# American Gun Laws - What do you think?



## achilles95 (May 4, 2007)

Do you think if American gun laws were made much stricter and it became harder for people to get hold of guns, it would significantly decrease American crime?

:shooter:
Achilles


----------



## elder999 (May 4, 2007)

achilles95 said:


> Do you think if American gun laws were made much stricter and it became harder for people to get hold of guns, it would significantly decrease American crime?
> 
> :shooter:
> Achilles


 
*No.*


----------



## HKphooey (May 4, 2007)

Just like any other law, it is mostly the criminals that break them. 

We outlawed alcohol and look who ended up profitting from it - the criminals.  

But I do think we can better monitor the sales of guns.  I was watching some yahoo at the chain sporting goods store the other day.  He clearly knew nothing about guns, especially how to handle one.   When the clerk handed him the shotgun, the customer targetted across the room at some cusotmers and then back at the clerk.  And I am sure he will do the same thing when it is loaded and on his first hunting trip with his buddies (since I am sure he will not pay attention during the gun safety course).


----------



## achilles95 (May 4, 2007)

HKphooey said:


> Just like any other law, it is mostly the criminals that break them.
> 
> We outlawed alcohol and look who ended up profitting from it - the criminals.
> 
> But I do think we can better monitor the sales of guns. I was watching some yahoo at the chain sporting goods store the other day. He clearly knew nothing about guns, especially how to handle one. When the clerk handed him the shotgun, the customer targetted across the room at some cusotmers and then back at the clerk. And I am sure he will do the same thing when it is loaded and on his first hunting trip with his buddies (since I am sure he will not pay attention during the gun safety course).



Interesting point. I personally feel gun laws must be made much stricter and and that gun sales must be closely moderated.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (May 4, 2007)

HKphooey said:


> Just like any other law, it is mostly the criminals that break them.
> 
> We outlawed alcohol and look who ended up profitting from it - the criminals.
> 
> But I do think we can better monitor the sales of guns. I was watching some yahoo at the chain sporting goods store the other day. He clearly knew nothing about guns, especially how to handle one. When the clerk handed him the shotgun, the customer targetted across the room at some cusotmers and then back at the clerk. And I am sure he will do the same thing when it is loaded and on his first hunting trip with his buddies (since I am sure he will not pay attention during the gun safety course).


 
Unfortunately I have seen the same thing several times.


----------



## Grenadier (May 4, 2007)

The availability of lawfully-owned firearms, or lack thereof, is not what determines a crime rate.  It's the culture, and to a greater extent, the thought processes of the people in a community, that determines how bad the crime gets.  

Let's look at a case study, where the city of Washington DC, where firearms are banned, is compared to a city just a handful of miles away (Arlington, Virginia) where lawfully-owned firearms are plentiful:

     City                               1993 Murder rate

   Washington, DC. . . . . . . . . . . . 78.5 per 100,000 
   Arlington, VA . . . . . . . . . . . .  2.2 per 100,000  
               (Arlington is just across the river from D.C.)
   Total VA metropolitan area  . . . . .  8.6 per 100,000 

Source: FBI Uniform Crime Report, 1994 

Even if you toss in *all* of the state of Virginia's urban areas into one lump, the rate of murder was still almost an order of magnitude lower than that of the DC area.  

Some people then try to say "well, if guns are outlawed, then suicides will drop, too!"  

I will simply counter, that firearms availability does not affect the ability of someone to kill himself.  After all, Japan, a nation that forbids firearms to the law-abiding populace, had a suicide rate of over 20 per 100,000 people in 1990, compared to the US, which had a rate of 12.2 per 100,000 people.  

In the end, placing more restrictions on firearms to the law-abiding does nothing to stop criminals.  Criminals are criminals because they don't obey the laws.  People who are Hell-bent on killing others will find ways to do so.  

The best way to prevent such things is to raise your kids properly, instill a good sense of morality, and make sure that they are well-equipped to handle the challenges of the world.  There is no greater influence on a child's life, than his parents, and this is where we should all begin.  It's not a quick solution, but it's the best solution, and one that will work.


----------



## Bigshadow (May 4, 2007)

Grenadier said:


> The availability of lawfully-owned firearms, or lack thereof, is not what determines a crime rate.  It's the culture, and to a greater extent, the thought processes of the people in a community, that determines how bad the crime gets.
> 
> Let's look at a case study, where the city of Washington DC, where firearms are banned, is compared to a city just a handful of miles away (Arlington, Virginia) where lawfully-owned firearms are plentiful:
> 
> ...



WELL SAID!  Can't add anything to it!


----------



## Andrew Green (May 4, 2007)

Accidental shootings would decrease, but the rest I doubt.

My opinion is that if people need a license to drive, why not have the same sort of thing for guns?  We can also restrict where people drive there cars, so why not where they can carry there guns?



> We outlawed alcohol and look who ended up profitting from it - the criminals.



This argument I find odd, not because of the argument itself, but because of the sorts of people that I most often here it from.  By the same logic should drug bans be lifted?  

Gun ownership is generally connected to the right wing of American politics is it not? Basically that it is a personal freedom and should not be infringed upon.  The other side of course claiming that your freedom to carry infringes on my freedom to feel safe.  Same line of reasoning that was likely used durring the prohibition days.  And is also used for other personal freedoms, such as drug use, public nudity, same sex marriage, religion (why can't atheists hold many political offices?), etc.  Things that the right wing typically opposes.

I'm not one to buy the safety argument.  I don't see armed civillians as making things safer.  More extreme perhaps, the introduction of more people with more power might reduce some crime, but like all things, crime will remain, and criminals will take things to the next level.

The freedom line I will buy.  If I want to hang a AK-47 on my wall, that should be my choice.  Walking around downtown with it, not so much as at that point I am a threat.  

But to buy the freedom line I think you also have to swallow other personal choice freedoms.  If people can own guns because it effects no one else and bad people would get them anyways.  Why can't they own a few joints as well?


----------



## bushidomartialarts (May 4, 2007)

I'd like to see the gun law become both more restrictive and more open.

It would be best to make it much more difficult to legally own a gun -- at least, for instance, as hard as it is to legally drive a car.

But once you're legally licensed/certified, the guns you may legally own should be far less restricted than they are now.


----------



## Grenadier (May 4, 2007)

bushidomartialarts said:


> I'd like to see the gun law become both more restrictive and more open.
> 
> It would be best to make it much more difficult to legally own a gun -- at least, for instance, as hard as it is to legally drive a car.


 

You could try to make lawfully driving a car as difficult as you want, but this would have no effect on those who choose to illegally drive.  

There are always going to be people who don't register their vehicles, don't have insurance, were barred from driving due to multiple DUI charges, etc., yet a lot of them are still going to drive.  You could implement thousands of more laws that would restrict the law-abiding populace (for example, putting background checks on drivers, limit the number of miles they're allowed to drive, force them to keep detailed records on their own driving, force everyone to attend defensive driving school twice a year, force everyone to have a 75 MPH governor chip on their cars, etc), yet none of the above would do anything to stop illegal drivers from driving.  

Does this mean that all laws should be repealed?  Of course not.  There must be a certain standard.  However, that standard has already been reached, and that some people don't realize that their efforts do nothing to help in the cutting down of crime.  The silly examples that I mentioned above (background checks, mileage limitations, forced record keeping, forced defensive driving, etc.) are exact parallels of what the gun banners have tried to do throughout the years, even though their actions did nothing to reduce crime, since they targeted the wrong crowd: the law-abiding.  




On another note, you don't need a license / registration to drive a vehicle on your own privately-owned property, in most places.


----------



## achilles95 (May 4, 2007)

Grenadier said:


> The availability of lawfully-owned firearms, or lack thereof, is not what determines a crime rate. It's the culture, and to a greater extent, the thought processes of the people in a community, that determines how bad the crime gets.
> 
> Let's look at a case study, where the city of Washington DC, where firearms are banned, is compared to a city just a handful of miles away (Arlington, Virginia) where lawfully-owned firearms are plentiful:
> 
> ...



Very informative, thanks.


----------



## Rich Parsons (May 4, 2007)

Grenadier said:


> You could try to make lawfully driving a car as difficult as you want, but this would have no effect on those who choose to illegally drive.
> 
> There are always going to be people who don't register their vehicles, don't have insurance, were barred from driving due to multiple DUI charges, etc., yet a lot of them are still going to drive. You could implement thousands of more laws that would restrict the law-abiding populace (for example, putting background checks on drivers, limit the number of miles they're allowed to drive, force them to keep detailed records on their own driving, force everyone to attend defensive driving school twice a year, force everyone to have a 75 MPH governor chip on their cars, etc), yet none of the above would do anything to stop illegal drivers from driving.
> 
> ...




The number of people I have heard in a bar over my life that were drinking and talking about going to court over their second DUI while on probation for the first and a suspended license. They were bragging about how they drove their and would drive home. 

Stupid people will do stupid things. In the UK Blade attacks and injuries have been rising for years to know I think they are trying to ban or have banned / limited Sword ownership. The attacks are still their just a different weapon. 

Someone told me that Baseball bats are sold in Ireland, but no one plays Baseball. Hmmm I wonder why they sell so many? 

Some people will choose to break the law, especially if they think they can get away with it. 

So making it harder to get a gun, in some cases might be ok, but to totally limit or get rid of is not. (* Ignoring that the second admendment would have to be set aside *)

 I think it may be useful to address the root causes.

Education levels. What are the crome stats based upon education. Now just giving everyone a Degree will not resolve the issue, it is about the process of learning and understanding the actions one takes and the ramifications of those actions.


----------



## Lisa (May 4, 2007)

achilles95 said:


> Do you think if American gun laws were made much stricter and it became harder for people to get hold of guns, it would significantly decrease American crime?
> 
> :shooter:
> Achilles



No, take a look at Canada.  We aren't any safer and our crime rate has not dropped.  It did however, cost the tax payers billions.


----------



## Rich Parsons (May 4, 2007)

Lisa said:


> No, take a look at Canada. We aren't any safer and our crime rate has not dropped. It did however, cost the tax payers billions.



Well now you know the cost.  

I do hope the remove that for those in Canada, and go back to their old ways, or similiar ways if modernization was required.


----------



## seasoned (May 5, 2007)

Sadly it is the movie industry that is educating people about "gun safety", and our fascination with firearms. Just an observation but violence breeds violence. In the 60s Bruce Lee movies were very popular and everyone wanted to fight like Bruce. Over the past few years it is almost every movie that depicts guns as the end all. A lot of the movies of today are training our youth on how to deal with adversity for the future. More laws, no way.


----------



## KenpoTex (May 5, 2007)

achilles95 said:


> Do you think if American gun laws were made much stricter and it became harder for people to get hold of guns, it would significantly decrease American crime?
> 
> :shooter:
> Achilles


 
No...


----------



## jonathan archer (May 29, 2007)

Grenadier said:


> The availability of lawfully-owned firearms, or lack thereof, is not what determines a crime rate.  It's the culture, and to a greater extent, the thought processes of the people in a community, that determines how bad the crime gets.
> 
> Let's look at a case study, where the city of Washington DC, where firearms are banned, is compared to a city just a handful of miles away (Arlington, Virginia) where lawfully-owned firearms are plentiful:
> 
> ...


dude your right on the money evry thing 100% i agree!!!!!!!!


----------



## burkspatrick (Jul 9, 2007)

> Gun ownership is generally connected to the right wing of American politics is it not? Basically that it is a personal freedom and should not be infringed upon. The other side of course claiming that your freedom to carry infringes on my freedom to feel safe. Same line of reasoning that was likely used durring the prohibition days. And is also used for other personal freedoms, such as drug use, public nudity, same sex marriage, religion (why can't atheists hold many political offices?), etc. Things that the right wing typically opposes.



