US Gun laws are "License to murder"

What you fail to understand, bro' is that we don't question the underlying principles of the constitution as in *freedom* and such - but that some need to comprehend with the fact that any ones freedom of an individual and a nation should end where the unnecessary suffering of another begins.

(I hope your desinterest in the opinions of famous actors and movie stars doesn't stop at Mr. "Rambo" Stallone but includes Mr. "NRA" Carlton Heston just as well )

Sorry but I feel compelled to repeat that the attitude ("I am saying that if someone really does have a problem with it, then yeah, get out. America was founded on the Constitution (...) If you can't abide by the Constitution, then you should not be in America, simple. Everything outside the Constitution you can believe or adhere to in any way you want.") is (at least close to) a faschist one...

I am certain that a significant amount of (born) Americans, (descendants of) immigrants and natives, are having a problem with at least that part of the constitution - it still is their inalienable right to peacefully live inside the US. Maybe you dislike it, but they are the very part of the America that this ammendmend tried to protect...

As long as they use democratic and peaceful means to change the constitution, you will have to live with them.

However: If you hand a child a gun, you are more responsible for the misconduct that happens thereafter than this child.
If those who are carrying guns can't handle them, because they are not mature enough, then ultimately it is the responsibility of the government to act. If it fails to act, then it is to be held responsible...

And to rephrase my comment: There are some parts of the "american culture" and "values" that are ridiculing the very principles of "freedom"... I personally had the "chance" to observe a degrading trend in (interpersonal) communication and attitude towards each other and the environment, whilst superficial values and "the quick buck" are promoted...

Unfortunately the US are living (way) beyond their means - very much on cost of all the rest. It would be preferrable to advance by setting examples of compassion and empathy and by joining the (civilized) international community on all (civilised) levels

It seems to me that's how it already is. Kid's can't just buy guns, *or* ammunition to use in them. Adults who are irresponsible, or criminal, are in violation of the law and subject to the punishments determined by the courts. Do you want to make punishment more severe? I'm all for it. Do you want to make people responsible for anything that happens with their gun? For the most part I'm all for that too.

But those people who *are* safe, and *are* responsible to carry a weapon. People who jump through all the legal hoops to possess their weapons legally under the law. Why should they be punished for the criminals that undermine them? Why should they be punished because of the actions of the very people they're trying to protect themselves from?

I'm sorry FireTom, you still haven't presented a very compelling argument with why I shouldn't be able to protect myself. I still say you have an unhealthy (possibly phobic) fear towards guns, and/or violence. Which is fine, most people have a phobic response towards interpersonal violence. But you should re-examine your own intentions.

I've already posted multiple ideas on how to cut down on accidental deaths through education and safety programs. But you seem to insist that even though the vast majority of gun deaths are criminal, the answer is to take them away from the people who aren't committing the crimes.

I think there is a lot to be said about what Lurch posted here, and I agree 100%. I personally think it is appalling how many people don't understand firearms. I would support a law that made purchasing a firearm require a class, and who knows maybe in some places that is already the case.

This may seem far fetched and accusative, but I stand by it:

A large reason for the unfamiliarity and fear surrounding firearms is because of anti-gun people talking about how horrible it is, which in effect deters people from educating their children on proper gun safety, which leads to an ignorant populace, which in turn leads to accidents.

It's the children who's parent forbids their child to touch the gun who find themselves suffering the consequences of not teaching their child correctly. A child is far more apt to venture into the parent's room and "have a look" when they are taught it is taboo. The child who has been out with his mom or dad, and who learns the safety, is far less prone to accidents, by a long shot. (this is assuming the gun is not locked up, which any respectable gun owner knows is not safe, especially when children are present) Children will rise to the expectations a parent sets.

And Lurch is right, by a large margin, most of gun related crimes are not the people who went through the process, and followed the law to acquire their firearms. I support a sweep through the country to disarm those who unlawfully obtained weapons, although I think many police officers would die to the *criminals* who refused to give them up, and that's a tragedy. And even if the nation did make a sweep to collect illegally owned guns, do you really think it is even possible? And if you tried to take everyone's, the criminals would still hide their weapons, and use them as criminals. THEY WILL BREAK THE LAW NO MATTER WHAT. So I emphasize what Lurch said, why disarm the respectable citizens who mean no harm?

It seems to me that what all of you are really asking for is a time machine to go back and change the constitution so that no one has guns. And EVEN if you did that, there would STILL be illegal guns in the hands of CRIMINALS.

What if we went back in time so that guns were never invented? And from there we can systematically go back in time to kill anybody that attempts to make objects of violence...

That works, right? Hooray! World peace! (through slaughter)

So mass suicide?

No, all we are asking you to do grow-up, and stop senseless gun slaughter, like Australia did with it’s gun buy back scheme.

Remember, most gun violence occurs in the home and is caused by a relative or friend, not a criminal.


Simple

Stone: How about you grow up? You sound so petty. And you never answered the question I specifically asked you. Point and case, Stone, you don't even listen to what's posted before you shoot your mouth off.

DO YOU REALLY THINK CRIMINALS WOULD SELL THEIR GUNS TO THE GOV!? WAKE UP!

Remember, proper instruction eliminates gun violence in the home and leaves the criminals.

Simple

They sell time machines in Costco, Stone, towards the back. Have fun in the past, but when you get back here, we will still be killing each other with sticks.

Proper instruction has not worked. America still has the highest rate of gun violence in the developed world, and most of it is domestic. It’s another NRA myth to blame the criminals. Check out Doc Kellemann’s research some time.



Ok, there are a number of examples. The one I like the best is when you said "get some balls and get a gun”.

I still think you should get some balls. But that's neither here nor there, in fact it's months ago, try to keep up.

Obviously proper instruction has not worked, because it isn't taught. And you have once again failed to answer another question of mine. You have no logical reasoning or rational of your own Stone.

I didn't blame any criminals, and I am not sure that the NRA blamed any for anything either. I don't need to read "Kellemann's research, as I have heard from numerous people and sources that it's bunk, as well as true. But I don't need a paper to know what to think, I can do that for myself.

I have a gun because I enjoy shooting, even though I hate hunting. If a criminal ever did come, I would be prepared to defend myself if it really came to the point of using the weapon (which takes a lot, you people have no concept of deadly force and the rules that make it appropriate or not, you seem to think that it's shoot first and ask questions later). And if tyranny ever presents itself, I will be ready to fight it.

Most like criminals or tyranny will never come to me, and my bullets will be used only for shooting at paper, but IF they do, I am ready. It's sound logic. My guns are locked up safe, no one can get to them, I have no worry of them falling into hands of criminals, or family, because I have taken those precautions. The stance I just presented is probably the most common stance there is, and there is *nothing* wrong with it. Go bitch to the people who abuse the right, and hang them for all I care. The less gun toting idiots there are, the less anti-gun idiots there are. Win-Win for me.

You think I should get some balls by purchasing a gun. Indicating that you think people who don’t own guns are somehow cowards, when in fact the opposite is true. You need a gun because you have feelings of inadequacy and you need something to prop up your masculinity. Anyhow, I answered your question.



Tell me this, where does this paranoia of criminals and tyranny amongst Americans come from?



So gun toting idiots are not the ones that go around threatening to shoot or hang people, right? All I can say is thank God I live in a civilised country, where people don’t go around playing rambo and robocop with real semi-automatic assault weapons.

No, I don't think you should get a gun, you know nothing about them. Just balls.

Um, I am not paranoid, I am prepared? And I said if, smart guy, and I also said it's highly unlikely. But if you think with your own brain, Stone, you would realize that at the rate the world is going, things could easily go to hell in a hand basket very rapidly. In fact, I would bet that 10 years from now, things are going to be downright ugly, government or not, tyranny or not. It doesn't take a genius to realize that the human population is rapidly turning to , our values are turning to , our attitudes... turning to . People are growing more dumb while resources drain. It's going to be scary soon, and your righteous attitude is the last thing I would want on my side.

I have no idea what you're talking about in that last bit, but I would say you would be hard pressed to find Rambo's of any kind running around trying to save the world. For the most part (large most part), we gun owners are a very pleasant, level headed bunch.

You watch to many movies, Stone.

what have we done to deserve being called "idiots" - other than not agreeing with your opinion and using democratic/ peaceful means to oppose the US gun culture?

To be "overly prepared at all times" could easily be coined "paranoid" and what you're describing now:



you might find yourself to be very much a part of it...



It's quite ugly already, not keen on a future that needs people like you to protect me. By what you describe you might not find "a side", other than those feeling strong because they need a deadly instrument in ther pocket vs. those who are because they choose not to...



with quite a great number of exceptions as you so willingly demonstrate me.

Consider coming back to a level-headed way of argumentation.

Lurch: I am not overly paranoid of guns. You're jumping conclusions. I have repeatedly told you that I held guns in my hands and did some target shooting myself.

My line of argumentation is a lot more rational than you are ready to accept throughout this thread.

Well FireTom, I wasn't talking to you, and it just so happens that I appreciate the way you argue, you actually have something to say. Also, I did not call either of you anti-gun idiots, in fact I said that there are gun owning idiots out there too, and the less of them, the less anti-gun idiots, you attributing that to yourself and Stone is your own doing... I won't venture into why you classify yourself into the idiot side, that's your own deal as well.

I highly doubt that I will ever be part of the problem, in fact, I am a very upstanding citizen, and my work serves the world, as well as my education. But thanks for the dig. For you to make such an assumption is petty, and childish, you have no idea who I am outside of these words, and quite frankly, you would be very surprised.

I really don't care what you want to coin me as, that's your personal opinion as well. You guys coin most everything rational into something that's not. Prepared, paranoid. Rifle, assault weapon. Semi-auto, fully automatic. Upstanding citizen, part of the problem 10 years down the line. You get where I am going with this? You can have all the opinion you want, but it's painfully obvious how far off all of your assumptions are, which makes your argument seem very, well, lacking.

I am not to keen on a future where I have to protect people in such a way, but it just so happens that if you needed me, I would be there for you, and your family. So nice of you to jump so hastily to people like me being scum. Again I say, you have no idea who I am, the things I have seen, the things I do, and the things I strive for. As for the "side" it was a figure of speech. In the context I wrote it, the side I am on is "myself," and I sure as hell wouldn't want Stone there with me, wherever that may be.

Owning a gun is not overly prepared, get a grip.

so we are still paranoid for owning a gun and they still think the criminals will hand in all their weapons like good little boys and girls

repetition: guns are not just about protection, they are about recreation-it's an olympic sport donchya know, protection, hunting and probably a few other things.

Guns are not bad any more than the rock that went thru my windshield at the hands of an idiot

Doppelganger, you were (un/intentionally) using a derogatory word to stir up emotions in an (partly) emotional debate... btdt myself & noticed that it doesn't do much good. Maybe you consider using compassion and strength rather than to hammer in more nails by telling me to blame my self. Hope you chose a different path transmitting knowledge to students...

The argument that your work "serves the world" is one that every single individual can (ab)use for himself - it shouldn't serve as an "excuse" for any other "weak spots", but merely as an addon to create a full picture of your personality.

You haven't followed the entire thread (and I'm not blaming you for this) but both, Stone and I, have repeatedly made suggestions for the regulation of handgun sales and to curb their (ab)use.

You might not be sitting in the same boat, but from Lurch's side most, if not all have been dismissed. This is the part (in this thread) that you lack information of.

I can't really speak for Stone, but I for my part have retired from this thread for quite a while because I found most of the pro-gunners not open for a constructive approach to the topic itself. It seems as if their minds have an innate "shut off switch" when someone says "lay down your guns".

I myself have shot handguns for sporting purposes and I am not a bad shooter at all, I have also done some archery and martial arts - there is nothing wrong with being able to defend yourself or in training of accuracy, a steady hand and a balanced mind. But what I (for my part) am saying is that you neither need an AK47/ M16 for hunting or sporting, nor to have a bunch of them. You neither need a few hundred rounds of ammunition at home nor even a gun (if it is merely for sport). I know about the potential feelings that a gun can trigger in people and as they are that (HUMANS), under certain circumstances it can get pretty wrong.

Over these 49 pages in almost three years I for my part have now spent countless hours in research and (re)phrasing my arguments. Personally I went from a strict "get rid of all (privatly owned) guns!" to an approach that would allow certain individuals under certain circumstances to possess and to carry arms (in public).

Fact is that
- innocent people (in the US) die from the (accidental) misuse of handguns,
- some disturbed individuals repeatedly go on killing sprees and murder a great number of others;
- it is way too easy for an individual to get their hands on guns and
- the gun problem doesn't stay within the country alone.

Your attitude of wanting to protect your own and the lives of your family - along with that of your friends and their families (in principle) is an honorable one (that is also what I have told Lurch) and it might even be that you are one of those few who can responsibly handle a gun... given that

[now I'm tempted to bring up the argument that I have driven countless hours and miles in a high speed environment and thus should be allowed to drive as fast as I want anywhere I want to and still obey to traffic rules, including to wearing a helmet where it is required by law - but this won't get us anywhere]

But we have talked about
"second hand" and "gun show sales" and that this is a way for people (otherwise unsuitable for the aquisition of a gun) to get their hands on one - immediately people jump on us, saying that how can the government try to regulate what their citizens want to do with their property!?!
We were talking about
"fingerprinting guns" and "microstamping", immediately we are told that this won't lead anywhere and would only cost a lot of money!?!
We're talking about
"limiting the number of ammunition in every household" and immediately get jumped on with the claim that it is illegal for the government to regulate the possession of law abiding citizens!?! and what difference would it make??? etc........... [LE SIGH!!!]

So for every reasonable and constructive approach we get told to bugger off (or get a gun ourselves)... I mean "get a grip yourself, guys"!

All I'm personally drawing from this is that you like to sit in your corner and play with your self, feeling great about your manhood and how you could protect others - when those you claim to protect never asked for it.

You don't trust your own government and the democratic installations of your country and tell those who do to leave the country??? How consistent is that?

I am telling you that a great deal of those guns, now in possession of criminals, had been owned by law abiding citizens before, who then chose the quick buck over some responsibility taken and sold it without proper background check; they had been owned and traded by (otherwise) law abiding citizens in favor of easy money on gun shows... this should be illegal. And the only way to enforce it is to change the laws and to be able to trace the guns.

If you would take even half the amount of time I have spent on research, you will learn that people don't get born as criminals and that for example those school shootings were committed by students who either should never had access to a gun or snapped completely unpredictably.

Our arguments are only "lacking", Chris, because you're not ready to even remotely thinking of accepting that they are based upon research (and personal experience). I advise you to read the IP - if you haven't already - it's not "only Kellerman's research" but also studies of recognized educational institutions of the USA itself.

The second ammendment needs a make-over and an adjustment to modern times, the legislation should be federal (rather than state), the requirements should be higher - and rather than saying "this problem is too big by now, let's just ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist" or "guys, become part of the problem" you should know that you are part of a lobby that intentionally takes collateral damage into account.

"we" are not thinking that criminals will readily hand over their guns, but you yourself could contribute by never again trade a gun for food (as yourself told us you did)...

that rock going through your windscreen has nothing to do with guns or how deadly they are (not).

if for any part of your existence you would live up to your (screen) name, you would trust your creator that he will protect you without anyone else in need of suffering because you don't.

we're all on a different road to the same destination - find and keep trust - until we realize that the only permanent is the impermanence of material existence.

Todays news



he had two weapons of choice: a machine gun and a sword... he chose the former.... guess why...

The machine gun allegedly had been a "Schmeisser" - a German weapon from WWII... investigations are going on. Of course if Jehovas witnesses would have been armed, they could have shot him (technical disfunct of his gun or not)...

you assume he had a choice, maybe he had already made his decision. do the damage and then fall on his sword

Tom, my faith is in God, and He will provide. but I will not stand on my roof crying for God to save me and ignore the man in the rowboat telling me to get in. Suffering is part of humanity unfortunately, but this isn't a theological thread

Guns are not used for deadly force alone. don't ignore the rest of the post

faith, if it's merely about sports you could leave your gun at the shooting range (in a safe). for hunting purposes you wouldn't need more than one rifle with a scope and for self protection you wouldn't need more than either a shotgun or a 6-shoot...

for S&R missions, for bodyguards and others working in law enforcement or in otherwise exposed professions (like social workers for broken homes or women hiding from domestic violence etc) there certainly can be exceptions made (IMO)...

we've been over this quite a few times already. all of which got dismissed again and again.

second hand and gun show sales should be illegal without proper background check, ammunition needs to get micro stamped and limited, guns need to get "fingerprinted" and registered, a license needs to be implemented and mandatory, as well as psychological tests and proper training, gun laws need to become federal, violations need to be classified as felony.

is this "irrational" or "paranoid"?

the rest of your last response isn't ignored either but I really don't think you're serious...

So what’s the difference, Rambo? And how does purchasing a gun give you the authority to go around shooting people? Is it vigilantism disguised as a fantasy; something that could happen one day in the future or is it terrorism dressed up as patriotism?

As concerning as this is to most people, We can all agree that some people are good for the responsabilty of a gun or guns, & there are alot that are not. The same can be said for people being parents. There is a level of accountabity for the things we do & the things we are responsable for. Not all are ment to have or be a part of those important & valued parts of life. It has been my understanding that, If You don't try to be a part of the aforementioned things in life You can not fully understand there true value. You intern would be lost on the expiriance & importance of them in your life. Not all can Or want the responsablity. So it is left to the ones that will claim it. I Believe it can be made better with Education, & tolorance.

Is it just me, or are the people in charge a.k.a. the government, always coming up with ideas that just don't work.

The point of legalisation would be the fact that less illegal guns are spread around the country, that when someone buys a gun it's all legal and registered. So now all the good an fair people can own a gun, whoopy.

BUT... let us think rational. well, maybe not rational, but let's think theatrics. Imagine yourself a bankrobber called Jimmy. To do this you need a gun, so you go out and get one, it's easy right. Then you stomr into a bank and have to shoot someone to get out. Oh goody, goody gumdrops for the police. We know what kind of weapon was fired, now lets look at the list, wow, 7 people in the state have that gun. Let's pay them a visit.

So, little Jimmy bought his gun and now finds the police on his doorstep. Only because he took the legal path.

Now Imagine yourself a hitman called Jack. Jack needs a gun, but he doesn't want anyone to know he owns a gun. So he goes to the black market and buys himself a gun without registration. He goes after his target, kills it and the police can look all the want, they'll never find a gun like the one used registered to Jack.

Now which of the two would you rather be, Jimmy or Jack. so even if guns are legalised, there would still be the illegal market to deal with, just as there is now.

Off course, Jimmy forgot to put into account that everyone in the bank has his own gun, so as soon as he pulls his everybody pulls their own and starts shooting at Jimmy, bullets fly around and if Jimmy is the smarter guy he just drops to the floor and let all the bullets kill all bystanders, so he doesn't actually have to shoot his. (Okay, a little exageration on my part, I know)

The only logical thing to prevent excess killing would to destroy all guns in the world... Yeah like that's gonna happen... there's always the excuse we need to kill other people with our guns, before they kill us with theirs. If their is one invention that made the world a badder place it's the invention of the gun imho. Now People will probably start about, but what if we didn't have guns in WWI or WWII. Well plain and simple, if we didn't have them, our adversaries wouldn't have them and the whole WW-thing... it would probably enver have happened.

Stone, maybe you consider to review your post?

Raoul - no, it's not just you, but at the same time your idea just doesn't work either...

If now everybody will have the chance to aquire a gun, we're back to the High Noon scenario of the "Wild West" of 19th century US. Some people are short wired, they shouldn't own guns, other people have really ( I mean REALLY) bad vision or a shaky hand... I wouldn't want to live in a world where everyone is running around with a gun...

If all guns in circulation get "fingerprinted" it would be one step. We won't erase (gun) violence, but we can curb it.

Guns are not like (soft) drugs. There always will be an illegal market, but the facts speak for themselves:

there is LOADS less gun related violence and gun related accidents in Europe than in the US.

And Hawkfeather: some people can handle (hard) drugs, why are they deprived of their right of self-determination? Other people can handle high speeds (up to 150mph - no prob for me) why do I have to slow down? Society works this way. We need to protect the weak and ... "not as intelligent" - if necessary we need to protect them from themselves...

More guns - more problems, less guns - less problems. The facts of US vs. EU paint a clear picture.

Thanks for contributing

True That friend! I see the reason of that.

Obviously, you are a good parent. So this discussion is not about bad parenting on a personal level. It’s more about social conditioning on a national level. Australia with sensible restrictions on gun use by hunters and targets shooters has a low rate of gun violence. America, with little restriction or discipline on gun use, is a bad parent, and has a extremely high level of gun violence, compared to other developed countries. So the question we keep asking as good parents and citizens is when is the bad parent, in this case America, is going to bring some parental discipline to it’s errant children who insist on playing with guns and killing themselves and others ?




I think it’s just you. The gun laws in Australia work extremely well, perhaps because the have the backing of the people who just got tired of useless gun violence.

Gun laws in Europe also work quite well. Those countries with more libaral gun legislation tighten them (with citizens support). Gun violence is low.

Yes, we do have criminals - but they hardly use guns as often as they are in the States (where they need to expect armed response).
Yes, we have homicides and we have psychos - but we hardly have as many ppl pulling a gun, because not many ppl have them.

We might not have as much wildlife out there as in the States, given that (which is why Ranger are included in the exceptions), we do have armed bank-robberies (mostly using fakes) and most of them get caught afterwards... no bloodshed for bucks.

Gun violence is mostly unnecessary, most of us have less "stand my ground" attitudes - that's what it is.

Stone, as much as I agree with your opinion on gun laws I don't appreciate name calling, from neither side. Only because someone has a gun, he's not identifying with "Rambo" (the movie character - as I've quoted, Sylvester Stallones personal opinion on guns is very different). So you only talk for yourself on this one.

I for my part see "it" deeply rooted in America, it's as much a personal issue, but promoted on a cultural level. "Old (bad) habots die hard"... 's just that.

for the comic generation

I believe Our Laws here in the US are for the lack of a better phrase are F**ed up! There is no happy medium. The people have lost the will to stand up for their rights. It is almost like our country is Dying. That's why it is so Important to focus on Helping Each other out rather than worrying about what we get out of the deal. You are correct, But I beleive Guns don't kill People do! People are the will, So it must start there. Oh & thank you for the compliment Stone.

Four killed after gunman opens fire at Pennsylvania gym



Come on guys why do you put up with this? Isn't it time Americans rose above the money making and “special” interests of the radical gun lobby, and did the right thing to protect the community from senseless 'rambo' type idiots with guns.

Isn't it time for a gun amnesty? Isn't it time to re-claim your freedom America?

Really? We "put up with this" in the same sense that we "put up" with drunk drivers and domestic abuse. WTF Stone, I don't condone those actions, and never have. Those are the types of things I want to end. Bad guys are going to have guns regardless, the same way they still have guns in the UK and Australia. It could have been explosives, and that would have ended much worse.

He was not a 'Rambo' type idiot in any sense of the word, that would imply some sort of vigilante justice, this was murder-suicide. We have always said the same thing when it comes to unstable people, or criminals, I don't see why you argue with me on it, or take on your 'holier than thou' attitude.



Sorry, but I don't see giving up my rights as 'reclaiming my freedom' in any sense of the word. Gun Amnesty is a farce, and does little to nothing to taking guns away from criminals. Why could a criminal hand in their tool anyways?



Gun crimes/murder aren't what you need to be looking at if you want to determine the level of violence in a population, you need to look at per-capita rankings of other violent crimes. Assault, rape, etc. Murder stats are skewed based on medical facilities and abilities

So quick look at nationmaster for some definitely iffy stats, but lets see what we find..

Rape: per 1,000

Australia: .777
Canada: .733
USA: .301
UK: .142

Robberies: per 1,000

UK: 1.57
USA: 1.38
Australia: 1.16
Canada: 0.82

Assault: per 1,000

US: 7.56
UK: 7.45
Canada: 7.11
Austalia: 7.02

Crime rates between our countries are not *that* much different, despite your strict gun laws and your efforts to make us out to have roving gangs of vigilantes looting and pillaging everything in sight.

What I found more interesting were the 'perception of safety' stats that they have based on surveys from crime victims.

Perception of Safety (against burglary):

US: 78%
Canada: 66%
UK: 58%
Australia: 57%

Perception of Safety (walking in the dark):

US: 82%
Canada: 82%
UK: 70%
Australia: 64%

So despite having less people, and less guns, your citizens feel less safe than American's or Canadians. Perhaps it has something to do with the incessant nanny-state fear mongering you guys put out?