Gun Control

[Kryptix]

Let me start off by saying that I support the 2nd amendment. Now that that is over with I'll say that I also support gun control for several reasons. Also note that the people that sponsor such bills do not want to take your legal guns away, that you purchased legally as good law abiding citizens. They just believe that something should be done about the subject; and they are not alone. Since they are representatives of the people; they are just simply doing their job.


I believe that a bill that would require all guns made in the future to be registered would help greatly with the gun problem. Of course that does not really do much about all the guns that are currently out there but that is a separate issue and requires a separate bill. Registering all guns would hurt the future black market that you guys mentioned in the previous thread. That would be a good thing.

A database of legal gun ownership helps separate the good from the bad. If someone is caught with an unregistered gun the gun will obviously be confiscated. That would help attack this black market issue where you guys say that criminals get their illegal guns.

Anyone with a mental imbalance should not have a gun for obvious reasons. If I am not mistaken, Cho ( The Virginia Tech murderer) purchased his weapon without any problems. Cho had been diagnosed with and was treated for a severe anxiety disorder in middle school, and he continued receiving therapy and special education support until his junior year of high school. While in college in 2005, Cho had been accused of stalking two female students and was declared mentally ill by a Virginia special justice. At least one professor had asked him to seek counseling.

If this law had been in place it would have made it harder for him to get a gun. A person like Cho seemed to be the type that didn’t have very many friends so it would have been hard for him to find a gun on the black market. Perhaps he would have been caught searching for a gun and the whole incident would have never happened.

Freedom of Speech. The First Amendment

I am a big supporter of free speech. But can we tone it down a little? Just because we have free speech doesn’t mean we have to abuse it. I am willing to debate with anyone; but as crazy as I think your philosophy is, I will do my best to talk you out of it. But from now on, I won’t insult you personally. I will respect your opinion.


Thoughts?

[blurboEK]

Let me start off by saying that I support the 2nd amendment. Now that that is over with I'll say that I also support gun control for several reasons. Also note that the people that sponsor such bills do not want to take your legal guns away, that you purchased legally as good law abiding citizens. They just believe that something should be done about the subject; and they are not alone. Since they are representatives of the people; they are just simply doing their job.

We have enough gun legislation in place as it is. Nothing can be done to prevent criminals from purchasing weapons illegally. If we were somehow magically able to round up the millions of illegal black market weapons currently in circulation in the US do you think that would stop people from bringing them into this country from others just like they do with drugs? If you have the money, you can get anything you want.. legal or not.


I believe that a bill that would require all guns made in the future to be registered would help greatly with the gun problem. Of course that does not really do much about all the guns that are currently out there but that is a separate issue and requires a separate bill. Registering all guns would hurt the future black market that you guys mentioned in the previous thread. That would be a good thing.

Explain how this will help "greatly with the gun problem". What problem exactly are you referring to? A separate bill to do what? "crack down on illegal guns"? :lol: No, registering all guns would not hurt anything but our pockets. It cost roughly 4 million dollars per-year for just New York's handgun database.. how much do you think it would cost as a country to do this? you really think it's worth it considering that the states that currently do have it in place have never once been able to solve a firearm related crime with the information in their registered firearm database?

A database of legal gun ownership helps separate the good from the bad. If someone is caught with an unregistered gun the gun will obviously be confiscated. That would help attack this black market issue where you guys say that criminals get their illegal guns.

:lol: Seriously? Yeah.. if we had a national firearm database all illegal guns would be off the streets in no time :roll:

Anyone with a mental imbalance should not have a gun for obvious reasons. If I am not mistaken, Cho ( The Virginia Tech murderer) purchased his weapon without any problems. Cho had been diagnosed with and was treated for a severe anxiety disorder in middle school, and he continued receiving therapy and special education support until his junior year of high school. While in college in 2005, Cho had been accused of stalking two female students and was declared mentally ill by a Virginia special justice. At least one professor had asked him to seek counseling.

I agree that the mentally insane/ill should not be able to purchase a firearm. But it was already explained in the thread you felt the need to lock why he was legally able to purchase a firearm.

If this law had been in place it would have made it harder for him to get a gun. A person like Cho seemed to be the type that didn’t have very many friends so it would have been hard for him to find a gun on the black market. Perhaps he would have been caught searching for a gun and the whole incident would have never happened.

:lol: you are correct, people with little to no friends have a hard time purchasing illegal items :roll: If he couldn't get a gun he would have done what he did with something else.. anyone can get the plans for a simple pipe bomb, etc on the internet which could have done a lot more damage.. maybe we should ban the internet?

Freedom of Speech. The First Amendment

I am a big supporter of free speech. But can we tone it down a little? Just because we have free speech doesn’t mean we have to abuse it. I am willing to debate with anyone; but as crazy as I think your philosophy is, I will do my best to talk you out of it. But from now on, I won’t insult you personally. I will respect your opinion.

No, if you don't like what someone is saying or has written.. don't read/listen and stop complaining about something you are not forced to endure.

[Joe]

Since there are MANY countries with the gun controls that you speak of...

Please post PROOF that it will reduce violent crimes.

If you can't, why try to implement something that simply has the illusion of being safer?:dunno:

[Billy]

The only constant I can see that has occurred when countries moved to a registry of all firearms is the subsequent move to confiscating those same firearms. It's the first step, identify where they are and who has them then go get them.

Just take a look at Australia, the same progression took place there. And now we have Rebecca Peters here in the US working with politicians to accomplish the same goals, not to mention her involvement with the UN and their push to ban the civilian ownership of firearms.

[dan]

singapore has very strict gun laws, and laws in general, and has one of the lowest crime rates on the planet. but the reason that works is because it is a small country, or rather just a city i guess.

trying to register or confiscate all guns in the US would take forever, and i know it would never work.

i'm for the 2nd amendment. i think anyone who isn't deemed a nutjob or felon should be able to have a concealed weapons permit if they wish. i dont want to seem militant, but i'd almost be for a formal gun safety class for teens during high school. granted there would be huge safety issues. but i wouldnt be talking about letting them learn to aim better and stuff (do that on their own time at a range), but to see how a gun is built, operated, and have them experience a few shots. i think it would 'scare straight' a few teens, maybe let people feel the power and how it's not something to take lightly. of course that could backfire and take away the fear to use it for someone who wants to use it for a bad purpose. i been trying to think of a way to educate in a formal way without it being a reason later on. (use blanks i just thought of that)

anywho, more gun control laws won't do anything but piss off legitimate owners and enthusiasts. they are the ones whose backgrounds check out, and whose guns are registered legally and have the proper permits and such. as long as there are guns, or any weapon that is allowed, someone is gonna have one who shouldn't.

[HullBreach]

The only constant I can see that has occurred when countries moved to a registry of all firearms is the subsequent move to confiscating those same firearms. It's the first step, identify where they are and who has them then go get them.

Just take a look at Australia, the same progression took place there. And now we have Rebecca Peters here in the US working with politicians to accomplish the same goals, not to mention her involvement with the UN and their push to ban the civilian ownership of firearms.

Whats really interesting that happened in both Austrailia and Britan is that when the de-facto gun bans went into place, the shift in violent crime that occured.

Now its easy to talk about the quantity of crime, but more telling is the shift in who the victims of crime were. Crimes against single women and the elderly skyrocketed, while crimes agains men fell. This is because criminals are inherantly cowards who go for soft targets, and women and the elderly are some pretty low hanging fruit when the great equalizer is removed from the equation.

[Joe]

Maybe if the anti-gun nuts would simply go to a gun safety and education class, some of their "fears" would be covered.

I mean seriously.

Again, post data from 1st world countries who have the gun control you seek.

As far as Singapore, I am sure that their HEAVY USE of the death penalty also has quite an effect on crime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Singapore

Since our government is a bunch of punishment pussies here, I think I'll stick to protecting myself.

[PPGMD]

The only constant I can see that has occurred when countries moved to a registry of all firearms is the subsequent move to confiscating those same firearms. It's the first step, identify where they are and who has them then go get them.

Just take a look at Australia, the same progression took place there. And now we have Rebecca Peters here in the US working with politicians to accomplish the same goals, not to mention her involvement with the UN and their push to ban the civilian ownership of firearms.

Bingo, also the Cho loop hole doesn't work anymore they changed the law, any mental adjudication (previously it was only when they were adjudicated a threat to others) is reported to the NICS and is a denial reason.

No one has done a survey yet, but ask a police officer in larger cities, most gun crime involves drugs. These drug gangs are able to get hundreds of kilos of drugs into the country, how hard would it be to get a crate of guns?

[Joe]

No one has done a survey yet, but ask a police officer in larger cities, most gun crime involves drugs. These drug gangs are able to get hundreds of kilos of drugs into the country, how hard would it be to get a crate of guns?

You mean what takes place RIGHT NOW in Canada?

BTW, I can buy a gun in a store in MI for $150 and LITERALLY drive it across the border (smuggle it) and sell that same gun for $500 on the black market.

The same will take place here from people smuggling weapons in from Mexico and other countries... think it can't happen? Hell, if they can smuggle people in hundreds at a time, how can you think that smuggling weapons wouldn't happen?

[HullBreach]

No one has done a survey yet, but ask a police officer in larger cities, most gun crime involves drugs. These drug gangs are able to get hundreds of kilos of drugs into the country, how hard would it be to get a crate of guns?

I think part of the reasoning for that is that these "Police Cheifs associations" that normally have veiws roughly 180 degrees from the actual patrolmen realize they will lose a major plank to their political platform if it were to happen.

Those associations remind me of a demotivational poster I saw once about Consulting, the quote read:

"If your not a part of the solution, theres good money to be made in prolonging the problem"

Replace money with political capital and there you go.

[HullBreach]

You mean what takes place RIGHT NOW in Canada?

BTW, I can buy a gun in a store in MI for $150 and LITERALLY drive it across the border (smuggle it) and sell that same gun for $500 on the black market.

The same will take place here from people smuggling weapons in from Mexico and other countries... think it can't happen? Hell, if they can smuggle people in hundreds at a time, how can you think that smuggling weapons wouldn't happen?

The mexicans are already bitching that the cartels are buying some primo hardware from hear in the US and smuggling it back into mexico for use against the Federales and other cartels.

[Joe]

The mexicans are already bitching that the cartels are buying some primo hardware from hear in the US and smuggling it back into mexico for use against the Federales and other cartels.

Source?

So, you're telling me that the Mexican Cartels would rather have the semi-auto guns of the US as opposed to the FULL AUTO guns of other countries? That makes sense...

So you're saying that the cartels in Mexico would go unarmed if it weren't for guns from the US?

Seriously?

[HullBreach]

Source?

So, you're telling me that the Mexican Cartels would rather have the semi-auto guns of the US as opposed to the FULL AUTO guns of other countries? That makes sense...

So you're saying that the cartels in Mexico would go unarmed if it weren't for guns from the US?

Seriously?

I'll root around and try to find it, but yeah this is going on. Realize that fully automatic weapons are of pretty limited use in actual combat (basically CQB and suppression fire) and a lot of the Cartels muscle are former millitary or Zeta's (Special Forces gone over to the other side) so they appreciate the more effective nature of a semi-automtic rifle with good optics as opposed to the 25 year old AK that some central american despot got a crate of from the Soviets back in the day.

And no, Im not saying that, remember, Im on the pro-2a side of this argument. Im makeing they point that Mexico, which has VERY strict gun control laws (I may be mistaken, but I don't belive there is any legal private ownership) is having problems with their criminals smuggling in high-end weapons to use against their police and disarmed public.

Let me try and locate that article and I'll post it.

[HullBreach]

Ok heres some info:

This has a good summary of how firearms laws in Mexico work, how they came about, and mentions later in the article about how smuggling handguns from the US can be quite lucrative. It also mentions that silhoutte shooting (a very popular sport) orignated in Mexico. I didn't know that.
http://www.davekopel.com/Espanol/Mexican-Gun-Laws.htm

Here is an article detailing the specifics and some specific instances of smuggling, its fairly dry and balanced:
http://www.fas.org/asmp/library/articles/us-mexico.htm


Now theres two ways to interpet this. One is the kneejerk reactionary "Oh my god ban them" the other is to look at this through the eyes of prohibition. When you make a thing illeagal, or hard to get, you create a black market that brings other unsavory criminal elements with it.

[BAMF]

My thoughts? You, Hitler, Mussolini, and King George would get along fine. Its people like you who scare me. I'm not even going to dignify your opressive ideas with specific responses, I'll just state that I do not agree with them.

[jabtay]

If they would start enforcing the existing law, all would be good. I think what they are doing is ignoring the enforcement parts of the laws and continue to make people think we need more laws. then when they secretly take all of out rights away, they will enforce every law on the books...we let them do it

[Joe]

Still waiting for that evidence that your idea of a needed change will actually accomplish something.

Thanks.

[Tackleberry]

http://gifu.cool.ne.jp/gunnuts/img/gun_control_works2.JPG



now this is gun control
http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/history/test_target640.jpg

/thread

[Joe]

I can answer questions all day if you want me to...the problem is the the misinformed and the unwilling to be informed are far more stubborn than I am to even listen. The most important thing to you and others like you are whether you'll have to take 10 minutes out of your life and register your small arsenal of machine guns (seriously...is their anyone more paranoid than die-hard gun owners?), and whether or not you'll be taxed to help pay for the services that you expect out of your government......when you're dealing with people who think that those two issues are actually serious problems, then all one can do is go with the flow and just wait it out.

Thanks again for not providing ONE example of how this "easy" registration system you are supporting can ACTUALLY IMPROVE CRIME RATES. Don't forget that the budget for such an "easy" registration system is in the BILLIONS....

Again, anytime you feel ready, post some examples from other places that ALREADY HAVE TRIED THIS METHOD, along with the statistics of how it GREATLY affected the violent crime in those countries.

Please inform us, Mr Voice of Reason. Thanks. :cool:

;)

[billybongthorton]

guns dont kill people angry minorities do

[Topless T/A]

Thanks again for not providing ONE example of how this "easy" registration system you are supporting can ACTUALLY IMPROVE CRIME RATES. Don't forget that the budget for such an "easy" registration system is in the BILLIONS....

Again, anytime you feel ready, post some examples from other places that ALREADY HAVE TRIED THIS METHOD, along with the statistics of how it GREATLY affected the violent crime in those countries.

Please inform us, Mr Voice of Reason. Thanks. :cool:

;)

I didn't intend for this to be a gun control thread as there is already one of those, but since I mentioned it....

http://www.guninformation.org/

It's only one page long, complete with sources....I would hope you could dedicate 5 minutes of your life to it.

Thanks :cool:

[PPGMD]

Complete with sources:
http://guncite.com/

[Topless T/A]

Complete with sources:
http://guncite.com/


so who do we believe :deal:

[Billy]

so who do we believe :deal:

Well, I'll take issue with the link you posted. I couldn't find who was backing the site, but much of what was written there I've read/heard before, and it was coming from members and leaders of groups who want nothing less than total civilian disarmament worldwide.

I especially like the use of the term "buyback" in regards to Australia's confiscation of firearms. Start a registry, then pass laws outlawing the guns and mandate that people have to come an turn them in to be destroyed. You already know who has what and where they are thanks to the registry.

And I always find it funny when I see people talk about the state of affairs being so much better in the UK since they passed their ban in '97. I can, and did, hop on the BBC website and found any number of articles detailing the problems the police and communities are facing in regards to gun crime and a dramatic rise in violent crimes.

And now with the rise of these other forms of crime the government on the other side of the pond talks of banning swords, airsoft guns, pellet/BB guns, replica (non-functional firearms), and placing bans and restrictions on those who want to own kitchen knives. Are clubs and sticks next? The problem is the people committing these crimes not the tools they choose to use. Luckily, perhaps, it seemed that a few of the articles being written in Europe were finally starting to verbalize that idea.

[Joe]

You mean like this...

Looks like ANY online paper of the US...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/default.stm

2 violent crimes plastered on the front page.

[Joe]

BTW... this one is nice...

It involves the involvement of guns in crime since the ban (97)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6960431.stm

Straight from the BBC. Looks like a pretty solid increase to me...

Personally, I don't know how there are ANY gun crimes in the UK... didn't they register and confiscate all of them already? :dunno:

[BAMF]

And now with the rise of these other forms of crime the government on the other side of the pond talks of banning swords, airsoft guns, pellet/BB guns, replica (non-functional firearms), and placing bans and restrictions on those who want to own kitchen knives. Are clubs and sticks next? The problem is the people committing these crimes not the tools they choose to use. Luckily, perhaps, it seemed that a few of the articles being written in Europe were finally starting to verbalize that idea.

Its too late for the UK. They're disarmed and completely at the mercy of their government every moment of every day of their lives. They can protest all they want...but if push comes to shove, guess what? They already gave up their arms (pun).

[jabtay]

The most important thing to you and others like you are whether you'll have to take 10 minutes out of your life and register your small arsenal of machine guns (seriously...is their anyone more paranoid than die-hard gun owners?),
Are you serious? Gun owners have always had this thrown at them. Explain why someone that likes collecting guns, is paranoid? That is an close minded, media driven answer...

[Topless T/A]

Are you serious? Gun owners have always had this thrown at them. Explain why someone that likes collecting guns, is paranoid? That is an close minded, media driven answer...

oh come on...the way people talk about guns on here is nothing short of being paranoid. What single person needs to have 15 guns in their possession for "self defense"? Why does a private homeowner need a military-grade semi-automatic rifle for "self defense"?..and for the love of god don't even get me started on the vast majority of people not even knowing how to properly use a gun in the first place.

[Topless T/A]

Let me put it to you all this way....saying that giving everyone a gun (ie: no gun control) is going to lead to less crime, makes just about as much logical sense as saying that by giving everyone an M-1 tank to drive that the roads are going to be safer.....sometimes you have to put away your feelings for what you think makes you happy, and just throw a little common-sense into the mix.

[Billy]

oh come on...the way people talk about guns on here is nothing short of being paranoid. What single person needs to have 15 guns in their possession for "self defense"? Why does a private homeowner need a military-grade semi-automatic rifle for "self defense"?..and for the love of god don't even get me started on the vast majority of people not even knowing how to properly use a gun in the first place.

Why does it matter what someone does with their hard-earned money as long as it is perfectly legal? Why should the choice even need to be defended?

And, who's to say they are all for "self defense", as you like to put it in quotes? Don't forget the sporting purposes or just the collecting aspect or any other perfectly legal and legitimate reasons a person might have for wanting to own a particular firearm.

As far as your question about "military-grade semiautomatic" firearms, well that is pretty much a non issue since the military's are select fire, not semiautomatic. But, since you bring it up...maybe you should read up on U.S vs. Miller.

In that case the Supreme Court held, among it's 4 findings, that the second amendment was in place to, in part, guarantee an effectively armed militia. It also deemed that the weapon in question (a short-barreled shotgun) was not a viable arm used in military service and thus should be regulated by the National Firearms Act instead of being readily available for purchase and use to everyday citizens.

While the decision to label the short-barreled shotgun as they did has often been questioned (they have been used many times in battle by standing armys) it isn't why I bring this case up. According to the Supreme Court, in their ruling on Miller, one of the main goals of the second amendment is to allow for military arms to be owned by the general public.

[Billy]

Let me put it to you all this way....saying that giving everyone a gun (ie: no gun control) is going to lead to less crime, makes just about as much logical sense as saying that by giving everyone an M-1 tank to drive that the roads are going to be safer.....sometimes you have to put away your feelings for what you think makes you happy, and just throw a little common-sense into the mix.

I've never once said to give everyone a gun, nor have I seen anyone in this thread but yourself make that statement.

We are talking about future legislation that could very well be on the horizon depending on the outcome of the upcoming elections.

[Joe]

oh come on...the way people talk about guns on here is nothing short of being paranoid. What single person needs to have 15 guns in their possession for "self defense"? Why does a private homeowner need a military-grade semi-automatic rifle for "self defense"?..and for the love of god don't even get me started on the vast majority of people not even knowing how to properly use a gun in the first place.

On the same lines... why does anyone need a car that "can" go more then the speed limit?

There are MANY examples of where speed was the factor that caused the death of people.

Thus, we should ban all vehicles that travel over the highest posted speed limit in the US.

I mean WTF does ANYONE need to go so fast for? Only the cop cars can travel over the speed limit.

I bet you wouldn't vote "yes" on that, would you?

Give me one valid reason you need a vehicle that travels over 85.

[HullBreach]

oh come on...the way people talk about guns on here is nothing short of being paranoid. What single person needs to have 15 guns in their possession for "self defense"? Why does a private homeowner need a military-grade semi-automatic rifle for "self defense"?..and for the love of god don't even get me started on the vast majority of people not even knowing how to properly use a gun in the first place.

Heres the real question at the root of this: Are you comfortable with the Government deciding what you "need" and don't "need"?

If I can afford a rack of assault rifles, and I decide thats how I want to spend my money, what buisiness of it of yours, or the governments, that I decide to spend it that way?

Also, does anyone on the Tampa Racing boards really "need" a sports car? They could all drive hybrids and that would be more enviromentally freindly.

Do children really "need" video games? They should play outside.

Do you really "need" that literature thats critical of the government? Thats a thought crime.


I feel that some controls are necessary, but I think those controls are already in place from the NFA act. I think most "gun control" legislation since then flies in the face of what the intent of the second amendment was: To keep citizens dangerous enough to those who would abuse the power granted to them by our system that we retain a semblance of freedom.

To do this, a citizen should be able to maintain personal weapons that put them on an even footing with any law enforcement official in the US. That means semi-automatic rifles, and fully automatic weapons with the appropriate tax stamps.

[BAMF]

I absolutely love when the gun-owners of TF come out of the woodwork to provide a beatdown to some random Brady-bunch puppet. Bravo, gentlemen.

[Tackleberry]

oh come on...the way people talk about guns on here is nothing short of being paranoid. What single person needs to have 15 guns in their possession for "self defense"? Why does a private homeowner need a military-grade semi-automatic rifle for "self defense"?..and for the love of god don't even get me started on the vast majority of people not even knowing how to properly use a gun in the first place.

why do women need to buy 300 pairs of shoes
why do computer geeks need to spend their life savings on a fucking motherboard
why do car fanatics need to spend 50K for 700hp car that they wont be able to drive on a daily basis
why do people spend 180 bucks a month for tv service when they dont watch 40 bucks of it
why do people spend 800K for a house when they dont even go in 3/4 of the rooms that its got

as far as im concerned, if i had 15 rooms in my house each non kid occupied room would have a gun in it within reach and that includes the fucking bathrooms
i cant imagine 300 pairs of shoes saving your life, nor will that motherboard, 700hp car, cable tv etc.

[jabtay]

haha badass... topless, yet another time you open your mouth and find out you are way off base.

[Kryptix]

why do women need to buy 300 pairs of shoes
why do computer geeks need to spend their life savings on a fucking motherboard
why do car fanatics need to spend 50K for 700hp car that they wont be able to drive on a daily basis
why do people spend 180 bucks a month for tv service when they dont watch 40 bucks of it
why do people spend 800K for a house when they dont even go in 3/4 of the rooms that its got

as far as im concerned, if i had 15 rooms in my house each non kid occupied room would have a gun in it within reach and that includes the fucking bathrooms
i cant imagine 300 pairs of shoes saving your life, nor will that motherboard, 700hp car, cable tv etc.
How can you compare guns to shoes or anything else? I see where you're coming from though. It is a good point. This country has a severe obsessive compulsive disorder.

I am for these gun control bills because for the most part it doesn't really effect the legal gun owners as I see it except for getting registered. But, it does make it harder to get guns for people that shouldn't have guns. I know some of the laws have already been enacted as someone in a previous post mentioned. But that's not the point. I just simply wanted to start a thread about the issue.

[PPGMD]

I am for these gun control bills because for the most part it doesn't really effect the legal gun owners as I see it except for getting registered. But, it does make it harder to get guns for people that shouldn't have guns.

They don't go get guns from dealers, they buy them off the street from the black market. Registration would have no effect what so ever on criminals, because their guns aren't legal in the first place.

All it does is make it harder for legal gun owners.

[Kryptix]

They don't go get guns from dealers, they buy them off the street from the black market. Registration would have no effect what so ever on criminals, because their guns aren't legal in the first place.

All it does is make it harder for legal gun owners.

Actually, yes they do get it from dealers. There is plenty of evidence for that. They also get them from the black market. They can simply use the FBI and ATF undercovers to help with the black market problem.

[Tackleberry]

How can you compare guns to shoes or anything else? I see where you're coming from though. It is a good point. This country has a severe obsessive compulsive disorder.

I am for these gun control bills because for the most part it doesn't really effect the legal gun owners as I see it except for getting registered. But, it does make it harder to get guns for people that shouldn't have guns. I know some of the laws have already been enacted as someone in a previous post mentioned. But that's not the point. I just simply wanted to start a thread about the issue.

its not about comparing guns to shoes, its comparing the "useless" stuff people buy.

[jabtay]

Actually, yes they do get it from dealers. There is plenty of evidence for that. They also get them from the black market. They can simply use the FBI and ATF undercovers to help with the black market problem.
You are naive if you believe that.

[Kryptix]

You are naive if you believe that.

Nah just optimistic.

[PPGMD]

Actually, yes they do get it from dealers. There is plenty of evidence for that. They also get them from the black market. They can simply use the FBI and ATF undercovers to help with the black market problem.


Oh yes the Average Time to Crime, that's simply the average time that recovered guns go from last transfer to crime. That only includes guns that are recovered and not the many millions of runs purchased in the US.

How about we do this become much tougher on crime? It's already illegal to murder, what's a gun crime added to it? Make murder an instant life with no parole offense and death in certain cases.

[jabtay]

Nah just optimistic.
optimistic? You sound scared...hell you sound paranoid.

[Iroc Joe]

How can you compare guns to shoes or anything else? I see where you're coming from though. It is a good point. This country has a severe obsessive compulsive disorder.

I am for these gun control bills because for the most part it doesn't really effect the legal gun owners as I see it except for getting registered. But, it does make it harder to get guns for people that shouldn't have guns. I know some of the laws have already been enacted as someone in a previous post mentioned. But that's not the point. I just simply wanted to start a thread about the issue.

Why should he not compare guns to shoes? I have five Colt 1911s. Each one is unique in it's own way. Women make the same argument about shoes. I fail to see how you discount his point? Yes, actually registration does affect legal gun owners. First of all, it costs money. Money we don't want to pay through inflated taxes to pay for an unconstitutional system. Furthermore, I fail to see your logic. If a person fails a criminal background check, he cannot legally purchase or possess a firearm. How does myself registering my firearms keep a criminal from possessing a firearm? If he cannot purchase the firearm legally, he will not be able to register it then, will he? So what exactly does registration accomplish?

[Kryptix]

optimistic? You sound scared...hell you sound paranoid.

I'll admit I am a little paranoid about the subject. and for good reason.

[jabtay]

How about we do this become much tougher on crime? It's already illegal to murder, what's a gun crime added to it? Make murder an instant life with no parole offense and death in certain cases.
+1...tougher punishment will lead to less crime.

[jabtay]

I'll admit I am a little paranoid about the subject. and for good reason.
What would that reason be? did some law abiding gun owner pull a gun on you or something?

[Kryptix]

What would that reason be? did some law abiding gun owner pull a gun on you or something?

Just experiences over the years. ONe of the more recent experiences was me being at a crowded restarunt/bar and some kid bringing a gun in the place and firing it, waving it in peoples faces and then leaving without getting caught. Remember I have nothing against the 2nd amendment I just think more should be done to help prevent instances like this one. Whether the kid bought the gun legally or not remains to be seen. He could have got it from the street. Who knows?

If something more is done like focusing more on the black market and enforcing the laws we have I could feel safer knowing that most of the people that do have guns are the ones that should have them.

[PPGMD]

No law would have caught that kid, or even prevented that incident. Remember that something like 90% of the gun crime involves drugs or gangs. How about deal with the underlying cause of the violence, not the tool that they are using.

[jabtay]

Just experiences over the years. ONe of the more recent experiences was me being at a crowded restarunt/bar and some kid bringing a gun in the place and firing it, waving it in peoples faces and then leaving without getting caught. Remember I have nothing against the 2nd amendment I just think more should be done to help prevent instances like this one. Whether the kid bought the gun legally or not remains to be seen. He could have got it from the street. Who knows?
so one person does this, and you get scares of the gun? why not fear the person that can get the guns. I am a legal gun owner, and have had background checks to purchase a gun. I do not have to register my gun, because I have been checked. we must register this, register that, when will the invasion of privacy end?

[Tackleberry]

you cant stop the violence. if there are no guns there will be some other device used and/or created that will discharge a projectile by some means to cause the same sort of deadly fear into their victim.

gun is a tool, nothing more.

[Iroc Joe]

I still want an answer to my questions.

[Tackleberry]

my glock is registered with metro in vegas. they only require hand guns to be registered, not anything else like shottys or rifles (besides any federally restricted stuff of course) and you dont need to apply to buy a gun there either. i dont know why they do it, i guess its just to keep a record of firearms that can be carried on a person since they do allow for open carry in nevada maybe thats why they do it.
its a credit card size paper, must be carried at all times when you have the gun with you either on your body or in your car or in your home...wherever the gun goes so does that paper.

my guess, is that its to make sure that its your gun if you get stopped and its proof that its legal and mine.

[PPGMD]

Registration is no longer required in Vegas for visitors staying less then 30 days (might be 60). They also now honor the Florida concealed carry permit.

[BAMF]

I still want an answer to my questions.

You'll never get it, Because you're a dirty libertarian!


Range, asshole. When you coming!

[Tackleberry]

Registration is no longer required in Vegas for visitors staying less then 30 days (might be 60). They also now honor the Florida concealed carry permit.

yea i know i posted in the gun club group about it. it used to be 24 hours. when i went last year...
1. get off plane (arrived at 1030am)
2. get my luggage
3. get rental car
4. go to metro to register pistol (1200pm)

since im moving there in less than 2 months i dont have to worry about registering it but i do have to put in a change of address for my registration and my DL which is out there as well.

[Joe]

Kryptix,

Have you bothered to even research the laws that are CURRENTLY in place to get a gun?

I'd say from your posts, no.

A lot of what you are "asking for" is in place and active right now. Honestly, have you ever attempted to buy a single gun yourself?

If not, maybe you should try, so you see the process. Then make an educated thought about whether "doing more paperwork" would actually help what you are looking to accomplish.

[Topless T/A]

haha badass... topless, yet another time you open your mouth and find out you are way off base.

I absolutely love when the gun-owners of TF come out of the woodwork to provide a beatdown to some random Brady-bunch puppet. Bravo, gentlemen.

I'm sorry to tell you that my status as an internet hard ass doesnt affect me at all, so I'll continue to open my mouth as I see fit...the only beat down here is the complete ignorance and selfishness that many of you choose to attribute to yourselves. It's beyond me how so many people can lack just basic common sense, and choose to concentrate the majority of the intellect (or lack there of) on such an unimportant issue. If you all gave just a tenth of the effort that you give towards your own selfish needs of empowerment, into taking time to recognize the importance of government and laws to our entire society, you would find that you would be much better off. I personally never have stated that all guns should be outlawed, just merely stricter control than what we have now. There's no wonder however that a lot of people out there do call for even tighter rules than what I believe in, as it appears as though the pro-gun crowd as whole is so far off base with reality that it's almost unbelievable.

[Billy]

I have no problem with the idea behind laws or the government. I do have a problem with people pushing for more laws that have been proven time and time again to do nothing to make people safer. I have a problem with people pushing for more laws when there are plenty of laws that exist that just aren't being enforced. I have a problem with people pushing for more laws that don't focus on the real cause of the issue, the criminals committing the acts they do.

That goes for laws relating to firearms, but also for any other areas where I feel the actions of the lawmakers are misguided.


The burden of proof is not on the legal gun owners. We all partake in perfectly legal actions that fall well within the scope of the current laws and legislation. When the issue of gun control comes up, it's supporters are always quick to ask gun owners to defend their position when it should be the other way around. Instead of me having to prove my case for continuing to do what I (meaning any legal firearm owner) already am legal able to, you (meaning anyone campaigning for gun control) prove to me why that should change.

[jabtay]

There's no wonder however that a lot of people out there do call for even tighter rules than what I believe in, as it appears as though the pro-gun crowd as whole is so far off base with reality that it's almost unbelievable.
the same can be said for you. You want the government to tell you what to do every minute of the day it sounds like. I dont want the government to be do damned involved in my day to day life.

[Ripped]

im sure glad the asterisk was not popular when the 2nd amendment was drawn up on to our constitution.. you know damn good and well the asterisk was invented by politicians. Felon or Not, good or bad. i hate to say it but, Shall not be infringed means JUST THAT. A Vast majority of the problem discussed here regarding crime is the judicial system letting fuckbag criminals out of jail early. It Sickens me honestly.. Personally i say we hold the Judges accountable or at least whoever approves letting the fuckbags out of jail early. Im quite sure we would rather pay more taxes so we have ROOM for all the criminals in Jail Versus having them on the street and us paying more taxes so more cops can sit in parking lots browsing the internet. The solution is obvious. its the politicians and the media that confuse everything, fooking mind control and you cant even see it.

[Joe]

There's no wonder however that a lot of people out there do call for even tighter rules than what I believe in, as it appears as though the pro-gun crowd as whole is so far off base with reality that it's almost unbelievable.

Almost as far off base as someone who bitches about the laws for buying a gun that actually has NO idea how the current laws work.

:roll:

Since you "say" for are for the second amendment, why don't you come out to a TF shoot and see WTF all this "gun nut" shit is all about? Personally I would think you would learn a lot.

Most anti-gun nuts like yourself have NEVER shot a gun with a non-military legal citizen in a non-military range, just some good ol' citizens doing a hobby that they enjoy.

[Achill3s]

Seriously....If you haven't shot a gun...you have no right talking shit about them and the laws. Go shoot one then come back. We'll see if your opinion has changed.

[type-j-spec]

problem is not guns its the wannabe gangsta's that walk around these days that buy a gun and then act hard when they were pussies before they bought one.

Also if the gun companies would keep better "control" and stop being paid off by cartels, mafias, gangs and rebel forces around the planet we wouldn't have to even be talking about this.

[BAMF]

problem is not guns its the wannabe gangsta's that walk around these days that buy a gun and then act hard when they were pussies before they bought one.

Also if the gun companies would keep better "control" and stop being paid off by cartels, mafias, gangs and rebel forces around the planet we wouldn't have to even be talking about this.

What the fuck are you talking about?

[type-j-spec]

What the fuck are you talking about?

lack of gun control

[BAMF]

lack of gun control

I read the first bit about peopel buying guns that were 'pussies' becomming 'hardasses'. Is a gun some kind of highschool cool-guy device now that I never heard about? A gun doesn't make you a badass, I know personally I'm a lot calmer and willing to put up with bullshit when I have my gun on me.


And cartels? Global rebels? Paying off gun manufacturers? What the fuck are you talking about? You've been reading too many conspiracy theroy books.

[PPGMD]

American guns take a lot of paperwork to legally export out of the country, and it takes a lot of paperwork and tests to import foreign made guns into the United States. Most cartels, rebel forces and foreign militaries use an AK of some type because the Soviets were making tons of them and just giving them away.

Hard asses act just as stupid after a few karate classes or after they get a descent pocket knife.

You act stupid with a gun in the Florida, you get 10 years just for possessing a gun during the commissioning of a felony, 20 years for firing it, and 25 years to life if you injure someone. After that you are a felon and violent felons are least likely to get their rights back (short of a pardon).

[type-j-spec]

I read the first bit about peopel buying guns that were 'pussies' becomming 'hardasses'. Is a gun some kind of highschool cool-guy device now that I never heard about? A gun doesn't make you a badass, I know personally I'm a lot calmer and willing to put up with bullshit when I have my gun on me.


And cartels? Global rebels? Paying off gun manufacturers? What the fuck are you talking about? You've been reading too many conspiracy theroy books.

so you are saying that i "cant" buy guns illegally?im pretty sure i could right now if i wanted to.Just like i could buy a dime sack or heroin.Your also saying "nobody" takes bribes?

problem is you have idiots "pussies" running around making it harder for legal owners of guns.Showing my age back in the day you didnt have high school and middle school kids running around with guns like you do now.so you are saying kids that age wont get "hyped" up about having that equipment?They get excited from just dry humping.

ill take my chances with the karate kid and a swiss army knife.

[BAMF]

so you are saying that i "cant" buy guns illegally?im pretty sure i could right now if i wanted to.Just like i could buy a dime sack or heroin.Your also saying "nobody" takes bribes?

problem is you have idiots "pussies" running around making it harder for legal owners of guns.Showing my age back in the day you didnt have high school and middle school kids running around with guns like you do now.so you are saying kids that age wont get "hyped" up about having that equipment?They get excited from just dry humping.

ill take my chances with the karate kid and a swiss army knife.

How does ANY of this have anything at all to do with legal gun ownership and gun laws? None of the afore mentioned groups could've ever hoped to obtain a gun legally.

See, thats the problem with most peopel who want all this gun control. They think passing laws are going to somehow magically affect criminals with guns.

[type-j-spec]

How does ANY of this have anything at all to do with legal gun ownership and gun laws? None of the afore mentioned groups could've ever hoped to obtain a gun legally.

See, thats the problem with most peopel who want all this gun control. They think passing laws are going to somehow magically affect criminals with guns.

The only reason we are having this conversation is because "kids" are shooting each others brains out.If we didnt have all these incidents with school shootings there wouldn't be such a frenzy on gun control.If it was just in the "ghetto" and not happyville county we would be arguing over something else.

You should be able to buy guns,hell buy a tank but the laws in place suck.

[PPGMD]

so you are saying that i "cant" buy guns illegally?im pretty sure i could right now if i wanted to.Just like i could buy a dime sack or heroin.Your also saying "nobody" takes bribes?

And how exactly to you propose to control those illegal guns. Registations won't do it, nor will any of the many gun laws being proposed.

problem is you have idiots "pussies" running around making it harder for legal owners of guns.Showing my age back in the day you didnt have high school and middle school kids running around with guns like you do now.so you are saying kids that age wont get "hyped" up about having that equipment?They get excited from just dry humping.

ill take my chances with the karate kid and a swiss army knife.

You know the Bradys always predict shoot outs in the streets, and that things will be like the Wild West when a state is considering going to Shall Issue status. Concealed Carry Permit holders are less likely to commit any crime, let alone any violent crime.

[Joe]

The only reason we are having this conversation is because "kids" are shooting each others brains out.If we didnt have all these incidents with school shootings there wouldn't be such a frenzy on gun control.If it was just in the "ghetto" and not happyville county we would be arguing over something else.

You should be able to buy guns,hell buy a tank but the laws in place suck.

Those "kids" are using stolen or black market guns. As far as school shootings, there are MORE school stabbings, why are knives still legal?

You guys and your uninformed anti-gun babble. It sounds as if you have been sipping a little to much on the Brady Kool-Aid and reading their pamphlets without bothering to check the facts.

[type-j-spec]

Those "kids" are using stolen or black market guns. As far as school shootings, there are MORE school stabbings, why are knives still legal?

You guys and your uninformed anti-gun babble. It sounds as if you have been sipping a little to much on the Brady Kool-Aid and reading their pamphlets without bothering to check the facts.

in what sentence did i say guns should be illegal?

[type-j-spec]

And how exactly to you propose to control those illegal guns. Registations won't do it, nor will any of the many gun laws being proposed.



You know the Bradys always predict shoot outs in the streets, and that things will be like the Wild West when a state is considering going to Shall Issue status. Concealed Carry Permit holders are less likely to commit any crime, let alone any violent crime.

yea,i dont know if you watched the news today
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22965001/

yes i have owned a gun,knives and some samurai swords....fact is untill gun owners see that there has to be MORE done about the situation then you will need your gun when some punk in ybor runs up on you.

[Joe]

then you will need your gun when some punk in ybor runs up on you

and I WILL have my gun, and there will be one less "punk in ybor".

If guns were "harder for law abiding citizens" to get, you seriously think that "punk" in Ybor will have any harder time getting his weapon of choice? (gun or knife).

I still can't see what you guys think you're "fixing" by making those that FOLLOW LAWS have a harder/tougher time legally purchasing a product.

Again, KEY WORDS here being "FOLLOW LAWS". FYI: Criminals don't follow laws very well, they never have...

[Joe]

yea,i dont know if you watched the news today
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22965001/


So now you're advocating that police officers should not be issued guns either?

I mean, just think... this whole incident could have been prevented if police officers were restricted from carry guns and only allowed to carry pepper spray. This way they couldn't hurt themselves or eachother...

[Tackleberry]

lack of gun control

aim better

[jabtay]

The only reason we are having this conversation is because "kids" are shooting each others brains out.If we didnt have all these incidents with school shootings there wouldn't be such a frenzy on gun control.If it was just in the "ghetto" and not happyville county we would be arguing over something else.
None of the school shootings happened after a High schooler, went to a gun store and bought a gun. They got guns (read stole guns) then went and did the deed. How will gun registration stop that? the only viable way would be to get 100% of all guns. But that will never happen, so i would rather have a gun, and keep the bad guy guessing who has them and who doesnt.

[type-j-spec]

and I WILL have my gun, and there will be one less "punk in ybor".

If guns were "harder for law abiding citizens" to get, you seriously think that "punk" in Ybor will have any harder time getting his weapon of choice? (gun or knife).

I still can't see what you guys think you're "fixing" by making those that FOLLOW LAWS have a harder/tougher time legally purchasing a product.

Again, KEY WORDS here being "FOLLOW LAWS". FYI: Criminals don't follow laws very well, they never have...

i dont know what society you are living in but there is an assload of "law abiding citizens" that are fucking nuts.I know some soccer moms i wouldnt want to give a baseball bat no less a firearm.

Also in the early to mid 90's a big problem that has sparked this debate is gun owners NOT locking up their weapons properly from young kids.Laws were passed and the incidents have gone down since then.


If your a law abiding citizen you should want more laws to try to stop criminals from infringing on your rights to own a gun.Just as car owners on TR wish to promote legal racing against those who cause accidents on the street.

[jabtay]

do you know how many actual gunlaws there are on the books now?

[PPGMD]

i dont know what society you are living in but there is an assload of "law abiding citizens" that are fucking nuts.I know some soccer moms i wouldnt want to give a baseball bat no less a firearm.

Legal gun owners has a whole are less likely to commit even minor crimes. Every time a state considers making positive changes they make the similar crys, "BLOOD IN THE STREETS!" "IT'S GOING TO BE LIKE THE WILD WEST WITH SHOOTOUTS IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD!". I don't believe there is even one case in the state of Florida of Mutual Combat involving a concealed carry permit holder. IIRC revocation stat in Florida is under 1%, out of the 1.2 million concealed carry permits issued less then 1% have had to be revoked.

CWL are revoked for some misdemeanors (drug and domestic violence), any felony, and anytime there is a TRO placed on the holder (if the TRO is struck down you can apply to get it back).

Also in the early to mid 90's a big problem that has sparked this debate is gun owners NOT locking up their weapons properly from young kids.Laws were passed and the incidents have gone down since then.

That was the media, and the Brady's blowing it out of proportion. In the year 2000 there were 80 firearms accidents for children 0-14 (CDC lumps 15-25), in 1995 there was 250.

Other causes of death (0-14):
Automobile: 2,400
Falls: 140
Poisoning: 120
Pedestrian: 550
Drowning: 800
Fires, burns: 660
Suffocation by ingested object: 120
All other causes: 1,100

I don't see anyone mandating locking fences around pools, or around cars.



If your a law abiding citizen you should want more laws to try to stop criminals from infringing on your rights to own a gun.Just as car owners on TR wish to promote legal racing against those who cause accidents on the street.

Groups like the Brady's only want one thing, total disarmament. They are willing to work at it, attack it a piece at a time. There are already 10,000 gun laws on the books in the United States we don't need anymore.

[type-j-spec]

Well i have no problem with protecting your family as a responsible gun owner.

But if incidents like the one in chicago with 5 soccer moms shot in a department store or another big school shooting you might have more to worry about then gun laws.

So whats the big plan from gun owners to stop this from happening?

[jabtay]

So whats the big plan from gun owners to stop this from happening?
The big plan is to carry a weapon, and eliminate the threat before it gets out of hand. The only way a wolf can kill a herd of sheep is if there is no sheepdog to keep the wolf at bay.

[blurboEK]

The big plan is to carry a weapon, and eliminate the threat before it gets out of hand. The only way a wolf can kill a herd of sheep is if there is no sheepdog to keep the wolf at bay.

+1 the plan would be to push for national reciprocity for concealed carry permits. Only thing I do not like about living in NY is that I cannot legally protect myself or my family once I leave my house and my FL cwl means nothing in this state..

[type-j-spec]

The big plan is to carry a weapon, and eliminate the threat before it gets out of hand. The only way a wolf can kill a herd of sheep is if there is no sheepdog to keep the wolf at bay.

Yea but you and i both know not everybody is a killer and not everybody is going to be able to put their gun to proper use.Also alot of gun owners leave their weapon at home and most real criminals wont even give you the chance to even pull.Kind of like the man in the signature of PPGMD :)

[BAMF]

Yea but you and i both know not everybody is a killer and not everybody is going to be able to put their gun to proper use.Also alot of gun owners leave their weapon at home and most real criminals wont even give you the chance to even pull.Kind of like the man in the signature of PPGMD :)

Stop thinking carrying a gun is like something out of a bad gangster movie. "Not everyone is a killer" that is the most played out, annoying line there is. If faced with a life or death situation you're going to run, or fight. Thats how it goes. If you decide to fight then you're going to fight with whatever you can. That means if you have a gun you're going to use it.

You want to help take care of some of these school shootings? Give us responsible gun owners and the CWP holders (Who, statistically speaking, are one of the groups LEAST likely to break any type of law) the ability to carry just about everywhere, and we'll help keep the rest of you safe.

[type-j-spec]

Stop thinking carrying a gun is like something out of a bad gangster movie. "Not everyone is a killer" that is the most played out, annoying line there is. If faced with a life or death situation you're going to run, or fight. Thats how it goes. If you decide to fight then you're going to fight with whatever you can. That means if you have a gun you're going to use it.

You want to help take care of some of these school shootings? Give us responsible gun owners and the CWP holders (Who, statistically speaking, are one of the groups LEAST likely to break any type of law) the ability to carry just about everywhere, and we'll help keep the rest of you safe.

I know real criminals and gangstas locked up right now,from family to friends its not a movie.You can be charles bronson all you want but the good guys dont always win and the best way to get the job done is when you dont have to use force if you dont have to.

[BAMF]

I know real criminals and gangstas locked up right now,from family to friends its not a movie.You can be charles bronson all you want but the good guys dont always win and the best way to get the job done is when you dont have to use force if you dont have to.

So what point are you trying to make here? I'm not sure what you're getting at. The only way you wouldn't have to use force against a criminal is if all guns suddenly vanished. LAWS DO NOT AFFECT CRIMINALS. There is a reason they're called criminals. People under 18 who shoot up their schools did NOT obtain their weapons legally, obviously. "Gangstas" who obtain guns out of the trunk of a car obviously did not buy them legally as well.

Now, I on the other hand, who poses absolutely 0 threat of doing something illegal with my weapons, obtained them all legally, carry my pistol properly in a holster, and keep my guns locked up in a safe like its suppossed to be.

Who do you think more 'laws' will place an extra burdon on? And do you think this burdon is warranted? Why would you want to disarm me when the criminal still has their gun? Why don't you just paint a big target on my back while you're at it?

[Tackleberry]

yea,i dont know if you watched the news today
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22965001/

yes i have owned a gun,knives and some samurai swords....fact is untill gun owners see that there has to be MORE done about the situation then you will need your gun when some punk in ybor runs up on you.

1. that just sounds like retarded redneck shit
2. that punk in ybor can run up to me with any of the following and kill me
knife
gun
pipe
sword
cane
bat
car
axe
fireplace pokers
two by four

[Billy]

Also in the early to mid 90's a big problem that has sparked this debate is gun owners NOT locking up their weapons properly from young kids.Laws were passed and the incidents have gone down since then.




I don't condone negligence on the part of parents and that is exactly what you are talking about. It's not the firearms fault just like it's not the fault of a 5 gallon bucket that a kid drowns in. I don't see bans being called for for buckets.

Why do I mention the 5 gallon bucket? According to results from the CDC more children under the age of 10 were killed by accidents involving buckets of water than they were with those involving firearms. And actually if memory serves me correctly the firearm accidents tied with 3 other things for 10th on the list behind car accidents drownings in pools, buckets, etc...

There is no cries of "save our children" being called for these other items because they don't scare people, they are exposed to them everyday and understand them. The anti-gun lobby has done a good job of creating a campaign of fear that builds on people's preconceived notion of firearms that they don't understand. It is knee-jerk politics and feel-good politics at it's best. It does nothing to address the issue of who is committing the crimes and how to stop the criminals.

[PPGMD]

Yea but you and i both know not everybody is a killer and not everybody is going to be able to put their gun to proper use.Also alot of gun owners leave their weapon at home and most real criminals wont even give you the chance to even pull.Kind of like the man in the signature of PPGMD

That is one of the proper technique for dealing with being held at gunpoint, similar techniques are taught at schools like Krav Maga. It's not that hard, two weeks of school with regular practice and you can become proficient.

The training also emphasizes waiting, or creating a opportunity (in the case of my signature), not drawing blindly. Anyways peoples reactions differ when your life in on the line, I hope that if I am ever tested I default to my level of training and handle it properly. Also to get a concealed carry permit a class is required.

Personally I have more firearms training then most police officers have. In Florida they are only required to have one week of firearms training when in the academy after that all that is required is to qualify yearly (a course of fire I can do in my sleep). They can choose to take firearms classes as part of their continuing education requirements, but many don't take those classes.

Last year I had about 2 weeks of firearms training throughout the year. This year I am shooting for 3 weeks. Two weeks of pistol training and another week of rifle training. I am hoping for to take a couple of armorers classes also, I am certified on the AR-15, I want to do the Glock, 1911, and the Remington 700 courses.

That robbery in Chicago could have been prevented if one of those ladies had a concealed carry permit, it takes time to shoot and kill 5 people. You might not get it out, but you would at least die trying. It takes me 1.5 seconds to draw and fire from concealment, it takes me less then a second to draw without concealment.

[Tackleberry]

Also to get a concealed carry permit a class is required.

i wouldnt really call that a class :lol: :lol: most are pretty much saying when and why its ok to shoot, where its ok to carry and where not to, and how to fill out the app properly :lol:

[Josh]

Let me start off by saying that I support the 2nd amendment.

you lost me right there..........

[Topless T/A]

Almost as far off base as someone who bitches about the laws for buying a gun that actually has NO idea how the current laws work.

:roll:

Since you "say" for are for the second amendment, why don't you come out to a TF shoot and see WTF all this "gun nut" shit is all about? Personally I would think you would learn a lot.

Most anti-gun nuts like yourself have NEVER shot a gun with a non-military legal citizen in a non-military range, just some good ol' citizens doing a hobby that they enjoy.

My family has a military background, my dad owns guns as does a lot of my extended family...I've shot plenty of guns, and completely understand the sportsman angle of the argument.

[blurboEK]

My family has a military background, my dad owns guns as does a lot of my extended family...I've shot plenty of guns, and completely understand the sportsman angle of the argument.

but... you do not understand the personal/property protection "angle" ?

[jabtay]

but... you do not understand the personal/property protection "angle" ?
No, he doesnt understand why people are so against more laws. He thinks the government should run our lives.

[Topless T/A]

but... you do not understand the personal/property protection "angle" ?

Sure I understand that...the problem is that the personal protection angle leads to more criminals getting their hands on more guns (either by stealing them out of people's homes or buying them from careless gun owners) and more children killing themselves due to handguns just laying around the home. So something needs to be done about it, because obviously people can't help themselves...I'm not saying to punish the responsible gun owners or take away their guns, but their needs to be a higher price for accountability than there is now, which I think would solve a lot of our problems.

[Topless T/A]

No, he doesnt understand why people are so against more laws. He thinks the government should run our lives.

well isn't that cute.....so can you show me a society where the people have effectively policed themselves?

[25psi]

well isn't that cute.....so can you show me a society where the people have effectively policed themselves?
Airstrip One.

[PPGMD]

Sure I understand that...the problem is that the personal protection angle leads to more criminals getting their hands on more guns (either by stealing them out of people's homes or buying them from careless gun owners) and more children killing themselves due to handguns just laying around the home. So something needs to be done about it, because obviously people can't help themselves...I'm not saying to punish the responsible gun owners or take away their guns, but their needs to be a higher price for accountability than there is now, which I think would solve a lot of our problems.

There already is huge accountability for allowing a minor to access your gun and he injures someone with it. In Florida it's a misdemeanor if they gain access, and a felony if they injure themselves or someone else with it. But gun accidents with children are very very rare, I posted a list of various accidents that happen, there were only 80 children deaths due to gun accidents in the last year I have access to data about.

It's also a felony to transfer a gun to someone you know is ineligible to purchase a gun. Most gun owners to excessively paranoid about concealed permits when they their guns privately.

Beyond after the fact prosecution there is not much you can do.

[Topless T/A]

There already is huge accountability for allowing a minor to access your gun and he injures someone with it. In Florida it's a misdemeanor if they gain access, and a felony if they injure themselves or someone else with it. But gun accidents with children are very very rare, I posted a list of various accidents that happen, there were only 80 children deaths due to gun accidents in the last year I have access to data about.

It's also a felony to transfer a gun to someone you know is ineligible to purchase a gun. Most gun owners to excessively paranoid about concealed permits when they their guns privately.

Beyond after the fact prosecution there is not much you can do.

well "only 80" children deaths is about 80 too many...I understand the current laws about purchasing guns, but they need to be more strict...I'm talking mandatory (extended) prison time or huge fines for a minority simply gaining access, let alone killing someone...that and all guns should be registered, and if your gun is ever found to be used in any sort of crime, or found to have been sold to someone without being re-registered, that should also be prison time or some other sort of large punishment.

[Billy]

How would registration help combat crime? How has it worked in the states that require it now?

Not "woulds" and "coulds", there is enough hard evidence out there to answer based on empirical data.




And if your car is stolen and used in the commission of a crime, should you be punished for that as well? How about if your wallet is stolen and the money inside is used to further some criminal agenda?

[jabtay]

and if your gun is ever found to be used in any sort of crime, or found to have been sold to someone without being re-registered, that should also be prison time or some other sort of large punishment.
So we have to be liable after a sale, if the idiot does not register the gun? I guess we should run a back ground check on him privately as well?

[PPGMD]

well "only 80" children deaths is about 80 too many...

Why don't we deal with more serious causes of death for children:
Automobile: 2,400
Falls: 140
Poisoning: 120
Pedestrian: 550
Drowning: 800
Fires, burns: 660
Suffocation by ingested object: 120
All other causes: 1,100

I understand the current laws about purchasing guns, but they need to be more strict...I'm talking mandatory (extended) prison time or huge fines for a minority simply gaining access, let alone killing someone...that and all guns should be registered, and if your gun is ever found to be used in any sort of crime, or found to have been sold to someone without being re-registered, that should also be prison time or some other sort of large punishment.

To date no registration system has ever solved a gun crime, criminals don't register their guns, and the number that buy them legally off of gun owners is a very very small minority. In the past all registrations have done was make gun confiscations easier.

You want to be safer, more concealed carry permits for citizens, better enforcement of drug laws (including protecting our borders better), more detectives to run the leads on murders, and more patrol officers that patrol neighborhoods instead of sitting on the street with a radar gun. Once the crime has been solved, no more dealing down to aggravated battery if they don't kill the person, no good behavior time off for criminals convicted of violent crimes.

In states where they don't have 10-20-Life they need to pass it into law, also the improved castle doctrine that removed the flight requirement, allows 3rd party intervention, and relieves a person of civil liability following a justified use of deadly force.

[Scott]

How did I miss this one ? :lmao:

This is some great shit, smack downs everywhere.

Now back to hugging trees and shooting targets.

[Joe]

My family has a military background, my dad owns guns as does a lot of my extended family...I've shot plenty of guns, and completely understand the sportsman angle of the argument.


Have YOU ever attempted to purchase and/or take any civilian gun related course?

[Topless T/A]

How would registration help combat crime? How has it worked in the states that require it now?

Not "woulds" and "coulds", there is enough hard evidence out there to answer based on empirical data.




And if your car is stolen and used in the commission of a crime, should you be punished for that as well? How about if your wallet is stolen and the money inside is used to further some criminal agenda?

Registration would help (coupled with stricter punishments) because it would increase liability on the gun owner....it would make the gun owner think twice about who they sold it to, as well as put a little bit more effort into ensuring that the weapons are properly locked up and secured in their household.

A car is a different story....cars aren't built with the sole purpose of killing things. There's no good way that all homeowners can keep a car locked up and gurantee that it will never be stolen/used in a crime. The entire "Well you can kill people with a car or a 2X4" argument is pretty rediculous actually.

[Topless T/A]

Have YOU ever attempted to purchase and/or take any civilian gun related course?

I've taken a gun course, but have never had the need/desire to purchase one...I understand the law either way, so I don't see what that matters.

[PPGMD]

Registration would help (coupled with stricter punishments) because it would increase liability on the gun owner....it would make the gun owner think twice about who they sold it to, as well as put a little bit more effort into ensuring that the weapons are properly locked up and secured in their household.

It's been proven time and time again, that the registrations do nothing, very very few guns are sold to criminals. And the gun trace system is very effective, it's not instant but within a week they can have a good idea where the gun has gone based on it's last sale by a dealer.

A car is a different story....cars aren't built with the sole purpose of killing things. There's no good way that all homeowners can keep a car locked up and gurantee that it will never be stolen/used in a crime. The entire "Well you can kill people with a car or a 2X4" argument is pretty rediculous actually.

It's not ridiculous if you consider that the car is the deadliest weapon in the United States, and perhaps of all time.
Motor Vehicle Accidents: 43,354
Firearms: 28,663 (includes self-defense and police shootings)

I find this more interesting an ailment that is easy to control you are twice as likely to die from:
Diabetes Mellitus: 69,301

[PPGMD]

I've taken a gun course, but have never had the need/desire to purchase one...I understand the law either way, so I don't see what that matters.

Actually it's clear that you don't understand the laws.

[Billy]

A car is a different story....cars aren't built with the sole purpose of killing things. There's no good way that all homeowners can keep a car locked up and gurantee that it will never be stolen/used in a crime. The entire "Well you can kill people with a car or a 2X4" argument is pretty rediculous actually.

Both are tools that serve there intended purposes and bend to the will of the individual wielding them. That's why I compare them. When did it become unreasonable to feel safe and secure in the security of your property by locking it in your home? Why should extra measures be demanded of people in their homes?

Should home insurance providers stop paying out benefits to people if a tv or computer is stolen because they didn't have it chained in place? Or should you not receive any help if your car is stolen because all you had were the doors locked, but no club or alarm or boot on the tire?

[type-j-spec]

im still waiting for a gun owner to give me a real answer on how to solve the problem of too many guns in the hands of young people without just saying "shoot them".

You guys should be coming up with ideas and not soccer moms who just say have no guns.You guys should be up in arms and want NON responsible owners to pay big time to protect your right to bare arms.

there will be a democrat in office for 4 years and IF another school or big incident happens you guys will def be seeing laws you dont want.

[Billy]

I've been saying from the start......enforce the laws we currently have, punish those convicted of crimes, harsher penalties with the resolve to actually have that time be served.

[Joe]

im still waiting for a gun owner to give me a real answer on how to solve the problem of too many guns in the hands of young people without just saying "shoot them".

You guys should be coming up with ideas and not soccer moms who just say have no guns.You guys should be up in arms and want NON responsible owners to pay big time to protect your right to bare arms.

there will be a democrat in office for 4 years and IF another school or big incident happens you guys will def be seeing laws you dont want.

Use the CURRENT LAWS that are in place. Make parents responsible for their "kids" actions.

Kill people who commit murders (Death Penalty). Give the HARSHEST punishment allowed by law for violent crime. Etc...

Seriously... how fucked up is it when someone gets convicted of fraud and sits in jail for 20 years and someone else stabs someone and gets off in 2 years.

Again, stricter laws on guns is someone simply trying to cure the symptom (gun use in crimes) instead of resolving the problem. (violent crime)

[jabtay]

there will be a democrat in office for 4 years and IF another school or big incident happens you guys will def be seeing laws you dont want.
Yeah punish the law abiding...great logic there. :roll:

[PPGMD]

im still waiting for a gun owner to give me a real answer on how to solve the problem of too many guns in the hands of young people without just saying "shoot them".

I already said how to fix it several times.
http://www.tampaforums.com/forums/election-08/gun-control-317066/index6.html#post3606595

None of those abridge on a right set down by the Constitution. And they are proven effective when Florida became Shall Issue we had a 10% drop in overall crime and an even greater drop in violent crime. When we passed 10-20-Life our murder rate went down 20%.

These many criminals are afraid of getting collared for any gun crime, just having the gun results in a 10 year minimum sentence (for each count), 20 years if you discharge it, and 25-Life if you do great bodily harm to the person.

[blurboEK]

We will never see eye to eye and the arguments just continue to repeat themselves from page to page..

[Billy]

Ok, lets try something different. We've hashed and rehashed the statistics and other usual banter that surrounds the gun control debate, but one area doesn't get the attention it deserves.

The media and lawmakers are quick to point out all the bad things that happen when criminals pick up a gun, but you really don't hear about the good that can come from responsible people being armed for their protection. So, lets look at that aspect.

Here is a blog that keeps track of articles related to self defense incidents involving firearms.

http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html

Here is one of those articles...
Wheelchair-bound Man Shoots Attacker

A homeowner who is confined to a wheelchair shot and wounded a man who confronted him on his door step, Atlanta police told 11Alive News.

The homeowner was on his way out of his house on Flat Shoals Avenue Friday morning when he ran into a man at his door. The homeowner asked the man to leave, but the man started to assault the homeowner, authorities said.

During a struggle, the homeowner grabbed a gun and shot the attacker in the arm and chest.

The suspect was taken to the hospital. His condition was not known.

The homeowner was not injured.



This one I find pretty disturbing. It is audio from a 911 call placed when a woman's home was broken into. The intruder, a man who the woman had gone on one date with, had been harassing her over the months prior to the incident and have already broken into her home earlier in the week. Police were called and reports filled time and time again.

On the night of this break in the police were called again, and as you'll hear in the recording it takes over 5 minutes for police to respond. That's not a slight on the police; they can't be everywhere, nor should they be. But it does highlight the fact that each of us is responsible for our own safety and well being. I can't think of a better example of the saying "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away".

YouTube - Armed Citizens: Calling 911 Doesn't Always Work


Original News Article about the incident:

Police: Woman Shoots Stalker To Death After Break-In
Woman Endured Many Incidents With Stalker, Police Said

POSTED: 1:23 pm CST November 14, 2007
UPDATED: 2:15 pm CST November 14, 2007

An accused stalker was shot to death Monday night by the object of his obsession after he broke into her Hessville home, police told the Northwest Indiana Times.

Hammond resident Ryan Lee Bergner, 41, was pronounced dead from gunshot wounds to his abdomen shortly after 10:30 p.m. at a local hospital.

According to the Times, Bergner went on a date with the 51-year-old woman last June, and his behavior became obsessive, offensive and violent.

On Monday night, the woman was watching television in her living room when she said she heard Bergner break a bathroom window near her back door and called 911.

A friend had given the woman a pistol for protection earlier in the day.

After the 911 operator told her to lock herself in her bedroom until police could come, she ran upstairs to do so and retrieved the gun.

This was the second time in recent days that Bergner broke into her home, breaking a back window, destroying a clock radio and stealing several of her undergarments over the weekend.

Police records show Bergner also allegedly had tried to kick in the woman's front door a week before that, and also allegedly accosted her at her job and being ejected from the business by her co-workers.

He also was suspected of slashing her Jeep's tires on at least two occasions, police records show.

"This isn't over yet," Bergner told the woman on Nov. 3, according to police reports.

Hiding in her closet on Monday night, the woman said she heard Bergner enter the bedroom, then watched as he opened the closet door.

She said she told him to stop, but he kept coming. She fired the gun three times.

She said he then proceeded to choke her violently before collapsing to the floor.

"I was shaking so bad, I didn't think I'd hit him," the woman recalled Tuesday afternoon. "He just kept coming… I didn't want it to end this way."

Bergner had not been charged in any of the half-dozen previous complaints made against him.

"We only went out on that one date," the woman told the Times on Tuesday. "I got a look at his temper, and realized I didn't want anything to do with him. But he wouldn't take no for an answer."

Source (http://www.nbc5.com/news/14596016/detail.html)

Latest Article:

Prosecutors Say Woman Killed Stalker In Self-Defense
Dramatic 911 Tape Released

POSTED: 5:12 pm CST January 10, 2008
UPDATED: 9:17 am CST January 11, 2008

CHICAGO -- Last November, a terrified Indiana woman locked herself in a bedroom closet as a former boyfriend who'd been stalking her tried to kill her.

Now, three months later, police say the woman killed her alleged stalker, Ryan Bergner, in self-defense.

Back in November, NBC5 filed a Freedom of Information request for the 911 tapes. Now that a decision has been made about the woman's intent, police in Hammond handed over the tapes.

The woman had filed repeated complaints and said he slashed her tires.

In a confrontation at a legion hall, she said Bergner warned, "It's not over yet!"

In the 911 call, the woman tells the dispatcher, "Yeah, he's trying to get in my back door again. I've been having a lot of problems with him... Please! He's at the back door!"

As the call continues, the woman pleads with police to hurry as a Hammond dispatcher stays on the line, assuring her officers are on their way.

The dispatcher tells the woman to lock herself in a room, so she takes refuge in an upstairs bedroom, eventually in a closet.

"He broke through the window again," the woman tells the dispatcher.

"Is he in the house?" the dispatcher asks.

"Yes, I think he is," the woman replies.

Two minutes into the call, the woman tells the dispatcher she is armed, who then tells police.

Then, about five minutes after the call began, there's a final exchange.

"What are you doing?" the woman screams. "Stop it! Stop it!"

There are gunshots, and the man is dead.

The Lake County prosecutor's office said they consider this a case of self-defense.

Source (http://www.nbc5.com/morning/15024352/detail.html)

[Topless T/A]

that's why I've said time and time again that I'm not out to punish responsible gun owners...it's the owners who are not responsible that need more accountability, more punishment, and more enforcement...I'm not necessarily talking about you Billy, but if you all are so responsible then why would you have a problem with taking a tougher stance against those who aren't?

And in response to "very few guns are actually sold to criminals".....then please explain to me where criminals get their guns, if it's not buying them from people or stealing them from gun owners who don't take the proper steps to lock them up?

[blurboEK]

Great read Billy!

[Billy]

that's why I've said time and time again that I'm not out to punish responsible gun owners...it's the owners who are not responsible that need more accountability, more punishment, and more enforcement...I'm not necessarily talking about you Billy, but if you all are so responsible then why would you have a problem with taking a tougher stance against those who aren't?

And in response to "very few guns are actually sold to criminals".....then please explain to me where criminals get their guns, if it's not buying them from people or stealing them from gun owners who don't take the proper steps to lock them up?


I'm all for laws that punish criminals. The problem I have is that many of the laws and legislation being pushed don't accomplish that. You mention negligence and wanting to make people accountable for it, and there are already laws in place to do that. Unfortunately there is no way to legislate out negligence from our society, we can only punish it once it happens.



And, I have to ask since you mention it in your last sentence....what is the proper steps to lock up a firearm from a criminal? Isn't it being in my house, behind my door enough? It's safe enough to keep all my other belongings that way, why should there be a law in place for one item I own and not all the rest?

[Tackleberry]

well "only 80" children deaths is about 80 too many...I understand the current laws about purchasing guns, but they need to be more strict...I'm talking mandatory (extended) prison time or huge fines for a minority simply gaining access, let alone killing someone...that and all guns should be registered, and if your gun is ever found to be used in any sort of crime, or found to have been sold to someone without being re-registered, that should also be prison time or some other sort of large punishment.

80 too many? consider it 80 kids that are not gonna grow up retarded because their parents are.

[blurboEK]

what is the proper steps to lock up a firearm from a criminal? Isn't it being in my house, behind my door enough? It's safe enough to keep all my other belongings that way, why should there be a law in place for one item I own and not all the rest?

In NY where we are required to apply for a pistol license (in NYC you have to have a license for any type of firearm). Each pistol you own has to be added to the license and once you reach 10 pistols, the police have to do an in home inspection to make sure you have a safe to store them in. I personally feel it's a bit much but thats what they have in place here.

[Topless T/A]

I'm all for laws that punish criminals. The problem I have is that many of the laws and legislation being pushed don't accomplish that. You mention negligence and wanting to make people accountable for it, and there are already laws in place to do that. Unfortunately there is no way to legislate out negligence from our society, we can only punish it once it happens.



And, I have to ask since you mention it in your last sentence....what is the proper steps to lock up a firearm from a criminal? Isn't it being in my house, behind my door enough? It's safe enough to keep all my other belongings that way, why should there be a law in place for one item I own and not all the rest?

all (or most I assume) of your other belongings can't kill people like a gun can. The proper way, in my opinion, would be under lock and key in a type of container that can't be just carried off by somebody. If they steal your TV, odds are they won't use it to rob a convenience store somewhere...you leave a gun sitting behind your door and they just just take off with that and eventually kill someone.

[Tackleberry]

Registration would help (coupled with stricter punishments) because it would increase liability on the gun owner....it would make the gun owner think twice about who they sold it to, as well as put a little bit more effort into ensuring that the weapons are properly locked up and secured in their household.

A car is a different story....cars aren't built with the sole purpose of killing things. There's no good way that all homeowners can keep a car locked up and gurantee that it will never be stolen/used in a crime. The entire "Well you can kill people with a car or a 2X4" argument is pretty rediculous actually.

registration dont do squat. ive bought and sold numerous firearms just on this site alone. oh, and i even sold to a black male! OOOOH WATCH OUT! if you read any of my for sale posts i require strict information before i will even sell. in my most recent firearms sale he IS military enlisted and has stripes, a florida concealed permit. good enough for a dealer to let one go same day, its good for me too.

killing people with a 2x4 is not as easy as a gun, but lemme beat you over the head a few times with it after knocking you down with it and see how you feel afterwards. something tells me you will need that bus to take you to belleview

[blurboEK]

all (or most I assume) of your other belongings can't kill people like a gun can. The proper way, in my opinion, would be under lock and key in a type of container that can't be just carried off by somebody. If they steal your TV, odds are they won't use it to rob a convenience store somewhere...you leave a gun sitting behind your door and they just just take off with that and eventually kill someone.

I'm sure I speak for most gun owners here. When I go on vacation or leave for an extended period of time, if my guns do not come with me they are either stored at a reliable relatives house or they are locked away. While I'm home, my g/f and I both have a pistol by either side of the bed. If you break into my house while I'm home, you will not be leaving with anything but 2-3 rounds in you.

[Billy]

all (or most I assume) of your other belongings can't kill people like a gun can. The proper way, in my opinion, would be under lock and key in a type of container that can't be just carried off by somebody. If they steal your TV, odds are they won't use it to rob a convenience store somewhere...you leave a gun sitting behind your door and they just just take off with that and eventually kill someone.

That also forces me to have a nonfunctional self defense tool in my home that can't be kept immediately ready should it need to be brought to bear.

It also creates more barriers for people who wish to own firearms by requiring other special equipment that costs money and thus could create financial burdens on some of the lower class.

Also, look at the UK now. There is currently discussion about requiring the registration of kitchen knives and requiring that measures be taken to assure that they are locked away in steel cabinets.

Blurbo, DC also has laws like this in place except they are exceedingly more strict.

[Topless T/A]

registration dont do squat. ive bought and sold numerous firearms just on this site alone. oh, and i even sold to a black male! OOOOH WATCH OUT! if you read any of my for sale posts i require strict information before i will even sell. in my most recent firearms sale he IS military enlisted and has stripes, a florida concealed permit. good enough for a dealer to let one go same day, its good for me too.

killing people with a 2x4 is not as easy as a gun, but lemme beat you over the head a few times with it after knocking you down with it and see how you feel afterwards. something tells me you will need that bus to take you to belleview

Registration with extremely strict punishments attached to it would do a lot. That's good that you do your own "background check" of sorts, but a lot of people don't care as long as they get the cash....and that sort of behavior is what makes guns end up in the hands of criminals.

[Topless T/A]

That also forces me to have a nonfunctional self defense tool in my home that can't be kept immediately ready should it need to be brought to bear.

It also creates more barriers for people who wish to own firearms by requiring other special equipment that costs money and thus could create financial burdens on some of the lower class.

Blurbo, DC also has laws like this in place except they are exceedingly more strict.

so just because a "gun cabinet" or whatever you want to call it costs money, safety should be thrown to the wind? My boat requires the use of a trailer, that's just how it is...I'm not comparing owning a boat to owning a gun, I'm just saying that owning some things requires owning other things. Locking a gun up doesn't make it nonfunctional either....I mean are you not going to lock your guns up with children in the house, just because it's not convenient?

[HullBreach]

Blurbo, DC also has laws like this in place except they are exceedingly more strict.

And are currently up for judicial reveiw as potentially unconstitutional by the Supreme Court this June.

That ruling may un-do every bit of gun control legislation ever enacted. Im just hoping the '86 import ban goes away. I really want an MP-5k

[blurboEK]

Registration with extremely strict punishments attached to it would do a lot.

You keep arguing this point and it has done NOTHING in the states that currently have it in place.

[Tackleberry]

that's why I've said time and time again that I'm not out to punish responsible gun owners...it's the owners who are not responsible that need more accountability, more punishment, and more enforcement...I'm not necessarily talking about you Billy, but if you all are so responsible then why would you have a problem with taking a tougher stance against those who aren't?

And in response to "very few guns are actually sold to criminals".....then please explain to me where criminals get their guns, if it's not buying them from people or stealing them from gun owners who don't take the proper steps to lock them up?

criminals can get guns be means of someone that they know is their "squeaky clean" guy and buys them. stolen from other gangs, gang members, robberys, etc. RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNERS ARE NOT THE ONLY SOURCE STOP THINKING 2 DIMENSIONALLY YOU DOLT.

gun owners dont need more fucking enforcement they need less.
laws laws laws make people have an illusion on what is better for them. meanwhile laws are garbage useless because THE FUCKING SYSTEM DOES NOT SUPPORT BEING ABLE TO KEEP THESE SHITBAGS IN PRISON THEY WAY THAT THEY SHOULD!

stop being dumb and think again. why are so many people out of prison so fast...ITS THE FUCKING SYSTEM THAT DOES IT! stop blaming guns...blame the fucking system.

you simply possess....not use or have an intent to use a part of a firearm that is federally restricted you get and will stay for 20 years. (person has multiple hand guns and others legally bought too)
vick kills and slaughters animals for entertainment using various means. gets 18 fucking months in club fed.
THERES YOUR FUCKING SYSTEM WORKING FOR YOU.

the system has cancer, fix the EXISTING system to actually work instead of being a revolving door, shoot these fucking civil rights groups that cry about criminals being treated poorly, advocates against the death penalty need a gangbanger to shoot their oldest born kid to change their fucking minds and appeals processes need to be eliminated to 1 chance and must be completed within 1 week after conviction and case cannot be more than 1 year to appeal. after that, old sparky all up in yo ass frying your last meal.

you wanna know what the laws are doing that they keep on making? GIVING CRIMINALS MORE FUCKING RIGHTS!

[PPGMD]

That also forces me to have a nonfunctional self defense tool in my home that can't be kept immediately ready should it need to be brought to bear.

It also creates more barriers for people who wish to own firearms by requiring other special equipment that costs money and thus could create financial burdens on some of the lower class.

Not only that, but many safes can be broken into with a little skill. The $5,000 safe that was broken into, the people that did it likely knew he had a rather nice gun collection, and targeted his house but it still shows that all it takes is a determined thief.

[Billy]

Registration with extremely strict punishments attached to it would do a lot. That's good that you do your own "background check" of sorts, but a lot of people don't care as long as they get the cash....and that sort of behavior is what makes guns end up in the hands of criminals.

Current registration requirements in the US have proven all but useless at anything other than costing the tax payers money. The registrations have never been used to solve or stop a crime. They don't do anything other than make some people feel good.

Now, as far as why you see so many gun owners take such an issue with registration........You see it as just a quick and simple registration process, name on a list type stuff. However, anytime a government has successfully disarmed their law abiding citizens it has always been on the heels of mandatory gun registration.

[Tackleberry]

However, anytime a government has successfully disarmed their law abiding citizens it has always been on the heels of mandatory gun registration.

nawlins during katrina for a recent case law for that one

[PPGMD]

Topless,

Since you like registering things, it's been found the 99% of computer crimes involve a computer, thus you should register your computer, and it will put a code on all printed, and electronic communications so it can be tracked down to the user.

The government will not use it to suppress 1st amendment rights, so there should be no problem right?

[Topless T/A]

Not only that, but many safes can be broken into with a little skill. The $5,000 safe that was broken into, the people that did it likely knew he had a rather nice gun collection, and targeted his house but it still shows that all it takes is a determined thief.

this is true, but the average crackhead off the street or just even the average smash-and-grab thief is not going to know how to do that....so that argument is relatively unlikely.

[Tackleberry]

it goes higher than your street crack addict.

[PPGMD]

this is true, but the average crackhead off the street or just even the average smash-and-grab thief is not going to know how to do that....so that argument is relatively unlikely.

True, but large safes often cost over $1,000 to purchase and have delivered. The most common safe are small and portable, they are designed to prevent children from getting to the gun.

A gun owner is not responsible if someone breaks into their house (felony one), steals the gun (felony two), and finally shoots someone with it (felony three).

[Billy]

so just because a "gun cabinet" or whatever you want to call it costs money, safety should be thrown to the wind? My boat requires the use of a trailer, that's just how it is...I'm not comparing owning a boat to owning a gun, I'm just saying that owning some things requires owning other things. Locking a gun up doesn't make it nonfunctional either....I mean are you not going to lock your guns up with children in the house, just because it's not convenient?

You need the trailer to be able to get your boat from point A to point B, it isn't required by law and play no part in the use or functioning of the boat.

A locked up/unloaded gun is nonfunctional for the use of self defense which is what I originally stated. It isn't a matter of convenience, but it could be a matter of life and death should the need to use it arise.

As far as children and guns go....your initial question that I was responding to was about criminals and gun theft, not children in the home. That is what I framed my answer in response to. I do believe that it is the responsibility of the parents to make sure that their firearms are secured in such a way that children can not use them. I do not feel that there should be some special law requiring this.

Locks on cabinets are a good idea with kids, but they aren't required by law. Yet, if a child gets into an unsecured cabinet and ingests a household cleaner and suffers serious medical trauma or death the parents will face negligence charges, as they should. Do you feel that should change? 5 gallon buckets accidentally killed more children under 10 than firearms in 2004 but no one feels the need for special regulations on buckets. Focus on the real issue...negligence on the part of the parents.

[Topless T/A]

Topless,

Since you like registering things, it's been found the 99% of computer crimes involve a computer, thus you should register your computer, and it will put a code on all printed, and electronic communications so it can be tracked down to the user.

The government will not use it to suppress 1st amendment rights, so there should be no problem right?

I would not have a problem registering my computer if I knew that it would deter crime in some way. Why should that be a problem for anyone?

[blurboEK]

A gun owner is not responsible if someone breaks into their house (felony one), steals the gun (felony two), and finally shoots someone with it (felony three).

nor should they be. I feel we need stricter punishments for criminals, not the other way around.

[BAMF]

I would not have a problem registering my computer if I knew that it would deter crime in some way. Why should that be a problem for anyone?

But IT WON'T!

Show us figures that registering deters crime. Show us them. Please. I'm begging you.

[PPGMD]

I would not have a problem registering my computer if I knew that it would deter crime in some way. Why should that be a problem for anyone?

Why don't you ask a news reporter what they think of that idea?

[Tackleberry]

I would not have a problem registering my computer if I knew that it would deter crime in some way. Why should that be a problem for anyone?

that was dumb. thats like giving a crook your car keys and telling him where you live, work, play, fuck and shit.

[Tackleberry]

CRIMINALS DO NOT REGISTER SHIT

EXAMPLE. register your car. people that have abided by the law to be able to do that do it. CRIMINALS DONT!

[Topless T/A]

You need the trailer to be able to get your boat from point A to point B, it isn't required by law and play no part in the use or functioning of the boat.

A locked up/unloaded gun is nonfunctional for the use of self defense which is what I originally stated. It isn't a matter of convenience, but it could be a matter of life and death should the need to use it arise.

As far as children and guns go....your initial question that I was responding to was about criminals and gun theft, not children in the home. That is what I framed my answer in response to. I do believe that it is the responsibility of the parents to make sure that their firearms are secured in such a way that children can not use them. I do not feel that there should be some special law requiring this.

Locks on cabinets are a good idea with kids, but they aren't required by law. Yet, if a child gets into an unsecured cabinet and ingests a household cleaner and suffers serious medical trauma or death the parents will face negligence charges, as they should. Do you feel that should change? 5 gallon buckets accidentally killed more children under 10 than firearms in 2004 but no one feels the need for special regulations on buckets. Focus on the real issue...negligence on the part of the parents.


Parents are primarily to blame for something like that, which I can agree on 100%. IF there was a law requiring locks on gun cabinets, I think that less children would be killed...and I don't see how you could argue against that. A 5 gallon bucket is not purposefully built to kill people, so it falls along the same car argument that you all like to use...various things are going to kill people in accidents, but very few things are purposefully built to kill.

[Billy]

this is true, but the average crackhead off the street or just even the average smash-and-grab thief is not going to know how to do that....so that argument is relatively unlikely.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v627/a1abdj/libertyburglary2.jpg

Sledge hammer, no special skills required. If I remember correctly that took a couple of minutes to accomplish.

[Topless T/A]

Why don't you ask a news reporter what they think of that idea?

I don't really care what a news reporter thinks of that idea...you asked me, right? Why wold somebody have a problem with doing something that reduces crime?

[Topless T/A]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v627/a1abdj/libertyburglary2.jpg

Sledge hammer, no special skills required. If I remember correctly that took a couple of minutes to accomplish.

well then that's not sufficient is it?

[PPGMD]

Parents are primarily to blame for something like that, which I can agree on 100%. IF there was a law requiring locks on gun cabinets...

Actually there is a law (how many times do I have to repeat myself) here I will make it bigger. If you have actually purchased a gun you would know about this, there are big signs all around most gun shops, and they give you a flyer when you buy the gun.

There is a law requiring that guns not be accessible to minors!

Failure to secure your weapons from a minor is a misdemeanor, and a felony if the minor child hurts someone with the gun.

Felony = 1 year or more jail time, and loss of gun ownership rights.

[PPGMD]

I don't really care what a news reporter thinks of that idea...you asked me, right? Why wold somebody have a problem with doing something that reduces crime?

Because that registration can be abused just as easily as a gun registration list.

[Tackleberry]

Parents are primarily to blame for something like that, which I can agree on 100%. IF there was a law requiring locks on gun cabinets, I think that less children would be killed...and I don't see how you could argue against that. A 5 gallon bucket is not purposefully built to kill people, so it falls along the same car argument that you all like to use...various things are going to kill people in accidents, but very few things are purposefully built to kill.

because the 80 kids killed by retardedness is gonna change the planets gravitational pull.
PARENTAL NEGLIGENCE! NUMBER 1 KILLER/INJURER OF CHILDREN ON THIS PLANET!
guess what, some parent is retarded and their kid dies, by any means, what punishment are you truly gonna give a parent? they just killed their kid because they left the bottle of pinesol out while she chatted with her other boyfriend. shes gonna have to live with that for the rest of her life.

[Topless T/A]

Actually there is a law (how many times do I have to repeat myself) here I will make it bigger. If you have actually purchased a gun you would know about this, there are big signs all around most gun shops, and they give you a flyer when you buy the gun.

There is a law requiring that guns not be accessible to minors!

Failure to secure your weapons from a minor is a misdemeanor, and a felony if the minor child hurts someone with the gun.

Felony = 1 year or more jail time, and loss of gun ownership rights.

I know that killer....and that's all fine and well. There's still more that can be done, especially to keep them not only out of the hands of children, but criminals as well.

[Billy]

Parents are primarily to blame for something like that, which I can agree on 100%. IF there was a law requiring locks on gun cabinets, I think that less children would be killed...and I don't see how you could argue against that. A 5 gallon bucket is not purposefully built to kill people, so it falls along the same car argument that you all like to use...various things are going to kill people in accidents, but very few things are purposefully built to kill.

And if it really is being done "for the children" what does it matter what the intentions behind the creation of an item are? If these politicians truly want to protect the children it would make sense to me to start with the areas that are causing the most harm and that's not the case. Their actions and their words don't match up, how is that supposed to build trust?

[Tackleberry]

well then that's not sufficient is it?

you should change your title to voice of jackass

[PPGMD]

I know that killer....and that's all fine and well. There's still more that can be done, especially to keep them not only out of the hands of children, but criminals as well.

No you said "If there was a law..."

Criminals are criminals no matter how well you secure something they will figure out a way to steal it.

[Topless T/A]

And if it really is being done "for the children" what does it matter what the intentions behind the creation of an item are? If these politicians truly want to protect the children it would make sense to me to start with the areas that are causing the most harm and that's not the case. Their actions and their words don't match up, how is that supposed to build trust?

I seriously don't understand how you can try and relate the use of a 5 gallon bucket to the use of a gun...that's such a stretch, that it really doesn't add any credibility to the pro-gun argument.

[Tackleberry]

I know that killer....and that's all fine and well. There's still more that can be done, especially to keep them not only out of the hands of children, but criminals as well.

enlighten us....tell us what more should be done.

[Topless T/A]

enlighten us....tell us what more should be done.

go read the first 8 pages.

[Topless T/A]

so let me ask this....what is the pro-gun crowd's bottom-line problem with more control? Is it a matter of convenience, or just fear?

[PPGMD]

so let me ask this....what is the pro-gun crowd's bottom-line problem with more control? Is it a matter of convenience, or just fear?

More control, there are already 10,000 gun laws. We have a gun law for nearly every little thing, it's time to enforce the laws we already have.

[blurboEK]

I seriously don't understand how you can try and relate the use of a 5 gallon bucket to the use of a gun...that's such a stretch, that it really doesn't add any credibility to the pro-gun argument.

Seriously? Maybe you should go back and re-read the last 8 pages..

[Tackleberry]

I seriously don't understand how you can try and relate the use of a 5 gallon bucket to the use of a gun...that's such a stretch, that it really doesn't add any credibility to the pro-gun argument.

kids are curious and fearless by nature. they will pick up a gun just as fast as they will drink bleach, run or crawl to the basement steps, start pulling things hanging down in the garage, bedroom etc, play with matches, climb up anything regardless of its sturdiness, CLIMB INTO 5 GALLON BUCKETS, etc.

all the gun is is one more thing a kid can grab like anything else around the house such as the large cleaver in the kitchen in its proper unlocked drawer.

[Billy]

well then that's not sufficient is it?

And what would you consider sufficient? According to a locksmith and long time dealer in safes, it will cost around $4000 to get into the types of safes that are truly burglary rated.

Is that what you would impose on someone living on a fixed income who purchases a cheap revolver for home protection? Or for the single woman who has been harassed and threatened? Or any other number of circumstances?

The best way I've found to look at potential laws/legislation...look at them in the worst possible hands being used the worst possible way. You might not feel this way, but there are those in our law making bodies that want nothing more than the total disarmament of the US population. They are not above using measures like these to make it increasingly hard to purchase and shoot firearms.

[Topless T/A]

More control, there are already 10,000 gun laws. We have a gun law for nearly every little thing, it's time to enforce the laws we already have.

Ok I'll go along with that...so how do we go about that?

[HullBreach]

so let me ask this....what is the pro-gun crowd's bottom-line problem with more control? Is it a matter of convenience, or just fear?

Look at what happened in New Orleans. Law abiding citizens who chose to stay and protect their property were forcefully (brutally in a couple cases) disarmed of the necessary tools to protect themselves by much better armed and armored police.

This left them at the mercy of the roving criminals and looters.

Your goddamn right its fear.

[Billy]

I seriously don't understand how you can try and relate the use of a 5 gallon bucket to the use of a gun...that's such a stretch, that it really doesn't add any credibility to the pro-gun argument.

They are comparable in the context of the argument you were trying to make; protect the children.

Buckets, pools, cars, bikes and any number of other things are all more dangerous to children when it comes to accidents in the home.

[Topless T/A]

Look at what happened in New Orleans. Law abiding citizens who chose to stay and protect their property were forcefully (brutally in a couple cases) disarmed of the necessary tools to protect themselves by much better armed and armored police.

This left them at the mercy of the roving criminals and looters.

Your goddamn right its fear.

ok...how did the roving criminals and looters get their weapons?

[HullBreach]

ok...how did the roving criminals and looters get their weapons?

Looted / stolen from homes and in some cases police vehicles. Note once again, the criminals have already committed multiple felonies to get to this point.

Also, if theres one of me, and four guys with bats trying to get my TV, what does it take to even the odds?

[blurboEK]

ok...how did the roving criminals and looters get their weapons?

when you unarmed they wouldn't need much..

[Tackleberry]

so let me ask this....what is the pro-gun crowd's bottom-line problem with more control? Is it a matter of convenience, or just fear?

there is no need for more control other than people hitting their targets better, which some people fear funs when they shoot them and need more confidence, and for me its just convenience to be able to place 27 rounds at center of mass grouped in a nice circle to properly hit my target as a responsible gun owner who carries.

go read the first 8 pages.

why dont you read the first 8 pages and start using some common sense

[Tackleberry]

ok...how did the roving criminals and looters get their weapons?

you really dont read well do you? read back a few pages on what i said about that and get back to us.

[Billy]

Ok I'll go along with that...so how do we go about that?

Punish those caught breaking the law, don't plead them down to lesser charges. Make them serve their full sentence. That's just a start, but it goes far beyond guns.

Do the same for all crime and criminals, the gun owners often get blamed for wanting a lawless society which is actually the opposite. We are all for laws and public safety..but "common sense" (since it gets used so much when talking about gun legislation) to us is to enforce the laws we already have and go after the people committing the crimes and punish them.

[Topless T/A]

there is no need for more control other than people hitting their targets better, which some people fear funs when they shoot them and need more confidence, and for me its just convenience to be able to place 27 rounds at center of mass grouped in a nice circle to properly hit my target as a responsible gun owner who carries.



why dont you read the first 8 pages and start using some common sense

"hitting their targets better" is hardly a common-sense approach to gun crime...jesus christ.

[blurboEK]

"hitting their targets better" is hardly a common-sense approach to gun crime...jesus christ.

what does religion have to do with "gun control"? :lol:

[TampaDude]

there is no need for more control other than people hitting their targets better, which some people fear funs when they shoot them and need more confidence, and for me its just convenience to be able to place 27 rounds at center of mass grouped in a nice circle to properly hit my target as a responsible gun owner who carries.


+1

Because I CAN...that's why...I need no further justification...

[Tackleberry]

"hitting their targets better" is hardly a common-sense approach to gun crime...jesus christ.

sure it is. if i can hit that guy robbing a store with my gun center of mass 30 yards away, im being plenty responsible and taking out the shitbag robbing the poor lady behind the counter with his gun.

[Topless T/A]

Punish those caught breaking the law, don't plead them down to lesser charges. Make them serve their full sentence. That's just a start, but it goes far beyond guns.

Do the same for all crime and criminals, the gun owners often get blamed for wanting a lawless society which is actually the opposite. We are all for laws and public safety..but "common sense" (since it gets used so much when talking about gun legislation) to us is to enforce the laws we already have and go after the people committing the crimes and punish them.

Do you think there is room between the pro-control and anti-control crowd to take the necessary steps towards better enforcement, in combination with stricter punishments and more accountability?

[Tackleberry]

what does religion have to do with "gun control"? :lol:

god has faith in us. dipshit wake up! :lol:

[HullBreach]

What it boils down to isnt a need for more gun control, its a need for more criminal control. Look at the Banleus (misspelled) in France. There are neighborhoods the french police can't even go into anymore, and hardly any guns there. What do the local "youths" (Muslim Immigrants mostly from Africa and the Middle East) use? Rebar, bats, clubs, rocks, and molotov cocktails.

How did things get so bad that there are no-go zones in the country? Not guns, but extremely leinient criminal sentencing and an entitlement mentality that was encouraged by the government.

[Tackleberry]

What it boils down to isnt a need for more gun control, its a need for more criminal control. Look at the Banleus (misspelled) in France. There are neighborhoods the french police can't even go into anymore, and hardly any guns there. What do the local "youths" (Muslim Immigrants mostly from Africa and the Middle East) use? Rebar, bats, clubs, rocks, and molotov cocktails.

How did things get so bad that there are no-go zones in the country? Not guns, but extremely leinient criminal sentencing and an entitlement mentality that was encouraged by the government.

/thread. there is no more arguement or statements to be made after this post

[Topless T/A]

What it boils down to isnt a need for more gun control, its a need for more criminal control. Look at the Banleus (misspelled) in France. There are neighborhoods the french police can't even go into anymore, and hardly any guns there. What do the local "youths" (Muslim Immigrants mostly from Africa and the Middle East) use? Rebar, bats, clubs, rocks, and molotov cocktails.

How did things get so bad that there are no-go zones in the country? Not guns, but extremely leinient criminal sentencing and an entitlement mentality that was encouraged by the government.

I'll ask you the same question :


Do you think there is room between the pro-control and anti-control crowd to take the necessary steps towards better enforcement, in combination with stricter punishments and more accountability?

[Billy]

Do you think there is room between the pro-control and anti-control crowd to take the necessary steps towards better enforcement, in combination with stricter punishments and more accountability?

Nope, because you've got a lot of money pushing both sides of the issue and neither side wants anything but totality when it comes to their views. I'll also add that it isn't about enforcement, punishments or accountability that we are arguing. It's about restrictions, bans and the like.

Although, with that being said I feel that there is currently enough legislation in place to regulate the firearms available. There are some that I feel should be looked at and reviewed and others that I think should be repealed. However, my biggest point of contention is against new legislation that would work to slowly undermine the rights of all Americans. Some of the top figures behind the anti-gun movement have already said that they know it isn't going to be a sprint, but rather a distance race and they are ready and willing to take the time and the measures to get what they want. And that means starting small, getting things passed and put in place before moving to the next level, and repeating. It's nothing more than conditioning and it works. So yes, the idea of new legislation does scare me for those reasons.

[HullBreach]

Nope, because you've got a lot of money pushing both sides of the issue and neither side wants anything but totality when it comes to their views.

Although, with that being said I feel that there is currently enough legislation in place to regulate the firearms available. There are some that I feel should be looked at and reviewed and others that I think should be repealed. However, my biggest point of contention is against new legislation that would work to slowly undermine the rights of all Americans. Some of the top figures behind the anti-gun movement have already said that they know it isn't going to be a sprint, but rather a distance race and they are ready and willing to take the time and the measures to get what they want. And that means starting small, getting things passed and put in place before moving to the next level, and repeating. It's nothing more than conditioning and it works. So yes, the idea of new legislation does scare me for those reasons.

+1

Also, what really bothers me about this whole debate (on the national stage, not this thread) is the amount of mis-information used by the Antis. This is not to say that the R2KBA side of the argument hasn't screwed up some facts in the past, but its pretty damn obviouse which side is using emotion and hyperbole to try and drown out the facts.

I actually feel that with a few noteworthy exceptions, the way things are at the moment are pretty good. I like background checks, and the only weapons I do feel should be registered are those that fall under Class 3.

I don't like the Gestapo tactics and paperwork nitpicking the BATFE tries to use to put upstanding buisinesses under. Look up whats going on with Red's Trading Post in virginia for a good example of that.

I think the '86 import ban is a total crock of shit, and hopefully it will be going away. If I can pass a federal background check, and pay my $200 stamp, I should be able to own a newer weapon.

Finally, I think concealed carry is one of the best trends in the nation, because it makes it so that the criminal is the one who has to be nervous about confrontations.

[Topless T/A]

Nope, because you've got a lot of money pushing both sides of the issue and neither side wants anything but totality when it comes to their views. I'll also add that it isn't about enforcement, punishments or accountability that we are arguing. It's about restrictions, bans and the like.

Although, with that being said I feel that there is currently enough legislation in place to regulate the firearms available. There are some that I feel should be looked at and reviewed and others that I think should be repealed. However, my biggest point of contention is against new legislation that would work to slowly undermine the rights of all Americans. Some of the top figures behind the anti-gun movement have already said that they know it isn't going to be a sprint, but rather a distance race and they are ready and willing to take the time and the measures to get what they want. And that means starting small, getting things passed and put in place before moving to the next level, and repeating. It's nothing more than conditioning and it works. So yes, the idea of new legislation does scare me for those reasons.

well like I said, I've never advocated banning guns or anything like that. I think there needs to be a greater emphasis on accountability, with a definite increase in enforcement for both new and existing laws. I personally do not see guns ever being banned outright, as there are two many legislators on both sides of the aisle who aren't going to allow a complete denial of constitutional rights like that....I think that anything else is borderline paranoia. It's obvious that you feel differently, and we're going to have to agree to disagree on that.

[Billy]

well like I said, I've never advocated banning guns or anything like that. I think there needs to be a greater emphasis on accountability, with a definite increase in enforcement for both new and existing laws. I personally do not see guns ever being banned outright, as there are two many legislators on both sides of the aisle who aren't going to allow a complete denial of constitutional rights like that....I think that anything else is borderline paranoia. It's obvious that you feel differently, and we're going to have to agree to disagree on that.

And at what point does it end? There are already cities that have tried banning firearms. Take a look at the gun laws in place in our nations capital that are currently under review.

Is it ok to place so many restrictions on an item that you, in effect, legislate that item into oblivion? While not an outright, single legislative ban, the result is the same.

[Topless T/A]

And at what point does it end? There are already cities that have tried banning firearms. Take a look at the gun laws in place in our nations capital that are currently under review.

Is it ok to place so many restrictions on an item that you, in effect, legislate that item into oblivion? While not an outright, single legislative ban, the result is the same.

I just don't see it getting to an outright ban, or even enough restrictions to ban, firearms...I may be wrong, but I may be right too.

[Billy]

How often do you keep up with the anti-gun groups or check on current legislation being posed or the like? I ask because if you don't and still feel that very strict, oppressive regulations couldn't be on the horizon I can understand where you are coming from.

[moldyhands]

i've come around on guns over the past couple years. i still worry about many of the wannabe dirty harry idiots that own guns (i feel there are a lot on this site), but i just feel the freedom aspect is more important.

i feel there should still be the hula hoops to jump through to get top end killing machines (like fully auto guns and assault rifles), but i still think they should be legal.

[jabtay]

i've come around on guns over the past couple years. i still worry about many of the wannabe dirty harry idiots that own guns (i feel there are a lot on this site), but i just feel the freedom aspect is more important.

i feel there should still be the hula hoops to jump through to get top end killing machines (like fully auto guns and assault rifles), but i still think they should be legal.
Ah the ol assault riffle gimmick. Please define assault...

[Billy]

i feel there should still be the hula hoops to jump through to get top end killing machines (like fully auto guns and assault rifles), but i still think they should be legal.

It's always nice to hear about someone changing their stance.

One thing to add, not directed at you in particular Matt, it just fits best here after your comment.

Past and currently discussed legislation regarding "assault weapons" addresses cosmetic features, not the actual functional parts of the firearm. It is the poster child for fee-good legislation. It would ban some firearms while allowing others that operate in the same, exact manner but look differently.

[PPGMD]

i feel there should still be the hula hoops to jump through to get top end killing machines (like fully auto guns and assault rifles), but i still think they should be legal.

There is hula hoops, it's called the National Firearms Act, it's not even a recent law or anything, it's from 1934. It required the registration, and taxing of the following items:
Machine guns (anything that can fire more the one round per a trigger pull)
Sound Suppressors (to prevent poaching as nothing to do with criminal uses because they aren't that effective)
Short Barreled Shotguns (Any shotgun less then 26" OAL or less then 18" barrel)
Short Barreled Rifles (Any rifle less then 26" OAL or less then 16" barrel)
Destructive Devices (Grenades, dedicated grenade launchers, and guns over 0.50 caliber)
Any Other Weapon (AOW, complex category but includes things like Pen Guns, and other unusual items)

These items require federal approval to transfer, a tax stamp, registration, an in depth background check (required fingerprints, and a photo), and local approval of a CLEO, DA, or Judge.

Also due to the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act, the ATF is no longer allowed to register any new machine guns, so the only machine guns available to the public are ones registered before 1986, and cost upwards of $10,000 to purchase.

[TampaDude]

Also due to the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act, the ATF is no longer allowed to register any new machine guns, so the only machine guns available to the public are ones registered before 1986, and cost upwards of $10,000 to purchase.

I fucking hate that 1986 Machine Gun Ban (please call it what it is)...you used to be able to buy MAC-10s and such for a few hundred $$$...now they cost a few thousand...and it's getting harder and harder to find ones in good condition.

Gun control laws have the greatest impact on people in lower socioeconomic classes...and those are the very people who need guns for protection the most!

IMHO, ALL gun control laws are unconstitutional. Hopefully, one day we'll have a Supreme Court that recognizes this.

[BAMF]

I fucking hate that 1986 Machine Gun Ban (please call it what it is)...you used to be able to buy MAC-10s and such for a few hundred $$$...now they cost a few thousand...and it's getting harder and harder to find ones in good condition.

Gun control laws have the greatest impact on people in lower socioeconomic classes...and those are the very people who need guns for protection the most!

IMHO, ALL gun control laws are unconstitutional. Hopefully, one day we'll have a Supreme Court that recognizes this.


I agree for the most part, but hold on there, Cowboy. The government has the ability to regulate interstate commerce. Unless your Glock is built in Fl from parts made in Fl by workers employed in Fl and sold to a vendor working in Fl who in turn sells to you in Fl, then the Federal government may regulate the sale of them. If they're intrastate, as I specified above, the state gvmt can regulate the commerce. That means things like waiting periods, background checks, etc. are well within the given powers of the governments to impose.

As far as gun control itself...well...its up for debate...but I personally don't object to some basic gun control legislation.

Under 18 owning guns? Fuck no. I remember getting my 11 year old ass beat for touching my dad's guns. I remember because I got my ass beat and it knocked some sense into me about them. 18 sounds good to me.

Gun laws which hold someone accountable if their firearms aren't locked up right and someone (a child, presumably) gets at them and kills themselves? I support that. There is a safe sitting 12 feet from me right now, and my pistol is in a holster on the nightstand about a foot from me. And the pistol stays with me, thats the only reason it isn't secured. And since this line of thinking follows the same line of thinking used with most laws reguarding child liability, I agree with it.


See where I'm going here? Yeah, its iffy on the gun laws not associated with the commerce end, however for a good many of them that are actually sensible enough to be imposed...think about it...honestly...do you really want to see them gone? I don't.

[type-j-spec]

so after another school shooting with "legal over the counter guns" anybody ready to admit something needs to be done?

[PPGMD]

And how will banning guns stop nut bags. He will just use pipe bombs, knives, or even a car.

How about we deal with the root cause, nut bags, instead of the tool that they use.

[type-j-spec]

And how will banning guns stop nut bags. He will just use pipe bombs, knives, or even a car.

How about we deal with the root cause, nut bags, instead of the tool that they use.

your right but like i said before its just going to get worse,then "they" will choose to have no guns.

[jabtay]

so after another school shooting with "legal over the counter guns" anybody ready to admit something needs to be done?
I sure do something needs to be done. Arm the citizens. Shooting ducks in a barrel is a lot harder, when the ducks are packing.

[jabtay]

well then that's not sufficient is it?
Your right...maybe we should ban sledgehammers too

[Iroc Joe]

Guys, seriously, he is just trolling at this point. He has not actually added anything remotely relevant to a debate he is just trying to ruffle feathers.

Yes, we need more laws because as it stands for college students, only the deranged individual who wishes to kill the students is allowed to have a gun on campus. It makes sense.

[EngineBuilder]

A few questions ago, Topless T/A actually posed a valid question, and one that I would like to address. Before I do, however, I feel a need to quantify my response with a brief synapses of my personal history with firearms.

I am a card-carrying, Lifelong member of the NRA. My father is a Lifelong member, and his father before him was a Lifelong member. We all joined, at differing times in our lives, because we found a certain camaraderie within that group, and within the many supporting gun-clubs that we have maintained memberships at in the past.
Beyond the camaraderie, the NRA also provides extensive training in the use of firearms for defense, and provides seminars to parents on how best to instruct children on the responsibilities associated with gun ownership.

I was first introduced to firearms by my father, around the age of 8 or 9. By way of introduction, he took me to our local gun club, introduced me around, and had me sit in on a 'hunters safety' class. Afterwards, he began to allow me to assist in their cleaning, progressing over the next few years to allowing me to re-load his spent cartridges. During this time, we went on numerous outings into the Northern Michigan wilderness, in which he constantly drilled into me the finer points of firearm safety and responsible ownership. By the time I was 14, I was proficient in the use our .30-30, and was greatly looking forward to the hunting season, when I could finally carry a rifle into the woods with my dad. That first hunting season was more a rite of passage than anything else in my life, and is a memory I hope someday to be able to share with my children.

Do you think there is room between the pro-control and anti-control crowd to take the necessary steps towards better enforcement, in combination with stricter punishments and more accountability?

Quite honestly, no. And the reasoning is quite simple. The vast majority of 'pro-control' groups are (not so) thinly veiled advocates of repealing the Second Amendment. Any firearms-related legislation supported by them means an unconstitutional infringement upon my rights as a citizen. They are not satisfied with the laws meant to assuage the sensibilities, but do little to combat the effects of poor parenting (vis-a-vis Brady act, Assault Weapons Ban, etc) they are out for every gun in this country, lawfully owned or otherwise.

It is because of this fight, that I decided to become a "Lifelong" member of the NRA. We are the largest group of gun owners in America, and our combined political clout is significant.

Your presumption that there will never be a 'ban' on firearms is quite possibly correct- I highly doubt that any legislation that seeks to outright ban the private ownership of firearms will ever gain serious traction in Congress. The fact remains that as law abiding citizens, our freedoms have been restricted, with no hope for a reprieve in sight. Quite the opposite, to be sure. Every time you pick up a copy of the NY times, or listen to talk radio, there is some advocacy group calling for tighter firearms restrictions. This will be a long-fought battle, one that I am not prepared to give another inch on, as it has already gone too far.

The problem this country faces is not a "gun" problem; it is a parenting problem. Far too often, parents impart fear toward guns, rather than the respect they deserve. Seemingly long gone are the days when a father actually takes the time to explain *why* one always presumes a gun to be loaded, or what kind of history is behind the second amendment, and its importance in our lives.

With children being left to their own devices, with seemingly no parental guidance at all, is it any wonder that we face greater and greater numbers of children who act out, exceedingly with that object of great fear, the GUN?

If we can find a way to legislate proper parenting techniques, then I believe that we would then be able to find a way to keep children from acting out, using firearms in the process. Strangely enough, I don't want the government telling me the best and legal way to raise my children; maybe it the inherent rebel in me, or it could simply be the fact that I haven't seen a single piece of legislation come out of Washington D.C. that worked as intended.






All those in favor of more gun-control keep asking "What are you willing to give, to ensure that (in reference to school shootings) these types of crimes are not committed again?"




To them I answer: One bullet, placed with all the control of my gun I can muster.

[DSG]

Great post Enginebuilder

[HullBreach]

Seriously, Enginebuilder nailed it right there. That's easily one of the best posts I've seen on these boards.

Rep!

[type-j-spec]

A few questions ago, Topless T/A actually posed a valid question, and one that I would like to address. Before I do, however, I feel a need to quantify my response with a brief synapses of my personal history with firearms.

I am a card-carrying, Lifelong member of the NRA. My father is a Lifelong member, and his father before him was a Lifelong member. We all joined, at differing times in our lives, because we found a certain camaraderie within that group, and within the many supporting gun-clubs that we have maintained memberships at in the past.
Beyond the camaraderie, the NRA also provides extensive training in the use of firearms for defense, and provides seminars to parents on how best to instruct children on the responsibilities associated with gun ownership.

I was first introduced to firearms by my father, around the age of 8 or 9. By way of introduction, he took me to our local gun club, introduced me around, and had me sit in on a 'hunters safety' class. Afterwards, he began to allow me to assist in their cleaning, progressing over the next few years to allowing me to re-load his spent cartridges. During this time, we went on numerous outings into the Northern Michigan wilderness, in which he constantly drilled into me the finer points of firearm safety and responsible ownership. By the time I was 14, I was proficient in the use our .30-30, and was greatly looking forward to the hunting season, when I could finally carry a rifle into the woods with my dad. That first hunting season was more a rite of passage than anything else in my life, and is a memory I hope someday to be able to share with my children.



Quite honestly, no. And the reasoning is quite simple. The vast majority of 'pro-control' groups are (not so) thinly veiled advocates of repealing the Second Amendment. Any firearms-related legislation supported by them means an unconstitutional infringement upon my rights as a citizen. They are not satisfied with the laws meant to assuage the sensibilities, but do little to combat the effects of poor parenting (vis-a-vis Brady act, Assault Weapons Ban, etc) they are out for every gun in this country, lawfully owned or otherwise.

It is because of this fight, that I decided to become a "Lifelong" member of the NRA. We are the largest group of gun owners in America, and our combined political clout is significant.

Your presumption that there will never be a 'ban' on firearms is quite possibly correct- I highly doubt that any legislation that seeks to outright ban the private ownership of firearms will ever gain serious traction in Congress. The fact remains that as law abiding citizens, our freedoms have been restricted, with no hope for a reprieve in sight. Quite the opposite, to be sure. Every time you pick up a copy of the NY times, or listen to talk radio, there is some advocacy group calling for tighter firearms restrictions. This will be a long-fought battle, one that I am not prepared to give another inch on, as it has already gone too far.

The problem this country faces is not a "gun" problem; it is a parenting problem. Far too often, parents impart fear toward guns, rather than the respect they deserve. Seemingly long gone are the days when a father actually takes the time to explain *why* one always presumes a gun to be loaded, or what kind of history is behind the second amendment, and its importance in our lives.

With children being left to their own devices, with seemingly no parental guidance at all, is it any wonder that we face greater and greater numbers of children who act out, exceedingly with that object of great fear, the GUN?

If we can find a way to legislate proper parenting techniques, then I believe that we would then be able to find a way to keep children from acting out, using firearms in the process. Strangely enough, I don't want the government telling me the best and legal way to raise my children; maybe it the inherent rebel in me, or it could simply be the fact that I haven't seen a single piece of legislation come out of Washington D.C. that worked as intended.






All those in favor of more gun-control keep asking "What are you willing to give, to ensure that (in reference to school shootings) these types of crimes are not committed again?"




To them I answer: One bullet, placed with all the control of my gun I can muster.

Im sure all of those who were going to be wiped out at the super bowl were ready for action:roll:

[PPGMD]

Im sure all of those who were going to be wiped out at the super bowl were ready for action:roll:

Arizona has fairly good carry laws so I am sure that there might have been a few people carrying.

[EngineBuilder]

Arizona has fairly good carry laws so I am sure that there might have been a few people carrying.

Unfortunately, even those with a concealed carry permit are not allowed to bring firearms to sporting events. Ostensibly to protect the body of people at large, though it seems that criminals have little regard for such laws and regulations, and have apparently little trouble circumventing the safeguards that the rest of us law-abiding citizens are forced to endure.

I utterly despise the 'safeguards' that leave us dependent upon law enforcement's investigative skills and ability to stop a crime from being committed. (which, in my opinion, they aren't very good at; what they are good at is filing after-action reports and follow-up investigations- both of which do nothing to prevent the crime in the first place)

As someone else has commented, it becomes alot harder to shoot fish in a barrel if the fish are returning fire.

[EngineBuilder]

One thing people need to realize when it comes to gun control is that a determined criminal will be able to circumvent the law and get their hands on a gun- its their way of life to disregard and violate laws; you could say its part of their job description. As shown by the safe that was broken into, "where there is a will, there is a way".

We need to change the focus of our politicians from "what laws can we pass that will keep the guns out the hands of criminals" to "what can we do to ensure that the people can effectively defend themselves"


Considering that the law enforcement community is not responsible for your personal well-being or safety, those tasks should, and must, lie in your own hands. In my opinion the best, and most effective method of self-preservation is the effective use of a firearm - first and foremost as a deterant.

Personally, I feel that we should still have the right to 'open carry' without a permit. That act alone would do more to stave off an attack than anything else. Leave the permits to those who need to carry in a concealed manner, such as an undercover security guard, or bank teller.

Requiring people to carry their firearms concealed is counterproductive in at least two ways: in most cases carrying concealed makes the firearm harder to get to in a crisis, and it also nullifies the firearms' ability to deter a criminal from attacking in the first place.

All in the name of protecting the sensibilities of a few people who would be shocked to see someone carrying a pistol on their hip without a badge to accompany it.

[PPGMD]

I agree that Open Carry should be allowed but I disagree with the tactical reasons. I think Open Carry should be allowed so non-carriers can see that concealed carriers are more common then they think, and that they are normal people that you interact with every day.

But tactically concealed carry is better because criminals can choose when to attack, and if you are open carrying, they know you have a gun and can choose a time when you are distracted to attack, and take your gun. Concealed carry makes the criminal guess, and if they are bold enough to go through with the crime, they will not know you are carrying until you see an opportunity, and draw your weapon out. That way you can wait for that opportunity.

[type-j-spec]

There is alot of division one football players,but for some reason the league will dip into the retirement home to pull out vinny testerverde.

There are alot of gun owners in the united states,but not all of them can shoot straight.Lets be honest about how effective someone can be shooting at a moving target,thats a regular citizen.

Not everybody who doesnt have a criminal record is a good person.With having everybody with a ID allowed to carry a gun some will be "assholes" and cause harm that is not needed,i havent even started on those people who like alcohol that we all know then have beer muscles.Also you run into people who shoot on false alarms because they are not "use to" real time battle.

You will run into more lawsuits with stray bullets that may fly and hit innocent people just walking around.Im sure the police department has a litter of cases pending just as if they kill someone chasing a car jacker thru traffic.


BUT I HAVE JUST COME UP WITH THE SOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!!

Hire plain clothes cops that are fully trained to walk the streets,the only bill to pass would be putting more money into paying these guys.We do it with the airplane marshalls why cant we do it with our streets?

In new york the guardian angels agreed to defend our subways with "no" weapons and it was effctive till the cops caught an attitude and lawyers got a hold of it.

No you wont be able to save everybody and with regular people carrying guns you wont be able to save all them either because criminals will still shoot back.Just honestly think how many of your neighbors you really want carrying a gun.

[jabtay]

so what makes a police officer a better more responsible person than the average citizen? so you want to quadruple the police payroll, to do something a well trained citizen can do?

[Chuck 98 RT/10]

What it boils down to isnt a need for more gun control, its a need for more criminal control.

That's what I've been sayin'. Lock them up until they're 70. Result: less crime, less cops, less lawyers, less judges, less paperwork, save taxpayer money.

But look at the second-third-forth-fifth chance mentality of our justice system. Not gonna happen. Those lawyers just love to perpetuate their industry.

[type-j-spec]

so what makes a police officer a better more responsible person than the average citizen? so you want to quadruple the police payroll, to do something a well trained citizen can do?

Is that a real question?

[jabtay]

was your solution a real solution?

[PPGMD]

Most shootings police or civilian are at contact range. Also most incidents are cleared up without shots fired. To criminals it's just a job if they have to shoot you that is ok with them, but the last thing they want is someone returning fire.

Also you would be surprised at the ability of many civilians, they often shoot more accurately then police officers. Even the Air Marshall Qualification course is a joke. Now you are worried about stray bullets? In the last 20 years of shall issue there hasn't been one case of a legal CCW shooting resulting in a bystander death. Not saying that there will never be one, but the chances are very very very low considering the ranges involved.

[type-j-spec]

was your solution a real solution?

yup,because i dont trust 90% of this selfish population we live in that cant get along as it is.

[Iroc Joe]

yup,because i dont trust 90% of this selfish population we live in that cant get along as it is.

Let me guess, communism has not worked well because the "right people" have not been in charge?

Your post smacks of elitism, and frankly, ignorance. Not only is your solution useless, it's ridiculous. CNN reported a 29 second response time of police at NIU. Twenty nine seconds, of course, it was already over by then. The point is, those of us who chose to go through the unconstitutional hoops to obtain a permit we were issued at birth via the Constitution, carry a firearm because we cannot have our own personal police officer follow us everywhere we go.

[BAMF]

Let me guess, communism has not worked well because the "right people" have not been in charge?

You know, communism is an awesome idea. But, it just doesn't work because...well....of people. Namely, because people are douchebags.

[25psi]

You know, communism is an awesome idea. But, it just doesn't work because...well....of people. Namely, because people are douchebags.

Thats like saying "converting water into gasoline would be awesome, but doesn't work because of damn science".


Human "greed" is to be appreciated, it is why you are living a comfortable American lifestyle.

[HullBreach]

Human "greed" is to be appreciated, it is why you are living a comfortable American lifestyle.

This is why socialist and communist systems are basically doomed to failure from the start. They work on the assumption that personal ambition is always a negative thing, as it competes for primacy with "the good of the proletariat (people)".

On the other hand, the reason our system has worked as well as it has until now has been because it accepts that humans want to look out for #1 and their own family. Im not saying our system is foolproof (the number of senators in prison shows that) but it is better adapted to dealing with mankind because it accepts that self-preservation and taking care of ones family first are natural instincts.

Disarmament obviously conflicts with this, as you are suddenly depriving otherwise law abiding productive members of society of a valid means of defense for themselves and those around them.

The Police are under absolutely no legal obligation to stop a crime in progress or protect you. While you may be able to (likely with success) bring civil suit against them for such a failure (assuming you survive), this doesn't change the fact that in the end, you are responsible for your own safety.

Firearms are the great equalizer in this case. It gives the smallest woman or the most elderly man a fighting chance against the typical violent criminal (late teens-early 20's male), and even against multiple assailants.

To take this away is for the state to basically say: "We don't have to protect you, and you are not allowed to posess/carry the most effective tool to protect yourself. Good luck, and just give them what they want"

It is essentially societal surrender to domination by the most violent and fit amoung the population.

[BAMF]

This is why socialist and communist systems are basically doomed to failure from the start. They work on the assumption that personal ambition is always a negative thing, as it competes for primacy with "the good of the proletariat (people)".

On the other hand, the reason our system has worked as well as it has until now has been because it accepts that humans want to look out for #1 and their own family. Im not saying our system is foolproof (the number of senators in prison shows that) but it is better adapted to dealing with mankind because it accepts that self-preservation and taking care of ones family first are natural instincts.

Disarmament obviously conflicts with this, as you are suddenly depriving otherwise law abiding productive members of society of a valid means of defense for themselves and those around them.

The Police are under absolutely no legal obligation to stop a crime in progress or protect you. While you may be able to (likely with success) bring civil suit against them for such a failure (assuming you survive), this doesn't change the fact that in the end, you are responsible for your own safety.

Firearms are the great equalizer in this case. It gives the smallest woman or the most elderly man a fighting chance against the typical violent criminal (late teens-early 20's male), and even against multiple assailants.

To take this away is for the state to basically say: "We don't have to protect you, and you are not allowed to posess/carry the most effective tool to protect yourself. Good luck, and just give them what they want"

It is essentially societal surrender to domination by the most violent and fit amoung the population.

Actually, communism works on the assumption that everyone does their part. Whether you're a danitation worker, a lawyer, or a school teacher. And IF everyone were to give it 100% and do their part, and somehow we managed to ensure that the people leading the country and controlling the distribution weren't corrupt, it really would be a utopia.

The problem here with the PEOPLE is twofold. Part of it is indeed ambition. If everyone was ambitious nothing could stop teh country and we'd all live in paradise. However, another part is something that is appearent everywhere on TR/TF and in America. Eliteism. People consider themselves 'better' than other people and feel they deserve a bigger peice of the pie because of it. The lawyer certianly doesn't think he should live like the janitor. He thinks he is better than the janitor.

So, in short, peopel are douchebags.

[Iroc Joe]

Actually, communism works on the assumption that everyone does their part. Whether you're a danitation worker, a lawyer, or a school teacher. And IF everyone were to give it 100% and do their part, and somehow we managed to ensure that the people leading the country and controlling the distribution weren't corrupt, it really would be a utopia.

The problem here with the PEOPLE is twofold. Part of it is indeed ambition. If everyone was ambitious nothing could stop teh country and we'd all live in paradise. However, another part is something that is appearent everywhere on TR/TF and in America. Eliteism. People consider themselves 'better' than other people and feel they deserve a bigger peice of the pie because of it. The lawyer certianly doesn't think he should live like the janitor. He thinks he is better than the janitor.

So, in short, peopel are douchebags.

You know that in that "utopia" you would be disarmed to the joy of criminals, have no civil rights, and be nothing more than a subject of the state, right?

ETA - The lawyer may not be better than the janitor, but he busted his ass through undergrad, then law school, and has the MOUNTAIN of student loan debt to show for it. Yes, he deserves a bigger piece of the pie, he EARNED it. The guy who dropped of out high school does not deserve to be at the same level as someone who busted their ass in college.

[thereturnofdark]

You know that in that "utopia" you would be disarmed to the joy of criminals, have no civil rights, and be nothing more than a subject of the state, right?


WRONG!!! Because in the Utopia law enforcement personnel would put in 100% quickly dispatching criminals and the judicial system would be loads more efficient bringing swift and unremorseful punishment to people that commit crimes therefore crime would be considerably less.

This is in fact a hypothetical utopia of course, but I was just going along to show you the possibilities.

[thereturnofdark]

my ideal Utopia is the one expressed in the book the Neanderthal Parallax


Family life
Due to their advanced senses of smell, barasts are very sensitive to pheromones. As a result, women and men live in separate communities for 25 out of every 29 days. The four days when they do come together — known as two becoming one — are causes for monthly celebration and holiday. All barast women have synchronized menstrual cycles, and the meeting-times are set so that it is unlikely they will conceive — with an exception every 10 years, when another generation is purposely conceived. Generations thus grow in synchronized, ten-year cycles; no barast needs to give his age, as simply stating his generation (if this is not simply inferred from his appearance) will give the needed information.

All children live with their mothers until they reach the age of ten; boys then go to live with their fathers. Children remain with their appropriate parent until the approximate age of 18.

Government and justice

The barast world has a single government hierarchy: each region of the globe is governed by a local Grey Council; these in turn answer to the High Grey Council, the world government.

About eight decades before the time of the novels, companion implants were perfected and issued to all barasts. These are comprehensive recording and transmission devices, mounted in the forearm of each person. Their entire life is constantly monitored and sent to their alibi archive, a repository of recordings that are only accessible by their owner, or by the proper authorities when investigating an infraction, and in the latter case only in circumstances relevant to the investigation.

Any serious crime has a single punishment: the sterilization of the offender and all others who share at least half his genes (parents, siblings and children). This eugenic practice serves to keep any undesirable elements out of the gene pool without severely punishing an offender, beyond his loss of a genetic heritage.

As a result, serious crime of any sort is virtually unknown in the barast world.

Environment

In the barast world, lower population levels and the absence of large-scale agriculture mean that many species exist which are extinct on the gliksin version of Earth. These include not only birds such as the passenger pigeon, but also megafauna such as the woolly mammoth. Also, forests are much more extensive in the barast world because there was no need to cut down forests on a large scale. Barasts have domesticated wolves as companions, but have not bred them into the many varieties of the domestic dog. A gliksin may become fearful upon seeing a barast dog, thinking it a wild wolf. A barast, seeing a gliksin's dog such as a dachshund, may wonder if the creature really is a dog.

The climate in the barast world is also somewhat cooler, because of the lack of greenhouse gases compared to the gliksins' Earth. Barasts are not as heat-tolerant as gliksins, probably because they evolved on a cooler Earth and also due to their greater muscle mass. As a result, tropical regions of their Earth are just as underpopulated as the polar regions on the gliksins' Earth.

Religion

The barasts have no religion and no concept of religion. This is not due to a simple disbelief or worldwide atheism. The barasts never had a religion and are not physically capable of believing in a god or gods or having religious experiences, due to the structure of their brains. Prior to contact between the gliksins and the barasts, the barasts had no concept of a creator; an afterlife or souls never occurred to them. The barasts do not understand how the gliksins can possibly believe in the stories their religions tell and are sometimes frustrated with the gliksins' insistence of the truth of their beliefs. Nevertheless, the barasts do accept religion as a part of who the gliksins are. The barasts also do not believe that the universe had a beginning and do not adhere to the Big Bang theory. Instead, they believe the universe has always existed.

[Iroc Joe]

WRONG!!! Because in the Utopia law enforcement personnel would put in 100% quickly dispatching criminals and the judicial system would be loads more efficient bringing swift and unremorseful punishment to people that commit crimes therefore crime would be considerably less.

This is in fact a hypothetical utopia of course, but I was just going along to show you the possibilities.

But what about the seemingly normal person who decides his life sucks and he randomly decides to kill someone. How do the police protect me then?

[BAMF]

But what about the seemingly normal person who decides his life sucks and he randomly decides to kill someone. How do the police protect me then?

Huh? How did what I stated entail curtailing gun rights?

And yeah, of course there are two sides to every debate - it would suck for the lawyer to live like the janitor because he put more in, so expects more out - communism requires caring about EVERYONE and about your country, not just yourself. But you can't disagree that if we could make that work, it would be one helluva utopia.

And yeah, I know the bad attributes that can come with caring about the 'collective good' as well. Refer back to the corruption and douchebag people comment again. :)

[Iroc Joe]

Huh? How did what I stated entail curtailing gun rights?

And yeah, of course there are two sides to every debate - it would suck for the lawyer to live like the janitor because he put more in, so expects moer out. But you can't disagree that if we could make that work, it would be one helluva utopia.

Negative. Utopia came in 1789 and has gone downhill since.


Liberty = utopia.

[BAMF]

Negative. Utopia came in 1789 and has gone downhill since.


Liberty = utopia.

If that was Utopia I'll take today's world for 500, Bob.

This country was so damn unstable back then. That would never jive with the dirtbags plaguing the streets today. You really would have to shoot people left and right.

[Iroc Joe]

If that was Utopia I'll take today's world for 500, Bob.

This country was so damn unstable back then. That would never jive with the dirtbags plaguing the streets today. You really would have to shoot people left and right.

And the problem is...? ;)

[BAMF]

And the problem is...? ;)

Corbon Polymer coated Hollow-Points ain't cheap. :-D

[jabtay]

This country was so damn unstable back then. That would never jive with the dirtbags plaguing the streets today.
Because the dirtbags didnt exist back then, they were delt with swiftly, and severely. todays dirtbags are the product of the hippie/PS era.

[BAMF]

Because the dirtbags didnt exist back then, they were delt with swiftly, and severely. todays dirtbags are the product of the hippie/PS era.

If I got into the reasons why todays 'dirtbags' are so different htan the peopel back then Id' get called all sorts of hateful names. So lets leave it at I won't go there. ;)

[Iroc Joe]

Corbon Polymer coated Hollow-Points ain't cheap. :-D

You should be carrying Gold Dots, anyway. ;)

[BAMF]

You should be carrying Gold Dots, anyway. ;)

I noticed the Corbons I have are a higher grain, though. So until I decide to order teh raelly heavy Gold Dots from Georgia Arms, the 1980s tech stays! :lol:

[Cal]

I just read the first post and don't agree at all with every gun being registered (I assume you want private sales registered too) because all that does is tell the government who has the guns and where they are if they ever want to take them away.

No thanks!

[kapone]

the sole purpose of the fork and spoon is to make you fat ... and diabetes and hart disease are one of the highest forms of death in this country... so with that thought we should register all our forks and spoons. When we see a fat person we should confiscate it so that the can't eat and kill them selves... now we have to disregard the fact that they can just acquire a spoon illegal if they need to eat or the fact that other tools like your hand or a spatula could be used to eat, that dose not apply here because only spoons and forks make you fat, and that will kill you ...

[Elohim]

On Topic: I think the 3 day waiting period is sufficent for a handgun, perhaps the same policy should be instituted for all firearms. If you still want to do someone harm after 3 days then you're going to find a way to do it with or without a gun. I don't think a mass murderer using a samuri sword paints a pretty picture.

OT: I still like the Utopian system of government. Rather than starilization(sp) or capital punishment, I think slavery is a more effecient alternative. Additionally, I think it was a brilliant idea to have a nonintervention foreign policy and when you are attacked to just hire mercinaries. Sloth is punished so it would seem like the utopian style of gov would work, but I think there were a few flaws to Moore's Utopia.

[Iroc Joe]

On Topic: I think the 3 day waiting period is sufficent for a handgun, perhaps the same policy should be instituted for all firearms. If you still want to do someone harm after 3 days then you're going to find a way to do it with or without a gun. I don't think a mass murderer using a samuri sword paints a pretty picture.

OT: I still like the Utopian system of government. Rather than starilization(sp) or capital punishment, I think slavery is a more effecient alternative. Additionally, I think it was a brilliant idea to have a nonintervention foreign policy and when you are attacked to just hire mercinaries. Sloth is punished so it would seem like the utopian style of gov would work, but I think there were a few flaws to Moore's Utopia.

First of all, a 3 day waiting period is pointless and unnecessary. Second, you should read Macchiavelli's The Prince. He explains in detail why one should not rely on mercenaries. ;)

[Elohim]

First of all, a 3 day waiting period is pointless and unnecessary. Second, you should read Macchiavelli's The Prince. He explains in detail why one should not rely on mercenaries. ;)

Actually I have, great book. Where does it say that?

[Iroc Joe]

Umm. Chapter XII: Concerning Various Kinds of Troops, and Especially Mercenaries. :dunno: ;)

[Elohim]

Umm. Chapter XII: Concerning Various Kinds of Troops, and Especially Mercenaries. :dunno: ;)

Ahh ok. That does seem to be a bit of a problem. I still think Moore had a good idea but there would have to be some sort of safeguard to prevent the mercenaries from taking control.

[BlackBeard]

Gun control.
What an easy argument.
http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id14.html