Over history the power of the individual has increased with technological advances. This will continue; more power will be available and that power will be able to be wielded by a smaller number of people. It is inevitable that, one day, the power to destroy everything will be available to the single individual.

This should be the nut of the “gun debate.” How much power should an individual be able to wield, who decides, and how is it enforced, are the questions that should be debated.

Philosophically I think that everyone in good standing (the default state, unless and until an action shows you’re not in good standing), should have access to guns. In a nation based on the individual, power on such a low level belongs in the hands of the individual.

Make no mistake – current firearm technology is a very low level of power. Yes, even “machine guns.” Current events should (but don’t, if public debate is any indication), clearly point this up; someone who wants to wreak large scale havoc doesn’t rely on firearms as their main weapon.

And as things that go boom (or hiss, or make no noise at all as they distribute their payload) get smaller and easier to manufacture the issue will become both more clear and more urgent. The time is now to have the bigger debate about individual power. Focusing on guns, while I do it myself politically because there are so may out there who think that the individual shouldn’t even have that small amount of power, actually does a disservice to us all by keeping us from looking at the real issue.

Perhaps we could make safer guns by drilling several holes in the barrel at least 1.5 times the diameter of the bore and a couple more in the chamber to help powder gasses escape faster. This would help to reduce recoil so there would be a higher degree of accuracy.

Originally Posted by ronsyre

Perhaps we could make safer guns by drilling several holes in the barrel at least 1.5 times the diameter of the bore and a couple more in the chamber to help powder gasses escape faster. This would help to reduce recoil so there would be a higher degree of accuracy.

All I can say is, thank God you are not a firearm designer. You really don't know what you are talking about.

I have no use for people that truly feel that guns should be totally illegal to law abiding citizens, and believe the civilian population would be better off without guns. Where is the common sense?

You cannot reason with people that feel this way. It is impossible. It's like they are in their own special bubble of cotton candy and gumdrops where no one does anything wrong and bad people would never own guns because it would be illegal. And we all know bad people follow the laws. Right.

(I will admit to being in a cotton candy and gumdrop world and wishing and assuming everyone does everything moral and good, but in my cotton candy and gumdrop world I also own a gun - just in case.)

I feel much how mmarsh does though, I believe there should be strict regulations. (And some changes to some of the strict regulations currently in place). I do think that some of the CCW classes need to be a little more intense. One 6hr class for a guy carrying a pistol makes me a little nervous. Is this person responsible? What is his driving record like? What is this man's temper level? Did he pay attention at a important point or was he checking his text messages? 6hr to carry a loaded pistol in society makes me nervous and I am not afraid to admit that here.

One simple helpfull tool would be, have you ever been admitted to a mental ward are you on narcotic drugs of any kind (prescription) simple checks into mental health. You dont have to commit crimes to be ****ing crazy. We had a lady come in the shop waiting room the other day pullout two guns and just show them to random customers she was obviously unstable. The NRA thinks that this women should own guns? I am all for guns i love them but some of the laws are so lax it's unreal.

Originally Posted by trailbrake2088

I am all for guns i love them but some of the laws are so lax it's unreal.

No government can legislate for criminals or nut cases. If guns are banned the ban only affects the law abiding, criminals ignore laws anyway.

Remember the Hungerford incident where Michael Ryan went bonkers with a Norinco AK47 semi auto? I wont go into the incident chapter and verse, BUT where the 1968 firearms act failed wasn't due to the act itself, but poor enforcement of the act by the local police. Michael Ryan was known to have metal health problems and he had been thrown out of local gun clubs (who advised the police he had been thrown out, club membership was a condition of his licence), the police should have stepped in and confiscated his firearms, they didn't! Even after armed police had secured the area it was a complete and total farce, one so called police marksman said he had Ryan in his sights but didn't shoot the bugger. Ryan had proven that the was dangerous and should have been taken out.

If something similar had happened in my town in UK and I had shot the nutter dead with my own legally held rifles, I would have been jailed, no ifs ands or buts.

I do not care if there is a ban on assault weapons... MAC-10's... UZI's... high capacity magazines for pistols...there is no real good to owing those types of weapons.
That said I like M1's, M1Carbines (to me it is a .30cal .22) My favorite weapon is an FN-FAL, in my shooting days I would have loved to have owned one,... I like shooting and plinking...
having worked in the mountains all my working life I lost the desire to hunt but I do enjoy putting the fear into cans, paper targets, ground dogs... I enjoy shooting long range using iron sights and doing the o'Kentucky windage and elevation thing...

and cides, one never knows when them pesky Brits will decide to make an end run again......... do they still wear those bright red jackets like they did the last go around?

No, we wear red caps.

Originally Posted by BritinAfrica

No government can legislate for criminals or nut cases. If guns are banned the ban only affects the law abiding, criminals ignore laws anyway.

Remember the Hungerford incident where Michael Ryan went bonkers with a Norinco AK47 semi auto? I wont go into the incident chapter and verse, BUT where the 1968 firearms act failed wasn't due to the act itself, but poor enforcement of the act by the local police. Michael Ryan was known to have metal health problems and he had been thrown out of local gun clubs (who advised the police he had been thrown out, club membership was a condition of his licence), the police should have stepped in and confiscated his firearms, they didn't! Even after armed police had secured the area it was a complete and total farce, one so called police marksman said he had Ryan in his sights but didn't shoot the bugger. Ryan had proven that the was dangerous and should have been taken out.

If something similar had happened in my town in UK and I had shot the nutter dead with my own legally held rifles, I would have been jailed, no ifs ands or buts.

I was on duty the day the Hungerford massacre occurred. My lot were running round like headless chickens due to the fact he was dressed in combats. It was initially thought that a soldier had gone rogue.

Originally Posted by The Highway Man

No, we wear red caps.