So much for Democrats courting gun owners

[dean_acheson]

I can't believe that it took almost a month....


http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1022.IH:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolyn_McCarthy


I am not a big gun owner, my collection consisting of an 1863 US Springfield Rifle and an 1873 US Springfiled trapdoor, but this is not something that I am excited about.

It never ceases to amaze me that the people the go frothy talking about the penumbras of the bill of rights are so quick to cut out specific chunks they don't like....


"Although the Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy, the Court had previously found support for various privacy rights in several provisions of the Bill of Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights) and the Fourteenth Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment), as well as in the "penumbra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penumbra)" of the Bill of Rights. But instead of relying upon the Bill of Rights or "penumbras, formed by emanations", as the Court had done in Griswold v. Connecticut (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut), the Roe Court relied on a "right of privacy" that it said was located in the Due Process Clause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_Process_Clause) of the Constitution." (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade )

[MadMike]

Typical. The American left knows little about firearms (as evidenced by the repetitive use of nomenclature). Here's one of my favorites-

"and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.'.

Yours, Mike

[MadMike]

This one, although off topic, reflects stupidity and naivete-

(go to http://thomas.loc.gov/ and type in H.R. 880)

H.R. 880

H.R.808

Department of Peace and Nonviolence Act (Introduced in House)Beginning
(http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./temp/~c110Y566wU:e0:)February 5, 2007
(http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./temp/~c110Y566wU:e249:)
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./temp/~c110Y566wU:e1788:)Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./temp/~c110Y566wU:e2033:)SEC. 2. FINDINGS. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./temp/~c110Y566wU:e3604:)TITLE I--ESTABLISHMENT OF DEPARTMENT OF PEACE AND NONVIOLENCE
(http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./temp/~c110Y566wU:e7718:)
SEC. 101. ESTABLISHMENT OF DEPARTMENT OF PEACE AND NONVIOLENCE. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./temp/~c110Y566wU:e7809:)SEC. 102. RESPONSIBILITIES AND POWERS. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./temp/~c110Y566wU:e9692:)SEC. 103. PRINCIPAL OFFICERS. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./temp/~c110Y566wU:e18349:)SEC. 104. OFFICE OF PEACE EDUCATION AND TRAINING. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./temp/~c110Y566wU:e21578:)SEC. 105. OFFICE OF DOMESTIC PEACE ACTIVITIES. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./temp/~c110Y566wU:e23173:)SEC. 106. OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL PEACE ACTIVITIES. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./temp/~c110Y566wU:e24259:)SEC. 107. OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY FOR PEACE. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./temp/~c110Y566wU:e25601:)SEC. 108. OFFICE OF ARMS CONTROL AND DISARMAMENT. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./temp/~c110Y566wU:e26494:)SEC. 109. OFFICE OF PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE AND NONVIOLENT CONFLICT RESOLUTION. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./temp/~c110Y566wU:e28008:)SEC. 110. OFFICE OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND ECONOMIC RIGHTS. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./temp/~c110Y566wU:e29681:)SEC. 111. INTERGOVERNMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL ON PEACE AND NONVIOLENCE. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./temp/~c110Y566wU:e32217:)SEC. 112. CONSULTATION REQUIRED. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./temp/~c110Y566wU:e33214:)SEC. 113. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./temp/~c110Y566wU:e34577:)TITLE II--ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS AND TRANSFERS OF AGENCY FUNCTIONS
(http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./temp/~c110Y566wU:e34902:)
SEC. 201. STAFF. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./temp/~c110Y566wU:e35001:)SEC. 202. TRANSFERS. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./temp/~c110Y566wU:e35393:)SEC. 203. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./temp/~c110Y566wU:e36051:)TITLE III--FEDERAL INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE ON PEACE AND NONVIOLENCE
(http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./temp/~c110Y566wU:e36413:)
SEC. 301. FEDERAL INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE ON PEACE AND NONVIOLENCE. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./temp/~c110Y566wU:e36508:)TITLE IV--ESTABLISHMENT OF PEACE DAY
(http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./temp/~c110Y566wU:e37116:)
SEC. 401. PEACE DAY (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./temp/~c110Y566wU:e37182:)

[dean_acheson]

Our tax dollars at work!

[SUBMAN1]

Democrats are whacked. Why are Assault Rifles always on the table as the great evil of the world? Crap! If you want to kill someone, use a shotgun since its much more effctive!!

After Katrina, I personally think everyone should have an Assualt Rifle.

-S

[ASWnut101]

I've got one.:yep:

[elite_hunter_sh3]

asw: what kind??

i got me a 7.62mm yugoslav Ak 47 with FMJ rounds(back home) stupid canadian gun laws are so strict, but o well

[SUBMAN1]

I've got one.:yep:

Good to hear. Buy a couple more! I plan to.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

asw: what kind??

i got me a 7.62mm yugoslav Ak 47 with FMJ rounds(back home) stupid canadian gun laws are so strict, but o well

How are those Yugo's? Mine is Bulgarian - milled receiver.

-S

[geetrue]

You can't have half of the United States with guns and half of the United States without guns ... The western part of the United States will never yield to gun control.

I was working in Arizona (I use to work) ten years ago and I saw men wearing guns in holsters. So I stop by a local gun store/pawn shop, a little of both, in Bullhead City, Arizona ... I asked, "Hey whats the law around here about carrying guns"?

The man behind the counter said, "Oh, it's legal as all get out" He went on to inform me that you can carry a gun, you can't conceal a gun, you have to carry it in plain view, like on the front seat of your car, loaded or unloaded, you can carry it in a holster, but it can't be loaded if you go into a business like a bar or a gun store ... lol

Ain't no story either ... maybe Iceman can back me up on this. That's why I say at least half of America is never going to give in to gun control.

In California you can transport a gun, but the bullets have to be in the trunk and the gun in the glove box or even the other way around or a locked box as long as the two aren't together.

[fatty]

After Katrina, I personally think everyone should have an Assualt Rifle.

Agreed, personally I was disappointed that the looters couldn't down any of the rescue helicopters. Better luck next time. :roll:

[SUBMAN1]

You can't have half of the United States with guns and half of the United States without guns ... The western part of the United States will never yield to gun control.

I was working in Arizona (I use to work) ten years ago and I saw men wearing guns in holsters. So I stop by a local gun store/pawn shop, a little of both, in Bullhead City, Arizona ... I asked, "Hey whats the law around here about carrying guns"?

The man behind the counter said, "Oh, it's legal as all get out" He went on to inform me that you can carry a gun, you can't conceal a gun, you have to carry it in plain view, like on the front seat of your car, loaded or unloaded, you can carry it in a holster, but it can't be loaded if you go into a business like a bar or a gun store ... lol

Ain't no story either ... maybe Iceman can back me up on this. That's why I say at least half of America is never going to give in to gun control.

In California you can transport a gun, but the bullets have to be in the trunk and the gun in the glove box or even the other way around or a locked box as long as the two aren't together.

You live in Walla Walla, so go get a permit. As long as you're clean and lack a criminal background (They have to get FBI approval), you should be issued one in a matter of weeks.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

After Katrina, I personally think everyone should have an Assualt Rifle.
Agreed, personally I was disappointed that the looters couldn't down any of the rescue helicopters. Better luck next time. :roll:

I hope you're joking. THat is a sick thought.

These same guys will also come into your house at night, kill you, rape your wife. My thoughts come from the idea of olden days - THis is the first generation that grew up in the Western world without firearms or sword and we are paying that cost dearly. One only needs look at a country like the UK to see the future.

-S

[geetrue]

These same guys will also come into your house at night, kill you, rape your wife. My thoughts come from the idea of olden days - THis is the first generation that grew up in the Western world without firearms or sword and we are paying that cost dearly. One only needs look at a country like the UK to see the future.

-S

You left out steal your guns, too ... with or without your being at home :yep:

[ASWnut101]

asw: what kind??

i got me a 7.62mm yugoslav Ak 47 with FMJ rounds(back home) stupid canadian gun laws are so strict, but o well

How are those Yugo's? Mine is Bulgarian - milled receiver.

-S

and



asw: what kind??

i got me a 7.62mm yugoslav Ak 47 with FMJ rounds(back home) stupid canadian gun laws are so strict, but o well


Same here, but it's a Romainian Made. Called the GP WASR-10 (which is just a AK-47). Got Semi-Jacketed rounds. Imported by Century Arms Int. Here's a pic:

http://www.centuryarms.com/shop/images/rifles/72l_RI1166--WASR10-MilStock.jpg

But I got a composite (olive drab) stock, a composite (olive drab) front handguard, and 2 black steel mags (shown in the above pic), and finally a 30-round clear composite mag. This is exactly what it looks like right now (but the composites are in olive drab, not the tan shown here):


http://www.tapco.com/show_image.aspx?id=09d15253-4b66-449e-89c5-3de9ded562be

Also got a Mossberg 500 (12 Ga.).:yep:

[SUBMAN1]

You left out steal your guns, too ... with or without your being at home :yep:

That is the least of your problems I think. I do need to buy a bigger safe though! At least if you can get one or two after some form of Natural Disaster, you'll have at least the ability to defend yourself against these idiots.

That is our problem - we have become too dependant on our infrastructure. THis is an infrastructure that is very vulnerable to many things. You in WA are more at risk than many other people too - you have a 9.0 Earthquake coming your way sooner or later (It is overdue) and I can gurantee that it will make Katrina look like childs play. Surviving would be great, but what happens after that will be the ugliest thing you will ever lay your eyes on, and you better be armed.

Just my 2 cents.

-S

[waste gate]

asw: what kind??

i got me a 7.62mm yugoslav Ak 47 with FMJ rounds(back home) stupid canadian gun laws are so strict, but o well

How are those Yugo's? Mine is Bulgarian - milled receiver.

-S

and



asw: what kind??

i got me a 7.62mm yugoslav Ak 47 with FMJ rounds(back home) stupid canadian gun laws are so strict, but o well


Same here, but it's a Romainian Made. Called the GP WASR-10 (which is just a AK-47). Got Semi-Jacketed rounds. Imported by Century Arms Int. Here's a pic:

http://www.centuryarms.com/shop/images/rifles/72l_RI1166--WASR10-MilStock.jpg

But I got a composite (olive drab) stock, a composite (olive drab) front handguard, and 2 black steel mags (shown in the above pic), and finally a 30-round clear composite mag. This is exactly what it looks like right now (but the composites are in olive drab, not the tan shown here):


http://www.tapco.com/show_image.aspx?id=09d15253-4b66-449e-89c5-3de9ded562be

Also got a Mossberg 500 (12 Ga.).:yep:


That looks evil. Let's ban it.

[SUBMAN1]

That looks evil. Let's ban it.
:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: THat is the demo's mentality allright.

Oh! Hey! Did someone forget to mention that we all live in an evil world? :hmm: Even in the perfect Star Trek of the future, people still carry Phasers - and for good reason. The need for weaponry will never go away for eternity, at least not until man is no longer alive. There will always be someone out there trying to take everything you've got - including your life - and no, the cops can't help you. They are only good for producing the paperwork after the fact.

-S

[U-533]

AK47... :rock:

One of the most handsome weapons made... and heartiest.

We would use them most times in place of the M16.

To bad it has the stigma of being a "RED COMMIE" / "Terrorist"/ "Poor country's" Weapon.:roll:

:sunny:

[fatty]

I hope you're joking. THat is a sick thought.


I was, but were you?

[waste gate]

I don't understand the laughing faces. Are you mocking my opinion?
Why does anyone, other than the government and its agents need such a weapon?
Has there ever been a time in which a government didn't allow people their God given rights? Why would anyone ever have a use for a firearm which could take a life? After all criminal activity is enviromental and if guns are banned no one will have them.

[loynokid]

here's my list of the top 5 countries and dictators with oppresive gun control laws

1. the old USSR

2. Fidel Castro

3. Hitler and the Nazis

4. Kim Jung Il and North Korea

5. The Red Chinese Communists


guess who else wants extreme gun control... the dems of congress!!! :damn: :roll:

[SUBMAN1]

I hope you're joking. THat is a sick thought.

I was, but were you?

I am not joking.

I understand your ignorance being from Canada, but one day you guys will wake up. Hopefully for a fellow subsimmer, I hope it is not too late. :(

-S

[Sailor Steve]

I don't understand the laughing faces. Are you mocking my opinion?
I'm not, but I disagree mightily.

Why does anyone, other than the government and its agents need such a weapon?
Why does a government or its agents need such a weapon? I trust my neighbors with guns more than I trust governments with guns. Here in Utah I've been told by cops that they consider armed citizens to be their best backup.
Has there ever been a time in which a government didn't allow people their God given rights?
I don't understand. Are you saying that governments always allow people their rights? If so, I can show you many cases of governments denying citizens their rights. History is full of them.

Why would anyone ever have a use for a firearm which could take a life?
I'm 5 feet 8 inches tall and nearly 60 years old. When a 6-foot-2 guy comes into my apartment and attacks me without warning, should I beat him up? How?

After all criminal activity is enviromental and if guns are banned no one will have them.
All criminal activity is NOT environmental. I've met people who really were broken-they had no concept of right and wrong. Second half of your sentence: show me exactly how you would ban all guns. I personally know people who know how to make their own. From scratch. Also, how exactly do you propose to ban ALL guns?

[waste gate]

I don't understand the laughing faces. Are you mocking my opinion?
I'm not, but I disagree mightily.

Why does anyone, other than the government and its agents need such a weapon?
Why does a government or its agents need such a weapon? I trust my neighbors with guns more than I trust governments with guns. Here in Utah I've been told by cops that they consider armed citizens to be their best backup.
Has there ever been a time in which a government didn't allow people their God given rights?
I don't understand. Are you saying that governments always allow people their rights? If so, I can show you many cases of governments denying citizens their rights. History is full of them.

Why would anyone ever have a use for a firearm which could take a life?
I'm 5 feet 8 inches tall and nearly 60 years old. When a 6-foot-2 guy comes into my apartment and attacks me without warning, should I beat him up? How?

After all criminal activity is enviromental and if guns are banned no one will have them.
All criminal activity is NOT environmental. I've met people who really were broken-they had no concept of right and wrong. Second half of your sentence: show me exactly how you would ban all guns. I personally know people who know how to make their own. From scratch. Also, how exactly do you propose to ban ALL guns?



show me exactly how you would ban all guns. I personally know people who know how to make their own. From scratch. Also, how exactly do you propose to ban ALL guns?
[/QUOTE]If those who continue to to manufacture their own fire arms will be criminals by their disobedience to the law which the government has legally made.


Why would anyone ever have a use for a firearm which could take a life?
I'm 5 feet 8 inches tall and nearly 60 years old. When a 6-foot-2 guy comes into my apartment and attacks me without warning, should I beat him up? How?

If fire arms are banned no criminal activity will threaten your life.

I don't understand. Are you saying that governments always allow people their rights?
Of course where else would you get rights.


If so, I can show you many cases of governments denying citizens their rights. History is full of them.


Please, list your cases where the government purposely turned on those it governs.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

...gun control? ...changes to?

Didnt Sailor Steve have a Springfield?

Why is there a silhouette outside the wi-

[Kapitan_Phillips]

If fire arms are banned no criminal activity will threaten your life.

What about knives and other weapons? One need not have a projectile to injure and kill.

[waste gate]

If fire arms are banned no criminal activity will threaten your life.

What about knives and other weapons? One need not have a projectile to injure and kill.

First we start with guns. Then we can move on to knives and 'other' weapons.

[U-533]

If fire arms are banned no criminal activity will threaten your life.
If ...fire arms... are banned ...no criminal activity.... will threaten your life............:huh: ............

If fire... arms... are banned.... no criminal.... activity ...will ....threaten ....your ......life...............................:huh:

If fire arms are banned.................. no criminal activity.................. will threaten your life.......................:huh:

:huh:

:huh:

ok im missing something here...



=======================

I know Kungfo
and other Martial arts will I be banned too?

[Sailor Steve]

show me exactly how you would ban all guns. I personally know people who know how to make their own. From scratch. Also, how exactly do you propose to ban ALL guns?
If those who continue to to manufacture their own fire arms will be criminals by their disobedience to the law which the government has legally made.
So if a criminal (who by his very nature disobeys the law) wants to make his own guns, your new law will make him not do it?

If fire arms are banned no criminal activity will threaten your life.
See above. Criminals attack people all the time with other weapons, including their very size and strength. If some guy with a knife wants to attack me, how do I defend myself? A gun seems like the way to go to me.

I don't understand. Are you saying that governments always allow people their rights?

Of course where else would you get rights.
Governments deny people their rights all the time. Look at Germany during the period of the game we like to play. Look at the United States, denying certain segments of the population equal rights for more than a hundred years. The whole point of trying to guarantee rights is the problem that the people in control are always trying to deny others their "God given" rights. It's what governments do best.

Please, list your cases where the government purposely turned on those it governs.
You're joking, right? The United States fought a major civil war just a few generations ago, because a large portion of the population was being denied ALL rights, including the right to be considered anything more than property. There are many examples of governments denying all kinds of rights. Unfortunately my time at the library is almost up; I'll have to continue this tomorrow.

But think about this: right now you're advocating that the government take away my right to defend myself. If you get your way you will have no protection from the possibility of that same government deciding that you no longer have the right to drive a car, watch a movie or even play video games.

All rights come from the consent of the people, not the government.

[MadMike]

http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/square-large-select.gif

Yours, Mike

[waste gate]

But think about this: right now you're advocating that the government take away my right to defend myself.

Isn't that is what government is for.....to defend its citizens?

After all if we had allowed our government to protect us we would have not had all these school shootings.

[SUBMAN1]

If fire arms are banned no criminal activity will threaten your life.

What about knives and other weapons? One need not have a projectile to injure and kill.
First we start with guns. Then we can move on to knives and 'other' weapons.

Are you being serious? No friggen way! That is too funny. Or are you just joking still? I thought you were being sarcastic.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

But think about this: right now you're advocating that the government take away my right to defend myself.
Isn't that is what government is for.....to defend its citizens?

After all if we had allowed our government to protect us we would have not had all these school shootings.
Government can do nothing to the guy want to kill to the guy wanting to take your wallet. Oh please wait Mr. criminal - I want to wait for the cops to get here before we continue. Is that OK mr Criminal? Hahahahaha! THis is reality to some people I guess. THey must think this works.

-S

PS. How is this going to stop criminals from getting guns and shooting up some school because they are whacked out?

PPS. As another thought - If the teachers and officers of the school were armed, exactly how far do you think this guy would get?

[SUBMAN1]

I have all sorts of thoughts this afternoon. Here is another one - That Bill has quite a shopping list that I have to catch up on! :up::lol:

[waste gate]

But think about this: right now you're advocating that the government take away my right to defend myself.
Isn't that is what government is for.....to defend its citizens?

After all if we had allowed our government to protect us we would have not had all these school shootings.
Government can do nothing to the guy want to kill to the guy wanting to take your wallet. Oh please wait Mr. criminal - I want to wait for the cops to get here before we continue. Is that OK mr Criminal? Hahahahaha! THis is reality to some people I guess. THey must think this works.

-S

PS. How is this going to stop criminals from getting guns and shooting up some school because they are whacked out?

PPS. As another thought - If the teachers and officers of the school were armed, exactly how far do you think this guy would get?

To repeat an overly repeated phrase; 'when guns are outlawed, only the criminals will have guns'. By having those guns, not to mention using them, they are criminal and the government will protect you against their use of fire arms, until we ban every other weapon. Believe me when I tell you we are working on allowing our government to be our protector. As it should be.

[SUBMAN1]

But think about this: right now you're advocating that the government take away my right to defend myself.
Isn't that is what government is for.....to defend its citizens?

After all if we had allowed our government to protect us we would have not had all these school shootings.
Government can do nothing to the guy want to kill to the guy wanting to take your wallet. Oh please wait Mr. criminal - I want to wait for the cops to get here before we continue. Is that OK mr Criminal? Hahahahaha! THis is reality to some people I guess. THey must think this works.

-S

PS. How is this going to stop criminals from getting guns and shooting up some school because they are whacked out?

PPS. As another thought - If the teachers and officers of the school were armed, exactly how far do you think this guy would get?
To repeat an overly repeated phrase; 'when guns are outlawed, only the criminals will have guns'. By having those guns, not to mention using them, they are criminal and the government will protect you against their use of fire arms, until we ban every other weapon. Believe me when I tell you we are working on allowing our government to be our protector. As it should be.
Hahahahaa!:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: That is the funniest thing I have heard in ages. How the hell is the government ever going to stop a crime in progress? Police have a term for this, and they can't help in that situation, so I am curious as to how you see the government becoming our protector? How do you see them stopping a crime in progress?

-S

PS. By the way, I guess you expect us to cut our steak tomorrow with our fork? SInce knifes will be banned, guess we can't eat steak! Hmm - that even puts McD's out of business since they can't slit the throat of a cow since it would use a banned item!

[waste gate]

How the hell is the government ever going to stop a crime in progress?
When we all adopt the view that all life is sacred and that the gov't is looking out for us crime will not exist.



PS. that even puts McD's out of business since they can't slit the throat of a cow since it would use a banned item!


First of all, no knives are used in the slaughter house. We should all be sparing living animals and be eating other non-animal products anyway. Why do we use other sentient beings to make our lives better. It cheapens our lives.

[ASWnut101]

Has Waste Gate taken a turn to the left?


Although, It dosen't seem like him. Even his writing style is different.:hmm:

[waste gate]

On an average day in this country, two or three people die and approximately 30 are injured from accidental firearms shootings; about fifty more die by suicide with a gun. Without guns these people would have died from something else.

Besides the above mentioned statistics certainly hate crime laws will help the govn't protect us.

[ASWnut101]

Any article to back that up?

And you just said they would have died from something else, right? So then what is the point of banning guns if something else would do the job?

[waste gate]

Any article to back that up?

And you just said they would have died from something else, right? So then what is the point of banning guns if something else would do the job?

http://www.bradycampaign.org/blog/2007/01/24/mandating-guns/

[geetrue]

Why does anyone, other than the government and its agents need such a weapon?
Has there ever been a time in which a government didn't allow people their God given rights? Why would anyone ever have a use for a firearm which could take a life? After all criminal activity is enviromental and if guns are banned no one will have them.

You had so many quotes I wanted to address, I finally just picked one ...

The government has already experimented with taking away guns from it's citzens, along with drugs, sex, and alcohol.

Those citzens are in jail's and prison's all over our land and they still continue to kill each other, share drugs with each other, drink alcohol and have sex with each other.

What you propose Waste gate is impossible, give up ... I was with you on fighting energy and wasting our resources, but this is it waste gate ... You either give in or no more Mr nice guy ... just kidding on the threat part. :D

Come on waste gate meet us half way ... :yep:

[Tchocky]

Can anyone provide an explanation for these murder rates, other than widespread gun ownership? I'm trying, but I can't see many alternatives


USA - 5.9
Australia - 1.28
Britain - 1.62
France - 1.64
Germany - 0.98

Thats the murder rate as a whole per 100,000 people, it doesnt discriminate by method. For the 2000's so far.

[waste gate]

Can anyone provide an explanation for these murder rates, other than widespread gun ownership? I'm trying, but I can't see many alternatives


USA - 5.9
Australia - 1.28
Britain - 1.62
France - 1.64
Germany - 0.98

Thats the murder rate as a whole per 100,000 people, it doesnt discriminate by method. For the 2000's so far.

I saw those numbers also Tchocky. Since they did not differentiate on the means I decided the numbers were of no value in this thread.

[Tchocky]

I saw those numbers also Tchocky. Since they did not differentiate on the means I decided the numbers were of no value in this thread. Best figures I can get regarding method.
MURDER RATE PER 100,000
USA - 5.9
Australia - 1.28
Britain - 1.62
France - 1.64
Germany - 0.98

METHOD (mid 1990's)
44% of US murders were by firearm.
7% in Australia
6% in France
2% in Germany
1% in the UK

[ASWnut101]

Can you provide the numbers for the 2000 years, not the 1990's?

