poll: guns

[SUNSTONE]

I think if more people had more guns, and more videocameras on them.

Then we would have more youtube.com videos!

[Destino]

So in this world where "the majority of the population own guns" you think that it is more likely that the person willing to commit murder DOESNT have a gun, but his victim does? :whoknows:

I have to admit I've always thought the whole idea that arming the entire population would stop are greatly diminish crime was nonsense. Gang members know rivals are armed and it certainly hasn't stopped them from shooting at eachother has it? There is this false notion that criminals are afraid of guns - in truth if a criminal knows you keep one in your home they may try to steal it.

Where do people think all those illegal street guns come from anyway? People have this image of Columbian drug henchmen unloading boxes of fire arms and exchanging brief cases on some beach. That's hollywood and would require way too much risk. Why go through all that BS when one can simply buy at gun shows, from shady store owners, or steal them. They clearly sell well as Americas criminals rarely fail to be armed.

The more guns in circulation the easier it is for criminals to get one as well. You can't arm the population and not criminals. It's either easier for everyone to get one or harder for everyone to one.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Settle down drama queen I pretty much agree with you. The systems developed to this point haven't been good enough. I also agree that only 100% is good enough and personally I wouldn't settle for 80 or even 90 percent. That does not mean however that it is impossible. If we can get to the moon and send landers to mars I think that eventually someone will be able to come up with something that recognizes the user of a firearm.

Sorry, but I have this "discussion" with a lot of people who have no concept on the REALITY of the situation.

At least you don't seem to have that problem. I just do not see it as a practical design concept. How much money is going to be thrown at this "problem" before we realize that the answer to it is proper education of young people growing up around guns and the prosecution and PUNISHMENT of people who misuse firearms? The firearms manufacturers are spending millions of dollars trying to solve a problem whose answer is proper discipline and a JUSTICE system. That's an answer no amount of money is ever going to be able to put in place.

Besides, why would gun manufacturers WANT to get this right? Their product works just fine now. They're now immune from the BS prosecutions by individuals and communities unless their product didn't operate as intended. Putting these techno-gizmos into guns would only INCREASE their liability when my gun DOESN'T go bang when I need it to and I end up paralyzed or dead because it didn't.

[Destino]

Besides, why would gun manufacturers WANT to get this right? Their product works just fine now. They're now immune from the BS prosecutions by individuals and communities unless their product didn't operate as intended. Putting these techno-gizmos into guns would only INCREASE their liability when my gun DOESN'T go bang when I need it to and I end up paralyzed or dead because it didn't.

I think there would be a market to folks with small children. They'd have the peace of mind a gun brings in terms of ability to defend ones own family - without the fear of little Timmy offing his little sister. You could also keep it somewhere easy to get to instead of in a safe or something similar that puts a barrier between you and your gun an a pressure situation.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

The more guns in circulation the easier it is for criminals to get one as well. You can't arm the population and not criminals. It's either easier for everyone to get one or harder for everyone to one.

So what you're telling us is that it's easy for criminals, who by definition should be in a 6'x6' pitch black cell 23 hours a day paying for their prior crimes? Gee, that sounds a lot like a PUNISHMENT problem to me.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

I think there would be a market to folks with small children. They'd have the peace of mind a gun brings in terms of ability to defend ones own family - without the fear of little Timmy offing his little sister. You could also keep it somewhere easy to get to instead of in a safe or something similar that puts a barrier between you and your gun an a pressure situation.

You know what.... I grew up in a house that had probably 10-15 guns in it from the time I was born. At about age 5 my father took out a rifle and a pistol and showed them to me. He took me to the range, showed me how they worked, let me help him clean them when we got home and after showing me where they were stored, told me one of the things I have never forgotten.

"These are not toys. They are not yours. You do not EVER touch a gun without me present. If you EVER think about doing so, remember this.... I BROUGHT YOU INTO THIS WORLD, I CAN DAMN WELL TAKE YOU BACK OUT OF IT."

The absoluteness of the comment has stuck with me for 25+ years. If I had even thought about trying to get into that safe, or touch the revolver in the dresser, he would have killed me. I have NO BOUBT, whatsoever, of that fact. When I got older, and I wanted to go shooting, I asked and we'd go as time and money allowed. But I never once thought about touching any of the guns without his approval.

