RTFirefly:
Dream on. You, and those like you, will not be taking away any such rights. Not from an informed and armed free people.
RTFirefly wrote:
You do realize, don’t you, that unless you’re talking about hypothetical one-use guns, it’s physically impossible to make a gun without enough metal to set off a metal detector?
A barrel made of plastic (even really really tough fiber-reinforced plastic) would be hopelessly deformed by the first bullet it fired. A firing chamber made of plastic would not be able to contain the pressure of the rapidly-expanding gasses, and would have a better chance of taking the skin off your hand than it would of propelling the bullet down the barrel.
I suppose you might theoretically be able to make a barrel or firing chamber out of concrete, if it were thick enough. But I don’t know of anyone who’s invented a concrete gun, and I wouldn’t want to use such a ridiculously unwieldy firearm even if someone did.
RTF: “cop killer” bullets were never sold to the Public, and never killed one cop. No mass production gun has been designed to evade metal detectors. And the NRA is the one pushing for “instant” background checks, because THEY don’t want criminals buying guns.
The antigunners don,t want “instant background checks”, they prefer waiting periods, wherein the gun is released after X days, WHETHER or NOT the background check has been performed. I worked at a Sporting goods store. We got a call from the DOJ, which said “We hope you have not yet released that gun to the buyer, as we just found out he is a felon, the Computer was down.” But it was too late, the proscribed waiting period had expired. With an “instant check” you must wait for an OK, so if the “computer is down” the gun is not sold. Which is better?
The first law would have outlawed all rounds capable of piercing a level IIa vest. This would have outlawed some copper jacketed pistol rounds and almost all rifle rounds. The NRA just drafted the law to reflect the original intent.
When people who know nothing of guns write legislation, they often ban more than is intended. FO example: A law to outlaw any gun capable of firing more than 5 projectiles per second. Sounds like it is meant to restrict machine guns, right? Well, shotguns would also fall into this class because they fire multiple projectiles at once.
Glad to see you, ExTank.
Quite a list but I’ll have a go.
Answer: No
Answer: This is a loaded/leading question. Do I think it’s better for a woman to be raped than defend herself with a gun? Lemme think… C’mon, what kind of answer would one expect from that question? Of course the woman should defend herself in any way she can. This question all supposes a gun is the best defense. What about pepper spray, a stun stick, a taser (tazer?)? If she can bring a gun to bear then she should have no trouble weilding any of the above items.
Answer: The link in that post is broken. While gun violence in Britain may be on the rise I found the following from the Bureau of Justice Statistics: Firearms are more often involved in violent crimes in the United States than in England. According to 1996 police statistics, firearms were used in 68% of U.S. murders but 7% of English murders, and 41% of U.S. robberies but 5% of English robberies. That’s not to say England has less crime (they don’t…in some cases they have even more crime) they just have less gun violence.
Answer: Simple, they drive out of D.C to Virginia and buy a gun or have someone else do it for them. As for crime rates D.C. is a more violent place. I imagine their are a raft of sociological reasons but that’d be for another post.
Answer: The most effective way? Probably not but it’s a great start. After that get out of the house or hide behind a corner with a bat or knife. You’re in a bad situation in this case and personally I’d rather have a gun than anything else in my hand. That said should you keep a loaded weapon around for this? If it isn’t loaded do you have time to track down your gun, then ammo, then load the weapon? Hardly a perfect solution.
Answer: I’m not sure what’s really being asked here. No, you cannot sue the police for not responding in time to save you unless you can somehow show they intentionally refused to respond. I don’t see how this, in itself, argues that citizens should have access to the same hardware the police do. Should people in Miami have access to missile systems in case Cuba attacks just in case the US Armed Services don’t respond quickly enough?
Answer: Naturally gun registrations lead to confiscations. No big surprise there…the registration is supposed to remove weapons from those people the State feels shouldn’t have one or weapon types the State deems unnecessary for private possession. You can argue whether the State is doing anything useful but the Nazi Germany bit is rich. If something occurred in the US that allowed a Hitler or Pol Pot to take power, throw out the Constitution entirely and then terrorize the public we have bigger problems than gun control. If things got that far ‘registered’ gun owners will have long since gone to ground. Registered or not some of the first groups the US Hitler would go after would be militia groups anyway (if US Hitler had any sense).
Answer: Another broken link here so I can’t verify what you’re talking about. I think the ‘everybody in America carry a gun’ has a lot of issues. This could be a thread unto itself although I think the ‘everybody armed’ camp is as fringe in the gun control debate as are the ‘ban every gun in existence’ are the fringe of the other side.
