Time to Wake Up EKI

[Roamy]

this ought to do it


A LITTLE GUN HISTORY


In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated
------------------------------

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
---- ------------- -------------

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
-----------------------------

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
------------------------------

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own Government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:

List of 7 items:

Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent.

Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent.

Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort, and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.

You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.

With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'.

During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!
Pearl Harber was attacked by Japanese which is the start of america envolvment in WWII.
If you value your freedom, please spread this anti-gun control message to all of your friends.


The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defeat. The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. Al l else is supplemental.

SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN! SWITZERLAND 'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE. SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!! See attached:

http://stephenhalbrook.com/articles/guns-crime-swiss.html

IT'S A NO BRAINER! DON'T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET.

[Eki]

Fousto got email again.

[yodasarmpit]

Groan.

[steve_spackman]

this ought to do it


A LITTLE GUN HISTORY


In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated
------------------------------

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
---- ------------- -------------

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
-----------------------------

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
------------------------------

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own Government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:

List of 7 items:

Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent.

Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent.

Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort, and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.

You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.

With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'.

During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!
Pearl Harber was attacked by Japanese which is the start of america envolvment in WWII.
If you value your freedom, please spread this anti-gun control message to all of your friends.


The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defeat. The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. Al l else is supplemental.

SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN! SWITZERLAND 'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE. SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!! See attached:

http://stephenhalbrook.com/articles/guns-crime-swiss.html

IT'S A NO BRAINER! DON'T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET.

:rolleyes: where do you get this propaganda from...the NRA??

[Easy Drifter]

I do not know where the figures came from.
Minnesota has had all gun crimes drop since it became legal to carry a concealed weapon.
In Canada handguns have had to be registered since the 30's and getting a permit to own is difficult and a carry permit almost impossible.
Long guns have to be registered.
There have been huge problems with the registry. The cost over run is over One Billion Dollars. The accuracy of the registry is very debateable.
The security of the data base has been cracked more than once and a list of legally registered guns exposed including handguns.
There are almost certainly more unregistered long guns in the country than there are registered. This does not apply to the cities.
Gun crime in Canada is very much on the rise. Almost all of it is handguns and mostly smuggled guns from the US and other countries.
Guess what. The bad guys do not register their guns. Big surprise.
The hugely publisized gun amnesty has resulted in many guns being turned in.
Mostly antiques or long guns.
I do not pretend to have the answer.
As long as the gangs were killing each other tough but they are such lousy shots innocent people are being killed. They are also using them more and more in robberies and more innocent storekeepers are being shot.
Possibly, note possibly, if the average person could carry a weapon after strict and tough training the hoods would be a little less inclined to use a gun if they knew someone who had training was apt to shoot back.
That said taking a life would bother most people and accuracy with a handgun is difficult. Forget shooting to wound. You shoot at the biggest mass.

[rah]

That first post could really sway people, as long as they are morons. Absolutely rediculous.

[chuck34]

That first post could really sway people, as long as they are morons. Absolutely rediculous.

So you are saying the facts presented in the first post are incorrect? If so please enlighten us.

[Tazio]

Yea' and just think if it wasn't for Alfred Nobel 28 people wouldn't have been killed in a car bombing in Iraq yesterday :dozey:
Plus I think the most powerful weapon allowed to be used for hunting is a crossbow.
I hate sudden loud noises while I'm out enjoying the natural beauty of our backcountry!

[Rollo]

Just a few questions about things I don't understand.



In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

How then do you explain that of these "20 million dissidents", 19.3 million of them were in the armed services? I would think that being in the army would give you pretty good access to guns, though I could be wrong.


Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

Raul Hilberg in his very well researched book "The destruction of the European Jews." (1985) esitmated that:
a) the total number of Jews executed was about 5.9 million and the rest included, Poles, the Romanii, and Soviet POWs
b) the 1935 Census put the German Jewish population at 241,000
c) that about 12 million people were executed as a result of people being handed over to the advancing German Armed Forces outside of Germany, rather than Germans disarming the population

Actually the Weapons Act (1938) relaxed the rules with regards ownership of weapons within the Third Reich. It repealed the need for permits in a lot of cases for weapons bigger than a handgun. How does this reconcile with your original supposition?



Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Thank you to the United States on this one, who having failed with the Bay of Pigs Invasion, sent in the United States Army Special Forces (Green Berets) to train troops and create a counter-insurgency force.

Well done indeed. You can take the credit for that.



Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Again that's the United States fault, but we shan't talk about that. Nor shall we mention the fact that the US Seventh Air Force killed nearly 800,000 people with repeated bombing of the country between 1970 and 1975 with 285,000 tonnes of ordinance which led to wide scale destruction of farm land.
A US Aid report in 1975 declared that the country would face famine:
"Slave labor and starvation rations for half the nation's people (probably heaviest among those who supported the republic) will be a cruel necessity for this year, and general deprivation and suffering will stretch over the next two or three years before Cambodia can get back to rice self-sufficiency"
Is it little wonder then that the Khmer Rouge took power? They were backed by China and were still constantly threatened with threats of US carpet bombing. What hope did the people have? This is as tragic as it was stupid, are you somehow proud of this?



It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own Government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:

List of 7 items:

Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent.

Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent.

Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!


12 months ago? The Amnesty happened in 1997 some 12 years ago. Does news really travel that slowly. Also, where are the figures coming from? Not from any reliable sources I wager.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/01/02/1072908906612.html
After the massacre, tough gun laws were enacted across Australia, specifically targeting military-style weapons, which resulted in hundreds of thousands of weapons being destroyed.
The number of deaths caused by firearms dropped almost 50 per cent between 1991 and 2001, with the biggest yearly fall in deaths coming after the 1996 Port Arthur massacre.

http://www.usyd.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=1502
The risk of dying by gunshot has halved since Australia destroyed 700,000 privately owned firearms, according to a new study published today in the international research journal, Injury Prevention.

Apart from the fact that this is 12 years old, I'm assuming that whoever complied this didn't do the research, because it certainly wasn't you. These sorts of figures should be borne out in ABS Statistics, perhaps you'd like to provide those for us?

[rah]

So you are saying the facts presented in the first post are incorrect? If so please enlighten us.

Any thinking human with half an education could look at the info in the first post and call shananigans. It's rubish and I call it as such. I would wright a lengthy reply to it, but well Rollo beat me too it.

My cat has a tail, my dog has a tail, therefore my cat is a dog.

[chuck34]

Just a few questions about things I don't understand.



1) How then do you explain that of these "20 million dissidents", 19.3 million of them were in the armed services? I would think that being in the army would give you pretty good access to guns, though I could be wrong.



2) Raul Hilberg in his very well researched book "The destruction of the European Jews." (1985) esitmated that:
a) the total number of Jews executed was about 5.9 million and the rest included, Poles, the Romanii, and Soviet POWs
b) the 1935 Census put the German Jewish population at 241,000
c) that about 12 million people were executed as a result of people being handed over to the advancing German Armed Forces outside of Germany, rather than Germans disarming the population

Actually the Weapons Act (1938) relaxed the rules with regards ownership of weapons within the Third Reich. It repealed the need for permits in a lot of cases for weapons bigger than a handgun. How does this reconcile with your original supposition?



3) Thank you to the United States on this one, who having failed with the Bay of Pigs Invasion, sent in the United States Army Special Forces (Green Berets) to train troops and create a counter-insurgency force.

Well done indeed. You can take the credit for that.



4) Again that's the United States fault, but we shan't talk about that. Nor shall we mention the fact that the US Seventh Air Force killed nearly 800,000 people with repeated bombing of the country between 1970 and 1975 with 285,000 tonnes of ordinance which led to wide scale destruction of farm land.
A US Aid report in 1975 declared that the country would face famine:
"Slave labor and starvation rations for half the nation's people (probably heaviest among those who supported the republic) will be a cruel necessity for this year, and general deprivation and suffering will stretch over the next two or three years before Cambodia can get back to rice self-sufficiency"
Is it little wonder then that the Khmer Rouge took power? They were backed by China and were still constantly threatened with threats of US carpet bombing. What hope did the people have? This is as tragic as it was stupid, are you somehow proud of this?



5) 12 months ago? The Amnesty happened in 1997 some 12 years ago. Does news really travel that slowly. Also, where are the figures coming from? Not from any reliable sources I wager.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/01/02/1072908906612.html
After the massacre, tough gun laws were enacted across Australia, specifically targeting military-style weapons, which resulted in hundreds of thousands of weapons being destroyed.
The number of deaths caused by firearms dropped almost 50 per cent between 1991 and 2001, with the biggest yearly fall in deaths coming after the 1996 Port Arthur massacre.

http://www.usyd.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=1502
The risk of dying by gunshot has halved since Australia destroyed 700,000 privately owned firearms, according to a new study published today in the international research journal, Injury Prevention.

Apart from the fact that this is 12 years old, I'm assuming that whoever complied this didn't do the research, because it certainly wasn't you. These sorts of figures should be borne out in ABS Statistics, perhaps you'd like to provide those for us?

1) So the Poles, Koreans, Mongols, Germans, ect. don't count? And I'm not sure where you are getting your number of 19.3 million military, but I'm pretty sure that's a bit high. Everything I've seen says that the number of dead include about 6-8 million from the famine that effected the kulaks. But there were certainly military victims. They were a small portion of the total, and were taken in quick strikes. No time to prepare.

2) Now you are saying that Hitler allowed the Jews to own weapons after '38. I learn something new everyday.

3) We were in Guatemala training Anti-Communist fighters. It is regretable that some of the people we trained went "off task". I don't know how to make that up to you at this point other than to say sorry. However, the point still stands. Had the locals been able to protect themselves, perhaps the US trained Anti-Communist fighters would have stayed "on task".

4) The US never bombed Cambodia. See I can make you laugh too. But perhaps had the Cambodaians been able to tell the VC to get the hell out of their country, regrettable "collateral damage" would not have occured. And no I am not proud of this. But war is hell.

5) Honestly I don't know much about the Aus. deal. But it's late and I need to go to bed. I'll look into it in the morning and get back to you on that one.

[Rollo]

Now you are saying that Hitler allowed the Jews to own weapons after '38. I learn something new everyday.

The Weapons Act of 1938 relaxed the existing rules with regards gun ownership, not restricted them. The '38 Act in operation repealed many of the conditions contained in the Law on Firearms and Ammunition of 1928, which had been designed by the Weimar to restrict the use of firearms by civilians to prevent private militia forming (ie the Nazi SA), and it had the desired effect. There was no military takeover by the National Socialists.
Remember that the Nazis had actually attained power quite legally through a series of elections, and by 1933 Hitler gained dictatorial power also through legal means.

I'm actually surprised that people seem to think that even if there was an armed Jewish uprising that it would have succeeded. The simple fact of the matter is that the Nazis had acquired power legally and had the complicit support of the German people. If the Jews had staged an armed uprising it merely would have given a degree of truth to Nazi propaganda.

[gloomyDAY]

fousto may have a point. Mexican citizens would have a lot less to fear if they were allowed to arm themselves, granted they would have to be trained with a weapon beforehand. You cannot trust those who are armed (the police) since they are most likely to be corrupt. The drug cartels have an enormous negative influence on the Mexican populace, but there is a continual fear of reprisals if they go to the police, who will side with the cartels, so everyone keeps their mouth shut.

I love the fact that here in America I am a gun owner and train with my gun prodigiously. No administration will take away my right to a gun. I just find the notion ludicrous. Also, in case you're curious I live in a very safe place in Southern California. One of the safest cities in the state. I just have a gun and go shooting as a hobby.

When I go back to Mexico I feel somewhat diminished by the fact that anyone can fire upon me without a chance of defending myself. Something for some of you all to think about.


4) The US never bombed Cambodia. See I can make you laugh too. But perhaps had the Cambodaians been able to tell the VC to get the hell out of their country, regrettable "collateral damage" would not have occured. And no I am not proud of this. But war is hell.Hello, is this Robert McNamara? :p

[gloomyDAY]

Or maybe fousto doesn't have a valid point....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7936382.stm

Alabama is a Southern state with lax gun laws. This type of random violence is a rarity, but still should make its way into this thread. I think it would balance both sides of the discussion.

[Tazio]

Or maybe fousto doesn't have a valid point....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7936382.stm

Alabama is a Southern state with lax gun laws. This type of random violence is a rarity, but still should make its way into this thread. I think it would balance both sides of the discussion.
Yes a rarity for a "Good ol' Boy" to snap like that!
Probably got ahold of some bad "shine"
No disrespect intended!

[Dave B]

Oooh that's unlucky timing, to post a rant about gun ownership just as Europe is waking up to news about a gunman going on the rampage in Alabama. Kinda ironic, though. :\

[Camelopard]

Oooh that's unlucky timing, to post a rant about gun ownership just as Europe is waking up to news about a gunman going on the rampage in Alabama. Kinda ironic, though. :\


The irony would be lost on fausto!

[MrJan]

Yay another thread about guns.

American member: Guns are good.
European member: No, guns are bad.
Canadian member: Let's all be friends eh? Guns are for hunting
Aussie member: America sucks

:D :p :

[chuck34]

The Weapons Act of 1938 relaxed the existing rules with regards gun ownership, not restricted them. The '38 Act in operation repealed many of the conditions contained in the Law on Firearms and Ammunition of 1928, which had been designed by the Weimar to restrict the use of firearms by civilians to prevent private militia forming (ie the Nazi SA), and it had the desired effect. There was no military takeover by the National Socialists.
Remember that the Nazis had actually attained power quite legally through a series of elections, and by 1933 Hitler gained dictatorial power also through legal means.

I'm actually surprised that people seem to think that even if there was an armed Jewish uprising that it would have succeeded. The simple fact of the matter is that the Nazis had acquired power legally and had the complicit support of the German people. If the Jews had staged an armed uprising it merely would have given a degree of truth to Nazi propaganda.


You are right about the Weapons Act of '38 relaxing ownership rules. That is of course unless you were a Jew. So what is your point about that? The non-Jew population wasn't being exterminated by Hitler. So if they could own a gun or not isn't the issue here.

And of course I know that the Nazi party came to power legally. That is the truely scary part of the whole time period.

And for you to completely dissmiss the effect of a Jewish uprising is a bit short sighted. Perhaps you are correct in saying it would have given a degree of truth to Nazi propaganda. Then again, that is unknowable. At the very least I think it's safe to say something like kristallnacht would have been quite different. And after this alternate kristallnacht, perhaps the international community would have found it harder to ignore the Jewish problems, and done something sooner. But that is also unknowable. What we do know is that they were rounded up fairly easisly and fairly quickly because they didn't have a good way to defend themselves.

[Camelopard]

Guns are bad, more innocent lives lost, in Germany this time, at least 8 school children. :(

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/03/11/2513681.htm?section=justin


"According to police, he was wearing black combat gear and opened fire seemingly randomly before fleeing into the town"

[chuck34]

Guns are good. Elderly woman holds intruder at gunpoint.

http://www.wsbt.com/news/local/37112449.html

[chuck34]

Guns are bad, more innocent lives lost, in Germany this time, at least 8 school children. :(

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/03/11/2513681.htm?section=justin


"According to police, he was wearing black combat gear and opened fire seemingly randomly before fleeing into the town"


So should we outlaw black combat gear now too?

Why is it so hard for people to understand reality. In this day and age, if you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns. I know it's an old cliche but it's true.

In a perfect world, no one would have guns. Someone argue with me that this is a perfect world now. I'd love to be convinced of that.

[Camelopard]

So should we outlaw black combat gear now too?

Why is it so hard for people to understand reality. In this day and age, if you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns. I know it's an old cliche but it's true.

In a perfect world, no one would have guns. Someone argue with me that this is a perfect world now. I'd love to be convinced of that.


Ummm, this thread was started by fausto telling us how cool it was for everyone to have weapons and how all these lives would have been saved if there wasn't gun control. So why have a go at me when all I did was point out another tragedy, this time in Europe.

A perfect world ain't ever going to happen when a major human characteristic is greed, as been proved by the current economic meltdown, thanks very much bernie :) . (why would anyone want $50 billion?)

[chuck34]

Ummm, this thread was started by fausto telling us how cool it was for everyone to have weapons and how all these lives would have been saved if there wasn't gun control. So why have a go at me when all I did was point out another tragedy, this time in Europe.

A perfect world ain't ever going to happen when a major human characteristic is greed, as been proved by the current economic meltdown, thanks very much bernie :) . (why would anyone want $50 billion?)

Sorry to have a go at you, just thought it was odd that you highlighted the part about the guy wearing black combat gear.

[jim mcglinchey]

Oooh that's unlucky timing, to post a rant about gun ownership just as Europe is waking up to news about a gunman going on the rampage in Alabama. Kinda ironic, though. :\


Doubly bad timing. It makes that pro gun argument sound especially stupid.

[Camelopard]

Update: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/03/11/2513713.htm?section=justin

The gunman had killed nine students and three teachers at the school, as well as one person at a nearby clinic.
In a shoot-out with police, two additional passers-by were killed and two policemen seriously injured, bringing the total death toll to 16 including the gunman, a police spokesman said.

Some media reports say the 17-year-old gunman was a former pupil at the school.

