DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... A Discussion On Guns...

Quote:

---

Remember all the Obama folks saying "we don't want your guns"?

---

Quote:

---

I can't recall a single instance, let alone enough voices to constitute 'folks'.

---

Quote:

---

Do people break into occupied homes or rather wait till the occupants are not home? Would make sense to do the latter not the former . . . I can't recall the last time I read a story about a homeowner having their house burglarized when they are home.

Either way, isn't most gun violence centered around drugs/gangs or robberies at stores anyway?

ARPS:

Quote:

---

What would you do with the people that already have several? What about private collections where people have hundreds of guns (I know 2 people with over 100)? More importantly..
How do you insure that criminals dont have them anymore?

---

I don't know, just thinking out loud really. Would it still be constitutional to limit type and quantity. As for what you do with those that already have more than one, laws are usually passed and are not retroactive, meaning it doesn't make what was done prior to criminal. I would suppose from this day forward one could make a law that limits ownership.

As for the last part on criminals not having them, I suppose if you got tough on crime . . i.e anyone committing a felony or crime of violence or drug related offense, or any domestic charge could be forbidden to own a gun.

I don't know. Gotta do something man on all fronts. I don't think changing gun laws in an of themselves is the only way to go, we need to do something about the other things I mentioned too, but you have to start somewhere and start strong.

---

Quote:

---

If things continue as they have been with these shootings, I would expect to see some bans on high-powered firearms. I don't agree with that, but I think public opinion is shifting.

---

Quote:

---

people kill people, guns kill people, always have always will.

Lets take proactive measures when it comes to the weapons of destruction, because they do destroy.

---

Quote:

---

So let's see..... Because one of the most left wing nut liberals comes up with some idiotic thing to propose that has zero chance of passing, let's call it a done deal, claim we have a target on our backs and go over the deep end?

And some wonder why nobody can really take them seriously...........

---

In case you haven't heard, quite a few dems are calling for increased gun control. This is just the first actual proposal I"ve seen in print. I've not gone off the deep end, and I don't spend a lot of time wondering if people take me seriously. If that were the case, I'd probably be getting into multi-page 2 person debates on this forum (that no one but the participants actually read ).

Quote:

---

If this crap goes through, I'll be left with my muzzleloader and pump shotgun....provided the 5 shell magazine tube isn't too large.

---

Quote:

---

1. Why would someone want to own an AR-15 (or similar high powered rifle)? It's a serious question. Is the primary use home defense? Couldn't just a regular shotgun, handgun, or other type of firearm do the same job the AR-15 can? (Might be similar to someone buying a mustang vs a kia for the commute to work everyday?)[\quote]

I'll answer this one in two parts. The first part is easy. The Consitution says I can. That's the same if I want to drive a Mustang or a Kia to work. Secondly, no one can predict the future. For all any of us know, I might have a need in the near future to have to shoot several people invading my house to defend my family and property. It doesn't matter if the reason is a collapsed government, hurricane, earthquake, EMP, foreign invasion, alien invasion, or zombie appocalypse. If anarchist, rioting hoards show up at my house for any reason, I'd feel much better having a decent rifle that can fire off 30 rounds as fast as I can pull the trigger, along with a shotgun, handgun, and any other weapon I can think of. Also, I might just enjoy target shooting with my legally obtained weapons.

Quote:

---

2. There's a school of thought which says "Evil people will do evil things, regardless..." and another school of thought which says "Outright ban the sale of guns". Can there somehow be a nice middle ground between the two?

---

You answered your own question. Evil people do evil things. They will do it with guns or without. Does Oklahoma City ring a bell? There wasn't a single shot fired. Banning guns only takes weapons from those that don't do evil things. Evil will find a way around the laws.

Quote:

---

3. The Second Amendment was put in place way back when to address militias before the government had an adequate means of defense in the states and municipalities in those states. Do we need some sort of amendment to update the wording to make the whole "right to bear arms" issue a bit more clear?

---

The 2nd Amendment clearly states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
I never understand why people want to open this statement to interpetation. The idea of a militia is simple. It's a group of people that assume the responsibility defending their country, state, county, community, or neighborhood. To do this properly, they must be armed. Our founding fathers did not want to keep a standing military, as history shows us that standing armies often strive for the rule of a country. We are lucky that our military is voluntary and mostly made from regular citizens, as this keeps the chances of a coup very low. The fact that the regular citizenry is armed also keeps the chances of a coup very low. This is the main reason we have the right to keep and bear arms and form militias.

As the British went house to house searching for weapons, seditious materials, or just incriminating evidence, it became clear to the people that these rights are needed to keep our government from ruling the people instead of representing the people. Our Bill of Rights is the reason we are still mostly represented by the government. Without these rights, we will be ruled in the same way the Chinese are. As it was said above, evil people do evil things. Does anyone want to take the chance that evil is within our government? Do you ever want to be told you have to move, go to work, watch/read/think only appropriate things, or give up what you've earned and obtained because the government said so?

All great societies eventually fail. The Egyptians, the Romans, the Greeks, the Chinese Empire, Imperial Japan, the British Empire, and the Soviet Union have all failed in recent history. I guarentee you it's the well armed and organized militias from those societies that got to form the next great society and not the disarmed feudal serf.

Quote:

---

j/c

A school not to far from here just voted to allow some staff to carry concealed handguns.

http://bryantimes.com/news/local/article_a6fd54b6-5af3-11e2-8b87-0019bb2963f4.html

---

Quote:

---

I am, like you, not a gun guy. I like cars. that's my hobby.

I've asked the same question about why an auto or semi auto weapon is even needed. One person answered simply because he wanted it. I guess that's cool. My car stock had 222 HP at the Crank, I wanted more. it now has 288 at the Crank. do I need it,, hell no I don't.. but hey, it's my hobby so I wanted it and that's that.

Of course, guns and cars, two different things but both can be sport/hobby so I get it.

The man who dies with the most toys wins LOL

You asked if there was a compromise to be reached. To some folks on here, any compromise is a dirty thing. (that's from either side of the argument I might add) you'll never get them to agree to this, but I think banning weapons that are Semi Auto that are easily and cheaply converted to full auto is a start.

I'm not talking about banning ownership from the get go, but banning the production of those weapons.

or, you could make ban the kits that turn them into full auto I suppose. I have no idea how you'd enforce that.

For me, I don't own guns,, never have, don't feel the need, but like I"ve said before, I like that I can go buy one if I want to.

In my view, the NRA will never understand the difference between now and the time the 2nd amendment was written. Times are so different.

And now Ohio allows people to carry in bars? That one you will never get me to believe in. (some damn fool will sit here and tell me I'll be happy he can carry in a bar if someone else pulls out a gun,,, as if we are going to have a freakin shoot out in the OK Corral bar and grill, this ain't the freakin wild west)

Like I said, I support gun ownership,,100%,, I don't find it necessary to own automatic weapons (and before someone says it, Yeah, I know, it's illegal to own Automatic weapons,, But people do. they buy semi auto and convert them)

I mean, unless you are a nutbag that actually thinks you need guns to protect yourself against the federal government,, what value are some of these weapons.

Oh, and just in case you are someone that feels he needs to protect himself against the federal government,, For get about it.. you aren't ever going to out gun them.. I mean, all they gotta do is roll up in a tank and you can take your high power, fully automatic assault rifle and kiss your butt goodbye LOL That battle is over the minute they roll up on your lawn with that. One shot, no more house...

Like I said, I get the hobby,, I understand it and I got no problem with it..

I am 100% sure the NRA doesn't like these school or public massacres any more than the most anti guy person.. they don't want that. They represent responsible gun ownership and usage. These are decent people..

Then you have the ones that just don't want guns on the street.. These are good folks also,,


Both have solid views and values, neither wants senseless killing of kids or shootings in the street or theartres or malls or whereever.

So, if they both have the same goal, compromise (theres that dirty word again) is not only possible, it's the responsible thing to do..

JMO

---

Quote:

---

Both have solid views and values, neither wants senseless killing of kids or shootings in the street or theartres or malls or whereever.

So, if they both have the same goal, compromise (theres that dirty word again) is not only possible, it's the responsible thing to do.

---

Quote:

---

By JOYCE LEE MALCOLM

Americans are determined that massacres such as happened in Newtown, Conn., never happen again. But how? Many advocate more effective treatment of mentally-ill people or armed protection in so-called gun-free zones. Many others demand stricter control of firearms.

We aren't alone in facing this problem. Great Britain and Australia, for example, suffered mass shootings in the 1980s and 1990s. Both countries had very stringent gun laws when they occurred. Nevertheless, both decided that even stricter control of guns was the answer. Their experiences can be instructive.

In 1987, Michael Ryan went on a shooting spree in his small town of Hungerford, England, killing 16 people (including his mother) and wounding another 14 before shooting himself. Since the public was unarmed—as were the police—Ryan wandered the streets for eight hours with two semiautomatic rifles and a handgun before anyone with a firearm was able to come to the rescue.

Nine years later, in March 1996, Thomas Hamilton, a man known to be mentally unstable, walked into a primary school in the Scottish town of Dunblane and shot 16 young children and their teacher. He wounded 10 other children and three other teachers before taking his own life.

Since 1920, anyone in Britain wanting a handgun had to obtain a certificate from his local police stating he was fit to own a weapon and had good reason to have one. Over the years, the definition of "good reason" gradually narrowed. By 1969, self-defense was never a good reason for a permit.

After Hungerford, the British government banned semiautomatic rifles and brought shotguns—the last type of firearm that could be purchased with a simple show of fitness—under controls similar to those in place for pistols and rifles. Magazines were limited to two shells with a third in the chamber.

Dunblane had a more dramatic impact. Hamilton had a firearm certificate, although according to the rules he should not have been granted one. A media frenzy coupled with an emotional campaign by parents of Dunblane resulted in the Firearms Act of 1998, which instituted a nearly complete ban on handguns. Owners of pistols were required to turn them in. The penalty for illegal possession of a pistol is up to 10 years in prison.

The results have not been what proponents of the act wanted. Within a decade of the handgun ban and the confiscation of handguns from registered owners, crime with handguns had doubled according to British government crime reports. Gun crime, not a serious problem in the past, now is. Armed street gangs have some British police carrying guns for the first time. Moreover, another massacre occurred in June 2010. Derrick Bird, a taxi driver in Cumbria, shot his brother and a colleague then drove off through rural villages killing 12 people and injuring 11 more before killing himself.

Meanwhile, law-abiding citizens who have come into the possession of a firearm, even accidentally, have been harshly treated. In 2009 a former soldier, Paul Clarke, found a bag in his garden containing a shotgun. He brought it to the police station and was immediately handcuffed and charged with possession of the gun. At his trial the judge noted: "In law there is no dispute that Mr. Clarke has no defence to this charge. The intention of anybody possessing a firearm is irrelevant." Mr. Clarke was sentenced to five years in prison. A public outcry eventually won his release.

In November of this year, Danny Nightingale, member of a British special forces unit in Iraq and Afghanistan, was sentenced to 18 months in military prison for possession of a pistol and ammunition. Sgt. Nightingale was given the Glock pistol as a gift by Iraqi forces he had been training. It was packed up with his possessions and returned to him by colleagues in Iraq after he left the country to organize a funeral for two close friends killed in action. Mr. Nightingale pleaded guilty to avoid a five-year sentence and was in prison until an appeal and public outcry freed him on Nov. 29.

Six weeks after the Dunblane massacre in 1996, Martin Bryant, an Australian with a lifelong history of violence, attacked tourists at a Port Arthur prison site in Tasmania with two semiautomatic rifles. He killed 35 people and wounded 21 others.

At the time, Australia's guns laws were stricter than the United Kingdom's. In lieu of the requirement in Britain that an applicant for permission to purchase a gun have a "good reason," Australia required a "genuine reason." Hunting and protecting crops from feral animals were genuine reasons—personal protection wasn't.

With new Prime Minister John Howard in the lead, Australia passed the National Firearms Agreement, banning all semiautomatic rifles and semiautomatic and pump-action shotguns and imposing a more restrictive licensing system on other firearms. The government also launched a forced buyback scheme to remove thousands of firearms from private hands. Between Oct. 1, 1996, and Sept. 30, 1997, the government purchased and destroyed more than 631,000 of the banned guns at a cost of $500 million.

To what end? While there has been much controversy over the result of the law and buyback, Peter Reuter and Jenny Mouzos, in a 2003 study published by the Brookings Institution, found homicides "continued a modest decline" since 1997. They concluded that the impact of the National Firearms Agreement was "relatively small," with the daily rate of firearms homicides declining 3.2%.

According to their study, the use of handguns rather than long guns (rifles and shotguns) went up sharply, but only one out of 117 gun homicides in the two years following the 1996 National Firearms Agreement used a registered gun. Suicides with firearms went down but suicides by other means went up. They reported "a modest reduction in the severity" of massacres (four or more indiscriminate homicides) in the five years since the government weapons buyback. These involved knives, gas and arson rather than firearms.

In 2008, the Australian Institute of Criminology reported a decrease of 9% in homicides and a one-third decrease in armed robbery since the 1990s, but an increase of over 40% in assaults and 20% in sexual assaults.

What to conclude? Strict gun laws in Great Britain and Australia haven't made their people noticeably safer, nor have they prevented massacres. The two major countries held up as models for the U.S. don't provide much evidence that strict gun laws will solve our problems.

Ms. Malcolm, a professor of law at George Mason University Law School, is the author of several books including "Guns and Violence: The English Experience," (Harvard, 2002).

LINK

---

Quote:

---

I've asked the same question about why an auto or semi auto weapon is even needed. One person answered simply because he wanted it. I guess that's cool. My car stock had 222 HP at the Crank, I wanted more. it now has 288 at the Crank. do I need it,, hell no I don't.. but hey, it's my hobby so I wanted it and that's that.

Of course, guns and cars, two different things but both can be sport/hobby so I get it.

---

Quote:

---

Yes, but it's also the inexperience of these kids that hurts them. When there are tons of anti-bullying, it keeps the kids from learning how to deal with a bully or how to deal with adversity. When they're little, they get a trophy for showing up. When they're older, they have no skills to deal with their setback and take the only way out they can think of, by taking others with them.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Both have solid views and values, neither wants senseless killing of kids or shootings in the street or theartres or malls or whereever.

So, if they both have the same goal, compromise (theres that dirty word again) is not only possible, it's the responsible thing to do.

---

If compromising means relenquishing some of the rights and freedoms we currently enjoy (especially if we feel the premise violates the constitution), the "responsible thing to do" would be to fight it with any and all resources available.

Taking away the right to own my weapon of choice to defend myself because some nutjob or criminal killed people, is a crime...and idiotic.

---

Quote:

---

What has any politician ever done that suggests they will stop after a compromise is reached? Why should he never own a gun? How does me having the right to own whatever weapon I chose make you unsafe?

---

Quote:

---

People like you are the real danger.

I sit here and tell you that I support gun ownership but because I bring up the word compromise, I'm the dangerous one?

You sir, are the type of person that should never own a gun..

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

What has any politician ever done that suggests they will stop after a compromise is reached? Why should he never own a gun? How does me having the right to own whatever weapon I chose make you unsafe?

---

I will NOT answer any more questions on guns until someone explains to me why my rights are any less important than theirs..

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

What has any politician ever done that suggests they will stop after a compromise is reached? Why should he never own a gun? How does me having the right to own whatever weapon I chose make you unsafe?

---

I will NOT answer any more questions on guns until someone explains to me why my rights are any less important than theirs..

---

What rights of yours are you saying are less important than the rights of anyone else?

You certainly have the right to own a gun too (as strange as that may sound to you) so that you can defend yourself and be safe from criminals or government oppression or from a wild boar attack or anything else that may put you into danger.

Your right to be 'safe'? Better stay in your house and not venture outside. You could get harmed by an imbecile driving a car. Incidentally, more people die from car accidents than from guns. I might even say that more people die from non-accidental car uses (that is, vehicular homicide) than by the use of guns for the purpose.

So, your right to own a car (not to drive it, that's a privilege and not a right) could be said to be more dangerous than my actual right to own and use a gun.

Truth be known, you're a wannabe tyrant without any real power to enforce your tyranny on anyone but yourself.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Both have solid views and values, neither wants senseless killing of kids or shootings in the street or theartres or malls or whereever.

So, if they both have the same goal, compromise (theres that dirty word again) is not only possible, it's the responsible thing to do.

---

If compromising means relenquishing some of the rights and freedoms we currently enjoy (especially if we feel the premise violates the constitution), the "responsible thing to do" would be to fight it with any and all resources available.

Taking away the right to own my weapon of choice to defend myself because some nutjob or criminal killed people, is a crime...and idiotic.

---

OK,, you want to protect yourself,, cool,,, What about my right to be safe?

You forget, you aren't the only person on this planet that has rights.. why are yours more important than mine.

Are you saying that your rights trump my rights?

---

I'm not at all sure that you have legal right to be safe....but that's for another discussion. I'm under the assumption that the only right we have in that matter is the right to protect and defend ourselves and loved ones from harm. It is not only a right, it is a responsibility...... that some wish to relenquish to others. I choose to accept that responsibility. How is depriving me of a means to defend myself going to make you any safer?

What the government wants you to believe is that they are responsible for your safety and well being. The truth of the matter is that there is no legal requirement for any branch of government or law enforcement to assure your personal safety....and the USSC says so. That responsibility is ultimately yours. This is the reason I want the most effecient means legally available to defend myself and my family (and to fight tyranny ).