Answer: No question that some criminals will always be able to get a gun. According to the link in your question they estimate 3 million guns now in England. Compare that to the 250 million(?) guns in the US as evidenced by the MUCH higher number (see stat in answer to question 3) of firearm related deaths in the US. In addition, the link you provided also has this to say, “The vast stockpiles of weapons have fuelled the recent spate of shootings in cities including London, Birmingham and Manchester, where a 17-year-old was killed last week.” Seems to me a stronger crackdown on importers of illegal weapons is in order…not arming the populace.
Answer: This seems a repeat of question 8. This could be a thread by itself. I will say I don’t think it’s a conspiracy but rather the media outlets feeding the public what they think it wants to hear so they can make more money.
Answer: No. Most people don’t. If there are some rabid gun banners out there who’d like to see this happen then they are fringe and don’t stand where the vast majority of ANY side of the issue stands when it comes to search and seizure.
Answer: There are some assumptions in here that need to be worked out before the question is meaningful. Will the victims be 100% defenseless unless armed with a gun? Always? Does that number truly reflect gun-using ONLY defenses? If so what are the numbers of successful defenses with no firearm? When these questions are answered then you can make a meaningful comparison of how good it is to have a gun with you.
Answer: If it was true it would concern me but I don’t think it is true. How do you suppose guns affect our legislators today? Do you suggest that with no guns the legislative, executive and judicial branchs of government would run rampant over the populace? Make all guns disappear and the police and army would start having their way? Are you seriously suggesting the only thing safeguarding our freedoms right now are guns?
Answer: I don’t know. Many countries, like Japan, have a MUCH lower police/citizen ratio. They also have strong anti-gun laws. I don’t think this question is very relevant to the debate.
Answer: To broad to answer. Law-abiding gun owners expressing their dissatisfaction is fine. The militiaman in camoflage with his face covered saying he will shoot anyone who even looks at his gun might be considered extreme. You can enjoy the same safety our leaders enjoy. Hire security guards to defend you. For that matter, if you are known to have someone out to kill you, the police will provide you with a guard. The President of the US can safely be assumed to have someone out there gunning for him at all times so he gets a gurad all of the time.
This is getting a bit long so I’ll finish the rest in another post.
Jeff_42 wrote:
Haven’t you ever heard of copy-and-paste? You know, you copy the text of the URL in the message using your web browser’s text-selection feature, then paste it in the “Location:” box at the top.
But if you’re too lazy to do that, here’s the above link, fixed (via copy-and-paste) so that it’ll work correctly if you click on it:
Tracer
Maybe it’s my office but the link still doesn’t work. If it works for the rest of you great…
Tracer:
You’re ragging on me for stupid crap like this? You honestly believe I’m posting all over the place with links to this thing and that and you throw a “you’re too lazy” at me? If you read the whole post you’ll notice places where I not only visited the provided link I did a “copy-and-paste” from the linked article to my answer (my answer to question 9).
Or did you just felt like ragging on someone? If so I think you need to take a nap…you’re getting grouchy!
the link works. THere is some great stuff there. I find it amazing that guns are becoming such a problem in Manchester. I thought that England was the beacon of hope for gun control.
And here is a gem
Are they talking about bombs? Rifles? Nope – Pellet guns. That’s right, the police want to put stricter legislation on BB guns and want licensing and registration.
It seems that some people aren’t going to be happy until we make the world 100% risk free.
ExTank, you said I lied, then you ask me to cite my sources. Bad form, old bean.
-
HB2535: Required background checks at gun shows here in Oregon. It was killed in the House Ways and Means Committee.
http://www.leg.state.or.us/99reg/measures/hb2500.dir/hb2535.int.html -
SB887: Required the school district boards to adopt the Eddie Eagle Program for students in K through 6th grade. They could adopt another approved program only if the Eddie Eagle Program was not available. Needless to say, the NRA was poised to swoop in at every school district if this had passed.
http://www.leg.state.or.us/99reg/measures/sb0800.dir/sb0087.en.html
- SB700: Requires person who sells guns at gunshow to be a liscensed dealer. Required promoter of gunshow to ensure compliance.
http://www.leg.state.or.us/99reg/measures/sb0700.dir/sb0700.int.html
That was just 3 bills from 1999. you want more, I’ll give you more. Believe me, there are plenty. If you want, I’ll show you a bill(killed, of course!) that would have prohibited people who had concealed weapons permits from bringing said weapons onto school grounds without telling the school administrators first. And before anybody gets silly, yes, there were exceptions for law enforcement personnel in the bill.
ExTank, you said I lied, then you ask me to cite my sources. Bad form, old bean.
