Gun Control?

[Taos]

I agree with Bill......and I don't even own any guns.

[ShockV1.89]

Originally posted by ZDawg

The reason America became as strong as it is today and was not over-run by the English is because EVERY man owned a Gun.

 

Are you mad? The 9/11 Terrorists took flight training in many diffrent schools... Far from lazy my friend.

 

Well, that was then. Guns could be used for freedom of the state back then because it was a very real threat. But it's not anymore, being that the USA has one of the most powerful armies in the world. People claiming to use guns to "maintain a well-regulated militia" are full of it...

 

And as for the 9/11 terrorists, you make a good point, but also bring up another: Terrorists in todays day and age dont bother to do anything that a gun could stop. They just blow themselves up in the process of doing what they do. If they ever see a gun, it'll be from an NSA or FBI agent, and they should be authorized for it.

 

Think about it, would a gun in the hands of an office worker in WTC #1 had made any difference against a jet? Even if, by some miracle, he did strike the pilot while firing from the window, it stil would have continued into the building. Likewise, if a terrorist decides to detonate a nuke in NYC, guns in the hands of civilians wont change anything.

 

Despite what people think, most terrorists arent dumb. They're not likely to just run out shooting. It wont get as much done as a bomb or two.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by griff38

I keep a 23" Japanese Wakizashi on the wall next to my bed.

 

If anybody ever breaks in, they will wish I had had a gun.

 

Griff... my man! I hear that!

 

Gun ownership has always been an American norm. When the country only had a few hundred-thousand to a few million people, this was sensible.

 

Now with the millions of people we have and the millions of guns on the streets in the hands of criminals, we have problem.

 

Most folks will quickly agree that gun ownership of law-abiding citizens is acceptable and that it is the common street thug that has no business owning a piece. This is the guy that breaks out his "nine" when he's dissed, or feels threatened. These cases abound in the Dallas/Fort Worth area. Kids are shooting kids. I see kids every day that glorify the gun by pointing their finger in trigger squeezing motion at their so-called enemies.

 

These are kids that already cannot legally own a firearm. Yet they do. They get them.

 

I'm convinced that even if every law abiding citizen were to relenquish their handguns, the kids would still get them easily. They wouldn't have to steal them from homes, their already on the streets in VAST numbers.

 

But the flow from factories to the street has GOT to be stopped somehow. So that, eventually, confiscations by police will begin to reduce their numbers. This is the only logical solution to that problem.

 

Anyone got ideas how that can happen?

 

SkinWalker

[acdcfanbill]

Illegal drugs suck as Cocain or Pot are already banned, and billions spent on stopping their influx, do you really think it would be that hard for those same people to throw 10 uzi's in the plane with them, or boat some berettas over? I garruntee that many criminals will still be able to get guns if the become extreemly difficult to get even for a law abiding citizen.

[JediNyt]

US should have it, yeah. Canada has it and they do just fine. If people want to shoot guns they can join the military. Most crooks will shoot only if the other person has a gun. So take the threat away and crooks wont be as likely to shoot cause they wont be in danger of getting shot.

[JandoFett1842]

JandoFett1842's sig

 

People who want to ban guns ought to be shot!

 

Like my sig says!

[C'jais]

I wonder what you think it'll accomplish to own a gun.

 

My country has guns outlawed, unless you a permit which is very hard to get (you have to justify your need a for gun). The crime rate in Denmark is low compared to the US, and gun crimes are really rare - of course, US and Denmark aint the same either.

 

People without the right amount of self control won't benefit from owning a gun - they'll end up threatening someone with it, shooting at people and killing them. The common citizen can't handle a gun, you need severe self control to do that. It's illegal to threaten someone with a gun in my country, and I damn hope it is too in yours. My brother got in court for threatening people with a replica water pistol.

 

What would you do if you had a gun, and a seemingly unarmed burglar entered your house? Shoot him? It'd only make yourself the criminal.

 

Public safety is for trained individuals, not some drunk redneck with a magnum.

[TheWhiteRaider]

Perhaps then, but times has changed, and now guns are of no other use than killing. Also, you must look at all the countries who has gotten their freedom without weapons.

 

All ships sink some just sink faster. So even the best government are able to be corrupted. You can easily go from people with freedom to slaves.

 

 

What countries are you talking about?

 

Public safety is for trained individuals, not some drunk redneck with a magnum.

