The right to keep and bear arms?

[Renagade 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Col. Kurtz @ Sep. 02 2002,05:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">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.<span id='postcolor'>

no, thyed just pull out a knife and stab u or stick a broken bottlle in ur face or them and their mates to jump on ur head till it pops etc....

[UnSub 0]

If you can point out a person to me as a criminal or a law-abiding citizen when just walking down the street you are a greater person than I. The distinction of "criminal" and "law-abiding" is used as an absolute, when it is almost never the case. The difference is often just a single point in time or a bad choice. The "evil" deliberate criminal is a rare thing.

How many US citizens die from gunshot wounds inflicted in the home? They can be as sane and law-abiding as they want, but having a gun automatically increases the risk in a household. Uncle Larry gets mean drunk at Thanksgiving, little Joey goes into Daddy's things looking for something to play with, Mike comes home drunk from a frat party and decides to sneak through the back window; all of these cases can lead to accidental deaths through shooting almost directly because guns are so accessable in the US.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter how many people die due to accidental shooting or how high / low the crime rate gets, the US will always want guns because it has a gun culture. A real American is one who has a gun. You have to arm yourself because everyone else is. Criminals have guns so you need one to protect yourself. This cycle repeats endlessly and will continue to do so until the gun culture is changed.

[Col. Kurtz 0]

I feel alot safer walking the streets down here in Australia than I would in America were in some states you only need a drivers liscense to get a gun.

[ralphwiggum 6]

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

maybe you should rad posts and then reply. what is the chance that you can load your 1911 and shove it up intruder's face? unless you have it loaded everynight and have it close to you, you are going to take time to load it and use it. all your "if.." ideas are lacking in realistic terms.

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

well i go twice a week, even 3 times a week. i will probably will have only one gun within next few months, but you obivously don't know how fast a home invasion robbery can be executed.

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

and crime rates provided showed strong support for stronger gun control. look at redrogue's link for colorado crime rates and look for california. california had great crime reduction in per 100k percentage. and even though CA had more and more stricter gun laws, crimes went down.

NRA's contant argument is that "it's not the gun, it's ther eprson." then why the hell are they not realizing that a firearm law like that of Sweden where you spend 6 months at shooting club to get .22 license, and then another 6 months for any other caliber?

Sweden's system distinguishes true enthusiasts from some wannabe. and with true enthusiasts, you seldom have gun problem.

[RedRogue 0]

I am all for stricter requirements for gun licensing and training/testing before allowing licensing of a firearm in the United States. However I will never stand for the complete illegilization of firearms.

Until people are taught the reality and control required to be responsible for firearms and those that will never take it seriously are prevented from purchasing firearms we will continue to see gun related accidents in the USA.

1. Firearms are NEVER a toy, be it a bb gun, pellet gun, or whatever. They are a tool that is designed to kill or maim. Having been shot at and shot before I get very very upset when someone points a firearm in my or anyone else's direction.

2. Alot of people that purchase firearms for home defence would fail in actually operating the firearm when the time arose. It is one thing to stand at a firing range shooting at a target. It is completely another matter to shoot or threaten to shoot a human being at short range under duress.

3. Guns and children NEVER mix. It is ok to teach them gun saftey and control under supervision but keep all your firearms locked away in the Gun Safe not a flimsy glass front display cabinet. And make sure you have the only key in your possesion at all times.

To actually utilize a firearm in home defense you would have to keep it loaded, easily accessible, and unlocked. Otherwise you would be pointlessly struggling with a trigger lock and or loading the weapon. These are the 3 Most stupid actions you could ever do with a firearm around children or family.

[pathfinder 0]

Can anyone tell me if it was true that sales of PVC pipe greatly increased befor and during Australia's gun grab? They make great underground gun safes

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

And ralph you are an oddity, but not in a bad way. Most democrats/ liberal thinkers ,that have guns won't admit the fact that they are armed.

Oh and my 1911 along with 2 other pistols are loaded 24/7 and all are within reach of my bed Alarms and a good dog will ensure that a thug don't get the drop on you in your own home.

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (pathfinder @ Sep. 02 2002,08:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And ralph you are an oddity, but not in a bad way.  Most democrats/ liberal thinkers ,that have guns won't admit the fact that they are armed.<span id='postcolor'>

shddap..just because i eat glue doen't mean i'm an oddity  

most liberals i met do not own guns. i am an oddity, but i remember playing well with toyguns as a toddler, and it's no surprise that i'm an enthusiast now. and when it comes to guns, i'm pro-safety. i don't want just ridiculously easy access to guns, i want disciplined action. i'm sure this is what a true enthusiast beleives, regardless of political affiliation.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Alarms and a good dog will ensure that a thug don't get the drop on you in your own home.<span id='postcolor'>

usually the alarm will deter them once they go off. and a good dog will make them fear for their lives. so your hand gun is pretty much still seating in its place.

but on serious note, should a home-invasion robbery occur, its done so fast that i doubt most gun owners can react equally, and he/she is definitely out numbered.

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If all of you gun nuts think that gun control = more crime, how do you explain Canada? We have a very low incedence of violent crime, and fairly strict gun control.

<span id='postcolor'>

Been to Toronto in the past few years? There has been quite a few shootings and stabbings there.

I wouldn't consider our gun control laws that strict, as moronic as they are. Regardless of how strict they are, I can still get a Beretta 92FS 9mm off the street for about $800 (CDN).

Don't forget that the population of the U.S. is about 280 million, while Canada's is a mere 31 million in comparison. Canada has far fewer urban areas than the U.S. has. Since most shooting crimes occur in urban areas of poverty, it isn't a big surprise that there is alot more violent crime in the U.S. than there is in Canada. (not per capita;...overall) It's almost pointless to compare the U.S. and Canada for crime and guns because our societies view things differently. As tex was saying, per capita our crime rates are about the same anyway.

All I have to do to get a rifle or shotgun in Canada is to pass a test and get may PAL, which will let me buy weapons for five years. Pistols are a bit harder to get, they fall under the 'restricted' class of weapons. On top of that is the gun registration, which is backed up, expensive, and ineffective.

Where do I stand? :

- Yes, all responsible citizens over 18 should be allowed to own/carry guns, so long as they have no violent criminal record or history of substance abuse and take a mandatory safety/training course for their type of weapon.

- Registration does not work to reduce crime or to get illegal guns off the streets. Law abiding citizens register guns. Criminals do not. Why waste hundreds of millions of dollars ($500 million in Canada as of the year 2000) in taxpayer money when it can be put to better use?

- Magazine caps are stupid. 5 rounds, 10 rounds, 15 rounds, whats the difference? It takes me 3 seconds to reload a mag onto an M-16. Besides, pre-ban 30 round magazines are perfectly legal in the U.S. In fact, I beleive Mr. Frag is a proud owner of a 'C-Mag'.

BTW, Denoir, you have explained the rules of pistol ownership in Sweden to us a few times before. I was wondering what the laws are for rifles and shotguns.

Thanks,

Tyler

[Col. Kurtz 0]

You defeinitly have a point on the round cap, it only takes one shot to kill. Im not agasint people having guns, but they should not be handed out to just anyone.

[Paratrooper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Col. Kurtz @ Sep. 02 2002,11:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You defeinitly have a point on the round cap, it only takes one shot to kill. Im not agasint people having guns, but they should not be handed out to just anyone.<span id='postcolor'>

Thats what I think, I am quite surprised to see option 1 clearly in from of option 3 now. I know people in here like guns but not guns at any price!

[WhoCares 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Sep. 02 2002,14:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Col. Kurtz @ Sep. 02 2002,11:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You defeinitly have a point on the round cap, it only takes one shot to kill. Im not agasint people having guns, but they should not be handed out to just anyone.<span id='postcolor'>

Thats what I think, I am quite surprised to see option 1 clearly in from of option 3 now. I know people in here like guns but not guns at any price!<span id='postcolor'>

You could read the current results also as 40% pro free weapons and 60% for restricted weapon access.

[Paratrooper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WhoCares @ Sep. 02 2002,14:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Sep. 02 2002,14:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Col. Kurtz @ Sep. 02 2002,11:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You defeinitly have a point on the round cap, it only takes one shot to kill. Im not agasint people having guns, but they should not be handed out to just anyone.<span id='postcolor'>

Thats what I think, I am quite surprised to see option 1 clearly in from of option 3 now. I know people in here like guns but not guns at any price!<span id='postcolor'>

You could read the current results also as 40% pro free weapons and 60% for restricted weapon access.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, but there is a difference betwene restricted and banned. All the same an interesting poll.

[Sadico 1]

I voted the third option.

[billytran 0]

Ralph,

The California assault weapons law lists characteristics. Go here to read them. Now, tell me how any of the features listed make a gun more dangerous. These guns are used in less than three percent of gun crimes.

The California SNS law does not ban any cheap guns whatsoever. Go here and you'll see several cheap brands such as Bryco and Phoenix.

[Paratrooper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sadico @ Sep. 02 2002,16:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I voted the third option.<span id='postcolor'>

That is my personal preference also. But I'm not saying it is suitabe for all countries and situations.

[Duke_of_Ray 0]

I think any American that has not got themselves into serious trouble should be able to own a gun from Automatics to blackpowder. The criminals will always have guns, thats pretty simple to see.

[DarkLight 0]

Bah, everyone has guns? That would be HORRIBLE!!!

Thank god you need a license for some guns, i completely agree with option 3, the fact that any adult can buy a gun sounds terrible to me.

It seems that many ppl don't realize that guns are made for killing, there are a lot of ppl that shoot in clubs and that are normal but there are a lot of freaks too.

Saying that criminals all have guns doesn't make sense, even if you have a gun, will you shoot a criminal? I don't think so, you might think: " Yes i'd shoot him" but when this situation accurs you pro'ly won't shoot.

Giving ppl guns to protect them is total bullshit, what will you do? Shoot some thiefs cuz they'd love to have the painting that hangs in your living room? SHeesh, that's just sick.

Weapons are no solution, and only ppl who wouldn't shoot thiefs and and who realize that guns are dangerous should be allowed to have one... I like guns, but i'll never buy one, perhaps an air rifle but never a real gun.

It looks to me like many ppl here don't realize what guns really are, the ppl who choose option one probable didn't really think about it......

[DarkLight 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Duke_of_Ray @ Sep. 01 2002,18:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think any American that has not got themselves into serious trouble should be able to own a gun from Automatics to blackpowder.  The criminals will always have guns, thats pretty simple to see.<span id='postcolor'>

Hmmm, is it because someone hasn't done anything bad yet that he should be allowed to cary a gun?  I don't think so.

People that did bad stuff can turn out to be ppl that can handle a rifle really well and they aren't the same person that once did that bad thing.

Ppl that haven't done anything bad yet (officialy), can do horrible things too, so basically i don't believe what you say is a good solution at all.

[Duke_of_Ray 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It looks to me like many ppl here don't realize what guns really are, the ppl who choose option one probable didn't really think about it......<span id='postcolor'>

Guns are those things that shoot bullets. Criminals will always have guns, by taking guns away from the honest people it makes it all that much easier on the criminals. Guns are also fun to shoot, they are a great enjoyment. Hunters use guns to hunt, without guns what would they use?Bows?! We need hunters with gub to keep the animal population under control. Guns, in most cases, are a good tool.

[Joe_1911 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Sep. 02 2002,07:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

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

maybe you should rad posts and then reply. what is the chance that you can load your 1911 and shove it up intruder's face? unless you have it loaded everynight and have it close to you, you are going to take time to load it and use it. all your "if.." ideas are lacking in realistic terms.<span id='postcolor'>

give me a break, it was 1 in the morning

And yes I do keep my .357 loaded and nearby. What gun owner wouldn't?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> well i go twice a week, even 3 times a week. i will probably will have only one gun within next few months, but you obivously don't know how fast a home invasion robbery can be executed.<span id='postcolor'>

how dow this relate to what you quoted??

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">NRA's contant argument is that "it's not the gun, it's ther eprson." then why the hell are they not realizing that a firearm law like that of Sweden where you spend 6 months at shooting club to get .22 license, and then another 6 months for any other caliber?

Sweden's system distinguishes true enthusiasts from some wannabe. and with true enthusiasts, you seldom have gun problem.<span id='postcolor'>

I dunno about you but I don't like the thought of waiting a year just to get a gun. Besides this doesn't affect anyone but us civilians. criminals don't go out legally register there firearms and then go commit a crime. they buy them off the black market. There not stupid enough to register them so the police know who commited it.

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (billytran @ Sep. 02 2002,16:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ralph,

The California assault weapons law lists characteristics.  Go here to read them.  Now, tell me how any of the features listed make a gun more dangerous.  These guns are used in less than three percent of gun crimes.

The California SNS law does not ban any cheap guns whatsoever.  Go here and you'll see several cheap brands such as Bryco and Phoenix.<span id='postcolor'>

why don't you show me that these guns are used less than 3% in crimes statistics? you constantly use it as your basis, but i can't find it anywhere. the features such as forward grips give more accuracy, along with folding stocks. also, this law is enacted recently, showing that older law was not effective. and that shows how gun companies lobbied there way in,

so banning cheap guns? let me get this straight for you. SNSs were widely used because of 1. easy to conceal-they are small. 2. cheap to purchase.

if you want to claim that price should be the factor in choosing guns, then Ruger .22s or anyother rimfire pistols on market fall in to that category. and making a restriction using price ain't gonna cut it. so what legislature had to do was choose some characteristics of SNS, not the price.

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">give me a break, it was 1 in the morning

And yes I do keep my .357 loaded and nearby. What gun owner wouldn't?<span id='postcolor'>

damn that's too late to do anything except.....

i don't know if you are a single or not, but i believe firmly against loading your gun and sleeping with it. what's the purpose of it? you are half-awake and you gonna shoot something in that state? also, do you unload them in morning?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">how dow this relate to what you quoted??

<span id='postcolor'>

first sentence shows you that i'm not talking on behalf of "i-don't own guns" group, second shows how uselesss having a gun ready is. home invasion robberies are excuted just like a SWAT team barging in. it happens so ridiculously fast that even if you had a gun right in your hands, you'd be at great odds to win them.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I dunno about you but I don't like the thought of waiting a year just to get a gun. Besides this doesn't affect anyone but us civilians. criminals don't go out legally register there firearms and then go commit a crime. they buy them off the black market. There not stupid enough to register them so the police know who commited it.<span id='postcolor'>

not a yr, 6 months. my point is that NRA always claims that it's the ppl, not the guns, yet when it comes to ppl they have no idea how to make distinction. by using Sweden-like system, we eliminate pretty much those wannabes from realy enthusiasts. and real enthusiasts know how to keep it safe.

let's trace how criminals obtain guns.

1.gun manufacturer makes them

2.is sold off to gun dealers.

3.some crooked gun dealers will sell them

or some individual buys it and sells used ones to a criminal.

thus, there is one weakest link that sells guns to criminals. should guns be outlawed(yeah right) then criminals will be in bad shape too. ofcourse they won't turn in their guns, but they can't commit it since now that guns are banned, usage of it bears more burden. not only you are a criminal in some crime, but you also used a prohibited tool. thus, your punishment sky rockets and that will deter them from using guns so easily. also, now that guns are outlawed, criminals will get less of guns, and that means in a few years, there will be more criminals without guns.

[billytran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Sep. 02 2002,18:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (billytran @ Sep. 02 2002,16:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ralph,

The California assault weapons law lists characteristics.  Go here to read them.  Now, tell me how any of the features listed make a gun more dangerous.  These guns are used in less than three percent of gun crimes.

The California SNS law does not ban any cheap guns whatsoever.  Go here and you'll see several cheap brands such as Bryco and Phoenix.<span id='postcolor'>

why don't you show me that these guns are used less than 3% in crimes statistics? you constantly use it as your basis, but i can't find it anywhere. the features such as forward grips give more accuracy, along with folding stocks. also, this law is enacted recently, showing that older law was not effective. and that shows how gun companies lobbied there way in,

so banning cheap guns? let me get this straight for you. SNSs were widely used because of 1. easy to conceal-they are small. 2. cheap to purchase.

if you want to claim that price should be the factor in choosing guns, then Ruger .22s or anyother rimfire pistols on market fall in to that category. and making a restriction using price ain't gonna cut it. so what legislature had to do was choose some characteristics of SNS, not the price.<span id='postcolor'>

A forward grip provides more accuracy? I guess that's why most precision rifles have forward grips... oh wait, no they don't. Even if it did help with accuracy, would you want to ban a gun because it's accurate? And a folding stock can only hurt your accuracy. A flimsy plastic or wire stock is not as solid as a fixed stock. You ignored all of the other features. Go here if you want statistics for assault weapons use in crimes.

Rimfire .22 pistols happen to be used a lot in crimes. They are also generally cheap. So the California law which tried to ban cheap guns failed. The assault weapons ban had no effect on crime because the scary looking guns aren't used in all that many crimes. So basically California's gun control laws couldn't have had any effect on the crime.

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A forward grip provides more accuracy?  I guess that's why most precision rifles have forward grips... oh wait, no they don't.  Even if it did help with accuracy, would you want to ban a gun because it's accurate?  And a folding stock can only hurt your accuracy.  A flimsy plastic or wire stock is not as solid as a fixed stock.  You ignored all of the other features. <span id='postcolor'>

so US army, with it's M4 variations with folding stocks is compromising accuracy, right?

instead of making me explain rest of the features why don't you do that? your responds has been shorter and shorter and more defensive.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Rimfire .22 pistols happen to be used a lot in crimes.  They are also generally cheap.  So the California law which tried to ban cheap guns failed.  The assault weapons ban had no effect on crime because the scary looking guns aren't used in all that many crimes.  So basically California's gun control laws couldn't have had any effect on the crime.<span id='postcolor'>

yes, they are cheap, around 250 bucks but not as cheap as SNSs who ran about 70-150 bucks. another sign that you don't understand my post shows here. SNSs, along with its cheap price was easily concealable and was favorites of criminals for that matter. THAT's why it was banned.

you constantly argue that gun contorl doesn't work, but crime rate reduction says it all.

also, the link you provided is basically from biased source. it's same as Al Qaeda saying america is wrong by quoting from PLO site.

[Mister Frag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Sep. 02 2002,10:27)</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">A forward grip provides more accuracy?  I guess that's why most precision rifles have forward grips... oh wait, no they don't.  Even if it did help with accuracy, would you want to ban a gun because it's accurate?  And a folding stock can only hurt your accuracy.  A flimsy plastic or wire stock is not as solid as a fixed stock.  You ignored all of the other features. <span id='postcolor'>

so US army, with it's M4 variations with folding stocks is compromising accuracy, right? <span id='postcolor'>

Yes, Ralph, the M4's collapsing stock is a compromise. We're talking about an assault rifle here, where compactness is more important than that extra bit of accuracy.