Gun Control

[TheDave]

oh right, i thought you were saying its ok because criminaals arent lawfully allowed them


good point

[Rat Faced]

As long as they can be purchased at places like WallMart, I cant see any point in even trying to curb a Criminals "Right to Bare Arms".... your just wasting money and manpower.

To be honest, i hate Guns... although i have to admit im a good shot myself

However, as just about anyone in the USA that wants a gun has at least one... its a little late to try and bring something in that would be almost impossible to enforce.

Bringing in unenforcable laws is about as useful as a chocolate fireguard.


Im just glad we dont have the problem over here.


Edit:

At least not as much

[j2k4]

I must say it's awfully frustrating to be subject to laws that are only enforced pending political pressure; i.e., the law is there if we decide we want to use it, and we can ignore it if it doesn't suit our purposes.

This was the modus operandi of a previous administration.

Laws were passed for the political capital they raised, but when came time to put them to use, political expedience carried the day.

I'm going to look around for a particularly stunning piece of info, the particulars of which I hope will come to me in time to post here.

Stay tuned.

[j2k4]

Okay, this wasn't exactly what I was looking for, but it is indicative of the problem, which is the exploitation of gun laws for political gain:



Up in Arms
President Clinton and Vice President Gore reacted angrily to charges that their administration exploits shooting tragedies for political gain. Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association, a guest on ABC’s "This Week", stated his opinion that President Clinton is "willing to accept a certain level of killing to further his political agenda." Clinton denounced LaPierre’s remarks as "political smear tactics" and Gore said "I believe Mr. LaPierre's comment reveals a kind of sickness at the very heart of the NRA."

Texas Governor George W. Bush claimed the middle ground in the debate, calling for "civil discussion on emotional issues without name calling."

Are the Democrats’ indignant responses warranted? LaPierre’s comments, in context, described how the White House was unwilling to compromise on gun control legislation and included his analysis of the Administration’s poor record on enforcing existing gun laws:

WAYNE LAPIERRE: He could have had a bill last summer that included mandatory safety locks with the sale of every gun, included checks at all gun shows on all gun sales with a 24-hour delay, included juvenile Brady, where violent juveniles would be forever prohibited from owning guns, would even have included Dianne Feinstein’s import ban on high-capacity magazines, and he killed it all over the issue of a 72-hour wait.
I mean, I’ve come to believe he needs a certain level of violence in this country. He’s willing to accept a certain level of killing to further his political agenda. And the vice president, too. I mean, how else you can—can you explain this dishonesty we get out of the administration?

COKIE ROBERTS: That’s a rather extraordinary thing to say, ‘the president needs a certain level of violence in this country.’

WAYNE LAPIERRE: Mm-hmm.

COKIE ROBERTS: What are you implying here?

WAYNE LAPIERRE: Well, I’m implying that when you look at what works, which is enforcing the gun laws on the books, this president has presided over a complete lack of enforcement.

Let’s talk about project Exile in Richmond, Virginia: cut murder with guns by 65 percent. NRA, most vocal advocate of it. He has refused to take it nationwide. They’ve held meetings in DOJ, how to deflect support for the program if it starts to rise on Capitol Hill.

He’s been nowhere to be found when we came up with the money for Philadelphia, which I went to Senator Specter and came up with for the program. They’ve now written the intake rules on cases where, unless you have three or more felony convictions, they don’t pick you up for prosecution, so they’ve ruined the program.

The money was approved for Camden a year and a half ago. They still haven’t launched in Camden.

And when Janet Reno, representing Bill Clinton, was sitting before the Senate Judiciary Committee, she looked at the—he looked—the Senate Judiciary Committee looked at the horrible, shameful rate of prosecutions and said, ‘Can we expect any improvement in this?’ and she shook her head and said, ‘No.’

I mean, you can’t care about stopping crimes with guns and give the country a complete lack of enforcement of the gun laws on the books, which is what this president’s done.


What if LaPierre is right? It seems unthinkable, but the Democrats have exploited citizens’ fears in the past for political gain, particularly with Social Security. Don’t forget this Administration was "willing to accept a certain level of killing" in Serbia, where 500 civilians died due to the NATO bombing.

Let’s assume that Clinton and Gore are sincere. If it was not intentional, then the Administration’s poor record on gun law enforcement can only be attributed to either indifference or incompetence. If reducing gun violence was truly a priority, the White House at some point in the last seven years would have encouraged stepped-up enforcement of the existing laws.

[j2k4]

JP-

Read my post; you got back first.

[TheDave]

i think britains got it right for the last so many years. normal people without licenses can only own stuff capable of 1Kj (i think). powerful enough to be accurate to have fun with but the only way you can kill someone with it is by pistol whipping.

although i think the laws on other some other weapons should be changed. in the last few weeks a local girl was killed by a crossbow in an armed robberry

[Smith]

if guns were outlawed, then only outlaws would have guns

[Storm]

what exactly is the point to keeping guns???

here in europe you're not allowed to have a gun...... of course that doesnt mean you cant get one, but still, WAY less criminals have guns........

[sarcasm]and as for personal use: well of course its VERY important to be able to shoot anyone who comes on your property........ [/sarcasm]

guns arent cool, they dont make you tough, a gangsta or a man........ the just make you a punk ass pussy that cant solve his own troubles so pulls steal outta incompetence.........

[Everose]

what exactly is the point to keeping guns???

here in europe you're not allowed to have a gun...... of course that doesnt mean you cant get one, but still, WAY less criminals have guns........

[sarcasm]and as for personal use: well of course its VERY important to be able to shoot anyone who comes on your property........ [/sarcasm]

guns arent cool, they dont make you tough, a gangsta or a man........ the just make you a punk ass pussy that cant solve his own troubles so pulls steal outta incompetence.........

A lot of people where I live have guns. I doubt it would amount to even 30% of the population, though. I don't know of anyone that claims to own a gun for self protection. Around here they are used for game. Or trap shooting and such. I have never seen them brandied about or bragged upon.

Not much gun related crime around here. Probably the scariest thing I see is some of the Sheriff Deputies we have carrying guns. And that would only be because I don't trust the judgment of a particular deputy, not because of the gun itself.