There Is No Gun Crime In The United States

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's easier to get a gun than a job in this country.

Ever tried to get a gun?

untrained civilians should not be allowed to own guns

What does 'untrained' mean?

Hunting rifles, shotguns, and pistols should only be legal for people who have completed the registration process.

How is 'registration' the same as training?

And btw, if you licensed and registered ever gun and gun owner, you'd still have rampant ownership of guns. And, of course, this wouldn't stop kids who steal them from their fathers. So what does it actually accomplish? I think it'd be nice to go in an licence and register all guns, I'm just blanching at the immense cost of all that, and for how much gain?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Pekka
Agathon, Well, at the parking lot?

Touche.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Since when can you buy crack at Wal-Mart?

You should

[GePap]

I have no problem with the general ownership of hunting rifles or shotguns: Very little cirme is commited by people who won guns in the back woods. Autmoatic weapons are certainly problematic and should be highly, highly regulated. BUt to me handguns are the most trouble: they are the ones most commonly used for crimes, and if the idea is to fight of "the man" when the black helicopters come to take your children away, most handguns are the least effective firearms you can have to stand up to "him" (or anyone armed with something much bigger).

[Japher]

I think it'd be nice to go in an licence and register all guns, I'm just blanching at the immense cost of all that, and for how much gain?

You are looking at it the wrong way; not "gain" but lack of loss.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Agathon


Since when can you buy crack at Wal-Mart?

It's over by the pepermints.

[Pekka]

Agathon, but I know my analogy is invalid. So.. and personally I'm undecided with the drug and legality thing anyway, as with gun control if it's good or not... just post whoring.

[GePap]

If the point is to have a militia, should not all guns be registered? That wy you know who has what and can create the units more quickly. IIRC in Switzerland people can have military machineguns in thier house, becuase they are expected to form up militias in time of national emergency, and I would think most of them are licensed so that the authorities know who has what.

[Imran Siddiqui]

How much 'lack of loss' then .

I support licensing and registration... as long as it ain't that expensive... but I don't see how it wouldn't. Just getting all that information and transfering it to a central database, then printing up licenses, and all that paperwork, uck. And I don't think it'd cut down that much on anything until 'smart gun' technology comes into play.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by GePap
I have no problem with the general ownership of hunting rifles or shotguns: Very little cirme is commited by people who won guns in the back woods. Autmoatic weapons are certainly problematic and should be highly, highly regulated. BUt to me handguns are the most trouble: they are the ones most commonly used for crimes, and if the idea is to fight of "the man" when the black helicopters come to take your children away, most handguns are the least effective firearms you can have to stand up to "him" (or anyone armed with something much bigger).

Handguns are made for killing people pure and simple. I have no problem with them being strictly regulated.

Looks like we agree on this issue.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Pekka
... just post whoring.

Never have guessed.

[gunkulator]

The only "smart gun" technology I want to see is advances in non-lethal weaponry. While noone would deny you your right to defend yourself, there's no reason at all why you need a right to kill another human being. Afterall, it's hard to claim impartial justice when one man acts as sheriff, judge, jury and executioner all in the blink of an eye.

[Imran Siddiqui]

there's no reason at all why you need a right to kill another human being.

If the human being is trying to kill you. I'm not sure a small woman would be able to defeat a big burglar male who was threatening her with death too easily.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Sprayber

Handguns are made for killing people pure and simple. I have no problem with them being strictly regulated.

Ever fired a proper target pistol? You'd be hard put to use one of those in a gunfight.

I can't see what the fuss is all about. We've had a gun licensing scheme in New Zealand for as long as anyone can remember. What happens is that you apply to the police and they ask your family and friends what they think about you owning a gun. If no one produces evidence that you are a nutter you get a license. You are expected to be paranoid about gun safety (and all the gun owners I have met are), but the fact is that you are basically left alone unless you do something stupid.

There's a lot for gun owners in this. They get left alone by the government, they are treated with respect, gun safety is increased due to police support for gun clubs and storage requirements and they aren't regarded as a social menace.

[gunkulator]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

there's no reason at all why you need a right to kill another human being.

If the human being is trying to kill you. I'm not sure a small woman would be able to defeat a big burglar male who was threatening her with death too easily.

Read the whole post. I'm not arguing against weaponry as a physical equalizer. I'm arguing against that equalization meaning death. Afterall, who's to say your small woman is not the party at fault? Answer: noone if she's the only survivor of an attack.