guns

728ups

All Trash No Trailer
and how does outlawing guns make us more safe from the criminals?
Guns have been illegal in England and Australia for close to 20 years, and gun crime is almost non existent in these countries so...................yeah i'm just guessing that maybe ........................JUST MAYBE ...........we'd be safer from guns crimes
 

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
You cant prove anything to someone who wont listen and whose mind is made up.

I have no problem with taking steps or implementing restrictions to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, but the flip side to that coin would be to acknowledge that law-abiding people have a basic human right to armed self-defense.

I don't necessarily agree with everything the NRA says, but at the same time I have to admit that without them my 2nd Amendment rights would be virtually eliminated. This is a battle in which I have to pick a side, so I pick the NRA.
See? This is exactly where I don't get you. I suggested arming all high school kids and you said, "Don't be ridiculous...". What's ridiculous about that? They are law abiding citizens. What age do those constitutional rights kick in and why? And just because gun free zones haven't stopped all massacres doesn't mean they haven't deterred many more does it? It's just like drinking and driving. Prohibiting it doesn't eliminate the problem but does allowing drinking and driving make the roads safer? No.
 

728ups

All Trash No Trailer
Soooo,,,, does this mean that if there were a gun ban in Phoenix then the criminals would not have committed this crime?

I cant determine would criminal would or would not do,but if it weren't so easy to get a gun they wouldn't have been shot to death.
 

728ups

All Trash No Trailer
http://www.gunssavelife.com/?p=2191
Gun control FAIL: UK has highest violent crime in Europe
http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/examining-uk-gun-crime-15-years-after-firearms-act
Examining UK Gun Crime 15 Years After Firearms Act
Last week marked 15 years since the enactment of the UK's Firearms Act, which prevents private citizens from owning most types of handguns and makes it much harder to purchase other types of guns, such as rifles and shotguns. The British parliament passed the law nine years after passing another gun control law that made semiautomatic weapons illegal. In the last 15 years, "more than 200,000 guns and 700 tons of ammunition have been taken off the streets" and although statistics show that the number of gun crimes increased at first, by 2005 a decline began that continues to this day thanks to strict enforcement and regular police sweeps.

What's the Big Idea?

Both laws were enacted in response to mass shootings, with the Firearms Act motivated by a 1996 primary school massacre that left 16 5- and 6-year-olds dead. Today, "most gun crime can be traced to back to fewer than 1,000 illegal weapons still in circulation" and anyone looking to obtain a gun will find themselves "resorting to rebuilt antique weapons, homemade bullets and even illicit “rent-a-gun” schemes." Gun rights activists say the bans go too far, stigmatizing legal owners as well as the traditional sport of game-hunting.
 

728ups

All Trash No Trailer
All this talk of being "safe' ,I'd feel MUCH safer if 200,000 guns and 700 tons of ammo were taken off the USA's streets
 

oldngray

nowhere special
Now compare it to the US.
Britain’s violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed.Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa – widely considered one of the world’s most dangerous countries.
 

oldngray

nowhere special
http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/examining-uk-gun-crime-15-years-after-firearms-act
Examining UK Gun Crime 15 Years After Firearms Act
Last week marked 15 years since the enactment of the UK's Firearms Act, which prevents private citizens from owning most types of handguns and makes it much harder to purchase other types of guns, such as rifles and shotguns. The British parliament passed the law nine years after passing another gun control law that made semiautomatic weapons illegal. In the last 15 years, "more than 200,000 guns and 700 tons of ammunition have been taken off the streets" and although statistics show that the number of gun crimes increased at first, by 2005 a decline began that continues to this day thanks to strict enforcement and regular police sweeps.

What's the Big Idea?

Both laws were enacted in response to mass shootings, with the Firearms Act motivated by a 1996 primary school massacre that left 16 5- and 6-year-olds dead. Today, "most gun crime can be traced to back to fewer than 1,000 illegal weapons still in circulation" and anyone looking to obtain a gun will find themselves "resorting to rebuilt antique weapons, homemade bullets and even illicit “rent-a-gun” schemes." Gun rights activists say the bans go too far, stigmatizing legal owners as well as the traditional sport of game-hunting.

The result of those laws means only criminals have guns.
 

728ups

All Trash No Trailer
‘Sovereign Man’ Loses Driver’s License, Carries Assault Rifle around Town in Protest

Jim Sanders, 45 of Mulberry, Indiana says that he is a “sovereign man,” who is not subject to the laws of Indiana and or his local governments, That’s why — after amassing over $900 dollars in fines for traffic violations and refusing to pay – his driver’s license got suspended. With no license, he says that his “only legal mode of travel is walking,” apparently making an exception for the law that requires a driver’s license.

Since his only mode of transportation is by foot, he has taken to carrying an assault style rifle strapped to his chest wherever he goes, claiming that he needs it to protect the valuables he carries in his back pack: Copies of the U.S. Constitution, his Bible, and his water bottle.

Sanders says that he is only bound by the U.S. Constitution, not any statutes or codes, and claims that driving a car is not a privilege, it is a right he says and therefore not subject to any laws.

He goes on to explain that the U.S. became a corporation when Congress created the District of Columbia; claims that driver’s licenses and birth certificates are invalidated by the use of all-uppercase letters; and that the all-uppercase letters somehow indicate that the person named is deceased.

Last October he “ordained” himself as a minister when he and his wife started a church which has no set home and meets in various places including the West Lafayette public library.

“I’m not willing to pay for something I didn’t do anymore,” Sanders told WLFI TV, speaking of the unpaid fines which cost him his license. “I’ve put out enough, given them enough. I’m not going to do it anymore.”

“I recognize the republic of Indiana,” he responded when asked if he recognizes the state. “I recognize the republic for the United States of America.”

He says that he is just waiting for the judge and police to come to him and return his license once they come to their senses and realize that they are the ones who are wrong.

 

tourists24

Well-Known Member
All this talk of being "safe' ,I'd feel MUCH safer if 200,000 guns and 700 tons of ammo were taken off the USA's streets
how would you be safer personally? you think a criminal cares what the law says? So he has to hunt a little harder to find a gun.... you think he wont get one if he wants to...? meanwhile you have people like me who feel safer for the exact opposite reason? Screw us?
 

tourists24

Well-Known Member
The problem is that philosophies are not timeless in daily application. Those daily manifestations change through the ages. So what was their philosophy and how does it apply to today?
A philosophy that believed that an armed defense of ones property and life should be a given right, not only on a personal level, but as a last resort to defend against an overbearing federal government. If you feel the Constitution is outdated and shouldn't apply now, then by whose standard should we go by?
 

728ups

All Trash No Trailer
how would you be safer personally? you think a criminal cares what the law says? So he has to hunt a little harder to find a gun.... you think he wont get one if he wants to...? meanwhile you have people like me who feel safer for the exact opposite reason? Screw us?
I have no problems with licensed,controlled weapons (in fact i'd be in complete favour of a national gun registry that kept track of all weapons and if a serial number didnt match the owner, it gets melted down) people such as yourself would have the illusion of more safety and it would be far harder for criminals to get their fingers on
 

tourists24

Well-Known Member
I have no problems with licensed,controlled weapons (in fact i'd be in complete favour of a national gun registry that kept track of all weapons and if a serial number didnt match the owner, it gets melted down) people such as yourself would have the illusion of more safety and it would be far harder for criminals to get their fingers on
Odd,,, I have the exact same thinking of you on the opposite angle.... that if there were fewer guns that criminals wouldn't have access.... but I DO agree we need to find a way to make it harder for bad guys to get their hands on guns
 

tourists24

Well-Known Member
I have no problems with licensed,controlled weapons (in fact i'd be in complete favour of a national gun registry that kept track of all weapons and if a serial number didnt match the owner, it gets melted down) people such as yourself would have the illusion of more safety and it would be far harder for criminals to get their fingers on
And for some reason after reading your post,,, Im having a problem getting over the wording of "controlled". Who gets to do the controlling?
 

728ups

All Trash No Trailer
And for some reason after reading your post,,, Im having a problem getting over the wording of "controlled". Who gets to do the controlling?
IMO a State Registry as well as a Federal Registry would work. i'm a realist though and realize that there are far too many cheap hard to trace handguns on the streets for this to work at first.It would have to be put in place and slowly but surely it would work,coupled with Gun Buy Backs funded by both the Sate and teh Fed
 

tourists24

Well-Known Member
IMO a State Registry as well as a Federal Registry would work. i'm a realist though and realize that there are far too many cheap hard to trace handguns on the streets for this to work at first.It would have to be put in place and slowly but surely it would work,coupled with Gun Buy Backs funded by both the Sate and teh Fed
Ya see we do have some common ground...lol... Not sure I like a registry but I have no problem entertaining the talks on a state level.... No interest on letting the federal government in on any of this though
 

oldngray

nowhere special
IMO a State Registry as well as a Federal Registry would work. i'm a realist though and realize that there are far too many cheap hard to trace handguns on the streets for this to work at first.It would have to be put in place and slowly but surely it would work,coupled with Gun Buy Backs funded by both the Sate and teh Fed

No, it wouldn't work. Handguns would be on the black market for criminals so all you would be doing is penalize law abiding citizens. And historically registrations have been a prelude to confiscations regardless of the promises governments made about it would never happen. Which is why there is so much resistance to a national registry which is actually against the law.
 

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
A philosophy that believed that an armed defense of ones property and life should be a given right, not only on a personal level, but as a last resort to defend against an overbearing federal government. If you feel the Constitution is outdated and shouldn't apply now, then by whose standard should we go by?
well that leaves pretty much no gun control whatsoever, doesn't it? And "Who's standard" is exactly what we are trying to determine. From the Bloombergs to the Nugents and everyone in between are literally millions of ideas and variations on those ideas. Constitutionally speaking, we have traditionally allowed the Supreme Court to decide the standards for the time.
 

tourists24

Well-Known Member
well that leaves pretty much no gun control whatsoever, doesn't it? And "Who's standard" is exactly what we are trying to determine. From the Bloombergs to the Nugents and everyone in between are literally millions of ideas and variations on those ideas. Constitutionally speaking, we have traditionally allowed the Supreme Court to decide the standards for the time.
Welcome to the debate...lol
 
Top