Question for the pro gun ban people.

[masterblaster]

Control explained - YouTube[/url]

 

[outlawbusa]

When pellets are banned the criminal is just going to make up for it with more BB's

 

[Poppy]

Don't know if this site has been posted within these weapon/crime threads, but if it has....oh well. This site has some interesting information on all types of "stuff". Enjoy......

NationMaster - World Statistics, Country Comparisons

 

[doniton2]

Don't know if this site has been posted within these weapon/crime threads, but if it has....oh well. This site has some interesting information on all types of "stuff". Enjoy......

NationMaster - World Statistics, Country Comparisons

great link. there is alot of good info.

 

[doniton2]

What I'm getting from this is that no one can come up with any hard evidence that any ban of any type works. in fact if you if you look up the safest countries to live in they are among the top in guns owned per 100 people. so I guess I'll be doing some reading on what they do different then us. that's where the focus needs to be.

 

[DevilDawg1]

first of all the countries your referring to are not CIVILIZED powerful countries like ours so there is no comparing one to the other.

and the criminals who you refer to with ILLEGAL firearms didnt walk into a gun store to buy them so they got them from LEGAL gun owner who bought their guns legally and were either stolen, reported lost or acquired thru straw sales.

Chine, England and Australia are not considered 3rd world countries, by no means. And when you put it like that, no country is our equal.

If they aquire their weapons as you described, You have criminals selling weapons to criminals. If you are robbed, then YOU are not the criminal, but the robber is, and if he sells your weapon to another criminal, you have criminals selling to criminals.

 

[StromBusa]

I'm convinced we need to focus on managing our inner cities better, centers of violence.

 

[masterblaster]

I think if the inner city people had the same right to protect themselves it would go a long way to stop the wanton murder, contrary to what most people think of inner city people the vast majority are good upstanding people. Less black people are armed and able to defend themselves in the inner city today than they were under Jim Crowe laws in the deep south in the worst of times, mostly because the liberal politicians don't think black people are responsible enough to take care of themselves. Racism of the elite at work, less power to the people means more power to the lily white citified elite. Dam I sound like Malcolm Little, well I guess we both have red hair.

I'm convinced we need to focus on managing our inner cities better, centers of violence.

 

[GNBRETT]

I'm convinced we need to focus on managing our inner cities better, centers of violence.

agreed! they are our incubaters of crime. but, poverty is an incubator of crime just about anywhere in the world and the suburbs are not where the poor reside.

white flight as they called it in the 50's left the poor in the cities where we see almost all of our violent crime aside from an occasional spree shooting which could happen anywhere.

 

[skydivr]

I think if the inner city people had the same right to protect themselves it would go a long way to stop the wanton murder, contrary to what most people think of inner city people the vast majority are good upstanding people. Less black people are armed and able to defend themselves in the inner city today than they were under Jim Crowe laws in the deep south in the worst of times, mostly because the liberal politicians don't think black people are responsible enough to take care of themselves. Racism of the elite at work, less power to the people means more power to the lily white citified elite. Dam I sound like Malcolm Little, well I guess we both have red hair.

Black, law-abiding citizens have the same right to arm themselves as White, law-abiding citizens....interestingly enough, these big liberal cities are usually dominated by mostly black politicians...elected by the majority black populace...in this case the white people didn't have much of anything to do with it....

 

[masterblaster]

NY, LA, Chicago, Miami, not one black mayor and when there were black mayors they were worse than the lilly white elite on the poor and middle class. key word here is the elite. Look at the history of gun control here in the US it has always been directed at black people, now the elite are getting nervous with economic turmoil and the credit card about to hit its limit, they want all the guns from the citizenry before the next shoe drops.

 

[DevilDawg1]

We will never stop man killing man, it has been around since Cain and Abel. Best offense is a strong defense.

 

[StromBusa]

I just wish we could put our heads together and make some real progress. Happy people don't go around shooting each other, our policys in the inner cities amount to FAIL, we need a plan to get the idle hands turning into productive hands. Productive people have self worth and group reliance. This is a big leadership gap that is way beyond gun control. These are the areas with the strictest gun control, and the statistics that induce the never ending gun control cries. The giant sucking sound of all the welfare and charity going into these areas could be drownded out by the din of industry if we coud just figure it out. We need good old fashioned labor based industry. Perhaps we should be shouveling the snow, and burying the garbage with shovels. Forget about efficiency, think about employment value.

 

[chrisjp]

i shoveled **** as a kid...got a healthy work ethic i think because of it.

 

[StromBusa]

So did I Chris, damn horses...

These people need some basis for self worth and accomplishment - it is lacking in these inner cities, standing based too much on thievery & violence.

 

[yzguyfl]

Ok so I’m a bit late, but I just HAD to respond to a few things….

It's the right to bear arms...nowhere does it say high capacity semi automatic military style weapons that were purpose designed to kill multiple adversaries quickly. I don't think our forefathers were considering what was going to happen 224 years later.

In my opinion our forefathers really intended something more like this:

The right to have the most technologically advanced weapons that the Government has. Their main intent was for the ability of the people to be able to forcibly overthrow the government, if needed. Now I’m not saying I’d necessarily go that far, but I do whole heartedly thing this is what they intended. They were not thinking about mass killings by anyone by our own government. “Military style” guns/weapons is EXACTLY what they intended no matter what they are/were/will be.

Just because it's within your right doesn't mean you should have.

I’m not even sure what this means…. If it is your right then you can have. (unless you are talking about felons, mentally handicapped or something, but then it is not their right…)

BTW, I don’t NEED to have them, I want to. Partially because I like them, and a very very small part just in case I NEED to later….

We need some few black and white rules that we can enforce, prolly starting with drugs & murder. KISS.

YESS!!! My general rule of thumb, if it does not infringe on others rights, it should be legal. Owning a gun = legal, using it to commit a crime or shoot someone =illegal. Prosecute the illegal act.

More guns more shooting, less guns less shooting.

Slow down there….
A few things wrong with this little statement.
1) Banning one type of gun does not make much (if any) impact on how many guns are out there
2) Even if it did mean less guns (a large ban or whatever) then who will be the ones without guns? Honest people, criminals will not give them up.
3) Even if (some years down the road) there was some huge reduction in guns, you think criminals will just stop? No they will use whatever they can, knives zip guns ect…
4) And you say less shooting, maybe (and that would be a BIG maybe, many years later) but not less violence. Criminals will be criminals, if guns are not their tools, they will use another one.

If you want less people to shoot each other you need to remove the tool, if you want less people to stab each other you need to remove the knives etc.

But the real point is to reduce the violence and killing. Just changing the tools does nothing really. Since we live in the real world where removing all the tools will NEVER happen, why disarm the honest and give the advantage to the criminals?

If you mean that owning semi automatic battle rifles creates a safer society u are either plain stupid or living in a warzone.

I think it is a slippery slope. Some politicians would like nothing more than to ban all guns (they have said it). This is the first step. How do you think elected politicians take your rights? A little at a time. Allowing them to slip away, is still losing them.

Would i use any of them to protect myself. No probably not, i'm insured i'd let the criminals take my stuff rather than risking my and the people in my surrounding's life by startong a shootout.

This totally depends on the situation. What if they wanted more than just your stuff? And have shown this by already doing things like kill others? Maybe even just with a knife? I would use the most effective means I had available to me to stop them. It would likely be a gun, but it would depend on the situation and what I could get to as to which one 

so MORE guns would result in LESS crime? is that what you are saying?

More guns in honest citizens hand will result in less crime. Imagine a criminal in western times, he knew everyone had a gun. I imagine he really thought twice about robbing them. I mean it still happened, but I’d be willing to bet it was less. Now fast forward to now, where criminals know, almost no one is armed, and any type of armed help is (at best) several minutes away. He can be pretty assured to do whatever he wants to quickly….

and how is that been working out for us so far considering we have more guns then any other civilized country on Earth and more gun violence then any other civilized nation on Earth? so you would call that a success????

ALWAYS question statistics like this (from both sides) they are often purposely skewed… What they probably don’t say, is:
What about violent crime in general? Are they comparable? If you are just changing the tools, who cares? Clamming less gun violence is a success when violent crime is unchanged is ridiculous. Also are they comparing pure numbers, or numbers as a percent of total population? This is another common statistical trick, saying that a country with 2 billion people has twice as much gun violence as a country with 1 billion people….. well duhh.

 

[yzguyfl]

Oh, and one more thing… for anyone that uses the argument that our founding fathers could not have meant full auto AR’s when they wrote that….

Well imagine they just had to forcibly overthrow a tyrannical government, and you told them, in the future the government would have tanks planes missiles full auto rifles ect, and the people were only allowed semi-automatic rifles. Do you really think they would say “yeah, that is fine, we think it is ok for the government to have significantly more advanced weaponry than the people and we trust the government with this superior force because that is just too much for the people to be trusted with.”

I’m not talking about what any of our opinions are, I’m saying what do you really think the they meant by the second amendment? Sorry this just really gets under my skin when people forget what was intended by it, especially when they say it only applies to muskets or hunting or something. If you believe it does not apply anymore, say that, don’t say it is not what they intended….

 

[chrisjp]

the question to ask is...as 2a states "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" and as you read in the federalist papers written about what the intent is for that amendment...if the people bearing arms is not to be infreindged because we need it to throw off the chains/ hold of tyranny.....how would it accomplished WITHOUT equal standing in firepower ???

 

[kneedraggin636]

I recently wrote my senators asking them if they supported the ban on high-cap magazines, and banning assault weapons. I asked them to specifically answer one question: namely, how does banning high-cap. magazines prevent mass killings? This will not prevent a determined individual from carrying 3 ten-round mags, or 100 for that matter. Anyone who is skilled with a weapon can reload in 2-3 seconds, so tell me how this helps the situation? When they realize this ban did not solve the problem, they will institute another ban, followed by another, followed by another, as nothing more than knee-jerk reactions to tragic events. What we will be left with is a nation of criminals with assault weapons, high-cap. magazines and us law abiding citizens, or should I just say "victims".

I own quite a little armament, but it doesn't include any assault rifles, partially in part because I don't feel the need to own one. This doesn't mean my neighbor can't have one, nor should the fact that I don't need one allow me to call my congress person and tell them that my neighbor can't have one so they should be banned.

The same thing applies to our bikes folks. Why do we need a bike that goes 150mph+? Because it is what we want. People do stupid stuff on 600s and 1000s, and people get killed. Those guys ride the "handguns" of the sport bikes. We ride the "assault-weapon". Allow the "ban it" mentality to fester and we will be turning our Busas over for 250 Rebels.

 

[ChicoTheCop]

It's the right to bear arms...nowhere does it say high capacity semi automatic military style weapons that were purpose designed to kill multiple adversaries quickly. I don't think our forefathers were considering what was going to happen 224 years later.

I completely get the "right" as I own and carry. I have issues with the "need" to have mentality. I think these types of weapons should be categorized like fully automatic weapons and be extremely controlled.

Just because it's within your right doesn't mean you should have. Too many irresponsible people own due to their "right", this is where I have issue.

thank god and our country, we want motorcycles but some will say we dont need 1300CC. LOL its our right to go as extreme as the law allows. and enjoy it. that would lend itself to the pursuit of happiness. i dont have a rifle but plan on getting one some day. and yes i would like an AR style rifle. multi rounds makes less mag changing = more fun for target shooting. god forbid i have to use it to protect myself and /or family i would want the bad guys to run out of bullets before me.