[Eki]

12 people in Alabama won't wake up ever again. What are the gun laws in Alabama like, fousto?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,508507,00.html

[chuck34]

I guess we better outlaw scissors now.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,508641,00.html

I do not want to seem cold or anything about the tragedies going on in Alabama or Germany. However, the guy in Alabama had fully automatic weapons. Those are illegal right now, no law would have stopped that from happening. And the kid in Germany was 17. The legal age in Germany to own a gun, I believe, is 21. So there was another broken law.

New laws imposed on law-abiding citizens will not stop these things from happening.

[Tazio]

I guess we better outlaw scissors now.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,508641,00.html

I do not want to seem cold or anything about the tragedies going on in Alabama or Germany. However, the guy in Alabama had fully automatic weapons. Those are illegal right now, no law would have stopped that from happening. And the kid in Germany was 17. The legal age in Germany to own a gun, I believe, is 21. So there was another broken law.

New laws imposed on law-abiding citizens will not stop these things from happening.A reasonably good point Chuck.
As long as there are Militaries there will be wars, which require guns. The situation in Germany which I haven’t even read about yet sounds similar to what happened in Columbine! When evaluated on an individual basis the perps were generally young people from respectable families whose parents didn’t have a clue what their offspring were up to. Bad parenting is the leading cause of drug abuse, and crime in this country, including gun crime. Where is John Lennon when you really need him? Oh yea' he got shot to death by a sociopath! :(
If guns were outlawed in the US today I doubt if there would be any apreciable decline in gun crimes for 50 years.
Arguably you have to start somewhere, and the powers that be will not invest what it takes to stop the violence in this country. Hell there are still a lot of people fighting the Civil War. They believe that Lee only handed Grant his sword because Grant was going to polish it for him. Supposedly that conflict ended 145 years ago.

[anthonyvop]

Guns are bad, more innocent lives lost, in Germany this time, at least 8 school children. :(

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/03/11/2513681.htm?section=justin


"According to police, he was wearing black combat gear and opened fire seemingly randomly before fleeing into the town"
And how many gun control laws did he violate?
How many people would have survived if just one of the victims had been allowed to carry a weapon for protection?

hate guns all you want but it is a FACT that in every state that allowed legal concealed carrying of weapons the Violent crime rate went down significantly

[anthonyvop]

12 people in Alabama won't wake up ever again. What are the gun laws in Alabama like, fousto?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,508507,00.html

Plenty of gun laws.
At 17 he was not allowed to purchase anytype of firearm nor purchase ammo.
At 17 he is not allowed to possess a firearm unless under adult supervision.
Firearms are not allowed on school campuses.
he is not allowed to carry a weapon unless with a concealed carry permit.

Oh..And Murder is against the law.

I guess all those laws worked well huh? I am sure the victims are sure glad those laws were sooooooooooooooo effective.

[Eki]

I guess we better outlaw scissors now.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,508641,00.html

I do not want to seem cold or anything about the tragedies going on in Alabama or Germany. However, the guy in Alabama had fully automatic weapons. Those are illegal right now, no law would have stopped that from happening. And the kid in Germany was 17. The legal age in Germany to own a gun, I believe, is 21. So there was another broken law.

New laws imposed on law-abiding citizens will not stop these things from happening.

They will make guns harder to find for 17 year old deranged kids when they can't borrow one from father's arsenal. And burglers couldn't steal as many guns as they do these days if there weren't guns to steal.

After the latest school shooting in Finland they made a gun license harder to get by requiring a certificate on mental health from a doctor. The demand for new gun licenses has dropped since.

[Eki]

Plenty of gun laws.
At 17 he was not allowed to purchase anytype of firearm nor purchase ammo.
At 17 he is not allowed to possess a firearm unless under adult supervision.
Firearms are not allowed on school campuses.
he is not allowed to carry a weapon unless with a concealed carry permit.

Oh..And Murder is against the law.

I guess all those laws worked well huh? I am sure the victims are sure glad those laws were sooooooooooooooo effective.
They said he was in his late 20s, not 17.

Do you mean they should make murder legal, because people murder despite the law against it?

[chuck34]

They will make guns harder to find for 17 year old deranged kids when they can't borrow one from father's arsenal. And burglers couldn't steal as many guns as they do these days if there weren't guns to steal.

After the latest school shooting in Finland they made a gun license harder to get by requiring a certificate on mental health from a doctor. The demand for new gun licenses has dropped since.

After the last school shooting in Germany they raised the age from 18 to 21. Worked out well, eh?

Exactly what law would you propose that will 100% guaruntee that no one would get their hands on a gun? Bear in mind that it has already been pointed out how many laws the guys in Alabama and Germany both broke in commiting this crime, not the least of which is murder!

[Eki]

After the last school shooting in Germany they raised the age from 18 to 21. Worked out well, eh?

Exactly what law would you propose that will 100% guaruntee that no one would get their hands on a gun? Bear in mind that it has already been pointed out how many laws the guys in Alabama and Germany both broke in commiting this crime, not the least of which is murder!
The one in Germany "borrowed" his gun from his father. The gun was legal, because the father had shooting and hunting as his hobbies. If shooting and hunting had been illegal, there most likely wouldn't have been a gun to "borrow".

Hunting and shooting are for modern people as necessary as pot smoking. If pot smoking is illegal in most countries, why can't hunting and shooting be?

[Roamy]

Ummm, this thread was started by fausto telling us how cool it was for everyone to have weapons and how all these lives would have been saved if there wasn't gun control. So why have a go at me when all I did was point out another tragedy, this time in Europe.

A perfect world ain't ever going to happen when a major human characteristic is greed, as been proved by the current economic meltdown, thanks very much bernie :) . (why would anyone want $50 billion?)

Cameltoe if someone had been packing perhaps they could have been stopped sooner.

guns = don't leave home without one !!!

[chuck34]

The one in Germany "borrowed" his gun from his father. The gun was legal, because the father had shooting and hunting as his hobbies. If shooting and hunting had been illegal, there most likely wouldn't have been a gun to "borrow".

Hunting and shooting are for modern people as necessary as pot smoking. If pot smoking is illegal in most countries, why can't hunting and shooting be?

Great point, pot smoking is illegal, yet I know a bunch of people that still smoke.

Besides the vast, and I mean VAST, majority of the people that hunt and sport shoot never ever do anything illegal with their guns. So let's take their "fun" away from them.

[Eki]

Great point, pot smoking is illegal, yet I know a bunch of people that still smoke.

Besides the vast, and I mean VAST, majority of the people that hunt and sport shoot never ever do anything illegal with their guns. So let's take their "fun" away from them.
Most pot smokers don't do any harm to anyone, not even to themselves. Why take their "fun" away from them? Life is not just for fun and personal pleasures, you have to think about other people as well.

[Roamy]

Most pot smokers don't do any harm to anyone, not even to themselves. Why take their "fun" away from them? Life is not just for fun and personal pleasures, you have to think about other people as well.

Is that why a year in finland seems like a decade??
:p

[steve_spackman]

Little Britain USA: America's Love for Guns

must watch..VERY funny


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWTgdN-qOl0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8UgOvJVol8

[steve_spackman]

Cameltoe if someone had been packing perhaps they could have been stopped sooner.

guns = don't leave home without one !!!

play nice Fousto...

[Eki]

Little Britain USA: America's Love for Guns

must watch..VERY funny


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWTgdN-qOl0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8UgOvJVol8
The first clip reminded me of the incident where New York police shot 41 rounds in an unarmed immigrant:

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

[Easy Drifter]

Many people in Canada hunt and fish to put food on the table, especially in the north.
Even here in central Ontario hunting and fishing for food is common. For those who are on small pension or social assistance it is a way to put more and healthier food on the table.
Many people in Canada especially Ontario and Quebec work at tourist oriented jobs in the summer and are laid off in the winter. Many East coasters work in commercial fishing during the season but have no jobs for part of the year. Employment Insurance takes weeks to come through and many do not even qualify so hunting and fishing keeps people from starving.
Much of our native population rely on hunting and fishing. In the north
the habitat and short summers preclude farming and food brought in is extremely expensive. Many native communities have no summer road access and only winter roads across frozen lakes if that. Regular supplies that people in the south take for granted have to be flown in by small planes with limited cargo space, often float planes.
Eki, just because you live in a country where that is not required for survival do not presume to tell the rest of the world how they should live.
Take off your self centred blinkers and look around.
As I have said before I hunted and fished and I ate what I shot or caught years ago. Latterly I have practiced catch and release when fishing.
I have not fired a gun for years but the last time I did I hit what I was aiming at and it was not a human. As for fishing I now have difficulty handling a rod and reel due to the effects on my right hand from a Brown Recluse spider bite.
Fresh fish and meat from game is far healthier than beef and pork as it is much leaner.

[chuck34]

Most pot smokers don't do any harm to anyone, not even to themselves. Why take their "fun" away from them? Life is not just for fun and personal pleasures, you have to think about other people as well.

Most gun owners don't do any harm to anyone either.

What's your point? Do you want to debate if pot should or should not be legal now? Fine, just go start another thread. Perhaps we may find agreement on that one, maybe.

[airshifter]

12 months ago? The Amnesty happened in 1997 some 12 years ago. Does news really travel that slowly. Also, where are the figures coming from? Not from any reliable sources I wager.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/01/02/1072908906612.html
After the massacre, tough gun laws were enacted across Australia, specifically targeting military-style weapons, which resulted in hundreds of thousands of weapons being destroyed.
The number of deaths caused by firearms dropped almost 50 per cent between 1991 and 2001, with the biggest yearly fall in deaths coming after the 1996 Port Arthur massacre.

http://www.usyd.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=1502
The risk of dying by gunshot has halved since Australia destroyed 700,000 privately owned firearms, according to a new study published today in the international research journal, Injury Prevention.

Apart from the fact that this is 12 years old, I'm assuming that whoever complied this didn't do the research, because it certainly wasn't you. These sorts of figures should be borne out in ABS Statistics, perhaps you'd like to provide those for us?

You will note that these links reference the number of deaths involving firearms. Unless it affects the overall murder rate, you've really accomplished nothing.

Well, you have changed the weapon used to kill the people, but nothing else.

[Rollo]

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated


"China" in 1935 referred to the Republic of China. If this statement is taken as lore then it ignores the small matters of the Second Sino-Japanese War, the Second World War itself and the continued fighting on mainland China until 1950. It also ignores the fact that the "political dissidents" of the Republic of China would have been the Communist Party of China, who it must be said not only were more than able to defend themselves, but exiled the Republic to Taiwan.

[Mark in Oshawa]

What this all boils down to the differences between the new world and the old. The old world, (Europe) has a top down hierarchy. All freedoms to citizens are subject to review and revision from the government. In the US, "God" or something like that was something the founding fathers of the US said granted all American citizens the rights of freedom. In those rights, one of those is the right to bear arms.

How did it work out?

Well, the US does have a high violent crime rate. Gun lovers or pro-gun people in the US and on this board cannot explain that away. It is an issue. However, before you Euro's get all smug, the kid in Germany had no problem taking his dad's rifle to his old school did he? Dunblane Scotland and the massacre there sickened me to death but the thing is, the UK has stricter gun laws than any in Canada yet this didn't stop the killing.

IN a perfect world, no one but legally sane humans would own guns. The problem is, this world hasn't been perfect since Eve ate the apple. Would I want to own a gun? I don't now, and don't feel a need to own one but I would reserve the right to change my mind on that. I don't feel it is the government's right to just take property owned legally by gun owners and collectors. I furthermore don't buy this argument that further gun laws will do a damned thing except disarm what percentage of the populace that is armed. In the US, the drop in crime rates in right-to-carry states is factual. There is something to it in a culture that has always allowed personal firearms. I think if the writers of the US constitution could see the carnage, they would be shocked BUT I doubt highly they would change the wording.

I point to Switzerland any time anyone brings up gun ownership. Every male in that nation has a sub machine gun in his CLOSET. What is the violent crime rate there? You see any mass killings in Swizterland? NO. Why? The Culture stupid.....

When a society glorifies death and doesn't punish criminals in a significant fashion for gun crimes, you have problems. When you have the rights of the insane to stay on the street rather than be committed, you will have issues.

This is a way more complicated solution than just banning guns. That wont do crap as they have discovered in the UK and in Australia. In Canada, we have discovered that registering our guns in a special registry was a joke, cost a ton of money, and it was discovered that criminals were tapping into the database to find the addresses of gun owners so they could break in and steal the weapons. Now, you can ban guns, you can wish they were not around, and that is fine, but the right of legally sane normal people to own or possess fire arms is to me a fundamenatal right of citzenery in a civilized democracy. Those who hunt, or use guns at gun clubs or ranges are not a threat so why should they suffer because the justice system of the democracy cant get the criminals off the street? We wont even get into the efficacy of personal gun's for protection. They wouldn't have citizens packing heat in a lot of US states if the law could protect them......

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Lets remember. Guns don't kill people.........







.......rappers do.

[Rollo]

I point to Switzerland any time anyone brings up gun ownership. Every male in that nation has a sub machine gun in his CLOSET. What is the violent crime rate there? You see any mass killings in Swizterland? NO. Why? The Culture stupid...

Every time anyone points to Switzerland as an example of how gun ownership "works", the word ignorance springs to mind. Heck even fousto brought this up in the post that he didn't write:


SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN! SWITZERLAND 'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE. SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!

Really? Define civilised.

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/27/2/214.pdf
The last linkable report (there was a UNDOC report dated 2008 but that comes back as a 404 error) by EG Krug to the International Journal of Epidemiology suggests the following:
Deaths per 100,000 where GDP > $15,0000

15.22 United States
6.82 Northern Ireland
6.86 Finland
6.40 Switzerland


Switzerland was the fourth highest in the developed world, not the lowest as the original poster was keen TO YELL!!!
On a related topic, the lowest were:

0.24 Singapore
0.19 Hong Kong
0.07 Japan

It's even more bizarre considering that it is virtually impossible at law to own a gun. Not even the police have them. Then again I suppose Japan isn't really civilised is it?

But Mark in Oshawa does raise an interesting point, it is the culture. It just seems that countries that have a gun culture also suffer the consequences.

[rah]

Many people in Canada hunt and fish to put food on the table, especially in the north.
Even here in central Ontario hunting and fishing for food is common. For those who are on small pension or social assistance it is a way to put more and healthier food on the table.
Many people in Canada especially Ontario and Quebec work at tourist oriented jobs in the summer and are laid off in the winter. Many East coasters work in commercial fishing during the season but have no jobs for part of the year. Employment Insurance takes weeks to come through and many do not even qualify so hunting and fishing keeps people from starving.
Much of our native population rely on hunting and fishing. In the north
the habitat and short summers preclude farming and food brought in is extremely expensive. Many native communities have no summer road access and only winter roads across frozen lakes if that. Regular supplies that people in the south take for granted have to be flown in by small planes with limited cargo space, often float planes.
Eki, just because you live in a country where that is not required for survival do not presume to tell the rest of the world how they should live.
Take off your self centred blinkers and look around.
As I have said before I hunted and fished and I ate what I shot or caught years ago. Latterly I have practiced catch and release when fishing.
I have not fired a gun for years but the last time I did I hit what I was aiming at and it was not a human. As for fishing I now have difficulty handling a rod and reel due to the effects on my right hand from a Brown Recluse spider bite.
Fresh fish and meat from game is far healthier than beef and pork as it is much leaner.

Makes sense to me, I have friends and family that hunt. But I have never done it myself. I have no issue with people owning guns for target shooting or hunting of approved species. But gun ownership should be controlled and I like the laws in Australia at the moment.

But I am yet to see a reason to own a semi-automatic weapon of any kind for any reason except to hurt someone either in attack or defence.

[Rollo]

During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!

So the fact that they were fighting a war in China & South East Asia had nothing to do with it at all? What about the fact that to mount an offensive across the Pacific would have meant a supply line... across the Pacific?

The thought that Japan would even think about invading a country more than 5000 miles away is idiotic.

[chuck34]

But I am yet to see a reason to own a semi-automatic weapon of any kind for any reason except to hurt someone either in attack or defence.

I'm sure someone will argue with me, but the original intent of the 2nd Amendment wasn't just for hunting or personal protection ... it was also for protection FROM the government. That is why semi-automatic weapons are needed.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Chuck, I am going to err on the side of the Gun Haters a little on this one. I think if the Founding fathers knew about automatic weapons, there would be a few more details involved.

Rollo, congrats on those stats. Switzerland may have a higher than people realize killing per capita from guns BUT I will also just point out Finland is a "progressive nation" as Eki has told us all more than once. It has gun control yet it is HIGHER than Switzerland. Your lowest countries are all oriental societies were rigid societal norms are in play. Also point out the very active and over the top justice system in Singapore and you can bet the Communist Chinese don't allow anyone in Hong Kong to step out of line either. The interesting one of those three of course is Japan. But there societal pressure and the loss of face/shame issue( something all oriental cultures SEEM to have) controls some of the impulsive actions that happen in places like the US. Also if you take out the urban ghetto's of the US that are skewing the numbers, the average American in rural and suburban areas likely is no more in danger than Finland or Switzerland. High...but acceptable.

What people must grasp is the US you are given all the freedom in the world to do things no other country would maybe understand but what has been lost in the US is the responsiblity that comes WITH those freedoms.

As for the country being armed to fend off a repressive government, I think it made a lot of sense in 1776 but I do question how valid it is now. I cant see the Government of the US going to war with its citizens. The Army is made up of volunteers from those same citizens. The consent of the governed being subject to the laws of the governors lies more in tradition now and I cant see the government using arms under law to go to war with the citizenry.

Automatic weapons in the hands of private individuals is something no other nation tolerates really except under very rigid reasoning ( such as in Switzerland ) so it is hard for us not in America to understand why Americans feel the need to own M-16's and the like. Just have to watch what happens in your average gang war in the ghetto to know that this is a BAD thing on many levels.

[chuck34]

The consent of the governed being subject to the laws of the governors lies more in tradition now and I cant see the government using arms under law to go to war with the citizenry.


This is a bit backwards. It isn't the government going to war with it's citizenry, it is the citizenry going to war with it's government.

Let's get one thing straight now. I do not advocate that one bit. But I think the option has to be left open for future generations.

And you are correct about personal responsibility not being taken seriously in this country. We need to get back to people taking responsibility for their own actions and stop blaming other people. And as for your M-16s and gang warfare. I believe that if you use a weapon in a crime the punnishment should be MUCH stiffer than it is currently.

My basic philosophy, I guess you could call it that, is to severly punish people that commit crimes so that you don't have to infringe on law abiding citizen's rights.

[rah]

I'm sure someone will argue with me, but the original intent of the 2nd Amendment wasn't just for hunting or personal protection ... it was also for protection FROM the government. That is why semi-automatic weapons are needed.
I am sure that may have been right some time ago, but that is not realistic these days. The government has bigger guns than you do.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Rah, that is what I meant. If the people who wrote that clause in the US Constitution knew what was to come in weaponry I am sure there would be some more thought and some more definition. That said, I do agree with Chuck that the purpose of the amendment was for citizens to have some form of weapon that would ensure no government could ever hold anything more than voluntary power over the populace. Of course, if you read the history of things like the Whiskey Rebellion, you very quickly realize that the administration of George Washington was quite willing to go to war with its citizens over the right to tax. When I read the story of it all, I was looking at the same factors that caused the original American Revolution. I would have to say that while that 2nd Amendment was a noble idea, the government of the US has been probably at various times in its history probably regretting that it exists....

[Jag_Warrior]

Private citizens generally do not and cannot (legally) own actual M-16's. When we have these discussions, it's important to remember that full automatic and select fire weapons are strictly regulated by the BATF in the U.S. Ronald Reagan signed the Firearm Owners Protection Act in 1986. Among other things, that law prohibits the ownership, sale or transfer of any select fire or fully automatic weapon not registered as of May 19, 1986. The gang-bangers and organized crime figures who use fully automatic weapons are using illegally obtained or illegally modified weapons... no different from the kilo of cocaine they have in the trunk or their car or the 14 year old prostitute they have locked in the closet of their row house.

The U.S. has in excess of 1 million gang members roaming our streets. Many, if not most, are convicted felons, or they have other legal disabilities which prevent them from legally owning or possessing any firearm... much less an M-16 (not an AR15) or an Uzi. But this didn't stop Bill and Hillary Clinton's good friend, Johnny Chung, from working for Norinco. Norinco makes the AK-47/74 and other AK variants in China - some full auto and some semi-auto. While Johnny was having sleep-overs at the White House with Bill & Hill, Norinco and Poly Tech were attempting to smuggle 2000 fully automatic AK-47's to drug gangs in the U.S. These weapons had NO OTHER PURPOSE than to be used on the streets of America. Since the duo of Clinton/Reno was so anti gun, I bet a lot of heads really rolled when this was found out, huh? I bet a lot of people are still serving sentences in Federal prison over this, huh? Well, not quite...




According to the 100-page federal indictment from one of the key undercover agents, Chen and Ma had difficulty in getting the machine gun "barrels" because they required "higher-level permission."

Clearly, that permission had to come from then head of the Chinese army intelligence, Gen. Xiong. The fact is that Gen. Xiong and his buddies at PLA headquarters not only control Poly Technologies but they also own Poly Technologies. More importantly, U.S. investigators also said Chinese company representatives tried to sell undercover U.S. agents "rocket launchers, anti-aircraft missiles, machine guns and even tanks." (:eek :)


In August 1996, the China Ocean Shipping Company (COSCO) ship Princess Bride was caught in an attempt to smuggling over 2,000 machine guns into the United States.

According to Customs officials, the bust was nearly foiled by a leak from inside the Clinton administration to COSCO, forcing the agents to move early on the Princess Bride while it was still docked in Los Angeles harbor.

"Poly's U.S. subsidiaries were abruptly closed in August 1996. Allegedly, Poly's representative, Robert Ma, conspired with China North Industries Corporation's (NORINCO) representative, Richard Chen, and a number of businessmen in California to illegally import 2000 AK-47s into the United States," states a 1997 Rand Corporation report.

All those charged by the Reno Justice Department were released pending a trial. All of those released, including Ma and Chen, fled to China and have never faced a U.S. jury. The Clinton administration never pursued the alleged criminals nor sought extradition from the PRC. Again, Janet Reno refused to pursue the evidence.

Of course, the fact remains that President Clinton met with the Wang Jun, the CEO of Poly Technologies in February 1996, prior to the arms bust by U.S. Customs agents. Clinton's close Arkansas friend Charlie Trie brought Wang to the White House.

Bill Clinton also took a $50,000 donation from Charlie "Yah Lin" Trie at that same meeting. Clinton, Trie and Wang then shared coffee inside the White House. None of the three ever explained where the $50,000 came from.

I hate hearing about innocent people being killed by gun violence, or any other type of violence. I don't want to be misunderstood here. I really do. But it frustrates me to no end when I see Congress, the President and law enforcement focusing on the onesy/twosy topics, rather than the larger contributors to violent crime. If Bush I, Clinton, Bush II and now Obama had gone/would go after the criminal element that commits most of the violent crime in this country, instead of otherwise law abiding gun owners, we would be right behind them.

The U.S. probably has the only true "gun culture" in the developed world. Why do we have such a fascination with firearms? I don't know. The same people who are trying to figure that out can probably give you a good answer on why the Romans were so fascinated by gladiatorial combat. Hey, maybe we're weird people in lots of ways. I dunno. I do not think our way is necessarily the way for other countries or cultures. But if we want to address the broad issue of violent crime in the U.S. or anywhere else, I think it's important to address the true root causes, not the exceptions and the symptoms.

IMO, there's a good (yet bad) reason why Obama and Eric Holder won't hold Mexico's feet to the fire to secure the serial numbers from the automatic weapons being captured in raids on the drug cartels in Mexico. Many of those weapons are said to be M-16's, not AR15's... so those particular weapons didn't come from Mom & Pop gun shops on the U.S. side of the border. And those .50 cals mounted on pickup trucks in Nuevo Laredo? Yeah, some gringo straw buyer ran those across the border in the bed of his Dodge Ram. :rolleyes:

[Jag_Warrior]

I am sure that may have been right some time ago, but that is not realistic these days. The government has bigger guns than you do.

I've always assumed that's why the U.S. Army questioned soldiers in the early 90's as to whether or not they would be willing to fire on American citizens.

Remember, a great many of the American rebels during the Revolutionary War had at one time been "loyal British subjects." And probably the most capable military officer that the United States had in 1860 was Robert E. Lee. By 1861, that had changed... or I should say, Lee had changed sides.

All that to say, it's important to remember who and what "the government" is. I hope it never comes to that, but if we ever fell into another civil war, I wouldn't assume that "the rebels" would be severaly outgunned. There would just be a greater variety of weapons and uniforms on that side. :D

[Breeze]

Given a choice between lax (or even none) gun laws and 16, 20, 33, etc., dead innocents, and a ban on gun ownership by a government and 100,000, 300,000 , 1.5 million, 5.9 million, etc., put to death, I'll take the lax gun ownership laws, thank you very much.

Given a choice between an oppressive government and a limited one, I'll take the limited one, thank you very much, even if I have to take up arms to get it.

Regarding Bernie Madoff, and greed in general, it wasn't the greed that was a bad thing, it was the FRAUD. There are plenty of greedy people in the world who get very rich without committing fraud.

So, do we outlaw greed and gun ownership, or fraud and murder?

[Mark in Oshawa]

Breeze...a very well thought position that most people outside of North America just don't understand. Freedom means different parameters to different democratic nations but what I have always tried to say is that in the US the concept of your freedoms is from the bottom up, in that citizens have rights and freedoms given to them and government is supposed to be reponsive to that and limited in scope. Most democratic nations, and in the British parliamentry tradition, freedoms are granted by the government. It is a mentality and subtle distinction that gives the cultures of democracies radically opposing views on how freedom and in this case, gun ownership is viewed. I am personally on the fence on this one. I live in a nation where you can own guns that for the most part make sense for ownership (recreational shooting and hunting) but is VERY restrictive for carrying personal weapons such as pistols. As a result, up until a few years ago, gun crimes in Canada were limited. Lately though.....well the idea of packing heat in some neighbourhoods for protection starts to look good.

If police cannot guarntee your safety, then they shouldn't be so hard on those who want to protect themselves if they do it in a socially acceptable manner. The problem has always lied in that in the US, the pistol has been misused and abused....

[airshifter]

Rah, that is what I meant. If the people who wrote that clause in the US Constitution knew what was to come in weaponry I am sure there would be some more thought and some more definition. That said, I do agree with Chuck that the purpose of the amendment was for citizens to have some form of weapon that would ensure no government could ever hold anything more than voluntary power over the populace. Of course, if you read the history of things like the Whiskey Rebellion, you very quickly realize that the administration of George Washington was quite willing to go to war with its citizens over the right to tax. When I read the story of it all, I was looking at the same factors that caused the original American Revolution. I would have to say that while that 2nd Amendment was a noble idea, the government of the US has been probably at various times in its history probably regretting that it exists....


Take a look into the Virginia Constitution, since the US Constitution is based on it, almost word for word in some sections. Their concern with guns it based on a view that they did not desire a standing army, so it was desirable to have armed citizens.

I personally don't think it's violating Constitutional rights to have stricter gun laws that allow responsible owners to enjoy guns, yet also require accountability in a better form. But I'm glad it's a right, as I've had a family member saved by that right to bear arms.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Shifter....if you are thinking it isn't violating the constitution to have some stricter laws, then you would be at odds with the NRA. Personally, I think the best thing the NRA could do would be to codify some sort of legal framework they would accept and then put that forward at some point. I do know that pistols and semi-auto guns are meant for killing people only so I do think stricter controls on them are not out of line.

[Breeze]

Stricter laws on ownership rights are at odds with the concept of freedom, as you pointed out. Airshifter hit on the crux of the issue, which is accountability. As has often been said, its not the guns that kill people, its people. Its an old saw, for sure, but holding gun owners accountable for what is done with their weapons, and doing that much more strongly than has been generally, is a position I doubt any gun owner would oppose.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Breeze...the only issue with holding people accountable seems to be there is no shame nor desire on the part of those committing crimes with guns. They do it knowing they will get jail time. In America, you usually do a pretty good sentence for any gun crime YET they are occuring at a higher rate in the US than almost anywhere else. The accountability or shame/fear of going to the pen doesn't seem to be an deterrent. IT is maddening because I too feel people should pay the price for breaking societies rules as opposed to making everyone suffer a loss of liberty while the criminals keep doing what they do. Yet there Is some compromises that may meet both criteria to at least put a kink in the plans of criminals to acquire weapons. Not sure how it can be done....

[Tazio]

:rolleyes: That's too logical for our breed :(