If you must restrict gun access...



You're assuming the validity of what these quacks who call themselves mental health professionals are saying. I don't trust anyone with anything.

The people you really have to watch out for are the quiet, unobtrusive ones.

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

That's not defense, that's making one vulnerable.

Possession of firearms and severe measures don't make a difference to criminals when they want to rob or steal or kill or whatever. When the criminal mind is working laws don't make a difference.

Loyalty to the country, not to the government especially not this government.

__________________


"I find no black men appealing, they look like giant monkeys." -LilithIshtar (some member of another forum I used to be part of)

So making guns readily available to criminals and crackpots who decide to blow the brains off anyone who stands in their way is defence. No your not vunerable. You are safer if the criminals cant attain guns then how can they use them. making possesion of firearms a social taboo(as it is here) would have a huge effect. Illegalising guns would make them harder to come by thereby making them harder to use.






Yes they do although Im reiterating myself at this point. If you can not attain a firearm you cannot use one. 1+1=2!! Its Logic. As I said criminals will most likely come into possesion. But in smaller numbers and easier to crack down on.

You just said you dont trust the state. The state is the country.

__________________
"We will disobey your laws as long as they are unjust and they make a world shaped only for your profit"-G8 protestor Genoa 2001





NO PASERÁN!!

"We learned a long time ago that we should never subject ourselves to the schedules of the powerful. We had to follow our own calendar and impose it on those above.” - Subcommandante Marcos

That's not what I was getting at, since criminals will get guns no matter what why not even the playing field and make weapons readily available to regular people.

I don't know what utopia you think this happens in, but that's not how it works in this world. If you are vulnerable, meaning no weapons or anything, criminals have an easier time attacking and killing you. Illegalizing guns does not criminal activity in the slightest, just look up the D.C. gun ban or Assault Weapons Ban for detail: if what you said was true then the D.C. gun ban should mean that there were hardly any murders there rather than calling it the "murder capital."

And I'm saying that no gun law will prevent criminals from getting guns, that's logic also.

I was being metaphorical.

__________________


"I find no black men appealing, they look like giant monkeys." -LilithIshtar (some member of another forum I used to be part of)

*Sigh* so turn it into an anarchal situation?



Hello guns are still readily available in the surrounding states. No borders = no order checks. So obviously in a situation such as that a ban is pointless that point is moot.



Im not denying that. What Im saying is that theyll become harder to attain therefore harder to use therefore lowring gun crime.

No offence lad but your quote was too direct to be classed as a methophorical

__________________
"We will disobey your laws as long as they are unjust and they make a world shaped only for your profit"-G8 protestor Genoa 2001





NO PASERÁN!!

"We learned a long time ago that we should never subject ourselves to the schedules of the powerful. We had to follow our own calendar and impose it on those above.” - Subcommandante Marcos

I think appropriate background checks, licensing of weapons and weapon owners isn't to much to ask.

But it needs to be done where ever guns are sold, like gun shows and any other loop holes that are in the system.

If you are a proven law abiding citizen with no dangerous mental illness then I don't mind you having a gun. I do think that if you have a gun and no license it should be a felony though.

I'll have to think more on it, but right now, I'd say:

- rifles yes,
- shotguns maybe,
- handguns no,
- assault weapons no

But, like all gun arguments, everything depends on what the goals of any such ban would be.

Glad to see we are actually having a respectful debate on this issue. Now onto the issue at hand.

First off, we cannot compare America to Europe, Australia, Japan, China, Russia, South Africa etc. because we are not those countries. The difference between societies is simply to great to make any sort of realistic comparison. So really this is a non issue in this debate.

These are my thoughts on the issue.

The ban on all guns, will do nothing to keep any one safer. It is completely unreasonable to assume that we can actually collect every firearm in this country and destroy it. This simply cannot happen. we have millions upon millions of guns in this country. If we had the ability to actually do this then we would have no problems winning the war on drugs, gangs, poverty etc. So this is yet another non issue. Look at Chicago and D.C. both cities allow zero firearms in the city limits and they have some of the highest crime rates in the country. So apparently banning the guns did zero for both cities. They where looking for the quick fix instead of investing the time and money in a more productive manner such as anti-gang programs and firearms education.

Now onto the "assault weapons" ban. These are the qualifications for a weapon to fit into the category of an assault weapon according to the 94 Assault Weapons Ban:

Rifles

* Folding/telescoping stock
* Protruding pistol grip
* Bayonet mount
* Threaded muzzle or flash suppressor
* Grenade launcher

Pistols

* Magazine outside grip
* Threaded muzzle
* Barrel shroud
* Unloaded weight of 50 ounces or more
* Semi-automatic version of a fully automatic weapon

Shotguns

* Folding/telescoping stock
* Protruding pistol grip
* Detachable magazine capacity
* Fixed magazine capacity greater than 5 rounds

Now aside from the grenade launcher there is nothing on this list that makes a firearm any more dangerous to anyone. The '94 ban also listed 19 weapons as well that where no longer allowed to be made/imported into the United States:

* Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);
* Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;
* Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);
* Colt AR-15;
* Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
* SWD M-10; M-11; M-11/9, and M-12;
* Steyr AUG;
* INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9, AND TEC-22;
* revolving cylinder shotguns such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12.

A large portion of these firearms are small caliber rifles aside from the Street Sweeper and Striker 12. For those of you that are not all that familer with firearms here is a quick run down on the calibers of these weapons.

AR-15: 5.56 mm
FAL: 7.6 mm
Tec-9: 9 mm
Steyr 5.56 mm

The only "large" caliber weapon out of this small sample is the FN FAL. This caliber is a good size for big game hunting (deer, bear, elk, cougar) So they very in calibers but what they do have in common is the fact that they look similar. Most of these rounds can be defeated by Class III body armor with a strike plate insert ( keep in mind that AP or armor piercing rounds are not lawful for a regular citizen to own to my knowledge) So obviously the issue with these guns have nothing to do with the caliber. It would appear the the issue most people hold is the way they look.

Now here is an issue that a whole lot of people seem to have. "What is the purpose of _______" insert weapons of choice here. Not to sound like an idiot to answer a question with a question but, What is the point of owning a Ferrari, Lotus, Lambo? There is no reason for anyone to own a car that is capable of going 200 miles an hour. Right? Of course there is a reason, the reason could be as simple as I want one. Now it is up to that person to use it responsibly. Many people have a hard time trying to figure out why any "normal" person would want a .50 BMG. I have a simple answer, competition. The same reason someone would want a car capable of doing 200 miles an hour, so they can race against other super cars.

Now I do agree with background checks when it comes to purchasing a firearm. I do not like the idea of a waiting period however. If you are able to pass a BI then you should be good to go unless you have done something that says other wise. People that commit violent crimes are a no gun candidate, or other offenses that illustrate your lack of being able to control your self. DUI, massive amounts of speeding, wreck less endangerment.

I some times wonder what exactly goes through the minds of elected officials when it comes to gun control measures. They advocate the banning of firearms based on there looks, want "safety" measures that are completely unfounded; see micro stamping. What they need to do is address the issues that cause the crimes. Taking away a tool is going to do nothing to solve our country's problems.

Its not the look of assault rifles that bothers me its the ability to make them automatic.

Anything that is small enough to hide in a coat and can still be made automatic bothers me.

I can see collectors having them but I just don't see why the average joe needs an assault rifle.


I think the whole purpose of the waiting period is two fold one is to make sure the check is complete and

the second is to keep people from buying guns while in a bad state of mind.

I.E. say their boss pisses them off and they get this crazy urge to shot them. (its happened)
and say a gun shop is down the block. Well with the waiting period the person has time to think it over and
is less likely to shot that boss.

This is just one example but it explains the basic principle.

When I applied for my CPL I was under the impression that I would have to wait any where from 30 to 90 days to receive my permit. I asked the clerk handling my application what a realistic time line is and she informed me that it was already completed. So once I got my finger prints squared away I walked out with my permit. In today's day and age a BI takes a matter of minutes. When I bought my Browning .30-.06 I filled out my registration papers and the guy called a hot line which ran my name and I walked out that very same day.

Now the one thing that cannot be prevented is the rare in the heat of the moment type of purchase. The shops that I do buisness with will grill anyone coming in that wants to buy a gun. The owner of the shop where I bought my gun talked to me for about 45 minutes before he let me handle the gun I ended up buying. He then took the time to explain all of the controls, how to clean it and watched me do the same. He was not required by law to do this but he thought it was smart thing to do. It is sad that no one hears about these shops and only about those that simply want to turn a quick buck by selling any thing to any one.

As I have said before, we really need to start enforcing the laws we have in place and give the ATF the funds to actually make things happen. The best that they are normally allowed to do is bust a private seller for selling across state lines and this is normally just a .22 or some other lower caliber rifle with no malicious intent just an uninformed person trying to sell an old gun.

In regards to owning an assault rifle. I want one because I want to hunt coyotes with one. Specifically an AR-15 chambered in 6.5 Grendel or 6.8 SPC. I understand the concern when it comes to being able to conceal one under a jacket but the use of assault rifles during a crime accounts for about .001% of crimes, something along those lines. I can try and dig up the specific numbers later. But a rifle chambered in .223/5.56 is to small for me to legally hunt deer in Washington state. It can still kill I realize that but the black rifles are not some weapon that needs to be feared like the plague. mwillam I know that you are familiar with all of that, I posted that information for others that may not be as well versed. I guess the point with "assault" rifles is that until someone does something to not be trusted with a firearm then they should be good to go.

I really do think the key to helping quell the issues we have with firearms is education. Educate inner city youths and show them a different route and show the rest of our children that guns are not "cool" or "scary" they are simply a tool that is it. A tool that needs to be respected at all times and is not a play thing. Just like a knife or a band saw.