Actually it could be argued that gun ownership has nothing to do with politics or gun ownership is based on location(crime, or the South) or different other reasons. In fact most liberals need to take a good look at a map because the U.S. does consist of more than just Hollywood and New York City.   Sorry for rant.  I'm more independant than liberal or conservative.  Some things I'm liberal on and some things I'm conservative on.  For instance I do think drugs should be legalized (OMG i'm going straight to hell for that one i'm in Tennessee the bible belt)


----------



## K31 (Jul 10, 2007)

achilles95 said:


> Do you think if American gun laws were made much stricter and it became harder for people to get hold of guns, it would significantly decrease American crime?
> 
> :shooter:
> Achilles



Making it harder for honest people to obtain firearms legally has almost nothing to do with criminals obtaining them for a crime. It is far is far easier for a criminal to simply steal a firearm or buy one illegally than it is for the legitimate purchaser to obtain one. More laws won't change that.

There are tens of millions of illegal aliens in the US and with decades of wars-on-drugs I've never heard of more than 20% being interdicted. If there is a market for something there are people willing to provide it.

The cases of people using legally purchased and owned firearms for crimes are rare. In states that have liberalized concealed carry laws crime rates have gone down and the persons who carry legitimately in those areas have almost never been involved in any crimes despite wild-west shootout fears fomented by those opposing liberalized concealed carry.


----------



## Odin (Jul 10, 2007)

After reading all of these posts i must comment on one thing...

Is it only ''criminals'' that shoot people?


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jul 10, 2007)

ZZZZZZ heard it all before, already addressed this like a YEAR ago.

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=558655&postcount=22

Short answer: No.


----------



## K31 (Jul 10, 2007)

Odin said:


> After reading all of these posts i must comment on one thing...
> 
> Is it only ''criminals'' that shoot people?



No, police and citizens in the US routinely shoot people in defense of themselves and others however, because of the nature of the news media you are hard pressed to find incidents of citizens use of firearms reported with the intensity of criminals using firearms to commit crimes.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jul 10, 2007)

That's the media rule no matter the country, "No gun news if it is good news".


----------



## Odin (Jul 11, 2007)

Andy Moynihan said:


> ZZZZZZ heard it all before, already addressed this like a YEAR ago.
> 
> http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=558655&postcount=22
> 
> Short answer: No.


 

Well how about you re-read that one then while the rest of us indulge ourselves in some fresh opinions.

( :


----------



## Odin (Jul 11, 2007)

K31 said:


> No, police and citizens in the US routinely shoot people in defense of themselves and others however, because of the nature of the news media you are hard pressed to find incidents of citizens use of firearms reported with the intensity of criminals using firearms to commit crimes.


 
The police I can sort of understand but how can an untrained citizen be allowed to make the decision of taking someones life?


----------



## Blindside (Jul 11, 2007)

Odin said:


> The police I can sort of understand but how can an untrained citizen be allowed to make the decision of taking someones life?


 
So you as a martial artist are never justified in using deadly force?  What training have you received?  I'm certainly a civilian, but I think I can figure out when my life is in danger.  

Lamont


----------



## Blindside (Jul 11, 2007)

achilles95 said:


> Do you think if American gun laws were made much stricter and it became harder for people to get hold of guns, it would significantly decrease American crime?
> 
> :shooter:
> Achilles


 
No.


----------



## Grenadier (Jul 11, 2007)

Odin said:


> The police I can sort of understand but how can an untrained citizen be allowed to make the decision of taking someones life?


 
Being a police officer doesn't make someone wiser, when it comes to taking another human being's life.  Common sense is what dictates this.  

Let's say that your wife is being attacked by a rapist, but has no firearms training.  Should she be forbidden from making the decision to kill the rapist?  Of course not.  Common sense dictates that she is perfectly justified in taking the life of that rapist.


