Gun control: What is your position?

[Mark of Zorro]

Tell me more about how no one can buy drugs, or import American weapons to terrorists and drug lords. Those are banned, what makes you think that banning guns would be any bit as effective as it's been for any other thing that's banned in this country? The crime culture here is simply far too out of hand for it to work (as things are now, at least).

Bans are mostly stupid. I am near advocating just dropping the word from the venacular. What happened when alcohol got banned during the Inquistion...erm, excuse me...Prohibition? EVERYTHING went out of control. Its the same with other recreational drugs, and would be the same with guns.

Regulation is the smarter choice. Alcohol is now available but with restrictions. 100 percent of the restrictions are not followed 100 percent of the time, but its FAR better than Prohibition. And so it would be with more and SMARTER restrictions on guns.

I say again, restrictions. Regulation. Bans are mostly stupid.

I have no idea what they tell you in Europe, but you've got to understand exactly what the crime is like here before you assume that a gun won't make you safer.

It depends on the situations and how often the situations come up. I would say most people in the civilized world have a greater chance of some sort of mishap happening with their own gun (it being there in the house 24 hours a day, 7 days a week or almost) than they have of suffering a break in that is something more than someone looking for money and goods only (in other words, not someone trying to kill or harm you). But it depends on where you live. In some places, the extra risk associated with having a gun in the house may well be worth the reduction in risk on the other end.

But moving is probably the smartest option of all.

Where I live, if I bought a gun, I think the odds would be much, much higher that my son would one day find it and accidentally or intentionally shoot me with it, than having a break in of ANY kind. Do I want that risk? Other possible scenarios apply too, like me accidentally shooting myself, my wife doing it, a friend of my son, etc...

Even if I locked it up tight, you know, $#!T happens. It really does. Buy a gun, and you buy some risk. There is no denying that. The only thing up for debate is how the risk balance turned out.

---------- Post added at 15:46 ---------- Previous post was at 15:39 ----------

Guerrilla warfare is definitely nasty, but I can't see it doing much to a modern government, especially if you compare it to a similar situation where the same technology wasn't available.

Salvador Sﾃ｡nchez Cerﾃｩn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Salvador Sanchez Ceren, former guerilla, is now VP of El Salvador. I don't know, maybe El Salvador does not meet your definition of modern? Well, remember that the official government had U.S. support.

 

[Tamayo]

I say again, restrictions. Regulation. Bans are mostly stupid.

+1

It depends on the situations and how often the situations come up. I would say most people in the civilized world have a greater chance of some sort of mishap happening with their own gun (it being there in the house 24 hours a day, 7 days a week or almost) than they have of suffering a break in that is something more than someone looking for money and goods only (in other words, not someone trying to kill or harm you). But it depends on where you live. In some places, the extra risk associated with having a gun in the house may well be worth the reduction in risk on the other end.

But moving is probably the smartest option of all.

Well, of course context applies. The use for a gun where I live versus, say in Japan, is completely incomparable, and I'd have to agree that, given living in a place where crime isn't an issue, owning a gun has the potential to really hurt you more than help.

Where I live, if I bought a gun, I think the odds would be much, much higher that my son would one day find it and accidentally or intentionally shoot me with it, than having a break in of ANY kind. Do I want that risk? Other possible scenarios apply too, like me accidentally shooting myself, my wife doing it, a friend of my son, etc...

I'm not really sure you could count that sort of thing as a con to having guns since the same applies to absolutely anything that can kill you as a human.

Salvador Sﾃδ｡nchez Cerﾃδｩn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Salvador Sanchez Ceren, former guerilla, is now VP of El Salvador. I don't know, maybe El Salvador does not meet your definition of modern? Well, remember that the official government had U.S. support.

Oh, you know what I mean. I was saying that a developed country like America, for example, wouldn't have nearly the same sort of trouble with that sort of thing as many other countries would, even if they're considered modern (besides, needing help from America should say a tiny bit about just how modern they are). Of course, I also think it's because there's hardly a shred of nationality among our population when it comes to personal beliefs and political views, etc.

I'm just saying that the most developed countries would likely have a much better grip on insurgency than we've ever seen so far in history. I can't be 100% sure, though -- We'd have to see people try and fail these days to know. xD

 

[Mark of Zorro]

I'm just saying that the most developed countries would likely have a much better grip on insurgency than we've ever seen so far in history.

