Gun Control
 

Well.. I found an article today in which I thought people would have a friendly debate with. It deals with Gun Control... check it out: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20021204/hl_nm/guns_murders_dc_1

Gun Control, is being able to hit your target.

No more, no less.

Another version: "Gun control means using both hands." :D

BTW, I'm proud to say that when the NRA had a national television program a few years back, I directed it. :)

OK Snibble, why don't you give us your position on gun control. We go from there :) PUk puk puuuuuuuuuuk!

Kuan

I am personally not sure...

I like guns. I think its cool to go target practicing, which I have never ever done in my life. But I do beleive that the more guns out in the public would cause a higher number of homicide. So I am not sure on whee I stand on this issue:D But I do know that most of the people here ont his board are conservative pro-gun people and thought yall would like this article;) :p

Firstly, my thoughts here are only directed to the ownership of guns for home defense and personal protection. It seems to me that the desire to own guns for personal protection is just a reflection on people's lack of feeling safe in their homes and neighbourhoods. When people feel safer, they won't want guns for protection.

But what if we are in a vicious cycle where the gun industry profits from both the innocent AND criminal ownership of guns? As Eisenhower warned about the military-industrial complex, should we fear manipulation of the debate by those who don't really care about a safer society...just a well-armed one? :(

In fact, the six states with the highest rates of gun ownership--Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Wyoming, West Virginia and Arkansas--had more than 21,000 homicides, nearly three times as many as the four states with the lowest rates of gun ownership--Hawaii, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and New Jersey.

I'm pretty sure the states listed w/ the most gun owners have a lot more people than the states listed w/ low gun ownership. More people=more murders, sad but true.

In fact, the six states with the highest rates of gun ownership--Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Wyoming, West Virginia and Arkansas--had more than 21,000 homicides, nearly three times as many as the four states with the lowest rates of gun ownership--Hawaii, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and New Jersey.


Actually I was wrong, more states, though an equal amount of people. They should also consider poverty levels in each states. Poverty has been known to cause violence, not just guns

I like to shoot guns for target practice, but I've never progressed beyond .22 caliber.

While I consider myself neutral on the gun-control issue for the most part, I'm in favor of more stringent buying requirements for guns (e.g. background checks, waiting periods, etc). However, no amount of gun control will prevent people who want to use guns in a homicidal fashion from obtaining them.

-Sam

PS: I'm surprised that California didn't make the list in the article. LA, anyone? ;)

I'm sure the study only took into account legal, registered guns;)

Guns are profoundly unacceptable in the UK mainstream. I'm thinking about getting a (licensed) shot gun, partly because I've started going shooting (and a gun is kind of useful on such occasions) and partly (I shouldn't say this in case big brother is watching) because I'd feel safer having one at home.

It may well be that where there are more guns there are more homicides. But statistics don't tell everything. WHO is getting shot? If there are lots of homicides because lots of criminal-types are getting shot or are shooting each other, that's fine by me.

Guns are amazing
 

Shot my first gun about one year ago. A friend from school invited me to go target shooting with him. I envisioned .22's, and maybe some 9mm pistols. I arrive at the range, and his former Marine father pulls out about six cases which contained the following weapons: (drools, my favorite weapons are here!) A G3 battle rifle (German Army Issue, 7.62x51), AKS-47(folding stock, 7.62x39) a MAC-10, a Broomhandle Mauser pistol in 7.63 caliber, and an Armalite AR-15 in 5.56x45 caliber. Insane. I always wanted to shoot a gun, and on that day I was in heaven with my boy the G3. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. If guns were outlawed, people would use knives and clubs just like long ago. Guns just upgrade the ease of murder.

Leaving out most every MAC-10 ever made, as well as a number of Glock 9 MM weapons....

-Sam

MAC-10
 

Was not a full auto version...single shot.

MAC
 

MAC= Military Armaments Corporation. Designed to replace pistols etc for tank crews to use as self defense. 32 round clip, cyclic rate of fire of 1145 RPM.


BTW the one the guy had I referred to as the MAC 10, but it was actually the Cobray 9mm M11

It was junk
 

Jammed constantly on its stock 10 round mags. We used converted Sten British SMG mags, and it still jammed alot. It wasn't comfortable to shoot either...have to love the squaretrigger guard the bucks against your finger after each shot!

Anyone know anything about the "rapper gun" called a Tec-9? I wonder if its legal. lol:p

militia
 

Anybody know whether Militias in the 1700's had to buy their own guns or whether they were issued to the members?


I target shoot with a varierty of handguns.

I don't agree with the San Francisco Court ruling
which interprets the Constitution s not allowing the right for individuals to own guns ( I won't say 'arms' because it will lead into a joke about anatomy)

TEC-9
 

9MM former machine pistol. 30 Round clip, ported barrel, formerly a very capable fully automatic machine pistol. TECDC-9 is the semi auto version...Washingtion (DC, hence name) was having to many murders with full auto version, so lobbied to have it made into a semi auto. The TECDC-9 was one of the guns used at Columbine. It is cheap, effective and reliable, although I think a VZ-61 Skorpion would be a better choice.

Militia members used theirn own guns, but back then EVERYONE owned a gun.

Currently in Poland a weapon of choice is a baseball bat (apparently great in gang wars). Before that it was a shaving blade (shot out from between your teeth. It was used mainly to run away from militia) and a straight razor. I belive the favorite gun is a .38.

Constitution gives citizens a right to bear arms. This provision was put in there on a very important purpose, and that was to allow citizens to defend themselves agains politicians trying to take over by force. This reason still stands today.

Just remember-EVERY totalitarian government exercises gun control.

To the left of center.
 

"But I do know that most of the people here ont his board are conservative pro-gun people and thought yall would like this article"

You don't have to be conservative to be a pro-gun rights person. Some people that believe in the bill of rights believe in all of the rights we have and not just a select few. In the circles that I travel more and more people are carrying a NRA card next to their ACLU card. I have to admit some of them are a bit hypocritical about gun ownership (do as I say and not as I do). But maybe it is just the scarier times but a lot people seem to have modified their views.

hill... I don't consider myself a liberal, if that is what you mean by "left of center". I do know that many of our members are gun fans, and I wanted to know what they thought of this article.

Piotr, you are absolutely correct, as usual! :)

Gun-control nuts are SO barking up the wrong tree. Crimes are NOT committed with legally owned firearms...They are nearly always stolen and/or unregistered guns. If someone is committing such a crime, then they have already shown complete disregard for laws against murder/attempted murder/kidnapping/rape/robbery...whatever the case may be. So what makes you think they will give a damn about a law against gun ownership?! Does anyone really think that one extra little law is going to make a criminal pause and say, "Gee, maybe I shouldn't do this...After all, gun ownership is now a crime." :rolleyes: It's ridiculous.

We have MORE than enough laws on the books already. Stop wasting time enacting more useless legislation, and START properly enforcing what's already there.

Legally owned guns have saved COUNTLESS lives, often without a shot even being fired! The fact that the innocent person owns a gun and shows intent to defend onesself is usually enough. Self-defense should NEVER be restricted.

Mike

Snibble
 

hill... I don't consider myself a liberal, if that is what you mean by "left of center". I do know that many of our members are gun fans, and I wanted to know what they thought of this article.

My mistake. I meant to imply that people like me (liberal) are becoming more knowledgeable about our second amendment.

logical?
 

Well, if the militia had to provide their own guns, then the Constitution does state the right of a militia to exist and it also states the right for individuals to own guns. These two points are independent of each other within the context of the constitution since no wording states something like, 'rights for individuals to own arms only if they are in a militia ....etc.'

interpretations by legal self interest groups is what seems to get creative.

In effect the government meant to give individuals the right to own guns, minimally , in oder to not have to spend money
on providing a militia with same.

Articles like this tick me off. First of all, you can report something as higher or lower, but is it significant in the true technical sense of the term? You know what, if you don't provide the raw data then all you're doing is speculating. Give me all the data and let me decide. Then they don't even define gun ownership. Is it at least one gun per person, is it a registered gun, more than one gun, total number of guns per household? And if you read the article carefully, it doesn't even say that high rates of GUN-RELATED homicide coincide with high rates of gun ownership. What a load of crock.

Kuan

Hey Mikemover and Tank- could you e-mail your statements to my wife ??? :D Registered Republican, strangely agree with 99% of my views except admitting that I'm right (the last time it happened in August, although I was right again yesterday - son tested negative for allergies).

Can't run for office - too much integrity to accomplish anything over 1%, my Mom taught me not to lie, and I'm not a born citizen (still Resident Alien - after 21 years of paying taxes it's kinda embarrassing :o ).

Re: logical?
 

Was the 2nd amendment poorly worded or really really cleverly worded?
"A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
How is a well-regulated militia and individual gun ownership connected today? Has its original intention been morphed into something else?

You know, I never noticed it before, but that sentence does not make any grammatical sense!

Kuan

Understanding the Constitution
 

Too many people take things out of the Constitution (i.e.: out of context) and try to interpret them alone. To truly understand what the Founding Fathers were trying to do, one must understand the History of the time and the Philosophies of the time. The Constitution was (IS) a remarkable achievement, considering the past history at the time it was written. The debates over what the proper role of government should be were all over the map at that time, as they are today.

I think the Founding Fathers understood one truth, an armed populace could never be taken over by tyranny. Whether they consciously admit it or not, many of those who advocate stricter "gun control" do so because they know that they will never be able to "impose" the rest of their ideas (a tyrant is a tyrant, even when he/she/it is "benevolent") on an armed populace. Therefore, the first thing they have to do, before they can force us to live they way they want us to, is to disarm us.

just my $0.02

Senate Approves Bill Protecting Gun Businesses

By CARL HULSE

Published: July 30, 2005
WASHINGTON, July 29 - The Senate agreed to shield gun manufacturers and dealers from liability lawsuits on Friday, as Congress broke for a month -long recess after sending President Bush energy and transportation bills that had been years in the making.

Long sought by the gun lobby, the Senate measure - approved 65 to 31 - would prohibit lawsuits against gun makers and distributors for misuse of their products during the commission of a crime. Senate supporters said the plan was needed to protect the domestic firearms industry from a rash of lawsuits that threatened its economic future.

"This bill is intended to do one thing and that is to end the abuse that is now going on in the court system of America against law-abiding American businesses when they violate no law," Senator Larry Craig, an Idaho Republican who is a chief advocate for gun-rights causes in Congress, said Friday.

Democratic opponents of the bill disputed the assertion that a lawsuit crisis threatened the industry and said that the measure was simply a reflection of the influence of the National Rifle Association's influence over Congress.

"This is about politics, the power of the N.R.A. to dictate legislation," said Senator Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island, who led the opposition to the measure.

But Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, and 13 other Democrats joined 50 Republicans and one independent to support the bill; it now goes to the House, where its prospects for approval are good when Congress returns. Twenty-nine Democrats and two Republicans opposed it.

The gun measure was just one of the significant pieces of legislation to advance as Congress cleared its plate for a fall that will initially be consumed, in the Senate at least, by consideration of a Supreme Court nominee. Before leaving, Senate Republicans and Democrats also agreed on the schedule for confirmation hearings.

Ending a long policy struggle, the Senate passed and sent to Mr. Bush a broad piece of energy legislation, fulfilling an early domestic policy goal of the administration.

After extinguishing one last policy flare-up, the House and Senate also gave final approval to a $286.4 billion highway measure stuffed with special projects for virtually every Congressional district in the nation. Congress also finished its first two spending bills of the year, delivering $1.5 billion in emergency money to cover a shortfall in veterans' health care spending.

And in an unexpected development, the Senate renewed its version of the antiterror USA Patriot Act.

It was a blistering pace compared to the usual level of legislative activity. "We either do nothing or everything at once," said Senator John Warner, Republican of Virginia.

The House adopted the highway measure on Friday morning 412 to 8; the Senate agreed to the measure later in the day 91 to 4. The bill had been delayed for years by disputes between the administration and Congress over the level of spending and fights over the formula for distributing money among the states. Its authors said it would help to ease traffic congestion around the country, improve safety, provide thousands of jobs and strengthen the economy.

"Modern highways and efficient transportation are essential to maintaining America's competitive edge," said Representative Thomas E. Petri, a Wisconsin Republican who is chairman of the highways subcommittee. "It has been a struggle to craft this bill and to be fair to every region, but its importance would be hard to exaggerate."

Critics in both the House and Senate as well as watchdog groups assailed the measure for its price tag and the wide variety of special projects - nearly 6,000 by one count - from multimillion-dollar highways and bridges to museums and recreational trails, even transportation improvements at the Bronx Zoo.

Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican who is a frequent foe of such spending, spent almost 30 minutes on the Senate floor, singling out dozens of projects for ridicule, including $2.2 million to make landscape improvements to the Ronald Reagan freeway in California.

"I wonder what Ronald Reagan would say," said Mr. McCain, noting the late president was a critic of such Congressional largesse.

(More at NY Times)

I like your way of recycling, Botnst.

Being able to sue gun manufacturers for making a legal, lethal nonetheless, product just doesn't make sense, since it doesn't appear to be the design of the product that results in the alleged injury . . namely criminal activity. Prevent crime, promote education, but don't expect manufacturers to be the deep pocket for everyone that gets shot.

Another foreign perspective
 

I come from South Africa where I had to wait a year to get a license for a handgun for self protection. Happily I dont feel the need for one here in Phoenix, one of the highest violent crime rates in the USA notwithstanding. Now however I do own rifles. I like collecting military surpluss firearms and have 13. Mostly Mauser rifles. I used to think that there was a case to be made for limited gun control but no longer. Crime control is what's needed, not gun control. South Africa has a particularly strong gun control mob which has succeeded in achieving exacly nothing in terms of a reduction in violent crime, which is still amongst the worlds highest. Get rid of criminals - not guns.

- Peter.

All those bored electrons, just sitting there. I try to find things for them to do.

-----

I'm curious about the S African experience with gun control, Peter. Before integration, S Africa had a low crime rate, a similar trajectory to Zimbabwe (Rhodesia for you history buffs). What is it about integration that also increased lawlessness? Are you comfortable discussing it? I understand if your not. In the USA, this gets uncomfortably close to subjects that bring out heated emotions.

B

I'd just like to debunk this myth as long as I've got a gun post to do it on.

Guns aren't supposed to be registered by the government--though they probably are, this is an infringement of your rights.

The only kind of "registration" you ever need when purchasing guns in applicable states is if you want to purchase Class III weapons (automatic rifles, machine pistols, sub-14" barrelled rifles or shotguns, or projectile weapons which fire explosive charges, i.e. grenade launchers). In this case you have to apply for a Class III weapons permit to a local Sheriff. I'm sure everyone who gets one of these permits is tracked carefully (but illegally) by the government.

Any other weapon, be it AR-15, AK-47, or Barrett .50 Cal, requires no "registration" and the purchase requirements are that the buyer must be 18, have no past history of felonies, be mentally competent, and not be an illegal citizen. Don't believe these commonly propogated myths of registration and how "easy" background checks are or that they don't take place. Don't let your constitutional rights slip away.

Before "Integration"
 

Actually Botnst that is a misconception. While it's true the crime rate was lower before the end of Apartheid it was not the crime free paradise many people seem to think. I believe SA had the highest murder rate back then too. Several years prior to Integration, the government had placed a moratorium on the death penalty much to the disgust of many. It was essentially as if they were losing the will to govern. Then with the change of governments and the importation of first world liberal politically correct BS, coupled with good old fashsioned third world corruption and incompetance criminals run free with no realistic method of policing them. Even assuming they are caught they are as likely to break out of jail within a few months as hang around in one for a couple of years. I remember an incident before I left where a particularly notorious gang had walked out of a jail which had a broken lock on it's door.

Essentially there was a not so gradual increase in crime for probably the last twenty years but a lot of people like to claim (incorrectly) it all started after the change in governments.

- Peter.

"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead."

Adolf Hitler, Chancellor's speech, 1935

Germany began active gun control in 1938 by requiring permits to own/carry. The National Socialist (Nazi) party decided who qualified to do so. Obviously, history tells us what happened from there.

1) Are those gun deaths or TOTAL deaths?
2) Hard to believe Texas is not in the top 6
3) What is the rate PER CAPITA? Rank the states on that criteria.

Surprised nobody mentioned this, but places where concealed weapons permits exist have VERY low crime rates.

Yep. I've used this example many times. It still fits. Always will.

Mike

A number of years ago, the city of Kennesaw, Georgia (a northern suburb of Atlanta) passed legislation requiring the "head of every household" to own a firearm. Crime rates quickly PLUMMETED. And have remained low ever since.

A number of years ago, England passed some pretty strict gun-control legislation. Crime rates quickly went UP. And continue to do so.

