gun laws

The membership of AF is spread across countries with vastly different attitudes to firearms ownership and use.I'd like to know if people think it would be possible to standardize gun laws,and at what level such laws should be set.

I believe everyone has the right to own and bear arms. The only contigency would be No guns for convicted felons.

The problem is that laws cannot be on inanimate objects. They are on people. Enforce the laws that the US has on perpetrators who use guns to the fullest extent and put a gun in every law abiding citizen who wants one and crime will drop. Criminals are cowards, thats why they want powerful weapons and a victim who cannot defend themselves.

i think this world would be a better place overall without the use of guns. i see no need for them.

Originally posted by SickLude
i think this world would be a better place overall without the use of guns. i see no need for them.

So, are you saying we should have no option? That no one should be allowed to have guns?

Car enthusiasts advocating bans on guns are about as hypocritical as one can get.


I don't think its possible to standerdize gun laws, yet. For one thing, many undeveloped countries couldn't enforce laws that other countries would strongly desire to have(including armed rebels and such).

Originally posted by SickLude
i think this world would be a better place overall without the use of guns. i see no need for them. '

And how would it be a better place? I still haven't seen a gun commit a crime.

it not the guns but the people who use them that are dangerous.......:)

full denial of the dangers of gun's doesn't help anyone.

Almost any object used in a dangerous manner can hurt somebody.....but guns are purpose built to cause harm - you cant wave a garden gnome at someone from 30ft and take their life away in a second.

Thats why I don't think the general public should be allowed to use guns - with the possible exception of licences granted for the use of hunting rifles (for sporting use) after stringent checks carried out on the applicant.

My 02.

Originally posted by YogsVR4
The problem is that laws cannot be on inanimate objects. They are on people. Enforce the laws that the US has on perpetrators who use guns to the fullest extent and put a gun in every law abiding citizen who wants one and crime will drop. Criminals are cowards, thats why they want powerful weapons and a victim who cannot defend themselves. Enthusiastic 100% agreement. Well put, Yogs.Originally posted by V.S.
Car enthusiasts advocating bans on guns are about as hypocritical as one can get.I'm curious about what you are saying here. Care to elaborate?

Originally posted by MattyG
Almost any object used in a dangerous manner can hurt somebody.....but guns are purpose built to cause harm - you cant wave a garden gnome at someone from 30ft and take their life away in a second.

Thats why I don't think the general public should be allowed to use guns - with the possible exception of licences granted for the use of hunting rifles (for sporting use) after stringent checks carried out on the applicant.

My 02.

But then what do you do when the ruling government (who has the military) of whatever nation decides to perpetrate crimes against it's own citizens? It's a quandry that would plague all deomcratic nations with bans on the public's right to own firearms: the people have the power in terms of voting, but can't have the military power to convey the popular idea should the government choose to change things without their consent. And it's not about whether or not that has happened (it of course has), it's about the right itself. Which is why America's constitution gives the individual the right to bear arms and even form militia. It's how we threw the English off our backs in the first place.

Originally posted by JD@af
I'm curious about what you are saying here. Care to elaborate?

Cars kill people. Cars kill lots of people. Then again, we can't exactly just go ahead and get rid of them without really hurting society. But we do a lot less than get rid of them. We praise them. Us car enthusiasts spend as much time as possible in them, driving them, seeing just what we can do with them.

What if we were forced to drive only unmodified 50hp volvo-esque mobiles with governors set at.. 60? Actually, lets just force public transport on anyone that can't prove their job requires a private car. Racing series lead to driver deaths and encourage car fans to become more interested in racing, so lets ban all racing while we're at it.


Don't take this as a "judgement", I consider myself a car fan, despite knowing two people to have died in the past few years in car wrecks at a high school of 500. I'm just putting the risk of death in perspective when its your hobby thats at risk. Just because the media tells you that you want it, sensationalist legisation isn't the way to go.

Originally posted by V.S.


Cars kill people. Cars kill lots of people. Then again, we can't exactly just go ahead and get rid of them without really hurting society. But we do a lot less than get rid of them. We praise them.That's what I thought you were getting at. Just wanted to make sure. Any car is many times more dangerous than your average hand gun, or even most assault rifles. However, there are stark contrasts between cars and guns. I focus here on the fact that cars can do many other functional things than just kill people. Guns, on the other hand, are far less versatile.

guns to me just seem so sinical. i feel theres always other means in which we can get our point across, rather than being a coward and taking someones life 100 yards away. also, i see where your coming from with the cars reference, but i think there are, as JD said, stark contrasts between guns and cars.

you may be right, who knows? but personally, i just feel as though they are pointless and serve no purpose but to hurt in every way possible. i think this world would have been better off had they not existed in the first place...

and guns, i know, do not commit crimes. people do. but they are tools in which those people use to commit those crimes.

all im saying is, i see no positive side to owning or using a gun.

Originally posted by SickLude
guns to me just seem so sinical. i feel theres always other means in which we can get our point across, rather than being a coward and taking someones life 100 yards away. also, i see where your coming from with the cars reference, but i think there are, as JD said, stark contrasts between guns and cars.

you may be right, who knows? but personally, i just feel as though they are pointless and serve no purpose but to hurt in every way possible. i think this world would have been better off had they not existed in the first place...

and guns, i know, do not commit crimes. people do. but they are tools in which those people use to commit those crimes.

all im saying is, i see no positive side to owning or using a gun.

If we all felt the same and had respect for the peoples lives then their wouldnt be a need. But there are evil people who intend to do harm. Those people will use whatever tools at their disposal. If guns didnt exist, they'd use knives etc. To combat against that, people need protection and that can include firearms.

Its great if you feel safe and secure without one. I prefer to have my own protection. I live outside of town. If someone breaks into my home to do whatever diabolical (I love that word) deed they have in mind, its just me or my fiance and him. I sure in the hell am not going to lie down for any lowlife. The police aren't going to make it to stop him. Its my fiance or I who'll be putting a stop to him.

Us americans, we are used to being able to own a firearm. You can't make an amendment to the constitution with out a vote to the public. And frankly, I'm sure the bill would fall flat on it's face in a vote. The public wouldn't stand for it. And even though if you were to only allow guns to sport hunters and you can run all the checks you want, but someone will sell guns illegally to any one for the right price. The is always a way to get around something, no matter how strict it may be.

Originally posted by texan


But then what do you do when the ruling government (who has the military) of whatever nation decides to perpetrate crimes against it's own citizens? It's a quandry that would plague all deomcratic nations with bans on the public's right to own firearms: the people have the power in terms of voting, but can't have the military power to convey the popular idea should the government choose to change things without their consent. And it's not about whether or not that has happened (it of course has), it's about the right itself. Which is why America's constitution gives the individual the right to bear arms and even form militia. It's how we threw the English off our backs in the first place.

Excellent point! My Stetson tips to you sir!!

Originally posted by SickLude
guns to me just seem so sinical. i feel theres always other means in which we can get our point across, rather than being a coward and taking someones life 100 yards away.

Unfortunately I see this as a narrow minded view of another non gun owner.

These are the type of responses I get from non gun owners until I take them target shooting. Then in most cases, they are out buying their own gun, tagging along everytime I go. A lot of people I have shown the fun of the sport, now actively hunt, target shoot, or compete in trap events.

If you want to meet "real" gun owners, go down to you local trap/skeet range and talk to the people. These are your "real" gun owners. We have passed thurough backgrond checks, attended safety classes, and own guns for sport and pleasure... NOT TO KILL PEOPLE. Non of us wants to have to shoot someone that breaks into our house and threatens our family... but we have the option. We the "real" (by real, I mean legally own firearms) are not criminals, we are the criminals wost nightmare.

Don't believe the media hype you hear about guns being bad. Guns are inadimate objects that do not fire themselves.

Unfortunately a criminal can purchase an AK47 illegally pretty easy, and use it to commit crimes. This problem must be resolved, and making gun ownership illegal will not resolve this problem.

