Why are guns so important to Americans?

[Dr Grump]

what the hell do restrictions do to the law abiding???

What does it matter. A gun is a gun, no? So why worry about the restrictions? So, you get a background check. You're fine. You do a firearms course that you pass with ease. No problemo. The government says you are only allowed a semi-auto rifle, or a handgun, with say, a maximum 17-shot magazine. What's the problem? You got your gun, right? You feel safe? I feel safe in the knowledge my neighbour hasn't got an M16 or bazooka in his cupboard. Sounds fine to me...You?

 

[LOki]

No, those who want to take away your gun want to do for THEIR OWN GOOD, you ninny.

Criminals and bullies are like that.

do you honestly think the liberals give a damn if guns owners and their guns ONLY killed those who owned them?

I'm certain such concern is only useful as a lever in their effort to legilatively disarm their victims.

Now I do not advocate taking away your guns, but if I did it would be for MY safety, not yours.

Since my guns are no threat to you, unless you're a threat to me, you'd do this to advance some criminal/authoritarian aggenda, right?

 

[LOki]

I give em one (background checks).

Not this LOki. Background checks just feed the confiscation database.

But they already have it anyways.

And it's meaningless, because the people the claim they're trying to catch with these background checks do not submit themselves to these background checks when they obtain their guns.

Once again.....what the hell do restrictions do to the law abiding???

Disarm them.

 

[LOki]

Hell no. My elitist comment wasn't aimed at the fact you love your peashooters, it was aimed specifically at Loki for his outlook on life in general.

I'll bet that this is going to prove to be rich...

He's one of those tech nerds...

How very "imaginative."

...who taps away at his keyboard with his lovely superiority complex,...

A superiority complex I possess only in your imagination.

...all the while wondering why life hasn't quite turned out as he expected.

"Fantastic."

So, he comes on boards like this spouting his rhetoric, feeling all warm and fuzzy at how "smart" he is, and how "dumb" the rest of us are, using sarcasm and dry wit as his main weapon, but at the end of the day he's nothing special.

The reader should note, that the claim that I'm "something special" is no claim I've ever made, and exists only in Grump's pointed head.

IOW, his powder's dry, he just don't know it.

Oh, I know it, Grump--what you don't seem to know is that yours is all wet.

It is good dialogue. You live in the real world, whereas Loki lives in....well Loki land...

Beats the fuck out of the famous spawning grounds of Dr. Grumps: Retardistan.

 

[LOki]

What's the definition of a firearm under the second? A nuke? A neutron bomb? A stinger missile? A .357 magnum? Hell, the didn't even have single-shot magazines back in the day, let alone semi autos or full autos...

The 2nd does not specify "firearms", it says "arms."

I think it is fair to argue that "arms" includes everything you mentioned.

At the end of the day, I've been speaking to you Yanks and your fascination with guns for the best part of five years. Nobody has ever changed their mind. I rarely comment, unless I feel like stirring..

It's always a joy.

I know you'll never change your mind and vice versa. All I will say, and most gun-lovers have disagreed with me on this - I feel a society that has restrictions on firearms is a lot more civilised than one that doesn't...

"An armed society, is a polite society."

 

[DiveCon]

i see a republican vp candidate who likes nothing more than telling people what is best for them...i.e. no sex education...working well for her family why not for all of american...o yea and lets teach myths in the class room next to science so our kids can fall even more behind in math and science scores.

Your post would have a lot more validity if they were not always blaming someone (liberals) for something (everything) why are conservatives playing the victim of late?

way to buy into those lies being spread about Palin

 

[Vintij]

Again you fail to grasp the concept of perception. I don't know where your negative perspective comes from. What I do know is that that non-naegative uses of firearms far, far out weigh the negative onces. It is further ironic that you don't cast the same ire on to other objects involved in similarily negative results. More people die in car accidents each year. Who on earth would one fight to let you ride in such a death machine? Alcohol kills all kinds of people every year and ruins families through alcoholism. Who on earth would fight to let you imbide such a behavior altering substance? People die of smoking or get sick as a result of second hand smoke. Who would fight to allow you to puff away on such carcinogenic product?

Stop being so high a righteous seeing as how don't have the first clue what the principles are that this country was founded on and fights for. People fight not for these individual things, but for the right to CHOOSE them or not. They don't fight so you can decided for us the things we need and don't, they fight so we can decide for ourselves not just what we need but whatever we chose.

I dont see how you can compare the guns to a car, a landmark machine that creates jobs, economic growth and overall better quality of life. One could say that sky scrapers kill people that jump off them, one could say that kitchen knifes kill people who mis-use them.....one could make any argument for literally anything but the point is clear. The advantage of the Car to the human race literally towers in comparison to the advantage of the automatic weapon. Please try not to compare something so necessary to our survival to something trivial, that gives false sense of security. It does not matter how many people die from car accidents, many millions more are able to survive BECAUSE of the use of a car, or the business of manufacturing/selling cars. Is the gun industry nearly as important? Do the amount of people who literally need a gun to survive in some way, compare to the amount of people who mis-use them?

The point is, so many laws have been passed to avoid traffic collisions and if they are inevitable, there are hundreds of tests that the car must go through to get approved to sell. What has come of gun laws and gun safety? People still find it difficult to at least RAISE the minimum age to buy a gun, or force gun buyers to pass a safety test, or implement a waiting period, to implement thorough background tests.......the list goes on and on. Things that could easily work and get paid for with a first time buyer gun tax or something. It seems to me that most people in this country would do anything possible to avoid any gun purchasing inconvenience, and it seems that all I hear are excuses when it comes to gun safety. I don't understand it.

Why are people pushing for same sex marriage laws, deportation laws, abortion (anti-choice) laws, death penalties, torture laws, creationism taught in school.... but not safer gun laws?! How can anyone say these are more important than gun safety with a straight face? If driving is a privilege then guns should be. Its called compromise.

 

[Diuretic]

in states with concealed permits...crime rates drop ....so seems i am doing a lot more to protect you than you are yourself....

I think cc permits are eminently sensible. It's an acknowledgement that the police and the criminal justice system can only do so much and every person has the responsibility, in the first instance, to look after themselves and theirs.

 

[Bern80]

I dont see how you can compare the guns to a car, a landmark machine that creates jobs, economic growth and overall better quality of life. One could say that sky scrapers kill people that jump off them, one could say that kitchen knifes kill people who mis-use them.....one could make any argument for literally anything but the point is clear. The advantage of the Car to the human race literally towers in comparison to the advantage of the automatic weapon. Please try not to compare something so necessary to our survival to something trivial, that gives false sense of security. It does not matter how many people die from car accidents, many millions more are able to survive BECAUSE of the use of a car, or the business of manufacturing/selling cars. Is the gun industry nearly as important? Do the amount of people who literally need a gun to survive in some way, compare to the amount of people who mis-use them?

You don't see the comparison because of your perception. It is completely valid comparison because we are essentially talking about two machines. At one point in history guns were very necessary for survival in that they provided a far greater advantage in the gathering of food. And for the last time whether you NEED a gun is completely irrelevant. Guns and the laws surrounding are extremely similar to cars. They both require you to show that you have been trained in their safe operation. And they both carry severe repurcussions if you are negligent in their use.

The point is, so many laws have been passed to avoid traffic collisions and if they are inevitable, there are hundreds of tests that the car must go through to get approved to sell. What has come of gun laws and gun safety? People still find it difficult to at least RAISE the minimum age to buy a gun, or force gun buyers to pass a safety test, or implement a waiting period, to implement thorough background tests.......the list goes on and on.

Why should they age be raised to purchase a gun? In most states it's 18. Gun buyers already have to pass backgrouns checks, there already are waiting periods in place, the list does not go on and on. The things you are whining about are already in place.

Things that could easily work and get paid for with a first time buyer gun tax or something. It seems to me that most people in this country would do anything possible to avoid any gun purchasing inconvenience, and it seems that all I hear are excuses when it comes to gun safety. I don't understand it.

While you have heard many people rail against overregulation and get down right adamant about people taking guns away I have heard very, very few say that we should not be taking measures to keep guns from getting in the hands of the wrong people. If you can show otherwise please do so.

Why are people pushing for same sex marriage laws, deportation laws, abortion (anti-choice) laws, death penalties, torture laws, creationism taught in school.... but not safer gun laws?! How can anyone say these are more important than gun safety with a straight face? If driving is a privilege then guns should be. Its called compromise.

Who are 'these people'? I suppose some old school righties are oppossed to same sex marriage, but personally I could care less.

If we're going to turn a blind eye to people that are here illegaly we might as well just make legal to be here illegally right?

I am semi-pro choice because a baby isn't human at the time of conception, but it certianly isn't somehow less than human the instant before birth.

I'm not really for the death penalty anymore either

I don't beleive in torture, not because it's cruel but because I don't believe it's effective

Why do people complain about all these things? Because in a free country we can. Why do people put them ahead of guns? Because they are more important to them then trying to regulate into oblivion somethiong who's misuse has more to do with individual than the obect itself.

So be specific on top of all the safety measures already in place, what else do you believe needs to be done to make guns safer?

 

[Vintij]

Im not proposing an outlaw on guns, we all know how prohibitions worked for us in the past. I am just asking questions. Like why does the age really have to be 18? I dont see a reason for any 18 year old to actually buy a gun, if they want to learn....perhaps a permit to USE a registered gun under a parents name would be better, not buy a gun. "protection" does not apply to them.

Also, a few other ideas. You cant drive with a blood content level over the limit right? Same should go for holding a weapon. No holding a weapon or even concealing a weapon with a blood alchohol level over the limit.

How about, a background check that includes psychiactric history? Not just criminal history? If anyone has been admitted to a hospital in the last 5-10 years for suicide attempt, mental illness, depression, anger, reclusivness.....anything out of the ordinary....should not be able to buy a gun.

How about extremely harsh gun violation laws? Not three strikes, I am talking one strike and your out. Depending on the severity of the crime. For example, if it is a minor crime like expired registration, or unregistered gun owning...automatically your gun is taken away and you cant buy another one for several years and you are forced to take classes. If its serious like gun related violence, make the punishment harsh and swift.

We can also, use criminals as foreign contractors. They go into war torn countrys and help build up the infrastructure. Every night, listening to gun fire, not knowing when they will be hit. That is the perfect punishment for the most severe criminals. Ofcourse, we would go about this with caution and all criminals will be seperate, unlike jail where they live as a whole community, and again in a gang environment with no changes going on.

Stuff like that, you know innovation. Something different to at least try and lower gun related deaths. Keeping in mind, gun related deaths are usually the most avoidable deaths. Implement these laws in states with the highest rates of gun violence, let the states vote on stuff like this.

 

[Bern80]

Im not proposing an outlaw on guns, we all know how prohibitions worked for us in the past. I am just asking questions. Like why does the age really have to be 18? I dont see a reason for any 18 year old to actually buy a gun, if they want to learn....perhaps a permit to USE a registered gun under a parents name would be better, not buy a gun. "protection" does not apply to them.

Honest question that will sound condescending warning: Are you from America? At 18 you are declared an adult here. So protection would very much apply to them. And again you are arguing need. Need is completely irrelevant. You truly need to consider if your perception has anything to do with the questions your asking. If so, and obviously I think it does, is you perception valid. Do you know what the number one reason an 18 yr old (or lesse) would be a acquiring a gun is? Take a guess.

Also, a few other ideas. You cant drive with a blood content level over the limit right? Same should go for holding a weapon. No holding a weapon or even concealing a weapon with a blood alchohol level over the limit.

Okay, how are you going to enforce it?

How about, a background check that includes psychiactric history? Not just criminal history? If anyone has been admitted to a hospital in the last 5-10 years for suicide attempt, mental illness, depression, anger, reclusivness.....anything out of the ordinary....should not be able to buy a gun.

Also agree and thanks to Virginia Tech we are well on our way to making those things law.

How about extremely harsh gun violation laws? Not three strikes, I am talking one strike and your out. Depending on the severity of the crime. For example, if it is a minor crime like expired registration, or unregistered gun owning...automatically your gun is taken away and you cant buy another one for several years and you are forced to take classes. If its serious like gun related violence, make the punishment harsh and swift.

I am oppossed to licensing of firearms mainly because I don't see any tangible benefit from it. if you go through a training course you've already shown you are capable of safely handling one. It would just be another tax and we don't need any more of those. One could make the argument I suppose that registration would aid in tracking down original owners of firearms used in crimes, but that's skirting the issue to. Justice should be applied to the person that commited the crime, regardless of how he obtained the weapon the person chose to use it for violence.

We can also, use criminals as foreign contractors. They go into war torn countrys and help build up the infrastructure. Every night, listening to gun fire, not knowing when they will be hit. That is the perfect punishment for the most severe criminals. Ofcourse, we would go about this with caution and all criminals will be seperate, unlike jail where they live as a whole community, and again in a gang environment with no changes going on.

Interesting, but a good start would be building more jails.

Stuff like that, you know innovation. Something different to at least try and lower gun related deaths. Keeping in mind, gun related deaths are usually the most avoidable deaths. Implement these laws in states with the highest rates of gun violence, let the states vote on stuff like this.

I don't know about that. Of gun deaths, which are extremely few compared to the number of gun owners out there, very few of those are accidental. It is pretty hard to avoid a gangbanger with a jones to do some drivebys. Ironically this where gun laws would deviate in similarity from cars. For example if you get enough DUIs you will lose your license forever, which is farily easily enforced. Apply the same thing to guns and how can you realistically enforce it?

 

[Modbert]

I personally believe the gun laws in this country are a bit screwy.

I'm sure this has been brought up already but:

You can't buy a handgun until your 21, sounds alright.

But you can buy a shotgun at the age of 18.

 

[Bern80]

I personally believe the gun laws in this country are a bit screwy.

I'm sure this has been brought up already but:

You can't buy a handgun until your 21, sounds alright.

But you can buy a shotgun at the age of 18.

View attachment 5812

Not really screwy at all. I'm not sure what the intent is behind that, but I don't see why it isn't one or the other. Seeing as how you are legally an adult at 18 you should be able to purchase any type at that age in my mind.

Perhaps legislators recognize that a shotguin is most likely not going to be used in self defense or even as an effective means of killing somone.

 

[Modbert]

Not really screwy at all. I'm not sure what the intent is behind that, but I don't see why it isn't one or the other. Seeing as how you are legally an adult at 18 you should be able to purchase any type at that age in my mind.

Perhaps legislators recognize that a shotguin is most likely not going to be used in self defense or even as an effective means of killing somone.

Someone breaks into your home, you have a better shot of killing them with a shotgun then pistol.

I suppose handguns are for 21+ because you can't walk around with a shotgun in your pocket. (Though look below, possible but highly difficult).

If I had a choice in a gun fight, I'd pick a shotgun (though not if it's far away).

I don't really agree with the narration of this video, but the visual image is a eye opener.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRG_I90GEIc&feature=related]YouTube - How many weapons can a student hide?[/ame]

 

[del]

Im not proposing an outlaw on guns, we all know how prohibitions worked for us in the past. I am just asking questions. Like why does the age really have to be 18? I dont see a reason for any 18 year old to actually buy a gun, if they want to learn....perhaps a permit to USE a registered gun under a parents name would be better, not buy a gun. "protection" does not apply to them.

you're right. when i was drafted they gave me a gun; no need to waste valuable beer/dope money on frivolities like guns.

Also, a few other ideas. You cant drive with a blood content level over the limit right? Same should go for holding a weapon. No holding a weapon or even concealing a weapon with a blood alchohol level over the limit.

did you come up with this all by yourself? bravo!

How about, a background check that includes psychiactric history? Not just criminal history? If anyone has been admitted to a hospital in the last 5-10 years for suicide attempt, mental illness, depression, anger, reclusivness.....anything out of the ordinary....should not be able to buy a gun.

are you willing to give up your personal data to buy a tool? you know, like a crescent wrench or a chainsaw?

How about extremely harsh gun violation laws?

already exist

Not three strikes, I am talking one strike and your out. Depending on the severity of the crime. For example, if it is a minor crime like expired registration, or unregistered gun owning...automatically your gun is taken away and you cant buy another one for several years and you are forced to take classes. If its serious like gun related violence, make the punishment harsh and swift.

brilliant, it never occurred to me to punish criminals

We can also, use criminals as foreign contractors. They go into war torn countrys and help build up the infrastructure. Every night, listening to gun fire, not knowing when they will be hit. That is the perfect punishment for the most severe criminals. Ofcourse, we would go about this with caution and all criminals will be seperate, unlike jail where they live as a whole community, and again in a gang environment with no changes going on.

sure, we'll just revoke the 8th Amendment. what could possibly go wrong?

Stuff like that, you know innovation. Something different to at least try and lower gun related deaths. Keeping in mind, gun related deaths are usually the most avoidable deaths. Implement these laws in states with the highest rates of gun violence, let the states vote on stuff like this.

hey, it worked for Mussolini, right? plus, equal protection under the law is highly overrated.

 

[Gunny]

I personally believe the gun laws in this country are a bit screwy.

I'm sure this has been brought up already but:

You can't buy a handgun until your 21, sounds alright.

But you can buy a shotgun at the age of 18.

View attachment 5812

The reasoning behind that is it's pretty hard to hide a shotgun in your coat pocket. Remember, the Gun Control Act of 1968 was made before metal detectors/wands and security was not like it is now. The assassination of RFK and the overreaction and hysteria it created is the reasoning behind the law.

It isn't screwy in context with its time and the reasoning behind it. It's just another outdated law.

 

[Modbert]

The reasoning behind that is it's pretty hard to hide a shotgun in your coat pocket. Remember, the Gun Control Act of 1968 was made before metal detectors/wands and security was not like it is now. The assassination of RFK and the overreaction and hysteria it created is the reasoning behind the law.

It isn't screwy in context with its time and the reasoning behind it. It's just another outdated law.

Fair enough on all counts.

Just surprised but yet at the same time not surprised that they haven't fixed that outdated law.

Just one of many that need to be fixed.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If you have been committed to a mental facility or adjudged incompetent by a competent authority ( A Judge) then you forfeit your right to own weapons.

However if you see a shrink , take medication for mental problems and or volunteer to go in mental facilities you do NOT lose the right to own weapons. And that is acceptable to me.

A felon also loses the right to own weapons as do certain misdomeaner offenses involving family violence ( illegal as hell as far as I am concerned).

However one can petition the Secretary of the Treasury to have their right to own weapons reinstated. Of course the chance of that happening is pretty damn remote.

 

[Bern80]

Someone breaks into your home, you have a better shot of killing them with a shotgun then pistol.

True and i think shows how little understanding there is of the mechanics of firearms considering most people purchase handguns for self defense in the home.

I suppose handguns are for 21+ because you can't walk around with a shotgun in your pocket. (Though look below, possible but highly difficult).

If I had a choice in a gun fight, I'd pick a shotgun (though not if it's far away).

I don't really agree with the narration of this video, but the visual image is a eye opener.

YouTube - How many weapons can a student hide?

I don't know if hunting has anything to do with it, but as a hunter it makes sense to me that that would be one reason as well that the age for shotguns is lower.

 

[southernwolff]

Barack Obama on Gun Control
Q: You said recently, "I have no intention of taking away folks' guns." But you support the D.C. handgun ban, and you've said that it's constitutional. How do you reconcile those two positions?
A: Because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it's important for us to recognize that we've got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people's traditions. Source: 2008 Politico pre-Potomac Primary interview Feb 11, 2008


My Answer
Personally, as a citizen of these United States of America, I have a major problem with the basic ideals of any presidential candidate that even entertains the idea of further restricting our gun rights. I think this represents one of the biggest double talks that the gun control lobbyists keep bringing up. They tout they only want to remove the illegal guns, however that's not what they go after, they instead try to remove the legally owned guns. They make no apologies for doing this, in fact, this is there full intent.

If you are wondering at this point, what’s the difference, so long as guns are removed from the streets, won't that make us safer?

The answer is a resounding “NO”; it will not make us, you, or anyone any safer. The problem is not the law abiding people that have a handgun, long gun, or any gun, they are not the issue. The problem is the people that have the illegal guns, the very people that are committing the crimes. The problem is the way our laws protect the very people that are violating the rights of the law abiding population, the ones that hide behind lawyers, screaming about police brutality, that their rights are being violated, all while breaking into your home, ransacked the place, and even threatened your family. If that very individual gets hurt while inside your home, while you were trying to defend your family, your possessions, your home, your very way of life, then you end up in a law suit. You end up being forced to defend yourself, spending many hundreds of dollars, while the state provides food, shelter, and legal support to the criminal. It's these delinquents we need to deal with, it's these criminals that the law needs to punish, not the rest of us.

There are many examples of where gun control has caused problems, look at what has, and is happening in Africa, Australia, and other places where guns were taken from the law abiding population. Just look at any of the places where people were forced to turn in their protection. Now they have many times the incidents of burglary, of innocent people being killed in their homes, all because the government saw fit to take away their defense. The government that is in place to protect, gets too greedy, wants to control too much, and in the end, instead of allowing the citizens to protect themselves, tries to make them as helpless as possible.

This is where we will be, if the politicians in this country succeed in removing our firearms. We will then be helpless to defend ourselves, our homes, our families. For those of faith, you as a man, as head of your family, it is your responsibility to provide for your family. Part of providing for your family is protecting them, giving them a safe place to live. Let the government take away your right to own a gun, let them take away yet another piece of freedom, the very freedom this country was founded on, and you are failing miserably, you are giving up your wife, your children, placing them in harms way.

Think about it for a while, if you’re no longer able to defend yourself, what then. If the government tells you leave your doors unlocked, to leave the keys in your car, that others have the right to use it whenever they want, would you be willing to do that. Would you sleep well at night knowing, at any time, someone could just walk right in and take whatever they wanted.

What society would you like to live in, one where the criminal is in full control or one where the citizen is allowed to defend himself? Even if you do not want to own a firearm, having a right to do so leaves the criminal guessing. Will someone in this home be armed; will they try to defend their home, family, property? Forcing the criminal to second guess the situation, forcing the one wanting to commit the crime to wonder, will I get shot if I break into this residence? The very possibility that you may have a gun, may be able to counter the criminals threat, may have a way to defend what is yours may be all the protection you need.hat doesn't count, then look at