straightUp Loc: California

Funny how we can't seem to beat them.


There's a place near Vegas like that. Been there a few times.


That seems kind of stupid.


Why do you have to be so dramatic? You said "nothing", which is an extreme word because you're being dramatic about the issue. If you said "little" I would have agreed with you, because I think limiting access to firearms to honest people does little to prevent crime. All it does is decrease the availability of firearms that can be taken from honest but careless gun owners.

But you know what? "Little" is better than "nothing". THAT is what gun-control is about. There *IS* no way to prevent crime entirely and we *KNOW* this, so it would be nice if your advocacy would stop assuming THAT is the object of gun control.

The other extreme aspect of your statement is the absence of any qualifier when you say "access to firearms". As if we want to cut off citizens from ALL firearms. :roll: That just isn't true.

It's human nature to get dramatic about things that we are attached to emotionally and as I've just pointed out, drama can lead to extreme language, which leads to inaccuracy, which is something people don't usually care about anyway when they're being emotional... which is usually fine. But genuine problems arise when you add people who are just naive, like the children that grow up with their father's drama ingrained in their minds and before you know it there's a whole generation of idiots that seriously think the drama is real.

RWNJ

And just how are you going to do that? Besides, very few people are allowed to own and sell fully automatic weapons. Full auto weapons are not the problem, and you know it. And if you got your wish, what next? Ban semi auto weapons? Then you'd want to ban bolt action weapons, then flintlocks.

straightUp Loc: California

I already got my wish... gun control that bans full auto. That is WHY full auto isn't a problem.

A ban on semi-autos would further reduce the kill capacity of civilians so I'm not entirely against that either even thought it would mean I would have to give up my 1911, but I only use that at the range and I haven't been in a while, so I'm not exactly clinging to it. Still, I don't think I would support a total ban on semi-automatics simply because it would be (in my opinion) unrealistic to expect all Americans to just hand in their semi-automatics. I might agree with restrictions on new sales or other options like limits on high capacity magazines. The whole point is to try and reduce the number of innocent people being killed by assholes and idiots alike with too much firepower in their hands. There is nothing wrong with bolt-action or any other kind of manual loading system for defense against crime.

peter11937 Loc: NYS

When I as in the Army at Ft. Carson, someone came onto the post with the correct bumper stickers and a Capetian's uniform. He drew three full automatic weapons from the brigade armory, and signed for them. They were to be used in a comparison class he was an instructor in. He then put them in his POV and drove back off post. One, an M-2 .45 ACP "grease gun" showed up in Chicago a few months later after having been used in a crime. Back in the Weather underground days, they raided a National Guard Armory in NYC, and made off with a large number of military rifles. Don't know if they were recovered or not. Having stood guard at Ft. Carson at one depot, I can tell you that taking a armory out by killing the guard would be relatively easy. At the time between a change of guard is a number of hours, the criminal would be long gone before they were detected. There's quite a bit more, but the military has vulnerabilities , as do the cops. Note that some recent murders or attempted murders were committed using a cop gun ......

straightUp Loc: California

Maybe improved security at the national armories should be part of the gun control plan.

RWNJ

And you believe this in spite of the fact that gun laws have no impact on violent crime? You really are an idiot.

peter11937 Loc: NYS

With the military, all that is needed is Pentagon review of security and a order to amend their ways as directed. State Nat. Guard, that's the Gov.'s job.

peter11937 Loc: NYS

Auto loe rurned out in any machine shop in hourd or woth private milling and drilling machines with lathe , a couple a day taking whatever cartridge you have on hand. Over 100 years ago someone even built a semi automatic revolver. The horse is long gone out of the barn. It was done in Australia a few ears ago, and the murder rate dropped, only to go right back up to where it was before the confiscations after less than 2 years....

straightUp Loc: California

That is not a fact - so that makes YOU the idiot.

straightUp Loc: California

Yeah, I guess I have to agree since the Depart of Defense runs under the Executive Branch. I wonder how much it would cost.

RWNJ

Educate yourself.
http://www.google.com/search?q=Gmailn+laws+have+no+effect+on+crime&oq=Gmailn+laws+have+no+effect+on+crime&aqs=chrome..69i57.18775j0j4&client=ms-android-hms-tmobile-us&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#q=Gun+laws+have+no+effect+on+crime

mark13 Loc: usa

World wide auto accidents kill about 1,350,000 people each year while the governments that have disarmed their citizens murder about 1,200,000 of those citizens each year and cripple, main, displace some 4 x more... that is close to a 1 to 1 ratio with collateral damage running at x 4...

In the USA we experience about 40,000 auto deaths per year and about 2,000 murders not drug/other common crime related; so, that produces a much more livable situation at a 20 to 1 ratio : autos to muders.

But, don't let UN and/or Government figures confuse you.

Hemiman Loc: Communist California

We won't but thanks for the math class, it's very human of you too take the time.

straightUp Loc: California

Seriously? I've been debating this issue since 1978... and your response to my VERY EDUCATED opinion is a link to a Google search for "Gun laws have no effect on crime" and a suggestion that I educate myself?

You have NO idea how much that says about you.

straightUp Loc: California

Ha, ha... you say that after posting numbers with no source. I'd say you're the easiest kind of person for the government to confuse.

Without getting into the numbers that you failed to provide any proof of, I'm just going to point out something that should be obvious to anyone.

World figures are generally compiled from similar statistics across ALL nations. Among the nations of the world there are some brutal dictatorships. We don't have a brutal dictatorship. We brutalize other countries, but our government is not hostile to it's own citizens. So if your 1.2 million figure is based on "democide" as you are suggesting, the reason why our national ratio looks so much better is because our government doesn't have a policy of systematically killing it's citizens. It has noting to do with our freedom to bear arms. Since Americans have no actual experience living in a country that systematically kills it's citizens, it's not surprising that fantasies of holding back a government with small arms can still flourish. But that's all it is... fantasy. If our government actually decided to implement a policy of systematic democide, the only thing our semi-automatics would do is insure those bearing them die first.

This isn't 1789 anymore. The government control capacity has been upgraded significantly from muskets, horses and a few cannons... so if we want to defend ourselves against it today, we're gonna need to do more than sit on a porch with a "legal" shotgun. In the meantime, just be thankful that you and your guns are here and not in one of those countries pushing up the worldwide democide stats.