I was always taught -- Don't knock it till you try it. If you don't understand that, look at the post "What do you put on your fries" for a perfect example.

Thank you for enduring my babbling.

Warm and fuzzy feelings for peace and love are all great and wonderful. In fact, the world would be a far better place if everyone bought into the tree-hugger liberal thing. But not everyone does, and all it takes is ONE to not buy into it and paradise is lost.

If you've ever known a girl raped in her own home, if you've ever seen a man beat to death with a club/brick, if you've ever been the victim of a robbery or carjacking, I don't think you could deny how your situation or the victim's situation would be better if you or they had access to a firearm and were proficient in its use.

Bronsonator
[A man that's been there, and is alive to tell you about it today.
Police Officer, Retired. Los Angeles area, California.]

tireburner, i fully understand what your talking about. as far as, dont knock it till you've tried it or the "real" gun owners. i know of these people...i live in texas...:rolleyes: ...but whats more important is that i see past all that. i dont consider it fun. nor do i consider it "ok" just because its justifiable if you get ransacked in your home. now, i know most of us are probably not as safe as i am in my reality and thus, would need a gun for whatever protection reasons.

and i really wanna type more but i have to go to school..ill finish my train of thought when i get back....

deuces

SickLude :

Have fun! And PASS THAT TEST!!!!!!!!!!! :D :D :sun:

Originally posted by SickLude


all im saying is, i see no positive side to owning or using a gun.

I own a gun.For the same reason that I own a chainsaw,a pair of fencing pliers, and a post-hole borer.It is a standard tool of the rural lifestyle.

In New Zealand we are lucky to have a relatively low rate of firearms offending.This is perhaps due to our rigorous gun control laws,and the public perception of guns in general.Whilst a hunting rifle or shotgun is considered a legitimate piece of equipment,handguns and military style weapons are widely considered to be unneccesary and dangerous. As yet nobody else in this thread has bothered to differentiate between the various uses.

As a farm tools in N.Z.,small bore rifles and shotguns are essential for pest control.An excerpt here from a government policy document.-

"Another well recognised major environmental risk is that of damage to our forests and lands by pests, particularly possums. Possums now infest more than 90 per cent of the New Zealand countryside, every night eating an estimated 21,000 tonnes of foliage from trees and shrubs, native forests, threatening the survival of our native animals and plants and spreading bovine TB to our cattle and farmed deer in some areas.

Increased resources have been put into controlling possums and the Government has recognised that continuing investment in possum control must be made if we are to make in-roads into alleviating the possum problem. "

New Zealand has some of the finest sporting shooters in the world and has the highest number of Olympic medal winners per capita in this category.

Our gun laws are quite unusual in that it is relatively easy to obtain a gun licence,but also relatively easy to have it suspended or removed.A case in point....a family member was involved in a domestic incident last year,which was basically little more than a shouting match between himself and his daughter.His daughter rather naiively complained to her school counsellor the next day,and as a result,her father was taken to the police station for further inquiries.When his daughter arrived home and realised what had happened,she immediately contacted the police and tried to withdraw from the complaint.She was told that as she was a minor,the school had laid the complaint on her behalf and she had no say in the matter.....
Anyway,the case was dropped before any charges were laid.Strangely though the man's gun licence was revoked as a condition of his release.To date he has not re-appplied.

It seems that even in a supposedly liberal country such as N.Z. ,with no great history of armed offending and a stable democratic government,the anti-gun propaganda has succeded in turning all gun owners into pseudo-criminals. What little gun crime exists, exists mainly among biker gangs and is generally perpetrated on other gangs. Our police are trained in the use of firearms,but do not usually carry weapons. In the extremely rare event that a police officer uses a firearm,the ramifications for that officer are enormous.

I must confess that I started this thread knowing that many members would hold entrenched views at each end of the argument. I had hoped
that there would be a bit more reasoning behind those views,and that all at least some people would be able to see guns other than as tools for killing other people with.

As a responsible gun owner I am doing my bit for conservation by regularly reducing the number of possums in my neighborhood.We cannot sustain a parasite that clears our native forests at a rate of 21,000 tonsper night.I can also say without any shame that I enjoy stalking and dispatching the furry little bastards as well.
As a peace loving Kiwi,I am appalled by the notion that I should consider using this farm tool against another human being.For this reason,when not physically being used ,this potentially lethal piece of equipment stays firmly locked up in the proper manner as required by N.Z. law.

thanks Tireburner...i appreciate it. and apparently my prof dosent like to show up to my class...we waited and waited....and nothing...no prof...ah well, who am i to complain?

now i completely lost my train of thought.....:(

it probably wont come to me...alls i knows is, we can probably discuss/argue this topic into the ground all day long, it wont matter. the fact of the matter is, guns are everywhere, they'll continue to be everywhere and no law will ever change that. probably. also, they're not ALL bad, but some are. so thats it i guess....

oh, and Mr. ex police officer....Bronsonator...nice little location there...i thought cops were supposed to be leaders and nice guys dude...your supposed to set an example right? ah well, to each his own...

More of the streets rub off on Eagle Scouts, than any Eagle Scout rubs off on the streets.

The good guys become street smart when they're out there, the bad guys don't all of sudden start going to church.

Just a fact of life. The reality of urban life.

Bronsonator

Originally posted by SickLude

oh, and Mr. ex police officer....Bronsonator...nice little location there...i thought cops were supposed to be leaders and nice guys dude...your supposed to set an example right? ah well, to each his own...

Personally I found his post to be spot on, and BTW police officers ar public servants, not community leaders (they enforce law, not make it). Since you don't own a gun, you should view the PD as your first, last and only ine of defense against the violent element of our society. And BTW, that little thing called "response time" is in every case about a thousand times longer a span of time than it takes for a violent criminal to act against you. Police offiicers must react to things that are already occuring, which leaves you in most cases up shit's creek without a paddle in terms of self defense against an armed assailant. Unless of course you are armed and capable of defending yourself :).


Ps- Many polls have been taken as to what gives a criminal the most pause, an armed citizen or an armed police officer. In all cases they know the normal guy with the gun is much more dangerous for them, and is why they'll pass up targets that don't appear to be so easy to knock over. Farm houses and other rural homes are perfect examples of places most reasonably intelligent criminals have enough sense to leave alone.

Originally posted by Bronson

Just a fact of life. The reality of urban life.
i live in the urban life, i understand these things. ive grown up with it all my life. i see it day to day also. not so much as i did, but i still do...

Since you don't own a gun, you should view the PD as your first, last and only ine of defense against the violent element of our society. i view myself as the first...and anyone around me the last...you said it yourself...they have to react to things to that are already happening. the first line of defense is always gonna be you. not the police... just because i dont have a gun, dosent mean i have to rely on the police. i just choose to use my hands rather than a gun. if the perpatrator chooses to be a coward, then so be it. its life...i deal with whats given to me.

Doesnt that sound short sighted? It sounds like you dont want to cause serious damage or death to a perpetrator. Thats fine if you want to be that way, but that is a long way from saying that you "see no positive side to owning or using a gun".

There is a large difference from commiting yourself to doing no harm (no matter the consequences to yourself) and not seeing a why others would want to defend themselves. I know there is a distinction between understanding something and believing in its reasoning. For instance, I can understand that some guys like to blow other guys but its not something I believe in or have a desire to participate in.

Ok, so you think guns are ok, but you'd prefer to use your hands. Like this is Fuckin Indiana Jones or something.

Listen, there's one rule to a gunfight. Have one.

Listen to words of wisdom, Ya don't bring a knife to a gunfight.

And the reason why armed citizens make crooks quake more than cops is simple. Rules of engagement. Citizens ain't got any, cops got tons.

Picture this:
Cop chases guy down street/sidewalk/alley/whatever. The guy thinks, "Shit, I gotta get away, I can't go back to the joint, I'm a third-striker, I gotta shoot this cop." He grabs his gun while he's still running (cop can't see this, and isn't privvy to the above completed thought process). Guy puts finger on trigger and starts to turn while still running. Cop is still just running. Guy stops, raises gun and starts to fire. Cop thinks, "SHIT!" and tries to decide whether or not to a) Hit the ground; b) draw and shoot back (taking precious seconds to accomplish)'; or c) looks for cover sufficient to stop incoming bullets and tries to get behind same.

In the meantime, the guy has fired off 6-10 rounds at the cop, who hopefully has not been hit. The cop draws, and before firing has to decide if this is a juvenile he's gonna shoot at (as visions of tomorrows headline and the lawsuits to come dance through his head), if he shoots where the bullets will go if they miss (is the guy standing in front of crowd?) and at the same time remember to put out a call on the radio for help/backup/assistance.

The above realistic scenario makes it tough for cops to win gunfights...its amazing they win as many as they do.

NOW FOR THE CIVILLIAN SCENARIO

A crook sticks a gun in your face and demands your wallet. You give it to him. As he looks through it for money or starts to run away, you draw your gun and kill him.

Civillians don't have rules of engagement. They can shoot and kill (in California anyhow) anytime they can reasonably articulate that they are in fear for their lives (the asshole has my driver's license and home address in my wallet...He said he's gonna come back and "get" me if I call the cops) VERDICT: Reasonable fear, justifiable homicide.

That's why crooks fear armed citizens more than cops.

Bronsonator

blah blah blah...im never going to be in a gun fight...i dont bring myself to it. others do, thats fine. i wont. i would never "draw my gun and kill him"...that seems so brutal. and is.

all this dosent matter to me. i think this all has to do with demographics..if you feel the need to own a gun because your scared for your life, because you live in bad town, then do it. but to me, a 19 year old who lives in suburbia town USA...yea, i dont really need it. nor will i ever. if i get held up, i get held up. big deal. worse shit can happen. they can take my car. :D ..

in all seriousness, ill never see myself owning one because im "scared" or because i need to protect myself from an ever lasting danger. or for any other reason for that matter.

with anything, there are unconditional circumstances that must be taken into consideration. and my situation, does not allow me to be near one...

also, in accordance with my last sentence above...i know my answer was based solely on what has to do with ME and i know i have to look at the good of the whole, rather than my personal settings. i was simply defending a reason, thats all. maybe for the good of the whole, they're beneficial in some sort of wierd way, but for me, theyre useless....thats all i was saying....

Originally posted by SickLude
with anything, there are unconditional circumstances that must be taken into consideration. and my situation, does not allow me to be near one...

Ahh, now we get to the root of the issue!

Little comments can make for big comprehension!!:D

Originally posted by Tireburner


Ahh, now we get to the root of the issue!

Little comments can make for big comprehension!!:D yes, your right. i understand now that most of the people im arguing with on this issue are not 19 years old and live totally different lives than me. so were both right in some ways. see, this is the reason why i love this forum.

Originally posted by SickLude
yes, your right. i understand now that most of the people im arguing with on this issue are not 19 years old and live totally different lives than me. so were both right in some ways. see, this is the reason why i love this forum.

I totally agree!!!

In my country, we have over 8,000 gun laws on the books. I'm rather cynical if more laws will help the problem. I proposed to the State Congress that we pass a law that makes carrying guns legal if you wear it on the outside of your clothing. It didn't pass, of course but I see no problems with guns or gun ownership. Personally, I do not own a gun nor do I plan on buying one.

Originally posted by Bronson
NOW FOR THE CIVILLIAN SCENARIO

A crook sticks a gun in your face and demands your wallet. You give it to him. As he looks through it for money or starts to run away, you draw your gun and kill him.

Actually, you cannot fire once the threat of imminent danger has passed. If the guy starts to run away, you DON'T have the right to shoot.

Now, lets say you notice a suspicious group of people walk toward you & its obvious somethings up. You yell "Stop. Don't come near me. I've got a weapon and I will kill you." If they keep approaching, then you have the right to shoot. Even if your use of deadly force is perfectly justified, you still have THREE court trials to attend to PROVE this fact (crimial trial, civil trial, etc...).

What I'm trying to get at here is that guns aren't what we see in the movies!!! I beg each & every one of you who want to "ban" guns or are generally down on them to take classes in gun safety and laws. Please! You will walk away with knowledge that may save your life.

Let's have a look at this- I live in Urban NZ we don't tend to own guns out here so don't be suprised if I seem uninformed.

But really WHAT IS THE POINT OF HANDGUNS???? Peoples main reason is self-protection others is collecting them- collecting I understand, but self protection what ever happened to the good old baseball bat or knife, OK I understand if you live in Crime-ridden places like LA or NYC, but people from Iowa, Nebraska and Texas where very there are no armed gangs give this reason.

Picture this you see someone getting held up in an alleyway there is a baseball bat and a gun lying in front of you meaning you can either fire at the mugger and risk hitting the victim or snak up on the mugger with a baseball bat and smack him one with a direct hit. Which seems more effective???

I personally will never be able to own a gun due to a history of assult in my criminal record but try and take my point seriously

1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, & Chicago cops need
guns.

2. Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict
gun control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is
due to the lack of gun control.

3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics
showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."

4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into
effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in violent crime
rates, which have been declining since 1991.

5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a
shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of
fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.

6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.

7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if
shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.

8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a
smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense
- give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman
Pete Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p. 125).

10.The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice
about guns; just like Guns & Ammo has some excellent treatises on
heart surgery.

11.One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a
civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for internal medicine,
a computer programmer for hard drive problems, and Sarah Brady for
firearms expertise.

12.The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard,
which was created 130 years later, in 1917.

13.The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land,
using federally-owned weapons vehicles buildings and uniforms,
punishing trespassers under federal law, is a "state" militia.

14.These phrases: "right of the people peaceably to assemble,"
"right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumerations
herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others
retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are
reserved to the states respectively, and to the people" all refer
to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arm"
refers to the state.

15."The Constitution is strong and will never change." But we should
ban and seize all guns thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th
Amendments to that Constitution.

16.Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense! Of course,
the army has hundreds of thousands of them.

17.Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they aren't
"military weapons", but private citizens shouldn't have "assault
rifles", because they are military weapons.

18.In spite of waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting,
government forms, etc., guns today are too readily available,
which is responsible for recent school shootings. In the 1940's,
1950's and 1960's, anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army
surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, Sears mail order,
no waiting, no background check, no fingerprints, no government
forms and there were no school shootings.

19.The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids
handling guns is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby's attempt to
run a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity.

20.Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them
properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.

21.A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical
adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.

22.Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with
a gun is "an accident waiting to happen" and gun makers' advertise-
ments aimed at women are "preying on their fears."

23.Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering
butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.

24.Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings
at gun shows.

25.A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a
majority of the population supported owning slaves.

26.Any self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a
"weapon of mass destruction" or an "assault weapon."

27.Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns,
which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.

28.The right of Internet pornographers to exist cannot be questioned
because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but
the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the
Bill of Rights.

29.Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers,
and typewriters, but self-defense only justifies bare hands.

30.The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts
of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other
parts of the Constitution.

31.Charlton Heston, a movie actor as president of the NRA is a cheap
lunatic who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas, a movie actor
as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for
peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.

32.Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need
larger capacity pistol magazines than do "civilians" who must face
criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.

33.We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns
because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.

34.Police officers have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns
that private citizens can never hope to obtain.

35.Private citizens don't need a gun for self-protection because the
police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says
the police are not responsible for their protection.

36.Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but
police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a
building filled with cops, need a gun.

37."Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers
of people. The police need assault weapons. You do not.

38.When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft
preferential promotion, that's bad; but when the Federal government
pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that's good.

39.Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for
defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one
on their duty weapon.

40.Handgun Control, Inc., says they want to "keep guns out of the wrong
hands"

banning public use of hand guns would be one of the dumbest things to do....

all that would do is take away ownership of guns from innocent people that wouldn't mis-use them

do criminals get their guns legally?? hell no, so all the criminals would have guns, but the innocent person who might want to defend themself would be helpless

:hehehe: :hehehe: @ KB, that was funny lol :)

There are very few handguns in New Zealand,laregely because you need a damn good reason to have one in order to get a licence.Military style semi-automatics cannot be licenced at all,and it is virtually impossible to get a licence if you have a criminal conviction.

Assuming Gang$tarr's assertions were correct,we would all be huddling in our cellars right now,waiting for the drug lords/rapists/murderers to find us and finish us off horribly.But no,most of our criminals are unarmed...Why?because our country is not awash with civilian firearms just waiting to be stolen.

Criminals who cannot find guns to steal cannot use them against you.One of the great things about living in New Zealand is the fact that the government has maintained a strong grip on the control of weapons.

In a democratic well policed country,civilians don't need guns.In gun owning nations,your family are more likely to be injured or killed by your own weapons.In New Zealand,the idea of teenagers taking guns to class is an imported horror fantasy.I'm glad it never happens.

but without my rifle I can't get rid of the wascally wabbits

I was re-thinking this today and came to aa conclusion. I'm glad I live in a country that has bans on guns. :)

We have a low incidence of gun related crime compared to other weapons. Our society is far from perfect, but it's safer (not safe, but safer).

I actually feel sorry for countries where it is an issue. I'm glad it's your problem not mine.

Originally posted by Setanta
I was re-thinking this today and came to aa conclusion. I'm glad I live in a country that has bans on guns. :)

We have a low incidence of gun related crime compared to other weapons. Our society is far from perfect, but it's safer (not safe, but safer).


I think it's good in countries like yours where guns have been banned for a long time...

but it wouldn't work here in north america, since there are alotta guns out there, criminals would always have guns, while innocent people wouldn't have any at all

because most criminals here do aquire guns illegally


I heard that somewhere in Africa you can buy AK-47s for like $15
that's crazy, lol if it's true
in one of those countries with all the rebels and political problems

We had a gun amnesty - cash for guns when it first came in during the '80s. No questions asked. The guns themselves were destroyed. Mind you, it took a massacre in Tasmania for it to happen but it seems to work. Sure a crim can access a gun - I don't doubt that. It's harder for them though and while the crime is there, gun related deaths aren't that high compared to other countries.

I wish I lived in Australia or New Zealand, where life is perfect and there are no victims of any kind.

Originally posted by Setanta
It's harder for them though and while the crime is there, gun related deaths aren't that high compared to other countries.

There are alot of people protesting gun laws in Canada, because ever since they put more laws on guns our crime level has gone up

Originally posted by DMC12
I wish I lived in Australia or New Zealand, where life is perfect and there are no victims of any kind.

Iwish that were true....
I don't claim that New Zealand is Utopia,but there is a healthy attitude towards firearms.If anybody gets shot - it is a national news item.If the police shoot anybody - it's a national controversy.

some interesting figures from a reliable Canadian source.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hpb/lcdc/publicat/cdic/cdic191/191tb2de.html

No official figures have been posted since gun laws in either New Zealand or Canada were modified.

I have a feeling sarcasm was involved in his statement taranaki :D

That or I'm missreading the tone :rolleyes:

Still - I don't see anyone claiming that NZ or Aust are perfect... just more perfect than the US :devil:

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :ylsuper :ylsuper :ylsuper :ylsuper

Slacker, I assume you got that fom somewhere, that you didn't write out that list of 40 reasons, but whatever the case, those are beautiful. Sarcasm at a genius level. Nice going :sun:

Originally posted by JD@af
:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :ylsuper :ylsuper :ylsuper :ylsuper

Slacker, I assume you got that fom somewhere, that you didn't write out that list of 40 reasons, but whatever the case, those are beautiful. Sarcasm at a genius level. Nice going :sun:


i loved that too!! i loved the use of sarcasm!!

gun control means using both hands:D