i¿ Gun Control ?!

[FeelTheRT]

It's not happening anywhere... but just wondernig what your thoughts are? What if one day they tried to make a bill which would outlaw guns to civilian use or efforcing stricter gun laws? BTW, just real guns, not paintball/water/BB.

This is for a debate in school. The affirmative case is they are trying to bann firearms. I'm part of the negative so i have to come up with statistics or reasons/arguments of why guns are good.

Post away

[Cha0tic]

i think gun laws should be very strict, but not outlawed. a ton of psycos get a hold of guns and kill people every year. there are, however, collectors and shooting clubs where you shoot for fun and sport. i think that only certain people should be able to buy firearms (better firearm laws), but they should not be outlawed.

[rifleman]

Originally posted by FeelTheRT
The affirmative case is they are trying to bann firearms.


A school assignment is based around taking away one of our rights?!? Ask your teacher if you can do a different case based on banning the freedom of speech or religion--see what he/she has to say--that just goes to show you how liberal our public schools have become.



Now, on to the arguments, for one check out my sig, and it's extremly true:

Gun Control-Saving our criminals from job-related injuries
--Just imagin how much easier it'd be for criminals to break in a house if they knew that only the law abiding were not going to have guns?

And think about it, when democrats want to outlaw guns, who are they directing it towards?---criminals. So if they make a law banning guns, do you really think criminals are going to follow that law, or maybe only the law abiding?


I'll add tons more, but work calls :)






Adam

[Dude]

I can not understand why people are against gun control. I beleive that the second immendment is grosely misunderstood by the NRA and its supporters. I agree with the NRA though on its support of guns used to defend homes from criminals, but Democrats are not trying to take this protection away from people. They just want a few days for gun store owners to see who people are that want to buy guns. This insures that the people won't get a gun at that moment if they are drunk, angry or high and people with histories of crime or mental illness will not get guns either. You probably will not loose all of your posetions to criminals in the five days it takes for a backround check to happen.

This is not an infringement on a constitutional right for people to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. For proffessional shooters and collecters, why would they need the gun immediately? Five days is not a long time to wait if your just going to put it into a case. Also, if you buy the gun on Monday, and you have a clean record, then you can go shooting with it on the following weekend.

The "guns don't kill people, people kill people" arguement is rediculous. This is so becuase it is so much easier to kill people with guns than any other weapon, that guns and other weapons are totally different and should not be compared.

[Cliffio]

Originally posted by rifleman
A school assignment is based around taking away one of our rights?!? Ask your teacher if you can do a different case based on banning the freedom of speech or religion--see what he/she has to say--that just goes to show you how liberal our public schools have become.


i hate to argue this, BUT im gonna, also i just wanna make clear that i support the NRA, and just have a little problem with that last statement

if u want to talk about liberal, you should realize that what you are refering to is NOT a right, possesing a gun is not a right, its a privlage, there is NO amendment that says that YOU, JOHN Q can own and operate a firearm

it is the liberal side of the law that INTERPRETS the 2nd amendment to saying that you can own a gun when in fact it refers to a "well regulated Militia"

now i dont see any militia around, and if you want to the consitituion literaly then no u do not have a right to own a gun

now yes i realize that this might be full of holes, maybe but it stands true, no bill of rights tells us that we can have a gun no matter what



***NOW, with that said, i would just like to say that i dont know what i would do without a gun, ive owned a gun since i can reemmber and enjoy hunting and everything else that goes along with it, but i wanted to make clear that yes i own a gun, in fact many guns.

Cliff

[ronron2112]

alright, i am very anti-gun control. i believe that we do have a right to keep and bear (sp?) arms. If you look at the books, that gun do save lives. they probably do more good than bad. sure, in the hands of a criminal, the guns arent being used very good. but its not fair to take or limit the guns of a safe shooter. I already live in a bad enough state... we shoudlnt make it worse. the clinton admin. has made some prety stupid laws about it

[Army]

Dr. John Lott, who was a verilant anti-gun person, did a very thorough, scientific approach to a study in which he was trying to make an argument FOR gun control. What he discovered is that more guns in a society, the safer that society is. Read his study in the book "More Guns, Less Crime".

There is no "interpretation" needed of the 2nd Amendment, what it says is straigh-forward and clear. All able bodied persons of legal age in the USA, are members of the irregular militia, whether you want to be or not. However, if you object to this, you are under no legal obligation to exercise this membership. Any form of restriction to access arms is an infringement of YOUR rights.

Many Courts have upheld the wording of the 2nd Amendment to be true, the People have this right, the SAME RIGHTS OUTLINED IN ALL THE OTHER AMENDMENTS WHERE THE WORDS, "THE PEOPLE" ARE USED.

Any Law, by definition, will only be acknowledged and followed by the law abiding citizen. Hence, any law that restricts the citizen, will NOT be follwed by a criminal. No law will stop crime, it's already illegal to kill people, yet many are killed every year on purpose, by many other means than just firearms. It's illegal to rob banks, yet that goes on daily. IT'S ILLEGAL TO ROB ME, BUT I WILL EXERCISE MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, AND STOP YOU WITH THOSE MEANS NECESSARY, and if that means using a gun to stop crime, I will.......and have.

[Webmaster]

The basis of this country is for its citizens to live free. There are various other forms of government where citizens retain a non-oppressive existance, yet still lack certain freedoms we as American's take for granted.

One of these is the right to bear arms. There are several reasons for this - ranging from the ability to protect ourselves from harm (indians, foreign agressors, criminals) to the ability to overthow an oppressive government.

The founders of this nation had no idea if their new republic would float or not. But what they didnt want was for the government to have king like powers and be able to control its citizens to a point of being over bearing and oppresive.

We have enjoyed around 50+ years of peace in this country. We have had wars - but they are far off and distant and never of the caliber of WWII. Most of us are worried about getting double latte at starbucks and making the bus/train to get to work/meeting/class. We worry about having enough money for the new PS2 game or BMW. So many americans are completely oblivious to the turmoil out side this nation. We are content to live our lives in our personal pursuit of happiness.

But we forget the prices paid for that ability. If it wasnt for Sept.11 I dont think a majority of people would give a flying flip about militant islams and terrorists groups. What about the various horrible Civil Wars in Africa? Or the violence in the Phillipenes.

All of this is very real and deadly - but it doesnt effect us. Why? We are free. What do we have to worry about? Certainly not our governement. Sure is a bloated chunk of beauracracy who takes too much of my pay in taxes. But its not like the taliban where one day I will wake up and have to put my wife in a sheet to walk outside. Or it wont be like communist china where I can be imprisioned for my religion or political view. I dont have a totalitarian government, like the warlords in Africa - where my family may be drug screaming in the night and hacked apart with machettes. And it couldn't possibly ever be like Nazi germany, where elite police squads will bust in my door because I dont agree with the current political pary in power.

Ive been given funny looks from people because they cant possibly fathom the U.S. of A. ever becoming like so much of the rest of the world. I tell them I hope it never happens. And the fact that every law abiding citizen can carry a fire arm is our guarentee that our government will NEVER be like those other places Ive mentioned.

People think Im paranoid - I mean what wrong with registering your gun - or waiting periods.

Any limits in firearms are just another brick in the wall so-to-speak. You start small and get bigger and more envasive - soon only criminals will have access to firearms.

Registration nearly ALWAYS leads to banning and confiscation - with the name and address of owners for the police to come around and take that gun. Its happened over and over - The Nazis bragged at the sophistication and thuroughness of thier registration system. Germany would finally be safe for its citizens.

Waiting periods dont do anything. Real criminals will buy a saturday night special for $50 while hes buyind drugs. We already have alot of laws in the books - lets enforce them and not let violent criminals off easy like we so often do.

MOST firearms in our nation are owned by peacefull - law abiding citizens who use them for everything from home defence, to hunting, to target practice. Its the small miniority of criminals who give firearms a bad wrap.

Im rambling here - and I suppose Im on a soap box some of you dont like. I suppose in summery Id just like us all to live free.

[Miscue]

If most crimes are with illegally possessed weapons... what's gun control going to do about it since it deals with legally possessed weapons?

Gun control just makes people think that they are doing something to combat gun crimes... when really it isn't.

You might as well try to regulate stupidity while your at it... :) Start up a well advertised campaign, maybe people will think it's working.

[Cliffio]

miscue- they will:D

people will believe whatever you tell em, so dont be surprised if osama "turns" up dead while we were bombing few months ago, since we made such a big deal out of it, when he wasnt the main target anyways, so im sure they will jsut say, oh hes dead, and leave it be, so that the american people can sleep at night knowing that hes dead

ANyways yeah gun control, boo

[Navy Seal]

Gun control: USE BOTH HANDS!!!!!:D lol.

[bratch]

We may be speaking English instead of Japanese today because of the armament of the American public. Japan opted to not invade the United States because of the fear of facing 100 million angry gun owners.

[Cha0tic]

Originally posted by Navy Seal
Gun control: USE BOTH HANDS!!!!!:D lol.

i love that bumper sticker....

[Minimag4me]

If there were no guns we would use knives and swords. The middle ages were not exactly safe as i recall. Guns are a huge part of our history and will remain to be until something is invented that makes them obsolete. If everyone had guns do you think someone would walk around stealing stuff? Gun laws do nothing but hassel the honest american.

[Navy Seal]

Originally posted by Cha0tic


i love that bumper sticker....

I love it too. Any way I could get it, I would. And, how in gods name did you intelli feed your stock frame? lol.

[infantry4life]

i just did an essay for collage about this topic here are some of the refrences i used hope it helps Did you know that the first gun control laws passed in this country were designed to keep slaves from protecting themselves? After all, you don't chain, lash or sell a person who has the power to prevent it.

Tiananmen Square

The Chinese people do not have an enforceable Bill of Rights: they do not have the right to speak freely, to peaceably assemble, to petition the government, to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, or to have an impartial and public trial. In April, 1989, the Chinese people bravely demanded these freedoms. Unfortunately, they do not have the right to keep and bear arms, either. As the world watched in horror, the Communist tyrants crushed the unarmed demonstrators like so many insects.
Rights are worthless without the firearms necessary to defend them.

By Steve Silver

Gun Control:
Legacy of Blood

Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot these men supported gun control

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

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

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

Germany established gun control in 1938. From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews and other "undesirables" who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

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

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

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

Gun control didn't make any of the 56 million (that's 56,000,000) people exterminated in the Twentieth Century safer. Gun Control didn't protect the 16,914 Americans murdered in 1998, or the 18,208 murdered in 1997, either.

Gun control simply created millions of disarmed, defenseless victims.

Gun control kills.

http://www.guntruths.com/Resource/facts_you_can_use.htm
http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~zj5j-gttl/guns.htm
http://i2i.org/SuptDocs/Crime/istraces.htm
http://www.guntruths.com/Resource/Posters/Whose_side.htm
http://www.claremont.org/gsp/gsp60.cfm

hope it helps

[deded]

Originally posted by ronron2112
they probably do more good than bad.

I hate to be on what seems to be the opposite side of pretty much everyone, but I definately disagree with this. Guns kill people, period. Whether they are defending your family, robbing a bank or fighting a war, guns shoot bullets that kill people.

And I am so sick of the unAmerican 2 sided argument. Demorats vs. Republicans, Conservatives vs. Liberals, Gun Control vs. anti-Gun Control.

If you really want to be free, just picking the most popular side or the lesser of two evils just doesn't cut it. Think for yourself, be creative.

"I am afraid of people killing me and stealing my stuff, so I'll get a gun to protect me"

is equal to

"I am afraid of people killing me and stealing my stuff, so I'll pass a law that says you can't have a gun"

How about some thinking "outside of the box" like immediate stop of production of all bullets. Although this is definately a stupid solution, at least it is different.

The laws as they are obviously don't work, and the laws that are proposed have some obvious flaws.

You are just as opressed as someone in a less fortunate country if you believe that you are thinking for yourself when you actually are not

;)Sorry I went off on a rant, but I believe that the ideals that this country holds so dearly are fed to us at such a high rate that we forget what they mean.

Freedom, not follow the leader.

[InfinatyBPS]

guns don't kill people, people kill people, if someone is inetent on killing you, you think not having a gun is gonna slow them down? I know it wouldnt slow me down any...:rolleyes:

[bofh]

FeelTheRT,
Try reading this book, "The Samurari, the Mountie and the Comboy."

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0879757566/qid=1014738038/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-6871953-7704830

It compares different countries (with and without) gun control to the USA.

For example, In Switzerland, the purchase of semi automatic rifles and shotguns requires no permit, and adults are free to carry them. Handguns can be bought with firearm purchase permits, which are issued to all adults without a criminal record or a history of mental illness. About 40% of Switzerland's cantons do not require a permit to carry a handgun. Switzerland has a citizen militia where most all men between the ages of 21 and 32 are required to keep fully automatic machine guns in their home.

Comapred to Italy, which has the most restrictive gun laws in Europe and the firearm homicide rate is twice that of Switzerland's. ***Edit*** I've got one source that says 30 times the rate. I'm not sure how old that is, the double rate is from 1997. ***

Unfornately, the question if gun control is good or bad can't be proven beyond a doubt to either side. Otherwise, we wouldn't be having this debate :) However, I believe that gun control won't help our country with gun violence.

[Miscue]

<B>*Miscue is against strict gun control laws, but is all for laws restricting use of tight fitting clothing.*</B>

Now there's a law we could all benefit from. :)

[Mango]

I live in NJ, the worst state to live in as a Lifetime NRA member and avid gun owner, shooter, and my dad collects WWI and II era rifles. Kevin Nappen wrote two EXCELLENT books on Gun Control (Mainly aimed at the laws in NJ and how rediculous they are). One law states that, if a parent/friend/relative were to purchase a firearm as a gift, and give it to the person, then they would be charged with Gun Trafficing and be subjected to over $100,000 in fines and face possible life imprisionment. Pretty rediculous huh? I hate this state. As soon as I can get out of here, I am.

[Hasty8]

so I have not read the entire thread. If I am repeating something already said, well, sorry about that.

Just so everyone understands, I am totally and one hundred percent against current gun control laws. To make that even clearer let me say this:

Gun control laws, as they are worded and enforced now, do absolutely nothing to stop the true perpetrators of gun crime. They do nothing to stop the criminals.

Let's face the facts folks. Honest and law abiding gun owners are not the ones that are out there committing murder.

First off, gun control laws will never work unless they are mandated at the federal level. I don't care how tough gun laws are in New York. If I can go to Georgia and buy a truckload of semi- or full-auto firearms and then sell them on the streets of NY then what's the point of even having them [gun control laws]?

It's a joke.

Secondly, America cannot ever do away with firearms. Why? Because unlike the rest of the Constitution the Bill of Rights is intransmutable.

Let me say that again. The Bill of Rights cannot, legally, in any way what so ever be changed. Some will say that concept alone deletes all forms of gun control. They are wrong.

The Second Amendment clearly states that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Some people who see that state that the army is the well-regulated militia. Again, they are wrong. During the time of the Revolutionary war there was the Army of the Union and the Militia. The Militia was made up of freemen who could come and go as they pleased without fear of being charge with desertion or some such charge. The second Amendment does not say "the right of the army" or "the right of the government". It says "The right of the PEOPLE"

"THE PEOPLE"
"THE PEOPLE"
"THE PEOPLE"
"THE PEOPLE"

Read it a thousand times and it still says the people.

In a nutshell, the genius behind the 2nd Amendment is that the citizenry should be allowed access to the same types of weapons as the military in order to prevent against a government turned tyrannical. Does this apply to missiles and bombs and airplanes and nukes? Of course not. Don’t be ridiculous. But this does mean that I should be able to get a semi- or select-fire weapon if I want one.

There are a few other points that I would like to make but as I said I’m at work and Big Brother is watching. If you want any help on this topic drop me a line at nynetguy@onebox.com

[Hasty8]

Originally posted by Cliffio


i hate to argue this, BUT im gonna, also i just wanna make clear that i support the NRA, and just have a little problem with that last statement

if u want to talk about liberal, you should realize that what you are refering to is NOT a right, possesing a gun is not a right, its a privlage, there is NO amendment that says that YOU, JOHN Q can own and operate a firearm

it is the liberal side of the law that INTERPRETS the 2nd amendment to saying that you can own a gun when in fact it refers to a "well regulated Militia"

now i dont see any militia around, and if you want to the consitituion literaly then no u do not have a right to own a gun

now yes i realize that this might be full of holes, maybe but it stands true, no bill of rights tells us that we can have a gun no matter what



***NOW, with that said, i would just like to say that i dont know what i would do without a gun, ive owned a gun since i can reemmber and enjoy hunting and everything else that goes along with it, but i wanted to make clear that yes i own a gun, in fact many guns.

Cliff

Cliffo. Gotta argue with you on this one. Re-read the Second Amendment.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Point one. in 1776 the Militia was not the army. The milita was the baker, the butcher and the candlestickmaker who could not leave their family a business to go fight in a war but would instead fight locally, often with the Revolutionary Army. These "militia-men" were able to come and go, as they pleased without fear of being charged as desserters.

Point Two. "The right of the People" Not the right of the government or the army or the military or anything else but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

This was said to make sure that the American populace would forever be protected against a domerstic government or entity turned tyrannical

Point Three. The Second Amendment is contained within the portion of the Constitution entitled "The Bill of Rights". These are the ten Rights that all Americans have and should never be infringed upon, especially while on American soil.

The freedom from persecution, unreasonable search and seizure, illegal detention, of presenting self incriminating evidence and the right to keep and bear arms are all rights.

Now I do not say that tomean that everyone should be armed to the teeth. I certainly feel that there are certain individuals in our society who should not have access to plastic knives so much less a firearms.

I do feel, as I stated in my above post, that the current gun control laws are completely usless and gun control will never have any real effect so long as it is left to the individual states.

[shartley]

Many good points brought up here. Good job guys.

Now… think about this….

Gun Control will NOT stop violent crimes in America. People who think so need to do simple research. Were the guns used in the crimes legally purchased? Were the crimes committed by people who up to that point had committed NO other crimes, violent or not?

Violent crimes in the United States have to do with society, NOT guns. The same crimes would be committed, but with a different weapon (assuming the criminals can’t even GET a gun). The crime is about the crime.. NOT the weapon used. Too many people what to focus on the WRONG things… the weapon, the victim, the childhood of the criminal, etc. Get real! How about focusing on the CRIME. Take care of the CRIME and you don’t have to worry about the weapon.

Also, if you really look at it, the ONLY people affected by any Gun Control Laws are those that OBEY the Laws…And those obeying the laws are NOT the ones committing the crimes… and they would be the ones hurt by not allowing them to have the choice. And I think that is where I stand.. CHOICE. If YOU don’t want to own a gun, fine…. but don’t even attempt to prevent ME from owning one…. or try to take mine away.

[bofh]

Originally posted by shartley
Violent crimes in the United States have to do with society, NOT guns

This also goes for the whole world not just the US. A lot of other countries are going through the same gun control debate. All trying to lower their crime rate.

In a perfect world, you could ban the manufacture of firearms, but, you'd also have to ban war, crime and perhaps crossbows. And you'd have no way to enforce it. :)

However, I think that the laws needed bring about a lower crime rate, might be much worse than gun control laws.

The UK currently has thousands of cameras covering the streets monitoring the people and cameras monitoring the roads (digitally reading the license plates to track cars...) Now imagine something much more invasive, something that the police could use to prevent crimes...

It's a lot scary than gun control, and it's something that will attempted.

[Army]

Well said Shartley.

[Splat Max]

Like someone said, criminals already break the law, and optain guns illegally, the only thing gun control will do it make it safer for criminals. Since they outlawed guns in australia crime has risen dramatically. I'll post the stats when I get home. There will always be a black market, thus all criminals will still be able to get guns, gun control will just hinder lawful citizens from getting them. And guns are used to prevent crime much more than they cause deaths, again I'll get those stats when I get home as well. Somebody said, "hey it's just a few days' waiting period" (somethink like that) well the thing is that, that's just a start, do you think they will stop there, no then they will go for registering of all firarms, then to outlawing handguns, then to rifles, then to shotguns, until they've outlawed it all. These democrats and antigun people, know they can't just get an outright ban, so they try to work it little by little. Don't give them anything, because they won't stop.
My $.02

[ronron2112]

the weapons only play a minor role in crimes. People kill people. theres no way around it.

[Dude]

It seems to me that the people who have an arsenal of weapons or even a few rapid fire ones, specifically for home protection, have these because they want to kill someone. I seems that these people really desire for someone to break in to their property just so that they can blow the person away with their vast arsenal of fire power.

How can you people compare guns and any other weapon? Especially those of you with military, law enforcement or medical backgrounds. This comparison should not be made and is completely rediculous.

GUNS KILL a whole lot more people than they save. How could a gun save a life?, aside from the obvious reason of stopping people from using some other more deadly kind of weapon.

The Democrats don't want to take away citizen's rights to bear arms. They just want to keep them away from criminals because it is ok for some people to have guns, just not everyone. Why is it so hard for people to wait five days to get their firearms.

I can't wait until we get a decent president, then maybe we will be able to get some of these life-saving laws passed.

P.S.

Who said that thing about the Japanese not invading the American mainland because they were afraid of American gun owners?

I just want to know because it was the most ignorant thing I heard today.

[bofh]

I'll only this little bit right now, cause I'm tired.


Originally posted by Dude
Who said that thing about the Japanese not invading the American mainland because they were afraid of American gun owners?

I just want to know because it was the most ignorant thing I heard today.

Well, it is attributed to Commander Robert Menard while aboard the USS Constellation when he was part of a meeting between United States Navy personnel and their counterparts in the Japanese Defense Forces. An anonomous Japanese Admiral is quoted as the source but of course no name is given. I honestly don't think it's true. The Japanese could never have held any land in the US, and there basis for war at the time was holding land for resources. So was that the reason the Japanese didn't invade? of course not. Was it a contributing reason? Maybe.

You also might wish to wonder why the Swiss weren't invaded during WW2. It just so happens that the very same reasons apply. Except the German could have occupied Switzerland without a problem. And German had many reasons to take the Swiss.

This book "Target Switzerland" has amoung other things, puts foward the reasoning, that it would cost Germany to many lives to invade the Swiss. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1885119534/qid=1014775286/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_7_1/002-7491139-0754421

As for the most ignorate thing you've heard all day, well, I guess you don't listen to Mancow.

[shartley]

I wish some people would do a little research before posting.

Knives have killed more people than they have saved as well.

Baseball Bats have killed more people than they have saved as well.

And the list goes on…..

Want to talk about dangerous? How about looking at the stats for car fatalities? How about for dog bites?

People have always found ways of killing each other, and long before firearms. It DOES come down to crime and criminals, and not the weapons. And by taking away the average person’s ability to own a firearm, you take away the average person’s ability to defend themselves.. if they so chose.

Now, as someone with both Law Enforcement AND Military as a background, I can say without a doubt that I have NEVER been afraid of a person legally owning a firearm. And to think that gun owners want someone to break into their homes so they can blow them away with their “arsenal” of weapons is just ridiculous. I don’t know anyone who wants someone to break into their house. And if someone WAS breaking into my house, I would first let them know I was going to defend it and my family…. AND I would not do so charging around like Rambo with a pistol in one hand and a machinegun (or rifle/shotgun.. whatever) in the other. And I can tell you that even though I carried a loaded “rapid fire” weapon EVERY day, I never desired to kill anyone with it.

I suppose with that mentality, those who own cars with airbags in them want to run into other cars so they can deploy their bags? Or those of us who keep fire extinguishers in our homes want our houses to burn down?

And unfortunately Police work is mostly reactionary. That means that the crime has ALREADY happened and the police are only acting because of it. Seldom is the situation presented where the police can stop something while it IS happening, or before it does. This leaves the private citizen responsible for their own immediate protection.

How about this? You can protect your home and family with lofty ideals and “life-saving” philosophies, and I will protect mine with my 9mm. It is your choice, as it is mine. And each of us has to live with our decisions, or not live, whatever the case may be. I am not some gun toting fanatic, or some paramilitary nut…. I am just a man who knows how the real world works. And because I have seen it first hand.. the good and the bad.. the ideals, and the unfortunate truths…

How can a gun save a life? How many lives have been lost by criminals shooting people? And how many times has a criminal killed someone and ONLY one person? Most criminals commit crimes their entire lives, victimizing one person right after another. Now what if that criminal was shot and killed while trying to take the lives of others the FIRST time? How many lives would have just been saved? I am in no way advocating killing people, but to think that guns don’t save lives is just silly. And to think that gun violence is a random act unto itself is just not looking at the facts.

And the minority of society causes the majority of problems… so punish the majority for it? So, some folks not only want to punish the majority for it, but prevent them for also protecting themselves from the minority that caused them to be punished? Where is the logic in that?

I could go on.. but I think we all get the point. Please people, before posting at least try to formulate a logical and rational argument or opinion… based on facts. I don’t have a problem with opposing views. I just don’t like baseless rhetoric that only hurts our great country and our right to protect ourselves using means equal to or greater than those wishing to harm us.

My aim is not to offend anyone, but to open eyes.

[AGDmagman2001]

Here is a copy of a letter I wrote to the editor of a local paper:
Research shows that there 2.5 million uses of guns for self-defense. The research on how many times guns were used for self defense was done by John R. Lott, professor in Chicago School of Law, democrat supporter of the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union), who has never been an NRA member. He did the research to find facts to support his anti-gun view and to his surprise came up with the number 2.5 million on how many times guns were used for self-defense annually. Following the completion of his research he wrote a book titled, More Guns, Less Crime. Criminals cause 13,000 deaths annually with guns; this compared with how many times guns are used for self-defense is more than enough reason to support and keep the 2nd Amendment. I looked at several different sources and have found what is said to be the most accurate research.
Our founding Fathers knew the importance of having an armed citizenry. Guns have been around since this nation was founded, but there have not been shootings in the schools until recently. The movies of today have been polluted with murder, crime, killing, immorality, and all other types of violence. The public schools teach kids that they evolved from animals. We kill animals for food and other purposes, so if they believe that humans are just animals, why would they place value on human life. Guns are not the problem; the root problem is a moral problem. Taking away guns is not going to make America a safer society. Just take a look at what happened in Australia.

One year after gun-owners were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed, including semi-automatic .22 rifles and shotguns, a program costing the government over 500 million dollars, the results are in. A dramatic increase in criminal activity has been experienced. Gun control advocates respond "Just wait... we'll be safer... you'll see...". OBSERVABLE FACTS, AFTER 12 MONTHS OF DATA:
 Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2%
 Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6%
 Australia-wide, armed-robberies are up 44% (yes, FORTY-FOUR PERCENT)
 In the state of Victoria, homicides-with-firearms are up 300%
 Figures over the previous 25 years show a steady decrease in homicides-with- firearms
 There has been a dramatic increase in break-ins-and-assaults-of-the-elderly
 At the time of the ban, the Prime Minister said "self-defense is not a reason for owning a firearm"
 From 1910 to present, homicides in Australia had averaged about 1.8-per-100,000 or lower, a safe
 Society by any standard.
 The ban has destroyed Australia's standings in some international sport shooting competitions
 The membership of the Australian Sports Shooting Association has risen to 112,000, a 200% increase,
 in response to the ban and as an attempt to organize against further controls, which are expected.
 Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain how no improvement in "safety" has been
 observed after such monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in "ridding society of guns". Their response has been to "wait longer".

We must defend our right to keep and bear arms.

[steveg]

After a few minutes at Google.com I found a few fascinating
ideas

After Canada stopped capital punishment (by hanging) in
1976 the murder rate has more or less steadily declined
ever since

The states with the death penalty have the highest murder
rates, and often the murder rate increased after reintroduction of the death penalty.

States without the death penalty usually have lower murder rates.

From this you "could" conclude that the death penalty causes murder to happen.

States with the highest murder rates also have the highest
church attendance

From this you "could" conclude that church attendance leads
to murder

I suspect that these conclusions are wrong.

Canada has about 1/3 the murders that the US (per 100 000) has, that must
be because We have no guns. Wrong,In the murders that do happen guns are used almost as often

Guns cause murder
Guns prevent murder

Both are too simplistic, guns do undeniably make murder very
easy compared to other methods.

To use more false logic. If guns, especially hand guns caused less crime.
why Does Canada have less crime than the
US. handgun ownership has been regulated since 1930.(Oh and we
still are a democracy)

Lots of ideas have been presented in this thread to show guns do not cause crime. fair enough

Others have tried to show that guns prevent crime. Wishfull
thinking at best.

http://www.shadeslanding.com/firearms/cramer.murder.html
An interesting article

[shartley]

Very good post…

I would like to add however (so there is NO misunderstanding as to MY position) that I do not think gun ownership reduces crime, or prevents it…. at face value. However, I do believe that if someone is going to be victimized, that they deserve the choice to either protect themselves with a firearm, or to not. The criminals should not be the only ones who have this “luxury”.

I like how you bring into focus the desire by some to make things into absolutes just to prove a point. Nothing has absolutes, and a skilled wordsmith can take almost anything out of context to prove any point they want to… and quite easily.

I would like to add that I am very pleased at the maturity this issue is being discussed with.

[tsc]

As was pointed out earlier in this thread, the right to own firearms in a constitutional one. Maybe your teacher ought to reconsider the assignment its self.

No matter how many laws you pass to regulate guns, only the law abiding citizens will follow them! Do you think the criminals aren't going to have a feild day with every one unarmed but themselves?


I'm part of the negative so i have to come up with statistics or reasons/arguments of why guns are good.

So they are saying that of you are pro firearm you're in the wrong? Good greif.

Time to go. I'll post more later :)

[Webmaster]

"The Democrats don't want to take away citizen's rights to bear arms. " said by dude...

oh - you are so wrong - you really need to pay more attention. In fact during the Clinton administration the Attorny General's office made a statement that they do not interrperet the 2nd admendment as securing INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS the right to bear arms.

Thank god Ashcraft has since reversed that backwards way of thinking.

A gun is tool - and like many many other tools, from screw drivers to hammer, they can be used to kill someone. Criminals will ALWAYS use these tools for bad. Think England is such a cherri-o place to live? Why is it in London that Crime is the #1 complaint by its citizens. Why are there so many assaults and muggings? Why are even CELEBRITIES attacked by knives in thier own houses? With no guns you would expect it to be a virtual utopia!

Because - with out private ownership, any small group of hoodlums with a knife or steal pipe can beat and subdue just about anyone else.

Criminals interviewed in the usa will tell you they avoid shops where the owners knew to be carring guns - and would avoid breaking into home where the owners were armed.

As the old advertisement used to say "God created man, Colt made them equal."

[Cliffio]

Originally posted by AGDmagman2001
OBSERVABLE FACTS, AFTER 12 MONTHS OF DATA:
 Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2%
 Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6%
 Australia-wide, armed-robberies are up 44% (yes, FORTY-FOUR PERCENT)
 In the state of Victoria, homicides-with-firearms are up 300%
 Figures over the previous 25 years show a steady decrease in homicides-with- firearms
 There has been a dramatic increase in break-ins-and-assaults-of-the-elderly
 At the time of the ban, the Prime Minister said "self-defense is not a reason for owning a firearm"
 From 1910 to present, homicides in Australia had averaged about 1.8-per-100,000 or lower, a safe
 Society by any standard.
 The ban has destroyed Australia's standings in some international sport shooting competitions
 The membership of the Australian Sports Shooting Association has risen to 112,000, a 200% increase,
 in response to the ban and as an attempt to organize against further controls, which are expected.
 Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain how no improvement in "safety" has been
 observed after such monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in "ridding society of guns". Their response has been to "wait longer".

facts schmacts! facts can be used to prove anything REMOTLY true--homer


holla
Cliff

[steveg]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Sarah, strictly speaking it's an amendment and not part of the original body of the constitution.

As for the validity of the class assignment why not ?

The constitution is a set of rules, not some law of nature that cannot be changed or altered.
The fact that 200 years later they are still used show that they worked quite well. but they were
amended, a few times.

If an idea cannot stand up to free and public debate, or the supporters refuse to allow its debate, it does call into
question the validity of the idea or the motives of the idea's supporters.


Is there anything about gun ownership that is exempt for this?

Is there ANY idea that is exempt for this?

Can you call yourself a free and open society if you try
to dissallow debate?

end of lesson
;)


We may be speaking English instead of Japanese today because of the armament of the American public. Japan opted to not invade the United States because of the fear of facing 100 million angry gun owners.

The Germans couldn't get across 30 miles of water
you/we (canadians) were probibly ok

[Army]

Steveg,

"Sarah, strictly speaking it's an amendment and not part of the original body of the constitution."
Wrong. The Constitution was not ratified, until the first ten amendments were agreed upon by the states in session, in 1791. That makes them an original function of the Constitution. Known as the Bill of Rights, they are indeed natural laws set down as mans law. You have the right to say, read, print, worship, gather, and raise non-violent dissent. The same as you would with NO government, however the Bill of Rights guarantees the our Govt. can not take those rights away, nor restrict them from you. The Bill or Rights has never been amended, it is still in the original form.

It is accepted by Constitutional scholars, that the 2nd Amendment gives teeth to the people, so that the US Govt. is essentially powerless without the explicit consent of the People.

The goal of the founding Fathers, was that "every man be armed" (George Mason), and should the US Govt. decide to become more than what it should be, then the armed militia should remove that body of Govt.

Thomas Jefferson said: "Let it not be interpreted, that the people shall be without arms." Now remember, the Constitution was written in the time when men still carried swords as a matter of course and fashion. Those too, are arms under the 2nd Amend. Should the 2nd be abolished, then ANY form of weapon can be construed as to be an "arm". If you defend yourself with a pitchfork from a criminal, you can and will be charged with federal weapon violations.

I understand this sounds pretty silly now, but rest assured that it was not 211 years ago. Many did not have a gun, and actually went to war with whatever they could wield. Crispus Attucks had a large stick in hand when he forced the British to fire upon the crowd, killing him and four others, which became known as the Boston Massacre.

"The Democrats don't want to take away citizen's rights to bear arms. They just want to keep them away from criminals because it is ok for some people to have guns, just not everyone. Why is it so hard for people to wait five days to get their firearms."
On it's thin shiny surface, this is true, but the word you want is Liberals. Not all Democrats are Liberal, but all Liberals are Democrats. To pass any law restricting your access to anything, will do nothing to stop a criminal, NOTHING. While I, Joe Citizen in California, must register my self-loading weapons, FELONS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO! A Liberal led Supreme Court in 1970 said that for a Felon to register his gun, would violate his 5th Amendment right against self incrimination! What is so bad about that? Felons, by law, can not possess firearms! Making him register it would tell the Police that he has a gun!

Now who does your simple, reasonable law affect? Yep, you and me, and does nothing about crime.

Cliffio, I hope you are kidding with the Homer quote. Those stats are from the Australian equivilent of the FBI.

[ronron2112]

wow army knows alot i dont think you could beat him... :p do you know allthis stuff off the top of your head? or do you lokk for it?


*note to self: Do not get on Army's bad side... I will not win...:p *

There are soo many new gun laws being proposed in MA thats its almost hard to keep track of them. Some guy that i know, he was driving into mass from NH and he had a browning shotgun with him, it was in an aluminum case with a trigger lock, and 3 locks on the out side. He got pulled over for speeding, and he almost got taken to court, casue he didnt follor the "safe" rules or somthing,,

[zads27]

I think the easiest and strongest argument to think about is this:


Imagine some Senator, we'll call her Senator Feinsteen, Outlaw firearms. What happens?

Law-abiding citizens turn in their firearms, because that's what they are.
Criminals keep their firearms, to further their own means. what do they care about the firearms being outlawed? They are criminals, they don't follow Feinsteen's laws.

So now what? criminals with firearms, law abiding citizens without. Simple as that for me.

[tsc]

RonRon: It's all off the top of his head. He knows so much, its scary! (Sure helps with my homework though:))

I'm not against gun control. Well, MODERATE, NEEDED gun control. If 5 y/o's are walking around with Uzi's..well okay, you need some regulations.

Do you realize most of the "new" laws they pass are already on the books?

OH! Someone got stabbed, we better pass a gun law!!

I've been in quite a few debates about gun control, and I find myself one of the very few people who 1. have been around firearms all their lives or 2. those people who actually care about what's happening in the world. I've often gotten reactions like "Oh my god, how can you shoot things, that's so EVIL!" "Uh...It's paper targets. Get over it." Is my usual response :)

After the events at Columbine, those 3 or so people who know I shoot advised me not to say anything about it. I totally agreed. Just my luck, I would get suspended for saying "gun". Many people are using Columbine as an excuse to further regulate guns. The person who bought it for Kleibold bought it legally. It was the responsibilty of the PARENTS to look into their kids room and see the pipe bombs littering the desk. You mean take responsibility for being negligent parents? The horror. :rolleyes:

Yes, gun control is good, in moderation. As I said before, only the law abiding citizens will follow the laws! It's not rocket science people. Well, Physics maybe. Newtons law..Objects in motion and so on? It's the same with people. Do you think all of the sudden all the gangsters and murderers will start following the law just because its a gun law? Give me a break.

Yes, I shoot. BIG DEAL! I'm not going to go postal and shoot up my school. There is a big difference between a target shooter and a psychopath. :)

[Dude]

First, I have nothing against the gun owner that is law bidding. Also, I think that my family should have a gun because we live in the city and if people decided to break, we couldn't do a thing about it. That being said, I really think that a lot people who have guns like assualt rifles just for home protection really want to kill someone and even subliminally hope that someone will break in so that the homeowner will get the oportunity to kill the criminal. I think that one 9mm gun is practical, but a high power riffle that shoots fast is totally overkill to protect someone's home. Why put five huge holes in somebody when you could just dissable them by shooting them once.

The majority of Democrats do not want to take guns from law bidding citizens. They just want to run a back round check to make sure the person has not been in jail and is not mentally unstable or prone to substance abuse prior to giving the person their gun. I do not see why the NRA and is so paranoid about its members loosing all of their gun owning rights because the Democrats really are not trying to, and couldn't, take them away.

[B] A gun is tool - and like many many other tools, from screw drivers to hammer, they can be used to kill someone. [B] (Webmaster)

The first time I heard that one was on the Simpsons... Anyway, one could say that a gun is a tool, but certainly not a tool like a hammer or a screw-driver. They shoot, its all that they do. By this they destroy, kill or hurt things, animals or people. Few guns were invented just to shoot at targets of paper, and most were not made to hunt animals. Most firearms of today were invented solely for killing or hurting, whether it be for law enforcement or in the military.

[Smoken]

Dude,
(that's pretty cool to start my sentences here the same way I talk:) ) I find your reasoning to be flawed. Think of it this way: A saw is a tool. It's purpose is to cut things, often wood. Some see the cutting down of trees as evil. However it is necesary. Some people use these saws to cut down entire rain forests to make a quick buck. While I will almost never side with the Green Party people on anything, I would agree that if saws are not used with discretion, bad things can happen. My point here is, a saw is a tool with a purpose that some would consider evil; however, it serves its necesary purpose. A gun also is a tool, though perhaps not by your standards. Anyway, it has a purpose. That purpose is to fire a bullet, for a wide variety of reasons. This tool is used for protection, food, and other non-evil means. However, when in the hands of the wrong people (criminals) it can be a tool used for devastation (like the saw in the rain forest). Both the saw and the gun serve a useful purpose, and can be used for evil. The problem with gun control is that it can in no way keep any type of gun from those who would use this tool for evil. Therefore the citizens of the U.S. must be allowed to have as much access to this tool as the criminals so that these law abiding citizens can employ this tool for a proper purpose, protection. And protection does not mean killing criminals. A gun can often protect you by scaring away criminals who would attack if they knew they had the advantage of a firearm over you. A gun is one of the greatest tools for such preventive protection.

[Dude]

I did not say that guns are not tools. However, they are nothing like a saw or a hammer or whatever. They were mostly made to kill things. Thus, killing someone with a gun is really the perpose of a gun. I am not refering to all guns here, just assualt rifles and rapid fire hand guns.

Also, the people who oppose gun controll think that taking guns from all of the law biding citizens will make crime against them sky-rocket. They are probably right about this, as evidence has shown. Gun conrtoll though, is really about protecting people. Its about stopping the fellons and mentally unstable people from buying guns. Its also about trying to stop people from getting guns who would be irresponsible with them and would do dumb things with them, like leave it around the house for kids to find.

Democrats know that there is little that they can do to take away all illegally possesed guns which kill people. However people are killed every month with legally owned guns and they want to stop that from happening.

[Army]

Dude,

Democrats know that there is little that they can do to take away all illegally possesed guns which kill people. However people are killed every month with legally owned guns and they want to stop that from happening.
If someone owns a gun illegally, with the intent to rob or hurt someone else with it, NO LAW WILL STOP THEM!
Yes, many are killed with legally owned guns, but most of those dead are BAD GUYS, killed by law abiding citizens protecting themselves or loved ones. Many more are bad guys killing each other (so no great loss there). I understand why Liberals are wanting to end violence, but stopping me from having the best personal protection available is not the way to do it.

Look, you can't stop bad guys from being bad, by making a law that says only I must follow it. Unfortunately, that is is how gun control works, by forcing the law-abiding to follow the law.


Also, the people who oppose gun controll think that taking guns from all of the law biding citizens will make crime against them sky-rocket. They are probably right about this, as evidence has shown.
You are correct, those cities and states with the strictest gun control laws, are also the most violent and crime ridden. Washington DC residents can not possess any firearms, for any reason, yet that city was for many years the murder capitol. It still rates near the top. Massachussetts as a state, has more gun control laws than any other except for California, yet Boston has always been known for it's violence and crime. Here in California, where two men shot up North Hollywood with full automatic weapons, had been arrested twice before on weapons charges, BUT WERE RELEASED BOTH TIMES! The law did not stop them from robbing a dozen banks, but guns in the hands of the law-abiding did! Did you know, the rifles the cops used in the final shootout in the street were borrowed from a gunshop down the street? Yup, legal semi-auto AR15s, same ones we USED to be able to buy here, but can't now, because of gun control.


They were mostly made to kill things. Thus, killing someone with a gun is really the perpose of a gun. I am not refering to all guns here, just assualt rifles and rapid fire hand guns.
So wrong so many ways. None of MY guns have the purpose of killing anyone, they can, but that is not why I have them. BlackVCG is a competitive shooter, none of his guns are even designed for killing, not even squirrels (that is too bad though, they would make great squirrel guns!). Assault rifles are the figment of Liberal imagination. An assault rifle, by definition, is a rifle with the ability to select between semi and full auto fire. It will be chambered in an "intermediate" cartridge, and is usually of lightweight design and construction. I have an AR15, it is NOT capable of full auto fire, hence it is NOT an assault rifle despite what it may look like. Rapid fire handguns? That all depends on fast your trigger finger is, period.

There are thousands of legal, privately owned fully automatic weapons in the US. It takes a license from the government, and special taxes paid to do so. (You boys in Kentucky probably know about Knob Creek and their big annual machine gun shoot). Want to know that last time a legally owned machine gun was used in a crime? NEVER!
Machine guns have been required to be licensed since 1934, and the law-abiding have followed the law. Criminals do not, nor will they ever!

[Hasty8]

Originally posted by Dude
It seems to me that the people who have an arsenal of weapons or even a few rapid fire ones, specifically for home protection, have these because they want to kill someone. I seems that these people really desire for someone to break in to their property just so that they can blow the person away with their vast arsenal of fire power. (see point 1)

How can you people compare guns and any other weapon? Especially those of you with military, law enforcement or medical backgrounds. This comparison should not be made and is completely rediculous.

GUNS KILL a whole lot more people than they save. How could a gun save a life?, aside from the obvious reason of stopping people from using some other more deadly kind of weapon. (see point 2)

The Democrats don't want to take away citizen's rights to bear arms. They just want to keep them away from criminals because it is ok for some people to have guns, just not everyone. Why is it so hard for people to wait five days to get their firearms. (see point 3)

I can't wait until we get a decent president, then maybe we will be able to get some of these life-saving laws passed.

P.S.

Who said that thing about the Japanese not invading the American mainland because they were afraid of American gun owners?

I just want to know because it was the most ignorant thing I heard today.

Point 1 - is that total assumption there or do you have even the slightest shread of evidence to back it up with? You are equating all home gun owners with malicious, murdering monsters. Way to go buddy.

Point 2 - Guns, collectively, have not killed a single person. EVER!!! As DMX said in ROMEO MUST DIE "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." Tired and used I know but that is the plain truth. No gun ever woke up and said, "You know what, I think I'll go kill a few school children today."

Come on man. Get your head out of the sand already.

Point 3 - If the Democrats want to keep the guns out of the hands of the criminals then how about they actually make some laws that would prevent criminals from getting guns instead of restricting the law abiding citizens?

I've said this before and I'll say it again, until gun controls are either all equl from state to state or mandated on a federal level so that individual states have no ability to change them then gun control laws will never work and will only make this society safe for the criminals.

And as for your comment about how a gun could save a life? A gun, like a nuke, can and often is sued as a DETERRANT. Don't know what it means? Look it up. I can cite story after story where women I know from my local shooters club have deterred home breakin by displaying their gun and their capability to use it well.

Case in point. My friends wife. 25 years old at home with the two kids just 8 weeks ago. He's a marine and is called to duty. He also has a M$ olt that his wife knows how to use very well. House got broken into. Wrong house moron. Wife appears at the top of the stairs, chambers a round and take a shooting stance. Dude took off and din't stop running till he was in Newark.

Guns are just tools. Machines. Nothing more than cars or airplanes or baseball bats. None of these are created for the taking of human life. A car is made to move one or more people from one point to another. A plane does the same job just at a great speed with a higher comliment of passengers and at higher altitudes. A Baseball bat is make to hit a ball with. A gun is made to fire a projectile. that's all.

It's how the instrument is used that we should be concerned with.

[Hasty8]

Originally posted by shartley
I wish some people would do a little research before posting.

Knives have killed more people than they have saved as well.

Baseball Bats have killed more people than they have saved as well.



Shartley, I want to argue you on this point because in all honesty we do not have enough evidence to support it.

Please allow me to explain.

There is a saying I quote to draw the picture here and it goes like this:

"We may never know how many lives the lighthouse has saved but that does not mean that we tear it down."

What I mean is that while you point is valid the logic could be considered flawed. No one has ever done a study on how many lives a gun has saved. Nor has anyone done a study on knives or bats. IT may be entirely possible that the number of people intentionally killed by baseball bats is actually smaller than those saved by baseball bats.

Who knows?

[Hasty8]

Originally posted by Army
Steveg,

"Sarah, strictly speaking it's an amendment and not part of the original body of the constitution."
Wrong. The Constitution was not ratified, until the first ten amendments were agreed upon by the states in session, in 1791.

I think even before that Army. As I know the Second Constituitonal Congress ceased operations in 1788 and the newly formed government took over in that same year with George Washington as President.

I got most of my info from http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/bdsds/constit.html
and the timeperiods seem to gel together.

[awg9tech]

You're more likely to be killed in an automobile accident than by a firearm. You have a RIGHT to own a firearm; you DO NOT have a right to drive an automobile. It's funny how quickly liberals want me to give up my RIGHT to bear arms, but no one is trying to stop me from driving. The next time a liberal tells you to give up your gun, ASK FOR HIS CAR KEYS! Of course, he will give them up freely with no second thoughts. After all, the liberals just want to make the world a safer place, right? If there were no automobiles, the environment would improve, crimes using automobiles would decrease, auto theft would decrease, people would be in much better shape, auto accidents would decrease. So, it makes much more sense to ban automobiles (using liberal logic) than firearms.

[Rocp15126]

Not to tread on your parade because I like the discussion but correct me if I'm wrong but is this not a "political" topic that we are warned about using in the forum rules? I can see how some people might get a little upset by peoples comments.

I have a few comment though........

I own a firearm, I think that people should be able to own a firearm if they are responsible moral people. I don't think that everyone should own a firearm. Nor do I think that all firearms are suitable for private ownership. I think that everybody (gun owner or not) should at the very least learn to handle, load, and unload firearms as a safety precaution. My fiance hates guns, but I sat her down to show her how to properly handle firearms. she asked me why she should learn to handle a firearm if she will never own one. I told her that you never know! What happens if your child comes home with a firearm? If you find one laying in the bushes in your front lawn? I think EVERYBODY should learn firearm safety, gun owner or not.

[steveg]

Hey where did this thing come from.

The irony of course is that to drive a car, you MUST have
training and a license and insurance.

There are WAY more people driving around every day in cars
than shooting at each other (thank god)

Guns are a symptom of violence and are neither the cause
or the cure.(that is not to say that guns themself are bad
only their use as a tool of violence)

It is easy to Attach a label to a person and then be able
to dismiss all of their ideas,fears,conserns,and experiences.

Conservatives have had their share of astonishingly bad ideas too.

[Rooster]

"I am afraid of people killing me and stealing my stuff, so I'll get a gun to protect me"

is equal to

"I am afraid of people killing me and stealing my stuff, so I'll pass a law that says you can't have a gun"

This is about as equivalent as saying apple = orange.

If a person is going to break into your house and steal your things at gun point, how much of a stretch is it going to be for him to buy an illegal gun and use it?

Gun control only hurts law abiding citizens. There will always be criminals and they will always have guns. The question is, will everyone else.

[StuDawggie]

Originally posted by rifleman
A school assignment is based around taking away one of our rights?!? Ask your teacher if you can do a different case based on banning the freedom of speech or religion--see what he/she has to say--that just goes to show you how liberal our public schools have become.


Finally someone who I agree with when it comes to teachers and educators being liberal. It's topics like this and educators such as ones who start debates in classes wanting to force their political views on impressionable minds that drives me nuts. I feel that items such as this should be not be in schools, because some teachers (not all) will penalize students who disagree with them politically (I know this happens for a fact because I had to deal with this issue college, and High School. I disagreed with a professor all semester and when it came to my final I almost failed because my political views didn't coincide with his so he consdered my answers on questions such as welfare reform, GUN CONTROL, and medicare, to be in correct and inadequate).

[ThePatriot]

My teacher had us do this once in an enrichment class in eight grade. It wasn't a "pro and con" side, it was more of, raise your hand if you are pro gun control, raise your hand if you are against gun control. It was a "for or against" argument, however i did learn my entire class(mostly girls) were very anti gun. It seems women are against guns much more than men are, so we lost the debate when all the pro gun control side said was, guns are bad and kill people(they were all girls.) When my side showed statistics and talked about if there were no guns then other weapons would be used etc...now that i think about it, that was a pretty dumb debate, considering we lost.

[MagMan5446]

It's very easy to get a gun. I could walk out and go get a piece right now if I wanted to.

[awg9tech]

I have to agree with you about the liberal teachers. I won't tell you how long ago I was in high school, many, many moons ago. Looking back, I had several liberal teachers. The kids who got the "easy" A's (i.e. they may have missed several questions on a test and still got an A) where the ones that no matter how one sided, opinionated, misconstrued, or deliberately misleading the teachers opinion was, in the end, they gave the teacher the "you're so wise, I can always learn from you your greatness" speech. I've always said that if I knew then what I know now, I'd go back and speak vehemently about how misconstrued their teachings were. Well, I’ve had my chance several times, and when these teachers face some one with cold hard facts they always buckle and can’t carry on a coherent conversation. As with all things, get you’re info from more than one source, even paintball. We have several paintball stores in our area. 99 times out of 100, if you ask them a question about a product not on their shelf, they give you the “aw that’s a piece of junk” routine. They just want you to drop $2k on a new E-marker. I’ve followed up and proved this theory many times.:D

[-Jôker-]

Originally posted by Cha0tic
i think gun laws should be very strict, but not outlawed. a ton of psycos get a hold of guns and kill people every year. there are, however, collectors and shooting clubs where you shoot for fun and sport. i think that only certain people should be able to buy firearms (better firearm laws), but they should not be outlawed.



i agree 99.9% :D

[FeelTheRT]

I know this has been quite a few months and yes my gun control debate was over a few months ago ;) but i wanna see whats your though on gun control now, and opinions from the newer AO members.

[InfinatyBPS]

Originally posted by Dude
...with histories of crime or mental illness will not get guns either.

Once, I said on here, and explained how I was somewhat depressed, and they said I was sick and need to get help... and I responded, asking, shoud I have it on my reccord and take medicine, just because life sux, that I'm deppressed? I should take medicine to make me so stupidly happy that I won't care if life sux? Then I got a response from him saying, "there is no record that says if you are mentaly ill...

Well, if he was wrong and I had gotten help, I wouldn't be able to own a gun later on in life? Well that would have sucked... I still beleive there are some kind of reccords somwehere saying if I have any mental problems... and I say I'm not going to let them know, because I don't have mental problems, I have reasons to be depressed, and drugs won't solve those problems... It will only be me, saying that I am truly mental.

[oldsoldier]

I did a college thesis on why strict gun cotrol/banning doesnt work. I went over 5 yrs of fbi statistics and DC stats...basically, in DC, where, unless you are a cop or military, it is illegal to own a gun, they had the highest per capita gun crime rate in the country. On the flip side, a county (not city, county) in TX, I dont recall where, where there were practicdally no state restictions on firearms, had one of the lowest per capita. Now, stats can be skewed...I know that. But the point of y thesis was that people commit violent crime. Laws are created to put people away; not prevent them from doing things. Anyone with common sense and decent morals knows it is WRONG to kill or hurt someone, and we dont need a law to prevent it. By using DC, it shows that the firearm law did absolutely nothing to prevent violent crime with firearms. One could only conclude that the issue isnt the weapon itself, but the lack of moral values of the person who used it to commit a crime. Well, hope this helped.
For resources, go to your local college library; they should have books on the stats of crimes, laws, and all that. Good luck.

[oldsoldier]

Ok...I wanna post again. i have read roughly half of what is here. I want to make another point, basically expanding on shartley.
I have been in the military all my adult life. I have served in the infantry for all of it. Presently, as part of


operation Noble Eagle, I am a hybrid between a cop and a soldier. I carry a loaded rifle and pistol every day. NOt once, in my career, have I looked forward to taking a life. I own high capacity firearms at home, to include shotguns. I am not militant, although all of them are military. They function. But I digress. I dont "wish" for someone to break into my house. All of my weapons are locked in a steel cabinet, safe. So, for me to want to kill someone, I have to have intent. Now, in law enforcement, s vmurder has to fit certain criteria; intent being one of them. Merely pointing a firearm at someone who is threatening you, and taking their life, does not fill the "intent" requirement. What I am trying to say is that the lawful gun owners arent waiting up at nite for someone to break in. We just like to shoot. And stricter laws do nothing to help us; look at LA. Thousands of crimes committed there with firearms a year. something like 90% of them, when the firearm is recovered, are stolen. And guess where a significant amount are stolen from? Police. Should we disarm the police? Answer that. Then walk in downtown LA, late at nite, in a bad part of town, and tell me how safe you feel.

[ronron2112]

my view is still the same.

People kill People.

the gun is just the lil helper. As brought up from earlier posts, if someone is going to kill me, im sure if theyre lacking a gun, that wont stop them, they can use almost any everyday object to kill me.

I have been around guns for all my life, and i have used them since i could handle one. i would never even think of using them improperly. infact, i shoot competivily in trap, and most of the guns i see arent even designed for killing...



People Kill People. end of story

[FrAuStY]

I think the bumper sticker says it best..

Gun's don't kill people... STUPID people with guns kill people.

This is only directed to people who are FOR GUN CONTROL.

My outlook on the gun control is there shouldn't be any type of gun control. In a "perfect" world, we wouldn't need firearms to protect ourselves from thieves/vandals/rapists whatever you want to label the criminal as. Unfortunately, we don't live in that perfect world. We live in the real.. where there are people who want what YOU have, and they WILL do what it takes to try to get it.

Now, with gun control, let's say they pass a law stating no one can buy a firearm from this day forth. Is that going to stop people from buying them on the black market, where they've been sold for years without anyone being able to do anything about it? Absolutely not. Now the problem here is.. the honest, hard working citizen who abides by the laws..can't even protect himself from an armed robber, serial killer etc..who has access to the "Trunk of Car" arms seller. You get to defend yourself with your barehands against a person who has a full auto mp5a... not a good feeling huh. You still liking the idea of controlling guns? Hopefully not.

This country was founded by a group that was waayyyy ahead of their time. The Constitution of the United States of America didn't NEED any Amendments, people who wanted loopholes decided to put those amendments in there. If gun control goes through that will go directly against the Constitution. "Right to bear Arms" This country was founded with firearms and it should continue to be upheld by firearms.

As the post two posts up says.. the county in texas, (Texas I heard was of a few states that has an open carry act, meaning you can holster your weapon in the open for everyone to see) This is why their crime rate is low... would you rob a store if you knew the three customers and the two attendants all had a gun... even, if just two of the occupants had guns... I don't think it'd be wise.

The problem with gun control is its takes the firearms away from people who deserve them and doesn't keep the "Bad guys" from getting them!
Just my 2 cents.

[Balla]

my fav quote

"when they outlaw guns..can we use swords"

hahah

[joeyjoe367]

"if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" -NRA

I don't know any statistics, laws or other factual stuff, but this is what i DO know. If someone breaks into my home, building, or attempts to mug/rob me, etc... I know where my shotgun is.

If I have to be on either end of a gun, i'm going to be on the end that's got a trigger on it. End of story. When I turn 21, I intend to get a Concealed pistol liscence.

You'll be damned if you think I'm going to let anyone pass a law that makes it harder for me to defend myself in a life/death situation.

Now, with power comes responsibility. If you have kids, don't leave the thing sittin' around. Lock it up for christ's sake. Teach your kids about guns. From a kid, i've been around guns for my entire life. the way my father treated the guns, i've learned to respect them.

RESPECT YOUR GUN DAMN IT!

I've heard Waaaaay too many stories about John Doe who was cleaning his gun, and blows himself away, or a family member, etc...

[FutureMagOwner]

i liked what they said on titus one time

"they should give everyone guns and make it legal to shoot someone for being an ***. we'd have alot less people but it would be alot nicer" :)

then they have his dad in the super market and hes shoots the bag boy and says "put the cans in FIRST! then the other stuff!"

lol

anyway if everyone had a gun then criminals wouldnt try to rob houses that often because the guy has a shotgun under the bed or something(not the smartest idea but o well)

and ill quote GTA 3 with a guy on the radio "guns dont kill people death kills people, its a proven fact, ask a doctor he'll tell yah death kills people."

[InfinatyBPS]

Are you able to have a conceiled pistol licence in California?

Lol I thought that I was the only one that actualy listened to the radio on GTA3 :):p

[SSMercury]

Man, Friendly Corner has some good arguments tucked in it's history too. Going to have to go through it now. :)

The problem with guns, and knives, is that it's, a quote from a book, "A provocation as much as a defense". cookie cool points if you get the book right. It's 14 years old. :D

Anyways, a gun is a defense that in a blink of an eye can be used as an offense. One good (great?) thing about nonleathal weapons such as stun guns is that you can't really use them to threaten a person. (well, you could I guess)

As for gun control, I'm moderate I think. Laws regulating the distribution of them, yes, as well as licensure and background checks before handing them to an individual. Beyond that, I think anything would be fine with me.

[InfinatyBPS]

Lol, hey, if someone breaks into ur house and you lite them up with paintballs and then shoot them in the crotch, and throw them in the tub to take off the paint, throw them out the door again and then kick them in the head and knock them unconcience, then go and go out to the street and break open someones car window and stick the guy in their car, you think you would get in trouble?.... just wondering... in case they ban real guns... if that would be better home defence... wonder how they would know if it was you...

[FutureMagOwner]

that seems utterly complicated

[Top Secret]

I've been a pro-gunner for quite some time despite my age. I don't believe that politians have the right to tell me what I can defend myself and my family with. Whether it be with a SW 686 .357 or a AK-74. It's my choice, not theirs.

"There is no doubt that the very thought a potential victim might possess a firearm deters that element of our society that cares nothing about laws or human life but rather understands only one thing — brute force"
--Hamilton County Judge Robert Ruehlman

"Be not afraid of any man, no matter what his size. When trouble nears just call on me and I will equalize"
-Samuel Colt

[grEnAlEins]

i dont know if this was said but here it goes:

Cliffo, in the constitution, the malitia is defined as every abled bod, mean that the malitia is anyone who can shoot.


anyway, look at switzerland highest per capita gun ownership and extremely low crime. life aint bad there either.

now look at a controling country. 1960 aspiring politition heads a coup (govmt take-over using force). he tells his people to turn in there weapons, which were destroyed!! not long after this many were slaughtered. the country was a wreck. this leader, good ole Fidel Castro, down in Cuba.


You hardcore democrats call guns bad, a gun is a tool. the human is bad!!!

[SSMercury]

Heh, I consider myself a Democrat, mostly. And I'm against increasing gun control above what it is now.

Now, you want to talk about something I'm pretty radical on, don't make me rant on the environment or the economy. (I figured a way to cut the national debt by 1 trillion dollars per year, and it'll never happen.