[waste gate]

I saw those numbers also Tchocky. Since they did not differentiate on the means I decided the numbers were of no value in this thread. Best figures I can get regarding method.
MURDER RATE PER 100,000
USA - 5.9
Australia - 1.28
Britain - 1.62
France - 1.64
Germany - 0.98

METHOD (mid 1990's)
44% of US murders were by firearm.
7% in Australia
6% in France
2% in Germany
1% in the UK


Since those numbers were so old and during 1994 the fire arms initiative I could not in good conscience use them. Since that time the 1994 ban has expired and during the 1994 law the Columbine incident occurred. The numbers don't currently make sense.

[Tchocky]

Can you provide the numbers for the 2000 years, not the 1990's?
What I could get for 05. I'm not bothered hunting further

Murder Rate per 100,000 people - 2005

US - 5.9
UK - 1.62

Method

US - 68% firearms
UK - 9%

[geetrue]

There's no equivalent of New York to California with Detroit and Chicago in the middle in the UK.

A judge in Houston several years ago asked a young man right before his sentencing, "Why did you shoot your friend"?

The young man said, "It looked so easy on T.V"?

[SUBMAN1]

Any article to back that up?

And you just said they would have died from something else, right? So then what is the point of banning guns if something else would do the job?
http://www.bradycampaign.org/blog/2007/01/24/mandating-guns/
Please use real facts - ie. don't use the Brady campaign. These are skewed statistics.

Why don't you go and find the real numbers for violent crime in the US vs UK. What you will find will astonish you in how how UK crime is over our own. If you care to search - it is here in the general thread at subsim. i would never live in the UK because of it.

Next - cars accidently kill what? 40,000 people in the US in a given year. That is a huge number comparitevly. I think that is a much bigger target than the couple people that were accidently shot due to stupidity. +1 for Darwin. Based on your idea, we should ban cars way before we go after guns.

Maybe we should strap everyone into there home so they can't leave so that they can't get hit by lightening or something. Oh - maybe they would die from other causes then since obesity might be a problem then?

So I am trying to understand how you live in a country that is built on the very ownership of the very thing you despise? We wouldn't be America today if we followed your advice. We would be New England or something, surpressed, and taxed to the hilt till we were all poor. Do you realize what you are saying?

-S

PS. And you actually kill people daily in sub sims, yet you hate weapons in general? I don't get it.

[ASWnut101]

Can you provide the numbers for the 2000 years, not the 1990's?
What I could get for 05. I'm not bothered hunting further

Murder Rate per 100,000 people - 2005

US - 5.9
UK - 1.62

Method

US - 68% firearms
UK - 9%


Ok, I just wanted to point this out:

If the population of the US is ~360 million, using your figures, Tchocky, that would imply that 14,443 people were killed by guns in 2005 in the US. The leading cause of death in the US in 2005 was tobacco usage, which resaulted in cancer [435,000].

Source: http://www.totse.com/en/drugs/miscellaneous_drug_information/annualcausesof191148.html

[Tchocky]

Next - cars accidently kill what? 40,000 people in the US in a given year. That is a huge number comparitevly. I think that is a much bigger target than the couple people that were accidently shot due to stupidity. +1 for Darwin. Based on your idea, we should ban cars way before we go after guns. That's a ridiculous extrapolation. Cars and guns are not analogous. Many countries in the world function quite well without widespread gun ownership, you can't say the same for cars. The factual evidence for costs/benefits of removing guns are at best ambigous, whereas for cars the effects are self-evident.
So I am trying to understand how you live in a country that is built on the very ownership of the very thing you despise? We wouldn't be America today if we followed your advice. We would be New England or something, surpressed, and taxed to the hilt till we were all poor. Do you realize what you are saying? Many countries have been born out of violence, I don't see how that affects this issue. Yes, the US came into being through armed conflict. That was a very long time ago. My home country was established after a War Of Independence, much more recently than the US, and we've got no complaints with gun controls.
I don't understand your argument, but I'll try it out. What about smallpox? It was a major factor in the decline of the Native American, yet the US helped eradicate it?

If the population of the US is ~360 million, using your figures, Tchocky, that would imply that 14,443 people were killed by guns in 2005 in the US. The leading cause of death in the US in 2005 was tobacco usage, which resaulted in cancer [435,000]. Uh-huh. What are you getting at?
btw the population of the US is 300 million.

[ASWnut101]

Why wont liberals try to ban tobacco?

[Tchocky]

Why wont liberals try to ban tobacco?
Are you seriously comparing gun homicide with tobacco smoking?

edit - SERIOUSLY?

You choose to smoke, you don't choose to get shot.

[SUBMAN1]

Next - cars accidently kill what? 40,000 people in the US in a given year. That is a huge number comparitevly. I think that is a much bigger target than the couple people that were accidently shot due to stupidity. +1 for Darwin. Based on your idea, we should ban cars way before we go after guns. That's a ridiculous extrapolation. Cars and guns are not analogous. Many countries in the world function quite well without widespread gun ownership, you can't say the same for cars. The factual evidence for costs/benefits of removing guns are at best ambigous, whereas for cars the effects are self-evident.
So I am trying to understand how you live in a country that is built on the very ownership of the very thing you despise? We wouldn't be America today if we followed your advice. We would be New England or something, surpressed, and taxed to the hilt till we were all poor. Do you realize what you are saying? Many countries have been born out of violence, I don't see how that affects this issue. Yes, the US came into being through armed conflict. That was a very long time ago. My home country was established after a War Of Independence, much more recently than the US, and we've got no complaints with gun controls.
I don't understand your argument, but I'll try it out. What about smallpox? It was a major factor in the decline of the Native American, yet the US helped eradicate it?

If the population of the US is ~360 million, using your figures, Tchocky, that would imply that 14,443 people were killed by guns in 2005 in the US. The leading cause of death in the US in 2005 was tobacco usage, which resaulted in cancer [435,000]. Uh-huh. What are you getting at?
Yep - i see you don't understand. If you read above, we should save an estimated 30 to 50 people a year from accidental shootings. If that is going to be used as an argument, then cars is a 'MUCH' bigger target. You live in Europe, so to me in the US, a gun is a tool - just like a car. It can be used for everything from hunting to defense. So to me - they are along the same exact lines and analogous in the lines that were drawn.

For America to remain strong, we must continue to follow past traditions. Maybe that doesn't bode well for Europe, since it is a dying section of the world with a negative birth rate (a direct indicator of how your population thinks of its future), but I would like to keep my country strong. This is just one more that people are trying to errode away.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Why wont liberals try to ban tobacco?
They need to. it would be good for the world. Maybe they can focus their energies on it.

[Tchocky]

Yep - i see you don't understand. If you read above, we should save an estimated 30 to 50 people a year from accidental shootings. If that is going to be used as an argument, then cars is a 'MUCH' bigger target. You live in Europe, so to me in the US, a gun is a tool - just like a car. It can be used for everything from hunting to defense. So to me - they are along the same exact lines and analogous in the lines that were drawn.
Actually, it works out to around 700, off the top of my head. 2.5 x 365 != 30.
If accidental deaths were the only basis for gun control, you'd be correct.

For America to remain strong, we must continue to follow past traditions. Maybe that doesn't bode well for Europe, since it is a dying section of the world with a negative birth rate (a direct indicator of how your population thinks of its future), but I would like to keep my country strong. This is just one more that people are trying to errode away. Traditions come and go. Slavery/Puritanism/Habeas Corpus etc.
As regards birth rate, I think 6 billion is enough at the moment, and with open borders and free transfer of people, Europe's insularity is what's dying.

SUBMAN, would you be in favour of Prohibition?

[geetrue]

Hey, were just throwing horse shoes, right?

Here's a horse shoe throw ... What if?

What if the U.K. had the same laws as the United States in regards to gun control?

Both countries allowed all citzens the right to bear arms, except known felon's.

Both countries come under terroist attack ... An attack so bad that the citzens of large metro areas are displaced and forced to move from their habitat, by auto, truck, train, plane, ship or on foot.

What's the first thing law enforcement is going to do?

Remove any gun that can discharge a bullet and injure an innocent person, especially a peace officer.

Everyone would be checked for contraband and the law would be changed and enforced in a 24 hour period.

The only reason I included U.K to be equal in this scenario is to show you that law enforcement people think alike in a time of trouble. As it stands the U.K. would be way ahead of the USA in a search and seizure situation, but I can only imagine how many weapons would show up on both sides.

[fatty]

I understand your ignorance being from Canada, but one day you guys will wake up. Hopefully for a fellow subsimmer, I hope it is not too late.

So please enlighten this ignorant Canadian by explaining - if I understand correctly - why everyone being equipped with assault rifles in a Katrina-scale disaster area would be a good thing.

Why wont liberals try to ban tobacco?

Up here, they are doing everything but. Except they're not "liberals" (Progressive Conservatives). As I gather, all of these tobacco-related illnesses are stressing our health care system, sucking up hundreds of millions of provincial tax money. Cigs are taxed quite heavily to pay for this and additional legislation just came in which severely limited the locations one can legally smoke. Kind of OT but since the U.S. health care system is so different I thought it was worth pointing out.

I'm waiting for someone to attempt to discredit the trend Tchoky's statistics have presented after he was made to jump through all those hoops.

[August]

Of course where else would you get rights.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The point is that any government legislation restricting legal gun ownership only effects those who wish to be law abiding, ie the potential victims of a crime. It does not effect the criminal who has his own means of attaining weapons outside of the law. Yeah some of that might be via stolen firearms, but show me the country anywhere where there is no weapons blackmarket, especially one with borders as porus as ours are.

If you outright ban all civilian posession of firearms tomorrow, the only ones who will continue to have access to firearms will be the criminal element of society. I'm just not willing to trust my life or my families lives to the mercy of some thug who thinks he can rob us then cut our throats to keep us from being witnesses against him later.

Nor do I trust the goverment either. Not their promises of honoring the rest of my "unalienable" rights once I start letting them get away with picking and choosing which ones they want to ignore, and certainly not their ability to protect me and mine from the criminal elements of society.

An armed populace can only be governed by its consent. I can think of nothing more quintessentially American than that concept.

[The Noob]

That looks evil. Let's ban it.
That looks like c00l pwnage. Lets produce more. :yep:

[TarJak]

So please enlighten this ignorant Canadian by explaining - if I understand correctly - why everyone being equipped with assault rifles in a Katrina-scale disaster area would be a good thing.

Of course it would be a good thing. If you were in total despair of being rescued you could shoot yourself!:rotfl:

Another good reason: You could feed you and your family by hunting for the animals that were drowned... wait that's not such a good reason cos the wild life has scarpered.:cry:

Or is it simply to protect your property from looters? Which I don't see as a good reason for using firearms.:nope: If you were sensible, you'd just evacutate and if any theiving bugger wanted to get his hands on your waterlogged plasma TV, well good luck to him. If you aren't there your lives are not in danger and you don't need a gun to protect property for which you should have insured. the damge done by the natural disaster is enough without a mob of gun toting red necks taking pot shots at one another.

I'm waiting for someone to attempt to discredit the trend Tchoky's statistics have presented after he was made to jump through all those hoops.

My guess is amongst the gun toting redneck brigade you won't find any good arguments against the facts. Western countries with solid gun control laws and relatively efficient policing lose fewer people to gun related deaths than the US. that is the simple truth that tchocky's numbers show. :yep: The fact that don't fit with a certain view with either be ignored or distorted in an attempt to disprove your argument or deflect from its intent.

Seriously unless you own a farm your don't NEED a gun. Just because it is fun to have one doesn't make it good.

As to how many people drugs (including legal ones) and cars kill in western society, yes it is a shame that there are so many, however these deaths cannot and must not be thrown into the same category as murders with guns!

To do so only obscures the fact that too many Americans die at the hands of others largely because of the free availability of firearms in most parts of the US.

Please understand that I don't want to spoil your law abiding shooting fun, I just want you to understand that whilst criminals who will try to obtain guns can get them as freely as they can in America, then more people will die because of it. In countries where guns are harder to come by, criminals still get guns, but FEWER criminals get FEWER guns and FEWER people die as a result.

I personally cannot understand why anyone would think that this would be a bad thing.

