Latest gun Ban

[Royal Dragon]

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=2668

[xcakid]

Banning guns based on characteristic of the gun is just plain stupid. It all depends on the assailants mental state, not the kind of firearm or weapon he/she carries. Based on the current administration this will never pass. However, if we turn it over to the democraps and liberals, then yeah I can see it passing.

Let's face it. This will only apply to law abiding citizens. Criminals never follow the law, therefore it will not pertain to them. So all this law will ever do is tip the scale towards criminals. We already have enough laws regarding the use of firearms. We need tougher enforcement rather than more laws that confuse LEO and civilians alike. :mad:

Time to start stocking up on AR15 receiver and 30rd magazines again. :)

[FuXnDajenariht]

lol and how exactly does one differentiate between a law abiding citizen buying a gun and a criminal?

so a criminal isn't committing a crime during a gun purchase? wow amazing....

[Mas Judt]

In the states I am familiar with, you cannot get a gun card or equivilent in order to make a purchase at a legal gun dealer. In general, If you have a felony, (I THINK) you lose the right to own firearms period.

This means, for the average citizen, if they are a 'criminal' they cannot legally purchase firearms.

Therefore the only way to get them is illegally - if you are a felon.

Can someone with bad intent and no record get a gun? Sure. But they will be a LOT less likely to use it if they think all the good citizens around them are armed.


or

Are we all just untrustworthy 'consumers' who can't manage ourselves and need a nanny-state to do everything for us - at the point of a gun?

Man, I hope not. I liked being a citizen. Still do. And despite the best efforts of a tremendous amount of 'educated' ignorant people, we still retain many of our rights.

[Royal Dragon]

This means, for the average citizen, if they are a 'criminal' they cannot legally purchase firearms.

Reply]
True, but laws don't apply to criminals, only good citizens. So this will not effect the bad guys, only disarm thier victems so they cannot protect themselves.

[xcakid]

lol and how exactly does one differentiate between a law abiding citizen buying a gun and a criminal?

so a criminal isn't committing a crime during a gun purchase? wow amazing....


Law abiding citizen will go trough proper channels to purchase a firearms. Criminals will go through black market.

Law abiding citizen with have to fill out a form for a NICS check or like myself, will go through a Concealed Handgun Licensing procedure which would involve an FBI and Local background check, credit check.

I guess you equate gun owners to criminals. My father was a gun owner. He was a lawyer by profession and never been to jail, or no misdemeanors . My brother is a gun owner, he a graphics artist and never been to jail and no misdemeanors. I am a gun owner, former military held a security clearance while in active dute, fixed income trader for an international financial services firm, concealed handgun license holder, no felonies or misdemeanors. I have owned and fired firearms since I have been 9yrs old. I currently working on a collection of WWII firearms. I have a circle of friends that ranges from lawyers, to dentist to IT directors and financial advisor that are also gun owners and never been to jail in their lives. We enjoy hunting, and shooting sports. Here in TX we can even own fully automatic weapons(read machine guns), I have friends that own them. I guess by your logic (not being able to differientiate from law abiding/criminal), since we own, and continue to buy guns we are lumped into being criminals?

When they adopted the concealed handgun law here in TX. Anti Gun people predictied blood in the streets. Almost 10yrs have passed and we actually saw a decline in muggings and armed robberies.

As far as I am concerned, banning guns is not the answer. Gun education and training is the answer. Good parenting is the answer. I know you can't force people to be good parents, but if you make parents suffer the consequence fo their kids actions up till the age of 18, I would bet you would have more parents caring about thier kids and what they do outside of the home. Psychological health is also important. After all, a gun does not walk out by itself and kill people. It take a person to pick it up and pull the trigger. A kitchen knife or a rope can also kill a person. People can kill on thier own without guns. Even mass killing like Jim Jones, Geofrey Dahmer. Heck one of the most highly publicized killing and the most violent was done with a knife, the Ron Goldman and Nicole Simpson killing. Blaming a gun for violence is a cop out. Humans have a propensity for violence, regardless of what is available or unavailable to us. We are predatory and territorial by nature. Mental health, good parenting and firearms education, and stricter enforcement of current laws is your answer. But its much easier to get rid of an item than change.

[Black Jack II]

It is upon the right to keep and bear arms that all our other rights depend. A right that we're not able or allowed to defend is no right at all. Gun grabbers and those who follow HR1022 need to recheck there history and get a better understanding of the 2nd Amendment, the Constitution and the founding fathers who made this possible.

They need to get a understanding that the Bill of Rights was not created by accident. The people who framed the Second Amendment spoke open and were fully aware of what these words meant: "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."

That's one of the things I like about President Bush. He shot the first nutty attempt at additional gun control down and very likely this one will go by-by as well. It's an American's Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms and those without there head buried up there own a$$ can understand this sacred point. There are already around 20,000 unconstitional gun laws on the books which currently exist to disarm its citizens....citizens like the one linked bellow who could very well be dead now, the tides turned if certain people had there way.

http://www.columbusdispatch.com/news-story.php?story=250554

[golden arhat]

Banning guns based on characteristic of the gun is just plain stupid. It all depends on the assailants mental state, not the kind of firearm or weapon he/she carries. Based on the current administration this will never pass. However, if we turn it over to the democraps and liberals, then yeah I can see it passing.

Let's face it. This will only apply to law abiding citizens. Criminals never follow the law, therefore it will not pertain to them. So all this law will ever do is tip the scale towards criminals. We already have enough laws regarding the use of firearms. We need tougher enforcement rather than more laws that confuse LEO and civilians alike. :mad:

Time to start stocking up on AR15 receiver and 30rd magazines again. :)

no what u guys need is a complete weapons ban for civilian purposes

seriously the only reason u guys need to be armed is cos u were armed in the first place
take away guns and you take away the need for guns

burglars fear dogs more than guns

[xcakid]

no what u guys need is a complete weapons ban for civilian purposes

seriously the only reason u guys need to be armed is cos u were armed in the first place
take away guns and you take away the need for guns

burglars fear dogs more than guns

Then you give ABSOLUTE power to the government/authorities with no possible recourse for the citizens. That is not how this country was built. The US is a democratic REPUBLIC. The government should not have absolute power. The government is set up to serve the citizens of this coutry not rule over them. I understand that that is not the case is the UK since that is built on a monarchy system.

Its not about criminals. Its about the people rights and the right to protect your own property and person. And your country from its government if need be. If you think I am BS'ng you, read some of the writings by some of our founding fathers like Thomas Jefferson etc.

[Black Jack II]

I know your like really young so I will try and make this less of a rolleyes type of thing.

no what u guys need is a complete weapons ban for civilian purposes

No. There are a lot of reasons why this is a very horrible idea. Some very grand and some more grassroots.

seriously the only reason u guys need to be armed is cos u were armed in the first place

No. That showcases a lack of history, of our given rights as American's to self protection, self protection being a god given right to everyone despite social ranking and a lack of straight out practical thinking on the subject of pesonal defense.

take away guns and you take away the need for guns

Deserves a rolleyes but that is a dreamworld way of looking at reality and it goes against commonsense man.

burglars fear dogs more than guns

Guns are used more than to protect yourself from one criminal class.