-
HB2535: Required background checks at gun shows here in Oregon. It was killed in the House Ways and Means Committee.
http://www.leg.state.or.us/99reg/measures/hb2500.dir/hb2535.int.html -
SB887: Required the school district boards to adopt the Eddie Eagle Program for students in K through 6th grade. They could adopt another approved program only if the Eddie Eagle Program was not available. Needless to say, the NRA was poised to swoop in at every school district if this had passed.
http://www.leg.state.or.us/99reg/measures/sb0800.dir/sb0087.en.html
- SB700: Requires person who sells guns at gunshow to be a liscensed dealer. Required promoter of gunshow to ensure compliance.
http://www.leg.state.or.us/99reg/measures/sb0700.dir/sb0700.int.html
That was just 3 bills from 1999. you want more, I’ll give you more. Believe me, there are plenty. If you want, I’ll show you a bill(killed, of course!) that would have prohibited people who had concealed weapons permits from bringing said weapons onto school grounds without telling the school administrators first. And before anybody gets silly, yes, there were exceptions for law enforcement personnel in the bill.
ExTank, you said I lied, then you ask me to cite my sources. Bad form, old bean.
-
HB2535: Required background checks at gun shows here in Oregon. It was killed in the House Ways and Means Committee.
http://www.leg.state.or.us/99reg/measures/hb2500.dir/hb2535.int.html -
SB887: Required the school district boards to adopt the Eddie Eagle Program for students in K through 6th grade. They could adopt another approved program only if the Eddie Eagle Program was not available. Needless to say, the NRA was poised to swoop in at every school district if this had passed.
http://www.leg.state.or.us/99reg/measures/sb0800.dir/sb0087.en.html
- SB700: Requires person who sells guns at gunshow to be a liscensed dealer. Required promoter of gunshow to ensure compliance.
http://www.leg.state.or.us/99reg/measures/sb0700.dir/sb0700.int.html
That was just 3 bills from 1999. you want more, I’ll give you more. Believe me, there are plenty. If you want, I’ll show you a bill(killed, of course!) that would have prohibited people who had concealed weapons permits from bringing said weapons onto school grounds without telling the school administrators first. And before anybody gets silly, yes, there were exceptions for law enforcement personnel in the bill.
Can’t explain the triple post. My computer froze up in mid-transfer, unfroze, rehooked to the internet, and finished the posting. My bad, I guess. 
Jeff_42:
For one woman’s answer, read ‘Maryann at the Rest Stop’:
http://www.keepandbeararms.org/guns_save_lives.htm
Gun control laws are not the answer to violent crime. We cannot ‘disinvent’ the firearm; we can only disarm those who will obey laws.
If Vicki Young had answered the door with a knife or a bat, would she be alive today?
http://www.keepandbeararms.org/guns_save_lives.htm
An individual’s right to self-defense is a natural law; one that was simply guaranteed by the framers of the Constitution in the 2nd Amendment. Moreover, those same framers contemplated their own defense against an oppressive government. Remember, they had just fought a war against a tyrannical empire- so, yes, a free people should have access to ‘the same hardware the police do’; or else they aren’t free. The question with regard to people in Miami having access to missle systems is, I think, a red-herring.
Joseph Stalin is quoted as saying: "We don’t let our people have *guns,[/] why should we let them have *ideas?[/]
This was after banning certain reading materials in Russia. Remember Hitler’s book burnings? The primary steps of these dictators, throughout recent history, has been registration and confiscation of private firearms ownwership, without which, none of these infamous killers would have come to power. Could it happen here?
Try the link again:
http://www.reasonmag.com/
The answer is simple. If you are confronted by a dangerous felon, why would you want to have anything less than the ability to stop him immediately?
Yes.
Mr Zambezi and Celt:
To put Manchester’s problems in perspective, the metropolitan population is about the same as Washington’s. If attributed to a population the size of DC’s, the 7 gun deaths in 6 months translate to just over 1 per 100,000 per year.
Note that the story is about the fact that police will be armed in some areas: police in Britain do not normally carry guns.
SLYTHE: “background checks” are required by FEDERAL law, so of course the bill was killed. And why is it nessesary for someone to be a licensed dealer to sell 1 gun? FEDERAL law already requires those who “deal” in firearms to be licensed. There is no ironclad rule, but about 4 sales a year makes one a “dealer” by federal law. Again, OR needed no additional laws, here. I suppose OR could pass a law making it illegal to kill the President, but there is already one.
