Gun control

[RickM]

That is perverted logic...owning guns is a right....taking that away also takes away freedom...period.

How is taking away something I have had my whole life freedom...?


And people doing big business in the city have nothing to do with the way a lot of people actually act in this country....again..if you actually lived here you would know. People who are against guns probably have never had their house broken into, never been shot, never fired a gun, never been car jacked and never had their family threatened seriously. They are scared because they dont understand guns so they blame them...it is a mental thing...it makes them feel secure...even though the problem was the crazy ******* with the gun intending to use it on innocent people. Since they do not understand guns they are scared and they blame them because people have a fear of the unknown...but yeah...again keep pushing the issue...

It is inarguable that people pushing the issue about gun control because of these murders are no better then the westboro baptist church

I understand and appreciate what you're saying. But could you explain how it takes away your freedom. Saying it takes it away by stopping you protecting yourself isnt really valid, as you wounldnt need it to protect yourself if nobody owned a gun.

Could I also just reply to a few points you mentioned:

People who are against guns probably have never had...

their house broken into

The resolution for that is a better police force. Not a weapon - regardless of where you live in the world, owning a weapon will not stop someone breaking into a house. Stricter policing will.

never been shot

Again, if nobody owns a gun, nobody can shoot you in the first place.

never fired a gun

Why would you ever need to fire a gun if there is nobody to shoot?

never been car jacked and never had their family threatened seriously

Sorry...I wasn't aware that the US was run by outlaws. Get real. This comes back to my point about stricter policing. No citizen should have the right to shoot _ANYONE_. Police forces exist for a reason. If this sort of thing (Car jacking) happens a lot in the US, then that's just proving the point that the police force clearly isnt good enough.

They are scared because they dont understand guns

Sorry, but what exactly is there to understand? The sole purpose of a gun is to kill with intent. In the UK we dont own guns - nobody does unless they belong to a gun club. Even then there are checks and restrictions in place to make sure a nutjob cant walk into a shop and buy a gun.

My point again: Nobody owns a gun, nobody gets shot - it's really that simple.

even though the problem was the crazy ******* with the gun intending to use it on innocent people. Since they do not understand guns they are scared and they blame them because people have a fear of the unknown...but yeah...again keep pushing the issue...

and thus we get to the real crux of the issue: The control on gun sales is non-existant. So a complete crazy ******* can walk into Walmart and pick up a gun. Does this not strike you as monumentally stupid?

The issue needs pushing as people seem to be completely oblivious to the clear fact that guns are a weapon that has the sole intention of causing death. You can argue about rights all day, but the pure fact remains that if nobody has a gun, there is no gun crime.

Look at any non-gun country outside the US - the statistics speak for themselves. No guns, low crime rates, and never will you see an incident like the one in Newtown.

I'm quite happy to have a logical debate, but when the argument is "its to protect ourselves" it just makes no sense whatsoever, and nobody is able to back up their logic behind owning a gun.

 

[Slavik]

The question is about your right to choose, not about actually owning a gun. With the exception of a BB gun when I was a child I never owned a gun, and I do not plan to. If I ever have the need to, that will be my decision to make, not yours or anyone else. If you make that choice for me, I am no longer free, but a slave to you.

In all fairness Lawrence, reading peoples replies to why they should be allowed a gun doesn't read at all as "its my right to have one" more along the lines of "I live in fear of other people having guns, therefore I need a gun to protect myself from other guns".

Eg.

You are stupid period, there is murderers thieves and rapists...they dont follow laws...making guns illegal will guarantee they are the only ones that have them...

 

[RickM]

The question is about your right to choose, not about actually owning a gun. With the exception of a BB gun when I was a child I never owned a gun, and I do not plan to. If I ever have the need to, that will be my decision to make, not yours or anyone else. If you make that choice for me, I am no longer free, but a slave to you.

Could we then not say "It's my choice, and my right to decide if I want to own a nuclear warhead?" Afterall, everyone that owns one right now owns one to protect themselves, do they not? So what's the harm in me also owning one?

I know this may sound like a joke...but think about it for just a second.

Is it my right to print out money from my computer, even if I have no intention of using it? Is it my right to walk into a crowded place and start chanting "Bomb Bomb Bomb" at the top of my voice?

Rights really dont come into it (IMO obviously). The protection of a population should far outweigh a 'right' to keep people happy.

 

[BGL]

And stop saying gun lobby....I am a citizen with rights... you are acting like a lobbyist.

The gun lobby NRA and the right wing GOP who use racism to gain political power are pure special interest lobbyists. The gun culture in the US is a advertising promotion by them quoted by yourself and others as "fact" when it has no basis in US history or US Constitution. The post Civil War gun marketing campaign by the armaments mfg's out of a market when US Civil War ended has run amok resulting in more citizens shooting themselves and others than in US wars.

It is important to know that it is the financial and political self interest of a minority that creates a clear and present danger to everyone.

 

[RickM]

You are stupid period, there is murderers thieves and rapists...they dont follow laws...making guns illegal will guarantee they are the only ones that have them...

Sorry but I just had to quote this.

You'd think you're correct. But could you answer this, preferably without any politics if possible:

In the UK, Japan, Australia and many more countries with 'no guns' laws, this is not the case. If guns are illegal, and can not be purchased, how exactly will murderers, theives and rapists get hold of them?

Obviously its never going to be impossible to get hold of them (Heck I guess if I really wanted to, I could find somewhere in the UK to buy one on the black market) but given that its so damn hard to get hold of them (and would cost a lot more money to do so) you would immediatly elliminate that argument.

Japan is a prime example. Have a read of this article: http://www.theatlantic.com/internat...-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/

The argument continues to be:

"If I own a gun, I'm protected from others that own a gun"

Whist completely ignoring the fact: "if nobody owns a gun, nobody can shoot me".

 

[mike os]

guns may well be illegal here (generally) but is does not prevent them being used(almost) daily on the streets of the UK.... you just dont hear about it

it is a lovely (& liberal) idea that
guns kill
gun laws will prevent shootings
gun control will mean i dont get shot .... criminals by their very nature and descriptor ......do not obey or take notice of the laws
we can miraculously remove every illegal weapon from circulation by producing a bit of paper
illegal weapons are impossible to buy, in country, today
the police can effectively deal with the problem

 

[Cal]

May God bless your children...

Thanks, when I get some, he will, and God willing the liberals wont steal their rights away either.

 

[Cal]

The gun lobby NRA and the right wing GOP who use racism to gain political power are pure special interest lobbyists. The gun culture in the US is a advertising promotion by them quoted by yourself and others as "fact" when it has no basis in US history or US Constitution. The post Civil War gun marketing campaign by the armaments mfg's out of a market when US Civil War ended has run amok resulting in more citizens shooting themselves and others than in US wars.

It is important to know that it is the financial and political self interest of a minority that creates a clear and present danger to everyone.

Hold the phone. The GOP who uses racism?? Not the Democrats who founded and operated the KKK?? How about the New Black Panthers???? Occupy Wall Street????? Al Sharpton?????? Jesse Jackson????????????

The group who exploited the trayvon martin cased and charged racially? The same group now exploiting the deaths of children to get their gun reform agendas past.

The left loves to whine racism when they don't get their way. They love to push it on the right. However the fact is the left is only ones who scream the race card when they don't get their way. They have more racism in theirpast than the GOP could ever claim! So I find it horribly ironic when a liberal brings up the race card in a non-legitimate race issue. It shows they've lost the debate and they're throwing their reserve pity card out. Whine, whine, whine, but racism, whine. Yeah,, it's entirely too old, no one cares about such excuses, and we've got the liberals number on it.

BGL....you lost this debate. You just defeated yourself in your first sentence. The race card. It's a game ending whine in this case.

 

[RickM]

guns may well be illegal here (generally) but is does not prevent them being used(almost) daily on the streets of the UK.... you just dont hear about it

it is a lovely (& liberal) idea that
guns kill
gun laws will prevent shootings
gun control will mean i dont get shot .... criminals by their very nature and descriptor ......do not obey or take notice of the laws
we can miraculously remove every illegal weapon from circulation by producing a bit of paper
illegal weapons are impossible to buy, in country, today
the police can effectively deal with the problem

Could you point me to, say...3 UK news sources showing gun crimes that happened yesterday?

Gun crimes dont happen in the UK because you cant get a gun - it's that simple.

 

[Digital Doctor]

The second amendment won't help you.
Guns won't protect you from the .gov's Drones.

 

[Slavik]

The second amendment won't help you.
Guns won't protect you from the .gov's Drones.

Actually I was wondeirng the same thing, someone mentioned the second amendment was to stop the government having all the power.

I wonder how many hundreds/thousands of people a single squad of trained service personel would be able to take out before civilians could subdue them. I wonder how handguns and rifles would stop an apache helicopter. Or how close people could get to a hummer with a M2 BMG sat on top of it.

 

[Digital Doctor]

The second amendment won't help you.
Guns won't protect you from the .gov's Drones.

Actually I was wondeirng the same thing

Bingo !
I got it.
All Americans should be able to have their own drones !
[YES !!!]

NRA becomes NDA ! National Drone Association !!!

 

[RickM]

Found this at another forum I frequent. It continues to show valid evidence that no-guns is the right way to go:

Gun Control in Australia
Posted on May 10, 2009 , Updated on May 11, 2009


Q: Did gun control in Australia lead to more murders there last year?
A: This ‘Gun History Lesson’ is recycled bunk from a decade ago. Murders in Australia actually are down to record lows.

FULL ANSWER
The e-mail says that "t has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms." Actually, it’s been 13 years since Australian gun law was originally changed. In 1996, the government banned some types of guns, instituted a buyback program and imposed stricter licensing and registration requirements. Gun ownership rates in Australia declined from 7 percent to 5 percent. Another law in 2002 tightened restrictions a bit more, restricting caliber, barrel length and capacity for sport shooting handguns.
Have murders increased since the gun law change, as claimed? Actually, Australian crime statistics show a marked decrease in homicides since the gun law change. According to the Australian Institute of Criminology, a government agency, the number of homicides in Australia did increase slightly in 1997 and peaked in 1999, but has since declined to the lowest number on record in 2007, the most recent year for which official figures are available.

Furthermore, murders using firearms have declined even more sharply than murders in general since the 1996 gun law. In the seven years prior to 1997, firearms were used in 24 percent of all Australian homicides. But most recently, firearms were used in only 11 percent of Australian homicides, according to figures for the 12 months ending July 1, 2007. That’s a decline of more than half since enactment of the gun law to which this message refers.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia

 

[Vicki]

In the same line, the incident immediately was latched onto by the people who want to get rid of guns to start banging their drums again. To the best of my knowledge, the NRA has remained silent on the matter until today.

That link contradicts the point you're trying to make. The article clearly sates that the gun-control lobby was the one instantly using the incident to promote their own agenda, and that up to the time of writing, the NRA kept quiet on it, and will address things on Friday.

There are many news sources(starting Dec. 18)brought about NRA breaks silence about the shooting, made a statement and scheduled a major news conference for Friday, and indicated that NRA laid groundwork against new gun laws.

This time, it is not a political agenda issue, it is a national crisis issue. When parents don't feel safe to send kids to school, and people don't feel safe to go to movie theatres etc., which other developed country on earth has this similar issue at present?

 

[jmurrayhead]

Actually I was wondeirng the same thing, someone mentioned the second amendment was to stop the government having all the power.

I wonder how many hundreds/thousands of people a single squad of trained service personel would be able to take out before civilians could subdue them. I wonder how handguns and rifles would stop an apache helicopter. Or how close people could get to a hummer with a M2 BMG sat on top of it.

If it were to ever get to that point, there would no doubt be a split in our military forces - those who still wish to follow the government and those who support the people. Each side would claim as many military vehicles and weapons that they could get their hands on and we'd have another revolution on our hands. Either way, I'll agree that hand guns and rifles wouldn't make much of a difference on those things, but they would make a difference for ground troops approaching someone's home. Military doesn't just go in waste resources like apache helicopters on ants.

 

[Straydog]

One thing is for sure after reading this thread is that it just shows how divided the world and people are as a whole. This country became significantly more polarized after the election and this is another one of those topics that is equally divisive. I hold my second amendment right to be as sacred as any amendment because that is what our forefathers fought and died to protect. Call it heritage or nostalgia or whatever you like but for me its what this country is founded on IMO.

 

[TNCclubman]

In Canada, Im not paranoid enough to get a gun to protect myself from others with guns. I dont know if its simple math but its not bloody likely im gonna get shot unless Im hanging out in the projects at 3am. In that case, Im an idiot, and a gun will only keep me from dieing for so long.

 

[Cal]

If it were to ever get to that point, there would no doubt be a split in our military forces - those who still wish to follow the government and those who support the people. Each side would claim as many military vehicles and weapons that they could get their hands on and we'd have another revolution on our hands. Either way, I'll agree that hand guns and rifles wouldn't make much of a difference on those things, but they would make a difference for ground troops approaching someone's home. Military doesn't just go in waste resources like apache helicopters on ants.

Agreed. Nothing stopped the military from splitting during the civil war. Robert E Lee was offered a commanding position in the Union and turned it down the same day he left to become the Commander of the Confederate Forces. History repeats, or haven't we learned that lesson yet?

 

[BGL]

Hold the phone. The GOP who uses racism?

GOP went with "Southern Strategy" in 1968 which was to appeal to racist whites, the "George Wallace Democrats" who opposed civil rights and supported racial segregation. That has been the foundation of GOP election base and GOP success from 1968. That racist base is just know starting to unravel as US has become less white as demonstrated by last election.

The key promotion of the NRA is to "protect oneself" from the "criminals" which, as you saw from GOP campaign ads, are black people. Tea Party rallies with people displaying weapons is entirely white.

The NRA/GOP gun lobby political strategy is based on racism to gain profits and power.

One thing is for sure after reading this thread is that it just shows how divided the world and people are as a whole.

On guns, world and majority in US are actually for sound gun regulation. Only minority in US oppose it and only the money=political power and corporations=people distortions have blocked gun reform in US, the last holdout that still has rampant gun violence due to lack of good gun regulation.

I hold my second amendment right to be as sacred as any amendment because that is what our forefathers fought and died to protect.

Sacred is religions. US Constitution is a secular document. The forefathers fought for democracy and self rule. The only mention of guns is right to bear arms in well regulated militia so US doesn't end up with a professional army that excludes members of US society.

Call it heritage or nostalgia or whatever you like but for me its what this country is founded on IMO.

Call it what it is a post Civil War marketing campaign that sells a phony history and dangerous present.

 

[RickM]

One thing is for sure after reading this thread is that it just shows how divided the world and people are as a whole. This country became significantly more polarized after the election and this is another one of those topics that is equally divisive. I hold my second amendment right to be as sacred as any amendment because that is what our forefathers fought and died to protect. Call it heritage or nostalgia or whatever you like but for me its what this country is founded on IMO.

I agree that there's a huge divide in what people believe.

I must say (and I admit - I dont pretend to be some kind of expert or anything here) that the second ammendment reads as though the right to guns is there to protect against invasion and against war (of whatever form, be it war with another country, or war internally).

At no point does it say that whilst it's your right to own a weapon, that you may also carry it around with you in the street.

Interestingly, you could even read that technically, you should be allowed to own your own personal nuclear warhead - that would still be classed as 'arms'.

The US have modified and removed parts of the constitution before, it cant really be used as an excuse as to why gun laws cant change.

When your constitution was written, the world was a very different place. There's simply no need for everyone to be armed. The argument that "if we all have guns we're safer" is just complete crap.