Why gun control is necessary

“Sounds to me like the system up there is throwing this thing into a bureaucratic type nightmare web of sorts. I don't own any guns, so I am hardly an authority on ownership procedures and protocol. However, I do know that people react to the items I stated above and act like anyone who even thinks it is trying to take their firearms away. That simply isn't true. There is a middle of the road in what i am saying...”

“I can see your frustration Gremlin, but just because it is badly enforced doesn't mean the whole concept is flawed.
The NRA is not right. It has simply managed to move the debate from tackling some of the costs which come with the benefits of gun ownership to "problems, there aren't any problems," even when another schoolkid or disgruntled worker goes on the rampage.
You still have guns right? - As do many of your friends? I'm sure the only people it's put off are a few people who are not sure they want to keep one. Surely that's a good thing overall.”

“That's a good point too, Ynami. For the most part, the people that the NRA has labeled, "those that are trying to take our guns away", have not proposed anything that TRULY infringes upon their right to bear arms. If they go through the proper channels, the right to ownership is not there and is not in the degree of danger that they say it is. I honestly believe that is a lot of hype and speculation...”

“the right to ownership IS there, it should read...”

“gotta go get my ferry. bye all!”

“I thought so too, but I don't any more.”

“Gremlin, that's 2 BILLION dollars wasted on this gun re-register fiasco in Canada. And it have been announced that it will take 25 million dollars every year, to keep the program going.

One of the reasons for this law is to protect the cops.....

Unfortunately there's been 2 separate times where the Ontario police requested info on a house, to see if there's any firearms inside. Both times they were refused info because of the "Privacy Act".”

“You still have guns right? - As do many of your friends?

Yeah, but not those evil black assault rifles. Not high capacity magazines. And there's a bunch of other pointless restrictions, too. Hopefully the AWB will sunset - Feinstein notwithstanding.”

“For the most part, the people that the NRA has labeled, "those that are trying to take our guns away", have not proposed anything that TRULY infringes upon their right to bear arms

The ridiculous and pointless Assault Weapons Ban, and those who voted for it, immediately come to mind. Fortunately it will no longer be an issue in 3 months.

Yeah, someone explain the logic that having 10 rounds is somehow safer than having 17. Or why the waiting period is "no big deal", but 30-40 years ago before the waiting period, a guy could walk into the hardware store, buy a pistol, and we never heard 1/4 as much about school or workplace shootings. The answer isn't in waiting periods or gun-related legislation. The answer is stiffer penalties for criminals (regardless of their age), and a return to parents who actually raise their kids instead of letting them run the streets till 11-12 at night.”

“Memphis owes it's low crime rate to Elvis. Not gun control.”

“SMW, I couldn't agree with you more when you say:

The answer is stiffer penalties for criminals (regardless of their age), and a return to parents who actually raise their kids instead of letting them run the streets till 11-12 at night


Unfortunately, and you know this, we are living in a different world now. The standards and ideals of yesteryear are just that. The past. And, as much as one may long for the "simpler" times, they are no longer here. The people of this country are in a totally different mindset than they used to be. I also agree that the answer does not solely lie in waiting periods or assault weapons bans. But, IMO, they are part of a "collective" approach to reducing the problem. I don't believe in any single factor as "the answer". You can't tell me that things are ok the way they are. What about my position concerning the uniformity of laws between states? Does anyone see any merit in that? And, can I ask you this (Mutt, perhaps)? Why do people like you seem to be infatuated with assault weapons? Are there any practical uses for those things aside from killing people?”

“Are there any practical uses for those things aside from killing people?

Shoot one, and you'll know why people like them. It's called a "hobby" aka "fun". And "killing people" is aka self defense in SHTF situations.”

“I shot an AR-15 once, Mutt. Beoieve me, I undrestand the concept of thrills. Is that the only answer to the question, though?

And, excuse me as this may be overlooking the obvious, but I didn't get the SHTF acronym...”

“The NRA flooded the capitol with lobbyists threatening lawmakers, writing checks and generally emasculated the assault weapons bill back in '93 and '94 and for the following decade its membership has gloated about how silly, toothless and ineffective it is.

Mission Accomplished.