THAT'S what stops the sort of sh*t like little Timmy shooting his sister.

[DeanCollins]

just got back from the gun show, picked up a S&W model 59 stainless (law enforcement issue) 9mm, and took the CWP course. waited till son went off to college.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

just got back from the gun show, picked up a S&W model 59 stainless (law enforcement issue) 9mm, and took the CWP course. waited till son went off to college.

Dean, if it's a former LE gun and you didn't buy it from a dealer you know REAL WELL and you aren't sure that it went back to Springfield for refurbishment before being sold, I would suggest having a competent gunsmith take a look at it. LE guns tend to either take a serious beating or be almost totally unused. Either end of the spectrum can be problematic.

My Sig 226 is a former Mass. State Police sidearm, but I bought it through a dealer I really trust and it had the Sig paperwork from its refurbishment in the case when I bought it. I haven't had an issue with it in mechanically in the nearly eight years I've had it.

Good luck with that 59 though. Nice firearm from a goodcompany.

[DeanCollins]

Dean, if it's a former LE gun and you didn't buy it from a dealer you know REAL WELL and you aren't sure that it went back to Springfield for refurbishment before being sold, I would suggest having a competent gunsmith take a look at it. LE guns tend to either take a serious beating or be almost totally unused. Either end of the spectrum can be problematic.

My Sig 226 is a former Mass. State Police sidearm, but I bought it through a dealer I really trust and it had the Sig paperwork from its refurbishment in the case when I bought it. I haven't had an issue with it in mechanically in the nearly eight years I've had it.

Good luck with that 59 though. Nice firearm from a goodcompany.

I had a good feel for the Dealer. He was a former federal officer and trainer (Quantico, Va.) and he knew the officer he took in as a trade from.

It's 2-3 years old, and he said they guy qualified with it twice a year.

He'd inspected it and it had minimal wear. He also said that S&W has a lifetime warranty? Know anything about that?

[Destino]

You know what.... I grew up in a house that had probably 10-15 guns in it from the time I was born. At about age 5 my father took out a rifle and a pistol and showed them to me. He took me to the range, showed me how they worked, let me help him clean them when we got home and after showing me where they were stored, told me one of the things I have never forgotten.

"These are not toys. They are not yours. You do not EVER touch a gun without me present. If you EVER think about doing so, remember this.... I BROUGHT YOU INTO THIS WORLD, I CAN DAMN WELL TAKE YOU BACK OUT OF IT."

Three things Mass

1 - You aren't the model of how parents want kids to turn out and I think even you can see that. You're a paranoid individual that needs a weapon and an exit strategy to feel comfortable. That's not normal. You aren't a bad fellow so don't take this as an insult because it's not. I'm not the model either - Sarge for example would hate to have a son like me

2 - Kids aren't scared of their parents like they used to be. I had an old man like you did. He showed me his guns told me not to touch them in no uncertain terms and I never did. Today kids often grow up with no father or beleive that if dad lays a hand on them they can call child services and get him in trouble.

3 - Some kids are dumb as hell. Parents won't admit it but think about how many morons you deal with day to day - and that should give you an idea just how many stupid kids are running around.

[CrabR]

Are you saying that making all guns legal will turn us into what Iraq is? That we will have the same problem Iraq is having?

no but, you can see what happens when every idiot has access to a any typr of gun they want. They oulawed automaticls in part because of the gangsters using them

Hunting is not the only reason to have a gun.

Sometimes you need an arsenol for job securety. :peaceout:

Tell what kind of arsenol do you have to have for you job security here in the US.

I own 17 guns and I have found I do not need and automatic to hunt with or to protect myself with.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

I had a good feel for the Dealer. He was a former federal officer and trainer (Quantico, Va.) and he knew the officer he took in as a trade from.

It's 2-3 years old, and he said they guy qualified with it twice a year.

He'd inspected it and it had minimal wear. He also said that S&W has a lifetime warranty? Know anything about that?

I hate to have to say this, but gun dealers are often like horse traders and used car salesmen.... Trust them at your own risk. It's nice that you had a good feel about the dealer. I'd still verify the information, if I were you.

