|
Post by xXSpookyXx on May 5, 2008 8:09:59 GMT -11
This debate is ongoing and raging, you have some parts of the country where getting a gun is as easy as being 18 with a clean record while other parts, you have to get FID cards for them and go through strict courses, etc, and even then, getting a pistol permit in those parts are very very hard. What are your views on it?
|
|
|
Post by chrissy on May 5, 2008 8:24:04 GMT -11
I just think that its obviously way to easy for people to get weapons , when they have kids in elementary school having access. Whether its a parents gun or some other way, we need to get the guns out! I grew up in a home with a gun (do to my mothers career), and I never even knew where she kept it or the combination to the safe. I dont understand the parents who tell the kids where it is and have it in an accessable place. But I think that the gun thing is only a lil piece of the problem. Its not so much the weapon thats the problem as it is peoples mentalitys these days. People (myself included) seem to be a lot more violent, angry and all around egdy. I think this has to do with the demands places on everyone these days. Some people can handle it and some cant. think about all the new stories about people killing people, not even half are gun related, but all of them are a tragic murder. So I say yes more gun control, but at the same time I say YES to a more relaxing society, that would be the cheapest way to assist with gun control !
|
|
|
Post by «Foz» on May 5, 2008 8:25:53 GMT -11
I'm a firm believer in gun control. I know in Ohio it's not too hard to get a gun, but it's not easy either. My cousin is a firearms dealer and he had a hard time getting my husband's friend a gun because of a small issue on his background check. But my cousin is also running a legit, legal business so he has to follow the rules. As for getting a license here, it's pretty easy - take a 2-day course then go to the police station and get your license. My hubby took the course but never got his license. I was going to take it too, but he didn't think I'd be able to handle his gun (S & W 40) well enough to pass the shooting portion. Ha! I'm a better shot than him. We have a gun in our house for security especially since I'll be working from home (most break-ins happen during the day). I hope I never have to use it, but at least it's there if I have to. But I must admit, the redneck in me loves to go to the shooting range! I agre with you Chrissy - if a parent tells their kids where a gun is hidden, the combo to the safe, etc. they're pretty dumb.
|
|
|
Post by amara1369 on May 7, 2008 5:32:20 GMT -11
The thing is, I grew up in a household with firearms. My father owned a gun shop, I grew up learning how to respect guns, and the right and wrong ways to use them. I'm a firm believer that it's not guns that are the bad guy's. There is a country that outlawed all of it's guns, not even the law enforcement were allowed to use them. Guess what? Crime went up almost 200%. My favorite quote from my father is, "If you outlaw guns, the law abiding folk will follow the law, and only the outlaws will have them. What we need to do is have a little stricter policies towards owing a gun. If you leave a gun on a table for five years, it's not going to get up and shoot someone, it takes HUMAN interaction." Ie: Make whoever wants to get a gun, take several gun safety courses, have stricter laws on purchasing and how to store them, and harsher punishment for those who misuse them. Here in NY we have pretty strict laws, unfortunately, there isn't many catches for buying a shotgun, as hunting is a pretty big sport in this state. I feel that the laws should be more uniform.... Anyhow, that's my two cents... or maybe 20?
|
|
|
Post by brian on May 10, 2008 1:26:44 GMT -11
In Australia they banned guns. Well anything that was semi or fully automatic. This came into play after some F****** mong shot and killed a heap of people in Tasmania. Then they banned knives. Well anything over a 3 inch blade. Poofters. Now having questionable friends it was never too hard to get my hands on anything, and as I don';t really like guns anyway, knives were and are still my passion. This however, is the reason that Aussies are stupid enough to take a knife to a gunfight. Gun control needs to come into play for the simple reason that common sense is not so common anymore, and these heroes think that when you are standing behind a loaded gun then you have peoples respect. The amount of people in the US that are legally allowed to carry concealed weapons is astounding. If you get into a bar fight are you going to get shot or can you be sure that you will just have a good ol' fashioned dust up? ... scary. B.
|
|
stick28
Artemis
Once I had a secret love. But then she spotted me and got a restraining order.
