NationStates Jolt Archive

I know what people who read this thread will be thinking:

"Ah sure, just another gun control thread. Nothing knew here, just more heated, dogmatic argument between two groups of people who refuse to be converted."

I don't want this thread to be like that. I've read threads about gun control on NSG ad nauseam, and while the pro-control side talks about statistics and how important it is, and how the only purpose of guns is mass murder, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the gun rights side actually gives reasons. The pro-control side could rail all day long about why those reasons are not legitimate, but at least the pro-gun side offers them.

I want pro-gun control people to drop the dogma and actually give a reason that it's a good idea. Just for the sake of reason, the principle virtue of man, we'll assume that any reason employing circular logic is immediately invalid.

And with that, the floor now belongs to whoever speaks first. But please remember what I said. REASONS, NOT DOGMA.

Perhaps the arguments you percieve to be dogma are if fact valid reasons?

Why is it that you should decide what is or is not valid?

ummm...... having no control over tools designed to kill is pretty stupid, whatever the law or your all-sacred constitution says.


i don't care if thats dogma or not

ummm...... having no control over tools designed to kill is pretty stupid, whatever the law or your all-sacred constitution says.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. What it says is of utmost importance.

Law is like that.

Cause a semi-automatic something was shot less than 10 feet from my parent's heads while they were sleeping in their own home, and that freaking scares me. I don't want a gun ban, but I would want effective tight control over them. Cause they scare me. That's probably dogma, but it's the only reason I got.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. What it says is of utmost importance.

Law is like that.

the law is wrong. thus is the constitution.

thus i don't care what it says has to say on the matter as it is 200 years old and wrong on this issue.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. What it says is of utmost importance.

Law is like that.

But law can change. Some americans treat their constitution like the bible.

But law can change. Some americans treat their constitution like the bible.

exactly my point.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

At least it has the capacity to be versatile. Unfortunately US politicians are not.

In the US, not only does the Second Amendment protect our right to keep and bear arms, the Ninth Amendment does, too.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

So, unless the Constitution is amended to explicitly deny firearms to the People, we have the right to them.

As for reasons, those are up to the individual and not open to approval by others.

exactly my point.

Because it's pretty damn close to being such.

Our right to keep and bear arms.


But why should you need that right?

Because it's pretty damn close to being such.

:rolleyes:

yes, a 200 year old document written by rich white landowners is still 100% relavent to how we (well.... you) should live your lives today. right.
ok, there are amendments, but the thing is still hardly infallable, and this issue of 'the right to bear arms' is certainly one of the cases where it is wrong.


there are such things as unjust laws, and wrong laws, and all sorts of crazy things...

Because there are a lot of people out there who I wouldn't trust to have a gun.

But law can change.

Yes, law can change. And, the Constitution has Article V just for that express purpose.

Some americans treat their constitution like the bible.

Legally, in the United States, it is. AKA the Supreme Law of the Land.

But why should you need that right?

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,...

The framers included the justification in the amendment.

At least it has the capacity to be versatile. Unfortunately US politicians are not.

Only via the Amendment process.

Hmmm... Well, here's an idea. Completely legalise guns, and completely legalise Weed, and distribute it freely. That way, we can all kill each other, but we'll all be too high to care.

we need guns because claw hammer murders are disgusting nasty events, and there is virtually no way not to splatter yourself wityh blood and teeny bone shards and grey matter .

yes, a 200 year old document written by rich white landowners is still 100% relavent to how we (well.... you) should live your lives today. right.
ok, there are amendments, but the thing is still hardly infallable, and this issue of 'the right to bear arms' is certainly one of the cases where it is wrong.


I'd have to wholeheartedly disagree.

The US Constitution is a time tested document, whose proscriptions for governance are designed not to restrict the rights of the people (save for one measly incident in the early half of the past century) but to guarantee them. I'd rather err on the side of liberty, than be right on the side of tyranny any day.

Hmmm... Well, here's an idea. Completely legalise guns, and completely legalise Weed, and distribute it freely. That way, we can all kill each other, but we'll all be too high to care.

Hear, hear!

In the US, not only does the Second Amendment protect our right to keep and bear arms, the Ninth Amendment does, too.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

So, unless the Constitution is amended to explicitly deny firearms to the People, we have the right to them.

As for reasons, those are up to the individual and not open to approval by others.

laws and constitution written for another time in history are not sacred texts...if they're outdated change them.....witches used to be legally executed do we still do that? .......americans from my point of view treat to omany symbols as religions icons....the constitution, the flag, the President, just very weird from where see it.....

Yes, law can change. And, the Constitution has Article V just for that express purpose.



Legally, in the United States, it is. AKA the Supreme Law of the Land.

and as such 'the supreme Law' it can be changed as you have just said.

Despite what is law and what is not, rules where meant to be broken. The constitution does clearly state that we have all rights to bear arms, but when this law was written it was meant to impose that these guns where for protection, not murder.

Don't assume my arguments are meant for America...

Do you let people drive cars without a licence that states that they have proven proficiency in their use? Do you let people drive unregistered cars?

And that's a machine that wasn't even designed to kill people! Do the same, and more, with guns I say.

Legalising guns would unleash a great poison into society.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. What it says is of utmost importance.

Law is like that.
The US Constitution only governs the USA, and in any case, it can be wrong.

Because it's pretty damn close to being such.
No it is not. A constitution may be supreme law, but it should be open to change by plebiscite.

I'd have to wholeheartedly disagree.

What, so you think that the US Constitution is an infallable expression of ultimate liberty?

The framers included the justification in the amendment.

A well regulated militia, eh?

Kind of like the army, or something? The armed forces are damn well necessary to the security of a free state, but that doesn't mean every common citizen needs to carry around an Uzi in case of an invasion.

Remember, this was written during the American Revolution, when the colonies didn't have a prefessional, much less unified army; they instead used state mititias to defend themselves and beat back the British. Times have changed; America has one of the best, if not the best, armed forces in the world. We're under no threat of invasion, and havn't been for almost 200 years.

Why the need for guns, then?

[QUOTE=The Pacifist Womble;12090584]Don't assume my arguments are meant for America...
Do you let people drive cars without a licence that states that they have proven proficiency in their use? Do you let people drive unregistered cars? And that's a machine that wasn't even designed to kill people! Do the same, and more, with guns I say. Legalising guns would unleash a great poison into society.


Cars are a a vital role in the American Society. Legalising guns would be a privelage just like a licence for cars, and they would be used soley for protection just as the constitution meant them to be.

The framers included the justification in the amendment.

So you consider the general public to be a well regulated militia.

A well regulated militia, eh?

Kind of like the army, or something? The armed forces are damn well necessary to the security of a free state, but that doesn't mean every common citizen needs to carry around an Uzi in case of an invasion.
Remember, this was written during the American Revolution, when the colonies didn't have a prefessional, much less unified army; they instead used state mititias to defend themselves and beat back the British. Times have changed; America has one of the best, if not the best, armed forces in the world. We're under no threat of invasion, and havn't been for almost 200 years.

Why the need for guns, then?

Guns are for protection inside the country. Yes I agree that we are well protected here in America, but that's from outside the country, not from ourselves.

So you consider the general public to be a well regulated militia.

The general public is the Militia. Having a well regulated one is A justification, but not the only one.

I think we should give everybody a gun so everybody can protect themselves from everybody. I mean, fistfights are just soooo outdate...:rolleyes:

Guns are for protection inside the country. Yes I agree that we are well protected here in America, but that's from outside the country, not from ourselves.

Ah, yes. Of course. Why not just disband the police then, and let the Citizens do all the work themselves?

We have a well-trained police force for a reason. Although the law enforcement system definetly needs an overhaul, the police are infinetly better suited to the task of taking down criminals than the average Joe is.

I'd have to wholeheartedly disagree.

The US Constitution is a time tested document, whose proscriptions for governance are designed not to restrict the rights of the people (save for one measly incident in the early half of the past century) but to guarantee them. I'd rather err on the side of liberty, than be right on the side of tyranny any day.

i never quite understand how questioning american law or tradition almost inevitably ends up in either supporting glorious freedom or evil tyranny :confused:

guess its just paranoia.


you know my country doesn't have a written consitution? its so tyrannical.

Ah, yes. Of course. Why not just disband the police then, and let the Citizens do all the work themselves?

We have a well-trained police force for a reason. Although the law enforcement system definetly needs an overhaul, the police are infinetly better suited to the task of taking down criminals than the average Joe is.
But law enforcement can't be everywhere. The police investigate crimes, and the punishment can deter drimes, but the only people with the opportunity to stop a given crime from happening is the victim.

If I'm being mugged, a well-funded police station a block away isn't going to comfort me a whole lot.

i never quite understand how questioning american law or tradition almost inevitably ends up in either supporting glorious freedom or evil tyranny :confused:

guess its just paranoia.


you know my country doesn't have a written consitution? its so tyrannical.

Its any wonder that we survive without following the fabled 'constitution'.:p

And been doing it for hundreds of years.

Ah, yes. Of course. Why not just disband the police then, and let the Citizens do all the work themselves?
We have a well-trained police force for a reason. Although the law enforcement system definetly needs an overhaul, the police are infinetly better suited to the task of taking down criminals than the average Joe is.

Would it not be simpler to legalize and license guns like cars? Colorado has a Make-My-Day law along with many other states across the US, and this law is established only for the well-being and protection of the states citizens. Can you not agree that we might be safe from other countries behind the American borders because we have a strong militea, but inside America, protection by whatever means is necessary?

Its any wonder that we survive without following the fabled 'constitution'.:p

And been doing it for hundreds of years.

quite ;)

The United States has a rediculous number of guns inside it. To prevent the oppression of its people by its government.

A well-armed public insurgency could easily topple the US gov't in the event of widespread desperation.

Why? Because it is the nature of all governments to become corrupt and tyrannical over time. The longest lasting representative democracy in human history lasted only about 400 years, and even then, it was by and large an oligarchy. Eventually, powerful warlords took over, and the system collapsed.

While your descendants will all praise Ingsoc, the Western hemisphere will have a happy and polite anarchy, with sprinklings of theocracy. It's just a matter of preference in our paranoia, I suppose. Still, our way is more fun.

But why should you need that right?

For whatever need I like.

Maybe hunting, collecting, self-defense, to be properly equipped to serve my duty as part of the militia, to own a work of art, to punch holes in tin cans

I assume that your country has a speed limit of some sort, yet I'm willing to bet that sports cars are available that can easily exceed that limit.

If need is the criteria, why do you need those sports cars?

But, bottom line is, my need is my business. As long as I don't break the law with my gun, it's no one's business but my own.

:rolleyes:

yes, a 200 year old document written by rich white landowners is still 100% relavent to how we (well.... you) should live your lives today.

Yes, it is.

Next?

laws and constitution written for another time in history are not sacred texts...

No, they are the law.

if they're outdated change them.....

Hence, Article V.

witches used to be legally executed do we still do that?

Not in the US.

americans from my point of view treat to omany symbols as religions icons....the constitution, the flag, the President, just very weird from where see it.....

Then, don't move here. Easy solution, eh?

I want pro-gun control people to drop the dogma and actually give a reason that it's a good idea. Just for the sake of reason, the principle virtue of man, we'll assume that any reason employing circular logic is immediately invalid.

And with that, the floor now belongs to whoever speaks first. But please remember what I said. REASONS, NOT DOGMA.

Pro-control because:
1.Not all people can be trusted with owning/carrying/using a gun. Just like not all people can be trusted with driving a car.
2.Sadly, while reason could be the principal virtue of man, seems that most people prefer to use instinct instead. So if they have a gun they usually shoot first and think later (if ever).
3.If all legal firearms are regulated and registered (who owns the gun, who is allowed to carry it, serial numbers and whatever it takes to identify the gun and the bullets it fired), whoever carries an unregistered firearm is breaking the law and can be jailed. So it is a bit easier to jail a criminal even before he uses the gun to enact a criminal deed like a robbery - it is enough to search him and find the unregistered weapon.

added: and, of course, a bullet fired from a registered gun may allow to track down the gun that's fired it more easily, so criminals aren't likely to use registered firearms.

and as such 'the supreme Law' it can be changed as you have just said.

Yes. Via the amendment process. What's your point?

Despite what is law and what is not, rules where meant to be broken.

No, they weren't. They were meant to be followed.

But law enforcement can't be everywhere. The police investigate crimes, and the punishment can deter drimes, but the only people with the opportunity to stop a given crime from happening is the victim.

If I'm being mugged, a well-funded police station a block away isn't going to comfort me a whole lot.

and just when was the last time you were mugged in Alberta:rolleyes: guns for self defense are a myth, no criminal is going to wait while you find your gun to protect yourself....if there are no guns (specific handguns), criminals won't have them either....

I live in Northern Ireland, a country where there has been more than its fair share of violence. From my perspective there is NO good reason for the ordinary citizen to hold a gun. A gun's sole purpose is to maim, injure or kill. I have seen enough violence in my society. If guns are banned there will still be brutal murders but no other tool used by mankind in general has the unique ability to kill easily, and from a distance. From across the pond it is a complete mystery why the U.S. has such a fixation.

