GOP: Gun Control

[Dengen-Goroth]

Well, after a bit of a delay I think the time is ripe for the first topic to be braught forth- Gun Control. Only one week! Also, no foul language, and don't get out of hand people! Let's try to keep this nice and civilized. Below are three links for more info. on the subject. One is Pro and the other is Con, the last being one with some interesting info. Let the debating begin!

Interesting Information Page-
http://www.guncite.com/
Pro Gun Control (A number of good articles)-
http://www.thenewamerican.com/focus/gun_control/index.htm
Anti Gun Control-
http://www.otherside.net/guncontr.htm

[Tar-Ancalime]

I say dearest, I'm anti-gun control. What's the use of defending yourself with your dagger and sword, if your opponent has an automatic weapon,eh. Being conservative and all, I like protecting my future family in the future unless we come up with an invention that is not as lethal as a gun but does equal, non-permanent damage. LIke the cuflinks in Lesslie Neilsons the naked gun, LOL.

Also, we are protecting our 2nd ammendment, The right to bear arms... Instead of doing something radical like banning guns, we could possibly as a nation, bring informative programs and moral programs to gun owners if they have a criminal backround, or a suicidal, or debatable backround.

[Wyvern]

I am anti-gun control! Gun control is a bad thing, because everyone would have to go through such long process's to obtain the weapon. As well, the goverment will interfear and that will cause cause even more problems to obtaining a firearm. Tax's are likely to rise, and this will cause national distress as I doubt many people will want to pay a "gun control" tax to pay for people constantly checking to see if everyone has registered on time, etc.

As well, with weapons we can protect ourselves from those who would take advanage of others that do not have weapons. As well, for those people who need guns (mofia, gangs) would probally resort more to theft to obtain there weapons, and we'd pay more tax to keep police paid to do there jobs. With many stolen weapons about, murder's would happen more often due to the theft, making many places worse then they now are.

Wyvern

P.S. I'm Canadian and 14, so I tried my best :)

[Beorn]

Prescript: I'm 14 too, almost 15...most people 'round here are teens...What does being Canadian have to do with it? The question is of Gun Control, not just in the US.

I believe that the extent to which gun control is taken is not nearly enough. People think that a gun is so small, it can't hurt anyone that bad. But, the truth is, it does...People are too careless with guns, leave them in spots where kids can find them. A couple months ago, a child in my area found a gun in drawer, and shot herself in the leg. Guns need to be controlled more, and more screening needs to be done. More crackdowns on illegal sellers. More technologies enhanced so that bullets are unique to each gun. To tell you the truth, do you really care if your taxes go up so that fewer people can die? In the end, it helps people.

Tasers (sp?) would be great for self defence, but like everything, there is some nasty little guy screwing around to make the taser more dangerous so that you can do more damage. And, you know, that "improved" taser is going to get sold.

I really would like to say I wish we could just get rid of guns. But the thing is, I won't because there are too many. Sure, we've the right to bear arms, but is it one of the more concious rights? It is extremely outdated when more guns were used for hunting than killing humans. And remember, arms are not necessarily (sp?) guns. They can be a bow & arrow. They can be a switchblade. They are any weapon, not just guns.

[Reoko]

i'm anti-cussing controll
and anti-gun control
and anti-country music
Discourage Inbreading Ban Country Music!!!!

[Dengen-Goroth]

guys, i'll assume you all want to be a part of the Politicsmguild, right...And seems like almost everyone here is anti-gun control. Plyig Devil's advocate here to spice things up, why shouldn't such control be put on such a dealy weapon? Perhaps if it werethen criminals would not possess it as easily, making the need for defense by such a weapon likewise undeeded. We have seen over 500 years it's horrible power, and why not stop? Surely things would be safer if we did not have guns available to nearly anyone. (Remember, just playing Devil's Advcate, no one start yelling)

[Ciryaher]

The problem about guns isn't that there are so many, it is the fact that the majority of the people who use guns for acts of violence (not self defense) obtain these firearms illegally. They get them off the black market or from private manufacturers (drug cartels, for example). Gun control has proven worldwide to be utterly innefective at reducing crime (look at Great Britain, whose numbers of armed robbery have risen dramatically). The solution to crime isn't to get rid of guns, it's to get rid of the criminals. Tougher laws, tougher punishments.

[Asha'man]

Exactly, Ciryaher. If a criminal decides he's going to go and get a gun to threaten or kill people with, chances are he's not going to get it legally. He is an outlaw, after all, and obviously doesn't give a damn about whether his weapon is legal or not.

Dengen: As I just said above, how would gun control affect criminals? If they want a gun, they will get a gun, and there's nothing anyone can do about it. Like Ciryaher said, the UK has experienced a huge surge in crime since their prohibitive gun laws were introduced. Gang members ride mountain bikes around, carrying fully automatic weapons. Where did they get these weapons? No police force in the world can patrol their entire border, you know, and even an island the size of Great Britain has hundreds of miles of deserted coastline. Do you think these gangsters' guns ever saw a customs official? No, of course not. They are *illegal guns*, and gun-control will never touch them, only the law-abiding citizens who own guns for legitimate purposes. Do you actually think this, or were you just bringing an opposing opinion in? Just wondering. :)

Gun control only affects those people who can least afford to not own a gun. Ordinary folks, like you and I, who merely wish to protect themselves from criminals, or perhaps hunt or target-shoot. Should they suffer from a law that doesn't even touch it's (supposedly) intended subjects, namely, criminals? I think not.


Asha'man

[Dengen-Goroth]

No, I was just bringing up the opposition, just to get some more talk. I agree, Criminals wll get guns if they want thm no matter what, but with the restrictions at least we wuld make it that much harder. And also getting guns at gun shows and such, the government should do more. And what of those smart chips I heard that they wanted to emloy, so as only the owner would be able to fire. That is promising technology. (Again being Devil's Advocate) And if we just bring about harsher laws, how would that change anything to a great effect? We attempt to be human, and so criminals care naught when they commit these crimes. Think of it, they have recreation roomes, tv, gyms.We are nearly pampering them! Without further restrictions, and making it harder for those who sell the weapons to obtain them we would restrict the crminals or potential criminals from obtaining them. Restrictions shall make it much more difficult, and the failures ofthe past as seen, as you mentioned Britian, shoul not speak entirely for downcasting the idea

[Tar-Ancalime]

Exactly, we need to enforce the laws we have now, instead of creating new laws.

[Ciryaher]

Anytime a child uses one of their parents' guns to "accidentally" shoot themselves or another person, that "accident" is completely the fault of the parent. If you own any firearms:

A) Teach your kids about gun safety as soon as possible. And repeat it often. Guns are tools to be respected, not toys to show to the neighbors.

B) Use trigger locks and keep the firearms in a fireproof safe. If the gun is for personal defense (such as a pistol), keep it in its case, put a lock on the case, and stick it in a drawer. Keep one key with yourself and another well hidden (this is what I do).

I have a little brother that enjoys playing "Army Man" and plays with his toy guns, but I have explained to him that guns are dangerous and he is not to touch them, and I haven't had any problems with him.

[Tar-Ancalime]

Your Solutions are wonderful

[Reoko]

i think that we shouldn't have g-ijoes on the market. doesn't that just inforce volence i mean sure they used to be cute. but eversince old joe boy got a strap on rocket launcher and a sniper rifle they kinda have gone to far. and these now more realistic than ever guns i just think now that violence is everywhere and has gone to far.

[Tar-Ancalime]

reoko just said that Hahahaha

[Reoko]

SHUT UP this is about the kids not me cuz i don't go on shoting sprease (much)

[Tar-Ancalime]

I was about to say...

LOL

[Asha'man]

Here's a couple of good links to BladeForums threads relating to good gun education for children.

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=167558

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=183176

Being that BFC is a knife forum, most members are conservatively minded towards knives, but guns are sometimes another matter. Good threads with lots of different views and suggestions about child-safing a household with guns. Anyway, again I totally concur with you, Ciryaher.

Asha'man

[Ciryaher]

Ahh yes. Let's ban GI Joes. While we're at it, let's ban camouflage as well. Hey, war movies and westerns are out as well. O, and so is anything else in this world that children see that have to do with gun violence. Hmph.

[Tar-Ancalime]

Reoko's solution seeems illogical

[Dengen-Goroth]

Finally some kind of a debate, though i wish someone with Pro-gun control ideas could pop up. Let's have a nice debate friensd, or I have chosea bad topic. Now, we can't fully ban all images of violence, that is impossible, especially with the current news and all. The problem is in the famiy. If there is no affection within a family, then there will be an environment for such things as school shootings to occur, gun control itself will but slightly hinder this. Let's move to this topic a bit, America's families. Are they/we doing enough, and being compasionate enough with their kids.

[Beorn]

Does anyone participating in this discussion know someone who has been shot? I know two! One of my neighbors is a NYC cop, and his bulletproof vest stopped the bullet, and the other is a PI, and he was in the hospital for 7 days recovering.

I don't want to say that all guns should be admonished. I want to say that there needs to be more screening on people buying guns. And, yes, I know that there are tons of illegal places where you can get a gun, but I also think that we should crack down on those places. When there are fewer places illegally dealing guns, more criminals are going to flock there, kinda giving the place away. And, I still know there will be places, but there will be fewer guns.

Now, someone is going to say, "Well, it would make it harder for you to get a gun." Well, if you haven't committed any crimes (I mean real crimes, not a fraternity prank (larceny of a single eggplant, conspiracy to steal produce)), you shouldn't have a problem. But, if you have committed a crime, then you're, odd are, not getting a gun. And, for those people who have committed a crime, but are staying in check, that is their own problem. They're still allowed to have knives.

[Tar-Ancalime]

Although i am agianst entire gun-control. We have to inform the people...check for criminal backrounds and ect.

[Reoko]

Yeah well screw you too. Okay so mabie it is illogical but still it is just an idea. But still i'm not saying to take 'em out totally just make them a little less voilent. Like is a rocket lancher really nessasary on GI Joe? I agree with cir's solution to talk it out frequently. But some people dispise their faimly and when their favorite star who they idolize is volient they just might turn out that way. I am not saying ban it just tone it down. I think that death is just taken a little less seriously then it was.

[Tar-Ancalime]

I was getting it back on topic thankyou

It is dangereous to have guns too easy to get (especilaly for people like reoko) Whom are often rash or reckless.You should not deny the right to Sane people who would desire it for protection of house and family

[Reoko]

Also you shouldn't keep it around people who are definatley on something (like good old tar) but other than that i agree anyway who needs guns i can make a demond sword from thin air, fly and shot fire out of my hands

[Tar-Ancalime]

now...I beg to differ. See rash and reckless people (i.e. REoko) tend to have violent mood swings, and I"m sure they would rather enjoy an automatic weapon too.

PS:I'm not on drugs

[Ciryaher]

Mike, I bet you $1000 dollars that the guns that shot your friends were not only bought by people with criminal records, but also that they were either stolen guns or guns obtained from a non-traceable source.

Gun laws only affect honest gun owners. If anyone wants to kill someone, they will just get it from a private source or use poison or a knife or a bomb. Guns are the simple way of killing someone, but not the only, by far.

[Tar-Ancalime]

yes,Cir but also gun owners may have twisted children.So even though your point is logical..as in anything it goes baack to awerness

[Courtney]

I am against gun control mostly because I think people have the right to protect themselves. Some people have a gun, just because knowing it's there makes them feel safe. And Tar, I agree with you that the most responsible gun owners can have horrible children, but I think the parents should be responsible for keeping their gun locked up or out of their child's reach.

[Tar-Ancalime]

Yea...it is important to defend oneself, but not to overuse the Privelage of owning a gun. so all in all in comes to faith,family, and morals

[Courtney]

Exactly the problem. And how are you to judge that in a person?

[Tar-Ancalime]

Basically, by educating not in the ways of saftey but teach people the importance of literacy, of faith in ones life,of devotion to one person alone. We as a society do little more than throw cash and checks at people in need...we need to do more,much more.

[Haven]

This is such a hard question because, think of it: guns are horrible. (In certain persons opinions) The sole purpose for creating them was to kill. But now, they're everywhere, people will always have them, so what do you do? The more people become obsessed with the idea of protecting themselves, the more accidents happen. Rarely do you protect your home with a gun, and more often than should happen, kids find guns in their parents sock drawers. But there's nothing to do, b/c people will now always have them.

[Tar-Ancalime]

You, haven, present a very good point. A gun is a tool...simply that.However in the wrong hands it can be a weapon. To take away a persons gun..is in the constituion agains the bill of rights,set by our forefathers, would you take away that right because of one man???

[Asha'man]

About twisted children: In the 1800s and before (and after, of course, but not as often-you know, they just didn't have to go hunting for dinner anymore), just about everyone had and often used guns. Settlers, explorers, gentlemen. They tended to have kids, as people do today. Did these kids, who had access to *evil firearms* ever shoot up their one-room schools? Or kill their folks? No, because they were usually religious, and usually had strong family relationships.

One might make the case that they were often not exposed to other people's "destructive" influences, or didn't have violent media to "copy", but I think the family lies at the root. And good firearms education, of course.

Which makes me think.......I got a toy lever-action rifle when I was about 6 or 7, and my dad said to never point it at a person, or anything I wouldn't really shoot. "Every gun is always loaded", he said. Now I get pissed when my friends muzzle-cross me with airsoft guns, because that rule was drilled into me from a young age. If that was more common among todays youth, I think - no, I know - that we'd have far fewer "accidental" shootings. You know, when kids find their dad's gun, and are so mystified, intrigued, by it that they start playing with it.

Now, about G.I. Joe. Rocket launchers are cool! Seriously, I don't have any problem with that. If a kid is acting out with it, like I think you mean, Reoko, then there's a problem, probably with the family. The toy rocket launcher has nothing to do with it, being an inanimate object and therefore incapable of brainwashing the kid to act violent.

Anyway. I just don't believe toys, or even real guns for that matter, should be blamed for violent behavior in children and teens. Even adults. Maybe we should debate that; whether guns(or other "implements of death") cause violence. I think most of us would be agreed already, but it might be interesting. Opinions?

Asha'man

[Tar-Ancalime]

the points you present are very accurate. I hold much the same opiinion as you.

[Asha'man]

Hmm, while I was typing my long post, not less than *three* other posts were posted. :)

Haven: A kid finding his parents' gun in a sock drawer poses no problem if he has been properly educated on firearm safety. If the kid is too young for that, then it is the parents' responsibility to keep it out of their reach, but I think by the age of 6-10 (varying for different kids) they should be ready to handle dad's .45 under proper supervision. This removes the sense of wonder and mystique that so often occurs when kids find guns.

Why do I "scare" you, Tar? Is it because you never want to go head-to-head with me on my pet topics, due to my cutting commentary, or just a general sort of Firy aura I exude? :D Just kidding, it's good to have so many anti-gun-controllers here. I wonder if there's a corellation between reading Tolkien and seeing the light politically.........?

Asha'man

[Haven]

All I'm saying is that obviously people aren't taking proper gun safety. It is up to the owner to supervise their kids, etc. ...but I don't know if that's happening...so what then?

[Ciryaher]

Keep the guns locked up, and teach your kids about them. If you have raised them right, you won't have to worry about a 'demon child'.

[Tar-Ancalime]

WEll Aid Cir

[Dengen-Goroth]

I assume everyone here who has posted and not joined the Politics Guild would like to be part of it, right...

[Courtney]

I would like to be part of the politics guild although it is not always possible for me to be online every day.

Anyway, going back to what Asha'man said a few posts back, I think that all violence comes from the people who use the weapons, because first of all, people created guns. And if someone really intended to be violented, they would find a way to be violent with out the use of guns if they had to. The problem (as others have already mentioned) lies with in our society. And no matter how much we wish it would, gun control cannot change the way people are.

[Asha'man]

This thread seems to be stagnating.......shall we introduce another topic?

Asha'man

[Courtney]

Ooh good point, Ashaman. i must have been typing while you posted. I forgot about all that.... Now I'm confused... I know a guy who got expelled for having knives in his car, and he was really nice boy, too. Now I don't know what I think...

[daisy]

Ash,

I also agree that people in power should use good judgement when deciding whether to ruin a kid's life when things could just be misunderstood. But how many times have I heard " but he was such a nice boy, no-one knew...he was a perfect student...". Think about that kid that JUST FLEW HIS PLANE INTO A BUILDING!!!! Perfect student, loving family member....

Courtney, I am a teacher. My job is to teach students as best I can, and to try to help them solve conflicts peacefully and with their words. But that is also what parents are for, and sometimes I have a hard time being too much of a mom to 80 kids a day....

but I digress....

:)

[Talierin]

I think they, instead of automatically throwing students out, should investigate the reason why the kid had the "dangerous object" in the first place. What about the 7 year old that accidently grabbed her mom's lunch and it had a paring knife in it? Kicked out. Or the Eagle Scout that had an axe in his trunk because he had been on a Scout function the day before? Kicked out. Some of these are just ridiculous.

[Gloer]

I am a total stranger to the situation in the North American schools. I live in Finland and did my high school foreign exchange year in Australia.

I really wonder what is going on over there. Can you imagine what it sounds like? Ridiculous.

What I find really strange is the easy access people have to guns.

Here in Finland we have 5 times more privately owned weapons than people. 5 % of the total population state hunting ast their hobby.

However it is totally unusual to see anyone posessing a gun if he is not hunting. All weapons need to be licenced and stored in a locked safe or a closet.
Also the propotion of private weapons is clear: we hardly have any pistols, most guns are shot guns or rifles. Automatic weaponry is illegal.

Weapons are treated with respect. They a kept out of sight, not carried around and never used "for fun" or shootings.

It seems that USA has a situation of escalated violence levels between the criminals and the community. It is similar to the situation in the Northern Ireland where IRA disarmament is a key element of peace.

So I suggest that you ban all private weapons, register it and return it only if an acceptable reason is stated. Protection should not count as a reason to keep a gun.

All other weaponry is marginal: a sharp weapon requires much closer contact with the victim and has a higher risk of failure than a gun. A knife requires also skill and strength whereas
gun gives power over others in itself.

[Tar-Ancalime]

Although your points are valid that would be a complete violation of our constitution! Private weapons are much like private affairs, they are privat and no government (unless they deem themselves tyranical in america) can take such liberties as our country was founded on.

[Courtney]

Not everyone believes that the right to own a gun is specicfically given in the Bill of Rights (2nd ammendment maybe?). It could also be interpreted that states can only form militias to protect the entire state/country. It doesn't exactly point out whether people have the right to own weapons. It's hard to interpret, since unfortunately we now face problems that were completely unheard of when the constitution was written.

[Asha'man]

Originally posted by Gloer:

What I find really strange is the easy access people have to guns.

Why do you find this strange? Life in a free country is just that - free. We can own guns if we wish without the government interfering (much). Is this so strange?


However it is totally unusual to see anyone posessing a gun if he is not hunting. All weapons need to be licenced and stored in a locked safe or a closet.

The locking up is good if you have small or irresponsible children in the house. The licensing - why does the government need to know who has a gun? What legitimate business could they possibly have that would require them to know how many and what kind of guns you own?


Weapons are treated with respect. They a kept out of sight, not carried around and never used "for fun" or shootings.

I own three long guns myself. I treat them with respect, don't brandish them in public, but I do use them for fun. What's wrong with a responsible day at the range? I don't go around shooting people, either. Is the government responsible for keeping me in line? No, because I exercise common sense while I exercise my right to keep and bear arms.

So I suggest that you ban all private weapons, register it and return it only if an acceptable reason is stated. Protection should not count as a reason to keep a gun.

Really? Who decides what reasons are "acceptable"? On what basis do they decide? Why do they need to know about my guns? Why can they rule that I can't protect myself? What happens when I'm mugged in an alley by a bum with a bowie knife? What happens when my sister or mom is raped by a thug with an illegal gun, and she can't fight back? What about the burglar who breaks into my house with a shotgun and takes my family and me hostage?

I can excuse your ignorance of American laws and life to some degree because you are a foreigner, but this is really BS.

Asha'man

[daisy]

Ash'a man,

I found some of your responses to Gloer's totally appropriate comments rude.

Just because people may not understand Americans' relationships with their firearms and the laws surrounding their ownership, does not mean people are ignorant.

