Not to mention a place to lift weights and build the body into a harder fightin' machine.

I'm quite sure the majority of police chiefs in the world support gun control - it makes it easier to oppress the people...

The second amendment was put in the bill of rights for a reason, and it wasn't so I can put .22" holes in paper at range

The second amendment was put in the bill of rights for a reason, and it wasn't so I can put .22" holes in paper at range

I second that and hope it just does not become the case in the United States to let a bill that takes away guns completely pass.

I don't want to remove the right to have guns, but there IS limitations. Does it extend to weapons that is designed to kill not just one person, but lots and very quickly? Such as assault weapons?

I would set ban line to anything automatic thats larger than regular hand-gun.

Reply #19 By: XX - 9/8/2004 1:09:36 AM I don't want to remove the right to have guns, but there IS limitations. Does it extend to weapons that is designed to kill not just one person, but lots and very quickly? Such as assault weapons? I would set ban line to anything automatic thats larger than regular hand-gun.

So you would limit ALL semi-automatics? You do realize that "automatic" (which by the way is where real "assault weapons " actually fit.) weapons have been outlawed since the 1930's. This BS that they're feeding you is just feel-good propaganda. The only thing they did was to ban certain weapons on looks alone! If you doubt that go look at the law peraining to them. I mean really what is the difference between a civilian version of the M-14 and the currently sold and "legal" Mini-14 by Ruger. As a gunsmith I can tell you in one word......."NONE"! They both use the "same" loading and firing systems. And they are "both" capable of accepting large magazines. Yet one is legal and one is not??? Why??? Same with the AR-15!
And I "do" hate to be the bearer of bad news but, "any" firearm with even a 10 round clip is more than capable of killing a lot of people "real" quick! Personally I hope their stupid AWB dies in 5 day for all the good it does. BTW the figures that they throw at you saying crime has gone done is BS plain. pure and simple. The firearms crime rate was already on a down turn "before" Clinton signed the AWB! But the anti-gunners point to those figures and say "see, it works"

Also a 45ACP (ACP=Automatic Colt Pistol) will do a LOT more damage at close range than a .223 will. One the 45 is more than likely pushing a 230 grain weight bullet @ approximatly 850-900 fps. A .223 round is only pushing a "40-80" grain bullet with 55 being more or less the standard @ approx 3000 fps. bullet is moving waaaaay to fast to do much damage internally.

Here's a quote for ya and I'll even include the link.

"Wednesday, August 25, 2004

Anti-weapon campaign runs on fiction

By JOE WALDRON AND DAVE WORKMAN
GUEST COLUMNISTS

Touring the country in an effort to renew the 10-year-old ban on so-called assault weapons, the numerically challenged Million Mom March has been conducting a campaign built largely on fiction.

As far back as 1988, gun prohibitionists figured they could fool the public into supporting a ban that, as history has shown, has been essentially symbolic. Sixteen years ago, Josh Sugarman with the Violence Policy Center put the campaign in its proper perspective, admitting, "The weapons' menacing looks coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semiautomatic assault weapons -- anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun -- can only increase that chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."

Contrary to myth, guns affected by this ban are not machine guns. They fire one shot with each press of the trigger, the same as many shotguns used by duck hunters, or rifles used by big-game hunters.

Another myth pandered by the MMM is that these rifles use "powerful" ammunition. In fact, they are chambered for cartridges that are near the low end of the energy level spectrum, on par with a deer hunter's .30-30 Winchester. That bullets from these guns will penetrate a police officer's protective vest is not a secret, because virtually every centerfire hunting rifle bullet sold today will go through such a vest. Those vests are designed to stop handgun bullets.

Prohibitionists claim that these firearms have no legitimate purpose. Thousands of competitive shooters, who participate in registered matches with these rifles all over the country almost every weekend of the year, would disagree. Most of these guns are suitable for home defense, many are legitimate collector's items and others are used for hunting.

These guns are not the "weapon of choice" among criminals. Studies at both the state and federal levels, both before and after the ban took effect, have shown that so-called assault weapons are used in less than 2 percent of violent crimes.

Anti-gunners note that crime gun traces on the banned firearms have plunged by 66 percent in the past 10 years. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the Congressional Research Service say that trace data is not a reliable indicator of guns used in crimes. Such traces are conducted for a variety of reasons, only one of which is to establish the trail of guns actually used in crimes. A significant number of traces are used to track recovered stolen guns.

Ban proponents claim that after the ban expires Sept. 13, U.S. streets will be "flooded" with these guns. The "ban" only placed a freeze on production. Those rifles are still out there, legally for sale -- albeit at premium prices because of all the media hype -- and most of them are in the gun safes and cabinets of law-abiding gun owners. Banning their production did not eliminate them, and had nothing to do with a drop in homicide rates, as, apparently, neither do any other gun control laws.

A damning admission about that came last October from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which released a review of 51 previous "studies" of gun control laws. The conclusion? None of these laws reduced crime, something gun rights activists had been telling the CDC, and the public, for years.

The CDC, in its report, admitted that " ... the Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence." That includes gun and ammunition bans, waiting periods, school "zero tolerance" laws, child access/safe storage statutes and licensing or registration laws.

That disclosure was reinforced by the Violence Policy Center's Tom Diaz, who told National Public Radio on March 11, "If the existing assault weapons ban expires, I personally do not believe it will make one whit of difference one way or another in terms of our objective, which is reducing death and injury and getting a particularly lethal class of firearms off the streets."

