Guns, Guns, Guns ???

Living in a big city I don't really see the benefits of the 2nd amendment. In fact I usually find that most of the gun realated activities here are crime related. So it is sometimes hard for me to relate to progun policy...

On the other hand I have spent some time down south shooting at things and I must admit it was fun!!! My family there would regularly shoot thier own interesting dinner menu selections,,, saving $$$ on chipped squirel meat makes sense... Hunting is cost effective, and living off the land is somthing I can respect.

I do not understand what the conflict is between the hard Left and hard Right
in regards to gun ownership and the second amendment???

In fact I really do not get what either side wants if they had thier way.

Would the Progressives want all guns striped from every private citizen? If so I have never heard of that and I would disagree with that tremendously!

OR

Do progressives just want to regulate types of weapons, amount of weapons and who can get weapons?

----------

Do Conservatives want M60 Machine guns legalized? If so I would disagree with that!

OR

Do conservatives just want to keep choices in regards to guns in the hands of the citizens period?

I personally have a Zulu spear as protection ( although I do not take it everywhere I go).

May only real reason for seeing citizens NEEDING (not wanting) more then one hand gun is to protect ourselves against Fascist cooperate takeover! This is the only practical
reason I can think of...

So what do you think about guns-- why do we need guns in our society if all they are intended to do is kill things(primarily people).

Wish we were allowed handguns for personal protection in Australia

We aren't allowed ANY form of self protection, only the criminals are allowed to carry weapons, us normal law abiding folk have to just stand there and get stabbed or shot

I guess pretty soon martial arts will be banned here in Ozland too, as you might be too dangerous and considered a weapon once you reach a black belt etc, then you will have to register yourself, or get banned yourself

reply to post by mental modulator


Shall not be infringed is very clear. Going back a few decades, guns were sold through the mail. Sears catalogs, Woolworth catalogs, you name it. Odd that there wasn't anywhere near the amount of crime back then as there is now.

The problem isn't guns, its people.

Incidentally, guns aren't "made to kill", they are made to fire a projectile.

If they were made to kill, all of mine must be defective, as they haven't killed anyone.

Originally posted by The Soldier Of Darkness
Wish we were allowed handguns for personal protection in Australia

We aren't allowed ANY form of self protection, only the criminals are allowed to carry weapons, us normal law abiding folk have to just stand there and get stabbed or shot

I guess pretty soon martial arts will be banned here in Ozland too, as you might be too dangerous and considered a weapon once you reach a black belt etc, then you will have to register yourself, or get banned yourself

Good point on the black belt

The problem is we have so many young idiots who carry um get mad or need cash and end up killing someone for next to nothing! Then we have to pay three quarters of a million to million+ dollars in tax money to sentence them and house them in jail for fourty or fifty years! I don't know what is more important and more sensable???
Guns or no guns?

Originally posted by slackerwire
reply to post by mental modulator

 

Shall not be infringed is very clear. Going back a few decades, guns were sold through the mail. Sears catalogs, Woolworth catalogs, you name it. Odd that there wasn't anywhere near the amount of crime back then as there is now.

The problem isn't guns, its people.

Incidentally, guns aren't "made to kill", they are made to fire a projectile.

If they were made to kill, all of mine must be defective, as they haven't killed anyone.

Slackerwire, I'm not argueing with you on most of your points (guns were invented to kill people at a farther distance then swords/ bows and arrows for tactical advantage)... Damn right the problem is people,,, both of my grandpa were shootum up mountain rednecks and neither killed any humans in civilian life in their combined 160 years on earth.

What I saying is what do we do about these people? If an American is free to chose and they chose to commit crime thats their choice, I get that. The point is is there are 30,000 or more gun related deaths a year, thats alot of people. Like a stadium of dead folks who didn't need to die like that... If that is of concern to a person what is good approach to limiting this very high death rate?

We don't need to carry on about the little details-- what would a gun owner like you suggest IF it was your job to solve this problem--thoeretically??

I don't have a clue,

I do know I was almost shot when I was a kid by a concerned citizen who thought I was going to burn his car for fun??? I was hiding in the bushes playing hide and go seek
F@#$ing idiot he was, seemed like he wanted to do it just to feel better. I had to beg him and empty my pockets to show him I did not have matches and a gas can???
In my pocket--- nutsack guy!

Anyhow...

[edit on 8-7-2008 by mental modulator]

If a governmental body enforces extreme penalty for illegal gun ownership, that is favorable toward the legal gun owner. In general, those that legally acquire firearms do not use them for crimes. In general, people that have concealed carry permits hold themselves to a higher standard of engagement, because they know, as part of their training, that if they are involved in a shooting incident, they will have to be able to prove it was justified. I carried concealed, with permit, for years when I lived in the U.S. My Bride did as well. Both of us had employment that made that necessary -- details of that employment are not really germain to this post. Point is, if someone was engaged in, say, a road-rage against us, we had a higher standard of maintaing calm. We could not "cowboy up" (no offense to cowboys) and brandish a firearm to "scare" off the person. That is called escallation.

Where I grew up, in the wilds of Northern Idaho, everyone had guns. They were tools, used mostly for acquiring food, or smiting potentially harmful varmints. There was little violent crime. Criminals are cowards, for the most part. They press an advantage, in that they are willing to do things for benefit -- money, goods, whatever -- that most decent citizens are not. When in a situation where the odds are equal, the criminal most often bows out. Where I grew up, we had to go through an NRA course first before getting our first hunting license. For most of us it was a breeze, in the same way that my first drivers training was a breeze. By the time I took driver's ed at 15, I'd been working in the fields, driving farm equipment and other vehicles for the better part of 5 years.

I don't think this is a liberal/conservative issue, just that the rhetoric falls on one side or the other. People should be able to protect themselves, their families and their property. It's like the precepts of Mutually Assurred Destruction -- when everyone is suspected of having firearms, everyone behaves.

There was a case in Florida, where women were offered the opportunity to take a class and get a concealed carry permit...... wait, you know, I think I'll find it first, and then post it here. That's the right way to do it.

Cheers

Sounds like anti gunner talking points spun in a slightly differant manner. What people want for firearms is NOBODIES business but they're own. The only reason to make it harder to purchase or pick and choose whats legal to own is to controll the populace and protect the idiots who think that way.


Zindo

reply to post by argentus


Good response I can dig the logic, I'm glad you have the right and I think your MAD anoulogy makes sense ,,

BUT What to do about the fools who are not responsable
and criminally minded???

I have no problems with what you said but I do think the gun death rate is way to high. Its like two years and we have the US causualtiy rate of Vietman here.

Another asspect is we have to house all these psyhco offenders at the rate of $36,000
a year, times life sentence and court costs... Thats alot of dough-- like wealthfare for 3
familys,etc...-- other words a burden on society in a finacial sense.

I think this issue can be worked out in this country more easily then others....

As a gun owner would any amount of regulation be reasonable, if,,, you still had the right to protect your family with whatever gun/s you choose???

In other words how far would you be willing to bend if at all???
Being a person who is not a gun owner I would be willing to bend a whole lot as long as we could quell some unnnessicary tragidy... I wouldn't care how one bit as long as long as we could all be safer.

mental modulator-

Prescription drugs kill more people than guns do every year.

Much like prohibition and the current joke known as the "war on drugs", more government involvement has never been the answer.

Fact: Gun control does not work.

Those who support it (including head up ass politicians) do so for one of 2 reasons: Mental midgetry aka they rely on emotion and think banning the tool will prevent the action, or they support it for more nefarious reasons: Government control of the people.

Back when buying a gun was easier, the crime rates weren't anywhere near their current rates. Why do you think that is?

Hell, even convicted felons admitted they feared armed homeowners & citizens more than they feared the police.

The solution definitely isn't less gun ownership, in fact it is more. Widespread civilian gun ownership would cause crime rates ti plummet virtually overnight.

Need an example? Take a look at the states with very lax gun control laws. You will find the crime rates there are much lower than those with very stringent gun control laws.

For those needing other examples, I have one word for you: Switzerland.

I'm sure I will catch quite a bit of hell for this, but I am going to point out something that is backed by fact, and I certainly don't care what emotional arguments people throw my way.

We both agree the problem is people, and in my opinion it isn't just people, but what types of people. Notice that the more "racially diverse" this nation has become, the more downhill it has gone.

Look at the major crime centers in the nation. They are far from being racially homogeneous. Not trying to derail an anti-gun thread here, but lets face it: If different races were meant to live together, we wouldn't need "diversity visas", government "diversity programs", or businesses needing "diversity directors".

So, the answer to a perceived gun problem is twofold: More gun owners, and less diversity, which means less immigration in all forms.

reply to post by mental modulator


So you are willing to sacrifice liberty in the name of perceived "safety"?

What other amendments are you willing to throw away?

reply to post by mental modulator


Well, actually I DON'T have the right. 14 years ago we moved to a British Dependency Territory in the Caribbean, and we are not allowed to own guns. There are frequent shootings, all perpetrated by criminals, as IMO, when gun ownership is against the law, only those who don't give a crap for the law posess them. It's a perfect set-up for a criminal.

However, within context of my former life in the U.S., I'd be willing to bend a fair amount, just not bend OVER if you get my meaning. I've followed gun legislation closely. Why does so much of it have to have furtive little things in it? Why? Because (IMO) the folks wanting to mandate gun control have an agenda of convincing the masses that the mere posession of a firearm raises a greater probability of that person committing a criminal act. I don't believe this. Strange little terms get bandied about, such as "assault weapons". Geee, let us define what that is: For me, it is any weapon, gun or not, that is used as an aggressive device against someone. For some legislators, they will twist the definitions of a firearm to try and construe that many weapons are MORE dangerous than others, or that a person that chooses to own one must want it for criminal purposes. If I had the misfortune to be in a firefight with a mook off the street with a full-auto Uzi, please let me have something I can place the shots with accuracy. Perhaps my ol' .357 revolver. *sigh* I miss it so. Onward.

here's the thing, at least for me: Ffirearms should be acquired with registration, and yes, I support a waiting period, as I WANT this person to really be investigated to ensure that they are a citizen of the country, are not wanted by law enforcement, are not prohibited from purchasing a weapon. I would support an amendment that allows a citizen who has the legal ability to own a firearm from acquiring them from untraceable means, such as inheritance. The crux of my belief is this: Persons who have been convicted of criminal activity should not be allowed to legally posess guns. Simple as that. You choose to loose, you pay, and you never get that priviledge again. If a person, having been convicted of a violent crime is then found to be in posession of a firearm, then they go back to the big house.

I'm still looking for that Miami story BTW. I thought I'd saved it in favorites, but nope. Thanks for the discussion. I think this is necessary. If I had a magic wand and could make all firearms disappear for everyone, I might use it, but alas, no such thing exists. To me, owning and being a responsible owner of a firearm is a priviledge, not a right, and those that abuse this priviledge get the press, who, in turn, often chooses to characterize the criminal as the "average" gun owner. It's a spin, and I don't see the point, other than to disarm the people.

Back later, should I be successful in my googling (who ever thought that would be a gerund?)

[edit on 8-7-2008 by argentus]

Originally posted by ZindoDoone
Sounds like anti gunner talking points spun in a slightly differant manner. What people want for firearms is NOBODIES business but they're own. The only reason to make it harder to purchase or pick and choose whats legal to own is to controll the populace and protect the idiots who think that way.


Zindo

El Zindo -- I think you drove past the money on this -- I'm not anti gunner --
I'm anti idiot ESE robbing my local liquor store with a gun that he should not have...
Further more I think it is a waste of Billions of dollars to house a bunch of idiots.
Own a goddamn tank for all care... There is still the people who die every year unnecessarily thats all I'm saying. This IS a PROBLEM,,, dying people -- $$$$$$$$$$$$$ spent fighting this problem... All I am trying to do is promote debate and man to man discussion.
Like I have tried to communicate, I have ZERO problems with you carrying your silver plated six shooters Zindo - I understand there are a ton of bad Hombres out there,,,
I just don't want them to shot at you!!! I am not black and white on this... I think for myself and I do get your side, but that does not change the problem stated above.
Any solutions??? Or is the point of no government interference your one and only deciding factor with needless death being a lesser non governmental interference issue aswell???

Originally posted by slackerwire
mental modulator-

Prescription drugs kill more people than guns do every year.

For those needing other examples, I have one word for you: Switzerland.

I'm sure I will catch quite a bit of hell for this, but I am going to point out something that is backed by fact, and I certainly don't care what emotional arguments people throw my way.

We both agree the problem is people, and in my opinion it isn't just people, but what types of people. Notice that the more "racially diverse" this nation has become, the more downhill it has gone.

Look at the major crime centers in the nation. They are far from being racially homogeneous. Not trying to derail an anti-gun thread here, but lets face it: If different races were meant to live together, we wouldn't need "diversity visas", government "diversity programs", or businesses needing "diversity directors".

So, the answer to a perceived gun problem is twofold: More gun owners, and less diversity, which means less immigration in all forms.

OK -- But this is not an anti gun thread - All I said is that I do feel the need for a gun-
I have a spear to protect my home... I can understand if you feel the need for a gun and I think you should have as many guns as you want... My only issue was and is
that I think to many non criminal people get killed by criminals with guns... If we as a nation could figure out how to keep idoits from the guns I wouldn't be posting...

Its seems the cause of the root of criminal gun deaths for you is imagrants... Thats what you think, I'm not sure what I think --- I am only after solutions to the back and forth between the pro and anti stance ----

There are already laws against mentaly impaired and the felonious owning or even being in the same room as a firearm. That does not stop them. Any prohibition of law abiding to own, carry, or possess firearms only makes them easier targets. I agree that I do not like being shot at. I do value the ability to be able to protect myself by shooting back. I make sure to practice and know what and where my target is and never shoot blindly at anything. Most folks I know are the same. I agree that those that do not do the same are the problem. Prohibition only protects and makes rich the lawyers and politicians.

Zindo

Originally posted by slackerwire
reply to post by mental modulator

 

So you are willing to sacrifice liberty in the name of perceived "safety"?

What other amendments are you willing to throw away?

NO,NO,NO-- You have got me all wrong---

Own a gun, hundred of um--
Hell I think shooting is fun and I think you have all the right to do the same.
Protect yourself and protect us if the government goes nutz as I will --- My point is
the deaths perpertrated by idiot criminal non typical gun owners-- thats all!!!

Can anything be done to cut the robbers and gangbangers of at the pass???
To house them is $$$$$$$$$$$$$ --- so damn expensive and a shop owner should not be shot by three gunmen over $100 etc...

reply to post by ZindoDoone

Cool -- So what to do about the idiots??? Or maybe your saying there is nothing to be done without infinging on the 2nd --- What I'm trying to say is if you and I were in a room and our goal was to make you happy and me "happy" about the idiots-- we couldn't brainstorm a solution? If you have an idea that would then that would benefit the whole lot of us! I don't know your boundries so you set the coarse....

Maybe I'm dreaming, but I just want to explore options if any exist...


[edit on 8-7-2008 by mental modulator]

Human nature being what it is. The only solution is to rely on the survival instincts of the good over evil. There is no other way. To take away the tools needed to make sure this is the outcome is to invite caos and then the totalitarianism we all fear will become a reality.

Zindo

Ever wonder why governments even consider the notion of limiting to ownership of weapons by their citizens? Any government has 2 considerations here. They don't want to loose their citizens unnecessarily as they are the workers, soldiers, taxpayers, and builders of the society. Government is also very concerned and even paranoid that it maintains complete control of it citizens. Citizens that carry the same lethal power as the police force are more difficult to control plus these citizens could more easily challenge an unfair or unpopular burocrat. This thought often brings extreme discomfort to guilty burocrats grown accustomed to the peaceful, protected stattus.

We've seen again and again in places like Washington DC and Florida that citizens are in greater rather than less danger disarmed. So when liberal politicians promote gun control they do it more for selfish reasons than for the good of the citizenry. They are afraid that citizens angered by what they do while governing will turn against them or at least make them uncomfortable.

US citizens had the advantage of not having their homeland directly involved in 2 deadly world wars. So our citizens were not as eager to turn in their arms in the post war days. European and other politicians saw a weakness in their citizenry due to the horrors of war and passed gun grabbing legislation.

The human character will always permit outlaws, outlaws will always overpower using superior weapons and the citizenry needs the option of firearm protection. This delema demands that governments allow the citizen personal protection by firearms. Weak and cowardly politicians will try to deny that right so it is up to us as responible citizens to retain our gun rights and of course use our guns responsibly and often!

reply to post by plumranch


Plumranch,,, thanks for the response --- Being a liberal on most things I can understand your frustration with liberal politicians and guns. I know that I personaly
think people should be allowed to own guns and protect themselves... I think most city folk liberals as myself (my friends and family) are misunderstood on the guns issue...
I believe only one of the tens liberal people I know well would have guns banned compleatly. What the city folk libs figure is that if things are being misused and killing others they should be regulated in some fashion... I also understand that most of the gun contoversy from the liberal side is out of concern for victums of idiot no typical gun owner gun crimes.
However I understand the