I don't know if a thread on this topic already exists. My untrained eye couldn't find any similar topic..
So , what's you say on the right to bear arms..?
The Second Amendment makes us virtually immune to any kind of federal action.
The crime rate is increasing ; The number of people with hoplophobia is increasing;
Mass shootings are on the rise and innocent people bear the brunt of the actions of hoplophilic sadists..
Is there a solution to this..?
This has been debated thoroughly at the global level, but there has never been a solution..
What do you think..?

Amendment I (1791)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II (1791)
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.


Amendment III (1791)
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.


Amendment IV (1791)
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Amendment V (1791)
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


Amendment VI (1791)
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.


Amendment VII (1791)
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


Amendment VIII (1791)
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


Amendment IX (1791)
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Amendment X (1791)
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.




<a name="A11">Amendment XI (1798)
The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.

***********************************************************************

i think we should listen to Ron Paul and honor the Constitution

Well, this could really sum it up...
Just follow the Constitution....
Aren't we looking at a more serious problem..?


PS : I will be following the debates among the candidates very closely and :
We'll see... ( No more deviations from this topic )

Been reading the forums for a while now and this would be the first topic that made me want to register and give this topic some attention. Talking about the 2nd amendment you are obviously talking about the gun control issues America faces?

Being from Australia we have pretty strict gun control laws when compared to that of America. I fail to see logic in America's fascination with, I am going to buy a hand cannon because i can motto. Also the level of arms available to the general public without psychiatric testing is to be honest is scary at best.

Automatic guns are not needed for anything. If you need an automatic gun for farming / hunting purposes i suggest you find a new hobby because your terrible if you need that sort of firepower, in domestic security etc they would only be needed because EVERYONE ELSE HAS THEM ALREADY.

Opportunity alone increases crime take away the tools designed for only killing other human beings (not deer keep lying to yourselves) and it would reduce innocent bystanders and accidental deaths. It took a serious tragedy in Australia to prompt changes to gun legislation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)), surprised Americans haven't already taken this topic more seriously while many of your countrymen/women have died (very public ally shown via the media) because of the ridiculous expectations to un-amend a law that was written so long ago...

I am not a modern historian but i can safely say they didn't have hand held machine pistols or assault weapons available for purchase when the laws were written, so it stands to reason they are changed to preserve human life.

I was talking about the world in general and America in particular...
What you've said is true and the killing rate is the highest in the US...
So now, in one's mind, Gun Control is subconsciously associated with America...
I am not saying the danger is less in other countries.. It is high in the US...

Does gun control work?

We can look at history to get an idea of how well something works.

In the US in the twenties they outlawed alcohol. During that time more people became alcoholics than at any other time. They made gin in bathtubs, beer in the kitchen and brought in hard liquor from Canada and Cuba. It didn't stop peopkle from drinking alcohol.

They have outlawed addictive drugs such as heroin, cocaine and marijuana. Did it help the drug problem? No. Right now any policeman will tell you drugs are the reason for most crime. Gangs kill each other for control of the drug trade. Burglary and theft and prostitution is rampant , mostly to get money for drugs. Outlawing it didn't stop illegal drug use.

There are currently laws to protect the bootlegging of software, music and entertainment. Has the law stopped it? I think not.

In round numbers passing a law only works if you have the ability to enforce it. That would pretty much mean one cop per person. As long as the will of the people want something they will find a way to get it.

In order to stop something the end user has to WANT to stop it.

The reality is I don't want my neighbor or a drugged up burglar to hurt me. My want doesn't mean ding. I can only protect myself from being hurt. If they outlaw guns who cares? Felons get all the guns they want and its illegal.

The only way to stop the flow of illegal drugs, alcohol, bootlegged music or guns is for the common man to to stop obtaining them.

That's my story and I'm stickin' to it. Your mileage may vary.

George

I can't remember where i read the article (and correct me if i am wrong) but isn't America the largest exporter and manufacturer of firearms?

America isn't leading by any sort of example that other 1st or 2nd world countries could follow. A problem exasperated by media attention, it is the media that sets the examples for other nations citizens to follow.

Also personally i dont subconsciously associate gun control with America. Its just funny when you hear American (often very outspoken and unashamed) personalities taint the meaning of freedom while promoting vigilantly (to remove the freedoms of others based personal opinion) behavior to stop criminals that had access to dangerous weapons in the first place.

If you believe everyone at every moment in their lives can judge a situation without bias i recant that statement.

America is a target atm regarding gun control not only for the coverage in the international media towards preventable deaths in America itself, but also the fact that freedom is a word used too often to disguise fact, truth and reason when dealing with international policy. Personally the amount of times i hear freedom associated with gun control in the same sentence makes me sick, American or anyone.

If you trust everyone to make educated decisions on the way people use their freedoms, your a hypocrite every time you lock your front door. People are smart Populations are stupid... its a fact of humanity. I'm tired so sorry for the grammatical errors -_-.

btw previous post... gun control doesn't mean the removal of ALL guns off the market only those that serve no purpose other than to take HUMAN lives (and in Australia gun control has worked in the reduction of gun associated deaths and injures due to firearms).

we here in the US can't own fully automatic wepons without a very expensive and very regulated license. even then they can only be used at approved ranges. (gangs , however, seemed to have found a loophole) I agree
with you on psych tests for gun ownership and even more so for the police. If the criminal element were to somehow magically have their wepons evaporate, I would gladly toss all my semi-automatics into the sea.

Throwing more and more laws at a problem will not solve it if one can't effectively enforce the current ones.

Even if there were tests, more permits and regulations in place the criminal element would still get them. This is why I am against further "gun control" as it is called. More laws will only punish those of us that are responsible law biding gun owners.

If im not mistaken some places that have strict gun control have seen no difference in the amount of violence in that region.
I don't think it matters if there are gun control or not. Mostly because the "bad guys" will still have guns. So i'd rather have my own than have nothing but a pocket knife.

Remember never enter a gun fight with a knife. ;)

Here is what I am thinking:

1 Stricter Background checks
2 Stricter punishments using guns in crimes. (i.e. Mugging someone with a gun as opposed to a knife)



3 However, if guns are outlawed, people will just use lasers (joke)

I agree with you on the first point..
On the second one, mugging is after all mugging,..Gun or Knife, it makes no difference.
Probably, what you say is applicable for mass killings, under the cover of mugging.
What nortons850 has said is true, for a fact.
The usage of guns cannot be outlawed , and the perpetrators cannot be prosecuted en masse...
As long as the nexus between drugs, guns and gangs is strong, it will be difficult to penetrate these well-connected networks ....

Lasers,..?
Where's your Little Boy..? ( a joke again .. )

if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.

All my arms have been carefully packed and buried...3 skks....2 303s....and 2 cases of ammo.....

This made me laugh...truly funny.

Seriously though psychological testing would only indicate someone current mental status...it changes over time and with experiences.



They are not needed to protect me from other people...but from my government.

Freedom is assured by a population owning more guns than their government. So believe your government will always treat you with respect...because I and my countrymen own guns I know our government will always tread lightly because in no other country could a population easily overthrow it's government with superior firepower.

Re: Effects of Australian Gun Control:

""Media Release: Australian Bureau of Statistics - Recorded Crime in Australia Release Date:
July 15th, 1998

Police in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia all recorded an increase in the rate of armed robbery.

The largest increase (+ 63%) occurred in New South Wales. However the increases in some other States were also quite substantial.

Victoria recorded an increase in the rate of armed robbery of 38%, Queensland recorded an increase of 34%, South Australia recorded an increase of 10% and Western Australia recorded an increase of 7%.

Commenting on these figures, the Director of the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Dr Don Weatherburn, said that "they suggested that the underlying causes of the upward trend in property crime in New South Wales were probably national rather than State-based."

Abbreviations
AIC - Australian Institute of Criminology
ABS - Australian Bureau of Statistics

"Crime involving guns is on the rise despite tougher laws. The number of robberies with guns jumped 39% in 1997 while assaults involving guns rose 28% and murders by 19%. (ABS figures) "Gun crime soars.." - Sydney Morning Herald - 28/10/98

"AIC define robbery as unlawful taking of property, accompanied by force or threat of force"

In 1998 8% were committed with a firearm, 38 % with another weapon, and 54 % unarmed

There were 10850 armed robberies recorded in Australia in 1998. This represents almost a 20% increase from the number of armed robberies recorded in 1997.

In 1013 robberies the type of weapon was not further defined, This figure was included in the category ‘Other Weapon’. It is possible that this 9% used in these robberies were firearms.

Armed Robberies have increased by 69% from 1995".

Crime involving guns has soared despite tougher laws imposed after the Port Arthur massacre...the number of robberies involving guns leapt 39% (ABS Report)...assaults involving guns jumped 28%.

Armed Crime on rise -The Sunday Mail - Brisbane 18/10/98

According to ABS figures, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in NSW rose from 827 in 1996 to 1252 in 1997.

Sunday Telegraph - Sydney - 14/3/98

"National gun laws and the destruction of 640,000 firearms under the buyback scheme appear to have done little to reduce the national murder rate, says a new study.

Research paper issued by the AIC on the affect of the new gun laws. The Age - 3/6/99"

Queensland Police Commissioner Jim O'Sullivan yesterday expressed "grave concern" as the number of armed robberies across the state took a big jump for the second year running.

Sunshine Coast Daily - 13/11/98

Fatal shootings in Victoria have increased despite the introduction of tighter gun laws in 1996, a (AIC) study has found.

" State's gun deaths rise" - Herald Sun - Victoria - 3/6/99

The number of Victorians murdered with firearms has almost trebled since the introduction of tighter gun laws.

Geelong Advertiser - Victoria 11/9/97"

http://www.2asisters.org/news/australia.htm

+++++++++++++

By the way, in the front of Virginia Tech is a big sign saying "Gun Free Zone"

The only to take the guns out of the hands of people who use them illegally is to make guns illegal to produce except for military or police action. Short of that, we suck it up.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/gun-de...5685752421.html

Quotes can be taken either side to any argument. BTW

In a 2006 Report of Australian statistics.



Just for Comparison: In a 2003 report of Australian statistics.


http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/La...;num=&view=

Percentage of gun associated murders increased, but the total number of murders has been reduced. Id take that as a positive personally.

But you wanna know something that has changed significantly since?


http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/gun-de...5685752421.html

I don't think i need to compare the statistics between Australia and America when it comes to mass shootings...

Yes the murder rate including firearms increased from a few to few more but if someone is going to murder someone it doesn't matter if they have an automatic/semi-automatic gun or a single shot bottom of the ladder rifle. The person they aim at will usually be severely hurt or killed regardless of what weapon is used in the crime. However it reduces the shooters capability to wound or maim others intentionally, accidentally or otherwise.



Just on a final note...
Under what circumstances would the American people need to bear arms against their democratically elected government?
Would you think that everyone bearing arms would be united? or pushing their own agendas?

Vigilante behavior hardly befits a 1st world country preaching democratic peace for all those currently in the middle east....

Many circumstances are possible but the most likely cause of such a rebellion would be if the Democratically elected government passed undemocratic laws and regulations against the will of the majority. Much less likely because we have guns.



In order to overthrow a government the people would have to be united, after an overthrow there would likely be chaos...which is why I will always work to change my government from within and deter their actions that might cause a rebellion by supporting gun ownership. Much like M.A.D. deterred a war between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R....not the best way to keep the peace but the one that is proven.



Hmmm I didn't say vigilante behavior was my goal...and don't get me started on our current extension of the "White mans burden" as I don't believe we have a right to impose Democracy on any country.

People have become so comfortable and ignorant of history they believe what has happened in the past will not happen again...they are wrong. Nations rise and fall often with violent revolutions...I don't wish for this to happen...but I am an Eagle Scout and our motto "Always be prepared".

A person simply having a gun isn't hurting anyone. Therefore I do not advocate any form of force to deprive them of their gun(s).

People will banter back and forth about "this idea works in this country fine, you should do it in that country" or "going with this side of the debate puts gun crime up/down x%".

I don't care. Use force only to defend against force. You've got a right to use force against someone using force against you to stop them (or to protect someone else), but anything past that would put you in to their own realm of thought and action, making you morally equal with them and equally as wrong as them.



I'd normally say much more to that about many things you have said in that one little sentence (including pointing out some untrue assumptions you've made), and I'm sure you can guess much of what I would say, but I am not going to right now. Instead, I will say this one thing.

It isn't very hard for governments to change the opinions of the people they rule. It's simple; they can lie. People have such pathetically short term memories, they hear a bunch of lies and believe them. They will find out that some of them were lies, but they'll be just as willing to believe the next batch of lies.

In economic terms it would make no sense for there to be gun control in the USA, to many people and jobs depend on there being an active market in their sale and manufacture and Irrespective of the rights or wrongs in their widespread ownership, any move to curb their ownership would mean political suicide to the proponent.

I have a good friend in the US and we exchange emails regularly, in one email my friend asked "was it true we couldn't own a gun in the UK", I told him, even the Olympic pistol team had to train abroad, he was horrified and said "It makes my ass burn to hear that, nobody would take my guns away" he then sent me a picture of his collection, I couldn't believe the stuff he had, some he admitted, Illegally, but it was OK, the local sheriff knew and was a collector himself.

It seems a deep rooted thing, probably unique to the USA, maybe they should decide for themselves whats acceptable in their society.

As to the UK, when the two young girls got shot in Birmingham, I was saying to a good friend from the area, "I cant believe these people can get automatic pistols", he said, "Do you want one? I can get one for you tomorrow, cash up front."

So, as someone mentioned previously, having strict gun laws, as we do here in the UK, seems to mean, the Olympic team and honest club members cant practice their once tightly controlled sport anymore, but thugs can obtain guns without to much hassle.

The reality of the situation was brought home to me a few month ago, I visited someone I know quite well, and said something to the son, along the lines that I would give him a damn good thrashing if he talked to me like that again and was both amused and surprised when he waived a gun at me, he cant be more than 20 and although I think he wouldn't use it, who knows what someone will do if pushed.

It seems in the UK, that the possession of a gun is the new accessory, the must have, after the designer trainers and jeans and if our strict gun controls cant curb their Illegal ownership, what chance the US.

P.

I spent 15 years in the front lines of the Progun lobby here in my state. Types of weapons, bans and restrictions etc. do nothing to create safegards of the security of the people or the state. What it comes down to is social activity and behavior.

What is needed is swift and severe punishment and accountability of ones actions.

The main purpose of the US's 2nd amendment and various state's consitutions clauses wasa bulwark against abuses of the state against it''s own people.

The type of weapon has nothing to do with it you can go back 1,000s of years and governments/societies have tried bans on various weapons as man built bigger and better ones. You can go back to th eearly metal ages where priate citizens would be banned from owning metal swords or other weapons, only the govening body could control them. Same with the bow, then crossbow was considered assualt weapon of its day. In the 18th century in europe the terrible assualt weapon that no private citizen should be allowed to own and under pain of death was a AIR rifle. Late in the 19th century here in the states the lever action repeating rifile was reviles for private ownership as a terrible vile weapon serving no usefull purpose except in time of war, again the assualt weapon of the day. Whe we entered the 20th with teh invention of teh fully automatic weapons here in the states in 1934 they where restricted from ownership along with the short barreled shotgun and silencer. One quirk in europe where ownership of firearms is highly restricted more so than the states the silencer wasn't when it was basically banned here in the states.

It has been proven with factual studies that here in the states when private firearm has increased in an area crime and assualts have dropped. back in the 70'2 it was almost imposible for a private citizen in Miami Fla, to obtain a concealed weapons permit as it was issued by county, then the states law was changed and became more open to private ownership and was standardized for teh whole state. Miami, had a huge crime of raper , assualt and murder against women, the city polize under the new stadardized state permit law trained and issued in the first 6 months over 5,000 concealed weapons permits to women, within 2 months of announcement of this publicly the crime rate of assualt, rape and murder against women DROPPED by over 80%.

As stated in my state Consitution , Connecticut, Article 1, section 15, Every man shall have the right to keep and bear arms for the protection of himself and the state.

Other points made in this thread is the US is the largest small arms supplier in the world, only if that where truth would help our trade decifit. The truth is that more firearms are shipped to other countries by Russia and the former USSR states, then China, N. Korea and Israel.

in a 100 years there will be a call maybe against private ownership of plazma , lazer, or rail type small arms and the so called assualt weapons of today will look to society as old as the 18th century air rifle, the crossbow before that or the long bow, or earlier to metal edged weapons and even slings. the assualt weapons of the day and have no usefull purpose back then.

Control actions and not tools, no firearm of any type ever made has ever jumped up loaded itself, took aim and killed someone. Its the person not the tool.

You may have my firearms when you do pry them from my cold dead fingers. If one wants to be safe from my firearms do not try it, you have nothing to fear until you try. I will surrender my bullets first, so catch.

Obviously. History of course proves this, as it also proves that revolutions still happen. My comment was only point out that there is no way to know what will cause the next revolution...just that there will be one and to offer one possibility of many as to why it will occur.

I was waiting for someone to say that, and if no one had, i was going to say it.



You cant tell people what they can and cannot make or use or own. We've tried it with drugs, alcohol and the machine gun. How many of us can say we've never smoked weed, drank underage or have known someone with an illegal weapon?

I know I cant. I know that when I lived in California I knew more people with automatic weapons than I ever did in Montana (a supposedly gun friendly state). You want to know why? People dont like being told they CANT have something or that they have to jump through 1000000 different hoops to get the proper permit/license. So they take the "easier" route and just buy them illegally. Or they go the "legal" route and buy the legal, semi automatic version and a "Repair" kit which contains all the parts one needs to make the weapon fully automatic.

I myself own a Gun. I own a 1943 made Mosin-Nagant bolt action rifle. I doubt Id willingly give it up to someone who felt that honest citizens cant handle the decision to own a gun or not and needed the government to do it for us all. I've plans to buy more guns. an AK-47 (Legit, non converted), an SKS, 1911 Colt .45 acp and possibly some other bolt action rifles from ww2.

If we put stricted "limits" in place, I can tell you whats going to happen. The criminals will continue to have access to automatic weapons and AP bullets, The cops will continue to be out gunned. The only thing that will change is that instead of there being a citizen who just might get a shot on the suspect and possibly killing him, that citizen will be helpless and at the mercy of the criminal carrying his illegal weapon. I dont want to live in that world.

Relorian, horray! for .45's. My favorite. I have never seen a Mosin-Nagant. Where are they made? Do you find ammo easily or are they a standard caliber? Most bolt
action rifles I have fired are very accurate. Have one myself. I'd say you already know this, but if you get that SKS get some GOOD hearing protection. Them suckers have
a crack to them similar to a .357. I use foam plugs and a headphone style set together. Best regards.

Mosin-Nagant was the standard service rifle of the russian army from the times of Czars till the 1950's the calaiber is teh russian 7.62 round about the same power of the US .30-06. You could say that the it is the russian springfield.

You can see in the movie Enemy at the Gates if you like to see it in a movie as close to real life application.


"How can any man trust a government that can not trust a man bearing arms"

plain and simple

firearms are safe it is the idiot who picks it up who isnt.

you can pass as many laws as you want but you will never ever
legislate against idiots.

i am from the UK and we have seen many a law passed and yet the innocent killings
go on daily.the government pass laws that only effect law abiding firearm holders and resrict
our use.

society has no place for automatic weapons,i agree on that.

criminals are criminals they dont give a shite waht law is passed.

its all about drugs and money.

dare i say it,legalise all drugs,let the governments make money from it,then watch gun crime
slip away as the dealers are out of business.

not an easy solution but i think if someone had the balls to do it,it would work.

Sorry, your wrong about that. First off the type of weapon has no bearing, a Shotgun can send as man projecticcales per minute downrage as a any automatic. Secondly you openned the tent to the camel when you start creating types. Well if we can ban this because we don't need it then we ban this tpe becasue later we don't need this type and so on and so on.

Here in the states since 1934, there have only been 2 repeat 2 murders using legaly owned fully automatic firearms and one sucide. There is a $200 tax and strict background check to puchase automatic weapons.

Secondly, they are fun to shoot, so why should law abiding be denied the pleasure at the range because of actions of criminals. Gee maybe we should ban a firearm that can send 9 to 20 or more projectials with each pull of the trigger. that would sure put a cramp on skeet and trap range.

Don't get caught in the liberial trap that some guns are bad and some are ok becauses after all the rest are banned then the ones that where Ok yesterday are now bad and should be banned today. For 15 years i watched the deals made and we loose our gun rights not in big strokes but in little tiny bites.

i understand were you are coming from by stating i am wrong.as a firearm owners we shouldnt give an inch on what
we can and cannot have.
i would love to have a good blat of a auto
and did miss the chance when i visited las vegas.

i am a sporting rifle owner and love long range crow,rabbit and fox shooting.i hate it when more laws are
passed and then some nut goes mad and kills people.

we live in two different countries and have different societies that have gun crime.

this country is flooded with illegal firearms smuggled in from europe,these are the problem.the legally held firearms that are invloved
in 'crime' isnt even recorded in the figures as its normally a suicide.

that is sad,this world is sad,people are sad.

thanx fo the info bro

Even taking the fact that most murders with these weapons were committed by illegally obtained guns, these guns wouldn't be legally manufactured anymore so it kind of cuts the legs off that argument.




So rent them from the range the same way we rent bowling shoes.





Spoken like a true Heston fan.

You know I think this sums it up. We are a nation that left from england due to forms of opression and one of the foundations the US was built on was the right to defend your land. Sure technology makes advances and yes some people like to stay on the cutting edge. A gun like many other tools can kill and although the guns sole purpose is to throw a projectile at a very power distance aka to harm or kill, we still have MORE deaths being performed by cars than guns. Should we out law cars now?


People who commit crimes will ALWAYS find ways to continue. Just the other day I was watching a show that goes arround the world show casing crimes caught on cam. Guess what I saw down under? A man robbing the store with a pitchfork.

Many lives have been saved thanks to guns. My father when I was 5 shot a man dead who broke in at night armed with a crowbar and screwdriver. What if we had no weapons?" Excuse me Mr burgler, can you wait right here untill the police come?" Sorry man I don't buy that. As a gun owner who grew up all my life with guns I treat them as tools and use them for my personal protection and enjoyment.


http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitl...ftist/id14.html Interesting read, seems Hitler had some great gun control ideas as well :)

this is true but can a shotgun kill a man at long range?
If we're talking about assault rifles they have the ability to penetrate body armor, a shotgun cant.
Not to mention armor piercing rounds in an assault rifle can easily go through a person and still have enough energy to continue their flight for miles. (if cars, buildings or more people dont get in their way)

Now if we're talking about guns like the uzi then thats a different story. They can put many rounds down range just like the shotgun. But these rounds can be hollow point. They cause a hell of alot of damage at ranges that a shotgun could only dream about.

Guns don't kill people, monkey's with guns kill people.
Never forget the fact that whether the gun is illegal or not doesn't matter. As long as it's not used to kill people.

I am just astounded as to what people actually consider "gun control" to mean. No one is saying that ALL guns need to be restricted to the public but if you consider it ok for anyone to have any means of protection hey why stop at guns, your flawless logic can swing both ways. Lets all have explosives, rpg's or nukes, but hey thats just overkill, and stupid right?

Does any civilian seriously need that much firepower? Personal security doesn't require assault rifles or if you do need them for personal security you have other problems that a gun isn't going to fix.



How many pitchfork wielding criminals have then gone on to kill other civilians while making an escape or in resisting arrest? Id have to safely say without researching it, NOT MANY.

btw transient

Get a rifle, assure the authorities that it is only for hunting, let your story get out, watch the animal rights activists holding up posters and placards, and finally, forget the rifle...

It keeps getting better and better...

As I am from New Zealand we have different laws but I know them lol
I own a gun or 2. But I havent registered them. I think that the rules are really to strict and are stupid.
Everyone is over-reacting to the shoot outs and stuff happenin around the world but I dont think guns should be controlled as strictly

Here and Here . Everyone in the town owns a firearm unless special circumstances exist, crime drops 89%. That alone is sufficient evidence for me to protest anti ownership gun control laws.

I was pissed at that comment, how dare he seriously. Some high strung anti-gun law JOURNALIST found it necessary to link the plight of gun owners in the USA to those who are facing GENOCIDE... wow the compassion is overwhelming. Big bad United Nations wanting to reduce the amount of firearms available to fuel wars in Africa, how dare they right?

As for,.



I'm glade that once again people try to justify an entire argument by finding one case to highlight the story and fill the rest with political opinion. So, because one town of 30,522 citizens roughly (2005 census), had a reduction in crime the other 303 million Americans might experience the same thing, when they aren't.

BTW, reading some of his other work to understand who he actually targets with his political views i stumbled upon the following phrase. Which doesn't say a lot towards his target audience.



Nice choice of material to quote, lol. "The Conservative Voice", a website designed to push the political views of a party, not to promote the healthy discussion of contentious issues. DarksideRG > The Conservative Voice when it comes to views supported by fact. Never read any material so one sided in my life, excluding the sports page of the local paper. "The Conservative Voice" may a well be a Christian's unite to overthrow evil website according to its creator, and its choice in advertising including:



I thought it wasn't a very appropriate choice of novel to have advertised in its header.

On a final note: "DISCLAIMER: TheConservativeVoice.com and TCVdaily.com accept no responsibility for the accuracy
or inaccuracies of any story or opinion"

I kinda digressed a little but websites like this do more harm than good regarding ANY topic.

It isn't "his" work, if you want more references Google gun town usa, he simply reposts the article. As for citing one example to sum up an argument, well here's a second: how many students have died from campus and high school shootings ? How many Columbines have the US schools had? Out of them all how many were pro gun states/towns? Not many, and all had high casualty rates except one: here Campus shooter fires a gun, students get their own gun and apprehend him preventing a blood bath. These two points and your argument are all irrelevant though, the real question of gun control is not whether it is good for public safety from one another, but whether it is good for public safety against their government. I don't care how many incidents any one manage to find where someone with a legally owned gun harms someone else, if more people owned guns that problem would slowly die down. I only care about the fact that when one too many laws are made violating my civil rights I have the means to protect myself when BB gets too pushy. That is what the second amendment is for, not to stop some kid from shooting other kids for teasing him, not to prevent robberies in my neighborhood, not to help defend against gangsters and the like: it's their for me to protect myself from the United State's greatest threat, it's own government.



edit: I politely ask that you refrain from heatedly insulting me, I'm sure you didn't realize you were directly attacking myself in some of your comments but I will respect you if you do the same.

Yeah i have no problems with you or anyone else reading the forums.

I don't like websites under the guise of information push certain views on unsuspecting readers and got a bit carried away. As for gun laws i never had a problem with people owning guns, it comes from the idea of level of arms. When residents feel the need to arm themselves with semi/full automatic assault rifles (most extreme of the spectrum) for personal protection its mind blowing. I have other views about gun laws but that is the most pertinent point.

I'm divided on the issue of gun control.

Any person buying a handgun, or any other firearm not intended for hunting, is simply seeking a way to make the taking of human life an easier affair. Whether they seek to use the weapon to defend their property, themselves, or to assault others is irrelevant. To me Life is a thing of value, and one's life should never hold sway over that of any others'. I would support a complete arms ban, if it were practical; but considering the proliferation of arms today such a policy would be impossible to enforce.

On the other hand "governments should fear their people, not the other way around." (i think that is a bastardization of something Jefferson once said) a people should always have a way to defend themselves against tyranny, and in the end force of arms may need to be an option left open. but, i imagine one could argue that society does not need this ultimate defense as it once did. i donno.

You know im gonna get flamed or kicked for this maybe, but, Come on. Anyone and everyone that wants a weapon should have it. no waiting period, no nothing. Go through a really good week long training session every 2years and youll be fine. To be honest Ive been shooting weapons since i was..........2? laws are only abided by the people that need the weapon and then theyre screwed when they dont have it cause of the laws. Constitutional law allows me to have weapons to overthrow a unlawful/wrong/police govt and i want my rights. plain simple. we all just need to realize independance is what matters.

I have never used a rifle but have used pistol alot, I would also like to know how do you handle a sniper rifle?

You guys really feel safer knowing that you can play with guns? Really? You honestly think that guns protect you, make it less likely that a criminal is going to get away with committing a violent crime against you?
Wow.
Frankly, I live in Canada, and a number of my neighbours and friends have hunting rifles. I fully support that, as I am in favour of hunting (although I draw the line at sport hunting); it's the handguns and semis that I do not grasp the necessity for.
Thankfully, neither does my country.
It's funny...I grew up in one of Canada's largest cities, where crime abounds. Would you believe I only had a gun stuck in my face once, and I wouldn't have felt better about it if I'd had one of my own? I would've been dead, since two guns make for at least one body in the street, and the money this guy wanted wasn't worth ANYONE'S life.

And here's a question for you: for people keeping guns in the house for protection...what if they have children? Obviously the guns can't be kept loaded, and ammo must be stored away from said firearms.
Well..if some violent criminal breaks in, are they REALLY going to have time to run, get the gun, run, get the ammo, load the gun, and protect the family?
Or are they going to be an irresponsible, lazy git and make it possible for a child to shoot him/herself or someone else due to improper storage?
Genuinely curious.

I've known any number of criminals in my day. Some were violent, some weren't. Out of them all, only a couple used guns. And you know what they used them for? Bargaining chips for the day the cops caught up for them: "here mr police officer....if you drop the charges I'll tell you where there are 10 guns you can take off the street"

Shocker: it worked every damned time.
A pussy points a gun at you; a man takes you down with his brains or his brawn. It's that simple.

Most gun owners I know keep one gun loaded, with a trigger lock or in a locked safe, drawer or whatever for home protection.

Frightening beyond words.

Home protection in America I presume. I don't live in a big city but I don't know anyone who has a hand gun around here except for the police. I'm 35yrs old and never have I once locked the doors to my house even when I go away for days on end. It's just something you don't have to worry about around here. Great to a Canadian.