 

I agree in some cases. But all you have to do is change who you call a drunk redneck and then everyone can be a drunk redneck.

 

Are you mad? The 9/11 Terrorists took flight training in many diffrent schools... Far from lazy my friend.

 

As Tyroin said I ment common crimials.

 

Very wrong. Take Norway for an example. The total amount of people killed by firearms is around 10 I think, 15 maximum (probably less). This with a total population of 4 million. In US it is about 50 times more people, but over 2000 times more killed by firearms!

 

Norway also is not a big country anyways. . The U.K. is mainly what I ment. Also how many gun crimes all together?

 

Now compair guns deaths in the U.S with how many times guns saved people's lives. Last year it was almost 2 million. That is one thing gun control people will not tell you. Beer companies will not tell you that beer can screw up you life if you use it wrong so I do not expect people for gun control people to give me all the information.

 

Also cars kill more than guns and tons of kids die in cars. So why are you not so eager to ban them?

[Qui-GONE Jinn]

Maybe because cars aren't weapons designed to murder people?

[C'jais]

Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider

I agree in some cases. But all you have to do is change who you call a drunk redneck and then everyone can be a drunk redneck.

 

That made no sense to me. I wouldn't be trusting my closest friend or even family with a gun - All too easy to end up hurting someone badly. Weapons are not for the public.

[Breton]

Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider

 

 

 

Now compair guns deaths in the U.S with how many times guns saved people's lives. Last year it was almost 2 million. That is one thing gun control people will not tell you. Beer companies will not tell you that beer can screw up you life if you use it wrong so I do not expect people for gun control people to give me all the information.

 

 

Guns have saved 2 million?? Don't make me laugh! Until I have gotten good evidence for that (if it comes from an internet, make sure the site is serious and that it is not american), I refuse to belive such. A simple question: How can a gun save a life at all??

 

What countries are you talking about?

 

My knowledge of all the worlds countries isn't that great to name all the countries that have done such, but you can take all of Scandinavia as an example.

 

Norway also is not a big country anyways. . The U.K. is mainly what I ment. Also how many gun crimes all together?

 

Even in UK the amount of people killed by guns is much much lower than in US. All together in Norway there was 228 gun crimes in year 2000, from 301 gun crimes in year 1999. Extremely few of these are murders, mind you.

 

Source

[SkinWalker]

All I know is what I see: In the Dallas/Fort Worth area, the vast majority of gun crimes appear to be commited by juveniles. Juveniles are not permitted to own firearms, esp. handguns (18 for rifle/shotgun, 21 for a handgun).

 

So it is apparent that simply making it illegal for a specific class of people to get guns is ineffective.

 

What I'm also saying, is that every person on this thread can see that guns are a problem with those who don't need to have them (juveniles, bank robbers, drug dealers, the Great-American-Pyscho-waiting-for-the-right-moment-to-end-the-lives-of-many-in-one-clip, etc.).

 

The question is: how do we make it difficult/hard/impossible for them to get easy access to them?

 

SkinWalker

[C'jais]

Originally posted by SkinWalker

All I know is what I see: In the Dallas/Fort Worth area, the vast majority of gun crimes appear to be commited by juveniles. Juveniles are not permitted to own firearms, esp. handguns (18 for rifle/shotgun, 21 for a handgun).

 

So it is apparent that simply making it illegal for a specific class of people to get guns is ineffective.

 

What I'm also saying, is that every person on this thread can see that guns are a problem with those who don't need to have them (juveniles, bank robbers, drug dealers, the Great-American-Pyscho-waiting-for-the-right-moment-to-end-the-lives-of-many-in-one-clip, etc.).

 

The question is: how do we make it difficult/hard/impossible for them to get easy access to them?

 

SkinWalker

 

Good point, but if we illegalize guns for everyone, the juveniles will have a harder time getting them.

 

If your parents own a gun, and you decide to go out shoot someone, why not just "rent" it for a little while?

 

Illegalize guns altogether, and you'll see a decrease in gun crimes - is what I say.

[SkinWalker]

I have a theory.... it follows what is probably just basic Market Dynamics:

 

If the market is saturated with handguns, their value is minimal. Juveniles and law-violators excluded from legal carry/ownership can get their hands on them for a few dollars.

 

If the production is interfered with to the point that it drops drastically and sales cannot occur easily (only to those licensed/insured, for example), then eventually police confiscations will reduce the number of available handguns on the streets.

