Gun Control

[Ringo84]

I have what would probably be considered a moderate position on gun control.

I think that responsible (take note of that word) American citizens should be allowed to own a handgun or a shotgun or other similar weapons. I have no problem with a person's right to bear arms in that respect.

I do take issue, however, with weapons in the hands of past and present criminals, irresponsible citizens, disturbed people, and the like. If you can't be responsible with the use and care of a deadly weapon, you shouldn't be allowed to own one, in my opinion. Period.

I also take issue with the NRA, who seems to think that "right to bear arms" means any weapon imaginable. I have no problem with light weaponry (ie: pistols, shotguns), but I have a big problem with private citizens owning military-grade weaponry (ie: rocket launchers, cannons, AK-47s, etc). I think that military-grade weapons should be left in the hands of our military, and not the untrained hands of a private citizen.

I think that more should be done to ensure that a person who's buying a gun doesn't have a criminal record or a history of mental illness. I want to limit the sale of handguns only to citizens who are responsible in the use and care of weapons.

I don't think my position is unreasonable: protecting the right to bear arms within reasonable limits. I think that the positions of those on the extreme ends of this issue - those who think weapons should be outlawed and those who think that we should be able to buy any weapons at all - are the ones who are unreasonable.
Ringo

 

[WatersMoon110]

Wrong and wrong. He was making an assumption about the ability to purchase military grade assault weapons in the us which was totally incorrect.

Perhaps Electric was confused since he said that first and then said how laws had changed in Australia?

 

[WatersMoon110]

I have what would probably be considered a moderate position on gun control.

I think that responsible (take note of that word) American citizens should be allowed to own a handgun or a shotgun or other similar weapons. I have no problem with a person's right to bear arms in that respect.

I do take issue, however, with weapons in the hands of past and present criminals, irresponsible citizens, disturbed people, and the like. If you can't be responsible with the use and care of a deadly weapon, you shouldn't be allowed to own one, in my opinion. Period.

I also take issue with the NRA, who seems to think that "right to bear arms" means any weapon imaginable. I have no problem with light weaponry (ie: pistols, shotguns), but I have a big problem with private citizens owning military-grade weaponry (ie: rocket launchers, cannons, AK-47s, etc). I think that military-grade weapons should be left in the hands of our military, and not the untrained hands of a private citizen.

I think that more should be done to ensure that a person who's buying a gun doesn't have a criminal record or a history of mental illness.
...

I don't think my position is unreasonable: protecting the right to bear arms within reasonable limits. I think that the positions of those on the extreme ends of this issue - those who think weapons should be outlawed and those who think that we should be able to buy any weapons at all - are the ones who are unreasonable.

I agree, there should be limits set on who can own guns, and what types of guns people should be allowed to own.

I want to limit the sale of handguns only to citizens who aren't responsible in the use and care of weapons.

I think you mean are responsible, right?

 

[Ringo84]

I agree, there should be limits set on who can own guns, and what types of guns people should be allowed to own.

I think you mean are responsible, right?

Oops! Yes; that's what I meant.

Thanks for letting me know about that typo.
Ringo

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Wrong and wrong. He was making an assumption about the ability to purchase military grade assault weapons in the us which was totally incorrect.

That's great. Continue to be antagonistic rather than actually address the issue. Have fun with that attitude. Goodbye.

 

[talkingmonkey]

As far as I know about the
United States of the World, you can buy military-grade weaponry from gun shops, depending on the state's licencing and permits.

I mean, you can always look at the gun laws of the US to find out...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_%28Firearm%29_laws_in_the_United_States_%28by_state%29

May I show you some gun stores that will sell you military-grade weapons?

This place can sell you military hardware: http://www.duncangun.com/guns.html

"We also have Military rifles on hand such as AR15s, from Bushmaster, Olympic Arms, Sabre, and Armalite availabe in many different calibers. Other Military rifles on hand as well."

How bout Bud's gun shop? You can buy P-90s, ARs, sig sauer rifles and more!

http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/index.php

Well that's on the first page of Google.

 

[Tenka]

2. Sentence anyone who commits a crime with an illegally obtained or illegally possessed weapon to a mandatory life sentence and make murder with an illegally obtained or illegally possessed weapon a federal offense punishable by a mandatory death sentence.

Great idea Mike.
Only problem is that the pattern with these high school shootings is:
1.Kill as many as you can with easily obtained weapons.
2.Kill self.

How about blaming liberals who's only solution is to punish the law abiding gun owners after the criminal has committed the crime, rather than to place the blame and punishment where it lies: with the gunman and with judges who refuse to crack down on them?

I guess they could execute a few corpses, because these kids are clearly so concerned about the consequences of their actions. They might baulk if they knew their corpse would be hanged.

 

[ElizabethVu]

I strongly believe in very very strict gun control. Unfortunatly there are those out there, that see this tragidy and think to themselves, if only one of these people had a gun to defend themselves with!

