ITS TIME TO BAN GUNS FRON THE UNITED STATES

More than 30,000 people die from gunshot wounds in the United States every year and there are more guns in private hands than in any other country.

Ban Guns wrote:

O.K. I've had enough. It's time to ban guns from the United States. You don't need a gun, and I don't need a gun, so get rid of them all, then crackpots can't kill everyone. Watch, there will be copycat shooting in classrooms all over the country now. All guns should be confisacted and melted down. After a meltdown period of ten years, the civilian police will be banned from having guns. The police can have guns at the station for use, at airports, banks, nuclear facilities.

Ok think about this, technology continues to improve over the years to try and combat criminals. However, criminals think of a way to get around the system. Well the same goes with guns. You take away guns, and then the innocent people are left with nothing while the criminals find their ways to get guns or make guns. Taking away guns only makes the situation worse for the innocent. This country was founded on the right to bear arms!

whatever man wrote:

Pretty much correct. If someone has mass murder on their mind, they are probably going to get it done one way or another (i.e. Timothy McVeigh) whether there are guns available or not. However the 'impulse murders', i.e., bad spousal flare-ups that escalate, might be reduced in number without such easy access to guns.

Exactly - or box cutters and a jet. Only one group rushed the terrorists as my esteemed colleague Alan pointed out.

"LET'S ROLL!!!!"

Wogten wrote:

If you value your first amendment rights you better come to understand that they can easily be taken away without second amendment rights.

You nitwits don't get it.

Guns aren't protected for hunting.

etc.

Thats quality stuff and I agree. Would it have made it better if he did all of this with a bomb? Maybe a sword? Its easier to make a bomb than it is to get a gun.

FW, you'd be pissing your pants in the corner of the room, quietly whimpering about your 5k time.

B.S.

[quote]Ban Guns wrote:

O.K. I've had enough. It's time to ban guns from the United States.

real it y wrote:

More than 30,000 people die from gunshot wounds in the United States every year and there are more guns in private hands than in any other country.

There's no correlation here.

this argument is such bullshit. The guns come from somewhere! They are all manufactured LEGALLY at first. Ther will always be a black market for guns, but it will be much reduced if they aren't so easily available in the first place. And using your logic with the government argument, I suppose all civilians should have access to tanks, missiles, hand grenades, heck even nuclear weapons too? I mean the government does, right? What if they wanted to use them against us?

Handguns account for the majority of homicides in the united states and the homicide rate of the US is higher than that of any developed country - (Fingerhut, L.A., J. C. Kleinman (1990). "International and interstate comparisons of homicide among young males". Journal of the American Medical Association 263(24). NCJ 161685.; ^ a b c Firearm Crimes, Canada Vs. U.S.. Canada Firearms Centre.)

Why do we still allow this? Lobbying by the NRA, firearms manufacturers and people who are dead set that the government can't be trusted. I think the thousands of people that are murdered every year outweigh the risk that the US people will elect a government who will use the military against them. The second amendment was written hundereds of years ago during times of colonial warfare. The authors of the constitution realized that things change with time, that's why we can amend the constitution. There is no reason for everyday people to have such easy access to hanguns, which was so unfortunately shown yesterday.

On WMSN.com

"Gun crime is extremely rare in Britain, and handguns are completely illegal.

Britain’s 46 homicides involving firearms was the lowest total since the late 1980s. New York City, with 8 million people compared to 53 million in England and Wales, recorded at least 579 homicides last year.

“What exactly triggered the massacre in Virginia is unclear but the fundamental reason is often the perpetrator’s psychological problems in combination with access to weapons,” Swedish daily Goteborgs-Posten commented."

NYC's homicides excluded accidental shootings.

Having to face your own mortality is not something that you want to do and, yes while you would hope you could "roll" if that day comes, reliance on that untested component of your mental make up is not the answer. You pissants who are ready to rush into the face of a loaded pistol more power to you but until you do it shut the F*** Up and don't judge those who lost their lives or those who survived.

Guns are a part of the problem whether these Tuesday morning heros like FPW want to admit it or not. Gun control is coming and you can deal with it the easy way or the hard way, but it's coming.

Sorry I'm not a master of crime. You just proved though that banning guns will do no good.

Quite,we in Britain had a school massacre in 1996.

In this particular incident, the bastard opened fire on a class of 5 - 6 year olds, killing 16.

The pictures of those poor little tots haunted us for months after.

However, after that, the government passed the strictest gun control laws in the world.

Even Olympic shooters weren’t allowed guns or practise.

Despite all that though, gun crime in this county has risen year by year and these days we’re told that guns are more available to the criminal classes than any time in our history.

I suppose there’s a lesson to be learnt somewhere in there.

Here's a couple things to think about. We have a ban on drugs like cocaine, marijuana, heroine, meth, etc. in this country, yet we still have a countless number of drug addicts. There is an underground market where if you want to break the law and buy drugs you can do it. If you ban guns, the same type of market will develop for them. A criminal who wants a gun will be able to buy one. The only people who won't buy them are those who don't want to break the law. I'm pretty sure the shooter at VA Tech was not worried about breaking the law, therefore if he had wanted a gun, he would have been able to find one, just like if he wanted cocaine he would have been able to find that even though there is a law against it. Another great example is Prohibition. Boy that worked well huh. From the time it was enacted until the time when it was lifted, nobody in the entire country consumed one drop of alcohol because it was banned. Bans on things that people want just don't work because people will find a way to get them. Banning guns isn't going to stop crazy people from doing crazy things.

guns didn't do this.

you can either choose to accept that, or wait a long time until you understand. Sadly, you never may.

But don't you see that eventually all the criminals killing themselves with guns will run out of ammo then all they could do is pistol whip each other and their victims?

Or use box cutters.

Or broken bottles.

Or a lighter and a case of hair spray.

Or canned dog food.

Or Olestra.

Or mass quantities of intravenous Sweet and Low.

well...... wrote: A

Why do we still allow this? Lobbying by the NRA, firearms manufacturers and people who are dead set that the government can't be trusted. I think the thousands of people that are murdered every year outweigh the risk that the US people will elect a government who will use the military against them.

The second amendment was written hundereds of years ago during times of colonial warfare. The authors of the constitution realized that things change with time, that's why we can amend the constitution. There is no reason for everyday people to have such easy access to hanguns, which was so unfortunately shown yesterday.

What kills more people. Handguns, or car accidents?

Answer me that and tell me why we shouldn't ban cars.

You clearly have no concept of history if you think a government in today's "civilized world" can't trample people's rights.

Why is it anytime the second amendment comes up, some nitwit suggests that by corollary we are advocating personal ownership of nuclear weapons or grenades?

Let me put it to you like this. I have guns in my house and I carry a gun on my person. If I was walking to my car in the parking lot of a mall, and witnessed a rapist attempting to carjack your mother with a knife, I would shoot him.

If you successfully disarm me, I will be forced to stand there and watch her get shoved into a trunk.

If you are interested, I will provide you with links to hundreds of incidents wherein an armed citizen saved their own life or someone else's.

Gun control is the premise that a 105 pound woman raped and strangled by a 230 pound man is morally superior to that same woman standing over her dead attacker.

If you don't want one, fine. Don't take away my rights because you are too scared to try and defend yourself.

Look how well gun control works in Nagasaki!

TOKYO (Reuters) - The mayor of the Japanese city of Nagasaki died early on Wednesday after being shot by a man police said was a member of a criminal syndicate, public broadcaster NHK reported.

Japan has very strict gun control laws and illegal firearms are mostly in the hands of "yakuza" gangsters or registered hunters.

Nagasaki, on the southernmost main island of Kyushu, was the second city to suffer an atomic bombing by the United States on August 9, 1945.

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?

maybe it's time to just ban foreign exchange students?

wrong dano wrote:

Sorry I'm not a master of crime. You just proved though that banning guns will do no good.

Master? it's called common sense....

And i didn't prove that, you just don't understand how things work. Banning guns would greatly decrease gun violence. One of the biggest problems is states with lax gun laws. People carry guns illegally in states with strict laws because they bought them in another state or someone else bought it in another state and sold it to them. Not only that it would be a 100 times easier if no one had guns legally to police it. In England you are not permitted to carry a gun. Check out the gun violence in England.....see if it matches the US ratio wise. You will find it's not even close. If you ban something altogether it opens up many new avenues of way to keep them out. otherwise it's a lot of work to police the legal from the illegal.

Now i'm not sure i believe in banning guns, but i do believe in stricter gun laws at a federal level. Enough of this state law bullshit where you have pathetic excuses of government in certain states being almost solely responsible for illegal guns....ex. New Hampshire. The mayor of new hampshire or whoever is responsible for their not being up to par on common sense gun laws, should be sentenced to life in prison for being indirectly responsible for most of the murders in Boston by their undermining the steps states whose goverments have some form of morals have put in place to protect their youth and others alike.