Gun Control

[Attrox]

This hasn't been that big of an issue lately, but gun control in America has came up on many topics.

I personally don't think they should ban guns from America, guns don't kill people - people kill people. If they ban guns, it won't do anything but rob innocent gun owners, who never have used it to do anything illegal before.

Criminals will still get their guns, even if owning a gun is against the law. Drugs are illegal, but stoners easily get their hands on them...it'll be the same way with guns. Criminals will still have/use them.

What are your thoughts on gun control?

[Haver]

Over here in England we have a total ban on guns, you have to get a license if you want to get a gun for recreational purposes. You have to prove you have a safe storage solution and you are not allowed to have a criminal past.

I think guns should be banned worldwide. Yes, it is the people who use these guns in a bad way, but if all guns were banned, they wouldn't have the chance to.

So many lives could have been saved if guns had been banned. Take the school shootings, they maryland sniper, they may have happened if the offenders had got the weapons through the black market, but if they never had the chance to have the weapons without going dodgy, then maybes they would have thought twice.

So I'm anti-guns, yes everyone does have the right to defend themselves, but the negative aspects of guns far outweight the advantages.

[Attrox]

Even if guns were banned worldwide, people who wanted to get their hands on a gun could. Third world countries will never stop using guns, and like you said, there is always the black market. What is the use of banning them, when if somebody who wants one could get their hands on the weapon anyways? It isn't fair to those who use guns legally, for hunting or self protection.

[BrianH]

I live in Canada so we do have pretty good gun control. I found the movie Bowling for Columbine very informative but I think banning guns would be a great start. I know that the constitutional right allows a gun but then just ask yourself in the past year of all the robberies and deaths how many "victims" were able to pull out their gun and protect themselves? How many aucutally used it for protection and how many succeeded.

[Manex]

im strictly for gun control. people say that there will still be guns...which is true...there will always be a black market. but if you outlaw them so it is harder to get...only people that ABSOLUTELY need them (extreme criminals) will be able to get ahold of them....i.e - not children who went through their parents closets, or a wife who caught her husband cheating on her

[Lord Lupus]

Originally posted by Haver
Over here in England we have a total ban on guns, you have to get a license if you want to get a gun for recreational purposes. You have to prove you have a safe storage solution and you are not allowed to have a criminal past.

Over here in England more people are getting shot than ever before, even though there's a total ban.

Laws don't work.

[Attrox]

Originally posted by MrLister
I live in Canada so we do have pretty good gun control. I found the movie Bowling for Columbine very informative but I think banning guns would be a great start.
Please note that Bowling for Columbine wasn't 100% factual, and was hugely biased. If you go to Michael Moore's website, or the official website for the movie, you'll find a lot of slanted stories, and some that is just untrue.

[dotVT]

He's right -- guns don't kill people, PEOPLE kill people. Taking away guns solve nothing. As a matter of fact -- I would move to increase he amount of guns in circulation. Because people without guns fear people with them. If it was commonplace that EVERYONE had one...then that one person with a grudge would learn to think twice. I mean seriously -- what would have happened to those boys in Columbine if when they pulled out their guns -- EVERYONE else in the school pulled out theirs??

[Kamikaze X]

Gun control is how evil dictators got control of their nations ex: Hitler, Mao, and Stalin and soon Bush haha. If you're afraid of gangsters don't talk crap watch what colors you wear in the hood and move to the hills.

[Advance]

You said it already, but "guns don't kill people; people kill people." That totally sums it up for me.

[Fade]

I believe over in japan or some other asian country they have tight gun control, though the people still may carry knives. However, to kill someone with a knife will obviously take more time, thought and effort, so perhaps banning guns altogether would be a good thing. The only part that would worry me is the effect on hunting and gathering, but not too many indians have starved from lack of being able to catch food, and you notice that they use bows and arrows. Also, would medical achievments backtract, and if so would that be worth the banishment of guns? Currently our medical facilities can eaily patch you up for a shot with an arrow or a broken arm, but would we lose some of our expierance if it was no longer needed, and what we we do if some accident did happen and we couldnt solve it?

[Attrox]

Originally posted by Fade
The only part that would worry me is the effect on hunting and gathering, but not too many indians have starved from lack of being able to catch food, and you notice that they use bows and arrows.
In case you didn't know, Native Americans, or "Indians" as you call them, don't use bows and arrows anymore. Or hunt for all of their food. They function just like any other race in America. They drive cars. Go to school. They do pretty much everything you do.

Originally posted by Fade
Also, would medical achievments backtract, and if so would that be worth the banishment of guns? Currently our medical facilities can eaily patch you up for a shot with an arrow or a broken arm, but would we lose some of our expierance if it was no longer needed, and what we we do if some accident did happen and we couldnt solve it?
If guns are banned, there will still be plenty of shootings to go around. In England, they banned guns, and currently have the most increasing murder rate in the world. A lot of good that did, eh? I'm sure the same thing will happen in America. There will still be shootings to be treated, plenty of them.

[Fade]

Im sorry if you thought that I said they were primitive today, I meant in the past. Of course they drive cars and go to school!I meant BEFORE GUNS that was an example of how wildlife was killed. Good grief...

[Advance]

The only thing banning guns does is take the guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens.

[AsH]

Lol, I like how Attrox got offended on behalf of Indians.

[Attrox]

Originally posted by Advance
The only thing banning guns does is take the guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens.
That pretty much sums it up. :) I couldn't agree more with that statement.

[Mechknuckles]

If you ban guns, people will still get them, or they will use other weapons.

and there is no way on earth that you will get a worldwide bann on guns. Bush wouldnt even try anyway, he need he military going around kicking ass.

[xNaChOx]

It is like people getting banned drugs people!

(another old thread Mech has brought from the dead..)

[Scatophobe]

You guys are so wrong. Guns dont kill people, people kill people? What the hell do you think the people are using? Guns. They're easily accessible and people are shot with them every day.

"Wa waaa," you say, "banning guns will just take it away from citizens and give them to criminals." First, criminals BECOME criminals because they shoot people with guns! You can be a normal citizen, but what if one day in a fit of pique you go and shoot your neighbour? Then you're no longer a law abiding citizen, you're a criminal. A gun can turn anyone into a criminal, and they're far too dangerous in that respect.

Also, the arguement that you need a gun for protection is ridiculous. Guns kill way more people than they save. Hardly ever is gun at home used to stop "robbers and crooks", the harsh reality is that those guns end up killing children who find them.

I am so glad I live in Canada where we have stricter gun laws. I can't wait until we ban guns completely.

[xNaChOx]

Well guns are used to kill people more than anything else... maybe ridding them would help...

[Ian]

banning guns is definitly not the way too go....

i remeber we had a debate in school about this issue last year..very imformative

[Lord Lupus]

Originally posted by Attrox

If guns are banned, there will still be plenty of shootings to go around. In England, they banned guns, and currently have the most increasing murder rate in the world. A lot of good that did, eh

... because American gun-culture is rubbing off on the stupid fools over here, who think it's cool to be in gangs and go about harassing everyone.:sidestare

[xNaChOx]

I lived in a place where carrying gusn was a ssafety precaution. People use precaution as an excuse in cort :sidestare

[Lord Lupus]

Originally posted by Scatophobe
Also, the arguement that you need a gun for protection is ridiculous.

True -- Ban guns, and what do you need a gun to protect yerself against?
A baseball bat works just as well if they're close, and apparently, if they're in your home, whatever you do is nice and legal.

[xNaChOx]

Originally posted by Lord Lupus


True -- Ban guns, and what do you need a gun to protect yerself against?
A baseball bat works just as well if they're close, and apparently, if they're in your home, whatever you do is nice and legal.

Not true. Anybody here remember that 12-year old and that 14-year old who killed their dad with a baseball bat?? :sidestare

You kids watch the news!?

[gekko]

Well the reality is crime goes down when gun control is reduced. In the book Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America and Targeting Guns, Florida State University professor Gary Kleck reports that 25 to 75 lives are saved by guns for every life lost by a gun. Basically, by reducing the number of guns on the streets, the criminals who illegally own guns gain more power. Guns can be made illegal, but they'll be smuggled into the country anyway.

If someone wants to kill you, they don't need a gun. They're generally used to have power in a situation. If you wanted to rob a lady walking down the street, pulling out a gun would do the trick. But good luck doing that when 5 other people walking down the street pull their gun out on you.

[xNaChOx]

In what way do guns save people? Maybe in war, only in war.

[mb90078]

I'm far from a fan of guns and owning them, but in some parts of the country, I think it can be reasonable. The big issue is that gun control wouldn't work.

[xNaChOx]

What parts of the country? I lived in a pretty damn bad part of Queens and me nor my parents never owned a gun. :|

[Harry]

IF anyone is truly interested in this topic, a great movie to see is "Bowling for Columbine." It is a GREAT documentary.

[Matt]

Good idea.

Guns cause people to die, so let's BAN THEM.

This way when some punk who has stored up plenty of ammo and guns before the ban breaks into my house and says he's gonna killl everyone and steal everything he wants we can be defenseless.

If more people owned guns, crime would go down. Burgalers would think twice about breaking in... what if someone is home waiting with their semi-automatic?

[psi]

I'm bringing this thread back since Nova and MJ started talking guns in other thread.

I think banning guns is bad for rural ranch owners like me. How do I protect myself from someone robbing me when I'm in the middle of nowhere? How to protect my horses from coyotes, cougars? Hand to hand combat with each coyote myself??? Those responsible to use guns should take tests like driver's licenses. If they can prove they know how to use it, have good storage, and willing to even pay for the license they can buy a gun.

And yes, if you do ban guns, I would become an officer of law just so I can still own one. It's something I cherish as an American as protecting myself, my property, and my values.

[Rumsfeld™]

I agree... and in many cities it almost seems like a bad idea to allow all kinds of people to own a gun just because of the population.

I'm for certain kinds of restrictions which are prob already in effect anyway..... like any criminal record, arrests, health problems, etc = no. Smaller population, no crimes commited, etc = yes. But not a complete ban

I'm not sure if they already do this but some kind of questionnaire would be appropriate IMO for people buying a gun/permit. At least then they'd have more background info as to why the person wants a gun, where they plan on using or bringing it and things like this.

[Master Noodle]

I agree with the original poster, guns dont kill people, people kill people. When ya take away the gun from average joe whos house is getting broken into, and he goes downstairs only to find a few so called "criminals" with guns, who dont give a care that the guns they are using are illegal, or that our buddy joe is defensless, guess who loses? Thats right, Joe does.

Also, as to all the allusions that kids who go and shoot up schools get their guns from there parents, I believe if someone is that determined to massacre people, there not going to think, "Oh No! If I go and buy a gun off a black market dealer I might get caught, that would be so terrible!" for obvious reasons. And those black market dealers, why would they care if their selling guns to kids? More money in their pocket! Anyways, there shouldnt be a control on guns, even though people die everyday, I'm 100% sure less people die this way, than putting a control on guns. The only way, and I mean only way to control guns, would be to erase all knowledge of them from everyone's mind, put them in a big pile and make them explode, then go back to stabbing each other with swords and knives. But then, people would want to put a ban on those too, and man would try and exist without those. Then we would have fists and legs, can punch and kick, cant have those either. Cant forget about our mouths, might bite someone with them. Ok, Im exaggerating, I'll stop now while I'm still behind. :confused:

[GoingNova]

If asked, I would say that Alien Soup is Center/Left, which I define as pretty much neutral, but if I had to pick, I would say more members are liberal than conservative. I think it is perfect actually, because on most issues posted here, you usually get both sides, presented fairly well, which enables the reader to make up his or own mind. The ESSENCE of a good forum/discussion board.

I hate saying I am "Anti-Gun Control" because to me, that makes it sound like I think you should be able to walk into a store a buy a gun without any hassles at all. I wish we could invent a term like "Pro-Choice" which lets you hide behind the word choice :lol: but I digress, that is another topic. My stance is this: every adult over the age of 18 has the right to own a gun to be used for self defense. I would enact the following requirements:


To purchase a handgun for home defense, all that should be required is a valid State Driver's License, and an FBI background check - which can be done in 5 minutes
To purchase a handgun for concealed carry, same as 1, but with an additional required training/certification course
To purchase any long guns/rifles for home defense - same as one
I do not believe people should be allowed to carry rifles around in every day life, except for special exceptions - hunting being the primary exception


I am an advocate of EXTREMELY HARSH sentences placed on ANYONE who uses a gun in a crime: 25 YEARS, NO PAROLE, just for using the gun itself. ACCOUNTABLITY, not a NANNY STATE. Taking things away from people because some misuse it is illogical. Punish the ones who misuse guns, not those of us who use them responsibly. Are we in grade school, that when one of us misbehaves, the teacher takes away recess from everyone?

The fact is, at 3:00 AM with an intruder in your home, the best way to provide for the safety of yourself and family is with a handgun. You can not rely on the police, plain and simple. The response time (if you are lucky enough to be able to call them) is usually too long. If you feel uncomfortable with a gun, or choose not provide the best defense, that is your choice, but I resent that some people who do not like guns saying that I should not be allowed to have one because they do not like them. Guns and children? Lock up your guns, and you don't have to worry. The fact is, more children drown in swimming pools each year then are accidently killed by guns. Should we fill in every swimming pool in America because some children drown in them?

My set up is very good: I have a Smith & Wesson VersaVault (http://store.smith-wesson.com/store/index.php3?cat=295744&item=831119&sw_activeTab=9) bolted to my night table. Inside is my "home defense" gun - a Smith & Wesson 16 Shot, 9MM handgun. Also inside the safe are the keys to my Stack-On (http://www.thesportsauthority.com/product/index.jsp?productId=964927&cp&keywords=stack-on&y=11&searchId=5311435577&x=11&parentPage=search) rifle and handgun locker. Inside there I have 3 rifles, and 6 more handguns. They are all locked away, 100% of the time. My son can not get to the guns because if a gun is not on my hip, it is locked away. Gun Security problem solved.

If you feel that you are not repsponsible enough to lock your guns away from children, then by all means, think twice before you buy a gun. But again, please don't restrict me because you feel you are not responsible enough. I used to be ANTI-GUN. Then I was forced to be trained with one because of my job. Once I was trianed, I reliazied that there really is nothing to fear from them. Don't believe the hype. Guns are tools, just like anything else. My advice to someone who woul like to provide the best defense for thier home, but who feels uncomfortable or nervous around guns? Take a course, and try then see how you feel. My gun is one of my best friends, and I can not describe the piece of mind having it on my hip provides me. I know that should some animal ever try to hurt my wife or my son, I will be ready to defend them in the best way I know how. :nod:

[nootch]

I'll be honest and admit up front that the only two posts I read were the first one and the last one (first to make sure the topic is asking what I think it is, and last because I was actually very curious to read goingnova's opinion on this because of his profession). I've also never really thought about my position on the topic so please excuse me if my thoughts are a bit scattered...

Let me also state up front that I've always been somewhat terrified of guns. Sure, I grew up playing Nintendo's Duck Hunt and I loved shoot'em up games... but everytime I'd go to the bank while the armored truck was there, and I actually saw the real guns in person it kinda freaked me out. First time I ever saw a guard with his gun drawn I really didn't want to walk anywhere near him (even though I had to in order to get into the bank). About 3 years ago, a few friends and I went to a shooting range and actually shot real guns (9mm Beretta and a .44). It was nice being taught by the rangeman how to properly handle a gun, load it, etc. and I thought that it would ease my tension around guns... but it didn't.

Even more recently, my girlfriend's uncle has been hosting a fairly regular "hunt club" where we've been doing target shooting with .22 rifles and clay pigeon shooting with 12 gauge shotguns (no real hunting, as I could never shoot at a living thing... er, except for when I'm paintballing :tongue: ). Turns out I'm a bit of a natural with the clay pigeon shooting too. :)

Where am I going with all of this? I can see the purpose of owning a gun, other than self-defense. I don't think that all gun owners are whackjobs that are going to shoot someone on accident/purpose. Though I still get freaked when I see a gun in person, and I have no intention to ever own one myself.

My stance on gun control will echo most of what goingnova said in his list of requirements, except I believe you should also be required to take a gun safety class and pass a test (just like we have to take driver's education tests) before you can get your first gun. I also believe that we should have relatively short waiting periods (3-14 days max, depending on circumstances)? I like the goingnova's idea about strict punishment for crimes involving guns, just for using the gun. Oh and the types of guns are really important; I don't think anyone really needs an assault rifle for self-defense or for target shooting (though I bet it'd be fun to shoot).

P.S. - I consider myself pretty liberal ;)

[GoingNova]

Nootch, excellent post! I have to tell you that I really LOVE IT when liberals and conservatives are able to have a civil discussion. Sure, it's even nicer when we find common ground, but even if we disagree, it is all about the discussion and the civility.

As an ex-liberal turned conservative, I like to think of myself as openminded, and I really enjoy reading other people's opinions. The problem, I think, is that sometimes people feel so strongly on an issue, they lose sight of the fact that not everyone has to agree on everything. I think sometimes we are all guilty of this. I know sometimes I am. :nod:

Anyway, Gun Control and Immigration TEND, more often than not, to be the "common ground" issue that many liberals and conservatives agree on. At least, that has been my experience.

[Rumsfeld™]

First time I ever saw a guard with his gun drawn I really didn't want to walk anywhere near him (even though I had to in order to get into the bank). About 3 years ago, a few friends and I went to a shooting range and actually shot real guns (9mm Beretta and a .44). It was nice being taught by the rangeman how to properly handle a gun, load it, etc. and I thought that it would ease my tension around guns... but it didn't.
A few months ago I was shot in the hand with a gun. The bullet was a hunting pellet .5mm, but nevertheless close to the same as a 9mm or such. It really doesn't hurt in terms of pain... all there is is a huge tingling sensation followed by a bit of shock when you see the blood. After the operation w/ a portable x-ray, the surgeon told me that no tendons or nerve cord was harmed and that I would recover in less than 10 days. So just to let you know with your fear of guns and stuff, if you ever do get shot with one, you won't feel anything until at least an hour after bleeding; and if it hits a vital organ you'd be dead before that happens..... if that helps at all :-S


As an ex-liberal turned conservative, I like to think of myself as openminded, and I really enjoy reading other people's opinions.

As they say.... if you're under 30 and not a liberal, you have no heart. If you're over 30 and not a conservative, you have no brain. I guess that makes me the Tinman, and you, the Scarecrow after meeting Ozzzzzzz ;D ;D

[monsieurjohn]

i guess i'm a tin man too :ut-oh:

[psi]

Cleaned my cabinet today and thought about how protective and safe I am with my guns. Even in a locked gun safe I have each gun with it's own lock on the trigger guard and even the bullets are locked. Couple of the rifles are broken down to bare components and locked. There is no way a kid or someone else can move that safe, get to use those guns, unless they have my keys which are locked in another safe. Sad thing though is when I hear someone knocking on door at 3:00 am MONTHLY I have to go through all those locks to get gun loaded (just in case). Seems once a month someone always breaks down near our place and they need help at 3:00 in the morning.

[Prox]

I have had a lot of experience with firearms. I started shooting when I was around 5 years old, and it is extreemly fun. I am a member of a gun club with Dad and Grandpa (family thing). That being said I consider myself to be totaly centered in the way of politics, as I like to look at both sides of an issue and make my decision, which lately tends to go a little on the liberal side of things.

Ok all that backgound opinion stuff out of the way, I think that gun control is an absolute necessity in our society. You will never get me to say that people should not own guns. However I do believe that there should be restrictions on purchasing them. Simular to goingnova here is my list of requirements for gun purchase.

1. Gun Class - every hunter must pass a hunter safty course before they are allowed to get a hunters license, why should it be any different for people wishing to own a gun and use it in a different way.

2. Once you pass your test, you can purchase a gun after a 5 day waiting period. I believe that the waiting period will help prevent those I'm pissed off so I am gonna go get a gun and go postal type crimes, as well as ensure that the person buying the gun should be alowed to have it.

I agree with Nooch that assult rifles are just not necessary for people to own, although I can see how they could be fun to shoot.

And goingnova is right, if the penalties for gun related crimes were stiffer then people would definatly think twice about using a gun to commit a crime.

Anyway I don't know if any of that made any sense, but there it is.

[monsieurjohn]

one point -

people don't generally just "snap" and go on shooting sprees, despite how it's portrayed in the news. in almost every instance like that, it's been planned for a long time, or at the very least it's been brewing for a long time, and a waiting period for a gun won't exactly help much.

that aside, i tend to agree :tongue: ... i'm not sure how i feel about assault rifles. it really seems like as much fun as they might be, there's no practical reason for anyone to have one except the military

[GoingNova]

There really is no such thing as an "assualt rifle". It is a made up term. What the media means when they say "assualt rifle" is a fully automatic rifle that shoots multiple rounds at once: a machine gun. They are illegal to own, unless you get a specifal licence from the governement, and they are really hard to get. They typically have three settings: Single, Burst, and Auto. Single fires one round at a time. Burst fires several rounds at once. Auto will means continuous fire until you either A) remove your finger from the trigger or B) run out of rounds. You can purchase one of these guns legally, but the ones you can purchase without a the special license will only fire Single. When they fire one round at a time, they are no different from a plain shotgun. Can these guns be modified to fire full automatic? Yes, but that is illegal to do, and you will go to jail for doing so.

My job has officers trained in the Colt AR-15. The guns we use have the three settings, but we are trained to never use Full Auto, but rather use the Single or the Burst. When you fire full auto, you tend to lose accuracy, because as you fire, the gun continously goes up. Unless you are The Rock, it is extremely hard to hold the gun on target. I remember firing on full auto once, and I had to stop shooting because the gun was almost shooting straight up! I can purchase an AR-15 for my home, which I am planning on doing but have not done yet, but the one I may purchase will only fire one bullet at a time.

Anyway, that is the deal. The average person simply can not purchase an "assault rifle" as they media has you believe. The only way to get one is to get the license, buy it off the street, or modify one you can buy. All options but the license route are illegal, and don't happen often. The fact is, most criminals use handguns, as rifles are too hard to hide, so the point is usually mute.

[psi]

about 3/4's of our guns are antiques picked up through estate purchases (antique business). There might be an armoire and then wired in corner is a rifle. We just collect them and as like any other gun I lock them up until we auction it off. All handguns go to another dealer or auction. We sometimes keep good rifles since they can last forever if kept in good condition. The other fourth are well new guns that we use on hand occassionally. I prefer rifles (not like Quigley Down Under) as they give a better shot with an easier time with bracing for recoil. Plus I'm not closing the distance to get near a coyote to shoot it with a handgun. Handguns are merely in my opinon not needed on a ranch. I leave it to those who can handle it's minature power like the police and military and those who get up close and personal with a license to kill and to protect (with amnesty)!

[GoingNova]

Just goes to show you, it is a matter of taste. I prefer handguns to rifles. My .40 Caliber Glock will take care of a coyote quite nicely. I am fairly accurate with my handgun, I shoot Expert when I qualify, which is 90-100 out of 100 on the target at up to 75 feet, but I never shoot a tight group. That means, on a 3 foot high x 1 foot wide target, my rounds are all over that target. A tight group would mean then I get all of my rounds together. Anyway, I find rifles to be too cumbersome. Plus, when you are going room to room, a handgun can be held tight to your person, while a rifle tends to protrude into the next room, making it easier to grab from you. If some one was inside my home, I would use my handgun. If I had to leave my home for some reason, I would take my shotgun, purely for the racking sound. That sound alone is often enough to "stop the action".

Oh, and I hate it when in the movies people get out of a car and "rack a weapon". It is moronic to carry a gun without it being loaded, and ready to go. Cops NEVER carry an unready gun, and that is pure Hollywood BS when you see anyone, particularly police or military, "racking" a gun, which is when they pull the slide back, and put a round into the chamber.

[danceswithfish]

I agree that riffles are cumbersome.
Here in alaska,we worry more about bears than people. I carry (most people "pack" when going fishing or hiking, sometimes even walking down rural roads.) a Mossberg 12ga. with 18" bbl. It is semi-auto and hols 7 rounds. I alternate 00 buck and sabot slugs. I have not had to use it yet...but it is nice to know you have that kind of stopping power.
For in home use...same weapon!! The only way to my room is through a 20 foot long hallway.I don't even have to see the intruder. I can take out anything coming down the hall.
Downstairs....The only entry accessable from outside, leads to another "artic" entry that has a home made "Dutch" door. It is 6" thick and has 2 slide bolts keeping it closed.(bears are tough!!!) This opens up into another, more formal, entry that I can cover easily from my recliner.

If you try a hand gun with a slightly longer bbl, you would probably be a bit more accurate. Maybe set the trigger with a little lighter pull. You may be "yanking" the trigger too hard. It,s an art...not a wrestling match.

Keep 'em in the black.

[GoingNova]

If you try a hand gun with a slightly longer bbl, you would probably be a bit more accurate. Maybe set the trigger with a little lighter pull. You may be "yanking" the trigger too hard. It,s an art...not a wrestling match.

Keep 'em in the black.

My Glock has a very short trigger pull, while my service weapon has much longer pull. I am VERY impressed that you hit the nail DIRECTLY ON THE HEAD when it comes to my problem. Very astute of you! Yeah, I tend to pull, or snap, the trigger with my service weapon, hence the loose groups. I have managed it well enough for the past 12 years to still shoot expert, but I have far from mastered it.

We are actually going to Glocks at work as well, so perhaps with the shorter trigger pull my shooting will improve at work as well! :nod:

[danceswithfish]

Likke I said before...Shooting is an art.
My father taught B.R.M. for years in the military.I guess some of it musta rubbed off.I'm not all that great with a hand gun,(I can hit what I aim at, but my groups suck, very inconsistant). However, I am pretty good with a rifle. At 25 meters, 3 round groups, I only leave one hole in the paper. At300 meters my shot groups grow to 2 1/2 inches.
Meditate...look past the sights and see the bullet stiking the target. That round should impact where ever you are looking. You shouldn't even need to "aim".
Oh,Yes...PRACTICE,PRACTICE,PRA CTICE.....
BB guns work well for this.They allow you to learn technique while being cost efficient.
It takes THOUSANDS of shots before you can do something like...have a partner toss a tennis ball up and you can hit it EVERY time. BUT...Itis possible for you to do this!!

[danceswithfish]

Attrox...I'm with you on the "Indian" thing!!
I too, find it offensive. We are "NATIONS" (ie. "LAKOTA"{NOT 'sioux'}, "WINNEBAGO",etc.)
Most people don't stop and think about the fact, ALL peoples were at one time, TRIBAL PEOPLES.
Look at the "Germanic tribes" that comprise most of Europe. That's right...you are "Indians" too!!
What about the INCA'S in Mexico? Or the AZTEC or the hundreds of tribes in Africa? Yep...All "Indians". And all enslaved, killed and "converted" into "civilized" people.

Now...as far as guns...I live in Alaska. My front yard in 2500 square mile of wilderness. There are often Bears, Moose, and other "wild" animals in my front yard. In the spring, when the bears are waking up, It is important to my survival for me to carry a gun even when I go to the outhouse.(Yes, I said outhouse. We have no running water or grid power availabe where I live.) Darn PRIMITIVE "INDIANS"!!!
So...for many, guns are not an option, but rather a TOOL and a necessary part of life that needs to be used and treated with much respect.
I will gauranty that somebody fishing at the local fishing hole, has a gun!! (The one time I went fishing at a remote lake without a gun, I was chased by a bear!!)

Don't base ALL of your opinions on what happens in the cities (they are sick and full of hatred anyway) as this is very discriminative to people that don't live with those kinds of conditions.
Perhaps Towns and Cities could have their own"bans", just like private buildings can and do.

[Meow]

IF anyone is truly interested in this topic, a great movie to see is "Bowling for Columbine." It is a GREAT documentary.

It is NOT a documentary. :rolleyes:



I believe in gun control. I keep my guns under my control at all times. I also believe in trigger control. A gun does you no good at all if you don't properly control it. :tongue:

[monsieurjohn]

my friend has a t-shirt that says "Guns don't kill people.... I kill people" :tongue:

[psi]

lol

I saw one on a shirt where they said don't ban the gun ban and control the bullets since that's what really kills them from a gun.

Ironic since I heard in news that goverment may decide to put a serial number on every single bullet now so it can be traced no matter what/whose gun fired from to purchaser of bullets.

[Meow]

lol

Ironic since I heard in news that goverment may decide to put a serial number on every single bullet now so it can be traced no matter what/whose gun fired from to purchaser of bullets.

That's a law they are trying to pass in CA. They want a serial number on every component of ammo. Ridiculous. Most of the time a bullet used in a murder is going to be mangled or even fragmented to the point that a serial number is going to be unreadable. Better yet if someone decided to commit a crime with a gun they will just go outside of CA to buy ammo or cast their own bullets. The whole purpose of the law is to try to run up the cost of producing ammo to sell in CA that people will just stop selling it there. The law also includes a clause that says if you have ammo in a public place in CA and it's not serialized then you are commiting a crime. This part prevents people who live in CA from purchasing ammo from someone else and it also prevents them from casting their own.

[jourgenson]

lol

I saw one on a shirt where they said don't ban the gun ban and control the bullets since that's what really kills them from a gun.

Ironic since I heard in news that goverment may decide to put a serial number on every single bullet now so it can be traced no matter what/whose gun fired from to purchaser of bullets.

Chris Rock had a great bit similar to this in one of his stand-up routines. He suggested that a bullet should cost $5,000. That way you know that if someone wastes 10 bullets in a shooting that they must have deserved it as who would waste 50 grand on the wrong person. He also suggested a humorous scenario where you might yell that you are going to kill someone... as soon as you come up with the money.

[GoingNova]

The right to defend yourself is the most fundamental right there is. Unless a government can guarantee your safty, which is impossible to do, they have no right to infringe on your right to defend your self and your family. As a police officer, I can not say it enough, you can not reply on the police to protect you. Not in a city, not in a rural area, not anywhere.

Putting a serial number on every bullet is a completely assine idea, but hey, quite a few gun control people are asses, so, nothing surprising there. Here is a novel thought, put mandatory sentences of 30 years on any crime committed using a gun. Lock away the criminals, and leave us responsible, law abiding citizens alone!

[psi]

I agree Nova, stiffer penalities for crimes involving guns. Also mandatory safety issues involving guns for all buyers of guns. I think every gunowner should show they are safe users and take a test like a driver's license test by producing proof of using a gun safe and/or gun locks and some other gun knowledge. I think most accidents of guns could have been prevented if first the most obvious gun was unloaded when stored, had a gun lock, had been put in safe separate from bullets.
So it's not controlling the gun, it's controlling the gun user really.

[GoingNova]

I agree Nova, stiffer penalities for crimes involving guns. Also mandatory safety issues involving guns for all buyers of guns. I think every gunowner should show they are safe users and take a test like a driver's license test by producing proof of using a gun safe and/or gun locks and some other gun knowledge. I think most accidents of guns could have been prevented if first the most obvious gun was unloaded when stored, had a gun lock, had been put in safe separate from bullets.
So it's not controlling the gun, it's controlling the gun user really.

Well Psi, I agree with you for the most part, except about the storing guns loaded part. I have a Smith and Wesson Versa Vault bolted to my night table. It has a push button combination lock on it. I keep my "House Protection" gun in that safe. If someone breaks into my home in the middle of the night, I enter the 10 digit combination, and bingo, there is my gun, ready to go. Inside that combo safe is the key to my gun locker, where all of my other guns are stored. I store all of my guns, loaded and ready to go. If my gun is not on my person, it is locked away, securely. Since I have a 10 digit combination safe, I don't feel the need to unload my guns: no one is getting into that safe except me (my wife is SUPPOSED to know the combination, but can't remember it). It is a matter of personal preference. If you prefer to keep your guns unloaded, then by all means do so. I prefer to keep them loaded. :nod:

[psi]

Well there is a difference in that you're an officer. You have to be ready on notice. Using the locks/safes help tremoundously you know especially having children around. Having them loaded is probably something you have to do in your career. I however have loaded clips though (for those that take clips). The other rifles are single bolt actions so it doesn't matter I load a bullet in.

[psi]

Out of curiousity are Nova and I the only gunowners in the Soup?

[Prox]

Nope, I own 2 .22's and a shotgun. I am probably going to pick up a few handguns somewhat soon.

I personaly don't believe in using a gun for protection as I don't own anything thats worth my life or the life of whoever is trying to rip me off, however I absolutly love to shoot. I am a fairly good shot and I compete with a local club every now and then, and I am able to hold my own against people who have been shooting much longer then I have.

[Stonelaughter]

Well, I couldn't read the whole thread; too much water under the bridge. But - I thought I'd post my POV and see what it stirs up.

Firstly, the argument "Guns don't kill people, PEOPLE kill people" is flawed. It takes no account of consequences and likelihoods. It's glib and too often quoted. Imagine the scenario where two armed people approach one another. One's the aggressor, the other just wants to finish his day. in Scenario One, they both have knives. Aggressor attacks with his knife, other defends with his knife. It's long, it's messy, and someone might actually give up and stop before there's a death.

Now make the weapons guns. I give you a maximum of five shots before there's at least one death. I also give you at least three ricocheting bullets either injuring or killing other people in the area. What about if only the defender has a gun? Out comes the knife, aggressor attacks... out comes the gun and BLAM - another life lost and still danger to the bystanders.

Now - I don't advocate a total ban on guns. It's (a) unachievable, and (b) inneffective... for reasons already given. i.e. people will get them anyway.

What you have to do is legislate to make it MUCH MUCH HARDER to come by guns LEGALLY. How does that help? Well, it means that some bozo can't go into a shop, put down his ID and $200, and walk away a week later with a gun. He has to go through checks, applications, system searches, suitability tests. He has to have a license and three referees "of reasonable standing" in the Community. and because guns are so hard to come by legally in this scenario, they're bloody expensive.

Next, you legislate to make it illegal to own, or posess, or even handle, a gun without one of those licenses. Next, you make it so that if someone buys a gun, they have to go to a different place to get ammo - a gun club or suitably licensed premises.

All these measures won't STOP illegal guns being around... and they won't STOP legal or illegal gun owners going nuts and blowing people to bits. But the measures will significantly reduce both gun ownership and deaths. That can only be a good thing.

Never forget - if someone attacks you, and you retaliate, that's not defence, it's counter-attack. It's also counter productive. If the weapons used are guns, the potential for loss of life and/or serious injury are VASTLY increased over other non-projectile weapons.

[Stonelaughter]

p.s. - to those who think of using a gun as "protection", it's rubbish. All they do is INFLAME. If you pull a gun on your attacker, what if he has one too? What if he killed three people this morning, and you've never killed? Could you even pull the trigger at a person? Gun's aren't a protection device, or a deterrent. They're a killing device, an attacking device, and they make violent situations MUCH more dangerous.

[psi]

Well it seems using guns as protection for self is the main consensus behind your view. I'm a rural owner literally in middle of nowhere. The quickest a sheriff/trooper can get out here (If I can call them) is 30 minutes. So what do I do let the attacker go ahead and shoot me? Not all people carrying guns to rural areas intend to just rob. Of course I'll let them rob me (no property is worth my life) but what if they are a killer bent on killing me, I obviously cannot wait 30 minutes for someone else to handle the situation if confronted. They pull it on me I'll pull it on them, it's self defense. That's like asking someone of the law to not use guns to counter an attack by guns. Or asking a soldier to not use guns at all against those who choose to use them instead.

Also because I live on a huge ranch I have to control vicious animals like cougars/coyotes and limit population of rabbits. I've tried all humane ways to deter them but to "protect" animals (and young children) that cannot protect themselves (horses) I need to kill said vicious animals. If I called animal control to get the wild animals they'll just come out with gun themselves to shoot it so what's the difference of me doing it? I'm a skilled marksman (I don't hunt as sport) so it's always a clean shot and straight to kill a coyote, etc.

[Stonelaughter]

When someone calls at your ranch, at 3am, with a gun, hell bent on killing you. OK. Right. I can see the scenario now. Whoa, there, attacker! Wait a second! I'll just pop down to my gun cupboard, and fetch my rifle, then I'll go down to my ammo box and get some ammo, and then I'll load up and THEN we can have a gunfight, OK?

You're not telling me that living out in the countryside with virtually nothing to fear, you're going to keep a loaded rifle right there by your bed. And if it's a handgun? I return to my original point; it's not a weapon of defence and all that can come of it is deaths. In my view death (in this context) is A Bad Thing(tm) and is to be avoided by all concerned; how is a gun going to PREVENT deaths in a one-on-one?

I can understand the "control of predators" argument, absolutely. Farmers here are allowed guns with appropriate licenses, checks, balances and controls. But if they use 'em on a person... guess what? Our farmers don't keep loaded guns by their beds either; and there are VERY strict laws about where they can keep any firearm while it's not actually being used... and ammo MUST be kept separately from them and also under lock and key. All very sensible in my view - and while gun crime is getting worse here, it's at least an order of magnitude less than gun crime in the Good Old Yoo-Ess of Ay.

[psi]

There's no way a perpretator can get in house unless I let them in. I answer the door at nights with a loaded rifle! During the day we have numerous employees as this is a full blown business ranch so some ranch hands can use "non-lethal" weapons such as pitchforks, the bulldozer?, machetes, and fence pliers!

All in all until I learn to swing a knife or some martial art skill all the strength to muster off an attack is a bullet coming out a gun. Plain and simple. That IS my protection on a ranch.

[Stonelaughter]

At the end of the day, Psi, there is no way to convince you. Guns are A Bad Thing(tm) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Thing). You won't ever agree. I won't ever agree with you. People kill people, and guns make it a hell of a lot easier to do that. That, to me, qualifies them for Bad Thing(tm) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Thing) status.

Notice also I haven't advocated banning them; I just want to make it a hell of a lot more difficult than walking into a store and saying "I'd like a gun please".

[lobo]

He-he ... I am feeling something especial when I am keeping gun in my hands.

Yep. It is Bad Thing but it is very seductive, it is acting like alcohol. Did You ever shot out full cartridge of AK-47 in some direction? That's so cool! That's like playing on the Stradivary's violin! :woohoo:

Anyway - killing peoples is BAD!

[psi]

Let me get this you're saying NOBODY should use a gun in their home? What about an off-duty officer of the law? Would you tell that guy hey you're not on duty you can't use your gun for a "CRIMINAL". What is the difference? Are you saying the regular person that has paid dues, paid for classes, shouldn't use a gun at all? I've gone through educational classes for use of a gun and I do keep the guns locked in a safe, taken apart on 90% of them WITH trigger locks on ALL of them (and in safe), all unloaded, AND the bullets are locked in a completely different safe. All I'm saying I'll will go to ANY extreme to save human life be it my family or myself. Of course I'll tell the m-f-r that's bent on killing me to put down his weapon when I draw mine on him to give the chance of redemeption. But get this Stone if he fires or isn't going to put that down I'm popping him one....that's self defense (I'd like to see your definition of self-defense) because knife doesn't beat gun unless you're a seal or ninja. And like I said I would love to do anything other than but I can't, I don't have the necessary skills but I'm a good marksman. Now back to the officer. Should he turn in his gun in at night at the station? I still don't get your picture of WHOM should or should not have guns at all.

[Stonelaughter]

Average Joe in the street should not have guns unless he has a license. It should be stored as you say you store yours. Most people in the States with guns, unfortunately, don't bother with any secure storage at all, but keep their handgun in the kitchen drawer or some such idiotic nonsense.

The Police Officer who carries a gun as part of his duty should absolutely store his gun in the police station armoury under guard like all the other police forces in the world do. Are you saying that an off-duty police officer in the USA still carries his police firearm while he's not at work?!?!?! That's complete crazy talk. It opens up a humungous can of worms if he shoots someone while he's off duty - who will bear witness that he was justified in firing? If he's off duty, he has no policing rights or responsibilities, and absolutely should avoid policing work - he's off duty so that he can rest up for his next shift, for which he must be bright-eyed and bushy-tailed.

Like I said, all I would like to see, is a stop to "Could I have a gun please" followed by "Sure you can sir, that's one hundred dollars please". I would like to see some sort of responsibility involved in selling legal guns... at the moment in the States it's almost as simple as I say, and nowhere NEAR everyone is responsibly storing them like you do.

[Dummy]

People who are legal to own guns in the US are not walking around with handguns. It is not a $100.00 for a handgun. Try more like $1000(559.134 GBP) Police officers are citizens of the United States and are entitled to carry a concealed weapon if they choose to and qualify to do so. Not all of them do. Also not all citizens of America choose to do so. There is many citizens who do not own firearms. This country don't have a gun store on every corner. I wish it did though, be easier to get it after I got my applications filled out and permits. That has a 14 day cool off period....

The United States has a contract with its citizens. This can not be broken by the government. Specifically it it our Second Amendment Right. We have the rights as citizens to bear arms. It does however don't give us the right to carry hidden guns. Act like an idiot with one and be dumb with one. IF your a nut a crook and other factors, you wiave this right. Concealed firearm permits..that is a privilege. Not everyone qualifies for this privilege.
Prior to purchase of any firearm in the united states an application is filled out. It is send to Washington DC and is checked by the FBI. Any criminal history, mental illness will disqualify you. There is others but it is not important to my point. You just can't buy handguns and firearms at the local corner store.


I grew up around firearms from since I can remember. I never never ever seen a gun in a silverware drawer or other drawer that was not intended for firearm storage. Gun in the US are sold with trigger locks by the way. This brings me to another point I would like to address.

Every state has different firearm laws. The one standard being handguns. You must apply and be accepted in a gun safety school. It has to be certified and you must pass the profiency to complete the course. Not cheap and not easy.

So in other words, Americans can carry handguns under their shirt if they have the privialage or credentials to do so.. The ones who will run around and just go bonkers are mostly weeded out. The crooks who have guns will not see the light of day for a long time. Most penalties for a conceal weapon without a permit are 5+ years in a state prison. It is not a federal crime. Unless you are comitting a federal crime.The ones who are proven able to control a firearm are not going to risk the right and have guns laying around. Plus gun woners may be voical thier rights, the yare however sometimes very smart indivuals. It is not the movies, and books. There is limited spaces were guns are not allowed to be carried. Unless you are a civil servant under oath to uphold the law. The one spot no one can carry a firearm is a jail.

There is a funny joke that comes to mind. You don't fart on a bus. You don't carry a gun on a bus. You don't fart on a bus carrying a gun. Then it will draw attention to you.

It is a social thing, and the edicate is very very sincere.

Americans are armed and have been armed from the beginning of the US. For a non American it seems barbaric. To an American it is part of us and only the criminals have the right to fear an armed person. The rest go hunting or don't flash guns like you would expect. We have jobs, we have families, we teach our young ones gun saftey. We are who we are.

[sentinel1]

"Average Joe in the street should not have guns unless he has a license. It should be stored as you say you store yours. Most people in the States with guns, unfortunately, don't bother with any secure storage at all, but keep their handgun in the kitchen drawer or some such idiotic nonsense."

I agree 100% with you stone. What we need is a national Law. I believe any person who wants to purchase a firearm should be required to take a NRA safety course. It's common sense.



" The Police Officer who carries a gun as part of his duty should absolutely store his gun in the police station armoury under guard like all the other police forces in the world do. Are you saying that an off-duty police officer in the USA still carries his police firearm while he's not at work?!?!?! That's complete crazy talk. It opens up a humungous can of worms if he shoots someone while he's off duty - who will bear witness that he was justified in firing? If he's off duty, he has no policing rights or responsibilities, and absolutely should avoid policing work - he's off duty so that he can rest up for his next shift, for which he must be bright-eyed and bushy-tailed."

Stone whether a police officer carries a weapon off duty is determined on the municipal level. This can vary from an officer being required to carry off duty, being up to the officer. I and not completely sure but I do not think any departments ban and active Officer from carrying a weapon off shift.

A Police Officer while on active duty is bound to up hold the law 24/7/365 they may be off shift but they are always duty bound. Imagine the public outcry if a citizen was being assaulted and an off duty officer walked by and ignored the situation.

"Like I said, all I would like to see, is a stop to "Could I have a gun please" followed by "Sure you can sir, that's one hundred dollars please". I would like to see some sort of responsibility involved in selling legal guns... at the moment in the States it's almost as simple as I say, and nowhere NEAR everyone is responsibly storing them like you do."

There are federal standards in place. They consist of these points:

* Those convicted of crimes punishable by imprisonment for over one year, except state misdemeanors punishable by two years or less.
* Fugitives from justice.
* Unlawful users of certain depressant, narcotic, or stimulant drugs.
* Those adjudicated as mental defectives or incompetents or those committed to any mental institution.
* Illegal aliens.
* Citizens who have renounced their citizenship.
* Those persons dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces.
* Persons less than 18 years of age for the purchase of a shotgun or rifle.
* Persons less than 21 years of age for the purchase of a firearm that is other than a shotgun or rifle.
* Persons subject to a court order that restrains such persons from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner.
* Persons convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

State laws vary widely from a 3 day "cooling off period" to nothing at all. Handguns have different rules. I do believe there should be a national law with some type of training for the person who has never used a weapon however no law is going to stop a criminal intent on acquiring a gun from doing so. Gun laws only affect people who obey the law.

[Schizander]

This gun question is a lot more complicated than the old "people kill people not guns" bumper sticker slogan. Guns are a way of life in America. It's part of our history. It's ingrained in the minds and hearts of millions of people around the country, and on top of that, it's a multi-million (or billion) dollar business, and I'm not just talking about selling guns and ammo and reloading equipment. There's a huge gun culture in this country today, and that culture is made up of many different kinds of individuals and well organized groups, (not just deer hunters and target shooters) and some of these groups are very powerful politically...the NRA for example.

Go to the bookstore and read through some of the articles in a few of these popular gun magazines and then come back here and tell me these people are well-balanced individuals. Some of their rationale and thinking borders on paranoia. There's one mag I read a few times which has a regular feature of alledgedly true stories where a gun owner or some kind of law enforcement person is in a shootout with a criminal, and the whole thing is designed to impress the reader with the gun owner's expert handling of the situation and his shooting skills. They even go into minute detail about what kind of ammo was used...the type and make of gun...how many shots were fired and what part of the body was hit..this is real people shooting at other real people here and it's being used to entertain folks. I've never seen anything remotely entertaining about killing people.

Then there are those letters to the mag readership from people like the editor or maybe the head of the NRA, and it mostly consists of an emotional rant about how the mean old pinko liberal Democrats (who are always portrayed as unpatriotic gun control advocates or traitors) are out to take everybody's gun away from them, which is just plain silly.

Their goal seems to be to vilify anyone who even suggests supporting sensible gun control. To hear them tell it, we should only support and vote for those in congress and elsewhere who do not support gun control..in other words..the right wingers in the Republican party. They remind me a little of these scary people who go around saying Christians should only vote Republican because the Republican Party most reflects what Jesus taught! Uh-huh, right. I guess Jesus would have belonged to the NRA too if they'd had guns 2,000 years ago in Palestine.

We will never have the kind of gun control they have in other countries like Canada, Australia, Europe, Japan, etc...this is America, and we're still hanging on to the Old West frontier mentality that's still a part of our culture. If you are not a convicted felon or a mentally ill person, you can go right across town here and pay 2 or 3 hundred dollars to some indoor shooting gallery/gun dealer place and go thru concealed carry classes and walk out of there with a loaded 40 cal. Glock auto under your jacket. That's a sobering thought when the guy in line in front of you at the Piggly Wiggly store might be packing a Glock 40!

I grew up with guns. I had my first one when I was 12 years old, and I bet I have owned at least 30 or 40 since then. I only have one now. I used to be a deer hunter, but I quit hunting because too many crazy badly trained (in gun safety) trigger happy people were in the woods. I've never wanted to own an AK-47 or an M-16 or some other type of assault rifle. What's the point? Do these people actually believe they'll wake up one morning and have to defend themselves against an invading force of foreign infantry which has somehow breached the borders of the US and is advancing behind heavy armor on their hometowns? That would be the only scenario where an assault rifle would be useful. Sounds like an episode on the Simpsons.

Guns are just another product which is in demand by the consumer, and the politicians are not going to do anything drastic which will negatively impact the sale of guns in America. Lot of other consumer items go along with guns...hunting clothes, boots, tents, camping gear, ATV's, animal calls, animal scents, body armor, gun accessories like nite lights, laser sights, trigger locks, gun cabinets, gun safes, gun cleaning kits, ammo pouches, ammo boxes, reloaders, then you have gun shows, gun clubs, gun mags, gun books, gun TV shows, gun movies, cowboy shooters which means you gotta have gun holsters, modern reproductions of antique six shooters...the list goes on and on...muzzle loaders for deer hunters...muskets for Civil War re-enactment buffs, etc....We yanks looooooooove our guns.

[psi]

Well I see some good to the points of agreement here but I still disagree with officers turning their guns in at station. Rural officers like Sheriffs and Constables in small villages live faraway because houses are further apart. Are you going to make a single rural officer go from point A to point B (Station) to get his/her gun to go back to point A' (A prime that is near point A)? Explain your perspective of logic to save time if there was a need to have a gun.

[Prox]

Most police officers that carry off duty do so in order to protect themselves. Many of them have put hardened criminals behind bars, and they have most likely received multiple death threats from people who would most likely be very willing to carry the threat out.

[Hot_Shizzle42]

Personally i think that gun control is for pussies and green peace fags who dont even kno how to shoot a damn gun so if you want to take my ****in guns away your goona have to kill my redneck ass to get them so screw off bitch :soldier: :beer:

[Schizander]

Personally i think that gun control is for pussies and green peace fags who dont even kno how to shoot a damn gun so if you want to take my ****in guns away your goona have to kill my redneck ass to get them so screw off bitch :soldier: :beer:

I'm just curious here, Shizzle42, but exactly which member of alien soup are you calling a "bitch?" Is this the way you talk to all the women in your life? I can see why you might need to carry a gun around if that's the case. Oh, and not everyone who is in favor of some type of sensible gun control are pussies or fags. How old are you anyway? Does your mommy know you've been using bad words online? Naughty naughty. Just for that you have to go to bed with no din din and no Teddy.

[Hot_Shizzle42]

Im calling green peace pussies a bitch not anyone on here i like everyone on here if i was little i would hope i had a lab top in school cause they allow you to chat all day. Number one i have more guns then you have toes and fingers and i dont carry them around i have my permits and my hunting licenses all up to date. To preach to me about gun control i have been to the moon back on PETA are some fags who need to shut the **** up them tree hugging ****s im from the farms of md and i dont take **** if you know what PETA is big adult man who talks on a teenager web site all day go back to your yahoo messanger porn and streaming video of *** farts fag!!!

[psi]

now now. This is a debate about guns not about flaming each other. Try to keep your cool guys. However you did point out that some of us in this forum may own guns so I would like to hear from those that do if they:

A: use a gun safe
B: use trigger locks

I think half of those posting to this thread own guns.
I on one hand use only rifles and shotguns (Not a Quigley down under kind of guy) but only in that most of my usage of these weapons are on animal control at a distance. Any handgun that comes through estate sales usually get thrown into auctions. I do have a lot of antique rifles in safes (with trigger locks) that I don't even use at all and will probably auction them all off. I'll probably only keep a high powered rifle, shotgun and a 22 rifle. Yeah 22 is the most used is (it's a 10/22 Ruger Carbine Rifle). That's considered a less powerful rifle but it handles most critters with hollow point long rifle bullets.

[Hot_Shizzle42]

:soldier: We have assembled the key facts at one site, Gun Control. For example, the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states,

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Both sides agree that the final authority for interpreting the meaning of the Second Amendment of the Constitution (above) is the U.S. Supreme Court. A key case, according to both sides of the argument, is United States v. Miller 307 U.S. 174 (1939). In this case, the Supreme Court was asked whether the Second Amendment protected Miller's right not to register a "sawed off" shotgun, despite a federal law requiring it. The Supreme Court examined the original records of Congress to determine why the Second Amendment was written into the Constitution. They clarified the intent of the Second Amendment with this statement:

"The Constitution, as originally adopted, granted to the Congress power -- To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."

The Supreme Court then ruled that Miller's shotgun was not for a militia-type purpose and that it therefore was not protected by the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court further explained that at the time the Second Amendment was adopted, Congress favored using the civilian population (adult males) as the State Militia for national defense rather than building an army of professional soldiers. The purpose of the Second Amendment was to support the national defense. Therefore, the only purpose for which owning and carrying a gun is protected under the Second Amendment is as part of "a well regulated militia," acting on behalf of the national government.

The NRA agreed that the Supreme Court ruling meant that only militia-type uses for guns are protected under the Second Amendment. However, the NRA has an additional interpretation of the ruling: Because the Supreme Court wrote about the purpose of the weapon, and did not specifically mention Miller's lack of membership in the military, the NRA therefore concludes that individuals not in the military have a right to bear arms, as long as they do so for a military purpose.

More recently, an individual right to bear arms was affirmed in the trial court of U.S. v Emerson, but overturned on appeal to the Fifth Circuit. Although Emerson lost the case, the NRA regards the opinions of two of the appellate judges as support for their position that the right to bear arms is an individual right.

Regarding the Emerson case, the Brady Center states, "This suggestion that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms is contrary to the holdings of the U.S. Supreme Court and every other federal appellate court to consider the issue."

According to Brady Center sources, Congress debated whether the Second Amendment should include the right of individuals to carry guns for personal reasons and decided to limit the Second Amendment to include only the right to bear arms for the military purposes, national defense.

To summarize, the Brady Center concludes that individuals do not have the right to keep and bear arms for personal uses under the Second Amendment since the Second Amendment's purpose is solely for national defense. The NRA, on the other hand, concludes that the Miller ruling supports the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, as long as they do so for a military purpose.


Do More Guns Mean More Deaths and Injuries?
The Brady Center argues that when the civilian population has more access to guns, more teens and children die from gun wounds. For example, during a year when over 5,000 teens and children died from gun wounds in the USA, in Great Britain, where gun ownership is very restricted, 19 teens and children died from gun wounds.

The Brady Center also argues for laws that promote gun safety, such as requiring child-proof locks on gun triggers. They have praised Smith and Wesson (gun maker) for starting to make guns with safety features. The Brady Center asserts that the public good is served by enacting laws that more carefully protect children from access to guns.

The basic reason NRA is against regulation of gun ownership is the belief that each piece of federal regulation will lead to more until finally, gun ownership will be very restricted. Research findings provided by the NRA conclude that gun ownership results in protection from crime. They argue that when more people have guns, crime rates are reduced. They argue that research results provided by the Brady Center and others in favor of gun controls are false or overstated.

The NRA is strongly against Smith and Wesson adding safety features to guns. The NRA's position is that if gun manufacturers build guns with safety features, then the federal government will start requiring those safety features. If the federal government requires safety features, that will provide momentum to the federal government for passing more regulations. :soldier:

[Stonelaughter]

Most police officers that carry off duty do so in order to protect themselves. Many of them have put hardened criminals behind bars, and they have most likely received multiple death threats from people who would most likely be very willing to carry the threat out.

That's true of Police Officers in the UK too... but very VERY few police officers here carry firearms, and we seem to get by ok. NEXT!

[lobo]

but very VERY few police officers here carry firearms, and we seem to get by ok.
That is a reason, that when english policeman got the gun he usually starts shooting to everything whas is moving ... he is playing like a kid ... do you remember this pity brasilian electrician ... this situation can not have a place in any country, where policemen has a gun, because normal policemen with a gun understand that gun posessing is more duty than just a fun.

[Stonelaughter]

NRA people tend to talk as though the "right to bear arms" is part of the original constitution... it was an amendment in the 1960's. It's not "Steeped in important history" or some such rubbish...

[Stonelaughter]

That is a reason, that when english policeman got the gun he usually starts shooting to everything whas is moving ... he is playing like a kid ... do you remember this pity brasilian electrician ... this situation can not have a place in any country, where policemen has a gun, because normal policemen with a gun understand that gun posessing is more duty than just a fun.

No, that is NOT why that happened. That happened because those individual officers were given illegal orders by superior officers, and because ONE of them happened to be a bad police officer. You get bad police officers in the states, too, I believe.

The vast majority of police officers don't EVER get to carry a firearm. Those that DO carry firearms are for the most part extremely professional, fully trained, practiced and experienced police officers with no other duties except ARMED duties. When they are finished work for the day, they put their firearms back in the safe and become just an ordinary human being like everyone else.

If they see a crime being committed while they're off duty, they're not likely to ignore it... that would be utter stupidity - they'll simply use any communications at their disposal to call the ON DUTY FORCE. They may also identify themselves as a police officer if it's safe to do so, and attempt an arrest. Their first duty however is to call the on-duty police to deal with the situation.

It's all too easy for people who know absolutely nothing about this country to make judgements based on their experience of their countries; thos judgements are however very rarely valid.

[lobo]

It's all too easy for people who know absolutely nothing about this country to make judgements based on their experience of their countries; thos judgements are however very rarely valid.
Ouchh!!! Are You judging me from smokey island? Are yous judgements so rarely?

[Stonelaughter]

I judge people just as often as everyone else; but in the cold light of day I realise that those judgements are often meaningless.

[lobo]

So, do you really think that
That happened because those individual officers were given illegal orders by superior officers, and because ONE of them happened to be a bad police officer.
:rotflmao:
You know, this guy was hand-cuffed and after those policement do 27 shots to him ... so questions :

1) Why 27 shots? One shot into head is much better ...
2) Why shot hand-cuffed men? Is it more easy to poison him?
3) Who was those men, who was killing? Was they top-secret military squad in the heart of enemy territory?

They wasn't military men, so they had civil right do not obey for the stupid orders from bad officer. Does it means that those guys was bad citizens? You know, those policemen was shooting only because they have opportunity to shot someone :nod:

Was those policemen sued by the court? You know, it was a crime against the humanity. There was not any sues and punishments ... is it normal for democratic country? This is weird even for rightless Russia :nod:

[Stonelaughter]

1 - it was six shots. Just as dead, but not 27 shots; police handguns only carry 6 bullets anyway.
2 - He shot a handcuffed man because he was a bad police officer, as I said.
3 - You know who they were. They were police officers.

The police haven't been sued or charged yet because evidence is still being gathered. Punishment will take much longer; maybe several years. Just like the legal system in the USA.

[lobo]

1 - it was six shots. Just as dead, but not 27 shots; police handguns only carry 6 bullets anyway.
:rotflmao: that's big difference ... vicitim slips on the banana peel and failed on the knife six times

[lobo]

The photo of some british policemen ... Look at him ... It is one more provement of Darvin theory :lol:

[lordnation]

Their should be Gun Control because, of all the shootings on accident or on
purpose people kill themselves with them also.
All people should have a license or be supervised.