Discussion: The Second Amendment

[hammerhedd11]

Gun bans are working out so well for the British.

Exactly. You can't deny it. It is proven that places with strict gun bans have more crime than those without.

 

[BatMatt]

personally I am very for gun control

 

[Handsome Rob]

personally I am very for gun control

You mean by using two hands?

 

[BatMatt]

You mean by using two hands?

yes, work for your murder

 

[Spidey-Bat]

Yeah. Everyone who owns a gun wants to commit murder

 

[BatMatt]

Yeah. Everyone who owns a gun wants to commit murder

you can't seriously think that's what I meant I was responding to a non serious remark with a non serious remark.

 

[Timstuff]

I'm all for gun control. I have been ever since I got one of these:



Once you've experienced it, it's hard to go back!

 

[Paradyme]

But if you own a gun for self-defense, doesn't that ultimately mean that the intent behind owning that gun is to kill any intruders which enter your home?

You have the intent to protect yourself to the fullest extent. No normal person wants to just kill someone its the last thing from their mind but when you or your family is at stake you fight for your survival.

If someone broke into your house and you didn't have a gun whats the first thing you are going to do? Probably grab a weapon of some sort to defend yourself against but if that person has a gun then what? In all probability you will lose. You, will, die.

But again, you are arguing a moot point. Guns were designed solely to inflict harm. Pools and cars were not. The function of a gun is to kill. Nothing more, nothing less. There is the possibility of an accidental death from practically any device. But the fact of the matter is, guns are weapons and death or severe injury are expected to be the final outcome from gun use. Therefore, it makes more sense to ban guns than pools or cars, considering the latter two examples were not designed to inflict harm.

The function of a gun is to kill? Based on what you believe but guns are used for many other things and is considered a sport in some cases. Are you saying that knifes only function is to kill? No, because it is used for numerous other things as well.

It makes no sense to ban guns because once again majority of criminals aren't going to walk into a store and purchase a gun. They are going to go black market or back street type purchases. There are a few exceptions but the fact of the matter is if the vendor is doing their job and following through on a background check then everything should be fine. Maybe, instead of banning guns, the liberals/democrats/anti-gun people should be telling the government to institute a stricter background check law. It should be apparent that nobody with a history of mental illness should be allowed to purchase a firearm.

Banning guns makes absolutely no sense. To assume that crime with a gun will stop and cease to exist by banning guns for the average joe is naive and arrogant. The facts point the other way. Let me ask you something. If you are a criminal and you are standing outside the front of a house knowing that guns are legal in the state you are in, would you just bust through the door or would you wonder if the person you were going to rob/kill had a gun and could more then likely end your life with it if he or she had to?

People that are properly trained on firearm usage by going through a CCW class no how to properly handle a firearm. There is a three point check system when you unload a firearm. There is no such thing as a gun 'accidentally' going off. If you are trained in firearm safety you will be safe. Using a firearm is a fine motor skill. If you don't hone that skill and keep it that way you won't be able to do much with it when or if the time comes. I believe that everyone that purchases a firearm whether it be CCW or anything should have to take a course and be certified. Safety is very important and might be able to deter some crazy people from buying legit.

 

[SuBe]

I'm all for gun control. I have been ever since I got one of these:



Once you've experienced it, it's hard to go back!

They don't make good hardware anymore.

 

[Malice]

I know a number of people...that live in rural ..... not isolated...just not city areas....they have a few shotguns laying around the house.

Funny part...no ammo to be seen...you hear that cocking noise of the shotgun...many people run

 

[SuBe]

That's what I do.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I know a number of people...that live in rural ..... not isolated...just not city areas....they have a few shotguns laying around the house.

Funny part...no ammo to be seen...you hear that cocking noise of the shotgun...many people run

The best part is that robberies in American homes are a far less occurance than robberies in homes with nations that have strict gun control like Britain. It's far more dangerous to perform a robbery in America on the basis that you have no idea whether or not a person has a gun or not.

 

[Carcharodon]

Exactly. You can't deny it. It is proven that places with strict gun bans have more crime than those without.

I'd love to see a study, or some sort of reference. I'm not being facetious, I'm actually interested.

 

[Paradyme]

I'd love to see a study, or some sort of reference. I'm not being facetious, I'm actually interested.

Here's a good article with some statistics

Gun Control Isn't Crime Control

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3083618&page=1

This past Tuesday the governor of Virginia announced he would close the loophole that allowed Seung-Hui Cho to buy the guns he used to kill 32 people -- and himself -- on the Virginia Tech campus. OK, it's a good idea to keep guns out of the hands of people who are mentally unstable. But be careful about how far the calls for gun control go, because the idea that gun control laws lower gun crime is a myth.

After the 1997 shooting of 16 kids in Dunblane, England, the United Kingdom passed one of the strictest gun-control laws in the world, banning its citizens from owning almost all types of handguns. Britain seemed to get safer by the minute, as 162,000 newly-illegal firearms were forked over to British officials by law-abiding citizens.
But this didn't decrease the amount of gun-related crime in the U.K. In fact, gun-related crime has nearly doubled in the U.K. since the ban was enacted.

Might stricter gun laws result in more gun crime? It seems counterintuitive but makes sense if we consider one simple fact: Criminals don't obey the law. Strict gun laws, like the ban in Britain, probably only affect the actions of people who wouldn't commit crimes in the first place.
England's ban didn't magically cause all British handguns to disappear. Officials estimate that more than 250,000 illegal weapons are still in circulation in the country. Without the fear of retaliation from victims who might be packing heat, criminals in possession of these weapons now have a much easier job, and the incidence of gun-related crime has risen. As the saying goes, "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."
It's true that if gun control laws had been stricter in Virginia, Seung-Hui Cho would have had a more difficult time getting ahold of the weapons he used to gun down innocent students and teachers. But it's foolish to assume that stricter gun laws will prevent maniacs like Cho from committing heinous crimes. A deranged criminal will find a way to get his hands on a gun. Or a bomb.


The sad truth is that if gun laws had been less strict in Virginia, there is a possibility that the tragedy at Virginia Tech could have claimed fewer lives.

In January 2006, a bill was proposed in the Virginia State Assembly that would have forced Virginia Tech to change its current policy and allow students and faculty members to legally carry weapons on campus. Teenage college students carrying guns makes me nervous, but shouldn't adults be able to decide if they want to arm themselves -- just in case? When the bill was defeated, a Virginia Tech spokesman cheered the action, saying, "This will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."

However, one gun rights advocate lamented the bill's failure with chilling accuracy: "You never know when evil will pop up."

Back in 2002, evil arrived at Virginia's Appalachian School of Law. A disgruntled student opened fire on the school's campus, killing three and wounding more. The law school also prohibited guns on campus, but fortunately two students happened to have firearms in their cars. When the pair heard gunshots, they retrieved their weapons and trained them on the killer, helping restrain him until authorities arrived.

There's no way to know whether Seung-Hui Cho's murderous rampage could have been stopped in a similar way, but what's certain is that strict gun control laws do not always have the effect that legislators intend. More guns (in the right hands) can stop crime, and fewer guns (in the wrong hands) can make for more crime. Gun control isn't crime control.

Raises all the points I've raised countless times.

http://www.squidoo.com/moregunsequalslesscrime

 

[The Senator]

You have the intent to protect yourself to the fullest extent. No normal person wants to just kill someone its the last thing from their mind but when you or your family is at stake you fight for your survival.

If someone broke into your house and you didn't have a gun whats the first thing you are going to do? Probably grab a weapon of some sort to defend yourself against but if that person has a gun then what? In all probability you will lose. You, will, die.



The function of a gun is to kill? Based on what you believe but guns are used for many other things and is considered a sport in some cases. Are you saying that knifes only function is to kill? No, because it is used for numerous other things as well.

It makes no sense to ban guns because once again majority of criminals aren't going to walk into a store and purchase a gun. They are going to go black market or back street type purchases. There are a few exceptions but the fact of the matter is if the vendor is doing their job and following through on a background check then everything should be fine. Maybe, instead of banning guns, the liberals/democrats/anti-gun people should be telling the government to institute a stricter background check law. It should be apparent that nobody with a history of mental illness should be allowed to purchase a firearm.

Banning guns makes absolutely no sense. To assume that crime with a gun will stop and cease to exist by banning guns for the average joe is naive and arrogant. The facts point the other way. Let me ask you something. If you are a criminal and you are standing outside the front of a house knowing that guns are legal in the state you are in, would you just bust through the door or would you wonder if the person you were going to rob/kill had a gun and could more then likely end your life with it if he or she had to?

People that are properly trained on firearm usage by going through a CCW class no how to properly handle a firearm. There is a three point check system when you unload a firearm. There is no such thing as a gun 'accidentally' going off. If you are trained in firearm safety you will be safe. Using a firearm is a fine motor skill. If you don't hone that skill and keep it that way you won't be able to do much with it when or if the time comes. I believe that everyone that purchases a firearm whether it be CCW or anything should have to take a course and be certified. Safety is very important and might be able to deter some crazy people from buying legit.

I agree with most of the points you raise. I do not feel most guns should be banned, but I feel the people who compare gun crimes to pool accidents have no idea what they are talking about.

 

[Paradyme]

I agree with most of the points you raise. I do not feel most guns should be banned, but I feel the people who compare gun crimes to pool accidents have no idea what they are talking about.

I understand and good.

 

[chaseter]

Yeah. Everyone who owns a gun wants to commit murder

Speaking of, are you coming over for tea later? I have something I need to show you.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

I agree with most of the points you raise. I do not feel most guns should be banned, but I feel the people who compare gun crimes to pool accidents have no idea what they are talking about.

I think people who say guns are violent have no idea what they're talking about.

Speaking of, are you coming over for tea later? I have something I need to show you.

I don't care much for tea.

 

[moraldeficiency]

Completely against it. For one thing cars are far more dangerous weapons and kill more people each year. For another, not talking about standard criminals but for spree killer types control is the worst thing possibe and the reason why is without guns people like that would have to get creative. You know what the easiest way to kill mass people without guns is? Explosives and chemicals, most of which you can get detailed descriptions on how to create from websites and you'd have to use cheap and easy to obtain legal objects in the home depot. As scary as a psycho is with a bunch of guns, that same psycho with nitrate bombs and mustard gas is a far worse problem.

It's kinda like with drugs, there are just some people that want to get high and they'll find a way no matter what. Guns make psycho's stupid and lazy (look at those two redneck *******s that wanted to kill obama by driving in a limo dressed in tuxes and shooting out the window, imagine if they instead had just made up giant drums of mustard gas and dropped them downwind?)

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

I don't think any person who has really thought about it is for an all out gun ban. If you thought Prohibition was bad...

 

[Paradyme]

I don't think any person who has really thought about it is for an all out gun ban. If you thought Prohibition was bad...

It's starting

Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban

The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today.

"As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons," Holder told reporters.

Holder said that putting the ban back in place would not only be a positive move by the United States, it would help cut down on the flow of guns going across the border into Mexico, which is struggling with heavy violence among drug cartels along the border.

"I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum." Holder said at a news conference on the arrest of more than 700 people in a drug enforcement crackdown on Mexican drug cartels operating in the U.S.

Mexican government officials have complained that the availability of sophisticated guns from the United States have emboldened drug traffickers to fight over access routes into the U.S.

A State Department travel warning issued Feb. 20, 2009, reflected government concerns about the violence.

"Some recent Mexican army and police confrontations with drug cartels have resembled small-unit combat, with cartels employing automatic weapons and grenades," the warning said. "Large firefights have taken place in many towns and cities across Mexico, but most recently in northern Mexico, including Tijuana, Chihuahua City and Ciudad Juarez."

At the news conference today, Holder described his discussions with his Mexican counterpart about the recent spike in violence.

"I met yesterday with Attorney General Medina Mora of Mexico, and we discussed the unprecedented levels of violence his country is facing because of their enforcement efforts," he said.

Holder declined to offer any time frame for the reimplementation of the assault weapons ban, however.

"It's something, as I said, that the president talked about during the campaign," he said. "There are obviously a number of things that are -- that have been taking up a substantial amount of his time, and so, I'm not sure exactly what the sequencing will be."

In a brief interview with ABC News, Wayne LaPierre, president of the National Rifle Association, said, "I think there are a lot of Democrats on Capitol Hill cringing at Eric Holder's comments right now."

During his confirmation hearing, Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee about other gun control measures the Obama administration may consider.

"I think closing the gun show loophole, the banning of cop-killer bullets and I also think that making the assault weapons ban permanent, would be something that would be permitted under Heller," Holder said, referring to the Supreme Court ruling in Washington, D.C. v. Heller, which asserted the Second Amendment as an individual's right to own a weapon.

The Assault Weapons Ban signed into law by President Clinton in 1994 banned 19 types of semi-automatic military-style guns and ammunition clips with more than 10 rounds.

"A semi-automatic is a quintessential self-defense firearm owned by American citizens in this country," LaPierre said. "I think it is clearly covered under Heller and it's clearly, I think, protected by the Constitution."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=6960824&page=2

Well, looks like Eric Holder is basically an idiot. Once again banning assault rifles isn't going to stop illegals or drug dealers from obtaining them illegally. You disarm the citizens and make them vulnerable. THINK! Eric, THINK!

 

[terry78]

Just do like Chris Rock said and make purchasing guns expensive and an overall tedious chore. Bet you people won't start taking this **** for granted anymore if the process is lengthy and costly.

 

[moraldeficiency]

hmmm, I like it. Make local DMV's the only place you can get guns. That'll weed out a lot of the problems.

 

[Malice]

LINK

This is not good in my mind

 

[Spidey-Bat]

LINK

This is not good in my mind

"I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum."

So we should restrict the rights of our own citizens in order to benefit a foreign country?