[MadMike]

(Yawn) Let the American Left ban firearms, it'll create a market for illegal weapons that will boost the Mexican economy and create a booming industry along the already porous border...
Katrina taught all of us who live in a hurricane zone that you have to fend for yourself- the "government" is not going to be around when looters and hardcore criminals are on a rampage.

Yours, Mike

[bradclark1]

I think it's got to do with penis envy.

[SUBMAN1]

Yep - i see you don't understand. If you read above, we should save an estimated 30 to 50 people a year from accidental shootings. If that is going to be used as an argument, then cars is a 'MUCH' bigger target. You live in Europe, so to me in the US, a gun is a tool - just like a car. It can be used for everything from hunting to defense. So to me - they are along the same exact lines and analogous in the lines that were drawn.
Actually, it works out to around 700, off the top of my head. 2.5 x 365 != 30.
If accidental deaths were the only basis for gun control, you'd be correct.

For America to remain strong, we must continue to follow past traditions. Maybe that doesn't bode well for Europe, since it is a dying section of the world with a negative birth rate (a direct indicator of how your population thinks of its future), but I would like to keep my country strong. This is just one more that people are trying to errode away. Traditions come and go. Slavery/Puritanism/Habeas Corpus etc.
As regards birth rate, I think 6 billion is enough at the moment, and with open borders and free transfer of people, Europe's insularity is what's dying.

SUBMAN, would you be in favour of Prohibition?

No, I wouldn't. I like beer! :p Talk about not being analogous - you hit it on the head!

Europe is currently fixing its population problems by immigrating a ton of Muslims in from the middle East. DOesn't take rocket science to figure out that some of them will be whacked and opt to bring Europe to its knees in the future. An armed populace would not let this happen.

I don't get it why the Europeans and Canadians for that matter, don't think they are mature enough to own a firearm? Are you that dependent on your goverment? I just find it very odd.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

(Yawn) Let the American Left ban firearms, it'll create a market for illegal weapons that will boost the Mexican economy and create a booming industry along the already porous border...
Katrina taught all of us who live in a hurricane zone that you have to fend for yourself- the "government" is not going to be around when looters and hardcore criminals are on a rampage.

Yours, Mike

It would never happen I don't think at least. Current estimates are 40% of all American households already have firearms. That is a quite a few. If you travel to the west, anything outside of California is much higher. An example is Washington State where 48% of the adult population that is 21 or over has a Concealed Pistol Permit.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

So please enlighten this ignorant Canadian by explaining - if I understand correctly - why everyone being equipped with assault rifles in a Katrina-scale disaster area would be a good thing.
[/quote]

Simple - because your armed roving gangs that happened in Katrina would not be allowed to happen.

What most people don't get who are from outside the United States is that less than 1000th of 1% (<.001%) of firearm owners are the whacked people that screw it up for the rest of us. Based on this absurdly small statistic, do you think it to be normal that you should affect the rest of the known population over it? Does that make any logical sense?

I blame Hollywood personally for the bad rap firearms get. In Hollywood, people die the instant they are shot - this is not reality. There are accounts of people being shot over 30 times by cops and they still functioned fine.

ANother Hollywood myth - All shooters are can shoot someone hundreds of feet away with a tiny pistol without ever missing them. Hello? A pistol is purely a defensive weapon and is not very effective, especially in the offensive role. If some guy pulls a pistol on me and I am 20 feet away or so - I'd run because its almost a given that I will get away.

I could go on all day about the myths Hollywood has created for us, but I think the point has been shown.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Just got the scoop - This weirdo House legislator intruduces this bill every session of Congress. It has no support from any of its other members - so do not worry about this Bill. It is as dead as a doornail like it is every time it is introduced.

-S

[Dan D]

Very intersting debate!


American debates about gun control to my experience tend to be very intense and heated. When comparing societies and when looking for something similar in Germany, I think you could refer to the German debate about speed limits on Autobahns. Conservatives throw in the “free democratic basic order” into the debate that has to be protected and argue that introducing a speed limit would change the basic order to an effect that our self-image would get lost and that we would not the same anymore while Greens and Environmentalists, the Police and Parents and traffic accident victims interest groups etc. etc. have a more rational cost-value ratio approach and point out to the bad effects of fast driving, like higher risks of accidents, air pollution, waste of energy etc.

I guess, many Americans are shocked when they cruise on the fast lane of German Autobahns for the first time and face speed merchants and get pressed/pushed by the cars behind them that aggressively approach with 200 km/h and flashing the lights. They may even find that rude and uncivilised.
I guess that Germans visiting the US also have similar mixed feelings about people carrying guns and being very proud of it.

An American debate about speed limits on interstates won’t draw that much attention as a gun control debate. A debate about gun control in Germany would barely raise any interest. But if you want to see a German becoming nasty, start a debate about speed limits.
I don’t think that an American feels feminized and less manly because he can drive his Porsche only at a speed of a snail on interstates while a German does not feel neutered because of the restrictions on gun ownership.

Anyway, in those discussions rational arguments don’t have the usual weight.. You can cite death tolls, statistical proof and all. It seems that a majority of people are willing to accept the possible higher risk of gun crimes or the possible higher risks caused by speed driving for the freedom to own guns or the freedom to drive at unlimited speed fast because it is part of how they see themselves and their society.

[SUBMAN1]

Very intersting debate!


American debates about gun control to my experience tend to be very intense and heated. When comparing societies and when looking for something similar in Germany, I think you could refer to the German debate about speed limits on Autobahns. Conservatives throw in the “free democratic basic order” into the debate that has to be protected and argue that introducing a speed limit would change the basic order to an effect that our self-image would get lost and that we would not the same anymore while Greens and Environmentalists, the Police and Parents and traffic accident victims interest groups etc. etc. have a more rational cost-value ratio approach and point out to the bad effects of fast driving, like higher risks of accidents, air pollution, waste of energy etc.

I guess, many Americans are shocked when they cruise on the fast lane of German Autobahns for the first time and face speed merchants and get pressed/pushed by the cars behind them that aggressively approach with 200 km/h and flashing the lights. They may even find that rude and uncivilised.
I guess that Germans visiting the US also have similar mixed feelings about people carrying guns and being very proud of it.

An American debate about speed limits on interstates won’t draw that much attention as a gun control debate. A debate about gun control in Germany would barely raise any interest. But if you want to see a German becoming nasty, start a debate about speed limits.
I don’t think that an American feels feminized and less manly because he can drive his Porsche only at a speed of a snail on interstates while a German does not feel neutered because of the restrictions on gun ownership.

Anyway, in those discussions rational arguments don’t have the usual weight.. You can cite death tolls, statistical proof and all. It seems that a majority of people are willing to accept the possible higher risk of gun crimes or the possible higher risks caused by speed driving for the freedom to own guns or the freedom to drive at unlimited speed fast because it is part of how they see themselves and their society.

I vote for unlimited autobahn speed in the US too! You can in Montana where there is no speed limit. They will pull you over though and give you a ticket if they think it is unsafe for your vehicle. If you have a Porche in Montana, I doubt any cops would care if you went by at 120 MPH.

-S

[dean_acheson]

Tchoky,
I don't mean to be smart, but there are all kinds of numbers, with all kinds of meanings that can be extrapolated...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

I would have you look at the numbers for the District of Columbia specifically, which is an area in the U.S. with very very 'tough' gun control numbers.

I think that at its most basic the arguements come down to:
1. Law abiding citizens with firearms will give pause to persons contemplating violent actions.
or:
2. Stricter gun control will lead to less guns which means less crime.

I guess I find number 2 to be kinda silly, but I work in a law enforcement type field, and am not really enamoured with the human condition.

My main beef is that in our founding document is a right to bear arms. To me that is a pretty simple phrase, an unless the gun control crowd has the numbers to change the Constitution as per methods provided, they need to quit tring to prohibit weapons via the back door through scare tactics and sob stories like Ms. McCarthy's. That type of feel good legislation will be the death of us all.

(edited for silly SICs)

[Sailor Steve]

But think about this: right now you're advocating that the government take away my right to defend myself.

Isn't that is what government is for.....to defend its citizens?
No, absolutely not. More than once people have tried to sue the police for slow response times resulting in people getting robbed, beaten or worse. In every case the courts have said that police cannot be held responsible for delays, so cannot be expected to protect you in every case.

After all if we had allowed our government to protect us we would have not had all these school shootings.
Again, if a big guy with a baseball bat (ban those too?) breaks into your home and proceeds to attack you, what are you going to do? Tell him to go away?Run (not if you live on the third floor)? Call the police? I have a friend who lives in a rural area. The nearest police are three HOURS away. Good luck on that one.

[SUBMAN1]

Again, if a big guy with a baseball bat (ban those too?) breaks into your home and proceeds to attack you, what are you going to do? Tell him to go away?Run (not if you live on the third floor)? Call the police? I have a friend who lives in a rural area. The nearest police are three HOURS away. Good luck on that one.

That is probably one thing many Europeans forget - the land mass the US has and response times may actually be 3 hours away in many cases.

Also, the police show up to the most critical situation first, and that is not always some guy robbing your house!

-S

[Sailor Steve]

Please understand that I don't want to spoil your law abiding shooting fun, I just want you to understand that whilst criminals who will try to obtain guns can get them as freely as they can in America, then more people will die because of it. In countries where guns are harder to come by, criminals still get guns, but FEWER criminals get FEWER guns and FEWER people die as a result.

I personally cannot understand why anyone would think that this would be a bad thing.
And that's part of the reason why we seceded from Europe (Britain specifically). Did you know that the actual shooting started in 1775 when the British Colonial Governor of Massachussetts sent troops to confiscate guns from citizens?

In a more serious vein, read dean_acheson's comments. While it is a fact that the US does have a higher gun-crime rate overall than her European counterparts, it's also true that the parts of the US with the strongest gun-control laws have the highest gun-crime rates. Here in Utah we have very loose gun laws, and one of the lowest crime rates in the country. Go figure.

The concept behind the United States is simple: ALL rights belong to the people; the government is not authorized to remove any of our rights without our consent. The fact that it happens anyway is another problem altogether; my concern is keeping it from happening any more. The Second Amendment exists for one reason only: to enable us to protect ourselves from our own government, if it comes to that. Self-defense is a happy side-effect. Hunting is not part of the equation at all.

[aaken]

2 cents from a european.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
As far as I know there are countries in Europe, like Norway, where indeed many people own a firearm (in the case of Norway I immagine mostly for hunting) but the rate of violent crimes is very low.
On the other hand, the US have their law, according to which they have the right to bear arms. We have different laws. In Italy, for example, I can own a firearm to go hunting, but I have to pay a tax on it. I can also have issued a permit of carrying a gun from the police. Does it make me a slave of my government? I wouldn't say so. After all we elect our political representatives, which form a government. How could I be slave of something I contributed to elect?
As for:
Europe is currently fixing its population problems by immigrating a ton of Muslims in from the middle East. DOesn't take rocket science to figure out that some of them will be whacked and opt to bring Europe to its knees in the future. An armed populace would not let this happen.
I come from a country that was invaded by almost everybody, greeks, romans, saracens, normans, longobards, goths, franks, vandals, huns...Myself, I'm actually descending from frankish family that settled first in Catalonia in the IX century then south of Italy and Sicily in the XI-XII century. Yet, now, in the XXI century, we are a state, we have laws to regulate immigration and we have police forces to uphold those laws. How they are effective can be debated. But personally, an armed populace that start shooting indiscriminately people because they have a different color of skin, because they come from another country in search for a better life, I think that is barbaric. But maybe I'm just a naive leftist.

[dean_acheson]

Europe is currently fixing its population problems by immigrating a ton of Muslims in from the middle East. DOesn't take rocket science to figure out that some of them will be whacked and opt to bring Europe to its knees in the future. An armed populace would not let this happen.

From aaken: I come from a country that was invaded by almost everybody, greeks, romans, saracens, normans, longobards, goths, franks, vandals, huns...Myself, I'm actually descending from frankish family that settled first in Catalonia in the IX century then south of Italy and Sicily in the XI-XII century. Yet, now, in the XXI century, we are a state, we have laws to regulate immigration and we have police forces to uphold those laws. How they are effective can be debated. But personally, an armed populace that start shooting indiscriminately people because they have a different color of skin, because they come from another country in search for a better life, I think that is barbaric. But maybe I'm just a naive leftist.

I wouldn't consider that to be the opinon of a naive leftist, I would consider that to be a very rational opinion. However, I would be very very concerned if my elected representative did not act to curb the influx of individuals who had no desire embrace the core values of the nation-state they are entering into. Those core values, being at its most basic:
1. Separation of Church and State.
2. Republican form of government.
3. Libertarianism.
Those are very broad, and we could argue of semantics of them, but I am against the influx of anybody who thinks my nation-state would be better off under Shria law.

Do you get in trouble for straying off topic if you started the thread? :-?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia

[Tchocky]

No, I wouldn't. I like beer! :p Talk about not being analogous - you hit it on the head! Yet you'd ban tobacco? [/sidetrack]

Tchoky,
I don't mean to be smart, but there are all kinds of numbers, with all kinds of meanings that can be extrapolated...
That's correct. Any number of factors could explain the following. Personally, I believe it's down to the 200 million guns that are in the US, and arent in the UK.

The murder rate in the US is 4 times higher than the UK, and over 2/3 of those murders are shootings. In the UK it's one in ten.

Tchocky.

While it is a fact that the US does have a higher gun-crime rate overall than her European counterparts, it's also true that the parts of the US with the strongest gun-control laws have the highest gun-crime rates. Here in Utah we have very loose gun laws, and one of the lowest crime rates in the country. Go figure.

I appreciate that a decrease gun crime and gun control legislation don't always go together, but there is no legislation severe enough that takes the guns off the streets. Comparing a 'tough' state to a country in which it's near-impossible to get a gun doesn't stand up.

My main beef is that in our founding document is a right to bare arms. To me that is a pretty simple phrase
"bear" arms, isn't it? :p

[aaken]

I wouldn't consider that to be the opinon of a naive leftist, I would consider that to be a very rational opinion. However, I would be very very concerned if my elected representative did not act to curb the influx of individuals who had no desire embrace the core values of the nation-state they are entering into. Those core values, being at its most basic:
1. Separation of Church and State.
2. Republican form of government.
3. Libertarianism.
Those are very broad, and we could argue of semantics of them, but I am against the influx of anybody who thinks my nation-state would be better off under Shria law.

Do you get in trouble for straying off topic if you started the thread?

I hope the moderators will tolerate the slight OT.
I would certainly agree with what you stated. There are laws that prescribe the form of government, the repartition of powers between the branches of the State, that state what is legal and what is not. Anybody who wants to settle in a place should live according to the laws of that place. I do not debate that.
But, not always the 'danger' to those laws comes from immigrants, muslims or not.
I'd like to point out a recent example, an example that I immagine few people outside of Italy know. Recently the italian government tried to pass a project of law (to be voted in the parliament) about the extension of the rights of married couples to unmarried couples, or couples, not bound by marriage, that live together. This would include gay couples. The catholic Church has fiercly battled against this project of law. That is their right, of course. Some bishops went so far as to invoke the excomunication of these couples and put high pressure on the shoulders of catholic representatives in the parliament. Needless to say, Italy has a catholic majority. This, for example, could be seen as an example of interference on religious basis of another State.

[dean_acheson]

aaken,
Certainly you have a good point. I don't think that I really agree with the analogy, but that is for another whole long set of posts. ;)

Tchocky,
Well you just popped me for stupid mistakes #2 and #3 today.....

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=106230

I seem to be all ate up with stupid today.:oops: :rotfl:

[SUBMAN1]

No, I wouldn't. I like beer! :p Talk about not being analogous - you hit it on the head! Yet you'd ban tobacco? [/sidetrack]



You know i was joking, so get over it! ;)

Anyway, the point is, over 99.999% of the firearm owning population has the maturity and self control to own a firearm, and I am happy to know that someone is there to back me up if something went wrong in my neighborhood. Things are good in the US right now and I hope they stay that way.

-S

[Tchocky]

Actually I'm glad of the typos, dean. I've been playing the scene out in my head for a while.
The Founding Fathers, sitting around giving birth to a nation, whatever that entails

Franklin: UUNNNGHHHHHHHH.........AARGGGHGHGH

Adams: I can see the head! Push, man, push!

Hamilton looks, faints. Franklin rolls up his sleeves to deliver the EagleFlagJesusChild

Franklin: Hey, now I can work without getting my sleeves dirty! This advantage must be enshrined in law somehow. Get Madison working on a right to bare arms!

*Birth Of A Nation*

[Tchocky]

Anyway, the point is, over 99.999% of the firearm owning population has the maturity and self control to own a firearm, and I am happy to know that someone is there to back me up if something went wrong in my neighborhood. Things are good in the US right now and I hope they stay that way.

I think things would be better in the US if there were fewer/no guns in the hands of the general civilian population, the murder rate as it stands compared to a similiar country without widespread gun ownership backs me up on this. I'm not a fan of vigilantes, so the police will have to look after my neighbourhood instead.

[SUBMAN1]

Anyway, the point is, over 99.999% of the firearm owning population has the maturity and self control to own a firearm, and I am happy to know that someone is there to back me up if something went wrong in my neighborhood. Things are good in the US right now and I hope they stay that way.
I think things would be better in the US if there were fewer/no guns in the hands of the general civilian population, the murder rate as it stands compared to a similiar country without widespread gun ownership backs me up on this. I'm not a fan of vigilantes, so the police will have to look after my neighbourhood instead.
People commit murder and those same murders are going to happen - gun or not. Guns do not commit murders.

What you need to compare is violent crime for the UK which is about 5 times that of the United States because you lack guns to deter the crime. If you want to compare another analogy, try nukes - why have them? It is a deterent. Same thing. Might as well give them all up, but you know your enemies won't so you can't. You can't ever. History is your teacher and that is where you need to look to see your future. A world without guns is impossible.

I think it's time to start pulling the real statisitcs.

-S

PS. They are here on this board already

[SUBMAN1]

Here is a good article for you to start with. In a country with no guns, the gun crimes are on an alarming rise:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3195908.stm

-S

PS. Is that true? You have an annual percentage of almost 27% of becoming a crime victim in the UK on a yearly basis? That is terrible!

[August]

Anyway, the point is, over 99.999% of the firearm owning population has the maturity and self control to own a firearm, and I am happy to know that someone is there to back me up if something went wrong in my neighborhood. Things are good in the US right now and I hope they stay that way.
I think things would be better in the US if there were fewer/no guns in the hands of the general civilian population, the murder rate as it stands compared to a similiar country without widespread gun ownership backs me up on this. I'm not a fan of vigilantes, so the police will have to look after my neighbourhood instead.

Then how do you explain a country like Switzerland that has even more guns per capita than the US but a crime rate below both the US and similar countries. Not just guns either but real by God assault weapons...

[SUBMAN1]

Anyway, the point is, over 99.999% of the firearm owning population has the maturity and self control to own a firearm, and I am happy to know that someone is there to back me up if something went wrong in my neighborhood. Things are good in the US right now and I hope they stay that way.
I think things would be better in the US if there were fewer/no guns in the hands of the general civilian population, the murder rate as it stands compared to a similiar country without widespread gun ownership backs me up on this. I'm not a fan of vigilantes, so the police will have to look after my neighbourhood instead.
Then how do you explain a country like Switzerland that has even more guns per capita than the US but a crime rate below both the US and similar countries. Not just guns either but real by God assault weapons...

That is so true - and every male is required by law to have one!

-S

[Tchocky]

What you need to compare is violent crime for the UK which is about 5 times that of the United States because you lack guns to deter the crime. If you want to compare another analogy, try nukes - why have them? It is a deterent. Same thing.
False. Nukes are not used every day in murders/burglaries. There is a lot more to guns than criminal deterrence. Can you supply a source for that violent crime rate? The murder rate is 4 times higher in the US, guns used in over 2/3 of those, can you explain that?

People commit murder and those same murders are going to happen - gun or not. Guns do not commit murders.
But people with guns do. I think removing a powerful method of murder would help.

A world without guns is impossible.
Quite right. I'd like the world's guns to be in the hands of those trained to use them, Army/Police. This is where the Swiss model is unusual. The mandatory gun ownership is for all men who have left the military, men trained in the use of guns.

[loynokid]

I don't understand the laughing faces. Are you mocking my opinion?
I'm not, but I disagree mightily.

Why does anyone, other than the government and its agents need such a weapon?
Why does a government or its agents need such a weapon? I trust my neighbors with guns more than I trust governments with guns. Here in Utah I've been told by cops that they consider armed citizens to be their best backup.
Has there ever been a time in which a government didn't allow people their God given rights?
I don't understand. Are you saying that governments always allow people their rights? If so, I can show you many cases of governments denying citizens their rights. History is full of them.

Why would anyone ever have a use for a firearm which could take a life?
I'm 5 feet 8 inches tall and nearly 60 years old. When a 6-foot-2 guy comes into my apartment and attacks me without warning, should I beat him up? How?

After all criminal activity is enviromental and if guns are banned no one will have them.
All criminal activity is NOT environmental. I've met people who really were broken-they had no concept of right and wrong. Second half of your sentence: show me exactly how you would ban all guns. I personally know people who know how to make their own. From scratch. Also, how exactly do you propose to ban ALL guns?



show me exactly how you would ban all guns. I personally know people who know how to make their own. From scratch. Also, how exactly do you propose to ban ALL guns?
If those who continue to to manufacture their own fire arms will be criminals by their disobedience to the law which the government has legally made.


Why would anyone ever have a use for a firearm which could take a life?
I'm 5 feet 8 inches tall and nearly 60 years old. When a 6-foot-2 guy comes into my apartment and attacks me without warning, should I beat him up? How?

If fire arms are banned no criminal activity will threaten your life.

I don't understand. Are you saying that governments always allow people their rights?
Of course where else would you get rights.


If so, I can show you many cases of governments denying citizens their rights. History is full of them.


Please, list your cases where the government purposely turned on those it governs.[/quote]


Ok, i have a comment on the "if all firearms are banned there will be no criminal activity in your life". Ok, so we criminals are called criminals because they break the law, correct? and if they murder people with guns and steal things, why would they obey a law saying they can't have guns? We call them criminals because they Dont do what the law tells them. :lol: and also guns don't commit crimes, people do. If you set a bunch of guns in the middle of a street, they won't start jumping up and shooting people on their own. Humans might use guns for purposes that oppose the law, in that case the humans should be punished not the guns.

[loynokid]

I ran across some info in my cities local archives this is it. A soldier that fought on the pacific front in WWII recovered some Jap documents and broght them back home. I was looking at translated copies of these and guess what i found out. The japanese never invaded the US homeland directly because so many people in the US possesed firearms. They figured that they would be getting shot at everywhere they went. Just a little interesting tidbit.

[U-533]

Quite right. I'd like the world's guns to be in the hands of those trained to use them, Army/Police. This is where the Swiss model is unusual. The mandatory gun ownership is for all men who have left the military, men trained in the use of guns.

Yeah I think that if more spermdoners/fathers became dads and really trained sons to be men then the only uses for a weapon would be for protection from oppressive governments and hunting.

But thats just a idea....it will never fly.

[SUBMAN1]

Yeah I think that if more spermdoners/fathers became dads and really trained sons to be men then the only uses for a weapon would be for protection from oppressive governments and hunting.

But thats just a idea....it will never fly.

Hahahaha! :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

[SUBMAN1]

False. Nukes are not used every day in murders/burglaries. There is a lot more to guns than criminal deterrence. Can you supply a source for that violent crime rate? The murder rate is 4 times higher in the US, guns used in over 2/3 of those, can you explain that?

I bet more people have dies over nukes that you can possibly realize. How many people have died so one country or another could have access to this form of power will never be fully realized. The murder rate of the US probably doesn't even cover a fraction.

I gave you a source to start looking - it is here. If you want to know the true source, it is the statisitic database for the us supreme court. Now you have you marching orders.

Start looking at the above article - guns are infiltrating the country you are calling the UK. Then get back to me on your basless question.

-S

[ASWnut101]

Can you supply a source for that violent crime rate? The murder rate is 4 times higher in the US, guns used in over 2/3 of those, can you explain that?


