Instructables

What do you think about gun control?

In these days there has been alot of shootings and murder. Do you believe all guns should be banned or just the moderen sporting rifles that most people call an assault rifles.

I opened my safe last night and all my guns were still there. I thought to myself, how can this be? These are all weapons of mass destruction. How have they not shot their way out of this safe and killed someone. I looked at my bullets they are all there too. I thought surely they have been talking to my guns and planning something bad. They are pure evil after all and have the taste for blood. I counted all my high cap mags, all are accounted for. Not even my bayonet had moved. It did try to cut me once when I was putting it away. Maybe I don’t have evil guns after all?
Well, as long as you realise that owning guns puts you at a greater risk for burglary and also for getting shot. It really is up to you, the laws in your country being what they are.

Guns aren't evil. Everyone knows that. They're also not inherently good. They're things, and as things go, they're the kind of things that come with risks attached.

I'm glad to hear you keep your guns in a safe. If every gun owner did that, I'm sure it would have a positive effect on gun-related crime and accidents.
lemonie1 year ago
I just watched a video of some gun-fight in Tripoli. People were happy in the end, shouting (God is great) and firing guns into the air. I thought that this love of guns and God must be exactly the same as Americans have?

Unfortunately, I couldn't tell which side people were on, as there was no English on it.

L
Everybody, and I mean EVERYBODY, ignores the fact that gun ownership is a right bestowed by our Constitution. It is intended as a protection against those who wish to do an individual citizen harm. That applies not only to the neighborhood thief, but to any government that acts against its citizens. For those who are appalled at the idea that a government would intentionally do harm to its citizens, do your homework. Read up on the history of the USSR, E Germany, Cuba, etc. You might even recognize a few similarities to the 2013 USA.
Well, the whole rest of the world is in awe of the USA. It is the only place where children get brainwashed into believing that they have a right to carry lethal weapons. And clearly some people cannot shake the brainwashing. They go crazy. It is really sad.
When I said "they go crazy" I wasn't even talking about the mass murderers. I was talking about the NRA and their supporters and their pathetic reasons to keep gearing up for more and more bloodshed. You guys are the biggest threat to the USA that there is going. In any other country the NRA would be considered either a fascist or a terrorist organization and the state would act accordingly. What happens when some American version of Pol Pot comes along? He could be a fire and brimstone preacher or a grand marshal of the NRA or something else entirely. You will grab your guns and follow him, yes or no? All this personal right to have 5 or 10 assault rifles talk sure does not sound patriotic, in the slightest. Sounds more like wanna be terrorists to me.
It sounds like you hate the U.S.A and our freedoms. "In any other country the NRA would be considered either a fascist or a terrorist organization" where are your sorices?? that is your opinion like it is my opinion that owning guns is a right that the goverment shouldnt take away. I respect your opinion and you are entitaled to it. Why cant you respect my opinion?
I completely agree with your position on guns but would like to make a HUGE correction to your statement.

Gaia did, in fact, state an opinion. You, however, stated a constitutionally protected FACT; namely, that owning guns is a right that the government shouldn't CAN NOT take away. 

Therefore, the question that we should be asking is "Why is it that we should respect someone's opinion when they have absolutely no respect for our rights?"  After all, opinions can be wrong; rights are guaranteed!
Cannot is a very, very strong term. It implies a literal physical impossibility. The US government *could* physically take away privately owned guns from their owners if it wanted to badly enough - after all, they have nukes, bomber planes, tanks, etc. They simply have much greater force at their disposal. It is a physical - and thus logical - possibility, however remote in reality.

"Should not" is much better, as it correctly conveys the fact that there is a legal (some would argue moral) stricture on the government against taking guns away.
When talking of "taking guns away" it's worth applying "should" to having them in the first place....

L
Kiteman jxross1 year ago
"rights are guaranteed!"

Then why do we have an International Commission on Human Rights?

"Why is it that we should respect someone's opinion when they have absolutely no respect for our rights?"

Because part of our rights as a human being is to hold opinions that you do not like, and to express them freely. You have to respect their opinion because you expect them to respect yours.

he way, who created those rights? Who ratified them as part of the constitution? If the government put them in, the government can, quite legitimately, take them out.)
jxross Kiteman1 year ago
Kiteman, allow me to respond to your points.

I should have been more specific. The US Constitution places limitations on the power of the US federal government. Those rights not specifically given to the US government are reserved for the states, or to the people. As such, these rights are guaranteed. That was/is my frame of reference.

I am not versed enough in the ICHR to speak intelligently about it so will refrain from trying to do so.

My comment about respecting others' opinions was in response to the question posed by 'Don't try this at home'. S/he asked "Why cant you respect my opinion?" I was merely pointing out that there was a difference between an opinion and a right. Perhaps I should have refrained from including "we" and "they" in my response, but the overall point, I believe, remains valid.

As to who created those rights: some would say God, some would say our Founding Fathers, some nature. I have my opinion, but what that is is irrelivent to the discussion. They are enshrined in the US Constitution and an integral part of the US governmental structure. If the people, through their representatives, were to determine that those rights are no longer consistent with their needs, there is a process in place to remove them; it cannot be done through fiat.

As to the gun facts further down the page: You state, "More guns = more gun deaths." This is, without a doubt, correct. However, it does not necessarilly follow that fewer guns= fewer deaths. A society without airplanes, for example, may have no airplane deaths, but this does not mean they have no horse, bike, car, bus, or train fatalities. Likewise, a country with few guns and many machetties will have more machetti deaths and fewer gun deaths. One is no more traggic than the other: the end result is the same. And, yes, murder may be more prevelent in the US than many other countries, and the abundance of guns may be a contributing factor, though I suspect there are many other factors involved, as well.

And finally, as to the "well regulated millitia". I will not pretend to know what the founding fathers' intended with that statement. I do, however, know that for the first 150 years or so of this country's history, no one seemed to question whether it was intended to apply to individuals or groups.

In closing, I suspect the debate could go on indefinately and few people will be moved from their position. Thank you for at least attempting (usually successfully, I might add) to stay civilized. Most don't even try.
"Those rights not specifically given to the US government are reserved for the states, or to the people. As such, these rights are guaranteed." Well I look at the thing and I have to think that when they said "well regulated militia" in their context they meant well regulated by the individual states. Now, if the individual states are NOT regulating the militia's, people seem to assume that the "right" transfers further down the line to the individual. I would say, no, they did not mean that at all. This "right" begins and ends in the "well regulated militia". If you are an individual running around flaunting your gun in public places, then the "well regulated militia" could be used by the individual state, to hunt you down as a terrorist. Lets face it, a whole lot of Americans are buying guns because they are scared of all the other guns. They are afraid, and terrorized.
We probably need the supreme court to rule on what a "well regulated militia" means. I think it means exactly what it says.
They have. Unfortunately for those of us who follow your reasoning, it doesn't agree. See District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the Supreme Court incorporated the second amendment (declared that it applies to individuals) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller). (Scalia's majority opinion in the case is recommended reading, but only if you have a high frustration threshold. ;) )
Gaia, thank you for your opinion, but just for fun, let's look at how the US Code actually defines the militia.

10 USC 311 says: The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

I suppose we can argue about what these words say, but the way I read them, the militia consists of:
  • Males, 17-45 years old who are, or intend to become, citizens.
  • Female citizens who are in the National Guard. 
Further, there are two types of militia
  • organized: militia members who are part of National Guard or Navel Militia
  • unorganized:  militia members who are not part of the National Guard or Navel Militia.
I can live with this definition, and it is based on current Code, not my own opinion.
Kiteman jxross1 year ago
Most of those points do not need a response or contradiction, but...

"As to the gun facts further down the page: You state, "More guns = more gun deaths." This is, without a doubt, correct. However, it does not necessarilly follow that fewer guns= fewer deaths"

The data shows that it does follow: the per-capita firearm death rate in the US is FORTY times greater than that in the UK. I have linked to data elsewhere in this topic that shows that the only countries with greater firearm death rates are overwhelmed by (gun-carrying) drug cartels, or actually at war.

jxross Kiteman1 year ago
I had conceeded that more guns = more gun deaths.
Kiteman jxross1 year ago
Yes, but I read it that you did not agree that the inverse held, less guns = less deaths. Homes are full of items that could be used to kill with reasonable ease (kitchen knives, baseball bats, DIY tools), and I do not think that is any different between the UK and the US, or any other "developed" nation. The difference between the nations is guns, and is shown in the death statistics.
jxross Kiteman1 year ago
You are correct, I do not agree that less guns necessarilly equals less deaths. Surely we can agree that there are many differences between the US and UK societies, for example, that could impact violent crime (in this case, murder) than merely the number of guns. Poverty rates, cultural diversity, population density, education rates, and access to social programs are a few that come to mind.  These considerations may have no impact, but then again, they may.  That was my point.
>If the government put them in, the government can, quite legitimately, take them out.

As is amply demonstrated by the 13th Amendment, ending the previously constitutionally-alluded-to right to own other human beings (or even the Supreme Court's reversal of the Dred Scott decision in Brown v. Board.)
Cannot is a very, very strong term. It implies a literal physical impossibility. The US government *could* physically take away privately owned guns from their owners if it wanted to badly enough - after all, they have nukes, bomber planes, tanks, etc. They simply have much greater force at their disposal. It is a physical - and thus logical - possibility, however remote in reality.

"Should not" is much better, as it correctly conveys the fact that there is a legal (some would argue moral) stricture on the government against taking guns away.
Don,t try this at home (author)  jxross1 year ago
Thanks for the correction. It gives me chest pains to see all of these people that are not American citizens hate on our gun rights. They have no understanding of it and like gaiatechnician they say opinions that are not based on facts but on propagandia.
Sorry, but all the comments I have given you have been factual.

Your first ammendment is about freedom of speech, and the US has signed up to the UN Declaration of Human Rights, which also enshrines a right to freedom of expression, so complaining when citizens of other countries express an opinion about the US is deeply hipocritical.
hipocritical: when someone is such a hypocrite, they don't deserve to have the word spelled right. ~ Urban Dictionary
Is that what you meant Kiteman ?
*Ahem*, yes, thank you.
I know everything you have given me is fact. You think the U.S is hipocritical? The goverment signed all of that and it is our right to get alittle mad when people from other countrys start to hate on our rights.
Please pay attention to what I write.

*You* were the one complaining about other people exercising a right that you hold dear.

