Gun Control

[DarthOminous]

Kryto's I consider all the media even the "Conservative FOX" (BS depends on where you live) to biased.

 

So I'll slow this down for you (typing real slow) I listen and read pro 2nd amendment, literature, I also living in Chicago hear and read antigun literature. I hear both sides, see how that works, then I make under the situation my view point. So I can say w/ unequal regularity I hear the positions and arguements from both sides.

 

besides here, how many of you have read books on pro gun stats? listen to the NRA News.com? Read thier's and others magazines. Granted Im gonna lean 2nd amendment, because I beleive whole heartedly in it, but if a situation tells me it's not logical, when it comes to laws or anything else the boys up there do. I'll say it.

[DarthTofu]

Ominous, is it too much to ask that you write out complete thoughts instead of sentence fragments? If you speak English as a second language I'm certainly willing to accept errors, but the shorthand and randomly placed punctuation is really starting to make reading your posts tedious.

 

What SOCL is saying about owning a gun and its relation to defense is this: Most times that gun will be out of reach. Would you sleep with your under your pillow? In the night stand? In the closet? Unless it's very close to you, your chances of using it if someone wants to kill you are quite low.

 

Krytos has stated numerous times that he is writing from the Australian perspective, and that he doesn't feel that he can accurately represent the United States position due to the vast differences between the two countries; rather, he is providing commentary on how the current gun laws work in his home country of Australia.

 

SOCL lives in Washington DC, and as he's said, he gets most of his news from BBC and NPR, both of which are generally agreed upon to be neutral news networks. He doesn't look for a "side" to listen to so much as the facts and statistics, and takes the extra step of thinking for himself rather than just taking the immediate view of whomever is speaking.

 

A cautionary note to all: Tempers are beginning to flare a tad, so let's all take a deep breath and realize that this debate won't change the world, no matter how angry we get. Calm down, turn Caps Lock off, stop pressing the italics button, and go about this in a dignified manner; I started this for debate, and I'm happy with the debate that's gone around, but it's showing the potential to degenerate into finger pointing and cries of "You're stupid!"

[SOCL]

Ominous, nothing personal, but please do not double-post. Just got back and edit your post unless it's been at least a week or so since your last post. That's just normal moderator stuff, not debate stuff.

 

 

 

 

 

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.

I realize the police won't show up as soon as you want. In Puerto Rico, towards the central part of the island, there are terrorist agents (or were until recently) who do car-bombings against American government dignitaries, and in the past have bombed an Air Force base that use to be there. And yet, around all those crazy Puerto Ricans (who are Hispanics, by most definitions), I don't need a pistol and most white, black, Asian, or otherwise human people don't need guns. Only very recently has the east side of the island become very dangerous, so now the police are trained like soldiers and carry assault rifles on a normal basis in certain parts. Is this safe? Hardly. In fact, not at all. The escalation of the firearm race on my poor little island has only led to more firearm crimes, not fewer, despite the fact, as I just mentioned, the police carry assault rifles. Think of those images you see on the news of our soldiers in Iraq, patrolling the streets. Now take away the Kevlar helmet for a black beret or baseball cap, change the camouflage uniform into a blue uniform with a black Kevlar (bullet-proof) vest over that), and change the tan boots into black boots--and there you go. Hard to believe that is happening in (believe it or not) the United States. For most people, it's easy enough to say, that's happening in one of our territories and not an actual State. Well, fine, if that's where most people want to leave it, there's hardly anything I can do, but how will you like it when it happens in D.C., NYC, Chicago, or L.A. I remember seeing the California National Guard in full combat uniforms in the streets in 1992, walking right past my house. I also remember witnessing forces from the active-duty 82nd Airborne Division patrolling New Orleans in 2005. It wasn't a pleasant sight and it would be foolhardy to say that a firearms escalation couldn't result in that on a near-daily basis, just with police.

 

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.

I hardly understood that, mate. Your punctuation and spelling are flipping me out. I think you're saying that you should just forget about someone breaking into your house because you don't have a gun, right? Forgive me for bringing in the rational advice given by most, if not all law-enforcement agencies, but they advise the public not to fight back. If you want to, that's your problem, but you are more likely to survive if you lay low and let it pass. And I think Tofu hit the issue quite well when he said a security alarm will scare off most people. Heck, even in the areas considered "slums" in places like D.C., house alarms are usually the savior of most lives in robberies and such. And why do you assume you're going to be dead? Most armed robberies do not end with death or even wounding, and yet the ones where people fight back end, overwhelmingly in someone, if not both parties, either wounded or dead. If you like the 50/50 odds of survival and the 75/25 odds of wounding under the concept of mutual annihilation, that's fine--take your life in your hands. That doesn't mean, however, the rest of us should risk our lives because you're walking around with a firearm. You shoot, they shoot, and the innocent bystander dies. Fantastic.

 

besides here, how many of you have read books on pro gun stats?

Forgive me, but did you read what you wrote? That doesn't make any sense! You're telling me to look at explicitly biased statistics? That doesn't make any sense--as much sense as looking at explicitly anti-gun stats. How can you even reason on such a statement? Am I the only one who noticed this?

 

A cautionary note to all: Tempers are beginning to flare a tad, so let's all take a deep breath and realize that this debate won't change the world, no matter how angry we get. Calm down, turn Caps Lock off, stop pressing the italics button, and go about this in a dignified manner; I started this for debate, and I'm happy with the debate that's gone around, but it's showing the potential to degenerate into finger pointing and cries of "You're stupid!"

Deep breath.

Let it out.

Stretch.

Thank you, Tofu, for keeping our heads on straight.

[DarthTex]

SOCL lives in Washington DC, and as he's said, he gets most of his news from BBC and NPR, both of which are generally agreed upon to be neutral news networks. "

Agreed upon by whom? I think they're flaming liberal propoganda machines!

 

And Tofu ... (** points finger **) ... "You're stupid!"

 

 

[SOCL]

SOCL lives in Washington DC, and as he's said, he gets most of his news from BBC and NPR, both of which are generally agreed upon to be neutral news networks. "

Agreed upon by whom? I think they're flaming liberal propoganda machines!

 

And Tofu ... (** points finger **) ... "You're stupid!"

 

 

[Darth_Rob]

SOCL lives in Washington DC, and as he's said, he gets most of his news from BBC and NPR, both of which are generally agreed upon to be neutral news networks. "

Agreed upon by whom? I think they're flaming liberal propoganda machines!

 

I agree. There is no such thing as an unbiased in the news world.

[Exedore_Neo]

That gets a from me. I don't think any media machine out there really engages in a "neutral" stance. Is that even possible? The head of the organization thinks a certain way, and that is the slant.

By the way, anyone else watch the Bloomberg 'State of the State?' last night. Gun Control was touched on...but I can't seem to recall any major points. New York City of course is the lead in American direction. If New York goes a certain direction, it can be guaged that the country will follow it's lead (people follow their money... ). Anyway, the governor followed the Mayor of NYC, but he had almost nothing new or interesting to add. Is it just me or does the Mayor of NYC have a bit more power than the governor of the entire state?

[DarthOminous]

Personaly Id rather go to the gun shop, by a low to medium 38 or a 357 either may do the job to stop a would be intruder, cost 250 to 500 dollars. And then its over with.

 

Alarms can be great, I certainly have no prob with that. But like the home monitoring versions its another monthly bill that eventualy keeps going up.Like we all dont have enough w/ cell phones, cable or whatever else.

 

You can get one that just goes off if someone breaks in, great too. But I just dont trust it as much as my Dog, Especialy power outage, which for most people is probably rare. The dogs ears are something else!, So if he starts up, just as well I know something's not right.

 

As far as the rationality that now I have a gun in the house and it's much more dangerous, I just disagree. Dangerous if you dont respect it.

 

You'll always hear stories positive and negative, we could debate stories of a nut gone crazy vs a person maybe shooting that nut.

 

Someone's gun goes off and hurts someone vs a Home or store owner defending themselves with a gun.

 

All real stories, but consider the immense numbers by which people owning firearms and nothing happens. I'd suppose if you never been around a gun or a gun owner your quite afraid of it. Then your probably going to shake in your boots in states that have right ot carry laws. You've probably been next to people more than you know who are carrying. Unless you get a crazy,good citizens who

have them are not going to shoot you for sitting next to him on the bus! Ha!

 

What's the ratio of legal gun owners in the States to shootings daily?

Now consider the shootings from that daily number, how many were legal ownerships? Which some guy living in Chicago has lost the right to own legaly, but again that doenst stop everyone from getting one anyway if they just want it for protection.

[DarthTofu]

Actually a pretty good chunk of gun crimes are committed with legally purchased weapons. Something north of twenty percent, if I remember correctly.

 

A dog is also a good secondary security system. With a simple alarm security, the noise it makes will actually scare the burglar off most of the time; they just assume that it's hooked up to a full-out anti-theft system. Even the sign saying that you're protected by thing X will sway some of the smarter crooks. As you've said, though, a power outage will render the system inoperable, and not many folks would want to bother with a backup generator.

 

Demographically speaking, though, the power is generally pretty stable throughout the US. The last time I can remember it being out for more than an hour or two was immediately following a category three hurricane.

[Darth_Rob]

If you want home defense, screw the dog or alarm system. This is all you need.

[turtle]

I don't know how much of a problem gun control is outside of the US and living in Cnada where ther seems to be less gun ownership the America.

 

I think that the problem isn't guns themselves it's the idiots who own the guns! (Queen once sang, "A gun never killed nobody. you can ask anyone, people get shot by people, people with guns.") Anyway my point is guns are only a problem when in the wrong hands.

 

Therefore gun control should have a nationwide standard that you need to reach before gun ownership. I'm sure this is already in place! That standard should include a criminal background check and an official letter from a psychiartrist named by the state to certify that they are sane. Once your okayed for gun ownership obviously it'll be regiestered and from there accompanied by a law official you need to put it in a secure gun case. I think it should also be mandatory that a law official need to annually check the security of the gun. Though I doubt there will be the man power for those measures

 

If your gun is lost obviously your going to report it lost but I believe that if a crime is commited with a gun that belongs to you while not in your possession should also have repocussions for you, that is to say that if your spouse kills someone with your guns you get shit for the crime too wether it be a fine or lawful proceeding against you as a acomplice. If you loose a gun and it turns up in a murder case you get fined and a marker is put on record so you can't obtain another gun and any you have since purchased get removed from your possession etc.

[DarthTofu]

I agree with the first bit, though it's a bit extreme to say that you can't repurchase if your gun is stolen and used in a crime. Yes, it needs to be kept under lock and key and all that, but if you're not in the house at the time, a lock and key can only go so far to keeping out a burglar.

 

For gross negligence I think it would be acceptable, but if a professional were to steal your weapon and sell it on the black market, it's going too far to remove that person's ability to purchase another weapon.

[SOCL]

I have to agree with Tofu on that last point.

[turtle]

I guess not being allowed to repurchase a gun maybe a little over harsh. Maybe that should only be a repocussion if the owner's gun is used in multiple crimes.

[CDL_Undertaker]

Though my ideals tend to be more conservative, I like the ideas expressed with how New York State sets their firearm laws. I would be able to get a firearm without too much trouble, but I'll first get my Sportsman's license, so I may actually transport one when I decide to purchase one. Full Carry permits are far more restrictive.

 

(I know the local laws vary, but I'll stick to the strictist laws, which will pass muster throughout the state) As a hunter, my gun must be trigger or action locked, and it must be unloaded and locked in a hard gun case. This goes whether you are using pistols, rifles, or shotguns. If I remember correctly, the ammunition must also be separate from the gun.

 

Go through the background checks and the waiting period, and that only allows you to load and use the gun in the woods. For a Full Carry permit, the margin for blemishes on your record is a lot smaller, plus you'll need to have a very good reason for needing a gun on you. Of course, business owners involving large amounts of cash, jewelry, or anywhere else where large amounts of wealth can be highly concentrated have a shot at this, as well as retired Police Officers, as most of them will be able to retain their Full Carry permits from their time on the force.

 

Now, guys, I'm a bit tired, just tell me if what little I remember about the law is correct, or if I'm off base.

 

 

 

Now, as far as self-defense goes, as long as the break-in doesn't leave the perp in your room, you'll have a chance to load a gun, grab a bat,or anything other deadly weapon nearby if retreat is impossible.

[Darth_Rob]

See, now I have no problem whatsoever with those regulations. My biggest thing is the whole anti-full-automatic weapons and what not that NY bans. On a side note, I also dont like the fact that cane swords, butterfly knives, and so forth and so on are illegal too. I am a blade collector (knives and swords) and those are things I would love to have as a collector. Not because Im gonna go out and use them, but because they would be an interesting piece for a collection, sort of a thing to show off to other people who are interested in knives and swords. The same goes for automatic guns...they are neat to collectors. While I personally wouldn't want an assult rifle or anything of that nature, I would love a full-automatic tommy gun with the drum barrel. That would be sweet.

[DarthTofu]

I collect bombs. I'd love to own a nuke, not use it, but because it would be totally sweet to show off to other bomb collectors! I'm a responsible person, and I have no record of violence, so why shouldn't I be able to own a nuke or an H-bomb, just to look at it and to collect it and show it off?

 

The risk is just too great with some of those things, Rob, particularly the assault rifles. I'm not going to go into the knives bit.

[SOCL]

People want to own knives, fine. I own lots of knives--some are collectible, others are for cooking. Can they fire off 600 rounds per minute, 725 per minute, or 800 per minute, like an AK-47, SAW, or M16? No. Well, damn, I wonder why they're not classified as being as unsafe as assault rifles.

 

I think this has a lot of do with the risk and danger. Rob, no offense, but I do not trust you (or anyone else) outside the military (and even then, not most of them!--and I know a lot of them) with an automatic weapon or any firearm with that sort of rate-of-fire. It's ridiculous and dangerous no matter how well trained you are. You might not commit some crime, but you may misfire or someone might steal your weapon and commit some horrible crime. It's simply not worth the risk.

 

Automatic-fire weapons, in my opinion, should not be permitted outside official military hands and in certain law enforcement situations/agencies. Civilians have no business with these weapons, and non-civilians have no business privately owning them.

[Jahled]

I collect bombs. I'd love to own a nuke, not use it, but because it would be totally sweet to show off to other bomb collectors! I'm a responsible person, and I have no record of violence, so why shouldn't I be able to own a nuke or an H-bomb, just to look at it and to collect it and show it off?

 

The risk is just too great with some of those things, Rob, particularly the assault rifles. I'm not going to go into the knives bit.

 

Well put Tufo, you forgot the bit about having the right to own a Abraham Tank to 'feel safe as you drive the kids to school and to work'

 

To be fair, British society has grown apart from how you lot have grown to govern firearms, I don't really understand your need, but what SOCL said above seems obvious and would make me want emigrate away from such a society.

[DarthTofu]

You'd love some of the views that the extreme right have expressed about Britain with regards to gun control. Apparently CCTV is analogous to Orwell's Big Brother from 1984, and the fact that you aren't allowed to privately own firearms in most portions of the UK points to how you're all viewed as subjects by the overly oppressive government... that you elect.

 

Also, because your Olympic Rifle team had to practice in Switzerland (I think it was Switzerland) while your armed forces can practice at home, you're all opposed to the idea of citizens who are capable of overthrowing their Democratically elected oppressors... The right wing nut jobs out there scare me.

[DarthTex]

... The right wing nut jobs out there scare me.

The left wing nut jobs out there scare me