And maybe one day you can have a woman to sleep with instead....DBBrinson1 wrote:
come on over and ban mine. my newestm3thod wrote:
Ban Guns.
http://www.kimberamerica.com/pistols/ul … arrylg.php
She shoots great! I sleep with her too.
oh yea...
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y241/DBBrinson/NRA.jpg
I love the fact that I can have a firearm. I taught my wife how to shoot and when my daughters are old enough and responsible enough I will teach them to shoot. My household has 2 firearms. I own a HK USP .45 (Tactical)
And my wife bought me a Sig Sauer P229 9mm. She actually bought it for herself, but I think thats going to be my CCW. I plan on buying a shotgun because , well hell im a red neck origionally from kentucky, and I believe every household needs a scattergun. When money/time permits I will head down to fort lewis and go to one of the ranges they have set up for civilian weapons and shoot off a few rounds with my wife. When I was 15 my mom was a Sherriffs Deputy in contra costa county ca. She worked 6 days a week, and lots of overtime. The only day we had time to spend together was Fridays. So fridays we had a ritual, we would go to the store, buy food for the next week, go eat lunch, and head to the range so we could shoot, and just spend time together. This went on till I was 17. School was more then happy to let me have fridays off as long as I made up the workload i missed, they thought it was outstanding that a parent would want to spend the one day off she had with her kids.
Firearms in America are not the problem. Look at Texas and Idaho, Both states openly allow weapons to be carried. As long as they are not Concealed. Its keeping the weapons out of those few individuals that lack the moral fiber, or mental stability thats brings the problems. Ban firearms and we are no better then countries that openly oppse PoW's. They dont allow them yet they are still fairly easy to get a hold of.
And my wife bought me a Sig Sauer P229 9mm. She actually bought it for herself, but I think thats going to be my CCW. I plan on buying a shotgun because , well hell im a red neck origionally from kentucky, and I believe every household needs a scattergun. When money/time permits I will head down to fort lewis and go to one of the ranges they have set up for civilian weapons and shoot off a few rounds with my wife. When I was 15 my mom was a Sherriffs Deputy in contra costa county ca. She worked 6 days a week, and lots of overtime. The only day we had time to spend together was Fridays. So fridays we had a ritual, we would go to the store, buy food for the next week, go eat lunch, and head to the range so we could shoot, and just spend time together. This went on till I was 17. School was more then happy to let me have fridays off as long as I made up the workload i missed, they thought it was outstanding that a parent would want to spend the one day off she had with her kids.
Firearms in America are not the problem. Look at Texas and Idaho, Both states openly allow weapons to be carried. As long as they are not Concealed. Its keeping the weapons out of those few individuals that lack the moral fiber, or mental stability thats brings the problems. Ban firearms and we are no better then countries that openly oppse PoW's. They dont allow them yet they are still fairly easy to get a hold of.
The evidence aginst that is pretty straightforward. The UK and the US have roughly comparible knifing homicide rates, the UK is slightly lower. A criminal trying to stab you is the obvious scenario where a gun could be used to successfuly defend yourself. Given that, the US should have a significantly lower knifing homicide rate compaired to the UK. That is clearly not the case.Harmor wrote:
I think the threat of guns saves more lives. How many criminals do you think stopped what they were doing when confronted with a gun?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Guns DO save lives. They also take them quite often.
Do you think a Police Officer would be useful if he went around saying, "STOP or I'll say STOP AGAIN!"
Your worst nightmare? You did read what I wrote didn't you. If I could think of any way to stop people from stuffing their faces I'd go for it. The major point being that the victims of problems of legal gun ownership aren't necessarily the gun owners. Those that don't want a gun have the problems of gun ownership thrust upon them. Similarly with second hand smoke. At least if you try to eat your way into the grave you're only killing yourself. I'm fairly sure there's no such thing as second hand eating.HeimdalX wrote:
Why don't you donate your time to a cause you might actually have impact on?PureFodder wrote:
We aren't getting pissed off because you have guns, we're trying to save thousands of American lives each year.
How about you combat obesity? It kills 10000x more people in this country than guns do.
Or maybe you should learn 2 things about Americans, you can take away every freedom they have except for 2 things: the right to eat a fucking whopper and own a gun.
