been increasing since the 1980's, but this is unconnected to guns, and is due to the major economic depression in 1992-93 (massive unemployment).

That's a good chart but it contradicts what you've stated earlier. You said that the policy has been in effect since the 1970's yet homicides had been dropping for decades.

I agree w/ your second paragraph that economics plays more of a factor in cirme than "gun control".

A gun is just a murder stick. They need to be disposed of. Quickly, give them all to me and my private militia of imperia....I mean happy-helper-people.

Articles in the Guardian over the past few years, highlighting changing trends in gun crime, particularly in London.

And to give an example, just down my road while I was living in Manchester, a guy originally from North Africa, who had been living in London for a short period of time, came up to Manchester for a friend's wedding, and was shot dead by a hitman who was never found. Whatever the story was, I doubt anyone involved was innocent.

Fair enough. Most of the articles I've read from the BBC have increased crime rates (including violent gun) coming from the rural areas and small towns that are being overrun w/ hoodlums.

The British public do not need arming. We get one gun death per million population per year. The cost of arming everyone so a woman could in theory shoot dead her husband before he squeezed the trigger, would be thousands of deaths which currently do not take place.

Don't red-herring this TC, you're better than that. Noone is talking about "arming everyone" and you know it.

The question is now to be asked" Did the British public need dis-arming?"

A gun is just a murder stick. They need to be disposed of. Quickly, give them all to me and my private militia of imperia....I mean happy-helper-people.

Is your real name Kennedy by any chance?

I don't see why we should trust people with automobiles, gasoline, matches, and other items that can kill a whole bunch of people and not trust them with guns. Personally I like guns. I frequently carry one despite that getting caught with it in my state will land me in jail.
Damn! I thought I could buy an AK47 when I was 18 or 21. Stupid NJ

Damn! I thought I could buy an AK47 when I was 18 or 21. Stupid NJ

Try buying an AK47 in the US and you'll be out several thousand dollars.

The semi-auto versions are legal in most states though so moving should be an option.

Is your real name Kennedy by any chance?
Possibly.

Yes, lets look at the UK. It had lower crime rates even before the "gun control" schemes yet now it is skyrocketing. In the US, however, ownership is skyrocketing and yet crime continues to decrease.
Crime continues to decrease because the number of criminals in jail has skyrocketed?

The number of people in prison, in jail, on parole, and on probation in the U.S. increased threefold between 1980 and 2000, to more than 6 million, and the number of people in prison increased from 319,598 to almost 2 million in the same period.

A lot of Americans are saying that gun control is useless because most guns used in crimes are aquired illegally. The point is that these guns are stolen from the houses of people who own them legally so logically speaking keeping guns away from the general populace will severely limit the supply of guns to criminals.

I recognise that there are now so many guns in America that it's probably too late to impliment gun control but the countries that have gun control should on no account relax it.

That's a good chart but it contradicts what you've stated earlier. You said that the policy has been in effect since the 1970's yet homicides had been dropping for decades.
I mean, in this exact form. The point was, that in practice nothing has changed since the 1970's - strict registration, relaxed ownership laws, low murder rate. Finding the exact "starting point" is something I'm not sure I could do. The independent variable is hard to extract, since there have been wars (Civil War 1918, WW2) and some even some political violence before World War 2.

I agree w/ your second paragraph that economics plays more of a factor in cirme than "gun control".
Yep.

Crime continues to decrease because the number of criminals in jail has skyrocketed?

The number of people in prison, in jail, on parole, and on probation in the U.S. increased threefold between 1980 and 2000, to more than 6 million, and the number of people in prison increased from 319,598 to almost 2 million in the same period.


And "gun control" had nothing to do w/ it, just enforcing the laws. What a novel concept.

A lot of Americans are saying that gun control is useless because most guns used in crimes are aquired illegally. The point is that these guns are stolen from the houses of people who own them legally so logically speaking keeping guns away from the general populace will severely limit the supply of guns to criminals.

I recognise that there are now so many guns in America that it's probably too late to impliment gun control but the countries that have gun control should on no account relax it.

Then why has gun crime INCREASED in the UK? It's not all because of "imitation guns". It's because of smuggling.

There are lots of guns in the US, that's true. The majority of them don't get stolen or used in illegal ways. Attempting to ban/restrict/etc. would then be punishing the vast majority of firearm owners (well over 50 million) for the illegal actions of a few thousand w/ no verifieable result in dropping crime.

*rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble!!*
I still think its a heck of a lot easier to kill people with knives, rope, blunt objects, screwdrivers, heck the list can stretch for miles and miles of things that can kill. I know someone who is now in jail waiting trial for beating a man to death with a baseball bat, from a drunken argument. No gun, bat. So lets go ban baseball bats!
The vast majority of murders in the US (70%) are committed with firearms.

It is far easier to kill someone with a gun than with knives, rope, blunt objects, etc.

The vast majority of murders in the US (70%) are committed with firearms.

It is far easier to kill someone with a gun than with knives, rope, blunt objects, etc.
It doesn't matter how you kill someone, really; murder is murder.

The question is now to be asked" Did the British public need dis-arming?"
Not to the extent that gun sports got banned. Small calibre single-shot pistols held under license in gun club lockers were never a threat to the public. In that respect the legislation went too far. But semi-automatic handguns, yes, there was never a need for any member of the public to own such a thing. Not in the UK. The legislation probably made no impact on the annual number of gun fatalities (which in the UK is tiny), but as far as I am concerned, it did catch up with the reality that the necessity is not there. Tying up a loose end, if you will.

The vast majority of murders in the US (70%) are committed with firearms.

It is far easier to kill someone with a gun than with knives, rope, blunt objects, etc.

Half of murders in the US (50%) are committed by blacks. Statistics are fun, aren't they?

And it is far easier to defend yourself w/ a firearm than with knives, rope, blunt objects, etc.

Even if I go along with your argument here, what about that makes guns bad? There are situations where it is perfectly legitimate, and sometimes even desirable, to "kill, damage or destroy", aren't there?

Its quite simple. They kill people

In a public situation, it is the job of the police, not the citizen to use leathal force. If all citizens are allowed lethal force, it is very dangerous. Of course there are situations where it is legitamate to kill, damage or destroy, but the power that guns have to do that is indiscriminate. You cannot control the kind of thing a gun is used for. In the same way, people are not allowed to publically carry knives

I don't see why we should trust people with automobiles, gasoline, matches, and other items that can kill a whole bunch of people and not trust them with guns. Personally I like guns. I frequently carry one despite that getting caught with it in my state will land me in jail.
And everyone needs to have a license to drive a car, and needs to register it. If you do the same thing with guns, fine.

Although I still don't see why you'd need anything but a shotgun in the house for self defence, and in most cases, a little handgun will suffice anyway.

No need for automatic weapons, semi-automatic weapons, machine guns, sniper rifles or AT-Missiles. You can start hunting clubs where you can rent rifles, and you could join gun clubs where they store them on the premises when you want to shoot at targets for sport.

And as for the Nazi argument...that is so tired by now. If the Nazis hadn't have had the support from significant portions of the population, they couldn't have ruled, guns or not. And if the opposition would have had guns, they still wouldn't have changed anything because the army had more.

Against it. Registration is almost always followed by confiscation.

And what is wrong with that?

Not to the extent that gun sports got banned. Small calibre single-shot pistols held under license in gun club lockers were never a threat to the public. In that respect the legislation went too far. But semi-automatic handguns, yes, there was never a need for any member of the public to own such a thing. Not in the UK. The legislation probably made no impact on the annual number of gun fatalities (which in the UK is tiny), but as far as I am concerned, it did catch up with the reality that the necessity is not there. Tying up a loose end, if you will.

See, there's where the cultural difference shows and a clear slippery-slope. Here, we don't like the Gov't telling us what we "need". Semi-auto handguns are also the primary weapon used in personal/home defense so even there I see a "need" anyway.

It also shows the slippery-slope that Gov'ts /organizations use to eventually ban everything. Fot the most recent example, look at Canada. A $2Billion booddoggle based on misinformation and increasing "gun control" w/ no discernable effect followed by calls for even more in the outright bans of handguns.

Its quite simple. They kill people

In a public situation, it is the job of the police, not the citizen to use leathal force. If all citizens are allowed lethal force, it is very dangerous. Of course there are situations where it is legitamate to kill, damage or destroy, but the power that guns have to do that is indiscriminate. You cannot control the kind of thing a gun is used for. In the same way, people are not allowed to publically carry knives

The majority of states in the US allow concealed carry of firearms. There have been NO examples of what you are talking about.

It's also a fact that the police in the US have NO obligation to protect you or to stop crime.

Not to the extent that gun sports got banned. Small calibre single-shot pistols held under license in gun club lockers were never a threat to the public. In that respect the legislation went too far. But semi-automatic handguns, yes, there was never a need for any member of the public to own such a thing. Not in the UK. The legislation probably made no impact on the annual number of gun fatalities (which in the UK is tiny), but as far as I am concerned, it did catch up with the reality that the necessity is not there. Tying up a loose end, if you will.

And there is the fundamental difference in your argument and that of others. Some believe that the government should be limited, that is, if a law is to be made then the government has to prove why it has both the need for the law and the authority to pass it. You believe that the burden of proof is on the citizen.

To put it another way, for me the question is "Why does the government need to do this?" For you the question is "Why do the people need this?"

And everyone needs to have a license to drive a car, and needs to register it. If you do the same thing with guns, fine.

Although I still don't see why you'd need anything but a shotgun in the house for self defence, and in most cases, a little handgun will suffice anyway.

No need for automatic weapons, semi-automatic weapons, machine guns, sniper rifles or AT-Missiles. You can start hunting clubs where you can rent rifles, and you could join gun clubs where they store them on the premises when you want to shoot at targets for sport.

And as for the Nazi argument...that is so tired by now. If the Nazis hadn't have had the support from significant portions of the population, they couldn't have ruled, guns or not. And if the opposition would have had guns, they still wouldn't have changed anything because the army had more.


Shotguns are more lethal than handguns. They are also less useful for CCW.

I would love a national licensing system similar to cars. I could then carry in every state and wouldn't need it to purchase or use on private land.

Its quite simple. They kill people
Yeah, that's generally the point...
In a public situation, it is the job of the police, not the citizen to use leathal force.
So, I suppose that the police are everywhere and are able to respond to every situation as it appears? I don't see why I should trust the State to do the job of defending myself when they certainly don't have the ability to do it properly.

And what is wrong with that?

Giving up your freedoms and ability to protect youself is what's wrong w/ that.

A lot of Americans are saying that gun control is useless because most guns used in crimes are aquired illegally. The point is that these guns are stolen from the houses of people who own them legally so logically speaking keeping guns away from the general populace will severely limit the supply of guns to criminals.

I recognise that there are now so many guns in America that it's probably too late to impliment gun control but the countries that have gun control should on no account relax it.

I agree with you to such a degree I thought repeating your post was warranted. :)

Yep. Where guns are concerned, I believe it's up to the people to demonstrate a need. And here the need has not been shown. Cultural difference, I suppose.

The vast majority of murders in the US (70%) are committed with firearms.

It is far easier to kill someone with a gun than with knives, rope, blunt objects, etc.

If they are going to ban guns and take them away, what will stop them from turning to other weapons??

Shotguns are more lethal than handguns. They are also less useful for CCW.
Firstly, I have no idea what CCW is.
Secondly, unless you buy a military-grade full-automatic Mossberg slogging machine (and no, I don't know much about guns), a shotgun will usually do everything you could want to defend yourself.
Inside a house, you can't miss. It will do enough damage to stop anyone. And generally, the bullets won't go through the wall and kill your kids and the neighbours'.

That being said, the whole "I need to defend my house!" thing is mostly paranoia anyway. If people want to rob your house, they usually wait until you're not in. And then they might just steal your gun and sell it to some kid in the slums.

And for the police to work, there needs to be a monopoly on violence. If the police is not the only force domestically that is legally allowed to use force to protect people, it becomes just one party in a chaotic mess of gun-wielding would-be criminals and would-be home defenders.
Yes, that does come back to differences in outlook, and maybe it'll help if you look up the definition of the concept of "Rechtsstaat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rechtsstaat)", something that I consider very important.

I would love a national licensing system similar to cars. I could then carry in every state and wouldn't need it to purchase or use on private land.
If you were deemed responsible enough, yes.

And everyone needs to have a license to drive a car, and needs to register it. If you do the same thing with guns, fine.

Although I still don't see why you'd need anything but a shotgun in the house for self defence, and in most cases, a little handgun will suffice anyway.

No need for automatic weapons, semi-automatic weapons, machine guns, sniper rifles or AT-Missiles. You can start hunting clubs where you can rent rifles, and you could join gun clubs where they store them on the premises when you want to shoot at targets for sport.

And as for the Nazi argument...that is so tired by now. If the Nazis hadn't have had the support from significant portions of the population, they couldn't have ruled, guns or not. And if the opposition would have had guns, they still wouldn't have changed anything because the army had more.

Hey, come on now, whats wrong with an AT missile? I was gonna get one for my brother for his birthday!! :) :P

Seriously though, most of the gun deaths are gang related anyway!
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/circumguntab.htm
There are a lot of numbers but it does give a good idea of what's going on with guns and gun crimes.

Firstly, I have no idea what CCW is.

Concealed Carry


Secondly, unless you buy a military-grade full-automatic Mossberg slogging machine (and no, I don't know much about guns), a shotgun will usually do everything you could want to defend yourself.
Inside a house, you can't miss. It will do enough damage to stop anyone. And generally, the bullets won't go through the wall and kill your kids and the neighbours'.

Shotguns don't use bullets. Many handgun rounds also won't go through walls and kill your kids and nieghbors.

