Gun Control

[Nation]

If we were going to ban guns, we probably should have done it a long time ago. Trying to do it nowadays just -- wouldn't work. Period, and I wouldn't blame people for putting up a fight.

[MarkDel]

If we were going to ban guns, we probably should have done it a long time ago. Trying to do it nowadays just -- wouldn't work. Period, and I wouldn't blame people for putting up a fight.

Nation,

Self defense goes hand in hand with the American culture...which is a culture of personal responsibility first and foremost.

[Nation]

Indeed, but a lot of Americans aren't responsible, hah.

But seriously, yeah I get what you're saying. The only weapons I'd want banned are the assault-type rifles, etc. Absolutely no need for those.

[MarkDel]

Indeed, but a lot of Americans aren't responsible, hah.

But seriously, yeah I get what you're saying. The only weapons I'd want banned are the assault-type rifles, etc. Absolutely no need for those.

Nation,

I tend to agree. There is no need for anyone to have an M-16, though they are fun as all hell to shoot!!!

[The Duke]

If we were going to ban guns, we probably should have done it a long time ago. Trying to do it nowadays just -- wouldn't work. Period, and I wouldn't blame people for putting up a fight.

Nation,

Self defense goes hand in hand with the American culture...which is a culture of personal responsibility first and foremost.

Exactly!  Banning guns takes America out of the American.

[ATFFL]

If we were going to ban guns, we probably should have done it a long time ago. Trying to do it nowadays just -- wouldn't work. Period, and I wouldn't blame people for putting up a fight.

Nation,

Self defense goes hand in hand with the American culture...which is a culture of personal responsibility first and foremost.

Exactly!  Banning guns takes America out of the American.

Then we would all just be "n"s.  

[Josh/Devilman88]

I don't like guns, never did and never will. Why do we need guns?  

[Brambila]

I believe that the third ammendment is one of the most important ammendments we have. This ammendment is what gives us personal property, the right of self-defense, and the right to rebel against the government. Letting the government take away our guns gives them power over us. If we look into nazi germany, the first thing that Hitler did was take away gun ownership, so that nobody could rebel against him. Our society also follows the next step that Hitler did, which is the destruction of the traditional family. Once the government takes away gun ownership, we completely lose the rights that the constitution clearly gave us, which was directly influenced by Locke. Locke stated that citizens have the right to rebel against the government if it gets corrupt. This is the direct reason why the right to seceed from the union is (or at least was) legal.

Gun-opponents often bring up the fact that we were in a time of war, so gun ownership was almost vital. That's pure rubbish, as the founders of America never criticized this ammendment years after the war. By that logic, one could argue that quite a few of the ammendments were meant only for the war. If they wanted it to be temporary, they would have stated so. But they did not. We're not in Thomas More's Utopia where if in war we're allowed to take up arms, but otherwise cannot have any. We're in a realistic society, where gun ownership is always nessecary for our own protection.

On a side note, even if guns are banned for non-government use, criminals are always going to be able to find them. By making them illegal, crime will grow, because criminals will know that homes do not have weapons for defense. This is similar to drugs, where if we illegalize marijuana, we're making people break the law more.

[raggage]

On a side note, even if guns are banned for non-government use, criminals are always going to be able to find them. By making them illegal, crime will grow, because criminals will know that homes do not have weapons for defense. This is similar to drugs, where if we illegalize marijuana, we're making people break the law more.

Yes PERHAPS, but counter that by all the little children who wont accidentally shoot their siblings with daddy's gun if guns were banned completely. And thats a load of crap about criminals going into homes because they think their are unarmed.

Take new zealand and australia as examples. not only are guns prohibitively hard to get their (not banned mind you) but the police themselves are unarmed, yet as a percentage of population there is much less gun violence.

Clearly, Guns are not the solution to the problem, guns are the problem.

[MarkDel]

On a side note, even if guns are banned for non-government use, criminals are always going to be able to find them. By making them illegal, crime will grow, because criminals will know that homes do not have weapons for defense. This is similar to drugs, where if we illegalize marijuana, we're making people break the law more.

Yes PERHAPS, but counter that by all the little children who wont accidentally shoot their siblings with daddy's gun if guns were banned completely. And thats a load of crap about criminals going into homes because they think their are unarmed.

Take new zealand and australia as examples. not only are guns prohibitively hard to get their (not banned mind you) but the police themselves are unarmed, yet as a percentage of population there is much less gun violence.

Clearly, Guns are not the solution to the problem, guns are the problem.

Raggage,

Actually there is all sorts of empirical data that indirectly supports the contention that home invasions occur less in areas where gun control is the weakest and gun ownership is the highest. Also, there is an even greater correlation to overall crime rates going down when concealed carry laws are expanded, as happened in Texas over the last two decades. All I know is that I'd rather have a gun and not need it, then not have a gun when I need one.

[raggage]

On a side note, even if guns are banned for non-government use, criminals are always going to be able to find them. By making them illegal, crime will grow, because criminals will know that homes do not have weapons for defense. This is similar to drugs, where if we illegalize marijuana, we're making people break the law more.

Yes PERHAPS, but counter that by all the little children who wont accidentally shoot their siblings with daddy's gun if guns were banned completely. And thats a load of crap about criminals going into homes because they think their are unarmed.

Take new zealand and australia as examples. not only are guns prohibitively hard to get their (not banned mind you) but the police themselves are unarmed, yet as a percentage of population there is much less gun violence.

Clearly, Guns are not the solution to the problem, guns are the problem.

Raggage,

Actually there is all sorts of empirical data that indirectly supports the contention that home invasions occur less in areas where gun control is the weakest and gun ownership is the highest. Also, there is an even greater correlation to overall crime rates going down when concealed carry laws are expanded, as happened in Texas over the last two decades. All I know is that I'd rather have a gun and not need it, then not have a gun when I need one.

It's a sad day for a nation when one decides he has to protect himself with a lethal weapon.

[John Dibble]

This hasn't been mentioned yet, so I'm gonna mention it - gun control doesn't stop criminals from getting guns. Criminals are criminals, they aren't afraid to use the black market. Restricting law abiding citizen's ability to own guns only gives the criminals the advantage.

The city of Kennesaw, Georgia requires the heads of households(with certain exceptions) to KEEP at least one firearm in their homes since 1982. After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982. And it has stayed impressively low. Obviously criminals value their lives more than your property.

Now, personally I think that requiring citizens to own guns is wrong(even perhaps unconstitutional), but you get the point. Increased gun ownership decreases crime. There should only be two forms of gun control in my mind:

1. People who use guns in a criminal manner should be punished severly.

2. People who are negligent with guns should be punished. This includes irresponsible storage(especially in households with children).

[bejkuy]

The second amendment ain't about duck hunting.

It's about the rights that a FREE people have to defend property and person against oppressors, whoever they may be.

M at Brandeis, what kind of country do you want to live in?

We would have less accidents if we banned private automobile ownership.  Should we do that?

There is no "legitimate" (using your word) reason for kids to ride on a piece of plywood with wheels.  Should we ban skateboarding?

I know that to a liberal the word freedom only applies to vulgarity, but you should know better.

Don't take away my guns because you don't see the need to own one.  

If you've ever wondered why rural westerners can't stand beltway types, figure it out.
We get sick of people couldn't tell a bullet from a bear telling us what to do with our land, our guns, and our water resources.

[Brambila]

This hasn't been mentioned yet, so I'm gonna mention it - gun control doesn't stop criminals from getting guns. Criminals are criminals, they aren't afraid to use the black market. Restricting law abiding citizen's ability to own guns only gives the criminals the advantage.

Exactly. You are right on track.

[Sk]

Those who want to ban all guns are insane. Imagine your a farmer in Nebraska. No cops, no neighbors, just you and your family. So now that its all up to you, what should you use? Maybe you should take knife-throwing lessons? Good Lord...

I have a summer cottage in a rural, wooded area. I can tell you that, since there isn't a cop for thirty miles, I feel pretty insecure. A rifle IS that security, dammit. And WILL NOT let naive liberals take away my right to protect myself!!!!

I do agree, however, that assault weapons should be banned. There's no reason to have one whatsoever (sorry I don't buy that militia argument!).

[John Dibble]

On a side note, even if guns are banned for non-government use, criminals are always going to be able to find them. By making them illegal, crime will grow, because criminals will know that homes do not have weapons for defense. This is similar to drugs, where if we illegalize marijuana, we're making people break the law more.

Yes PERHAPS, but counter that by all the little children who wont accidentally shoot their siblings with daddy's gun if guns were banned completely. And thats a load of crap about criminals going into homes because they think their are unarmed.

Take new zealand and australia as examples. not only are guns prohibitively hard to get their (not banned mind you) but the police themselves are unarmed, yet as a percentage of population there is much less gun violence.

Clearly, Guns are not the solution to the problem, guns are the problem.

Raggage,

Actually there is all sorts of empirical data that indirectly supports the contention that home invasions occur less in areas where gun control is the weakest and gun ownership is the highest. Also, there is an even greater correlation to overall crime rates going down when concealed carry laws are expanded, as happened in Texas over the last two decades. All I know is that I'd rather have a gun and not need it, then not have a gun when I need one.

It's a sad day for a nation when one decides he has to protect himself with a lethal weapon.

It's a sad fact that I need to protect myself at all.

[Nym90]

I think there is a lot of unfounded mass hysteria surrounding the gun issue. No one's guns are going to be taken away. I agree completely, MarkDel, if someone was coming to take my guns away, I'd stand and fight with all the strength I could muster. But there is no way in hell that is going to happen in America. I am highly suspicious of the "domino theory" in general (the idea that if you give them an inch, they'll take a mile, the "slippery slope", etc.). I think that's a pretty simplistic way of looking at things that has no bearing in reality.

I don't see any reason why a gun should be legal if it has no legitimate hunting, sporting, or self-defense purpose. If it does, it should absolutely be legal, but if it doesn't, it shouldn't. People often mention the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms, but there are a lot of weapons that 99.9% of us would agree aren't covered by the 2nd Amendment...it's perfectly Constiututional to ban nuclear weapons, Sherman tanks, hand grenades, etc. So there is obviously not an ABSOLUTE right to bear arms, since almost everyone would agree that nuclear bombs should not be legal for the average citizen to own. It's just a matter of where you draw the line, there clearly is no absolute right.

Nym90,

They came for people's guns in England not all that long ago. And you may feel my overall point is simplistic, but imagine a Democratic President from a major Northeastern City who has strong support in Congress...say Charles Schumer, who is one of the biggest enemies of the 2nd Amendment. If you don't think that the extreme left of the Democratic Party wouldn't OUTLAW all handguns and order their confiscation, then you haven't been listening to them very well over the years. DO YOU KNOW HOW HARD IT IS TO GET A GUN PERMIT IN NEW YORK CITY OR WASHINGTON, DC??? You cannot get one at all without showing cause to a local magistrate that you need it specifically because you carry large sums of money, and the vast majority of all permit applications are turned down for unknown reasons. If these people had their way, all handguns would be BANNED...listen to them...take them at their word!

Well, again I disagree about the amount, extent, and prominence of extremism in the Democratic party. It's not the first time though for us to disagree on that, and it won't be the last.

I agree with Nation, if anyone tried to seriously ban guns like that it would never get through. And even if it did, they would have their a**ses handed to them on a silver platter in the next election and the law overturned. America would never ever stand for the banning of guns.

[KEmperor]

Disagree. Anyway if private gun ownership had been legal and widespread beforehand, the Germans would have confiscated them immediately following the Reichstag fire, possibly as late as the Night of the Long Knives (1934). They'dve been long gone by the war ('39) and the start of the Final Solution ('41).

Its actually very difficult to confiscate hidden weapons, especially if there is no record of who owns them.  They're very hard to find.  Which is why I'm strongly against any kind of identification or checking of backgrounds of gun buyers.

Ditto.  Gun freedom makes communities safer, as empirical studies have shown.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The best argument for gun control is anti-gun control fanatics

Seriously now... in the U.K handguns were banned because of a massacre in a school in Scotland which shocked and appalled just about everyone. There was a massive wave of support for banning handguns.
Very, very few people owned handguns.
Automatic weapons are also banned.

Shotguns, hunting rifles etc are *not* banned (except for certain high velocity weapons, eg: pump action shotguns).

Most gun fatalities are nowadays caused by converted replicas (although the police are trying to crack down on this) and gun deaths are far, far lower in the U.K than in the U.S

[KEmperor]

The best argument for gun control is anti-gun control fanatics

Seriously now... in the U.K handguns were banned because of a massacre in a school in Scotland which shocked and appalled just about everyone. There was a massive wave of support for banning handguns.
Very, very few people owned handguns.
Automatic weapons are also banned.

Shotguns, hunting rifles etc are *not* banned (except for certain high velocity weapons, eg: pump action shotguns).

Most gun fatalities are nowadays caused by converted replicas (although the police are trying to crack down on this) and gun deaths are far, far lower in the U.K than in the U.S

But overall crime is much higher.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The best argument for gun control is anti-gun control fanatics

Seriously now... in the U.K handguns were banned because of a massacre in a school in Scotland which shocked and appalled just about everyone. There was a massive wave of support for banning handguns.
Very, very few people owned handguns.
Automatic weapons are also banned.

Shotguns, hunting rifles etc are *not* banned (except for certain high velocity weapons, eg: pump action shotguns).

Most gun fatalities are nowadays caused by converted replicas (although the police are trying to crack down on this) and gun deaths are far, far lower in the U.K than in the U.S

But overall crime is much higher.

And I'm sure that having some thug stealing your phone is *much* more serious than being gunned down by said thug...

The U.K does have a problem with petty crime (I blame Thatcher) and an influx of guns would make the problem worse. But I'd rather have a problem with petty crime than a problem with serious crime.

[raggage]

The best argument for gun control is anti-gun control fanatics

Seriously now... in the U.K handguns were banned because of a massacre in a school in Scotland which shocked and appalled just about everyone. There was a massive wave of support for banning handguns.
Very, very few people owned handguns.
Automatic weapons are also banned.

Shotguns, hunting rifles etc are *not* banned (except for certain high velocity weapons, eg: pump action shotguns).

Most gun fatalities are nowadays caused by converted replicas (although the police are trying to crack down on this) and gun deaths are far, far lower in the U.K than in the U.S

But overall crime is much higher.

Yeah right.

[KEmperor]

The best argument for gun control is anti-gun control fanatics

Seriously now... in the U.K handguns were banned because of a massacre in a school in Scotland which shocked and appalled just about everyone. There was a massive wave of support for banning handguns.
Very, very few people owned handguns.
Automatic weapons are also banned.

Shotguns, hunting rifles etc are *not* banned (except for certain high velocity weapons, eg: pump action shotguns).

Most gun fatalities are nowadays caused by converted replicas (although the police are trying to crack down on this) and gun deaths are far, far lower in the U.K than in the U.S

But overall crime is much higher.

And I'm sure that having some thug stealing your phone is *much* more serious than being gunned down by said thug...

The U.K does have a problem with petty crime (I blame Thatcher) and an influx of guns would make the problem worse. But I'd rather have a problem with petty crime than a problem with serious crime.

I am talking about serious crime, like burglary.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The best argument for gun control is anti-gun control fanatics

Seriously now... in the U.K handguns were banned because of a massacre in a school in Scotland which shocked and appalled just about everyone. There was a massive wave of support for banning handguns.
Very, very few people owned handguns.
Automatic weapons are also banned.

Shotguns, hunting rifles etc are *not* banned (except for certain high velocity weapons, eg: pump action shotguns).

Most gun fatalities are nowadays caused by converted replicas (although the police are trying to crack down on this) and gun deaths are far, far lower in the U.K than in the U.S

But overall crime is much higher.

And I'm sure that having some thug stealing your phone is *much* more serious than being gunned down by said thug...

The U.K does have a problem with petty crime (I blame Thatcher) and an influx of guns would make the problem worse. But I'd rather have a problem with petty crime than a problem with serious crime.

I am talking about serious crime, like burglary.

Has been falling for years. Fear of it hasn't, but that's the media's fault.

[John Dibble]

The best argument for gun control is anti-gun control fanatics

Seriously now... in the U.K handguns were banned because of a massacre in a school in Scotland which shocked and appalled just about everyone. There was a massive wave of support for banning handguns.
Very, very few people owned handguns.
Automatic weapons are also banned.

Shotguns, hunting rifles etc are *not* banned (except for certain high velocity weapons, eg: pump action shotguns).

Most gun fatalities are nowadays caused by converted replicas (although the police are trying to crack down on this) and gun deaths are far, far lower in the U.K than in the U.S

But overall crime is much higher.

And I'm sure that having some thug stealing your phone is *much* more serious than being gunned down by said thug...

The U.K does have a problem with petty crime (I blame Thatcher) and an influx of guns would make the problem worse. But I'd rather have a problem with petty crime than a problem with serious crime.

I am talking about serious crime, like burglary.

Has been falling for years. Fear of it hasn't, but that's the media's fault.

Right, I'm sure. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1-537568,00.html

And since you banned guns over a school shooting, how long until you ban knives when there's a school stabbing? Oh, and did you hear, in 2002 I believe it was the gun ban author's wife was mugged.

I'll also point you to Switzerland - all males there are issued assault rifles to keep at home, yet crime is low.