I am an American citizen and I am very opposed to owning assault weapons and arming teachers in schools. Many Americans agree with me. Just because a non citizen speaks against our proliferation of weapons does not make him or her wrong in any way. The Bill of Rights are not written on a stone. Each generation of citizens have the right to change the Constitution whenever we see that it is necessary. We are not afraid of King George the Third anymore. We do not have to quartered troops anymore. And since slavery has been abolished, we don't have to count five slaves as one freeman in order to select representatives.
So who can take away your gun? You are getting chest pains just thinking about it! Shouldn't you go see a doctor? (But don't shoot him if he sends you to the mental ward). I have the right to own a gun too, by the way but it hasn't sent me over the edge. Why is it such a big deal with you guys? How did you get so brainwashed? So, Obama is going to make it harder to sell guns to criminals on the black market, what is the harm in that? So he wants background checks so that crazy people have a harder time getting guns? Seems a good idea. What do you think of this? In some countries (after they noted that husbands tend to kill their wives with guns), they gave the wife veto power over a husband owning a gun. (Most people who get murdered get bumped off by a "friend" or relative). Sad but true. So by having few gun owners in your social network, you are actually protecting your own life.
With the laws passed NOBODY can take my guns. The British tryed to take our guns and take control of us that is how we became an indepenet nation and the laws passed by the new goverment gave us the RIGHT to bare arms so that would never happen again. I agree with better backround checks that is a good idea. What obama wants is to ban assault rifles. a assault rifle works the same way as any other rifle it just looks driffernt. The laws Obama wants to pass will disarm the law abideing citizens and not the people breaking laws because lets face it they do not follow laws in the first place what makes you think they will give up there guns because Obama says so?? They will take away my guns so they can come and break into my home and i cant defend myself or the goverment will start to make more unconstunial laws and we cant do anything about it because we have no guns!!!
Haha, and *you* were the one complaining about others basing their statements on propaanda!

Fact: for every intruder deterred by a weapon in an American home, there are four gun-related incidents in the home.
JX, you can bear arms, but presumably this "right" can be taken away in an amendment. Anyway, I thought your right to bear arms implied being in a well regulated militia? Are you in one? (I have the right to bear arms up here in Canada and I had in Ireland too.) (We just don't make such a big deal about it and there is a time and place). Common sense however suggests that the USA has way too many gun owners with way too little common sense. I think that ownership of lethal weapons isn't about rights. It is about responsibilities. If you want to give everybody easy access to guns, you have to take some responsibility for those kids that were murdered. Do you? We have somehow kept our gun murder rate in the "respectable" zone, even in Ireland when a lot of bad things were happening. You should clean up your act because your murder rate approximates a war zone not a civilized country. So, jxross, if your country voted to remove or modernize that right in a referendum, would you become a terrorist against the USA or would you behave decently?
Gaia, if the US Constitution was amended to remove the right of its citizens to keep and bear arms, then that would be the law of the land. I may not agree with it, but it would have been instituted in a legal manner, and therefore would be Constitutional and valid. However, that is not what is being pursued. Instead, various laws, regulations, and executive orders are proposed to accomplish (or at least further the cause of) disarmament. Those acts are contrary to the US Constitution and, therefore invalid.
As to your comment "way too many gun owners", I would tend to agree. However, I believe the ones who should not have guns are the low-lifes who commit the crimes, not the people who speak up in defense of their rights. I should not have my rights infringed simple because our justice system has failed to deal effectively with society's scum. In fact, that failure is one more argument why law abiding citizens should have the right to their guns: protection.
Unlike most liberal minded folks, I believe that everyone is responsible for their own actions. As a result, I will place blame for the mass murders squarely where it belongs: the person who did the deed. Last time I read my Bible, Cain murdered Abel well before the invention of firearms. I do not recall Adam or Eve calling for the regulation or banning of sticks and stones. Cain was responsible, not the tool, and not the parents.
Finally, it is disingenuous to compare the US gun murder to that of other nations. A more accurate comparison would be the overall murder rate. According to Wiki, the US places as the 100th  highest on that list.  While not as good as Canada (150) or Ireland (164), it is hardly the war-zone you purport it to be. 
Kiteman jxross1 year ago
"Finally, it is disingenuous to compare the US gun murder to that of other nations. A more accurate comparison would be the overall murder rate."

Wrong.

Since the discussion is about guns, then it is absolutely the correct thing to compare deaths by firearm. It is a simple fact that, per capita, the only countries with higher firearm death rates than the US are either overwhelmed by drug cartels, or have open warfare on their own soil.

"Roughly 16,272 murders were committed in the United States during 2008. Of these, about 10,886 or 67% were committed with firearms" (Source: FBI website)

"For 2010/11, police in England and Wales recorded 648 offences as homicide, of which 58 (9%) involved the use of firearms — a rate of 0.1 illegal gun deaths per 100,000 of population" (Source: Home Office website)

The maths is simple: more guns = more gun deaths.

Finally, shall we quote the Second Ammendment properly?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed"

It is not the right to own or carry guns as and when you feel like it, it is the right to own guns as part of a "well regulated militia". If you are not in such a militia, you do not have the right to bear arms.

"instead, various laws, regulations, and executive orders are proposed to accomplish (or at least further the cause of) disarmament. Those acts are contrary to the US Constitution and, therefore invalid." WOW, So who made you a supreme court judge? Well, should you be allowed to bring your gun on a plane? That's just one of those silly made up rules and durn regulations . What is your opinion on plastic guns? Are they cool? Remember good old Ed Meese? He is trying to impeach Obama right now. Remember when he tried tooth and nail to legalize plastic guns? Imagine what that would do for the airline industry? I mean, think about it, who needs a boxcutter when you have a plastic gun? They could have taken over 30 planes if Meese had gotten his way. Meese is a psyco and he works for a fascist NRA that is trying, right now, to overthrow the government of the USA.
Gaia, Thank you for your well reasoned arguments. I appreciate the opportunity to debate issues without the opposing side resorting to rhetoric and name calling.
We don't have armed guards in schools. The Irish don't have armed guards on schools. We don't have kids pull out their guns and shoot other kids every other month. So at least the kids are more free and safer and enjoy their childhood more than those in the USA. Gun free schools are normal across the free world. So when the NRA label the president an elitist hypocrite because his family (a big terrorist target) has an armed guard, yes indeed, they are fascist, And they fight dirty and they have no class whatsoever. Plus they are unpatriotic and decent members should man up and say so. I saw the advert they made, and in my view, they are scum. Back in the day McCarthy was no saint but surely he would have labeled that advert " unAmerican" It crossed the line, very bad stuff.
I think this video has a point, and i think it's that the US should focus more on media/violence restrictions on teens and children and mental health awareness programs.
No, the point of the video is that people with loaded guns in their hands are much more likely to kill than people who don't have a gun. Son, you have lost the plot completely.
Yes, but the people with guns in their hands are only going to kill people if they have a reason to, such as a mental health problem, or if they're facing problems at home. Nobody's going to kill somebody for the heck of it unless they have a reason or underlying cause of violence.
Yes, good point, Husbands do kill wives a lot. Wives seem to be the number 1 problem at home. In domestic murder with a gun, the men have about a 60/40 lead. I guess it is the training that counts here. a woman who lives in a home with a gun is 3 times more likely to be murdered than a woman in a gun free home! Even women who have bought a gun to protect themselves are more likely to be murdered than women who are unarmed. Number 2 problem in the home? Girlfriends. Yes indeed, in the Good ole USA if you have problems, you shoot them. (I think the statistics show that you are a lot more likely to shoot your dear old wifey than the burglar too). Saves big time on alimony, child support, etc, I guess. Maybe, we should ban child support so that husbands are less likely to gun down the wife or x-wife?
when i said "problems at home", i meant things that cause stress or depression, not domestic disputes. i never even hinted at husbands killing wives or girlfriends. i was pointing out how stressing situations at home can cause mental instability, which is the underlying cause of many violent shootings.
If you have a wife or girlfriend or kids, they ARE (often) the number 1 cause of stress and depression. Number 2 is work related stuff. And number 3 is probably the commute to and from work. (I am not suggesting that you shoot your wife or girlfriend or boss to relieve stress) but having said that, many people in America seem to have gone that route.
....which is why I'm saying that stress therapy and mental health are vital to the gun control debate.
That's what team and individual physical sports and pub nights and fishing trips are for. Stress therapy! You don't need a gun unless you are hunting animals. On hunting trips, guns are just fine, in civil defence training, guns are just fine. Guns on the bedside table are STUPID. If you want to deter burglars, just get a burglar alarm or a big dog or a big dog sign. My last house was in a medium to high crime area but I had a burglar alarm and signs for it and a beware of the dog sign (the previous owner had a dog so I just left the sign up).
I was there 10 years, 3 girlfriends, x-wife stayed there a while too, possibly one burglary attempt but nothing stolen and nobody got KILLED! With all that stress, would a gun have increased the fatality rate? Probably.
Did i ever say that i was okay with people leaving guns on the "bedside table"? any responsible gun owner know to keep his/her gun in a well-protected safe, away from where people can have easy access to it.
So why do husbands shoot wives and wives shoot husbands? (Roughly 60 40 ratio). It seems to be "hurt the one you love" syndrome updated. Everybody has a bad performance occasionally but you don't go shoot them for it and anyway the ratios are wrong.
If the government outlaws guns today, what would it change? If not even a single gun was ever made again, millions of guns will still be in the hands of people? What do you do about those guns? Will the government come and take them from me? I’m a legal tax paying gun owner and 2 time combat veteran of the United States of America. Who has not even had a speeding ticket in 5 years much less committed a violent crime. I personally own 5 assault rifle that stay properly locked in a safe and separate from ammunition. No, I’m not a doomsday person preparing for the end of the world. Am I a danger to humanity or is it just my guns? I do believe it is my right to own firearms.
What do you plan to do with the 5 assault-rifles / what do you have them for?

L
keep them and you them when i have time. I work too much to have a chance to use them. When i do i use them it is always safe and lawful. I have even started wearing hearing protection. The m1a has been built for hog hunting at a long range. The three AR/m4 are really just for fun. I always wanted one and three is better than one. I have one mini 14 it's just another fun gun to shoot. All five are no more dangerous than a single shot rifle. They stay locked in a fire proof seperate from ammo. Does that answer your question?
"Fun" answers it.
I bet nuclear-weapons are fun too?

L
Nukes are dangerous and very expensive. You have to have lots of open area to use those. Lots of government red tape. Takes all the fun out of it.
Yes, "red tape" does take the "fun" out of weapons, I was thinking that you'd probably like less government restrictions on owning nuclear weapons (fun as they are to set-off in the desert)?

L
Fun to set off under water also!!! Even if it might be fun to blow up the world’s largest fire ant bed with a nuke, I don’t care to have one. I would also agree they should not be owned by individuals or most countries. Comparing the power of a nuke to a even the the main gun on a battleship is a far stretch. Its like comparing a paper airplane to an F-22.

Does red tape make guns less deadly or make them all go away? The red tape would probably take my guns away, even though they stay locked up in a safe almost every day. Even though I’m responsible, and a good person, the red tape will try to take my guns away. I volunteer with troubled kids in my community and have never committed a violent crime but red tape will try to take my guns away. There are already laws in place to keep a felon or violent person from owning firearms. Why don’t we just enforce those laws instead? There are already laws in place in Washington D.C. that prevent people from having guns. You would think it would be safe to walk down any street in that town at night. i probably would not recommend it. The nation’s capital is a model for gun control, why so much gun violence. Did strict gun laws not help?
"The red tape would probably take my guns away"

Yeah, I knew that anyway; enough said.

L
Guns are dangerous. Did you know that over eight thousand people get murdered with guns in the US every year? Surely guns are dangerous, or otherwise it would have to be that Americans are dangerous instead?

L
My dad uses hearing protection when using the vacuum-cleaner... he has (legal) antique-guns in working-order.

L
The hearing aids I wear have noises cancelation built in so the vacuum does not hurt my ears any more. Protecting your hearing is important.
Why on earth do you have 5 assault rifles? Just by saying it here, you have made yourself (and your family) a target for criminals. Nice one! So yes, you are a danger to your own flesh and blood.
Who is going target me? Some stupid newspaper in New York. Come on I live I. Texas and I don't have a Prius parked in my drive way. Anyone who drives by my house knows I have guns.
People who steal guns would target you(r) house. Actually, I was more worried about your wife and children. But hey! If you don't care about them, why should I? Big man has guns, goes to work and leaves wife and guns and kids unguarded. Or, if you get angry, husbands have a nasty habit of shooting their wives. What is so special about Texas? I automatically think of Waco, crazy civilians "patrolling" the border, shooting Mexicans trying to visit their relatives and the drug trade with Mexico. Interesting society you guys got going down there.
My wife is a soldier and highly trained she has provided security for several high ranking people. Women are capable of defending themselves. I love my wife we just celebrated our tenth wedding anniversary. I don’t plan on shooting her. We are happy and still in love. Texas is one of the best places to live in the country.

No state income tax
No money problems (balanced budget)
Plenty of jobs
Low cost of living
Texas is America's top state for business
Great food
Largest population growth of any state
We love mexicans (I'm half mexican myself)

Something is going right.

Lets be cold and impartial about this. We "international observers" are not part of the experiment. We are just watching. So we can be dispassionate. But the people with chest pains, etc, they are in the cage and very much part of it. We see a tiny intense tribe or religious cult of "gun lovers" (almost like brownshirts in an earlier age) which cling to old mythology (Money must be backed by gold and The founding fathers were saints with divine inspiration, etc, etc) (almost like brownshirts in an earlier age) and who are causing a generalized militarization of the entire population. Many people become part of the cult without joining. Where will it lead? An interesting development is that the "brownshirts" quickly disown any of their followers who carry out a political assassination. (Giffords and the others who died in that attempt for instance was gunned down by one of their followers).
triumphman1 year ago
If guns are outlawed, then knives will be next, what then, sticks and stones made illegal ? These things don't kill people, people kill people! Think about it! This has been going on since the first ape discovered he had the power to kill with a stone or bone. It is inherent to mankind. We can never delete it from our DNA. Just something to think about.
Look at the UK they made alot of guns illegal now there is talk about makeing long pointy kitchen knves illegal here is the link http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm
Yes, an attempt to reduce the appalling level of deaths from knife crime, when you read the article. I would campaigh against a ban on long knives,. \
If knives are considered illegal, what my hero, Bear Grylls, is going to use to show us how to survive in the jungle? A pen knife? :-P
We can't carry, WITHOUT DUE CAUSE, a knife with an extended blade longer than 3.5" AFAIR. That's not to say that a chef can't carry his knives to work, because that's his job for example, but it does mean that the same guy carrying an exposed 12" carving blade down the high street at midnight is likely to be arrested.

Grylls is an ahole. For real survival skills, you need to meet Ray Mears, who is truly genuine, and really nice guy to boot - he loves 101 landrovers....
Remember Bear Grylls is in front of a camera most of the time. Its a show for you kiddies. So can you believe what you see. Its scripted and produced. Wake up foks. He is a phony showman!
Nice article!
Funny! I'll search Ray Mears. Whoever loves landrovers is a great guy! :-)
Amen.
Like I said, next knives will be illeagal, then sticks and stones! Is the Queen Mother so afraid of assassination from her own people? They still can get something to clobber her with! Chairs will be outlawed too! Is something wrong in the UK ? You decide!
Point one: that article is seven years old.

Point two: that's not the lawmakers or the enforcers making the call, it's the people at the front line of clearing up the mess.

Point three: did you bother reading past the hook?
Bringing big long bowie knives into the pub is outlawed here. (and you can only bring a gun to Starbucks if you are a cop.) (And the cops are trained to avoid using their guns). So why would a civilian have them? The reason people in the US kill each other with guns is because with knives you have to get up close and personal and all those bodily fluids are a big turn off. Lets face it, if you were only armed with knives, it would be just too much WORK to kill each other. A gun turns a lazy guy into a killer.
Drivel. Only guns are weapons of mass destruction. Bit of a difference between a gun and sticks and stones don't you think ? I haven't seen a 10 shot/second stick. Or an assault stone, with 50 stone clip.
I have those weapons. They are awesome. Have you ever been struck by 50 pointed sticks, or a barrage of baseball sized rocks, even one tiny pebble took down David's Goliath. So ?
Ah, the good old stepping stone theory.
Knives are not illegal here; taking large weapon-like knives with you when you go out, however, is. See the difference? And what's so bad about people not carrying knives and guns when they're out and about?

I'm in a country with strict gun control, and we have a whole lot less deaths by shooting than you folks; we also have a whole less crime in general. It's not deleted from our DNA, but it doesn't come to the surface as often, and this prevents a lot of damage and suffering.
I can't help but think that we're doing something right here.

Just something to think about.
Great site to compare crime statistics by country.
I wouldn't call it a great site to compare stats... If you click on murders on the left under "Top Stats", you get the Netherlands in 25th place out of 37, but the U.S. isn't even on the list. I'd say that was inaccurate (and most certainly doesn't support what Hack42Moem was trying to say).
Amen to that
Ah yes, Reductio ad absurdum (reduction to the absurd).

It goes like this:
If guns are outlawed, then knives will be next, what then, sticks and stones made illegal ? Where will it end?

And we answer:
Somewhere before sticks and stones.
blkhawk1 year ago
Watch Penn and Teller's point of view on gun control:

Although banning guns might prevent shootings, it certainly won't prevent mass killings, and probably won't even be passed in a bill (that's giving too much power to the executive branch). Some people forget that guns aren't the only way of killing lots of people; chemicals, airplanes, and bombs can all be used to the same or greater effect. While i don't think banning guns is the answer, i am all for mental health checks, greater background check at shops and flea markets, and psychology tests when buying guns. I believe that Americans are focusing too much on taking away the freedom of guns for sport hunting and self defense (concealed weapons have prevented shootings from happening), rather than focusing on people with mental difficulties. We, as the United States, are going to make no progress by immediately siding with total gun control. Instead, we should compromise with each other and focus on what will preserve both safety and freedom.
Although banning guns might prevent shootings, it certainly won't prevent mass killings,


...it will prevent mass killings with guns, it has everywhere else its been tried...

Chemicals, bombs, airplanes etc are great devices for mass kiliings, but you don't find them in everyone's house, and they aren't automatically primed to kill. Flip out, grab a gun, shoot. Try that scenario with an aeroplane. Tricky.
The Oklahoma city bombing killed 168 people, 19 kids under 6, and injured 680 others. Flip out, grab a truck, some fertilizer, and some nitro methane, then blow it up inside a building. A lot less tricky. And yes, banning guns would prevent lots of shootings, I don't doubt that. But why punish gun owners for doing nothing but be responsible with their guns? If someone doesn't pass the needed mental and psychology tests, then don't give them a gun, period. The other problem is, i seriously doubt a law would be able to be passed by the president banning guns. That's just a little too much executive power.
There is no currently-effective system or law for preventing firearms falling into the hands of lunatics.

When a test was made of the system, attempts were made to purchase firearms using forged driving licenses as ID. In 100% of attempts, they were successful. No checks were made on ID, never mind competancy.

At least in the UK there is a (minimal) check on an applicant's mental state before a license is issued which then allows a firearm to be procured.

I do not advocate the outright banning of firearms, but I do support their control - a proper training process should be created, much as a for a driving license, and the types of weapons which may be owned and stored at home should be limited. Nothing more than a handgun in an urban home, shotguns and rifles restricted to rural homes, under strict lock-down when not in active use.

If an urban citizen wants to own a rifle, they should be stored at a secure shooting range.

Anything more than a hunting rifle, and you're straying into the area of militia, in which case such weapons must be stored in a secure armoury, and may only be used by owners with more advanced training and licensing (cf: engine-size restrictions on UK motorcycle licenses - if you want a bigger engine, you have to pass a tighter test).
I have a qustion for you kiteman. Have you ever owned a firearm or shot a firearm? im just cerious.
I have, I used to be a member of a gun club before the Ban, and I shot many kinds of pistol, 38 revolver, 45 mag, 9mm PPG, Beretta too. My favourite was an H+K P9S sport pistol with the best grip I ever used.
Not owned, but I have fired rifles, as part of a competition at a licensed firing range (I did quite well, actually).

However, that has no bearing on the discussion here - unless you think my opinions on, say, manned spaceflight are only valid if I have owned or flown a spacecraft? Or I am only allowed to hold opinions about pro football if I once played it or owned a team?

see, i am way more open to this kind of perspective than to total gun banning. it is, after all, gun control, not gun banning. I am all for much tighter background checks and psychology tests, and restrictions on high powered assault weapons. also, making gun safes harder to get into would prevent some madman from going to his friend's house and stealing a gun. i just don't like it when people side with the "no guns, no crime" idea too quickly.
I would have thought there are more innocent people killed by firearms in the USA than the Oklahoma horror. That was ANFO by the way - even easier to make -- still, its not the mass killing weapon of choice. The Phoenix shooting of Cathy Gifford would have killed a lot more if only he'd used ANFO. Aurora, Sandy Nook, all would have been "better" if other weapons were used, but they weren't and haven't been. Oklahoma City was DESIGNED as a mass-killing event by {insert direction}wing nuts.

Once again, I return to the IMMEDIACY of access to weapons.
guns don't kill people, people kill people. take away guns and they go back to knives so what good is that gonna do. theoretically, a ball point pen can do the same amount of damage, so should we ban them as well. i don't own a gun nor do i plan to but i don't have a problem with people that do. didn't we learn anything from prohibition, you take something away that's wanted and someone is gonna find a way to get it like THIS. this is just my view on the subject and its probably not worth much but i thought I'd give my two cents.
No, they won't go back to knives. The rest of the civilized world is not murdering each other like the Americans are. You have too many guns and not enough checks for people who have them". And frankly, this rapping of gun ownership in the flag is disgusting. Many gun enthusiasts are contemptuous of the rest of their constitution. They have that one amendment that they cherish. (The rest of it is red tape to them).
Oh, so the idea is that we shold NOT have laws against murder, since the people "will do it anyways".  O_o
This is the actual subject and what we "should" be discussing....guns, like pencils are tools.....but you don't give a pencil to a madman either.....

811_574772355881613_1589870611_n.jpg
i fully agree guns are tools. i don't know where your from but around here most people hunt as a means of food. now i don't think anything automatic should be owned by civilians, they should be strictly for police and military. murder has been around a heck of a lot longer then guns have. and if you think that banning guns is gonna help your sadly mistaken. yes i think we should have more thorough background checks to buy one but i believe banning them will just make things worse. i very much understand what a gun in the wrong hands can do, i have had family taken out of this world with one and i had my own accident with one when i was younger and I'll never see them the same way again. this is just my point of view and i don't care if anyone else agrees or not.
Put it this way: if you attack a school full of children and teachers, with a knife, you may kill one or two, or maybe not, before being "disabled". With an automatic weapon, you can mow down 10 20 80 people in a few seconds....and a semi-auto can be easily converted to an automatic weapon with little more than a bit of brazing and a file to remove a "catch". It is illegal for anyone to do this of course, but it is also illegal to murder 10's of people. Resticting "who" gets guns is going to be the best policy once "militia" type weapons are not available.
fyi
a crazy in china went to an elementary school with a knife and cut up 22 kids before being "disabled"
reportedly his use and the knife quality resulted in multiple severed fingers and even ears- many of those could have easily been fatal

also, i'm not disagreeing with anything in particular, but it amazes me that you never hear of a shooting where "10 20 80 people in a few seconds" are killed
Never? How about the Aurora theater shooting ?

But sadly,  the WORST stupidity to come out of that shooting was this statement by
Tim Schmidt, the president and CEO of the Wisconsin-based United States Concealed Carry Association:  saying that it would have been prevented if, in that poorly lit theater, everyone had been allowed concealed weapons and fired back.  

IMHO, MORE people would have died in such a melee;  each person drawing a gun would become suspect as the shooter by those that had already drawn weapons.....it would have  become the theater of blood, for sure.

But the "few minutes" idea is not uncommon;  the Amish School shooting, not far from where I live was another example:

"At approximately 11:07 a.m., Roberts began shooting the victims. State troopers immediately approached. As the first trooper in line reached a window, the shooting abruptly stopped. Roberts had committed suicide. It took the troopers about two and a half minutes to break into the school to assist those children who were not killed instantly. At about 11:10 a.m. a message was broadcast on the police radio, "a mass casualty on White Oak Road, Bart Township, with multiple children shot,"
again, i don't disagree. but banning the legal sale and trade will not help the illegal sale. cocaine is illegal in the U.S.A. but that doesn't mean its not a 70-80 billion dollar a year industry. now I'm not implying that it should be legal ether, but the fact of the matter is, legal or not, the sale is gonna happen and its better for honest folks to make some money then to have a bunch more rich crooks running around. whether or not you agree ain't my problem.
Even if that means doubling, tripling, or more the number of guns sold? I literally FEAR for the average person at the latest school shooting, as a whole slew of untrained people went out and purchased guns to "feel safer". If ANYTHING, they should now feel very very unsafe. The shooter's Mom had lots of guns, and all the did was supply someone who wanted to use them for nefarious reasons. If she hadn't had them he many never have gone on a shooting spree.
Your link takes me to a very biased site. There is no serious information to consider.
it just shows that if someone wants a gun there gonna figure out a way to get it. i mean seriously, an ak-47 made from a shovel.
making it harder to get them restricts their being gotten.
Well, someone in China tried to kill 22 children with a knife, and none of them died. I'd say that makes a difference.
fretted1 year ago
The problem is multifaceted do you need a bazooka to defend your home ? no ! Should you have a gun cabinet in your home if you have mentally chalenged folks living with you ? yes ! should people be allowed to open carry freely in the United States ? Absolutely ! if you are over the age of 21 you should be allowed to carry to defend yourself and your loved ones ..

Point is Evil exists ! and you should have the right to defend yourself from it no matter the situation when our children are in schoo; beyond a parents scope of protection they are in the hands of others who should be able to defend them .

Personaly i think teachers should be able to conceal carry and be trained like cops to defend themselves and our children ..

One of the largest problems is the Constitution of these United States has been treated with ill will for so long now it's not taught properly nor is it adheared to as law there is no respect for life and to many souls are lost because they are confused about basic law beurocracy has so many laws twisted so many ways people are encouraged not only to not defend themselves but are terrified they will hurt some elses feelings if they do so .
I'd answer your questions with No, No and No, respectively.

By your standards, our citizens are unable to defend themselves. Yet, we're generally somehow still alive. The chance that I'll be murdered is a LOT lower than yours. Riddle me this?

Owning a gun makes it a lot more likely that you'll be the victim of a homicide. Guns don't keep people safe. Read the statistics.
this is a horrendous misread of statistics. owning a gun does not increase your individual chance of being the victim of a homicide. general prevelance of guns increases the overall chance of homicides bieng commited with guns, but has a LOT LESS of a correlation to actual homicide rates (since, if someone murders another person with a gun, you can't actually say that they WOULDN'T have killed that person if they didn't have a gun.)
Actually it does, if you own a gun you are more likely to be killed with a gun than if you don't own a gun. Also if you own a gun, your wife is more likely to be murdered than if you didn't own a gun. That comes from the USA statistics. If a woman owns a gun, same deal, she is more likely to be murdered than a lady who doesn't own one.
"owning a gun does not increase your individual chance of being the victim of a homicide"

Perhaps responsible gun ownership doesn't increase an individuals chances of being a victim of homicide with their own weapon. Irresponsible gun ownership is an entirely different concept. Case in point is the recent tragedy in Connecticut. Authorities said recently that the shooter had attempted to purchase a weapon a few days before and was unable to, and took his mothers guns instead and killed her in the process. So yes, irresponsible gun ownership 'can' increase the likelihood that you will be a victim. I don't want to speak ill of anyone involved with that tragedy, but the fact remains that a responsible gun owner would have their firearms locked up.

"if someone murders another person with a gun, you can't actually say that they WOULDN'T have killed that person if they didn't have a gun."

No, you can't say they wouldn't have killed without a gun. However, if you are unable to purchase an assault weapon to kill 26 people in an unspeakable tragedy, then I would venture an educated guess that you will be less likely to do so otherwise. 
her owning guns didn't increase her chances of being murdered. her child's mental status increased her chances of being murdered by her child.

but sure, of course, she should have had her guns locked up too. but that doesn't negate the statement that's being made in counter to another statement that was made.

gun ownership does not increase one's probability of being murdered. being in the proximity of someone willing to murder you TOTALLY does though.
_____________________

technically the bushmaster that was used is as much a hunting rifle as anything else. the only things that make it an assualt rifle are the configuration of the grip (which is only part of the assault rifle criteria because it makes guns "look mean", there are plenty of fully automatic large calliber instruments of death that don't have pistol grips) and the large capacity magazine, which, one might note, is not the gun.

yes NOT having a 30 round magazine could have hindered the efficiency of killing in the most recent tragedy, but it wouldn't have prevented all of the killing. if it's in 30 round mags or 10 round mags 100+ rounds weighs roughly the same, with the proper drive, determination, and practice he could have killed exactly as many people with 10 round mags as 30 round mags, or even a non-assault rifle with the same amount of rounds. acting like magazine capacity really makes a difference when you're shooting unarmed children is kind of silly.

the point of all of this is that it wasn't a 30 round magazine or a bushmaster ar15 that did these aweful things, it was a mentally unstable person (actually 2 as his mother was reported to be a bit off kilter as well) who should have been better cared for by the american medical system with regards to his mental health.

her owning guns didn't increase her chances of being murdered. her child's mental status increased her chances of being murdered by her child.

How about both? His mental status made him want to, the presence and accessibility of the guns made it easy.

simple ownership does not increase the probability of being the victim of a homicide (someone else killing you).

I'm not going to argue. I'll just point to some sources.

le sigh,

several of those sources are referencing suicides (which are not caused by owning guns), intimidation or killing of women in abusive relationships (also, not caused by owning guns), includes gun accidents (which are caused by irresponsible behavior not gun ownership in and of itself).

a lot of them cite the increased chances of being murdered by a family member, which again, isn't caused by owning a gun. it's caused by having a famly member that wants to kill you
For the context of this discussion on gun control, I think that responsibility is something that requires more attention. As I said before, guns don't kill people, people kill people; and the fact remains this individual was denied when trying to purchase a weapon (and rightfully so). The point of responsibility, and what adds to statistics are the irresponsible gun owners who think its an inalienable right to keep a loaded weapon at easy access. If people granted guns more respect as lethal weapons, they would realize that they need to be kept locked up and rendered useless to anyone without the legal right to carry them. Its this kind of thinking and action (or inaction) that leads to tragedies that may otherwise not have happened when the process of denying the perpetrator had succeeded.
i really don't want to end up with us going back and forth agreeing with each other while disagreeing with each other so:

to the point of responsibility: 100% absolutely. if you ABSOLUTELY need to have a loaded weapon that affords immediate RTF (ready to fire) access, then it needs to be on your person at the time, or disarmed/locked when not within arms reach of you. if that means that every time you get to your living room you have to unlock the gunsafe next to your sofa and then lock it back up when you go to the kitchen to get another beer, that's not my problem. a loaded, unlocked gun should never be outside of direct personal control.

to the original statement that got me involved anywhere near this thread: simple ownership does not increase the probability of being the victim of a homicide (someone else killing you). statistically, gun ownership CAN increase your chances of accidental injury or death, but, that's not a homicide.

owning cans of gasoline doesn't in and of itself increase your risk of dying in a fire (assuming that owning includes some reasonable expectation of responsible storage of said gasoline).
I think there's the INTENT of using a gun as a weapon. When the gun is present death is more likely, probably.

Discuss.....
when the gun is present YOUR death is not more likely which is the statistic that Hack42Moem is suggesting. he's saying that owning a gun will make you more likely to be murdered. which is patently incorrect.
I'm not a he. That is patently incorrect, and I have sources to back me up ;-)
That's assuming the other person is themselves completely unarmed isn't it ? I would say there is pretty clear evidence, from the rest of the world, with orders of magnitude lower murder rates that there is "something" about guns that makes death more likely.
you're not reading statistics or the comments here correctly then.

yes, if someone is shooting at you with a gun you are more likely to die than if someone is throwing rocks at you.

that has exactly ZERO to do with any one person's individual gun ownership status.

someone who has the intention to kill another person will be MUCH BETTER served by the efficiency afforded by a gun than that of a knife.

please go back and read the things you're talking about. hack said "Owning a gun makes it a lot more likely that you'll be the victim of a homicide." which is patently false. which is what i said.
Its not "patently false" though, its born out of the psychology of the situation.
what is the statement that you're arguing against please? i need to confirm that you're reading it correctly.

Homicide: The killing of one human being by another human being.

how would ME owning a gun increase MY chances of being killed by another human being?
Try it in an airport.
i can own a gun and be in an airport. owning a gun and carrying one in a place where it's prohibited are not the same thing

which is the hole point of me asking if you know what you're arguing about here. you apparently don't
i don't know how to read those lists :( they're not formatted in an immediately discernable way for me.

Just this week, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Illinois’s ban on carrying concealed weapons and gave the state six months to draft a law that legalizes concealed carry. Despite having the toughest gun control laws in the country Chicago remains one of the most violent and deadliest cities. A concealed carry law will make Illinois better and safer.


Firearm-related crime has plummeted since 1993.

  • According to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) in 2008, 303,880 victims of violent crimes stated that they faced an offender with a firearm.

  • Incidents involving a firearm represented 7% of the 5.1 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault in 2008.

  • The FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 68% of the 16,929 murders in 2007 were committed with firearms.
     

Firearms and Crime Statistics

"Personaly i think teachers should be able to conceal carry and be trained like cops to defend themselves and our children .."

You can have teachers or police officers but not both in one. A school is not a place for guns. That is where children go to learn. 

{A school is not a place for guns. That is where children go to learn. }

So who teaches them to defend themselves ? and who teaches them the right thing to do in a defensive situation ? Barny the dinosaur ? Scooby doo ? Kids are with teachers 60% of their young lives a parent should be able to have confidence that their kids are safe and being taught guns are tools an in antimate object de not kill on it's own it takes a handler weather it's a gun or a 2x4 or a dull spoon if it can be used to kill with it needs a handler what happened is a tragedy to be sure my hart aches for the parents and people involved in this but our thinking should not be muddied with backstepping emotion ....
You seem to be a paranoid person. Either you are delusional or you are just trolling. It is ridiculous to think that teachers should be armed. What is next? Bank tellers? Church ministers? Day care centers? You have being watching too many wild west movies. What is next? A showdown at OK Corral? And about your other comment:

One of the largest problems is the Constitution of these United States has been treated with ill will for so long now it's not taught properly nor is it adheared to as law there is no respect for life and to many souls are lost because they are confused about basic law beurocracy has so many laws twisted so many ways people are encouraged not only to not defend themselves but are terrified they will hurt some elses feelings if they do so .

Would you please gives us sources to substantiate your opinion? You seem to have posted without reading what others have already said in here.

Paranoid is a wonderful word Delusional as well ! So why the attack ? because i think differently from some on here and you i'm paranoid or delusional ?

I believe the headline of this question is "What do you think about gun control?"
Not " let me inform you of your opinion on gun control" I think the tragedy at Sandy Hook is just that a tragedy my prayers as well as my families prayers go out to all involved .

That said my opinion on freedom and gun control has not changed i've lived long enough to see government creep into the lives of citizens enough to know  when they come to your door and say " we're here to help" it's time to change Government .

The Declaration of Independence says "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security"But when the Government creates the climate in which common folks have to become dependent on said Government to live then they become the new taskmasters and the common become not citizens but subjects you no longer have freedom but tyranny if you are to blind to see this happening you have not been paying attention to the deeds of those who were elected to REPRESENT you .

I think for myself  as i hope you do as well as i hope all those who post here do i mean that's what this site is about freethinking people not lemmings .sure sometimes we copy what others build and as we do we try to improve on that copy to make it better faster and cooler than the last .

Another thing i would say is who is to say day care workers , Bankers , ministers and the like don't conceal carry i would venture to say a-lot of them will after this and a-lot already do personally i wouldn't mind sitting in church listening to my minister or going to the bank seeing a teller wearing a gun i would feel safer for my children if the day care worker were versed in self defense and wearing a glock to keep my kids safe 

You can call 911 in these situations but if all your bankers are armed or all your teachers are armed and trained to protect a shooter is going to think twice about walking into a hornets nest 911 is a great thing but situations involving gun play makes 911 Obsolete unless law enforcement is standing outside the door 

I watched the President this morning put the Vice President in charge of a "Special" panel to figure out what to do about situations like sandy hook which in other words through my observations of government means more restrictions and less freedoms for the people who elected him to lead Government was created to protect freedoms not restrict them .

But i have said enough my time on this subject is done they asked for my opinion i gave it to fight over is futile as the enviroment i was raised in may be different from others  and the principles i live by may be different from others my children are raised and my opinions may change in the future it is the way it is with free thinking peoples .
It is paranoid and delusional to believe that arming everyone to the teeth is the solution to every violent crime out there when the real solution is controlling the amount of high powered weapons available. Your proposed solution in no way will make the situation better, it will make it worst!
We enjoy a civil government and civilized people in a civilized country vote for or against. Your perceived fear to the government is because conservatives pushed the Patriot Act, the same people that support arming everyone to the teeth, and created fusion center to round up people and use a color code to keep us on our toes. People like you, that use fear to justify almost anything and quote the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence without any knowledge of the historical background behind those words.
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”

In my age i have un-willingly forgotten more about history than most people reas in a lifetime i know what freesom is and and what a tyranny can bring i do not fear government i fear a lackadaisical populace that is willing to trade freedom for a security they will never see .

I have not used fear to justify anything unless you fear logic and common sense then maybe you are justified in you comments
"Kindergarten Cop", with Arnold Schwarteneger, is not a cute children's movie. I had to convince our local library to take it out of the children's section!
"Personaly i think teachers should be able to conceal carry and be trained like cops to defend themselves and our children .."

Speaking as a teacher, I would say absolutely not.

We do not have the time to be trained to the level of skill that would require, nor would most of us feel comfortable carrying a weapon like that (if we did, we'd be cops already!).

Plus, adding an extra weapon to a classroom would encourage a shoot-out with intruders. With thirty panicked children in the room, the death-toll would soar, closely followed by the permanent emotional trauma of watching a "caring" teacher blast away and [in all likelyhood] hit and kill other pupils.

How about this, you can have your machine guns, and assault rifles but you have to do 2 years in the US army before you can get one? That way you are trained, you have been somewhat mentally evaluated and you are probably for the most part a patriot and you have done some duty for your country. I see these guns in the hands of people who feel no allegiance to the USA as a huge danger to the country.
I have 6 years in the Army, my wife has 10 so we are good right?
There is a tax stamp program already in place for machine guns. A full auto machine gun cost about $10,000 minimum.  If one is used in a crime it is probably smuggled in from Mexico. Assault rifles get a bad name and I bet most people don’t even know what one is. Most of the things in the assault weapon ban are pointless and have nothing to do with how deadly a weapon is. It does not discuss rate of fire, range or the energy that a round impacts. It was all about the look of a gun.

-a folding or telescoping stock (this means the stock is adjustable, it fits you better. Ban the stock not the gun.)

-a pistol grip that protrudes beneath the action of the weapon. ( The grip is shaped like a pistol, thumb hole stock is the same but legal under that ban.)

-a bayonet mount (you know how people like to bayonet people. I can’t find any instances of a bayonetting)

-a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor. (this only matters at night, it keeps you from hurting you eyes while shooting. It does NOTHING to suppress the sound.)

-a grenade launcher (maybe this should be blocked. If you can buy a real one, each shot would cost you  $250.00 for a tax stamp. They do make one now but it only fires flares.)

There are several weapons that have much more power and range that were perfectly legal during the ban. If you thought a 30round mag was large. During the ban some companies made 200 round mags that were still legal. Tube fed guns had no limit. During the ban I bought a rifle that held 17 in the tube perfectly legal in the ban.
Yeah, you guys have training within a system and good for you, you are happily married. That really matters. Many people don't have training within the system, especially young men. Lots of people have crummy marriages and for some guys, guns are a cheap way to end the marriage. You note that the last ban on dangerous weapons was full of loopholes. Well, you should be electing people who work with the police force to close the loopholes. And maybe give the police discretion to take away guns if guys are acting weird. The people you elect are not doing that, rather they actively CREATE loopholes so that gun manufacturers can utilize them. (I still cannot imagine why you don't just pay down your mortgage a bit instead of having all those guns collecting dust. Anyway, still not sure why you want it to be easy for nutcases to get powerful guns.
What bothers be about gun control is, I have done nothing wrong and my right to bear arms may be affected. Most gun owners are responsible and law abiding good citizens. Taking their guns or banning guns they love is no answer. What has been happening it is not all the fault of gun owners. That’s like blaming a woman who gets raped for wearing shorts. The problem is the sick minded people who want to kill. If we fix them we fix the problem or just enforce current laws.

The money invested in guns is very little, I built all those guns over many years. The M4 I built for about $800.00 bucks are now worth about $3,000 because of the possibility of a ban. Might sell two and put it toward the house, But my finances are quite alright. Come visit sometime, we can talk guns I will show you people in TEXAS are not all crazy. We can eat some real Mexican food and I will let you shoot an assault rifle or any gun you want. See if putting an assault rifle in your hands makes you want to murder someone. It probably won’t, your probably normal.

Nut cases should not have guns

Side note I did not vote for our current leaders. Big surprise I know

Gun control is not as simple as it sounds for the United States. We are a country of excess, where a large majority of citizens have firearms and hundreds of them at that. You acted surprised when I said I have 5 assault weapons, which is a small portion of the weapons I own. My collection is nothing compared too many I know. There is a lot of money invested in firearms and they get passed down for generations. Any coutryboy can tell you about his first .22 and all the rabbits he shot. Do you think he will give that old rifle up? Americans have strong bonds with their guns. They don’t expire and can last virtually forever. Felons and violent people are already banned from having guns. What makes you think they will turn them in after a ban? If you hit a magic button that makes all guns go away will you end violence? If that will make it all go away sign me up and take my guns. I guess I will just use my bow for hunting.
see, this actually makes some sense. some people just buy assault rifles for the heck of it, and i don't understand why.
I think that they should not be outlawed or anything they should just only be put in the hands of someone who is proven themselves responsible to own or carry one
Well, in Ireland when I was growing up, there were 2 armies, about half a dozen paramilitary organizations and occasional armed drug dealers. And there was almost open civil war a few times. Yet we never remotely approached the murder rate that, say, Baltimore, has. America has this strange cult of the individual's rights, so, it is ok to shoot little kiddies as long as the individual keeps his right to own an extremely dangerous toy. You see, criminals and paramilitaries have one difference from the armed American individualist. Do any of you know what it is? It is the rule of consequences. All of those bad people are vetted before they are allowed to join, they are trained in a certain way of thinking and individual acts of total selfishness are not condoned. In short, they have to have a code of conduct before they ever see a gun. The American individualist on the other hand is totally irresponsible, it is all about the me in him. Remember "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one"? Well, it is true. Get rid of the assault rifles. Many adolescent boys are mentally ill until they are at least 25 anyway. (You know that is true). By giving untrained male minds access to this firepower, we are also responsible for what they do.
So what your saying is that i am not resposable with my Firearms? I have been trained on how to use a firearm properly and most americans has been. I got my first shotgun when i was five and like most americans i have been trained how to use it. Most of those school shooters stole the gun from responable gun owners.
I'm curious, do you make up these false sweeping statements by yourself, or do you copy them from other ill-informed websites?

Ok so ill give you some information based on facts then. what i want you to do is to look at murders with guns in a state with strict gun control like calafornia. Then i want you to look up the same but in a state with veary little gun control tell me what one has more murders. Also the stats that you look at do they include self defence with a firearm? for an example Washington D.C has veary strict gun laws and the firearm murder rate per 100 thousand people is 12.46. now look at Texas. there gun laws are lax and they have a firearms murder rate of 2.91 per 100 thousand. Source http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-stateNow do you think gun control works? Look at the crime rate of the U.K sence they baned most firearms. "The Government's latest crime figures were condemned as "truly terrible" by the Tories today as it emerged that gun crime in England and Wales soared by 35% last year.

Criminals used handguns in 46% more offences, Home Office statistics revealed." source
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/12/11/gun-crime-soars-in-england-where-guns-are-banned-n1464528
Also i want to bring up do you think it it fair that people that obay the law will have there guns taken because some crazy people go on shootings??
"Also i want to bring up do you think it it fair that people that obay the law will have there guns taken because some crazy people go on shootings??"

*You* claim that mass shootings are committed using weapons stolen from responsible owners. Ergo, if responsible people do not own guns, they cannot be stolen, so mass shootings will not happen.

So, turn the question around; Why do you think it's fair for dozens of children to die, just so that you can keep a gun in a box?
Takeing peoples guns are not the answer. Maybe haveing resource officers and locking doors in schools would salve the problem. If someone wants to do a mass shooting truse me they will find a way to get a gun. Or they may just may make a bomb. Do you know why the 2nd admendemt way made? it was so the civilions can protect themself from the goverment and goverment terrony. A goverment that fears its people will act in there best instrest dont you agree?
Locked doors = trapped victims.

All your arguments "for" guns are only pushing the discussion away - you're now saying that the way to stop firearm murders is to get rid of all guns, completely, and to put tight controls on all materials that could possibly be made into explosives.

I know why the 2nd amendment was written - so that populations could maintain militia that could, if required, overturn a government that strayed away from the democratic process.

If you do not need a gun for your trade (eg a hunter), and you are not a member of a civilian militia, then you should not have a gun. If you are in a militia, then your weapon must be secured in a controlled armoury.

If you wish to direct your government through fear of what violent actions you might commit, then, by definition, you are a terrorist - "do what I want, or I will do something that terrifies you". If a government needs to fear a weapon, that weapon must be the ballot box.
Oh, er, 46% increase, that sounds really bad...

Until you actually pay attention to what the numbers mean. "Gun crime" in the UK also includes having a gun in the wrong kind of lockable cabinet, or not having your paperwork up to date. The article you quote is a quote of a low-quality tabloid quoting politicians in opposition to the government, using data that was skewed by a change in recording methods (ie, more crimes were classed as "gun crime", so had to be added to the statistics in a single year), and the whole article is more than ten years old!

Let's stick to the issue, focus on deaths due to firearms, and use up-to-date data:

In the UK, there are roughly 40 deaths due to firearms each year. That includes suicides and accidents. In the US, the annual figure is almost 10,000. Per capita, that's forty times more deaths in the US than in the UK.
(UK figure; 0.07 per 100,000, US figure 3.0 per 100,000).

The only countries with worse firearm death rates than the US either have a major problem with drug cartels and gangs, most are actually at war.

Have a look at some graphs: http://www.businessinsider.com/shooting-gun-laws-2012-12
I've just dug back into the UK data - the most current Home Office report shows a 19% fall in year-on-year gun-crime numbers to Sept 2011, continuing a downward trend shown since 2005. 9.9% of murders involved a firearm.

Serious injuries & fatalities fell 13%, and in 80% of firearm offenses, no injury occured.

I wonder what the US data says?
Oh, my.

I haven't found much trend data for the US (gun crime is going down but I can't find by how much), but I have found that 67% of murders involve firearms (vs 9.9% for UK), and that for every intruder stopped by a hand gun, there are 4 gun-related incidents with the home (which completely debunks NRA claims).

Your over informed smarta** comments are really starting to tick me off. If the goverment does become corrupt i hope the come for you first.
"Overinformed"? No such thing is possible.

"Under-informed", though, is entirely possible, as you regularly demonstrate. You haven't even bothered to inform yourself of my general location, and which government I influence.

(Unless, of course, you have evidence to show that most Americans have actual certifiable training in the safe use of firearms, and that the various school shooters used stolen weapons? (Do you even know the source of the Newtown shooter's weapons?))
(I think the real reason you are "ticked off" is that, if you are honest with yourself, you know I am right. I welcome, though, any reliable evidence that proves me wrong.)
i am sorry for the post above i was haveing a bad day but yes i do know how the guy who shoot up newtown got his gun, He stole ot from his mom whi is not a respnsable gunowner because she did not lock up her guns. There is a posiblebility of being over informed. How that happens is that you study so much you think you are right even though that is your opinion not a fact.
How do you know her guns were not locked up?

Do you not know where your parents keep important keys? Don't you think a 20 year old man can't reach a key on a hook?

You are right, I have opinions, but I base them on evidence, and where I do not I say so. You claim that most Americans have been properly trained to use firearms - what date is on your certificate? Who issued it? Which organisation ratified the awarding body?
The NRA argument: If we don't have guns only criminals will have them.

Reality !  over 500,000 guns are STOLEN each year IIRC, and so 500,00 guns would NOT be in the hands of criminals, if those idiots that do not lock them up, didn't HAVE them in the first place.

This from JUST the Houston area:   At least 32,000 guns, some 4,000 every year, have been stolen from Houston-area homes, cars, pawn shops and even gun dealers since 2005, with only 7 percent of them ever recovered, a Houston Chronicle analysis shows.

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Stolen-guns-nature-deadly-violence-3868619.php 
So if most of y'all are responsible and well trained, how come 82 US civilians on average die from gun shots every single day?

And does it really matter if the shooters are not the original owners of the guns? Don't we still want to avoid this kind of thing anyway? Obviously, people who are not responsible gun owners can get their hands on guns way too easily.

Adam Lanza had also been trained to use a firearm from when he was little. That probably made him a better shooter, and thus helped him accomplish his gruesome goal.
82 people per day?? look at alot our the US cities and there gun laws. i bet you will find the ciries with the most strict gun laws will have the most deaths from guns
Yes, 82 people per day.
And that is an interesting statement. What's it based on?

The countries with the strictest gun laws have the least deaths from guns. Not sure why it would work differently on your side of the pond.
Would that mean anything though?
Have you looked and do you know?

L

Relevant article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state
(If most mass shootings involve weapons stolen from responsible owners, then confiscating those weapons will prevent those shootings. Have you tried that one on the NRA?)
Tormentory1 year ago
banning guns is not the answer.
Why not? It sounds like one possible answer. It's not like most people need to have a gun.

Another answer would be regulating guns. That seems to work pretty well in many, many countries.
lemonie1 year ago
lemonie1 year ago
This is a quote from Dale in King of the Hill: "If someone breaks into your house and you don't have a gun; how are you going to shoot them?"
People shouldn't be shooting at each other: guns are for killing and it's a bit perverse for a nation with so many Christians in it to be carrying weapons, isn't it? Did Jesus carry a big-stick, or a blade?
I sometimes think there are Americans who think they're still living in the "Wild West" like in films, so they need a revolver to defend themselves against: cattle-rustlers, "Indians", Mexican-bandits, train-robbers etc.
Logic says that if people don't have guns then people don't get killed by them.
This "school-massacre concept" is becoming something of a depraved for of "art", i.e. "what next?" Is this any different to the sort of thing suicide-bombers do? The result is usually the same: people dead including the one with the weapons.

L
Lucky7x71 year ago
The only people who are affected by gun laws are people who obey laws.
So there is no need for laws forbidding murder, and penalties for it then, because murderers aren't affected by those laws ? Of course gun laws will affect people who don't obey laws, that's why "law enforcement" is called "Law enforcement"
ok badly worded on my behalf, the only people who's ability to acquire a gun will be affected by more gun laws are law abiding people who generally do not misuse guns in the first place.
I don't think that is correct. The ability to acquire guns of those who are not law-abiding is definitely influenced by gun laws. There simply are less guns around to buy or steal in countries with stricter gun control.
Also, the ability to acquire guns is not the only limiting factor to gun ownership. Criminals in my country rarely have guns; not only are they harder to get here, they are also not needed because home owners tend not to have them either.

We have a lower crime rate than the US does, and WAAAAAY lower mortality associated with crime. Also, very very few gun accidents.

Law abiding people may not misuse guns in general, but they do have gun accidents or get their guns stolen by criminals who then misuse them. Plus, every criminal starts off as a law abiding citizen before s/he commits the first crime. The line between the two groups is fuzzy.
Right, limiting the access to guns.....limits access to guns. The only ones extreemly adversely affected are nut cases that aren't smart enought to act sane when buying one.

Hack42Moem, we need you to speak to our misinformed and highly bonkers NRA. They think exactly the opposite (meaning they deny reality consistantly).
Have you seen the 2 Youtube videos where Piers Morgan interviews Alex Jones? Hilarious.
WHOA !!!! Can we say NUTCASE ? Conspiracy theorist ? How about what Sarah Palin would sound like if she were a man? Wow,.....just wow.
I'll have to look that one up...
kkeagan1 year ago
guns generally just make good people bad
Speaking as a person from a country with gun control.
Gun control made no difference in violent crime other than to teach criminals how to buy guns legally.
In fact the only thing that did anything to violent crime was making people produce ID to buy ammo.
ban bullets :-)
garretttm1 year ago
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-benjamin franklin
The saddest part is all the people saying i don't see why anyone besides police and military needs assault rifles/ extended mags/ whatever can't seem to understand that it's BECAUSE police and military have access to them that the population at large MUST also
Additionally, we have no way of knowing that if any of the recent crazies had encountered someone armed and shooting back at them they would not have panicked and fled. To people with psychosis, acts like this are about control, and the control only exists if they meet no armed resistance. You can't deny that if a teacher or guard was shooting back at a lunatic the very least it would do is interrupt him/her from casually moving from student to student 20 times...
Another quote that springs to mind- "when you outlaw guns, only outlaws have guns."
Please tell me more about how crazy people and criminals obey laws.

Also, no offense to kiteman- from your ibles and various comments you seems like a smart, funny person i wish i'd had as a teacher- BUT we can't take your opinion at face value because you come from a strange place called the "YooKay"
Seriously, it's like science fiction there- they drive on the wrong side of the road, they're all scared of guns, they have a queen, and they accept constant CCTV spying as a fact of life!
I'm not offended at all.

Steveastrouk has already pointed out the false security of armed guards.

Regarding the difference in gun laws, I simply point to our two nations' rates of gun-linked deaths and allow readers to draw their own conclusions.

And as for surveillance, I don't recall casually accepting it, but it is not do all-pervading as some make out, very little of it is immediately accessible to authorities, and a lot of it is quite poor quality. At least the cameras here are clear and open, and we don't get X-rayed on every flight (I didn't actually see any less surveillance when I was in liberal SF this summer - I recall counting four cameras on a bus).
Thing is, we know we're being spied on, your NSA is doing it to you, and you don't even know about it.

At Columbine, there was armed security, and it fired at the assailants. Didn't stop 'em though. How much armed security at schools would you like ? One, two three armed guards/police/ army snipers, a platoon. What kind of country do you want to live in that HAS to guard its children with an army ?

Thing is, after our "Sandy Nook", Dunblane, the handgun ban seems to have completely stopped spree killers. As you say, "when you outlaw guns, only outlaws have guns."....which is true, and they now use them to shoot each other. Outside the gunowning "community" handgun deaths are pretty largely unknown.
blkhawk1 year ago
The problem with gun possession in the United States is that we believe that it is our right to bear any kind of weapons without the government's approval. We are a cocky, trigger happy country. I have been told more than a few times by some rednecks that if I visit their home they will shoot me. I still don't know why! Anyway, to show you an example, Swiss citizens have the same number of weapons or more per household compared to the United States but they enjoy a very small number of deaths by guns. The difference is that each Swiss citizen sees the possession of these weapons as a responsibility, a citizen's duty to keep these weapons whenever they are called to protect their country. Also Swiss citizens are trained in the use of these weapons, which unfortunately, is not the case with most gun owners in the United States.
"we believe that it is our right to bear any kind of weapons without the government's approval."

I was told (I forget who by, but it was on this site) that that is the point - the populace are armed should they need to deal (again) with a government that acts without remit. Ultimately, the one group the American government should fear most is the American citizenry.

(As for Switzerland, all those (man) bearing arms have been subject to conscription into the armed forces, forced to receive military training, and are not simply allowed to store weapons at home, but are required to do so by law. Fun fact: proportionally, the Swiss armed forces are about five times the size of the US armed forces.)
I do believe we should be able to own any type of guns we want for protection from home invaders and rapest. Also in my opinion the goverment needs to fear the people because if the goverment fears us it will do what the people want and not what they want.
There isnt anything that you can purchase legally or illegally that will stop the Government from taking your life. Do you think an AR 15 will be much use against a M777 firing 155mm Excalibur rounds from 20 miles away?

The most powerful weapon you have against the Government is the right to vote.
Which would be a valid argument, except they are elected in a democratic system. If the system's fair, you get what you voted for,
See, the problem with conservatives is the use of fear to justify almost anything. Gun control laws will not transform the country in a police state. England has strict gun control laws and it is not a police state. Your thinking is wrong.
Well, yes, but it's something of a stretch to say that that means I should be able to have a warehouse of bazookas without telling anybody.
True, but I bet it just says "arms", not "arms limited by number and calibre".
I'm having trouble parsing what you're saying? That feels like a non-sequiter. :P Either the second amendment literally means I can have a warehouse of tanks/bazookas/anti-aircraft guns without telling the government or anyone else, because that is what *no* restrictions or government approval means (it scares me that this is such a popular notion) - or there's some point at which restrictions can be leveraged without infringing the right.
The problem is, it was written when only armies could afford arsenals. They didn't imagine a time when a child could tote the same destructive power as a platoon.
Which is exactly why an originalist approach to constitutional interpretation is dumb (cf. my comment below).
I hadn't thought about it like that, but it blows Scalia out of the water.
That's actually *exactly* who I had in mind writing that. Scalia drives me up the wall.
Witnesses shall refrain on making any comments regarding your bazookas.
I wouldn't call that a firearm, it is closer to a rocket launcher.... ;-)
was alluding to looks that kill...
or to killers that look ? ;-)
The right to bear arms was written at a time when people did not trust the new continental government. This allowed the individual states to keep militias. Later different states enacted laws granting the same right to individuals. I wanted to compare the way people see guns on both countries. On one side people see it as a right and on the other end the Swiss look the possession of weapons as a citizen's duty. Many Americans have a collection of guns and even expose their children to them thinking that they will be prepared. I don't have guns myself and statistics show that people that own guns are many times more prone to injure or die from a gun related fatality that those that don't.
yeah true but in my opinion a family with firearms are safer then a family without them. When seconds count the police are only minutes away.
You should acquire more facts in order to have an informed opinion, otherwise you're merely repeating ignorance. Have you studied the statistics on injuries and deaths due to privately owned firearms?

In particular, have you studied the statistics on the relative rates (both absolute and per capite) of firearms attacks by "random strangers" vs. family members and instigators of domestic violence?

If you do have facts to back up your opinion -- in particular, published figures that homes in which firearms are present experience lower rates of violence than homes in which they are absent -- please provide references to them.
Let's hope that the recent tragedy at the Sandy Hook Elementary make people rethink their opposition to gun control. We don't need an arsenal of high powered weapons for protection. Sadly, in many cases, like this one, guns have been obtained legally.
Except an awful lot of deaths from guns in the USA occur accidentally when children gain access to them
"...in my opinion ..."

No facts, no evidence, just a glance at the headlines on Fox "News".
That is your opinion not based on facts.
I tried making that point, and asking the OP for facts to support his opinion, and as expected, the OP just ignored it.
There is a video that I could not embed, that shows how owning a gun is not always a foolproof way to confront an armed attacker. Watch the video!
Indeed ! More times then not, the intruder ends up with the gun, or the victum ends up shooting someone they didn't mean to.
dannreed1 year ago
On the same day as the CT. school shootings, in China, a man (crazy) loses it, and with their extremely strict gun laws was unable to purchase or get a gun. He takes a knife to the local elementary school and carves up 21 or 22 children. I believe they all survived (though I have not had a chance to follow up on this story) but they will still be as traumatised as the kids in the CT school shooting. My point is, if they don't have a gun, then they grab a knife, or some improvised explosives like Timothy McVeigh in the Oklahoma City bombing. Even if you restrict or remove all the guns the crazy's will still find a way to do their killing unless their is someone right there to stop them. An armed police officer, or even a trained teacher or administrator with a licensed firearm might have been able to stop these killings long before all those children could be shot. I love my children as much as any parent, but restricting guns just leaves the good people unable to defend themselves. Also in China, they have been having lots of these type of knife attacks for the last 3 years. They actually have to register all large knives in China when purchased, but that doesn't seem to stop the knife attacks, just like restricting guns wouldn't work here.

My point is, if they don't have a gun, then they grab a knife, or some improvised explosives like Timothy McVeigh in the Oklahoma City bombing.

But he had access to knives and other alternatives. Yet, he went for the guns. There has to be a reason, right? The reason he picked guns was most likely that the guns were available relatively easily. They are also lethally effective, and you can kill a lot of people in relatively little time.

In other countries, where access to guns is restricted, we do not see a lot of murders being done with other means. We see less murders, period. A whole lot less.

So if it's not the guns making that difference, then what is it? Are people in the US simply more prone to murder someone? Is that what you'd prefer to believe, and if yes, what is the logic behind it? And what do you propose to change it?

This is a good, logical piece on why people (like me) believe that yes, less guns WOULD mean less deaths. If you'd like to understand us (and why wouldn't you?), please read it.

As you make clear though, the kids are only wounded., not dead. The 20 Newtown kiddies didn't have a chance.

We don't have anything like your murder rate in the UK, we don't have handguns. We don't have crazies murdering multiple people in a single incident.
dannreed1 year ago
On the same day as the CT. school shootings, in China, a man (crazy) loses it, and with their extremely strict gun laws was unable to purchase or get a gun. He takes a knife to the local elementary school and carves up 21 or 22 children. I believe they all survived (though I have not had a chance to follow up on this story) but they will still be as traumatised as the kids in the CT school shooting. My point is, if they don't have a gun, then they grab a knife, or some improvised explosives like Timothy McVeigh in the Oklahoma City bombing. Even if you restrict or remove all the guns the crazy's will still find a way to do their killing unless their is someone right there to stop them. An armed police officer, or even a trained teacher or administrator with a licensed firearm might have been able to stop these killings long before all those children could be shot. I love my children as much as any parent, but restricting guns just leaves the good people unable to defend themselves. Also in China, they have been having lots of these type of knife attacks for the last 3 years. They actually have to register all large knives in China when purchased, but that doesn't seem to stop the knife attacks, just like restricting guns wouldn't work here.
Oh boy.

SPOILER ALERT:

A lot of active posters being in the U.S., this thread is almost certainly going to center around U.S. politics. Thus, it will almost certainly devolve into a name-calling orgy of pedantry over:

- What exactly the Constitution says
- What exactly "original intent" means and whether it is or should be relevant to modern constitutional interpretation
- How Obama is A Fascist
- And a Communist
- At the same time (don't ask me how; I don't know these things)
- Ditto anyone else who wants to restrict or monitor the usage or ownership of any weapon in any way whatsoever

The founding fathers will, for the thousandth time, be dug up and their tired old bones used as hand puppets to fit the agenda (sincere or not) of both sides. Jefferson's name will be dropped more often than a T-Mobile cell signal. The Second Amendment will be invoked as more precious and holy than the most venerated scripture. Heretics will be named and burned. Zealots will be denounced as madmen.

I'm just warning ya'll.
The founding fathers should be brought up in this and many other instances. And the precedents in England that preceded the revolution should also be brought up. Free men had a right to bear arms. ; villeins and cotters did not.
Few Americans have sufficient the knowledge and respect for the founding fathers and their cause.
I'm going to go out on a huge limb here and assume you respect Thomas Jefferson. Which is strange, considering that his philosophy is rather incongruous with originalism. For example he wrote (the following selections are long, but I think you should read them):

"I set out on this ground which I suppose to be self evident, "that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living;" that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it. . . . On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished them, in their natural course, with those whose will gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19. years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force and not of right."  (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Paris, Sep. 6, 1789.)

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." (Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, July 12, 1816. It is also inscribed on the Jefferson Monument.)

So, good 'ol T.J. strongly disagrees with you - he specifically believed that the living should adjust the constitution and constitutional institutions to fit their own needs, without feeling held to what their forebears decided.

And actually, the past decade-or-so has seen a marked resurgence in interest in the founding fathers. One historian calls it "founder's chic." Just ask Joseph Ellis, Edmund Morgan, David McCullough - they're all authors of enormously popular books on the founders, evidence of contemporary interest in the subject. Cf. a whole freakin' miniseries based on a bestselling book, on John Adams of all people. John Adams!

Though there's abundant ignorance and fallacious "knowledge" surrounding the founding fathers, there's plenty of respect for them. They are (and have long been) venerated almost to the point of deification.
Thomas Jefferson may disagree with me, but I'd rather stand with Adams and Washington and others anyway. Interest in the founding fathers may have had a resurgence; it is still insufficient. All Americans, all people should stand in awe and wonder at Washington. and be enormously grateful for Adams and Franklin and Madison. You can step the reverence down a little with Jefferson.
Our founding fathers grew hemp on their plantations and there is historical records of people smoking hemp in those days. Based on that I say legalize weed! :-)
The founding fathers were much wiser and braver than nearly anyone else in history. They were not "like anyone else" They were better than anyone who reads or writes these comments. Most especially they were better than those who say because the founders grew a material for cordage other folks should be able to smoke related plants.
Allistor Cook's comment comes to mind People can say anything and often do
"The founding fathers were much wiser and braver than nearly anyone else in history."

[citation needed]

The greatness of the United States is my citation.
Could you elaborate about this "greatness"? What do you mean by that?
I am glad that you recognize that you need to learn more. I tutor HS and intro college history but only. In this area. There are loads and loads of other opportunities, but many of them are not worth much. Here is an easy test of quality. If they cannot explain how GW was great, they are no God. Good luck. This closes this conversation.
If that comment is a sample of your "tutoring", then I greatly doubt either the veracity of your claim or the quality of the institution. Possibly both.

If you deny your students the right to form an opinion that differs from your own, especially when you cannot provide evidence to back up your own claims, and ignore the swathes of evidence that contradict your claims, you are not educating them, you are brainwashing them.

I'm glad my children don't have this "tutor" as a teacher!
Something we have in common!
You never answered my question!
I'm not sure they can.
The "greatness" of the US is highly debatable, especially in recent years, but whatever the current status of the nation, the "Founding Fathers" are not responsible for it, since their original principals have been largely ignored by those in or seeking power for many years.

(eg the FF declared that the State should be free and independent of the political influence of any religion, yet what does your money have printed on it? How often do politicians try and force a religious agenda into state or federal law? How deeply are the non-religious hated that polls show them to be the least popular option for President, no matter what their other political views.)
Definitely, they were much wiser than you. You show complete ignorance of history. You only want to glorify them, putting them on a pedestal.
So odd that you would claim to know my education and motive and all. When one knows a subject one knows that some deserve to be on pedestals. George III admired GW greatly. He was one of countless. The founding fathers collectively and, in many cases individually merit that. An example in our own time is John Paul the Great. Those who know his person and works and are themselves good, at least marvel. Some mistakenly believe that denigrating the great is a sign of some type of refinement. In fact it demonstrates a lack of perception.
Apparently you seem to know my education! True historians do not make the mistake of romanticize individuals. They were great men in the sense that they put their knowledge, talents and efforts in their cause for independence and the creation of a new country but in no way they were perfect. What about the contribution of the humble men and women that fought during the revolution? Are they less deserving of recognition because history forgot their names? Admiration is one thing and idolizing is another!
The founding fathers were men like anyone else. The same people that proclaimed that "all men are created equal" were slave owners. The lived double lives. On one side we had Thomas Jefferson, the most educated of our founding fathers, fathered himself many children with his women slaves.
Alright, I admit I was trolled.

And during finals week, no less! Shame on me.
They were not omniscient or greatly prescient, they reacted to the conditions they found themselves in.

Lira's point about originalism is very valid one - the founding fathers certainly didn't foresee weapons in the hands of one person that could slaughter on a huge scale, and at great speed.
Dogs and cats living together ....
You sure do like that movie. :D
Nah, not really. I just watch it over and over and over ...
Here ARE the statistics.

In the US – population 311.5 million (1) – there were an estimated 13,756 murders in 2009 (2), a rate of about 5.0 per 100,000 (3). Of these 9,203 were carried out with a firearm. In the UK – population 56.1 million (4) – there were an estimated 550 murders in 2011-12 (5), a rate of about 1.4 per 100,000. Of these 39 were carried out with a firearm (6).

As in the USA, the demographics of the crimes should be looked at closely. In the UK, nearly all gun crime is confined between members of the criminal fraternity.

References
(1) United States Census Bureau (undated). State and Country Quick Facts. Available from: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

(2) United States Census Bureau (2012) 2012 Statistical Abstract – Table 310. Murder Victims – Circumstances and Weapons Used or Cause of Death: 2000-2009. Available from http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0310.pdf

(3) United States Census Bureau (2012) 2012 Statistical Abstract – Table 306. Crimes and Crime Rates by Type of Offence: 1980-2009. Available from: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0306.pdf

(4) Office for National Statistics (2011). 2011 Census Home. Available from: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/census/2011/index.html

(5) Home Office (2012). Historical Crime Data. Available from: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/historical-crime-data/

(6) Home Office (2010). Home Office Statistical Bulletin. Homicides, Firearm Offences and Intimate Violence 2008/09. Available from: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110218135832/http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs10/hosb0110.pdf
Goodhart1 year ago
Assault weapons normally refer to VERY high powered rifles sometimes including semiautomatics, and automatic weapons.
Only an automatic weapon is an assault weapon but the media calls tactical rifles or moderen sporting rifles "assault weapons" Because they way they look. I do not believe they should be called assault weapons because a rifle can not assault somebody a person has to.
The only reason the word assault is used in this case is because it is a term used in warfare.
If assault weapons should not be called that, because it's people who assault others, then we should not speak about soccer shoes or riding boots either. Shoes don't play soccer after all.
How do YOU know what they do in the wee hours of the night LOL
+25
@Hack42Moem
:-D
actually, the assault weapons ban(s) reference small changes to weapons as making them either assault or not assault weapons....such as magazine count (10 rounds vs 30 rounds), weapon weight, barrel length, etc... so you could have two of the EXACT same gun....that work EXACTLY the same way, but one has a barrel that's 1/2" shorter than the other and it's automatically an assault weapon. some of the laws actually include what accessories you can have on a gun....so one gun has different furnature but works exactly the same and it's an assault weapon
Yeah, I know growing up that one could take a 10 round magazine rifle out hunting IF they had a plug in it limiting it to either 3 or 5 shots (I don't remember). I always thought it was an odd law myself.
Kiteman1 year ago
"In these days there has been alot of shootings and murder."

Really? More than usual?

(Is it just me, or does that sound biblical? I wonder if the author is an End Times believer?)
Yes i am.
What, even in light of the complete lack of evidence?
An atheist that is disrespectful to those that believe is as bad as a fanatic believer.
Why is it disrespectful to question?

Nobody should hold a belief without a reason, even if that reason is fanciful.

I am familiar with the various biblical prophecies regarding "The End", and most of the conditions passed centuries ago, or are vague to the point of uselessness.
(And as far as "disrespect" goes, the baseless accusations tend to be directed at me - "evil", "spawn of Satan", "damned", "immoral" are just for starters. I have even been accused of being an outright child abuser, simply because I refused to teach creationism as factual in my science lessons.

In sixteen years of teaching, I have never had to deal with a religious child being bullied for their faith, but I have had to deal with religious children reducing classmates to tears with their tales of what will happen to non-believers after they die.)
The point that I want to make is that biblical passages might seem vague to you but it might have meaning for people like me. There are fanatical fundamentalists in every religion that have done a huge disservice. This statement is also true for philosophies and political parties. You don't have to teach creationism in your classroom because schools, at least in our countries, should not sponsor any religious beliefs. And yes Mr. Kiteman, although nobody should hold a belief without a reason according to you, people have the right to believe whatever they want.
Hey, believe what you like, but please do not expect special treatment simply because you have a faith.

You and I may have different views of reality, but I have as much right to express my world-view, and to challenge that of others, as anybody does to challenge mine.

I think that my evidence-based questions are very mild-mannered compared to the outright abuse I receive on a pretty regular basis from people who claim to follow a "god of love".
I never asked for special treatment of any kind. And I never questioned your right to express your views. If you want to feel victimized for not believing in a god that is your problem but for your information my beliefs are also questioned by people like you.
"I never asked for special treatment of any kind. And I never questioned your right to express your views."

Yes, you did, by calling my question "disrespectful". That has the implicit meaning that I am required to give an entirely unsubstantiated opinion extra respect, purely because it is linked to a person's faith.

I'd thank you not to patronise me. I am not "feeling victimised", I am regularly, openly attacked, and with far less legal protection than that which benefits the religious. I was simply clarifying the moral hypocrisy and legal imbalance under which discussions like this take place - there are no parts of anti-discrimination legislation in the UK or US that protect the rights of atheists to be atheist, and (many) theists justify breaking their own commandments by claiming they don't count for atheists.

According to the gospels, being hateful is just as bad as outright murder, but even moderate theists regularly pour out quite astounding amounts of bile against people who dare to expect extraordinary claims to be backed up by some kind of reliable evidence, or have the temerity to question the declarations of theist bureaucracies.

---------------

(Sorry, that comes across as very ranty, and probably a bit personal, but it's not. My problem is mainly with those who run religions.)
Ouch!
yeah, this is new how? beside there is more than one way to kill people
Guns do not kill people by themselves... People kill other people, and the laws that try to control weapons in an effort to thwart illegal activity tend to only affect the law abiding. We already have laws against murder, but murder still occurs whether guns are in the equation or not. Even a ban of all weapons isn't likely to stop criminals. You can't control the weapons in other countries or stop all the illegal smuggling. Law enforcement and military would still be allowed to carry weapons and would require manufacturing facilities to make them. No ban can prevent every temptation to make a tidy profit by selling weapons to criminals, and even the most secure facilities would have some risk of theft.
2nd amendment rights bro, and besides, even if they were to be banned, when have criminals obeyed the law?
I support the right to arm bears....