That being said, the whole "I need to defend my house!" thing is mostly paranoia anyway. If people want to rob your house, they usually wait until you're not in. And then they might just steal your gun and sell it to some kid in the slums.

They'll avoid houses completely where ownership is more common. In areas where ownership is restricted/banned, breakins while the owners are present are more common.

And for the police to work, there needs to be a monopoly on violence. If the police is not the only force domestically that is legally allowed to use force to protect people, it becomes just one party in a chaotic mess of gun-wielding would-be criminals and would-be home defenders.
Yes, that does come back to differences in outlook, and maybe it'll help if you look up the definition of the concept of "Rechtsstaat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rechtsstaat)", something that I consider very important.

I'm not willing to give the Gov't a "monopoly on violence". That is expressly the reason we have the rights to own firearms in the first place. Secondly, since criminals would still be committing violence, the only monopoly would be making victims of law-abiding citizens.

Every state in the US has firearms in the home and the only places it is a "chaotic mess" are the areas where gangs control.


If you were deemed responsible enough, yes.

You don't need a license to buy a car or use it on private land though only on public and it would be valid in every state and DC.

Shall we continue w/ this comparison?

Many handgun rounds also won't go through walls and kill your kids and nieghbors.
Of course. My point was more about assault rifle or machine pistols.

They'll avoid houses completely where ownership is more common. In areas where ownership is restricted/banned, breakins while the owners are present are more common.
Meh, that's just not true. There are many countries where gun ownership is very limited, and burglars still avoid the trouble they get when the owner is still home. Germany comes to mind.

I'm not willing to give the Gov't a "monopoly on violence". That is expressly the reason we have the rights to own firearms in the first place.
No, you have firearms as a militia to defend yourself against foreign aggressors by helping the army. Everything else was interpreted into that afterwards.

Secondly, since criminals would still be committing violence, the only monopoly would be making victims of law-abiding citizens.
It works in most countries. And indeed, the number of murders commited with hand guns is much smaller in Germany than in the US (per capita), simply because there are less guns around, legal or not.

You don't need a license to buy a car or use it on private land though only on public and it would be valid in every state and DC.
Of course, because it is generally assumed that on your property, you can't hurt anyone with your car. Guns are obviously a different matter.

There are many important facts about guns which stoned hippies fail to realize:

1: Firearms are sporting equipment. They are used for hunting and at shooting ranges, and it would be just as wrong for the government to regulate firearm sports as it would be for them to regulate football equipment or jogging pants. How would you Euro-socialist like it if your lefty gov'ts registered your soccerballs?

2: If the feds are permitted to restrict our 2nd amendment rights, they'll fall down a slippery slope and continue revoking even more of our essential rights.

3: Guns prevent crime. 2% of New England's guns are in the state of Vermont, which has essentially no gun control. Vermont also enjoys the nations lowest crime rates! Don't deny the unmistakable relationship.

4: If firearms are banned, then only the law-abiding will sacrifice their arms. Criminals will buy them on the black market and good citizens will be unable to defend themselves.

1: Firearms are sporting equipment.
Some guns are. If you'd like to open your eyes, sport shooting is quite popular in Europe.
But do you need a Tec-9 in your living room for sporting purposes?

2: If the feds are permitted to restrict our 2nd amendment rights, they'll fall down a slippery slope and continue revoking even more of our essential rights.
You don't happen to remember that the government is your government, do you?

3: Guns prevent crime. 2% of New England's guns are in the state of Vermont, which has essentially no gun control. Vermont also enjoys the nations lowest crime rates! Don't deny the unmistakable relationship.
Even if I don't call point 2 a logical fallacy, this one definitely is.

4: If firearms are banned, then only the law-abiding will sacrifice their arms. Criminals will buy them on the black market and good citizens will be unable to defend themselves.
Doesn't happen in other countries where there are restrictions on gun ownership.

If I lived in Illinois or didn't already have an Indiana ccw permit, It would take me less time to MAKE a submachinegun (http://spaces.msn.com/syniks/PersonalSpace.aspx?_c11_PhotoAlbum_spaHandler=TWljcm9zb2Z0LlNwYWNlcy5XZWIuUGFydHMuUGhvdG9BbGJ1bS5GdW xsTW9kZUNvbnRyb2xsZXI%24&_c11_PhotoAlbum_spaFolderID=cns!83B97FD0F01BD07A!174&_c=PhotoAlbum) then to buy a .38 revolver. :rolleyes:

Of course, I don't live in prison, where apparently getting a revolver is not too hard... :rolleyes:

I just saw the pole and was shocked. I thought it would have turned out the opposite when I considered the make up of this forum. Well,,,there is one personally held stereotype shot to hell.

I said I support gun control, which is true, to the extent that it ensures that the people with guns are reasonable, and the weapons themselves are reasonable.

That's about all the gun control I care about though.

No, you have firearms as a militia to defend yourself against foreign aggressors by helping the army. Everything else was interpreted into that afterwards.



Actually, we have firearms as a people, to defend ourselves against the militia.

Why is a German, living in Australia, so concerned about whether or not I have a gun anyway?

what are some of your views on gun control?
I am extremely against it, before WWII the Nazis implemented gun registration and then when the war started they invaded all the homes of the non-nazi citizens and took the guns

yes, and the nazi's also built the first highways, so are you saying highways are inherently bad because the nazi's did them first?

Nowadays gun control for me is remembering wich gun I put where!

:sniper:
"Vote from the rooftops!"
Porkchop

And quit makin Nazi's "Boogie men", what about all the good things Hitler did?:eek:

Re: National Socialist gun control. National Socialist repressions could happen (incidently, I'm referring to repressive measures inside Germany itself) because they happened in secret, and there wasn't a lot of fussing about. It was simply a case of the Gestapo coming around at night, and collecting people. The people being collected could do nothing about it. If these Gestapo agents were met with a hail of gunfire every time they tried to clear a suburb of Jews, they'd have needed a batallion of Panzergrenadiers, not just two guys in trench coats. The whole business would have been blown wide open, and the troops necessary to clear the suburbs couldn't do that, and fight Russians at the same time. The point is that an armed populace increases vastly the cost of aggression against the civilian population, and makes it messy, and very public.

If Germany's Jewish population was armed, every city would have had its own "Warsaw Ghetto Uprising", and just one tied down considerable German forces better used against the Allies.

Re: What firearms are designed to do. A firearm is designed to propel one or more pieces of metal in a controlled manner. This binds all firearms from a CZ .22 rifle, to Project Babylon. There certainly are differences between this and that firearm which relate to what exactly needs to be sent down range, how far, how much of it, and to what degree of accuracy, but the whole "designed to kill" argument does not actually address the purpose of a firearm, it addresses the purpose in the mind of the shooter.

Even if the design argument were valid, killing people, if it is for self-defence is not wrong.

If someone wants to kill me, what objection could you possibly have to me killing him? Any objection must include the notion that I should accept being murdered, gleefully submit.

Re: Registration slippery slopes. In some cases, we can see that registration will, if implemented lead to bans, because there are politicians, and lobbyists advocating the same. The real problems with registration is that it will only inconvenience lawabiding people (criminals won't bother), it always has overrun its costs, and it makes bans possible if future governments decide to do it.

Re: 2nd Amendment. It should not be treated as the be all and end all of firearms rights. The real claim to firearms rights is self-defence.

What exact forms of "gun control" are there?

The only real, sensible forms of gun control include:


Controlling the direction in which the firearm points.
Not pointing it at anything unless ready to shoot at it.
Keeping it unloaded until ready to fire.
Keeping your finger off the trigger until ready to fire.
Aiming properly
Keeping your firearm away from people not allowed to use it.
Teaching children proper firearms handling techniques (hiding firearms from them only makes them curious, as any attempt to hide Christmas presents shows. Trying to make things off limits to children only makes them curious)


Anything else is nothing more than an attempt to disarm victims, and empower criminals.

But does the random joe have the necessary training on safety?

Give me a break. That takes about two hours, including the time necessary to eat pizza.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=466670

Let's see. The single most intensly controled enviornment on the planet and the badguys still get guns.

Oh yeah. Gun Control works.

Why have the anti-Gun bigots not answered this? If the government they worship can't keep guns (or drugs for that matter) out of prison, how can they expect their Gods to keep them out of polite society.

I still think its a heck of a lot easier to kill people with knives, rope, blunt objects, screwdrivers, heck the list can stretch for miles and miles of things that can kill. I know someone who is now in jail waiting trial for beating a man to death with a baseball bat, from a drunken argument. No gun, bat. So lets go ban baseball bats!

That's quite right. It is certainly easier for someone highly skilled to use a firearm lethally, but one can also say that it is easier for someone appropriately skilled to use a knife. Unskilled people tend to be more effective killers with instruments requiring little skill, like cars.

Were one to go from the statistics, if I wanted to kill someone, I'd send him to a doctor before buying a gun.

Then why has gun crime INCREASED in the UK? It's not all because of "imitation guns". It's because of smuggling.

Exactly, if you know the right pubs, you can get what you want.

And everyone needs to have a license to drive a car, and needs to register it. If you do the same thing with guns, fine.

No, you only need a licence and registration on a public road. If you want to thrash around your farm on a paddock basher, no one can stop you (except of course the chap who owns the place!).

In any case, you've not actually established that a licence is necessary (rather than simply a state imposition that people simply comply to)

Although I still don't see why you'd need

If he's wasting his money, that's a little silly of him, but I don't see that you've any right to stop him, or to get other people to stop him.

sniper rifles

There is no consistant definition of "sniper rifle" except "the one the sniper was issued". During WW2, all the sniper rifles were service rifles with a scope added.

In a public situation, it is the job of the police, not the citizen to use leathal force. If all citizens are allowed lethal force, it is very dangerous. Of course there are situations where it is legitamate to kill, damage or destroy, but the power that guns have to do that is indiscriminate. You cannot control the kind of thing a gun is used for. In the same way, people are not allowed to publically carry knives

Are you saying that if someone insulted you in the pub, you would shoot him if you had the means. I am more civilised than you. I don't resort to violence when someone insults me. I merely ignore him.

I further more an quite capable on controlling a firearm, as a glance as my targets will show you. I know some people who are almost indiscriminate, but they keep their rounds within the range.

I, in every sense can control a gun. I can control my own urges in using it, I can control how I use it, and direct where the bullets go.

Some guns are. If you'd like to open your eyes, sport shooting is quite popular in Europe.
But do you need a Tec-9 in your living room for sporting purposes?

What the heck has his choice of athletic equipment got to do with you? It does you no harm.

What you're really advocating is that other people should dictate one's choice of sport, even if no one's life, liberty, or property are harmed.

You don't happen to remember that the government is your government, do you?

Relevance?

Of course, because it is generally assumed that on your property, you can't hurt anyone with your car. Guns are obviously a different matter.

One can certainly hurt other people on one's property, or have you not heard of domestic violence?

And for the police to work, there needs to be a monopoly on violence. If the police is not the only force domestically that is legally allowed to use force to protect people, it becomes just one party in a chaotic mess of gun-wielding would-be criminals and would-be home defenders

It is not the job of the police to protect people. The job of the police is to intervene, and investigate.

The police can be held liable for certain failures in intervention, and investigation, but the Courts have held that the police are not liable for personal protection of citizens.

If they were held so liable, it is obvious that they could not, at their present level of resources protect a citizen, even security forces used solely for personal protection, like the US Secret Service haven't always been successful (one, and a partial). To have full protection, one would have to live in the sort of police state that would put Orwell to shame.

The cops can't be everywhere, so they can't protect you all the time. If the cops could be everywhere, no one could be free.

Secondly, the only source of a government's authority is the people. If the people can't use force to defend themselves, they cannot ask others to do it. It is just the same as me paying you to beat someone up.

Thirdly, I don't see what is wrong with people defending themselves, or their property.

You can fear-monger all you like, but you haven't made the argument.

Yep. Where guns are concerned, I believe it's up to the people to demonstrate a need. And here the need has not been shown. Cultural difference, I suppose.

The governments who you think should give permission have murdered 170 million people in less than one hundred years. It is not you who must show need to them, it is them who must show you.



I don't see why a citizen shouldn't be able to walk into a gun shop, and buy all the guns, and as much ammunition as he is able to pay for. No one is harmed by him doing this, and no law has ever been able to stop a criminal doing this.

As for buying things like tanks and artillery, I'm of two minds, on the one hand, they have no use for individual self-defence (you can't protect yourself with them without destroying the lives, or property of others), and on the other hand, such things are so expensive that anyone who can afford them won't need to commit a crime, and they are nice things to have at fairs and things. Guilty pleasures?

I think the line should be drawn at automatic weapons that can be used by one man, something like an MG42 would be fine, but Ma Deuce wouldn't be (unless someone knows of a handheld one man fifty cal).

One last comment: In the US, the first gun control laws were introduced to keep recently emancipated blacks disarmed, and therefore at the mercy of the KKK, and the state governments. Interestingly enough, both the KKK, the NAACP, and the ACLU favour disarming blacks.

You need to register your car (which does serve a practical purpose as well as being extremely accident-prone) and you need to be a certain age and get a licence to drive it.
I don't see why the same legislation shouldn't apply to guns.

Try buying an AK47 in the US and you'll be out several thousand dollars.

The semi-auto versions are legal in most states though so moving should be an option.


hmmm and to think i've seen so many AK's and Knockoffs for sale for under 800 bucks and a few even as cheap as 375.


or were you refering to a Full auto version? yeah that'll set you back just getting the license FF3

Some guns are. If you'd like to open your eyes, sport shooting is quite popular in Europe.
But do you need a Tec-9 in your living room for sporting purposes?



Of course, doesn't everybody??


Heh, I've fired an Ingram Mac-10 Semi-auto. Something funny about that weapon is the charging handle actually blocks the sights.


But yeah I own two weapons.

A ruger Mini-14 that was never banned under the Assault weapons ban yet is as effective as a Semi-Auto M-16 that was banned(just lacked the pistol grip, folding stock, flash suppressor, extended mags and bayonet lugs, all of which i've added after market)

A Sig Sauer P220 which i'm about to mount a Tac light and Laser on.


But then again Considering what I do for a living I would probably still own these weapons if they revoke private gun ownership.


But yeah. Every point on either side had been made, why can't you all just agree to disagree?


Whats the sense of arguing about statistics to someone that isn't going to change their mind?


It's like playing Tennis with a brick wall. The wall always wins. Unless you are Chuck Norris in which case you beat the wall and don't need guns anyway, because your Chuck Norris.

I think it is a good idea but I am British from England UK

The majority of states in the US allow concealed carry of firearms. There have been NO examples of what you are talking about.

What was I talking about? I didnt give any examples. I gave simple logic


Are you saying that if someone insulted you in the pub, you would shoot him if you had the means. I am more civilised than you. I don't resort to violence when someone insults me. I merely ignore him.

I further more an quite capable on controlling a firearm, as a glance as my targets will show you. I know some people who are almost indiscriminate, but they keep their rounds within the range.

I, in every sense can control a gun. I can control my own urges in using it, I can control how I use it, and direct where the bullets go.

Given the vastness of gun crime in the US, I would say there is a significent population of people who cannot control when and where they use their guns. I do not think it is responsable to have an armed population, simpley because they pose more of a threat to the public good than do the criminals with guns. If you did outlaw private ownership of guns it would be much harder for criminals to get guns seeing as how they would not be available in such a massive supply.


It's also a fact that the police in the US have NO obligation to protect you or to stop crime.

Are you kidding! The job of the police is not to stop crime or protect people? So what does "protect and serve" mean?

or were you refering to a Full auto version? yeah that'll set you back just getting the license FF3

I think he is. He might be referring to the anti-human rights lobby trying to confuse people with names and firearms (referring to any AK clone as an AK-47)

AK-47 refers only to the initial Russian model of the series, full-auto of course.

You need to register your car (which does serve a practical purpose as well as being extremely accident-prone) and you need to be a certain age and get a licence to drive it.

Please read before posting. The only cars that need to be registered with the government are those driving on government roads, and the only drivers who must be licenced are those who drive on government roads. This has been pointed out twice.

I think it is a good idea but I am British from England UK

I think there is something you, and all the other advocates of disarming law abiding civilians need to clarify: since can't even keep drugs and firearms out of gaol (never mind society at large), what do you think will work?

No general prohibition has ever succeeded, and the government can't even make it work in an environment it is meant to totally control (a gaol).

The advocates of victim disarmament can blather about this law and that until they're red in the face, but if they can't come up with a workable plan that can succeed, they are talking garbage.

It is not the job of the police to protect people. The job of the police is to intervene, and investigate.

The police can be held liable for certain failures in intervention, and investigation, but the Courts have held that the police are not liable for personal protection of citizens.

If they were held so liable, it is obvious that they could not, at their present level of resources protect a citizen, even security forces used solely for personal protection, like the US Secret Service haven't always been successful (one, and a partial). To have full protection, one would have to live in the sort of police state that would put Orwell to shame.

The cops can't be everywhere, so they can't protect you all the time. If the cops could be everywhere, no one could be free.

So how in the UK do we manage it. Our police are for civilian protection. Our population isnt armed.

I think he is. He might be referring to the anti-human rights lobby trying to confuse people with names and firearms (referring to any AK clone as an AK-47)

AK-47 refers only to the initial Russian model of the series, full-auto of course.



Please read before posting. The only cars that need to be registered with the government are those driving on government roads, and the only drivers who must be licenced are those who drive on government roads. This has been pointed out twice.



I think there is something you, and all the other advocates of disarming law abiding civilians need to clarify: since can't even keep drugs and firearms out of gaol (never mind society at large), what do you think will work?

No general prohibition has ever succeeded, and the government can't even make it work in an environment it is meant to totally control (a gaol).

The advocates of victim disarmament can blather about this law and that until they're red in the face, but if they can't come up with a workable plan that can succeed, they are talking garbage. well shooting are more commen in UK now but i feel safe

Gun toting motorists more prone to road rage (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18925373.800)

Firstly, I have no idea what CCW is.
Secondly, unless you buy a military-grade full-automatic Mossberg slogging machine (and no, I don't know much about guns), a shotgun will usually do everything you could want to defend yourself.
Inside a house, you can't miss. It will do enough damage to stop anyone. And generally, the bullets won't go through the wall and kill your kids and the neighbours'.

That being said, the whole "I need to defend my house!" thing is mostly paranoia anyway. If people want to rob your house, they usually wait until you're not in. And then they might just steal your gun and sell it to some kid in the slums.

And for the police to work, there needs to be a monopoly on violence. If the police is not the only force domestically that is legally allowed to use force to protect people, it becomes just one party in a chaotic mess of gun-wielding would-be criminals and would-be home defenders.
Yes, that does come back to differences in outlook, and maybe it'll help if you look up the definition of the concept of "Rechtsstaat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rechtsstaat)", something that I consider very important.


If you were deemed responsible enough, yes.

That would explain your irrational fear of them. People tend to fear the unfamiliar. Learn more about guns, go shooting and find out what they can do for yourself before you continue to spout your anti-gun rhetoric.

Are you kidding! The job of the police is not to stop crime or protect people? So what does "protect and serve" mean?

It has been upheld on at least one occasion by the Supreme Court that it is not the job of the police to protect it's citizens.

Now, they often do try to protect, but the majority of time they respond after the fact. They investigate, and seek "justice" in apprehending criminals and assist in their prosecution, but protect is not something they are required to do.

Of course. My point was more about assault rifle or machine pistols.

Which are heavily regulated and few people have a problem w/ that. Semi-auto pistols are not "machine pistols".


Meh, that's just not true. There are many countries where gun ownership is very limited, and burglars still avoid the trouble they get when the owner is still home. Germany comes to mind.

And they are on the rise in the UK while areas in the US that have heavy ownership rates have less. It's all in the country.


No, you have firearms as a militia to defend yourself against foreign aggressors by helping the army. Everything else was interpreted into that afterwards.

Wrong. Read the Federalist Papers by the founding fathers.


It works in most countries. And indeed, the number of murders commited with hand guns is much smaller in Germany than in the US (per capita), simply because there are less guns around, legal or not.

And what were the rates BEFORE the various controls?


Of course, because it is generally assumed that on your property, you can't hurt anyone with your car. Guns are obviously a different matter.

Obviously? Not according to most.

What was I talking about? I didnt give any examples. I gave simple logic

You stated that:

"If all citizens are allowed lethal force, it is very dangerous. "

To whom? Show me widespread examples of this.



Given the vastness of gun crime in the US, I would say there is a significent population of people who cannot control when and where they use their guns. I do not think it is responsable to have an armed population, simpley because they pose more of a threat to the public good than do the criminals with guns. If you did outlaw private ownership of guns it would be much harder for criminals to get guns seeing as how they would not be available in such a massive supply.

Just like in the UK where gun crime is INCREASING? Now that you are using examples, there is NO threat to the "public good" as the majority of crime is committed by those w/ previous criminal records and aren't allowed firearms in the first place. Once again, crime has decreased even though ownership has increased. It's about crime control, not gun control.




Are you kidding! The job of the police is not to stop crime or protect people? So what does "protect and serve" mean?

It means nothing. As per several SCOTUS decisions, the police are not obligated in any way to protect you or stop crime even if there are laws saying they do.

So how in the UK do we manage it. Our police are for civilian protection. Our population isnt armed.

With cameras, tracing travel, and issueing "naughty boy" tickets. And yet the Chavs are out of control, gypsies can park on your property w/o permission, and gun crime is increasing and the UN has UK violent crime as higher than the US.

How do you manage it?

I have done several informal surveys on incarcerated felons, to whom I have unfettered access, and to a man, the only thing they fear is an armed civilian.
On the other hand, the 2nd Amendment is clear, and protects our rights to keep and bear arms, and in its context, specifically military arms, to which Miller vs US would have overturned NFA '34, IF anyone had bothered to show up to defend Miller.
Brits depend on cameras, and unarmed police. Americans depend on themselves, mostly. CNN reported over a year ago that people are more likely to be violently assaulted in London than anywhere in the US.
Gun control is all about control, and nothing about firearms.

If you don't like out freedoms, please, do not visit.
BTW, how many Euros on board to day would mind if we pulled all of our troops out of Europe? You guys can take care of yourselves, right? Save us money, and you EU guys will take care of anything popping up over there? Sound good?

Gun toting motorists more prone to road rage (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18925373.800)

That sounds about as accurate as the old "porn causes violence" meme.

I suspect a "scientific" article that uses the phrases "GUN lobbyists", "gun-toting drivers ", and "Police no longer have the right to ban someone they consider unsuitable from owning a gun."


Nope, no bias in this article at all, is there.

Might want to check out who funds the HSPH, BTW:

the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health (impressive title for such a small office, eh?) was created by the anti-gun lobby, and the firearm studies at the Harvard Injury Control Research Center are funded by the same group. The Joyce Foundation is the major force behind the gun prohibitionist movement in this country, and while that foundation has done good things in other areas, whoever is running their gun-related grants is a gun-prohibitionist zealot completely out of touch with the reality of civilian gun ownership in the United States.

http://www.jhu.edu/~gazette/janmar95/jan3095/guns.html

A new center devoted to the study of gun violence was
established Jan. 1 at the School of Public Health. The first
academic center in the nation devoted exclusively to gun policy,
the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research was created
through a two-year, $500,000 grant by the Chicago-based Joyce
Foundation.


http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc /

Firearms Research Team: With funding from the Joyce foundation, HICRC organized an Internal Research Team for firearms research. We hired a recent graduate from Johns-Hopkins School of Public Health, Lisa Hepburn, Ph.D, as a post-doc. Three other members of this team - Drs. David Hemenway, Matthew Miller and Deborah Azrael - have published over 40 journal articles on firearms since the Center was funded by the CDC in the fall of 1998. With Joyce foundation funding, HICRC sponsored a national random-digit-dial telephone survey of 2700 adults on firearm issues, which was conducted in the spring of 2004.

Their shrillest mouthpiece on the gun issue is probably the Violence Policy Center (the genuises behind the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch and www.banhandgunsnow.org ), but they have also set up a several pro-prohibition study centers to generate press for their agenda to create the appearance of a consensus. It is my understand that they also had out funding to like-minded "independent researchers," but I don't have time to track that down at the moment.

In addition to the VPC and the "public health" paper-generating centers, whoever runs the JF's firearms-related grants also funds the so-called Freedom States Alliance, a network of far-out gun prohibitionist websites including ".50 Caliber Terror", "gunguys.com", "gunloophole.org"; they created the so-called "Second Amendment Research Center" to pooh-pooh the idea that the 2ndA means what it says; they support many/most/all of the state-level "Ceasefire" groups; they pay the Consumer Federation of America to advocate for gun regulation; etc. etc. etc.

http://www.joycefdn.org/programs/gunviolence/gunviolencemain-fs.html...

Take their materials with the same skepticism you'd apply to NRA-sponsored "studies." They're one and the same--interest-group advocacy materials, no more and no less.

Again, the Joyce Foundation has done some good things in other areas, but whoever runs their gun-issue grants is the "man behind the curtain" for almost the entire U.S. gun prohibitionist movement. Their intent is to create the appearance of a grassroots movement by creating a chorus of seemingly independent voices calling for gun confiscation, but it's a ventriloquist's act; there is only ONE voice behind that curtain, and it's somebody behind a desk at the JF. Very clever...and effective. Had they not overplayed their hand with the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch, it might even have worked.

I'm against most gun bans because people should be able to defend themselves from criminals. However, I don't think that people should be allowed to buy any gun... some of them are best left to the military. I also think that anyone who owns a gun must have a certificate of training in its use, just like drivers' licenses.

those other things aren't designed to kill (or at the very least, they're not designed to cause serious bodily harm)
Your point being?

Why not? When the Bill of Rights was written the average person's rifle was equivalent to the average soldier's rifle. Why shouldn't that be true today?
Well, I think that the average soldier's requirements have increased much more than the average civilian's requirements.

I'm against most gun bans because people should be able to defend themselves from criminals. However, I don't think that people should be allowed to buy any gun... some of them are best left to the military. I also think that anyone who owns a gun must have a certificate of training in its use, just like drivers' licenses.


Your point being?


Well, I think that the average soldier's requirements have increased much more than the average civilian's requirements.



Here's the thing, people CAN'T buy any gun. If it is select fire or Full Auto, the FFA 1934 bans it. Yup banned since 1934. You have to have a Federal Firearms License III to get Full Auto or select Fire weapons, and you have to keep an inventory of said weapons and the BATF comes by randomly to do an Inventory and make sure none have disappeared.

And a Semi-Auto Rifle isn't that special. And is useful for hunting and yes you CAN hunt a deer with an AK-47(Semi-only). The 7.62x39mm round should be fairely effective.

The difference betweeen say a Ruger Mini-14, Ruger Mini-30 an M-1 Garand, Springfield M-1A and more modern assault weapons is just Cosmetic. Modern Military Weapons have a Pistol grip, So what? They have a Bayonet Lug, again so what? when was the last time someone committed a crime with a Bayonet Tipped Rifle? They have a muzzelbrake/Flash Supressor. YOu can still see the flash trust me, doesn't really do much. They have a Foregrip? big friggin deal. Oh a Folding stock, yes it makes them more conealable but with all this other junk on them thats banned that makes it harder.

BTW, how many Euros on board to day would mind if we pulled all of our troops out of Europe? You guys can take care of yourselves, right? Save us money, and you EU guys will take care of anything popping up over there? Sound good?
Go and really do that right now. It is not the ideal situation if a foreign "machine of violence" resides on the soil of a sovereign country.

Better yet, USA could get out of NATO.

Wrong. Read the Federalist Papers by the founding fathers.

Care to explain where the Federalist Papers address the Second Amendment?

(Hint: They don't. The Amendment didn't even exist when the Federalist Papers were written.)

I have done several informal surveys on incarcerated felons, to whom I have unfettered access, and to a man, the only thing they fear is an armed civilian.
On the other hand, the 2nd Amendment is clear, and protects our rights to keep and bear arms, and in its context, specifically military arms, to which Miller vs US would have overturned NFA '34, IF anyone had bothered to show up to defend Miller. Brits depend on cameras, and unarmed police. Americans depend on themselves, mostly. CNN reported over a year ago that people are more likely to be violently assaulted in London than anywhere in the US.
Gun control is all about control, and nothing about firearms.

If you don't like out freedoms, please, do not visit.
BTW, how many Euros on board to day would mind if we pulled all of our troops out of Europe? You guys can take care of yourselves, right? Save us money, and you EU guys will take care of anything popping up over there? Sound good?

LOL.

I'm not even going there, but I can't stop giggling.

You need to register your car (which does serve a practical purpose as well as being extremely accident-prone) and you need to be a certain age and get a licence to drive it.
I don't see why the same legislation shouldn't apply to guns.
Me either. In fact, I WANT a single, nationwide set of gun laws modeled on automobile ownership. {Yep, once again I get to post this nice little article I did back during the Clinton years... not that anyone will listen this time either.}

License & Registration Please?

Perhaps it's time to call their bluff.

In his state of disunion show President Clinton, that famous duck hunter, once again voiced the anti-gun mantra of "why don't we treat guns like cars..." and this time I think we in the pro gun community should take heed. I mean this only half factiously. Really.

The President has said, "Should people ought to have to register guns like they register their cars? Do I think that? Of Course I do...", and this time proposed a national “drivers license” (picture ID and all) for gun owners.

Hello! We have been given an absolutely splendid opportunity to stand up to the anti-freedom crowd and CALL THEIR BLUFF. We should take them up on their leader's offer (especially since it will only get shot down – by their side no less) and show the world once and for all how meaningless (and un-thought-out) their anti-gun talking points are.
Let's look at their "Guns = Cars" proposal not as another rights infringement, but (potentially) as a liberalization of the already oppressive gun control system and turn it back in their face. How so? Examine what Driver's licensing & vehicle registration truly entails.

Drivers Licenses.
1: Drivers Licenses are Shall Issue permits with universal reciprocity, requiring only a basic knowledge of safe handling and use regulations.
2: Licenses are NOT required for purchase of a vehicle.
3: Licenses are NOT required for off (public) road use, i.e. agricultural use (farms/farm roads), racetracks, private land, USFS/BIA/BLM dirt trails etc.
4: Drivers education / auto safety classes are MANDATORY in many public school districts.

Vehicle Registration:
1: Registration of a motor vehicle is NOT required unless said vehicle is to be USED on public roads. Custom/show cars, racecars, farm equipment, antiques are exempt unless they are to be commonly USED on public roadways. If I am towing a '32 roadster (or ’99 dragster) through town, I cannot be cited for its' lack of registration.
2: Registration of vehicles exceeding "fleet" quantities is not required. I may maintain as many unregistered vehicles on my private property as I desire (provided they do not constitute an "eyesore" or some such other visibly property-devaluing neighborhood gripe.)
3: Registration and extra taxation of High Performance vehicles is NOT required, unless they are to be used on public roads. A 13,000 hp Pratt & Whitney Jet Car (which has no "practical" or "sporting" use) may be owned and kept, unregistered, alongside a VW powered off-road-only dune buggy, and used in non-public spaces with impunity.

Law enforcement of DMV rules:
As we know, there are literally thousands of people out there driving without a license. The only time they get punished is if they are caught violating some other driving law (i.e. causing harm to or endangering another’s person or property). Vehicle registration is somewhat easier to spot, as registration is denoted by a sticker of some sort, visible while the vehicle is in use. (Someone sees you use it without a tag, you get a ticket.)

This is all well understood and simple enough, so, let's apply this exact legal paradigm to guns, on a national level, as the panderer in chief (and others) say they want.

“Gun” Licenses: Gun owners would "get":
1: A genuinely nationally reciprocal, truly "shall-issue" concealed carry license. Now, while everyone hates DoL and the Licensing dept., you can't say they just arbitrarily deny licenses (as some "authorizing agencies" for CCW permits have done.) Only a basic knowledge of safe handling and use regulations would be required.
2: Licenses would NOT be required for purchase of a gun.
3: Licenses would NOT be required for non-urban public land use, i.e. agricultural use (hunting/varmint control), ranges, private land, USFS/BIA/BLM hunting areas etc.
4: True gun safety could be taught in schools, not just anti-gun rhetoric.

“Registration” DMV style… Gun owners would “get”:
1: A Licensing & registration system that is useful (to the government) only after the fact, i.e. after the shooting stops (ignoring for the moment the fact of door-to-door tracking and confiscation – see California and NYC).

Registration of a firearm would NOT be required unless said firearm is to be USED in a public place. Custom/show guns, race-guns, long-arms or side arms, antiques, etc would be exempt unless they are to be commonly USED in public.

2: A DMV style registration system would deny “arsenal” registration rhetoric just as it currently does not apply to off-road “fleets”.
3: Removal of the National Firearms Act (1934) provisions against Class III (high performance/ specialized) weapons. If guns were to be treated as cars, the substantial similarity rules would apply. Just as "High Performance" or specialty vehicles are not restricted, except in their place of use (not on public roads), neither then could the law be justified in restricting the possession of "high performance" (Class III) firearms.

Law Enforcement:
Like Cars, so Guns. It can be truthfully stated that a gun in my possession, regardless of type, in a public place, is NOT being USED, only carried (much like towing a dragster), and therefore it need not be registered nor I licensed. However, should I use that firearm in said public place without License and Registration, I may be subject to penalty upon the assured following inquest … (to be judged by twelve) … perhaps.

Herein we see another potential benefit to "DMV style" gun laws... the principle of reasonable justification and good-Samaritan laws. I may speed, drive an unregistered car, drive without a license, etc in the commission of a life saving act. Judges and juries routinely throw out charges (if charges are even filed) of "rule violation" in such cases. Similar dismissals have obtained (and will continue to obtain) for many “rule violations” of current gun laws. Criminals would obviously receive no such benefit.

Admittedly, this “DMV-ing” argument plays into the Rights vs. Privileges debate, however, it has similarly been argued (with some precedent setting success) that motor vehicle ownership has grown from a privilege to a Right within today's society. (If motor vehicle ownership is now a Right (guaranteed nowhere) then how much more so is gun ownership?)

A dose of Reality:
You and I know that my “best-case” writing of a “motor-vehicle” style of registration & licensing scheme would never be allowed, for precisely the benefits I’ve mentioned. That’s probably a good thing. A Right regulated is a Right denied. (There are NO (non-federal) firearm possession/carry restrictions for the law abiding in Vermont. Theirs is a true right to bear arms.) But it sure would be fun to throw it in the face of the anti-gun establishment and watch them be forced to dump one of their longest standing talking points.

Oh well. Fight the good fight & keep your powder dry.

Happy?

LOL.

I'm not even going there, but I can't stop giggling.

I'm still giggling over this one:

... a gun is just made to shoot iron bullets in to a man's flesh and harm/kill him that way.

Iron bullets... what are we doing, shooting Elves? :rolleyes:

Bottomline: If you try to take my guns, I will shoot you. any questions?:mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :sniper: :sniper:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=466670
Let's see. The single most intensly controled enviornment on the planet and the badguys still get guns. Oh yeah. Gun Control works.
Why have the anti-Gun bigots not answered this? If the government they worship can't keep guns (or drugs for that matter) out of prison, how can they expect their Gods to keep them out of polite society.
For the same reason no one has ever been able to counter my argument about the ease of producing fully automatic weapons ( http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10356672&postcount=94 )

It's because it's an argument they can't win.

Care to explain where the Federalist Papers address the Second Amendment?

(Hint: They don't. The Amendment didn't even exist when the Federalist Papers were written.)

I never said they did CT. I was respondig to this statement:

"No, you have firearms as a militia to defend yourself against foreign aggressors by helping the army. Everything else was interpreted into that afterwards."

The Federalist papers make several mentions of self-defense and protection against an abusive gov't as other purposes of the "militia".

Bottomline: If you try to take my guns, I will shoot you. any questions?:mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :sniper: :sniper:

Bottom line, you are stupid. You can's fight them if you are dead. Let them take away your "legal" guns, then go make some nice "illegal" ones they can't trace before joining the resistance. ;)

Bottom line, you are stupid. You can's fight them if you are dead. Let them take away your "legal" guns, then go make some nice "illegal" ones they can't trace before joining the resistance. ;)
Never, it is my right to own legal guns and if they take them from me, it will be from my cold dead hands!!

LOL.

I'm not even going there, but I can't stop giggling.

While some of it is stretching, you have to admit that Miller was found not guilty at both the local and appelate levels and that there was NO defendant present at the SCOTUS hearings.

As it was found that a sawed off shotgun was "not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.", a defense could have pointed out that short barreled shotguns WERE in fact in use by the US military.

While some of it is stretching, you have to admit that Miller was found not guilty at both the local and appelate levels and that there was NO defendant present at the SCOTUS hearings.

As it was found that a sawed off shotgun was "not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.", a defense could have pointed out that short barreled shotguns WERE in fact in use by the US military.
Also, I find it interesting that the general "penumbra" of Miller suggests that far form being somthing that is bad, military "assault weapons" are specifically what the 2nd amendment protects, and since sawed-off shotguns aren't "military enough" they aren't protected.

SO, I get to keep my .45 and my M16, but have to turn in my Marlin .45-70 lever gun. Go figure. ;)

I would like to ban guns but it's taken to strong of a place in American culture for that to work. It would fail misserably.

I would like to ban guns but it's taken to strong of a place in American culture for that to work. It would fail misserably.
It would fail simply because it is a physical impossibility.

While it is theoretically possible that given enough time a government could confiscate & destroy the 80million+ guns in the US, it could not be done before the revolution began.

It would require generations of slow recovery & destruction to avoid outright rebellion, and that would not keep the guns out of the hands of criminals.

Quite simply, it is an impossibility. Not that anti-choice people won't try, it just won't work.

There are about 2 million Muslims in the UK. A few hundred (let's say a thousand, for the sake of argument) were at the (I hate Danish cartoons) demonstration in London - that means that 1,999,000 - 99.95% - chose not to take part in it. We have to stop judging whole groups by the actions of a few; otherwise this insane sectarian divide is going to get far worse and far more dangerous.
Why does this argument work for Muslims but not US Gun Owners?

I'm genuinely curious. :confused:

Why does this argument work for Muslims but not US Gun Owners?

I'm genuinely curious. :confused:

great point...has me baffled as well...guess gun rights aren't pc enough,but burning embassies over cartoons is ok?

as far as the second amendment goes....if i could afford it,i should be able to buy a tank.

now if i commit a crime with said tank...then punish me,but if i want to pay for the pleasure,and not hurt anyone...who's biz is it?

p.s.i have an ak...a clone..bulgarian sa-93,somehow made it from bulgaria to the u.s,as would any gun that is banned..sorta the same thing as drugs...if there is a need,someone wil fill it!

as an aside....why the hell does someone i have never met,doesn't know me at all..have the right to tell me how or when i can defend myself?

thats the gun control debate in a nutshell...some one far removed from my world,dictating how i can protect myself...to make them feel safer!

NO THANKS!

i dont want nor need a nanny,and i would never presume to dictate your life...so don't try to dictate mine and we will get along swimmingly.


by the way...gun control is being able to hit your target!:sniper:

Why not? When the Bill of Rights was written the average person's rifle was equivalent to the average soldier's rifle. Why shouldn't that be true today?
When the Bill of Rights was written only the super-rich could get a high-quality gun anyway. Most were inconvenient muskets, that until Eli Whitney's discovery of interchangeable parts, were also far from cheap.

Wrong. Read the Federalist Papers by the founding fathers.
So, you are basing this part of the argument on a pamphlet written only by self-serving Federalists? Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay weren't all of our Founding Fathers. They represent only the Federalist, and not the Anti-Federalist, points of view.

When the Bill of Rights was written only the super-rich could get a high-quality gun anyway. Most were inconvenient muskets, that until Eli Whitney's discovery of interchangeable parts, were also far from cheap.
BZZT!

Sorry, you lose this round. Please throw away Michael Bellasides' book and get some real history education.

I shoot "Traditional" black powder once a month. Even a smoothbore flintlock mucket can be combat accurate. A vintage Kentucky Long Rifle of the period is easily capable of 200+yd shots. I suggest you take a look at the National Muzzle Loading Rifle Association &/or check out the competitions they hold in Friendship Indiana. Tell me a smoothbore muzzleloader is inaccurate when you see a guy (or woman) consistantly cut playing cards in half - edge on - with a little round lead ball.

These were not "low quality" "Inconvenient" muskets. Were they expensive? Yeah, but not exceptionally more so than today's rifles in real dollars. What's more, they were highly valued tools, so people would save to own one - it meant Meat for the winter.

The most inaccurate firearms during the Revolutionary War were the British Brown Bess muskets - most of which were firing un-patched grossly undersized balls (imagine emptying the shot from a shotgun shell and dropping a large but loose-fitting ball bearing into the shot cup, then trying to hit somthing with it.)

Frankly, if smoothbore flintlocks were so bad, why were they sold to, and used by, the Amerinds up until the early 1900's?

BZZT!