Posts: 217
|
Post by stick28 on May 10, 2008 5:09:05 GMT -11
In Australia they banned guns. Well anything that was semi or fully automatic. This came into play after some F****** mong shot and killed a heap of people in Tasmania. Then they banned knives. Well anything over a 3 inch blade. Poofters. Now having questionable friends it was never too hard to get my hands on anything, and as I don';t really like guns anyway, knives were and are still my passion. This however, is the reason that Aussies are stupid enough to take a knife to a gunfight. Gun control needs to come into play for the simple reason that common sense is not so common anymore, and these heroes think that when you are standing behind a loaded gun then you have peoples respect. The amount of people in the US that are legally allowed to carry concealed weapons is astounding. If you get into a bar fight are you going to get shot or can you be sure that you will just have a good ol' fashioned dust up? ... scary. B. B didn't write that Australia's gun control proved any particuar point, but there are some interesting stats that shed light on the anti-gun arguments. First, note that Australia has no constitutional right to firearms, and most Aussies did not/do not own firearms. Legal ownership has been very restricted for a very long time. Second, since the 1996 buy-back of weapons, (which as B noted, only includes a weapons that kill quickly - rapid fire ) there has been a decline in firearm related deaths. However, the decline started well before the 1996 buy-back, and though some argue there has been improvement, govt stats really don't support that conclusion. Also note that 90% of firearm crimes were committed by people who did not legally posses the weapon they used, and thus were not affected by the 1996 buy-back. In fact, the only statistic that can be tied to the 1996 law change was the rate of suicide by firearm, and even that is only an indication of a cause/effect, not proof. Third, if you check the US national crime stats, you'll find that violent crimes including aggravated assault, robbery and murder have all shown some decline since 1996, even though the population has grown, and that is without Australian-style restriction on firearms. But my personal view of gun control is this: The constitution (in particular the Bill of Rights, and that's significant) guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. I support the constitution. If society decides it's necessary to ban guns, then the constitution needs to change. The US Supreme Court is currently considering this issue: results expected in June.
|
|
|
Post by brian on May 10, 2008 5:43:42 GMT -11
Very good stick. You bought up some valid points. Not all accurate unfortunately, but good relevancy. Stats prove nothing first off. It is the city people who did not hold the majority of fire arms. Everyone in the country has them. Legal or not. The decline in gun related deaths is now over run by the deaths involving knives. So no, the gun buy back did'nt do crap. It has never proved to be any varying factor in the time since 1996. In fact if you leave the stats out, you will find that the majority of people who do not live in the cities do own and always will own good fire arms. The asian population has bought into account the laws with knives. Not typecasting anyone here, but its a fact. They all carry, and a good number of them use them. In Australia anyway. Pistols are a whole nother story. The average person has to have a number of licenses to carry these. The laws changed a few years back when a security gaurd was held accountable for a shooting death. He shot and killed a person who was robbing a gas station and was tried for manslaughter becuase he was licensed to carry a fire arm but not a loaded one. Tell me that makes sense. We never voted on any of these laws as US citizens won't. They will just be pushed through and you will be told as we were. Unfortunately, the US consitution is not as relevant anymore in changing US times. It is to me, one of the best rights constitutions I have ever read, but with the underlying bi-laws that keep undermining your rights here, it is losing its power to enforce rights for US citizens. I have been studying US law now for the past 3 years and its sad that you. we are gradually losing our rights and priveliges under that constitution. Australia, sadly is heading the same way. I had to learn it just to be able to apply for my citizenship here. In general though Americans are a lot more patriotic about supporting their country. Australians don't usually push it until they need to. B.
|
|
CougarBob
Hermes
Where is Everybody???
Posts: 997
|
Post by CougarBob on May 10, 2008 6:06:59 GMT -11
I have some torn feelings about this issue. Although I don't want automatic weapons out in the public, I truly believe that the impetus of the second amendment was, If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns.
Some people say that this amendment is speaking only of a state militia or national guard. Not so. Every state that ratified the Constitution had provisions for the individual citizen to keep and bear arms. Virginia went so far as to say that there should be no standing army in times of peace and that the defense of the county should lie in the hands of individual citizens keeping and bearing arms (somewhat like Switzerland today).
|Gets down from soap box| Anyway, that's my position on the subject.
|
|
|
Post by amara1369 on May 10, 2008 6:22:16 GMT -11
The second amendment, I believe, was put into play so that the American people could protect themselves from a totalitarian government...
"Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. "
Unfortunately, they did not forsee what the future would bring. Not only are we now faced with a government that pretty much does what it wants to, we have a bunch of people who have no respect, nor the knowledge of how to handle a weapon. Values have changed drastically since then, so has how children are brought up. Not that I think all the old fashioned ways were all that great, but you see a lot of disrespect, and disreguard for individuals in this era. Drug dealers and self-centered aristocratic idiots are put on a pedestal, and are made role models. (Paris Hilton anyone?) Many lifestyles today are centered around fast thrills, and violence.
Sorry, I just feel very strongly about this topic, and the way the world is going. I hope I didn't offend anyone..
|
|
|
Post by brian on May 10, 2008 6:45:32 GMT -11
Excellent Amara, This topic will bring out some very strong feelings in a lot of people. I don't think you could have offended anyone with what you have stated. Having lived in both countries for a number of years now I see the good and bad in both. No matter what the future may bring, the government will do what is best for it. Not the people. Those days are looooong gone. Once again, Australia is doing the same thing. So to anyone reading this, don't think I am just sitting here sledging the US. While this debate rolls on, and will for a time yet, the powes that be are introducing laws that make skinny models illegal in this country. Hows that for distraction while they slide something else in with the other hand. Priorities have become so blatantly skewed that the importance factor of lesser issues is now over riding major factors on citizens rights. Heres one for ya, During the time when I was kicked out of the country for being an alleged illegal, Robin went to the US civil and family rights to fight for her right to marry whoever the hell she wanted too. She was told in no uncertain terms that she can not expect any help from the US powers that be as her rights do not count if she has married someone outside of the US bloodline. Then they asked her for a donation so they could maybe help families like ours in the future. Now looking at the war currently happening its Australia and England that are in there and playing nicely next to US forces. As an Australian national I figured we'd have some rights. As it turns out, because the US is being so hard on Aussies who are married to US citizens at the moment, Australia is taking the same stance and a lot of good US people are being denied. This is why I started studying US law. B.
|
|
|
Post by amara1369 on May 10, 2008 7:02:00 GMT -11
Wow...
It just scares me with what is happening. We're loosing so much, and the "government" and "officials" pockets are getting thicker. :{
|
|
stick28
Artemis
Once I had a secret love. But then she spotted me and got a restraining order.
Posts: 217
|
Post by stick28 on May 10, 2008 7:50:35 GMT -11
The second amendment, I believe, was put into play so that the American people could protect themselves from a totalitarian government... "Amendment II A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. " Unfortunately, they did not forsee what the future would bring. Not only are we now faced with a government that pretty much does what it wants to, we have a bunch of people who have no respect, nor the knowledge of how to handle a weapon. Values have changed drastically since then, so has how children are brought up. Not that I think all the old fashioned ways were all that great, but you see a lot of disrespect, and disreguard for individuals in this era. Drug dealers and self-centered aristocratic idiots are put on a pedestal, and are made role models. (Paris Hilton anyone?) Many lifestyles today are centered around fast thrills, and violence. Sorry, I just feel very strongly about this topic, and the way the world is going. I hope I didn't offend anyone.. Bingo, Amara! Most people seem to think it has something to do with Hunting and such. In reality, the 2nd amendment was provided to give the people the right and ability to protect themselves from the government. And it's no accident that it's the 2nd amendment. After writing the first, the founders realized that the people needed to way to protect the rights identified in the first amendment. They were hopeful for the future, but very pessimistic about the survival of a democratic government - and history bears them out. And you are correct that unlike 200 years ago when people used weapons as a tool for, and means of survival, most people have inadequate training. So while I support the 2nd amendment, I also think a level of qualification needs to be enforced. In fact, I have just completed an article which is scheduled for publication in a gun owners magazine, and the point of the article is that a gun can't protect you and your family, but your skill with the gun might - training, training, training. You also make a good point about responsibility. Just like technology growing faster than our ability to use it wisely, our rights and freedoms often exceed our ability to enjoy them in a responsible manner. I don't think that's a good argument for curtailing those freedoms, however. Look at all the people who drive irresponsibly. We still allow people to drive. And I point out that driving is not a constitutional right - courts have ruled time and time again that driving is a privilege granted and controlled by the state. If it became politically advantageous, the opportunity to own and operate a motor vehicle would surely disappear. The founders could not have imagined the telephone, TV, radio, the internet - and there are horrible abuses of those technologies - but we don't want to lose our right to free speech just because some people are irresponsible. I'd also point out that most (by a huge percentage) crimes committed with firearms are perpetrated by people who do not legally obtain and possess those weapons. Also, in the last few years the number of states allowing concealed carry has greatly increased. I think that number is currently 42. There has been no documented increase in gun violence in those states - though contrary to what gun advocates would have us think, having more concealed carriers has not led to a measurable decrease in crime, either. And I know this is getting too long, but just one more point... My view is that this issue is much deeper than gun ownership. Amara alluded to the point - do we defend the constitution and exercise our ownership of the government of this country, or do we acquiesce and simply allow others decide how we should live our lives? If you don't defend the constitution now, how will you stop them when they say your house it too big, and you must move to a govt controlled apartment, or you can no longer drive your car, or choose where you go to school, or even discuss your belief or skepticism re; the paranormal?
|
|
|
Post by amara1369 on May 10, 2008 8:00:43 GMT -11
Very good points stick. I think sadly, that things have gone too far with the government, and if we use our rights, and try to enforce what the constitution was originally for, we'd be thrown in jail and called either a terrorist, or aligned as a kooky militiaist...... (sp?) There are just too many pple that are easily blindsided with, "OOOOO look at this random stupid pretty thing they're shoving into our faces!!" (Britney Spears debacle anyone?) It's become a fast paced world, and everyone believes, "I don't have the time, let someone else fight for me." type of mind set....
|
|
|
Post by xXSpookyXx on May 10, 2008 10:46:32 GMT -11
In Kennesaw GA it is a law that all home owners must have a gun. The crime rate according to all reports has dropped drastically since then. KENNESAW, Ga - Several Kennesaw officials attribute a drop in crime in the city over the past two decades to a law that requires residents to have a gun in the house. www.rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htmThe New American magazine reminds us that March 25th marked the 16th anniversary of Kennesaw, Georgia's ordinance requiring heads of households (with certain exceptions) to keep at least one firearm in their homes. The city's population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996 (latest available estimate). Yet there have been only three murders: two with knives (1984 and 1987) and one with a firearm (1997). "After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982. And it has stayed impressively low. In addition to nearly non-existent homicide (murders have averaged a mere 0.19 per year), the annual number of armed robberies, residential burglaries, commercial burglaries, and rapes have averaged, respectively, 1.69, 31.63, 19.75, and 2.00 through 1998." www.mcsm.org/kennesaw.html25 years murder-free in ‘Gun Town USA’ Crime rate plummeted after law required firearms for residents felonsforguncontrol.wordpress.com/2007/04/20/kennesaw-ga/Now...with that said...I will say this...I am from a state where you have to jump leaps and bounds just to have a regular hunting rifle and forget about getting a pistol unless you can give a reason for it outside of just desiring it for defense of your home. Moreover, my state does not like you to even have self protection means such as pepper spray without special permits. If I were to think like a criminal then my thoughts would be that pretty much anyone on the street is a free picking for if I wanted to commit a crime against them. What disturbed me is inspite of our strict gun control laws, when I called the police after having found live bullets just outside my work in a nearby city, the officer that responded remarked by saying this "You'd be surprised at how many illegal guns are in this city, more illegal guns than there are people." I thought about it but wasn't at all surprised because the only thing that law managed to accomplish was disarming law abiding citizens whom care about the state laws. As for the criminals, they don't follow the laws anyways so why would they follow this one?
|
|
|
Post by xXSpookyXx on May 10, 2008 10:49:29 GMT -11
Exactly! when ever we allow the government to infer so much we do it at the expense of our own liberties. Not necessarily just this issue but I am seeing a lot of things where I am resenting the interference.
|
|