And yes, I do think it is my business to know how many guns there are and where they are.

Perhaps for a moment you need to consider the possibility that the very liberal freedoms surrounding gun ownership in the United States may be responsible for the level of gun violence in your country.

I also don't know how many 'bums' own bowie knives, as they are quite expensive. I find this coment to be insensitive towards the homeless. The large majority of violence in the United States is not created by the homeless.
It is also a very rare occurence when people break into other people's homes and rape and kill those inside. Usually people are killed in gang-related activites and are killed by people they know.

I am not American, but my country also suffers from your 'right to bear arms'. Many weapons that end up being used to kill people on the streets of my city are brought up from the U.S.

Some Americans seem to have no ability to discuss gun ownership without getting extremely defensive. This is not conducive to keeping lines of communication open.

daisy.

I didn't even CATCH your initial comments about Gloer being a 'foreigner'. Unless you are full-blooded First Nations Aboriginal, then you come from a long line of foreigners yourself, dear.

[Gloer]

Originally posted by Asha'man


Really? Who decides what reasons are "acceptable"? On what basis do they decide? Why do they need to know about my guns? Why can they rule that I can't protect myself? What happens when I'm mugged in an alley by a bum with a bowie knife? What happens when my sister or mom is raped by a thug with an illegal gun, and she can't fight back? What about the burglar who breaks into my house with a shotgun and takes my family and me hostage?


Yes really. Well hypothetically since I know your National Rifle Association has a strange view on the relationship between guns and killing: "Guns do not kill. Men kill."
As we can not change the man much the solution is to prevent killers getting guns. It works everywhere else, why not in USA?

I know you have a representative democracy. Your Congress could do something about it. They are authorized by the people to decide why you should be allowed to have a gun. Shooting hobby is ok by me. What I ment is things like "drive-by-shooting" (does that really happen?) or shooting with a careless attitude (even when supposed to be somewhere remote and safe like at a farm).

Licensing and gun registers are the least you should have. I do not doubt that you know exactly where your guns are, but do you know where your neigbours guns are? maybe his son just took them to school because his father keeps them on hte wall at the fire-place.

If you are mugged on an alley with a bowie knife you would of course shoot the man and maybe shoot him first? And the rapist would surely get shot too? And the hostage situation will end up in a bloodshed too, right?

I think all those muggers and conmen should make a conclusion: they should protect themselves with guns. And in the end of the day you just end up getting less secure, less protected and more likely to get shot.

That is the fact.

[Bill the Pony]

Originally posted by Asha'man
Originally posted by Asha'man
Why do you find this strange? Life in a free country is just that - free. We can own guns if we wish without the government interfering (much). Is this so strange?
Asha'man

I'm a foreigner too, so I hope you'll forgive my ignorance as well.

Yes, life in a free country is free - but only to a certain extent. For example, the government is (trying to) keep track of which people have access to radioactive materials. And if you don't have a good reason to use them, it's difficult to do so. Why? because a lot of damage can be done if radioactive material is used by people who intend to do harm.
Now let's translate: the government might want to keep track of who owns a gun and for what reason. Why? because guns can do a lot of damage if used by people with the intent to harm.

So yes, living in a free country is great, but each country has to limit the freedom of the individual for the good of all. I do not know where to draw this line, but I think gun-control is not the ** that you call it. I believe it's a serious option to consider.

PS sorry for digressing from the topic, but I did not get the chance to reply to this thread when the topic was still gun control

[Tar-Ancalime]

A gun is a tool...why not take away nail files they can kill to..then we'd need to take a way computers...my point anythiong can be a weapon. Also prohibition lesson..making something illegal deems it more popular from the challenge to get it. Are you people deaf to the lesssons of history.

[Courtney]

How did we get back to gun control?
Oh well... I think that no matter how much control the goverment has over who can own guns, people will still find a way to kill and hurt other people if they really want to.
Gun control isn't the solution because guns aren't the problem. The problem is much deeper. If someone wants to kill, they will find a way with or without the use of a gun.

[daisy]

there is no comparison between a knife, fists, swords, etc. and a semi-automatic or automatic firearm. Some guns can fire up to one hundred rounds a minut or something. You think Columbine would have happened the way it did without guns?

It is true that people kill people, but guns help people kill more people more quickly and more easily.

:( daisy

[Asha'man]

Okay, I typed this while offline, and a couple of people posted since I saw the thread last, but it really changes nothing. Good points, Tar and Courtney. Daisy, Columbine wouldn't have happened *exactly* the way it did without firearms, but they had propane tank bombs and grenades as well. Plus, they did kill a few people with a knife. Believe me, it would have happened. These were very disturbed boys, and they would've done something, with or without guns. Anyway, here's my big ole post.

Originally posted by daisy:

Just because people may not understand Americans' relationships with their firearms and the laws surrounding their ownership, does not mean people are ignorant.

You just contradicted yourself. If someone doesn’t understand something, that makes them ignorant about that certain something. I don’t understand how nuclear science works, so I am ignorant about it.

And yes, I do think it is my business to know how many guns there are and where they are.

Why? What difference does it make to you if I own a gun?

Perhaps for a moment you need to consider the possibility that the very liberal freedoms surrounding gun ownership in the United States may be responsible for the level of gun violence in your country.

Possibility, yes. Fact, no. Have you ever heard of the town in Georgia (sorry, can’t recall the name right now) that made it mandatory or at least very easy for adults to carry concealed handguns? The crime rate dropped to nearly zero because the criminals didn’t know who had a gun, and wouldn’t take the chance of attacking someone who had one. Look at Great Britain – they have extremely restrictive firearm laws, and the crime rate has gone through the roof.

I also don't know how many 'bums' own bowie knives, as they are quite expensive. I find this comment to be insensitive towards the homeless. The large majority of violence in the United States is not created by the homeless.

They are not necessarily expensive. I could order a large hunting-style knife right this moment for less than fifteen dollars. While it would be a total POS, I could easily kill someone with it if I so chose. I could also buy a quality production Bowie for upwards of $400, but not all Bowies cost this much. Insensitive towards the homeless? Don’t make me laugh. If they get their feelings hurt, then they can get a job, get help from any of the fine organizations out there, and stop being homeless. And yes, there is a lot of violence “created” by homeless people. Not two weeks gone, a homeless man stabbed a woman in the children’s section of the Denver Public Library. Why? No reason. But he was homeless, and extremely violent. Wanted for rape and assault, among other things. Don’t even try to tell me that most homeless people are decent, upstanding citizens.

It is also a very rare occurrence when people break into other people's homes and rape and kill those inside. Usually people are killed in gang-related activities and are killed by people they know.

It isn’t that rare. But that’s because about half of American households own guns, and a potential burglar usually doesn’t want to take the chance of getting shot. I’ve read that the rates of break-ins with violent results are much higher in (again) Great Britain. The crook knows that the resident won’t have a gun to defend himself, so he can break in with impunity. It does happen here, though. Yes, many people are killed in gang-related activities, but not most. Nor are they “usually” killed by people they know. This does happen, but it isn’t the majority of the time.

I didn't even CATCH your initial comments about Gloer being a 'foreigner'. Unless you are full-blooded First Nations Aboriginal, then you come from a long line of foreigners yourself, dear.

Is he an American? No. That makes him a foreigner. Are you American? No. You’re a foreigner. Am I Canadian or Finnish? No. I’m a foreigner to you two. I do come from a long line of foreigners, but I am not one myself, and I’d be willing to bet that you aren’t either. Dear.

Originally posted by Gloer:

Yes really. Well hypothetically since I know your National Rifle Association has a strange view on the relationship between guns and killing: "Guns do not kill. Men kill."
As we can not change the man much the solution is to prevent killers getting guns. It works everywhere else, why not in USA?

How do guns, being inanimate objects, kill people? Does a gun just jump up and start shooting? No. It must be operated by a human being, and it is the intention of this human being that controls what the gun is used to do. People can be educated in the safe use of firearms; what is lacking in this day and age is that proper education. Attempting to prevent killers from getting guns works nowhere else. Look at the U.K. Look at Australia. Crime rates far higher than the U.S. and extremely restrictive gun laws. Yeah, that’s the answer. :rolleyes:

Your Congress could do something about it. They are authorized by the people to decide why you should be allowed to have a gun.

Where on earth did you get this idea? The Second Amendment to our Constitution says “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Period. Who says that Congress gets to decide if they’ll let me own my guns? Nobody; they have absolutely no right or authorization to do this.

Shooting hobby is ok by me. What I meant is things like "drive-by-shooting" (does that really happen?) or shooting with a careless attitude (even when supposed to be somewhere remote and safe like at a farm).

Drive-by shootings do happen, and more often than you probably think. I’ve never been in one, or known anyone who was, but I have been to places (mostly in the crummier parts of town) with bullet-holes in the glass or wall. Kinda scary. The “careless attitude” comes down again to lack of good firearm education.


Licensing and gun registers are the least you should have. I do not doubt that you know exactly where your guns are, but do you know where your neighbor’s guns are? Maybe his son just took them to school because his father keeps them on the wall at the fire-place.

This is contradictory. You say that you don’t doubt that I know where my guns are. Why should you doubt that my neighbor knows where his guns are?

If you are mugged on an alley with a bowie knife you would of course shoot the man and maybe shoot him first? And the rapist would surely get shot too? And the hostage situation will end up in a bloodshed too, right?

I’m not sure what you mean by this. If someone attacked me with obvious intent to kill or maim me (as shown by his brandishing a knife or gun) I would take steps to protect myself. If he ran when he saw my weapon, well and good. If not, and I had to injure or kill him, I would do so. I would take no joy in it, but it’s one of those things that needs to be done. Same if I was female and in a situation for imminent rape. It sounds to me as if you think the attacker/rapist has a right to stay uninjured or even alive. I think not; they just forfeited that right by attacking me.

I think all those muggers and conmen should make a conclusion: they should protect themselves with guns. And in the end of the day you just end up getting less secure, less protected and more likely to get shot.

I’m not sure what you mean here, either. Are you saying that if more people carry guns, more evil people will too, and everyone will get shot? I’m curious as to your meaning.

Originally posted by Bill the Pony:

For example, the government is (trying to) keep track of which people have access to radioactive materials. And if you don't have a good reason to use them, it's difficult to do so. Why? because a lot of damage can be done if radioactive material is used by people who intend to do harm.

