I hate guns...

[MontyB]

Im not talking of permits as a way to limit gun ownership. The point is to make sure people who carry are people who wont make left-wing idiots to say "see, we told you so!".

You do realise you are discussing things with people who want guns available only to "good" people but fight the implementation of any checks that are used to determine who the "good" people are, it is a cyclic argument that does little more than frustrate.

The simplest option is the have people who want a gun go to the cop shop and get a permit to procure which is given by the arms officer once the mandatory checks are done ie. they haven't spent the last 20 years in a psychiatric ward or just been released from a 20 year prison hitch for shooting up the local school.

They then take said permit to the arms dealer of choice who checks the permit against the police issuing system and issues said weapon.

 

[5.56X45mm]

You do realise you are discussing things with people who want guns available only to "good" people but fight the implementation of any checks that are used to determine who the "good" people are, it is a cyclic argument that does little more than frustrate.

The simplest option is the have people who want a gun go to the cop shop and get a permit to procure which is given by the arms officer once the mandatory checks are done ie. they haven't spent the last 20 years in a psychiatric ward or just been released from a 20 year prison hitch for shooting up the local school.

They then take said permit to the arms dealer of choice who checks the permit against the police issuing system and issues said weapon.

MontyB... We already have a Criminal Check System for that dammit! By Federal law any person buying a firearm must have a background checked perform before said purchase. The background checks for both criminal and mental history.

The following people cannot own/posses/be near a firearm under federal law.

• Anyone who has been convicted in any court of, a felony punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year, excluding those crimes punishable by imprisonment related to the regulation of business practices.
• Anyone who is a fugitive from justice.
• Anyone who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.
• Anyone who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution.
• Any alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States or an alien admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa. The exception is if the nonimmigrant is in possession of a valid hunting license issued by a US state.
• Anyone who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions.
• Anyone who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his or her citizenship.
• Anyone that is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner.
• Anyone who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
• A person who is under indictment or information for a crime (misdemeanor or felony) punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year cannot lawfully receive a firearm. Such person may continue to lawfully possess firearms obtained prior to the indictment or information, and if cleared or acquitted can receive firearms without restriction.

So I don't see why once again a permit is needed when a background Check is done by State/Federal Law Enforcement every time a firearm is purchased by someone. We already have the background check system in place. So why do criminals still get firearms? Oh... I know.... BECAUSE THEY DON'T :CEN:ING FOLLOW THE LAW AND GET SOMEONE TO DO A STRAW PURCHASE OR THEY GET THEM THROUGH ILLEGAL MEANS.

A permit is nothing more then having a right turned into a privilege. Because you have to grovel at the feet of some government lap dog that get's his kicks for being the boss and saying no.

 

[MontyB]

Santa says it aint working very well then.
Maybe some fine tuning is in order.


'Santa' gunman in fatal LA attack
At least six people have died after a man dressed as Santa Claus opened fire at a Christmas party near Los Angeles and set the house alight, police say.
Three other people are still missing in the suburb of Covina, in California.
Police named Bruce Jeffrey Pardo, 45, as a suspect and later said his body had been identified at his brother's house, some 25 miles (40km) away.
He died from a single gunshot wound to the head, local police officer Martin Guerrero told the AP news agency.
Pat Buchanan, another city policeman, said: "He was going through some type of marital problems, and we believe that this residence [in Covina] is a relative's residence."
Police said Mr Pardo was the estranged husband of a woman who may have been at the party.
Burnt out
The gunman opened fire with a hand gun on some 25 guests after arriving on Wednesday night, police said.


They said he then used a homemade incendiary device to set the house on fire.
Eyewitnesses said he removed the Santa suit and left in casual clothing.
One neighbour, Jan Gregory, told AP she saw a teenage boy running from the house screaming: "They shot my family."
The subsequent fire gutted the two-storey home.
Among those injured was an eight-year-old girl.
LA County coroner's official Ed Winter said the bodies found in the ashes were "extremely charred and burned".
Covina is about 25 miles (40km) east of Los Angeles.

 

[Chukpike]

In California you can not purchase a handgun without taking a safety test.

Getting a concealed carry permit requires you to go to the local police and submit an application. Which will be denied if you are just a citizen.

The system of government in the United States was based on a mistrust of government control. To get the Constitution ratified by the states, required a Bill of Rights spelling out the rights of the people. The second amendment states:

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.

Our founding fathers were right about not trusting the government.

In European countries that have a longer history and have been subjected to the rule of Royalty. Citizens are subjects and the government is expected to know what is "right" for it's subjects. It is ingrained over thousands of years to accept the government knowing what is best. It is impossible for people born into this system to understand an American not excepting government control.

In the United States with our short history it has always been the citizens right to determine what is best. Therefore, the government requiring permits violates our right to determine who may bear arms.

An excellent book on what happens when the people start allowing the government to determine what is best for the people is:

George Orwell's Animal Farm.
This used to be required reading in schools here. I doubt it is now.

 

[MontyB]

You know I couldn't disagree more.
While I wont vouch for the competency of my government I will back its sovereignty to the bitter end, my reason for backing it has nothing to do with royalty but it has everything to do with a belief in the electoral system and that both the Government and the Military will remain in civilian hands.

I find it amusing you believe that the citizens of your country are too stupid to elect and maintain a trustworthy government but are sound enough to do what is best.

I am however confident that your 2nd Amendment will eventually be stricken from the records, not by anti-gun nuts but by the average man on the street that is sick to death of the routine multi-fatality shootings and an understanding of failed logic in the argument that "if we give people more guns there will be less shootings".

The simple reality is that while the 2nd Amendment is not an inherently bad one for its time it is a complete failure in a nation without self control.

 

[Insomniac]

Not the retailer. you get a permit from the gov. im just saying that the only limits to permits should be:
A) your crazy
B)your a criminal

Sorry to quote from so many pages back, but:

define criminal.

 

[Rob Henderson]

I am however confident that your 2nd Amendment will eventually be stricken from the records, not by anti-gun nuts but by the average man on the street that is sick to death of the routine multi-fatality shootings and an understanding of failed logic in the argument that "if we give people more guns there will be less shootings".

The simple reality is that while the 2nd Amendment is not an inherently bad one for its time it is a complete failure in a nation without self control.

Scene: A university building. Cast: One armed gunman, 100 students in the building, 5 armed. 5 teachers in the building, 3 armed. That's 8 armed against 1 armed. Armed gunman enters said building with his gun, and one of the 8 spots him and his gun, draws his/her own, and fires, thereby ending the would be "multi-fatality" shooting. Now, if the second amendment wasn't in effect, those students and faculty members wouldn't be armed, but you know what... That criminal just as easily could still have his weapon.

 

[5.56X45mm]

Willoughby Mariano | Sentinel Staff Writer
11:20 PM EST, December 23, 2008

A gun battle in the parking lot of a busy Orlando mall Tuesday night left a suspected mugger wounded and his victim shaken.


The attack took place about 8:30 p.m. at the Fashion Square Mall in the 3200 block of East Colonial Drive as the area was bustling with holiday shoppers, Lt. Todd Pursley said. A woman got off a bus at a stop near the Bank of America and was walking across the mall parking lot when three men -- one armed with a handgun -- tried to rob her, Pursley said.


A passer-by noticed the attack and drew his gun, Pursley said. That man exchanged gunfire with one of the muggers.


The suspects ran south across East Colonial Drive to Herndon Plaza shopping center, where they scattered in different directions, Pursley said. Officers caught one of them with the help of a police dog. He hid by lying on the ground in the dark.


The suspect was wounded, but didn't realize it until police caught him.


"He stood up and he was covered in blood," Pursley said. He was taken to Orlando Regional Medical Center. The suspect's injuries were not life-threatening. The two remaining suspects remained on the loose Tuesday night.


The mugging victim was not injured, Pursley said. No names were released.


http://www. orlandosentinel. com/orl-bk-fashion-square-mugging-122308,0,5194674. story

A armed witness stopped a mugging in progress and more then likely saved the victim's life.... Yup... that a clear sign that we need to take guns away from law abiding citizens.

This happened on December 23rd, 2008 by the way....

 

[Rob Henderson]

Shame that man hadn't been at the Christmas party.

