Print

[pug_ster]

http://www.cnn.com/2...g.ap/index.html

Take an example of Australia they limited the availability of guns.  Naysayers like the NRA says that would never fix the problem but it did.  Note that bonehead Bush's first response to this tragety is "Americans has the right to own bear arms to defend themselves."  Right.

Edit:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18149774/

Here's an article when European countries which totally ban handguns and saw a significant drop in deaths resulting in firearms.  If it can happen there, it can happen here.

[damam]

QUOTE(pugster)

http://www.cnn.com/2...g.ap/index.html

Take an example of Australia they limited the availability of guns. Naysayers like the NRA says that would never fix the problem but it did. Note that bonehead Bush's first response to this tragety is "Americans has the right to own bear arms to defend themselves." Right.

Edit:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18149774/

Here's an article when European countries which totally ban handguns and saw a significant drop in deaths resulting in firearms. If it can happen there, it can happen here.

Why did you not use Mexico as a prime example of gun control working at its best?  Could it be that perhaps gun laws in mexico have just completely failed.  There gun laws became law in the 60's out of fear of a revolution and were constucted and based on the same gun laws in the UK except they have even stricter punishments.  They are considered to be among the stictest gun control in the entire world.

gun murders per capita (per nationmaster.com)
Mexico:
0.0337938 per 1,000 people  
United States:
0.0279271 per 1,000 people

South Africa adopted a similar gun laws and was instated in 2000 and later made sticter in 2006
0.719782 per 1,000 people  
which happens to be the highest in the world although it may be a little to early to judge this a failure here.

so yeah it could work out for us like it did in australia, or it could work out for us like it did in mexico take your pick.  being that culturally we have a lot more in common with mexico then australia, I know which way I think it will go.

QUOTE(_iffy)

a little story...

Someone buys an assault weapon legally.
They bring it home and store it legally.

Someone else breaks into the house and steals the assault weapon.
The original owner reports it stolen.

Now you have an untraceable assault weapon on the street, which can be sold to anyone.

I agree that it is a problem with hand guns and such (not so much with assault weapons) - but that has more to do with an irresponsible gun owner than anything else.  While I am not saying it is impossible, it would be very hard and at the very least very time consuming for a thief to steal my guns as they are in an extremely heavy safe, thats bolted to the floor and wall.

[_iffy]

QUOTE(damam @ Apr 17 2007, 11:53 AM)

While I am not saying it is impossible, it would be very hard and at the very least very time consuming for a thief to steal my guns as they are in an extremely heavy safe, thats bolted to the floor and wall.

most people store their hand guns in a shoe box in their closet.

You can make people get a license but you can't make people responsible, and that happens to be the very core of the problem.


BTW - thank you for having the safe.

[throwingks]

QUOTE(Arvarden @ Apr 17 2007, 12:33 PM)

The right to bear arms is a spin off from the British Empire and it is interesting how both countries differ today on this subject of gun control.  I think America could learn something from us British when it comes to restricting fire arms for civilian use.

The reason civilians are allowed to have guns is because we want our civilians to have power. Where would America be, if it civilians didn't have the "right to bear arms" during the American Revolution?

The sad part is, we have the "right to bear arms" to protect us from the government. But, as _iffy said, "You can't make people responsible."

[pug_ster]

QUOTE

Wal-Mart' date='Apr 17 2007, 05:18 PM' post='3964410']
Looks like it doesn't help as much as some might want us to believe

http://www.worldnetd...RTICLE_ID=15304

It turns out that there are quite a few sites that are reporting different numbers. NONE of which report and END to gun violence. That means that some people did not turn their guns in. This means that the law abiding citizens have disarmed. The people who have no regard for the law did not. Now the non-law abiding citizens who are armed can do what they want. Say what you want, but that is OBVIOUSLY what has happened.

worldnetdaily website is probably just as biassed as newsmax.  We can't end gun violence, as long as people have guns, there will be violence and deaths as a result of guns.  But we can certainly limit the amount of guns in the street, and limit the amount of deaths as a result of guns.  At least put a few safety checks before acquiring a handgun like:

Requirement for gun safety training
Child safety lock requirement.
Background checks for gun shows and other secondary market sales.
Pre-sale ballistic fingerprinting requirement.