Do you let people drive cars without a licence that states that they have proven proficiency in their use? Do you let people drive unregistered cars?

Yes and yes.

On private property.

All the license does is give you permission to drive on public roads. Registration is also only a requirement to use your vehicle on public roads.

If you remain on private property, youcan drive to your heart's content - without a license and without registration - and, without an age requirement.

Do the same, and more, with guns I say.

Fine. But, keep it in your country.

Legalising guns would unleash a great poison into society.

ppbbtthh...

Nice hyperbole...

The US Constitution only governs the USA,

True. Where was it said otherwise?

A constitution may be supreme law, but it should be open to change by plebiscite.

No, it should not. That means a democracy, one of the worst systems of government possible.

What, so you think that the US Constitution is an infallable expression of ultimate liberty?

Yes. I do.

From across the pond it is a complete mystery why the U.S. has such a fixation.

Yes, I wonder, too... maybe it's because they want to be ready in the case we'd try to re-enstate colonial government. Or because they fear an armed American Native attack on a Greyhound bus...:D
Really. Despite to Atlantic Treaty, sometimes the thing between America and Europe looks, more than a pond, an ocean... oh wait...;)

and just when was the last time you were mugged in Alberta:rolleyes: guns for self defense are a myth, no criminal is going to wait while you find your gun to protect yourself....if there are no guns (specific handguns), criminals won't have them either....
I've never been mugged, but crime is significantly lower in underpopulated areas.

Furthermore, you have no reason to believe you can remove guns from the hands of criminals.

Not to mention the whole "defending yourself from the government" angle.

So you consider the general public to be a well regulated militia.

USC 10 makes them the militia.

Its any wonder that we survive without following the fabled 'constitution'.:p

And been doing it for hundreds of years.

So, your country has no laws, then?

Amazing.

if there are no guns (specific handguns), criminals won't have them either....

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

Now, that's funny!

I've never been mugged, but crime is significantly lower in underpopulated areas.

Furthermore, you have no reason to believe you can remove guns from the hands of criminals.

Not to mention the whole "defending yourself from the government" angle.

I've never been mugged and I live in the city, I haven't even met anyone in my entire life that has been mugged....

If there are no guns criminals can't get them,(those that do should be punished severely)there relatively very few handguns in Canada in the hands of criminals-those that are, are mostly used by criminals on other criminals(who cares, fewer criminals),

"defending yourself from government"..:rolleyes: it's called an election....

A gun's sole purpose is to maim, injure or kill. I have seen enough violence in my society.

Then, why do police carry them?

Are your police dedicated to maiming, injuring and killing?

A well regulated militia, eh?

Kind of like the army, or something? The armed forces are damn well necessary to the security of a free state, but that doesn't mean every common citizen needs to carry around an Uzi in case of an invasion.

Remember, this was written during the American Revolution, when the colonies didn't have a prefessional, much less unified army; they instead used state mititias to defend themselves and beat back the British. Times have changed; America has one of the best, if not the best, armed forces in the world. We're under no threat of invasion, and havn't been for almost 200 years.

Why the need for guns, then?

I've run this several times in the past few days, but, regardless.

The concept is so that the American people can be capable to raise a militia should the need occur. There is no qualifier in the amendment as to whether the need should exist or not, it's an all-times rule.

The need doesn't exist today, but what about in 100 years, after a strong tradition of private gun ownership has been destroyed? There wouldn't be any desire to own guns in the US, even if the need were there. Great Britain has never had a right to bear arms, and the restrictions that exist in Europe are not the actions of some progressives, but holdover laws from the days when only the nobility were allowed weapons, and the common folk were forbidden from owning them.

I want pro-gun control people to drop the dogma and actually give a reason that it's a good idea. Just for the sake of reason, the principle virtue of man, we'll assume that any reason employing circular logic is immediately invalid.

And with that, the floor now belongs to whoever speaks first. But please remember what I said. REASONS, NOT DOGMA.

- An armed public is arguably a greater danger to itself as opposed to criminals

- Although it is true that 'if you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns' its also true that with guns legal, it is far easier for outlaws to use them. Outlawing them ultimately makes it much harder.

- An armed public is arguably a greater danger to itself as opposed to criminals

False

- Although it is true that 'if you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns' its also true that with guns legal, it is far easier for outlaws to use them. Outlawing them ultimately makes it much harder.

So punish all for the actions of a few?

As someone who is fortunate enough to no longer live in a police state, I have to say this:

I do not trust the government enough to control my access to those tools I can use to protect myself against that government.

Yes, this may mean increased gun crime, but it may not. It may even reduce violent crime.

But it will definitely reduce the chances that government forces can act with impunity against their own citizens.

So, your country has no laws, then?

Amazing.

Don't be stupid, of cource we have laws. Only the thing is we don't need a 'constitution' to make ours.

You act so though you are frightened by your own government. One which you vote for.

Don't be stupid, of cource we have laws. Only the thing is we don't need a 'constitution' to make ours.

You act so though you are frightened by your own government. One which you vote for.

So what is the foundation of UK law? What do you think of the constitutions of the dozens of countries around the world? Are they not needed either?

You guys do realize that some Americans still provide for their families by means of their fire arm, right? They still hunt to provide or supplement their meals? You'd be taking the tools to feed themselves away from them.

I don't care if you think you could put them on welfare, as long as they're legally providing the means for their family to eat that's something they can take pride in, and taking it away would make them feel weak and impotent, not to mention just spike the amount of poaching in the US.

Furthermore, Americans defend their right to own a gun because we hate the government peeking into our homes. Unless I'm actively hurting someone else, then the Feds can stay out of my house.

I'm not against registering guns, that's a good thing! License to carry, own, use? Sure!

Take them away? Never. If you announced a legal ban of guns, then a very large amount of guns in the US would go "missing." Or you'd hear a lot of "Oh, I've never owned a gun, dangerous, aren't they?" Not to mention active, open resistance when you try to dis-arm gun collectors, gun enthusiasts, anti-government gun-nuts, and the active and legal militias run in many states.

These militias are likely, by the way, to do their best to overthrow the government should they ever criminalize guns.

So, there a good many reasons why we Americans still own our guns. It's one of our many rights, the out right rebellion would be bloody, and people still use them for their purpose: sustenance, and sport. Aside from that, given how large our country is, there'd be more special anti-gun task forces than many cities' police forces, just simply trying to disarm everyone. What a nightmare! Better to just regulate it.

And to people who wonder at why we're so crazy about our constitution: We're fucking proud of it. We fought the world's greatest super power to get it, and survived from then on. It's recent, 200 years is nothing in history, it's barely a drop, a thimble-full of time. We're taught about our constitution and past from the very beginning of our educational careers. It can be changed, and is changed.

Think about it this way, too: It's a collective heirloom of everyone in the United States. Anyone in the US can go to Washington, and see a piece of history, see something that the men who founded our country made, and fought, and died for. You're staring your past right in the face. That's why it matters.

Don't be stupid, of cource we have laws. Only the thing is we don't need a 'constitution' to make ours.

You act so though you are frightened by your own government. One which you vote for.

Suspicious of, and mistrusting, yep. We actively watch our government.

You guys do realize that some Americans still provide for their families by means of their fire arm, right? They still hunt to provide or supplement their meals? You'd be taking the tools to feed themselves away from them.

I don't care if you think you could put them on welfare, as long as they're legally providing the means for their family to eat that's something they can take pride in, and taking it away would make them feel weak and impotent, not to mention just spike the amount of poaching in the US.

Furthermore, Americans defend their right to own a gun because we hate the government peeking into our homes. Unless I'm actively hurting someone else, then the Feds can stay out of my house.

I'm not against registering guns, that's a good thing! License to carry, own, use? Sure!

Take them away? Never. If you announced a legal ban of guns, then a very large amount of guns in the US would go "missing." Or you'd hear a lot of "Oh, I've never owned a gun, dangerous, aren't they?" Not to mention active, open resistance when you try to dis-arm gun collectors, gun enthusiasts, anti-government gun-nuts, and the active and legal militias run in many states.

These militias are likely, by the way, to do their best to overthrow the government should they ever criminalize guns.

So, there a good many reasons why we Americans still own our guns. It's one of our many rights, the out right rebellion would be bloody, and people still use them for their purpose: sustenance, and sport. Aside from that, given how large our country is, there'd be more special anti-gun task forces than many cities' police forces, just simply trying to disarm everyone. What a nightmare! Better to just regulate it.

And to people who wonder at why we're so crazy about our constitution: We're fucking proud of it. We fought the world's greatest super power to get it, and survived from then on. It's recent, 200 years is nothing in history, it's barely a drop, a thimble-full of time. We're taught about our constitution and past from the very beginning of our educational careers. It can be changed, and is changed.

Think about it this way, too: It's a collective heirloom of everyone in the United States. Anyone in the US can go to Washington, and see a piece of history, see something that the men who founded our country made, and fought, and died for. You're staring your past right in the face. That's why it matters.

number of people that actually need a gun to feed their families-minuscule and rifles for those people are not the problem-shotguns for hunting ok, double shot only, none of this 7 shot crap totally unnecessary....

primary problem handguns-are not a hunting weapon, meant to kill people. there is no need for them, target shooting acceptable but keep them securely locked up on the firing range....

semi automatics, automatics, uzi's, assualt weapons and such WTF! get rid of that shit, if they are not around petty criminals can't attain them...they certainly not hunting weapons and there is no Olympic completion for Uzi's

and register every single firearms holder-any criminal or mental health problems disqualify them for life from firearm ownership....

USC 10 makes them the militia.
That should really be the National Guard, no?

So what is the foundation of UK law? What do you think of the constitutions of the dozens of countries around the world? Are they not needed either?

The foundations of UK law are quite complex and I unfortunatly don't know enough about it to describe it.

As to other countries with a constitution, I have no problems with a constitution. However I do have a problem with people who see that their constitution is infallable. Things change; people, their morals, the world etc, and Law has to change to keep up with it.

number of people that actually need a gun to feed their families-minuscule and rifles for those people are not the problem-shotguns for hunting ok, double shot only, none of this 7 shot crap totally unnecessary....

primary problem handguns-are not a hunting weapon, meant to kill people. there is no need for them, target shooting acceptable but keep them securely locked up on the firing range....

semi automatics, automatics, uzi's, assualt weapons and such WTF! get rid of that shit, if they are not around petty criminals can't attain them...they certainly not hunting weapons and there is no Olympic completion for Uzi's

and register every single firearms holder-any criminal or mental health problems disqualify them for life from firearm ownership....

Where did you get in the impression people own automatic weapons left and right? What the hell are you talking about?!

I'm fine with taking guns away from people convicted of violent crimes and gun-related crimes.

Can you please explain....what exactly you mean by, "mental problems?"

I've run this several times in the past few days, but, regardless.

The concept is so that the American people can be capable to raise a militia should the need occur. There is no qualifier in the amendment as to whether the need should exist or not, it's an all-times rule.

The need doesn't exist today, but what about in 100 years, after a strong tradition of private gun ownership has been destroyed? There wouldn't be any desire to own guns in the US, even if the need were there. Great Britain has never had a right to bear arms, and the restrictions that exist in Europe are not the actions of some progressives, but holdover laws from the days when only the nobility were allowed weapons, and the common folk were forbidden from owning them.

How do you explain the radiclly lower murder rates in Europe compared to the rather high ones in America, then? And I'm pretty sure that if the need arose, the American government would be glad to arm it's citizens in case of an invasion. The chances of that happening whilst the U.S. has nuclear weapons and the most advanced missle technology in the world are slim, however.

The foundations of UK law are quite complex and I unfortunatly don't know enough about it to describe it.

As to other countries with a constitution, I have no problems with a constitution. However I do have a problem with people who see that their constitution is infallable. Things change; people, their morals, the world etc, and Law has to change to keep up with it.

We amend our constitution, thus it keeps up with the times. Well, except the fact that Women's Suffrage has yet to be ratified by some states. :rolleyes:

That should really be the National Guard, no?

The National Guard is part of it but not the whole.

How do you explain the radiclly lower murder rates in Europe compared to the rather high ones in America, then? And I'm pretty sure that if the need arose, the American government would be glad to arm it's citizens in case of an invasion. The chances of that happening whilst the U.S. has nuclear weapons and the most advanced missle technology in the world are slim, however.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Europe also have a traditionally stronger Welfare system than the US? The gun violence is probably strongly linked to poverty-related crimes, and yes, the wide availability of them. I don't mind restricting and licensing.

Also, as it was mentioned, there's no tradition or history of gun ownership in Europe. I'm not sure how to draw a comparison for you, but...well..take away tea from the British?

So what is the foundation of UK law?
Common sense and a good degree of pragmatism.
What do you think of the constitutions of the dozens of countries around the world? Are they not needed either?
They're pretty OK, I suppose. I don't really feel very strongly about constitutions, because they're usually out of date in 40-ish years when the world will have moved on from the original creation time.

See the US constitution - an armed public - fantastic in wartime. Not so good when you're not in a war, though.

The foundations of UK law are quite complex and I unfortunatly don't know enough about it to describe it.

As to other countries with a constitution, I have no problems with a constitution. However I do have a problem with people who see that their constitution is infallable. Things change; people, their morals, the world etc, and Law has to change to keep up with it.

Once again, it is inherently recognized as fallible which is why it can be amended.

Also, as it was mentioned, there's no tradition or history of gun ownership in Europe. I'm not sure how to draw a comparison for you, but...well..take away tea from the British?

Do that and we'll kill you! LOL :D

Common sense and a good degree of pragmatism.

And lots of individual documents.

They're pretty OK, I suppose. I don't really feel very strongly about constitutions, because they're usually out of date in 40-ish years when the world will have moved on from the original creation time.

Hence why there are amendments.

See the US constitution - an armed public - fantastic in wartime. Not so good when you're not in a war, though.

In your opinion.

number of people that actually need a gun to feed their families-minuscule and rifles for those people are not the problem-shotguns for hunting ok, double shot only, none of this 7 shot crap totally unnecessary....


I don't know the statistic for people who hunt for food, do you? Are you prepared to take away the means of feeding 100,000 families? 1,000,000? 50,000?

I wouldn't take away the right for anyone to feed their family, legally.

Where did you get in the impression people own automatic weapons left and right? What the hell are you talking about?!

I'm fine with taking guns away from people convicted of violent crimes and gun-related crimes.

Can you please explain....what exactly you mean by, "mental problems?"
automatic weapons-only what I've seen on tv-USA target ranges with automatic weapons in the hands of civilians- how many there are I have no idea but the fact that they are available means that criminals will be able to secure them as well, that's something the police shouldn't have to deal with...

mental problems- anyone who has a record of mental instability, maybe not someone who has anxiety problems or phobias but depression or anger management issues would be a cause for worry....

number of people that actually need a gun to feed their families-minuscule and rifles for those people are not the problem-shotguns for hunting ok, double shot only, none of this 7 shot crap totally unnecessary....

So no bird or squirrel hunting then?

primary problem handguns-are not a hunting weapon, meant to kill people. there is no need for them, target shooting acceptable but keep them securely locked up on the firing range....

Define need. Do you want the Gov't deciding what you "need"?

semi automatics, automatics, uzi's, assualt weapons and such WTF! get rid of that shit, if they are not around petty criminals can't attain them...they certainly not hunting weapons and there is no Olympic completion for Uzi's

You do realize that Semi-auto's and "assault weapons" are the same things right? Why can't you hunt w/ them?

and register every single firearms holder-any criminal or mental health problems disqualify them for life from firearm ownership....

Except for the registration which serves no perpose but for Gov't collection, that's pretty much the way it is in the US.

The American Culture of Violence: Bowling for Columbine.
I think that movie makes a good case for why, precisely, Americans shouldn't have guns.

And lots of individual documents.
Yeah. We've got a bit of a mish-mash here in the UK. But most of the laws are basically common sense-based.
Hence why there are amendments.
Which sort of ruins the point of having a constitution IMO.

"This is the definitive document for how this country shall be run!"
*10 years later*
"Oh, well this doesn't appear to be working... let's change it a bit!"

I can see why having one is good, because you can say that people are breaching the rules laid down in the constitution and such and it does give a strong document to work from in the creation of new laws, but seeing as it gets changed quite a bit, I don't really see the use of it myself.
In your opinion.
Yep. And that's all it really is.

The American Culture of Violence: Bowling for Columbine.
I think that movie makes a good case for why, precisely, Americans shouldn't have guns.

automatic weapons-only what I've seen on tv-USA target ranges with automatic weapons in the hands of civilians- how many there are I have no idea but the fact that they are available means that criminals will be able to secure them as well, that's something the police shouldn't have to deal with...

mental problems- anyone who has a record of mental instability, maybe not someone who has anxiety problems or phobias but depression or anger management issues would be a cause for worry....

And here's the whole problem.

The American Culture of Violence: Bowling for Columbine.
I think that movie makes a good case for why, precisely, Americans shouldn't have guns.

Now go look at Bowling for Truth to see how many scenes good ol' Mr Moore edited beyond reality.

automatic weapons-only what I've seen on tv-USA target ranges with automatic weapons in the hands of civilians- how many there are I have no idea but the fact that they are available means that criminals will be able to secure them as well, that's something the police shouldn't have to deal with...

mental problems- anyone who has a record of mental instability, maybe not someone who has anxiety problems or phobias but depression or anger management issues would be a cause for worry....

Ah, well, the TV lied to you. There are no automatic weapons in the hands of the general public. I'd say about

>1% of the general public have even seen an automatic weapon in real life, let alone handled one.

Hmm...you're on dangerous ground restricting rights based on mental handicaps, given that they can change because of circumstance and psychology is still a very young science.

Yeah. We've got a bit of a mish-mash here in the UK. But most of the laws are basically common sense-based.

Yet it is codefied, just not in singular form

Which sort of ruins the point of having a constitution IMO.

"This is the definitive document for how this country shall be run!"
*10 years later*
"Oh, well this doesn't appear to be working... let's change it a bit!"

I can see why having one is good, because you can say that people are breaching the rules laid down in the constitution and such and it does give a strong document to work from in the creation of new laws, but seeing as it gets changed quite a bit, I don't really see the use of it myself.

I see it as "This is the working model of our Gov't", Later " Some things need to be changed", etc.

Yep. And that's all it really is.

And mine is different. Each to his own as long as we accept that.

The American Culture of Violence: Bowling for Columbine.
I think that movie makes a good case for why, precisely, Americans shouldn't have guns.

With a distinct liberal slant that was obvious even to me, a liberal?

I agree, that movie was powerful. However, taking everyone's guns away isn't going to stop atrocities from happening. People are still going to blow up buildings and pump gas into subways.

One thing that movie makes me think about though, is the general lack of accountability that runs deep inside my beloved country. Parents never take the blame for anything. EVER.

How could you not notice your kid building bombs in your garage? Or talking about killing people? Where the hell were these kids' parents?

I think, from now on, parents of children who commit crimes, or are victims, should go to court to prove they weren't negligent. If people had to start actually taking care of their kids like fucking adults then half of this shit would never happen.

And here's the whole problem.

you're petty, you only read and interrupt things in ways that suit your argument....please go away I've no intention of responding to anymore of your childish responses.....

you're petty, you only read and interrupt things in ways that suit your argument....please go away I've no intention of responding to anymore of your childish responses.....

He was in the right though, he's not being petty, he's being realistic. I could base my perceptions of entire countries entirely on what I see on TV, or I could do a little research. Or even ask in this way:

"I see lots of Americans on TV with automatic weapons, is that realistic?"

Gun control is against state policy in the Armed Republic of Ashinhurst. Gun Ownership is manditory and non-gun owners face stiff jail sentences and hefty fines for failure to comply. as all citizens of A.R.o.A. are members of our nations defense forces, all sorts of conventional weapons are found in private homes. when our great nation fought its bloody war of independence we borrowed culturally from the American constitution. in the A.R.o.A Bill Of Rights , the First amendment states "A militia, consisting of all able bodied citizens, being necessisary to the defense of our nation and way of life, the rights of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms of any sort shall never be infringed." it was under these principles that led our nation to declare itself free from the USA and President -For-Life Hillary Clinton and fight for our independence. many have said we are a bunch of genocidal maniacs but it is not true, the so called "ethnic-cleansing" was nothing of the sort. the wholesale extermination of liberal-democrats(socialists) was more like natural selection, "survival of the fittest. having secured freedom for ourselves, our children and our firearms will will never live under a tyrants yoke again. to quote the immortal Charlton Heston "From MY Cold,Dead Hands":mp5: :sniper: :upyours:

I see it as "This is the working model of our Gov't", Later " Some things need to be changed", etc.
Well that's why I don't really see the need for one.

"This is what's appropriate now. We can swap it around pretty much any time we like," say the people writing and / or ammending constitutions.

I don't really think that it's a very good way to build stability in a state. If a constitution could be cast in stone, and could never change, it'd be a very powerful document - but on the other hand, a document being what it is, it needs changing once in a while.

Hmm. It's hard to say, really.
And mine is different. Each to his own as long as we accept that.
Absolutely.

you're petty, you only read and interrupt things in ways that suit your argument....please go away I've no intention of responding to anymore of your childish responses.....

You base things off of what you've seen on TV and call me "petty"? Please. I guess all Englishmen have bad teeth then.

Well that's why I don't really see the need for one.

"This is what's appropriate now. We can swap it around pretty much any time we like," say the people writing and / or ammending constitutions.

I don't really think that it's a very good way to build stability in a state. If a constitution could be cast in stone, and could never change, it'd be a very powerful document - but on the other hand, a document being what it is, it needs changing once in a while.

Hmm. It's hard to say, really.

Absolutely.

Large parts of the constitution haven't changed either though. I think part of the point is that, no matter what, many things are just basic rights and they don't need amending. We accept that as fact, but we like a legal document that says it, too.

Well that's why I don't really see the need for one.

"This is what's appropriate now. We can swap it around pretty much any time we like," say the people writing and / or ammending constitutions.

I don't really think that it's a very good way to build stability in a state. If a constitution could be cast in stone, and could never change, it'd be a very powerful document - but on the other hand, a document being what it is, it needs changing once in a while.

Hmm. It's hard to say, really.

Absolutely.

It's not even what's "appropriate". It's more "this is what we think is correct". As for changes, it's not an easy thing to do. For all intents and purposes, it is "cast in stone". There have only been 27 amendments passed(the first ten being the BIll of Rights) in over 230 years to the US constitution.

Ah, well, the TV lied to you. There are no automatic weapons in the hands of the general public. I'd say about

>1% of the general public have even seen an automatic weapon in real life, let alone handled one.

Hmm...you're on dangerous ground restricting rights based on mental handicaps, given that they can change because of circumstance and psychology is still a very young science.
point taken on the auto's...but I do know that it takes very little effort to convert semi auto to full auto's

mental handicaps-it's used as grounds to disqualify ownership here, I had a friend who tried to strangle his brother(mentally confused at the time) he's ok now as long as he's on his meds, but he couldn't get a permit to buy a shotgun for hunting which is a good thing, forget to take his meds and we could have a problem...

It's not even what's "appropriate". It's more "this is what we think is correct". As for changes, it's not an easy thing to do. For all intents and purposes, it is "cast in stone". There have only been 27 amendments passed(the first ten being the BIll of Rights) in over 230 years to the US constitution.
That's still 17 in 230 years, which is a fair few, and IIRC you've a few in the pipeline from Dubya's reign, no?

point taken on the auto's...but I do know that it takes very little effort to convert semi auto to full auto's

mental handicaps-it's used as grounds to disqualify ownership here, I had a friend who tried to strangle his brother(mentally confused at the time) he's ok now as long as he's on his meds, but he couldn't get a permit to buy a shotgun for hunting which is a good thing, forget to take his meds and we could have a problem...

It's common knowledge how to convert a weapon to full auto, but you're at risk of it jamming or exploding in your hands.

I dunno about mental laws here, I haven't had any classes in regards to that yet really. I'll take a look. I can see someone being severely unstable not owning a gun.

and just when was the last time you were mugged in Alberta:rolleyes: guns for self defense are a myth, no criminal is going to wait while you find your gun to protect yourself....if there are no guns (specific handguns), criminals won't have them either....

Not true at all. Criminals exist everywhere, and just because a government totally bans guns doesn't mean that people won't have them (black market, anyone?). And besides, I'm not willing to catch a person in the act of breaking into my house with an illegally-obtained gun, and not be able to do diddly to stop him because my government won't let me protect myself. Sound fair to anybody here?

Many people don't seem to realize that decent, law-abiding citizens, who go through the proper channels to get guns, don't go on murderous rampages, while those who are not decent, law-abiding citizens do not go through the proper channels, which means that they'd get guns whether or not the government allows them to or not. So why not let the people defend themselves from intrusions?

Yes and yes.

On private property.

I'm tired of "private property" being used as a reason for indecent acts.

Fine. But, keep it in your country.
I'm not really interested in telling other countries how to run their internal affairs.

ppbbtthh...

Nice hyperbole...
I'm watching it unfolding in my own country right now.

Sick, and inhuman gun murders are going through the roof. Without guns, many of these murders would be a lot more difficult to execute (pun not intended) and thus probably wouldn't happen so much.

True. Where was it said otherwise?
It was implied in the first few posts.

No, it should not. That means a democracy, one of the worst systems of government possible.
That's the way we do things in Ireland, and it seems to be working fine. But hey if Americans want less say in the running of their own country, that's their choice.

Yes. I do.
The writers and inspiration were human, so how can it be infallible?

That's still 17 in 230 years, which is a fair few, and IIRC you've a few in the pipeline from Dubya's reign, no?

Not that will pass. There's always a few in the "pipeline". Most don't pass.

17 changes in 230 years (3 of which dealing w/ slavery) really isn't that many. We haven't had on in over 30 years.

A gun, like a knife, a rope or a flammable fluid, is simply an inanimate object. They have their legitimate uses as tools. A gun can be used for shooting practice to improve ones target skills, farmers can use them to chase away pests, and horse-racing supervisors can fire a shot to signal the start of a race.

However, guns, like knives, and car petrol, can be used as deadly weapons. In fact, I'm sure that we could all think of something that could be used as a deadly weapon. For this reason, banning guns is as stupid as banning kitchen knives or flammable fluids. Banning guns would be unfair on people who need to use them for legitimate purposes.

It's common knowledge how to convert a weapon to full auto, but you're at risk of it jamming or exploding in your hands.

I dunno about mental laws here, I haven't had any classes in regards to that yet really. I'll take a look. I can see someone being severely unstable not owning a gun.

In the US, people w/ a history of mental disorders are not legally able to purchase firearms.

The concept is so that the American people can be capable to raise a militia should the need occur. There is no qualifier in the amendment as to whether the need should exist or not, it's an all-times rule.
If the idea is to be able to raise a militia, then surely mandatory military training for all men (like in Finland) would work better?

If the idea is to be able to raise a militia, then surely mandatory military training for all men (like in Finland) would work better?

And make you the government's puppet? No thanks.

In all seriousness, I've wondered if having a two-year mandatory military service law wouldn't help shape up the US a bit. Would certainly make the government pause before it sent everyone to die in a foreign country.

But, a legal militia is one of our rights, so, I say go for it.

I live in Northern Ireland, a country where there has been more than its fair share of violence. From my perspective there is NO good reason for the ordinary citizen to hold a gun. A gun's sole purpose is to maim, injure or kill. I have seen enough violence in my society. If guns are banned there will still be brutal murders but no other tool used by mankind in general has the unique ability to kill easily, and from a distance. From across the pond it is a complete mystery why the U.S. has such a fixation.

In live in Dublin, which is only a stone's throw away from where you live. I wish that Irish conservatives, like American conservatives, could champion the right to gun ownership. Guns were banned about ten years ago and now only criminals have guns.

Not true at all. Criminals exist everywhere, and just because a government totally bans guns doesn't mean that people won't have them (black market, anyone?). And besides, I'm not willing to catch a person in the act of breaking into my house with an illegally-obtained gun, and not be able to do diddly to stop him because my government won't let me protect myself. Sound fair to anybody here?

Many people don't seem to realize that decent, law-abiding citizens, who go through the proper channels to get guns, don't go on murderous rampages, while those who are not decent, law-abiding citizens do not go through the proper channels, which means that they'd get guns whether or not the government allows them to or not. So why not let the people defend themselves from intrusions?

totally banning handguns works, it is extremely difficult to get a handgun in Canada, criminals do get them but if you compare how many are in the hands of Canadian criminals vs American criminals it's not even close. The more private ownership there is the more handguns there are for criminals to steal...criminals breaking into houses while the owners are in them are relatively rare,B&E criminals do not want confrontations.....

"Many people don't seem to realize that decent, law-abiding citizens, who go through the proper channels to get guns, don't go on murderous rampages" on the contrary, it's law abiding citizens that are responsible for the worst massacres, most don't even have a criminal past, criminals don't routinely massacre there's no profit in that, and profit is what they want, when criminals kill they do so normally to eliminate a rival.....not that criminals don't kill innocents they do......

- An armed public is arguably a greater danger to itself as opposed to criminals

This would be a surprise to Switzerland.

totally banning handguns works, it is extremely difficult to get a handgun in Canada, criminals do get them but if you compare how many are in the hands of Canadian criminals vs American criminals it's not even close. The more private ownership there is the more handguns there are for criminals to steal...criminals breaking into houses while the owners are in them are relatively rare,B&E criminals do not want confrontations.....

"Many people don't seem to realize that decent, law-abiding citizens, who go through the proper channels to get guns, don't go on murderous rampages" on the contrary, it's law abiding citizens that are responsible for the worst massacres, most don't even have a criminal past, criminals don't routinely massacre there's no profit in that, and profit is what they want, when criminals kill they do so normally to eliminate a rival.....not that criminals don't kill innocents they do......



So you're another one of the ones who wants to blame the victims of crime for the actions of criminals.

Don't be stupid, of cource we have laws. Only the thing is we don't need a 'constitution' to make ours.

You just don't call it a Constitution.

You call it the Magna Carta.

You act so though you are frightened by your own government. One which you vote for.

"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government purposes are beneficent...The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in the insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning, but without understanding."
-- Louis Brandeis, Associate Justice of the US supreme Court, 1928

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
-- Mahatma Gandhi

"The Constitution is not an instrument for government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."
-- Patrick Henry

totally banning handguns works, it is extremely difficult to get a handgun in Canada, criminals do get them but if you compare how many are in the hands of Canadian criminals vs American criminals it's not even close. The more private ownership there is the more handguns there are for criminals to steal...criminals breaking into houses while the owners are in them are relatively rare,B&E criminals do not want confrontations.....

"Many people don't seem to realize that decent, law-abiding citizens, who go through the proper channels to get guns, don't go on murderous rampages" on the contrary, it's law abiding citizens that are responsible for the worst massacres, most don't even have a criminal past, criminals don't routinely massacre there's no profit in that, and profit is what they want, when criminals kill they do so normally to eliminate a rival.....not that criminals don't kill innocents they do......

But, those who do go on murderous rampages WILL go on murderous rampages whether or not guns are legal (again, black market).

"......not that criminals don't kill innocents they do......"

Well, then, why can't those innocents protect themselves from the people who have guns?

I'm not against registering guns, that's a good thing! License to carry, own, use? Sure!

Bad things.

Once registered, the government knows who has them and where to go to round them up. As happened in California.

As for a license, what other right requires a license to exercise? Do you have to get a license to speak, to worship?

Why is one needed to exercise one's Second Amendment guaranteed rights?

number of people that actually need a gun to feed their families-minuscule and rifles for those people are not the problem-shotguns for hunting ok, double shot only, none of this 7 shot crap totally unnecessary....

primary problem handguns-are not a hunting weapon, meant to kill people. there is no need for them, target shooting acceptable but keep them securely locked up on the firing range....

semi automatics, automatics, uzi's, assualt weapons and such WTF! get rid of that shit, if they are not around petty criminals can't attain them...they certainly not hunting weapons and there is no Olympic completion for Uzi's

and register every single firearms holder-any criminal or mental health problems disqualify them for life from firearm ownership....

The Second Amendment does not specify hunting or Olympic competition.

You lose.

That should really be the National Guard, no?

No.

It is the US populace, aged 17 to 45.

The Second Amendment does not specify hunting or Olympic competition.

You lose.

I'm still wondering about the double shot/seven shot conundrum. Why can't I go squirrel or pheasant hunting?

Bad things.

Once registered, the government knows who has them and where to go to round them up. As happened in California.

As for a license, what other right requires a license to exercise? Do you have to get a license to speak, to worship?

Why is one needed to exercise one's Second Amendment guaranteed rights?

That's a bit more paranoid than I subscribe to. If they want my gun, they can fight over it with me.

I do have a license to drive, and to own a cat or dog, and to get married. (Or can get one, rather) I can also get a license to hunt or fish, or to operate heavy machinery. Many of those don't involve things I can use to kill people at a distance.

How do you explain the radiclly lower murder rates in Europe compared to the rather high ones in America, then?

An entirely different culture. One more subservient to their leaders.

Europe has radically higher tax rates, too.

And I'm pretty sure that if the need arose, the American government would be glad to arm it's citizens in case of an invasion.

That's called the military. The militia is a self-armed group.

That's a bit more paranoid than I subscribe to. If they want my gun, they can fight over it with me.

I do have a license to drive, and to own a cat or dog, and to get married. (Or can get one, rather) I can also get a license to hunt or fish, or to operate heavy machinery. Many of those don't involve things I can use to kill people at a distance.

My problem w/ licenses/registration is that it's been used to many times to end ownership in the US by simply closing the offices that process them (Chicago, DC) or use them to round up the firearms that have been licensed after promising not to restrict them (NY, CA).

None of that has happened w/ fishing licenses, etc. OF course the same arguement is used to keep gays from legally marrying. They can't get their license.

automatic weapons-only what I've seen on tv-USA target ranges with automatic weapons in the hands of civilians- how many there are I have no idea but the fact that they are available means that criminals will be able to secure them as well, that's something the police shouldn't have to deal with...

To get a fully automatic weapon, one must undergo an FBI background check and pay a $200 fee on top of the exhorbitant cost of a full auto weapon.

mental problems- anyone who has a record of mental instability, maybe not someone who has anxiety problems or phobias but depression or anger management issues would be a cause for worry....

So, your entire opposition is based upon spineless fear?

My problem w/ licenses/registration is that it's been used to many times to end ownership in the US by simply closing the offices that process them (Chicago, DC) or use them to round up the firearms that have been licensed after promising not to restrict them (NY, CA).

None of that has happened w/ fishing licenses, etc. OF course the same arguement is used to keep gays from legally marrying. They can't get their license.

Soooo.... no one in Chicago owns a gun legally? I shall have to look into these matters more closely.

But, those who do go on murderous rampages WILL go on murderous rampages whether or not guns are legal (again, black market).

"......not that criminals don't kill innocents they do......"

Well, then, why can't those innocents protect themselves from the people who have guns?

black market is always possible I'll concede that but it's unlikely, law abiding citizens who snap and go on a rampage generally don't have the knowledge to find things on the "black market"....I know there are people out there you can hire to have someone killed but I would have no clue who to approach or how because I don't circulate in that level of society......most people who try get caught by law enforcement because they have no idea what they are doing, even the criminals turn them in to the police....my experience with criminals (and I know a few unfortunately)is they tend not to want to deal with non criminals as that's a sure way to get caught by the law....

i

but seeing as it gets changed quite a bit, I don't really see the use of it myself.

27 times in over 200 years does not "quite a bit" make.

Soooo.... no one in Chicago owns a gun legally? I shall have to look into these matters more closely.

Handguns. They required registration in '68 then closed the offices in '82 so no more legally owned handguns that hadn't been previously registered.

you're petty, you only read and interrupt things in ways that suit your argument....please go away I've no intention of responding to anymore of your childish responses.....

And, you adhere slavishly to something you've seen on TV.

Childish, indeed...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

Now, that's funny!

Ah, really funny. I'm a citizen of a country without paranoid gun freaks. And if I would want to rob a bank - well, I would have serious problems to get a gun.

Of course, there are criminals who get guns - but it is much harder for them.

And there aren't so many shootings. One thing is more terrible than a nervous gangster with a gun. It is if both the gangster and his victim have guns. You think the gun will protect you? Well, you won't have the time to pull it. And if you tried, you probably get shot.

Fighting crime is something a trained police force should do, and not the normal citizen.

black market is always possible I'll concede that but it's unlikely, law abiding citizens who snap and go on a rampage generally don't have the knowledge to find things on the "black market"....I know there are people out there you can hire to have someone killed but I would have no clue who to approach or how because I don't circulate in that level of society......most people who try get caught by law enforcement because they have no idea what they are doing, even the criminals turn them in to the police....my experience with criminals (and I know a few unfortunately)is they tend not to want to deal with non criminals as that's a sure way to get caught by the law....

i

FBI studies state that over 80% of illegal handguns are acquired from either the street or from aquaintances who transfer them illegally.

point taken on the auto's...but I do know that it takes very little effort to convert semi auto to full auto's

And, how do you "know" this? Ever tried it?

It requires some not so basic machining skills and equipment.

But, that aside, full auto is cost prohibitive.

Ah, really funny. I'm a citizen of a country without paranoid gun freaks. And if I would want to rob a bank - well, I would have serious problems to get a gun.

Of course, there are criminals who get guns - but it is much harder for them.

And there aren't so many shootings. One thing is more terrible than a nervous gangster with a gun. It is if both the gangster and his victim have guns. You think the gun will protect you? Well, you won't have the time to pull it. And if you tried, you probably get shot.

Fighting crime is something a trained police force should do, and not the normal citizen.

The myth of you can't protect yourself. Care to prove that? Are you saying the police can protect you at all times? In the US, they are not legally required to.

Handguns. They required registration in '68 then closed the offices in '82 so no more legally owned handguns that hadn't been previously registered.

Oh! Ok.

To get a fully automatic weapon, one must undergo an FBI background check and pay a $200 fee on top of the exhorbitant cost of a full auto weapon.



So, your entire opposition is based upon spineless fear?

hmm so it is possible to get a fully auto without to much problem, no criminal record or serious mental problems, a little cash and away you go.....

of course now that doesn't mean you don't have some criminal intentions(or were never caught before) or that you do not have a serious undiagnosed mental issues or will possibly develop some in the future....and there is the chance some criminal will break into your home and steal the weapon, sell it on the street to a deranged criminal.....