 

[MontyB]

Scene: A university building. Cast: One armed gunman, 100 students in the building, 5 armed. 5 teachers in the building, 3 armed. That's 8 armed against 1 armed. Armed gunman enters said building with his gun, and one of the 8 spots him and his gun, draws his/her own, and fires, thereby ending the would be "multi-fatality" shooting. Now, if the second amendment wasn't in effect, those students and faculty members wouldn't be armed, but you know what... That criminal just as easily could still have his weapon.

Then explain to me why you have more campus shootings than any other country on earth?

This argument is ludicrous in the extreme the simple reality is that you have more shootings than any other country on earth (not in a state of civil war or insurrection) because you have more guns on the street than any other country and your answer to this appears to be "make guns easier to get".

You can keep coming up with these what if scenarios until hell freezes over but you cannot get past the fact that you have these school shootings because you have such a nonchalant attitude towards weapons through over exposure and lack of control rather than through a shortage of weapons.

 

[Rob Henderson]

Then explain to me why you have more campus shootings than any other country on earth?

Simple. Because campuses around the country ban concealed weapons on campus. You have to check your weapons into the University Police, and you pick them up on the way out... But guess what... The criminals don't do that...

This argument is ludicrous in the extreme the simple reality is that you have more shootings than any other country on earth (not in a state of civil war or insurrection) because you have more guns on the street than any other country and your answer to this appears to be "make guns easier to get".

You can keep coming up with these what if scenarios until hell freezes over but you cannot get past the fact that you have these school shootings because you have such a nonchalant attitude towards weapons through over exposure and lack of control rather than through a shortage of weapons.

No, we have school shootings because criminals know that they can shoot the fish in the barrel in schools because no one is there to challenge them except some University Cops...

 

[MontyB]

Simple. Because campuses around the country ban concealed weapons on campus. You have to check your weapons into the University Police, and you pick them up on the way out... But guess what... The criminals don't do that...

No, we have school shootings because criminals know that they can shoot the fish in the barrel in schools because no one is there to challenge them except some University Cops...

We don't have guns on New Zealand campuses either and I am prepared to bet the same goes for a sizable proportion of Australia and Europe, our criminals have access to guns as do the rest of the worlds criminals why do we not have as many shootings per capita?

I think it fair to say that per capita we have as many criminals and crazies as you.

Your argument does not stack up given empirical data from the rest of the world because if your argument held true then it would be replicated around the world on a proportional basis.

 

[LeEnfield]

Now i am not an American but I can see why in some parts of America that guns would be needed, just to drive of or to kill animals or serpents and when you don't have any help for miles around then it is down to you to look after your self. Now it keeps being brought up about the random mass killings that take place at times in America. But if you banned all guns in America would you stop this from happening.
Or would the person who wanted to do this just cross the border some where and get hold of a gun and bring it back into America. In Britain there is a ban on weapons but the crooks and idiots still seem to get hold of them and kill randomly even if there is an eight year prison sentence for any one caught with gun.

 

[SHERMAN]

I am however confident that your 2nd Amendment will eventually be stricken from the records, not by anti-gun nuts but by the average man on the street that is sick to death of the routine multi-fatality shootings and an understanding of failed logic in the argument that "if we give people more guns there will be less shootings".

The simple reality is that while the 2nd Amendment is not an inherently bad one for its time it is a complete failure in a nation without self control

Your bordering on arrogance there. The point is that government shouldent be able to tell me i cant own a weapon. And why should they? I refuse to accept a saying that the avarage citizen is not responsible to carry a firearm. Ialso refuse to accept this redicules idea that "the police will take care of criminals". Police cant get to everywhere fast enough. In the middle of the night when some ne goes in your house he can kill you and get away before you even manage to pickup the phone. You shouldent take someones personal defence out of their own hands.

 

[mmarsh]

Henderson

Its a simple mathamatical equaltion that the more guns you have in a certain area, the more shooting incidents you are going to have. Would having students armed at placed like Virginia tech stopped the massacre: maybe. But you would have an increased amount of shooting incidents on campuses as well.

So you solution to letting students carry is ill-advised. I think guns are a extremely bad idea in certain places, espicially those of high stress areas like work, school, big cities, etc. Where people are more likely to lose control (even temporarily) and turn to violence in order to solve problems.

SHERMAN

I disagree with your part about the police not being able to get everywhere. That depends on the police department you have. I am from NYC and one of the reasons NYC is one of the safest cities is because Guiliani hired 25000 additional cops, reorganized them into a single NYPD (instead of several different branches), gave them broader powers to execute arrests etc. If your city's PD is large enough and well organized then there is no need to have armed civilians. "Cop on every block" was the motto guiliani used and he was right. Incidently Guiliani was also the one who banned handguns in NYC.

Now if you compare that to other cities. Whether the Cops are too few, ill-trained; have too limited powers than gun control becomes a problem, because the city isnt being protected by the people whose job it is. I wouldnt need or want to carry a gun in NYC but if I was say certain areas of Miami or LA I might seriously consider it.

 

[5.56X45mm]

For those that say guns on school grounds don't solve anything should read about the following events...

Appalachian School of Law shooting

Pearl High School

 

[SHERMAN]

so in order to keep the one lunatic that might do somthing from doing it, we take away everyones weapons. and than when he dose it anyways, no one shoots back, because all they have is vegtable peelers.

Going back to my drivers lisence what you are sayig is because some crazy person might run people over for fun noone should be allowed to have a car.

 

[Donkey]

Henderson

Its a simple mathamatical equaltion that the more guns you have in a certain area, the more shooting incidents you are going to have. Would having students armed at placed like Virginia tech stopped the massacre: maybe. But you would have an increased amount of shooting incidents on campuses as well.

So you solution to letting students carry is ill-advised. I think guns are a extremely bad idea in certain places, espicially those of high stress areas like work, school, big cities, etc. Where people are more likely to lose control (even temporarily) and turn to violence in order to solve problems.

SHERMAN

I disagree with your part about the police not being able to get everywhere. That depends on the police department you have. I am from NYC and one of the reasons NYC is one of the safest cities is because Guiliani hired 25000 additional cops, reorganized them into a single NYPD (instead of several different branches), gave them broader powers to execute arrests etc. If your city's PD is large enough and well organized then there is no need to have armed civilians. "Cop on every block" was the motto guiliani used and he was right. Incidently Guiliani was also the one who banned handguns in NYC.

Now if you compare that to other cities. Whether the Cops are too few, ill-trained; have too limited powers than gun control becomes a problem, because the city isnt being protected by the people whose job it is. I wouldn't need or want to carry a gun in NYC but if I was say certain areas of Miami or LA I might seriously consider it.

Um sir I do believe your mathematical equation does not work....For the places that have more guns in the US actually have less crime, go check your stats and re-run your numbers

Really man you are doing nothing but using your own opinion to speculate fact and push it as if it was truth.

Here is some FBI stats on crime in the US
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_06.html#

Go figure you are safer in LA than in say Newark NJ

 

[5.56X45mm]

Bureau of Justice Statistics Firearms and Crime Statistics

 

[Chukpike]

In European countries that have a longer history and have been subjected to the rule of Royalty. Citizens are subjects and the government is expected to know what is "right" for it's subjects. It is ingrained over thousands of years to accept the government knowing what is best. It is impossible for people born into this system to understand an American not excepting government control.

I think the statement below confirms what I said. That Europeans can not comprehend the difference in our attitude. We do not believe the government will always do what is best for us. You believe "your government, competent or not, will do what is best".

You know I couldn't disagree more.
While I wont vouch for the competency of my government I will back its sovereignty to the bitter end, my reason for backing it has nothing to do with royalty but it has everything to do with a belief in the electoral system and that both the Government and the Military will remain in civilian hands..

I find it amusing you believe that the citizens of your country are too stupid to elect and maintain a trustworthy government but are sound enough to do what is best..

Let's see, you won't vouch for the competency of your government, which is in civilian hands. Sounds like you also believe that your citizens are to stupid to elect a trustworthy government. You do believe the government should be in civilian control.

The simple reality is that while the 2nd Amendment is not an inherently bad one for its time it is a complete failure in a nation without self control.

This coming from someone who's Imperialist government was instrumentally involved with starting two world wars. Talking about a country that helped you keep your sovereignty. And New Zealand was part of that government.