What do you think about the issue of gun control.

I say there should be more restrictions such as a longer waiting day period and ban some weapons. Rifles mostly that are not really used for sport. And a more through backround check.

I'd have to say a lot about that but it's 2AM over here and I keep my more elaborate answers for the morning.
In short:
I'm for a ban on all non-hunting firearms. (I understand that in the US high calibre handguns are also used for hunting on some occasion).
Exceptions only for people who "require" guns at their job (e.g. security guards) and only AT their job (no taking the gun home).

Gun control is putting 7+1 rounds in the same 1/2 inch hole at 25 yards. ;)

Seriously, what do you think all these extra restrictions do? Take the weapons away from law abidding citizens. That's it.

The criminals will just ignore the law and get around it - and still own guns. That's what they do! They're criminals!

Why do think the 2nd Ammendment is there? To allow be people to have personal defense tools? No. To allow criminals to be dangerous? No. Criminals, esp ones with violent tendancies, are dangerous anyway. My own two hands are lethal weapons - should I wish to apply them that way. To allow hobbiests to have vast armouries for display? No.

The 2^nd Ammendment is there to protect We the People from Government. Don't think that is needed? Try reading the PATRIOT ACT. Yet We the Sheep seem all to willing to sell our power and our protection over to the Government for the illusion of safety and security.

"Those that would trade Liberty for Security will have neither Liberty nor Security" ~Benjamin Franklin

Don't think that the general populace needs assault riffles? I'll tell you one reason that We the People do: the standing army has assault riffles.

The number one rule for subjugating a population is disarm it. Read any military treatise and you will find this guiding factor. Then you segregate and eliminate malcontents, and seduce the remaining populace to your cause. "War is extension of policy by other means" ..... and "the purpose of war is to deminish your opponents capability to wage war."

The problem is not, and never has been the availability of weapons to the populace. The problem is people. To cure a disease, you do not treat a symtom. You treat the disease. That means removing those that are dangerous to society from society. No law can ever prevent an action. No law has ever stopped a bullet, or a rape, or a burglery. Consequenses for breaking the law can be a deterant, but that's it. Hopefully the deterant is high enough that the risk of commiting the crime does not equal doing the time, so to speak.

[ 11-12-2003, 08:58 PM: Message edited by: Night Stalker ]

night stalker - surely societies such as the UK and australia, who have strict gun control laws, are examples for the fact that an unarmed populace need not necessarily be subjugated or abused?

or, to put it another way, the US citizens are armed to the teeth compared to australian citizens, yet the Patriot Act you referred to is much more subjugating and abusive of the citizenry than anything the australian govt passed in response to 9/11 and the war on terro.

my point being - guns dont seem to help prevent the thing you claim the 2nd ammendment protects.

note that i agree with you 100% that treating the disease is the right solution.

edit: typo and added last sentence

[ 11-12-2003, 09:16 PM: Message edited by: sultan ]

As I have no experience with the UK or Oz, I cannot fully answer this question. But, the Brits did extract the Magna Carta from the King at sword point. Now, before you say a sword is not a gun, a sword was just the weapon of the day. Equal playing field. But seeing as of right now, where neither of those two governments are overtly trying to abuse their populations, you don't need to defend yourselves from them. But that they are not being abused is not a function of them being unarmed.

Put another way: "When a government fears the population, you have liberty. When the population fears the government, you have tyranny." ~Thomas Jefferson

Yes, the PATRIOT ACT (I capitolize it because it actually is an acronymn) got passed. See in order for a tool to work (2nd Ammendment in this case - Americans armed to the teeth) you have to pull the trigger so to speak. As I said, We the Sheep of the United States keep wanting to turn over freedoms we have over to the government for the illusion of security. We let them shove the PATRIOT ACT upon us. The reason I used the Jefferson quote is the atmosphere of We the People ranges from apathetic to slightly fearful. We are approaching tyranny - not there yet, but we are approaching it. And we VOTE for it! Or not vote for it, but raise no voice of opposition, which in effect is the same thing.

Again, you have to exorcise a right for it to be effective. We have chosen not to exorsise the 2nd as of yet. That is NOT the same thing as not having it at all though. A population unable to throw off tyranny is not in the same position as a population that allows it to exist.

Okay,
I stated my point above and I'm no going to provide the philosophy behind it:
It's rather simple. Handguns (and submachine-guns, assault rifles,...) have been invented and produced throughout history for one purpose: To hurt/kill humans. Now a country who forbids these things by law should have no big problem banning items that are tools to solely that purpose.
The difference is that if your average Joe snaps and goes on a rampage he will probably wound 3-4 people with a knife before stopped, but may kill 5-6 people with a handgun, with an assault-rifle or and MP maybe even more.
Now let me address the common defensive arguments on gun ownership:
</font>

