Gun Control

[CornerPocket]

by request.

Please keep response to 10-12 line..Max.

[vidcc]

I voted for it. I am a great believer and champion of freedom so i am not for banning guns, rather a bit of control. I have heard the arguement about the need for ak47s for "home defense" as the criminals have them but i do feel that this has a lot to do with the fact that the guns were so accessable in the first place.
Criminals will get guns...fact... this is not going to change from stricter gun controls but perhaps we could reduce the number of columbines or irate sacked postal worker incidents with tighter controls.
As i said i don't want to ban the guns even though it would be nice to have less of them....all i would like to see is tighter background checks and perhaps introduce random inspections to see if people that do have guns are following the terms of the permit.

[bigboab]

I am against control on the principle that you will never stop the use of guns. I think that the right to defend youself, by whatever means, is sacrosanct.



First time I've been hit with Anti-spam since my return. :ph34r:

[j2k4]

Originally posted by bigboab@19 August 2004 - 14:38
I am against control on the principle that you will never stop the use of guns. I think that the right to defend youself, by whatever means, is sacrosanct.



First time I've been hit with Anti-spam since my return. :ph34r:
Boab and I have achieved (momentarily, at least) perfect alignment.

Please don't feel bad, Boab! :D

[Biggles]

Boab is quite right.

I personally have a small stock pile of thermo-nuclear devices - as I am convinced criminal elements have access to these.

:ph34r: One cannot be too careful.

[TheDave]

i think it would be fairr to use livefire arms at a gun club and keep replicas that cant fire bullets at home.


however i think oppinions should shift with the state of society. i dont feel i need a gun to protect myself. but as it apparently gets easier to get guns maybe i will feel the need to protect myself, to fight fire with fire as it were

[Alex H]

You mean firefight with firefight?

[vidcc]

i think it's funny that many of the NRA members are conservatives... the very people that admired Reagan, who was credited with the USA part in the historic reduction of Arms treaty with the soviet union . Yet it seems they support the domestic arms race we have today :(

[ziggyjuarez]

For it ;)

[Snee]

It's pretty hard to get a gun here, I guess our system is an example of how proper gun control would look.

I have to say that a lot less people, even percentage-wise, get shot around these parts.

Otherwise...

More Gun Control?

Use both hands!

As they say.

[bigboab]

Originally posted by Biggles@19 August 2004 - 21:03
Boab is quite right.

I personally have a small stock pile of thermo-nuclear devices - as I am convinced criminal elements have access to these.

:ph34r: One cannot be too careful.
:( I thought I was the only one.

At least no one knows about my Neutrino Dissipator. ;)

[longboneslinger]

Actually, we have more than enough laws on the books now. What we need is enforcement. In all honesty, there are to many laws. They tend to contradict themselves. Criminals have always had weopons, and since they outnumber the cops and a lot of them can afford top notch lawyers or get'em from the ACLU (American Criminal Liberties Union), I'll continue to hold mine tightly.
The law of economics states that as long as there's a market for an item and a profit to be made, somebodys gonna sell it. Take drugs as a good example. So banning is stupid to. Oh well. I'll stay against further restrictions.

Later,
Bone
PS-Don't tell anyone about my P38 explosive space modulator that I bought from the Acme catalog. :ph34r: :01: :lol:

[Biggles]

The biggest problem I have is parking the mobile SS20 missile launcher. The neighbours complain bitterly that it is too big for the street.

Although I am becoming suspicious that their whining is simply an attempt to steal a march on me. Hmmmm - they want space do they? :tank: :fugley:

[j2k4]

Originally posted by longboneslinger@20 August 2004 - 19:50
PS-Don't tell anyone about my P38 explosive space modulator that I bought from the Acme catalog. :ph34r: :01: :lol:
Ah, yes.

I still have a few Marvin the Martian shirts somewhere around here. :P

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by j2k4+19 August 2004 - 21:14--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 19 August 2004 - 21:14)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-bigboab@19 August 2004 - 14:38
I am against control on the principle that you will never stop the use of guns. I think that the right to defend youself, by whatever means, is sacrosanct.



First time I&#39;ve been hit with Anti-spam since my return. :ph34r:
Boab and I have achieved (momentarily, at least) perfect alignment.

Please don&#39;t feel bad, Boab&#33; :D [/b][/quote]
Is it sacrosanct for everyone chaps.

A convicted multiple murderer is released from prison. I would suggest that he should not get a gun permit, or be allowed to own or carry a firearm.

I would suggest that we, as a society have a right to protect ourselves from him and that our right outweighs his "right to bear arms".

I believe gun controls are entirely necessary.

[Biggles]

If the right to bear arms is sacrosanct we wouldn&#39;t be trying to tell Iran not to proliferate nuclear weapons.

In short, we all believe in arms control it is simply where one draws the line that differs.

I think someone who wants to own a gun is a bit disturbing - they do, after all, have only one function. However, in other countries, such as Iraq, it would appear to be common place to own more weapons than an entire platoon of the British Army (admittedly not so difficult these days). The question is, which suburb would you rather walk down.

[TheDave]

Originally posted by Biggles@21 August 2004 - 17:14
If the right to bear arms is sacrosanct we wouldn&#39;t be trying to tell Iran not to proliferate nuclear weapons.

In short, we all believe in arms control it is simply where one draws the line that differs.

I think someone who wants to own a gun is a bit disturbing - they do, after all, have only one function. However, in other countries, such as Iraq, it would appear to be common place to own more weapons than an entire platoon of the British Army (admittedly not so difficult these days). The question is, which suburb would you rather walk down.
its who holds the guns that worries me more. tbh id rather walk round baghdad than some places in england.

thats no exageration either

[j2k4]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol+21 August 2004 - 11:22--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (J&#39;Pol @ 21 August 2004 - 11:22)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by j2k4@19 August 2004 - 21:14
<!--QuoteBegin-bigboab@19 August 2004 - 14:38
I am against control on the principle that you will never stop the use of guns. I think that the right to defend youself, by whatever means, is sacrosanct.



First time I&#39;ve been hit with Anti-spam since my return. :ph34r:
Boab and I have achieved (momentarily, at least) perfect alignment.

Please don&#39;t feel bad, Boab&#33; :D
Is it sacrosanct for everyone chaps.

A convicted multiple murderer is released from prison. I would suggest that he should not get a gun permit, or be allowed to own or carry a firearm.

I would suggest that we, as a society have a right to protect ourselves from him and that our right outweighs his "right to bear arms".

I believe gun controls are entirely necessary. [/b][/quote]
J&#39;Pol-

Convicted and parloled murderers (in the U.S.) are, to the best of my knowledge, precluded from lawfully owning a firearm.

Key word, of course, being lawfully.

Without even searching I can rest assured someone is working to restore such rights.

The concept of punishment has been wrangled by the civil rights crowd to the point it has no more meaning.

[TheDave]

Originally posted by j2k4+21 August 2004 - 19:50--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 21 August 2004 - 19:50)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@21 August 2004 - 11:22

Originally posted by j2k4@19 August 2004 - 21:14
<!--QuoteBegin-bigboab@19 August 2004 - 14:38
I am against control on the principle that you will never stop the use of guns. I think that the right to defend youself, by whatever means, is sacrosanct.



First time I&#39;ve been hit with Anti-spam since my return. :ph34r:
Boab and I have achieved (momentarily, at least) perfect alignment.

Please don&#39;t feel bad, Boab&#33; :D
Is it sacrosanct for everyone chaps.

A convicted multiple murderer is released from prison. I would suggest that he should not get a gun permit, or be allowed to own or carry a firearm.

I would suggest that we, as a society have a right to protect ourselves from him and that our right outweighs his "right to bear arms".

I believe gun controls are entirely necessary.
J&#39;Pol-

Convicted and parloled murderers (in the U.S.) are, to the best of my knowledge, precluded from lawfully owning a firearm.

Key word, of course, being lawfully.

Without even searching I can rest assured someone is working to restore such rights.

The concept of punishment has been wrangled by the civil rights crowd to the point it has no more meaning. [/b][/quote]
but if its easier for an innocent to get a gun it cant be that hard for a criminal to get one

[j2k4]

Originally posted by TheDave+21 August 2004 - 14:59--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (TheDave @ 21 August 2004 - 14:59)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by j2k4@21 August 2004 - 19:50

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@21 August 2004 - 11:22

Originally posted by j2k4@19 August 2004 - 21:14
<!--QuoteBegin-bigboab@19 August 2004 - 14:38
I am against control on the principle that you will never stop the use of guns. I think that the right to defend youself, by whatever means, is sacrosanct.



First time I&#39;ve been hit with Anti-spam since my return. :ph34r:
Boab and I have achieved (momentarily, at least) perfect alignment.

Please don&#39;t feel bad, Boab&#33; :D
Is it sacrosanct for everyone chaps.

A convicted multiple murderer is released from prison. I would suggest that he should not get a gun permit, or be allowed to own or carry a firearm.

I would suggest that we, as a society have a right to protect ourselves from him and that our right outweighs his "right to bear arms".

I believe gun controls are entirely necessary.
J&#39;Pol-

Convicted and parloled murderers (in the U.S.) are, to the best of my knowledge, precluded from lawfully owning a firearm.

Key word, of course, being lawfully.

Without even searching I can rest assured someone is working to restore such rights.

The concept of punishment has been wrangled by the civil rights crowd to the point it has no more meaning.
but if its easier for an innocent to get a gun it cant be that hard for a criminal to get one [/b][/quote]
My point. ;)

[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. :unsure:


Edit:

At least not as much :P

[j2k4]

I must say it&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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. :rolleyes:

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........

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

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........

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

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. ;)