Can you? I haven't seen any from you.

[Tchocky]

I gave you a source to start looking - it is here. If you want to know the true source, it is the statisitic database for the us supreme court. Now you have you marching orders.

Start looking at the above article - guns are infiltrating the country you are calling the UK. Then get back to me on your basless question. Yes, gun crime is increasing in the UK (can I call it that?). That article is four years old, but the situation has probably not improved significantly.
My question is not baseless. I want to know why the gun murder rate is higher in the US than in the UK. I don't expect anyone here to have the answers, but I imagine people have their opinions.


What you need to compare is violent crime for the UK which is about 5 times that of the United States Wrong.

England & Wales Violent Crime Rate - 2003 - 665 per 100,000 here (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/rdsolr1804.pdf)
United States Violent Crime Rate - 2003 - 475 per 100,000 here (http://www.morganquitno.com/cit03a.pdf)

Can you? I haven't seen any from you.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=424349&postcount=49

[ASWnut101]

So, did you just make those numbers up in your head? A CREDITABLE SOURCE, as in: Where did you find those numbers?:roll:

[Tchocky]

Murder Rates - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_murder_rate#2000s
UK rate was actually England & Wales. My bad. Still, exclusion of Scotland and NI is less than 7 million out of 60 million.

Murder Method - http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict_c.htm#weapon
This is a trend page, my previous source was from the same site, but a hard datasheet that I can't find. And according to this, 68% was conservative, it should be 71%

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hosb1105.pdf - 73 homicides, 8.5%. I rounded to 9%


Has anyone any ideas as to why this might be? Personally, I think the huge amount of guns have something to do with it.

[Sailor Steve]

While it is a fact that the US does have a higher gun-crime rate overall than her European counterparts, it's also true that the parts of the US with the strongest gun-control laws have the highest gun-crime rates. Here in Utah we have very loose gun laws, and one of the lowest crime rates in the country. Go figure.

I appreciate that a decrease gun crime and gun control legislation don't always go together, but there is no legislation severe enough that takes the guns off the streets. Comparing a 'tough' state to a country in which it's near-impossible to get a gun doesn't stand up.
True, but I believe it misses two points, and that they are:

1. The aforementioned differences in basic philosophies (at least as I perceive them); being that we here in America hold that the concept of individual liberty is the basic reason for our country's very existence.

2. The also aforementioned fact that America already has a huge privately-owned firearms base, and trying to ban all guns tomorrow would possibly lead to a new revolution. What works for Europe wouldn't necessarily work here, basically because of the mindset I mentioned in (1).

[MadMike]

What are the total deaths from firearms in all of Europe? Now, let's compare the murder rate per 100,000 with the U.S...

Yours, Mike

[ASWnut101]

Here is what I found from the second site Tchocky posted:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.gif (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/viortrdtab.htm)

(Hint: Notice the dip)

and this:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/prop.gif (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/proptrdtab.htm)

(Hint: Notice the dip)

And then there's this:
Gun Sales Rise as Crime and Accident Rates Fall, National Shooting Sports Foundation Analysis Shows

Read the full article. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2006_June_5/ai_n16441024

[loynokid]

Here is what I found from the second site Tchocky posted:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.gif (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/viortrdtab.htm)

(Hint: Notice the dip)

and this:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/prop.gif (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/proptrdtab.htm)

(Hint: Notice the dip)

And then there's this:
Gun Sales Rise as Crime and Accident Rates Fall, National Shooting Sports Foundation Analysis Shows

Read the full article. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2006_June_5/ai_n16441024


Right on, that is it! :up:

[TarJak]

So please enlighten this ignorant Canadian by explaining - if I understand correctly - why everyone being equipped with assault rifles in a Katrina-scale disaster area would be a good thing.

Simple - because your armed roving gangs that happened in Katrina would not be allowed to happen.

What most people don't get who are from outside the United States is that less than 1000th of 1% (<.001%) of firearm owners are the whacked people that screw it up for the rest of us. Based on this absurdly small statistic, do you think it to be normal that you should affect the rest of the known population over it? Does that make any logical sense?
Well the rhetoric is flying thick and fast here! Given the liberal gun laws in force in the US, then HOW did the armed roving gangs happen? Are you saying that BECAUSE everyone is not armed this happened? How ridiculous! Let's make sure in preparation for the next natural disaster that threatens America, that every man woman and child is armed to the teeth with the assult rifle of their choice and lets see what happens! My god it would be worse that Mogadishu!

We all get that it is the few that cause the problem, however the majority in our countries want to make it harder for the few to get hold of the weapons that can kill many! Yes it is normal to have laws to protect the many from the few. In fact almost all laws that restrict our "freedoms" are in place or altered for exactly that reason. To think otherwise is simple ignorance of the law making process.

Would you advocate the removal of laws relating to drink driving? It restricts your freedom, but the point is that these laws save lives. This is a perfect example of where a "small" statistic has affected the rest of the population.

I don't see any difference in gun control laws. It may be great fun to go out and have a drink then drive home afterwards steaming drunk, but it's just plain dangerous. Likewise it is great fun to go around with a gun shooting stuff. (I've done it, I know), but again it's dangerous!

[Tchocky]

True, but I believe it misses two points, and that they are:

1. The aforementioned differences in basic philosophies (at least as I perceive them); being that we here in America hold that the concept of individual liberty is the basic reason for our country's very existence.

2. The also aforementioned fact that America already has a huge privately-owned firearms base, and trying to ban all guns tomorrow would possibly lead to a new revolution. What works for Europe wouldn't necessarily work here, basically because of the mindset I mentioned in (1).
Thanks Steve, for accepting that I might have a point, and actually answering my questions.

From what you post, it looks like its not the guns themselves that are the issue, rather the right to have them, the individual liberty of bearing arms being infringed upon by the government. I don't buy it (ie, I believe you, but i don't like believing you :p). Which are the advocates of gun ownership attached to more, the guns or their right to have them?
If guns can be shown to have a net negative effect on society, should the concept of individual liberty prevail over the well-being of the society as a whole? I believe that the liberty of gun ownership in the US unfairly violates the "individual liberties" of many of it's citizens, such as the right to life.
I still don't know why that is, I'm getting pretty sick of asking the question and being quizzed on statistics instead (including SUBMAN1 questioning my figures, then 3 lines below posting wildly inaccurate figures). The numbers I've shown are correct, can anyone help me interpret them?

ASWnut - Those graphs show a general decline in violent & property crimes since the early 70's. (See, I noticed. A bit condescending, but hey I'll give it a try)
Notice the slowdown of the decrease from 2000 on, on both graphs. Would I be correct in saying that the Bush Administrations have been looser with gun control than the Clinton years? I'm open to correction here, but I think that's the case. So crime gets worse as gun control lessens. Of course, that's a huge leap to make from such general, non-specific data, but if you're happy doing that, I'm in. Any response to my previous post

As regards the article, it details one year out of what we've seen is a 30-year decline in crime. As I've already posted, both the murder and gun murder rates are significantly higher in the US than in another comparable country with vastly reduced gun ownership. Why do you think this is?

[TarJak]

Maybe I've missed the point a little here as well. I also think that those arguing for their freedoms are also missing the point a bit too. Where I live it is possible to legally (and illegally), obtain firearms. I think one of the biggest differences is the type of firearm that is available in both markets.

The question I would like answered by the Americans who are against gun controls is, whether the right to bear arms which was initiated by a group of rebels against the government of the time, who could not have possbily envisaged the types of weapons available to us today over 200 years later, is meant to give free reign to the people to choose whatever weapon they wish?

If for example in years to come there are hand versions of weapons with 400,000 rpm rates of fire or greater, are these to be available to anyone witha penchant for shooting things? Where does it stop? 20mm Gatlings or chain guns, Greande launchers, tanks, submarines, A10 attack aircraft. All come under the heading "arms", should governments cede that the "right" proclaimed 200 years ago will be applied to these weapons?

Wwhat is the benchmark at which limits are to be set, lethality?, rate of fire?, portability?

If the roving gangs post Katrina were armed with bazookas and M60's does that give you the "right" to escalate your legal arsenal to match it? If not why not? Your government has access to these weapons, so why not ordinary citizens just in case the buggers come looking to take your guns away?

"Ma break out the Minuteman missle launch codes, the FBI wants to take it away from us before we get to fire it at anyone!"

The history of warfare (and frankly that is what you are talking about when you arm yourself against marauding mobs or your own government), exactly matches human behaviour, hit me with your fist I'll use a stick, use a stick and I'll use a rock, use a rock and I'll get a sword and so on. Where does it stop?

[August]

Wwhat is the benchmark at which limits are to be set, lethality?, rate of fire?, portability?
You want limits? Here they are:

Explosive projectile weapon rounds like RPGs are not firearms, nor are private individuals allowed to own them here in the states. That goes for HE tank rounds, grenades and other similar weapons. You can own a tank, and the gun can be operational, you can even have solid shot or paint rounds for it but explosive rounds are totally illegal.

Automatic weapons (the real "assault weapons") as well as 20mm gatlings and quad 50 cals can be owned by private individuals provided they pay a hefty tax (a couple hundred dollars) and submit to a rather extensive FBI backround check.

Other firearms, including semi-automatics, pistols and certain shotguns are restricted to varying degrees by each state.

The question I would like answered by the Americans who are against gun controls is, whether the right to bear arms which was initiated by a group of rebels against the government of the time, who could not have possbily envisaged the types of weapons available to us today over 200 years later, is meant to give free reign to the people to choose whatever weapon they wish?
Your reducto ad absurdum argument is based on a false premise. Nobody has ever advocated giving everyone any weapon they wish. However I do think our founding fathers, if they were alive today would have been just as much in favor of private ownership of firearms as they were 200 years ago. Like Steve says, it's about the concept of individual freedom and that shouldn't change just because technology improves.

Now let me ask you a question in return. Our forefathers could hardly have envisioned a worldwide instant mass media capable of having such an immediate and detrimental effect on our nation either. Should therefore that same argument be used to restrict the freedom of speech? If not, why not?

Oh and BTW the right to keep and bear arms was not codified into our constitution until well after the end of the American revolution. These were educated men, leaders of their nation, who wrote the 2nd amendment. it wasn't, as you imply, just a group of rebels trying to stick it to the man as it were.

[TarJak]

Speech rarely kills anyone.

Given that you have accepted that there are and should be limits, then why not limit access further than it is so that rapid fire assault weapons are not readily available? Why not limit to bb guns for that matter.

In Australia you can legally own guns limited by rate of fire and calibre. I still don't see why this is such a threat to your "freedoms":hmm:

[August]

Speech rarely kills anyone.

Given that you have accepted that there are and should be limits, then why not limit access further than it is so that rapid fire assault weapons are not readily available? Why not limit to bb guns for that matter.

Well heck by that reasoning why not ban the posession of knives and clubs as well? No firearm in this country is readily available unless you buy it from the black market.
Perhaps speech will rarely kill anyone but the same could be said for so called "assault weapons". The last figure i heard on their use in crimes was less than one 10th of one percent. In contrast bin Ladens speeches inspired his followers to kill 3000 innocent people in one single day. Hitlers speeches killed millions more than that. The power of the spoken word isn't as harmless as you make it out to be.

In Australia you can legally own guns limited by rate of fire and calibre. I still don't see why this is such a threat to your "freedoms":hmm:

Thats because you are not an American. There are things Australia does that I don't understand either but i'm not about to try to argue against your right to do those things.

[Tchocky]

Thats because you are not an American. There are things Australia does that I don't understand either but i'm not about to try to argue against your right to do those things. Out of curiosity, why?

[TarJak]

I'm with Tchocky why?

Also note I'm not looking to curtail your right to bear arms as this has already been pointed out as inalienable. I just can't understand the link between the right to bear arms and the desire for that to extend to military class weapons such as AK47's. You guys already have limits, so why do they have to be so lax when tightening the restrictions has been shown to reduce the number of people killed in countries where there are tighter regulations. Isn't this the point we are arguing?

I don't care if you want to comment on our politics or not I'm just curious to understand the mindset that says you are comfortable with the number of people getting killed when there are simple steps that your gonvernment could take to preven that number from being reduced.

[U-533]

I'm with Tchocky why?

Also note I'm not looking to curtail your right to bear arms as this has already been pointed out as inalienable. I just can't understand the link between the right to bear arms and the desire for that to extend to military class weapons such as AK47's. You guys already have limits, so why do they have to be so lax when tightening the restrictions has been shown to reduce the number of people killed in countries where there are tighter regulations. Isn't this the point we are arguing?

I don't care if you want to comment on our politics or not I'm just curious to understand the mindset that says you are comfortable with the number of people getting killed when there are simple steps that your gonvernment could take to preven that number from being reduced.



There is a comfort in knowing that, when your being attacked or getting ready to attack, one can put a pound or two of lead on a target with just a squeeze of the trigger.
In close quarter combat I want to be able to sling lead like a hailstorm at the target.ooOOH YEAH BABY!!!
AK47 is good for that but the P90 is much much much better

Now when I'm being sneaky ... :shifty: ... I like to lay in the woods and pick my target off from a 1000 yrds. or more.
I have a


Barrett XM500 long range sniper / anti-material riflehttp://world.guns.ru/sniper/barrett_xm500.jpg

with this I can take out people and cars and trucks 1000 to 1500 yrds away.... But saddly in close quarters its only good for making holes in walls and lots an lots of dust...yeah discharge one of these bad boys in an enclosed room ears ring for quite some time

There is a 25mm version of this weapon its lovingly named "Shoulder Artillery", it's range is about 2.5 miles. I'm having a hard time waiting to get one.......:rock: :rock: :rock: :rock: :rock: :rock: :rock:
My brother has one already! IT ROCKS!!!!!!



Edited:
I'm off to the range after all this talk of weapons ...........somethings gonna get holes in it.

[TarJak]

Great. Just so long as it's not someone!

[August]

Out of curiosity, why?

Because it's his country not mine.

[August]

Great. Just so long as it's not someone!

Unless, of course they deserve it... :up:

[Subnuts]

Would this thread have gone on this long had it been about the first amendment? Or perhaps we could combine the first and second amendments, and give everyone the right to shoot anyone who disagrees with you. :dead:

[August]

Would this thread have gone on this long had it been about the first amendment?

Sure why not? IIRC there have been multipage threads on all kinds of 1st amendment topics. How about the false reporting done by Reuters in the recent Hezbollah/Israeli war for example?

[geetrue]

There is a comfort in knowing that, when your being attacked or getting ready to attack, one can put a pound or two of lead on a target with just a squeeze of the trigger.
In close quarter combat I want to be able to sling lead like a hailstorm at the target.ooOOH YEAH BABY!!!
AK47 is good for that but the P90 is much much much better

Now when I'm being sneaky ... :shifty: ... I like to lay in the woods and pick my target off from a 1000 yrds. or more.
I have a Barrett XM500 long range sniper / anti-material rifle

with this I can take out people and cars and trucks 1000 to 1500 yrds away.... But saddly in close quarters its only good for making holes in walls and lots an lots of dust...yeah discharge one of these bad boys in an enclosed room ears ring for quite some time

There is a 25mm version of this weapon its lovingly named "Shoulder Artillery", it's range is about 2.5 miles. I'm having a hard time waiting to get one.......:rock: :rock: :rock: :rock: :rock: :rock: :rock:
My brother has one already! IT ROCKS!!!!!!

So it's not the gun or guns, it's the finger ... Who's finger is it anyway mine or U-533's or some errant person with a yen to do you in.

On my property you are subject to the rules and regulations of my state ... when I am on your property I am subject to the same rules and regulations.

It's a crime to murder someone ... it's not a crime to protect yourself and your family and your property ... lets keep it that way.

How many have been saved because they had a gun is not a statistic is it?

[waste gate]

I've made up my mind. Firearms are no more than tools. Like a hammer, which cannot build a house without some one swinging it, a gun cannot murder without someone with evil in their heart pulling the trigger.

One of the first terrors laid upon anyone by their government is the restriction and banning of firearms, because, not only does such an action render the individual defenseless in the face of those who would do them harm ('law enforcement is under no obligation to protect individual citizens' SCOTUS) but removes the check which citizens have on that government. All tyrannts (including democrats) will, at the first opportunity disarm its citizenry because the tyrannt recognises the fallout of their actions and thatb their opposition will come from the citizenry.

Currently there are more than 20,000 fire arm laws in the US. None of those laws have stopped anyone with evil in their heart from using them to cause fear, damage and murder.

I will keep my firearms thank you very much.

[Takeda Shingen]

Would this thread have gone on this long had it been about the first amendment? Or perhaps we could combine the first and second amendments, and give everyone the right to shoot anyone who disagrees with you. :dead:

Then we'd only be left with proponents of the right on this forum, seeing as they are, generally, the ones who have the weapons. I suppose that with only one side, my job would be pretty easy.

[August]

I'm with Tchocky why?

Also note I'm not looking to curtail your right to bear arms as this has already been pointed out as inalienable. I just can't understand the link between the right to bear arms and the desire for that to extend to military class weapons such as AK47's. You guys already have limits, so why do they have to be so lax when tightening the restrictions has been shown to reduce the number of people killed in countries where there are tighter regulations. Isn't this the point we are arguing?
But the weapons in question are not "military class". If they were they'd be full automatic or in the case of the new M16 a three round burst. They would not be subject to barrel length and accessory restrictions. They are semi-automatics and completely indistinguishable mechanically from numerous hunting and target firearms that are not the subject of all this "OMGWTF they're Evil! they must be banzored to save the poor chillens!!1!!!" hysteria.

I'm sorry but i'm not letting certain elements in this country give away such an essential right just on the basis of looks. Certainly not when the proposed laws are written by skeevy lawyers in such a way that once passed it allows non-elected bureaucrats to call any firearm an "assault rifle" and instantly make it illegal.

Like Waste Gate mentions, there are over 20,000 gun control laws on the books in the US. They do not work and will never work because they do not address the true causes of violent crime. You are wrong about that point. There are many reasons violent crime rates go up or down in various countries but disarming the law abiding population is not one of them.

All the gun control laws enacted thus far amount to is a consistant and underhanded chipping away of our constitutional right, using hysteria, ignorance and fear as the means, and the reason they do it that way is because they'd never get away with modifying or outright repealing the amendment, at least not yet.

It's a tactic they use against various other rights as well I might add. For a laugh read the details of the Patriot Act or Campaign Finance Reform or the recent redefinitions of Emminent Domain to name a few. All were sold to the public as the best of intentions, but when you peel away the shiny wrapping you realize that the way it's written your right to a fair and timely trial, or to speak out for or against certain ideas and groups, or to not have your home condemned so some politician can give it to his developer buddies so they can put up another Walmart or a playground for the rich that you won't be welcome in, has been seriously compromised.

No sir, you can do what you want in your own country, but please stop allowing yourselves to be used by those who would destroy mine from within.

[loynokid]

I've made up my mind. Firearms are no more than tools. Like a hammer, which cannot build a house without some one swinging it, a gun cannot murder without someone with evil in their heart pulling the trigger.

One of the first terrors laid upon anyone by their government is the restriction and banning of firearms, because, not only does such an action render the individual defenseless in the face of those who would do them harm ('law enforcement is under no obligation to protect individual citizens' SCOTUS) but removes the check which citizens have on that government. All tyrannts (including democrats) will, at the first opportunity disarm its citizenry because the tyrannt recognises the fallout of their actions and thatb their opposition will come from the citizenry.

Currently there are more than 20,000 fire arm laws in the US. None of those laws have stopped anyone with evil in their heart from using them to cause fear, damage and murder.

I will keep my firearms thank you very much.


Exactly, guns don't murder, people do.

[U-533]

I've made up my mind. Firearms are no more than tools. Like a hammer, which cannot build a house without some one swinging it, a gun cannot murder without someone with evil in their heart pulling the trigger.

One of the first terrors laid upon anyone by their government is the restriction and banning of firearms, because, not only does such an action render the individual defenseless in the face of those who would do them harm ('law enforcement is under no obligation to protect individual citizens' SCOTUS) but removes the check which citizens have on that government. All tyrannts (including democrats) will, at the first opportunity disarm its citizenry because the tyrannt recognises the fallout of their actions and thatb their opposition will come from the citizenry.

Currently there are more than 20,000 fire arm laws in the US. None of those laws have stopped anyone with evil in their heart from using them to cause fear, damage and murder.

I will keep my firearms thank you very much.


Exactly, guns don't murder, people do.

Words right out of my mouth ...
Just y'all say it more eloquently...

I own various weapons of differing size and shape and never in 35 years have I ever seen one of them get up and leave out all by it's onezees to kill some one.

So get it through to your heads it aint the weapon its the person.:sunny:

[loynokid]

I've made up my mind. Firearms are no more than tools. Like a hammer, which cannot build a house without some one swinging it, a gun cannot murder without someone with evil in their heart pulling the trigger.

One of the first terrors laid upon anyone by their government is the restriction and banning of firearms, because, not only does such an action render the individual defenseless in the face of those who would do them harm ('law enforcement is under no obligation to protect individual citizens' SCOTUS) but removes the check which citizens have on that government. All tyrannts (including democrats) will, at the first opportunity disarm its citizenry because the tyrannt recognises the fallout of their actions and thatb their opposition will come from the citizenry.

Currently there are more than 20,000 fire arm laws in the US. None of those laws have stopped anyone with evil in their heart from using them to cause fear, damage and murder.

I will keep my firearms thank you very much.

Exactly, guns don't murder, people do.
Words right out of my mouth ...
Just y'all say it more eloquently...

I own various weapons of differing size and shape and never in 35 years have I ever seen one of them get up and leave out all by it's onezees to kill some one.

So get it through to your heads it aint the weapon its the person.:sunny:

Yep, gotta agree with you there :)

[ASWnut101]

So you agree with what you said, Loynokid?:)

[loynokid]

So you agree with what you said, Loynokid?:)


Yep, i do have to agree with myself... :lol:;)

[Sailor Steve]

Thanks Steve, for accepting that I might have a point, and actually answering my questions.
I'm a firm believer in the words of the French philosopher Joseph Joubert: "The purpose of argument or debate should be progress, not victory".

From what you post, it looks like its not the guns themselves that are the issue, rather the right to have them, the individual liberty of bearing arms being infringed upon by the government.
To some people, that's true. To people who are anti-gun-ownership the issue is the number of deaths brought about by guns, and I'm sure that there are a lot of gun owners who see no further than the guns themselves.

I don't buy it (ie, I believe you, but i don't like believing you :p). Which are the advocates of gun ownership attached to more, the guns or their right to have them?
I currently only own one gun, a much joked-about 1903-model Springfield rifle, and its bolt has been missing for so long it may possibly never function as a weapon again. This makes it easy for me to discuss it from a detached point of view and claim to speak to the principle of rights versus actually shouting about MY rights, even though I use self-defence as an argument. Of course there are many who don't care about rights one way or another, and merely want to argue the case for them keeping their guns; just as many on the other side argue not whether the right is important, but rather that they know someone who was killed with a gun. Both of these argue from emotion rather than reason, and both are (in my opinion) not to be trusted.

If guns can be shown to have a net negative effect on society, should the concept of individual liberty prevail over the well-being of the society as a whole? I believe that the liberty of gun ownership in the US unfairly violates the "individual liberties" of many of it's citizens, such as the right to life.
An excellent question. Part of it goes back to the American founders' distrust of a standing army. They believed that a government would always be tempted to use the army against its own people, and so the "Militia" concept was very dear to their hearts. The were sure that the only protection was to have every able-bodied male armed and trained to to battle, presumably against domestic abuse as well as foreign invasion. I don't claim to have all the answers, but I do know that once I'm back on my feet and have my own place I plan to get a new pistol. I just don't know what kind yet.

I still don't know why that is, I'm getting pretty sick of asking the question and being quizzed on statistics instead (including SUBMAN1 questioning my figures, then 3 lines below posting wildly inaccurate figures). The numbers I've shown are correct, can anyone help me interpret them?
I can't help much there, as I'm a firm believer in Mark Twain's adage "There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics". Further, I'll push my case by quoting another trite-but-true statistic: Last year, more than two million guns in America didn't shoot anybody.