QUOTE

gun murders per capita (per nationmaster.com)
Mexico:
0.0337938 per 1,000 people
United States:
0.0279271 per 1,000 people

South Africa adopted a similar gun laws and was instated in 2000 and later made sticter in 2006
0.719782 per 1,000 people

The problem with South Africa and Mexico is that the law enforcement failed to enforce the their gun control laws.

[Arvarden]

QUOTE(throwingks @ Apr 17 2007, 06:46 PM)

The reason civilians are allowed to have guns is because we want our civilians to have power. Where would America be, if it civilians didn't have the "right to bear arms" during the American Revolution?

The sad part is, we have the "right to bear arms" to protect us from the government. But, as _iffy said, "You can't make people responsible."

Do you really believe an armed civilian population could take on the military might of the US armed forces on home ground in the 21st Century….and win?

What are the chances of America being invaded and successfully occupied by a foreign force intent on staying?

The right to bear arms was right for it’s time but now it creates more problems than it solves.  

[[H8]Wal-Mart]

QUOTE(Arvarden @ Apr 17 2007, 06:42 PM)

Do you really believe an armed civilian population could take on the military might of the US armed forces on home ground in the 21st Century….and win?

What are the chances of America being invaded and successfully occupied by a foreign force intent on staying?

The right to bear arms was right for it’s time but now it creates more problems than it solves.

Are they not doing it in Iraq? Don't be a hypocrite. OF COURSE we could win.

[throwingks]

QUOTE(Arvarden @ Apr 17 2007, 01:42 PM)

Do you really believe an armed civilian population could take on the military might of the US armed forces on home ground in the 21st Century….and win?

No, I do not.

QUOTE

What are the chances of America being invaded and successfully occupied by a foreign force intent on staying?

Not very good.

QUOTE

The right to bear arms was right for it’s time but now it creates more problems than it solves.

There are benefits to owning guns, but there are also greater negatives. But, that is irrelevant. What is relevant is that politically, it would not be a good move for anyone in public office to take away more liberties, right now. People that don't even own guns, would get pretty upset over a loss of more freedom. It would be political suicide. Stats don't matter, in this case, until there has been many proven similars that are beneficial. So far the stats are not strong enough either way, for a public figure to make a case, either way.

It is sad, but political perception is apparently more important than civilian lives.

My personal stance is this:
All weapons should be destroyed. In every country, and the United Nations needs to police it. The United Nations should be the most powerful organization on the Planet. But, it won't happen because America, Britain and a few others feel they are above the U.N.

I know that is on a different level than what we are talking about. But, I think it is relevant because the reason America and Britain don't give in, is because they want to defend themselves in case something happens, and they don't want to give up their power. I also think that is the same feeling of most gun owners.

QUOTE

Wal-Mart' date='Apr 17 2007, 01:57 PM' post='3964514']Are they not doing it in Iraq? Don't be a hypocrite. OF COURSE we could win.

I think you misinterpreted what he was saying. I don't think he was trying to be mean. He was saying that "the right to bear arms" by civilians was relevant at one time, but not anymore. Our military fighters in Iraq are not civilians.
He was making the point that our military is strong enough now to defend us civilians that we do not need to worry about defending ourselves. The thing is, "the right to bear arms" is there to protect us from our own government as well.

[damam]

QUOTE(Arvarden @ Apr 17 2007, 06:42 AM)

Do you really believe an armed civilian population could take on the military might of the US armed forces on home ground in the 21st Century….and win?

while it was not on home ground the vietnamese did it.  And 66% of america seems to believe that a bunch of motley iraqis are doing it right now.  Yet, my suspicion is that most of that 66% dont believe we could do the same at home.  theres irony for you.  if my country betrayed me that badly there would most likely be a split in the military so the civilian militias would not be taking on the whole of the american armed force.  In this event having a well armed civilian militia could literally decide the outcome.

