To all the people who want to ban guns.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d021222ef566.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by MikeNice81
reply to post by jrmcleod

 

Like I said elsewhere, the SCOTUS said the police do not owe protection to any one person but the community as a whole. So, if I am responsible for my protection I believe I should have access to the exact same weapons they use. That means 5.56 carbine rifles, .338 Lapua rifles, and MP5s capable of three round bursts. If they find it necessary for their protection, it should be available for my protection.

The cops cannot be everywhere at the same time, so if you relly on the police and someone truely has bad intentions for you then your a cooked goose. By the time they arrive at your premise your gonna be tied up, raped, tortured and possibly killed. All they can do is look for tape footage if you have a closed circuit tv network installed and/or ask the neighbors if they saw anything suspicious which means a criminal investigation that yields no results.

Some people are extremely naive. You owe it your family to have a gun for protection especially if your wealthy and high profile. The system does not care about personal property but they do care if you rob a bank or import drugs and weapons without their approval...why is that so????

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


Warning, this is my first post, I hope it makes sense. I agree with you Johnny Canuck, When you compare Canada and the US when it comes to gun control you will see that Americans are gun crazy. Like you said we have guns in Canada, registered and legal, by the average person, yes there are illegal guns, but not to the extent of the US. We have them for hunting. After spending time living in the US, I can honestly say I would never want to raise my child who; by the way, is half American in the US. When you can drive down a street and see no less then 5 gun shops in a 5 mile radius. That is ridiculous, having some control and restrictions does not mean that you are being controlled, it means you are thinking of safety and well being. Here in Canada we say our society is becoming Americanized by the box stores, and the shape of our growing lawsuits for stupidity, well in this case the American's would do well to be a bit "Canadianized".

banning guns is stupid, stupid stupid stupid. but, owning a gun is equally stupid. we understand you want another penis but can't you play a video game or a guitar instead?
we'll know we evolved when it's legal to purchase a gun but nobody chooses to.

reply to post by diodotus


That has to be the stupidest thing I have heard today lol. You do know some of us feed out family with these guns don't you? Tell you what, you go out with a spear every year, and kill a few deer for us every year, then stand guard outside my house while you are not hunting, and maybe I will consider getting rid of my guns. Also you have to kill wolves, coyotes and bears if they try to eat the livestock. Sound good to you?

Im one of them .

all kinds of guns and weapons of mass destruction should be outlawed world wide ..

we got to think of all of the school and work place shootings , we need to think of the small kids who take what they think are toy guns and then kill a younger brother or sister.

hell i dont even approve of toy guns or anything that looks like a gun.
too many deaths if you ask me ..
id much prefer a sword or arrow over a gun any day of the week. both can cause the same effect yet requires more skill and balence .

reply to post by alysha.angel


Thats when the role of responsibility comes in. You teach that child that gun is NOT a toy. When they try to take it and play with it you bust their bottom real good so the remember that it is NOT a toy.

The roles of responsibility and no one taking responsibility is pathetic in our current culture. People always want to blame others for their mess ups.

What you people just don't get, you can make anything illegal. That WILL NOT stop people from getting it and using it from harm. That is fact... there is no argument anyone can present that will falsify that fact.

IF someone wants to go postal with a gun, they are going to do it. It doesn't matter how many sanctions and laws you put into effect. If someone wants to do it that bad... there is nothing you can do to stop it.

Except for the law abiding citizens that carry concealed and one day may save your pathetic rear end.

All the foreigners that complain about our country.. you all can go ahead and stay in your little make believe utopia's. Please don't poison our great country with your backwards thinking.

Great point OP

It's the same thing with drugs too. The laws do not make these issues go away. As you have shown, they don't even make them smaller or less frequent. All they do is increase arrests and fines.

When a criminal mind wants to get something to suit his or her agenda, they will. End of story.

reply to post by bigshow


I don't know about all that. If there were many stories about guns rescuing people that needed rescuing I imagine we would be hearing more about it.

All I ever hear about lately related to guns seems to be mass murders, a son killing mom while she stands at the sink, a boy killed his father, many police officers are killed in the line of duty - not in shootouts but in ambush style attacks...

I think it is time to reign a few of these weapons in.

No guns for people who have mental illness.
No guns for people without first running a background check.
No guns for people without a 2 day cool down period.
No guns for people who fail a drug test.

