How much gun control?

[revbill2001]

Originally posted by Jerrek
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.

I absolutely agree with you 100%

 

[mouse]

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.

Elections: since 1848. Depression: yes, especially in the period directly after WWII. We do not have a pure democracy, but a constitutional monarchy: our government is elected by the people, but we have a Queen above that. Her role is quite ceremonial though and she doesn't have a direct guiding power over the nation's laws.

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.

The asshole will be dead, granted and indeed no big loss there. The son, however, will probably be imprisoned with a long lasting criminal record. Also not a preferable situation, is it?

 

[Sisyphus]

If ever a good case were needed for the banning of not just firearms but all weapons sold for 'self protection', then most of the pro gun comments on this thread should serve.

(having said that, Ted Nugent Rocks!)

 

[revbill2001]

If anyone thinks that banning weapons is going to stop violence or crime, then they are either stupid, or they haven't been paying attention to the world around them. People are strangled, electrocuted, drowned and killed in any number of immaginative ways every day. Remember that if you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns, is not just a slogan, it could be your epitaph.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

it is a strange notion that some people cannot live meaningful without their precious gun.

 

[Sisyphus]

I don't have this years stats to hand but in 1999 they were:

Gun related deaths in UK = 79

Gun related deaths in US = 28,264

Even allowing for the population difference that's still more deaths every day in the US than for the entire year in the UK.

Now I'm no mathmatician, but it seems self evident to even a 'stoopid' (or 'stewpid' for you fellow Brits out there) that less guns equal less gun related death.

It hardly needs saying that the banning of guns won't solve the problem of violent crime, but it has to be a step in the right direction.

The alternative is arm everybody, barracade everyone in their homes, then the rest of the world can sit back and watch the ensuing carnage unfold on the evening news - actually, now I think about it... Long live the NRA!

 

[ThePHNX]

Originally posted by spacemanspiff
-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.

Been in the world a bit longer than most of you. Been in the US for much of that time, my ancestors going back to the Pieter Stuyvesant days (god, would they despise what New York has become). All of this would never have come up for discussion in the early part of the 20th century. Anyone proposing government should be given control over our weapons would have been committed, plain and simple. The term `gun nuts' is equally new and equally ridiculous.

At this point in time, after FDR sabotaged the courts, Constitution and Country, those who would control us have gained an incredible and shocking hold on the country. How? Mind control, I sometimes wonder if subliminal messages are not sent over the dummy networks CBS, NBC, etc. Propaganda, rampant and government sponsored. Mass media, network TV in particular, again, I don't think it would have happened to the extent is has without the mob watching TV daily. Powerful un-American influence over the schools via government and the NEA teacher's unions; there was material linking Moscow and the soviets to the NEA and several major teaching scholarship programs from the mid 50's on up to the present but that is for another time and another subject..

Study the life and work of Ed' Bernays, than thank god for the `gun nuts'.

It is also irrational to argue that one should only be armed with ineffectual weapons, frankly I've fired the Desert Eagle, and opted for the `Baby Eagle in double caliber set, 9mm and 41 A&E (called the Jericho 941), also fired the fantastic LAR Grizzly in multi caliber, my favorite of which is the sweet 357, rather than the hard to handle 45WinMag. My belief, well proven in the field, is that a controllable firearm is far better than a bigger one that you have trouble with. That said, in the hands of someone who can truly handle it the 50 is awesome. Best of all, a short barreled shotgun (when the supreme's rendered that lame duck Miller decision (Miller was not represented so they could throw FDR's boys a bone) they wrongly claimed - the salient of their decision - that the shotgun did not appear to them to have any military value a position that could easily have been disproven as the `trench gun' was weapon of choice during WWI. Note also, the obvious inference that the 2nd Amendment was intended to provide individual citizens with military quality arms; so the so-called Assault Weapons argument is ESPECIALLY repugnant to the Bill of Rights)

One more thing: I am sick unto death hearing from and about Brits on this subject. No comparison is going to get to the truth. It's the demographics stupid. The population mix in Briain is entirely different, they ran the slave trade they didn't keep any. Next, most of those still in Britain are the one's who were priveleged or didn't have the balls to come here. They also have a much `looser' take on drugs and nothing near our insane `war on drugs' (Note; BTW how all the wars are given `cutesy names' but come down to a war on freedom). And last but not least, the violence by the government itself such as in in Ireland is never counted as `gun violence' (only if the poor devils shoot back).


HBH
Freedom is the one true religion all else is heresy!

 

[justiceusa]

ThePHNX

Your post rambled around but didn't really say anything except to; insult FDR, claim the NEA are Russian controlled communists. and that you prefer large caliber weapons.

FDR has been dead for over 50 years. Republicans have controlled the courts since the Reagan era.

Can you site a reference connecting the NEA with communism??

 

[ThePHNX]

Re: ThePHNX

Originally posted by justiceusa
Your post rambled around but didn't really say anything except to; insult FDR, claim the NEA are Russian controlled communists. and that you prefer large caliber weapons.

FDR has been dead for over 50 years. Republicans have controlled the courts since the Reagan era.

Can you site a reference connecting the NEA with communism??

Sorry if you had trouble following it, but however brief your comments they clearly demonstrate I high degree of subjectivity and a very limited perspective.

OK, lets have a go at it;

• A Tom Jefferson, George Washington, Isaac Newton, Archimedes, Pythagoreas, the list goes on, have been dead for much longer than 50 years. Is their influence gone too?
• B Republican controlled Courts. If only it were so. To even suggest such puts anything else you might claim in serious doubt.
• C siting me as connecting the NEA with communism is either an intentional attempt to impart inflammatory content or an inability to understand American English. I said there was material linking funding from the Soviets to teaching scholarships and the NEA. Much of the damage done to our country has been done by fools elevated beyond their proper capacity and who lack the wit to know they are being used. Just as the network newscaster chosen carefully for his views by his masters thinks his lies are the truth, and, even if they are lies they're for the public's own good, todays teachers were encouraged into the profession because their viewpoint was desirable to those who wanted our individualism diminished. The sources are classified for now.
• D I clearly stated I preferred smaller more controllable calibers for most users, including myself. Here your ignorance and pre-programmed responses come truly to the fore. I suspect you have little knowledge of firearms, but why should firearms be the exception.

In summary, I suggest you learn the difference between ratiocination and rationalization. The latter your obvious forte'.

 

[Xev]

It is also irrational to argue that one should only be armed with ineffectual weapons, frankly I've fired the Desert Eagle, and opted for the `Baby Eagle in double caliber set, 9mm and 41 A&E

Good taste! Baby Eagle, smooth as silk and sweet as sugar.

My belief, well proven in the field, is that a controllable firearm is far better than a bigger one that you have trouble with.

Very true, it's always a matter of how capable you are to handle your weapon. Now I like the Ruger P series, but I'm also aware of my limitations - if I had to choose, I'd much rather have a less powerful gun that I could handle than a P95 that I haven't quite got the hang of.

I am fucking SICK of anti-gun idiots who point to the guy who left his handgun out where his children could find it. These people treat guns as if they are fucking toys, show them no respect, and then when they pay the consequences, it's the responsible gun owner who has to deal with the "OOOH! Guns kill!" idiots.

Note also, the obvious inference that the 2nd Amendment was intended to provide individual citizens with military quality arms;

Now I don't find this inference to be obvious, perhaps you could explain your reasoning?

While I (obviously) believe in gun ownership as a "right", I don't think that the second amendment is very clear on the issue.

 

[justiceusa]

ThePHNX

Very eloquent reply, but it was all a generalization from your own point of view. So where is the proof of a connection between the NEA and communist Russia? Where is this material you speak of? When you make a claim like that on this forum you will be expected to retract it or provide substantiation.

I see by your age and attitude that you are another victim of the "imploded perspective syndrome". Your thinking is confined to a small envelope With herbert Hoovers name on it.

 

[mouse]

I am fucking SICK of anti-gun idiots who point to the guy who left his handgun out where his children could find it. These people treat guns as if they are fucking toys, show them no respect

Yes, i just hate it when that happens but what can you do? Having no gun control does mean that every idiot can buy a gun.

On a more serious note, it could boil down to the amount of people who show no respect towards a gun versus the amount of people who do have the ability to carry such a responsibility.

If the first is significantly higher than the latter, gun control does seem like a good idea to me. On the other hand, if the second group is much better represented in your community, then perhaps open access to guns is not a problem and perhaps even preferable.

So, how responsible are people in your part of the world?

 

[grimreaper]

no offence

Originally posted by Sisyphus
I don't have this years stats to hand but in 1999 they were:

Gun related deaths in UK = 79

Gun related deaths in US = 28,264

Even allowing for the population difference that's still more deaths every day in the US than for the entire year in the UK.

Now I'm no mathmatician, but it seems self evident to even a 'stoopid' (or 'stewpid' for you fellow Brits out there) that less guns equal less gun related death.