QUOTE(Arvarden @ Apr 17 2007, 06:42 AM)

What are the chances of America being invaded and successfully occupied by a foreign force intent on staying?

not very good right now, but who knows what the future holds.  this is some of the reason why i believe that gun control is so short sited.

QUOTE(throwingks)

The thing is, "the right to bear arms" is there to protect us from our own government as well.

that is the primary reason for it, all other things are just a bonus.  This part of liberalism is such a mind twister for me.  All of my liberal friends have an enormous, nearing paranoi, distrust of the government.  Yet on certain issues like gun control they are willing to give over complete power to the the very entitity they fear.  I fully admit that I completely dont get it.

QUOTE(pug_ster)

The problem with South Africa and Mexico is that the law enforcement failed to enforce the their gun control laws.

quite the contrary, they have successfully removed guns out of virtually all of the law abiding citizens hands.  Now groups like Mara Salvatrucha make enormous profits of selling guns on the black market to drug dealers and the likes.  Wow its a really good thing that MS-13 will never be here in america

on a side note i just got around to watching the history channels shows on the barbarians and the collapse of the western roman empire.  the parallels between groups like the visigoths and the lombards to groups like Mara Salvatrucha are really interesting to say the least.  I can easily see how in 150 years these groups could be knocking at our door with a force to recon with.  I can also easily see why rome dismissed them early on.

[throwingks]

QUOTE(H8Wal-Mart @ Apr 17 2007, 03:42 PM)

I for one think that if you want the U.N. to come into every home and search it from top to bottom for firearms you are sadly mistaken. That shows a flaw in your thought process. Actually you said "weapon", so how would you play baseball with no bats? How would you cut your steak with no knives? How would you get around with no cars? How would hunters hunt with no bows and arrows? America and Britain and all the other countries with backbones stand up when they are supposed to. When their national security is at risk and the U.N. won't take action. People that have always lived in peace do not understand those have lived in violence and they believe that they can always be reasoned with. Unfortunately they are simply wrong.

In the grand scheme of things I think nationalism is bad for mankind. It is further segregation, another invisible line that people shouldn't cross. As far as "weapon" I think it should be whatever is deemed appropriate by the U.N. Remember the U.N. is made of representatives of all nations. I, for sure, believe in local laws, and local law enforcement. But, I also think the world should be united not separated, and we should all strive to help one another.
I also know that this a fantasy, and too many countries/people would have to give up power to accomplish this. It simply won't happen because power corrupts.

QUOTE

No, you misinterpreted me, plain and simple. I got what he was saying and I was saying that it is still relevant because the sects in Iraq are keeping us from securing their country at this very moment, and they have worn our public down to the point where they have almost won. We are almost ready to leave and they will take their government back from the hands of democracy.

You're right. I misinterpreted what you said. Sorry.

[pug_ster]

QUOTE

Wal-Mart' date='Apr 17 2007, 06:34 PM' post='3964490']
I don't agree that violence is directly related to guns as you put it here "We can't end gun violence, as long as people have guns, there will be violence and deaths as a result of guns." I would argue that you can't end gun violence no matter what you do. You aren't going to get guns off the street because they are a precious commodity to gang members, drug pushers, theives, murderers. They will not turn them in.
I don't think that making sure the gun purchaser is legit is a horrible idea, but I don't think it would have the impact that you think it does. People who intend to commit crimes do not legally purchase guns. It doesn't even make sense. It is easy enough to purchase a firearm that the government does not know anything about. It is much cheaper, it is not registered. Eliminating guns is not the way to go. Then you create a black market. We already have one, but the demand would be so much higher. The government has no way to track the guns then or tie them to owners. It really makes no sense. The notion of gun control is a false sense of security. It has been tried and tested and it didn't work ANYWHERE. You have articles that say it did. I have articles that say it didn't. I have friends from UK that live in areas where gun crimes happen semi-frequently. (It was never frequent according to them.) It simply doesn't work to disarm the citizens. It's too bad that we have crazy people out there, but we need to protect ourselves against them rather than tell them we are vulnerable and have no means to dedend ourselves.

The problem is that most people in the US think it is their right to own a gun.  Yes you are right that many guns will go to black market if we want to ban guns today.  Unfortunately, many naysayers here said this won't work so don't want to do anything about it.  Too bad Americans are not as disgusted people purchasing illegal weapons as people pursuing pedophillia.

I don't see that you have a reliable source that proves that taking away guns reduce gun crime.  Worldnewsdaily is not one of them.  The paranoid idea to 'protect ourselves' drove many people to kill each other with guns.

Look at this guy who did Va Tech, this person purchased guns legally.  Let's say if guns was illegal, he might've be busted for trying to purchase illegal firearms and this incident wouldn't have happened.

[gli7ch]

If you ban guns, things will only get worse, then you will have people KILLING people over guns that cannot be easily obtained. I think eveyone should just chill out, and let life just keep going. I mean seiously, who the hell knows what is going to happen tomarrow? We could all be dead from a radioactive cloud of dust that just
"floats" right into our solar system.

[[H8]Wal-Mart]

QUOTE(Spency234 @ Apr 30 2007, 01:21 PM)

Wasn't there some shooting in Virginia somewhere a little while ago where the psycho bought 2 guns legally?  Even after he had checked himself into a mental hospital in the past?

(Mind you my heart goes out to those who were affected by this tragedy but I am not following the story one bit so if I am missing something here my apologies.)

Well I suppose that's my fault. I assumed that people would be able to follow the logic instead of attempt to find any fault with it they possibly could. He could have legally purchased fertilizer and rented a Ryder truck as well and taken out even more people just like the Oklahoma city bombing. Instead he knew he was going to commit suicide, so it didn't matter that he bought the guns legally. The whole point of my post was to show that if you intend to do a gun crime and not get caught, you purchase the weapon/s illegally so it cannot be traced back to you. This is common sense. There is not compensation for insanity. That guy was nuts, if you took guns away... let's face it he'd have found another way to kill a bunch of people. They are out there. THe only problem is, a person cannot defend theirself with a bomb. They can with a firearm. Making things illegal only makes the market demand higher and the prices skyrocket. If guns were illegal here people would be shipping them in JUST like they do DRUGS that are illegal. Yeah the law really stopped that traffic didn't it? You'd have a ton of guns coming in but nobody would know who originally purchased it, and nowhere to start. It's a poorly thought out idea. You guys are just afraid of guns and wish they would disappear. They never will, and you're in a fantasy land.

[pug_ster]

You do have a point there.  As long as are people stupid enough to take illegal drugs, there will be a demand for it.  In our society, it is accepted that people who do meth, coke, crack, heroin, pot, etc... and there's no accountability of them for taking drugs, rather people who traffic them.

As for guns, we see others brandishing guns in tv, movies and the media as if they are toys.  Many americans are honed at the idea that they need a concealed weapon to defend themselves but its use is to injure or kill other people.  That's America's gun culture.  I'm willing to bet if someone start putting billboards and other pictures of people died as a result of gunshot wounds (IE people with their heads shot off), people will start giving up their guns.

[pug_ster]

QUOTE

People saw the ads of "this is your brain. This is your brain on drugs" We've seen all the people jacked up from drugs, but who is winning that fight? The number of people that have experimented with drugs is very nearly 100%.

It sounds like this ad have adverse effect, but I don't see any proof that prove what you said.

http://www.montaname..._Us/results.php

Take the controversal tactic about the war on Meth on Montana.  It has been proved useful...