----------



## K31 (Jul 11, 2007)

Odin said:


> The police I can sort of understand but how can an untrained citizen be allowed to make the decision of taking someones life?



In the (and many in this country forget this or choose to ignore it) the government is supposed to be subservient to the people and government officials are not supposed to have any more rights than than normal citizens.

Foremost among the unenumerated rights is the right to defend ones self and family.


----------



## Odin (Jul 11, 2007)

Blindside said:


> So you as a martial artist are never justified in using deadly force? What training have you received? I'm certainly a civilian, but I think I can figure out when my life is in danger.
> 
> Lamont


 

I train muay thai and MMA, I have used force but have never needed to use deadly force.

By force i mean i have knocked a man or two out in my time when i have been attacked.

My point is that there are times in all our lifes when we will need to defend ourselves but im not sure there is a need to kill the person im defending myself from.

Knocking out the man that is attacking me as enough for me, it has stopped the danger.

At least from the experiences i have had in my life.


----------



## Odin (Jul 11, 2007)

Grenadier said:


> Being a police officer doesn't make someone wiser, when it comes to taking another human being's life. Common sense is what dictates this.
> 
> Let's say that your wife is being attacked by a rapist, but has no firearms training. Should she be forbidden from making the decision to kill the rapist? Of course not. Common sense dictates that she is perfectly justified in taking the life of that rapist.


 
but would common sense also mean that she has the right to fend off the rapist without pulling the trigger?...if she was was to turn to her attack and raise the gun up to his chest, why does she need to pull the trigger?

in this way she has defended herself without actually killing anyone.

I have always thought that police officers are trained to deal with situations like the one mentioned above..and hopefully that training puts killing someone at the bottom of the 'what to do list'.


----------



## elder999 (Jul 11, 2007)

Odin said:


> but would common sense also mean that she has the right to fend off the rapist without pulling the trigger?...if she was was to turn to her attack and raise the gun up to his chest, why does she need to pull the trigger?
> 
> in this way she has defended herself without actually killing anyone.
> 
> I have always thought that police officers are trained to deal with situations like the one mentioned above..and hopefully that training puts killing someone at the bottom of the 'what to do list'.


 
Actually, while it _might_ happen that way, a trained woman would shoot the rapist, as _rape_ is a deadly threat, abd killing is a proper response to the threat. AN untrained woman would-and probably should-shoot himjust as well, just as legally, just as *morally*, and maybe just as dead.


----------



## CoryKS (Jul 11, 2007)

K31 said:


> In the (and many in this country forget this or choose to ignore it) *the government is supposed to be subservient to the people and government officials are not supposed to have any more rights than than normal citizens*.
> 
> Foremost among the unenumerated rights is the right to defend ones self and family.


 
Just thought that was worth repeating.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jul 11, 2007)

Odin said:


> The police I can sort of understand but how can an untrained citizen be allowed to make the decision of taking someones life?


 
You're incorrectly assuming that anyone who lawfully carries is untrained. You HAVE to undergo appropriate training or you do not get licensed so that point is more or less moot( this is often overlooked by people living outside the US who get the canned "beer-swilling redneck" image of gun owners thru their media(to be fair, our own media is equally unscrupulous).).


----------



## elder999 (Jul 11, 2007)

Andy Moynihan said:


> You're incorrectly assuming that anyone who lawfully carries is untrained. You HAVE to undergo appropriate training or you do not get licensed so that point is more or less moot( this is often overlooked by people living outside the US who get the canned "beer-swilling redneck" image of gun owners thru their media(to be fair, our own media is equally unscrupulous).).


 
To be fair, you're incorrectly assuming that anyone who posseses and uses a firearm is carrying-you're also incorrectly assuming that anyone who lawfully carries resides in a state that requires training. "open" carry, that is, carrying without concealment, is legal and requires no training in several southwestern states-at one time, in Arizona it was not at all uncommon (though somewhat unnerving) to see a tribe of bikers ride up with pistols strapped to their leg old-West style. In New Mexico, open carry is pretty much the law (there may be municipalities that restrict it, but I don't know of any) and doesn't require any training.

The U.S. is a big place, and we're not all unfortunate enough to be living in the People's Republic of Massachusettstan...


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jul 11, 2007)

elder999 said:


> To be fair, you're incorrectly assuming that anyone who posseses and uses a firearm is carrying-you're also incorrectly assuming that anyone who lawfully carries resides in a state that requires training. "open" carry, that is, carrying without concealment, is legal and requires no training in several southwestern states-at one time, in Arizona it was not at all uncommon (though somewhat unnerving) to see a tribe of bikers ride up with pistols strapped to their leg old-West style. In New Mexico, open carry is pretty much the law (there may be municipalities that restrict it, but I don't know of any) and doesn't require any training.
> 
> The U.S. is a big place, and we're not all unfortunate enough to be living in the People's Republic of Massachusettstan...


 
Move over, you got company.


----------



## Blindside (Jul 11, 2007)

Andy Moynihan said:


> Move over, you got company.


 
Open carry is available in Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, and South Dakota, none requires particular training.  

Regarding the training, some states, like Washington, are Shall Issue to carry concealed, and all you do is send in your application (and pass the background check) and you are good to go.  No training required.

Lamont


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jul 11, 2007)

I like the Shall Issue, not so much the no training.

I will forever be a proponent of the right of the law abiding to go armed, but I will always qualify that with the other side of the coin: never arm an untrained person.

But being as I've already had it, a relocation is most definitely in order once my bank account allows it.


----------



## elder999 (Jul 11, 2007)

Andy Moynihan said:


> I will forever be a proponent of the right of the law abiding to go armed, but I will always qualify that with the other side of the coin: never arm an untrained person..


 
I've got no problem with that viewpoint at all, in fact, I share it...but in some states, it's not the law.


----------



## Blindside (Jul 11, 2007)

Andy Moynihan said:


> I like the Shall Issue, not so much the no training.
> 
> I will forever be a proponent of the right of the law abiding to go armed, but I will always qualify that with the other side of the coin: never arm an untrained person.
> 
> But being as I've already had it, a relocation is most definitely in order once my bank account allows it.


 
I'm falling into the "less restrictions on our rights, the better" camp, but I do understand where you are coming from.

Regarding AZ, Phoenix high temps this week average about 110 or so.  , I'd be afraid of melting my glock. 

Lamont


----------



## bydand (Jul 11, 2007)

Not all the Easy Coast is as restrictive as Mass either.  Maine is an open carry State as well and is also a SHALL issue State.  The shall issue is dependent upon background check and short course involving the legalities and responsibilities of concealed carry, and time on the range with your weapon and instructor.  When I first moved to Maine it was just pay the fee and get your CCW, a few years ago (maybe about 8) they added the handgun course to the requirement as well, but as long as you take it and pay you get your CCW provided the background check is clear.  

tighter restrictions lower crime rate?  Never see it happen, the criminals would then just have free reign over anybody they encounter because the threat of that person MAYBE being armed is gone.  Not everybody has to *be* armed or have a CCW, to benefit from the ability to get one if they choose to.


----------



## Grenadier (Jul 11, 2007)

Odin said:


> but would common sense also mean that she has the right to fend off the rapist without pulling the trigger?...if she was was to turn to her attack and raise the gun up to his chest, why does she need to pull the trigger?


 
What if he doesn't stop?  You're assuming that an assailant will simply stop in his tracks, and that's not a good assumption to make when someone's life is at stake.  




> in this way she has defended herself without actually killing anyone.


 
Again, you assume that a criminal would stop.  



> I have always thought that police officers are trained to deal with situations like the one mentioned above..and hopefully that training puts killing someone at the bottom of the 'what to do list'.


 
Police officers are not trained to read minds.  They are trained to end the threat by whatever means are most practical, according to the situation. 

I this case, where a man is waving around a gun and not listening to police orders, ausing a ruckuss, you can't assume that he's not going to be a danger to everyone around him, and thus the police offers were completely justified in taking care of an obvious situation the way they did.  It's as clear-cut as the rapist example, where a woman would be completely justified in shooting a rapist.  

Again, it comes down to common sense.


----------



## chinto (Jul 11, 2007)

achilles95 said:


> Do you think if American gun laws were made much stricter and it became harder for people to get hold of guns, it would significantly decrease American crime?
> 
> :shooter:
> Achilles


 

no! and it has been statisticaly proven time and time again, out law guns and only the crooks have a gun. every place that kind of BS has happend the crime rate has soared to new hights and stayed there!


----------



## K31 (Jul 12, 2007)

One thing that I forgot to mention on the subject of police in the US having firearms for self defense vs. ordinary citizens:

Governments have gone to court (in at least two instances that I know of) to prove that they have no legal duty to come to your assistance, and the courts have agreed. This was specifically in cases of failure to respond to calls to the 911 emergency phone system calls.

I think that speaks for itself about a citizens right to be armed for self defense.


----------



## Darksoul (Jul 12, 2007)

-Just a side thought: the people who press for stricter gun laws, could some of them perhaps rationalize that if people are allowed to carry guns, what happens when a law-abiding citizen suddenly becomes a criminal? I'm trying to figure out the reasoning, if there is one separate from the standard (less guns, less crime) line of thinking. I do believe people should be trained and licensed but this could just be like immigration; enforce the laws that already exist, don't muck it up with new ones. Seriously, when did laws and policies start replacing common sense? Probably multiple answers to that question;-)

Andrew


----------



## K31 (Jul 12, 2007)

You can't license a right.


----------



## Monadnock (Jul 12, 2007)

http://www.gunfacts.info/


"Gun Facts is a free e-book that debunks common myths about gun control.  It is intended as a reference guide for journalists, activists, politicians, and other people interested in restoring honesty to the debate about guns, crime, and the 2nd Amendment."


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 26, 2007)

achilles95 said:


> Do you think if American gun laws were made much stricter and it became harder for people to get hold of guns, it would significantly decrease American crime?
> 
> :shooter:
> Achilles




Not necessarily.  Crime is caused by a host of factors.  

Gun laws at the federal level attempt a "one size fits all" blanketing effect of the legislation.  North Dakotans, for instance, probably don't want anti-gun laws and likely don't need them.  We shouldn't pass federal laws that impinge upon their right to own firearms.  Likewise, in my state of Indiana, the population seems quite content with their firearms.  The laws here are "liberal" (in the traditional and proper sense of the word) and we recently instituted a lifetime carry permit...which I now have.

Gun crime itself could be looked at as a symptom, rather than a cause.  Examine the root causes of the violence that leads to gun crime, and we find a host of problems.  Drug "turf" wars often are a major cause of violence.  If we can find effective ways to stop the turf wars, we might well find a drop in gun crime.  

Alcohol could be listed as a "cause" of violence...but is always listed as a contributing factor and seems never demonized to the level guns are.  Being male is another correlation.  Being poor yet another.  Being young still yet another.  Perhaps we should outlaw poor drunk youths?

My point is that we spend much time assigning blame, listing those demons that scare us the most.  The survivor of the alcoholic home lists booze as the arch-nemesis, a feminist who was molested by her father might list men as the evil, a curmudgeon will point the finger at the youngster, a bigot will point at a minority, an elitist finds fault with the poor.  

And, noting that each of these shrill perspectives carries a nasty appellation with it, some find it preferable to point at a perfectly inert chunk of steel.  It's easy.  It is particularly easy for the person who has never handled a gun and who has developed a visceral fear of them.  To them, a gun is often a political icon, a symbol of all they consider evil.  Hence the vitriol.  Thus the political drive to outlaw them.  

I suppose there was a day when swords were likewise considered wicked...and there was a call to beat them into plowshares.

Virginia Techs massacre failed to engender any substantial anti-gun jeremiad...which may be reflective of the times.  The left has learned that its anti-gun rhetoric alienates moderates whose votes they desperately crave--and indeed--need.  There were so many other issues raised by that rampage, however, that it became clear to everyone that the means were outpaced by the madness.  In perusing the pictures of the shooter, one could not look at the eyes of Cho Seung Hui and fail to recognize the source of terror that day. 

The irony is that he may have brought a measure of sanity to the debate.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## elder999 (Jan 2, 2014)

Andy Moynihan said:


> I like the Shall Issue, not so much the no training.
> 
> I will forever be a proponent of the right of the law abiding to go armed, but I will always qualify that with the other side of the coin: never arm an untrained person.
> 
> But being as I've already had it, a relocation is most definitely in order once my bank account allows it.



If You Don't Have Training, You're Just Pretending


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jan 6, 2014)

Grenadier said:


> I will simply counter, that firearms availability does not affect the ability of someone to kill himself.  After all, Japan, a nation that forbids firearms to the law-abiding populace, had a suicide rate of over 20 per 100,000 people in 1990, compared to the US, which had a rate of 12.2 per 100,000 people.


On a side note I would like to point out that much of the suicide rate in Japan is with teenagers. Japan has a really high suicide rate among young people because too much pressure is put on young people to succeed academically, ect. So banning guns is not the answer to stopping suicide, rather the answer is to not push young people so hard and to have help available.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jan 6, 2014)

achilles95 said:


> Interesting point. I personally feel gun laws must be made much stricter and and that gun sales must be closely moderated.


Are you saying the rest of the USA should be like New Jersey with gun laws? New Jersey has among the tightest gun laws in the country along with Mass, D.C. and CA, and such places aren't any safer than the rest of the country, as a matter of fact, all those places have a high crime rate.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jan 6, 2014)

Lisa said:


> No, take a look at Canada.  We aren't any safer and our crime rate has not dropped.  It did however, cost the tax payers billions


You might want to move to the USA. You get more freedom and in most places it doesn't get as cold as Canada.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 6, 2014)

elder999 said:


> If You Don't Have Training, You're Just Pretending



7 years and thats the best you come up with?


----------



## elder999 (Jan 6, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> 7 years and thats the best you come up with?



I thought he said it pretty well, is all-it's not the best. For me, though, it's a pretty bottom line statement-if you carry a firearm and you're not trained in its use, you're not properly armed.


----------



## Haakon (Jan 6, 2014)

No, making it harder for people to legally buy guns will not decrease crime.

Case in point:
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/...s-less-safe/3845k7xHzkwTrBWy4KpkEM/story.html


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 6, 2014)

elder999 said:


> I thought he said it pretty well, is all-it's not the best. For me, though, it's a pretty bottom line statement-if you carry a firearm and you're not trained in its use, you're not properly armed.



And they are not the problem.  The legal gun owner isn't out killing folks  in the streets


----------



## elder999 (Jan 7, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> And they are not the problem.  The legal gun owner isn't out killing folks  in the streets



I got two words that not only put the lie to what you're saying, but support all I'm saying about training:

George Zimmerman.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 7, 2014)

elder999 said:


> I got two words that not only put the lie to what you're saying, but support all I'm saying about training:
> 
> George Zimmerman.



George Zimmerman wasn't a problem his shooting was legal and jusitifed.  In the same situation I'd do the same thing.
Regardless how many of the hundreds of homicides in Detroit and Chicago do you think were committed by legal gun owners.  Your 1 extream example can't compare to the 1000s of homicides a year by illegal guns


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 7, 2014)

I totally agree with training I'm totally against it being a forced prerequisite to exercise a right.  If I don't need to show an ID to vote because that's a financial hardship then spending hundreds on classes is also a financial hardship


----------

