Originally Posted by cbwm

If you are worried about a little old lady packing heat, she ceases to be the easy target she may previously have been.

This is true, but it also applies to the dude with borderline personality disorder who you need to ask or tell to stop throwing his cigarette butts on your property. I could do the passive aggressive thing and just shoot the b****** next time I see him coming down the road, and heck, I could even drag his body onto the corner of my property and claim self defense. Or I could talk to him in what I know is going to be an unpleasant exchange, and worry about getting shot myself because, as you said

Originally Posted by cbwm

Guns up the ante and even the odds.

Guns up the ante - whether it needs upping or not. Guns don't even the odds, though. If I come at granny with my gun already drawn, I still have the advantage over her. If she has hers ready while mine is still hidden away, than I'm toast. Guns don't even anything - they hand over the advantage to whoever is willing and able to afford to carry one and have it ready.

Originally Posted by cbwm

If you think being shot is one of the potential outcomes of bad behavior (including bank robbery), the number of people willing to perform said bad behavior obviously goes down.

Thing is, being shot is one of the potential outcomes of any behavior, including being caught by a stray bullet in a drive by in LA. Maybe we should consider a benefit that a bunch of frightful suburban kids probably stay out of the ghetto for this reason and don't get hooked on crack.

But the point is anything that comes with having a gun doesn't only apply to the good guys - and that's the problem. There's probably a way to mitigate that, but it involves gun control. Making sure only the most responsible people can have one is one way to go about that.

If I want a gun, the results of this poll say I should be able to have one. Whether I'm a criminal, a cop, or what. Now, when I'm tired of having it in the back of a closet somewhere and need some money to get my wife a really nice present, I'm gonna sell my gun on eBay. And why shouldn't I be compensated for my labor, having got a weapon in the first place? Clearly there's something wrong with this scenario.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

Like with PageRank, I don't know that it's appropriate to say it's punishment that a person can't have a gun, or PR 7, or their welfare check. Especially if either guns were removed across the board (back in that bottle, genie!) or if it was more like cars, and people earned the right to have firearms.

It is a punishment. I enjoy hunting with my family, and enjoy the meat we harvest. The only deer I have ever harvested was with my rifle. I get the opportunity to go twice a season if I'm very lucky and getting a deer close enough to humanly harvest it with a bow is a much harder than it looks on tv.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

From my standpoint, decades is much better than never.

That would only be the pre-fab guns. Guns were around a long time before they started being mass produced. Just like during prohibition, if guns were outlawed, immoral people with the motivation would find alternate ways to produce them.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

Same is true for DVD decryption software and P2P networking, but all those torrents are still getting shut down. I personally think the risk of someone getting shot is even worse than the risk of me buying an album and making a copy for my friend.

Laws are need to regulate guns - I am not arguing that there should not be laws. In fact, I think it is far too easy to purchase a gun. There is no waiting period to by a shotgun/rifle. There is no gun safety mandate to purchase one either. To obtain a hunting license you have to take a 10 hour safety course (in NY, but my hunter safety course will transfer to any other state, Canada, Mexico and Africa at the very least), but not to own a gun. There is a written exam, but every class I have witnessed (my own and my children's) the instructors gave you the answers so there was not a chance to fail even if you hadn't paid attention to a single word.

I could leave my house right now and buy a gun in less than 10 minutes - completely legally, bring it home and shoot my next door neighbor if I was so inclined. It's not even that difficult to obtain a hand gun license. You need 5 people to testify that you are a responsible person, take a 40 hour course and pass a 50 question written exam. Yes, there is a waiting period and you can't get one if you have a felony record....but that's about it.

If I were to propose a law for gun control it would be much more strict than the ones that are in place now. It would be illegal to store firearms in the same room as ammunition. It would be illegal to have the ammunition unsecured. There's more I would enact, but I'm late for a meeting . I'll finish this a bit later.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

But the point is anything that comes with having a gun doesn't only apply to the good guys - and that's the problem. There's probably a way to mitigate that, but it involves gun control. Making sure only the most responsible people can have one is one way to go about that.

I would argue that anything that comes with gun control ONLY applies to the good guys, as the bad guys are outside of the law anyway(thus the word out-law).

Regarding your borderline neighbor, who needs a gun? He or you could just fill a liter coke bottle with gasoline stuff a rag in the spout, light it and pitch it through the other's window at 3:00 in the morning while he sleeps. You could roll up on his car at the same hour with a mask and a baseball bat and take out all the windows and slash the tires. Wait till he bails for work and sledge hammer the gas feed where it enters his house, give it 15 minutes, and flick a cigarette butt. Wait for him to leave and maim his pets. You could.....

I think you get my point. If you want to be VERY BAD to your neighbor, or he to you, up to and including something resulting in someones death, you hardly need a gun to do it effectively. The only thing gun laws are going to ensure is that you are defenseless when he comes for you.

On this great day, the supreme court spaketh unto us the meaning of the constitution. As it turns out, we, as individuals, have the right to bear arms in the U.S.. Duh. The English language hasn't changed that much in 200 years. Nevertheless, its a decision worth celebrating, so I decided to resurrect this dead thread. I think I'll crack myself a beer next, and clean and oil all the guns. Whose with me?

One can carry other forms of protection that is not as harmful as guns... Could be mace, or pepper spray

Originally Posted by cbwm

On this great day, the supreme court spaketh unto us the meaning of the constitution. As it turns out, we, as individuals, have the right to bear arms in the U.S.. Duh. The English language hasn't changed that much in 200 years. Nevertheless, its a decision worth celebrating, so I decided to resurrect this dead thread. I think I'll crack myself a beer next, and clean and oil all the guns. Whose with me?

You know I am

You guys should try living in the UK.

Here in the UK we don't have any "right to bear arms". We never had any Forefathers, hell, we don't even have a constitution.

We used to have two types of gun licence, a "shotgun licence" (for farmers, clay pigeon shooters, etc) and a "firearms certificate" (for hand guns for club type target practice hobbyists). We've never had the right to use guns to defend ourselves.

I used to have a firearms certificate and several hand guns. In those days there were very few "guns on the street". Criminals didn't feel the need to have them (as a general rule) and most certificate holders were responsible people. Incidentally, we had to keep them in locked gun cabinets, were only allowed to carry them (concealed) when going to or from a gun club, and never have them loaded unless inside the club. Even when at home, we would not be allowed to use them in defense, even against an armed intruder. We had to allow ourselves to be killed instead.

Then on the 13th March 1996 a "licenced" gun holder (who was of questionable mental stability) went into a junior school in Dunblane, Scotland, and killed 16 children, a teacher and then himself.

The government reaction was to revoke ALL firearms certificates and require us to hand over our fireams (I could see that happening in America). Since then we have had an enormous escalation of criminals carrying guns on our streets.

I don't profess to know what the answer is, but here in the UK we have a completely different set of laws on guns, and it doesn't work here either. It's generally claimed that you are less safe on the streets of London than the streets of New York.

I've lived in both extremes.. On the east coast we were allowed no firearms and crime was rampant.. I've also lived in the southwest where there is no concealed carry permit, you just wear your gun exposed so that everyone can see it.. Zero crime other than the random stupid teenager..

I'm 100% for the right to own a gun, but I'm also for regulating who can get them and under what circumstances.. Primarily forcing competent firearms safety, handling and shooting training on anyone that wants to own any weapon.. I grew up with guns, went target shooting at 6 or 7 years old and learned from day one how to handle a weapon.. I am stunned to see the way some 'adults' handle their guns.. They scare the hell out of me..

In my opinion, nobody.
Nobody should have guns, atleast that way we can have a semi-peceful world.

Starting with the premise that criminals don't obey the law, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that gun control only removes guns from the hands of law-abiding citizens, giving them less means to defend themselves. Removing all guns from society would be as perpetual a task as removing all drugs. How is the war against drugs that we've been waging for decades going again?

Originally Posted by nyef

Starting with the premise that criminals don't obey the law, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that gun control only removes guns from the hands of law-abiding citizens, giving them less means to defend themselves. Removing all guns from society would be as perpetual a task as removing all drugs. How is the war against drugs that we've been waging for decades going again?

Well you asked and I answered.

Originally Posted by nyef

Starting with the premise that criminals don't obey the law, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that gun control only removes guns from the hands of law-abiding citizens, giving them less means to defend themselves. Removing all guns from society would be as perpetual a task as removing all drugs. How is the war against drugs that we've been waging for decades going again?

They've been fairly successful with removing guns in Britain haven't they? So much so that I've seen a few articles about the problems with knife attacks in the UK, heh.

Originally Posted by ECSuite_Russell

They've been fairly successful with removing guns in Britain haven't they? So much so that I've seen a few articles about the problems with knife attacks in the UK, heh.

Knife attacks are rampant over here, mostly kids killing kids.

Soon, the knives will be gone, instead you'll have mace attacks and stuff like that.
Envronmetalists will probably say the deaths are good for the earth.
Less population, less pressure on resources et all.

I got a protester to hit me way back in college.. He was holding a sign that said spend money on food not bombs.. I merely "suggested" that if we used the bombs we wouldn't need as much food..

I love watching self proclaimed pacifists become violent.. It warms a special part in my soul when it happens..

i still believe that only the police are should have guns..when i say police meaning there are trained and not abusive of their power....sometimes ordinary citizens who got guns tends to boast that they got them and the gun really make their self confidence high..so high that they could start to fight..

Originally Posted by KML9870

It is a punishment. I enjoy hunting with my family, and enjoy the meat we harvest.

By that logic, if I were younger and single, and "on the prowl" to find women, if none would go home with me, that would also be punishment. I enjoy companionship. But that doesn't mean the world is obligated to provide it for me, or that I'm being punished if I don't get any.

If it was just your enjoyment that gave you the right aka entitlement to own a gun, than a criminal's enjoyment of robbing banks would give him the right to rob banks, and we'd have to say it's punishment to not allow him to. But nobody would actually say that. And the same reasons apply to bank robbing and gun owning. Note that I'm not saying nobody on earth has the rights to own weapons, but that you can't count it as punishment to not get your way.

Originally Posted by nyef

Starting with the premise that criminals don't obey the law

But that's an incomplete premise. You can either say "don't do that!" or you can make it very difficult or even impossible to do that. How many criminals have you heard of that don't obey the law of gravity?

Originally Posted by ECSuite_Russell

They've been fairly successful with removing guns in Britain haven't they? So much so that I've seen a few articles about the problems with knife attacks in the UK, heh.

Of course, your chances of surviving an attack with a knife are a thousand times better than your chances of surviving an attack with a gun. Not to mention that you can kill or wound a person with a gun even if you're more than 3 feet away from them. I would see this as marked progress.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

Of course, your chances of surviving an attack with a knife are a thousand times better than your chances of surviving an attack with a gun.

Of course you know I'd have to post just to disagree with you . I'm fairly certain the chance of fatality from a knife wound is about equal to that of a gun wound, depending on where you are stabbed or shot of course.

Its a fun discussion but people... people... the game is over! The supreme court just decided that the right of an individual to own a gun and the use of the gun for self defense is protected by the constitution. Sure Scalia threw in an addendum that regulation should be part of ownership, but I think many will find this decision as influential as Rowe vs. Wade. So the anti-gun folk can go on and on and on, but this is not something that is going to change anytime soon. I'm sure the next attack will come in the form of regulation requirements so stringent as to make acquisition more difficult. I always got a chuckle out of the 4 bullet assault weapon clip limit.

Hmmmmmmmmmm

People with a good reason to need one (like if your house got broken into)

I like that answer best...........why you ask? Lets look at the other choices.

Anyone who wants one - no thats just stupid and utter nonsense.

Anyone but criminals - so is this one as it can include idiots and the unstable people of the world.

Only police, the army, and other public servants - with accountability - yea so when some jerk breaks into my house and trys to harm my family, what I am just going to hope that the cops show up in time to arrest him?

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

By that logic, if I were younger and single, and "on the prowl" to find women, if none would go home with me, that would also be punishment. I enjoy companionship. But that doesn't mean the world is obligated to provide it for me, or that I'm being punished if I don't get any.

If it was just your enjoyment that gave you the right aka entitlement to own a gun, than a criminal's enjoyment of robbing banks would give him the right to rob banks, and we'd have to say it's punishment to not allow him to. But nobody would actually say that. And the same reasons apply to bank robbing and gun owning. Note that I'm not saying nobody on earth has the rights to own weapons, but that you can't count it as punishment to not get your way.

It is a punishment to people who own firearms and use/handle them safely. The enjoyment I get from the guns we own comes from the time I spend with my family hunting. The hunting provides food for my family and helps control the animal population. We have all taken gun safety classes, and practiced safety long before taking the courses because we were raised by people who hunted. Usually one or more meals in my house a week is meat that we harvested. It saves my family hundreds of dollars a year easily. Taking away our right to hunt because there are idiots in the world that will use a gun for violence is not fair to the people who use them responsibly.

I have also, throughout this thread and others, advocated no one be allowed to own a gun without first taking safety classes. These classes have the potential to weed out the morons who would not handle a gun responsibly.