Sorry, you lose this round. Please throw away Michael Bellasides' book and get some real history education.

I shoot "Traditional" black powder once a month. Even a smoothbore flintlock mucket can be combat accurate. A vintage Kentucky Long Rifle of the period is easily capable of 200+yd shots. I suggest you take a look at the National Muzzle Loading Rifle Association &/or check out the competitions they hold in Friendship Indiana. Tell me a smoothbore muzzleloader is inaccurate when you see a guy (or woman) consistantly cut playing cards in half - edge on - with a little round lead ball.

These were not "low quality" "Inconvenient" muskets. Were they expensive? Yeah, but not exceptionally more so than today's rifles in real dollars. What's more, they were highly valued tools, so people would save to own one - it meant Meat for the winter.

The most inaccurate firearms during the Revolutionary War were the British Brown Bess muskets - most of which were firing un-patched grossly undersized balls (imagine emptying the shot from a shotgun shell and dropping a large but loose-fitting ball bearing into the shot cup, then trying to hit somthing with it.)

Frankly, if smoothbore flintlocks were so bad, why were they sold to, and used by, the Amerinds up until the early 1900's?

1. I never said anything about inaccuracy. I was rather ambiguous.

2. They took a LOOONNNGG time to load. In war, 10-20 seconds, the fastest it got, could kill-exactly why the British had been used to Napoleonic techniques, and why the Americans won. The users of Napoleonic tactics had made a silent accord to fight in a civilized manner, to make it fair. The Americans were smarter and decided they could win if they could shoot using guerrilla tactics (of course they didn't call it that).

3. I never once mentioned range.

4. They were of low-quality. They backfired on occasion and often stung the user with light burns.

5. A professional gunsmith usually made it. That took a long time, and the gunsmith charged accordingly.

6. Who is Michael Bellasides?

7. (assumptions right here, but oh well) Cut a card in half with what...years of training? A good gun shouldn't take a decade to learn to shoot accurately with.

8. Amerindians did not favor the smoothbore flintlocks for that long; they just used them.

9. It was once again futile to bring in the point about the British guns.

10. People had to save up for a very long time to get a good musket. It didn't always pay off.

11. why are you assuming what I meant by high-quality? I never told you!

Sorry, your plan backfired.

So, you are basing this part of the argument on a pamphlet written only by self-serving Federalists? Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay weren't all of our Founding Fathers. They represent only the Federalist, and not the Anti-Federalist, points of view.

And you're basing this part of the arguement on ...... what? Can you source an "Anti-Federalist" POV that opposes mine?

BTW: The Federalist Papers were more than "a pamphlet". They were a series of 85 essays published in various papers in 1787 and '88 that are used as the primary source for the interpretation of the Constitution.

Here, I'll even give you a link:

http://www.wepin.com/articles/afp/index.htm

When the Bill of Rights was written only the super-rich could get a high-quality gun anyway. Most were inconvenient muskets, that until Eli Whitney's discovery of interchangeable parts, were also far from cheap.

Eli Whitney did not "discover" interchangable parts. They were used by French gunsmiths and the concept was brought over to the US by Jefferson who effectively created the US firearms industry.

Synik's point of the British were that the "average soldiers" weapon was not of the highest quality therefore making your arguement of "high quality guns" to be a misnomer. The firearms used by the Military are not of the "highest quality either.

1. I never said anything about inaccuracy. I was rather ambiguous.Ambiguity in a debate is useful how?
2. They took a LOOONNNGG time to load. In war, 10-20 seconds, the fastest it got, could kill-exactly why the British had been used to Napoleonic techniques, and why the Americans won.Reload times are relatively immaterial with aimed fire and equivilant reload times. Which is why the Colonists won.
3. I never once mentioned range.

4. They were of low-quality. They backfired on occasion and often stung the user. Again, shows how much you know. Even modern flintlocks using modern metals can "backfire". It's almost expected. As long as it doesn't explode, detting a face full of soot & prming-pan embers is part of the game.
5. A professional gunsmith usually made it. That took a long time, and the gunsmith charged accordingly.So? A professional Wright made your wagon too. What's your point?

6. Who is Michael Bellasides?A largely debunked agenda-driven idiot who tried to "prove" there were few firearms in the colonies by looking at probate data - which he promptly lost and was not able to recover.
7. (assumptions right here, but oh well) Cut a card in half with what...years of training? A good gun shouldn't take a decade to learn to shoot accurately with. It doesn't. That's why guns eventually beat out the Long Bow. Come try it some time.
8. Amerindians did not favor the smoothbore flintlocks for that long; they just used them.He who controls the ammunition supply controls your army. Flintlock muskets require only flint, powder and lead - no manufacturing base required for consumables. What better way to arm a mobile irregular force? The flintlocks were used to get cartridge weapons and ammunition - which were used until the ammunition ran out and then discarded.
9. It was once again futile to bring in the point about the British guns.Why?
10. People had to save up for a very long time to get a good musket. It didn't always pay off.So?

11. why are you assuming what I meant by high-quality? I never told you!Then it had no merit in the discussion and should not have been brought up.[/quote]
Sorry, your plan backfired.
And yet, I hit the target all the same.

1. I never said anything about inaccuracy. I was rather ambiguous.

2. They took a LOOONNNGG time to load. In war, 10-20 seconds, the fastest it got, could kill-exactly why the British had been used to Napoleonic techniques, and why the Americans won. The users of Napoleonic tactics had made a silent accord to fight in a civilized manner, to make it fair. The Americans were smarter and decided they could win if they could shoot using guerrilla tactics (of course they didn't call it that).

3. I never once mentioned range.

4. They were of low-quality. They backfired on occasion and often stung the user with light burns.

5. A professional gunsmith usually made it. That took a long time, and the gunsmith charged accordingly.

6. Who is Michael Bellasides?

7. (assumptions right here, but oh well) Cut a card in half with what...years of training? A good gun shouldn't take a decade to learn to shoot accurately with.

8. Amerindians did not favor the smoothbore flintlocks for that long; they just used them.

9. It was once again futile to bring in the point about the British guns.

10. People had to save up for a very long time to get a good musket. It didn't always pay off.

11. why are you assuming what I meant by high-quality? I never told you!

Sorry, your plan backfired.


ok on point two.

The Continental Army was actually able to FIGHT the british once Baron von Stueben showed them Prussian Drill. The American army learned something that it lacked. Discipline and how to fight as an army. We used some Guerilla tactics yes, but you don't win a war with Guerilla tactics you win it conventionally. All sucsesful Guerilla wars become conventional wars.

We won the war because of French and Dutch Intervention. If they hadn't been fighting Britain in Europe, Britain could have spent more money to keep figting in America. And if we hadn't received funds from those nations we couldn't have fought on for very much longer.

Visit Kennesaw, GA where home owners are required to own firearms.

This isn't some hick town. It's the suburbs of Atlanta, Cobb County has over 700,000 people.

http://www.mcsm.org/kennesaw.html
http://www.weathersdesign.com/seth/articles/fightcrime.htm

Visit Kennesaw, GA where home owners are required to own firearms.

This isn't some hick town. It's the suburbs of Atlanta, Cobb County has over 700,000 people.

http://www.mcsm.org/kennesaw.html
http://www.weathersdesign.com/seth/articles/fightcrime.htm
No, they're not. They are required to sign a waiver if they are fundamentally &/or religiously opposed to violence/self defense.

That's the difference between a pro-choice position and an anti-choice position. In anti-choice "gun free" zones, they don't allow anybody any options except to break the law - even to defend themselves.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain why the violence of less than 1% of Muslims is no reason to Challange Islam, yet the violence of less than 1% of gun owners is reason to BAN private possession.

So what? Guns aren't designed to be used in crime. They're not designed to be murder weapons any more than a bunch of parts from a hardware store, some Potassium Nitrate and sulfur from a chemistry set and some ground charcoal are designed to be used in a pipe bomb.

I don't see what design has to do with anything. It's the intent of the end user that counts. I've owned pistols for about ten years now. I've never shot anybody. A pistol in my hands is less of a risk to society than a set of car keys in many other people's hands.


Well, if you look at, say, most sub-machineguns, (let's say the tec-9 or the micro-uzi for example) those are designed purely to be used by civilians to kill or harm other civilians. They have no use in hunting, due to lack of range and accuracy, and the same goes for military use. The only thing they are good for, is allowing the civilian armed with it to cause as much damage as possible to other civilians in a very short amount of time. There is absolutely no reason for anyone to own such a firearm, apart from criminal purposes.
That's at least one reason why gun gontrol is a very good thing.

Well, if you look at, say, most sub-machineguns, (let's say the tec-9 or the micro-uzi for example) those are designed purely to be used by civilians to kill or harm other civilians. They have no use in hunting, due to lack of range and accuracy, and the same goes for military use. The only thing they are good for, is allowing the civilian armed with it to cause as much damage as possible to other civilians in a very short amount of time. There is absolutely no reason for anyone to own such a firearm, apart from criminal purposes.
That's at least one reason why gun gontrol is a very good thing.


again. Tec-9's and Micro-Uzi's in their true form are illegal. And actually they are legitmately used by the Secret Service(they did for some time i don't know if they still do) and other plain clothes law enforcement services. Also sub-machine guns are typically used in the military by those who's primary job isn't combat. So yes there is uses for them there as well.

Well, if you look at, say, most sub-machineguns, (let's say the tec-9 or the micro-uzi for example) those are designed purely to be used by civilians to kill or harm other civilians.

The Tec-9 was designed for civilians to kill more civilians. It's also a royal piece of shit that I wouldn't be caught dead with. Last time I checked, Kel-Tec, the makers of the Tec-9 were all but bankrupt.

The Micro-Uzi was designed by IMI for Israeli Special Forces, Israeli police and SWAT teams, and VIP protection.

They have no use in hunting, due to lack of range and accuracy, and the same goes for military use.

Which explains why SWAT teams and special forces operators so often choose to use SMGs. Oh, and I don't know when the last time you watched a movie or played a game set during WWII, but you'll see a lot of soldiers running around with subguns.

The only thing they are good for, is allowing the civilian armed with it to cause as much damage as possible to other civilians in a very short amount of time.

Which coincidentally makes them very good for Spec Ops, SWAT, and VIP protection.

There is absolutely no reason for anyone to own such a firearm, apart from criminal purposes.

Tell me that again when someone with a gun saves your ass from a criminal who:

A-Was a felon and shouldn't have been allowed to purchase the gun
B-Bought a gun that was already illegal

That's at least one reason why gun gontrol is a very good thing.

Stop painting with a broad brush and you'll see the light.

Well, if you look at, say, most sub-machineguns, (let's say the tec-9 or the micro-uzi for example) those are designed purely to be used by civilians to kill or harm other civilians. They have no use in hunting, due to lack of range and accuracy, and the same goes for military use. The only thing they are good for, is allowing the civilian armed with it to cause as much damage as possible to other civilians in a very short amount of time. There is absolutely no reason for anyone to own such a firearm, apart from criminal purposes.
That's at least one reason why gun gontrol is a very good thing.

And since those are already heavily regulated and there are very few people who argue for that to be overturned, it makes little sense to bring it up.

What most have issues w/ are the attempts to ban everything else for a variety of reasons and mandate practices that would make it effectively impossible for most people to own a firearm.

As a progressive/leftist/'liberal' who does not believe in gun control, I just want to say thanks to all the people who have argued in this thread against gun control for not making any generalisations about leftists and gun control.

As a leftist, I believe that an armed populace would and does act as a deterrent to right wing dictatorships. Just like an armed populace acts as a deterrent to a left wing dictatorship.

As a progressive/leftist/'liberal' who does not believe in gun control, I just want to say thanks to all the people who have argued in this thread against gun control for not making any generalisations about leftists and gun control.

As a leftist, I believe that an armed populace would and does act as a deterrent to right wing dictatorships. Just like an armed populace acts as a deterrent to a left wing dictatorship.
See Margaret Atwood's "A Handmaid's Tale".

Really, Gun control isn't about guns, it's about Control. Fear the Government that wants to Control you whether from the Right or Left.

I like gun control...too bad I don't have any. The last time I fired a gun, well not really the last time but I'll explain later, was when I was 8 years old.

I did get another chance to fire guns a couple months ago with my brother and one of his friends. My aim was a little off. :(

See Margaret Atwood's "A Handmaid's Tale".

Really, Gun control isn't about guns, it's about Control. Fear the Government that wants to Control you whether from the Right or Left.

totally agree...thats the primary reason for the second amendment,not hunting or whatever..it's primary reason was to defend gainst a tyrannical gov. that over reaches its powers and starts trampling on it's citizens rights.

also,it is everyman or womens right to defend themselves...period...you only forfeit that right when you show that you are irresponsible or crimminal...and there are laws on the books that address that allready.

the whole argument that "guns like that have no sporting purposes" is hollow and fallacious,the intent of the 2nd has nothing to do with hunting or sporting guns.
it is an attempt by anti gun people to cloud the argument and lead the debate down a false path.

i am not so much" pro gun" as i am "anti victim"

i own a number of firearms,it is my duty as an american....yet i detest hunting,i have no problem with people hunting,it is a needed activity to control animal poulations,to keep the herds healthy due to human encroachment on their habitat.
yet i cant bring myself to kill an animal(i guess if i was starving i would hunt for food)but i am not,so i don't.

i enjoy shooting sports,and i enjoy firearms,yet even if i didn't,i'd probably have one or 2 around for self defence and to excersise my rights.

Well, I don't like guns, I wouldn't want one, they kill people and stuff.
BUT, something like the swiss system looks pretty good, it also ensures that the government can't become a tyrany, so that's a good thing.
I'm not sure, why is there no: "I don't know option?"

