Time to take the gun from the American public!

reply to post by Xcathdra


In my area 3 minutes is a pipe dream, average response for code 3 emergencies is just over 11 minutes in our part of the county. Small town's, gotta love them. Both of our cops are obese, nice guys, but well fed. Since we only have 2 they work 10 hour shifts, so for 14 hours they are only "on call", which means they could be doing anything within 5 miles of town. It's like a volunteer fire department response time. And if the weather is bad, it could be hours if not days. I've been through 3 blizzards where nobody could get into or out of town for 2 to 3 days. The Halloween blizzard of 1990 dumped 38 inches of snow with sustained winds of 50mph gusting to 80. Even after it all ended it took 2 days to get the roads open. The wind compacted the drifts so much the plows bounced off of them, they had to break the drifts up with backhoes and loaders.

I see cases in the news all the time where a gun in the hands of a trained person could have averted the tragedy. I'm a permit holder and have been one for 12 years. Under the old system you had to get permission from the Sheriff or police chief in your town. It was good for one year and there were no requirements or fees. Then about 6 years ago they passed a carry law that requires law enforcement to give a reason if they deny a permit, and if it isn't a good one they can get a nig fine. It requires 8 hours of classroom and 1 hour of range time, and $150 fee to the sheriff's department, but is good for 5 years.

Since the violent gun crime rate in my state dropped instead of increasing, I have to wonder how fast things would improve in Chicago of D.C. if they loosened the gun laws there.

Some people wet their pants at the sight of a gun, and see no reason for anyone other than a policeman or soldier to own one. The irony of course being that they are free to feel that way because of guns. And we will just have to tolerate these folks, they obviously need the protection. Pacifists don't last long once the shooting starts. Makes sense if you're a believer in Darwinism.

As I neither have faith in nor trust for my government, it's safe to say I agree with you that putting the lives of my family in their hands is foolish. I prefer to be an active participant in my own survival.

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious

The thing that YOU can't get your head around is that the ONLY way the police have successfully gotten rid of the majority of criminals hand-guns (and related hand gun crime) is THROUGH regulation.

When was the last time ANY regulation wrung your arm up between your shoulder blades and took ANYTHING away from you? Guns are inanimate objects. They do nothing on their own. Likewise, regulations are abstract concepts, and THEY do nothing on their own. Regulations do not have hands to take anything, nor do they have pockets to carry what they take in.

PEOPLE disarm people, and when they are endangered, they will do that with or without a regulation.

There's no place on earth that has ever commercialised a weapon to the extent the US has and managed to keep it away from criminals. Never has happened, never will happen.

Interesting concept, since there is no place on Earth that has ever "commercialized" guns like the US. Viking Age Scandanavia did so with swords, and feudal Japan did so with numerous implements, but nowhere has the gun been held in the regard it is in America, so you really have no basis for comparison.

Scandanavia in particular did fairly good in keeping the peace, in spite of their reverence for the sword, just as we do here in America.

The only way to get rid of the 26K gun related murders you note is to get rid of all the hand guns, from criminals and law abiding citizens alike.

But gun owners won't ever do that.

They'd rather see 26K people die needlessly every year so that they can protect a fake right to hand guns.

Oddly, criminals seem to be able to arm themselves wherever they find themselves, in spite of the lack of "commercialization" of this or that. You are only advocating that they should be left to do so in peace, unmolested by those pesky people who think it is their right to defend themselves against such on an equal footing.

The arms the Founding Fathers envisioned militias bearing weren't hand guns.

They were not limited to handguns, but handguns are included in the category,

Most rational people realise that there can be guns and safety, but not the way the US is doing things.

All of my guns have a safety - even in the US.

There's guns in many countries, lots in some countries, but no other rich country has the rate of gun related deaths the US does. Pretending that that is fine, or that it's some abstraction that has nothing to do with your hand gun is delusional. Switzerland, lots of guns, few hand guns, almost no gun crime, same in the UK and Canada.

Oddly enough, none of those countries ARE the US. I can't say that I care how they do things - I don't live there, so it's not my problem. As long as I'm here, at least I have a fighting chance. There, not so much.

Continue deluding yourself, I know you will, but that's the reality of this situation. The proliferation of hand guns, more than anything else, is why the US murder rate is so high.

You've no business schooling any one at all about "reality", especially if you're going to employ fantasy to do it.

Originally posted by Shminkee Pinkee
I'll wager a lot of gun owners, are not trained to the same standard as a Police Officer or Soldier with their firearm, and 20 or more so people panic firing into a crowd at a gunmen can only end badly.

Wall Of Text.

In the US, in my state, I had to qualify 80% or better on a modified FBI course (the same the Police use for their qualifications). The Police only have to meet 70% or better. You're right, there IS a disparity between civilian and police training! Licensed civilians are held to higher firearms standards, not lower.

You've got all the bombs, who the eff is going to mess with you.

You don't take a knife to a gun-fight. Likewise, you don't take a gun to a bomb-fight. We're not talking about banning bombs here - they've already done that, and somehow, people STILL manage to get ahold of them!

Your media doesn't help, US media is run on generating ratings, so it glorifies, distorts facts, lies, and sensationalises stories in order to keep you fearful from everything and everyone,

True, and the anti-gun organizations such as the SPLC lead the charge into fear and unfounded paranoia via a distortion of facts and outright lies, sensationalizing everything they can find, and in the more entertaining cases, what they can make up as they go!

I know guns don't kill people, People do, but it's a damn site easier to kill people, if you have a gun, and allow crazy people to own them and make them as easily available as they are.

I'm happy for you - no, seriously, I really am! This single sentence tell me that you have never run across a killer, for if you had, you would not have said it.

There is another thread about taking cars away from the American public as so many people die in cars accidents, this is true, however the motor car was not oringinally invented as a weapon, neither was the baseball bat, or the bread knife, but the firearm was.

I hope you don't seriously think the dead think "it's ok - what I was killed with wasn't originally designed to be a weapon - it just accidentally worked out that way!" Fact is, iit doesn't matter to the dead in the least what an implement was originally designed for - it doesn't make them any less dead. Explosives were originally designed to move rocks, dirt, and tree stumps out of the way. By your logic, they should be legal, and found in every cupboard.

Nunchaku are another example. They were originally designed as agricultural implements, the thresh rice. Now they are banned altogether in several US localities.

Original design means nothing to the dead - or those fear inspired souls who buy into the propaganda against an inanimate object.

For safety obviously we all have to take driving tests, well perhaps, there should gun owner tests, training on how to be a responsible owner, if the gun lovers truely care about the Right to Bare Arms, then surely you should do all you can to ensure that the people who own them do so properly.

I already do that. I do not, however, agree that a test is required to exercise a right - that makes it not a right at all, but a privilege which is subject to revocation.

That when you pass this test you get your licence to own a firearm. I know there are a lot of responsible gun owners, and they should not be penalised because som basket case decides to go postal, but as responsible gun owners you must agree surely that not everyone is capable of owning a gun responsibly, perhaps certian people should not be allowed to own guns, ie people with mental problems. . Illegal firearms are a matter for the Police, if you take the Law into your hands then you will become the Criminal.

Peace

Until they commit a crime, they have not committed a crime. What you are suggesting is proactive penalization, before a crime has ever been committed.

You have a strange view of the Police, from my perspective. As public servants, they work for US - not the other way 'round. If that be the case, they get their authority from the people, not the other way 'round. In other words, we ARE the law - they only represent it. We do not "take the law into our own hands", we GENERATE it.

Originally posted by AGWskeptic

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by AGWskeptic

 

Yeah, it was a stupid answer to a stupid comparison in the first place.

The number of deaths or injuries directly attributable to incorrect and irresponsible use of a cell phone pales into insignificance when compared to the number caused by guns.

To use it as some sort of defence of your second amendment is pretty lame really.

I'm sure there must be better defence's?

Can you back that up?

My nephew had 2 car accidents in a month texting while driving, yet he never accidentally shot anyone.

I don't think the 2 numbers are even close. Texting kills way more than gun accidents.

Texting kills roughly 3X the number of people around here that guns do, and injures many, MANY more.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Secondly I dont think any citizen should ever be required to rely on a government agency for personal / property protection in an emergency situation. If its possible to be a good witness and observe then im all for it but when push comes to shove, the civilians and criminals are present and law enforcement is usually minutes away. Anyone who has been involved in an emergency situation knows that while 2-3 minutes seems like a short time, in reality it can be an eternity and can mean the difference between life and death.

That's a fact. The fastest response I EVER got was 3 minutes, and that was because my next door neighbor was a deputy who recognized my name when the call went out. Once they arrived, I unloaded my pistol and put it on the dryer, went to the door with my hands up, and they, for their part, knocked and waited at a safe distance so I could identify them, because, as she told her partner "he's armed to the teeth, but he ain't dangerous if he knows who you are."

