Gun control in the US

What are your views of Gun Contro

  • All Firearms should be banned for civilian use

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • All handguns should be banned for civilian use

    Votes: 1 3.8%
  • Any law abiding citizen should be allowed to own a gun w/restrictions

    Votes: 18 69.2%
  • Any law abiding civilian should be allowed to own a gun wo/restrictions

    Votes: 6 23.1%
  • Other

    Votes: 1 3.8%

  • Total voters
    26
Messages
705
Likes
0
Location
Edmond, OK
#21
I strongly believe in the right to own your own weapon. I currently have a concealed weapons permit. This means that I have completed a concealed weapons course and a local and federal background check, with my fingerprints on file. Currently I am allowed to carry a concealed weapon in 22 states.

Owning a weapon is just like anything else you do, if you don't do it often, the don't expect to be good at it.

Kirby said:
For example, if someone drives drunk, hurts someone with their car, etc. they can have their drivers license revoked, and forced to attend rehab, driving classes, etc. to get the license back. So if someone accidently shoots another person OR themselves, they should lose their gun license privleges in the same way they lose their driving privleges.
Although I agree to most of it, I don't think you should have to have a license to own a weapon. The problem is that I don't think the government should know who owns a weapon and who doesn't. Unless I commit a crime, it's really none of their business.
 
Last edited:
Messages
243
Likes
0
Location
Oswego, IL
#22
aNoodle said:
And police have been saying this for years. If a gun is wiped out agaisnt an intruder in the home, the gun owner is more likely to be shot with his own weapon. That's a cold hard fact. Chilling.
aNoodle said:
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Did I actually get you to read? I guess you settled back to the a WSJ editorial written.....by all people!...and American Enterprise Institute member. Now that's fair and balanced!

Here's your man......

LMAO ROFL. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. While you're at it, why not read some other of his classics, like "Exploding the Fireworks Safety Threat," "Gore Might Lose 2nd Round: Media Suppressed the Bush Vote," "John Lott, Jr. Interviewed by National Review Online," and "Stop School Shootings Without More Gun Control." Too funny.

http://www.tsra.com/LottPage.htm

Based on national victim surveys conducted by the US Bureau of the Census, gun-using victims are less likely to be injured or to lose property than otherwise similar victims in similar circumstances using any other self-protection strategy, including not resisting at all. It is rare that gun-using victims are injured, and when they are, the injury was usually inflicted before they used the gun. For example, less than 6% of gun-using robbery victims are injured after defensive use of the gun, and some of these injuries most likely would have been inflicted regardless of resistance.
Kleck G. Targeting Guns. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter; 1997.
http://www.guncite.com/kleckjama01.html

Lott doesn't stand alone on this.

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
---Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
 
Messages
4,917
Likes
18
Location
Reading,PA
#23
gizzy said:
.... When I have kids, I would deffinatly like to teach them to not touch the guns until they are older and even then, to use them safely. ...

I taught both of my kids how to shoot BB Guns (Crossman rifles) when they were 12 years old. You teach them that it is a REAL, DANGEROUS weapon and not to be afraid of it, but respect it at all times, act as if it is loaded at all times, etc. We now have a great time sitting on the porch at the cabin plinking cans with our 3 Crossman rifles.

Neither of them have shown any interest at all in "real" guns.
 
Messages
243
Likes
0
Location
Oswego, IL
#24
Kirby said:
I taught both of my kids how to shoot BB Guns (Crossman rifles) when they were 12 years old. You teach them that it is a REAL, DANGEROUS weapon and not to be afraid of it, but respect it at all times, act as if it is loaded at all times, etc. We now have a great time sitting on the porch at the cabin plinking cans with our 3 Crossman rifles.

Neither of them have shown any interest at all in "real" guns.
I would probably follow the same age limitations that my dad used with me, so when I say older, I'm talking about 12 for anything that uses a casing. It sound like your having fun with them. Last time I was in Idaho, my nephew and I went out hunting ground squirels with the .22's and had a blast.
 
Messages
323
Likes
0
Location
Texas
#25
My dad didnt hold much back. When I was 10, my dad took me to some gin club of his, (a range basically). He started me out with the .22, then to the .357, then to the .44. I started hunting at 13, with a .270, and now I hunt with a .300 ultra mag.

He always made it clear that they are dangerous, and I never fooled around. Essentially its soley a matter of correct discipline. If a kid goes out of line, there is a reason for it, MOST of the time....some people do go mental.

The .44 has a 10" barrel and a mini scope...now days I can hit a target with the .44 100yrds. away within 8" of the bulls-eye. Not boasting, but using it as an example that some people have a talent with guns, and some don't. If you don't, then take the initiative to realize this, and don't use one. Thats probably half the problem to begin with. Guns are by no means easy to manuever, like people before were saying....it doesnt work like the movies.
 
Messages
243
Likes
0
Location
Oswego, IL
#26
jszar said:
The .44 has a 10" barrel and a mini scope...
[80?] Wow -- a 10" barrel on a .44 - that should really increase your precision! The longest barrel that I have actually seen on any pistol (not including pics in magazines) was 6 inches. I'm assuming that any 10" barrel would be aftermarket isn't it?

The only .44 that I shot had a 4.5" barrel with jet ports (I think that's what they were called anyway) when I was 15 or 16. It was on a scout outing, and the scout leader had brought a .22 pistol, a .357 and the .44. Each one of us were allowed to shoot some rounds with the .22 and .357 (don't remember how many) and one shot with the .44. Out of about 12 of us on the outing, I was the only one that hit the target with the .44. However, even now, I would probably say that the .44 is too big of a gun for me. A .357, .38 or a 9mm would be pretty nice to have though.
 
Messages
278
Likes
0
Location
Detroit, MI
#27
My bro has a Colt Anacanda (sp?), .45 w/ a 6" barrel. Then there is the S&W .44 revolver with the 8" barrel. Friggen' hand-cannons I tell you. Its tough enough to hit the paper target let alone get decent grouping!! A lot of fun, though!!
 
Messages
2,339
Likes
3
Location
Germany
#28
You haven't fired a weapon until you have shot the Desert Eagle .50. The M-240b...is also quite a treat to fire. Military only of course. 7.62mm replaced the M60. Spass viel zu viel spass.
 
Messages
100
Likes
0
Location
So. Cal
#30
Use common sense and join the NRA. They are the only reason you are still allowed to purchase a gun in the United States.

Audible [target]
 
Messages
243
Likes
0
Location
Oswego, IL
#31
Mmmmm.... I really need to think about finding a job outside of Illinois.

BTW.. Found a fireing range here and spent 100 rounds with a Beretta Brigadier. Nice gun, I might try talking my wife into letting me get one (Christmas maybe?).




http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-040820handgun,1,3635448.story?coll=chi-news-hed
Gov vetoes protection for homeowners with guns

Associated Press
Published August 20, 2004, 5:12 PM CDT

SPRINGFIELD -- Gov. Rod Blagojevich vetoed a bill Friday meant to provide legal protection for homeowners who violate local gun ordinances by shooting intruders.

The legislation was a response to the heavily publicized case of Hale DeMar, a Wilmette restaurant owner who in December shot a burglar who had broken into his home twice.

Cook County prosecutors declined to press criminal charges against DeMar, but Wilmette officials charged him with violating the suburb's ban on handguns. DeMar is challenging the constitutionality of the ordinance.

The bill the governor vetoed Friday would have allowed people in situations like DeMar's to argue self-defense if charged with violating such an ordinance. It would not have guaranteed the defendant wouldn't be convicted.

Blagojevich said he vetoed the measure because he believed it would encourage people in cities such as Wilmette to buy handguns and hide them.

The measure could still become law. It passed both houses of the General Assembly by large enough margins that similar votes in this fall's veto session could override the governor's action.
 
Messages
243
Likes
0
Location
Oswego, IL
#33
Well, I finally did it. I bought the Beretta 92 Brigadier Inox. Beretta will also be sending me two free 15 round clips since the "Assault Weapons" ban expired. I spent both saturday and sunday at the range with it and I get to bring it home on Tuesday.
 
Messages
43
Likes
0
Location
Phoenix
#34
OK, NRA ALL THE WAY!
Any law abiding citsen should be able to own any weapon they chose, like me, hehe.
If you look around the world you would see that the places with the greatest gun controlle have the greatest crime. My point, law abiding citizens in Austrailia turned over thier guns to the government and in the first 6 months armed robbery and general crine rose dramaticaly. In Washing ton DC where guns are prohibited they have the highest crime rate in the country. In places like Texas and Arizona where we have concealed carry permits we have really low rates of crime comparitively. Would you want to try to mug a person who potentialy has a gun on htier person?
IF GUNS ARE OUTLAWED ONLY OUTLAWS WOULD HAVE GUNS!
 
Messages
1,715
Likes
0
Location
Melbourne, AUS
#36
I will say it straight away: I think one of the major reasons why the USA have such high gun-crimes is because of the element within your Constitution that says you have the right to bear arms. I mean the whole thing is a vicious circle and look at a place like Australia: we have a total ban on all fully and semi-automatic weapons. We have hardly any shootings here.

I'm an absolute military nut (i study military history at University) and so it goes without saying that i love guns etc, etc. BUT in the end i don't know how you can justify letting people own a semi-auto rifle irrespective of their training, experience etc. There is absolutely no reason why you need a gun for protection if there are stringent gun-laws in the state in which you live.

I'm ready for the barrage.
 
Messages
696
Likes
0
Location
Places?
#37
normally I dont go into the OT but, wow, im going to have to put my 2 cents in for this one.

Our family is pretty pro gun, my dad teaches safety courses and its funny how many people are so ignorent on this issue.

I agree that people should be able to buy guns, with restrictions. A couple BIG issues that have come up here is the thing about "assault" weapons, how anyone can get them now. You know what? Its not a big deal at all.

FIRST clear up that the word "assault" does not mean FULL OUT, for example, you CANNOT buy a gun (without TONS of paperwork, permits, background checks, and TONS of other crap, not to mention $$,) that when you press the trigger down once it unloads the whole magezine of rounds.

The gun you CAN buy (18+ older) are the semi-autos, where one trigger pull shoots 1 round. Assault weapons are no more deadly than any other gun. I cant think of all the classifcations offhand but here are a couple charecteristic of an assault weapon,

Pistol grip, this is what it sounds like, a pistol like handle that goes down from the stock of the gun, does this mean you can kill someone more quickly? no, does this mean your rounds are going to be 2x as deadly? no, it dosnt do jack shit.

Collapseablel (sp?) stock, this mean thats the stock or usually wooden part that goes against the shoulder can collapse down.

Scope, you all should know what that is

Thats all I can think of now, but you dont understand how many arguments I get in with people who complain about the ban being liftet but they dont even know what it means.

They see the word "assault" and think its somehow evil

This is what my dad says which makes a load of sense on most of these gun laws. They are generally stupid, because, unlike car laws that generally make sense, gun laws dont. EVERY supream court person, judges, lawyers, and everyone drives. They all know how it works, they are not scared of driving because they understand it. But how many of them do you think go to the range and pop off a couple rounds? They are ignorent the situation. The laws they come up with are ment for good use but I mean, its just BS. It only hurts the legit user. Although there are the ones that make sens (registing and what not). Then he goes on to say, what do you think would happen if he went to design an operating room for a hospital? He dosnt know jack about that, so obviously its going to be ****ed up and not work.

Also, gun carry, this I am mixed on. It is our RIGHT to be able to carry a gun. BUT on the other hand you dont want some ignorent person carrying a gun that probably has never shot one. I Think before you get a permit you should have to take a class on safety and all that jazz. I mean, you dont just hand drivers licesnes out to everyone that wants one right? You have to take a class on it to understand it.

Again, if I wanted to go buy a gun, and pop someone in the head I was mad at, do you REALLY think im going to be worried if its legal for me to carry a gun without a permit?

And people that say, well a legit person dosnt need to carry a gun. Well you know what? It dosnt matter, its our right to, and IF we could get ALL OF THE GUNS out of the US, that would be great if no one had one, but you know what? They ALWAYS will be guns in the US, There ALWAYS will be crime.

I think of my friend who was pushing that "we dont need it" well, you can say that about anything, yes if you carry a gun you will be more prone to pop someone whos maybe trying to kill you? rape you? whatever it may be. But you know what, if you have a super charger in your car your going to be more prone to drive faster? send 3,000 pounds of metal a little faster into someone elses car? You can argue this all the time its just where do you want to draw the line?

IMHO You CANNOT say guns are bad if you have never even seen one, if you never have shot one, you dont even know what your talking about.

I could go on for another couple pages but im sick of typing lol

happy days
 
Messages
243
Likes
0
Location
Oswego, IL
#38
Nicely put equate.

The only thing that even had the most remote possibility of saving lives (and this is a VERY long shot) in the AWB was the magazine restriction. mmmmmm - doesn't take very long to relode if you have several magazines at hand or speed loaders for revolvers. Besides, their isn't that much to a magazine and if someone had the desire could probably fabricate their own.

You did miss one other point though. The ban also covered bayonet lugs. This country has a HUGE problem with drive by bayonetings [hihi].


Chesty Bonds - I have to admit that homicides in Austrailia are pretty low, but it looks like your overall crime rate is climbing pretty rapidly since 1995.
 


Top