For all of you gun nuts...

[The Mic]

near 93% are obtained illegally (stolen, street corner, etc).

i.e. people who buy in bulk like i said in my previous post

Thats not true, it is still illegal to buy a handgun without a backround check

At gun shows?? I dont think its mandatory to conduct a background check if you're selling a firearm to someone at a gun show. Please show a link that says otherwise because I'm not too savy on firearm laws

Gun shows are not people selling guns to people, they are dealers selling arms or people selling only non-munitions.

last time i checked guns were means of arms.
Modified by S13GUY at 10:54 PM 9/14/2004

[Onizuka]

The breakdown is as follows:

-If you buy a gun from a dealer at a gun show, you are required to have a backround check. (Federal)

-If you buy a gun from another person from another state, you are required to do a FFL transfer through a dealer. (Federal)

-If you buy a gun from another person in your same state you are bound to local gun sale laws. Many states (CT for example) require a valid Eligibility Certificate to purchase and the seller to obtain authorization. Other states (VA in this case) have left it pretty much un-regulated. (State, local municipality)

EDIT: I just read some more of the regulations on the Connecticut state website and it states "sales conducted at gun shows require NICS authorization check and transfer paperwork". Im not sure if thats state or federal though.

[Onizuka]

last time i checked guns were means of arms.

Modified by S13GUY at 10:46 PM 9/14/2004

I am refering to "people" as non-dealers. Dealers sell arms, non-dealers sell typically non-munitions (knifes, Bows, hunting equipment, etc...)

[The Mic]

Anti Gun Control advocates fall back on the 2nd amendment every time this issue is raised. However as some people agree, the 2nd amendment needs exceptions. Currently there are exceptions for 10 groups which some agree on, however the constitution does not state any exceptions. If your entire stance rests upon constitutional rights that you agree are not absolute then what leg do you have to stand on?

I have shown gun control works. Let me point to a few as reference:

* Study after study demonstrates the correlation between violence and the uneducated. Increased education decreases crime and in turn firearm violence. * In states with trigger lock laws on the book children are 23% less likely to die than in ones without. * The Brady Bill dramatically reduced gun crimes * The 5 day waiting period removed under the sunset provision

Passing these laws will help cure this epidemic.

* Mandatory firearm training classes * Stiffer penalties for Gun Crimes * Raising the Minimum age to purchase firearms * One gun a month laws to prohibit bulk buying * "Saturday Night Special" Bans * Gun Show Laws

At least two of the above proposed laws would not be necessary if gun manufacturers would take the lead in the war on gun crime. However these companies seem more interested in their bottom line than in the body bag count.

Guns are not simple weapons they can kill at range and kill many. It is our responsibility to take the guns out of the killer’s hands. Otherwise the blood of thousands will rest on our heads.

Ultimately, the US has a disease plaguing its citizens. This disease need not be fatal for it has a cure. For some time many have believed the cure to be worse than the disease, however as I have shown the cure works. The cure effectively minimizes gun crimes all the while promoting gun ownership for the just. On the other hand, inaction only leads to another half million gun crimes in the US.

bleh im done..

[HashiriyaS14]

Honestly, Virginia (I'm a MD resident) has the nation's best gun policies by FAR:

You can own damn near anything there, they even have OPEN CARRY now. Class 3 is a breeze if you can actually afford Class 3 guns. They still have microscopic gun crimes though, and why is this?

1.) If you have a felony on you record, you can never buy a gun again, not for the rest of your life.

2.) If you already have one felony on your record and you commit a crime using a firearm (don't have to actually shoot anyone, just having one in an armed robbery/burglary counts), you AUTOMATICALLY go to jail for a minimum of 5 years if found guilty. Do not pass go.

[creophus]

I have shown gun control works. Let me point to a few as reference:

At least two of the above proposed laws would not be necessary if gun manufacturers would take the lead in the war on gun crime. However these companies seem more interested in their bottom line than in the body bag count.

Guns are not simple weapons they can kill at range and kill many. It is our responsibility to take the guns out of the killer’s hands. Otherwise the blood of thousands will rest on our heads.

Gun control doesn't work. Criminal control is what we need more of. We need for punishment of crimes to be an actual deterrent. Going to jail doesn't scare most criminals...especially if they've been there before.

The states with the strictest of gun control have the highest murder rates...typically. Washington D.C. (which I know is not a "state") has the highest murder rate by far. Gun legislation won't affect the "bad guys" it will only affect the law abiding citizens. If a criminal has to get his gun illegally, then he KNOWS that unless the average joe went through the same trouble then he CAN'T have the proper means to defend himself. Think rock, paper, scissor.

What exactly do you propose gun manufacturers do to make guns more safe? The safest gun is one that doesn't go off unless you pull the trigger (external safeties are just slow you down) and does go off when you do pull the trigger.

I do agree that "killers" shouldn't have guns. There are always going to be psychos who want to kill and hurt large groups of people. For the most part, criminals use guns as intimidation to get what they want. Most don't want to shoot people, they simply want money, sex, etc. They use the gun as leverage. Why not use their fists as leverage? Because the person they are trying to take stuff from probably has fists too. Therefore they are more prone to fight back. This is why you need 2-3 goons to jump someone. Otherwise its a fair fight. How many times are women and the handicapped and elderly the victim of crime? Often, because they are perceived as being weaker.

It's a fair fight when the average joe may or may not have a gun to defend himself. As a bad guy who knows that its easy for EVERYONE to get a gun, you won't be as tempted to use one to intimidate someone with one. Unless the guy isn't afraid of being shot, he won't risk it.

I think I agree with your overall message. We need less crime. No doubt about it. My last point is that everyone who I know who is licensed to carry a gun is extra polite and courteous. People at a gun show are by far nicer than the average joe. Why is that? Because the last thing these guys want is to get into a gun fight with someone!

[silencer.1]

* Study after study demonstrates the correlation between violence and the uneducated. Increased education decreases crime and in turn firearm violence. * In states with trigger lock laws on the book children are 23% less likely to die than in ones without. * The Brady Bill dramatically reduced gun crimes * The 5 day waiting period removed under the sunset provision

Passing these laws will help cure this epidemic.

* Mandatory firearm training classes * Stiffer penalties for Gun Crimes * Raising the Minimum age to purchase firearms * One gun a month laws to prohibit bulk buying * "Saturday Night Special" Bans * Gun Show Laws

I agree with everything S13GUY says here, especially about a better overall education system. It does not prevent people from own firearms, it only limits the rate overall at which they can be acquired. Face it, why would you need to buy more than a gun a month? If you need more than one type of gun for something like a sport shoot, then a little pre-planning is all that's needed. I do think that the minimum age requirements are ok as is though, but I can understand his reasoning for it as he previously posted. The manditory training classes are also a good idea since it works on the same principle as hunter's safety classes (and would give my uncle another class to teach at the sportsman's club). If you have the money to buy a gun, then you should be able to afford a class to know how to properly use it. In our family, we own better than 25 guns between my father, my brother and I but in reality only regularly use about 5 of them. The rest are mostly just for collection like the old mauser that was dragged through the desert during WWII and still shoots straight.

[gabossie]

Gun control doesn't work. Criminal control is what we need more of. We need for punishment of crimes to be an actual deterrent. Going to jail doesn't scare most criminals...especially if they've been there before.

How can you say blatantly that gun control doesn't work without providing factual evidence that refutes the factual evidence that's already been presented showing that it DOES work?

As far as training and safety classes goes, think of it this way. You take some classes and when the time comes, chances are you'll be a much better shot than some ******* who stole a gun from someone else and has never shot it before.

[prigo]

Don't even get me started on this thread, I'll rip all you gun hatin' hippies a new one.

[The Mic]

The states with the strictest of gun control have the highest murder rates...typically. Washington D.C. (which I know is not a "state") has the highest murder rate by far. Gun legislation won't affect the "bad guys" it will only affect the law abiding citizens. If a criminal has to get his gun illegally, then he KNOWS that unless the average joe went through the same trouble then he CAN'T have the proper means to defend himself. Think rock, paper, scissor.

Effective Gun control only removes the guns from the hands of the criminals. By removing the guns from the criminals but allowing law abiding citizen’s access to firearms criminals get the shaft. Do you have a problem with laws that remove guns from criminals? Yes I suppose you do since you are content with 10,857 murders by firearms[1], the most of any country, as well.

What exactly do you propose gun manufacturers do to make guns more safe? The safest gun is one that doesn't go off unless you pull the trigger (external safeties are just slow you down) and does go off when you do pull the trigger.

Another major issue at hand is the need for smart guns. Smart guns are firearms that only fire at the hands of the guns owner. In 1994 the National Institute of Justice funded the initial smart gun project but failed to come up with a suitable prototype. Since that time gun manufacturers have dragged their feet on creating reliable technology to make smart guns a reality.

Laws are needed that force gun manufacturers to develop effective smart gun technology. Effective smart guns would prevent everyone except the owner from firing the weapon. In turn this would eliminate police death from having their weapons wrestled away from them, home intruders using home owners weapons on them and accidental death of children to name a few.

Again, the manufacturers do not lead the way they only complain, laws are needed to force them to act in the name of safety.

now im off to school.......zing!

[1] http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

[prigo]

Smart guns are impractical for a number of reasons.

1) The current idea of the smartgun involved a fingerprint match. If your fingers are off at an odd angle, or are clentched a certain way, the gun won't detect you as the owner, and you're sitting there with a 6 ounce piece of metal thats unusable.

2) with existing technology, the smart guns would be unweildy, due to the added weight/enumbrance of the additional parts, and as someone who is a handgun marksman, (and police academy graduate) I can tell you how much of a negative impact that will have upon law enforcement. Now if they managed to make a decent technology for sensing the gun's proper owner, then hey, I'd be down for that. But at this point, its not a reality.

[Nathan]

are you comfortable with the number of deaths caused by gun violence in America today?

Completely...I've only had one person I know shot, and frankly I didn't like her very much anyway. I've known many more people who were the victims of crimes that could have been prevented had the victim had a handgun on them. What this shows me is that we dont need more gun control, we need more guns.

[prigo]

^ Amen brother.

[The Mic]

Smart guns are impractical for a number of reasons.

Now if they managed to make a decent technology for sensing the gun's proper owner, then hey, I'd be down for that.

um yeah that was kinda my point. I just pointed out what they were working on back then.

Another major issue at hand is the need for smart guns. Smart guns are firearms that only fire at the hands of the owners

Modified by S13GUY at 10:55 AM 9/15/2004

[Nathan]

Smart guns are great...I'll now have to own at least one handgun for every person in my house, and all my friends will have to own one since its very unlikely they'll make a smart gun that you could program numerous (ie: more than 3 I'd say) different "fingerprints" (or whatever identification technique they use). Call me crazy, but I want ANYONE who picks up my gun to be able to fire it without issue. No, I'm not worried about a criminal getting my handgun, thats the whole point of concealing it. If he has my gun, its because I'm allready dead I DO want my wife, friends, etc. to be able to use it if they need. This is one of the main reasons they stopped pursuing smart guns in law enforcement circles...they are too limiting on who can use them.

[prigo]

This is one of the main reasons they stopped pursuing smart guns in law enforcement circles...they are too limiting on who can use them.

^ which was kinda my point.

[Cold_Zero]

Eh, I just couldn't wait

Main Entry: 1priv·i·legePronunciation: 'priv-lij, 'pri-v&-Function: nounEtymology: Middle English, from Old French, from Latin privilegium law for or against a private person, from privus private + leg-, lex law: a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor : PREROGATIVE; especially : such a right or immunity attached specifically to a position or an office

http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin...ilege

Modified by S13GUY at 5:34 PM 9/14/2004

S-13 guy. A privilege can be defined as a right (Example: The State allowing police officers to arrest criminals). But the use of the term 'privilege' to define an inalienable right implies that the government is free to administer, revoke and regulate a freedom outside of the Constitutional Law. This has always been a source of legal battle in our country. The reason why we have the United States Supreme Court as the final opinion on Constitutional Law.

[StrangeLove]

Can someone please explain to me what a gun is used for?

The answer I'm looking for is:

GUNS ARE MEANT FOR KILLING!!!!

Don't say for self defense, to scare people off, or any other bull****! why are they scared of the gun? because it can KIll them!

GUNS ARE MEANT FOR KILLING!!!!

Guns kill people! They are for ending lives!

How about this situation

You are getting robbed, you have your trusty pistol, you pull it out, and point it at the criminal. Of course you don't plan on shooting him... but he pulls out his pistol, shoots and kills you.

This does happen, its not a rare situation... don't even tell me that it can't happen.

What if the criminal took your gun? now what? your dead

GUNS ARE MEANT FOR KILLING!!!!

Of course this post will be overlooked, and the people who do read it will just dismiss my points as nonsense

[The Mic]

But the use of the term 'privilege' to define an inalienable right implies that the government is free to administer, revoke and regulate a freedom outside of the Constitutional Law.

It's a privilege, and can be taken away if you break the law.

[Cold_Zero]

So the first amendement is a privilege as well? The government, outside of the amdending the Constitution can revoke any and all speech as we know it? Yes the government does prohibit individuals that break certain types of laws from owning firearms. The government and this country has made provisions for this in the US Code. The BATF can no suspend gun ownership outside of the US Code. I guess this was my point.bud

[Cold_Zero]

Of course this post will be overlooked, and the people who do read it will just dismiss my points as nonsense

Maybe because you are stating the obvious? Firearms dont automatically killing. Firearms are used for other purposes; target practice, skeet shooting as a deterent and hunting (which is a form of killing). bud

[StrangeLove]

I give up, I'll just have to move out of the US if I want to feel safe...

go ahead and continue to support death makers...

Oh, I'm fine with rifles and ****, I just hate handguns

[creophus]

Can someone please explain to me what a gun is used for?

The answer I'm looking for is:

GUNS ARE MEANT FOR KILLING!!!!

GUNS ARE MEANT FOR KILLING!!!!

You are getting robbed, you have your trusty pistol, you pull it out, and point it at the criminal. Of course you don't plan on shooting him... but he pulls out his pistol, shoots and kills you.

This does happen, its not a rare situation... don't even tell me that it can't happen.

What if the criminal took your gun? now what? your dead

GUNS ARE MEANT FOR KILLING!!!!

I couldn't agree with you more. When a bad guy pull a gun on you...GUNS ARE MEANT FOR KILLING And the situation you describe about someone taking your gun and using it on you...or you drawing your gun and not shooting. That's just your own fault. If you're gonna draw the gun, then use the gun!

[creophus]

How can you say blatantly that gun control doesn't work without providing factual evidence that refutes the factual evidence that's already been presented showing that it DOES work?

As far as training and safety classes goes, think of it this way. You take some classes and when the time comes, chances are you'll be a much better shot than some ******* who stole a gun from someone else and has never shot it before.

How can I say that?? It's easy. I'll explain. Because guns are an inanimate object, it is foolish in the purest sense of the word to try and control something that CAN ONLY DO what you or another person make it do.

GUN control can't work. You have to control the people using the guns. I agree that training should be mandatory. Just like everyone who buys a car SHOULD be checked for a driver's license...but guess what? They don't. Our society in general is lacking in practical knowledge on almost everything. Educating people, by showing and teaching them what a gun can and can't do is the way to solve this problem.

[Nathan]

I give up, I'll just have to move out of the US if I want to feel safe...

If you really feel this way, then please do. This nation is the finest in the world, and if you are displeased, then I dont want someone such as you messing it up for others. Your previous comments have shown nothing but limp-wristed weak arguments. If you pull a gun on someone, and they so much as ****ing move...you shoot them. End of story. You NEVER pull a gun unless you intend to use it. I guarantee you, if someone is trying to mug me and I pull my gun, and point it at them....if they move either hand closer to their body, I'm shooting them. I despise that element of humanity to such a degree I genuinely think I could pull the trigger without a smidgen of remorse. If they are robbing people, or generally committing ANY crime against me, they get what they deserve: killed. So yes, you are right, guns ARE for killing, as well as other recreational things.

[180crafter]

Gun control cant work. But you forget the Y. Y cant it work??? Because they exist, pure and simple.

People will always be stupid. From the crackhead lady to the polotician that is taking money away from schools to give his girlfriend a new car. This Goes all the way to the president, whomever he is. People will always be stupid. Always. You have to limit to them what they can hurt themselves with. Example? ABS. People are too stupid to pump the brakes, so we created abs for the stupid people. How bout seatbelts? People are too stupid to wear them, even though they save lives, so we create this thing that annoys the crap out of you if you dont put it on. Need I say more?

If guns didnt exist, then there would be no gun control. If Normal people couldnt by handguns, and the gun companies had to spend XXXX amount of money to make this guns and make so little a profit, then they wouldnt be manufactured and illegally imported. There would be no illegal handguns, becuz there would be no handguns. There would be less crime, less killing and the world would be a happier place.

Not only that, but imported handguns are almost non existant. The amount is very.... VERY small. Y would you pay more for an importaed handgun if you could get one off a street punk.

Also, I dont think my buddy Dwayne the drug dealler will try to import a gun anytime soon. Neither will Jesus the petty b&e man.

Jeeze, gun control will do so much. More than what you guys are thinkning. Look past today, and your own worthless life. Think to all the lives, the evolution of man, and your children. A handgun I am willing to sacrifice to move people as a whole foward.

[creophus]

Effective Gun control only removes the guns from the hands of the criminals. By removing the guns from the criminals but allowing law abiding citizen’s access to firearms criminals get the shaft. Do you have a problem with laws that remove guns from criminals? Yes I suppose you do since you are content with 10,857 murders by firearms[1], the most of any country, as well.

Now...just think about that statement...a law, that removes something from the hands of a criminal. Um...the very nature of a criminal is one who breaks the law, so how can a law stop the criminal from doing anything?

10,000+ plus is indeed a big number. Personally I Did you compare that number with the number of peope killed in auto accidents? I did some very unoffical research and this is what I found:

Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for Americans between the ages of 6 and 33. In 1999 alone, 41,611 Americans died in traffic accidents. That's an average of 114 deaths a day or one death every 13 minutes. In addition to these fatalities, 3.2 million people were injured in traffic crashes. Many of these deaths and injuries could have been prevented by the use of a safety belt. In 1999, safety belts saved an estimated 11,197 lives. If all passenger vehicle occupants over age 4 wore safety belts, another 9,553 lives could have been saved.

Doing the math, that's 30,414 people. Almost 3 times as many who died from guns. Now, being on an AUTOMOTIVE FORUM are you next going to suggest that we outlaw cars? I do understand that cars serve as transportation, recreation, etc. But don't let a number taken out of context scare you.

All I'm saying...is focus on the criminal not the tool in which the criminal commits the crime.
Modified by creophus at 4:40 PM 9/15/2004

[gabossie]

How can I say that?? It's easy. I'll explain. Because guns are an inanimate object, it is foolish in the purest sense of the word to try and control something that CAN ONLY DO what you or another person make it do.

Ugh, this is retarded. You take the term "Gun Control" to literally. I know gun control, I can and have controlled various different firearms, this IS NOT what we are talking about! Controlling the people that use guns and peoples access to such weapons is what we have been talking about the entire time, please read what's been said before you respond. No one suggested giving the guns a stern talking to and telling them not to shoot innocent people And again, this thread is NOT ABOUT automobiles either, it's about guns. Yes, we are all aware that cars accidents are the number one cause of death in the United States, for that matter I would assume the world; but again, that's not what this is about.

[StrangeLove]

"You NEVER pull a gun unless you intend to use it"

Thats the point I was trying to make. Someone earlier made a post about people just showing guns to scare the criminal... they used that as a reason why guns are awesome. I agree, don't pull out a gun unless you intend to end their life

oh and Creophus your car argument is retarded heres why:

Cars are "fired" in much greater numbers everday compared to guns. Cars are meant to be safe, and the vast majority of the time people die because of accidents. You yourself call them accidents, meaning not on purpose. You don't accidently aim a gun at someone, then accidently pull the trigger, and accidently kill them. You do it on purpose, you mean to kill them.

The care argument is invalid, your welcome

[gabossie]

I agree for the most part with everything you are saying here, but it does conflict a big part of what has been presented on your side of the debate. I believe that if you're going to pull a gun, you had damn well be ready to use, with deadly force if neccesary. It has been said many times in this thread though, that guns are effective as a deturent and that you can pull a gun on someone with no intention of using it, just to get them to surrender.

Come on people, we're not all black and white here. I'm not a gun hater, I love guns. I grew up shooting .22, shotguns, and .50 black powder rifles in Boy Scouts and have continued to enjoy guns recreationally since that time. I simply advocate policies which have been shown to reduce violent firearm crime, but do not substantially infringe on the rights of the law abiding community.