Gun Ownership

[Mike70]

christ, are we going down this overly traveled road again? folks should get it through their heads once and for all: gun ownership in america is not going to change and the ability to own handguns is not going to be limited at any time in any of our lifetimes. federal courts and the supreme court have struck down a number of attempts at restricting gun ownership and a lot of states (my own included) have made it easier to carry guns in public. i am against any and all restrictions and/or controls on gun ownership. if you have no felony convictions, there is no reason why you shouldn't be allowed to own and responsibly use whatever kind/style of gun you want. i'm not arguing about this or discussing it either. that is simply the way it is for me. that's all i have. any further discussion of this is a complete and total waste of time. do yourself a favor and don't waste time responding to this post. because it is a waste of time. i've had my say and won't be back to this thread. i'm about as tired of gun control threads as i am "it's 2am, your mercedes is out of gas, you have two shotgun shells left and are surrounded by zombies- what do you do?" threads.

[shootemindehead]

Also, keep in mind that the "right to bear arms" was also instituted in the US as a precaution by the founding fathers against an out of control government. Part of the reason for those rights is so the citizens could "rise up" against the government (ie: revolution) if they get out of control. That's not the "only" purpose of these rights, but it was certainly a factor and is discussed elsewhere by the founding fathers themselves. Aye, I'm well aware of the "Armed Citizeny/militia" angle, which was in part brought into play becasue there was no proper standing regular army and the country was still operating the Continental Army at the time. But the idea that the American public of today or the near future would rise up against their government is the realm of fantasy. The fact remains, however, that the only element of society that is suffering from America's crazy approach to guns are the citizens themselves. Again, though, when the words of the amendment were being put to paper, there was no concept of the weaponry that's available over the counter today. To me, that's the main sticking point regarding the current state of affairs.

[LouCipherr]

i am against any and all restrictions and/or controls on gun ownership. if you have no felony convictions, there is no reason why you shouldn't be allowed to own and responsibly use whatever kind/style of gun you want. Let me ask you this: what if I had no felony convictions - but I have an IQ of 50? Should I be allowed to carry a gun? I would certainly hope your answer would be a resounding "NO!" Just so you know, Mike - I'm all for allowing people to own and carry guns - what I'm not for is letting some incompetent shithead who might kill me or someone else accidently 'cause he doesn't know what he's doing carry or own a firearm. Allow me to explain - as I've been thinking about this all morning. Here's the question that popped into my mind: Many states in the US require a background check and a waiting period before you can own most guns. What I don't understand is why there isn't a competency test that goes along with it - y'know, to make sure you know what the f*ck you're doing with the thing before you bring it home? We require tests for getting our drivers licenses - it's not just good enough that we say "I can handle this!" - we have to prove that we know the laws and prove we can operate that piece of machinery properly without harming killing others. Why isn't the same applied to guns/firearms? I don't care that anyone, whoever it might be, owns guns. I would just rest a lot easier if I knew the people who did knew what the hell they were doing. Aye, I'm well aware of the "Armed Citizeny/militia" angle, which was in part brought into play becasue there was no proper standing regular army and the country was still operating the Continental Army at the time. Even if/when there is a proper army (like now), it's controlled and run by the government - which could be used as a tool by that government as a means of oppression. I'll put on my tinfoil hat if I must, but if the army is being run by the government, then we need protection from said army, too if and when it become out of control. But the idea that the American public of today or the near future would rise up against their government is the realm of fantasy. The fact remains, however, that the only element of society that is suffering from America's crazy approach to guns are the citizens themselves. Unlikely? Yeah, probably. Fantasy? I don't know, man. Look how quickly things are going downhill in this country. It may be closer than we think. I realize most of the bozos in the US are nothing more than sheep that go along with whatever their told, but there are plenty of us getting so sick of what's going on... you just never know when people are going to break and say "that's enough!" Look at other countries around the world - protests, marching in the streets, overthrowing their own governments.... People are getting sick of the stuff going on around them. I think it's just a matter of time and the right amount of pushing on the citizens. I could be wrong, but you just never know. Push people hard enough when they don't have much (or anything) to live for and watch what happens... Again, though, when the words of the amendment were being put to paper, there was no concept of the weaponry that's available over the counter today. To me, that's the main sticking point regarding the current state of affairs. I absolutely agree with you. I don't think people should own fully automatic rifles, UZIs and the like. You wanna own a shotgun or a handgun? Fine. You're NOT getting an AK-47.

[Sammich]

I absolutely agree with you. I don't think people should own fully automatic rifles, UZIs and the like. You wanna own a shotgun or a handgun? Fine. You're NOT getting an AK-47. Can you name a NFA weapon owner who has comitted a crime with the firearm? People shouldn't be allowed to own computers or digital recording devices. If you want to own a hand operated printing press or quill and paper then that is fine. It is irrational to have a fear of inanimate objects and belief that inanimate objects have magical mind control over humans. If you take away firearms, then will it cause criminals to revert to productive members of society or the mentally ill to suddenly become sane? I find it so ironic that some people still place all of their trust in government to be the sole possessors of coercive force, especially after the exposure of Operation Fast and Furious.

[shootemindehead]

Even if/when there is a proper army (like now), it's controlled and run by the government - which could be used as a tool by that government as a means of oppression. I'll put on my tinfoil hat if I must, but if the army is being run by the government, then we need protection from said army, too if and when it become out of control. I suspect that the powers who proposed the idea of "bearing arms" as a right for citizens, did so with the concept of part of the government becoming antagonistic toward the populace or the interests of the ruling party they are splitting from. I reckon the idea was to be able to raise a militia quickly to put down any resistance from the opposite faction(s) within an existing government. So, in other words, an (already) armed citizen militia would still be organised by elements of that government. In any case, the idea that the citizens of the US could form an effective force capable of dealing with the US military is wholly redundant. Such a concept just isn't viable. So, again, I have to fall back on my previous point that the only element of society suffering from the current situation are the citizens themselves. Unlikely? Yeah, probably. Fantasy? I don't know, man. Look how quickly things are going downhill in this country. It may be closer than we think. I realize most of the bozos in the US are nothing more than sheep that go along with whatever their told, but there are plenty of us getting so sick of what's going on... you just never know when people are going to break and say "that's enough!" Look at other countries around the world - protests, marching in the streets, overthrowing their own governments.... People are getting sick of the stuff going on around them. I think it's just a matter of time and the right amount of pushing on the citizens. I could be wrong, but you just never know. There's times Lou, that I believe that America could do with another revolution. I despair sometimes at the direction that your rulers have taken you in and it's had terrible consequences for the rest of the world too. But, I simply cannot see the day when the population will ever rise up. But, even if it did happen (in the wildest of scenarios), it would be crushed with more ruthlessness than most people could imagine. It would make Assad's attempts at controlling Syria's dissenters look like a picnic.

[LouCipherr]

Can you name a NFA weapon owner who has comitted a crime with the firearm? How about David Koresh and the Branch Dividian debacle? http://usgovinfo.about.com/blwacoguns.htm Guns found in the compound: "The FBI determined that 46 semiautomatic firearms had been modified to fire in full automatic mode: 22 M-16 Type Rifles 20 AK-47 Type Rifles 2 Heckler and Koch SP-89 2 M-11/Nine The FBI also determined that two AR-15 lower receivers had been modified to fire in full automatic mode." They were modified to be fully auto, but the fact remains they were fully auto weapons. How about Edward Lutes, who killed 5 people with his MP-5? http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-505877.html How about Dayton Ohio Police Officer Roger Waller used his MAC-11 machine gun during a crime: http://www.examiner.com/article/inca...e-parole-board So to answer your question? Yes. This is just one example of I'm sure many that can be found - but regardless, I get your point - they're usually not used to commit crimes, but there's a simple answer to that: most of the criminals find it a LOT easier to get semi-automatic weapons then trying to procure an AK-47 or an UZI. People shouldn't be allowed to own computers or digital recording devices. If you want to own a hand operated printing press or quill and paper then that is fine. Can you name a computer owner who has killed someone with said owned computer? (couldn't resist) shootem - I see what you're saying, and I never thought about that angle. I guess if the US citizens ever DID rise up, the gov't would just use it's own massive military force to crush us. Point well taken, and after reconsideration, I think you're probably right. We COULD use another uprising and a revolution to throw out the war criminal that's currently our POTUS and the evil pricks we currently call our government (save a small few that shouldn't be included in that category), but you're probably right. Slim to no chance. Boy, that puts a gloomy black cloud over everything, doesn't it? Thanks alot!

[Sammich]

The JPFO Genocide Chart This is derived from the JPFO website page - as a more printer-friendly option. The complete web page is accompanied by a detailed promotion of the Death by “Gun Control” book, written by Aaron Zelman and Richard W.Stevens - and available from the JPFO store . It works on a level that nobody can dispute: documented world history. Here's the Formula: Hatred + Government + Disarmed Civilians = Genocide What makes the argument so powerful? Two factors. First, it makes common sense: unarmed defenseless people have no hope against armed aggressors. Second, it states the historical truth: evil governments did wipe out 170,000,000 innocent non-military lives in the 20th Century alone. See the film “Innocents Betrayed” for further chilling evidence, also available from the JPFO store. When the gun prohibitionists quote a statistic about how many people are killed by firearms misuse, the discussion sometimes bogs down into whose crime statistics to believe and how to count crimes vs. the defensive firearm uses. In the 20th Century: • Governments murdered four times as many civilians as were killed in all the international and domestic wars combined. • Governments murdered millions more people than were killed by common criminals. How could governments kill so many people? The governments had the power - and the people, the victims, were unable to resist. The victims were unarmed.

[Neil]

In the 20th Century: • Governments murdered four times as many civilians as were killed in all the international and domestic wars combined. • Governments murdered millions more people than were killed by common criminals. How could governments kill so many people? The governments had the power - and the people, the victims, were unable to resist. The victims were unarmed.[/I] Out of interest, how many of the governments in question (of killing huge numbers of civilians) were say western democratic governments, in say the past 50years? ie: Relevant to us? To get to the point, are you suggesting without guns, the US government would start the mass killing of its own people? And if so, why has such an even occured in the UK which fairly similar to the US? Or have I misunderstood your point? And you were just posting some interesting facts? Which indeed they are!?

[Christopher Jon]

Honestly, most of you non-Americans have very screwed up and very inaccurate views of crime and and gun ownership in the United States. Suck on this, UK crime rate higher than United States In a nutshell, In the UK (2009), there are 2,034 violent crimes per 100,000 people, way ahead of second-placed Austria with a rate of 1,677. The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 92 and South Africa 1,609. The US isn't even in the top 10 when compared with other European and western nation. So while the overall homicide rate due to gun crimes is higher in the US (4.55 per 100,000) vs. the UK (1.45 per 100,000), violent crime is still higher in many European countries than it is in the US. And really, at least 3 of those 4.55 are gangbangers lighting each other up in South Central, not legal and law abiding gun owners. Gun laws aren't going to solve gang violence. And really, like I couldn't stroll over to an eastern European country to pick up an AK? Point being, bad guys will get guns if they want them. While there are federal laws, states here have their own laws regarding firearms, ownership and carrying in public. In many states, a permit is required to carry a weapon in public, to get that permit a background and criminal record check is required plus firearms training and qualification. A person can't just stroll down to Guns R' Us, pick up an uzi, then go for a walk through the mall with it. The US isn't still the wild wild west. You can't even kill Indians anymore. Really! Only around 50% of Americans legally own guns and very very few actually openly carry a weapon. I can't remember the last time I saw somebody packing heat here in Nevada, the land of sin BTW, I do not own any firearms.

[shootemindehead]

That was 1 year Christopher. What's the bets it normalised again in 2010? Also, that article is highly politicised, clearly aimed at damning the outgoing Labour government by incoming Conservatives and by that yardstick alone, I would take it with a HUGE pinch of salt. I've also seen this article wheeled out by pro-gun US Republicans and gobshites like that Texan loudmouth, Alex Jones as some sort of justification for America's current gun situation and still as unconvincing now as it was then. I'd also like to know what criteria were used to reach that conclusion and how the figures were massaged for political gain. Political parties will chew their own tongues off in order to gain points against their opponents. In the UK, having your handbag snatched is classed as a "violent" crime, even if the victim suffered no actual violence. That's very different to having one's face blown apart by an AK-47.

[Core]

I am sure all of you know this documentry movie but if not ; i suggest you to watch it.

[Neil]

Honestly, most of you non-Americans have very screwed up and very inaccurate views of crime and and gun ownership in the United States. Suck on this, UK crime rate higher than United States Number of points on that:- 1) That was a good number of years ago, I believe at a peak? 2) There's no accounting for how comparible the figures really are. What is/isn't considered worthy of recording? How often do people not report things (due to cultural/policing differences). If we're just talking about gun ownership and it's affect on crime/death rates, we could instead compare the US and UK in the article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ted_death_rate ..except the UK is so low it doesn't even register!? We could use this report, where at least the UK is included - http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...-with-firearms with 14 murders in 2002 compared with the US' 9369. Notice the difference? Obviously there's cultural differences affecting these figures, but I suggest the biggest factor is, in the US, it far far far far easier to kill someone as you can get a tool designed more easily to do the task as efficiently as possible.

[Tricky]

Whats the minimum age for owning guns in the US? Growing up on a farm in the UK I was surrounded by guns as a kid, my dad has several shotguns which I had access to from being about 13 as well as the air rifles and pistols I owned myself, I was always taught proper firearm discipline and was very safe with them. The problems arose when kids from school would come round. Knowing I had guns they would nag at me to have a go with them, then as soon as they got their hands on them they'd start messing around, pointing them loaded at me or others, and firing them in dangerous directions or at neighbourhood cats etc. Based on my experiences I wouldnt want anyone under 21 being allowed to own a gun of any kind unless they had done a firearms safety course and could prove that they were responsible people

[Neil]

Whats the minimum age for owning guns in the US? Growing up on a farm in the UK I was surrounded by guns as a kid, my dad has several shotguns which I had access to from being about 13 as well as the air rifles and pistols I owned myself, I was always taught proper firearm discipline and was very safe with them. The problems arose when kids from school would come round. Knowing I had guns they would nag at me to have a go with them, then as soon as they got their hands on them they'd start messing around, pointing them loaded at me or others, and firing them in dangerous directions or at neighbourhood cats etc. Based on my experiences I wouldnt want anyone under 21 being allowed to own a gun of any kind unless they had done a firearms safety course and could prove that they were responsible people ^WTF! Maybe this accounts for the high 'accidental death' figures in the US surrounding guns.

[Tricky]

^WTF! Maybe this accounts for the high 'accidental death' figures in the US surrounding guns. It was exactly the same with motorbikes or anything else you should be responsible with, teenagers will prat around with them, they are aware of how dangerous they are but think its ok because "they're only kidding around". Can you imagine how much bloodshed there would have been in last summers riots all over the UK if the majority of those rioters had been legally tooled up?