quote Originally posted by Formula88: I'm all for responsible gun legislation. I have no problem with a permit and background check to purchase a pistol, etc. But I would call into question some of the studies that tout removal of firearms makes a drastic difference in homicides and suicides. They typically say "firearm homicides and firearm suicides" as your article did. What about the impact on the total number of homicides and suicides? If the total number hasn't changed by an appreciable amount, all that study shows is when guns aren't available, people find another tool to do the job. Here in the U.S. we've done studies on armed robbery and murder rates in areas where concealed carry permits have been issued, and in most cases the crime rate has dropped after the permits became available.

The suicide rate isn't really the big issue here, responsible gun ownership is. It is the ability for someone being able to kill lots of people very easily. You are not going to hear of a massacare done with a knife.

Studies showing lower murder rate due to concealed weapons can't be compared to ones with gun control, for the sheer fact it has no benchmark to test against. There is a very distinct possibility that the murder rates will drop even more if concealed weapons are banned and gun control is in place.

I feel a lot safer living in a society where only responsible people are allowed to own guns. I don't want to hear the "but criminals will have them rant" because that just isn't so. Some criminals have them. Most don't.

Which is better, a small number of criminals having guns that shouldn't or a large number of irresponsible and unstable people having guns that shouldn't?

quote Originally posted by AusFiero: I feel a lot safer living in a society where only responsible people are allowed to own guns. I don't want to hear the "but criminals will have them rant" because that just isn't so. Some criminals have them. Most don't.

We obviously don't live it the same world.
Outlawing guns will only create more outlaws.

The 2nd amendment was put in place as one of our checks and balances, too. It has nothing to do with hunting. The framers of the Constitution guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms as a measure to keep our own government honest. Thus the phrase "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State". The key word there is "free". They intended for the populace to be well armed as a measure to guarantee our own freedom. It is as fundamental a cornerstone of our state as freedom of speech.

I can only speak for myself, but if anyone asked me to turn over my weapons my reply would be the same as McAuliffe's. "Nuts."

[This message has been edited by D B Cooper (edited 09-20-2008).]

quote Originally posted by AusFiero: You are not going to hear of a massacare done with a knife.

Oh really?

http://www.reuters.com/arti...Crisis/idUSN27465499

BTW, MA requires a permit for knives 18" long and 1.5" wide: http://www.mass.gov/legis/b...ate/st01/st01384.htm

quote Originally posted by AusFiero: The suicide rate isn't really the big issue here, responsible gun ownership is. It is the ability for someone being able to kill lots of people very easily. You are not going to hear of a massacare done with a knife.

No, but you'll hear about them with car bombs, or like we had here a couple years ago, a Muslim extremist drove his Jeep into the common area at a local college and drove into a crowd to try and run down as many people possible. He said he wanted to make the U.S. pay, etc. etc. (typical terrorist rant). He didn't have a gun or a knife.

quote Originally posted by AusFiero: I feel a lot safer living in a society where only responsible people are allowed to own guns. I don't want to hear the "but criminals will have them rant" because that just isn't so. Some criminals have them. Most don't. Which is better, a small number of criminals having guns that shouldn't or a large number of irresponsible and unstable people having guns that shouldn't?

With respect, this leads me to the conclusion that you don't believe we have legislation in the U.S. to only allow responsible people to own guns. Actually, we do. To purchase a pistol in my city, I have to go to the Sheriff's office and apply for a permit to purchase. There's a 5 day waiting period and backround check. Then, if my backround check is ok, I get my permit and may purchase 1 pistol. The laws may need to be strengthened or weakened depending on a person's point of view, but we do have the regulation. Shotguns and rifles aren't as strictly regulated as handguns because the vast majority of firearm related crime is done with a handgun, and not a long arm.

There has always been some regulation on weapons. Somewhere between a sling shot and a nuclear warhead you have to draw the line on what a civilian can own. I don't mind debate on where to draw the line, but I'm concerned with politicians who want to set the line on the slingshot end of the scale or remove it altogether.

Whats the fire arm murder rate in Switzerland? And the gun ownership rate?

quote Originally posted by AusFiero: Actually I am the one stating facts. You are using conjecture as what you are saying hasn't even been tested in the United States. Banning automatic weapons has no effect on people being able to defend themselves and crime hasn't risen here because of the ban. You are calling facts ani-rights BS. Well sorry, impartial studies by the largest university in Australia is fact. If you live in a society where you think you NEED fully automatic assault rifles you have bigger problems than you think.

things must be different on your chunk of the planet.
here in the US, when they pass CCW permits, crime drops.

to get my CCP i had to be finger printed, and have a mug shot taken.
IF i passed a back ground check for my state, then my file was forward on to the FBI.
IF i passed a back ground check for the FBI, then my local sheriff would look in to my medical history for any evidence of mental illness or drug addiction.
only after all these checks (and money spent out of my pocket) could i get my permit.

i've carried my pistol every day for 11 months.
i haven't pointed it at anyone so far.

really the only difference is now i don't fear for my life when i have 4 youths surround me asking for a hand out.

[This message has been edited by buddycraigg (edited 09-20-2008).]

quote Originally posted by AusFiero: I feel a lot safer living in a society where only responsible people are allowed to own guns. I don't want to hear the "but criminals will have them rant" because that just isn't so. Some criminals have them. Most don't.

That's the key, you FEEL safer regardless of the facts. You may think that only responsible, law abiding folks own the guns in your country, but I can guarantee you that's not the case. Like anything else that's outlawed, people will get a gun if they want one. That's the fallacy of gun control--laws only apply to those who choose to obey them. Yes, you can be punished for breaking the law, but the simple passing of a law does nothing to prevent it from being broken.

As Benjamin Franklin once said, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Yep I do feel safe here, and there are some criminals with guns.

From what I have seen when I have been in the USA gun ownership is too easy. Hell, there was guns for sale in Walmart. Mind you it was the same here 30 years ago. But we live in a different world today.

I am all for RESPONSIBLE gun ownership and that is what gun control is all about. It is just too damn easy to get a gun in the USA designed for the sole purpose of killing people.

As for a massacare with a knife I was making a broad statement. Lets take some of the killings in USA schools that have happened. I am sure if the same people had tried the smae thing with knives they would have ended up dead at the hands of some of the victims.

Responsible gun ownership=fine
Allowing too many people to get hold of assault rifles and guns designed just to kill people=totally wrong

quote Originally posted by AusFiero: Yep I do feel safe here, and there are some criminals with guns. From what I have seen when I have been in the USA gun ownership is too easy. Hell, there was guns for sale in Walmart. Mind you it was the same here 30 years ago. But we live in a different world today. I am all for RESPONSIBLE gun ownership and that is what gun control is all about. It is just too damn easy to get a gun in the USA designed for the sole purpose of killing people. As for a massacare with a knife I was making a broad statement. Lets take some of the killings in USA schools that have happened. I am sure if the same people had tried the smae thing with knives they would have ended up dead at the hands of some of the victims. Responsible gun ownership=fine Allowing too many people to get hold of assault rifles and guns designed just to kill people=totally wrong

No, gun control is not about responsible gun ownership--it's about disarming the population, which leaves people at the mercy of the govt or the criminals (sometimes one and the same). I'm glad you feel safe, knowing that you have criminals there with access to guns, while you likely either can't own one to protect yourself, or it's made so hard to own one legally that most people don't even try. I'm glad you feel safe, although I'm sure you know the world isn't a safe place, and that there are predators out there with little to no regard for human life. I'm glad you feel safe with no effective way to protect yourself should one of those predators decide to come calling. I'm glad you feel safe being disarmed, while the criminal element continues to ignore the law. I'm glad you feel safe believing that outlawing things makes them go away. I'm glad you feel safe believing that eliminating a tool used for violence eliminates the violence as well. Sorry, but with all due respect your feeling of safety is an illusion. You're relying on laws to protect you from people who don't obey the law.

Despite what you think, it's not a simple matter of walking into WalMart and plunking down the cash. Federal law requires paperwork and a criminal check, and some states have much more restrictive rules. Of course, this assumes the purchaser is obeying the law. By definition criminals don't, and most obtain their weapons illegally. All the gun control laws in the world won't work if people don't care about breaking the law. Again, outlawing a thing does not make that thing go away. In fact, it generally makes that thing more desirable (Prohibition ring a bell?) If outlawing things did make them go away, why not just outlaw murder? Oh, wait...

And what is your concern with so-called "assault rifles"? Is it because they look scary? You do realize that almost every hunting rifle fires a more powerful cartridge than an "assault rifle".

quote Originally posted by AusFiero: Responsible gun ownership=fine Allowing too many people to get hold of assault rifles and guns designed just to kill people=totally wrong

what is an assault rifle?

quote Originally posted by AusFiero: Allowing too many people to get hold of assault rifles and guns designed just to kill people=totally wrong

maybe you don't understand what guns were made for.

[This message has been edited by buddycraigg (edited 09-21-2008).]

quote Originally posted by GT86: Gun control working well, is it? Who is being controlled, the law-abiding or the outlaws?

You are not even worth replying to as you haven't even read a word I have said based on every single comment you have made.

quote Originally posted by AusFiero: *snip* I feel a lot safer living in a society where only responsible people are allowed to own guns. I don't want to hear the "but criminals will have them rant" because that just isn't so. Some criminals have them. Most don't. Which is better, a small number of criminals having guns that shouldn't or a large number of irresponsible and unstable people having guns that shouldn't?

While its nice you agree that citizens should be armed, I disagree on your criminal count. Most criminals have weapons here. Illegally, since there are already restrictions in place that prohibit current and ex-felons, drug users, 'mentally unstable' people, or anyone that is going to use a weapon in the act of a crime ( future felons ). Im sure its not that different where you live too. Do you run with the hard core criminals? 95% of the crimes with a gun involved doesn't end up with someone shot so it doesn't get blasted across the papers. A quick hold up on the street corner between a couple of gang-members and their drugs, etc wont even be reported.

But those laws hasn't stopped any of them. you can walk down the street and buy one for nothing. Laws do not apply to criminals. ( well, until they finally get caught ).

quote Originally posted by AusFiero: You are not even worth replying to as you haven't even read a word I have said based on every single comment you have made.

Why, because I've pointed out fundamental fallacies in your position? I've read every word you've typed, but your argument doesn't track. You say that gun control is a good thing to keep guns only in the hands of the responsible, but then you freely admit that criminals still have them. I ask again, if someone isn't going to obey the law, then does the law prevent the person from committing an illegal act?

The problem is you seem to have an emotional aversion to guns, and your position is based on that. Not trying to insult you, but I don't believe you're looking at the issue logically.

quote Originally posted by AusFiero: Get with the times, your consitution was writen how long ago? Do you think the writers envisaged the type of weapons that would be around today? I bet if they had known what would be availalbe they would have rethought that right to bear arms scenario. [/b]

Freedom shouldn't be subject to erosion, especially for such a trivial reason as the passage of time. Did the founders envisage the weapons we have today? Who knows? But they were smart enough to know that technology advances, and firearms technology isn't an exception. And they quite obviously felt the right to keep and bear arms was essential to maintaining liberty. As such, that right was given special protection via the 2nd Amendment. This country was born from revolution, a revolution made possible by firearms. The founders knew from looking at history that a time may again come when the people would need the ability to resist. They knew an unarmed citizenry was at grave risk of becoming a persecuted and/or enslaved citizenry. Or worse, a dead citizenry. Think it doesn't happen in this day and age? Take a look around the world, and count the instances of "ethnic cleansing".

Oh, and in case you didn't watch the video buddycraigg posted, the term "assault rifle" or "assault weapon" is generally thrown around by the anti-gun lobby. Originally, the concept was a select-fire rifle that fired an intermediate sized cartridge. Select-fire means it can be set to semi-auto (one shot per trigger pull, with an automatic reload) or full-auto (pulling the trigger results in continuous firing until the trigger is released or the weapon is out of ammo). In this country, fully automatic firearms have been highly regulated at the federal level since the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). To own one, your state has to allow it, and you have to fill out paperwork, submit fingerprints, and have the chief of local law enforcement sign your paperwork. Then all of this goes to the BATFE along with a $200 tax. (In 1934, $200 was a lot of money, and the tax was intended to prevent the "underclass" from being able to own a full-auto). After your paperwork is approved, you receive a tax stamp, and are allowed to take possession of the weapon. If you want to sell it, it must be sold to a dealer with a special license, or to another individual who has been approved by the BATFE. This process must be done for each for full-auto you want to buy, as the tax stamp is tied to the serial number. However, in 1986 a law was passed that no new full-autos could be added to the NFA registry. So full-autos that can be bought today by private citizens are very expensive, since the supply was capped 22 years ago. Possession of an unregistered full-auto, or possession of one registered to someone else, is a felony with a punishment of a large fine and 10 years in prison. In addition, possessing a semi-auto along with the parts to convert to full-auto is punishable by the same things, even if the parts aren't installed. And contrary to the claims of the anti-gun zealots, it is not all that easy to convert a semi to a full-auto. It requires some in-depth knowledge, special parts, and in many cases requires machining. It can be done, but it's not as simple as the mythical "just file down the firing pin" garbage. Of course, converting your rifle to full-auto puts you at risk of 10 years in federal prison, even if you never shoot it.

What all this means is that almost all of the "assault weapons" on the market today are semi-auto-only versions. They may look like their full-auto cousins, but they do not have select-fire capability. Kind of like a race car looks like the street car it shares a name with, but they are very different under the skin. Or since this is a Fiero board, it's analogous to putting a Lambo body kit on a Fiero. May look like a Lambo, but it's a Fiero underneath. However, the anti-gun folks would like you to believe that all of these "assault weapons" are full-auto, since the term "machine gun" scares a lot of people. All those AR-15's and AK-47's, while they look intimidating, operate in a very similar fashion to most hunting rifles. But hunting rifles don't look as scary, so they're not demonized the way "assault rifles" are. And again, most hunting rifles are firing full-sized rifle rounds, not the smaller intermediate rounds used by the "assault rifles". Grandpa's .30-06 has a lot more power than an AK-47. In fact, Grandpa's .30-06 is firing the same type of ammunition used by American soldiers in WWII (the M1 Garand was chambered in .30-06). The infamous AK-47 is firing a round with ballistics roughly equivalent to a lever action .30-30. There's nothing magical about "assault rifles", nor are they the "weapons of mass destruction" that they have been painted as. They're simply semi-auto rifles that externally look like military rifles.

quote Originally posted by AusFiero: stating the fictional "facts" about an armed society being safe is exactly that, fiction, as it hasn't been tested agains't the alternative. That is a FACT. [/b]

Sure it has. The Turkish purges of Armenians in the early 1900's, Stalin's purges, the Holocaust, Rwanda, etc all show what can happen when a population is disarmed. That is a FACT.

[This message has been edited by GT86 (edited 09-21-2008).]

quote Originally posted by GT86: Sure it has. The Turkish purges of Armenians in the early 1900's, Stalin's purges, the Holocaust, Rwanda, etc all show what can happen when a population is disarmed. That is a FACT.

Not a comparison at all. The western world is a different place. Otherwise Australia would have wen the way of your examples.

quote Originally posted by AusFiero: Not a comparison at all. The western world is a different place. Otherwise Australia would have wen the way of your examples.

Western like Germany? And Aus isn't exactly all of a sudden safe. Its number one in NathioMasters for victimization. 1 in 3 will be a victim. What will I get with a google search of Aus gun crime?

quote Originally posted by AusFiero: Not a comparison at all. The western world is a different place. Otherwise Australia would have wen the way of your examples.

So basically anything that doesn't fit your view is irrelevant? You were the one who claimed that unarmed societies hadn't been tested. I was providing examples of why that assertion is incorrect.

Sorry, but time and again throughout history, populations that are disarmed are subjugated. Deny or ignore it, claim that it can't happen in this time and place, but the facts are what they are.

Oh, and by the way Germany is considered to be part of the western world.

[This message has been edited by GT86 (edited 09-21-2008).]

quote Originally posted by AusFiero: I fully understand what they are designed for. But really, are they needed by most people? No. There is no changing the opinions of people who believe guns are their right blah blah blah. Get with the times, your consitution was writen how long ago? Do you think the writers envisaged the type of weapons that would be around today? I bet if they had known what would be availalbe they would have rethought that right to bear arms scenario. The first link I posted proves how much better it is here since gun control. So until the USA adopts it, and I hope they do, stating the fictional "facts" about an armed society being safe is exactly that, fiction, as it hasn't been tested agains't the alternative. That is a FACT.

And I wager that they would not have written it any differently.

It's amazing to me that people think that was written because of the times, and people needing to hunt, etc. That's complete and utter BS. Aus, you may not know much about US history, so you're forgiven for that impression (if that's the case) but you are very, very wrong.

The constitutions was written after a bloody separation war from England. Had the Crown been able to do it, they would have disarmed the American population because it would have made their "putting down" of the secession a whole lot easier. THAT is why it was put into the constitution. It is there because the founding fathers knew that a well armed populace was a huge check and balance to the tyranny of government.

I would hazard a guess they would have specifically included things like fully automatic weapons, tanks, and helicopter gunships, had they been forced to fight against them.

John Stricker

UNARMED PEASANTS ARE EASIER TO CONTROL! That would be a good statement for Osama, I mean, Obama and his gun control staff to use. Aus. I really don't understand when you said that "guns kill people" (not and exact word for word quote).....PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE! not guns. They are a tool, but also a great tool to defend with. I am glad that you feel safe with most of the guns there being in the criminals hands. It seems the odds are not so good though.

Guns here have come in handy to some. I have a story in my NRA: Armed Citizen magazine that I can put here word for word if you would like, but that would take too long. Basically the story goes.....An 11yr old girl (can't remember where, but can dig up the mag. it came from) was on her horse when she came across a mountain lion that was probably looking for a meal. Luckily she had a rifle and was able to defend herself. If there was a big bad gun ban I am sure her .243 would not have been there.

Oh heck yeah I love guns! I can put alot of true lilfe stories on here for you to read. Fact is most police like to see armed citizens. It makes their job a little easier when all they have to do is check the local hospital for any gunshot injuries.

Check with Fierofetish in Spain on his last ordeal with an armed criminal if you havn't already and read how scared he was and pissed about not being able to get a gun or at least how much bs he would have to go through to get one.

The Second Amendment IS for the people, not a malitia.

quote Originally posted by kyunderdawg: I am glad that you feel safe with most of the guns there being in the criminals hands. It seems the odds are not so good though.

This is my last post here because all people are doing is twisting eveything I say to suit what they want to believe. If people want to ignore facts and twist them, so be it and more fool them.
Did I say most of the guns are in the hands of criminals? No I didn't
As a breakdown of where they would be it would rate:
Army
Private ownership
Police
Criminals

So where in that list and previous did I state most of the guns are in the hands of criminals?

On closing did you know a person in England has 50 times less chance being killed by a gun than in the USA?
With Canada and Australia not far behind.

So obviously it is not working.

AusFiero
i understand your viewpoint
and i'm glad you cannot vote in the upcoming election.

quote Originally posted by AusFiero: On closing did you know a person in England has 50 times less chance being killed by a gun than in the USA?

that's because they all carry 380's

and close we will, did you know that a person in the USA has a 25,000 less chance of being killed by a gun than by a car?

[This message has been edited by buddycraigg (edited 09-22-2008).]

I wouldn't bother getting out of bed in the morning if I were the type of guy that was so cynical, I though that the only reason people owned guns was for killing as many people as possible.

Some folks oughta stay in bed and let the rest of us enjoy our lives, which are made more enjoyable by the rights we possess.

Did you know you have a greater chance of being seriously injured by falling (slipping on mopped floor) than by a shooting accident?
http://www.nssf.org/PDF/IIR_V2N5.pdf <-------- page 5

[This message has been edited by MordacP (edited 09-22-2008).]

quote Originally posted by MordacP: Did you know you have a greater chance of being seriously injured while bowling than while sport shooting?

Well I can relate to that one. Many a time I have wondered how I would go at the bowling alley partaking in the bar before the bowling and not the other way around

No one needs more than a 95hp car, lets ban the rest of them so our streets can be safer.

Responsible people (not citizens) can own guns and enjoy them responsibly the same way we own cars with lots of hp, sure there are the occasional ass hat but if they are dealt with and not slapped on the wrist then it will send a message.

Everyone is saying how the school shootings wouldn't have happened if they couldn't have gotten hold of the weapons. I say they would have found a different weapon, one easily made with instructions on the Internet. One that could be made in the back of any van and parked outside of a busy building. Lets ban all cars and trucks, we don't need them. If everyone was on a motorcycle we would be safe, well except for that occasional ass hat. Hmm lets ban motorcycles and let everyone ride bicycles.

quote Originally posted by Jake_Dragon: Everyone is saying how the school shootings wouldn't have happened if they couldn't have gotten hold of the weapons. I say they would have found a different weapon, one easily made with instructions on the Internet.

Or just used their car, like Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar.

http://www.militantislammon....org/article/id/1710
http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd...ews/local&id=3958312
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3432689/

quote Originally posted by AusFiero: This is my last post here because all people are doing is twisting eveything I say to suit what they want to believe. If people want to ignore facts and twist them, so be it and more fool them. Did I say most of the guns are in the hands of criminals? No I didn't As a breakdown of where they would be it would rate: Army Private ownership Police Criminals So where in that list and previous did I state most of the guns are in the hands of criminals? I was not quoting you on that statement. It was a statement that I made because if you (law abiding Australian's) do not have the majority of the guns the criminals do. On closing did you know a person in England has 50 times less chance being killed by a gun than in the USA? With Canada and Australia not far behind. So obviously it is not working.

www.FactCheck.org

quote Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: www.FactCheck.org

i've watched a lot of videos on youtube with Obama.
I mostly support democratic beliefs, but i just dont trust his stance on gun ownership. and that was before the NRA got involved.

quote Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: www.FactCheck.org

The fact that he wants to renew the AWB is proof enough of his intentions. As I've said before, those "evil assault weapons" merely look like military rifles, but they function just like any other semi-auto rifle, even a hunting rifle. And those hunting rifles generally fire more powerful cartridges.

The AWB was simply a step to demonize certain categories of guns. This makes them easier to ban, and can be done incrementally. And the reality is, the so-called AWB didn't ban the gun, just certain cosmetic features, or features like collapsible stocks. Why? Because the anti-gunners couldn't outlaw "assault weapons" without outlawing all sorts of other guns. Since the "assault weapons" functioned much like Grandpa's deer gun, they had a hard time legally defining what an "assault weapon" was. Since the differences are mostly cosmetic, that's what they focused on. They knew if they tried to push an all-encompassing ban, it would fail. So, they resorted to banning cosmetic features of the evil-looking guns. We ended up with fully legal AR-15's that had non-collapsible stocks, no flash hiders, and no bayonet lugs. Meaning it was a bit harder to adjust the stock to fit you, the muzzle blast was louder since they switched to compensators instead of flash hiders, and people didn't have a place to hang a bayonet, which 99.9% of owners didn't bother with even before the ban. But other than that, the rifle was the exact same as the "pre-ban" rifle, and fired the exact same round in the exact same way. You could walk into any gun shop and buy one. Oh, and those "pre-bans" weren't outlawed, they were grandfathered. Meaning you could still buy and sell those as well. All the ban accomplished was to make uninformed people believe that the "assault weapons" were one and the same with true military rifles.

[This message has been edited by GT86 (edited 09-24-2008).]

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Or just used their car, like Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar. http://www.militantislammon....org/article/id/1710 http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd...ews/local&id=3958312 http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3432689/

Didnt the colombine criminals also attempt to use a 'propane bomb' along with the weapons they had illegal posession of? ( or was that in another case )

http://www.chron.com/disp/s.../nation/6018992.html

I like how the media worded this, "An automatic weapon was recovered at the scene". Well was it a full auto or semi auto? they are differant. The suspect that was killed was a convicted felon who had no legal right to posses or own a firearm. Well at least that is what i was told by someone who reads the local philly paper.

Once again the criminal with the gun doing the killing. legally firearm owners involved in this incedant = 0

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

ARCHIES JUNK IS FASTER THAN SHAUNNA'S JUNK
12.3 is faster than a 13.2

quote Originally posted by FIEROPHREK: http://www.chron.com/disp/s.../nation/6018992.html I like how the media worded this, "An automatic weapon was recovered at the scene". Well was it a full auto or semi auto? they are differant. The suspect that was killed was a convicted felon who had no legal right to posses or own a firearm. Well at least that is what i was told by someone who reads the local philly paper. Once again the criminal with the gun doing the killing. legally firearm owners involved in this incedant = 0

Well, that is by design.

Sort of like " The SUV swerved off the road and killed....." its all marketing spin.

[This message has been edited by User00013170 (edited 09-24-2008).]

yes, it would be a wonderful world if things just happened because we say it is illegal.

but, the fact that we have jails & police prove that to be nonsense.

and - your life has been very nice or - you live in Disneyland - or, are very naive - to think that those in control can be 100% trusted. once citizens are disarmed, there is no law that cant be passed. this is one thing that Iraq has made quite clear: a armed population is TOUGH to sway.

and, next - the recent college shootings. these took place in areas where guns were banned. explain this, please.
young men & women, forced to be defenseless. they had NO CHANCE. NONE. just eat the bullets, like good boys & girls.....
bad guy KNOWS he has control. in the land of the blind - the one eyed man is king. goes for guns too. in the land of the unarmed - the armed man is king.

guns are a simple simple simple machine. yes, I understand in these days, where most folk lack imagination, the idea that a person can "make" something is outragous. but - trust me. a pipe, 3 nails, a rubber band & a small board - and you got a zip gun. humans figured this out quite sometime ago. they are not magic items which are mined from secret locations, or grow on secret "weapon trees". they are fabricated hunks of steel - and are easily fashioned. I myself will begin manufacturing & selling guns if they become banned. because I know there will be money to be made. banned items just shift who gets the $$$. good luck protecting your wifes & children when your cellphone is your strongest weapon. and, I can disable that for $70.

knowing is 1/2 the battle - and when you know everyone before you is disarmed - it is easy pickins'

and - finally - weed/marijuana is banned. as are many many many other items, which most of see on a regular basis. it would be really really bad idea to disarm those who need to be armed the most: the rich/well-off. these folk also have to most to lose by disobeying the law. by banning weapons - you are basicly hoisting them up, out in the open, naked, to be taken advantage of. while this sound amusing to us lessor civilians, seeing the rich get eatin, I know we need the rich for our capitlist system to work. thats who signs my paycheck. dont rob him please.

but, if we are in fact are converting from capitlism, to some other system - sure - let the rich be robbed & raped.....just be clear what will happen. and, there are other hints of socailism from this same source. again - more eating of the rich. maybe milk & honey aint for you - formula & artificial sweetner it is. maybe making is unsafe to be rich is the new plan?

lol - only leave guns to those responsible enough to carry them...lol - nice thought - but who picks? I know who I deem responsible enough - and I dont think my list matches anyone elses....

quote Originally posted by buddycraigg: ... i just dont trust [Obama's] stance on gun ownership. and that was before the NRA got involved.

Fair enough. I just wanted to introduce a source of information into the discussion that is more neutral and objective than the NRA.

FWIW, I am a long-time gun owner ... currently two handguns and two long guns ... and I used to be a member of the NRA.

quote Originally posted by GT86: The fact that he wants to renew the AWB is proof enough of his intentions.

I agree with most of the facts you stated concerning "assault weapons," both real and imagined, but we reach different conclusions. And yes, I think it was a little goofy that my unmodified S&W 5906 handgun was classified as an "assault weapon" solely because of its clip capacity.

[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 09-24-2008).]

quote Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: I agree with most of the facts you stated concerning "assault weapons," both real and imagined, but we reach different conclusions. And yes, I think it was a little goofy that my unmodified S&W 5906 handgun was classified as an "assault weapon" solely because of its clip capacity.

Much as DC had declared that anything capable of firing over 12 rounds ( yes, 12 ) without manual reloading is now classified a machine gun ( a blatant attempt to get around abiding the supreme courts ruling.. ). I don't know if "capable" means if you are able to swap to a hi-cap magazine at all, or if you have to actually posses one.

During the AWB fiasco, my 17 round Glock was classified ( and grandfathered ). Its all about slow encroachment.