Yes, but tell me what purpose radioactive materials serve to the average person? It’s not like you can protect yourself against an assailant with a mini-nuke (heh, funny mental picture there:D).

Now let's translate: the government might want to keep track of who owns a gun and for what reason. Why? Because guns can do a lot of damage if used by people with the intent to harm.

Are you equating firearms with radioactive material? :rolleyes: There is no comparison. Guns can also do no damage if used responsibly. Now, if you really want something with the potential to do a lot of damage if used by people with intent to harm (or even just careless use), take a look at the automobile.


Anyway, we've already discussed gun control here. If you really want to bring it up again, we can, but I'd prefer to move on to another topic.

Asha'man

[daisy]

Yes, why don't we discuss people who are bigoted against the homeless? How old are you Ash? Are you a young person? Then you better hope you do not have a mental illness lying dormant that will render you incapabale of functioning. You better hope that you never become a drug addict or alcoholic, although I am sure you will vehemently deny that possibility because it's only the weak ones, right?

And you better hope, in the United States, that you never get horribly ill or become disabled with no insurance. Because then perhaps you will experience homelessness and then someone like you can tell you to get a job.

I hope you live somewhere warm. About nine or ten homeless men have frozen to death so far this year. How 'bummish' and irresponsible of them.

God Bless.

daisy.

[telperion]

god bless ....? can anyone xplain 2me how that works...?is it alright for someone to bless their foes or isn't that customary?i've heard god bless america very often lately...but god was there for the weak wasn't he?not for barabas for sure...
so how blatenly ignorant of your own culture can you b to bless only yourself whilst knowing of your material supremacy....star wars yourself out of this situation but at least try to appear as the homogenic and balanced culture u claim 2 b..loving the islam is loving christianity... they share most of their fundamental pilars upholding the 2 cultures(religion=culture in the second and third world )but at least in the middle east they haven't forgotten who they are,,,

I live one house away where the fouding fathers of the american constitution lived after they were xiled from am to leiden...its now an very interesting museum ... the u.s. has strayed of its path so caught up in their materialism...blech ,most of you make me sadd...

[Bill the Pony]

Can I do one more on gun-control, and then I'll shut up

Yes, but tell me what purpose radioactive materials serve to the average person? It’s not like you can protect yourself against an assailant with a mini-nuke (heh, funny mental picture there).
No, the average person can not protect oneself with radio active materials, but a lot of average persons do perfectly harmless research with them, and still they need a licence to work with them.

Now, if you really want something with the potential to do a lot of damage if used by people with intent to harm (or even just careless use), take a look at the automobile.
Thank you for bringing that up, I had not thought about that. Definitely if a car is used unresponsibly, it can do a lot of damage. Which is why you need a driver's licence before you are allowed to drive a car
And even worse, the government punishes you, or takes your licence away if you show that you can not use your car responsibly. You say that education is the problem. Would it then be a good idea to require a shooting licence before someone can buy a gun? Just like with cars that would results in the equivalent of the DMV keeping track of everyone who owns a gun and the licence to go with it. Which is basically what Gloer proposed

[Asha'man]

Daisy: Do you volunteer to help the homeless? If so, then I congratulate you and know that you have first-hand experience dealing with these folks. If not, I suggest that you stop lambasting me about being insensitive.

telperion: What on earth are you talking about? You make no sense. After struggling through your annoying internet abbreviations and chronic lack of capitalization, you make no point at all.

Bill the Pony:
No, the average person can not protect oneself with radio active materials, but a lot of average persons do perfectly harmless research with them, and still they need a licence to work with them.

Really? What research can they do? Seriously, I've never heard of this. Please enlighten me.

I'm still trying to get comparative figures on automobile deaths versus firearm deaths. I will post them when I get them, but rest assured, cars kill many thousands more people (including young children) than do guns.


Here's a potential new topic: Do you think that the families of the WTC and Pentagon victims, as well as those of the Oklahoma City bombing, should get money from the government, as well as exemption from paying taxes?

Asha'man

[telperion]

r u complaining about my style or the content of my posts??

[Beorn]

Originally posted by Asha'man
Here's a potential new topic: Do you think that the families of the WTC and Pentagon victims, as well as those of the Oklahoma City bombing, should get money from the government, as well as exemption from paying taxes?[/B]


CLOSE! They shouldn't be exempt, they should just receive a big tax break.

My uncle had two friends who worked in WTC that died. Luckily, he works on Wall Street. Anyway: neither of the families have gotten one cent yet. It's been more than four months, and millions, maybe billions of dollars were collected, and no family of one killed in the WTC has gotten any money!!!

My mom's office got about 100-200 worker's comp. claims. So far, there have been around 180-200 resolved. That still leaves 20 families that may not have gotten any workers compensation for their loved one! There are more families who had a loved one not insured with workers comp. by my mom's work!!!

Do you have any idea how many people are still suffering???

[Valar]

I am sorry for coming back to the topic of guns but i would like to say something.

Has any of you ever had first hand expierience of using a gun against others?
If so then feel free to contribute.
My dad was in the Gulf war, and he has.
Two years ago he told me about it for the first time, and he had to kill with an knife as well as a gun, and it is completly different. Pulling a trigger an closing you eyes can make killing come so easy, so easy way to do damage and kill. Killing with an knife or such is a different story, he said you can feel yourself pushing throught the other persons body (I am sorry for the detail).
Can't you see that a gun can so easyly rob human life, a split second of miss thinking can leave another person dead or yourself. I am from England, not America so i may not understand your culture completly, but is it right to so easily give people the chance to kill.

Also may i join this guild

In the splitting of the Guild of Politics into seperate threads, there were a few continuity errors. Valar posted this after the gun control topic died off, but then, Ashaman replied:

Yes, guns do make it easier for people to kill others, but this comes back to what I am constantly stressing. Better firearm safety education - both by parents and in schools - from a young age would greatly reduce the number of gun accidents and intentional crimes.

--<B>--

[Asha'man]

Telperion: Both, really. The style I can overlook to a degree, but the content just doesn't make sense. If you could clarify what you meant, I for one would greatly appreciate it.

Valar and Gloer: I think that just by taking part in the discussions here, you have effectively joined the guild. You'd have to check with Dengen for this, as he is the guild Master, but I'm pretty sure that's the way it works.

Valar: Yes, guns do make it easier for people to kill others, but this comes back to what I am constantly stressing. Better firearm safety education - both by parents and in schools - from a young age would greatly reduce the number of gun accidents and intentional crimes.

Mike B: I have no idea of how many people are still suffering, but I'm not sure that I agree with taxpayer money being given to them as compensation. I think I'm okay with a tax break, but definitely not a total exemption. Hasn't the government intercepted a whole bunch of money from Al-Qaeda's accounts? I think they should use that money to give to victims' families.

Asha'man

[daisy]

Ash,

Yes I do.

daisy

[Courtney]

I don't think my opinion really matters on this one, since I am not old enought to have to pay taxes yet, but I think that the victims' families should get a tax break. I think they'd rather know that everyone in the country is praying for them, but a little tax relief won't hurt, even though money will never make up for their loss.

[Asha'man]

Daisy: I'm glad to hear that. Really, I am. It shows me that you have at least some idea of what you're talking about (namely homeless people) and are taking steps to help them. I've been kicking around the idea of going downtown and helping out, but haven't really had the time.

Asha'man

[daisy]

Ash,

Time is relevant.

peace,

daisy.

[telperion]

what i mean is this ; talking of arms and people who suffered and of who should pay ....is not relevant...
ask yourself ,do I want a gun on my dashboard?would i feel good about that despite the situation of the neighborhood you're driving through.
May god bless only me and not you...

[Courtney]

I would never use a gun! I'm kind of clumsy some times...

[daisy]

Telperion,

What are you talking about and to whom are you speaking?
We actually seem to be in agreement about certain issues raised in this thread so I am confused about what your posts mean.

And I think God is supposed to bless everyone.

Peace,
daisy

[Ciryaher]

Not really interested in hearing what liberal foreigners have to say about guns in America, but I'll quote a popular saying:

"You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers."

[Asha'man]

Daisy: Yes, it is. And I don't have enough of it during the school year. Is this so difficult to comprehend?

Telperion: Whatever. Yes, I would feel totally okay with having a gun on my dash no matter what neighborhood I'm in. Are you obsessed with keeping God's blessings away from other people, or do you just have a one-track mind?

Ciryaher: I agree completely.


Asha'man

[daisy]

Ash,

Hey, I'm not trying to make you feel bad because you are not the poster child for the " Stop Homelessness" movement. I am speaking from a position of frustration somewhat, because 20% of the people who are homeless in my city are children.

Anyway, what if you could wave the proverbial magic wand and eliminate guns altogether - all over the world? Would you do it?


Curious daisy:)

[Ciryaher]

I hope you don't mind if I respond to the second part of that question, but I would have to say...No. I like my guns to much to ever consider getting rid of them.

Btw, more people die in auto accidents than in gun-killings (accidental or intentional), so what should we do about cars?

[Bill the Pony]

Originally posted by Ciryaher
Btw, more people die in auto accidents than in gun-killings (accidental or intentional), so what should we do about cars?
I have no clue about the actual numbers, but does anyone know how they compare relatively, i.e.
number of deaths in traffic/number of hours spent using car legally
compared to
number of deaths by guns/number of hours spent using gun legally

Daisy, to your second part of the question: yes please, and also get rid of any other weapon designed for killing people.

Ciryaher, I am really curious, what is so much fun about a gun?

[Ciryaher]

Duh! Shooting stuff. Hunting, target shooting, clay pigeons. Great fun.

Two questions for those against guns:
1) Have you ever used a firearm?

2) Have you ever heard of Ted Nugent?

[Bill the Pony]

Originally posted by Ciryaher
Duh! Shooting stuff. Hunting, target shooting, clay pigeons. Great fun.
Showing my total ignorance here, but the fun part of that is the thrill of hitting something that requires skill to hit? Can you get the same thrill if you use a bow, or something even less deadly?

----------
Two questions for those against guns:
1) Have you ever used a firearm?
-----------
No, don't want to. Afraid I might be so clumsy I end up killing something

----------
2) Have you ever heard of Ted Nugent?
-----------
eeuh, 'fraid not. Does he have good arguments for using guns?

