---

So, do you see any civilians defending themselves with guns?

1) It wouldn't be as easy for criminals to get guns.
2) It would be easier to crack down criminals, since anyone possessing a gun would be one.
3) Fewer people would have guns and that alone would make me feel a little safer.  

Truth be told, anyone who really wants a gun will get one, whether it be legally or illegally. I just don't think civilians need guns. Possession of fire arms can be dangerous even in a "responsible civilian's" hands.

---

First of all, civilians in the United States use guns in a defensive situation 2,500,000 times a year.

Civilians DO need guns. Read the works of America's founding fathers. Armed civilians defend themselves, their property, their state, and FROM tyranny within their own government. And the police aren't there to protect you. Even the courts have ruled that the POLICE HAVE NO OBLIGATION TO PROTECT THE INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN.

Besides... if guns are banned... what will I play with during my free time? =(

(Oh since some people are smart and want sources for the claims I make: http://www.gunfacts.info   )

-------
http://www.myspace.com/roc_kor

---

2) It would be easier to crack down criminals, since anyone possessing a gun would be one.

---

You seem to be under the misguided impression that there is no gun control in the United States. Not everybody can legally acquire firearms in this country. It is very rare that police encounter criminals with licensed firearms, and when they do, the gun has automatically become illegal because they're using it in a crime. Thus, this really isn't a problem and would have no bearing on cracking down on criminals.

---

3) Fewer people would have guns and that alone would make me feel a little safer.

---

Highly doubtful, because preventing law abiding citizens from obtaining firearms is not a guarantee that illegal arms smuggling will suddenly stop. Besides, you can be killed with a machete, too. There are plenty of alternate threats where a gun would be an appropriate tool of defense.

---

Possession of fire arms can be dangerous even in a "responsible civilian's" hands.

---

So can a steak knife or a motor vehicle.

-------
I have been enjoined by the LW Moderation Team from ever posting
the "baby fail" picture. Very sad indeed.

---

And the police aren't there to protect you. Even the courts have ruled that the POLICE HAVE NO OBLIGATION TO PROTECT THE INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN.

---

It sounds like you may have misinterpreted a court decision somewhere there.

Post edited at 12:56 pm on July 24, 2007 by helloworld

-------
I have been enjoined by the LW Moderation Team from ever posting
the "baby fail" picture. Very sad indeed.

http://www.outlawslegal.com/friendly/scam.htm
(Explains the law. Tried to find something good without a pro-gun bias but hey it still does the job. Even has a list of other supporting court cases.)

There are several court cases that state the police only have an obligation to protect the community and not individuals.

MAYBE if you read the link I gave you ( http://www.gunfacts.info ) you'd learn something. The GunFacts document supports my position with actual facts and lists every single source. Heck, if you see something incorrect you can email the author and he WILL fix it or remove it. Because we don't need to skew our facts (or lie) to get our point accross. (Not accusing you of lying, but it's a fact that many anti-gun groups are... less than truthful.)

Until the margin between the people killed by guns and the 2.5 million self-defense uses of firearms gets MUCH closer, your banning guns idea holds no water.

-------
http://www.myspace.com/roc_kor

---

2) It would be easier to crack down criminals, since anyone possessing a gun would be one.

---

Do you just want to throw people in jail for any old reason?? If we outlawed cars, it would be even easier to track down criminals since anyone driving one would be one too...and fewer people would be killed by drunk drivers, or worse...cellphone drivers right?

Post edited at 1:03 am on July 25, 2007 by j3100

---

There are several court cases that state the police only have an obligation to protect the community and not individuals.

---

I don't really see what relevance this has to gun control. Whether or not there exists an "obligation" to protect individuals is quite irrelevant. Either way, the police can't always be around when someone gets victimized.

-------
I have been enjoined by the LW Moderation Team from ever posting
the "baby fail" picture. Very sad indeed.

---

Not everyone needs a gun. Just have armed and armored patrol around schools.

---

That takes a lotof $$$ for that, unfortunately. Personally, I think they should restrict who they sell the guns to.  The guy was obviously mentally unstabled and should have never been allowed to own the gun. There were records of that before the whole incident even started. It's insane how they wont allow foreignors buy guns but they will allow mentally unstabled americans buy them.

-------
LW Facebook Profile
LW Facebook Page

But anyway, Harris and Klebold (Columbine murderers) broke like... what... 19... 20 firearms laws getting their weapons? Cho wouldn't have been stopped by some firearm law. It probably wouldn't have affected the timing of his murders because he bought the guns months in advance.

And the fact that police can't protect you means that you must protect yourself. Best method of doing so? Firearm. By resisting a criminal with a firearm you will only get harmed 6% of the time, as opposed to 25% by doing nothing, 40% by resisting with a knife, and 45% for non-violent resistance. And 76% of the time you never have to fire a shot (the cowardly criminal will run most of the time.)

Gun control (of any kind) isn't the answer to crime, freedom, security or anything. It's just a type of "feel-good" legislation that politicians pass so they can say they're tough on crime or something like that.

It's also a step toward a utopian and Orwellian society. Facism cannot succeed if the populace is in a position to resist with arms. Ask Hitler. He had to disarm all those dangerous criminals and terrorists (Jews, Catholics, Gays, Handicapped people, Gypsies, dissenters - all horrible folks wouldn't you agree? They shouldn't have guns!) before he could round them up and... dispose of them. Funny how a group of Jews with 6 handguns made an ass of the Germans in the Warsaw ghettos. Imagine if they were allowed to keep their personal arms? At least the 11 million people slaughtered in the Holocaust would've at least taken some o' the bastards with 'em. =(

Post edited at 9:06 am on July 26, 2007 by Roc Kor

-------
http://www.myspace.com/roc_kor

---

Gun control (of any kind) isn't the answer to crime, freedom, security or anything. It's just a type of "feel-good" legislation that politicians pass so they can say they're tough on crime or something like that.

---

No gun control? So the drug dealer on the corner should be allowed to arm himself to the teeth without legal consequence? Yes, we all know he's going to do it anyway, but there has to be a law in place making it illegal so that he can be hit with harsh consequences for doing so when he gets caught.

There are a lot of different kinds of gun control laws. Some of them are a good idea, others are stupid. Like artificially limiting civilian magazine capacities to 11 rounds in New York State.

-------
I have been enjoined by the LW Moderation Team from ever posting
the "baby fail" picture. Very sad indeed.