New Gun Laws

Hey look, I'm all for a world that is weapon free-- I'm so there. But, that isn't how the world is. You cannot deny that weapons don't exist. You will never, ever in our lifetime, be able to live in a world without the threat of an upheaval. Also, you will never live in a world where wits and fists are the primary weapons of defense. Even this site has a defense mechanism (wait til Django gets hold of this thread!) when words are just not enough. Defending yourself is probably the most important thing you can do in life. You want to keep your family safe don't you? In the modern world( by modern I mean we don't use the prehistoric tools that were so popular millions of years ago, like bones and sticks) we have cars[they kill people too] we have planes[also recently a weapon] and we have guns. It's just the natural evolution of mankind: You start a tribe, you make a home, find food, make clothes and defend your position. Anyway, weapons aren't going anywhere, and if "they" got 'em, I want them too. Beacuse anything can happen, and it usually does.

Let me ask you this my friend(s): When confronted by an antogonist, should you use the same weapons he chooses to fight with, i.e mind, fists, sticks, swords--I mean how exactly do you defend yourself? And after the confrontation, how do you then prepare you life for perhaps another such encounter?

P.S. I don't break the law, therefore the only reason Caitlyn would come into my house is for coffee, and even then I would have invited her. (Anytime Cait'....anytime).

__________________
I have been formatted to fit this screen.

r66-The member who always asks WHY?

Cool man. I'm not actually preaching a weapon-free world (i don't think that's possible). And i understand your different perspective about the need for a gun for self defense (we have the luck over here of being able to do things more primatively )

But you were mainly talking about guns being needed to defend yourself against governmental control weren't you? (that was my take on the repurcussions of the amendment. I'll go back and re-read) I'm just asking how guns help in that area.

In answer to your conundrum, i believe we are totally justified in defending ourselves using the same means as our assailants. These can even include pre-emptive action i reckon, if you are very very very sure it's going to happen/it's necessary (*cough* *war* - sorry to bring up my pet topic - but altho all the facts aren't in yet, it looks dodgy currently. Very tricky area) In confrontations/attacks, i prefer using "front" first where possible, and defence next of course. I've never been in a situation where i've had to be physically pre-emptive.

__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here

No, 'tis I who owe you an apology my friend. I guess my point is simply, our government will never lay down their weapons for any reason. And sometimes small sects of militia rise up, fighting for what they believe in. I'm afraid that one day, one of those sects could be masked by political power and disguise the truth to those that are willing to believe it. I'll use the abortion doctor snipers as an example. I mean there are people(in the millions Gg!) out there that actually believe people who kill in the name of God are heroes. What if one day a President (or perhaps another world leader!) were to come into power with those same convictions? I'm no conspiracy theorist or paranoid lunatic, but I think it could happen. Bluntly, if you were to ask ten people on the street in America where Iraq was--give them a map even--2 would probably answer correctly. I mean, if these are the minds of some Americans I'd hate to see what sway a "cool" politician might have over them someday. A politician that declared war on abortions, gays, womens rights, and finally our freedom, could not be reckoned with without an army. Not saying it will happen, but it has once already and look how that turned out.

Not sure if that answers your query..sorry....

It helps me understand some of the pressures of your society that are different from mine. On the religious belief thing (and i'm sure some would like to pick you up on how you could know that - yet equally i trust your impression of the situation - especially as i know you to be an investigative man who'll look beyond his own experiences too)
...in Britland we find that kind of stuff absolutely incredibly bizarre (and worrying too)

I agree that in an extreme example of a totalitarian state emerging, or near on, armed uprising becomes nigh on a necessity. My hope would be, as things stand, that such an eventuality would involve many of those who are armed and involved in government switching sides. You'd have to be bombed up a bit, if not to ****, to reach a stage where internal control is so extreme, and mass public action impossible (afghanistanandiraqforexample *cough* [*whisper* - notice how the majority in those countries are armed too]

Keep on fighting your good fights in the knowledge/action spheres r3. (and don't wear anti-abortion t-shirts me-thinks )

Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act - Commonly referred to as the "Assault Weapons Ban was passed in 1994. This bill banned the manufacture, possession, and importation of new semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices (or magazines) for civilian use.


All this would do is create a larger black market for illegal weapons sales… and what about all those already out there? Do you do a house to house search and seizure?

Ok… and do what with the money? This might make a few people rich but I don’t see how it would deter crime at all… especially when you have people sitting in back rooms making their own bullets…

Oh yeah… I can see criminals who make over $300.00 an hour with their gun coming out of the woodwork to give up their guns for $300.00 …You might get a few old broken down guns or one that wasn’t worth over $100.00 but that would be about it…

What about all the guns already out there? Most of the guns used by criminals were illegally obtained anyway so I fail to see how this will help… cops would just know how many times someone shot at a deer or turkey… and missed…

Once again… how will this help? You’re not naïve enough to think the criminals are going to voluntarily come in to have this done are you? All you will accomplish is to have thousands of law abiding citizens finger prints and DNA samples on file… I guess it might help in identification if they themselves were ever a victim of crime…

Preventing crime is exactly what I was talking about… the majority of criminals who commit violent acts are not first time offenders… even the teens at Columbine were on probation for previous criminal acts…

The penalties for various crimes differ from state to state… and no, no criminal thinks they will get caught but it would be nice when they are caught for them to suffer more then a slap on the hand before they are turned out to commit other crimes… btw, you are aware gun related crimes have dropped 40 percent since 1993 aren’t you?

The causes of crime are the people who commit them so what do you purpose… get rid of people?

O.J. Simpson did not use a gun and he walked… think about it.

__________________

Now that's just plain undemocratic! With those things i could protect my household from a whole decades-quota of burglars in one go! And think of the personal-space-zone you could get in the street!



this is a huge problem if gun control ever were to be attempted civil-society-wide/completely. (as we learnt here when we made the pitiful number of sporting handguns illegal - they all flooded onto the black market of course. Arms emargoes get a fair haul from crims time to time, but those convertible replics just keep on getting made. And as Toose [i believe] has said on other threads, you can make a potentially lethal firearm if you're at a "knowledgable" highschool. I don't think i would have enjoyed metal-shop classes round your way Toosey! )





Well "ideally" it would come in form of a tax [tho what would be really ideal would be if you could trace the tax-profit's usuage, and ensure it went to general crime-prevention ends - i.e. just how things aren't with the mammoth cig and booze taxes over here. Still, as long as cash is being, apparently, plunged into welfare areas, no matter how ineptly it's being used, i'm happy (sort of But i haven't even mentioned some of the worse reformations of these socialistic structures ) ]



Well, at least, from a brit-gun-free-ish perspective, that would leave just the hard-core gun users for you (come mop up our hooligan crime Caits ) to deal with.

Yaaay. And then i could brainwash Sunny (through rhythmically posted bush-bashings ) into mounting a successful turkey-murder-gets-ten-years policy.



Do you know why this has happened Cait?

Well hell, they've invented a machine for it. It's called a nuke i believe :Shrugging-heavens-what's-happening-in-Saudi-Arabia-thing:
Some say they're for sale too (well, to the right people of course )

O.J. Simpson did not use a gun and he walked… think about it.[/quote]

Are you saying that gun-crime is so much clearer in nature it's easier to prove/prosecute?

More cops on the force and stricter enforcement of existing gun laws…

No, I am saying that he committed a horrific crime without the aid of a gun and then weaseled his way out of it because of too many loop holes in a judicial system that needs some major overhauls…

I thought you were more or less agreeing with Karl on the Columbine thread that heavily enforced gun laws don't work in crime reduction? Weren't you?? - or were you just arguing new ones are unnecessary then. I take it you'd approve of expansion of practical gun laws to all (suitable?) areas then?

Ah, but that's sort of what i was asking insn't it? i.e. if he'd commited his crime with a gun it would have been easier to convict him? Would you say that's the case? Just interested.

To Pidzilla and Golgot:
Woohoo! You go! You're both right!

To Henry:
No, she's not

To Caitlyin:
1. I knew that about semi-automatic weapons. It was a set up for
2. Handguns are not used for hunting either. Automatic weapons were banned because they're only good for killing people, like handguns.
3. & 4. & 6. What Golgot said
5. See 4

Do cops prevent crime other than preventing speeding by parking near the road in plain view?

What I said on the Columbine thread was:

The majority of guns used in crimes are illegally obtained and abolishing legally owned guns would not stop criminals from obtaining weapons nor lower crime rates…

And it won’t… however… enforcing existing laws dealing with illegally obtained guns and stiffer sentencing for various crimes have made a difference… illegal gun trafficking is as big of a business as illegal drug trafficking…

No… not unless the weapon was found, (if you remember, the knife was not) he had a powder trail on his hand, his finger prints on the gun, or it registered in his name, etc…

Btw, I never thought the cuts on O.J.’s hands were made by a knife… they should have brought Nichole’s dog into the court room…



Uh-huh…

Handguns were responsible for less then 5% of gun related deaths last year… and of that 5% -- some were the result of law enforcement officers doing their job… preventing crime… or by a civilian in self defense of themselves or their family from criminals…

But since you want to have hand guns banned… explain to me exactly how you would go about it… and what you think it would accomplish?

See answer above… but 12, 626 people were killed in speed related crashes last year… speeding is a crime and speeding kills…

You finally changed you avatar! Good for you.



That is all.

__________________
"I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!" - Howard Beale

I have felt for a long time that most gun control people focus on new laws way too much. What I think we need to do is concentrate on getting rid of the illegal guns a lot more than we have. No, we shouldn't go door-to-door; what we should do, in my opinion, is drastically increase the amount of undercover cop presence in the world of illegal guns. There are tons of police officers who have very little to do in terms of fighting REAL crime. Get them off of their asses, train them, and let's work on this problem in an intelligent way. I'm not saying we shouldn't be concerned with keeping legal guns out of the hands of criminals, but we concentrate on that so much that we are ignoring the bigger problem here. Just my opinion.

__________________
One of the biggest myths told is that being intelligent is the absence of the ability to do stupid things.

Metinks you gonna get a spanking from Cait for the asses comment

Cait: do you know if there are areas where the effective illegal-gun -legislations/controls you talk about aren't in effect (and should be)? Are there any laws (like limitation of personal use) you believe should be removed? [i'm pretty much sold on the idea that, for the US, trying to get rid of citizen ownership is futile, would cause a massive rise in illegal sales at first (as it did here) even if handled very carefully (hence expensively), and would cause a rise in house-breaking and possibly street muggings etc]

I still think the bullet-pricing idea is actually a practical-sounding solution of sorts. The production of illegal bullets is something you could focus on, (the illegal operations would have to be very "professional". Bullets are still very high-tech and precisely manufactured objects. Seeing as crim organisations would take this on as another money-spinner and self-sufficiency tool, any bust could be interlinked with other illegal operations i.e. you'd find out about their drugs/guns/prostitution operations etc possibly and vice-versa)

Well, she can spank me if she wants, but I don't see why she would. It's not usually THEIR fault that many cops are sitting on their asses.

Dude, in one place you strongly oppose the creation of a police state (i.e. Bush's homeland security, which I don't think is a police state) and in another you want the equivalent of an id bracelet.

No… he doesn’t get a spanky for that one… well… not unless he
wants one… ...but I pretty much agree with what he said…

Right now… no to both questions. The ATF, DEA, and state law enforcement agencies are combining their efforts and have made a difference but it is just going to take time…

The vast majority of criminals don’t shop for bullets at K-Mart or Wal-Mart… in the end, all this would accomplish is numerous businesses going bankrupt, higher unemployment lines, and law abiding citizens shouldering the burden for criminals activities… and making bullets is not that high-tech… I know about 30 deer hunters who “roll their own” on their kitchen tables…

To Cait,
Are you making this up? Wal-mart is the biggest seller of guns in the US. Think about it, they have stores all over. They are a national chain. I think Jensen has a chain of stores but not near as many I'm sure.

The majority of guns used in crimes are illegally obtained sounds weird too. Maybe, but a lot of people get killed with their dad's guns. I would like to see the actual stats on that.

Handguns were responsible for less then 5% of gun related deaths last year… What? This must be a mistake. A result of not classifying something as a handgun or other. The other 95% can't all be hunting accidents.

But since you want to have hand guns banned… explain to me exactly how you would go about it… and what you think it would accomplish?

Well, stop the production of handguns, start a program for turning in handguns, make it illegal to be in the possesion of a handgun, either on your person, car, house, work etc.. No, I would not send people out searching house to house. If there is an occasion when you, your car, or your house gets searched and you have a gun you'd be busted.

12, 626 people were killed in speed related crashes last year has nothing to do with anything

To Toose,
That's interesting. I put that in there so people would be able to win one. You were supposed to say it sounds like science fiction. Hhmmm.
I still hate the Patriot Act, and the Presidunce.

OH Yeah! I almost forgot, there was another school shooting. So much for more cops and harsher sentencing.

Well your "proposition" is Unconstitutional on several levels.

First, precedents is several Supreme Court Cases have defined that the right to Bear and Keep arms pertains to such a need that is to allow for a militia to be called up, ready to go.

That is, a militia man brings his own gun.

And since bolt-action weapons, and non-semi-autos are useless in war, you can not prohibit them.

What are prohibited in some places, are handguns, but this doesn't stop criminals from getting them...

And if you ever hunt bear, there are times when you'll want that hand gun.

Typical Democrats want nothing but MORE MORE MORE taxation.

Taxes increase the power of the Central Government, which is bad in the US's case...as we can see by all the crap the Feds are doing everywhere, including Iraq...

I heard some "show" about the president, and a line in it said, "Only the Commander-in-Cheif can put Americans in harms way."

Wait a second...I thought only Congress can do that.

But hey, its' been that way since the 30s right? Still, it should be rectified, lowering taxes helps that.

Anyways...whatever...Unconstitutional proposals, that's about that...

__________________
За родину, за победу, за веру.
Za rodeenu, za pobedu, za veru.

Oh and sunfrog, you think banning handguns makes everything hunkie-dorie?

Uhh...Chicago has banned Handguns, last I remembered...and they are jam-packed with crime.

Gun Laws wont' make a difference, just don't take away the right of the people to protect themselves from their own government.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...n/amendment02/

And you here can see, some of the precedents that cover the 2nd Amendment...and why banning semi-autos and such even fully autos is or ought to be Unconstitutional.

But as you'll see, the Supreme Court hasn't taken a case of the 2nd Amendment since 1970s...

Mainly read this:

"''5 The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of ''civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.'' It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that ''comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,'' who, ''when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.''6 Therefore, ''[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well- regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.''"