That's still 17 in 230 years, which is a fair few, and IIRC you've a few in the pipeline from Dubya's reign, no?

No, it's 27.

hmm so it is possible to get a fully auto without to much problem, no criminal record or serious mental problems, a little cash and away you go.....

of course now that doesn't mean you don't have some criminal intentions(or were never caught before) or that you do not have a serious undiagnosed mental issues or will possibly develop some in the future....and there is the chance some criminal will break into your home and steal the weapon, sell it on the street to a deranged criminal.....

That plus about $15,000 dollars. Just a little cash.

But of course you should restrict things based on what "may" happen but hasn't.

No, it's 27.

We're not including the BOR.

hmm so it is possible to get a fully auto without to much problem, no criminal record or serious mental problems, a little cash and away you go.....

of course now that doesn't mean you don't have some criminal intentions(or were never caught before) or that you do not have a serious undiagnosed mental issues or will possibly develop some in the future....and there is the chance some criminal will break into your home and steal the weapon, sell it on the street to a deranged criminal.....

Well, under that logic then anything that could be made into a dangerous weapon should be banned altogether. No fertilizer, nitrogen, or common house hold chemicals should ever be sold again.

We'd rather go our day to day lives and enjoy ourselves than sit at home and cower in fear that a car is going to drive by, lobbing grenades and shooting at people with machine guns.

Because it just doesn't happen here.

There are shootouts and horrible crimes and so on, but people seem to think every street in America is home to 200 thugs with pistols and Uzis and grenades. How much TV do you people watch?!

In the US, they are not legally required to.

And hospitals aren't required to treat patients, or firemen to put out fires? No offense, but that's the most retarded thing I've ever heard.

And things should be restricted on what may happen, to preotect people from those things happening. Guns are designed to kill stuff, so selling them to pretty much anyone is very likely to result in death.

And hospitals aren't required to treat patients, or firemen to put out fires?

No offense, but that's the most retarded thing I've ever heard.

Don't believe me?

Warren V District of Columbia
Gonzales V Castle Rock

And hospitals aren't required to treat patients, or firemen to put out fires?

No offense, but that's the most retarded thing I've ever heard.

Well, actually, I don't think hospitals are required to treat you. If you were to collapse outside the doors, they don't have to bring you in. You get into the hospital they may. And I think they're only required to treat emergency room visits.

27 times in over 200 years does not "quite a bit" make.

That averages to more than one per decade. For the "Supreme Law of the Land," that's pretty often.

I'm tired of "private property" being used as a reason for indecent acts.

Oh well. That's life.

"Property is surely a right of mankind as real as liberty. … The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist."
-- John Adams, Founding Father and Second President of the United States

Driving without a license or registration is "indecent?"

I'm not really interested in telling other countries how to run their internal affairs.

Unless it's the US, right?

Sick, and inhuman gun murders are going through the roof. Without guns, many of these murders would be a lot more difficult to execute (pun not intended) and thus probably wouldn't happen so much.

Perhaps, if the victims were armed, they'd be able to defend themselves.

That's the way we do things in Ireland, and it seems to be working fine. But hey if Americans want less say in the running of their own country, that's their choice.

Democracy means if the majority want to enact slavery, it happens.

The writers and inspiration were human, so how can it be infallible?

Because it includes a mechanism to correct itself, if need be.

That averages to more than one per decade. For the "Supreme Law of the Land," that's pretty often.

Ten of them are the BOR 1791, three others were immediately after the Civil war.

And, how do you "know" this? Ever tried it?

It requires some not so basic machining skills and equipment.

But, that aside, full auto is cost prohibitive.

well -1st gun smiths say for many guns that semi auto it is not difficult to do

-2nd-it's amazing how inventive people are and with a little research, some mechanical skills, and very easily acquired tools there isn't much that can't be done

I'm always amazed at the ability of farmers with high school education to fabricate entirely new machines and equipment from parts...turning a semi into a fully auto weapon would be small matter for them...metal lathes, drill presses and other metal fabricating tools are common on many farms....

I do have a license to drive, and to own a cat or dog, and to get married. (Or can get one, rather) I can also get a license to hunt or fish, or to operate heavy machinery. Many of those don't involve things I can use to kill people at a distance.

None of these are federal licenses. They are all at the state or local level.

well -1st gun smiths say for many guns that semi auto it is not difficult to do

Source?

-2nd-it's amazing how inventive people are and with a little research, some mechanical skills, and very easily acquired tools there isn't much that can't be done

I'm always amazed at the ability of farmers with high school education to fabricate entirely new machines and equipment from parts...turning a semi into a fully auto weapon would be small matter for them...metal lathes, drill presses and other metal fabricating tools are common on many farms....

And since it hasn't been done enough to even be counted in statistics, it means Semi-autos should be banned because it "may" happen?

Soooo.... no one in Chicago owns a gun legally? I shall have to look into these matters more closely.

Or Washington DC, yet they have a skyrocketing crime rate.

None of these are federal licenses. They are all at the state or local level.

Oh, federal license? Fuck that, Feds can mind their own business.

Ah, really funny.

Yes.

It was hilarious. My sides still hurt.

And there aren't so many shootings. One thing is more terrible than a nervous gangster with a gun. It is if both the gangster and his victim have guns. You think the gun will protect you? Well, you won't have the time to pull it. And if you tried, you probably get shot.

Who said I won't have time to get the first shot? What protects me is my skill, not my weapon.

But, if you don't have the skill, then don't YOU carry a gun. But, do not presume to decide for others.

Fighting crime is something a trained police force should do, and not the normal citizen.

I do not own weapons to fight crime.

Try again.

Oh, federal license? Fuck that, Feds can mind their own business.

Even state licenses have issues. In IL, they have the FOID card. You need one to buy a firearm or ammo in the state. It's only $5 for five years and a passport photo. No big deal right?

Our current Governor supported legislation making it $500 dollars.

hmm so it is possible to get a fully auto without to much problem, no criminal record or serious mental problems, a little cash and away you go.....

Never tried to get a Class III, have you?

of course now that doesn't mean you don't have some criminal intentions(or were never caught before) or that you do not have a serious undiagnosed mental issues or will possibly develop some in the future....and there is the chance some criminal will break into your home and steal the weapon, sell it on the street to a deranged criminal.....

Oooh!

Now, we must punish for intent or the acts of others.

Great system of laws, you have there. Tell you what, keep'em in Canada, that bastion of liberty...

Never tried to get a Class III, have you?

According to the Tele, they hand them out in kindergarten.

[/QUOTE]

We're not including the BOR.

Bill of Rights is still comprised of Amendments. They may have a collective name, too, but they are still, each of them, an amendment.

Even state licenses have issues. In IL, they have the FOID card. You need one to buy a firearm or ammo in the state. It's only $5 for five years and a passport photo. No big deal right?

Our current Governor supported legislation making it $500 dollars.

I don't think bumping up the price a little is so bad, but 500 is a bit ridiculous.

Bill of Rights is still comprised of Amendments. They may have a collective name, too, but they are still, each of them, an amendment.

I know, more of a semantics thing than anything else. Other than the BOR, 17 changes over a 210 year period.

Despite what is law and what is not, rules where meant to be broken. The constitution does clearly state that we have all rights to bear arms, but when this law was written it was meant to impose that these guns where for protection, not murder.


Do you really think the people who are using guns for robbery and murder give two shakes about the constitution?

I don't think bumping up the price a little is so bad, but 500 is a bit ridiculous.

I could see $10 to cover processing costs. That's a justification. $500 is just the same as requiring $1000 worth of "safe storage" for a $75 pistol. Restriction.

Do you really think the people who are using guns for robbery and murder give two shakes about the constitution?

Nor the laws telling them they can't own firearms or use them in crime.

It is true that guns and the like are designed to kill, ergo the need for tight control over them. However, the fact remains that people guns don't kill people, people kill people. Therein lies the need to protect oneself from firearms...by using YOUR own firearms.

Circular logic, i know...but the issue here is that in the days of the Forefathers they settled disputes and upheld their honour by duelling with weapons, aside from personal protection against wild animals since most lived in rural or suburban areas. HOWEVER, in today's urbanised we have established an entity of Justice known as the Court and aided by principles called Laws with the Supreme Law known as the Constitution. Thus, why bother shooting each other to death? Its messy, costly (Guns & ammo aren't exactly cheap) and propogates the cycle of violence.

eg: A shot B
B's second shoots A
A's second shooots B's second
Family war
...et cetera...
Both parties may eventually get shot and die

In the end, both the offended and offender dies.
This is Justice?

So I say, ban all guns from private citizens...perhaps then we can have a more diplomatic society instead of misfires and accidents from curious children who pull triggers unknowingly...

Ten of them are the BOR 1791, three others were immediately after the Civil war.

I know that, and I said "averages," not "was."

And besides, why are we excluding the BOR? All the BOR is is a group of 10 amendments. Not some special category of amendments, just 10 amendments that were added almost immediately after the Constitution was ratified.

To show how stupid some laws are, in New Jersey, this is classified as an "Assault Weapon".

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a186/kecibukia/Model60.jpg

A .22 semi-auto.

It is true that guns and the like are designed to kill, ergo the need for tight control over them. However, the fact remains that people guns don't kill people, people kill people. Therein lies the need to protect oneself from firearms...by using YOUR own firearms.

Circular logic, i know...but the issue here is that in the days of the Forefathers they settled disputes and upheld their honour by duelling with weapons, aside from personal protection against wild animals since most lived in rural or suburban areas. HOWEVER, in today's urbanised we have established an entity of Justice known as the Court and aided by principles called Laws with the Supreme Law known as the Constitution. Thus, why bother shooting each other to death? Its messy, costly (Guns & ammo aren't exactly cheap) and propogates the cycle of violence.

eg: A shot B
B's second shoots A
A's second shooots B's second
Family war
...et cetera...
Both parties may eventually get shot and die

In the end, both the offended and offender dies.
This is Justice?

So I say, ban all guns from private citizens...perhaps then we can have a more diplomatic society instead of misfires and accidents from curious children who pull triggers unknowingly...

And criminals running rampant w/ and w/o firearms.

I know that, and I said "averages," not "was."

And besides, why are we excluding the BOR? All the BOR is is a group of 10 amendments. Not some special category of amendments, just 10 amendments that were added almost immediately after the Constitution was ratified.

Like I said, more semantics than anything else. We haven't had a new amendment in over 30 years.

And hospitals aren't required to treat patients, or firemen to put out fires? No offense, but that's the most retarded thing I've ever heard.

Warren v. District of Columbia; It is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen."

DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services: Concluded that Constitutional duties of care and protection only exist as to certain individuals, such as incarcerated prisoners, involuntarily committed mental patients and others restrained against their will and therefore unable to protect themselves.

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department: The Pacifica Police had no duty to protect her, so when they failed to do so and she was injured they were not liable.

Riss v. City of New York: Police are not duty-bound to protect.

And things should be restricted on what may happen, to preotect people from those things happening.

Ah. So, cars may be used to kill - as in drunk driving - so, ban them.

Alcohol may be used to kill - as in drunk driving - so, ban that, too.

An awful lot may get banned in your world. Knives, baseball bats, hammers, ice-picks...

It is true that guns and the like are designed to kill, ergo the need for tight control over them. However, the fact remains that people guns don't kill people, people kill people. Therein lies the need to protect oneself from firearms...by using YOUR own firearms.

Circular logic, i know...but the issue here is that in the days of the Forefathers they settled disputes and upheld their honour by duelling with weapons, aside from personal protection against wild animals since most lived in rural or suburban areas. HOWEVER, in today's urbanised we have established an entity of Justice known as the Court and aided by principles called Laws with the Supreme Law known as the Constitution. Thus, why bother shooting each other to death? Its messy, costly (Guns & ammo aren't exactly cheap) and propogates the cycle of violence.

eg: A shot B
B's second shoots A
A's second shooots B's second
Family war
...et cetera...
Both parties may eventually get shot and die

In the end, both the offended and offender dies.
This is Justice?

So I say, ban all guns from private citizens...perhaps then we can have a more diplomatic society instead of misfires and accidents from curious children who pull triggers unknowingly...

Anyone who leaves their gun lying around loaded and cocked deserves a dead child. The kid's probably better off in heaven.

Ah. So, cars may be used to kill - as in drunk driving - so, ban them.

Alcohol may be used to kill - as in drunk driving - so, ban that, too.

An awful lot may get banned in your world. Knives, baseball bats, hammers, ice-picks...

H2O

well -1st gun smiths say for many guns that semi auto it is not difficult to do

Gun-smiths.

-2nd-it's amazing how inventive people are and with a little research, some mechanical skills, and very easily acquired tools there isn't much that can't be done

Mechanical skills.

I'm always amazed at the ability of farmers with high school education to fabricate entirely new machines and equipment from parts...turning a semi into a fully auto weapon would be small matter for them...metal lathes, drill presses and other metal fabricating tools are common on many farms....

And, by the paucity of these conversions, your argument is rendered null and void.

Anyone who leaves their gun lying around loaded and cocked deserves a dead child. The kid's probably better off in heaven.

Ignoring the fact there are more pool drownings / year than firearm deaths and that firearm deaths have been dropping even w/ expanded ownership.

Even state licenses have issues. In IL, they have the FOID card. You need one to buy a firearm or ammo in the state. It's only $5 for five years and a passport photo. No big deal right?

Our current Governor supported legislation making it $500 dollars.

Which is why I'm in Texas.

Ah. So, cars may be used to kill - as in drunk driving - so, ban them.

Alcohol may be used to kill - as in drunk driving - so, ban that, too.

An awful lot may get banned in your world. Knives, baseball bats, hammers, ice-picks...

YEAH! Ban Alcohol Consumption! (Not medical alcohol) Its a drug anyway...but cars need not be banned because of no more alcohol

However, the fact remains that the single use of a gun is to kill...name another use of a gun aside from killing?

YEAH! Ban Alcohol Consumption! (Not medical alcohol) Its a drug anyway...but cars need not be banned because of no more alcohol

However, the fact remains that the single use of a gun is to kill...name another use of a gun aside from killing?

Sport shooting? Didn't you ever play Skeet-shoot on NES?

Do you really think the people who are using guns for robbery and murder give two shakes about the constitution?

Nope.

So, the answer is to restrict ownership for everyone else?

Ever hear of Sammy "The Bull" Gravano? Here's what he had to say about gun control;

"Gun control? It’s the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I’m a bad guy, I’m always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You will pull the trigger with a lock on, and I’ll pull the trigger. We’ll see who wins."

YEAH! Ban Alcohol Consumption! (Not medical alcohol) Its a drug anyway...but cars need not be banned because of no more alcohol

However, the fact remains that the single use of a gun is to kill...name another use of a gun aside from killing?

Target shooting.

Ah. So, cars may be used to kill - as in drunk driving - so, ban them.

Alcohol may be used to kill - as in drunk driving - so, ban that, too.

An awful lot may get banned in your world. Knives, baseball bats, hammers, ice-picks...


Well, you can use a lot of tools to kill someone - but normaly they are used to do other things, like getting from A to B or playing baseball. And so a restriction would make no sense.

But for what other purposes guns can be used than threatening, injuring or killing other people? Well you could use them to open your beer bottle perhaps , or shoot out the lightbulb if you are too lazy to switch it off...

Well, you can use a lot of tools to kill someone - but normaly they are used to do other things, like getting from A to B or playing baseball. And so a restriction would make no sense.

But for what other purposes guns can be used than threatening, injuring or killing other people? Well you could use them to open your beer bottle perhaps , or shoot out the lightbulb if you are too lazy to switch it off...

Since killing seems to be the only thing you can think of using a firearm for, you really shouldn't own one.

Would you use a saw to hammer in a nail? Right tool for the right job.

Well, you can use a lot of tools to kill someone - but normaly they are used to do other things, like getting from A to B or playing baseball. And so a restriction would make no sense.

But for what other purposes guns can be used than threatening, injuring or killing other people? Well you could use them to open your beer bottle perhaps , or shoot out the lightbulb if you are too lazy to switch it off...

Hunting? Target practice? PEOPLE STILL HUNT TO FEED THEIR FAMILIES.

Target shooting.

For this purposes, a small air pistol or an air rifle would be enough. You don't need sharp munition for this.

And you don't need the weapon at home, only at the shooting range. So you could lock them there.

Sport shooting? Didn't you ever play Skeet-shoot on NES?
Nope. However, its just another way of killing stuff isn't it? (Even if it is non-living...)

-If a bird, human or any living thing is outlawed as a target, hey! What the heck! Lets shoot some target boards! or Clay pigeons!

Knives, on the other hand, slice food into bite sized pieces to eat...

edits:

Speeding's another story mind you...it arises only when people decide to be a show-off or in a rush so much so as to throw caution to the wind...

How does one educate with guns? I do not get you

but cars need not be banned because of no more alcohol

Nah, no one's ever died because of speeding...

However, the fact remains that the single use of a gun is to kill...name another use of a gun aside from killing?

Ever tried education? It does wonders.

If all guns are used for is to kill, I don't want the cops to have'em either. How about you?

Since killing seems to be the only thing you can think of using a firearm for, you really shouldn't own one.

Would you use a saw to hammer in a nail? Right tool for the right job.

I don't own a firearm - and if I would have a pistol in my hands, I probably wouldn't know how to shoot, and even if I get it work, I would miss everything.

The constitution is old, it needs to be updated to the views society best views how this country should run. I'm not saying I completely disagree with the constitution, as right now it is the only form of government we got. on the other hand, what about Parliament? Parliament has been around longer than the Constitution, so could we not say Parliament is also wrong?

Now, guns shouldn't be banned, the constitution only certifies our rights, but the invisible cannot be seen. I mean by this, there are rules that clarify what the constitution says that aren't written on the constitution. For example, you must be 18 to be able to carry a concealed gun. I agree there should be a tighter control, tracking devices should be used, and maybe even locking devices that only its true owner can unlock (there is something already like that in the talks, I've seen a documentary on it).

The constitution is right and wrong to some people, not everyone agrees to it, but I do, I just think it needs to be adjusted to fit today's society. You guys have no right to criticize the constitution, because we could just as well say the same about Parliament, or any other form of government out there.

Nope. However, its just another way of killing stuff isn't it? (Even if it is non-living...)

-If a bird, human or any living thing is outlawed as a target, hey! What the heck! Lets shoot some target boards! or Clay pigeons!

Knives, on the other hand, slice food into bite sized pieces to eat...

Until you pull your head out of your ass and understand that there are still people in the world who feed their families with their guns, you've got nothing relevant to say.

I don't own a firearm - and if I would have a pistol in my hands, I probably wouldn't know how to shoot, and even if I get it work, I would miss everything.

That's what classes are for.

For this purposes, a small air pistol or an air rifle would be enough. You don't need sharp munition for this.

And you don't need the weapon at home, only at the shooting range. So you could lock them there.

Ah, now we're getting into what people "need" again. I'm so glad I have people here telling me what I "need" to have.

Of course that's moving the goalposts. First it's "give a reason", then "you don't need it for that"

Until you pull your head out of your ass and understand that there are still people in the world who feed their families with their guns, you've got nothing relevant to say.

Nasty...

Even so, I'm talking in the urban context...hey we don't see many game in cities do we?

I don't own a firearm - and if I would have a pistol in my hands, I probably wouldn't know how to shoot, and even if I get it work, I would miss everything.

Not knowing how to fire one and only being able to discern one purpose are not the same.

At one time, I didn't know how to shoot a firearm. I was taught.

Hunting? Target practice? PEOPLE STILL HUNT TO FEED THEIR FAMILIES.

Well, I'm not sure about the laws in your country, but probably you need a hunting license anyway. So why not license the hunting rifles as well?

Until you pull your head out of your ass and understand that there are still people in the world who feed their families with their guns, you've got nothing relevant to say.

Nasty...

Even so, I'm talking in the urban context...hey we don't see many game animals in cities do we?

Nasty...

Even so, I'm talking in the urban context...hey we don't see many game in cities do we?

And the posts are moved even further.

Well, I'm not sure about the laws in your country, but probably you need a hunting license anyway. So why not license the hunting rifles as well?

Because a requirement hunting license hasn't been used to restrict the population from hunting, like firearm licenses have been used to prevent ownership.

Not knowing how to fire one and only being able to discern one purpose are not the same.

At one time, I didn't know how to shoot a firearm. I was taught.

Well, did you learn how to deal with an armed robber as well? It's a big difference between shooting at a piece of paper, and using a gun against other persons. Especially if this person could shoot you, too!

Are you really so paranoid, that you think only you are able to protect yourself and your familiy? Well, if there is a burglar - let the police do their job, and don't try to play the hero. I mean, for some people it is nice to die as a hero. But I prefer living as a coward...

Guns are designed only to kill. Ban guns.
Bows are designed only to kill. Ban archery. Too bad, I always enjoyed that sport...
Swords are designed only to kill. Tell the history buffs that their sword collections are illegal.
I have, as a gift from my grandfather, a WWII Japanese bayonet that h got during his service. It was designed only to kill. Should that be banned, too?

Yes, guns can kill from a difference. So can crossbows and bows. Guns can do it from further away, but the bow or the crossbow can both be used from far enough that the victim still can't really do anything.

In any event, it's not really any harder to kill with a knife than with a gun. If the victim is not suspecting that they'll be killed, you can have the knife in them before they ever notice, easy.

Well, did you learn how to deal with an armed robber as well? It's a big difference between shooting at a piece of paper, and using a gun against other persons. Especially if this person could shoot you, too!

Yes, it's called training and education.

Are you really so paranoid, that you think only you are able to protect yourself and your familiy? Well, if there is a burglar - let the police do their job, and don't try to play the hero. I mean, for some people it is nice to die as a hero. But I prefer living as a coward...

Now the claims that I'm "paranoid". How predictable. Why shouldn't I have every advantage to protect my family? Are the police there 24/7 at a moments notice? Did you not read the posts about police responsibility?

Well, did you learn how to deal with an armed robber as well? It's a big difference between shooting at a piece of paper, and using a gun against other persons. Especially if this person could shoot you, too!

Are you really so paranoid, that you think only you are able to protect yourself and your familiy? Well, if there is a burglar - let the police do their job, and don't try to play the hero. I mean, for some people it is nice to die as a hero. But I prefer living as a coward...

The problem is, the police are, by their nature, a responsive force. In almost all cases, the criminal can finish his task before they arrive.

For this purposes, a small air pistol or an air rifle would be enough. You don't need sharp munition for this.

And you don't need the weapon at home, only at the shooting range. So you could lock them there.

And, you do not need a car. A bicycle is just enough for you.

Oh, about that computer? You don't need broadband. 56K dial-up is all you need. And, you certainly don't need that Pentium 4, good ol' 486 at 66MHz is just fine for you!

It's really neat when you can define "need" for others, isn't it?

Nasty...

Even so, I'm talking in the urban context...hey we don't see many game animals in cities do we?

You didn't make it clear you were speaking in an urban context before. Ban guns within city limits? Maybe, but how are you going to disarm all the criminals who don't show up to hand in their guns? What about the regular Americans who never broke a law but would rather shoot it out with the cops than hand over one of their rights?

A big picture context to keep in mind, and I already mentioned this, is disarming the American public would be a very solid way to start out right rebellion.

Nope.

So, the answer is to restrict ownership for everyone else?

Ever hear of Sammy "The Bull" Gravano? Here's what he had to say about gun control;

"Gun control? It’s the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I’m a bad guy, I’m always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You will pull the trigger with a lock on, and I’ll pull the trigger. We’ll see who wins."

Please understand that I am a gun owner. I find these threads fun because of the BS that Gun Control Sweethearts try to shove down our throats. I love how the Sweethearts think that their rights supersede the rights of others.

To the Gun Control Freeks: Americans are guaranteed rights. I'm happy to hear that you feel your's are more important, however I have rights too. If I buy a gun to use for hunting or target practice that is my right. I choose to be a law abiding citizen when purchasing and using my gun. There are some people who do not make that choice. It is the same as people who get into their cars and choose to do it drunk, talking on the cell phone, or high. They do not choose to abide by the law. You would punish everyone to stop the law breakers? I hope you like walking.
I know, I know, cars aren't the same. Actually they kill more people than guns. But you know, let's spend our time worrying about the guns.

One last thought. If you take all of the guns from everyone (Except the criminals, cause you don't know where they are. Not registered, duh), you leave the criminals armed. You also assume that the guns that are collected go to a furnace to be melted. The criminals may find a way to get their hand on more guns.

Just something to ponder.

Because a requirement hunting license hasn't been used to restrict the population from hunting, like firearm licenses have been used to prevent ownership.

Isn't every license a rectriction? I'm sure if you want a hunting licence, you have to proof that you are capable of hunting. That you know, which animals you can shoot at which times, that you don't mix up quails with your hunting partners, etc.

The same way you can use gun restrictions. You have to proof that you need this special kind of weapon for a special purpose. (E.G: You don't need an assault rifle or a pistol for hunting. A normal hunting rifle must be enough.)

Well, I'm not sure about the laws in your country, but probably you need a hunting license anyway. So why not license the hunting rifles as well?

By and large, hunting rifles are generally less dangerous than other weapons. Again, if I've got no criminal pass and have waited my 10 days for my weapon, why do I need to get a license to own my gun, too?

I'm for licenses, I'm just saying.

Hunting? Target practice? PEOPLE STILL HUNT TO FEED THEIR FAMILIES.

Actually ASS! There are families who do. Some by choice and some by necessity.

Isn't every license a rectriction? I'm sure if you want a hunting licence, you have to proof that you are capable of hunting. That you know, which animals you can shoot at which times, that you don't mix up quails with your hunting partners, etc.

The same way you can use gun restrictions. You have to proof that you need this special kind of weapon for a special purpose. (E.G: You don't need an assault rifle or a pistol for hunting. A normal hunting rifle must be enough.)

