Gun Control? A good idea?

[Auroro]

no more than 3 boxes of ammo? are you kidding? I'm sorry but that made me laugh... 3 boxes of ammo for a rifle is ~60 rounds (and for a pistol ~120-150), on average when I go to the range I have no less than 3-400 rounds of ammunition that I go through, same with most other serious sport shooters... sorry but no serious shooters would "agree" with that, meaning the NRA wouldn't.

And those fines are a bit steep.

They would also never agree to the semi-auto ban, most of the weapons in this country are semi-autos. Sorry, but this is no "acceptable middle ground".

I do agree with the tracking of sales however, but they already do that in most states. And I also feel that as a prerequisite to owning any firearm you should need to take a VERY in depth hands on 3-4 day course (like, 6-8 hours a day, along the lines of whats offered by Front Sight) for that type of firearm, so that people can learn to respect their firearms and know how to use them properly.

I also disagree with the need for retraining every 2 years, that would cost WAY too much in taxes, sorry, it's just wrong, we have enough taxes as it is.

The fine has to be steep so that in the back of anyone head. They know that there a steep price for owning a gun.

Look at this way:

You took class and pass it.
two year later
You just need to pass the test to get new ID. I never said you need to take the classes again, the only time you need to take class again is when you fail the test.

You are paying the cost of the class, the test ($150), gun itself and the ammo. You still get 50 dollar back if you pass the test.

At least we are talking about the middle ground i am willing meet halfway but you meet 1/4 way.

Dealing with boxes of ammo, how we state many are in each box and set the limit of how many you could buy without raising red flag.

We need more taxes in order to support any of the programs that our government created. I blame bush for being stupid on couple things like tax cuts or remove the ban on couple class type of guns.

I do support 2nd and understand its' goal but we are being too loose with gun control.

[Feardotwin]

My 2nd Amendment right should not be violated due to progressive agendas.

Down with the EU, UN, and the One World Order.

[Graves1001]

You know, bad things happen to good people. Thats the crux of this whole thing. You can take my gun, but that doesnt mean that someone hell bent on fucking some innocent people up will give his gun too.

I live in a place where we dont have police coverage 24/7, there are several hours of the early morning where we just dont have any active cops on duty, to give a better idea, a store next to Sherrif's Dept was broken into around noon one day and reported while the thugs were inside, it took the Sherrif and/or Deputies 45min to get there.

So if someone breaks into my house, I dont give two shits what they have armed themselves with, I will kill them if need be. If you take my try to take my firearms, I will make something like a pneumatic rifle that will do the same thing. I FRANKLY WILL NOT EVER GIVE UP MY ABILITY TO DEFEND MYSELF.

Likewise, if someone tries to rob/rape/kidnap myself or my family, those criminals too will die, I make no bones about it. I walk among you "gun haters" armed and ready to act when needed.

I wonder, if you anti-gun people were getting raped/about to be raped or robed at the end of a weapon (gun/knife/whatever) you'd change your damn tune if someone ran up and jamed their pistol in the rapist/criminal's face, demanding they remove their dick or hand from your belongings.

[Niteynite]

The guns used in the Colorado theater, Tucson, and Columbine were designed to kill people. Why on earth does anyone need a magazine that will hold 30 rounds? I'm a gun owner by the way, and I can't figure out for the life of me what I would do with 30 rounds in one magazine. I own a handgun, and that's enough to protect my home. I don't need an assault rifle. Why does anyone need an assault rifle?

I'm a huge defender of the right to own a gun, but there has to be a reasonable limit.

[Kendrel]

Speak for yourself. I have a gun at home and rightly so. I live in a horrible part of the UK and the amount of criminal activity where I live is disgusting. Also your points about feeling safe are completely your own opinion as well. I've been to Vancouver, I've been across Europe and I've been to LA and the worst place I've experienced is the UK without a doubt.

Subjective.

All the bad stuff in those places are stuck in their own ghetto's away from civilised society mainly. In the UK it happens wherever because of lax prosecution laws and the soft touch approach.

Soft touch approach, in many cases yes this is probably true. But it happens wherever? The odd case here or there, yes, but it's hardly of epidemic proportions across the UK.

Its nothing to do with paranoia, its all to do with the probability of an incident occurring. I use my gun to train, it gets me out of the house doing a sport I enjoy and the same gun I would use to defend myself if an intruder was coming into my home. The fact is, without this gun, if an intruder came onto my property with a gun I have nothing to defend myself. What is to say he wont shoot me anyway regardless of whether im armed or not so I cant identify him? If im armed we're on a level playing field. He has a gun, I have a gun. The most likely situation is a stand off and I tell him to leave. In that scenario they are most likely to either open fire, which they probably would have done anyway regardless of whether im armed or they will leave and either go home to avoid the law or move on to their next target.