[golden arhat]

roughly 60 ppl die hear from firearm related incidents here out of a population of 60 million (of course this has gone up recently from an influx of weapons and immigrants from bulgaria and other eastern bloc countries joining the e.u)

many thousands die in the u.s
i understand that the u.s population is bigger
but on the same ratio your gun crime rates would still dwarf ours

now tell me banning guns is a bad idea

(btw guns are allowed here for sport and hunting purposes)

[Mas Judt]

The story above would have had a very different ending if the old man 'drew his dog' instead of his gun.

I'd argue that a lot oof crime problems woukld be solved if we had MORE guns in the hands of citizens, with the right training.

Remember when the UK forbid people from defending themselves in thier own home? Home invasions SKYROCKETED. Even the liberal government was forced to change the ruling.

Governments can be good when run for the people, by the people. But an all powerful super-state where citizens do not have the right to defend themselves is... unacceptable.

Is our way perfect? no. We have a lot of work to do get back to the concept of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Unfortunately our higher education system and news media is dedicated to a different path - one that has failed time and again.

[Black Jack II]

now tell me banning guns is a bad idea

Yes. I will say it again. It's a horrible idea.

Dude, the UK is becoming one of the most crime ridden countries in the developed world, its also exploding in gun crime.

The scholars Joseph Olsen and David Kopel pointed out a few years ago the uncanny relationship between the enactment of English gun laws and subsequent increases in crime. Even a small child could look at the 100-year graph showing the crime rate vs. gun laws and see the tragic conclusion.

I like the UK but man you guys have been screwed over hard. It's like Bradbury's
Fahrenheit 451 in your neck of the woods. The quest for a utopian existance that is destorying itself in the search for perfection. All of this after the harsh gun laws enacted after the "Dunblane Massacre" in 1996.

We have a lot of work to do get back to the concept of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness

Word.

[Mas Judt]

Unfortunately, you are not taking into account the lives SAVED by gun possesion.

[PangQuan]

its the small and large animals that suffer the most from firearms.

if you cant catch it with a spear or bow you shouldnt be allowed to kill it..

lets see a man take an elk down with a knife. then its real sport.

or put guys in the woods hunting hunters....so the hunters know its a fair game.

[Black Jack II]

if you cant catch it with a spear or bow you shouldnt be allowed to kill it..

Sorry man, thats PETA think.

Technology evolves and its the technology of the gun that allowed people in our not so distant past to put food on the table to feed there family and nourish themselves. Even today in some of the more rural cultures of America this practice is used to help sustain life.

It's man's job to subjugate the animals and if a certain tool makes it easier, then so be it.

[golden arhat]

The story above would have had a very different ending if the old man 'drew his dog' instead of his gun.

I'd argue that a lot oof crime problems woukld be solved if we had MORE guns in the hands of citizens, with the right training.

Remember when the UK forbid people from defending themselves in thier own home? Home invasions SKYROCKETED. Even the liberal government was forced to change the ruling.

Governments can be good when run for the people, by the people. But an all powerful super-state where citizens do not have the right to defend themselves is... unacceptable.

Is our way perfect? no. We have a lot of work to do get back to the concept of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Unfortunately our higher education system and news media is dedicated to a different path - one that has failed time and again.


under uk law
if someone steps on your property u can kill him with whatever u can find

under this conditions
1 he must be a viable threat (so if the police come and find that u knocked him unconscious and then killed him u are guilty however if u just stabbed him in self defence it is perfectly legal)

[PangQuan]

we've gone past that point however.

a man rarely needs a firearm to feed his family. ESPECIALLY in the united states.

if a man actually NEEDS it then its fine. i find killing animals for sport wrong.

that of course is my opinion and i see the point your trying to make.

its just an outdated point.


the same technology that allowed us to more easily gather food for our villages and families is has removed the need to hunt animals for food in most countries.

we have grociery stores now. anything else for the most part is pure and simple sport.

[golden arhat]

its the small and large animals that suffer the most from firearms.

if you cant catch it with a spear or bow you shouldnt be allowed to kill it..

lets see a man take an elk down with a knife. then its real sport.

or put guys in the woods hunting hunters....so the hunters know its a fair game.

word

and as for gun crime rates rising here
that has nothing to do with it
its to do with the fact that more people are smuggling guns in so we need to deal with that
our gun crime rates are rising
but yours dwarf ours dont they ?

[FuXnDajenariht]

can someone please tell me who supplies these black markets if not "law abiding citizens"?

[Crushing Fist]

can someone please tell me who supplies these black markets if not "law abiding citizens"?


well, criminals...


don't you think?


let's see... selling on the black market is a crime sooooooo...

[PangQuan]

its similar to money laundering...often non criminals unknowning assist the criminal activity.

[Black Jack II]

we've gone past that point however.

It depends on what your view of that point is. Hunting is more than just trophy killing. Hunting is part of wildlife management and is important in culling those numbers to keep a healthy ecological capacity. It ensures that wildlife populations of game species are sustainable from one generation to the next. Hunters greatly support the enviroment and in keeping natural habitats to be kept intact and unpolluted. Also the tax income generated from hunting activities goes to enchancing wildlife ecosystems, maintaining parks and refuges for game and nongame species.

i find killing animals for sport wrong.

I can understand that. When I hunt I don't take anything I am not willing to eat.

its just an outdated point

I don't think so and neither do millions of other people. It's a good thing to learn wildcraft and to take responsibilty to understand where all this food from the supermarket comes from that we enjoy.:)

[PangQuan]

i can understand where your coming from, i just cant take life unless i have to.

as long as you actually eat, and make use of the bones and pelts then its totally natural.

but what % of hunters actually do that. I know **** Cheney just shoots his friends :P

[golden arhat]

.

It depends on what your view of that point is. Hunting is more than just trophy killing. Hunting is part of wildlife management and is important in culling those numbers to keep a healthy ecological capacity. It ensures that wildlife populations of game species are sustainable from one generation to the next. Hunters greatly support the enviroment and in keeping natural habitats to be kept intact and unpolluted. Also the tax income generated from hunting activities goes to enchancing wildlife ecosystems, maintaining parks and refuges for game and nongame species.



I can understand that. When I hunt I don't take anything I am not willing to eat.



I don't think so and neither do millions of other people. It's a good thing to learn wildcraft and to take responsibilty to understand where all this food from the supermarket comes from that we enjoy.:)

i agree with that

however a lack of guns in the non sporting sector would undoubtedly reduce gun crime would it not ??
after all a large part of gun crime is as a result of guns bought legally being stolen

[FuXnDajenariht]

lol "law abiding citizens" notice the sarcasm marks?

im saying if the only things that disqualifies someone from buying a gun is having a felony then thats not a very good system of checks and balances. hell i know of people who bought and sold them. its a weak system which allows easy access to guns for criminals under the guise of letting citizens protect themselves. most law abiding citizens i know up north find guns distasteful, so they wouldn't buy them anyway. that might me a cultural thing since i know its the exact opposite down south. but really think about who these laws are benefiting and protecting, since i know plenty of criminals without felonies.

[Black Jack II]

however a lack of guns in the non sporting sector would undoubtedly reduce gun crime would it not ??

No it would not. The best way to look at it in the most simple fashion and its been said by someone up above I believe is this-

Criminals do not follow gun laws. They do not follow the countless one's we have on the books now nor the current unconstitutional city specific bans in place nor anything else for that matter. The only person who gets the shaft is the law abiding person who seeks to defend life, liberty and property.

[FuXnDajenariht]

.

It depends on what your view of that point is. Hunting is more than just trophy killing. Hunting is part of wildlife management and is important in culling those numbers to keep a healthy ecological capacity. It ensures that wildlife populations of game species are sustainable from one generation to the next. Hunters greatly support the enviroment and in keeping natural habitats to be kept intact and unpolluted. Also the tax income generated from hunting activities goes to enchancing wildlife ecosystems, maintaining parks and refuges for game and nongame species.



we already had a system of wildlife management. they were called predators, but they were hunted close to extinction...

[MasterKiller]

we already had a system of wildlife management. they were called predators, but they were hunted close to extinction...

Predators are not usually hunted to extinction because we generally don't eat them. They usually go extinct either because of habitat destruction or because their prey population is dwindled (either through over-hunting, disease, or habitat destruction).

[FuXnDajenariht]

yes but when we take their territories, which leads to prey populations declining, and then we build farms with a steady supply of alternative food sources (livestock). they become a threat to us. they become competition and wildlife will always lose in that misguided battle. if i recall correctly the government allowed farmers to shoot coyotes and wolves for this very reason. i could be mistaken though. i do know the wolf population just started returning back to normal levels though, whatever the reason for their decline was.

[PangQuan]

i think the only predators that are hunted to extinction are those with pelts or some other expensive bodily part that people like to turn into fat old rich lady clothes.

but im sorry i think i derailed the thread a bit.


this was supposed to be about me being able to buy a gun so i can kill a mo fo for messin with my shiat!

[Black Jack II]

i can understand where your coming from, i just cant take life unless i have to. As long as you actually eat, and make use of the bones and pelts then its totally natural

I see that view. I just happen to relish the experiance of the hunt and happen to really enjoy the taste of wild duck, quail, pheasent, turkey and occasionally rabbit.:)

Now, I don't use the pelts nor bones but the flesh goes to a good use.

[PangQuan]

maybe if we put the human flesh to good use people wont mind guns so much....














i kid i kid :D

[FuXnDajenariht]

i dont think the majority of Americans even consider shooting someone as an option to tell you the truth. its atleast highly overestimated. how many NRA members are their actually out of our total population? and the NRA is another lobby just like any other. the only exception is with what in my opinion is an outdated constitutional law backing them. that law was made in a climate of war, with everyone in a revolutionary and rebellious mindstate unsure of what the fuute might bring.

needless to say times have changed. now you have militias thinking they will somehow one day have to overthrow the largest most technologically advanced military in the world with a few hunting weapons. :rolleyes: violent revolutions haven't worked out to well. check the track record.

[PangQuan]

we just need to work on reaching a utopic society where all restaraunts are Taco Bell, and we chriogenically freeze our criminals. we will force everyone who does not agree to live in the sewers and eat rat burgers.

then when Wesley Snipes wakes up and tries to kill us all, Sylvester Stalone will bring back the firearm.


its a vicious cycle.

and what the h3ll is up with the d@mn 3 seashells.

[Black Jack II]

how many NRA members are their actually out of our total population

The NRA is not even close to a total showcase of all legal gun owners in America. I know plenty of firearm owners who are not members of that specific lobby, a lobby I do support however.

The bottom line is that firearm ownership is a sacred legacy of our countries liberity and there is a reason our fore fathers included in the second amendment to the Constitution the words,"shall not be infringed."

[FuXnDajenariht]

yes. to not be infringed by the British empire. it was a political statement.

[PangQuan]

suppose the U.S. put a ban on all guns.

would criminals still get them? yes.

then everyone would literally be forced to bring a knife to a gun fight.

its too easy to get ANYTHING in america illegally.

Im pretty sure there is a big ass ban on Heroine...but i just saw a news report that a local bust of 40 lbs. was just made.

that would be firearms instead, they would still be on the street, they would still be used in crime.

perhaps the % would change on how often a firearm is used in a hostile crime, but it wont go away.

what will go away will be every single instance where a legal gun owner saved his life or that of a family member because he was legally allowed to own a firearm and protect his family.

its a technological tool that you cannot simply snuff out. especially with how freaking large america is.

you think its easy to keep crap out of our country with how large our borders are? no way.

i dont own a gun but im all for keeping my right to do so if i ever want to.

[Crushing Fist]

Predators are not usually hunted to extinction because we generally don't eat them. They usually go extinct either because of habitat destruction or because their prey population is dwindled (either through over-hunting, disease, or habitat destruction).


You sure about that?


We don't eat them, true. We do kill them to protect our livestock though.

Wolves, Coyotes, etc...

We also kill them because we fear them

Sharks, Mountain Lions, etc.


I know these have not been hunted to extinction... but they came pretty close, and not at all through habitat loss or starvation.

[xcakid]

i dont think the majority of Americans even consider shooting someone as an option to tell you the truth. its atleast highly overestimated. how many NRA members are their actually out of our total population? and the NRA is another lobby just like any other. the only exception is with what in my opinion is an outdated constitutional law backing them. that law was made in a climate of war, with everyone in a revolutionary and rebellious mindstate unsure of what the fuute might bring.

needless to say times have changed. now you have militias thinking they will somehow one day have to overthrow the largest most technologically advanced military in the world with a few hunting weapons. :rolleyes: violent revolutions haven't worked out to well. check the track record.

Surely you are not serious.

We are already eroding our free speech, eroding our personal privacy. By your statements you would rather hand over all control to the government. Let them tell you what you can think, do and go. Cause that is what the Constitution prevents.

Gun rights is there so that no one, not even the government, is to have full control of its citizens. Regardless of the situation. That is the same with all of the ammendments in the constitution.

You check the track record of socialism and complete government control. Dating back to the Midevil days when monarchs banned their subject, yes I said subjects not citizens, their right to bear arms/free speech/right to assemble. Then we move on to Stalins Russia, Communist Germany, and Germany under the rule of Hitler. Going back even to the Roman empire. A society that gives up its rights will no longer have a voice. You become subjects at that point.

The US Constitution is there so that the US citizens do not become subjects ever again. Yet there are people out there that are willing to give that up.

I suggest you live in a third world country for 10yrs. I bet you will learn to appreciate the Constitution so many people have died for so that you can spew this dribble you are spewing now without recourse.

Sad :(

[PangQuan]

i only hunt sharks with rock knives to prove my manhood.

[FuXnDajenariht]

Surely you are not serious.

We are already eroding our free speech, eroding our personal privacy. By your statements you would rather hand over all control to the government. Let them tell you what you can think, do and go. Cause that is what the Constitution prevents.

Gun rights is there so that no one, not even the government, is to have full control of its citizens. Regardless of the situation. That is the same with all of the ammendments in the constitution.

You check the track record of socialism and complete government control. Dating back to the Midevil days when monarchs banned their subject, yes I said subjects not citizens, their right to bear arms/free speech/right to assemble. Then we move on to Stalins Russia, Communist Germany, and Germany under the rule of Hitler. Going back even to the Roman empire. A society that gives up its rights will no longer have a voice. You become subjects at that point.

The US Constitution is there so that the US citizens do not become subjects ever again. Yet there are people out there that are willing to give that up.

I suggest you live in a third world country for 10yrs. I bet you will learn to appreciate the Constitution so many people have died for so that you can spew this dribble you are spewing now without recourse.

Sad :(

oh please...you still have your right to bear arms but yet these things are still happening? the erosion of freedoms is occurring because of our collective stupidity. pointing guns at elected officials wont help that. it'll probably have a negative backlash to allow further oppression all things considered. but you keep polishing that gun thinking its the solution to our problems.

[Black Jack II]

yes. to not be infringed by the British empire. it was a political statement.

There is your error. No it is not. It's a statement backing our fundamental right to bear arms. The original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment was to preserve and guarantee, not grant, the pre-existing right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Although the amendment emphasizes the need for a militia, membership in any militia, let alone a well-regulated one, was not intended to serve as a prerequisite for exercising the right to keep arms.

[xcakid]

oh please...you still have your right to bear arms but yet these things are still happening? the erosion of freedoms is occurring because of our collective stupidity. pointing guns at elected officials wont help that. it'll probably have a negative backlash to allow further oppression all things considered. but you keep polishing that gun thinking its the solution to our problems.


That is bull. Our rights have been eroding since the 50's. I do not have my COMPLETE right to bear arms. I have to be licensed(read written permission) to carry a gun concealed. In some state they restrict ownership of certain firearms. That is NOT "Right to Bear Arms" These are the same states that have more gun violence by the way AFTER these laws were instituted. I lived in CA, and during the 89 Ban and the SB23 ban, the shooting have not decreased. They actually increased. Home invasions and car jacking and more prevelant. Unlike what the media would lead you to believe, gun owners are not violent.

I do agree that the erosion is due to the collective stupidity(can't believe that with the views you posted you would actually admit that). And yes pointing guns at politicians may not be the answer right now. But granting them and others to further erode our rights and re-write the Constitution to what they "feel" is right to "modernize it" is suicide of what made this country great. And no I do not think guns are the solution. Unbiased education is the solution.

[FuXnDajenariht]

yea keep living in a dream world thinking that everyone walking around with a concealed gun will somehow create a societal utopia. sort of like the so called peace we have due to assured destruction that nuclear weapons afford us. im biased becuase i dont think people should walk around my city streets packing large caliber weapons? excuse the **** out of me. as if law abiding citizens and criminals are inherently born that way. the only thing that separates them is will and opportunity.

guns didn't make our country great. enlightened thoughts and ideals did. you would do well to remember that. our most important and hard fought battles were in Congress and courtrooms, not battle fields with men killing each other.

[lostdragon]

to post these things:

http://www.gunfacts.info/

http://www.justfacts.com/gun_control.htm

Interestingly, reading through this demonstrates a reality about this issue, which is that ideology, on both sides, can skew opinion. So, I like to post these things 1) because it provides at least some published data on the subject and 2) gives all sides something more to talk about than...

A: u-huh, it is so this way!

B: nu-huh, is not

A: is so

B: is not.

etc.

Just a couple comments/observations/opinions:

- Before anyone goes off saying 'that's not right!' or whatever, do some reading. I don't have the time to wade through all the citations to check their accuracy and tell you that what they are saying is correct, but I would invite you to do just that if you are concerned about the data presented. If you find an error and have a good data to support something else, please share this with the authors. They are interested in accurate data as well. I also encourage everyone not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. There may be something that isn't right, or a bad study on something. That doesn't invalidate everything else (very human way to justify not listening to something because they don't like it.)

- Also, a note about statistics: we usually are a few years behind in reported data, just the nature of the beast. Still, what most people are looking at are trends, not absolutes.

- I think this review of the data (assuming correct or not spun) doesn't support the large number of assumptions about firearms that are circulated in our modern media and popular opinion.

- It is amazing that we have relatively few deaths by firearms in our country. Despite the protrayal by popular media of the US as a gun toting free for all bloodbath, there are relatively few given the number of weapons that are out there. Does anyone else find it interesting the data regarding deaths of children by firearms? Accidental deaths? Involvement in preventing violent crime?

- Interestingly, my anecdotal experience with all the law enforcement folks that I've worked with over the years parallels this data.

Anyway, I hope people find this interesting and it can spur on some intelligent conversation, rather than a playground arguement.

[Black Jack II]

guns didn't make our country great.

Let's say they added to the ability for us to make any kind of enlightened thought on any subject. They are part and parcel of being American.

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes....Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."-Thomas Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776

"A free people ought to be armed."-George Washington: (Jan 14 1790, Boston Independent Chronicle.)

[PangQuan]

* In the United States during 1997, there were 15,289 murders. Of these, 10,369 were committed with firearms. (2)


* Americans use firearms to defend themselves from criminals at least 764,000 times a year. This figure is the lowest among a group of 9 nationwide surveys done by organizations including Gallup and the Los Angeles Times. (16b)


i would say the benefits (statistically speaking) far outweight the concequences...

nearly a million people defend themselves a year with guns while ten thousand dye by them from a crime.

thanks for linking these sites, its nice to have some facts to deal with on a subject that is so opinion and emotionally driven.

[golden arhat]

Any person who has spent more than three years in prison is automatically banned for life from obtaining a gun licence

Any person holding a gun licence must comply with strict conditions regarding such things as safe storage. These storage arrangements are checked by the police before a licence is first granted, and on every renewal of the licence. A local police force may impose additional conditions on ownership, over and above those set out by law. Failure to comply with any of these conditions can mean forfeiture of the gun licence and surrender of any firearms to the police.

The penalty for possession of a prohibited firearm without a certificate is currently a mandatory minimum five year prison sentence and an uncapped fine.


To obtain a firearm certificate, the police must be convinced that a person has "good reason" to own each gun, and that they can be trusted with it "without danger to the public safety or to the peace". Under Home Office guidelines, gun licences are only issued if a person has legitimate sporting or work-related reasons for owning a gun. Since 1946, self-defence has not been considered a valid reason to own a gun. The current licensing procedure involves: positive verification of identity, two referees of verifiably good character who have known the applicant for at least two years (and who may themselves be interviewed and/or investigated as part of the certification), approval of the application by the applicant's own family doctor, an inspection of the premises and cabinet where guns will be kept and a face-to-face interview by a Firearms Enquiry Officer (FEO) also known as a Firearms Liaison Officer (FLO). A thorough background check of the applicant is then made by Special Branch on behalf of the firearms licensing department. Only when all these stages have been satisfactorily completed, will a licence be issued.

self defence is no reason to own a gun

we have proved this
we have the stricted gun control laws anywhere
and our gun crime and accidental death relating to are some of the lowest anywhere also

so why is gun control a bad idea
gun control works

its proven

[golden arhat]

In 2005/06 there were 766 offences initially recorded as homicide by the police in England and Wales (including the 52 victims of the 7 July 2005 London bombings),[15] a rate of 1.4 per 100,000 of population. Only 50 (6.6%) were committed with firearms, one being with an air weapon.[16] The homicide rate for London was 2.4 per 100,000 in the same year (1.7 when excluding the 7 July bombings).[17]

By comparison, 5.5 murders per 100,000 of population were reported by police in the United States in 2000, of which 70% involved the use of firearms (75% of which were illegally obtained).[18] New York City, with a population size similar to London (over 7 million residents), reported 6.9 murders per 100,000 people in 2004.[19]

Mexico which has gun control laws as strict as the UK, has homicide rate of 17.58 per 100,000 of population.[20]

