Gun control

[spdrcr137]

agreed or mabe we have now met the husband?

[BigD]

[Michael Psycle]

Originally Posted by thefour

I think xbones and michael psychle are the same person. There is no one, I mean no one, that can stir the pot like michael. If xbones isn't michael then they are brothers.

I am humbled.

[utrvp]

Originally Posted by <G Man>

So, you don't think all the people who "turned in guns" in LA last week were criminals?

My guess is most of them were law abiding citizens who knew a good deal when they saw one. I turned in a virtually worthless 25 cal. semi auto pistol in for $50.00 once. The gun was thrown in when I bought a couple 22 rifles from a friend. Since the gun was free to me and not worth a fraction of the $50.00 I got for it I think I made out well. BTW that gun was never going to be used in any crime so the $50.00 the police gave me went for nothing! I am sure at most of the gun buy backs the majority of the guns turned in are by law abiding citizens and not nearly worth the money they received for them!

[09 XBones]

Originally Posted by streetg

There is no limit, for non convicted criminals, for the right to life. At most there are laws designed to keep us from inhibiting the rights of others, thats all. So , the right to defend ones life against a criminal bent on snuffing it out has no limit. Bones, until we come up with some far out technology allowing cops to see the future so they can be more than just a reactionary force, it's just absolutely silly to restrict ones reasonable resources for self defense.

Again, the question is what is "reasonable resourses?"

Even by Bonesy standards, Bonesy, everything in this reply is rigoddamndiculus. You gotta thro in nukes to make your point? Why? , cause without hyperbole your arguments fall flat there dude. You mentioned in another post something about where to draw the line when other conservatives' line is to the right of mine regarding weapons of war. Nobody with reasonable ideas towards this stuff , which is most of the conservatives on here, as well as nationwide, advocate total, unrestricted access to weapons of war. Our lines may vary slightly but for the most part we would all be at least satisfied if the laws stayed as is.

Heck no, the NRA has been trying to get all gun laws eliminated. All of them.

You need a real argument besides nukes n stret sweepers as you call em, which I'm guessing you mean fully auto. I don't think any of the mass murders we've had in the last 20 yrs or so involved machine guns.

But there are those who would use that argument to try to legalize them.

[Hamilton]

Originally Posted by 09 XBones

Heck no, the NRA has been trying to get all gun laws eliminated. All of them.

When and where did the leadership of the NRA say that?

[<G Man>]

Originally Posted by utrvp

My guess is most of them were law abiding citizens who knew a good deal when they saw one. I turned in a virtually worthless 25 cal. semi auto pistol in for $50.00 once. The gun was thrown in when I bought a couple 22 rifles from a friend. Since the gun was free to me and not worth a fraction of the $50.00 I got for it I think I made out well. BTW that gun was never going to be used in any crime so the $50.00 the police gave me went for nothing! I am sure at most of the gun buy backs the majority of the guns turned in are by law abiding citizens and not nearly worth the money they received for them!

A majority? Are you implying that ANY criminals showed up to turn in their guns? Do we have to explain sarcasm to you now?

Holy crap!! What the hell is happening on this forum?


Aaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhh hhhh

[utrvp]

Originally Posted by <G Man>

A majority? Are you implying that ANY criminals showed up to turn in their guns? Do we have to explain sarcasm to you now?

Holy crap!! What the hell is happening on this forum?


Aaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhh hhhh

I got your sarcasm but I have no doubt many criminals did turn in guns but not because they were giving up a life of crime. They did it for the same reason I turned in my 25 semi auto. Turn in a cheap useless gun and get money to purchase a better gun. Basically whoever sponsored the buy back is simply acting as a fence for cheap and or stolen guns.

[<G Man>]

Originally Posted by utrvp

I got your sarcasm but I have no doubt many criminals did turn in guns but not because they were giving up a life of crime. They did it for the same reason I turned in my 25 semi auto. Turn in a cheap useless gun and get money to purchase a better gun. Basically whoever sponsored the buy back is simply acting as a fence for cheap and or stolen guns.

Gotcha. I'm just messing with you anyway.

Based on some other threads, it appears that December 21 was not the end of the world but the end of most people's ability to understand sarcasm. Me without sarcasm is like a fish out of water.

[Ziggy57]

In response to your stance on gun control!

[scsmall]

Will you all not admit that with guns being so available to people, that its so much easier for people to do the unthinkable? Sure people say stupid comments like hammers can kill people so why not ban hammers. Well I'll ask how many nails have guns put into wood? Same dumb comment in reverse. A hammer provides a primary function to build things. A gun has a primary function to kill things.

People say well do background checks on people. A background check isn't going to say what the person is currently going through that may make them unstable, nor does it tell you what they plan to do in the future.

In Canada and I would have thought in the USA, we don't fear our government turning into Nazi Germany either. Post that suggest you need a stock pile of guns in your home in case Obama or some future president is going to start killing his people screams paranoia. I'd like to think in North America we are so much more civilized over these countries that base there government on religion (i.e. the middle east), that we don’t need to build bunkers in our homes and stock pile weapons.

Sure if someone wants to cause mayhem they will find ways to do it. That is something I don’t think will ever be preventable.

Here are a few old stats from an RCMP website. New stats are the same story. There is a magnitude higher gun related crime in places that allow everyone to run around with guns, because it only takes one crazy person in the pack to ruin the fun for everyone.

•Firearm homicide rates are 8.1 times higher in the United States than in Canada. For 1987-96, the average firearm homicide rate was 5.7 per 100,000 in the U.S., compared to 0.7 per 100,000 for Canada.

•Handgun homicide rates are 15.3 times higher in the United States than in Canada. For 1989-95, the average handgun homicide rate was 4.8 per 100,000 in the U.S., compared to 0.3 per 100,000 for Canada. Handguns were involved in more than half (52%) of the homicides in the U.S., compared to 14% in Canada.


Finally I will once again I support Hand Guns. I dont support AK 47's and extended clips being allowed to be sold to basically anyone who wants one.

[HiAngle]

Looks like you live in a country where you're happy with your gun laws-- that's great. Personally, I don't find your opinion on our gun laws to be even mildly interesting. Quite frankly, your country's Constitution is different from ours so I don't expect you to understand something that didn't affect your life. If and when you become a US citizen, you're more than free to write your representative and lay out the statistics to make your case.

By the way, you answered your first question in paragraph 4. Also, you're wrong about the primary function of guns. Its primary function is to shoot a bullet.

[springer-]

Originally Posted by scsmall

.... Well I'll ask how many nails have guns put into wood? ....

I'm guessing hundreds of millions if not billions ...

[RGRider]

Originally Posted by springer-

I'm guessing hundreds of millions if not billions ...

Of which there are around 40,000 injuries per year. Ban 'em now!!

[09 XBones]

Originally Posted by Ziggy57

In response to your stance on gun control!

For meeee?!?!?! I'm touched...

Now let's see if I understand the "logic" you're trying to convey...

Since there are other ways to kill people, we shouldn't do anything about the weapons that were designed solely for killing mass quantities of people...