Actually, if I'm familiar with my area's hunting licenses, you just need one to kill things, and they give you a guide as to what season is when. A license is so you can claim your kills, so they can track the population and make sure we're not over-hunting. It's also to help prevent poaching.

I'm in agreement with Myseneum. Why do you get to tell me what I do and don't need? If the state passed a law banning guns within the confines of its borders, then I'd be fine with it, because I had a say.

The same way you can use gun restrictions. You have to proof that you need this special kind of weapon for a special purpose. (E.G: You don't need an assault rifle or a pistol for hunting. A normal hunting rifle must be enough.)

I need an assault rifle for hunting. I hunt super-mutant dinosaurs.

number of people that actually need a gun to feed their families-minuscule and rifles for those people are not the problem-shotguns for hunting ok, double shot only, none of this 7 shot crap totally unnecessary....

What about the competition shooters? Are you forgetting the exebition shooters? http://www.metacafe.com/watch/265220/patrick_flanigan_gone_wild/


primary problem handguns-are not a hunting weapon, meant to kill people. there is no need for them, target shooting acceptable but keep them securely locked up on the firing range....

http://www.chuckhawks.com/handgun_hunting.htm
http://www.biggamehunt.net/sections/Firearm/Beginners_Guide_to_Big_Game_Handgun_Hunting_10120412.html
http://www.handgunhunt.com/

semi automatics, automatics, uzi's, assualt weapons and such WTF! get rid of that shit, if they are not around petty criminals can't attain them...they certainly not hunting weapons and there is no Olympic completion for Uzi's.

It may not be Olympic competition, but:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8450326578286419185&q=uzi+shoot
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2384334905306609145&q=uzi+shoot
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3148226747083571473&q=uzi+shoot

Also, there are competitions for service rifles (M-1 Garand, M-16/AR-15, etc). You can learn more about such competitions here: http://www.odcmp.com/

and register every single firearms holder-any criminal or mental health problems disqualify them for life from firearm ownership....

Convicted felons and people that have been diagnosed with mental illness are already disqualified from owning firearms in the US. As far as registration is concerned, that will do very little to affect firearms crime in the US.

Actually ASS! There are families who do. Some by choice and some by necessity.

Yeah, I know that. I grew up in rural Tennessee. That's why it was in all caps, for emphasis.

Isn't every license a rectriction? I'm sure if you want a hunting licence, you have to proof that you are capable of hunting. That you know, which animals you can shoot at which times, that you don't mix up quails with your hunting partners, etc.

The same way you can use gun restrictions. You have to proof that you need this special kind of weapon for a special purpose. (E.G: You don't need an assault rifle or a pistol for hunting. A normal hunting rifle must be enough.)

And the "need" arguement again. Do I have to show a "need" to hunt? Do I have to have "proof" I'm "capable" of hunitng? Has hunting overall ever been restricted to the general populace by the use licenses?

Pistols are used to hunt. An "assualt rifle" generally uses ammunition that isn't powerful enough by standards. What is a "normal hunting rifle"?

Edit: Here's a "normal" hunting rifle.

http://www.remington.com/products/firearms/centerfire_rifles/model_700/

And w/ some customization:

http://www.snipercentral.com/m24.htm

And, you do not need a car. A bicycle is just enough for you.

Oh, about that computer? You don't need broadband. 56K dial-up is all you need. And, you certainly don't need that Pentium 4, good ol' 486 at 66MHz is just fine for you!

It's really neat when you can define "need" for others, isn't it?

Well, nobody can kill people with my computer. (Well, you could hit someone with it hard, but it wouldn't be a very practical way of killing...)

Why you have to use sharp ammonution and dangerous weapons on a shooting range???? The aim is to make a small hole in a piece of paper, right?

And you don't have your personal shooting range at home, I think. If you only want to use your gun for target practicing, why you need it at home, where you can't practice???

Pro-control because:
1.Not all people can be trusted with owning/carrying/using a gun. Just like not all people can be trusted with driving a car.
2.Sadly, while reason could be the principal virtue of man, seems that most people prefer to use instinct instead. So if they have a gun they usually shoot first and think later (if ever).
3.If all legal firearms are regulated and registered (who owns the gun, who is allowed to carry it, serial numbers and whatever it takes to identify the gun and the bullets it fired), whoever carries an unregistered firearm is breaking the law and can be jailed. So it is a bit easier to jail a criminal even before he uses the gun to enact a criminal deed like a robbery - it is enough to search him and find the unregistered weapon.

added: and, of course, a bullet fired from a registered gun may allow to track down the gun that's fired it more easily, so criminals aren't likely to use registered firearms.


Welcome to Texas! I'm a legal gun owner in Texas, by which I mean I have absolutely no registration at all.

If some guy threatens me, steps on my property without my consent, or breaks into my home I can dust him without blinking. You want a crime deterrent, try drunks with guns: you loot, we shoot.

http://static.flickr.com/33/49982025_28305cae72_o.jpg

That's what I'm talking about.

Well, nobody can kill people with my computer. (Well, you could hit someone with it hard, but it wouldn't be a very practical way of killing...)

Why you have to use sharp ammonution and dangerous weapons on a shooting range???? The aim is to make a small hole in a piece of paper, right?

And you don't have your personal shooting range at home, I think. If you only want to use your gun for target practicing, why you need it at home, where you can't practice???

We do have a shooting range at home.

EDIT: Additionally, we do use pistols when we hunt. When you shoot a deer, it may not die right away so the hunter often puts it out of its misery with a quick shot to the head. I guess we could drop on deer like spiders out of the trees and stab them to death with knives, but that seems like a good way for hunters to get injured, animals unnecessarily suffer, and waste lots of edible meat, but hey!

Well, nobody can kill people with my computer. (Well, you could hit someone with it hard, but it wouldn't be a very practical way of killing...)

Why you have to use sharp ammonution and dangerous weapons on a shooting range???? The aim is to make a small hole in a piece of paper, right?

And you don't have your personal shooting range at home, I think. If you only want to use your gun for target practicing, why you need it at home, where you can't practice???

You can destroy a persons life or ruin a business w/ your computer. I think the Gov't should install monitoring devices in your computer. You don't "need" it anyway, nor those pesky choices of religion, nor access to the news, etc.

What is this "sharp ammunition" you keep talking about?

I do have a range on my property. I'm about 10 miles outside of town. So much for immediate police intervention.

Gun Control

Alright, it needs to be considered that at the time the Constitution was written (since everyone seems to be pointing to it over and over again..), the British were still a possible threat to the country. The idea of the law was to allow people to have the right to defend themselves in a time where there was still an imminent danger in soldiers.

That being said, people talking about no gun control and saying that they will use it for hunting or target practice or about keeping a gun under their beds just in case are not the people that should be worried about gun control. But at the same time, the circumstances of when the Constitution was written and the circumstances of how things are now are different.

Gun Control Laws as they stand now are as follows.
Granted these deviate from state to state but the same general measures are the ones that are chosen between.

>There are child prevention laws in place ( in some places ) that prevent children from getting to guns and using them for illegitimate uses. Granted these children are probably on the lower end of the age spectrum.

>There are juveniles prevention laws in place ( in some places ) to prevent people under the age of 18 to have access with exceptions often made for skeet shooting or target practice. Beyond those reasons, it is rare that in the United States, someone under the age of 18 will have a reason to be using a firearm. I'm not to up to snuff on hunting laws, but I would reason again that someone going with parents or some friends to a hunting range are probably the least of gun controller's problems.

>There are also Juvenile sale/transfer laws ( again, in some places ) that forbid the selling of certain firearms to people under the age of 18. Again, they forbid certain firearms, but that leaves others to be allowable.

Other safety measures include making records of purchases ( though often, a police record is made of purchases ), registration of firearms is sometimes practiced ( though usually only in the case of Assault weapons ), licensing, and permits to carry a firearm ( which can allow permits to carry them concealed ).

Is this too lenient? Too harsh? I suppose thats the debate but it needs to be understood what the laws are trying to prevent.

The idea of gun control is to prevent guns to be sold to less than legitimate owners.

I don't think that it is right to completely cordon off guns because the police need them to keep order and a person's pursuit of happiness is important. But like people have been denoting, one needs to protect their right to life too. Especially when there are people out there who will acquire arms illegally.

Personally, I think the laws are right where they should be. I don't have a gun, but I don't feel like I need one where I live. For other people, they feel as though they would need one. And I think that's fine. But it really needs to be stressed that the laws in place are to prevent people from using guns illegitimately and that loosening laws more would make people feel less uneasy about getting a gun.

It takes a lot of salt to actually kill someone.. to hold a gun up in front of somebody and pull the trigger and there are a lot of people in this world that don't have it in them. Unfortunately, there are people who can. These are the kinds of people that the gun control laws try to avert. If a few people get locked out of getting a gun to target practice or shoot ducks, isn't that a worthwhile exchange?

Do guns kill people? Yes. But it is a person that has to pull the trigger.

-TMA

if guns were banned, your asking for a world war three.

Fought with swords?

No, with guns of course. Have you seen Left Behind 3? There would be people who would disagree with Global Disarmament, those people would manage to get their hands on guns..and use them for their cause...of course they could just use bombs instead of guns to fight WWIII eh.

No, with guns of course. Have you seen Left Behind 3? There would be people who would disagree with Global Disarmament, those people would manage to get their hands on guns..and use them for their cause...of course they could just use bombs instead of guns to fight WWIII eh.

No.

1. Stop fighting. Gun-control is unenforceable. It's simply not possible to eliminate all guns and gun-crime. Gun registration is equally unfeasible, simply because the black market compensates.

Why not just apply an economic sanction against gun ownership?

2. On a theoretical level, guns fall into a vastly different category than other items that have the potential to break the law because a car (to use an earlier example) is built for transportation. The SOLE PURPOSE of the gun as an invention is not to look pretty, but to KILL THINGS. Regardless of how you view a gun, we can all agree that the law against murder is the most basic function of a non-dysfunctional society. Laws against guns MUST be different than laws against other items simply because the consequences are much worse.

And not to beat a dead horse, but the "well-regulated militia," other than being rather absurd on a practical level, and rather out-dated, falls down upon closer scrutiny. If the public at large is the "militia" of the second amendment, then the preceding phrase; "well-regulated" renders the free purchase and use of firearms illegal. Both "well-regulated" as well as "militia" implies instruction in the proper use and ethics of firearms. There is nothing resembling either in society at large.

So, to reply to the OP, both arguments have huge gaping flaws in them.



Let the yelling commence.

No, with guns of course. Have you seen Left Behind 3? There would be people who would disagree with Global Disarmament, those people would manage to get their hands on guns..and use them for their cause...of course they could just use bombs instead of guns to fight WWIII eh.
Left Behind?

Isn't that some evangelical crap about the rapture?

Left Behind?

Isn't that some evangelical crap about the rapture?

It's a movie (direct to video, IIRC).

It's a movie (direct to video, IIRC).
Yes. But is it not based on a series of evangelical books?

Yes. But is it not based on a series of evangelical books?

I have no idea. The first one had Kirk Cameron in it, and since I think he's a no-talent assclown, I just made sure to avoid all knowledge of it and its sequels.

I have no idea. The first one had Kirk Cameron in it, and since I think he's a no-talent assclown, I just made sure to avoid all knowledge of it and its sequels.

My wife is a firm believer and we rented the movie. She won't bother watching the rest of them if that tells you anything.

Until you pull your head out of your ass and understand that there are still people in the world who feed their families with their guns, you've got nothing relevant to say.

Nasty...

Even so, I'm talking in the urban context...hey we don't see many game animals in cities do we?

Nasty...

Even so, I'm talking in the urban context...hey we don't see many game animals in cities do we?

So people in the city can't go to the country to hunt?

So people in the city can't go to the country to hunt?
Yes, but i do not assume that a city can sustain itself by hunting...domestication of animals is more likely...

Yes, but i do not assume that a city can sustain itself by hunting...domestication of animals is more likely...

Nice movement. Who said "a city"?

By and large, hunting rifles are generally less dangerous than other weapons.

Kidding, or are you serious?

The common hunting round is far more powerful than any infantry round the military uses.

A man goes down a lot easier than a 10-pt. buck, a wild boar, a kodiak, an elk, a moose, a rhino, an elephant, an - well, you should get the idea.

The only thing military-grade firearms have over hunting arms is rate of fire. And, the higher the ROF, the lower the accuracy.

Well, nobody can kill people with my computer. (Well, you could hit someone with it hard, but it wouldn't be a very practical way of killing...)

Your criteria was "NEED." Now, you're changing it?

How convenient.

Why you have to use sharp ammonution and dangerous weapons on a shooting range???? The aim is to make a small hole in a piece of paper, right?

Demonstrate how it is any of your business.

I don't shoot at a range. I shoot on a federal preserve of about 160,000 acres, or on private land. I don't like the restrictions of a range.

And you don't have your personal shooting range at home, I think. If you only want to use your gun for target practicing, why you need it at home, where you can't practice???

