jex

lol hey why not make it 5. Our armed police force is highly trained Dude. They carry various weapons (Pistols, SMG's, Rifles) and have the tactics to use them. The SAS only come out when the police can't do their job and the local bobby I'd rather not see armed. I'd say bring back pistol ownership - how much gun crime was around when they were legal?

Miko the point about the right to bear arms was solely for the defence of the country back when america was a colony I think. Owning a handgun doesn't equal freedom though, anymore than does owning a car. They aren't needed unless the populace is going to rise in armed rebellion so owning an AR is really for the want of the individual. Considering the amount of retards I bump into on a daily basis, that alone should be enough to secure a total ban.

__________________
Jex

Cobra

Do you think a criminal cannot get this type of gun with this ban? My point is, dont cut off law abiding citizens. Thats what this ban does.

jex

Well we have a ban over here and it is very rare anything other than pistols are used in crimes so yes a ban can be effective. If there is no supply then finding a supplier for arms would be pretty hard.

Why do law abiding citizens need AR's? Surely a more mature approach would be to say no, let's not have them because we'd rather see some sort of kurbing on weapon sales? Perhaps this would limit supply and make it harder for criminals to get them. Having no ban means easy access.

__________________
Jex

Geisha

I agree with this.
I disagree with this. It might have to do with the shooting range, and it might have to do with jex's point about collectors having to give up antiques/interesting items. How does repealing the Brady Bill, which according to Cing was limited to only certain assault rifles and sounds pretty ineffective, put thousands of people at risk that weren't at risk before? At risk from what, precisely? Your post is a little vague. It has been pointed out by multiple people in this thread that most gun-related crimes are committed using pistols; that seems to have a lot more to do with practicality than accessibility. In fact, it's because they're more practical for the average citizen that legislators would have a much harder time banning pistols.

There are two points about gun laws that are repeated ad nauseum by proponents of gun rights and perpetually ignored by antagonists:
1) Legal guns are not sold to proven criminals. Potential criminals who legally purchase guns are opening themselves up to easily-traced ownership.
2) Illegal guns are sold regardless of whether they are banned or merely controlled. Bans just keep guns out of the hands of LAW-ABIDING citizens who wouldn't be using them to commit crimes anyway.

Cing - I wonder if it's possible that the Brady Bill as you describe it got passed in the first place as a flashy but low-substance appeasement to supporters of gun control? Maybe its inconsistencies were deliberate? I have do some more reading on what precisely the Brady Bill entails, but it seems to me that it won't make a difference either way in the crime level, and that it's really only important as a precedent for controlling guns at all.

TheFeniX

Once again: 99% of criminals don't use "Assault Rifles." A pistol is the weapon of choice. And you can't claim that Assault Rifles will cause "thousands of deaths" without evidence to back that claim up.

Uzi's and the like or not covered under the Assault Weapons ban. I can buy one for around $200 US. This comment has no bearing on the issue.

You're assuming that Assault Rifles make crimes of passion earier to commit? Someone is going to go out and buy an illegal Assault Rifle for >$1000 US, when he could get a pistol at a gun show for ~$80 US? And if he owned guns, he would choose the large rifle compared to the compact pistol to accost someone who "talked trash" about his girlfriend?

I would like to see details on that situation ever happening.

Guns aren't embedded into UK culture. American's had hard years where they needed a good rifle to survive. These habits are passed down from generation to generation. This created a culture.

Also, Your entire country is half the size of Texas and water-locked. Much easier to regulate than a multi-cultural, multi-lingual, coninent spanning country that boarders two other countries and has a GNP greater than the entirety of Europe, that has had guns from day one.

jex

So how come canada has less gun crime but more guns per capita? What exactly is the process one has to go through to get a gun in the states and canada legally?

__________________
Jex

MikoLovesYou

On this logic, why not legalize drugs? I mean, people are going to get them regardless if they are illegal or not, right?




You guys have yet to answer my question: What purpose do we have for legalizing Assault Weapons besides collectors wanting them and having them for shooting ranges? Is there any reason besides entertainment?

__________________

jex

Yeah yeah - legalise drugs!

__________________
Jex

luna

It seems to me that the issue here is not the gun itself, so much as what one decides to do with the gun when they have it. Alcohol is legal, yet in the wrong hands can and has lead to many fatalities. Drugs in general are illegal, but they're still around. Some use them and cause no one but themselves harm, others go out on killing sprees.

It's not the gun that is the problem, no matter what kind of gun we're discussing. It's the person who makes poor choices while using the gun that is the problem.

__________________
Resurgent's New Motivational Motto:
"Now train harder! Live inside your character! If it dies, YOU DIE! Focus!"

Jesus had a soulstone.

jex

Perhaps the issue is a poor selection process unless people think everyone should be able to own a gun? Put a gun in the hand of an uneducated idiot (and how many of them prevail?) then expect the worst but don't complain when they go on a killing spree. If people except that guns are part of the culture then they shouldn't complain when their children, husbands, mothers, etc are shot and killed by guns. The two go together. At least if they are illegal people could voice an opinion. If people agree to a gun culture then they must agree to an abuse of that unless they know nothing of the human psyche, in which case they shouldn't own a gun.

__________________
Jex

fr1j0l3

well... it looks like...

Assault Weapons Ban Wins 10-Year Extension in U.S. Senate Vote
..

My two cents:

I'm all for the AW ban that is in place. If you really want to build an AR15, it's not that hard. All the ban does is limit the configurations of the rifle.

I have a handgun in my home (ruger 9mm). I was suprised to find how easy it was to get.

And luna, we do have alchohol, but it's regulated. There are still abuses, and that's bound to happen. I liken this to another mass-killer in our society: cars.

We all must go through hoops to procure a divers license. a 3000 pound hunk of metal flying down the freeway can be really dangerous in the hands of someone that does not know what to do. why not treat rifles and such the same way?

Accidents happen in both cars and guns, the more educated one is with both, the less likely accidents are to happen.

The funny part is, the NRA is scared to let the govt make a gun registration program, for fear of getting put on a list of gun owners to be confiscated later when the UN comes to ravage our land. But these same folks are all signed up with the NRA rolls...

This will be a sticky point for a while.... Do we still want to classify a "right" to bear arms, or should it be a "priveldge" to bear arms that comes with responsibility?

Geisha

The same argument doesn't apply to drugs because of the different uses thereof. Illegal drugs = health-destroying if used in any form and purely recreational. Guns (in general) = self-protection and only dangerous when improperly used. Guns (special assault rifles) = possibly recreational, possibly a capital investment in the form of antiques or collector's items and again only dangerous if improperly used. You show me a person who collects drugs to protect their home or to leave in their will to their grandkids and then I'll let you apply this standard pro-gun argument to drugs.

Next: Legal <> Easy to Get. There would still be restrictions on purchasing assault rifles, and I'm more or less with fr1j0l3 in that I approve of some restrictions.
You are correct in that collectors wanting them for display, investments, or shooting ranges are the only real reasons since they're not practical for home defense. I think we differ in believing whether this is a valid reason for owning an assault rifle in particular. I think it's OK, but I would like to see "Proper Handling and Maintenance" encouraged and possibly even tests for a license. (Mind you, in Texas they handed me a driver's license with a total of 4 hours on the road, 12 hours in a movie-screen "simulator" and my only test was the written one - scary thought.)

Restrictions on scary-looking guns isn't my concern for this particular thread. Establishing a precedent for outlawing guns completely is. The more I read, the less I think the Brady Bill is a help or a hindrance to either concern, so my answer is an ambivalent: Whatever.

Geisha

Sorry to double post but I want to comment on this... If I agree to a steak-knife culture, does that mean I shouldn't complain if someone stabs my husband to death with a knife? How about only licensed baseball players carrying baseball bats, because those can be used as weapons too? I don't know, maybe I'm making bad analogies here.

I can't see that agreeing to legalize proper usage (gun ranges, legal hunting, display pieces) is agreeing to accept or expect improper usage (harming another person). Did I misunderstand you somewhere, jex?


I think education is more important and ultimately more effective than a ban.

TheFeniX

Moderated use of many drugs has found to have no long-term health effects on humans. Overuse is the key word, as drinking too much water can cause you to OD and die.

That said: smoking, drinking, eating saltly/fatty foods and a whole score of other activities are not only legal, but kill many times the amount of people than recreational drug use does.

Funny sidenote: when I was 16, it was easier to get a pound a weed (marijuana) than it was to get a 6 pack of beer.

Bah, I'm digressing.

The problem with any government pushed program is that it's always going to contain FUD (Fear, uncertainty, and doubt). People are going to eat up the ominous music and biased buzzwords. It's simple marketing. Why do any research on the issue when you can point a finger at some invisible threat (terrorists, filthy Columbian drug cartels, etc) to procure support?

DudeMan

thats the reason nothing else is being used thats what i have been trying to say. there are no guns that we can sell accept hand guns because they are not readily available.

jex i am very sorry you had to give up your hand guns, but your comment about the bobby with a gun i agree with but operation TRident was in the preliminary stages before the gun ban

the gun ban was brought about because of increasing gun crime. and yes it has not done much but it has done something. you are wrong when you say because of the gun ban there was an increase in gun crimes.. yeah like the criminal waits till they ban guns to use them...

gun crime has always been present in england and its only because of gangs comming into our cities from jamaca and west inies that the guns havebeeen used more often. most gun crimes are being commited by gangs from the west indies or jamaca or just now m,ore than ever london gangs that compete.

it is not a result of the gun crime ban more than anything it is a result of the drug clamp down because they are fighting for turf.