When they come for you to take your guns will you:

[Lindsey 0]

I don't own any weapons either, but I'd be real concerned if someone came door-to-door to take them away from my neighbors. While I don't LIKE guns, and think that many people use them irresponsibly, I have to come up on the side of protecting my constitutional rights. To me it's the same as my right to protest on public property.

I usually fall a little left of center, but this time I just think all my anti-gun friends are WRONG. IF I had a gun, I would NOT give it up willingly.

Lindsey

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Quote

In Britain the government actually did a very similar thing. After a man walked into a scottish school and started shooting and killing children and teachers the government made all handgun owners turn in there wepons or make them safe, eg poor lead down the barrel. I think many people just went over to France and kept them at clubs over there. Not being a gun owner or enthusiast i dont know the exact way of doing it. I suppose it worked though as it got most of them out of the country which can only be a good thing.

I thought gun crime actually increased since 1997.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/02/24/nguns24.xml

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2640817.stm

Since you didn't make it clicky I'll post a couple of the highlights.

Quote

The new gun crime figures also show that handgun crime has soared past levels last seen before the Dunblane massacre of 1996 and the ban on the weapons that followed. The ban on ownership of handguns was introduced in 1997, the year after Thomas Hamilton, an amateur shooting enthusiast, shot dead 16 schoolchildren, their teacher and himself in Dunblane, Perthshire.

It was hoped that the measure would reduce the number of handguns available to criminals. According to internal Home Office statistics, however, handgun crime is now at its highest since 1993.

Hmmm, you mean criminals were emboldened knowing that it would be less likely for people to shoot back at them? Whodathunkit?

[rgoper 0]

First Link

Second Link

made the links "clicky" for ya!

--Richard--
"We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist"

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

I usually fall a little left of center, but this time I just think all my anti-gun friends are WRONG.

I'm the same way.....I guess what it comes down to is belief in personal freedom and the right to protect it. Justin and I agree in almost every other political thread but this topic. And I find myself allied in this topic with those I argue with on others.

[andybr6 0]

I thought gun crime actually increased since 1997.

***

Unfortunatley it has, though i am always cynical of home office statistics you are right. I here of more shootings now than i did a couple of years ago, i only hope the governments actions over handguns stopped it being a greater increase. We are seeing a gradual increase in [not anti-terrorist] police carrying guns a sure sign that the use of firearms is on the increase. Much of the gun crime you hear about in Britain is inter-gang rivalries in the major cities like manchester and London. At the moment all of these guns are illega,l but i see no reason to make it easy for the criminals by making guns and perhaps more importantly ammunition easier to get hold of. Sawn off shotguns have been used in robberies for decades i think criminals will always find a way whatever you do, but i think the key thing is to make it as difficult as possible for guns to become available.

------------------------------------------------

"All men can fly, but sadly, only in one direction"

[rgoper 0]

Quote

And I find myself allied in this topic with those I argue with on others.

ain't that a trip? anyone who want's to declare to be an american should have no problem with others who are americans exercising their rights as americans, or what do we really stand for? i'm against drugs, and legalizing them, BUT if they were ever legalized, i still wouldn't do them, that said i wouldn't think any less of someone who chose to exercise their rights under the laws, whether it be politics, religion, drugs or guns. i'm certainly not going to lists my weapons here, but if my house caught on fire, i wouldn't go near the scene for at least 2 weeks, or a good rain.

--Richard--
"We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist"

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

but i think the key thing is to make it as difficult as possible for guns to become available.

I'm sorry, I just find that logic flawed.

Ok, guns are hard to get but not impossible (and never will be). What happens? Criminals get guns (law abiding citizens don't, because they can't). And what is not stopping that criminal from using that gun other than threat of incarceration which they're already willing to risk by being a criminal.

Now imagine that guns are easier to come by and law abiding citizens can and do get them, and some even carry them. Criminal now has to factor in the idea that he might get shot back at. Not to mention that the law abiding citizen/would be victim may even drop him before he gets the chance to use it.

[jfields 0]

Quote

I guess what it comes down to is belief in personal freedom and the right to protect it. Justin and I agree in almost every other political thread but this topic. And I find myself allied in this topic with those I argue with on others.

Kevin,

On this particular issue, I think you and I are much closer than I am to others that take up the pro-gun case. You are willing to see merit in both sides, even if you don't totally agree and come to the same conclusions. You strike me as being a little to the right of center (on this one issue), where I'm a little to the left.

It will be fun to talk about it over beers and *potato* guns at Cross Keys some day.

[andybr6 0]

I can understand your point however i would say that most criminals would not assume they would get shot just as they assume they wont get caught. Further more i would like to point to South Africa as an example of a country where not only gun ownership but carrying guns on the street is common. I realise that SA has a whole set of social issues unique to its self but if you look at it on a very individual level you find that SA criminals shoot there victims first becasue they assume they are carrying a weapon.

------------------------------------------------

"All men can fly, but sadly, only in one direction"

[PhillyKev 0]

Yeah...I see that point as well. But I'd be interested to see actual numbers.

Bottom line is I'm at high risk of being victim of a violent crime. I live in a highly populated urban area and walk home alone after dark. Hell, I know the guy who shot at Allen Iverson a couple weeks ago. He worked at a club a block from my work. So, I want to keep my gun.

[rgoper 0]

Quote

I'm sorry, I just find that logic flawed.

that logic is not only flawed, it's plumb fu*ked up. but he's from the UK.

Quote

Ok, guns are hard to get

take a hang gun course and obtain your CCL and buying a handgun is no problem at all.

Quote

Criminals get guns

yeah, the theiving MF's steal our's from our cars and houses.

Quote

And what is not stopping that criminal from using that gun other than threat of incarceration which they're already willing to risk by being a criminal.

exactly. this is where the whole concept is really FU. criminals could care less about gettin' busted, honest citizens truely do care about their reputations and freedom.

Quote

Now imagine that guns are easier to come by and law abiding citizens can and do get them, and some even carry them. Criminal now has to factor in the idea that he might get shot back at.**thus the reasoning for the CCL program** Not to mention that the law abiding citizen/would be victim may even drop him before he gets the chance to use it.**that's the part i'm in favor of!**

a criminal may think twice before comitting a crime with a handgun in an environment where he/she may not be sure who is/is not "heeled" simply because they don't want to get a cap busted off in that ass.

--Richard--
"We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist"

[andybr6 0]

I am afraid i can provide no statistics without more research but i have a close friend who lived in SA [JoBurg] until she left because she felt it to dangerous and another aquantence who was shot by car jackers in the same city [he survived - just], it is from the former that i draw my information. I realise that coming from two different countries with two very different set of rules regarding guns we are unlikley to agree, but i am glad we could exchange opinions. Maybe if i lived were you did and vice versa we would both see it differently. I hope you never had the need to use your gun in anger and i hope i am in never in a situation where i wish i had a gun.

------------------------------------------------

"All men can fly, but sadly, only in one direction"

[PhillyKev 0]

Well, anecdotal evidence is usually in favor of shock value, that's what makes it memorable. It's the same kind of information that the antigun people here use to bolster their positions.

Quote

I hope you never had the need to use your gun in anger and i hope i am in never in a situation where i wish i had a gun.

ditto.

[Iflyme 0]

No guns in my house ...

[billvon 3,070]

>should the gov't ever intend to enforce any orders to dissarm
> americans it will most certainly lead to many bloody battles, there's
> more of us than there is of them, and they know it.

Yep - nonetheless, they will win. They have the power of the armed forces behind them, and they are experts at pacifying populations. That's why I think opinions like "they will not get my guns when they come for me" are completely useless. It's like having the opinion that you will not die when you hit the ground at 120 mph. By the time they come for you, or by the time you're at 10 feet at freefall speeds, it's really too late.

The way to keep both those things from happening is to maintain your gear, get a cypres etc so you don't _have_ to survive that impact, and to get involved with government _before_ they come to 'take your guns away.' In the past two years we have opened a secret military gulag that anyone can be sent to for reasons of national security, and be held without charges or access to a laywer. Heck, we're holding children there now. We even came up with a way to forcibly expatriate US citizens so the government can claim that normal rights do not apply to them. Your phone can be tapped, your mail read, your computer bugged etc with less cause than ever before.

The way some people talk, they aren't too concerned about the issue because when the government comes a-knockin, they won't get their guns. News flash - if they decide to do it they will, and nothing you can do will stop them (including using those guns against them.) The time to try to make sure that doesn't happen is now, and I think the best way to do that is to

a) do everything we can to get gun crime down; gun crime is the thing most voters fear when it comes to gun ownership, and fear will lead to their vote on gun restrictions. If gun crime were to drop by 40% you can bet that many of the gun control proposals would simply disappear for lack of support.

b) support reasonable rules that will reduce gun crime and oppose unreasonable rules that don't help. Opposing everything isn't notably helpful and primarily just serves to remove you from the discussion.

c) Make a big stink when civil rights evaporate. The patriot act, for example, was enacted to ensure "the safety of the american people" and does it by reducing the rights of those same people. Our rights are all tightly interrelated - the right to free speech is closely related to the right to privacy. We should look very closely at any erosion of them.

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

UN isn't very good at actually enforcing commands to disarm.

is there anything the UN is good at?

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

a) do everything we can to get gun crime down; gun crime is the thing most voters fear when it comes to gun ownership, and fear will lead to their vote on gun restrictions. If gun crime were to drop by 40% you can bet that many of the gun control proposals would simply disappear for lack of support.

The thing is...it is down. All of the numbers people throw around, usually somewhere around 30,000 handgun killing per year are totally misleading. That number includes about 20,000 suicides and about 8,000 criminals shot in the act or by other criminals. The number of innocent civilians killed by guns each year is closer to 2000. That's statistically insignificent.

Quote

b) support reasonable rules that will reduce gun crime and oppose unreasonable rules that don't help. Opposing everything isn't notably helpful and primarily just serves to remove you from the discussion.

Reasonable is subjective.

Quote

c) Make a big stink when civil rights evaporate. The patriot act, for example, was enacted to ensure "the safety of the american people" and does it by reducing the rights of those same people. Our rights are all tightly interrelated - the right to free speech is closely related to the right to privacy. We should look very closely at any erosion of them.

Ditto that. That's where I differ from the majority of pro-gun, pro-Bush, pro-Homeland Security people.

[rgoper 0]

Quote

Yep - nonetheless, they will win.

the whole key to whether they come or not depends on a lot of things. on another note, will you know before they come? that depends on who you are, and who you know. personally, i'm not going to alter my lifestyle for fear of invasion at the ATF's behest. more than likely if your in good standing in your community, and a law abiding citizen, you need not worry, they're worried about folks they know are in possession of a mile long rap sheet and a closet full of H-Bar Match Sporters with "HellFires" on them.

Quote

They have the power of the armed forces behind them, and they are experts at pacifying populations. That's why I think opinions like "they will not get my guns when they come for me" are completely useless.

agreed. but nonetheless, there are some individuals that will go down with this mentality, i've met some folks that trapse through the woods dressed up in full battle gear practicing war games, i quit hanging around these individuals when they started this nonsensical behaviour. gunrange, fine, training for the onslaught of the ATF....no thanks.

--Richard--
"We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist"

[billvon 3,070]

>That number includes about 20,000 suicides and about 8,000
> criminals shot in the act or by other criminals. The number of
> innocent civilians killed by guns each year is closer to 2000. That's
> statistically insignificent.

I'd agree on the suicides, but what is the 'criminals shot by other criminals?' If that means that inmates kill each other with stolen weapons I'd agree. If it means that two people are planning to rob a bank, and they start bickering and one shoots the other - that's still an innocent person who got shot.

[rgoper 0]

long before the ATF starts this type of campaign ie: coming to your house and seizeing your weapons, my guess is they will go for the "big tunas" first. in the state of texas it is illegal to be in possession of, or to buy/sell hang grenades without the proper liscensing. funny thing is, you can go to the local army surplus stores and buy all of the components to build as many as you want, and that's legal. is it me, or is something wrong here? for a sportsman to have his personal weapons, no matter what type they are i say what the heck? i think it's the fear of some that these weapons are being stolen and utilized in crimes that scares them. you cannot control the actions of a non law abiding citizen until you bust them. but how much can they get done before you catch them? next thing you know, we'll be patrolling our jet fuel tanks, and fertilizer plants? paranoia costs a ton of money.

--Richard--
"We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist"

[Steel 0]

[Don't like how things go? Vote for the people that you think will represent you as you want. That is the beauty of the system. ]

The problem here in a case like Janet Reno (God saying that name already makes me sick) is that her being appointed may disgust many. But then you need to wait four years to make your statement against this appointment.
Alot more can happen in four years. He/She might even send send a hit squad in full armor to terrorize a happy family in Miami so that her communist boss (Bill Clinton) can have his communist Comrad (Fidel Castro) happy with him. Then they could drug this poor kid to cover up the crime they have committed and just tell the stupid liberal idiots who don't know enough to find out the facts behind the story that the kid is happy with his father once again and they can all smile.

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

[lurch 0]

Wow I must admit I hadn't expected the thread to take off like this. The purpose of the poll was to get an idea of prevailing attitudes. Ever notice how every year there's this even bigger list of things you're NOT allowed to do/own anymore? By now that list is so long you need years of schooling to be sure you're behaving according to the law. When will YOU be criminalized? I wondered how many would take personal responsibility for their own rights and safety in defiance of the law if and when the law makes gun owner synonymous with criminal. We don't yet have a police state...right now there's a healthy amount of fighting and squabbling over every loss of liberty caused by a new outlawing...but nevertheless every year that list of losses gets bigger and this is not healthy for a supposedly free country. Another one that's most definitely on the menu for outlawing is tobacco. It won't happen for a good long time yet but judging by the way its going now, it WILL happen when enough people quit to force a tobacco ban on the rest. Again, when will YOU be criminalized? Judging by the response so far I'd say despite the prep groundwork being done by antigun people, a total gun ban can't be done here (usa) without radically altering the culture itself-too many will refuse to be disarmed without a fight. This is good...I don't care about automatic weapons, don't own one, don't particularly want to and don't really understand the attraction...but I'm utterly against banning them, mostly because the arguments used to ban them make no sense and bear no resemblance to the reality they propose to enforce. Just because he has to pull the trigger once for each round doesn't make me any less shot! Its the user, not the tool you dolt! If there's a sudden rash of clawhammer murders are you going to outlaw claw hammers? They'll just start using ballpeen hammers! Seeing that kind of freakily disconnected flawed logic signed into law and enforced on me (if i fall under its concern) or others by people who supposedly are wise enough to make decisions affecting my life and safety scares me. I don't like the idea that the most powerful nation in all history is being run by people with thought processes that are THAT flawed. Gives the impression of the lights are on on the bridge but there's nobody behind the wheel.

Live and learn... or die, and teach by example.

[billvon 3,070]

>funny thing is, you can go to the local army surplus stores and buy
> all of the components to build as many as you want, and that's
> legal. is it me, or is something wrong here?

I don't think that's unreasonable. An intelligent person can build a grenade pretty easily whether or not he can get spare parts (although spare parts make it much easier.)

> next thing you know, we'll be patrolling our jet fuel tanks, and
>fertilizer plants? paranoia costs a ton of money.

Yep, and indeed we are spending a ton of money on homeland security lately (40 billion this year alone.)

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

I thought gun crime actually increased since 1997.

93% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

next thing you know, we'll be patrolling our jet fuel tanks, and
>fertilizer plants? paranoia costs a ton of money.

Ummm...actually..."WE" already are. I know of SEVERAL differen't incidents where one or more "Middle Eastern Males" were observed taking photographs of fuel processing plants and storage facilities. One of which just happens to make a SIGNIFICANT portion of the jet fuel consumed by the US military. If you think there isn't a threat out there you are SADLY mistaken.