I only use my firearms for fun, because I have not yet had a need to use them for anything else. But, if I am suddenly faced with the need, are you saying the bad guy will put his crimes on hold while I run down to the range to check out MY PROPERTY?

Since you are so free in deciding where I may store my property, what say we do a little deciding for you?

Fair trade?

You can use the computer in a computer cafe, you don't need one at home. You don't need a house. An apartment will do for you.

I go back to my original post.
A gun has only one function.
It destroys. Its object is to disassemble matter at a point some distance from where it is fired.
In a gun culture, armed police are necessary.
In a civilised society, the gun is redundant.

Welcome to Texas! I'm a legal gun owner in Texas, by which I mean I have absolutely no registration at all.

If some guy threatens me, steps on my property without my consent, or breaks into my home I can dust him without blinking. You want a crime deterrent, try drunks with guns: you loot, we shoot.

Texan here, too. No registration required.

I go back to my original post.
A gun has only one function.
It destroys. Its object is to disassemble matter at a point some distance from where it is fired.
In a gun culture, armed police are necessary.
In a civilised society, the gun is redundant.

And come the ad hominem attacks. How cute. I guess that's all they've got.

The idea of gun control is to prevent guns to be sold to less than legitimate owners.

Then, if this is the problem, find a way that doesn't walk on my right to keep and bear.

I find the implied argument that because it's part of the US consitution, it is therefore right a bit disturbing. Though most of the other arguements were valid points.
Personally I think that there are a few grey areas in this debate, and it all boils down to: what kind of society do we want? What is of the most benefit?There are pros and cons for both options, so you'll have problems and scare stories with either. In Europe (generally in the EU), we have, historically, more reason than most to mistrust our governments, but we don't "bear arms" just in case. This could be because of our welfare state, the strict restrictions on guns, or it could be cultural (maybe America links guns with the glory of the Wild West? Maybe that's too much of a sterotypical thing to say?) or a combination, but I think what we've done has worked very well for us.

It seems strange that so many Americans want guns partly because they don't trust their government, but they let laws pass so they can be put under more and more survalence. If Americans truely didn't trust their government, then why does it have the power of life and death over people (the death penalty) - isn't this an implied acceptance of a very deep and powerful trust that the government will do the right thing most, if not all of the time and that the system is, if not perfect, then close to being perfect?

The two sides are probably looking at this from two different angles:
1 side thinks, deep down, people are inherintly untrustworthy, and that to avoid a war of "all against all", law must be backed up by a monoploy of force (army + police). This creates a safe (or safer) space where people can pursue happiness, etc. in their own way within the law wheras without the law, they might have been limited by circumstances. They see strict control of force backing and promoting law as freedom-enhancing.
The other side doesn't fully trust law (or the lawmakers/enforcers). They see law as something that can take sides, might not always be neutral, and that can turn against them - it always has the potenial to restrict freedom, or not fulfil its promises (the police not being efficent, etc). Therefore government needs to be balanced by an armed, cynical people (and preferably within itself as well through different gov. structures). Law balanced by force is seen as freedom-protecting in this case.

I lean heavily towards the first option (strict gun control). For most of the pro-control reasons given, and I consider it an important part of the society I live in and want to be a part of.

Why not just apply an economic sanction against gun ownership?

Sure. Since we're arbitrarily picking bits of property that we can sanction, let's make some sanctions against steak knives, too. While we're at it, let's sanction cars that can go faster than 40 mph.

Laws against guns MUST be different than laws against other items simply because the consequences are much worse.

Hit me with a car going 70 mph and I'm as dead as with a .308 through the heart.

And not to beat a dead horse, but the "well-regulated militia," other than being rather absurd on a practical level, and rather out-dated, falls down upon closer scrutiny. If the public at large is the "militia" of the second amendment, then the preceding phrase; "well-regulated" renders the free purchase and use of firearms illegal. Both "well-regulated" as well as "militia" implies instruction in the proper use and ethics of firearms. There is nothing resembling either in society at large.

Then, you are not familiar with the usage of the term "well-regulated." It also means "working properly."

Then, if this is the problem, find a way that doesn't walk on my right to keep and bear.

In my country, it is necessary to prove that you are a fit person to bear a lethal weapon. What is the difficulty of such a proposition, when the sole purpose of a gun is to inflict death on another living entity?

[QUOTE=Raksgaard;12091816]Why not just apply an economic sanction against gun ownership?/[QUOTE]

Sure. Since we're arbitrarily picking bits of property that we can sanction, let's make some sanctions against steak knives, too. While we're at it, let's sanction cars that can go faster than 40 mph.



Hit me with a car going 70 mph and I'm as dead as with a .308 through the heart.



Then, you are not familiar with the usage of the term "well-regulated." It also means "working properly."

The purpose of a car is to transport people. If it is driven carelessly or dangerously, it can kill.
A knive is used for cutting. If it is used as a weapon it can kill.
A gun has no other function but to harm.

A gun has only one function.
It destroys.

Then, I don't want cops carrying them, either.

Myseneum.
Agreed.
Our Police no longer carry guns.

In my country, it is necessary to prove that you are a fit person to bear a lethal weapon.

Is there a fitness test required to speak in your country?

What is the difficulty of such a proposition, when the sole purpose of a gun is to inflict death on another living entity?

I'm sure that the Olympic shooters would be surprised to learn this.

A gun has no other function but to harm.

Tell it to the millions of gun owners who used their guns today and didn't harm a soul.

Tell it to the Olympic Committee, too. I'm sure they'd like to be aprised of this new information, before they go awarding gold medals for shooting.

Myseneum.
Our Olympic marksmen have to travel to Switzerland to train

Myseneum.
Agreed.
Our Police no longer carry guns.

And, of course, criminals will meekly abide by this directive, right?

Myseneum.
Our Olympic marksmen have to travel to Switzerland to train

And what's Switzerlands crime rate?

Myseneum.
Our Olympic marksmen have to travel to Switzerland to train

And, who did they harm in Switzerland?

After all, if guns can only harm...

The general public is the Militia. Having a well regulated one is A justification, but not the only one.

Ah, here's a kicker. The constitution says a well regulated militia. And most pro-gun people argue that the public is the militia. But are they well regulated?

I agree it is ludicrous to send law-abiding persons to another country to become more expert in their sport, but most of us in Europe would say that the US has a major problem with guns being readily available. A gun is too easy as a weapon. It allows the user to be uninvolved with the consequences of its use against a fellow human being

Ah, here's a kicker. The constitution says a well regulated militia. And most pro-gun people argue that the public is the militia. But are they well regulated?

Ah, here's the kicker, an armed populace is required for a well regulated militia but a well regulated militia is not required for an armed populace. Subserviant clause.

I agree it is ludicrous to send law-abiding persons to another country to become more expert in their sport, but most of us in Europe would say that the US has a major problem with guns being readily available. A gun is too easy as a weapon. It allows the user to be uninvolved with the consequences of its use against a fellow human being

And they can say that all they want, it doesn't make it factual. Unless you're saying it's OK for countries to get involved in anothers politics.

And, of course, criminals will meekly abide by this directive, right?

How about Explosives?

Explosives can be used for fishing , demolition, clearing land.

They have proved to be the most effective weapon against governments in the past. Far more so than guns.... why not legalise bombs?

It should be every mans right to carry a stick of gelignite.

I could set up land mines around my house.. would be very effective for keeping people off my land and thus preventing crime?

If I just strapped a whole heap of gelignite to my body how many people would mug me if I just undid my vest to reveal 12 sticks of gelignite wired to the button in my hand? You think the average Joe criminal would stick around.....

Sounds logical right??

No not to me either....

The point is dangerous things should be restricted. The benifit of the few should not outway the benifit of the many. Explosives are dangerous, their use in society is restricted, cars are dangerous their use is resticted.

Guns are dangerous it follows that their use should be resticted.

The greater the danger to benifit ratio the higher the level of restrictions.

Why is this difficult to see??

And they can say that all they want, it doesn't make it factual. Unless you're saying it's OK for countries to get involved in anothers politics.
Politics has nothing to do with it. Why does the ordinary citizen require a tool, whose sole purpose is to harm, maim , or kill?

Politics has nothing to do with it. Why does the ordinary citizen require a tool, whose sole purpose is to harm, maim , or kill?

Again the "need" arguement, again. Can't there be any originality?

Let's see:

Home defense.
Varmint control.
target shooting
collecting etc.

Now comes the traditional "You don't "need" to do those things" yada yada yada that's been debunked numerous times before, even in this thread.

If you think the "sole purpose" is to "harm, maim , or kill", you shouldn't be allowed to own a firearm. W/ that I agree.

False

I said its arguable. There are more gun related deaths in the US than the UK per 10,000 people. Are you going to suggest thats to do with a reason other than the fact that guns are more redily abvailble. If everyone carried chainsaws around the way Americans carry guns and there were more chainsaw related deaths, would you claim no correlation?


So punish all for the actions of a few?

No. Protect the many from the actions of the few.

Home defense.

In the UK the police do that for us


Varmint control.

In the UK the local authority (town council) does that for us


target shooting.

In the UK we keep the guns in the private clubs for that, you don't need your own.


collecting etc.

You dont need the gun to be leathal to collect it.

I said its arguable. There are more gun related deaths in the US than the UK per 10,000 people. Are you going to suggest thats to do with a reason other than the fact that guns are more redily abvailble. If everyone carried chainsaws around the way Americans carry guns and there were more chainsaw related deaths, would you claim no correlation?

And yet those who legally carry firearms in the US are considerably LESS likely to commit any crime than the "average citizen".


No. Protect the many from the actions of the few.

So "protect" them how? The police can't. Forcing them to submit to "safe storage" laws doesn't.

And yet those who legally carry firearms in the US are considerably LESS likely to commit any crime than the "average citizen".

Yes, but with legalised gun ownership, it is far easier for said nutjob to get a gun and hurt someone. If gun ownership is illegal, then a person cannot simply break into a house and steal a gun, a child cannot pick up his parents gun etc.


So "protect" them how? The police can't. Forcing them to submit to "safe storage" laws doesn't.

Err, yes it does. In the UK because it is so hard to get hold of guns, the police can protect us just fine.

In the UK the police do that for us

So there's no crime in the UK? The police protect you 24/7?

In the UK the local authority (town council) does that for us

So there's no varmints in the country? The Gov't takes care of it all? Really?



In the UK we keep the guns in the private clubs for that, you don't need your own.

The classic "need" argument. Shall we let the Gov't decide what we "need"?



You dont need the gun to be leathal to collect it.

And that's just silly.

Of course you just did exactly what I said you would. So predictable.

Yes, but with legalised gun ownership, it is far easier for said nutjob to get a gun and hurt someone. If gun ownership is illegal, then a person cannot simply break into a house and steal a gun, a child cannot pick up his parents gun etc.

Back to blaming the victims of crime for the actions of criminals. You might also note that deaths by children have dropped in the US even w/ more firearms and less restrictions.



Err, yes it does. In the UK because it is so hard to get hold of guns, the police can protect us just fine.

So there's zero crime in the UK? Nobody gets murdered, robbed, raped? Really?

canada has a fairly high percentage of gun owners, and a very low murder rate.

Switzerland has a lot of guns and a higher gun-death rate than its European counterparts with fewer guns.

better than Gun control is ammunition control, but with the porus nature of your southern border i think that would be difficult to enforce - it would be like trying to control drugs.
why is Americas murder/gun death rate so high?, i don't know. But i watch Bowling For COlumbine and i wonder, America doesnt make any sense at all. Europe and Austra;lia with tough laws have no-where near the murder rate with guns or otherwise. Canada has a lot of guns, and no where near the murder rate.
America has few gun laws, a lot of guns and a lot of incompetent owners and criminals with ready access to them does not create a good atmopsphere.


The full second amendment to the constitution has been bastardized beyond all meaning by siccessive court judgments surrounding its interpretaion. A lady with a .22 in her purse does not consttitute part of a well maintained militia nessercery to the protection of a free state. i have never seen a definition of "well regulated militia" that accounts for her.


I don't have any easy answers (let alone sollutions), other than returning to a strict construtionist way of reading the second amendment, removing guns from the general population, and leave the Criminals and the Police with the guns. A minimal number of breaking and enterings of domiciles happen with a gun, and the best advice is not to disturb them anyway - avoid confrontation, call the police and claim the insurance.

W

Again the "need" arguement, again. Can't there be any originality?

Let's see:

Home defense.
Varmint control.
target shooting
collecting etc.

Now comes the traditional "You don't "need" to do those things" yada yada yada that's been debunked numerous times before, even in this thread.

If you think the "sole purpose" is to "harm, maim , or kill", you shouldn't be allowed to own a firearm. W/ that I agree.

You press the trigger, and if you are accurate, the thing in front has been damaged, perhaps fatally.
In 1991, my office was completely destroyed by a bomb. No one was ever apprehended.
How often has your home been attacked? Do you go out regularly to shoot game? What is your preferred method of target shooting? Is it not possible to collect guns and then make them incapable of use?
Why do you need a gun?