Federal laws suck!

[Vince]

     I know better, but...
     Lets assume for a moment that your statistics are correct. Are you taking into account societal differences? For instance Switzerland should be included in this discussion. They have almost universal. gun possession. Every citizen is a member of the armed forces and is required to have a weapon in the home. Their crime rate is much lower than ours.
     Britain has a higher and rising crime rate in areas that we seldom see. For instance, home invasion rates are through the roof. A hundred years ago when guns were freely owned,  the British Bobby seldom carried a gun. Now that there are no more guns in the general populace, the police are armed...
     The British people are completely at the whim of their government. Just recently a town council banned kid's wading pools because they were a hazard. Why? you ask... If there was a fire a pool might interfere with a fireman.
     In short, the only examples of British societal mores that I see are BAD examples of stupid governmental oppression.
     In the US, since Florida led the way with concealed carry reform in the 80's, the crime rate is spiraling ever downward as gun ownership rises. Progressive enclaves such as Chicago, Washing D.C., New York City, and most of California buck this trend. They also severely restrict the basic human right of self defense.  Hmmm...
     There is no such thing as gun violence. There is only violence. Restricting one type of weapon only brings other types into use.

[Lahti35]

    I know better, but...
     Lets assume for a moment that your statistics are correct. Are you taking into account societal differences? For instance Switzerland should be included in this discussion. They have almost universal. gun possession. Every citizen is a member of the armed forces and is required to have a weapon in the home. Their crime rate is much lower than ours.

So true...and we're talking full auto Stg57 and 90's. Sadly I hear swiss gun owners are under fire these days because thier shooting ranges are "noisey" and they have had several perps kill with a gun. They have the Protell organization fighting back though

[Lahti35]

Lahti: I understand your frustration behind two unrelated stories being presented as intricately connected. The numbers I presented ARE correct, and tell the truth: If you have fewer guns around, you have less gun related homicide. 

I'll make an addition if i may: If you have fewer ILLEGAL guns around you have less gun related homicide.

The problem has never been dads old shotgun or rifle he spent 30 years hunting with, its the $75 hot pistol bought under the radar in a back alley with the serial numbers filed off. Find a way to get rid of those and you've got something there. Its a shame that all the legislation in the world never seems to get those off the streets.

For the record: I do not carry a loaded gun and do not keep a loaded gun in the house.

[1 Thump]

I'll make an addition if i may: If you have fewer ILLEGAL guns around you have less gun related homicide.

The problem has never been dads old shotgun or rifle he spent 30 years hunting with, its the $75 hot pistol bought under the radar in a back alley with the serial numbers filed off. Find a way to get rid of those and you've got something there. Its a shame that all the legislation in the world never seems to get those off the streets.

For the record: I do not carry a loaded gun and do not keep a loaded gun in the house.

Vince: Let's not conflate the issue. Keep it on gun-related-homicide. Thats the statistics I posted. They tell a story you do not want to hear, and so you run to  'crime rate' , swimming pools or the constitution.

BTW, the regulat british cop on the beat is not armed. Off course there is such a thing as gun-related-homicide. That is the numbers I posted. Sure the baddies will go to knives or other weapons when guns are not around. There will always be bad eggs, and they will do what they they do. i suggest to keep them in prison longer. Taking guns away reduces the number of guns avaialble to be used illegally, makes it more difficult for them to kill people. Most illegal guns enter the market legally. Then they are sold in the grey market, dare I say gun shows, and on to the dreaded alleys. Some come from over the border illegally. Cut down on that too.

You could try to dismiss the numbers as 'numbers'. Might as well burry your head in the sand.

There is something seriously wrong when the homicide rate is more than 200% over the british. Is'nt it ?

 

[Lahti35]

Its gotta be a cultural thingy....lol

Switzerland has 7.7 million people an over 3 million guns in private homes. In 2006 they had 34 killings or attempted killings with guns used. The number of crime involving knives was 10x that.

The Swiss are the proof... you can have gun shows, target practice, collecting etc....and ultra low crimes with guns involved. They teach thiers how to safely handle and use them, the Swiss get the respect they need for them and it shows.

[Eamon]

This discussion made me think of this Onion classic:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/tornado-violence-are-tornadic-images-in-the-media,730/

For the record, I don't think of this as a black and white, all or nothing issue.  I don't own a gun, but enjoy shooting them and don't have a problem with others having guns.  That said, I think there can be reasonable restrictions to gun ownership just like there are restrictions on other dangerous things like driving automobiles.  Do I think very gun law out there makes sense?  Not at all.  I'm sure some are asinine.  At the other end of the spectrum, I don't buy the notion that everybody walking around armed to the teeth makes us safer.  I know some of you think there is no in between on this issue.  That's ok - you can think what you want and I'll think what I want (of course I'm right though ).  Does all that make me a "socialist queer"?   

Eamon

[ScooterBob]

This discussion made me think of this Onion classic:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/tornado-violence-are-tornadic-images-in-the-media,730/

For the record, I don't think of this as a black and white, all or nothing issue.  I don't own a gun, but enjoy shooting them and don't have a problem with others having guns.  That said, I think there can be reasonable restrictions to gun ownership just like there are restrictions on other dangerous things like driving automobiles.  Do I think very gun law out there makes sense?  Not at all.  I'm sure some are asinine.  At the other end of the spectrum, I don't buy the notion that everybody walking around armed to the teeth makes us safer.  I know some of you think there is no in between on this issue.  That's ok - you can think what you want and I'll think what I want (of course I'm right though ).  Does all that make me a "socialist queer"?   

Eamon

Eamon - Once again - The Voice of Reason .... BRAVO for this! You are quite right here - the "all or nothings" have polluted the REAL issue to where it'll never surface again. I am a gun collector / owner and part time shooter. I only blast inanimate targets and I'm only interested in old, unique or unusual firearms. Glock? Couldn't care less - Old Enfield rifle? Sign me right up! I have an AK because it's mechanically interesting to me - as well as a Roth-Steyr - again - interesting mechanicals .... Point is - I'm probably not "dangerous" and I'd gladly sign up for a "drivers license" for these. I think the folks that wouldn't probably have something to hide .... NOW the pot is stirred .........

[Lahti35]

Does all that make me a "socialist queer"?  

Eamon

Ok course not Big E! "Socialist queers" can only opperate state owned, redistributed,  and sanctioned property....we'd never see one on an RE!

[PhilJ]

Wow! Only on this forum. So nice the read thoughtful responses.

I been a shooter since I was six. I love to shoot targets. I have hunted, but don't really enjoy it.

My problem is, even though I'm a life member, the NRA is an extreme organization. That's my problem with them. The anti-gun group is an extreme organization. The political parties seem mostly extreme, both Repubs and Dems.

When those groups make their extreme statements against each other, the argument is essentially over, there is no place to go. Compromise is dead. Until we as a society learn to accept differences, and appreciate each other for what we are, we are doomed to be mired down in un-winable arguments with no solution.

[Cabo Cruz]

Well, my brothers and sisters, I'm going to serve two samples of food for thought on your plates:

1. Thankfully, the American Revolution succeeds for a number of reasons.  Chief among them is the fact that the King allowed gun ownership in the Colony -- there were no gun bans here back then!

2. Unfortunately, the Bay of Pigs Invasion failed for a number of reasons.  Among the principal reasons is the fact that the Dictator did not allow gun ownership in the island nation -- there was not only a national gun ban, there had been a national confiscation of privately (and previously legally) owned rifles, shotguns and handguns!

God forbid I should, again, lose the right to own firearms for the pleasure of punching holes on paper or knocking down steel plates or, God forbid, the need of defending my family or myself from an armed and dangerous attacker.

In closing, each one of us has a decision choice on the legal gun ownership matter.  It's great that we do live in this Bastion of Freedom!  Additionally, I am not going to debate or defend my position (conviction) on the matter.  Enjoy the food I shared with you, my brothers and sisters.

[ace.cafe]

Well, I think it's a pretty cut-and-dried subject.
In the US, guns are a right that is guaranteed unalienable by the Bill of Rights in the Constitution, and every elected official swears an oath to protect and uphold it.

What other countries do, and discussions about whether some people don't like it, or discussion about crime rates are rather immaterial.
Surrendering my unalienable rights or my liberty or property is not on the table for discussion under any circumstances.

For me, that ends the discussion.

[ScooterBob]

Excellent "food" papa! - And quite the "real world" examples as well. A man couldn't hardly argue with that. 

[Lahti35]

Excellent "food" papa! - And quite the "real world" examples as well. A man couldn't hardly argue with that. 

Hear, hear!

[oldsalt]

I don't own ANY dangerous guns.  When I pick up another one I always test it out.  I don't mean proof testing or going out and sighting it in, I mean finding out if the gun is one of the 'killer' guns that should be banned.  What I do is set the loaded gun on the kitchen table and then go about my business cooking and washing dishes and etc.....but I keep a watch out the corner of my eye on that untested firearm.  If at anytime it starts to rotate around and point its muzze at me I immediately unload the thing and go on the other side of town and peddle it out the window of the car to someone that is less picky about such things.   

As far as 'The Right To Keep and Bear Arms";  It must be remembered that we here in America have the more guaranteed rights and freedoms than ANY other people in the world.  Or any country at ANY time in the history of mankind.  There can be no arguement about that.  But the time span between the granting of them rights and the present day is only a quick 'flash in the pan' when compared to the long,sorry, history of mankind.  Our freedoms in the U.S. of A. can, and should be, regarded as a noble experiment.  A very delicate one being tried out during a very short blip of time.  Anyone that wishes to erode or, as the left-wing liberals wish, to totally take away various rights, WHICH CANNOT EVER BE REPLACED, is nothing short of a nearsighted fool.   Another light would go out that will never be relit.  These same people are so very worried about any species of animal or insect going away, based on my observations in the last few decades, couldn't care less if the only truely free people become part and parcel with Canada, UK, Cuba and etc..  Freedom has its costs.  Nothing is ever 100% positive.  Thinking people can't and don't claim there is not a downside.  But to make capital of defects resulting from our Constitutional Rights, and 'cure' the real or imagined problems by canceling parts of the Constitution is crazyness.  Absolute madness. 

Will  "...people with zeal and wellmeaning, but without understanding, put to death our freedoms"?  I hope I have that quote correctly written. 

One more thing.  Where in the hell do foreigners get off snivveling about our way of life here in America?  What is running through their minds to think it is absolutely O.K. to voice ANY opinion [other than to the other unlucky citizens of their own country] on our politics, type of government, political situations, rate of crime, laws, or displacement of the engines in our cars, or any other matter that is, perforce, absolutely none of their damned business???  I am probably sorta an average American when it comes to harboring opinions about other countrie's internal doings.  I don't even think about such things.  Sure, I know that we have the right to build and fly our own airplanes here [home made more that 50%] but most others don't.  Ya, we are not regulated by the government regarding what radio and TV waves we can intercept [only the transmission of radio wave is regulated here].  Its really loose here regarding cars; we can put together a hot rod for short money in our garage that will blow the doors off anything manufactured in any country and drive it on the street.  I somehow know that we are superior but I would never get on the net and try to bash folks in foreign countries because of their real or perceived shortcommings.   

[Eamon]

I think it is very American to be OK with anyone voicing their opinion on anything.  Surely we can all handle an opinion, no matter who it's from.  Xenophobia does nothing to advance the cause of freedom.

Eamon