You don't NEED a gun simplified.

[Maverick]

What scares alot of the world is that American's seem live in a country where old age pensioners need to fight at all.


edit: dont get me wrong, armed grannies sounds awesome to me

Actually they don't need to fight for the vast majority of the time. They just want the option to be able to fight instead of just being a victim. Other folks want to remove that option because they are uncomfortable with it.

[mechanic]

I understand that sentiment and respect it. Its almost like a warrior code. Some old guy 80+ can either say
'Ok, take my wallet i dont want any trouble'
or can say
'Screw you punk, over my dead body'
..and mean it.
 It is a fine option to have in life, i truly mean that. Sad when a fifteen year old decides to take these matters into their own hands at such young age, but this happens in all countries with or without guns.
 Samurai carried deadly weapons and if you attacked them it was your life or thiers. There is something primal and natural about the law on guns in America and this i agree with fully. What you must also accept is that not having guns the same code exists, it just takes more skill to stay alive.

[mtnman]

i think what scares some people is that guns are too easy to kill with.

It's been awhile since I looked into it, so this may have changed, but last I heard guns were the #3 preferred weapon for murder, following blunt force instruments, and knives.

My understanding of it was in non pre-meditated cases, guns weren't usually immediately available, but heavy blunt objects almost always are.  In pre-meditated instances, two desires rear thier heads.  One, to get away with it, and two, to make it "personal".  Knives accomplish both, guns not so much because of the noise and the attention it draws.

If that's still the case what does it accomplish to attack the #3 problem, while ignoring the two largest problems?  

If we step away from murder and look at "accidental" deaths instead, guns fall even further behind.  Falls in and around the home is #1, and motor vehicle accidents are leaps and bounds ahead of firearms.

What's going to be accomplished by removing firearms????

IMO, anyone lobbying for firearms restrictions had better have a pretty clean slate.  Things like drinking to excess, or drinking at all before driving, smoking (especially in public, sharing your smoke), not wearing seatbelts, or helmets on motorcycles are bigger issues than firearms.  Heck, eliminating backyard swimming pools and trampolines would probably have a bigger safety impact.

[FLOTSOM]

It's been awhile since I looked into it, so this may have changed, but last I heard guns were the #3 preferred weapon for murder, following blunt force instruments, and knives.

My understanding of it was in non pre-meditated cases, guns weren't usually immediately available, but heavy blunt objects almost always are.  In pre-meditated instances, two desires rear thier heads.  One, to get away with it, and two, to make it "personal".  Knives accomplish both, guns not so much because of the noise and the attention it draws.

If that's still the case what does it accomplish to attack the #3 problem, while ignoring the two largest problems?  

If we step away from murder and look at "accidental" deaths instead, guns fall even further behind.  Falls in and around the home is #1, and motor vehicle accidents are leaps and bounds ahead of firearms.

What's going to be accomplished by removing firearms????

IMO, anyone lobbying for firearms restrictions had better have a pretty clean slate.  Things like drinking to excess, or drinking at all before driving, smoking (especially in public, sharing your smoke), not wearing seatbelts, or helmets on motorcycles are bigger issues than firearms.  Heck, eliminating backyard swimming pools and trampolines would probably have a bigger safety impact.

Here Here!!

Absolutely the best and most intelligent argument i have read!

  to you MTNMAN

[mechanic]

gun crime stats aside, i still think grannies with guns is a must for this country.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=kV59_if9vTw&feature=related

[Vulcan]

I understood you perfectly Vulcan.  You guys have more guns per capita, but fewer gun-related deaths per capita.  That would seem to indicate that gun ownership doesn't lead to gun crime.

I think you missed something.

The second point of my response was that if people choose to do something, they will find a tool to make it happen, even if the tool they want isn't available.  Hence- if someone wants to commit a crime, but doesn't have access to a gun, they'll still find a way to commit the crime. 

An interesting "research project" might be to see if folks committed less crime before firearms were even invented.  That could be a way to link crime to guns.  Good luck with that.

The big difference is the type of ownership and attitude to ownership in NZ. Handgun ownership is very low (due to gun laws), most ownership is rifles and shotguns. "Officially" the laws on MSSA's are restrictive, but all you have to do is modify the stock and put a small magazine on a semi and it's no longer classed as a MSSA.

The laws here are focussed more on safety, to get a firearms license involves a background check, safety test, inspection of premises for suitable storage, and a US$60 fee. Once you get your license it's valid for 10 years and renewals are easy. Because the license requires some effort it puts a lot of people of doing it on a whim.

I don't think firearms restrictions lower crime rates,  as you say if someone wants to they will. I also agree that in the USA CCW laws do work to reduce crime. But if a crime is commited without a firearm then the likelihood of a death is greatly reduced. For example, if you caught someone breaking into your car in NZ, they are highly likely to simply run away, whereas in the USA the chances they could shoot you are far higher.

Problem is (that anti-gun people don't get when they look at our relatively low gun crime rates) that in NZ we've never had a gun 'problem' or high handgun ownership (especially in the hands of criminals). So would laws like ours work in the USA? No, because the environment at the time they were applied is vastly different <- that is the point the pro gun people in the USA need to highlight to the anti-gun people IMHO.

[mtnman]

I understand your point Vulcan, and have long agreed. 

In effect, tightening the laws here in the US has the effect of clamping down on the legal, law abiding citizen, while doing nothing to the criminals.

A case in point- the 10 round clip maximum, which has expired, allowed me only 10 tries to defend myself against what ever the criminal decided to bring.  Laughable.

In reality, "they'll" never be able to purge the US of firearms.  Even if all the law-abiding citizens turned theirs in, the criminals wouldn't.  It'd be like putting a wolf in with the sheep, and padding the sheeps hooves so they wouldn't hurt the wolves by kicking them.

[Iron_Cross]

Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

A lot of people are getting confused by the words in here, so I'll break it down for people to better understand the whole meaning of it.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"  This is the big one a lot of people are getting confused on.  Some think that the term Militia, means, should mean, or is superseded by the National Guard.  It does not.  The term militia was commonly used then to refer to a military force composed of ordinary citizens to provide defense, emergency law enforcement, or paramilitary service, in times of emergency without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service.  The National Guard, is more an adjunct to the regular Army.  Yes, it is composed of ordinary citizens, and called upon in times of emergency, to provide defense, emergency law enforcement, or military service, in times of emergency, but they are also committed to a term of service. 

Let's look at the last part,
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." 
Seems pretty clear there, no unambiguous language at all.

So lets put it all together.
"A well regulated Militia, (ordinary citizens to provide defense, emergency law enforcement, or paramilitary service, in times of emergency without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service,) being necessary to the security of a free State, (everyone should help defend against foreign invaders, and domestic, tyrants, to keep everyone's rights) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

What are people not getting here?

[DMBEAR]

I understand that sentiment and respect it. Its almost like a warrior code. Some old guy 80+ can either say
'Ok, take my wallet i dont want any trouble'
or can say
'Screw you punk, over my dead body'
..and mean it.
 It is a fine option to have in life, i truly mean that. Sad when a fifteen year old decides to take these matters into their own hands at such young age, but this happens in all countries with or without guns.
 Samurai carried deadly weapons and if you attacked them it was your life or thiers. There is something primal and natural about the law on guns in America and this i agree with fully. What you must also accept is that not having guns the same code exists, it just takes more skill to stay alive.

gun crime stats aside, i still think grannies with guns is a must for this country.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=kV59_if9vTw&feature=related

Ok, you have a nice vid, but the samurai garbage is BS.

Are you saying those with skill should survive and the rest...oh well?  The flaw is something those like you will never understand.  Gunpowder has been discovered.  People will always be able to make weapons, and Samuri's have many advantages in a fight as long as guns aren't present.

I'm starting to think I shouldn't even bother, but other sheep may be waiting to follow you.

[DMBEAR]

Oh, just saw you are from UK.  Enjoy your supersoaker water gun maybe Jack the Ripper's ancestors are afraid of water.