The fellow who was trying to get in hauled ass when he heard the sirens. he left so fast that he left his burglary tools laying there, and ran off into the woods. When they found him, my neighbor told him that he ought to count his lucky stars that they got him before he got into the house where I was.

There is a lot of truth to the old adage that "when seconds count, help is only minutes away."

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
Continue deluding yourself, I know you will, but that's the reality of this situation. The proliferation of hand guns, more than anything else, is why the US murder rate is so high.

Out of curiosity how did the gun control laws in Sweden save those 77 kids who were hunted down and murdered by an armed wingnut? If the gun control laws work so well, as you erronisouly like to believe, then how did the guy get a gun and ammo?

How did those gun control laws work that day? The very people it was designed to protect were in fact murdered because of the law itself.

This is not a hard concept tpo understand so pay attention -
A law abiding citizen follows the law.

A criminal does not and will not.

Im not sure exactly what is confusing you...

The police officers on the island were shot and killed... Why? Because the gun control laws you hold so dear, that state only certain people can own / possess a gun. In this case it also prevented law enforcement from carrying a gun. They had to wait to get command staff authorization to go back to the station and arm themselves.

The gun control law created a mindset that people will follow the law. People who follow the law are not called criminals... Gun control laws protect criminals, not law abiding citizens. Out of curiosity if gun control laws work so well, then why are police departments in those countries armed with guns?

Are they armed because of the law abiding citizens or are they armed because of those who don't follow the law, also called a criminal?

The Geneva Declaration - Violent Crime Rate - 2004 - 2011

List of Countries by firearm-related deaths

The United Kingdom, Austrailia, China - All countries with extremely strict gun control laws. All countries that arm their law enforcement. All countries who still experience gun related deaths while in the commission of a crime. All 3 countries have extremely strict punishment for being in possession of a gun and using it in a crime. In China its a good way to get the death penalty.

Why is that an important thing to note? Because in China there are people who are so devoted to criminal endeavors that they will willingly violate a law, knowing full well the punishment is death if they get caught, to ensure their criminal action is successful. China's concept of Due Process is non existent... The concept of innocent until proven guilty is non existent.

Criminals, whether in the US or China, are going to continue to do what they want knowing full well what the consequences are.

Gun control does NOT work.


The 2nd amendment is not something people from other countries understand, and most likely never will. I think its goofy for countries to still have Monarchs, which by the way are responsible for more deaths in the world than the US and its 2nd amendment.

In countries who have very strict gun control laws the emphesis is on the law to prevent criminals from getting the weapon. It also forces the law abiding citizens to be beholden to the government for their own protection. What good is the government going to do when you are face to face with an individual demanding your money while pointing a gun at you?

If anything you luck out and the criminal hauls ass...
There are cases where that does not happen and all the police can do, the ones who you are relying on to protect you, is to process the crime scene methodically in hopes of finding evidence on who your killer is.

Maybe this will help some understand the US -
The primary job of civilian / domestic law enforcement is NOT to protect the individual. Law Enforcement job is to protect society as a whole. However if you really want to blame someone for the 2nd Amendment then may I suggest you speak to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the 2nd. She should have some family photos from back in the day, along with the governments of France, Porrtugal, Spain, Russia etc etc etc.

You know, what I find the most absurd about this thread is how people are going after the US because of a law that allows our citizens to own / possess and use a firearm.

Why are people so concerned about the US yet completely fail to hold the same standard when it comes to other countries where gun related deaths are higher, like South America and parts of Africa / Asia.

If I had to guess is it because in the Us we have the rule of law which allows people to criticise the government and the laws and people who make them. I always find it humerous when groups scream about how people are treated all over the world, yet mysteriously remain quiet / won't protest in countries like China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iran.....

So when the going gets tough, the tough goes for a coffee break at Starbucks and blog?

Originally posted by AGWskeptic

At the first house was a gun, and a guy who knew how to use it.

But he was being a good citizen and storing the ammunition in a locked case seperate from the gun, just like the feds told him to. So even though he could get to the gun, he couldn't get to the ammo.

Yeah that law makes no sense to me.

Why don't they allow you to store the ammunition with the gun in the same place?

Anything that hinders availablity only encourages crime.

reply to post by Xcathdra

The United Kingdom, Austrailia, China - All countries with extremely strict gun control laws. All countries that arm their law enforcement. All countries who still experience gun related deaths while in the commission of a crime.

Of course we still have gun related crime - just not to the levels you do in the USA.
8775 gun related crimes in the USA in one year compared to 43 in the UK gives testament to that.

If guns were more easily available then they would be used more often, pretty simple really.

You know, what I find the most absurd about this thread is how people are going after the US because of a law that allows our citizens to own / possess and use a firearm.

Don't know about that.
Seems to me that far too many people take any sort of criticism of anything American automatically as a sign that a person is overtly anti-American.

I have repeatedly stated that I firmly believe that The Right To Bear Arms as defined in The Second Amendment is really a matter for Americans and Americans only.

It's just not needed and probably more importantly not wanted in most other countries.
Different countries, different cultures, different requirements.

And to be honest we get a bit sick of American posters butting into at all sorts of threads saying that this or that wouldn't happen if we had The Right To Bear Arms.
Well guess what - it would and it does.

Please let us do things our way whilst you do things your way.

ETA.

If I had to guess is it because in the Us we have the rule of law which allows people to criticise the government and the laws and people who make them.

What, you think no-one criticises governments here in the UK and continental Europe?

reply to post by Freeborn


Wasn't there a time where people could own a pistol in the UK?

Now you can only own a rifle or shotgun for hunting?

It seams the people on the other side of the pond (here on ats) think we (American's) are all a bunch of asshats so WTF do you care if we kill each other? Grow up put on your big boy pants and enjoy the nanny state you have allowed to come to be. And leave us alone.....or come try and do something about it. lol

Law abiding citizens do not buy guns to commit crime or to kill people. They buy a gun to protect what is theirs or there loved ones or provide food. Criminals will get guns or make guns (really not that hard) even if outlawed. Guess we here in the good old US are at least smart enough to make a gun if they are not available.

Frankly I don't give two craps what others think about guns cause I know if they come to take from me, kill or hurt my family, OR take my GUNS. Ill shoot cause I have a gun! Soooooo come and get um!

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by reitze
reply to post by nenothtu

 

I'm referring to robber-barron anti-trust sherman act sort of concepts. And when things aren't stopped from being manopolies there ceases to be any competition so first the prices get fixed while the market itself gets robbed.

So you believe monopolies are "too big to fail"?

Otherwise I hope you like playing rollerball.

I've never played it, so I can't be sure, but I probably wouldn't like it any more than football, baseball, basketball, hockey, etc. I'm just not a team player, and spectator sports just put me to sleep.

Yea, the monopolies like Govt Motors, S&L, and soo many others that get bailed out instead of being allowed to fail... and how'd they get that big to start with? Buying up the competition, not by organic growth.

And my comment on rollerball was a wise crack insinuating a post-corporate monopolization of the world analogous to the dystopia of the movie Rollerball 1975. Perhaps you'd enjoy watching it. Here's the full movie:

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Gun control has changed over the years in reaction to Hungerford / Dunblane etc.

I think it's very hard to get a licence for hand guns but I do know quite a lot of people who have shotguns etc and use them regularly whether shooting game etc or for sporting purposes.
They have to meet strict security checks and there are stringent regulations about how they are stored etc.

Of course it's possible for people who 'know the right people' to obtain illegal arms but relatively few people actually do.
Being caught with an illegal armed weapon and having one whilst committing a crime are considered serious offences and are punished relatively severely.

Most criminals only choose to use guns of any kind as a last resort in armed robberies or against each other.
Very few armed robberies result in a gun being discharged; the consequences for anyone found guilty of doing so is life imprisonment.

As a slight aside it is interesting to note that The Bill Of Rights 1689 which is still in effect ensured;

no royal interference in the freedom of the people to have arms for their own defence as suitable to their class and as allowed by law (simultaneously restoring rights previously taken from Protestants by James II)

en.wikipedia.org...

Some people interpret this to mean that we have The Right To Bear Arms, however, it merely establishes that it is Parliament that determines Law and not the monarch.

reply to post by scepter

Grow up

That really is quite ironic.

put on your big boy pants and enjoy the nanny state you have allowed to come to be.

Don't believe all read; sure we have some problems but I assure you it's nowhere near as bad over here as some would have you believe.

And leave us alone

With pleasure.

.....or come try and do something about it. lol

And you say WE should grow up.....

In the mean time while you guys still dream about gun control, I bought new toys for my KelTec Sub 2000.......You like it???

Oh Yeah Gun Control !!!!!..........Not gonna happen

reply to post by Freeborn


Thanks for the reply. Star for you!

I made it through 34 or so pages of this thread before I quit from sheer exhaustion.

And the whole time I kept trying to decide which side I'm on .. and I still can't.

