View Full Version : You knew this was going to be a result of Obama getting elected
ArmySGT.
11-07-2008, 08:35 PM
Unless I'm reading something terribly incorrectly, the tables at that link do not include homicides.
A simplified answer can be found at:
with extensive detail linkable from:
Those are the tables I was looking for, but must not have entered the search data google requires.
flickad
11-07-2008, 09:01 PM
Twenty five million Australians and 300 million Americans. Couldn't be a contributing factor.
If we're talking about crime rates in terms of percentage rather than in strict numerical terms, that factor looks a whole lot smaller.
flickad
11-07-2008, 09:02 PM
Unless I'm reading something terribly incorrectly, the tables at that link do not include homicides.
A simplified answer can be found at:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_07.html
with extensive detail linkable from:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm
Thank you.
flickad
11-07-2008, 09:04 PM
Basically it goes like this... Bad guy will always find way to get a gun.
If bad guy knows you dont have a gun, it makes his job alot easier.
i dont wanna make a bad guys job easier.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6IZOrs-i6g
The thing is, most homicides are not drive-by shoot-ups by habitual criminals. They occur at home and involve family members. My hunch is that tensions at home would be much less likely to turn fatal in many cases if there was not a gun at hand.
Though, this argument is rather moot, given that the US Constitution protects arm-bearing.
flickad
11-07-2008, 09:09 PM
Not really that hardest part about killing is just doing it. There is a lot of mental resistance to the action. The object has little part in the act and cannot perform without the actor. Blaming a gun for murder is like, blaming a car for driving with the drunk behind the wheel.
More people survive gunshots than being stabbed. Knives slash and cut through flesh causing massive loss of blood. Bullet wounds are smaller and affect less tissue that closes in upon itself.
Gun are just more sensational.
I don't know. Gun shots are fairly instant and don't involve a struggle and repetitive action like a stabbing does. Most killers act on impulse, in a moment of intense emotion. If it was more difficult to find a weapon at that moment, it would be, I think, more likely to pass without someone dying.
The car analogy doesn't seem like an apt one to me, as cars have a purpose beyond inflicting injury. Guns don't.
jester214
11-07-2008, 09:41 PM
And without the gun, it would be much harder to kill.
American is a country that is inundated with guns. Even if you prohibited all guns there would still be a ton floating around. A lot would come over the borders to the south.
Taking away the option to buy guns legally, only takes guns away from people who want them for non-illegal purposes.
jester214
11-07-2008, 09:41 PM
The thing is, most homicides are not drive-by shoot-ups by habitual criminals. They occur at home and involve family members. My hunch is that tensions at home would be much less likely to turn fatal in many cases if there was not a gun at hand.
Though, this argument is rather moot, given that the US Constitution protects arm-bearing.
Most homicides involve illegal weapons.
flickad
11-07-2008, 10:00 PM
Most homicides involve illegal weapons.
It makes sense to try and tackle the illegal arms trade, then, rather than further promulgating a gun culture.
However, I guess that since it is both firmly entrenched and a Constitutional right for you guys, a straight-out ban isn't really an option in any event.
jester214
11-07-2008, 10:05 PM
However, I guess that since it is both firmly entrenched and a Constitutional right for you guys, a straight-out ban isn't really an option in any event.
Exactly, to remove it now would just hurt people that them legally.
ArmySGT.
11-07-2008, 10:31 PM
I don't know. Gun shots are fairly instant and don't involve a struggle and repetitive action like a stabbing does. Most killers act on impulse, in a moment of intense emotion. If it was more difficult to find a weapon at that moment, it would be, I think, more likely to pass without someone dying.
The car analogy doesn't seem like an apt one to me, as cars have a purpose beyond inflicting injury. Guns don't.
A gunshot is no more "fairly instant" than a stabbing since either has to destroy the same organs and/or sever the same nerve connections.
I will give you that statistically guns are used more often. This is for the same reason that they are carried. They guns don't require you to be of the same physical stature or strength as your opponent. A 100 pound woman is the equal of a 300 pound man in a gun fight.
Guns have other purposes besides killing for defense or food. There is a large international following of competitive target shooters that are every bit into their sport as any other. I was invited down to Australia in fact by some lovely folks from your own high power contingent at the resent matches held here at the NRA whittington center.
The point I made is that both a fire arm and a car are inanimate objects. Blaming the inanimate object for a death caused by the operator accomplishes what exactly? Will we ban cars because cars operated by drunk drivers cause more deaths than firearms?
flickad
11-07-2008, 10:49 PM
A gunshot is no more "fairly instant" than a stabbing since either has to destroy the same organs and/or sever the same nerve connections.
I will give you that statistically guns are used more often. This is for the same reason that they are carried. They guns don't require you to be of the same physical stature or strength as your opponent. A 100 pound woman is the equal of a 300 pound man in a gun fight.
Guns have other purposes besides killing for defense or food. There is a large international following of competitive target shooters that are every bit into their sport as any other. I was invited down to Australia in fact by some lovely folks from your own high power contingent at the resent matches held here at the NRA whittington center.
The point I made is that both a fire arm and a car are inanimate objects. Blaming the inanimate object for a death caused by the operator accomplishes what exactly? Will we ban cars because cars operated by drunk drivers cause more deaths than firearms?
I guess to me it seems like the primary purpose of a gun is to kill or maim, while that is not the primary purpose of a car. That is why I think it's a different thing from cars, though granted a car can be an incredibly dangerous weapon in the hands of an irresponsible person. We have licensing laws and drink driving laws to deal with that, though I imagine there must be a system of licensing for legal gun ownership as well. A free-for-all is too irresponsible to contemplate.
Butrcup98
11-07-2008, 11:00 PM
I married into a family of die hard republicans who will preach until they die about the necessity of guns. The funny part is that none of them has ever needed a gun for self-defense. I, on the other hand, have been held up at gun point. And I can tell you that if I had a gun on my person, it would have done absolutely no good.
Americans should thank whoever that this isn't Sweden. As of 2005 they were the highest taxed country in Europe. And, if you were convicted of any crime, even a DUI, then your gun rights were revoked. I find this thought funny because I live in Louisiana. All people do down here is drink and hunt.
Dirty Ernie
11-07-2008, 11:06 PM
No problem ! I can pick up a fully automatic AK-47 down there for a couple of hundred US dollars.
Only if you want to spend time in a Central American jail!
Types of Legal Firearms: Individuals are only allowed to possess the following weapons:
.12-.22 caliber non-automatic pistols and rifles;
Up to .45 caliber semiautomatic pistols and rifles;
Up to .12 caliber shotguns;
Up to .460 caliber rifles and carbines;
Weapons which form part of authorized collections;
Weapons used for sports and hunting.
Purposes of Lawful Firearms Ownership: sports, hunting, collection
DOMESTIC FIREARM LEGISLATION (4)
The 1995 Arms Law gives responsibility in the fields of granting and registering firearms permits to an organ of the Ministry of Public Security called the General Arms Board. The Board is required to compile and maintain up-to-date registers of all weapons in the country.
Licencing Requirements: Licences are only granted once detailed information on the weapon and owner is taken by the Department, and once the owner has demonstrated competence in basic mechanics, handling and safety measures. Residents can acquire, possess and carry weapons in accordance with the law. Article 7 stipulates that the following groups cannot carry weapons:
those on parole;
those under 18, unless accompanied by an adult purely for hunting or target-shooting purposes, and then only those over 14;
those with physical or mental disabilities affecting the handling of firearms;
those who have been convicted of an offense with a firearm, if an order from a competent authority exists forbidding them from the use of firearms.
Registration Requirements: Under normal circumstances individuals cannot register more than three weapons for personal use.
Training Requirements: Aptitude to handle firearms is a condition for granting a legitimate user licence. However, submission of documentation to certify such aptitude is only required, in practice, in cases where the legitimate user licence is being sought for a military weapon for conditional civilian use, or when an existing legitimate user applies for a permit to carry his or her weapon.
Storage Requirements: n/a
Prohibited Firearms: n/a
Penalties: n/a
MANUFACTURE, IMPORT AND EXPORT
It is illegal to manufacture, own, carry, import, use or deal in weapons that with a single pull of the trigger can fire more than one projectile in succession, or semiautomatic weapons whose magazines carry more than ten units.
REFERENCES
CIA, The World Factbook, Costa Rica: http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html. (http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html.)
Except for the Overview, this national profile was adapted from Costa Rica: Diagnostico Armas de Fuego by Max Loria for the Arias Foundation for Peace and Human Progress, 2000 (translated by Greg Puley).
© SAFER-Net 2003
LEIGH_LANDON
11-07-2008, 11:42 PM
I couldnt help but think of Chris Rock's solution, make the bullets cost $200 a piece (I actually forget the amount he says lol). AN excellent comedy piece. And apropos.
RubysRevenge
11-08-2008, 02:24 AM
Why should responsible, sane citizans who have passed all the apropriate background screenings have their right to own a gun taken away...if that happens the only people with guns will be criminals illegally and THE GOVERNMENT. This why is our right to bear arms is so important. Think about that a second, especially after the past 8 years. Yes murder is bad, violence but stop and think about the the BIG PICTURE! Why is that so hard for some people to understand.
Deogol
11-08-2008, 08:07 AM
Why should responsible, sane citizans who have passed all the apropriate background screenings have their right to own a gun taken away...if that happens the only people with guns will be criminals illegally and THE GOVERNMENT. This why is our right to bear arms is so important. Think about that a second, especially after the past 8 years. Yes murder is bad, violence but stop and think about the the BIG PICTURE! Why is that so hard for some people to understand.
Because they don't believe in the right to defend yourself. They believe the monopoly on violence should only be given to the government and it's representatives. Unfortunately reality has a way of intersecting this faith. A lot of them would call bible thumpers goofy for their world view due to their faith.
All the gun stuff has pros and cons for both sides. I personally think the constitution defends our right to own guns and it should not be taken away. assult rifles ... maybe a little extreme. but unless you have never fired an assult rifle you really probably dont understand that there isnt a whole lot of difference other than less reloading and such. Yes bullets can come out a little quicker, but for instance, our military uses M-4 and M-16. Both weapons have different setting including single shot, 3 round burst. You really are not shooting That much faster other than youdont have to reload as often because of the magazine. It isnt like an oozie fits into what anybody would want for defense purposes.
As far as it being easier to handle than large hunting rifles, it certainly is. But on that note, with some practice a small pistol would do the trick even better.
threlayer
11-08-2008, 09:43 AM
I couldnt help but think of Chris Rock's solution, make the bullets cost $200 a piece (I actually forget the amount he says lol). AN excellent comedy piece. And apropos.
It's a lot easier to make bullets at home than weapons themselves. Otherwise a decent plan.
Problems with all the laws is the administration. For criminals who will not obey laws,a gun is a tool of the trade which they are really hesitant to give up because they plan on making money with guns.
threlayer
11-08-2008, 09:51 AM
Why should responsible, sane citizans who have passed all the apropriate background screenings have their right to own a gun taken away...if that happens the only people with guns will be criminals illegally and THE GOVERNMENT. This why is our right to bear arms is so important. Think about that a second, especially after the past 8 years. Yes murder is bad, violence but stop and think about the the BIG PICTURE! Why is that so hard for some people to understand.
Problem is states' rights to make their own gun laws and the lobbying that make them hesitant to make responsible laws. And the lobbying that also makes the Fed hesitant too. This is beyond the Constitution and its amendments which does not limit 'arms' ownership and doesn't even define 'militias'. But it only implies ,at best, that individual owners should not have more powerful weapons than official militias and the military, and I suppose police which must be implied someplace in there.
hockeybobby
11-08-2008, 10:30 AM
Not a big fan of the guns here. I was disappointed when our border guards started being issued guns. The first person people see when they come to my country should not be a guy with a gun...it's not who we are.
threlayer
11-08-2008, 12:08 PM
Yes. Guns, when they are not needed, often just serve to escalate things. However, they will make the armed criminals' jobs easier.
This country was given birth with the use of guns, people traditionally used guns to gather food (some few still do), and the USA has a lot more gun owners per capita than most other countries. I can see why some people feel they are necessities.
Hidden video monitoring is helpful (for businesses etc) to catch crimes, rather than trying to subdue them yourself unless you are well-trained.
threlayer
11-08-2008, 12:24 PM
Ruled by the People?? When did that happen?
More likely it's because scared people want to have protection from the crazed lunatics that will overrun their bungalow and steal all their belongings just after murdering their family.
Problem is the crazed lunatics have already bought their multiple assault rifles and grenades and have taken training in some reactionary-oriented mountain camp led by ex-CIA mercenaries, so they will win.
You need to make a movie script out of that one.
Sorry but that has already been done. I'm talking about what such scared people think as justification for having a heavily armed home. As if arms are going to save them against their worst nightmares.
doc-catfish
11-08-2008, 03:09 PM
I guess to me it seems like the primary purpose of a gun is to kill or maim, while that is not the primary purpose of a car.
Well yes, but if you're using a gun to kill or maim somebody who is in the act of trying to kill or maim you, I'd say that is a commendable purpose.
I married into a family of die hard republicans who will preach until they die about the necessity of guns. The funny part is that none of them has ever needed a gun for self-defense. I, on the other hand, have been held up at gun point. And I can tell you that if I had a gun on my person, it would have done absolutely no good.
I don't think any of us are stating that possessing a firearm is a "get out of being raped/robbed/murdered" card. One of the biggest advantages that criminals will always have is the element of surprise. The thing is, they have that element of surprise whether you're armed or not. But if they know in advance that you're not armed, then there's that much more incentive for them to do their misdeeds. Conversely, if they know in advance, that they may face life threatening resistance across that convenience store counter, inside that bank, inside that home, inside that car, they will probably think twice.
Have you perhaps considered the reason that your family has never needed to defend themselves is because they've made it clear what will happen if somebody tries to do them harm?
Narcissus
11-08-2008, 04:13 PM
Not a big fan of the guns here. I was disappointed when our border guards started being issued guns. The first person people see when they come to my country should not be a guy with a gun...it's not who we are.
I'm sorry, but I found that statement somewhat funny.
Firearms are a very good thing for people to see when they enter this country. It implies exactly who we are and what we are willing to tolerate as a people. We are not a country that refuses to arm our law enforcers and for that I am thankful.
Ever hear the joke about: "stop ... stop or I'll say stop again!"? I'll assume not. :)
The right to bear arms is a two-fold protection that our forefathers had the insight to protect and propagate. It protects the people from the people and it protects the people from the government.
I do not own a gun ... I have rarely fired a gun (maybe two times in my entire life) ... I am terrified to be around guns (I know this is just because of my inexperience around them) ... and I will vehemently defend the right of our citizen's to own them.
Narcissus
hockeybobby
11-08-2008, 04:26 PM
I'm guessing you're an American. I was talking about my country (Canada).
Those forefathers you are talking about lived a long time ago in a universe far far away. Things have changed somewhat since then. I mean, if you really think it's necessary for citizens to be armed in order to keep the peace and have something resembling a civilization, I'd only ask this: how's that working out for ya?
Mr Hyde
11-08-2008, 04:39 PM
I know. Damn strange. It's not as if murder is a legal right, so it strikes me as odd that murder weapons should be.
Self defense is a legal right.
Narcissus
11-08-2008, 04:46 PM
Ahhh ... sorry about that. I was on the phone when I was reading your post and didn't realize ...
It works out pretty good from my viewpoint. It isn't perfect, but personally I feel that it is better than the alternative.
I don't think it is absolutely necessary for a population to own weapons for there to be peace or anything resembling a civilization ... however, I do find comfort in knowing that the citizens of this country have the option of defending themselves in numerous different scenarios, if they so choose to own a gun.
By the way, those forefathers that you so glibly referred to as 'living in a universe far, far away' seemed to have done a pretty fantastic job at creating a system of government that has lasted through a series of changes that no one could have imagined, much less predicted. So what else in the U.S. constitution do you think is antiquated and unneeded? Anyone that holds your views on owning a weapon to defend yourself, your family, your rights, etc ... must have strong views on other (of our) freedoms as well.
Narcissus
P.S. Since you are from Canada and want to be condescending, I'm forced to ask: how is that health care system working out for you? Also ... where are your elite going to get their health care at, now that America appears to be starting down the same failed road your country traveled?
hockeybobby
11-08-2008, 05:31 PM
Ahhh ... sorry about that. I was on the phone when I was reading your post and didn't realize ...
It works out pretty good from my viewpoint. It isn't perfect, but personally I feel that it is better than the alternative.
I don't think it is absolutely necessary for a population to own weapons for there to be peace or anything resembling a civilization ... however, I do find comfort in knowing that the citizens of this country have the option of defending themselves in numerous different scenarios, if they so choose to own a gun.
By the way, those forefathers that you so glibly referred to as 'living in a universe far, far away' seemed to have done a pretty fantastic job at creating a system of government that has lasted through a series of changes that no one could have imagined, much less predicted. So what else in the U.S. constitution do you think is antiquated and unneeded? Anyone that holds your views on owning a weapon to defend yourself, your family, your rights, etc ... must have strong views on other (of our) freedoms as well.
Narcissus
Some of those guys owned slaves at the time they crafted that constitution. Life was way different back then. Look, I'm not saying it's all bad, it's actually very good...just that maybe the conditions requiring the general citizenry be armed have changed. If you as a citizen are happy with the effects of gun proliferation in your country, then, well, good. Great. Carry on.
P.S. Since you are from Canada and want to be condescending, I'm forced to ask: how is that health care system working out for you? Also ... where are your elite going to get their health care at, now that America appears to be starting down the same failed road your country traveled?
Last time I checked, nobody here has a problem with our healthcare. Our "elites" will continue to do what they want, just like yours. But lets stick to the guns, shall we?
Narcissus
11-08-2008, 06:38 PM
Some of those guys owned slaves at the time they crafted that constitution. Life was way different back then. Look, I'm not saying it's all bad, it's actually very good...just that maybe the conditions requiring the general citizenry be armed have changed. If you as a citizen are happy with the effects of gun proliferation in your country, then, well, good. Great. Carry on.
Last time I checked, nobody here has a problem with our healthcare. Our "elites" will continue to do what they want, just like yours. But lets stick to the guns, shall we?
Life was different, I agree. My point was that they were brilliant men who attempted to guard against government totalitarianism in the future. Not a bad idea. :)
Sorry for the low-blow health care comment, I mis-read your intent in the previous post and thought you went from debate mode to attack mode. Hard to tell on forums and my apologies for the mistake.
Anyways, the point is: while I personally dislike guns, I strongly support the right to own them. The right to defend yourself is moot if you are not allowed the right to have the weapons in which to do so.
Narcissus
EDIT: Just noticed your signature ... grats on kicking the habit. Wish I could get enough motivation to do so ...
hockeybobby
11-08-2008, 07:13 PM
EDIT: Just noticed your signature ... grats on kicking the habit. Wish I could get enough motivation to do so ...
Here's a great website that helped me: http://www.whyquit.com/
Good luck.
/end threadjack
flickad
11-08-2008, 08:06 PM
Self defense is a legal right.
Yes, I know, but guns are far more frequently used in offence than defence.
hockeybobby
11-08-2008, 08:27 PM
A legal right to self defense doesn't necessarily give you carte blanche to arm yourself anyway you choose. How it's worded in our (Canadian) constitution when a "right" must be limited for the greater good is:
"subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society"
Like, for instance, if it is clear that the presence of guns increases the likelihood of homicide to occur, it may be in the greater good to limit the presence of guns. We call it the "Not Withstanding Clause" up here.
You couldn't have Nukes, for instance, for personal protection. Limits are sensible, and justifiable. If too many guns around means too many people gunned down...limit the guns, and you increase society's ability to "self defend" on the whole.
threlayer
11-08-2008, 09:34 PM
...I mean, if you really think it's necessary for citizens to be armed in order to keep the peace and have something resembling a civilization, I'd only ask this: how's that working out for ya?
Uh, not too well actually. The US one of the most violent countries in the well-to-do world.
On another topic raised by another, on criminals bringing guns into your home/business... Criminals do NOT know if you are armed, and they probably think you're not because most people are not. Now if you put out a sign saying, "I have a gun and I will use it"...' Well, that is just an invitation for another criminal to sneak in and steal your gun. Seems like the only thing that would work is a live confrontation in which the non-criminal is surprised. Who keeps a shotgun beside them in bed or while watching TV? So to me that argument is very weak.
Besides if your wife finds out you are getting VIPs, she may consider using it on you. :)
threlayer
11-08-2008, 09:41 PM
Self defense is a legal right.
This is what I have heard, not being a lawyer but only reading a law book on torts....
Actually you have that right when you are chased down and cannot escape. The courts would rather you try to avoid/escape the situation--the reasonable man argument. If you are in, eg, an attempted mugging and you slug, cut, shoot the perpetrator without attempting to escape, you ae in legal jeopardy. To an extent, if you are confronted in your residence (permanent or temporary) you have a right to disarm/disable the perp. That is, you did until some naive courts decided that you could be sued in a civil court for damages to the perp.
Hoping some lawyer here will clarify this....
Jabba_WTF?
11-08-2008, 10:37 PM
And without the gun, it would be much harder to kill.
It wasnt a question of ease.
You said:
I know. Damn strange. It's not as if murder is a legal right, so it strikes me as odd that murder weapons should be.
You implied that guns should be illegal because murder is.
Many murders are commited using chemicals, blades, bare hands, vehicles, piano wire, bricks, and any number of odd objects.
Yes, guns make it easier.
But that doesnt make it a good idea to just make all firearms illegal.
flickad
11-09-2008, 12:51 AM
It wasnt a question of ease.
You said:
You implied that guns should be illegal because murder is.
Many murders are commited using chemicals, blades, bare hands, vehicles, piano wire, bricks, and any number of odd objects.
Yes, guns make it easier.
But that doesnt make it a good idea to just make all firearms illegal.
Well, it is a question of ease. A large part of the reason I am against the wide-spread availability of guns is that they facilitate violent attacks via ease and speed.
Is it your contention that violent attacks would be just as likely to turn fatal if all guns magically disappeared off the face of the earth?
Jabba_WTF?
11-09-2008, 01:09 AM
Well, it is a question of ease. A large part of the reason I am against the wide-spread availability of guns is that they facilitate violent attacks via ease and speed.
Is it your contention that violent attacks would be just as likely to turn fatal if all guns magically disappeared off the face of the earth?
If there were no guns, then a great many attacks would be just as fatal.
It would only take longer.
I can grant you the fact that "impulse" murders would likely drop considerably, but there would still be the planned murders, as well as murders with other weapons.
flickad
11-09-2008, 01:25 AM
Aren't most murders committed impulsively, in the heat of some strong emotion?
kikidejavu
11-09-2008, 02:32 AM
i wont read the entire thread, but someone mentioned that people who cant legally own a gun doesnt need to have one.
i woud like to point out how very false that is.
felons (who are not allowed to own guns) most often live in the most crime ridden cities in America. they are often drug dealers, or snitches, or have killed someone's family.
they are the ones who are most likely to be hunted down, robbed and shot, and are most in need of self defense weapons. they are much more likely to be at gunpoint then a well to do redneck.
not sure what the solution should be for that issue, since I dont think its a good idea to give them guns with their release papers, but just wanted to point it out.
Jabba_WTF?
11-09-2008, 11:34 AM
Aren't most murders committed impulsively, in the heat of some strong emotion?
I can't find the numbers, but strong emotion isn't what makes it an impulse killing.
(Sorry for being a nerd here, but I had to get the definition of impulse.)
2. sudden, involuntary inclination prompting to action: to be swayed by impulse.Impulse murders are no longer in the heat of the moment if the killer has to spend time finding the victim.
Most murders (that I know of) are not quick or instant.
I could be wrong, and if so, then I apologise.
But this is just my own point of view.
LizardQueen
11-09-2008, 11:47 AM
IMO the real problem here is that we can't trust police to protect us.
Root issue ahoy!
Jabba_WTF?
11-09-2008, 11:51 AM
IMO the real problem here is that we can't trust police to protect us.
Root issue ahoy!
No, no.
There'll be no getting to the bottom of this.
This is all about surface issues.
KTHX.:D
look, we can debate the NEED for guns all we want, the the point is: the constitution gives us the right to bare arms. That being said, if we want them, we should be allowed to have them unless our personal right has been taken away due to punishment or mental incapability.
LizardQueen
11-09-2008, 12:13 PM
What I'm saying is that violence begets violence, and Americans have a unique hyper-vigilantism compared to other developed nations. Statistically, we have reason to be so afraid considering our astronomically high homicide rates. However, there has got to be some underlying issue whether it be cultural, infrastructural, or otherwise that is preventing us from being able to feel at peace.
I mean, it would be less disturbing if the pro-gun people here kept bringing up how fun hunting is, or how much they love participating in gun shows instead of continually citing paranoia as their #1 reason to maintain and/or expand gun rights.
And yes, the Constitution does ensure the right to bear arms, but unfortunately with an excessively vague wording that leaves a bit too much room for interpretation. And I'm pretty sure our founding fathers never dreamed of AK-47s or M-16s when they wrote that part of the constitution. ;)
are gun ppl proposing we be allwed ak-47 and m-16???
That is not a rhetorical question. Im serious. Cuz I was not aware of it.
LizardQueen
11-09-2008, 01:10 PM
^^^
As of April 2008:
http://www.cjonline.com/stories/042208/sta_270889198.shtml
"Kansas dealers and private citizens can own automatic weapons, silencers and short-barrel shotguns after July 1. Gov. Kathleen Sebelius on Monday signed a law legalizing possession of such weapons."
hmm thats interesting. Although I dont see any need for that sort of crap, collectors and stuff may just want them. I dont know. People collect all kinds of things that I wouldnt want ... like troll dolls.
threlayer
11-10-2008, 03:25 PM
i wont read the entire thread, but someone mentioned that people who cant legally own a gun doesnt need to have one.
i woud like to point out how very false that is.
felons (who are not allowed to own guns) most often live in the most crime ridden cities in America. they are often drug dealers, or snitches, or have killed someone's family.
they are the ones who are most likely to be hunted down, robbed and shot, and are most in need of self defense weapons. they are much more likely to be at gunpoint then a well to do redneck.
not sure what the solution should be for that issue, since I dont think its a good idea to give them guns with their release papers, but just wanted to point it out.
That is about the most socially-convoluted argument I've ever heard about weapons. You think felons should be allowed to have guns so they can live in the ghettos and shoot it out with other criminals. I'd say OK if only other violent criminals lived ther and we could somehow isolate the communities, which we cannot. Short of that, it's like adding gasoline to the house fire to cool it down.
flickad
11-10-2008, 10:16 PM
hmm thats interesting. Although I dont see any need for that sort of crap, collectors and stuff may just want them. I dont know. People collect all kinds of things that I wouldnt want ... like troll dolls.
Automatic weapons and troll dolls are very different beasts.
Jabba_WTF?
11-12-2008, 06:15 AM
Automatic weapons and troll dolls are very different beasts.
Maybe, but they are still beasts.
http://img236.imageshack.us/img236/7720/vamptrollyk7.th.jpg (http://img236.imageshack.us/my.php?image=vamptrollyk7.jpg)http://img236.imageshack.us/images/thpix.gif (http://g.imageshack.us/thpix.php)