Gun Control [Archive]

narratorxx

03-10-2005, 03:05 AM

you're dead on ramen...but the link doesn't lead me anywhere
it just says:
if guns kill people
<ppg> then pencils misspell words
<ppg> and cars make people drive drunk
<ppg> and spoons made rosie o'donnell fat

which i guess makes sense, but i thought i was gonna read an arcticle

to the matter at hand, um, personally i don't see why civilians need a right to bear arms...i don't care what the bill of rights says, you have to take into context...there's no need for hand guns and automatics and such...but most of the country is a bunch of wackos and jerk-offs...

so new laws:
--confiscate all guns, legal or illegal; wipe the slate clean (divert some money from social programs--reform those programs in the meanwhile, so that they're more effective, socially and not wasteful--to create the taskforce to do this)
--guns are now limited to the military and cops.
--if the public wants guns, the price will be 4 times as much...and the only arms that will be sold to the public will be single-shot rifles. (the gov. will be the only manufacturers of guns, or whoever they contract--money goes to the gov. to pay cops killed by guns, families of victims killed by guns, etc)
--the gov. (fed, state, local) will work with an independent organization (something like the ACLU) who monitors cops use of guns...making sure there is no corruption--no misuse/irresponsibility, and no blackmarket sales of guns.
--no more auctions, gun shows, or government auctions...

if people want to rob a place, it's back to bows and arrows, clubs/bats, and knives<--these things, people can survive from, or have a fighting chance...

kivol

03-10-2005, 03:43 AM

that law would be great put only if this was a perfect world. or more or less if we weren't such crazy(blood thirsty ppl) ppl. ummm like canada they are bigger gun nut then us but they have less murders? is there something wrong with that picture? like why do we have more murders? ummm also did you ppl know that some city in virginia that there is a law that saws you have to own a gun in your home. now there is something totally now here. why is it that the government in that city is tell me to have a gun. its like shouldn't i have a choice?

no poor people == less crime

if that is true then you tell me how we get ride of the poor people. tax the rich more? raise taxes? force people to get a job? reform social security? tell me which is it?

narratorxx

03-10-2005, 04:07 AM

you can't get rid of the poor, unless we're talking internment camps and the such...especially under a democratic/captalistic system...the only thing can be done is to improve their lives, but only by a bit

social security reform--old people aren't the problem

force people to get a job--the problem isn't people not wanting to work, it's the lack of jobs, and the lack of good paying jobs, lack of benefits, etc, etc, etc, we've become a service economy, because jobs are taken out of the country for low cost manufacturing (sweatshops in third world countries)--so all the industry/manufacturing jobs are gone...so people are left with waiting on tables, cutting hair, bussing tables, retail, grocery, etc...

"fixing the poor" isn't gonna be an easy fix, it's gonna take a lotta reform all across the boards...

as for the laws i suggested, it doesn't need a perfect world...it doesn't even need reasonable people accepting it as law...if it existed, it'd be more of a "whether you like it or not" attitude

as for other countries, we can't emulate them, it'd be silly too...we're (the US) an entirely different--socially, economincally, historically...we have to address our problems from our perspective, or from a totally objective perspective, but we can't just adopt foreign laws because it works for them...

Chase-Kun

03-10-2005, 04:33 PM

Less guncontrol!!! M-16's for all!!! how do you think we made this country? with twisty ties and glue?.. no i was teh boomstick that made this nation!!

Schoulayer

03-11-2005, 10:47 AM

I really don't see anything wrong with allowing civilians to have guns personally. Especially in dangerous areas, where home defense is often needed. You can't rely on the police to protect you until after the crime has already been commited (and in some cases that means your dead) - not very appealing.

Keep in mind most of the people who legally register guns don't use their own guns for crime. Most gun related death and violence occurs from illegal "street weapons" which you can never truely get rid of.

ummm also did you ppl know that some city in virginia that there is a law that saws you have to own a gun in your home. now there is something totally now here.

Whoa... can you give me that link? That would piss me off to no end if they're forcing people to buy guns there against their own will.

if people want to rob a place, it's back to bows and arrows, clubs/bats, and knives<--these things, people can survive from, or have a fighting chance...

Thats the thing, even in most European countries, and Canada theres actually more gun related crime, regardless of laws banning weapons to the general public. Crime as a whole increased in almost every category since the bans. A complete ban doesn't seem to make much sense as most criminals aquire weapons anyway. People are in general more hesitant to commit a crime when they are unsure if their victim is armed - this can be seen clearly in the States, where some make it nearly impossible for civilians to have weapons, and others make it easy.

This thread was mostly about what gun restrictions / laws you think should be in effect, like the 3-day waiting law, or restrictions against people who commit felonies. But you can try to argue for a complete ban if you want, it'll be interesting =P

narratorxx

03-11-2005, 07:44 PM

i admit the complete ban is a far-fetched idea =P...but at the same time, i think it can be possible...call it the optimist in me, or the guy on acid, whichever

i know it will be dangerous for some, if there is a total ban...i used to live in the ghetto, and i used to work in the projects...they aren't exactly the most wholesome of places...but i think in the long run, it will be for the best...

aside from protection, there is no other good reason for owning a firearm...hunters? they can piss off...i mean if they wanna talk about the joy of killing, what can be more enjoyable than to do it at your own hands, with a spear or a knife, or bows and arrows...compared to walking around, then pointing and clicking...sport my ass...then gun enthusiasts, how the hell do you get a hard on from a thing that fires such and such rounds per minute, or can blow a however many inched hole into something? where's the practicality? is it really about protection? or paranoid delusions? militia groups too, that's unfettered paranoia at its most dangerous

**note--the ban is for automatic weapons and handguns, and other outrageous weapons (double barrell shot guns, elephant guns, etc) ...the publis is allowed to have a gov. issued single load/shot rifle...bayonet optional--if you're really into killing, or have some fantasy about being a soldier, but couldn't cut it in bootcamp, or whatever

i'm gonna add some more laws to make it more plausible...
--turning in weapons will be at first volunteer, extend that offer to drug dealers, gangs, and other organized crime and such...as a 'no questions asked' policy--but if they do come, make a note of their names and such. in return: money or the single load/shot rifles. this volunteer turning in of guns will be open
--next issue a warning that there will be sweeps across the nation for handguns, automatics, and other outrageous weapons that a civilian has no business owning; and that it's in their best interest...that those with guns and such will be treated as terrorists
--door to door sweeps come next, however long it takes to go door to door, but we're not talking bust-ins and illegal searches...this will be 'do you have firearms and the such'...either homeland security or ATF can do this (what the hell is the ATF anyway, i know they're a subdivision of the FBI, but what do they really do? monitor sales of it and the such?)
--next pass the law where it would be illegal to own or have in your possession, firearms aside from the gov. issued single load/shot rifle...for members of organized crime, death-on-site (i know that won't be likely, human rights blah blah blah, but seriously they're the shit on the boot of america)...for your average joe blow, hit him financially--bad credit, and a hefty fine per firearm; unless there is armed resistance, in which he will do the appropriate time for that crime or treated as a terrorist/treasonist...those trafficking guns from across the border, or by sea--will be a death-on-site policy...
--punishments for crimes will be harsher...if the crime is committed with a firearm of any kind, the assailant/robber, willl be treated as if he did murder a person and/or as a treasonist

i know in many ways its very draconian, which i'm not very fond of personally, but at the same time, i think it necessary

in the end, i don't see the point of firearms...it perpetuates a cycle of fear and violence that will continue till it's taken out of the equation...there will probably still be that cycle, but i believe there will be a significant difference from before a ban and then 10 years down the line...
as for the argument that criminals will still get their weapons, (ban is not in effect) then what use is 3-day law and the restrictions against felons...all the law would do is keep it away from hunters and the paranoid...and the occasional person who would actually use it for protection...
and after all this, you can take all of it with a grain of salt, since it's all proposed and coming from a guy who's fed up from hearing about deaths related to guns

Schoulayer

03-12-2005, 01:30 AM

aside from protection, there is no other good reason for owning a firearm...hunters? they can piss off...i mean if they wanna talk about the joy of killing, what can be more enjoyable than to do it at your own hands, with a spear or a knife, or bows and arrows...compared to walking around, then pointing and clicking...sport my ass...then gun enthusiasts, how the hell do you get a hard on from a thing that fires such and such rounds per minute, or can blow a however many inched hole into something? where's the practicality? is it really about protection? or paranoid delusions? militia groups too, that's unfettered paranoia at its most dangerous

Gun enthusiasts are weirdos, I think they're akin to old ladies with 50 cats in their house. I'll agree with you with regards to most hunters, those who kill for fun are messed up. I don't have any problem with hunters that eat what they kill - for the most part its more humane than cows in the slaugherhouse. In the slaughterhouse, the cow sees what happens to the cow in front of it, it knows its going to die, and sometimes they deficate or piss themselves in fear before its their turn to die. Hunters who eat what they kill usually take their target out by suprise, in seconds from a headshot or a heartshot.

As for self defense, I think that should be reason enough for law abiding citizens to wield weapons if they feel they might need them (dangerous neighborhood). If you've ever had a weapon pointed at you, you'll know what an awful feeling it is to be completely at the mercy of your attacker, without any means to fight back. Being unable to protect your family and loved ones in such a situation is even worse.

**note--the ban is for automatic weapons and handguns, and other outrageous weapons (double barrell shot guns, elephant guns, etc) ...the publis is allowed to have a gov. issued single load/shot rifle...bayonet optional--if you're really into killing, or have some fantasy about being a soldier, but couldn't cut it in bootcamp, or whatever

I'd be inclined to agree with you on most outrageous weapons. Nobody should be allowed to have a rocket launcher, it serves no practical purpose except mass destruction. I wouldn't lump handguns and shotguns into that category however. In states with conceil and carry, where law abiding citizens are allowed to carry a handgun only very small fraction of a single percent of those are actually used in crime.

Keep in mind home invasion isn't the only kind of self defense. You can't carry a rifle or shotgun around with you wherever you go - "in most places." So you become reliant on a handgun for self defense on the go. The majority of States have conceil and carry laws for this purpose.

Often shotguns are used for the same purpose as rifles, for hunting - which I have no problem with if they eat what they kill. Or even to ward off a bear attack. Believe me, a pistol or a one shot rifle will *NOT* stop an angry bear from killing you, unless your aim is godly (the bear is moving at you fast, and your adrenaline is pumping, not going to happen) it'll just piss it off. I've heard stories of a bear that was actually shot through the heart with a rifle, and yet it still charged 40 feet and mauled the shooter (which I see as karma if the guy was shooting it for no reason). The good thing about a shotgun is your not going to be sniping with it, its ment to annihilate something at close range, which makes it more reasonable for defense against a bear, rather than murdering a bear a football field away from you.

there will probably still be that cycle, but i believe there will be a significant difference from before a ban and then 10 years down the line...
as for the argument that criminals will still get their weapons, (ban is not in effect)

Since its hard to say how the gun community would react after a gun ban, the best way to predict what would happen is to take a look at other countries that have already enacted a gun ban. Some have done so decades ago, and they've seen no decrease in crime, most actually have a significant increase in every category.

then what use is 3-day law and the restrictions against felons...

After I researched it I think the 3-day law isn't just against felons, its for everybody. Its ment to give people time to think it out so they don't commit a crime in a moment of passion I suppose.

I'm pretty sure felons are unable to get a weapon at all.

I too am fed up with deaths comming from guns, but I look at it in a different way. I'm tired of being on the recieving end of that, without any means to fight back. I was once and I don't ever want to be again.

All in all I can understand your sentiment, if you could eradicate all weapons from criminals it might be a different story - but when you look at the actual effect of a gun ban, it seems to only fuel the underground community and make citizens more vulnerable to armed criminals. Look at how well the war against drugs is going, or how successful prohibition was. It becomes especially hard when there are websites teaching you how to make one-shot specials with 50$ worth of ace hardware parts.

narratorxx

03-12-2005, 02:55 AM

it seems to only fuel the underground community and make citizens more vulnerable to armed criminals. Look at how well the war against drugs is going, or how successful prohibition was

overall, good stuff man, but right there is where you killed me--giving precedent...can't really continue from my end...you've done your homework :biggthump

eze67

03-13-2005, 07:16 PM

i think that the guns are not the problem they are just an effective tool to use to kill, the problem is people. if you get rid of guns in the public and say only the cops/government can have guns only the law abiding civilians are going to obey the law. criminals don't respect or follow the law so they will still have guns and will just have less people to fear.
i think there will be an increase not a decrease in crime. and even if you were to get the guns from the criminals they would just use something else. look at history before there were guns there was crime and people still killed eachother. i have a hand gun and so does my wife(for protection), i also have a hunting rifle(and i eat the meat from what i kill). i belive that a handgun is nessisary for protection because the criminals are going to have one so i should at least be on the same level when defending myself or my family. and rifles take longer to lad aim turn in small areas and the bullet will travel farther through the criminal maybe going into another house were as the bullets i have for my handgun will only enter the criminal and stay in him. i also feel that i need one for the job i am going into, i'll be working as a prison guard. so i may make enemies that won't hessitate using a gun if they choose to come after me.

Ken-nin

03-25-2005, 10:56 AM

Just joined and found this thread intresteing to read while downloading Bleach 24 (Lunar). I'm quite happy to see that the picture europeans have of americans isn't quite the right one :). I just wanted to say that the approaches made might very well serve your country, if only they would be taken into consideration...

I did not have the time to read all the post, so excuse me when i say something which has already been said: In Germany one has to have a license to use a weapon (which does not forcibly enable you to buy it). There are registration formulas and mostly you won't get any firearms if you're not in something like weapon sports club or something. So this would be intresting, too.

About selfdefense at home: <quote>As for self defense, I think that should be reason enough for law abiding citizens to wield weapons if they feel they might need them (dangerous neighborhood)</quote> It is a fact that in housholds with firearms the possibility to be shot at by a family member is somewhat by (I dunno exactly) 100-200% higher than in households without..

But there's no use for any law, if the poeple don't get that we don't have to shoot each other to be safe. There is a psycologist in germany that says: "The finger does not "pull" (tell me the right verb^_^) the trigger, but the trigger pushes the finger."
So it's all about education and social class in th end... laws is just something that makes it more difficult to get your hands on a gun, and that can't be a wrong thing.

Last thing to say: It might be very useful for you to get rid of the NRA.

Schoulayer

03-31-2005, 12:36 PM

Sorry for the delayed response - I've busy lately with little time to check these forums =P

About selfdefense at home: It is a fact that in housholds with firearms the possibility to be shot at by a family member is somewhat by (I dunno exactly) 100-200% higher than in households without..

Your saying in homes with guns the chance of being shot by a family member is higher than in homes without guns? I'd agree with you on that. If there is no weapon theres zero chance of accidental death by the weapon (of you or one of your family members) - however you can do simple things to minimize the risk. Most accidental deaths happen because of carelessness by their owners, and accidental deaths are still extremely rare.

* Between 1977 and 1992, 10 states adopted right-to-carry laws. Dr. Lott's study found that the implementation of these laws created:

-- no change in suicide rates,
-- a .5% rise in accidental firearm deaths,
-- a 5% decline in rapes,
-- a 7% decline in aggravated assaults,
-- and an 8% decline in murder

* Using 1995 numbers, this amounts to:

-- 1 more accidental gun death,
-- 316 less murders,
-- 939 less rapes,
-- and 14,702 less aggravated assaults

in these 10 states annually. (16)

Similar statistics can be found throughout the United States, in States that restrict guns vs States that allow people to freely carry them. Accidental shootings are still incredibly rare.

Link of statistic source:
http://www.justfacts.com/gun_control.htm

The finger does not "pull" (tell me the right verb^_^) the trigger, but the trigger pushes the finger."

I'd agree that most people carrying dirty illegal weapons probably get them with the intention of using them (or to bring them out and scare/intimidate somebody). Typically in the ghettos you'll find gang members with cheaply made pistol specials. I don't think this can be controlled or stopped.

Most people with "legal" guns never use them on another person. There are some who use them to kill animals, like hunters who kill deer. I'm sure you've seen movies where three middle aged men are drunk and speeding down a country road, screaming and shooting into the air. They're the minority.

The only time you really hear about legal guns is when one is misused. When that happens its all over the news. Like the columbine massacre for example.

In 1997 there were approx 200-240 million legal firearms in the United States distributed between 60-65 million people. There were 75-80 million legal handguns distributed between 30-35 million people. Whenever a "legal" firearm is misused its all over the news - the fact that columbine-type scenarios are so incredibly rare speaks volumes. Out of 60-65 million legal owners there are a handful of nutcases, but we knew that.

Would restricting firearms for everybody have prevented these nutcases from going ballistic and killing people with firearms? Dirty guns are everywhere, even in Europe from what I've read - and they're somewhat easy to obtain. So probably not.

If you take 60-65 million people you'd find cars are many times more dangerous than legal guns in terms of fatalities (both accidental and on purpose).

P.S. Europe has a somewhat warped view of Americans. In truth the United States is basically many different countries bound together by a constitution. You'll find different states have entirely different laws, political ideals, education levels, foods, and ethnic minorities/majorities. Usually a few backyard loudmouths ruin our reputation.

Ken-nin

04-02-2005, 12:17 PM

I have to say that I totally agree with you. It propably is true that guns which were bought legally are hardly ever used.

So, taking into consideration the amount of illegal and/or unregistered weapons there is just no law that can do anything about it. The only thing wich may help i sto change ppls minds. Especially the minds of those living in slums etc. where poverty, low education or whatever social circumstance makes ppl commit crime. It's easy said but difficult to be done :sad: .

Sahiden

04-10-2005, 12:12 PM

In Belgium, it's harder to get a gun then get out of prison (by the way, prisons keep their people in here with luxury, homeless people try getting into our prisons during the winter.)

I don't think having a weapon makes you so much more safe anyway.
On the other hand, banning all firearms by law for the reason they kill people, or suicides happen with them, etc That's really stupid... What's next, banning kitchen knives because every year people get killed by them.
Belgium do has a law like this: You can't get arrested if you shoot someone in your house, only when this person: a) isn't dead b) Isn't shot in the back. So to shoot someone in Belgium, you have to go Face to face, shoot in his legs, arms, shoulders, anywhere it isn't lethal. And then hope this other guy won't sue you.
Yes even policemen have gotten sued here for shooting a criminal.

Schoulayer

04-12-2005, 04:25 PM

So to shoot someone in Belgium, you have to go Face to face, shoot in his legs, arms, shoulders, anywhere it isn't lethal. And then hope this other guy won't sue you.
Yes even policemen have gotten sued here for shooting a criminal.

There are similar stories here. I remember one where a thief was trying to break in from the roof of a wealthy man's house, but the roof caved in and the thief fell down and impaled himself on a statue. The thief's family actually sued on his behalf and won some money.

Some states are more inclined to toss out frivolous lawsuits. If you shoot somebody breaking into your house in Texas, you can expect to be treated entirely different than if you shot somebody in California.

Lawsuits are getting pretty ridiculous over here.

wildcard1610

04-13-2005, 12:22 AM

I say, why not let law-abiding citizens have guns. The criminals already have them. Fair is fair.

kinonai

04-13-2005, 02:07 AM

My grandpa hunted because they were poor and they needed food. Sorry, narratorxx, but there is more to it than just 'pointing and clicking', and if you have ever tried to shoot a gun, you'd know this. I agree that people who hunt for 'the joy of killing' are retards, although if you use the animal completely, then it's not such a waste. I really hate it when people go on about things that they know nothing about. People like my uncle collect guns for a hobby, and he enjoys target practice. The only thing is that some people cannot be trusted with them, so it might be safer to ban all. Who knows...I really don't have an opinion on the matter.

nighthawksw

04-14-2005, 09:19 PM

I agree with wildcard. Criminals are going to have guns whether they're legal or not, they already are obtaining them through illigal trafficing, so why would it stop? Guns are here to stay, whether they're made illigal or not, there's not much that can be said about that. I can agree that bullet's should be harder to come by though, and maybe the price for bullets should be increased so people feel worse about running around hunting/shooting at whatever they want.

Sahiden

04-15-2005, 09:42 AM

Why would I need a gun to defend myself against criminals...
Criminals are a minority.
Nearly nobody in Belgium has a gun. And we can defend ourselves against these dirtbags. Ironically, Belgium makes some of the best quality weapons in the world. Just to sell them in other countries.
Anyway, criminals sue people here when you shoot them. So everyone just sticks to ordinary fist-fighting here.
Heh, I remember the time me an my friends devised a weapon when we were young. (I'll post that later on in the stories thread, it really did a good piece of damage)

leafdeathstar19

04-17-2005, 12:03 AM

I am all for Gun Control becuase what if a crazy man comes in and shoots me in the head no control what so ever... i know what you ment but anyways I am all for it...They should be very carefull with guns and it should be watch by the goverment... Dam my first sentance make me sound pareniod!

Porkchop Express

04-17-2005, 01:09 AM

Gun Crime isn't a real problem in England. I guess that’s because guns aren’t really a part of our everyday life like they are in America. Very few people in England own any type of fire arm. I definitely think that’s a good thing because if someone attacked us with a weapon, we're so unaccustomed to the sight of guns that we instinctively go along with whatever were god dam told.

Not me though, I got all my guns confiscated when I got kicked from the gun club, so I just built myself a small canon.

Its not really the kind of thing you can carry around with you, plus its a little unpractical should you get mugged or something "just one second mate, just priming my canon"...huh no... but its excellent for home security!

Uzichida Cantameru

04-17-2005, 02:42 AM

thnx porkchop ^_^ owe you one for putting ur sig back up u can take it off now. im going to make it funny! and sides they use knives now then older times.

Porkchop Express

04-17-2005, 02:50 AM

It's started to grow on me now, I think I’m going to keep it for a while.

WOOHOO YEAH 100 POSTS!!! I feel like exactly the same... oh what a terrible waste...

Can you show me whatever you do with it? I could send you the full size image if you'd prefer?

Uzichida Cantameru

04-17-2005, 03:03 AM

i posted it in random, it says porckchop for u, sumtin like that, congrats on 100 btw

MooL

04-18-2005, 05:59 AM

Thats the thing, even in most European countries, and Canada theres actually more gun related crime, regardless of laws banning weapons to the general public.

Aah, dear, have you been misinformed? Have you seen Michael Moore's Bowling For Columbine? I think that it was Canada who has less gun affliated crimes than the United States. =\

I do believe, ladies and gentlemen, that we are out of the Revolutionary War Glory days, and the sheer terror of a Redcoat is long gone.

I mean, that is the reason why the amendment was made. So we could protect our poor wilderness-loving American selves from the weird line marching British from squandering in our cornfields in the snow. I do believe we are past all that rubbish, because we have WON that War. Horray for the Thirteen Colonies!

I say we update the stupid Constitution. I say we forget about amending a right against gay marriage [hah] and start enforcing something a little more important.

Protecting the innocents from being murdered in their homes and our children in their schools.

I believe, that this is what it's all about. Enforcing a gun control law is a fantasy, but it is well worth the cause. Perhaps hunters and those for the sport are extremely happyjoy lucky on the right to "hold their weapon", but I would rather see both a deer and a child alive today for that effect.

<3

Ichigo97

04-19-2005, 02:38 AM

I'll go for gun control since it will lessen crimes and deaths. But on the other hand, I prefer to have a hand gun in my home for self protection. Since I'm living in a place where crimes of shooting and robbery are rampant, I have to protect myself. It's better to have a gun than having it when you're death. I hope it wont happen. Just be a responsible owner of guns.

kinonai

04-19-2005, 06:41 AM

I found this on www.spreadthecheese.com (Watch out, it's long):

"In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953,about 20
million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million
Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

German established gun control in 1938. From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews
and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and
exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political
dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan
Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians,
unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million
'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up,and
exterminated.

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because
of gun control: 56 million.

It has no been over 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by
new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own
government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million
dollars.

The 1st year results are now in: Australia-wide homicides are up 3.2%, assaults
are up 8.6 %, armed robberies are up 44 & (yes, 44%!) in the state of Victoria
alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. (Note that while the
law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still
possess their guns!)

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed
robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12
months,since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the
ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has
decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in
"successfully ridding Australian society of guns."

The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.

You won't see this data on the American evening news or hear our president,
governors or other politicians disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes,
gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of
this history lesson.

"With guns, we are citizens. Without them, we are subjects.""

If our guns are taken away, all the gay and non-christians would probably be rounded up and killed secretly by Bush. Fun, huh? Not really. (There was some sarcasm in that...some.)

Schoulayer

04-19-2005, 03:18 PM

I'll go for gun control since it will lessen crimes and deaths.

Thats actually false, more gun control = more death and crime.

"With guns, we are citizens. Without them, we are subjects.""

Great post - I especially liked that part.

kinonai

04-19-2005, 06:21 PM

Thanks :). I thought it was a good find too.

And just think, if everyone's guns are taken away, then they won't NEED guns to kill people even...they can just use knives and swords...which are legal...

leafdeathstar19

04-19-2005, 06:55 PM

I didn't find it funny at all?

kinonai

04-19-2005, 09:54 PM

I didn't find it funny at all?
...who said anything was funny? :eek13:

Bunnyboiler

04-28-2005, 03:29 PM

Hmmmm - I'm not sure if I agree with much of what is being said at the moment.

I'm in the UK and guns control is pretty strict - you can't get one. Shotguns are illegal as well as low calibre hand guns (.22s). I think thats great, but there is no point in banning guns if the public's opinions and views of guns don't change - all you will be doing is driving the demand underground and then thats when it all starts going wrong. You have to change the way people views guns, so they don't want them. That is the underlying problem - but, the thing is that changing our behaviour in society is possibly the hardest thing to do.

Anyway, thats my 50 cents...

Kiechi

05-14-2005, 09:35 AM

Vampyrelord

04-17-2007, 08:09 PM

/me bumps the thread

Please ignore the horrid spammers who ruined this thread months back. They have been liquidated by the Secret Police.

renniw

04-17-2007, 09:30 PM

Well Lets try and revive this debate:

Just yesterday the terrible massacre at Virginia Tech brought up a heated debate on the gun laws in the United States. Basically, Those who believe that they should have the right to bear arms use Virgina Tech as a reason to loosen gun laws even more. On the other hand those who oppose are asking to establish stricter laws.

Both sides have valid reasons and while I oppose the gun laws in the U.S, believing that if someone can go to an Arms store and purchase weapons without a background check at prices that anybody can afford warrents stricter laws or a complete ban on guns altogether, I will start off this debate by playing the "Devils Advocate" so to say (From my standpoint of course).

For the right to bear arms :

Under the constitution all Americans have the right to bear arms and I say that if the constitution allows it why shouldn't I be able to purchase a weapon for self - defense? The shootings at Virgina Tech are a perfect example of this. If some psycho goes on a killing spree I rather be able to defend myself rather than be his target. As for people saying that restrictions are to lax, restrictions on arms are strict enough as it is. For example, In Virginia there is a law saying that you can only buy one weapon per month. This restricts large movements such as gangs et cetera to get a hold of more weapons and cause real havoc. Basically what I am saying is that if we have lunatics , suicidal people that don't want to die alone and just plain violent criminals whose to say that I shouldn't be able to have a gun in my possession and save myself from being killed or seriously injured?

So what do you think?
Do you oppose the right to bear arms or are just asking to make it harder to obtain them?
Or do you agree with the right to bear arms?

NOTE - Posted this in a seperate thread so thats why it looks like I am asking a question et cetera....

EndlessSky

04-17-2007, 10:45 PM

I think if someone really wants to kill people, they are gonna find a way to do it.

We have had violence, murder, etc long before gun powder was even invented.

Say for example we do happen in some way get rid of all the fire arms in exsitence. That nobody is ever able to get their hands on a gun and they become a "lost technology" to mankind as we know it. You think killing, and violence is just gonna stop? People are then just gonna find other ways to do it.

Also, Criminals love it when they pass more restricted gun laws because it makes it harder for good people to get the means to defend themselves from them. Criminals break the law anyway, they don't care.

renniw

04-17-2007, 11:02 PM

Say for example we do happen in some way get rid of all the fire arms in exsitence. That nobody is ever able to get their hands on a gun and they become a "lost technology" to mankind as we know it. You think killing, and violence is just gonna stop? People are then just gonna find other ways to do it. On the other hand without does deadly weapons it makes it much harder for people to kill each other. It's as if you compare some lunatic with a gun goes on a rampage and a lunatic with a knife that goes on a rampage. Who would kill more people? At least by having guns banned the lives lost due to the actions of these people are much fewer. Because as you said killings and violence won't stop so why not at least make the amount of these cases fewer if only by a bit. Also, Criminals love it when they pass more restricted gun laws because it makes it harder for good people to get the means to defend themselves from them. Criminals break the law anyway, they don't care. Its as you said, those who really want a gun will find a way to get one with or without a law. But if thats so then why not restrict those laws to at least make it tougher for people to get guns thus warding off some people due to the difficulty of obtaining one. Its more of a question of how to lower these criminal activites and protect more lives rather at this point. If having a law prevents even one of those people who want to purchase a weapon for violence then I say that there should be a law.

EndlessSky

04-18-2007, 12:41 AM

Well, it actually INCREASED criminal activity concerning firearms instead of lowering it when they put in place stricter gun laws.

It doesn't make it harder for the criminal, but for the honest civilian. People who get illegal fire arms and such, all they have to do is get it, the laws don't make it harder for them unless you stop how they are obtaining the weapons.

How does putting more restriction on what you can have, where you can have it etc, affect anybody who doesn't follow it in the first place?

Also its funny we have more criminal violence today with the laws than back in the day when he had hardly any.

peacmaker

04-18-2007, 12:46 AM

First my heart goes out to VT and pray you make through this awful time. Some of you bring of good points about gun control and why some gun control may not work. All I can say is that there is no way to control the human mind, when some has there mind set of something they will do it.

skyoon

04-18-2007, 03:28 AM

A couple of very interesting articles:

http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/commentary/wb/80510
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting

Please don't be swayed by tragedies like this and have a knee-jerk reaction towards honest firearms owners, as has happened in the past. Complete illegalizing of firearms is, and will always be a poor move and a futile piece of legislation.

MasterX25

04-18-2007, 11:02 AM

renniw

04-18-2007, 01:54 PM

Although I agree with what you said MasterX25, the reasoning is a bit of. Like I and others have said above if someone really wants to get a gun they will. What we have to do now is to make the laws stricter in order to ward off those who possibly aren't willing to go through the difficulty's of obtaining one[or don't have the means i.e Money]. This at least can save a few more lives which IMO is the best that can be done at this point and time.

skyoon

04-18-2007, 10:58 PM

The excuse for the national rifle association(NRA)is that the student didn't have guns so they couldn't protect themselves. Now I feel like smashing the guy(women) who said that. Yes, armed with guns means that we can protect ourselves, but armed with guns means we can kill anyone we want. Who ever reacts first gets to kill their target first, so the chance of you trying to kill the murder is low. Now without guns being sold so easily in Virgnia(C- in gun control) the student wouldn't have been able to get his hand on a gun in the first place so he wouldn't have killed anyone in the first place, maybe with a knife but like 2 guys will be enough to stop him with like no causuallty, and with a gun, who's brave enough to risk their own life to stop the murder and not even know if it was worth it or not.
Now my statement is not entirely agreeable but this is from my point of view, from New Zealand, a country where is isn't so easy to get a gun.

thats honestly ridiculous IMO. Firstly, these opinions in the article was written by a student directly involved in the Virginia tech shooting. No NRA member was directly quoted in either article.

secondly, the chance of you engaging a real threat is low yes, but IF it happens, like it did in the appalacian incident, you want to be properly trained and prepared. the two students in the law school were able to subdue the attacker, who did not come to them, but rather was on campus in the office making his first killings. the two students were able to find the source of the gunfire through the discharge, and apprehend him without further loss of life. it is really unsettling to think about what would have happened have the killer been allowed to continue uninterrupted, as it happened in the Virginia tragedy.

finally, illegalizing guns is frankly a rather fulite measure. ignoring the rather significant outburst of recreation shooters and collectors, it would still be rather easy to obtain firearms. how hard is it for a crack addict to buy cocaine? its the same concept. this poor man was sick, and he wanted to kill very badly. how many guns do you think are acquired illegally everyday? he bought his .22 at a pawn shop for christ sakes. as you probably can expect the police dont regularly raid pawn shops to look for illegal firearms.

its like the grad student wrote. don't trust your self preservation to anyone but yourself. very good advice to follow.

EndlessSky

04-18-2007, 11:39 PM

Then again, it is easy and more securing for people to place the blame on one single thing or person or in the case the gun themselves. No its not the nature of people, society, but to place blame on the guns, yes, its not the violent nature of people etc,etc but the problem is because of guns its a simple and securing aspect of a soloution to tragic events, that in reality have none.

And, school shootings have only been a recent problem in the recent 10-20 years, in the entire history of fire arms spanning many many years, it is indeed the present times that have more gun violence, even though we have stricter laws,etc.

Guy

04-19-2007, 05:47 AM

Wow, I thought this topic was brought up several times already in several different threads?

W/e, I believe in stricter gun controls. Yes, school shootings happen, but just because someone has a gun, it doesn't mean he's a psycho killer. In horror movies, they make it look like anyone who has a kitchen knife is a psycho killer, but are we banning kitchen knives? If someone like the Virginia Tech student is determined to murder someone, he will do so, even without the aids of guns.

M-50

04-19-2007, 09:10 AM

I think there should be more gun control. as in there should be checks for the people who want to buy a gun. and if they are allowed to buy a gun they should have a physical and a psychological examination. if they pass it then they should be allowed to carry the gun.

skyoon

04-19-2007, 09:28 AM

I think there should be more gun control. as in there should be checks for the people who want to buy a gun.

who says there aren't? ;)

Lex

04-19-2007, 09:28 AM

There will always be people that will find a way to smuggle in guns, you can never stop it...it's sad.
We have an exchange student in our varsity, Bloemfontein university, whose best friend was killed in Verginia, not sure on spelling, while she was here.
It was a few sad affair that might have/or not been prefented.
Condolences to all that have lost friends, family members and aquintances...

sto67

04-19-2007, 10:10 AM

although buying a gun usually involves background checks, psychological profiling and various other formalities, i believe that guns should be owned purely by law enforcement and security personel. an average person should not be allowed to own a gun since they are dangerous weapons that should only be wielded by those who are trained and assessed to enforce the law.

violence should always be the last resort in any situation, and owning a gun will allow people to resort to simpler (and even deadlier) means of defending themselves and possibly to kill someone.

it might sound stupid to some people but i dont believe that killing anyone will solve any problem. none, whatsoever. i believe that killing someone, no matter who it is, is wrong. even if they are going to kill you i dont think that its right to take their life. you may say that it is for the greater good to kill a murderer but i believe that there is (or was) always another way.

its true that no matter what gun controls we have in place that there will always be a method of obtaining them illegally. if somebody tried hard enough ANYTHING is possible. (ie 911)

so why do i think a gun ban would help? because that will remove all legal methods of purchasing firearms, making it harder for people to obtain them. yes you can still get them from the black market, but it would make it much harder for everybody to get them, including black market suppliers.

however, the problem is not with the guns, the problem is with people who deliberately use them to hurt others.

skyoon

04-19-2007, 10:33 AM

Your argument is flawed in several areas. First, you aren't taking in to account two things about civilian gun use and carry:

1. Firearms are only used as deterrents in the majority of cases in which they are brandished by civilians in self defense. I don't feel like looking for the actual statistics now, (its 2 in the morning in cali :() they are easily findable in wikipedia and through google. Heck, even in the appalachian article i posted the school shooter was not killed--the only shots fired were by him. I believe he is serving multiple life sentences now.

2. For a civilian to legally carry a concealed firearm (which is realistically the only way to carry) he must have a concealed weapons permit. As expected, these permits are not just handed out like party favors. The local range here (The American Shooting Center in San Diego, I have yet to check it out :() even has a preparatory class for interested applicants. He or she must demonstrate basic firearms knowledge, and more importantly, profiency with said firearm that he/she specifically applied for. In this chase, Cho actually broke the university policy by taking the Glock 19 and the P22 on campus-- they are not allowed anywhere on the facility (I believe there was an incident in which a citizen with a lawfully concealed weapon was actually forced to remove it from the campus lest charges be pressed). Just goes to show you how much of a deterrent some laws really are.

3. I would imagine it would actually be EASIER for black market firearms to proliferate if a complete ban was passed. Think about it. How well did the prohibition work? How about today's drug laws? Before the internet, remember the common bootleg videotapes? If people want it enough (and if you seen Cho's video manifesto that he mailed to NBC online, you know he wanted this enough) then its not difficult to get.

4. Funny how people place so much faith in the police. Although this is the deadliest incident in US history, who do you think commited the worst incident in modern history? Policemen are people too, and they can also get drunk and abuse their powers and kill in excess of 50 people.

5. You said, "it might sound stupid to some people but i dont believe that killing anyone will solve any problem. none, whatsoever. i believe that killing someone, no matter who it is, is wrong. even if they are going to kill you i dont think that its right to take their life." Yes, I'm going to be a bit harsh here and say that is stupid. It is our basic instinct to keep ourselves alive. To sacrifice yourself just so someone else can keep living (and killing, in cases like this) is akin to a foolish suicide. Idealism has absolutely no place in an argument as heavy and dark as this, IMO.

peacmaker

04-19-2007, 06:55 PM

I hate how the world is going after us over gun control, when they forget they have problems in their own background yard. The only reasons why they talking about this is how can something like this happen on school campus and most hate our current leader in office. I just wish the world community would back off for few weeks and understand this matter we have deal with in our nation. The only way we going get better control of guns that if the goverment change the rules, which something that not going to happen.

warforge

04-19-2007, 08:02 PM

Gun Control is not effective.(current ) Gun Control does need change.

I do not believe in Ban on it.

So you control who can and can not have a gun. I have a buddy who sells them and describes the flaws he sees in the business.

The biggest flaw that I agree on. Mental Evaluation... There is zero.

So a person has no history of problems with cops...does this mean he is psychologically stable to own one? No.

Cho shooting could have been delayed if not stoped if he had a psychological evaluation before being given the right to buy arms.

Even that may not stop illegal gun purchase.

Right now guns ..illegal undtracked guns are all over the streets in US towns and cities. So many its nearly impossible to find them all and get them OFF the streets.

The right to own arms is a constitutional thing and sorry It will not be baned here.

I do believe better evaluation of the owner is a bigger must do. Hence my Mental Evaluation exam at your expense if you want to own them.

I have attained ak 47 and ar-15 from the street... 250 dollars each long time ago. It was not very hard in the city I was from.

Gun control would never had an effect on that purchase. I have used them in target shooting. And sold them later to a buddy who collects weapons like postage stamps.

The entire point is Gun Control wont prevent illegal or unreported arms on the streets from reaching bad peoples hands ...they will find a gun somehow.

Should there be a ban? No

Firs thing Hitler did was disarm people so that taking control would be easyer. And look what happend in history. He took control easily.

I believe our Founding Fathers of this nation (usa) saw why the right to own a gun was important.

I do not see why good law biding people shouldn't own guns and be able to defend themselves.

All the law does is make it hard on them. We need to focus on how to keep the guns out of bad peoples hands.

Cleaning guns that are not registered off the street is more difficult than getting rid of Illegal Immigrants.

I dont see this happening anytime soon.

I do believe we need to change all the steps in getting a gun atleast.

Criminal background check ofcourse is in now

But that Mental Evaluation needs to be there too. And as of right now its not.

Asuka

04-19-2007, 11:17 PM

Gun Control is not effective.(current ) Gun Control does need change.
But that Mental Evaluation needs to be there too. And as of right now its not.

Right now you're saying that every gun shop owner in america needs a degree in psychology so that they can mentally evaluate someone without being sued for discrimination.

I don't see them forcing this on gun shop owners anytime soon. I mean the guy that sold the guns to Cho said that he looked like nice enough kid. Maybe Cho is good a hiding his intentions on the matter, but while Gun control really needs to be bulked up it can't go so far as to sit them down and do a mental evaluation on the person's psche.

One: Most people would just BS it because the first thing people want is money, and even if someone doesn't pass this mental exam, they'd probably sell the gun to them anyways. Not all america cares what the person is going to do with the weapon they just sold.
And two: If it becomes even more of a hassel to buy a gun. Like let's say they have to go out of their way and pay for the exam themselves then present the forms to gun shop owner, they'll just probably buy it illegally.

But you're right on you're other points. It's about as hard as getting rid of illegal immingrants or drugs. And it's not something that will happen immediately. And like a virus adapting to the medicine that's meant to kill it, gun dealers will find ways around the new laws and new blocks.

But we can't ban guns. Not only because it's against our 2nd amendment, but because guns make people feel safe. Because you can't always rely on the police and the security officers. They're human too.

MasterX25

04-20-2007, 12:17 AM

I say guns should be more restricted because we can't help those who are bullied or mentally instable. We probably won't even find them and if we do, help won't do much to make it better, probably worse since than the person is being a wuss and ask someone else to him/her and they will diss him for that. Theres only one way is that to prevent them from using violence to show their feelings, make guns harder to get. Guns is the easiest way to kill someone and resticting it to a higher level makes it harder to obtain. Using knife etc won't probably kill anyone unless they are by themelves, but it won't cause any massacre, what i'm saying is that person can be easily stopped by 3-4 guys. But a gun, who the hell dares to stand in front of a gun, and not sure risking your own life will do much good, either you won't because your life is precious or you will cause you hate life and you feel like being a hero.

M-50

04-21-2007, 02:09 PM

who says there aren't? ;)
I mean more checks, right now in america there is a virtually check-free gun society. All you need to have to buy a gun is not be listed in the police files.
Think how easy that is. All you do is not get arrested by the police and you can legally own a gun. Come on. At least they should do it so that you have to have never been in trouble with the police, you have to get weapons training in the weapon you want to buy from the army, people should be coming round to check that your weapon has not been discharged for fun etc etc.

renniw

04-21-2007, 06:18 PM

darlanth

04-22-2007, 01:20 AM

ok my dad was a cop I own several guns semi auto auto and single shot rifles all types...

you dont need gun control you need gun education..

now I am going to apologise right now to anyone who goes to Virgina Tech

I know thats gotta be hard my dad was in homocide for years.. its just sad..

All i can say is i wish a teacher or student would have had a CC permit and guns were allowed on that campus because then maybe he would have thought twice.. maybe we wouldent have 32 innocents dead.

See its a social problem and you learn about it at a young age bullies dont pick on people tougher than them they prey on the weak. now guns dont make you strong but they make you less of a target for bullies. criminals dont rob homes where there is a gun in it. Its not an apealing target.. And they dont rob homes for guns where there is a gun safe..
There has always been crime long before guns when travelers were crossing england they looked out for thugs and bandits who would rob them with swords did they outlaw swords?
criminals are just that criminals its illigal to use a gun in any way they would harm or potentialy harm another person.. ex felons can't own guns thats a federal law.. but they go to mexico and buy them.. Get them on the black market etc.. there is already a law that says they cant own them!!! there is also a law agenst fully auto firearms without a class 3 licence... but SO CALI Huge gun problems and they have very strict gun laws...

Now as for the second ammendment its not for the rednecks to go shoot explosives in the backyard its there for 1 very important pourpose. to control the goverment you said ony the goverment should have the right to make or sell firearms. Firearms = freedom the goverment can never say were now bowing down to lets say george bush and he is now the king because you have the right to bear arms they realise that would cause a civil war and the populace has firearms..take away the right and the military and government controlls everything because what are you gonna do really throw rocks?
saying the gov should have controll of your freedom is like saying a robber should have control of your money..

Now if it were up to me i would repeal all gun laws and make a few new good ones.. like you commit a crime with a gun additional 20 years NO probation on top of the sentence.
your an exfelon (violent) and you get caught with a gun not probation 20 years PERIOD.
no pleading it down minimum 20 years!!

get the crimminals off the street quit letting them plead for probation and we will have less crime..

and as for VT guy their are always psycotic people out there that break the norm. There have been snipers on campuses in the past with single shot rifles (their actualy the most accurate) and yea he had a clean record and yea he had the right to buy them but if someone in the hall or classroom would have been able to stop him?

like i said its a touchy subject so im sorry if i offended anyone who suffered through something tragic but i will say this my gun has saved my life once and prevented me from getting mugged once..

darlanth

04-22-2007, 01:34 AM

AFFE.. You make good points.. BUT....
(and no i dont belive in the NRA their cause)

Why make them wait the VT guy had to wait a month before buying the second gun he waited it dint stop him..
I like the method we have in my state you have to register your gun with the police and they give you a blue card when you want to go buy more gun buy away but they write down your blue card # and notify the police that you have bought more handguns if you dont go register them or notify them of what you did with them (ie it was a gift for my son or daughter they have had it for 5 days)

skyoon

04-22-2007, 07:29 AM

Its rather logical to me that there should be stricter gun laws.
I mean why not?
Those Law abiding citizens who oppose the gun laws at the moment can still purchase a gun for their self defense.
And for those who say that stricter gun laws won't deter criminals from getting a gun so why not have the right to protect our selves, read what I wrote above.
At least with stricter gun laws we could deter some (or at least more than now) criminals wanting to commit crimes with guns which is better than none IMO. Those, for example, that are thinking of using a gun for wrong reasons and just do it simply because its so easy to obtain.
Thats that, It can't hurt us to make the laws stricter seeing as it could at least prevent some crimes and the people that call for the "right to bear arms" still obtain that right.

We do not need to toughen our gun laws becuase they are plenty strict already. Simple as that. Have a gander at this:

"the sale of firearms to permanent residents in Virginia is legal as long as the buyer shows proof of residency.[121] Additionally, though, Virginia has a law that limits purchases of handguns to one every 30 days.[122] Federal law requires a criminal background check for handgun purchases from licensed firearms dealers, and Virginia checks other databases in addition to the Federally-mandated NICS. Federal law also prohibits those "adjudicated as a mental defective" from buying guns, and Seung-Hui Cho should have been prohibited from buying a gun after a Virginia court declared him to be a danger to himself in late 2005 and sent him for psychiatric treatment."

It is usually human mistakes that causes tragedies like this, not anything in the system. It was the same for Columbine, and the same for 9/11. When people neglect to follow the laws that were put in place for their saftey for the sake of convience or something else, it will hurt them.

Conversely, to impulsively pass overly protective laws in response to events like this that will restrict our freedoms is foolish and unacceptable. Like good 'ol Ben Franklin said, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

darlanth

04-22-2007, 07:33 PM

SKYOON: you are correct... if you want to point blame at something then it should be the courts for not filing the paperwork with the state background and federal background for prohibbiting him from buying the firearms..

BUT.. that would be pointing blame at someone who really didnt have anything to do with it CHO was the killer CHO is to blame.

Monkey_man

04-23-2007, 03:19 AM

i think they should lift the ban of all hand guns in D.C but i think if any1 has a criminal record the chou guy who did the VT shootings bought his gun even though the cops had issued a restraining order and was clearly mentally unstable had one but he was able to buy a gun he should not have been aloud a gun he had a criminal record i am not saying you miss your traffic ticket hearing you should not be able to buy a gun I AM NOT SAYING THAT but if you have a history of violence or stalking you should not be aloud a gun

skyoon

04-23-2007, 04:06 AM

i think they should lift the ban of all hand guns in D.C but i think if any1 has a criminal record the chou guy who did the VT shootings bought his gun even though the cops had issued a restraining order and was clearly mentally unstable had one but he was able to buy a gun he should not have been aloud a gun he had a criminal record i am not saying you miss your traffic ticket meeting you should not be able to buy a gun I AM NOT SAYING THAT but if you have a history of violence or stalking you should not be aloud a gun

.....those are the rules put forth by current us gun laws in most states, more or less :\

Kurosaki-Ichigo

04-23-2007, 04:07 AM

the solution is really very simple. prohibit guns. but of course it is easier said than done, not to mention stop the weapon trade. laws could be passed that ban possession of guns. but are guns and ammo industry ready for it? weapons industry account for a billion worth of market share, particularly in the US. so if government issued resolutions banning possessions and purchases of guns, are they also ready to subsidize this market?

purchasing of guns is incredibly easy. it is just like buying a can of coke from a convenient store, only easier. buying a gun in the united states takes a whole new meaning to the word convenience than what convenience really means.

if anyone can secure for himself/herself a weapon, his/her attitude changes radically. he/she becomes arrogant and belligerent because he has a gun to depend on. this translates to, if everyone has a gun, everyone is arrogant. guns change a person's attitude.

so if everyone does not want to expand his or her patience in some arguments, it merely means that tragedy is just waiting to happen.

ban guns. if anyone could have the power to possess guns, even those with mentality like cho, we could only expect the worst. it's just like, giving a match to a three-year old and expecting the house not to get burned.

of course, it is easier said than done. and practically, we could not do anything to prevent people from selling guns. there are much more complexities than we've ever realized.

until nobody passes the gun ban laws, expect more chos and expect much more tragic killings.

skyoon

04-23-2007, 04:51 AM

You are truly an uninformed idiot. Did you even bother to read the previous posts before you went on your extremist anti-gun crusade? Your arugements are pretty weak and unrealistic and offer little in the way of supporting evidence, other than "guns kill people, ban them". I could kill 100 senior citizens by running them over with a car. By your standards we should get rid of them too, and start riding protective foam covered bicycles to work.

warforge

04-23-2007, 06:23 PM

Information Regarding gun purchase:

I spoke to my guildie in warcraft who sells guns again. He stated that mentally ill can not own guns. Problem is the law isnt enforced. There is no list stating John Doe who just applied is pshycotic dont givem a gun....so he could be selling to crazy people and not know it.

Scary.

Also there is a lack of reports where gun owners prevented criminals from going further. Michael Medved site and talk show went over this last week. How the media focuses on negative news "Blood sells"...but hardly talk about when a Good Gun owner prevents crimes and highlights it.

In Seattle I remember some psycho was randomly attacking people in town....police were running all over trying to find this bastard who was randomly screwing people up....

In the end...the guy attacked an elderly man comming out of a store or restaurant ...the old man pulled out his "legally owned concealed gun" and blasted the fool.

End of violent spree for the criminal... this had one article on it in the Seattle times...and quickly fell off the media wagon the next day.

There are numerous times good gun owners have prevented crimes....sadly they go unnoticed and hardly reported...that would go against the Democratic agenda most news agencies are behind fully.

Sorry if I hit a nerve about Democratic agenda but its the truth. Who the hell is anti gun so much in congress? (whats sad is they tote guns too..hypocrits)

You are truly an uninformed idiot. Did you even bother to read the previous posts before you went on your extremist anti-gun crusade? Your arugements are pretty weak and unrealistic and offer little in the way of supporting evidence, other than "guns kill people, ban them". I could kill 100 senior citizens by running them over with a car. By your standards we should get rid of them too, and start riding protective foam covered bicycles to work.

=) I get your point and agree....and we are on the same side of the debate.

But please lets not insult the other posters. Lets inform and educate them and use debate to convince them. Insults only push them further away from what we believe.

Lets use intelligent debate...if they are good intelligent folks like I hope they are..we may be able to sway them to our point of view.

:winking56

rei

04-24-2007, 09:36 AM

i believe that a more strict screening process to whoever wants to own a gun needs to be implemented, having a gun is a big responsibilty. and it could potentially hurt yourself or others i believe that we should also learn self defense as an alternative to combat crime

Striker-tai

04-24-2007, 07:39 PM

I look at it this way (after hearing my dad have his piece that is), there should be a ban on handguns most crime involving firearms are rarely the hodge-podge of semi automatic weapons,rifles, and shotguns. They are regularly commited with handguns that and they are far easier to conceal. In washington state you can get a concealed weapon permit, but don't expect them to give it to you if say you need it for protection.

skyoon

04-25-2007, 12:40 AM

In washington state you can get a concealed weapon permit, but don't expect them to give it to you if say you need it for protection.

That's pretty much the ONLY reason you apply for the CCP, even in california, which I can assure you has MUCH tougher gun laws than washington state.

Your point about handguns is interesting, if flawed...a ban on handguns would render the general citizenry unable to carry as well, which I (along with the thousands of citizens that legally take advantage of concealed carry) find pretty much unacceptable.

The laws we have in place are PLENTY strict enough. People just need to start following/upholding them.

warforge

04-25-2007, 05:25 PM

M-50

04-26-2007, 07:21 PM

U just proved my point warforge about how easy it is to get hold of guns. That is why, if he and his mates can get a permit for just 50 bucks then think of the damage they can do if they wanted to. Not implying anything here.

darlanth

04-28-2007, 08:53 AM

if its that easy in washington dc to get a CCW WOW!! is all i gotta say here
its a class to make sure you know how to use the fire arm. you must have already bought and registered it and have the blue card up to date. you must not be an ex felon for a violent crime or mentally ajudicated as "stupid or insaine". you must pass bolth a local and federal background check be finger printed and pass a shooting test. oh and still wait for it after all that..

and i live in a state where you can open carry!!! and is considered very lax on gun laws...
maybe we should repeal all local CCR's and pass a national CCR that has certain criteria but really what would that do ABSOLUTLY NOTHING!
unless we get rid off all guns worldwide no military no law enforcement nobody oh and youll have to forget how to make gun powder so no fireworks.
also forget how to make explosions and how to compress air... both of those can be used to make guns.. forget how areodynamics work bullets use that principle then we will be safe... probly not but well at least be equal welcome to the fudal era!!.

see ill act out what happens if you make guns illigal..
criminal A stabs police officer B tkaes gun shoots officer C because well criminal A has a gun now. Now criminal A has 2 guns and nothing to loose.

or deranged psycopath thinks the rich kids are picking on him lucky he has no life and a lot of time on the internet he mixes gun powder ( yep i know the formula its on the internet but im not gonna tell you) in his dorm room and makes a wooden mold of a bullet and melts down lead solder to make a few rounds a realistic water pistol and some steel tubing and hes got a gun make a few mods and youve got an easy to go throught 50 rounds gun..

see the problem isnt guns its a problem with society and you cant fix those by simply outlawing everything. you fix the problem and the symptoms will go away.

Shezmu

05-01-2007, 10:08 PM

skyoon

05-01-2007, 11:08 PM

warforge

05-01-2007, 11:10 PM

From my point of view as an non-american it's almost unblievable that people are allowed to buy guns for no particular reason. Here, in the Netherlands only police officers are allowed to, If you want to join a shooting range and for that reason purchase a gun, well that'll take alot of time and money.

Even prostitution and drugs are legal here but guns, nope, because it will probably increase the amount of murders and robberies.

I don't see why they don't just make guns illegal in the USA because if they do the crime rate will decrease. And ofcourse there are still illegal ways to get a gun but even if crime decreases with like 10% its a great thing right?
What is so unbelieveable ? Read the Constitution of the United States.

Its what this country is founded on. And that is why a ban will never happen. It is our right to bear arms as a US citizen.

Sky has pointed out we have strong laws. The problem is enforcing them very thoroughly. I had a Federal background check and finger printing done before I could own one.

People slip through the cracks. Imperfection of human society. Also as you stated. A criminal will get his hands on an "illegal" gun in the USA cause even with your idea of a pure ban, we are saturated with weapons here.

Anti-Gun lobyists wont point it out but states with concealed permits do have lower crime rates. Many crimes have been stoped by regular citizens with a gun.

Your example comparing Netherlands to the USA lacks ground to stand on as example of lowering any crime rates here. Isn't your country isolated by water mostly? Also your country is founded under its own history. You are going to have to learn more about our foundations to understand why we wont ban guns.

WE can ban all guns hypothetically...it wont stop crime. It will just disarm honest good citizens from protecting themselves. That does nothing to fight crime. It makes innocent people unable to defend themselves in there homes is all it does. Also have you not noticed we have 7 million illegal aliens here? Even with a ban we have tons ..literally TONS of drugs, many illegals, and contraband floating over our borders. This ban would only hurt
good citizens and not effect criminals.

P.s I was wrong about criminals...it will give them something else to smuggle in to make money off of if we do ban them.

Forlorn

05-05-2007, 02:35 AM

Its what this country is founded on. And that is why a ban will never happen. It is our right to bear arms as a US citizen.

Does anyone happen to have any idea when that was written into the Bill of Rights. During the late 18th century America was still uphelding some of the English traditions such as the right to bear arms for "collective" defense not for an individual's use. The second amendment was written to accomodate the military because during that time America still young and defenseless. Modern day perception has twisted that amendment and now everyone portrays it as anyone can own a gun just for personal reasons or individual self defense... (what do I know really... I'm an American citizen but yet I don't really associate myself as an American... Pinoy pride!)

warforge

05-08-2007, 06:51 PM

Does anyone happen to have any idea when that was written into the Bill of Rights. During the late 18th century America was still uphelding some of the English traditions such as the right to bear arms for "collective" defense not for an individual's use. The second amendment was written to accomodate the military because during that time America still young and defenseless. Modern day perception has twisted that amendment and now everyone portrays it as anyone can own a gun just for personal reasons or individual self defense... (what do I know really... I'm an American citizen but yet I don't really associate myself as an American... Pinoy pride!)

QUOTE from websource:
The right to keep and bear arms did not originate fully-formed in the Bill of Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights) in 1791; rather, the Second Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) was the codification of the six centuries old responsibility to keep and bear arms for king and country that was inherited from the English Colonists that settled North America, tracing its origin back to the Assize of Arms of 1181 which occurred during the reign of Henry II. Through being codified in the United States Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution), the common law right was continued and guaranteed for the People, and statutory law enacted subsequently by Congress cannot extinguish the pre-existing common law right to keep and bear arms.
This right is often presented in the United States as synonymous with the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution), although this belief is controversial among some factions and is not subscribed to by all.

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) Protects the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms. “ A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. ”
Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) Provides for unenumerated rights, including implicitly a right to keep and bear arms and a right to have arms for defense. Some have seen the Second Amendment as derivative of a common law right to keep and bear arms; Thomas B. McAffee & Michael J. Quinlan, writing in the North Carolina Law Review, March 1997, Page 781, have stated "... Madison did not invent the right to keep and bear arms when he drafted the Second Amendment--the right was pre-existing at both common law and in the early state constitutions." [4] (http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/McAffeeAndQuinlan1.html)
Akhil Reed Amar similarly notes in the Yale Law Journal, April 1992, Page 1193, the basis of Common Law for the first ten amendments of the U.S. Constitution, "following John Randolph Tucker's famous oral argument in the 1887 Chicago anarchist case, Spies v. Illinois":

PEOPLES right to bear arms = the citizens right. The peoples right of free speach. Meaning every citizen.

Your last statement is insulting. You sit here and claim American Citizenship ..yet you don't want to associate yourself as one....then plug Phillipino Pride?

Sir, you managed to put me in the position of disliking you entirely. I detest people like you. You benefit from America. You live here. You pay taxes. You have all rights all Americnas have and yet you say "I'm an American citizen but yet I don't really associate myself as an American... Pinoy pride!"

Sure Pinoy pride :rolleye09 yet you live in the USA ..benefit from it.... you don't live in that crap hole nation you claim pride in...you dont vote there...you don't pay taxes.... If your so proud of being Phillipino and dislike being American...you can always go back and stay. If its so damn great in the Phillipines why the **** are you even here?

Jay3205

05-09-2007, 01:39 AM

I think there should be more of a restriction on the types of guns that are allowed to be bought and possibly the number that any one person could hold. When I hear stories about a killing in the media, it seems a bit overboard that the killers would have access to soo many guns, some of which are too powerful.

nx6

05-16-2007, 05:59 AM

:D

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-05-15-baby-gun-permit_N.htm?csp=34

I feel there should be more restrictions on the types of guns that can be legally owned. Small handguns and hunting rifles and such should be fine, but when you have people buying powerful fully automatic rifles for "deer season" something is wrong. How about a graded system where you can only buy lower end weapons to start and aftre a period of time with that gun you can apply for something more so you will have had a chance to practice responsible gun ownership and safety before you get something more dangerous.

M-50

05-23-2007, 10:26 PM

OMG! How on earth could the state let that happen? On the card it said his height was two foot three inches and weighed 20 pounds. What adult is like that? Come on. There should definetley be restrictions like the applicant has to be present while applying.

Kray

05-23-2007, 11:26 PM

What is a gun law going to stop the crime rates though? Putting a restriction on some people that like to go hunting, because of those jerks that like to kill out there, is dumb (in my opinion). Sure, hunters really shouldn't be going around with unnecessarily huge shotguns or anything like that, but they shouldn't have to be penalized. Right to bear arms!

Besides, what is a LAW going to stop crimes anyway. Criminals break laws. It's what they do. If they have their mind made up enough that they are going to do it, then they couldn't give a damn about a gun law. To them, whats one more law to break?

Shezmu

05-24-2007, 04:21 PM

Well we had to watch this documentary at school last week, it's called ''Bowling for columbine'' you might know it.
despite the title the documentary isn't all about the massacre at columbine highschool.
Michael Moore (the producer, director and interviewer of the documentary) also tries to find an answer to the question why there are 11000 + (!!) murders a year in the USA and only 50-300 in country's like France, Germany, Japan, Canada and pretty much all other countries (i know the previously mentioned countries have way less people but i's still way out of proportions).
We haven't watched the whole DVD yet so i don't know if Michael Moore will give a good explanation for this, and i'm not sure if the guns have anything to do with it.

In Canada there are about 7 million guns and 30 million people, yet the crime and murder rate is surprisingly low! so maybe there has to be another explanation for the ridiculous amount of people who die by guns in the USA.

Personally I'm against guns being sold to everyone who wants one but Canada proofs it's possible.