The right to keep and bear arms?

[billytran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Aug. 15 2002,20:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">in the U.S, the areas with the harshest controls have the worst statistics whereas the regions with easier access to weapons have much less crime.

<span id='postcolor'>

could it be that those "HARCH" controls were implemented because of BAD STATISTICS? afterall, if there weren't any bad situation, why would harsh controls be implemented?<span id='postcolor'>

Ralph, Crime rose a lot during the 60's because it was a very turbulent time in America, thus leading to the implementation of several gun controls. Today, the areas with the stictest gun control have higher crime. Also, about the getting robbed with three guys with guns, no one says that you have to use your gun every time. You use discretion, if you don't think you can win the situation don't pull it out unless its your very last resort.

Ruud said that its better to give criminals what they want. Does that mean that you should let a burgular rape your wife if he breaks in. Should you let him kill your kids too? As for school shootings, these are isolated incidents that happen every couple of years. More kids die from high school football than from school shootings.

[AntiPasta 0]

well I think every 'normal' citizen should be allowed access to firearms, including with mags over 10-rounds (what a stupid rule anyway) and would be allowed to mount any legal extension on their rifles, not 2 or less.

Criminals will have guns anyway, or otherwise they will use knives or whatever weapon they can get their hands on.

Well maybe we should outlaw metal bullets, like requiring an additional testing & license or otherwise being allowed only rubber bullets... they can still be used for sport and limited self-defence

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (billytran @ Aug. 15 2002,21:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Aug. 15 2002,20:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">in the U.S, the areas with the harshest controls have the worst statistics whereas the regions with easier access to weapons have much less crime.

<span id='postcolor'>

could it be that those "HARCH" controls were implemented because of BAD STATISTICS? afterall, if there weren't any bad situation, why would harsh controls be implemented?<span id='postcolor'>

Ralph, Crime rose a lot during the 60's because it was a very turbulent time in America, thus leading to the implementation of several gun controls.  Today, the areas with the stictest gun control have higher crime.  <span id='postcolor'>

no..most of 'strict' gun laws that are implemented are from 80s and mid 90s.

as i said earlier, is it because of strict law that gun crimes go up? then it would mean that getting rid of strict law would curb crime. bu then again, you claim that in 60s, when guns were rampant, they had more crimes!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

Also, about the getting robbed with three guys with guns, no one says that you have to use your gun every time. You use discretion, if you don't think you can win the situation don't pull it out unless its your very last resort.<span id='postcolor'>

then what's the point of having a gun when it is useless?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ruud said that its better to give criminals what they want. Does that mean that you should let a burgular rape your wife if he breaks in. Should you let him kill your kids too?<span id='postcolor'>

Typical rightwing-scare tactic Here's a situation i can give you. If someone breaks in, would you rather get yourself killed by resisting? If it's to the point where robber was able to get in, your chance of resistance is quite low.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> As for school shootings, these are isolated incidents that happen every couple of years. More kids die from high school football than from school shootings.<span id='postcolor'>

yes, and more awareness about kids giving off signals has subdued school shootings. but football game deaths are accidents while shooting is planned. also, when school shooting starts, police, who are better trained can be sent and subdue the suspect, but in football game that is not possible. so your comparison is not good.

[billytran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Aug. 15 2002,22:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">no..most of 'strict' gun laws that are implemented are from 80s and mid 90s.

as i said earlier, is it because of strict law that gun crimes go up? then it would mean that getting rid of strict law would curb crime. bu then again, you claim that in 60s, when guns were rampant, they had more crimes!  

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

Also, about the getting robbed with three guys with guns, no one says that you have to use your gun every time.  You use discretion, if you don't think you can win the situation don't pull it out unless its your very last resort.<span id='postcolor'>

then what's the point of having a gun when it is useless?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ruud said that its better to give criminals what they want.  Does that mean that you should let a burgular rape your wife if he breaks in.  Should you let him kill your kids too?<span id='postcolor'>

Typical rightwing-scare tactic   Here's a situation i can give you. If someone breaks in, would you rather get yourself killed by resisting? If it's to the point where robber was able to get in, your chance of resistance is quite low.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> As for school shootings, these are isolated incidents that happen every couple of years.  More kids die from high school football than from school shootings.<span id='postcolor'>

yes, and more awareness about kids giving off signals has subdued school shootings. but football game deaths are accidents while shooting is planned. also, when school shooting starts, police, who are better trained can be sent and subdue the suspect, but in football game that is not possible. so your comparison is not good.<span id='postcolor'>

The crime in the 60's was caused by the turbulent social conditions, not the prevalence of guns. Afterwards, rime stayed up because of the strict gun control laws which brought in more gun control laws that only worsened the situation. In the late 80's and early 90's states began passing laws that allowed concealed carry and violent crime started dropping.

The situation where three guys with guns is a very unlikely situation, you are more likely to face one attacker. If you are against multiple attackers (which is an unusual situation), they probably won't be armed with guns they'll probably have knives.

I wasn't using a scare tactic, I was using reality. Rapes and murders happen alot. There is a low chance you'll get killed resisting. All that one has to do is pull the gun out, point it at the attacker and tell him to stop. If he doesn't then you shoot him. The only way to get killed is to pull out a gun while grappling or by hesitance to use your gun.

Football deaths are usually from negligence, like not drinking enough water and running around for three hours in 98 degree heat. School shootings often result from the negligence of parents and the kids friends to realize that their is a problem (though the kid deserves most of the blame). With the awareness we have, school shootings have dropped alot. There was only one that I can recollect in the last year.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (billytran @ Aug. 15 2002,23:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I wasn't using a scare tactic, I was using reality.  Rapes and murders happen alot.  There is a low chance you'll get killed resisting.  All that one has to do is pull the gun out, point it at the attacker and tell him to stop.  If he doesn't then you shoot him.  The only way to get killed is to pull out a gun while grappling or by hesitance to use your gun.

Football deaths are usually from negligence, like not drinking enough water and running around for three hours in 98 degree heat.  School shootings often result from the negligence of parents and the kids friends to realize that their is a problem (though the kid deserves most of the blame).  With the awareness we have, school shootings have dropped alot.  There was only one that I can recollect in the last year.<span id='postcolor'>

Canada has an extremely low incidence of violent crimes of almost all sorts. And we also have very strict gun laws. Getting a 'carry' permit is virtually impossible unless you are a law enforcement officer of some sort.

So by your theory, the rate of violent crime here should be much higher than in the US, yet its not.

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The crime in the 60's was caused by the turbulent social conditions, not the prevalence of guns. Afterwards, rime stayed up because of the strict gun control laws which brought in more gun control laws that only worsened the situation. In the late 80's and early 90's states began passing laws that allowed concealed carry and violent crime started dropping<span id='postcolor'>

then why would there be law controling handguns if there weren't any handgun laws? remember that even b4 60s guns were easy to obtain, and even with the gun so easily obtainable, it did not stop 60's from getting turbulant and crime to rise up.

crimes dropped because of concealed gun laws? in LA, better economy gets credit for lowering crime, along with better enforcement. in fact, LA's concealed weapons law only got strenghthened over time.

currently, more and more strict control laws are in place. however, i seldom see on news about ppl worrying about increase in crimes.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The situation where three guys with guns is a very unlikely situation, you are more likely to face one attacker. If you are against multiple attackers (which is an unusual situation), they probably won't be armed with guns they'll probably have knives.<span id='postcolor'>

you obviously don't know about home-invasion robbery.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I wasn't using a scare tactic, I was using reality. Rapes and murders happen alot. There is a low chance you'll get killed resisting. All that one has to do is pull the gun out, point it at the attacker and tell him to stop. If he doesn't then you shoot him. The only way to get killed is to pull out a gun while grappling or by hesitance to use your gun<span id='postcolor'>

you can claim that it's not scare tactic, but it is. Reality is that most rape victims know the assailant, and is caught off-guard. do you seriously think having a gun would give them an edge? before victim could pull out and aim, attacker would have had the victim down on the ground and beat her senselessly. what law enforcement agencies have figured out is that you need at least 6 yards to make quick decision to pull a gun and use it. think about it. 6 yards for trained professionals. how much of distance do you think less-skilled person would need? Add that to the fact that most assault happen quickly and in short distance. thus gun is useless. and most ppl still hesitate to use gun.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">School shootings often result from the negligence of parents and the kids friends to realize that their is a problem (though the kid deserves most of the blame). With the awareness we have, school shootings have dropped alot. <span id='postcolor'>

oh yes. and that's because it's easy for negligent parents to actually obtain guns. if you are any half-normal person, you would make sure your gun is stored safe. and that only happened because there is a law that is enforced. amazingly, that law almost got killed by NRA.

[Antichrist 0]

No fuking way!! Look what happened to US, they have one of the highest crimes commited with a firearm rates in the world.

And look at NZ for example, it is not allowed to own a gun, except for hunting purposes etc. And we only have like 2-3 shootings a year!!

[Col. Kurtz 0]

Thank you Anti-Christ. A few years back my dad got his gun lisence, and it took bloody ages for him to get the lisence. They pull your record apart. They are very strict. Now, for all you people debating about guns, lets look at it like this. The main reason people in America arm themselves is to feel safe from other people with guns. Another good example is the cold war. America had nuclear weapons, so the USSR decided it had to have nuclear weapons, so it could feel as tough as America, and safe, you Nuke us, we will do it to you. America made the Hydrogen Bomb, it was better, so the Soviets had to up-arm too. It went on and on, at every step of advancement, the other country had to upgrade, to feel safe. We came up with MAD(Muaturaly assured destruction) so we could feel safe from the bad guys. At the end of the cold war, both countries had, and still do, have enough nuclear weapons to wipe the world out many times over. Take away the guns and add Nukes. Its all about Paranoia. In America, with guns laws so weak compared to most other countries, you can easily get your hands on a gun. For that reason, people dont feel safe at nights unless they have a gun too to counter the 'bad' people with guns. As long as it is easy to get guns, you will never feel safe. In America, nearly every single person you see walking down the street could have a gun. You have to fear them, in other countries, it is very unlikely, for example, in NZ, it is very very very hard to get a pistol lisence, and its a bit hard to conceal a hunting rifle. I am done raving, thank you for reading. Know you may critisice my judgement

[hntr3006 0]

i for one am against any law that would keep a sane, law abiding person from owning any type of gun. i do a lot a reading on this and im convinced that gun control accually increases crime. englands crime rate has skyrocketed since it banned most of its guns, even higher than new york's in some area's. and besides, like some people have mentioned, if you take away the guns from honest people, then the dishonest people will have a major advantage. (oh boy, everybodies helpless and i got a shotgun). also, what do you think the second amendment is about? it gives americans the god-given right to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. dont say "well this is america, were never going to become slaves", ya right. thats what the ancient romans thought before they had emperors. did you know that in endland, its a crime to defend yourself? a farmer injured a murderer in his house once and the farmer was arrested while the killer ran free. guns=good

[billytran 0]

A violent crime commited without a gun is still a violent crime. You guys are making it sound like countries that have low gun-crime have low violent crime.

Kurtz, people in America have guns to protect against criminals, not other people with guns. The majority of crimes are commited with knives, bats, and screwdrivers. If you took away guns, only criminals would have guns. That makes no sense at all.

You think people in America don't feel safe at night without a gun? Most people don't own guns and feel perfectly safe. People just like to have protection. I'd bet that the average American feels safer at night than people in any other country in the world.

[RedRogue 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Antichrist @ Aug. 15 2002,21:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No fuking way!! Look what happened to US, they have one of the highest crimes commited with a firearm rates in the world.

And look at NZ for example, it is not allowed to own a gun, except for hunting purposes etc. And we only have like 2-3 shootings a year!!<span id='postcolor'>

And your also comparing a population of 4 million to a population of 290 million.

If you even want to do a remotely fair comparison you would have to compare New Zealand to Colorado in that they are approximately the same in population and land area.

Colorado Crime Index Rates Per 100,000 Inhabitants:

Year Population Index Violent Property Murder Rape Robbery assault Burglary Theft Theft

1990 3,294,394 6,053.7 526.0 5,527.8 4.2 46.2 90.6 385.0 1,208.8 3,890.6 428.4

1991 3,377,000 6,074.1 559.3 5,514.8 5.9 47.0 107.4 398.9 1,158.3 3,930.0 426.4

1992 3,470,000 5,958.8 578.8 5,379.9 6.2 47.3 120.5 404.9 1,090.9 3,780.1 509.0

1993 3,566,000 5,526.8 567.3 4,959.5 5.8 45.8 116.7 399.0 1,009.8 3,499.4 450.3

1994 3,656,000 5,318.4 509.6 4,808.8 5.4 43.2 106.9 354.0 925.7 3,490.2 392.9

1995 3,747,000 5,396.3 440.2 4,956.1 5.8 39.5 96.2 298.7 934.1 3,634.5 387.5

1996 3,823,000 5,118.5 404.5 4,714.0 4.7 46.2 98.2 255.4 900.8 3,415.5 397.8

1997 3,893,000 4,650.4 363.2 4,287.2 4.0 43.1 83.3 232.8 796.1 3,077.3 413.7

1998 3,971,000 4,487.5 377.9 4,109.5 4.6 47.4 81.5 244.4 786.5 2,917.9 405.1

1999 4,056,133 4,063.3 340.5 3,722.8 4.6 41.4 75.3 219.2 665.1 2,692.9 364.8

2000 4,301,261 3,982.6 334.0 3,648.6 3.1 41.2 70.5 219.1 630.8 2,623.5 394.3

New Zealand : Look here I'm too lazy to write all that out.

[ralphwiggum 6]

funny..some newguy digs up an old thread...about 2 weeks old. and this is his first post....and all of you are contributing to this too...might as well as spam here

[RedRogue 0]

And because that table turned out into a jumbled mess click herefor Colorado crime rates.

As billytrain stated many people are under the false conception that the lack of crimes commited with firearms due to laws banning firearms means they have low crime rates.

Rape is rape, be it done by brute force or with a gun.

Murder is Murder be it done with a board with a nail in it or a 9mm berreta.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Sep. 02 2002,04:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">funny..some newguy digs up an old thread...about 2 weeks old. and this is his first post....and all of you are contributing to this too...might as well as spam here <span id='postcolor'>

Umm, Ralph...

They are not having a spamfest or it would be close. It is a discussion.

Do you need 48 hours without posting rights to figure out the difference between a thread 2 pages down the guy is interested in, and spam?

If all of you gun nuts think that gun control = more crime, how do you explain Canada? We have ea very low incedence of violent crime, and fairly strict gun control.

[RedRogue 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Sep. 01 2002,21:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">funny..some newguy digs up an old thread...about 2 weeks old. and this is his first post....and all of you are contributing to this too...might as well as spam here <span id='postcolor'>

Why would bringing and old topic back to life be wrong?

Maybe there is more people would like to discuss on it, and since any new thread would be instantly locked by El Presidenti Denoir as a "useless thread" or "double thread" the only alternative would be to use this thread.

There is digging up old threads for absolutely no point or injection of discussionable material, and then there is bringing your view to a topic you would like to have viewed.

[RedRogue 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Sep. 01 2002,21:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Sep. 02 2002,04:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">funny..some newguy digs up an old thread...about 2 weeks old. and this is his first post....and all of you are contributing to this too...might as well as spam here <span id='postcolor'>

Umm, Ralph...

They are not having a spamfest or it would be close. It is a discussion.

Do you need 48 hours without posting rights to figure out the difference between a thread 2 pages down the guy is interested in, and spam?

If all of you gun nuts think that gun control = more crime, how do you explain Canada? We have ea very low incedence of violent crime, and fairly strict gun control.<span id='postcolor'>

.... beat me too it.... but since you brought it up I will redo my analysis of Canada's crime rate versus America's crime rate. Last time I did this in another forum using 99 reported crime rates normalized between the two nations Canada's per capita crime rate was slightly higher.

I will post the results shortly using the latest possible data (and links for you Warin and Avon, cause I know how much you love links).

[ralphwiggum 6]

i find it odd that someone who just got on board starts to post his opinions about gun control,rather than talking about OFP. and he should have used search function to do it. so in simpler words, someone had agenda to bring this topic up.

in any case, RedRogue, thanx for link. continuous decline in crimes in California(in the per 100k section), while its gun control getting stronger shows that it is working. so 'only criminals get guns and they will increase crime level' is just not gonna work.

*geeze Warin, lighten up!

[eh remraf 0]

My views are that if gun laws are imposed, the bad guys will know the good guys can't carry or use guns... Ofcourse criminals can have guns though...

[RedRogue 0]

Unfortunately since Canada now wants you to PAY! for their federal publcations of crime reports I will have to find other less crediable reports to use...

42$ for a federal publication.............. ripoff

[billytran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Sep. 02 2002,04:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">in any case, RedRogue, thanx for link. continuous decline in crimes in California(in the per 100k section), while its gun control getting stronger shows that it is working. so 'only criminals get guns and they will increase crime level' is just not gonna work.<span id='postcolor'>

Okay, think about this:

California's recent gun laws have been very ill-contrived. Their "assault weapons" bill only required registration of guns that only look scary and are used in less than three percent of crimes with guns. They also passed a bill to ban cheap guns. I won't go into how the legislators were just trying to keep guns away from poor people with that bill. But the "Saturday Night Special" bill only ended up banning higher end expensive pistols. The cheap Jennings and Phoenix guns were approved for sale under this bill. Neither of these had any effect on crime.

In general, gun laws in the country have been weakened (through concealed carry laws) and crime has dropped. For every state that increased gun control there are several who eased up on the laws.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RedRogue @ Sep. 02 2002,05:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Unfortunately since Canada now wants you to PAY! for their federal publcations of crime reports I will have to find other less crediable reports to use...

42$ for a federal publication.............. ripoff<span id='postcolor'>

It's only 32 for the .pdf. ANd that's Candioan dollars, so it's only like.. 38 cents US

If I wasnt so lazy, I'd look for the stats online....

[ralphwiggum 6]

billytran, you never cease to amaze me by able to post right after some newcomer posts similar view point of yours

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">California's recent gun laws have been very ill-contrived. Their "assault weapons" bill only required registration of guns that only look scary and are used in less than three percent of crimes with guns.<span id='postcolor'>

if you keep a good idea of CA legislature, they are moving towards more specific banning of guns. i.e. taking consideration of speed and power. the previous assualt weapon ban was crippled because ppl like YOU lobbied to the point where the legislature compromised and just listed names and types of assualt weapons. thus gun manufacturers bypassed the law by adding new features, different barrel and etc.

so basically, anti-gun control advocates forced the state into compromise and make the legislative piece ill-contrived, and now ppl like you, the anti-gun control advocates, use it as an example of why gun control works. so you guys scuttled a ship, and then blame it on crews.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> They also passed a bill to ban cheap guns. I won't go into how the legislators were just trying to keep guns away from poor people with that bill. But the "Saturday Night Special" bill only ended up banning higher end expensive pistols. The cheap Jennings and Phoenix guns were approved for sale under this bill. Neither of these had any effect on crime.<span id='postcolor'>

yes, the "Saturday Night Specials" the choice of robbers too. the problem was that there were more criminals buying it than poor civilians to protect their home. i don't know what you are smoking, but AFAIK, the SNSs were banned, and I don't see my .22 Ruger on the banned list or banned. the legislative work did stop SNSs from selling(except to LEOs)

and you are now claiming that banning SNSs and assualt rifle ban are not producing effect on crimes. but i can claim that with data presented by RedRogue that cumulative efforts of gun control finally worked and reduced crime rate.

furthermore, as i said earlier, you guys botched the legislative piece that would have worked better and now you are saying this is ineffective, when you guys already compromised it.

[Col. Kurtz 0]

If average civilians cant get guns, that meens most criminals cant get them either. Since less criminals are walking around with guns, you dont have to be paranoid that every person walking past you might be about to pull out a gun. Sure, so criminals would still get their hands on weapons, but ti would be hard. They would either have to get a gun liscense which would eman they would have to have a clean record. Either that, or go to the black market which is riskier. Only criminals dedicted to their crime would be able to use guns. Alos, better trained and armed police and they would be able to make sure we dont get too many shootings and stuff.

[Joe_1911 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ Aug. 11 2002,17:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">if the military and police got guns , then , it's not a problem

only the policemen can enforce law , not the civilians<span id='postcolor'>

Its the middle of the night and you hear the sound of someone coming up you're stairs to you're bed room. within secunds the door opens to find a robber amed with a knife. He rapes you're wife/gf what ever, robs you of al you're money and escapes. after words you call the police and they tell you the ywill "try there best to find him" and they never do.

or

The robber opens the door , only to have a 1911 shoved in his face. He dashs like a bat out of hell out the door.

Many people in this thread seem to have been brainwashed that guns = bad. I my self own several guns including a Walther P22 pistol, 2 pump action shotguns, an AR-15 , a .22 lever action rifle and a .357 magnum revolver. Once a week or so I go to the range and safetly plink at varius targets. nothing is harmed unless you consider shooting at large clumps of dirt an evil thing.

Most of the people in here that are anti gun have only mentioned there " emotions". The few that have provided statistics are extremely different. You can't compare a country that has 290 million to 9 million.

Gun control is strict enough as is. the '94 ban is pushing the limits. It banned guns that were used in lesss then 3% of all firearm related crimes. what did it ban exactly? bayonet lugs, why I may never know.. too many drive by bayonetings I guess telescoping stocks. some people claim that they can conceal weapons usinwith these style stocks. show me one person that can hide an Ar-15 rifle under there coat unnoticed and ill give you a dollar. another thing that was banned was flash surpressors. this is dumber then banning the bayonet lugs. flash surpressors do not lower the muzzle flash of a weapon they just direct it away so it doesn't blind the shooter. "high capacity" mags were also banned. A standard AR-15 mag IMO is 20 rds or 30 rds as that was what they were designed to operate with. a high cap mag would IMO be 75+ rds as there arn't many, if any guns that come standard with a 75+ round magazine.

The people that say automatic weapons should be banned because they are "used in violent crimes al the time and kill lots of people" are utter dumbasses who haven't made any attempt to look at how many peopl ehav ebeen killed by a LEGALLY owned automatic weapon. since 1930 there has been ONE homicde with a legally owned automatic weapon.

[Mister Frag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Joe_1911 @ Sep. 01 2002,21:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><Snip>

The people that say automatic weapons should be banned because they are "used in violent crimes al the time and kill lots of people" are utter dumbasses who haven't made any attempt to look at how many peopl ehav ebeen killed by a LEGALLY owned automatic weapon. since 1930 there has been ONE homicde with a legally owned automatic weapon.<span id='postcolor'>

That machine gun was owned by a police officer, by the way. Rotten apple...