2 gun owners trade shots during argument, hit school bus instead.

[zhero]

It has everything to do with legal firearm ownership. Say they are criminals carrying illegally, where do you think they got those guns? I'll tell you: They stole them from legal owners.

they are going to still get guns the same way we still have cocaine, heroine and opiates.

[Rooflesstoofless]

Let me guess...

They were white and had obtained their weapons and vehicles through legal means.

[Bryntrollian]

These two morons should probably not be allowed to own a gun.

They already aren't, convicted felons aren't allowed to own guns, but that didn't stop them from shooting a school bus.

[Rooflesstoofless]

Actually lol this is an amazing thing that even most ppl in the US seem to not know ...

Your original constitution gave the right for a "militia" the right to bear arms and defend freedom ....

THAT was amended in the 1970's by pro gun lobbyists etc to read "the individual" has the right to bear arms...

So no your country's founders did NOT believe in the right for every person to bear arms ... just an organise militia, and there is a huge difference.

The founders were pretty clear on wanting the bearer of arms to be the people.

[zhero]

Actually lol this is an amazing thing that even most ppl in the US seem to not know ...

Your original constitution gave the right for a "militia" the right to bear arms and defend freedom ....

THAT was amended in the 1970's by pro gun lobbyists etc to read "the individual" has the right to bear arms...

So no your country's founders did NOT believe in the right for every person to bear arms ... just an organise militia, and there is a huge difference.

nothing was amended, there was never any requirement to be a professional military organization to be called a militia in the 1700s, it was quite the opposite. it never even states that it was a right for militias either, it's reference to militias is that they are necessary to the security of a free state.

"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."

and regulated doesn't mean trained, organized or anything like that, it meant that they were supplied with equipment.

[Ghostpanther]

I have lived most of my life in South Korea and now I live in Singapore, there's like no gun violence at all in either of them.

Much different culture. Respect for your elders for one is very important over there.

These two were both losers and not even suppose to have firearms legally and now for sure, never will be again. But I have seen some very deadly ,irresponsible behavior behind a steering wheel who legally had permission to drive on public roads. :P

[bewbew]

It has everything to do with legal firearm ownership. Say they are criminals carrying illegally, where do you think they got those guns? I'll tell you: They stole them from legal owners.

Lol what?

Brazil passed a very strict gun law control in 2003, against the will of the population. The Labor's Party just went behind everyone's back, argued that the referendum that asked "Are people allowed to commercialize firearms?" actually meant "We will still basically ban fire arms from the civil population, but hey there is like one store in your town still! SO YOU ARE ALLOWED TO COMMERCIALIZE" and, just like that, disarmed the population. They also made huge campaigns in order for people to turn in their guns, which actually worked - hundreds of firearms were destroyed by the government in the process, with a meager return to many ownerr, who, foolishly, trusted the Government's stance on gun control.

The law also stated we cannot import firearms, even for the police, if there is a "similar" (Law is very vague here) firearm being produced by a Brazilian forge.

For a civilian to be able to own a firearm, he has to do a psychological check, attend classes, have a stable job while paying public previdency (Informal jobs don't count! The wonders of fascism inspired labor laws), be over 25, has to spend around 1 and a half minimum wages in documents AND he has to issue the Federal Police a Requisition of "Need", which then can be simply DENIED on the delegate's whim. Yes, it's arbitrary like that.


Our criminals are armed with AK-47s, submachineguns, and a plethora of firearms that legal, civilian owners CANNOT EVEN BUY (Even after all the steps I just described), as we have a restriction on caliber as well (Civilians cannot buy bigger than .38 or .380). They get these guns through corruption (buying from the Police, who is supposed to enforce the Gun Control Laws! The irony) or through contraband. Most are also from foreign forges.

Despite a disarmed population, there is no lack of firearms for criminals to predate on the population, with one of the highest murder rates in the ENTIRE PLANET.

There is no correlation. You just want to assume there is so your point would make at least SOME sense.

Except it doesn't.

[oxymoronic]

Current situation in the USA is fine. Homicides by firearm are a very tiny fraction of the Population as been stated before.

agreed. you have to wonder why those outside USA is more concerned with the situation than those inside of it. oh well.

[endersblade]

I love how the forums here seem to have ADHD. It was brought up on the FIRST FUCKING PAGE of this thread that neither of these retards were legally allowed to even carry a gun, much less own one, and yet here we are on page 4 and people are still commenting on gun laws and such.

Before you make ignorant comments, I recommend you at least peruse the front page. It's not hard.

[cparle87]

Other than that, America's Founders believed that we have a right to own guns to protect ourselves and enshrined this right in our Constitution. If you don't like the fact that we have a right to protect ourselves using guns, you are free to leave for a country with very strict gun laws like France. Clearly then you will be free from gun violence.....oh wait!!

The problem with the Founder Fathers' ideals is that they are no longer relevant. In those days a corrupt government could be overthrown by a few hundred people with rifles. The "government" was a few hundred people in a few buildings in one city. Anyone trying to do that these days would be arrested or killed with next to no effort by our government's forces. So basically we have these laws on the books to enable something that's realistically next to impossible and it's causing us lots of pain and strife as a side effect.

[TITAN308]

The problem with the Founder Fathers' ideals is that they are no longer relevant.

So basically the 1st amendment only applies to quill and parchment.

Well ok.

Or is this one of those "I get to pick and choose which ones are relevant type arguments" ?

[zhero]

The problem with the Founder Fathers' ideals is that they are no longer relevant. In those days a corrupt government could be overthrown by a few hundred people with rifles. The "government" was a few hundred people in a few buildings in one city. Anyone trying to do that these days would be arrested or killed with next to no effort by our government's forces. So basically we have these laws on the books to enable something that's realistically next to impossible and it's causing us lots of pain and strife as a side effect.

there are countries that overthrew their government with loaves of bread strapped around their heads against a government that was using aircrafts to bomb them.

[cparle87]

So basically the 1st amendment only applies to quill and parchment.

Well ok.

Or is this one of those "I get to pick and choose which ones are relevant type arguments" ?

Did you even bother to read the rest of my post? The 2nd Amendment was put in place for a well regulated militia as a guard against government corruption. But the days when any militia could overthrow the United States government is long gone and dead. So we have a law that doesn't even serve its original function being used as an excuse and a protection to allow a great deal of pain and suffering. It reminds me of the War of 1812, where because of the slowness of communication the primary grievance for the starting of the war had already been called off before it even began.

- - - Updated - - -

there are countries that overthrew their government with loaves of bread strapped around their heads against a government that was using aircrafts to bomb them.

Yeah. We're not a third world shithole.

[Teevo]

What a surprise, criminals ignoring the fact the law says they can't have a gun.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

So basically the 1st amendment only applies to quill and parchment.

Well ok.

Or is this one of those "I get to pick and choose which ones are relevant type arguments" ?

Thomas Jefferson would himself agree that the ideals of the Founding Fathers are no longer relevant


“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”

[Halicia]

Thomas Jefferson would himself agree that the ideals of the Founding Fathers are no longer relevant

Thomas Jefferson was always devil's advocate at the time regardless. He thought the founding fathers were wrong while they were actually writing the constitution.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Thomas Jefferson was always devil's advocate at the time regardless. He thought the founding fathers were wrong while they were actually writing the constitution.

He was pretty consistent in regards to his feelings that the constitution should be re-written whenever a new generation comes into power.

[lockedout]

If there was a ban, where would they find these guns? The don't grow in fields or something. They'd need to be manufactured and smuggled in, which would dramatically raise the cost of the gun, probably outside the reach of felon gangbangers. That's how gun bans work, we've seen it in every country that has done so. There, of course, would still be some criminals with the means to purchase an illegal firearm, but most gun crime would diminish greatly. The only issue is, with the number of guns in America, it would be a next to impossible undertaking to ban guns and collect all firearms.

(Note: I'm not advocating for a ban, but to suggest that a ban would do nothing, is just dishonest.)

Stricter gun laws aren't a ban. So which one is it? Stricter gun laws would have done nothing.

[Drusin]

I'm always told that, "knowing the other guy might be carrying a gun is supposed to make everyone more polite". Starting to doubt that whole premise at this point.

And you should because nothing applies to "everyone" just most people.

- - - Updated - - -

Why does everyone think gun laws will be effective? The only thing stricter laws will do is make it more annoying for regular people to buy guns.

[God Save The King]

I think you are overestimating how difficult it is to make a firearm... A couple thousand in machining tools can let you manufacture a firearm in the comfort of your own home... Criminals would turn to this (not make the guns themselves, but turn to criminal manufacturers), they would still have plenty of guns available.

Also, with how many illegal drugs flood over our borders, you know damn well firearms would be right alongside them if there was demand for it, and there would be

There's this amazing invention used to prevent firearms from crossing our borders illegally, it's called a metal detector and works very well. Since drugs are not comprised of metals, they are far easier to smuggle. There will, of course, be those trying to smuggle in weapons across the borders without using traditional paths, but that is very hard to do mainly due to terrain, and they will be limited in what they can smuggle.

Also, if it is so easy to make guns, why doesn't most every criminal have them in other countries that have banned guns?

- - - Updated - - -

Stricter gun laws aren't a ban. So which one is it? Stricter gun laws would have done nothing.

Which one is what? That question makes no sense to me given my statement.