And I'm a gun toting liberal vegetarian, your worst nightmare apparently.
Also the Police in the UK don't have guns so you would think (if you believe Harmor anyway) that criminals have a carte blanche to do what they want. It also implies that a Police officer has the right to assasinate anyone who doesn't stop for them even if the crime is petty.PureFodder wrote:
The evidence aginst that is pretty straightforward. The UK and the US have roughly comparible knifing homicide rates, the UK is slightly lower. A criminal trying to stab you is the obvious scenario where a gun could be used to successfuly defend yourself. Given that, the US should have a significantly lower knifing homicide rate compaired to the UK. That is clearly not the case.Harmor wrote:
I think the threat of guns saves more lives. How many criminals do you think stopped what they were doing when confronted with a gun?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Guns DO save lives. They also take them quite often.
Do you think a Police Officer would be useful if he went around saying, "STOP or I'll say STOP AGAIN!"
If you don't stop when a UK police officer tells you to, he can either hit you with a taser, CS Spray or simply chase you. If you run away and you have commited a serious offence they can have a Helicopter over your head in minutes and once you have that you can not escape. Finally, as our US conterparts argue that innocent citizens with guns would stop crimes in progress, I would argue that if you are being chased in a busy area by a copper someone will stick a leg out and trip you up. I can prove it here
If you like the vid in my sig you'll like this. It's by the same guy and he pretends to steal stuff so the security will chase him. In one of the skits a member of the public trips him and holds him for the security guards (without needing to shoot the guy and kill him).
Well, I wouldn't blame it on the nation's history for one, seeing how the country is so young. If that were the case, imagine how ingrained guns would be in the history of a nation like Greece, counting the years of its existence in thousands, not to mention the wars it has been involved in!Parker wrote:
i know that a ban wouldnt work in this country because these weapons are so ingrained in our history.
I am inclined to agree, giving up their guns is something the Americans will not do any time soon. But the point I think is whether owning guns is a plus or a minus in society. For my part, I must say I don't feel safe knowing that people around me carry guns, because I do not trust people and their judgement. And seeing how a gun is such a great advantage for the owner, I guess a society of gun owners leaves you with no option but to become an owner yourself. Recognize the vicious circle?Parker wrote:
...let me try to explain why i think we as a country will not ever give up our firearms.
ƒ³
As opposed to a total ban and 'that's it', what about a weapon buy-back scheme. The government buys the guns back of the people and destroys them. It worked for Australia.Parker wrote:
...let me try to explain why i think we as a country will not ever give up our firearms.
Mcminty.
I have a hot wife ya dipshit....=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
And maybe one day you can have a woman to sleep with instead....DBBrinson1 wrote:
come on over and ban mine. my newestm3thod wrote:
Ban Guns.
http://www.kimberamerica.com/pistols/ul … arrylg.php
She shoots great! I sleep with her too.
oh yea...
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y241/DBBrinson/NRA.jpg
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
weapon buy back?!?!?! they wouldn't give me 1/2 of what some of my guns are worth.
To be perfectly honest, if pistols were as legal/available here as they are in the states, I'd own (at least) one.
It raises another point. If the police turn up to the scene of a crime and find armed civillians they are clearly going to have to sort them out (make sure they aren't criminals, safely disarm them and work out who they are) before they can get on with the job of cartching the bad guy. In the UK the police can relatively easily assume that anyone they see that's armed is the bad guy. In the UK the police can arrest armed people on their way to commiting a crime. In the US they're just an every day citizen till they start demanding the contents of a shop till.=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
Also the Police in the UK don't have guns so you would think (if you believe Harmor anyway) that criminals have a carte blanche to do what they want. It also implies that a Police officer has the right to assasinate anyone who doesn't stop for them even if the crime is petty.PureFodder wrote:
The evidence aginst that is pretty straightforward. The UK and the US have roughly comparible knifing homicide rates, the UK is slightly lower. A criminal trying to stab you is the obvious scenario where a gun could be used to successfuly defend yourself. Given that, the US should have a significantly lower knifing homicide rate compaired to the UK. That is clearly not the case.Harmor wrote:
I think the threat of guns saves more lives. How many criminals do you think stopped what they were doing when confronted with a gun?
