Grab the guns while we still can

[Ridge]

Sounds both cool AND threatening. The government forcing this is terrible, but if it's an option for gun owners to choose themselves it's cool. I'd use it so that if my guns were jacked I could find them. I'd even appreciate something like Lojack for firearms. If you invest a LOT of money into your weapon its worth it.

Honestly I'd love it. If someone steals a gun with RFID, its useless to them.

 

[justin.walters01]

Honestly I'd love it. If someone steals a gun with RFID, its useless to them.

I think that RFID for guns seems like a brilliant solution for the stolen firearms problem.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Honestly I'd love it. If someone steals a gun with RFID, its useless to them.

lol make it like the police guns on Judge Dredd

 

[SIGbastard]

I have just a few things to say.

First it doesn't really matter what gun anyone thinks is acceptable for hunting. The 2nd amendment doesn't deal with hunting at all. Having the ability to hunt is merely a by product of our right to bear arms and thus the "you can't hunt with that" argument means jack shit.

Second it is clear many of you have no idea what you are talking about especially when referring to AR15's. The US has a long tradition of marksmanship. Our soldiers are trained to be riflemen, and thus the rifles we adopt are riflemen rifles. The M16 is a perfect example of this. While it is a rugged and reliable gun many would call an assault rifle from it's features it is also an extremely accurate design. It is not a peasant gun made to survive extreme abuse/neglect and still run like the AK47 but it is much much much more accurate and refined. AR15's are used in more competitions in the US than any other rifle currently. That isn't because they are "bullet hoses". The ergonomics, versatility, reliability, and accuracy make them excellent hunting weapons. You can get them in many popular hunting calibers such as .223, .243, .308, etc (it is a long list). Furthermore an ar15 from a reputable manufacturer off the rack is capable of better accuracy than most off the rack hunting guns including bolt actions and lever actions. I am talking just basic hunting guns not precision bolt guns with free floated bull barrels etc. Guns like you would buy at Walmart for hunting which is not to mean they are not good guns.

Third again about AR style rifles. You can buy mags that hold as little or as many rds as you want. I have a 4rd mag for my AR10. I used to have a .50 Beowulf upper and standard ar15 mags held 10rds. Many states have mag limits and you can easily get mags that comply.

Fourth I haven't read much of this thread so I don't know if this has been mentioned. I can guarantee though without any doubt that if there is any gun ban any time in the next 2 years then republicans will win a ton of seats in congress.

 

[huntingbear]

i've seen a lot of people assume assault rifles are automatic with quotes like "why do you need to shoot 100 bullets a second to hunt deer?"

i'm all for more gun control but when I, the citizen with no background problems, begin being told I can't get a simple pistol...then we have a problem

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

i've seen a lot of people assume assault rifles are automatic with quotes like "why do you need to shoot 100 bullets a second to hunt deer?"

You hit the nail on the head and I think this is one of the biggest misconceptions.

The 1994-2004 Assault Weapons Ban banned SEMI-automatic rifles, it didn't even do anything related to automatic (which are already regulated up the ass)

i'm all for more gun control but when I, the citizen with no background problems, begin being told I can't get a simple pistol...then we have a problem

These do not compute. I wouldn't call background checks and such "gun control." I'd say you support regulation but not full gun control like many here on this forum do

As far as I know the term gun control means banning of firearms (whether completely or partially like the AWB)

 

[15357]

imo, handguns should be banned, seeing as how it's the type of gun most used for crime.


But AR-15s are (or would be) ****ing awesome to own. Besides, you don't see too many gun battles between gangs with AR-15s.... or any other rifle/carbine for that matter.


*note: this post was based purely on 2005 statistics.

 

[Ridge]

People who apply for a concealed carry permit show they are well in control of their weapon and know how to use it to defend themselves and others. You think that should just be thrown away?

Guns dont kill people. People kill people. Guns protect people from people with smaller guns.

The right thing to do is ban crime.

 

[xcellerate]

People who apply for a concealed carry permit show they are well in control of their weapon and know how to use it to defend themselves and others.

No they don't. Applying for a CC permit in my town is as hard as going to the courthouse with $20, filling out the card they give you, and having two friends sign it.

An insignificant point. A key lock can be swiftly, easily, and cheaply bypassed with a set up bump-keys. Do simple key locks prevent theft? You bet. Opportunity can make a thief out of almost anyone, hence a key lock.

I wasn't saying they would prevent theft. RFID tags are short range so the only benefit I could see of using them would be to have something the shooter wears that activates the gun (like a ring, which they already have, but don't produce it for various reasons). And if you made people have to wear something to shoot their gun they would probably just disable it.

 

[CptStern]

But it gives back the right of people to defend themselves. You have to make sacrifices to make any sort of gain.

A 3-year-old girl shot herself in the head yesterday afternoon while playing with a loaded gun inside her family's Detroit home, local news organizations report.

A year-old girl was in serious condition today after her 2-year-old brother shot her in the head with a .45-caliber pistol he found in his mother's purse

A two-year-old boy in the US state of Ohio has shot and killed his grandfather, authorities have said.

ya the "sacrificies" are worth your hobby

Yes, they would. That is my point exactly. Those weapons are still going to make it into the united states.

there are 37,500 firearms purchased every day in the US. smuggling still wouldnt/couldnt reach that rate

288 Assault Rifles, .50cals, 500,000 Rounds Seized from Mexican Cartel

Reports that Treasury agents had arrested seven people allegedly linked to two arms companies run by the Chinese government ? for smuggling 2,000 automatic rifles into the United States(http://www.iht.com/articles/1996/05/24/arms.u_0.php)

<snip>

Those are just two of the many stories I found about gun smuggling into the us. As far as illegal weapons being smuggled out of the US, it is an immense amount. The main problem in that situation seems to be porous borders.

not > 37,500 every day bought legally ..unless you can show that each and every day 37,500 guns are smuggled into the US on a daily basis it doesnt compare to the flow of guns through legal channels ..shore up that channel and the flow will rely of what's already in circulation or through smuggling ..which doesnt even approach 37,500 a day

Second, the budget seeks funds to improve the Department?s ability to combat crime along the Southwest Border. This budget request takes into account the full range of essential resources, personnel, and infrastructure required to address illegal immigration, drug trafficking, and gun smuggling across that border.(http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=25169)

In addition to functioning as the point of entry of many illegal immigrants coming into this country, the Southwest Border is an access point for smuggling drugs into, and guns out of, the United States.(http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=25169)

ok so what does that have to do with comparing the number of guns sold legally and the number of guns smuggled ..ya stuff gets through borders, I fail to see any further point than the obvious

The other incident occurred in Japan where the mayor of Nagasaki, Itcho Ito, was shot to death by Tetsuya Shiroo. This was not the first time an assassination was carried out by a shooting in Japan, just the latest, and yet nobody is surprised even though guns are banned in Japan.(http://www.newburyportnews.com/puopinion/local_story_331094119?keyword=secondarystory)

I have no idea what this has to do with anything ..japan had 47 firearm murders in 2002 the US had 9,369. Japan has a little less than half the population of the US ..what are you trying to prove with the murder of the mayor of nagasaki? that because he was murdered with a handgun gun control doesnt work? that's one hell of an illogical leap in logic

In one of your earlier posts.

where exactly? point it out

My last treatment of Crime in Britian has proven surprisingly popular with google. That post dealt with the consequences of banning guns.

Its not uncommon to hear the slippery slope argument against banning guns. Whats next? Banning knives?

what slippery slope argument against banning guns? guns =/= knives because knives are not exclusively made to kill people ..now had you said swords I might agree with you but much less people would be inclined to use a sword than a gun

Well, today, I ran across this recommendation to ban kitchen knives in Britian to reduce stabbings. Yikes! Where does the slippery slope lead after this?

"Stay away from my girl, or I swear I'll fetch the comfy chair!"
(http://www.livelydebate.com/archive...nives-and-guns-when-you-have-the-comfy-chair/)

A&E [accident and emergency, a.k.a. emergency room] doctors are calling for a ban on long pointed kitchen knives to reduce deaths from stabbing.(http://nomorespin.blogspot.com/2008/05/weve-already-banned-guns-why-not.html)

except typically of the pro-gun crowd no one actually reads the story they're reporting ...the doctors dont want to ban knives as your posts from the lunatic-fringe blogoshere suggests

they want long knives with a point on the end banned, not knives in general:

A&E doctors are calling for a ban on long pointed kitchen knives

they even further clarify it in the article:

They consulted 10 top chefs from around the UK, and found such knives have little practical value in the kitchen.

None of the chefs felt such knives were essential, since the point of a short blade was just as useful when a sharp end was needed.

it's funny how your source seems to have only read the title of the bbc article ..and even then they didnt fully understand it

http://www.stopsanfranban.com/AtStake/AdditionalReadingDetail.aspx?T=2&ID=175

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thinktanktown/2007/04/gun_control_doesnt_fit_this_cr.html

I have no idea why you posted these links ..the first one is an article on how easy it was for Cho Seung Hui to legally purchase not one buttwo guns ...even though, and the article fails to mention this, he was ordered by the court to undergoe a psychiatric assessment and had a history of mental illness ..yet was STILL able to purchase a firearm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seung-Hui_Cho#Psychiatric_evaluation


the second one is about someone trying to ban guns in san francisco and people getting upset over it ....ok, what does this have to do with anything?

There is some information on this in the above links. Nonetheless...

A 1995 survey, funded by the National Institute of Justice, involved interviews with more than 7000 arrestees in 11 American cities with respect to their motives and methods for acquiring illegal firearms (Decker, Pennell, and Caldwell 1997). This survey demonstrated that arrestees were more likely than the general population to own firearms. Moreover, access to illegal guns was found to be easy and minimally time consuming.(http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-9132960_ITM)

Arrestees say it is easy and takes little
time for them to obtain firearms illegally.(http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/163496.pdf)

hey you can be mentally disturbed and court ordered to have a psychiatric assessment and STLL purchase a gun legally ..either way it's like they're giving them away

On average in 1987-92 about 83,000 crime victims per year used a
firearm to defend themselves or their property. Three-fourths of
the victims who used a firearm for defense did so during a violent
crime; a fourth, during a theft, household burglary, or motor
vehicle theft.(http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt)

a drop in the bucket compared to:

According to the National Crime Victimization
Survey (NCVS), almost 43.6 million criminal
victimizations occurred in 1993, including 4.4
million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault,
robbery, and aggravated assault. Of the victims
of these violent crimes, 1.3 million (29%) stated
that they faced an offender with a firearm.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/guic.txt

This site has a lot of stories: http://www.learnaboutguns.com/tag/home-defense/

ya you'd need dozens of sites to fit 1.3 million stories


your right to defense DOES NOT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM compare to the misery your "right" brings to 1.3 million (give or take yearly averages) per year every year

The cops do not "work just fine in every other country".

<snip>

I suggest you read that last story very carefully.

1.3 million crimes committed with guns vs 83,000 crimes prevented ..you shouldnt use this point in future debates because it'll work against you because 1.3 million is much more than 83,000

The difference is that I do not own a fully automatic firearm. Even if I did, I know enough about guns to know that spraying my front door isn't going to do anything to solve the problem.

you are one person ..can you vouch for the other 200,000,000 guns owners in america? what you would do is irrelevant

First of all, that is an official figure of all registered taxpayers. There are many American citizens who are not counted in the census. Second of all, that figure does not include the growth in population from that time. Third of all, that figure does not include undocumented immigrants, which there are quite a bit of.

you said illegal immigrants werent included in that figure of 350 million americans. but whatever it's not a big deal




continued on next page

 

[CptStern]

continued

That is why I believe in gun education classes required for a firearms license.

yes because that will prevent the misuse of firearms and needless deaths:

An 8-year-old boy died after accidentally shooting himself in the head while firing an Uzi submachine gun under adult supervision at a gun fair.

The boy lost control of the weapon while firing it Sunday at the Machine Gun Shoot and Firearms Expo at the Westfield Sportsman’s Club, police Lt. Lawrence Vallierpratte said.

Police said the boy, Christopher Bizilj of Ashford, Conn., was with a certified instructor

Also, those incidents were the fault of the owners for not having locks on their guns like they are legally obligated to in most states. Maybe US culture holds on to it's principles more than other cultures do.

or maybe americans have a hard time following rules or which is most often the case, simplying having a pulse that has been beating for more than 18 years will guarentee you a gun ..you act like all gun owners are responsible when the internet is full of stories that proves that's not the case

There are many more countries where guns are necessities. Nevertheless, I have no problem being compared to Iraq. I'll tell you right now that life is a hell of a lot better in the US than in Iraq. I don't even think that you can make that comparison. Iraq has a much different culture and government. Also, they are stuck in between us and the insurgents.

you missed the point ..I'm saying that you're in terrible company ..just look at the top 10 in this list ..the US is the only deloped country in that list and number 9 is zimbabwe were lawlessness is the norm and even they have a fraction of what the US has. How can you look at that figure and think something is deeply wrong with gun ownership in america. Any one of your major cities has more murders by firearms than all of canada combined ..and usually by a long large margin


#1 South Africa:31,918
#2 Colombia:21,898
#3 Thailand:20,032
#4 United States:9,369
#5 Philippines:7,708
#6 Mexico:2,606
#7 Slovakia:2,356
#8 El Salvador:1,441
#9 Zimbabwe:598
#10 Peru

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms

I've been to Europe, I don't like their taxes, and their stores are closed too often. I've been to Mexico, the poverty there is ridiculous. It's everywhere. I've been to Egypt, it's hot, and there are "terrorist" threats all the time. Yes, you're right, I've never left Arizona.

I've been to uranus, prove me wrong

Well, there are the facts that you wanted, read 'em.

most of the "facts" you posted had nothing to do with what we were discussing ..and the ones that were on topic were either inaccurately presented or were easily ripped to shreds.

 

[Ridge]

You seem to miss the fact where it is PEOPLE committing these crimes and not guns. What is the point in introducing new law when they cant uphold existing laws?!

A gun is a tool, like a hammer or a screwdriver (both of which could be used to attack and kill someone, but arent banned). What determines who gets shot with a gun is the person pulling the trigger.

If you are going to ban all guns, then ban them from cops, too. All you need to do to become a cop is attend a training camp that lasts 6 weeks at most. Hell cops with guns have been factually proven to be less competent with firearms than civilians with CWPs...

 

[justin.walters01]

ya the "sacrificies" are worth your hobby

Once again these stories are examples of irresponsible gun owners. These people did not treat their weapons with the respect they deserve. Guns should always be kept out of the reach of children. You have to be pretty stupid to let your child have access to your guns without your supervision.

there are 37,500 firearms purchased every day in the US. smuggling still wouldnt/couldnt reach that rate

You fail to realize that a large amount of those weapons are not brand new. Many of them are used, or are sold between private parties.

not > 37,500 every day bought legally ..unless you can show that each and every day 37,500 guns are smuggled into the US on a daily basis it doesnt compare to the flow of guns through legal channels ..shore up that channel and the flow will rely of what's already in circulation or through smuggling ..which doesnt even approach 37,500 a day

The point is not that more than 37,500 guns are smuggled into the US daily. The point is, that the infrastructure is in place so that it is possible to smuggle that many weapons over the border. I believe through educated speculation that a ban on guns in the US would result in a rise in smuggling.

ok so what does that have to do with comparing the number of guns sold legally and the number of guns smuggled ..ya stuff gets through borders, I fail to see any further point than the obvious

So, you agree with me that smuggled guns can make it through the border. That is what I have been saying the whole time.

I have no idea what this has to do with anything ..japan had 47 firearm murders in 2002 the US had 9,369. Japan has a little less than half the population of the US ..what are you trying to prove with the murder of the mayor of nagasaki? that because he was murdered with a handgun gun control doesnt work? that's one hell of an illogical leap in logic

I'm trying to illustrate the futility of gun control. No matter how many laws are in place to prevent people from purchasing firearms, they are still going to get their hands on them.

where exactly? point it out

I really don't feel like sifting through 15 pages of posts to find it.

what slippery slope argument against banning guns? guns =/= knives because knives are not exclusively made to kill people ..now had you said swords I might agree with you but much less people would be inclined to use a sword than a gun



except typically of the pro-gun crowd no one actually reads the story they're reporting ...the doctors dont want to ban knives as your posts from the lunatic-fringe blogoshere suggests

they want long knives with a point on the end banned, not knives in general:



they even further clarify it in the article:



it's funny how your source seems to have only read the title of the bbc article ..and even then they didnt fully understand it

The point is, that it is ridiculous. This is a situation in which I CAN use the banning cars metaphor. Cars kill more people than kitchen knives, why don't we ban them next?

I have no idea why you posted these links ..the first one is an article on how easy it was for Cho Seung Hui to legally purchase not one buttwo guns ...even though, and the article fails to mention this, he was ordered by the court to undergoe a psychiatric assessment and had a history of mental illness ..yet was STILL able to purchase a firearm

I never said the laws didn't need changing. He should have never been able to purchase a firearm with his record. Also, the article states "If anything, his attack was made easier by the absence of anyone else comparably armed." That means, the crisis would have been much better had someone possessed their own weapon to take down the murderer. You cannot deny that Had some other student been carrying a pistol, the event would have been over much sooner and with much fewer lives lost. Also, the Virginia Tech massacre is another example of the ineffectuality of law enforcement in some situations and we all know why.

the second one is about someone trying to ban guns in san francisco and people getting upset over it ....ok, what does this have to do with anything?

Maybe if you paid attention to the arguments and statistics in the article, you would understand why I posted it.

hey you can be mentally disturbed and court ordered to have a psychiatric assessment and STLL purchase a gun legally ..either way it's like they're giving them away

I've said this many times before, but I'll say it again. The laws need to be changed. Simple as that.

a drop in the bucket compared to:




http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/guic.txt



ya you'd need dozens of sites to fit 1.3 million stories


your right to defense DOES NOT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM compare to the misery your "right" brings to 1.3 million (give or take yearly averages) per year every year

If anything, your argument proves my point even more. 83,000 of those 1.3 million defended themselves with a firearm. Now, just think if every one of those 1.3 million people had a firearm. The number of successful crimes would go down significantly.

1.3 million crimes committed with guns vs 83,000 crimes prevented ..you shouldnt use this point in future debates because it'll work against you because 1.3 million is much more than 83,000

Exactly. IF those 1.3 million people had firearms, the statistics would be very different. I believe that all those people needed to have a gun to defend themselves and it is a problem that they did not possess one.

you are one person ..can you vouch for the other 200,000,000 guns owners in america? what you would do is irrelevant

I cannot vouch for them. That is why I believe in training classes and tests being required for a firearms license in order to prevent as many accidental and irresponsible shootings as possible. Had the above man taken a test and gone through a class, I doubt he would have emptied thirty rounds on his front door. That is just speculation though.

you said illegal immigrants werent included in that figure of 350 million americans. but whatever it's not a big deal

I must have mis-written.

 

[justin.walters01]

continued

yes because that will prevent the misuse of firearms and needless deaths:





or maybe americans have a hard time following rules or which is most often the case, simplying having a pulse that has been beating for more than 18 years will guarentee you a gun ..you act like all gun owners are responsible when the internet is full of stories that proves that's not the case

First of all, accidents happen. They happen with knives, they happen with cars, they happen with swords, they happen with toasters. There is no shortage of things on this planet that can kill you if used improperly. Not all gun owners are responsible. Not all of them will ever be. All we can do is educate and train all of them and hope that there is only a small amount of irresponsible gun owners. Also, do you think you're getting somewhere with all of the sob stories of children dying? I consider them sacrifices for mine and others' freedoms.

you missed the point ..I'm saying that you're in terrible company ..just look at the top 10 in this list ..the US is the only deloped country in that list and number 9 is zimbabwe were lawlessness is the norm and even they have a fraction of what the US has. How can you look at that figure and think something is deeply wrong with gun ownership in america. Any one of your major cities has more murders by firearms than all of canada combined ..and usually by a long large margin


#1 South Africa:31,918
#2 Colombia:21,898
#3 Thailand:20,032
#4 United States:9,369
#5 Philippines:7,708
#6 Mexico:2,606
#7 Slovakia:2,356
#8 El Salvador:1,441
#9 Zimbabwe:598
#10 Peru

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms

These statistics are un-proportional. The US has a much larger population than Zimbabwe does. I've said this a million times over. We need to revise the laws for gun ownership. That will prevent many murders and violent gun crimes.

I've been to uranus, prove me wrong

What the hell is that supposed to mean? You implied that I have never left Arizona, I was simply telling you where I've been. If you're going to insist on continuing to be a jerk in this debate, then I just might leave. Oh wait, no I won't because that is what you want.

most of the "facts" you posted had nothing to do with what we were discussing ..and the ones that were on topic were either inaccurately presented or were easily ripped to shreds.

They were extremely relevant, I just think you missed the point of most of them. You refuse to accept the facts. Your argument hinges on small, isolated incidents which are not enough to force a change to the US constitution. Also, if your country is so worried about guns being smuggled from the US, why don't you enforce your borders better?

 

[Eejit]

These statistics are un-proportional. The US has a much larger population than Zimbabwe does.

#1 South Africa: 0.719782 per 1,000 people
#2 Colombia: 0.509801 per 1,000 people
#3 Thailand: 0.312093 per 1,000 people
#4 Zimbabwe: 0.0491736 per 1,000 people
#5 Mexico: 0.0337938 per 1,000 people
#6 Belarus: 0.0321359 per 1,000 people
#7 Costa Rica: 0.0313745 per 1,000 people
#8 United States: 0.0279271 per 1,000 people
#9 Uruguay: 0.0245902 per 1,000 people
#10 Lithuania: 0.0230748 per 1,000 people

 

[CptStern]

Once again these stories are examples of irresponsible gun owners. These people did not treat their weapons with the respect they deserve. Guns should always be kept out of the reach of children.

could'av. would'av, should'av ...why should I trust you or any other gun owner to be responsible? where is it written that firearms are only possessed by sane responsible people. you pretty much need a heartbeat and a clean record ..the overwelming majority of the population fits that bill ...are you willing to say you'd put faith in the overwelming majority? well with your almost non existant requirements for gun ownership you sort of have to, no? because there's no pledge of responsibility, there's no ceremony that that reinforces that the main goal of ownership is responsibility ..I can look through youtube and find dozens of examples of people doing the stupidest things with firearms. people are stupid, give people the capacity to be even more stupid and they will take it the most of the time ..guns dont exactly attract the mensa crowd unlike say Chess. No, I'd put them somewhere between competitive darts and semii-profesional russia roulette players

You have to be pretty stupid to let your child have access to your guns without your supervision.

even while supervised

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081027/ap_on_re_us/boy_shoots_himself


there are no second chances unlike say horseshoe toss or golf

You fail to realize that a large amount of those weapons are not brand new. Many of them are used, or are sold between private parties.

look, this is how debating is supposed to work: I present evidence, you try to refute that by posting evidence of your own ..simply saying "Many of them are used" without backing it up with a source it does absolutely nothing to refute my statement. And even without a source I can see your statements are half baked speculation: if it's private sales how would that be represented by that number since it's a private sale? they need to account for those 37,500 per year and the easiest way would be to just check sales purchases because all gun dealers must be federally registered

The point is not that more than 37,500 guns are smuggled into the US daily. The point is, that the infrastructure is in place so that it is possible to smuggle that many weapons over the border.

you showed this how, by linking to an article that mentioned 223 assault weapons were smuggled? that's not proof the infrastructure can handle 37,500 per day every day ..not even close

I believe through educated speculation that a ban on guns in the US would result in a rise in smuggling.

but relative to what? 37,500 per day, every day

So, you agree with me that smuggled guns can make it through the border. That is what I have been saying the whole time.

no shit sherlock, no one is disputing this, contraband flows in and out through borders every singe day ..but 35,700 firearms a day every day? if guns are banned why wouldnt law enforcement also target smugglers? this isnt a one step solution

I'm trying to illustrate the futility of gun control. No matter how many laws are in place to prevent people from purchasing firearms, they are still going to get their hands on them.

first you say there should be tougher laws, now you're saying gun control is ineffective and forther down you say everybody should own guns to protect themselves

I've said this many times before, but I'll say it again. The laws need to be changed. Simple as that.

That is why I believe in training classes and tests being required for a firearms license in order to prevent as many accidental and irresponsible shootings as possible. Had the above man taken a test and gone through a class

if it's ineffectual why bother making laws

I really don't feel like sifting through 15 pages of posts to find it.

fine, so it didnt happen ...unless you feel like sifting through 15 pages to prove otherwise :E

The point is, that it is ridiculous. This is a situation in which I CAN use the banning cars metaphor. Cars kill more people than kitchen knives, why don't we ban them next?

no you cant because cars are not made specifically for killing people, guns are or else they'd shoot puppies instead of lethal bullets

I never said the laws didn't need changing.

but you just said gun control is ineffectual

He should have never been able to purchase a firearm with his record.

but he did and legally .. because of a loophole

On December 14, 2005, Cho was released from the mental health facility after Judge Barnett ordered Cho to undergo mental health treatment on an outpatient basis,[63] with a directive for the "court-ordered [outpatient] to follow all recommended treatments."

Because Cho was not involuntarily committed to a mental health facility as an inpatient, he was still legally eligible to buy guns under Virginia law.

Also, the article states "If anything, his attack was made easier by the absence of anyone else comparably armed." That means, the crisis would have been much better had someone possessed their own weapon to take down the murderer. You cannot deny that Had some other student been carrying a pistol, the event would have been over much sooner and with much fewer lives lost. Also, the Virginia Tech massacre is another example of the ineffectuality of law enforcement in some situations and we all know why.

mere speculation ...you have no clue wether an armed student would have made a difference or if the death toll would have been +1, or + 2 or +3 ..if a student a comes barging in with gun drawn and see's student b with gun drawn who do you think they're going to assume the gunman is? mexican standoff ftl ..and not too mention the chaos and screaming may lead overly nervous armed students to shoot every mother****ing thing that moves ..the problem is that gun owners have seen one too many John Wayne movies and think they know better than people who are trained in crisis prevention what it is they should do in any given situation.

Maybe if you paid attention to the arguments and statistics in the article, you would understand why I posted it.

it;'s not up to me to decipher your point from a random link, YOU have to make the point, not let the article talk for you

I've said this many times before, but I'll say it again. The laws need to be changed. Simple as that.

but you said gun control is ineffectual

If anything, your argument proves my point even more.

only if you live in a fantasy land where facts are ignored

83,000 of those 1.3 million defended themselves with a firearm. Now, just think if every one of those 1.3 million people had a firearm. The number of successful crimes would go down significantly.

they give guns away with new car purchases ...there's 90 guns for 100 people ..really do you want gun ownership to be mandatory ...at least criminals wont have to go through the black market and I wont have to wait to get mine (it's mandatory!) because I'm really angry now ..not later, when I might just have a cool head and think twice before shooting my parents ...yes LETS GIVE EVERYBODY GUNS ..I want one that says "awesome on the barrel and when it shoots freakin dogs with bees in their mouths come flying out the barrel

Exactly. IF those 1.3 million people had firearms, the statistics would be very different. I believe that all those people needed to have a gun to defend themselves and it is a problem that they did not possess one.

because of gun control ..which is ineffectual and everybody should be forced to take courses but we wont make it law even though it's mandatory .so that people are responsible gun owners and dont accidentily shoot their spouses and or children ..all 300,000,000 of you; responsible ...through non enforceable mandatory training and testing

I cannot vouch for them. That is why I believe in training classes and tests being required for a firearms license in order to prevent as many accidental and irresponsible shootings as possible. Had the above man taken a test and gone through a class, I doubt he would have emptied thirty rounds on his front door. That is just speculation though.

wouldnt that be gun control? you're controlling how people use their guns ..I thought you said it's ineffectual ..you confuse me

 

[CptStern]

First of all, accidents happen. They happen with knives, they happen with cars, they happen with swords, they happen with toasters. There is no shortage of things on this planet that can kill you if used improperly. Not all gun owners are responsible. Not all of them will ever be. All we can do is educate and train all of them and hope that there is only a small amount of irresponsible gun owners.

yet ...

Statistics Canada says the risk of [accidental] firearms death was more than three times as great for American males as for Canadian males and seven times as great for American females as for Canadian females.

because the ease of availibity naturally

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/06/28/gun-deaths050628.html

Also, do you think you're getting somewhere with all of the sob stories of children dying? I consider them sacrifices for mine and others' freedoms.

lol you really are a model human being, everybody should be so selfish and ego centric ..these kids die so that you can have your little hobby because statistically when are you ever going to need it for self defense in a life threatening situation. my math be off but isnt it one in 3 million? (1.3 million victemizations a year vs 300million americans)

These statistics are un-proportional. The US has a much larger population than Zimbabwe does. I've said this a million times over. We need to revise the laws for gun ownership. That will prevent many murders and violent gun crimes.

nope as Eejit pointed out check on the death by firearm rate ..it's much much lower than in the US ..and this is zimbabwe ffs

What the hell is that supposed to mean? You implied that I have never left Arizona, I was simply telling you where I've been. If you're going to insist on continuing to be a jerk in this debate, then I just might leave. Oh wait, no I won't because that is what you want.

I just wanted to say I've been to your anus :naughty:

They were extremely relevant, I just think you missed the point of most of them.

perhaps in bizarro world where non facts can be twisted to mean something they originally didnt ..I refuted your statements because at best they only had marginal relevance to the topic at hand ...pick better sources

You refuse to accept the facts.

what facts ddo I refuse to accept, point them out to me so I can refute them again

Your argument hinges on small, isolated incidents which are not enough to force a change to the US constitution.

my argument hinges on the FACT that there are far more gun related crime than there is guns that prevent crime. 1, 300,000 vs 83000 ..my look at all those zeroes denoting the difference

Also, if your country is so worried about guns being smuggled from the US, why don't you enforce your borders better?

we try but like I said many of you think you're in a john wayne movie


the problem is that many americans think the constitution applies to every country ..well at least the ones they can identify other countries besides america

 

[Ridge]

Show me a reputable article that says that 375,000 guns are sold in the US every day, before this past November 4th...

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

For those of you that were defending the Assault Weapons ban-

I'm buying this rifle

http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/product_info.php/products_id/14302


and putting this stock package on it

http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/product_info.php/products_id/54727



Based on the Assault Weapons ban my rifle would be illegal to produce with that stock package. It's the same damn rifle. It just looks different! There is no logic to any type of AWB ban.


Stern, you post many stats about deaths. How many are justified homicides in criminal situations where the person who shot the gun didn't report it to police? More than you think. A lot of people carry illegally and don't want to go to prison just for defending themselves.

Also where are the stats about how many lives are saved through gun ownership? Countless.

Like I said. Try a gun ban and you'll cause more death through insurrection and crime than you ever imagined you'd save.

I guarantee that.

 

[Ridge]

Dont forget he has posted the same 5 child deaths over and over again...

 

[jverne]

For those of you that were defending the Assault Weapons ban-

I'm buying this rifle

http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/product_info.php/products_id/14302


and putting this stock package on it

http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/product_info.php/products_id/54727



Based on the Assault Weapons ban my rifle would be illegal to produce with that stock package. It's the same damn rifle. It just looks different! There is no logic to any type of AWB ban.


Stern, you post many stats about deaths. How many are justified homicides in criminal situations where the person who shot the gun didn't report it to police? More than you think. A lot of people carry illegally and don't want to go to prison just for defending themselves.

Also where are the stats about how many lives are saved through gun ownership? Countless.

Like I said. Try a gun ban and you'll cause more death through insurrection and crime than you ever imagined you'd save.

I guarantee that.

why would anyone buy such an ugly piece of metal?




i think the issue is not just the availability of guns. I agree with Michael Moore here. it's the (mainstream) US joke of a culture that breeds psychopaths. The mainstream culture is based on fear and ignorance add guns to that any you have an explosive mixture.

I think it's far more reasonable to assume people aren't responsible than vice versa.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

why would anyone buy such an ugly piece of metal?

Well I was going to post this stock but I figured it'd be too confusing to people unfamiliar with firearms because the barrell appears so different.

http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/product_info.php/products_id/55826

I think it's far more reasonable to assume people aren't responsible than vice versa.

This is exactly one of the reasons we argue to KEEP firearms. Irresponsible government and crime.

 

[jet_porkins]

Well I was going to post this stock but I figured it'd be too confusing to people unfamiliar with firearms because the barrell appears so different.

http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/product_info.php/products_id/55826




This is exactly one of the reasons we argue to KEEP firearms. Irresponsible government and crime.

I'm just curious (not sure if you have said before), how many firearms to you intend to own at the end of the day?

 

[Eejit]

This is exactly one of the reasons we argue to KEEP firearms. Irresponsible government and crime.

I thought you said you were a criminal.

 

[justin.walters01]

I'm ****ing tired of this pointless argument. You apparently denote my intelligence and don't care what I have to say. You insult me and my country and offer anecdotal stories as evidence. I'm officially over it. Believe what you want even though you are sorely mistaken. I leave you with this picture of me and my buddy holding our guns.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

I thought you said you were a criminal.

I've never committed a gun crime. All instances of my use have been justified by law. You just resort to "LOL COPS TO GET DRUGS" when you have no arguement and want to play up the "DRUGS R BAD" arguement of prohibitionists.

 

[Eejit]

I just find it ironic how much you go on about crime, taxes etc. when you're an admitted criminal, presumably a fair portion of your income doesn't get taxed, and if/when you get caught you won't be allowed guns legally.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

I just find it ironic how much you go on about crime, taxes etc. when you're an admitted criminal, presumably a fair portion of your income doesn't get taxed, and if/when you get caught you won't be allowed guns legally.

YEARS ago buddy, I was like 16 or 17 years old. It's easy to sell in high school.


I don't sell drugs, and all of my income is taxed from my job. You're ridiculous just trying to attack my character rather than present arguements.

Countless times you idiots have posted "LOL JUST SO COPS DONT FIND YOUR STASH" because you want to strip others of their rights.


I find it ridiculous that you think drug charges merit a felony conviction over misdemeanor. That's ludicrous.

 

[Kinslayer]

This is exactly one of the reasons we argue to KEEP firearms. Irresponsible government and crime.

I'm going to jump in here.

The second amendment really doesn't make sense anymore in the spirit it was created.

Irresponsible government: So you mean for a revolution, should we ever have one. Sure, this idea worked back in the American revolution, as all we were shooting at were people and sometimes horses. However, there are (now) several problems with this:

1) Tanks
2) Helicopters
3) Jets
4) Bombs
5) Body armor
6) Fully-Automatic weapons, better semi/bolt action weapons
7) Training (guns aren't needed anymore, we're not frontiersmen), Camouflage

So, semi-automatic weapons aren't going to matter either way in this respect. Whether you're versus a tank or a helicopter, you aren't going to shoot it down with this.

If you're going to bring up this argument, you may as well open a can of worms and say we should allow stinger missiles and AT missiles to be bought by civilians to keep the government in check.

 

[Pesmerga]

People who suggest that the American military is this all powerful, un-beatable machine has no idea how modern war is waged.

In the scenario of a full blown civil war, differing ideologies means that even people in the armed forces would take sides. 50 million armed Americans, organized in environments they know (fighting for a cause they have to love to betray the US Constitution), is not easily squelched. You're likely looking at a very large number of the Armed forces (whole battalions) betraying their superiors. Generals are likely to side against the Government- Generals who know how to arm, train, and organize a militia and know their own tactics.

Large scale bombing will likely be unauthorized, as it's American cities they'd be bombing, they'd soon lose support among their own constituents.

A military simply cannot wage war against 50 million Americans without a proper industrial sector and likely an unwillingness in foreign nations to assist (depends on how bad the US Gov. has to get before full civil war is waged). It's not like you have to completely eliminate the opposing side before you win- you just have to cripple your enemy's will to continue. I'm not saying a civilian militia will have an easy time with it, but it's going to be better than a hundred million unarmed civilians.

But take away those small arms, and you have sheep. A small arm gives a citizen more than just a method to kill- it gives them courage. Give a dozen Dachau residents a pistol and you've got a dozen Jews ready to wreak some havoc. Sorry to be dramatic and all, but an armed American is a good American. I believe every American should be trained thoroughly in the use of small arms- and the right to earn a small arm without unreasonable restrictions is one of the most important rights we have.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

I'm going to jump in here.

The second amendment really doesn't make sense anymore in the spirit it was created.

Irresponsible government: So you mean for a revolution, should we ever have one. Sure, this idea worked back in the American revolution, as all we were shooting at were people and sometimes horses. However, there are (now) several problems with this:

1) Tanks
2) Helicopters
3) Jets
4) Bombs
5) Body armor
6) Fully-Automatic weapons, better semi/bolt action weapons
7) Training (guns aren't needed anymore, we're not frontiersmen), Camouflage

So, semi-automatic weapons aren't going to matter either way in this respect. Whether you're versus a tank or a helicopter, you aren't going to shoot it down with this.

If you're going to bring up this argument, you may as well open a can of worms and say we should allow stinger missiles and AT missiles to be bought by civilians to keep the government in check.

I'm not talking about in the case of a full scale revolution, I'm talking about protecting YOURSELF from corrupt government- be it police or federal authorities- if they come to infringe upon your rights.

Secondly, in the case OF full scale revolution it's obvious this would be a guerilla war. How did Afghanistan cause the Soviets to withdraw? How did Iraqi fighters give the US military so much grief in Iraq?

Especially given the vast spread and size of American cities, its well suited for it.

The above poster is dead on. Look at the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising and tell me you think those Jews shouldn't have been armed.

 

[Pesmerga]

I'm not talking about in the case of a full scale revolution, I'm talking about protecting YOURSELF from corrupt government- be it police or federal authorities- if they come to infringe upon your rights.

Attacking law enforcement with deadly force is not right. You bring your case to trial and let it be heard with verve and vigor, but you do not attack a law enforcement agent unless you believe it to be necessary to defend either your own life, or the lives of others.

Edit - Occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan (by either USSR or USA) are bad examples of militia taking on their own government, because they weren't civil wars, merely occupations- which rarely succeed (see British India, Napoleon Russia, French sovereignties). French revolution proved to be a failed political experiment (undergoing half a dozen government restructuring before settling on modern France, which still has problems). American revolution was more of an ousting of an occupation, which is fairly consistent with historical examples. The American Civil War was fought by, generally, two separate countries (separated so by a weak federal system), so that is again a bad example.

I wouldn't dare to go into pre-firearm history to look for examples (although there are some good Roman, African, and European civil wars that always wrought change, for better or worse) and modern Chinese data can't be looked at without including the Soviet Union in the discussion.

A true, modern American civil war would be an interesting point for history to look at.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

but you do not attack a law enforcement agent unless you believe it to be necessary to defend either your own life, or the lives of others.

This is what I'm talking about.

But the day an authority comes to try and take away my legally owned firearms you bet your ass I am blasting on those mother****ers.

And that's what you'll see ACROSS THE NATION. Full gun control would take oh so much more life than anyone can imagine.

 

[Pesmerga]

Personally, I'd just hide my guns.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

"My first priority will be to reinstate the assault weapons ban as soon as I take office. Within 90 days, we will go back after kitchen table dealers, and work to end the gun show and internet sales loopholes. In the first year, I intend to work with Congress on a national no carry law, 1 gun a month purchase limits, and bans on all semi-automatic guns."
—Barack Obama, VPC Fund Raiser, 2007

 

[Jintor]

But the day an authority comes to try and take away my legally owned firearms you bet your ass I am blasting on those mother****ers.

And that's what you'll see ACROSS THE NATION. Full gun control would take oh so much more life than anyone can imagine.

This scares me.

Is this attitude really as prevailant as friend Tenjin suggests?

 

[Pesmerga]

It's certainly not my line of thought.

 

[Eejit]

This is what I'm talking about.

But the day an authority comes to try and take away my legally owned firearms you bet your ass I am blasting on those mother****ers.

At that point you'll be guilty of gun crime, as owning those guns would no longer be legal if law enforcement is confiscating them.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

At that point you'll be guilty of gun crime, as owning those guns would no longer be legal if law enforcement is confiscating them.

Yeah so would half of America. GJ on that one. So yes, you'll be able to complete your dream of calling me and half of America a gun criminal if an unconstitutional law is passed and corrupt courts support it.

From wikianswers-

Most estimates range between 39% and 50% of US households having at least one gun(thats about 43-55 million households). The estimates for the number of privately owned guns range from 190 million to 300 million. Removed those that skew the stats for their own purposes the best estimates are about 45% or 52 million of american households owning 260 million guns).

^ This number can only have gone up since then as well. OLD NRA estimates state at least half of US households have a firearm.

This scares me.

How? And why?

Unless you had plans to forcibly take my firearms I don't see how it should scare you in the least. Hell you even live in another nation so there's nothing scary about it for you.

You should be scared when people give up their rights like nothing.

Like our forefathers said- people who trade liberty for a feeling of security deserve and get neither.

 

[Jintor]

The instant resorting to violence, armed and deadly violence, is 'slightly worrying'.

You should be scared when people give up their rights like nothing.

Like our forefathers said- people who trade liberty for a feeling of security deserve and get neither.

I honestly think it must be the American attitude that equates the right to bear arms with security, because here in Australia I really don't equate the two.