Gun Control Poll

[bluestateguy]

Poll question: Gun Control Poll

How do you feel about gun control?

I've done my best here to break down issue positions.

[Padraig18]

1. Hmmmm...

I voted 'generally oppose' because while I do support some, my 'line' starts somewhere in the vicinity of assault weapons, full-auto's and battlefield nukes.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

2. Not really a fair poll

Some of us are not out to CONTROL guns but feel a need for REASONABLE regulation of sales.

I have no problem with someone owning a gun for protection or hunting purposes but can't imagine why someone needs to pump 156 rounds into a deer..

and feel that cheap guns like staurday night specials are too easily available thereby increasing crime in inner cities.


Gunlocks and smartguns are a step in the right direction but even those MINOR restrictions are too much for the NRA.

[DUreader]

3. That used to be my belief, before the Fascist coup of America Inc.

Now that I have seen how easy it is I will never again favor much gun control.

[Rowdyboy]

4. I also had too go with "other"

to complicated an issue for so simple an answer

[Oracle]

6. I agree.

No one is talking about taking away anyones shotguns or hunting rifles.

However, there is no need for automatic assault rifles (and perhaps even handguns.)

[Spoonman]

118. ALL automatic rifles & guns

Have been illegal for well over 40 years.
Only those with a federal license can possess them.

[stevebreeze]

137. hang guns have a use

You can conceal one in your pocket and stick up convenience stores with them!

[JohnKleeb]

7. Hey NSMA

exactly :thumbsup:

[will work 4 food]

12. The Bad Guys

will always get guns. That's a FACT. That puts us (the good guys) at a distinct disadvantage. I am for no control but mandatory classes on shooting and the law. Once passed, you would be able to conceal carry. AND you would have to be a US citizen to have this right.

[blondeatlast]

44. I support mandatory arming of the poverty-stricken, ethnic

minorities, and all women. Menopausal women should be issued AK-47s!

[Terwilliger]

79. bad guys won't get guns if they're all banned

so, let's do it today!

[hiphopnation]

98. I don't agree with many of your posts

but here, we agree. Thanks.

[DoNotRefill]

99. Tell that to the Brits...

they banned guns, and gun crime there has greatly increased.


Tell us, Ter, pot has been banned, right? It's uniformly illegal to possess under Federal law, right? How hard is it for you to get?

[Spoonman]

120. Yea Right

There going to walk into the nearest police station and just plop them on the counter for them!

They're all going to use harsh language to "protect" their other illegal enterprises.

The real world awaits a solution, one that will work in the real world.

[Spider Jerusalem]

25. Cheap and readily available guns don't increase crime in inner cities.

POVERTY does. Violence is just a symptom of a deeper ill. Amazing how few people understand that it's not GUNS that are the problem, but social conditions, poverty, unemployment, etc.

[DoNotRefill]

28. yuppers...

"and feel that cheap guns like staurday night specials are too easily available thereby increasing crime in inner cities."

Can't let those poor urban minorities have affordable weapons to defend themselves with.... :eyes:

BTW, when they put the original "saturday night special" ban into place, want to guess what one of the guns that got banned was? The Walther PPK, of James Bond fame...

One other point: The term "saturday night special" has been made "PC"...Originally it was "saturday night n*****town special", and was used to refer to guns that even poor minorities could afford.

[TimeLord]

71. Exactly nothingshocksmeanymore,

The tactic of the NRA and "Pro-Gun" is to protray us as anti-gun. Nothing can be further from the truth. While, I myself, have no use for anytype of weaponry, I understand that there is a right for other citizens to have guns within reasonable means. I also can't figure out why someone needs to have an automatic rifle to go deer hunting. I think that if they must absolutely have their second amendment, then we must be sure that it protects us as well. That means full regulations on all types of weaponry. We can't drive or fish without being put into a database and without a license. Guns should be treated with greater caution.

My two cents....

[Mairead]

72. "cheap guns like saturday night specials increase crime in inner cities

They certainly increase the ability of poor people to defend themselves against crime, but do they increase crime?

It seems to me that what really increases crime is poverty and lack of options. I've noticed that the wealthy and privileged hardly ever feel the need to rob liquor stores or 7-11s.

So maybe we should be demanding regulation or outlawing of poverty instead?

[lastliberalintexas]

121. Thank you Mairead

I REALLY wish that we could re-focus the debate here. Access to guns is NOT the root cause of crime.

If we truly wanted to do something about the crime rate in inner cities (and even poor rural areas), we would work on improving access to education and opportunities (esp economic). For example, studies consistently show that upwards of 85% of our prison population never graduated from high school- the very type of person who has limited job opportunities. If people have lost all hope, have no personal dignity, no goals for their lives, and no sense of belonging outside of the gangs, they will almost always turn to crime. And if they don't have access to a gun, they will use a knife or tire iron.

The weapon of choice isn't the problem, but rather WHY the person felt compelled to commit the act.

[maveric]

5. Dont take away everyones guns.

Just do a better job at screening and keep them out of the hands of people who have criminal records, violent pasts, etc...

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

9. what about people with violent futures?

A gun certainly can bring out the beast in an otherwise chickenshit person.

[blondeatlast]

45. Look what a war did to Georgie!

[Monte Carlo]

8. Not all gun controls are equal.

Gun control... house to house confiscation, or gun control... mandatory saftey switches on firearms? That's a wide subject.

[Silverhair]

29. Safety swithes.

You should really learn more about the construction on firearms.

The following comments apply to modern design guns only. (Made in the last 60 years.)

Handguns - All autoloaders have have safety swithes. Revolvers, because of the difference in construction don't need safety switches. The thing you see on TV, where a gun is dropped and goes off, is TV ONLY, or antique guns. Some guns, as recently as 25 years ago, could still do that, but no gun manufactured now can do that. The trigger has to be pulled to make it fire.

Rifles - All rifles that I have ever seen have a safety switch or a safe setting.

Shotguns - Same thing.

Hammer guns - These are guns that have a hammer that has to be cocked before the gun can be fired. If the gun has not been cocked, it can't fire. Cocking it is the equivelent of taking the safety off - it is the final preperation for firing.

Note: I have oversimplied somewhat due to considerations of brevity.

[xJlM]

32. A double-action revolver will cock and fire in one pull.

Although the only ones I have seen were considerably older.

I'm really up in the air about this poll. Gun safety is a big issue, and there are far too many gun deaths in the United States. On the other hand, the direction my government is heading makes me want to be able to protect myself (although that "protection" may be largely illusory).

[Silverhair]

53. Yes, but that pull has to be deliberate.

Most DA's have trigger pulls in the 4 to 6 pound range. The idea of a safety switch is to prevent accidental discharges. A 4 pound pull with the finger is not an accident.

[DoNotRefill]

66. Umm...most semi-autos...

have trigger pulls from 5 to 16 pounds. Anything less is for target purposes, not self defense.

[xJlM]

82. That's the point

People who own guns should know basic safety in the handling of them. I know my own father taught me basic safety procedures when handling firearms.

None of the weapons I have here in the house are loaded, although it wouldn't take much. An unloaded gun isn't going to hurt anyone, unless you hit someone over the head with it or wave it at a cop. I understand folks with young children need different standards, but I think the last thing we need is more laws.

[Monte Carlo]

70. I have no experience with firearms.

I've never even handled something that fires bullets before, let alone shot one, let alone know anything about their mechanics. Everything you said was news to me.

This poll seems really awkward. I mean, mandatory saftey switches are a form of gun control, right? It seems unfair to lump that in with the door-to-door forcible confiscation of guns and disarming of the public that the NRA seems to dread so much.

[Silverhair]

100. Use some common sense.

Do you think that those of use that own guns want the things to be able to go of by themselves? Modern guns already have all the safety features needed. And those features are there by the market demand of buyers who wouldn't buy unsafe guns.

The laws you talk about are "feel good" laws that accomplish nothing.

[Blue-Jay]

10. I guess it depends on your definition of "gun control", doesn't it?

That's a very broad term. I own a few guns that I bought legally. I keep them locked in a well-hidden safe whenever I'm not at the range. I don't see any reason why I shouldn't be allowed to own a gun/guns. I'm also for more strict licensing requirements, and against concealed carry legislation. (law enforcement-types excluded) I never carry mine as a measure of protection; I just like shooting targets, I suppose.

That being said, if I thought my life or the lives of my loved ones were in "real" danger, I'd start packing.

Banning guns would never work in the USA. The proverbial horse is out of the barn. It's unfortunate, but it's a fact as I see it.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

11. Other.

I support gun laws that make sense.

For example, requiring child safety locks with handgun purchases makes sense. Even though I don't have kids, I bought a trigger lock with my last pistol purchase. I think it was something like eight bucks. Is that really an unreasonable requirement?

*For every child killed with a gun, four are wounded.
*According to the Centers for Disease Control, the rate of firearm death of children 0-14 years old is nearly twelve times higher in the U.S. than in 25 other industrialized nations combined. The firearm-related homicide rate is nearly 16 times higher for children in the U.S. than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. The suicide rate of children 0-14 years old is twice as high in the U.S.as it is in those same 25 other industrialized countries combined. Interestingly, there is no difference in the non-firearm suicide rate between the U.S. and these other countries. Virtually all the difference is attributable to suicides committed with guns in the U.S.
*In 1998, more than 1200 children aged 10-19 committed suicide with firearms. Unlike suicide attempts using other methods, suicide attempts with guns are nearly always fatal, meaning a temporarily depressed teenager will never get a second chance at life. Nearly two-thirds of all completed teenage suicides involve a firearm.
*In 1998, 3,792 American children and teens (19 and under) died by gunfire in murders, suicides and unintentional shootings. That's more than 10 young people a day.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issuebriefs/kidsandguns.asp

The Brady bill is another common sense measure I support. Is it really so onerous? Normally the background check takes a couple hours, another time I had to come back the next day because the computer was down or something. Big deal -- what possible good reason could someone have for wanting a gun 'in a hurry'?

[Padraig18]

14. I have no problem with...

... background checks, trigger locks, etc.--- the common-sense stuff. I also agree with you on why would anyone need a gun in a hurry...

[1a2b3c]

61. I wont go into it now

but getting your facts on guns and statistics on gun crimes from the brady camp is like getting your facts and numbers from the NRA. Aint neither one of them gonna be close to the truth.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

128. If you'd bothered to follow the link

you'd have seen that the actual sources for those statistics, quoted by the brady campaign website are:




For every child killed with a gun, four are wounded.
Annest, JL, et.al. "National estimates of nonfatal firearm-related injuries: beyond the tip of the iceberg," Journal of the American Medical Association, 1995, 273:1749-1754.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, the rate of firearm death of children 0-14 years old is nearly twelve times higher in the U.S. than in 25 other industrialized nations combined. The firearm-related homicide rate is nearly 16 times higher for children in the U.S. than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. The suicide rate of children 0-14 years old is twice as high in the U.S.as it is in those same 25 other industrialized countries combined. Interestingly, there is no difference in the non-firearm suicide rate between the U.S. and these other countries. Virtually all the difference is attributable to suicides committed with guns in the U.S.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "Rates of homicide, suicide and firearm-related death among children – 26 industrialized countries." Morbidity Mortality Weekly Report. 02/07/97; 46:5. 101-105.

Over 3,500 students were expelled in 1998-99 for bringing guns to school. Of these, 43% were in elementary or junior high school. This means that, in a 40-week school year, an average of 88 children per week nationwide are expelled for bringing a gun in school. And these figures include only the children who get caught.
U.S. Department of Education. Report on State Implementation of the Gun-Free Schools Act: School Year 1998-99. October 2000, p. 2.

During 1999, 52% of all murder victims under 18 in the U.S. were killed by guns. In 1986, guns were used in 38% of such murders. In 1999, 82% of murder victims aged 13 to 19 years old were killed with a firearm.
FBI Uniform Crime Reports for 1999, table 2.11.

In 1998, more than 1200 children aged 10-19 committed suicide with firearms. Unlike suicide attempts using other methods, suicide attempts with guns are nearly always fatal, meaning a temporarily depressed teenager will never get a second chance at life. Nearly two-thirds of all completed teenage suicides involve a firearm.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, from the WONDER Injury Mortality Data.

In 1998, 3,792 American children and teens (19 and under) died by gunfire in murders, suicides and unintentional shootings.
Unpublished data from the Vital Statistics System, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, 2000.

[Kamika]

13. The poll is flawed

Id love to ban all guns if it would mean NOBODY not even criminals would have them. As it is now i am against control

[economic justice]

15. I was once a big supporter of gun control

but have found that my views have changed since Bush. I now realize why it is important to have an armed citizenry that can defend freedom itself. I do support regulation for the, "Well organized militia." Like many posters I see a big difference in regulation and control. At one time I thought we should just ban guns. Shiver the thought now.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

16. Unless we allow people to have military weapons

you'll always be out-gunned by the government.

I can just see myself trying to shoot down an F-16 with my 30/30...

[Padraig18]

17. Good point.

But I can also envision some general telling * to 'Go F*** yourself!", if ordered to start confiscating weapons. :P

[economic justice]

18. Well

If it ever came to that, the armed citizenry would expect defections from the military. Believe me, I hope it never comes to that but if it does than those fighting against the people would be encouraged to join the resistance. Complete with a lot of their high tech toys.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

23. They are doing a pretty good job of it in Iraq!

n/t

[IndianaGreen]

33. The best defense against tyranny is a well-armed citizenry

and Iraq and Afghanistan are ample proof of that. Iraqis exercising their God-given right to bear arms are the ones that will drive the American colonial army out of their country.

Had US soil been invaded by a foreign power, Americans would have been reduced to using suicide bombers as the only weapon available to drive the evil occupier away from our lands.

[drewb]

35. Another great post IG

Good points...

[Feanorcurufinwe]

37. It's no coincidence that the import of surplus military weapons

was banned in 1968 -- just when a lot of people really were talking about revolution.

[dolstein]

39. It's interesting that you would cite Afghanistan and Iraq

as examples of societies where citizens have effectively checked tyranny. The fact is that the citizens of both of these countries had spent years living under repressive regimes (the Taliban and Hussein), long before there was any U.S. intervention.

Sorry, but firearms are not an effective substitute for a civic culture that embraces tolerance of diverse viewpoints and respect for the rule of law.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

41. Besides, they do most of their damage with RPGs - which you can't get here

[IndianaGreen]

47. "a civic culture that embraces tolerance of diverse viewpoints"

firearms are not an effective substitute for a civic culture that embraces tolerance of diverse viewpoints and respect for the rule of law

The US is far from being such a culture, and it is on the slippery slope to tyranny, aided and abetted by the gun grabbers.

[tinnypriv]

119. There was US "intervention" in Iraq

To prop up the dictator.

[DealsGapRider]

81. Vietnamese guerillas did pretty well against the most advanced...

...military in the world with only small arms.

[SahaleArm]

125. That's pretty much what happened...

in the revolutionary war. Of course now weapons systems are far more advanced, especially in the last 20 years.

BTW nice alias, someday I'll get to the dragon.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

22. Me too

Sorry, I just don't trust the people in charge enough to give up the ability to fight back.

[ShaneGR]

19. Poll isn't specific enough.... here's what I think about guns

No assault weapons. No tech 9 style hand-guns. Registration of all other firearms strictly enforced. Second ammendment is very clear though, hunting rifles and handguns are, and should be, legal.

[slackmaster]

40. You could be a little more specific too

In your own words, what is an assault weapon?

I ask because most people are not able to articulate a definition that makes sense.

[1a2b3c]

63. What does the 2nd clearly say about hunting rifles?

the supreme court ruled that sawed off shotguns could not be owned because they serve no military purpose, therefore not needed by the militia (us).

[ShaneGR]

106. LOL, I don't know any hunters who use sawed off shotguns....

Kind of hard to spray a deer with buckshot from 100 yards.

[Withergyld]

109. My understanding is that

some tunnel rats in Vietnam used sawed of shotguns with good results.

[Mairead]

73. Perhaps you should study the purpose of the Second a little more?

Because the whole idea of the RKBA is to resist a tyrannical state. A state such as that lurking in The Pit toward which we are careening.

[ShaneGR]

107. So, we should all by AK-47's and await the coming dictatorship?

Just wondering.

[Mairead]

112. Better than awaiting the coming dictatorship empty handed, I think

on the whole, though, best would be to prevent the coming dictatorship from arriving. That might require the ability to make our rulers nervous.

Which of the founders (Madison, possibly?) said something like 'freedom is when government fears the people; tyranny when the people fear the government'?

[Mz Pip]

20. I support SOME gun control

not all.

I don't own a gun. However, I do believe that if someone purchases a gun there should be some background check and some mandatory gun safety class to go along with it. So many gun injuries and fatalities are a result of pure ignorance in the maintaining and storing of guns. I do not see any reason why ordinary citizens need to own military weapons, like M-16s or Howitzers or grenade launchers.

My Dad taught me how to shoot, clean and safely store a gun. H3e was in the Police Reserves. Anyone who owns a gun should go through some kind of training.

MzPip
:dem:

[Capn Sunshine]

21. They can write down whatever they want

Take six forms of ID; what ever helps. I still have my guns, and there's nothing afoot to take them that I see

What's wrong with restricting a schizophrenic who just got out from buying a gun on his way home?

Where does the 2nd amendment mention automatic weaponry?
If you want to stay faithful to the 2nd ammendment as it was written, let everyone have as many muzzle loader single shots as they want.......

[Wild Bill]

24. with your standard ....

with your standard .... we should be useing a printing press and not the internet to debate this topic.

[Capn Sunshine]

34. no....

my standard applies to the SECOND AMENDMENT.

None of this crap keeps me from owning as many guns as I want.

Do you own less cars because you need a license to drive and registration?

[DoNotRefill]

58. you can't pick and choose....

You have to interpret the ENTIRE Bill of Rights the same way you interpret any ONE amendment. The net result is that what you do to the Second Amendment, you do to the whole thing. And, BTW, last time I read the BoR, cars were NOT mentioned.

[MrBenchley]

85. Sez who?

"You have to interpret the ENTIRE Bill of Rights the same way you interpret any ONE amendment"
So the NRA is currently suing (with Ken Starr, and there's a tip-off) to overturn campaign finance reform on the grounds that its COLLECTIVE freedom of speech is being impeded.

"And, BTW, last time I read the BoR, cars were NOT mentioned."
Neither was "self defense," "individual gun ownership," or "paranoia."

[DoNotRefill]

91. MrBenchley...

The NRA isn't a collective organization. It's a corporation. That's one legal entity.

The phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is pretty straightforward. It's a right (not a privelege), it belongs to the people (not the State) and it's to keep and bear arms (not to keep and bear whatever arms are currently politically correct).

[MrBenchley]

94. Hahahahahhahahahaha.....

"The NRA isn't a collective organization."
Yeah, and Wayne LaPierre is queen of the may. Who are you trying to kid?

"It's a right (not a privelege), it belongs to the people (not the State) and it's to keep and bear arms (not to keep and bear whatever arms are currently politically correct)"
In a well regulated militia for the defense of the state...not so every neurotic can have a toy for his Chuck Norris-type fantasies.

[DoNotRefill]

96. so, by your reasoning...

the right to a free press only applies to political discussion necessary for a free state? How about the right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures? Also a collective right?

I noticed that you didn't mention the other plaintiff in the NRA lawsuit defending First Amendment rights...the ACLU...why is that???

Could it be that you just have a hard-on for the NRA, and will attack them no matter WHAT they do?

[MrBenchley]

105. Who are you trying to kid, refill?

" noticed that you didn't mention the other plaintiff in the NRA lawsuit defending First Amendment rights...the ACLU...why is that???"
Because the ACLU isn't pushing this idiotically dishonest "individual right to all the guns we want" horseshit...

"Could it be that you just have a hard-on for the NRA, and will attack them no matter WHAT they do?"
It could be that the NRA is a dishonest bunch of right wing racists and pinheads. Their doddering president wanted to lynch Al Gore and just about every decent person in America is on their half-assed "enemies list."

[Spoonman]

116. Wow another uneducated constitutional scholar

In U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez the Court stated that "'the people' seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution.... it suggests that 'the people' protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community."

[TAH6988]

104. Where does the Constitution

give you a right to own and operate a car?

[Silverhair]

30. Your gun is more modern.

That is a cap and ball pistol. In the period of the consititution's writing you would need to have had a flintlock.

[DoNotRefill]

57. Shouldn't that be....

"Where does the 2nd amendment mention automatic weaponry?"

Where does it EXEMPT automatic weaponry?

The ONLY time the Supreme Court directly addressed the Second Amendment in the 20th century was in the Miller decision of 1939. In it, they said that ONLY weapons that had some military application are protected by the Second Amendment. "Sporting" guns don't, unless they also are militarily useful.

[SahaleArm]

127. It also doesn't exempt me from an RPG,

Or any military armament, maybe I'll pick up an Abrams tank; just is case:).