[Ciryaher]

Yes, which is why many gun enthusiasts are also bow enthusiasts...and vice versa. I don't know how you describe the way by which one perceives an action as being 'fun'... I just find it fun. *shrug*

You should at least try shooting a gun before you shoot your mouth off against guns (hehe, sorry. had to say that :D ).

He's a sort of...spokesman. Teaches safe shooting to kids and stuff.

[Bill the Pony]

Originally posted by Ciryaher
Yes, which is why many gun enthusiasts are also bow enthusiasts...and vice versa. I don't know how you describe the way by which one perceives an action as being 'fun'... I just find it fun. *shrug*

Everyone his own fun, but if I understand you right, you can still get your fun if you could only use a bow and no guns. So then, ignorant me, thinks there is nothing wrong with not having a gun.
Btw. I tried shooting with a crossbow once, and did not think it was fun. But I can understand that other people think it is.

[Ciryaher]

I guess it's the roar that comes out of the barrel, and the kick that pummels your shoulder that makes it unique. Maybe it's a power thing, but I would rather have guns AND bows to choose from :) .

[Gloer]

Originally posted by Ciryaher
Duh! Shooting stuff. Hunting, target shooting, clay pigeons. Great fun.

Two questions for those against guns:
1) Have you ever used a firearm?



Very good question. It states the suspicion that opposition comes from outside and is fuelled by general ignorance of the issue.

Ciryaher presents a bias that gun control is an idea promoted by people who have no interests in guns - people who are somewhat outsiders, right?

He is probably right too. Many critics have nothing to loose with gin control. This makes their arguments seem weak since there is no sacrifice on their behalf. Still t is as much a folly to ignore those arguments because the one who states them is not objective.

This said I answer the question: I hunt moose with rifle, shoot hare, fox, pigeons, grouse. I like to practice at range with clay pigeons. I love guns. I have three shot guns and one .308 rifle. My father has some more guns that I am licenced to carry too.

I am very strongly in favour for registering all guns. I also think it is appropriate to require license to bear arms. Not everybody has the skills.

In our system one get's license for a specific gun that is registered on the owners name. If you have a license (own) one gun then you can carry any similar caliber/type of gun at the same time. There is no separate register for competence as there is with cars and driving licenses although the latter is more rational.

[telperion]

i meant that in a sarcastic way , i just heard a lot of self blessing lately...like in god bless america....
(i for one know that god died , but i better not utter that here because the dicussion would probably get out of hand so i will ponder about that for a little while longer before dropping a line like that here on this board.)

[Ciryaher]

I'm not so biased as some would think. I believe that reasonable measures should be taken to watch out for who is buying guns, and make sure that people who own them know how to use them...perhaps a firearms license?

However, full registration does have it's drawbacks. If a full registration were created, it would be quite easy for gun owners to be singled out (for an extreme example, see the movie Red Dawn and see how gun registrations were used). Also ponder that Hitler also had full gun registration in Germany...perhaps he wanted to keep an eye on those that could overthrow him?

[ReadWryt]

I've allways felt that if we applied the same standards for th ereporting of statistics to Law Enforcement Organizations that we do to Guns in general then all we would hear about are how many criminals have eluded capture and prosecution, but the mass media seems to want to avoid even thinking about how many crimes were stopped last year by Legally Owned firearms even though so much focus is placed on how many criminals were put behind bars. I guess that's because you can portray the Incarcerated Criminals as "victims"...

I've only shot a shotgun once, have never fired a fully automatic weapon other then the painball gun I used to own. I've owned two pistols though, the first was a Nickel Plated S&W Automag with a very low serial number. It was never fired, kept in a safe and sold several years later for twice what I payed for it. Being a .44 it was the largest gun I ever owned, but obviously it was not for protection. The only other gun I have owned was another S&W, this time a .38, a model 642...because there had been a lot of chrystal dealers and addicts hanging out at the bar downstairs from my office and they would do their drugs upstairs across the hall from where my boss and I had a 7 computer network. I would work late and wanted a small reliable handgun that I could keep close for protection.

Me personally, I'm not against reasonable regulation of what types of firearms can be purchased, obviously if fully automatic weapons were as available as Shotguns there would have been a different story in Columbine, but all this talk in the papers about Licensing Gun Owners...or having to have a license to own a firearm is bull****. Just once I want to start a campaign to make Journalists have to license themselves to be able to write political articles and see what THEY say THEN!

If you are going to make people obtain a license to practice one constitutional right then you have to do the same for ALL constitutional rights according to the 14th ammendment, and I have yet to see anyone propose that women have to get a license to get an abortion, or that Licensing be required for Free Speech...

Same holds for Registration. If you have to Register guns then you should have to Register Chainsaws, Baseball bats, 2x4s and Welding Torches as well. Your Computer should have to be registered because you might use it to commit a felony...Isn't it enough that they have stolen the Right to Own and Use a Radio Transmitter and regulate the hell out of that? I know that it is an unpopular idea to speak about the regulation of the airwaves these days, and I know that in the end it serves a purpose that is for the public good, but truth to be told there is nothing actually special about a Transmitter that makes it dangerous in and of itself, and when did the Public Citizenery ever have a chance to discuss the matter before it was shoved down John Q. Public's mouth?

Either the Constitution needs changing, or else the laws do. I have a right to bear arms, but just so long as they are the approved arms, they are recorded as belonging to me and/or I am licensed to practice that particular right even though all men, licensed or not, are supposedly created equal...

If Gun Regestration was handled by the politicians who oppose it as certain political "hot topics" had been in the past then it would not be called "Gun Regestration"...it would be refered to as the "Risky Disarmament Scheme" because if we ARE afforded equal protection under the law then why is it the only people effectively being given free reign to posess unregistered handguns under the current system are criminals?

Eeep! Um, I think I went too far. I'll shut the heck up now...

[Courtney]

Don't get mad at me, but I think we have said just about all there is to say about gun control, and will never come to complete agreement with each other. So, can we PLEASE have a new topic!!!!!

[Glory]

Ithink guns are dangerous objects

[Gloer]

...since we are getting awfully close to the very first topic on this thread: gun control.

Just to avoid this I will only shortly state that:
1. people kill, not guns, I admit
but
2. people work most efficiently will an appropriate tool

The best way to stop shooting at school is to remove both obstacles.
1. Stop people from killing:
- create a culture of dicipline and order
- to indoctrinate the children to have self-dicipline
- people with responsibilety should have freedom and means
- to establish and maintain authority

2. Take guns away


Personnally I feel it is refreshing to know that there is a western nation that is still breeding good, harsh and violent people with a right mind set, prepared to shoot to kill and whom we Europeans can use as fighting soldiers against 3rd world rebels.

[7doubles]

get rid of guns and scools and proublem is gone. lol. i like that insain line of reasoning. why not outlaw children as well?

[ReadWryt]

There are some that I would not whince at having removed retroactively...

Friend Gloer,

Would you say that, with the number of Hit and Run killings in the U.S. on the rise, the logical conclusion would be that taking cars away would be the answer? I would not be adverse to this actually, when compared to gun, because there is no constitutional right that insures the ability of the people to own and bear automobiles in the constitution. In fact, the ability to drive on the public causeways is a privelege and not a right, and that is why we are required to be licensed to do so. The constitution guarantees the Right for the People to own and bear arms though, and stripping people of their Rights is a slippery slope at best, especially if it is to stop the minority of law breakers who are abusing this right...

As for Europeans "using" citizens of the United States, lest you forget that the American Military volunteers to do this time and again, and does so not because Europe has some power over them, but instead because time and again they prove powerless to do it themselves...

[Gloer]

Why do we need ridiculous terms like "hit-and-run-killing"?

That is linguistic categorisation that has no use what so ever. It serves nearly mere entertainment value.

The problem is fogged with details that are useless. Such as what is used as a weapon and how the act of crime was commited ie. using an escape vechicle.

The problem is that people have no self-discipline. They kill with any means that they calculate that they can get away with successfully.

Take away the means - any means - and get people to respect self-discipline - and you have a lot less violence.

I was a bit provocative on the "usage of USAF". Sorry.
(Argh, I am in a reaally provocative mood.....I should discipline myself...but...)


In the reality it is the Brittish SAS commando's that are the core of the western ground force fighting in Afghanistan. Why? Because the Brittish have shown self-discipline and courage in the Falkland Islands. The Brittish were proud and they NEVER whined about brittish casualties as the americans do.

As a matter of fact USA is helpless on the ground, man to man combat.
Tha's that. All USA is good for is surpressing the enemy with fear and unspeakable firepower.

After that we need a peace treaty and organisation: and voilá!
We have a bunch of European peacekeepers and USA whining over their commitment problems to "nation building"....grunt...

OK. I hope that you understand that there was a lot of sentiment from one side of the fence. It might not be fair or true. I am actually pretty satisfied with how things work.USA can't really be the big quick-fixer of security crisis and a patient nation builder. Besides my point is that Europeans (so far) have benefitted a lot on that USA as western nation has invested in having a clear military dominance. But then there is a clear role that USA is not very suitable or willing to take: the cleaning up of the mess. Forceing peace is one thing and making it last is another. Usuallyit is the "weaker" European allies that can do the peacekeeping and with a lower profile.

[ReadWryt]

I keep forgetting that some of the members of this forum are from outside the US and don't catch the vernacular, so let me clear up the "Hit and Run" thing. In the US, a Hit and Run is a vehicular offence...when someone hits a vehicle or other property, or worse a person, with their Car, Truck, Motorbike or other vehicle and does not stop to take responsability for the accident, but instead takes off and "Runs", this is called "Hit and Run". We have grown so used to the term here in the states that when we hear it we imediately know that someone or something was hit by a car that fled the scene...

Heh...just had to bust yer chops over that "Using" non-European military statement is all. I, for one, am sick and tired of the whole idea that ANY particular nation should be looked to to be the "SWAT Team" to the world. I'm one of those nutbars who feel that if all nations had a strong and reasonable defence then no one of them could ever rise up against another, because any three of them would mop things up in no time.

There will allways arise, in any society, a few individuals who will abuse the right given them...whichever right that might be, and to take that right away from ALL people simply because of the lack of ability on the part of a few to conform to the law will have been the fulcrum by which people slowly but surely are reduced to no longer living in a nation which lists the limits of Government to invade the lives of the Citizens, but instead defines what Government will LET the Citizens do...

[Gloer]

...you have come across as a person that usually has a wide perspective on the issues here. You seem to be able to have different angles on things and you stay calm and you usually take a pretty realistic/pragmatic stand...
On this Gun-thing however you seem to firmly stand on your constitutional artillery.

I would like you to dwell on this a bit more. Is it because you believe that to be free and respectable individuals we need ultimately the capabilety to take the monopoly of violence from any government or organisation. It sound like a democratic parliament of the streets. And you need a gun to have a vote.
That is theoretical if ballances and checks work. But if they don't, do you believe in rebellion/underground movements, etc?
Or is it more that the right to carry arms IS infact a democratic check at the moment making governments more hesitant to bend on surpressing the individual?

[Legolam]

OK, I haven't actually had time to read all of this thread, but I have read most of it and I apologise if I reiterate some of the things people (mostly Gloer) have said.

First of all, I would like to say that I am completely against guns. I find it interesting that you are all referring to being anti-gun control, as if it was the control that was the evil and dangerous thing.

Secondly, I would like to refute something Asha'man said a few pages back:
Look at Great Britain – they have extremely restrictive firearm laws, and the crime rate has gone through the roof.
Yes, we have restrictive gun laws. This is because 6 years ago, a man with a perfectly legal gun walked into a primary school in Dunblane, Scotland and shot dead 16 5 years olds and their teacher. It was the biggest act of murder seen in Scotland, and the laws were tightened accordingly. Yes, we have a high crime rate. It's a high crime rate made up of petty thefts and things like that. I'm a med student and I don't even get taught about gun shot wounds, they're that rare. We have so few shootings that they're not worth mentioning.

America insists on defending a law that is hundreds of years old. Would you be the same about defending slavery, segregation of blacks and whites or the banning of abortion? These were all laws that your country was founded on. But they are outdated, so they were changed. What's so different about the second Amendment?

If you ban handguns, as we have done, the violent crime rate will drop. It will be harder for criminals to obtain guns, and it will be instantly obvious to the authorities if the criminal has an illegal gun. They will be able to take the appropriate steps to remove that gun from the criminal's possession, thus stopping crime before it happens.

Finally, can ReadWryt please explain his comment:
stripping people of their Rights is a slippery slope
Why do you think this? Is there any evidence? Do we in the UK have fewer human rights than you? If anything, I think we have more, as we have the right to live in a society free from fear, and that freedom is worth more to me than the freedom to own a gun.

[ReadWryt]

America insists on defending a law that is hundreds of years old. Would you be the same about defending slavery, segregation of blacks and whites or the banning of abortion? These were all laws that your country was founded on. But they are outdated, so they were changed. What's so different about the second Amendment?

What's different about the Second Ammendment is that it defines an inalienable right which the government cannot infringe upon and not some law passed by man and enforced by the goodwill of society.
If you ban handguns, as we have done, the violent crime rate will drop.
Interestingly enough, it has been proven that in parts of the U.S. where Concealed Carry laws were loostened and more citizens could carry concealed handguns the crime rate consitently went DOWN, by as much as 25%. It's all fine and good to only mention the bad things that guns do, but none of the detractors ever care to look at the statistics that mention crimes STOPPED by citizens wielding leagally obtained handguns and other firearms.

Finally, can ReadWryt please explain his comment:

quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
stripping people of their Rights is a slippery slope
----------------------------------------------------------------------


Why do you think this? Is there any evidence? Do we in the UK have fewer human rights than you? If anything, I think we have more, as we have the right to live in a society free from fear, and that freedom is worth more to me than the freedom to own a gun.

I don't know the case in England, so I cannot comment upon whether the ability to bear handguns had ever been a right in the UK which was removed. I suppose though that it is no consolation to Gemma Clarke that you live free from fear, her killer,Darren Cornelius, having been just sentenced to life in prison for stabbing her to death with a kitchen knife.

U.K. Violent Crime Up Sharply
NewsMax.com Wires
Tuesday, Jan. 16, 2001
LONDON – Violent crime in Britain was up 8 percent and robberies increased 21 percent between October 1999 and September 2000, according to an official report released Tuesday.
The Home Office report said the theft of cellular phones led to a big increase in street robberies, but that overall crime fell 0.2 percent. Violent crime rose for the ninth time in 10 years, though the latest figures were half of last year's 16 percent.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/1/16/72706.shtml

...this sounds like a bastion of safety and peace made all the safer by the lack of ability for citizens to defend themselves! And it gets worse...
RULING TO LET KILLERS OUT OF JAIL

By Gary Jones


HUNDREDS of murderers could be freed from jail after a landmark ruling by the European Court of Human Rights yesterday.

Politicians have been stripped of the right to say whether serious criminals should serve longer than their tariff - the minimum term recommended by the sentencing judge.

The court ruled that, when Jack Straw was Home Secretary, he breached the human rights of convicted killer Dennis Stafford by keeping him in jail longer than the Parole Board had recommended.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=11910068&method=full

What a comforting thought, huh? I know that, when faced with the opportunity to live in a place where there is the potential for killers to be released into the public, I would feel MUCH safer in a place where I would be unable to defend myself against violent crime...

MICA CRIES AS BROTHER'S KILLER JAILED

By Don Mackay


SOUL singer Mica Paris wept yesterday as the gunman who killed her half-brother was jailed for life.

Jason Phillips, 22, was shot dead as he argued with unemployed Peter Hutchinson for trying to chat up his girlfriend.

Clutching a tissue, Mica said: "Handsome, six-foot-three Jason was too young to die. This has broken us.

"He was a great guy, a devoted family man - kind, charming and he loved his kids. We were very close."

Postman Jason was shot twice in the chest and died in partner Michelle's arms.

Mica and her mother held each other at the Old Bailey as they saw Hutchinson sentenced.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=11900766&method=full

Thank goodness that guns don't play a part in the pain and suffering of citizens in the U.K.. I now appreciate what a peacefull place it truely is...

[Parrot]

I find it interesting that you are all referring to being anti-gun control, as if it was the control that was the evil (emphasis added) and dangerous thing.

Does it need to be pointed out YET AGAIN that guns are inanimate, non-sentient objects subject to the will of THOSE WHO USE THEM???? Quite astoundingly, it does. I have 6 or 7 guns in my closet and have yet to be attacked by any of them while getting dressed in the morning. Maybe they sneak out and go on shooting sprees while I am gone but I don’t know where they’re getting the ammo.

If you ban handguns, as we have done, the violent crime rate will drop.

Beyond the philosophical/constitutional questions related to this type of statement, do you ever stop to even consider the LOGISTICS of this type of proposal? The handgun has been a part of our society for hundreds of years with hundreds of thousands, possibly millions already in circulation. Many modern handguns are made from space-age materials and capable of lasting into perpetuity if not overly used. How do we go about rounding them up? Gestapo-esque door to door searches and property seizures is the only effective way I can see, whereby the “slippery-slope” of disappearing rights becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. The option of allowing people to voluntarily turn in would only somewhat restrict the supply and make those that remain in circulation a highly attractive commodity to criminals; conceivably leading to even more crime.

Btw, isn’t Northern Ireland part of the UK? You’re right, car-bombs are a much better alternative to willy-nilly handgun killings. Excuse the sarcasm but the point is; if people really want to kill each other, they will find a way. A secondary point is that any effort to make blanket comparisons between the societal situations in Britain and America is either disingenuous or ignorant but, in any case, way off base. Different problems have different solutions. The source of our problem is drugs, not guns.

[LadyGaladriel]

in Lesslie Neilsons the naked gun


That Film Had me in stitches !

[Legolam]

Here are a few statistics for you that you may have forgotten in your rush to preserve your "rights":

Apr 1999: Columbine High, Denver - 15 dead
Jul 1999: Atlanta - 13 dead
Sep 1999: Wedgewood Baptist Church, Fort Worth - 8 dead
Dec 1999: Radisson Bay Harbor Inn, Tampa - 5 dead
Dec 2000: Wakefield Massachusetts - 7 shot
Mar 2001: Santee, Calif - 2 dead

Did those people not have a right to live?

For those people who don't know the exact wording of the Second Amendment:A well regulated militia being neccessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed Does that sound like a law for a modern, 21st century world? Does America really need a "militia"?

More from the news: There are an estimated 200 million privately held guns in the USA. One million weapons are in the hands of students, some of whom take the guns into high school. More than 14,000 homicides were committed with firearms in 1996. Of the dead, 68 were children below the age of four. More than 5,500 of those killed were aged between 15 and 24.

Overall, the highest death rate per capita is for men aged between 20 and 24 at 30 per 100,000. Black males in low-income, inner-city areas, are even more likely to be shot.

In the 12 months prior to Denver there were seven fatal school shootings, which left 16 dead. Many inner-city high schools now use airport-style security gates to screen out weapons.

Finally, the US firearm death tally, 1996:
Homicide: 14,037
Suicide: 18,166
Unintentional: 1,134
Police intervention: 290
Undetermined: 413
TOTAL: 34,040
That's a lot

[tookish-girl]

Again, I haven't read all this thread, but i feel that this point needs to be made:

When the Consitution was written, America was still a new country, it was populated by people who needed to protect themselves (against what exactly, each other?!?) in the fight for land and homes. They needed to defend themselves, it was therefore their right to carry guns for their own protection and safety.

Nowadays, this really doesn't apply. If you own a gun and someone threatens you, you will use it. If you have a gun on you or in your house and someone attacks you, you will discharge it because it's there. This is why you have it. You don't carry possess guns for your own protection and then refuse to use it. The problem is gunshots are over in a moment. And they're fatal. What if your attacker was un-armed? Would you have noticed? You carry that gun because you feel like you need it. Do you?

When you get crazed people shooting others, like those terrible high-school incidents, how did they get the gun? From what i can gather, it's easy to get hold of a gun. Yes, these people need help, but if only these weapons were harder to get in the first place, they wouldn't be as many shootings. You can't shoot without guns!
America needs to tighten up it's gun laws. Their "right" is not that important. Yes, there still would be attacks, yes, there would still be crime. But think of it this way, you can overpower someone with a knife, if you try it with someone with a gun, you'd be shot before you got anywhere near them.

To quote Carole King: "You can't talk to a man with a gun in his hand."

Thankyou

[ReadWryt]

If you are going to talk about the abuse of handguns PLEASE do not confuse the issue by bringing up things like Columbine, in which the killers were not possessed of handguns at all. I love when people bag in the US for regognizing the right of the people to own firearms (even handguns) and yet bring up statistics dealing with all firearms when they are attempting to make their argument against handguns...


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

A well regulated militia being neccessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Does that sound like a law for a modern, 21st century world? Does America really need a "militia"?



If you wish to blindly trust your government not to change for the worse, you are of course welcome to your blind trust...but this statement is not about Militia...the amazing thing about the phrase from the second ammendment that allways astounds me, especially when interpreted by people from outside the U.S. is that they completely miss the MEAT of the statement, which is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". The phrasing of the second ammendment is important in that it states that Because we might need a militia some day we aren't going to attempt to take away the RIGHT of the people to keep and bear arms. This acknowlegement of the essential right on the part of "The people" is the core of the second ammendment...

...of course we never would have needed militias if it weren't for those pesky Brits lead by that damned man...what was his name? Oh yeah, George! Never trust the leader of a nation who's name is George...Uto...!:eek: (Just kidding)

[Asha'man]

Well, I went to the gun range today with my dad, and I'm happy to report that all the guns there were very well behaved. None of them got up and killed anyone or anything! Funny how it seemed to be the people that were holding and shooting them that kept them from hurting anyone, and how most of the people there seemed to be very nice and responsible folks. Here's a wild thought - what if it's not the evil guns themselves that cause crime and kill people, but the evil *people* controlling the guns?

Sarcasm off.

Seriously, I had a blast today. Almost finished sighting in my scope on my .22 lever action (almost because we ran out of time and it got really windy) and put a few mags through my dad's .45. I actually won a quarter from him (actually, I won two, but then he won one back) by getting all 18 rounds in the black at 25 yds with iron sights. The other was getting one round in the black to his zero with the .45 - a fluke, I assure you. :(

Anyway, if you're scared of guns, the best place to go is the shooting range with a smallbore rifle and pistol and someone who knows what they're doing. You will have fun.

Asha'man

[Aerin]

You mean the guns didn't jump up by themselves and of their own accord shoot someone?! That's amazing!

Honestly, why so many people blame the guns as the source of the problem is beyond me. Guns, by themselves, cannot do anything except eventually rust and fall apart.

I have a profound statement to make to those people who believe guns are the problem - It's the people wielding the guns who are the problem!!

Suprised? Don't be; guns are inanimate objects with no power or movement on their own. A gun cannot do anything unless there is a person behind it.

I am a firm believer and supporter of the 2nd amendment. "The right to keep and bear arms" is one of the fundamental aspects of America. The amendments to the Constitution help to keep America as free as it is.

[Gloer]

Conventional cartesian (after Rene Descartes, "I think therefore I am") line of thought divides very sharply between person and the world. Descartes reduced certanity to one basic block: I know that at least I am real since I have conscious thoughts. DFrom this on He created a dualism between the world of which we have only impaired knowledge throught sensations and self which we can have exact accurate knowledge. This idea is usually accepted as common sense and it is by no means his invention. But it is very very simplistic.

In fact there is no clear borderline between person and his posessions.

A person with a gun is a different person than the "same" person without a gun.

Gun is a killing machine and a person with a gun also partly becomes a killing machine. A cyborg, a terminator to make it extreme.

[Parrot]

Posted by Gloer
Im fact there is no clear borderline between person and his posessions.
Gun is a killing machine and a person with a gun also partly becomes a killing machine. A cyborg, a terminator to make it extreme.

As a gun owner, I have to say Shrek said it best;
“What a load of Sh[*FLUSH*]t!”
It is very hard to argue concrete issues with this kind of unfounded, self-serving rhetoric.

[Gloer]

as a matter of fact this is only an attempt to apply what is commonly accepted in the field of modern cognitive psychology and philosophy
I recommend especially Mihaly Csikszenmihalyi: The Meaning of things

"People are what they attend to, what they cherish and use."

The basic idea is that human being reflects his personality through material objects he surrounds himself with or is surrounded by.

"Things contribute to the cultivation of the self when they help create order in the levels of person, community, and patterns of natural order. An object that, when attended to, inhibits the pursuit of goals at any of these levels is a hindrance to the developement of self. Thus the material environment that surrounds us is rarely neutral: it either helps the forces of chaos that make life random and disorganized or it helps to give purpose and direction to one's life."

This basically means that the slogan: "Guns don't kill people, people do" is questionable because it assumes that objects as such are neutral. I am not concluding that this means that guns are evil and chaotic devices. I only conclude that this argument is flawed and could be dropped.

It is a another issue wheather guns are objects that help the forces of chaos or wheather they give direction to one's life. There is no categorical answer to this since guns are to a person what he sees them to be. If a gun is for you something you use for hunting and personal development as target shooter, they are actually constructive objects. But if you possess gun as a protection your gun has the quality of aggression against an unidentified "other person". Yet it is not a neutral object since the person posessing a gun gives it certain qualities.

Now you might say that you might as well conclude that the source is in the head of the person in posession. Not the gun in itself. Unfortunately this is not so since giving a meaning to objects is a cultural phenomenon and not merely a psychological one. The surrounding gun culture pretty much determines the qualities you see in a gun - your own or someone elses.

Therefore: If you think a gun is primarily a killing machine then with a gun you are also a killing machine. How do you view guns?

also
Hannah Arendt: The Human Condition
Heidegger, M.: Being and time

[DGoeij]

That figures. In my country the attitude towards ANY gun, is that it is a criminal item. The downside of this of course is that people using it for sport (target practise) are sometimes looked upon as potential criminals. The overall attitude towards a gun is negative, because it is looked upon as an agressive and criminal tool.
I guess thanks to that, the amount of guns and certainly the use of them is fairly restricted (compared to US standards), even among criminals.
It is chainging however, particulary since the end of the Balkan wars, when thousands of small arms found their way into Western Europe.

[ReadWryt]

Isn't it interesting that THINGS always get the bad rap where bad PEOPLE are concerned. Drugs, Guns, Computers...Things seem to end up being the evil all the time. My goodness, it's actually been proven that Airliners make very affective weapons in the hands of evil doers, ergo...since there were over 3000 homocides last year related to Plane Violence, it is obvious that we need to abolish the use of aircraft...Isn't it easy to solve the problems of the body of society when all one need do is hack off a limb occasionally?:)

[Asha'man]

Gloer: This is remarkable. I thought you were smarter than that. You believe that inanimate objects cause people to become evil? Oh, dear. I bet matches cause arson! Pencils cause misspelled words! Automobiles cause car accidents!

Please. :rolleyes:

Asha'man

[ReadWryt]

Next we will be hearing that a simple gold band could corrupt an individual...oh wait...:)

[Courtney]

When you think about it, there really aren't that many murders in the world compared to the number of people living on earth...
And remember how we were talking before about how the problem lies with in our society? I don't really think society is too terribly bad... As long as on rainy days, drivers stop and let pedestrians cross the street, I will assume that most people are generally good.

[ReadWryt]

Good they may be, but you put a gun in their hand and they slowly become seduced by the ominous hatred embued upon them by the overwhelming supernatural power of an inanimate object capable of causing harm! See, what we need is more Gun Control, not People Control. This is so obviously a gun issue and not a people issue that I don't see why it isn't more clear to more individuals. I mean, think about it...I have this eeevil Ban Button, and when I use it people get really mad at the button and want it destroyed...oh wait, no...that's not what happens, folks complain that *I* banned someone. Maybe I'm wrong about the Ban Button, but obviously Guns are so inherantly eeeeevil that they must be taken away from everyone, including the majority of Gun Owners who are law abiding citizens who otherwise should have a right to defend themselves against the minority of the population that commit heinous acts of reprobatory crime...
Now you might say that you might as well conclude that the source is in the head of the person in posession. Not the gun in itself. Unfortunately this is not so since giving a meaning to objects is a cultural phenomenon and not merely a psychological one. The surrounding gun culture pretty much determines the qualities you see in a gun - your own or someone elses.
This is interesting, and let me just say for the record that one could just as easily have said,

"Now you might say that you might as well conclude that the source is in the head of the person in posession. Not the computer in itself. Unfortunately this is not so since giving a meaning to objects is a cultural phenomenon and not merely a psychological one. The surrounding computer culture pretty much determines the qualities you see in a computer - your own or someone elses."

Since the quanity of cases of malicious hacking crimes has been rising exponentially since the 1980s the argument could be made that we need to make Computers harder to get ahold of, especially for those under the age of 21. Instead we teach about the proper use of computers in our public schools, but not one word is spoken in most schools about what a child should do if they come across a firearm!! Yet many of the same people who argue for Gun Control/Abolition are claiming that the only way to teach children about the dangers and consequences of Sex is to give them Sexual Education in the schools...in which abstenance is rarely taught and little is done to educate kids about NOT having sex...Does anyone else begin to see my frustration here? There is more emphasis on how to create potentially unwanted lives and risk spreading dangerous diseases then there is the correct way to react when confronted with finding a potentially lethal firearm! This is the insanity that is causing Gun Related Violence, not the fact that 95% or more of the firearms in the possession of law abiding Americans are potentially going to kill someone.

Obviously we are failing to educate kids in the finality, consequences and morality of the decisions they make in creating or taking life. We are loosing a war against Wrong Thought, not Wrong Objects...People who wish to take guns out of the hands of those who are doing nothing wrong with them are of the same mindset as those who would seek to tell Alan Ginsburg, Hugh Heffner, Lenny Bruce, Abbie Hoffman, Malcolm X and Howard Stern what they can and cannot say because the Words or Images can be dangerous and offensive...

Someone asked me what I meant by taking away one Right being a slippery slope. They took guns away from the public in England...and a good many of the British folk I know are now bemoaning the fact that due to new laws if they cuss out an individual who cuts them off in traffic and tell obsenities at them, should it turn out that the individual they berated is of Arab or other foreign extraction they fear getting called upon by the constabularies and charged with a "Hate Crime". So much for freedom of speech, eh? But then the Home Office fears no retribution from the dissarmed public...nor should they if they were to start stripping away other rights from their citizens.

Gun Regestration is equally dangerous. Ask anyone who lived in Germany in the late 1930s when they had acheived total gun regestration, then proceeded to go door to door removing those guns from their citizens because they knew just where to find them. Licensing Gun Owners is questionable, and I have seen the argument that we license Drivers so why not Gun Owners. Driving on the public causeway is a Privelege, not a Right...although I tend to believe that this is the most prudent of the solutions fielded as it is a sure way to find out the level of proficiency of Gun Owners and their knowlege of Gun Laws and Safety. .

[DGoeij]

If you read a little more carefull, you'll see that the main problem lies inside the 'person', confronted with the object 'gun'.
Both are part of the problem. If there are no misbehaving humans, who would need laws anyway, let alone guns? But you have to admit, if there weren't any guns, nobody would get shot. It's as simple as that. But it happens to be so, that there are guns. Of course it is stupid to get rid of cars, just because there are car-accidents. But at least there's something called 'drivers license' in an attempt to prevent these accidents.
Why not have the same restrictions on guns? I've seen a lot of people here posting, who are clear and sensible about their guns. Keep them away from small children, teach the elder ones it's not a toy, seperate the ammo and the gun itself, keep it locked, etc. Apparently there are a lot of people who don't. Why not try and prevent accidents?

[ReadWryt]

If there are no misbehaving humans, who would need laws anyway, let alone guns? But you have to admit, if there weren't any guns, nobody would get shot.

Ah, capitol argument. Quite clearly from this logic, since it is people doing the killing and maiming with firearms, what we REALLY need to do is get rid of all PEOPLE...and then the killing would stop!

[DGoeij]

Maybe you should read on too. I allready made clear that it doesn't work, because there simply are guns. Come on, respond to the serious part of my statement, why is it people can accept the government forcing them to get a drivers license, but get heated up about gun control?

And besides, you're right. We humans are a virus.;)

[ReadWryt]

I'll repeat...the government isn't obstructing a RIGHT by demanding a driver's license to use the public causeway. Use of the Public Roads with a motor vehicle is not described as a right in the Constitution...it is a privelege granted by the Government, just as use of a Firearm for Target Practice on Public Property is not a RIGHT and can legally be regulated by the Government.

[DGoeij]

This constitutional right was to bear arms right? Meaning owning and carrying?
Now what is using a Firearm for Target Practice on Public Property? Shooting the city dump truck? Lame joke, but that's what I make of it.

[ReadWryt]

I cannot, for instance, go to Public Parkland...no matter how out of the way and remote...and set up a bunch of tin cans to "plink" away at. Here in San Diego we have hundreds of acres of canyon land that is quite empty and devoid of any people, yet it would none the less be a crime to shoot at rattlesnakes or anything else with a firearm unless I could prove that the Tin Can was an imediate and undeniable threat to my life...:)

[Legolam]

I agree with everyone who says that guns don't kill. However, it is the combination of people + guns that kills. You take out one of those factors, and not so many people die (I realise that you're all going to bring up knives and assaults here, but at least you have a fighting chance against fists or a knife). Here's a recent case to illustrate my point:

Tony Martin, a farmer, got burgled one night. He disturbed the two kids that were in his house, and they ran away without taking anything. He got his gun and shot one of the kids running away from him. He shot this defenceless kid in the back and killed him. Basically, he took the law into his own hands because he owned a gun. That kid would be alive if Mr Martin hadn't owned a gun.

So, guns by themselves do not kill, but when they are in the possession of people, they kill. You cannot remove people from this earth (well, not really), so removing the guns is the next best thing.

PS Even with regulation, guns still get into trouble. Tony Martin's gun was licensed, as was the guy's who shot 16 5 year olds in Dunblane. A total ban is the only way to stop this.

[DGoeij]

You should know how ugly you can cut yourself on a can like that.:)

Isn't the owning and having a gun in your posession a serious risk? Shouldn't the (in this case your) government regulate the obtaining of a gun more strictly? It's a given fact that a lot of children (besides from adults) die because of accidents with guns. Not even deliberate murders. Like car accidents happen. But at least an attempt is made to learn people how to use a car before they start driving one.
Now the gun didn't jump up and fired at them, like a car doesn't roar and flattens people, but there was ammo inside and the gun wasn't locked away properly either. Isn't it weird that this constitutional right prevents any restrictions on people getting a gun?
Don't misunderstand me, constitutional right shouldn't be messed with lightly, but this one keeps striking me as out-dated and against common sense.

[ReadWryt]

DGoeij

Let me start by saying that you replied to an earlier post of mine while I was in the process of editing and adding to it http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=112651#post112651 , and I feel that it would answer at least one of the things you address here, and that is the fact that we spend more time educating our youth in the public schools about the proper use of Computers, Automobiles and Sex then we do Firearms. I notice too that nobody has mentioned the Swiss and their REQUIREMENT that a large portion of their population possess a firearm, and their regular testing of these individuals to ensure their proficiency and understanding of Use and Safety in regard to them...

...and Legolam, I would refer you to this URL to see how I feel about the constant stream of bad news about Gun Possession in the U.S. and the one sided coverage Legal Firearm Ownership gets in the media...

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/

[Legolam]

Every 13 seconds an American firearm owner uses a firearm in defense against a criminal

Wow, the American's really are trigger happy. I'm glad I don't live in the US. Is that number of crimes stopped because the household militia is just killing everyone who might possibly be thinking about committing a crime? It's not a statistic I would be proud of, RW. Sometimes, people really don't deserve to be shot at.

[TheFool]

Let's say that in a fit of extreme rage/betrayal/anger/whatever, I am in the house and I need a weapon to hurt someone with. What is more dangerous (though NOT more wrong) - reaching for the kitchen knife, or the .38 in mommy's bedroom that I should 'never play with'?
You cannot trust everyone to be responsible. If guns are available, for whatever reason, they will be used. I reckon the biggest percentage of people shooting each other in america are families/friends/husbands/wives and not gang/drug/'criminal' related etc.




ps I would like to know what americans feel like when you come to the UK and see the police who are not all armed guns?


pps Anyone from Switzerland here?!

[Gloer]

A gun is a golf club.

Don't laugh...

Both are used for recreational practise of trying to put a small object in the target.

A gun is a fishing rod.

Both are used to catch wild animals.

A gun is a nuclear weapon.

Both are used as deterrant against enemies.

All three things are different two of the first ones are quite positive, the last one is negative. Now what comes to gun culture it is those that do not own a gun that usually gie it the last meaning. They want to get rid of guns. But what really has happened is an alianation from the positive relationship with guns.

On the other hand, those that see guns and gun as similar to a golf club get offended and miss the point.

The problem lies in the alianated gun culture that mainly pin points guns as something to be used against other people for protection oranything else. People with no real contact with guns draw their experience from crime reports and Hollywood movies. Unfortunately they will get guns and when they doo they get them for "protection".

PS. Swiss army is based on reseres. Eery male is a soldier. A soldier has a gun at home. THe gun is not his it is in fact an object that is issued by the goernment. An object that I would say binds the men to community. Nothing like that American right to bear arms.

[DGoeij]

Originally posted by ReadWryt
Someone asked me what I meant by taking away one Right being a slippery slope. They took guns away from the public in England...and a good many of the British folk I know are now bemoaning the fact that due to new laws if they cuss out an individual who cuts them off in traffic and tell obsenities at them, should it turn out that the individual they berated is of Arab or other foreign extraction they fear getting called upon by the constabularies and charged with a "Hate Crime". So much for freedom of speech, eh? But then the Home Office fears no retribution from the dissarmed public...nor should they if they were to start stripping away other rights from their citizens.

Gun Regestration is equally dangerous. Ask anyone who lived in Germany in the late 1930s when they had acheived total gun regestration, then proceeded to go door to door removing those guns from their citizens because they knew just where to find them. Licensing Gun Owners is questionable, and I have seen the argument that we license Drivers so why not Gun Owners. Driving on the public causeway is a Privelege, not a Right...although I tend to believe that this is the most prudent of the solutions fielded as it is a sure way to find out the level of proficiency of Gun Owners and their knowlege of Gun Laws and Safety. .

Man, you're afraid your government is not to be trusted? You need those guns to protect yourself from your own government? :eek:
I suggest you move to my little country. Despite the faults of my government, I do not compare them to the maniacs who took over the Weimar Republic. Except from wasting several millions of taxes from time to time, I guess they're pretty harmless.

[Thorin]

I like what rock star, Ted Nugent said about the whole gun control issue and what it means to him: (paraphrased, I'm sure)

"When I can put my second bullet in the first bullet's hole, that is perfect gun control"

I chuckle at that....Personally, I really don't care about the issue...Gun control will do nothing to prevent crime, because the people causing crime with the guns will not only do it anyway and find the guns, but most of them have the guns illegally anyway....

I do believe that it may make it more difficult for young kids to get their hands on them, and safer for innocent youngsters who are around them. Mind you, common sense and proper parental supervision will cure that problem.

[ReadWryt]

Wow, the American's really are trigger happy. I'm glad I don't live in the US. Is that number of crimes stopped because the household militia is just killing everyone who might possibly be thinking about committing a crime? It's not a statistic I would be proud of, RW. Sometimes, people really don't deserve to be shot at.

This level of presumption amuses me as it displays the type of knee jerk cynisism that fuels the Anti-Gun lobby. The assumption here is that a bullet was fired. I suggest you read the report linked on that site to the Department Of Justice study originally comissioned to debunk the figures generated by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, who found that in the years between 1987 Through 1990 about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime. http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/165476.pdf

It turns out that the Department of Justice found that "Forty-five respondents reported a de-fensive gun use in 1994 against a person
(exhibit 7). Given the sampling weights, these respondents constitute
1.6 percent of the sample and repre-sent 3.1 million adults. Almost half of
these respondents reported multiple DGUs during 1994, which provides
the basis for estimating the 1994 DGU incidence at 23 million." and that "Some troubling comparisons. If the DGU numbers are in the right
ballpark, millions of attempted as-saults, thefts, and break-ins were
foiled by armed citizens during the 12- month period. According to