S&W does have a lifetime warranty. They also have a program that allows you to verify the history of your firearm by sending them a letter or something like that. I believe there's information about it on their website www.smith-wesson.com. I will tell you that you don't want to have to use that lifetime warranty. It generally means something BAD has happened if your local gunsmith can't fix it and you have to mail it to Springfield for repairs.

I always suggest that people talk to local gun owners and find a competent local gunsmith to build a business relationship with. It can make the difference between getting a spring replaced for $25 and getting bent over to the tune of $150 for the same repair.

[DeanCollins]

Good luck with that 59 though. Nice firearm from a goodcompany.

Hey MSF,

I goofed, it's a model 6946

[DeanCollins]

I hate to have to say this, but gun dealers are often like horse traders and used car salesmen.... Trust them at your own risk. It's nice that you had a good feel about the dealer. I'd still verify the information, if I were you.

S&W does have a lifetime warranty. They also have a program that allows you to verify the history of your firearm by sending them a letter or something like that. I believe there's information about it on their website www.smith-wesson.com. I will tell you that you don't want to have to use that lifetime warranty. It generally means something BAD has happened if your local gunsmith can't fix it and you have to mail it to Springfield for repairs.

I always suggest that people talk to local gun owners and find a competent local gunsmith to build a business relationship with. It can make the difference between getting a spring replaced for $25 and getting bent over to the tune of $150 for the same repair.

thanks for the advise, I'll have a reputable third party take a look at it.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

1 - You aren't the model of how parents want kids to turn out and I think even you can see that. You're a paranoid individual that needs a weapon and an exit strategy to feel comfortable. That's not normal. You aren't a bad fellow so don't take this as an insult because it's not. I'm not the model either - Sarge for example would hate to have a son like me .

I think we'd have a disagreement on that, but that's a topic for another thread, I believe.

2 - Kids aren't scared of their parents like they used to be. I had an old man like you did. He showed me his guns told me not to touch them in no uncertain terms and I never did. Today kids often grow up with no father or beleive that if dad lays a hand on them they can call child services and get him in trouble.

That's where the individual gun owner has to take responsibility for their firearms. If you have a child who is so poorly behaved that you can't trust them to accep that there are certain rules which are involilatable, maybe it's time to get rid of the child. I've commented on it to people before... If I had children and had to make the choice between the kids and the guns, I'd probably miss the kids every once in a while.

3 - Some kids are dumb as hell. Parents won't admit it but think about how many morons you deal with day to day - and that should give you an idea just how many stupid kids are running around.

Which is simply a commentary on the fact that humanity has stepped outside the Darwinian concepts of Survival of the Fittest. But that's for another thread as well, I believe.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Hey MSF,

I goofed, it's a model 6946

No problem. Model 59 didn't sound right but I wasn't going to tell you what you had bought.

[Baculus]

On no, not this thread again! Into the breach, once more. . . .

Also, to all of those people comparing guns to driving a car, don't do that. Driving a car has an extremely significant role in almost all adults lives, in that they get to their job via car. A gun, however, has only the purposes of killing. Whether it is an animal, innocent, or intruder, a gun is designed to kill. Therefore, a parallel can't be drawn between the two.

Incorrect. You can very easily draw a comparison between owning certain firearms, such as full-auto rifles, and the ownership of sports cars. We do not need sports cars to get to their job, but it is our right to own such a vehicle, even if some of its functionality such as added speed does not contribute to the usefulness of such a vehicle.

I must note that more folks die from reckless driving related to speeding due to vehicles such as sports compared to deaths caused by full-auto (especially legally owned ones) firearms in the U.S.

Seriously. What "good" can an automatic weapon produce outside of a war zone?

First of all, does everything have to do with “good”? What “good” is a lot of the “stuff” that we surround ourselves with in every day life? Is base usefulness now a requirement for what we own? How many things have you used today that do not produce anything “good”?

One of the beauties of this nation is the ability to pursue “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” As long as a firearm owner does not infringe on his neighbors rights, then I see little issues with owning an automatic firearm.

