My America

[astarothel]

My stance on firearms:

A semi-automatic weapon, or weapons with semi-automatic capabilities (especially rifles) or better are not civilian weapons. Play with them at a range all you want, but I don't think I want these belong anywhere in a residence.

Weapons registration is a no brainer. I don't care how inconvenient it is, the excuse that criminals don't have to register their guns doesn't float with me. law enforcement officials should be able to pull up that sort of thing. If Jimbo is involved in a domestic disturbance with his wife, if I were the police I think I'd like to know if he has any registered firearms ahead of time.

The screening process and background check on firearms needs to be improved dramatically, especially for concealable firearms. I don't care if it takes an extra month, the current process needs to be improved in both Canada and the US. I do not feel that there are many cases where firearm is needed as quickly as they are available. Self-defense in the event a person feels threatened isn't a great reason in and of itself. The reason I say this is that a person getting a firearm for self defense won't have the training and judgment required to use it properly. This ties in to my next point.

Everyone that owns a gun thinks they know how to use it well or properly.
A large number of these people are wrong. The firearms safety course should be 1) mandatory in all states, and 2) more extensive. Retakes on the safety course should be required (maybe not yearly but every so often) for renewing your license. Wish I could find the clip from tv I saw a while ago (from 60 Minutes I think) that proved this. I will look for it later.

[astarothel]

I am not a massive Real News Network Fan.
I am however a massive Steve Paikin fan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCWNq...layer_embedded

[ShadowWulf]

For self defense:

In no first world country (or most others for that matter) which allows guns is the right to use them in self defense intended to apply to the government, no matter how severe the mistreatment. Those are the simple (and proven) facts on the matter. Even if the cops in the picture above had been shot by a concerned citizen, i guarantee you in this and that society the shooter would be dead.

If the goverment came to take your guns, illegally or not, and you shot first you are in the wrong under modern day laws. Period. Its the corner youre driven into.

The only use people who claim they are self defense weapons against a government is for violent, armed overthrow, not defense.

[Taxi]

Originally Posted by ShadowWulf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

For self defense:

In no first world country (or most others for that matter) which allows guns is the right to use them in self defense intended to apply to the government, no matter how severe the mistreatment. Those are the simple (and proven) facts on the matter. Even if the cops in the picture above had been shot by a concerned citizen, i guarantee you in this and that society the shooter would be dead.

If the goverment came to take your guns, illegally or not, and you shot first you are in the wrong under modern day laws. Period. Its the corner youre driven into.

The only use people who claim they are self defense weapons against a government is for violent, armed overthrow, not defense.

That depends what kind you repression you are facing. If that was my kid getting his ass beat down by a thug in armor, id be thinking about it. If i was an iraqi who lost all my family to american shock and awe, id be doing it.

And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amadou_Diallo probably would have wished to have a firearm to at least take some of them cops down with him.

[Overcast]

Originally Posted by Taxi [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That depends what kind you repression you are facing. If that was my kid getting his ass beat down by a thug in armor, id be thinking about it. If i was an iraqi who lost all my family to american shock and awe, id be doing it.

And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amadou_Diallo probably would have wished to have a firearm to at least take some of them cops down with him.

Statistically..

In whose hands have guns taken more lives?

In the hands of law-abiding citizens.
In the hands of Criminals.
Or In the Hands of Governments.

I suspect the third is true.

So - statistically, who should be disarmed first?

[Daywolf]

Originally Posted by Overcast [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Statistically..

In whose hands have guns taken more lives?

In the hands of law-abiding citizens.
In the hands of Criminals.
Or In the Hands of Governments.

I suspect the third is true.

So - statistically, who should be disarmed first?

Well at least domestically that is how it is; we have the national guard for domestic threats not the military. Disarming the military goes against the constitution. Disarming civilians goes against the constitution as well. But who observes the constitution any longer? It’s only been used as reach-round over the past decade for the most part.

Thugs can always get guns, bombs and knives; no regulation has ever changed that other than to punish the law-abiding citizen. But yes, it’s not the citizen that is the threat… but only a threat to a dictatorial government, or one trying to become such. In the end it’s not our duty to nation-build the world, nor to police it with our military, but only to stop threats against our own nation; to guard our interests. Other countries, like in that boot pic, that’s their problem, it is they that deal with it as they should.