Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 146): They've banned personal weapons in many countries

If there were only 15-30,000 guns in the US, and the area was only a few hundred square miles, I'd endorse that mentality here. OK argue that Austrailia is as big if not bigger then the US, fine whatever, you have what; 1% of our population? The reason why I am quick to invalidate the comparrisons of other countries is easy, nothing compares to the US in size and depth of people with legal gun owners. Sure the Indians and Chinese have more people, but they NEVER had the RIGHT to own weapons. We did, it was a pandora's box, it was opened many years ago, and now we have to live with it because it's impossible to close. Given that the guns are going no where, and I do not consider moving to New Zealand a viable option, I must take the action left to me and arm myself.

Quoting Queso (Reply 149): Sorry, I really didn't mean it in that manner, I was just using that as one clear example out of many possible ones.

I know, I just clarified what you said.

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 150): I must take the action left to me and arm myself.

And you're welcome to try the guns that I bring to BHM, Ted. I'll be happy to help with any advice you might want to ask of me and I'm sure the others on here who are gun owners will too.

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 150): The reason why I am quick to invalidate the comparrisons of other countries is easy, nothing compares to the US in size and depth of people with legal gun owners.

We agree Ted. I thought I was making the same point you were.

Can't compare the US to the UK, Denmark, Switzerland . . . all three of which would fit inside Alaska, and have room left over for several more.

Quoting Queso (Reply 152): Quoting TedTAce (Reply 150): I must take the action left to me and arm myself. And you're welcome to try the guns that I bring to BHM, Ted. I'll be happy to help with any advice you might want to ask of me and I'm sure the others on here who are gun owners will too.

  

Come to the BHM shoot 'em up. Surely you owe me a beer for something you've said to me in the last 2 years. LOL

Quoting Queso (Reply 152): And you're welcome to try the guns that I bring to BHM, Ted.

Don't do it Ted, he'll SIG you!!

Quoting N229NW (Reply 147): for every time that more citizens having guns defuses or prevents a tragic situation, there are ten times that more

Care to back that up sport?

Quoting N229NW (Reply 147): surely there can be safer regulations in place about where they can be bought, kept, used ,etc.--and who can have them.

Oh yeah, all said regulations were in place yesterday, yet it happened. Law #1 Broken: The firearms were stripped of their serial #'s. Law #2 Broken the prick brought said firearms to campus. Two laws broken, yet 32 innocent people are dead, care to suggest yet another law for a criminal like this guy to ignore before this happens again?

Quoting Queso (Reply 152): And you're welcome to try the guns that I bring to BHM, Ted. I'll be happy to help with any advice you might want to ask of me and I'm sure the others on here who are gun owners will too.

Thanks, I'm looking forward to it. Once we get close I'm going to make arrangments for purchasing my own ammo for common types and re-embursing people like you for what I'll use that might not be common or don't want 'common' ammo in their weapons. We shall cross that bridge once the BHM meet thread gets active again in early October.

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 7): Quoting L-188 (Reply 3): He didn't want us to get the "Toy" association. Excellent thinking if you think about it.

And I agree with it. Hopefully when and if I have kids, getting to go shooting with their old man will be viewed as I viewed it, a reward for good grades and behavior.

Quoting VonRichtofen (Reply 15): yet they're afraid to leave their house without packin heat

Actually, I never carry a firearm in day to day life.....going out in the woods, I feel a hell of a lot better. Of course the big issue there are bears.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 26): For all those who hate when 'right wing nuts' tell them how to live their lives, remember that when you start strongly advocating gun control you become the exact opposite, 'left wing nuts' telling people how to live their lives.

Got to agree with you with that line, so isn't it better to error on the side of the 2nd amendment and civil rights?

Quoting Gunsontheroof (Reply 31): So by that math, about 20% of the population owns a weapon, though I think it is notable that there are enough weapons in the country for 2/3 of the population.

I don't find that surprising, guns are tools so those that own them and hunt will have multiple weapons for multiple jobs. A .338 Winchester is just big enough for a brown bear or moose, but would vaporize a rabbit.

Quoting KiwiinOz (Reply 35): This begs the further question that, if you dry up supply so profoundly as you suggest, surely less guns in circulation would result in less guns in criminal hands?

That is just it, you aren't going to dry up the supply. Look at WWII. All the countries involved designed sub-machine guns such as the Sten and Grease Gun that could be rapidly produced, used little material, and could be assembled by unskilled labor without using specialized tooling. What would prevent that manufacture occuring in this day and age? It happens with Meth and most hotel room labs aren't run by people with masters degrees in chemistry. And a gun shop would be more difficult to detect. Especially when you consider that componets could be manufactered at many different locations and then only brought together at the end.

Quoting B777-700 (Reply 90): Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 88): Remember that the Constitution was written in blood after men with privately owned flintlock muskets and kentucky rifles who fought the worlds best trained army and grabbed their freedom.

Those men where armed with weapons equal and in many ways superior to the "Brown Bess" that the redcoats where using. I would make the arguement that the founders of the constitution intended that Americans own weapons equal to what the military would use.

Quoting CastleIsland (Reply 108): The second half of this statement is predicated upon the first half. So my point is, if one is to invoke their Constitutional right, that right should only be granted for purposes of being able to form a militia to keep the government in line (this would include target shooting, as it is a necessary part of maintaining a militia). Use of firearms for personal protection should be a matter of criminal and State law, not a matter of the Constitution.

Actually, a federal appeals court ruled that the individual right is guarenteed in that Washington DC case. It is being appealed of course by the dicks in charge of DC.

Quoting Queso (Reply 130): As I mentioned in another thread, even CNN's Jack Cafferty is supportive of guns on campuses

I know, it is a nice change compared to the way the news was in the 1990's.

I also thought it was interesting that two years ago there was a bill in the Virginia Legistature to allow students to carry weapons and it was defeated.

VT lobbied against this law-I can't help but wonder if it's failure might have increased the death toll.

http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/wb/xp-50658

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 153): Can't compare the US to the UK, Denmark, Switzerland . . . all three of which would fit inside Alaska, and have room left over for several more.

Sorry, I didn't get it - what does the size of a country have to do with gun-related deaths? (No offense intended with the question - I really just missed the point.)

Quoting Queso (Reply 130): Whatever the reason, I think more and more people are seeing things the same way Ted described. And I think it's a positive change that will make our society safer.

What makes you think so? Again, is it coincidence that the country with the highest per-capita gun rate also has the highest rate of deaths caused by guns? And why do you believe that increasing the number of guns will increase the level of security?

Again, no intention to flame or attack any of you - I'm perfectly fine with any of you carrying a gun. I am just trying to understand your position.

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 155): Oh yeah, all said regulations were in place yesterday, yet it happened. Law #1 Broken: The firearms were stripped of their serial #'s. Law #2 Broken the prick brought said firearms to campus. Two laws broken, yet 32 innocent people are dead, care to suggest yet another law for a criminal like this guy to ignore before this happens again?

If he haden't the possibility to buy very easily for 500$ a gun and 50 ammunitions, like said on CNN, he wouldn't have had a gun.
Contrary to what you say, this guy wasn't a criminal before he did this, he had no connection with the mafia to find illegally a gun. He was just a normal guy, with mental problems, like everyone of us could experience.
You say he broke 2 laws. My God, do you imagine, he erased the serial number whilst it was forbidden. Man, that is a real protection for people in the street not to be shot at !!

By the way, you forgot the Law #3 broken: it's forbidden to shoot at your class mates in order to send them in a grave.


When will you realize ?

[Edited 2007-04-18 10:16:29]

Quoting TedTAce (Thread starter): Namely take an incident like today. If COLLEGE AGE students who are LAW abiding students were allowed to bring their weapons to class it's possible one of them might have been in a position to stop this earlier and save some lives.

Very unlikely. In situations like this chaos and panic breaks out. More likely unable to identify the attacker they would start shooting at each other and death toll could be hundred or more.

Much better way would be to prevent sick mind kinds like V Tech shooter from having access to weapons.

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 155): Quoting N229NW (Reply 147): for every time that more citizens having guns defuses or prevents a tragic situation, there are ten times that more Care to back that up sport?

Sure.
Simple statistics between US and Europe prove the negative effects of weapons in free circulation.
It's not necessary to be a genius to understand that.

The mistake you made is that you think only registered criminals are dangerous with a gun. In fact, ordinary people who have the right to buy as many guns as they want, are even more dangerous because they may become one day or another criminals by accident. And nothing can be prevented, because by definition, before they make anything illegal, they are not criminals.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 153): a beer

Just one? (Cringing at the thought of the bar and Ammunition bill)

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 154): Don't do it Ted, he'll SIG you!!

   That MIGHT not be a bad thing. I know someone with a sig. I know the Baretta's are overpriced and not THAT good, but I can't get the memory of how 'good' it felt to have one in my hand several years back. Hopefully I'll find something cheaper and more accurate @ BHM.

Quoting Sebolino (Reply 158): When will you realize ?

It think it's you that has realzation issues. You forget that my opinion is based on pragmitizim, yours is based on utopian   

Quoting Danny (Reply 159): Much better way would be to prevent sick mind kinds like V Tech shooter from having access to weapons.

How?

Quoting Sebolino (Reply 160): Simple statistics between US and Europe prove the negative effects of weapons in free circulation.

From your ?? Cite a source. Oh wait, never mind, because your #'s are going to be based on a country THAT CAN BAN WEAPONS.

It's absolutely hilarious to me that you overseas anti gun people are replying to this thread like you have a clue. You obviously didn't read my first post throughly or you wouldn't be wasting your time.

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 161): It's absolutely hilarious to me that you overseas anti gun people are replying to this thread like you have a clue. You obviously didn't read my first post throughly or you wouldn't be wasting your time.

Even overseas members of this forum live in countries with gun-related violence and have -surprise- some times distinct expertise in this field.You don't have to be a gun-carrier to understand the issues tied to the second amendment in the US constitution.
While there seems a majority of American members in this forum ,who advocate rather more than less arms in circulation,
a majority of non-American members seem to be of the opposite opinion.
Ultimately ,if your constitution gives the right to citizens to carry guns,that right is applicable in certain states only .
So there are US politicians who have different ideas about the side-effects - too many guns in hands where they do not belong.
Can you really imagine a university-campus where 18-20 year old teenagers walk around with semi-automatic weapons ???
Having a party and impress your campus-girlfriend with your "firepower" ,after consumption of alcohol and/or drugs ???
That's the most stupid suggestion I have come across so far !!!
You can get the permission in most European countries to own a gun after severe checks and inquiries.
So the law exists -it's just nobody really cares to own a gun in most countries, because the perceived threat from fellow citizens is not great .

Quoting AC773 (Reply 122): That said: US gun control acts were put into law in 1934, 1968, 1986, 1993, and 1994 - each time tightening the restrictions on who can own a gun and who can't. The result?

And if you look closely at the graph, in both 1986 and 1993 it actually went up, when according to your logic it should have gone down. 1934 and 1968 are outside the graph, so they can't be commented on.

Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 148): Where'd he go ?

Trying to find one of these:

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 161): Quoting Sebolino (Reply 158): When will you realize ? It think it's you that has realzation issues. You forget that my opinion is based on pragmitizim, yours is based on utopian

My dear TedTace, what you call utopia is Europe, where there are 12 times less killed people by firearms than in the United states, per capita, for the sole reason than firearms are not in free circulation . The culture of "security" is not so intense (which is the reason for the weapons in free circulation).
You totally refuse to see it, which clearly show that you have a problem realizing things, and you buy a cheap excuse calling it pragmatism. The pragmatism which murders 11000 people by firearms every year in the US.

Quoting Beaucaire (Reply 162): Having a party and impress your campus-girlfriend with your "firepower" ,after consumption of alcohol and/or drugs ???

Who said that? Once again, you replied without reading my original post. If you insist on proclaiming your ignorance by posting on what isn't even the real subject at hand; go right ahead.

Quoting KaiGywer (Reply 163): Trying to find one of these:

Signed,

Klaus  

Quoting Sebolino (Reply 164): for the sole reason than firearms are not in free circulation

Source?

How can you state your OPINION as FACT?

Quoting Sebolino (Reply 164): You totally refuse to see it,

No, you refuse to see (as another person REFUSING to read my original post) that America will NEVER get rid of the guns. Do I like that? NO. But it's a lot better then living in Europe.

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 155): Oh yeah, all said regulations were in place yesterday, yet it happened. Law #1 Broken: The firearms were stripped of their serial #'s. Law #2 Broken the prick brought said firearms to campus. Two laws broken, yet 32 innocent people are dead, care to suggest yet another law for a criminal like this guy to ignore before this happens again?

It's easy to break laws with a gun once you have it and you are crazy. Access to the guns in the first place is the issue.

It's a little like saying that a 16-year-old who dies from speeding and driving drunk could still have broken those laws if he wasn't allowed to drive. Sure, but he'd be a lot less likely to do so--why are so few FIFTEEN-year-olds involved in car crashes? Because they have to take or get the car illegally in the first place. Easy access makes it more likely that the problem will occur.

And yes, I am well aware that plenty of people could go on and get their guns on the black market (which is why I'm not proposing making firearems sale illegal once so many people are used to having them--because that worked so well with prohibition   , but the overall number of guns would go down if there were better training and background regulations.) Raising the age of legally buying cigarettes means teenagers smoke less for example, whether or not some people break the law. Again, access.

Quoting N229NW (Reply 168): if there were better training and background regulations

There already is a background check being done to buy a gun. The training, I'll agree with you on. There should be a mandatory gun safety class to own any kind of gun.

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 167): But it's a lot better then living in Europe.

A correction required here perchance?

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 146): Furthermore, places like Australia and the UK, where they maintain strict gun laws, have one serious problem. The people that have the weapons . . . are the criminals. They won't admit it. They'll cite sources and produce graphs, but they won't admit the obvious - and the simple: They've banned personal weapons in many countries, so the upstanding citizens, the law-abiders, have surrendered their firearms. Only the criminal have them now.

You miss the point ANCFlyer. Studies in all countries show that:
1. Most illegal guns were once legal. In other words, they sold illegally into the wrong hands, or stolen.
2. If you reduce the "legal" pool of guns in society (by restricting gun ownership for everyone), then you also reduce the pool of illegal guns, and hence murders and crime by guns.

Quoting CastleIsland (Reply 108): True, but another point I'm getting at is that gun owners cite their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, but rarely do they cite the reason they were given this right: [to maintain] a well-regulated militia [that is] necessary to the security of a free State. Freedom from governmental tyranny, not freedom from someone attacking you. Given that society has evolved into what it has become, I can see that self-protection has become perhaps the primary use of firearms in this country, but the Constitution doesn't grant the right for that purpose.

As CastleIsland pointed out above, the right to bear arms was designed and intended for a new agrarian and frontier society, and certainly not for self-defense. The right to bear arms was not intended for the developed, urban society as the US has become.

Quoting Sebolino (Reply 160): In fact, ordinary people who have the right to buy as many guns as they want, are even more dangerous because they may become one day or another criminals by accident. And nothing can be prevented, because by definition, before they make anything illegal, they are not criminals.

Exactly! This is why guns need to be banned. This South Korean student was a perfectly normal kid with no criminal record, at least until he killed 33 people. How many more "law-abiding" Americans can be allowed to run around all trigger-happy until they shoot someone and immediately become a criminal?

Canada is today far more of a "frontier" society than the US, with a much smaller population in a larger country, wide open undeveloped tracts of land, and yet we have much stronger gun laws than the US. The death rate by gun murder in the US is 16 times higher in the US than Canada. It seems to me that Canada has become a "freer" society than the US by restricting gun use -- the ultimate freedom is the freedom from fear of being shot.

The US needs to:
1. Ban all gun ownership in all urban areas.
2. Only allow gun ownership in rural areas for hunters and farmers with a demonstrated need for a gun, and with no criminal records, and with no record of having been a victim of theft (the biggest source of guns into illegal use).

Newspapers throughout the Western world (outside the US) have reacted with horror at this event, and quickly and correctly pointed to the liberal gun laws that precipitated this. The gun culture in the US has got to be reigned in, for the sake of Americans.

I'm also shocked at how many Americans (even in this thread) take pains to point out that they are not "anti-gun". The US has become cowed by the NRA. How sad.

Quoting ORFflyer (Reply 166): Source? How can you state your OPINION as FACT?

Strange defense.

Fact#1 : the numbers of people murdered by firearms in the states 11000 per year, killed (incl. suicide) 30000.
Fact#2 : In Europe the statistics I found (wikipedia) give between 0,7 and 2,1 (Poland) murders per 100000 inhabitants, but not only by firearms, all murders, and 6,2 in the US (17000 in which about 11000 are by firearms - the vast majority).
Fact#3 : the EU and the US are 2 rich zones, the societies are basically the same, with some differences on economic views, religion and military power, but no fundamental differences except this sentiment for the Americans that they need to have a weapon to defend themselves.
Fact#4 : the history of violence is much worse in Europe than it has been in the US, you don't have the history of middle age when people where burned or tortured in the streets, you don't have had an holocaust, you don't have had dozens of wars to invade a region and take a castle or territory, all you had was Indians with arrows (before this amendment).
Fact#5 : the US is the country in the world with the most weapons per capita, and still not a peaceful country.
Fact#6 : A gun is made to kill. Don't be surprised if with 200 Millions guns in circulation so many people are murdered by them.

You want sources and facts, but what sources can I give you which say what's in your mind ? That's a poor defense.
But it's your turn now to give me sources and facts to explain how good it is for your society to have 200 millions guns in circulation. Please go on, I'm interested ...

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 167): No, you refuse to see (as another person REFUSING to read my original post) that America will NEVER get rid of the guns. Do I like that?

1) Don't be too sure of that. History has shown that even the Americans so sure of their good rights have changed their views on many subjects in the past (you remember the face of the US before Martin Luther King, brrr it was ugly).

2) Do I like that ?
I don't care as long as I don't live in this country. I just express my opinion. If you can't take it it's your problem.

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 167): But it's a lot better then living in Europe.

Perhaps. What make you think that ?

Quoting WSOY (Reply 170): A correction required here perchance?

  

Quoting Sebolino (Reply 172): Strange defense.

Asking for citations for the things you are claiming as fact? Nothing strange about asking someone to back up their   

Quoting KaiGywer (Reply 169): There already is a background check being done to buy a gun. The training, I'll agree with you on. There should be a mandatory gun safety class to own any kind of gun.

Can anyone explain how this Korean kid just went to the shop and bought semi-automatic?? How?

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 174): Asking for citations for the things you are claiming as fact? Nothing strange about asking someone to back up their

Those statistics are easily available on the Internet.

[Edited 2007-04-18 15:25:53]

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 174): Quoting Sebolino (Reply 172): Strange defense. Asking for citations for the things you are claiming as fact? Nothing strange about asking someone to back up their

I gave you the stats taken mainly from wikipedia. Now give me your sources and facts to prove you are safer with 200 millions guns in your country than if you were without. I'm waiting.

Quoting Yyz717 (Reply 171): The US needs to: 1. Ban all gun ownership in all urban areas. 2. Only allow gun ownership in rural areas for hunters and farmers with a demonstrated need for a gun, and with no criminal records, and with no record of having been a victim of theft (the biggest source of guns into illegal use).

Absolutely supported. The gun laws here in Finland are in the main equal to what you present (Canadian regulations?). The victim of theft clause is missing here, but all guns need to be kept locked up at all times.

Quoting Slovacek747 (Reply 17): everyone over the age of 18 with training should be able to carry a firearm on their hip just like a cop

That's just wonderful idea.   Welcome back to 1800s

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 161): It's absolutely hilarious to me that you overseas anti gun people are replying to this thread like you have a clue.

Then why didn't you mark your thread that you want only a.netters from the US to reply (preferrably those with consenting opinion)? Also, I don't think it's hard to find some other forum where you will face less opposition. Does NRA have one? www.forum.triggerhappy.org ?

Quoting Sebolino (Reply 173): I just express my opinion.

Then call it OPINION, NOT "FACT"

Quoting Sebolino (Reply 173): What make you think that ?

You.

Quoting Danny (Reply 175): Tho statistics are easily available on the Internet.

Then give us the links

Quoting Sebolino (Reply 176): wikipedia.

Oh yeah, the source that's banned by almost all academic institutions. Good source  

Quoting Sebolino (Reply 176): Now give me your sources and facts to prove you are safer with 200 millions guns in your country than if you were without.

I never said that.

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 178): Does NRA have one?

Probably, but they are just as nutty as you on the opposite end.

Quoting WSOY (Reply 177): but all guns need to be kept locked up at all times.

Same thing in France. You can have a gun at your home under certain conditions (be in a shooting club for 6 months, the Police makes an inquiry on you ...), you must lock it in an armoured case (with proof) and have the right to carry it outside in a case only if it's unloaded and not immediately usable.

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 179): Quoting Sebolino (Reply 176): wikipedia. Oh yeah, the source that's banned by almost all academic institutions. Good source

OK, so you dismiss the numbers given by wikipedia and easily backed by other sites. Give your numbers then, it sounds so easy for you to counter attack.

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 179): Quoting Sebolino (Reply 173): What make you think that ? You.

Ah OK, I see. You're a genius.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 146): Ahhh, my dear friend TedT, it will. When our Oz friends awaken and read this thread we shall all be told what morons we are and why we MUST, hastily, ban all weapons. Amazingly, citizens of countries thousands of miles from the US, as wonderful as they are (bother countries and the citizens) have a propensity for declaring what is BEST for the US. Furthermore, places like Australia and the UK, where they maintain strict gun laws, have one serious problem. The people that have the weapons . . . are the criminals. They won't admit it. They'll cite sources and produce graphs, but they won't admit the obvious - and the simple: They've banned personal weapons in many countries, so the upstanding citizens, the law-abiders, have surrendered their firearms. Only the criminal have them now.

I have never felt the need to involve myself in a thread that had turned into 'another' gun debate but...

ANC, as I have always stated, I have the highest esteem for you. But you are not the person to talk about the UK. I can offer no sources or graphics but I will offer you this. Yes, the only guns in the UK (apart from farmers and those registered to own them) are carried by wankers. Thankfully those w*nkers are not Country-wide. We (especially lately) have had a 'huge' problem with gun, then knife murders. But, at the end of the day, how many 'citizens' to you hear calling for the law to be changed so as they can carry weapons? When was the last massacre in the UK? Hungerford, Dunblane?

Finally, if I was to see someone carrying a sidearm in the streets of Salisbury what would I do? Approach the person? Go for the gun? Nope! I would find a safe haven and ring the authorities. Again, why? Because I know that it is not 'normal' in the UK for somebody to be 'packing heat' (love those Americanisms). Just remember ANC (and others) the difference between the UK and the USA. In America, someone carrying a weapon is the norm and would not carry much concern. In the UK, someone carrying a weapon would be slightly suspect.

BTW, anyone in the UK who is arrested on certain charges and then decides during questioning to reply with those immortal words 'No Comment', should get an automatic 'lifer'. If you saw the program you know what I mean.

Quoting Sebolino (Reply 172): You want sources and facts

Nope - I'd like to see the sources for the statements you purport to be facts.

Quoting Sebolino (Reply 172): but what sources can I give you which say what's in your mind

A simple "IMO" would work nicely.

Quoting Sebolino (Reply 172): But it's your turn now to give me sources and facts

Wrong - I didn't state anything requiring sources.

Quoting Danny (Reply 175): Those statistics are easily available on the Internet

So show us.....

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 179): Quoting Sebolino (Reply 176):Now give me your sources and facts to prove you are safer with 200 millions guns in your country than if you were without. I never said that.

Nor did I.

Quoting Sebolino (Reply 181): easily backed by other sites.

Sources?

Quoting Danny (Reply 175): Can anyone explain how this Korean kid just went to the shop and bought semi-automatic?? How?

NICS. Done over the phone. Instant background check.

Quoting Sebolino (Reply 173): I don't care as long as I don't live in this country. I just express my opinion. If you can't take it it's your problem.

That is fine. I wouldn't like to live in France either. as long as we are digging into the wishing well, I wish France would grow a sack.

Quoting Sebolino (Reply 173): Don't be too sure of that.

We still follow the Constitution and that dates back to the late 1700's, it all about the rule of law.

Quoting TedTAce (Thread starter): There ARE laws against felons owning them and felons go to jail for said crimes yet it still happens. The only people who care about gun laws are law abiding citizens.

Ted,

I've avoided posting in this thread for a while. I was wondering how it would develop and it has in the predictable way. I agree with you assessment from the thread starter.

I don't own a gun other than an antique that I'm not sure CAN fire. But I support the right to do so. Criminals are criminals because they have no respect for the law. Why gun control advocates think that tougher laws would make criminals respect the law any more is beyond me. Interestingly for some reason the type of person likely to want tighter gun control laws are generally against tighter drug laws. So the incongruity continues.

As Ed Rendell said after the Nichol Mines Amish School house shooting, and I need to paraphrase here, Gun control would not have helped in this case. A criminally insane person is going to find a way to commit these acts.

That's what we had in this case.

I agree that something needs to be done. But it has been reported that an English teacher reading this kid's writing was so fearful of what he might do she called counselors and the police. Who could do NOTHING because he hadn't threatened anyone.

Instead of gun control maybe it's time we looked into the inability of the police to do something proactive in these cases.

I'm going to say something here I haven't said to any body in public before.

I had a very rough transition to high school. As a freshman I was severely picked on, I had no friends. I dressed in black. I was emo before there was the word. I was also suicidal and a loner. I sat alone at lunch and I dreamt of lining up the people who picked on me and killing them. HOWEVER!

I had no access to weapons. But more importantly MY PARENTS where engaged in my life. They saw me spiralling out of control. THEY ACTED. They forced me into therapy.

I made it out of that tailspin, and adjusted much better with help and things got better. I still had the normal run-ins with the Parents and stuff. I got into a few fights in school. But nothing ever came close to those thoughts I had, ever again.

The biggest difference I see in my story and the horror stories in the news, are the parents. Unengaged parents, who are simply not aware of what their kid is doing, saying or acting. Some so unengaged they leave the teen access to weapons. Ever wonder WHY it comes as a shock to the Family? Ever wonder why the Parents are sometimes killed in these events? I don't.

Mental health professionals, school councilors and the Police need to be given the power to get troubled teens and adults into therapy. Even, I think to the point of committing them involuntarily. In the days and weeks ahead we will hear about the troubling "warning signs" this kid gave. Just like after Columbine and all the rest. Nothing could really be done unless the parents took action or there was a specific threat. So at this point, who cares about the "warning signs" when you can't do anything about them. It's like the warning signs at a volcano, at least there you can run away.

Forget about gun control. The issue ought to be actually helping and saving these kids before they do crazy things.

Interesting colloquy. I've been following this one. One seems to get the impression that nobody's interested in dealing with the subject on any substantial level. The arguments are the same as thy've been forever and ever, world without end, amen.

It seems to me we need to know a lot more about the people who want to buy weapons if we want to make any headway here. I'm in favor of psychosocial evaluations for everyone who wants to own a firearm to see whether they have the maturity and level headedness that the rest of us have a right to expect out of people.

Quoting Sebolino (Reply 164): My dear TedTace, what you call utopia is Europe

A little too much Europe Kool-aid there?

Quoting Sebolino (Reply 164): The culture of "security" is not so intense (which is the reason for the weapons in free circulation).

The "culture of security" was largely born after 2001.

Private firearms ownership in the US predates 2001 by just a few years.

Quoting Sebolino (Reply 172): Fact#3 : the EU and the US are 2 rich zones, the societies are basically the same, with some differences on economic views, religion and military power, but no fundamental differences except this sentiment for the Americans that they need to have a weapon to defend themselves.

There are vast societal differances even amongst the nations of the EU.

Suggesting that the EU and the US have societies that are basically the same is ludicrously untrue.

Quoting 53Sqdn (Reply 182): In America, someone carrying a weapon is the norm and would not carry much concern. In the UK, someone carrying a weapon would be slightly suspect.

You've never been stateside have you?

Quoting KaiGywer (Reply 184): NICS. Done over the phone. Instant background check.

And what kind of background check was that? He was known as troubled and there were concerns overs him at the University. There was a lot of vilence and murders in his university works etc. I guess you only get negative background check AFTER you go on a rampage like that. That is BS not background check.

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 187): It seems to me we need to know a lot more about the people who want to buy weapons if we want to make any headway here.

IMHO, the best sentence in the whole thread so far.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 145): I already apologized for that one, Westy. And I would say it again, that was not meant as any disrespect for what happened to the major.

I knew what you meant. You're not the type to glorify a death anyway. No worries.

I've said what I said about what we ought to do in this situation other than gun control.

I want to ask this question:

Why is it crass politics to use September 11th to go to war, and not crass to use the VaTech incident to promote Gun Control?

Quoting ZakHH (Reply 157): Sorry, I didn't get it - what does the size of a country have to do with gun-related deaths? (No offense intended with the question - I really just missed the point.)

Per Capita count was the intended point. Sorry, should have been more clear.

Quoting Yyz717 (Reply 171): The US needs to: 1. Ban all gun ownership in all urban areas.

Violation of the US Constitution. Sorry.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 186): Forget about gun control. The issue ought to be actually helping and saving these kids before they do crazy things.

Perfect     

Quoting Sebolino (Reply 180): Quoting WSOY (Reply 177): but all guns need to be kept locked up at all times. Same thing in France.

I think there is an EU directive behind the common practice.

----------------------

To me the "right to bear arms" in the U.S. its original historical context has always seemed politically motivated. By "political" I mean the political idea of federalism. The founding fathers wanted to ascertain that a central government was not allowed to interfere with any military operations some rebellious forces might start in order to even overthrow the central government.

Quoting http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm:

The advantage of being armed . . . the Americans possess over the people of all other nations . . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several Kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in his Federalist Paper No. 46.)

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."


[Edited 2007-04-18 22:38:33]

Quoting ZakHH (Reply 157): Quoting Queso (Reply 130): Whatever the reason, I think more and more people are seeing things the same way Ted described. And I think it's a positive change that will make our society safer. What makes you think so? Again, is it coincidence that the country with the highest per-capita gun rate also has the highest rate of deaths caused by guns? And why do you believe that increasing the number of guns will increase the level of security? Again, no intention to flame or attack any of you - I'm perfectly fine with any of you carrying a gun. I am just trying to understand your position.

Fair question, and thank you for approaching it in a civil manner.

There's a LOT more to the death rate in the US than just the availability of guns. All non-gun crimes are also higher in the US than in most other countries people typically compare the US to. Cultural particularities, economic disparity, societal respectfulness, they all play into this and it is very simplistic to blame the numbers solely on the availability of guns.

Why would increasing the number of guns increase security? Because the rates of violent crime in most states that have approved the issuance of concealed handgun licenses has fallen.

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 161): I know someone with a sig. I know the Baretta's are overpriced and not THAT good, but I can't get the memory of how 'good' it felt to have one in my hand several years back. Hopefully I'll find something cheaper and more accurate @ BHM.

Well, I'll have to admit to you that SIG's are generally not inexpensive but you certainly get what you pay for. If you liked the feel of a Beretta, you'll love a SIG.

Quoting 53Sqdn (Reply 182): Just remember ANC (and others) the difference between the UK and the USA. In America, someone carrying a weapon is the norm and would not carry much concern. In the UK, someone carrying a weapon would be slightly suspect.

Just for clarification sir, it's not necessarily "the norm". Even in states that allow open carry, it is not common. All but two states now have concealed handgun licences, so if you will never know these people are armed if you see them on the street (you'd never be able to tell I was armed). And I can tell you that in Texas there are about 260,000 people who have concealed handgun licenses and the rates those people are involved in crimes is MUCH lower than the general population.

Quoting Miamiair (Reply 185): I wouldn't like to live in France either. as long as we are digging into the wishing well, I wish France would grow a sack.

Not me. They'd be dangerous if they ever did!

Ever shot a MAS rifle? What a POS.

Quoting Queso (Reply 196): Fair question, and thank you for approaching it in a civil manner. There's a LOT more to the death rate in the US than just the availability of guns. All non-gun crimes are also higher in the US than in most other countries people typically compare the US to. Cultural particularities, economic disparity, societal respectfulness, they all play into this and it is very simplistic to blame the numbers solely on the availability of guns. Why would increasing the number of guns increase security? Because the rates of violent crime in most states that have approved the issuance of concealed handgun licenses has fallen.

That's an overgeneralization, m'dear Queso. A lot of crime is regionally distributed. Quite plainly there are cities and areas where the predominate culture is that of the gun, the knife, and the swift carjacking with little respect for life. Some of those places are heavily armed too.

On the other hand I live in Iowa. We have 2.5 million people in the state, it's largely rural, and there are many sportsmen, hunters and shooters. We do not make it easy for people to get carry permits, and in fact it is rather uncommon. But we have some of the lowest violent crime statistics in the country. The homicide rate is usually about 50-60 per year. Compare to the country of Jamaica, with a similar population has about ten times as many homicides and that is after a disastrous gun control program.

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 197): I live in Iowa.

Homie is going to jack your crops!!!

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 193): Quoting Yyz717 (Reply 171): The US needs to: 1. Ban all gun ownership in all urban areas. Violation of the US Constitution. Sorry.

Then more and more Americans will die at the hands of law-abiding whack-jobs with guns. It's that simple.

The constitution needs amending to end this murderous gun culture.

[Edited 2007-04-19 07:50:09]