Although it is sometimes claimed that since Britain banned the private ownership of handguns, gun crime has steadily increased, there is no evidence of a causal link.[21] Handguns were only held by 0.1% of the population[22], and while the number of crimes involving firearms in England and Wales increased from 13,874 in 1998/99 to 24,070 in 2002/03, they remained relatively static at 24,094 in 2003/04, and have since fallen steadily to 21,521 in 2005/06. The latter includes 3,275 crimes involving imitation firearms and 10,437 involving air weapons, compared to 566 and 8,665 respectively in 1998/99.[23] Only those "firearms" positively identified as being imitations or air weapons (e.g. by being recovered by the poilce or by being fired) are classed as such, so the actual numbers are likely to be significantly higher. In 2005/06, 8,978 of the total of 21,521 fireasrms crimes (42%) were for criminal damage.[24]

Since 1998 number of people injured by firearms in England and Wales has more than doubled[25] from 2,378 in 1998/99 to 4,001 in 2005/06. "Injury" in this context means by being fired, used a blunt instrument, or as a threat. In 2005/06, 87% of such injuries were defined as "slight," which includes the use of firearms as a threat only. The number of homicides commited with firearms has remained between a range of 49 and 95, standing at 50 in 2005/06 (a fall from 78 the previous year). Between 1998/99 and 2005/06, there have been only two fatal shootings of police officers in England and Wales. Over the same period there were 107 non-fatal shootings of police officers - an average of just 9.7 per year.[26]

[xcakid]

im biased becuase i dont think people should walk around my city streets packing large caliber weapons? excuse the **** out of me. as if law abiding citizens and criminals are inherently born that way. the only thing that separates them is will and opportunity.


People already walk around in your city with guns. They are called the Police. They carry concealed on and off duty. Why are they different? Cause they wear a badge perhaps. That is the only they have over me carrying a gun cause their training is a joke(with the exception few officers and SWAT officers). An average of 20hrs firearms training at the academy!!! Then they shoot once a year to qualify, if that. No thanks!!! I would rather depend on MY training. 6yrs Military, I have trained is various tactical and defensive firearms courses(TFTT (http://www.tftt.com/),Tiger Valler (http://www.tigervalley.com/) and Thunder Ranch (http://www.thunderranchinc.com/)) that police officers and SWAT officer attend. I take classes at least 2-4X a yr, finances permitting. I shoot competitions at least 2X a month. And let's not forget cops are human and have many documented and reported cases where they have gone bad. Also news of cops shooting the wrong person. SWAT officer entering the wrong house and killing occupants. Sure they are bound by law. But then again so am I as a Concealed Handgun licensee.

You have bought into the medias biased view that a gun is only used for violence and mischief. You said it yourself, it is a persons will and opportunity that will cause him for violence. I would like to be able to fight fire with fire. So until, the MILITARY and POLICE and the entire world bans guns for EVERYONE and not just select few. I will keep mine.


guns didn't make our country great. enlightened thoughts and ideals did. you would do well to remember that. our most important and hard fought battles were in Congress and courtrooms, not battle fields with men killing each other.
.

No guns did not make this country great. I agree. But it sure helped and continues to help. And armed citizens help secure this country so that we can be independent. Otherwise, we would not have out Constitution. We would still be griping about being British subjects and bowing our head to the Queen Mum.

"most important battles were fought in Congress and courtrooms" Hmmm.

Guess we sued the pants out of Japan after the bomb Pearl Harbor and they just gave up huh?

Guess Russia got scared when we threatened to send subpoena's and cease and desist order to remove their missiles in Cuba?

Guess we helped halt the German's Armies conquest of Europe by having our Congress crank call Hitler daily.

Sure there are diplomatic ways to solve a problem. But there are certain problems that require force and tools to enforce it. Much like a guy breaks into your house, and you just yelling get out!!! Pointing your finger to the door. Even if he did not have a gun, I doubt that would work. :D

[Royal Dragon]

sort of like the so called peace we have due to assured destruction that nuclear weapons afford us.

Reply]
The ability to totally anihalate your attackers prevents them from attacking in the first place. It's not different than a fist fight. If you had reason to attack someone, and you had a reasonable chance of kicking his ass and winning, what's to stop you? BUT, if he was 7 foot 5, weight 450, and could bench 850, I bet you wouldn't even try.

Now, on the world scene, especially with Terrorists nations wanting to wipe us from existance, who do you want to be, the guy that is beatable, or the one with the nukes instilling so much fear into yur enemies that they tremble at the thought of a confrontation with you?

The same goes with Guns. We live in a country where criminalls are armed to the teeth. They will get gunns no matter what laws we passon ourselves. Do you want to be home with your wife and children when a criminal who has nothing to fear comes for your wife's jewlery, and your 16 year old daughter's body?

Or would you prefer the criminals in this country to never know if breaking into a house will meet them with armed resistance, and death?

I don't know about you guys, but *I* want the legal ability to shoot back...and maybe more important, i want the criminals to know I have that ability, motivation, and no legal issues to make me hesitate.

[Chief Fox]

So the web page said that the Clinton law was let to expire because the guns in banned were very seldom used in crimes. Now this new potential law is going to ban even more guns that are seldom used in crime.

Let's ban the assault rifle.
Why?
Well, because it will prevent crime.
But there are no crimes that have been commited with an assault rifle.
Don't bore me with your common sense and convincing details.

[Black Jack II]

self defence is no reason to own a gun

As already stated over and over again, yes it is. I can showcase a vast amount of material on people saving there lives with the use of a firearm. One of them is already on this thread topic. The horrible rising crime rates in Britain are due to there draconian anti-self defense posture and it is shocking for anyone willing to do a little research.

If you are asking me what I mean about anti-self defense, well that would take some time, but go ahead and look at Tony Martin in your own country for a good example. Your country in its quest for perfection sold you down the river and your buying it hook, line and sinker.:rolleyes:

Next, whoever listed gunfacts, put down one of the best links on the web to dispel the myths of gun violence and its a great link to go through. What this ban is for anyway, is just another wrap around attempt to get at the .50 caliber weapons, which is not the prime tool of choice for street criminals anyway.

[Royal Dragon]

I can showcase a vast amount of material on people saving there lives with the use of a firearm.

Reply]

I read one study once stateing that many guns used in selfdefense are never even fired. The brandishing of the weapon was enough to stop the attackers.


What this ban is for anyway, is just another wrap around attempt to get at the .50 caliber weapons, which is not the prime tool of choice for street criminals anyway.

Reply]
Can you explaine this? I don't quite get what your are saying here.

[Black Jack II]

Can you explaine this? I don't quite get what your are saying here.

Royal,

Don't get me wrong, there is more here than getting back to banning what misinformed people term assualt weapons but it always seems to go back to that terminology and the dishonest presentation of the .50 BMG caliber rifle.

Dedicated gun prohibitionists use the .50 caliber to help further there agenda towards total American disarmament. They call it a tank buster weapon, a military armour piercing sniper round, that they are terrorist weapons of choice, all sorts of unfactual, off the wall jargon to help showcase that in their view this rifle has no legitimate use, and that this among other calibers falls into a "assualt weapon" context.

Here is the reason why they do this. If they can get one caliber out of the way, then its easier to move on to the next, from there its on to the .458, then the .375, then the .308, etc. Sneaky....huh;)

For the record, though I have never had the pleasure to shoot one, sport shooters across the country use the .50 BMG caliber rifle to participate in offical competitions and professionally-sanctioned recreational sports shooting events.

[PangQuan]

when i was 19 i lived with a friend. he owned a gun. legally.

one night there was a break in, i was being attacked by 3 armed robbers.

my friend busted out of his room and had a bead on the one closest to him yelling "who fukcing wants to die"

at that the 2 closest to the door ran immediately, the 3rd guy closest to him, who had ME in his sights said "fukc it" and ran.

I quite possibly owe my life to that gun my friend held, AND no one was shot, the mere presence of death was enough to cause the assailents to leave, all parties unharmed.

luckly, my friend had a gun and saved my life.

i dont own a gun, but i sure as hell owe guns some gratitude and possibly my continued existence

[xcakid]

For the record, though I have never had the pleasure to shoot one, sport shooters across the country use the .50 BMG caliber rifle to participate in offical competitions and professionally-sanctioned recreational sports shooting events.


If you are an afficionado like myself, I would highly suggest you not shoot one. Cause you will have a grin from ear to ear and would start saving up for one/maxing out a CC. Or if you already have the cash, you won't soon enough. I got the opp of shooting a couple. A Barrett and an AR50. Now I am saving up for an Accuracy Int'l .50 BMG(those who don't know, they start around $7K). Plus the rounds are like $1.25-1.50 ea. Expensive hobby long range shooting. :cool: If you're married, try explaining that to the wife.

Key is to shoot often. Get good enough to get a sponsor. Knew a guy that was sponsored by Armalite. They GAVE him a .50cal and funded his ammo purchases. Not sure he competes any longer, lost contact with him.

I never had the discipline to learn long range shooting. Too mathematical. Bullet vs powder vs distance vs barrel twist, etc. Maybe when I get older. Or when I can finally take home an AI50

If you ever get to TX, lemme know. I know a couple of people that will be more than happy to let you shoot a 50. We even have a couple of ranges that go out to 1000yds to test your skill. :)

[Black Jack II]

Cause you will have a grin from ear to ear and would start saving up for one/maxing out a CC

LOL, I would not doubt it. Those puppies are monster expensive. What would I tell the wife since I don't do long distance shooting......ummm honey.....yeah.....don't worry I am going to use it incase we ever have a ufo invasion....owwww....will you stop hitting me with the paper:D

http://www.50bmgstore.com/50bmgcurrentprices.htm

If you think that is some scary shiznit. Check out this custom .60 caliber handgun...LOL.

It's a .600 nitro express.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sS8LT9xkOnE

[golden arhat]

pangquan
i think ur under the illusion that most break ins happen at night

they dont

they happen when ur out

so get a rottweiler or a neopolitan mastiff

problem solved

[Crushing Fist]

sort of like the so called peace we have due to assured destruction that nuclear weapons afford us.

Reply]
The ability to totally anihalate your attackers prevents them from attacking in the first place. It's not different than a fist fight. If youhad reason to attack someoen, (Say they raped ur sister), and you had a reasonable chance of kicking his ass and winning, what's to stop you? BUT, if he was 7 foot 5, weight 450, and could bench 850, I bet you wouldn't even try.

Now, on the world scene, especially with Terrorists nations wanting to wipe us from existance, who do you want to be, the guy that is beatable, or the one with the nukes instilling so much fear into yur enemies that they tremble at the thought of a confrontation with you?



Did you just say that the US is a rapist thug?

Why would you say that?

[Royal Dragon]

Dogs don't do a darn thing when the bad guy shoots or stabbs them first...Dogs can't shoot back like we can...

[Royal Dragon]

Not quite what I meant. I should probably read my posts befor i hit the post button. I will have to re word that when i am done with all these reports.

The basic jist, is no matter WHO the 7 foot 450 pound solid muscle guy is, no one messes with him. Better to be that guy, than the one who is beatable.

[Royal Dragon]

As for the .50 CAL, I don't see a problem driving my open jeep around town with one mounted in the back. Do you? :D

[Crushing Fist]

Not if your town is Kabul, I don't.

[Royal Dragon]

I was thinking more of Westmont, or Naperville :D

For example, say I were to have to go to Walgreens to get my Prosac prescription filled. :eek: :p

[golden arhat]

what would u be defending yourself from ?
the communists ??
or worse FREE THINKERS !!

[Black Jack II]

what would u be defending yourself from ?
the communists ??
or worse FREE THINKERS !!

How does this make sense?

[PangQuan]

pangquan
i think ur under the illusion that most break ins happen at night

they dont

they happen when ur out

so get a rottweiler or a neopolitan mastiff

problem solved

Im not under any illusions. Read carefully, my particular situation DID happen at night.

I simply told a story, i formed no opinions or arguments as to when or where assaults happen.

you simply formed an illusion for yourself. or perhaps you can point to my words that say i assume as such that you stated i did. which you cannot, because i simply have not made any statements.

by the way, breakins/assaults dont happen only when your out or at home, night or day, they happen in every single situation you can imagine. this is the nature of life. if it can, then it most likely WILL happen.

by the way, i dont want a dog, read my posts more carefully and you will find i dont own a gun, as i have stated several times. I dont plan to.

my major form of defense is using common sense and preparedness in security of home.

[golden arhat]

yes but it is true that most breakins happen in the day
fact
so get a big dog thats protective and fuking scary
my mums a prison officer and she said that most burglars are scared of dogs more than anything
many accounts show that a bullet isnt enough to stop a mastiff or a big dog like that
presuming u can hit something thats moving that fast and is intent on killing you

and black jack
i'm just sayin that its rediculous to have a 50 cal machine gun mounted on a car for non military purposes (assuming there is a valid one)
and what about other guns that aren't effective for anything other than assault purposes
such as the tec 9
or the mac 10
or any other machine pistol u care to mention

[xcakid]

Tec9's are pieces of crap that jams every other round. No I can't see having one. :D

Now being an owner of a Mac10/11, that is some fun stuff I tell ya. That is solidly built that when you run out of round, you throw it at your assailant and will more than likely put him or her in a coma from the impact. A close friend owns an H&K MP5SD. Sub machine guns are primarily used as investment vehicles. A Mac10 in a .45ACP would've run you right around $1000 3-4yrs ago. They are now going for $1500+. My friend bought his MP5SD around $10K in the same time frame. They are going around $18K+ now. Now I am talking about the fully automatic version, which are legal to own in about 20+ states if I am not mistaken. The semi automatic version would be cheaper of course and do not appreciate in value.

There are also quite a few regional sub machine gun shooting comps here in the states. We just had one nearby last weekend. I did not go cause I am currently out of funds to burn through 1000+ rds of ammo. :( And yes, there is price money involved.

[PangQuan]

i dont need a dog, the chances of me being the victim of another breakin are rare, especially where i live. besides i would never obtain a life for the sole purpose of protection. i think thats wrong. if i were to ever get a dog it would be for a loving pet first and foremost.

im simply not worried about it. and on the off chance it does happen, they can have my stuff / kill me / or die by the sword.

[golden arhat]

do u not think that if someone broke in and u immediately broke out one of those and sprayed the fukin place u would be liable to injure your family ? and wreck your house ?
i mean come on they arent exactly the pinnacle of accuracy are they ?

[xcakid]

do u not think that if someone broke in and u immediately broke out one of those and sprayed the fukin place u would be liable to injure your family ? and wreck your house ?
i mean come on they arent exactly the pinnacle of accuracy are they ?

Nope, that's where training comes in. Real life is not like the movies. The spray and pray technic is only used in the movies and by *******es. These firearms do have sights you know so you can aim at your target. They also have a semi auto switch. If you do have to fire full auto, you do it in burst of 2-3rds. That is how the military does, that is how you do it in competitions, that is how you are trained. That is the whole point of competing, Accuracy. I would never use a full auto weapon for defense. Those stay in the safe locked up tight. You have to use the right tool for the job. You wouldn't use a hammer if a wrench was needed, would you?

My home defense weapon also has low grain powder and rounds are design to fragment easily so as not to penetrate walls. If they do then they should be fragmented and do minimal harm. The same with my carry weapon. So that if I do have to use it in public, it will not over penetrate and hit someone unintended.

You see gun ownership is a responsibility, much like driving a car. If you don't maintain your brakes you are liable to cause an accident or run over somebody. Owning a firearms means that you have to learn about that firearm and be familiar with what it can do. Training and education is the key in firearms.

[Black Jack II]

i mean come on they arent exactly the pinnacle of accuracy are they ?

Again any tool is based on the context of the situation, the enviroment and your training. Guns save lives over and over again this is proven. You are making up odd statements.

[Yum Cha]

Gun Control -
Those NRMA guys are always saying how gun crime has exploded in Australia and the UK since the guns were banned.

Yep, for sure, in Sydney we'd have 3 shootings a year, its maybe up to 6 now, a full 100% increase! OH MY GOD! Arm up boys, the bad guys are comming! hahahahahahah.

UK similar. Canada is the best example. More like America, roughly equal gun ownership per capita. Only, similar death rates by gun to Aus and UK. Explain that away. Simple, Canadian's aren't afraid of their shadow, don't go blasting away at their kids sneaking in at night, at their wives or husbands during a blue, or at themselves when it all gets too much.

The statistics speak for themselves, you are more likely to die by your own gun than the gun of another. Most murders are perpetrated by family members upon each other, and the vast majority of murders are comitted by people who know the victim.

That creepy mugger or home invader just doesn't exist, regardless of the pumped up fear mongering going on in the media.

Crime has been dropping in ALL major American cities since the 90's and the Gun Lobby jumps up to claim the credit. In reality, its the "Women's right to choose" people who should be claiming credit, because the trend coincides with the legalisation of abortion on demand in the 70's when all of those would be criminals would have been born.

Strip away the emotion, and you are left with the facts.

So, the constitution comes up next, the right to bear arms. That was included in the constitution to prevent tyrants from stealing elections, circumventing constutional rights, suspending the bill of rights and otherwise taking over government without fear of being overthrown by an armed population. Well, you had your chance and blew that one too, so why keep praying at that holy grail?

Sure, collecting wwII firearms, muzzle loaders, whatever. Hunting, pentathalon, quick draw, all those hobbies are probably lots of fun, and pose no real problem in my humble opinion, but assault weapons for gang bangers protected under the same laws?

As usual, you end up getting what you deserve in the long run. Its a classic case of your Karma running over your dogma.

[Royal Dragon]

On the subject of Dogs:

Several have mentioned "Just get a dog", but what if you are deathly allergic to Dogs, to the point of visiting someone's home who has a dog sends you into a severe alergic Asthma attack requireing hospitalisation? What do you do then?


Simpe, buy a Gun. Guns cost about the same as good dogs anyway.

[TenTigers]

get a dog who can fire a 12 guage.

[Royal Dragon]

Sure, collecting wwII firearms, muzzle loaders, whatever. Hunting, pentathalon, quick draw, all those hobbies are probably lots of fun, and pose no real problem in my humble opinion, but assault weapons for gang bangers protected under the same laws?

Reply]
The *Gang Bangers* are going to have them ANYWAY!!!!!

Why take them from us? Especially when we are not hurting anyone, and often use them in defense of our families?

It is just stupid to think the Laws are going to give the guns to Gang Members. It's going to disarm US!

Why is that fact so hard for some to understand? It's simple logic.

[Yum Cha]

Hi RD,
I have a lot of sympathy for your point of view, but the point of conflict is that this emotional argument is not fully defensable.

Australia has a near total hand gun ban. You have to be in a club and have a shooters licence to own one, and you have to order it through the club, and there are heaps of other rules too.

Yet, I can go down to the local drug dealers and place an order for a handgun, and have it tomorrow if he doesn't have one in his trunk. I think the going price is between one and two grand for a decent automatic. Drugs and guns sold on the same black market, same places, same people. Not really a best case scenario.

So, druggies get the guns. Lots of druggies are crims too, thus the crims get the guns. Yes, it happens.

BUT, and here is the big but, criminals aren't the ones that are statistically likely to shoot you. Your wife/husband is.

There is a particular American frontier fantasy about the handgun protecting the law abiding citizens from the guys in the black hats that just doesn't wash anymore.

Fear has a lot to do with this. When you live in fear, real or imagined, you take steps to allay that fear. For some the fear is real, for the majority, not so.

When you look at a society as a whole, more guns means more gun deaths. And, since the majority of gun deaths are crimes of passion or accidents, not premeditated violence, how can you argue against that?

The question still remains, however, why Canadians, who own just as many guns per head as Americans, don't kill each other off with the same gusto?

I think you have to face up to a unique American cultural perspective that needs to be addressed.

Besides, fewer guns makes your Martial Arts more valuable...

[D-FENS]

The statistics speak for themselves, you are more likely to die by your own gun than the gun of another. Most murders are perpetrated by family members upon each other, and the vast majority of murders are comitted by people who know the victim.

That creepy mugger or home invader just doesn't exist, regardless of the pumped up fear mongering going on in the media.


The statistics already have spoken about 2 pages ago, you just weren't listening. Try telling that to anyone who has ever lost a loved one in a home invasion robbery. Or a relative of that Korean family massacred in their own hotel by Tookie Williams. Maybe someone who lives in the Harbor-Gateway district of L.A., where more gangs patrol the streets than cops. I don't know where you live, but it's pretty far removed from reality, that's for sure.

[golden arhat]

yeah lets trust the guy who models his life offr that guy from falling down
LOOK ITS PRETTY SIMPLE
here we have more restrictions AND LESS GUN CRIME!!!
you have far less restriction AND MORE GUN CRIME !!!

is everyone so stupid that you can't see that ??? MORE GUNS MEANS MORE CRIME !!

simple

[Ben Gash]

It's not that simple Arhat, although that is a part of it. The society is hugely different. The divisions between rich and poor are obscene, social justice is a pipe dream, racial and culrural divisions run incredibly deep, and contrary to the much vaunted American Dream there is little in the way of freedom and opportunity if you're born poor, especially if you're born poor and black or hispanic. The police have excessive power and subsequently don't have a great deal of public trust, and still don't get a handle on crime. These conditions lead inevitably to conflict, crime and drugs.
In the UK we live in a fairly socialist society with universal healthcare and education, government supported urban renewal, and a greater sense of social inclusion. Racism is actively punished, and our society is much better integrated anyway. These conditions are less of a criminal pressure cooker. While we have our problems it is nowhere near the same, and gun crime is largely limited to a few hotspots, and is largely criminal on criminal. Interestingly, a lot of gun crime now is committed by asylum seekers, who many people feel are becoming socially marginalised.

[Royal Dragon]

is everyone so stupid that you can't see that ??? MORE GUNS MEANS MORE CRIME !!

simple
__________________

Reply]
Yes, I agree, BUT you can't take them away from the criminals now. All you can do is allow the potential victems to even the playing field. If you take the guns away from the good guys (Which is all those laws do), then you give the advantge back to the bad guys.

[TenTigers]

A few years back, they interviewed felons in a prison, asking them how they felt about gun control. They were overjoyed. "That just means that y'all don't have guns, and we do. We can just come into your house and do what we want, take what we want. I can't wait!"(paraphrased)

this is the chain of events in a crime
1-crime is committed
2-survivors, if any call the cops-otherwise, witnesses, if they are willing to step forth-more often they do not
3-police come, take a report
4-perhaps an investigation ensues, at what level?
5-perhaps the criminal is apprehended
6-court appearance,plea bargaining, hopefully a stiff sentence, however with the courts the way they are, he will get off with nothing more than a hand slap, or early paroll, and be back out on the streets to do it again. 9o percent of felons are repeat offenders.
if you go all the way back to number one, the Armed Citizen at least has a chance.
Remember, even the mere presence of a weapon can often deter a criminal.

[xcakid]

You guys are tauting lesser "gun" deaths in Australia and UK. Let's talk crime altogether. You guys have more assualts, break in's and crime in general.

When I lived in CA home invasions and car jacking are on a rampage. Gun crime is on the rampage. They have the strictest gun laws next to NJ and HI.

Here in TX, we have liberal gun laws. Barely any car jackings or home invasions. People getting shot are typically drug dealers and criminals shooting each other. The ratio here in TX is roughly 4-6 houses out of 10 owns guns. And 4% of the population have a concealed handgun permit. We also have a traveling law so probably more people carry concealed in their car.

Now let me ask you guys this? Would you rather be a criminal in CA where you know that when you enter a home there will not be a pistol of shotgun staring you in the face or when you carjack someone you will not be eating a bullet for lunch? Or would you rather be in TX when more than likely a good percentage you attack will have a firearm and would probably put up a fight?

As I said in a previous post. When TX instituted the concealed handgun law, anti gun people predicted the wild west and blood on the streets. People getting ****ed off and will have shootouts. Not the case years later. We actually saw a decrease in crimes like rape, muggings, robberies etc.. Gun crimes and deaths remained the same. With the exception of Dallas county and the City of Houston. Oddly enough Dallas has the fewest CHL holders next to Austin. City of Houston saw a large influx of crimes after Hurricane Katrina due to the refugees. That ended after a year. Due to the increase of gun sales. :D

Funny thing about the subject of firearms. The media will air shooting left and right and some blow it out of proportions. But they never air news about people using firearms to save. Hmmm.....
Here's an example: The courthouse shooting here in Tyler TX. The national media covered this for a day or two. They focused on the number of injured due to the shooting. HOWEVER, a local paper covered one of the men that died. He was an elderly gentlemen that is a concealed handgun licensee. When he arrived at the courthouse he heard gun fire. He figured out what was going on I guess, and witness accounts, went back to his vehicle to retrieve his firearm. Afterward he and an officer drew fire from the gunman so that people can escape. This elderly gentleman was shot and died. The officer, since wearing a vest, only had minor injuries. National new did not bother to report that a civilian firearm owner helped save lives during a shooting. They focused on the number of dead and injured. They focused on the BAD thing the gun did (not the person wielding a gun and his mental state).

Link to the news story: http://kltv.com/Global/story.asp?s=4550450


Outside, Arroyo murdered the mother of his own children, Maribel Estrada, over a bitter custody battle. Next to her lifeless body was their eldest son, David, Jr. He was saved because of the bravery of civilian Mark Wilson, who fired shots at Arroyo too. But Arroyo later executed Wilson at point blank range.


A firearms is a double edge sword, it can kill and save a life. I would bet since this was a courthouse and folks are not allowed firearms inside(Arroyo was outside and so was Mr Wilson) The assailant would've been subdued much earlier. We rarely have rampage shooting in public here in TX. Ussually it is in places where guns are not allowed like private bussiness or Fed Buildings. Even then they are too few and far in between. Unlike CA.


2 sides to every story. 2 sides to this debate. I have grown up around firearms. I have seen nothing but good things resulting from firearms in my upbringing. Anti Gun people has always said that you are like to have an accident with a gun. Same can be said about automobiles. Common household electricity for that fact. However, accidents can be prevented with proper education. Like I said, I have had a firearm since I was nine. Bought my own when I was 18. Continue to own them. Never once, to this day, have I had an "accident". Never once to this day have I even thought about brandishing a firearm in an altercation. That is why I take MA. However, if someone else did brandish a firearm. It is good to know that I too have one and have the training and know how to be effective and accurate with it to minimize casualty to other people.

[Black Jack II]

Perfect example of how a gun can save a life.

http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007703050350

[Sifu Darkfist]

Why does the BRADY BUNCH SONG come into my head every time i read this nonsense.

I think Moses said it best, "from my cold dead Hands"

[TenTigers]

and now for some bumper sticker philosphy:
"Guns are like condoms-it's better to have one and not need it, than to need one and not have it"

"Make Love, not War. Be prepared for both":p

[bakxierboxer]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070309/D8NOSR480.html

Appeals Court overturns Washington DC gun ban....

I'm curious enough to want to follow the results.
Gun haters had better hope this proves them right, but I doubt that it will.
There may some possible short-term carnage...... <g>
Hopefully, the end result will be that DC will no longer be the supposed "murder capital" of the US.
OTOH, there are an awful lot of really good target-types in the area.....

Pete

[xcakid]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070309/D8NOSR480.html

Appeals Court overturns Washington DC gun ban....

I'm curious enough to want to follow the results.
Gun haters had better hope this proves them right, but I doubt that it will.
There may some possible short-term carnage...... <g>
Hopefully, the end result will be that DC will no longer be the supposed "murder capital" of the US.
OTOH, there are an awful lot of really good target-types in the area.....

Pete

I saw that today. Keeping my finger crossed. When the TX CHL was instituted, there were 2 high profile case that followed withing the first year. Got all the media coverage with the anti gunners pointing and saying SEE I TOLD YOU SO.

1 case was a guy in Houston during a traffic altercation. He was pulled out of his car and beaten. When the guy beating him stopped and he was trying to crawl away, the assailant went back to finish the job. He was then able to draw his weapon and shoot the guy. The beating was not publicized by the media. Only the shooting was. The case was dimissed due to this evidence. The media quickly dropped it, they did not even show this guys face on the news. Only the face of the guy that got shot. If they did, I am sure the outcry would've been different.

The other case was years later. A guy walked up to a pair of brothers. Pointed a guy and tried to jack em. One of the brothers was a CHL holder, and pulled out his own weapon. The assailants weapon was pointed on his borthers head and he believed that the guy was gonna pull the trigger. He shot the guy. Again the circumstance behind to shooting was not highly publicized. Only a few small town papers told the whole story. Statewide media publicized the shooting of the perpatrator and tried their best to demonize CHL holders.

I am sure something similar will happen in DC. Some burglar is gonna come into a home and get shot. The media is going to blow it out of proportion and talk about the evil gun owner killing some 15 yr old. :mad: