there are laws to get rid of the guns in Canada because to many persons have them. the laws are not fair to persons who hunt in the north but the MP think this cause crime. do you think if there are more guns then more persons get kill?

if someone is going to kill someone they will do it, gun or no gun.

I live in Washington State, in the Middle of nowhere, the rule out here is you need one of the three 1. A man. 2. a Dog. 3. A gun. Well I am a single mother living in the wild with none of the above, on the other hand I am quite proficient with Knives. LOL. Yes. I would feel safer with a Gun. However I would feel even more safer with A Pit Bull. I believe that just becuase I have a gun my chances of killing someone are about the same as if I didn't have one.

Call it a new prohibition. The original prohibition, the one to rid the U.S. of alchohol, was started by a group of people who thought that alchohol was an evil influence. If you got rid of alchohol, you would get rid of sin, violence against women and what-not. You all know how that story ended.

Gun control is much the same thing. There's a group of people who think that if you get rid of guns, lives will be saved. Yep, if you can't shoot somebody all the criminals will sit and around and say "damn, that the end of our careers." It doesn't work that way.

I'm of the opinion that it's society and morality that causes crime, not the availability of guns. I also resent the fact that some think Joe Citizen is just too uncontrolled, too STUPID to shoulder the weight of responsibility of gun ownership. Unfortunately those who do wish for the banning of guns do have political power and will do whatever they can to take guns away. I'm grateful to the NRA and the American public who don't put up with this kind of nonsense.

I keep a nice bullet launcher, and have a pretty good collection of very sharp kitchen knives.
I would have no trouble dropping someone in their tracks if I felt my home, my wife, or my person felt threatened. Bullets are cheap.

Heres a shock for all you rebublicans that have been calling me a @$%%^ f*#king liberal.....I own guns - quite a few. I hunted when I was young but now only target practice. I also keep a loaded Browning 357 in the bedstand and I know how to use it.

I do not think guns should be outlawed. Not because of the so called constitution (which I think is interpreted wrong) but because the government has no business telling me what I can and can't own.

Let them try and take my guns away.

The government can take my gun......when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers.

Dang, dang, dang.

First the Red Sox win the World Series, now a die-hard liberal actually has guns. Geez all we need now is for black people to take up square dancing and all the signs of the Apocalypse will be in place. We live in Scary Times.

On a more serious note, Echo. The Constitution means what it says. The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to RESTRICT what laws the Federal Government made. The Bill of Rights quite clearly states that the Right to bear arms shall not be infringed. There is no way that can be interprated any other way, dammit.

There actually aren't very many people on here who want to ban guns. And I also don't know many liberals and leftists who want to ban guns, I do know many democrats that do though. Personally, I like swords, bows and shotguns. :D

Ummmm, my father owns guns as well as the vast majority of my “liberal” family. Stop making generalizations…

I don't particularly like guns, but I fully believe that people should have the right to own them. Gun prohibition does not reduce the number of gun-related crimes.

Ok... Let's make the guns illegal then only the criminals will own them... Sheesh....

Never had a gun and I have no plans to ever buy one.

Heres a shock for all you rebublicans that have been calling me a @$%%^ f*#king liberal

Now why would we call you a liberal? You're not a liberal! :rolleyes:

Do You Feel Safe With A Gun?

Only when I am carrying it. Do most people carry their guns around all the time? I don't know. But if the answer is no, I just don't understand why people need to own guns.

Even if you have a gun at home, as long as you don't carry it with you, it won't protect you if someone busts in fast enough.

If people ARE NOT allowed to have guns, crime would increase. Burglars would know that honest people would be less likely to have guns in their homes, and it would provide less risk to burglarize.

Whether or not someone feels safer with a gun, I think the it's the right to choose that's the most important.

I can remember reading a post on a British discussion board, the woman didn't want a gun because, in her words, she "didn't want to get into a shootout over the tv set." All well and good if someone has a moral or philosophical reason for not owning a gun. What I object to is people trying to impose their ideaology on others.

I own guns. I do not intend to, plan or, nor hope to have to fire them in anger. But I do believe in having the right and ability to defend myself and my home if it ever comes to that situation (God Forbid).

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal


I own guns. I do not intend to, plan or, nor hope to have to fire them in anger. But I do believe in having the right and ability to defend myself and my home if it ever comes to that situation (God Forbid).

when person défend himsjelf it seem he are always the one go to jail

Originally posted by TheGreat Gatsby
If people ARE NOT allowed to have guns, crime would increase. Burglars would know that honest people would be less likely to have guns in their homes, and it would provide less risk to burglarize.


Actually I agree with you... take the instance in Ireland for example only the criminals own guns.

It doesn't seem many people advocate gun control here. We definitely don't live on the same planet ! :)

Originally posted by astrapol2
It doesn't seem many people advocate gun control here. We definitely don't live on the same planet ! :)

Actually it depends on what you mean by "gun control".

I have no problem with background checks, waiting periods and other restrictions designed to make it harder for people to buy guns for nefarious purposes. I also think it might be a good idea to have some sort of basic firearms education program for those wishing to own a gun. We do it with cars.

Originally posted by Blibblob
There actually aren't very many people on here who want to ban guns. And I also don't know many liberals and leftists who want to ban guns, I do know many democrats that do though.

I do not know of a single person who wants to ban all guns.

I doubt if there are a dozen of them in the United States.

Maybe there are people in this country who DO want to ban certain types of firearms......but if they were to ever get ALL the bans in place that they have ever tried to have enacted, there would STILL be hundreds of millions of OTHER guns left that the public would have ready access to purchase.

Yet the pro-gun folks like to go around complaining --"They're out to ban our guns!".

Bullshit. Unfounded, unsupported bullshit.

I have asked these pro-gun people many many times to name 10 people in this country --in ANY sort of position of political power, no matter how slight it may be-- who are working to institute a ban on all guns that so many of them claim is in the works

They have yet to answer, or to name those people.

Originally posted by Freethinker

Yet the pro-gun folks like to go around complaining --"They're out to ban our guns!".

Bullshit. Unfounded, unsupported bullshit.

I have asked these pro-gun people many many times to name 10 people in this country --in ANY sort of position of political power, no matter how slight it may be-- who are working to institute a ban on all guns that so many of them claim is in the works

They have yet to answer, or to name those people.


kind of like the zealot secularists who insist we are headed for a theocracy, yet cant name anyone who has ever said it or who advocates it. perhaps its not something that needs to be said, it is the implication and direction things are going, wouldnt you agree?

Originally posted by Travh20
perhaps its not something that needs to be said, it is the implication and direction things are going, wouldnt you agree?

Maybe so.

The implication and direction that things are going suggests that there will be MORE guns available to the Public each year....just as has happened every year for the past few decades. IOW, the opposite of what the critics of gun control are claiming.

And the implication and direction that things are going suggests that the Religious Right in America ---a very strong political force in this country, as opposed to the nonexistant movement in this country that seeks to *ban all guns*--- will continue to grow in power and influence, and will continue to attempt to get more of their various taboos, restrictions and prohibitions codified into law. IOW, a theocracy.

there you go. now you can stop asking these gun owners you know for names of people who advocate banning all guns. you have answered youe own question.

Originally posted by trunkks
when person défend himsjelf it seem he are always the one go to jail Well most people, when given the choice between jail time and six feet under, will gladly take the jail time.

better to be judged by 12 then carried by 6

I wonder how you guys could live in Europe. Here most guns are forbidden. it depends on the countries but I guess it's basically the same everywhere.
In France, only people with a proper license may own hunting rifles, which have a limited numbers of shots. You may also own a gun for sport, but then you must have a club license and keep it unassembled except at the club. That's all - all other guns are banned unless very small calibers, and knives and other weapons are very restricted too.
As a result - much less violent death than in the USA (and that includes accidents and suicides, which are much harder to commit when you don't have a gu at hand).
Yes "when you want to kill (or die) it's possible without a gun". But the reverse statement is true -"When you own a gun, it's more likely it will be used that if you don't".
And - what about these evildoers who can attack the defenseless population ?
First, in France like in the USA, the huge majority of murders is commited by relatives, not by "peofessionnal criminals".
And the number of thives carrying guns is very small. So when caght tey rely on their legs rather than on violence to escape.

we dont want to live in europe or we would have stayed there after we conquered it from the germans

Yeah, astra, your government wants to take your arms away... but I bet they have plenty of guns. Keep the people weak, keep the government strong.

Originally posted by Travh20
better to be judged by 12 then carried by 6


The most intellegent thing you've ever posted! I vote it as quote of the month.

ya, I saw it on a bumper sticker

Overdose,

You are correct, partially, that it is somewhat tough to find politicians who will openly state that they wish to ban ALL guns.

However, there are a few that come close. Among them are (or were) Diane Fienstien, Chuck Shumer, William Clay, Bill Bradley, John Chaffee, Bobby Bush, Major Owens and Teddy Kennedy.

I've also dug up a quote by Charles Krauthammer:

"In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea . . . . Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation."

Then there are the Rosie O'Donnell types how want to ban guns, NOW.

You can see why the NRA starts screaming whenever someone proposes "reasonable" gun control.

Click here (http://gunscholar.com/gunban.htm#politicians) for my sources.

Your point…? I don’t really care what they have to say, I’m not for banning guns and neither are most Democrats or liberals.

Sorry Overdose,

My bad, that post you referred to was directed at Freethinker, who kept asking for someone to name names on who wants to ban guns. Please excuse my above post, it was misdirected.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Then there are the Rosie O'Donnell types how want to ban guns, NOW.

Except for Rosie's bodyguard - he gets to keep his.

Do you feel Safe With A Gun?

Yes!

So much BS on this thread I had to go put on my waders...I feel it's useful to compare England with the US when discussing this topic because, other than gun control, the societies are very similar. Same low moral values, gansta rap, single parents, violent movies and video games, and all that stuff that gets the blame for our atrocious record of gun violence. In fact, English society has a couple of unique features that should make it more violent: football hooliganism and religious terrorists.
UK Government statistics: (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/hosb1004.pdf) homicides in 2004 including gunshots, knives, strangulation, etc: 853.
FBI.gov website: (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_03/pdf/03sec2.pdf) US total from 2003: 16,503, for a rate of 5.7 per 100,000.
England and Wales homicide rate per 100,000 is a shade over 1.5 per 100,000; ONE QUARTER the rate of the US.

This shows to me that:
1) 200 million guns in the US and we are not safe yet, not by a long shot. WE HAVE THE HIGHEST MURDER RATES IN THE FREE WORLD.
2) The notion that people would use knives, baseball bats or sarcasm to kill instead of guns is preposterous.

Columbine in CO, Luby's in Killeen, LIRR slaughter in Long Island simply could not happen with bats and knives.

I got no problem if you need a shotgun under the bed to get your freak on. But our laws for handguns and automatic weapons make it far too easy for junkies, skinheads, gun-runners, gangstas, wife-stalkers and foreigners to get access. We always have to wait until someone gets killed, and then scream for the death penalty. There is plenty of sensible legislation that goes nowhere because of NRA and gun lobby. For example: one gun a month purchase limit, and gun show loophole, automatic weapons ban.

As a footnote, UK has not sentenced anyone to death in decades, incarceration rate is FAR lower (about 75,000 (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/prisoct03.pdf) inmates in 2003), and many get weekends and holidays at home. I'm a big believer in results, and we have a lot to learn from the Brits. Or the Canadians. Or the French. Or the Germans. Or the Dutch. Or the Japanese. Or the Aussies...

this isnt england

I didn't know illegal weapons dealers abided by gun control laws.

Quick note.

When comparing London to New York, New York has always had 3 times the homicide rate of London. Ever since Colonial times.

The point? The presence of guns doesn't make a society more violent. The absent of guns sure as hell doesn't make a society less violent either.

Also, we here in America don't have riots in the stands everytime we go to a sporting event. England has had worse luck with its soccer games. Is it the soccer ball, or the society? Is it guns, or the society? Same question, basically.

this isnt england
Trav has a point here. Most English people have more than half a brain. :D

Originally posted by fluffernutter
1) 200 million guns in the US and we are not safe yet, not by a long shot. WE HAVE THE HIGHEST MURDER RATES IN THE FREE WORLD.


TEN WORST COUNTRIES FOR MURDER, LATE-1990s COUNTRY PER 100,000
(1) Columbia 84.4
(2) El Salvador 50.2
(3) Puerto Rico 41.8
(4) Brazil 32.5
(5) Albania 28.2
(6) Venezuela 25.0
(7) Russian Federation 18.0
(8) Ecuador 15.9
(9) Mexico 15.3
(10) Panama 14.4

http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/murder.html

notice lichtenstein is nowhere to be found on that list. they dont have any guns, seriously, they literally dont have ANY guns

Very good point fluffer. To us europeans the gun situation in the USA is just a nonsense. I mean, these devices are made to kill people. How can they be sold so easily ?

Yeah, all guns are made to kill people astrapol. Give me a break.

Originally posted by astrapol2
I mean, these devices are made to kill people. How can they be sold so easily ?
Yeah, and that's all they're made for...:rolleyes: If you ever broaden your horizons enough to understand that there are more uses for guns than you're willing to admit here, then good for you. When, and if, you do change your mind, then let me know what did with the diaper.

Originally posted by fluffernutter
2) The notion that people would use knives, baseball bats or sarcasm to kill instead of guns is preposterous.

Columbine in CO, Luby's in Killeen, LIRR slaughter in Long Island simply could not happen with bats and knives.

It's not preposterous at all. The vast majority of murders in this country are not shooting-spree type killings. They're single murders that can be accomplished with other weapons, albeit with more difficulty.

It's not preposterous at all. The vast majority of murders in this country are not shooting-spree type killings. They're single murders that can be accomplished with other weapons, albeit with more difficulty.
True, guns make murder quite a bit easier. Which is why I fail to understand why some people oppose legislation that would keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally unstable.

Originally posted by Jester
True, guns make murder quite a bit easier. Which is why I fail to understand why some people oppose legislation that would keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally unstable.
Please explain.

Originally posted by Brooks
TEN WORST COUNTRIES FOR MURDER, LATE-1990s COUNTRY PER 100,000
(1) Columbia 84.4
(2) El Salvador 50.2
(3) Puerto Rico 41.8
(4) Brazil 32.5
(5) Albania 28.2
(6) Venezuela 25.0
(7) Russian Federation 18.0
(8) Ecuador 15.9
(9) Mexico 15.3
(10) Panama 14.4Brooks: I said "Free World, not "Third World".

From your same source (15 year old data BTW):
LOWEST MURDER RATE
(1) Slovenia 0.7
(2) Austria 0.9
(3) Sweden 1.8
(4) Switzerland 2.3
(5) Israel 2.3
(6) Hong Kong 2.4
(7) Norway 2.5
(8) Ireland 2.8
(9) Finland 3.7
(10) Singapore 4.3

There you see the countries with EFFECTIVE GUN CONTROL which takes guns out of the hands of criminals.

The vast majority of murders in this country are not shooting-spree type killings. They're single murders that can be accomplished with other weapons, albeit with more difficulty.
L-Train: Agreed. I have served on grand juries, and the majority of murders which occurred (as opposed to the ones that got the most press) were all committed by people who:
1) knew each other or had a common acquaintance.
2) were drunk.
3) were fighting over about 100 bucks or less.
4) OR, were stealing to buy drugs.

However, a knife is much more difficult to kill someone with. It's messy. It leaves a lot of evidence. It's dangerous, and you can end up getting cut up pretty bad yourself. By the way there's no one caught in the crossfire in a knife fight.

Please explain 2/24/97: Ali Abu Kamal, 69-year-old Palestinian from Ramallah, shot 7 people on the observation deck of the Empire State Building before killing himself. He LEGALLY purchased the gun on the basis of a temporary tourist visa in FLORIDA. He could not legally purchase a gun in NY State.

Need more? I got a lot more...

Originally posted by fluffernutter
2/24/97: Ali Abu Kamal, 69-year-old Palestinian from Ramallah, shot 7 people on the observation deck of the Empire State Building before killing himself. He LEGALLY purchased the gun on the basis of a temporary tourist visa in FLORIDA. He could not legally purchase a gun in NY State.

Need more? I got a lot more...
Jesus, we can't get away from those kooky Middle Easterners, can we?

Please explain.
Examples of such legislation would be closing the gun show loophole, limiting the number of guns that can be bought in a certain time period, and requiring a waiting period that would allow for a sufficient background check. Other measures that would help prevent gun deaths and gun crimes are ballistic fingerprinting and requiring safety locks on guns.

Thank you.

Fluffernutter,

Your post doesn't hold water.

It's either Sweden or Switzerland where every able bodied male is required to serve in the armed forces, and the ALL have automatic weapons at home.

Also, Israel allows every kid and his pet dog to carry a gun. As you pointed out, it's not criminal murders you have to worry about. Those suicide bombers on the other hand, are a bit more of a menace. Dammit!

Originally posted by Jester
True, guns make murder quite a bit easier. Which is why I fail to understand why some people oppose legislation that would keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally unstable.

You know knives make murder "easier" too, so why not ban knives? And while you're at it, lets get rid of all sharp projectiles (pencils, forks, axes, screwdrivers, etc)

Got guns, plan on keeping them.

Originally posted by DaveTooner
You know knives make murder "easier" too, so why not ban knives? And while you're at it, lets get rid of all sharp projectiles (pencils, forks, axes, screwdrivers, etc)

In France most knives are restricted too. You can own them but not keep them with you in public places. The same with any potential weapon.
Quite amazingly, the murder rate is much lower than in the USA.

Now explain how to use a gun to do something useful, other than killing a human being aor an animal (which i hardly consider a "useful" thing).
Maybe open a beer can ?

It can overthrow a government that may badly need to be overthrown.

You know knives make murder "easier" too, so why not ban knives? And while you're at it, lets get rid of all sharp projectiles (pencils, forks, axes, screwdrivers, etc)
If the ease with which something could be used to murder doesn't matter, then people should be allowed to own ricin and weapons-grade anthrax. The Constitution certainly wouldn't prevent them from doing so.

Let me be clear that I do not propose banning guns. What I do propose is taking measures that would limit gun ownership to law-abiding citizens and people without serious mental problems.

" ... then people should be allowed to own ricin and weapons-grade anthrax. ... "

Everything's legal in Jersey as long as you don't get caught.

Originally posted by Karankawa
It can overthrow a government that may badly need to be overthrown.


