Gun Control [Archive]

FULL METAL JACKET

15th February 2006, 03:03

well, background checks, wich are already in place, need to be more complete

It's complete enough. Here in New York State you need to give in your proof residence, birth certificate, 2 photos, proof of citizenship, arrest information, order of protection info, business info, and letter of necessity for the business.

A whole lot of stuff and it takes long as hell to get it. And then the restrictions:

Premises license: Only for businesses and home, can't take out unless for shooting range or hunting and it has to be in locked containers unloaded.

Carry business license: License for a specific owner or worker. Fucking crazy if you ask me. There was this one store in nyc a guy came in to rob, well he got shot dead by a worker. But the guy who shot him didn't have the license, it was the owner. Even though the license is under the store name, the owner is the only authorized user. The worker ended up going to jail for a few months. Pretty fucked up.

And a whole lot of more business licenses including all the bodyguard ones.

Remember this is New York State requirements and it is technically a "blue" state, perhaps in the "red" states the gun laws are more relaxed.

hamperleft

15th February 2006, 03:16

welll yea, it may be hard to get a gun in new york, but the other states close by with lax gun restrictions, you can easily aquire guns, and then bring them to new york and just hand them out(well sell em illigally) Red states do tend to have more lax gun restrictions, i blame rednecks.

Livetrueordie

15th February 2006, 03:32

he should go to jail anyone who is willing to shoot another person to prtoect their material goods needs some sort of intervention.

FULL METAL JACKET

15th February 2006, 03:38

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 10:59 PM
he should go to jail anyone who is willing to shoot another person to prtoect their material goods needs some sort of intervention.
They robber already shot at him but when the clerk shot back it was fatal.

Even though he would of shot him anyways, I can see your point.

( R )evolution

15th February 2006, 08:33

I am against strict gun control. I just believe it is just another way that the government is imposing there ideals into my home. But, I understand the need for gun control and the south needs to clean up there act and get some gun control on there law books cause people will continue to die from guns they purchase from lax gun stores that does not do background checks.

hamperleft

15th February 2006, 21:29

I just believe it is just another way that the government is imposing there ideals into my home

so you would rather have your neighbor be able to own an M16?

FULL METAL JACKET

15th February 2006, 21:52

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 04:56 PM

I just believe it is just another way that the government is imposing there ideals into my home

so you would rather have your neighbor be able to own an M16?
M16's aren't even legal to possess. The AR-15 is another story.

Still, it's illegal to own any automatic weapons in the U.S.

barret

15th February 2006, 23:19

Its not necessarily about rights as much is its about concerning public safety. Words hurt nobody, but weapons do. If there was a way that gun's could be produced to serve a legitimate purpose other than killing, they would be ok.

Eoin Dubh

15th February 2006, 23:28

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 11:46 PM
Its not necessarily about rights as much is its about concerning public safety. Words hurt nobody, but weapons do. If there was a way that gun's could be produced to serve a legitimate purpose other than killing, they would be ok.
I would say that self defense is a legitimate purpose.
I own firearms to return fire, not initiate it.

In the last 15 years as the gun grabbers have instituted the repressive laws here,
the police have gone from using a 38. caliber , 6 shot revolver, to using 18 shot, 40.cal glock automatics.
If gun control was doing what it is supposed to do, then why does the man need the heavier sidearm?

JKP

16th February 2006, 00:18

Use search next time; there are only 20 something threads on this already.

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...topic=45217&hl= (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45217&hl=)
http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...topic=45125&hl= (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45125&hl=)
http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...topic=45622&hl= (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45622&hl=)

barret

16th February 2006, 00:32

I would say that self defense is a legitimate purpose.

Does self defense justify having a gun? What did people do before they had guns? They fought, used knifes, base ball bats, etc. At least with those weapons there isn't a risk that a random person will be killed in someone elses 'self defense'. Also, it evens out the 'playing field' because not everyone is going to go after a person that can Handel themselves if no one has any other means of hurting this person.

If gun control was doing what it is supposed to do, then why does the man need the heavier sidearm?

That's not always the case. In some countries none of the police carry weapons, its probably due to the fact that your area has some sort of imminent danger which gives them a plausible reason for carrying a weapon.

hamperleft

16th February 2006, 01:04

M16's aren't even legal to possess.
That’s gun control right there isn't it? and it is badly needed. You have the right to own guns, and carry them, use them, whatever, but there should be limits/control over where you can carry and use them, and what type of gun you can carry.

