http://www.southtownstar.com/news/eaton/903670,041908eaton.article One of the most heavily controlled areas for gun ownership also has the worst gun violence problems...go figure.
Bull. Look at England. The problem here is that the gun control laws are not uniform and very localized. It is such that someone can buy a gun in ND without hardly any trouble at all and travel to IL where said gun is now illegal for them to carry. I am for moderately strict gun control laws that are uniform throughout the 50 states. That said, I am in favor of people being able to own guns for self defense, entertainment, and hunting purposes.
Gun's don't kill people, people kill people. We should all be banned from contact with other humans other than significant others....
Gun control is the biggest crock. There were something like over a dozen armed robberies (gun point) on NC State's campus just in the last year I was there. Why were there that many on a college campus? Hmmm...lets think, the fact that the thugs robbing people knew that there was a very low likelihood that the people they held up would have a firearm on them to defend themselves with. Some of the ideas for gun control that are floating around are downright silly and extraordinarily intrusive (read: impossible to implement). -Steve
You don't need a gun to kill a significant other. I'm sure with enough time I could end your life with a Pringle's can. BAN ALL PRINGLES CANS!
I think that eating those pringles that have been sitting in the cabinet for about 4 months after being opened will kill you faster.
My favorite pringles were the ridged kind ... but they didn't last. Why oh why did you take my ridged pringles away??
You can buy long rifles in most states without being a resident. Handguns are a different thing. Most states do not allow out-of-staters to buy handguns unless the guns are transferred to a dealer in the buyer's state. So there is no advantage. And so what? And I could buy dynamite in AZ and drive to MN and plant it at World Motor Cars. You can't stop most crazy people. Unless you limit self-defense to staying at home, how does that prevent guns from being carried everywhere? What gun control law would you be able to support, no Uzis?
I'm not quite sure about the effect of gun laws, though generally I think they should be looser for those with clean records while making sure that those aimed at convicted felons are carried out. I also think this is something that needs to be regulated at a federal level to ever be effective. If laws are looser over the border, they do nothing. The main flaw with this study is that it compares dissimilar areas. Generally, the tightest gun laws have been enacted in areas with high population desnity and often poverty that tends to lead to increases in crime in general anyhow. Further, these places likely already have a gun crime problem. If no one gets murdered, there's going to be no call for stricted gun laws. Finally, this "if someone had just had a gun" thing is just a Monday morning quarterbacking combined with cowboy/vigilante desires. Sure, they might have killed the guy. Or the person with the gun would have fired, missed, been killed, and then the remianing bullets in the gun could have been used to make damn sure all six were dead (instead of 5). Or if there had been more people, he would have been able to shoot more. Yes, this is an if, but so is the theory that someone could have run in and save the day. Do you have a right to defend yourself? Sure (within reason) Will you be able to with a gun ina situation like this? Its pretty unlikely outside of the movies.
I don't think those odds are in any way worse than when the cops show up. For all the shots fired at the groom in NY, he was hit by only like 10%. They must not have learned to hold their guns sideways...
The 2nd Amendment is our most outdated. The problem is we've never modernized it for current reality. Don't you all recall fondly those grand old times when we could have all the slaves we wanted and those silly women couldn't vote? Ahhh, those were the days. Wake the f&*k up people. Female handgun ownership in IL and/or concealed carry laws would not have spared a single Lane Bryant shopper or any more than the tiniest fraction of those killed by firearms in the US. Beliefs to the contrary are the antiquated, infantile and naive wet dream soundbites of the NRA, their lobbyists and their zealous fear-mongering kin. Let me be clear - I like guns - but the militia-man approach to this issue has no merit and will only indefinitely perpetuate the loss of life. That article is pure op-ed rubbish, not a balanced review of the issues. More guns is never the answer. The right people with the right guns is and the right people are never the general public. You want to play the self-defense card? Get yourself a 12-gauge with buckshot and get after it. There is categorically no substitute. Only a small minority of legal handgun owners are sufficiently trained in their use for self-defense or close quarters combat and of those I would bet my life that the vast majority are current/former military or law enforcement. Even then, there's a big difference between a gun range or tactical course and a real situation where you're faced with the option of pulling a gun on somebody in the context of an unexpected hostile confrontation. The solution: - There should be a national ban on all hand-guns and paramilitary arms (yes, even the AR-15 derivatives I so covet). - Legal owners of such weapons should be fully reimbursed at original MSRP or current replacement cost - whichever is greater. - Anyone found in possession of such weapons would face mandatory felony charges and the penalties for using them in a crime significantly heightened. - Law enforcement agencies should be armed with best-in-class equipment to make sure they're never out-gunned by bad guys and girls. Sometimes the only way to get rid of the rats is to burn down the barn...
Getting rid of guns isn't going to solve anything. Illicit drugs are illegal, but they are plenty easy to get. Maybe we should concentrate less on imprisioning people for petty offenses (war on drugs is a joke) and spend more time making sure that violent criminals are put away for good.
Heh, you mean this is not okay? :laugh: Have you had your daily dose of desensitization today? /sarcasm.
My thoughts exactly. Not to inject politics into this, but Obama did cocaine. He didn't get caught. Why should he get to sit in the White House while another person who did get caught sits in the Big House? It is time to change the law. As for confiscating guns, why? Legal, law-abiding citizens don't commit crimes. The 2nd guarantees the right to defend yourself. That is a natural law that existed before the Bill of Rights, which is why it is guaranteed. Just like the right to open your mouth and speak your mind.
No uzis is a good start- and that one is already on the books. I would support people being able to open carry guns in public, I don't see a need for concealed carry anywhere. I am for all gun owners having to register to buy any gun (long rifle or 9mm glock). If you are a law abiding citizen what is your problem with registering your guns? Basically I want it to be much harder for criminals to obtain guns (I.E. as close to impossible as it can get), and if that inconveniences me a little when I was to buy my next Kel-Tec or H&K then I am ok with that, as long as I can get my gun.
I will personally fight tooth and nail against anyone who wants to take away my RIGHT to possess legal firearms, end of story. -Steve
This would make sense if bad guys and girls obeyed laws regarding gun ownership. It does just what the drug war did to drugs. It pushes the sale underground making everyone that searches for them criminals.
^-----Agreed. You can't ASSume that criminals will attempt to obtain firearms through legal means, black market anyone? As soon as you make the guns illegal, you lose any and all means of keeping track of any sort of sales. I'm all for certain restrictions on owning firearms, such as if you are a felon, you can not purchase them. Making it more difficult for law abiding citizens to purchase firearms so that they can hunt/target shoot/defend themselves is a HUGE step in the wrong direction. -Steve
Personally, I'm more concerned about normal old Bill who is fed up with his life and decides he wants to take out 20 - 30 of his co-workers. If someone wants to take my wallet and pulls a gun on me theres no way in hell I would get into a shootout over my f-ing wallet, its unrealistic and ridiculous. Seriously, we have a gun problem in the US, plain and simple, but there is so much money and bullcrap pumped into this issue that we will never rid ourselves of this embarrassment. So many deaths, crimes, rampages, massacres could of been prevented by just banning gun ownership, or the NON-recreational possession of guns.
Yeah, and we wouldn't have to listen to you if we could do away with that pesky 1st Amendment as well... The world is never going to be safe. Get over it.
Of course it will never be safe, but it's just dumb not to at least take steps to prevent some of this crap from happening. Thats the mentality that puts guns in the hands of deranged lunatics.
I suspect there might be severe testicular trauma if anyone started smacking Steph with a Pringles can.
Again, crimes, rampagers and such are usually caused by people that don't give a damn about the laws banning guns. If you make it a crime to own guns, only criminals will have guns. And a 'recreational' gun can be used by someone to blast 20-30 people at work just as easily as a handgun. If you think I'm full of crap, I invite you to go find the nastiest part of MPLS, and start interviewing people on the street that look like they might carry a gun. If they say "Yes, I got a gun" ask them how they got it and if it is registered. Bobby Gang-banger isn't going to legally register a firearm and go through training courses and certifications to have a concealed carry, he's going to buy the gun off the black market and stuff it in his belt under a large shirt or jacket and call it a day. Guess what, if you make guns illegal, guess what Bobby Gang-banger is going to do.....he's going to go buy a gun on the black market and stuff it in his belt under a large shirt or jacket and call it a day. And that's because Bobby Gang-banger could give two ****s about legally owning his handgun.
I dont get the arguement here, why would we as a country BAN the use of guns? recreational or not, that would make our entire country vulnerable in every way possible. and how would we ****ing ban the use of guns? go to every single persons house and search the entire property of everyone residing in the united states? that would cost more money than any damage that guns could ever do to the country including funeral costs... put the bong down guys, world peace will never come and getting rid of guns isnt the answer.
Actually many of these massacres are committed by people who owned guns legally. And for non-planned massacres (like they just snapped), could be prevented if those people had not been (legal) gun owners. Gang bangers and the like don't care about legality of guns, true -- though gun laws make it easy to get these people off the street. Gun laws also help reduce the access thes epeople have and would raise the price of a black market handgun dramatically. Its naive to say that banning guns wouldn't reduce gun crime. It certainly would. The real question is if the advantage of increases safety is worth the decrease in freedom. (And no this is not the temporary safety Franklin talks about). I've of the opinion that both sides have merits in certain ways. I think that someone who has commited a felony should never have a gun unless their rights are restored. And I'm for quite draconian punishments for those who break these laws and those who aid them in breaking them. I also favor sticter punishments for those who use guns in crimes. I'm not a fan of people who carry loaded guns within reach while driving (no, you will never prevent a carjacking this way, I promise), though i'm not sure if we want to legislate that. On the other hand, if you want a pistol for the range, a shotgun for home-defense, or a rifle or shotgun for hunting I have no issues with that. Hell, if you just like guns like I like cars, you should be able to have them for personal enjoyment. I'd probably support limits such as no RPGs or AK-47s, but only on extreme stuff.
^^^^ this Why is it always the panty-waists who scream about The Patriot Act and "1984" who want to ban everything, go into your homes, control your thermostat, take your lightbulbs, limit what you can drive, say, watch, listen to, eat, drink, smoke, and shoot? Socialists suck. They never change their stripes.