[DoNotRefill]

138. That's legal in most states...

but you wouldn't BELIEVE the red tape you have to jump through...

[Mairead]

74. "If you want to stay faithful to the 2nd amendment as it was written"

let everyone have as many muzzle loader single shots as they want.

Ha. Ha. Very droll.

Those single-shot flintlocks were, of course, the state of the art at that time. Their equivalent today would be the most powerful and sophisticated single-user firearm, not something 200 years out of date.

Your point about the person with schizophrenia is well-taken, though.

[pansypoo53219]

26. i think

the only gun that citizens are allowed to have should be revoltuion era muskets. that's it. nothing more modern than what they had in 1787.

[DoNotRefill]

59. so, are you prepared for Freedom of the Press...

to apply only to manual printing presses? That's the unintended consequence of your argument....

[Mairead]

114. Not merely manual presses, but screw-driven, flatbed letterpresses

not much changed since Gutenberg's, Caxton's, and de Woorde's time. Even clamshell letterpresses didn't yet exist, and offset was far in the future. Not to mention having to print on handmade paper, since the Fourdrinier brothers didn't produce their paper-making machine til the early 1800s.

But of course the argument is silly, since the Second doesn't protect the right to keep and bear single-shot flintlocks. The single-shot flintlocks were merely the pinnacle of the art at that time and, with a bayonet fitted, very definitely an 'assault rifle'.

[1a2b3c]

64. Whats that do?

They both are designed to kill people. They both still work.

[Silverhair]

27. Some thoughts.

I once used a gun in self defense. I tried to flee, was chased by a stranger, I was being threatened with deadly force, I drew the gun, my assailant ran like hell. No shots fired.

Gun locks. I am remined of an old Texas story. An eastener in the 1880's was in western Texas and, noticing that everyone carried a gun, asked one man, "Do you need your gun often." The fellow answered, "I haven't need it yet, but if I ever do need it I'm going to need it in an all fired hurry." I know several women who have used guns against burglars, (No shots fired. When they saw the gun they retreated. One guy did a backflip out the window he had just climbed in through.)and they needed it fast when they needed it. If someone is breaking in, you are going to have time to open a gun safe, unlock the specific gun, open a seperate drawer for the ammo, & load the gun. Long before then you will be looking at the burglar's gun. I use an auto loader with a stiff spring. A child doesn't have the strength to work the action. And our older children have been taught about guns, so the mystery is removed.

Saturday Night Specials. Folks, street criminals don't use them. A street criminal is a professional at his trade which is crime. Like any pro he wants the better tools of his trade. That means Rugers, S & W's, Colts, etc. He doesn't want a junk gun that might fall apart at the wrong time, and he will pay what it takes to get a good gun. Cheap guns are used almost entirely by the law-abiding very poor who can't afford a good one. They are also used by those who don't know any better.

Assault rifles. Genuine assault rifles have been illegal for a long time. The type of gun that most people call assault rifles are guns that are cosmetic look alikes, but have ordinary internal parts. The bill outlawed such things as bayonet lugs. (Has anybody every heard of a criminal holding up a place with rifle with bayonet attached? How about a drive by bayoneting?) That law was one of those feel good pieces of legislation that didn't accomplish anything. There was a post here a few weeks ago by a policeman who said that almost allof the AK-47s were illegal imports from Africa. An AK sells for about $50 there. Gang members send somebody over to buy up a bunch of them, and smuggle them back to the U.S. Also, let it be remembered that in Switzerland, the Gov't gives every ablebodies male a GENUINE selective-fire, full auto capable, military power, assault rifle and a full combat load of ammunition (About 300 rounds.)TO KEEP IN HIS HOME. It doesn't give them any problems.

Waiting periods. Useless. Almost all street criminal buy thier guns on the street.

While I am at it - Most of you have heard that in most murders the victim knows the murderer. That is quoted to make it sound like you are in most danger from your friends & family. However: Street criminals usually know each other. Pimps & hookers know each other. Pimps & Johns know each other - lots of Johns are repeat customers. Drug dealers know each other. Get the idea? (And when there is a case of a domestic family murder, there is almost always a history of family violence.) An honest person, not involved in anything shady, not in an abusive relationship, has their greatest danger of violence from strangers.

[cindyw]

31. For every story you just told there are many more of children

killing themselves and other children with guns in their houses. Stories of people getting shot with their own guns by assailants. Any good cop will tell you that a gun in your home is more of a danger to you and the people who visit your home than to a possible criminal.

That woman could have just as easily pulled out mace and accomplished the same goal. I carried it all through college. When I walked at night I walked with my finger on the trigger. in most cases, you need a gun for protection as much as you need a grenade.

Guns are a weapon of war and law enforcement. When we need a well regulated militia in this country, you let me know. Cops and national guard are enough right now.

[killbotfactory]

50. How many children died from gunshot wounds compared to, say...

Being stung by bees, or drowning in their own swimming pools?

[Silverhair]

54. More deaths by bicycle accident.

I'm not going to take the time to look up a link, but I once saw a list of accidental causes of death to children, and bicycles were waaaay ahead of guns. Traffic accidents, if I remember right, were in the lead.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

56. Suicides and murders wouldn't be counted as accidents though.

[killbotfactory]

97. There should still be statistics for that

I'd like to see them. If i'm going to address a problem with kids dying i'd like to get my priorities straight.

I wouldn't think banning guns would prevent suicide, though.

[Silverhair]

52. Not true.

There are reliable stastical studies that show that guns are used far more often in defense. In fact, in the situations that I mentioned, only one went to the police afterwards. The rest didn't bother. In my life I have personally known only one family that has had a child shot in a gun accident, but I have known many cases of people defending themselves, usually with no shots fired. Of course, those cases are never counted in gun use studies because nobody got shot.

Shooting themselves? Not if you handle a gun properly. If you are not willing to learn how to correctly use a gun, you have no business with one. Same thing with a car, or with a chain saw, or other potentially dangerous tool.

Suicide. Taking a gun away won't prevent the suicide. They will just do it some other way.

The assailant taking a gun away and using it on me?. Only on TV. 99% of the time the assailant stops right then, no shots fired, and runs like hell. In the other 1% you simply pull the trigger. NOTE: NEVER EVER BLUFF WITH A GUN. If you are not willing or able to pull the trigger if you have to, don't even touch a gun. While I hope to never have to, I know I will if it comes to that gravest extreme.

Mace? Bad choice. If the guy is on drugs or adrenalin it doesn't work, and it is slow to work anyway. Takes a second or two - plenty of time for an assailant to hurt you bad, or kill you. Get pepper spray. Problem with that all sprays. You have to get up close. A criminal can close the range in a second. Pepper spray, while highly effective, needs to be in the stronger concentrations. I have inhaled a 1% concentration of it with no effect to me at all. The strongest is 15%, get it. There is some stuff called "Bear Guard" that is made for bear attack, but it's use on humans is illegal.

BTW, I also carry pepper spray. I want to have a lesser level of force available. I don't want to be in a gun or nothing situation. First I try to avoid potentitially dangerous situations. If the situation comes to me I will try to retreat. If I can't, then I want to have options. If I think the spray will work I will. The gun is an absolute last option. But it is an option.

A gun is a tool, not a magical instrument. Like any tool, you need to know how to use it, and be proficient in it's use. If you are not willing to learn to use it right, then it is a danger to you.

BTW, I am a liscensed Private Investigator, (Although due to my age I don't accept cases any more, but I keep the liscense.)and have qualified expert with the .45 autoloader, and am a Vietnam Veteran. I will defend my self. Our local police have an excellent response time, but mine is faster at a time when fractions of seconds count.

[DoNotRefill]

60. Nation-wide in 2001 (the last year data has been released for)

there were fewer than one thousand accidental deaths that were firearms related in the entire country, out of a population of close to 300 million people, and where there are 300 million guns.

[Mairead]

75. "That woman could have just as easily pulled out mace"

Possession of mace has also been criminalised in (at least some of) the jurisdictions that have restrictive firearm laws.

[dolstein]

36. State versus Federal responsibilities

I think it's the responsibility of each state to decide which of its citizens is entitled to own a firearm and whether they are permitted to carry a concealed weapon.

I think it's the responsibility of the federal government to regulate commercial transactions involving firearms so as to ensure that firearms are not sold to anyone who is prohibited by state law from owning a firearm. I think it is well within the authority of Congress to require the licensing of firearms dealers and to prohibit mail-order and internet sales of firearms.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

38. How long of a drive is it from Maine to NYC?

[dolstein]

42. Not long enough

Which is why you need federal regulation of firearms sales by a dealer to a non-resident. Without adequate federal regulation of commercial firearms transactions, state and local laws relating to firearm ownership are easily circumvented.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

43. I'm not sure I've heard that proposal before...

or is it existing law? I don't think so...

[dolstein]

49. The 1968 Gun Control Act

prohibits federally licensed firearms dealers from selling firearms to convicted felons, fugitives from justice, illegal drug users or addicts, minors, anyone adjudicated mentally defective or having been committed to a mental institution, anyone dishonorably discharged from the military, illegal alients and anyone who has renounced U.S. citizenship. I wouldn't be surprised if most of these people were already prohibited from owning firearms under state laws that were in effect at the time the law was enacted.

The 1968 Gun Control Act also prohibits someone from purchasing a handgun outside the state in which he/she resides.

[DoNotRefill]

62. Ummm...such sales ARE regulated.

It's illegal for a dealer (or anybody else, for that matter) to sell a handgun to an out of state resident. They can buy long guns, but ONLY if the gun is legal where it is sold AND where the buyer resides. This is Federal law, and is enforced throughout the entire country.

[dolstein]

111. And well they should be

However, there are plenty of gun owners -- including some DU'ers -- who consider even such modest regulations unconstitutional.

[Terwilliger]

46. I generally support gun control

I wouldn't want to have to ban them

[quaker bill]

48. I support

the right to arm bears.

[killbotfactory]

51. Generally against it

I think the high homicide rate in the US has more to do with culteral factors, the drug war, and the legacy of racism in this country than how many guns are available.

[Mr. Blonde]

55. The Blacklist

Some interesting names on it. I believe I saw the Bride (Kill Bill), Mr. Pink (Reservoir Dogs), James Bond, and The Ugly all on the list. I am glad to see that favoring gun control does not stop them from making the use of them look cool. Maybe the Bride should be let off because as of vol. one she has only used a knife (rather well) to take care of business. However I feel that she will use a gun in the second half. When the original Mr. Blonde gets the death he so richly deserves.
For myself. As with most others I voted that I am generally in favor of gun control laws. I have no problem with people wishing to hunt, and or have a pistol (with a license).

Sorry to anyone who isn't a major movie fiend like myself who doesn't have a picture pop immediately into their heads at the names above.

[Unforgiven]

65. Don't Do It

Anybody who wants gun control at this juncture in time better think again. Why do you think the radical right has not locked down this country? Because there are too many people in middle america who own them and would probably use them if they had to.Don't plan on taking mine without taking a bullet first.

[onebigbadwulf]

67. Too stupid to ban guns....

Ideally I'd like to see the banning of all guns like Britain. Unfortunately, the American public is much too stupid and ignorant to educate themselves politically and socially to the point where it would be beneficial.

At this point, I think you will need a few guns- it may be the only way to get our country back.

[Silverhair]

68. Britians crime rate is going up.

Since Britian banned all guns, they are seeing an increase in guns used in crimes.

Face it. Criminals will ALWAYS be able to get guns. Drugs are illegal, yet is America drug free? Same thing with guns. Buy them cheap in huge lots in countries that have no real law enforcement, smuggle them in, sell them on the street for a huge profit. Same for ammo.

[Muddleoftheroad]

69. The American people

Or maybe the American people are smarter than you think and don't want one of their rights stripped away.

[DoNotRefill]

92. that would precipitate another civil war....

BTW, I'm sure that members of the American public will just love being called "stupid and ignorant." Way to win the hearts and minds...

[Fescue4u]

76. Worst disaster ever to strike the Democratic party.

If it were not for gun control, Gore would be president, the house and senate would be under Democrat control.

We would not have troops in Iraq, nor tax cuts for the rich only.

The WTC would still be standing and the Patriot act would not be reality.

We would have a decent chance of implementing socialized medicine, possibily already implemented.

The absolute lunancy that some have pursued destroying an essential human right has cost the Democratic party almost everything.

[Terwilliger]

77. ACK!!! Guns are a human right now?????

THIS is just precisely why the Democratic party should do what it can to regulate guns. They shouldn't even be allowed in the hands of people who might use them improperly...you might as well hand out mini-nukes and say "We trust you to govern yourself" :eyes:

...guns as a human right.....WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?!?!

[Fescue4u]

83. Uh yes of course

Regulating civil rights is the first step to facism.

The bill or rights outlines our civil rights and the right to bear arms is one of them.

This is well established.

[Terwilliger]

86. Civil right?

Firstly, the 2nd amendment STILL...AFTER 200 odd years, does NOT say that an individual has a right to a gun for purposes other than membership in a local militia...its crazy people who say otherwise.

Secondly, why is it a right to own a gun? Why isn't it a right of Americans NOT to be shot??? Why isn't it a right of the poor and disenfranchised to have a life and the prospect of a better future? Why isn't it a right to take the drugs you desire to take without interference from the government?

[Padraig18]

87. "Crazy"

Then the 5th Circuit must be crazy (US v. Emerson (2001); cert denied); they held that the 2nd Amerndment DOES delineate an individual right to keep and bear arms, and the SCOTUS must agree, because they denied certiorari on the case.

[Terwilliger]

88. SCOTUS said the count should stop

So Bush is the legitimate president and all those horrible Democrats should support him 100%, right?

[Fescue4u]

90. SCOTUS said the abortion is a womens right.

Are you saying they are wrong?

[Padraig18]

102. my point was...

... that gun-control advocates treat the very narrrow dicta from the Miller case as holy writ supporting *any* extreme form of gun control, but then completely ignore decision after decision after decision that explicitly recognize an individual right to keep and bear arms, of which Emerson is but the most recent example.

[Fescue4u]

89. If you are an American citizen

then you are a member of the local militia.

As to your other points.
You do have the right to not be shot (provide you obey all other laws)
The poor DO have the right to not be disenfranchised
And you do have the right to take drugs you desire without interference.
And you have the right to bear arms.

However...most all those rights have been trampled on throughly by our own government.

[DoNotRefill]

93. Isn't self-defense a human right?

As to what's wrong with us, we just don't spend all of our time being stoned....

[Terwilliger]

110. murder a civil right, hmmm....

must have been another history book I was looking at.

You want to defend yourself take up judo...or smoke a joint with the guy, he'll give you a pass

[Padraig18]

115. I'll pass.

3 shots in a palm-sized space centered on his sternum works for me.

[Spoonman]

122. Smoke a joint with the guy?

Yea wise move, let him know you've got your stash on you.
I'm sure if a criminal is willing to shoot you for $20, just think what they might do for $100 sack!

I prefer to lay waste to the prick and keep my cash and stash!

[Man_in_the_Moon]

123. Do you think a woman confronting a rapist...

should just lay back and enjoy it.

[DoNotRefill]

124. there's a difference between "murder" and "self-defense"....

just as there's a difference between pot and tobacco. One's illegal, the other isn't.

[jody]

117. Natural right to self preservation is typically the first right.

goggle on "natural right" "self preservation"

[Silverhair]

78. How would the WTC still be standing?

All of the terrorists were already in country and in training before GWB took office. Clinton's FBI director was anti-computer and the FBI's computer system was so antiquated that they couldn't even give the computers away when the new director got a new system for them.
Those terrorists had slipped by during Clinton's administration and would have continued to slip by as they didn't do anything new to attract attention.

The WTC attack was planned years in advance.

Let's not make extreme claims for our guys. It tends to discredit the valid claims that we make. Please notice that I am not disagreeing with the rest of your post.

[Fescue4u]

84. Thats a fair statement

And was a stretch when I wrote it (I intended to address this but I left it out).

Id like to believe that our guys would have stopped the terrorist attack, but its fair to say that this far from certain.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

101. Bush muffed the intelligence and Clark is calling him on it

quit blaming Clinton. Bush was President. Deal with it.

[Silverhair]

103. You are over reacting.

We can't claim with certainty that Gore would have stopped it. There is plenty of blame to go around to all sides.

[Loonman]

80. Not a fair poll - too leading.

n/t

[Zgrrl]

95. I voted for "generally oppose"...

...but I do believing in closing the gun show loophole. I'm not against background checks and laws that ban convicted criminials from purchasing/owning guns...except that I guess I have a problem with ANY conviction being used as a reason not to let someone have a gun. For example, if a college student is caught with marijuana and convicted of a drug charge, I don't think that person should be banned from ever owning a gun. Anyone with a domestic violence record should never, ever get their hands on a gun, though.

I own a gun and have taken a gun safety course. I also keep said gun far away from my children. I like to tell rightwingers that I am their worst nightmare-- a liberal feminist with a gun. And a great marks(woman) at that! So don't f--- with me!

:evilgrin:

[Superfly]

108. I do not support any restrctions

on the RKBA.

I do support the lawful, legal carry of concealed weapons, without a state-issued permit.

I do support the extension of the NICS system to private transfers.

I do support the abolition of the Assault Weapons Ban.

I do support the right of all lawful, adult Americans to keep and bear arms without licenses, permits, registration, or asking the government "pretty please?".

Brian

[jody]

113. What do you mean by “gun-control”?

MORE AGGRESSIVE ENFORCEMENT under current federal laws, see
1. more arrests
2. more prosecutions
3. longer sentences
OR
MORE LAWS supplementing those under TITLE 18 cited above
4. register all handguns
5. register all long guns
6. ban all handguns
7. ban all long guns
8. prevent other classes of people from possessing firearms
8. other, but what?

[andym]

126. I think gun licensing should be similar to automobile licensing

In addition to background checks,
I think gun licensing should be similar to automobile licensing.
It should require written and physical tests,
to see that the applicant knows how to use the gun safely.

[DoNotRefill]

130. Which Amendment...

protects the Right to Keep and Drive Cars?

You should be thinking more along the lines of voting. Are you willing to further restrict the right to vote?

[Mass_Liberal]

129. Guns are wussie

if you really want self-defense and extreme hunting, use a sword. And yes I am in favor of permits to conceal Claymores, katanas, and rapiers. (Lol)

[Fescue4u]

133. So only strong able people should be allowed to protect themselves.

So I guess that if an attacker is stronger than you, he should be allowed to do with you as he pleases?

[mmonk]

131. You need something in the poll

about assault rifles. Also, gun control won't work unless its uniform accross the country. Then there's the right to bear arms thing.

[bluestateguy]

132. Growing support for the 2nd Amendment on the left

Currently the poll is running 56%-39% in favor of gun control. I bet 10 years ago the poll would have run 80%-20% in favor of gun control.

[Fescue4u]

134. Very encouraging.

In one sense its shocking that 56 to 39% of the people believe in throwing out portions of the Bill of Rights.

On the other hand its very encouraging that people are coming to their senses.

[IndianaGreen]

135. Many of those people see nothing wrong with PATRIOT Act

Nothing like giving the federal government absolute power over our lives, don't you feel more secure already? :crazy:

[DoNotRefill]

139. you're right, 10 years ago it would have...

and the elections from 1996 on are the results come home to roost.

We've had our asses handed to us because of this one issue.

[Clark Can WIN]

136. I oppose automatic weapons

and teflon bullets and outrageous things like that. I support registering every gun and having a title & tax system like automobiles.

I oppose restricting the rights of a sane law abiding citizen over the age of 18 to own a gun.

[DoNotRefill]

141. a few points, CCW...

legally owned automatic weapons are statistically never used in crime, and there are 250,000 of them floating around out there in private hands. So why oppose them?

"teflon bullets" are a myth. There were some plastic-coated bullets, but the reason they were coated with plastic is to save wear on the barrels, and they were marketed exclusively to law enforcement/military sources for training purposes only to keep the cop's guns from wearing out. They were no more likely to penetrate a bulletproof vest than a non-plastic coated bullet. Being able to penetrate bulletproof vests is a matter of bullet weight and velocity. Take a heavy enough bullet and get it going fast enough, and it'll blow through ANY armor out there. This is the principle behind the saboted depleted uranium antitank rounds used by the military...they didn't make them out of DU because they liked radiation, they made them out of DU because it was so very heavy.

Registering every gun is a non-starter. There are 300 million out there already in the US, and they're easy to smuggle in. Same with licensing. BTW, did you know that according to the Supreme Court criminals are constitutionally exempt from gun registration laws for 5th amendment reasons? You can't require criminals to register their guns because it infringes on their right against self-incrimination (it's illegal for a criminal to have a gun).

[Eloriel]

140. I support Dean's position. n/t

[DrFunkenstein]

142. Whatever That May Be

<>

;-)