This is my repsonse to all gun advocates

[Czar]

Chess9


<< I could not agree more with your views, but this a tech forum. Almost all of these guys have love affairs with metal of some sort. If the metal has moving parts, they get really excited. Since bullets move very fast, the sexual excitement is beyond the ken of normal beings. >>


LOL

 

[convex]

hitler took away guns, so did castro...it has to be a good idea

http://spot.colorado.edu/~tiemann/guns.html

 

[jkersenbr]

Classy:
<<<I?ll let the innocent victims and the dead speak.>>>

So will I. How about those that government has murdered in its ongoing crusade against firearmes freedom (and, therefore, the Constitution itself).

Murder of citizens by the government.

Do you really want to live in a police/surveillance state? For that is what we will have when only the government and crimnals have guns.

 

[chess9]

Czar:

You are absolutely correct. Ban the manufacture and importation of guns and the supply will slowly dwindle and almost disappear. I've advocated this approach for the last 10 years.

By the way, I was a gun supporter for a long time. However, gun owners, like many people who drive in this country, are very irresponsible. The evidence now supports a complete ban on handguns, and non-hunting use long guns. Furthermore, anyone convicted of two serious traffic offenses in one year should lose their &quot;right&quot; (It ain't a right until the Supremes say it is.) to arm bears, er, bear arms.

 

[Ulfwald]

Classy, just because I posted the 2nd amendment does not mean that I agree with the off the wall &quot;unofficial&quot; militias. What that means to me is that if we are ever invaded by a foreign power, that all citizens can be organized into a defacto fighting force. I have friends all over the world in the armed services. And they all tell me the same thing. That a lot of foreign countries do not want to invade the US in a ground war. Why? because they know that even though we have our issues here, we will put them asside and take up arms to defend our country. They know that there will be hunters who are better shots than some military marksman who will be a sniper around every corner, on top of buildings, and even some &quot;fanatics&quot; with pipe bombs just waiting for them. There is no greater advasary than that of someone protecting his/her home/homeland.

 

[jtshaw]

Yep, banning weapons would dwindle the supply. Kinda like banning drugs dwinded the supply of drugs coming into this country, and banning alchohol during prohibition stopped all alchohol production and consumption in this country. Oh..wait a minute..*gasp*, you mean to tell me the drug problem is worse now then ever and that more people drank during prohibition then afterwards!?! You mean to tell me that much organized crime came from the prohibition area? You mean to tell me that thousands die as a result of the illegal drug trade?

You can go ahead and think banning guns would stop them from getting in the US, and stop criminals from having them if you would like. But I hate to tell you that is an extremely naive view on things, we don't live in an ideal world.

I am not a gun owner and will never be one. I don't feel I need one for protection and I don't need to hunt. But I know that there are many law abiding people in this country that make there living, or part of there living, off of guns, whether it be through hunting or manufactering. I also believe in the constitution and the rights it gives me and my fellow Americans and I spit on anyone who attemps to take those rights away. Maybe it is the fact that I grew up in NH but I firmly believe in the state moto: LIVE FREE OR DIE!.

I am all for people expressing there different views and I respect that but I have no respect for anyone who tries to take ANY of our rights away from us.

 

[warlord]

classy

as multilple people have pointed out, the guns that were used in many of those situations was not obtained illegally, so they may have still occured. the real point behind many school shootings may be irresponsibility of the parent, but then again hindsight is always 20/20, how were they supposed to know their kid was going to go crazy so they should have kept their guns in a safe.

secondly, your link about the cops who confiscated guns for 29 weeks, only goes to prove how by taking guns away from criminals, you can lower crime rates. these people were violating the gun laws currently in place, thats why the cops could take their guns away!

your post stated we need stricter gun laws, but your responses only point to your support of gun bans. I'm with the people who think if the gun laws we have were enforced better, there would be less of a problem.

 

[Corn]

Moogle, what's so hard to understand? If it wasn't for private ownership of firearms the citizens of the USA would probably still be under the tyrannical rule of your government! :Q



jtshaw, in case you haven't noticed, chess9 is a socialist. The idea of freedom is something that he considers dangerous, regardless of what that freedom may be--with the exception being his right to free speech. Hmmmmm, maybe we should apply his standard of 2 traffic violations and we cut out your tongue.

EDIT: One other thing chess9, the supremes do not, now or ever, assign &quot;rights&quot; to individuals. The bill of rights was not written by the supremes, nor ratified by the supremes. I think you need a civics lesson. The only power the supremes has is determing if any law passed is unconstitutional--and the 2nd ammendment is explicitly clear on the citizens right to bear arms (I realize that the socialists in the country seem to think the 2nd ammendment is murky, but the bill of rights assigns rights to the citizens of the USA, NOT the government.).

 

[Schola]

If one person dies from an gun related crime, then ban them all. But if someone is saved because of a gun, then why not allow citizens there constitunally right to bear arms.


Schola

 

[jtshaw]

Ouch....that would hurt. Good thing he ain't in charge

Oh, and to add to the gun issue...
In NH every citizen has a right to have concealed weapons and yet they don't have a problem with shootings really at all...just thought I would throw that in.

 

[Napalm381]

<< . Ban the manufacture and importation of guns and the supply will slowly dwindle and almost disappear. >>

Just like the banning of marijuana, cocaine, and such has made the supply of those dwindle and disappear, right? Bans on things have never worked and will never work.


<< evidence now supports a complete ban on handguns, and non-hunting use long guns >>

What evidence is that? The Second Amendment?

 

[BoberFett]

Napalm

You should know by now that gun-grabbers don't actually need to provide the evidence. Just make vague references to &quot;the evidence&quot; and wail about &quot;saving the children&quot; in an attempt to evoke a knee-jerk, emotional reaction.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

I have a gun. I plan on getting more. There's nothing wrong with having a gun. If I decide to go nuts, there's still nothing wrong with having a gun. If I decide to kill someone with it, there's still nothing wrong with having a gun. It's my action that is wrong. If I didn't have a gun, I'd just kick him really hard.

 

[Superwombat]

Gee, those are scary statistics, I'd better buy some guns to protect myself...

 

[classy]

Here's some numbers
1994-98: 1896 deaths from unitentional firearm deaths
1994-97: 140,938 deaths related to firearms. 61550 were homicide or Legal (police) intervention. 73000 people died by sucide during same span.
1995 more than 1,000,000 guns were imported

Now 140,000 people is a lot of people. Now whats interesting is that only 44% were due to some type of crimnal activity. So you have a better chance of dying or committing sucide with a gun, than dying due to criminal activity. So if your buying a gun to deal with crimnals, history says you better than a 50% chance of dying another way gun related versus criminal activity. What if there were less guns in people's homes? Would deaths by crimnal activity go down or up? Well just remember most guns used in crimes are stolen for law abiding citizens like yourselves. Suppose those guns aren't there? Think its possible some of those people that committted suicide would still be alive? How many accidental deaths could prevented?

I don't believe a total ban on guns is necessary or even feasable. But a ban on handguns wouldn't bother me a bit.

 

[Napalm381]

<< I don't believe a total ban on guns is necessary or even feasable. But a ban on handguns wouldn't bother me a bit. >>

How's that again? You say a &quot;total ban on guns&quot; is not feasible. But a ban on handguns WOULD be feasible? What sort of distinction are you making between these bans? Bans on things don't work, deal with it.

 

[Superwombat]

Here are some numbers:

Handguns are used for protection against criminals nearly two million times per year, up to five times more often than to commit crimes. (&quot;The Frequency of Defensive Gun Use,&quot; in Don B. Kates and Gary Kleck, The Great American Gun Debate [1997])

Washington, D.C.'s homicide rate more than tripled after the city banned handguns. D.C. consistently has the highest homicide rate among major U.S. cities. (FBI)


Chicago banned handguns in 1982 and in a decade homicides with handguns more than doubled. (Chicago Homicide Dataset) Chicago has the fourth highest homicide rate among major U.S. cities. (FBI)

 

[BoberFett]

classy

By your own statistics, half of those deaths were suicides. Without guns they'd have just killed themselves another way.

 

[JasonG]

I think that Gun advocates have gotten the meaning of the 2nd amendment wrong.

As was stated,

&quot;A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.&quot;

It states that a well regulated militia has the right to bear arms.

The key words are &quot;well regulated&quot;. But some people think that means that they can have as many guns as they want in an unregulated way.

When the U.S. was formed, there was no established army and ordinary citizens were considered part of the militia. Now we have the most powerful army in the world so we don't have or need a &quot;militia&quot;.

Guns should be regulated. Other civilized countries in the world have limited guns and the crime rates in those countries are much lower than here.

I realize that it would take a long time to get rid of most guns but I think it's a worthwhile goal.

I personally don't want to live in a country that is like the wild west where everyone carries a gun on the street.

I love the U.S. as much as anyone and would like to improve it as much as possible. I think this country needs to get over their love affair with the gun for the good of everyone.

 

[Dameon]

JasonG, are you stupid or do you just have selective reading abilities?



<< the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed >>



It applies directly to the PEOPLE. THE PEOPLE. THE PEOPLE.

The framers of the constitution had no intention of limiting the right to keep and bear arms strictly to a &quot;militia&quot;, instead it was meant to ensure that a pool of armed citizens was available from which to create a well-regulated militia and provide for personal and the public defense.

 

[Napalm381]

<< Other civilized countries in the world have limited guns and the crime rates in those countries are much lower than here. >>

Including Switzerland, where all males in a certain age range are REQUIRED to own a firearm and be well trained in it's usage. High rates of gun ownership do not always correlate to high crime.



<< Guns should be regulated. >>

What, and the 20,000+ laws on the books right now aren't considered regulation? Get a clue.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

Anti-gun people: before you say &quot;there should be a law that *&quot;, find out if there is one already. You'll be suprized at how often the answer is yes.

 

[Wallydraigle]

Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

infringe-to encroach or trespass. Not to take away.

The second amendment does not in any way shape or form say that the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms would not be taken away, it says that it would not be INFRINGED!!!!!. That means no waiting periods, no non-concealment laws, no particular types of guns that are illegal, ACCORDING TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO ENACT GUN CONTROL LEGISLATION. Period. If you don't like that you can get 2/3 of both houses of congress and 3/4 forths of all the states to agree with you. Until then it is all a moot point. What the govenrment is doing is ILLEGAL, and the rights promised to us in the United States constitution are being taken away.

 

[Napalm381]

Lirion- would you then say that laws prohibiting felons from owning firearms are also unconstitutional?

 

[Wallydraigle]

Napalm, by no means. Felons give up some of their rights because they are being punished because they are felons.