Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Cogito, ergo sumthin'

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                                                                                                                                   

bullet_control

Don't get rid of guns; get rid of bullets.
 
(+3, -3)
  [vote for,
against]

Put the argument of the ethics of gun control on hold for a second. The practical problem with "getting the guns off of the streets" is the cliche that there are simply too many guns already in existence to control. My answer to this is to outlaw the production and distribution of bullets, eventually all of today's guns would run out of ammunition. Of course there are legitimate uses for guns, and for these I propose a new gun/bullet design that is not backwards compatible with the obsolete ones.
cmeador, Mar 14 2001

(?) Ubiquitous Acronyms http://search.metac...0&refer=mc-results1
A list of sites with ubiquitous acronyms [pnewp, Mar 14 2001, last modified Oct 04 2004]

Bullet Making Equipment http://www.bulletmoulds.com/
[sirrobin, Mar 14 2001, last modified Oct 04 2004]

Bullet Control http://www.schaefer.../ted/Ammunition.htm
Circa 2000 [bristolz, Oct 04 2004]

ESPN Outdoors: "Do you know how far your firearm can shoot?" http://espn.go.com/..._james/1375803.html
" ... They were stray bullets from a shooting range near San Quentin prison, about a mile away ... " [bristolz, Oct 04 2004]

Or Try This... http://www.amazon.c...68-5382502?v=glance
Guns, schmuns. If you really want to test yourself, try archery. Guns are just rubbish point-and-click devices. [lostdog, Oct 04 2004]

Gun contol = people control http://www.davekope...ontrol_in_Japan.htm
About japans gun control and loss of common rights. [SunTzu, Oct 04 2004]

[link]






       "Guns don't kill people. Bullets do." (Eddie Izzard: Dress to Kill, 1999.)
jutta, Mar 14 2001
  

       If you call my acronym ubiquitous one more time, I swear, I'm taking the plane over there and will deal with this personally!
pnewp, Mar 15 2001
  

       During one of his routines, Chris Rock mentioned something like: "Bullets should cost $1,000. That way you can be damn sure there won't be any innocent bystanders."
iuvare, Mar 16 2001
  

       All of the ammunition used to commit homicides in the U.S. in one year would fit in a small closet. By contrast, the yearly use of ammunition by law-abiding citizens totals over four BILLION rounds.   

       Also, I would suggest anyone supporting "gun control" to see what effect it has had in England and Zimbabwe.
supercat, Mar 16 2001
  

       Bullet control isn't really easy compared to gun control. The average citizen (or even the far from average homicidal maniac) would have great difficulty building a reliable gun. Bullets are easy to make. Reloading empty cases is even easier. Even if you also outlawed or otherwise controlled access to bullet making hardware (see link) determined people could still make their own without much trouble.
sirrobin, Mar 16 2001
  

       Those are some amazing statistics, UnaBubba. Up until now, I have been relatively ambivalent about the whole gun control issue, leaning towards lesser controls simply from a desire to avoid infringing on any rights where possible. However, if those statistics are accurate, they are enough to make me begin to reconsider my (lack of) position, and start viewing strict gun controls as possibly being a good thing.   

       Do you have a source for the non-UK stats you mentioned? And are there any other possible explanations for this other than gun controls alone?
PotatoStew, Mar 16 2001
  

       Supercat - I live in the UK and I've been to Zimbabwe. The last time I even saw a gun was when I was in America last September, and before that it would be the previous time I visited America about three years ago. The last time I saw a gun in the UK was in the hands of a specially trained anti-terrorist police officer at Heathrow airport about eight to ten years ago when the IRA were trying to blow it up.   

