Gun Control Anyone?

sorry greenlover, most of my post was not directed at you (like the Hippy actavist part).

and i guess i have been assuming that if a criminal is commiting a crime he will use a gun because, as you say, it is the easiest weapon to use. who is going to rob a bank with a knife? ane what about school shootings? there are several such events but no instances where someone took a knife or a baseball bat to school and started attacking random people.

i have no idea about that last thing. i haven't heard anything about that judge. does sound a little rediculous though.

I think that Ferris is right. In most cases, one tries to stop the most dangerous attempt instead of the smaller stuff. Therefore, controling the use of guns will in fact do the job of targeting the most dnagerous accessible weapon(obviously a bomb is better, but less common).

I'm pretty sure that a person cannot do that, even that judge. After all, this isn't a liberal view of the Constitution. It disobeys the Constitution in strict and liberal senses. I hope he gets fried. What is the 2nd ammendment anyways, lol?

Ferris:
Yeah, I just figure that once guns are outa the picture-as that seems to be what people will eventually aim for, at least I'm told-that people are going to turn to other weapons to commit crimes. I know kids at my sister's school who have brought in knives to fights; plus my school has gone through six bomb threats within the last two years; and in my neighborhood, bats are a preferred weapon and cars, cannot forget cars.

I guess I just have more experience with other weapons besides guns. :shrugs:

BioHazard:
The second amendment is the right to bear arms. And yes, point taken. It does make a lot of sense to target the most available and dangerous weapon.

I guess what it comes down to is, is freedom or protection more important, neh? America seems to have already decided on that issue, so I guess us pro-guns are just going to have to make sure gun control doesn't go too far.

Greenlover17

That's the beauty of America. Everyone pisses eachother off to have a happy balance.

True, mostly, anyway.

Greenlover17

Well, you have to love how someone goes and brings a dead thread back...

Anyways, let’s get started shall we?

You say that people commit crimes because they have access to guns, I agree with this to an extent. People commit crimes because that is human nature; guns are simply a means for them to execute their crime. Now they let’s look at an analogy. People drink and drive all the time killing thousands of innocent people that they may or may not know each year. So what would you proposal be for this? If it’s parallel to your solution for guns then you'll either ban cars or alcohol. Since banning cars would be ridiculous, although appealing, you would ban the alcohol (like banning the gun but bullets are still allowed). Now then, if you know your history you know what happened last time alcohol was banned, riots, INCREASE of crime rate, and homemade alcohol that was a lot less safe being made. Now consider the saying "he who knows not the past is doomed to repeat it" and tell me what you think might happen.

For those of you that can’t quite picture it. People making makeshift guns that misfire half the time killing themselves along with the intended target, whether that be an attacker or a victim. People coming up with alternate, more lethal and harder to control weapons, like bombs for instance.

Now here's a scenario for you: you see some thug holding up a little old lady, your grandmother let’s say, for her purse in some back alley. He has a gun that he acquired illegally but you have nothing because you had to turn in yours. So what do you do? Your choices are now let the old lady potentially die, if the thug decides to kill her after getting her stuff, or you can risk your life to try and stand up for her, even with no weapon. Chances are, it ends horribly.

Now, same scenario but you have a concealed weapons permit and your carrying your .45 double action colt revolver. Now you have the means to stand up for your grandma with now a 50% reduction in the possibility of anyone getting hurt.

So you would pass up that 50% chance to save your grandmother? I personally would not.

And now for your points.

1. How many people die from not having access to a gun to defend themselves? Maybe you shouldn’t restrict guns but instead strive to teach people more about them. That solves this issue quite nicely.
2. No, they wouldn’t shoot people; instead they would go with a much more destructive course of action. A gun at least has the power to end a life quickly. Stab someone and let them bleed to death. I can almost guarantee you they'll be begging for you to SHOOT THEM.

People commit crimes, not due to access to guns, but due to circumstances that lead to them wanting to take the course of action that would require a gun.

Just because it’s harder to get one does not at all mean that they criminal cannot get one. There are plenty of ways for them to acquire a gun if they really want one. Why, they could simply go out and steal one, they are criminals after all.

Now, I believe I have thoroughly covered all of your points and them plenty of extra. I have not ignored any of it, to my knowledge. So if I have, please enlighten me and I will gladly pay extra special attention to that segment.

The right to bear arms is a fundamental right guaranteed to American citizens by the Constitution. The right to bear arms is not absolute and rightfully so as some individuals should not be trusted with weapons. The idea that possession of weapons should be confined only to members of militia is absurd. Militias are no longer used as there have been no wars on American soil in well over one hundred years. The right to bear arms can ultimately make America a safer country.
Police in America cannot protect everyone, nor are they expected to. The police forces across America are intended to protect the public in general not individual persons. Warren vs. DC stated “courts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community." Dade County Florida can be used as a prime example of how police cannot be at every crime scene. Former Florida Attorney General Jim Smith told Florida legislators that police responded to only about 200,000 of 700,000 calls for help (28.57%) to Dade County authorities. Additionally in many instances authorities were not able to respond to a crime scene for more than an hour, too late for anything to be done. The Department of Justice has recognized this and only a few years ago in 1989 it was reported that in 168,881 cases it took longer than an hour for authorities to respond. When police are not at a crime scene; who is left to protect the people besides themselves?
When civilians posses guns, criminals are less likely to commit crimes; they fear for their own safety. A study that polled criminals conducted by the National Institute for Justice showed 60% agreed that "a criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun."; 57% agreed that "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police." and 74% agreed that "one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime. In 1982, in Kennesaw, Georgia, a law was passed ensuring every household had one weapon in the household. Subsequently, the residential burglary rate in Kennesaw dropped eighty nine percent. Criminals fear guns and with less regulation on gun control crime can be reduced.
Controlling guns would be blatantly against the Constitution and this is just another reason why guns should be less regulated. In 1982 the US Senate subcommittee on the Constitution reported that “The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner." The Supreme Court has ruled in United States v. Vergudo-Urquidez that “the people” mentioned in the Second Amendment are the same as those mentioned in the rest of the Constitution. In Near v. Minnesota the Supreme Court ruled that government officials should punish the abuse of a right and not place prior restraints on the exercise of the right. Gun ownership is an essential right guaranteed to citizens by the Constitution, and depriving citizens of this right would deprive them of their freedom.
Throughout our history guns are what have kept our nation safe. There are many instances such as in Kennesaw Alabama where more weapons in the town have actually lowered the crime rate. Criminals have even said that they are afraid of committing a crime against someone with a gun. Additionally the Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms and the Supreme Court has continuously reinforced this right.

You people are ridiculous. Just because someone owns a gun does NOT mean that they can protect themselves. Even if they CAN shoot a gun at a target, what does that have to do with a real life situation? Not one person is going to be in their right mind when a criminal enters their house. A freaked out citizen with no training at all and a gun, what a lovely combo.

That's what you're all supporting. And that's why the U.S. has the highest rate of gun related deaths and injuries a year over any other country.

P.S. You can't argue that someone will be able to protect themselves. Don't even try to, you'll waste your time and end up sounding ridiculous.

P.P.S. I have the best post #.

well say the same bank robbers decide to go to, oh i dont know, into the military at some point. (before they do said act) and bring home an m-16 or somethin. come to think of it, the county commisioner of my county which i am long time friends w/ his family, has 2 light rocket launchers in his garage. being in the military gives these guys HUGE advantages on police weaponry and statistics show that many veterans of any war are least likely to bounce into society and live a normal life. by allowing a police officer have an automatic weapon, it opens up an opportunity for them. robber has nice gun, accurate, little ammo though. runs out after killing 3 cops, its a free for all w/ an ex marine and an automatic assault rifle. its illogical.

yup, Chance, the problem comes from the law's duty to protect the people. Yes, people are granted the right to bear arms in the constitution, yet if they use those guns to kill, threaten or hurt others, thus becoming criminals, shouldn't the law be able to prevent said tragedies from happening? That's the nature of the argument with gun control- or at least the reasons that I see for it. Personally, I think it's a necessary evil that's needed to hopefully reduce the violence quotas. Well, just look at Canada for example- their gun laws are very strict and they seem to have a much smaller crime rate than we do.
__________________