What is Digg?351 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -16/+105The gun control advocates are nuts. Enacting laws to control guns only affect people that abide by the law. The people that are committing the crimes with guns could not care less that there's a "gun control" law that they're breaking. It's the least of the laws they're breaking. If these idiots really want to control the criminals that use guns to commit crimes, they should encourage each and every citizen to carry a concealed firearm. I fight crime. I shoot back.
- littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -14/+82I've only taken on the label of Liberal in light of the current attacks on our LIBERties by the sitting Administration. Before W came along I always called myself a moderate independent. I didn't like extremes, and I voted for who I thought could best do the job, regardless of party.
That said, I have no problems with Gun Ownership. Gun Control doesn't work. It's been demonstrated that when guns are taken away from the populace, the only people that have guns are criminals. - theblooms, on 10/12/2007, -3/+56@treelovinhippie
Your understanding of Gun Control in America is all wrong. It has NOTHING to do with making one "safer" or not. It has NOTHING to do with hunting. It has EVERYTHING to do with reading the Constitution and abiding by it. Each and every nation-state that was ever a dictatorship had gun control. Because dictators hate guns. Citizens with guns level the playing field against Tyranny. Therefore tyrants hate guns.
The Second Amendment is the ultimate SHTF (***** hits the fan) Amendment. When ALL ELSE FAILS, that is, the Courts, the Congress, the Presidency; the citizens can STILL take back control of their lives and freedoms. THAT is why it is important, and THAT's why the Founders chose the words "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." They had just finished fighting a long and bloody war against a terrible tyrant, which they could not have won that war without personally owned firearms. They wanted to make sure that no future tyrant could ***** up what they bleed and died to create. - RuffRidr, on 10/12/2007, -15/+67Pardon the pun, but are the Democrats really stupid enough to shoot themselves in the foot on this issue again?
- argoff, on 10/12/2007, -3/+45I had a friend in Columbia once, he was laminating about all the violence and military coups going on down there all the time. Then he turned to me and told me that he just couldn't understand why the US was so gun happy. I then turned to him and said, "The US has over 100 million gun owners, so what do you think the chances are of a of an unwanted military coup?" It was almost like he experienced enlightenment as he sputtered the words out "none at all" before he could even think about it.
From the ability to fight back the British, to the rush to reconcile after the Civil War, to the Communists scraping any plans of a land invasion, to an estimated 4 million prevented crimes per year. I don't think people understand how much peace the right to bear arms has really brought to the US. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -10/+50Yes.
- theblooms, on 10/12/2007, -4/+42"There's also a lot of evidence that increasing penalties for gun crimes don't work either"
Bull. Look at Richmond, VA. After they started enforcing laws ALREADY ON THE BOOKS, and putting criminals behind bars for a VERY long time, a VERY long way from home so the thugs had difficulty contacting their homies, the crime rate plummeted.
Make it simple: If you use a gun while committing a felony, you go to jail for years and years and years. And no CA, DC, NY, MD, MA, IL and NJ, simple possession of a firearm should NOT be a felony; it is a Constitutional right for chrissakes. However, if you USE said firearm to commit a crime: Go Directly To Jail, Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Collect $200. Armed Robbery? How about 15 years mandatory minimum without the possibility of parole? Sounds good to me. And the minimum wage convince store clerk just trying to scrape by that just got a pistol shoved in their face because some ***** wanted $60. - thebaron2, on 10/12/2007, -4/+41I'd like to live in a world with as little governmental interference as possible. Did anyone say we hand out guns to everybody? Of course not, but why waste time and money on creating ineffective laws?
Look, let's say, hypothetically, that your state has a HUGE theft problem. Will it do any good to make a law that says, "No more buying lockpicks! Everyone is stealing *****, so it's illegal for anyone to buy a lockpick, anywhere." Of course not, because the people that are stealing ***** ARE ALREADY BREAKING THE LAW. Is it going to matter to them that now they're breaking 2 laws, the second of which is basically a slap on the wrist compared to the first one?
Of course not. They're already criminals, they're already planning on breaking the law, what makes you think they'll abide by this new one? The way to stop them is to say, "Look, *****, if we catch you stealing anything again your ass is going to jail. Period. For a minimum of 5 years, no questions asked."
What on EARTH makes you think that criminals will all of a sudden become law abiding citizens if you just pass the right law? If they don't give a *****, and they're planning on breaking the law either way, then there's nothing you can do besides locking their asses up for a long time in order to make the punishment outweigh the possible reward for associated with the crime. - Bean945, on 10/12/2007, -8/+44Guns don't kill people...
