I Hate Dialysis Message Board

Off-Topic => Off-Topic: Talk about anything you want. => Topic started by: George Jung on April 28, 2007, 09:29:54 PM

Title: Gun Controll Debate
Post by: George Jung on April 28, 2007, 09:29:54 PM
Ballistic Fingerprinting  :thumbup;
Smart Guns  :thumbup;
Trigger Locks  :thumbup;
Backround Checks  :thumbup;
One Gun a Month  :thumbup;
Waiting Periods  :thumbup;
Licensing Hand Gun Owners  :thumbup;
Registration for Hand Guns  :thumbup;
Safe Storage Laws  :thumbup;
Title: Re: Gun Controll Debate
Post by: jbeany on April 28, 2007, 10:18:37 PM
Ballistic Fingerprinting is only a good idea in theory.  In the real world, it just won't work.  For those of you unfamiliar with the concept - the idea is to shoot each weapon as it is manufactured, then keep a computer file of the bullet's rifling for matching to a crime scene bullet, like they show on all the CSI shows.  In reality, if a criminal planned to use a weapon in crime, and didn't want the bullet traced, it is remarkably easy to alter the weapon to keep the ballistic fingerprint from matching the one on file.  Many guns can be dismantled, and the barrel exchanged or replaced so that the rifiling doesn't match.  It's also possible to simply damage the gun barrel by scratching or marring the interior surface of the barrel, which also drastically changes the rifling.  Doing so will, of course, alter the accuracy of the weapon, but we are talking about someone planning to use the gun to commit a murder, not win a target tourney.
Title: Re: Gun Controll Debate
Post by: Rerun on April 29, 2007, 03:52:40 AM
Definitely a 3 day waiting period.  Then a gun safety class.  Also, if they have anything on their record then no gun.
Title: Re: Gun Controll Debate
Post by: BigSky on April 29, 2007, 09:39:55 AM
Ballistic Fingerprinting  :thumbup;
Smart Guns  :thumbup;
Trigger Locks  :thumbup;
Backround Checks  :thumbup;
One Gun a Month  :thumbup;
Waiting Periods  :thumbup;
Licensing Hand Gun Owners  :thumbup;
Registration for Hand Guns  :thumbup;
Safe Storage Laws  :thumbup;

LOL   How little you know about firearms george.

If anything you have demonstrated why people like YOU should not own them.

 
Title: Re: Gun Controll Debate
Post by: Joe Paul on April 29, 2007, 10:13:03 AM
Bad thing about guns are illegal guns, the ones that are considered "throw aways". All the gun laws in the world wont prevent someone hell bent on getting a gun that wants one for any reason, rather cheap too.
Title: Re: Gun Controll Debate
Post by: George Jung on April 29, 2007, 06:39:35 PM
Seatbelts don't save everyones life but they do save some.

BigSky, I guess most of Americans don't know much about guns either then, because most of them would agree with some of those ideas.  I am glad you find it funny because that just confirms my thoughts about you.
Title: Re: Gun Controll Debate
Post by: del on April 29, 2007, 07:39:10 PM
I agree with Joe Paul that all the gun restrictions and rules you can think of won't stop a killer if he really wants to do it. They will find a way to get some weapon - steal it or whatever. I think though that there has to be some type of control. You should not be able to just go to a store and buy a gun. You should have to apply ,do a course on how to use it, safety and also show that ou are a responsible person. Guns are just an object without the ammo so that has to be controlled as well.  I use a gun and own one but it would never be used for anything illegal by me. 
Title: Re: Gun Controll Debate
Post by: Falkenbach on April 29, 2007, 08:16:11 PM
Safe storage laws, whilst not a bad idea per se, are probably still pretty ineffective. Statistically, as we are all aware, most people are killed by someone they know. The storage is not going to prevent a gun being used in a domestic situation because the gun owner knows where it is and has easy access to it!

I'm afraid, much to the disgust of many a US resident, I am a supporter of gun control laws. I don't see the need for things like autos and semi autos in the hands of civilians at all! And anything else should be licensed.

I don't believe there is any denying the link between the high rate of gun crime in America and the easy accessibility of guns there. I would never insult your constitution, I realise and respect the importance of the document, but I would argue that that the "rigth to bear arms" section is outdated.

*runs for cover*
Title: Re: Gun Controll Debate
Post by: glitter on April 29, 2007, 08:23:33 PM
Gun control" laws prevent crime.

So overwhelming is the evidence against this myth that it borders on the absurd for anti-gun groups to try to perpetuate it.

There are thousands of federal, state and local gun laws. The Gun Control Act of 1968 (Public Law 90-618, 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44) alone prohibits persons convicted of, or under indictment for, crimes punishable by more than a year in prison, fugitives, illegal drug users, illegal aliens, mental incompetents and certain other classes of people from purchasing or possessing firearms. It prohibits mail order sales of firearms, prohibits sales of firearms between non-dealer residents of other states, prohibits retail sales of handguns to persons under age 21 and rifles and shotguns to persons under age 18 and prohibits the importation of firearms "not generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes." It also established the current firearms dealer licensing system. Consider the following gun control failures.

(Unless otherwise noted, crime data are from the FBI, Uniform Crime Reports.)

Washington, D.C.'s ban on handgun sales took effect in 1977 and by the 1990s the city's murder rate had tripled. During the years following the ban, most murders--and all firearm murders--in the city were committed with handguns.1

Chicago imposed handgun registration in 1968, and murders with handguns continued to rise. Its registration system in place, Chicago imposed a D.C.-style handgun ban in 1982, and over the next decade the annual number of handgun-related murders doubled.2

California increased its waiting period on retail and private sales of handguns from five to 15 days in 1975 (reduced to 10 days in 1996), outlawed "assault weapons" in 1989 and subjected rifles and shotguns to the waiting period in 1990. Yet since 1975, the state's annual murder rate has averaged 32% higher than the rate for the rest of the country.

Maryland has imposed a waiting period and a gun purchase limit, banned several small handguns, restricted "assault weapons," and regulated private transfers of firearms even between family members and friends, yet for the last decade its murder rate has averaged 44% higher than the rate for the rest of the country, and its robbery rate has averaged highest among the states.

The overall murder rate in the jurisdictions that have the most severe restrictions on firearms purchase and ownership--California, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Washington, D.C.--is 8% higher than the rate for the rest of the country.

New York has had a handgun licensing law since 1911, yet until the New York City Police Department began a massive crackdown on crime in the mid-1990s, New York City's violent crime rate was among the highest of U.S. cities.

The federal Gun Control Act of 1968 imposed unprecedented restrictions relating to firearms nationwide. Yet, compared to the five years before the law, the national murder rate averaged 50% higher during the five years after the law, 75% higher during the next five years, and 81% higher during the five years after that.

States where the Brady Act's waiting period was imposed had worse violent crime trends than other states. Other failures of the federal waiting period law are noted in the discussion of Fable V.

The record is clear: Gun control primarily impacts upon upstanding citizens, not criminals. Crime is reduced by holding criminals accountable for their actions.

Increasing incarceration rates -- Between 1980-1994, the 10 states with the greatest increases in prison population experienced an average decrease of 13% in violent crime, while the 10 states with the smallest increases in prison population experienced an average 55% increase in violent crime.3

Put violent criminals behind bars and keep them there -- In 1991, 162,000 criminals placed on probation instead of being imprisoned committed 44,000 violent crimes during their probation. In 1991, criminals released on parole committed 46,000 violent crimes while under supervision in the community for an average of 13 months.4 Nineteen percent of persons involved in the felonious killings of law enforcement officers during the last decade were on probation or parole at the time of the officers' killings.5

Enforce the law against criminals with guns -- The success of Richmond, Virginia's Project Exile, strongly supported by NRA, has grabbed the attention of the Administration, Members of Congress, big city mayors and criminologists. Project Exile is a federal, state and local effort led by the U.S. Attorney's Office in Richmond that sentences felons convicted of illegally possessing guns to a minimum of five years in prison. Following the implementation of Project Exile, the city's firearm murder rate was cut by nearly 40%.6 Recognizing the program's success, Congress in 1998 approved $2.3 million to implement Project Exile in Philadelphia, Pa., and Camden County, N.J. In 2002, the Bush Department of Justice took the Project Exile concept nationwide, targeting violent felons with guns under Project Safe Neighborhoods.
Title: Re: Gun Controll Debate
Post by: glitter on April 29, 2007, 08:26:22 PM
 
 The Miami Herald, Miami, FL, 09/21/06 
  State: fl 
  American Rifleman Issue: 12/1/2006 
  Just four months after burglars stole jewelry worth thousands of dollars from a Florida townhouse, four suspects attempted another heist. This time, however, the homeowners' 26-year-old son was sleeping inside. According to police, Richard McKinley heard someone entering the home, grabbed a handgun and went to investigate. He confronted four burglars, and pointed his gun at them while demanding their hasty departure. Instead, they began struggling with McKinley and he opened fire. One intruder died instantly. The others fled. "[McKinley] took it upon himself to defend himself, and I'd do the same thing he did," said a neighbor. 

 
 Sun-Sentinel, Fort Lauderdale, FL, 05/30/06 
  State: fl 
  American Rifleman Issue: 8/1/2006 
  High school freshman Javaris Granger woke to the sound of his mother's frantic screams and ran to her aid, finding a man slamming a bicycle against the front window in an attempt to break in. Granger yelled at the man to leave while his mother called his father on the phone. She handed him the phone and his father told him to get the guns they used for target shooting and said, "Do what you have to do." When the intruder kicked in the door, Granger fired five shots, and the man fled. A suspect was later apprehended by police and taken to the hospital with two gunshot wounds. His extensive arrest record included a charge of attacking a police officer the day before he allegedly broke into Granger's home. "My husband tried to get everyone to learn the safety of a gun," said Granger's mother. "It paid off." 

 
 Pensacola News Journal, Pensacola, FL, 03/06/06 
  State: fl 
  American Rifleman Issue: 6/1/2006 
  When Edward Lucas, Sr., checked to see why the neighbor's German shepherd was barking in the early morning hours, he found a man trying to break through his door. "I yelled, 'Get out of my house!' but he kept coming," Lucas said. "I was scared to death." The 63-year-old then grabbed a .22-cal. rifle and yelled for his girlfriend to jump out the window and call the police at a neighbor's house. According to police, when the intruder crashed through the door, Lucas shot at him at least four times. The assailant, who had 14 criminal convictions including seven felonies, died on the scene. 

 
 Florida Today, Melbourne, FL, 02/22/06 
  State: fl 
  American Rifleman Issue: 6/1/2006 
  Police were still investigating an odd string of events that ended with a home invasion. Witnesses said the intruder approached at least four homes, banging on and breaking windows and jumping over chain-link fences before breaking through Pete Frinks' front door. "It's scary that he would do this in broad daylight, knowing people are in the house," said a neighbor. Police say the man approached Frinks, who later described the intruder as acting "aggressively" and "irrationally." In fear of his life, Frinks grabbed a handgun and shot his assailant in the chest, killing him. 

 
 The St. Augustine Record, St. Augustine, FL, 11/05/05 
  State: fl 
  American Rifleman Issue: 2/1/2006 
  Police say three men broke into a couple's residence with baseball bats and a gun in search of prescription drugs, but all they left with was a lesson from an armed citizen. Two of the men allegedly ordered the couple and their visiting family members to the floor while a third suspect stole the medications. Meanwhile, a family member in another room heard the commotion and armed himself with a firearm. He entered the room and fired several shots at the intruder who was holding the victim's relatives at gunpoint, hitting him once in the torso. Two men fled in a car and were apprehended by police. The wounded man was found collapsed in the street. The trio faces charges of home invasion, robbery and kidnapping. "They were very threatening to the family," said St. Johns County Sheriff David Shoar. "[The man who was shot] had the gun to the wife's head." 

 
 The News-Press, Fort Myers, FL, 06/07/05 
  State: FL 
  American Rifleman Issue: 10/1/2005 
  The two masked men who burst into a North Fort Myers, Fla., pharmacy demanding drugs didn't notice the pharmacy technician, who was a concealed-weapons permit holder, crouched in the back. When one robber leapt onto the countertop and waved a pistol at the clerk, the technician took action, opening fire with a .45-cal. pistol and hitting the armed man in the stomach. Both suspects fled the scene. Police believed the wounded man was a career criminal with 14 felony convictions since 1990 who was released from prison in January. "I knew for sure this guy was going to kill me," the technician said. "I was so afraid. I knew if I died, [the clerk] was going to die." 

 
 Florida Today, Melbourne, FL, 06/19/05 
  State: FL 
  American Rifleman Issue: 10/1/2005 
  Christine Peacock was pulling through a fast-food drive-through when a man ordered her to stop and hand over her belongings. Because she was in her boyfriend's car, the normally unarmed Peacock had a gun handy. When she drew it, the mere sight of the firearm caused the would-be robber to flee the scene. It was a scary incident that completely changed Peacock's opinion of concealed carry. "I didn't believe that everybody should carry a gun at all times; I thought it was too overprotective," she said. "[Now] I plan on enrolling in a concealed weapons permit class, and purchasing my own gun [to have] with me at all times." 

 
 The Tampa Tribune, Tampa, FL, 04/16/05 
  State: FL 
  American Rifleman Issue: 7/1/2005 
  The hooded armed robber likely thought the older, female clerk would be an easy mark as he entered a Tampa convenience store, brandishing his gun and demanding money. He wasn't counting on confronting someone like Janet Grammer. The 64-year-old mother of 10, a former security guard, pulled her own gun from under the cash register and fired, hitting the criminal in the chest. "I think he thought I was an old woman and would just give him the money," Grammer said after the incident. "I think I scared the hell out of him. I thought he was getting ready to shoot me in the head. My life was at stake." Grammer, who also has 32 grandchildren, three great-grandchildren and three great-great-grandchildren, later said she worried that she had killed the hospitalized assailant. "It was very upsetting. The good Lord had to be with me," she said. 

 
 Florida Today, Jacksonville, FL, 03/20/2005 
  State: FL 
  American Rifleman Issue: 6/1/2005 
  A Jacksonville, Fla., cabbie was dropping off two passengers when a robber with a gun burst onto the scene. The cab driver halted the attack by shooting the culprit in the chest. Police said the criminal, who died at the scene, had been hiding in the bushes and made his move as the passengers were exiting the car. 

 
 The Times-Union Sampler, Jacksonville, FL, 10/14/04 
  State: FL 
  American Rifleman Issue: 1/1/2005 
  A Jacksonville, Fla., man got the surprise of his life after he came home to find a knife-wielding teenage girl inside demanding his car keys. When the girl headed to another room to retrieve the keys, the homeowner, Richard Clark, ran to retrieve his gun. Moments later the two faced off in the house, and the teen charged at Clark with the knife. Clark shot once, hitting the teen in the face. She was charged with aggravated battery and armed burglary. 

