Gun Control

[TheNoNamedOne]

Do you support gun control laws*? More specifically, if a gun ban were part of a comprehensive gun control law, would you support that? I would.

I am for gun control due to the high number of crimes committed by guns in the U.S. I do not adhere to the spiffy little slogan of "guns don't kill people, people kill people" as a justification for possession or the 'inocence' of guns. After all, we wouldn't justify the public having grenades by inserting that into the construct.

Americans need to give up their cowboy love affair with firearms. Guns have caused more harm in today's modern U.S. society than they have prevented.

---------------------------------------------
* Debate primarily targeted to U.S. society

[socalheart]

I would support limitations on personally owned guns (big or small), but not the elimination of personally owned guns. It makes sense to me to own a hunting rifle for deer and such. It doesn't make sense to me to own a military grade assault weapon, to protect yourself. (Protect you from what, the Mary Kay commandos?! :D heh.)

The Second Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #Text
), as passed by the House and Senate, reads:
“ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. ”
In this case, owning a gun would be beneficial. Hopefully, it never comes to this.

[newvalor]

guns don't kill people, people kill people. putting any type of more strict gun ban won't stop crime or death, as people will figure out other ways to do that.

When the second amendment was originally established it was in the favor of strict gun control compared to the wild west times, but allowed only certain individuals to own and only the military. It was reviewed and redone to work in a manner offering that almost anybody could own one, the U.S. still is the only country in the world that has legal rights to own a gun, most other countries have systems you have to go thru just to obtain the license to purchase. We do have systems to help stop the sale to those who should not be buying guns, but as you see with the advances in technology and so many people looking for the quicker buck, many people use false identities. Thats why I'm hoping within the next few yrs the retina scanning system will be put in place, no way you can fake past those.

[DougP]

I can see how gun control works. I can see why so many are in support of it. The one thing I don't see is the rate of murders dropping significantly is a gun ban was in place. Seriously we have some very very sick people in the US. I think tougher punishments would deter violence a bit as well. If you murder someone in cold blood you get murdered in cold blood. Simple very simple. And we don't have to keep the prisons overflowing. By the time we get rid of enough bad apples maybe people would choose to leave guns alone without the need of a ban.

[dk]

I'm all for allowing people to own a handgun in their home for self-defense and for owning a rifle for hunting, but how many people really need to own an automatic?

Having said that, I'm for it, but I think it should be AT THE VERY LEAST as hard as getting a Japanese driver's license. You should have to spend a month or two running around getting paperwork, taking tests, learning safety, and learning how to fire it before you can take it home.

[DougP]

yup I agree ^ Too bad a lot of weapons being used in murders are either unregistered or have been in circulation for a long time now.

[Boost]

but how many people really need to own an automatic?



Luckily your average joe cannot just go and purchase an automatic weapon. There is a special license you have to obtain to buy these and it is a lengthy, expensive process.

The assult rifles anyone can buy are pretty much just a fancy looking rifle that shoots semi-auto. I know hunters who like to use assult rifles to hunt with because it eliminates the need to cock after each shot. Just point and pull the trigger.

As for myself, I am for gun control laws in the form of making sure there is a thorough back ground check, waiting period, so on. However, I think that honest citizens with a clean background should be free to own any type of weapon they like minus full-auto military style weapons. If I want to own an AR-15 assult rifle for sport shooting, then that should be well within my rights so long as I have a clean record both criminally and mentally.

[atb35]

There is no purpose to controlling who could own guns. Like others have stated, I would be all for having to take a gun ownership class, necessary paperwork, and actually having to own a license just to purchase or use a gun. In addition to that, our liberal-ass bleeding-heart country needs to grow some balls and be more strict on punishments. I completely agree with DougP...if you have video evidence, or enough witnesses (like that guy who shot a judge in fron of the courthouse), line these morons up and spend the 25 cents on a .38 round and put it between their eyes....on national TV!

There is NO deterrent to killing someone these days...what is the worst that will happen? You will sit on death row for 8-20 years and MAYBE be executed...oh, unless committed the murder in one of the states that dont believe in capital punishment.

[Muku]

Having said that, I'm for it, but I think it should be AT THE VERY LEAST as hard as getting a Japanese driver's license. You should have to spend a month or two running around getting paperwork, taking tests, learning safety, and learning how to fire it before you can take it home.
Actually that is what or just about what it takes to get a license here to own a shotgun. Handguns are illegal of course but it is possible to get a shotgun license.

The only type of firearm which a Japanese citizen may even contemplate acquiring is a shotgun.[5] Sportsmen are permitted to possess shotguns for hunting and for skeet and trap (p.27)shooting, but only after submitting to a lengthy licensing procedure.[6] Without a license, a person may not even hold a gun in his or her hands.

The licensing procedure is rigorous. A prospective gun owner must first attend classes and pass a written test.[7] Shooting range classes and a shooting test follow; 95 per cent pass.[8] After the safety exam, the applicant takes a simple 'mental test' at a local hospital, to ensure that the applicant is not suffering from a readily detectable mental illness. The applicant then produces for the police a medical certificate attesting that he or she is mentally healthy and not addicted to drugs.[9]

The police investigate the applicant's background and relatives, ensuring that both are crime free. Membership in 'aggressive' political or activist groups disqualifies an applicant.[10] The police have unlimited discretion to deny licenses to any person for whom 'there is reasonable cause to suspect may be dangerous to other persons' lives or properties or to the public peace'.[11]

Gun owners are required to store their weapons in a locker, and give the police a map of the apartment showing the location of the locker. Ammunition must be kept in a separate locked safe. The licenses also allow the holder to buy a few thousand rounds of ammunition, with each transaction being registered.[12]

Civilians may also apply for licenses to possess air rifles--low-power guns that are powered by carbon dioxide rather than by gunpowder.

Civilians can never own handguns. Small calibre rifles were once legal, but in 1971, the Government forbade all transfers of rifles. Current rifle license holders may continue to own them, but their heirs must turn them into the police when the license-holder dies.[13] Total remaining rifle licenses are 27,000.[14] Even shotguns and air rifles, the two legal types of firearm, are becoming rarer and rarer, as few people find it worthwhile to pass through a burdensome gun licensing process. The number of licensed shotguns and air rifles declined from 652,000 in 1981 to 493,373 in 1989.[15]

Although there is no mandatory minimum penalty for unlicensed firearm possession, 81 per cent of sentences for illegal firearm or sword possession are imprisonment for a year or more, perhaps because most gun crimes are perpetrated by professional criminals.[16] The maximum penalty is ten years in prison and a one million yen fine.

Gun crime does exist, but in very low numbers. There were only 30 crimes committed in 1989 with shotguns or air rifles.[17] With no legal civilian handgun possession, Japan experiences in an average year less than 200 violent crimes perpetrated with a handgun, of which almost all are perpetrated by Boryokudan, organised crime groups.[18] Most gun crimes involve only unlicensed possession, and not the commission of another crime. Including the possession cases, there are about 600 handgun crimes a year and 900 long gun crimes.[19] (p.28)In the years after the Second World War, former soldiers were the major source of illegal guns. Today, illegal guns are usually smuggled from overseas (especially from the Philippines and the United States) by organised crime gangs which also import pornography, drugs, and illegal immigrants.[20] A small number of craftsmen specialise in converting toy and model guns into working handguns for criminals.[21] Gangster appetites for guns, and success in procuring them is said by the police to be increasing.[22] Of weapons confiscated from gangsters, guns accounted for only six per cent in 1960, but 39 per cent in 1988.[23] On the other hand, the number of real handguns confiscated by the police has fallen from 1,338 in 1985 to 875 in 1989. The number of converted toy handguns seized has fallen from a high of 569 in 1985 to 128 in 1989.[24]

Because gun crime still exists in tiny numbers, the police make gun licenses increasingly difficult to obtain. The test and all-day lecture are held once a month. The lecture almost always requires that the licensee take a full day off from work--not a highly regarded activity by Japanese employers. An annual gun inspection is scheduled at the convenience of the police, and also requires time off from work. Licenses must be renewed every three years, with another all-day safety lecture and examination at police headquarters.

Tokyo is the safest major city in the world. Only 59,000 licensed gun owners live in Tokyo.[25] Per one million inhabitants, Tokyo has 40 reported muggings a year; New York has 11,000.[26] The handgun murder rate is at least 200 times higher in America than Japan.[27] The official homicide rate in Japan in 1988 was 1.2 homicide cases per 100,000 population, while in America it was 8.4 homocide cases per 100,000.[28]

Robbery is almost as rare as murder. Indeed, armed robbery and murder are both so rare that they usually make the national news, regardless of where they occur.[29] Japan's robbery rate is 1.4 per 100,000 inhabitants. The reported American rate is 220.9.[30] People walk anywhere in Japan at night, and carry large sums of cash.[31]


Love to see laws like this enforced in the US, never happen but one can only wish.

[TheNoNamedOne]

guns don't kill people, people kill people. putting any type of more strict gun ban won't stop crime or death, as people will figure out other ways to do that.

This is a dishonest framing of the argument for banning guns. Gun control advocates never assert that banning guns will eliminate people from killing people. There is no argument about people being creative enough to find a means to off whoever they want to off.

Banning guns though would impact on the numbers of people killed and on those even following through with an intent to kill. For example, a person needs more strength, energy, and time to try and massacre a large group of people with a knife than if they had a gun. That allows the police to respond before the body count gets rolling along. Furthermore, an assailant with a knife attacking a group of people has a good chance of being overwhelmed and disarmed by the group once they understand what is taking place.

Often, those options are not available to a group facing someone armed with firearms and the police arrive too late.

While semantically correct, that guns do not kill people, people do, guns multiply the power of the one weilding the gun and therefore multiplies the criminals' victim numbers. It has a huge magnifying effect that increases the horrors of crimes in scope.

It also allows for weaker persons, who because of their lesser physical stature and who would otherwise be sensible enough to know not to get violent, resort to violence with guns because not only do they level the playing field in physical strength, it empowers them to surpass those they have targeted to kill. A skinny runt boy (or girl) would -- probably even armed with a knife -- have a high probability of being disarmed and his ass kicked if he approached a large athletic jock in a fit of rage. A gun on the other hand would stop a jock from yards away without even havng to get up close and personal about it.

Also, let's consider the deaths caused by stray bullets missing their intended target and killing others not at the immediate scene of the attack. I don't think I have ever heard of a stray knife impacting into the body of someone a block away.

Banning guns would lower deaths in violent crimes.

[dk]

For example, a person needs more strength, energy, and time to try and massacre a large group of people with a knife than if they had a gun. That allows the police to respond before the body count gets rolling along. Furthermore, an assailant with a knife attacking a group of people has a good chance of being overwhelmed and disarmed by the group once they understand what is taking place.
Guns aren't even the weapon of choice if you wish to inflict mass casualty. You can easily find information online on how to make a bomb with a few household ingredients. Just look at how things are being done in the middle east as of lately. If you had a wish to take out a large group of people, those would be the people to read up on.

[DougP]

This is a dishonest framing of the argument for banning guns. Gun control advocates never assert that banning guns will eliminate people from killing people. There is no argument about people being creative enough to find a means to off whoever they want to off.

Banning guns though would impact on the numbers of people killed and on those even following through with an intent to kill. For example, a person needs more strength, energy, and time to try and massacre a large group of people with a knife than if they had a gun. That allows the police to respond before the body count gets rolling along. Furthermore, an assailant with a knife attacking a group of people has a good chance of being overwhelmed and disarmed by the group once they understand what is taking place.

Often, those options are not available to a group facing someone armed with firearms and the police arrive too late.

While semantically correct, that guns do not kill people, people do, guns multiply the power of the one weilding the gun and therefore multiplies the criminals' victim numbers. It has a huge magnifying effect that increases the horrors of crimes in scope.

It also allows for weaker persons, who because of their lesser physical stature and who would otherwise be sensible enough to know not to get violent, resort to violence with guns because not only do they level the playing field in physical strength, it empowers them to surpass those they have targeted to kill. A skinny runt boy (or girl) would -- probably even armed with a knife -- have a high probability of being disarmed and his ass kicked if he approached a large athletic jock in a fit of rage. A gun on the other hand would stop a jock from yards away without even havng to get up close and personal about it.

Also, let's consider the deaths caused by stray bullets missing their intended target and killing others not at the immediate scene of the attack. I don't think I have ever heard of a stray knife impacting into the body of someone a block away.

Banning guns would lower deaths in violent crimes.


Sometimes guns help and sometimes they don't.

exhibit a

[TheNoNamedOne]

Guns aren't even the weapon of choice if you wish to inflict mass casualty.

For the average violent individual in the U.S. who wants to commit mass casualties for his own personal reasons, guns are the weapon of choice. Hence banning guns here would be one road bloc on that.

You can easily find information online on how to make a bomb with a few household ingredients.

The fact that there aren't equitable numbers of deaths committed by bombs constructed from internet instructions in the U.S. compared to guns, tells us that the gun is the choice of more convenience. Eliminating that choice, then those wanting to inflict mass casualties, have only the more inconvenient option to choose from.

Creating explosive devices, while can be done, entails much more planning and forethought than the person who just snaps and goes postal at the post office.

The longer the time it takes in leading up to committing a massacre allows for a greater chance of three things to possibly occur:


The potential killer loses the will to carry it out as time lapses
The potential killer's plan is foiled before carrying it out
The potential killer is killed or seriously injured while making or testing his device.


Just look at how things are being done in the middle east as of lately. If you had a wish to take out a large group of people, those would be the people to read up on.

Yes, but all very inconvenient. Besides, those attacks are not taking place with individuals acting on their own. Those are planned at a strategic level with a number of support people and networks bringing them to fruition. Many violent massacres and crimes in the U.S. are done soley at the individual level and if those could be impacted on, then the magnifying affect would be affected.

Look at Japan. Very few large numbers of victims when someone goes berserk and tries to get multiple victims. Guns while not proliferating here in Japan are obtainable, but because of the INCONVENIENCE factor of trying to obtain them is so high, criminals do not wait to get them. Indeed, those who snap and want to kill, resort to the most convenient thing available -- a knife, hammer, etc... And while Japan has links to the internet, too, those wanting to kill many when having snapped, do not logg on and begin creating bombs.

[dk]

Like I said in a previous post somewhere, most people are idiots.

I say, if you're going to do something, do it right! :army:

My use of "weapon of choice" was more towards "the right tool for the job". Also, I'm pretty sure, with the right mindset and the ability of one to keep his/her cool under pressure, a person could easily inflict as much killing with a knife as he/she could do with a gun before being brought down.

Also, we already know that it's VERY easy for anyone who wants to get a gun in the states to get a gun. Which is why I recommended that it at least be more of a pain in the butt than it is right now--at least as difficult as passing a Japanese driving test. That would deter A LOT of people from at least taking the legal approach.

And, well, there's always the illegal approach of just buying a gun off the street, which will never end. So, the criminals will have their guns, and the average citizen is supposed to defend him/herself from a breakin with... a golf club? A kitchen knife? Most citizens in America get guns for three reasons IMO: hunting, protection, hobby. These are three valid reasons.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Also, I'm pretty sure, with the right mindset and the ability of one to keep his/her cool under pressure, a person could easily inflict as much killing with a knife as he/she could do with a gun before being brought down.

If all things are equal, except for the weapon, then it is only logical that the more efficient and versatile weapon is going to cause more damage. If all things cancel out except for the weapon, then the right mindset or keeping cool becomes irrelevant. This is merely from an analytical point of view.

However, we know that in the real world all things are not equal, and that multiple murder victims are usually perpetrated by a criminal (sane or insane) with a gun. I just don't read very often, "Joe Schmoe X, highly skilled with a knife, entered work place and knifed to death his boss and 4 coworkers. He then held hostages, keeping the SWAT team at bay for 12 hours before finally stabbing himself to death."

However, similar stories with a gun instead of a knife outnumber that kind of thing by far. It leads me to believe that there are not too many highly skilled knife artists who ply their trade in killing. But, many novice gun handlers can resort to, and do use guns amateurishly to kill multiple people.

That is just real life.

Just because it is possible for someone with the right mindset and keeping cool under pressure to do what an amateur gun handler could do, is no reason to not put a bloc up against guns. I think to use that (as one among others) as an argument for being against banning guns is one that appeals to futility (falsely so), and because of that brushes aside or obfuscates the real fact of magnification of crimes by the average perpetrator of these kinds of multiple killings.

Surely you wouldn't refuse to use the bot/spam blocker on this forum simply because more skilled bots could come in another way, would you?

--------------------------------------
Sorry, dk, I will answer the other parts of this post of yours separately just to keep the reply from getting longer. Different point so a good place to cut it anyway.

[Fonze]

Banning guns would lower deaths in violent crimes.

What % of violent crimes are commited by unlicensed guns?
Let's then also take away guns from police since their strays have also killed.

[dk]

Another question. How often are these mass-killings taking place? Because the last major one I remember hearing about is the college shooting a year or so back.

There's a lot of things we could ban.

In terms of leading causes of death, assault doesn't even scratch 1%. I know, for you, gun control is a big issue, but in the grand scope of thing, I really don't think taking away others' rights to own a handgun/rifle is going to make much of a difference, and I hardly doubt 0.4% is worth taking away the rights of many. That's my opinion at least. If we do, we might as well not allow people to drive or drink alcohol or get wet when the temperature falls under a certain limit. We might as well ban fast food while we're at it too.

This data might be a little out of date (http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/causes.html), but it's probably still pretty accurate. If you find a better link, feel free to share it, although it really doesn't have much of a point to serve on this topic after this post.

As of that possibly outdated report, the top causes of death are:

Heart attack (28.5%)
Cancer (22.8%)
Stroke (6.7%)
Emphysema, Chronic Bronchitis (5.1%)
Accidents (4.4%)
Diabetes (3.0%)
Flu and Pnuemonia (2.7%)
Alzeimer's Senility (2.4%)
Kidney Disease (1.7%)
Systemic Infection (1.4%)
Suicide (1.3%)
Liver Disease (1.1%)
High Blood Pressure (0.8%)
Homicide (0.4%)
Other (17.4%)So, now, according to this report, homicide accounts for 0.4% of all deaths for that year at least.

Now, as far as homicide is concerned in the USA, guns do account for most of the crimes. I pulled the data from 2002 (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/weaponstab.htm) and this is what I found.

Handguns: 8,286 (51.1%)
Other: 2,588 (15.9%)
Other Guns: 2,538 (15.7%)
Knife: 2,018 (12.5%)
Blunt Object: 773 (4.7%)Guns accounted for 66.8% of all homicide in 2002. Which means guns accounted for 0.26% of all deaths during the year 2002. I don't know, maybe it's just me, but that does not seem nearly high enough TO ME AT LEAST to warrant taking away the priveledge of everyday citizens to own a gun.

Another flaw of reports like these are that they have no way of showing how many deaths could have been prevented if others had had a gun on them to defend themself or at the very least to deter a crime from happening.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Also, we already know that it's VERY easy for anyone who wants to get a gun in the states to get a gun. Which is why I recommended that it at least be more of a pain in the butt than it is right now--at least as difficult as passing a Japanese driving test. That would deter A LOT of people from at least taking the legal approach.

Short of a comprehensive ban, dk, I am all with you on making the acquiring of them much more difficult (like acquiring a Jpn driver's license <chuckle>).

But even with stricter acquisition standards, just them being available on the open market will increase the numbers of guns in society had they not be allowed to be sold to the public. Once in the public they are in households, and statistics show that a family member is more likely to be killed by a gun owned by a family member than from any othe gun.

Sudden passions of rage also lead one to using their own guns as well against a spouse or neighbor for some transgression. Yes, knives are used, too, in these cases, but again, for the average person, it takes more effort and time to kill with a knife than with a gun, and that at least allows for the possibility of calming down before things escalate to the point of no return i.e. death.

Violent criminals also gets weapons funneled to them by criminals who break into homes and steal legaly owned firearms and sell them later as part of their booty. Had these guns not existed in the burglarized homes, then these would be less guns making their way onto the street for crimes committed with them in the future. All guns (besides zip guns) used in all crimes in the U.S. which are not illegally imported, at one time started out as legal.

That[stricter acquisition laws] would deter A LOT of people from at least taking the legal approach.

Again, agreed. But, if guns were banned, it would deter even more people. An executive of Ford Motor Company who is a gun enthusiast, would under your suggestion, may be willing to go through the hassle of stricter acquiring laws in order take his gun to a range and enjoy it. I highly doubt though, that the average law abiding executive, eventhough they may be a gun enthusiast, would risk their carreers to obtain a gun on the black market. Just making the connections into that world would be risky -- not only with dealing with criminals but the possibility of getting caught in stings from the government would be real.

No, they would choose to accept that that gun enthusiast part of their nature would have to be satisfied with just pictures or visits to the museums. That said, burglar Bob visiting his home at night will not be walking away with a gun to sell on the black market to increase the number of guns on the street illegally.

[TheNoNamedOne]

And, well, there's always the illegal approach of just buying a gun off the street, which will never end.

Yes, there will always be a blackmarket for weapons of all kinds, be them manufactured professionally or amateurishly in basements. However, manufactured guns by factories come out mass produced in large quantities that keep the prices depressed making their route to homes and the streets quite rapid.

While black market guns exist and have a market, only those criminals with enough money will be able to purchase them. If Peter wants to seek revenge on his girlfriend by blasting her and his best friend but only has a $100 bucks when the neighborhood gun peddler is selling for $300, well, then, he is going to have to wait a little longer until he raises more cash. If that takes a week of petty robberies or more lawn cutting jobs, or finding a home with a firearm illegally possessed by the homeowner to burglarize, then a lot could happen during that time period that could cause his will to either falter on the matter, or he gets a new girlfriend, or his girlfriend and his best friend move away out of his reach etc....

[dk]

Still, how can you justify an outright ban on something that only accounts for 0.26% of all deaths? That's not even 3 out of 1000 people, not to mention that certain areas with higher crime rates are going to scew the statistics and the point that had others had guns or had THE THREAT that the other may be packing heat could have prevented the crime completely?

0.26% just does not qualify for a ban. That'd be like me blocking a whole IP range from accessing this website because 3 out of 1000 forum members from that ISP having been listed as known spammers.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Still, how can you justify an outright ban on something that only accounts for 0.26% of all deaths?

Because the numbers can be lowered simply by making it harder to kill.

0.26% just does not qualify for a ban. That'd be like me blocking a whole IP range from accessing this website because 3 out of 1000 forum members from that ISP having been listed as known spammers.

I would bet that tens of thousands of people drive drunk, or did before anti-drinking laws came about -- but only a small percentage of them (and compared to other diseases to address your longer list above) out of those tens of thousands every night who did drink and drive caused a death or serious injury -- yet, I am glad we do have anti drinking and driving laws. And those are credited with saving lives.

What is possible in areas of decreasing should be done if it can have a positive affect on saving lives. The percentage, particularly when the real numbers reach into the ten or twenty thousand (including crimes committed with a gun but not resulting in death) a year (over a decade 100,000~200,000) is an amount worthy of addressing in the most efficient way we could bring to the problem. A ban on gun ownership (like banning drinking and driving) would, while not pulling out gun crime by the roots (after all drinking and driving still happens), would at least cut it off at the trunk.

*Just crimes committed using a gun not even resulting in death makes a study of percentage in relation to guns climb much more than those only resulting in death. But, those guns facilitate crimes more conveniently for criminals than any other weapon.

[atb35]

But even with stricter acquisition standards, just them being available on the open market will increase the numbers of guns in society had they not be allowed to be sold to the public. Once in the public they are in households, and statistics show that a family member is more likely to be killed by a gun owned by a family member than from any othe gun.

Sudden passions of rage also lead one to using their own guns as well against a spouse or neighbor for some transgression. Yes, knives are used, too, in these cases, but again, for the average person, it takes more effort and time to kill with a knife than with a gun, and that at least allows for the possibility of calming down before things escalate to the point of no return i.e. death.

This all has to do with the mentality of people that own guns. My kids have always known I had a gun, but they dont know where it was. Now if I were to get so pissed at my ex (when we were together) that I wanted to kill her, I would have to dig in the closet, take the gun case out, unlock the gun case, unlock the trigger lock, go to the garage and get the bullets, load the gun then go on my shooting spree....

That is responsible ownership, you shouldnt punish everyone because SOME people are irresponsible.

Again, agreed. But, if guns were banned, it would deter even more people. An executive of Ford Motor Company who is a gun enthusiast, would under your suggestion, may be willing to go through the hassle of stricter acquiring laws in order take his gun to a range and enjoy it. I highly doubt though, that the average law abiding executive, eventhough they may be a gun enthusiast, would risk their carreers to obtain a gun on the black market. Just making the connections into that world would be risky -- not only with dealing with criminals but the possibility of getting caught in stings from the government would be real.


Banning guns wouldnt deter people from owning guns, it would just piss more people off. If someone wants a gun, they will own one. You hardly go to jail for beating the shit out of someone these days...what deterrent would there be for owning a gun if they were banned?

[Fonze]

Lets say guns were banned, not that anyone here said that, but then criminals would be able to extort people cause what are you gonna do call the cops. They can't be there 24/7.

Look at serial killers/rapist they strangel people. Without guns all these future murderers would use something else then people would want to ban that and were would it end.

I agree gun ownership should be tough, but new laws dont do anything new. They just need to be enforced.

[DougP]

I think banning guns will be as successfull at keeping guns out of criminal hands as prohibition was at keeping people from drinking or the war on drugs has been at stopping illegal narcotics use.

[TheNoNamedOne]

This all has to do with the mentality of people that own guns. My kids have always known I had a gun, but they dont know where it was.

Reminds me of my father believing I did not know where his porno stash was.

No parent should be surprised that they do not know that their children know every nook and cranny in the house. They are natural snoops and they ply that trade when eyes are not around -- even if very briefly.


Now if I were to get so pissed at my ex (when we were together) that I wanted to kill her, I would have to dig in the closet, take the gun case out, unlock the gun case, unlock the trigger lock, go to the garage and get the bullets, load the gun then go on my shooting spree....

Yes, that is exactly what some people do. I think I, or you (provided you are healthy) could accomplish that within a short time -- depending on how much dirty laundry in your clauset you would have to dig through (perhaps that is why you would want to off her -- derelict in laundry duties <smile>).

That is responsible ownership, you shouldnt punish everyone because SOME people are irresponsible.

It would only be 'punishment' (if that is the correct term, which I don't think it is) for the generation whose guns would be confiscated (though even then a grandfather clause could be factored in so that only new ownership would not come about and those with guns would not see their guns taken from them). After that generation a lifestyle without guns would be settled into.

After all, the average Japanese under the Sword and Gun Laws of Japan do not appear to be sufferingn under any punishment for not longer being able to possess and brandish swords in their homes or public, despite the fact that I am sure that many could do so responsibly.

Once it (gun laws) becomes an accepted way of life through law and new custom, then there is no perception of punishment from deprivation when those new laws come about that protect life.

[Fonze]

I guess we should live like they did in the Matrix and be controlled by tubes and computers then maybe we'd be in a utopia.

[dk]

Here are some interesting statistics: http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=726110

According to the top table, I would suggest that we look into why Americans want to kill each other so badly and fix that.

According to the bottom table:

72.8% of households in America have a gun.
44.4% of households in Canada have a gun.
57.4% of households in Switzerland have a gun.
54.3% of households in Finland have a gun.

Out of a million people:

75.9 people are killed in America every year with a gun.
26.0 people are killed in Canada every year with a gun.
11.7 people are killed in Switzerland every year with a gun.
29.6 people are killed in Finland every year with a gun.

So yes, the phrase "guns don't kill people, people kill people" rings true. In fact, I think it could be extended to say, "Guns don't kill people. People kill people. And Americans do it best"

So why, if more than 57% of all households in Switzerland have guns, is homicide with a gun so low? THIS is the issue that needs to be addressed. Not the banning of guns altogether. Why are Americans so violent? That is the issue. Solve that and we're golden.

And again, this data is old. If you find something more recent, feel free to post it, but I doubt much has changed since then aside from a few small percentages.

[DoctorP]

It could be that Americans are arrogant asses...that is why people want to kill them! That, and no one enjoys sitting next to some tub o lard...which is what most Americans are becoming. (I'm only semi-serious with this post, so everyone don't get your panties in a bunch...but it is true)

[TheNoNamedOne]

So, the criminals will have their guns, and the average citizen is supposed to defend him/herself from a breakin with... a golf club? A kitchen knife?

Most home burglaries are petty thieves and the majority of them do not result in confrontation. The percentage of them that do are quite small. Using your previous support of low percentage as a reason to not do something, then this low percentage should be reason enough for you to accept that a gun is not needed to protect one's home and occupants.

Most citizens in America get guns for three reasons IMO: hunting, protection, hobby. These are three valid reasons.

These are reasons, yes. Valid? No. Or at least nothing that in terms of necessity to have a right to them so that the average citizen (not a small subset of the populaton) can still lead a fulfilling life. Each one of those subsets is small in comparison to the total population.

Hunting is quite small. It is a dying breed('sport') of people who still do it.

Protection? Some people may claim that a reason, and it may be a large number of people, but is that a valid claim. What percentage of gun owners have had to resort to their guns for protection? I would say again, using your low percentage as a standard for deciding, that it doesn't rate. Merely the claim does not justify it.

Hobby? Well, in that case there is no need for it to be kept in the home. There could be city armories where people would have to check in and out their weapon, or even not that -- just a few gun clubs/ranges where guns are stored and shooting them can take place under strict supervision and in an unescapable environment somewhere. ONe need not ownership and 24 hour home possession to satisfy the hobby argument. ONe can still be a gun hobbyist/enthusiast without immediate access to them.

[DougP]

I agree we make the worst ambassadors. And there are plently of great examples of American citizens that end up in the news all the time. Funny thing isn't that the world looks at America in a bad light but that Americans hate one another so much :(

[DoctorP]

Most home burglaries are petty thieves and the majority of them do not result in confrontation. The percentage of them that do are quite small. Using your previous support of low percentage as a reason to not do something, then this low percentage should be reason enough for you to accept that a gun is not needed to protect one's home and occupants.


Do you have some numbers to back this up? Or are you just pulling thoughts out of your grape?


Hunting is quite small. It is a dying breed('sport') of people who still do it.

I'm pretty sure you are right, but you should at least take the time to show numbers to back this.



Hobby? Well, in that case there is no need for it to be kept in the home. There could be city armories where people would have to check in and out their weapon, or even not that -- just a few gun clubs/ranges where guns are stored and shooting them can take place under strict supervision and in an unescapable environment somewhere. ONe need not ownership and 24 hour home possession to satisfy the hobby argument. ONe can still be a gun hobbyist/enthusiast without immediate access to them.

I actually agree with the idea of a central locked location. The only downside I see to this is having to drive to that location, and being held to their hours of operation. Also, I doubt people would want this location in their neighborhood. NIMBY!

As an argument to that though. You could keep your dogs in a locked central location too, and visit them when you feel the need...but I doubt you would like that.

[DougP]

Hunting is quite small. It is a dying breed('sport') of people who still do it.

He's right
New figures from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service show that the number of hunters 16 and older declined by 10 percent between 1996 and 2006 -- from 14 million to about 12.5 million. The drop was most acute in New England, the Rocky Mountains, and the Pacific states, which lost 400,000 hunters in that span.

The primary reasons, experts say, are the loss of hunting land to urbanization plus a perception by many families that they can't afford the time or costs that hunting entails.

"To recruit new hunters, it takes hunting families," said Gregg Patterson of Ducks Unlimited. "I was introduced to it by my father, he was introduced to it by his father. When you have boys and girls without a hunter in the household, it's tough to give them the experience."

But they're causing some draw backs for Animal lovers

Of the 50 state wildlife agencies, most rely on hunting and fishing license fees for the bulk of their revenue, and only a handful receive significant infusions from their state's general fund.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Interesting point on Switzerland in those statistics above, dk. Switzerland kinda sticks out like a sore thumb, huh? Kinda like an anomaly, huh? I'll address it in a moment.

So yes, the phrase "guns don't kill people, people kill people" rings true. In fact, I think it could be extended to say, "Guns don't kill people. People kill people. And Americans do it best"

Again, I don't deny the phrase. It is about magnification. Just like "Airline Jets don't fly into buildings, terrorists do" rings true. IN fact, I think it could be extended to say, "Airline jets don't fly into buildingns. Terrorists fly into buildings. And terrorists do it best." We agree again. And yet both of us are not talking about making the existence of airline jets or guns disappear from the face of the earth.

Like jets serving the purpose of mass transportation, guns serve the government in the extension of their diplomacy when it fails. Large airplanes should be owned by corporations serving a purpose benefitting the larger part of society, and guns should be owned by governments and their police to enforce local and world order. IN both cases the benefit of the whole group is put over the individual. With individual gun ownership, the individual is given preference and the group of people around him at any given moment must trust that his sanity is always in proper order.

So why, if more than 57% of all households in Switzerland have guns, is homicide with a gun so low? THIS is the issue that needs to be addressed. Not the banning of guns altogether. Why are Americans so violent? That is the issue. Solve that and we're golden.

Switzerland's anomaly of bucking the data of national gun ownership in relation to homicides is easily explained, and I guess to some extent we could adopt it and that may help bring down our own gun crime (though I prefer gun banning to the alternative).

Switzerland gun ownership is mainly due to their history and tradition of a professional militia. Their ownership is not one of choice but one of forced upon them by the government and that only comes after serving 2 years in the military and professional skill with guns acquired from that service. There is your answer. Sure, I guess if we turned all of America into a militia requiring all of us to serve 2 years in the service, perhaps professional handling of guns would solve the problem.

Limited slavery to a war machine is not a good bargain for keeping guns I think. I say let those who volunteer for it do so, and then I am willing to let guns in society be banned for that barter.

The country has a population (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1566715.stm) of six million, but there are estimated to be at least two million publicly-owned firearms, including about 600,000 automatic rifles and 500,000 pistols.

This is in a very large part due to Switzerland's unique system of national defence, developed over the centuries.

Instead of a standing, full-time army, the country requires every man to undergo some form of military training for a few days or weeks a year throughout most of their lives.

Between the ages of 21 and 32 men serve as frontline troops. They are given an M-57 assault rifle and 24 rounds of ammunition which they are required to keep at home.

[dk]

Most home burglaries are petty thieves and the majority of them do not result in confrontation. The percentage of them that do are quite small. Using your previous support of low percentage as a reason to not do something, then this low percentage should be reason enough for you to accept that a gun is not needed to protect one's home and occupants.

A gun, as has been proven in the past, is a very good deterrant. I see no need to remove this deterrant in cases where other deterrants fail (areas with high crime rates, etc).

These are reasons, yes. Valid? No. Or at least nothing that in terms of necessity to have a right to them so that the average citizen (not a small subset of the populaton) can still lead a fulfilling life. Each one of those subsets is small in comparison to the total population.
You can lead a fulfilling life without a lot of things. It's the fact that you are trying to or at least debate dictating the idea that guns should have no place in an average citizen's home that I have a problem with. Much as I have a problem with being told that meat will eventually become illegal.
Hunting is quite small. It is a dying breed('sport') of people who still do it.
Size means nothing. Less people hunt these days due to easy access to food via grocery stores and fast food restaurants. It doesn't make it any less valid than the fetish for first edition hardcover books because with the internet, you can find anything online, and with TV, you can have pictures shot straight into your face. Why read Dickens when you can just watch it? Two completely different things, but just because something is a dying breed does not make it obsolete. Unless you view the killing of animals as unethical, which has already been stated. I'm for hunting.

Protection? Some people may claim that a reason, and it may be a large number of people, but is that a valid claim. What percentage of gun owners have had to resort to their guns for protection? I would say again, using your low percentage as a standard for deciding, that it doesn't rate. Merely the claim does not justify it.
You've got to do better than this. It's not just using your gun in self-defence that deters break-ins, it's also the threat that you very well may have a gun in your closet that deters break-ins.

I doubt half as many drunk servicemembers would wander into some Okinawan's house and pass out on his daughter's bed if the idea they might be shot was even an idea over here.
Hobby? Well, in that case there is no need for it to be kept in the home. There could be city armories where people would have to check in and out their weapon, or even not that -- just a few gun clubs/ranges where guns are stored and shooting them can take place under strict supervision and in an unescapable environment somewhere. ONe need not ownership and 24 hour home possession to satisfy the hobby argument. ONe can still be a gun hobbyist/enthusiast without immediate access to them.
They could, but why keep it in an armory when you can just keep it at home?

You're going to have to do better than this... At least provide some statistics or something. Show me that countries without guns whatsoever have less violent crimes than America (this much should be easy, I'm sure I could find at least that much if I was arguing your side), and explain to me why the countries I've listed above THAT ALLOW their citizens to have firearms have low homicide rates. Give me a success story. Show me the flip-side for what I'm arguing and not just ideas.

[DoctorP]

He's right


But they're causing some draw backs for Animal lovers

As I said that I believed he was too. I had heard something similar today on the radio, as I suspect he did as well. I didn't say he was wrong, just asked for him to provide the stats.

[TheNoNamedOne]

A gun, as has been proven in the past, is a very good deterrant. I see no need to remove this deterrant in cases where other deterrants fail (areas with high crime rates, etc).

This study's abstract shows otherwise:

Abstract: (http://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/8926.html) The new empirical results reported here provide no support for a net deterrent effect from widespread gun ownership. Rather, our analysis concludes that residential burglary rates tend to increase with community gun prevalence.

Deterrence just has not been conclusively proven.

However, if more guns equal less crime because of deterrence, then the next logical step would be to arm everyone with a firearm to carry with them at all times. I am not sure that would lead to a safer living environment, and I sure wouldn't want to be in a redneck bar on payday night playing pool or throwing darts when someone spills beer on someone or looks at their girlfriend wrong. If some escalate the fight to pool sticks, I imagine with everyone armed, some lose cannon is bound to escalate it to the heat they are carrying.

Also, if I were a criminal wanting to get a gun, speculating that a gun were in my target home would be the more greater inducement for me to definitely carry a burglury out on that home to get that gun. Obviously if I had made the decision to burglarize that home, I have reasoned (perhaps wrongly) that I am not going to get caught.

I know or strongly speculate that house has a gun. I want that gun in that house. The way for me to get that gun is to burglarize it. I, therefore am going to burglarize it to get that gun. That gun attracts me to commit the crime.

[dk]

Who robs a house to get a gun? I don't think I've ever heard of this happening. A smart robber would grab the jewelry, tv, or some electronics and just illegally buy a gun if he wanted one that bad.

[DoctorP]

dk...I think it is safe to say that a robber would steal the gun once in the house...but I agree, they wouldn't break in just to steal the gun!

[Fonze]

Who robs a house to get a gun? I don't think I've ever heard of this happening. A smart robber would grab the jewelry, tv, or some electronics and just illegally buy a gun if he wanted one that bad.

When I was a bad apple we used to get dumb broads on drugs with clean records to buy guns and report them stolen.:thumbdown:
I'm not against regulation, but don't take rights from others cause the stupidity of some.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Who robs a house to get a gun? I don't think I've ever heard of this happening. A smart robber would grab the jewelry, tv, or some electronics and just illegally buy a gun if he wanted one that bad.

Short answer: Thieves. Surely not girl scouts.

Try googling "guns stolen" under news and you will see guns are often targets of break-ins. Hell, not only homes, but gun shows, sporting goods stores, and gun shops as well-- which wouldn't exist if the home gun owner market didn't exist.

Why would a smart criminal want to purchase a gun on the open market when they would have to go through a background check and the gun would be registered to them? It wouldn't be that smart to do so.

[Fonze]

The laws that forbid the carrying of arms, disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes." - Thomas Jefferson

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is at last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government" - Thomas Jefferson

[Fonze]

http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r160/thebossdoc83/guncontrolworks2tv7.jpg

[TheNoNamedOne]

Who robs a house to get a gun? I don't think I've ever heard of this happening.

Just in case you didn't google it yourself, a quick search brought up some cases:

SPRING VALLEY TWP (http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/article1684.html), Greene County — Law officers are searching for the suspect or suspects who stole rifles, shotguns, handguns and a crossbow from a home in Spring Valley Twp., Greene County sheriff's Maj. Eric Prindle said Tuesday.

The 10 weapons, valued at $4,570, were taken from a residence in the 3000 block of Anderson Road between 10 a.m. and 4:50 p.m. Friday, according to a sheriff's report.

One more for good measure:

Lutz said two other men (http://www.cjonline.com/attic/commercial.restored/stories/010904/loc_gunstolen.shtml) then entered wearing ski masks. The intruders stole eight guns and used an unknown weapon to strike the back of the stepfather's head before leaving.

There is a lucrative market in the crime world for stolen guns -- wheather they be from shops OR homes.

Now you have heard. <smile>

[DoctorP]

There is a lucrative market in the crime world for stolen guns -- wheather they be from shops OR homes.

Now you have heard. <smile>


oddly enough the second source you provided shows that this violent crime was conducted without the use of a firearm. Yes, they stole guns, but probably to resell them. Maybe we should find out what they used to cause the blunt force trauma and ban that item as well?

[TheNoNamedOne]

You can lead a fulfilling life without a lot of things.

Yes. I could lead a fullfilling life without boxer shorts or sanpincha. Those, however, are not killing people every year -- or at least not in numbers that cause recourses to be spent on policing them. Guns and crime associated with them on the other hand, kill and put strain on our recourses.

It's the fact that you are trying to or at least debate dictating the idea that guns should have no place in an average citizen's home that I have a problem with.

I understand that. But as members of a society, by staying in that society we implicitly accept a social contract; that for the aggregate good of that society we allow ourselves to be governed by the government -- provided it is a government legitimized with a democratic process via the will of the people as shown through their legislatures and courts.

We accept those limits as we are born into them or as they come about -- just as someone accepts the contracts of yahoo mail when they give birth to their yahoo mail selves when they click on the "I Accept" button, and the same as those who come to this forum as well, and as new rules pop up.

The debate is part of the process of changing that contract -- or in the case of those who are against gun control -- to keep the current status. In any event, social contracts are never static for too long.

[newvalor]

It doesn't matter if you are big or small, if you are going to kill someone there is always a way. Banning guns will not change anything, there are too many Illegal weapons to be sold within the country itself. Plus the fact that it would create another type of cartel or some sort of importing from another country to attain weapons. You could put the ban so tight on guns but when there is a will there is a way to get one.

Hunting has not only declined a little in numbers due to loss of land, stores having more choice, but some of it in fact is from families just being safer with weapons around children. I went hunting my first time when I was 15, my cousins had been doing it since they were 8-9 yrs old shooting handguns.

People who break into a house have the intention to take items of value, they are not set on a gun. If they do come across the weapon, why not take it. It can be sold on the market or kept for themselves, that is when it becomes a problem because there is no way of tracking it.

People who say they purchase for protection have the right too. Asking whether or not they will ever use it is like asking if your next flight is going to crash, it's a 1:3,000,000 chance but hey you never know and why not be prepared to begin with.

People do adjust to certain rules and regulations, but not everyone. There are the law abiding citizens and there are the non-abiding citizens. It doesn't matter where you go or what rules to enforce you can never stop how people will react of live up to it. That is the freedom of the U.S. and if there was to be a ban on guns it would end up being another war on the streets to try and attain what guns are still out on the streets.

[TheNoNamedOne]

A lot of the things you mention above I have already given a counter reply to in prior posts. I don't think the thread is too long yet for you to go back and address those counter replies rather than me repeating them.

[newvalor]

A lot of the things you mention above I have already given a counter reply to in prior posts. I don't think the thread is too long yet for you to go back and address those counter replies rather than me repeating them.

But you have yet to show any statistics towards your claim for how a gun ban would lower death rates.

So I can still bring up past counter replies because you have no credible information of any of your claims to back it up. Isn't that what you call debate, using ones source against them.......

[TheNoNamedOne]

Newvalor, I will be getting statistics up soon, but not everything needs statistics to make a point.

For example, in your first paragraph you have set up a straw man by insinuating that the position of Banning Gun Advocates is that it will create a way to stop criminals from any way of getting guns. Of course there will always be some way to get guns. You miss the point with setting up that straw man and no one has ever said that a ban would make it so that guns could never be obtained. Now, why are statistics needed for that? Nonsense!

I am not sure what point you are making with your second paragraph. Perhaps you could go into more detail on that. That would help me zero in on what you are getting at.

In your 3rd para you state people have no intention of breaking into a house to steal a gun. I found two examples real quick and posted those to clearly show otherwise. Rather than addressing those two examples to difuse them, you just come back and make this general assertion which has already been put to rest with real world examples. It is just a fact of occurance.

Your 4th para about people having a right to possess arms is not disputed. That surely is the case at the present. That is what is debatable, whether that right should continue or not. It surely is not an inherent right bestowed to us from a universal sense. Now, why would anyone need statistics to address those ideas of rights? Nonsensical.

Your last para may be the only one that has not already been addressed. I will get to that soon, but I would rather you go back and specifically address the counter points I had already put forth to dk or atb35 that addresses your points which you are being redundant on to what others have already put to me. Of course, I wouldn't care if the thread was like 20 pages long. I sure wouldn't expect you to read 20 pages to catch up, but come on, 5 pages is not so bad.

[newvalor]

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/gvc.htm#violentcr, I think that site will cure your need for even more statistics. I have posted mine, and that includes a majority of others.

I don't see how you could get that from my first para. What I said is that even if a gun ban was imposed, new ways of attaining will be created by criminal org's. I think that will squash that thought you created.

My second point in the second para. is that not all hunters have left due to stricter gun controls or whatever else you were saying. Most families these days are being smarter by waiting til the proper age to introduce firearms to thier children for hunting. Plus in some states due to the amount of land and amount of people that hunt, the hunting fee(aka Tags) are getting more expensive and also alot more harder to obtain.

My third paragragh is correct, you may have been able to quote 2 stories but how often do you see stories about just the normal break-in of a home for valued items??? more often than enough it happens on a daily basis.
(: The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)
Ongoing since 1972, this survey of households interviews about 134,000 persons age 12 and older in 77,200 households each year about their victimizations from crime.) So you are comparing your two quoted statements against 77,200.

You are right for once, I don't need to place a statistic on how many people should own a weapon. But I did in fact state the odds of a person using a weapon in self defense. At this time there is no true statistic of when one person will ever use it in self defense, but I did give a comparison of what that statistic would also possibly look like.

Well yet alone I had maybe the 3rd post from when this topic was started by you. Yes I may have restated my opinion or facts, but when addressing a debate and you have the upper hand, you go with that hand no matter if it's over used. It proves the point of what others are getting and reimphisizes the fact that you are losing this debate.

[P_chan]

But you have yet to show any statistics towards your claim for how a gun ban would lower death rates.

So I can still bring up past counter replies because you have no credible information of any of your claims to back it up. Isn't that what you call debate, using ones source against them.......


Yes, but statisics are usually wrong. Sure they pick people at random, but they still only pick a certain number of people once they do statistics. So, your only getting a small fraction and not the whole picture.

[DoctorP]

Yes, but statisics are usually wrong. Sure they pick people at random, but they still only pick a certain number of people once they do statistics. So, your only getting a small fraction and not the whole picture.

Where are your stats to back this up? :D

Stats are usually quite good for getting general ideas about a subject. It is true that they can and will be manipulated, but they can be manipulated to assist both sides of an argument. I think that evens everything out...each side can lie equally.:D

[P_chan]

Yes but you can't base your entire arguement on stats! Now if they literally asked EVERY single person, then yes they woudl be accurate.

[newvalor]

thats how statistics are used, a small amount in fomula to show the whole amount. just like doing fractions back in school. You can't of course get everybody at once, but using stats is the closest you can get. just like how many times 1 baseball player hits the ball, it's all percentages and formula's to figure out of a larger number.

Stats won't always be exactly correct but it's better to be in the ballpark then out in some field.

They may also pick a certain amount of people, and thats the best way to span a statistic, 1 out of 100 can be then set up to show 100 out of 1000 and so on. tree effect.

[Fonze]

The right to BEAR arms
http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r160/thebossdoc83/the_right_to_bear_arms.jpg

[TheNoNamedOne]

Some people will show statistics that show gun ownership increasing but then at the same time show crime decreasing -- as if the more guns owned have somehow had a deterrence affect on crime and that has caused crime to go down.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Usually that time period they are referring to when gun ownership rises and crimes go down are in periods of economic good times and expansion. When the economy improves there is less stress, more people's lives are improved with employment, life is generally on the upswing and because of that fewer people find themselves in situations where they resort to crime. With more money from employment those who are gun enthusiasts have more recourses to indulge in their hobby and, therefore, purchase guns.

When the economy goes bad, though, the crime rate shows trends in crime rising again, and those previously purchased guns do not keep the crime rate down independent of the economy. Therefore, that gives up the derterrence argument for false.

In the 90's there was the dot.com boom and crime did go down then, and gun ownership rose. But after the bust and the economy began to not perform as well in those get rich fast days, the crime went up again. Now, why didn't all those guns bought in the 90's and previously keep crime depressed through their deterrence value?

Look at the years in spikes of homicides (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm). The correlation with good times and bad times is clear if you remember our economic ups and downs over the last 2 or 3 decades. What is consistent in every graph and point made is that guns are the leading cause of all homicides.

[atb35]

What is consistent in every graph and point made is that guns are the leading cause of all homicides.

I dont believe that one bit....Marriage is the real cause of hommicides...they just use the guns to do it:)

[TheNoNamedOne]

I dont believe that one bit....Marriage is the real cause of hommicides...they just use the guns to do it:)

<chuckle> Good thing before your divorce you kept your gun under crap in your closet locked and the ammo separate, huh? Give ya time to cool down.

But, hey, if it were in such an inconvenient place and would not be so easy in time to get ready to use and fire, I guess it wouldn't do much good for use from a home invasion, huh? Those guys come in real fast. You should keep it somewhere really handy. But then that would defeat the purpose of making it so your kids (at that time you had mentioned) couldn't find it or get to it.

Seems like a quandary. Safety for children or self protection? See you chose safety for children?

Self protection not an issue.

[atb35]

For me personally, im not close to being on the edge, so I could have a loaded gun in my hand and I wouldnt shoot someone...I have the ability to reason, that is what sets humans apart from animals.....unfortunately some people use the BS excuse of a fit of rage...**** that, deal with your rage in jail while Bubba is making you his bitch!

[Ammoyankee]

I would own a tank and have a minefield in the front yard if I could!

[TheNoNamedOne]

Well, whether passion killings are justified or not, the fact of the matter a lot of killing comes about because of rage. Unfortunately, your ability to handle it is not inherent in all. That is why at least, for the most part, people are not permitted to walk around carrying guns in their hands locked and loaded. Imagine the uneasiness when someone armed would go into a rage on an airline after telling the idiot behind them 20 times to stop kicking the seat.

Again, in these passion killings, let's see what weapon ranks at the top for choice in deed.

In general, guns are most often used in intimate homicide (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/intimates.htm#intweap) but weapon type varies by relationship. From 1990 to 2005 --


Over two-thirds of the spouse and ex-spouse victims were killed by guns.

Boyfriends were more likely to be killed by knives than any other group of intimates.

Girlfriends were more likely to be killed by force than any other group of intimates.

[lumpia]

People have ANGER issues, not gun issues.

If there are laws in place to keep guns out of public places, you essentially make law abiding citizens fish in a barrel. The problem is not the guns, it never has been, and never will be. If someone is going to rob a store for instance, and there is a law in place saying it is illegal to have a gun in a public place. That guy has no worries whatsoever, he can go in at gunpoint, because robbing the store is already a crime, so why would he worry about a gun law.

Now take the same instance, where their are people with concealed weapons permits in the state. The guy has to worry about everyone in the store could possibly have a gun. That would actually deter him from robbing the store.

I know what you are going to say, look at japan, they outlawed gun, and they have very little crime. This has nothing to do with the lack of guns/weapons. For the most part (from what I have seen) Americans are a lot more likely to start a fist fight, or whatever, then a japanese guy. The reason for this is differences in culture and upbringing, it has nothing to do with guns.

If you take away guns completely, people will find another way to kill each other, and if someone is willing to kill another person, they are willing to break the law, and carry a gun even if there are gun laws in place. I can see it now, drive by crossbowing of people. The solution to the problem is not to take away the object that is being used improperly (look at where prohibition of alcohol got us), instead education to the population, and punishing the people break the law.

To put it in perspective to the majority of the people here taking guns away from people because some people use them inproperly/commit crimes is ridiculous, as ridiculous as outlawing cars that are capable of going over the speed limit.

Now before anyone responds, this is not a personal attack on anyone or anything like that, it's just something that I feel very very strongly about.

I'm not saying let everyone have free run and get full auto machine pistols. I have no problem waiting 5 days 7 days, whatever to get a new gun, no problem at all.

Now, lets say the guy the guy does shoot someone, if anyone else in the store has a gun, and they feel threatened when he shoots someone else, and they blast the robber, only one innocent person got shot, and the bad guy got what was coming to him. Now mind you, the person that got shot got the raw end of the deal, but why empower the criminals?

You can also kill people with crossbows, compound bows, cars, animals, fire, disease, etc etc etc. People did it for a little while before the whole guns thing came along, around 1290 AD (chinese).

OWNERSHIP
* Private Firearm Ownership in the U.S. as of 1993/1994:

Households With a Gun Adults Owning a Gun
Percentage 49% 31%
Total number 47,600,000 59,100,000
(16a)
LOBBYING
* The National Rifle Association is the largest gun rights lobbying organization in the United States. From 1997 through 1998, their political action committee gave $1,330,111 to Republicans and $285,700 to Democrats. (10)

* Handgun Control, Inc. is the largest gun control lobbying organization in the United States. From 1997 through 1998, their political action committee gave $136,892 to Democrats and $9,500 to Republicans. (11)
FIREARM USE IN CRIME AND SELF DEFENSE
* In the United States during 1997, there were 15,289 murders. Of these, 10,369 were committed with firearms. (2)

* In the United States during 1997, there were approximately 7,927,000 violent crimes. Of these, 691,000 were committed with firearms. (12)

* As of 1992, for every 14 violent crimes (murder, rape, etc…) committed in the United States, one person is sentenced to prison. (62)

* As of 1992, average length of imprisonment for:
Murder 10.0 years
Rape 7.6 years
Aggravated Assault 3.4 years
(63)
* In the early/mid 1990's, criminals on parole or early release from prison committed about 5,000 murders, 17,000 rapes, and 200,000 robberies a year. (3)

* Americans use firearms to defend themselves from criminals at least 764,000 times a year. This figure is the lowest among a group of 9 nationwide surveys done by organizations including Gallup and the Los Angeles Times. (16b)

* In 1982, a survey of imprisoned criminals found that 34% of them had been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim." (16c)

* Washington D.C. enacted a virtual ban on handguns in 1976. Between 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.'s homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose 12%. (1)

RIGHT-TO-CARRY LAWS
* Right-to-carry laws require law enforcement agencies to issue handgun permits to all qualified applicants. Qualifications include criteria such as age, a clean criminal record, and completing a firearm safety course. (13)

* In 1986, nine states had right-to-carry laws. (14)


* As of 1998, 31 states have right-to-carry laws, and about half the U.S. population lives in these states. (3)


* Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. At the time the law was passed, critics predicted increases in violence. The founder of the National Organization of Women, Betty Friedan stated:

"lethal violence, even in self defense, only engenders more violence." (13)


* When the law went into effect, the Dade County Police began a program to record all arrest and non arrest incidents involving concealed carry licensees. Between September of 1987 and August of 1992, Dade County recorded 4 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. None of these crimes resulted in an injury. The record keeping program was abandoned in 1992 because there were not enough incidents to justify tracking them. (13)(15)

* Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. Between 1987 and 1996, these changes occurred:


Florida United States
homicide rate -36% -0.4%
firearm homicide rate -37% +15%
handgun homicide rate -41% +24%
(3)

* 221,443 concealed carry licenses were issued in Florida between October of 1987 and April of 1994. During that time, Florida recorded 18 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. (15)

* As of 1998, nationwide, there has been 1 recorded incident in which a permit holder shot someone following a traffic accident. The permit holder was not charged, as the grand jury ruled the shooting was in self defense. (7)

* As of 1998, no permit holder has ever shot a police officer. There have been several cases in which a permit holder has protected an officer's life. (7)

BRADY BILL
* The Brady Bill was implemented on February 28, 1994. This law established a national 5 business day waiting period on handgun purchases through licensed dealers. It also required local authorities to conduct background checks on handgun purchasers. The majority of Democrats voted for this bill and the majority of Republicans voted against it. Bill Clinton signed it into law. (18)(19)

* In July of 1997, the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for the federal government to require states to perform Brady Bill background checks. At that point, 27 states had laws requiring similar background checks and 23 states did not. (20)

* As of December of 1998, an amendment to the Brady Bill replaced the five business day waiting period with a national "instant" felon ID system. Dealers are required to conduct this background check on all gun purchases, not just handgun purchases. This amendment was added to the Brady Bill before the law was voted out of Congress. The majority of Republicans voted for this amendment and the majority of Democrats voted against it. (18)(19)

* During the first 17 months of the Brady Bill, 7 people were convicted of illegal attempts to buy handguns. (17)

* Between implementation of the Brady Bill in March 1994 and year end 1997, there have been 242,000 background checks that have denied prospective purchasers permission to buy a handgun from licensed gun dealers. Out of these, 9 people have been convicted of illegal attempts to buy handguns. (21)(22)

* In the early 1990's, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms reported that 7% of armed career criminals obtain firearms from licensed gun shops. (3) This would mean that 93% of the guns were obtained by a means that would not be checked by the law.

* The Brady Bill was implemented in February of 1994. In 1997, the number of violent crimes committed with firearms had fallen 25% since 1994, while the overall number of violent crimes had declined 14%. (18)(23)

[lumpia]

*****Continued*****

ASSAULT WEAPONS
* The "Assault Weapons Ban" was enacted on September 14, 1994. The majority of Democrats voted for it, and the majority of Republicans voted against it. Bill Clinton signed it into law. (24)(19)

* This bill banned the manufacture, possession, and importation of semiautomatic assault weapons for civilian use. Guns manufactured before September 14th, 1994 were grandfathered. Guns manufactured after this date (for use by the military, police, and government agencies) must be marked with the date they are manufactured. (24)(41)(47)

* To identify an assault weapon, this bill uses objective criteria, along with a list of 19 specific guns. (24)

* For example, semiautomatic rifles which accept a detachable magazine are classified as "assault weapons" if they have two of the five following features: folding stock, pistol grip, bayonet mount, grenade launcher, threaded barrel for flash suppressor. (24)

* An assault weapon, as defined by this bill, does not include fully automatic machine guns. Since 1934, a civilian must obtain permission from the U.S. Treasury to legally own a fully automatic weapon. (3)(64)

* In April of 1999, Bill and Hillary Clinton held a press conference on gun control legislation. Hillary Clinton stated:
"And since the crime bill was enacted, 19 of the deadliest assault weapons are harder to find on our streets. We will never know how many tragedies we've avoided because of these efforts." (25)


* Assault weapons were involved in less than 1% of homicides before the assault weapons ban took effect in 1994. The same is true as of 1998. (3)

* As of 1998, about 13% of homicides involve knives, 5% involve bludgeons, and 6% are committed with hands and feet. (3)

* The Clinton administration prosecuted 4 people in 1997 and 4 people in 1998 for violating the assault weapons ban. (22)

ARMOR PIERCING BULLETS
* Armor piercing bullets have been referred to in the media as "cop killers." (37)

* In October of 1996, Bill Clinton met with the widow of Police Officer Jerome Harrison Seaberry. Later that day at a political rally, Clinton said:

“I still think we ought to ban those bullets that are built only for one purpose, to pierce the bullet-proof vests that our police officers wear. I don't see why we need those things out there. … Today, I met with the first -- the family of the first one of the police officers hired under our Crime Bill, killed in the line of duty. I met here in Louisiana, in Lake Charles I met with that officer's widow and two beautiful, beautiful young sons. And I thought to myself, you know, if people like these folks here are going to put their lives on the line for us, the least we can do is tell them if they put on a bullet-proof vest, it will protect them from being killed. That's the least we can do for them.” (66) (67)

* Officer Seaberry was killed in a car crash. No guns or bullets were involved. (68)

* As of 1998, no law enforcement officer has ever been killed because an armor-piercing bullet defeated a bulletproof vest. (3)

SCHOOL SHOOTINGS
* Federal law 18 USC Section 922 generally prohibits anyone under 18 from possessing a handgun. It also prohibits licensed firearm dealers and collectors from selling handguns to anyone under 21 years of age. (41)
* Laws in the United States generally prohibit the sale, possession, or use of cocaine. About 200,000 American children, age 12-17 used cocaine in 1997. About 2.5 million 12-17 year olds (11.4%) used an illicit drug in 1997. (37)(43)

* Federal law 18USC Section 922 generally prohibits civilians from having guns in school zones. (41)(51)

* Seven days after the 1999 Columbine school massacre in which 12 students and a teacher were murdered, Bill and Hillary Clinton held a press conference on gun control legislation. Bill Clinton stated:


"And we smile about that, but there are some people who would be on this platform today who lost their seats in 1994 because they voted for the Brady Bill and they voted for the assault weapons ban, and they did it in areas where people could be frightened."

"Do we know for absolutely certain that if we had every reasonable law and the ones I'm going to propose here that none of these school violence things would have happened? No. But we do know one thing for certain; we know there would have been fewer of them, and there would have been fewer kids killed in the last several years in America. We know that for certain. We know that." (Applause) (25)

* In about 5 years since enactment of the Brady Bill and Assault Weapons Ban in 1993, there have been 9 "school massacres." (53)
* About 6,000 children were caught with guns at school in 1997 and 1998. Out of these, 13 were prosecuted by the Clinton administration Justice Department. (52)

* In October of 1997, sixteen-year-old Luke Woodham stabbed his mother to death and then went to school with a rifle where he shot 9 students, killing 2 of them. Assistant Principal Joel Myrick raced to his car, retrieved a .45 caliber handgun, and used it to subdue Woodham until police arrived. (51)(53)

ACCIDENTS
* 1995 Fatal Accident Totals
Motor Vehicles 43,900
Falls 12,600
Poisonings 10,600
Drownings 4,500
Fires 4,100
Choking 2,800
Firearm 1,400 (1.5% of fatal accidents)

* For Children 14 and Under

Motor Vehicles 3,059
Drownings 1,024
Fires 883
Choking 213
Firearm 181 (2.7% of fatal accidents)
Falls 127
Poisonings 80
(8)
* There were 259 fatal firearm accidents for 15-19 year olds in 1995. (8)

* There were 6,319 fatal motor vehicle accidents for 15-20 year olds in 1996. (9)

* As of 1998, 37,000 National Rifle Association (NRA) Instructors and Coaches are conducting firearm safety and proficiency programs that reach nearly 700,000 participants a year. (8)

* In 1988, The NRA developed a gun safety program for schoolchildren (pre-K through 6th grade). As of 1998, the program has reached about 10 million children. The goal of the program is to teach children what to do if they should encounter a firearm. Children are taught to "STOP! Don't Touch. Leave the Area. Tell an Adult." (8)

* The NRA's 3 rules of gun safety are:
1) Always keep the gun pointed in a safe direction (whether loaded or unloaded).
2) Always keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot.
3) Always keep the gun unloaded until ready to shoot. (8)

CONSTITUTION
* In the Bill of Rights, the second amendment to the Constitution reads:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


* Gun control proponents have argued that the use of the word "people" in this Amendment, refers not to the civilian population of the United States, but to the State National Guard Units. (54)

* Gun rights proponents have argued that the use of the word "Militia" in this Amendment, refers not to the State National Guard Units, but to the citizens of the United States. (54)

* James Madison was responsible for proposing the Second Amendment and was one of three authors of the Federalist papers. The Federalist Papers were published in newspapers to explain, argue for, and support ratification of the Constitution. (55)(56)

* In Federalist Paper 46, James Madison argued that a standing federal army could not be capable of conducting a coup to take over the nation. He estimated that based on the country's population at the time, a federal standing army could not field more than 25,000 - 30,000 men. He wrote:

"To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence."

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (56)

* Quotes from Thomas Jefferson, the author of The Declaration of Independence:
"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."

--Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787.

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks."

--Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785.

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves in all cases to which they think themselves competent..., or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press."
--Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. (57)(58)(59)

[TheNoNamedOne]

WHOA! Come up for air. A few examples little by little as the discussion/debate progresses sure would go a long way towards encouraging others to address those points and keeping the discussion going.

[Mad Hatter]

This is a dishonest framing of the argument for banning guns. Gun control advocates never assert that banning guns will eliminate people from killing people.

Banning guns though would impact on the numbers of people killed and on those even following through with an intent to kill. For example, a person needs more strength, energy, and time to try and massacre a large group of people with a knife than if they had a gun.

:61::7:

So, gun control advocates don't think that banning guns will eliminates people from killing people, they just thought that it will impact the number of people killed? Man I have no idea what's going on... All I know is that this is not where I parked my car!:cool:

[Mad Hatter]

OH MAN!!! I so didn't read the rest of the thread things or whatever... Sorry mom, sorry dad... my bad

[Oxmix]

There is a book by Professor John Lott, "More Guns Less Crime"

"A compelling book with enough hard evidence that even politicians may have to stop and pay attention. More Guns, Less Crime is an exhaustive analysis of the effect of gun possession on crime rates. . . . Mr. Lott's book—and the factual arsenals of other pro-gun advocates—are helping to redefine the argument over guns and gun control."—James Bovard, Wall Street Journal

"This sophisticated analysis yields a well-established conclusion that supports the wisdom of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution rather than of those who would limit the right of law-abiding citizens to own and carry guns. . . . Lott has done us all a service by his thorough, thoughtful scholarly approach to a highly controversial issue."—Milton Friedman

"Law and economics professor John R. Lott Jr. presents reams of evidence that violent crime decreases in places where laws are passed permitting concealed weapons. His explanation is that even criminals respond logically to benefits and costs: they don't like to attack people who might be packing heat.…Lott's pro-gun argument has to be examined on the merits, and its chief merit is lots of data.…If you still disagree with Lott, at least you will know what will be required to rebut a case that looks pretty near bulletproof."—Peter Coy, Business Week

Read the book then decide for yourself.

Regards

Ox

[DougP]

Interesting video
Gun Control? (http://www.comegetyousome.com/viewvid.php?id=4771)

[Go-Shay]

I think banning guns will be as successfull at keeping guns out of criminal hands as prohibition was at keeping people from drinking or the war on drugs has been at stopping illegal narcotics use.

that's what I was trying to say- thanks

[affiredawg76]

Myth #1-Guns increase violent crime.

Just the opposite is true. Experts have found that criminals tend to avoid physical confrontation, when they fear their victims may be armed. But when strict gun laws are imposed, criminals become bolder and more violent, confident that their victims are defenseless.

Australians learned this lesson the hard way. When a madman slaughtered 35 people at a Tasmanian resort in 1996, the government responded by banning most firearms. More than 640,000 guns were seized from law-abiding citizens.

The result was a sharp increase in violent crime. In the two years following the gun ban, armed robberies rose by 73 percent, unarmed robberies by 28 percent, kidnappings by 38 percent, assaults by 17 percent and manslaughter by 29 percent, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

The same thing happened in England. The government cracked down on guns following a 1996 massacre of schoolchildren in Scotland. A terrifying crime wave ensued. The U.S. Department of Justice announced, in 1998, that the rate of muggings in England had surpassed that in the U.S. by 40 percent. Assault and burglary rates were found to almost 100 percent higher in England than in the United States.

In his book More Guns, Less Crime, Yale Law School economist John R. Lott points out that most criminals, in America, choose empty houses to burglarize. The avoid late-night break ins, because, as many convicts have explained to researchers, "that's the way to get shot." Hot burglaries-in which the criminal enters while people are home-account for only 13 percent of all U.S. burglaries.

But in countries with strict gun control, such as England and Canada, criminals enter houses at will, without worrying whether anyone is home. The hot burglary rate in those countries is nearly 50 percent.

After studying 18 years' worth of crime statistics from around the United States, Lott concluded that "states experiencing the greatest reductions in crime are also the ones with the fastest growing percentages of gun ownership."

On average, Lott found that violent crime dropped by 4 percent for each 1 percent increase in gun ownership. The most dramatic improvement came in states that allowed citizens to carry concealed handguns. States enacting such laws between 1977 and 1994 experienced and average 10 percent reduction in murders and a 4.4 percent drop in overall violent crime during that period.

Myth #2-Pulling a gun on a criminal endangers you more than the criminal.

Gun bashers claim that if you draw a gun during a mugging, the mugger will probably take it away from you. But the facts say otherwise. According to surveys by Gallup, the Los Angeles Times and other national polling organizations, Americans use guns to defend themselves between 760,000 and 3.6 million times each year. In 98 percent of those cases, simply brandishing the gun was enough to scare off the attacker.

Myth #3-Guns pose a special threat to children.

Gun haters argue that firearms pose a unique danger to children. But statistics do not support this claim. Only 200 children-aged 14 and younger-died from gun accidents in 1995. That same year 2,900 children died in car crashes, 950 drowned and 1,000 died of burns. "More children die in bicycle accidents each year than die from all types of firearm accidents," Lott observes. Yet, there is no national outcry to bar children from using bicycles.

Myth #4-The Second Amendment applies only to militiamen.

Gun prohibitionists argue that the Second Amendment confers a right to bear arms only on duly enrolled members of a state militia. But that is not what the document says. It specifically grants the right to keep and bear arms to "the people".

"The phrase, 'the people' meant the same thing in the Second Amendment as it did in the First, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments-that is, each and every free person," writes constitutional scholar Stephen Halbrook in his book That Every Man Be Armed.

Even Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe- a gun control advocate known for his liberal views-admitted, in the 1999 edition of his book American Constitutional Law, that the Second Amendment confers an individual right on U.S. citizens to "possess and use firearms in the defense of themselves and their homes."

Myth #5-The Second Amendment is an obsolete relic of the frontier era.

Gun bashers say that the Second Amendment has outlived its usefulness. They argue that pioneers needed guns to fight Indians, redcoats and grizzly bears. But we don't face such threats today. So why do we need guns?

In fact, the framers of the Constitution were not greatly concerned about Indians, redcoats and grizzly bears. But they worried deeply about the possibility that some future government might strip the people of their rights. The best insurance against this, they believed, was to make sure that the people were armed.

"The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword," said Noah Webster, "because the whole body of the people are armed..."

Guns will become superfluous to Americans only when our lives and liberty no longer need defending. That time does not appear to be coming soon.

*edited by DoctorP to add quote tags*

[Boost]

Excellent post affiredawg!

Thankfully for me, I have one more weapon to buy before November and then I will have all the ones I want before any new ban has a chance to go into effect!

[Oxmix]

affiredawg76

Excellent post.

I have always felt that the only way you can do away with the other amendments to the Constitution is to first do away with the 2nd Amendment.

Be wary of any Government that wants to disarm the people.

Why should the Government be afraid of an armed citizenry if it is truly a Government of the people by the people and for the people.

The 2nd amendment is there so that the citizens of this country can restore the Government to a Constitutional Republic should it become tyrannical.

Regards

Ox

[DoctorP]

Myth #1-Guns increase violent crime.

Just the opposite is true. Experts have found that criminals tend to avoid physical confrontation, when they fear their victims may be armed. But when strict gun laws are imposed, criminals become bolder and more violent, confident that their victims are defenseless.

Australians learned this lesson the hard way. When a madman slaughtered 35 people at a Tasmanian resort in 1996, the government responded by banning most firearms. More than 640,000 guns were seized from law-abiding citizens.

The result was a sharp increase in violent crime. In the two years following the gun ban, armed robberies rose by 73 percent, unarmed robberies by 28 percent, kidnappings by 38 percent, assaults by 17 percent and manslaughter by 29 percent, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

The same thing happened in England. The government cracked down on guns following a 1996 massacre of schoolchildren in Scotland. A terrifying crime wave ensued. The U.S. Department of Justice announced, in 1998, that the rate of muggings in England had surpassed that in the U.S. by 40 percent. Assault and burglary rates were found to almost 100 percent higher in England than in the United States.

In his book More Guns, Less Crime, Yale Law School economist John R. Lott points out that most criminals, in America, choose empty houses to burglarize. The avoid late-night break ins, because, as many convicts have explained to researchers, "that's the way to get shot." Hot burglaries-in which the criminal enters while people are home-account for only 13 percent of all U.S. burglaries.

But in countries with strict gun control, such as England and Canada, criminals enter houses at will, without worrying whether anyone is home. The hot burglary rate in those countries is nearly 50 percent.

After studying 18 years' worth of crime statistics from around the United States, Lott concluded that "states experiencing the greatest reductions in crime are also the ones with the fastest growing percentages of gun ownership."

On average, Lott found that violent crime dropped by 4 percent for each 1 percent increase in gun ownership. The most dramatic improvement came in states that allowed citizens to carry concealed handguns. States enacting such laws between 1977 and 1994 experienced and average 10 percent reduction in murders and a 4.4 percent drop in overall violent crime during that period.

Myth #2-Pulling a gun on a criminal endangers you more than the criminal.

Gun bashers claim that if you draw a gun during a mugging, the mugger will probably take it away from you. But the facts say otherwise. According to surveys by Gallup, the Los Angeles Times and other national polling organizations, Americans use guns to defend themselves between 760,000 and 3.6 million times each year. In 98 percent of those cases, simply brandishing the gun was enough to scare off the attacker.

Myth #3-Guns pose a special threat to children.

Gun haters argue that firearms pose a unique danger to children. But statistics do not support this claim. Only 200 children-aged 14 and younger-died from gun accidents in 1995. That same year 2,900 children died in car crashes, 950 drowned and 1,000 died of burns. "More children die in bicycle accidents each year than die from all types of firearm accidents," Lott observes. Yet, there is no national outcry to bar children from using bicycles.

Myth #4-The Second Amendment applies only to militiamen.

Gun prohibitionists argue that the Second Amendment confers a right to bear arms only on duly enrolled members of a state militia. But that is not what the document says. It specifically grants the right to keep and bear arms to "the people".

"The phrase, 'the people' meant the same thing in the Second Amendment as it did in the First, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments-that is, each and every free person," writes constitutional scholar Stephen Halbrook in his book That Every Man Be Armed.

Even Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe- a gun control advocate known for his liberal views-admitted, in the 1999 edition of his book American Constitutional Law, that the Second Amendment confers an individual right on U.S. citizens to "possess and use firearms in the defense of themselves and their homes."

Myth #5-The Second Amendment is an obsolete relic of the frontier era.

Gun bashers say that the Second Amendment has outlived its usefulness. They argue that pioneers needed guns to fight Indians, redcoats and grizzly bears. But we don't face such threats today. So why do we need guns?

In fact, the framers of the Constitution were not greatly concerned about Indians, redcoats and grizzly bears. But they worried deeply about the possibility that some future government might strip the people of their rights. The best insurance against this, they believed, was to make sure that the people were armed.

"The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword," said Noah Webster, "because the whole body of the people are armed..."

Guns will become superfluous to Americans only when our lives and liberty no longer need defending. That time does not appear to be coming soon.


Next time you do a cut & paste give credit to the original creator! This is a warning!

http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/2nd_Amend/seven_myths_of_gun_control.htm

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200111/ai_n9014078

[TheNoNamedOne]

Knife cutters don't bring down airlines and buildings. People do.

<snicker>
http://www.metrixusa.com/images/cutter_set1.jpg
Value set for large operations (3 or 4 packs will do ya!)

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/events-images/289_flight175_high2050081722-9069.jpg
Were passengers debating cute sound byte arguments?

So, if guns don't kill people, people kill people, then we need to get knife cutters Oked again for flights -- as well as guns. Just imagine, had there been a plane full of gun carrying passengers on board, all those knife-cutting wielding terrorists would have been shot.

[DougP]

I think it was the mock up bombs that really had the passengers worried. Utter fear and not knowing what was occurring in the front of the plane kept everyone else in line. That and back then there was a belief that hijacked flights usually ended up in some sort of hostage negotiation. I'd say the harmless box cutters along with water bottles, shampoo and lighters are banned on US flights because of fear mongering. The same reason why there's a push for gun control. Not because we have an out of control pandemic that needs to be addressed right away but because people are afraid of that small percent chance that they could get hurt or killed. They'd much rather eliminate every possibly dangerous item from the world in an attempt to be safe even if it means limiting others on what they purchase and or carry. There are those who want to be in control and have everything run according to their specifications and those who want a safety net and feel the need for everything to be controlled, even themselves. Then there is that shrinking minority like myself who means no harm to anyone and would much rather be left alone that gets flanked by these two groups. The world is becoming a place unfriendly to those who believe in self governing and who are not willing to be assimilated by the hive.

[Zorro]

DougP, very good post. However...

people are afraid of that small percent chance that they could get hurt or killed.

I have never been hurt nor killed by a gun. However, I have been shot at and was also once robbed at gunpoint.

There is some overblown paranoia on the pro-gun control side, yes. But today's guns are just too darn efficient killing machines to willy nilly let flow among the general population.

I think we all need to remember that gun control and a ban on all guns are two different things. I see no reason why any gun advocate would not support some sort of licensing and training system. Honestly, cars are more regulated. Are they worried the gov will take away their car? And I also cant see why they cant come up with a registration system that is third party in order to calm their fears of the government.

[TheNoNamedOne]

The world is becoming a place unfriendly to those who believe in self governing and who are not willing to be assimilated by the hive.

Sounds a little disingenuous from someone entering a government military base hive for a tax payer's salary. Day in, day out... in and out that gate to the hive to make that honey fer yer family.

You look pretty willing to be assimilated into the hive, Doug.

[DougP]

Honestly, cars are more regulated

Not to keen on that as well even though cars appear to be more dangerous than guns if we were to look at the number killed each year or injured each year in car accidents. So by looking at this from an death and injury/object standpoint and nothing else, I would say cars are actually more dangerous and in need of more regulation. Well that is to say if we assume that things should be regulated by those other than the individual responsible for said items. Many people feel as though we should regulate and limit what is within our ability to do so in order to protect society. Well I worry about people who feel that way because they are only limited by "ability" on what they can regulate and restrict. I get a cold shiver when I imagine what else may one day be regulated or controlled once that "ability" increases. Probably not in my lifetime, thank goodness. I am much more concerned with the military back governments of the world who have deemed their muscle worthy and able to carry far more dangerous weapons then what is currently available to the average citizen. If you are going to have any form of gun control, for the love of Pete, let it start with them.:)

[TheNoNamedOne]

If gun control is so bad, and having guns is touted as preventing crime, then why are not the gun advocates pushing for allowing passengers to have guns on airlines?

[DougP]

Sounds a little disingenuous from someone entering a government military base hive for a tax payer's salary. Day in, day out... in and out that gate to the hive to make that honey fer yer family.

You look pretty willing to be assimilated into the hive, Doug.

Ah ad hominem.

[DougP]

If gun control is so bad, and having guns is touted as preventing crime, then why are not the gun advocates pushing for allowing passengers to have guns on airlines?

Well I suppose that if there isn't a large enough activist movement emboldening a thought that thought must not exist. Although your question reminded me of a story I heard to day that answers that "why" question rather well. I'll post it in a bit if you'd like.:)

[TheNoNamedOne]

Ah ad hominem.

Not at all, Doug, for I am not condemning you for your decision. You have to remember, you inserted yourself into the argument as some kind of proof, so then it is quite fair to comment on yourself as proof... or a credible point on the issue. Here to refresh your memory of your words:

Then there is that shrinking minority like myself who means no harm to anyone and would much rather be left alone that gets flanked by these two groups.

Obviously you are not walking the talk. You don't mind being assimilated into mother hive.

[DougP]

Not at all, Doug, for I am not condemning you for your decision. You have to remember, you inserted yourself into the argument as some kind of proof, so then it is quite fair to comment on yourself as proof... or a credible point on the issue. Here to refresh your memory of your words:



Obviously you are not walking the talk. You don't mind being assimilated into mother hive.

So by working on base I am being assimilated? Dear me!:eek: I supposed I am also for gun control, censorship, the socializing of private industries and the war in Iraq..... Hey I'm not the only one (http://www.japanupdate.com/forum/showthread.php?t=958) who has considered working closely with the machine they strongly criticize. You don't have to be assimilated to go into the hive for some honey.:) But hey, fair enough, zing, you nailed me.:D

[TheNoNamedOne]

So by working on base I am being assimilated? Dear me!:eek: I supposed I am also for gun control, censorship, the socializing of private industries and the war in Iraq..... Hey I'm not the only one (http://www.japanupdate.com/forum/showthread.php?t=958) who has considered working closely with the machine they strongly criticize. You don't have to be assimilated to go into the hive for some honey.:) But hey, fair enough, zing, you nailed me.:D

LOL!

Yes, zinged, indeed. All in good natured jest, Doug.

Yes, you are being assimilated, and willingly so. Fear molds you there. Didn't you erase a post or two of yours where you criticized G. Zilmer strongly after the lockdown when there was fear of possible retribution for speaking out so strongly against being an assimilated target of that policy? Perhaps the Zilmer Hitler mustache portrait?

[DougP]

One still stood if I remember correctly. But perhaps I did erase mine. If I remember correctly there was a decision made at first to remove the threads and then see if others wanted to have their content deleted because of rumored inspections. Probably should have left that picture up, hell I left all the other posts I made in protest up didn't I? Fear of other members getting slammed is what motivated me to vote on removing the lock down section and deleting some pictures. Not fearing for myself is what allowed me to leave all of my written content up for the world to see even after we made that section public again. Again though, you're right, in some way fear was a motivating factor in the decision I made. Looking back, making a decision with fear of something in mind was the wrong thing to do. Just as pushing for laws to control people out of fear whether its for "national" or personal security is the wrong thing to do.:) Honestly, I'm not sure how I am really being assimilated into the hive though. Wouldn't that entail me speaking up more for the hive and not so much against it? I mean, sure I'm stocking up on some of that hive honey even if the hive isn't really signing off on my paychecks.

Here's a question, a hypothetical one. Suppose there was a teacher who was against the US military occupation in Okinawa but had a student or two that were military dependents. Would he be disingenuous to speak out against the occupation even though he was being paid by a school that was accepting tuition(funded by Uncle Sam) from military members? Might he also be in danger of assimilation?

[TheNoNamedOne]

Honestly, I'm not sure how I am really being assimilated into the hive though. Wouldn't that entail me speaking up more for the hive and not so much against it? I mean, sure I'm stocking up on some of that hive honey even if the hive isn't really signing off on my paychecks.

I dunno, Doug. You seem to be against government interference, but if the government creates a mini economy that interferes (whether positively or negatively), and one accepts being assimilated into part of that, things look rather hypocritical.

Here's a question, a hypothetical one. Suppose there was a teacher who was against the US military occupation in Okinawa but had a student or two that were military dependents. Would he be disingenuous to speak out against the occupation even though he was being paid by a school that was accepting tuition(funded by Uncle Sam) from military members? Might he also be in danger of assimilation?

I don't think he'd be disingenouous about speaking against the occupation (but remember technically this is not an occupation situation), for dissent of opinion is a right. He would be that proverbial dog that bites the hand of the master that feeds it, though.

Now, if that teacher were to rant against agains government interference or assimilation and the laws or policies his position entailed when joining that org, then his protests against ideas of assimilation would be disingenuous.

Is he guilty of anything because of association connecting his conflicting views with those of the parents that are bridged to him merely because of the kids he teaches? If so, I would say the shades of guilt are much less.

[Zorro]

Not to keen on that as well even though cars appear to be more dangerous than guns if we were to look at the number killed each year or injured each year in car accidents.

It would be a lot smarter to count on a per capita basis. Cars are literally everywhere, all the time. Considering that, counting user hours would also be wise. If guns got used as much as cars do, WE WOULD ALL BE DEAD.

Further, guns have a specific purpose: TO KILL. They also have a side use: To threaten to kill. People jump in a car and they usually just want to get somewhere. People grab a gun and they are thinking of killing or threatening.

Well I worry about people who feel that way because they are only limited by "ability" on what they can regulate and restrict. I get a cold shiver when I imagine what else may one day be regulated or controlled once that "ability" increases. Probably not in my lifetime, thank goodness.

I feel the same. But that does not mean either of us support anarchy surely? Some things have to be regulated or it all goes to $#!T. Frankly I dont think a society should ever have to worry about dodging bullets. Dodging knives is quite enough.

I am much more concerned with the military back governments of the world who have deemed their muscle worthy and able to carry far more dangerous weapons then what is currently available to the average citizen. If you are going to have any form of gun control, for the love of Pete, let it start with them.

It already started a long time ago. Iraq is a good example. I was never worried about Iraq affecting me ever. Never had the capability to get the weapons to me even when they had them way back when. My gun toting neighbor tho....he worries me.

I know that some people blow the whole thing out of proportion. But the fact remains that guns are deadly weapons and the American Founding Fathers did not and could not predict the state of guns today nor the state of society. I am sure they would support licensing, training and registration. All three can be done by law, yet handled totally by a third party such as the NRA. We do the same with car insurance no? What is the big deal?

[Asshat]

It already started a long time ago. Iraq is a good example. I was never worried about Iraq affecting me ever. Never had the capability to get the weapons to me even when they had them way back when. My gun toting neighbor tho....he worries me.

I know that some people blow the whole thing out of proportion. But the fact remains that guns are deadly weapons and the American Founding Fathers did not and could not predict the state of guns today nor the state of society. I am sure they would support licensing, training and registration. All three can be done by law, yet handled totally by a third party such as the NRA. We do the same with car insurance no? What is the big deal?

Yep. I could not have said it better. I trust me with a weapon..but few others, including law enforcement.

[GoochBomber]

it should be part of a police stop "license, registration, and gun license please"

[uriel]

Banning guns though would impact on the numbers of people killed and on those even following through with an intent to kill. For example, a person needs more strength, energy, and time to try and massacre a large group of people with a knife than if they had a gun. That allows the police to respond before the body count gets rolling along. Furthermore, an assailant with a knife attacking a group of people has a good chance of being overwhelmed and disarmed by the group once they understand what is taking place.

Often, those options are not available to a group facing someone armed with firearms and the police arrive too late.

While semantically correct, that guns do not kill people, people do, guns multiply the power of the one weilding the gun and therefore multiplies the criminals' victim numbers. It has a huge magnifying effect that increases the horrors of crimes in scope.

It also allows for weaker persons, who because of their lesser physical stature and who would otherwise be sensible enough to know not to get violent, resort to violence with guns because not only do they level the playing field in physical strength, it empowers them to surpass those they have targeted to kill. A skinny runt boy (or girl) would -- probably even armed with a knife -- have a high probability of being disarmed and his ass kicked if he approached a large athletic jock in a fit of rage. A gun on the other hand would stop a jock from yards away without even havng to get up close and personal about it.

Also, let's consider the deaths caused by stray bullets missing their intended target and killing others not at the immediate scene of the attack. I don't think I have ever heard of a stray knife impacting into the body of someone a block away.

Banning guns would lower deaths in violent crimes.


Ever heard of that place called Akihabara? How did the crowd mentality help with that one? How about this: enforce the gun control laws that are on the books, not make new ones. If they were enforced, things like VA Tech wouldn't have happened. He was a nut, the doctors knew it, but didn't fill the paperwork out properly. And by the way, how many of the gun related crimes were committed by people who stole, or otherwise obtained illegally those firearms? So, we should take the guns from the ones who do the right thing? Yes, let's consider the stray bullets. Let's see, drive by for example, yep, stray bullets could hit innocent people. That tells me that the ones who would perpetrate such a crime, really don't care about who it may hurt, and would commit the same crime regardless of who may be hurt in the process by using something other than a gun.





Banning guns would lower deaths in violent crimes by guns.

There, fixed it for ya. :thumbup1:

[DougP]

It already started a long time ago. Iraq is a good example. I was never worried about Iraq affecting me ever. Never had the capability to get the weapons to me even when they had them way back when. My gun toting neighbor tho....he worries me.

I know that some people blow the whole thing out of proportion. But the fact remains that guns are deadly weapons and the American Founding Fathers did not and could not predict the state of guns today nor the state of society. I am sure they would support licensing, training and registration. All three can be done by law, yet handled totally by a third party such as the NRA. We do the same with car insurance no? What is the big deal?

I wasn't necessarily referring to what I felt put me in immediate danger when I said I was more worried about centralized powers wielding the most dangerous weapons as appose to the gun toting neighbor. In fact I've had quite a fair share of gun toting neighbors before and was never worried about the close proximity of dangerous weapons because the people that owned them never worried me. One of the interesting things that you mentioned was that the fore fathers never imagined the world we live in along with the weapons in existence would be a reality. Although I understand that logic it is still a psycho-historian way of assessing what we could never really know. It can also go in a different direction. One that points to the fact that our forefathers never intended for America to foster a centralized oligarchy.

Given our current social climate what you suggest in the ways of gun control seem to be the most logical in steps to curbing what you and many others feel is an important issue. One that aligns itself more with common sense and not so much ideology. I'm not so sure I agree with your opinion that People grab a gun and they are thinking of killing or threatening. And I can see where you are coming from with Some things have to be regulated or it all goes to $#!T.. What I'm not clear on though is who you feel should be the one regulating. Same goes with regulations on automobiles and regulations put in place for operating automobiles. Some of those regulations, more specifically the one about seat belts doesn't seem to go over well with you. This we agree on. But at what point do we separate from this philosophy of personal responsibility and individual governing? When is it ok to give up this responsibility and hand it off to arbiters, to the elite? As pointed out it is rather disingenuous of me to take up this position but still can't help but wonder if a life in which all aspects of it are spelled out for everyone in black and white is really the best thing. Whether or not its right to enforce such a system on everyone even if I seem quite comfortable conforming with it. After all I do not own a gun and am not planning on owning one, I even wear my seat belt. I guess what I am trying to ask is that, just because I toe the line, should everyone else?

[TheNoNamedOne]

Ever heard of that place called Akihabara?

Yes. I made the first thread on it here minutes after it occurred.

How did the crowd mentality help with that one?

One reason why the crowd did not disarm the assailant was because the option of fleeing existed. Again, typical human extinct -- fight or flight. Nothing barred them from flight, so they attempted to run away. Now, had the guy barged into a McDonalds with no retreat for the victims as he wielded his knife, the real option of overpowering him because he just had a knife would have been more likely and probably attempted.

How about this: enforce the gun control laws that are on the books, not make new ones.

This line never ceases to amaze me because it in fact acquiesces to the reasoning of gun control and those putting it forth seem to not realize it.

Look, gun control law A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, and K, were all made at different points on a timeline, and each law at one time was fought against by those against gun control, and it is likely that between each previous law and new law being put forth, the argument of "enforce the laws on the books rather than make new ones" was proffered. This argument tacitly accepts the previous law as legit because they want it enforced! But then the law they are fighting against comes to be, and hence they resort to the same argument once again when a new law is put forth -- thus accepting the previous one they already fought against.

If one is truly against new laws and understands how this argument has NEVER stopped the slow creep of gun control, then once should say, "Hey, before we even think about fighting this new law being put forth, let's devote our recourses to appealing the previous law, the one before that, and the one before that." But they don't. They can't once they've muttered the argument, "Enforce the laws on the books before making new laws."

But lawmakers see through that argument because it is a call for perfection which will never happen, and since perfection of enforcing laws on the book is the cornerstone of that argument, they think they can keep new laws from every happening by resorting to holding law enforcement and government to the standard of perfection on that issue.


If they were enforced, things like VA Tech wouldn't have happened.

This is an appeal to ignorance. The fact is we just do not know if it or another similar like it would have happened or not. I would bet all languages have a phrase to expect not living up to perfection of catching stuff like this. Why else would the phrase "slip through the cracks" ever come to be if it were not such a natural or common occurance the world over? Because wee are not perfect, and our systems, too, are not perfect and never will be? Seems strange to hold gun control laws and law enforcement of those to the standard of perfection when other things are not -- e.g. the raping of Okinawans by Marines, despite any afterward conviction of the guilty. Enforcing the standards does not stop some from falling through the cracks -- but more filler added to the cracks can make them narrower and narrower.

And by the way, how many of the gun related crimes were committed by people who stole, or otherwise obtained illegally those firearms? So, we should take the guns from the ones who do the right thing?

If Mr. Upright citizen did not have the gun in his house when it was robbed by Mr. Criminal, then it would not have been stolen as part of the loot to allow a killing by that gun of a convenient store clerk months later after it may have past through several hands through purchases in the street world of gangs or other criminals.

Yes, let's consider the stray bullets. Let's see, drive by for example, yep, stray bullets could hit innocent people. That tells me that the ones who would perpetrate such a crime, really don't care about who it may hurt, and would commit the same crime regardless of who may be hurt in the process by using something other than a gun.

How many stray knife throw killings from the point of throw to the point of impact over 50 meters to enter into a house nearby have injured or killed innocent people who had nothing to do with the crime or those perpetrating it? Not sure if I have ever read a story like that? Certainly there must be some poor gangs who didn't have guns but were so angry they went on their "drive-by" with knives or bats instead. Any bat killings of people in their homes that were thrown from 50 meters away that penetrated the wall or window?

My questions are not rhetorical, so I am awaiting the answers.

[Tinkerbell]

I love my gun!! I also love that I live in a country that gives me the right to own one. I haven't felt the same not having it here on Okinawa with me.

[okisteve]

Funny, but I never picture Tinkerbell packing. Well, maybe that's just a dumb prejudice of mine.

Doug - I understand what you say, but aren't you leaning a lot on the notion that it is 'the other guy' and 'the elite' who are making and enforcing the laws? If we have a gun control law it is because it is the will of the people as expressed through elected representatives. I don't have a problem with that (well, maybe a few little exceptions like invading Iraq), do you?

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Another thing about the crowd fleeing in Akihabara. Self defense laws are much more strictly defined in Japan. If the option of fleeing exists, and you engage an attacker, you cannot call your actions self defense.

[DougP]

Funny, but I never picture Tinkerbell packing. Well, maybe that's just a dumb prejudice of mine.

Doug - I understand what you say, but aren't you leaning a lot on the notion that it is 'the other guy' and 'the elite' who are making and enforcing the laws? If we have a gun control law it is because it is the will of the people as expressed through elected representatives. I don't have a problem with that (well, maybe a few little exceptions like invading Iraq), do you?

I guess the reason why I'm coming off as such a raving lunatic is due partly to a dwindling belief that legislation gets passed solely on the "will" of the people. My faith in elected representatives actually "representing" those that elect them and not to the more current and prominent lobbyists has fallen off a bit as well. Don't mind my ramblings it could just be me overreacting:) But you did bring up a good example with Iraq. Although there was an appearance that over half of Americans polled were for military action against Iraq many of them who were polled also stated they would much rather see a diplomatic solution. Given that over the last few years there hasn't been much public support of continuing the conflict over there I'd say the "will" of the people is being ignored by whom they've elected. It also appears to me that it is the elite running the show. Again I might just be crazy.

Here's an idea though. What if issue such as gun control were handles at a much lower level through local or state municipalities. Get a feel for what the community climate is on the issue of gun control. That way if there's a town of cowboys who want guns, the can do so, legally. Because it would also be through the will of the people that gun control laws were not put in place within the community. Seeing how the social climate can change from community to community wouldn't it be more reasonable to have such decisions take place at that level? Just a thought.

[DougP]

Another thing about the crowd fleeing in Akihabara. Self defense laws are much more strictly defined in Japan. If the option of fleeing exists, and you engage an attacker, you cannot call your actions self defense.

I honestly did not know that. That's actually something very important to know for anyone living here that may be under the impression that fighting off an attacker is ok. I guess I'd better work on my sprints then.:)

[okisteve]

It also appears to me that it is the elite running the show. Again I might just be crazy.

Here's an idea though. What if issue such as gun control were handles at a much lower level through local or state municipalities.


Interesting idea, and I can't think of any reason it could not be that way. It might result in some funny 'Welcome TO ...' signs too.

I don't think we have any more of an elite class of lawmakers than at any point in history. The Founding Fathers were the elite of the elite. Maybe we should try to get more wealthy people elected who would be less susceptable to the big lobbies. At least some better educated ones. My stereotype of a typical congressman is a successful smalltown lawyer or real-estate tycoon.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

I honestly did not know that. That's actually something very important to know for anyone living here that may be under the impression that fighting off an attacker is ok. I guess I'd better work on my sprints then.:)
Yeah, it kind of cuts down on any would-be heros as well. I read of how one foreign guy near Tokyo assisted a Japan Rail staff who was being attacked by a hammer wielding lunatic. Gaijin gets hauled to the cop shop, questioned all day, not even allowed to clean the blood off of himself. Eventually released, but called back on several other occasions for further questioning. Good Samaritans beware...

[Zorro]

uriel: Ever heard of that place called Akihabara? How did the crowd mentality help with that one?

I prefer to ask how many more would have died if a gun had been involved.

Its a tough question tho. Gun shots would have raised the alarm sooner. But it did not really matter much, he took less than two minutes and stabbed four people to death. And he needed confusion to that, which he had in spades. Remember, he crashed his car into pedestrians. People ran to help. He stabbed 12 people. Four of those died. He rammed at least five people, killing three. All told, seven deaths.

If he had had a gun he could have killed more, including the officer that subdued him with a gun. Not only that, but it could have easily resulted in a stand-off, such as we had last year, involving several hostages, and possibly resulting in more deaths, including the death of the assailant.

Now, dont think for a minute that not wanting the assailant dead is some sort of mercy. I am glad that SOB is alive and will face justice. Had he had a gun, and killed himself, then he held all the cards. I dont want other loonies to envy that. And if he had a gun, he could have done himself easily. During a siege situation that a gun could have created, he easily could have shot himself to death instantly.

The only good points a gun would have brought to the table are noise and a *potential* lack of ammo. But if he had the ammo, he could have killed so many more. No thanks.

[Zorro]

I wasn't necessarily referring to what I felt put me in immediate danger when I said I was more worried about centralized powers wielding the most dangerous weapons as appose to the gun toting neighbor.

I guess I am just selfish that way. I also think we do plenty to keep advanced weaponry out of the hands of nutter nations that we really need to worry about.

I've had quite a fair share of gun toting neighbors before and was never worried about the close proximity of dangerous weapons because the people that owned them never worried me.

We dont all have that luxury.

One of the interesting things that you mentioned was that the fore fathers never imagined the world we live in along with the weapons in existence would be a reality. Although I understand that logic it is still a psycho-historian way of assessing what we could never really know.

Again, remember I am not talking about a ban on guns. I am talking about third party regulation. The constitution does not bar that, and I fail to see any reason the AFF would oppose. They were not anarchists.

It can also go in a different direction. One that points to the fact that our forefathers never intended for America to foster a centralized oligarchy.

Not as it exists today, no. I doubt they would have violently opposed the secession of the Confederacy either.

What I'm not clear on though is who you feel should be the one regulating.

Any private org that wants to and can prove its capable to the gov., just like we do with auto insurance. The NRA is an obvious choice. Why not let concerned groups make their own systems that conform to government rules? They can keep their records apart from the police and government and forward info at their own discretion, like when they expel a member and he cant find another group to join. They can train their own members to their own standards, following a minimum laid by the gov. They can expel members they deem unworthy, also at a minimum laid by the gov.

Essentially, I am talking about organized and legitimized militias, following the rules, but not the orders, laid by the government, as well as their own rules if they want to be more strict. It seems to me to be in the best interests of everyone involved. I cant see how anyone could object unless they were severely paranoid or knew perfectly well they are not up to snuff, and those folks should not possess guns anyway.

Given our current social climate what you suggest in the ways of gun control seem to be the most logical in steps to curbing what you and many others feel is an important issue. One that aligns itself more with common sense and not so much ideology.

Well then, unlike so many others, your input systems are working in perfect working order. Thank you for understanding that.

[uriel]

Another thing about the crowd fleeing in Akihabara. Self defense laws are much more strictly defined in Japan. If the option of fleeing exists, and you engage an attacker, you cannot call your actions self defense.

Really? So, you're saying the self defense laws state that even if you see something violent happening to someone else, you are obliged to run away? I don't think so. Sounds like a cop out to me. I'd like to see that law.

[uriel]

If Mr. Upright citizen did not have the gun in his house when it was robbed by Mr. Criminal, then it would not have been stolen as part of the loot to allow a killing by that gun of a convenient store clerk months later after it may have past through several hands through purchases in the street world of gangs or other criminals.

And if Mr. Upright citizen didn't have a house there, Mr. Badguy wouldn't have robbed it. What is your point? That is the same circular thinking that goes on here when the cops look at traffic accidents. Well, if you weren't there, it wouldn't have happened. Gee, that takes some brains. The rest of your statements, well, I'm not going to argue them. You want guns gone. Don't sugarcoat it. You don't want any of us to have them because you think they are the devil, or whatever it is you think they are. Good. That's your opinion. Stay in Japan and you never have to worry about the evil guns that are in America. But, we aren't the only country with guns. We just have a whole lot of gun crime. Looks like that's something we have to deal with, and stripping the population of legal firearms is not the answer. What's next, I wonder, after the guns are taken? Porn? Alcohol? Cars larger than a Chevette?

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Really? So, you're saying the self defense laws state that even if you see something violent happening to someone else, you are obliged to run away? I don't think so. Sounds like a cop out to me. I'd like to see that law.

Naw, no law like that. When attacked, if there is the opportunity to escape, and you fight instead, you'll be a party to a fight, not someone defending themselves. In the instance you come to another's aid, you would be considered a party in a fight, as in one of the attackers. It may all work out in the end...it may. If you are extremely lucky, you'll get off like the guy in the story I read, and only be a suspect, questioned all day, and eventually released. Maybe brought back in another handful of times for additional questioning. His saving grace was he was able to subdue the perp without any more violence. If you need to harm the perp to accomplish your goal, you'd better hope it's extremely cut-and-dried, with all witnesses backing you up.

[uriel]

I have this nagging feeling that if someone jumped in on the Akihabara situation, it would be pretty cut and dried...

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

But, we aren't the only country with guns. We just have a whole lot of gun crime. Looks like that's something we have to deal with, and stripping the population of legal firearms is not the answer. What's next, I wonder, after the guns are taken? Porn? Alcohol? Cars larger than a Chevette?
You are being very disingenuous. Surely you watched Bowling for Columbine? You saw the data. Countries with stricter gun control and fewer guns in the hands of citizens have far less shooting crimes than the USA. Many, if not all, of these countries actually have more liberal liquor and porn laws than America. You're going to have to do a lot better than that to make your point.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

I have this nagging feeling that if someone jumped in on the Akihabara situation, it would be pretty cut and dried...
So was this one...

A man was gunned down Tuesday by a 17-year-old boy in the third killing in three days on Richmond city streets, according to police. The tragedy was compounded by news that the man was trying to help a pregnant woman.

Police say the victim, 40-year-old Richmond resident Terence Lionel Martin, was shot after intervening in a physical confrontation between the teenager and his pregnant girlfriend.

"This is your Good Samaritan, shot for trying to do the right thing," Richmond police Lt. Alec Griffin said.

http://cbs5.com/local/Terence.Lionel.Martin.2.435228.html

[uriel]

Bowling for Columbine? Yeah, I saw it. Countries with stricter gun control and fewer guns? Like Canada? Oh wait, they have just as many guns. Or was it the Swiss? Nope, wrong again. I didn't mean it is something we have to deal with, like we just gotta take it, I mean it's a problem we have to tackle without resorting to TP's well, let's just take them all away attitude. The liquor and porn has nothing to do with gun crime dude. I meant it as what do the people like him want to do next? First take the guns because they don't agree with them. Then the liquor because they don't drink. Then the porn because they are religious. It was an example, not a reason.

[uriel]

Okay... what is your point with that story? Don't be a good samaritan? Every man for himself? I don't care what that story said. I was talking about your comment that said if you get involved you will more than likely be convicted of whatever they can pin on you. Why go on the tangent?

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Bowling for Columbine? Yeah, I saw it. Countries with stricter gun control and fewer guns? Like Canada? Oh wait, they have just as many guns.
Disingenuous again. A country with a tenth the population has just as many guns? Nope, that's a real hard sell. Show me the numbers. You did know about the handgun (that's a pistol in case you're still lost) ban there, right? You did know you have to be licensed to buy a gun there, and that process requires a class, test, and police background check? Trigger locks are required for stored weapons. Ammo stored separately. Knew all that, right?

Or was it the Swiss? Nope, wrong again. I didn't mean it is something we have to deal with, like we just gotta take it, I mean it's a problem we have to tackle without resorting to TP's well, let's just take them all away attitude. The liquor and porn has nothing to do with gun crime dude. I meant it as what do the people like him want to do next? First take the guns because they don't agree with them. Then the liquor because they don't drink. Then the porn because they are religious. It was an example, not a reason.
If you really saw the movie, you'll know places like Japan and the UK were also compared to the US. Wanna take a guess at their crime stats involving shootings?

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Okay... what is your point with that story? Don't be a good samaritan? Every man for himself? I don't care what that story said. I was talking about your comment that said if you get involved you will more than likely be convicted of whatever they can pin on you. Why go on the tangent?
Have you forgotten your own question already? You said anyone acting in Akiba would be a-ok, that is a cut-and-dried situation. Like, say, coming to the assistance of a pregnant woman. You can never know the personal consequences to you when you get involved. I'm not advocating inaction. You'll be hard-pressed to find anywhere I suggested that. But, one should be fully aware of the possibility of trouble and consequences.

[uriel]

Bro, get over the movie. Japan has what, 20 guns in the country? Yes, less guns, less shootings. But they do have 77 year olds baashing their families brains in because they just can't take it. You want me to get over this:

"Disingenuous again. A country with a tenth the population has just as many guns? Nope, that's a real hard sell. Show me the numbers. You did know about the handgun (that's a pistol in case you're still lost) ban there, right? You did know you have to be licensed to buy a gun there, and that process requires a class, test, and police background check? Trigger locks are required for stored weapons. Ammo stored separately. Knew all that, right?"

It came from the damn movie!!! I didn't make it up. I took it out of that movie that you are referring to! Are you really that brain dead, or do you just hate guns that much? I enjoy shooting, and when I am in the states, I will have a gun. Am I gonna go all cukoo with it? No. Why shouldn't I have it? Just because people like you don't want me to?

[uriel]

Have you forgotten your own question already? You said anyone acting in Akiba would be a-ok, that is a cut-and-dried situation. Like, say, coming to the assistance of a pregnant woman. You can never know the personal consequences to you when you get involved. I'm not advocating inaction. You'll be hard-pressed to find anywhere I suggested that. But, one should be fully aware of the possibility of trouble and consequences.

Dude. You are missing the point by so much you ain't even looking in the right direction. You started by saying that if you get involved with a fight, the cause, your actions, and what the witnesses see had better be cut and dried. The personal consequences were not even in discussion. Yes, I know bad things can happen, but I didn't even imply that with my response and I am honestly confused how you could think I did. I said that anyone coming to the assistance in the Akihabara situation would be LEGALLY okay. I did not say it would be without consequenses.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Acutally, I started by mentioning that the legal threshold for self defense is different here than what Americans will be used to. You took the ball and ran by somehow taking from that the idea that I somehow suggested one witnessing a violent act should run. Since that time, I have been pointing out the holes in your gun control position, and reminding you that what may seem legal to an American may be viewed differently by the Japanese police. If anyone is confused, it is you.

[DougP]

If you really saw the movie, you'll know places like Japan and the UK were also compared to the US. Wanna take a guess at their crime stats involving shootings?

I do think that its a bit unfair to compare the two countries on this issue in the first place(US and UK). I would wager that the UK had a lot fewer homicides on average than the US did. I'd even be willing to put money that the amount of gun crime in the UK before the gun ban was very low compared to that of the US around the same time. Although its been said that it has greatly reduced the number of gun related crimes in the UK there have been a number of news reports that seem to disagree slightly with this statement since the ban went into action.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1334274/Gun-crime-rises-despite-Dunblane-pistol-ban.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1741336.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3112818.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/nottinghamshire/7011221.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6363713.stm

I'm sure over all things are looking up.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Come on Doug, now it's you being disingenuous. Articles looking at only the two years after the handgun ban? What about the ten years since then? What's the overall trend? You've completely ignored that. And, the bit about a spate of gun crimes in London, what's that? In London...ok. What about the UK? You know, data for the entire country. Is that not what the comparison is?

[okisteve]

Why are you all wasting your breath on this argument, which is very much like how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? OK, so there are good reasons why the good guys should be able to have a gun around - they are responsible, it's a fun hobby, etc etc. The real question is how to keep guns out of the hands of the bad guys. Obviously (I'll probably regret using that word) the real problem is all the hoods and gangbangers who use guns in robberies and assaults. So what's the solution? How can we surgically remove guns from their hands while allowing people like Uriel to keep theirs?

Any reasonable suggestions?

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Naw, I don't think people like Uriel should be allowed to walk around packing heat. :thumbdown: Can you say disaster waiting to happen...? :scared:

[Asshat]

Why are you all wasting your breath on this argument, which is very much like how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? OK, so there are good reasons why the good guys should be able to have a gun around - they are responsible, it's a fun hobby, etc etc. The real question is how to keep guns out of the hands of the bad guys. Obviously (I'll probably regret using that word) the real problem is all the hoods and gangbangers who use guns in robberies and assaults. So what's the solution? How can we surgically remove guns from their hands while allowing people like Uriel to keep theirs?

Any reasonable suggestions?

There are no "reasonable" suggestions yet. Even a fingerprint or DNA ID system would be overridden by those wanting the weapons.

Either arm and train everyone to the point of say...law enforcement, or remove every weapon on the planet.

[DougP]

Come on Doug, now it's you being disingenuous. Articles looking at only the two years after the handgun ban? What about the ten years since then? What's the overall trend? You've completely ignored that. And, the bit about a spate of gun crimes in London, what's that? In London...ok. What about the UK? You know, data for the entire country. Is that not what the comparison is?

That's why I added I'm sure over all things are looking up. I should have annotated in recent years. Although wasn't the gun ban enacted in '97/98 time frame? Some of those are from more than just two years after the gun ban, cut me some slack!:) But again though, do you really feel its fair to compare the two countries? Or even compare the US with Japan on this issue given the social climates and homicide rates of each country were more like apples and oranges to begin with, before the bans were in place. There's really no controls and constants found in each of these countries in relation to gun violence to begin to compare or assume that what works in the UK will work in the US. I mean, even the idea of self defense is different in Japan than elsewhere like the US. Surely attitudes towards firearms, number of unregistered fire arms, number of homicides could also be vastly different between each country.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

All this talk of the US being some sort of unique and special society is the same tired argument used by Japanese nationalists, Quebec separatists, and any other group pining for the bad-old days.

[okisteve]

I'm for Cuba Libre!

[Asshat]

All this talk of the US being some sort of unique and special society is the same tired argument used by Japanese nationalists, Quebec separatists, and any other group pining for the bad-old days.

So a nation does not have a unique identity? Hmm. I just can't feel that. If I were comparing murder rates between Tokyo and LA, and having been in both cities for extensive periods of time, I would have to say that the unique qualities of each city contribute to it's respective crime rate.

Using that logic, Americans should NOT have guns, and Japanese SHOULD have guns. Never the less, I would bet a great deal on per-capita murder rates being less in an armed Japan than an unarmed USA.

[DougP]

All this talk of the US being some sort of unique and special society is the same tired argument used by Japanese nationalists, Quebec separatists, and any other group pining for the bad-old days.

That's not exactly what I was eluding towards. More along the lines of the same old tired reasoning of If it works for X it will work for Y. Just saying that it might not be fair nor responsible to apply that reasoning on this issue by comparing countries.

[okisteve]

Naw, I don't think people like Uriel should be allowed to walk around packing heat. :thumbdown: Can you say disaster waiting to happen...? :scared:

What about Tinkerbell? She seems nice and stable?

Ooops sorry Doug.. I meant I am for this... http://www.cocktaildb.com/recipe_detail?id=2948

[Asshat]

Ooops sorry Doug.. I meant I am for this... http://www.cocktaildb.com/recipe_detail?id=2948

Hey you frikken yuppie, that's a RUM and COKE! :)

[DougP]

Ooops sorry Doug.. I meant I am for this... http://www.cocktaildb.com/recipe_detail?id=2948

So am I:thumbup:

[Zorro]

Asshat: There are no "reasonable" suggestions yet. Even a fingerprint or DNA ID system would be overridden by those wanting the weapons.


I think someone presented one.

http://www.japanupdate.com/forum/showpost.php?p=120503&postcount=101

[okisteve]

I think someone presented one.

http://www.japanupdate.com/forum/showpost.php?p=120503&postcount=101

Good, in that it is a structure for getting guns into the good hands, but how would it keep them out of the bad ones?

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

So a nation does not have a unique identity?
You can only be unique in comparison to someone or something else. If nation X is unique, so is nation Y, and nation Z. Sure the USA is unique, just like every other nation. However, just because you or I am unique, doesn't mean certain generalities don't apply to us. I'm sure the exact solution will vary from place to place, but the general rule of gun restrictions is sound.

That's not exactly what I was eluding towards. More along the lines of the same old tired reasoning of If it works for X it will work for Y. Just saying that it might not be fair nor responsible to apply that reasoning on this issue by comparing countries.
As above, I'm sure the solution for the US will take certain useful parts from many nations laws, and work them into something that can have a positive impact there.

What about Tinkerbell? She seems nice and stable?

All she needs is her fairy dust to work magic. No guns necessary :)

[Maggie]

I can see how gun control works. I can see why so many are in support of it. The one thing I don't see is the rate of murders dropping significantly is a gun ban was in place. Seriously we have some very very sick people in the US. I think tougher punishments would deter violence a bit as well. If you murder someone in cold blood you get murdered in cold blood. Simple very simple. And we don't have to keep the prisons overflowing. By the time we get rid of enough bad apples maybe people would choose to leave guns alone without the need of a ban.

It's extremely difficult to gat a gun licence here, almost impossible.

The problem is that the criminals don't need or have a gun licence, so if guns are banned, the only people who wouldn't have guns are the public.

Criminals and the Police will always have them

Maggie:thumbdown:

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

For Doug:

MYTH: The crime rate has been skyrocketing in the UK and Australia since stricter gun control laws were enacted in 1996-1997.
TRUTH: The truth is that the UK police has changed its system for recording crime since implementing new gun control laws. This change in recording crime made it appear that the crime rate went up. The British Crime Survey, which was unaffected by this change, shows a decrease in crime. Go to the section under violent crime in the British Crime Survey. "The increase in violent crime recorded by police, in contrast to estimates provided from the BCS, appears to be largely due to increased recording by police forces. Taking into account recording changes, the real trend in violence against the person in 2001/02 is estimated to have been a reduction of around five percent." (from Chapter 6- "Violent Crime in England and Wales" of Crime in England and Wales 2001/2002- pdf file (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb702.pdf))

http://www.guninformation.org/

http://www.guninformation.org/bcscrime9703.jpg
Source: Crime in England and Wales 2002/2003 (pdf file) (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb703.pdf) (page 3)

Between 1997 and 2002, the overall UK crime rate fell by 27% (source) (http://www.policesupers.com/scripts/currentnews.ASP?news_id=314). The claim that following the gun ban Australia experienced big increases in crime has been refuted as an urban legend at www.snopes.com, a website that is devoted to exposing urban legends. "Given this context, any claims based on statistics (even accurate ones) which posit a cause-and-effect relationship between the gun buyback program and increased crime rates because 'criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed' are automatically suspect, since the average Australian citizen didn't own firearms even before the buyback." (source) (http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/ausguns.htm). Australia's homicide rate is lower than the homicide rate in the US and there has been little variation in Australia's homicide rate since their gun buyback (source) (http://www.aic.gov.au/research/homicide/stats/hvr.html). Not surprisingly, the National Rifle Association didn't let the facts get in the way of its claims that stricter gun laws had caused an increase in crime in Australia. Attorney-General of Australia, Daryl Williams, pointed out in letter to Charlton Heston that "firearms are being used less often in murder, attempted murder, assault, sexual assault and armed robbery in 1998 compared with 1997." He also stated in his letter, "The 54 firearm-related homicides in Australia in 1998 equate to a rate of only 0.28 per 100,000 people. I have been advised that this compares to a rate which is in the order of 4 per 100,000 in the United States. Now that you have the facts, I request that you withdraw immediately the misleading information from your latest campaign."

[Mapit8888]

Banning guns at this stage of the game is pointless. There are too many guns in circulation. Are you going to go door to door taking guns from people? If everyone was asked to turn in their guns, then I am sure that the people committing murder with guns would be the first in line. Give me a break. So, all of the good, honest, law abiding citizens turn their guns in. Opens the door for all of the thugs that decided to keep theirs.

Let's say that it did work. Everyone turned them in. Are knives next? A guy just went on a killing spree in Tokyo with a truck and a knife!! He drove the truck in to a crowd of people and then got out of the truck and started stabbing anyone in reach. In a country where it takes a lot of paperwork and testing to get permission to own a shotgun. You have to own a shotgun for 10 yrs before you can even apply for permission to own a rifle. There are also strict rules about how it is locked up in your home. Yes, they do come and inspect your home, unannounced, I might add. Shootings are very rare here because of their strict laws, but have still happened here.:thumbdown:

Right here in Okinawa. Just the one that I can remember off the top of my head. A guy and his girlfriend coming through Naha from the airport. This happened within the last 10 yrs or so. The gunman rode up on a motorcycle and shot them in the car. Mafia hit of course. Even here where it is unheard of to actually own a gun, it still happens.

[TheNoNamedOne]

All this talk of the US being some sort of unique and special society is the same tired argument used by Japanese nationalists, Quebec separatists, and any other group pining for the bad-old days.

Yeah, funny, huh? Reminds me of the time when Japan ski manufacturers resisted eliminating import restrictions on foreign made skis, claiming Japanese snow was special.

Now gun-toting-loving Americans want to use the argument of things special and unique about America to keep guns. Riiiiight.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Banning guns at this stage of the game is pointless. There are too many guns in circulation.
Stopping the number of guns in circulation where it is now? Working on a gradual reduction? Stopping legal guns from going into circulation on the black market? Let's see...yes, yes, and yes.

Right here in Okinawa. Just the one that I can remember off the top of my head. A guy and his girlfriend coming through Naha from the airport. This happened within the last 10 yrs or so. The gunman rode up on a motorcycle and shot them in the car. Mafia hit of course. Even here where it is unheard of to actually own a gun, it still happens.
Oh my!:ohmy: One incident in ten years!! Sounds like gun control isn't working!!! Why, that's hardly any different from the US...:rolleyes:

[TheNoNamedOne]

And if Mr. Upright citizen didn't have a house there, Mr. Badguy wouldn't have robbed it. What is your point?

Simple. No legal gun to rob, no once legal gun turned into a thing illegally possessed and used to commit a crime.

That is the same circular thinking that goes on here when the cops look at traffic accidents. Well, if you weren't there, it wouldn't have happened.

But we are here. Short of genocide we will remain. Guns on the other hand can be strictly controlled or taken off the market without having to resort to violence do so.

Sorry, your conflating these two falls flat.

Looks like that's something we have to deal with, and stripping the population of legal firearms is not the answer. What's next, I wonder, after the guns are taken? Porn? Alcohol? Cars larger than a Chevette?

So long as populations increase, societies always have the urge to organize in more efficient ways. More laws and prohibitions are a direct result of that so that cohesiveness remains. More open frontier space with less population densities usually means more freedom and responsibility granted from central governments to citizens to empower themselves on issues. The less fronteir and more populated areas means giving up more freedoms.

Sorry, but that more or less is just the history of civilization. Deal with it. That is the trend. Always has been, always will be.

I am still not sure why no one has addressed my previous post about pro gun people should be supporting rights of gun owners to be armed on passenger planes. Seems logical since they often say that guns prevent crimes.

Oh, I guess lawmakers or NRA lobbyists do not promote such an idea because it is ABSURD.

[Maggie]

[

Oh, I guess lawmakers or NRA lobbyists do not promote such an idea because it is ABSURD.[/QUOTE]

But is is absurd.

It will be quite easy to make law abiding people give up their guns. They might moan, but they'l do it.

Law abiding people don't go around shooting people or committing crimes.

Criminals don't need a licence, don't want a licence and will have access to guns whatever the law. It is absurd, because nothing will change. At least not here.

I'm all for stopping our Police carrying guns, if it takes multiple armed police God knows how many bullets to kill one innocent man.

Maggie

[affiredawg76]

I was wondering if you could clarify a few things for me please...???

Law abiding people don't go around shooting people or committing crimes.

So why would they have to give up their guns if they aren't using them to commit crimes?

Criminals don't need a licence, don't want a licence and will have access to guns whatever the law. It is absurd, because nothing will change. At least not here.

So you are ackowledging that criminals would still have them and have access to them even if the law-abiding public does not?

I'm all for stopping our Police carrying guns, if it takes multiple armed police God knows how many bullets to kill one innocent man.

I'm not following you here...you're worried about innocent men being killed (as should everyone be), so you are OK with taking guns away from police??...but correct me if I'm misunderstanding your comments above this that seem to acknowledge that criminals would still have guns...That would mean that unarmed Police would be going up against potentially armed criminals. Many, many members of law enforcement die each year in the line of duty as it is now. I would hate to see the figures when it's bad guys with guns against good guys with....batons?? tazers???? Wouldn't police officers fall into the "innocent men" category?

Again, I apoligize if I am misunderstanding the intent of your post.

[uriel]

Acutally, I started by mentioning that the legal threshold for self defense is different here than what Americans will be used to. You took the ball and ran by somehow taking from that the idea that I somehow suggested one witnessing a violent act should run. Since that time, I have been pointing out the holes in your gun control position, and reminding you that what may seem legal to an American may be viewed differently by the Japanese police. If anyone is confused, it is you.

Okay, my gun control position, is stop trying to take guns from LEGALLY LICENSED CITIZENS WHO ARE NOT CRIMINALS AND HAVE NO CRIMINAL INTENT TO USE THEM! That's it. You keep harping on semantics and what not. Just take what I have to say, agree with it or not. We (the people) need to find a solution to lower the violent crime in the country. Be it from trying to bring more equality to society, or education or whatever. I don't think that taking the guns is the answer. Many other countries have guns, with not so much gun crime. And you did imply that if you saw a violent act being committed, you shouldn't get involved because unless it can be "cut and dried" that you had no other option, it would probably be viewed as you just getting into a fight. Your words.

[uriel]

Naw, I don't think people like Uriel should be allowed to walk around packing heat. :thumbdown: Can you say disaster waiting to happen...? :scared:

You know nothing about me you arrogant prick. I am not aggressive past heated debates. I just don't like that people want to punish me and people like me for the crimes of, well, criminals. I don't particularly want to walk around packing heat. Nice assumption jerky. I said I would like to OWN a gun. Home defense, and as a hobby. It is fun to go to the range and plink off some rounds. How about saving the personal judgements? I did save mine on you until now.

[uriel]

Simple. No legal gun to rob, no once legal gun turned into a thing illegally possessed and used to commit a crime.

So, because someone can steal something from me and use it in a crime, I shouldn't have it? It sound kinda like locking everybody down because of 1 scumbag. I believe now, and always will, in the right to bear arms. Some here say the country has changed, and I agree. It has evolved. However, using that as an excuse to say that we no longer need, or will allow guns to me, isn't justified. If it were, we would just go through and change the whole constitution to reflect the changes in society, and I personally wouldn't want to see that happen. Is that an extreme situation? Yes. But, not impossible.

[TheNoNamedOne]

You know nothing about me you arrogant prick.

Please refrain from name-calling. Thank you. -- TP

[uriel]

Okay, how about stop being so arrogant? Does that feel a little better? Doesn't inflame your sensitivities?

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Can I call them, or what!

http://21stcmb.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/10/28/ticking_time_bomb_small.jpg

[uriel]

No, you can't. I don't appreciate when people like you pass judgement on me, when you know nothing of me. Just because I don't appreciate it, has nothing to do with what you think would happen. So, go ahead, keep calling them. You'll still be wrong.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

People who get caught up in the heat of the argument, who show flashes of temper at the slightest perception of disagreement, are people I'd rather not possess firearms of any sort at any time.

[uriel]

Flashes of temper? This is the place to get caught in the heat of the argument. Again, you know nothing of me. It isn't about the "slightest perception of disagreement". So, by your rationale, the only people who ever should have anything dangerous like a firearm or other weapon are the ones who have no emotions? Good luck. Human is what I am. Jump down off your high horse and come down here. The weather is fine.

[uriel]

You know what, I'm just done arguing with you. You believe that you are better than me, and nothing I say will change it. So carry on with your Zen-like calm and lack of emotion.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/27/58882749_872b59cdb9.jpg?v=0
Gotta gettum hooked young!
http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0gW2cYS3rZ4yD/610x.jpg
Bam! Bang bang!
http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0c389jD8nWg15/610x.jpg

[Mapit8888]

It is your pipe dream. Best of luck.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Come on mapit, ya big stud! You got any fight left in ya?

What evidence do you have to suggest restricting guns will result in knives, porn, and all other things you hold dear being banned? Dangerous things are restricted all the time. Driving drunk. You gonna repeal the DUI laws cause some folk manage to sneak a drunk drive home in now and again? Why don't you start by showing us a country that banned handguns or all firearms, and then document their slippery slope into a nanny state. I'd like to see your evidence...

[Maggie]

I was wondering if you could clarify a few things for me please...???

So why would they have to give up their guns if they aren't using them to commit crimes?

So you are ackowledging that criminals would still have them and have access to them even if the law-abiding public does not?

I'm not following you here...you're worried about innocent men being killed (as should everyone be), so you are OK with taking guns away from police??...but correct me if I'm misunderstanding your comments above this that seem to acknowledge that criminals would still have guns...That would mean that unarmed Police would be going up against potentially armed criminals. Many, many members of law enforcement die each year in the line of duty as it is now. I would hate to see the figures when it's bad guys with guns against good guys with....batons?? tazers???? Wouldn't police officers fall into the "innocent men" category?

Again, I apoligize if I am misunderstanding the intent of your post.


I don't believe that our police force should carry arms. I've worked alongside them, and they behave like kiddies with a new toy. I also don't consider our police force "innocent"

Very few civilians here own guns, and if they do, the restrictions and rules are very specific. These people belong to gun clubs etc.

Outlawing guns here is a joke. I could walk down the road and buy one any time I chose, if I were that way inclined, which I'm not.

Our Police force has a very bad record regarding armed police squads and gun battles. I'm not sure which are the most dangerous. The police or the criminals.

Maggie

[Tanimaga]

Maybe everyone should go back to broadswords and longbows. Much more class than firearms.

[Maggie]

Maybe everyone should go back to broadswords and longbows. Much more class than firearms.

More chance of escape as well.

Maggie

[DougP]

High court strikes down gun ban (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/06/26/scotus.guns/index.html)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a sweeping ban on handguns in the nation's capital violated the Second Amendment right to bear arms.


There were 143 gun-related murders in Washington last year, compared with 135 in 1976, when the handgun ban was enacted.

Haven't checked the rest of the forum today so forgive me if this is already old news that's been posted.:)

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Yup, TP beat you to it.

http://www.japanupdate.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6776&highlight=supreme+court

[DougP]

Yup, TP beat you to it.

http://www.japanupdate.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6776&highlight=supreme+court

He most certainly did!:) Got to get up pretty early to beat him to the punch.

[Mapit8888]

Evidence? Statistics? Who reported the things that everyone quotes anyways. Statistically how accurate are statistics? You can't tell me that you believe everything that you read and hear in the news. I am a gun owner, not here in Japan of course. I would never use them for wrong nor will I surrender them to anyone. I have plenty of fight in me. I just choose my battles wisely. Some issues are worth arguing over and some are just worth sitting back watching.

[js9234]

You know what, I'm just done arguing with you. You believe that you are better than me, and nothing I say will change it. So carry on with your Zen-like calm and lack of emotion.

You're trying to argue wtih the 2 dumbest most irrational people on here. They think they are better than everyone and don't think like logical people. People that think like them are just not completely right in the head. If it was up to them we would all be vegetarians and not allowed to own guns, defend ourselves, drive cars, have electricity, etc... They just come on here to piss people off with their irrational thoughts.

[TheNoNamedOne]

You're trying to argue wtih the 2 dumbest most irrational people on here. They think they are better than everyone and don't think like logical people. People that think like them are just not completely right in the head. If it was up to them we would all be vegetarians and not allowed to own guns, defend ourselves, drive cars, have electricity, etc... They just come on here to piss people off with their irrational thoughts.

Ah...js, you smarting about something, or do you have something related to this topic to post on rather than starting to go down the route of insults and name-calling? If you are still smarting about something and want to whine, you can create a thread for that in the Forum Feedback section or rants, or post on one of the many that are already there.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Evidence? Statistics? Who reported the things that everyone quotes anyways. Statistically how accurate are statistics? You can't tell me that you believe everything that you read and hear in the news.
You asked what was next - porn being banned, booze, that sort of thing. The pure reactionary, emotional appeal that NRA nuts and their ilk use to try and get the fear going in their throngs. My question was a simple one - has some place like jolly olde England, or them crazy Canucks, or maybe those shifty Japanese gone and banned booze and porn? No, of course not. In fact, place that have more stringent gun controls on the public often have more liberal policies towards many, if not most, other personal freedoms. Your so-called fears ring hollow, mon ami.

I am a gun owner, not here in Japan of course. I would never use them for wrong nor will I surrender them to anyone. I have plenty of fight in me. I just choose my battles wisely. Some issues are worth arguing over and some are just worth sitting back watching.
If you'd like to sit back and watch, why snipe here and there with the comments? Is this another of the habits of highly effective trolls?

[P_chan]

No not porn!:scared:

[Zorro]

Well the law-abiding citizens blah blah, then the criminals will blah blah....

Okay, its not a direct quote. But I have heard statements like this a million times.

These suppositions always make it seem like we have two polarized groups: the law abiding citizens and the criminals. It also makes it seem like there are great roving gangs of criminals in complete charge of certain sections of the country. Neither is true.

Fact is that EVERYBODY is a law abiding citizen until they turn to crime. Then they are TREATED like a law abiding citizen until they are found out. It can be hard to distinguish a criminal from a law abiding citizen. Indeed, no one knows when the line will be crossed.

And that brings us to:

If we take the guns away from the law abiding citizens, then only the criminals will be left with guns.

Fails to take into account the fact that just about EVERYBODY was a law abiding citizen once. Criminals dont pop out of the womb with a gun in hand. Even most criminals follow most laws most of the time. Most wont have anything to do with guns if having one is strictly forbidden. Only the hardest of the hard will bother. And it doesnt matter what we do with regards to ANY crime, the hardest of the hard can only be stopped by being captured and jailed. No law stops them from doing anything anyway. Only force does. So do we give up on regulation? Duh! Of course not!

When people say: well even if we regulate guns or even ban them, the criminals will get them anyhow. Makes me wonder if these people leave their cars unlocked with the keys in the ignition! Or think we should bother with laws making it illegal to steal them! After all, cars STILL get stolen dont they? So why bother trying?

Why bother indeed! Because good fences make good neighbors, that's why. Because the more barriers you erect, the more difficult it is to pass into the forbidden area. Just because one barrier is not fool proof does not mean you throw your hands in the air and give up, does it?

Lets put some numbers to these ideas. Lets say that for every 100 law abiding citizens, 10 become criminals. Lets say there are no restrictions. Left to their own devices, lets say 7 will carry a gun at all times just because its so darn easy. Lets say there are restrictions implemented one day. Suddenly, only 2 carry a gun regularly, because hey, getting busted for carrying a gun walking down the street pays even less than their preferred crime! 2 others might possess guns and intend to use them in a crime. But now, they suddenly have to be more careful else they could get busted just for the gun also. Lets say we ban guns entirely. Now only one has a gun at all because man, they are hard to get during a ban.

Naturally, fewer criminals possessing guns equals less gun crime. We will never reach zero. But so what? We never reach zero with any kind of crime, do we? But we dont give up.

Now comes the area where people say "Hey, but a few criminals will still have guns, and I want to protect myself. Well, just because you have a gun does not mean you are safe. It means you *might* come out ahead in a gunfight. Or you might die anyway. I would rather just decrease the odds of having a gunfight from 7 in a 100 to 1 in a hundred. Odds are that one in a hundred will just go away when he gets my wallet anyhow. And if not, what are my odds of surviving the gunfight? We are better off without the guns. If we cant get that, we are better off with fewer.

The math is not complicated folks. You are safer when there is a ban, but of course, the ban has to be total, and not partial. If you ban guns in DC but not in Virginia, DC is going to be a VERY dangerous place. That math aint complicated either.

And let me remind you all, the thread title is GUN CONTROL, not gun ban. And I dont think a ban is really possible in the U.S. at this time, even if its obvious that I would prefer they disappear. So, all things considered, I support regulation. And throwing in fear of the government, I point out that third party regulation with government blessing is quite possible.

(Sorry all, these are a lot of rambing thoughts generated throughout this busy day. Might be a little disjointed.)

[Zorro]

okisteve:Good, in that it is a structure for getting guns into the good hands, but how would it keep them out of the bad ones?

Thank you for your interest.

A lot of this might be understood by my above post, but let me explain it a little clearer.

To put guns into the good hands IS to NOT put them in bad hands. Its not perfect, its not an end all be all, but it is somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Licensing would close SO many loopholes that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands. If its illegal to sell or give guns to those without a license, the law fearing people who got the guns in the first place wont pass them on without seeing a license first. That goes double if the guns are registered, because if the police can trace a gun used in a crime back to YOU, and they find you sold the gun but the purchaser had no license, well welcome to DEEP DOODOO. This closes the gun show loophole, where guns are sold without background checks. Such a licensing system is the ultimate and inescapable background check.

But yeah, some guns will still fall into bad hands. The fewer the better. This method will certainly make it fewer.

And how could anyone oppose such a system? None of the options I can think of are any good at all. They include a) being a reckless careless idiot b) knowing that being a reckless careless idiot means they could never pass a licensing exam c) being too lazy to want to be bothered with such things as training and general firearms safety d) being a complete paranoid and thinking the system will take their guns away even if they do prove themselves worthy.

If anyone opposes my idea, I have to wonder which they are. I simply cant think of any reason why anyone with any sense or compassion would oppose except for the fact that it would cost them a bit more to own a gun. But how much does a license cost? Registration? Not enough that I think anyone's compassion would be over-ridden unless they just dont have any. Such a person simply loves their guns more than general humanity. And there are a lot of those types running about. They love their guns, and #u<k everybody.

And further to all THAT, a licensing system could be used in REVERSE to allow some people to have those automatic weapons and silencers and sawed off shotguns they have always craved. If the irresponsible and the stupid cant get a license, so what? Think of how YOU might benefit. Think of how the bad guys will quake knowing all those are out there, while being very very hard pressed to get them themselves.

[okisteve]

Thanks for those replies, and I agree with you on all points, but that isn't going to be much help now I fear.

[Zorro]

Quote:
There were 143 gun-related murders in Washington last year, compared with 135 in 1976, when the handgun ban was enacted.

A rise of 8? I have to wonder how much the population changed in that time, not only with numbers but also demographically.

Further, I am FAR more interested in general trends than numbers from two years. Crime waves happen. Not that I am arguing that banning handguns in DC was a good idea. I feel the opposite in fact. But I still want general trends and not cherry picking, which is what this amounts to.

Anyhow, notice something here: handguns were banned. Yet, we get stats for gun related murders and not HANDGUN related murders. I would like to know that stat!

[Zorro]

eelecurb, your ripping apart of the simplistic yet maze-like soundbyte arguments of gun advocates has been astoundingly on target. Congratulations!

[Maggie]

Evidence? Statistics? Who reported the things that everyone quotes anyways. Statistically how accurate are statistics? You can't tell me that you believe everything that you read and hear in the news. I am a gun owner, not here in Japan of course. I would never use them for wrong nor will I surrender them to anyone. I have plenty of fight in me. I just choose my battles wisely. Some issues are worth arguing over and some are just worth sitting back watching.

No issue is important enough to need a gun.......and they are sooo easy to use if the argument doesn't go your way.

Maggie

[Maggie]

Can I call them, or what!

http://21stcmb.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/10/28/ticking_time_bomb_small.jpg


Bombs?

Feck off eel. That's my job :army:

Maggie

[okisteve]

A rise of 8? I have to wonder how much the population changed in that time, not only with numbers but also demographically.

Further, I am FAR more interested in general trends than numbers from two years. Crime waves happen. Not that I am arguing that banning handguns in DC was a good idea. I feel the opposite in fact. But I still want general trends and not cherry picking, which is what this amounts to.

Anyhow, notice something here: handguns were banned. Yet, we get stats for gun related murders and not HANDGUN related murders. I would like to know that stat!

It's probably safe to assume that most gun murders are by handguns. That must include the entire class of deadly automatics too.

So, given the changing demographics and general trend since 1976, that really means that the controls were effective, dunnit? Not that you'd ever convince anyone who doesn't want to be convinced....

[TheNoNamedOne]

Feck off eel.


Refrain from this kind of language directed at members and telling members to do this. -- TP

[Maggie]

Bombs?

Feck off eel. That's my job :army:

Maggie


Oh my God. I couldn't be more sorry. I hope that I haven't offended you in any way. If I have, please accept my sincere apology. :w00t:

I had no idea that you weren't joking, and that my flippant reply was so badly out of place.

Please accept my apology.:ohmy:

Maggie :crying:

[elgringoloco]

Gun control is hitting what you are shooting at with the first shot.

[Maggie]

Gun control is hitting what you are shooting at with the first shot.

That's why I use a dog. They never miss.

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b207/worcollie/Chaseacting.jpg

Maggie

[DougP]

That's why I use a dog. They never miss.

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b207/worcollie/Chaseacting.jpg

Maggie

What caliber weapon are you firing dogs out of?:ohmy: Or are you just throwing them? Never figured a dog to be that accurate of a long range weapon.:scratchchin:

[Maggie]

What caliber weapon are you firing dogs out of?:ohmy: Or are you just throwing them? Never figured a dog to be that accurate of a long range weapon.:scratchchin:

LMFAO. I can't answer that :D:D:D

Maggie

[eodmatt]

Just picked up on this thread and found it interesting because hand-guns are banned in the UK. Even the country's Olympic shooting team has to practice outside the country - how stupid is that?

Hand-guns have been banned in the UK since 1988 after two particular incidents (of course there is a constant level of gun crime in the UK, like most places):

1. A 27-year-old unemployed local labourer, Michael Robert Ryan, armed with two semi-automatic rifles and a handgun ran amok in Hungerford, Berkshire, England, on August 19, 1987. He shot and killed sixteen people including his mother, and wounded fifteen others, then fatally shot himself. The massacre led to the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988, which banned the ownership of semi-automatic centre-fire rifles and restricted the use of shotguns with a magazine capacity of more than two rounds. The Hungerford Report had demonstrated that Ryan's collection of weapons was legally licensed.

2. On 13 March 1996, unemployed former shopkeeper and former Scout leader Thomas Watt walked into the school armed with two 9 mm Browning HP pistols and two Smith & Wesson .357 Magnum revolvers. He was carrying 743 cartridges, and fired 109 times. Sixteen children and one adult were killed, in addition to the attacker, Thomas Watt Hamilton, who committed suicide.

It is important to note that:

3. In both cases the weapons were legally owned and licensed by the perpetrators.

4. In both cases the issue of licences to hold weapons had been opposed, but the police went ahead and issued firearms licenses to both lunatics. The subsequent law banning hand-guns in the UK was a knee jerk reaction exploited by the police who had failed and were incompetent to the point of criminal negligence in the matter of gun licensing.

Now that hand-guns are banned in the UK and other firearms prohibitively restricted, you would think that there would be hardly any gun crime in the UK. Unfortunately that is not so. I remember remarking, when I heard that a law had been passed banning handguns: "So now only the police and criminals will be armed!"

According to official Home Office figures, there were 59 firearms-related homicides in the UK in 2006-07 compared with 49 in the previous year. That is an increase of 18% in just one year. There were 507 serious injuries from firearms - more than one incident a day.

Banning hand-guns here in the UK has achgieved very little.

[Fire4Effect]

I'm all for allowing people to own a handgun in their home for self-defense and for owning a rifle for hunting, but how many people really need to own an automatic?

Having said that, I'm for it, but I think it should be AT THE VERY LEAST as hard as getting a Japanese driver's license. You should have to spend a month or two running around getting paperwork, taking tests, learning safety, and learning how to fire it before you can take it home.


I am not an expert on all the individual gun laws, but as a gun owner, my opinion is that tighter and more restrictive gun laws only hurt the honest, law abiding people. Here is my reasoning;I went throught he process to get a concealed weapons permit. to get this permit I went to a gun safety class, a proficiency demonstration at a pistol range, went through a background check by both the county sheriff, and the North Carolina State Beaureu of Investigations and a mental health back ground check plus $300 in fees. If I am willing to go through all the proper channels to get the licenses and register my guns, do you think I am likely to use one of them in a crime? doubtful. Now, on the flip side, if a criminal is going to use a gun to commit a crime then does he really care if his gun is legal? no. More than likely they will be using a gun that is stolen or illegally imported so their name isn't on it. Tighter gun laws only result in one thing, Gun shops going out of business and illegal arms dealers getting richer. You take away guns and people will just use swords, knives, bow and arrows, ice picks, shanks, etc. People are going to kill people regardless. If you want to see a drop in crime then make it easy for everybody to get guns. A criminal may be less likely to commit a crime if they know that everybody has a gun. They won't have the advantage of firepower...

[Fire4Effect]

Some of my babies...:scared:

I cherish and exercise my right to keep and bear arms...

[Oxmix]

Thank you for your interest.

A lot of this might be understood by my above post, but let me explain it a little clearer.

To put guns into the good hands IS to NOT put them in bad hands. Its not perfect, its not an end all be all, but it is somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Licensing would close SO many loopholes that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands. If its illegal to sell or give guns to those without a license, the law fearing people who got the guns in the first place wont pass them on without seeing a license first. That goes double if the guns are registered, because if the police can trace a gun used in a crime back to YOU, and they find you sold the gun but the purchaser had no license, well welcome to DEEP DOODOO. This closes the gun show loophole, where guns are sold without background checks. Such a licensing system is the ultimate and inescapable background check.

But yeah, some guns will still fall into bad hands. The fewer the better. This method will certainly make it fewer.

And how could anyone oppose such a system? None of the options I can think of are any good at all. They include a) being a reckless careless idiot b) knowing that being a reckless careless idiot means they could never pass a licensing exam c) being too lazy to want to be bothered with such things as training and general firearms safety d) being a complete paranoid and thinking the system will take their guns away even if they do prove themselves worthy.

If anyone opposes my idea, I have to wonder which they are. I simply cant think of any reason why anyone with any sense or compassion would oppose except for the fact that it would cost them a bit more to own a gun. But how much does a license cost? Registration? Not enough that I think anyone's compassion would be over-ridden unless they just dont have any. Such a person simply loves their guns more than general humanity. And there are a lot of those types running about. They love their guns, and #u<k everybody.

And further to all THAT, a licensing system could be used in REVERSE to allow some people to have those automatic weapons and silencers and sawed off shotguns they have always craved. If the irresponsible and the stupid cant get a license, so what? Think of how YOU might benefit. Think of how the bad guys will quake knowing all those are out there, while being very very hard pressed to get them themselves.

The system you talk about is pretty much in place right now.

When a firearm is sold by a dealer, FFL, the purchaser has to fill out a form 4473. The FFL dealer then checks the individuals ID and calls the FBI to perform a NICS check. If the person passes the NICS check they are allowed to purchase the firearm. This is for a long gun.

If the firearm to be purchased is a hand gun or assault rifle the the purchaser must in addition to the NICS check present either a valid CCW, carry, permit or a State Purchase permit. One must go through a criminal back ground check before they can receiver their permit.

All firearms sold by a dealer must be posted in the dealers Bound book. If the firearm to be purchased is a full auto or a firearm designated as a destructive device device, then in addition to the above forms a form 4 must be filled out and the appropriate tax paid. Then you will have to wait for 6 months for the paper work to go through.

States are working on what is called the Gun Show Loop Hole where individuals can sell firearms between themselves without going through back ground checks. In my state, MN, legislation has been proposed that would require that all firearms sold between private parties must go through an FFL dealer and a NICS check.

When a firearm is purchased through an FFL dealer it is technically registered. It is recorded in the dealers bound book which is open for inspection by the BATFE any time that they want to look at it. Audits of the bound books are performed regularly.

A firearm should be traceable to every owner since it left the factory.

In my state should I sell a handgun or assault rifle to a private party and if that individual should use that firearm in the commission of a crime within 18 months, I am guilty of a crime.

Regards

Ox

[Fire4Effect]

Such a person simply loves their guns more than general humanity. And there are a lot of those types running about. They love their guns, and #u<k everybody.


Yep, That's me :thumbup1:

[Fire4Effect]

This closes the gun show loophole, where guns are sold without background checks. Such a licensing system is the ultimate and inescapable background check.


There is no such thing as a "Gun Show Loophole". In order to legally purchase a gun at a gun show the purchaser must obtain a permit to purchase a gun from their County Sherrif's Office. They perform the background checks. The seller must be a licensed gun dealer. If the seller is not a gun dealer then the transfer must take place through a gun dealer who verifies all paperwork is in order and usually charges a brokers fee. If a transfer takes place outside of these parameters then it is illegal, ad therefore, a crime, and it doesn't matter whether it takes place at a gunshow, a back alley, or across the border in Mexico...

[Oxmix]

Delete. Double Post

[Oxmix]

Some of my babies...:scared:

I cherish and exercise my right to keep and bear arms...

Looks like some nice firearms. Gotta love those SKS's, AK's and Nagants.

An M14 would look good with your collection. :)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0903/Oxmix/M14-1.jpg

Regards

Ox

[danielwagner]

Do you support gun control laws*? More specifically, if a gun ban were part of a comprehensive gun control law, would you support that? I would.

I am for gun control due to the high number of crimes committed by guns in the U.S. I do not adhere to the spiffy little slogan of "guns don't kill people, people kill people" as a justification for possession or the 'inocence' of guns. After all, we wouldn't justify the public having grenades by inserting that into the construct.

Americans need to give up their cowboy love affair with firearms. Guns have caused more harm in today's modern U.S. society than they have prevented.

---------------------------------------------
* Debate primarily targeted to U.S. society



That right was designed to protect you from a tyrannical government as well as allowing you to survive an unlawful challenge.

Don't give up any of your rights. You'll only miss it when it’s gone.

Cars aren't cited in a MVA or when pulled over for speeding, baseball bats aren't arrested on a battery charge, pencils aren't graded on correctly or incorrectly spelled words on a spelling test.

You will not be able to control the free will liberty option of your neighbor. The MP or local police will be there to help you in mere minutes when seconds are what really count.

Don't be afraid of Liberty embrace it! If you don't feel you can be trusted with the responsibility of your own safety travel with those who do have a desire to protect those who would rather assign that responsibility to others.

Don't trade Liberty for security. Live free or die-those darn easterners might have something there.

Failing all that I'm sure there are countries that would welcome your mindset. Good Luck.

[Oxmix]

That right was designed to protect you from a tyrannical government.

That's what I always though, but. According to this article that may not be the case.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0903/Oxmix/2ndAmmendment1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0903/Oxmix/2ndAmmendment2.jpg

Regards

Ox

[danielwagner]

That's what I always though, but. According to this article that may not be the case.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0903/Oxmix/2ndAmmendment1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0903/Oxmix/2ndAmmendment2.jpg

Regards

Ox


Thank you for sharing this gentleman’s opinion. I read your article with great interest.

The right to defend oneself comes, in my opinion, from Natural Law which comes from the Creator.

Your author states that the federal second amendment was not “primarily” designed to protect the individual or the people from a tyrannical government. I suggest that this would not preclude but rather, at the very least, should be seen in the light of a penumbra right.

After Americans fought, bled and died to be free from tyrannical rule would it not follow that the political leaders of that era would place safeguards in their new form of government to afford the people retention of the very tools by which they had cultivated their freedom?

I vaguely remember reading that Okinawa throughout its history was conquered by a number of invaders. I recall that some of these invaders forbade the Okinawan weapons. Supposedly that is why they developed specific martial arts weapons from farm implements used by your average agrarian.

Law professor Sanford Levinson-an admitted card-carrying member of the ACLU, in making an argument for a serious consideration of the Second Amendment, stated “I do not want to argue that the state is necessarily tyrannical; I am not an anarchist. But it seems foolhardy to assume that the armed state will necessarily be benevolent. The American political tradition is, for good or ill, based in large measure on a healthy mistrust of the state. “ And “The fact that these may not be pleasant examples does not affect the principal point, that a state facing a totally disarmed population is in a far better position, for good or ill, to suppress popular demonstrations and uprisings than one that must calculate the possibilities of its soldiers and officials being injured or killed. “

His quotes are taken from http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/embar.html

[COLOR="red"]"The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government". This quote is attributed to Thomas Jefferson, Third President of the United States of America.

“A government resting on a minority is an aristocracy, not a Republic, and could not be safe with a numerical and physical force against it, without a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace.” This quote attributed to James Madison, Fourth President of the United States of America.

I think these gentlemen would take exception to the position that the second amendment isn’t an in your face notice to those of a tyrannical mindset.

Truly I believe the Second Amendment was meant, in part, as a last resort for The People to defend their Libertarian Republic from all usurpers both foreign and domestic.

Gun control advocates make the argument (prior to the most recent second amendment decision by the U.S. Supreme Court) that this is a government power (OK they call it a state right-people have rights, government’s have powers) but it gives me pause to think why would the founders place a state power smack dab in the middle of a bunch of individual rights?

[Oxmix]

Gun control advocates make the argument (prior to the most recent second amendment decision by the U.S. Supreme Court) that this is a government power (OK they call it a state right-people have rights, government’s have powers) but it gives me pause to think why would the founders place a state power smack dab in the middle of a bunch of individual rights?

Exactly.

Regards

Ox

[Ammoyankee]

My retirement present to myself!

[Oxmix]

Nice.

Regards

Ox

[Crazysix]

is that the colt with the seven round clip?????? very nice, I really want this one call me old fashionhttp://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p302/jimbo_045/Spas12.jpg

[Crazysix]

Some of my babies...:scared:

I cherish and exercise my right to keep and bear arms...I so hate you...feel my envy:smile4:

NICE COLLECTION
bubbas hold a special place in my heart, but are they cechz, soviet or norincos?

[Ammoyankee]

Looks like some nice firearms. Gotta love those SKS's, AK's and Nagants.

An M14 would look good with your collection. :)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0903/Oxmix/M14-1.jpg

Regards

Ox

I know it's not the same but, I am thinking of buying a Ruger Mini-14. There is soooo many aftermarket upgrades available...

[Crazysix]

I know it's not the same but, I am thinking of buying a Ruger Mini-14. There is soooo many aftermarket upgrades available...

are you going with a chrome barrel or blued?

[Ammoyankee]

is that the colt with the seven round clip??????


No, it's the DPMS Panther Arms LR308, .308 caliber, 24 inch bull barrel, Bushnell Elite scope with Leupold rings, bipod is a Harris knock-off. Oh, the magazine is 20 rounds.

[Crazysix]

at first glance it looked like a colt match rifle/Colt Accurized Riflehttp://www.coltsmfg.com/cmci/images/AccurizedRifle_BIG.jpg

[P_chan]

Here are my guns

http://www.timewarptoys.com/scowboy1.jpg

[Ammoyankee]

at first glance it looked like a colt match rifle/Colt Accurized Riflehttp://www.coltsmfg.com/cmci/images/AccurizedRifle_BIG.jpg

There are so many out there now with tones of different model options. DPMS, Rock River, Armalite, Bushmaster. And most are very reliable and can usually be picked up for a tad bit less than a Colt.

[Crazysix]

another good place to look for accessories is blackwater usa, they have a good pro shop but kinda pricey

[Ammoyankee]

are you going with a chrome barrel or blued?

I don't know yet but probably blued. Reason being, I will probably swap for a custom stock, add a muzzle brake and go for the mil look... The run about $600 brand new at Academy Sports.

[Crazysix]

I don't know yet but probably blued. Reason being, I will probably swap for a custom stock, add a muzzle brake and go for the mil look... The run about $600 brand new at Academy Sports.
thats not a bad price. I was looking at Remington 700's the other on the Remington Homepage they are not expensive, I might look at those stickly for hunting, for home protection/collection I will be looking into the buchmasterline, until I can get my hands on a spas15(I have always loved em) The first one I saw was IN jacksonville, NC, semi auto with detachable MAG, love at first sight http://soldner.jowood.com/images/weapons/SPAS15.jpg

[Ammoyankee]

A great website if you are looking to buy is www.gunbroker.com

It is basically an EBay for firearms. Anyone can setup an account and purchase but to purchase you need an FFL or pick a shop/individual in your area with an FFL to have it shipped too. Most will charge around $20 and they will be required to run the check on you before you can pickup.

It's also a nice site just to browse and look at weapons!

[Ammoyankee]

thats not a bad price. I was looking at Remington 700's the other on the Remington Homepage they are not expensive, I might look at those stickly for hunting, for home protection/collection I will be looking into the buchmasterline, until I can get my hands on a spas15(I have always loved em) The first one I saw was IN jacksonville, NC, semi auto with detachable MAG, love at first sight http://soldner.jowood.com/images/weapons/SPAS15.jpg


They are beautiful but expensive weapons, you might want to look into the SPAS-12.

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=107395423
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=107327352


One day I am going to have a Barrett or Armalite .50 cal, I always wanted one!

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=107121190
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=107663407

[Ammoyankee]

For you old skool weapons luvers, here's my other favorite, the best handgun ever made...1911A-1 .45ACP! :army:

[Ammoyankee]

And to keep it on topic. I am for gun control with exceptions.

I own guns, lots of them for that matter. I am not a convicted felon, never had a domestic violence issue, am drug free and haven't been committed.

I should be able to own whatever kind of weapon I want within current guidelines and to hell with anyone who thinks different. If you can protest my right to eat hamburger and steak, I can defend my right to bear arms...

I also own assault weapons, those of you who can't understand why they are needed for home protection should take a look at some of the illegal weapons confiscated from arrests by police!

Our country was founded by men and women who had weapons and weren't afraid to use them. Legally owned weapons have been keeping America safe since Jesus was a Corporal. When was the last time the U.S. was invaded???

And if you break into my house, get ready for WWIII!

Anyway, my thoughts...:army:

[dk]

For you old skool weapons luvers, here's my other favorite, the best handgun ever made...1911A-1 .45ACP! :army:
LMAO that's just creepy. A pic with the JU forum in the background and some dude holding a handgun.

[kombu_kid]

LMAO that's just creepy. A pic with the JU forum in the background and some dude holding a handgun.

Yeah, and next he's gonna post in "Next JU Get-Together" thread.....:-|

[Ammoyankee]

LMAO that's just creepy. A pic with the JU forum in the background and some dude holding a handgun.

Don't worry DK, you aren't on my "yes" list! :thumbup:

[Crazysix]

@ home I have a colt .45 combat commander with all blueing removed, same grips but alittle worn. It was left to me by my mom(RIP) but I love that gun. My next pistol is a S&W .40. The shop wanted IIRC 1200 for the SPAS15 and 1100 for the SPAS12. DUDE when you return we definatley have to hook up and go "PLINKING"

[Old Timer]

LMAO that's just creepy. A pic with the JU forum in the background and some dude holding a handgun.

I'm sure he posted the pic in that fashion for a reason. Well done photo, and a lovely useful weapon. <3

[js9234]

Just an FYI for miliary members that like guns. If you call the Glock warehouse in Georgia and tell them you're Active Duty they will give you a huge discount but you have to pick the gun up from the closest Gun Store that sales to LEO. I think it is a little over $100 off and no sales tax plus a discount on their accessories. I'm not a huge fan of Glocks but with a big discount I wouldn't mind having one, I'm more of a Kimber and Wilson Combat guy :) I'm looking at having my wife pick up a Glock 23 next week in Arkansas. Here's what I found on the internet but can't remember what site(I had copied it previously to send to my wife in the states so she could pick one up)

"Glocks new military/public safety workers discount!
Well it's now March 2008 and the military/homeland security discount is still going strong after three years! Thanks to GLOCK for rewarding America's heroes! To get the REAL DISCOUNT and not get lied to from local dealers CLAIMING to be Law Enforcement dealers (only L.E. dealers can or will sell at the super discount price) call GLOCK in Smyrna, GA at 770-432-1202. There are very few L.E. dealers in each state so you may have to travel some or order directly from GLOCK and have the gun delivered to your local FFL. Below is my original post from 2005.

I noticed in the new 2005 Glock Autopistols magazine (page 19) that Glock is offering discounted Glock pistols (entire Glock lineup) to active duty and reserve military personnel. The only trick is that you have to buy from a "Glock Law Enforcement Dealer." I would imagine that these will be the blue label guns that were formerly only sold to Law Enforcement (with a dept. letter) at a steep discount (about $100 less than normal sticker price). Get 'em while this deal lasts, guys! If you have bought one with the discount please post details about what model you got and where.
Kudos to Glock for this program."

[Ammoyankee]

Just an FYI for miliary members that like guns. If you call the Glock warehouse in Georgia and tell them you're Active Duty they will give you a huge discount but you have to pick the gun up from the closest Gun Store that sales to LEO. I think it is a little over $100 off and no sales tax plus a discount on their accessories. I'm not a huge fan of Glocks but with a big discount I wouldn't mind having one, I'm more of a Kimber and Wilson Combat guy :) I'm looking at having my wife pick up a Glock 23 next week in Arkansas. Here's what I found on the internet but can't remember what site(I had copied it previously to send to my wife in the states so she could pick one up)

"Glocks new military/public safety workers discount!
Well it's now March 2008 and the military/homeland security discount is still going strong after three years! Thanks to GLOCK for rewarding America's heroes! To get the REAL DISCOUNT and not get lied to from local dealers CLAIMING to be Law Enforcement dealers (only L.E. dealers can or will sell at the super discount price) call GLOCK in Smyrna, GA at 770-432-1202. There are very few L.E. dealers in each state so you may have to travel some or order directly from GLOCK and have the gun delivered to your local FFL. Below is my original post from 2005.

I noticed in the new 2005 Glock Autopistols magazine (page 19) that Glock is offering discounted Glock pistols (entire Glock lineup) to active duty and reserve military personnel. The only trick is that you have to buy from a "Glock Law Enforcement Dealer." I would imagine that these will be the blue label guns that were formerly only sold to Law Enforcement (with a dept. letter) at a steep discount (about $100 less than normal sticker price). Get 'em while this deal lasts, guys! If you have bought one with the discount please post details about what model you got and where.
Kudos to Glock for this program."

I recently went to the cheaperthandirt gunshop in Fort Worth and noticed one case that had Glocks and Springfield XD's much cheaper priced. I asked and was told that was the Law Enforcement prices. They were all at least $100 cheaper!

[js9234]

Another FYI. Here's a list of who qualifies for the discount:

1. All Sworn Law Enforcement Officers. State, County and City
2. All Federal Law Enforcement Officers FBI, US Marshals, DEA etc
3. All Corrections Officers, including Parole and Probation Officers
4. All Retired LEO with "retired" credentials including Federal, State, County & City
5. State Licensed Security Officers
6. Active Military personnel (All branches)
7. National Guard personnel (All branches)
8. Military Reserve personnel (All branches)
9. Legitimately retired military veterans with "retired" military ID
10. All TSA employees
11. Licensed Para-Medics and EMT's
12. Fire Fighters (including volunteers) with appropriate ID
13. Commercial Pilot License holders & Federal Flight Deck Officers
14. Court Judges
15. District Attorneys and Deputy District Attorneys

[Rossi46]

I wish Kimber had a military discount program

[js9234]

I wish Kimber had a military discount program

If they did, all of my paychecks would be going to them :thumbup: Before I got here I sold my Kimber SS Ultra Carry II :( I really regret that... My next purchase through them is gonna be a CDP Pro Carry II. There was another company that offered the same type of discount but can't remember who it was. I think it was Sig Arms or CZ USA.. Not sure though.

[Fire4Effect]

I sure do miss my guns. I 'm gonna give myself another one for Christmas...:thumbup1:

[Fire4Effect]

FN/FAL .308, unless I get lucky and come across an Albanian SKS.

[js9234]

I sure do miss my guns. I 'm gonna give myself another one for Christmas...:thumbup1:

I have 2 guns(Ruger 10/22 and Savage .17HMR) being customized by a buddy(Gunsmith) and just ordered the Varmint Express Air Rifle. Shoots as fast if not faster than a .22 and can hunt with it. Just something to tinker with when I get back to the states.

[Sex Wax]

All I have is a Hawaiian Sling (tri-tipped fishing spear) and a water balloon launcher.

[js9234]

All I have is a Hawaiian Sling (tri-tipped fishing spear) and a water balloon launcher.

I may have to put one of those on Layaway :thumbup:

[Fire4Effect]

I don't need a water balloon launcher. I just use my wifes bras... :w00t:

[The Joker]

Another FYI. Here's a list of who qualifies for the discount:

1. All Sworn Law Enforcement Officers. State, County and City
2. All Federal Law Enforcement Officers FBI, US Marshals, DEA etc
3. All Corrections Officers, including Parole and Probation Officers
4. All Retired LEO with "retired" credentials including Federal, State, County & City
5. State Licensed Security Officers
6. Active Military personnel (All branches)
7. National Guard personnel (All branches)
8. Military Reserve personnel (All branches)
9. Legitimately retired military veterans with "retired" military ID
10. All TSA employees
11. Licensed Para-Medics and EMT's
12. Fire Fighters (including volunteers) with appropriate ID
13. Commercial Pilot License holders & Federal Flight Deck Officers
14. Court Judges
15. District Attorneys and Deputy District Attorneys



Thank you for this information!! where did you get this info? Is this posted somewhere so an individual could present this to a licensed dealer, in case he is unaware of the program?

[Fire4Effect]

Thank you for this information!! where did you get this info? Is this posted somewhere so an individual could present this to a licensed dealer, in case he is unaware of the program?

He said he saw it in the store he went to so it may be a particular store or company policy. The best thing is to just ask.

[js9234]

Thank you for this information!! where did you get this info? Is this posted somewhere so an individual could present this to a licensed dealer, in case he is unaware of the program?

Check the first post on page 22 and it explains most of it. You have to call the Glock warehouse and they will direct you to the closest LEO gun store to use the program. I found it online doing some research on a new gun to buy and just happened to run across it on a forum. I believe it was www.glocktalk.com in the forum section.

[js9234]

The wife just got off the phone with Glock and this is what she emailed me about them:

"You have to send a copy of your ID to the place and they will send paperwork to the nearest Federal Firearms lisenced dealer and then they have to send it back with a copy of their Lisence... And the Glock 23 usually sells for $650 but with the discount it is $398.20 plus $10 for S&H and whatever the sales tax is in the area"
Still not bad at all but a little different process than I thought. Can't wait for my, I mean her new Glock23 :grin1:

[Maggie]

The wife just got off the phone with Glock and this is what she emailed me about them:

"You have to send a copy of your ID to the place and they will send paperwork to the nearest Federal Firearms lisenced dealer and then they have to send it back with a copy of their Lisence... And the Glock 23 usually sells for $650 but with the discount it is $398.20 plus $10 for S&H and whatever the sales tax is in the area"
Still not bad at all but a little different process than I thought. Can't wait for my, I mean her new Glock23 :grin1:

I wish it were easier to buy guns here. It's almost impossible, unless you want a shotgun, and I think the law will change regarding them soon.

Self defence is practically a crime here.

Maggie

[DOCROB]

Well you really don't need a firearm over here in Okinawa, just ask the JP's I don't think they knw how to use them lol.

[Oxmix]

I wish it were easier to buy guns here. It's almost impossible, unless you want a shotgun, and I think the law will change regarding them soon.

Self defence is practically a crime here.

Maggie

I think if you look you can find where people who defended themselves, in England, went to jail for doing so.

Regards

Ox

[SGT_OKINAWA]

Do you support gun control laws? More specifically, if a gun ban were part of a comprehensive gun control law, would you support that?

NO!

:grin1:

Peace!:army:

[Maggie]

I think if you look you can find where people who defended themselves, in England, went to jail for doing so.

Regards

Ox


That's absolutely true.

One poor old man was locked in his allotment shed, hiding, when a regular group of youths (who he'd complained to the Police about) began kicking the shed door, and threatening him. He shot through the door, and went straight to jail.

So did a guy defending his farm.

The sentences for what the Police consider "vigilante" behaviour are very harsh. The Police take their role as THE ONLY keepers of the peace very seriously.

They're not there to protect the public any more. They're there to keep the peace.

In fact they seem to find the public a bit of a nuisance. They're arrogant and extremely rude.

The day of the British Bobby has long gone:crying:

Maggie

[Oxmix]

Maggie, can you tell us about the roving bands of thugs that pray on the innocent, especially in the subway, the tube, system, in London. Is the tube correct terminology?

Regards

Ox

[Maggie]

Maggie, can you tell us about the roving bands of thugs that pray on the innocent, especially in the subway, the tube, system, in London. Is the tube correct terminology?

Regards

Ox

Yes, the Tube is the right name, and a lot of gangs choose the tube to find victims. It's easy for them to target people and know they stand almost no chance of getting caught.

I never use it. It's too easy to be mugged, and for the assailants to hop off at the next stop.

I always drive to London, despite the parking. It safer.

I do know that about five to eight years ago, we had groups of US defenders riding the Tube protecting passengers. They wore red berets, and were very popular. I don't know if they still operate. They wouldn't be popular with the Police.

I'd be more afraid of a bomb than a mugger. Once you're down there, your pretty much trapped.

Maggie

[Jimmy Hoffa]

Another FYI. Here's a list of who qualifies for the discount:

1. All Sworn Law Enforcement Officers. State, County and City
2. All Federal Law Enforcement Officers FBI, US Marshals, DEA etc
3. All Corrections Officers, including Parole and Probation Officers
4. All Retired LEO with "retired" credentials including Federal, State, County & City
5. State Licensed Security Officers
6. Active Military personnel (All branches)
7. National Guard personnel (All branches)
8. Military Reserve personnel (All branches)
9. Legitimately retired military veterans with "retired" military ID
10. All TSA employees
11. Licensed Para-Medics and EMT's
12. Fire Fighters (including volunteers) with appropriate ID
13. Commercial Pilot License holders & Federal Flight Deck Officers
14. Court Judges
15. District Attorneys and Deputy District Attorneys


This is good except my only gripes is it seems that those that fulfil thier contract and get out are not on that list so I hope that is changed if that's the case.


And also why only District Attourneys? I guess Deffense Attournys are somehow less important.:thumbdown:

[Oxmix]

Maggie,
Is there such a thing as concealed carry permit for a hand gun for private citizens in England?

Regards

Ox

[Maggie]

Maggie,
Is there such a thing as concealed carry permit for a hand gun for private citizens in England?

Regards

Ox


I'm not sure, but since it's possible to get a gun licence, I'd have thought that under certain circumstances, maybe.

I wouldn't be the least surprised to find out it isn't possible. :scratchchin:

Maggie