Gun Control

[Pannonian]

Let the Americans use whatever controls they want to use, and let us use whatever controls we want to use, as we're obviously seeing this from very different perspectives. Your world is not our world, and the rules are different.

[KukriKhan]

Let the Americans use whatever controls they want to use, and let us use whatever controls we want to use, as we're obviously seeing this from very different perspectives. Your world is not our world, and the rules are different.

Wow. Wisdom. Right here on our stage.

Cut it out Pannonian, you'll give the Tavern a bad name. :)

In 3 hours since warman's drive-by posting, we've gone to page 2...likely page 3 by the time he wakes up and wonders: "Hey! Where's my Cheerio's, and whatever happened to all those threads I started?"

[Keba]

One word, licensce.

A test instituted for ability to own a weapon responsibly and a liscensce issued by the goverment/local police station authorizing you to own a weapon.

And no automatic ones, hand cannons or whatever. Hunting rifles, shotguns, and pistols (though with a more thorough test for this one).

Though I still think it a stupid idea to pump what you're going to eat full of lead.

[Redleg]

Having 1 rifle means you like to hunt. 5 means your trouble waiting for a place to happen. In this hypothetical I'm the federal government, who else can make gun control laws. The only body authorized to make gun control, as well as criminal, laws. Also I have the power to tell you how you can defend yourself in your own home.

Actuall this is incorrect. There are several types of rifles. For instance when I went varmit hunting (Rabbits, racoons, possums, and the occasional swamp rat) I use a .22 caliber long rifle. Now if I am hunting white tail deer I perfer another small caliber rifle say the .223 otherwise known as the 5.56mm or the 6mm rifle that I have used in the past for the smaller deer. Then when I hunt for Mule Deer or Elk I perfer the 3030, .306, or my 7mm rifle because the shot will normally be done at a greater range in open country.

Now my father when gets lucky and draws the bear or moose hunt in Montana takes his larger rifle the 7.7 mm mag rifle.

A hunter often has multiple types of rifles and shotguns depending upon what type of animal he is hunting.

So to say having five means your looking for trouble is not correct.

By the way I grew up in a house that consistent of over 20 different rifles ranging from the .22 caliber to the large bore big game rifle of my father's plus the multiple shotguns and pistols.

Not once was there ever an accidental discharge of a weapon in my family. The rule my father taught me is that every weapon is to be treated as if it is loaded. If people would treat weapons as the tools that they are versus toys their would be a lot less tradic accidents involving weapons.

Now don't get me wrong their is a point of overkill in owning weapons for personal use - but saying that owning five weapons is the magic number does not make since when many avent hunters own multiple different types of weapons for specific types of game.

[Redleg]

One word, licensce.

A test instituted for ability to own a weapon responsibly and a liscensce issued by the goverment/local police station authorizing you to own a weapon.

And no automatic ones, hand cannons or whatever. Hunting rifles, shotguns, and pistols (though with a more thorough test for this one).

Though I still think it a stupid idea to pump what you're going to eat full of lead.

Registration of weapons when buying them is now a requirement for the ownership of firearms in United States. So the "licensing" of them is basically alreadly done. Most states do not allow individuals under 18 to hunt unless they have taken a hunter's safety course. With no hunting license - an individual can not legally take a deer.

poaching still carries some very stiff penalities - for instance many states still allow for the seizing by the state all property in the possession of the poacher when they are caught.

Most hunters don't pump what they are going to eat full of lead - two shots is the typical hunter, a good hunter only uses one shot. Unfortunately that one shot can often ruin a bit of the meat that you are after.

I typical aim just behind the front shoulder of the deer, (its a heart shot) kills the animal very quickly, and I never shoot until I am sure about my shot.

[Fragony]

I really don't understand why we aren't allowed to have guns, police is taking a monopoly on the use of violence but they are completily useless. Every household should have a gun in case something goes wrong, why become a victim

[Banquo's Ghost]

I'm largely with Pannonian on this subject, since the evidence suggests that all Europeans walk about naked and snivelling whilst every Yank is tooled up like Rambo with PMT, and neither side ever suffers crime thereby proving they're right.

