Gun Control

[tabmow]

WIth the war,the economy, and all the other things going on in the news. What do you all think about the issue of Gun Control and the Second Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. I am also interested in the views of members of the boards that are not from the United States.

[conpiracymonki]

[b][size=1]
How exactly is it all with guns in the US? I mean, is everybody allowed to keep one on themself or something?

I mean, here they're banned full-stop. And if you get caught with one, stuff happens.[/b]

So uh.. I need to really know for sure how it works in the US before I can really say anything.
-.-[/size]

[Sui Generis]

People argue that you have the right to protect yourself right. Well if guns were illegal you wouldn't need a gun to protect yourself from another gun.

I think its a hopeless cause though. Humans have proven that every time a weapon has come to the end of its life (however that happens) a new, better, faster, more deadly one comes out.

Thats my personal opinion.

I think they're as horrible as anythign else, but are they going to leave even if we ban them?

Nope...

[Lady Macaiodh]

[color=darkblue]If you have a felony on your record, you can't own a gun. I think that's a good idea. Also, an illegal gun will get you an automatic five years in prison. Other than that, I don't really see the point of increasing the laws, because guns will always be around.

And if they were made completely illegal, the only people to have guns in the U.S. would be criminals. There are so many illegal guns around right now, the country would go to complete hell. At this point, it wouldn't be wise to ban guns. We'd have to take extreme measures that would last for years before it would be safe to drastically change the laws. That's my opinion.[/color]

[Transtic Nerve]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by AJeh [/i]
[B][b][size=1]
How exactly is it all with guns in the US? I mean, is everybody allowed to keep one on themself or something?

I mean, here they're banned full-stop. And if you get caught with one, stuff happens.[/b]

So uh.. I need to really know for sure how it works in the US before I can really say anything.
-.-[/size] [/B][/QUOTE]

The second amendment right states that we have the right to carry a firearm. However, with laws in the US, there are extreme limits on this right. Usually rifles and handguns apply. Semi-automatic and Automatic ones don't, although I think some semi-automatics are.

Anyway, when the second amendment was passed, there were no such things as automatic and semi-automatic weapons. There were rifles and like revolvers... things for simple protection, you know because back then we didn't jhave alarm systems and sh*t like that. I think saying "It's our right to carry whatever weapon we want" is not only outrageous, but incredibly and utterly stupid. I think people can have a simply firearm, just like our founding fathers had in mind. However I think guns are stupid...

[Charles]

The second amendment is moot. Look at the time in which it was drafted. The founding fathers of the Constitution were simply mindful of the British attempt to disarm the colonists and viewed the presence of a well-armed militia as a safeguard of democracy. Sure, at the time it was justifiable. But are owners of today's handguns members of a well regulated militia? No sir. We have armed forces, we don't require that ordinary citizens pick up arms and fight our wars for us.

Now, if you think about it, the majority of murders aren't committed by hardened criminals. For the most part, victims of handguns know their victims well. These victims are people killed by jealous lovers, drinking buddies that get into a violent argument; or they're innocent people who get shot by disgruntled employees or fellow workers who have (or imagine) a grudge. Sometimes, the victims are children who play with their parents gun.

I know that the aforementioned ordinary people, such as violent lovers and angry drunks would still attack others with knives or baseball bats, but some of the victims would have a greater opportunity to escape with less injury. That's what I think. Oh, and I'm sure that a teen armed with only a knife would be less likely to try to rob a store than he is if he is armed with a gun. Don't you?

Anyway, I'm not trying to say that criminals [i]don't[/i] use guns to kill people--because they do. I'd be foolish to say otherwise. And--people have a right to be afraid when they're living in unsafe city environments. I don't blame them for wanting to buy a gun to protect their families. But, most burglaries are committed when no one is home. So, what does that mean? Handguns kept in a drawer of a bedside table or something, can get lifted right alongside jewelry and such, adding one more gun to the robber's possession.

So, you know, I'm inclined to think that handguns in particular should be outlawed. The way I see it, homicide rates would decrease substantially if they were made so. Of course, people might obtain 'em nonetheless, but I'll bet that fewer petty criminals would have guns.

I don't have a problem with rifles or large guns. They can't be concealed easily. So, it's not as if those who hunt for sport would be deprived of all their rights or anything.

[Guest Matt]

[color=red][b]"If you outlaw guns then only outlaws will have guns.

If you give everyone a gun then outlaws will still have guns."

It's a lose-lose situation. I prefer to have my Saiga near me.

Saiga:[img]http://www.izhmash.udm.ru/images/saiga-1s.gif[/img]

gotta love russian guns. :)[/b][/color]

[Guest j00f00]

The term "Gun" is an issue I'd like to bring up. Since there are different typse of guns, which ones will be outlawed? A Spud gun can to serious damage, so can a high-powered BB rifle (trust me, I've been shot by one from point blank -.-). If guns were outlawed from civilan use, it would anger a large number of citizens, like hunters. In my view, at this point in time, the only reasonable thing to do is step up the precautions on people who buy/own guns, and how they use them (which would include heftier punishments for those who infringe on the rules.

There's my two-and-a-half-cents ^^;.

[Kent]

I like what some of the others here have said...

Outlaw guns and only outlaws have them.

Lady Mac's points...

I think my view boils down to the idea that we need to worry about enforcing gun laws before we need to worry about making more.

What good is a new law when you couldnt up hold the previous ones.

That said, I still believe in slight limitations to firearms.

No fully auto and no silenced weapons.

Otherwise, it should be about the person and not the gun...

The law once again needs to adopt something I have long asked for...

Descretion.

"A gun is only as dangerous as the man carrying it."

If any of you can tell me where that qoute is from... well, we will decide on a prize later.

[Transtic Nerve]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by j00f00 [/i]
[B]In my view, at this point in time, the only reasonable thing to do is step up the precautions on people who buy/own guns, and how they use them (which would include heftier punishments for those who infringe on the rules.

[/B][/QUOTE]

While that is a good thing, it's been tried and won't ever happen the way we imagine. Because guns are sold by private sellers, meaning anyone who wants to, most of the time, they are out for the money and can and will sell guns to anyone if they want to make a profit. If gun sellers were controled by the government, or was a government institution, this would work a hell of alot better. But then people would go all nuts cause thats socialism and thats anti-america and anti-capitalist.... I think your idea would work, but only in a socialist way, which will never happen here.

I absolutely think guns, in all forms, should be outlawed. it's the government's job to protect me and my freedom, and criminals with guns in their possession is not doing that. But it'll never happen. Esspecially since the founding fathers didn't foresee technology like what we have now. And the fact it says we can have guns in the constitution makes it all the harder to get it repealed... but it happened to the 18th amendment, it can happen to the 2nd.

[wizard-of-oz]

the thing about guns is that guns arn't bad, bad people with guns are bad. we need guns. if we get rid of guns then whats to protect use from people that didnt get rid of theres? and theres nothing wrong with hunting rifiles. its not to often someone holds up a 7/11 with a rifile. and if we didnt hunt, then there would be mass Disease and the animales would end up dying and geting humans sick with them. and if someone feals the need to carry a gun for protection then they must have done something bad or are just paranoid. a stun gun will get rid of an attacker quick. and if you get shot at for no reason, then i doubt you will have much time to get your gun out anyways. if you carry your gun in your purse and a thug jumps you, do you think you will have the time to grab your gun and shot him? maybe if your vash, but probly not. o well, my fo fo make all sure all your kids dont grow.

[Kent]

Hey, if it can happen to the second amendment, it can happen to the first.

And to remind you, outlawing guns from the law abiding citizens will not take the guns away from the people you are complaining about the government protecting you from. (which, btw, the government cant even enforce our current laws)

Plus like what I said before... whats the point of making new laws when you cant enforce the current ones.

But hey, its ok with me what ever you want to say...