On the contrary, armed citizen would turn an insurrectional situation to chaos. Look what is currently happening in Ukraine, after Georgia and Serbia ; people don't need guns to put pressure on the govt.
Guns would only give a pretext for the special forces to turn this into a bloodbath.

Most democratic revolutions have been peaceful, while violent revolutions always end up as dictatures.

Plus, do you really armed citizen would be able to do anything against the US army and police forces ?

Originally posted by Karankawa
It can overthrow a government that may badly need to be overthrown. Therefore, in a third world country, a gun may have use. But not in a democracy. The ballot box is our source of power, not a gun.

I am curious why some in the gun lobby use that argument that the Second Amendment is the last resort of the masses against the "Black Helicopters" of government abuse.

Does that mean that in WWII, Japanese Americans, illegally interned, taken from their homes, were within their rights to resist with weapons?

Originally posted by Darth
It's either Sweden or Switzerland where every able bodied male is required to serve in the armed forces, and the ALL have automatic weapons at home. It's Switzerland. I'm glad you mentioned it. From
this site (http://www.123helpme.com/assets/9925.html): "Switzerland keeps only a small standing army, and relies much more heavily on its militia system for national defense. This means that most able-bodied civilian men of military age keep weapons at home in case of a national emergency. These weapons are fully automatic, military assault rifles, and by law they must be kept locked up. Their issue of 72 rounds of ammunition must be sealed, and it is strictly accounted for. This complicates their use for criminal purposes, in that they are difficult to conceal, and their use will be eventually discovered by the authorities."

In Switzerland, all privately-owned guns are registered every five years. You need a permit, training, and a GOOD REASON to carry a handgun. You also need a background check to buy, and written documentation of all private sales. Source: Swiss embassy site. (http://www.eda.admin.ch/washington_emb/e/home/legaff/Fact/gunown.html)

Originally posted by trunkks ]there are laws to get rid of the guns in Canada because to many persons have them. the laws are not fair to persons who hunt in the north but the MP think this cause crime. do you think if there are more guns then more persons get kill? []

When someone ask a question like this then they also have to ask what freedoms they have???? I know in the US our freedoms are leaving more and more, and government is trying to control more and more. Should we be slaped in the face when we have done nothing wrong? Vehicles cause the most damage to humans so maybe we should start controling where, when, why, how, people use thier car??? So the real question isn't about guns but should be about who do we have contoling our individual lives.....

Now back to the question there could be 100 guns and 10 people, these folks live in peace and learn how to use guns. They live for 45 years with no problems, then along comes Diddly Bob "the moron" and he ends up shooting someone. So once again is the gun the problem, or is it the dumbass that is pulling the trigger? So instead of getting rid of the guns lets go after the real problem the criminal

Originally posted by astrapol2
In France most knives are restricted too. You can own them but not keep them with you in public places. The same with any potential weapon.
Quite amazingly, the murder rate is much lower than in the USA.

Now explain how to use a gun to do something useful, other than killing a human being aor an animal (which i hardly consider a "useful" thing).
Maybe open a beer can ?
And, quite amazingly, you have 1/5th the number of people we have and your populous is, for the most part, ethnically unified, so it's no coincidence that the murder rate is lower. Besides, French people don't "use" guns; typically, they're too busy dropping them.

As far as guns being useful, well, that's subject to debate. I think hunting is purposeful if you make use of what you catch. I hunt probably 5 times a year, and I eat everything I kill. Is that useful? Well, it is to me, but some sanctimonious cock-nocks don't understand why I'd feel the need to hunt when all I have to do is go to the grocery store and purchase what some corporation already "humanely" killed for me. We're talking about millions of turkeys, deer, and pheasant, but lets not stop there, we're on a moral crusade against guns and the second amendment, aren't we?

i don't see any reason other than hunting to own a gun. despite my out there poltiical views, i don't think violent revolutions are in any way productive, and the only thing a non-hunting gun could be used for anything but killing people. so people shoul;d be able to own guns, not ones menat to kill people, but ones menat for hunting, and fater they have a major background check ,waiting period, etc. guns are simply to dangerous for us to be lenient with.

Whammy, we shouldn't allow people to protect their home or property?

The times in which a burglar has a gun, and you can do something about it is so damn rare it's negligable. You shouldn't be shooting anybody in your house unless they're a danger. One case(I think it was near here), was this guy thought a burglar was in the house, knew nothing about what was going on and grabbed his gun, shot, and killed his son.

Blibblob, gun ownership is still a deterrant. Sorry.

So you have a sign on your front door(which the burglar wouldn't go through) that says "I have a gun"? How the hell is it a deterrent? I'd like to quote Dr. Strangeglove:
"Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you *keep* it a *secret*! Why didn't you tell the world, EH?"

Because the criminal never knows.

Most democratic revolutions have been peaceful, while violent revolutions always end up as dictatures.

Someone forgot to tell George Washington this. Also, the rebels in the Civil War almost exercised their right to overthrow the government. While they did fail, it served as a 2nd instance in which preserving the right to bear arms overthrew the government in American history.

The 2nd amendment, right to bear arms is a very, very important part of the US constitution, one that I myself would be willing to die for. The people must always be able to check the government. Blindly trusting the government always ends up as a grievous error.

Blindly trusting the government always ends up as a grievous error.
And this doesn't pertain to Bush how?

The 2nd amendment, right to bear arms is a very, very important part of the US constitution, one that I myself would be willing to die for. The people must always be able to check the government. Blindly trusting the government always ends up as a grievous error.
So in your opinion, shouldn't the people be allowed to own mortars, RPGs, howitzers, and tanks? Or even WMDs? The 2nd Amendment would allow for that, and those weapons would also be very useful in overthrowing the government.

We don't need those! We have Molotov Cocktails! Nothing can combat against those! Except, maybe, fire extinguishers...

Originally posted by TheGreat Gatsby
Whammy, we shouldn't allow people to protect their home or property?

i will reiterate something i stated very recently in another thread: when the use of violence becomes necessary to accomplish something, the system is inherently flawed. i think the fact that people feel a need to own a gun is a serious problem, and is a symptom of larger problems in our society as a whole. as blib said, guns rarely do any good in such cases, and quite often lead to accidents. so often kids (or even adults) accidentally shoot someone with a gun that is left in the house. some use their parents guns to kill themselves, or others. rarely are they actually used to defend against burglars. weapons of any sort also make a tense situation even more dangerous. a conflict may not erupt into violence, or such destrucive violence, if there isn't the threat of weapons, especially guns.

I don't own a gun. i don't know anybody who does. I have never felt threatened. I just have a goog lock on my door. Why should I need a gun ? In a gunless country like France, burglars don't have guns either.

And for all those who advocate guns as self defence but keep on arguing murderers can use sticks or knives : why don't you use a stick or a knife in self defence ?

And for all those who advocate guns as self defence but keep on arguing murderers can use sticks or knives : why don't you use a stick or a knife in self defence ?
Because a gun is more effective. If someone is trying to harm you, wouldn't you want to have an advantage over him?

so often kids (or even adults) accidentally shoot someone with a gun that is left in the house

Often? 630 times a year. More kids die from choking. Way more children die from car accidents.

when the use of violence becomes necessary to accomplish something, the system is inherently flawed.

Perhaps police should only be allowed to use pepper spray when apprehending criminals. Let's see how far they get with that. "Stop, freeze!!!! Or I'll spray!!!!" Yeah.

In a gunless country like France, burglars don't have guns either.

Care to cite one single source that supports that statement? I'll take anything, even Dan Rather news stories, if you like!

Weeeee, a knife attack at a high school, right on cue!!!

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/11/24/school.stabbing.ap/index.html

Why not ban those nasty, sharp thingies too??

Originally posted by Karankawa
Often? 630 times a year. More kids die from choking. Way more children die from car accidents.


So for you 630 kids death that could be avoided by stricter gun laws are nothing ? Ask the 630 mothers and fathers what they think about it.
And we're olny talking about kids.

Originally posted by Karankawa

Perhaps police should only be allowed to use pepper spray when apprehending criminals. Let's see how far they get with that. "Stop, freeze!!!! Or I'll spray!!!!" Yeah.


Actually for many years most english policemen only had a stick. No gun. And law was enforced very efficiently.

Originally posted by Karankawa

Care to cite one single source that supports that statement? I'll take anything, even Dan Rather news stories, if you like!

Like official french police statistics instead ?

In 1999, 87 432 armed robbery with violence occured in France. Only 7515 of these were commited with firearms.

Only 953 homicides were committed in France the same year, all weapons included.

Compare it to the amazing 12 658 murders committed in the USA the same year (for about a population 4 times bigger), 8259 being committed with firearms.

Maybe when people just can't buy guns, they don't use them to kill other people. Or maybe french people are just less violent than american people (something to do with garlic ? Cheese ? Red wine ? who knows).

Originally posted by WhammyBar
i will reiterate something i stated very recently in another thread: when the use of violence becomes necessary to accomplish something, the system is inherently flawed. i think the fact that people feel a need to own a gun is a serious problem, and is a symptom of larger problems in our society as a whole.

Both of these may be true, but it cannot be blamed on the guns.

as blib said, guns rarely do any good in such cases, and quite often lead to accidents. so often kids (or even adults) accidentally shoot someone with a gun that is left in the house. some use their parents guns to kill themselves, or others.

Again, I think it's disingenuous to blame the gun for accidents, or misuse. We don't blame the car when someone has an accident or gets behind the wheel while drunk.

rarely are they actually used to defend against burglars. weapons of any sort also make a tense situation even more dangerous. a conflict may not erupt into violence, or such destrucive violence, if there isn't the threat of weapons, especially guns.

Again it's possible that the scenario you describe is true, but I would contend that if someone becomes more violent in the presence of a gun, they were out of control to begin with. As I posted in another thread on gun control, I've had two experiences in my life where I confronted unknown individuals in my house while I was armed with a gun. In both cases the presence of the gun made these people very polite. Violence is not produced by guns, but rather the temperament of those wielding them.

Does anyone else here have a personal strory of being personally confronted to guns (other than for sport or in wartime ?)

Approximately 11% of gun owners and 13% of handgun owners have used their firearms for protection from criminals.

"1998 NRA Fact Card." Viewed in January of 1999 on the National Rifle Association web site, www.nra.org

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Both of these may be true, but it cannot be blamed on the guns.


Again, I think it's disingenuous to blame the gun for accidents, or misuse. We don't blame the car when someone has an accident or gets behind the wheel while drunk.


Again it's possible that the scenario you describe is true, but I would contend that if someone becomes more violent in the presence of a gun, they were out of control to begin with. As I posted in another thread on gun control, I've had two experiences in my life where I confronted unknown individuals in my house while I was armed with a gun. In both cases the presence of the gun made these people very polite. Violence is not produced by guns, but rather the temperament of those wielding them.

Woohoo, Vile...

Great post!!!

Originally posted by Karankawa
The 2nd amendment, right to bear arms is a very, very important part of the US constitution, one that I myself would be willing to die for. The people must always be able to check the government. Blindly trusting the government always ends up as a grievous error. Who decides when the government is out of line and gets taken out? The gun owner? That kind of leaves it wide open doesn't it? Therefore, Japanese Americans, illegally interned during WWII, were well within their rights to take out anyone who tried to round them up and put them in camps. Indians are within their rights in taking out any policeman who trespasses on their lands. Not just their current lands but their ORIGINAL lands which we forced them out of. Any band of idiots with a bunch of firepower is within their 2nd Amendment rights to attack a police station if they TRULY BELIEVE their rights have been violated. RIGHT?

I don't like certain parts of the Patriot Act. I think it violates a person's right to due process, privacy, an attorney etc. Therefore I am within my rights to walk up to one of the guardsmen standing in front of Grand Central Station and take him out??? Kawabunga, you are way off base on this one.
"Source - 1998 NRA Fact Card." Viewed in January of 1999 on the National Rifle Association web site That's kind of sourcing Michael Moore in an argument about Iraq wouldn't you say? Charton Heston is a senile old fool who lost it shortly after Planet of the Apes III. Wayne La Pierre called government employees "jack-booted Nazis" and should have been thrown in jail for that.

Fluffernutter,

I can tell you for a fact that America thought the govt was out of line when the United States outlawed the consumption of alchohol. A (dare I say) majority of Americans found ways to keep on drinking.

As for gun control, there was an article a while back stating that in spite of England's ban on semi automatic weapons and handguns, more and more of both were found in England.

Most of your argument is silly. It was the intent of the Founding Fathers to make sure the citizens had access to firearms and that guns were not in the sole hands of a standing army that was loyal only to the government.

A truly free government does NOT have to fear its citizens being armed.

A truly free government does NOT have to fear its citizens being armed.
Actually...:
"When the people fear the government you have tyranny...when the government fears the people you have liberty."
Thomas Jefferson

Certainly makes more sense than being equals. Government isn't a person, it's entirely, well, your slave. Thoreau said that the government is a best but an expedient. Jefferson also said that "A little rebellion now and then...is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."

Originally posted by philosophytara
I live in Washington State, in the Middle of nowhere, the rule out here is you need one of the three 1. A man. 2. a Dog. 3. A gun. Well I am a single mother living in the wild with none of the above, on the other hand I am quite proficient with Knives. LOL. Yes. I would feel safer with a Gun. However I would feel even more safer with A Pit Bull. I believe that just becuase I have a gun my chances of killing someone are about the same as if I didn't have one.

Like you, I live out in the wilds, and since I don't want a man, and haven't yet gotten around to getting a dog, I got me a gun. I don't know that *I* necessarily feel safer having it, but I know my chickens are glad I've got it (and used it to kill marauding hawks).

:)

Weeeee, a knife attack at a high school, right on cue!!! Yeah. A student was injured. What does that prove, other than knives shouldn't be allowed in schools? If it was a gun there would likely be multiple deaths.

in spite of England's ban on semi automatic weapons and handguns, more and more of both were found in England... If it was true (and I doubt it) the solution is to arrest the illegal distributors of these weapons, not allow any and all buyers access to automatic weapons. Most people in England are strongly in favor of the ban on guns. Police there will also stop you if they see you with a knive, and no one really has a problem with that. Why should they? If you have a valid reason (i.e a caterer) they let you keep it. Otherwise you lose it. It was the intent of the Founding Fathers to make sure the citizens had access to firearms Sure, a five foot long musket that fired one shot at a time and took about 3 minutes to reload. I don't want a man, and haven't yet gotten around to getting a dog, I got me a gun. Again, and to Vile's earlier post: I don't have any problem with a shotgun under the bed. I have a problem with handguns and automatic weapons being purchased without a permit, training, or a valid reason. We have permits to own a freaking cat in this country, why not a gun?

Originally posted by astrapol2

Maybe when people just can't buy guns, they don't use them to kill other people. Or maybe french people are just less violent than american people .....

True.

Unlike what we have here in the US, the French live in a society where every male human being is NOT bombarded 24/7 with a juvenile, macho, John Wayne ethos that causes them to think they have to violently confront other people in order to impose their will on them.

The US has a high incidence of violence and gunplay because the citizenry is inculcated with it from birth.

American culture has elevated the gun to a fetishistic totem for a disturbingly high percentage of the male population.

Sorry, Freethinker, but french TV is not very different from US Tv - mostly because it's usually the same ! Most american shows are broadcast here and I grew up playing cowboys and indians and watching "Starsky and Hutch".
We don't have these live cops shows anyway - that's a good thing to keep the paranoia away.

I still believe the less guns are in circulation in a country, the lowest murder rate it has.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
And, quite amazingly, you have 1/5th the number of people we have and your populous is, for the most part, ethnically unified, so it's no coincidence that the murder rate is lower. Praet: France is far from ethnically unified. Have you ever been there? It has many minorities: Arabs, Africans, West Indians, Asians; from all corners of their colonial empire. And for pity's sakes; the murder RATE is not affected by the number of people in the country. Put down that blunt.

Originally posted by Astrapol
Sorry, Freethinker, but french TV is not very different from US Tv - mostly because it's usually the same ! Most american shows are broadcast here and I grew up playing cowboys and indians and watching "Starsky and Hutch". Good points.

astropol,

It's too bad the book "Mig Pilot" is out of print. You would've done well to read it. It's the biography of a Soviet Pilot who defected to the U.S. in 1976. As he points out, crime in the U.S. is nothing, NOTHING, like what goes on in the Soviet Union. The sheer violence of it. The point is, citizens aren't allowed to have guns in the Soviet Union and crime was a huge problem. (Please don't point out the fact that the Soviet Union no longer exists, I am already aware of that)

I can also point, and I have, that the murder rates of New York has been three time higher than it is in London. This has been true since colonial times. For most of the history of the two cities, guns were equally available. Easy access to guns doen't mean higher crime rates. Plain and simple.

Originally posted by fluffernutter
Praet: France is far from ethnically unified. Have you ever been there? It has many minorities: Arabs, Africans, West Indians, Asians; from all corners of their colonial empire. And for pity's sakes; the murder RATE is not affected by the number of people in the country. Put down that blunt.

I said "for the most part" ethnically unified, and when compared to our culture, or lack thereof, we're far more ethnically diverse. I understand that the size of a given population doesn’t directly correlate to the murder rate, but the fact that we've become a haven for criminal types doesn't exactly give us the advantage if you're looking to see who does a better job abiding the law. I understand where Astra is coming from, but I don't think the answer lies in banning guns...I think it's found in the form of stricter control and more tightly covered background checks.

Btw, I've been to France 3 times, and I don't smoke blunts, I pull tubes...

It's too bad the book "Mig Pilot" is out of print. You would've done well to read it. It's the biography of a Soviet Pilot who defected to the U.S. in 1976. As he points out, crime in the U.S. is nothing, NOTHING, like what goes on in the Soviet Union. The sheer violence of it. The point is, citizens aren't allowed to have guns in the Soviet Union and crime was a huge problem.
Well, I don't think the crime rate in the former Soviet Russia had anything to do with guns. Hell, if they had them, crime rate would probably of been even higher. Soviet Russia was a shithole. Majority living in poverty, poor education, tyrannic government. Those were the problems, nothing to do with guns. People who fall into poverty are more likely to resort to crimes, those who are less educated are more likely to resort to crimes. I have no doubt that the crime rate was higher. As Stalin said "Ideas are far more powerful than guns. We don't allow our enemies to have guns, why should we allow them to have ideas?" In a society like that, of course crime will be higher!