Thread: Americans, Write Your Congressman

Originally Posted by ataraxis

I'm just kind of playing devils advocate here, because I don't really have a point on this. But here's what I think others may think is a valid counter to that:

Yes, this is "true." But it really doesn't matter TOO much. If for every thousand people that a legal citizen kills there is one illegal immigrant killing someone, it is silly to spend millions of dollars on border patrol, law enforcement regarding illegal immigrants, etc. On the other hand, we should spend money preventing US citizens from killing each other. I mean, sure, it is "true" that we could have prevented death if an illegal immigrant kills someone. But in the big picture that doesn't matter. I would agree with you if you could find me valid statistics demonstrating that illegal immigrants kill a majority, or even a large fraction of the people in the country. However, I have a good feeling that this is not the case. Illegal immigrants only kill a very small fraction of people, relative to the amount US citizens do. So as I said, you are right, a life could have been saved. But in the big picture, that is not all that should be considered.[/b]

There are reasons beyond what I talked about for enforcing immigration laws. I was just saying that if the immigration laws were enforced like they should be, for all of the reasons they should be, there would be one less dead American for every time one is killed by an illegal immigrant. Also, the one Bill O'Reilly was bitching about was already a convicted criminal. But I agree that illegal immigration is not even close to being the biggest reason for violence in the U.S.

Originally Posted by Universal

Thank you for so peacefully and rationally answering my question.[/b]

You're welcome.
I was on a pissy mood at the time, and went on a rant. I'm a little calmer this time around.

Originally Posted by Universal

The "bastard O'Reilly" made a good point about illegal immigrants, and it is one that you neglected to counter. It is the same point I made. Every time an illegal immigrant kills an American, a life would have been saved if the law had been enforced.[/b]

That is simple logic that holds true. You're right, a life would have been saved if the law was enforced... but the same holds for any other killing right? If every law was enforced, there would be no killings in this country. Period.
As far as an illegal immigrant killing someone, once again, you're right, but you can't just say that and ignore the big picture. Take O'Reilly for example... he focused so hard on the illegal immigrants themselves that he completely ignored all the other thousands of drunk driving deaths every month caused by American citizens. The problem, in that case, is not illegal immigrants, its drunk driving, and that is the issue that should be paid attention to.

Originally Posted by Universal

I brought it up because we are talking about how to reduce violence in the United States.[/b]

Illegal immigration is not the main cause of violence. There is domestic violence, robbing, and killing all done by American citizens which would get better results from funding than border patrolling would. The great majority of illegal immigrants that come here are hard working people. They don't go through hell to cross the border to just play around once they get here. They work... hard. Now, if an illegal immigrant is caught doing something wrong, like drunk driving, then hell yeah, send his ass to jail... if he was reckless, send his ass back home. However, saying to send all the illegal immigrants back home to reduce violence is ignoring the fact that illegal immigrants come here to work, not cause violence.

I also think ataraxis makes a good point, so I won't repeat the same on that.

Welcome to our great country [/b]

Well, thank you...

Okay, gun control is clearly a complicated issue. For the most part, I am fairly libertarian. However, I would also have to be a supporter of strict gun control laws, in spite of the Second Amendment, which I also support. How can I hold these apparently conflicting views, you might ask. Simple - they're not conflicting views.

One must look at the context of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment reads:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(The Constitution of the United States )</div>

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[/b]

This was written to protect States from the threat of a strong Federal army. It&#39;s about protection of state rights, not personal rights. Note the bit about "security of a free State" and "well regulated militia." These phrases, when viewed in the historical context in which it was written, make it clear that this is about state vs. federal rights. This Amendment is guaranteeing the State the right to keep a well-armed militia. When it says "the right of the People," it is speaking of the People as a whole. The collective People of a State can keep and bear arms, not the individual people of a state.

Admittedly, several Supreme Court rulings go against this, but this is how I think it should be interpreted.

As for the argument that we can protect ourselves with guns, just look at statistics. I don&#39;t know the numbers, but I do know that if you have a gun in the home, you are much more likely to harm a family member than a criminal.

Originally Posted by tyrantt23

That is simple logic that holds true. You&#39;re right, a life would have been saved if the law was enforced... but the same holds for any other killing right? If every law was enforced, there would be no killings in this country. Period.[/b]

That&#39;s not true. We don&#39;t have a problem with the laws against murder not being enforced. We don&#39;t have a problem with the DUI laws not being enforced. We just can&#39;t stop everybody. However, we have a TREMENDOUS problem with immigration laws not being enforced. O&#39;Reilly was just saying that if they were enforced like they should be, as murder and drunk driving laws usually are, we would have saved one of our citizens.

Originally Posted by tyrantt23

As far as an illegal immigrant killing someone, once again, you&#39;re right, but you can&#39;t just say that and ignore the big picture. Take O&#39;Reilly for example... he focused so hard on the illegal immigrants themselves that he completely ignored all the other thousands of drunk driving deaths every month caused by American citizens. The problem, in that case, is not illegal immigrants, its drunk driving, and that is the issue that should be paid attention to.[/b]

O&#39;Reilly does not think we have a serious problem with lax governmental attitudes toward drunk driving. I don&#39;t either. If the DUI laws started getting enforced on the same level as our immigration laws, I can assure you O&#39;Reilly would be pissing fire much harder than he was about lack of immigration law enforcement. I agree that the bigger issue was drunk driving, but our government already recognizes that issue like it should. That is the difference.

Originally Posted by tyrantt23

Illegal immigration is not the main cause of violence. There is domestic violence, robbing, and killing all done by American citizens which would get better results from funding than border patrolling would. The great majority of illegal immigrants that come here are hard working people. They don&#39;t go through hell to cross the border to just play around once they get here. They work... hard. Now, if an illegal immigrant is caught doing something wrong, like drunk driving, then hell yeah, send his ass to jail... if he was reckless, send his ass back home. However, saying to send all the illegal immigrants back home to reduce violence is ignoring the fact that illegal immigrants come here to work, not cause violence.[/b]

I said that illegal immigration is not even close to being the biggest cause of violence here. It is just that preventing violence is one more reason to enforce the immigration laws. I don&#39;t think most illegal immigrants are violent. I just think 100% of them are here illegally because, uh, they are. I don&#39;t have a problem with immigration in general. I am a descendant of Scotch-Irish immigrants, and I&#39;m glad they were allowed to stay here. But I do believe in immigration laws and a system for attaining legal status. And those laws, like all laws, are worthless if they are not enforced.

Originally Posted by tyrantt23

One must look at the context of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment reads:
This was written to protect States from the threat of a strong Federal army. It&#39;s about protection of state rights, not personal rights. Note the bit about "security of a free State" and "well regulated militia." These phrases, when viewed in the historical context in which it was written, make it clear that this is about state vs. federal rights. This Amendment is guaranteeing the State the right to keep a well-armed militia. When it says "the right of the People," it is speaking of the People as a whole. The collective People of a State can keep and bear arms, not the individual people of a state.

As for the argument that we can protect ourselves with guns, just look at statistics. I don&#39;t know the numbers, but I do know that if you have a gun in the home, you are much more likely to harm a family member than a criminal.[/b]

But a gun owner is much more likely to DETER a criminal than harm a family member. If guns are ever completely outlawed, you will see just how much the legality of guns has been deterring criminals this whole time. Also, the 2nd Amendment was mainly about protection against the federal government, but on an individual level as well as a state level. "Free state" denotes a state itself, but also the individuals that comprise the state. A state is not free if its individual citizens are not.

Originally Posted by Universal

But a gun owner is much more likely to DETER a criminal than harm a family member. If guns are ever completely outlawed, you will see just how much the legality of guns has been deterring criminals this whole time. Also, the 2nd Amendment was mainly about protection against the federal government, but on an individual level as well as a state level. "Free state" denotes a state itself, but also the individuals that comprise the state. A state is not free if its individual citizens are not.[/b]

i understand where you&#39;re coming from, but i don&#39;t agree entirely. i am by no means a Constitutional scholar, but i do believe that this amendment is referring specifically to state&#39;s rights. i don&#39;t think "free state" necessarily implies free citizens of the state. an example would be the whole gay marriage issue. several states allow gay marriage, or civil unions. several other states do not. the states who do not allow these marriages or unions are free to restrict the freedom of their gay and lesbian citizens. there are several other restrictions on our freedoms - i&#39;m not free to smoke pot (happy holidays, everyone&#33, i&#39;m not free to yell "Fire&#33;" in a crowded theater, i&#39;m not free to send death threats to the president, etc., etc., etc. yet i am still living in a "free" state in a "free" country. as for "protection against the federal government, but on an individual level as well as a state level," i think the idea was that it is the federal government&#39;s responsibility to protect us from outside forces/threats, but it is the state&#39;s responsibility to protect us from internal forces/threats. hence the bit about the militia. militias belong on a state level. also, i think the phrase "well regulated militia" makes it pretty clear that not just anyone can tote around a gun. only the state-sponsored, state-regulated militia folks should have that right.

as for your first comment, the one about legality of guns deterring criminals, i don&#39;t think that argument is backed by evidence. there are many countries who have outlawed gun possession who have lower rates of violent crime than USA. and i don&#39;t mean total numbers of violent crime, which could be explained by these other countries having much smaller populations than USA. i mean violent crime per capita is much lower. sure, if guns are outlawed, then the only ones who would have guns would be outlaws. but on the other hand, if guns are outlawed, it will be much harder for outlaws to get a hold of guns, there will be far fewer guns on the market, etc. as it stands right now (and i believe it varies from state to state), in several states, i could walk into a gun shop and walk out with a gun 10 minutes later. if i were a felon and i thought they wouldn&#39;t sell me a gun because of that, i would go to a gun show or a gun expo, where they will sell me a gun without running a background check. or i would have a non-felon friend go buy it for me (that is, a friend who hasn&#39;t been busted yet). so i believe that removing the individual citizen&#39;s right to bear arms would go a whole long way towards reducing violent crime in our society.

all that having been said, i must add that i do have very conflicting views on gun control. as i mentioned earlier, i am mostly libertarian. i do not like the idea of restricting any of our rights, including the right to bear arms. i should also say that, although i don&#39;t own any guns, i have shot several guns and quite enjoyed doing so. shooting a gun is fun. but i think, in some (rare) situations, the safety of the whole should override the individual liberties. on the other hand, by restricting any single individual liberty in order to protect the safety of the whole citizenry is the first step down a slippery slope, a slope i DO NOT want us to go down. so my thoughts on gun control vary widely.

and all that having been said, i would also like to add that i&#39;m glad we can have this discussion in a civilized manner. i think that says something good about all of us.

Originally Posted by Universal

You don&#39;t have to act like a bigot. I don&#39;t own a gun any way. There are tons of social factors involved in our violence problem. A war on guns would only make things worse. You don&#39;t need the right to bear arms in your constitution because your situation is different. Our 2nd Amendment was written partly to give us safety against our own government. If Canadians ever had the problem of having to take on their government, you know we would do it for you.

Our violence problem is not a result of a lack of a war on guns. We have a ridiculously high violence rate compared to Canada and Europe in terms of rape, stranglings, spousal beatings, stabbings, and all kinds of other things. We have a violence problem, not a gun problem. Guns are just one way of hurting and killing people, and an all out ban on them would be a disaster.

One of our problems is our diversity. We are the most diverse nation on the planet, and with diversity comes cultural conflict. We also have a dumbass war on drugs that has turned the country into Al Capone land 1000 fold. The 1920&#39;s were Disney Land here compared to the gangland disaster we are now dealing with. You are all seeing the residue of it when you see our disgusting as Hell gangster rap fest that has been going on for twenty years. Our public school system is a joke, families are rewarded with money for having disfunctional children at a fruit fly rate, and the pop culture media (thanks to the War on Drugs) makes it look cool and even socially required for young people to be obsessed with acting like badasses at all costs. We have a great deal of social trouble resulting from too much government in terms of both radical liberal policy and fanatical conservative policy. We have serious problems with our society. But don&#39;t blame that on the guns. Our problem is the scum that wants to kill people with guns, and ropes, and daggers, and clubs, and hands, and swimming pools. Do you think we should ban all of those weapons too?[/b]

For the most part, I agree. This is pretty much what I meant by my post on the second page. This is still a great country with the majority being good citizens who abide by the law even if they were idiots as teenagers. I believe our greatness outweighs our problems but we cannot let them thrive any longer.

Originally Posted by kage

i don&#39;t think "free state" necessarily implies free citizens of the state. an example would be the whole gay marriage issue. several states allow gay marriage, or civil unions. several other states do not. the states who do not allow these marriages or unions are free to restrict the freedom of their gay and lesbian citizens. there are several other restrictions on our freedoms - i&#39;m not free to smoke pot (happy holidays, everyone&#33, i&#39;m not free to yell "Fire&#33;" in a crowded theater, i&#39;m not free to send death threats to the president, etc., etc., etc. yet i am still living in a "free" state in a "free" country. as for "protection against the federal government, but on an individual level as well as a state level," i think the idea was that it is the federal government&#39;s responsibility to protect us from outside forces/threats, but it is the state&#39;s responsibility to protect us from internal forces/threats. hence the bit about the militia. militias belong on a state level. also, i think the phrase "well regulated militia" makes it pretty clear that not just anyone can tote around a gun. only the state-sponsored, state-regulated militia folks should have that right.

as for your first comment, the one about legality of guns deterring criminals, i don&#39;t think that argument is backed by evidence. there are many countries who have outlawed gun possession who have lower rates of violent crime than USA.[/b]

Sometimes the Constitution seems ambiguous, like the Bible. Because the 2nd Amendment is talking about not infringing on "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms", I think it is talking about individual rights. It mentions militias first, but I think that is just a justification meant to highlight the importance of the Amendment. If it were talking about just militias and the states themselves, I think it would have said "the right of state MILITIAS to keep and bear arms". The wording on the whole is still sort of fuzzy because it starts out talking about militias and then suddenly talks about "the people". I really wish they had been clearer.

Your point about the lack of violence in other countries is what I talked about in the post Cymeksniper quoted. I think we have a whole world of factors making our society violent, not just with guns. It is very easy to get the guns that are presently outlawed here, just like it is very easy to get the drugs that are outlawed here, so I think banning guns would just make the criminals more powerful.

Originally Posted by Universal

The wording on the whole is still sort of fuzzy . . . I really wish they had been clearer.[/b]

ha&#33; ain&#39;t that the truth&#33; this is definitely something we can agree on&#33;

Originally Posted by Universal

Your point about the lack of violence in other countries is what I talked about in the post Cymeksniper quoted. I think we have a whole world of factors making our society violent, not just with guns. It is very easy to get the guns that are presently outlawed here, just like it is very easy to get the drugs that are outlawed here, so I think banning guns would just make the criminals more powerful.[/b]

i certainly agree with your point about a whole world of factors making our society violent. i do not think guns are the only issue. and i certainly don&#39;t think outlawing guns will end violent crime. but i do think that outlawing guns will reduce violent crime. i&#39;m not sure you can really compare guns to drugs in the way that you do. i think the reason it&#39;s so easy to get illegal drugs is because there is a strong supply. any joe schmoe who knows a little bit about gardening can increase the supply. in the case of guns, it is so easy to get a gun, again, because there is a big supply. however, if they were outlawed, supply would drop drastically. while i could potentially become a pot dealer, there&#39;s no way i could become a gun dealer. i can&#39;t start a gun garden in my back shed.

honestly, i don&#39;t think outlawing guns would have the same effect as Prohibition or the war on drugs did. i think people are much more attached to their drug-of-choice (whether that happens to be alcohol, tobacco, weed, heroin, cocaine, whatever) than they are to their guns. if the USA did ever completely outlaw guns for private citizens (and i honestly don&#39;t think that will ever happen), i&#39;m sure there would be quite a bit of grumbling and complaining, but it would die out. people will carry on without their guns.

the biggest issue, in my opinion, and the biggest reason we have such high rates of violent crime, is because we live in a culture of fear. that&#39;s it. our government, the MSM, everything tells us to fear the Other. this is what really needs to end. when we live in an open culture of peace and love, rather than a culture of fear and oppression, then violent crime will end. (i know, i sound like a hippy. )

It only takes one gun dealer to supply the masses and be outrageously rich. There will always be a demand for guns because they make things much more convenient for the violent minded criminals in our violent country. If guns are ever outlawed, which I too don&#39;t think will ever happen here, the dealers will be able to charge a fortune for them. Although fewer people will have them, the ones who really want them will pay a lot for them, and the potential dealers will know that and make sure they are supplied. In Mississippi, there were two guys who were the chief "glass" (the best type of meth there is) distributors. They made a fortune off the stuff. They ended up getting busted. For about two weeks, nobody was able to get their hands on any glass. But because the demand was still there (something the war on drugs proponents don&#39;t seem to understand), another person/gang rose to power and kept the glass coming. Even though it is much harder to make guns, criminals will find a way to do it when they know how much money they can make doing it. The supply never ends when the demand remains. Also, the criminals will feel much safer about using their guns against the innocent if guns are outlawed, and that is why I think it would be a disaster.

On top of that, if somebody breaks into my house, I want to have the security of knowing I can shoot him. When I lived in Baton Rouge, my house was broken into while I was in bed. It was really freaky finding that out when I woke up. I don&#39;t have a gun right now, but I did have one and need to get another one. I don&#39;t want to go to bed thinking that if somebody breaks into my house I am going to have to have a sword fight with him. I especially don&#39;t want to bring a sword or a baseball bat to a gun fight. With a gun, I can, if nothing else, shoot the floor and scare the burglar out of my house. If guns are banned, I will be scared of going to prison if I use mine, and the burglar will think I don&#39;t have one and not be anywhere near as scared of breaking into my house.

Throughout history, countries have had weapons being allowed to be freely brandished around by anyone, in public; only to eventually be banned. To say America could never have its weapons banned because no-one&#39;d give them up is complete rubbish, I think. The UK supposedly has the strictest gun laws in the entire world; we have no need for them to defend for ourselves, or pretty much any other reason, so I don&#39;t see why Americans need them either. Don&#39;t get me wrong here; I&#39;m a guy and like most guys, i like violent action films, games, etc, involving guns, but America makes such a big pompous thing about having them as a right to defend themselves, it gets on my nerves. If you didnt have them in the first place, you wouldnt need to defend yourselves&#33;

Wolffe, Universal Mind addressed that point. Guns would still be sold, and it makes it all the easier for criminals to exploit the unarmedness of people.

Originally Posted by Universal

On top of that, if somebody breaks into my house, I want to have the security of knowing I can shoot him. When I lived in Baton Rouge, my house was broken into while I was in bed. It was really freaky finding that out when I woke up. I don&#39;t have a gun right now, but I did have one and need to get another one. I don&#39;t want to go to bed thinking that if somebody breaks into my house I am going to have to have a sword fight with him. I especially don&#39;t want to bring a sword or a baseball bat to a gun fight. With a gun, I can, if nothing else, shoot the floor and scare the burglar out of my house. If guns are banned, I will be scared of going to prison if I use mine, and the burglar will think I don&#39;t have one and not be anywhere near as scared of breaking into my house.[/b]

Lol, sword-fighting, that&#39;s funny; I remember a friend of mine giving me trouble about taking a gun with us on a camping trip, and she told me that she slept with a hammer instead. I think I&#39;d rather shoot someone rather than bludgeon them to death with a hammer. Besides, I might not be a good hammer-fighter; she was a pretty big girl and could probably have done it tho.

This is not be the proper time to make light of it; I realize and I&#39;m not trying to do that. That poor guy was extremely mentally ill and nobody recognized it. How the hell did he pass his classes? That makes no sense. I don&#39;t know how an obvious psychotic person operates for that long without somebody realizing it, at an institution of higher learning in this country. Very strange. I heard one of his teachers saying that she didn&#39;t want to flunk him in case he got a Nobel Prize later and she looked stupid. I guess we know what kind of major "English" is.

(EDIT: I gave a specific diagnosis for his mental illness; obviously I don&#39;t know for sure, so I changed it to "psychotic person" which I do think was true.)

The ignorance astounds me&#33;

Originally Posted by Wolffe

Throughout history, countries have had weapons being allowed to be freely brandished around by anyone, in public; only to eventually be banned. To say America could never have its weapons banned because no-one&#39;d give them up is complete rubbish, I think. The UK supposedly has the strictest gun laws in the entire world; we have no need for them to defend for ourselves, or pretty much any other reason, so I don&#39;t see why Americans need them either. Don&#39;t get me wrong here; I&#39;m a guy and like most guys, i like violent action films, games, etc, involving guns, but America makes such a big pompous thing about having them as a right to defend themselves, it gets on my nerves. If you didnt have them in the first place, you wouldnt need to defend yourselves&#33;[/b]

well your not here, so it&#39;s really none of your business. thanks for trying to get involved though.

and I wouldn&#39;t give up my gun if they were banned, so no it&#39;s not rubbish.

Originally Posted by Wolffe

If you didnt have them in the first place, you wouldnt need to defend yourselves&#33;[/b]

There are lots of other ways people can hurt you. That is what you need a gun. It makes the wimpy equal.

Originally Posted by ataraxis

Wolffe, Universal Mind addressed that point. Guns would still be sold, and it makes it all the easier for criminals to exploit the unarmedness of people.[/b]

Haha, they really wouldnt. Over here, you have to be pretty criminal to get hold of a gun and even then, it&#39;s not going to be anything greater than a handgun or sawn-off, imported, and the people these guys use the guns on would never have a chance of defending themselves with anything anyway

Originally Posted by ataraxis

well your not here, so it&#39;s really none of your business. thanks for trying to get involved though.

and I wouldn&#39;t give up my gun if they were banned, so no it&#39;s not rubbish.[/b]

Why is it none of my business? Just because I&#39;m in another country, it doesn&#39;t mean I have any less say than you guys who also have nothing to do with it, does it? Besides, the small export of guns that do make it here, are mainly American. I&#39;m pretty sure you&#39;d lose your guns one way or another, even if through seizing, along with any other punishments if you further prevented the taking of them

Originally Posted by ataraxis

There are lots of other ways people can hurt you. That is what you need a gun. It makes the wimpy equal.[/b]

It makes the strong stronger



It all comes down to the fact that it&#39;s old and outdated &#39;right&#39;, left over from times when people actually needed guns, which now causes many more problems than it solves, and coming from somewhere with no guns, I can see how much more secure it&#39;d be without the guns.

Originally Posted by Tornado

Please refrain from using harsh and insulting statements to any single our group of members on our forum. You of all people should know that this community is made up of members from nations around the world, a good chunk of which are Americans. While I can appreciate the stats from your phsychology textbook, the quoted statements are essentially an insult to Americans as a whole, which by the way, all don&#39;t agree with the gun laws.

Thank you, play on [/b]

he was swearing about americans _with_ guns, see.

Originally Posted by Techboy

he was swearing about americans _with_ guns, see.[/b]

If you search his post, you will find he did not use the word "with" once. He said fucking americans AND their guns. That is saying all americans and their guns. Not only the americans with guns, see

Originally Posted by Wolffe

It all comes down to the fact that it&#39;s old and outdated &#39;right&#39;, left over from times when people actually needed guns, which now causes many more problems than it solves, and coming from somewhere with no guns, I can see how much more secure it&#39;d be without the guns.[/b]

You keep arguing that guns should not exist. That is a completely different issue. We are talking about whether they should be illegal when they in fact do exist and will inevitably continue to.

Plus, they didn&#39;t have guns in the Medieval times. Were those the good ole days of peace and harmony? A violent society is going to be violent, even if you ban joust poles and battle axes.

Originally Posted by Universal

You keep arguing that guns should not exist. That is a completely different issue. We are talking about whether they should be illegal when they in fact do exist and will inevitably continue to.

Plus, they didn&#39;t have guns in the Medieval times. Were those the good ole days of peace and harmony? A violent society is going to be violent, even if you ban joust poles and battle axes.[/b]

Nonono, I didnt mean they shouldnt exist at all; although if it would ever work, it would be the thing I would argue for. I do think that the ability for the public to have access to any type of gun, without a particular need (hunting, pest control or whatever, though I&#39;m personally against it ) is a completely bad thing. There may be a few cases where someone actually gets to use the gun in a self-defence situation, but going by what I hear, all it does is give you a false sense of security, which is most likely to make you more vulnerable. Sure, law enforcers, soldiers etc. do need them, but a handgun from Wal-mart? Wtf is going on there?

Originally Posted by Wolffe

Nonono, I didnt mean they shouldnt exist at all; although if it would ever work, it would be the thing I would argue for. I do think that the ability for the public to have access to any type of gun, without a particular need (hunting, pest control or whatever, though I&#39;m personally against it ) is a completely bad thing. There may be a few cases where someone actually gets to use the gun in a self-defence situation, but going by what I hear, all it does is give you a false sense of security, which is most likely to make you more vulnerable. Sure, law enforcers, soldiers etc. do need them, but a handgun from Wal-mart? Wtf is going on there?[/b]

I don&#39;t know if he bought it at Wal-Mart, but my father used a gun a while back to catch two intruders and have them put in jail. My mother and sister were also in the house.

Originally Posted by Wolffe

all it does is give you a false sense of security, which is most likely to make you more vulnerable.[/b]

It is not false. And I am not more vulnerable with a gun than without one. I&#39;d be scared shitless if somebody broke in, with or without a gun, but which scenario do you think is preferable? Nobody should expect someone to be without any defence. It&#39;s a basic right. I won&#39;t go into the whole story, but me having a gun in the house once kept someone out, because he knew I had it (long time ago, crazy boyfriend); otherwise I don&#39;t know what would have happened, but I&#39;m pretty sure it would have been bad for me.

I don&#39;t think people here will ever give up their guns. There are too many "cold dead finger" people (I hope); and the rest of us would lie and break the law and keep them anyway.

About gun control in general...

Links:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm <--Statistics that prove gun control hurts the people, read this especially.

http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel120501.shtml

http://leveron.com/john/rights/


Quotes:

January 1975--"One bleeding-heart type asked me in a recent interview if I did not agree that &#39;violence begets violence.&#39; I told him that it is my earnest endeavor to see that it does. I would like very much to ensure--and in some cases I have--that any man who offers violence to his fellow citizen begets a whole lot more in return than he can enjoy." Col Jeff Cooper

November 1993--"Fight back&#33; Whenever you are offered violence, fight back&#33; The aggressor does not fear the law, so he must be taught to fear you. Whatever the risk, and at whatever the cost, fight back&#33;"
Jeff Cooper

It would be unconstitutional to ban any gun. Nazis banned Jews from having guns. Look what happened to them.
The Second Amendment is key to the First.

Originally Posted by Universal

I don&#39;t know if he bought it at Wal-Mart, but my father used a gun a while back to catch two intruders and have them put in jail. My mother and sister were also in the house.[/b]

Originally Posted by Universal

It is not false. And I am not more vulnerable with a gun than without one. I&#39;d be scared shitless if somebody broke in, with or without a gun, but which scenario do you think is preferable? Nobody should expect someone to be without any defence. It&#39;s a basic right. I won&#39;t go into the whole story, but me having a gun in the house once kept someone out, because he knew I had it (long time ago, crazy boyfriend); otherwise I don&#39;t know what would have happened, but I&#39;m pretty sure it would have been bad for me.

I don&#39;t think people here will ever give up their guns. There are too many "cold dead finger" people (I hope); and the rest of us would lie and break the law and keep them anyway.[/b]

These are good occassions for both of these, but are also things that could be prevented just as easily with good household security, a tazer and/or a good phonecall to the police. Not only that, I dunno how American laws look at manslaughter/self-defence but if either of you had used it, had the intruders been more aggressive/stupid, and you&#39;d killed them, (as far as UK law goes, from what I see) you&#39;d still get prison time for manslaughter (a few years, not nice). I&#39;d practically always opt for the former options, myself :/

Originally Posted by Universal

About gun control in general...

Links:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm <--Statistics that prove gun control hurts the people, read this especially.

http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel120501.shtml

http://leveron.com/john/rights/
Quotes:

January 1975--"One bleeding-heart type asked me in a recent interview if I did not agree that &#39;violence begets violence.&#39; I told him that it is my earnest endeavor to see that it does. I would like very much to ensure--and in some cases I have--that any man who offers violence to his fellow citizen begets a whole lot more in return than he can enjoy." Col Jeff Cooper

November 1993--"Fight back&#33; Whenever you are offered violence, fight back&#33; The aggressor does not fear the law, so he must be taught to fear you. Whatever the risk, and at whatever the cost, fight back&#33;"
Jeff Cooper

It would be unconstitutional to ban any gun. Nazis banned Jews from having guns. Look what happened to them.
The Second Amendment is key to the First.[/b]

An increase in guncrime doesnt mean that the ban is at fault. For a start, this guy who&#39;s done the study is from an extremely trigger-happy hunters group, which would and probably has selectively picked stats that support his campaign. This is a perfect example of stupid statistics, out of context. The influence of &#39;gangsta&#39; culture, coming through from US film and music, is becoming big in the UK (probably half the young population, I&#39;d guess, its pretty shitty) so considering it&#39;s gonna be these guys (I think it says mainly &#39;gang and drug territory wars&#39; somewhere on a similar BBC article) who&#39;re buying the guns, as the majority of interested customers, bought for criminal intentions, these guncrimes are only going to be greater with legal and easy access to guns. The lack of capital punishment is also going to greatly affect the prevention of gun-murders, as well as standard police officers not carrying guns.

The Jamaican one is due to out-of-control lawbreaking and easy access to illegal guns, rather than gun bans.

For the Vtech one, I don&#39;t know many academic institutes which allow weapons on campus. My university bans all weapons, including knives and airguns. Schools are no place for guns, and if guns were allowed, the amount of these killings would increase a stupid amount, I bet too.

The right to own/carry/use guns is a grossly outdated thing; I don&#39;t think America needs a &#39;militia&#39; anymore, it&#39;s the 21st century&#33;