And before you scoff at the idea of “no carrying guns into schools” applying to everyone, including Police, one East Bay County passed such a Law, just last year. Of course, it is not valid. And what would be the big deal of someone with a gun licence carrying a gun? After all, his gun, and HE is registered, and passed a background check.
Celt - that’s certainly an easy way to generate a lot of work for the people on the other side of the debate without having to do a lick of work yourself.
If Ms. Shamaya wants to join in the debate over here, feel free to point her in this direction. Then she can read the thread(s), see which of her questions have been addressed, and join in from there. This will give her the dialogue that she desires.
In the meantime, I’ll be damned if I see why I should take a stab at her 31 questions, just because you’ve C&P’d them in. Gun control isn’t my life. Maybe you can track down Pete Shields, and email the questions to him. 
tracer - apparently metal detectors have different settings. Back when IUDs were a popular method of birth control, and the need for metal detectors first arose in our society, you’d read of women’s IUDs setting the metal detectors off at airports and such. So they adjusted them to reduce their sensitivity. This is how, you can pass through the metal detectors at the airport with your key ring and a pocketful of change in your pockets, you usually don’t set off the detector.
And your carry-on luggage goes through a scanner; the security people watch the images it shows. A handgun made entirely of metal will have a pretty distinct shape; if only the barrel and firing chamber are made of metal, but the handle, trigger, and trigger guard are plastic, the shape will be a lot less distinct to the person monitering the images on the screen, especially mixed in with the images of any other miscellaneous objects in your luggage.
Daniel - Thanks for acknowledging the effectiveness of this legislation.
What do you mean? Do you mean that nobody’s designed a gun that is superior in evading metal detectors that is capable of being mass-produced? (That seems to be the obvious meaning, but it’s hard to tell.) It would seem that, unless one is privy to the work of everyone who has toyed with gun design in recent years, one wouldn’t know.
No such gun has been mass-produced, and that’s the important fact. And thanks to us bleeding hearts, it’s gonna stay that way.
Which is why they didn’t try and pass legislation for ‘instant’ background checks for decades, but when it finally looked like the Brady law might pass, they suddenly decided they didn’t want criminals buying guns.
Pardon me if I question the sincerity of the NRA’s motives. If they have such great ideas to protect us from crime, how come it always takes the possibility of new gun control legislation to get them to put these ideas into play?
As I understand it, the ‘instant’ checks have a time limit, too.
The Brady waiting period is five days. Are you saying that if the computer hasn’t returned an answer after a week, under an ‘instant’ check, the purchaser still can’t have his gun? I doubt it. Do you have a cite?
RTFirefly wrote:
Except that armor-piercing ammunition (the so-called “cop killer” bullets) was around before the legislation.
Which means the legislation was “effective” in stopping a “problem” that never existed.
This and the previous cite make no sense to me. If a person has a lisence to carry a gun, presumeably he has passed the necessary tests and hopefully has had the wisdom to get some training.( O.K., I realize the last isn’t a given.) What difference would the presence of a school make? Do schools emit a vapor that erodes judgement? Are we to assume that anyone with a gun who passes a school is going to start ranting " Look…children…reminds me…of…skeet!"-BLAM! How much better would things have been in Colorado if there WAS a lisenced and trained preson outside Columbine High School who could have aced Harris and Kleibold before they did much damage? Or maybe a teacher who had a weapon and knew how to use it? I just don’t get it. As I said in the OP, I am not a rabid gun nut, but I cannot see ANY reason to suppose stricter gun control laws will do ANYTHING to deter criminals and loonies. They’re CRIMINALS and LOONIES. Disrespect for the law is part of the definition. Nothing said here yet has changed my mind. I am willing to change my mind, but I must see a credible arguement first. So far, I haven’t.
This and the previous cite make no sense to me. If a person has a lisence to carry a gun, presumeably he has passed the necessary tests and hopefully has had the wisdom to get some training.( O.K., I realize the last isn’t a given.) What difference would the presence of a school make? Do schools emit a vapor that erodes judgement? Are we to assume that anyone with a gun who passes a school is going to start ranting " Look…children…reminds me…of…skeet!"-BLAM! How much better would things have been in Colorado if there WAS a lisenced and trained preson outside Columbine High School who could have aced Harris and Kleibold before they did much damage? Or maybe a teacher who had a weapon and knew how to use it? I just don’t get it. As I said in the OP, I am not a rabid gun nut, but I cannot see ANY reason to suppose stricter gun control laws will do ANYTHING to deter criminals and loonies. They’re CRIMINALS and LOONIES. Disrespect for the law is part of the definition. Nothing said here yet has changed my mind. I am willing to change my mind, but I must see a credible arguement first. So far, I haven’t.