The Global Gun Control Threat

[Babe Ruth]

Isn't the vote scheduled for today?

[lliqerty]

I don't know if you've seen this before. This is Suzzanna Hupp. I feel she brings the "real" debate to the table.

[vid][media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLRr02YrW6o&feature=related[/media][/vid]

Very moving testimony. I believe, “should guns be legal or illegal?” is the wrong question.

A better question would be “what is the best means of self-defense?” A gun would probably not be the answer, in part, because of the danger to yourself and your loved ones, that you 6 year old nephew may find it and decide to “play” with it. Or, you shoot your cousin in a case of mistaken identity. But also, it gives you a significant disadvantage when trying to defend against somebody who may well carry a sub-machine gun. Plus, even an experienced target shooter does not know how he will react, if he will have the nerve to kill somebody, when never having faced that situation before.

Tear gas or pepper spray could be thrown while still in hiding, without stepping outside one’s protective shield. There is a wide variety of self-defense tools available. If awareness about them was raised, people would be able to own a variety of them and carry the one with them that is most suited for the event they plan to attend. Without risking that anybody would be killed by it.

I once carried a pocket knife with me and was attacked by a crazed man, who knew karate but was unarmed and then used my knife on me. I am glad I did not have a gun.

With regards to preventing tyranny, we need weapons to protect ourselves but they should be in the hands of a “militia”, namely the National Guard – under the control of the State Governments. That would make it possible to defeat an overstepping federal police force, not person with a hand gun. If an individual carries a gun legally and is falsely arrested by police, he does not have the right to use his gun and would probably die if he attempts to do so. Guns certainly do not protect from drones or other weapons a tyranny has in its arsenal.

Edited August 13, 2012 by lliqerty

[Corp]

Isn't the vote scheduled for today?

Not sure about the vote but the conference has happened. Doesn't seem there was a vote at all, just a conference...which also happened in 2006, 2008, 2010, and 2011. All the documents I skimed talk about illegal arms trade and doesn't single the US out at all. There's a lot of stuff I didn't look at but seems the claim of this undermining American gun right was nothing more than a scare tactic. Which isn't suprising at all.

http://www.poa-iss.org/RevCon2/

[Obviousman]

And once again the US refusal to enact gun control has resulted in the massacre of people. When will they learn?

[Babe Ruth]

And once again the US refusal to enact gun control has resulted in the massacre of people. When will they learn?

Poor reasoning sir. Actually, the US does have gun control laws. Quite a few of them actually.

But wise men, or even intelligent men, understand that just as a 100 year old drug prohibition HAS NOT succeeded in "getting rid of" drugs, and has caused a litany of social pathologies and unintended consequences, so too would government efforts to "get rid of" guns through legislation.

And that is ignoring for the moment the existence of the Second Amendment.

[Space Commander Travis]

Poor reasoning sir. Actually, the US does have gun control laws. Quite a few of them actually.

But wise men, or even intelligent men, understand that just as a 100 year old drug prohibition HAS NOT succeeded in "getting rid of" drugs, and has caused a litany of social pathologies and unintended consequences, so too would government efforts to "get rid of" guns through legislation.

And that is ignoring for the moment the existence of the Second Amendment.

that's fair enough, although do we know yet whether he did in fact own those guns- how many was it, four? legally, and whether this was planned in advance, in which case he could have got them through illegal means if necessary, or whether it was on impulse and so he was only able to get hold of them because they were ready to hand?

[Babe Ruth]

that's fair enough, although do we know yet whether he did in fact own those guns- how many was it, four? legally, and whether this was planned in advance, in which case he could have got them through illegal means if necessary, or whether it was on impulse and so he was only able to get hold of them because they were ready to hand?

The point is that it's over--what's done is done.

I was not trying to create some sort of law suit in my previous post.

Because the other point is that gun laws seldom work as designed to work. Most laws have unintended consequences, and for that reason the repeal mechanism exists to get rid of bad law.

We have gun laws, some reasonable, and some unreasonable and stoopid.

Utopia is not an option. We can only plan for the future, and the past is just that. And to make matters worse, we have to live in the present.

[Michelle]

that's fair enough, although do we know yet whether he did in fact own those guns- how many was it, four? legally, and whether this was planned in advance, in which case he could have got them through illegal means if necessary, or whether it was on impulse and so he was only able to get hold of them because they were ready to hand?

From what I heard the guns were his mother's. They also said he tried to buy one a couple of days before, but didn't want to go through the waiting period. I don't know what news station that was...I've read too many.

[xYlvax]

There are alot of true Americans that would riot if it truely happened..

[Obviousman]

Actually, the US does have gun control laws.

Rubbish. How can you say that when people can have automatic weapons, armour piercing rounds, handguns? Where some states don't even require a permit? Where some states don't even record the sale?

That's not control - that is lack of control.

[Drayno]

Rubbish. How can you say that when people can have automatic weapons, armour piercing rounds, handguns? Where some states don't even require a permit? Where some states don't even record the sale?

That's not control - that is lack of control.

Since 1934, fully automatic weapons have been heavily regulated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

The German Weapons Law of March 18, 1938 is the source of the U.S Gun Control Act of 1968..

[RaptorBites]

Rubbish. How can you say that when people can have automatic weapons, armour piercing rounds, handguns? Where some states don't even require a permit? Where some states don't even record the sale?

That's not control - that is lack of control.

It is up to the state to regulate what sort weapons you can or cannot own, this is also including ammunition.

It is not the Federal Government's jobs to regulate what the states are able to control on gun laws. However, there are some federally mandated laws that the states have to abide by.

You know, there is that 2nd amendment. It's not something that the Federal Government can cross off whenever they feel like it's not working so well....

[Obviousman]

You know, there is that 2nd amendment. It's not something that the Federal Government can cross off whenever they feel like it's not working so well....

That old chestnut again. You don't think that it might just be possible that things aren't being applied as the framers of your constitution intended and it is time for a little - you know, common sense - to be brought into play?

Edited December 16, 2012 by Obviousman

[el midgetron]

That old chestnut again. You don't think that it might just be possible that things aren't being applied as the framers of your constitution intended and it is time for a little - you know, common sense - to be brought into play?

No. If anything our founding fathers would be dispointed by what gun regulations we do have.

You are talking about a group of men who understood, both in theory and in practice, the value of an armed populous.

[with bells on]

No. If anything our founding fathers would be dispointed by what gun regulations we do have.

You are talking about a group of men who understood, both in theory and in practice, the value of an armed populous.

hey.. can you explain what value there is in arming a populous with guns, please?? thanks..

[RaptorBites]

That old chestnut again. You don't think that it might just be possible that things aren't being applied as the framers of your constitution intended and it is time for a little - you know, common sense - to be brought into play?

Common sense by whom? By those who intend to do hard to others with the illegal use of firearms?

Or common sense to get rid of the 2nd amendment?

This is one of the few instances I will have to agree with Babe Ruth.

Poor reasoning sir. Actually, the US does have gun control laws. Quite a few of them actually.

But wise men, or even intelligent men, understand that just as a 100 year old drug prohibition HAS NOT succeeded in "getting rid of" drugs, and has caused a litany of social pathologies and unintended consequences, so too would government efforts to "get rid of" guns through legislation.

And that is ignoring for the moment the existence of the Second Amendment.

Remember the time when the US went through alcohol prohibition?

Exactly what is going to stop people from obtaining firearms illegally from out of country?

People would like to think a strict ban on gun ownership is going to solve the issue.......well, its not.

[Obviousman]

I'm not suggesting banning guns; I'm saying you need to limit them, control them. It seems though that as soon as you suggest any form of control, of regulation, people think there is going to be a complete ban on them and start saying things like "You can have my gun when you pry it out of my cold, dead hand". Well, statements like are a really good indicator that the person is not a great candidate to possess a firearm.

[DONTEATUS]

I hear you Obviousman ! THe Old saying Guns dont Kill,People With Guns KIll ? Such A$$HOLES that say that ! ITs IS the People that pull the trigger,ANd If there were even 50% less guns there would be A lot less deaths in this country.

IT gets me that Countries like Japan,THe U.K, Oz. ect,all have so few deaths each year due to automatic,and Hand gun deaths ITs THe Stupidity of the NRA `s and the Likes over here that Keep blamin it on the People ! Well Get the Guns off the market ! THe people dont need them! Im all for havine a simple hand gun to protect your own home,family Not a AR-what the Hell ever three thousand round weapon!

Most of the Time I think Americans are so Full of $#%TTT they need to be the ones lined up in front of those Idiots with Guns Like that ! Thats a start to change the problem!

[el midgetron]

hey.. can you explain what value there is in arming a populous with guns, please?? thanks..

The founding fathers were quite clear why they gave us the 2nd amendment. To insure our freedom by enabling us to protect ourselves from the government.

[Babe Ruth]

Rubbish. How can you say that when people can have automatic weapons, armour piercing rounds, handguns? Where some states don't even require a permit? Where some states don't even record the sale?

That's not control - that is lack of control.

It seems as though you are equating "gun control" somehow with absence of guns? Or, with some scheme where only the "right" people are allowed to have them, or some other utopian result.

I compare the idea you seem to advance with the idea advanced in drug policy--that somehow the government can write and enforce a law that will eliminate certain drugs and their usage. Well, after nearly a century of such an effort, we have kids bringing the prohibited items to school, and/or selling them on street corners.

So if the government cannot stop drug use and eliminate drugs by legislation, how on earth do you suppose it can eliminate guns by legislation and enforcement?

[RaptorBites]

It seems as though you are equating "gun control" somehow with absence of guns? Or, with some scheme where only the "right" people are allowed to have them, or some other utopian result.

I compare the idea you seem to advance with the idea advanced in drug policy--that somehow the government can write and enforce a law that will eliminate certain drugs and their usage. Well, after nearly a century of such an effort, we have kids bringing the prohibited items to school, and/or selling them on street corners.

So if the government cannot stop drug use and eliminate drugs by legislation, how on earth do you suppose it can eliminate guns by legislation and enforcement?

Excellent response BR.

Even if the government were to place any ban on gun ownership it will not stop the illegal sales of firearms.

Heck, even though there are legal ways to purchase firearms in the US, there are still "illegal" ways to purchase them as well.

[DONTEATUS]

Look into your childs eyes tonight ! THink ,Think for just a few min`s Do you want to be part of the change? One in which we can come together and evolve into a Humane World !

People with Guns Kill People, Get rid of Guns !

[RaptorBites]

Look into your childs eyes tonight ! THink ,Think for just a few min`s Do you want to be part of the change? One in which we can come together and evolve into a Humane World !

People with Guns Kill People, Get rid of Guns !

People kill people.

Regardless if its with or without a gun.

Unfortunately your logic is not sound.

[Obviousman]

How can you say gun control won't work when the US has never even tried it?

[Obviousman]

People kill people.

Regardless if its with or without a gun.

Unfortunately your logic is not sound.

Strawman. No-one is saying it will eliminate gun deaths. It will, however, reduce them.

Edited December 17, 2012 by Obviousman