One of the things about statistics that I don't trust is this: Since they don't seem to distinguish between good and bad shootings (there's such a thing as a good shooting?) they don't tell the whole story. Burglars shot by homeowners and even (I believe) police shootings are all lumped together under the heading "Handgun Murders". They also don't speak to burglars and other criminals who were chased away but not shot; and event that to my understanding happens several thousand times every year. I'm aware of at least three here in Salt Lake City recently; aware because they all happened to people I know personally.

[ASWnut101]

ASWnut - Those graphs show a general decline in violent & property crimes since the early 70's. (See, I noticed. A bit condescending, but hey I'll give it a try)
Notice the slowdown of the decrease from 2000 on, on both graphs. Would I be correct in saying that the Bush Administrations have been looser with gun control than the Clinton years? I'm open to correction here, but I think that's the case. So crime gets worse as gun control lessens. Of course, that's a huge leap to make from such general, non-specific data, but if you're happy doing that, I'm in. Any response to my previous post


Yes, it SLOWED. IT DID NOT RISE. They are clearly still going down.

As I've already posted, both the murder and gun murder rates are significantly higher in the US than in another comparable country with vastly reduced gun ownership.


And that makes it wrong? Useless? Oh, and did you even click on the link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3195908.stm) that SUBMAN1 Posted (You didn't even reply to it)? Or Dean's link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States)?


And what is a comparable country to you? England? And as the graphs showed, the crime rate is still dropping.

[waste gate]

Quote:

As I've already posted, both the murder and gun murder rates are significantly higher in the US than in another comparable country with vastly reduced gun ownership.

Why does the US have to be like everyone else. Firstly we are not. The demographics tell the tale. More people from other countries want to come to the US than any other nation. Secondly with any freedom comes risk. When you come to this country you are afforded a great sense of freedom and responsibility. Unlike other countries, although it is headed in that direction, you are free to make the most of your life with limited government intervention. No one promises you any particular fairness. Work your ass off and make the best of your situation and you will prosper in the US.

Can we say the same for the nations you would so easily point to as beacons, with their regulation and tax burden ?

[Tchocky]

ASWnut - Those graphs show a general decline in violent & property crimes since the early 70's. (See, I noticed. A bit condescending, but hey I'll give it a try)
Notice the slowdown of the decrease from 2000 on, on both graphs. Would I be correct in saying that the Bush Administrations have been looser with gun control than the Clinton years? I'm open to correction here, but I think that's the case. So crime gets worse as gun control lessens. Of course, that's a huge leap to make from such general, non-specific data, but if you're happy doing that, I'm in. Any response to my previous post

Yes, it SLOWED. IT DID NOT RISE. They are clearly still going down.
Um, not violent crime, it has levelled off. And if the decrease rate had been lets say 5% per year, and now is 2%, things are getting worse, year on year. But, like I said "that's a huge leap to make from such general, non-specific data". I wasnt entirely serious with that post, thought I made that clear.

As I've already posted, both the murder and gun murder rates are significantly higher in the US than in another comparable country with vastly reduced gun ownership.

And that makes it wrong? Useless? Oh, and did you even click on the link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3195908.stm) that SUBMAN1 Posted (You didn't even reply to it)? Or Dean's link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States)?
Yes, I looked at it, and responded to it. It didn't have much to do with what I'd posted before, and the link was four years old. That doesnt make it wrong or useless, I just don't see what he was getting at. Violent crime in the UK is rising, thats fairly obvious. Yet, there are more people murdered in the US, and more people murdered with guns. I want to hear why people think this is. Personally I think it's down to guns, what do you think?

Oh hang on, I've already asked that question, and you cut it out of my quote.

As I've already posted, both the murder and gun murder rates are significantly higher in the US than in another comparable country with vastly reduced gun ownership. Why do you think this is?

And what is a comparable country to you? England? And as the graphs showed, the crime rate is still dropping.
I think the England and the US are roughly comparable, enough for this argument at least.

waste_gate, see the question i put right at the end of that quote, and am sick of asking. Why?
I know the US is different, so is every country. But I'm asking about the US, and why more Americans die from gun violence than many roughly similiar countries.

[ASWnut101]

Population size, maby?

And let's see how long until this gets answered: Why are the UK Firearms crimes on the rise?

[Tchocky]

Population size, maby?

Nope, murder rate is deaths per 100,000 of the population, as I've already posted. A few times

[ASWnut101]

I meant: The total population of the UK compared to the US.

[waste gate]

I think the England and the US are roughly comparable, enough for this argument at least.


Britain is not close to the US when it comes to firearm ownership. Britain has no bill of rights which requires the government to protect their citizens right (given by their creator) to bear arms. Cosequently in Britain if you defend yourself in your own home and the invader is injured or dies the home owner is brought to charges.

Their government has made everyone a victim or defendant by the laws.



I know the US is different, so is every country. But I'm asking about the US, and why more Americans die from gun violence than many roughly similiar countries.

I'd profer a response to this if you can point me toward a country which is 'roughly' similar in heritage, law, population, wealth, liberties, ethnic background, medical access, etc.

[Tchocky]

I think the England and the US are roughly comparable, enough for this argument at least.

Britain is not close to the US when it comes to firearm ownership. Britain has no bill of rights which requires the government to protect their citizens right (given by their creator) to bear arms. Cosequently in Britain if you defend yourself in your own home and the invader is injured or dies the home owner is brought to charges.
Gah, I thought the idea behind my question would be clear after three pages
both the murder and gun murder rates are significantly higher in the US than in another comparable country with vastly reduced gun ownership. Why do you think this is?That quote is from the same post you lifted the next one from. The difference in gun ownership is precisely why I'm mentioning the UK

I know the US is different, so is every country. But I'm asking about the US, and why more Americans die from gun violence than many roughly similiar countries
I'd profer a response to this if you can point me toward a country which is 'roughly' similar in heritage, law, population, wealth, liberties, ethnic background, medical access, etc.
As a well-developed First World economy with high levels of personal freedom, I choose the UK.

[Tchocky]

An excellent question. Part of it goes back to the American founders' distrust of a standing army. They believed that a government would always be tempted to use the army against its own people, and so the "Militia" concept was very dear to their hearts. The were sure that the only protection was to have every able-bodied male armed and trained to to battle, presumably against domestic abuse as well as foreign invasion. I've noticed a lot of gun lobbyists defending their right to protect the country from excesses of government. It sounds dated, most of the excesses of government can't be shot at. Personally, I think that if a militia is the goal, then have a militia. Well-armed & well-trained rather than just well-armed. Having one without the other is risky and dangerous (arms without training, that is).

One of the things about statistics that I don't trust is this: Since they don't seem to distinguish between good and bad shootings (there's such a thing as a good shooting?) they don't tell the whole story. Burglars shot by homeowners and even (I believe) police shootings are all lumped together under the heading "Handgun Murders". They also don't speak to burglars and other criminals who were chased away but not shot; and event that to my understanding happens several thousand times every year. I'm aware of at least three here in Salt Lake City recently; aware because they all happened to people I know personally.
I posted Murders and Gun Murders, rather than manslaughter and police deaths. I believe shooting a burglar qualifies as manslaughter, open to correction though.
As regards the deterrence/intimidation factor, it's an excellent case for widespread gun ownership, but don't believe it's worth the cost.

I meant: The total population of the UK compared to the US.
So the proportion of murderers increases with population? A country with population 50 million, and .02% of the population are murderers, yet should the population rise to 300 milion, that proportion would rise to .08%? I don't see how that could happen..I'm not a sociologist, but there seems to be the same wacko-to-normal ratio in most places

[August]

Again, violent crime rates are not going to be affected by restricting just one of means.

Even assuming that you could make a gun law that restricts the criminal element as much as it does the potential victims, which you can't, all that means is those with evil on their minds will just use another tool to do what they risk the death penalty to do.

As I said to Tarjak on the preceeding page, if you want to reduce violent crime then you need to address the CAUSES of violent crime. Just taking the guns away almost exclusively from the potential victims of violent crime is just not going to do it.

[waste gate]

I know the US is different, so is every country. But I'm asking about the US, and why more Americans die from gun violence than many roughly similiar countries

I'd profer a response to this if you can point me toward a country which is 'roughly' similar in heritage, law, population, wealth, liberties, ethnic background, medical access, etc.

As a well-developed First World economy with high levels of personal freedom, I choose the UK.

That may be your personal preference but it didn't asnwer the question.

Ban jaguars
http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=65375

[ASWnut101]

So the proportion of murderers increases with population? A country with population 50 million, and .02% of the population are murderers, yet should the population rise to 300 milion, that proportion would rise to .08%? I don't see how that could happen..I'm not a sociologist, but there seems to be the same wacko-to-normal ratio in most places


Jesus, this was such an easy question...:roll:

[geetrue]

So you agree with what you said, Loynokid?:)


Yep, i do have to agree with myself... :lol:;)

Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't ... Wanta go have Chinese? :lol:

[Tchocky]

Again, violent crime rates are not going to be affected by restricting just one of means. Semi-agreed. They won't vanish, but I believe taking away a powerful means (completely, not just more control legislation) will show some benefit .
Even assuming that you could make a gun law that restricts the criminal element as much as it does the potential victims, which you can't, all that means is those with evil on their minds will just use another tool to do what they risk the death penalty to do. Of course no law will restrict criminals by definition. I think it follows that if no-one can get guns, it will be harder for criminals to acquire them. Making guns prohibitively expensive (including effort and risk, not just money) for criminals would have a great effect on the numbers of guns on the country.
I know it's just one method, and that criminals set on violence will find another way, but can you think of a more powerful or destructive means that isn't already illegalised?

As I said to Tarjak on the preceeding page, if you want to reduce violent crime then you need to address the CAUSES of violent crime. Just taking the guns away almost exclusively from the potential victims of violent crime is just not going to do it. I agree, it's not a solution. Removing guns from society won't stop crime, but it will stop school shootings, drive-by shootings etc. not totally of course, but if harsh enforcement and vigorous pursuit of arms traffickers was brought into play, the spread of illegal guns could be fought hard.
The root causes of the social problem of violent crime must be investigated. I think the symptom of gun violence is serious enough to warrant treatment as well.

[August]

Of course no law will restrict criminals by definition. I think it follows that if no-one can get guns, it will be harder for criminals to acquire them. Making guns prohibitively expensive (including effort and risk, not just money) for criminals
would have a great effect on the numbers of guns on the country.
Perhaps slightly more difficult, but you're talking about a country with 5 thousand miles of land borders and millions of unregistered and untraceable guns already in the country, a significant percentage of them already in criminal hands, so you're talking years if not decades for this plan to have an effect.

Meanwhile law abiding people who have a real need to keep a firearm for defensive purposes will be either unable to afford one or unable to cut through the red tape and those 2 million instances where a gun in the hands of a victim prevented a crime from happening turn out differently making the violent crime rate skyrocket.

I know it's just one method, and that criminals set on violence will find another way, but can you think of a more powerful or destructive means that isn't already illegalised?

I can think of no more effective means by which a victim can stop an attacker than a gun. Anything less makes it a test of physical strength, one that the weaker among us will almost always loose.

I agree, it's not a solution. Removing guns from society won't stop crime, but it will stop school shootings, drive-by shootings etc. not totally of course, but if harsh enforcement and vigorous pursuit of arms traffickers was brought into play, the spread of illegal guns could be fought hard.
I disagree, especially with drive-by shootings. Gang bangers already have plenty of guns and they won't be giving them up just because it means they're addding one more crime to the many they're already committing. IMO, the bolded part of your paragraph is the only thing that could work, but I think it would require a level of "harshness and vigorous pursuit" so great as to literally turn this country into a war zone, not to mention forever alienating a large percentage of it.

The root causes of the social problem of violent crime must be investigated. I think the symptom of gun violence is serious enough to warrant treatment as well.
If the 20,000 gun control laws already on the books have not been effective in dealing with the symptom of gun violence what benefit would adding gun control law number 20,001 have? Really Dude, I understand that you believe in what you are advocating however piling more restrictions on our freedoms is not the way to do it.