Is this unreasonable?

Originally posted by spinalremain
Great point OP

It's the same thing with drugs too. The laws do not make these issues go away. As you have shown, they don't even make them smaller or less frequent. All they do is increase arrests and fines.

When a criminal mind wants to get something to suit his or her agenda, they will. End of story.

Is it the end of the story? Really?

I don't think so.
Otherwise why do countries with strict gun laws have dramatically less gun deaths?
The more difficult it is to get a gun - the fewer deaths by gunfire. How do you account for that? Some sort of bizarre coincidence?

Why don't we call your bluff?
Try it and see what happens.

The worst that can happen is lives are saved...
If shooting deaths DO NOT decrease - we'll bring back the guns.

Even if it only saved a dozen children - wouldn't it be worth it?

reply to post by rusethorcain


To get a gun from a FFL dealer you have to pass the NICS instant back ground check. That is a bit of a misnomer because it can take as long as three days.

If you have been ajudicated mentally ill you are disqualified from owning a fire arm by federal law. Those records are searched with the NICS back ground check.

Dr. Jens Ludwig and Dr. Philip J. Cook reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association in August 2000 that, by comparing the effect of waiting periods in the 18 states that had them prior to the Brady bill to the 32 states that instated them under the Brady bill there was an insignificant change in murder rates.

In a report in Time Magazine from July 12, 2002 the BATF said that the average time from purchase to crime with a gun was between 1 and 12 years. A two day waiting period would be pointless.

The NICS back ground check allready covers,
1. Illegal/Unlawful Alien Files
2. Controlled Substance Abuse Files
3. Dishonorable Discharge Files
4. Citizenship Renunciant Files
5. Mental Commitment Files
6. Wanted Persons Files
7. Domestic Violence Protection Order Files
8. Criminal History Files

If a search of all of those files turns up nothing do you think a piss test will? Besides a drug test is an unreasonable infringement on a god given, constitutionally protected, right. There are too many ways to get a false positive and it would wrongfully exclude otherwise qualified people.

Originally posted by rusethorcain
No guns for people who have mental illness.
No guns for people without first running a background check.
No guns for people without a 2 day cool down period.
No guns for people who fail a drug test.

Is this unreasonable?

YES --> because most of the criminals who already possess guns don't fit your criteria.

most are mentally ill
none will have a background check (let alone, first)
good luck with the 'cool down' on the street
most are chemically challenged when they fire anyway so what difference does this make?

geeeesh, w h e n ... you get the guns out of the hands of criminals, then we'll talk about mine.
would someone please explain why we are trying to legislate human nature? it is not possible.

reply to post by rusethorcain

Even if it only saved a dozen children - wouldn't it be worth it?

According to the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Fall 1995, guns were used in self defense 2.5 million times in America. If the ratio has remained the same it would still be more than 1.25 million defensive uses per year now. Do you think that doesn't save more than a dozen children a year?

The worst that can happen is lives are saved...

If you look at England it results in a 300% increase in crimes labeled as "violence against the person." If it is Scotland it leads to a physical assault rate more than 250% higher than that of the US.

I'm sorry but I would hate to see a 300% increase in violent crimes against the person when our violent crime, murder, robbery, and rape levels have been dropping for two decades.

If you don't think a black market will come in to play, you aren't paying attention to history or current events. In Mexico the cartels are paying soldiers to defect from the Mexican military and bring their weapons. In England they busted a guy that had converted 172 starter pistols in to functioning firearms, and sold them to known gang members. China also has problems with a black market in outlawed weapons. In 2006 Chinese police shut down 113 illegal firearm plants and confiscated 117,000 guns. They also rounded up over 2,400 tons of explosives.

China Radio International Online, September 7, 2006

reply to post by MikeNice81


Mike You are really doing a great job. Whatever the NRA is paying you is not enough. With all the hours you put in here and your attention to detail...remarkable.
I can see you are impassioned and dedicated to a mission of arming every American.

Sort of a little twist on the "Chicken in every pot theme"..... a firearm in every home.

I am with you buddy.

The only difference between you and I is...I don't think people who are certifiably insane should have them.
You do not seem to support taking the hard steps needed to prevent this happening as often as it does.

reply to post by Honor93


Did you ever see a cart pull a horse?

Get real for crissakes. Children and Cops matter to me more than your right to protect yourself against things that go bump in the night. And btw (statistically) chances are you will only kill your dog or blow your own wife's head off in the dark.

reply to post by rusethorcain


Actually if a person has been certified insane they are not elligble to recieve a gun under federal law. That whole ajudicated mentally ill or defecient thing. You know the federal law that is allready in place.

While you keep looking for ways to disqualify more people felons are buying guns on the black market. Do you think stopping one more person from getting a legal gun is going to stop a felon from buying an illegal gun?

I love how you keep calling me an NRA shill. I believe in the constitution, and I support the right to keep and bear arms based on the perponderance of studies and real world evidence. Some how that must mean I am getting paid. I'm sorry if the only time you study a subject is when you get paid. I happen to do it when I want to make a good decision. The reason I am so detailed on this subject is because most people that are anti-gun or pro gun control spout more reheated rhetoric than reality.

Sorry if the truth hurts your position.

ETA:

“... “... the major surveys completed in the past 20 years or more provides no evidence of any relationship between the total number of legally held firearms in society and the rate of armed crime. Nor is there a relationship between the severity of controls imposed in various countries or the mass of bureaucracy involved with many control systems with the apparent ease of access to firearms by criminals and terrorists."

Minutes of Evidence, Colin Greenwood, Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, January 29, 2003.

Obviously the laws forbidding the mentally ill and dangerous criminals to own guns are necessary and I could even go along with being able to pass a gun safety test but it would likely turn into a way to be "licensed" and taxed (user fee) and provide a backdoor registration or criminalization for failure to renew, etc. The key is to balance public safety with individual rights. Governments (once formed) dont want to recognize the rationale for citizen gun ownership (ie 2A)....i cite the Alien and Sedition Act in our country's infancy.

Originally posted by rusethorcain
reply to post by Honor93

 

Did you ever see a cart pull a horse?

Get real for crissakes. Children and Cops matter to me more than your right to protect yourself against things that go bump in the night. And btw (statistically) chances are you will only kill your dog or blow your own wife's head off in the dark.

what does carts being pulled by horses have to do with guns?
Ok, get real about what? my experience or yours?

hmmm, i admit i don't follow you because at one point, (if human) we were all children and last i checked (at least common acceptance says) all cops are humans too, although some still act like children today ... so, what is your point there?

Me? i prefer focusing on the animals (they do it for me) ... humans be damned (as we are from birth) --> more often than not, humans turn out to be a waste of effort, anyway.

Thanks for assuring me that you are just one more reason why i NEED my protection ... clearly, you aren't anyone i could count on and considering the EMTs beat the cops arrival, well, can't really count on them, either.

Actually, history (personal history that is) has only shown that i am a responsible, alert and well trained owner. the only person i've shot (intentionally without killing) was an armed intruder ... and i'd do it again in heartbeat.
btw, i am the female and my male mate was directly in the line of fire ... had the bullet exited, he could have been harmed, seriously. However, i know my limits and that of the ammunition used. Training should be mandatory ... but in my opinion, that's all.

As for 'mental defects' and the prevention of legal purchases ... what IS the point besides more bureaucracy?
Mentally challenged will get a gun if they want one -- legal has no bearing on the decision.
Laws do not prevent criminals from acting out. (uhhh, ehhm, neither do the police)
Laws do not prevent criminals from acquiring adequate means to act out. (neither do the police)
and, Laws do not assist the victims, in any way, shape or form. (nor are they designed to)

Now, if you care to have a discussion, be happy to oblige. If your gonna continue with nonsense, address someone else. fyi -- i care for 18 felines and no dogs at the moment.

if i may go out on a limb here ... i think most people (across the globe) are conveniently confusing "being armed" with "having a weapon (of any kind)".

when a criminal is 'armed' ... it is with "Intent", rather a weapon of choice.
*** ie: i have plenty of weapons, i'm just lacking intent to harm anyone.
--> in other words, just because i have weapons, doesn't mean i am or shall be a criminal.

criminals can be 'deadly' with merely a hand (if they know what they're doing) ... no tools needed.
criminals are intermingled with every society, in every part of the world.
limiting their 'weapon of choice' does nothing to reduce the INTENT to harm or destroy.

When society begins to address the intent, (the real weapon) ... guns will no longer be necessary.
The problem lies with individual intent, not weapons of any kind, especially guns.