We have the right to keep and bear arms.

[thegamerslink]

I find it hard to follow the logic of the anti-gun argument. If you outlaw the guns who remains? Who commits most violent crimes?

If all the countries got together and signed a new nuclear weapon proliferation and banned all nuclear weapons, would the world then be free of all nuclear weapons or would it just be more dangerous to those that didn't see themselves bound by the proliferation?

[thegamerslink]

9/11/2001 Did the hijackers use guns? Was the passenger of the Greyhound bus that was so brutally killed just recently in Canada a victim of a gun? Did guns play a role in the Oklahoma Federal Building Bombing? What good would gun control do for all of these victims?

[SmallBusinessSEO]

Originally Posted by Bob Barr

And please don't propose a national gun ban -- that's a sure-fire recipe for starting the Second American Revolution.

you see. personally (as in my opinion only ) I think this is the problem.

its not easy access to guns per se that's the problem, as proven by the Swiss, Canadians etc etc..

its easy access to guns for gung ho, macho bravado rootin' tootin' descended from cowboy Americans that's the problem.

until these types evolve a little higher its never going to change.

[Natural Elements]

You cannot please yourself for just one stereotype lawful gun owner.

Easy access to guns is a myth, law enforcement check your criminal background before you can even buy a gun.

Because it is a right to keep and bear arms, people are misleading by dishonest anti-guns propaganda.

Originally Posted by SmallBusinessSEO

you see. personally (as in my opinion only ) I think this is the problem.

its not easy access to guns per se that's the problem, as proven by the Swiss, Canadians etc etc..

its easy access to guns for gung ho, macho bravado rootin' tootin' descended from cowboy Americans that's the problem.

until these types evolve a little higher its never going to change.

[SmallBusinessSEO]

Originally Posted by Natural Elements

You cannot please yourself for just one stereotype lawful gun owner.

what does this mean?

Originally Posted by Natural Elements

Easy access to guns is a myth, law enforcement check your criminal background before you can even buy a gun.

by easy I mean the public can legally buy them.

Originally Posted by Natural Elements

Because it is a right to keep and bear arms, people are misleading by dishonest anti-guns propaganda.

if no-one was being murdered by them I would have no issues with their easy availability.

[Natural Elements]

1) I meant they can be cowboy, open carry or CCW they all are lawful.

2) Easy access because it is legally possible to own firearms? That's a little far fetched when you know many Europeen countries France included has millions firearmes owned by civilians. I don't even talk about US.

3) Do you really think lawful firearms owners meaning millions in US are ready to murder anyone?

4) "if no-one was being murdered by them I would have no issues with their easy availability."

Why not to say the same thing about some drivers killing people on the road under drug influence, alcohol, speeding and reckless driving, etc... Do you still driving your car knowing that?

They are far more people killed on the road than firearms !

[SmallBusinessSEO]

Originally Posted by Natural Elements

1) I meant they can be cowboy, open carry or CCW they all are lawful.

2) Easy access because it is legally possible to own firearms? That's a little far fetched when you know many Europeen countries France included has millions firearmes owned by civilians. I don't even talk about US.

3) Do you really think lawful firearms owners meaning millions in US are ready to murder anyone?

4) "if no-one was being murdered by them I would have no issues with their easy availability."

Why not to say the same thing about some drivers killing people on the road under drug influence, alcohol, speeding and reckless driving, etc...

They are far more people killed on the road than firearms !

this cars and driving thing doesn't really wash does it? these are accidental deaths, not someone pointing a weapon designed for one thing, and one thing only, to hurt or kill people, at another person, and deciding to pull the trigger.

apart from the small percentage of accidental discharge deaths it's not really the same is it?

and lol @ "France included" ..why single France out?

[Natural Elements]

I disagree with that: "this cars and driving thing doesn't really wash does it? these are accidental deaths"
When some people are under drug influence, alcohol, speeding and reckless driving, etc they are criminal
and there is no accidental deaths

I disagree with that: "pointing a weapon designed for one thing, and one thing only, to hurt or kill people, at another person, and deciding to pull the trigger."

It can save life, put some food on table when hunting, and you can enjoy shooting on paper target.

Don't make me wrong, I respect people who don't like firearms, but let people enjoying this right if they want to use it.

[thegamerslink]

If you're a felon, you can't legally buy a gun, if you have a mental illness history you can't legally buy a gun. If you are to young you can't legally buy a gun. It's not like you can just walk into a store any where and any time you want and walk out with whatever type of gun you want. Fully automatics are illegal.....there are a great many restrictions.

Who does a majority of the killing with guns? A majority of the killings come from previous felons, Gang members, mentally unstable people. Would a general gun ban prevent or lower the amount of gun related crimes committed by gang members and felons? Absolutely not, I mean, they don't have the guns they have legally to begin with so what difference would any kind of law make? Other than the fact that noone else would be able to protect themselves. Would the mentally ill be prevented from accessing guns to commit crime? That would depend on the circumstances I'm sure some would, but definitely not all of them, again, just those that are innocent would be defenseless.

Your anti-gun you must outlaw gun rhetoric is completely illogical and won't prevent those that are determined to commit acts of violence or kill others to do so. You won't prevent those that are determined to commit suicide from doing so either. You'll just force them to change their means. I guess after guns we'd get rid of the crossbows, bows, knifes, broken bottles, and anything else considered dangerous if put in the wrong person's hand?

[Bob Barr]

It's already happening in the wake of Britain's effort to ban guns:

Reducing knife crime
We need to ban the sale of long pointed kitchen knives

"Britain in the grip of knives terror—third of murder victims are now stabbed to death." Daily Express, 31 January 2005
"Stabbing rampage kills one, injures five—a large kitchen knife was found." Independent, 24 December 2004


Violent crime in the United Kingdom is increasing; figures from London show a 17.9% increase from 2003 to 2004, and one easily accessible weapon used in many incidents is the kitchen knife. Unfortunately, no data seem to have been collected to indicate how often kitchen knives are used in stabbings, but our own experience and that of police officers and pathologists we have spoken to indicates that they are used in at least half of all cases. UK government statistics show that 24% of 16 year old boys report carrying knives or other weapons and 19% admitting attacking someone with the intent to harm. Although other weapons—such as baseball bats, screwdrivers, and chains—are also carried, by far the most common weapons are knives. In the United Kingdom in the first two weeks of 2005 alone, 15 murders were attributed to stabbings and 16 other non-fatal attacks.

(more at link)

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/330/7502/1221

<added>
Sorry -- I forgot to mention, this is an editorial and is not government policy -- yet.
</added>

[Zap]

Originally Posted by thegamerslink

If all the countries got together and signed a new nuclear weapon proliferation and banned all nuclear weapons, would the world then be free of all nuclear weapons or would it just be more dangerous to those that didn't see themselves bound by the proliferation?

Following your logic, let's just ensure that everyone has access to nuclear weapons, since you have them.
How is Iran supposed to protect itself against you? They do have that right, so let's make sure they get them first.

Originally Posted by thegamerslink

9/11/2001 Did the hijackers use guns? Was the passenger of the Greyhound bus that was so brutally killed just recently in Canada a victim of a gun? Did guns play a role in the Oklahoma Federal Building Bombing? What good would gun control do for all of these victims?

So... Because gun control didn't stop these three things from happening, it has no merit at all?

[thegamerslink]

Originally Posted by Zap

Following your logic, let's just ensure that everyone has access to nuclear weapons, since you have them.
How is Iran supposed to protect itself against you? They do have that right, so let's make sure they get them first.



So... Because gun control didn't stop these three things from happening, it has no merit at all?

As sometimes you do Zap, you are completely missing or attempting to redirect the point, you are talking gun control, the topic is gun banning, the current nuclear proliferation treaty is for control not for banning of nuclear weapons, current gun laws are to control who should have them, not to prevent everyone from having them.

There is no argument that a mentally ill person, a convicted felon, or a child should not have guns. None whatsoever that I am aware of. In the same state of mind, if you look at the world as you would view citizens, would you feel comfortable handing a 357 or a 50 caliber machine gun to the patients of a mental facility, or to all the students of an elementary school?

[Zap]

Originally Posted by thegamerslink

As sometimes you do Zap, you are completely missing or attempting to redirect the point, you are talking gun control, the topic is gun banning, the current nuclear proliferation treaty is for control not for banning of nuclear weapons, current gun laws are to control who should have them, not to prevent everyone from having them.

Don't confuse your inability to grasp the concept with obfuscation of the point.
There's no difference in principle between the concept that you and your fellow citizens having the right to defend youselves against each other and countries doing the same.
If the US has nuclear weapons, then you gun loving hypocrites must allow Iran to defend itself against you with same.
So, let's begin rolling nuclear weapons out to Iran, Syria, North Korea and Iraq, for a start.
We'll get to work on the countries you pose an immediate threat to first. Then we'll arm the rest in good time.

Great idea, huh?

Originally Posted by thegamerslink

There is no argument that a mentally ill person, a convicted felon, or a child should not have guns. None whatsoever that I am aware of. In the same state of mind, if you look at the world as you would view citizens, would you feel comfortable handing a 357 or a 50 caliber machine gun to the patients of a mental facility, or to all the students of an elementary school?

Totally beside the point. You wouldn't allow your fellow citizens (the same people you feel the need to defend against) to determine your mental fitness for the purpose of obtaining a firearm, would you? No. Didn't think so.
That means that the US doesn't get to decide if other nations are fit for the purpose of obtaining nuclear weapons.

[thegamerslink]

You're such a character. A scary character but a character. Look it's simple, gun control is not the same thing as gun banning, not even close. And yes you have institutions in place to ensure that gun control is upheld and remains safe for the average citizen, that is part of being a citizen of the society. I mean do I want to relinquish the diagnosis to someone else? Not my first choice but since I am wanting to enjoy the right, and I am wanting to enjoy the protection and safety then I relent to those terms. If I don't want to relent to it, then I leave the society, move out into the woods, the country, move to an island, another contry something. Then I'm no longer restrained by the in place institutions.

On the world scale as in Iran and Syria and the like, you are just being out right stupid. It is for the world to decide whether a country should or should not have them, will one country lead the charge more than another? Of course, China led the charge agains N. Korea, they had a vested interest to do so. Will we lead the charge agains Syria and Iran, sure, not only have they openly targeted us with aggression but close allies as well. So the U.N. and world leaders are the institution that is in place to decide the control. And nuclear weapons pose to much of a danger on to big of a scale to be idiotic as you suggest. My opinion, if you could ensure that no one had them then all the better, but reality is that we have them, russia has them, india has them pakistan has them, and other places so you can't completely take them off the table, you can however ensure that those that have proven the responsibility to have them keeps control over them, and you can help those others that already have them ensure they keep them under control and honestly.

You may like them or something I don't know but Iran and Syria isn't any where close to fitting the bill under any of those circumstances. And I don't care who you are, if I'm holding a loaded gun and I'm trained to use it, and know that I won't unless I have to, I'm not going to hand it over to someone that has never had one before, never went through a class or someone I don't know what will do with it once they have it.

I believe if you try, and I know this to be hard for you as you've proven in the past :-) But if you use a little common sense, and mix it with a little reality you can see where sensible folks come from.

[Bob Barr]

Quote: