Because in 40 some threads on this damn message board, i have yet (even after asking for specifics) heard anyone actualy suggest what the fuck they mean by "gun control" ... and i said ... SPECIFICALY!
So lay it out for me ...
what mental illnesses would leave you legaly unable to own a gun?
how long should you have to wait?
Who decides what "crazy" is, and who is and isn't?
What will be on these "rigorous" tests administered before you are allowed to buy a gun?
Who will pay the administrative costs?
Answer any of this, and you guys may have a leg to stand on, but i doubt it.
People screaming for gun control don't even know what the fuck they realy want, or how the fuck it would realy work ... they just want the government to save them from the possibility of death, and they are willing to give up essential liberty to secure that (see my signature).
I'm not a fucking policy maker but status quo is not working. If you have ever been to mental instution for having violent thoughts like Cho then yea you should never own a gun. Why is that bad?
If you take a standard pychological test when registering for a gun and any flags come up then I don't want that person owning a gun.
If the person has ever been arrested for a violent crime they should never own a gun.
And asking me to come up with the rigorous test is just stupid and not a fair debate point.
You have not answered my question. Why are you so against Gun Control when no one wants to take away your rights to own a gun?
Are you worried you might fail one of the psychological tests?
10/31/2000 (****)
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
All of your questions are pretty much "its hard so we better not do it".
No,
my questions are "The slope is really slippery, and since you people who want this don't even understand what you're asking for, how the hell can you expect anyone else to agree with you?"
So your entire solution is to have people go get a doctors note?
You don't see this being roughly equivilant to when abortions were illegal? "Hey i know a doctor in this town ... give him a call, he'll write you a note."
???
Pfffft.
And how is taking tests showing you know how to use a weapon going to stop you from using that weapon to kill innocent people?
Don't they just subsidize killers, by helping them shoot better?
BTW, how well do all those DMV tests help? Ever paid attention to US auto accident statistics? I'll give you a hint, there are like over 6 MILLION auto accidents reported each year.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Well i guess the pro-gun folks can all thank god that the people who wrote our constitution strongly disagreed with you.
ps - look down at my signature.
No - they agreed with me. The problem is that the right to bear arms has not kept up with weapon technology. It's still limited to small arms. We lost the right (or the intent of it) a long, long time ago.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
even after 5pgs of debate no one has posted a viable solution its still status quo and more innocent lives will be taken in the future, and nothing will ever be done ever about the problem i include myself in not having a clue as to what would be the best answer ,except that guns are part of this country's heritage ..." how the west was won " :(
No,
my questions are "The slope is really slippery, and since you people who want this don't even understand what you're asking for, how the hell can you expect anyone else to agree with you?"
So your entire solution is to have people go get a doctors note?
A doctors note is actually more then you think it is. It is basically a doctor putting his professional reputation on the line and saying that a person is mentally capable of owning a gun. Do you acutally think you could find a doctor who would sign off on something like that for anyone, unless they think they are capable of owning a gun? If someone wants a gun, ok. But I don't really think making them jump through hoops to prove that they are capable of owning one is a bad thing. I mean you have to take a psylogical test to be a cop or be in the army, why shouldn't other gun owners be subjected to these tests as well.
No,
my questions are "The slope is really slippery, and since you people who want this don't even understand what you're asking for, how the hell can you expect anyone else to agree with you?"
So your entire solution is to have people go get a doctors note?
You don't see this being roughly equivilant to when abortions were illegal? "Hey i know a doctor in this town ... give him a call, he'll write you a note."
???
Pfffft.
And how is taking tests showing you know how to use a weapon going to stop you from using that weapon to kill innocent people?
Don't they just subsidize killers, by helping them shoot better?
I'm going to change it around on you.
We have more and more violent crimes where young people are being gunned down in mass killings. These crimes are always done with many guns in the hands of dangerous indivisuals. Obviously something needs to be done so what do you suggest?
All I want is for America to institute some policies to make it slightly more difficult and maybe slightly longer to receive a gun.
I want to put a heavy restriction on automatic weapons.
I want to ban armor piercing bullets to protect our cops on duty.
I hear no solutions from you when there is clearly a problem.
Your thoughts???
10/31/2000 (****)
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
You have not answered my question. Why are you so against Gun Control when no one wants to take away your rights to own a gun?
Are you worried you might fail one of the psychological tests?
Well, i was diagnosed with ADHD when i was 15.
How can i be assured that "they" won't consider me crazy?
And do i have to take it to court and spend thousands of dollars to prove i am not?
You don't see the whole "slippery slope" side of this?
Its fucking retarded.
So anyone that is diagnosed as bi-polar shouldn't be able to own a gun?
Yeah right.
How about Post Traumatic Stress Disorder?
Should we take away guns from all our returning veterans?
Bwahahahahah.
Come on.
This is just lame-o.
BTW,
WE ALREADY HAVE GUN CONTROL, FYI.
Why do we need more?
Gun Control Act of 1968
Prohibited persons
Under the GCA, firearms possession by certain categories individuals is prohibited.
Anyone who is under the age of 18, except with the written permission of their parent or guardian.
Anyone who has been convicted in a federal court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year, excluding crimes of imprisonment that are related to the regulation of business practices.
Anyone who has been convicted in a state court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 2 years, excluding crimes of imprisonment that are related to the regulation of business practices.
Anyone who is a fugitive from justice.
Anyone who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.
Anyone who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution.
Any alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States or an alien admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa.
Anyone who has been discharged from the US Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions.
Anyone who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his or her citizenship.
Anyone that is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner.
Anyone who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. (See the Lautenberg Amendment.)
A person who is under indictment or information for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year cannot lawfully receive a firearm. Such person may continue to lawfully possess firearms obtained prior to the indictment or information.
The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 created a national background check system to prevent firearms sales to such "prohibited persons."
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
But the US COULD wipe them off the mat here if they really wanted to and those small arms would be useless.
I don't see how you seem to be so sure of how the government would act.
I maintain that the right to bear small arms is meaningless.
Well, there are political implications, to be sure. Why haven't we nuked Iraq? I'm pretty sure the US would be even less likely to nuke its own people.
In addition, how would the government be able to convince the military to exterminate a majority of the population? And what kind of populace would be left? What would be left would be completely worthless and unproductive. It would be game over.
No, they'd try to do it much more subtely. They'd bring in national guard to try to maintain control. When that didn't work they'd bring in real army, and it would probably look similar to Iraq. I know they'd meet similar resistance.
And gabers, while citizens currently aren't sitting around holidng automatic weapons and ieds, anyone with an internet connection or a tattered copy of the anarchist cookbook could wreak havoc without a lot of training and expertise. I've never ignited an explosive bigger than an M80, but I'm sure I could learn in a hurry if I had to.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
How can i be assured that "they" won't consider me crazy?
And do i have to take it to court and spend thousands of dollars to prove i am not?
You don't see the whole "slippery slope" side of this?
Its fucking retarded.
So anyone that is diagnosed as bi-polar shouldn't be able to own a gun?
Yeah right.
How about Post Traumatic Stress Disorder?
Why is it bad to make someone who has a mental illness prove that their illness won't affect them when it comes to owning a gun? Like I said people who suffer from seizures or narcolepsy have to prove that their illness won't affect them when it comes to driving a car, how exactly is this different. You even said in your own post that drug addicts or mental defectives aren't allowed to own guns. So why shouldn't it be up to gun owners to prove that they are not in those catergories (psyche and drug test)?
How can i be assured that "they" won't consider me crazy?
And do i have to take it to court and spend thousands of dollars to prove i am not?
You don't see the whole "slippery slope" side of this?
Its fucking retarded.
So anyone that is diagnosed as bi-polar shouldn't be able to own a gun?
Yeah right.
How about Post Traumatic Stress Disorder?
Should we take away guns from all our returning veterans?
Bwahahahahah.
Come on.
This is just lame-o.
I'm pretty sure you would pass the Psych test if you were ADHD and or Bi-Polar. If you don't know the difference between those two diseases and true Psychotic behavior that those tests can pick up on then I don't know what to tell you.
No person with ADHD is going to be flagged as a danger. You are really reaching on that point.
You still haven't answered my main question...Do you really think all of these violent crimes the last few years are completely unpreventable?
That we should just accept that at any time a dangerous indivisual will arm himself with many guns and shoot up a school. Nothing should be done even though these incidents are increasing not decreasing.
Earlier this week a 14 year old shot and killed a 15 year old kid in Oxnard because the 15 year old may have been gay. The 14 year old by all accounts was a good kid who was on the basketball team. That's two school shootings in one week!!!
We have a problem in this country and guns are apart of it. Doing nothing will not correct it only make it worse.
10/31/2000 (****)
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
and, we already have HEAVY GUN CONTROL ... any one convicted federaly of a crime with a sentence of more than 1 year, anyone convicted at the state level of a crime of more than 2 years ... any one who smokes pot or does drugs ... anyone who has ever been commited to a mental institution ... illegal aliens ... former US citizens who denounced their citizenship ... dishonarably discharged armed service members ... anyone who has a restraining order against them for threatening a woman or child ... anyone convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence ...
i mean SERIOUSLY ... what more do you want?
We have a HUGE swath of society that is already permanently barred from gunownership.
Sounds like you people just want to significantly lower the bar on the "crazy" class and put that onus on the reputation of the good doctors of this country ... then drag them through the mud if they say some one is "certified" and then they go out in a "blaze of glory".
So, i don't see an answer that involves more regulation, if that is what you are asking.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
You still haven't answered my main question...Do you really think all of these violent crimes the last few years are completely unpreventable?
That we should just accept that at any time a dangerous indivisual will arm himself with many guns and shoot up a school. Nothing should be done even though these incidents are increasing not decreasing.
What specifically should be done? What specific laws do you propose?
We already have waiting periods, background checks, bar felons from owning guns, etc... Anybody getting a concealed carry permit is fingerprinted and put in the system. Many states require training before that permit is issued. Gun safety courses are required in most places before people under 18 can get a hunting license.
So again, what specific laws do you envion passing which would eliminate the shootings you're talking about?
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Earlier this week a 14 year old shot and killed a 15 year old kid in Oxnard because the 15 year old may have been gay. The 14 year old by all accounts was a good kid who was on the basketball team.
So what law would have prevented this shooting?
Sounds like TOTAL GUN BAN, if you ask me.
Because, unless he had written consent from his parents, he was already ILLEGAL to own a gun on account of his age.
And if he did have permission, or if he had been 18 instead of 14 ... you just said, he was a good kid ...
what test would have stopped him from getting a gun?
And what law would have stopped him from finding one illegaly, if that is what he wanted?
No one proposing even more rigid gun control has yet to step up and answer how ANY law is going to prevent those who want certain items from procuring them, regardless of the legal status of that transaction. Drug laws being proof positive.
I have answered every question thrown at me so far,
i've yet to hear some of MY questions be answered though.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
and, we already have HEAVY GUN CONTROL ... any one convicted federaly of a crime with a sentence of more than 1 year, anyone convicted at the state level of a crime of more than 2 years ... any one who smokes pot or does drugs ... anyone who has ever been commited to a mental institution ... illegal aliens ... former US citizens who denounced their citizenship ... dishonarably discharged armed service members ... anyone who has a restraining order against them for threatening a woman or child ... anyone convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence ...
i mean SERIOUSLY ... what more do you want?
We have a HUGE swath of society that is already permanently barred from gunownership.
Sounds like you people just want to significantly lower the bar on the "crazy" class and put that onus on the reputation of the good doctors of this country ... then drag them through the mud if they say some one is "certified" and then they go out in a "blaze of glory".
So, i don't see an answer that involves more regulation, if that is what you are asking.
So you do not see an increase in mass killings in the US?
You don't think its a problem?
By coming out hours after the attack at Northern Illilnois saying that we don't need gun control is really a slap in the face to the victims and there families.
Everytime there is a violent crime the first thing that gun owners do is come out and say its not the guns fault or that guns don't kill people but people kill people.
Its all a bunch of bullshit. There is a problem in this society and the NRA and gun lobbyists refusal to do anything about it is the big reason why.
So this weekend go out enjoy your guns, go to the shooting range etc.
No one wants to take this away from you. Firing guns is fun!
I just think that we can do better making sure qualified people receive guns. It won't prevent all gun crimes but I think it can reduce them which is better then status quo.
10/31/2000 (****)
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
So you do not see an increase in mass killings in the US?
You don't think its a problem?
By coming out hours after the attack at Northern Illilnois saying that we don't need gun control is really a slap in the face to the victims and there families.
Everytime there is a violent crime the first thing that gun owners do is come out and say its not the guns fault or that guns don't kill people but people kill people.
Its all a bunch of bullshit. There is a problem in this society and the NRA and gun lobbyists refusal to do anything about it is the big reason why.
So this weekend go out enjoy your guns, go to the shooting range etc.
No one wants to take this away from you. Firing guns is fun!
I just think that we can do better making sure qualified people receive guns. It won't prevent all gun crimes but I think it can reduce them which is better then status quo.
Yeah but guns have been available forever. Humans who want to harm other humans are very adept at finding a way to do so... this goes back to ancient times and it's how the gun was invented to begin with. I think the issue is more the psycological makeup of our society, penchant for violence and then insert numbing drugs instead of dealing with issues....pretend nothing is wrong until they explode. We have a very violent society... we demonize social drug use and sex which tends to make people happy and we're really competitive and risk taking...This supposed escalation of violence was only a matter of time.
Just like with drugs, I don't think illegality stops the problem at all. I think the treatment of psycosis and trying to heal all these young peoples brains is the better salve for society.
It's not everyone doing these things either. Almost all are male in thier teens and 20's who are really really angry and they have no coping mechanisms... (psycotropic drugs do not count as a coping mechanism it's a bandaid on a dam) They haven't yet learned that almost everyone in the world goes through rough depressing patches in life and it's normal you just have to keep trying.
We are the generation of the quick fix... Fix my kid his mind wanders.... Fix my kid he screams all the time. Fix me, I can't sleep easily. Fix my kid he's depressed. I just don't think most of the psycological issues can be treated well with drugs. I think people need therapy. Long term emotional therapy.... and we need to spend more time on vacation geez.
My Girlfriend said to me..."How many guitars do you need?" and I replied...."How many pairs of shoes do you need?" She got really quiet.
What specifically should be done? What specific laws do you propose?
We already have waiting periods, background checks, bar felons from owning guns, etc... Anybody getting a concealed carry permit is fingerprinted and put in the system. Many states require training before that permit is issued. Gun safety courses are required in most places before people under 18 can get a hunting license.
So again, what specific laws do you envion passing which would eliminate the shootings you're talking about?
First of all different states should not have different rules for getting guns. That would be my big policy change.
It should not be known that certain states its easier to get a gun then others. It should be one test mandated by the federal government that all states follow.
And second I'm not a fucking politician and I don't pretend to be one. It's not my job to plot out policy changes.
I do have the right to feel that there are to many gun deaths in this country. And it is also my opinion that gun owners really don't understand that no one wants to take away guns. Just more consistent regulations across the board and Psychological background checks on all gun purchases. If all states did this Cho in Virginia would not have qualified for a gun and 30 plus students would be alive today.
I am interested to see what this 27 year old in Illinois was like...
10/31/2000 (****)
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
First of all different states should not have different rules for getting guns. That would be my big policy change.
It should not be known that certain states its easier to get a gun then others. It should be one test mandated by the federal government that all states follow.
And second I'm not a fucking politician and I don't pretend to be one. It's not my job to plot out policy changes.
I do have the right to feel that there are to many gun deaths in this country. And it is also my opinion that gun owners really don't understand that no one wants to take away guns. Just more consistent regulations across the board and Psychological background checks on all gun purchases. If all states did this Cho in Virginia would not have qualified for a gun and 30 plus students would be alive today.
I am interested to see what this 27 year old in Illinois was like...
That's fine, but the 2 things you've specifically mentioned previously in this thread (no automatic weapons & no armor piercing bullets) had absolutely nothing to do with this or any of the other high publicity shootings lately. You seem to want to jump up and down and "just do something" without that "something" being a meaninful solution to any existing problem. Pacomc79's line of thinking is much more productive. Look at the underlying issues of the individuals and deal with those. Fix the leak in the dam before it bursts.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
I just think that we can do better making sure qualified people receive guns. It won't prevent all gun crimes but I think it can reduce them which is better then status quo.
If you think we can do better, then how come you didn't answer the last 3 posts of questions, namely WHAT LAWS do you think would have prevented these latest shootings.
And, FYI, its not a gun problem, it is a mental health problem ... and it is occuring because our society is breaking down.
There isn't a lot gun control can do to prevent people from wigging out and going nuts ...
if America wants to get out of the gun problem, we need to start focusing on the fundamentals of society again ... get people understanding that life is about people and love ... not JUST money and status ... we have a LONG way to go.
As disconnected as it sounds, rethinking fiscal policy would be a great start, because the fact that monitary policy is brutaly oppressing the middle class is probably a major factor in this violence ... wether the people going crazy know it or not ...
... the subconscious recognition that it is nearly impossible for the average joe to "get ahead" now ... and that the men with money are continuing to get richer while we get poorer ... that is a result of fiscal policy ... and it is also resulting in a lot of people going nuts.
I know i am nearly there.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Yeah but guns have been available forever. Humans who want to harm other humans are very adept at finding a way to do so... this goes back to ancient times and it's how the gun was invented to begin with. I think the issue is more the psycological makeup of our society, penchant for violence and then insert numbing drugs instead of dealing with issues....pretend nothing is wrong until they explode. We have a very violent society... we demonize social drug use and sex which tends to make people happy and we're really competitive and risk taking...This supposed escalation of violence was only a matter of time.
Just like with drugs, I don't think illegality stops the problem at all. I think the treatment of psycosis and trying to heal all these young peoples brains is the better salve for society.
It's not everyone doing these things either. Almost all are male in thier teens and 20's who are really really angry and they have no coping mechanisms... (psycotropic drugs do not count as a coping mechanism it's a bandaid on a dam) They haven't yet learned that almost everyone in the world goes through rough depressing patches in life and it's normal you just have to keep trying.
I can by this argument.
The issue may not be guns but the violence in society. But due to this increasing violence we may need to modify some gun laws for our protection. We also need to look at what is causing this. I don't think its Grand Theft Auto or Marilyn Manson but something is going on.
I have not once said I want drastic changes but the gun guys on this board sure take it that way.
10/31/2000 (****)
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
That's fine, but the 2 things you've specifically mentioned previously in this thread (no automatic weapons & no armor piercing bullets) had absolutely nothing to do with this or any of the other high publicity shootings lately. You seem to want to jump up and down and "just do something" without that "something" being a meaningful solution to any existing problem. Pacomc79's line of thinking is much more productive. Look at the underlying issues of the individuals and deal with those. Fix the leak in the dam before it bursts.
I never said that they had to do with the latest shootings, but the NRA's defense of having automatic weapons and armor piercing bullets is part of the problem in that they won't even acknowledge that there is an increase of violent crimes in the US.
Also there IS an upswing in violence that is NOT caused by guns but by deeper psychological problems. But guns are used in the crimes. I truly believe that with proper background checks and psychological testing some of these crimes could have been prevented. The problem is there is no facts to prove my point but also none to prove me wrong.
10/31/2000 (****)
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
I never said that they had to do with the latest shootings, but the NRA's defense of having automatic weapons and armor piercing bullets is part of the problem in that they won't even acknowledge that there is an increase of violent crimes in the US.
How big a part of the problem are these things? What percentage of crime is committed with automatic firearms? Hint: very, very, very small. What percentage of crime is committed with armor piercing bullets? Hint: very, very, very small. Please let me know how much either of these two bannings will effect overall crime rate. I'd be curious to discover why these are highlighted, other than the media wow factor.
Also there IS an upswing in violence that is NOT caused by guns but by deeper psychological problems. But guns are used in the crimes. I truly believe that with proper background checks and psychological testing some of these crimes could have been prevented. The problem is there is no facts to prove my point but also none to prove me wrong.
I haven't come on here opposed to background checks. And I agree with you that they need to be done, and done properly. But this isn't anything new. So why don't people start threads saying "Let's enforce our current laws"? Why do we always have to have threads looking for new ways to let the government exert more control over us?
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
I haven't come on here opposed to background checks. And I agree with you that they need to be done, and done properly. But this isn't anything new. So why don't people start threads saying "Let's enforce our current laws"? Why do we always have to have threads looking for new ways to let the government exert more control over us?
The automatic weapons isn't the problem but the NRA's refusal to acknowledge that there is no need for those kinds of weapons is a big problem. Why does a hunter need an automatic weapon to kill Bambi's mom? They don't but the NRA will still fight for this right. To me the problem is that they can't even concede ANYTHING to the other side of the argument even the use of automatic weapons.
But I do agree with what I quoted above. We should enforce what we already have in place successfully and see if that leads to some improvement.
I disagree about the government trying to exert more control however. I feel the Patriot Act is an example of trying to exert more control not better and or safer gun laws.
10/31/2000 (****)
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
The automatic weapons isn't the problem but the NRA's refusal to acknowledge that there is no need for those kinds of weapons is a big problem. Why does a hunter need an automatic weapon to kill Bambi's mom? They don't but the NRA will still fight for this right. To me the problem is that they can't even concede ANYTHING to the other side of the argument even the use of automatic weapons.
The 2nd ammendment has nothing to do with hunting. I don't know why hunting is the standard by which we justify firearms.
I disagree about the government trying to exert more control however. I feel the Patriot Act is an example of trying to exert more control not better and or safer gun laws.
When an enumerated right is whittled down by government intervention I get defensive. Whether we're talking about the 1st, 2nd, 4th ammendment, etc... So I agree with you completely about the patriot act. But hold those same standards to the 2nd ammendment as well.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
When an enumerated right is whittled down by government intervention I get defensive. Whether we're talking about the 1st, 2nd, 4th ammendment, etc... So I agree with you completely about the patriot act. But hold those same standards to the 2nd ammendment as well.
Agree with you completely which is why I can't say that I want to outright ban guns even if I don't like the thought of so many people running around with one.
I do think that any Amendment in our constitution can be modified for the current times and the gun laws that worked in 1776 may not work in 2008.
We can agree that there is no excuse for the Patriot Act!
10/31/2000 (****)
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
Unfortunately the facts on this latest case support my position. I am not happy about this at all as it shows how fucking sad our gun laws are. According to Foxnews (and really where else can you get your news! j/k) the shooter had been acting erratically since being off of his meds. He also purchased 2 of the guns 5 days ago.
Anyone on meds for psychological issues should have to go through a more extensive evaluation to get a gun. It should take longer then 5 days to get a gun in these cases. Hell it should take longer then 5 days to get a gun in all cases.
I actually feel exactly like Obama does on the issue. And he doesn't propose any legislation at this time because its way to complex of an issue to have a knee jerk reation to. He feels like I do that SOMETHING has to be done because this is getting redamndiculous.
10/31/2000 (****)
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
A doctors note is actually more then you think it is. It is basically a doctor putting his professional reputation on the line and saying that a person is mentally capable of owning a gun. Do you acutally think you could find a doctor who would sign off on something like that for anyone, unless they think they are capable of owning a gun? If someone wants a gun, ok. But I don't really think making them jump through hoops to prove that they are capable of owning one is a bad thing. I mean you have to take a psylogical test to be a cop or be in the army, why shouldn't other gun owners be subjected to these tests as well.
and those psychological tests for cops and the military have worked out so well havent they?
we have more cops abusing their power and military shooting innocent people than ever before in our history
thats just goes to prove if you lie on a psychological test you get approved
if you haven't noticed we have become a nation of liars to get what we want
Agree with you completely which is why I can't say that I want to outright ban guns even if I don't like the thought of so many people running around with one.
I do think that any Amendment in our constitution can be modified for the current times and the gun laws that worked in 1776 may not work in 2008.
We can agree that there is no excuse for the Patriot Act!
I believe the 2nd amendment should never be modified
it is there to protect us, not destroy us
and yes the Patriot Act is only there to try to control us, not protect us
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were
forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed
by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more
than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:
List of 7 items:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44
percent)!
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up
300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in,
the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease
in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward
in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their
prey is unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults
of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how
public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense
was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The
Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.
You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians
disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and,
yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.
Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!
The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind
them of this history lesson.
With guns, we are 'citizens'.
Without them, we are 'subjects'.
During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because
they knew most Americans were ARMED!
If you value your freedom, Please spread this anti-gun control
message to all of your friends.[/quote]
Your stats only include the 12 months since new gun control laws were introduced in Australia. Here are some more recent stats:
An examination of firearm related deaths in Australia between 1991 and 2001 found a 47 per cent decrease in numbers, with a fall in the number of suicides accounting for the largest part of that decrease. Nine out of 10 firearm related deaths involved males. Compared to firearm related suicides and accidents where less than 10 per cent involved the death of a female, a higher proportion of homicides involved a female victim (33%). Persons under the age of 15 years were least likely to die as a result of a firearm related injury. Males and females who suffered a fatal firearms injury tended to follow a similar age distribution, with persons aged between 24 and 34 years accounting for the largest number of firearm related deaths. There appears to be a shift in age related risk between 1991 and 2001. In 1991, males aged between 15 and 24 years had the highest risk of firearm related fatal injury (rate of 9.5 per 100 000), whereas in 2001 males aged 65 years and older had the highest risk (rate of 4.9 per 100 000). The majority of firearm related deaths were committed with a hunting rifle, although there has been an increase in the use of handguns.
The main data source analysed in the production of this report is the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Underlying Cause of Death unit record data supplied to the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) for the period 1991 to 2001. The registration of deaths is the responsibility of the individual state and territory Registrars of Births, Deaths and Marriages. Information relating to the cause of death supplied by either a medical practitioner or by a Coroner is included as part of the registration. Such information is then provided to the ABS for subsequent coding. The data used in this report have been coded by the ABS in accordance with the tenth revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10), which has been adopted for Australian use in the case of deaths.
In total there were 5083 registered deaths attributable to firearms in Australia between 1991 and 2001. Suicides committed with firearms accounted for the majority of these deaths (77%), followed by firearms homicide (15%), firearms accidents (5%), firearms deaths resulting from legal intervention and undetermined deaths (2%). Over the 11 year period the number and rate of firearm related deaths has decreased (Figure 1 and Table 1). In comparison, there has been little change in the trend for deaths caused by sharp instruments. In 1991 there were 629 firearm related deaths in Australia compared to 333 in 2001. This represents a 47 per cent decrease in firearms deaths between 1991 and 2001. The incidence of both firearms suicides and firearms homicides almost halved over the 11 year period. While the number of firearms homicides has continued to decline, with 2001 recording the lowest number of firearms homicides during this period (n=47), the number of firearms suicides declined consistently from 1991 to 1998, but has since fluctuated. The number of firearm related accidents also fluctuated over the same period, from 29 firearms accidents in 1991 to 18 in 2001, but ranging between 15 and 45 over this time. While the numbers are quite small, the year 2000 recorded the highest number of firearms accidents (45 accidents) during the 11 year period.
A = Accident, S = Suicide, H = Homicide, O + Other, T = Total.
note: sorry, the table wouldn't copy very well, I tried to space it properly, but it wouldn't work.
The firearm related death rate for males, females and all persons (regardless of gender) in Australia has similarly decreased over the 11 year period (Table 2). In 1991 the firearm related death rate was 3.6 per 100 000 persons, 6.6 per 100 000 males and 0.7 per 100 000 females. In 2001 the firearm related death rate decreased to 1.7 per 100 000 persons, 3.1 per 100 000 males and 0.4 per 100 000 females.
There is a whole lot more of this, too much to paste here. These stats only go to 2001, I am looking for more recent research. I just want to point out the increase in homicide in 1996. The number went from 67 in 1995, to 104 in 1996, then fell again to 79 in 1997. This would be attributed to the Port Arthur massacre where 35 people were shot and killed, and 37 more were injured. Had this not occurred, the number would have been relatively consistent with annual trends. It was after Port Arthur that new gun control laws were introduced, and there has been a steady overall decline ever since, at least until 2001. Like I said, looking for more recent stats between 2001 and now.
First of all different states should not have different rules for getting guns. That would be my big policy change.
It should not be known that certain states its easier to get a gun then others. It should be one test mandated by the federal government that all states follow.
And second I'm not a fucking politician and I don't pretend to be one. It's not my job to plot out policy changes.
I do have the right to feel that there are to many gun deaths in this country. And it is also my opinion that gun owners really don't understand that no one wants to take away guns. Just more consistent regulations across the board and Psychological background checks on all gun purchases. If all states did this Cho in Virginia would not have qualified for a gun and 30 plus students would be alive today.
I am interested to see what this 27 year old in Illinois was like...
more laws, just what we need
hahahahahahahahaha, not
(lets make the Government bigger that will help so much)
I'll be right back I'm gonna go puke, your ignorance is making me sick
Comments
I'm not a fucking policy maker but status quo is not working. If you have ever been to mental instution for having violent thoughts like Cho then yea you should never own a gun. Why is that bad?
If you take a standard pychological test when registering for a gun and any flags come up then I don't want that person owning a gun.
If the person has ever been arrested for a violent crime they should never own a gun.
And asking me to come up with the rigorous test is just stupid and not a fair debate point.
You have not answered my question. Why are you so against Gun Control when no one wants to take away your rights to own a gun?
Are you worried you might fail one of the psychological tests?
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
No,
my questions are "The slope is really slippery, and since you people who want this don't even understand what you're asking for, how the hell can you expect anyone else to agree with you?"
So your entire solution is to have people go get a doctors note?
You don't see this being roughly equivilant to when abortions were illegal? "Hey i know a doctor in this town ... give him a call, he'll write you a note."
???
Pfffft.
And how is taking tests showing you know how to use a weapon going to stop you from using that weapon to kill innocent people?
Don't they just subsidize killers, by helping them shoot better?
BTW, how well do all those DMV tests help? Ever paid attention to US auto accident statistics? I'll give you a hint, there are like over 6 MILLION auto accidents reported each year.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
No - they agreed with me. The problem is that the right to bear arms has not kept up with weapon technology. It's still limited to small arms. We lost the right (or the intent of it) a long, long time ago.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
A doctors note is actually more then you think it is. It is basically a doctor putting his professional reputation on the line and saying that a person is mentally capable of owning a gun. Do you acutally think you could find a doctor who would sign off on something like that for anyone, unless they think they are capable of owning a gun? If someone wants a gun, ok. But I don't really think making them jump through hoops to prove that they are capable of owning one is a bad thing. I mean you have to take a psylogical test to be a cop or be in the army, why shouldn't other gun owners be subjected to these tests as well.
I'm going to change it around on you.
We have more and more violent crimes where young people are being gunned down in mass killings. These crimes are always done with many guns in the hands of dangerous indivisuals. Obviously something needs to be done so what do you suggest?
All I want is for America to institute some policies to make it slightly more difficult and maybe slightly longer to receive a gun.
I want to put a heavy restriction on automatic weapons.
I want to ban armor piercing bullets to protect our cops on duty.
I hear no solutions from you when there is clearly a problem.
Your thoughts???
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
Well, i was diagnosed with ADHD when i was 15.
How can i be assured that "they" won't consider me crazy?
And do i have to take it to court and spend thousands of dollars to prove i am not?
You don't see the whole "slippery slope" side of this?
Its fucking retarded.
So anyone that is diagnosed as bi-polar shouldn't be able to own a gun?
Yeah right.
How about Post Traumatic Stress Disorder?
Should we take away guns from all our returning veterans?
Bwahahahahah.
Come on.
This is just lame-o.
BTW,
WE ALREADY HAVE GUN CONTROL, FYI.
Why do we need more?
Gun Control Act of 1968
Prohibited persons
Under the GCA, firearms possession by certain categories individuals is prohibited.
Anyone who is under the age of 18, except with the written permission of their parent or guardian.
Anyone who has been convicted in a federal court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year, excluding crimes of imprisonment that are related to the regulation of business practices.
Anyone who has been convicted in a state court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 2 years, excluding crimes of imprisonment that are related to the regulation of business practices.
Anyone who is a fugitive from justice.
Anyone who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.
Anyone who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution.
Any alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States or an alien admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa.
Anyone who has been discharged from the US Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions.
Anyone who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his or her citizenship.
Anyone that is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner.
Anyone who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. (See the Lautenberg Amendment.)
A person who is under indictment or information for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year cannot lawfully receive a firearm. Such person may continue to lawfully possess firearms obtained prior to the indictment or information.
The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 created a national background check system to prevent firearms sales to such "prohibited persons."
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Well, there are political implications, to be sure. Why haven't we nuked Iraq? I'm pretty sure the US would be even less likely to nuke its own people.
In addition, how would the government be able to convince the military to exterminate a majority of the population? And what kind of populace would be left? What would be left would be completely worthless and unproductive. It would be game over.
No, they'd try to do it much more subtely. They'd bring in national guard to try to maintain control. When that didn't work they'd bring in real army, and it would probably look similar to Iraq. I know they'd meet similar resistance.
And gabers, while citizens currently aren't sitting around holidng automatic weapons and ieds, anyone with an internet connection or a tattered copy of the anarchist cookbook could wreak havoc without a lot of training and expertise. I've never ignited an explosive bigger than an M80, but I'm sure I could learn in a hurry if I had to.
Why is it bad to make someone who has a mental illness prove that their illness won't affect them when it comes to owning a gun? Like I said people who suffer from seizures or narcolepsy have to prove that their illness won't affect them when it comes to driving a car, how exactly is this different. You even said in your own post that drug addicts or mental defectives aren't allowed to own guns. So why shouldn't it be up to gun owners to prove that they are not in those catergories (psyche and drug test)?
I'm pretty sure you would pass the Psych test if you were ADHD and or Bi-Polar. If you don't know the difference between those two diseases and true Psychotic behavior that those tests can pick up on then I don't know what to tell you.
No person with ADHD is going to be flagged as a danger. You are really reaching on that point.
You still haven't answered my main question...Do you really think all of these violent crimes the last few years are completely unpreventable?
That we should just accept that at any time a dangerous indivisual will arm himself with many guns and shoot up a school. Nothing should be done even though these incidents are increasing not decreasing.
Earlier this week a 14 year old shot and killed a 15 year old kid in Oxnard because the 15 year old may have been gay. The 14 year old by all accounts was a good kid who was on the basketball team. That's two school shootings in one week!!!
We have a problem in this country and guns are apart of it. Doing nothing will not correct it only make it worse.
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
My thoughts are that we already have heavy restrictions on automatic weapons ... Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994
and, we already have HEAVY GUN CONTROL ... any one convicted federaly of a crime with a sentence of more than 1 year, anyone convicted at the state level of a crime of more than 2 years ... any one who smokes pot or does drugs ... anyone who has ever been commited to a mental institution ... illegal aliens ... former US citizens who denounced their citizenship ... dishonarably discharged armed service members ... anyone who has a restraining order against them for threatening a woman or child ... anyone convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence ...
i mean SERIOUSLY ... what more do you want?
We have a HUGE swath of society that is already permanently barred from gunownership.
Sounds like you people just want to significantly lower the bar on the "crazy" class and put that onus on the reputation of the good doctors of this country ... then drag them through the mud if they say some one is "certified" and then they go out in a "blaze of glory".
So, i don't see an answer that involves more regulation, if that is what you are asking.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
What specifically should be done? What specific laws do you propose?
We already have waiting periods, background checks, bar felons from owning guns, etc... Anybody getting a concealed carry permit is fingerprinted and put in the system. Many states require training before that permit is issued. Gun safety courses are required in most places before people under 18 can get a hunting license.
So again, what specific laws do you envion passing which would eliminate the shootings you're talking about?
So what law would have prevented this shooting?
Sounds like TOTAL GUN BAN, if you ask me.
Because, unless he had written consent from his parents, he was already ILLEGAL to own a gun on account of his age.
And if he did have permission, or if he had been 18 instead of 14 ... you just said, he was a good kid ...
what test would have stopped him from getting a gun?
And what law would have stopped him from finding one illegaly, if that is what he wanted?
No one proposing even more rigid gun control has yet to step up and answer how ANY law is going to prevent those who want certain items from procuring them, regardless of the legal status of that transaction. Drug laws being proof positive.
I have answered every question thrown at me so far,
i've yet to hear some of MY questions be answered though.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
So you do not see an increase in mass killings in the US?
You don't think its a problem?
By coming out hours after the attack at Northern Illilnois saying that we don't need gun control is really a slap in the face to the victims and there families.
Everytime there is a violent crime the first thing that gun owners do is come out and say its not the guns fault or that guns don't kill people but people kill people.
Its all a bunch of bullshit. There is a problem in this society and the NRA and gun lobbyists refusal to do anything about it is the big reason why.
So this weekend go out enjoy your guns, go to the shooting range etc.
No one wants to take this away from you. Firing guns is fun!
I just think that we can do better making sure qualified people receive guns. It won't prevent all gun crimes but I think it can reduce them which is better then status quo.
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
Yeah but guns have been available forever. Humans who want to harm other humans are very adept at finding a way to do so... this goes back to ancient times and it's how the gun was invented to begin with. I think the issue is more the psycological makeup of our society, penchant for violence and then insert numbing drugs instead of dealing with issues....pretend nothing is wrong until they explode. We have a very violent society... we demonize social drug use and sex which tends to make people happy and we're really competitive and risk taking...This supposed escalation of violence was only a matter of time.
Just like with drugs, I don't think illegality stops the problem at all. I think the treatment of psycosis and trying to heal all these young peoples brains is the better salve for society.
It's not everyone doing these things either. Almost all are male in thier teens and 20's who are really really angry and they have no coping mechanisms... (psycotropic drugs do not count as a coping mechanism it's a bandaid on a dam) They haven't yet learned that almost everyone in the world goes through rough depressing patches in life and it's normal you just have to keep trying.
We are the generation of the quick fix... Fix my kid his mind wanders.... Fix my kid he screams all the time. Fix me, I can't sleep easily. Fix my kid he's depressed. I just don't think most of the psycological issues can be treated well with drugs. I think people need therapy. Long term emotional therapy.... and we need to spend more time on vacation geez.
First of all different states should not have different rules for getting guns. That would be my big policy change.
It should not be known that certain states its easier to get a gun then others. It should be one test mandated by the federal government that all states follow.
And second I'm not a fucking politician and I don't pretend to be one. It's not my job to plot out policy changes.
I do have the right to feel that there are to many gun deaths in this country. And it is also my opinion that gun owners really don't understand that no one wants to take away guns. Just more consistent regulations across the board and Psychological background checks on all gun purchases. If all states did this Cho in Virginia would not have qualified for a gun and 30 plus students would be alive today.
I am interested to see what this 27 year old in Illinois was like...
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
That's fine, but the 2 things you've specifically mentioned previously in this thread (no automatic weapons & no armor piercing bullets) had absolutely nothing to do with this or any of the other high publicity shootings lately. You seem to want to jump up and down and "just do something" without that "something" being a meaninful solution to any existing problem. Pacomc79's line of thinking is much more productive. Look at the underlying issues of the individuals and deal with those. Fix the leak in the dam before it bursts.
If you think we can do better, then how come you didn't answer the last 3 posts of questions, namely WHAT LAWS do you think would have prevented these latest shootings.
And, FYI, its not a gun problem, it is a mental health problem ... and it is occuring because our society is breaking down.
There isn't a lot gun control can do to prevent people from wigging out and going nuts ...
if America wants to get out of the gun problem, we need to start focusing on the fundamentals of society again ... get people understanding that life is about people and love ... not JUST money and status ... we have a LONG way to go.
As disconnected as it sounds, rethinking fiscal policy would be a great start, because the fact that monitary policy is brutaly oppressing the middle class is probably a major factor in this violence ... wether the people going crazy know it or not ...
... the subconscious recognition that it is nearly impossible for the average joe to "get ahead" now ... and that the men with money are continuing to get richer while we get poorer ... that is a result of fiscal policy ... and it is also resulting in a lot of people going nuts.
I know i am nearly there.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I can by this argument.
The issue may not be guns but the violence in society. But due to this increasing violence we may need to modify some gun laws for our protection. We also need to look at what is causing this. I don't think its Grand Theft Auto or Marilyn Manson but something is going on.
I have not once said I want drastic changes but the gun guys on this board sure take it that way.
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
I never said that they had to do with the latest shootings, but the NRA's defense of having automatic weapons and armor piercing bullets is part of the problem in that they won't even acknowledge that there is an increase of violent crimes in the US.
Also there IS an upswing in violence that is NOT caused by guns but by deeper psychological problems. But guns are used in the crimes. I truly believe that with proper background checks and psychological testing some of these crimes could have been prevented. The problem is there is no facts to prove my point but also none to prove me wrong.
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
How big a part of the problem are these things? What percentage of crime is committed with automatic firearms? Hint: very, very, very small. What percentage of crime is committed with armor piercing bullets? Hint: very, very, very small. Please let me know how much either of these two bannings will effect overall crime rate. I'd be curious to discover why these are highlighted, other than the media wow factor.
I haven't come on here opposed to background checks. And I agree with you that they need to be done, and done properly. But this isn't anything new. So why don't people start threads saying "Let's enforce our current laws"? Why do we always have to have threads looking for new ways to let the government exert more control over us?
The automatic weapons isn't the problem but the NRA's refusal to acknowledge that there is no need for those kinds of weapons is a big problem. Why does a hunter need an automatic weapon to kill Bambi's mom? They don't but the NRA will still fight for this right. To me the problem is that they can't even concede ANYTHING to the other side of the argument even the use of automatic weapons.
But I do agree with what I quoted above. We should enforce what we already have in place successfully and see if that leads to some improvement.
I disagree about the government trying to exert more control however. I feel the Patriot Act is an example of trying to exert more control not better and or safer gun laws.
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
The 2nd ammendment has nothing to do with hunting. I don't know why hunting is the standard by which we justify firearms.
We are in total agreement here.
When an enumerated right is whittled down by government intervention I get defensive. Whether we're talking about the 1st, 2nd, 4th ammendment, etc... So I agree with you completely about the patriot act. But hold those same standards to the 2nd ammendment as well.
Agree with you completely which is why I can't say that I want to outright ban guns even if I don't like the thought of so many people running around with one.
I do think that any Amendment in our constitution can be modified for the current times and the gun laws that worked in 1776 may not work in 2008.
We can agree that there is no excuse for the Patriot Act!
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
Anyone on meds for psychological issues should have to go through a more extensive evaluation to get a gun. It should take longer then 5 days to get a gun in these cases. Hell it should take longer then 5 days to get a gun in all cases.
Just my opinion feel free to disagree.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330792,00.html
I actually feel exactly like Obama does on the issue. And he doesn't propose any legislation at this time because its way to complex of an issue to have a knee jerk reation to. He feels like I do that SOMETHING has to be done because this is getting redamndiculous.
http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/02/15/obama-says-us-must-end-gun-violence-after-campus-shooting-in-home-state/
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
and those psychological tests for cops and the military have worked out so well havent they?
we have more cops abusing their power and military shooting innocent people than ever before in our history
thats just goes to prove if you lie on a psychological test you get approved
if you haven't noticed we have become a nation of liars to get what we want
what makes you think this will change???????
just try thinking outside the box
ps: throw away your TV, they are lying to you
PEARL JAM~San Antonio, TX. 4~5~03
INCUBUS~Houston, TX. 1~19~07
INCUBUS~Denver, CO. 2~8~07
Lollapalooza~Chicago, IL. 8~5~07
INCUBUS~Austin, TX. 9~3~07
Bonnaroo~Manchester, TN 6~14~08
I believe the 2nd amendment should never be modified
it is there to protect us, not destroy us
and yes the Patriot Act is only there to try to control us, not protect us
PEARL JAM~San Antonio, TX. 4~5~03
INCUBUS~Houston, TX. 1~19~07
INCUBUS~Denver, CO. 2~8~07
Lollapalooza~Chicago, IL. 8~5~07
INCUBUS~Austin, TX. 9~3~07
Bonnaroo~Manchester, TN 6~14~08
forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed
by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more
than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:
List of 7 items:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44
percent)!
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up
300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in,
the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease
in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward
in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their
prey is unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults
of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how
public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense
was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The
Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.
You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians
disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and,
yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.
Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!
The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind
them of this history lesson.
With guns, we are 'citizens'.
Without them, we are 'subjects'.
During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because
they knew most Americans were ARMED!
If you value your freedom, Please spread this anti-gun control
message to all of your friends.[/quote]
Your stats only include the 12 months since new gun control laws were introduced in Australia. Here are some more recent stats:
An examination of firearm related deaths in Australia between 1991 and 2001 found a 47 per cent decrease in numbers, with a fall in the number of suicides accounting for the largest part of that decrease. Nine out of 10 firearm related deaths involved males. Compared to firearm related suicides and accidents where less than 10 per cent involved the death of a female, a higher proportion of homicides involved a female victim (33%). Persons under the age of 15 years were least likely to die as a result of a firearm related injury. Males and females who suffered a fatal firearms injury tended to follow a similar age distribution, with persons aged between 24 and 34 years accounting for the largest number of firearm related deaths. There appears to be a shift in age related risk between 1991 and 2001. In 1991, males aged between 15 and 24 years had the highest risk of firearm related fatal injury (rate of 9.5 per 100 000), whereas in 2001 males aged 65 years and older had the highest risk (rate of 4.9 per 100 000). The majority of firearm related deaths were committed with a hunting rifle, although there has been an increase in the use of handguns.
The main data source analysed in the production of this report is the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Underlying Cause of Death unit record data supplied to the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) for the period 1991 to 2001. The registration of deaths is the responsibility of the individual state and territory Registrars of Births, Deaths and Marriages. Information relating to the cause of death supplied by either a medical practitioner or by a Coroner is included as part of the registration. Such information is then provided to the ABS for subsequent coding. The data used in this report have been coded by the ABS in accordance with the tenth revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10), which has been adopted for Australian use in the case of deaths.
In total there were 5083 registered deaths attributable to firearms in Australia between 1991 and 2001. Suicides committed with firearms accounted for the majority of these deaths (77%), followed by firearms homicide (15%), firearms accidents (5%), firearms deaths resulting from legal intervention and undetermined deaths (2%). Over the 11 year period the number and rate of firearm related deaths has decreased (Figure 1 and Table 1). In comparison, there has been little change in the trend for deaths caused by sharp instruments. In 1991 there were 629 firearm related deaths in Australia compared to 333 in 2001. This represents a 47 per cent decrease in firearms deaths between 1991 and 2001. The incidence of both firearms suicides and firearms homicides almost halved over the 11 year period. While the number of firearms homicides has continued to decline, with 2001 recording the lowest number of firearms homicides during this period (n=47), the number of firearms suicides declined consistently from 1991 to 1998, but has since fluctuated. The number of firearm related accidents also fluctuated over the same period, from 29 firearms accidents in 1991 to 18 in 2001, but ranging between 15 and 45 over this time. While the numbers are quite small, the year 2000 recorded the highest number of firearms accidents (45 accidents) during the 11 year period.
A = Accident, S = Suicide, H = Homicide, O + Other, T = Total.
Year A S H O T
1991 29 505 84 11 629
1992 24 488 96 14 622
1993 18 431 64 9 522
1994 20 420 76 13 529
1995 15 388 67 9 479
1996 30 382 104 5 521
1997 19 330 79 9 437
1998 21 234 57 15 327
1999 28 269 50 6 353
2000 45 222 57 7 331
2001 18 261 47 7 333
note: sorry, the table wouldn't copy very well, I tried to space it properly, but it wouldn't work.
The firearm related death rate for males, females and all persons (regardless of gender) in Australia has similarly decreased over the 11 year period (Table 2). In 1991 the firearm related death rate was 3.6 per 100 000 persons, 6.6 per 100 000 males and 0.7 per 100 000 females. In 2001 the firearm related death rate decreased to 1.7 per 100 000 persons, 3.1 per 100 000 males and 0.4 per 100 000 females.
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi2/tandi269t.html
There is a whole lot more of this, too much to paste here. These stats only go to 2001, I am looking for more recent research. I just want to point out the increase in homicide in 1996. The number went from 67 in 1995, to 104 in 1996, then fell again to 79 in 1997. This would be attributed to the Port Arthur massacre where 35 people were shot and killed, and 37 more were injured. Had this not occurred, the number would have been relatively consistent with annual trends. It was after Port Arthur that new gun control laws were introduced, and there has been a steady overall decline ever since, at least until 2001. Like I said, looking for more recent stats between 2001 and now.
more laws, just what we need
hahahahahahahahaha, not
(lets make the Government bigger that will help so much)
I'll be right back I'm gonna go puke, your ignorance is making me sick
PEARL JAM~San Antonio, TX. 4~5~03
INCUBUS~Houston, TX. 1~19~07
INCUBUS~Denver, CO. 2~8~07
Lollapalooza~Chicago, IL. 8~5~07
INCUBUS~Austin, TX. 9~3~07
Bonnaroo~Manchester, TN 6~14~08