The simple fact is that if someone wants to kill you it really isn’t that hard. Guns are not required to kill, anything sharp will do. Swords, knives, sharp sticks and toothpicks have all been used to take life throughout human history (with the possible exception of toothpicks :D ). Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for gun control, but not for eliminating gun ownership. Believe it or not, killing instruments are what put humans at the top of the food chain and keep us there.

Personally, I was in the USMC infantry, so I know more about weapons than most people. I believe firmly that before someone can purchase a weapon they should have to go through a course and learn how to use it. Without proper training guns can be a real hazard, equivalent to driving a car without ANY instruction. However, we should face facts, not everyone is capable of owning a firearm. I know more than a few people who can’t be trusted with scissors, much less an instrument of war.

I don't feel like adding Ambiguity in a debate is useful how?

To get the other guy into a trap.

Reload times are relatively immaterial with aimed fire and equivilant reload times. Which is why the Colonists won.

Reload times were nevertheless important.

Again, shows how much you know. Even modern flintlocks using modern metals can "backfire". It's almost expected. As long as it doesn't explode, detting a face full of soot & prming-pan embers is part of the game.

I admit you've won here.

So? A professional Wright made your wagon too. What's your point?

Wagons were expensive.

A largely debunked agenda-driven idiot who tried to "prove" there were few firearms in the colonies by looking at probate data - which he promptly lost and was not able to recover.

Thanks.

It doesn't. That's why guns eventually beat out the Long Bow. Come try it some time.

The longbow had been abandoned by most besides the British after the crossbow come along, and then the rest of the people who could used it succesfully after the advent of the crossbow gave it up much before the spectrum of time we're looking at anyway.

He who controls the ammunition supply controls your army. Flintlock muskets require only flint, powder and lead - no manufacturing base required for consumables. What better way to arm a mobile irregular force? The flintlocks were used to get cartridge weapons and ammunition - which were used until the ammunition ran out and then discarded.

What does that have to do with anything?

Why?

Because that has nothing to do with this.

So?

They weren't as useful as you mentioned.

Then it had no merit in the discussion and should not have been brought up.

Actually, it proves that you assumed things.

I don't feel like adding

The Longbow was superior to the crossbow. Try reading up on Agincourt or the war of the Roses.

The only thing you've "proven" is that you have very little knowledge of history.

Eli Whitney did not "discover" interchangable parts. They were used by French gunsmiths and the concept was brought over to the US by Jefferson who effectively created the US firearms industry.

Synik's point of the British were that the "average soldiers" weapon was not of the highest quality therefore making your arguement of "high quality guns" to be a misnomer. The firearms used by the Military are not of the "highest quality either.

Fine, he popularized it. Now are ya happy?

And also, this isn't something you can connect to modern times and the modern military. High-quality guns does not mean "of the highest possible quality". It means that they are good and dependable, and it cannot be compared to the standard because it is not a comparison.

ok on point two.

The Continental Army was actually able to FIGHT the british once Baron von Stueben showed them Prussian Drill. The American army learned something that it lacked. Discipline and how to fight as an army. We used some Guerilla tactics yes, but you don't win a war with Guerilla tactics you win it conventionally. All sucsesful Guerilla wars become conventional wars.

We won the war because of French and Dutch Intervention. If they hadn't been fighting Britain in Europe, Britain could have spent more money to keep figting in America. And if we hadn't received funds from those nations we couldn't have fought on for very much longer.

Even though you make that post seem contradictory to mine, if you think about it, its not.

The beginning of the war, which was largely but not mostly fought using guerrilla tactics, kind of gave the soldiers a bit of morale to prepare themselves. The end of the war did not have nearly as much in guerilla tactics, but the beginning and ends of a war are equally important.

And yes, the French and Dutch troops, funding, and navies were fundamental to the winning of the war, but so were so many other things. The use of the occasional unconventional technique was one of these.

Massive diffrence

A gun is a tool used specificly to kill, damage or destroy. It has no other purpose.

A spoon is used to feed. It doesnt specify what however.

Its perfectly easy to eat without a spoon. Its a lot harder to kill without a gun

Guns are dangerous and should be controled. Public ownership should be out of the question. Just look at the UK. We are not allowed to own guns in public. We have a 14 times lower murder rate per 1000 than America


Are you a retard??? a gun's sole purpose is to make a hole. It doesn't care what it makes a hole in, but it sure has hell is gonna make one. The only thing that matters is the intent of the person wielding the gun. I own two pistols and if anyone breaks into my house, i'm going to make a hole.

Fine, he popularized it. Now are ya happy?

And also, this isn't something you can connect to modern times and the modern military. High-quality guns does not mean "of the highest possible quality". It means that they are good and dependable, and it cannot be compared to the standard because it is not a comparison.

You're the one that made the comparison in reply to DCD's statement by remearking on "high quality weapons".

Why can't you connect it to modern military. Technology has changed yet the Militia remains. SCOTUS has remarked that it should use firearms equivalent to the military.

"High Quality" also doesn't have to mean unbeleivabley expensive. I have several firearms I got on the cheap that are very "good and dependable" w/o the bells and whistles.

The Longbow was superior to the crossbow. Try reading up on Agincourt or the war of the Roses.

The only thing you've "proven" is that you have very little knowledge of history.
I never said the longbow wasn't superior to the crossbow. It could be fired in barrages at a very high range. I just said the Britain was one of the very few countries that could use it succesfully ever since it was adopted by Edward Longshanks. The crossbow was not exactly inferior, but it was not as devastating as the longbow.
All you've proven are your poor debate skills.

Fine, he popularized it. Now are ya happy?

And also, this isn't something you can connect to modern times and the modern military. High-quality guns does not mean "of the highest possible quality". It means that they are good and dependable, and it cannot be compared to the standard because it is not a comparison.

Yeah, when using military equipment, it's always good to keep in mind that it was made by the lowest bidder

I never said the longbow wasn't superior to the crossbow. It could be fired in barrages at a very high range. I just said the Britain was one of the very few countries that could use it succesfully ever since it was adopted by Edward Longshanks. The crossbow was not exactly inferior, but it was not as devastating as the longbow.
All you've proven are your poor debate skills.

Source it.

You've yet to prove anything. Found those "anti-federalist" quotes yet?

You're the one that made the comparison in reply to DCD's statement by remearking on "high quality weapons".

Why can't you connect it to modern military. Technology has changed yet the Militia remains. SCOTUS has remarked that it should use firearms equivalent to the military.

"High Quality" also doesn't have to mean unbeleivabley expensive. I have several firearms I got on the cheap that are very "good and dependable" w/o the bells and whistles.
In language arts (sorry I had to drag another topic in), a superlative or comparative is a comparison, but "high", which is neither, is not a comparison.
And back then a high-quality gun was considered a luxury for many people. In the modern military, technology makes a different kind of difference.

In language arts (sorry I had to drag another topic in), a superlative or comparative is a comparison, but "high", which is neither, is not a comparison.

That's nice.


And back then a high-quality gun was considered a luxury for many people. In the modern military, technology makes a different kind of difference.

Source it. You still haven't defined "high quality" besides being "expensive" and "good and dependable" when I've already shown that an inexpensive firearm can still be "good and dependable".

What "different kind of difference"?

Source it.

You've yet to prove anything. Found those "anti-federalist" quotes yet?
Tell me what to source. Also, please source where it says that the longbow was better than the crossbow in most military engagements.

And I also never said I had anything to say about Anti-Federalists. They probably had few views on guns anyway. I just said it was biased to only include the opinions of one party. If you could show me an at least superficially bipartisan document besides the Second Amendment, then I would believe, perhaps even convert over to what you're arguing for.

Tell me what to source. Also, please source where it says that the longbow was better than the crossbow in most military engagements.

Source anything you've said. Ialready told you to read up on Agincourt for the effectiveness of Longbows to crossbows.

And I also never said I had anything to say about Anti-Federalists. They probably had few views on guns anyway. I just said it was biased to only include the opinions of one party. If you could show me an at least superficially bipartisan document besides the Second Amendment, then I would believe, perhaps even convert over to what you're arguing for.

Now you're lying:

So, you are basing this part of the argument on a pamphlet written only by self-serving Federalists? Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay weren't all of our Founding Fathers. They represent only the Federalist, and not the Anti-Federalist, points of view.

Now guess which our gov't is primarily based on? That's right, the Federalists. Just because you dismiss it makes it no less valid.

BTW, if you had even bothered to read the links I posted, they have quite a bit to say opposing federal/gov't control of the Militia => leading to the individual rights interpretation.

That's nice.

Source it. You still haven't defined "high quality" besides being "expensive" and "good and dependable" when I've already shown that an inexpensive firearm can still be "good and dependable".

What "different kind of difference"?
Just be patient and wait about half an hour for me to find a source.

My fantasy definition was what I was going to bring in, but I guess my own fantasy world has no laws of physics...

So, my definition does not include a REQUIREMENT of being expensive, but, is instead, a firearm with greater than average range and accuracy for the time, that can either be reloaded quickly or sparingly, or even better, both, and can take very little time to learn how to use properly and with reasonable accuracy. It was usually hard to find one of these that was not expensive, though possible nevertheless.

I support gun control to a reasonable extent. While the Bill of Rights ensures the right to bear arms, I don't think the average citizen should be able to, say, go to the store, and buy an M-4.

I AGREE. THE BILL OF RIGHTS DOS SAY WEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, BUT THEN AGEN, IF EVERONE HAD A GUN THERED BE LESS DEATH FROM GUN'S. ILL EXPLANESAY EVERYONE AROUND THE WORLD HAD A GUN ON THEM AT ALL TIMES, WOULD YOU SHOOT, NO WHY BECAUSE OF FEAR, PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO GET SHOT SO IF THEY SE YOU SHOOT SOMEONE THERE GOING TO SHOOT BACK, THINK OF IT AS IF SOMONE MISSES WITH THERE SNIPPER, THERE GOING TO GET SHOT AT BY THE GUY THAT HEARS IT OR WAS GETTING SNIPPED AT.THE ONLY REASON WE NEED GUNS IS BEACAUSE THERE ARE GUNS.:mp5: :sniper: :gundge: :mp5: :sniper: :gundge: LORD ZOOM OUT!!:D

The Longbow was superior to the crossbow. Try reading up on Agincourt or the war of the Roses.

The only thing you've "proven" is that you have very little knowledge of history.

The funny thing is that plenty of recent research points to the fact that the effectiveness of the long bow was very likely overstated at Agincourt.

"In the end, almost 6,000 French lay dead, while the English lost only 400. And even though the battle of Agincourt has become the stuff of legend, many historians now agree that it wasn't the longbow, English resolve, or French blunders which brought Henry victory - but simple mud. For more French died from asphyxiation as they sank deep into the mud than from English weapons."

http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/thehundredyearswar/a/agincourt.htm

http://www.crowddynamics.com/Battlefield%20Detectives/Agincourt.htm

I don't disagree with the assertion that the long bow was in many ways superior to the crossbow, but the battle of Agincourt is very weak evidence in the argument.

Now guess which our gov't is primarily based on? That's right, the Federalists. Just because you dismiss it makes it no less valid.

BTW, if you had even bothered to read the links I posted, they have quite a bit to say opposing federal/gov't control of the Militia => leading to the individual rights interpretation.

So what you're trying to say is that most of our government was made by the Federalists? The Constitution, though the idea of the Federalists, was molded over and over by a series of compromises between both parties. And the Bill of Rights was definitely supported by Anti-Federalists. In the original post, I never once mentioned that the Anti-Federalists held strong views on gun control. I just said that it would be wrong to propose a biased view on this kind of thing.

And I can't source that crossbowmen were better than longbowmen at Agincourt because: 1) I never said they were better, and 2) The fight was more of men-at-arms/heavy cavalry on the French and men-at-arms/archers on the British sides.

To prove it: http://www.geocities.com/beckster05/Agincourt/AgBattle.html

And to prove that neither longbows or crossbows could be considered better, I present to you this: Why did most of Europe switch to the crossbow or arbalest as their weapon of choice while it was mostly the British who stuck with the longbow?

The funny thing is that plenty of recent research points to the fact that the effectiveness of the long bow was very likely overstated at Agincourt.

"In the end, almost 6,000 French lay dead, while the English lost only 400. And even though the battle of Agincourt has become the stuff of legend, many historians now agree that it wasn't the longbow, English resolve, or French blunders which brought Henry victory - but simple mud. For more French died from asphyxiation as they sank deep into the mud than from English weapons."

http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/thehundredyearswar/a/agincourt.htm

http://www.crowddynamics.com/Battlefield%20Detectives/Agincourt.htm

I don't disagree with the assertion that the long bow was in many ways superior to the crossbow, but the battle of Agincourt is very weak evidence in the argument.


There were quite a few battles that are generally reffered to as "Agincourt". The results were similar. The crossbow does not have the range, rate of fire, or power at range of the Longbow so it allowed the lightly armored British to fire from a range the French could not match.

There was also the War of the Roses that had a rate of fire unequaled until the development of the machinegun.

So what you're trying to say is that most of our government was made by the Federalists? The Constitution, though the idea of the Federalists, was molded over and over by a series of compromises between both parties. And the Bill of Rights was definitely supported by Anti-Federalists. In the original post, I never once mentioned that the Anti-Federalists held strong views on gun control. I just said that it would be wrong to propose a biased view on this kind of thing.

And as of yet you've been able to show no other viewpoint.

And I can't source that crossbowmen were better than longbowmen at Agincourt because: 1) I never said they were better, and 2) The fight was more of men-at-arms/heavy cavalry on the French and men-at-arms/archers on the British sides.

To prove it: http://www.geocities.com/beckster05/Agincourt/AgBattle.html

And to prove that neither longbows or crossbows could be considered better, I present to you this: Why did most of Europe switch to the crossbow or arbalest as their weapon of choice while it was mostly the British who stuck with the longbow?