Fair enough. I can't dispute it and you can't prove it. I will take note of it as pure opinion since we won't really know until it happens. Either one of us could be correct.

But I think that if its tech that destroys an insurgency in America, it will be the Big Brother tech that does it rather than high tech weapons. It will be cameras and spy satellites and remote control flying surveillance and stuff like that. That will really defeat use of small arms.

I'm not really sure you could count that sort of thing as a con to having guns since the same applies to absolutely anything that can kill you as a human.

Anyone trying to kill me with the next best thing, a sword, had better have me in the corner or be able to run fast. Same with a knife. Also, I don't expect it is nearly as likely that I will accidentally blow my own brains out with a knife. Just sayin'.

The use for a gun where I live versus, say in Japan, is completely incomparable

I cannot dispute that. However, I do believe that reductions in guns will help reduce gun culture and will be a step down the path for anywhere becoming more like Japan. But it is only one step and probably not the most important one.

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

"I really think that the possibility of overthrowing the government (in any developed country) diminishes constantly with the advent of technology which is more efficient/effective. Guerrilla warfare is definitely nasty, but I can't see it doing much to a modern government, especially if you compare it to a similar situation where the same technology wasn't available."

Maybe so, but if any guns are banned there will be millions of gun-owners who will refuse to comply. If the police come to take their guns, they will fight. There are very strong emotions involved to our Second Amendment rights.

Such a ban would make criminals out of many otherwise law-abiding citizens. At that point, they might as well start a revolution, because they will have gone too far to turn back.

There are also substantial numbers of police and military soldiers who have organized as Oath Keepers. They stand by their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution of the US, and will consider infringement on the Second Amendment as unconstitutional. They have taken a new oath to refuse to follow any orders that are unconstitutional. If their commanders order them to seize guns from law-abiding citizens, they will refuse. At that point, they'd likely have to defect to the rebels, in the same pattern that has been unfolding in Syria.

I don't think things will come to this point because I don't believe Obama will be able to get his proposed ban on "assault weapons" and large-capacity magazines through the House of Representatives. Even though the Senate has a Democratic majority, too many members of both parties would lose their political careers by voting for passage.

The gun lobby has the power to prevent this bill, and they will. Millions of gun-owners are single-issue voters where guns are concerned. I'm sure that Alaska Senator Mark Begich (D) will lose his job if even gives a speech in favor of this bill.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Could we just stop talking about total gun bans please? For Christ's sake, the topic is gun control, not a gun ban.

 

[SevenStarsHK2N]

LOL - really?

i find this talk of revolution to be utterly ridiculous - NO one is going to revolt -

Do you think they are going to march in a sieze guns?

nien it will happen something like:

year 1 - gun amnesty - with 10% value rebate given in cash to people who hand in their guns
year 2 - guns can still be handed into police stations without charge - 10% cashback is no more - if you are caught with a gun - the fine is $5000 dollars per firearm £2000 for the possession of munitions - if you inform on someone who has a gun - you get a £500 reward for every gun - £200 reward for munitions.
year 3 - possession of firearms is now a criminal offence - warranting an automatic minimum jail term of 5 years - rewards for informants remain

Only single action hunting rifles may be used with hunting licence - or manually loaded shotguns for farmers / sport shooting.

Gun clubs may continue to operate - but fire arms are restricted - and may not leave the club.

The idea that there is going to be some kind of WAR is nonsense...

if you think that "law abiding" citizens - with houses and jobs to lose are going to shoot a policeman who is knocking on their door in the face on the off chance that he is coming for their guns - then you are sorely mistaken - and have watched far too many films

 

[Tamayo]

But I think that if its tech that destroys an insurgency in America, it will be the Big Brother tech that does it rather than high tech weapons. It will be cameras and spy satellites and remote control flying surveillance and stuff like that. That will really defeat use of small arms.

That's really what I meant. Nowadays, highly developed countries have some insanely precise and efficient ways of handling enemies, and we probably only know about the tip of the iceberg. If the government itself was at stake, I'm sure they'd fight back with their full force.

I cannot dispute that. However, I do believe that reductions in guns will help reduce gun culture and will be a step down the path for anywhere becoming more like Japan. But it is only one step and probably not the most important one.

Well, of course. The main problem with slowly taking a more firm grip on gun culture, though, is that the government decides to use emotional causes like school shootings to do it, and that does nothing but spark controversy. People are a lot more sensitive to that sort of thing when there's been a massacre.

LOL - really?
i find this talk of revolution to be utterly ridiculous - NO one is going to revolt -

Actually, that's what I said earlier. Have you been paying attention? I'm pretty sure that it's understood that the government would never drive it's people to revolt since, as I'm sure you know, the idea behind our government is "By the people, for the people". The fact that there's any controversy at all over simply tightening restrictions on guns should be testament to the fact that they'll never be able to outlaw them.

The idea that there is going to be some kind of WAR is nonsense...
if you think that "law abiding" citizens - with houses and jobs to lose are going to shoot a policeman who is knocking on their door in the face on the off chance that he is coming for their guns - then you are sorely mistaken - and have watched far too many films

Again: See above, captain obvious.

 

[SevenStarsHK2N]

the idea behind our government is "By the people, for the people". The fact that there's any controversy at all over simply tightening restrictions on guns should be testament to the fact that they'll never be able to outlaw them.




Again: See above, captain obvious.

democracy is fail - "By the money - For the Rich" would be far more accurate -

As it stands in the US the gun lobby have more money to donate than the anti gun lobby which is why guns will not be banned or properly controlled in the USA - thems be the rulez

 

[Tamayo]

democracy is fail - "By the money - For the Rich" would be far more accurate -

As it stands in the US the gun lobby have more money to donate than the anti gun lobby which is why guns will not be banned or properly controlled in the USA - thems be the rulez

Oh, please. We all know that corporations in America are insanely powerful, but that's a different topic entirely. Let's not turn this thread into "Waaaaah, heartless rich people, heartless businesses, gunz!"

Guns will continue in America because no one in their right mind is going to allow them to be regulated to the point of (Sorry, Zorro. ) prohibition, regardless of corporation presence. I don't need to be rich to oppose the idiotic restrictions people have proposed for guns in a fit of emotional overreaction to something completely irrelevant to the topic.

And by the way, I think you mean "by the rich, for the poor". rororor

 

[Mark of Zorro]

I am between you both on democracy. American citizens do have an effect, but its more of a "backdoor" effect than what they teach us in schools.

Its more like a "We can't shoot them so we have to throw them a bone" sort of situation. But it could be worse. It could be A LOT worse.

But I am not sure what effect this has on the gun situation in America. I mean, I know the gun manufacturers hold tremendous power, but I am not sure exactly how its being used or how any gun control laws ever get passed. Although I do suspect its as I said above, we get thrown a bone every once in a while, to make it look good.

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

"Could we just stop talking about total gun bans please? For Christ's sake, the topic is gun control, not a gun ban."

Where have you been? Post #2 from this thread:

"Youre really upset about that other thread, arent you? LOL As for gun control, Im all for no assulat rifles and nothing that holds more than 5 shots. For someone who uses a gun for hunting or target shooting, theres no need for more than 5 shots."

Post #19:

"Also people claiming that it would be impossible to get the guns off the streets now - are also wrong"

"The assumption that your are safer because you own a gun is also false. You are far more likely to be shot and killed if you have a gun - and thus present a potentially lethal threat - than if you are unarmed."

Your own post #6:

"But I don't think its such a bad idea to take a long-term step by step approach to making America gun free."

Post #31:

"nien it will happen something like:

year 1 - gun amnesty - with 10% value rebate given in cash to people who hand in their guns
year 2 - guns can still be handed into police stations without charge - 10% cashback is no more - if you are caught with a gun - the fine is $5000 dollars per firearm £2000 for the possession of munitions - if you inform on someone who has a gun - you get a £500 reward for every gun - £200 reward for munitions.
year 3 - possession of firearms is now a criminal offence - warranting an automatic minimum jail term of 5 years - rewards for informants remain"

After engaging in discussions about gun bans, and in fact advocating gun bans, you now want to stifle debate on this subject?

You must have felt you were losing the ban argument, so switched your colors and now insist that this thread is about "gun control," as if gun bans are not a part of the aims of new gun control legislation.

If you feel that you didn't get the best of your debate apponent, the honest thing to do is just admit you're changed your mind after hearing from your opponent.

A dishonest way to spin your change of mind would be to express frustration and outrage that other posters have led this thread afield further into the field where you'd led it first. Parsing "gun control" to not include full or partial gun ban ("assault weapons") means you're trying to break off the weak pieces of your case and drop them in the ditch where you hope they'll be forgotten.

Okay, then. I'll accept your proposal to narrow the subject and talk about gun control that does not include banning guns. Maybe I can convince you to change your mind on this one too.

 

[SevenStarsHK2N]

hmmm actually the "consiparacy" regarding US gun law goes a liitle deeper.

the KKK was disbanded by the Democratic US government in 1870 - 1871 - when they passed new powerful laws - specifically designed to attack and destroy the Klan

the NRA was founded in 1871 - months later -

Most of the people who are victims of gun crime - are black (or otherwise non white)

Most of the people who are in prison for gun crime - are black (or otherwise non white)

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Roland, I direct your attention to the part of the quote that said "TOTAL gun ban". See the word "TOTAL" in there? It means something.

Dude, I can accept some digression, but there is no need for you to keep going on and on about Oath Keepers and revolution since no one here is dead set on a TOTAL gun ban, something which a ban on CERTAIN firearms is NOT.

Gun control dude, this thread is about gun control. We already have some. No revolution.

As usual, I urge you to CONTRIBUTE rather than SABOTAGE.

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

Maybe you could tell me the difference between "making America gun free" (your words) and a total gun ban?

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Maybe you could tell me the difference between "making America gun free" (your words) and a total gun ban?

Maybe you could look up the term "cherry picking"?

Look dude, I know we will touch on total gun bans in the course of this discussion, but you especially are derailing the thread by making it a center piece of debate when it isn't.

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

Look, I don't care what your position is, but it's hard to debate with a moving target. (Extra points for puns?)

You can't discuss gun control without getting into bans, and you're wasting your breath trying to control the subject of this thread. Instead of parsing words on what you previously said, why don't we just move back to the thread topic?

In fact, bans DO seem to be the centerpiece of most countries gun control. Some people in the US want the same thing, at least for some types of firearms. The ban is the most draconian type of controlling something. I've listened to Brits and Aussies here praising their own countries' near-complete bans. They like to quote statistics saying that the level of gun violence has dropped. It would be more telling if they quoted the overall violence rates, but somehow these figures never seem available.

Mexico, the N. American nation most prone to gun violence, has an effective ban civilian firearm ownership. Canada, with lesser gun control than Mexico, yet more than the US, has a lower level than both countries of not only gun but any type of violent crime. The US cities most prone to violent crime, like Chicago, New York, Washington DC, have the strictest gun laws. So it's a far stretch to claim that the experience in AU or the UK can be extended to the different cultures, populations, and conditions in N. America.

If you're saying that "gun control" does not embrace bans, I beg to differ. You would know better than I what kind of gun control you favor, but I keep reading suggestions that all guns should be registered and/or stored at (currently non-existent) shooting clubs, which have free reign to decide who gets to be members.

Most gun owners see these proposals as equivalent to gun bans, and that's where I'm coming from. Registration is the first step to confiscation, and the authority to deny gun rights renders those rights non-existent. Under our Second Amendment, Americans do NOT need permission from any government or private authority to keep and bear arms.

Noting in our Constitution gives you any right to own and drive a motor vehicle. Thus, driving is a PRIVILEGE, not a right. Gun ownership is a RIGHT, and most US gun-owners will not passively give up that right.

 

[SevenStarsHK2N]

I disagree - regarding your point about registration.

Firsty I would not say that registration is the first step to confiscation.

After all you are required to Register yourself - and your vehicle - if you which to drive.
This is because when on the road - it is important that people are accountable and also 'guided' to behave in a safe and responsible manor - so as not to endanger the lives of other people.

Also - the 2nd amendment gives US citizens the right to bear arms. - it does not go into specifics - If anything you could argue that the way things currently stand are breaking the 2nd amendment.

For at the time - arms were muskets - a medium (at best) range rifle with a firing rate of 4 rounds per minute (in the hands of a trained soldier - half that for a civilian)

So it could be argued that what the 2nd amendment actually says is: Citizens have the right to bear medium range rifles with a fire rate of no more than 4 rounds per minute.

The people that wrote the constitution had no way of knowing that within 150 odd years man would have developed compact lightweight weaponry with a range and fire rate greater than an entire squadron of elite musket firing soldiers.

The government has to draw a line somewhere - and I see no reason why heavy weapons should be beyond that line.

It's time to get rid of guns all together - and to compare it with mexico - and say - that has an effective gun ban - is wrong - the ban is not properly enforced - and is used mainly in an attempt to control the escalating violence of the criminal gangs

 

[Tamayo]

I disagree - regarding your point about registration.

Firsty I would not say that registration is the first step to confiscation.

Why are we talking about confiscation exactly?

Also - the 2nd amendment gives US citizens the right to bear arms. - it does not go into specifics - If anything you could argue that the way things currently stand are breaking the 2nd amendment.

For at the time - arms were muskets - a medium (at best) range rifle with a firing rate of 4 rounds per minute (in the hands of a trained soldier - half that for a civilian)

So it could be argued that what the 2nd amendment actually says is: Citizens have the right to bear medium range rifles with a fire rate of no more than 4 rounds per minute.

I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. The year the Constitution was written in was a time of technological, tactical and social advancement. If you'll remember, the Civil War, specifically, brought about a lot of new guns that were absolutely ruthless such as the long-range rifles used for ambushes in the forest. If the people who made that amendment meant "medium-range rifles with a fire rate of no more than 4 rounds per minute", they'd have written it explicitly. It's not about the types of gun, it's about the principle. US citizens have the right to arms themselves.

The people that wrote the constitution had no way of knowing that within 150 odd years man would have developed compact lightweight weaponry with a range and fire rate greater than an entire squadron of elite musket firing soldiers.

Technology, technology. Keep in mind that the people who made the amendment weren't frozen in animation right after they finished drafting. They all lived on to see plenty new types of guns created, and there wasn't a fuss about changing the amendment.

What I can say, though is that the people who drafted the Constitution to begin with only figured it would last about 50 years before it was replaced or repealed.

It's time to get rid of guns all together - and to compare it with mexico - and say - that has an effective gun ban - is wrong - the ban is not properly enforced - and is used mainly in an attempt to control the escalating violence of the criminal gangs

Like I said before -- Look at the ban on drugs, get out a history book and look at what happened when they banned alcohol. It simply won't work. This isn't something that's even possible until our culture is fixed, and that alone doesn't seem like a very bright future.

We need to focus on mental health care reform far before we worry about actually banning guns. Why is it that after decades and decades of murders, the only weapon that all citizens have the right to bear is one that people "Need to do something about?" I saw a political cartoon once that showed four tiles. In each tile, a man killed another with his hands, a hammer, a knife, and one with a gun. In three of the tiles, it says "You killed him? What's wrong with you??" In the one with the gun it says "You killed him with a gun? WE'VE GOT TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT GUNS!" And it's absolutely true.

 

[SevenStarsHK2N]

Why are we talking about confiscation exactly?

right here :

Registration is the first step to confiscation

I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. The year the Constitution was written in was a time of technological, tactical and social advancement. If you'll remember, the Civil War, specifically, brought about a lot of new guns that were absolutely ruthless such as the long-range rifles used for ambushes in the forest. If the people who made that amendment meant "medium-range rifles with a fire rate of no more than 4 rounds per minute", they'd have written it explicitly. It's not about the types of gun, it's about the principle. US citizens have the right to arms themselves.

you are being very very very silly.
Does the 2nd ammendment specifically draw a line?
NO
were the fore fathers aware that technology would perhaps one day advance YES.

IT's is completely stupid and dumb *** to say that the 2nd amendment was designed to give people a blank cheque with regards to what type of weapon a citizen could carry.

I can carry - in one hand enough Gen 2 nerve gas to wipe out new york city.
That's an arm - is that what they had in mind when they wrote the 2nd amendment (and were kinda getting to the point why dead constitutions are stupid and crap - living constitution really is the way to go)

i mean they KNEW biological and chemical weapons existed - and they surely knew that they would be advanced...so why draw the line at assault rifles and shotguns and automatic machine pistols.

Technology, technology. Keep in mind that the people who made the amendment weren't frozen in animation right after they finished drafting. They all lived on to see plenty new types of guns created, and there wasn't a fuss about changing the amendment.

stupid stupid stupid argument.
they had no i-f*cking-dear what destructive capabilities we would have. the technology we had even 50 years ago wasn't even in the science fiction books of the day - let alone the super sonic - autonomous ai controlled tactical strike drones with air to air capacities.

What I can say, though is that the people who drafted the Constitution to begin with only figured it would last about 50 years before it was replaced or repealed.

rite - so saying that the right to carry guns is something that should be kept because it's in the constitution is there fore m00t wouldn't you say

Like I said before -- Look at the ban on drugs, get out a history book and look at what happened when they banned alcohol. It simply won't work. This isn't something that's even possible until our culture is fixed, and that alone doesn't seem like a very bright future.

Drug control laws work in many many countries - usually in places where the government has been smart

We need to focus on mental health care reform far before we worry about actually banning guns. Why is it that after decades and decades of murders, the only weapon that all citizens have the right to bear is one that people "Need to do something about?"

because it allows for a disproportional amount of harm and murder - thats why

I saw a political cartoon once that showed four tiles. In each tile, a man killed another with his hands, a hammer, a knife, and one with a gun. In three of the tiles, it says "You killed him? What's wrong with you??" In the one with the gun it says "You killed him with a gun? WE'VE GOT TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT GUNS!" And it's absolutely true.

hmm political cartoon - lets make it acurate.
tile one: man kills another with hands - "whats wrong with you"
tile two: man kills another with hammer - "whats wrong with you"
Tile three: Man kills another with knife - "whats wrong with you"
tile four: man killes dozens of innocent people with a sniper rifle while they fill up their tanks at petrol stations - then enters a packed movie theatre with an assault rifle - without which he would have been unable to butcher the large amount of people he did - many of them shot in the back while they were running away"

yea - perhaps think about doing something about guns...

and the day that someone go's into a school and murders 25 kids - and a bunch of teachers armed with a hammer or a knife - is the day that one dimentional argument becomes valid

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

By your argument, SevenStars, our First Amendment would not extend to free speech on the internet, since the drafters of our Constitution never envisioned computers or the internet. After all, the sheer scale of the audience you can reach is far beyond what existed in 1789.

Here's a chain email now making the rounds with US gun-owners. I haven't fact-checked it, but since you live in the UK, I'd like your view:

You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door.

Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers.

At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way.

With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun.

You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it...

In the darkness, you make out two shadows.

One holds something that looks like a crowbar.

When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire.

The blast knocks both thugs to the floor.

One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door

and lurches outside.

As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble.

In your country, most guns were outlawed years before,

and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless..

Yours was never registered.. Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died.

They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm.

When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry:

authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter.

"What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask. "Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing.

"Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven."

The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper.

Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys.

Their friends and relatives can't find an unkind word to say about them..

Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times.

But the next day's headline says it all: "Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die."

The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters..

As the days wear on, the story takes wings. The national media picks it up,

then the international media. The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.

Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably win.

The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and

that you've been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects.

After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time.

The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.

A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven't been reduced,

as your lawyer had so confidently predicted. When you take the stand, your anger at

the injustice of it all works against you.. Prosecutors paint a picture of you

as a mean, vengeful man. It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges.

The judge sentences you to life in prison.

This case really happened.

On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk , England, killed one burglar and wounded a second.

In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term..

How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great British Empire ?

It started with the Pistols Act of 1903.

This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and

established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license.

The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns..

Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and

mandated the registration of all shotguns.

Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987.

Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the street shooting everyone he saw.

When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.

The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun control", demanded even tougher restrictions.

(The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)

Nine years later, at Dunblane, Scotland,

Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.

For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable, or worse, criminals.

Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners.

Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns.

The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearm's

still owned by private citizens.

During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights,

the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism.

Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened,

claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun.

Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.

Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying,

"We cannot have people take the law into their own hands."

All of Tony Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times,

and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs

who had no fear of the consequences. Martin himself, a collector of antiques,

had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.

When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns

were given three months to turn them over to local authorities.

Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law.

The few who didn't were visited by police

and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't comply.

Police later bragged that they'd taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.

How did the authorities know who had handguns? The guns had been registered and licensed.

Kind of like cars. Sound familiar?

WAKE UP AMERICA;

THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION.

 

[Tamayo]

you are being very very very silly.
Does the 2nd ammendment specifically draw a line?
NO
were the fore fathers aware that technology would perhaps one day advance YES.

IT's is completely stupid and dumb *** to say that the 2nd amendment was designed to give people a blank cheque with regards to what type of weapon a citizen could carry.

No one ever said that. I was saying that guns change. They have varying range, accuracy, speed and stopping power, and that isn't new information. Sure, the guns they had back then were primitive compared to what we have today, but they weren't too primitive to walk into a school and shoot people to death. You seem to think that guns in those days didn't kill people, and that it's so different now. The efficiency of the gun has no proportional effect on the amount of people who snap and kill people.

Guns are far more efficient these days, but they always have, and always will kill people, and the 2nd amendment to the Constitution was written with that in mind.

I can carry - in one hand enough Gen 2 nerve gas to wipe out new york city.

Cool story. Tell me again where a law-abiding citizen would go to pick some up? At the local flea market?

stupid stupid stupid argument.
they had no i-f*cking-dear what destructive capabilities we would have. the technology we had even 50 years ago wasn't even in the science fiction books of the day - let alone the super sonic - autonomous ai controlled tactical strike drones with air to air capacities.

How many civilians have super-sonic tactical strike drones? What you're saying is completely irrelevant. As I said above, the only advancement we have in small arms is in efficiency, and while I can agree that this innovation makes guns deadlier, it doesn't have anything to do with the crimes committed by them. Gun violence is gun violence, whether committed with a musket or a fully-automatic assault rifle.

rite - so saying that the right to carry guns is something that should be kept because it's in the constitution is there fore m00t wouldn't you say

I never said that our Constitution is perfect. I AM saying, however, that our Constitution is written in ink, maybe a bit more so than you think. Amending the Constitution is a huge deal, and requires a strong consensus among the people. Unless our culture as a whole makes a dramatically huge turnaround, there's simply no way that guns will ever be outlawed, or even restricted much more than they already are.

Keep in mind that amendments to the Constitution only affect and apply to those who obey the law.

Drug control laws work in many many countries - usually in places where the government has been smart

I'm not saying that it's impossible to have a grip on drugs, but America CLEARLY does not. As I said before, this sort of thing is cultural. We need some sort of revolution for our judicial system for it to be possible to crack down on drugs.

because it allows for a disproportional amount of harm and murder - thats why

It hardly matters -- The fact of the matter is that gun violence only makes up a small fraction of the total violence in America, and the same goes for murders. Making a difference in the amount of violence in general would be an astronomical advantage over making a difference in the amount of gun violence.

While I'd like for the situation not to force us to simply pick the "lesser of the two evils", we can really only take whichever option will lead to less crime, and that is mental health care reform. Even if I did agree with you, I'd still know that increased gun control isn't possible. When the bills came, the Republicans would lock it up and nothing would get done anyway. The solution that you'd like to be played simply isn't possible in our society or government.

hmm political cartoon - lets make it acurate.
tile one: man kills another with hands - "whats wrong with you"
tile two: man kills another with hammer - "whats wrong with you"
Tile three: Man kills another with knife - "whats wrong with you"
tile four: man killes dozens of innocent people with a sniper rifle while they fill up their tanks at petrol stations - then enters a packed movie theatre with an assault rifle - without which he would have been unable to butcher the large amount of people he did - many of them shot in the back while they were running away"

You're a little off. Killings have been committed proportionately to one another plenty of times. Comparing a single murder with several massacres is idiotic, and and very childish approach in an argument about guns. What if I used a mass knife-killing against a single gun murder as a basis to ban all knives?

and the day that someone go's into a school and murders 25 kids - and a bunch of teachers armed with a hammer or a knife - is the day that one dimentional argument becomes valid

Alright, with this bit, I can't tell if you're trolling, or legitimately THAT laughably ignorant and daft. [Guess that one-"dimentional" argument is valid.] Also, take note of the fact that banning guns doesn't protect classrooms full of innocent children from being killed in brutal murders when some psycho loses it.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Look, I don't care what your position is, but it's hard to debate with a moving target. (Extra points for puns?)

You can't discuss gun control without getting into bans, and you're wasting your breath trying to control the subject of this thread. Instead of parsing words on what you previously said, why don't we just move back to the thread topic?

In fact, bans DO seem to be the centerpiece of most countries gun control. Some people in the US want the same thing, at least for some types of firearms. The ban is the most draconian type of controlling something.

I have so many mixed feelings about this its hard to know what to say. I agree that some people do make a total ban on guns the center of their gun control philosophy. But the whole discussion is a dead end for the United States at this time. And it was you Roland who brought up the dead end in detail and total seriousness with threats of the country going to hell in a handbasket if we had one.

I don't want to get into that dead end discussion. It serves nothing but destroy any chance of this discussion going anywhere in the sense of a compromise between the two opposing groups.

And frankly, by continuing down that avenue all I can do is take it that it is your intent to destroy this discussion. Plus you make yourself look like a crazy reactionary with some of things you say concerning it. Yes, I know it will come up, but you don't have to over-react to it.

I urge you to show some concern for what is a real problem in America that needs solutions, and talk and act like you are interested in finding a compromise between the two opposing camps. Yes, I know that I do ultimately favor a total ban myself, but I am willing to compromise and that is why you don't see me talking about a ban so much. Read my first post again. Its all compromise.

BTW, you are right about the crossbows. Legal in all states, but not to hunt with. But leaves nunchaku, certain knives, etc. We already have several restrictions on the right to bear arms.

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

Compromise? Why should I compromise? Compromise now on semi-autos, and you'll just want me to compromise again later on something else. Until we get to the total ban you ultimately favor.

I don't see guns as the problem. We have a violent culture, one that glorifies violence from domestic quarrels to international intervention with our military. I don't believe in violence as a solution to any problem -- except to defend yourself when your life is threatened by those who do believe in violence.

Okay, I'll compromise. I'll give up nerve gas, if you'll give me something. Compromise does involve this for that, so you have to give me something. How about suppressors? (Usually misnamed "silencers.") They don't really silence a gun shot, but they will protect hearing. I want to save my hearing, so let suppressors be legal without all the current federal registration and tax requirements.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Compromise? Why should I compromise? Compromise now on semi-autos, and you'll just want me to compromise again later on something else. Until we get to the total ban you ultimately favor.

Two can play at that ignorant game Roland. How about this: Compromise? Why should I compromise! Compromise now on semi-autos and you will just renig, or since I left satisfied, just erase it later while my back is turned.

See how that works? Its stupid. When I say compromise, I mean compromise. The future may hold more compromises, but remember, you have elected representatives voting. Your paranoia and mistrust is not necessary or helpful.

There must be a middle ground, or its just tyranny. If you promote the middle ground, you just might get it.

I don't see guns as the problem.

Get a fever high enough, and you will die. Best to lower your temperature in the inter-rim than hold out for a cure for the real problem, the virus.

I cannot tell you how in the hell you will cure America's love for violence. I can however tell you how to lower the number of deaths that result from it: real, coordinated, meaningful gun control. Oh, it won't save everybody, but every life saved will be worth it.

Okay, I'll compromise. I'll give up nerve gas, if you'll give me something.

Nerve gas is not on the table. Or do you have some?

Compromise does involve this for that, so you have to give me something. How about suppressors? (Usually misnamed "silencers.") They don't really silence a gun shot, but they will protect hearing. I want to save my hearing, so let suppressors be legal without all the current federal registration and tax requirements.

In the proposal detailed in the OP, I would allow automatics and supressors, however, only at the gun club unless further training and licensing are undertaken.

What do you think?

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

You're asking me to accept something less than I have now, without offering anything new. If you want me to give up something, you have to offer me something I don't already have.

I could already get an automatic (if I had any use for spraying lots of bullets around) or a suppressor with less hassle than dealing with your gun club. I won't condition my right to arms to the whims of some gun club, which is never going to exist anyway in most rural areas. Will they give me use of a decent shooting range? I only live two miles from a good shooting range, so it would have to be a much better one.

I think gun safety training is a good idea for anyone owning a gun. However, Alaska doesn't require any sort of training or permit to carry a concealed firearm, and there have been hardly any incidents of accidental shootings or homicides from concealed carrying, outside of gang-bangers, drug-dealers and the like (who would be carrying a weapon regardless of legality).

I won't agree to licensing. With the power to license comes a power to deny a license. I repeat, owning a firearm is not equivalent to driving a vehicle. Driving is a PRIVILEGE. Gun ownership in the US is a RIGHT.

Would you agree to licensing of speech or written words? I didn't think so.