Gun Control

matias2911 · Apr 23, 2007

being disarmed you have no means of carrying out any effective opposition to any force which is armed.
Exactly my point, Europe has no need for fire arms today, no one has them, I am sorry to say I believe in the democracies that have been built upon hundreds of years of social development, I believe in the strength of representivity(is that spelled correctly?). Ok, no freedom to own guns. fine, in that sense we are enslaved. But I have the freedom to walk/roam freely in the street without watching my back every minute or so, I have the freedom of saying thinking and sharing anything I want. I have the freedom of living my life as I chose, as long as I do not infringe the law. I have the right of saying :''I'm a muslim/arab'' or 'bomb'' (in an airport) without being searched thoroughly or detained. I have the freedom of travelling, taking holidays, being healthy and well fed.
i have the right of forming a political party, presenting myself for election and actively participating in the political life of my country.
---> If you wish to call that being manipulated and placated, go ahead I won't hold you back. Just don't tell me that you base true citizenship on gun-ownership. That's just simplistic. I understand that the notion of citizenship in Europe is very different from that in the US. When I say americans are pragmatic, i do not necesarily mean it as a criticism, it is more of a cultural statement. The notion of gradual progress is difficult to understand to you, as the notion of gun-ownership is to me. And, when I see that my cousin studying at Virginia Tech could have been shot,
I fail to regard the states as a safe country, and you know why? because I don't like gun ownership, it scares me. not all crime perpetrators have a history of criminality, some of them are regarded as normal citizens, until they pop. How many poppers in Canada, Europe? Not so many.

You are afraid of criminals? give their families better schools, health and social condicions and their sons might not become a criminal. Thats progress.

you have, as you say, "terms" but you have no "means". you can go in the streets and hold signs, burn property, throw rocks, etc. but these things will not dissuade a dictator from having his way with you. this is what i mean. in neutered countries there is no balance of power, no check system and therefor no true citizens; only a working mass to placate and manipulate as needed.
Give me an example of guns serving for some social cause in recent years in the US? thank you. Dictatorship? maybe, but not in Europe. Those words are not to be used lightly, Pinochet, now that was a dictator.

armed conflict itself is not the thing to look at here, it's the capacity of the citizens to carry out armed conflict. this means the government is dealing with a responsible citizenry, a citizenry which is capable of taking action. that makes it much more compelling for rulers to be responsible, don't you think?
I do understand , but i do not agree with the threatning philosophy ''We have guns, so don't mess with us'', In my head its more like ''don't mess with us or we'll vote for someone else.'' :peace:

skunkushybrid · Apr 24, 2007

medicineman said:
Look, in your country you gave up your guns after WWII, even though that was the precursor to hitlers takeover, you guys didn't learn a thing. In this country, we used guns to get away from your country and start our own (I realize this is a can of worms as the Indians already owned it). Now we have about 2/3 of the country having firearms, both legal and criminal. If the legal gun owners gave up their guns, do you actually think the criminals would? We have home invasions even now with the unknown factor of homeowners having guns. How many more could you expect if the crooks knew there were none. As far as cops protecting you, thats a laugh. With the tensions in the world as they are today, I"m sure there will be a few more nutcases commiting mayhem. You can't stop every one of them. While we were lamenting over the 33 that died in VT, 3-5 hundred died in Iraq, isn't that just as insane. I'll not give up my guns, and if some Idiot stomps in my front door and isn't a cop, he's going out with a little extra weight, lead weight.

We have home invasions too. They started here about 20 years ago. In fact we have exactly the same crimes happening here that you do over there. The ONLY difference is that we don't have nutcases walking into schools and executing little kids with guns anymore.

Yes, the criminals would give up their guns. They did here. Except the gangstas (sic.) of course but they're only interested in shooting each other.
You may not be able to stop the loonies from causing mayhem but you can limit the tools they have to hand.

Med', I'm sure that if some criminals were going to get you the first you'd be aware of it would be some masked men standing over you while you sleep. What makes you think that criminals are different to you, that they are stupid? I'll be the first to admit that you do get stupid criminals just as you do in every other walk of life. The addicts are the stupid, desperate criminals and these IMO are easy to handle (so long as they don't have a gun of course) as they are weak and cannot think clearly. Then you get the criminals that make a decent living out of what they do. If they want to rob you, then there's a very good chance you won't have much to say in the matter aside from to tell them the combination to your safe. They'll steal your guns too, of course.

So, we've now established (within this post) that the only criminals you could actually do anything about are the desperate ones. Although how desperate criminals in your country have access to guns is beyond me. Guns must cost so little. Even desperate criminals aren't going into schools and wiping out little kids. Who's doing that med'? The so-called NORMAL members of society, that's who. How many more incidents like this is it going to take?

Guns are for killing. That's it. Even a shot in the leg could mean the end of your life.

skunkushybrid · Apr 24, 2007

matias2911 said:
You are afraid of criminals? give their families better schools, health and social condicions and their sons might not become a criminal. Thats progress.

Well said. Unfortunately, without crime then we are under another form of control. There has to be crime and criminals. Our country has introduced over 3,000 new crimes since Tony Blair took the top spot. That's over 3,000 different ways to become a criminal.

We are all criminals to a certain degree. Our violent crime is just as bad if not worse than in the US. The difference here is that people aren't getting killed. A mugging is a few punches to the head rather than a couple of bullets.

Smirgen · Apr 24, 2007

The ability to defend ones self and family is only a fractional part of the reason the Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment ,They knew that an ever growing Governing body can and will over time become corrupt and oppressive and that no Government stands forever.

They also realized that History repeats itself and the only way to ensure that a government remains "by and for the people " is to give the people the ability/means to forcibly take back that which belongs to them (hence the Second Amendment).

Even a Well oiled Democracy over time can be perverted and corrupted ( I've seen this first hand), I think it was Benjamin Franklin who said "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch... Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote".

The day my Govenment stops trusting me to practice my Second Amendment Right is the day I stop Trusting my Government.

jimbo_jim · Apr 24, 2007

At the end of the day, it took this guy less time to legally buy a gun in the US (with ticking the not metal box) then it takes some people to get a haircut

medicineman · Apr 24, 2007

So, we've now established (within this post) that the only criminals you could actually do anything about are the desperate ones. Although how desperate criminals in your country have access to guns is beyond me. Guns must cost so little. Even desperate criminals aren't going into schools and wiping out little kids. Who's doing that med'? The so-called NORMAL members of society, that's who. How many more incidents like this is it going to take?
Skunky, It is the desperate criminals that are doing home invasions, the meth heads. Methanphetamine, speed, has has created a subculture of mean spirited desperate criminals that unlike Junkies, are extremely violent. Meth does major brain damage with prolonged usage and the ability to reason becomes more amd more muddled. Whereas a Junkie will break into your home when you're not there, a meth head will crash in your door with a cheap gun and take over. Guns on the street (Stolen ones) are cheap, trade one for a hit of speed, they are everywhere, so you can't expect me to give up mine. BTW I have a 90 lb dog that would probably either scare them away, or give me time to retrieve my .45 and return fire. I also wish the society was not so violent, but with the government setting the example, (War after War), what are we to do. I'll pass my gun collection on to my son and he can either pass them on or sell them, when I'm gone, I'm sure it won't bother me either way.

Smirgen · Apr 24, 2007

jimbo_jim

At the end of the day, it took this guy less time to legally buy a gun in the US (with ticking the not metal box) then it takes some people to get a haircut

Thats true , It probably took about 10 or 15 minutes for the Nics Background check to Clear since he hadnt committed any previous felonies and due to the fact that the Nics check didnt have acess to his court/Mental records, But none of this really mattered anyway since he waited almost exactly 40 days (required by Law) before his next Handgun Purchase for the other handgun.

You see even if the state had a ten day waiting period for handgun purchases it would have only extended the wait 20 days Total which in Cho's case wouldnt have mattered anyway He had planned on doing this for a Very Long time.

It looks like Democrats and Republicans will support extending background checks to include cases where mental health as an issue as it was with CHO.

On a lighter note heres a pic of my newest Rifle I just picked up less than two hours ago , Its an Anschutz 1717hmr classic.....

If you anti gun folks are offended by my pic let me know.

k-town · Apr 24, 2007

Nice gun there fella!

medicineman · Apr 24, 2007

Smirgen said:
jimbo_jim

Thats true , It probably took about 10 or 15 minutes for the Nics Background check to Clear since he hadnt committed any previous felonies and due to the fact that the Nics check didnt have acess to his court/Mental records, But none of this really mattered anyway since he waited almost exactly 40 days (required by Law) before his next Handgun Purchase for the other handgun.

You see even if the state had a ten day waiting period for handgun purchases it would have only extended the wait 20 days Total which in Cho's case wouldnt have mattered anyway He had planned on doing this for a Very Long time.

It looks like Democrats and Republicans will support extending background checks to include cases where mental health as an issue as it was with CHO.

On a lighter note heres a pic of my newest Rifle I just picked up less than two hours ago , Its an Anschutz 1717hmr classic.....

If you anti gun folks are offended by my pic let me know.

All you need is a good recoil pad, unless that's a .22, and a scope, BTW is that a scope in the black box? Maybe you're already set.

Smirgen · Apr 24, 2007

Your right Medicine man ... all I need is a set of bases and rings.

skunkushybrid · Apr 25, 2007

medicineman said:
So, we've now established (within this post) that the only criminals you could actually do anything about are the desperate ones. Although how desperate criminals in your country have access to guns is beyond me. Guns must cost so little. Even desperate criminals aren't going into schools and wiping out little kids. Who's doing that med'? The so-called NORMAL members of society, that's who. How many more incidents like this is it going to take?
Skunky, It is the desperate criminals that are doing home invasions, the meth heads. Methanphetamine, speed, has has created a subculture of mean spirited desperate criminals that unlike Junkies, are extremely violent. Meth does major brain damage with prolonged usage and the ability to reason becomes more amd more muddled. Whereas a Junkie will break into your home when you're not there, a meth head will crash in your door with a cheap gun and take over. Guns on the street (Stolen ones) are cheap, trade one for a hit of speed, they are everywhere, so you can't expect me to give up mine. BTW I have a 90 lb dog that would probably either scare them away, or give me time to retrieve my .45 and return fire. I also wish the society was not so violent, but with the government setting the example, (War after War), what are we to do. I'll pass my gun collection on to my son and he can either pass them on or sell them, when I'm gone, I'm sure it won't bother me either way.

The meth' hasn't kicked off over here yet. There's a bit of it over here and it's marketed as MDMA crystal. Expensive because of this too. Up to 40 quid a gramme (british pounds). I've tried it, don't like it.

Maybe your country should do it like this: disarm the criminals first. These junkies are desperate for money. If the government starts a scheme to buy all unregistered guns first (before attempting to do it with the citizens) the junkies will take in their unlisenced guns for cash, no questions asked. Not just whole guns but gun parts too. Anything these guys can find that has something to do with guns can be taken into a police station and sold without any questions. Foe every gun the government buys the cost will pan out with the savings they make on armed crime.

I also believe the police should be disarmed too (specialist units only to deal with gun crime). Maybe the police should make an example and do it first.

medicineman · Apr 25, 2007

skunkushybrid said:
The meth' hasn't kicked off over here yet. There's a bit of it over here and it's marketed as MDMA crystal. Expensive because of this too. Up to 40 quid a gramme (british pounds). I've tried it, don't like it.

Maybe your country should do it like this: disarm the criminals first. These junkies are desperate for money. If the government starts a scheme to buy all unregistered guns first (before attempting to do it with the citizens) the junkies will take in their unlisenced guns for cash, no questions asked. Not just whole guns but gun parts too. Anything these guys can find that has something to do with guns can be taken into a police station and sold without any questions. Foe every gun the government buys the cost will pan out with the savings they make on armed crime.

I also believe the police should be disarmed too (specialist units only to deal with gun crime). Maybe the police should make an example and do it first.

They've tried that here many times. All they get are some rusted out relics and guns that don't work. To a criminal, a gun is a tool of the trade. They're not about to give up their most important tool. In the Gang areas, If you don't carry a gun, you are at extreme risk from opposing gangs, even if you do carry one you are, but at least you can shoot back. In the gang areas, it's like the wild wild west, even the cops don't want to go in there. Your take on guns come from a society that has basically no guns, either for sale or available. I'll bet if someone came there and opened a legal handgun store, he'd sell out in the first couple a hours. People basically are fascinated with guns and would possess them if they could. In our country, you can.

silk · Apr 25, 2007

Smirgen said:
The ability to defend ones self and family is only a fractional part of the reason the Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment ,They knew that an ever growing Governing body can and will over time become corrupt and oppressive and that no Government stands forever.

They also realized that History repeats itself and the only way to ensure that a government remains "by and for the people " is to give the people the ability/means to forcibly take back that which belongs to them (hence the Second Amendment).

Even a Well oiled Democracy over time can be perverted and corrupted ( I've seen this first hand), I think it was Benjamin Franklin who said "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch... Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote".

The day my Govenment stops trusting me to practice my Second Amendment Right is the day I stop Trusting my Government.

Cheers! Only some Yanks understand that, and I figure most of the world does not.

skunkushybrid · Apr 26, 2007

medicineman said:
They've tried that here many times. All they get are some rusted out relics and guns that don't work. To a criminal, a gun is a tool of the trade. They're not about to give up their most important tool. In the Gang areas, If you don't carry a gun, you are at extreme risk from opposing gangs, even if you do carry one you are, but at least you can shoot back. In the gang areas, it's like the wild wild west, even the cops don't want to go in there. Your take on guns come from a society that has basically no guns, either for sale or available. I'll bet if someone came there and opened a legal handgun store, he'd sell out in the first couple a hours. People basically are fascinated with guns and would possess them if they could. In our country, you can.

No med', I'm not talking about your normal gun amnesty. This will be one given as a concession after illegal firearms have been made illegal to such an extent that you get lifed off. Life in jail, no parole. All illegal weapons, that includes the ones in the hands of the citizens (mentioning no names) are to be handed in. The government will buy them off you. This scheme would be launched with the people in full knowledge that this will be leading to an eventual gun prohibition. That within 2 years, all automatic weapons will be made illegal. It can be done, I know it can. You just have to start the ball rolling.

Yes, people are fascinated with guns... even to the extent of having their picture took with one pointing at their own temple. Even to the extent of owning one and wanting to use it for the purpose it was intended. Guns are for killing, that's why they were invented. Life would be safer without guns.

skunkushybrid · Apr 26, 2007

silk said:
Cheers! Only some Yanks understand that, and I figure most of the world does not.

I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to say silk, although the derogatory 'yank' leads me to believe you are for gun control?

I like the Benjamin Franklin quote, sums up his era. However, we are in a new age now.

We claim to want peace, yet not many really do.

Things are getting better, and no matter how much I want to see everything change in my own lifetime I realise that I'm just going to have to settle for little bits.

"I want to see the future, as I'm sick and tired of living in the past." SKH.

7xstall · Apr 26, 2007

skunkushybrid said:
Yes, people are fascinated with guns... even to the extent of having their picture took with one pointing at their own temple. Even to the extent of owning one and wanting to use it for the purpose it was intended. Guns are for killing, that's why they were invented. Life would be safer without guns.

more people die by cars. logic would then dictate that this issue should be dealt with first; here is how:

cars are designed to protect the occupant while clearly having the capacity to kill and harm people who are not inside the vehicle. therefor, cars should be banned. the government should provide transportation to and from all destinations. foot traffic must only be allowed in designated areas with the proper paperwork.

you will be taxed in order to build and maintain this massive fleet of government transportation vehicles.

you have no say in matters of scheduling, they will pick you up and drop you off when it is best for them.

you must pay for the transport network even if you do not leave your home.

next, we will address the issue of what foods and substances you are allowed to consume, even more stringently.

we will then address your lifestyle, exorcise and activity needs.

we will then address your occupation and determine that your employer is not providing optimum ergonomics, lighting, space provisioning and other attributes complimentary of maximum work fulfillment and healthy lifespan extension. don't be surprised if you wind up getting laid off because it's too expensive to keep you "happy" according to our standards.