Most of Europe did not use longbows, they used shortbows.

Becuase it took less training to use and it was a primarily British weapon, since many had been raised using them, in comparison to the common short bows in use throughout the rest of Europe, little training was needed. The same reason as stated earlier why the musket replaced the longbow.

There were quite a few battles that are generally reffered to as "Agincourt". The results were similar.

There was also the War of the Roses that had a rate of fire unequaled until the development of the machinegun.


I agree with both of these points, but mostly just the first one. The War of the Roses...do you mean the long bow? Longbows had a great fire rate but mush of their extremely high power came from gravity, and it was most effective against heavily armored troops, but the crossbow was more powerful when used in certain situations.

Just an interesting article, has little to do with this, but may provide a bit of evidence for my point: http://www.wargames.co.uk/RandomS/Library/CBs&Arrows.htm

I agree with both of these points, but mostly just the first one. The War of the Roses...do you mean the long bow? Longbows had a great fire rate but mush of their extremely high power came from gravity, and it was most effective against heavily armored troops, but the crossbow was more powerful when used in certain situations.

Just an interesting article, has little to do with this, but may provide a bit of evidence for my point: http://www.wargames.co.uk/RandomS/Library/CBs&Arrows.htm


And some to prove mine:

http://www.longbow-archers.com/historycrecy.htm

And as of yet you've been able to show no other viewpoint.

Most of Europe did not use longbows, they used shortbows.

Becuase it took less training to use and it was a primarily British weapon, since many had been raised using them, in comparison to the common short bows in use throughout the rest of Europe, little training was needed. The same reason as stated earlier why the musket replaced the longbow.

Well, the American Bill of Rights (as opposed to the British one), an Anti-Federalist idea, has, as stated so many times over and over, guaranteed the right to bear arms. But as that could be interepreted many different ways, I'll get a better source...
http://www.guncite.com/journals/krealsym.html
This website touches the topic a few times, but remember, it's pretty long.

Shortbows were considered rather outdated after the crossbow was invented, especially because of the greater power of a crossbow.

I've been kind of busy, so I would be making any posts after this.

There were quite a few battles that are generally reffered to as "Agincourt". The results were similar. The crossbow does not have the range, rate of fire, or power at range of the Longbow so it allowed the lightly armored British to fire from a range the French could not match.

There was also the War of the Roses that had a rate of fire unequaled until the development of the machinegun.

The only battle of any significance that took place at Agincourt was October 25th 1415.

Well, the American Bill of Rights (as opposed to the British one), an Anti-Federalist idea, has, as stated so many times over and over, guaranteed the right to bear arms. But as that could be interepreted many different ways, I'll get a better source...
http://www.guncite.com/journals/krealsym.html
This website touches the topic a few times, but remember, it's pretty long.

Shortbows were considered rather outdated after the crossbow was invented, especially because of the greater power of a crossbow.

I've been kind of busy, so I would be making any posts after this.

And from that source:

II. The Second Amendment[17]

My position here, like that of virtually every other scholar who has recently addressed the issues, discomfits both extremes in the gun debate. Let me begin with the common denial by anti-gun advocates that the right to arms applies to individuals. They claim that the Second Amendment only guarantees states the right to armed militias. This position is not just wrong, but frivolous--something that no knowledgeable person can honestly argue in light of modern research.

True, both the American Bar Association and the ACLU endorse this frivolous states' right claim.[18] But scholarly research over the past fifteen years has destroyed what scant historical support it ever had. Among thirty-six law review articles addressing the Amendment since 1980, only four take the states' right position. Three of those articles were written by paid employees of anti-gun groups and the fourth by a politician. All four were presented in symposia after the anti-gun groups and/or individuals were invited to submit articles detailing their position.[19]

In striking contrast, numerous law review articles conclude that (p.360)the Second Amendment protects the individual's right to own guns.[20] This conclusion is also endorsed by outstanding liberal constitutional scholars like Akhil Amar, Sanford Levinson, and William Van Alstyne who do not own guns and neither expected nor desired that the historical evidence would force them into bed with the gun lobby.[21] I will note only three elements of that vast corpus of historical evidence which support my position.


and:

The Founders' belief in the social value (and sacred personal right) of bearing arms derived from the English philosophers Algernon Sidney and John Locke and the legal commentator William Blackstone. Blackstone ranked "arms for an [individual] defense" as a "natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."[34] Blackstone saw the right of individual gun ownership as preserving to England its (p.364)free government and to Englishmen their liberties.[35]




So, thank you. You just gave even more evidence to support my arguement.

The only battle of any significance that took place at Agincourt was October 25th 1415.

I understand that. In general though (and unfortunately) most people lump many of the 100 years war battles into "Agincourt" and I tend to do the same in general conversation even though I should know better.

Crecy is another fine example.

And some to prove mine:

http://www.longbow-archers.com/historycrecy.htm
Oh, and just so you know, that website doesn't work on my computer. It might be the same problem that I've had for months about SUN Java, but I doubt it...I'll need to fix it.

But from prior knowledge, I'm pretty sure but not certain that the battle was largely decided by longbowmen piercing the armor of the French knights and infantry, and had little to do with crossbows.

And from that source:

II. The Second Amendment[17]

My position here, like that of virtually every other scholar who has recently addressed the issues, discomfits both extremes in the gun debate. Let me begin with the common denial by anti-gun advocates that the right to arms applies to individuals. They claim that the Second Amendment only guarantees states the right to armed militias. This position is not just wrong, but frivolous--something that no knowledgeable person can honestly argue in light of modern research.

True, both the American Bar Association and the ACLU endorse this frivolous states' right claim.[18] But scholarly research over the past fifteen years has destroyed what scant historical support it ever had. Among thirty-six law review articles addressing the Amendment since 1980, only four take the states' right position. Three of those articles were written by paid employees of anti-gun groups and the fourth by a politician. All four were presented in symposia after the anti-gun groups and/or individuals were invited to submit articles detailing their position.[19]

In striking contrast, numerous law review articles conclude that (p.360)the Second Amendment protects the individual's right to own guns.[20] This conclusion is also endorsed by outstanding liberal constitutional scholars like Akhil Amar, Sanford Levinson, and William Van Alstyne who do not own guns and neither expected nor desired that the historical evidence would force them into bed with the gun lobby.[21] I will note only three elements of that vast corpus of historical evidence which support my position.


and:

The Founders' belief in the social value (and sacred personal right) of bearing arms derived from the English philosophers Algernon Sidney and John Locke and the legal commentator William Blackstone. Blackstone ranked "arms for an [individual] defense" as a "natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."[34] Blackstone saw the right of individual gun ownership as preserving to England its (p.364)free government and to Englishmen their liberties.[35]




So, thank you. You just gave even more evidence to support my arguement.
Not really. The only thing I was arguing for was that the Anti-Federalists had views on these things, not just the Federalists. Even if they were not clear, they generally did have views on gun control, which was all I was trying to prove.

I understand that. In general though (and unfortunately) most people lump many of the 100 years war battles into "Agincourt" and I tend to do the same in general conversation even though I should know better.

Crecy is another fine example.

Understood

Oh, and just so you know, that website doesn't work on my computer. It might be the same problem that I've had for months about SUN Java, but I doubt it...I'll need to fix it.

But from prior knowledge, I'm pretty sure but not certain that the battle was largely decided by longbowmen piercing the armor of the French knights and infantry, and had little to do with crossbows.

Due tothe fact that the crossbowmen couldn't even get in range. There were 6000 of them at Crecy.

Not really. The only thing I was arguing for was that the Anti-Federalists had views on these things, not just the Federalists. Even if they were not clear, they generally did have views on gun control, which was all I was trying to prove.


I responded to an innacurate description of the purpose of the Militia using primary sources and you questioned that in a way making seem like it was wrong.

I responded to an innacurate description of the purpose of the Militia using primary sources and you questioned that in a way making seem like it was wrong.
Sorry, then.

Didn't mean it that way.

Due tothe fact that the crossbowmen couldn't even get in range. There were 6000 of them at Crecy.
Still, if they couldn't get in range, that just proves that they either had mediocre or somewhat better than mediocre range, or that they just weren't positioned right. It also means you can't prove your point without another source. Crossbowmen and arbalesters had excellent power and great accuracy.

Sorry, then.

Didn't mean it that way.


Ok.

Since you used the GunCite source, there are quite a few other examples on it from various FF's, heavy on the Jefferson though.

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndfqu.html

I support gun control to a reasonable extent. While the Bill of Rights ensures the right to bear arms, I don't think the average citizen should be able to, say, go to the store, and buy an M-4.

In principal, I agree with you. But I can't help noticing that the citizens of many countries in the world seem to have M-4's and more that they shoot into the air at all celebrations and protests...

I've always said, if someone is going to have them (guns) it might as well be me.

Still, if they couldn't get in range, that just proves that they either had mediocre or somewhat better than mediocre range, or that they just weren't positioned right. It also means you can't prove your point without another source. Crossbowmen and arbalesters had excellent power and great accuracy.

At a much shorter range.

Here's another link:

http://www.archeryweb.com/archery/crecy.htm

# Arrows, depending on type and weight, could be shot 250 to 300 yards.
# The English archers could shoot an average of 10 arrows per minute.


Crossbows had a range of about 200 yards at the time w/ a ROF of about 2/ minute max.

Ok.

Since you used the GunCite source, there are quite a few other examples on it from various FF's, heavy on the Jefferson though.

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndfqu.html
Wow. I never knew the founding fathers loved guns so much. You could use that as a major point in the argument about gun control. Which kind of proves my point, the one that I just figured out you weren't trying to disprove anyway.

...Guns are machines designed to kill people. It's a contradiction to require a driver's license but no gun license. When there are guns on the streets, they're going to be used. So, requiring a membership in a shooting or hunting club is not unreasonable. These are the legitimate reasons to own guns, and clubs provide voluntary, self-regulating "gun control"...
Excuse me, but there is at least one other"legitimate reason" to own a gun, and I think it is the primary reason that private citizens must retain the right to "keep and bear" arms.

To quote a seminal document in the history of mankind...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it... ...it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security"

--US Declaration of Independence

An unarmed citizenry would hardly be in the position to exercise this fundamental right, should it ever become necessary. That's why we need guns, not to shoot at deer or targets (though that's nice too).

I'm bush like. The president of the United States of America does not believe in gun control. That is why he legalized Assault Rifles. The president always knows what is best. Because he is the president. All these laberals out their who believe in gun control are just uh um being laberal, and dont have good moral and christian family values.

I'm bush like. The president of the United States of America does not believe in gun control. That is why he legalized Assault Rifles. The president always knows what is best. Because he is the president. All these laberals out their who believe in gun control are just uh um being laberal, and dont have good moral and christian family values.

He legalized Assault Rifles? Really? When were they illegal?

First off, they are not guns. They are weapons. "Gun" describes a military, cannon-like weapon (above 25mm). As a member of the US armed forces, I use weapons all the time. But as a civilian, I keep weapons as means of (a) Personal & property protection; (b) Entertainment; and (c) Tools for hunting. They are not childrens toys, nor are they safe toys. They are tools for those who are responsible with them. And I will be Damned if I left someone take my constitutional right to the weapon of my choice away. And as for my current selection of weapons, if the government that I work for wants them, they can pry them from my cold, dead fingers.

I believe in a limited form of gun control. Felons, children and mentally unstable people should not have guns. Like cars, they should be registered and the users licensed. Other than those limits, I see no reason to deny anyone the right to own and carry a gun.

He legalized Assault Rifles? Really? When were they illegal?


I think he means that Bush and Congress let the Assault weapons ban expire.


Which was not what people thought it was. I mean honestly it didn't make it illegal to own an "assualt weapon" just illegal to produce new ones.and it really did nothing. Since "Assault weaons" were only Semi-Auto anyway.


It was such an idiotic law, i don't know how it got passed in the first place.

I AGREE. THE BILL OF RIGHTS DOS SAY WEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, BUT THEN AGEN, IF EVERONE HAD A GUN THERED BE LESS DEATH FROM GUN'S. ILL EXPLANESAY EVERYONE AROUND THE WORLD HAD A GUN ON THEM AT ALL TIMES, WOULD YOU SHOOT, NO WHY BECAUSE OF FEAR, PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO GET SHOT SO IF THEY SE YOU SHOOT SOMEONE THERE GOING TO SHOOT BACK, THINK OF IT AS IF SOMONE MISSES WITH THERE SNIPPER, THERE GOING TO GET SHOT AT BY THE GUY THAT HEARS IT OR WAS GETTING SNIPPED AT.THE ONLY REASON WE NEED GUNS IS BEACAUSE THERE ARE GUNS.:mp5: :sniper: :gundge: :mp5: :sniper: :gundge: LORD ZOOM OUT!!:D



wow...ok..sorry i will refrain from responding,,,other then you are stupid,,sorry
my bad,but that is plain public school brainwashing,,,,sucks to be you..

wow...ok..sorry i will refrain from responding,,,other then you are stupid,,sorry
my bad,but that is plain public school brainwashing,,,,sucks to be you..

if we get rid of bayonets...there will no longer be drive bye bayonettings...same convoluted logic..but please..i am all ears.

if we get rid of bayonets...there will no longer be drive bye bayonettings...same convoluted logic..but please..i am all ears.

my mistake..i was a bit sarcastic...sorry,but what is your solution for me?i got drug gangs and dirty cops...ask my nanny to save me?

oh shit..i aint got a nanny..maybe you euros got them..we dont....plus you all are so pleasant to each other..serbia?...i will not threaten/hurt you ever...just dont tell me to disarm so you can protect me...worked for the albanians/serbs/jews/ all you all.

how about you all keep sayin how we are rednecks and idiouts..and keep on telling yourselves how superior you are..and we will all be happy.

till the next time you need us to save you...sorry if i seem bitter...my dad died for you ungrateful people..and yet you still appease...never quite learned that lesson....no problem...hate us till you need us..same old song.


rant off...sorry..i am just pissed that we are brothers and yet..every chance you get...we in america suck..and most if not all(in america) are with you...confusing..to say the least.

i want to dance thru the flowers as much as the next guy,smell the roses and get laid...but ....someone got to man up against people that want to kill us.

that kills me..lol..i want to hug everyone..but people want to kill me...i would hug you before anthing..why do you hate me?

i know why islam hates me...i aint kneeling before allah...cause he aint my god...but why do my so callled brothers hate me..am i such an idiout and whore?

well i like you guys..i even like peole that hate me..go figure.

musta been to much catholic schooling..love thy neighbor crap.


peace.

my mistake..i was a bit sarcastic...sorry,but what is your solution for me?i got drug gangs and dirty cops...ask my nanny to save me?

oh shit..i aint got a nanny..maybe you euros got them..we dont....plus you all are so pleasant to each other..serbia?...i will not threaten/hurt you ever...just dont tell me to disarm so you can protect me...worked for the albanians/serbs/jews/ all you all.

how about you all keep sayin how we are rednecks and idiouts..and keep on telling yourselves how superior you are..and we will all be happy.

till the next time you need us to save you...sorry if i seem bitter...my dad died for you ungrateful people..and yet you still appease...never quite learned that lesson....no problem...hate us till you need us..same old song.


rant off...sorry..i am just pissed that we are brothers and yet..every chance you get...we in america suck..and most if not all(in america) are with you...confusing..to say the least.

i want to dance thru the flowers as much as the next guy,smell the roses and get laid...but ....someone got to man up against people that want to kill us.

that kills me..lol..i want to hug everyone..but people want to kill me...i would hug you before anthing..why do you hate me?

i know why islam hates me...i aint kneeling before allah...cause he aint my god...but why do my so callled brothers hate me..am i such an idiout and whore?

well i like you guys..i even like peole that hate me..go figure.

musta been to much catholic schooling..love thy neighbor crap.


peace.


I just saw you post three times in a row, twice answering yourself?


I'm fucking confused

I believe in a limited form of gun control. Felons, children and mentally unstable people should not have guns. Like cars, they should be registered and the users licensed. Other than those limits, I see no reason to deny anyone the right to own and carry a gun.
YAY! Another vote for Universal Reciprocity!

Yeah, that's generally the point...

So, I suppose that the police are everywhere and are able to respond to every situation as it appears? I don't see why I should trust the State to do the job of defending myself when they certainly don't have the ability to do it properly.

It works fine in the UK. Though gun crime may be rising to a small extent (due to external smugling) it is certianly nowhere near the scale of the US.

Giving up your freedoms and ability to protect youself is what's wrong w/ that.

The UK did it. We are fine, and not a fascist dictatorship. Arguably British democracy is more democratic than the American system

There are many important facts about guns which stoned hippies fail to realize:

1: Firearms are sporting equipment. They are used for hunting and at shooting ranges, and it would be just as wrong for the government to regulate firearm sports as it would be for them to regulate football equipment or jogging pants. How would you Euro-socialist like it if your lefty gov'ts registered your soccerballs?

Footballs do not kill people. And before you pull out some ludicrous story of where one has, guns kill people far more easily than a football would.


2: If the feds are permitted to restrict our 2nd amendment rights, they'll fall down a slippery slope and continue revoking even more of our essential rights.

I hate to break it to you but the founding fathers were not Gods. They were people. If times change and the ammendment regarding guns is considered nessecary to be changed then so be it. This is why the UK system is superior. We dont go mad every time a law needs to be changed, as we dont have a codified constitution.


3: Guns prevent crime. 2% of New England's guns are in the state of Vermont, which has essentially no gun control. Vermont also enjoys the nations lowest crime rates! Don't deny the unmistakable relationship.

And guns cause crime. The UK murder rate is 14 times lower than the US per 1000. Dont deny the unmistakeble relationship to the fact that you use guns far more freely than we do.


4: If firearms are banned, then only the law-abiding will sacrifice their arms. Criminals will buy them on the black market and good citizens will be unable to defend themselves.

The black market would be far less stocked if firearms were conviscated from all non government regulated owners. Good citizens do not need guns to defend themselves. See the UK for proof

It works fine in the UK. Though gun crime may be rising to a small extent (due to external smugling) it is certianly nowhere near the scale of the US.
And the British subjects never had the quantity of firearms in country in the first place. In fact, the Crown had to go begging to the US civillian population to arm the home guard during WWII. Go figure. :rolleyes:

It's a hell of a lot easier to ban/confiscate/"control" somthing when there isn't much to control in the first place.

You stated that:

"If all citizens are allowed lethal force, it is very dangerous. "

To whom? Show me widespread examples of this.

It is obvious. If everyone has a leatal weapon then it is more dangerous for everyone. Because one person can use it on any other person


Just like in the UK where gun crime is INCREASING? Now that you are using examples, there is NO threat to the "public good" as the majority of crime is committed by those w/ previous criminal records and aren't allowed firearms in the first place. Once again, crime has decreased even though ownership has increased. It's about crime control, not gun control.

Firstly, gun crime is not increasing to the extent where it is anything like the US rates. Secondly, it is increasing as part of the increase in vilonet crime. Thirdly, if all guns were conviscated, then it would be much much harder for the criminals to get hold of them. In the UK the rise in gun crime is primarly linked to smuggling.


It means nothing. As per several SCOTUS decisions, the police are not obligated in any way to protect you or stop crime even if there are laws saying they do.

So what are the police there for, if not to protect people and stop crime. Protect and serve means everything to a police force. Or have the Americans forgotten that.

And the British subjects never had the quantity of firearms in country in the first place. In fact, the Crown had to go begging to the US civillian population to arm the home guard during WWII. Go figure. :rolleyes:

It's a hell of a lot easier to ban/confiscate/"control" somthing when there isn't much to control in the first place.

Well I dont know where you get your history but since the home guard were armed with British made rifles (Enfield specificly), I think you are mistaken.

Plus you have a larger population, so not only more guns, more people to enforce the conviscation with. A larger police force makes it easier.

Footballs do not kill people. And before you pull out some ludicrous story of where one has, guns kill people far more easily than a football would.

<snip>

And guns cause crime. The UK murder rate is 14 times lower than the US per 1000. Dont deny the unmistakeble relationship to the fact that you use guns far more freely than we do.

Please explain how an inanimate object can be causal in any action.

The black market would be far less stocked if firearms were conviscated from all non government regulated owners.

Ah. that would sure keep the Chinese from shipping AKs to California (see the COSCO incident from about 10 years back)

Good subjects do not need guns to defend themselves. Unless they are old, weak, disabled, infirm, small, up agaist armed, larger, stronger, more, criminals - or are rich/connected enough to have private security/police details. :rolleyes:

See the UK for proofThe UK experience is only applicable to the UK.

Please explain how an inanimate object can be causal in any action.

Its not just an inanimate object. Its an inanmiate object used by animate beings. If more people have guns, which can kill people, more people are in danger of being killed, its common sense.


Ah. that would sure keep the Chinese from shipping AKs to California (see the COSCO incident from about 10 years back).

Well the UK has a smuggling issue too, but guess what. We have a body of the police called customs and exiles designed to deal with that. If you outlaw guns and strengthen the sector of your police force desinged to deal with imported guns, then I'm sure you'll succeed too.


Unless they are old, weak, disabled, infirm, small, up agaist armed, larger, stronger, more, criminals - or are rich/connected enough to have private security/police details. :rolleyes:

In the UK this is what we have the police for.


The UK experience is only applicable to the UK.

Fine. Now expect that same arguement to be used in diffrent American states. The states where gun control is implimented and crime goes down are only specific to those states. And the states where gun control is low and crime goes down, are only specific to those states

Well I dont know where you get your history but since the home guard were armed with British made rifles (Enfield specificly), I think you are mistaken.

Plus you have a larger population, so not only more guns, more people to enforce the conviscation with. A larger police force makes it easier.

Oh yeah. England had a lot of Enfields after Dunkirk. :rolleyes:

The NRA's call to help arm Britain in 1940 resulted in the collection of more than 7,000 firearms for Britain's defense against potential invasion by Germany (Britain had virtually disarmed itself with a series of gun control laws enacted between World War I and World War II).


Of course the Home Guard didn't actually NEED the additional 500,000 rifles ordered from the US either: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQY/is_2_51/ai_n8591508#continue

http://okok.essortment.com/hitlerchurchill_rnmd.htm

At the time of the French Armistice in June, 1940, the British Army in Britain totaled some 26 divisions, of which 12 had been formed recently and were not yet fully trained or equipped. Only 25 of the 600 tanks, which were in action in France, were back in Britain. This is the impression that Sir Alan Brooke had of the Southern Command when he took control on June 26th;

“The main impression I had was that the Command had a long way to go to be put on a war footing . . . The more I see of conditions at home, the more bewildered I am as to what has been going on in this country since the war started. It is now ten months, and yet the shortage of trained men and equipment is appalling … There are masses of men in uniform but they are mostly untrained: why, I cannot think after 10 months of war. The ghastly part of it is that I feel certain that we can only have a few more weeks before the boche attacks.”

Brooke soon took on control of the entire Home Forces. He desperately tried to shore up British defenses with what little was available to him. He went so far as to requisition guns from military museums and war memorials. The Drury Lane theatre contributed a dozen rusty old rifles – even cutlasses from the navy of Nelson’s day were distributed to the local defense volunteers.

To Brooke’s great relief, the American’s agreed to provide Britain with 500,000 rifles and 900 75-millimeter guns, each complete with 1,000 shells.

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~rwbarnes/defence/hg1.htm

American calibre .300 rifles started to arrive about the same time, eventually being supplemented by ammunition to fire from them..... Supplies gradually trickled in; Tommy-guns, Browning automatic rifles, Browning heavy machine-guns, Type 36 hand-grenades and plentiful, better-fitting uniforms.

I think MY knowledge of history is fine... What's your excuse?

The UK did it. We are fine, and not a fascist dictatorship. Arguably British democracy is more democratic than the American system

You are fine? I beg to differ.

http://www.reason.com/0211/fe.jm.gun.shtml

It works fine in the UK. Though gun crime may be rising to a small extent (due to external smugling) it is certianly nowhere near the scale of the US.


While gun crime in the US has been dropping even though laws have been "loosened" and there are more firearms in circulation.

You will never completely get rid of all the guns. That's just reality. More laws and restrictions only affect those persons who legally posses them. These are not the same people that are responsible for the majority of gun violence.

Here are some intersting statistics about gun crimes in the US and the trend since 1993

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

Footballs do not kill people. And before you pull out some ludicrous story of where one has, guns kill people far more easily than a football would.

They kill more easily if used that way but more people are hurt and killed playing football than in recreational shooting.



I hate to break it to you but the founding fathers were not Gods. They were people. If times change and the ammendment regarding guns is considered nessecary to be changed then so be it. This is why the UK system is superior. We dont go mad every time a law needs to be changed, as we dont have a codified constitution.

No, you just sick the riot police on people who protest changes in them:

When the pro – fox hunting lobby held its most recent demonstration in Parliament Square, your officers’ response was somewhat different. On that occasion protesters went not there to advocate terrorist atrocities, they were there to protest about the criminalisation of a sport that has just topped a high profile government poll of find the most popular icons of England. That day the protestors were not greeted by officers holding cameras, they were met by row upon row of thuggish riot police. On that day, protestors didn’t have their photographs taken by your officers. On that day, innocent people were met with walls of riot shields & then beaten unconscious with truncheons & batons, in the shadow of their own Parliament.


Playing the "we're better than you are " card is pretty weak.





And guns cause crime. The UK murder rate is 14 times lower than the US per 1000. Dont deny the unmistakeble relationship to the fact that you use guns far more freely than we do.

And what was it BEFORE the various gun schemes? WHy is the UK's rising? WHy is the US's lowering?




The black market would be far less stocked if firearms were conviscated from all non government regulated owners. Good citizens do not need guns to defend themselves. See the UK for proof

Yeah, that's why violent crime is increasing in the US as well as the proliferation of firearms. Try again.

It is obvious. If everyone has a leatal weapon then it is more dangerous for everyone. Because one person can use it on any other person

Saying "It's obvious" does not make it so. Noone has mentioned "If everyone has a leatal weapon". Don't red-herring the subject.



Firstly, gun crime is not increasing to the extent where it is anything like the US rates. Secondly, it is increasing as part of the increase in vilonet crime. Thirdly, if all guns were conviscated, then it would be much much harder for the criminals to get hold of them. In the UK the rise in gun crime is primarly linked to smuggling.

Wait, you previously said smuggling would decrease if they were alltaken away. The US's has dropped by almost 50% while the UK has almost doubled. WHy is that?



So what are the police there for, if not to protect people and stop crime. Protect and serve means everything to a police force. Or have the Americans forgotten that.

The US judicial system has forgotten that. We've already shown that several times.

BTW. What good are the UK police here?

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?menuID=1&subID=281

"Three days after reporting it, the police
called me and said: 'Sorry, but we can't do anything about it'," she told me. "When I asked why, they said: 'Well, it's your word against his.' "

"Guns cause crime."

I think that about sums up everything that is wrong with the gun control argument right there.

I'm still waiting for someone to show evidence that supports the widely held belief that an increase in firearm restrictions results in a significant decrease in violent crime.

I'm still waiting for someone to show evidence that supports the widely held belief that an increase in firearm restrictions results in a significant decrease in violent crime.
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why "Don't bash Islam 'cause not all Adherents are thuggish Splodydopes" is a good argument but "Don't bash Guns 'cause not all gun owners are criminal/maniacs." is not.