 
Title: Re: Gun Controll Debate
Post by: glitter on April 29, 2007, 08:28:01 PM
 
 Orlando Sentinel, Orlando, FL, 08/11/04 
  State: FL 
  American Rifleman Issue: 12/1/2004 
  "I feel like I protected my own life," said Judy Foster regarding an attempted robbery she stopped at the Haines City, Florida, Mister Money USA store. Foster, the proprietor, had been through a robbery before, so when two men came into the store carrying guns, she did not hesitate to pull out her pistol and fire. One man fell to the ground, but managed to get up, and then the two robbers fled the store. Thomas Wiley, who was fatally wounded by Foster's bullet, was later found dead in a stolen car. Bernard Geddis, the driver in the incident, was arrested on charges of second-degree murder and attempted armed robbery. At press time, Taurean Brown was being sought as the suspected second gunman. 

 
 Tallahassee Democrat, Tallahassee, Fla., 11/5/04 
  State: FL 
  American Rifleman Issue: 11/1/2004 
  Seeing a stranger enter the yard of his hurricane-damaged Pensacola, Fla., home, 77-year-old James Workman left the trailer he and his wife were living in to confront him. The man, however, managed to force his way into the trailer, where Workman grabbed him and a struggle ensued. Workman was able to reach a gun, fire and fatally shot the intruder. 

 
 Jacksonville Times-Union, Jacksonville, Fla., 10/6/04 
  State: FL 
  American Rifleman Issue: 10/1/2004 
  When his Jacksonville, Fla., home was broken into by a butcher knife-wielding intruder who demanded the keys to his car, Richard Clark said the keys were in another room. When the invader began a search for the keys, Clark was able to retrieve his .38-cal. revolver, fire, and wounded the crook. Police soon arrested the intruder, saying the suspect was linked to three prior burglaries. 

 
 Miami Herald, Miami, Fla., October 19, 2004 
  State: FL 
  American Rifleman Issue: 10/1/2004 
  Felicia Moss was getting out of her Lexus at her Pembroke Pines, Fla., apartment complex, when a man walked up to her and demanded money. Moss stalled by getting her wallet, and at the same time reached for the 9 mm handgun she has a permit to carry. After a brief struggle, Moss fired, and the would-be robber fled. She then disabled his car with a final round. 

 
 Florida Times-Union, Jacksonville, Fla., 7/22/04 
  State: FL 
  American Rifleman Issue: 9/1/2004 
  After closing the Waycross, Ga., liquor store where he worked, Roy Rhodes was returning home when two robbers attacked him from behind, one shooting him in the leg. Rhodes returned fire with a pistol he was carrying, mortally wounding one of the men. The other would-be thief fled and was later apprehended by police. 

 
 The Daily Commercial, Leesburg, Fla., 9/23/04 
  State: FL 
  American Rifleman Issue: 9/1/2004 
  When his mother's ex-boyfriend rammed a pickup truck into her Croom-a-Coochie, Fla., home after making a number of threatening phone calls, 20-year-old Donald Carr grabbed his .22-caliber rifle. Then, when the man grabbed a hammer and threatened his mother, Carr fired, wounding the intruder, who soon was arrested by police. 

 
 Polk County News-Chief, Polk County, Fla., 8/11/04 
  State: FL 
  American Rifleman Issue: 8/1/2004 
  Two armed robbers thought that because a woman was behind the counter of a Lake Alfred, Fla., store, it would be an easy heist. Instead, Judy Foster reacted to their demand of money from a clerk by retrieving her gun and firing three shots, fatally wounding one of the suspects. The other suspect was later arrested and charged with attempted robbery and second-degree murder. 

 
 Tampa Tribune, Tampa, FL, 01/10/04 
  State: FL 
  American Rifleman Issue: 5/1/2004 
  A liquor store clerk thwarted a robbery attempt at Latam Wines & Liquor in Tampa, Fla., when he grabbed a gun kept under the counter and aimed it at the crook. The robbery attempt occurred at 8:30 p.m. when a man wearing a bandanna over his face entered the liquor store. The masked man approached the counter and pointed a gun at the clerk who, in turn, pulled out a gun and aimed it at the would-be robber. The masked man fled the store without shots being fired and took off in a late model Camaro or Trans Am. Three other men were in the vehicle when it sped off, according to police. 

 
 St. Petersburg Times, St. Petersburg, FL, 01/22/04 
  State: FL 
  American Rifleman Issue: 4/1/2004 
  Baltimore Ravens cornerback Corey Fuller was confronted at his Tallahassee, Fla., home by an armed man at 2:30 a.m. when he and a houseguest went outside to retrieve something from his car. The gunman chased after Fuller who ran back into his home to get his revolver. After an exchange of gunfire the assailant fled and no one was injured. Fuller is offering a $10,000 reward for information leading to the arrest of his assailant. 

 
 The News, Stuart, Florida, 11/27/03 
  State: FL 
  American Rifleman Issue: 2/1/2004 
  Jeff Pantzer of Stuart, Florida, was awakened in the night by the sound of blinds rattling. Someone had broken in just five months previously, and Pantzer now kept a shotgun just in case. He took up his gun and fired as he saw a man's legs enter his window, scaring the would-be burglar right out of his shoes. "My safety was my first consideration," Pantzer said. "It was real quick, he was halfway in the window ... I fired, and he exited the window at the same time ..." The suspect was not apprehended, but police say he may be linked to four similar burglaries in the area. 
 
Title: Re: Gun Controll Debate
Post by: glitter on April 29, 2007, 08:32:25 PM
 "Since firearm accidents are a large and growing problem, we need laws mandating how people store their firearms." NOT TRUE

To the contrary, fatal firearm accidents in the United States have been decreasing dramatically from year to year, decade to decade.1 Today they're at an all-time low among the entire population and among children in particular, and account for only 1% of fatal accidents. More common are fatal accidents involving, or due to, motor vehicles, falls, fires, poisoning, drowning, choking on ingested objects and mistakes during medical care.2 Since 1930, the U.S. population has more than doubled, the number of privately owned firearms has quintupled, and the annual number of fatal firearm accidents has declined by 74%.3 Among children, fatal firearm accidents have declined 84% since 1975.4

Anti-gun activists exaggerate the number of firearm-related deaths among children more than 500%, by counting deaths among persons under the age of 20 as deaths of "children."5 To these activists a 19-year-old gangster who is shot by police during a convenience store robbery is a "child." In some instances, they even have pretended that persons under the age of 25 were "children," and Handgun Control, Inc., on at least one occasion, pretended that anyone under the age of 35 was a "child."6

Along with misrepresenting accident and other statistics in an effort to frighten people into not keeping guns in their homes, anti-gun activists also advocate "mandatory storage" laws (to require all gun owners to store their firearms unloaded and locked away) and "triggerlock" laws (to require some sort of locking device to be provided with every gun sold.) Both concepts are intended to prohibit or, at least, discourage people from keeping their firearms ready for protection against criminals--the most common reason many people buy firearms today.

NRA opposes such laws because it would be unreasonable and potentially dangerous to impose one storage requirement upon all gun owners. Individual gun owners have different factors to consider when determining how best to store their guns. They alone are capable of making the decision that is best for themselves. Gun safes and trigger locking devices have been on the market for years, of course, and remain available to anyone who decides that those products fit their individual needs.

Storage and triggerlock laws could also give people the false impression that it is safe to rely upon mechanical devices, rather than upon proper firearm handling procedures. Mechanical devices can fail and many trigger locking devices pose a danger when installed on loaded firearms.

Mandatory storage laws also would be virtually impossible to enforce without violating the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches. American gun owners and civil libertarians are keenly aware that in Great Britain, a mandatory storage law was a precursor to that country's prohibition on handgun ownership.

Most states provide penalties for reckless endangerment, under which an adult found grossly negligent in the storage of a firearm can be prosecuted for a criminal offense. Responsible gun owners already store their firearms safely, in accordance with their personal needs. Irresponsible persons are not likely to undergo a character change because of a law that restates their inherent responsibilities.

NRA recognizes that education has been the key to the decline in firearm accidents. NRA's network of 39,000 Certified Instructors and Coaches nationwide trains hundreds of thousands of gun owners each year. Separately, NRA's award-winning Eddie Eagle¬Ć Gun Safety Education program for children pre-K through 6th grade has reached more than 15 million youngsters nationwide. NRA's Home Firearm Safety Manual advises: "The proper storage of firearms is the responsibility of all gun owners," and that gun owners should "store guns so they are not accessible to untrained or unauthorized persons."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title: Re: Gun Controll Debate
Post by: George Jung on April 29, 2007, 09:01:26 PM
Gun controll can minimize, or at the very least, decrease criminal opportunity.  Gun controll laws can reduce the accidental tragedies and mishaps.  To think that anything can prevent crime is idiotic.  Why would you want to make it so easy, or rather, why would you not want to make it as difficult as possible for criminals, or those who should not have possession of a weapon, to get their hands on one.  These stories of defense are somewhat interesting to read but remember that there are also many stories of the opposite nature, where a child has been involved or a stolen gun was involved in a crime or someone like Seung-Hui Cho can just walk into a store and purchase his tool.  Had Cho been force to purchase illegally there would have another opportunity for him to be caught before he was enabled.  Nothing is going to work 100%, 100% of the time regardless of what we are talking about, the point is to make something work the best we possibly can and we are not doing that with gun controll.  Bottom line.
Title: Re: Gun Controll Debate
Post by: George Jung on April 29, 2007, 09:25:20 PM
NRA opposes such laws because it would be unreasonable and potentially dangerous to impose one storage requirement upon all gun owners. Individual gun owners have different factors to consider when determining how best to store their guns. They alone are capable of making the decision that is best for themselves. Gun safes and trigger locking devices have been on the market for years, of course, and remain available to anyone who decides that those products fit their individual needs.

Not all of them. 


Storage and triggerlock laws could also give people the false impression that it is safe to rely upon mechanical devices, rather than upon proper firearm handling procedures.

So they have enough sense to know what type of storage they need but their not smart enough to know not to rely on a safety?  This is one (no offense to you personaly) dumb ass statement.

Most states provide penalties for reckless endangerment, under which an adult found grossly negligent in the storage of a firearm can be prosecuted for a criminal offense. Responsible gun owners already store their firearms safely, in accordance with their personal needs. Irresponsible persons are not likely to undergo a character change because of a law that restates their inherent responsibilities.

Very weak defense here.  Most states?  How harsh is that criminal offense treated?  It needs to be all states and a serious penalty.  It is not always a matter or responsible or not.  If a law is harsh enough people will pay attention.

To say this won't work (help) is wrong I think.  Is it that much for the possibility of saving life?
Title: Re: Gun Controll Debate
Post by: Falkenbach on April 29, 2007, 10:30:09 PM
Statistics can be useful, but are not a stand-alone argument. There are many factors to be considered - are the statistics per capita? What are the other factors contributing to the statistics etc.

The statistic that is most important, imo, is that murder rate in the US (per head of population) - while I don't have the exact numbers off the top of my head - is absurdly higher than the majority of other countries.
Title: Re: Gun Controll Debate
Post by: BigSky on May 01, 2007, 08:45:05 PM
  Had Cho been force to purchase illegally there would have another opportunity for him to be caught before he was enabled.

Actually that is...... how do you put it?  "This is one (no offense to you personally) dumb ass statement."

He purchased the gun ILLEGALLY in the first place. :banghead;









Title: Re: Gun Controll Debate
Post by: George Jung on May 02, 2007, 07:55:00 AM
He purchased the gun ILLEGALLY in the first place. :banghead;

No he didn't.  There are loopholes in a system you (BigSky) and a few other Americans think is a system that is sufficient or more than sufficient regarding gun control. 

How would you suggest to handle gun control being that you say I don't know anything about guns and you are an expert, BigSky?
Title: Re: Gun Controll Debate
Post by: BigSky on May 02, 2007, 08:23:16 AM

No he didn't.  There are loopholes in a system you (BigSky) and a few other Americans think is a system that is sufficient or more than sufficient regarding gun control. 

How would you suggest to handle gun control being that you say I don't know anything about guns and you are an expert, BigSky?

Actually george yes he did purchase it illegally.

The place that sold it did it legally, however Cho purchased it illegally.  He lied on the application form therefore making the purchase illegal.  As to loophole there was no loophole.  Loophole lets one evade something within confines of the law, this didnt happen.


The Constitution is very clear on this george,  "shall not infringe".

That means you do not get to INFRINGE on the Constitution's Second through law.  Plain and simple.

The founders were very clear on this matter.  They knew there would come a time when government would try to steal this right and therefore protected it.

The vast majority of guns laws are unconstitutional.    The only way to change it is to change the Constitution.  In this day and age that isnt going to happen.  Not only will they fail to get the votes to change it but many states have this right in their own State Constitutions and NO law can circumvent that.

You might take note george that the Constitution SPECIFICALLY mentions that the PEOPLE have the right to keep and bear arms.

No where in the First does it SPECIFICALLY give the PEOPLE the right to free speech.

You give up your right to free speech first, then I might give up my right as outlined in the Second.



Title: Re: Gun Controll Debate
Post by: George Jung on May 02, 2007, 09:11:26 AM
The loophole is in the backround check.  Because Cho was treated as an outpatient as well as not requiring all states to report to a centralized data base, his "condition" went undetected.  Call it whatever you like but the system failed unnecessarily.  Also if you were to implement some of the other measure I mentioned it would be more difficult for some would be criminals to have the means for purchase.  Lying on your application should be detectable, if it's not, what is the point in filling out an application in the first place?

Why would anyone not want to do everything possible to prevent guns from ending up in the wrong hands?  The "It's my right" attitude is not for America TODAY.  You can have the right to own a gun and help to protect the innocent at the same time, for most of the law abiding citizens of the U.S. this is not a problem.  It is hard headed extremest like you BigSky that are hell bent on not doing anything about the problems that the current laws are faced with.
Title: Re: Gun Controll Debate
Post by: nextnoel on May 02, 2007, 01:32:06 PM
Just a thought:  if Cho had been unable to get a gun (oh, say, by strict laws being enforced strictly, or some such ridiculous impossibility), he would have had to use a knife - and do you think he would have had as high a number of victims?  I hate guns.  I hate lunacy.  I hate lunatics who have guns.  Altogether, now, folks, stomp on me (at least you can't shoot me over the 'net).
Title: Re: Gun Controll Debate
Post by: George Jung on May 02, 2007, 02:43:51 PM
I doubt Cho would have had the resources to purchase a gun off the streets.  There are many guns available in the black market, many of which have been stolen or bought legally (sometimes in quantity) by a legitimate source and then resold to to persons who deal in the black market.  If we have a one gun a month rule we would not enable these type of occurrences so easily.  I can appreciate the right to bear arms and to protect one's possessions but that doesn't mean requiring registration and other measures infringes on that right.  If someone is legal they should not be bothered by a process.  BigSky keeps comparing this issue to the first amendment, in my opinion that is absurd.  A gun is a object that has the ability to take life, in my opinion that kinda stands alone.  I truly believe that our founding fathers would not allow this to be taking place today.  If we are going to protect the right we need to make the laws with the many in mind rather than the few.  The majority of Americans would agree with taking precautions.  At the very minimum there are manufacturer laws that have been proposed to aid in the cause.
Title: Re: Gun Controll Debate
Post by: BigSky on May 02, 2007, 03:38:41 PM
The loophole is in the backround check.  Because Cho was treated as an outpatient as well as not requiring all states to report to a centralized data base, his "condition" went undetected.  Call it whatever you like but the system failed unnecessarily.  Also if you were to implement some of the other measure I mentioned it would be more difficult for some would be criminals to have the means for purchase.  Lying on your application should be detectable, if it's not, what is the point in filling out an application in the first place?

Why would anyone not want to do everything possible to prevent guns from ending up in the wrong hands?  The "It's my right" attitude is not for America TODAY.  You can have the right to own a gun and help to protect the innocent at the same time, for most of the law abiding citizens of the U.S. this is not a problem.  It is hard headed extremest like you BigSky that are hell bent on not doing anything about the problems that the current laws are faced with.

BS there was no loophole.  Again how little you know about firearms and the laws surrounding them.

He was adjudicated by a court to be mentally ill.  As such it was up to the court to comply with law.  It had nothing to do with him being a patient even if he was one.

Extremest?   Hardly,  I am not the one who is trying to circumvent the Constitution with asinine laws.  The concept of the Constitution is not hard to grasp.  It is the SUPREME DOCUMENT OF THE LAND!!  No law gets to circumvent it.  The founders were VERY clear on this and thus left a way for the Constitution to be changed.

I doubt Cho would have had the resources to purchase a gun off the streets.  There are many guns available in the black market, many of which have been stolen or bought legally (sometimes in quantity) by a legitimate source and then resold to to persons who deal in the black market.

Prove it.  Names, places, dates, number of guns purchased at one time.

If we have a one gun a month rule we would not enable these type of occurrences so easily.  I can appreciate the right to bear arms and to protect one's possessions but that doesn't mean requiring registration and other measures infringes on that right.  If someone is legal they should not be bothered by a process.

It does infringe.  What you are saying is that if one does not jump through these illegal unconstitutional hoops then they do not get a gun.  That is called infringement and VIOLATES the Constitution!

BigSky keeps comparing this issue to the first amendment, in my opinion that is absurd.  A gun is a object that has the ability to take life, in my opinion that kinda stands alone.  I truly believe that our founding fathers would not allow this to be taking place today.  If we are going to protect the right we need to make the laws with the many in mind rather than the few.  The majority of Americans would agree with taking precautions.  At the very minimum there are manufacturer laws that have been proposed to aid in the cause.

A firearm has NEVER taken a life.  It is the person behind the firearm who has taken a life. 

Many things can be used to take life.  Knives, bats, cars, etc. etc.  None of which are a Constitutional Right to have.

Jefferson made it quite clear about firearms.

This asinine thing where you think law gets to circumvent the US Constitution is beyond me and would have the founders spinning in their graves.



Title: Re: Gun Controll Debate
Post by: George Jung on May 02, 2007, 03:53:40 PM
BigSky, you are a riot! lmao

I post articles and you criticize me for doing so....now you want me to "prove it."

whatever...
Title: Re: Gun Controll Debate
Post by: BigSky on May 02, 2007, 03:57:58 PM
BigSky, you are a riot! lmao

I post articles and you criticize me for doing so....now you want me to "prove it."

whatever...

You never posted any such article that gave that information.

Now, names, dates, firearms and numbers of them.  Show us this term "many".

The BATF would like to know this also I bet, not to mention the FBI.
Title: Re: Gun Controll Debate
Post by: waitlisted on May 02, 2007, 08:18:43 PM
April 18, 2007
Section: National News
Edition: Newsweek Web Exclusive

'Easy Guns'
Va. Shootings: What the World is Saying
Newsweek

The Virginia Tech shootings have not just resonated inside the United States. Around the world, politicians and analysts have watched the headlines with interest, filtering their commentary through their own national prisms. Many non-Americans remain bewildered by the nation's gun laws; others found themselves surprised by the diversity of students and professors at a college in a town few could have found on a map. Some of the international reaction:

Australia

"Eleven years ago we took action to limit the availability of guns, and we showed a national resolve that the gun culture that is such a negative in the United States would never become a negative in our country."
—Australian Prime Minister John Howard, expressing sympathy for the victims' families and referring to the 1996 shooting spree by a man with a semi-automatic rifle who killed 35 people in Port Arthur, on the island of Tasmania. Australia banned most types of semi-automatic weapons after the incident.

Asia

"We cannot but worry that [Cho's] shocking atrocity would implant a dark image [of] Koreans in to the brains of Americans and world citizens."
—Editorial in Manhwa Ilbo, Seoul, South Korea

"Why can people bring guns to campus? How is it possible that so many innocent people could be killed? How could it happen?"
Sugiyarti, an Indonesian woman who learned late Tuesday that her 34-year-old stepson, Partahi Lumbantoruan, was among those killed. The family had sold property and a car to finance his civil engineering studies.

"It's not a question of an Indian professor getting killed in the firing. This is related to the American gun laws. We can't do anything about it. It is something which has happened in the United States. They have got to change the law."   
— K. Subrahmanyam, a former member of India's National Security Council. India has some 80,000 students in the U.S. One of the Virginia Tech victims was G.V. Loganathan, a 51-year-old lecturer at the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, who came from Chennia, India.

"[The shootings] underscore that fact that in the U.S., a tragedy caused by guns can happen anywhere.... We hope that this will not trigger race-related problems for Asians.... We like to see the U.S. government, Congress and the people strengthen gun-control laws."
—An editorial in the Japanese paper Asahi Shimbun calling for tougher gun controls in the United States

Europe

"Why, we ask, do Americans continue to tolerate gun laws and a culture that seems to condemn thousands of innocents to death every year, when presumably, tougher restrictions, such as those in force in European countries, could at least reduce the number?"
— The Times of London, in an editorial delving into the American psyche and the gun laws across the nation

"It is a delusion … to imagine that controls on their own will stop the rise of gun crime, and the killing that results … what is needed is a wholesale shift in the national culture—and that will take rather longer than an arms ban."
— Mangus Linklater, The Times of London columnist

"There's only one real ‘freedom' in America—the freedom to kill one anotherr… if guns weren't so readily available in the ‘land of the free,' this tragedy might never have happened."
— London's Daily Mail columnist Russell Miller

" There is such a high murder rate in the United States that even if you excluded the deaths caused there by the use of guns, their homicide rate would still be higher than ours.  In other words, even if there were not a single gun in America, there would still be more murders and manslaughters than in Britain.  Bringing gun control to America would not stop it being a country where a lot of people get killed."
— James Bartholomew, political commentator at the Daily Express in London

"[T]he response of many who wish America ill will have been gratuitous schadenfreude. They see a people who live by the gun also dying by it, be they Marines in Anbar province or students in Virginia…. How can American soldiers disarm Iraqi families of their weapons in Baghdad yet claim the right to arm themselves to the teeth back home?"
— The Guardian columnist Simon Jenkins

"In a country where ‘the right to bear arms' is written into the Constitution and where there are an estimated 192 million firearms, the problem isn't simply one of a particular interest group. After the tragedy, voices rose up to deplore the fact that professors and students are not authorized to arm themselves, since one of them could have neutralized the killer. With that kind of reasoning, America is not close to overcoming its violence."
— Excerpts from an editorial headlined "Tragédie Américaine," in France's Le Monde newspaper

"What is, for us, an archaism remains, for many Americans, a fundamental right, a right to remain armed, which is becoming more and more costly. That is the difference between us and them"
— Pierre Rousselin, from Paris's Le Figaro

"In France, we say everything ends in song. In the land of John Wayne, Charlton Heston and George Bush, a great partisan of the NRA, everything, individual anger, heartbreak, neighborhood disputes, quarrels between dealers or depression, ends in shootouts. That is why students die on campuses, without anyone, starting with Hillary Clinton, thinking to do anything much about it."
— Laurent Joffrin, writing in the French newspaper Libération

"In Virginia at the age of 13, you can buy a revolver at a supermarket."
— From the Italian newspaper il Messaggero, in an article headlined Pistole Facili (Easy Guns). Italian newspapers carried extensive comments from Marina Cogo and Giancarlo Bordonaro, two 23-year-old Virginia Tech students from Milan. Cogo is returning home, vowing not to return.

Africa

"This is a shocking event that highlights serious malfunction in many societies. We hope the necessary lessons will be learned in such tragedies that are now becoming a common occurrence in the western world."
— South Africa's deputy minister of foreign affairs, Aziz Pahad

"[The shootings are a] shocking reminder of the violence that lies so relatively close to the surface of not only American society, but also that of our own.... The Virginia Tech atrocity cannot be seen in isolation. Like in this country, shootings at schools, colleges and workplaces take place in the United States with appalling regularity. So routine have they become that, again like in this country, it is only the multiple shootings that attract headlines."
— Editorial from South Africa's Daily News newspaper

Israel

"[This] frays U.S. nerves at a time when violence has become an unwelcome guest in more and more American homes."
— From Israel's Jerusalem Post

Iraq

"It is a big loss for the American people and I think that this is a message from Allah to them to stop and think of what is happening in Iraq. Thousands of Iraqis lost their sons or fathers and all of this was because of the so-called American democracy being exported to Third World countries."
— Haifa Salim, a 34-year-old Baghdad housewife

"I feel sorry that there are innocent civilians getting killed for no reason. We in Iraq have tasted this curse and we know how difficult it is to lose a loved one. [But] at other times, especially when I'm emotional, I think, 'Let the American people get a taste of what they brought us, death and tragedies and blood everywhere.'
— Khalid Mohammed, a 33-year-old civil engineer in Baghdad


Copyright (c) 2007, Newsweek
Title: Re: Gun Controll Debate
Post by: glitter on May 02, 2007, 09:39:38 PM
of course other people in other countries can say what they want- but more people from other countries want to live here then there. We are the greatest country in the world- and freedom speaks for itself.
Title: Re: Gun Controll Debate
Post by: George Jung on May 02, 2007, 09:52:03 PM
  - but more people from other countries want to live here then there.

That is one bold claim.....that's all I have to sat about that.
Title: Re: Gun Controll Debate
Post by: Falkenbach on May 03, 2007, 01:23:35 AM
Whoa! I'm sure the United States is a fabulous country, but I don't want to live there. I love living in Australia, I think I'm one of the luckiest people in the world, also in one of the luckiest countries (if not THE luckiest).
Title: Re: Gun Controll Debate
Post by: charee on May 03, 2007, 02:08:09 AM
Whoa! I'm sure the United States is a fabulous country, but I don't want to live there. I love living in Australia, I think I'm one of the luckiest people in the world, also in one of the luckiest countries (if not THE luckiest).
Your spot on Cycobully, i love this country best place in the world We are the lucky country!!
Title: Re: Gun Controll Debate
Post by: nextnoel on May 03, 2007, 05:53:43 AM

A firearm has NEVER taken a life.  It is the person behind the firearm who has taken a life. 

Many things can be used to take life.  Knives, bats, cars, etc. etc. 

My point exactly - do you really think he could have killed over 30 people with "knives, bats, cars, etc. etc." before he was stopped?  If guns weren't so prevalent, massacres wouldn't be so easy . . . .
Title: Re: Gun Controll Debate
Post by: glitter on May 03, 2007, 09:25:40 PM
Whoa! I'm sure the United States is a fabulous country, but I don't want to live there. I love living in Australia, I think I'm one of the luckiest people in the world, also in one of the luckiest countries (if not THE luckiest).

not intended as a slam on your particular country or anyone elses- but it is a fact that the USA has immigration quotas which for each and every fiscal year are met and exceeded from every single country we allow immigration from...in many cases people wait a number of years, and sometimes up to 20 years.and yes that includes people from Austrailia-now on the flip side- I think alot of Americans would love to permanetly move to Austrailia, or other countires as well....but you cannot deny there are more people trying to get in then trying to leave....in any case I am as proud of my country as you are of yours.

Newsweek is also a biased liberal publication.

and was that article posted to show how much better the rest of the world is?


one of the statements for example 

Quote
"There's only one real ‘freedom' in America—the freedom to kill one anotherr… if guns weren't so readily available in the ‘land of the free,' this tragedy might never have happened."
— London's Daily Mail columnist Russell Miller


is a total BS statement- said by someone who doesn't have a clue.
Title: Re: Gun Controll Debate
Post by: AlasdairUK on May 04, 2007, 04:05:41 AM
of course other people in other countries can say what they want- but more people from other countries want to live here then there. We are the greatest country in the world- and freedom speaks for itself.

Have you left your country? There is a world out there with one or two pretty decent places.
Title: Re: Gun Controll Debate
Post by: George Jung on May 04, 2007, 05:06:40 AM
For the record, I am one American who would like to get out (if and when the opportunity presents itself I will be on my way).  There are a number of places I wouldn't mind spending the rest of my days, heck just to the North is Canada, I would rather be living there in Vancouver or something.  Maybe I could move to California, that is like another country within a country.  Part of the problem with America and it's citizens is they think they are better than everyone else, boy oh boy do they have something to learn.  America has down falls and imperfections no different than anywhere else in the world.

What is not b.s. about those articles is the fact that many people share the same views.  Discrediting those statements because of where they are printed is the easy way out..... face it, there is a problem here in the states.
Title: Re: Gun Controll Debate
Post by: tamara on May 04, 2007, 05:16:11 AM
of course other people in other countries can say what they want- but more people from other countries want to live here then there. We are the greatest country in the world- and freedom speaks for itself.

Have you left your country? There is a world out there with one or two pretty decent places.


Nothing wrong with Australia, am definetely happy I'm here.
Title: Re: Gun Controll Debate
Post by: BigSky on May 04, 2007, 10:03:56 AM
My point exactly - do you really think he could have killed over 30 people with "knives, bats, cars, etc. etc." before he was stopped?  If guns weren't so prevalent, massacres wouldn't be so easy . . . .

Actually if the cops did their jobs properly there would not have been 30 deaths.  So don't blame the firearm for some nut job and the cops who failed to do their job.

Also it has nothing to do if firearms are prevalent or not because in fact he went THROUGH the government to buy the firearm.





Title: Re: Gun Controll Debate
Post by: glitter on May 04, 2007, 10:28:23 AM
of course other people in other countries can say what they want- but more people from other countries want to live here then there. We are the greatest country in the world- and freedom speaks for itself.

Have you left your country? There is a world out there with one or two pretty decent places.


Yes as a matter of fact I have lived in Germany, Greece,The Phillipines and Iceland. As I said in the post above yours I didn't intend to slam any other country and am aware that there are many nice places to live.....but that does not change the fact that our immigration quotas are met or exceeded from every other country we allow immigration from, in many cases with a very long wait b eforehand.
Title: Re: Gun Controll Debate
Post by: glitter on May 04, 2007, 10:29:17 AM
of course other people in other countries can say what they want- but more people from other countries want to live here then there. We are the greatest country in the world- and freedom speaks for itself.

Have you left your country? There is a world out there with one or two pretty decent places.


Nothing wrong with Australia, am definetely happy I'm here.


For the record-Australia is a wonderful country.
Title: Re: Gun Controll Debate
Post by: nextnoel on May 04, 2007, 10:35:47 AM
My point exactly - do you really think he could have killed over 30 people with "knives, bats, cars, etc. etc." before he was stopped?  If guns weren't so prevalent, massacres wouldn't be so easy . . . .

Actually if the cops did their jobs properly there would not have been 30 deaths.  So don't blame the firearm for some nut job and the cops who failed to do their job.

Also it has nothing to do if firearms are prevalent or not because in fact he went THROUGH the government to buy the firearm.
It is useless to try to find the precise point where failure occurred, just cut it off violence when & where you can!
Title: Re: Gun Controll Debate
Post by: glitter on May 04, 2007, 11:00:27 AM
For the record, I am one American who would like to get out (if and when the opportunity presents itself I will be on my way).  There are a number of places I wouldn't mind spending the rest of my days, heck just to the North is Canada, I would rather be living there in Vancouver or something.  Maybe I could move to California, that is like another country within a country.  Part of the problem with America and it's citizens is they think they are better than everyone else, boy oh boy do they have something to learn.  America has down falls and imperfections no different than anywhere else in the world.

What is not b.s. about those articles is the fact that many people share the same views.  Discrediting those statements because of where they are printed is the easy way out..... face it, there is a problem here in the states.

I hope you find a way out, and I hope you give up your citizenship when you leave-


apologies for turning this thread into an immigration discussion- I have nothing left to say about gun control either- its pointless to argue with you- you are not open to any view but your own- and in fairness neither am I .
Title: Re: Gun Controll Debate
Post by: BigSky on May 04, 2007, 12:06:52 PM
It is useless to try to find the precise point where failure occurred, just cut it off violence when & where you can!

Where shall we start?

Hmm lets lock up all people with any mental illness regardless of medication.

Lets ban all airplanes.  After all Muslim terrorists have killed more people in mass with airplanes than someone with a firearm have in mass this country.   We better ban all moving trucks also as more people were killed in mass by the truck bomb at OKC than have been by firearms in mass in this country.


 
What is not b.s. about those articles is the fact that many people share the same views.  Discrediting those statements because of where they are printed is the easy way out..... face it, there is a problem here in the states.


Actually most of them that comment directly about "guns" are bs.   In fact I think only one of them even had a clue.  They are talking points out of ignorance and it doesn't matter if many people share that view.  Ignorant is still ignorant.   They are discredited by the fact that they have misconceptions behind them, thus leading them to the conclusion they did about "guns" in America.

There is not a problem with firearms in America despite the claims to the otherwise.

The one that nailed it pretty good and is actually rational instead of hysterical and fearful of guns.

" There is such a high murder rate in the United States that even if you excluded the deaths caused there by the use of guns, their homicide rate would still be higher than ours.  In other words, even if there were not a single gun in America, there would still be more murders and manslaughters than in Britain.  Bringing gun control to America would not stop it being a country where a lot of people get killed."
— James Bartholomew, political commentator at the Daily Express in London


The most IGNORANT comment of all of them.

"In Virginia at the age of 13, you can buy a revolver at a supermarket."
— From the Italian newspaper il Messaggero, in an article headlined Pistole Facili (Easy Guns). Italian newspapers carried extensive comments from Marina Cogo and Giancarlo Bordonaro, two 23-year-old Virginia Tech students from Milan. Cogo is returning home, vowing not to return.



"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
--Sigmund Freud,







Title: Re: Gun Controll Debate
Post by: nextnoel on May 04, 2007, 12:15:21 PM
There is not a problem with firearms in America despite the claims by nutjobs to the otherwise.

You're a hoot!  God, ya gotta love freedom of speech!
Title: Re: Gun Controll Debate
Post by: Wattle on May 15, 2007, 08:13:07 PM
There is not a problem with firearms in America despite the claims by nutjobs to the otherwise.

You're a hoot!  God, ya gotta love freedom of speech!

I think the nutjobs you are talking about just gave this BABY a gun license.

Baby gets gun permit

A 10-MONTH-old Chicago boy whose application listed his height as 60cm, his weight as 9kg and was signed with a scribble, was issued a firearm permit for his 12-gauge shotgun.

Bubba Ludwig was issued the identification card by Illinois authorities after his father, Howard Ludwig, paid the $US5 ($6) fee and filled out the application.

The card lists the baby's height (68.6cm), weight (9kg) and has a scribble where the signature should be, the Associated Press reported.

"Does a 10-month-old need a (firearms owners identification card)? No, but there are no restrictions under the act regarding age of applicants," said Illinois state police officer Scott Compton.

Mr Ludwig, 30, applied for the card after his own father bought Bubba a 12-gauge Beretta shotgun as a gift.
(Herald Sun 16/5/07 news.com.au)
Title: Re: Gun Controll Debate
Post by: Falkenbach on May 16, 2007, 04:11:48 AM
 :D I just came in here to post the same thing that Wattle has already posted.

No age limit, huh? You can't smoke a cigarette until you're 18, but dang, why not have a gun?
Title: Re: Gun Controll Debate
Post by: George Jung on May 16, 2007, 07:00:48 AM
No age limit, huh? You can't smoke a cigarette until you're 18, but dang, why not have a gun?

Yes folks.  That is how idiotic many Americans are.  As a country, we are far from perfect.  I for one would like to see some movement in the right direction.
Title: Re: Gun Controll Debate
Post by: BigSky on May 16, 2007, 08:01:06 AM
I think the nutjobs you are talking about just gave this BABY a gun license.

:D I just came in here to post the same thing that Wattle has already posted.

No age limit, huh? You can't smoke a cigarette until you're 18, but dang, why not have a gun?

 ::) Talk about jumping to wrong conclusions.

A FOID is required in Illinois to own or buy a firearm.  This merely lets you have the opportunity to legally own or buy one.   The state permit still does not let one bypass federal law on the age when one can legally buy and be in possession of a firearm. :banghead;

Federal Law controls the sale of firearms, it  does not allow those under 18 to make such purchases on their own. The father says he "gave" the gun to the child.  That is merely symbolic.   Because if he actually gave the firearm to the child to do with what he wanted they would be in violation of the law.   There is still an age limit to when they can actually be in legal possession of a firearm and legally buy it and the state permit does not change that.

Cigarettes?  LOL  You might note, despite the law, that thousands, if not millions under 18 smoke in this country.   They still buy cigarettes over the counter in stores despite age restriction, either by fake ID or people who fail to card.     No so with firearms over the counter.


Title: Re: Gun Controll Debate
Post by: glitter on May 16, 2007, 11:28:50 AM
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/10/23/1161455665717.html

this is a link for the Sidney Morning Herald, I found this to be very interesting, and there are hundreds of these articles from Aussie news media on the net- probably all pissed-off gun owners!!!


Home » National » Article
Buyback has no effect on murder rate
Email Print Normal font Large font Matthew Moore
October 24, 2006

Latest related coverage
Your say: Reducing homicide
HALF a billion dollars spent buying back hundreds of thousands of guns after the Port Arthur massacre had no effect on the homicide rate, says a study published in an influential British journal.

The report by two Australian academics, published in the British Journal of Criminology, said statistics gathered in the decade since Port Arthur showed gun deaths had been declining well before 1996 and the buyback of more than 600,000 mainly semi-automatic rifles and pump-action shotguns had made no difference in the rate of decline.

The only area where the package of Commonwealth and State laws, known as the National Firearms Agreement (NFA) may have had some impact was on the rate of suicide, but the study said the evidence was not clear and any reductions attributable to the new gun rules were slight.

"Homicide patterns (firearm and non-firearm) were not influenced by the NFA, the conclusion being that the gun buyback and restrictive legislative changes had no influence on firearm homicide in Australia," the study says.

In his first year in office, the Prime Minister, John Howard, forced through some of the world's toughest gun laws, including the national buyback scheme, after Martin Bryant used semi-automatic rifles to shoot dead 35 people at Port Arthur.

Although furious licensed gun-owners said the laws would have no impact because criminals would not hand in their guns, Mr Howard and others predicted the removal of so many guns from the community, and new laws making it harder to buy and keep guns, would lead to a reduction in all types of gun-related deaths.

One of the authors of the study, Jeanine Baker, said she knew in 1996 it would be impossible for years to know whether the Prime Minister or the shooters were right.

"I have been collecting data since 1996 … The decision was we would wait for a decade and then evaluate," she said.

The findings were clear, she said: "The policy has made no difference. There was a trend of declining deaths that has continued."

Dr Baker and her co-author, Samara McPhedran, declared their membership of gun groups in the article, something Dr Baker said they had done deliberately to make clear "who we are" and head off any possible criticism that they had hidden relevant details.

The significance of the article was not who had written it but the fact it had been published in a respected journal after the regular rigorous process of being peer reviewed, she said.

Politicians had assumed tighter gun laws would cut off the supply of guns to would-be criminals and that homicide rates would fall as a result, the study said. But more than 90 per cent of firearms used to commit homicide were not registered, their users were not licensed and they had been unaffected by the firearms agreement.

Dr Baker said many more lives would have been saved had the Government spent the $500 million on mental health or other programs rather than on destroying semi-automatic weapons.

She believed semi-automatic rifles should be available to shooters, although with tight restrictions such as those in place in New Zealand.

The director of the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics, Dr Don Weatherburn, said he was not surprised by the study. He said it showed "politicians would be well advised to claim success of their policies after they were evaluated, not before".




Title: Re: Gun Controll Debate
Post by: Falkenbach on May 16, 2007, 11:50:00 AM
Why does the law allow for one to have a permit for something they can't buy?

And if you want to use Australian homicide rates as an argument, just look at ours compared with yours, on a per capita basis. I think you'll find that the country which has always had much easier access to guns (i.e. yours) totally obliterates us on the murder statistics.

I don't object to you having your view and arguing for it, but so far some of you have been quite objectionable about it, rather than being helpful or mature. Calling people "retarded" (via a Freudian quote) and using a head-butt icon are thinly veiled insults, an attempt to imply that I (or anyone else disagreeing with you) am lacking in intelligence. This doesn't help your debate at all. I am not stupid or ignorant, just because I don't agree with you.

Title: Re: Gun Controll Debate
Post by: BigSky on May 16, 2007, 11:53:21 AM
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/10/23/1161455665717.html

this is a link for the Sidney Morning Herald, I found this to be very interesting, and there are hundreds of these articles from Aussie news media on the net- probably all pissed-off gun owners!!!


Home » National » Article
Buyback has no effect on murder rate
Email Print Normal font Large font Matthew Moore
October 24, 2006

Latest related coverage
Your say: Reducing homicide
HALF a billion dollars spent buying back hundreds of thousands of guns after the Port Arthur massacre had no effect on the homicide rate, says a study published in an influential British journal.

Something of interest on the Port Arthur thing was one of the firearms used in that crime had been turned in for destruction to the police 3 years earlier.
Title: Re: Gun Controll Debate
Post by: BigSky on May 16, 2007, 12:37:08 PM
Why does the law allow for one to have a permit for something they can't buy?

Just because one has a permit doesn't mean they can still buy something.

One can buy a car without having a drivers license.  A minor can buy a car.   In many states anyone can license a car without a DL or having the required proof of insurance for it.

Not sure if they still do it but he US also used to sell a marijuana stamp, which was needed to sell it, despite the fact it is illegal to sell it or posses it for the most part.

And if you want to use Australian homicide rates as an argument, just look at ours compared with yours, on a per capita basis. I think you'll find that the country which has always had much easier access to guns (i.e. yours) totally obliterates us on the murder statistics.

Compare homicide rates?

Of course you do know if you remove ALL firearms from the US we still have more homicides than Australia right?  Over 5 times higher per capita ratio of population to that of Australia when all gun crimes are removed from the picture.

In the US the places that have some of the highest homicide rates are those that have harsh firearms laws and outright bans on firearms and are very similar to laws in Australia.

Compare that to Montana.  We have very few restrictions and have far more firearms per ratio than most and we have a extremely low homicide rate with firearms.

In fact our total  homicide rate (Montana) and Australia's are virtually the same despite the fact Montana has far more firearms to people than Australia.  So much for your theory.


I don't object to you having your view and arguing for it, but so far some of you have been quite objectionable about it, rather than being helpful or mature. Calling people "retarded" (via a Freudian quote) and using a head-butt icon are thinly veiled insults, an attempt to imply that I (or anyone else disagreeing with you) am lacking in intelligence. This doesn't help your debate at all. I am not stupid or ignorant, just because I don't agree with you.

The quote never called anyone retarded, however if that was what popped into your mind then that is YOUR problem, not mine.  You can play yourself out as a victim all you want.  That is what doesn't help your argument.


Hmm the headbutt.  I never called you ignorant nor suggested it.  However since you say you are not ignorant on that matter.  What do you call it then when you jump to false conclusions about our culture and firearm laws and just how they apply and to whom they apply?

You can disagree all you want. I do not care if you disagree, that is your choice to do so.   However if you think I am suppose to sit back and let you promote misinformation about the US, its firearm culture, its firearm laws and how they apply and to whom they apply you are very sadly mistaken.

Title: Re: Gun Controll Debate
Post by: Falkenbach on May 17, 2007, 02:36:01 AM
We could go on like this until we were blue in the face and another 20 pages had gone by, and still neither of us would agree with the other.

Just allow me to say that I don't believe I misrepresented your country at all, I have no intentions of throwing insults at your country, as I have nothing against it and would like to visit it one day.
 :usaflag;

That is all I'm going to say.
Title: Re: Gun Controll Debate
Post by: Sluff on May 17, 2007, 04:32:15 AM
Gun Control is owning one, having one locked and loaded and using it if a life threatening situation arises. That is the way it will always be in my home. I pity the fool who tries to get in this house, their first chance to get out with their life is when they meet my Dog, if they don't heed that warning then it's over.  :boxing;
Title: Re: Gun Controll Debate
Post by: jbeany on May 18, 2007, 10:52:10 AM
sluff, I thought gun control was aiming with both hands on the gun?   :D  (MY FIL owns a gun shop - he's got ALL the t-shirts!)
Title: Re: Gun Controll Debate
Post by: Falkenbach on May 21, 2007, 06:52:29 PM
I have no intention of continuing the argument - I don't want to be misunderstood, so am making that clear up front - but I've been thinking about this thread and I wanted to give the reason why I feel the way I do.

A few years ago, a good friend of ours, Vince Vassallo, was shot in the face at point blank range on Christmas day. An unprovoked attack. On New Years  Eve, we were at his funeral. His daughter Lisa had cooked Christmas lunch and was sitting at home waiting for him to turn up. But he never did.

So if I seemed touchy, that's why.
Title: Re: Gun Controll Debate
Post by: glitter on May 22, 2007, 01:26:11 PM
Well that is a sorry situation indeed-- I hope the criminal was justifiably caught and executed. Law abiding people deserve the opportunity to defend themselves.
Title: Re: Gun Controll Debate
Post by: Falkenbach on May 22, 2007, 11:33:13 PM
Thanks. Yes, he was caught. I think he was a bit insane.
Title: Re: Gun Controll Debate
Post by: Black on May 25, 2007, 05:24:47 PM
Glitter, just wanted to say I appreciate the well researched posts and agree with you and Sluff.  Law abiding citizens have the right to protect themselves from criminals.  If the legal system here in the US didn't allow so many to get early release and/or plea bargain, we'd be safer.  But that's for another thread.
Title: Re: Gun Controll Debate
Post by: Falkenbach on May 25, 2007, 10:40:04 PM
Couldn't agree more about early release, and certainly plea bargaining is a complicated issue too. Sometimes it's just not right.