we will then work to ban natural disasters.

other items on our list are as follows:

dangerous water areas such as the oceans, lakes, pools and rivers.

bees because of their stinging and killing more people that are shot to death.

gravity, it causes falls and dropping accidents.

you will thank us someday,
your GOVERNment

.

medicineman · Apr 26, 2007

Guns Save Lives

by M. Ryan Clark

At some point in their lives, people get involved in a violent situation. I figured it was bound to happen at some point. Thats why I got a gun permit, said a Tucson resident who last year had cause to use his weapon.
Jogging on a Sunday night, the 31-year old Tucson man was approached by two men. One, Ramon Soto, threatened him with a folding knife, unaware that his would-be victim was carrying a 9-mm semi-automatic handgun. Within seconds the ordeal was resolved: after shooting Soto, the jogger held the two at gunpoint until police arrived.
Hours later Soto was in fair condition at the Tucson Medical Center. His accomplice, Eduardo Reyna, spent the night at Pima County Jail. Both were charged with armed robbery and aggravated assault.
This proves the Arizona concealed weapons law works, said Todd Rathner, Tucson resident and board member of the National Rifle Association.
Many, however, consider this sort of occurrence to be the exception. Thus the recent wave of rhetoric to repeal concealed weapons laws across the country. And the rhetoric flows under guise of common sense.
Some gun control advocates begrudgingly concede that the Second Amendment does protect citizens right to own guns, but nearly all feel that reasonable restrictions on this right ought to be enforced. Mandatory waiting periods, trigger locks, and handgun bans: common sense devices to control gun violence. But what do these measures really accomplish? A recent book by John Lott considers the role of such regulation and right-to-carry laws in preventing crime.
In More Guns, Less Crime, Lott, a scholar at Yale Law School, confronts the notion that gun control laws prevent crime. His conclusions are straightforward: concealed weapons laws reduce crime, often dramatically. Further, whereas previous studies on gun control were often limited to specific areas or short periods of time, Lotts is the largest, most comprehensive survey of gun use and crime ever conducted. His data set consists of 54,000 observations taken over eighteen yearsa period that includes the enactment of tougher sentencing laws, gun control legislation, and the recent decline in crime.
The first of Lotts regressions measures the effect on crime of concealed weapons laws, the arrest rate, population, income, and unemployment. Lott found that concealed weapons laws caused violent crime to drop by 4.9 percent, murder by 7.7 percent, rape by 5.3 percent, and aggravated assault by 7.01 percent. Contradicting the rhetoric of reformers, the ability of citizens to carry concealed weapons suppresses crime far more than any other factor.
Also intriguing is Lotts comparison of the effectiveness of different types of gun laws. Concealed weapons laws and enhanced sentencing regulations each decrease violent crime by 4 percent on a county level. At the state level, violent crime decreases by 10 percent after the adoption of concealed weapons laws.
Violent crime actually increases 2.3 percent and 10 percent on the county and state levels, respectively, after the adoption of mandatory waiting periodsthe same waiting periods routinely touted as a common sense solution.
Only one category of crime increases when non-discretionary concealed weapons laws are adopted: property crime. The explanation is simple. Criminals switch to less dangerous crimes when potential victims are likely to be armed. Mugging wanes; car-stereo theft waxes.
The opposite has occurred in England, land of extremely restrictive weapons laws. Crime rates have skyrocketed in recent years. Assault occurs at a higher rate than in the United States. Homicides in England have doubled since gun control became law.
The common sense of many links concealed weapons laws with accidents, often crippling or deadly. Children find guns and too often accidentally shoot themselves or others. But too often, while true, is misleading. Neither thousands nor hundreds of children perish annually in gun-related accidents. Of the 1,134 accidental gun deaths in 1996, only 42 were children under ten. Twice as many children die annually in bathtubs. Yet bathtubs, while twice as likely to cause the accidental death of a child, are not disparaged as lethally dangerous productsand Rosie ODonnell has yet to call for a bathtub ban.
Lotts regressions show that right-to-carry laws do increase the childhood mortality rate by one-half percentabout nine deaths each year. Certainly any mortality is tragic, but concealed weapons prevent far more tragedy, offsetting the number of accidental deaths 150 times over.
Every night on the news, Americans see story upon story about the latest shootinginterviews with bystanders, relatives of victims, neighbors of suspects. What they never hear about are the thousands of crimes deterred or halted by guns.
Its an understandable phenomenon: a murder or rape that actually occurred is much more newsworthy than one that only nearly happened. But the stories add up to a false impression of the role of guns in crime. Surprising to those weaned on television news, guns are used 3.6 million times every year for protection and defense.
More insidious, though, is the medias use of statisticsprovided by groups such as Handgun Control, Inc., and the Violence Policy Centerwithout examining the methodology of the studies that spawned them. In these organizations studies on childhood gun mortality, adults as old as 30mostly gang membersare routinely classified as children. Compounding misperceptions, the majority of these gun deaths are gang- or suicide-related. The gun control lobby and the media too often ignore these crucial caveats.
Lately, school shootings have been the impetus behind gun reform. The media, however, often ignore the crucial role of firearms in resolving or preventing such shootings, hopelessly skewing the debate. For example, when a student opened fire on his classmates in Pearl, Mississippi, most news programs reported that an assistant principal had captured or disarmed the shooter. Had the shooter been wrestled to the ground? Actually, as the shooter searched for more victims, the assistant principal ran to his car and returned with his pistol. Only then was the wayward student subdued. Yet the fact that a handgun had saved students lives was subsumed by the standard, sensational student-opens-fire-in-school narrative.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics recently released crime statistics for 1993-1997, which gives independent confirmation to Lotts findings. Over that time period, gun deaths and woundings dropped 33 percent. At the same time, the number of guns in circulation rose 10 percent. The data strike at the core argument of gun control enthusiasts: evidently, the number of gun crimes doesnt always increase with the number of guns.
In retaliation, the gun control movement has gone on the offensive. Most striking in Lotts second edition are accounts of gun reformers reactions to Lotts findings. Few read his paper or examined his data, yet many leveled criticisms. Typical of the critics was Susan Glick of the Violence Policy Center. Lott called Glick to ask her to review his study prior to publication; she refused, fearing that her association would legitimize his findings. Of course, not having read the paper did not prevent Glick from telling USA Today that Lotts results were flawed.
After his findings had been published, Glick called and asked for a copy of the paper. Lott questioned her about her disparaging comments; she hung up the phone.
Many also accused Lotts study, incorrectly, of being funded by firearms manufacturers.
The underlying logic of gun control defies common sense and, now, strong empirical evidence. Criminals, by definition, break the law. Gun control advocates propose new laws infringing the right to own gunsas if criminals will suddenly become respectful of authority and turn over their weapons to the police. In fact, gun control laws disarm only law-abiding citizensincreasing the likelihood that they will be victims.
As Joseph T. Chew recently observed in a Usenet posting in talk.politics.guns, Expecting a carjacker or rapist or drug pusher to care that his possession or use of a gun is unlawful is like expecting a terrorist to care that his car bomb is taking up two parking spaces.
Washington, DC banned handgun sales in 1977 and soon became the murder capital of the United States. Almost all areas that have banned handguns have similarly seen crime increase.
Rosie ODonnell, who pays an armed guard to protect her children, rails with the anti-gun lobby against the dangers of guns, but she does so against all knowledge and reason. Lotts findings have left Rosie and her ilk without a plank on which to stand. Gun laws increase crime, while right-to-carry laws slash crime rates.
Ironically, Lott concludes, those most aided by the right to bear arms are women and minorities, two groups that tend to strongly support gun control. Will the media and gun control groups let that information out? It could save liveshundreds or thousands, annually. But what would the former put on the 11 oclock news, and how would the latter show they care about our children?

medicineman · Apr 26, 2007

skunkushybrid said:
No med', I'm not talking about your normal gun amnesty. This will be one given as a concession after illegal firearms have been made illegal to such an extent that you get lifed off. Life in jail, no parole. All illegal weapons, that includes the ones in the hands of the citizens (mentioning no names) are to be handed in. The government will buy them off you. This scheme would be launched with the people in full knowledge that this will be leading to an eventual gun prohibition. That within 2 years, all automatic weapons will be made illegal. It can be done, I know it can. You just have to start the ball rolling.

Yes, people are fascinated with guns... even to the extent of having their picture took with one pointing at their own temple. Even to the extent of owning one and wanting to use it for the purpose it was intended. Guns are for killing, that's why they were invented. Life would be safer without guns.

Life without parole. Are you really advocating this? Talk about a Hitlerian-draconian solution. I'm sure you were only kidding, life without parol for possession of a handgun, absolutely ridiculous. Read my post about the positives of guns. You Brits are in danger of losing your freedoms. Maybe because you haven't yet rebelled against the empire, (British Empire), you can't see the similarities of Hitler taking the guns away from the people during his rise to power. Once, having the "Empire" dominating our culture, we rebelled and have kept our guns ever since. It would take the US army to disarm the people over here, and I believe they would rebell before they did that, so maybe rebellion should be in your agenda, demand the right to posses a hand gun, an AK47, an M-16. I'll bet violent crimes would subside in your world. Again I'll state the obvious: When guns are illegal only criminals will have guns!!!

skunkushybrid · Apr 26, 2007

7xstall said:
more people die by cars. logic would then dictate that this issue should be dealt with first; here is how:

cars are designed to protect the occupant while clearly having the capacity to kill and harm people who are not inside the vehicle. therefor, cars should be banned. the government should provide transportation to and from all destinations. foot traffic must only be allowed in designated areas with the proper paperwork.

you will be taxed in order to build and maintain this massive fleet of government transportation vehicles.

you have no say in matters of scheduling, they will pick you up and drop you off when it is best for them.

you must pay for the transport network even if you do not leave your home.

next, we will address the issue of what foods and substances you are allowed to consume, even more stringently.

we will then address your lifestyle, exorcise and activity needs.

we will then address your occupation and determine that your employer is not providing optimum ergonomics, lighting, space provisioning and other attributes complimentary of maximum work fulfillment and healthy lifespan extension. don't be surprised if you wind up getting laid off because it's too expensive to keep you "happy" according to our standards.

we will then work to ban natural disasters.

other items on our list are as follows:

dangerous water areas such as the oceans, lakes, pools and rivers.

bees because of their stinging and killing more people that are shot to death.

gravity, it causes falls and dropping accidents.

you will thank us someday,
your GOVERNment

.

You obviously don't remember some of my comments in the numerous global warming threads. Cars are a bigger killer than guns and should be modified to make it impossible for them to kill, both in pollutive and running-people-over terms. I could go all Sci' Fi' in an effort to explain how this could become possible but I'm sure you can do that for yourself.

I didn't know that bee stings account for more deaths every year than gun shots. Are you including wars? Even if you aren't I'm going to have to check out this fact (if you don't mind), it seems very implausible given that in most countries you need to actually be allergic to the venom.

Anti gravity equipment would be an excellent step forward in preventing deaths on building sites.

In fact everything you've mentioned could at some point in the future be modified to not cause deaths. Also, there's little point in being pedantic as there are always going to be people that have accidents no matter how stringently you try and prevent them.

Guns could never be modified to not kill people.

rickhighly420 · Apr 26, 2007

I don't think anything else the government does will decrese the percentage of people being shot to death.

if we put more restrictions on guns, more people are going to be mad. Just about anyone can get their hands on a gun anyways, and most of the people who murder with guns aren't supposed to have them, so it's not like their gonna stop carrying cause the laws get more strict. If marijuana laws just got out of this world, 90% of us would still smoke it just as much.

My brother was killed on christmas day '95. he was a runnaway, had shorts and a teeshirt on, went into a camper by some old guys house, the guy found him in there and went back to his house for a gun, and my brother was running down his driveway and the guy shot him in the back 4 or 5 times from his porch... I don't know... I just don't think anything anyone does is going to make it better or worse.

Gun Control

Stricter Gun Control In US

Yes, stricter control.

No, we love our guns!

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member