       Assuming no one tries that again I could probably go for the rest of my life without seeing another gun in the UK. This is an effect of our gun laws with which I am entirely happy.   

       sirrobin - whilst you have a point, sufficiently determined people will always find a way round the measures that are put in place (as shown by the fact that there are still some people in the UK with access to guns). It's the undetermined or less resourceful ones that the measures will thwart - after all, there's a lot fewer people capable of making their own bullets than there are capable of going into a gun shop and buying some.
mark_t, Mar 16 2001
  

       what exactly is the point of a new gun/bullet design? It still sounds like guns and bullets to me. "oh gee, can't use these damn new-fangled bullets with my old gun. I think I'll just go out and buy one of 'em new-fangled guns so I can." Should have stopped at eliminating bullets, that might have passed. If people want guns, they'll find a way to get guns, legitimate use or no.
nano_mars, Mar 16 2001
  

       I haven't heard of any research into a 'detonator ray' machine, which could be fitted at airports/schools/fast-food outlets. Tuned ultrasonics might be employed to lift the energy ot the explosive compound into liftoff - electricity no good because of shielding effect of brass cases. Anyone know about mercury fulminate - cases of rounds spontaneously going off are fairly rare. Doesn'yt have to work, just be good enough to create doubt. Easier to sniff for explosives currently.
sra, May 17 2001
  

       I think a brief check will show that a large proportion of gun killings in the US were not done by criminal masterminds, but by ordinary people who lost it and decided to kill someone, (ex-lover/boss/schoolfriend etc,) or had an accident, or felt threatened and panicked as shoot someone without good reason ("I though he looked like he was going to rob me so I shot him" is quite a common statement in some states). Surley reducing the number of guns in general circulation would prevent all those deaths, and also make it easier to catch criminals with guns, as they could not claim to have a viable reason to own it. Both criminals and non-criminals can own guns. If only criminals owned guns, you would be able to lock them up for having a gun BEFORE they shoot someone.   

       The general public no-longer have ANY legitimate reason to own a gun. They are not under any threat of invasion or oppression. They simply like the feeling they get having them - it's a control thing - having the power of life over death of others.
CasaLoco, May 17 2001
  

       Yet another lame-ass rant from people afraid of guns.   

       Whether you like it or not, it will take an act of Congress to amend the Constitution to remove them. Rather than trying to weasel around it, do the work to get that done.   

       And if you're not in the US, it doesn't affect you, GET OVER IT.
StarChaser, May 19 2001
  

       First, It is ineffective. The topic starter's 'proposal' shows (with all due respect) his ignorance on guns and ammunition. See also supercat's first point.   

       I like guns and shooting :) yes I really do a whole lot. I simply want to continue to do so. The US is about freedom. I shoot over a thousand rounds a month. UnBubba states "just remove the guns", as if he thinks he has the right to march into my safe and destroy my 'arsenal' (had to get that one in somehow :)) Of beautiful guns, which I have put so much money, time, work, and energy into; and which I will never use to harm another person. I find this, frankly, disrespectful, offensive, oppressive, and scary.
zahc, Apr 09 2003
  

       It wasn't me. Swear to God.
Guncrazy, Apr 10 2003
  

       [zahc] - If you felt in danger, would you use your firearms? What if you were in danger, but not fatal danger? What if you find a burglar in your home? Do you fire apon him? And finally, If you come across a crime against someone else, such as a burglar running from their house, do you fire apon them? The point is that whilst your intentions may be good - protection and security - I think most people will use firearms before any other route of action. Guns make people feel like they have power over something. If you have a lot of guns, it probably means you enjoy that power. The problem comes when the power is missused, or if a person doesnt know how to resolve a situation without it.
miasere, Apr 10 2003
  

       [CasaLoco]: //I think a brief check will show that a large proportion of gun killings in the US were not done by criminal masterminds, but by ordinary people who lost it and decided to kill someone, (ex-lover/boss/schoolfriend etc,) or had an accident, or felt threatened and panicked as shoot someone without good reason.//   

       When the government crime statistics use the term "acquaintance", it refers to any person who was not a complete stranger to the assailant. Most notably, it includes things like rival drug dealers and gang members. While most homicides occur among "acquaintances", those acquaintances are usually not people who are in any way friendly toward each other.   

       Outside of big crime-infested cities, the homicide rates in the U.S. are pretty low; inside the cities where gangs run things and self-defense by law-abiding citizens is forbidden, crime runs rampant.
supercat, Apr 10 2003
  

       The figure I want to see is the overall murder rate vi a vis nations without guns. Is it possible that the disparity in shootings between say the U.S. and some European nation comes mostly from say, a higher incidence of stabbings in other countries?   

       Having said that, I like my gun(s). it is fun to shoot them, and takes a certain degree of skill. This is why shooting is an Olympic sport. Going further, I am a sailing instructor and have done stints in the woods. I carry a firearm for self defense, and I am quite sure that I need it- quite often you'll find that you have no one to rely on but yourself doing things away from civilization. I really don't understand why people want to outlaw guns- it won't stop unscrupulous people who want them from getting them any more than it stops drugs, or stopped alcohol during Prohibition.
Madcat, Apr 10 2003
  

       Violent crime committed with guns is more about drugs, and gangs than about gun control. When drugs and gangs are controlled gun crimes drop, when they aren't gun crimes rise. See Texas statistics since allowing private permits to carry concealed weapons.
bronco, Sep 17 2003
  

       See the world outside of your front doors. Watch "Bowling for Columbine" and judge (or not) for yourselves. :)
deedah, Sep 17 2003
  

       I can't resist.
Bullets don't kill people, a combination of massive trauma and blood loss...
Laughs Last, Sep 17 2003
  

       //Watch "Bowling for Columbine" and judge (or not) for yourselves.//   

       BFC is a piece of anti-gun propaganda which uses a mixture of lies, distortions, and "creative editing". As a simple example, examine the backdrop behind Charlton Heston as he speaks. You'll notice that after a cutaway shot, the background behind Mr. Heston has changed.   

       Which seems more likely: (1) the stage people would have switched backgrounds at the moment the camera looked away, or (2) Michael Moore would have edited together various pieces from different speeches so as to produce his own version of what he wanted Mr. Heston to say?
supercat, Sep 17 2003
  

       //When drugs and gangs are controlled gun crimes drop//   

       Make drugs available at manufacturing & distribution cost (about $2.50/day for cocaine). Registered addicts get the stuff for free. Addicts don't have to become criminals any more and most gangs will loose their funding too.
kbecker, Sep 17 2003
  

       How does one become a registered fine wine addict?
Worldgineer, Sep 17 2003
  

       Sorry [World], fine wine is over the budget of $2.50/day. However, if you consider the cost that the average street addict causes daily while hunting for money (some sources say $280), then the fine wine option may come cheaper.
kbecker, Sep 17 2003
  

       // BFC is a piece of anti-gun propaganda which uses a mixture of lies, distortions, and "creative editing". As a simple example, examine the backdrop behind Charlton Heston as he speaks. You'll notice that after a cutaway shot, the background behind Mr. Heston has changed. //   

       Glad to see an opinion, but I really wasn't looking to the movie as a scientific representation of reality. Or to label it. It's a movie and a documentary, and you are seeing with the director's eyes. Beyond all the selective presentation that goes on, there are still ideas presented which deserve a look. Labeling this movie as anti-gun is just another way people filter information...from themselves.
deedah, Nov 02 2003
  

       I'm sorry to disagree with your opinion deeda, but that movie is essentially an outright, slanderous lie. I've seen it, and its point of view offends me. It portrays people such as myself and many of my friends as idiotic, violent, and cowardly people. I have no respect for it or Mr. Moore whatsoever.   

       In a sense, I understand your point, that truth or no it's a point somebody made, but Mein Kampf is also somebody's opinon that wasn't grounded in reality and I have no respect for that work either. Not all opinions have value.
Madcat, Nov 22 2003
  

       It is now deer season in Minnesota and Wisconsin, and most of my friends are out in the woods with shotguns and high powered rifles. Odds are none of them will shoot someone with any of these weapons (excluding hunting acciedents which are in the same league as auto accidents).
I believe, and its only my own silly opinion, that those who are going to use a weapon to harm someone will do it whether guns are available or not. The difference is that with guns the outcome is more often fatal.
Although the level of gun violence in America is greter than the rest of the world (excluding war zones), is there truly any more violence, acts of physical aggression between people, here than anywhere else? I tend to disbelieve that Americans are inherently more violent than everyone else. The problem isn't guns vs. knives vs. clubs vs. fists but the willingness (or ability) to be violent at all.
soundman, Nov 23 2003
  

       Anti-guncontrol Pro-anti-guns   

       I am a strict rule follower, and I always have been. When I turned 18 (legal age), and all my friends were younger, I bought my first rifle. All of my friends already had a few. When I needed a longer barrel to be legal I welded a muzzle break on mine ($50). None of my friends would have cared. The point is gun control doesn’t work. It only stops those like me, the rule followers, and the ones that will need to defend them selves. The law breakers will just break another law. We need nothing or all, so if we can’t un-invent them then we should be able to have them.   

       I am a boy scout at heart. Always prepared. I don’t know what the future holds. I may go to work tomorrow and need a drill. Or I go to work and get shot at by a disgruntled worker. That is why I have a drill in tool box and a gun on my ankle.   

       From what I have heard the kids at Columbine broke 27 laws. Would 28 or 29 have helped? I think not. The point is that one law will stop me, but it won’t stop those who break laws.   

       Now it sounds like I like guns I DON‘T. If right now I could un-invent them I would. But you would see me tomorrow with a sword on my back. Still as prepared as ever.   

       So till you un-invent the gun, I’ll be sitting here with two on me, and more at home.
SunTzu, Nov 23 2003
  

       unabubba, it is about freedom you abviously do not understand this - I pity you and prehaps you will never understand freedom
shad, Nov 23 2003
  

       [shad] - I'm from the UK, where we have pretty strict gun laws, as UB already mentioned. Legally, it's quite hard to get a gun over here, which I think actually adds to my freedom.   

       I'm free to approach a policeman to ask him the time without being intimidated by the fact that he has on him a weapon that could kill me in a fraction of a second. I'm free to have arguments with my neighbors without worrying that they might skulk back to their house only to come back later with a poor rejoinder and a firearm. I'm free to speculate about the sanity of the weirdos that I walk past on the street everyday without having to worry about if they have a gun or not.   

       Gun control expands my freedom. It's one less thing for me to think about. If you want to shoot targets, use a bow - it's far more challenging, and excercises more than just your index finger.
lostdog, Nov 23 2003
  

       I disagree. Your idea of freedom hinges solely on the fact that no one will attempt to threaten it. I'd rather be confident that I can preserve my own freedom. You shouldn't have a right not to be intimidated. That's close to mind control. You should have a right not to let yourself be intimidated and though the difference sounds minor it really is not.
Madcat, Nov 23 2003
  

       [lostdog] "...legally, it's quite hard to get a gun ..." you just stated our main point. Gun control makes it legally hard to get a gun. This doesn't make you any more safe. If anything it makes you less safe, because how many law abiding criminals do you know? None...One...Two? If you didn't answer with none you are very confused. Locks and laws are only to keep the honest, honest.   

       If some one walks into your office and oppens fire would it be any less tragic if he used an illegal gun? Obviouslly not. But if some one shot him with a legal gun before he could kill all of your co-workers and you, it might just be less tragic. Even if some were hurt some would still be saved.
SunTzu, Nov 24 2003
  

       [lostdog] "...approach a policeman to ask him the time without..." Why would you feel intimidated in the first place. I don't know how it is there but here cops can't shoot people for asking for the time.   

       Fend for your self.   

       .
imburton, Nov 24 2003
  

       //here cops can't shoot people for asking for the time//   

       Can't as in "aren't capable of," or can't as in "not legally permitted?" In the UK, cops can't shoot people for asking the time, *and* nobody has to test the theory. :P
Detly, Nov 24 2003
  

       Can't, as in aren't capable of. Ever try to pull a gun and shoot someone whilst holding a cup of coffee and a donut? Besides donut snot clogs triggers and actions you know!
Don't forget, we have DARE here in the States but its about as effective as any other laws.
(Donut Abuse Resistance Education)
soundman, Nov 24 2003
  

       This entire debate which has spanned at least 6 months has avoided going deep into a point that has been touched on at least a half dozen times. That is the fact that you tend to be comparing America to other societies but you fail to actually make the comparison. Instead you talk about what falls directly into the category of gun control without considering what in science we call the external environment.   

       The first somewhat outside factor is saturation. Prior to the firearms ban in the UK there was less than 5 civilian owned guns for every 100 citizens. In the US there is approximately 30 civilian owned guns for every 100 citizens.(These are official government estimates with a margin of error because they try to include unregistered guns.) This simple fact makes the previous comparison to prohibition during the 20's even more relevant because unlike the UK American culture is saturated with firearms and it will not be an easy task to disarm us.   

       The next outside factor is heritage and tradition. In the United States about 5% of rural families pass a fire arm as an airloom to future generations. The national antiquities society says that firearms are the items most likely to stay in the family more than 4 generations. (That's why an 1809 mass produced musket is worth $3,000 here but in Europe it is worth the equivalent of $10,000. At least that was the case last time I had one appraise.)Therefore taking guns away from Americans is taking away heritage for a lot of us and as you have probably seen in history books heritage is the most effective rally cry for war.   

       The most significant component of the external environment is the political environment and to illustrate this I will need you to think back to the 1930's and early 40's in Europe when the fascists were coming to power. The Australians and British people reading this may not have studied the steps taken by the fascists to come to power if they attended public educational institutions because your societies have long been headed toward socialism and gun control so I will be sure I don't skip anything. The fascists and other groups which wanted power pointed out the problems with the current system, then they proposed radical solutions that were not actually possible, they got hailed into power, they "protected" the public by disarming them, they armed an unchallenged secret police force to rid their new dominion of any dissenters, they impressed the public with great military success, and finally they moved to control every aspect of life and death of every citizen so as to make sure that their rule was absolute.   

       Now I would like you to look at the modern American political culture. The order of events is not quite the same but here we go:   

       Candidates for public office show what is wrong with what is happening now and impress the public with poorly defined miraculous solutions to those problems. If they fail to impress the public the incumbent wins.(Sounds like a 1930's European race.)   

       Since the Brady Handgun Bill in 1992 some guns have been outlawed and all new gun purchases have been registered. Which is a method of finding guns regardless of the saturation.(Sounds like they're getting ready to disarm somebody)   

       An array of bills over the past 15 years have made it easier for the federal agencies and other law enforcement agencies in the US to spy on and gather information about people in secrecy without the approval of a judge and without probable cause.(Sounds similar to that secret police force.)   

       We have shown our military muscle (which so many of us including myself are ever so proud of) in Kosovo, Afghanistan, 3 times in Iraq, and in a number of other smaller incidences.(Sounds like that impressing with the military might thing.)   

       Along with the spy powers federal bureaucracies have gained the power to control individuals lives and deaths in unprecedented ways. Without a warrant a company can be shut down for environmental inspection, a person can be denied a treatment that is their only chance of survival because the Food and Drug Administration doesn't approve it for that purpose. (Sounds like that whole control thing.)   

       So in light of this you should understand why so many Americans have good reason to be concerned about keeping that last liberty that we still hold to the extent we do especially when it is our last line of defense against a tyrant like Hitler or Mussolini. You should also understand why it should be a concern of the entire world to keep the American public armed because if Hitler could do that much damage with a bunch of tanks and a little air power, imagine what an American tyrant could do with our modern military.
Imponderable, Nov 25 2003
  

       “in case it all goes haywire.” Being prepared isn’t one action.   

       For example being prepared to avoid / survive a car wreck doesn’t just include wearing a seat belt, or doing a driver safety course. This all helps with the wreck but not the aftermath. It should also includes having a knife handy incase your seatbelt malfunctions and won’t unbuckle. It also includes having flares to warn other approaching drivers and so on.   

       The people who I know that feel that guns help them stay prepared for the aftermath of any catastrophic event also are the ones railing for what they believe to prevent the event. Just like a driver would do a driver safety course to prevent “wrecks”, gun owners feel better prepared for any wrecks society can come up with.   

       The future is unknown. I don’t know if a “Twenty-Eight Days Later” scenario is going to happen in the world, no mater how unlikely. They (the movie characters) would have had way less trouble if they were armed with guns instead of bats and knives.   

       All horror movies could happen at least in some degree in realty. Nine out of ten of the movies wouldn’t be long enough to be considered a movie if it started with the main characters having a gun.
SunTzu, Nov 28 2003
  

       For an example of successful gun control, see Japan.
UrineForATreat, Nov 28 2003
  

       What about those of us that choose not to live in Japan?
Madcat, Nov 28 2003
  

       wow!! look what I started   

       I will quote myself...   

       "it is about freedom you obviously do not understand this - I pity you and perhaps you will never understand freedom"   

       [detly] in response to your question,   

       "explain why I don't have the freedom to license and possess several large radioactive sources in my own home."   

       Your question is pretty general... I don't know where you live, most people wouldn't want to do what you stated, however if you are speaking of a nuclear reactor in the USA I imagine you do have the freedom to "license" these products however I am pretty sure you would need quite the training and experience to do so. -If- you have accomplished this, I don't know you, but I am pretty sure that I would be comfortable with this. WITH THE PROPER TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE I BELIEVE THAT YOU COULD ALSO OWN A GUN   

       In the U.S.A it is NOT legal to kill anyone with a gun - that would be violating their rights... for that person to take my gun would violate my rights   

       You can kill someone with a motor vehicle but that is not legal you can kill someone with a rock that is also not legal   

       must we outlaw rocks? oh and TOILETS too, they kill people   

       [lostdog] you stated:   

       If you want to shoot targets, use a bow - it's far more challenging, and exercises more than just your index finger.   

       I DO!!   

       I find bows to be FAR more dangerous than a gun however most criminals don't realize this...   

       -it is silent and difficult to track to its user   

       -they are much more lethal than most handguns when the arrow hits a so called non vital area   

       -it is practically non traceable   

       - it leaves no evidence with its shooter   

       let me go further... belts can kill people,   

       in fact suicide is not a legal form of death   

       SHOULD WE OUTLAW BELTS TOO?   

       - that would NOT stop one trying to commit suicide   

       they could just jump off a tall building   

       SOO... lets outlaw tall buildings too... would that stop someone from committing suicide?   

       they could jump in front of a train, we will outlaw those also...   

       they could drown themselves we will outlaw water then   

       guns DO NOT 'make' people commit suicide people commit suicide   

       guns DO NOT 'make' people kill people   

       if you want to kill someone it can be done without a gun   

       in fact guns possibly are one of the best ways for law enforcement to link the criminal to the crime   

       ( no I am not saying that it is better if a criminal uses a gun I do not know these things but, think about it...)   

       I am pretty sure that suicide bombs ( I prefer the correct word, homicide bombs )   

       Suicide bombs are not legal in Israel however people use them and they use them to kill people   

       what can we do? give "suicide bombers" and people that commit suicide the death penalty? ---that will stop them---   

       I know that this has been a long mumble jumble of words but I sure hope you can understand our perspective( whoever "we" are)
shad, Dec 28 2003
  

       come on is that the best you can do?   

       read my WHOLE message and understand it   

       Don't you get what this is about????   

       //"it is about freedom you obviously do not understand this - I pity you and perhaps you will never understand freedom"//   

       Are you going to watch some TV show and say oh yeah I guess that guy is right I wanna be like him...   

       do you believe EVERYTHING you hear on TV?   

       How pathetic and weak minded... live life man   

       forget what you think you know Read American history AND understand it Then you tell me about freedom   

       You stated: //"explain why I don't have the freedom to license and possess several large radioactive sources in my own home."//   

       sources implies, an origin or were something was obtained   

       Where are you from? I think there is an error in translation   

       you then said that you said   

       //"Thank you for changing the subject completely. I said weapons. Arms. Instruments of destruction"//   

       I guess I missed that part   

       Changing the subject?? HUH??   

       DON'T WASTE MY TIME
shad, Jan 06 2004
  

       You can not mention all these places in defense of gun control and ignore Switzerland or did the liberal press forget to tell you?   

       there are many greater killers out there that prey on innocent people   

       alcohol, heat disease, cancer to name a few.   

       CDC 2000 leading causes of death for white people (other races are similar ratios) Diseases of heart 621,719 Alzheimer’s disease 46,460 (suicide) 26,475 Assault (homicide) 8,339- doesn't even make top ten!!!! (HIV) 6,498   

       I am not trying to say that gun violence is justified it is definitely a problem but keep things in perspective
shad, Jan 06 2004
  

       He's saying that you aren't making sure that you can preserve your freedom. That's fine so far as it goes but please don't try and stop everybody else from preserving theirs.   

       Anyway...   

       //oh and TOILETS too, they kill people\\   

       ..killed Elvis in fact.
Madcat, Jan 06 2004
  

       //He's saying that you aren't making sure that you can preserve your freedom.//   

       Actually, that's what *you're* saying. And that's fine, but I took offense to this:
"it is about freedom you abviously do not understand this - I pity you and prehaps you will never understand freedom."
  

       I guess my mistake was taking that seriously.
Detly, Jan 06 2004
  

       Yeah, that wasn't really worded too well I guess.
Madcat, Jan 07 2004
  

       I'm so freaking tempted. But I won't.
theircompetitor, Jan 07 2004
  

       Wow.   

       I was speachless for several moments. This is a bickering war fantastique. Just one thing; I as an American who shoots guns and owns a gun but absolutely feels filthy when the thought of the deadly power of a gun enters my mind while I hold a gun, take offence to the comments about my being American and the implications put out that this makes me oincapable of "understanding" something that some one else's country already "understands." I don't knock your views or your right to try and persuade us Americans of these views. It's just the tone that some can take. It starts reminding me too much of racism and hardline nationalism. I understand that my country's leaders don't always represent the rest of the country very well (not all of it anyway), but stereotyping is simply arrogant and hateful. Anyway, [cmeador's] idea isn't about the rightness of gun-control (even though they may support it. It is an idea of a possible implimentation of gun-control.   

       That was tiring.
countzero, Jan 07 2004
  

       actually, this post represents one problem with the HalfBakery scoring system.   

       A majority voted no, but it's not clear if they voted no because they hate gun control or they voted no because they want gun control and not bullet control   

       An unholy alliance against bullet control, it would seem.
theircompetitor, Jan 07 2004
  

       [detly]   

       //if you support gun control, you don't understand freedom," is disingenious - I can't go out and say whatever I want about anyone I want, because of defamation laws. If I support defamamtion laws, does that mean I don't understand freedom//   

       that is a good point, you CAN support gun control and still have freedom   

       possibly the most difficult thing about freedom is to define it   

       I do not support gun control I strongly condemn criminal acts ( ones that would deprive others of their freedom )   

       I do not support defamation I believe that it deprives others of their freedom   

       To put this into perspective: gun control to defamation would be everyone having their tounges cut out so that no one said anything bad( this obviously would deprive people of their freedom ) - - - they should have gotten Michael Jackson on defamation instead of filing a false report----   

       No, I did not forget about the freedom of speech   

       The existence of guns does not deprive anyone of any freedom. freedom is deprived by the hand of who uses them,   

       I am a father of 2 I live in a remote area ( well remote to most people) if there is a problem that is an emergency here you must take care of it yourself. If I did not have a family, when a criminal came I would just leave, nothing is worth your life. But with a family I would be called a coward and more importantly I would not be able to live with myself and would kill myself if I did nothing   

       If I were attacked by a moose I an NOT going to ask the moose to wait while I call 911 and then continue and threaten the moose that the cops are coming!!! that would be ridiculous...   

       There is no need for me to ramble on you get my point. I would think that most people reading this can agree with at least half of my points
shad, Jan 08 2004
  

       I don't buy this crap about Australia and England being so much better off for lack of guns. Anyone who buys that story is fooling themselves. For onr thing, criminals do not need guns to harm people. They do it with knives, fists, crowbars, etc.   

       I live in the country. We are not "rednecks" out here, we are people with degrees, professions, who own ranches and homes. Some of us live in trailers, some of us regular houses in the same neighborhoods.   

       Every neighbor I have owns various rifles and handguns, and my family has a collection for historical and regular use. There have been no family murders, no suicides, no school shootings out here, and get this: my kids are preteens and can handle firearms when supervised.   

       The last time they thought there was an intruder out and about they got vehicle description, driver and license info and called it in, with a gun waiting, but not used. I was dealing with an emergency at the time.   

       Many houses are not made to have the proverbial "safe room" and the idea of having that kind of time during an invasion is a joke. The last time we called in a strange shot in the neighborhood the cops NEVER SHOWED UP!   

