So, to the anti-gun crowd...

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: aircooled
I'm not against people having the right to own guns (as long as they know how to use them properly). You are educated in this field and should have every right to own one.

The right to free speech has been limited since the writing of the constitution. You can say what you want, but now you need permits and such to do so. Same with guns, we now need licenses and such. I'm not against your rights, I just think we need to re-look at things written in the 1700's when they could not even fathom the thought of what we have now.

Just my opinion, doesn't mean I'm right...

Having a mandated policy that all should / could carry firearms would dictate training to use them as well. They go hand in hand and should be assumed without saying.

You are a bit off on the constitution stopping freedom of speech, although that's not to say local governments don't make their own unconstitutional laws.

Fact is if the people of the 1700's saw they way things are now, they'd be organizing a coup. We really don't have much control over our government anymore.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: skace
I would believe that reason to be because the only people who would really go after a legal gun at this point would feel they are doing some duty by upholding the law. But if 90% of the population was legally carrying guns, you'd have a lot of retards carrying them just looking for a chance to tip something in their favor. The reality is that you wouldn't have all good people or all bad people, you'd have a mix and I think thats what sygyzy was getting at. The fact is, the all gun society, would be no different than our current society, just a different set of pitfalls.

You are assuming that in an all-gun society it'd be made of all bad doers.

The way this works is Joe Chump walks into 7-Eleven and tries to hold them up. Chances are if everyone is armed....someone is going to get him (assuming no one is just shooting into a crowd and knows how to use their weapon).

That retard trying to tip something ot his favor would get owned.

Well, even the vast majority of criminals aren't totally stupid.

This explains why you VERY rarely ever hear of an armed robbery at a gun store.

 

[aircooled]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: aircooled

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: aircooled
In the 1700's no one could even imagine a gun that could fire more than once (the 6 shot revolver wasn't invented until the 1830's). So the vague term "right to keep and bear arms" is really not valid nowadays. The right to keep and bear a single shot black powder rifle okay.

Um, no.

The right to keep and bear arms was not only to guarantee the individual right to keep firearms, but to keep an armed populace from which to draw a citizen militia in times of crisis.

This meant the right to keep and bear common infantry rifles and sidearms. Today, that would be select fire rifles and semi-auto handguns.

The firearm technology changes are totally irrelevant. That's like saying the right to free speech should be limited now, because we have new cuss words, and people are more vulgar.

I'm not against people having the right to own guns (as long as they know how to use them properly). You are educated in this field and should have every right to own one.

The right to free speech has been limited since the writing of the constitution. You can say what you want, but now you need permits and such to do so. Same with guns, we now need licenses and such. I'm not against your rights, I just think we need to re-look at things written in the 1700's when they could not even fathom the thought of what we have now.

Just my opinion, doesn't mean I'm right...

You do not need a permit to speak your mind in the US. What ever gave you that idea?

I will NEVER support the licensing of constitutional rights. Sorry.

As for "educated in this field..." Shall we limit free speech to those who have an education? How about the right to vote? Shall we go back to the Jim Crow days and have voter qualifications?

I respect your thoughts and opinions, but neither of us can change each others minds.
If I need a license to drive a car I damn well better need one to own a gun. again this is just my opinion.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: aircooled

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: aircooled

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: aircooled
In the 1700's no one could even imagine a gun that could fire more than once (the 6 shot revolver wasn't invented until the 1830's). So the vague term "right to keep and bear arms" is really not valid nowadays. The right to keep and bear a single shot black powder rifle okay.

Um, no.

The right to keep and bear arms was not only to guarantee the individual right to keep firearms, but to keep an armed populace from which to draw a citizen militia in times of crisis.

This meant the right to keep and bear common infantry rifles and sidearms. Today, that would be select fire rifles and semi-auto handguns.

The firearm technology changes are totally irrelevant. That's like saying the right to free speech should be limited now, because we have new cuss words, and people are more vulgar.

I'm not against people having the right to own guns (as long as they know how to use them properly). You are educated in this field and should have every right to own one.

The right to free speech has been limited since the writing of the constitution. You can say what you want, but now you need permits and such to do so. Same with guns, we now need licenses and such. I'm not against your rights, I just think we need to re-look at things written in the 1700's when they could not even fathom the thought of what we have now.

Just my opinion, doesn't mean I'm right...

You do not need a permit to speak your mind in the US. What ever gave you that idea?

I will NEVER support the licensing of constitutional rights. Sorry.

As for "educated in this field..." Shall we limit free speech to those who have an education? How about the right to vote? Shall we go back to the Jim Crow days and have voter qualifications?

I respect your thoughts and opinions, but neither of us can change each others minds.
If I need a license to drive a car I damn well better need one to own a gun. again this is just my opinion.

Thanks for the respect. I like your cat. 😛

Driving is not a constitutional right. Licensed driving is done on state/federal property. One does not need a license to drive a car on private property.

Apples and oranges.

 

[aircooled]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: aircooled

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: aircooled

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: aircooled
In the 1700's no one could even imagine a gun that could fire more than once (the 6 shot revolver wasn't invented until the 1830's). So the vague term "right to keep and bear arms" is really not valid nowadays. The right to keep and bear a single shot black powder rifle okay.

Um, no.

The right to keep and bear arms was not only to guarantee the individual right to keep firearms, but to keep an armed populace from which to draw a citizen militia in times of crisis.

This meant the right to keep and bear common infantry rifles and sidearms. Today, that would be select fire rifles and semi-auto handguns.

The firearm technology changes are totally irrelevant. That's like saying the right to free speech should be limited now, because we have new cuss words, and people are more vulgar.

I'm not against people having the right to own guns (as long as they know how to use them properly). You are educated in this field and should have every right to own one.

The right to free speech has been limited since the writing of the constitution. You can say what you want, but now you need permits and such to do so. Same with guns, we now need licenses and such. I'm not against your rights, I just think we need to re-look at things written in the 1700's when they could not even fathom the thought of what we have now.

Just my opinion, doesn't mean I'm right...

You do not need a permit to speak your mind in the US. What ever gave you that idea?

I will NEVER support the licensing of constitutional rights. Sorry.

As for "educated in this field..." Shall we limit free speech to those who have an education? How about the right to vote? Shall we go back to the Jim Crow days and have voter qualifications?

I respect your thoughts and opinions, but neither of us can change each others minds.
If I need a license to drive a car I damn well better need one to own a gun. again this is just my opinion.

Thanks for the respect. I like your cat. 😛

Driving is not a constitutional right. Licensed driving is done on state/federal property. One does not need a license to drive a car on private property.

Apples and oranges.

The cat loves you back, shes' high on catnip at the moment 🙂

They didn't have cars in the 1700's nor did they have multiple firing guns, so neither should be a constitutional right, society changes over hundreds of years, but I agree with you that citizens should have the right to carry a gun, I just think in todays world we need some regulation, and education in something this dangerous.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: aircooled

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: aircooled

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: aircooled

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: aircooled
In the 1700's no one could even imagine a gun that could fire more than once (the 6 shot revolver wasn't invented until the 1830's). So the vague term "right to keep and bear arms" is really not valid nowadays. The right to keep and bear a single shot black powder rifle okay.

Um, no.

The right to keep and bear arms was not only to guarantee the individual right to keep firearms, but to keep an armed populace from which to draw a citizen militia in times of crisis.

This meant the right to keep and bear common infantry rifles and sidearms. Today, that would be select fire rifles and semi-auto handguns.

The firearm technology changes are totally irrelevant. That's like saying the right to free speech should be limited now, because we have new cuss words, and people are more vulgar.

I'm not against people having the right to own guns (as long as they know how to use them properly). You are educated in this field and should have every right to own one.

The right to free speech has been limited since the writing of the constitution. You can say what you want, but now you need permits and such to do so. Same with guns, we now need licenses and such. I'm not against your rights, I just think we need to re-look at things written in the 1700's when they could not even fathom the thought of what we have now.

Just my opinion, doesn't mean I'm right...

You do not need a permit to speak your mind in the US. What ever gave you that idea?

I will NEVER support the licensing of constitutional rights. Sorry.

As for "educated in this field..." Shall we limit free speech to those who have an education? How about the right to vote? Shall we go back to the Jim Crow days and have voter qualifications?

I respect your thoughts and opinions, but neither of us can change each others minds.
If I need a license to drive a car I damn well better need one to own a gun. again this is just my opinion.

Thanks for the respect. I like your cat. 😛

Driving is not a constitutional right. Licensed driving is done on state/federal property. One does not need a license to drive a car on private property.

Apples and oranges.

The cat loves you back, shes' high on catnip at the moment 🙂

They didn't have cars in the 1700's nor did they have multiple firing guns, so neither should be a constitutional right, society changes over hundreds of years, but I agree with you that citizens should have the right to carry a gun, I just think in todays world we need some regulation, and education in something this dangerous.

We have more than adequate regulation. And education is there for all. In fact, the most demonized gun group by the left is the number one education resource for gun owners: The NRA.

What we need is enforcement.

BTW, Again, gun technology is irrelevant. The intent was that the individual citizen have the same infantry arms the soldier would have.

So your cat's a junky, huh? 😛

 

[ShotgunSteven]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: skace
I would believe that reason to be because the only people who would really go after a legal gun at this point would feel they are doing some duty by upholding the law. But if 90% of the population was legally carrying guns, you'd have a lot of retards carrying them just looking for a chance to tip something in their favor. The reality is that you wouldn't have all good people or all bad people, you'd have a mix and I think thats what sygyzy was getting at. The fact is, the all gun society, would be no different than our current society, just a different set of pitfalls.

You are assuming that in an all-gun society it'd be made of all bad doers.

The way this works is Joe Chump walks into 7-Eleven and tries to hold them up. Chances are if everyone is armed....someone is going to get him (assuming no one is just shooting into a crowd and knows how to use their weapon).

That retard trying to tip something ot his favor would get owned.

Well, even the vast majority of criminals aren't totally stupid.

This explains why you VERY rarely ever hear of an armed robbery at a gun store.

I heard of one. Unfortunately for the perp, not only were the owners and customers armed, so were the police that happened to be in the shop if I recall correctly. 😀

 

[ShotgunSteven]

Originally posted by: aircooled

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: aircooled

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: aircooled

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: aircooled
In the 1700's no one could even imagine a gun that could fire more than once (the 6 shot revolver wasn't invented until the 1830's). So the vague term "right to keep and bear arms" is really not valid nowadays. The right to keep and bear a single shot black powder rifle okay.

Um, no.

The right to keep and bear arms was not only to guarantee the individual right to keep firearms, but to keep an armed populace from which to draw a citizen militia in times of crisis.

This meant the right to keep and bear common infantry rifles and sidearms. Today, that would be select fire rifles and semi-auto handguns.

The firearm technology changes are totally irrelevant. That's like saying the right to free speech should be limited now, because we have new cuss words, and people are more vulgar.

I'm not against people having the right to own guns (as long as they know how to use them properly). You are educated in this field and should have every right to own one.

The right to free speech has been limited since the writing of the constitution. You can say what you want, but now you need permits and such to do so. Same with guns, we now need licenses and such. I'm not against your rights, I just think we need to re-look at things written in the 1700's when they could not even fathom the thought of what we have now.

Just my opinion, doesn't mean I'm right...

You do not need a permit to speak your mind in the US. What ever gave you that idea?

I will NEVER support the licensing of constitutional rights. Sorry.

As for "educated in this field..." Shall we limit free speech to those who have an education? How about the right to vote? Shall we go back to the Jim Crow days and have voter qualifications?

I respect your thoughts and opinions, but neither of us can change each others minds.
If I need a license to drive a car I damn well better need one to own a gun. again this is just my opinion.

Thanks for the respect. I like your cat. 😛

Driving is not a constitutional right. Licensed driving is done on state/federal property. One does not need a license to drive a car on private property.

Apples and oranges.

The cat loves you back, shes' high on catnip at the moment 🙂

They didn't have cars in the 1700's nor did they have multiple firing guns, so neither should be a constitutional right, society changes over hundreds of years, but I agree with you that citizens should have the right to carry a gun, I just think in todays world we need some regulation, and education in something this dangerous.

They did have multiple firing guns. Double-barrel matchlocks/flintlocks, and in some cases I believe they even had exotic pistols with four barrels for four shots. I have the book around here somewhere that gives the details on it, trying to find it on the web.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: ShotgunSteven

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: skace
I would believe that reason to be because the only people who would really go after a legal gun at this point would feel they are doing some duty by upholding the law. But if 90% of the population was legally carrying guns, you'd have a lot of retards carrying them just looking for a chance to tip something in their favor. The reality is that you wouldn't have all good people or all bad people, you'd have a mix and I think thats what sygyzy was getting at. The fact is, the all gun society, would be no different than our current society, just a different set of pitfalls.

You are assuming that in an all-gun society it'd be made of all bad doers.

The way this works is Joe Chump walks into 7-Eleven and tries to hold them up. Chances are if everyone is armed....someone is going to get him (assuming no one is just shooting into a crowd and knows how to use their weapon).

That retard trying to tip something ot his favor would get owned.

Well, even the vast majority of criminals aren't totally stupid.

This explains why you VERY rarely ever hear of an armed robbery at a gun store.

I heard of one. Unfortunately for the perp, not only were the owners and customers armed, so were the police that happened to be in the shop if I recall correctly. 😀

LOL, yep. But note how extremely rare they are.

Criminals (the vast, VAST majority of them) don't knowingly attack armed people.

 

[alkemyst]

I am against the licensing of guns. I am for training. By having to license you are now labelling yourself in a database.

If I were going to systematically take over an area, I'd first pull up all the known armed criminals that are free, then the gun owners and list them in order. I'd figure out where to go first to maximize crowd control. Cell phones are going to work against me a bit, but landlines and power I can take out.

My thoughts are mixed now with the way people are, but I was for requiring gun education, make it a high school class along with some basic hand-to-hand. Teach it based on home/self defense.

Then once you can supply your 'diploma/card' then you are free to buy a gun(s).

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: alkemyst
I am against the licensing of guns. I am for training. By having to license you are now labelling yourself in a database.

If I were going to systematically take over an area, I'd first pull up all the known armed criminals that are free, then the gun owners and list them in order. I'd figure out where to go first to maximize crowd control. Cell phones are going to work against me a bit, but landlines and power I can take out.

My thoughts are mixed now with the way people are, but I was for requiring gun education, make it a high school class along with some basic hand-to-hand. Teach it based on home/self defense.

Then once you can supply your 'diploma/card' then you are free to buy a gun(s).

I'd go along with gun classes in schools.

But the liberals would have a literal cow.

They seem to believe that even though "just say no" ignorance campaigns didn't work for drugs, and certainly doesn't work for sex, that it will somehow, magically, work for guns.

Ignorance NEVER cured anything.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: aircooled

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: aircooled

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: aircooled
In the 1700's no one could even imagine a gun that could fire more than once (the 6 shot revolver wasn't invented until the 1830's). So the vague term "right to keep and bear arms" is really not valid nowadays. The right to keep and bear a single shot black powder rifle okay.

Um, no.

The right to keep and bear arms was not only to guarantee the individual right to keep firearms, but to keep an armed populace from which to draw a citizen militia in times of crisis.

This meant the right to keep and bear common infantry rifles and sidearms. Today, that would be select fire rifles and semi-auto handguns.

The firearm technology changes are totally irrelevant. That's like saying the right to free speech should be limited now, because we have new cuss words, and people are more vulgar.

I'm not against people having the right to own guns (as long as they know how to use them properly). You are educated in this field and should have every right to own one.

The right to free speech has been limited since the writing of the constitution. You can say what you want, but now you need permits and such to do so. Same with guns, we now need licenses and such. I'm not against your rights, I just think we need to re-look at things written in the 1700's when they could not even fathom the thought of what we have now.

Just my opinion, doesn't mean I'm right...

You do not need a permit to speak your mind in the US. What ever gave you that idea?

I will NEVER support the licensing of constitutional rights. Sorry.

As for "educated in this field..." Shall we limit free speech to those who have an education? How about the right to vote? Shall we go back to the Jim Crow days and have voter qualifications?

I respect your thoughts and opinions, but neither of us can change each others minds.
If I need a license to drive a car I damn well better need one to own a gun. again this is just my opinion.

Safely owning a gun isn't rocket science. There are really only 2 basic rules to follow and if you always follow them you'll never have an accident.

#1 Treat every gun as if it is loaded.
#2 Never point a gun at anything you don't intend to shoot.

Wow, I really need a license to prove that I've learned that...:roll: It's common sense. Driving a car is quite a bit different. There are rules you need to learn, many more than are required for the safe handling of a firearm. Hell, the state of CA has a mandated safety test for those buying a firearm. It is the most basic common sense BS you've ever read. As you read the questions you feel stupid just for having read them.

Here's an example:

Which is the safest direction to point a firearm?

A) At the sky
B) North
C) At a school
D) At the ground

 

[aircooled]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: aircooled

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: aircooled

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: aircooled

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: aircooled
In the 1700's no one could even imagine a gun that could fire more than once (the 6 shot revolver wasn't invented until the 1830's). So the vague term "right to keep and bear arms" is really not valid nowadays. The right to keep and bear a single shot black powder rifle okay.

Um, no.

The right to keep and bear arms was not only to guarantee the individual right to keep firearms, but to keep an armed populace from which to draw a citizen militia in times of crisis.

This meant the right to keep and bear common infantry rifles and sidearms. Today, that would be select fire rifles and semi-auto handguns.

The firearm technology changes are totally irrelevant. That's like saying the right to free speech should be limited now, because we have new cuss words, and people are more vulgar.

I'm not against people having the right to own guns (as long as they know how to use them properly). You are educated in this field and should have every right to own one.

The right to free speech has been limited since the writing of the constitution. You can say what you want, but now you need permits and such to do so. Same with guns, we now need licenses and such. I'm not against your rights, I just think we need to re-look at things written in the 1700's when they could not even fathom the thought of what we have now.

Just my opinion, doesn't mean I'm right...

You do not need a permit to speak your mind in the US. What ever gave you that idea?

I will NEVER support the licensing of constitutional rights. Sorry.

As for "educated in this field..." Shall we limit free speech to those who have an education? How about the right to vote? Shall we go back to the Jim Crow days and have voter qualifications?

I respect your thoughts and opinions, but neither of us can change each others minds.
If I need a license to drive a car I damn well better need one to own a gun. again this is just my opinion.

Thanks for the respect. I like your cat. 😛

Driving is not a constitutional right. Licensed driving is done on state/federal property. One does not need a license to drive a car on private property.

Apples and oranges.

The cat loves you back, shes' high on catnip at the moment 🙂

They didn't have cars in the 1700's nor did they have multiple firing guns, so neither should be a constitutional right, society changes over hundreds of years, but I agree with you that citizens should have the right to carry a gun, I just think in todays world we need some regulation, and education in something this dangerous.

We have more than adequate regulation. And education is there for all. In fact, the most demonized gun group by the left is the number one education resource for gun owners: The NRA.

What we need is enforcement.

BTW, Again, gun technology is irrelevant. The intent was that the individual citizen have the same infantry arms the soldier would have.

So your cat's a junky, huh? 😛

Agreed, enforcement to existing laws is what we need.

I still think a time will come that we need to re-look at the constitution as we are getting beyond conventional weapons, and "arms" really isn't specific enough, but that's really outside of what started this thread.

I'm just not a gun person, and I'm sure you will always be able to out-debate me regarding this issue. I do believe in gun laws and their enforcement.

Yeah, the cat likes the kitty smack 😛

 

[loic2003]

Hi all, looks like it's time to add my $0.02.

As previously stated, america has a serious cultural problem. The 'kick-ass' 'hell-yeah' aggressive and arrogant mentality that america is famed for can produce a highly motivated workforce but can also shoot them in the foot (pun unashamedly intended).

There are many cultures out there where there are a fraction the number of guns in circulation amongst the populus and people live in much less fear of gun-toting criminals than their american counterparts. The nightmare scenario of only outlaws possesing guns just doesn't seem to have materialised, despite the claims of the NRA crew.

However, banning guns in the US would likely not be effective for a significant amount of time (many decades) for a couple of reasons. First, due to the aforementionned american mentality you'll see a lot of comments such as the 'from my cold, dead hand...' etc. and the law abiding citizens who believe they are living in a free society will be strongly against the idea of handing over their treasured killing devices.

Secondly, the US is now stuck in a situation not unlike the M.A.D. scenario with nukes. If the US/Europe decided to scrap every single warhead they had, it wouldn't be long before North Korea or some other equally friendly country invaded or attacked the coalition. Since practically anyone short of a lunatic can jump through the hoop(s) and own a gun and the country is near saturated with firearms, it's just too late in the day to try and enforce some new policy with the aim of reducing numbers of firearms in the population.

So there you have it. Countries where gun use is low need not lower their gun-ownership policies and allow the general population to purchase guns in order to make their respective societies safer. However, trying to reduce the number of guns in america is futile because of the sheer number or guns about and the attitude of the citizens.


Some comments in regard to other comments earlier in this thread:
-If the NO situation occured in the UK, there obviously would have been far less shooting going on, even if the situation was permitted to degrade to a similar level through poor management, because there simply aren't as many guns about.

-Comparing guns to cars or knives (tools which are not designed specifically to kill) frankly is stupid.

-Claiming suicides don't count as a negative reason for guns in a society isn't accurate. Many people who survive suicide attempts don't go ahead and try it again. Their mentality/feelings change and some live perfectly happy lives once they pas through the 'dark phase' they were in. I know a chap who jumped from a multistorey. He's permanently crippled, but now reasonably happy.
Suicide attempts with guns are seldom unsuccessful.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Amused
LOL, yep. But note how extremely rare they are.

Criminals (the vast, VAST majority of them) don't knowingly attack armed people.

Fortunately the few that do provide us great entertainment. :beer:😉

What many don't realize is often times the guy with the gun is the scared guy. With today's laws if I was going to be a thug, I'd get trained and just use my fists. the 10-20-life laws make carrying not worth it in my book. At that point my only worry is the rare chance some soccer mom or cop wannabe is packing in the same place I am and willing to use their weapon. No matter how tough I am, if the person is willing to shoot (most arent): bullet >>>>>>>>>> me (yes I do know that kill shots are rare, still get shot and see how well you perform, I have been shot (high powered pellet, not actual firearm) through the hand...I have a high pain threshhold and the pain wasn't the factor, my hand was non-responsive).

As a younger (idiot?) I have been pulled on and shot at with real firearms. P!ss off the wrong crowd at a niteclub and stuff happens. I made it through. I am still for guns being allowed...I still don't own one though. I do know many that do. When I buy a house I will probably buy both a rifle/shotgun and a pistol. I am already teaching my wife how to shoot (she likes revolvers, shells flying over her is not her thing)...she is amazed by the power such a 'toy' has...coming from Japan they don't even have the option to go shooting. Her first thought was they should be outlawed here too...but now that she is learning how people are here, she is under the belief guns are needed.

 

[aircooled]

Originally posted by: alkemyst
I am against the licensing of guns. I am for training. By having to license you are now labelling yourself in a database.

If I were going to systematically take over an area, I'd first pull up all the known armed criminals that are free, then the gun owners and list them in order. I'd figure out where to go first to maximize crowd control. Cell phones are going to work against me a bit, but landlines and power I can take out.

My thoughts are mixed now with the way people are, but I was for requiring gun education, make it a high school class along with some basic hand-to-hand. Teach it based on home/self defense.

Then once you can supply your 'diploma/card' then you are free to buy a gun(s).

I definitely understand your concern.
If you are a homeowner you are already in a database. If you have utilities (water, electricity, gas) you are already in a database. As a non-criminal who owns a gun, being in a database should not be an issue.

I need a license to let a pet outside.

 

[ShotgunSteven]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: Amused
LOL, yep. But note how extremely rare they are.

Criminals (the vast, VAST majority of them) don't knowingly attack armed people.

Fortunately the few that do provide us great entertainment. :beer:😉

What many don't realize is often times the guy with the gun is the scared guy. With today's laws if I was going to be a thug, I'd get trained and just use my fists. the 10-20-life laws make carrying not worth it in my book. At that point my only worry is the rare chance some soccer mom or cop wannabe is packing in the same place I am and willing to use their weapon. No matter how tough I am, if the person is willing to shoot (most arent): bullet >>>>>>>>>> me (yes I do know that kill shots are rare, still get shot and see how well you perform, I have been shot (high powered pellet, not actual firearm) through the hand...I have a high pain threshhold and the pain wasn't the factor, my hand was non-responsive).

As a younger (idiot?) I have been pulled on and shot at with real firearms. P!ss off the wrong crowd at a niteclub and stuff happens. I made it through. I am still for guns being allowed...I still don't own one though. I do know many that do. When I buy a house I will probably buy both a rifle/shotgun and a pistol. I am already teaching my wife how to shoot (she likes revolvers, shells flying over her is not her thing)...she is amazed by the power such a 'toy' has...coming from Japan they don't even have the option to go shooting. Her first thought was they should be outlawed here too...but now that she is learning how people are here, she is under the belief guns are needed.

Funny you should mention Japan. We get a lot of Japanese tourists here in Alaska, especially now with the charter flight program that the tourism board got going. One thing a lot of the Japanese love to do is go out to a friend's place (He is a Class 3 FFL dealer) and pay to shoot his machineguns and automatic rifles.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: aircooled

Originally posted by: alkemyst
I am against the licensing of guns. I am for training. By having to license you are now labelling yourself in a database.

If I were going to systematically take over an area, I'd first pull up all the known armed criminals that are free, then the gun owners and list them in order. I'd figure out where to go first to maximize crowd control. Cell phones are going to work against me a bit, but landlines and power I can take out.

My thoughts are mixed now with the way people are, but I was for requiring gun education, make it a high school class along with some basic hand-to-hand. Teach it based on home/self defense.

Then once you can supply your 'diploma/card' then you are free to buy a gun(s).

I definitely understand your concern.
If you are a homeowner you are already in a database. If you have utilities (water, electricity, gas) you are already in a database. As a non-criminal who owns a gun, being in a database should not be an issue.

I need a license to let a pet outside.

Explain exactly how licensing (not education) will curb crime. We can do education independant of licensing.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: aircooled
I definitely understand your concern.
If you are a homeowner you are already in a database. If you have utilities (water, electricity, gas) you are already in a database. As a non-criminal who owns a gun, being in a database should not be an issue.

I need a license to let a pet outside.

You are not understanding the differences. Owning a home, pet, car, etc does not put me under the RADAR.

Say I now own 50 firearms and about 5000 rounds of ammo.

Most people aren't going to say 'Oh look he has three cute kitties'

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Amused
Explain exactly how licensing (not education) will curb crime. We can do education independant of licensing.

From a fearing standpoint you'd think everyone is accounted for.

In reality, they are just numbered.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Which is the safest direction to point a firearm?

A) At the sky
B) North
C) At a school
D) At the ground

At a school, of course.

Whaddya think I am, stoopid???

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Which is the safest direction to point a firearm?

A) At the sky
B) North
C) At a school
D) At the ground

At a school, of course.

Whaddya think I am, stoopid???

Everyone knows it's:
E) From a belltower.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: loic2003
Hi all, looks like it's time to add my $0.02.

[snip]

Suicide attempts with guns are seldom unsuccessful.

#1 America is a LOT different than many countries out there. First we are a target, second we have much of the world's economy ... take us over and profit!

#2 How many suicides are gun-based? And even if all were...WTF do we have a right to tell someone otherwise. If I want to kill myself I think I should be allowed. I would hope my family/friends would get me help first, but to me this is where gov't intervention is too much.

#3 most of the countries that have no guns allowed have FREAKING laws that are anti-freedom based. I am willing to bet if I were to move to Japan I'd be arrested within the first few years there. Japanese law assumes I am guilty. Now how do I save my as$ from a fenced cube I am stuck in?

 

[aircooled]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: aircooled

Originally posted by: alkemyst
I am against the licensing of guns. I am for training. By having to license you are now labelling yourself in a database.

If I were going to systematically take over an area, I'd first pull up all the known armed criminals that are free, then the gun owners and list them in order. I'd figure out where to go first to maximize crowd control. Cell phones are going to work against me a bit, but landlines and power I can take out.

My thoughts are mixed now with the way people are, but I was for requiring gun education, make it a high school class along with some basic hand-to-hand. Teach it based on home/self defense.

Then once you can supply your 'diploma/card' then you are free to buy a gun(s).

I definitely understand your concern.
If you are a homeowner you are already in a database. If you have utilities (water, electricity, gas) you are already in a database. As a non-criminal who owns a gun, being in a database should not be an issue.

I need a license to let a pet outside.

Explain exactly how licensing (not education) will curb crime. We can do education independent of licensing.

My response was toward the "I'm in a database". reply....

But licensing I personally believe would be good, as this means true testing before you qualify for something this deadly. Again, you are probably well qualified to own and use a gun, but I might live next door to some joe-blow that is not.....

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: loic2003
Hi all, looks like it's time to add my $0.02.

As previously stated, america has a serious cultural problem. The 'kick-ass' 'hell-yeah' aggressive and arrogant mentality that america is famed for can produce a highly motivated workforce but can also shoot them in the foot (pun unashamedly intended).

There are many cultures out there where there are a fraction the number of guns in circulation amongst the populus and people live in much less fear of gun-toting criminals than their american counterparts. The nightmare scenario of only outlaws possesing guns just doesn't seem to have materialised, despite the claims of the NRA crew.

However, banning guns in the US would likely not be effective for a significant amount of time (many decades) for a couple of reasons. First, due to the aforementionned american mentality you'll see a lot of comments such as the 'from my cold, dead hand...' etc. and the law abiding citizens who believe they are living in a free society will be strongly against the idea of handing over their treasured killing devices.

Secondly, the US is now stuck in a situation not unlike the M.A.D. scenario with nukes. If the US/Europe decided to scrap every single warhead they had, it wouldn't be long before North Korea or some other equally friendly country invaded or attacked the coalition. Since practically anyone short of a lunatic can jump through the hoop(s) and own a gun and the country is near saturated with firearms, it's just too late in the day to try and enforce some new policy with the aim of reducing numbers of firearms in the population.

So there you have it. Countries where gun use is low need not lower their gun-ownership policies and allow the general population to purchase guns in order to make their respective societies safer. However, trying to reduce the number of guns in america is futile because of the sheer number or guns about and the attitude of the citizens.


Some comments in regard to other comments earlier in this thread:
-If the NO situation occured in the UK, there obviously would have been far less shooting going on, even if the situation was permitted to degrade to a similar level through poor management, because there simply aren't as many guns about.

-Comparing guns to cars or knives (tools which are not designed specifically to kill) frankly is stupid.

-Claiming suicides don't count as a negative reason for guns in a society isn't accurate. Many people who survive suicide attempts don't go ahead and try it again. Their mentality/feelings change and some live perfectly happy lives once they pas through the 'dark phase' they were in. I know a chap who jumped from a multistorey. He's permanently crippled, but now reasonably happy.
Suicide attempts with guns are seldom unsuccessful.

I'd say that the majority of our gun deaths are more a result of our ruinous drug laws that most of us vainly cling to rather than our "aggressive and arrogant mentality" as you put it.

There are many cultures out there where there are a fraction the number of guns in circulation amongst the populus and people live in much less fear of gun-toting criminals than their american counterparts. The nightmare scenario of only outlaws possesing guns just doesn't seem to have materialised, despite the claims of the NRA crew.

Interesting. So, using the UK as an example since firearm registration was required decades before firearms were baned that means that the government should have a pretty good idea of where most of the guns are. I know the government has conducted amnesty programs over there since the 97 that have likely nettted the bulk of outstanding firearms from upstanding citizens.

This now has left the UK citizenry in exactly the position you claimed didn't happen. The criminals are indeed now the only ones with firearms and they do use them.

We over here have watched the great experiment in the UK (and the large resulting increases in all other categories of crime) and have opted on practical and historical grounds that we should proceed on our present course.