poll: guns

[Stigmata]

Heck yes. We need to be able to protect ourselves. If guns are banned, they are only banned from the law abiding people. Criminals can get them without trouble. It has been well put through out this thread. You only have to look at australia for an example. I believe they outlawed all guns in the country. And the crime rate SKYROCKETED to the highest in the world.

This is why if you say the public cant have automatics, the law saying you cant wont stop the criminals, i my self would rather be on a level playing ground, if they have them, to protect myself i should have them. only thing i draw the line on are weapons like AK47s-sks-m41a guns like that. we dont need sub machine guns sold over the counter. but as far as hand guns autos all the way, fully auto shot guns to. Deer rifels with a scope? if your worth half a grain of salt what ever you hit is dead anyway, no need for semi auto..

although if you wanted an AK47 you should have the right to own one, but make it sold in specialty gun shops. full back ground checks ect..

[Predicto]

Heck yes. We need to be able to protect ourselves. If guns are banned, they are only banned from the law abiding people. Criminals can get them without trouble. It has been well put through out this thread. You only have to look at australia for an example. I believe they outlawed all guns in the country. And the crime rate SKYROCKETED to the highest in the world.

Good point. Completely false, of course, but nevertheless compelling to those who already agree with you.

[Predicto]

So if Anthrax was sitting in a room and a person walked in, they couldn't become infected with out human intervention?

I know that if a loaded gun is sitting in a room, I have zero chance of getting shot unless myself or another person picks up the gun and fires it.

You are correct, but the distinction is meaningless. My concern is with stupid people, crazy people, clumsy people, angry people. My concern is with someone else being able to kill ME too easily. If they have a nuke and want me dead, I will die fast. If they have anthrax, same thing. If they have an automatic weapon, probably the same thing.

Knife or club, I might get away.

There is a place for rifles and shotguns, but other than that, society is better off without easily concealable or overpowered guns.

[rincewind]

Why isn't there an option for pacifists?

[MisterPinstripe]

Good point. Completely false, of course, but nevertheless compelling to those who already agree with you.

Well, of course you can call it false, but that doesnt make it false. I could also say that gravity does not exist, but that doesnt mean it doesnt. :doh:

[Mass_SkinsFan]

I've got an interesting question related to this issue. It would be a little easier if the poll was public so we could see who'd voted for what option, but I think the discussion gives us a pretty good idea on that already and since this thread has been reinvigorated, I don't see the sense in starting a new one......

We've got two major socio-political theories in the United States these days... "Liberalism" and "Conservatism".

"Liberalism" is generally seen as being in favor of Free Speech, Freedom of the Press, Freedom of Assembly, and increased Personal Liberties compared to government control.

"Conservatism" is generally seen as being against personal freedoms, in favor of government control of things and much closer to fascism than most Americans want to think about.

Which of these groups would it seem more natural to be in favor of private gun ownership, self-defense and the idea of an armed populace able to potentially overthrow the government? It would seem that "Liberalism" would be the natural fit for the Pro-RTKBA crowd, wouldn't it? Yet it is generally "Conservatism" that promotes the individual's RTKBA in an unfettered and open manner.

My question to this forum is: "Why is this so? Why is it that the group an impartial external viewer would expect to be Pro-Firearms is generally more Anti-Firearms and likewise the other way around?"

[rincewind]

Hey Mass - how's that whole end of civilized society thing working out in San Fran?

[Predicto]

Well, of course you can call it false, but that doesnt make it false. I could also say that gravity does not exist, but that doesnt mean it doesnt. :doh:

Please demonstrate that the crime rate in Australia skyrocketed after gun control was imposed and is now the highest in the world, as you claimed.

ps - don't even bother trying. Some other guy made the same claim in an earlier gun control thread on this board, and Ancalagon the Black (who lives in Australia) ate his lunch. Its an urban myth.

Many people believe that Proctor and Gamble Corp. supports Satan worship. Why? Because someone told them so on the internet.

[Predicto]

Hey Mass - how's that whole end of civilized society thing working out in San Fran?

I got shot three times today alone :yikes:

[rincewind]

I got shot three times today alone :eek

Well, that's what you get for leaving your bunker. :doh:

[Midnight Judges]

I got shot three times today alone :yikes:

Oh please. "Shot" is soooo twentieth century. "Peppered" is the new terminology.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Hey Mass - how's that whole end of civilized society thing working out in San Fran?

Interesting that you should mention that. I was just reading today that the City of San Francisco pushed the date back to at least Mid-June because of an NRA funded lawsuit challenging the law that's still waiting for a judge's ruling. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors HAS, however, set the penalties for possession of a firearm inside city limits If/When the law goes into effect... a one thousand dollar fine and ninety days to six months in jail.

[rincewind]

Interesting that you should mention that. I was just reading today that the City of San Francisco pushed the date back to at least Mid-June because of an NRA funded lawsuit challenging the law that's still waiting for a judge's ruling. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors HAS, however, set the penalties for possession of a firearm inside city limits If/When the law goes into effect... a one thousand dollar fine and ninety days to six months in jail.

ohh... harsh. I'd have to say jail time really doesn't make sense.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Please demonstrate that the crime rate in Australia skyrocketed after gun control was imposed and is now the highest in the world, as you claimed.

Whether it went up or not is really irrelevant... Anyone with any amount of common sense and sanity wouldn't live there, in England, Scotland, Canada or in any US State that does not recognize an individual's inalienable right to own firearms and to use them in self-defense and/or to overthrow the government.

[rincewind]

Whether it went up or not is really irrelevant... Anyone with any amount of common sense and sanity wouldn't live there, in England, Scotland, Canada or in any US State that does not recognize an individual's inalienable right to own firearms and to use them in self-defense and/or to overthrow the government.

Damn - guess i'm insane. Thanks for the free diagnosis Mass. :thumbsup:

[Redskins Diehard]

Knife or club, I might get away.

There is a place for rifles and shotguns, but other than that, society is better off without easily concealable or overpowered guns.

I wouldn't brush off the old shotgun that easily. We already determined in that other thread that Joe Citizen isn't a very good shot, his odds increase with a shotgun(insert very funny joke about quail hunting here).

The classic approach with the "automatic weapon" is to "spray and pray" which is often demonstrated in the movies about warfare and gang violence. I for one would be more concerned about the "well aimed shot" from a single shot or semi auto.

By the way, I believe every citizen that has the right to vote, has the right own a firearm...I don't believe that every citizen should have the right to own any firearm they want.

[Predicto]

By the way, I believe every citizen that has the right to vote, has the right own a firearm...I don't believe that every citizen should have the right to own any firearm they want.

I totally agree with you. Most posters here do not.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

I wouldn't brush off the old shotgun that easily. We already determined in that other thread that Joe Citizen isn't a very good shot, his odds increase with a shotgun(insert very funny joke about quail hunting here).

Interestingly enough, in my experience there's a group that are CONSIDERABLY worse shots than members of the general public..... Local and state level LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS. Now, I'm a great supported of local, state and federal law enforcement officers. I know quite a few and shoot with a good number of them on a regular basis. Unfortunately, on the local and state level, most of these officers get far less training with a firearm than they need or deserve. Especially when it comes to combat shooting. Oh an officer may be able to shoot an excellent score twice a year standing there in an empty range, shooting at a cardboard target at a known distance. Unfortunately that's about the single most unlikely scenario for an officer involved shooting I've ever seen.

To emphasize my point, I harken to a discussion I had several years ago with retired NYPD officer Jim Cirillo. Jim's a decorated officer, a former member of the NYPD Stakeout Squad and his career record vs. Armed Felons is 17-0. I asked him why it was that I'd recently seen a statistic stating that the NYPD's officers expended something like 12 rounds of ammunition for every hit on a suspect compared to something like 3 rounds per hit in his day and age. Jim's response.... "Those Godd*mn slab-sidded guns. (referring to the Glock semi-auto pistols NYPD now issues). Back in my day you had a revolver and they never taght us in the academy how to use a speed-loader effectively. We KNEW that if we had to reload we were dead. These new kids fire indiscriminately because they carry 17 rounds in the gun and they can reload quicker than I can say my name."

[The 12th Commandment]

As an owner and enthusiast I am concerned about who gets to decide what is an appropriate firearm for who. As you can see in the poll a fairly high percentage think that handguns are not appropriate for your average person. That worries me. I don't want someone who lives in their particular circumstances deciding what is right for me in mine.

I don't live in a very dangerous area, but things happen no matter were you are. By limiting my right to protection, you are taking away an ability to save myself. Who are you to do that? If you choose not avail yourself of that ability, fine. But how dare you impinge on mine? :whoknows:

Licensing, waiting periods, very rigid regulation. I'm for that. I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't be. I don't want punks to have guns. But if I pass muster and I can afford it, then I should be able to own any gun including autos. :cool:

And I wants me a fifty cal in the worst way!

[Predicto]

Licensing, waiting periods, very rigid regulation. I'm for that. I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't be. I don't want punks to have guns. But if I pass muster and I can afford it, then I should be able to own any gun including autos. :cool:

Or nukes. Or anthrax. Why not, you are responsible.

We just keep going around and around here.

[MisterPinstripe]

Please demonstrate that the crime rate in Australia skyrocketed after gun control was imposed and is now the highest in the world, as you claimed.

ps - don't even bother trying. Some other guy made the same claim in an earlier gun control thread on this board, and Ancalagon the Black (who lives in Australia) ate his lunch. Its an urban myth.

Many people believe that Proctor and Gamble Corp. supports Satan worship. Why? Because someone told them so on the internet.

These are the facts that were gathered over the 12 month period after the ban was instituted.

• Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2%.
  
• Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6%.
  
• Australia-wide, armed-robberies are up 44%. (yes, FORTY-FOUR PERCENT)
  
• In the state of Victoria, homicides-with-firearms are up 300%!
  
• The steady decrease in homicides-with-firearms that occurred during the previous 25 years became an increase in the last 12 months.
  
• The steady decrease in armed-robbery-with-firearms that occurred during the previous 25 years became an increase in the last 12 months.
  
• There has been a dramatic increase in breakins-and-assaults-of-the-elderly.
  
• At the time of the ban, the Prime Minister said "self-defense is not a reason for owning a firearm".
  
• From 1910 to present, homicides in Australia have averaged about 1.8-per-100,000 or lower, a safe society by any standard.
  
• The ban has destroyed Australia's standings in some international sport shooting competitions.
  
• The membership of the Australian Sports Shooting Association has increased by 200% in response to the ban and in an attempt to organize against further controls, which are expected.
  
• Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain why no improvement in "safety" has been observed after such monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in "ridding society of guns". Their response has been to "wait longer".
  

There is also a reason why D.C. is considering removing the ban they have in affect, because they noticed the same thing. I give you many places that back up these findings.

[MisterPinstripe]

Or nukes. Or anthrax. Why not, you are responsible.

We just keep going around and around here.

This post shows your thinking, which tells me there is no point in arguing with you. To compare those things you just mentioned with guns is lunacy. Anthrax sitting around kills. Guns dont. I am going to have to leave this conversation now as your mind is obviously irrational.

[The 12th Commandment]

Or nukes. Or anthrax. Why not, you are responsible.

We just keep going around and around here.

I see a big difference between those weapons and firearms. And I don't like that the government has them either for the same reason you so articulately stated. But to suggest that the ability to possess such destructive weapons would somehow not be restricted is...silly? To use weapons of that magnitude you should have to be operating under a military structure.

If I am willing to go through the process that makes those weapons available, I can do so. I have that freedom available to me today. It might require more work than I am willing to undertake but I am taking away the right to possess and use those weapons by my own choosing. I can accept that.

[PokerPacker]

nukes, anthrax, etc. cannot be aimed at a specific target. they are offensive weapons, and have no use in self-defence. guns, including automatics, on the other hand do have defensive uses.

[IBleedBurgundy&Gold1369225669]

All guns should be legal except that rocket launcher I have. If I get caught with that I should do 2 years max.