Do you think a Police Officer would be useful if he went around saying, "STOP or I'll say STOP AGAIN!"
If you don't stop when a UK police officer tells you to, he can either hit you with a taser, CS Spray or simply chase you. If you run away and you have commited a serious offence they can have a Helicopter over your head in minutes and once you have that you can not escape. Finally, as our US conterparts argue that innocent citizens with guns would stop crimes in progress, I would argue that if you are being chased in a busy area by a copper someone will stick a leg out and trip you up. I can prove it here
If you like the vid in my sig you'll like this. It's by the same guy and he pretends to steal stuff so the security will chase him. In one of the skits a member of the public trips him and holds him for the security guards (without needing to shoot the guy and kill him).
I'll simply re-post what I wrote about the VT shooting.
me wrote:
my 2c.
responsible gun ownership is an illusion, just like the idea of the law-abiding citizen. Under the right circumstances, everyone has the potential to snap and harm others. The VT shootings are just another example of that. Background checks don't help here.
I don't believe in statistics, but if anything has become evident over the course of mankind, it is that ordinary people ( meaning, civilians ) can not handle the right to bear arms responsibly.
No offense towards specific members of this forum. I am sure you are the exceptions. I am talking humans in general. We are only partly under control. We give in to impulses, we let our emotions get the best of us.
Humans just can't be trusted.
Which is why I believe firearms do not belong in the hands of civilians.
Interestingly, the US constitution has it the other way round. It acknowledges the right for every citizen to own a gun, so he can protect himself from his government, and - more importantly - from his fellow citizens.
So , instead of at least trying to take the guns aways, you just give everyone guns. Wow...
Nevertheless, I agree with the OP. Guns are too much of a "national heritage" in the US. None of us will see a total ban on handguns in our lifetime.
What I don't agree with is the reasoning behind it. I hear Americans say " it just can't be done".
Oh please, give me a break. America is the classic example of a country where anything can be done / achieved, if you set your mind to it. Remember, your constitution is legislation, man made, thus a choice. In other words, you chose to "invent" private gun ownership, you can choose to "un-invent" it.
The question is, do you want to ?
I am sure we all agree that more can and must be done to help prevent shootings such as the one at VT in the future. Part of the responsibility is on the government, to make the best laws possible, part is on society to do its part to identify potential shooters and help them to get over whatever is causing them emotional harm.
What are you willing to give up to make your society better ? Your gun, maybe ?
America is a violent country. It was conceived at gunpoint, and guns have played a significant role in your nation's history ever since.
And as long as America as a whole is unwilling to make their nation a more peaceful one, you will have to live with the fact that ordinary, previously law-abiding citizens, maybe even responsible gun owners snap, and start shooting in a mall, office or school. Your choice.
My personal approach to the gun control problem:
- ban sale of firearms to private citizens
- ban sale of ammunition to private citizens.
- in theory, all legally purchased guns are registered. get them back, and destroy them.
Once all sale of ammunition has been banned, it will be very hard for criminals to fire their weapons.
illegal gun ownership will be rare, and therefore much easier to track down by the various law enforcement agencies.
- outlaw all firearms imports to the US
- outlaw all ammunition imports to the US
if you spent a tiny bit of your defense budget on border security, this can be achieved. It is a lot of work, but it can be done.
But the most important prerequisite is this: everyone has to be willing to sacrifice a little personal security for the benefit of the nation. Only if the will of the people is there, can all of the above be pulled through.
Bottom line: it can be done, you just don't want to. You love your guns, and you are obviously willing to accept that innocent people die because of it.
PS: Yes, I have been called an idealist, blue-eyed and an utopian (sp) before. Nothing new here....
And btw, to those who say they keep their guns to make sure their constitutional rights are never stripped from them by a corrupt government: where were you when they brought in the Patriot Act ?
I think there is a difference with our philosophies here. I would more often advocate personal liberty and responsibility than restrictions for the "common good." It is my opinion that America has a heritage of personal liberty/responsibility and generally looks down upon being restricted in the name of the common good.B.Schuss wrote:
responsible gun ownership is an illusion, just like the idea of the law-abiding citizen. Under the right circumstances, everyone has the potential to snap and harm others. The VT shootings are just another example of that. Background checks don't help here.
I don't believe in statistics, but if anything has become evident over the course of mankind, it is that ordinary people ( meaning, civilians ) can not handle the right to bear arms responsibly.
Also, I think you are looking too critically at the exceptions to the normal and applying it to the entire population.
I enjoy the right to occasionally fire guns for fun, at the range. This is something I would rather not give up. Yes, a total ban on guns would save lives, but so would a total ban on alcohol (which was tried and it failed miserably).
Last edited by RAIMIUS (2007-04-27 10:38:27)
If you read futher you have discoverd i was joking.=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
And maybe one day you can have a woman to sleep with instead....DBBrinson1 wrote:
come on over and ban mine. my newestm3thod wrote:
Ban Guns.
http://www.kimberamerica.com/pistols/ul … arrylg.php
She shoots great! I sleep with her too.
oh yea...
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y241/DBBrinson/NRA.jpg
i couldn't care less how you go about killing each other.
Sweet dreams.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
Can you then explain these laws for me if they not restricted liberties for the common good.RAIMIUS wrote:
It is my opinion that America has a heritage of personal liberty/responsibility and generally looks down upon being restricted in the name of the common good.
Also, I think you are looking too critically at the exceptions to the normal and applying it to the entire population.
Jaywalking (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/6251431.stm).
You can’t smoke in public,
You can’t drink until 21 and even then there are heavy regulations
You have a speed limit
You can’t show a breast on the beach
and you can’t even reprimand your children without the fear of the parent police calling 911.
Last edited by =OBS= EstebanRey (2007-04-27 11:18:56)
OK, rather than quoting individuals, I am going to toss out some statistics, and let you all respond to them.
1. Guns are used for defese more than offense. (A rephrased way of saying Guns Save Lives). According to the 14 studies that have been done on the subject, guns are used defensively between 800,000 and 2.5 million times per year. http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/165476.pdf The number most of the studies circle around is 2 million, but for the sake of argument I'll say they're only used for defense one million times a year. As there are not one million murders a year, Guns save more lives than they take.
2. The supply of firearms in the US does not lead to a decrease or increase in the homicide rate. More guns does not equal more crime.
3. Firearms owners are responsible. Moreover, the holders of a concealed handgun license are the very model of responsible citizens. The crime rate for holders of CHL is miniscule. See the chart below.
And these are arrest rates. Not conviction rates.
4. Americans don't want to sell their guns to the government. If they wanted to sell their guns, they'd do what everyone else does: put an ad in the paper, or sell it to a dealer.
5. We have lots and lots of wonderful firearms laws on the books. If we actually enforced them, rather than railing on about new ones, we'd be a much safer society. How about a program that was so successful, Bill Clinton defunded it because it was making the Brady Bill and Handgun Control Inc. look bad.
http://www.vahv.org/Exile/NYT/ExNYT210.html
I'll let you all mull over that. I'll be waiting nearby.
1. Guns are used for defese more than offense. (A rephrased way of saying Guns Save Lives). According to the 14 studies that have been done on the subject, guns are used defensively between 800,000 and 2.5 million times per year. http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/165476.pdf The number most of the studies circle around is 2 million, but for the sake of argument I'll say they're only used for defense one million times a year. As there are not one million murders a year, Guns save more lives than they take.
2. The supply of firearms in the US does not lead to a decrease or increase in the homicide rate. More guns does not equal more crime.
3. Firearms owners are responsible. Moreover, the holders of a concealed handgun license are the very model of responsible citizens. The crime rate for holders of CHL is miniscule. See the chart below.
And these are arrest rates. Not conviction rates.
4. Americans don't want to sell their guns to the government. If they wanted to sell their guns, they'd do what everyone else does: put an ad in the paper, or sell it to a dealer.
5. We have lots and lots of wonderful firearms laws on the books. If we actually enforced them, rather than railing on about new ones, we'd be a much safer society. How about a program that was so successful, Bill Clinton defunded it because it was making the Brady Bill and Handgun Control Inc. look bad.
http://www.vahv.org/Exile/NYT/ExNYT210.html
I'll let you all mull over that. I'll be waiting nearby.
the one issue that arises is again the problem with criminals in possession. they wont sell their guns, they wont turn them into the police......hell they will shoot the police when they come and try to take their guns.mcminty wrote:
As opposed to a total ban and 'that's it', what about a weapon buy-back scheme. The government buys the guns back of the people and destroys them. It worked for Australia.Parker wrote:
...let me try to explain why i think we as a country will not ever give up our firearms.
Mcminty.
see, a lot of people think that you need some big time underground black market connections to obtain firearms illegally. now dont get me wrong, you do need to know some pretty shady characters, but not like you would believe.
let me give you an example.
when i lived in texas, there was a border town called brownsville about three hours south of where i was. i bought a pound of weed there for FIFTY DOLLARS! the same people i bought that from tried to sell me all sorts of guns. now i wont get into the border issue about this country (thats a whole different debate), but if it is that easy for me to get them imagine what true criminals could get.
i read a number somewhere that said there are 26 million kalishnikovs in the world still, thanks mostly to the collapse of the soviet union and the fact they just let people run off with all sorts of weapons.
so my point is that even if we got rid of every firearm in this country, more would come in on a daily basis.
BUZZ! Wrong. Why do criminals want weapons? To aid in theft. Why do criminals steal? For money. Now, why go through all that risky crime and violence if you can skip the theft part and just sell your weapons. No questions asked buy-back policies have been proven to be very effective. You make it sound like criminals commit crimes for shits and giggles.Parker wrote:
the one issue that arises is again the problem with criminals in possession. they wont sell their guns, they wont turn them into the police......hell they will shoot the police when they come and try to take their guns.mcminty wrote:
As opposed to a total ban and 'that's it', what about a weapon buy-back scheme. The government buys the guns back of the people and destroys them. It worked for Australia.Parker wrote:
...let me try to explain why i think we as a country will not ever give up our firearms.
Mcminty.
Your country is therefore completely fucked. If you are going to say that you have about 4x the UK homicide rate and that number is LOWER because of guns they your country must be so far down the shitter. Do you honestly think that if there were no guns then there would be something like a tenfold increase in the homicide rate?blisteringsilence wrote:
OK, rather than quoting individuals, I am going to toss out some statistics, and let you all respond to them.
1. Guns are used for defese more than offense. (A rephrased way of saying Guns Save Lives). According to the 14 studies that have been done on the subject, guns are used defensively between 800,000 and 2.5 million times per year. http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/165476.pdf The number most of the studies circle around is 2 million, but for the sake of argument I'll say they're only used for defense one million times a year. As there are not one million murders a year, Guns save more lives than they take.
Unfortunate fact; The US black market for firearms is a saturated market. Any fool who wants an illegal gun can get one for a pitifully low price. As there are more illegal guns than are needed of course there will be no increase in gun crime as the number of stolen guns changes.blisteringsilence wrote:
2. The supply of firearms in the US does not lead to a decrease or increase in the homicide rate. More guns does not equal more crime.
http://www.guncite.com/gsupply.gif
Most criminals have a criminal record already and hence cannot get a concealed handgun license so yeah, you'd expect very few CHL owners to commit crime regardless of what type of people and how responsible and law abiding they are. If you do a chart of crimes commited by people without a criminal record vs the general population then (shock horror) it'd look just the same.blisteringsilence wrote:
3. Firearms owners are responsible. Moreover, the holders of a concealed handgun license are the very model of responsible citizens. The crime rate for holders of CHL is miniscule. See the chart below.
http://www.txchia.org/sturdevant2000.gif
And these are arrest rates. Not conviction rates.
A lot of americans want a gun to defend themselves aginst armed criminals, but the criminals are always going to be armed while the citizens are armed too. It's a vicious circle that the US has gotten itself into.blisteringsilence wrote:
4. Americans don't want to sell their guns to the government. If they wanted to sell their guns, they'd do what everyone else does: put an ad in the paper, or sell it to a dealer.
What's wrong with doing both?blisteringsilence wrote:
5. We have lots and lots of wonderful firearms laws on the books. If we actually enforced them, rather than railing on about new ones, we'd be a much safer society. How about a program that was so successful, Bill Clinton defunded it because it was making the Brady Bill and Handgun Control Inc. look bad.
http://www.vahv.org/Exile/NYT/ExNYT210.html
Last edited by PureFodder (2007-04-27 12:54:21)
Just curious, if they passed a law prohibiting any and all firearms, isn't that going to be an ex post facto law? I suppose they could make one that does not allow ownership or use if they really want to get them all.
buzz?jonsimon wrote:
BUZZ! Wrong. Why do criminals want weapons? To aid in theft. Why do criminals steal? For money. Now, why go through all that risky crime and violence if you can skip the theft part and just sell your weapons. No questions asked buy-back policies have been proven to be very effective. You make it sound like criminals commit crimes for shits and giggles.Parker wrote:
the one issue that arises is again the problem with criminals in possession. they wont sell their guns, they wont turn them into the police......hell they will shoot the police when they come and try to take their guns.mcminty wrote:
As opposed to a total ban and 'that's it', what about a weapon buy-back scheme. The government buys the guns back of the people and destroys them. It worked for Australia.
Mcminty.
criminals want weapons to aid in theft? lol where do you live?
what about the gangbangers that pull drivebys because the other gangbangers have the better corner to sell dope on?
come on man, that is one seriously flawed belief.
doctors kill hundreds times more than guns do in america, do you want to ban them?
As we say in our gun community, guns don't commit the crime, its the nut behind the butt.
Go after the criminals, not the guns.
I've got a degree in criminal justice, and from what I've learned, its that more guns within the community actually decreases the crime rate. I can't remember the name of the town, but there was a small town in Virginia in which all households were required to own at least 1 handgun. Crime rate dropped to zero. No murders, no muggings, no nothing. This was a small town and I doubt that it would have worked for a larger city, but it is a good example nonetheless. If I could find the link to the story i'd post it.
I own several rifles, from blackpowder and pellet all the way to ar-15 and ak-47 (semi, of course). I have no intention of committing crimes and I am actually trying to get a job in law enforcement. I've been a model citizen, never so much as a traffic ticket. It makes me sick when people say that they want to take away my right to defend myself and my family.
Should my guns be taken away? You can try, i'll tell ya that much :-D
Criminals, by definition, don't obey the law. So making new laws isn't going to do anything. Period. If you want gun control, enforce the ones on the books already, there's literally a ton. I've got a book in my bookcase thats just about firearms law and it weighs like 10 pounds.....
While I'm at it, have you ever noticed that all of the school shootings, all of the massacres in the US occur in "Gun Free Zones" where firearms of any sort are prohibited?? Those laws sure helped......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWeTEXSV7ts
this is a fun video but its only the first part. Explains alot.
As we say in our gun community, guns don't commit the crime, its the nut behind the butt.
Go after the criminals, not the guns.
I've got a degree in criminal justice, and from what I've learned, its that more guns within the community actually decreases the crime rate. I can't remember the name of the town, but there was a small town in Virginia in which all households were required to own at least 1 handgun. Crime rate dropped to zero. No murders, no muggings, no nothing. This was a small town and I doubt that it would have worked for a larger city, but it is a good example nonetheless. If I could find the link to the story i'd post it.
I own several rifles, from blackpowder and pellet all the way to ar-15 and ak-47 (semi, of course). I have no intention of committing crimes and I am actually trying to get a job in law enforcement. I've been a model citizen, never so much as a traffic ticket. It makes me sick when people say that they want to take away my right to defend myself and my family.
Should my guns be taken away? You can try, i'll tell ya that much :-D
Criminals, by definition, don't obey the law. So making new laws isn't going to do anything. Period. If you want gun control, enforce the ones on the books already, there's literally a ton. I've got a book in my bookcase thats just about firearms law and it weighs like 10 pounds.....
While I'm at it, have you ever noticed that all of the school shootings, all of the massacres in the US occur in "Gun Free Zones" where firearms of any sort are prohibited?? Those laws sure helped......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWeTEXSV7ts
this is a fun video but its only the first part. Explains alot.
I have lived in 12 different states and three countries and no, I have never met a single American obsessed with guns. I don't think owning a gun is obsessing over them.blisteringsilence wrote:
Wheras I can count the number of people I know who DON'T own a gun on two hands. It's all in where you live, and what the culture is.Kmarion wrote:
I know not one American obsessed with firearms. As a matter of fact the number of friends I have that own guns can be counted on one hand, and three of them are in the military.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
This scene in a recent Top Gear sums it for me.