Incidentally, there is no statistic to prove that automatic firearms are a crime problem. So if instead the question is “how much ‘bad’ can an automatic weapon produce outside of a war zone?” then the answer is very little, in the U.S.

Agreed, someone owning an automatic is probably gonna cause a lot more bad than good

Says who? Just your gut, or can this be proven? With this strain of thought in mind, are you against banning the sale and consumption of alcohol?

However, guns don't do more good than harm.

Can you prove this? Also, this thought is so incredibly open ended, it is more so the type of statement that a dictatorship may make.

“However, (Insert “bad thing” here) don't do more good than harm.”

I draw the line at automatic weapons. IMHO, their only purpose is killing people. If the guns are made legal for collecting, make the bullets for the automatics illegal.

Of course we have sparred over this subject before, Chrom. I just wanted to repost what I had posted earlier in this thread:

First of all, it has to be understood that Europe in general, even before firearm laws, already had a lower muder rate than the U.S. Also, do you realize that firearm ownership is common in a nation such as Switzerland, and they have a very murder rate? Second, is it really a "hard fact"? To quote from the below included link:

"The U.S. has a high gun murder rate, whereas a country like England with strict gun controls has almost no gun murders and a very low murder rate. Doesn't this show that gun control is effective in reducing murder rates? Not exactly. Prior to having any gun controls, England already had a homicide rate much lower than the United States (Guns, Murders, and the Constitution: A Realistic Assessment of Gun Control, Don B. Kates Jr.). Japan is another country typically cited (see Japanese Gun Control, by David B. Kopel). (Briefly discussing the difference in homicide rates between England and the U.S. is Clayton Cramer's, Variations in California Murder Rates: Does Gun Availability Cause High Murder Rates?)

Gun control opponents can play similar games. The Swiss with 7 million people have hundreds of thousands of fully-automatic rifles in their homes (see GunCite's "Swiss Gun Laws") and the Israelis, until recently, have had easy access to guns (brief summary of Israeli firearms regulations here). Both countries have low homicide rates. Likewise this doesn't mean more guns less crime."

Futhermore:

"The U.S. has a higher non-gun murder rate than many European country's total murder rates. On the other hand, Taiwan, the Philippines, and Mexico have non-gun murder rates in excess of our total murder rate.

Incidentally in 13th century Europe, several studies have estimated homicide rates in major cities to be around 60 per 100,000. (Even back then, the equivalent of coroners, kept records.)

There are many, many factors, some much more prominent than gun availability that influence homicide rates and crime in general. (See this excerpt from 1997 FBI Uniform Crime Report and GunCite's "Is Gun Ownership Correlated with Violent Deaths?")"

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html

Thus, the absence of firearms does not demonstrate a safer environment. More so, there are some nations, with strict firearm laws, that demonstrate a HIGHER murder rate then some nations have more permissive laws. Is it possible that the main issue isn't the availability of firearms, but the willingless for people to murder each other, which is often due to enculturation?

Also, another note: Deaths from military style rifles and full-auto firearms are already VERY low in this nation, less than 1% of crimes committed with firearms. Of course any nation, though, that has very zero ownership of these firearms are going to have a much lower rate of incident of violent crimes committed with these type of firearms.

I will note that, while private ownership of firearms such as an automatic rifle may not stop a dictatorship, I’d rather be prepared to at least offer resistance as opposed to be led like unarmed lamps to the slaughter.

I dont WANT to own a gun. Theyre dangerous, and i wouldnt want one in the house. ESPECIALLY if i ever have kids (god forbid.) And if EVERYONE owned a gun, THEN it would be a much closer parallel to cars, because MOST people are ****ty drivers. IF everyone HAD to own a gun, 90% of people would be dangerous to everyone around them at all times. Can you imagine your grandmother carrying a .45? WTF? Mine cant even figure out the remote. If she had to carry a GUN she'd walk around all day leaving a wake of death in her path muttering "Oh dear, oh dear."

You shouldn’t be so frightened of firearms. We are surrounded by dangerous stuff, especially if misused, but the fact is that, driving to work, you are more likely to die via a vehicular accident then a firearm.