I can tell you now though, if you try to take a gun from me, without an reason that is sound and legitimate. (being my own faults or ownership of overly powerful weapons) I will make you pay for it.

De-armament is the first step to controlling the people in ways that alienate our "in-alienable" rights.

Nazis de-armed the people.

And most importantly...

If you take my gun for what you think I MIGHT do, then I am gonna go out of my way to take your car for what you might do. (accidents and drunken driving kill more than fire-arms every year in America, and that is a fact.)
(And I might even kill you with one of those out of date... what do you call them, oh thats it, knives or swords; or maybe my own hands.)

[Transtic Nerve]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by gokents [/i]
[B]Hey, if it can happen to the second amendment, it can happen to the first.[/b][/quote]

Yeah, they kinda already did that. They took away alot of our freedoms since 9/11. For our own safety they say...

[quote][b]
And to remind you, outlawing guns from the law abiding citizens will not take the guns away from the people you are complaining about the government protecting you from. (which, btw, the government cant even enforce our current laws)[/b][/quote]

Most of the people who kill using guns are law abiding people who usually end up using the weapon in a rage, drunk, or emotionally confused. If those guns weren't there to begin with, then they couldn't use them in their little rage.

[quote][b]Plus like what I said before... whats the point of making new laws when you cant enforce the current ones.[/b][/quote]

If banning guns ever came to be, it would be SO publicized that the government would HAVE to inforce it. It wouldn't be something like speeding or whatever. Or ever drugs for that matter. Drugs aren't well enforced because it's easily disuade. People sell, buy, and transport drugs easily. It's an easy profit, guns aren't so much. Guns are much harder to transport. There isn't a huge market like drugs for them. You can't easily sell them on any street corner... at least not always like most drugs. I know they can be sold illegally and will be, but to the majority of people, wouldn't be the case. I'd rather only outlaws have guns than every fuggin person int he country.

[quote][b]I can tell you now though, if you try to take a gun from me, without an reason that is sound and legitimate. (being my own faults or ownership of overly powerful weapons) I will make you pay for it.[/quote][/b]

It won't be me... it'll be that government you love so much right now...

[quote][b]De-armament is the first step to controlling the people in ways that alienate our "in-alienable" rights.[/b][/quote]

It's also the first step to complete safety in our oh so not safe world.

[quote][b](And I might even kill you with one of those out of date... what do you call them, oh thats it, knives or swords; or **** maybe just my own hands.) [/B][/QUOTE]

Possibly the most immature thing I've ever seen you say... I will say nothing else about that comment.

[Semjaza]

I assume you are referring to the Patriot Act TN? That thing is a mess, and it's possibly the worst thing to be put into effect in a long time. It makes many of your basic rights forfeit. Thankfully, most of the horrible aspects of it end soon. Apparently, no one up there contested it at the risk of being "unpatriotic" or some nonsense.

Anyway, if you look around the country... Areas with the highest amount of gun control have the most gun related deaths. Areas with the least amount of gun control have the least amount of gun realated deaths. I guess that doesn't mean much when you are comparing Washington, D.C. to like some random town in Virginia (or whatever it was).

Anyway, I'm not really into guns. My father has a lot of weapons in our house, but he is more of a collector and a hunter type person. He keeps everything locked up, everything unloaded. Everything is registered and so on. He's surprisingly responsible for it, and it leads me to think that most people with this amount of weaponry are like this as well.

Not to say I've not seen worse. I've gone out to the country with my dad and his friend and shot at targets... My dad's friend had several different types of assault rifles and such, that basically destroyed any target the other guns were simply spinning around. I don't know why he has that stuff, but he doesn't use it for anything more than leisurely things in the middle of nowhere.

[Mnemolth]

Cars go from point A to point B. Knives are used for cutting meat. Guns are made for one purpose and one purpose alone. Killing people. That's the difference.

Of course there are various sorts of guns, some for sport and some used by farmers, but the vast majority of guns sold in the US is for killing people.

Time and time again studies have shown that your risk of death or injury [i]increases[/i] if you keep a gun in your house. Time and time again studies have shown a correlation between relaxed gun laws and high incidences of gun-related crimes.

Its the gun. Of course any idiot knows its also the person. But take away the gun, and how much power does the person have? Are you seriously asking me to believe those Columbine killers could have taken out all those people with a couple of knives?

[The Harlequin]

[font=gothic][color=crimson]If they'd known what they were doing they could have...

Over here (Australia), guns laws are damn strict. There's very, very little you can legally own now. But that's only in the fireams department. Just this week, there was a case of two teenage school girls getting severely injured by a teenage male armed with a crossbow. That one bolt went [I]through[/I] the first girl's chest, into the other one's leg. And that wasn't a top of the line crossbow by any means.

Increasing gun laws might stop some accidental deaths, but if someone really wants to kill someone, it's incredibly easily to do so. In a country where you can't own most firearms, and have to store the ones you do own in a dismantled state, a 13 year old with a bit of money can by a lethal weapon over the phone without anyone else knowing about it.

Increasing gun laws probably won't do much. Making it harder to get a gun probably would.[/font][/color]

[Kent]

No, I'm asking that you recognize the fact that, I have a love for shooting as a sport.(amongst other things)

But the way you all want it, I woulnt be able to do that.

Also, Im asking you to recognize that in your time and time again stats, there are flaws.

Such as the fact that the fall of deaths and murders by guns in places like britian and france, which coincide with stricter gun laws, are complemented by a total lack of change for the same stats with the same sort of laws being implimented in places such as germany and belgium.

But most important in this is the idea of me as an individual.

I deserve the right to hold and own an object that will never be used as a weapon, although I could use it in that way if needed.

I also want to support Semjaza, my grandfather and father are both collectors and both are very strict about the ways our weapons are stored and regulated.

This is not a rarity.

The fact is, those who are most likely to use weapons like this in a violent manner, will never be affected by the laws people who are "anti-gun" want to pass.

We should respect people as individuals and not stereotype gun owners as gang bangers or murderers.

I really hate the fact that I am held in the same group as the random gang member, just because I like to fire guns.

I really dislike that especially because of one fact...

Although I love to shoot, I hate hunting.

Of course Im not enough of an *** to try and tell you not to. (unlike some who think they know better than myself)

But still, I just like to shoot at targets.

Its an amazing feeling to me and an even greater challenge.

Its a sport to me in many aspects and at the same time, its a right to expect the worst.

I always have believed in expecting the worst and hoping for the best... If I have to count on the police to protect me, or my fellow man to treat me in a law abiding, legal way...

I better start expecting the best, and hoping I dont have to worry about it.

[Justin]

I would be in favor of taking handguns from people, but not rifles. Handguns are designed solely for killing people. Whereas, rifles are also used in hunting--a sport I take part in.

The unfortunate thing is, when guns are removed, there [i]will[/i] be people killed because they couldn't protect themselves from, say, someone who [i]wasn't[/i] a law-abiding citizen who just lost control, you know?

It's really a touchy subject, though, and since we all know this, let's not bite each other too hard.

-Justin

[Red]

[quote][i]Originally Posted by Lalaith Ril[/i]

People argue that you have the right to protect yourself right. Well if guns were illegal you wouldn't need a gun to protect yourself from another gun.[/quote]

[b][size=1]Making guns illegal does not eliminate all trace of them. Guns are illegal in the UK, yet gun crime is rising rapidly. Also, you say at the bottom of your post that getting rid of guns will not 'leave' if they are banned. Why, at the top half of your post, say the opposite thing?[/size][/b]

[quote]A Spud gun can to serious damage, so can a high-powered BB rifle[/quote]

[b][size=1]In the UK there are strict limits on BB gun's rate of fire, along with the overall strength. Beyond a point, they become classed as lethal weapons and are therefore illegal. I don't know about the US, though. Also, it's incredibly doubtful that anyone could kill someone with a BB gun, even at point-blank range with a high-powered rifle.

I find the idea of having a gun for your own protection a very flawed one indeed. As Mnelmoth said, guns are made to kill. Nothing else. Yes, people do use rifles for hunting and so forth, but those rifles can easily be used to kill people.

In the UK, police fight fire with fire. Most of them carry sub-machine guns and since 9/11 a lot of regular police officers have been given 9mm pistols due to a 'large presence of gun activity'. The problem is, the only real way to fight against gun crime is to use guns, since I doubt anyone is going to run out with a baton to try and club the criminal mid fire-fight.[/b][/size]

[Change]

I belive in gun control. However the U.S. Constitution says nothing about the legality of gun ownership. The 2nd Ammendment only guarentees the rights of the States to organize a militia for their own protection from the Federal Government. However with the avent of Automatics and Autoloaders, guns have becom far more deadly. I think that everyone should have the right to a mustket, not an assault rifle. However, I see some practiaclyity is small gun ownership for protection and hunting. That is why I feel that curently the states need to regulate gun ownership, not the national govenrment.

[wizard-of-oz]

im not sure if anyone else noticed. but not everyone carrys a gun around with them. and most of the people that do live in big citys like L.A. and theres nothing wrong with collecting guns. its a hobbie. how would you like it if someone outlawed your hobbie because of stupid people?

[Transtic Nerve]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by wizard-of-oz [/i]
[B]im not sure if anyone else noticed. but not everyone carrys a gun around with them. and most of the people that do live in big citys like L.A. and theres nothing wrong with collecting guns. its a hobbie. how would you like it if someone outlawed your hobbie because of stupid people? [/B][/QUOTE]

I have an answer to that...

Like I said before, I am not against collecting guns. It's like collecting any weapon, like a sword or whatever. My sword sits in my room in it's sheath at all times. I only take it out to clean it. You don't pratice with it, you practive with Kendo swords, or wodden swords... Anyway... here my answer... We don't have to outlaw guns per say, lets just outlaw the bullets. What happens when you outlaw bullets, they are sold on the black market... at outrageous prices because they can't be mass produced anymore. Thus who is going to buy them but people with lots of money, which isn't the majority of the US. At least I think that I wouldn't spend $10 on one bullet... seems like waste. If you collect guns, awesome yay! whatever, but why do you need bullets if you're only collecting them?

If you shoot for sport, at targets, not animals, like Gokents, then I also really don't see a problem. It's an Olympic sport, shooting that is. But I think collecting and shooting non-living targets for sport is about the absolute only reason ever to have a gun. And I think you should have strict limitations on that alone. Shooting animals is a big no no. I don't see why this is not considered murder int he US. We shoot and kill animals it's fun, a sport whatever. An animal kills your little kid, that animal is a EVIL being who should be killed... It's absolutely ridiculous. I don't see any difference between killing any animal and killing any human. We are all animals, we all have lives, we are all living, there is no difference but we have the ability to create horrible weapons to kill those other things.

[Justin]

I don't think an animal who kills my kid would be evil. I don't believe animals have souls and thus, can't be evil. I would kill it, yes, but that doesn't make it evil. If anything, that's evil on my part, since I'd kill it out of vengence and rage. And if any animal I'm hunting kills me, good for it. It's just done what few animals ever can do, and I hope it passes its genes on the next generation.

I don't just go out and hunt animals to bring them home and hang them on my wall...that's a stereotype.

I hunt mainly because I like the taste of deer meat over beef or pork or any of the other meats you'd find at the store. I also wouldn't kill every single deer I see at any time of the year. There's a strict limit on the number of deer you can hunt, and strict season in which you can hunt them. I never go over the limit or outside the season. Just because you don't like hunting doesn't make it evil.

-Justin

[Transtic Nerve]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Justin [/i]
[B] Just because you don't like hunting doesn't make it evil.
[/B][/QUOTE]

And just because you do doesn't make it right.

[Change]

I don't belive anyone has a soul, so is ok for me to kill people? I do like your idea of outlawing bullets TN, sound neet.