On a more serious note, I'd be interested in more information on the home defence argument. I can completely understand Don's reasoning and it holds water.

Nonetheless, are there any studies that have looked at the efficiacy of using home guns for defence?

My interest lies in the consideration that while one may have a gun or three at home, sensible guidelines would advise them being properly secured. If an invader gets into the house - presumably in the US criminals are aware that their victims are likely to be armed, and therefore come armed themselves - how easy is it for the home-owner to get to their weaponry, load and then bring to bear?

[Major Robert Dump]

I cheerfully abstain from this thread. I think I'll go clean my hand cannon instead.

[Tribesman]

I really don't understand why we aren't allowed to have guns

You are allowed to have a gun Frag , unless of course you have been a naughty boy and are banned from getting a permit .

Anyhow , silly topic , silly title . Gun control ...Yes obviously , but what is acceptable as gun control .

[Fragony]

You are allowed to have a gun Frag , unless of course you have been a naughty boy and are banned from getting a permit .

That is true, but you aren't allowed to use it, it's just for sports. Should have said 'right on selfdefense'.

[Keba]

Most European systems allow the use of a gun in self-defense, but they tend to be rather strict in viewing the self-defense.

So, if somebody else is openly threatning your life and is actually attempting to kill you, then you get off scot-free (that is, after the court finds that you acted in self-defense). Someone simply threatning your property or simply threatning without actually acting on it does not qualify as a threatning situation, meaning you can't pull out your gun and shoot the guy.

[rory_20_uk]

Even if the USA tomorrow was to have a blanket ban on all weaponry, little would change. There are so many weapons in the USA that it would be years (if ever) before those that wanted them couldn't easily get hold of them. Probably less easily than today, but still far from impossible.

Guns can be effective for years, and with the large borders America has, the small number that would be confiscated by the police would be replaced by the criminals with ease.

"Smart guns" (fingerprint ID, or better yet with an inbuilt tracker) might help eventually, but they'd have to be coupled with draconian penalties for having the old type of gun.

Unless something earth shattering happens (and let's face it, Americans don't blink when a gunman guns down Amish children), no politician is going to have the backbone to do anything about this in a meaningful way.

[lars573]

Were I real hunter, you're absolutely right. But I'm an opportunist. Where I live, there's so many deer, one gets into a traffic incident, pretty much every night. My local area is lousy with them. All this meat, and I'm just going to play Cochise, watching them walk by while they avoid my bow? No. I'm going to shoot a couple and spare a trip to the meat aisle of the grocery market. I'm funny like that, I actually will make the effort to go get my own meat, save a little money in the process. If you prefer to pay somebody to go kill a hormone addled cow for you, good on you.

Criminal. Your actions (assuming they're true) are those of a problem gun owner. You shouldn't be allowed to have any if your going to use them like that.

More importantly, Lars, why haven't you bothered to attempt to consript how many cars I drive, or how many construction projects I run? According to New Hampshire's latest data, each of these high risk area killed more people than gun accidents. Oh yes, of course.... criminals don't go to construction sites. Now what you're saying makes sense....

This isn't about North americans insane car habits. Or our criminally lax safety regulations. It's about how average people don't need more than 3 firearms in their house.

Actuall this is incorrect. There are several types of rifles. For instance when I went varmit hunting (Rabbits, racoons, possums, and the occasional swamp rat) I use a .22 caliber long rifle. Now if I am hunting white tail deer I perfer another small caliber rifle say the .223 otherwise known as the 5.56mm or the 6mm rifle that I have used in the past for the smaller deer. Then when I hunt for Mule Deer or Elk I perfer the 3030, .306, or my 7mm rifle because the shot will normally be done at a greater range in open country.

Now my father when gets lucky and draws the bear or moose hunt in Montana takes his larger rifle the 7.7 mm mag rifle.

A hunter often has multiple types of rifles and shotguns depending upon what type of animal he is hunting.

So to say having five means your looking for trouble is not correct.

By the way I grew up in a house that consistent of over 20 different rifles ranging from the .22 caliber to the large bore big game rifle of my father's plus the multiple shotguns and pistols.

Not once was there ever an accidental discharge of a weapon in my family. The rule my father taught me is that every weapon is to be treated as if it is loaded. If people would treat weapons as the tools that they are versus toys their would be a lot less tradic accidents involving weapons.

Now don't get me wrong their is a point of overkill in owning weapons for personal use - but saying that owning five weapons is the magic number does not make since when many avent hunters own multiple different types of weapons for specific types of game.

You father has too many guns. More than he needs. You only need a shotgun for hunting rabbit.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Criminal. Your actions (assuming they're true) are those of a problem gun owner. You shouldn't be allowed to have any if your going to use them like that.

I'm intrigued. How exactly should he use them? Run up behind the little bambi and club it to death with the blunt end?

[Redleg]

You father has too many guns. More than he needs. You only need a shotgun for hunting rabbit.

A shotgun destroys to much of the usable meat on the rabbit. Your beginning to show more opinion then fact on the matter.

Probably because you assumed that they were all his, its rather fun to be obtruse at times, but read carefully I never stated that all 20 weapons were his, only that I grew up in a household that had 20 different rifles, and all five of us hunted to include my mother who was an excellent shot.

Tsk Tsk - your bais is showing through very clearly.

So can I have 5 antique historical weapons plus 3 hunting rifles? Can I have different weapons for different categories of hunting?

The point is lars to state only a certain number of weapons should be allowed goes against what the 2nd Amendment states.

If you use a shotgun to hunt rabbit - who are you to tell me what I need to go hunting with. I have absolutely no respect for people who use weapons only to destroy animals for sport - hunting is primarily for sport, but what you kill you must harvest for the meat, or for protecting your livestock from predators. Do do otherwise is just a waste and I despise those that do so.

[Lemur]

To our European friends, there's something important to remember -- in the U.S.A., the government is under no obligation to protect any particular citizen at any particular time. This has been tested in our famously weird courts, and it's been upheld.

So we have a legal and cultural basis for the concept that our safety is our business, and if the government can help (in the form of police or Nat'l Guard or whatever) then great, but ultimately it's on us.

I think this is the reality everywhere, but here in the U.S. it's acknowledged in case law.

Anyway, this means that anybody who has something to lose (which is most everybody) has to take at least some thought to their personal and familial safety. For some people that means elaborate security systems; for some people that means firearms; for others it means living in a gated community (the cheesiest option by far); and for some extremists that means exercising their pacifism (the scariest option by far).

Don's position is based on the assumption that all liberals oppose gun ownership, and all gun control comes from liberals. His vision of hordes of pacifist, pot-smoking liberals laying down to be raped isn't terribly convincing, but I have no doubt he' run into some bad situations in which a gun would make a difference.

The thing is that security should be layered. By the time the blue-tattooed double-Y chromosomed shaved-headed super-predator is looming in your bedroom door, you have already screwed up, and whether or not you have a gun in your nightstand, you're starting from behind. Your security should have dissuaded him before he made it to your bedroom doorway, or at least given you warning. I can't tell you how many incidents I've read where someone scared a criminal off with a gun because they neglected the basics. ("Oh yeah, I showed my gun and he ran back through the door I'd left open all day!")

Personally, I wouldn't mind having a self-defense gun in my house, but it wouldn't be a good idea. As soon as you bring a firearm home, the odds are that it will be used on you by a child or enraged wife; much more likely than the bedroom door/predator scenario. And the Queen Lemur has a temper like a tsunami, a sort of berserker fugue that she slides into about once every two or three months. I don't want to tempt her with a gun. It's bad enough defending myself from her, given that she studied Thai Kickboxing for years.

• Lemur's first layer of defense: Living in a nice neighborhood with multiple cops for neighbors.
• Lemur's second layer of defense: Front door stays locked.
• Lemur's third layer of defense: Three dogs.
• Lemur's fourth layer of defense: Super-creaky steps to the second floor (where the bedrooms are) that I have deliberately not fixed.
• Lemur's sixth layer of defense: Billy club and maglite within reach of bed.
• Lemur's seventh layer of defense: Berserker wife.

I don't know that adding a shotgun to this mix would make me substantially safer. But if my wife ever gets a grip on her temper, I'll consider it.

[lars573]

I'm intrigued. How exactly should he use them? Run up behind the little bambi and club it to death with the blunt end?

He's talking about walking out his back garden and blasting a deer. Most placs in north america have some sort of law against hunting, or discahrging a firearm, in residential areas. We have specific areas, which can be quite large, where you are allowed to shoot game. As I'm sure you euros do too.

A shotgun destroys to much of the usable meat on the rabbit. Your beginning to show more opinion then fact on the matter.

My uncle, the only active hunter in the family. Nearly lost a the use of his hand and his life form some rookie hunter/gun user (first time hunting and shooting) with a broken hand. They were hunting rabbits with shotguns.

The point is lars to state only a certain number of weapons should be allowed goes against what the 2nd Amendment states.

I'm arguing and opinionating from within my own nations laws on the books, and constitution. A constitution that has no expressed right for me to own a gun. Canadas gun laws work so that it's almost impossible for you to get a pistol. And any rifle/shotgun you have is treated like a car. Each has a license and registration that has to be renued every few years. Essentailly you pay the government for the right to own a gun. My views on gun control are very lose compared to what has passed with full support here in the past.

Probably because you assumed that they were all his, its rather fun to be obtruse at times, but read carefully I never stated that all 20 weapons were his, only that I grew up in a household that had 20 different rifles, and all five of us hunted to include my mother who was an excellent shot.

Oh so you were being purposefully misleading, ok I can live with that.

[QUOTE=RedlegSo can I have 5 antique historical weapons plus 3 hunting rifles? Can I have different weapons for different categories of hunting?[/QUOTE]
You can have 3 useable firearms. The rest would have to be bored by a gun smith.

If you use a shotgun to hunt rabbit - who are you to tell me what I need to go hunting with. I have absolutely no respect for people who use weapons only to destroy animals for sport - hunting is primarily for sport, but what you kill you must harvest for the meat, or for protecting your livestock from predators. Do do otherwise is just a waste and I despise those that do so.

I've never shot anything besides a BB at a soup can. Have no desire to either. I also find the whole idea of psort hunting stupid and pointless. Especially if your using a gun. Unless you need that meat to feed your family you should be using a bow. It's far more sporting.

[Geezer57]

From NRA-ILA (National Rifle Association, Institute for Legislative Action):

"Accidental firearm deaths are at an all-time low, among the entire U.S. population and among children in particular. In 2000, there were 776 accidental firearm-related deaths, including 86 among children. (National Center for Health Statistics)"

"Three out of four violent crimes committed in the United States each year do not in any way involve firearms. (Crime in the United States, 1999, FBI)"

"When anti-gun activists and politicians claim 11 children a day are killed with guns in America, they have to include anyone under age 20, including teen-aged "gang bangers" as children. (National Center for Health Statistics, 1998)"

"States that adopted nondiscretionary concealed-handgun laws saw murders decreased by at least 8%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robberies by 3%. The murder rates of women permit-holders fell by as much as five times the drop of their male counterparts. (More Guns, Less Crime, John R. Lott, Jr., University of Chicago Press, 1998)"

"'While there is a good deal of violence in schools, virtually none of it involves guns,' writes criminologist Gary Kleck, who estimates 'that under 0.1% of students are caught carrying guns in school in any one-year period.'(Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Gary Kleck, Aldine de Gruyter, New York, 1997)"

"School violence is more than 23 times more likely to be unrelated to guns, according to a national survey of school principals. (Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics report "Violence and Discipline Problems in U.S. Public Schools: 1996-97")"

"The average American child watches 8,000 homicides and 100,000 acts of violence on television before completing sixth grade. (American Psychological Association)"

"A survey of federal prison inmates indicated that only 1.7% of those who had used firearms had obtained those firearms from a gun show. ("Federal Firearm Offenders, 1992-98," Bureau of Justice Statistics, June 2000)"

"One additional woman carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for women about 3-4 times more than one additional man carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for men. (More Guns, Less Crime, John R. Lott, Jr., University of Chicago Press, 1998)"

"Police are under no legal obligation to provide protection for any individual. Courts have ruled the police have an obligation only to society as a whole. (Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1, 1981)"

"The crime rate in London is now higher than the crime rate in New York. Crimes with firearms have risen dramatically since the ban on handgun ownership was passed by Parliament. ("Gun law stalks Britain`s," The Express, May 14, 2001)"

"The congressionally-mandated study of the federal "assault weapon" law found that: "At best, the assault weapons ban can have only a limited effect on total gun murders, because the banned weapons were never involved in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders." (Urban Institute, "Impact Evaluation of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994," March 13, 1997, p. 3.)"

"Crime rates and crime trends in states where "waiting periods" have been imposed have been worse than in other states. (FBI Unifrom Crime Reports)"

"Studies by the Departments of Justice and the Treasury have determined that most criminals obtain firearms through illegal and informal channels where no "waiting period" exists. (Bureau of Justice Statistics, "Federal Firearm Offenders, 1992-98," June 2000)"

"Federal law requires a background check on anyone purchasing a firearm from a federally licensed firearm dealer, at a gun show or anywhere else."

"People who carry firearms as provided for by state right-to-carry laws are statistically more law-abiding than the public as a whole."

"Right-to-carry states have lower violent crime rates, on average—24% lower total violent crime, 22% lower homicide, 37% lower robbery, and 20% lower aggravated assault—compared to other states and D.C. (FBI, 1999, most recent data.)"

"Two of every three defensive uses of firearms are carried out with handguns. Private citizens benefit from handguns for the same reason that the police do: handguns are easy to carry and they are effective defensive tools. (Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Gary Kleck, Aldine de Gruyter, 1997)"

"People who use firearms for protection are statistically less likely to be injured in a criminal attack than people who use other means of protection or no protection at all. (Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Gary Kleck, Aldine de Gruyter, 1997)"

"In Haynes v U.S. (1968), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that felons do not have to register illegally possessed guns, because the Fifth Amendment protects them against self-incrimination."

"Without gun registration and gun owner licensing, the nation`s violent crime rate has decreased every year since 1991 and is now at a 27-year low. Also, deaths due to firearm accidents have been decreasing substantially without gun registration and gun owner licensing, while those due to motor vehicle accidents have not decreased, despite vehicle registration and driver licensing."

"Since 1991, the number of privately owned firearms in the U.S. has increased by about 50 million, the number of right-to-carry states has increased from 15 to 37, and violent crime has decreased every year. Posted: 6/26/2003"

"Since 1968, virtually every aspect of lawful firearms commerce from manufacture to retail sales has been strictly controlled, regulated and licensed by the U.S. Department of the Treasury through its Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Few products have the oversight of nearly an entire federal agency. Most states also have a corresponding “BATF” regulatory and law enforcement agency that oversees firearms and enforces state firearms laws. Firearms also fall under all laws relating to negligent manufacture. Any manufacturer who sells an inherently unsafe firearm will very quickly find itself in court. Lastly, firearms are the only product for which an American citizen needs to receive the FBI’s permission—through the NICS—before making a retail purchase. For more information see Fables, Myths & Other Tall Tales about Gun Laws, Crime and Constitutional Rights (http://www.nraila.org/media/misc/fables.html)."

There's lots more solid info available, folks, if you want to follow up on the subject. See here: http://www.nra.org/

[Kralizec]

Well, it's been a couple of hours now and after re-reading my own posts I feel I do owe an apology to Don Corleone, and of course to rape victims. It was pretty tasteless and that wasn't apparent to me before, I'm pretty slow when it comes to that. Sorry.

[Banquo's Ghost]

He's talking about walking out his back garden and blasting a deer. Most placs in north america have some sort of law against hunting, or discahrging a firearm, in residential areas. We have specific areas, which can be quite large, where you are allowed to shoot game. As I'm sure you euros do too.

OK, I can see if you read Don's post that way, how you might make your conclusion. However, I re-read what he wrote and cannot see how that meaning can be attributed except through the lens of prejudice.

Though we differ on many things, I cannot quite bring myself to believe Don runs about his neighbourhood shooting from the hip at every furry animal that pops its head out of cover and then feasts on its still dripping corpse.

[Redleg]

My uncle, the only active hunter in the family. Nearly lost a the use of his hand and his life form some rookie hunter/gun user (first time hunting and shooting) with a broken hand. They were hunting rabbits with shotguns.

And you have very adequately demonstrated what has always been my main point in any gun control thread. Its not the weapon but the person that causes problems.

I'm arguing and opinionating from within my own nations laws on the books, and constitution. A constitution that has no expressed right for me to own a gun. Canadas gun laws work so that it's almost impossible for you to get a pistol. And any rifle/shotgun you have is treated like a car. Each has a license and registration that has to be renued every few years. Essentailly you pay the government for the right to own a gun. My views on gun control are very lose compared to what has passed with full support here in the past.

Your nation's laws are different then my nations laws. For instance all weapons have to be registered when they are purchased. Do people violate this law? Yes and they should be punished for violating the law, but that does not equate to someone dicating to me how many weapons I can own or not own.

Oh so you were being purposefully misleading, ok I can live with that.

Yep to determine the baised inherient in your arguement.

You can have 3 useable firearms. The rest would have to be bored by a gun smith.

This is wrong on so many levels. Why do you feel the need to limit the amount of property that I own?

I've never shot anything besides a BB at a soup can. Have no desire to either. I also find the whole idea of psort hunting stupid and pointless. Especially if your using a gun. Unless you need that meat to feed your family you should be using a bow. It's far more sporting.

I know hunters that use all three types of allowed hunting. Black Powder, Bow, and Rifle. Black powder hunting is actually the hardest, since bow hunting is now done primarily with compound bows that do not require as much upper body strength to draw and hold the arrow prior to release.

Try walking the hills of Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana when you hunt. Its extremely hard even with a rifle. That has been by far the most sporting of any of the hunting I have ever done. Tough Terrian, one has to stalk their prey, and even then because of the terrain many miss their shot and the animal gets to bound away with the bullet hitting the ground above or below them. Far more difficult then any bow hunt that I have ever been on. Which for the most part - especially in Texas, Oklahoma (primarily Eastern OK), Arkansas, and Lousiana where one must hunt from a blind - your not allowed to walk the terrain because its mostly scrub oaks and thick brush.

[Crazed Rabbit]

The basic reason for our 2nd amendment in the US is to protect ourselves against a tyrannical government. As such, any effort to limit that right is tyrannical.

Anyone with no violent felonies should be able to own all the guns they want, including machine guns. There should be no laws requiring registration, which is useless in finding criminals, or safety locks (if you want one buy one), limiting where you can carry guns, or limiting gun purchases or ownership.

Limiting ownership is the same as limiting the amount of books you can own.

Why? It is our right. Free people should have no need to prove that they 'need' to exercise a right, nor should the government have any control over it.

As it happens, criminals tend to ignore all these laws, making them totally useless except for disarming the law-abiding.

As soon as you bring a firearm home, the odds are that it will be used on you by a child or enraged wife; much more likely than the bedroom door/predator scenario.

Um, maybe in your home, but not on average in the US.

CR

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Jaysus, young lad, you really do like to let bombs off dontcha...

Everyone knows firearms are completely and utterly unnecessary. If somebody breaks into your house and threatens the lives and/or virtue of your children and wife, simply but politely ask them to stop. If they refuse, offer them a flower. If they still refuse, beg. If they still refuse, call the police, but ask them to come nicely. They'll write you a nice report when they arrive 3 hours henceforth. That should give you enough time to clean up your children and wife to make them presentable for the police when they arrive.

If one inisists on this foolish notion of defending one's family and property, one must be a foul villian that we must shackle immediately.

Translation: even the good Leftys I know think we should ask rapists nicely to stop, but we have no right to defend ourselves from them. Reason #1 why I'll never be a lefty.

You must be joking....Right?

So ok, Let me get this. Say,someone breaks into my house, wants to kill me,my wife and kis,for example. I'll go up to him and ask him to stop,instead of blowing his head clean off his body for threating my family? Ok,mabye I was to blunt in what I would do with him, but plain and simple.
Now if he breaks in just to Rob, I might get Push him around abit, broken arm should teach him then.

One Reason that Makes me believe is this,is the following that happen 2 houses away from me, where I live

2 houses down from me, in the Summer of 2005, This Family that lives that, were letting their Kids camp outside. Ok, so one night, the youngest one, I guess at that time 11 or 12 mabye, look outside the camp, and Saw a Man,yes a Man, standing not to far away from the tent. So they ending up running inside, and calling the cops, and the Cops Search Their Backyard,The House Next to Us,their backyard, and my backyard, and Never found the guy,that you go.
I don't even wanna think what would have happen if the kid didn't wake up and saw him when he did......




and Lemur,your post

"Excuse me, but some of us are still busy establishing that John Kerry is a bad person. Please be respectful of this."

How does this have to do with John Kerry? Explain?

[Prince of the Poodles]

Lemur was being funny I think.... it was funny to me anyway.

[Kralizec]

There should be no laws requiring registration, which is useless in finding criminals,

I assume your gripe with registration is the chance that in the future a government may use it to confiscate your weapons, right?
If we put that reason aside for a moment, what else? I don't see it being "totally useless", unless the law isn't being enforced properly.
What reason would you have against it if you're planning on following the law?

[Lemur]

How does this have to do with John Kerry? Explain?

As POP said, I was making a funny. I think it's telling of the mood of the Backroom that of all the issues in the world, it's Kerry's self-destruction that has taken up two long threads, and shows no sign of dying. They're still going at it! And they'll probably keep going at it through the weekend. It's kind of astonishing. All of the facts are now known, all the damage has been done, and they're still going at it. And to think I get accused of milking! They got a dairy farm in there!

CR, I am guilty of extremely poor writing. What I meant to express was that the likelihood of a gun being used in self defense is lower than the likelihood of it being used by a family member in an accidental discharge. You would never know it from my sloppy phrasing, but that's the idea I was going for. My bad.

[Tribesman]

There's lots more solid info available, folks

Yeah you can always rely on the NRA for solid bias

Three out of four violent crimes committed in the United States each year do not in any way involve firearms.

So 25% of violent crime does involve guns then .

Crimes with firearms have risen dramatically since the ban on handgun ownership was passed by Parliament.

Yep since possesion of an unlicensed gun is a crime with firearms , possesion of a relica weapon is a crime with firearms , incorrest storage of ammunition is a gun crime , having the wrong type of gun cabinet is crime with firearms .
Do you remember the recent Metropolitan police swoop that added over 800 gun crimes to the figures ? all for one individual arms dealer , and mainly over storage and paperwork "gun crimes"

The last place you want to look for "solid" info would be the NRA , no more than you would rely on an anti-firearm group for "solid" info .

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

ah ok, SOrry about that Lemur.I took it differently, my bad.

I know, but the first Kerry thread lasted how long? my Iraq Thread lasted Ages before this Stuff came along (Over 6 pages for mine)

[Redleg]

I assume your gripe with registration is the chance that in the future a government may use it to confiscate your weapons, right?
If we put that reason aside for a moment, what else? I don't see it being "totally useless", unless the law isn't being enforced properly.
What reason would you have against it if you're planning on following the law?

I to find the notion of registration is not inconsistent with insuring that individuals who have legally lost their right to the 2nd Amendment are not able to purchase a weapon.

The main problem with gun control in the United States is that the basic laws on the books are not being enforced. Until they are enforced, any new discussion on gun control in the United States is pointless. Laws should never be based upon previous un-enforced laws. It makes for bad legislation.

[Lemur]

This doesn't address the political aspect of gun ownership in the U.S. (prevention of tyranny by spreading gun ownership throughout society), but rather security in general. (Note: I don't hunt or plan to violently oppose the government, so the only reason I consider gun ownership is security. Sorry if that means I'm coming at this from an incomplete perspective.)

Anyway, Bruce Schneier is a security dude whom I deeply respect, and he has a nice, brief essay on how we behave in relation to real versus perceived threats. It's relevant to this discussion. Linky.