Gun Control: Hot or Not?

[Razola]

Hi, Andrew.

Oh right, guns. Remember kids: guns don't kill people. Bullets going really really fast kill people.

[mr_pikachu]

It's not the fall that kills you. It's the sudden stop at the end.

...Wait, that's not the point of this topic?



But seriously, this topic is for discussion about gun control regulations and what changes, if any, should be made.

Personally, I don't have a problem with most of the regulations nowadays. However, there do need to be tighter restrictions on felons owning guns weapons (how about a probation sort of thing where they're not allowed to attempt to purchase one or they get tossed in the can for life?) and an extension on the time delay for obtaining a permit (which I believe is three days or so).

Excuse me as I run while you prepare your reaction posts.

[Dark-San]

If you asked about gun regulation, I am a strong believer for a total gun ban. If you take out the gun from the society itself, the society itself will become safer by itself. The scale will tip over to the law enforcement side since now they are the only ones with the weapons. This mean they can take out assassins like the Virginia Tech case faster then the possibility of these situation will decrease.

That used to be the case in the past. Time has change and we are now living in an age where there is a even greater need to protect ourselves. Welcome to the terrrorism age, where it can strike you when you least expected. Taking out the guns from the street would mean, you are giving these ass rats chances, multiple of them, to strike. Amercia would have become more vunerable if the guns would not be in place.

But then the terrorists can get it as freely as we do. But the numbers will prevail by itself.

Hence if given a choice, which opinion will you choose? It is hard to conclude since both side has its pros and cons.

[DarkTemplarZero]

At the very least require a thorough psychiatric evaluation for people who want to buy guns. In the VT case it was well known that the Cho kid was a maniac who wrote plays featuring characters who tried to kill each other by stuffing half-eaten cereal bars down their throats, but because he had no criminal record he had no problem buying a gun. Often it's the case that after the person gets the criminal record to prohibit them from buying a gun it is too late and the damage is done, but at least you know that the person you're selling the gun to isn't a homicidal maniac just waiting to strike.

[Mewtwo-D2]

I believe gun control is when you hold with both hands.


You take the right to arms away from the citizens, you have a weak and fearful population. People who can't defend themselves have a specific term- prey. Prey for tyrannical governments, prey for criminals, prey for random psychotics who want to murder people. You take away the right of the law-abiding to defend themselves, you are violating their right to live. It's my right to protect my body, my family, my friends, and my property.

I enjoy shooting as a hobby. I shoot very well- I enjoy it mostly because it's fun stress release to take out any anger on a sheet of paper. I don't relish the idea of killing another human being- I only would under dire circumstances. I believe I am the typical gun owner. If there was a danger to my safety, I would take up arms. If there wasn't, it's a harmless hobby that leaves nothing but paper and old bottles injured.

Society does not become safer without guns, because guns do not cause violence. If they did, then there would be mass murders at gun shows. Such a thing has never happened. Society is dangerous, but it's less dangerous for the weak than anarchy. That's why we made society in the first place. Look at places where guns have been banned- less people are being shot, sure, but look at the rates of stabbing deaths, or armed robbery, or rape. Did you know that 0% of reported rapes had a gun involved in any way? Washington D.C. has some of the strictest gun laws in the U.S., yet it has one of the highest murder rates. And don't get me started on robbery.

The point is when you outlaw guns, only outlaws have guns. By banning them, you're pouring money into organized crime and arms smugglers. Also, have you noticed that back when the Saturday Night Special was $10 at your local hardware store for anyone, there were no school shootings?

[mr_pikachu]

See, I suck at gun handling. Tried to shoot a rifle once in some accuracy contest on a vacation in Mexico... three shots, and not one hit the target. (Seriously, I don't have a clue where the projectiles stopped, because I missed the board entirely. All three times.)

However, I recognize the importance of people being able to defend themselves. It's one of the reasons I've trained myself so much in martial arts; if someone ever attacks me, I'm confident in my ability to deal with it. (Now, if they stand 20 feet away and pull a trigger, it's not like I can dodge the bullet. But my point is that if I get mugged or something, I only need the guy to lose focus for a fraction of a second and he'll be on the pavement. My training is in close-range combat.) I can defend myself, and that's important.

That's why I'm opposed to a complete gun ban, because people need to have some method of self-defense. It's just not good for anyone to be at the mercy of someone else. Yes, it's true that criminals are just as likely to wield weaponry if gun ownership is at all legal, but they'll get their guns one way or another. This gives innocent people a chance to fight back, in my estimation. Without having to spend years learning fighting techniques.

[DarkTemplarZero]

Guns don't kill people. I kill people. Muahahahah!

Mewtwo, where did you ever get to be so ANGRY? Hahah chill out, the universe isn't out to get you or anything. Get yourself a vodka martini and stop shooting things in anger.

But yeah, I'll agree with you there, gun bans only work well in civilized nations. Here in the United States where we have all these crazy Christian fanatics, gangster rappers, the overly paranoid Mewtwo-D2's, etc. etc. you'd just get prohibition all over again. But yeah, a psychiatric evaluation would be a good idea, at least prevent people like Cho from getting a gun.

[Razola]

Stereotypes against Americans are acceptable. Double standards are so fucking ACE.

Now if you excuse me, I'm going to assume all Koreans are psychotic killers. DarkTemplar showed me the way.

[Andrew]

I don't think we need guns, in the hands of the general public - AT ALL.

Law Enforement - I think they could have a stock of them at the police station, but they don't need them on the beat. I think Pepper-Spray and Electric Shock Guns could be much better options and hopefully non-lethal options to subdue criminals. This option couldn't occur until you could be sure the general public no longer has firearms, or a greatly diminished stock of them. There is no reason to need a firearm unless it's the reason "To protect myself". In which then everyone uses the same damn excuse. And it will go on in a cycle, or "Keeping up with the Jones'" with guns.

Military - Have as many damn guns as you want. But keep them in the field, or for training exercises. But, then, this leaves a goverment open to a Coup if it is instable...

[Razola]

In which then everyone uses the same damn excuse. And it will go on in a cycle, or "Keeping up with the Jones'" with guns.

Are you saying that there will be escalation among private citizens? That's just silly.

[TKnHappyNess]

They could control guns, however it goes against the 2nd ammendment. Unless they fix that so only it's legal for the authorities to carry guns.

[Razola]

They could control guns

They can't stop kids from downloading music. It is nothing short of delusional to assume illegal arms sales could be stopped.

[TKnHappyNess]

They can't stop kids from downloading music. It is nothing short of delusional to assume illegal arms sales could be stopped.

Yeah, but you're not killing people by downloading music. Besides, maybe the RIAA will get the hint that people aren't going to pay $20 for a CD with one or two good songs.

[Mewtwo-D2]

Yeah, but you're not killing people by downloading music. Besides, maybe the RIAA will get the hint that people aren't going to pay $20 for a CD with one or two good songs.

Yeah, and no money goes to organized crime when people download music illegally. Plenty of things are illegal- does it stop you from doing all of them? Crack is illegal and dangerous, yet plenty of people find lots of ways to get it.

Look at the War on Drugs. It's a complete failure. Millions are going to lock up potheads and stop people from growing weed in their closets, while hard drug smugglers and organized crime just bribe a few officials and get their wares through. You think it would be any different with guns? All that would happen if we banned guns from private citizens would be the crime rate would skyrocket and organized crime would get ridiculous kinds of rich.


Also, according to the Supreme Court, the job of the police is to uphold the law, not to protect YOU.

[mr_pikachu]

Look at the War on Drugs. It's a complete failure. Millions are going to lock up potheads and stop people from growing weed in their closets, while hard drug smugglers and organized crime just bribe a few officials and get their wares through. You think it would be any different with guns? All that would happen if we banned guns from private citizens would be the crime rate would skyrocket and organized crime would get ridiculous kinds of rich.

Pretty much agree with this. As a historical example, just look at the Prohibition Act. Do you think that when the law was passed banning alcohol consumption, the entire nation suddenly became sober?

Like Mewtwo-D2 said, people will find ways to get around such rules, thus making them nothing more than minor inconveniences.

[Hyperness is a Good Thing]

Hope this article is enlightening.

I don't mean to antagonise but..

http://www.breakthechain.org/exclusi...raliaguns.html

...because I dislike misinformation. *runs away*

[DarkTemplarZero]

I don't mean to antagonise but..

http://www.breakthechain.org/exclusi...raliaguns.html

...because I dislike misinformation. *runs away*

To quote the Juggernaut, "pimpsmack yo' ass, bitch!" *snicker*

And no, that in no way implies that M2 is a bitch, I was only trying to maintain the effect of the quote Also, along the lines of what Andrew asked, how many of those where committed by Colonel Mustard in the Observatory with a wrench?

[Andrew]

Mewtwo D_2 what was your source for that article, and what year was it from?

Also, how many of those crimes were drug related?

[Icebloom]

To argue for gun control laws is to say it is acceptable for politicians to use police, military and other "men with guns" to decide who can and can't have guns. Absolute hypocracy, I say. It's the reason why gun rights activists are justified in their anger -- When there are people out there who are willing to send men with guns to limit and take away the guns of decent, nonviolent human beings (and successful in some of their attempts, mind you), how are we supposed to act?

Besides, as far as self-defense goes, what's the moral difference between you using a gun to shoot an attacker, and calling the police to do the same thing? If you don't have the right to defend yourself with a gun, how can you logically have the right to call on someone else with a gun?

[Leon-IH]

Someone just got railed here, and it wasn't me.

[DarkTemplarZero]

Errr Icebloom you may not have noticed this but the whole system of people with something determining which people can have that something is how this country works. C'est la capitalism. Vive la FRANCE!

[Icebloom]

Errr Icebloom you may not have noticed this but the whole system of people with something determining which people can have that something is how this country works. C'est la capitalism. Vive la FRANCE!

Point number one: What I described was not capitalism at all. Capitalism is a system of private property rights. To initiate force to decide who can and who can't have guns when you are not part of the voluntary transaction that takes place is to violate private property rights, and thus, is not capitalism.

Point number two: You haven't addressed the hypocracy on the side of the gun control advocates.

Point number three: You haven't addressed the moral issue, in that there is no moral diffrence between shooting an attacker with a gun and getting someone else to do it for you (i.e. police).

Point number four: To dismiss my argument with a simple "this is how this country works" is nothing but bending over backwards for the current state of affairs. If I see something wrong, I'm going to state it and label it as such.

[DarkTemplarZero]

*yawn* I'll humor you.

First of all, I'm not arguing with you that allowing police to carry guns in order to prevent others from carrying guns is like having a huge stockpile of Nukes in order to force others to disarm their stockpiles; stupid and worthless. Police should not carry guns in civilian areas, neither should anyone else. Next, yeah, there is no moral difference, but the practical results are different, a police officer is trained to shoot as a last resort and to aim for non-fatal shots, whereas a scared civilian with a gun will probably shoot someone at the first sign of trouble right in the chest. You make a good point with the morality aspect, but as they say, in theory, practice is no different from theory.

[Mewtwo-D2]

I posted an article without checking it out thoroughly. That was unprofessional of me and below my usual standards. I'll delete it.


However- DTZ, you're ignoring completely the fact that criminals are criminals because they break the law. Why on earth would someone who is unwilling to follow laws about murder, rape, robbery, assault, etc. follow gun laws? What's more- most criminals already don't follow gun laws, so why would more make a difference?

Also- have you ever shot a gun? When you're in a crisis situation, you don't shoot for non-fatal areas. You shoot for the biggest target- namely, the torso. If you try to aim for the knee or the hand on someone threatening you physical harm, you're probably going to miss. You usually only get one chance, so to carry a gun, you better be willing to kill or be killed.

[Blademaster]

a police officer is trained to shoot as a last resort and to aim for non-fatal shots

If I didn't know you were serious, I'd sig that quote for purposes of comedy.

[Roy Karrde]

Shush Mewtwo D2, if Leon and Dark found out about all of that, well we would have a ban on everything harmful wouldnt we? Cops would have to carry Time Out Cards becuase Butter Knives are too dangerous around Civilians.

[Mewtwo-D2]

Shush Mewtwo D2, if Leon and Dark found out about all of that, well we would have a ban on everything harmful wouldnt we? Cops would have to carry Time Out Cards becuase Butter Knives are too dangerous around Civilians.

Hey, if we have to have a Nanny State, I want to come by it honestly. Besides, they'll never succeed in banning rocks and tree branches, so I better start making a supply of clubs while I can cut my trees.

[Dark-San]

Shush Mewtwo D2, if Leon and Dark found out about all of that, well we would have a ban on everything harmful wouldnt we? Cops would have to carry Time Out Cards becuase Butter Knives are too dangerous around Civilians.

For some reason, my stand on the gun ban is pretty neutral. Nothing much for me to argue about but for certain reason, my name appeared on Roy's post and now I had to answer this.

In Singapore we have a total gun ban. In fact, it is only the law enforcers that possess such weapons. However that does not mean that the entire population have no idea on using a gun.On the gun experience itself, in fact almost 95% of the male population had experience on the usage of the gun through national service. The weapon they trained in are usually the M16s.

Besides me being a civilised person, why would I need a weapon to kill someone for? My only target is Roy and he should be simple enough to be killed without any usage of weapons.

[Mewtwo-D2]

Besides me being a civilised person, why would I need a weapon to kill someone for? My only target is Roy and he should be simple enough to be killed without any usage of weapons.

I don't know what the stats are in Singapore, but in the States, 1 out of every 8 males is raped or sexually molested, while 1 out of every 4 females is. I would kill someone to prevent rape.

[Roy Karrde]

For some reason, my stand on the gun ban is pretty neutral. Nothing much for me to argue about but for certain reason, my name appeared on Roy's post and now I had to answer this.

I was talking about Dark Templar Zero. There are other darks on this board other than you...

[Magmar]

I can build a gun.......

Geez, if I can do it, anyone can do it!!

[firepokemon]

So we have the two right wingers that spouted crap about how Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and that getting rid of Saddam would get rid of terrorists. Did that happen? I don't think so.

They're the ones who will spout off about how criminals will get guns anyhow. Thats true. But such open door policy of guns is not an issue in a western country. Roy Karrde would tell you, "What about Mexico". Mexico isn't a western country. A western country is any country in western Europe, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Canada and the US. The fact is US has a problem with murders as result of guns unlike any other western country. This could well be attributed to the fact the US has more crime than any other western country and has more criminals in prison than any other country. These republican, likely conservative and most definately Iraq war supporters can debate with what they think to be intelligent debate. But they would also tell you, the US is winning the Iraq war. They're the same ones in 2003 who were convinced weapons would be found and the US would win and Iraq would be a better place to be. Iraq isn't any better than it was, there was no weapons of mass destruction found and Saddam wasn't even close to nuclear technology. The fact is we're talking about guns. They're tell you they have a right to bear arms. They're also tell you criminals will find other ways to get guns. Yes thats true New Zealand has a problem of unlicensed rifles. But we have no problems with crimes as result of handguns or the less. Its also true that the US has a culture of guns, and that any ban would be completely different than other western countries. A change in Gun Control I will admit won't do much difference because all types of gun weaponary is available in the US that just isn't available elsewhere. A ban would only see all those gun weaponary go underground, that I can agree with. But the fact that most people can buy a gun in less than 10 minutes in the US and that no one necessarily needs a license for those guns says something. Also the fact people can get hold of guns that go way beyond self defence says something I would have thought. America has problems, one of them is guns.

You two can spout off all the bullshit you want. You are the same two that think Iraq is going so well. Just lie back you two, watch the moronic Fox News and just believe what you choose to believe.

I and others on the otherhand will be open-minded and will actually think well theres a reason america has problems and one of them is your open-door gun policy.

[Roy Karrde]

So we have the two right wingers that spouted crap about how Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and that getting rid of Saddam would get rid of terrorists. Did that happen? I don't think so.

Umm no one said that getting rid of Saddam would get rid of terrorists, it was a step in the right direction as it was a step to make sure that we wouldnt have another 9/11 just a year and a half after the event, and that Saddam would stop funding terrorism.

They're the ones who will spout off about how criminals will get guns anyhow. Thats true. But such open door policy of guns is not an issue in a western country. Roy Karrde would tell you, "What about Mexico". Mexico isn't a western country.

So the line for Western Countries zig zags around Mexico?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western...ciety_in_Focus

From a cultural and sociological approach the Western world is defined as including all cultures that are (directly derived from) European cultures, i.e. Europe, Israel, the Americas (North and Latin America), Australia and New Zealand (and sometimes South Africa and the Philippines). Together these countries constitute "Western society"

A western country is any country in western Europe, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Canada and the US.

Says you, but only becuase you are trying to prove your point.

These republican, likely conservative and most definately Iraq war supporters can debate with what they think to be intelligent debate.

Blanket Statements are always the first sign of a idiot.

But they would also tell you, the US is winning the Iraq war. They're the same ones in 2003 who were convinced weapons would be found and the US would win and Iraq would be a better place to be. Iraq isn't any better than it was, there was no weapons of mass destruction found and Saddam wasn't even close to nuclear technology. The fact is we're talking about guns.

Yet you spend a paragraph of misdirection on Iraq, what a Sad person you are.

They're tell you they have a right to bear arms.

Which we do.

They're also tell you criminals will find other ways to get guns.

Just like Drugs.

But the fact that most people can buy a gun in less than 10 minutes in the US and that no one necessarily needs a license for those guns says something. Also the fact people can get hold of guns that go way beyond self defence says something I would have thought. America has problems, one of them is guns.

America has a problem with Guns that I agree with, America also has a problem with Drugs and Illigal Immigration, all three can quickly become connected. Also I wonder have you bought a gun in the United States? Gone through the Procedure to buy one? Timed it?

You two can spout off all the bullshit you want.

I am not the dumbass going around making Blanket Statements and bringing in things that have nothing to do with the argument.

You are the same two that think Iraq is going so well. Just lie back you two, watch the moronic Fox News and just believe what you choose to believe.

Again Blanket Statements, although if you want to get into a debate on Iraq, make a topic, stop going off topic.

I and others on the otherhand will be open-minded and will actually think well theres a reason america has problems and one of them is your open-door gun policy.

And Driving Guns underground will only worsen the problem.

[firepokemon]

I'm not a big fan of take a quote from what I say and then rebut it.

The exact scope of the Western World is of somewhat subjective nature, depending on whether cultural, economic or political criteria are used. In general however these definitions always include the following countries: the countries of Western Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

From Wikipedia. That is what I referred to. I will not include Mexico or latin america because they are not western in nature. Western refers to economically developed countries not developing countries, therefore I took this piece from that Wikipedia source. Its all well using sociological explanations but as far as I and most people reference to the western world are first world countries from Western Europe, United States, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and sometimes South Africa. Why the Phillipines would be included is beyond me, may as well include Singapore, japan then.

I'm sorry if you don't grasp what conception of western world I am referring to, but it doesn't include Mexico. A country where many of its citizens live in horrific poverty, thats the reason they have crime. Thus why I choose not to attribute it.

I'm really glad you're able to use copy and paste and also quote what I have say, but I'm not fond of such things, they're always rather boring.

I'm well aware the United States having had a gun culture for so long and then banning them thus forcing the undergrounding (is that even a word) of guns wouldn';t exactly work. I'm also not calling for a ban of guns. I think the US needs and all states should adopt such laws (as its easy to say put restrictions but some states have different laws so it is difficult) proper licensing system, no criminal or anyone thought to be dangerous should get be able to get a license. That means a licensing process where a person must get two independent sources saying this person is a good person because of blah blah blah. Perhaps even a psychiatric report. And once that they can get a license. Remove blatant gun weaponary that is not for recreational use (ie. hunting, sport) or self defense. The US or its citizens just do not need them. Gun shop owners and worklers should enquire as to why they want such gun weaponary. And mental patients or people thought to be dangerous should not be able to get a license. This license should be made nation-wide and could be used in all states. Perhaps there needs to be an adoption of gun laws like states have done with Jessica Laws. I wouldn't expect things to change immediate but such a process whereby gun owners must be licensed would mean that fewer people who ought to gain guns would not be able to obtain them. Yes this would also create an underground market, but then surely there is already an underground market.

[Roy Karrde]

I will not include Mexico or latin america because they are not western in nature. Western refers to economically developed countries not developing countries, therefore I took this piece from that Wikipedia source.

Western Countries are based on a multitude of criteria, some on economy which Mexico would not be considered, others on Social and Political Norms, which Mexico WOULD be a part of. Now if we were discussing Economic Transactions in the modern world your point would be valid, but no we are talking about Guns in Western Countries, that would be considered Social, and Mexico is considered a Social Economic Country.

Its all well using sociological explanations but as far as I and most people reference to the western world are first world countries from Western Europe, United States, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and sometimes South Africa. Why the Phillipines would be included is beyond me, may as well include Singapore, japan then.

That is only becuase those few fit all three, but we are not talking about Western Economies, again we are talking about Social Western Countries, which would fit a much broader list.

I'm sorry if you don't grasp what conception of western world I am referring to, but it doesn't include Mexico. A country where many of its citizens live in horrific poverty, thats the reason they have crime. Thus why I choose not to attribute it.

So Poverty automatically means you will comit a crime? You are just trying to throw what ever you have up against the wall when I have already proven that there are many ways to consider a Western Country.

I'm well aware the United States having had a gun culture for so long and then banning them thus forcing the undergrounding (is that even a word) of guns wouldn';t exactly work.

Good we agree on something, keep Iraq out of it and we can have a actual civilized debate.

I'm also not calling for a ban of guns. I think the US needs and all states should adopt such laws (as its easy to say put restrictions but some states have different laws so it is difficult) proper licensing system, no criminal or anyone thought to be dangerous should get be able to get a license. That means a licensing process where a person must get two independent sources saying this person is a good person because of blah blah blah. Perhaps even a psychiatric report. And once that they can get a license. Remove blatant gun weaponary that is not for recreational use (ie. hunting, sport) or self defense. The US or its citizens just do not need them.

All well and good, but that is going to stop inner city crime how? This would stop Cho how? You really need to do some research on Gun Laws, what each state has for a law as well as Federal Laws.

Gun shop owners and worklers should enquire as to why they want such gun weaponary.

Yes becuase people dont Lie.

And mental patients or people thought to be dangerous should not be able to get a license.

That already happens, the problem with Cho is that he said he didnt want to be in the hospital and left, he then lied on his Gun Application.

This license should be made nation-wide and could be used in all states. Perhaps there needs to be an adoption of gun laws like states have done with Jessica Laws. I wouldn't expect things to change immediate but such a process whereby gun owners must be licensed would mean that fewer people who ought to gain guns would not be able to obtain them. Yes this would also create an underground market, but then surely there is already an underground market.

There is already an underground market the only difference is that you will be limiting even more the families that live in the inner cities and such that want to play by the rules and protect their home. The Gangs and Criminals know where to get the guns, and if they do not they will find the way.

Anyway you made a whole post with out making a Politically Bigotted Statement on Republicans, going off topic on Iraq, or making a Blanket Statement, you get a Gold Star!

[firepokemon]

I continue to maintain that thoughts on the western world have remained the same and while their may be an academic debate taking place on what constitutes the western world I for one am not going to believe it.

Why would I be limiting inner-city families who want to live by the world? They can obtain a licence I see nothing that I have said that will limit american families from obtaining a gun for self defence. All I have said, is use a licensing system and get rid of weaponary that someone wouldn't be using for self defence or that is not needed for self defence.

Roy Karrde, also your american but I would think not even you know all state gun laws. I realise some have stricter conditions for gun use than others, but wouldn't some type of universal law be more helpful and surely you as a gun advocate realise there needs to be at least some gun restrictions. That does not mean limit recreational or self defense use. But surely for self defense you don't need a rifle or surely for self defense you don't need a powerful pistol. Wouldn't a normal easy pistol be just as good? Alsi I'm aware criminals will always find a way, but if you can make it at least more difficult that may mean just one more death as result of guns.

[Roy Karrde]

I continue to maintain that thoughts on the western world have remained the same and while their may be an academic debate taking place on what constitutes the western world I for one am not going to believe it.

That is fine, but you cannot deny that many countries these days would now constitute a "Western Country", based on one or two of the factors. back in the 70s you could sit a set of terms down and say "These are what constitute a Western Country" now days these terms have expanded. Saying that a Country isnt considered a Western Country in a debate on a Country on a Social means just becuase that country does not live up to the Economic mark for a Western Country is wrong.

Why would I be limiting inner-city families who want to live by the world? They can obtain a licence I see nothing that I have said that will limit american families from obtaining a gun for self defence. All I have said, is use a licensing system and get rid of weaponary that someone wouldn't be using for self defence or that is not needed for self defence.

Becuase making many people jump through a extrodinary amount of loop holes while the bad guys just go pick them up from a Chevy in the back of a 7-11 will put alot of families off. Besides I really think it should be the states or even the city that decides the gun laws. Someone buying a Gun in say a Rural Town in Utah shouldnt have to go through the same rules as some one buying a gun in Mid Town Los Angelas.

Roy Karrde, also your american but I would think not even you know all state gun laws. I realise some have stricter conditions for gun use than others, but wouldn't some type of universal law be more helpful and surely you as a gun advocate realise there needs to be at least some gun restrictions. That does not mean limit recreational or self defense use. But surely for self defense you don't need a rifle or surely for self defense you don't need a powerful pistol. Wouldn't a normal easy pistol be just as good? Alsi I'm aware criminals will always find a way, but if you can make it at least more difficult that may mean just one more death as result of guns.

My point with the state laws is that many of your ideas are already laws for some states, but many of them do not require laws like that. Placing down blanket laws can be good sometimes, but bad the other, in the end laws like these should more go on a city by city basis or a state by state basis than nation wide. A person in Los Angelas wouldnt need a Rifle or a High Powered Pistol, but a Farmer in Kansas who has to keep a look out for Foxes or Wolves may need one.

[firepokemon]

Well things should be adaptable city to city or state to state I would think that would be fine. I do think state power rather than city would be even better, otherwise I could not see how a licensing system could work.

[Roy Karrde]

Okay how did I get dragged into this again? Anyway I may actually be picking up a gun soon. Mind you I have never even seen a gun before in my life before. But my Apartment has had alot of frequent break ins, and yesterday I had a run in with a very very angry man who had a bad case of road rage, who lives just down the road. So I am starting to consider one for protection.

[anonymous]

I know that whatever i post will get me flamed, so I'll just let a picture do the talking instead.