Gun Control

So, What's the view around here on gun control? I don't care for it. I rather enjoy my overly paranoid use of guns. I have a pistol on my desk, and a shotgun in my closet. So GO! Rant off all your veiws on guns!

 

someday, when you are not all there metally, you will likely kill yourself or someone else with those guns.

 

I love guns... I have a .22 ruger, a shotgun, and I want to get a .38 or maybe a .45... I bet I could get my hands on a gun pretty easily in the UK... and I doubt they'd ask for ID.

I think gun control is really more outta fear then out of rational dialouge about guns violence, but I don't think theres anything wrong with police checks for gun buyers, or a limit on how many guns a person can buy. heres Chris Rock on gun control:

"You don't need no gun control, you know what you need? We need some bullit control! We need to control the bullits, that's right! I think Bullits should cost $5,000. $5,000 for a bullit. You know why? 'Cause if a bullit cost $5,000, there'd be no more innocent bystanders.

Every time people are shot, people'd be like, "Damn! He musta done somethin'! They put $50,000 worth of bullits in his ass!"

People'd think before they killed somebody if a bullit cost $5,000. "Man I would blow your ****in' head off if... I could afford it! I'm gonna get another job, start savin' some money, and you a dead man! You better hope I can't get bullits on layaway!""


-Nunchuks don't kill people, Ninjas kill people.

 

I don't own a single gun, nor have I even fired one. However, I am 100% against gun control and the people who want to stop responsible citizens from owning guns.

We don't need the government telling completely rational and sane people that they cannot own a gun because of a few idiots and their poor judgment.

Besides, gun control doesn't work. The only thing it has been proven to do is take away people's rights.

 

Gun control only gets in the way. A responsible, law-abiding citizen might take heed, but a thuggy wanna be gangsta or some freaked out neo-nazi isn't going to give a shit about what guns the "law" tells them they can/cannot own. As I see it, GC laws only make life a little more dangerous for the rest of us.

The only good law I see coming from it right now is the one that keeps guns out of the hands of felons, but like I said, they don't give a shit. I think they should start punishing people who do stupid shit with guns (longer prison sentences and so on) rather then punishing the responsible gun owners out there.

 

I don't care for guns, never used or handled a real one. But I'm against gun control, even though I'm not fond of the gun culture I don't think trying to control it would do much good. Guns are too integrated into American culture for the law to have much effect on their use, just like alcohol and Prohibition. It would be a wasted effort. There will always be people who'll hang on to their guns, and so long as they're responsible they've every right to.

 

The only part of gun control that I support is banning of semi-automatic assualt rifles. I have no issues with hand guns, rifles, shot guns etc, but I honestly don't see the point in owning an uzi or ak47 or whatever else is out there that's legal and a bit over the top. There just needs to be a line drawn somewhere - otherwise, why not allow someone to own a bazooka?

 

*strokes bazooka fondly* don't worry baby, those government bastards will never get their dirty hands on you.......

 

how many criminals using guns bought them legally? i wonder what that statistic is. i own several, purchased legally. a couple were sorta family heirlooms, one is my hunting rifle. but the funny thing is, i'm much better with my bow. dave had a cousin who killed some mailman. when he got out of jail, he lost his guns, and now he has the most intimidating collection of knives you've ever seen. he ran over a guy a few years ago. i guess the moral of the story is that where there's a will, there's always a way.

 

That is one of the MOST ASININE STATEMENTS I have ever seen uttered in the debate about gun control. How you can honestly believe that drivel is beyond me. Do you not realize that over 80,000,000 (that's Eighty Million) gun owners in the United States own over 250,000,000 guns privately (that's Two Hundred Fifty Million, or a QUARTER OF A BILLION). Don't you think we'd have hundreds of thousands of suicides in this country with guns every year if your comment was even remotely true? As it is, there are approximately 30,000 deaths due to gunshot in the U.S. each year. Over half of that is suicide. Part of that number is also justifiable shootings, in which a cop, or a civilian, saves his or her own life by shooting an attacker who may well have killed him or her, and is upheld by law for having done so. Many others are gang murderers killing other gang murderers (criminal-on-criminal crime). And the number of accidental shooting deaths is at an all-time low and has been getting lower each year since statistics began being kept on it (despite the way the news media portray it).

The idea that you think someone who is otherwise normal would just one day snap and kill himself or someone else with his guns is laughable. Do you drive down the street and then one day just decide out of the blue to drive up onto the sidewalk and kill pedestrians? Do you think guns shoot some evil mind control rays at their owners and put evil murderous thoughts into their heads?

You don't specify anything about what "someone else" might be killed, or why. What if he's home with his wife, and three guys armed with knives, hammers, baseball bats, break in and try to rob and rape and kill his wife? He comes downstairs and shoots the guy who's on top of his naked wife with a knife to her throat, and he shoots and kills the guy, and holds the other two for police. That's bad? Is that a lamentable use of a gun? See? Killing is not a bad thing, as an absolute. It all has to do with circumstances. You need the back story before you can say that it's bad when someone gets shot. In Israel, there have been many cases of civilians stopping attempted suicide bombers from carrying out their detonations because they were able to shoot them! Bet you didn't know that. Now, if they stopped a bomb from going off, which might have killed 15 people and injured 50 more in a crowded shopping area, is it bad to have killed the bomber?

I am staunchly against gun control. It is impossible for me to believe that in the Bill of Rights, "the people" means you and me in the First Amendment, and a bunch of others, but only in the Second Amendment does "the people" somehow mean the National Guard.

No one is allowed to take away your natural right to self defense. In the modern world, the most effective personal means to self defense is a handgun. That is a simple fact. A handgun makes a 97-pound grandma the equal of a 200-pound bruiser, and she can use it to save her own life, even if she's in a wheelchair. You want to force her to use pitiful pepper spray or her bony little fists to defend herself against that 200-pound career criminal, be my guest: go and vote pro-gun control.

Blue skies,
-Jeffrey

 

WOW! I thank you for giving a response I hardly expected on a "Hippie" board (where I thought most would be anti-gun)! That was extremely rational and libertarian, as well as logical, and true to the presumption of innocence we are supposed to have in a free society.

The soundest argument against gun control is exactly that: it takes guns away from normal good people, but never succeeds at disarming the bad people, who always get the weapons they want no matter what the law.
Then what do you have?
A bunch of good people who no longer have the tools to use to defend themselves against the bad people.

Blue skies,
-Jeffrey

 

I'm not sure what you think you know about so-called "semi-automatic assault weapons," but I generally find that people who oppose ownership of them most often don't really know what they are, or how they supposedly differ from other guns that aren't labeled that way. I urge you to read what is on this site:

http://explanation-guide.info/meaning/Assault-weapons-ban-(USA).html

I have never seen a site so completely, efficiently and even-handedly dispel the myths surrounding the so-called "assault weapons ban."

Really, please read this site and let me know if after you gain the understanding that it provides, you still believe that "assault weapons" should be banned. Thanks.

Blue skies,
-Jeffrey

P.S. As far as "why not own a bazooka?" That's open to a lot of discussion, but mostly it's because a bazooka cannot be demonstrated to be a personal arm capable of being used in self-defense. Even an AK-47 could be used by one person to defend against one person. How do you keep a bazooka from killing not only your attacker but the other people around? (Besides, a true AK-47 is fully automatic, and as such banned under laws written in 1934 -- see the weblink above.)

 

I agree with pretty much everything you said peacefulJ, I'm a gun owner, and I support the 2nd ammendment, most gun control measures simply harass law abiding people who want to protect themselfs, and don't have any effect on detering crime, as most criminals get weapons from the black market.


But this

Thats a little nuts when you look at the facts. According to the FBI 40% of gun fights take place betweeen 0-5 feet and 90% take place in 0-15 feet. Also the FBI says it take on average 5 seconds for an *average* person in a test enviorment to pull a gun out of a holster or purse and aim, and fire. No telling how long it would take granny. Also It takes an average male 4 seconds to cover 20 feet in a dash. I'm a 160 pound kickboxer, and I guarentee I could cover 15 feet and immobize granny before she pull out a gun and shoots me. (not that I would) Not to mention most muggers come out and use surprise from behind tactics.

All I'm saying is the best personal means of self defense is judgement, granny shouldn't be strolling through dark alleys. Guns are far from a end all to personal security, and without training they can pretty useless in a real world self defense scenario. And your gun is also pretty likely to be used aginst you.

I'm kinda mixed on three day wait lists and assault weapon bans. In TX semi-auto's are legal, and my uncle has an semi-Ak47... could be made auto with a few mods, but I'm kinda glad he hasn't. Still though, I love my ruger. Gun control accompilshes very little, and then benifits to a defended public are obvious.

 

Allowing someone a gun is allowing them to shoot someone so i am 100% against it.The Guns can also get in the wrong hands,crimminals also buy guns.

I am very glad i live in the UK becuse living in a place where anyone can have a gun is dangerous.

I will be attacked loads by this comment,but i hope someone understands me.

 

Watch Bowling For Columbine,Michael Moore will tell you why gun controll is good.

 

i believe any law-abiding citizen should be able to posses a gun. i've shot a gun before, but i don't own one. when i get older and have my own place, i plan on getting one. and i believe GC laws do not work.

as for the "bazooka" commments, i know a few people with anti-tank weapons and other types of shoulder launched weaponary.

 

And by that reasoning we can conclude that allowing someone a knife is allowing them to gut someone. So where are all the stories of stabbings in the home? Every home I've been in has had at least one knife in it.

I own a gun, have owned it for thirty years and I have never shot anyone.

Nor have I ever been allowed to.



Sheeeeeeeeesh!

 

I would also like to see the regulations changed for gun shows and sales between individuals. The lack of a background check in these environments bothers me as certain people should not be allowed to own guns. Unregistered guns possessed by mentally unstable individuals is a problem in this country that should be focused on.


My question is that why do people feel that places such as the UK with very strict gun control laws have far fewer reported violent crimes than the US? Is it purely a cultural thing? I'm asking, so please don't take this as my opposing gun ownership because I don't.

 

Maybe re-watch the movie. Moore pointed out that more Canadian households have guns than American households, yet far less gun violence. Guns are not the problem...

 

Prepare yourself, I'll be gentle cause your young and you probably don't know any better.

About any tool can be used as a weapon, I can kill someone with a baseball bat, criminals can get their hands on a bat... why don't we ban bat's? Most 'criminals' get their guns off the black market, so it really just complicates things for people who would use a gun responsibly.

You're naive, I've been to the UK and it isn't all flowery. My friend who was off on his own going after this girl, got mugged. And the same night, my friend and I were pub hopping, and we came to a real crappy one ordered a beer, and the bartender offered us heroin, and let his coat brush off to the side and let us see he had a 9mm. The UK is a dangerous place, and people have guns.

Thats an easy way to avoid a disscusion, to point to someone else opinion carried out in a 'b' documetary. I've seen BFC and its points are vauge, at one point he largly blames the problem on media sensationalism, and the rest of the movie is completly taking the issue out of context only to show thrity minutes of interviews with people who were involved in the columbine incedent... thats kinda sensationalism mike. He also never says anything about a gun ban, and says little about gun control, he just mainly points out the culture of gun lust in America. At best, Bowling For Columbine is infotainment.