Gun Control

[SkinWalker]

Gun Control

 

In the United States, in 1997, 95,000 people sustained gunshot wounds. Suicides accounted for most firearm deaths, with the highest rate among men 65 yrs or older. Firearm assaults and murders were highest among males ages 15 to 24. Of unintentional firearm injuries, 45 percent occurred at home, 53 percent involved a handgun, and 72 percent were self-inflicted.

 

Other countries do not experience the level of problems per gun as we do in the United States. The "gun culture" that we have ingrained in our minds would seem to be the likely culprit to me. A look at our television, the news media, video games, and governmental policies shows that it all adds up to the same thing: a culture that depends upon the gun as one method of obtaining status.

 

Opponents of Gun Control are quick to quote the constitution and the "right to bear arms," but as Michael Moore put it in Bowling for Columbine, aren't nuclear weapons considered "arms?" Would anyone argue that one has the right to own a nuclear weapon? If not, then why must the definition of arms be limited to the firearm as the smallest denomination? Couldn't tasors, stun guns, mace, pepper spray, and a baseball bat be considered arms?

 

Not to mention that the Constitution is but a piece of paper that can be changed. We are living in a society that the Founding Fathers could not have anticipated fully. We have a standing army that was but a dream to the Framers. We needn't worry about foreign aggression. We have a police force in our country second to few. Their jobs would be significantly easier without guns on the streets.

 

It's obvious that legislation to restrict firearms to a degree that would make their ownership impossible is not likely to happen overnight, but it seems prudent to restrict their ownership to those that have proven to be capable of handling them as well as worthy of their ownership. To drive an automobile in the United States, one must be of a certain age, and possess a license as well as liability insurance. The same should be true of firearms, even small caliber rifles and shotguns.

 

To purchase a firearm, one must first obtain a license that must be periodically renewed. One must also obtain liability insurance and be required to maintain this insurance for as long as the firearm is owned. To qualify for a license, one should merely have to pass an exam similar to the one automobile drivers take. The insurance companies would then make determinations of "risk value" of an individual. Frequent alcohol related offenses, assaults, etc. should raise the insurance rate that an individual pays… so should the number of firearms one owns.

 

There was another thread of Gun Control in the Senate some time back, but let's use this as the current thread.

 

Centers for Disease Control (CDC) . Nonfatal and fatal firearm-related injuries - United States, 1993-1997. MMWR. 1999;48(45):1029-34.

 

CDC. Firearm Injuries and Fatalities Fact Sheets

 

[Kurgan]

The Constitution CAN be changed.

 

Gun control MIGHT reduce gun deaths.

 

My spin on this is that it's about individual liberty.

 

Every freedom that people are granted will be abused by somebody.

 

Let people drive and they will drive recklessly and kill themselves and others.

 

Let people drink alcohol and they will get drunk and commit crimes or drink themselves to death.

 

Let people smoke and they will get addicted and die of cancer.

 

Let people have sex with whomever they want to and they will spread STD's and have unwanted pregnancies.

 

Etc.

 

Guns do not HAVE to be used to murder people, they can be used for self defense from violent criminals (who can obtain guns illegally, regardless of the laws on the books followed by respectable citizens). Killing is wrong, but killing is self defense is morally permissable.

 

Guns also have a recreational aspect.. hunting (responsibly of course) and target shooting.

 

There are also people who collect guns as a hobby, just like people work on cars or collect rare antiques.

 

Yes, you will have people buy guns and then go on a shooting rampage at their work or shoot themselves in the foot. But simply because a few people abuse a freedom does not mean that freedom must be taken away.

 

As far as the non-recreational aspect, I see gun as a necessarily evil in a violent society.

 

In the old days gun ownership assured the freedom of the state, because there wasn't a powerful standing army, but the citizens formed militia to protect themselves from hostile invaders. Those days may be past, but we still, unfortunately have to protect ourselves from each other.

 

Michael Moore's movie was captivating. Certainly he was biased and used some dishonest techniques to get his point across (such as the way he edited Charlton Heston's speeches together from out of context to make him sound like an insensitive jerk and steered his interview to make him look like a racist, and there are other examples). Maybe he has a point.. maybe America is simply a violent society.

 

Certainly as a military (and with the cloak and dagger stuff during the Cold War) we have thrown our weight around a lot in the last hundred years.

 

Perhaps. But if its true that we are a violent society, I don't think that taking away gun ownership is going to make us into a nation of saints.

 

I agree that if we continue to own guns, we should do all we can to raise safety and awareness of them, just as we have tried to increase automobile safety and laws with regards to vehicle ownership.

 

The more and better informed people are, (hopefully) the less likely they are to abuse their freedoms through ignorance.

[ForceMaster]

Being a card carrying member of the NRA and biased. I have to disagree.

 

The problem in America is unique due to the lack of enforcement of the gun controll regulation that already have.

 

I fully agree with keeping guns out of reach of criminals and restricting the purchase of firearms by minors. And there are plenty of laws preventing such. There unfortunately is a lack of enforcement concerning those laws and an abundance of irresponsible firearms dealers.

 

Regulation is one thing...banning is illegal and unconstitutional.

 

I do think that we can be tougher on the regulations concerning firearm dealers license but then that will never pass due to the lobbying power that the NRA posses.

 

Another problem that America faces is that parents are not monitoring and educating their children on firearm safety.

 

I come from apart of this great country that is very active in hunting. Most parents educate their children that the guns in the house, which are locked up in mine, are not toys and not to be touched or even looked at without a responsible parent's supervision. Like I said I lock mine up and my children have no knowledge where they are. That is how it should be, of course there is no ammo in the house at all.

 

But you are absolutely correct in your statement that an epidemic of irresponsible firearm possesion and use is occuring and more should be done to cut back on it. Every case of a child being killed by a firearm is tragic and should not be tolerated. And every criminal act committed involving a firearm is one too many. But I have every right to protect my family and property until such time that no crime is possible of affecting them or me.

 

Registering and background checks are effective if done consistently.

 

Its a fine line we walk in today's time.

[ShadowTemplar]

In my humble opinion, what (few) firearms are acceptable in public hands should be monitored strictly. It is my belief that the value of having firearms for defensive purposes is neglectible compaired to the risk of abuse that naturally follows easier access to firearms. Weapons, in my opinion, should be used solely for sporting activites ect., as well as by the Executive Power.

[vegietto]

i think nothing is wrong with gun control if u ask me if u buy a gun and own then i think u hve your right to it that is my option

[ForceMaster]

One point I neglected to mention: you have heard the saying "A locked door keeps an honest person honest" the same applies to gun control.

 

We can regulate all we want to, criminals will somehow find a way to to obtain firearms below, above or around the laws. Thats what makes them criminals. And since they can get their hands on them, I have a legitimate right to defend myself and family from the criminals.

 

Hunting is but one of two justifiable reasons to own firearms.

 

Plus the "risk of abuse" is negligible in the home and hands of responsible educated firearm owners.

 

Education>regulation.

Enforcement of current regulation>adding more unenforced regulation.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by Javva the Hutt

The problem in America is unique due to the lack of enforcement of the gun controll regulation that already have.

 

Perhaps. But if so, it stems from the manufacturers who are too lax in their distribution, then snowballs to the streets.

 

Originally posted by Javva the Hutt

Regulation is one thing...banning is illegal and unconstitutional.

 

That's assuming 1) that the Constitution is not a "living document" that cannot be changed (allowing women to vote and the abolishment of slavery are but two examples to disprove this) and 2) that the lowest form of "arms" is any cheaply made handgun or semi-automatic versions of military grade weapons.

 

In looking through the Constitution, you will not see the words "handgun" or "Tek-9" mentioned anywhere. In fact, I don't think you will see the words "gun" or "firearm." It says, "arms." There are many defensive weapons available to the public which do not fire bullets. But it's true that the Framers probably meant firearms and cannons, the latter of which no militia or private citizen is permitted to own. The Framers had no way of knowing the advances that Richard Gatling or Sam Colt would make, so perhaps the "right to bear arms" can be met by simply allowing US Citizens to freely own black powder and flintlock rifles and pistols of the period.

 

Originally posted by Javva the Hutt

I do think that we can be tougher on the regulations concerning firearm dealers license but then that will never pass due to the lobbying power that the NRA posses.

 

Lobbying power is a finite resource. The pro-slavery south could only lobby their position to a point. Those opposed to suffrage could only defend their position for so long. When met with grassroots movements, governments and NGOs historically fail if the grassroots movement is strong enough. The gun culture of the United States will reach a point where the majority of the voting population is fed up. It may not be in my lifetime, but I hope so. Guns serve no useful purpose. The hunting culture is a minority, and their position deserves respect, but they have no use for AK-47s, Tek-9s, Raven .25 Automatic pisols, or AR-15s.

 

Originally posted by Javva the Hutt

Another problem that America faces is that parents are not monitoring and educating their children on firearm safety.

 

Another problem that America faces is that parents have no idea that their children are possessing firearms. I just removed nearly a dozen .22 caliber rounds from the backpack of a Juvenile on probation last night. He's been discharged unsuccessfully from my program and my recommendation to his probation officer will be residential placement. At least he'll not be able to own a firearm there.

 

Originally posted by Javva the Hutt

I come from apart of this great country that is very active in hunting.

 

And you are a minority in the United States. No problem, even though the "Great White Hunter" of our country is a bit over the top and our society is well beyond the Hunter-Gather stage, I agree that the needs of hunters should be preserved. But not at the expense of the majority who simply want to see cheap handguns and military grade hardware made into a rarity.

 

Originally posted by Javva the Hutt

Most parents educate their children that the guns in the house, which are locked up in mine, are not toys and not to be touched or even looked at without a responsible parent's supervision.

 

And as I said, the main problem with firearms in the U.S. is not the ones the parents own, its the ones the kids own. Its also the ones the criminals own. The common denominator is cheap and military. Firearm related accidents among kids and adults is high as well, but this, too, should be addressed simply by proper licensing and insurance mandates. If my son is at your son's home and is killed by your rifle, your insurance pays the damages. I say "my" and "you" as example, which could refer to any two parents of different children.

 

Originally posted by Javva the Hutt

But I have every right to protect my family and property until such time that no crime is possible of affecting them or me.

 

Poppycock. You don't need a gun to protect your home / family. Being a gun owner has been demonstrated to increase the crime rate in many cities. I'm not talking about exclusive small town models where gun ownership is "mandatory" and the socio-economic status of the residents is white, middle class. I'm talking about real urban centers where there is a large diversity of neighborhoods and socio-economic classes and where guns are worth good money and status. Where teens (mostly) are tempted to break in with intention of taking the guns.

 

Protecting your home could mean any number of passive or active methods, to include community activeness and burgler alarms. Hell, a good bat is as effective as anything to protect your home. Most breakins are done by unarmed intruders and even the armed ones have to come around a dark corner. But we can do "what if" scenarios all day by playing semantics. Point of fact is, "protecting my home and family" is the old ace in the hole card that gun nuts pull right after the "constitution" card. Neither holds up to critical reasoning.

[ShockV1.89]

In response to the "I need to protect my home and family...."

 

How does this sound? A high powered handgun with a 12 round clip. Keyed to fire for you, and only for you. Can be tracked via military GPS. If it travels outside a 20 ft radius around your home (this would have to be customized to each home), a tiny thermal charge would activate, fusing the trigger assembly together and the police would be notified (again, there are probably better options... whatever would work to keep the gun from firing). If it is fired, it will automatically send a signal to police, including notifying the nearest patrol car.

 

I think that would satisfy everyone. You have your self defense weapon, but it's not strong enough to pose a huge threat to the community, nor can you even take it out of your home if you wanted to.

 

You dont need AK-47s or Uzi submachineguns to defend your home. It's overkill. Nor do you need anything like them to hunt. It wouldnt work.

[ForceMaster]

As far as Tek-9, AR-15, AK-47's .50 calibur hand cannons and the like.. you're absolutely right those should be taken off the street. There is absolyutely no need for such - excuse the expression - overkill in any firearm, excluding military purposes. I'm talking about my 270 hunting rifle and 38 pistol. The pistol has been used to save my life once while hunting to kill a black bear that was charging me.

 

Concerning lax regulation of manufacturers. Again you are absolutely correct. Dealers/manufacturers are given no motivation to limit their customer pool to those "needing" or who has been educated and passed the required background check. Whats a $500 fine when you just did $2000 in business. The fines are looked upon as a "cost of doing business". So again enforce the stricter regulations that state that they can lose their dealer license if they sell to a minor or criminal.

 

 

The constitution is a living document. But whoever said that the right to bear arms is a dead amendment. Possibly rewording the 2nd amendment to exclude criminals and to set an age limit is acceptable. Throw in a clause stating that abuse of the 2nd amendment will lead to lose of that right, expulsion from the country. Whatever.

 

I think that everyone looks at this issue and emphasizes the negative that can be caused by gun ownership. What about the positive. Look at how many families have been saved by firearm ownership. Hell this country wouldn't even be here if it wasn't for common citizens owning and using guns. I have just as much right to sit in my home smoke a cigar, drink a beer, and clean my guns. I don't because it would be irresponsible to do so, but I have that right. Just as you have the right to say that what I'm doing is wrong in your opinion.

 

I'll give you an example of the fears that gun owners have concerning overregulation by the federal government. In Canada a couple of years ago, a township was told that they had to register every gun they owned. Then the local constables went to every household, broke down doors in some cases to search for unregistered guns. A few weeks later when "all" the guns were registered, they went into those homes and confiscated all the guns. This goes against everything in our constitution concerning illegal search and seizures. The strange part about the above situation...guns were still legal to own. Explain this please.

 

As I stated above enforcing the regulations we already have concerning criminal ownership, minor purchasing, and weapon class legality is the answer to the ever growing gun problem in america.

 

No where did I state that I think that I should have a 16 inch gun in my front yard. Or grenades, AK-47's, tek-9. Tell you the truth I think that if a gun is anything more than semi-automatic, it should be illegal..I'll take that a step further, I think it should be illegal to make. I also do not agree that kits should be made available to convert semi-automatic to automatic. I also think that to own a semi-automatic pistol you should have to go through extensive federally run training.

 

As far as having a bat to protect my family. What good is a bat going to do against an armed assailant.

 

I understand and empathize with those that have lost someone due to the missuse of firearms. My heart breaks everytime I hear of a child being killed or injured by a gun. I just want to point out that we as a society like to blame the easiest target... the responsibility lies with the parents and they should be held accountable. And yes I am a parent and I take full responsibilty for the actions of my children. Apparently I am in the minority, what a shame.

 

Dont underestimate the lobbying power of the NRA. I'm not saying I agree with it, but most of the senators and representives in congress owe a portion of their campaign expenses to the NRA. Like I said, it's wrong but it's true.

 

And I think it very short-minded to hope for the elimination of guns. Who will protect our borders, who will defend our way of life, if all guns are eliminated in this country. I'll tell you something as a veteran, I have killed to protect you and your way of life, Im not proud of that fact, but I would do it again if need be. And what thanks have I gotten..."what you did and how you live are wrong" quote the others.

 

Parents don't know about their children possesing guns because they don't make it their responsibility to know. They are too concerned about where their careers are going, their socio-economic situation, "if I discipline I'll be accused of abuse" etc. I don't know how you grew up but I was raised to respect and obey my parents and if I didn't there would be consequences. And IMO that led to diciplined/honorable people.

 

And skinwalker by your last comment your stating that my rights mean nothing to you as long as you disagree with them. Thats preposterous thinking that has led to many attrocities that dominate history. My rights are my rights and NO person or government has the right to take that away from me.

 

Any studying of the constitution proves that we ALL are given the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And that unless I (me personally) violate your rights to life, liberty and your pursuit of happiness, then I can own my guns. Those that do violate others' rights are not protected by that thinking. (ps I know that phrasing comes from the Declaration of Independence, but that document was used to structure our constitution)

 

To let the matter rest as far as Im concerned. I have no problem with gun control regulation I encourage it! I have a problem with more regulation stacked on regulations when neither is enforced. I DO have a problem with the thinking that all gun owners are criminals or are going to missuse their guns in the future. I have never broken any laws, except one 5mph speeding ticket, and I never plan to. I have too much respect for this country and it's citizens. And I definately have a huge problem with you or anyone else TRYING to take my guns away.

 

"Out of my cold dead hands!"- Charleton Heston

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by ShockV1.89

How does this sound? A high powered handgun with a 12 round clip. Keyed to fire for you, and only for you. Can be tracked via military GPS. If it travels outside a 20 ft radius around your home (this would have to be customized to each home), a tiny thermal charge would activate, fusing the trigger assembly together and the police would be notified (again, there are probably better options... whatever would work to keep the gun from firing). If it is fired, it will automatically send a signal to police, including notifying the nearest patrol car.

 

Sounds more expensive than a baseball bat.

[ForceMaster]

Originally posted by SkinWalker

Sounds more expensive than a baseball bat.

 

Way more expensive!!!

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by Javva the Hutt

The constitution is a living document. But whoever said that the right to bear arms is a dead amendment. Possibly rewording the 2nd amendment to exclude criminals and to set an age limit is acceptable.

 

Those limitations already exist without ammendment.

 

Originally posted by Javva the Hutt

What about the positive[?] Look at how many families have been saved by firearm ownership.

 

How many? In the last 50 years, how many? I'm only curious if this figure is more significant that the deaths and injuries.

 

Originally posted by Javva the Hutt

I will say this...you try to take my guns away and you'll get a very good view of the working end of them.

 

So all that stuff about being a "law-abiding" citizen is only true until the laws no longer suit you? I only bring this up because of Heston's silly "cold, dead hands" remark of the past... it implys that gun owners are as willing to become criminals as the next guy if the laws change. As long as the laws favor them, they're fine. I hope you don't take offense to that, I'm actually criticizing the argument not the arguer in this case.

 

Originally posted by Javva the Hutt

In Canada a couple of years ago,... they went into those homes and confiscated all the guns. ... Explain this please.

 

Interesting case. As an anthropologist, I'd be interested in looking at it more closely... do you have a name of the township? It sounds pretty unfair from my perspective, regardless of my feelings about firearms.

 

Originally posted by Javva the Hutt

No where did I state that I think that I should have a 16 inch gun in my front yard. Or grenades, AK-47's, tek-9.

 

You didn't... I'm just not sure where you draw the line on "arms." Or I should say I wasn't. You obviously end it at the "unreasonable" arms.

 

Originally posted by Javva the Hutt

As far as having a bat to protect my family. What good is a bat going to do against an armed assailant.

 

Actually, I don't have a bat. I've got a very sharp, antique bayonet that's about two feet long. To quote someone in this forum from about a year ago, "if you break into my house, you'll wish I had a gun." Even if armed, I assure you that the assailant's effectiveness will have the same limitations and advantages whether I'm in possession of a firearm or not. Not to be picky... (okay, a little picky), but you said you stored your firearms unloaded and secured from your kids. Can you get to your guns, ammo, and load more effectively than I can unsheath my blade?

 

I know.. it's all semantics, but, again, it might be interesting to look at some statistics of home breakins with intruders being repelled by homeowners... what worked and what didn't.

 

Originally posted by Javva the Hutt

the responsibility lies with the parents and they should be held accountable. And yes I am a parent and I take full responsibilty for the actions of my children. Apparently I am in the minority, what a shame.

 

My comment about you being a minority was in reference to your status as a hunter, however, I agree about parents being held responsible.

 

Originally posted by Javva the Hutt

And I think it very short-minded to hope for the elimination of guns. Who will protect our borders, who will defend our way of life, if all guns are eliminated in this country.

 

My position is more along the lines of very strict regulation of firearms and elimination of classes of firearms, such as the cheap .25 autos that companies like Raven put out and the military knock-offs that can fire as fast as you can pull the trigger. Licensing and insurance. Seems reasonable and necessary.

 

Originally posted by Javva the Hutt

I'll tell you something as a veteran, I have killed to protect you and your way of life, Im not proud of that fact, but I would do it again if need be.

 

Makes two of us, US Army ret. I'm a critic of firearms, but I have a deep respect for their capabilities and I'm damn good with most. I just have little use for them.

 

Originally posted by Javva the Hutt

Parents don't know about their children possesing guns because they don't make it their responsibility to know.

 

Perhaps. But how does a single mother with two jobs make it possible to know their kids' wherebouts and actions? I'm not disagreeing, because I've seen that it can be done. It takes a talent that few possess or learn. I've seen dysfunctional families that have one mother and 4 children and all but one is straight-A, honor roll, upstanding citizen, good kid, etc..... but that one is on probation, on drugs, gang-banging.... there's no formula. At some point it becomes a societal problem and not just a parental one.

 

Originally posted by Javva the Hutt

They are too concerned about where their careers are going, their socio-economic situation, "if I discipline I'll be accused of abuse" etc.

 

"Career" isn't even a factor. "Next pay check," "rent," and "gas money" are, though. But this is with the demographic that I'm working with... the Career/discipline issue exists in other demographics I'm sure.

 

Originally posted by Javva the Hutt

And skinwalker by your last comment, you're stating that my rights mean nothing to you as long as you disagree with them. That's preposterous thinking that has led to many attrocities that dominate history.

 

Actually, I was trying to point out that gun-proponants consistantly use the "protect my home and family" argument and that this argument doesn't hold up. I haven't seen any significant statistics that indicate that a significant portion of the United States population has benefited from the proliferation of firearms. I have seen statistics to indicate that injury and deaths outnumber every other nation, even per capita, with possible exception to Israel/Palestine.

 

Originally posted by Javva the Hutt

My rights are my rights and NO person or government has the right to take that away from me.

 

And I argue that my rights to saftey and freedom (as well as your rights to the same) are jeapordized by the proliferation of firearms, particularly the "junk" firearms that we've, so far, both agreed upon.

 

Originally posted by Javva the Hutt

To let the matter rest as far as Im concerned. I have no problem with gun control regulation I encourage it!

 

I think you and I agree on far more points than we disagree. I don't advocate the total ban of firearms, I only point out the illogical and fallible reasoning that it is unconstitutional and wrong. I do advocate strict licensing and insuring of gun owners as well as limitations on classes of firearms. Those 'junk' guns are the ones that the manufacturers make their money on, however.

 

Originally posted by Javva the Hutt

"Out of my cold dead hands!"- Charleton Heston

 

Yeah! That's the silly comment I was talking about!

[ShadowTemplar]

Regarding the issue of defending your home with a firearm (or, for that matter, defending your house at all):

 

Usually it's a very bad idea. Standing advice from the Danish police is to stand down, do whatever the burgler/robber tells you, not get involved, ect, ect. It may not be heroic, but at least it'll save your arse. Insurance will pay for the monetairy damage, and when the police catches the culprit, he'll be forced to pay anything that insurance didn't cover.

 

Usually, weapons work to everyone's disadvantage: Unlike the owner of the house, an intruder typically has no compunction against hurting people. By arming yourself you present the intruder with an ultimatum: Either piss off or take up the fight. Usually they are more willing to do the latter. And usually the more cynical will win. And usually the criminal is the more cynical of the two. Meaning that the burgler will be turned into a robber/murderer, and the victim will get a trip to the hospital/the Warp. Not good.

 

Of course you have the nutcases who'll kill you just for interferring. But they'll kill you anyway, unless you kill them, and chances are that you won't, 'cuz you're human and they're not.

 

Oh, and I never implied that I wanted to remove the guns from the army How would they do their job then?

 

For the matter, I don't think that firearms used for hunting shoud be banned either. But they should be regulated pretty harshly.

[ForceMaster]

Ok. Im going to keep this short so that I can get back to my new Jedi Academy game.

 

Obviously we share a lot in common. We both agree that automatic and easily obtainable firearms are unnecessary and should be strictly outlawed. We both agree that parents need to take a more active stance in raising their children. I agree with you that sometimes that is difficult if not impossible to do based on the families particular situation. (I was assuming we were talking middle class 2 parent households. My mistake.)

 

I agree that gun owners can typically be taken to be fanatics. By my comments I meant to express how strongly I feel about this issue, not that Im willing to kill to keep my guns. Thats absurd and anyone that has ever been placed in the situation to take someone elses life, does not ever do so willingly again.

 

As far as the townships name, I'll have to look into it. I remembered it at one time, but it seems to have slipped my memory now. I'll get back to you on that. I really is an interesting case that I studied in constitutional law class.

 

No I probably can't load my guns fast than you can unsheath your bayonet. I keep my guns unloaded to ensure that no one can unintentionally get harmed by said guns. This is why I have a kitana sword easily accessible. But push comes to shove I can get my pistol loaded quickly.

 

To ellaborate. I truly do not have guns in MY house for protection. I have two big dogs, above mentioned sword, bat and my fists for that purpose. And considering the area of the country I live in, those above measures may be overkill. I was just defending other peoples rights to "protect".

 

And to top it off, we both agree that the easily acquired guns that dominate our urban and sub-urban streets are a huge problem that needs to be eliminated. I'll even go so far to agree that any weapon used for hunting (I also want to include markmanship sport weapons in this) should be registered and limited but my fears are that once that happens the federal government will "abuse" that power and confiscate those benign purpose weapons.

 

I hope this cleared up my view points. Maybe we can also agree to disagree. BTW I used to live in those high crime urban areas that you mentioned, I was even in Law Enforcement in one of those areas, and I too see the devestation and problems that guns cause. Which is why I moved to MT. Good debate otherwise, now back to my game.

[Master_Keralys]

All right, we've all heard how the US has higher gun death rates than other countries with stiffer gun control laws.

 

What we haven't heard is about the other countries (Russia, for one) with much more stringent gun laws than the United States with higher gun death rates than the US. Don't always trust the liberal media.

 

Secondly, several intriguing studies (can't remember which right now) have shown something about overall crime rates. In England, the gun deaths are much lower than in the US. But the overall percentage of violent, crime-related deaths per popula is nearly identical. I would argue that the person dead doesn't really care if they were shot or simply bludgeoned to death. Though I think I'd prefer the shooting; less pain, you see.

 

Finally, one must take into account a multitude of other factors. While the US has an extraordinarily heterogenous and frequently shifting population, much of Europe retains the small-town, everyone-knows-everyone-else atmosphere. That drastically effects crime rates. Perhaps the solution is not to make more laws, but to fix the problem at its root - the society.

 

Don't get me wrong; I think American society is better than almost any other society out there. But I think there are certain things that we're missing, and those are having a really big effect.