Lets face it, the gun helps though.Bonesaw wrote:
doctors kill hundreds times more than guns do in america, do you want to ban them?
As we say in our gun community, guns don't commit the crime, its the nut behind the butt.
Go after the criminals, not the guns.
As I said before. The USA is completely fucked. You have greatly higher homicide, serious violent crime and rape rates compaired to most countries that are as rich and modernised. To say that these rates are LOWER because of guns means the problem is EVERN WORSE! Get the hell out of the middle east and sort your own country out first. Save yourself before you bother to save others.Bonesaw wrote:
I've got a degree in criminal justice, and from what I've learned, its that more guns within the community actually decreases the crime rate. I can't remember the name of the town, but there was a small town in Virginia in which all households were required to own at least 1 handgun. Crime rate dropped to zero. No murders, no muggings, no nothing. This was a small town and I doubt that it would have worked for a larger city, but it is a good example nonetheless. If I could find the link to the story i'd post it.
As I suggested, by limiting the number of firearms people can own you allow everyone to do everything they need guns to do, while limiting the number of firearms that will end up in criminal hands.Bonesaw wrote:
I own several rifles, from blackpowder and pellet all the way to ar-15 and ak-47 (semi, of course). I have no intention of committing crimes and I am actually trying to get a job in law enforcement. I've been a model citizen, never so much as a traffic ticket. It makes me sick when people say that they want to take away my right to defend myself and my family.
Should my guns be taken away? You can try, i'll tell ya that much :-D
As legal gun owners are the main supplier of illegal weapons, restricting legally owned firearms will EVENTUALLY reduce what's available to criminals.Bonesaw wrote:
Criminals, by definition, don't obey the law. So making new laws isn't going to do anything. Period. If you want gun control, enforce the ones on the books already, there's literally a ton. I've got a book in my bookcase thats just about firearms law and it weighs like 10 pounds.....
I agree with this. If you're going to make guns legal everywhere else, restricting them in certain places is stupid. If you're going to inflict all the problems of legal gun ownership on your populace, you can at least allow the possible possitive benefits where they'll be needed most.Bonesaw wrote:
While I'm at it, have you ever noticed that all of the school shootings, all of the massacres in the US occur in "Gun Free Zones" where firearms of any sort are prohibited?? Those laws sure helped......
A few points. from this video;Bonesaw wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWeTEXSV7ts
this is a fun video but its only the first part. Explains alot.
Guns don't do anything to stop rape. Most rapists are friends and family. They know their victim, where their gun is and in the unlikely event that the victim can actually get hold of the gun, it's unlikely that they'll actually use it. Remember the most likely person to rape your wife and daughter is YOU.
Good luck stopping the US military with a couple of handguns and a rifle. Overthrowing the government with small arms ain't going to happen.
The second amendment clearly gives all US citizens the right to own thermonuclear warheads. It demands no restrictions of what arms citizens can own. At least with a nuke you actually could feasably frighten the government. If your serious about the idea of civillians having the means to overthrow the government then citizens should be allowed ALL millitary hardware, from tanks to stealth bombers.
As far as I can see, the US has two real choices as far as guns go. The US already have vast amounts of problems caused by gun ownership, to solve these problems they could make a credible way to slowly remove the firearms from society. Increasingly limit the number and type of guns that can legally be owned over the course of several decades so that the effects can be observed and the criminal gun ownership can catch up with the civillian gun ownership. Kill the supply of certain weapons and the numbers of those waepons in criminal hands will eventually drop as the weapons are confiscated or destroyed by criminals to avoid them being traced to a crime. If this could be made to work it's clearly the best solution.
Either that or go the other way. ditch pretty much all gun ownership restrictions. Everyone who's 18+, has no criminal record and passes a psychological fitness test must go to a government sanctioned firearms safety and useage training session , then be issued with a gun and a permit to carry it at all times, wherever they go. This is by far a worse solution as you'll pretty well be enforcing that any criminals have to get a gun and have to assume everyone they meet while commiting crime is armed and therefore should be shot first just for self preservation. BUT if you're going to insist upon having widespread gun ownership and the problems that causes, you should at least allow everyone who doesn't break the laws to get as many advanteges for their gun ownership as possible.