Guns out of control in the United States

Jump to Last Post 51-100 of 127 discussions (580 posts)

0
Poppa Bluesposted 15 years ago
As far as I'm concerned, If an American (or any free man) wants to own and possess an RPG he should and no one should ever prevent him from exercising his right!
reply report
1. 60
  Ron Montgomeryposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Sarah Palin
  reply report
  49
  Bear667posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Is that all you can say? I mean where is the substance? Come on.
  reply report
  71
  rhamsonposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I think he is referring to Sarah Palins stance on gun control and how you can vote for her in the next election and she will lose.
  reply report
0
A Texanposted 15 years ago
Texas is a carry concealed handgun State, its not Dodge city here, maybe in the Houston 4th and 5th wards it is, but I bet they are not carrying legally!
reply report
60
readytoescapeposted 15 years ago
Canada only has roughly 33.8 million people as compared to the US with over 308 million according to each country’s population clock, just 1/10th of the US.

I would imagine with the US having more people that live in urban areas than Canada has in the entire county is really not much of a comparison.
reply report
61
Valerie Fposted 15 years ago
Or maybe population density has something to do with lower gun violence rates in Canada.

In the US, overall gun violence is much higher in inner cities, despite the fact that gun ownership rates are lower. In rural areas and smaller communities, gun ownership is more common, but homicide rates are lower.

There is a lower homicide rate in the entire state of Wyoming than there is in Washington DC, despite the fact that Wyoming reports about a 63% gun ownership rate compared to Washington DC's 5.2%.
reply report
1. 0
  Poppa Bluesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Good point. A lot of the gun violence is associated with the drug trade. If drugs were legal most of that violence would go away along with the outrageous profit due to the illegality. Once again, government interference in the peoples rights to be free is the cause of the problem not the solution!
  reply report
  71
  rhamsonposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You have a lot of confidence in the morality of this country and its' citizenry to regulate it self don't you. Your brand of freedom, country and government reminds me of the good old wild west. Get a gun we can clean it up.
  reply report
  0
  Poppa Bluesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry. It's not the function of government to regulate MY morality. I'm a free man I have a right to do as I please, to pursue happiness as long as I'm not infringing on the rights of others I will do as I wish and the government should mind it's business, empty my garbage, defend our borders, and fill pot holes.
  reply report
  71
  rhamsonposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry nobody to fill in the potholes or empty the trash. That would be socialism. The defense of the country is allowable but that would mean someone would have to tax you to support it. Bad democracy.
  
  In this utopia of no government intervention who would judge whether you infringed on somebody elses rights. Oops another tax. Unless you can get the fines to pay for the running of the government.
  reply report
  0
  Poppa Bluesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Don't confuse taxes with socialism. We should only have as little government as we need, and their only function is to perserve INDIVIDUAL freedom.
  reply report
  71
  rhamsonposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I guess the majority has decided what is appropriate.
  reply report
  0
  A Texanposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I bet the majority would like to keep our Constitutional rights intact.
  reply report
  71
  rhamsonposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I don't know but you have been immeasurable in your efforts to muddy the situation.
  reply report
  77
  Jack Burtonposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Absolutly no freaking clue as to what "socialism" is, but feels compelled to comment anyway.
  reply report
  71
  rhamsonposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Maybe you could use a course in it. First I would take a course in remedial reading so you can catch up on the conversation and not get hung up on the catch phrases. Or do you get most of your answers from bumper sticker media? Some may feel you are clueless to reality.
  reply report
  77
  Jack Burtonposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  And ~this~ is the best you can do after embarrassing yourself, eh.
  reply report
2. 60
  readytoescapeposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  That would be mostly because guns possessed in the urban areas are obtained illegally and used by criminals. You will also find the majority of those recovered have been stolen and sold to a criminal on the black market. You will also find the majority of those cases are drug and/or gang related.
  reply report
69
Ralph Deedsposted 15 years ago
CANADIAN GUN LAWS

The good news is that Canadian law allows non-residents to bring ordinary long guns into Canada with relatively little difficulty, for hunting, competition, transport to Alaska, and protection against wildlife in remote areas.

However, all firearms of any kind must be registered and persons in possession of a firearm must be licensed; you should expect to be asked to display your licence and registration certificate, and expect to lose your firearm if you can not do so. The registration certificate would be either a Non-Resident Firearms Declaration or a regular registration certificate. If you have a Temporary Borrowing License or a Non-Resident Firearms Declaration, this serves as your temporary firearms license; otherwise you must have a Possession-Only License (POL) or a Possession and Acquisition License (PAL).

Contrary to what many people have said, and signs posted at the border say, it is possible to bring handguns into Canada, including to transport them between the continental US and Alaska. It requires considerable advance planning and preparation, but it can be done. Signs that say "handguns are prohibited in Canada" are wrong.

The easiest way to understand Canada's gun laws is to think "New York City style." That is: classification of firearms, licensing of gun owners (this includes buying ammo), registration of all firearms, additional restrictions on handguns and certain long guns including how they may be transported and carried, and some guns banned entirely.

Canadian firearm owners are licensed with either a Possession-Only License (POL), or a Possession and Acquisition License (PAL). Non-residents are eligible to obtain a PAL. In addition, there are two special licenses for short-term visitors, the Temporary Borrowing License and the Non-Resident Firearms Declaration.

Firearms are classified into one of three categories: non-restricted, restricted, and prohibited. There are regulations for transport, storage, and display of firearms in each of these three classes.

CLASSES OF FIREARMS

PROHIBITED FIREARMS, DEVICES, AND WEAPONS
Prohibited firearms, devices, and weapons are:
+ full-automatic firearms
+ sawed-off rifles or shotguns with barrel length less than 457mm (18 inches); this does not apply to firearms manufactured with short barrels
+ sawed-off rifles or shotguns with overall length less than 660mm (26 inches); this does not apply to firearms manufactured with short stocks or short barrels
+ handguns with a barrel less than 105mm (4.14 inches), except certain specifically listed competition handguns which are restricted
+ handguns in caliber .25 or .32, except certain specifically listed competition handguns which are restricted
+ silencers
+ large capacity magazines for a semi-automatic center-fire firearm. What constitutes "large capacity" varies; as a general rule, the maximum capacity is 5 rounds for long guns, 10 rounds for handguns "commonly found in Canada", and 5 rounds for handguns "not commonly found in Canada." Magazines for rimfire cartridges, the 8-round clips used in the M1 Garand, and 10 round Lee Enfield rifle magazines are exempted by name from this prohibition.
+ any of a long list of firearms specifically listed as prohibited. With few exceptions, if it has a remotely military appearance, it is prohibited.
+ replicas of firearms
+ any type of Taser or other firearm that discharges a dart or other object carrying an electrical current.
+ tear gas, Mace or other gas, or any liquid spray, power or other substance that is capable of injuring, immobilizing or otherwise incapacitating any person
+ any type of stun gun or other electrical charge device of length less than 480mm
+ a large additional class of prohibited weapons, such as nunchakus, switchblades, brass knuckles, etc. which are not discussed here. Read the list here if you care.

That's right, you're not allowed to use non-lethal means of self-defense in Canada. This would seem to ban pepper spray for use against bears, but apparently there are some forms of bear spray which are legal for use in Canada.
reply report
59
kzillaposted 15 years ago
I just came back from the range an hour ago, practicing and enjoying my second ammendment rights. You don't have to agree with them and I won't tell you I'm armed. If we're together, by chance, and someone pulls a gun in a local Coffee shop. I'll take a few seconds to figure out that are lives are in danger and hopefully take the appropriate action, it may save us both and a few others. Everyday there's a few more of us out there walking around like aliens from another planet. We're among you and we come in peace. But we're carrying the next best thing to a Ray gun. SO DON'T MESS WITH THE ALIENS.
Everyone's heard the old saying,"I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6." I would.
reply report
62
alexandriaruthkposted 15 years ago
Gun or no Gun, there are still killings, stricter regulations which doesnt synchronize with other laws sepcially the border laws is not helping us. We need a moral revolution, values reformation, it is very difficult task, it all start from us
reply report
0
sneakorocksolidposted 15 years ago
We need our guns because the government is not protecting us. They've left both doors wide open!
reply report
60
egivposted 15 years ago
Nov 09: Seattle man shoots four police officers in a cafe.
Nov 09: British tourist shot dead in Amarillo Texas.
Nov 09: 1 killed and 5 injured in Orlando after employee was upset that his employer treated him badly.
Oct 09: 2 wounded in Los Angeles Synagogue shooting.
Oct 09: Florida man shoots his fiance because he mistook her for an intruder.
Oct 09: Woman who caused a stir because she wanted to bring a pistol to her daughter's soccer game found shot dead in her home.

These are just the most famous. Look them up if you like. 33 people are killed every day by guns in America. 33 people every day!! 240 injured! These aren't wartime statistics, they're everyday life. Is it so radical to believe this is wrong?

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tab … imetab.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree … e-death-us
reply report
1. 0
  sneakorocksolidposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  OK but , are you for guns or not?
  reply report
2. 77
  Jack Burtonposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  DEC 1: California: Clerk Who Shot Robber Acted in Self Defense
  
  DEC 1: North Carolina: Store Robbery Foiled By Shotgun Toting Clerk
  
  NOV 27: Oregon: Intruder Shot At Gresham Apartment
  
  NOV 30: Florida: Catering Co. Owner Shot Man In Self Defense
  
  NOV 26: Berlin, N.H. Home Invaders Shot By Victim
  
  NOV 28: Clermont, Florida Senior Shoots Truck Thief
  
  All these, and thousands more, can be found at
  
  http://www.thearmedcitizen.com/
  
  Of those supposed "33 people" killed by guns everyday there are things that egiv just won't admit. First, the majority of those killed are gangbangers shooting at other gangbangers. Secondly, there quite a few suicides mixed in there. Believing that taking away guns will stop suicides is the same as believe that taking away spoons will make Rosie Odonnel skinny.
  
  <snipped - no personal attacks in the Forums>
  reply report
3. 70
  Jeffrey Nealposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  See, this is the reason the anti-gun movement cannot be taken seriously. I'll bet you could find more deaths caused by other "tools" such as screwdrivers, baseball bats, knives, etc., etc. The argument of how many are killed just doesn't hold water because the guns themselves did not jump up and kill people. Why is this simple concept so hard for the anti-gun, all emotion side to get? The mind boggles.
  reply report
  60
  egivposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I understand what you are saying, but the fact is that this number of deaths doesn't occur in countries with less guns. If guns are not the reason, what is? Are Americans just so much more violent than the rest of the world... the extreme number of guns is a coincidence?
  
  Listen, this argument has turned into a ridiculous waste of time, as they all do. My point, from the beginning, is just that there are too many guns because they are too easy to get. Therefore, there is a ton of gun violence in the USA. I personally think we are better than that. The End.
  reply report
  49
  Bear667posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Try and get one with out a permit.
  reply report
  70
  Jeffrey Nealposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, you are right, the argument is a waste of time. The causes of violence are social. The tools of violence do not cause it, but firearms are a more efficient tool. So, yes, violent uses of firearms tend to result in death more than other tools like knives and blunt instruments.
  
  Most of the statistical data includes suicides and criminals killing other criminals. If you could exclude these numbers, I'm sure there would be an even less compelling case for restricting the law abiding citizens' access to firearms. We already have background checks which are the most effective measure keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals.
  
  Of those numbers you cite, you mention 240 injuries and 33 deaths daily caused by firearms.
  
  Here is some injury data:
  
  http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/nfirates2000.html
  
  I used assault as the intent modifier, thus removing "accidents"
  1,672,117 All causes
  48,570 Firearms
  122,080 Cut/pierce/stabbing
  1,354,183 Struck by/against/bludgeoning
  
  Here is other CDC data on deaths:
  
  http://www.cdc.gov/NCHS/data/nvsr/nvsr57/nvsr57_14.pdf
  Motor Vehicle accidents account for 45,316 deaths.
  Accidental drowning and submersion account for 3,579 deaths
  Accidental poisoning and exposure to noxious substances account for 27,531 deaths
  Accidental discharge of firearms account for 642 deaths
  
  Intentional self-harm (suicide) total of 33,300 deaths; roughly half (16,883) were caused by firearms.
  
  Assault (homicide) total of 18,573; 12,791 of these were caused by firearms
  
  Now even though the firearms homicide numbers prove my earlier statement was off, there is no logical reason to believe (based on injury data), that banning or reducing access to firearms would curb the overall homicide numbers much or at all. You would more likely see the homicides with other tools go up, as has been witnessed in UK since their handgun ban a few years ago. Due to the knife crime in that country, I have read of proposed knife bans. How does that work?
  
  As a citizen in a relatively violent country, I prefer to have the most efficient tool for my defense. I believe all my fellow, law-abiding citizens deserve the same choice. And it is a choice, so some choose not to own guns. That is the beauty of this country.
  reply report
  61
  Valerie Fposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Your "point" doesn't stand, because Canada and Finland have, if anything, a higher overall gun ownership rate than the US and a lower rate of gun violence.
  
  In the US, states with higher gun ownership rates also happen to have lower homicide rates.
  
  In my opinion, this pretty well proves that there is no connection whatsoever between the use of guns in violent crime and there being "too many guns."
  reply report
61
Valerie Fposted 15 years ago
Actually, England was involved in the US Civil War and complicit with the Confederacy, as determined by the Tribunal of Arbitration in Geneva, 1872.

So for a country to get itself involved in another country's conflict for their own economic interests (England was a leading exporter of manufactured goods to the South, after all)is nothing new at all. I'm not saying it's right. Rather, this is not something the US invented.

Now consider that the South Vietnamese requested assistance from the US. And we weren't the first and only foreign country to to take an interest and get involved. North Korea, China, and the Soviet Union took part, too, as they were also interested in keeping and expanding their own political footholds in the area.

The Iraq War was fought because Saddam wasn't complying with the terms of his Gulf War surrender. If he had no WMD's, he did a very lousy job of proving that, what with not allowing UN weapons inspectors to do their jobs, gassing the Kurds, his intimidation campaigns, and all.

This brief lesson in military history over, I'd like to get back to topic now.

I'm willing to bet that most guns owned in the US are never even aimed at people.
reply report
1. 77
  Jack Burtonposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  360,000,000 guns in America. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimated 52,447 deliberate non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000.
  
  http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/nfirates2000.html
  
  That means that more than 359,999,900 guns are innocent of any wrong doing each year.
  reply report
2. 71
  rhamsonposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Good popular belief take on the things you cited. But your history is a bit fuzzy. The blockade around the southern ports by the Union prevented most of the supplies from getting in. I was actually refering to actual British troops fighting on the Souths side rather than the supplies being offered. Good pick up and you know some history. But the first interference with American politics really came from France during the Revolutionary War. Frances' Monarchy funded much of it for us and actual military "advisors" were supplied as well.
  
  You should read a little more about the Vietnam debacle. The United States put its weight behind an anti-communist regime in the South headed by Ngo Dinh Diem, but Diem could not cope with the growing Viet Cong insurgency and in 1963 he was murdered in a coup by his senior officers. Though Kennedy approved the coup, he was stunned by the assassination. This is how dirty the whole thing started out. Actually the French vacated first and gave us the mess. My father served in Korea and thought that they were going to stop loss his release to go to Vietnam in 1952.
  
  About the Bush debacle into Iraq and the way we got there is another misunderstood progression. Even one of his staff that soon left after the Bush administration stated that from day one Bush wanted a reason to wage War on Iraq. He wanted a "REASON". The weapons of mass destruction was a smokescreen that was refuted by the CIA and the Pentagon before Bush charged into Iraq. No humanitarian ploy was given at the time.
  
  But maybe you have a leg to stand on with how bruttal Saddam was but that was not the reasons given at the time. Raising that question might remind people who placed him in charge in the first place and another black spot on our record.
  reply report
71
rhamsonposted 15 years ago
This is quite a discussion to try and figure out. On the one hand you have the legal law abiding gun owner who is exercising his or her right to own and use the firearms that are legal to possess.

On the other hand you have the criminal and however he or she gets possession of a firearm and can maintain illegally the same protection and ability to use the firearm for whatever purpose they choose.

You have the person who claims that nobody but the correct authority should have permission to own and carry a firearm.

At the oneset it looks like a stand off. How can you make a law to take the firearm from the one who is doing the right thing and leave the one doing the wrong thing the upper hand?

True it is much easier to kill a person with a gun than it is with a knife, ice pick or screwdriver but the threat is the same never the less when the criminal is armed with a firearm. Is it fair to expect the law abiding citizen to be left to defend himself with a knife, ice pick or screwdriver? Certainly not.

The only solution is to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law the criminal. If he or she is taken out of the equation then eventually you will have either the criminal in jail or executed or killed by a citizen protecting his property and life. In the least you will have a criminal thinking twice about committing a crime with a gun after a lengthy prison sentence.
reply report
1. 70
  Jeffrey Nealposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  And this is the kicker. Homicide is already illegal. Violent acts upon another are already illegal. Banning or restricting access to the tools doesn't solve the underlying problem of violence.
  
  The logic also doesn't follow that more guns equals more crime, when the crime rate has actually been falling for the past several years as the rate of gun ownership has increased. I'm not saying there is a correlation, but those are facts. We may see a rise in the crime rate over the next few years, and certainly the anti-gun crowd will overlook the economic factors.
  
  It is also appalling when one educates themselves to realize how many gun laws there actually are already and how poorly enforced the existing ones are. Emotion is the only tool in their arsenal, but logic always defeats emotion.
  reply report
  71
  rhamsonposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I remember when there was a time that if you committed a crime with a gun and were convicted there was a five year mandatory sentence. Whatever happened to that?
  reply report
  70
  Jeffrey Nealposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  There is too much deal making. Where I live, though, gun crime is mandatory jail time, and I am all for that and think that should be the standard nationwide. The problem is getting a conviction, and many judges would apparently rather allow a plea to a lesser charge.
  reply report
  77
  Jack Burtonposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Probably because people understood the unfairness of you getting robbed by a man with a gun, who is then sentenced to ten years jail, and me getting robbed the same identical way of the same amount of money by a man with a knife who only gets five years in jail.
  reply report
  56
  C.J. Wrightposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  and Ten years if you did it with an "ILEGAL" gun.....the samething that happens with all "Feel Good" legislation. It floods the judicial system and correctional facilities. Eventually its no longer enforced....
  reply report
2. 77
  Jack Burtonposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Did you see the biography of the man who killed those police officers? One major, seriouis crime after another for decades and yet the courts and legal system put him back on the street time after time. It was never a question of if he would do what he finally did... just a matter of "when."
  reply report
  71
  rhamsonposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  It is a testament to our legal system as to why these things are allowed to happen. Who thinks OJ was innocent?
  reply report
71
rhamsonposted 15 years ago
It is a sad statement of the times.
reply report
69
Ralph Deedsposted 15 years ago
Criminals shooting people with illegal guns aren't the only problem with guns. Gun accidents involving adults, children and even DEA agents shoot themselves--

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmRN00KbCr8
reply report
1. 71
  rhamsonposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I agree there are all kinds of accidents and many can be averted with safe weapon handeling. I have three grown sons and when they became of age to become inqusitive and stubborn I sold two guns I had to keep them out of harms way. It was far easier than worrying about the guns and them and where all were at any given time. I just don't have any guns now because I don't feel the need or want the expense to have them.
  
  I think someone who is responsible should be allowed to have a gun if they wish. It does not impinge on me in any way.
  reply report
2. 56
  C.J. Wrightposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Ralph, you know better, your a smart man. You know that guns are dangerous. You know that when someone handles a firearm, there is a risk of injury. The same applies for many things that we use/interact with each day. Cars, knives, fire, motorcycles, etc.....All boils down to personal responsibility, no law is going to improve that....apparently....
  reply report
3. 70
  Jeffrey Nealposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Did you even bother to look at the statistics posted above?
  
  That video is used in training classes quite frequently to show how if you violate any of the BASIC 4 RULES an accident may occur. Notice the title is "Dumbass DEA Agent"? And people think that police and military are the only ones responsible enough to have guns.
  reply report
  69
  Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Well, I've never said the police and military are the only ones responsible enough to have guns. I own three guns myself. Two shotguns and a rifle. I'm not aware of any proposals to "ban guns." The proposals are to ban assault weapons and large magazine handguns and to tighten up on the regulations and enforcement of handgun purchase and use regulations. Most gun accidents involve handguns which are too easy to shoot yourself or someone else or on the spur-of-the moment commit suicide, or to shoot a family member mistaken for a burglar, or when the shooter is under the influence of alcohol.
  reply report
61
Valerie Fposted 15 years ago
Gun accidents serve not as evidence that guns need to be outlawed, but that thorough firearm safety education should be standard and much more widely available than it is.

More people die or are injured in car accidents, but we don't seek to ban cars, do we?
reply report
1. 69
  Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  First, I haven't heard of anybody wanting to ban most guns. The serious proposals would not ban any normal hunting guns and would not ban handguns but would impose stricter sales and permit requirements. Stronger efforts would be made to prevent mentally ill persons and convicted felons from buying guns. The only guns that would be banned would be assault weapons and large magazine pistols like the ones used in recent mass killings. Nobody is under the illusion that this would be 100% successful, but if we put our minds to it gun violence could be reduced significantly within the parameters of the Second Amendment.
  reply report
  71
  rhamsonposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I would say that your ideas bear merit and logical conclusions. The thing about it is that there is an element who will kill with anything they can get their hands on. An assault rifle can kill as well as a .25 calibre Saturday Night Special. The large magazine pistols are already out there and if they were banned for civilian use there would be a black market created to fill the need.
  
  The bottom line is that guns are here to stay whether legal or illegal and if somebody is determined to kill they will most likely find a gun to do it with. It is the most efficient and easiest way to kill someone with.
  
  I think if we got to the criminal element with more resolve than what has been shown in the past we would be better served.
  
  With the drunk driving we were able to take the drunk out of the drivers seat without taking the car from the responsible citizen. Not the same exactly but pretty close.
  reply report
  56
  C.J. Wrightposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Explain what measures can be used? I see absolutely NO way that you can prevent a felon/mentally ill person from getting their hands on a gun. That is unless you propose locking those who commit crimes using a firearm forever. That will work.
  reply report
  69
  Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  We may not be able to completely stop mentally ill people and felons from buying guns, but we could surely reduce the number who get guns. I haven't studied this but I've read that there is a virtual river of guns going from purchases at Virginia gun shows to New York City. Likewise guns are going from the U.S. to Mexico by the thousands. Much more could be done by closing the gunshow loophole and other loopholes that make it too easy to manufacture and sell handguns and military weapons.
  reply report
  69
  Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
  70
  Jeffrey Nealposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You need to vary up your news sources. MSNBC and Bloomburg want you to believe that there is a major issue with guns being brought into NYC.
  
  And the whole 90% of guns funneled into Mexico thing has been debunked already...by an ATF official, no less. I mean, I think, if I'm a Mexican drug lord and I can get full-auto AK's for cheap from Eastern European and South American smugglers or I can get neutered, semi-automatic ones for six times as much from the US, the choice is pretty easy.
  reply report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  What makes you think we could ever stop the flow of illegal firearms across the borders since we can't do it with illegal drugs or humans?
  reply report
  56
  C.J. Wrightposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  There is some truth to the gun show problem. I'll tell you what it is. All gun sales that occur at gun shows are legal. However, not all result in a background check. Here is why, I can bring a gun and sell it. There is no requirement for a private citizen to report the sale of a gun to another private citizen. Adding that requirement wouldn't have much of an impact. Simply because its unenforceable. By the way, the majority of gun sales at gun shows are not a private citizen to private citizen sale. Most occur between Federally licensed firearm dealers.
  Police are so busy tracking down murderers and gang members and drug dealers and writting speeding tickets they have no time for burglery.
  For instance a close friend of mines Mother reports a gun stolen. No response from the local pd. Calls it in again, no response. Actually goes to the station. Gets a "reciept" stating that an officer will be comming out to take a report. Never happened. Three months later, his Mother is murdered.....WITH HER GUN! Children/parents throughout the neighborhood knew about the theft prior to the murder and the guns location after the murder. The childrens parents and the local PD were found to have no fault in a wrongfull death suit.....Why? I guess its the guns fault.....
  Reality says that guns are a HUGE part of our culture. There are as many guns as there are people in the US. We are going to have to get really serious about crimes commited using firearms. Commit a crime using a gun, get life in prison...minimum. That would apply to concealed carry folks as well. They are all taught..."intent follows the bullet"
  reply report
  70
  Jeffrey Nealposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  There is data from states that already have these bans. It has not had a measurable effect. Now one of those states just passed a thumbprint requirement for purchasing ammo. They will see that this, too is ineffective and is not a "reasonable restriction" due to privacy concerns.
  
  That is your opinion, but what you call an "assault weapon" is used frequently for accuracy competitions, a sport as well as hunting. A person cannot buy a real assault weapon (fully automatic or an otherwise designated a Class III weapon) without paying a tax and extra paperwork which includes the proper background check. Is a Hummer or Corvette "necessary" and "useful"? They sure are fun, though, right?
  
  I interpret the ruling differently, but everyone has a different opinion of what a "reasonable restriction" is. You do not need to show a need any more than a cat has to explain why they have claws. Every person has the right to be prepared that they could face a violent attack, and meet force with force. I don't need the sheriff to start deciding for me, since his police won't likely be there to "protect" me nor are they liable if they don't.
  
  Currently purchases by the mentally ill and convicted felons are prohibited, and background checks are conducted also, so it looks like we are currently covered by the existing laws. No need for more.
  reply report
  77
  Jack Burtonposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  ralph has no crediblity... here is a thread from 18 MONTHS ago where he was stating the same lie which was disproven to him then... and he is stating it again now even though he KNOWS it is a verifiable lie.
  ------------------------
  Ralph sez:.
  
  Very few people are suggesting a gun ban.
  
  Jack replies:
  
  Really, Ralph? Then I guess you didn’t bother reading the material at http://www.gunfacts.info where they list, with cites, quotes from dozens of nationally known politicians and folk at the very top of the media food chain who are doing JUST THAT… calling for a national, total gun ban.
  --------------------
  
  The thread can be seen for yourself at http://hubpages.com/hub/Answers-for-tho … or-America where ralph repeats many of the other nonsense he is repeating here.
  reply report
2. 69
  Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Cars are necessary and serve a useful purpose. Assault weapons and handguns serve no generally useful purpose. Handguns would not be banned but purchases by mentally ill persons and convicted felons would be prohibited and a permit to carry a handgun would not be a right but would be restricted to individuals who could show a need to do so in addition to passing a thorough background check. None of these actions would violate the 2nd Amendment as interpreted by the Courts (The law is not entirely clear, however, reasonable state and local regulations are permitted, as I understand the law.)
  reply report
58
helotposted 15 years ago
Colorado State University has rules in place that allow for concealed weapons to be carried on campus. They have never had a school shooting. Perhaps if there was someone else with a gun at Virginia Tech there would have been less travesty? Perhaps not, but there is something to be said for taking the power out of the hands of the criminals and giving it back to yourself. If ever there was a situation where you needed a gun and didn't have one for whatever reason, you would likely rethink your stance about guns.

"Saying guns kill people is like saying spoons made America gain weight"
reply report
58
helotposted 15 years ago
Problem is the term "guns". There is a stark difference between an AK-47 and a .22 rifle and a handgun. You can't have an all or nothing attitude about it. You can't ban all guns because you can make a gun out of a block of wood and a rubber band. What you want to do is ban gun violence which is not going to happen even if you ban guns. Prohibition didn't work for alcohol, it doesn't work for drugs, and it will not work with guns. All you can do is educate yourself, educate your children, and do the best you can to make sure the right laws are in place to regulate what is on the market.
reply report
61
Valerie Fposted 15 years ago
What's the point of all the protesting then? We already don't allow the mentally ill, convicted felons, suspects of serious offenses, and so forth to own or use guns. We already have age limits. You can't even purchase a gun without a background check. What more do you want that you can't get just by consistently enforcing existing laws?
reply report
1. 58
  helotposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  They want all guns gone so that the only people that have them are the police and the government. Which then only creates a black market and substandard firearms which explode in your hand. That and a fully armed criminal element with no fear of killing innocent people because the innocent people can't fire back at them. We don't need fewer guns, we need more guns. Wild west style.
  reply report
2. 56
  C.J. Wrightposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Exactly, its just another bait and switch argument. Just like when the term "assault weapon" is used. Pictures are shown of very menacing, military style weapons. When the legislation/ban comes out, it covers a lot more than people were led to believe
  reply report
  56
  C.J. Wrightposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  A great example is the SKS rifle. So many times I hear it called an "assault weapon" please...its a semi-auto rifle. No different from most hunting rifles. However it looks so dangerous and scary.
  reply report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I have an sks and it actually fires a less powerful round than most hunting rifles.
  reply report
  70
  maven101posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  It's that frightening bayonet lug that scared Barbara Boxer...you know, all those drive-by bayonetings...
  reply report
  56
  C.J. Wrightposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Exactly, Barbara is packing by the way...what a hypocrite.
  reply report
  56
  C.J. Wrightposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Absolutely.
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I got a fist full of lead that packs a powerful punch!
  reply report
  69
  Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  How many rounds does the magazine hold. What do you use it for? Why did you buy it?
  
  As I imagined the SKS is a military rifle, not a hunting weapon.
  Here's a link to information on it. It does come with a high capacity magazine and a bayonet. Do you take it to Tea Bag events?
  
  http://www.hk94.com/sks-rifle.php
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Mr. Deeds, all skepticism and stuff aside; do you think it would be wise to own a gun these days?
  reply report
  69
  Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Sure, if you are a hunter or target shooter or if special self-protection circumstances justify a need for a handgun. They should have training in safe use of their gun. I wonder why anyone would want to own an SKS military weapon???
  reply report
  65
  AdsenseStrategiesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Ralph, I think you asked me if Canadians own assault weapons and handguns. I asked my Dad, who is Canadian, and sixty, and he said he has never met anyone who owned either one of these. I have lived in Canada (on and off) since 1982, for twenty years, and also have never so much as laid eyes on either of these... plenty of hunters round here, of course, though.
  reply report
  56
  C.J. Wrightposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Cost. Cost drives everything. The SKS is made overseas, and its reliable, accurate and inexpensive. Yes, it can be modified to look just like an average deer rifle for about 60 bucks(just changing the stock). For around 250 bucks you can have a great target or hunting rifle. This is compared to 500 for the average hunting rifle set up or 800 for the average target set up. For target shooting the big expense is ammo. The cost is also alot cheaper per round to shoot. The idea of calling a weapon an "assault weapon" because it looks menacing is equal to calling a woman a whore based on her style of dress. Things aren't allways as they appear.
  reply report
  69
  Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  These guns come with large capacity magazines which are what the whackjobs like to use to kill a bunch of people. It's not a matter of what the gun looks like. It's how many people can you kill before you have to reload.
  reply report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I have used the sks for deer hunting and varmint shooting. We have a surplus of bobcats and coyotes which will eat young calves if they encounter them. It shoots a 7.62 X 39 bullet which is propelled by a relatively small charge. It has nowhere the range of a .308, 30.06, or .270 hunting rifle. The knockdown power leaves much to be desired as a man killer compared to most military weapons.
  
  A person shooting .00 buckshot from a semi-automatic shotgun can do much more damage in a shorter time period without having to be too precise with their aim. Simply because a weapon is termed an "assault" rifle doesn't mean it is more lethal than others firearms. Pump shotguns and even smaller caliber rifles have been used on assault missions. People don't know the difference it seems.
  reply report
  69
  Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  It's certainly true that military weapons can be used for hunting and typical hunting weapons can be used to kill people. I have a Model 12 Winchester pump gun, and I agree that it would be quite effective as a defensive or offensive weapon. Just curious why would you buy an SKS for hunting? Does it have a "high capacity magazine?" My impression is that the size of magazines on some military weapons is what bothers the people who are proposing additional gun restrictions.
  reply report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  To be honest Ralph, I would have to fully load it to know how many it holds and will if you really want to know. i have it stored away and haven't fully loaded for years. I would guess it holds ten rounds but a extended "banana" clip was available for a while and I'm sure it can still be found somewhere.
  
  I bought it because it was cheap ($99.00) and I didn't have a deer rifle at the time. My Marlin 30.30 probably holds as much ammo and has greater knockdown power than the sks and this Marlin model has been manufactured in the U.S. for over a hundred years.
  reply report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Your assumptions about my political affiliations are as wrong as those of assault rifles. Although an independent for most of my life I identify more closely with the democrats lately. And let me assure you, there are many democrats who own firearms in this area. I know of no one who completely agrees with the party of the candidate they voted for.
  reply report
  65
  AdsenseStrategiesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  How could they...let's face it
  reply report
  69
  Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I didn't make any assumptions about your politics. CJ Wright has made his pretty clear.
  reply report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  The "tea bag" reference seemed to be pointed at me but sorry if I was mistaken.
  reply report
  56
  C.J. Wrightposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I would like to go on record as stating; I have never attened a Tea Party event.
  reply report
  60
  Ron Montgomeryposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I have teabagged.
  report
  0
  Denno66posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  giggity.
  report
  56
  C.J. Wrightposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  \
  
  Ralph, as do you. You have also seen enough of me to know that I'm not politically predictable as some hard leaners, be it left oor right.
  reply report
  69
  Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  My recollection is that a .270 or 30/06 are recommended for deer and larger game. Some might criticize the use of less powerful rifles because of the possibility of wounding but not stopping the animal. I spent 10 summers or so on a cattle ranch in western Nebraska. We hunted coyotes with dogs. As I recall there was a $15 bounty on them. We hunted at night with a pickup and spotlight. I recall a neighbor shooting another neighbor's yearling steer which he mistook for a coyote (at night). The problem was that the steer ran away before he could finish it off. They found the animal the next day and he very embarrassedly paid his neighbor for the it and had it butchered and frozen.
  reply report
  65
  AdsenseStrategiesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Maybe you should just have a law preventing Dick Cheney from hunting, and the rest of you will be alright (was that in bad taste...? Too "Late-Nite TV" perhaps...)
  reply report
  56
  C.J. Wrightposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Actually Ralph the SKS is equivalent to the 30/30 ballistic wise. Growing up in Louisiana I'm sure your familiar with the 30/30 rifle, very popular with deer hunting there. It really depends on the load your using. Using military rounds would not be effective for deer. In fact in most states using a FMJ military round is illegal for hunting purposes. However they do make hunting rounds.
  reply report
  69
  Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Randy, I never hunted deer in Louisiana, but my recollection is that at least in the southern, swampy part of the state most deer hunters used shotguns, not rifles, because most of the deer were shot at close range. I'm not disputing your comment on 30-30s. I was a bird, duck, goose and squirrel hunter. (We used shotguns for hunting all the above.) In any event there was no hunting use for handguns.
  reply report
  56
  C.J. Wrightposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  No doubt the 12 and 20 gauge shotguns are suitable for all types of hunting in south Louisiana. However, you will find that through out the south the 30/30 rifle is a very popular rifle for deer hunting. 270, 30-06 and 308's are better suited for long range shooting(200 yards plus) Rifles such as the 30/30 are considered "brush guns" as the heavy bullet tends to stay true in lightly wooded/brushy areas.
  reply report
  56
  C.J. Wrightposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Ten rounds is the standard mag capacity. Most domestic deer rifles hold 5 or 6. Some can hold more with a larger mag(homemade or otherwise).
  reply report
  56
  C.J. Wrightposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  California does restrict the mag capacity.....hows that working out? Its not Ralph.....we know what the problem is, we need to address it. Gang related crime drives the "assault weapon" fear mongering. We need to address the people involved, not the tools tey use.
  reply report
89
Bibowenposted 15 years ago
Community A--Ten families all have guns. These are known to be law-abiding families. You are the head of one of the families that owns a gun.

Community B--Ten families, nine of which have no gun. The head of household in family #10 is a known psychopath. He has a .22 handgun. You are the head of one of the families that does not have a gun

Community A has 10 well-armed families; Community B has 1 modestly-armed psychopath.

The final exam question is: which neighborhood do you want to live in? It's the difference between you getting an A or a B...
reply report
1. 61
  Valerie Fposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  A!
  reply report
  69
  Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  In my system the psychopath wouldn't have a gun.
  reply report
  61
  Valerie Fposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Ideally, no. Not even with current regulations in place. However, nothing is said of how the psychopath in the scenario had obtained that gun.
  
  Also, nothing is said of any psychopath in the neighborhood of community A, but there's a whole neighborhood a bit better equipped to deal with any psychopath who shows up.
  reply report
  69
  Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Weapons are over-rated for self-protection. Unless you're walking around with a pistol in a holster on your belt the odds are the psychopath will get the drop on you, maybe from a tree across the street.
  reply report
  56
  C.J. Wrightposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Here we can agree. I would tell you that this is the case for most with concealed carry permits as well. A weekend course is NOT going to prepare you for armed conflict....
  reply report
  65
  AdsenseStrategiesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Could somebody tell me what percentage of American gun-owners has ever actually killed anyone in fact? My guess is that the percentage is pretty freaking small -- and if so, then why all the hot air, in any case? Just curious
  reply report
  56
  C.J. Wrightposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
  61
  Bovine Currencyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  righhhtttttt.....
  reply report
  89
  Bibowenposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Then you missed the point because you are focused on the gun. The gun is a nonissue. A psychopath would either find a way to get a gun or he'd find another weapon. You can spin a scenario where the psyche job doesn't have a gun, but our policies have to be implemented in the real world, not in the fantastical world that you can imagine.
  
  So, since we have a world of crazies that are resourceful enough to obtain a deadly weapon, the best we can do is arm the innocent, thereby reducing the chances that the perp will succeed.
  reply report
  69
  Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  There is very little evidence that "arming the innocent will reduce the chances that the perp will succeed." More likely it would increase the chances of an accident, home burglary to steal the weapons, suicide, or being shot and killed by a "perp." This isn't the wild west populated by quick draw artists. The police will tell you that the best thing to do when threatened by someone with a gun is to comply with their request.
  reply report
  59
  Presigoposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  very well stated
  reply report
  61
  Bovine Currencyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Makes perfect sense to me
  reply report
  89
  Bibowenposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You want an unarmed American in his own home with an armed psychopath putting a gun to his head (it's a fact that the perpetrator will be armed). Then you want the defenseless homeowner to fully cooperate with the perpetrator's request. Sounds like a great policy.....for the criminal.
  
  Why would any responsible American surrender that responsibility for the safety and wellbeing of his family and property to your theories? America is not a nation of sheeple; fortunately we have the Bill of Rights and the majority of laws on our side. The only people that are going to be convinced by your drivel are those that do not have to live in the real world where violence and the fear of a forceful entry are a reality.
  
  And remember, true gun control means always hitting your target.
  reply report
  69
  Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  A naive and unreasoning comment.
  reply report
  61
  tksenseiposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  No, it was a reasonable and correct comment.
  reply report
  69
  Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Well, I guess that settles it.
  reply report
  61
  tksenseiposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Yes it does.
  reply report
0
sandra rinckposted 15 years ago
Get my gun!
reply report
60
Rayalternatelyposted 15 years ago
I wouldn't know what to do with a gun if I had one, the whole subject is a bit of a mystery to me. I suppose if I lived somewhere where all the "baddies" had guns I'd probably consider having one too but on balance I'm pleased virtually no-one's got one here.
reply report
73
livewithrichardposted 15 years ago
Did somebody say it was deer season?

reply report
1. 69
  Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Ha! Ha! that's a great picture. Looks like it might be ole C.J. Wright.
  reply report
  65
  AdsenseStrategiesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Too right...! Good pic. Until I think of the image of the deer, after the fact...
  reply report
  65
  AdsenseStrategiesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  ...And can you ski with that thing?
  reply report
  56
  C.J. Wrightposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I do not have a barret .50 caliber rifle! I would NEVER have a mullet!
  reply report
0
sneakorocksolidposted 15 years ago
Why not declare marshall law and just take them all?
reply report
1. 65
  AdsenseStrategiesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  It's martial, not marshall, but I agree with your general point: it's a bit like saying a country could ban homosexuality, or oral sex, or swinger parties -- exactly how would a country do that -- put cameras in everyone's bedrooms? Same with guns -- exactly how on earth could a country "round up" all the guns; I'd say it's *much* preferable to let everyone keep their guns, than to have a system where the government could go into every house and search people's cupboards: no, no, no, that wouldn't do at all -- heck, I might even kick my *own* Canadian/European "nancy" ass into gear ( ) and take up arms, if a government ever tried that! I mean, isn't that what people were fighting the Nazis, and later resisting the Soviets, for? Basic privacy and freedom in that sense? Yep, worth fighting, and maybe even dying for.
  reply report
  0
  sneakorocksolidposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry, I don't spell worth a damn! I am tired of the same people trying to limit some one elses rights while demanding rights for their,so called, victims.
  reply report
  61
  tksenseiposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I thought you were Canadian?
  reply report
2. 69
  Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Because gun ownership rights are protected by the Constitution. I haven't seen anybody advocating "taking 'em all." Some are advocating sensible restrictions and more effective enforcement.
  reply report
  0
  sneakorocksolidposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  The people I hunt and shoot with are some of the most resposible people I've met. I just don't know how changing a law is going to change what a bad guy does.
  reply report
37
privateye2500posted 15 years ago
I wrote a big long post on this and lost the thing....arrrgggg!
Major frustration!

Short version - You will never take guns away from the *Bad Gys* so you cannot take them away from the good guys.

That is how the Nazi's took over and you know what happened to the Jews and the polish and the _____. name a country... Nearly lost the world as we know it BECAUSE of gun control - History.

Swiss - got it bang on - again - History.

London - Histroy.

Look at what has happened to Australia! (NO History)

YOU CANNOT CHANGE A HORSE IN MID STREAM!!!

The 2nd amendmant isn't the problem; it is all the amendments to the amendments of it that present the problems.

Why does anoyone Need a machine gun? Not about NEED. It's about RIGHTS.

Do you want your rights taken away? Do you want to pick and choose wich ones? Are you SURE???

If all you have is a .22; you cannot defend your home from a machine gun.

Rock,Paper,Scissors ... !!! Get it?

The USA is certainly out of control; everyone worldwide know that and there is No bringing it back into any semblence of order now. Legal or not - Americans will not give up their guns ans why would they NOW?

I sure wish I had not lost my post - I truly think it got the point across.

It is all about HISTORY. Time...growth of a society, a generation(s) with or without. The teachings and mind-sets.

You can be killed with a shoe. It's rock,paper,scissors. Shit-luck.

Noone is ever going to *win* this any more than winning the *war* on drugs - it just AIN'T Gonna Happen.

In the states, it is a lose lose situation.
reply report
0
Poppa Bluesposted 15 years ago
You need to answer this question, If Saddam co-operated with all of the UN and IAEA demands for access, would the USA still have gone to war?
reply report
1. 71
  rhamsonposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Good question. I wonder too what would have happened if we just stayed in Afghanistan and erradicated the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
  reply report
  0
  Poppa Bluesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  My point is if Saddam had complied there wouldn't have been a war so your oil assumption is shown to be false.
  
  We will never eliminate the Taliban from that part of the world. It perhaps was a mistake not to go into Pakistan when we had the chance and kill Bin-Laden, but hind sight is 20/20.
  reply report
  71
  rhamsonposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Well yes and no. The oil and gas pipeline would still be able to flow at least to Pakistan but there would have to be an agreement with them to get the oil and gas to the Gulf. The move into Pakistan to get Bin Laden would kind of queer that for us.
  
  If all that took place then I guess an invasion into Iraq was inevitable. Probably best for Bush when you consider we could tap into the Iraq oil fields as well.
  reply report
61
tksenseiposted 15 years ago
Yeah, how much free oil are we getting from Iraq now?
reply report
1. 71
  rhamsonposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You will never know.
  reply report
  61
  tksenseiposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I know right now.
  reply report
  71
  rhamsonposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Words just words.
  reply report
  61
  tksenseiposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  No, words that reflect reality.
  reply report
61
tksenseiposted 15 years ago
Why would I need a rest? You tried to play the "go study history" card and the fact is that I've studied and taught more history than you ever have or ever will. This would be a good time for you to pursue a different approach.
reply report
1. 61
  Bovine Currencyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  philosophy, political science, linguistics, now history teacher. Wow. I never would have guessed. Silly Australian me...
  reply report
  61
  tksenseiposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Well now you know. If you care to, you may learn more.
  reply report
61
Bovine Currencyposted 15 years ago
So much original material, you amaze me.
reply report
71
rhamsonposted 15 years ago
@Bovine I think we should give 'ole TK a break. He has worked himself up into such a froth over all this. After all he is a legend in his own mind.
reply report
1. 61
  Bovine Currencyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Must be hard to live up to such a reputation I suppose... You are probably right.
  reply report
2. 61
  tksenseiposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Did I say anything even remotely like that?
  reply report
61
Bovine Currencyposted 15 years ago
In fairness though, I remember my first week on hubpages... wasn't a very friendly welcome from the trollster.
reply report
65
AdsenseStrategiesposted 15 years ago
Did anyone ever answer my question as to the percentage of gun owners that have ever actually killed someone?

If it is a tiny percentage (surely it is?), then maybe all this energy might be better spent focusing on something else...

(No government in their right mind would ever try to take away your guns, or probably even restrict assault weapons -- it's just too hot a political potato -- so maybe the issue is dead, practicaly speaking anyway, and perhaps not a great threat anyway: people who want to use weapons for crime will find a way, no matter what, I suspect)
reply report
1. 70
  Jeffrey Nealposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  No, it is not a dead issue. There have already been restrictions on "assault weapons" that were passed with sunset provision, and since it did not prove effective at reducing crime (DUH!) the federal law was allowed to expire in 2004, although states like CA, NY, and MA kept the provisions. There is, as well a newer draft of enhanced legislation based on the previous law, but it will likely get no traction. The new bill, though, does add in several hunting firearms including certain variants of shotguns that are commonly used for both hunting and home defense. None of these would be considered "assault weapons" by the Fudds who would lose the right to own them if the bill were to pass.
  
  Compared to the number of guns owned, the number used in crimes is extremely small. Therefore, It would be easy to assume that the number of legal gun owners who have shot or killed someone to likewise be a fractional percentage.
  
  Logic hasn't entered into the rhetoric of many proposals, though. Just as Ralph claims one should have to show a need in order to carry. That is reactive. Many battered women may have a need, but by the time the Sheriff gets around to reviewing it, it may be too late. I'm sure Ralph wasn't talking about them anyway. We all know that bankers and jewelry salesmen are the only ones who need protection...for their property.
  
  Maybe we should start discussing free speech permits and voting tests to see where people stand on those rights being "reasonably" restricted.
  reply report
  65
  AdsenseStrategiesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I just wonder if there aren't more important things for *both* sides to focus on, that's all. Here in Canada, one in ten children live in (the Western standard of) poverty. How is it down there?
  reply report
  70
  Jeffrey Nealposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Pretty bad as well. The city I live in has the highest infant mortality rate in the entire country. Poverty is a major factor as it is in the crime rate.
  
  The thing that one who does not live in a country like ours with a Bill of Rights needs to understand is that if any of our rights come under attack or are held to be discretionary by our "leaders", then that is as important as any other issue more so, even because it is a big picture thing. To me, an anti-Constitutional approach by a lawmaker shows that he or she does not have anyone's interests at heart and does not represent me. I will not support any person who believes in limiting any of those rights. They are all equally important and there is no picking and choosing.
  reply report
  69
  Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  No rights are absolute or unrestricted, including free speech and gun ownership rights under the 2nd Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court over-ruled the D.C. ban on handguns, but if my memory serves cities or states are free to pass laws covering the sale, purchase, registration and use of guns.
  reply report
  65
  AdsenseStrategiesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Maybe this is pedantism, but isn't the amendment the right to bear arms, not guns specifically...? Mmmm, yes, I think that was pedantic...
  reply report
  69
  Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  The courts have ruled that the right to bear arms is not an absolute, unrestricted right. Limitations imposed by cities or states are permissible under current court interpretations of the Second Amendment. For example guns are not allowed in court houses, schools, workplaces, etc. Handguns must be registered in most cities and states. Permits must be obtained to carry a concealed weapon, and certain people are not eligible for these permits. And so forth. NOBODY IS PROPOSING A TOTAL BAN ON GUNS.
  reply report
  65
  AdsenseStrategiesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I thought DC's right to this just got struck down
  reply report
  69
  Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  My recollection and understanding is that DC's ban on handguns was struck down because it violated the 2nd Amendment. The law is not entirely clear about what rules and restrictions on guns may be adopted by D.C. or currently in effect in cities and states across the country are consistent with the 2nd Amendment. My understanding of the law is that "reasonable" restrictions on the sale, purchase, registration and use of guns adopted by cities and states are consistent with the 2nd Amendment. All kinds of restrictions are on the books of states and muncipalities as I pointed out above.
  reply report
0
sneakorocksolidposted 15 years ago
We don't need any new laws, we need to enforce the ones we have now.
reply report
1. 61
  Bovine Currencyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Join the police force sneako, I'm sure you will fit in really well.
  reply report
  0
  sneakorocksolidposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Hey! You saying I'm not cool?
  reply report
2. 0
  Scott.Lifeposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  We need to quit with the false pretenses and overtures and just get to conquering the rest of the world already. I'm done being nice, when will we have a president that just comes out and says..."Folks, they gots the oil, we want it, let's go get it." That's the kind of honesty we lack in politicians. If we're gonna go just tell us why in the beginning then there's no need for lies and cover-up. In this plan it is essential that we allow owners to keep their guns to support our shrinking military after they boot out all the tattooed guys.
  reply report
92
habeeposted 15 years ago
Ummm...Scott, your plan is great, but there's one MAJOR hurdle: It would require our politicians to be honest.
reply report
1. 0
  Scott.Lifeposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  AAARRGGHHH!!!!
  
  I knew there was something I was overlooking. Honest politicians and mature citizens who can handle the truth. You're right it's a pipe-dream.
  reply report
0
Scott.Lifeposted 15 years ago
Let's do it anyway
reply report
76
cheaptrickposted 15 years ago
You don't have to control guns if you make bullets REALLY,REALY expensive.
People will have to save up for a while to kill anyone...
See how smart I am...
reply report
1. 89
  Bibowenposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  It also means that the wealthy will be well-protected in their homes while the poor won't have a chance. As for the poor criminal, he will steal the bullets to put in his stolen gun.
  
  Now, you're right--it's smart, but who is it smart for?
  reply report
  61
  tksenseiposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Very, very good post.
  reply report
  76
  cheaptrickposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Damn,every time I get a little self esteem going someone comes along and BAM its gone.I was just kidding bro,everyone knows guns don't kill people,husbands who come home early from work kill people(another joke so chill bro chill),besides,it worked with gasoline,we don't have Drive buys anymore,now we have walk buys which makes catching criminals easier.
  reply report
2. 60
  egivposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  How smart you are? You stole that from Chris Rock! Hah great standup though, guy's histerical...
  reply report
  76
  cheaptrickposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  How do you know Chris Rock did'nt steal it from me?
  Actually Chris is my room mate,he said I could use it.
  I could never be that clever on my own.Plagiarism is my friend.
  reply report
  70
  Jeffrey Nealposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  It is a funny bit:
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEMrAum7C0Q
  reply report
92
habeeposted 15 years ago
Yeah, but lots of folks reload their own bullets. My dad always did.
reply report
69
Ralph Deedsposted 15 years ago
Guns seized in Detroit drug raid yesterday.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/arti … ofile=1001
reply report
1. 70
  Jeffrey Nealposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  What do you want to bet those guys already had a felony record and couldn't legally purchase those. So they obtained them illegally. How does your ban stop that?
  
  Ralph, your posts are naive and unreasoning.
  reply report
58
helotposted 15 years ago
Sums it up.

http://blog.robballen.com/images/saam/j … tguide.jpg
reply report
60
megs78posted 15 years ago
Maybe this has already been said, but Canadians own roughly the same amount of guns as Americans per capita, so it can't be the guns causing the problem...there is a much deeper issue.
reply report
1. 0
  sneakorocksolidposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Yikes! Canadians have guns?
  reply report
  60
  megs78posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah, scary isn't it? well, scary if you're a bear, a deer, a moose, a duck, or a rabbit.
  
  Funny that Canadians tend to own at least 3 different kinds of guns but tend not to shoot other people with them. NOt so funny that Americans own only 1 gun generally and seem to have it specifically for shooting other people. Strange world we live in
  reply report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, but some of us have a dozen or more different firearms and still shoot no one with them.
  reply report
  60
  megs78posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  It was just a joke...please don't take me seriously,
  reply report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I know you were kidding, but there are some who really believe we gun owners routinely shoot each other.
  reply report
61
mel22posted 15 years ago
we're way past the revolutionary or cowboy days. The jeffersonian qoutes don't fit with millenial times. I think they should only be restricted to those who are stockpiling ( selling from the back of a car trunk in the hood)or(gathering in a compound such as Waco) since the 2nd amendment states individuals rights or State milias rights. Outside of a state militia such as State Police it should be considered stockpiling if a non store owner owns more than 25 guns including all collectibles, hunting rifles, muskets, pistols, military issue, etc. And P.S. military issue should not iclude fully-automatic and limit the number of semi-automatic to a low number like no more than fifteen in the 25 lot. Anymore other than that by non store owner should be considered stockpiling which could be considered anti-gov't which could be considered sedition.
reply report
61
mel22posted 15 years ago
I don't think REGISTERED users are the ones doing the Human to Human killing.. .It's the Unregistered owners ( dealing in underground/ black market ) operations who are involved or contributing to the use of guns by non registered criminals. Most REGISTERED owners are are shootong Human to Animal or Human to INTRUDER. And also all of the illegal Fully automatic weapons are distributed by nonregistered criminals. They're not getting them from Wal-Mart. The need is to stop the fully automatic and other unregister weapons from getting across the borders.. Thats the GUN CONTROL we need. A little less restriction on REGISTERED users and put the restrictions on the illegal trade and acquiring in an illegal way is what will stop homicide.
reply report
67
Beyond-Politicsposted 15 years ago
Although there is no logical place in the civilian arena for weapons such as high-powered auto- and semi-automatic weapons, I do believe that putting restrictions on legal gun owners hinders THEIR ability to protect themselves. I grew up in public housing and have seen many crimes committed in "the 'hood," and I personally wouldn't feel safe in a house WITHOUT a weapon to defend myself...the police simply cannot prevent crimes, only respond to them.
reply report
1. 60
  Ron Montgomeryposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  There seems to be a contradiction in your position. Is it more accurate to say that you feel guns should not be strictly prohibited for citizens? It seems you are for some restrictions.
  reply report
69
Ralph Deedsposted 15 years ago
Police: Va. student's rifle jammed after 2 shots
Posted 12/10/2009 7:53 AM ET E-mail | Save | Print
WOODBRIDGE, Va. (AP) — A community college student was upset about his grades when he walked into a classroom and fired two shots at his professor before his new rifle jammed, police said Wednesday.

Jason M. Hamilton, 20, was unable to continue shooting at mathematics professor Tatyana Kravchuk, who ducked behind a desk and was not hit, Prince William County police Maj. Ray Colgan said. No one was injured.

"Probably what prevented a further tragedy was that the gun jammed," Colgan said.

Hamilton bought the Marlin .30-06 bolt-action rifle Monday at a Dick's Sporting Goods store near the campus, police said.

Hamilton was arraigned Wednesday on charges of attempted murder and discharging a firearm in a school zone. He was being held without bond, and a preliminary hearing was scheduled for Jan. 11.

David R. Daugherty, Hamilton's attorney, declined to comment on the charges and said his client's family is asking for privacy.
reply report
1. 56
  C.J. Wrightposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  This guy is an idiot! A Marlin 30-06 is a long gun(NO REAR OR FRONT SIGHTS). Its designed for shooting things several yards awawy at minimum and designed to be fitted with a scope. Its also a "long action" rifle. Meaning its easy to pull the bolt short and cause a "jam".
  The idea that this guy "walked" into the classroom with a gun thats around 3ft long is amazing! The fact that he tried to shoot someone at point blank range and missed is a miracle.....
  I would imagine VA has a waiting period for handguns. Thats why this clown bought the rifle....lucky for the professor he's an idiot, other wise he would have bought a shot-gun and the professor would be dead.
  This case is an argument for the standard waiting periods, however we see that it has no real effect when we look at the VA Tech shootings.
  reply report
  70
  Jeffrey Nealposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I thought guns were banned on school campuses. How did he bring a gun onto campus if it's banned?
  
  Unless it means that bans don't work
  *gasp*
  *shudder*
  reply report
  56
  C.J. Wrightposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Yes but the signs make people feel better....crazy huh? Oh and there will be "mandatory" sentences that are long and harsh for those committing these crimes...right. All legislation to date has proven only to impede legal gun ownership and create a negative attitude towards legal gun owners.
  More than likely this kid is going to be innocent until proven crazy! He's not going to jail....he's more than likely going to a mental institution....and thats the REAL problem.
  reply report
  70
  Jeffrey Nealposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  And this is the point. As Ralph likes to say no one is proposing an outright ban. Rather, it is being done as a long slow siege on those "fringer zombies" who would own guns. That is why I am persistent and see no need to give ground until these laws are PROVEN to be effective! Logic should dictate the actions we take.
  
  I'm sure some of the lawmakers convince themselves they are doing good, but as one poster already said, history is being ignored.
  
  Let's work on the crime problem and we will see that what we thought was a gun problem was something else entirely.
  reply report
  56
  C.J. Wrightposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Gang violence creates a lot of this fear mongering towards gun ownership. When cities make a SERIOUS concerted effort to reduce gang population in their cities, crime drops dramatically.
  reply report
69
Ralph Deedsposted 15 years ago
These kinds of accidents are all too common when guns are kept carelessly in a home where there are children--
Detroit 3-year-old dies after accidentally shooting herself

BY TAMMY STABLES BATTAGLIA AND CECIL ANGEL
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITERS

A single shot from a 9-millimeter handgun in her grandmother's bedroom nightstand killed a Detroit 3-year-old Wednesday night, leading the city's police chief to renew a plea for gun safety.

Quantcast

"This is the most egregious one: the gun was in a nightstand unlocked, right at a normal height for a 3-year-old," Detroit Police Chief Warren Evans said this morning. "But we have dozens and dozens of these a year."

Alexia Bostick was visiting her 42-year-old grandmother's house on the city's east side when she was shot at about 6:15 p.m. Wednesday, according to investigators. The grandmother was in another part of the house in the 18900 block of Rockcastle, near Canyon, when the toddler found the gun, Detroit Police Sgt. Eren Stephens said.

"Somehow it went off," Stephens said.

Evans said investigators today will determine the gun's origin, if it was registered and the history of the grandmother. He said he's going to talk to the Wayne County Prosecutor's Office to determine whether to file negligence charges against the grandmother to warn others to take responsibility for guns if they have them.

"I’m not interested in compounding the misery of the grandmother," Evans said. "But I am interested in sending a message home."

Evans issued a plea days ago aimed at preventing just such a tragedy after an 8-year-old brought a silver handgun with a wooden handle into his third grade classroom at Timbuktu Academy. A week prior, an 11-year-old told investigators he brought a gun to Woodward Academy because he was being bullied.

Detroit police will provide free gun locks to anyone who needs them. People can get one in any police district or precinct.
reply report
1. 0
  Poppa Bluesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  In 2006 there were 30,000 deaths by firearms in the US and 45,000 deaths by vehicles. Perhaps we should outlaw cars?
  reply report
  60
  Ron Montgomeryposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Nonsensical comparison.
  reply report
  0
  Poppa Bluesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Oh really? Why is that?
  reply report
  60
  Ron Montgomeryposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Were 45,000 people intentionally run over by cars? Do people buy cars with the intent of using them as weapons or do they possibly serve another purpose?
  reply report
  0
  Poppa Bluesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I don't know how many were intentionally run over, I'm sure there were quite a few just as I'm sure many of the 30,000 killed by guns were accidental.
  reply report
  60
  Ron Montgomeryposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Can you by any stretch of the imagination really think that a significant number of these auto deaths was intentional?
  reply report
  69
  Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Cars serve a useful and usually necessary purpose. Assault weapons, large magazine pistols and military rifles do not. Moreover, handguns are greatly over-rated for self-protection.
  reply report
  0
  Poppa Bluesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  No they do serve a very important and useful purpose, to prevent tyranny!
  reply report
  69
  Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You are joking, I assume??
  reply report
  56
  C.J. Wrightposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I don't think he is......Thomas Jefferson, makes it very clear why the second ammendment is in the constitution....
  reply report
  60
  Ron Montgomeryposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Unfortunately, many people actually feel this way. The extreme right would evaporate without a continuous supply of extreme irrational fear.
  reply report
  0
  Poppa Bluesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Extreme irrational fear? Hardly! The federal government has long been assuming more power that was granted by the constitution. We have a government that is moving at light speed to suppress individual freedom. Now more than ever it's important to be prepared. This nation is on the brink of economic collapse and there's plenty of evidence to support that view. In addition we're on the verge of an actual mandate to buy a service against our will. What's next? I have no idea, but people like you that are complacent and willing to allow government to take whatever they wish as long as they promise you some entitlement, is the real danger to freedom and I prefer to be ready when the time comes to protect myself and my family from the anarchy that is sure to follow this assault on freedom!
  reply report
  60
  Ron Montgomeryposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Healthcare reform will lead to violent anarchy? Brilliant.
  reply report
  69
  Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  The master of the non sequitor and broad brush.
  reply report
  70
  Jeffrey Nealposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  More nonsense.
  reply report
  92
  habeeposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  A handgun saved my dad from being robbed at his store years ago. A thug came in and pointed a gun at dad's face, but my father always wore baggy pants with big pockets. In his pocket was a pistol, which he had pointed at the perp. When he informed the would-be robber of the pistol, the guy looked down, saw that Dad wasn't lying, and fled immediately. I don't think Daddy could have concealed a rifle - his pants weren't THAT baggy!
  reply report
  69
  Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I didn't suggest that handguns are useless or that they should be prohibited. They are useful and appropriate in some cases when the user is trained in gun safety and whose occupation exposes him or her to robbery or other crime, e.g., a store keeper in a high crime neighborhood, a Brinks truck driver, or someone who has received threats of violence. In my opinion, handguns should not be banned, but they should be more effectively regulated.
  reply report
  60
  Ron Montgomeryposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Your Dad was very lucky. I'm glad for both of you, but this situation could easily have gone the other way. Your father was at a tactial disadvantage having the gun in his pocket as opposed to the perp who had his out.
  reply report
  56
  C.J. Wrightposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Luck is when preparation meets opportunity. Had he not been prepared(armed) he would have not been ready for the attack(opportunity). Sounds like if you keep a pistol in the same pocket as your wallet/cash you have created your own "tactical" advantage. Life is risk based. We have been told to just be compliant. Now instead of muggings and sidewalk hold ups there are home invasions. Things generally don't get better unless they are confronted head on.
  reply report
  60
  Ron Montgomeryposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  This particular "preparation" could have led to a disaster. A gun in your pocket is no match against an opponent with one held correctly. This guy was stupid and inexperienced; a more seasoned crminal would have blown her dad's head off.
  reply report
  56
  C.J. Wrightposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Maybe....life is risk based. Why should you get to decide how people decide to defend themselves? Why would you second guess a good outcome? Are you a seasoned criminal? How do you get a victim to hand over their valuables without loosing your "tactical" advantage?
  reply report
  56
  C.J. Wrightposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  And yes it could have led to disaster. The would be victim could have shown no restraint and shot the would be attacker. In which case the would be victim would possibly be a would be murder suspect. It could have also ended as you mentioned. The difference, I let the would be victim make those decisions. I'm also not afraid to hold them accountable if they make the wrong choice in the eyes of the law.
  reply report
  92
  habeeposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  The perp might have "blown Dad's head off," but Dad had the snubnose already aimed at the thug's chest, so it would have been "tit for tat." Dad was a gun dealer and was VERY proficient with firearms.
  
  One night when my ex was working the graveyard shift, some men tried to come in my home. My three young children and I were home alone. When I confronted them with my shotgun, they fled. I never saw them again!
  reply report
2. 56
  C.J. Wrightposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Sad, really. Don't see how any new law can prevent this. Certainly there is a legal case for negligence here. Sadly the Grandmother should be charged, at least based on the facts stated in the story. Here we see the police offer free gun locks. WOW! Further whats not told is that the gun was not only kept out of reach of minors, it was improperly stowed. A 9mm pistol is typically of the semi auto variety. Based on the story I can gather that it was also double action. That means the gun was stowed in the reach of a minor, with a loaded magazine, and a round in the chamber. How can I guess this? Because a three year old does not have the strength to chamber a round or load a magazine on a 9MM semi-automatic pistol, nor is it easy to intuit.
  reply report
0
Poppa Bluesposted 15 years ago
Woman Shoots Intruder Dead

At 12:30 Donna Jackson woke up to her dog barking like someone was in her backyard. She went to to her backdoor and sure enough she was face to face with a man trying to break in.

"Oh he's getting ready to break the window," said Jackson to the dispatcher.

Jackson immediately went and got her shotgun, hoping an officer would get there so she didn't have to use it.

But the man trying to break in had other plans, he then grabbed some patio furniture and broke the back door.

"Dear god hurry. I haven't shot yet. Hurry," said Jackson.

"Can you get...oh my god. Ma'am, do you have a cordless phone," said the dispatcher.

"I shot him," said Jackson.

Jackson shot Billy Dean Riley right in the chest, killing him instantly.

The shooting is being investigated as a homicide but the sheriff says Jackson did what she had to do.

"This was nothing more than a home invasion and Mrs. Jackson was defending herself," said Lincoln County Sheriff Charles Mangion.

After the incident, officers found Riley's truck and his sister a few miles from the home.

They say his sister was on so many drugs, she was nearly unconscious.

They believe he was on drugs as well.
reply report
1. 60
  Ron Montgomeryposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  This was a case of someone owning an appropriate firearm for home defense, and using it wisely. It's a far cry from someone claiming a constitutional right to own automatic weapons or cop-killer ammo.
  reply report
  70
  Jeffrey Nealposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  No such thing.
  reply report
2. 69
  Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Great story, but gun violence incidents, accidental shootings and suicide reports greatly outnumber successful self defense incidents with guns like this one.
  reply report
  70
  Jeffrey Nealposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Source please?
  reply report
  61
  tksenseiposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Source or no source, that all means #*%! to someone defending his home and family.
  reply report
  69
  Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  My morning paper which has reports several times a week of drug gang shootings, drive by shootings, accidental shootings, husbands shooting wives and wives shooting husbands, grade school children showing up at school with handguns, etc, etc. And I can't recall the last time I saw a report of someone successfully defending themselves with a handgun. Not saying it doesn't happen, but it's unusual. And if you think about the impracticalities involved in storing, carrying, using a handgun for self defense it becomes clear that they aren't very useful.
  reply report
  61
  tksenseiposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  "What I notice in my morning paper" isn't exactly a source.
  reply report
  69
  Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Why not?
  reply report
  70
  Jeffrey Nealposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Ralph, when the paper or local news doesn't report on it, does it mean it didn't happen?
  Also, can you blame them for not reporting when a crime is effectively averted and no one got hurt? It would be nice to see these stories since they DO happen, but it's only news if there's blood, unfortunately.
  reply report
  61
  tksenseiposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  ...................
  reply report
  69
  Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Oh, as usual, because you said so.
  reply report
  61
  tksenseiposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Do you honestly think "I don't notice in my morning paper" is a legitimate source? Really?
  reply report
  69
  Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Yes.
  reply report
  61
  tksenseiposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Well, now I know how seriously to take anything you have to say.
  reply report
  70
  Jeffrey Nealposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Let me help you then. My morning paper is as biased as the day is long against firearms, and I'm in TN! Would you say the US Dept of Justice is an unbiased source?
  
  http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm
  
  Pay particular attention to this which disproves your statement:
  http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt
  
  *emphasis mine*
  
  I would say it presents a pretty good case for defending oneself with a firearm.
  reply report
  69
  Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I'm not sure it does, but I'll study it. Thanks for providing it. At least we're beyond tis and taint.
  reply report
  0
  Poppa Bluesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah? Tell it to the the injured and familes of the dead in the Fort Hood shooting or at VT! If those people were armed how many of them would be alive now? The left is always talking about "leveling the playing field" when it comes to entitlements, well how about the same when it comes to self protection and my god given right as a free man to protect myself from criminals?
  reply report
  69
  Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Just curious, how do you protect yourself? Do you carry a loaded handgun at all times? Do you have loaded handguns stashed under your car seat? Do you have them stashed in convenient places around your house? What type of guns to you use to protect yourself? Do you really think this is practical for most people who have no training in gun safety and use and no money to buy guns if they wanted to?
  reply report
  60
  Google Galposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Wow you sure asked alot of questions in one huge paragraph , but good ones I have to admit, would love to see em answered
  reply report
  0
  Poppa Bluesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Actually, I don't own a gun and never have. I shot them in the service and one I used a friends pistol to shoot at a target. In any case, that's my decision, my choice and I reserve the right to change my mind at any time. It seems to me that present and future developments in the suppression of individual freedom and the risk of economic collapse require a more careful consideration of carrying arms.
  reply report
  69
  Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Wow! That's a pleasant surprise. Not at all what I'd envisioned from your comments opposing gun control. I never imagined that I owned three more guns than you! (One is an antique shotgun that can't be used with current gunpowder loads.)
  reply report
61
tksenseiposted 15 years ago
Good for him!
reply report
60
TheAllSeeingEyeposted 15 years ago
This is an interesting article.

Firstly I want to be absolutely clear that I condemn the illegal use of guns, knives or any weapon that is used to seriously hurt or kill a person or animal in cold blood.

With that in mind I will then look at some of the issues.

It is through gang warfare, drug warfare, armed robbery and other money influenced crimes of premeditation that are in most cases the cause of deaths through the use of guns or knives with the exception of mentally deranged sociopaths, acts of self defence and crimes of passion.

The biggest question is, can the government prevent much of these murders or in some cases can they be blamed for them?

How are drugs smuggled into countries, who produce them and are governments involved? If so, then any drug related shooting is indirectly caused by them if we are bold enough to look at the big picture or the root of a problem.

Then money orientated crimes. Again, can the governments take some responsibility over these? If people are so destitute and in most cases addicted to the narcotics that are allowed into our society then again the root of the problem stems from those who are supposed to be looking out for us. If we had no drugs on the streets, had no class of wealth among us or split ideologies, religions or cultures then how much would this contribute to less crime and especially less calculated murder?

Then we have another dilemma. Guns are readily accepted now as a problem because of so many shootings in society and the threat this has on communities. So somewhere along the line problems have surfaced with or without intent. Guns were first easily obtainable by the public. Then drugs were vastly distributed into society. Then the power struggle for money, success and fame was introduced into our world. Then the gang mentality was promoted without any suppression whatsoever! Then comes the mass panic, the cry for help! Then our governments demand we hand over all our guns and weapons which to be fair the majority of people who own a gun usually tuck away in their closets for protection. Then when all the guns are out of the people's hands...bring in martial law which helps towards a political agenda and absolute control over the people.

Just an observation or theory.

Do people really want to give up all their power, protection and in so many cases human rights also?

Food for thought!
reply report
1. 69
  Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Good comment. Fair enough. One small disagreement, however. As far as I know nobody is suggesting that we "hand over all our guns and weapons." Nobody has suggested that hunters should give up their shotguns or rifles or even be required to register them. There are various proposals wrt assault-type weapons and large capacity magazine long guns and handguns which are designed for one purpose only--killing people. There are also proposals that the sale and use of handguns be more strictly and effectively regulated to prevent sales to convicted felons, the mentally ill and so forth. Reasonable limitations on carrying weapons are also proposed and in effect in some states and cities. For example, guns are not permitted in court houses or other government buildings, schools or in most workplaces. Permits requiring background checks are required for carrying a concealed weapon. All of these proposals and restrictions seem to me to be reasonable and permissible under the Second Amendment. If you have objections, please let us know what they are and why.
  reply report
60
Ron Montgomeryposted 15 years ago
reply report
70
Jeffrey Nealposted 15 years ago
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ER8Ieop6_Jc
reply report
1. 69
  Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Very funny. Sounds like it's straight from NRA. I don't lose much sleep over home invasions.
  
  Here's a better idea for those who worry about home invasions:
  What to take to bed with you - not a joke .
  
  Pretty neat idea. Never thought of it before.
  
  Put your car keys beside your bed at night
  
  Tell your spouse, your children, your neighbors, your parents, your Dr's office, the check-out girl at the market, everyone you run across. Put your car keys beside your bed at night.
  
  If you hear a noise outside your home or someone trying to get in your house, just press the panic button for your car. The alarm will be set off, and the horn will continue to sound until either you turn it off or the car battery dies. This tip came from a neighborhood watch coordinator. Next time you come home for the night and you start to put your keys away, think of this: It's a security alarm system that you probably already have and requires no installation. Test it. It will go off from most everywhere inside your house and will keep honking until your battery runs down or until you reset it with the button on the key fob chain. It works if you park in your driveway or garage. If your car alarm goes off when someone is trying to break into your house, odds are the burglar/rapist won't stick around. After a few seconds all the neighbors will be looking out their windows to see who is out there and sure enough the criminal won't want that. And remember to carry your keys while walking to your car in a parking lot. The alarm can work the same way there. This is something that should really be shared with everyone. Maybe it could save a life or a sexual abuse crime.
  
  P.S. I am sending this to everyone I know because I think it is fantastic. Would also be useful for any emergency, such as a heart attack, where you can't reach a phone. My Mom has suggested to my Dad that he carry his car keys with him in case he falls outside and she doesn't hear him.. He can activate the car alarm and then she'll know there's a problem.
  
  Please pass this on even IF you've read it before. It's a reminder.
  reply report
  56
  C.J. Wrightposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Thats not a bad idea as an additional measure, I've heard of this before. I have a home security system. I also have firearms. I live alone. Do I worry about home invasions? No.
  Last year there were very popular throughout the mid-south. Until one evening two would be home invaders were shot in one night by homeowners.....The occurance dropped dramatically.
  Do I carry firearms on my person? No. I don't generally frequent high crime areas. I do know how to handle myself. I don't feel like I need a firearm in public. I do know some people who's lives are different. Property managers, Small Business Owners, etc. The idea to start labeling people has you(Ralph) did early on in this string is just wrong. You know it.
  reply report
  69
  Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  C.J., I don't recall labeling anybody. I thought I've been careful to recognize that long and handguns, in certain circumstances are useful and needed. I don't have much time for militia men, survivalists and collectors of armories of assault-type weapons who are preparing to defend themselves against tyrants in "black helicopters." If that's labeling so be it. I didn't go back and review my previous posts, and if I went overboard in labeling gun owners I appologise. As I mentioned I own two shotguns and a rifle, and grew up hunting with my dad and other relatives from the time I was ten or so. I'm not in favor of banning all guns. I am in favor of more effective laws and enforcement covering the sale and use of guns.
  reply report
  61
  tksenseiposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Nobody does, until...
  reply report
  70
  Jeffrey Nealposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Not a bad idea. My key fob only works about 10' away even with new batteries, so it's a no go. We have a big dog and a little dog, and both like to bark...so, there's that.
  
  I'm bowing out until you can show something concrete that proves your calls for even more laws. Otherwise we are talking in circles.
  reply report
  61
  tksenseiposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  That's a lot.
  reply report
  70
  Jeffrey Nealposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Agreed!
  reply report
  69
  Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Dogs are better than guns!
  reply report
  70
  Jeffrey Nealposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  At being pets and good companions, yes absolutely!
  reply report
  69
  Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  A "barky" dog is quite good for scaring off unwelcome intruders. I could use TK on a short chain in my garage! :-)
  reply report
  56
  C.J. Wrightposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Until they attack someone...then its another crowd looking to outlaw a breed of dog......
  I would agree, having a dog does serve as a reasonable deterent to unwanted visitors!
  reply report
  61
  tksenseiposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Gotta admire our canine friends!
  reply report
60
TheAllSeeingEyeposted 15 years ago
Ralph Deeds,

I wasn't exactly clear on the matter and I apologise for that. It was just a theory of mine, I am not saying that governments ARE demanding all guns from the public but I am suggesting it could be a possible outcome. Let's say there is a political agenda on the horizon to bring about martial law. If this is true then YES they would not want the public to own their own guns to pose any threat to any forthcoming plans.

Remember, it is just a theory of mine, I'm not even saying it will happen. You could say to me that ifs and buts are irrelevant on here and you would be correct to do so, however, has the government really made any effort to bring about better protection and peace to your community?

Let's look at the judicial system and understand their stance on criminal behaviour. In England over here the judicial system is a farce where criminals are given lenient punishments for some of the most heinous crimes against humanity. We don't have the death penalty any more and life doesn't mean life over here in sentencing either. Murderers, rapists and child molesters are let loose into society and serve meagre sentences for their crimes. We are also exempt for owning a hand gun over here. I sometimes think we should follow the USA's example in protecting ourselves in our homes by having a gun tucked away for safety measures, but it is illegal over here for possessing a gun on your person or in your property. People are at threat by the gangsters who own illegal guns over here and robbers who are sometimes armed breaking into their homes. In some cases a person defending their property and love ones by force against an offender are sometimes prosecuted and sentenced themselves even though they are on their own property at the time of the incident.

As a result of this people are afraid to keep their doors open or walk down the streets at night in the fear of being robbed, assaulted or sometimes killed by some armed criminal.

I understand in most states over in the USA the judicial system is a lot tougher. They still posses the death penalty and life usually means life too I believe or is this now not the case?
reply report
60
Coach Raidbardposted 15 years ago
I understand why many people feel the need to have a gun in their home or business for protection and in circumstances that other posters have mentioned I believe that there guns can be reasonable, but the trend in our society toward carrying guns or owning multiple guns which serve no direct purpose or intent is disturbing to me.
reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Previous 1 23 Next

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Guns out of control in the United States

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Guns out of control in the United States

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies