Gun Control - New Bills

[hitlerscow]

So, in addition to Senator Feinstein's gun bill, another member of congress (forgot the name) from New Jersey has introduced legislation to ban certain features of firearms - specifically standard magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. This includes your average Glock and/or other 9 mm pistols.

I am a staunch opponent of such things. The only thing laws like this do is making magazines really expensive! What is you guys' opinion on this and other gun control legislation?

[SylenT]

Being from NY I'm pretty sick of hearing about all that stuff. But what I do know is that NY is fucked. lol

[Puss in Boots]

I think more time and money should be invested in upgrading the networks of each state and how they talk to the FBI with regards to the background check system. I also think that there is clearly a mental health epidemic going on in the US. I think we need to check ourselves in areas of this whole "self esteem" movement we have put our children through and admit it has damaged them. They have no self esteem because they were handed everything on a silver platter with nothing to earn.

There also needs to be education on warning signs people show for being psychotic like Nehemiah Griego. I'm 100% against this gun legislation garbage because it does NOT do a thing to stop the problem.

[gplaydee]

Disclaimer: I hope this isn't insulting or offensive, but...

I know a lot of people don't believe in gun legislation, but let's be real. When a school gets shot up, it's not because there is not effective gun-legislation in place; it's because the social safety net in the country is inadequate. A lot of the crime being committed is due to poverty. In the case of mass shootings, it's because someone has mental health issues that are not addressed or contained by the State's social programs. And if a country can't afford a better social safety net, then gun legislation serves as a feasible (albeit, temporary) band-aid alternative. I think it also goes without saying that this is a political move. If the government did not form a concrete response, they'd be seen as negligent in their duties.

Personally, I think the world could do with less guns and tighter regulations. However, the real problem is a lot of people can't afford a basic standard of living, but are surrounded by a society that values and emphasizes luxury.

[atari]

I"m pretty far on the extreme for the gun-debate topic. I don't believe anyone but security personnel should have the right to own firearms (including hunting guns). The idea that teacher's should be armed in schools blows my mind.

[Hilikus]

I have lots of thoughts on this subject, but don't have the time to get into it here.

[quote name='atari' timestamp='1359068193' post='7334']
The idea that teacher's should be armed in schools blows my mind.
[/quote]

Sometimes, the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Personally I think they should teach Weapons Safety and Defense at the high school level, to include pistols, rifles, and semi automatic weapons.

The 2nd Amendment has greater meaning than simply personal ownership of weapons, while I wish I could get into it further, I leave you with this...

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
[i]George Washington[/i]

"An armed man is a citizen. A disarmed man is a subject."
[i]Anon.[/i]

[atari]

[quote name='Hilikus' timestamp='1359069649' post='7337']
I have lots of thoughts on this subject, but don't have the time to get into it here.



Sometimes, the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Personally I think they should teach Weapons Safety and Defense at the high school level, to include pistols, rifles, and semi automatic weapons.

The 2nd Amendment has greater meaning than simply personal ownership of weapons, while I wish I could get into it further, I leave you with this...

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
[i]George Washington[/i]

"An armed man is a citizen. A disarmed man is a subject."
[i]Anon.[/i]
[/quote]

What if the teacher is a bad guy? In my mind, more guns doesn't solve guns (I know that's a simplistic way of looking at it, but I still think it stands true). And you can teach weapon safety and all that, but it's not the inability to understand and use firearms that's the problem. It's the mental stability (or instability) of the individual in question. Unfortunately, some people are just "programmed" wrong. It's the access to help that's the problem. So, couple their mental instability with the ease of access to firearms, or any real means of quick, easy murder options, and that creates problems.

I'm well aware that my views on gun ownership might be quite out there, especially for anyone from the States, and I don't think your views are wrong by any means. But if I got to decide things, that's the route I'd go.

And I don't really understand your Washington quote. I fully understand what removing rights represents - and in no way do I advocate taking things away from people for no good reason. But, in my mind the world is an evolving place. Just because something was written in history doesn't mean it should be a permanent, fundamental part of society. Rules & rights need to always be challenged, to make sure they still serve a greater good.

[Christine]

all i got to say is i can buy better guns on the streets than in the store....so laws mean nothing

[hitlerscow]

[quote name='atari' timestamp='1359070403' post='7338']
What if the teacher is a bad guy? In my mind, more guns doesn't solve guns (I know that's a simplistic way of looking at it, but I still think it stands true). And you can teach weapon safety and all that, but it's not the inability to understand and use firearms that's the problem. It's the mental stability (or instability) of the individual in question. Unfortunately, some people are just "programmed" wrong. It's the access to help that's the problem. So, couple their mental instability with the ease of access to firearms, or any real means of quick, easy murder options, and that creates problems.

I'm well aware that my views on gun ownership might be quite out there, especially for anyone from the States, and I don't think your views are wrong by any means. But if I got to decide things, that's the route I'd go.

And I don't really understand your Washington quote. I fully understand what removing rights represents - and in no way do I advocate taking things away from people for no good reason. But, in my mind the world is an evolving place. Just because something was written in history doesn't mean it should be a permanent, fundamental part of society. Rules & rights need to always be challenged, to make sure they still serve a greater good.
[/quote]

We have fought wars of ideology to ensure that government maintains personal liberty, not to serve the greater good. The greater good is best served when personal liberty is maintained. That is the fundamental difference between Capitalism and Socialism. Guns are everywhere. There are millions of them. They're old technology and they're not going anywhere anytime soon. Assuming a law will just make them disappear is naive and foolish.

In [i]The Art of War[/i], Machiavelli brings up an excellent point about arms. And I quote: "Rome remained free four hundred years while armed: Sparta eight hundred: Many other Cities have been dis-armed, and have been free less than forty years; for Cities have need of arms, and if they do not have arms of their own, they hire them from foreigners, and the arms of foreigners more readily do harm to the public good than their own; for they are easier to corrupt, and a citizen who becomes powerful can more readily avail himself, and can also manage the people more readily as he has to oppress men who are disarmed."

Also, the 2nd Amendment wasn't written for hunters, target shooters, or even self defense. It was written to confine the government's ability to seize firearms. It specifically says - CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW. It was written to defend against tyranny domestically and put the people on equal footing with their government overlords.

In order to vote in Switzerland, for hundreds of years, your arms, your sword is what proclaimed your citizenship. They still practice this via mandatory gun ownership and conscription.

I agree with you in that in a perfect, Utopian world: all guns should be banned - as everyone would be law abiding. But lets face reality. Only thing stopping a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Period.

[atari]

[quote name='hitlerscow' timestamp='1359071388' post='7340']
We have fought wars of ideology to ensure that government maintains personal liberty, not to serve the greater good. The greater good is best served when personal liberty is maintained. That is the fundamental difference between Capitalism and Socialism. Guns are everywhere. There are millions of them. They're old technology and they're not going anywhere anytime soon. Assuming a law will just make them disappear is naive and foolish.

In [i]The Art of War[/i], Machiavelli brings up an excellent point about arms. And I quote: "Rome remained free four hundred years while armed: Sparta eight hundred: Many other Cities have been dis-armed, and have been free less than forty years; for Cities have need of arms, and if they do not have arms of their own, they hire them from foreigners, and the arms of foreigners more readily do harm to the public good than their own; for they are easier to corrupt, and a citizen who becomes powerful can more readily avail himself, and can also manage the people more readily as he has to oppress men who are disarmed."

Also, the 2nd Amendment wasn't written for hunters, target shooters, or even self defense. It was written to confine the government's ability to seize firearms. It specifically says - CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW. It was written to defend against tyranny domestically and put the people on equal footing with their government overlords.

In order to vote in Switzerland, for hundreds of years, your arms, your sword is what proclaimed your citizenship. They still practice this via mandatory gun ownership and conscription.

I agree with you in that in a perfect, Utopian world: all guns should be banned - as everyone would be law abiding. But lets face reality. Only thing stopping a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Period.
[/quote]

using that logic, shouldn't the States be one of the safest countries in the world (since they have the most guns in the hands of good guys) instead of having one of the highest gun-deaths per capita in the world (excluding countries with wars going on obviously).

I don't know. One of the biggest reasons I believe the laws are broken in the US is because the country seems broken. No where else has the same extreme issues around unnecessary death and violence (first world). At least no where I read about. I could very well just be ignorant, as I'm not claiming to be totally worldly or up to date on politics.

[Walking-Decoy]

[quote name='atari' timestamp='1359068193' post='7334']
I"m pretty far on the extreme for the gun-debate topic. I don't believe anyone but security personnel should have the right to own firearms (including hunting guns). The idea that teacher's should be armed in schools blows my mind.
[/quote]

I have a question for you then...

If you had a kid in that school when a psycho criminal used illegally obtained firearms walked through the front doors... Would you want your teachers to potentially be armed or would you rather them be unarmed and unable to defend your child's life?

Also, it's a pretty well known statistic that the places with the highest gun murder rates are the areas with the strictest gun laws. The safest areas are often the places with a higher number of legal gun owners\carriers.

[Walking-Decoy]

[quote name='atari' timestamp='1359070403' post='7338']
What if the teacher is a bad guy? In my mind, more guns doesn't solve guns (I know that's a simplistic way of looking at it, but I still think it stands true). And you can teach weapon safety and all that, but it's not the inability to understand and use firearms that's the problem. It's the mental stability (or instability) of the individual in question. Unfortunately, some people are just "programmed" wrong. It's the access to help that's the problem. So, couple their mental instability with the ease of access to firearms, or any real means of quick, easy murder options, and that creates problems.

I'm well aware that my views on gun ownership might be quite out there, especially for anyone from the States, and I don't think your views are wrong by any means. But if I got to decide things, that's the route I'd go.

And I don't really understand your Washington quote. I fully understand what removing rights represents - and in no way do I advocate taking things away from people for no good reason. But, in my mind the world is an evolving place. Just because something was written in history doesn't mean it should be a permanent, fundamental part of society. Rules & rights need to always be challenged, to make sure they still serve a greater good.
[/quote]

People's mental instability is why I want to own a gun, and why others should too. It's quite rare that a gun owner goes off the deep end like you suggest. Most gun deaths are from illegally obtained weapons. And the gun legislation will only make it harder for me to *legally* protect me and my own.

I don't care if a mentally unstable person comes at me with a bat... If I think my life is threatened I want as many bullets and as much force as I can possibly use to safely protect myself\my family.

ps: Bats are higher on the FBI's list of dangerous weapons. That's above guns as well. Should we ban bats?

[M.E.R.C Janos]

Guys I am a gun owner and I believe in the Second Amendment, All what is going on right now is a bunch of idiots who decided to out law guns because some crazy guy shot up a school. I agree with some of you that we have to do something about it and mabe more guns in some cases might not be the best solution, but people who have and might be in future situations such as Connecticut have the means to protect themselfs and others the out come would be much different. If someone at that school had a CHL it would have ended right then and there and mabey no one would have been hurt.

But again if they cant outlaw guns they will go after the ammo and make it expensive. Finestein and her bill can go to hell she does not know a dam thing about guns or there features. And no matter how many laws, there will always be violence in civilized socicety guys. But mabey down the road there will be someone with the means to stop a future CT. And I will always remember what the NRA said " The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun".

[Walking-Decoy]

[quote name='atari' timestamp='1359075490' post='7343']
using that logic, shouldn't the States be one of the safest countries in the world (since they have the most guns in the hands of good guys) instead of having one of the highest gun-deaths per capita in the world (excluding countries with wars going on obviously).

I don't know. One of the biggest reasons I believe the laws are broken in the US is because the country seems broken. No where else has the same extreme issues around unnecessary death and violence (first world). At least no where I read about. I could very well just be ignorant, as I'm not claiming to be totally worldly or up to date on politics.
[/quote]
1) We have a rather high population compared to most other countries. It is rather unfair to look at other countries with 1/10th the population and look at their murder by gun numbers without taking into account the actual percentages instead. When you do this, the numbers are quite closer.... America is still up there, absolutely, but other factors are largers causes for that increase.

2) In addition to what you stated... You would think we would have lower gun murders based off of how many guns we have... However as I mentioned above, it is quite often the case that the areas with the highest murders are the very same places with the strictest gun controls for law abiding citizens. These areas tend to be ripe with gang warfare and account for a very large percentage of the gun murders...gang on gang crime and etc.... This severely raises the overall "gun murder average" of the US. If our gun murder rate was at the level of some areas that aren't scared to put a gun in a law abiding citizen's hands, we probably wouldn't even be having thid discussion.

3) Countries that have very strict gun laws typically see a very giant leap in violent crime and murders with other weapons go through the roof. Bats are the most common.... Do we ban Bats? Britain is a prime example of the typical rise in other violent crimes and murders with non-guns.

[atari]

Which countries specifically are you talking about WD (in relation to strict-laws and high gun crime)?

And whenever I cited the states as high in gun crime, i meant per-capita.

I can totally understand the position of wanting to protect your child. But to me, what happens when you give everyone the power to so easily and quickly end someones life, you have to rely on that person's psyche and decision making. And that scares me. Because when shit hits the wall, people's ability to make decisions can not always function properly. What if you thought someone was breaking into a school to shoot people up, but it was just a kid with a cap-gun playing with his friends? Or some stupid teenage pulling a prank? To me, the scenario of an "average joe" killing someone by accident because they thought there was a legitimate threat is just as likely as the chances of some psycho shoots up a school. And the argument for banning bats is silly. A psycho will kill people if they want to regardless of gun laws...i agree with that. But the chances of mass murder are much higher with a gun than with a knife or bat.

I think we just have fundamental differences in the idea and comfort of it all. I've grown up in a society where the idea of guns doesn't even enter everyday thought. I don't know anyone in "real life" (even through several degrees of separation) who owns a gun. I'd have real issues if one of my friends decided to go out and buy one. It just isn't the way of life around here, and the instant it enters the way of life i'd worry about how drastically our society would change. It almost creates a cold-war scenario - where you are you constantly arming yourself and worrying about everyone else, which means everyone else starts arming themselves with even "better" weapons, and the cycle continues.

You say that perhaps I don't trust the average joe to protect my children...I'd counter that perhaps you guys trust the average joe too much to properly identify and protect people as well.

[Dragoon]

I know it's been stated several times before but in my opinion the gun laws do nothing. If a criminal or a pyscho wants to do something such as kill someone it is much easier and actually easily more likely that they are going to do it with an illegally obtained weapon anyway so banning guns for the people that use them for leisure and self defense does nothing but increase the flow of weapons into the black market that these criminals use to obtain weapons anyway.

[gplaydee]

With respect to the NRA's "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun", the point of contention is: who is the good guy? Does the good guy have to be certifiably good (law enforcement), generally good, mentally healthy, a good samaritan? This quote doesn't hold much weight with me because it's arbitrary (lazy). It's presumptuous to think that the average American is a "good guy". We lie, cheat, steal EVERY DAY. If you borrow something and forget to return it, it is STILL considered stealing. If you wear boots to make yourself taller (heels) it is LYING. If you set your interp in OSG's servers as anything OTHER than what's prescribed by OSG's bylaws, it is CHEATING.

The term "good" is not a sufficient tool for measuring the probability of socially inappropriate behaviour. The only concretely measurable tool to determine 'good' is through legislation (law). Legislation (gun or other) is also the only enforceable tool that separates 'good' from 'bad'.

[Puss in Boots]

[quote name='gplaydee' timestamp='1359119982' post='7367']
With respect to the NRA's "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun", the point of contention is: who is the good guy? Does the good guy have to be certifiably good (law enforcement), generally good, mentally healthy, a good samaritan? This quote doesn't hold much weight with me because it's arbitrary (lazy). It's presumptuous to think that the average American is a "good guy". We lie, cheat, steal EVERY DAY. If you borrow something and forget to return it, it is STILL considered stealing. If you wear boots to make yourself taller (heels) it is LYING. If you set your interp in OSG's servers as anything OTHER than what's prescribed by OSG's bylaws, it is CHEATING.

The term "good" is not a sufficient tool for measuring the probability of socially inappropriate behaviour. The only concretely measurable tool to determine 'good' is through legislation (law). Legislation (gun or other) is also the only enforceable tool that separates 'good' from 'bad'.
[/quote]

The implication of their statement regarding what constitutes as a "good guy" is very concise: Someone who carries a gun but wouldn't shoot anyone unless they were a threat to the well being of themselves or others. They have specified this before as well in other speeches/statements. It's not as lazy as it first sounds.

[M.E.R.C Janos]

Puss and gplaydee, you two make very good points.

1.) Yes that quote is a bit weak from how it was said but in some cases it is the truth. If a law abiding citizen has the legal means at their disposal to defend the lives of them and others, they should act on their legal right. As ive said above if there was a teacher or individual at that school with a CHL it would have end there and then and maby no one would have been hurt or killed.

2.) Stats have shown that when theres no guns crime goes up and viceversa. Also as ive said more guns might not be the answer to every problem but pending the situation gun do good and not just bad.

3.) The Second Amendment was written for the common person to Bear Arms and if nessary to fight the threat government tyranny.

[M.E.R.C Janos]

[quote name='gplaydee' timestamp='1359119982' post='7367']
With respect to the NRA's "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun", the point of contention is: who is the good guy? Does the good guy have to be certifiably good (law enforcement), generally good, mentally healthy, a good samaritan? This quote doesn't hold much weight with me because it's arbitrary (lazy). It's presumptuous to think that the average American is a "good guy". We lie, cheat, steal EVERY DAY. If you borrow something and forget to return it, it is STILL considered stealing. If you wear boots to make yourself taller (heels) it is LYING. If you set your interp in OSG's servers as anything OTHER than what's prescribed by OSG's bylaws, it is CHEATING.

The term "good" is not a sufficient tool for measuring the probability of socially inappropriate behaviour. The only concretely measurable tool to determine 'good' is through legislation (law). Legislation (gun or other) is also the only enforceable tool that separates 'good' from 'bad'.
[/quote]
[quote name='Puss in Boots' timestamp='1359122760' post='7369']
The implication of their statement regarding what constitutes as a "good guy" is very concise: Someone who carries a gun but wouldn't shoot anyone unless they were a threat to the well being of themselves or others. They have specified this before as well in other speeches/statements. It's not as lazy as it first sounds.
[/quote]
Puss and gplaydee, you two make very good points.

1.) Yes that quote is a bit weak from how it was said but in some cases it is the truth. If a law abiding citizen has the legal means at their disposal to defend the lives of them and others, they should act on their legal right. As ive said above if there was a teacher or individual at that school with a CHL it would have end there and then and maby no one would have been hurt or killed.

2.) Stats have shown that when theres no guns crime goes up and viceversa. Also as ive said more guns might not be the answer to every problem but pending the situation gun do good and not just bad.

3.) The Second Amendment was written for the common person to Bear Arms and if nessary to fight the threat government tyranny.

[Puss in Boots]

[quote name='gplaydee' timestamp='1359119982' post='7367']The term "good" is not a sufficient tool for measuring the probability of socially inappropriate behaviour. The only concretely measurable tool to determine 'good' is through legislation (law). Legislation (gun or other) is also the only enforceable tool that separates 'good' from 'bad'.
[/quote]

Forgot to respond to this portion. I agree that the term "good" isn't sufficient for measuring behavior. It is simply a word that has meaning given to it by someone. I disagree that legislation/law should be the measurement by which we measure good and evil. An example of why is that if a family does not have a living trust, when they both die, their assets and estate go to probate court and the government decides what happens to it, not the surviving members of the family. The government of the USA then STEALS as much as HALF of their assets and estate and go "Here you go, here's the rest LOL" after wasting everyone's time.

It is legal for governments to steal through law...but is it right? There's a reason MLK Jr. echoed St. Augustine's "An unjust law is no law at all." It's not right even if it is legal.

Another thought: In some cultures, you love your neighbor. In other cultures, you eat your neighbor. Who is right and based on what? This is the issue we deal with involving Middle Eastern countries and Womens' Rights. It is perfectly legal in some countries for a divorced man to attack his wife with a jar of acid, leaving her disfigured. Is it legal? YES. Is it right? NO. But based on what?

Law enforcement doesn't stop criminals from obtaining guns and using them. It's been that way since weapons existed. The real heart of the issue is a crisis of humanity and the moral and ethical consequences within. As a global culture, we reject the idea that there is any absolute truth in any area of life, yet are hypocritical while throwing criminals in prison, shunning other cultures for their behavior and so forth.

My point: We need to get our heads out of our behinds, admit that government is run by just as sinful people as you and I have the capacity to do to others and admit that there are absolute truths to life, that good and evil are defined OUTSIDE of what any government legislates it to be and any organization outlines it as and to agree to hold OURSELVES and EACH OTHER accountable for the injustices done to others.

Everyone has beliefs and opinions these days. Very few have convictions that stir them to lead real action that leads to real results (and not emotional overreactions and unintended consequences for not thinking things through.)

Until this happens, expect things to get worse. We are naive to be surprised by what is going on and are foolish to have overreactions.

[HabaneroHero]

Great conversation. I love guns!

[Walking-Decoy]

[quote name='atari' timestamp='1359090451' post='7359']
Which countries specifically are you talking about WD (in relation to strict-laws and high gun crime)?[/QUOTE]A few examples:


Brazil
Main article: [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Brazil"]Gun politics in Brazil[/url]
All firearms in [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil"]Brazil[/url] are required to be registered with the state. The minimum age for ownership is 25[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics#cite_note-BBCNews-4"][size="2"][4][/size][/url][/sup] and it is generally illegal to carry a gun outside a residence.[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics#cite_note-NRA_in_Brazil-5"][size="2"][5][/size][/url][/sup] The total number of firearms in Brazil is thought to be between 14 million and 17 million[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics#cite_note-NRA_in_Brazil-5"][size="2"][5][/size][/url][/sup][sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics#cite_note-Gun_Facts_and_the_Law-6"][size="2"][6][/size][/url][/sup] with 9 million of those being unregistered.[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics#cite_note-BBCNews-4"][size="2"][4][/size][/url][/sup] Some 39,000 people died in 2003 due to gun-related injuries nationwide.[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics#cite_note-NRA_in_Brazil-5"][size="2"][5][/size][/url][/sup] In 2004, the number was 36,000.[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics#cite_note-BBCNews-4"][size="2"][4][/size][/url][/sup] Although Brazil has 100 million fewer citizens than the United States, and more restrictive gun laws, there are 25 percent more gun deaths;[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics#cite_note-Gun_rights_in_Brazil-7"][size="2"][7][/size][/url][/sup] other sources indicate that homicide rates due to guns are approximately four times higher than the rate in the United States.[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics#cite_note-Gun_Happy_Brazil-8"][size="2"][8][/size][/url][/sup] Brazil has the second largest arms industry in the Western Hemisphere.[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics#cite_note-Gun_Happy_Brazil-8"][size="2"][8][/size][/url][/sup] Approximately 80 percent of the weapons manufactured in Brazil are exported, mostly to neighboring countries; many of these weapons are then smuggled back into Brazil.[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics#cite_note-Gun_Happy_Brazil-8"][size="2"][8][/size][/url][/sup] Some firearms in Brazil come from police and military arsenals, having either been "stolen or sold by corrupt soldiers and officers."[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics#cite_note-Gun_Happy_Brazil-8"][size="2"][8][/size][/url][/sup]
In 2005, a referendum was held in Brazil on the sale of firearms and ammunition to attempt to lower the number of deaths due to guns. Material focused on gun rights in opposition to the gun ban was translated from information from the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association"]National Rifle Association[/url], much of which focused on US Constitutional discussions focused around the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution"]Second Amendment to the United States Constitution[/url].[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics#cite_note-Gun_rights_in_Brazil-7"][size="2"][7][/size][/url][/sup] Although the Brazilian Government, the Catholic Church, and the United Nations, among others, fought for the gun ban, the referendum failed at the polls, with 64% of the voters voting no.[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics#cite_note-BBCNews-4"][size="2"][4][/size][/url][/sup]

There are also more but I'm having trouble finding the documentary I watched showing both sides of the fence.

But here are some additional interesting facts and statistics:
*In 1968, Hawaii imposed a series of increasingly harsh gun control measures and its murder rate tripled from a low of 2.4 per 100,000 in 1968 to 7.2 by 1977.
*New Jersey adopted what sponsors described as "the most stringent gun law" in the nation in 1966; two years later the murder rate was up 46% and the reported robbery rate had nearly doubled.--The reason they enacted these laws was because the crime rates were increasing rapidly in the first place.
*Among the 15 states with the highest homicide rates, 10 have restrictive or very restrictive gun laws.[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics#cite_note-188"][size="2"][188][/size][/url][/sup]
*Twenty percent of U.S. homicides occur in four cities with just 6% of the population—New York, Chicago, [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit"]Detroit[/url], and Washington, D.C.. Chicago has, and DC had until 2008, effectively complete bans on handgun ownership & use for self-defense. New York does allow handgun ownership, but only with the approval of city officials. Post-2008 DC allows handgun ownership, but has no provision to carry. Detroit had a similar policy until 2001, when the city's law was preempted by a new state law making Michigan a shall-issue state for concealed pistol licenses

And, from the same wiki page... This was actually mentioned in the video I'm trying to find, another great statistic that SPECIFICALLY shows that no matter how few of us law abiding citizens own guns for self defense, a crazy maniac CAN and WILL kill a lot of people WITH A GUN, if he wants too. Taking away the citizens guns leaves me with no means of defense. Guns aren't going to magically disappear. That's foolish to think so. Read below:
------------
[u][b]In England, Wales and Scotland, the private ownership of most handguns was banned in 1997 following a gun massacre at a school in [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_massacre"]Dunblane[/url] and a 1987 gun massacre in [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungerford_massacre"]Hungerford[/url] in which the combined deaths was 35 and injured 30. Gun ownership and gun crime was already at a low level, which made these slaughters particularly concerning. Only an estimated 57,000 people —0.1% of the population owned such weapons prior to the ban.[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics#cite_note-190"][size="2"][190][/size][/url][/sup] [/b][/u]In the UK, only 8 per cent of all criminal homicides are committed with a firearm of any kind.[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics#cite_note-191"][size="2"][191][/size][/url][/sup] In 2005/6 the number of such deaths in England and Wales (population 53.3 million) was just 50, a reduction of 36 per cent on the year before and lower than at any time since 1998/9. In the years immediately after the ban, there was a temporary increase in gun crime, though this has since fallen back. The reason for the increase has not been investigated thoroughly but it is thought that 3 factors may have raised the number of guns in circulation. These are, the reduction in gun crime in Northern Ireland (which led to guns coming from there to the criminal black market in England); guns (official issue or confiscated) acquired by military personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan; and guns coming from Eastern Europe after the fall of the iron curtain.[sup][size="2"][[i][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed"]citation needed[/url][/i]][/size][/sup] Firearm injuries in England and Wales also increased in this time.[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics#cite_note-192"][size="2"][192][/size][/url][/sup] In 2005-06, of 5,001 such injuries, 3,474 (69%) were defined as "slight," and a further 965 (19%) involved the "firearm" being used as a [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blunt_instrument"]blunt instrument[/url]. Twenty-four percent of injuries were caused with [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_gun"]air guns[/url], and 32% with "imitation firearms" (including [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airsoft"]airsoft guns[/url]).[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics#cite_note-193"][size="2"][193][/size][/url][/sup] In 2007 the number of deaths in Britain (population 60.7 million) from firearms was 51, and in 2008 it was 42, a 20-year low, with vast parts of the country recording no homicides, suicides or accidental deaths from firearms.[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics#cite_note-The_Independent-67"][size="2"][67][/size][/url][/sup]
------------
Now, read the underlined and also read the whole paragraph. It states that although the country *already* had strict laws, there was still a mass murder to the likes of our recent ones... Why? Because criminals don't give a shit about gun laws.

Now when you continue reading it sounds like the gun laws are working... However the gun murder rate was *already dropping significantly* prior to the ban, and the ban initially actually increased the crime rate, before it continued to fall down and decrease in the way it already was prior to the ban. That's not a very effective argument for gun bans in my opinion.... It was obvious that gun crime was already falling and enacting a law to limit something and giving that law credit to a continuation of that fall is rather ridiculous and a horrible attempt to skew statistics.

Besides, the fact is, some countries are just flat out different. What works in one country doesn't mean it will work here... In my opinion, countries with strict gun laws and low crime tend to be countries that never really had any kind of major crime issues to begin with prior to the ban... Australia for example..

Heck, let's bring another great example about how a highly armed populace can lead to a lower crime rate.. Switzerland. They *REQUIRE* most households to have a *FULLY AUTOMATIC* weapon if there is an "able bodied male" there in case they are called in for active duty. They also do have some other gun restrictions but the fact remains that an absolute ton of homes have fully auto (Ooohhh soooo dangerous) weapon in them and their crime rate is VERY CLOSE to that of.....*gasp*... Canada... In fact, only the gun caused suicide rate is the only stat that is significantly hire... And we all know that suiciders aren't just going to say "Hmmm man I really wish I could kill myself but gee golly I don't got a gun, so I guess I'll just live a happy life instead".

One statistic that I would love to see someone look into, is look at America's murder gun rates *WITHOUT* taking into account all the high gun murder rate cities which typically ARE the cities with the strictest laws. I bet our number would look quite a bit better at that point as, oddly enough, we wouldnt have the strict gun laws "ruining" our statistic and raising up the average significantly.


[QUOTE=atari]
I can totally understand the position of wanting to protect your child. But to me, what happens when you give everyone the power to so easily and quickly end someones life, you have to rely on that person's psyche and decision making. And that scares me. Because when shit hits the wall, people's ability to make decisions can not always function properly. What if you thought someone was breaking into a school to shoot people up, but it was just a kid with a cap-gun playing with his friends? Or some stupid teenage pulling a prank? To me, the scenario of an "average joe" killing someone by accident because they thought there was a legitimate threat is just as likely as the chances of some psycho shoots up a school. And the argument for banning bats is silly. A psycho will kill people if they want to regardless of gun laws...i agree with that. But the chances of mass murder are much higher with a gun than with a knife or bat.
[/QUOTE]
See, this is where I don't understand your point. Everyone *already has* the power to easily and quickly end someones life. You rely on people's psyche and decision making everyday. You don't know your kids personal life. You don't know the police officers personal life. You don't know the personal life's of the hundreds of people you interact with in a weeks time. You do not know, period. You drive in the opposite lane of potentially crazy ass people that could swerve right into your path because they had a bad day, which vehicular suicide has actually happened btw.

What gets me is that you believe the scenario of an "average joe" killing someone by accident is just as likely... It isn't true and statistics prove that. Sure there are accidental shootings but it IS typically when someone is pulling a dumb-fuck prank and faking a break-in or some other stupid shit.. Is there a chance that these issues can happen? ABSOLUTELY. I will never say that arming everyone means no deaths... But I will alwyas believe that arming as many *legal* citizens as possible will lead to far less *purposeful* mass murders. Why? Just look at the last bunch we had. Where did they take place? Oh look at that...gun-free zones. Seems to be a bit of a commonality in these shootings. These psychos TARGET places like this because they know they will see little to no opposition... And they want to inflict maximum damage before they either kill themselves or the police *finally* show up. They don't want to be known as the psycho who ran into a school to ry and kill 50 people but got shot by the first or second teacher they saw. They want high body counts so they target gun free zones.

All the above is supported by the fact that the US "Unintentional Gun Death" rate is 0.2 per 100,000 versus the 3.6 per 100,000 intential gun murders. That alone pretty much nullifies any sort of "average joe is just as dangerous" argument you may have. It just isn't true, statistics show that.

And what do you consider mass murder? If a bat is responsible for 1,000 singular deaths over a year but a gun is responsible for 800 deaths spread out in 3-5 people bursts over a year, what is more dangerous? Seems to me bats are still pretty dangerous... Just tossing out #'s up above btw, just to try and show my point that an inanimate object regardless of it's intended purpose can still be just as dangerous and kill just as much people. It's the PEOPLE that are the issue.


[QUOTE]I think we just have fundamental differences in the idea and comfort of it all. I've grown up in a society where the idea of guns doesn't even enter everyday thought. I don't know anyone in "real life" (even through several degrees of separation) who owns a gun. I'd have real issues if one of my friends decided to go out and buy one. It just isn't the way of life around here, and the instant it enters the way of life i'd worry about how drastically our society would change. It almost creates a cold-war scenario - where you are you constantly arming yourself and worrying about everyone else, which means everyone else starts arming themselves with even "better" weapons, and the cycle continues.[/QUOTE]
This isn't a cold-war. It's life. A lot of people have a bad side to them and can and will do anything in their power to hurt you and your family. That's in every single country in the world. It's human nature that there are bad people in the world. Are the chances of my house being broken into and my family being hurt small? Hell yeah it is, even while living here in America... But I'd never, and I repeat NEVER forgive myself if such a scenario actually occurred and I was sitting there helpless because all I had was a bat or stick and the criminal hurting\raping\killing my family had a gun... and I had chose that because I tried to take the high road and say guns were bad.

In fact, please answer the question I stated in an earlier post above... I don't think you have yet.

If you had a 5-7 year old kid enrolled in the school of the most recent shooting, would you have perferred to know that at least some of the teachers may have been trained, armed, and had proper psychological\background checks and had a gun for protection of not only them but their students (and your kid)? I'm dead serious here. It's a tough question to think of. Imagine you're on your way to the school you just dropped your defenseless kid off at because you heard some crazy teenager is LITERALLY putting bullet holes through your kids classmates and potentially your own kid. Do you want someone trained and trusted to have a means of possibly defending them until the cops arrive 3-5 minutes at a minimum later? Please answer this.

[size=4][u][b]Remember, when seconds count....the police are only minutes away.[/b][/u][/size]

[QUOTE]
You say that perhaps I don't trust the average joe to protect my children...I'd counter that perhaps you guys trust the average joe too much to properly identify and protect people as well. [/QUOTE]

Incidental shootings do happen however again, that statistic is far lower than intentional. On top of that, their are quite literally thousands of incidents where a crime was either prevented and or stopped midway by the use of a firearm holder. Rarely is someone caught in the crossfire.

[Walking-Decoy]

Oh... and just for shits and giggles... Lets apply all the newest gun control suggestions Obama is suggesting to the last couple shootings... Would these measures have stopped the shootings?







Aaaaaannndddd my point is proven.

[Walking-Decoy]

I do want to say that I support the following suggested gun law modification.

Crimes comitted with illegal guns need to carry *severe and strict* penalties. Some of our criminals have a mentality of "well if I get caught doing this bad thing with a gun I'll only serve __ maximum". That needs to change and it needs to be harsher. The crime of even being caught with an illegal\stolen weapon needs to be stiffer. Criminals need to fear the repurcussions of being caught using a gun in a crime.