How much gun control?

How much gun control do you think should a state have?

  • None

    Votes: 6 16.2%
  • None with respect to ownership, some with respect to storing, selling, and buying

    Votes: 6 16.2%
  • Moderate control, with background checks, fingerprint checks, the works, and the "big guns" can be o

    Votes: 13 35.1%
  • Complete ban on guns for most part, except in special circumstances (hunting, military, police, etc.

    Votes: 12 32.4%

  • Total voters
    37
Status
Not open for further replies.

Jerrek

Registered Senior Member
1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, D.C., and Chicago cops need guns.

2. Washington, D.C.'s low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.

3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."

4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991.

5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.

6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.

7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.

8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense -- give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p.125).

10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns & Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.

11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for internal medicine, a computer programmer for hard drive problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.

12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917.

13. The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land, using federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings and uniforms, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a "state" militia.

14. These phrases: "right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people" all refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arm" refers to the state.

15. "The Constitution is strong and will never change." But we should ban and seize all guns thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments to that Constitution.

16. Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense! Of course, the army has hundreds of thousands of them.

17. Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they aren't "military weapons", but private citizens shouldn't have "assault rifles", because they are military weapons.

18. In spite of waiting periods, background checks, finger printing, government forms, etc., guns today are too readily available, which is responsible for recent school shootings. In the 1940's, 1950's and1960's, anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, Sears mail order, no waiting, no background check, no fingerprints, no government forms and there were no school shootings.

19. The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity.

20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.

21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.

22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is "an accident waiting to happen" and gun makers' advertisements aimed at women are "preying on their fears."

23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.

24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.

25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.

26. Any self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a "weapon of mass destruction" or an "assault weapon."

27. Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.

28. The right of Internet pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.

29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self-defense only justifies bare hands.

30. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution.

31. Charlton Heston, a movie actor as president of the NRA is a cheap lunatic who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas, a movie actor as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.

32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do "civilians" who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.

33. We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.

34. Police officers have some special Jedi-like mastery over hand guns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.

35. Private citizens don't need a gun for self-protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.

36. Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.

37. "Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people. The police need assault weapons. You do not.

38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential promotion, that's bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith and Wesson, that's good.

39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.

40. Handgun Control, Inc. says they want to "keep guns out of the wrong hands." Guess what? You have the wrong hands.





I personally believe that little gun control is necessary. While I can see that some laws are required to make sure you store your guns in a safe place, the government shouldn't prohibit the ownership of any firearms, whether it be rifles, handguns, or assault weapons.
 
What is needed is control of ignorance and hate- not arbitrary governmental "control" of sticks, stones, knives, slingshots, or guns.
 
Even if you did take away guns all you would need is a little knowledge about chemistry and you can make a bomb.
 
you should include a complete ban in the poll. not that i would have voted for it, but just to be fair.
 
most shootings, both intentional and unintentional involve hand guns.

Smith and Wession just came out with a new 50 cal magnum handgun. It replaces "dirty harry's" old 44 magum as the most powerful hand gun in existance. The new weapon has 8 times the muzzle energy of the old 44mag.

S&W claims it will drop a charging grizzly bear with one shot. It will also blow off most of the human skull. This one is a "must have" for serious hunters, criminals and red necks.
 
What is needed is control of ignorance and hate- not arbitrary governmental "control" of sticks, stones, knives, slingshots, or guns.

-ditto
although...

well i would like some gun control. not that i think it will lower crime. but there are people who most can agree shouldn't be able to buy bunches of AK-47's. violent fellons, fellons with psychological histories, ect.

I'm not trying to take hand guns away from all you 'from my cold dead hands' gun nuts. still i find it odd that people feel the need to own fully automatic guns with armor piercing bullets. I guess it's just a big toy to some people.
 
salty

The new S&W 50 cal. magnum has a whopping 2600 ft/lb of muzzle energy, compared to a muzzle energy of 1185 ft/lb for the Israeli desert eagle.. The S&W is a 5 shot revolver. The desert eagle is semiautomatic.
 
1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, D.C., and Chicago cops need guns.
Banning guns, does not mean that a police force can work without guns.
Banning guns, indeed, does not make a city instantly safe.
But perhaps it _can_ help making it a place where less deadly harm occurs.


2. Washington, D.C.'s low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.
The question would be if Washington D.C. murder rate would be higher or lower without gun control. Comparing it to a completely different city is not a solid argument.

3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."
Statistics are always just statistics, in any non-scientific argument. First rule i learnt in statistics is that they serve oppinions, not facts.

4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991.
Can not comment on that one.