• <font color=#FFFFFF>I need a gun for personal defense:</font> No you don't. There are plenty of non-lethal defense weapons out there and they will mostly give you the appropriate edge over a burglar or another criminal unless he has a gun.</font>
• <font color=#FFFFFF>I need a gun for personal defense, in case the burglar got a gun:</font> No you don't and you can be thankful if you have no gun in that case. Simply because generally: 2 guns = 1 corpse</font>
• <font color=#FFFFFF>If we ban guns the criminals will still have guns:</font> Yes, In fact if we ban guns everybody who's got a gun will be a criminal. A gun was built for malicious purposes, people who hold it (although it's against the law) probably have malicious intents.</font>
• <font color=#FFFFFF>You are limiting my freedom, I use my gun only for sports</font>: And I used the nuclear reactor in my backyard for educational purposes. And I know a guy who grows his own pot just for personal use. Why is the country limiting our freedom. Because it reserves the right to ban/forbid items that are highly dangerous for the community.</font>
• <font color=#FFFFFF>Guns don't kill people, people kill people:</font> But guns make the whole job a lot easier. Like "It's not the football that scores, but the player". Correct, but if you keep the football away from the player all the time I guarantee you, you won't lose a sinlge match anymore.</font>
• <font color=#FFFFFF>Unarmed citizens can be easily surpressed by the government. We need guns to defend our internal freedom:</font> This is IMHO the only VALID argument for private gun ownership. However, putting this argument to the max private persons should also be able to own: Howitzers, Tanks, Fighter Planes, Submarines, Cruise Missiles, Nuclear Warheads (no ICBMs though as you don't need THAT long range for civil war),...
  The choice at the moment is limited because of the relation between the extraordinary threat these items can pose and the need to use them in a civil war. The more lenient, functioning and liberal a government is and the less the chances for tyranny, the less heavy weaponry the average citizen needs.
  Of course it would be outright stupid to ban public armament in countries like Nigeria or the Democratic Republic of Congo, but in peaceful countries such as Germany, France, Austria, Singapore, Japan or the US private gun ownership - at least of full-auto weaponry - can IMO easily be restricted.</font>
• <font color=#FFFFFF>But what if tyranny comes anyway? We will be completely defenseless:</font> You will be completely defenseless anyway.
  Even if you DO own a complete assortment of M16A2s, MP5s, M9s, M60ies, LAWs and an M2 in your backyard. Not only because the army still has superior weaponry, but mainly because they are trained.
  The forces sent to Iraq were an expidition troop. Yet the Iraqi army could not hold them back and within shortest time the war was over. Does anybody really believe that some citizens with an M16 would defeat the whole US Army.
  If there really was a civil war the only chance of freedom-fighters would be to get a part of the army to join them, which is not unrealistic but invalidates the argument again. Because if you manage to get some divisions join you in fight against tyranny does the M16 in your cabinet really matter? I don't doubt they will join you, but most likely because they love their country as much as you do and not because you force them at gunpoint.</font>

[ 11-13-2003, 05:36 AM: Message edited by: Faceman ]

<font color=orange>Your country and your opinion. I respect that. I just don't agree with any of it. I could argue all your fine points, but we've been around this tree so many times in the past three years that I just don't see any need too. You won't change mind and I won't change yours. The Gun Control Topic ought to banned from Ironworks. About as bad as all the religous ones going on out there now.

[ 11-13-2003, 12:34 PM: Message edited by: Sir Taliesin ]

I think the Patriot Act shows it's time for us to reclaim a bit o' the country. I'm up for a revolution. Who's with me. :D Erm, on the point that the US army is too powerful for even an armed popular revolt -- let us not forget that many of the soldiers will join the ranks of the revolutionaries. ;) I had that pointed out to me when I made the same point.

Jefferson felt that a popular revolt was needed ever 20 to 50 years in society. I'm with him on that. Peace leads to too much overpopulation. :D

As a gun owner, I have another valid reason I should be allowed to continue owning my firearms.

A gun is a tool. The reason for possession of that tool is irrelevant. Most instances of injury and death due to owning a gun comes not from malicious intent, but from the misuse of the tool. Education would result in less instances where a gun results in bodily injury.

Every year, irresponsible and reckless automobile drivers kill more people than guns even come close to killing. Like a gun, cars are a tool we use. When improperly used the result can often times be tragic. Just as I can decide to take my gun and shoot another, I can take my car and hit another, often having the same effect, death.

Does this mean that we should also have a ban on automobiles?

The bottom line is that removing the right to own firearms does nothing but promote an illusion of pacification. In addition, it removes a personal liberty I should always have, the right to protection. Understand also that a guns protection comes mostly from the threat of its use, not the actual act of using it.

I did point that out. However if soldiers would join the revolutionaries, they would also gain access to some of the army's weapons, which would be much compared to the arms people keep at home.
Basically my point was:
If you really gotta fight the whole army you'll lose.
If you got part of the army with you, I'm not sure your personal 1911A will make that much a difference.

P.S.: Personally I love guns and if my country allowed automatic weaponry I should be the first to buy some
BUT
After giving the thing a little thought I decided that owning a gun is dangerous and that I don't want that kind of responsibilty. So although I read a lot about guns, and would never refuse if someone took me along to the shooting range, the only pieces I own are two 6mm BB replicas.

[ 11-13-2003, 03:58 PM: Message edited by: Faceman ]