Mike

Checked Arizona lately?

Whats up there?

I'm tired of hearing the argument that only tyrants want to take away guns and anyone who is for gun control is a tyrant and wants to take away everybody's freedom. I genuinely believe that those in this country who are for more gun control are for it because they want to make this country safer from gun violence. As flawed as the logic may appear to gun advocates, they should at least admit than no one in this country, including the liberals, is trying to turn the USA into a dictatorship. I personally don't like guns, don't want to own one, and don't want to get shot by one. What am I supposed to do?

don't buy one and be nice those who have.

There are extremists on both sides. I am against gun control but don't think *most* people are trying to rob us of our rights, but to others, its a start down that road. However, the gun control arguments make no sense. Nobody has been able to show that gun control works. In D.C. guns are banned and it is the murder capital.

Crime is an ugly fact of life, guns are a part of it, not the cause of it, not the solution to it..

Your question is too specific. Why didn't you say you just don't want to be a victim of crime? Do you know anybody who has been shot? Anybody that has been a victim of crime? Your chances of being a crime victim are much higher than being shot.

We all want to be safe, it is your responsibility to choose how you live and to deal with the ramifications. Same for me. But I am offended that liberals want to take my right to protect myself and family away from me.

pistols are trouble: they are trouble with kids, drunks, pissed off spouces,
neighbors. they are the favorite target of the burgler
and the favorite weapon of the violent (amateur or
professional) criminal.

rifles & shotguns: they will keep a totalitatian/ facist goverment at bay.
they will defend you from a kkk lynching.
they will defend you from the christian/ islam zelot
who wants to see your non-believing/gay/commy/
buddist/pro-abortian ect. ass dead.
they will defend againt the nightime burgler.
they will deal with rabid, injured or dangerous animals.

guns do kill people. so do swords. weapons take on a life of thier
own when they are picked up. they change your mindset. this has been reconized and know forever.

the goverment banning guns in this country and trying to take them away
would bring a war they couldn't win.

ban the manufacture of pistols. destroy everyone that falls into the hands
of the cops. give a reward for turning them in. add a hugh penality for using
one in a crime. but don't ban them. eventially they will become rare and the
problems (and fear) they cause will deminish.

buy a long arm in a common caliber, learn how to use and practice with it,
then put it away till needed (if ever). if you like to target shoot,-fine. if you
like to hunt, you might be reborn a hunted animal :D

don

Of course I don't want to be a victim of crime, but guns scare me most because a gun crime is the type of crime that's hardest to defend against. I don't think I'm in danger of being molested, raped, or beaten up. But if I'm driving along on the highway and some mental f&ck-up thinks I cut him off and he decides to blow my brains out, what can I do to defend myself? Even if I had a gun in my glove compartment, I probably wouldn't have time to pull it out.

I have no problem with law-abiding citizens having guns. I just don't think the laws and regulations are working to prevent bad people from having guns. And how do you determine who's bad if they have no criminal record? Every criminal starts with a clean record. I doubt the families of the victims of Columbine are as pro-gun as most of you folks over here. Guns just make killing too easy. Back in the days of stabbings it took a bit more effort to kill someone. At least you couldn't just throw a knife at a car and easily kill the driver. So what's the solution? I realize that it's not as simple as banning guns, 'cause most likely only the bad guys will end up having them, which is even worse.

I don't really care what you're "tired of hearing"..... The example is extreme, but it fits. Gun control is a very slippery slope, and I don't want this nation tumbling down that slope.

Don't like guns?... Don't want to own one? Fine. You have that right.

I DO like guns, I DO want to own one, and you should not want to take that right from me. As long as you don't break into my home or try to carjack me or anything, then you don't have to worry about being shot by my gun. A gun in the posession of a responsible, law-abiding citizen is no more or less dangerous than steak knife, a car, a power tool, or anything else that could "potentially" be used to kill.

"What are you supposed to do?".... Well, without a gun.... I guess you can just take your chances. When a burglar breaks into your home, I guess you can speak harshly to him about the error of his ways. :rolleyes: Good luck.

Mike

Ban the manufacture of pistols? Weapons "take on a life of their own"???.... You might be "reborn a hunted animal???"


............ ??? :confused:


To put it simply......... You have lost your f***ing mind.

Mike