Anti-gunners want to ban guns, period, no matter how they mask it, or how they accomplish it. The Vancouver Columbian recently took them to task for "passing along misleading information" in their effort to eliminate private gun ownership. Apparently, they didn't get the message.
end quote"

link: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/187690_assault25.html?searchpagefrom=2&searchdiff=12

Karmagirl,
I didn't. I responded to the claim that the murder rate in the UK soared. The UK murder rate is a quarter of the US rate. Gun related deaths is about 1/50th the level. But to focus on your large city and gang issue, London is a large city by American standards (as are birmingham, manchester and glasgow). Yet these cities do not have the gang warfare problems, or the murder rates of US cities. Maybe some of it is cultural, maybe some of it is better policing, but I don't believe this. Nowhere in the UK has a death penalty either, so i don't believe the penalty is a big factor here. No, I think it's fairly self evident that the more lethal the weapons you give people access to the higher the death rate is likely to be.

I should also point out that the UK does ban many types of bladed weapons, including many types of knives. Hunting knives for example are illegal. And look at our crime rates and death rates! It works!

I would like to clarify that this is America's choice, not mine. If you believe your right to have firearms is more important than the proven increase in crime and deaths, that is fine. You're a democracy and how you run yourselves is your choice.

Paul.

I agree with Paul that your choice is your choice - plain and simple.
I'd like to suggest that if gun control is up for debate then use facts in your arguments rather than emotion.
That some guy got shot with a cross bow and didn't die IS NOT PROOF the gun control does not work.

False statesments that crime in countries that have adopted gun control using a democratic process do not help your cause but have the reverse effect of making it difficult to believe anything else you have to offer.
Statements that most guns in the US are used for sport when the main argument for having them is protection needs some work to make it believeable.

Before guns people got killed. After guns people will get killed. No one would disagree. How many people get killed, now that is what needs to be considered.

I know media in the US can be bias and not fully cover internation affairs in a fair light but everyone here has access to a tool called Google. Use it and LEARN about other cultures and countries. Although guns are a large part of your nation and culture you'll find that that view is not shared by most western cultures. Those that do have laws that are pro gun ownership (Sweden and Switerland come to mind) have a MUCH lower murder rate.

Sweden and switzerland also are about the size of American states.

The problem is that we don't have any way of making one-to-one comparisons in this. We can only look at historical trends, and even then there are so many influences that it make sit hard to find root causes. My biggest issue with so-called gun-control is that freedoms, once lost, are difficult to return. Also, violence is not a root cause, it is a symptom. I have no need to go out and commit violence to maintain my standard of living (or even to put food on the table). Our esteemed host has posted a couple of times on the causes and effects of poverty.

I have one question; if you believe that the government oppresses the poor, why are you against giving the poor the ability to fight back?

You know what should be illegal?  Cars.  Compare the death toll of gun deaths to the death toll of auto accidents:

guns: ~ 14,000 per year
auto accidents: ~ 43,000 per year

what is the percent of emergency room visits involving a gun shot in the US?  .2%

Here's a good one- Percent of auto accidents caused by cell phones distracting driver: 6%.  Number of deaths due to those cell phone related accidents: ~2,600 per year (Washington Post 2002) and on the rise.  Number of accident reports that indicate cell phone distraction for cause of accident?  ~330,000 per year. 

By the way it looks, cars and cell phones are much more dangerous than guns.  Isn't it fun how stats work?

 

Sweden and switzerland also are about the size of American states

Yeah, and small ones at that.  Detroit alone has almost 2 million people in it.  Michigan has almost 10 million total (which is a million more than Sweden's total population). 

You could also say- Michigan needs to do whatever Maine is doing.  They have a 1.6% murder rate versus Michigan with a 9.8%.  We'll just ignore the fact that Maine has roughly the same population as the city of Detroit.

Yeah it sure is.

The point is extremely well made, so far it only seems to benefit the state and police to make guns illegal, oh but don't forget the little kid commercials where the kid finds the gun and shoots him/herself.

Guns kill such an infinitesimally small number of kids each year. And frankly, at the age of 11, I was safely handling firearms; there's no excuse for a teenager to shoot himself or a friend because "he didn't know it was loaded" or he "was just horsing around". I'm not a big fan of government intervention into the raising and education of children, but deaths of children due to firearms to me is a case of child negligence. If a child kills himself by ingesting Drano, do we pass laws against household chemicals? If he dies due to ODing on cough medicine, do we ban Robitussin?

(Nor yet is there a reason for a toddler to get ahold of a gun - they're much easier to secure than household chemicals)

Who here lives in detroit or near detroit? Anybody?

Reply #28 By: IanTyger - 9/8/2004 4:34:33 PM Guns kill such an infinitesimally small number of kids each year. And frankly, at the age of 11, I was safely handling firearms; there's no excuse for a teenager to shoot himself or a friend because "he didn't know it was loaded" or he "was just horsing around". I'm not a big fan of government intervention into the raising and education of children, but deaths of children due to firearms to me is a case of child negligence. If a child kills himself by ingesting Drano, do we pass laws against household chemicals? If he dies due to ODing on cough medicine, do we ban Robitussin? (Nor yet is there a reason for a toddler to get ahold of a gun - they're much easier to secure than household chemicals)

Yet if you listen to the anti-gunners 1 is too many. IanTyger I must say that I agree with you 100%! Education is the key! At 9-11 years old (I hope I'm remembering correctly) if I had been caught messing with "dad's" guns I would have gotten such a licking that I would not have soon forgotten it! Teach them to leave guns alone. Which is why I support the "Eddie Eagle" program from the NRA. Because that's what they do.