Gun Control

[CrypticQuery]

What are your opinions on the total banning of firearms in the United States?  I personally think it's ridiculous.

[Guest DRL]

I am in favor of:

°Banning hunting.

°Forbid any minor

  from owning a firearm.

°Recreative shooting is allowed;

the institution or club can provide

the tools or the members can bring

their own weapons.

°Self defense is allowed.

[CrypticQuery]

I am in favor of:

°Banning hunting.

°Forbid any minor

  from owning a firearm.

°Recreative shooting is allowed;

the institution or club can provide

the tools or the members can bring

their own weapons.

°Self defense is allowed.

I wouldn't completely ban hunting, although I STRONGLY disagree with it, some people rely on it as a food source.  Other than that, you're spot on!

[Guest Julius Quasar]

I'm against all forms of gun control.

I'm in favor of hunting (for food vermin extermination, predator control, and population control only, not for sport or for fashion),

owning full auto weapons, rocket launchers, anti tank weapons, grenade launches, gunships, and more.

[Four-eyed Vulpine]

When it comes to hunting, what about the use of it as population control?

Sometimes the populations of some species can go haywire and cause numerous other problems, like an increase in destroyed crops for instance.

However, the surge of one species' population is almost always because its predator species population has drastically decreased, probably because of over-hunting.

Perhaps I have negated my own statements.

On a broader scope, the 2nd Amendment should be obeyed.  It isn't in the Constitution for nothing.

Besides, criminals will ALWAYS be able to obtain firearms, whether they are illegal or not.

["User"]

Guns are made for one purpose, to kill people (and animals), in the end they serve no positive purpose outside of hunting perhaps.

I'm against all forms of gun control.

I'm in favor of hunting (for food only, not for sport or for fashion),

owning full auto weapons, rocket launchers, anti tank weapons, grenade launches, gunships, and more.

And we all wonder why America has the highest gun possession rate per capita in the world and the highest % of incidents regarding gun related crime and deaths.  I usually agree with you Julius but this time I will have to vehemently disagree with you.

On a broader scope, the 2nd Amendment should be obeyed.  It isn't in the Constitution for nothing.

It's purpose for being in the Constitution were because of events that happened over 200 years ago and aren't nearly (if even) relevant in today's society.  And it looks like the Supreme court is revisiting the 2nd Amendment again and a decision is expected soon.

Besides, criminals will ALWAYS be able to obtain firearms, whether they are illegal or not.

Yes, but by now allowing them to be bought publicly to be used for criminal acts it makes their job a heck of a lot more damn difficult.

[Sarita]

I'm against all forms of gun control.

I'm in favor of hunting (for food only, not for sport or for fashion),

owning full auto weapons, rocket launchers, anti tank weapons, grenade launches, gunships, and more.

I actually disagree with this, for one reason. You've heard about gun accidents when kids get a-hold of their parents' guns. Imagine those same stupid people with fully automatic weapons, rocket launchers, and all the other weapons you listed. That's why they're banned from being owned publicly.

[Guest DRL]

I actually disagree with this, for one reason. You've heard about gun accidents when kids get a-hold of their parents' guns. Imagine those same stupid people with fully automatic weapons, rocket launchers, and all the other weapons you listed. That's why they're banned from being owned publicly.

°I would ban all military-grade weapons;

they are 'military' for a reason. Police/civil

grade can be made available into the public.

I wouldn't completely ban hunting, although I STRONGLY disagree with it, some people rely on it as a food source.  Other than that, you're spot on!

Yes, but I would only allow it

if it was like, say, a native tribe

hunts a certain animal for food.

After making sure that they hunt

the animal for food, and not for

money/luxury/fun, then I would allow it.

But again most native tribes in my country

do not use modern weapons, they preffer

to use more "traditional" methods (bows, ect.)

[Four-eyed Vulpine]

And it looks like the Supreme court is revisiting the 2nd Amendment again and a decision is expected soon.

Well, it looks like the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the firearm proponents.

["User"]

Well, it looks like the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the firearm proponents.

Yeah, looks like it just happened too.  5-4 decision, doesn't get any closer then that.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/us-supreme-court-bolsters-gun-rights/article1622154/

[Guest Julius Quasar]

When it comes to hunting, what about the use of it as population control?

Sometimes the populations of some species can go haywire and cause numerous other problems, like an increase in destroyed crops for instance.

However, the surge of one species' population is almost always because its predator species population has drastically decreased, probably because of over-hunting.

Perhaps I have negated my own statements.

On a broader scope, the 2nd Amendment should be obeyed.  It isn't in the Constitution for nothing.

Besides, criminals will ALWAYS be able to obtain firearms, whether they are illegal or not.

You're right!  I forgot about population control, my bad.  Also, we should be allowed to hunt for the purposes of vermin extermination and predator control too.

I actually disagree with this, for one reason. You've heard about gun accidents when kids get a-hold of their parents' guns. Imagine those same stupid people with fully automatic weapons, rocket launchers, and all the other weapons you listed. That's why they're banned from being owned publicly.

Let them kill themselves!  Good riddance.  When I was a child, my dad kept guns throughout the house, and I never had ONE accident at all.  Let the dumb people kill themselves off through accidents.    In all seriousness, more kids die from car accidents, poisonings, or drownings in pools and such than they do in gun accidents.

Guns are made for one purpose, to kill people (and animals), in the end they serve no positive purpose outside of hunting perhaps.

And we all wonder why America has the highest gun possession rate per capita in the world and the highest % of incidents regarding gun related crime and deaths.  I usually agree with you Julius but this time I will have to vehemently disagree with you.

It's purpose for being in the Constitution were because of events that happened over 200 years ago and aren't nearly (if even) relevant in today's society.  And it looks like the Supreme court is revisiting the 2nd Amendment again and a decision is expected soon.

Yes, but by now allowing them to be bought publicly to be used for criminal acts it makes their job a heck of a lot more damn difficult.

They can serve more purposes beside hunting and sport.  have you ever heard of self defense?

America does NOT have "the highest gun possession rate per capita in the world and the highest % of incidents regarding gun related crime and deaths".  Where do you get these "statistics"?  Probably from the sources most severely biased when it comes to guns.

By your logic, people shouldn't have free speech, or protection from cruel and unusual punishment either, because "It's purpose for being in the Constitution were because of events that happened over 200 years ago and aren't nearly (if even) relevant in today's society."  And those SC rulings won't be reversed, no matter how much you'd love that. 

NO IT DOESN'T make it harder for them to get the guns...NYC has the nation's strictest gun laws, and the cops are constantly pinned down in firefights.  DC had the strictest gun laws of all, and those laws were reversed because the gun crime there was so HIGH.  The criminals would obtain them anyways on the black market.  They'd have better weapons than the cops and civilians, didn't you learn from the North Hollywood Bank Robbery of '98!?  AK-47's were banned in Cali then, and the bank robbers had them anyways.  Banning guns like the AK-47 doesn't magically make an AK-47 or ANY gun magically disappear from the criminals' hands after they enter the state/nation/city where the guns are banned.

...typical Canadian. 

(don't worry, TSA~User, I still like you)

°I would ban all military-grade weapons;

they are 'military' for a reason. Police/civil

grade can be made available into the public.

Again, The criminals would obtain them anyways on the black market.  They'd have better weapons than the cops and civilians.

[Guest DRL]

You're right!  I forgot about population control, my bad.  Also, we should be allowed to hunt for the purposes of vermin extermination and predator control too.

Our see about bringing the natural

predators. Vermin extermination

proved a failure in Australia;

all Australians know the 'story

of how bunnies overpopulated

Australia..." Today, the best

way was by bringing foxes

into the area. The foxes

adapted well, and are

helping to regulate the rabbits'

population (in some places...)

[Guest Julius Quasar]

Despite my rabid, right wing comments about guns, I'll say this:

People 16 or older but under 18 should not be allowed to own automatic firearms or grenade launchers or stuff like that, nor should they own handguns or other concealable firearms, and if they own rifles or shotguns, those should be self defense, sport or hunting style only, and they should take and pass a basic firearms safety course covering ALL types of firearms and get a hunting license and/or a permit to purchase hunting/sport/defense long guns.  The permit should have a permanent shelf life and should be good for ALL purchases of hunting/sport/defense long guns firearms.

People 18 and older should be allowed to own should be allowed to own handguns or other concealable firearms self defense, as well as sport or hunting style long guns.  They should re-take and pass a basic firearms safety course covering ALL types of firearms and get a permit to purchase pistols and concealable firearms.  The permit should have a permanent shelf life and should be good for ALL purchases of ALL TYPES of pistols and concealable firearms, and self defense, sport or hunting style long guns.

People 21 or older should be allowed to own automatic firearms or grenade launchers or stuff like that, and they should re-take and pass a basic firearms safety course covering ALL types of firearms and get a permit to purchase automatic firearms or grenade launchers or stuff like that.  The permit should have a permanent shelf life and should be good for ALL purchases of ALL TYPES of automatic firearms or grenade launchers or stuff like that, as well as pistols and concealable firearms, and self defense, sport or hunting style long guns...

People SHOULD BE EDUCATED ABOUT FIREARM SAFETY.  Although I also think that [Junior] Hunting Licenses should be given to kids 11 and older, but ages 11-15 should be Junior Hunting Licenses, and they can only hunt with proper hunting licensed adult supervision.

1. TREAT ALL GUNS AS IF THEY'RE LOADED!

2. BE CAREFUL WHERE YOU POINT THE GUN AT ALL TIMES, NEVER POINT IT AT SOMETHING/SOMEONE UNLESS YOU INTEND TO SHOOT IT/THEM!

3. KEEP YOUR FINGER OUT OF THE TRIGGER GUARD AND OFF THE TRIGGER UNTIL YOU ARE READY TO FIRE!

I'm against [most] registration, licensing of owners, and forcing laws like "trigger locks" or "smart guns" onto people.  I also think that NO ONE should be allowed to sue gun makers, distributors, and dealers, except for those people who used the firearm properly and it exploded in his hands when he fired it even though he used the right ammo for it, or something like that.  Also, I am for CCW permit mandating, provided the permits are "Shall Issue" and not overpriced, and require either live fire training OR competence live fire demonstration with firearms.  I'm also Pro NFA or 1934 and Pro FOPA of 1986.

["User"]

Lol, something told me I should have stated my points more clearly and set up a proper long winded wall of text argument with links to credible stats instead of pulling stats "out of my ass" at 10 pm when I'm already dead tired.  I'm usually not like this.  You make good points Julius I'll give you that....for now.....and I still love you to :P

[Vy'drach]

Guns are made for one purpose, to kill people (and animals), in the end they serve no positive purpose outside of hunting perhaps.

Not true, some people shoot for recreation, such as myself. Skeet shooting is even an Olympic sport. Guns are designed and made to do one thing, fire projectiles. The actual idea of whether or not a gun will kill is the projectile it fires. There are nonlethal projectiles, such as rubber bullets/pellets and beanbag rounds, along with certain guns being able to fire things such as smoke or teargas grenades (The Franchi SPAS-12 is capable of firing such grenade rounds). Then there are other guns, such is the Austrian Steyr 15.2mm IWS2000, which is an anti-material sniper rifle, designed to take out high value targets, such as aircraft on the ground and lighter skinned vehicles out of commission. It fires a 15.2mm APFSDS (Armor Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot) round that has a muzzle velocity of 4757 feet per second, and is meant to punch clear through engine blocks. It is actually a war crime to use weapons like that against human targets (Which the .50 BMG snipers still fall under this category, last I heard).

And we all wonder why America has the highest gun possession rate per capita in the world and the highest % of incidents regarding gun related crime and deaths.  I usually agree with you Julius but this time I will have to vehemently disagree with you.

Thing is, however, that even if America has the highest gun related crime, most of those guns were not purchased in gun stores due to the perpetrator having prior felonies, thus not being allowed to purchase guns. And knife/blade related crimes and especially murders are exponentially higher than guns. Most criminals use guns only for the psychological effect, not to actually do anything with them, since guns are very easy to track to a person (and draw a LOT of attention) ,what with a gun barrel leaving a tell-tale sign on the bullet, the firing pin leaving a tell-tale sign on the primer, serial numbers (assuming the gun is a registered gun), etc etc. Most guns actually used in violent crimes are unregistered guns that were smuggled in, and sold out of someone's trunk or such. All banning guns will do is give people that sell guns like that more business.

It's purpose for being in the Constitution were because of events that happened over 200 years ago and aren't nearly (if even) relevant in today's society.

Self-defense is just as relevant today as it was then, and the reason the second amendment is in the constitution is not to fight off foreign invaders, but to allow citizens to revolt against the government should, oh how does it go, the government gets "too big for their britches."

Yes, but by now allowing them to be bought publicly to be used for criminal acts it makes their job a heck of a lot more damn difficult.

Like I said, most guns the criminals use are from out of country, whether smuggled in themselves, or bought from the trunk of someone who did. Banning guns wont make it harder for criminals to get them.

I actually disagree with this, for one reason. You've heard about gun accidents when kids get a-hold of their parents' guns. Imagine those same stupid people with fully automatic weapons, rocket launchers, and all the other weapons you listed. That's why they're banned from being owned publicly.

A kid getting hurt from their parent's gun is the fault of the parents. I've been around guns pretty much my whole life, and the first things I learned (before I'd even touched a gun) were basic gun safety, such as always assuming the gun is loaded, not putting your finger on the trigger unless you're ready to shoot (even when the gun is down range, if I'm not ready to fire it, my finger is outside the trigger guard). Then I learned how to check and clear guns, and put em on safe. And if we get a new gun, that's the first thing we learn, followed by how to disassemble it for cleaning.

People can be stupid, the Darwin awards are a testament to that (still love the idiots that tried to play Russian roulette with an automatic), but with a little foresight and knowledge, you can avoid mishaps. Parents teach their kids not to run with sharp objects, they can teach them the do's and dont's of guns.

[CrypticQuery]

Guns are made for one purpose, to kill people (and animals), in the end they serve no positive purpose outside of hunting perhaps.

And we all wonder why America has the highest gun possession rate per capita in the world and the highest % of incidents regarding gun related crime and deaths.  I usually agree with you Julius but this time I will have to vehemently disagree with you.

It's purpose for being in the Constitution were because of events that happened over 200 years ago and aren't nearly (if even) relevant in today's society.  And it looks like the Supreme court is revisiting the 2nd Amendment again and a decision is expected soon.

Yes, but by now allowing them to be bought publicly to be used for criminal acts it makes their job a heck of a lot more damn difficult.

Actually, only 21% of guns used in crimes in the U.S. were bought legally, the rest are through black markets, underground stores, etc.  With gun control, you'd be taking guns away from civilians and NOT criminals.  Also, many times guns are used for recreation shooting and can even lower the stress of some. 

I actually disagree with this, for one reason. You've heard about gun accidents when kids get a-hold of their parents' guns. Imagine those same stupid people with fully automatic weapons, rocket launchers, and all the other weapons you listed. That's why they're banned from being owned publicly.

So we would ban the item based on the incompetence of the people using it? That's like banning a ladder because people fall off of it and die, or banning cars, because people get into accidents and die. 

[DZComposer]

I think how restrictive gun policies are should be left to individual states/municipalities.

Though, in dealing with crime, I do not think the threat of a bullet is the answer. Crime has been linked with economic disadvantage. To reduce crime, we have to reduce poverty. Income equality has a lot more in common with crime rates than gun ownership rates do.

As far as gun ownership, I think licensing is a reasonable thing. The reason you need a license to drive a car is because cars can kill people. We want everyone on the road to know the laws and know how to operate their vehicle. By the same token, guns can kill people. That is what they are designed to do. If you're going to have a gun, you should know how to use it safely.

I think the ownership of assault weapons should at the very least be very tightly regulated, if not banned. These things are not designed for hunting, personal defense, or target practice. These things are designed for soldiers to use in battle, and why a civilian would need one is beyond my capacity.

[CrypticQuery]

I think how restrictive gun policies are should be left to individual states/municipalities.

Though, in dealing with crime, I do not think the threat of a bullet is the answer. Crime has been linked with economic disadvantage. To reduce crime, we have to reduce poverty. Income equality has a lot more in common with crime rates than gun ownership rates do.

As far as gun ownership, I think licensing is a reasonable thing. The reason you need a license to drive a car is because cars can kill people. We want everyone on the road to know the laws and know how to operate their vehicle. By the same token, guns can kill people. That is what they are designed to do. If you're going to have a gun, you should know how to use it safely.

I think the ownership of assault weapons should at the very least be very tightly regulated, if not banned. These things are not designed for hunting, personal defense, or target practice. These things are designed for soldiers, and why a civilian would need one is beyond my capacity.

Seriously, why isn't DZ the president of the U.S. yet?

I assume the Assault weapons would be used for recreation and possibly home defense, but I concur that they aren't really needed.  I also agree with your rationalization for licensing, it's a damned good idea to have a gun license work just like a driver's license, needing to be retested and updated. 

[Vy'drach]

I think how restrictive gun policies are should be left to individual states/municipalities.

Though, in dealing with crime, I do not think the threat of a bullet is the answer. Crime has been linked with economic disadvantage. To reduce crime, we have to reduce poverty. Income equality has a lot more in common with crime rates than gun ownership rates do.

As far as gun ownership, I think licensing is a reasonable thing. The reason you need a license to drive a car is because cars can kill people. We want everyone on the road to know the laws and know how to operate their vehicle. By the same token, guns can kill people. That is what they are designed to do. If you're going to have a gun, you should know how to use it safely.

I think the ownership of assault weapons should at the very least be very tightly regulated, if not banned. These things are not designed for hunting or target practice. These things are designed for soldiers, and why a civilian would need one is beyond my capacity.

I agree with that, I wouldn't mind having to go through the hoops of getting a gun license, provided it isn't BS like some of the ones there are now, such as the M3 class firearms license, which has steep annual fees, and gives the government the right to come in and search your house at any time, no questions asked. If it was just a reasonable fee, a questionnaire, and a demonstration saying, "I'm not a complete douchehead when it comes to firearm safety," then it would be fine. And certain gun restrictions make sense, but some are stupid, like California's. Not giving normal citizens complete access to fully automatic firearms makes sense (though I think you should be able to get access to them reasonably), but not allowing citizens to have a gun with a pistol grip and removable magazine is retarded. Though I do love some of the loop-holes people have made to get around some of California's bans, like the "bullet button" (Instead of the traditional lever or button you hit with your thumb or whatever, you take something small, usually a bullet tip, to depress an indented button to eject the mag, and this is considered a "non-removable magazine" since it required a tool), or the .416 Barret round (the .50 BMG is illegal in California, due to it's high power and penetration, so Pete Forras developed the .416 Barret, which is a bit smaller and faster, but performs pretty much the same as the .50 BMG, though the .416 has better long-range kill capability, and I believe better penetration). So anyway, the .50 BMG is illegal in California, but the .416 Barret is not.

[CrypticQuery]

I agree with that, I wouldn't mind having to go through the hoops of getting a gun license, provided it isn't BS like some of the ones there are now, such as the M3 class firearms license, which has steep annual fees, and gives the government the right to come in and search your house at any time, no questions asked. If it was just a reasonable fee, a questionnaire, and a demonstration saying, "I'm not a complete douchehead when it comes to firearm safety," then it would be fine. And certain gun restrictions make sense, but some are stupid, like California's. Not giving normal citizens complete access to fully automatic firearms makes sense (though I think you should be able to get access to them reasonably), but not allowing citizens to have a gun with a pistol grip and removable magazine is retarded. Though I do love some of the loop-holes people have made to get around some of California's bans, like the "bullet button" (Instead of the traditional lever or button you hit with your thumb or whatever, you take something small, usually a bullet tip, to depress an indented button to eject the mag, and this is considered a "non-removable magazine" since it required a tool), or the .416 Barret round (the .50 BMG is illegal in California, due to it's high power and penetration, so Pete Forras developed the .416 Barret, which is a bit smaller and faster, but performs pretty much the same as the .50 BMG, though the .416 has better long-range kill capability, and I believe better penetration). So anyway, the .50 BMG is illegal in California, but the .416 Barret is not.

California really needs to pull their heads outta their asses.  I concur with your points about gun licensing, and pretty much everything else .  Can't wait to move to a state with lax gun laws .

["User"]

There were a ton of things wrong with my previous pathetic sounding argument which, as I already stated, was done late at night and should have been posted with more depth, stats, and details.

They can serve more purposes beside hunting and sport.  have you ever heard of self defense?

I should have included this at the start, and of course 99% of the time I would have included something so obvious as a reason to own guns.

America does NOT have "the highest gun possession rate per capita in the world and the highest % of incidents regarding gun related crime and deaths".  Where do you get these "statistics"?  Probably from the sources most severely biased when it comes to guns.

You're right, you guys are ranked 8th in terms of highest % of incidents regarding gun deaths and far ahead of all the other fully developed rich industrial nations.  The 7 countries ahead of the U.S. are known worldwide for having high levels of corruption and violence and hence as a result would easily be ahead of the U.S. in that category.  As far as other stats comparing America with other countries in terms of gun related issues I'm not going to post them all out here, but if you want you can browse them at your leisure, if you so desire, but rest assured the U.S. is in the top 10 in the majority of them and the only countries that outdo America have a past history of corruption - as I already pointed out, like Columbia.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita

By your logic, people shouldn't have free speech, or protection from cruel and unusual punishment either, because "It's purpose for being in the Constitution were because of events that happened over 200 years ago and aren't nearly (if even) relevant in today's society."  And those SC rulings won't be reversed, no matter how much you'd love that. 

You know as well as I do that that's not the same thing, so don't even attempt to compare the two.  You're interpreting the 2nd Amendment which reads as "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." as referring more to individual rights then the rights of a collective 'the people'. I interpret it like this:  The Second Amendment does not in any way restrict the States from passing legislation which regulates firearms. The vast majority of firearm laws in the United States are not federal, but local codes, and are not constrained by the Second Amendment.  As far as the supreme court ruling go, it was a narrow 5-4 decision in favour of gun advocates.  That decision EASILY could have went either way and for you to say that the issue won't be revisited in the future (as much as you'd like that) is just silly talk.

NO IT DOESN'T make it harder for them to get the guns...NYC has the nation's strictest gun laws, and the cops are constantly pinned down in firefights.  DC had the strictest gun laws of all, and those laws were reversed because the gun crime there was so HIGH.  The criminals would obtain them anyways on the black market.  They'd have better weapons than the cops and civilians, didn't you learn from the North Hollywood Bank Robbery of '98!?  AK-47's were banned in Cali then, and the bank robbers had them anyways.  Banning guns like the AK-47 doesn't magically make an AK-47 or ANY gun magically disappear from the criminals' hands after they enter the state/nation/city where the guns are banned.

I'd appreciate some stats to back this up, because you know it's extremely difficult for pro gun advocates to conclude that more lax gun control laws (which in turn means more guns) DECREASES gun related crime - likewise for gun control advocates.  It's WAY too inconclusive.  There has been ample evidence (somewhat contrary) by looking at past studies from gun experts that it's a fact as well that, for example, if there is a gun in the house during a domestic break in there is a higher risk on average to the victim...merely because of the fact that a gun is in the house.  Yes, self defense does reduce some instances of murder or injury, but these are negated by a higher rate of gun related deaths by other means, suicide for example.

...typical Canadian. 

(don't worry, TSA~User, I still like you)

I was going to consider this a low blow of sorts, considering you've probably never been to Canada and met other Canadians who mostly have pro-liberal points of view when it comes to guns but since you'll Julius Quasar and we see eye to eye on the vast majority of political items (i.e. damn those liberals!) I can let this go.

Again, The criminals would obtain them anyways on the black market.  They'd have better weapons than the cops and civilians.

Still, it would be more difficult for them to do so.  I mean...for example if all guns were REQUIRED to be registered in the U.S. that would make tracking illegal guns THAT much easier.

Not true, some people shoot for recreation, such as myself. Skeet shooting is even an Olympic sport. Guns are designed and made to do one thing, fire projectiles. The actual idea of whether or not a gun will kill is the projectile it fires. There are nonlethal projectiles, such as rubber bullets/pellets and beanbag rounds, along with certain guns being able to fire things such as smoke or teargas grenades (The Franchi SPAS-12 is capable of firing such grenade rounds). Then there are other guns, such is the Austrian Steyr 15.2mm IWS2000, which is an anti-material sniper rifle, designed to take out high value targets, such as aircraft on the ground and lighter skinned vehicles out of commission. It fires a 15.2mm APFSDS (Armor Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot) round that has a muzzle velocity of 4757 feet per second, and is meant to punch clear through engine blocks. It is actually a war crime to use weapons like that against human targets (Which the .50 BMG snipers still fall under this category, last I heard).

I'm not an expert on specific qualities of various guns so I'll take your word for it.

Thing is, however, that even if America has the highest gun related crime, most of those guns were not purchased in gun stores due to the perpetrator having prior felonies, thus not being allowed to purchase guns.

So you're saying that trying to control firearms would make absolutely no difference in the end eh?  You know, if you look at other countries and their policies like the United Kingdom when they passed the 1997 Firearms Acts after the Dunblane massacre they currently have only a fraction of gun related crime that they did before the law was passed....I'm still holding with the belief that ALL guns regardless of country NEED to be registered....the vast majority of U.S. states have no such requirement and it would make fighting gun related crime and tracking illegal firearms that much easier.

And knife/blade related crimes and especially murders are exponentially higher than guns. Most criminals use guns only for the psychological effect, not to actually do anything with them, since guns are very easy to track to a person (and draw a LOT of attention) ,what with a gun barrel leaving a tell-tale sign on the bullet, the firing pin leaving a tell-tale sign on the primer, serial numbers (assuming the gun is a registered gun), etc etc. Most guns actually used in violent crimes are unregistered guns that were smuggled in, and sold out of someone's trunk or such. All banning guns will do is give people that sell guns like that more business.

Common viewpoint of advocates, although it's probable that there will be more black market activity the possible consequences are blow out of proportion. Most countries that have passed strict laws would disagree with you (like my previous example with the U.K.).  In Canada for example, we have very strict laws and yet in our biggest city (Toronto) we have easily one of the lowest gun crime rates out of major cities in North America and while the crime we do have is almost entirely black market, it's a very minuscule amount.

Self-defense is just as relevant today as it was then, and the reason the second amendment is in the constitution is not to fight off foreign invaders, but to allow citizens to revolt against the government should, oh how does it go, the government gets "too big for their britches."

Why revolt when you can just replace elected officials?  Self-defense should be an extreme last resort and the odds that the United States of America would try and "seize control" of every aspect of citizens lives would just be the dumbest idea ever.  The economy would go to shit and you'd end up with a country like North Korea....

Like I said, most guns the criminals use are from out of country, whether smuggled in themselves, or bought from the trunk of someone who did. Banning guns wont make it harder for criminals to get them.

In theory yes, but in practice, like I already said, that's not the case in many countries that have adopted stricter laws.  Besides, ANYONE who is desperate enough can get access to a gun I'm sure....but you would end up having less people THAT desperate.

Actually, only 21% of guns used in crimes in the U.S. were bought legally, the rest are through black markets, underground stores, etc.  With gun control, you'd be taking guns away from civilians and NOT criminals.  Also, many times guns are used for recreation shooting and can even lower the stress of some. 

I've already address this so I won't reiterate.

So we would ban the item based on the incompetence of the people using it? That's like banning a ladder because people fall off of it and die, or banning cars, because people get into accidents and die. 

That is what governments around the world as a whole are doing more and more recently - making new laws because people (and criminals) are too stupid to regulate themselves and yes the stupidity of the minority unfortunately affects the majority.  Take drinking and driving or smoking pot or weed or even SEAT BELTS of all things as an example:  40 years ago all the cops would do if they found you drinking and driving would be to follow you home and make sure you are okay...maybe write you a ticket (My parents and older co-workers can attest to this).  It wasn't even illegal back then to not wear a seat belt because people in general were more responsible not to pull stupid shit when driving. Obviously today, due to a minority of people becoming more and more irresponsible laws are changed as a result.

All in all though, gun politics is one of the most hotly debated issues in America, like abortion, gay marriage, etc.  It's something that, in the end, might never be fulled resolved.

Edit:  Props to DZ for bringing up the economics, I must have missed that.

[Guest Julius Quasar]

Lol, something told me I should have stated my points more clearly and set up a proper long winded wall of text argument with links to credible stats instead of pulling stats "out of my ass" at 10 pm when I'm already dead tired.  I'm usually not like this.  You make good points Julius I'll give you that....for now.....and I still love you to

Ha ha!   YESSS!

Also, you should read "More Guns, Less Crime" by John Lott, he gives an ambiguous viewpoint on guns, stats on crime throughout the world, gun ownership laws, etc.

Great book, I own it.

Not true, some people shoot for recreation, such as myself. Skeet shooting is even an Olympic sport. Guns are designed and made to do one thing, fire projectiles. The actual idea of whether or not a gun will kill is the projectile it fires. There are nonlethal projectiles, such as rubber bullets/pellets and beanbag rounds, along with certain guns being able to fire things such as smoke or teargas grenades (The Franchi SPAS-12 is capable of firing such grenade rounds). Then there are other guns, such is the Austrian Steyr 15.2mm IWS2000, which is an anti-material sniper rifle, designed to take out high value targets, such as aircraft on the ground and lighter skinned vehicles out of commission. It fires a 15.2mm APFSDS (Armor Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot) round that has a muzzle velocity of 4757 feet per second, and is meant to punch clear through engine blocks. It is actually a war crime to use weapons like that against human targets (Which the .50 BMG snipers still fall under this category, last I heard).

Thing is, however, that even if America has the highest gun related crime, most of those guns were not purchased in gun stores due to the perpetrator having prior felonies, thus not being allowed to purchase guns. And knife/blade related crimes and especially murders are exponentially higher than guns. Most criminals use guns only for the psychological effect, not to actually do anything with them, since guns are very easy to track to a person (and draw a LOT of attention) ,what with a gun barrel leaving a tell-tale sign on the bullet, the firing pin leaving a tell-tale sign on the primer, serial numbers (assuming the gun is a registered gun), etc etc. Most guns actually used in violent crimes are unregistered guns that were smuggled in, and sold out of someone's trunk or such. All banning guns will do is give people that sell guns like that more business.

Self-defense is just as relevant today as it was then, and the reason the second amendment is in the constitution is not to fight off foreign invaders, but to allow citizens to revolt against the government should, oh how does it go, the government gets "too big for their britches."

Like I said, most guns the criminals use are from out of country, whether smuggled in themselves, or bought from the trunk of someone who did. Banning guns wont make it harder for criminals to get them.

A kid getting hurt from their parent's gun is the fault of the parents. I've been around guns pretty much my whole life, and the first things I learned (before I'd even touched a gun) were basic gun safety, such as always assuming the gun is loaded, not putting your finger on the trigger unless you're ready to shoot (even when the gun is down range, if I'm not ready to fire it, my finger is outside the trigger guard). Then I learned how to check and clear guns, and put em on safe. And if we get a new gun, that's the first thing we learn, followed by how to disassemble it for cleaning.

People can be stupid, the Darwin awards are a testament to that (still love the idiots that tried to play Russian roulette with an automatic), but with a little foresight and knowledge, you can avoid mishaps. Parents teach their kids not to run with sharp objects, they can teach them the do's and dont's of guns.

Actually, only 21% of guns used in crimes in the U.S. were bought legally, the rest are through black markets, underground stores, etc.  With gun control, you'd be taking guns away from civilians and NOT criminals.  Also, many times guns are used for recreation shooting and can even lower the stress of some. 

So we would ban the item based on the incompetence of the people using it? That's like banning a ladder because people fall off of it and die, or banning cars, because people get into accidents and die.

THANK YOU!

I think how restrictive gun policies are should be left to individual states/municipalities.

Though, in dealing with crime, I do not think the threat of a bullet is the answer. Crime has been linked with economic disadvantage. To reduce crime, we have to reduce poverty. Income equality has a lot more in common with crime rates than gun ownership rates do.

As far as gun ownership, I think licensing is a reasonable thing. The reason you need a license to drive a car is because cars can kill people. We want everyone on the road to know the laws and know how to operate their vehicle. By the same token, guns can kill people. That is what they are designed to do. If you're going to have a gun, you should know how to use it safely.

I think the ownership of assault weapons should at the very least be very tightly regulated, if not banned. These things are not designed for hunting, personal defense, or target practice. These things are designed for soldiers to use in battle, and why a civilian would need one is beyond my capacity.

I'm still for assault weapons, but I'm for the NFA/FOPA treatment of them (Good ol' FDR and Ronnie!).

...and crime isn't caused by guns, that's true.  "Guns cause crime, like flies cause garbage", as my friend Curtis says.

Seriously, why isn't DZ the president of the U.S. yet?

I assume the Assault weapons would be used for recreation and possibly home defense, but I concur that they aren't really needed.  I also agree with your rationalization for licensing, it's a damned good idea to have a gun license work just like a driver's license, needing to be retested and updated. 

Or at least registering them with the treasury and paying a $200 tax stamp.  Criminals are too lazy and too cheap to do that, and FDR knew that.

California really needs to pull their heads outta their asses.  I concur with your points about gun licensing, and pretty much everything else .  Can't wait to move to a state with lax gun laws .

Totally!  I myself wanna move to Seattle, WA. partly 'cause of that.

I think that ALL semi-auto and revolver pistols, ALL semi-auto and bolt action rifles, and all semi-auto, pump action, and hinge action rifles should go unregulated, but ALL machine guns, machine gun conversion parts kits, silencers, grenade launchers, automatic shotguns, and sawed off/carbine shotguns and rifles with barrels under 18" in length and under 26" overall length, should be registered with the Dept. of the Treasury, with a $200 tax stamp, and should generally not be owned by anyone under 21, and/or not safety certified in firearm use/education for the 3rd time in their life.

["User"]

Ha ha!   YESSS!

Me and you should give SFO a show when it comes to political issues, either as allies or opponents.  Walls of text FTW! 

Also, you should read "More Guns, Less Crime" by John Lott, he gives an ambiguous viewpoint on guns, stats on crime throughout the world, gun ownership laws, etc.

Great book, I own it.

I've heard of it, I might read some excepts from it online or something. 

[Guest Julius Quasar]

You're right, you guys are ranked 8th in terms of highest % of incidents regarding gun deaths and far ahead of all the other fully developed rich industrial nations.  The 7 countries ahead of the U.S. are known worldwide for having high levels of corruption and violence and hence as a result would easily be ahead of the U.S. in that category.  As far as other stats comparing America with other countries in terms of gun related issues I'm not going to post them all out here, but if you want you can browse them at your leisure, if you so desire, but rest assured the U.S. is in the top 10 in the majority of them and the only countries that outdo America have a past history of corruption - as I already pointed out, like Columbia.

Denmark has the strictest gun laws in Europe, and the murder and suicide rate there is among the highest.  Italy reversed it's long strict gun laws, and in doing so, their crime rate has dropped.  Germany and England have strict Gun Laws, and their crime rate is astronomical.  Austria and Switzerland have lax gun laws, and their crime rate is minimal, to nearly non existent.

You know as well as I do that that's not the same thing, so don't even attempt to compare the two.  You're interpreting the 2nd Amendment which reads as "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." as referring more to individual rights then the rights of a collective 'the people'. I interpret it like this:  The Second Amendment does not in any way restrict the States from passing legislation which regulates firearms. The vast majority of firearm laws in the United States are not federal, but local codes, and are not constrained by the Second Amendment.  As far as the supreme court ruling go, it was a narrow 5-4 decision in favour of gun advocates.  That decision EASILY could have went either way and for you to say that the issue won't be revisited in the future (as much as you'd like that) is just silly talk.

THEY ARE THE SAME, THEY ARE PART OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS, ALL INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.

I'd appreciate some stats to back this up, because you know it's extremely difficult for pro gun advocates to conclude that more lax gun control laws (which in turn means more guns) DECREASES gun related crime - likewise for gun control advocates.  It's WAY too inconclusive.  There has been ample evidence (somewhat contrary) by looking at past studies from gun experts that it's a fact as well that, for example, if there is a gun in the house during a domestic break in there is a higher risk on average to the victim...merely because of the fact that a gun is in the house.  Yes, self defense does reduce some instances of murder or injury, but these are negated by a higher rate of gun related deaths by other means, suicide for example.

"More guns, less Crime" by John Lott.

Fraternal Order of Police Officers

I was going to consider this a low blow of sorts, considering you've probably never been to Canada and met other Canadians who mostly have pro-liberal points of view when it comes to guns but since you'll Julius Quasar and we see eye to eye on the vast majority of political items (i.e. damn those liberals!) I can let this go.

I have met them, we got a Canadian boarder living here with my family temporarily. 

Still, it would be more difficult for them to do so.  I mean...for example if all guns were REQUIRED to be registered in the U.S. that would make tracking illegal guns THAT much easier.

You can't track an unregistered firearm...illegal guns are NEVER registered.

Common viewpoint of advocates, although it's probable that there will be more black market activity the possible consequences are blow out of proportion. Most countries that have passed strict laws would disagree with you (like my previous example with the U.K.).  In Canada for example, we have very strict laws and yet in our biggest city (Toronto) we have easily one of the lowest gun crime rates out of major cities in North America and while the crime we do have is almost entirely black market, it's a very minuscule amount.

Mexico has stricter gun laws than Canada, and the crime rate there is obscene.  Also, Canada has huigher crime rates than America.

Why revolt when you can just replace elected officials?  Self-defense should be an extreme last resort and the odds that the United States of America would try and "seize control" of every aspect of citizens lives would just be the dumbest idea ever.  The economy would go to shit and you'd end up with a country like North Korea....

Elections can be rigged.  Iran, Afghanistan, Venezuela, Haiti, Zimbabwe...

Me and you should give SFO a show when it comes to political issues, either as allies or opponents.  Walls of text FTW! 

I've heard of it, I might read some excepts from it online or something. 

*Eats a donut*

"My friends, the liberals have gone too far..." *said in a jowly voice over the radio*

Read the whole book.  Get if online or from a library.

["User"]

Denmark has the strictest gun laws in Europe, and the murder and suicide rate there is among the highest.

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

Denmark is ranked near the bottom of the list when it comes to homicides AND among other European countries - directly as a result of passing such legislation.  I have no idea what you are talking about...the facts clearly prove otherwise.  >_>

Italy reversed it's long strict gun laws, and in doing so, their crime rate has dropped.

Their homicide/crime rate has remained very low at the latest since 2000.....please show me a DIRECT tie to crime and guns as a result of said repeal of legislation...like exactly what year it happened.

Germany and England have strict Gun Laws, and their crime rate is astronomical. 

Um no....on the contrary homicide rates for both Germany and England remain pretty damn low.  As for England's case this legislation caused a DECREASE in gun related crime from 1997 levels from 2005 onwards...I already brought that up with their 1997 Gun control act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom#1997_Firearms_Act

Austria and Switzerland have lax gun laws, and their crime rate is minimal, to nearly non existent.

Switzerland is actually almost the same as Denmark, at least with homicides.  Austria is significantly lower then Switzerland, but again, show me direct links/proof etc that prove without a shadow of a doubt.  Really, every country in Europe is different I know, but in general, at least from the links and stats that I have been looking up it's been proven mostly in Europe that tighter regulation = less gun related crime.

THEY ARE THE SAME, THEY ARE PART OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS, ALL INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.

Again, you're interpreting the 2nd amendment as meaning "individual rights", which is subjective in itself.  I interpret "the people" as meaning a "collective", and the correct interpretation has been up for debate for quite some time now.  >_>  And yes, even though they are both in the Bill of Rights, they aren't EXACTLY the same because if that were the case then why do we have no such massive debate on freedom of speech as opposed to the right to bear arms?

I have met them, we got a Canadian boarder living here with my family temporarily. 

It's easier to get a better perspective of Canadians by meeting a whole bunch of them, from different areas of the country - like I've done with countless Americans.

You can't track an unregistered firearm...illegal guns are NEVER registered.

Yes I know that but that wasn't my point.  If ALL guns are registered then if an illegal gun IS discovered then it's an open and shut case as to whether or not the gun is legal.

Mexico has stricter gun laws than Canada, and the crime rate there is obscene.  Also, Canada has huigher crime rates than America.

I'm sorry for actually laughing at this.  But that, AGAIN is completely untrue - especially of Canada.  I'd suggest do your research by actually looking at stats before making such untrue assumptions.

First off the U.S. has a 5.4 per 100,000 homicide rate in 2009 compared with 1.3 for Canada.  This is coming from the United Nations themselves.  But don't take my word for it, view their site and see for yourself, unfortunately all the data is in Excel spreadsheet file but America has FAR higher crime rates in general then Canada.

http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/crimedata.html

Elections can be rigged.  Iran, Afghanistan, Venezuela, Haiti, Zimbabwe...

All those are countries with high degrees of corruptibility as measured by the Corruption Perceptions Index.  We all know in developed countries this shit rarely, if ever, happens on a large scale. >_>

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

*Eats a donut*

"My friends, the liberals have gone too far..." *said in a jowly voice over the radio*

Read the whole book.  Get if online or from a library.

This is fun debating but PLEASE back up some of the stuff you are saying with reliable facts, it makes the debate that much more...interesting.