Let the Gun Rights Argument Begin

[DarkUnderlord]

To purchase an "assault weapon" you need to get rid of either a pistol grip, bayonet lug, flash suppressor, collapsible stock, or detachable magazine.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Hammer, but in the US you have to be 18 years old to buy rifles, shotguns, or their ammo. You must be 21 to purchase handguns or full-auto weapons.

American laws are strange aren't they?

[Blarg]

To purchase an "assault weapon" you need to get rid of either a pistol grip, bayonet lug, flash suppressor, collapsible stock, or detachable magazine.

American laws are strange aren't they?

Yes. Particularly the "Assault Weapon" nonsense. A SEMI-automatic rifle with a plastic stock. pistol grip, ect. is treated like a full-auto military weapon due to a purely cosmetic resemblance and restricted, but it is magically OK(and presumably magically less dangerous) if it has a plain wooden stock. In California, a recent law classified certain Olympic target pistols(yes, Olympic target pistols) as "assault weapons".
http://www.claremont.org/publications/wheeler990914.cfm
The British Olympic Pistol Team has to practice abroad due to the UK's handgun ban.
If anyone can tell me how this makes the world a better place, please do so.

[FireWolf]

no replies in a while... funny. Now we're getting to the good bits. Why do i not hear about swiss people going on a rampage? hrmm lemme think... is it all that lovely chocolate? could be. could be other reasons but perhaps it's the madatory service thingie. and why would that affect the death rate from guns? probably because it teaches people morals, respect and a lot of other things that it's too early in the morning to think about.

"Guns dont kill people, people kill people" i wonder why that is used so often... perhaps because it's true. you seem to want to dismiss this fact by telling us to "shove your sloguns up your ass" very logical debate. Guns are the means of killing, not the reason. if you want to ban guns because they kill people next we'll get repeating crossbows banned, and eventually sticks. why? because sticks are dangerous.

Feel free to say "that's bullshit! how can you compare a gun to a stick" why? because they are both inanimate objects which dont harm anyone until they come into contact with the most destructive thing on the planet: the human race. I dont know about you but i've never seen any other animal use a tool to kill off it's own species. perhaps it's our "advanced intelligence" which seems to want to kill off our race because there is no longer any threat in the food chain.

by all means ban guns. see what happens... discontent, angry population and probably no change in the gun crimes. gun crimes, which seem to be the basis for the argument for banning guns, are usually performed by criminals. amazing as it may seem criminals will very very rarely go to a reputable gun store and go through a background check etc to get a firearm. A criminal, as i stated earlier, can get a firearm from any number of sources relatively easily for the simple purpose of performing their crime.

When criminals have guns, people want guns to feel safer. if you cant get the guns from the criminals then lets go with a genius idea: DISARM THE DEFENSELESS! yep, that's right! make it even EASIER to get mugged, robbed, raped, whatever.

Curt cobain's music was ok. i've heard better. he shot himself... let's ban guns because he shot himself... arooh? logic? "if guns weren't around he'd be alive!" no, he'd have hanged himself instead. i know, let's ban rope too! he'd have overdosed. let's ban all drugs! uhh...

it's simply a reactionary response to a problem not a solution. banning guns will not serve any purpose. Flame me, spam me, call me names. i dont care, it just proves that you have no argument to counter mine.

[Crow of Ill Omen]

"Guns dont kill people, people kill people" i wonder why that is used so often... perhaps because it's true.

It gets used so often because it is a convenient way of masking the issue with an undeniable truism. A more useful statement might be "People without guns don't shoot people, people with guns shoot people."

When criminals have guns, people want guns to feel safer. if you cant get the guns from the criminals then lets go with a genius idea: DISARM THE DEFENSELESS! yep, that's right! make it even EASIER to get mugged, robbed, raped, whatever.

Owning a gun doesn't make you any safer. It is an illusion for cowards who can't cope with the reality of a dangerous world to hide behind.

Curt cobain's music was ok. i've heard better. he shot himself... let's ban guns because he shot himself... arooh? logic? "if guns weren't around he'd be alive!" no, he'd have hanged himself instead. i know, let's ban rope too! he'd have overdosed. let's ban all drugs! uhh...

it's simply a reactionary response to a problem not a solution. banning guns will not serve any purpose. Flame me, spam me, call me names. i dont care, it just proves that you have no argument to counter mine.

Kurt Cobain was a talented man who had one too many downer. Apparently, the amount of heroin in his bloodstream should have killed him if he hadn't shot himself in the head. Banning guns wouldn't have saved him. Heroin is already illegal, so banning drugs wouldn't save him. The world being a bit of a less shitty place might have done, or some decent psychiatric help.

[Jimbo san]

Hmmm. Complex debate. I'm not too sure about firearms, I feel that they are dangerous and possibly unnecessary (at least in my country). They are technically banned in this country.
BUT (and this but is bigger than the late John Candy's), you can still get guns in the UK! If you have land you can own a shotgun, and I think you can also have one if you have somewhere to shoot (e.g. some fields, private woods). A shotgun! You can't have a crappy pistol but you can have something that can blow a man's head off! Also gun crime is getting worse in the UK. Not too long ago I remember hearing on the radio that there was a drive by Uzi killing in London.
Now, I know that my country is becoming a more dangerous place, but please consider this - if you are confronted by a man with a gun, and you are carrying a gun, things escalate, and one of you will have to shoot. That means someone may die. Chances are it won't be the mugger. But how would you feel if you shot him dead and it turned out he had a replica firearm? Pretty bad, I think. Carrying a gun means that at some point you may have to use it.
Now, I don't own a gun. I don't want one. I wouldn't feel safe having one, and I wouldn't feel safe walking down the street knowing that any person I see in the street could be carrying a concealed handgun. Now, Hammer, please respect this post. I am not having a pop at your constitutional rights (I don't even know what they are), I'm just giving my own opinion, considering I grew up in a different gun culture from you.

[FireWolf]

ah very true. people with guns shoot people. people without guns get shot. it's the way of the world. And yes it does make you safer. you're confronted by a knife, you have a gun. guy runs away. you are safe. just because you have a gun on your person doesnt mean you have to use it. in the event of them having a gun pointed at you, possibly more than one, you dont have to whipe out your gun and shoot them. you can always just let them have your wallet etc.

It is your own choice how you use a gun. Which comes along to this point, if you own a gun it doesnt mean you are going to use it against someone. taking a gun away from someone who wont use it against another person would be... kinda pointless. so they own a gun woopie. let them have a gun if it makes them feel better. it's not the people who are tested, checked, re-checked and kept an eye on who cause these crimes is it. it's the people who get them illegally. or did you miss that point in my previous post or ignore it because you know it be true.

and mr cobain had one too many downers eh? so... that he was selling thousands and possibly millions of records, making money etc was a downer. uh-huh... just someone who tried to escape from this world and the problems in it through the use of drugs ended up in a depressed state because of it and killed himself. Again, not the gun's fault. If he tried to do something about the problems using his wealth instead of blowing it all on drugs to escape perhaps he'd have lived a longer and more fruitful life.

Gun crime in the UK is on the increase. practically NO guns on the streets in the UK are legal. I don't mind this, but i do enjoy recreational shooting of firearms, why? because it takes skill and shooting something from a distance and hitting it well is an enjoyable feeling. so is the feeling of power from the gun. OK, that sounds kinda weird, but there is a rush involved in firing a weapon, i do archery (bows and crossbows) rock climbing, abseiling, caving etc. why do i do these things? because they are enjoyable, the sense of danger inherrent in these sports and the skills you use. having control over my body and being pleased with the accomplishments.

Lets ban guns completely so i, and people like me, dont get to enjoy our life while crimes with guns still happen.

Banning a gun will not stop criminals getting hold of and using guns

[Crow of Ill Omen]

People with guns get shot as well. Owning a gun doesn't make you bullet proof. Some people get shot with their own guns.

Gun crime in the UK is much less than gun crime in the US. Shootings are much less common in the UK. Gun crime in the US is also on the increase.

Kurt Cobain had at least one too many downers. He didn't shoot himself out of happiness.

Target shooting doesn't have to involve a lethal weapon.

Making guns easier to get will increase the number of them in the hands of criminals.

[FireWolf]

valied point, owning a gun doesn't make you invincible. but you are more vulnerable if you don't own one.

Gun crime in the UK is also on the increase. Shootings are less common but there are a great deal more people in the US.

I never said he shot himself out of happyness, just that he took the easier way out that coping with this world.

What should we use for target shooting? paper-spit balls and straws?

Never said make it easier. im saying dont ban them.

[Moonbiter]

Owning a gun doesn't make you any safer. It is an illusion for cowards who can't cope with the reality of a dangerous world to hide behind.

Who ever told you this little gem is wrong. There is statistical proof that people who carry firearms are less likely to be a 'victim' of random violence. True it doesn't make you bulletproof or some kind of cool movie star but most people who carry guns don't carry them for that reason.

When I got out of the military, in '92 I moved back home to a town that was falling ever deeper into the grip of drugs and wannabe gang bangers. After several minor altercations, I decided to carry a 9mm pistol. I did so under the provisions of the state laws. In the 4 and a half years, that I carried, I only drew it 2 times. Once during an attempt to rob me while I was broke down on the side of the road and once during while a guy was breaking into my apartment. In both cases the agreessor fled when the pistol was brought into play.

I assure you that despite all my self-defense training I would have suffered serious physical harm had I not had my pistol. So please tell us how it is an illusion of safety for those who can't cope with a dangerous world?

The true illusion is the belief that someone else or the system will protect you from harm. Or that if confronted by someone wishing to do you harm that you will suddenly turn into superman and be able to stop them. Real life isn't a movie, an untrained woman isn't going to be able to outwit and outfight a mugger or rapist. If it was we wouldn't read about all the missing women who are found dead in the woods a year later.

If you live in the US you might be amused to know that the police DO NOT have a responsiblity to protect you. The have a duty to protect the public in general but not anyone on an idividual level.

Yes it sucks that people are accidentally killed or commit suicide with firearms. I don't know what the ultimate solution is but banning guns isn't the answer. All that does is trade one set of problems for another set.

[Crow of Ill Omen]

valied point, owning a gun doesn't make you invincible. but you are more vulnerable if you don't own one.

Gun crime in the UK is also on the increase. Shootings are less common but there are a great deal more people in the US.

I never said he shot himself out of happyness, just that he took the easier way out that coping with this world.

What should we use for target shooting? paper-spit balls and straws?

Never said make it easier. im saying dont ban them.

Owning a gun only stops you getting shot if you shoot someone else first. This doesn't help society as the number of shootings isn't lowered. It also makes you a murderer, unless you can prove the person was intending to shoot you.

Gun crime is less in the UK per capita.

I don't care what you use for target shooting, as long as it isn't a lethal weapon. I'm quite willing to forego a small amount of pleasure derived from a sporting passtime if it increases the safety of me and my family and other innocents.

Unbanning them makes it easier from criminals to acquire guns. Currently, the avenues for acquistion are mainly buy a smuggled gun or a stolen military piece. Unbanning them opens up more gun shops and private owners from which they can be stolen. It also gives criminals-to-be who have never been convicted the option of legally acquiring one and conveniently losing it or getting it stolen (i.e. selling it to another criminal).

[Megatron]

If you o get mugged and are carrying a gun, you don't need to shoot them. You could just point it at them, hit them with it or shoot them in the leg or something, you don't need to paint their brains on the wall.

And most muggers are poor and carry knives, that's why they are mugging. Some carry guns, but not all of them.

[HappySuitcase Man]

The NRA is not against background checks, nor am I, we are against firearm registration.

Here in Texas, Houston to be exact, the cops would make the LAPD look like a bunch of laid - back hippies. Over in Houston, cops shoot some "queers, wetbacks, darkies, punks, etc." and throw an unregistered handgun on 'em, and claim the dead guy shot first. How convenient. I suppose you're going to argue that someone's gonna steal your handgun, shoot someone with it, and because it's registered in your name, you're going straight to jail, eh? Never mind the fact that most courts these days still require evidence to send you to the big house, provided you're not a minority.

Of course, your sentence might have said that you weren't against firearm registration, in which case, ignore the above paragraph.

Get your shit wired right next time. Also, as for the 5 days, a check only takes a FEW MINUTES, so waiting 5 days is pointless. How do I know? I run a gun store, before I can sell a firearm I have to contact the state police and run an instant check on a person before he can leave my store with that firearm.

You're aware that I used the Simpson's episode as an example, and didn't just insert it at random, right?

Why would someone want a gun immediately? I might be able to understand the scenario, "I was watching a Dateline special on muggings, and I was afraid of being killed on the way home." Wouldn't you agree that there is someone out there that is buying that gun because he is really freakin' pissed?

On another note, I feel that if one's records have any violent crimes whatsoever, they shouldn't be able to buy a firearm. I would think that most people would find this a given, but you can argue it if you want.

The best part is, no where did I call people leftist-liberal-gungrabbing-commie-bastards or anything of the sort, another thing you've appeared to have pulled out of your ass.

[parody]*Gasp* I didn't mention "Leftist, Liberal, or Gun - Grabbing" anywhere! You're putting words in my mouth! Stop pulling words out of your ass!!! Argh!!![/parody]

Enforcing the current, sensible firearms laws is the way to do that, do you have some other genius idea?

How 'bout keeping those current, "insensible" firearm laws, too? I'm gonna have to agree with the mainstream media when they say society as of late is getting more and more violent. Are you going to suggest that there won't be any increase of violent crimes in this country if those "insensible" firearm laws are repealed? Or are you going to argue that any rise will be balanced out by the convenience given to lawful gun owners across the country?

Anyway, other then establishing that you have absolutely no knowledge on this subject, what was the point of your rant?

I don't know anything about firearm laws? *Gasp*

Seriously. I pretty sure that even a little kid could've told you that. But, like most people who are below the ruling crass, I know what are my morals and ethics. And, my ethics say that anything that reduces violence in our society, while not grossly violating our basic human rights, should be put into place.

[Saint_Proverbius]

It gets used so often because it is a convenient way of masking the issue with an undeniable truism. A more useful statement might be "People without guns don't shoot people, people with guns shoot people."

People with a strong desire to kill people, will kill people. Murder's not going to stop if you wave your wand and send all guns to the void. It's pretty easy to kill people and there are plenty of ways to do it. The main reasons guns take a lot of flak for this is because they're used more commonly.

As far as the UK goes, I read an odd news item about a sword wielding, naked maniac who invaded a church during a service and proceded to attack the people tending srvice there. About half way down, the reporter asked the policeman in charge if they should ban all swords like they did with the guns. I couldn't help but thinking that if one of those people in the church actually had a gun, sword man wouldn't have been much of an issue.

Of course, you could argue that naked sword man would have used a gun instead, but chances are that he was mentally ill. A gun may or may not have fit his flavor of psychosis.

Moonbiter pointed out that Kentucky's concealed carry law doesn't allow people to take guns in certain places. He's right, it doesn't. However, it's fairly silly to even have a concealed carry law that's so restricted. My wife and I were walking downtown in Lexington here in Kentucky. I noticed that the public library had a "No concealed firearms" sticker on the door. I asked my wife, "Why do you think that's like that? You can't take a gun in the library if you have a permit?"

My wife said, "Probably because they don't want anyone going in there and shooting up the place."

Well, isn't that exactly what would happen if some nut walked in there with a gun intent on killing people? After all, none of the legal patrons of the library will have a gun to fight back with, so it just promotes the whole "shoot the place up" scenario. After all, if you're wanting to kill a lot of people in the library with a gun, a sticker on the door isn't going to stop you. A person with training on the inside of the library with a gun might.

While we're on the subject of carry permit laws, it's interesting to note that gun crime statistics actually go down in states that have them.

[Hammer]

Here in Texas, Houston to be exact, the cops would make the LAPD look like a bunch of laid - back hippies. Over in Houston, cops shoot some "queers, wetbacks, darkies, punks, etc." and throw an unregistered handgun on 'em, and claim the dead guy shot first. How convenient. I suppose you're going to argue that someone's gonna steal your handgun, shoot someone with it, and because it's registered in your name, you're going straight to jail, eh? Never mind the fact that most courts these days still require evidence to send you to the big house, provided you're not a minority.

What business is it of the GOVERNMENT to know what firearms I buy? after registration what's next, having our firearms stored at a local police station?

You're aware that I used the Simpson's episode as an example, and didn't just insert it at random, right?

It was a CARTOON that served no purpose in the debate, what point did it get across other than the Simpsons is a funny show?

Why would someone want a gun immediately? I might be able to understand the scenario, "I was watching a Dateline special on muggings, and I was afraid of being killed on the way home." Wouldn't you agree that there is someone out there that is buying that gun because he is really freakin' pissed?

Because there is NO NEED TO WAIT 5 DAYS, the new program which is used in the majority of the states is called the "instant check" program, its new, simple, fast, and effective. Why should we wait 5 days to find something out when we can find it out in 5 minutes?

How 'bout keeping those current, "insensible" firearm laws, too?

Well, the so-called "assault weapon" ban will sun-set in 2004, so hopefully the already pointless law will be gone.

I'm gonna have to agree with the mainstream media when they say society as of late is getting more and more violent. Are you going to suggest that there won't be any increase of violent crimes in this country if those "insensible" firearm laws are repealed? Or are you going to argue that any rise will be balanced out by the convenience given to lawful gun owners across the country?

If the "assault weapon" ban is repealed nothing will change, why? because criminals rarely use these "assault weapons" because most are very expensive, and, if they wanted one, they can simply shave off the bayonet lug and they have a full functioning "assault weapon". Does this make sense to you?

[parody]*Gasp* I didn't mention "Leftist, Liberal, or Gun - Grabbing" anywhere! You're putting words in my mouth! Stop pulling words out of your ass!!! Argh!!![/parody]

At the end of your sentence you mentioned that I would probably call you a pinko-commie, something I can understand if I had done something like that in the current debate, which I have not.

Now I am flattered you trying to act like me, but please refrain from doing so in the future.

Seriously. I pretty sure that even a little kid could've told you that. But, like most people who are below the ruling crass, I know what are my morals and ethics. And, my ethics say that anything that reduces violence in our society, while not grossly violating our basic human rights, should be put into place.

If you have no idea about how the laws work, or can't speak legal-iese, than why post? your ethics and morals do not make sense, in a happy world they were be perfect, but the fact of the matter they will never work.

None of these laws mentioned reduce violence, especially the "assault weapon" ban. Banning a certain sort of firearm because one criminal fucks up is the school equivalent of an entire kindergartener class not being able to go to recess because one kid was throwing things in class.

[Crow of Ill Omen]

It gets used so often because it is a convenient way of masking the issue with an undeniable truism. A more useful statement might be "People without guns don't shoot people, people with guns shoot people."

People with a strong desire to kill people, will kill people. Murder's not going to stop if you wave your wand and send all guns to the void. It's pretty easy to kill people and there are plenty of ways to do it. The main reasons guns take a lot of flak for this is because they're used more commonly.

No. When a gun is present, the act of killing is reduced to a small amount of extra pressure on a trigger. Killers include people who might pull the trigger in tough situations like when cornered during a crime or startled by an unarmed intruder. The killer just has to panic briefly or have a moment of rage or clumsiness. The killer doesn't need a strong desire to kill. The killer may not have any desire to kill.

As far as the UK goes, I read an odd news item about a sword wielding, naked maniac who invaded a church during a service and proceded to attack the people tending srvice there. About half way down, the reporter asked the policeman in charge if they should ban all swords like they did with the guns. I couldn't help but thinking that if one of those people in the church actually had a gun, sword man wouldn't have been much of an issue.

Of course, you could argue that naked sword man would have used a gun instead, but chances are that he was mentally ill. A gun may or may not have fit his flavor of psychosis.

An odd article, yes. Not something we should use to set our laws.

Swords are deadly weapons and are banned from being carried in public places such as churches.

Why pretend that if guns were more easily available and legal to own it would be the church going Christians who would save the day by carrying them, when it is much more likely that the homicidal maniac would be carrying one and would have killed a lot more people?

[Blarg]

People with guns get shot as well. Owning a gun doesn't make you bullet proof. Some people get shot with their own guns.

True. But most people don't get shot with their own guns. Not owning a gun can mean getting stabbed with someone else's knife. Nothing is perfect. Should we ban doctors because some patients die?
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/informat ... p?CatID=43
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/informat ... sp?ID=2331
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/informat ... sp?ID=2257

Gun crime in the UK is much less than gun crime in the US. Shootings are much less common in the UK.

Bullcrap, once you take the population differences into account. Note that most of these are from UK news sources or authors.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/new ... 440764.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gun/Story/0,2 ... 75,00.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/watson/watson12.html
http://www.ssaa.org.au/euro.html
http://www.frontpagemag.com/columnists/ ... -20-02.htm
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,3 ... 94,00.html

Gun crime in the US is also on the increase.

Also BS.
http://www.stats.org/crime.htm
http://www.gunsandcrime.org/crvsgraf.html
http://www.gunsandcrime.org/highs.html
The above articles reference this article. If you are calling the US Dept. of Justice a liar, that is your business.

Kurt Cobain had at least one too many downers. He didn't shoot himself out of happiness.

Magic-ing away guns will not affect suicides. If he was determined to kill himself, he could have overdosed or any number of other things. He still chose to shoot himself, however. Perhaps we should ban downers?
http://www.stats.org/statswork/gunsuicide.htm

Target shooting doesn't have to involve a lethal weapon

.
Don't even start on the "lethal weapon" fallacy. By your "logic", carpenters should not use hammers to drive nails, since hammers can be lethal weapons. Baseball or cricket players should not use bats to hit the ball, since bats can be lethal weapons. Drivers should not use automobiles... well, I hope that you get the idea. Misusing an object does not make the object evil.

Making guns easier to get will increase the number of them in the hands of criminals.

Crap. Weren't you paying attention during the other posts? :
Once again, making people like me jump through flaming hoops at Wal-Mart will not even inconvenience, much less stop, someone who can get anything he wants illegally(hence the term criminal) with a few phone calls.
Until 1934 in the US, you could buy full-auto for cash. No ID required.
Until 1968, you could buy anything short of full-auto by mail, for cash.
Many high schools had shooting clubs.
Where were the massacres of innocent bystanders then?

Go here again.

Percent of State inmates
possessing a firearm
Source of gun 1997 1991
Total 100.0 % 100.0 %
Purchased from --- 13.9 20.8 (totals)
Retail store 8.3 14.7
Pawnshop 3.8 4.2
Flea market 1.0 1.3
Gun show 0.7 0.6
Friends or family 39.6 33.8
Street/illegal source 39.2 40.8
In 1997 among State inmates possessing a
gun, fewer than 2% bought their firearm at
a flea market or gun show, about 12% from a
retail store or pawnshop, and 80% from family,
friends, a street buy, or an illegal source.

Less than 2% of inmates reported
carrying a fully automatic or
military-style semiautomatic firearm.

You are reading that correctly. According to the US Dept. of Justice, 0.7% of criminals interviewed purchased guns at gun shows. The "Gun show loophole" is a political ploy designed to restrict private transfers between individuals, such as single-gun sales between friends. A dealer at a gun show has to run the background check, just like at his shop. Also, how many criminals are going to admit that they got a gun illegally, and will say that they got it some other way instead?

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/fuo.htm
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/fuo.txt(text only)
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

I do not really blame you for what you have been tricked into thinking that you believe. A blatantly biased, ratings-hungry media has bombarded everyone with "Guns are bad, mmmkay?" messages, and suppressed news about the beneficial uses of guns for so long, that people have stopped questioning it. It is called The Big Lie.

http://www.davekopel.com/Media/MediaBias.htm
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/article ... 3427.shtml
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Bridge/2431/media.html
http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/mediabias.html
http://www.compleatheretic.com/pubs/columns/pronra.html
http://www.codyexpress.com/BadMan/pratt ... storts.htm
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/informat ... p?CatID=46

[Jimmyjay86]

I think some people blindly cite statistics and testimonials saying that guns save lives and use it to validate their argument that more guns should be allowed. Allowing more people to own more weapons may appear to give civilians a better chance of repelling crime. It seems like criminals would think twice about trying to rob someone. But then we must wonder about the meaning of the statistics and the consequences of having more guns around.

If criminals are mostly getting their weapons illegally, then what is the source of those guns? I am thinking it is from breaking into people's homes while they are not there and stealing their guns. Criminals like the fact that there are more guns available to civilians because that means they are generally easy to steal. It's like in Fallout 2 - when you start out, in a short time you can steal or kill someone to get armed. Do you sometimes take a chance in fighting someone with some advanced weapons in order to get that energy weapon?

Most bad-ass criminals don't care if they die or not. They will take you on whether you are armed or not. Just this week in the Milwaukee County courthouse a 23 y/o guy got sentenced to prison for murder and decided to take on several deputies, shot one, and ran wild in the crowded courtroom before a detective killed him.

Although I am not against people owning guns, allowing civilians to own dozens of them is overkill, doesn't improve the crime statistics and only makes weapon manufacturers rich.

[Hammer]

Although I am not against people owning guns, allowing civilians to own dozens of them is overkill, doesn't improve the crime statistics and only makes weapon manufacturers rich.

Why is it over kill? what if they are collectors like me? what if they collect them for historical value? And don't even think of feeding me that "why don't you just get demilitarized firearms for historical purposes?" line of bull shit, firearms after being demilitarized loose their value.

Also, who cares if the weapon manufacturers are getting rich? it's their JOB, god forbid they make profit off of it.

If criminals are mostly getting their weapons illegally, then what is the source of those guns? I am thinking it is from breaking into people's homes while they are not there and stealing their guns.

Uh no, odds are they are getting them from the black market, not many firearm owners own automatic firearms, and if they do, they are locked up in gigantic safes.

I think some people blindly cite statistics and testimonials saying that guns save lives and use it to validate their argument that more guns should be allowed.

I think some people blindly cite statistics and testimonials saying that firearms kill more children than any other thing, and use it to validate their argument. Best part is, they consider anybody from 18 - 25 "children", even if they are killed in a drug trafficking bumble fuck.

It's like in Fallout 2 - when you start out, in a short time you can steal or kill someone to get armed. Do you sometimes take a chance in fighting someone with some advanced weapons in order to get that energy weapon?

For the love of god, don't use a computer game to base an argument off of. Their are no laws or repercussions in Fallout, you can always RELOAD the game if you fuck up and get shot, Not in real life.

[FireWolf]

Okay, lets get something straight. people generally dont want to die. when confronted by a firearm they will most likely go to pieces and do what they're told. two people with a gun, standoff possibly shooting, death etc etc. But that is unlikely from the casual mugger front.
another thing, you are unlikely to be carrying an assault rifle. somehow i think you'd be better off if you DID carry an assault rifle. that would give a would be mugger something to think about, when they pull a handgun on you you swing around a fully automatic assault machine gun.

anyway.

Where do criminals get their guns...

This will be fun. recently a UK journalist managed to BUY 250 H&K mp5s from, you'll love this, the military from european member country. but that's the the best bit. he was able to get them to send these guns to a country which has an EU BAN preventing EU countries selling arms to it.
They even offered carry cases for all guns.

Now when actual country's militaries are selling off surplus what does that say about the availability on the black market for such firearms? this Journalist didnt need any idea what-so-ever.

[Jimmyjay86]

Hammer stammered:

Uh no, odds are they are getting them from the black market, not many firearm owners own automatic firearms, and if they do, they are locked up in gigantic safes.

Beautifully nonsensical answer! And the black market makes the guns? Do they have a magic gun appearer? Perhaps they buy the guns wholesale from the gun manufacturer and import them from Afghanistan even though they are American-made guns. Seriously I shouldn't have to explain to you where black market guns come from.

And I suppose criminals don't have the knack for breaking into "gigantic safes".....

If you don't have a defense for a point in an argument you might just want to do what you have been doing all along and not offer a rebuttal!