It wasn't done by terrorists, but 30 people are dead...

[El Diablo]

Turn on your TV and go to CNN or Fox news and you'll see live a SWAT team moving into a factory where a shooter is still hiding after killing 30 people. As of the time i'm writing this, 3:08 PM, the shooter is hiding on the roof and a SWAT team is moving in. This is in Indiana, a state without concealed carrying laws.

Which is brings me to my question. I've had it about up to here with shootings of any kind. Whether it be school, work, or small gang killings (like in Compton), people should be allowed the right to really bear arms. Take Texas for instance, in Texas your allowed after getting a permit (to get that they check your "rap" sheet, your history, take ID, make you pass a test, physical and mental, etc.) to carry a concealed weapon. But unfortunaltey not every state allows this. Like Indiana. Because of this, crazy bastards like the man from that factory, the Columbine shooters, and others, are allowed to exploit the freedoms we do not have. It's easier for a criminal to get a gun than it is for a normal, law abiding citizen. All a common crook has to do is "get his hands dirty" with the "black market" and hes got a a fully automatic M16 for half the normal price.

So i ask you, should all states give there citizens the right to bear arms? If so, the other workers in that Indiana factory could have shot the shooter (also not saying the shooter is a crook getting a gun for cheap, he was an employee who got mad at his job, the "crimina" idea was an example thats very real) and saved more than half the lives lost.

I of course, vote yes.

[Pikachu]

Ive lived in 4 major cities across the UK and never even seen a shooting. I know that im lucky cause theres more and more going on. But in this country, it seems that if you dont intentionally mix with the "wrong" crowd, you dont get the trouble.

I know that the American guns laws are set in place, and every other person has one. But I would say NO. Guns are not toys. They should not be distributed without correct reason. This of course cannot happen as the protection level has had to be increased. I just hop that the gun laws stay as they are in the UK as they are now.

This way I will never be witness to a shooting.

(touch wood)

[Clayeth]

well, let me put it this way. You mention gangs. As I'm sure you know, a lot of gang shootings are done with guns which are illegal for civilians to own in the United States. If people like this get guns that are illegal, how can we assume we'd be able to keep them away if they were ALL illegal? The bottom line is we wouldn't. If they really wanted guns, they would still get them. For that reason, I'd much rather be able to have one legally just in case I ever need it. Of course, in my area guns are VERY common. Hell, I've seen people go hunting in the woods across the street from my house. I've been around them all my life, used them, and don't have a fear of guns. This probably influences my opinion quite a bit.

[El Diablo]

Well then i guess for you its ok, but now because of that, i should rephrase my question a bit.

Should citizens of the United States be allowed to bear arms?

[El Diablo]

Ok Clayeth, i should prolly rephrase again (i never thought about these things).

You say ALL guns legal, i mean just semi autos. Weapons illegal now stay illegal, the ones that aren't, are the ones im talking about, and if all else fails, then just make this law only work for pistols.

[Clayeth]

well, let me rephrase my answer now

I'm from Kentucky, that IS in the United States
And I didn't mean that all weapons should be made legal. I agree that automatic weapons, assault rifles, uzis, etc. have no place in civilian hands. I was just saying that there are already a lot of guns that are illegal, yet people still get them. Gang shootings are an example, uzis are common in them. Making them illegal didn't take them away from the criminals, only those who go by the law.

*edit*

In case you didn't know, hunting is real big here, that's one reason guns are so common.

[Danger_Dude]

I believe I've made my position on this (and related) issues clear in the past.

But, it just so happens that I read an excellent essay on "gun control" just yesterday.

Here is the link: A World Without Guns

It is a pretty lengthy article, but not difficult to read. As I noted above, I thought it was excellent.

For the record, Foxnews is stating that "up to 35 people may have been shot" but there is no word on fatalities or if this number is anything other than supposition. Caveat - I got this from an Internet report, so it may not be as up to date as what's on the tube...

[Danger_Dude]

BTW, if I beat you to death with a baseball bat, should we outlaw Louisville Sluggers?

[Clayeth]

sorry, but I don't remember what your opinion was from last time... care to refresh me?

nevermind, saw that last post after I posted this one

[El Diablo]

Originally posted by Danger_Dude
BTW, if I beat you to death with a baseball bat, should we outlaw Louisville Sluggers?

no

[Danger_Dude]

Originally posted by Clayeth|BuF
sorry, but I don't remember what your opinion was from last time... care to refresh me?

Sorry 'bout that. IMHO, the problem is not with any particular tool. There are millions of firearm owners in the US - how many go around shooting people? Passing "gun control" laws makes the liberal weenies feel good that they are DOING SOMETHING, except for one little thing - it assumes that the wackos that shoot people are going to obey the law!

Since they are indeed out shooting people - a patently illegal act - I'm thinking that another "gun control" law is not going to deter them.

And, as you noted above (and as is mentioned in the essay I linked), regulating commerce in firearms will not and does not prevent criminals from getting a hold of them, if they so desire.

---

Side note: if you look at empirical evidence, you will find that the crime rate decreases as gun ownership increases - the idea that any potential victim may be armed proves to be a powerful deterent. There was a study published not too long ago that presented this evidence, as well as interviews with criminals, etc. - it was done over a number of years. If I can find it, I'll post the title and some of the relevant stats. Interesting reading...

[namu]

I don't think firearms should be authorized for anyone to bear. I know that anything can be used as a deadly weapon (even bare hands can be lethal), but prohibiting firearms in the first place makes it harder for the average nut to go in a shooting frenzy.

[mobace]

You'll pry my guns from my dead fingers

[Danger_Dude]

Originally posted by namu
I don't think firearms should be authorized for anyone to bear. I know that anything can be used as a deadly weapon (even bare hands can be lethal), but prohibiting firearms in the first place makes it harder for the average nut to go in a shooting frenzy.

Ah yes, the strict anti-gun laws of Japan certainly worked wonders for the 8 2nd grade students killed in Osaka on June 8, 2001. Former school clerk Mamoru Takuma stabbed them to death. Too bad Japanese law didn't ban the ownship of knives...

[namu]

I said that most things can be used as a deadly weapon, eh Here in France knives bigger than a few centimeters are prohibited too (you don't have the right to have those on yourself in public places).

[phil]

Well if you read the constitution (havnt i been quoting the thing alot?)

Amendment II - Right to bear arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

People seem to have forgoten about that whole statment infront of the second comma. Our right to bear arms isn't for our own personal protection. It is for the protection of the nation.

[BlAcK_PlAgUe22]

a common crook has to do is "get his hands dirty" with the "black market" and hes got a a fully automatic M16

They don't make full-auto M16's.

[Clayeth]

Originally posted by phil
People seem to have forgoten about that whole statment infront of the second comma. Our right to bear arms isn't for our own personal protection. It is for the protection of the nation.

very good point. Don't think I've ever heard it put that way before (that the guns were for the militia)... and hand't really noticed it myself. That militia (which origionally was basically ever american male) has evolved into your military. Of course, there ARE still militias, but not really in the same sense. However, it still implies that it's a right for everyone. Taking away that right would open up a can of worms that I don't think anyone REALLY wants to get into. The Government has never officially taken away one of our basic rights... at least not officially... and I don't think that we want to start now.

[TomWithTheWeather]

What I hate is that paintball guns get a bad rap also just because they are considered "firearms". So if really strict gun laws get passed then that can affect paintball guns also. Right now paintball guns are easy to get though. All you have to have is a little money.

[Siledre]

violence is the problem, I don't think gun laws are going to make a difference in the crime rate. Except maybe to piss off the criminals that they have to pay more for their illegal weapon and so they will take it out on the next victim.