Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I think that all the gun control laws should be re-inforced, not new laws be made to help already the very contriversialy issue (DON'T CORRECT MY SPELLING). I would like to here what other people think about this subject. I am not a gun fanatic nor a hater. I don't believe in banning guns, and I think that the laws already made for guns (aprox 3,715 laws) should be put to use.

At 8/12/01 02:05 AM, Mafiaboy404 wrote: I think that all the gun control laws should be re-inforced, not new laws be made to help already the very contriversialy issue (DON'T CORRECT MY SPELLING). I would like to here what other people think about this subject. I am not a gun fanatic nor a hater. I don't believe in banning guns, and I think that the laws already made for guns (aprox 3,715 laws) should be put to use.

Gun control does help greatly, Homicide still exists but despite what the NRA claim it has drematically dropped, In Sydney you can still find a hand gun or Semi-Automatic weapon for sale within 72 hours but this is still much better then being able to find one in less than an hour like you can in America, Here's how gun control works in Australia; Hand Guns(ie pistols) are banned, Semi-Automatic & Automatic weapons are banned, A single shot Rifle may be owned if you have a licence for it, Pump action shotguns are banned, A breach loading single or double barrel shot gun may be owned with a licence, air guns with a muzzle velocity of 300metres per second or more must be licenced as they are potentially fatal, Paintball guns require licence for the same reason some airguns do, If you were shot in the temple by a paintball gun without your helmet on it would kill you, When loaded with a hard object like a marble a paintball gun will punch a hole through a car door.

At 8/12/01 02:05 AM, Mafiaboy404 wrote: I think that all the gun control laws should be re-inforced, not new laws be made to help already the very contriversialy issue (DON'T CORRECT MY SPELLING). I would like to here what other people think about this subject. I am not a gun fanatic nor a hater. I don't believe in banning guns, and I think that the laws already made for guns (aprox 3,715 laws) should be put to use.

I think that we should make laws according to if they are right or wrong, becuase one law isn't enforced so we shouldn't make a new one. Desciding what laws are good and right for the nation does not mean comparing a law to another one.

At 8/12/01 02:05 AM, Mafiaboy404 wrote: I think that all the gun control laws should be re-inforced, not new laws be made to help already the very contriversialy issue (DON'T CORRECT MY SPELLING). I would like to here what other people think about this subject. I am not a gun fanatic nor a hater. I don't believe in banning guns, and I think that the laws already made for guns (aprox 3,715 laws) should be put to use.

I'd be perfectly content with backround checks myself. But appearently the NRA wants to give God's to 5 year-olds since somewhere in the constitution it says someone can have them (that someone being a well-regulated militia, not some guy with no teeth and a beard who wants to over-throw the government). I do I agree that we need to inforce the current guns laws.

At 8/12/01 07:10 PM, GameboyCC wrote:

At 8/12/01 02:05 AM, Mafiaboy404 wrote: I think that all the gun control laws should be re-inforced, not new laws be made to help already the very contriversialy issue (DON'T CORRECT MY SPELLING). I would like to here what other people think about this subject. I am not a gun fanatic nor a hater. I don't believe in banning guns, and I think that the laws already made for guns (aprox 3,715 laws) should be put to use.

I'd be perfectly content with backround checks myself. says someone can have them (that someone being a well-regulated militia, not some guy with no teeth and a beard who wants to over-throw the government). I do I agree that we need to inforce the current guns laws.

I also think that the gunlaws that are already existing should be put to use.

-ThunderBolt2001

P.S. GameboyCC, in the statement 'give God's to 5 year-olds', God's should be guns.

I also think that the gunlaws that are already existing should be put to use.

-ThunderBolt2001

P.S. GameboyCC, in the statement 'give God's to 5 year-olds', God's should be guns.

Today I went to a local gunshow to check it out. I was seeing if any of the gun dealers were following the laws. About 5 out of the 27 dealers I went didn't bother for backround check or a three week waiting period for the gun, they would have sold it to me on the spot. Due to the latest studies Homocide has dropped dramaticly, in the following: Home, and blue collar crime.

I was reading the local university news paper (UCLA) and I found an interesting column. If you shoot a person breaking into and robbing your house (and he doesn't have a weapon) you can be liable for a law suit from him!!! That is one of the most riduclous thing I have ever herd. ALSO if a criminal breaks into your house with a weapon threatens to kill you and you kill him, you can also be liable for a law suit from his family and the state. I swear America is going down the drains.

At 8/12/01 07:34 PM, ThunderBolt2001 wrote: P.S. GameboyCC, in the statement 'give God's to 5 year-olds', God's should be guns.

Whoops... my bad! (Does your 5-year own have his/her own God yet?)

At 8/12/01 08:07 PM, Mafiaboy404 wrote:

I was reading the local university news paper (UCLA) and I found an interesting column. If you shoot a person breaking into and robbing your house (and he doesn't have a weapon) you can be liable for a law suit from him!!! That is one of the most riduclous thing I have ever herd. ALSO if a criminal breaks into your house with a weapon threatens to kill you and you kill him, you can also be liable for a law suit from his family and the state. I swear America is going down the drains.

That's such bullshit. I can't believe a fucking burglar can sue you if he is breaking in and you shoot him! Jesus.....

Look at my profile if you want to know my views on guns.

At 8/13/01 04:53 AM, ERies wrote: Look at my profile if you want to know my views on guns.

I disagree with your quote as well as think it's worded awkwordly. If you take candy from a baby it will be worse for a while but the benefits will outweigh the initial choas, eventually a more healier baby will come of such. I'm sure you can make the connection. Personally I don't think people should have guns, I also think that people have the right. Should And Can are diffrent... *sigh*. The Question I am wondering is what justification do background check laws have other than the outcome on the nation?

At 8/13/01 05:04 AM, Anarchypenguin wrote:

The Question I am wondering is what justification do background check laws have other than the outcome on the nation?

I think it means people have to wait before they can kill somebody.

At 8/13/01 05:10 AM, SomewhatDamaged wrote:

At 8/13/01 05:04 AM, Anarchypenguin wrote:

The Question I am wondering is what justification do background check laws have other than the outcome on the nation?

I think it means people have to wait before they can kill somebody.

Funny... But I mean Justification under congressional law. In law Making, The establishment of why the government has the right to make a law is important. Why do they have the right to do background checks?

At 8/13/01 05:14 AM, Anarchypenguin wrote:

At 8/13/01 05:10 AM, SomewhatDamaged wrote:

At 8/13/01 05:04 AM, Anarchypenguin wrote:

The Question I am wondering is what justification do background check laws have other than the outcome on the nation?

I think it means people have to wait before they can kill somebody.

Funny... But I mean Justification under congressional law. In law Making, The establishment of why the government has the right to make a law is important. Why do they have the right to do background checks?

They have the right because they are the government. that's all the right they need. Anyway, if you aren't going to kill somebody, why would you have a problem with backround checks? Job interviewers do it all the time.

Maybe they have standards and won't sell guns to convics or whatever. It won't stop criminals from getting guns, they just won't buy them legally, thus increasing the number of illegal guns. Great, isn't it?

At 8/13/01 05:50 AM, SomewhatDamaged wrote:

At 8/13/01 05:14 AM, Anarchypenguin wrote:

At 8/13/01 05:10 AM, SomewhatDamaged wrote:

At 8/13/01 05:04 AM, Anarchypenguin wrote:

The Question I am wondering is what justification do background check laws have other than the outcome on the nation?

I think it means people have to wait before they can kill somebody.

Funny... But I mean Justification under congressional law. In law Making, The establishment of why the government has the right to make a law is important. Why do they have the right to do background checks?

They have the right because they are the government. that's all the right they need.

If in Russia I would agree, but we're not, In the U.S. proper cuase for a law to be created must first be established, I'd assume this would be under "harm to others" I looked under lexis nexis and couldnt find anything, anyone care to spread some light?

Anyway, if you aren't going to kill somebody, why would you have a problem with backround checks? Job interviewers do it all the time.

The point is not my personal view towards me taking a backgroud check but whether the government has the right to impose that before buying and Item, my privacy may be infringed upon. I'm sure theres justification, just where is my question.

Maybe they have standards and won't sell guns to convics or whatever. It won't stop criminals from getting guns, they just won't buy them legally, thus increasing the number of illegal guns. Great, isn't it?

I don't think that's the point. Sure for a hardend killer back ground check are meaningless, but for A walk in bank robber who say really doesn't have any connections this could pose difficulty, I use this example becuase I know someone like this. Really though the most effective thing is the waiting piriod, for cooling of steam. For example a disgruntled employee or spouse finds out that murder won't solve their problem.

At 8/13/01 06:06 AM, Anarchypenguin wrote:

The point is not my personal view towards me taking a backgroud check but whether the government has the right to impose that before buying and Item, my privacy may be infringed upon. I'm sure theres justification, just where is my question.

If enough people bitch about it, it usually goes. In this case, there have been enough incidents where backround checks are justifiable ie columbine, etc.

This discussion keeps coming up, but i like how this one has few different issues to it.
1. Forget about Columbine. That was much more of a lack of parental skills than guns. While they did use guns, the complete lack of the parents knowledge of thier kids was more horrifying.
2. Background checks. Background checks are totally useless. First of all (this applies in MA, maybe more states) You have get a permit to carry. not an easy thing to do. Aside from already having an FID card, which you need to take an NRA saftey course, you have to have the police of chief of your town OK you and have three people vouch for you. the police chief can simply say I don't like you; no handgun permit. End of story. What doed all this have to do with background checks? I have already had them in obtaning my permits! Why do i need more.
3. I am going to try to look up some stats on Australia I have heard that almost all major crime is up, and just a coule of percents. Not gonna talk till i have the info.
4. Equal Force Law. You can thank the democrats for this one boys and girls. This law and many other laws are simply intellectually and morraly bankrupt. What you are saying with these laws is that a man cannot defend his home from an invader. If a man (or woman) is breaking into your home, only you, no one else can stop him. You must shoot him in the front, not back and he muist be posing an immediate threat. What is an immediate threat, knife to a family member's throat etc. Let me try to put these laws in scenario for you.

You awake one night to a sound of breaking glass then loud noises down stairs. You investigate and find a masked man rummaging through you things. You call the cops. You get your gun tell the guy to freeze. He then pulls a gun on you. Your neighbor with the police scanner hears the call and hops over to your house, sees the man and shoots him. Your neighbor is in jail and will never be able to own a gun since he shot a man on someone else's property. Might have saved your life, but it simply doesn't matter. Bad scenario but it was the best i could on such short notice. This has beceom very long, but i promise you I will wiret more based on responses.
please excuse the bad typing/spelling

At 8/13/01 03:41 PM, IamJacksalias wrote: This discussion keeps coming up, but i like how this one has few different issues to it.
1. Forget about Columbine. That was much more of a lack of parental skills than guns. While they did use guns, the complete lack of the parents knowledge of thier kids was more horrifying.

I have to agree with you their, but the parents did slack off on their responsiblility to own a weapon. I believe that by not making sure their kids got ahold of the gun, they are not responsible enough to own a weapon. (If I use the word "responsibility", or forms of it, a lot in this post, let me just say that responsibility is a major part of owning a weapon.)

2. Background checks. Background checks are totally useless.

They prevent psychos from owning guns. You say you had to have one before you bought a gun? I say good! (No offense or anything, I just believe in the backround check!)

3. I am going to try to look up some stats on Australia I have heard that almost all major crime is up, and just a coule of percents. Not gonna talk till i have the info.

I know in England, only the military can own weapons, and they have a low crime rate. (When there's not a Soccer/Football game that is...)

4. Equal Force Law. You can thank the democrats for this one boys and girls.

Okay, so even democrates can be idiots sometimes. But... if a criminal is trespassing and is armed and threatens you, you can shoot him/her. It's called justafiable homicide. (You can learn all about in "The Godfather Part III" now at your local video retailer).

At 8/13/01 03:41 PM, IamJacksalias wrote: This discussion keeps coming up, but i like how this one has few different issues to it.
1. Forget about Columbine. That was much more of a lack of parental skills than guns. While they did use guns, the complete lack of the parents knowledge of thier kids was more horrifying.
2. Background checks. Background checks are totally useless. First of all (this applies in MA, maybe more states) You have get a permit to carry. not an easy thing to do. Aside from already having an FID card, which you need to take an NRA saftey course, you have to have the police of chief of your town OK you and have three people vouch for you. the police chief can simply say I don't like you; no handgun permit. End of story. What doed all this have to do with background checks? I have already had them in obtaning my permits! Why do i need more.
3. I am going to try to look up some stats on Australia I have heard that almost all major crime is up,

& if you believe that I'll have to reasses my oppinion of your intelligence, It doesn't even make sense if you stop & think about it.

Hang about, I'll get you 2 sources of Legitimate information.

They have the right because they are the government. that's all the right they need. Anyway, if you aren't going to kill somebody, why would you have a problem with backround checks? Job interviewers do it all the time.

It's like all these people who want to keep the FDA off the farm (Zip up your pants! I'm talkin' about the real FDA!). What, they want to reserve their freedom to put arsenic in their crops! (Like the arsenic Bush has in our water!) If your record is clean, you should not be as nervous!

Hang about, I'll get you sources of Legitimate information.

Even before the gun control Australia's gun laws were never as rediculous as America's, In Australia civilians could never have such weopons as the Kalashnikov, Uzi or Mack 10

Here are some links that should contain usable information,

http://www.aic.gov.au/

http://www.guncontrol.org.au/

http://www.wa.gov.au/cof/guncntrl/

http://home.vicnet.net.au/~guncontrol/main.html

http://www.abs.gov.au/

Here's an Article from the Australian Institute of Criminology,

Australian Institute of Criminology

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----

Media Release

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----

Australia reports lowest number of homicides in nine years
Last year Australia recorded the lowest number of homicides since the Australian Institute of Criminology began the National Homicide Monitoring Program in 1989.

Preliminary analysis from the Australian Institute of Criminology for 1997/98 indicates that there were 297 homicide incidents and 311 homicide victims.

In approximately 80 per cent of all homicide incidents the victim and the offender were known to each other. Homicides involving intimate partners comprised 23 per cent of all homicides last year.

"These are the first findings from the latest collection by our Homicide Monitoring program. Given the high proportion of homicides which are family-related or where the victim and assailant were known to each other, it appears that violence is used too often to solve emotional issues", said AIC Director, Dr Adam Graycar.

"The policy thrust to address such issues needs to be in terms of broad-based violence prevention and violence management.

"The full figures will be released, and these issues discussed, at our 3rd National Outlook Symposium on Crime in Australia on 22-23 March in Canberra", Dr Graycar said.

Rates of victimisation from 1 July 1989 - 30 June 1998 have remained quite stable, fluctuating between 1.7 and 2.0 per 100 000 population, with 1996/97 and 1997/98 recording the lowest victimisation rate of 1.7 per 100 000 population.

The proportion of male to female victims (approx 2:1) has also remained relatively constant.

Homicide incidents in Victoria have nearly halved since monitoring began in 1989/90 from 79 to 44.

The Northern Territory victimisation rate decreased by more than half from 12.4 per 100 000 population in 1995/96 to 5.3 in 1997/98.

During 1997/98, most homicides (36 per cent) occurred in NSW followed by Queensland, where one quarter of all homicides occurred.

Recorded homicides in Australia average approx one per day.

Australia's overall homicide rate has remained relatively steady over the past 25 years.

On an international level, Australia's homicide rate in 1997/8 was:
twice the rate in Japan;
slightly higher than the rate in England & Wales and Germany;
similar to the rate in Canada and NZ; and
almost a quarter of the rate in the United States.

At 8/13/01 11:06 PM, Pantomime_Horse wrote:

Hang about, I'll get you sources of Legitimate information.

In Australia civilians could never have such weopons as the Kalashnikov, Uzi or Mack 10

Shit! Remind me never to go to Austrialia!

While Australia's crime rate may have gone down from last year, all violent crime skyrocketed when the gun were taken away. Go to
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38dbe07c464b.htm

Also Checkout http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/archive/intern

http://www.shadeslanding.com/firearms/cramer.us.canada.htmlational/msg00005.html

http://www.theage.com.au/news/2001/03/04/FFXAF3G6UJC.html
Some good stuff in there that is pretty unbaised. And when I say unbaised i say that meaning that i will not go to the NRA and get stats since they are also baised.
What doesn't make sense about the crime rate going up? You take away your citizen's right to bear arms, thus protecting themselves, crime goes up. Anyone who doesn't listen to that law, mainly criminals, will arms themselves and suddenly they a huge advantage. It makes perfect sense to me.

On another note I thought that the kids in Columbine got the guns from some guy they knew, not thier parents. Correct me if I'm wrong.

At 8/13/01 03:41 PM, IamJacksalias wrote: This discussion keeps coming up, but i like how this one has few different issues to it.
1. Forget about Columbine. That was much more of a lack of parental skills than guns. While they did use guns, the complete lack of the parents knowledge of thier kids was more horrifying.

The parents never looked in the childs room because they didn't want to disrupt their privacy. In their room where the following items that police found upon inspection the childrens room: Hash Pipe, Drugs, 2 Magazines, letters about doing the children, various neo nazi symbols posted on the way, cartoons of them killing the kids; thus I rest my case for bad parenting skills, YET the PARENTS took on the RESPONSIBILITY of SUEING EVERY thing that could be linked to the shooting (IE NRA, Entertainment industry, ID software).

4. Equal Force Law. You can thank the democrats for this one boys and girls. This law and many other laws are simply intellectually and morraly bankrupt. What you are saying with these laws is that a man cannot defend his home from an invader. If a man (or woman) is breaking into your home, only you, no one else can stop him. You must shoot him in the front, not back and he muist be posing an immediate threat. What is an immediate threat, knife to a family member's throat etc. Let me try to put these laws in scenario for you.

Yeah it is a very curropt, I think that this is one of the MANY horrible gun laws that the democrats have made. If someone has the INTENT to kill you and you kill them BAM law suit BAM jail time, that is one of the most sad laws ever to grace us. Since when is IT A CRIME to defend your life, it seems that we are rooting for the bad guys now...oj

At 8/14/01 04:46 PM, IamJacksalias wrote: While Australia's crime rate may have gone down from last year, all violent crime skyrocketed when the gun were taken away. Go to
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38dbe07c464b.htm

Yes Crime does, did & always will rise every year but you didn't really look at this one well, Gun Control was introduced in 1998, If you go & look at this table you'll see that in 1998 although violent crime had risen it had for the most part actually risen by a smaller level than it did from 1996-1997.

Also Checkout http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/archive/intern

This was a deadlink.

http://www.shadeslanding.com/firearms/cramer.us.canada.htmlational/msg00005.html

I waited a whole minute for it to load, it didn't, I'll try again later.

What doesn't make sense about the crime rate going up?

I didn't say that it didn't make sense that crime goes up, You said it had "Risen Dramatically", that was untrue & quite nonsensicle

:You take away your citizen's right to bear arms, thus protecting themselves, crime goes up.

Crime goes up every year regardless, Guns are rarely used for protection, 60% Homicide happens in the heat of anger & is perpetrated by someone with no criminal background, Only guns really alow you to kill in anger without thinking about it.

:Anyone who doesn't listen to that law, mainly criminals, will arms themselves and suddenly they a huge advantage. It makes perfect sense to me.

True, but people who don't have a gun are goint to have a hard time obtaining one, & as I pointed out America's gun laws were ridiculous in the first place, Even for protection a civilian does not need a semi-automatic weapon, If you have a concealable hand gun your intentions are almost certainly bad but the law in America says you can have it anyway.

I am assuming you mean a Fully automatic weapon, not semi since shot guns, rifles, etc are semi automiatic. Anyway Guns are the only thing that let you kill in the heat of the moment? The number one weapon in aggrivated assualt is a screwdriver. let's ban screwdrivers. if you think that America's gun laws are crazy, look into them. You have to apply to get a Collector's/Dealer's permit to get anything other than a rifle, shotgun or handgun. Anything that is FULLY AUTOMATIC you need the C/D permit. You will also find that they differ drastcially from state to state. Also the main reason for the second ammendment is if we need to revolt we will have the necessary equipment. If we, God forbid, needed to revolt we willl have to be able to have the same guns that the army and other armed forces do. Besides that it is the Constitution I have said once and I will say it again we need to start following the Constitituion again. Now we seem to say that we don't like this we'll change it, we shouldn't change it. Love it or leave it!

One more thing
Gun control was introduced to Australia in 1996
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39b03f005859.htm

At 8/15/01 03:18 PM, IamJacksalias wrote: One more thing
Gun control was introduced to Australia in 1996
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39b03f005859.htm

I am Australian, I remember more about my country than the average American can even research about it, & 5 years older than you, Old enough to remember, Talks of gun control got strong in 1996 but it wasn't fully introduced until 1998.

At 8/15/01 03:16 PM, IamJacksalias wrote: I am assuming you mean a Fully automatic weapon, not semi since shot guns, rifles, etc are semi automiatic.

Fucking hell, if you're going to be in support of guns the least you could do is actually know something about them, Not all Shotguns are Semi-automatic, Semi automatic weapons are "Self Loading" & fire as fast as you can full the trigger, A Bolt action, Lever action or Breach loading rifle is not Semi-Automatic, A Breach loading Shot Gun is Not Semi-Automatic.

In Any case most Semi-Automatic weapons are disabled versions of Fully Automatic weapons & can be made fully automatic without the need for special tools.

Anyway Guns are the only thing that let you kill in the heat of the moment? The number one weapon in aggrivated assualt is a screwdriver. let's ban screwdrivers.

Screwdrivers are tools, thay have uses besides killing things, Guns can only be used to kill, destroy or damage, they are pure weapon & not a tool, You have to get close to someone to attack them with a screwdriver, most sharp object attackers are fought off by their potential victim, Shooting victims normally don't even see or hear their attacker.

At 8/12/01 08:07 PM, Mafiaboy404 wrote: I was reading the local university news paper (UCLA) and I found an interesting column. If you shoot a person breaking into and robbing your house (and he doesn't have a weapon) you can be liable for a law suit from him!!! That is one of the most riduclous thing I have ever herd. ALSO if a criminal breaks into your house with a weapon threatens to kill you and you kill him, you can also be liable for a law suit from his family and the state. I swear America is going down the drains.

So if someone breaks into my house, with a gun, and I shoot him, the person who I shot's family can sue me. that is retarded.
Anyway this brings a story to mind(and it is true). This guy's neighbor used to try to ram anyone who passed in front of his house with his car. He cause alot of 'accidents' and the people of the community brought the guy to court. The judge didn't do anything. The guy that rammed people with his car goes up to the man who was mainly responsible for him going to court and threatens to kill him. Later that day(at night) the man that rammed people with his car goes to the man who he threatened to kills house. The man sees the man who threatened to kill him, gets his gun and shoots him. The man who rammed people with his car's family sues the man who was threatened and also had him thrown in jail.