The telecom industry used the same tactics just prior to the passage of the the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the citizens of the United States no longer own the airwaves.”

“doodoo hits the fan.

What reason for owning a battle rifle or assault rifle are you looking for? Is a hobby not enough? Is becoming a good shot with a variety of weapons not enough? Is self defense not enough?”

“There was never any merit to the concept behind the ban, Tilt. That's the point.”

“Hey, you guys are the ones that drew such little distinction between a gun that has 10 rounds or 17, not me. Can't defend yourself with a less dangerous weapon? BS and you know it! Sorry, but if all that's at stake here is your cheapo thrills, then perhaps it may be a good idea to keep these things off the streets. Not trying to be obstinate, but it just seems apparent to me that putting more of those on the streets can't be a help to curbing gun violence in this country...”

“Can't defend yourself with a less dangerous weapon? BS and you know it!

Specious. There's nothing inherently more dangerous about high-cap magazines. The limit on 10 rounds is completely arbitrary with no basis in safety. Yes, there are times when one might need more than 10 rounds before having a chance to reload. It's actually safer to have those extra rounds in reserve than to not have them.

Sorry, assault rifles were never a major problem in street violence. It was just an incremental step toward subverting the constitution, not unlike christofascists and an abortion ban.”

“True that most criminals don't mug someone with a large bulky weapon. But, the idea I am trying to bring out is where does this stop? Do you just relax the laws to the point where whatever comes out on the market is fair game? I am just saying that a line has to be drawn somewhere. Perhaps you and I draw it in a different place? And that's ok, Mutt. Nothing wrong with a little back and forth on the issue like that. I am actually curious as to where you would place the cutoff point, though. Somewhere short of a nuclear warhead, perhaps? (facetious, of course!) :)”

“Are there any practical uses for those things aside from killing people?

Yeah... they are shiney and pretty and are fun to look at. This one was a result me of excersizing my right last week.



Lets go ahead and take away all the guns from honest citizens, that way only the criminals have guns. Lets make their job easier for them. Anyhoo.. I'd say the world would be a better place if we banned cars rather then guns.”

“"Lets go ahead and take away all the guns from honest citizens, that way only the criminals have guns." - Same ole same ole. Just keep repeating this like Charlton says and it'll make it true!”

“It's not even addressing anything we have been actually talking about for the last 60 posts. Ynami is right. Like a broken record...”

“It's true, though, ynami. I don't think there's any disagreement about taking guns away from criminals, but regulations on legal private ownership do nothing to deter crime. There will always be crazies who purchase guns legally and then shoot up a schoolyeard or something similarly heinous. But it's not the guns that drove them to the violence - if guns weren't available, the crazy person would find some other way to do violence. This reminds me of the old Dungeons and Dragons debate - that somehow the game caused kids to go nuts. No, the kids were already nuts, they just used what was available to act out. The thing is there will always be something available.

Treebeard, I would draw the line at what a citizen militia would be expected to have - that is, small arms. No artillery, tanks, ICBMs or whatever. Fully automatic small arms should be legal without all the rigamarole, as well.”

“Gotcha, Mutt!”

“Well it's not true though Mutt.

The whole point is not taking lawfully owned guns from honest citizens, as the NRA claims, but trying to find some way to keep them out the hands of criminals, or at least as many of them as possible. I don't pretend there's an easy solution.

No one has said they want to take guns aways, it's just the question of whether tighter controls will have that effect or not.”

“Right, ynami. What gets me is that anti-gun people want to subvert the constitution by making legal ownership difficult in hopes that somehow, someway it reduces crime. Ridiculous! As ridiculous as christofascists asserting that an abortion ban will somehow solve the problem of abortion.”

“Broken record on both sides.

we only want reasonable controls in place, we do not want to take away guns from responsible people.

Well that is not what happened in Australia or England, and apparently not what is happening today in Canada.

"you can still have a gun"

That is not true for the average citizen in DC, or parts of Chicago.

The right to keep and bear arms.
Bear in this context means carry.
Most States require a permit and only 35 of the 50 States even have to provide such a permit to citizens in good standing. The other 15 States, permits are for the priveledged or well connected only.

So you have a permit to carry. New York City is no good across the river in New Jersey, I am not sure if it is good in the rest of New York State, certainly NYC does not recogonize a NJ or NY State permit.

The NRA is sounding better and better.”

“The same old protagonists - myself included - keep coming back to this. I guess we gotto agree to differ. ;o)”

“how boring!”

“So, are you saying that you think it would be practical for 8 million people to go through the streets of new York armed, Manuka? Are you saying that no one will ever f_ck with anyone else because they may be carrying a bigger extension of their dick under the coat? I don't believe that for one minute. Just like the death penalty is really not a deterrant to someone who doesn't give a rat's ass about dying.

As for your interpretation of the word, 'bear':

it has lots of meanings. Some of the more pertinant ones:

- to be equipped with

-to be furnished with

- even means to give birth to. You could multiply 'em and carry an arsenal!

To carry is merely an interpretation of yours, not necessary the meaning that was meant in the constitution...”

“Guns aren't the problem. Gun crime is a symptom of the real problems with education, the "drug war", a lack of health care and social programs.

The problem is that most people who are so FOR guns are also against the remedies for violent crime.”

“8 million people DO go through the streets of New York armed. Most with just the anatomical appendages they were born with, others with knives of various sorts, some with sharpened screwdrivers since knives with blades over xx inches were outlawed, and some with guns. Some legal, some not legal.

Some of those with just their human type arms are bigger and stronger than others, and some do F--# with others, every day. If you happen to be somewhat smaller, weaker, or outnumbered, the US constitution allowed you to have a tool to protect youself from those that would do you harm.

The reasons for doing harm range from "give me your wallet" where my response is "take it", to I just feel like having sex with your daughter/wife/GF/BF right here right now (Central Park Jogger) where my response is "No". I like the option of making my response be taken seriously.

You always have the option of NOT carrying, I just do not like you imposing your choices on me. You may have the time and money to take Karate or Tae Kwon Do classes but I chose to learn proficiency with firearms.

The odds are that I will never be in that situation, but the odds are that my house will never burn down either but I still purchase house insurance and hope I never need it.

Your semantics over the use of the word "bear" in the 2nd ammendment are noted.

"it has lots of meanings. Some of the more pertinant ones:

- to be equipped with

-to be furnished with"

When I go out in the evening I would like "to be furnished with" my own firearm.

When I go out in the evening I would like "to be equipped with" my own firearm.

and do you seriously think that the 2nd ammendment was a prescient law forbidding pregnant women from using Thalidomide ??”

“Guns cause crime like women caused Rosie O'Donnel to become gay.”

“Well said, manuka”

“Well said, my ass! Evasive, at best! The issue here is guns, not the ability to use an arm or leg to hurt another. It takes a certain procedure to get a carry permit here. And from what i understand, it's one of the toughest in the country. You don't walk in and say the constitution lets me carry because I interpret the word 'bear' that way! So, whether you like it or not, not everyone is entitled to tuck one in the old waistband. And that's not me talking. that's the law. Unless you feel your rights exceed it, which is essentially what you are saying, carrying one without that permit, makes you are as criminal as the ones you want to shoot!

And, BTW, if you read my prior positions, you will see that I never said anything to advocate taking your guns away. Sorry, Manuka, but you passion for this is a bit misdirected in firing a shot at me!

(Hey, a little metaphor action there!) :)”

“I was not firing a shot at you, I was disagreeing with you.

I think the law in NYC is unconstitutional, you do not.

I do not break the law, I just do not go to NYC.

Where a permit is required, I carry the permit, or do not indulge in the activity which requires the permit, whether that activity is driving a car, carrying a gun, or having more than 10 people in a group in the Catskills, or a summit permit for Mt Shasta.

And yes, I will work to change laws that I think are wrong.

No, you do not want to take my guns away but you do want to restrict me from using them to protect myself or my family by limiting where and when I can have them with me. As long as they are unloaded and locked in a safe somewhere you are quite happy.

A couple of questions for you

1. Who should be able to carry a gun? Anyone ?

Police have abused firearms ?
The Post Office (Patrick Henry 1986) crazy was a National Guard small arms instructor who used military firearms to kill 14 co-workers.

2. When is a legitmate reason to shoot something or someone, a bear, a dog, a person?

I am interested in your opinion on those 2 questions, as I am sure they differ from mine.”

“I do not break the law, I just do not go to NYC.


Frankly, you are depriving yourself of experiencing a wonderful, cultural mecca. Hope it isn't because you can't carry a gun here!


And, if I had the knowledge that any random lunatic that walks down the street may be armed, I would probably not be enjoying walking these streets fairly carefree as I have been doing for most of my 49 years. I don't know about you, but I am just NOT THAT PARANOID! BTW, I never get bothered. Not to say it can't happen, though. But, hey, a bus could go out of control and hit me too.


Who should be able to carry a firearm? Very good question and glad I have no official capacity to answer it, but here goes.
You have to give this to law enforcement people or those that can prove there is a necessity for it. Something that ties it into their line of work or a reason that this person may experience some imminent threat to their security. The criteria is beyond me, I admit. So, asking that is too much for a person like me to answer. I know that there is a potential for abuse, even with law enforcement officers, but the idea of letting just anyone have one to me is ludicrous. There's got to be some control point somewhere.

As far as question two goes, I would have to suffice to say that self-defense is pretty much the sole reason. There has to be a tremendous amount of scrutiny involved in the investigative part of proving that the shooting was out of necessity. It has to be, or the potential for abuse would be too great. These are tough questions for me (or anyone) to answer. So, I am doing my best and I am sure you could tear these answers apart. But, off the top of my head, it's the best i can do...”

“Treebeard, today in NYC any random lunatic CAN be armed, and a few are.

I do not think lunatics or criminals should be armed with anything, let alone guns.

In those States where 'shall issue' laws were passed, there was no wholesale rush where everyone armed to the teeth and Dodge city shootouts became the order of the day. The paranoia is yours where you are afraid of law abiding citizens having guns.
BTW, 'shall issue' requires a felony and mental health check before the permit is issued. The shall issue part is that if there is no reason to deny the permit must be issued. Presumably the reasons for denial are subject to review and change, but must be measurable and be public knowledge.

The 2 questions are best answered by 'depends on circumstance'.
Why should the police be armed if the public is not?

Trained use in a baton, electronic stun weapons, and chemical incapacitants are all non-lethal means of subduing criminals.
But the criminals have guns, well that is the NRA response when citizens want guns.
How about the death penalty for anyone who uses a weapon on police performing their duty ? until someone is on death row for throwing something in a protest, "it was a rock", "no it was a tomato", "a tomato would not have cut the policemans head", "maybe someone else threw a rock, I just threw a tomato".

If you ever were unlucky enough that someone attacked either you or someone close to you. Would you not want assistance from an armed stranger. Very low possibility of police assistance because the bad person would wait until the police were not around.

When to shoot ? self defence.
Why not defence of another? that is why the police have guns.

Self defence, against what?
a beating? one person beating? 2 persons beating, 5 persons ?.
A rape, a pack rape ? after the first person has raped but before the other 14 ? too bad rapist #3 had AIDS and now you are dying.
A robbery ? but unfortunately you saw the robbers face ("In Cold Blood" T. Capote).
An armed threat ? Armed with what ?
a 9mm pistol pointed at you for who knows what, well the Pizza delivery man did not know he only wanted Pizza.

Your very own subway shooter had 5 assailants, at least one of whom was carrying a screwdriver sharpened into an ice pick. One of those 5 also raped a woman shortly after getting out of hospital.

Armed with aggressive dogs, that just happened in Arizona, most think that was not justified. But how often does the aggressive dog belong to an equally aggressive person ? Getting savaged by a person and 3 dogs in a remote area sound like a death sentence too.

I do think that some sort of course be mandatory for people who want a carry permit. What should you do here ? when should you draw the gun, too soon, too late.
Some case history of court cases where a gun was used and how the court and/or jury viewed the justification.
The cost of the court case where the shooting was declared justified.
Statistics of what happened to people caught in similar circumstances with no means of defense, odds of getting hurt.

May persuade a lot of people to not carry, but that is then their educated decision.”

“All these posts and no one addresses the real problem.

Guns don't kill people, bullets do. Guns just help the bullets go really fast!”

“Guns aren't the problem. Gun crime is a symptom of the real problems with education, the "drug war", a lack of health care and social programs.


Phaedrus
11:11:07 AM
06/10/04

Did you ever think that maybe some people are just evil? Why does society have to bear the responsibility of every disfunctional crook?”

“We don't. We just need a better system that doesn't create more and more dysfunctional crooks.

Other countries with guns don't have the problems with gun violence that the US has. You tell me why that is.”

“I have no problem living in a city where joe dumbass can't own a gun. Rarely is an "innocent" crime victim shot. the self-defense cry carries little weight, IMO.

Every once in a while I do see a story from VA or MD regarding a gun accident and children.

And as I've stated before, I was mugged at gunpoint. The gun was drawn before they approached me. If I had a weapon or had attempted to draw a weapon then I might be dead now. Instead, I lost @19 dollars and a pair of boxers. :)

OK, didn't lose the boxers but it was close.”

“FBI CONFIRMS IT: CRIMINALS IGNORE GUN LAWS

The FBI recently completed a major study of shootings of police officers. Titled "Violent Encounters: Felonious Assaults on America's Law Enforcement Officers." Since its publication, the existence of the damning report on the five-year study by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) about how cop-killing criminals ignore gun laws, and where they get their guns, has not been publicized. Calgunlaws.com has one of the first copies of the report obtained publicly.

The existence of the report was first discovered by self defense civil rights activists in January 2007 when it was mentioned in a law enforcement newsletter. According to the December 28, 2006 issue of Force Science News, the FBI research focused on 40 incidents involving assaults or deadly attacks on police officers, in which all but one of the guns involved had been obtained illegally, and none were obtained from gun shows.

The Force Science News is published by the Force Science Research Center, a non-profit institution based at Minnesota State University in Mankato. The newsletter quotes Ed Davis, an FBI Criminal Investigative Instructor, who told the International Association of Chiefs of Police that none of these criminals who attacked police officers was "hindered by any law - federal, sate or local - that has ever been established to prevent gun ownership. They just laughed at gun laws." The newsletter also stated, "In contrast to media myth, none of the firearms in the study was obtained from gun shows."

The report is a 'smoking gun' in terms of revelations about the sources of crime guns and the failure of gun control. Apparently anti-gun owner politicians and police chiefs do not want the public to know the truth as they campaign against the so-called "gun show loophole". Now it's time for the IACP leadership, police officials, and political leaders to acknowledge that gun laws don't stop criminals, that they only restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens, and that gun shows are not the 'arms bazaars for criminals' as they have been portrayed.

http://www.calgunlaws.com/article-480.html”

“whats the old saying?

If gungs are outlawed, only outlaws will own guns.”

“Why would anyone suppose a criminal would worry about a gun law? Hell, he's already an outlaw.

"I'm going to kill somebody, but I don't want to do it with an illegal gun, so I'd better get a permit."”

“Sorta makes people like Y2 look like complete idiots.”

“thats the point geo. Guns laws dont stop the criminal from accessing a weapon.”

“Which is exactly why I bought ol Betsy and why I practice from time to time.

Funny story. I went shooting at the range with my son one day and had printed out photos of Osama bin Hidin for targets. The range guy came through and told us that using a photograph of a person for a target is illegal. My son asked, "Even him?" The guy said, "Even him!" But he didn't stop us from doing it or call the constabulary. He had a big smile on his face all the while.”

“let's ignore the small sample size. Let's ignore that "criminal on cop" violence is being perpetrated by criminals .. .let ignore the fact that it would be ridculous to assume any other outcome from the survey of this population of killers.


let's ignore that killed policemen, of a percentage of total murders is small.

I realize that statisciticiaicnansns can extrapolate and draw conclusions from small sample sizes . ..but let's just ignore domestic violence killings, drug killings etc.

let's toss all that out and go with this studies conclusion.


I too am all in favor of a complete and total ban and confiscation and destruction of ALL handguns owned by anyone, anywhere for any reason.

It should be a crime to own ANY handgun. Their manufacture and sale should be discontinued.



THAT is the logical conclusion of this survey.”

“Only if the person reading it is illogical. heehee!”