Gun Control

[DarthTofu]

I think I've started this topic before, but I figure, what the hell, it's been too long since I've torn the forum apart with a controversial topic that gets J and Tex at each other's throats.

 

What's every one's opinion on gun control in America? People from other countries are more than welcome to participate, if only to be a pain and say, "We don't have issues with guns, our country is perfect, nanana boo boo!" We'll shoot you for it because we do have guns, but you're welcome to say it.

 

My views personally lie somewhere in the middle. Any attempts to remove guns from the people will obviously result in chaos and in underground dealings of firearms that will only hurt the general populous. Rather, I favor control. As an essay I recently read on gun control says, one might argue that cars kill people, but cars are not outlawed. However, we require a license for something as dangerous and powerful as a car, and we keep track of who owns which car(s). I favor gun registration and licenses. In no way does this impair the right of a person to keep and bear arms, provided that they are suitable to bear those arms.

 

Presently in my home state, Florida, anyone old enough can waltz into a gun store and purchase a firearm. Quite frankly that doesn't strike me as being appropriate. A psychopath who escaped from prison can buy one as soon as a US Congressman, provided they have the money and don't look too shifty. A license limits the number of persons eligible to purchase a weapon based upon their track record with regards to felonies (obviously a shop lifter would still be eligible, whereas someone involved in armed robbery would not be) and mental status. Registration means that any weapon that is used for a purpose it wasn't initially intended for, such as, say, murder, will more easily be identified from records, and can be traced right back to its official owner.

 

Now, obviously, the second amendment prohibits Congress from passing any law with respect to this, but it says nothing of what the States may do with regards to gun control, as evidenced by the varying strictness of the laws. Congress can choose to twist the arms of the states through the withholding of grants (It worked with federal highway money and the legal drinking age) to encourage this, people can write their state legislators to encourage this, or the whole country can have a wildly divided amendment war on the matter.

 

Anyway, those are my views, and my views alone at this time. What are everyone else's views on gun control?

[Darth_Rob]

I am all for anti-gun regulation. I feel that those regulation laws have gone WAAAAAY to far, especially here in New York. Its insane that I cant own a freakin full-automatic weapon! The way I feel is this: why should the good people be punished for the ridiculous deeds that the minority do? Why should good, wholesome gun owners have to suffer for the criminally insane?!

 

You see, I am for limited gun regulations and restrictions, but for stronger punishments, like increased fine or jail time, depending on the crime committed with the gun. This way, the responsible gun owners are not punished.

 

So yeah, if some dude wants to rob a bank or shoot up someone, then they will do it. Gun regulations do not stop the black market, only maintain it and help it live. If someone wants a gun, they will find it, regardless of what laws are in place. So yeah, I am totally against ridiculously strict gun control.

[DarthTofu]

Uh, Rob? Pulling a gun during a crime is 15 years automatically. Firing is 20 years automatically. If you actually shoot someone you've got 25 to life.

[Darth_Rob]

Well maybe I'll up the ante, be a classic conservative, and say that gun crimes should carry a punishment of the death sentence.

[DarthTofu]

That's a matter of the individual state. Just wondering, why do you feel that you need a full auto weapon to defend yourself? Or need one at all, I suppose, if it isn't for defense? Those weapons seem like they would be best utilized for offensive means, such as robbing a bank or something. The second amendment says that a citizen could own, say, a bazooka, yet I wouldn't feel comfortable if my next door neighbor had one for self defense. Too much collateral damage if he uses it to defend, plus it can, again, be better used for an offensive purpose than a defensive one.

 

A weapon like, say, a pistol, however, is more suited for defense in my opinion. It's small, nearby, and won't be very useful against a cop or two. A guy breaking into your home, though, will have something to think about if you pull your gun on him.

[Exedore_Neo]

In my opinion, the statement "why take guns away from law abiding citizens who would like only to protect themselves and their families" is perfect for my view. Stopping poverty, teaching safe handling of a gun, and fixing the broken education system should be our focus.

Registration and all that is fine, I don't really mind, but the government won't follow it's own rules on that matter anyway.

I think there are more important issues at hand than looking at guns as a problem. Guns are a tool. The problem lies in our economy, our education, and our failing health care system.

Without these factors wearing down on someone, less people will feel that they are trapped and be forced to find a way out by taking extreme measures.

[Moribundus]

Gun control is lesser of the two evils. It has two benefits over free ownership of weapons: first, you can restrict some people from obtaining a gun license (ex-criminals, psychos, irresponsible people, foreigners) and second, you can (must?) keep track of gun owners.

 

Statistics in my country say, that most "shooting" crimes are commited using legally held weapon. This indicates that black market is not boosted as Rob thinks, but on the contrary, it's reduced (or weapons obtained through black market aren't used for shooting people). This also makes police work much easier (if you can identify the gun, you can also identify the person responsible for the crime - one way or another).

 

Also owning a gun has many risks. If your gun gets stolen, you're in big trouble If you draw gun in a fight, you can expect the other side to do the same (or to draw bigger caliber ), so instead of few broken ribs you might end up in hospital with penetrated lungs (the same goes for knives), if you get to the hospital at all.

 

I'd vote for strict gun regulation like they have in Norway - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Norway. It's very strict, but I would sleep a lot better knowing that there aren't any full-auto wielding lunatics running around.

[DarthOminous]

Well most politicians here in the states would stay away from the arguement, Gun crimes are comitted by most law abiding citizens.

Because I dont know about ole' Norway, but here w/ 20 million NRA members that Arguement or accusation holds no truth at all.

 

Of all these shootings that are nuts, criminals or gangs are not by most accounts NRA members. Ive never heard a politician remark about that because it just not true.

 

Also self defense is a huge arguement for the 2nd amendment, but it's not necessarily thee arguement for it. Nor is it necessarily for the protection of a foriegn inveder, another twist on the truth.

In the federalist papers written by the founding fathers they state "Shall not be infringed" means to protect against a tyranical goverment"

 

Now then they certainly didnt trust goverment/ or in their case a monarchy. They knew that the best control a goverment has over it's people is to take away guns from the citizens who otherwise might revolt against, over taxing (Familiar?), persecution of races (like Hitler or Stalin)

any thing not for the common people or tyranical.

 

Hitler Stalin and the Chinese have or had gun control, eh? I'm not saying we are there. 1770's they rebelled against taxation w/out representation, I gotta tell ya, When they give themselves raises and continue to raise our taxes cause they spent to much money, I dont feel represented, do you?

 

People would rather watch american Idol than ask the hard questions of the legislators, so they are pratically unwatched. People have become way to submisive and gun control is another aspect in it.

 

As far as why then do I need a Ar-15 (M-16), An AK-47? or any other?

There again, unless I am a gun dealer or have major licenses (saying they can check my house at any time) I cant buy or own a fully automatic weapon. Everything is semi auto. Like an old WW 2 M1 Garand, should these collectables then be outlawed as well.

 

Im no paranoid about goverment, I just dont support banning any weapons that fall w/in the restrictions I noted, Again it's to protect against a tyranical goverment. I suppose if they let us all have tiny 22's we could rise up against the gov' if they began to take away liberties that all our wars were fought for, all the wars our people died and fought for, that makes no sense.

 

More disturbing is how the more people think we are so much more evolved, the more they blind their eyes to the truth, there will always be criminals, rapists, gangbangers, murderers, and countries who hate everything we stand for. I for one dont choose to be a victim, by invasion of my house, or by country be that army or terrorism.

 

There are many lies to complete gun grabbing on the internet, I choose to weigh them out my self.

[Darth_Rob]

Just wondering, why do you feel that you need a full auto weapon to defend yourself? Or need one at all, I suppose, if it isn't for defense?

 

Dude, its not for self-defense or anything like that. Some people enjoy going to a shooting range and just firing off a ridiculously powerful and awesome firearm. Its just fun to target practice.

[Krytos]

Just wondering, why do you feel that you need a full auto weapon to defend yourself? Or need one at all, I suppose, if it isn't for defense?

 

Dude, its not for self-defense or anything like that. Some people enjoy going to a shooting range and just firing off a ridiculously powerful and awesome firearm. Its just fun to target practice.

 

The counter argument there is quiet simple - why not have said weapons under lock and key at the gun range? They'd be theoretically safer there than in homes and easier to track.

 

Living in a country where gun laws are very strict - I honestly see no reason to own a gun unless you're a farmer or equivalent, and that's too kill animals attacking crops, cattle or to put down an animal.

 

Now, I can't speak for what it's like in America, but here the argument that owning a gun for protection is a no brainer. That being, it isn't going to protect you. Now ignoring the "statistics" that most people who own guns have their own gun used against them in a home invasion, here there isn't a "big"* thing with gangs, robbers etc. with guns. Sure there's crime, and sometime guns are used, yet there's no sense or real danger of being shot (stabbed, well that's different). And there is the general consensus among people here that weapons still aren't needed to protect oneself. Now, that isn't true completely for youths that seem to be getting swayed by this gang like love coming from (god I sound like my parents saying this) a lot of TV and music videos as well as other cultures (a lot has spawned from Asian cultures as well as middle east. And the media loves to fuel this with their usual "fine" upstanding fear mongering). But, that doesn't spread very far - and most of those people grow up eventually.