Do you realize that some socities have a very high firearm ownership and the scenario you tried to pain hasn’t happened?

no autos, collectors only. Auto's have no use in hunting as you are limited by the number of shells you can have in your gun anyway.

What basis do you have for this sentiment? Probably very little outside of a “gut” feeling, because statistics show that crime committed by legally owned full auto rifles are almost non-existant. Please read the following article:

“In 1995 there were over 240,000 machine guns registered with the BATF. (Zawitz, Marianne,Bureau of Justice Statistics, Guns Used in Crime [PDF].) About half are owned by civilians and the other half by police departments and other governmental agencies (Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997.)

Since 1934, there appear to have been at least two homicides committed with legally owned automatic weapons. One was a murder committed by a law enforcement officer (as opposed to a civilian). On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman. Patrolman Waller pleaded guilty in 1990, and he and an accomplice were sentenced to 18 years in prison. The 1986 'ban' on sales of new machine guns does not apply to purchases by law enforcement or government agencies.

---

Thanks to the staff of the Columbus, Ohio Public Library for the details of the Waller case.

Source: talk.politics.guns FAQ, part 2.

The other homicide, possibly involving a legally owned machine gun, occurred on September 14, 1992, also in Ohio (source).

In Targeting Guns, Kleck cites the director of BATF testifying before Congress that he knew of less than ten crimes that were committed with legally owned machine guns (no time period was specified). Kleck says these crimes could have been nothing more than violations of gun regulations such as failure to notify BATF after moving a registered gun between states.

Crime Involving Illegally Owned Machine Guns

Again in Targeting Guns, Kleck writes, four police officers were killed in the line of duty by machine guns from 1983 to 1992. (713 law enforcement officers were killed during that period, 651 with guns.)

In 1980, when Miami's homicide rate was at an all-time high, less than 1% of all homicides involved machine guns. (Miami was supposedly a "machine gun Mecca" and drug trafficking capital of the U.S.) Although there are no national figures to compare to, machine gun deaths were probably lower elsewhere. Kleck cites several examples:

· Of 2,200 guns recovered by Minneapolis police (1987-1989), not one was fully automatic.

· A total of 420 weapons, including 375 guns, were seized during drug warrant executions and arrests by the Metropolitan Area Narcotics Squad (Will and Grundie counties in the Chicago metropolitan area, 1980-1989). None of the guns was a machine gun.

· 16 of 2,359 (0.7%) of the guns seized in the Detroit area (1991-1992) in connection with "the investigation of narcotics trafficking operations" were machine guns."

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html

[DeanCollins]

No problem. Model 59 didn't sound right but I wasn't going to tell you what you had bought.

actually the 69 series followed the 59 and is very similar minus a couple rounds in the clip, which interchangeable

[GrimReefa]

Incorrect. You can very easily draw a comparison between owning certain firearms, such as full-auto rifles, and the ownership of sports cars. We do not need sports cars to get to their job, but it is our right to own such a vehicle, even if some of its functionality such as added speed does not contribute to the usefulness of such a vehicle.

I must note that more folks die from reckless driving related to speeding due to vehicles such as sports compared to deaths caused by full-auto (especially legally owned ones) firearms in the U.S.

Fair enough. But, in order to legally own and operate a car in this country you must

a) be 16 years old

take a course, usually about 2 weeks, instructing you in safe & proper usage of your car

c) you must take and pass a written test in safely operating a car

d) go through a period, usually about 6 months, of provisional licensure, where you can use a car ONLY under the supervision of a licensed car operator

e) you must take and pass an operational test, in which you demonstrate to a state-certified instructor that you can safely and properly operate a car, upon which you receive a license to operate a car

f) once your license is obtained, it can be taken away, temporarily or permanently, if you demonstrate that you are incapable of being trusted to operate your car safely

The car/gun comparison only draws water if you are in favor of a gun licensing system similar to the one in place for owning & operating a car.

First of all, does everything have to do with “good”? What “good” is a lot of the “stuff” that we surround ourselves with in every day life? Is base usefulness now a requirement for what we own? How many things have you used today that do not produce anything “good”?

How many things do I own that has the express purpose of killing a person and/or other living creature? Sure, junk food and cigaretts can kill you slowly, but I can't go around killing people by throwing hamburgers at them.

