The Maryland sniper

[jn.loudnotes]

Kilzo, I don't care how old you are, your post was immature.

I agree that banning guns is ineffectual, but I think they should be extremely hard to get, as in Austria.  Of course the criminals are going to be able to figure out a way to get them if they are desperate enough, but that doesn't mean it should be so simple.  Everyday average Joes who like to shoot their .22s or hunt deer won't have any rights violated if they have to have background checks, etc. before getting a gun.

And maybe the occasional disgruntled postal worker would be able to do less damage because they didn't have a gun handy, as so many people do nowadays.

Plus, any fears about a police state are misguided.  Having a .22 or whatever at home might make you feel safer, but won't do a whole lot of good if somehow the military drove a tank into your backyard. . .

[Colin]

i agree strongly with Bondo and Mauti that the US should not have the right to bear arms.  Take a look at Canada, they only have guns for hunting and law enforcement and look at their crime rate:  in the year 2000, there were a total of 1308 murders reported, 76% of the murders were solved.  In the US in 2000:  ther were a total of 15520 murders, 63.10% of the murders were solved.  I know the US has a much bigger population than Canada but the truth still lies in the percentage.  England solved 92% of its murders.  In all of the percentages the US is lower than other countries and in a lot of cases much lower.  OK, scenario:  Lets say nobody can have guns, two guys run into a convenient store with crowbars and stuff, the clerk pulls out a tazer or stun-gun and shocks them, calls the police and calls it a day.  Isn't that better than:  two guys go in with 9mms the clerk sees them, pulls out a shotgun, fires and kills one guy while the other guy puts a bullet in the clerks chest.  I liked the first story, how bout u?

Also think about this:  A kid is just is mad at the world, he is playing with the idea of suicide after going on a rampage with his father's gun.  He's not sure he wants to do this, he's just thinking about it.  Don't u think the kid will be A LOT less likely to actually do that if his father didn't have a gun?  Think about it!

[Bondo]

For those who absolutely feel the need to shoot guns off, I'm fully accepting of having gun clubs and hunting...but only if the guns are locked up at the gun clubs and hunting lodges and don't make it out into society.  I'm wholly against being able to even hold a gun outside of those restricted areas (obviously police/military are able to carry guns where they are needed for duty).

[OoA Rob]

To bad I came to the topic late.  I wont reply on the later posts, but I will help defend Ass.  

I am strongly aganist Gun Control, which criminals create this contraversy.  Plain and simple, you can't stop people from getting weapons on the black market.  This is so true, what can't you get illegally? Personally, I have been offered C4 and even C6(more powerful liquid explosive), and how easy do you think it would be for guns?  You may think, "if we just crack down on guns entering the country, we would control the gun crime rates".  I will tell you to look at how we handle drugs.  It's illegal but yet we know how easy we can get weed and 100 other drugs, same goes with guns.  My point basically is, "if there's a will there's a way", yeah it may sound corny but its true.

History does repeat itself.  In Germany, the people were banned from havng guns making it easier for Hitler and the SS to control the population.  They couldn't fight back.  Power  corrupts.  That's why we have the constitutional right to bear arms.  If the government gets to much power, the people have a right to defend themselves from a corrupt government.  

As for the posts about compairing countries... sure you can find countries without as much gun related crime, but there can only be one country with the best crime rate.  Point being, we can always find countries with better statistics in a specific area. Meaning,  if we researched into other countries without gun control we could even find better crime rates than some countries with gun control.  In conclusion, I ask what county would you would you rather live in? Most likely the U.S. for the freedoms in which this country is founded upon.

As for kids geting guns from there fathers to kill other kids.  we can require guns to be stored in gun safes if there are kids in the house.  

HAHA, going to a gun club to just shoot guns is plain BULL SHIT and realistic.  I think Bondo lacks the experience/privlege to shoot a gun.  How would you like to go to a computer club to play  games or for personal use in fear of illegal activities that computers can be used for?  Where's the freedom?

If all guns get banned for some reason or another, (although, most likely won't ever happen in my life time), I'll keep my guns.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Ok, as the owner of more then one gun, I'll pop off here.

First, gun control = GOOD.  Gun ban's = BAD.  

There is nothing wrong with tighter controls over guns.  The question is, what controls.  Banning isn't control, it's an illusion.  The technology exists today so that by wearing a watch, bracelet, ring (you get the point) it unlocks a gun to fire.  Without that exact "key", the gun wont fire, no matter what.  That is a great form of gun control.  Only legal owners of those guns will be able to operate them.

That is gun control.

Now, to get on to some comments.  Colin, your stats don't compute.  You know that populations are way off, so don't bring up numbers.  As for the % of crimes solved, explain what that has to do with guns, if you can.

Bondo, you are just a knee jerk reaction liberal.  A gun is the great equalizer.  If my girlfriend is home alone (or wife in the future), and someone comes in the house to attack / rape her, I am all for her using a gun to defend herself.  No, I never expect this to happen, but as many have pointed out, crime does happen.  

I have personal freedoms, that should not be taken away until I do wrong.  Cars kill more people every year then guns do, by far.  Alcohol releated deaths are higher then gun related deaths.  Ban those first, if you dare, then talk about guns.  I don't think that my personal rights should be infringed upon until I do something wrong.  

Here's more food for thought for you.  In the states with more guns (legal) like Texas, where you are allowed to have them with you, openly, there are remarkedly less gun related crimes.  When the honest person can defend themselves against anyone, because they are equally armed, then the criminals lost their greatest advantage.  And it shows.

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

Damnit Bucc, that sounds like it was taken off of my term paper regarding the second amendment...I was going to use those same facts to defend myself, but you already did it for me, thanks  

P.S.: When I am out of college, one of the first things I am going to apply for is a handgun operator's license and probably a rifle license...I would rather be the one with the gun then some jackass trying to break into my house with one.

[Bondo]

All well and good Bucc, assuming things go as planned...but suppose in the course of this robbery she misses and the robber instead of just stealing something is forced to kill her.  Or suppose she kills herself with it by accident (or sadly on purpose as having access to guns makes it easier for someone to committ suicide) or suppose you have a kid and he kills himself acciedentally or on purpose or kills someone else accidentally or on purpose.  All these very viable risks just to protect material items in your house (most robbers have no intention of killing or raping).  Sorry, but I just don't buy the protection element.  Your car/alcohol excuse is rather flimsy, those things have regular uses that aren't harmful.  Guns regular use is harmful (outside of gun club/hunting).

As for gun crime being lower in Texas.  You can lower gun crime either by cutting down on guns, or having everyone have a gun...I'd feel much safer with the former.

Rob, what about gun clubs is bullshit...how would you want to use a gun in a non-bullshit way.  There is no acceptable use of a gun outside of hunting or gun clubs, both of which I accounted for.  Any other use of the gun would be bad.

As for your question of which country I'd rather live in, Canada, Norway, Sweeden, U.K., Denmark, and Holland for a start.

Also, you say history repeats itself by showing the Nazi example, I say history repeats itself by showing the example of the successful restriction of guns in the U.K...or Austria like Mauti spoke of.  Sorry, but the ability to have guns isn't going to save us from anything.  The goverment has the military so if a dictator stepped up, us having pistols and rifles wouldn't save us...not that a dictator is going to step up.

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

Bondo, being the typical you, you neglect to look at what Bucc said about the various controls available. You would rather just say "guns are bad just because" and ignore other valid points. With the gun controls mentioned, a kid isnt going to be able to shoot himself/anyone else with a gun. Nor does the fact that someone has a gun cut down on suicide rates. If someone wants to commit suicide, there is plenty of other ways to do it - you don't need a gun.

You also negelct what I said about the UK - whenever someone obtains a weapon illegally through the black market, all hell brakes loose when it is used in a robbery or a shootout because not even the police have sidearms at their easy disposal. Not to mention that you live in a fantasy land if you expect everyone to give up their guns just because some liberal whack job thinks that we would live in his vision of a utopian society.

Also, if you have a gun, you are more likely to thwart a robbery than if you did not have a gun. Almost everyday on the news you see or hear about robberies thwarted because the cashier or the owner of a house repelled the robber because he fired a shot or flashed a weapon. More often than not, a gun will protect you rather than hurt you if you know what you are doing with it.

Responsible gun control = good
Negligent gun banning = stupid

[Mr. Lothario]

     The idea of armed citizens, even a reasonably well-trained militia, successfully fighting the American military is farfetched at best. Look at the well-armed and -trained militias who have stood up to the American gov't in the recent past. There was never the least question of the militia winning; it was merely a question of how long until they surrendered or were killed. My position against the banning of guns (although not against some level of control, such as the Brady Bill or suchlike) is because of freedom. Freedom is a Good Thing?, but you have to take the bad with the good.

[Bondo]

The reason I didn't mention Bucc's bit about the personalized guns...I think it is a fine idea.  It would seem mundane for me to say...I agree with you, I agree with you.  Wouldn't add much by doing that would I.  So let me get this straight thoug about his idea.  Is it like Judge Dreadd where only the person whose DNA matches that assinged to the weapon can use it and that the bullets are marked so they can tell whose gun it came from (well, this concept minus the sci-fi part).  That sounds fine to me but is that reality or is that truly just sci-fi.

As for people willingly giving up guns, no I never would think it would be easy.  Then again, I think humans will be extinct before the next millenium.  That may not happen either.

As for your U.K thing.  I consider a monthly gun incident that is four times worse due to guns being outlawed as better than four daily gun incidents.

[Jeb]

well,
When you look at banning guns it wouldn't include rifles like the one the sniper is using. It would be more likely that handguns would be banned simply because they are used more in crimes, and easyer to conseal.
When you look at the wording in the consititution...
the 2nd amemdment is there for citizens to establish militias in order to help the army stop a invading army. however in modern days no country would march in to america with a standing army to take over, they would shoot a few nukes over.
By keeping guns, as its vaguely outlined in the constitution as a right, we are keeping high crime rates, more murders, and less safe streets.

[Mr.Mellow]

I think I have to agree with Bondo on this issue. However, it would be very unrealistic for everyone to turn in all of their firearms. No one is going to change the Constitution. Of course, there are always loopholes. I think the government should ban the distribution of ammunition to civilians, not ban guns. Problem solved in the long run. It's completely Constitutional. People can still bear their guns all they want, but they'll run out of ammo eventually, especially if they do any recreational shooting. Even if people are hoarding(sp?) ammunition, it won't matter much. The police will still have access to it, so they can still deal with problems as they arise. Now, this is also unrealistic, because I'm sure selling ammunition is very profitable, like cigarettes, so they probably won't ban selling/giving it away. Now, for the record, I'm not a liberal, or a non-liberal(whatever they're called.) I don't really like to classify myself..I think people are tossing the word "liberal" around too much in this thread though. Anyways, that's just my idea, don't criticize it too much. You might hurt my feelings.  

[Bondo]

I was getting a bit lonely.

Jeb, you say that he used a rifle and thus it wouldn't be limited.  That is where I think the beauty of having rifles restricted to rifle usage areas so as to say gun clubs and hunting lodges (and the hunting grounds around it natually).  There is no need to have a rifle in your house.  With that done you only have to worry about pistols.  I think Mellow actually brings up a good thing on the pistols.  Just make ammunition taxed to hell to start and people will stop having ammunition, just like the high cost of cigarettes forces some to quit.

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

The problem with your taxation is that unlike cigarettes, guns and ammo are used by a larger amount of the population and hell would rain down on the political careers of those who supported such whack legislation.

As for your gun clubs, that is a stupid idea because what is your genius plan if a gun club is broken into and all of the rifles are stolen? The thief then has possession of all of the rifles and can rob anyone at will because he knows that no one around will have guns to stop him. Logic sucks, doesn't it Bondo?

Also, don't give me some crap like "well they can be secured" or "only responsible people will be kept in charge of the guns" because it would never happen. Anyone can be bribed and a skilled enough thief can break into just about anything he/she wants.

[Bondo]

Sin, Shit happens, you can't protect against everything.  But you shouldn't accept a worse solution just because there isn't a perfect solution.  And police would still have weapons so it isn't like they couldn't be dealt with.

As for the taxation thing...that is bullshit, more people smoke, or drink, or drive than own guns.  All of the previous three have sin taxes on them so why not guns.

[Jeb]

bondo its like this...
now hypotheticaly lets say they wanted to ban figure skating...
you would be outraged at that wouldn't you? But you and a few teenage girls couldn't stop the banning of figureskating alone.
Its like that over gun control because there are millions and millions more people, policical partys, and companys suport guns.
if they try to ban guns the entire state of texas might leave  
besides if guns were banned then we couldn't use cool smilies like,
 
and
and
and

[Ace]

Well pretty much everything has been brought up and debated to all hell, but I just want to elaborate on one point. It is undeniable statistical fact that in places where common, law-abiding citizens are not restricted in their ability to have a gun (ie Texas) there is far less gun related crime than in places with tons of restrictions/bans. To Bondo and the other bleeding heart liberals, would you care to explain why you still try to argue that having guns makes things less safe when the cold hard facts prove otherwise?



And because I couldn't pass it up:

That is gun control.

I thought that gun control was hitting your target...

[Bondo]

It is undeniable statistical fact that in places where common, law-abiding citizens are not restricted in their ability to have a gun (ie Texas) there is far less gun related crime than in places with tons of restrictions/bans. To Bondo and the other bleeding heart liberals, would you care to explain why you still try to argue that having guns makes things less safe when the cold hard facts prove otherwise?

That is gun control based on fear, not on safety...which is something I don't find acceptable.  Plus, it doesn't stop someone who doesn't value their life from using their gun.

Also, like I said, it is also undeniable statistical proof that not allowing people to own guns or having heavy restrictions on them also reduces gun-related crime...and does so by making it safer, not by making everyone more scared.

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

Bondo, chew on this...it was  a study done by your precious Canadians and their view on gun control. It essentially tears the liberal argument a new one.

http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Suter/med-lit/introduction.html

[Cossack]

Here is another thing of why guns should not be restricted. It is part of American culture, especialy down here in Texas. Over here everyone carries a gun except for a few libral college chicks. I go out to my freinds land and shoot my .22. People will always use guns. Also what I meant by the use of militia is that if a dictitorial power comes in, one can defend themselves from getting taken in as a political prisoner. There is one thing an Army cannot do and that is fight the general population. It has been poven over and over again in Vietnam Afghanistan, e.t.c. Thus the second amendment allows the general population to be armed.

[Just fixed your BB code. Ace]