on the subject of guns and gun control:

being from canada may have something to do with it, or maybe its just common sense, but what freaking reason is there to own an AK 47, a fully automatic 9mm handgun? to protect yourself? Sporting purposes maybe

The mentality of needing more or bigger guns for protection leads only to a race to the bottom....see the cold war and the nuclear arms race as prime example. As for hunting game with a handgun or machine gun, well big man....hope u can hit the poor deer firing 200 rounds a minute.

Most gun crimes commited by criminals, (criminals, not random nut jobs) are perpetrated with hand guns......because any fool with no criminal record (read as that hasnt gotten caught yet) can obtain them. Ease of access equals more widespread distribution and use. In canada it is illegal to own a handgun without a permit that is not easy to obtain, let alone walking out of a weapons show with a sub machine gun. Our govenment even went so far as to implement a log gun registry forcing all gun owners in canada to register there rifles with authorities for crime control purposes, a costly and time consuming endeavor that was bound to fail....criminals arent gonna register there weapons cause the cops told them too are they.

Unfortunately for the sane citizens of the USA who dont feel the need to practice there constitutional right to bear arms alot do.....and this misinterpretation has resulte in the ability and more crazily the want for fully automatic and easily concealable weapons to be readily available to pretty much anyone who wants them. if they were illegal there would be 0 mass shootings in which hundreds of people are killed or wounded. We have very few instances of this nature that are at the level of what happens in the states.....craziest **** i remember was the guy in montreal at the girls school shooting girls with a hunting rifle.....if he had a machine gun...........dozens dead and injured instead of the 20 something it was

once again i ask you...............what the **** do you need handguns or machine guns for.....if no one can get them then the need to have them by others is eliminated.

as for subprime and the global recession....

a bunch of already stinking rich and powerful guys, including your government, took it upon themselves to abolish every law implemented following the depression to keep it from happening again since the regean era...all to make money for themselves.

they knew what they were doing the whole time....even bet against the securities they were creating to fail. the ceos of half the major companies involved were high ranking treasury officials....greenspan himself signed have the bills that allowed this mess to happen and whistle blowers were shouting the alarm 5 years earlier and were silenced.

to bad the ones that suffer out of this are you and me. people who should suffer are still rich as **** and really dont give a **** anyway,,,,they did this knowingly after all.

quote:

---

Originally posted by guruswamp:
As for hunting game with a handgun or machine gun, well big man....hope u can hit the poor deer firing 200 rounds a minute.

---

This is illegal here and I'd wager a guess its illegal everywhere. Beyond that, any bullet that hits the animal ruins the meat in the area hit so firing that many bullets at a deer would be dumb any how.

I've never fired a full auto weapon, but I sure would like to. It sounds like it would be something fun to do. I don't see any reason why I should be allowed to as long as I'm doing it somewhere safe.

choice is one thing.......but the difference between something like gay marriage or abortion say is much different then having the choice to buy weapons which, as you pointed out yourself, arent really useful for anything except killing.

i challenge you to find ANYTHING in canada where some lone nut case went into a public place and opened fire on inoccent people....except the one in montreal. there may be a few, but nothing that pops into my head. unlike the USA in which i can rhyme off a dozen such incidences without much thought

get rid of the automatic weapons and hand guns in the hands of randoms and your random gun crimes go down. Not crime related firearms offences, just the random nut jobs.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr.C:
The issue at hand isn't guns, its guns used by people who have no mental stability to do so.

---

Correct. Yet it would be unfair to prohibit guns to people. Like I said, the crazies would still find a way to hurt people. I know guruswamp can rattle off a dozen instances of gun related violence, but compare that to the percentage of people who own guns. 99% of gun owners will never go on a massacre shooting spree. Bad people will do bad things reguardless, guns and the majority of people who own them aren't bad though.

Back in the day people actually DID hunt for their food quite often.

The people who've run the country have been smart in realizing that the liklihood of us being invaded by another country is far less likely when everyone on each block in each small town owns firearms. (A slight exaggeration, I understand)

Also, there is the business aspect of it. I would imagine that a lot of people have made a lot of money over the centuries manufacturing/selling guns. And we all know where there's big money there's always gonna be big lobbying.

Just my thoughts in a nutshell.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bugger:
I also think that an infrastructure to minimize instances of both a) illegal use of weapons and b) mass murders should be built, because there clearly isn't one right now.

---

Sorry but you can't prove that mass murders would decrease with a better sanction against illegal useage of firearms. If somebody is sick enough to go on a killing rampage believe me they will use any means necessary. Guns are just a quick and easy method. If you took guns away you still have bombs, knives, blunt objects, allure of internet dating(craigslist killer) etc etc. You are opposed to guns bc they are used most often...not bc they are the most dangerous but bc they are easy and effective. The point Ill bring up again, if somebody is disturbed enough to start mass murdering lack of a gun will not stop them entirely if at all. Lack of firearms will not stop crime entirely. In fact it might actually increase. What does a robber have to fear if you take guns away? What deters them from mugging you a knifepoint? In not advocating that people need guns...but I sure as hell am tired of all the negative plublicity and utter stupidity of such comments against them. Taking away guns, having stricker policy, etc etc will not stop crime, it wont turn psychos into normal people again. If that is the only correlation anti-gun people can come up with thats a pretty bad and petty argument. Not only that, but it borders on unconstitutional thinking. Having your rights taken away from you on such a bs basis of thougt.

quote:

---

Originally posted by daner:
Guns are just a quick and easy method.

---

you just made my point for me, thanks. Are you willing to admit your stance here is "I know guns are a really easy way for deranged individuals to kill mass numbers of people, but I don't care"? Go right ahead bud.

quote:

---

You are opposed to guns bc they are used most often...not bc they are the most dangerous but bc they are easy and effective.

---

You continue to make my points for me, thanks.

quote:

---

The point Ill bring up again, if somebody is disturbed enough to start mass murdering lack of a gun will not stop them entirely if at all. Lack of firearms will not stop crime entirely.

---

Sorry, did I ever ****ing say that? I didn't? Okay then!

quote:

---

In fact it might actually increase.

---

mmmm, yummy unsubstantiated speculation.

quote:

---

but I sure as hell am tired of all the negative plublicity and utter stupidity of such comments against them.

---

Cool. I'm sick of argumentative people who are so gosh-darn eager to ignore anyone who deviates even slightly from their own opinions that they put words in their mouths.

quote:

---

Taking away guns, having stricker policy, etc etc will not stop crime, it wont turn psychos into normal people again.

---

I never said that, Dane, get your head out of your ass.

quote:

---

If that is the only correlation anti-gun people can come up with thats a pretty bad and petty argument.

---

1) it ain't, so thank god for that,
2) "anti-gun people" is as much a misnomer as "pro-life". Stop twisting the debate.

quote:

---

Edit: flophaus, you're dead on with the money aspect. Too much money is at stake...so Im sorry for all the anti-gun people, but you wont ever see guns taken away or heavily sanctioned. Your talking about a multi-billion a year business...Id go ad far to say trillions possibly worldwide every year. You have hunting, sport shooting, casual shooting, personal defense, millitary, and many others. You'd be hard pressed to stop the powers behind the gun and ammunition industry.

---

*snort* the hell is wrong with you that you think this is a good thing? Also, I'm not going to argue that the gun manufacturing lobbies aren't big, but for god's sake try to actually cite some statistics instead of pulling crap out of thin air. You have really hard opinions about things, which is fine, but you also have zero hard evidence behind them, which ain't. Come on man, your arguments would be a hell of a lot sronger with them, and I'm sure they're easy enough to find.

For homicides, the US, statistically, has a firearm-related rate that was 17th in the world in the last major studies. Of course the 16 countries with higher rates are from Africa, Central and South America, or Estonia.

Overall, our firearm-related death rate is on par with Mexico (which gets all that press because of drug-related killing).

I don't know of any study that has attempted to untangle motives for gun deaths outside of the home. Any hard conclusions would be really difficult to model and confirm.

But there have been studies of in-home gun violence. One of the main claims of US gun advocates is the need to protect one's home and family. To some extent this may be true for males. Or at least the at-home gun deaths of males are inconclusive.

quote:

---

Originally posted by hammr7:

I don't know of any study that has attempted to untangle motives for gun deaths outside of the home. Any hard conclusions would be really difficult to model and confirm.

---

Your missing the whole point man. guns have their place. Of this there is NO argument. Some kinds of weapons have no use except to destroy. These kinds of weapons have NO place in the hands of any of the 300 million people of the usa or the what? 6 billion other hands in the world. It is a race to the bottom.....in which noone wins as competing actors constantly strive against each other to maintain superiority. And its not just weapons, its fashion, sports, its everything. Its the whole culture of one upmanship and fearmngering on all levels.

If people didnt believe they needed guns for "protection"....the most common argument ive ever heard by the "pro gun" people, then people wouldnt have guns....bigger guns that fire faster and hold more rounds...

of course if you take away guns the truly ****ed up will find another way to do it. The point has already been made that the ease of aquisition of firearms makes them the go to method of choice...you honestly think most killings and shooting sprees are carried out by people who know how to make bombs? half these freaks just want recognition because they couldnt get it in the traditional ways and were tormented by people for not being able to keep up well enough in the arms race that is life. they still get noticed though....**** ya!

look at every other country in the world where you cant just buy easily concealable hand guns and automatic weapons; where its illegal to even possess them. There are virtually no incidences of people freaking out and shooting randoms in a crowd....almost no premiditated plots either. Its a hell of alot harder to make bombs and plant them places and detonate them then it is to just walk into a building with 5 AK 47's and shoot everything that moves.

its tragic that you think that choice is something that should never be tempered by the betterment or greater good of the majority. No one is saying you shouldnt be allowed to hunt or target shoot or whatever. No one needs to own a gatling gun, a M60 or a 9MM handgun.

quote:

---

Originally posted by hammr7:
For homicides, the US, statistically, has a firearm-related rate that was 17th in the world in the last major studies. Of course the 16 countries with higher rates are from Africa, Central and South America, or Estonia.

---

While this is completely true, it doesn't tell the whole story. For example, 35.8% of homicides last year in the UK involved stabbing deaths, as opposed to 13.2% in the US in 2008 (sorry, those were the most recent numbers I could find easily, though typically seems to be <15%). While I agree with the rest of your post, it is important to note removing those guns from the equation would not necessarily prevent the crime. Criminals are going to commit crime one way or another.

we could easily have another prohibition on or hands which was successful in increasing crime surrounding the subject of the control.

Now I don't disagree with regulations on people convicted of a crime. But the rest of us need not beer punished until said conviction.

edit:

quote:

In fact it might actually increase.

mmmm, yummy unsubstantiated speculation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bugger:
you just made my point for me, thanks. Are you willing to admit your stance here is "I know guns are a really easy way for deranged individuals to kill mass numbers of people, but I don't care"? Go right ahead bud.

You continue to make my points for me, thanks.

Sorry, did I ever ****ing say that? I didn't? Okay then!

mmmm, yummy unsubstantiated speculation.

Cool. I'm sick of argumentative people who are so gosh-darn eager to ignore anyone who deviates even slightly from their own opinions that they put words in their mouths.

I never said that, Dane, get your head out of your ass.

1) it ain't, so thank god for that,
2) "anti-gun people" is as much a misnomer as "pro-life". Stop twisting the debate.

*snort* the hell is wrong with you that you think this is a good thing? Also, I'm not going to argue that the gun manufacturing lobbies aren't big, but for god's sake try to actually cite some statistics instead of pulling crap out of thin air. You have really hard opinions about things, which is fine, but you also have zero hard evidence behind them, which ain't. Come on man, your arguments would be a hell of a lot sronger with them, and I'm sure they're easy enough to find.

---

Ok...then by your 1st vague comment what are you suggesting? BC it seems you have no idea about gun laws, how to aquire a gun, or anything else about a gun other than they hurt a lot of people in a given year, and you don't like them? Yea, there are some loopholes in the system, but so is the case for a LOT of other things. Would you like me to cite instances of how to aquire a car while avoiding taxes, then get minimal coverage on the vehicle? BC I can. You think nobody has ever walked into a DMV and fudged the numbers a bit?

You know what a background check is when purchasing a firearm? I mean...what are you going to say? That gun shows can get away with this? Well...sometimes yes, loopholes are around, and I for one am not a person who likes that. Guns should be taken seriously, I don't want to see people get injured by firearms. Yet your comment is lacking depth, so forgive me for taking it like you know nothing on the subject. What more can you ask for in the gun buying process? Full background check, any felony makes it illegal to purchase, own or carry. When buying ammo most places run your ID now. Taxes out the wazoo on both the guns and ammo, prices for ammo has doubled in the past decade. What more do you want? Shut down Gun Shows? OK...I'm fine with that, but please don't tell me they need stricker or better laws. How much better could you get? Full psychological evaluation on the spot if purchasing a gun?

You think that it's easy to own a fully atuomatic weapon? How's this...if you plan to purchase or own a fully automatic weapon you must first purchase a permit for it(which can cost well into the thousands), then you must buy a fire proof locking safe(sorry I don't remember how thick the steel must be, but there is a limit as to how thick it must be) that only that specific gun can go into, it CANNOT have ammo or magazines in the safe, only the gun can go in, and last but not least you must provide full blueprints of your home to local, state and government officials. Again....what more can you do? This is all before you even attempt to buy or aquire the gun which will run you well into the thousands from taxes. Out of couriosity once I asked a dealer or arms how much would it run you to buy an MP5, just for ****s and giggles I have no plans to ever, and he told me well over $50k all said and done. Again....what more could be done? It seems like you and guruswamp have a plan, I'd love to hear it. Honestly, I would....but here is another point that has been made, the fact that people shouldnt be allowed to own these? Why? Hey...if you want to drop a small fortune on a gattling gun by all means go ahead, it's your money. Who am I, and who are you to tell anyone what they can and cannot buy legally using thier own money? I'm sure people would scoff at us buying MTG cards, some people think it's stupid to drink alcohol...but you know what, it's what I LIKE TO DO, and it's MY MONEY. I'd have a hard time telling someone no just because. I'm sure you would too, bugger. Like I said please go into further detail as to why you think the system needs to be updated....and what would you propose?

quote:

---

Originally posted by guruswamp:
wow....wonder whos the card carrying NRA member in this discussion.....got a pic of charlton heston above yer bed daner?

---

Not me by a long shot pal. Yet I do believe in the admendment of the constitution. Further more I believe if your choice is to blow money on a anti-aircraft gun so be it...it's your money, it's your choice. It might not be for all, but it doesn't mean that just because a few people don't like it that it's wrong to do so. I'll revert back to Caquaa's post and how he referred to gay marriage, just like the purchase of guns(relativly speaking), it's that persons choice...and who am I to stand in their way or say no?

quote:

---

Originally posted by coasterdude84:
My solution: Tax the **** out of ammo.

---

They do.....my god do they ever. I use to target shoot as a hobby...NOT ANYMORE! A day at the range can easily hit $100 in a matter of min. I use to practice shooting ranged targets with my rifle, wanted to get into compettition....then they went ahead and taxed the ammo, now it's $2 every time I pull the trigger on my rifle. So a weekend hobby is now gone, and I only bring the gun out to sight in for hunting season, and use it to hunt.

quote:

---

Originally posted by djcards:
Making guns illegal for civilians will only give criminals and oppressive governments a fulcrum through which they can leverage consent.

we could easily have another prohibition on or hands which was successful in increasing crime surrounding the subject of the control.

Now I don't disagree with regulations on people convicted of a crime. But the rest of us need not beer punished until said conviction.

edit:

quote:

In fact it might actually increase.

mmmm, yummy unsubstantiated speculation.

Try prohibition...

---

Thank you.

EDIT:

This is taken right off the website for the GSS

"Household gun ownership peaked in 1977, when more than half (54 percent) of American households reported having any guns. By 2010, this number had dropped more than 20 percentage points to 32.3 percent of American households reporting having any guns in the home--the lowest level ever recorded by the GSS. In 2010, fewer than a third of American households reported having a gun in the home."

So gun onwership in America is down 20%....yet in the past 10-15 years(with declining numbers) you can say the most horrific accidents have occured, and it's probably getting worse as far as massive gun related incidents, or one could make the safe assessment. So who is to blame? Guns? I personally would blame a lot of things...but guns not one of them. Society is a good start. Just look at content on TV and how much you can get away with now opposed to 10 years ago. Broken households....whats the divorce rate up to now? 51% or something? Parenting....dear lord, please dont get me started on how bad parenting is today. I'm not going to go on, I'll just say this one last thing....you can blame guns, you can take them away, but it's not the guns. It's the people who cause the harm, the gun is merely the vessel for which they filter their aggression through. Taking away the ability to purchase guns might decrease crime, then again it might not. It's purely speculation. Will gun crimes stop? No. Will they go down....more than likely, but there is no solid proof that they will. Again, just speculation. I just ask for a min, that can you look at the subject in a sense that...if you were told how you can and cannot leagally spend your money you'd be "ok" with that decision. Forget guns for a second....let's say you are 21 and want to buy alcohol, but someone else deemed it bad for you and potentially others and you couldn't buy it. What about aggressive dog breeds? Cigarettes? Food? Fast Cars? ETC ETC......the can of worms that could be opened if you were to ever let a government regulate such rules. Again, I'm not saying you have to advocate guns, their purchase, their useage....but a lot of people own and operate them leagally, and to tell these people who the majority of them aren't going to ever have a problem how they should spend their money is offensive to me, and I also find it unconstitutional as well as borderline communist and fascist.

The US has more than 250 million guns (American Firearms Institute), or about 50% of the World's total for about 5% of the World's population (Wikipedia)).

Men in the US own about 90% of the guns (Wikipedia).

White households are more likely, at ~ 50%, to own guns than minority households at 15% to 20% (Nat Inst of Health). Interracial households have gun ownership rates slightly higher than minority households.

Rural households are more likely to own guns (~55%) than urban households (~18%) (American Firearms Institute) The suburbs fall in between these extremes.

In homes with guns, White gun owners own at least twice as many guns (an average of 4 registered firearms) as minority gun owners (an average of ~ 1.8 registered firearms).

These numbers might be affected by unregistered guns, which account for as much as 30% of annual sales. But anecdotal evidence, including surveys from the 5,000 or so annual US gun shows (where many unregistered firearms are purchased) support the likelihood that purchasers of unregistered guns are similar to those who purchase registered guns. Surveys of violent criminals shows that they get their weapons one or two transfers down the food chain from the gun shows.

So a decrease in US household gun ownership is mainly due to a changing racial makeup of US households. Urbanization of the population accounts for most of the rest of the change.

In the 1960's non-Hispanic Caucasian households represented close to 85% of the population, and interracial households were statistically insignificant. Today, only about 63% of the population is non-Hispanic Caucasian, and as few as 55% of households are non-Hispanic Caucasian.

In the 1960's about 30% of the population was rural, and rural whites had extremely high ownership levels. Today, less than 25% of the population is considered rural.

In summary, the growth of minority populations, especially in urban areas, have diluted gun ownership rates among the general population. Guns are much more popular among white males, especially rural white males, and there are fewer of them as a percentage of the total population.

Ok...then by your 1st vague comment what are you suggesting? BC it seems you have no idea about gun laws, how to aquire a gun, or anything else about a gun other than they hurt a lot of people in a given year, and you don't like them? Yea, there are some loopholes in the system, but so is the case for a LOT of other things. Would you like me to cite instances of how to aquire a car while avoiding taxes, then get minimal coverage on the vehicle? BC I can. You think nobody has ever walked into a DMV and fudged the numbers a bit?

> That's why we should forbid all firearm ownership.

You know what a background check is when purchasing a firearm? I mean...what are you going to say? That gun shows can get away with this? Well...sometimes yes, loopholes are around, and I for one am not a person who likes that. Guns should be taken seriously, I don't want to see people get injured by firearms. Yet your comment is lacking depth, so forgive me for taking it like you know nothing on the subject. What more can you ask for in the gun buying process? Full background check, any felony makes it illegal to purchase, own or carry. When buying ammo most places run your ID now. Taxes out the wazoo on both the guns and ammo, prices for ammo has doubled in the past decade. What more do you want? Shut down Gun Shows? OK...I'm fine with that, but please don't tell me they need stricker or better laws. How much better could you get? Full psychological evaluation on the spot if purchasing a gun?

> This doesn't really say anthing.

You think that it's easy to own a fully atuomatic weapon? How's this...if you plan to purchase or own a fully automatic weapon you must first purchase a permit for it(which can cost well into the thousands), then you must buy a fire proof locking safe(sorry I don't remember how thick the steel must be, but there is a limit as to how thick it must be) that only that specific gun can go into, it CANNOT have ammo or magazines in the safe, only the gun can go in, and last but not least you must provide full blueprints of your home to local, state and government officials. Again....what more can you do? This is all before you even attempt to buy or aquire the gun which will run you well into the thousands from taxes. Out of couriosity once I asked a dealer or arms how much would it run you to buy an MP5, just for ****s and giggles I have no plans to ever, and he told me well over $50k all said and done. Again....what more could be done? It seems like you and guruswamp have a plan, I'd love to hear it. Honestly, I would....but here is another point that has been made, the fact that people shouldnt be allowed to own these? Why? Hey...if you want to drop a small fortune on a gattling gun by all means go ahead, it's your money. Who am I, and who are you to tell anyone what they can and cannot buy legally using thier own money? I'm sure people would scoff at us buying MTG cards, some people think it's stupid to drink alcohol...but you know what, it's what I LIKE TO DO, and it's MY MONEY. I'd have a hard time telling someone no just because. I'm sure you would too, bugger. Like I said please go into further detail as to why you think the system needs to be updated....and what would you propose?

> False analogy. Guns should be banned because people die when ownership of them is widespread.

Not me by a long shot pal. Yet I do believe in the admendment of the constitution. Further more I believe if your choice is to blow money on a anti-aircraft gun so be it...it's your money, it's your choice. It might not be for all, but it doesn't mean that just because a few people don't like it that it's wrong to do so. I'll revert back to Caquaa's post and how he referred to gay marriage, just like the purchase of guns(relativly speaking), it's that persons choice...and who am I to stand in their way or say no?

> This doesn't add anything.

They do.....my god do they ever. I use to target shoot as a hobby...NOT ANYMORE! A day at the range can easily hit $100 in a matter of min. I use to practice shooting ranged targets with my rifle, wanted to get into compettition....then they went ahead and taxed the ammo, now it's $2 every time I pull the trigger on my rifle. So a weekend hobby is now gone, and I only bring the gun out to sight in for hunting season, and use it to hunt.

> If you want to hunt, take up archery and kill a dear like the in the good old days.

This is taken right off the website for the GSS

"Household gun ownership peaked in 1977, when more than half (54 percent) of American households reported having any guns. By 2010, this number had dropped more than 20 percentage points to 32.3 percent of American households reporting having any guns in the home--the lowest level ever recorded by the GSS. In 2010, fewer than a third of American households reported having a gun in the home."

> Correlation is not causation. C'mon, this is high school level stuff.

So gun onwership in America is down 20%....yet in the past 10-15 years(with declining numbers) you can say the most horrific accidents have occured, and it's probably getting worse as far as massive gun related incidents, or one could make the safe assessment.

> There's been gun murders in the US since there were white people in the US.

So who is to blame? Guns? I personally would blame a lot of things...but guns not one of them. Society is a good start. Just look at content on TV and how much you can get away with now opposed to 10 years ago.

> So it's TV's fault that crazies shoot up movie theatres and college campuses?

Broken households....whats the divorce rate up to now? 51% or something?

> Or is it freely available divorce?

Parenting....dear lord, please dont get me started on how bad parenting is today.

> Oh, I see, it must be bad parenting.

I'm not going to go on, I'll just say this one last thing....you can blame guns, you can take them away, but it's not the guns. It's the people who cause the harm, the gun is merely the vessel for which they filter their aggression through.

> It's awfully easy to kill somebody with a gun. It takes quite a bit of training to use a bow, somewhat less to use a sword, and somewhat less to use a knife or a dagger. Your argument suggests that people need to filter their aggression through weapons doesn't this validate my point that having such easy tools with which a life can be snuffed freely available is bad?

Taking away the ability to purchase guns might decrease crime, then again it might not.

> It will decrease gun crime. Eventually. There's an absurd amount of firearms floating around in the US. Compare US with any 1st world nation that restricts gun ownership.

It's purely speculation.

> No, it's not.

Will gun crimes stop? No. Will they go down....more than likely, but there is no solid proof that they will.

> It will eventually.

Again, just speculation.

> Nope

I just ask for a min, that can you look at the subject in a sense that...if you were told how you can and cannot leagally spend your money you'd be "ok" with that decision. Forget guns for a second....let's say you are 21 and want to buy alcohol, but someone else deemed it bad for you and potentially others and you couldn't buy it. What about aggressive dog breeds? Cigarettes? Food? Fast Cars?

> Ok so basically you oppose banning any substance? Where do you stop here? Would you legalize heroin? Would you legalize hiring a hitman, because it's a service you want to be able to freely spend your money on? What about bombs? Alcohol, dogs, smokes, bad food and fast cars are not tools designed specifically to kill somebody.

ETC ETC......the can of worms that could be opened if you were to ever let a government regulate such rules.

> Even in the US, there's an astounding number of services and substances you cannot legally purchase. Tanks, for example.

Again, I'm not saying you have to advocate guns, their purchase, their useage....but a lot of people own and operate them leagally, and to tell these people who the majority of them aren't going to ever have a problem how they should spend their money is offensive to me, and I also find it unconstitutional as well as borderline communist and fascist.

your point basically boils down to this.....i can do what i want and noone can curb my "freedom" to choose what to do with MY stuff. problem is when personal choice causes hardship for the rest of us, there becomes problematics.

why not make meth or crack legal? clearly i can make the choice for myself weather i wanna be a basehead or a meth head....who are you or the "man" to tell me crack is wrong, bad and the rest......is it illegal cause its bad or bad cause its illegal

take a minute and look at my points again plz

Punish people for what they do that infringes on the rights of others.

The war on drugs has been a complete and total failure and a complete waste of tax dollars. I am a proponent for legalizing all drugs. However, giving them to children absent a prescription should remain illegal.

What you do to yourself does not harm me or infringe upon my rights. If you do drugs then drive a car and kill someone, you should be punished for killing someone. No harm, no punishment.

I also think we should remove all obvious warning labels. Let stupid people remove themselves from the gene pool. Admittedly, I would have probably done this to myself long ago.

My gun ownership has never infringed upon anyone else's rights or safety. I have no problem with regulating gun ownership sensibly.

As it is, we have laws in place that regulate gun ownership already. They just need to be properly enforced.

Unless you are a millionaire, you are an idiot if you vote for Romney. If you are a millionaire, he is your candidate.

Michele Bachmann is an alien.

Christine O'donnell IS a witch.

Barack Obama is not perfect nor is he the anti-christ. He is a man doing a tough job. He is also a constitutional law professor. I will likely vote for him again and hopefully the Republican party will nominate someone better in 2016. If so, I will likely vote for them. In a two-party system, it's good to let both sides have a whack at it every so often.

If we would have elected Ross Perot, the national debt would be gone. He would've just paid it.

If you listen to Fox, switch over to MSNBC once in a while...

and vice versa.

Peace...

thru superior fire-power.

quote:

---

Originally posted by guruswamp:
why not make meth or crack legal?

---

yep, why not?

Although, I think that there is an important distinction that you should make.

If the government allows for the regulated growth of weed/marihuana/hash and regulated distribution (like the coffee shops over here), it would mean a big income to them.

It's a win-win (the following is based on what happened in our country when the legalized it):

- more people get jobs (coffeeshops etc, growth centres, people who check the shops/centres, although this could be better);
- no (less) small time dealers on the streets;
- as the government now controls the supply/demand, there is no need to smuggle the stuff anymore, meaning a decline in smuggling/small crime;
- government gets VAT.

As you're only allowed to smoke in your house or in the coffeeshops, no one is bothered by people who smoke.

It wouldn't solve all the problems, but it has worked like a charm over here.

__________________
/Thunder in the wind/No rain/Peace mourns its passing/

quote:

---

Originally posted by daner:
Ok...then by your 1st vague comment what are you suggesting? BC it seems you have no idea about gun laws, how to aquire a gun, or anything else about a gun other than they hurt a lot of people in a given year, and you don't like them?

---

Dane, I'm 19 years old. I try mightily to go against the grain of both people my age and people my age who are political science majors, and rather than pretend I know everything, I generally try to assume nothing. I have a vague grasp of gun laws - I know they differ state-by-state, and include among other things background checks, waiting periods, and various restrictions on different types of weapons (ie handguns v assault weapons v what-have-you) and ammunition. Beyond that? No, I don't, and I don't pretend that I do.
What I do see when I look around is a distressingly high number of incidents of mass shootings, and a homicide-by-firearm rate that's demonstrably higher than most all other first-world nations, and I wish that weren't so. And to my basic logic, it seems that modifying the standards and practices surrounding gun ownership and acquisition holds an answer. Not a perfect answer - because nothing in this world is perfect, never has been and never will be - but a solution of some degree. And I think it's an attempt worth making. And while I am freely open to be swayed by statistics and hard evidence, I have no patience for people whose stance basically amounts to "eh, it doesn't affect me and I don't want to think about it, so **** it, let's not address the problem".
Because, see, that's not how society works.

quote:

---

Yea, there are some loopholes in the system, but so is the case for a LOT of other things.

---

Dane, did you flunk out of kindergarten? This amounts to "several wrongs make a right". The hell kind of terrible logic is that?

quote:

---

Would you like me to cite instances of how to aquire a car while avoiding taxes, then get minimal coverage on the vehicle? BC I can.

---

YES. Please. Not because the statistics would be relevant at all - they're not - but because you've substantiated absolutely none of the claims you've made in this thread, and it'll restore a good deal of faith to know that you're actually capable of providing evidence for things, and you just choose (for whatever reason) not to.

quote:

---

You know what a background check is when purchasing a firearm? I mean...what are you going to say? That gun shows can get away with this?

---

I would, but I don't have to! You did it for me:

quote:

---

Well...sometimes yes, loopholes are around, and I for one am not a person who likes that.

---

Neither am I!

quote:

---

Guns should be taken seriously, I don't want to see people get injured by firearms.

---

I agree!

quote:

---

Yet your comment is lacking depth, so forgive me for taking it like you know nothing on the subject. What more can you ask for in the gun buying process? Full background check, any felony makes it illegal to purchase, own or carry. When buying ammo most places run your ID now. Taxes out the wazoo on both the guns and ammo, prices for ammo has doubled in the past decade. What more do you want? Shut down Gun Shows? OK...I'm fine with that, but please don't tell me they need stricker or better laws. How much better could you get? Full psychological evaluation on the spot if purchasing a gun?

---

Dane, the difference between you and I isn't in how many concrete facts we know on this subject, it's in how convinced we are that we know the solution to the entire problem. Like I said, I'm 19 years old. I never pretended, stated, or implied that I knew concrete solutions. I have suggestions. But if I had to start somewhere, I rather like Hammr7's proposition at the close of the last Post for Politics. You're the one who, with no support, acts like he knows the entire horribly complicated situation inside-and-out.

quote:

---

You think that it's easy to own a fully atuomatic weapon?

---

Why the **** would you ever need a fully automatic weapon?
Are you planning on using suppressive fire on some deer?

quote:

---

How's this...if you plan to purchase or own a fully automatic weapon you must first purchase a permit for it(which can cost well into the thousands), then you must buy a fire proof locking safe(sorry I don't remember how thick the steel must be, but there is a limit as to how thick it must be) that only that specific gun can go into, it CANNOT have ammo or magazines in the safe, only the gun can go in, and last but not least you must provide full blueprints of your home to local, state and government officials.

---

For a fully automatic weapon? Sounds good to me.

quote:

---

Again....what more can you do? This is all before you even attempt to buy or aquire the gun which will run you well into the thousands from taxes. Out of couriosity once I asked a dealer or arms how much would it run you to buy an MP5, just for ****s and giggles I have no plans to ever, and he told me well over $50k all said and done.

---

That's good. That makes me glad to know that it's not easy to acquire a mother****ing MP5.

quote:

---

Again....what more could be done? It seems like you and guruswamp have a plan, I'd love to hear it.

---

Oh, that's the problem. Rather than read what I'm saying, you're lumping me in with guruswamp. Try to avoid doing that.

quote:

---

Honestly, I would....but here is another point that has been made, the fact that people shouldnt be allowed to own these? Why? Hey...if you want to drop a small fortune on a gattling gun by all means go ahead, it's your money. Who am I, and who are you to tell anyone what they can and cannot buy legally using thier own money? I'm sure people would scoff at us buying MTG cards, some people think it's stupid to drink alcohol...but you know what, it's what I LIKE TO DO, and it's MY MONEY. I'd have a hard time telling someone no just because. I'm sure you would too, bugger. Like I said please go into further detail as to why you think the system needs to be updated

---

I don't need to, sweetie. I've said it over and over and over and over and over again. So often, actually, that I'm not going to bother retyping it here. Hint: You can find it spelled out in the first post i make in this thread!

quote:

---

Not me by a long shot pal. Yet I do believe in the admendment of the constitution.

---

Well that's a relief; good to know you meet one of the basic requirements for citizenship into this country. Do you pay your taxes and serve for Jury Duty?

quote:

---

Further more I believe if your choice is to blow money on a anti-aircraft gun so be it...it's your money, it's your choice. It might not be for all, but it doesn't mean that just because a few people don't like it that it's wrong to do so. I'll revert back to Caquaa's post and how he referred to gay marriage, just like the purchase of guns(relativly speaking), it's that persons choice...and who am I to stand in their way or say no?

---

No.
No, it's really not.
Two men marrying each other doesn't put me, the hypothetical neighbor, in the same kind of danger that them buying a fully-automatic AK-47 does. So yeah, I think it should be more complicated to acquire a gun than to snap into a slim jim.

Now, I know this isn't relevant to the discussion you and I are having, so ordinarily I wouldn't drag it in here, but I can't let this slide by without commenting:

quote:

---

and I also find it unconstitutional as well as borderline communist and fascist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bugger:
No.
No, it's really not.
Two men marrying each other doesn't put me, the hypothetical neighbor, in the same kind of danger that them buying a fully-automatic AK-47 does. So yeah, I think it should be more complicated to acquire a gun than to snap into a slim jim.

---

Actually, the gay pride was here last weekend in Amsterdam. You'll be amazed in what kind of danger you can get by just standing in the crowd with a few beers down the hatch. Every guy looking at you suddenly makes you feel your poophole-sacredness is in jeopardy.

Note I have nothing against gay people before we get that going. Being at the gay pride is cool. Having photographed a few marriages myself, see my website if interested)

quote:

---

Originally posted by AEther Storm:
Actually, the gay pride was here last weekend in Amsterdam. You'll be amazed in what kind of danger you can get by just standing in the crowd with a few beers down the hatch. Every guy looking at you suddenly makes you feel your poophole-sacredness is in jeopardy.

Note I have nothing against gay people before we get that going. Being at the gay pride is cool. Having photographed a few marriages myself, see my website if interested)

---