- theblooms, on 10/12/2007, -3/+37"No one in this thread has ever defended himself with a gun."
Wrong. I have. - SteveRogers, on 10/12/2007, -9/+42Anti-gun legislation scares me. If no citizens can own weapons, it's easy for the government to create a police-state. Fists can't do much against guns. I'll never trust any government enough to let it take away my ability to fight it, if need be.
EDIT: this wasn't suppose to be a reply, must have accidentally hit it on my scroll down. Sorry. - danielwsmithee, on 10/12/2007, -8/+37I've lived in Europe for an extended period of time and let me tell you I feel much safer here in America where the average upstanding citizen can have a concealed carry permit. In Europe your not afraid of getting shot, your afraid of getting your head bashed in by a baseball bat by some hooligan after a football match. That doesn't happen as much in America because people know they might get shot by messing with the wrong person.
What is even worse is in many European countries only a few cops actually carry. So you know what happens when anything bad happens the cops wait for a good 1/2 hour before they show up because they can't protect themselves, so they wait until their commander can come along with his pistol. - balerhgae, on 10/12/2007, -5/+34I don't own a gun, but I can see gun control laws as the ridiculous farce they are. "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." I mean, it's a cheesy bumper sticker, but it's true. When a criminal wants a gun, they don't walk down to the gun store, wait 3 days, and get a semi-automatic rifle. They get an illegal AK from someone of questionable morals. Period. Gun control laws limit citizens not criminals.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4839776096802879496&q=*****+gun+control
Watch that. It's pretty damn informative, even if it is incredibly biased. - RuffRidr, on 10/12/2007, -5/+31I'd argue that most of the gun laws that are being proposed now do absolutely nothing to curb gun violence and are only a first step in trying to outlaw guns altogether. I know this because the laws now being proposed only hurt legal gun owners. As thebaron2 points out, criminals will still have the illegal guns. They are not likely to say "Oh, this semi-auto Uzi is now illegal for me to hold up this liquor store with, I better go get a low caliber hunting rifle." As a legal gun owner and sportsman I'm all for stiffer penalties for gun related crime. I'm also for the enforcing of the laws that are already on the books. But some of the newer proposals are a very transparent attempt by the gun-grabbing liberals to do away with our 2nd amendment right.
- Maverick83, on 10/12/2007, -7/+33"Because that is the only case a gun is used!? In a world where guns are outlawed and hard to come by a gol club is just as effective means of defense."
Hard to come by for who? Law abiding people? Great, we're legislating *for* the criminals now?
"Why do you Americans turn a blind eye on the facts? Gun control does NOT work in the short-term of like a decade or so, however as it have been observed in gunless societies it DOES work from a 15-20 years upwards. If Americans gave up the guns now they should except a rise in crime rates for the first 10-15 years, however by 2020 or so crimes in general would start to fall very rapidly."
In what studies? The backward ass studies that Europeans do every now and then to say that you're still "superior" to the Americans.
Guns are here to stay. Taking them away from the people who are good only leaves them to be used by the people who are bad. The good outnumber the bad, so if more good people had guns, the bad wouldn't have a chance. But you idiots, with your backward logic, think that no one disobeys the law, so that if we just legislate against them, no one will have them.
What do you ***** do with law abiding citizens who defend their property with a gun? You jail them. Is that civilized? But doesn't that fall in line with your line of thinking? Guns are bad, so the people who use them must be too.
Many studies have been run in America that compare gun-related crime between states or municipalities with different gun control laws. The ones that are less restrictive "suffer" from less crime. No waiting periods? Less crime. No state background check? Less crime. Letting people have "assault weapons"? Less crime.
You know what we Americans should do just to show you guys how to run things? Make guns mandatory. We should put you in jail if you don't have one. Then all you limp wristed ***** could go play soccer together and leave the rest of us alone. - kcpwnsgman, on 10/12/2007, -3/+26yeah lets ban guns, just like we banned drugs, and no one has drugs right?
I am for some kind of gun control, as in not giving them to children and mentaly unstable people, I am also for having better public service announcements about safety ( only aim when you are ready to fire, keeping your finger off the trigger, lock them etc), I am not for removing guns, that would be stupid, and ultimately useless.
Look at videos of large scale unstoppable riots in various parts of the nation, most of them you will see store after store being looted and burned down, then you will see one that is in fine shape, with people on the roof protecting their store, now they aren't shooting, and anyone going to break into that store is ***** retarded and the rioters know that, they will just move on. Happens all the time. - Gryffydd, on 10/12/2007, -3/+26There were no fully automatic weapons involved in Columbine. And if you really want to get into it, somebody could walk into a school and kill that many people with a knife, not to mention a bolt action rifle, or pump shotgun, explosives made from homemade materials--or even driving a vehicle on a crowded sidewalk. If somebody is crazy enough to want to kill their classmates, they'll find a way to do it.
The next problem is that when lawmakers start trying to ban certain *types* of guns, they bungle it and end up banning anything that looks dangerous, regardless of whether it's any more effective or not. And fully automatic doesn't really make it any easier to kill multiple people at once. Aimed single shots are more effective. - Kahnza, on 10/12/2007, -5/+27Gun control is retarded. Lets keep all the guns away from the average american so the only people with guns are the criminals and police. Real smart. :tard:
- Gryffydd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21@citizen782
"you should last about 6 months in a good year against the US ARMED FORCES."
Whom do you think the "US ARMED FORCES" are made up of? Did it ever occur to you that if the country came to that point a vast number of the US military would most likely be fighting on the side of the people? - Tsuyoi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19"If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."
The great thing about that quote is it's two implications: (1) That outlaws don't obey the law and will have guns if they want, and (2) anti-gun legislation makes outlaws out of otherwise law-abiding people who choose to keep their weapons. - Gryffydd, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20"Just because it's part of your constitution doesn't mean it is a rational law or should be upheld."
That is one of the scariest sentences ever. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+22@mightydavefish
I'll tell you a great reason for people to carry guns. My pregnant sister in law was out taking pictures of my nieces two days ago. Suddenly she hears loud barking, looks up and sees a pit bull and a lab/retriever mix coming straight at her and the kids. She threw down her camera and covered the girls up with her body. As the dogs got to her, a couple of kids came running up yelling for the dogs to stop. Thank God, the dogs stopped.
Had it been me with my daughter, there would be two less dogs on this planet. When I take her out for walks, I have either a .45ACP or a .357 magnum with me. I don't take chances with my family and pack one-shot firepower. What if those kids hadn't been able to stop those dogs? She was no match for them neither are 2 and 3 year old girls.
Gun ownership has nothing to do with power and/or making you feel like a man. It has to do with knowing if something goes dreadfully wrong, you have options you wouldn't have otherwise. - Buelldozer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18You have more than zero, you're just not paying attention.
Here's a BBC article - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2190483.stm
Here's another - http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html
and to complete the Trifecta here's your OWN GOVERNMENT telling you so.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims/reducing-crime/gun-crime/
"Despite these figures, the number of overall offences involving firearms has been increasing each year since 1997/98."
*Now*, would you like to rethink your "zero" comment? I thought you European types were supposed to be better informed and educated than us stupid Yanks? - jlbraun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16Here are some questions that gun-banners are consistently ignorant of - whether this is out of lack of knowledge or actual malice I don't know.
1. What is the difference between full-automatic and semi-automatic? Is there one?
2. Are machine guns legal to own in the United States? Can they be easily bought over the counter?
3. How many legally owned machineguns have been used in a crime by civilians since 1934, when they were restricted by Federal law?
4. What percentage of American homes have firearms in them? a)10% b)25% c)45%
5. Is there any such thing as a 45mm handgun?
6. Is the crime rate by concealed carry holders greater or lesser than the general population?
7. Are there a greater or lesser number of crimes committed with firearms than defensive uses of firearms?
8. What did the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban actually ban?
9. What is the average income of a gun owner? a)$20K b) $30K c) $50K
10. Are you more or less likely to be injured a) resisting a violent assault with a firearm or b) resisting a violent assault without a firearm c) not resisting at all?
11. If you are a male citizen of the US, between the ages of 17 and 45, and not in the National Guard or other armed forces, are you in the militia according to the United States Code?
12. Are accidental shootings in the top 5 causes of deaths for children?
13. What is the ratio between homicides and democides (killed by your own government) in the 20th Century?
14. What is the correlation between restricting firearms and the violent crime rate on a state-by-state basis?
ANSWERS:
1. full-auto fires continuously, semi-auto fires one shot with each pull of the trigger.
2. Yes, they're legal. No, you can't buy one without an EXTENSIVE federal background check.
3. Zero of the 300,000 legally owned machineguns have been used in a crime by a citizen since 1934, when they were first regulated. No legally owned silencer, howitzer, or grenade has ever been used in a crime either.
4. C, 45%. Private American citizens own 300 million guns and shoot 9 billion rounds of ammunition a year.
5. No, but a lot of journalists get this one wrong. 45mm is in anti-tank weapon territory.
6. CCW holders are 20 times less likely to be arrested for any crime (source: Texas DOJ).
7. There are 20x more defensive uses than criminal uses (source: USDOJ, 1994).
8. Magazine capacities over ten rounds, and certain cosmetic features of military-style rifles. It had NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING to do with banning machine guns.
9. C, $50K. The average education level is a Bachelor's degree. (source: NRA-ILA survey).
10. From most to least likely, b, c, a. You are least likely to be injured while resisting with a firearm (source: UK Home Office).
11. Unequivocally. If you meet these criteria, you are in the militia BY LAW under USC 18 Sec. 311. Therefore, you're in a "well-regulated" militia. There's no POSSIBLE argument on this point. Where's my M4?
12. No. This uses the proper definition of "children" being 0-14 years of age. Accidental death by firearm accounted for 72 child accidental deaths in 2001 in the entire USA. (source: CDC)
13. The instance of democide is 200 times greater than that of homicide.
14. The correlation is zero. Firearms restrictions do not impact the violent crime rate in any way. (source: Brady Campaign to Reduce Handgun Violence) - Prysorra, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16"Truth is, I don't own a gun, but with the recent power grabs by Bush, inc., it makes me want to own one for the reasons that the original Amendment was introduced."
A liberal indirectly discovers the reason for the second amendment. And doesn't recognize the irony. Amusing. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18"They can not be used for self-defence"
As a deterent, nuclear weapons are historically very effective indeed.
"they don't target the one person that is threatening your very own life"
Because that is the only case a gun is used!? In a world where guns are outlawed and hard to come by a gol club is just as effective means of defense.
"A nuclear missile is not a way of defending your personal rights."
It was an extreme argument used to highlight a point. Any weapon can be claimed to be a defensive weapon, even if in all likelihood it is much more commonly used as an offensive one. - joe122370, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17or listen to Bowling for Soup. Both have the same amount of information about gun control
- brunson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14@wonderworm
A) There were no fully-automatic weapons used at Columbine.
B) Being under the age of 18, it was illegal for either of the perpetrators to own a gun, therefore every gun they used was illegally obtained.
How did the existing gun laws help to prevent Columbine? They didn't. So, how would more laws have prevented it? - xcoastie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15Now if we could do something about that toothbrush ban.
- jlbraun, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19Absolutely!
According to Bill Clinton, the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban lost 20 seats in the House alone for the Dems. I'm a registered Democrat, and the stupidity of the DNC continues to amaze. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16 Ahhh you make Stalin proud.
- fsjonsey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Almost every deadly shooting spree in the last few years, including columbine, post offices, and public buildings, happened in places where, even in states with conceal and carry lays, guns are banned, and penalties for gun related offenses are higher. This pretty much makes conceal and carry permits useless in these "Gun Free Zones". The person on the shooting rampage is able to run around and kill more people in the time that it takes for law enforcement to respond and sweep the building. If a Security guard or an employee who worked in the building was a trained C&C permit holder, and carried a weapon, there would be a better chance of killing the shooter before they could take more lives. It may add to the confusion, but a chance to end a standoff or a killing spree sooner is still worth it.
- theblooms, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15@treelovinhippie
The 1st Amendment (along with the rest of the Bill of Rights) was ratified in 1791, you know, the one with Freedom of the Press, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Peaceable Assembly. That is SO 18th Century. Let's get rid of that *****!
How about the 3rd Amendment, the one that keeps the government from forcing people to house the military in their homes? Let's get rid of that one too, huh?
The 4th is gone. No need for silly things such as Search Warrants.
5th? Again, how 18th Century. Let all people on trial be forced onto the stand and forced to testify against themselves.
The 6th Amendment is *****. Throw people in jail for no reason with no cause.
Jury trials guaranteed by the 7th? HELL NO! I'd MUCH rather be tried by a judge than by a jury of my peers!
$1,000,000 bond for a speeding ticket (banned by the 8th)? Sounds reasonable to me. And I like my public executions by Drawing and Quartering, thankyouverymuch!
The 9th Amendment? Bullcrap, if you ask me. The ONLY rights that people should have are the exact and explicit ones laid down in writing. Right to Privacy? Gone, and good ridance!
Finally, the 10th! What a bunch of crap that one is. State Legislatures thinking they can make their own laws. How old fashioned is that?
See how ***** retarded you are, *****? - joe122370, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15well duh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! you see criminals don't follow laws and stuff
- killj0y, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16I'm a registered democrat and even I know that Michael Moore never met a fact that he didn't twist into an unrecognizable state!
- Gryffydd, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16There's already an example of this: drugs. Drugs are illegal, and just look at easy it is to get drugs, even in small rural towns.
I had a friend who visited Washington D.C. recently, and he was told by his *Haitian* cab driver of all people, that DC is a scary place. Think about that. DC has just about the strictest gun laws in the country, and yet there were shootings on the news every night. - AdrenyleneJ, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11When I was in high school the biggest drug dealer bought his guns from a SWAT cop's idiot son who wanted to score some extra cash. His rational? " My dad has a lot of guns, he'll never even know."
The people who want guns will get them - just like they will get anything else they really want (drugs, sex, money, a terrorist plot - to name a few) - regardless of laws, enforcement or control.
You can give up %100 percent of your freedoms - but you will never be %100 secure. - rshu4you, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Gun Control = Hitting what I am shooting at
- theblooms, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14"very very small and select group"
Wrong. All any law abiding citizen has to do (other than ponying up the $5000+ asking price for the gun, pretty much not going to find a legal full auto anything for less) is fill out the BATFE "Form 4" and pay a $200 tax per firearm. Full auto goodness is then yours. - danielwsmithee, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14@Stevethegreat
There are many places in Europe I felt perfectly safe walking alone at night as well. I lived there for two years. There are bad neighborhoods everywhere here in the U.S. as well as in Europe. In general I have found myself far less concerned in America then Europe however. Obviously this is not proof of anything just my own personal experience.
The worst place in Europe I came across was probably the eastern half of Warsaw "Praga." In the middle of the day a few friends of ours were playing basketball at the park and large group of hooligans came up with baseball bats and bashed in the windows on about 4 cars and stole radios. Sure that happens in America too, but what got me was that the cops were called immediately and they finally showed up 45 minutes later. We told a friend of ours that was a Police officer that story later and he is the one that told us about how cops wait on purpose because they are not armed. - MyHappyClam, on 10/12/2007, -20/+31I thought it was my 357's fault that I shot my annoying neighbor!
- jlbraun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10@appetite
Civilian Gun Self-Defense Blog tracks civilian gun defenses.
http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html - benthook, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Kindly compare the rate of stabbing and beating deaths to that of the US.
- Brandondork, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Michael Moore sucks
- killj0y, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Apparently running after a train while wearing a backpack is a capital offense there!
- kanemano, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12all guns were at one time legal.
- Buelldozer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9@benthook,
I'd love to but I don't have that kind of time. The problem is that the way the US categorizes crime is different than England, and because of that it's impossible to make 1 to 1 comparisons without doing a complete study.
However for what it's worth the Assault, Burglary, and motor vehicle theft rates are all higher in England than they are in the United States and have been for a long time.
I also understand that there has been ongoing controversy in England that the police are under-reporting or purposely mis-categorizing certain types of crime in the face of political pressure. - skeeto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Gun control is the theory that a woman lying raped and strangled with her own pantyhose is preferable to that same woman explaining to the police how her attacker got shot.
- ArmandoM, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Bullets aren't all that complicated of an item to make. I think the criminals could find a cheaper source. And we would succeed in limiting the law abiding person's ability to practice, becoming proficient, accurate, and safe with their weapons.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Guns are forbidden in prisons, but they manage to kill each other anyway. The only thing a gun does is allow a weak person an equal chance when faced with a strong opponent, and really who cares if people kill each other with one tool versus another?
Unless you are going to defend me with your own life, then I want my weapons. Ask anyone who has been stalked if the police defend people. They don't, their job is to investigate after a crime has been committed, so mutually assured destruction is the only way to go. If my neighbor has a rocket launcher and some truck bombs that's fine, just store them properly. Don't ***** with me, I won't ***** with you. It has worked so far for Russia and the USA, it can work in our backyards too. -
Show 51 - 100 of 344 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is