Interesting talk, but what I'm sick of hearing is this bulls*t about you losing your rights. In the hands of a crazy or retarded person, the gun is a nightmare!!
Sure you can kill someone with something else but face it, it's easier to kill dozens of people with a gun. It would be pretty hard to kill lots of people with a knife in just a few minutes. It would also be harder to flee or defend yourself if someone had a gun.

[ 05-03-2004, 09:00 PM: Message edited by: Gab ]

Jerr Conner, you bring in some good points.

Thou it goes directly against our Northern friend Gab. I also feel that fully automatic weapons, and some 'assualt style' weapons should not be "THE RIGHT' of everybody to own. However, who gives the right for a collector to own it? Just because he is rich, line's the pockets of poiliticians does not quantify his "RIGHT" to ownership.

Gab, it is our 'RIGHT' as written by our founding fathers, it's called the 2nd amendment, "The Right to Bear Arms". But as you point out, and is advocated in my circle of gun owners, it's all about education, and who should/ should not have access to them. Just a simple gun safety class is not good enough, there should be mandatory classes, and hands on skills that one must pass. But, that is already in most clubs, it's the one who should not have a gun is the one who spoils the fruits for the rest of us.

Just my 2c not a coherent argument:
Keep in mind that laws are not always about pragmatism and "what will work" but about what we want to convey to people.
While prohibition often seems the easy way out it's cutting down on freedom.
Laws for better safety may not work, because there are too little possibilities to enforce them, but they convey the message that "You can do anything, as long as you are responsible" which is what America is all about IMHO.

Us losing our rights isn't 'bullshit,' it's very, very real. Wouldn't a sturdy automotive vehicle be just as bad, if not worse in the hands of someone willing to cause harm? You're sick of the idea that self defense is a NATURAL right? That 'good' kings and 'benevolent' governments should never have the power to take it away? Don't you understand what's at stake? You would disarm those who have defended themselves with firearms, and that's just because YOU are afraid of them. You don't seem willing or able to understand how many people have been saved by firearms since they were invented. Nor do you seem to understand that governments kill far more people than citizens do, and screw up far more frequently, by percentage. The conservative estimate for the 20th century puts government murder of citizen figures at above 170 Million. Conservative figures on police killlings put accidental shootings up to 33%, and higher... Civilian shootings number at most in the thousands in a given year, across a hundred or so years, it's likely barely to get into 1/17 of what government killers do.

How often now, or ever, including the time of legal, free-access automatic weapons ownership (36 years in the US) have such killings taken place? Did a gun get used in ANY of them? Bombs are more problematic in the hands of those willing to cause trouble, and they make them out of common household and farm products, are you suggesting we ban these necessities of farming/living for the sake of stopping one or two wackos? Howsabout we ban knowledge of building bombs? Wait, aren't these impractical/impossible solutions to the problem?

Also, as in this case, the criminal had the initiative, and a gun was used to defend oneself. Would pepper spray have worked? Not likely, that stuff has been proven pretty ineffective...

True enough (In reference to the Collector part). I'm trying to avoid too much debate here because this is my first gun control discussion, hence why I didn't reply to the actual amendment.

Well, 'assault style' weapons or 'assault weapons' as the Brady Bunch or the VPC terms it, refers to weapons no more dangerous than other weapons in the same category: Self-loading, detachable box-magazine fed firearms.

An AR-15 is not easily convertible into full auto, despite what some may have said...

Us losing our rights isn't 'bullshit,' it's very, very real. Wouldn't a sturdy automotive vehicle be just as bad, if not worse in the hands of someone willing to cause harm? You're sick of the idea that self defense is a NATURAL right? That 'good' kings and 'benevolent' governments should never have the power to take it away? Don't you understand what's at stake? You would disarm those who have defended themselves with firearms, and that's just because YOU are afraid of them. You don't seem willing or able to understand how many people have been saved by firearms since they were invented. Nor do you seem to understand that governments kill far more people than citizens do, and screw up far more frequently, by percentage. The conservative estimate for the 20th century puts government murder of citizen figures at above 170 Million. Conservative figures on police killlings put accidental shootings up to 33%, and higher... Civilian shootings number at most in the thousands in a given year, across a hundred or so years, it's likely barely to get into 1/17 of what government killers do.

Quote:

Sure you can kill someone with something else but face it, it's easier to kill dozens of people with a gun. It would be pretty hard to kill lots of people with a knife in just a few minutes. It would also be harder to flee or defend yourself if someone had a gun.

How often now, or ever, including the time of legal, free-access automatic weapons ownership (36 years in the US) have such killings taken place? Did a gun get used in ANY of them? Bombs are more problematic in the hands of those willing to cause trouble, and they make them out of common household and farm products, are you suggesting we ban these necessities of farming/living for the sake of stopping one or two wackos? Howsabout we ban knowledge of building bombs? Wait, aren't these impractical/impossible solutions to the problem?

Also, as in this case, the criminal had the initiative, and a gun was used to defend oneself. Would pepper spray have worked? Not likely, that stuff has been proven pretty ineffective... </font>[/QUOTE]Do you understand what's at stake? Of course in your mind, it's a loss of your freedom. Do you accually think that there are no consequences for having gun ownership?? I couldn't give a shit about not owning a gun as I have no need for one as I'm no hunter or farmer. I also don't have this crazy belief that owning a gun is going to make me safe from criminals. Most don't even break into a house when there's someone home, anyways... Gun ownership sure doesn't prevent the incredibbly huge amount of crime in the United States. Not to mention that my country has very strict gun control and we have a much lower crime rate than the US.

Face it killing a person with a gun is just too easy. Why else do you think it was invented? If a guy is short and weak, he's going to have a much easier time killing someone with gun than with a knife or his fists. If someones stupid enough to trying killing people with a car (by running them over?), chances are he going to get into an accident.

Will you please quit using self defense killings? A homicide is a homocide no matter the reason!!!! Does the criminal's life mean nothing and it's okay to kill him?

Why should I talk about gun masscres in the United States only? There's been some very terrible ones in other countries before they introduced gun control.

[ 05-05-2004, 08:43 AM: Message edited by: Gab ]

Untrue. Killing a person in real self-defense (note:several rules here) makes it NOT a homicide under the law where I come from (the U.S.).

Well, I think a real problem that many Americans will identify in the legal system is that it gives the criminals more rights than the victims. You see this argument all the time.

For my own part, a (violent) criminal's life is worth less than the victim's.

This is a real disconnect between the US and the EU (which, on this issue, includes you if not all of Canada).

I keep a sword by the bed, and I feel naked. As soon as I can arrange the permits, I will keep a gun near the bed. If you do otherwise, fine by me. But, I personally want to have the option to "run the metal through" any bandits I meet along the path of life. If you don't like it, well, stuff it. Live your life in your country and quit trying to dictate mine.

again just a sidenote.
I do support self-defense and understand that this is an issue about American freedom,
BUT
I'm tired of the "a gun is no more efficient than any other weapon" argument.
WTF???
For what reasons were guns invented then? Why does the US Army not carry sledgehammers and lawnmowers?
Why don't I see the Chinese and Japanes army training millions of martial arts experts who enter the field unarmed?
And why do people keep guns for self-defense instead of kitchen knives?

[ 05-05-2004, 03:41 AM: Message edited by: Faceman ]

Untrue. Killing a person in real self-defense (note:several rules here) makes it NOT a homicide under the law where I come from (the U.S.).

Quote:

Does the criminal's life mean nothing and it's okay to kill him?

Well, I think a real problem that many Americans will identify in the legal system is that it gives the criminals more rights than the victims. You see this argument all the time.

For my own part, a (violent) criminal's life is worth less than the victim's.

This is a real disconnect between the US and the EU (which, on this issue, includes you if not all of Canada).

I keep a sword by the bed, and I feel naked. As soon as I can arrange the permits, I will keep a gun near the bed. If you do otherwise, fine by me. But, I personally want to have the option to "run the metal through" any bandits I meet along the path of life. If you don't like it, well, stuff it. Live your life in your country and quit trying to dictate mine. </font>[/QUOTE]Fine, you've made your point about it be not be counted in your system. My whole point is while the criminal be worth less, it's still a life. Do you believe just because he's a criminal, his death doesn't matter? Mind you, that I'm not trying to dictate your life, I'm just bring this up because this topic is about gun control.

Are you that paranoid about buglars that you're always to be sleeping with your gun??!

A criminal is risking his own life by breaking into someone else's house. Even if you ban guns, there's always a risk that the houseowner has something else up his sleeve; a knife, a sword or something similar.

And daddy doesn't understand it,
He always said she was good as gold

[ 05-05-2004, 10:03 AM: Message edited by: Davros ]

Why don't soldiers fight with sturdy automotive vehicles instead of those shooty things? Could it be that those shooty things are more efficient?

And Tuesdays aren't all that great either.

And Tuesdays aren't all that great either. </font>[/QUOTE]Exactly! Right back to the 'MEDIA' "Gotta have my face in the paper!"
Like the article points out however, the weapons didn't do it, the thugs did it! Along with the use of explosives. Now there's a concept, use explosives with weapons. Where are we seeing that now?

This was a tragic event. I'm not playing it down, just pointing to the root.
But to contrast, how many shots did Timothy McVeigh fire?

And they can see "no reasons"
Cos there are "no reasons"

First, we're talking about an urban situation, or a village square, some crowded area that everyone imagines when we talk about urban shootings and you get the knee-jerk "OMFGZ! Teh baby killing gunz can kill 20 peeple in a minute!" type arguments, in those situations, an automobile would be FAR more dangerous, as it's 2 tons (or more, in the case of trucks and SUVs) of steel and rubber crashing into people who crumble like silt under a shoe. While someone is in the vehicle, and they don't crash into anything too sturdy, and people are in front of them, people will continue to die, across a matter of 5 or 6 seconds, in a crowded throroughfare, a dozen could be killed, quite reasonably.

Then you move into Combat, a far more diverse and complicated SERIES of scenarios, not just one incident. Combat is not, has never been, and for the good of mankind I hope it never becomes a purely mathematical or clinical affair. The weapon you depend upon for use must be capable of use in a very broad range of scenarios and possibilities... Given that, the rifle is the best choice for the individual soldier (though some would contend in favor of light machineguns) in most situations.[/quote]

[ 05-08-2004, 01:04 PM: Message edited by: Oblivion437 ]

And nobody's gunna go to school today
She's goin to make them stay at home.

That's cos they are "trailer park girls", and they "go round the outside, round the outside".

I don't like mondays

Did you hear the one about the girl whose silicone chip inside her head was switched to overload.