 

Unfortunately, this raises the value of the handgun, making arms trade lucrative, which will, in-turn, increase handgun theft.

 

Fortunately, this raises the value of the handgun, making those who have them less likely to brandish them randomly. If you lose it, in other words, it'll be hard and expensive to get another.

 

Reduce supply, demand will rise along with value. The trick is to keep supply up with liscensed/insured owners who are able to keep their firearms secure from theives.

 

Logically, the use of "Dirty Harry" laws, where if someone breaks into your home and you shoot them, will reduce many casual theives. These laws exist in many states already.

 

Licenses and insurance for gunownership should be manatory in my opinion. If you are going to drive a car in nearly every country in the world, you must be licensed and insured because of the great responsibility that goes along with proper use. Likewise, handgun ownership should follow similar restrictions. Handguns have but one real purpose: to inflict serious/fatal injury to another being. Logically, that is not something to lightly issue to the general public.

 

I am a firm believer in the right to bear arms, but this right needs to be limited to protect the innocent just as it was designed. The Founding Fathers of the United States of America wanted it's citizens to be able to defend themselves in the event of invasion (be it from a country or criminal in our homes).

 

But the reality is that overall firearm related death among children in the U.S. is nearly 12 times higher than in other industrialized countries. Kids kill kids in their own homes , in their schools , URL=http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/nov02/99444.asp]on the streets,[/url] and most anywhere else.

 

Teens are shooting each other, and are shooting adults in alarming numbers. These are one of the same classes of people in the United Statest that is excluded from handgun ownership: juveniles under the age of 21.

 

To see just how alarming this is, look at this Google News Link.

 

SkinWalker

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by Cjais

 

If your parents own a gun, and you decide to go out shoot someone, why not just "rent" it for a little while?

 

If parents are irresponsible, this "renting" will be easier, to be sure. That is a valid problem. One of the reasons why I propose a requirement that anyone owning a firearm also posses liability insurance and a license. If you make parents financially responsible (paying monthly/annual insurance premiums), then they will tend to be more watchful/careful about the guns. Most handguns in the United States are kept by the bedside without any sort of locks (I don't have any source for this, it's really just my opinion) so that they can be easily accessed in the event of "emergency." Inusurance requirements will be that they be secured, licensing will ensure that owners "learn" handgun safety. Incidents will result in the revocation of insurance, and thus (theoretically) the removal of the handgun from the home (sold to a dealer, other licensed/insured owner, or secured in a safe-deposit box).

 

Illegalize guns altogether, and you'll see a decrease in gun crimes - is what I say.

 

Making guns of any sort illegal in the U.S. will never happen. Many would like it to be so, but it is too in-grained in our society. The overwhelming majority would be against a "gun-ban," probably even those who dislike handguns (they would be against loss of freedom even more). I'm not justifying or criticizing this.... just stating the reality of it.

 

Interesting topic to be sure. Hotly debated in many ways. But something needs to be done to protect our kids. Adults will have to become responsible as we are the ones who are, theoretically, teaching the kids to become adults.

 

SkinWalker

[TheWhiteRaider]

Illegalize guns altogether, and you'll see a decrease in gun crimes - is what I say.

 

Oh, please. Tell if you would become swiss cheese if you try to shoot someone would you do it? And does getting rid of guns stop murders? The object is to stop people from killing each other, but if that still happens you failed. Tell how much murders are there total?

 

Maybe because cars aren't weapons designed to murder people?

 

And yet they kill more lives than guns. And almost all were people just living their lives.

 

 

 

My knowledge of all the worlds countries isn't that great to name all the countries that have done such, but you can take all of Scandinavia as an example.

 

And yet if America did not have the revolution those countries may have not had their freedoms. What do you think the "Shot heard around the world" ment?

 

 

I read something wrong. The U.K. has had a higher murder(cold-blooded) total this year.

 

Do you have the exact population of Norway? I just need it for some math.

 

Oh and SkinWalker your theory in some cases works, but the black market can operate differently than a free economy. If someone as a monoply in the market he can sell guns at any price he wants.

 

And all of you please do not tell me the times have changed! So long as there are people that want power the times are still the same. Hitler came to power legally. He took the people's guns by saying that they did not need them that the army would defend them legally. He became a dictator legally. He killed the Jews legally. None of it was illegal.

[Ratmjedi]

I have to say that Gun Control is dumb in my view. I know that there have been arguement's saying that country's with Gun Control have fewer murder rates and less violence. But if a person want's to kill someone he will find anyway to kill other than a gun. Gun's just make it easier to kill people.

 

I think there is a need for Gun's to be allowed. If there are people that want to overthrow the government and the majority want's to they need gun's. Gun's are there for people to protect themselves not only from robber's or criminal's but from the government as well. If the government see's that it can boss you around easily it will begin to take away your freedom's slowly. Many places that want a Revolution can't do it that easily because they have no way of taking the government back.

 

I do not think though there is a need for assualt weapons. We need to make sure that major weapons cannot be on the streets. Those are the weapons that are more used for murders and that kill more. We need weapons but not weapons that can let everyday criminals become soldiers.

[C'jais]

Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider

 

 

Oh, please. Tell if you would become swiss cheese if you try to shoot someone would you do it? And does getting rid of guns stop murders? The object is to stop people from killing each other, but if that still happens you failed. Tell how much murders are there total?

 

I didn't understand the first part.

 

Getting rid of guns does not stop murders, but there'll be fewer of them.

 

 

Do you have the exact population of Norway? I just need it for some math.

 

I've got the population of Denmark = 6 million.

[C'jais]

Originally posted by Ratmjedi

I have to say that Gun Control is dumb in my view. I know that there have been arguement's saying that country's with Gun Control have fewer murder rates and less violence. But if a person want's to kill someone he will find anyway to kill other than a gun. Gun's just make it easier to kill people.

 

Exactly my point. Guns makes it easier, which means more deaths. Take away the instruments, take away the oppurtunity for a quick and easy way to do it.

 

 

 

I think there is a need for Gun's to be allowed. If there are people that want to overthrow the government and the majority want's to they need gun's. Gun's are there for people to protect themselves not only from robber's or criminal's but from the government as well. If the government see's that it can boss you around easily it will begin to take away your freedom's slowly. Many places that want a Revolution can't do it that easily because they have no way of taking the government back.

 

This is where we differ. Why do you feel the need to protect yourself from the government? It's there to help you.

 

And guns are not made to protect people, they're designed to kill. It's a funny world when the tool of death becomes the defense.

 

I do not think though there is a need for assualt weapons. We need to make sure that major weapons cannot be on the streets. Those are the weapons that are more used for murders and that kill more. We need weapons but not weapons that can let everyday criminals become soldiers.

 

Yet it is soldiers you want - you said that people should be able to take back the government, and they certainly can't do that with GLock 17's; they need assault rifles since the government uses that too.

[Breton]

And yet if America did not have the revolution those countries may have not had their freedoms. What do you think the "Shot heard around the world" ment?

 

80% of the world's countries has gotten their freedom without revolutions. And can you mention any other contries exept France that made revolution because USA did?

 

(oh and btw, "America" is not only US, its the entire North&South America, including countries such as Brazil, Mexico, Chile and Canada)

 

I think there is a need for Gun's to be allowed. If there are people that want to overthrow the government and the majority want's to they need gun's. Gun's are there for people to protect themselves not only from robber's or criminal's but from the government as well. If the government see's that it can boss you around easily it will begin to take away your freedom's slowly. Many places that want a Revolution can't do it that easily because they have no way of taking the government back.

 

Wich countries want revolution today? And is revolution nessicerily a good thing?

 

Do you have the exact population of Norway? I just need it for some math.

 

About 4,5 million (2000)

[SkinWalker]

By Gun Control, I'm assuming we're speaking of the United States, since most European countries seem to have sufficient measures that work for them. So all of my comments to date have centered around this, as does this one.

 

Most people I know have an opinion on this topic. They usually consider themselves pro Gun Control measures or against.

 

Unfortunately, I don't see it as that easy of a choice. The U.S. has been a "gun-owning" society for over 200 years and it is a part of our culture. Now my anti-gun friends will say, "it's not a part of my culture," but, whether or not they like it, it's a part of U.S. Society's.

 

For that reason, it will not be as simple as passing a law to make gun ownership illegal or extremely difficult.

 

But the problem remains: gun violence is out of control.

 

1) Many of the crimes and accidents occur by perpetrators who are excluded from gun ownership by current laws.

 

2) Common sense and logic dictate that if someone were to "magically" make the guns disappear, gun violence would become considerably less significant.

 

3) Americans (referring to the United States kind) are not willing as a majority to relenquish the "Right to Bear Arms" as provided by our Constitution, Founding Fathers, and cultural norm.

 

4) Laws that are proposed to restrict gun ownership are vehemently opposed with the help of lobbying groups like the NRA.

 

5) Current laws and consequences for using handguns during the commission of a crime are ineffective. The crimes are still occuring.

 

6) Something still has to be done in spite of points 3 and 4.

 

If anyone disagrees with the above indicated problem or the points that follow (pro- or anti- gun), please post. That's the way I see it. I'd like to be proved wrong on this one.

 

If anyone has ideas on how to solve the problem (from either side of the issue), I'd like to hear it. This is the type of issue that society, especially young people, should discuss. Because, as I see it, government is not going to be able to solve a problem like this without public "push."

 

I honestly don't know where I stand on the gun issue if there has to be one side or the other. If we all had to step out to the polls tomorrow and vote, I'd vote for a ban on handguns. But today, I'd visit the pawn shop and pick up a Glock and a box of ammo and hide it. Shameful isn't it?

 

SkinWalker

 

At least no one's talking about banning lightsabers.....

[C'jais]

Well said Skin. I've realized that you can't just make a law that forbids guns in USA without public consent.

 

What I've gathered from RATM's post is that people over there don't feel the government protects them, and that they have to take it into their own hands - I think this is what needs to change if people are going to stop buying guns for self-"defense".

 

A solution might be to gradually enforce stricter laws on gun ownership; EG age 25, must pass a test etc. Then highten this until it's illegal and people can see that it works. Of course, it actually needs to work, in the sense that the government provides for this lack of freedom.

[Breton]

I can agree that today, it would be quite difficult to ban guns in the US, because they have had it for so long. But it would be much better to ban them today, than to wait another 200 years to try to get them banned, it would be even more difficult then. For it needs to be done. Better to do it soon.

[Ratmjedi]

What I meant in my about Revolution and that we should over throw the Government isn't what I feel now. At point in time some lunatic is going to take over a counrty. I am not saying that it is going to happen anytime soon but if you are unhappy with your government and the majority of people feel like they want change how are you going to get change. Had we not had the right to bear arms in the time of the Revolutionary and Civil War they wouldn't of been possible. We in the Revolutionary war felt like Britain was representing us anymore and they were not looking out for our best intrest's. So we decided that we are going to break away and form our own government were we can govern ourselves and make sure that our intrest's are being fufilled.

 

In the Civil War the South wanted to break away cause they wanted to have slave too while the North did not want them. There were also many other factor's such as financial. Had there not been gun's they wouldn't of been able to try to beak away. It wasn't a good thing cause many people died but they could of broken apart had they won. It fixed a few things and there was a comprimise afterwards so that it wasn't just North getting what they wanted. They also changed some thing's so that the South would atleast get some say.

 

People are always going to have a feeling that the government is screwing them over. There are Anti-Government nuts in every country thinking that the Government is planning against them and the whole nine yards. We have had a major disscussion in my Gov/Econ class and thats were I was getting my info and points from. Once we let the Government take away one of our freedoms what is going to be next.

 

Someone also said that where are there places currently that want to Revolt. Right now off the top of my head I can think of Iraq. I know we don't know much cause they don't let negative media to broadcast there. Like if you watched the news the had recent elections there. Off course Sudam won because he had anyone that had the balls to run against him threatned or retaliation against the people. He has killed a number of his people with biological and chemical weapons. The people don't like him there. The only reason that they can't overthrow him is because the have no way of doing it. The same can go for East Germany during the 50's. The U.S.S.R. had them in fear and they could not try to break away. The same can go for the citizens of the U.S.S.R. They didn't want to be in control by Stalin. They knew how ruthless he was but the people had no way to revolt against him. You never know when the Government is going to have you living in fear of it. I know there aren't many places now but who know's what is going to happen in the near future.

[TheWhiteRaider]

We are loseing freedoms in the U.S. today! Read G. Gordon Liddy's "When I was a kid this was a free country" he goes through listing what he was legally able to do as a kid.

 

One thing that is already in place today is that if someone is called a "enemy" or "terrorist" they lose all rights and can not even try to prove that they are not a terrorist. And all you need to be is just called a "terrorist" or just being said to help the enemy and you lose your freedoms. Go ahead and read the bill if you still doubt it.

 

Getting rid of guns does not stop murders, but there'll be fewer of them.

 

Fewer guns deaths, but there are still knives are there not?