       Those who think having your puppet master government take guns away from decent people to punish law breaking criminals are fooling themselves at the expense of other human lives. Guns are tools, and in responsible hands they are no more of a problem than a hammer or power saw.   

       Besides, do we really want our government telling us what we can and cant own, controling us and spying on us?   

       One other thing; I was converted to gun ownership and use by three burglaries and an assault on my wife when I was empty handed. I despise gun control, and shake my head in disgust when I hear some yoyo who lives in a nice neighborhood that is "safe" from crime say " oh, we need to ban guns, nobody needs them. Yeah, just call the police!! The one suicide attempt in my family years ago was attempted with gas, not a gun.   

       Sure, Rosie thinks we need to get rid of the guns. I suppose if you have a $7,000,000 million house, guards, gates and surveilance you can think that way. What about the rest of us?   

       In the end, live and let live. You don't want a gun, no problem, dont own one. I like mine.
littlebrowndaug, Jan 16 2004
  

       //In the end, live and let live. You don't want a gun, no problem, dont own one.//   

       And that is exactly where it is. Each persons view on gun control is based on their personal experience and opinions, both are things that cannot be judged by anyone else. If you feel safer having a gun to protect yourself with, then more power to you. If you think owning a gun is dangerous, then don't. If you feel safe in your home knowing that guns are outlawed, then I am happy that you feel safe. As long as each person is happy in their own specific situation, then that should be enough to suffice everyone else.
babyhawk, Jan 16 2004
  

       "toilet's kill people".????
python, Jan 16 2004
  

       Casa Loco: You really are off when you say people have no legitimate right to own guns. Criminals have no right to drive cars, own guns, or get the breaks they get after being arrested. Decent citizens have the right to own anything they are qualified to operate. 'Scuse me, but I really dont consider myself as having the "power of life or death" over another human being. I like to know I'm not defenseless. I've been packing for years, and never felt that I had power of anything over anyone. I am not a power tripper nor are other gun owners. We enjoy a sport. Football is more barbaric than target shooting. Nobody wants to ban the bone breakers, do they?
littlebrowndaug, Jan 17 2004
  

       "toilet's kill people". Oh yeah. The bathroom's a dangerous place man.
Madcat, Jan 17 2004
  

       i don't get why anyone is bothing to discuss wether guns are dangerous, whether they have useful purposes, or not. The fact of the matter is, the government should not be telling people what to do. You can't make guns illegal because they *might* be misused. If that was the case, why isn't abortion illegal? People can be coerced into it, which is an abuse that leads to the loss of a life just like with a firearms related homicide. The basis of the United States is that you can do whatever you want, as long as you are not harming people. Admittedly, many of our laws don't hold up to this. I'm fortunate enough to live in one of the more libertarian states (New Hampshire) and I appreciate our freedoms, although I do not use most of them. No seat-belt law- but i wear mine always. Right to bear arms- i don't own a gun. No required auto insurance- i have it. Of course, I do gladly take advantage of no sales or income tax :]
buddymatt, Jan 18 2004
  

       "the fact of the matter is the government should not be telling people what to do." Very good point! I totally agree.
littlebrowndaug, Jan 19 2004
  

       buddymatt, good point I agree   

       Oh and toilets do kill people
shad, Jan 23 2004
  

       "the fact of the matter is the government should not be telling people what to do."   

       Wrong. If the public tells the government to take away guns (by voting for an anti-gun party or whatever) then the government should take the guns away.   

       The whole point of democracy is that the government carries out the wishes of the votors. Its not some feudal king telling you what to do, but you, your friends and family, your boss, the guy who lives down the street etc. telling you what to do.   

       If its important I'm quite happy being in the UK where I don't have to know how to use a gun, or be willing to kill someone in order to be (almost completely) safe from being shot.   

       (sorry for contributing to this jutta)
RobertKidney, Jan 23 2004
  

       Look how popular this whole category is...
k_sra, Jan 23 2004
  

       It's a bit of a piscine graveyard, isn't it. I deleted some of my earlier annotations, since this isn't the junior debating league.
Detly, Jan 23 2004
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle