Gun control

[Scipio7777777]

some people think that a gun in a locked drawer will get out tip toe down the hall and kill several kids

other think we should all have an AK47 onuder our pellow

where do you stand

[riBd]

Bans on all Automatic weapons.

[Uuugggg]

I don't see any reason to have guns in the house, unless you're a cop, or the mafia's after you...

[Scipio7777777]

i guess i forgot to state my position i believe we should have the right to bear arms but with check if you want to get one and no like fully automatic assualt weapons

[hexagram1363]

to all of you who dont know, as of monday two weeks ago, the ban on assault weapons expired, and will not be renewed, so now, any random psycho can go out to gander mountain or walmart or kmart and buy a civilan m16(CAR 15) or a number of different ak-47 versions.

[singo]

okay, why is there a need to have firearms?

to protect your family? if NO-ONE has a gun then there is no need for one for protection.

if there really needs to be a discussion about this, then which country has the highest level of gun crimes of ANY civilized country?,yup, the USA

Civilians do not need any form of weapon.

[Dark_IceDragon]

ok the ban barely did anything. the most important things i thinkit did was to limit the clips to below 10 and to ban grenade launchers. Most gun companies/shops jsut changed some features a bit and they got around. On the gun issue, I think fully automatic weapons should be banned, no clip should be over 10-15 rounds, and grenade launchers, etc. should also be banned.

[Sheep_Have_Wool]

to all of you who dont know, as of monday two weeks ago, the ban on assault weapons expired, and will not be renewed, so now, any random psycho can go out to gander mountain or walmart or kmart and buy a civilan m16(CAR 15) or a number of different ak-47 versions.

It's a polite fiction that the assault weapon ban did anything besides make politicians and the Brady familiy feel good. If you wanted an assault weapon, it was still quite easy to get one.

to protect your family? if NO-ONE has a gun then there is no need for one for protection.
Incorrect. In Great Britian, handguns were outlawed, and gun crime went up 450%. A total ban on handguns is impractical, and offers no real benefits to anyone who obeys the law. Believing that gun crime will vanish if all guns are banned is naive at best, dangerous at worst.

I'm not advocating that everyone own an assault weapon, or that anyone needs to keep an RPG in their back pocket, but unless you can propose a MEANINGFUL ban that has some possibility of enforcement, what's the point other than to make yourself feel better?

[Scipio7777777]

Incorrect. In Great Britian, handguns were outlawed, and gun crime went up 450%. A total ban on handguns is impractical, and offers no real benefits to anyone who obeys the law. Believing that gun crime will vanish if all guns are banned is naive at best, dangerous at worst.

I'm not advocating that everyone own an assault weapon, or that anyone needs to keep an RPG in their back pocket, but unless you can propose a MEANINGFUL ban that has some possibility of enforcement, what's the point other than to make yourself feel better?

quite right

just look at drugs in the US there illegal yet addicts still mange to get them if guns were baned criminals could still get them its just that everyone else would not be able to

[Dezzick]

At least i feel safe at home, knowing that the lateist escapee from th most high level security loony bin can't fill me full of lead! (read my location)

[Scipio7777777]

if someone tried 2 get in my house and rob us or what ever he will be attacked by our dog and have his head blown off by our 12 guage(i live in america)

[Sheep_Have_Wool]

At least i feel safe at home, knowing that the lateist escapee from th most high level security loony bin can't fill me full of lead! (read my location)Sure he can, it's apparently still quite easy for someone criminally inclined to purchase one. Fortunately, he can feel safe that you, as a law abiding citizen, can't shoot back.

[Scipio7777777]

ditto "good post"

[LordAhriman]

Fact: 99.9999999999999% of the human population has not had some psycho killer escape from jail and come to kill them for no reason in the middle of a dark and stormy night.

[Dezzick]

Err, the only way a psycopath can get a gun round here is to somehow break into the closest armory (which is some way off) and get past dozens of guards, and disable the alarm system, so basically there are no gun shops nearby the place i live in!

[TheBB]

Heck, the easiest way for a madman to get a gun isn't to visit his local supersecret black market. He just breaks into the house of some poor bastard and steal his gun instead. The gun that very same poor bastard got at walmart or whatever under the illusion that it would magically protect him from being mauled.

Let's face the facts. The best way to stop psychopats from fucking people up is NOT to give every joe and jane a killing weapon. They aren't going to keep their guns safe, they aren't going to know how to use them, and when psychopats come to **** you up you don't really have lots of time to prepare. There are a thousand better ways to do it. Get real.

[Scipio7777777]

NOT to give every joe and jane a killing weapon.
no they get one handed to them

they can buy one if they want one

[singo]

the most important things i think it did was to limit the clips to below 10 and to ban grenade launchers. .
okayyy, can someone explain why the hell people had grenade launchers ANYWAYS??

[Lordaeron]

When you buy a firearm they always check if you have a criminal record so anyone out of jail trying to purchase one would have to steal one. Although you may ban firearms people are still going to die. I personally take the side for owning a firearm. I like to hunt and I like the security in owning one. Does that mean that I'm going to go out and shoot everyone? No. Cars kill more people then guns:

Why? About ½ of 1% of gun owners in the U.S. will ever criminally misuse a gun – and most of that ½
of 1% can’t lawfully buy a gun in California, in a gun store or at a gun show. So the message is that the
other 99 ½% should be discouraged by banning gun shows? Are you planning to take similar action
aimed at cars? Why not? It can’t be based on public safety; cars still cause more deaths than guns in the
United States, and both are about equally common. Source (http://www.claytoncramer.com/StatementToSantaRosa.pdf)

Just because 1% of the population of the US wants to kill everyone doesn't mean those of us who use it for sport should not be allowed to own a gun. Furthermore there is no reason for people who feel secure when owning a gun give up that security. It's true that guns should be kept away from children, but then again should violent movies, video games, and persons also be kept away. It is not the guns that are causing the problems it is the people.

[Luther-Stark]

The issue of Gun Control is a very difficult one. We should first consider the fact that the argument itself has many sides to it. One, is the moral problem with it. Basically this boils down to freedom of rights and the individual. The other, is the more practicle one; does increasing gun laws lower crime rate?

My stance on the issue is two-fold. Although I submit to the fact that illegalizing all firearms is a bad idea, at least presently, I don't think the concept is a terrible one. Why? Mainly because the stronger stance our society as a whole takes on guns, the less likely people will be to use and carry them. I base this argument on the fact that many countries with guns, and many countries without guns are both capable of low crime rates. This is not because of any one law or rule. This is because of the sociatal attitude towards guns, crime, and illegal behavior in general.

It is with this view that I support gun control, and laws that make it tougher to get guns. Not because i think it will be harder to actully obtain them, but because I think it will effect, and ultimatly shape, our (america's at least) stance on guns in the long run.

[Markpyro]

I dont see a need for a gun in a house other than a spud gun and a BB gun used for recreational purposes. Regular citizens dont need guns,, and shouldnt be able to buy them without special reason

[Luther-Stark]

I dont see a need for a gun in a house other than a spud gun and a BB gun used for recreational purposes. Regular citizens dont need guns,, and shouldnt be able to buy them without special reason

Problems arise though. While I agree with you on the principal, the fact is, too many problems would arise. My guess is you might have something simliar to the prohibition period. What we need right now is stricter gun control laws, and more importantly a change in the social view of guns.

[Lordaeron]

You can't hunt with a BB Gun or spud gun, you can only target with them. Many peoples think that society is to blame. No, its your own damn problem. Everyone has control over themselves. Society made me do it, right. Some people think that stricter gun laws would lead to less crime take this. I agree with this, although you should not make it so tight that you couldn't buy ammo for hunting. A registrey for guns would stop many gun crimes from happening because then someone would be able to track you down, except for the problem that it invades your civil rights as an American person. Now would no guns stop crime, no, would it help yes, but isn't the second ammedment the right to bear arms? Take New Zealand, a supposed gun free continent: Source (http://www.stats.govt.nz/domino/external/web/nzstories.nsf/092edeb76ed5aa6bcc256afe0081d84e/8c48c083074bca3ccc256b1800026365?OpenDocument) 4.2 to 3.5 offences per 1,000 population
It's slightly more precentage wise in the United States:
5.061 or 506.1 per 100,000 people.Source (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm)

How many people here have actually gone hunting for sport, its a lot of fun.

[Luther-Stark]

How many people here have actually gone hunting for sport, its a lot of fun.

People use rifles to hunt, not handguns.

Do you have a problem with making handguns very difficult to purchase?

[Sheep_Have_Wool]

Personally, I think it's more an issue of freedoms.


If making guns less available would decrease the amount of crime, then it seems like it's a reasonable thing to do. I have yet to see a study that can directly correlate stricter gun control to a decrease in crime rates - so I find it difficult to support what is essentially feel-good legislation. IMO, here in America, if there's not a very compelling reason to remove a freedom, then it shouldn't be done just for the sake of appearances.

[Lordaeron]

People use rifles to hunt, not handguns.

Do you have a problem with making handguns very difficult to purchase?
Yes I do. The reason although you maynot be hunting with a rifle. You can still shoot targets with them. Not to mention it can be hidden easily in your house as a rifle can not. Handguns are cheaper to buy and easier to use. They aren't used for hunting they're used for protection, why take away protection it conflicts with moral values.

[Sheep_Have_Wool]

Ideal home defense weapons are something along the lines of a .22 pistol or a shotgun loaded with birdshot. They allow someone to defend themselves quite well without endangering other people in the house, or, in the case of some guns, the houses around yours. You're not going to kill anyone very easily or at range with a .22, but it sure as hell will convince someone to stop doing whatever they're doing in your house.

Anything else is really overkill, so wanting to have an MP-10 under your pillow for "home defense" isn't an argument that holds water in my book. It all comes down to the basic principles of the country - unless someone can provide a compelling reason, with evidence, to take away one of my freedoms, I can't see a reason to do so. As yet, the gun control lobby has yet to produce some sort of evidence that shows that fewer guns yields less crime.

[Luther-Stark]

To me its never been about "fewer guns yield less crime," and its always been about "Gun Control." What i mean is, alot of peopel arn't trying to get rid of guns. Were trying to make sure that guns don't get used irresponsibly. I don't exactly support the banning of guns with no other reason then, "Less guns mean less crime" because i know thats not true.

However, you can't deny that the more control we have over our guns, the safer our communities will be.

[Lordaeron]

That is true, although its not what I've been arguing it could be used as evidence in keeping guns in houses.

[Sheep_Have_Wool]

What i mean is, alot of peopel arn't trying to get rid of guns.
You might not be, but the anti-gun lobby certainly is. For some reason, they're convinced that without a gun, criminals just won't know WHAT to do if they're planning on commiting a violent crime. After all, people didn't kill others before gunpowder was invented, right?

However, you can't deny that the more control we have over our guns, the safer our communities will be.
If anything, this is an argument for MORE guns around - just look at the Swiss. All able-bodied males a REQUIRED to keep a rifle or handgun at home. Gun education is universal. It's interesting to note that the Swiss have a LOWER crime rate than their neighbors with much stricter gun laws, and a VERY few number of gun accidents.

[TheBB]

Two questions for the anti-gun-control people:

1. When was the last time a crime was prevented because the offended party had a gun availible?

2. How many of those who buy guns for protection ever get to use them?

If society has been so thoroughly ripped to shreds that keeping killing weapons in your home is normally required to live a safe life, then something else has gone seriously wrong somewhere. There is no need for this scenario. Guns for protective measures aren't required if we just try to stop the crimes before they even get to the point where two people are pointing at each other with a gun. If that happens, it's already too late.

In addition, it's a fact that it is the average persons careless handling of guns that allow criminals so easily to get them. They just fucking break in and steal one from any ordinary home. The gun purchase then didn't do much good. In fact it did a lot of bad, because there's now a criminal on the loose with a potentially lethal weapon.

For the freedom freaks... you don't protect a freedom if this freedom is maliscious. You don't protects peoples freedom to murder, do you?

[Sheep_Have_Wool]

1. When was the last time a crime was prevented because the offended party had a gun availible?
Straw-man argument. It's impossible to determine what someone WOULD have done if a gun was/was not present. As for the last time someone fended off an attacker, a quick Google search turns up quite a few cases, including

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04261/380685.stm and
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/3759002/detail.html

I'm sure with more than 5 minutes to spend looking, I could find more. In any case, do you honestly believe that someone having a gun has never stopped someone from getting away with a crime?

2. How many of those who buy guns for protection ever get to use them?
When was the last time you were a victim of violent crime? Thankfully, it's a small percentage of the population that ever has to deal with such an incident. How many people who get homeowners insurance ever have a fire or a flood? It happens, but your chances are pretty small, so why bother, right?

In any case, how is someone never having to defend his or herself a reason to support gun control? That's like saying people shouldn't get insurance because they almost never need it.

If society has been so thoroughly ripped to shreds that keeping killing weapons in your home is normally required to live a safe life, then something else has gone seriously wrong somewhere.
Where did THIS come from? Obviously a gun isn't required to live a safe life - I don't see anyone implying that it is.

Guns for protective measures aren't required if we just try to stop the crimes before they even get to the point where two people are pointing at each other with a gun. If that happens, it's already too late.
And if we all lived in happy fairy land, I'd have a house made of candy. Let's be at least marginally realistic here instead pretending that if we just spent more and cared more, no one would ever do bad things. It's not like doing any of the things that you might suggest would prevent crime rule out ownership of a gun. After all, if no one commited crimes, what would be the harm in owning one?

In addition, it's a fact that it is the average persons careless handling of guns that allow criminals so easily to get them.
Statistics, please, and not from some anti-gun lobby. It's actually much easier for a criminal to steal MONEY with which to obtain a gun. If stealing of weapons was such an important source, why does Great Britian still have a problem? All their guns are in armories!

It's almost enough to make one think the "supersecret black market" you referred to in a previous post DOES exist. People might even buy drugs and other illegal items there!

For the freedom freaks... you don't protect a freedom if this freedom is maliscious. You don't protects peoples freedom to murder, do you?
Because obviously owning a gun is the moral equivalent to murdering someone. :rolleyes: