True Gun control is everyone having a gun. If you look at Texas you will find this works. But I do believe there should be a gun safety and respect class when you apply for one. Also the class is not something that can be taught in just one hour and the test for the class will determine if you are capable of havening a gun.

Basic rules to live by:
Always treat a gun as if it was loaded
Always treat a gun as if it was real (this is were parents should teach a child at a young age not to point guns at people)
Never point a gun at something you don't intend to kill

Regarding guns being used to topple the government, that is bullshit.

I mean, if it ever got to the state where Americans would rise up against their oppressors, do you really think that the oppressors would let them? Or that the civvies would be well trained enough to succeed against the army?

At 6/14/07 01:41 PM, ultrabitch wrote: I mean, if it ever got to the state where Americans would rise up against their oppressors, do you really think that the oppressors would let them? Or that the civvies would be well trained enough to succeed against the army?

Look at the Vietnam War. There were probably less than a couple thousand guerilla fighters in Vietnam, and they managed to hold the U.S. Army at bay for more than a decade.

Need a more recent example? Look to Iraq, then.

It can be done.

What is the piont to semiautomatics and automatics you don't need them. I think there should be a extremly lengthy process to get one, maybe 6 months to a year.

At 6/14/07 03:27 PM, duckiesrock wrote: What is the piont to semiautomatics and automatics you don't need them. I think there should be a extremly lengthy process to get one, maybe 6 months to a year.

I think we should have an intelligence test with a minimum IQ score of 130 in order to post on Politics forum, but that isn't going to happen anytime either.

At 6/14/07 01:41 PM, ultrabitch wrote: Regarding guns being used to topple the government, that is bullshit.

I mean, if it ever got to the state where Americans would rise up against their oppressors, do you really think that the oppressors would let them? Or that the civvies would be well trained enough to succeed against the army?

Of course not, but if a fight was put up against the government, WITH arms, all the harder to control a massive population; and the government would literally have to DESTROY itself from the inside in order to purge the rebellion.

Guns dont stop people from killing eachother, you can live in a society with everyone owning a gun but they're all Ghandi's who dont even need them. Or you can travel back in time into the dark ages [pre-fire arms] and live in a world where there are literally no guns, but people are still slaughtering eachother, if they dont have swords they'll use bows, if they dont have bows they'll use pitch forks, if they dont have pitch forks how are they supposed to farm [that was a joke, but it actually makes sense]

It's not the possession of guns that inclines people to commit acts of violence against one another, it's the values of the people, the punishment system, and the economy of the government itself that gives people a reason or no reason to kill one another.

The same applies for nukes, except on a larger scale, They've existed for a long time and we've had the means and the aims and the reasons to launch them, but we have only done so once over about 70 years. [or twice if your counting # of nukes and not # of attacks]

At 6/14/07 01:41 PM, ultrabitch wrote: Regarding guns being used to topple the government, that is bullshit.

I mean, if it ever got to the state where Americans would rise up against their oppressors, do you really think that the oppressors would let them? Or that the civvies would be well trained enough to succeed against the army?

1) The American servicemember is trained that it would be an illegal order to use military force inside the US. Therefore, part of the military and National Guards would probably defect with their training and military equipment.

2) One of the reasons the USSR loathed the idea of invading the US is the Red Dawn scenario in which rural sectors would be impossible to control because of rednecks in fly over country with their rifles taking to the woods. It is impossible for a military force to effectively occupy this country...even if they are domestic in nature.

3) Rural civilians are well trained. The majority of them have grown up with guns and have more time shooting than the urban born-and-raised soldier. They also know their local terrain VERY well. Add to that, that there are many veterans living in these areas...

Your points are, I'm sorry to say, BS.

At 6/13/07 04:05 PM, altanese-mistress wrote: To put it simply: We Americans loves our guns. LOVES our guns! The whole defense for having the second amendment is to be ready to topple the government if it ever became tyranical, and damnit we're more than willing to give up free speech, free press, public trial, etc. to have them.

How do you figure the right to own guns topples our freedoms of speech, press, public trial etc? If anything the Second Amendment is what guarantees the First Amendment...

At 6/14/07 03:27 PM, duckiesrock wrote: What is the piont to semiautomatics and automatics you don't need them. I think there should be a extremly lengthy process to get one, maybe 6 months to a year.

Look dude, you're only 13 and live in NY. You have no real experience or understanding of guns beyond an academic one...so research and think critically before you start talking about eroding a Constitutional Right.

1) Semi-auto and automatics are two totally different things. Automatic weapons are strictly regulated, expensive and the process to get the license to own one is lengthy. Automatics are your true assault/military weapons in that when you pull the trigger the gun continues firing until the magazine is empty or the shooter releases the trigger. Semi-automatics (which the majority of legal "assault rifles" are...therefore they are not true assault rifles) fires only one bullet when you pull the trigger. If you hold the trigger down the rifle will fire one shot and then do nothing.

2) Semi-autos have a practical purpose in that they help with accuracy. Semi-autos require a piston & spring that act as shock absorbers which reduce recoil (kick). Traditional lever or bolt action rifles have the shooter's shoulder as the recoil absorber. This helps the shooter hit what he is aiming for and makes target/competition/hunting more safe and enjoyable.

3) Assault rifles fire a round (bullet) that is typically less powerful than a traditional hunting round yet more powerful than a pistol round. This type of round (called intermediate) is cheaper which means the shooter can spend more time enjoying their sport.

Furthermore, you can buy M-16 or AK-47 ammo specifically designed for hunting. Now, did you know that hunting ammo is actually more lethal than military ammo? The reason is military ammo is designed not to kill but to wound. (And since they are designed around ammo that is not designed to be the most lethal out there: assault rifles are not designed to kill!) Military ammo is designed to enter and exit the body in a straight line, only harming the internal organs it comes in contact with. However, hunting ammo is designed to do one thing: kill. Most hunting rounds mushroom on impact which allows the round to spiral as it travels throught the animal's body shredding its internal organs.

Like the NBC public service announcement says: The More You Know...

At 6/14/07 01:41 PM, ultrabitch wrote: Regarding guns being used to topple the government, that is bullshit.

Oh yeah then there is this:

"The great body of our citizens shoot less as times goes on. We should encourage rifle practice among schoolboys, and indeed among all classes, as well as in the military services by every means in our power. Thus, and not otherwise, may we be able to assist in preserving peace in the world... The first step in the direction of preparation to avert war if possible, and to be fit for war if it should come is to teach men to shoot!"
- Theodore Roosevelt, Famous Gun Nut.

Nowing that you're European and probably not well versed in world history outside European Civ (or lack thereof)...Theodore Roosevelt was President in the early 20th Century.

At 6/14/07 05:41 PM, TheMason wrote: Nowing

Goddamnit! My "K" key stuck! I need a knew (jk) laptop!-)

I live in Canada. There are way more guns per capita here, but it is still way less violent. The problem is with the culture. I'm not talking about violent video games. That isn't the problem. The problem is something much deeper. I'm not sure what. Is it really nessesary for civillians to own automatic weapons. No.

At 6/14/07 01:00 PM, Twiligh wrote: If you look at Texas you will find this works

If your "everyone" owning a gun as "control" "works" in Texas, then why were there over 1,300 murders in Texas in 2004 (http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/crimereports/04 /cit04ch2.pdf)?

For that matter, why is there a violent crime every 4 minutes there? (Same source)

At 6/14/07 03:25 PM, Proteas wrote:

Look at the Vietnam War. There were probably less than a couple thousand guerilla fighters in Vietnam

And a North Vietnamese Army, too. And much of the Vietcong wasn't necessarily motivated by communist leanings, they just didn't like DIem. That, and we didn't "pull out all the stops." Also, we have to realize that Vietnam is geographically different (less urban areas, etc.) than the US of A.

and they managed to hold the U.S. Army at bay for more than a decade.

Need a more recent example? Look to Iraq, then.

A few questions, then.

1. Would civillians have access to a global arms market (i.e. ex-Soviet, former Soviet states, Iran?)
2. Would there be nations willing to support an insurgency?
3. Would the military pull out all the stops?

It can be done.

I doubt it.

At 6/14/07 06:26 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote:

At 6/14/07 01:00 PM, Twiligh wrote: If you look at Texas you will find this works

If your "everyone" owning a gun as "control" "works" in Texas, then why were there over 1,300 murders in Texas in 2004 (http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/crimereports/04 /cit04ch2.pdf)?

For that matter, why is there a violent crime every 4 minutes there? (Same source)

At 6/14/07 03:25 PM, Proteas wrote:

Look at the Vietnam War. There were probably less than a couple thousand guerilla fighters in Vietnam

And a North Vietnamese Army, too. And much of the Vietcong wasn't necessarily motivated by communist leanings, they just didn't like DIem. That, and we didn't "pull out all the stops." Also, we have to realize that Vietnam is geographically different (less urban areas, etc.) than the US of A.

and they managed to hold the U.S. Army at bay for more than a decade.

Need a more recent example? Look to Iraq, then.

A few questions, then.

1. Would civillians have access to a global arms market (i.e. ex-Soviet, former Soviet states, Iran?)
2. Would there be nations willing to support an insurgency?
3. Would the military pull out all the stops?

It can be done.

I doubt it.

Well i have a few things to add the reason we didnt pull out all the stops in Vietnam is because of all the political bullshit going on the moronic demonstrators who were pithching a bitch about the war screwed the troops.
Next well hell ill bet iran or france would be happy to sell us weapons if we had a revolution because simply THOSE ASSHOLES ARE SUPPORTING AN INSUGENCY RIGHT NOW! Want to know whats been shooting down our choppers? A french made SAM thats right those pricks after we bail them out time and time again are supporting our very enemy. The media tell us that an "RPG" shot down a helicopter well they wont tell you whats really going on.
And lastly I live in wyoming more guns here than Texas i do believe and our crime rate lowest in the country wonder why? Could it be that wyoming people arent motivated by a bunch of liberal assholes or possibly we wyominites just have enough guns to stop some dipshit walking into a school or public place shooting it all up. That said at the college every single person there happens to have a gun in either their truck or dorm room. So from basic reasoning if you try to take guns away youll just piss people off who own them and take a simple example. Tell a little kid not to touch your drink and what does he do immediatly grabs it and starts to drink it tell people they cant have guns and instantly there shall be a massive influx of illegal gun sales and importation.

Wyoming.

Wow, you guys have issues. The Brady Campaign gives Wyoming an F, and even Texas gets a D-.

Yet there are 2.7 murders per 100,000 people in Wyoming (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_05.
html). That's an increase of OVER 20% from 2004 to 2005...

Let me explain why americans could all use a gun in their life. Guns are a good form of protection. If I was in the city, I would not feel secure unless I had a gun so that if any bitch tried to mess I could pull my gat and scare them tha fuck away. So what if criminals have easy access to guns. The access would be just as easy without the law. Retarded teens can easily gain access to weed which is also illegal. So therefore the only people who would buy the gun would be citizens obeying the law.

At 6/11/07 06:47 PM, dodo-man-1 wrote: Why do gun stores sell semiautomatic weaponry without having to fill out some kind of form or going through a screening process or something?

2nd amendment

If you're a deer hunter, or a duck hunter, or any kind of hunter, you don't need semiautomatic fire to kill one deer.

So? You don't need a T1 internet connection, DSL is just fine.

If you collect guns, you should be willing to fill out a form of some kind to get a gun you probably won't use.

why?

The fact that there is no control on these guns in most places leads to things like... oh, I don't know, the V-Tech rampage?

That could have happened anywhere. That argument is invalid.

well if we have gun control i cant have my spas-12 anymore! no gun control i need my spas-12 for hunting! even though i did sign up to the atf for it.....

At 6/14/07 06:26 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: 1. Would civillians have access to a global arms market (i.e. ex-Soviet, former Soviet states, Iran?)
2. Would there be nations willing to support an insurgency?
3. Would the military pull out all the stops?

I think it's just interesting as hell that you would even admit to such points with regards to the Iraq war. But that's just me.

I doubt it.

Considering that the American government has allowed certain segments of the population to own and maintain fully automatic weaponry, and the ease of which simple improvised munitions can be acquired and fashioned into deadly explosives (i.e.; Oklahoma City bombing, 1996 Olympic Park bombings, assorted abortion clinic bombings), you really question wether or not the American people could put up one HELL of a fight against a rogue government intruding on their home turf?

At 6/14/07 08:04 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: Wow, you guys have issues. The Brady Campaign gives Wyoming an F, and even Texas gets a D-.

Yet there are 2.7 murders per 100,000 people in Wyoming (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_05.
html). That's an increase of OVER 20% from 2004 to 2005...

Did it ever occur to you that perhaps Wyoming doesn't have that many laws with regards to gun crime because it's not anywhere near as much of an issue to them as it is everywhere else...?

Or do I have to pull out the statemaster link I was recently beat around the head with to prove that point?

At 6/14/07 05:28 PM, TheMason wrote: How do you figure the right to own guns topples our freedoms of speech, press, public trial etc? If anything the Second Amendment is what guarantees the First Amendment...

Like I said; we're willing to give up other rights in order to own guns. The second amendment doesn't directly destroy other freedoms, but politicians use it to gain support of the people (particularly rural areas) while they take away other rights in order to gain more power.

At 6/14/07 03:25 PM, Proteas wrote: It can be done.

Not that I want to rain on your parade or anything, or that I don't agree with you on most of the stuff you have said but I would liek to point out in the slight difference in the type of weaponry the Iraqis have and what Americans have. Iraqis have argueablly the best automatic weapon ever designed. Americans with a few exceptions have only semi-auto handguns, rifles and shot guns.

Sorry for the double post, but it is my understanding that if you go to a gun show ratehr than a dealer there is no background check or wait period. Please though, if I am wrong correct me.

At 6/15/07 12:17 PM, JoS wrote: Americans with a few exceptions have only semi-auto handguns, rifles and shot guns.

And we know how to use them.

The intelligence of people is the main problem, and when a person finally snaps after the usual high school or college teasing or a less fortunate student. This kid probably has some connections to acquire a gun and can pass the background check with ease and ends up blasting people away! It's the students' fault for mocking the student that snaps.

Another note, parents or other pompous adults that blame video games for this violent act really needs to lay off the crack! I maybe babbling on about something that might already have been said, but I know that this is the actual truth that parents and other adults blindly look over.

At 6/15/07 12:02 PM, Proteas wrote: I think it's just interesting...

How so, though?

you really question wether or not the American people could put up one HELL of a fight against a rogue government intruding on their home turf?

IEDs made from fertilizer, semi-auto rifles, pistols and pump shotguns won't stop a determined rogue government. If there's a rogue government, we're screwed. I mean, it's like Shay's Rebellion, but worse, since the US government back then only outnumbered and outmaneuvered the rebels (to put them down), but now any rogue government has an exponentially better set of equipment. I mean, just compare a civillian's arsenal to a typical military base's arsenal.

No well equipped, legal, law abiding and freedom loving gun club won't have RPGs...

Did it ever occur to you...

When anyone is killed by firearms in an intentional shooting, then the people ought to call for restrictions.

That is, no law abiding gun club WILL have RPGs...

Heh.

Sorry.

The point is that the Iraqi insurgency has the benefit of a global arms market, Iran, etc. They can smuggle in weapons and they have plent in hand. Americans lack things like RPGs, MANPADs, mortar and artillery shells (unless, with some serious technical ingenuity, people could make those improvised weapons like the UK Home Guard had during WWII) etc... Also, we have cultural differences. I can't see many americans putting fertilizer based explosives in their cars and driving full speed at an armed convoy...

At 6/15/07 02:23 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: No well equipped, legal, law abiding and freedom loving gun club won't have RPGs...

I've got a hard copy of the military's Improved Munitions handbook. Believe me, RPG's aren't that difficult to make if you've got the right tools.

Ah, the joys of the internet, and a government to stupid to realize that it may very well be responsible for disemenation of facts that may lead to it's own downfall. Gotta love it.

When anyone is killed by firearms in an intentional shooting, then the people ought to call for restrictions.

There are restrictions in place. Calling for more restrictions does nothing if they are not enforced.

Field Manuals providing information for insurgents are widely (and legally) available. Distributing these isn't going to allow overthrow...

Again, I'll bring up Shay's rebellion.

Back then, the rebels had muskets and rifles. So did the military. The only government advantage was numbers (quite possibly tactics).

Today, any rebel against an oppressive government will have, at best, a few fully-automatic rifles (maybe. More likely are bolt action hunting weapons and semi-auto rifles and carbines.). Compare that to a couple COIN aircraft, light armored vehicles and an infantry unit equipped with SMAWs, SAWs and ARs...Besides, we have to account for the population centers and population distribution being very different today.

At 6/15/07 03:19 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: Today, any rebel against an oppressive government will have, at best, a few fully-automatic rifles (maybe. More likely are bolt action hunting weapons and semi-auto rifles and carbines.). Compare that to a couple COIN aircraft, light armored vehicles and an infantry unit equipped with SMAWs, SAWs and ARs...Besides, we have to account for the population centers and population distribution being very different today.

You're negating one very important factor in a U.S. Government versus it's own people guerilla war; the willingness of the American Army to pick up arms against it's civilian brother's and sisters. Mason pointed this out earlier (perhaps in another topic), but I would tend to think that we would see a large number of servicemen and women defect if Posse Comitatus was repealed for the purpose of squashing a grassroots insurgency.

So in addition to substantially lost manpower on the part of the government, plus homefield advantage for insurgents, I think it would stand to reason the American people would put up one HELL of a fight against a rogue U.S. Government.

Unless, of course, I'm giving to much credit to my contemporaries, thinking that they would actually have the backbone to standup against a corrupt government they so often denounce...

Remeber Eric and Dlyan?? They were two highschool students that shot up a school called Columbine(search it if you want). The guy who killed at V-Tech mentioned those two a lot in the tape he left behind for the cops.

At 6/15/07 04:10 PM, Tal-con wrote:

At 6/11/07 07:21 PM, TheMason wrote: Furthermore, firearms are not the cause of tragedies such as VT...they are the tool, but not the cause.

Do you honestly think Cho could've taken out 32 people with a baseball bat?

That's beyond the point. The gun doesn't kill people, people kill people.

Nobody thought that an attack the size of 9/11 was plausible but over 3,000 were killed and you are telling me that Cho COULDN'T have killed 32 people with a bat?

Nice try.