Gun laws in the United States

[mr burns 132]

That comment only makes you look stupid and gives Americans a bad name.

...

I have just 3 guns and they're the only guns I need.

Now that made me smile! Not trying to pull a vilas here, but there´s many ways in which americans look .. strange. First one considers moving for being allowed to carry concealed weapons, second one needs to only have 3 guns, totally armamazing :D

[st_dux 26]

@Big Mac:

Are you paranoid or something? Do you really think that people who value their constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms, as Jack does, really just want to commit acts of violence against other people? Who are you to cast such extreme judgment on the character of someone you've never met? And why do you insist on posting in such a hostile tone? If anyone's been showing violent tendencies in this thread, it's you, not Jack.

With regard to communism, Jack's comparison was perfectly valid: Every communist state that has ever existed has had overwhelmingly strict gun control laws.

The fact of the matter is that gun control laws have not, do not and never will stop criminals from procuring guns; anyone with a mind to commit a violent crime certainly won't have a problem with breaking a few gun laws. Every statistical study done on this subject demonstrates that having fewer gun regulations leads to relatively lower rates of violent crime in any given area. When criminals cannot be sure that they are the only ones armed (which is the only thing that gun laws actually accomplish), there is a natural deterrent factor that comes into play, one which cannot be created or maintained by law enforcement agencies alone.

In truth, gun control laws were created by men in power to ensure that those without such power never get any of it. In general, the more totalitarian and abusive of power that a state is, the stricter its gun laws will be (although the reverse is not necessarily true). Two examples of this that come to mind are Nazi Germany and the USSR under Stalin, both of which had exceptionally strict regulations on the personal possession of firearms.

Clinging to the naive ideal that restricting weapons makes everyone safer does nothing but limit freedom and facilitate violence.

Armed militias to overthrow the government? Sounds like the Somali constitution.

Or, you know, the American Revolution. That is exactly how we overthrew our government back in the 18th century, and we want to make damn sure that we never lose that ability against our government today.

[HyperU2 11]

I'm a big fan of our laws here in PA.

[Big Mac 19]

The bit I have trouble with is the 2nd amendment. Armed militias to overthrow the government? Sounds like the Somali constitution.

The actual text is "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." now some nutcases in this country take that mean they should have military grade weaponry and by doing that the government will some how fear them. The government won't fear them, depending on the state's gun laws they'll take away the guns and arrest them on firearms violations. This amendment needs to be re-amended since it was written during a time where we had no standing army. The 'Militia' is the text refers to the the state militias that were the main military force and they were any but well regulated as the War of 1812 proved.

@Big Mac:

Are you paranoid or something? Do you really think that people who value their constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms, as Jack does, really just want to commit acts of violence against other people? Who are you to cast such extreme judgment on the character of someone you've never met? And why do you insist on posting in such a hostile tone? If anyone's been showing violent tendencies in this thread, it's you, not Jack.

The 2nd amendment was meant to preserve a citizen's right to have a gun for hunting and home defense and was never meant for everyone to go around armed to the teeth. You can defend you home with a pistol, shotgun, or rifle. You don't need a assault rifle.

With regard to communism, Jack's comparison was perfectly valid: Every communist state that has ever existed has had overwhelmingly strict gun control laws.

As has nearly ever non-communist state in the western world. Consider yourself thankful to be living in America where the gun control laws are weak by comparison.

The fact of the matter is that gun control laws have not, do not and never will stop criminals from procuring guns; anyone with a mind to commit a violent crime certainly won't have a problem with breaking a few gun laws. Every statistical study done on this subject demonstrates that having fewer gun regulations leads to relatively lower rates of violent crime in any given area. When criminals cannot be sure that they are the only ones armed (which is the only thing that gun laws actually accomplish), there is a natural deterrent factor that comes into play, one which cannot be created or maintained by law enforcement agencies alone.

Actually it has, now will it stop them from getting gun period? no and I won't even say it would. Your philosophy of everyone going around armed to the gills will lead to more gun violence. That is why we have organizations called police and sheriff departments. Maybe you've heard of them. Try reading the whole thread before you post something that has already been refuted once.

In truth, gun control laws were created by men in power to ensure that those without such power never get any of it. In general, the more totalitarian and abusive of power that a state is, the stricter its gun laws will be (although the reverse is not necessarily true). Two examples of this that come to mind are Nazi Germany and the USSR under Stalin, both of which had exceptionally strict regulations on the personal possession of firearms.

So now pretty much anyone who supports stricter gun control laws is a Nazi or a commie? I'll happily be called a Nazi or a Commie if it means that my community is safer. Ya know how hard it is for gang members to get their hands on high powered weaponry thanks to gun control? They're going around with small cailber pistols and knives mainly and maybe in one sect there is either 1 sawed off shotgun or 1 semi-auto rifle converted to full auto. That right there is a lot better than how it was in the 80s and 90s before gun control got a lot stricter. True power is not gained through the barrel of a gun.

Clinging to the naive ideal that restricting weapons makes everyone safer does nothing but limit freedom and facilitate violence.

And clinging to idiotic idea of everyone having their own personal armory full of weapons meant for war will make the world a safer place does nothing except turn what freedom we have into total anarchy or worst yet cops will be more military like to combat the rapid rise in gun related violence. Do you want your hometown to start looking like a war zone? I sure don't. Edited July 19, 2010 by Big Mac

[GRS 10]

Why don't we hand out do-it-yourself household nuclear fission kits and just crack down on the bunglers as they mushroom?

You can't ban idiots.

I never said ban idiots, I said go harder on them. Sometimes this country is more worried about giving criminals the rights they don't deserve than it is about protecting the good people.

Remember, guns cause crime just like matches cause fires, over-regulate those too, their so dangerous. :j:

If I was a criminal and guns were banned, I would have a field day with easy victims. Carrying a gun is not paranoid, its being safe. Its no more "paranoid" than locking windows and doors.

The actual text is "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." now some nutcases in this country take that mean they should have military grade weaponry and by doing that the government will some how fear them.

Or maybe some people just like to have nice stuff. I have my *insert high grade rifle here* within arms reach as I type this. You think I'm crazy? Guess what, I'm not. I just like guns and I like having the ability to defend myself if need be. So now my HOBBY has more than one benefit.

I don't know what lala land you are living in but many criminals are carrying a helluvalot more firepower than .22's and modded semi-auto's.

Edited July 19, 2010 by GRS

[HyperU2 11]

Then you have the nutcases who fear "assault rifles". The weapon in a murder is more than ten times more likely to be a handgun than a rifle.

[Second 0]

I used to live in Alaska. Believe me when it's -60 degress out you won't want to do hunting or target shooting.

I tried to zero my scope in -25 celsius... Had to buy new scope after that. :D

I went to hunt foxes in same -25 degree. I was there and so was week old tracks of rabbits, weasel, fox and moose, not anyone else. I guess others were much smarter than me.

ST DUX:

With regard to communism, Jack's comparison was perfectly valid: Every communist state that has ever existed has had overwhelmingly strict gun control laws.

Yeah! I've heard that in UK (or just England) you are not permitted to carry knife openly. And one needs somesort of license to buy one.

Mr Burns:

Now that made me smile! Not trying to pull a vilas here, but there´s many ways in which americans look .. strange. First one considers moving for being allowed to carry concealed weapons, second one needs to only have 3 guns, totally armamazing

As a strick hunter (i don't masturbate over my guns, or even hobby guns, or even shoot for "fun". I just need them to hunt) I have 2 firearms and to be honest it's not enough:

I have:

-Shotgun for birds.

-rifle for small and large game. My rifle packs the punch for Moose but bigger would be better,

and really i would still need to get one more for cheap shooting practice. Right now i have to pay big money to keep my skills even on average level. Something like .22 LR would be great. At cost of 300 cartrides of 7.62x53r (not some shIte Wolf, but goods ammo) would get me license to get .22LR and cheap but good rifle (manufactured in east, CZ is good), decent scope and probably thousands of ammo as well.

And many hunters does have one big bore, bigger than traditional .308, strictly for moose and bear. With bear bigger than .308 is something which should be required for safety issues. And Moose drops dead much more better with larger bore even if hit isn't optimal (which is good thing for game, as they don't have to suffer. And hunters don't have to track wounded game for long).

So i easily get 4 different guns which one hunter would need if he wishes to hunt for full spectrum, do it ethically and keep his rifle shooting skills up in economic way. I manage to get along with 2 firearms as i have made good choices (rifle caliber is all-rounder. Shotgun is all-rounder aswell), but it will cost me lot in ammo expenses.

-And ofcourse there's these shotgun/rifle combinations if one wishes to head out to backwoods and wishes to carry just one firearm suitable for most situations.

-And suppressed pistols for trappers, which can easily be carries concealed. And if trapper finishes his trapped game he don't let whole vicinity to know about it. As traps usually are by lake. And by lake are also most concentrations of humans, both living there and spending their time. So it's good option for everyone if trapper do not have large stick with lots BOOM with him.

So yeah i get that 3 guns is close to practical minimum amount of firearms for single hunter of full spectrum. 5-6 is easily amount where you still can have various firearms which all have their own role and none is too much. Same amount of 3 for those who likes to hobby whole spectrum of firearmsports (shotgun, rifles, handguns).

[Big Mac 19]

Or maybe some people just like to have nice stuff. I have my *insert high grade rifle here* within arms reach as I type this. You think I'm crazy? Guess what, I'm not. I just like guns and I like having the ability to defend myself if need be. So now my HOBBY has more than one benefit.

I don't know what lala land you are living in but many criminals are carrying a helluvalot more firepower than .22's and modded semi-auto's.

So you need a high grade rifle to defend yourself eh? What army did you piss off? If you like guns awesome, I love them too, but at the same time I am mature enough to ask myself "What do I need an AK for?" I'm not going to use it for anything and I get enough enjoyment through shooting guns sun as Martini Henry rifles, 1903 Springfields, etc.

As for criminal carrying a "helluvalot" more firepower what fucked up 3rd world country do you live in? I lived in a city that had the one of the highest murder rates in the US from 94-01 and was right in the center of it all and gang bangers never had more than a pistol or a knife. We only had 25 recorded cases of a AR being used in a shooting from 94-01.

---------- Post added at 06:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:02 PM ----------

Then you have the nutcases who fear "assault rifles". The weapon in a murder is more than ten times more likely to be a handgun than a rifle.

Actually it's a knife.

[HyperU2 11]

Handgun is six times more likely than a knife. Clearly though you make a case for not being against AR15 ownership, despite being against it.

[Big Mac 19]

Handgun is six times more likely than a knife.

Whatever you say bucko... Most people who commit murder go for a weapon of convenience and it's a lot easier to get a hold of a knife than a gun. So it's a knife. Also I'm including murders in prison.. Edited July 19, 2010 by Big Mac

[HyperU2 11]

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_08.html

[echo1 0]

The 2nd amendment does not mention an armed overthrow of the government.

I'm an idiot. I got confused and thought that thing about the right to revolution within the Declaration of Independence that was part of the 2nd amendment.

Or, you know, the American Revolution. That is exactly how we overthrew our government back in the 18th century, and we want to make damn sure that we never lose that ability against our government today.

That line didn't work all that well for Timothy McVeigh...

[Big Mac 19]

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_08.html

I stand corrected.

[NeMeSiS 11]

I don't know what lala land you are living in but many criminals are carrying a helluvalot more firepower than .22's and modded semi-auto's.

And yet all of Europe is able to walk around safely without being armed.

[Takko 10]

You might think I'm crazy on this one.

We should take a look at our heroes.

Most people have heroes like Mike Tyson, Mohammed Ali or Fidel Castro.

But my heroes aren't the one everyone has, people who are with less opportunitys all day are heroes to me.

They need a gun to live fast and die slow, to have an opportunity.

And then they go to the prison and if they are still living, they have to do the same again.

Guns are not made for everyone but for our heroes.

[Simon C 0]

You might think I'm crazy on this one.

We should take a look at our heroes.

Most people have heroes like Mike Tyson, Mohammed Ali or Fidel Castro.

But my heroes aren't the one everyone has, people who are with less opportunitys all day are heroes to me.

They need a gun to live fast and die slow, to have an opportunity.

And then they go to the prison and if they are still living, they have to do the same again.

Guns are not made for everyone but for our heroes.

So... you're saying that criminals are your heroes? I really hope I'm just misunderstanding you. :confused:

[GRS 10]

So you need a high grade rifle to defend yourself eh? What army did you piss off? If you like guns awesome, I love them too, but at the same time I am mature enough to ask myself "What do I need an AK for?" I'm not going to use it for anything and I get enough enjoyment through shooting guns sun as Martini Henry rifles, 1903 Springfields, etc.

Now you are bringing opinion into this more than ever and mine is obviously different than yours. As I've said before, I want a nice rifle because I like them, just like how you don't because you are happy with other things. You are basically telling me that my opinion is stupid and yours is smarter. Try again.

Also, on a side note, you can stop using terms like "idiot" and "mature enough," they don't help your argument being nothing but insults, direct or indirect. If you want to debate, we can debate, but there is no need to insult people like that. I am not a nutcase, an idiot, or immature. I am just a middle-class American who likes high quality/grade guns. No more crazy than a car-lover. Cars can go fast and accidents lead to many deaths. Nothing wrong with having an interest in cars so long as you are smart about it.

Weapons should be regulated and documented etc etc. But so many of these laws are just annoying to citizens and ignored by criminals. Its just the way things work.

The worst part about this whole debate is that both sides have their own set of true facts which manage to contradict each other through wording and information exclusion without being false.

Edited July 20, 2010 by GRS

[Big Mac 19]

Now you are bringing opinion into this more than ever and mine is obviously different than yours. As I've said before, I want a nice rifle because I like them, just like how you don't because you are happy with other things. You are basically telling me that my opinion is stupid and yours is smarter. Try again.

No, if I wanted to say that I'd just come right out and say it. If you want to play with assault rifles,MGs,etc. go to this place. http://www.gunsnh.com/ You can play with them to your heart's content or you run out of cash.

No more crazy than a car-lover. Cars can go fast and accidents lead to many deaths. Nothing wrong with having an interest in cars so long as you are smart about it.

The difference is a car was not design for the soul purpose of killing another person, an assault rifle is. I stand by my opinion that someone who not in the military or Law Enforcement as no need or right to own military grade weaponry. Edited July 20, 2010 by Big Mac

[jeza 5416]

Right to bare arms, i think is okay to an extent, maybe a cap on it but another half of me say this should just be for law enforcement and military so personaly i dunno , however, due to the nature of the subject........I'm not touching this one further with a thirty foot barge pole.! :P

[maturin 12]

I never said ban idiots, I said go harder on them. Sometimes this country is more worried about giving criminals the rights they don't deserve than it is about protecting the good people.

Remember, guns cause crime just like matches cause fires, over-regulate those too, their so dangerous. :j:

If I was a criminal and guns were banned, I would have a field day with easy victims. Carrying a gun is not paranoid, its being safe. Its no more "paranoid" than locking windows and doors.

In the middle ages they executed underaged petty thieves. How did that idiot deterrent work out?

Basically you are saying that we should focus on harshly punishing the crime instead of trying to act against the conditions and equipment that makes crime possible. (Well, that's not what you said or what you favor, but it was the effect of your statement.) If you stand back and make crime easier, you will have plenty of idiots to get all hardass with.

For every hero who stops a junkie from robbing twenties from a cash register, there are hundreds of accidents, suicides and murders related to domestic violence. Never mind the organized and petty crime, guns facilitate the deaths of ordinary people in numbers that dwarf the incidence of valiant self defense fantasies coming true.

And really, if a competent criminal wants to break into your house or mug with a gun, he will do it and probably succeed whether you're armed or not. He has the element of surprise, and better to let the professional handle it. Better 100 robberies than 60 robberies and 5 firefights.

I would like to have a gun too when a sociopathic mental hospital escapee randomly picks my house for cannibal barbecue, but forgetting for a moment that that is never going to happen to you (your money back if it actually does), no one is ready for that, not even the SWAT team, and as a justification for gun ownership, we're getting pretty strained.

And yes, an armed populace makes criminals a bit more careful about picking their marks. Keeps them on their toes. Of course, that state of affairs also afflicts the entire goddamn civilian population of every urban center in the country. I think the law-abiding residents of the Bronx are more upset about the borough's commonalities with Mogadishu than its criminals.

In short, I respect the desire of people to defend themselves. In a dangerous world, individuals should not be denied that capability. But on a large scale, which is what happens to matter, it's all a tremendous idiocy with devastating consequences. Things are probably alright in your well-armed suburb, but ask Mexico how much they like their nice safe assault rifles.

[superrat 10]

if you burn for some sparks action go to your local shooting range facility you can rent a gun from M4 Ak pistols no AT , M2 lol get it out your system

move here to MO you can have a tank infront of your house if choose so

:p

[maturin 12]

if you burn for some sparks action go to your local shooting range facility you can rent a gun from M4 Ak pistols no AT , M2 lol get it out your system

move here to MO you can have a tank infront of your house if choose so

:p

I admit it. I'm jealous.

[Jack 0]

This video pretty much sums up why I think everyone should be proficient and familiar with all types of firearms. Responsibility and safe firearm handling taught at a young age would do many people a whole world of good :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dE4UgY7lgI

[HyperU2 11]

Statistically I'm highly unlikely to be a victim of gun crime, I'd just rather have one and not need it than the other way around. Why would anyone be against that?

[Big Mac 19]

Statistically I'm highly unlikely to be a victim of gun crime, I'd just rather have one and not need it than the other way around. Why would anyone be against that?

No one is against it, they're just against people having military grade weaponry when they have no need for it. Recreation and self defense are not a valid reasons for having military grade weaponry. If I can defend myself and deter a would be carjacker or home invader with a hunting rifle, pistol and shotgun so can you.