Guns

[Mr. Fresh]

By that token, I supposed it would be acceptable for me to kill a spotted owl as long as I made a steak out of it. I also don't believe you get your food from hunting. If you want food, you can look in your freezer.

And what's in your freezer?  I hope just vegatables and fruits, because if you eat meat, you are living in a world of hypocrisy.  Have you ever been on a farm?  Have you ever lived in a rural state?  Or do you just get your infromation from "The Simple Life"?  Honestly that kind of attitude pisses me off.

[jravnsbo]

I know, you start a conversation and then someone throws out a completely BOGUS argument and skews the whole debate.  Apples and oranges with spotted owl.

[Jacob]

I'm for gun rights. Outside of background checks (and maybe the assault weapons ban), I don't think that there needs to be any additional gun laws.

I am not for handgun bans or anything as drastic as that. I support the 2nd amendment.

Jake

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

By that token, I supposed it would be acceptable for me to kill a spotted owl as long as I made a steak out of it. I also don't believe you get your food from hunting. If you want food, you can look in your freezer.

yeah, and in my freezer you'd find Venison. NOW, your comparison to shooting a 'protected' species to killing a Buck is totally bogus. Deer are not a protected species. Why euthanize or sterilize when people since Biblical Days, [read about Jacob and Esau] have hunted deer. Are you a card carrying member of PETA? I, by the way, would never hunt exotic, or endangered species of any kind. Also, I am from the Upper Penninsula of Michigan. We have laws against shooting deer who's antlers have not grown more than 4 inches from the base of the skull. We have also banned feeding deer in the wild just to fatten them up to shoot them.  We are not barbaric. But, hunting is a way of life here. It does provide for food.

So, do you have to take a 12-inch ruler and measure the antlers?  How exactly do they regulate that?

An experienced Hunter should and would be able to tell how long the antlers are. We also have to go to our local DNR office and get it verified and tagged. Also, there are substancial fines levied, and even jail or prison time for willful violation of these regulations. And, if we take a doe in an area that is not designated for Hunters to take a doe out of, that's automatic revoke of license, they can repossess your house, cars, everything. It's become more and more strict. Also, we have a rule of thumb: "Let Them Go and Let Them Grow!"

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

By that token, I supposed it would be acceptable for me to kill a spotted owl as long as I made a steak out of it. I also don't believe you get your food from hunting. If you want food, you can look in your freezer.

And what's in your freezer?  I hope just vegatables and fruits, because if you eat meat, you are living in a world of hypocrisy.  Have you ever been on a farm?  Have you ever lived in a rural state?  Or do you just get your infromation from "The Simple Life"?  Honestly that kind of attitude pisses me off.

Here! Here! Well said my Good Lad!

[JNB]

 I live in a suburban area within a big city, and the deer have become pests, not only being a test in terms of minor issues such as eating peoples gardens and flowers, but to the point they in some cases become a road hazard, also a hazard to themselves as well because the potential for starvation is there, and at time sthis does happen.

  While people have the image of suburban and urban areas being hostile to all wildlife, the deer have adapted to humans quite well.

[Sibboleth]

I live in a rural area and I don't have a gun.
I don't need one either.

[Gustaf]

I live in a rural area and I don't have a gun.
I don't need one either.

I have deers around in my suburb, but no one really minds them. Most people have real problems to worry about.

[jravnsbo]

If you don't curb the deer populatio by hunting it grows rampant as in some parts of the US and becomes dangerous in traffic accidents galore.  Let alone wondering all over and into some cities by mistake.

[Gustaf]

If you don't curb the deer populatio by hunting it grows rampant as in some parts of the US and becomes dangerous in traffic accidents galore.  Let alone wondering all over and into some cities by mistake.

I'm not an expert on this subject but I thought hunters took care of this when they went out huting in the hunting season. We have tons of deers and elks in Sweden, as well as large forests and a rich wildlife, but we don't need our citizens to go around carrying guns. It has never been an issue, so I doubt that argument.

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

If you don't curb the deer populatio by hunting it grows rampant as in some parts of the US and becomes dangerous in traffic accidents galore.  Let alone wondering all over and into some cities by mistake.

And where I live in the Upper Penninsula of Michigan, deer really do become a nuisance. There have been deaths where deer fly into the windshield and [if it's a Buck] its antlers have gone right through a driver's or passenger's body.

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

If you don't curb the deer populatio by hunting it grows rampant as in some parts of the US and becomes dangerous in traffic accidents galore.  Let alone wondering all over and into some cities by mistake.

I'm not an expert on this subject but I thought hunters took care of this when they went out huting in the hunting season. We have tons of deers and elks in Sweden, as well as large forests and a rich wildlife, but we don't need our citizens to go around carrying guns. It has never been an issue, so I doubt that argument.

I [being an experienced hunter for 15 years] really think that Deer know when it's hunting season, and they skittatle. Sometimes I feel like Elmer Fudd, trying to "get that Rabbit!"

[dazzleman]

I find it very interesting that the people who push the strongest for more gun restrictions are the same people who have done everything in their power to undermine law enforcement, and to make it easier for criminals to get away with their crimes.  These are also the people who say we have too many people in prison.

Does anybody truly believe that a person who does not fear the consequences of murdering people will fear the consequences of illegal handgun possession?  Or that such a person will not be able to get an illegal gun, regardless of the law?

There is already a federal law prohibiting those convicted of certain crimes from possessing guns.  If we enforce laws like this, as well as severely punish those who use guns in committing a crime, this will have a much greater effect on crime than passing a law that the liberals will ultimately prevent from being properly enforced anyway.

[migrendel]

The reason why many liberals push for gun control is very simple: it has the smallest human toll. To make criminal penalties stronger would have the effect of putting people for long periods of time in dehumanizing places such as prison. Such a result would be undesirable, because nothing crushes the human spirit more than confinement, and people need to keep their hopes up to be rehabilitated. I steadfastly believe that taking guns out of the hands of criminals would be much more beneficial than simply allowing them to commit the crime and then brutalize them.

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

I find it very interesting that the people who push the strongest for more gun restrictions are the same people who have done everything in their power to undermine law enforcement, and to make it easier for criminals to get away with their crimes.  These are also the people who say we have too many people in prison.

Does anybody truly believe that a person who does not fear the consequences of murdering people will fear the consequences of illegal handgun possession?  Or that such a person will not be able to get an illegal gun, regardless of the law?

There is already a federal law prohibiting those convicted of certain crimes from possessing guns.  If we enforce laws like this, as well as severely punish those who use guns in committing a crime, this will have a much greater effect on crime than passing a law that the liberals will ultimately prevent from being properly enforced anyway.

I agree wholeheartedly. We should enforce the laws we have, not create new ones. All those new proposals do is scare the populace.

[jravnsbo]

Are you sure your not a republican?  you sound more republican each day.

I find it very interesting that the people who push the strongest for more gun restrictions are the same people who have done everything in their power to undermine law enforcement, and to make it easier for criminals to get away with their crimes.  These are also the people who say we have too many people in prison.

Does anybody truly believe that a person who does not fear the consequences of murdering people will fear the consequences of illegal handgun possession?  Or that such a person will not be able to get an illegal gun, regardless of the law?

There is already a federal law prohibiting those convicted of certain crimes from possessing guns.  If we enforce laws like this, as well as severely punish those who use guns in committing a crime, this will have a much greater effect on crime than passing a law that the liberals will ultimately prevent from being properly enforced anyway.

I agree wholeheartedly. We should enforce the laws we have, not create new ones. All those new proposals do is scare the populace.

[dazzleman]

The reason why many liberals push for gun control is very simple: it has the smallest human toll. To make criminal penalties stronger would have the effect of putting people for long periods of time in dehumanizing places such as prison. Such a result would be undesirable, because nothing crushes the human spirit more than confinement, and people need to keep their hopes up to be rehabilitated. I steadfastly believe that taking guns out of the hands of criminals would be much more beneficial than simply allowing them to commit the crime and then brutalize them.

You're very unrealistic.  People don't commit crimes because they have guns.  People seek out guns because they intend to commit crimes, and  even if you are successful in denying them guns, which is almost impossible, they will find another way.

This type of thinking is a perfect example of the unrealistic view many liberals have of human behavior, and why liberalism has been so destructive to our society.

As far as "crushing the spirits" of brutal criminals, that's exactly what we should be doing.  When a person reaches the point of being willing to kill a father in front of his child, or something like that, I don't believe that person can be rehabilitated, and I don't think we should waste more innocent lives trying.  Rehabilitiation is for kids who get caught stealing hubcaps or smashing mailboxes, not for brutal killers.

[jravnsbo]

A seperate thought, more and moe states are passing right to carry and cnceal laws.  well seems interesting and that gun control is nto the road the nation is taking.

Read John Lotts book:

More Guns, less Crime  

lays out the case very well.  He is a professor from Yale.

[Gustaf]

I find it very interesting that the people who push the strongest for more gun restrictions are the same people who have done everything in their power to undermine law enforcement, and to make it easier for criminals to get away with their crimes.  These are also the people who say we have too many people in prison.

Does anybody truly believe that a person who does not fear the consequences of murdering people will fear the consequences of illegal handgun possession?  Or that such a person will not be able to get an illegal gun, regardless of the law?

There is already a federal law prohibiting those convicted of certain crimes from possessing guns.  If we enforce laws like this, as well as severely punish those who use guns in committing a crime, this will have a much greater effect on crime than passing a law that the liberals will ultimately prevent from being properly enforced anyway.

Not true. I am all for putting people in jails and tough penalties. But I am still sceptical of allowing people to purchase guns freely. The point is obviously not criminals, who will get weapons anyway. Most people who get murdered, are killed by close relatives or family members, husbands killing wives and so on. In these cases the crimes are often rash and passionate and a free access to guns increase the risk of a deadly outcome.

[Gustaf]

Btw, we are on page three and still talking about the original subject. Is that a record??

[Nym90]

Well, I think that the current laws that we have are being adequately enforced. I do support putting more police on the streets in high crime areas, which was part of Clinton's crime bill in 1994. If current gun crimes aren't being adequately prosecuted, then that is the fault of the Attorney General and the Justice Department. The way I see it, it does more harm than good to society to allow guns to be made available for sale if they have no legitimate hunting or sporting purpose. Guns that are commonly used for legitimate uses such as target practice or as a hunting weapon should be legal. However, I don't think that a gun should be legal if it has no legitimate use as a weapon other than to kill people.

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

Well, I think that the current laws that we have are being adequately enforced. I do support putting more police on the streets in high crime areas, which was part of Clinton's crime bill in 1994. If current gun crimes aren't being adequately prosecuted, then that is the fault of the Attorney General and the Justice Department. The way I see it, it does more harm than good to society to allow guns to be made available for sale if they have no legitimate hunting or sporting purpose. Guns that are commonly used for legitimate uses such as target practice or as a hunting weapon should be legal. However, I don't think that a gun should be legal if it has no legitimate use as a weapon other than to kill people.

Nym90, Who is going to go to a dealer and say that their purpose for buying the gun is for anything other than sporting/hunting? So, a retailer would justly assume that a gun/weapons purchase is for none other than sporting/hunting. My cousin was murdered in cold blood, he didn't have a chance. So, no, I do not agree that our laws are being enforced.

[Nym90]

Well, I'm not saying that we would just take their word for it when they purchase the gun. Each model of gun needs to be assessed to determine whether or not it has legitimate hunting and sporting value. No one, however, has ever seriously proposed banning any guns which have legitimate hunting value. Shotguns, 30/30 deer rifles, no one will ever make those illegal, obviously, nor is anyone trying to. I think that the NRA loves to use scare tactics about how your guns are going to be taken away, but that's just completely and patently false.
Clinton's crime bill in 1994 proposed banning assault weapons which had no legitimate purpose as a gun other than to kill people. Also, it included several more traditionally conservative ideas such as expanding the death penalty and putting more police on the street. Republicans opposed it though despite this. So if laws aren't being adequately enforced, we should put more police on the streets. It was the Republicans though, and not the Democrats who were opposed to the crime bill in 1994.
It seems to me that the issue of gun control often deals with hyperbole and does not take a hard look at the facts of the specific laws being proposed.

[jravnsbo]

Well the problem is that gun control doesn't work.  Criminals will still find a way to get a gun ont he streets from other criminals.  

Plus Prisons should be hell.  If you are there for life and not getting out forever.  There is no rehabilitation as they know they have nothing to lose by killing another prison or hurting a guard.  

However I do support rehab for certain criminals, but hard to talk so generally about that.

The reason why many liberals push for gun control is very simple: it has the smallest human toll. To make criminal penalties stronger would have the effect of putting people for long periods of time in dehumanizing places such as prison. Such a result would be undesirable, because nothing crushes the human spirit more than confinement, and people need to keep their hopes up to be rehabilitated. I steadfastly believe that taking guns out of the hands of criminals would be much more beneficial than simply allowing them to commit the crime and then brutalize them.

[migrendel]

The criminal code says nothing about being beaten to death or sodomized, jravnsbo. If you were confined to a prison for life, one would think that would be bad enough. Adding forcible anal sex and having your eyes bludgeoned out significantly worsens the conditions of the prison. While it might upset me to see these things happen, I become more resolved in my horror when I hear of people like you say that prisoners are deserving of this and those who simply turn a blind eye. I suppose someone like you can never be shown that this is an abomination in the human dignity category, but if you ever get put in Attica, good luck trying to sit down after movie night.