One of the beauties of this nation is the ability to pursue “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” As long as a firearm owner does not infringe on his neighbors rights, then I see little issues with owning an automatic firearm.

And if your crazy kid decides he's getting picked on too much in school and decides to bring daddy's AK into school to teach those cool kids what's what, you've infringed upon everybody's rights without meaning to.

Thus, the absence of firearms does not demonstrate a safer environment. More so, there are some nations, with strict firearm laws, that demonstrate a HIGHER murder rate then some nations have more permissive laws. Is it possible that the main issue isn't the availability of firearms, but the willingless for people to murder each other, which is often due to enculturation?

Of course the absence of firearms demonstrates a safer environment! The question isn't whether the US without fireams would be a safer place than the UK with firearms, or whether some third-world country without legal firearms is less safe than the US with legal firearms - the question is whether the US would be safer with fewer firearms than the US is right now. Bringing in other coutries only confuses the issue.

I will note that, while private ownership of firearms such as an automatic rifle may not stop a dictatorship, I’d rather be prepared to at least offer resistance as opposed to be led like unarmed lamps to the slaughter.

The best way to stop a dictatorship, as has been noted on this thread before, is to oppose any and all eroding of our civil rights. The army doesn't just come barrelling down your door, it is a slow process that starts with legislation designed to impair freedom of thought and/or expression, or to isolate and repress pockets of society, one at a time. Like, for instance, the flag desacration ammendmant. Or the "marriage protection" ammendmant. The pen, as they say, is mightier than the sword.

You shouldn’t be so frightened of firearms. We are surrounded by dangerous stuff, especially if misused, but the fact is that, driving to work, you are more likely to die via a vehicular accident then a firearm.

Firearms are dangerous if PROPERLY used. And, once again, you're required to obtain and hold a license to operate a vehicle.

Do you realize that some socities have a very high firearm ownership and the scenario you tried to pain hasn’t happened?

Weren't you JUST talking about acculturation? Also, are you talking about high automatic firearm ownership? Because I know more than half the households in Canada own guns, but those are mostly sporting rifles.

[Baculus]

Fair enough. But, in order to legally own and operate a car in this country you must

a) be 16 years old

take a course, usually about 2 weeks, instructing you in safe & proper usage of your car

c) you must take and pass a written test in safely operating a car

d) go through a period, usually about 6 months, of provisional licensure, where you can use a car ONLY under the supervision of a licensed car operator

e) you must take and pass an operational test, in which you demonstrate to a state-certified instructor that you can safely and properly operate a car, upon which you receive a license to operate a car

f) once your license is obtained, it can be taken away, temporarily or permanently, if you demonstrate that you are incapable of being trusted to operate your car safely

The car/gun comparison only draws water if you are in favor of a gun licensing system similar to the one in place for owning & operating a car.

We are talking about fully automatic firearms, which are more restrictive in ownership and indeed draws comparison. From a Wikipedia article:

"In the United States, full-automatic weapons are legal in most states, but have extremely restrictive requirements under federal law. They must have been manufactured and registered before May 19, 1986; a $200 transfer tax must be paid; approval must be met in writing prior to purchase from the local sheriff or chief of police; fingerprints and a photograph must be submitted to the ATF; a criminal background check must be performed; and a waiting period of approximately 6 months applies. Written permission must be given by the ATF at least 30 days in advance if one wishes to take his full-automatic firearm out of his state. Due to the static number of full-automatic firearms on the market (fixed at 1986 levels), their collective value continues to increase. Most full-automatic firearms for sale cost in excess of $8,000USD, which is for many seeking to make a legal purchase the most prohibitive factor. Several states have decided to prohibit the sale of full-automatic firearms altogether. In most US states however, one can buy semi-automatic firearms over the counter if the buyer meets basic legal requirements, and after completing the proper paperwork and a criminal background check (and in some states, a waiting period)."

I would venture to guess that age 16 drivers are involved in more accidents than legally owned full-auto firearms.

How many things do I own that has the express purpose of killing a person and/or other living creature? Sure, junk food and cigarettes can kill you slowly, but I can't go around killing people by throwing hamburgers at them.