It hardly needs saying that the banning of guns won't solve the problem of violent crime, but it has to be a step in the right direction.

The alternative is arm everybody, barracade everyone in their homes, then the rest of the world can sit back and watch the ensuing carnage unfold on the evening news - actually, now I think about it... Long live the NRA!

I think if you look at the assault rates you will find:
The number of people in the us damage and kill rate of all weapons are higher for all accounts. These range from hands to bombs. Our society is made from the dregs of the Old World. Any one to aggressive or in content with the status quo was encouraged to relocate the same is true of Australia as well. this has made us an aggressive and independent society
.

 

[cyberia]

I think guns should be completely banned from public use.
I mean yeah people are going to get killed anyways but atleast without guns they can take a little more effort and maybe learn a new skill to kill someone with... It would save a whole lot of accidental deaths. It would make murder a less "easy" way out.
Basically it would seperate the strong and smart from the weak lazy and dumb.

Guns are not neccesary in anu situation if people took a little bit of extra effort. Learning self defense... working out differances... thinking ahead...

 

[ThePHNX]

People, PEOPLE. Gun control is GOVERNMENT CONTROL.

I note comments from `a northern European, something or other' for you, just butt out, our forefathers left your hell hole to form a better nation, and they almost got it right. Of course we've had to come back a few times to rescue your asses after your weakness and submissiveness created an out-of-hand insane government

Many of the posters, as Jerrek's initial start, are seeking to restore that nation in which government is controlled by the individual, note THE INDIVIDUAL not the `democratic' mob; it was meant to be a Republic avoiding the pitfalls of pure democracy (properly referred to as mob rule).

So Jerrek's excellent post is just not fully understood by some. It isn't really about Gun Control, it is about Government Control. And of course a Northern European whose ancestors either lacked the balls to leave or were of privilege and enjoyed the servitude of others, would have no clue.

Please note; I am amazed at the low percentage of those seeking gun control. True it is a majority, a slim majority, currently 38%; but the number of think challenged idiots is substantially higher, at least 75% (50% have IQ's of 100 or less).

Still, to be fair, you can lack cerebral gifts and still have character, and the opposite is true, you can have some intellect and lack character. I suppose then the results reflect that those lacking character are fewer than those lacking intelligence. who'd a thunk it?

Of course the statistics (and the votes) get thrown to hell when the Monarch's progeny are allowed to voice (shriek?) their opinion.

HBH Proud to be an American, prouder if we were back to our heritage of freedom.

Let us make a Religion OF Freedom not just Freedom of Religion!

 

[spuriousmonkey]

there should be more gun control by controlling the number of people with guns by controlled culling of this particular population. yes...let's shoot them...just for fun you know, cause guns don't kill people...

 

[Xev]

Amusing that it's the anti-gun people who exhibit the most violent tendencies.

 

[ThePHNX]

Originally posted by Xev
Amusing that it's the anti-gun people who exhibit the most violent tendencies.

Absolutely!
You are one bright and observant cookie (except when you disagree with me)

When my beloved and I participated in the extraordinarily successful (and underreported) AIMM ArmedInformedMothersMarch effectively countering the network and media sponsored MMM. As we paraded down Constitution Avenue toward Capital Hill, Eight abreast, more than four blocks long, truly thousands of us calling cadence "Second Amendment" "ho!" "Ci-vil Right",
On the sidelines the `peace loving' MMM's started throwing mud and rocks at us. No one broke ranks, no one responded in kind, with dignity (and superiority) we ignored them.

 

[Mystech]

Originally posted by justiceusa

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.

Well, acctualy there has been a .50 cal Desert Eagle out for a good while, so the smith & wession isn't anything too special. It is the most powerful American made hand gun, though, so that's probably why we've heard more about it.

 

[Mystech]

Originally posted by mouse

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.

This sort of goes back to the old code of the west, if a man steals your horse, shoot him. Legitamate reasoning aside, there are a lot of western flakes, In America advocating gun ownership.

To a man with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. To a man with a gun. . .

In my own state of residence, a class reguarding gun safty and the moral implications of using deadly force is required to obtain a permit to carry a consealed weapon. Now I haven't gotten my permit yet (though I intend to, because I do feel that a person should have a right to a fire arm for personal defense [I never really used to feel that way until I realized I was gay and began to understand that there are people who would like to maim or kill me for that alone if they had the chance]) but I think the idea of such a class is a pretty smart idea, and in fact I would even think that perhaps some state laws should be enacted to make penalties for deadly force. There needs to be a deturant for people trying to find legal loop holes that let them kill others when their own lives are not in danger.