Now, to give a kind of retrospective, in Australia we have a population COUNTRY wide that'd fit into New York city (21 million, yup only 21 million). So, we don't have the population density of Ameri....any country, so take this as you will. In my city of Melbourne, hearing of someone using a gun for a robbery is enough to turn your head - it doesn't just pass you bye as another news story. A shooting is big news.

Again to compare, here Police carry 9mm revolvers, capsicum spray and retractable batons. Several "community members" and even some police officers have asked for pistols ... but there simply is nothing to back the want by a few. If, god forbid, there is some large scale shooting (where unless there is an armed robbery with multiple armoured offenders, a revolver will do) there's various arms of the police issued with heavy body armour, automatic weapons (mp5's and m4's seem to be the usual - apparently some of the counter terrorist boys have some G36c's), shotguns etc to deal with that problem.

 

I also get the whole firing range thing. It's a power trip. But again, why keep the gun at home? Is there really a need if you're going to a shooting range?

 

I guess, somewhere in there, I'm trying to get at: you just don't really need them (in my opinion, and in my country). Now, before finishing I haven't - and won't - vote in this thread as this is obviously targeted to Americans, and apart from not living there and having little to justify being against guns except that all other countries (to my knowledge) with strict gun control, like mine, appear to have a lot less gun related violence. And, to close, if guns laws aren't the real cause behind this violence, then maybe someone should really look into fixing the true cause in America?

-Yours truly, just an outsider.

 

*What qualifies big?

[Mad78]

I am for regulation and a strict following of who owns a gun and so.

 

But its hard for me to put in perspective because here in Switzerland the governement gives you a gun when you finish your millitary service.

[Darth_Rob]

Come on now K. No one wants to "rent" a gun. If your gonna fire a gun, of course your gonna want your own. Im sure that most people who go to shooting ranges do it for a power trip, and to blow off steam, but so what? That doesn't hurt anyone does it? Like I keep saying, you can't let a few irresponsible people ruin it for the vast majority who are careful and decent people. If some guy wants to collect firearms, then more power to him. Its the same thing as collecting coins, stamps, or Fabergé eggs. Its just something people enjoy, especially where I live in upstate NY.

[DarthOminous]

I hear ya Mad but I also hear tourist's are getting robbed in Aussie and I see reports of a crowd massing at goverment buildings debating that crime and home invasions are on the up, after the gun grab. I will say if you only listen to the media your opinion is natuaraly biased, 1 they present it almost always as the main stream thinks that way, and always show the worst, killings and murders w/ guns to say the least. Which we all know makes for a great story. 2. never show you statistic's that show otherwise, most media very biased for sure.

 

Although it was not the original intention or the 2nd amendment, protecting yourself, family and home were thing so f the norm back then, nowone would have ever even debated that, they knew if a guy bust's in my house they shot his ass.

 

So this is what I ask, daily the media here in Chicago show Gang shootings where innocent kids get shot. What they dont explain is yes, sometimes mistaken Identity, but in the case of kids they dont tell you that many gang members male and female have kids, and they have them out at wee hours! what the hell is that? I know a Public school teacher and she even said the smallest kids already know the gang crap, parents promote it. So thats why many small childeren get shot here.

 

But just as often we hear of elderly people who in Chicago cant own a handy handgun, they almost more or definetly weekly are killed from break in's. Have we no respect for the elderly's right to defend themselves? Why on God's green earth do people expect you to be a victim to a scum bag? God's will is not to kill but I dont think he meant die for your attacker. Oh yeah but you can take solice in knowing that while your dead the law will bring him to justice! That makes me feel safe.

 

The media also never reports the most hanus crimes, crimes that would sway public opinion almost right away. Where 1 or more guys bust in a house beat or kill the father and rape woman and childeren, 1 case recently these guys even burned the bodies to destroy evidence. If big guys bust in and you cant physically subdue them why should you be a statistic no one hears about, maybe if they get you, your wife who otherwise may be defenseless can sure fire a weapon. What is w/ the whole lamb mentality?

 

Criminals dont like getting shot at or killed, trust me, that should be enough to tell you there. Cities are just as important to have guns as rural area's I lie in both, I live in Chicago, drive through bad area's from work, and also have a place in the rural U.P. of michigan. ! in the city lots of nuts, cops only show to pick up pieces (I know some try, but criminals dont wait for cops) and the rural area's are important cause cop's are few and far between. So that's how I feel about it. Idont care to argue just wish people would investigate more besides the media driven opinion, and crap from wikipedia.

 

I read pro gun literature, Radio shows, and listen to statistic's, I do not have to go far to hear the other side, it's crammed down my throat every day in papers and news. How about you?

[SOCL]

I don't see a reason for anyone needing and thus owning a gun. I do not believe that people need a firearm to protect themselves in case someone breaks into the house, especially since the odds of one being able to get to the firearm and using it against a robber are so low because the intruder already has the advantage of surprise. In any event, I personally do not believe firearms are necessary and rather like the way Australia handles it--if I understand correctly, the public can't own weapons. Living in Washington, DC where gun crimes are so prevalent where we lost six kids two days ago to a gun-related crime, I believe that firearms are unnecessary and utterly dangerous in the hands of the public.

 

As for the law, the "right to bear arms" was written in a different time when the idea of arming the people and rising up against the government is a prevalent one. I find it interesting that in many discussions about this topic, conservatives say they may one day need firearms to rise against our government when they are the most pro-USA-government in the nation... Sorry, perhaps that's irrelevant, but this "right to bear arms" is, in my opinion, obsolete in the modern day, and a law should be made to amend this. That being said, I really don't want to see what happens when the ATF, assisted by the FBI and local law enforcement, has to go door-to-door and take firearms from people's houses...or, worse, their cold, dead hands (or however the saying goes). I can, unfortunately, see many of these gun-toting individuals using their firearms against legally-sanctioned law enforcement officers carrying out the law (in the particular hypothetical situation I mentioned). It's not a particular prospect I'd like to see. Still, I believe that fewer firearms will result in fewer firearm-related crimes. And, please, let's not go into this nonsense about needing firearms to protect yourself against people with firearms, because there are going to be guns anyway. The logic to that simply is: "Since there are going to be guns anyway, I need more guns to protect myself against guns." The threat/promise of mutual extermination is, I believe, negative and should not exist (in fact, I think we discussed this before after the Virginia Tech shootings). Granted, the vacuum a lack of guns will create in crimes will likely be filled with knives and bats, but let's be realistic--you are more likely to survive a knife wound or attack with a baseball bat than you are a gunshot. And, if we want to reduce ourselves to the idea of someone using a katana, then let's remember one thing: you have to option to run, something a gun does not afford you.

 

In the end, though, I'm a practical person: realistically, in a country whose founding hinged on the basis of the people arming themselves against the government, firearms are embedded in the culture and are not going away. That being said, they are not necessarily safe, even in the hands of trained individuals and law-abiding citizens, and should, therefore, be regulated and registered, if only to reduce the odds of their getting into the hands of the irresponsible and criminal. If, as people say, law-abiding citizens shouldn't have to give up their guns, then law-abiding citizens shouldn't have anything to worry about by telling the government they own a gun. No one is asking them to say anything more private than the information one gives for the census, after all.

[Lord_La_forge]

Amen SOCL. Thanks for posting this.

[DarthTex]

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

 

Criminals will get a weapon one way or another for their activities. They can care less about the government or its laws. Handicapping law abiding citizens by take away their "equalizer" isn't the answer. IMO, anyone breaking into a house has given up their rights, and deserve whatever fate befalls them.

 

Thanks Tofu for being so predictable yet again.

 

Lock-n-load if ya' got 'em

[DarthTofu]

I didn't think I was being too predictable in my opinion- or did you mean in writing up this topic?

 

As SOCL said, unless you sleep with a gun, you'd have a hard time getting to it if someone entered with the intent to kill you or to subdue you with a weapon when they entered. It might help if someone is just breaking and entering to steal, I suppose, but the majority of those breaking and entering crimes aren't going to be horribly violent criminals. According to Time, I think it was, something like 75% of breaking and entering criminals will just take off running if they find out that someone's in the house and knows that they're in there as well.

 

Heck, a simple security alarm (The type that goes "BEEOOBEEOOBEEOOBEEOO!") will work great for keeping out anyone who's breaking and entering. In a residential area that'll scare the piss out of 'em and have that criminal running 99 times out of 100. In a rural area things are different and it may well be necessary to have that shot gun, seeing as you don't have any neighbors within a good distance, but for somewhere where the population density is high and the neighborhood is decent (This is not counting the high-crime-rate slums of DC and New York) an alarm will scare anyone away.

 

And on top of it all, I'm not even saying that you have to give up your gun- just to register it.

 

Now, then, Rob: The full-auto thing is a matter I'm going to agree with the bandwagon on for once. You can get a great power trip out of having a full auto gun at a shooting range, sure, but what's the huge difference between owning one and renting one to you? You can still shoot it the same number of times as you'd have liked to before, and you don't even have to take care of the maintenance work. The difference between a gun collector and a coin collector is that, unlike coins, guns have another use. A very, very dangerous one.

 

If you want to collect pistols that are more along the self-defense line variety I've no issue, but when you collect assault rifles I feel severely threatened by it. The only thing these weapons can be used for besides venting are their original purposes- killing people in an offensive situation.

[Krytos]

Come on now K. No one wants to "rent" a gun. If your gonna fire a gun, of course your gonna want your own... etc.

When you go to an amusement park, you don't bring your own rides. You go to a car track day and don't own a track car, you rent. If you're just using it to "blow off steam", why own it and keep it at home where it can't be used?

But, at the end there's a huge barrier between us Rob. I mean, in Australia there isn't the massive gun culture compared to the USA, so it might be similar to someone telling me "You don't need a car to get to work, take public transport"..ok, that was a bad example because I do take public transport a lot ... but I'd be annoyed at not being allowed a car. I'm really trying to see your side of this argument, but I'm yet to get a feeling for the need to keep a firearm at home let alone own one

 

I hear ya Mad but I also hear tourist's are getting robbed in Aussie and I see reports of a crowd massing at goverment buildings debating that crime and home invasions are on the up, after the gun grab.

Mad doesn't live in Australia, he lives in Switzerland. Tourist get robbed all the time, not just in Aus... but what's your point? Tourist should have guns now? I don't see suggestion going well in America, let alone in Australia. It's also interesting to note that these robberies dont happen with guns - but with knives and I don't recollect hearing of a death in relation to these robberies. So again, a gun helping the situation? Afraid not.

 

Oh, and the home invasion thing increasing. That's true, but government studies have linked that to the increase of gang mentality and drugs (as pointed out in my previous post) as well as various ethnic groups not wanting to conform with the existing society.

But you've forgotten the most important fact, gun killings are down. Heck, annually we're hearing of crime being down each year - but that's unrelated to this argument.

"There were on average 250 fewer firearm deaths per year after the implementation of the National Firearms Agreement than would have been expected,"

Remember the population, or lack thereof, of Australia after reading that.

I will say if you only listen to the media your opinion is natuaraly biased, 1 they present it almost always as the main stream thinks that way, and always show the worst, killings and murders w/ guns to say the least. Which we all know makes for a great story. 2. never show you statistic's that show otherwise, most media very biased for sure.

 

...

 

I read pro gun literature, Radio shows, and listen to statistic's, I do not have to go far to hear the other side, it's crammed down my throat every day in papers and news. How about you?

Whoa, unless I miss read ... you're countering my argument by saying that the media I listen to is biased (and I'll counter with: the majority, especially non-commercial TV stations (quick side note, we don't have an onslaught of TV stations here for free-to-air TV. 3 mainstream stations, two non and a third ... umm ... public station? I'm not to sure what it is except they've got a show that's just music and a camera looking at a fish tank) news broadcasts are quite non-biased and when debatable situations like gun control come up both sides are shown in the argument) and thus a bad source of information and then you continue way later on with saying you listen to biased pro-gun media and their information is right?

I mean, saying that the general and public information can be biased and thus not 100% correct is a quality argument. But then backing it with saying you listen to an openly biased new sources kinda throws your argument away on the same merit.

Maybe its just the debater in me sparking up?

I personally do not believe firearms are necessary and rather like the way Australia handles it--if I understand correctly, the public can't own weapons.

Guns aren't illegal here, just stricter laws (I think) and there isn't a huge influx of people wanting a gun. Pro-gun supporters have a smaller voice (due to numbers) in Australia than anti-gun. The "general" mentality is there's no need for them.

 

I'm not trying to say that banning guns is a good thing in America, like I said last time, I have no real "authority" to argue that. But I can say, as an Australian, that I believe that the gun buy back, harsher gun laws and change in view about guns has made things better here.

 

Before this thread gets to the inevitable flaming, lets face facts. No-one here is about to change their view, no matter what is said, no matter what is shown.

[SOCL]

Kyrtos, very well put. I think one major difference between Australia and the USA is that the USA was founded on the concept of complete and utter independence, and it hinged entirely on the people having firearms and using them against the government over them--essentially, it's too ingrained in the culture to be changed or even weathered, excluding, of course, years and years, decades and decades (maybe even with a few centuries thrown in). I know this might anger a few people, but I think the comparison is legitimate: look at the flag of Mozambique. It has an AK-47 on it, but why? Because it was the AK-47 being used by the common people against the government over them that gave the people of Mozambique their liberty. I'm hardly saying that the American flag has or should have a firearm on it, but the culture-of-gun is very, very similar in that respect. People in Mozambique view AK-47s rather the same way people in the States, and especially the more rural areas, view shotguns and rifles. It's a cultural symbol, and one that will not easily be erased. In the same way, the machete in Puerto Rico (where I'm from) is very cultural because when the Puerto Ricans rose against the Spanish colonists, they had no other weapons but the humble machetes they owned for harvesting bananas, plantains, and sugar-cane.

 

By the way, Kyrtos, something else that seems to be a recent cultural phenomena in the States is a complete and utter distrust of news agencies, all of them dismissed as being "biased" towards a certain view (note I didn't say "biased to a certain extent"). In most cases, those with a more liberal leaning cite FOX News and most NewsCorps networks as being favorable towards the political-right, while those being conservative leaning believe it is a just and unbiased perspective, and the same applies to CNN, but from the opposite point-of-view. Here in the States, most debates and discussions, unfortunately, end with one side simply dismissing the other based on their source of information, thus ending any true debate of an issue. Hell, it's the reason I watch the BBC and listen to NPR for most of my news--and yet there are those, displeased by a few things either or both of those says, that say that both or either are liberal. After a while, I stopped believing them, and especially the conservative view, because it seemed no one except their favored venue (in the conservative case, FOX News) could be considered objective...whatever objective means--after all, how can you actually measure the concept of "objective"?

 

But I digress...

[Darth_Rob]

OK, all Im gonna say is this. When was the last time you heard about some 5-year old kid finding his dad's automatic rifle and killing his friend with it on accident? How often do you hear about some crazy guy going on a rampage with an AK-47 because his wife left him? The truth is that more advanced, automatic rifles are not purchased by the average Joe. Only two people purchase them: collectors and professional criminals. When I say professional criminals, I mean the guys who spend a lot of time planning a bank heist or something within a group.

 

There is absolutely nothing wrong with people owning automatic weapons. As I keep saying, why harm the rights of the collector because of a few hardened criminals who abuse their rights?

 

As far as guns for self defense go, why the heck not? There is nothing wrong with a guy owning a pistol or rifle in case something happens. Actually, its a necessity up here in upstate NY. Im not talking about protection from people...Im talking about protecting from wild animals. My family owns several hundred acres of wooded area, where my dad and other family members and friends go to hunt. Now, I personally do not hunt, because I hate the idea of killing an animal, whether it be a deer or a squirrel (though I have no problem with eating any animal). However, even though I dont hunt, I still enjoy hiking up them, walking around, relaxing. And whenever I do go for a walk, I have to bring some kind of gun with me, because we have many dangerous animals up here.

 

So yeah, even after I said this, I guess it all comes down to where we're from. Different areas of the world have different "gun cultures" with varying opinions of them. Up here in NY, guns are seen as a good and fun hobby, and the there are plenty of ranges (heck I even on the rifle team in high school). However, the reason that we have such strict (and ridiculous) laws is because NY is controlled by crazy liberal thought radiating out of NYC, which corrupts the rest of the state. Its insane how NYC is so politically powerful that that small island controls the entire state. Anywho, thats my two sense.

[DarthOminous]

Well, you hit one on the head, I am very pro American, Nothing wrong with being proud of where your country excels, comes together and so far standing the test of time.

 

It will never be 100% perfect, And liberties should not be toyed w/.

No I dont mean How "Bush is spying on us" cuase thats crap. They are using survelance on those who have brought a war we are having to adjust to. That is a sketchy topic but, the guide lines they have to follow are somewhat impeding.

 

Be careful, never take what we have here for granted, To say it was written at a different time is dangerous. Perhaps the freedom of all speech may one day be a problem for those up on the Hill, Go down the list and before you know it they could be bastardizing alot more than you bargain for. I love this country but dont underestimate the "Power Corupts and Absolute Power Corupts Absolutely"

 

They already are taxing so heavy it's crushing people on the housing. They always mention first fluctuating mortgage cost's, have they forgotten to tell you that when you pay that inflated price for that home your taxes are grously higher than you neighbors?

 

Listen to the man who play acts as Thomas Jefferson and you'll get the sense we still are the same country as a people.

Until we change our basic fundamentals, that being all men are created equal, and all have the same rights to that of anyone else. We should leave all of it alone. As far as the foreign policy goes that change's w/ constant regularity, Countries come and go, and change goverments as well, so our policy there has to be constantly changing. Untrue when it comes to us within this country.

 

I completely disagree w/ the idea you dead if they get in anyway, Dont take away my chance to defend myself should I so hear or catch an intruder. What if he Pyshically is larger?, Tougher, has a gun? A Knife?

I'm in my house, it should be my sanctuary to live in piece and safety.

 

I dont like big dogs to many problems for me, but if thats your defense as well, well your choice, but my little guy can hear, so I disagree completely w/ he's got the drop on me. If he barks and the guy runs for it. fine, if he come's to me or my family I'll warn him, but If I should feel threatened, Self preservation is taking in my friend. Otherwise as noted I guess I should hope that after calling the cops ASAP, they arive before the guy may overpower me. Thats reassuring.

 

I'd argue that Gang violence is a problem to be sure, But what about violent crimes by way of robbings, car jackings, rape and home invasion to regular citizens. D.C. and Chicago are Dangerous for all these, and yet they are 2 heavy regulated Gun Cities, Hmm?

 

We got gun free zones all over the damn place, but criminals still shoot there anyway, "Hey! ISAID NO SHOOTING HERE!" realy goes along way.

And if you'd ask most of the people in Black neighborhoods who may not be criminals I bet they own a gun, probably not legaly, but they know the reality of the situation best. Ive talked w/ people at work, they say the same, most races get it. I see more oposition from Whites who perhaps from laws existing way to long or by that of a more liberal family grew up not w/ guns and so are deathly afraid of what they have not been around.

 

Go to rural area's where heavy restriction is not in place, and you'll see that most have firearms, Almost no gangs and guess what shootings are rare.

 

The choice as always should be up to the individual.

I dont go around sticking my guns in people's faces so get your gun outta my face is a real intresting topic to the bad guy when he sticks it in your face, just hope he realy fears prison and dont want to be electricuted, but maybe he'll be rutheless, maybe on drugs, maybe fixin' for money for drugs, Whatever, criminals look always for an advantage, the upperhand if you will, if they need that gun they will always get it.

[SOCL]

OK, all Im gonna say is this. When was the last time you heard about some 5-year old kid finding his dad's automatic rifle and killing his friend with it on accident? How often do you hear about some crazy guy going on a rampage with an AK-47 because his wife left him? The truth is that more advanced, automatic rifles are not purchased by the average Joe. Only two people purchase them: collectors and professional criminals. When I say professional criminals, I mean the guys who spend a lot of time planning a bank heist or something within a group.

So your local militia who is planning for the day they have to go to war with the U.S. government are okay? Members of the KKK are okay? I promise, they're not just collectors, if at all. And I'm surprised you might say these things, because kids accidentally shooting their friends or even their parents with a firearm happen all the time. Those cases are accidents, yes, but they happen frequently--not long ago, it happened in Virginia Beach where a kid got a hold of his dads M4, believing it to be an airsoft rifle. The bank-heist scenario, though, Rob, with all due respect, is very, very, very rare. I think the last major bank heist, and likely the only one in recent history, where assault rifles were used, was the Beverly Hills shootout. Someone else in this thread said it quite well: most gun crimes are committed by law-abiding citizens with firearms.

 

There is absolutely nothing wrong with people owning automatic weapons. As I keep saying, why harm the rights of the collector because of a few hardened criminals who abuse their rights?

Quite honestly, I do not believe it's anyone's right to own an assault rifle. If a majority of people feel threatened by it, then it is a threat, no matter whose hands they're in. Assault weapons and other fully automatic firearms were designed with the intention of use for offensive combat, not collecting or for the thrill of having one. There's nothing to stop someone from saying, "Damn it, I hate the world" or "My girlfriend left me, so now everyone must pay!" and taking that assault rifle or Uzi on a rampage. I hate to bring it up, but the Columbine school-shooting, possibly one of the single worst gun crimes of our time, saw the use of at least one automatic weapon.

 

And let me bring something else up. A few years back, living at Fort Campbell, an Army base, a Soldier lost it and took his M4 at his platoon. This was a military installation, and if it wasn't because the local police are also Soldiers with their own assault rifles and training in taking down people with assault rifles, it could have been much, much, much worse. So even restricted to military personnel who are well trained and honed in their use, assault rifles are still dangerous. I would not feel even close to safe if my neighbor or any one of you here on these forums owned an assault rifle. I have my doubts that any of you are trained in their proper use (i.e. hunting, attacking, and killing), and if you are, that makes me feel even less safe. I've been trained in their use and I don't feel safe having them around--hence, unlike many Soldiers, I do not own any firearms.

 

And to add to firearms being unsafe, even in the hands of the well-trained, not too many years ago a pair of former U.S. Army Rangers decided they'd start a career as bank robbers. They used a G4 assault rifle, a Mini-14, and a CAR-15 as their primary weapons, along with an assortment of pistols and sub-machine guns. It took an FBI team of somewhere between twelve and twenty to gun them down because law enforcement are not trained in offensive combat, nor are they trained in defending against those sort of weapons or tactics, which the two Rangers used effectively. Hell, one of them was medically dead for five minutes but was still moving, taking position, and killing FBI agents before he was finally brought down with a well-placed round to forehead. Now, don't give me this "It was the Rangers who did it" because these Rangers would not have been able to do everything they did without the use of those assault rifles. Had they only had pistols, or say no firearms at their disposal, they would not have had the ability to carry out these sort of robberies or kill so many law enforcement. It may be true that people kill people, not guns, but guns enable people to kill people, much more efficiently, at that. I can promise you, what happened in Beverly Hills or Columbine or Virginia Tech or with these two Rangers would not have happened if the most they had at their disposal were katanas and baseball bats. It simply couldn't have happened.

 

In any event, if law enforcement does not have the means to fight it off, then it should not exist, period. I do not believe that law enforcement should then have to arm like soldiers and train like military, because that's nonsense--an arms race with the promise of mutual annihilation is hardly a way to live freely. It's unfair to the rest of us who do not want firearms around us (eh, didn't think we could pull the fair card like you guys can about it not being fair to take your guns away, did ya?). The police and law enforcement should not have to arm up, armor up, and roll out in armored vehicles with assault rifles and other fully-automatic weapons to keep me safe. Hell, if I wanted that, I could move to Iraq or Afghanistan or Kenya or Somalia, and look how well that's working out... No, assault rifles are only dangerous in the hands of the public. The government has the obligation to keep its people safe, and if that means some people are going to cry over losing the use of loosing thirty bullets in a single spray, then so be it! It's nothing worst than the conservative-backed PATRIOT Act; indeed, it's much less of a sacrifice...

 

And if you'd ask most of the people in Black neighborhoods who may not be criminals I bet they own a gun, probably not legaly, but they know the reality of the situation best. Ive talked w/ people at work, they say the same, most races get it. I see more oposition from Whites who perhaps from laws existing way to long or by that of a more liberal family grew up not w/ guns and so are deathly afraid of what they have not been around.

That's right, blame it on race. What an easy way out. Ominous, I live in a Black community, I live in a Black neighborhood, and most of my friends are Black. I also have a great deal of White friends. You know who's scared of who? People in the Black community are scared of White people. They know the reality of their situation, and I can promise you most people outside their situation cannot begin to understand it. Let's stick the facts of gun crimes, please, and not lower ourselves political back-and-forth, and not bring in irrelevant nonsense, like race being at fault and such. If that's the case, well, hell, I'm Puerto Rican. I should own a gun and drive a Toyota right? They're called STEREOTYPES.

 

 

However, the reason that we have such strict (and ridiculous) laws is because NY is controlled by crazy liberal thought radiating out of NYC, which corrupts the rest of the state. Its insane how NYC is so politically powerful that that small island controls the entire state. Anywho, thats my two sense.

So why won't the people of Upstate NY let NYC and Long Island become their own state?

[Darth_Rob]

So why won't the people of Upstate NY let NYC and Long Island become their own state?

 

I'd like nothing more, trust me.

[DarthTofu]

Alright, time to take on the new method: Satire. Sort of.

 

The second amendment gives the right to bear arms. Nuclear warheads can be classified as arms quite easily. Would you feel safe if your next door neighbor could purchase a nuclear warhead? If a fellow in Washington DC could purchase a nuclear warhead? It's just because they're a collector, they wouldn't actually use it. Or so they say. Do you feel safe at all?

 

I'm going to jump ahead and answer for you: No, you don't. Having an H-bomb near the White House or in the middle of NYC or Chicago is a threat to thousands of people. On September eleventh over three thousand Americans died. When the atom bomb was dropped on Hiroshima over ten thousand died. Granted, most second amendment lovers aren't lobbying for purchasing a nuke; they're lobbying for purchasing, as Rob said, an assault rifle.

 

This ties in, though, in how the two are linked. The second amendment certainly allows the people to own both, but owning a nuclear warhead is extreme and dangerous to too many people for anyone to really want it to be available for purchase. Thus, it must be reasoned that at some point the law needs drawing with decisions regarding what is too dangerous for the public to own. The question, now, is where you draw that line. Is a man entitled to own a tank because of the second amendment? A long-range artillery piece? A fully automatic assault rifle?

[DarthOminous]

I mentioned race sir to imply the people I know who live in let's say (not so nice of area's) And even a good friend of mine who is a white man in an all Hispanic neighborhood to say the least. Are armed and for good reason, they know in many cases the police arent showing up quickly, got it, so think again before jumping to conclusions about what I meant.

 

Others would own a gun as well if the laws on regular citizens didnt mandate a felony.

 

Your rational that guns are way to dangerous to have so If someone broke into my house I can just forget it because he's got the advantage and a gun wouldnt do me anygood so I shouldnt have one is the weirdest rational Ive heard yet, I cant wait to tell people that one. Thanks so much because I'm going to wait for the jaw dropping look.

 

So I'm dead but if I owned a gun it could have been worse, :0! intresting.

 

It's all the same my friend.