This part I actually largely agree with. This doesn't suggest that guns shouldn't be subject to massive control though.

Lets look at the UK. It has a high rate of violence outside of guns which people never look at. Knife crime is rife in the UK and anyone who says it isn't is deluded. As for your assumption that the UK doesn't have many guns, you are beyond deluded. The criminal underworld in the UK is rife with guns and its because of gun control why most of them have no chance of ever being traced. Thats right. Gun control means illegal arms dealers manufacture guns with no serial number rather than illegally obtaining registered guns and selling them on for trade. Guns are very easy to illegally obtain in the UK and anyone who wasn't wrapped up in cotton wool all their lives or isn't of the older generation would understand how easy guns are to obtain. Even easier in places like London, Liverpool, Manchester and Birmingham. The reason most people dont use guns here to commit crimes (other than gang related crime) is simple. A simple stab does not create a loud noise, it does not attract attention due to that noise and its easy to walk up to someone on the sly and stab them without them becoming suspicious of the person's intentions. Considering a lot of crimes here happen in nightclubs and pubs and often in crowded areas thats the reason they are used. Its also far easier to conceal a knife to look like another item and get it onto the premises of a licensed property than a gun.

I haven't been able to find statistics supporting gun ownership claims in the underworld - who'd have thought?! But I don't see this as entirely relevant. If anyone ever wants to get hold of ANYTHING, then they will find a way to do it. Arming society to the teeth is not the answer to this - just look at gun crime in the USA to see the potential ramifications. Despite gun ownership in the UK apparently being relatively easy for the nasties, our gun crime is significantly lower than across the pond, despite the fact that the laws of physics apply just as readily here as they do there. Are American criminals just more stupid? Do they not feel the loud bang is enough of a giveaway and just simply haven't weighed the cost/benefit concerns of guns vs knives.

Also, the statistics I have found concerning knife crime and violent crime in general shows a massive drop year on year for quite a while now although no-one is going to dispute that knife crime is a big problem in the UK - though not as large a problem nationally as you seem to be asserting... I can't speak to yor local area though.

http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN04304
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...-england-wales

Like I said, if people want to get hold of guns, they will. If not, they will, as someone with intent to kill use whatever other method they can at their disposal. What matters to them is not the method used but the attention that they so crave. Ever noticed how most of these killers seem to be socially awkward loners with nothing to show so far in life? This guy just dropped out of med school, probably felt the world of weight on his shoulders and this was the only way he felt he could make his mark on the world.

Also subjective. I'd like to see some statistics comparative gun crime and social position. Certainly, some of them will be and the media pays them a lot of the attention, but many gun crimes go unreported in the media. But for the sake of argument let's assume this is true; do we really want to increase the availability to weapons to these people? If some want to get hold of it, they'll manage it anyway obviously, but does that mean we should cut out the nefarious middle man by making them available in every supermarket? Also, what about gun crime involving children using their parents weapons? Weapons that in all likelihood, they just don't actually need (admittedly this part is largely subjective).

Tell me, did guns cause the explosion in Bulgaria? Not one bit. The person is responsible and anyone blaming guns are so nonintellectual its incomprehensible. Whilst do gooders will instantly jump on the bandwagon that guns are bad they never mention that guns have done good like in the point I raise below. I wonder how many more people he would have stabbed if there was no one there to stop him. Yet none of this gets media attention.

I assure you that if we give people the technical know-how to create effective explosives you would see an increase in these - let's face it, they're all social loners who just want to make a mark right? I mean, what does that better than a really big firework... The person is indeed responsible, and the gun is just a tool. It's just an incredibly powerful tool that anyone can use with hugely fatal consequences with little effort. I see no need to help them.

Guns will eventually become more widespread in the UK whether its through legal or illegal means and that I can guarantee. With an ever growing violent culture thats the way its going and that we have to accept and that will be the day I leave the UK and move to a country where I shall be allowed a gun by my bedside table to make it fair game.

We'll just have to see. I hope you're wrong, but neither of us really knows.

In the US, the homicide rate by gun is so high because of gang culture. Thats a fact. The UK's gang culture hasn't taken off as fully as in the states yet because we're years behind them in most cultural aspects.

Er... what? That's a pretty large assumption that the UK is going to follow the same route as the USA in terms of gang culture, and then to apply this apparent deficiency to both cultures at large... USA gang culture is born of entirely different issues than the UK currently faces and there is no evidence either way (though there is a lot of debate) to suggest this will be the case. The largest problem in the UK at the present time is the serious lack of respect for society from our youth - indeed, from the stats above, 20% of knife crime is attributed to minors.

The sad thing is, in the UK, a murderer will only get a standard 14 years whereas in the US they face life meaning life or in some cases the death penalty. Therefore, once gang crime level and illegal gun trade grows in the UK there will actually be less of a deterrent here, not that these type of people actually factor in the punishment because most of them dont.

Interesting point that takes us into a whole other area of incarceration/disposal vs. rehabilitation in the justice system.

Many people in the UK also dont even bother to report crimes and has one of the highest rates of unreported crimes in Europe because of lack of faith in the police. No one wants the police to come out hours after a crime to take notes, they want police to be on the scene and trying to solve the situation and deter the criminal in question. Why report a crime when 99% of crimes such as burglary etc dont get solved anyway? Thats the attitude of a lot of people in Britain. Sometimes it just brings more hassle on yourself than you need as the police expect you to do their job for them.

Proof of this, as you will appreciate, has been fairly difficult to locate as stats on unreported crime are guestimations at the best of times. Sensationalising your case is probably not going to help your case though. There are a couple of good articles on the perception of crime being that is rises, but not in your area, when it is actually falling. Many of the unreported burglaries are not on the other side of the knife or a gun though - you'd have to be pretty damned apathetic to ignore that when it happens. Most unreported burglaries are thought to be bike thefts (making up about 5% of the total in 2010) or the theft of smaller items. Context is everything here. I'm not defending police for what be a poor record on resolving these, but I'd also point out that this isn't an issue limited just to the UK police, but is an issue bought fought across the globe.

People from Europe including the UK on here preaching how guns cause crimes are stupid also. Guns were not created with the intention to solely kill. They were created for many reasons. To kill in war was one yes, another reason was sports and another reason was hunting. Guns made hunting much easier. Most people who own guns have no intention of ever turning a gun on a person because they are responsible law abiding citizens. The people who do go mental with guns would find another method of killing if guns weren't there.

What the hell are you talking about?! This is the most hilarious comment I think I've ever read on a gun argument, and it's an old argument. The original intended use of the gun (about a 1000) years ago, was to kill people. Look up Chinese Fire Lances. The first western guns, the French "Arquebus" and the Flint Lock handguns we're now all aware of, were also not used to hunt deer or wild boar. Just because they are now widely used in hunting animals as well as our fellow man doesn't change the fact that they were initially created to kill people.

The guy has rigged his house with 30 explosives in CO. Guns can't be to blame for that. What, if this guy never had a gun, would have stopped this guy strapping himself with explosives, entering the cinema as he did through a side/back door and taking a seat in a crowding room and detonating the bomb? What would have stopped him? Honestly, nothing. What would have stopped him going in there with a number of self made grenade like explosives and going in there and throwing them? Nothing. Lets be real about this. This guy had an intent to kill and the gun never made him kill, his mentality did. Using the gun is just a scapegoat for the callous and sickening actions of a human being.

There is a big difference between going on a killing spree that you intend to walk away from, whether solo or in custody, and an event which is a one way trip. When someone has a range of options available to them, I don't see the problem of removing some of them - this is true in combating crime and in warfare.

Every time I see someone blame the gun laws I lose respect for them due to the lack of respect they are showing. By doing so they are shifting some of the blame from the killer to the gun which is totally wrong. 100% blame lies with the killer. Please do not absolve individuals from responsibility. Shall we just start blaming cars when pedestrians get mowed down on the pavement in a hit and run incident? Should we blame the bomb when a terrorist sets one off? No, we should never ever attribute any of the blame to the tools or weapons used, the blame solely lies with the perpetrator.

Fortunately your respect for me isn't particularly high on my list of priorities. We have laws that try to restrict the damage any one person is able to do with a car - including, but not limited to, pavements exclusive to pedestrians, pedestrian crossings, speed limits. We have laws concerning the individual purchasing items that can be used to make explosives. Why should there not be laws restricting the use and availability of guns?

Its time people woke up and stopped blaming cultural influences and people started attributing responsibility to the intellectual beings that are the human race. Of course you are going to get mentally unstable people who do things because of neurological reasons they have no control over and society should try and help these people but the vast majority are not ill, they are simply people who were motivated to kill.

I thought the lack of gun crime in the UK was a result of our lack of cultural progression compared to the USA. So which is it, intellectual capacity or cultural influences. Are the two entirely separate? Does our culture not inform our actions and the way we think? Is the mentally disturbed loner not a result of cultural influences? Was he born disturbed? It isn't black and white. But again, for the sake of argument, should guns be readily made available to people that are clinically insane? Should people not be vetted?

[Poodles]

The guns used in the Colorado theater, Tucson, and Columbine were designed to kill people. Why on earth does anyone need a magazine that will hold 30 rounds? I'm a gun owner by the way, and I can't figure out for the life of me what I would do with 30 rounds in one magazine. I own a handgun, and that's enough to protect my home. I don't need an assault rifle. Why does anyone need an assault rifle?

I'm a huge defender of the right to own a gun, but there has to be a reasonable limit.

Try learning what an assault rifle is first...

AR15 is not an assault rifle.

Also, ammo capacity means jack. The weapons weren't automatic, and reloading isn't hard.

This entire thread is full of ignorance. A gun is designed to kill in the same way explosives are designed to kill. The vast majority of ammunition fired is for plinking and it's because it's fun.

Now, let's break down the options here:

No Guns. Period.
Sorry folks, but the cat was out of the bag long ago. It's literally impossible to ban all guns. Criminals don't give a shit about your gun ban, and a reasonably intelligent person can build a gun in their garage. Sorry folks, but get your head out of the sand and realize we don't live in some utopia where violence doesn't exist.

Alot less guns.

Same as above, we already have quite strict rules to begin with.

less guns.

Repeating myself here...

same ammount of guns.

Well, if you have the same amount of guns, nothing changes.

more guns.

Getting warmer here. More important should be firearm education. A lot of gun control stems from children finding guns and accidently killing themselves or someone else. Educate them young (it's like swimming folks, even if you're landlocked, it could save their life some day...)

lot more guns.

Responsible gun carrying citizens protect themselves and those around them. It levels the playing field.


I won't comment on what happened at the theater. There's too many questions that are unanswered about what happened...

[kondura]

Bit of a silly poll

What about... everyone may own a gun, but stricter competency tests and screening should be enforced. Limitations on ammunition should perhaps be imposed. I would find it hard to believe that 6,000 rounds of ammunition would be considered rational for self-defence.

Also, perhaps enforce legislation that if you own a gun, you need to have a safe to lock it up in when it is "out of your control" and not have stupid laws like you can own a gun, but must keep the ammo and gun separate so that you are unprepared when a criminal breaks in or attacks you in your car. Leaving a gun in a car is a criminal offence in our country.

I sleep with my firearm in a special, quick to reach, but not easily visible location behind my dresser. It is there in an emergency when I sleep. If I decide to not wear it during the day, it is locked in a secure, hidden safe.

Seems like the US have the wrong types of laws regarding regulation and control. This is the root of their problems.

[Schattenlied]

The fine has to be steep so that in the back of anyone head. They know that there a steep price for owning a gun.

Look at this way:

You took class and pass it.
two year later
You just need to pass the test to get new ID. I never said you need to take the classes again, the only time you need to take class again is when you fail the test.

You are paying the cost of the class, the test ($150), gun itself and the ammo. You still get 50 dollar back if you pass the test.

At least we are talking about the middle ground i am willing meet halfway but you meet 1/4 way.

Dealing with boxes of ammo, how we state many are in each box and set the limit of how many you could buy without raising red flag.

We need more taxes in order to support any of the programs that our government created. I blame bush for being stupid on couple things like tax cuts or remove the ban on couple class type of guns.

I do support 2nd and understand its' goal but we are being too loose with gun control.

Yeah, I meet only a quarter of the way, because more than that infringes upon our freedoms.

[capitano666]

My 2nd Amendment right should not be violated due to progressive agendas.

Down with the EU, UN, and the One World Order.

The what?
/facepalm

[bellabulldog]

I normally lurk forums, but this topic is one that is dear enough to my heart that it caused me to register so that I might say a few words. I only read about 7 pages into this article so if something to this extent has been said, forgive me for my lack of due diligence.


Gun control is a bad thing. History has proven this many times over. 56 million times as matter of fact in recent history. I don't dispute the bias of the website I linked. But anyone with knowledge of history will know the baseline truth present- the absence of firearms has led to a great many atrocities on a much grander scale than anything that any single person could possibly accomplish. Accidents will happen, people will miss use them, in anger or ignorance, it is still the lesser of two evils even in light of the recent events.


I know that many questions are going to be asked, despite strong evidence to corroborate my point. You might ask how I might defend myself against the might of the military? I can't, but collectively in the hands of a freedom loving people, firearms do. Determined men and women in Afghanistan with firearms have defeated the Soviets in a nine year war from 1979-1989. America's military might is not faring well against them in the 21st century and will most likely be forced to tuck tail and concede defeat. Afghanistan may not be 'freedom loving' but it serves to illustrate a point in near history. You might argue that something like those events couldn't happen today, I would rather take my chances with firearms and keep the power in the hands of the people. Furthermore, on a individual level firearms are a great equalizer. A famous quote says 'God made man, but Samuel Colt made him equal.' Imagine yourself being confronted by a much stronger adversary, how are you not subject to that person's coercion? In a society without firearms, that person will do with you as they see fit. If they are lawless, you may be in for a uncomfortable ride. A single law abiding citizen with a firearm could have stopped Little Rock, AR, Columbine, CO, Virginia Tech and many others. This only serves to illustrate the point that trying to remove firearms from the hands of law abiding citizens is short sighted, but that the more people who are in possession of them, the safer we will be. Criminals will think twice before engaging in lawless behavior and when lawless behavior does occur, the greater likely hood that a law-abiding-someone with a firearm is there to prevent the crime from happening is present. That is not to say that owning a firearm gives you Carte Blanche to coerce anyone you see fit, it is a great responsibility to own a firearm and not one to be taken lightly. It should be noted that when handled responsibly guns are VERY safe.



I don't believe that if you added up all the deaths caused by firearms through domestic affairs (not wars), that it would total anywhere near 56 million. In short, I would wager that the presence of guns have saved more lives than they have killed. I don't believe I will change anyone's opinion on this matter, because this topic falls hand in hand with politics and religion, but I don't believe you can refute my points with history as my witness.

[capitano666]

I don't dispute the bias of the website I linked.

Kudos to you for recognising that.
However speaking as someone who lives in a country where the vast majority of the population doesn't own a gun I don't feel threatened by the might of the military, and hold my view that doing so is paranoid.
Dictatorship and coups are a thing of the past in the western world.

[Usako]

In a perfect world it would not be necessary to have guns unless you are hunting and then only the guns you need to hunt. However its not a perfect world and I believe people have the right to have guns in order to defend themselves from other people that have guns intending to do harm. There does need to be more gun control for sure, but I do not believe completely removing guns altogether will solve anything.

[bellabulldog]

I don't trust my government in any way shape or form. Paranoia? Yes. Dictatorship and coups a thing of the past? I hope you're right. You only need look back 70 years in your region to something 'that couldn't have possibly happened.' I call your predicament complacency. Humanity is predatory and we as humans are boringly predictable.

[Deleted]

Making up statistics doesn't prove a thing. But go ahead and 'be done with me.'

Actually, friend, the statistics are on Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._homicide_rate (unforgivably it is homicide not murder). Still you seem a little cranky, I understand, you like you guns.

[Deleted]

It would do the country so much better if guns were banned however i dont think that would ever happend..
Maybe they can just educate people well enough about guns ect

[capitano666]

I don't trust my government in any way shape or form. Paranoia? Yes. Dictatorship and coups a thing of the past? I hope you're right. You only need look back 70 years in your region to something 'that couldn't have possibly happened.' I call your predicament complacency. Humanity is predatory and we as humans are boringly predictable.

The socio-political situation here is kinda different from what it was 70 years ago.
I don't trust my government either in many aspects, but nothing which would require armed revolt. As long as the constitution holds.

[pucGG]

Everyone should have guns. I would have a gun if it was legal in my country.

[vaeevictiss]

Actually, friend, the statistics are on Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._homicide_rate (unforgivably it is homicide not murder). Still you seem a little cranky, I understand, you like you guns.

lol...so you get your facts from wikipedia?

[bellabulldog]

The socio-political situation here is kinda different from what it was 70 years ago.
I don't trust my government either in many aspects, but nothing which would require armed revolt. As long as the constitution holds.

What is your recourse when the constitution doesn't hold? Bondage? A piece of paper is only as strong as the force behind it.

[Knight Gil]

My 2nd Amendment right should not be violated due to progressive agendas.

Down with the EU, UN, and the One World Order.

Sums up the gun advocates mentality.

lol...so you get your facts from wikipedia?

Wikipedia is a good, reputable site. The only reason it gets a bad reputation is because school kids can't do their project works without it.

Everyone should have guns. I would have a gun if it was legal in my country.

Unless you're being sarcastic, I don't know how the hell anyone with an IQ over 100 would trust any idiot to have a gun