5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.
So, to avoid those high school killings, the best way is to arm all the kids with guns to enable them with a proper defence against a frustrated teenager with an uzzi?

6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.
Yes, with a gun, you perhaps are more likely to win a fire fight with a criminal than without one. With a gun, you are also able to do a lot of other things, which generally, would make other people feel really uncomfortable.

7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.
An intruder shot with a .357 Magnum would likely be dead. Damn. There goes the whole idea about a fair trial and anything.

8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.
A woman with a dead guy in front her, with no witnesses, really makes a messy case in court.

9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense -- give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p.125).
If i was given the choice between giving up the few bucks in my wallet and risking a fire fight, risking loss of life of myself, the criminals and/or innocent bystanders,
yes i would give up my wallet. Maybe not the most courageous thing to do, but at least it has some rational motivation.


10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns & Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.
And i, a programmer in a northern european country, am also not an expert in the field. But i can have a try in building up a reasoning, nonetheless.

11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for internal medicine, a computer programmer for hard drive problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.
See above.

12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917.
Not all gun ban arguments hold out, true.

13. The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land, using federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings and uniforms, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a "state" militia.
Can not respond on this one. I do not know the legal status of US national guard.

14. These phrases: "right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people" all refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arm" refers to the state.
Not all gun ban arguments hold out, true again.

15. "The Constitution is strong and will never change." But we should ban and seize all guns thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments to that Constitution.
Can not argue about US Constitution, as i am not too familiar with it.

16. Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense! Of course, the army has hundreds of thousands of them.
I would also have difficulties with "Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense"

17. Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they aren't "military weapons", but private citizens shouldn't have "assault rifles", because they are military weapons.
Idiotic statements from individuals aligning with anti gun movements, do not necessarily undermine the possible validity of banning guns

18. In spite of waiting periods, background checks, finger printing, government forms, etc., guns today are too readily available, which is responsible for recent school shootings. In the 1940's, 1950's and1960's, anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, Sears mail order, no waiting, no background check, no fingerprints, no government forms and there were no school shootings.
I would not blame the availability of guns on itself for school shootings, but it does facilitate them, doesn't it?
Again, comparing two different situations and drawing a conclusion from that for either stand, is not valid.


19. The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity.
See above, considering idoitic statements.

20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.
Seems to me that special training is necessary to get a good feeling for aiming at specific body parts or shooting from a distance.
However, shooting randomly and hurting someone quite badly nonetheless quite easy.


21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.

It is not the amount of controls that is only the measurement of difficulty with a device, it is _also_ the consequences of using them or not. Driving _can_ result in an accident. Shooting a bullet at some one usually has the intended purpose of creating an injury.
And by the way... the last time i checked, even in the US you do need a government controlled licence to drive a car.


22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is "an accident waiting to happen" and gun makers' advertisements aimed at women are "preying on their fears."
My experience is that some people (regardless sex, colour, or whatever) and guns is just a bad combination.

23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.
Twisting semantics. No one would argue that the guns themselves make slaughtering butchers. But it does give the slaughtering butchers a nice tool do their thing.

24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.
See above. Guns do not cause violence, it is just that the violence done by violent people with a gun can be a lot more damaging than violence done by violent people without means of projecting lethal force.

25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.
See above, considering idoitic statements.

26. Any self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a "weapon of mass destruction" or an "assault weapon."
See above, considering idoitic statements.

27. Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.
It's generally aimed to make it more difficult to obtain them. Not to show trust in people that they will abide by the law who are otherwise psychos with urges of violence.

28. The right of Internet pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.
Again, comparing issues which are COMPLETELY unrelated.

29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self-defense only justifies bare hands.
So because we have free speech, we also have the right to own whatever weapon we deem necessary for our own defence?
Hell, let's make it legal to own huge stockpiles of cyanide. Never know when it comes in handy as a bunch of robbers would enter my house.


30. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution.
See above, have little knowledge about US Constitution.

31. Charlton Heston, a movie actor as president of the NRA is a cheap lunatic who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas, a movie actor as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.
See above, considering idiotic statements.

32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do "civilians" who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.
See above, not all arguments of anti-gun hold out.

33. We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.
Yes, you are right. Everything regarding self defence should be affordable for every one. I hear Apache helicopters do a pretty damn good job, perhaps they can make them more affordable for middle income classes.

34. Police officers have some special Jedi-like mastery over hand guns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.
This is just plain stupid. I do hope that US police forces have had some more training in firing a gun than your average citizen, working behind a desk.

35. Private citizens don't need a gun for self-protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.
Perhaps, it is a better idea to increase funding to police forces, so they can do a better job of protecting.
If they are not for protecting us from criminals, then what are they for? (aside of course from looking really cool blazing around downtown with sirens and all)


36. Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.
Not everything in the world makes sense, now does it?

37. "Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people. The police need assault weapons. You do not.
They have the purpose to kill people. The police has a licence to kill in well defined circumstances. Citizens, in my oppinion, do not.

38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential promotion, that's bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith and Wesson, that's good.
Not everything in US politics makes sense either, indeed.

39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.
Folly. As far as i know, locks are there to prevent accidents as shooting yourself in the foot. They are not there to prevent anyone from killing anyone else with a gun.

40. Handgun Control, Inc. says they want to "keep guns out of the wrong hands." Guess what? You have the wrong hands.
That part of that sentence is NOT implying that the majority of the US has the wrong hands, therefore wanting to ban guns. It is just that a small bunch of hands, labeled wrong, can do a lot of damage with guns.


I personally believe that gun control is necessary. Not because i think that e.g. someone like Jerrek is unable to make a judgement between a legitimate situation to use it and illegitimate sitation, but because i think that only a few who do not have this ability can do more deadly harm with guns than without. I would be seriously in favor of research in weapons which are effective in disabling people from doing aggression, giving sufficient ability of self defence, but are non lethal.
 
Oh, let me come back to my last position... seems that Jerrek really does not know the difference between a legitimate and illegitimate scenario for gun usage:

And if you want to steal my car and I see you, you might end up with a bullet in a vital organ

(http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=20353&perpage=20&pagenumber=1)

Most systems of law in democratic countries do not find stealing a car a capital offense... and any one who thinks differently about this, should, in my oppinion, not be allowed to have a gun. This is just sick, placing a car above human life and this is exactly the kind of crap gun control is trying to avoid.
 
Politics of gun control

The most probable reason so many people are against gun control is that evil males tend to profit by violence. They feel that owning a gun ennables themselves to scare their women more. Even if an abusive male sees that he would be better off with gun control (he might get shot in a drug deal, for instance), he'll support gun control. What are the chances of his vote really making a difference, anyway?

The best way politically to advance gun control is to rephrase the gun issue. Make it seem like supporting gun control is consistent with the position that abuse is innocuous. Make a law requiring all hand guns to be pink and make a bunch of movies about abused women taking out their pink handguns and blowing their abusive husbands' or boyfriends' balls off. That would make gun control real popular. Not that abused women shouldn't typically call the police in preference to blowing their mans's balls off, but I don't think it is something that would happen often anyway, and would probably be shortly followed by men voting in gun control laws.

Similarly with the mystique surrounding speeding and fast cars. Make movies about chaperone grannies with super fast sports cars rescuing their granddaughters from bad boys driving four-cylinder clunkers that top out at 60mph.

I'm a little tongue-in-cheek here, I guess, but there is something to what I am saying about how politics works. Bad people vote for appearances' sake and not because they care what their vote does, and sometimes it is easier to change the consequence of a vote or opinion on how it makes a bad person appear than to actually encourage him to be good.

Not that I can't see some sense to people defending themselves (in particular perhaps buying a gun when guns are legal and they feel threatened), and not that gun control does not have some disadvantages in it being harder for people to defend themselves, but I do think we would be safer without guns. Give everyone a cellphone with a panic button direct to police whose signal can instantly be triangulated--clearly that would be better at making people safer. If someone wants to kill you, I can't see how owning a gun would make you much safer--he'd just wait until you are not looking. E.g., would the people killed by the MD sniper have been safer if they had a gun? I don't think so. Burglary rates might go down somewhat with homeowners owning guns they could fire at will, but then probably burglars would be more likely to kill you from fear you might shoot them first, and I'd much rather be robbed by a burglar than shot by one. And death is a harsh punishment for theft.
 
Which Group of Minorites do you want dead?

Originally posted by step314
The most probable reason so many people are against gun control is that evil males tend to profit by violence. They feel that owning a gun ennables themselves to scare their women more. Even if an abusive male sees that he would be better off with gun control (he might get shot in a drug deal, for instance), he'll support gun control. What are the chances of his vote really making a difference, anyway?

I dunno if i was abusive I wouldn't need a gun considering I out wiegh most women by 100 pounds and out bench them by 200.

Originally posted by step314
Not that I can't see some sense to people defending themselves (in particular perhaps buying a gun when guns are legal and they feel threatened), and not that gun control does not have some disadvantages in it being harder for people to defend themselves, but I do think we would be safer without guns. Give everyone a cellphone with a panic button direct to police whose signal can instantly be triangulated--clearly that would be better at making people safer. If someone wants to kill you, I can't see how owning a gun would make you much safer--he'd just wait until you are not looking. E.g., would the people killed by the MD sniper have been safer if they had a gun? I don't think so. Burglary rates might go down somewhat with homeowners owning guns they could fire at will, but then probably burglars would be more likely to kill you from fear you might shoot them first, and I'd much rather be robbed by a burglar than shot by one. And death is a harsh punishment for theft.

People who died from the MD sniper wouldnt be safer if they had a cell phone. People that got killed by ted bundy wouldn`t either. So far I know 3 people that have been burglarised while at home. 1 was stabed to death. A burgler also fears that you recognize thier face.

What civilization disarms its people? Totalitarian ones. Many of the United States Gun Control laws come strait from Hitlers.

The Chronology of Gun Control Atrocites

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

In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

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

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, Catholics, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated

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

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

I am a law abiding citizen is not only my right to own a weapon but also my responsiblity.
 
Salty

That was a well stated repy, especially the part about the atrocities.

I would still favor strict control of hand guns. All of those killed in the atrocities could have better defended themselves with long guns.

I have target pistols in my home, but when something goes "bump" in the night I grab my shotgun. I don't want or need a 9mm semiautomatic with a 19 round magazine. Hand guns especially the larger caliber ones can penetrate walls and kill family members. Statistically more family members are killed in the home ,with hand guns, than burglers or rapists.

Although I will admit that a lot of those hangun accidents are due to carelessness and inexperience of the owner/handler of the weapon. Thusly I am a firm believer in gun safety classes.

When all of our troops were waiting in Kuwait before invading Iraq they were required to carry thier gas masks and weapons with them at all times, even to the latrine. The odd thing was, no ammunition had been issued yet due to the possibility of an accidental firing of the weapons.

Traditionally the argument against handgun control has been that; "if our hand guns are taken away, the next thing to go will be our long guns." I don't believe that would ever happen, because to do that the government truly would have to pry them from "our cold dead hands"
 
Re: Salty

Originally posted by justiceusa
I have target pistols in my home, but when something goes "bump" in the night I grab my shotgun. I don't want or need a 9mm semiautomatic with a 19 round magazine. Hand guns especially the larger caliber ones can penetrate walls and kill family members. Statistically more family members are killed in the home ,with hand guns, than burglers or rapists.

Most of the time statisticaly those family members are the son of a batter wife killing the abusing husband.

I would teach gun saftey in school IMO.
 
What civilization disarms its people? Totalitarian ones.
Sure, totalitarian regimes disarm their people in fear of a rebellious uprising. However, this is not implicating that gun control in democracies is a bad idea.

Gun control in a democracy is not perceived as a means of keeping the general public in line. We've elections. We've free speech. We've the right to protest. Ergo, we do not have to kill our political leaders if we disagree we current politics. Nor do we have to be very affraid the government would round us up and shoot us, if they fear we have a different oppinion
 
Most of the time statisticaly those family members are the son of a batter wife killing the abusing husband.
Which makes it perfectly alright? Granted, certainly circumstances make such a kill more sympathetic... but isn't killing the most terminal of punishments and therefor just basically wrong?

And oh, a reference, please, to those statistics.
 
Last edited:
2nd ammendment

The right to own firearms is totally related to the second ammendment, which in part says: "A well regulated militia being necessary..." At that period in our history when the "militia" was, called up, the militiamen brought thier "own" weapons. That is no longer the case.

When the present day Reserves and national Guardsmen report for active duty, they most certainly do "not" bring their "own" weapons. If they did those weapons would be confiscated immediately.

In essence the second ammendment should no longer be a valid reason for a person to own weapons because it no longer applies to any "militia". We need new laws that apply to current times.

Below is an interesting link.

http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/en/research/publications/reports/1990-95/reports/siter_rpt.asp
 
Originally posted by mouse
Sure, totalitarian regimes disarm their people in fear of a rebellious uprising. However, this is not implicating that gun control in democracies is a bad idea.

Gun control in a democracy is not perceived as a means of keeping the general public in line. We've elections. We've free speech. We've the right to protest. Ergo, we do not have to kill our political leaders if we disagree we current politics. Nor do we have to be very affraid the government would round us up and shoot us, if they fear we have a different oppinion

How long have you had elections? Has your nation ever gone threw a deep depression? A pure democracy can be worse then any tyrant can be.

I dont have any online refrences. Ill look later. In my opionion yes it does. I would rather have one abusive asshole dead then a generation full of sociopaths.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top