In some countries none of the police carry weapons, its probably due to the fact that your area has some sort of imminent danger which gives them a plausible reason for carrying a weapon.

well yea, the police have to carry guns, because the public has guns.

FULL METAL JACKET

16th February 2006, 01:29

That’s gun control right there isn't it? and it is badly needed. You have the right to own guns, and carry them, use them, whatever, but there should be limits/control over where you can carry and use them, and what type of gun you can carry.

Yeah am on your side. That type of limit is good. A civilian does not need an automatic weapon, especially a machine gun.

loveme4whoiam

16th February 2006, 09:16

A civilian does not need an automatic weapon, especially a machine gun.

Why does a civilian need any gun? Answer - to protect themselves from the other people with guns. Doesn't this strike anyone else as being really really dumb?

What about self-defense weapons, like stun batons and pepper spray? I am definitely for gun control, but I think that these should be legalised over here in the UK. I see no right or reason for a person to require a gun - if they need it to protect themselves, then they should get something that defends them, not attacks another person. Our police are given CS spray and ASP batons, because a gun isn't required. Remove the guns from the people on the streets, then what need to the police have for them?

The reason gun crime is so high in the States is because there are guns loose on the streets, its just that simple. Here in the UK there are a handful of gun crimes a week - they generally make the local news if they do occur - because they are so damn hard to get hold of. Make them available to all, it is obvious that that number will go up. Every domestic in which a bloke gets pissed with neighbour and goes over to shut him up, at least now the worst that can happen is a punch-up, maybe a stabbing with the kitchen knife if the guy is really nuts.

Black Dagger

16th February 2006, 10:05

Why does a civilian need any gun?

To overthrow the state.

Jadan ja

16th February 2006, 10:52

To overthrow the state.

Yes, we certainly need guns before revolution to overthorw the system, but I think that the question being discussed here is wether a person should be allowed to have a gun after a revolution.

I am really suprised how many threads are here about gun control.

Black Dagger

16th February 2006, 11:40

but I think that the question being discussed here is wether a person should be allowed to have a gun after a revolution.

Are you sure? Because it seems a lot of people are talking about capitalist society. As far as post-capitalist society, of course people should be allowed to have guns, we will need them to protect our communities from reactionary militants and capitalist countries. I don't really see how it could be any other way unless a state is erected to enforce 'firearm restrictions'- which is a step backward.

BoZoRRo

16th February 2006, 13:13

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 02:52 AM
we need gun control, otherwise phycos like the kids at columbine would more easily be able to get hold of guns, you deffinatly have the right to own a gun, if you are not insane, or a criminal. We don't need control, we need restrictions.
their wouldnt nessarily be phycos if the society was running properly, the kids at columbine and other american shootings (im an australian), have come out of a failed system of education and health care(australia is getting there) of the individualist look out for your self, cunsumerism attitude within most western countries today, within socialist societies the indications for these incidence would have been noticed, and hopefully prevented.

on another note being australian we have really strict gun control laws ever since the 1996(i think) port moresby incident(with acording to some reports and ideas floating around on the net was a government sanctioned plan, but thats beside the point) yet since then gun related fatalities have gone up, well cause the the crimenals kept their guns and the good docile citizens gave them up, leaving them vulnrable to attack, be it gangs of youths invading the house, or some type of totalitarian police control of the populace (the current policies getting through now seem to point to the former coming in the future, which is scary).

im for no control, because regardless of the incidents that may happen over all, they are isolated incidents and fear is the number one weapon and stratigy used by the capatalistic governments around the world, so by giving into this fear you are suporting the policies that go to create totalitarian societys

be the ninja :ph34r: and see and influence without being seen or noticed yourself!

loveme4whoiam

16th February 2006, 14:07

As far as post-capitalist society, of course people should be allowed to have guns, we will need them to protect our communities from reactionary militants and capitalist countries. I don't really see how it could be any other way unless a state is erected to enforce 'firearm restrictions'- which is a step backward.

If anything, you've just outlined a reason to NOT have a revolution - if you have to own a gun and live in fear of reactionary groups, we haven't done it right.

In a society relying on civil justice (ie, relying on the community to bring criminals to justice), giving everyone a gun is just asking for shoot-outs. Guns should be in the hands of the few people who are trusted and appointed by society to use them, not anyone with a grudge or, perhaps worse, who wants to be a hero and arrest that rapist everyone knows lives just down the road.