Considering this happened in another "gun free zone", yea, I do think if someone had a gun, maybe there would be less dead people.

I believe killing someone who does not want to die is a sin, always regardless of reason or circumstances, weather in self defense or not. However I do think ANYTHING is forgivable, and murder is just one of a multidude of ignorant mistakes that humans make.

Great. But when you force those stupid beliefs on me and stop me from defending myself, your worse than the murderer.

I'd advocate strict gun control, but I don't know enough about the politics around gun ownership in America to make an informed judgement about whether it would do any good. Either way, I'm not sure how many children have to get accidentally shot, or how many depressed teenagers have to go on killing sprees, before someone gets the message that guns and families should not be friends.

I can tell you with certainy it wouldn't. Just look at D.C. As for guns and families, a gun is best form of security your family can have.

(e.g., requiring licenses and registration of weapons;

Licencing is the first step to confiscation. No gun owner who knows history should allow their weapons to be licenced.

I would love to see guns outlawed in all countries. It could work. But I think it would take a long time to implement.

That's stupid, and it wouldn't work. People who want guns to commit crimes and kill people is suicidal rages are going to get guns. And then people who don't have homicidal tendencies will be left defenceless, just like the people in Illy. Just like the people at Virginia Tech. I will die before allow my right to defend myself be taken away.

Anyways, I am wondering what it is with this obsession with owning guns.

Insurance policy.

I think that more should be done to ensure that a person who's buying a gun doesn't have a criminal record or a history of mental illness. I want to limit the sale of handguns only to citizens who are responsible in the use and care of weapons.

Like what kind of crimes? Someone caught with some pot, or X, shouldn't be deprived of their right to defend themselves.

As far as I know about the United States of the World, you can buy military-grade weaponry from gun shops, depending on the state's licencing and permits.I mean, you can always look at the gun laws of the US to find out...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_(...(by_state)May I show you some gun stores that will sell you military-grade weapons?This place can sell you military hardware: http://www.duncangun.com/guns.html"We also have Military rifles on hand such as AR15s, from Bushmaster, Olympic Arms, Sabre, and Armalite availabe in many different calibers. Other Military rifles on hand as well."How bout Bud's gun shop? You can buy P-90s, ARs, sig sauer rifles and more!http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/index.phpWell that's on the first page of Google.

I think all those should be allowed. If someone wants them fully auto, they get training how to use it, get a permit, get a state lisence, fingerprints, name and address and that's it. Someone who goes though all that to get a fully auto assault rifle the legal should have that right. I don't believe that only the police and military should be the ones with the high powered weapons. In an age where our government is going off the deep end in terms of corruption, fiscal insanity, intrusive and unconstitutional laws, secret surviellence, and the sacrificing of liberties everytime someone is the government claims "national security", I believe a well armed populas may be the only hope the people of this country have of not having the rest of our rights trampled once the government has brainwashed and dearmed enough of us.

 

[quatona]

I want nukes.

 

[ElizabethVu]

I only want weapons that the military would be allowed to use in the event of a civil conflict. I think that's fair, is it not?

 

[stan1980]

One question... how can a christian justify protecting themselves with a gun?

 

[quatona]

I only want weapons that the military would be allowed to use in the event of a civil conflict. I think that's fair, is it not?

Don´t know. Doesn´t make much sense to me. Either your military would fight against you for just, legal purposes (in which case there would be no reason for you to defend yourself), or it isn´t (in which case it will probably not give a rat´s neck as to what it is weapons it is allowed to use, anyways). If you are planning to fight against your military you need nukes.

Note to self: Occasionally you have to look up which weapons the military of your country is allowed to use against its citizens.

 

[ElizabethVu]

One question... how can a christian justify protecting themselves with a gun?

As a non-Christian, I couldn't care less. I think not defending yourself and others and allowing evil to ride right over is far, far more immoral than actualy, God-forbid, standing up for youself.

Don´t know. Doesn´t make much sense to me. Either your military would fight against you for just, legal purposes (in which case there would be no reason for you to defend yourself),

And if the law is corrupt? If the people making the laws and commanding the armies are corrupt? Is that not possible these days?

or it isn´t (in which case it will probably not give a rat´s neck as to what it is weapons it is allowed to use, anyways). If you are planning to fight against your military you need nukes.

Nukes are around to maintain our status as a world power and deter anyone from invading us or striking at us in any serious fashion.

The government would not nuke the cities of this country. And it would be a big waste to nuke some guerillas in the wood somehwere. I also doupt the government would like to deal with the PR of that anymore than they would the fallout.

 

[MikeMcK]

One question... how can a christian justify protecting themselves with a gun?

What's to justify? If someone is trying to kill you, then you protect yourself.

 

[quatona]

And if the law is corrupt? If the people making the laws and commanding the armies are corrupt? Is that not possible these days?

Sure it´s possible, but in this case neither the corrupt politicians nor the corrupt army leaders will care what weapons they are allowed to use against you.
So your argument 'I want the weapons the military is allowed to use against me' doesn´t make sense in regards to any realistic scenario.

 

[talkingmonkey]

What's to justify? If someone is trying to kill you, then you protect yourself.

so, despite being legally allowed to carry a firearm, when you finally blow someone away for threatening to kill you, you go to prison anyway. Makes sense to me.

"Hey, I may be going on holiday for 6-12, but at least I nailed the guy!"

And on another post: No matter how many background checks, fingerprint scans, photographs, licencing and paperwork someone with an AK-47 might have...it's no use after they've killed 20 then topped themself, is it?

It's like a speed camera. The fine and photograph is no use when the person is wrapped round a pole or another car, is it?

And on another post: When people say that gangs and black market make it easy to obtain firearms. Only because they're legal. What's to stop thieves boosting crates of SMGs at the docks before they reach "Bob's Country Gun Gallery". They're cheaper to buy on the market, cos they're easier to get...Or you could just boost "Bob's Country Gun Gallery" and get the ammo, silencers, scopes and accessories thrown in!

 

[Remny]

God would deem guns unessisary. In this day and age we no longer need to hunt to feed ourselves, if someone strikes us we are supposed to turn the other cheek. So in the end there are just no good reasons to have guns... They are this terribly dangerous hazard to have around, where even the well meaning and rule abiding citizens can have fatal accidents, or have their arms stolen and used in bad ways. Truely if the founding father's were alive today they would recognize many errors in their good intentions with the constitution, they would see all the gun crime and accidents and INSTANTLY realize the right to bare arms was a mistake, never would they have imagined the scenarios of today.

It is important to remember the reason for the creation and wide spread proliferation of fire arms. They were created for war, to kill people, they were wide spread and distributed with that in mind, that handfuls of people have found uses for them outside of that is good in a way, but its important to know that they are here and wide-spread because of their effectivness in killing humans. Do you really think God wants people to have such weapons around for amusement? Do you think there will be Guns in heaven? Having guns around is just so obviously wrong its amazing its even argued about. I mean come on, my mom was shot at by confused hunters while she was hiking, guns are just purely rediculous and even with good intentions behind them they are too dangerous.

 

[Darkhorse]

In the U. S. A., over-the-counter heroin and cocaine were made illegal in 1904;
marijuana in 1937;
barbiturates in the 1950s;
amphetamines and LSD in the 1960s;
and just about everything else in the 1970s,
and it's really been effective, don't you think?

 

[MikeMcK]

God would deem guns unessisary. In this day and age we no longer need to hunt to feed ourselves, if someone strikes us we are supposed to turn the other cheek. So in the end there are just no good reasons to have guns...

Self defense, national defense, hunting, recreation...

They are this terribly dangerous hazard to have around

Not really.

I've had guns all my life and everybody in my family has at least one weapon.

Nobody's ever been hurt by them. In fact, most of the time, the guns seem to be content sitting in a display or closet or drawer.

where even the well meaning and rule abiding citizens can have fatal accidents

A guy in our town slipped and fell in the shower the other day and cracked his head open. They're about to make the decision to take him off life support.

Maybe we should outlaw showers.

Truely if the founding father's were alive today they would recognize many errors in their good intentions with the constitution, they would see all the gun crime and accidents and INSTANTLY realize the right to bare arms was a mistake, never would they have imagined the scenarios of today.

And which of their writings or speeches do you base this on?

Do you really think God wants people to have such weapons around for amusement?

I don't see anything in scripture that suggests otherwise.

Having guns around is just so obviously wrong its amazing its even argued about. I mean come on, my mom was shot at by confused hunters while she was hiking

Then blame the stupidity of the hunters, not the guns.

guns are just purely rediculous and even with good intentions behind them they are too dangerous.

Only if you don't know how to use one responsibly.

 

[MikeMcK]

so, despite being legally allowed to carry a firearm, when you finally blow someone away for threatening to kill you, you go to prison anyway. Makes sense to me.

Actually, in most states, you don't go to jail for self defense.

In fact, many states allow you to shoot someone, not just to protect your own life, but to stop him from running off with your TV.

And on another post: No matter how many background checks, fingerprint scans, photographs, licencing and paperwork someone with an AK-47 might have...it's no use after they've killed 20 then topped themself, is it?

How many legally purchased AK47s owned by licensed owners have been used in the commission of a crime?

It's like a speed camera. The fine and photograph is no use when the person is wrapped round a pole or another car, is it?

And yet, I don't hear you arguing for taking away cars.

And on another post: When people say that gangs and black market make it easy to obtain firearms. Only because they're legal.

Actually, in that scenario, they're not legal.

Why do you think they call it a "black market"?

Or you could just boost "Bob's Country Gun Gallery" and get the ammo, silencers, scopes and accessories thrown in!

Actually, silencers are considered a Title II weapon and can only be sold by specially licensed dealers, usually only to law enforcement or military personnel.