You see, I am in the US and we DO have guns. Quite a few, in fact. And I would be a bit upset if you came and took them all away from me, because then what would I do the next time a rabid raccoon showed up in my yard? Throw rocks at it? Try to stab it with a knife? No, thank you. Please let me keep my gun(s) instead.

On the other hand, I'm just as puzzled as some of you by the "cold dead hands" people. If the government or the army showed up to take them, I'd hand them over. When it comes to home/self defense, I still have a pit bull, two chainsaws, a weedeater, and a recurve bow I will admittedly need to practice with quite a bit. I can also buy a good crossbow since I may not have the strength to pull a large recurve bow effectively. I can also get on the internet and get the recipe for making my own homemade bombs, and I think I already know how to make a Molotov cocktail. Guns are convenient when one is threatened, be it a rattlesnake, rabid raccoon, or would-be home invader. Taking my guns will hardly leave me defenseless, however - I'll just have to adapt.

That said, why the focus on guns? Really. Please, no matter which side you're on, stop and think about it.
Why the focus on GUNS?

Because the MSM media focuses on guns, that's why! Gun killings and gun accidents are always big news and usually make it to national news if not world news.

Other accidental deaths and killings usually remain "local" news. Leaving illness out of the equation (because it's really irrelevant to the topic at hand), are most deaths in America due to guns? Not even close. Drownings, car accidents, slips and falls, fires, and a multitude of other ways one can suddenly and unexpectedly meet the Grim Reaper overwhelmingly outnumber deaths by firearm. But those accidental deaths don't make national or world news. You hear me?

Now let's talk violent crime. I'm not going to argue who has the most violent crime or why. Although violent crames should be (in my opinion) shameful to all humanity, they are and always have been part of human nature. Was there less killing before there were guns? Not hardly. A medieval catapult is as much a weapon of mass destruction as a machine gun.

Yes, guns are quick, easy, and convenient. Maybe a few - a few - people would be saved if a gun weren't handy to be picked up and used, whether to perpetrate violence on self or another. But most people who are angry or crazy enough to go out and kill people with a gun will just find another way to do it if there's no gun handy.

GUNS are not the issue. The MSM have made guns the issue, and in my opinion all of you on both sides who see guns as the issue are equally brainwashed and distracted. The desire of people to harm each other - and sometimes themselves - is the underlying issue, and taking away guns will not change that.

Here's my rabid raccoon again. The quickest and easiest thing for me to do when I saw it was grab my gun and shoot it, because I had one and I had it very handy. But if I didn't - couldn't - have a gun handy, then you better believe I would have something else in place and ready to deal with it, even if I'm not absolutely sure right now what that would be. Because the most likely time for any kind of trouble - including rabid raccoons - to show up is when you aren't prepared.

My Dad (career US Army) taught me how to use (no, not just shoot, but clean, oil, load, unload, disassemble and assemble) a handgun when I was 8 years old. He showed me where that gun was kept (in the nightstand next to my parents' bed) and made ME responsible for it when he was in Korea, or Viet Nam, for a year at a time because my mother was afraid of guns and wouldn't have used it. Did I ever touch that gun? Yes, I did, I periodically cleaned, oiled, and reloaded it when he wasn't home. Did I ever use it? No. Have I ever pointed a gun at another human being? No. Would I, if threatened? Well, I like to think so. If it ever happens, I'll let you know.

Do I feel safer with guns in the house? Yes! Mostly for the vermin and varmints .. I know my husband and I would figure out some way to protect the household if we couldn't have guns, but a gun sure is easy, convenient, relatively safe compared to some things, and trustworthy. Usually when you point a 12 gauge at something and fire, it goes down or at least runs like hell.

So I'm asking you, please, stop and think for a minute about what I've said. Why is the focus so overwhelmingly on GUNS when there are, as the TV show says, a thousand other ways to die? If every single accidental death, regardless of cause, were reported like all gun deaths are, the gun deaths would be buried in the avalanche. And as for violent crimes, it's been said - those who want to will find a way, gun or no gun.

reply to post by nenothtu


Sorry, but did Scandinavia manage to keep swords out of the hands of criminals?

reply to post by cdesigns


Thats an interesting KelTec.

Another interesting dilemma they will face is the constitution itself. On the off chance the 2nd amendment is repealed and we adopt the UN laws (hypothetical) I dont see how the guns can be collected / confiscated.

2nd is repealed, making gun ownership illegal for civilians. Law Enforcement can't just collect the guns as that would have 4th amendment implications. It would also run smack dab into ex post facto issues.

A law cannot be retroactive meaning the gun owners cannot be punished for being in possession of a gun.