If you want to protect yourself, get a stun baton. If you want to harm another person, get a gun. That is what gun control boils down to, at least in my opinion.

im for no control, because regardless of the incidents that may happen over all, they are isolated incidents and fear is the number one weapon and stratigy used by the capatalistic governments around the world, so by giving into this fear you are suporting the policies that go to create totalitarian societys

Eh? This makes no sense whatsoever. People are fearful now because there are guns on the streets, how does removing the guns that are causing this fear support totalitarian societies? Granted, perhaps it limits your (ie our, the revolutionaries) ability to fight back against the state, but for the average person it means they don't have to worry about being shot by a robber when they are at the store.

ice-picked

20th February 2006, 06:50

it would seem this thread is on capitolist society not post capitolsit society
in the case of capitolist society guncontrol is an atempt at keeping post-capitolist society from ever bieng reached
and if post-capitolist society is reached then attempting to place gun controls would be pointless because everyone would already have a gun

ice-picked

20th February 2006, 06:54

also if yu give everyman a gun guns would become obsolete by sumthing new and more destructive. if yu take every gun away and give everyman a sword the fatalites would be just as high as if every man had a gun
the point is gun control is unnessary beacuse at the rate of technological advancment the gun will become obsolete in the near future

loveme4whoiam

20th February 2006, 20:37

if yu take every gun away and give everyman a sword the fatalites would be just as high as if every man had a gun
Hardly - in order to kill someone with a gun the only skill you have to have is the ability to squeeze your index finger; to kill someone with a sword (assuming he also has one) is very hard to do without training. Added to that, with a sword you can only kill one person at a time; with a gun you can blow away a whole roomful of people in seconds. This would be reflected in the statistics.

the point is gun control is unnessary beacuse at the rate of technological advancment the gun will become obsolete in the near future
To be replaced by what? Do you think we're all going to be carrying around railguns in the near future??

in the case of capitolist society guncontrol is an atempt at keeping post-capitolist society from ever bieng reached
You so sure? I don't think that we are important enough in Western countries to say that we are the sole reason for gun control. In America guns can be purchased easily; I don't see revolutionary mobs wandering the streets on the Six o'Clock News. But I do see all kinds of gun offences linked to nothing more than the self-destructive nature that has become prevalent under capitalism combined with an abundance of guns.

True, gun control will make it more difficult to arm the revolution when it comes, but its hardly to of the list of ways we are being oppressed.

Black Dagger

26th February 2006, 12:45

If anything, you've just outlined a reason to NOT have a revolution - if you have to own a gun and live in fear of reactionary groups, we haven't done it right.

It is naive to think that all reactionary groups will vaporise the moment the state loses control over society, reactionaries will need to be fought, and killed, capitalist countries will probably try their hand at infiltrating or worse, invading, not having guns would be societal suicide.

In a society relying on civil justice (ie, relying on the community to bring criminals to justice), giving everyone a gun is just asking for shoot-outs. Guns should be in the hands of the few people who are trusted and appointed by society to use them, not anyone with a grudge or, perhaps worse, who wants to be a hero and arrest that rapist everyone knows lives just down the road.

I don't think it is desireable for guns to be widespread in a communist society, and their numbers should be scaled down as time and situation dictates, precisely for the reasons you have mentioned. But for probably a long time, they will be necessary to keep society secure from counter-revolution.

oldunion

27th February 2006, 03:51

Every citizen of the ideal society, would have mandatory weapons training....perhaps as a class in school. If everyone had proper weapons training and knew how to safely operate a weapon, how dangerous it was, and when it can and cannot be used for others safety i believe incidents would be minimized.

Automatics are completely legal given the proper tax payments, so are silencers, and chain fed machine guns. The governments solution to this has been to charge ludicrous amounts of money for these things. I was just looking at a ump .45 for 12,000 dollars, without taxes and ffl charges.

The crooks will always have guns, they dont abide by the law by definition. But people are taught they are dangerous, and that the state will protect them....wrong.

I dont think looking at cases of madness where people are randomly cut down by guns is viable for this arguement. One can get a handgun easily for a few hundred dollars and go spray randomly at a mall right now if one really wanted to. You have killers at bell towers, psychos, whatever. They are there. Law enforcement is another thread, but gun control should not exist.

They limit machine guns in price, because if they cost 900 dollars like a .223 ar15 does, then more people would have them. And if more people had them, they could make a serious stand against the government. And that right there is a threat they would not allow.

dusk

27th February 2006, 08:29

guns should be restricted!
Because the things that are happening in America.
Are a bad example for my country. (Holland)
People here especially kids like to imitate american situations.
In the earlier days here it was normal to hve a man to man fight.
But these days the risk to get smoked is much bigger.
:!:

loveme4whoiam

27th February 2006, 12:31

It is naive to think that all reactionary groups will vaporise the moment the state loses control over society, reactionaries will need to be fought, and killed, capitalist countries will probably try their hand at infiltrating or worse, invading, not having guns would be societal suicide.
I'm not saying that reactionary groups shouldn't be fought or that they will not, but if I have to carry a pistol at my side every time I go out on the street because I might get gunned down by a reactionary, I'd say the revolution hasn't been completed. That is why I advocate gun control post-revolution.

I don't think it is desireable for guns to be widespread in a communist society, and their numbers should be scaled down as time and situation dictates, precisely for the reasons you have mentioned. But for probably a long time, they will be necessary to keep society secure from counter-revolution.
I totally agree :). It would be naive to think otherwise (apologies if my posyt came across as that, it was not my intention), but phased reductions in gun ownership and a halt on gun production shouyld definitely happen as soon as possible.

Every citizen of the ideal society, would have mandatory weapons training....perhaps as a class in school. If everyone had proper weapons training and knew how to safely operate a weapon, how dangerous it was, and when it can and cannot be used for others safety i believe incidents would be minimized.
While I see your intentions, I think this is impractical and irresponsible given the current social problems with young people and violence. I know for certain that if a class on gun use were offered in my college there'd be a bloodbath, because people are stupid. Stupid people and guns are a bad combination. Education about guns, while certainly a worthwgile aim, is not feasible when you consider how stupid the average teenager is.

The crooks will always have guns, they dont abide by the law by definition. But people are taught they are dangerous, and that the state will protect them....wrong.

I dont think looking at cases of madness where people are randomly cut down by guns is viable for this arguement. One can get a handgun easily for a few hundred dollars and go spray randomly at a mall right now if one really wanted to. You have killers at bell towers, psychos, whatever. They are there. Law enforcement is another thread, but gun control should not exist.
And the reason they can get guns easily is because gun control is not strict enough; if you remove the weapons from those psychos in bell towers, malls, and schools then how can they kill so many people that they do? Looking at these maniacs and their crimes is a perfect argument in favour of gun control, you can't just ignore the fact that these people are able to kill because the weapons are available to them. Remove the weapons from everyone, remove the killings.

And if more people had them, they could make a serious stand against the government. And that right there is a threat they would not allow.
As I've already said, gun control is not the primary means of governmental oppression of the left, not by a long shot. Yes, it means we are not able to take pot-shots at police, nazis, and anyone else we dislike, but frankly I consider this a good thing for the Leftist movement as a whole.

Eoin Dubh

27th February 2006, 16:38

Gun control is rather sinister and really quite futile.
Canada is bananas over gun control and , surprise-surprise, there is more and more gun violence each day-week-month. Stopping suicides was a big excuse for the massive gun control we suffer, and sure, the rate of firearm suicide has dropped but the rate of suicide has remained constant...people are hanging themselves instead.
Registration is the first step to confiscation.
Had the Liberal party not been thrown out in the last election, all the honest people who registered their handguns to comply with the law, would have had a police officer at their door demanding that they hand over their pistol or be arrested and sent to jail.
A "slap gun" can be made for about 5$-10$ and material from your local hardware store. 20 minutes of effort and then you have a shotgun!
It is also quite easy to fasten a high velocity rifle round to the end of an arrow seated with a pointy 'target' arrowhead, and when the arrow is fired, the bullet report is heard and felt at point blank range.

Any student of history knows the value of keeping a few choice firearms and a skid full of ammo wrapped up and buried for the day when it's needed.
To be sure, you may never need it, but your descendants probably will.

red_orchestra

27th February 2006, 19:01

I am 100% against gun control... my reason. It doesn't do its job. In all of the instances of handgun homicides in Canada, 98% of these cases were smuggled in firearms through the drug trade. These were unregistered firearms. All firearms in Canada have to be registered with the Federal Government by law.

Under the last Government- Paul Martins Liberals..were going to ban all handguns/restricted firearms from legitimate collectors because of these handgun deaths. Stupid! Thats what I said! The Canadian tax payer has been paying massive amounts of $ to a national firearms program which has been inefficent, and plagued with legal problems in its own right.

Heck $250 million+ could help the poor in society, create a better socialized health care system... the uses for such money is endless. Firearms ONLY belong to those who have the training.

... laws are tight here as to WHO can own/posses such weapons. No criminal record and psychologically stable.

Atlas Swallowed

27th February 2006, 19:43

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 01:55 AM
I also see it the responsibility of a citizen to own a gun in the event that the government become obsolete and autocratic.
Like now.

The only people on the streets I fear carrying guns are dressed in blue and drive in vehicles with sirens on top of them. I would be for gun control if the police, the military, any government agency and other assorted criminals did not have them :lol:

Atlas Swallowed

27th February 2006, 19:48

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 12:59 PM
That is why I advocate gun control post-revolution.
So did Stalin that worked out real well :rolleyes:

YSR

27th February 2006, 21:34

Sure, I'm in favor of gun control. But only if we get rid of the police at the same time. We don't need guns without an armed state. But until then, yeah, it may not be something we want to have, but we need 'em. One never knows when armed resistance may become neccesary.

YSR

27th February 2006, 21:35

Jinx at Atlas Swallowed.

loveme4whoiam

27th February 2006, 22:27

Any student of history knows the value of keeping a few choice firearms and a skid full of ammo wrapped up and buried for the day when it's needed.
I am a student of history, care to explain that?

Firearms ONLY belong to those who have the training.
This is precisely my point, gun control is aimed at keeping guns in the hands of those that are trained to use them, not some frigging nutcase with a grudge.

The only people on the streets I fear carrying guns are dressed in blue and drive in vehicles with sirens on top of them.
Then you are fortunate in your place of residence. Where I am I would trust almost no-one to carry a gun if I expected people to not suddenly die of lead poisoning to the face.

Perhaps it is because I am from the UK and so not swamped in guns from birth, I am able to step back and look at guns objectively. I do not see it as my right to bear arms, I see it as my right to walk around without worrying about being shot. And let us look at statistics - in 1999 approximately 10,096 people were murdered by guns in the United States (source (http://goodsforguns.org/nationalfacts/)). In that same year, 210 people in the UK were killed by guns (source (http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF07.htm)). And why do you suppose that disparity occurred? :rolleyes:

The simple fact of the matter is that guns, in the hands of anyone, trained or no, are dangerous weapons. They should be treated as such, and not made available to all and sundry.

Oh and by the way, I support removal of the police post-revolution as well.

Lola

27th February 2006, 22:42

I think the problem with Americans and guns specifically is because of our culture.

Day in and day out through the media and the government fear is pumped into us. We were sort of bred in fear and the increased tensions with one another in all aspects of SES and what have you have caused more fear and supersition among us.

Regardless of how easy it is to get a gun, it all depends on how someone uses it and why. I believe American's high gun death rate comes from our culture of fear and consumption, but of course it has to do also with how many guns are readily available on the black markert as well, sure. But I don't believe the sole reason behind America's high gun crimes are because of the availibility of guns. I think it's also the lack of intelligence about how to use a firearm and the culture of fear as I mentioned before.

As far as how I feel about guns, I don't believe in really strict gun control. I think we should be allowed weapons for some purposes. I don't like the idea of the government having complete control of all weapons at all times. I fear the government with guns more than I fear my neighboor with guns.

Of course, after a revolution, when more emphasis is put on the community and people no longer are commodities, I don't think we'll need to take away guns. As we are socialized to care about others and think of the community more in the future than we are socialized now, we won't fear our fellow man or have a reason to use a gun. I'm not saying murders will never happen because humanity breeds conflict on some levels, but I don't think it will be drastic enough to warrant taking away people's mode of protection. I think people might have them, but not use them.

loveme4whoiam

27th February 2006, 23:22

AS I said in a different thread, to have them is to be prepared to us them. Guns are not deterrents to crime, they are the cause of it. More specifically, people acting stupidly with guns causes crime. And I certainly agree, education about guns cannot hurt.

What I ask this this - why, if we will have no fear of our fellow man, do we need guns to proect ourselves from him? Especially if he doesn't have a gun either.

FULL METAL JACKET

27th February 2006, 23:27

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 06:50 PM
AS I said in a different thread, to have them is to be prepared to us them. Guns are not deterrents to crime, they are the cause of it. More specifically, people acting stupidly with guns causes crime. And I certainly agree, education about guns cannot hurt.

What I ask this this - why, if we will have no fear of our fellow man, do we need guns to proect ourselves from him? Especially if he doesn't have a gun either.

Guns are not deterrents to crime, they are the cause of it.

What is it with this obsession of violent crime? Yeah violent crime is a problem but it's only 10% of our crime. The rest is white collar crime like fraud, identity theft, etc.

You talk about getting rid of guns as if crime will be eliminated right after. If you take away all guns there will still be crime.

loveme4whoiam

27th February 2006, 23:36

Stop trying to put words in my mouth, I never said it would get rid of all crime (by the way, do you have a source to back up that statistic?). But speaking in terms of post-revolution, what actual crimes are the going to be? Answer: almost all crimes will be violent in nature.

However, speaking in real, present-day terms, then yes I agree, removing guns will not stop all crime. But it will drastically reduce violent crime, as the statistics I quoted above clearly show. Indeed, it may only be 10% of all crime (apparently) but it is an incredibly destructive 10%. Yes, credit card fraud and identity theft destroy lives, but guns take lives. Financial security can help repair the damage of these criems, what repairs the damage of being shot for being in a shop at the wrong time?

FULL METAL JACKET

28th February 2006, 00:03

Stop trying to put words in my mouth, I never said it would get rid of all crime

Am not putting words in your mouth, read my post, I said as if.

But it will drastically reduce violent crime, as the statistics I quoted above clearly show. Yes, credit card fraud and identity theft destroy lives, but guns take lives.

Is it only guns? Isn't it knives, bats, fists as well? Look at this:

In 2004, 22% of the incidents of violent crime, a weapon was present.

Offenders had or used a weapon in 46% of all robberies, compared with 20% of all aggravated assaults and 8% of all rapes/sexual assaults in 2004.

Homicides are most often committed with guns, especially handguns. In 2003, 53% of homicides were committed with handguns, 16% with other guns, 13% with knives, 5% with blunt objects, and 16% with other weapons. Crime
Statistic (http://crime.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=crime&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ojp.usdoj.gov%2Fbjs%2Fcvict_c. htm)

(by the way, do you have a source to back up that statistic?)

Wow I guess I was wrong about the statistic. In fact it is lower than 10%. Violent crime only consists of 4% of all crime in the United States. Amazing. With all the media coverage you would think it is most of our crime.

n 2004, the UCR Program estimated the number of arrests in the United States for all criminal offenses (except traffic violations) at approximately 14 million. Law enforcement made an estimated 1.6 million arrests (11.8 percent of all arrests) for property crimes and 586,558 arrests (4.2 percent of all arrests) for violent crimes.

That's just amazing. Here is the link FBI Crime Statistics (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/persons_arrested/index.html)

oldunion

28th February 2006, 04:54

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 12:59 PM

Every citizen of the ideal society, would have mandatory weapons training....perhaps as a class in school. If everyone had proper weapons training and knew how to safely operate a weapon, how dangerous it was, and when it can and cannot be used for others safety i believe incidents would be minimized.
While I see your intentions, I think this is impractical and irresponsible given the current social problems with young people and violence. I know for certain that if a class on gun use were offered in my college there'd be a bloodbath, because people are stupid. Stupid people and guns are a bad combination. Education about guns, while certainly a worthwgile aim, is not feasible when you consider how stupid the average teenager is.

The crooks will always have guns, they dont abide by the law by definition. But people are taught they are dangerous, and that the state will protect them....wrong.

I dont think looking at cases of madness where people are randomly cut down by guns is viable for this arguement. One can get a handgun easily for a few hundred dollars and go spray randomly at a mall right now if one really wanted to. You have killers at bell towers, psychos, whatever. They are there. Law enforcement is another thread, but gun control should not exist.
And the reason they can get guns easily is because gun control is not strict enough; if you remove the weapons from those psychos in bell towers, malls, and schools then how can they kill so many people that they do? Looking at these maniacs and their crimes is a perfect argument in favour of gun control, you can't just ignore the fact that these people are able to kill because the weapons are available to them. Remove the weapons from everyone, remove the killings.

And if more people had them, they could make a serious stand against the government. And that right there is a threat they would not allow.
As I've already said, gun control is not the primary means of governmental oppression of the left, not by a long shot. Yes, it means we are not able to take pot-shots at police, nazis, and anyone else we dislike, but frankly I consider this a good thing for the Leftist movement as a whole.
Perhaps i should not have recommended the training as a "class." Citizens who were of age and physically capable should be trained on the basic operations, maintenance, safety, and proper procedures for operating weapons. This could be done through some kind of education system.

I feel as though you are looking at this issue from a current mindset, such that guns in the hands of youths are dangerous because of rampages, randomness, etc. Perhaps, but i would blame much of this sentiment on the current system, and i imagine it would vanish or become lessened afterwords.

There are plenty of weapons to have besides guns. Crossbows, bows, knives, bomb making materials, clubs, zip gun directions, and AOW one can make. If someone wants to hurt people, they can do it easily, and the circumstances behind causation should be given more scrutiny then the means by which the acts were committed.

Any man of age can get a gun and waste people, rarely does this happen. The bell tower shooter was an ex marine, the beltway sniper stole his gun, criminals have the black market and will not respond to anti gun legislation because they will still have access to guns. I know of people who have access to guns, unregistered, highly shady, but otherwise completely unaffected by ANY legislation. A criminal is not a law abiding citizen, thus laws do not affect them.

This is the kind of mindset that i dont support. It is that all things can be accounted for and thus streamlined to create this grand unified machine that requires no lubrication and functions without friction. This is impossible, life is unpredictable and order comes from the chaos....the inverse is never true.

I agree with you in that gun restriction is not the ultimate means of keep a people suppressed. But the complete abolishment of private ownership of guns is a typical roadsign seen on the journey to fascism.

Tormented by Treachery

28th February 2006, 05:52

Just to fuel the fire :) (although I'm not really on one of the "sides"):

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0862712.html

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0778269.html

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004888.html

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0778268.html

Eoin Dubh

28th February 2006, 07:20

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 10:55 PM

Any student of history knows the value of keeping a few choice firearms and a skid full of ammo wrapped up and buried for the day when it's needed.
I am a student of history, care to explain that?

What's to explain?
One day in Rwanda.."Oh look honey, here come the Hutu's....-Chop chop aargh"
Or
"Oh those nice goose stepping soldiers are at the door, is that a cattle car train I hear in the distance?"

You are from the UK right? Not a lot of guns around, right?
Have you ever seen a gun? Seen one fired? Fired one yourself maybe?
I have noticed that people from the city have an irrational fear of guns like its as though the guns will begin blazing away all by themselves or something.

Doesn't the UK have a law against carrying a jack knife? I heard even kitchen knives are trying to be banned now! :lol:
-------------------------------------------

And the reason they can get guns easily is because gun control is not strict enough----Remove the weapons from everyone, remove the killings.
Sorry mate, but that is naive to the extreme.
You cannot purchase AK-74 s or grenade launchers in Canada but just this month the police in Toronto seized two AK's and the launcher in seperate busts. They think they were smuggled in a container ship from China.
Drug control is strict and just tonight I was offered Cocaine on the street walking home.
Remove the weapons from the law abiding, remove their ability to stop their own killing.

Atlas Swallowed

28th February 2006, 12:49

Originally posted by Young Stupid [email protected] 27 2006, 10:03 PM
Jinx at Atlas Swallowed.
I was jinxed at birth but thankyou anyway :)

Atlas Swallowed

28th February 2006, 13:12

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 10:55 PM
Then you are fortunate in your place of residence.

And let us look at statistics - in 1999 approximately 10,096 people were murdered by guns in the United States (source (http://goodsforguns.org/nationalfacts/)). In that same year, 210 people in the UK were killed by guns (source (http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF07.htm)). And why do you suppose that disparity occurred? :rolleyes:

Oh and by the way, I support removal of the police post-revolution as well.
Yes right now I am but that was not always the case. Two years ago I was living in Binghamton NY and crack houses and gangs were becoming rampant in my neighborhood(moved because I did not want to raise my children in that enviorment). Several members of a gang broke into my neighbors house in broad daylight. I called the cops on them the police stupidly turned on thier sirens and the criminals ran outside grabbed a couple of rakes and pertended to be doing yard work. The pigs got angry at me for calling them I told the idiots to look around back they broke a window. The cops checked it out but told the scumbags to go did not arrest them or anything.

About a week later at approxiamatly 10:00 pm I heard a group of people yelling obscenities in front of my house. I looked out my window and it was the same gang members with about 8-10 others. I grabbed my .357 magnum and sat on my front porch and smiled at them. They flipped me off and yelled some insults my way and left. Several months before that happened a member of the same gang hit a man in the back of the head with a baseball bat for no reason what so ever. He was fatally wounded this happend a block from where I was living. If I were not armed it is possible that harm could have happened to me and my infant son(my wife was at work). I do not know about the UK but the police in America do not serve and protect the poor and the working class. If you are poor and/or working class you are better off protecting yourself.

10,096 thats it. We Americans are bigger assholes than you guys, shit alot more of us should be shot :)

Well we agree on one issue anyhow, thats cool.

ack

28th February 2006, 13:30

Gun control is necessary. Not total control, but I don't think that just anybody should be allowed to go out and buy a couple assault rifles.

drain.you

28th February 2006, 14:35

Yeah here in the UK guns are rare and we're not really susposed to carry anything that is too dangerous, such as knives with a blade longer than a couple of inches or something. I think maybe our government has too much control over us and if they wanted to take our liberties form us then we couldn't stop them but I wouldn't fear this under a commie state, but others would so we shouldn't disallow weapons when we have power either.

Eoin Dubh

28th February 2006, 14:53

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 10:55 PM

And let us look at statistics - in 1999 approximately 10,096 people were murdered by guns in the United States (source (http://goodsforguns.org/nationalfacts/)). In that same year, 210 people in the UK were killed by guns (source (http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF07.htm)). And why do you suppose that disparity occurred? :rolleyes:

That source for America is unreliable. look closer at the bottom of the page you see this":"[1] Federal Bureau of Investigation “Crime in the United States” pub. 2000. Estimate of the number of people killed by guns in 1999. Actual figures not yet available."
So they contradict themselves. Which is it, murder or killing?
And it is an estimate.
With certain states offering law abiding citizens 'concealed carry' permits for personal safety, certainly some of the number of people "killed" deserved it.
They are also probably lumping suicides and accidental shootings into the "killed" category.

http://www.marcswebs.com/All_In_Favor_Of_Gun_Control_Raise_Your_Right_Hand_ Sieg_Heil.jpg

loveme4whoiam

28th February 2006, 17:56

10,096 thats it. We Americans are bigger assholes than you guys, shit alot more of us should be shot
:lol:

Yes right now I am but that was not always the case.
I didn't mean that in an aggressive way, by the way :). I was just speaking from experience that the people in my area sound very similar to the people you used to live near - I remember when my mate's brother was playing basketball in a court near our houses, all of a sudden eight chavs turn up with baseball bats and beat the hell out of him, for no reason whatsoever. I've been involved in fights around my area, and had a firefork shoved through the letterbox of the community centre where eight-year olds were having a dance lesson which I was helping out with. Add guns into this, you have a scary situation that I want no part of. Perhaps this is irrational fear on my part, although frankly it seems perfectly rational.

As for other weapons, I think the law here is a blade less than two inches in length can be carried. That can, of course, kill someone, but then so can just about anything if you know how. I say remove guns because they require zero knowledge or skill to use one, at least on the scale we are talking about. And yes, I've handled guns before; never a handgun I'll admit, but I've got some proficiency badges for semi-auto rifles (the training version of the Army's SA80) and bolt-action rifles. I am well aware that they can't "go blazing off on their own", but I am also well aware that a three year old could figure out how to fire one. The ease of which they can be used is what scares me, not the weapon itself.

Doesn't the UK have a law against carrying a jack knife? I heard even kitchen knives are trying to be banned now! :lol:
Why is this funny? Or are you saying that it should be compulsory for each of us to carry a self-defense weapon, to protect ourselves from all the weapons people are carrying? Knives are less dangerous than guns, sure, but they are still dangerous. Getting them out of the hands of as many people on the street as possible is hardly laughable.

And it is an estimate.
True, but that estimate isn't likely to drop to something similar as 210 all of a sudden is it. And yes, while I take all government figures with a pinch of salt, this number is still far to high for my liking, estimate or no.

And fair enough FMJ, it's only 4.2%. Should we not try to stop even that paltry (if you can say 4.2% is a paltry number) amount of crime?

Eoin Dubh, interesting picture. Are you saying I am a Nazi because I don't wish to be shot? In any case, I cannot comment on how crappy the police are in America. Hell, I can't comment on how they are over here, I've never had any involvement with them. Then again, were guns to be introduced in a big way over here I'm sure I would do, emost likely as a chalk outline.