Americans - Would you change gun laws?

[Melchiah]

The people who possess illegal hand guns would keep theirs and potentially have a field day when they know the common citizen doesn't have anything to properly defend themselves with.

the "common citizen" already doesn't have anything to properly defend themselves with.

I disagree. I legally own weapons most capable of killing a person wishing to do harm to me.

Unless by proper you mean cowing and bending over, in which case we shall have to agree to disagree. You will not steal from me or damage my person in perfect safety. I will attempt to shoot, cut or strike you, and not feel bad about it in the slightest.

[Beckwin]

most people don't carry a firearm on their person, and most don't even own one.

oh and way to go insinuating that pro-gun control is somehow weak of character or for pussies.

[Melchiah]

Perhaps the language is abrasive, but surely you know that many people are told to just comply with criminals to avoid getting hurt. Sadly, a lot of times they get hurt anyway.

[Beckwin]

Sadly, the gun you're carrying won't always save you from a criminal anyway.

[Melchiah]

It may not, but consider this:

I propose that if criminals started getting shot for breaking into houses, assaulting/mugging/carjacking citizens we would see some amount of decline in violent crime. They do these things because they have no fear of retribution or for their safety. They know they are not likely to get shot if they fuck with you. Kill a few of them, and I imagine attitudes would change.

[Shuemue]

Conversely, might criminals just shoot first and leave no witnesses?

[Remyo]

Sadly, the gun you're carrying won't always save you from a criminal anyway.

u sure?
http://www.hill.af.mil/shared/media/...-0000H-036.jpg

[Remyo]

Conversely, might criminals just shoot first and leave no witnesses?

yea I think escalation would happen

[Bweigelt]

It may not, but consider this:

I propose that if criminals started getting shot for breaking into houses, assaulting/mugging/carjacking citizens we would see some amount of decline in violent crime. They do these things because they have no fear of retribution or for their safety. They know they are not likely to get shot if they fuck with you. Kill a few of them, and I imagine attitudes would change.

I didn't really wanna get involved in this considering I'm not american but, You talk as if there lives mean nothing. Why don't we just give out the death penalty to everyone that gets put in jail. Did you ever stop to think that criminals might be more violent and shoot first, ask questions later, if they think someone is going to fight back?

EDIT: guess shue beat me to it.

[Shuemue]

I appreciate all the responses, the poll numbers and comments are pretty interesting.

[Delta_9]

Conversely, might criminals just shoot first and leave no witnesses?

Of course, but what's to stop them from doing that anyway? If a criminal already has the mind set to kill someone I don't see how the homeowner not having or having a gun would change the situation. Although some criminals might shoot first if everyone or a majority was armed.

http://rkba.org/comment/cowards.html

^ Obviously biased and I don't agree with everything that is said but I enjoyed the read.

Myself, I don't understand the need to own assault rifles but rifles/shotguns/handguns I don't mind.

Also in a few months a court case over handgun laws in DC is coming before the Supreme Court.

[Melchiah]

Conversely, might criminals just shoot first and leave no witnesses?

Possibly, but again, by arming yourself you are still increasing the risk factor for the criminal. Is it a perfect deterrent? Probably not, but it isn't completely without merit. Also, some punk with a blade is going to think twice if he gets a pistol directed at his face. The point I'm driving at here is that right now, there is no risk factor for a criminal, or at the least a very small one. They can pretty much act with impunity. Get a person alone, shove a weapon in their face, and then do whatever they want. Assault, rob, heaven forbid, rape a woman, kidnap a child. By increasing the risk factor you decrease the willingness(I hope that makes sense).

[Beckwin]

They can pretty much act with impunity. Get a person alone, shove a weapon in their face, and then do whatever they want.

hmmmmm

[MisterBob]

Tighten gun laws.

My reason? It would piss off rednecks.

[Melchiah]

They can pretty much act with impunity. Get a person alone, shove a weapon in their face, and then do whatever they want.

hmmmmm

I don't understand.

In 1987, however, Florida enacted a uniform concealed-carry law which mandates that county authorities issue a permit to anyone who satisfies certain objective criteria. The law requires that a permit be issued to any applicant who is a resident, at least twenty-one years of age, has no criminal record, no record of alcohol or drug abuse, no history of mental illness, and provides evidence of having satisfactorily completed a firearms safety course offered by the NRA or other competent instructor. The applicant must provide a set of fingerprints, after which the authorities make a background check. The permit must be issued or denied within ninety days, is valid throughout the state, and must be renewed every three years, which provides authorities a regular means of reevaluating whether the permit holder still qualifies.

Passage of this legislation was vehemently opposed by HCI and the media. The law, they said, would lead to citizens shooting each other over everyday disputes involving fender benders, impolite behavior, and other slights to their dignity. Terms like "Florida, the Gunshine State" and "Dodge City East" were coined to suggest that the state, and those seeking passage of the law, were encouraging individuals to act as judge, jury, and executioner in a "Death Wish" society.

No HCI campaign more clearly demonstrates the elitist beliefs underlying the campaign to eradicate gun ownership. Given the qualifications required of permit holders, HCI and the media can only believe that common, law-abiding citizens are seething cauldrons of homicidal rage, ready to kill to avenge any slight to their dignity, eager to seek out and summarily execute the lawless. Only lack of immediate access to a gun restrains them and prevents the blood from flowing in the streets. They are so mentally and morally deficient that they would mistake a permit to carry a weapon in self-defense as a state-sanctioned license to kill at will.

Did the dire predictions come true? Despite the fact that Miami and Dade County have severe problems with the drug trade, the homicide rate fell in Florida following enactment of this law, as it did in Oregon following enactment of similar legislation there. There are, in addition, several documented cases of new permit holders successfully using their weapons to defend themselves. Information from the Florida Department of State shows that, from the beginning of the program in 1987 through June 1993, 160,823 permits have been issued, and only 530, or about 0.33 percent of the applicants, have been denied a permit for failure to satisfy the criteria, indicating that the law is benefitting those whom it was intended to benefit -- the law-abiding. Only 16 permits, less than 1/100th of 1 percent, have been revoked due to the post-issuance commission of a crime involving a firearm.

God I hate agreeing with conservatives, but these are some pretty hard to ignore points.

[Beckwin]

Do you think that if fewer criminals had guns or couldn't acquire them as easily, that there would be less "acting with impunity" on their part (on a whole)?

[Melchiah]

Do you think that if fewer criminals had guns or couldn't acquire them as easily, that there would be less "acting with impunity" on their part (on a whole)?

Ok, lets get to the heart of the matter. How do you propose we take guns away from criminals? They don't buy them from FFL dealers nor do they register them. They are either stolen, bought at pawn shops(I will totally support legislation to control and document ALL firearm sales), or obtained through illicit means. A person who requires a weapon to commit a crime, and who is determined to commit that crime WILL find a way to obtain that weapon. They clearly don't give a crap about the law saying they can't have a gun.

I know you stated in the last thread on this topic that it is not impossible to round up and destroy every weapon in the country, but I have yet to hear you make a proposal on how to do this.

Like I said, you cannot uninvent the gun. You cannot uninvent the knife. They will always be there. Unless you can work some miracle and just poof them all away and make everyone in the world forget how a gun works... yeah let us get back into reality. An across the board gun ban is ludicrous.

[Enkidu]

Do you think that if fewer criminals had guns or couldn't acquire them as easily, that there would be less "acting with impunity" on their part (on a whole)?

Do you really think gun laws will make it tough for criminals to obtain guns? It's like saying crackheads have a tough time finding crack... It would be tough for a normal person to find a gun, much like it would be extremely tough for me to find crack, but criminals wouldn't have a problem at all.

Gun laws would likely stop many passion crimes, but other then that give it a few years and criminals will have access to just as many guns as they do now. European nations have an easier time simply because they don't have many problems at their borders, the US obviously does.

[Melchiah]

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/...22/63817.shtml

As of the writing of this article in 2001, it was almost impossible to legally purchase a handgun in Great Britain, and the gun crime rate increased 40% between 1997 and 2000. Banning guns does not cause a downward trend in gun crime rates.

[Maxxthepenguin]

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/...22/63817.shtml

As of the writing of this article in 2001, it was almost impossible to legally purchase a handgun in Great Britain, and the gun crime rate increased 40% between 1997 and 2000. Banning guns does not cause a downward trend in gun crime rates.

What was their method for removing guns?