Yes, but those hamburgers are unhealthy and aren't "good." What if we decide to outlaw them based upon that factor? And because something has the design and/or capability to kill does not mean that it warrants to be outlawed. What about things that aren't designed to kill, but involved thousands of deaths? We are back to the cars argument once again.

And if your crazy kid decides he's getting picked on too much in school and decides to bring daddy's AK into school to teach those cool kids what's what, you've infringed upon everybody's rights without meaning to.

First of all, school violence has not involved automatic firearms, but legal semi-automatic firearms, which have been inappropriately called "assault rifles." Second of all, in cases such as what happened in Arkansas, legal hunting rifles were used. What about the fellow in the Texan Bell tower, Charles Whitman? He did not need a fully automatic rifle to cause damage.

Plus, you are trying to cherry pick and apply some extreme circumstance and somehow apply that to the thousands of legal firearm owners. It is not the strongest of arguments.

Of course the absence of firearms demonstrates a safer environment! The question isn't whether the US without firearms would be a safer place than the UK with firearms, or whether some third-world country without legal firearms is less safe than the US with legal firearms - the question is whether the US would be safer with fewer firearms than the US is right now. Bringing in other countries only confuses the issue.

You do realize that blunt trauma and stabbings make up a large amount of violent assaults and homicides, and poisonings, asphyxiation, and drug overdoses are often used for suicides? The absence of firearms does not immediately provide a safer, more benign environment – perhaps the absence of people more provide a safe environment, but removing firearms, or even certain (statistically safe) firearms will not provide this safer environment.

And bringing in the experience of other countries does not confuse the issue, but only demonstrates that there are many examples of safe ownership of firearms, and in particular, legally fully automatic firearms. (Of course, outside of a war zone.) It is a good idea to show comparative case examples to form a decision.

The best way to stop a dictatorship, as has been noted on this thread before, is to oppose any and all eroding of our civil rights. The army doesn't just come barreling down your door, it is a slow process that starts with legislation designed to impair freedom of thought and/or expression, or to isolate and repress pockets of society, one at a time. Like, for instance, the flag desecration amendment. Or the "marriage protection" amendment. The pen, as they say, is mightier than the sword.

I am aware of this and often the loudest voice on the board in regard to the subject of personal rights, which, ironically, includes private firearm ownership. You talk about the subject of “legislation designed to impair freedom of thought and/or expression,” and yet, you would support a coercive government removing some (or maybe all) firearms?

Either way, legislation is never a guarantee safeguard for our rights, and again, I’d rather be armed and ready to fight if needed then a defenseless sheep. I guess that is just me.

Firearms are dangerous if PROPERLY used. And, once again, you're required to obtain and hold a license to operate a vehicle.

You forgot to add that a person without a license or improperly using one could still drive that vehicle as well as cause harm…just like a firearm. Vehicles are ALSO dangerous if PROPERLY used.

Weren't you JUST talking about acculturation? Also, are you talking about high automatic firearm ownership? Because I know more than half the households in Canada own guns, but those are mostly sporting rifles.

Switzerland and Israel have a high fully automatic firearm ownership. But in this thread, you never specified if you are talking about fully automatic firearms or just “guns.”

[skinfan133]

So in this world where "the majority of the population own guns" you think that it is more likely that the person willing to commit murder DOESNT have a gun, but his victim does? :whoknows:

the fact that the victim might carry a firearm is a deterent. i think thats what hes driving for:2cents:

[cadets08]

Guns don't kill people, people do. In the words of Larry the Cable Guy, "If guns really killed people, then my pencil failed me all those spelling tests."

[PleaseBlitz]

the fact that the victim might carry a firearm is a deterent. i think thats what hes driving for:2cents:

I know what he's driving for. Its still a dumb theory.

[PleaseBlitz]

Guns don't kill people, people do. In the words of Larry the Cable Guy, "If guns really killed people, then my pencil failed me all those spelling tests."

Wow, right off the NRA bulletin board. :thumbsup:

People WITH guns kill people.

[skinfan133]

I know what he's driving for. Its still a dumb theory.

man the venom just keeps pouring forth tonight PB, had a bad date?