Gun Control, Are we finally winning?

[2LEYS]

Reading American Hunter (NRA Mag) today and it seems that over the last 6 years we have actually gained ground against the anti gun crowd. From the experation of the Assault Weapons Ban and the passing of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act to the reversal of the gun confiscation in New Orleans after the hurricane, it looks like for the most part the facts and figures are starting to sink into the heads of the politicians and voters.

Most of the gun control stuff that comes out now so ludicris you would think PETA was behind it. The latest is a Bill that would require an iris scan for every firearm purchase.

But all in all we are starting to win. Here is to continued success.

[Queeg]

"What you mean 'we,' Kemo Sabe?" - Tonto

[2LEYS]

We meaning Me and other sportsmen and women who care about our rights.

[JustCallMeDave]

Honestly, I'd rather be watching the Seahawks game than babysitting this thread.

[2LEYS]

Fixed it and I don't know where that came from.

But all in all we are starting to win. Here is to continued success

Yep! I'm hoping I will finally be able to get that bazooka and RPG launcher I've been wanting

[Wild bill show]

GUN COTROL is... being able to hit your target

[MrOlearhy]

Are you gonna use the RPG to remove boats from your holes once you get one???

[duckcall]

With the threat of terrorism, gun control is in the backseat.

[northriver1]

I don't want a bazooka I just want my guns as the constitution says. Not sure whats so funny about ones right to bear arms. But than again I am not a left handed shooter.

[MrOlearhy]

Don't get me wrong I'm all for the second amendment. I was just having some fun about RPG's and such.

[stilly bum]

I think the anti-gun crowd got too pushy and "out there" with some of their ideas. Having Rosie Odonell for a spokesperson would be one example. Maybe the idea of holding people, instead of objects, accountable has sunk in. I also think politicians have moved on to other issues, like terrorism, as mentioned above. The worst acts commited on U.S. soil were done with fertilizer and box cutters.

[Steve L.]

Winning is a subjective term. We've gained some ground, educated some people. This will ALWAYS be an ongoing effort. Some folks still believe that just because we stand by our right to protect hearth and home, participate in shooting/hunting as a sport and don't really look to government to protect us we are somehow the lunatic fringe. Personally I look forward to handing down to my grandson a heritage of hunting and sport shooting and , yes, an ability to protect himself. I have friends who say I am a rabid 2nd amendement guy, but the fact is I'm from a very small easterm european family a generation back. We learned the hard way it's better to die on your feet than die on your knees. 2nd amendment has little to do with it.

[TonTo]

"What you mean 'we,' Kemo Sabe?" - Tonto

and if I had a pony,....I'ld ride it on my boat.

I just think some of you pro-guns guys are great entertainment with your paranoia :grin: I believe in the 2nd amendment but it's just something I don't dwell on like some of you.

[Straydog]

I think the anti-gun crowd got too pushy and "out there" with some of their ideas. Having Rosie Odonell for a spokesperson would be one example.

Yea, as a supporter and protector of gun rights, I am REALLY excited about having Ted Nugent rant and rave on my behalf.

Neither side has a patent on "out there" folks supporting them, in my opinion.

[crabbait]

[MetalHead]

You may not like Ted but he is informed and believes in, lives what he advicates. I will take him on my side any day. Not to make this political because (JCMD) has a hot finger on the button look at who advicates gun control.

[Dave's not here]

Ted speaks the truth not like Sarah Brady or [name calling deleted - cb]. Rights are rights and we have to protect them like the first amendment I am useing now.

[baltz526]

now if you can just get the nation to vote (for pro constitutional canidates) the next election cycle, our 2nd amendment rights my not get further eroded.

[Steve L.]

I just think some of you pro-guns guys are great entertainment with your paranoia :grin: I believe in the 2nd amendment but it's just something I don't dwell on like some of you.

Just cause you're paranoid doesn't mean you're not being followed

[Queeg]

OK, I have to admit ... an RPG would be pretty dang fun.

When the Founding Fathers wrote "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." did they imagine the RPG? The atomic bomb? I wonder ...

Was their intent that the "militia" could regain the "free State" from an oppressive tyranical government?

I wonder ...

how has your right been infringed? Does it say anything about the right to BUY arms ?

[Wild bill show]

I'm not paraniod everyone just thinks I am :smile:

Ted speaks the truth not like Sarah Brady or [name calling deleted - cb]. Rights are rights and we have to protect them like the first amendment I am using now.

Well I wonder how you would act if your spouse had brain damage due to some psycho with a cheap handgun like Sarah Bradys did?

[MarlinMark]

I just think some of you pro-guns guys are great entertainment with your paranoia :grin: I believe in the 2nd amendment but it's just something I don't dwell on like some of you.

Stew,

I remember some people getting up in a tizzy about river rights that were already secured in the courts a long time ago....just like the 2nd ammendment. I didn't find their "paranoia" entertaining, and I was glad to have them making sure that a "few" people didn't gain an unnecessary right over the many.

mark

[sunshinefisherman]

If we ever lose our gun rights, I believe that it will be by treaty.
Treaty law trumps constitutional law and the president has the power to sign treaties with foreign powers. The Senate has to ratify the treaty. The UN is actively seeking to dilute our national strength through the Kyoto treaty, rights of the child treaty, etc.

Imagine this future scenario:[*]The world court rules that our second amendment is unconstitutional and orders the confiscation of all privately owned arms. [*]The first amendment is ruled against and vocal opposition is crushed.


Fear the government that fears your guns.

[Thumper]

Regarding the 2nd Amendment, there is no such thing as "winning". The current administration and congress does not favor additional gun control measures, but that can change in a single election. The NRA (love 'em or hate 'em) is the only true long-term safeguard of the 2nd Amendment.

[2LEYS]

Well I wonder how you would act if your spouse had brain damage due to some psycho with a cheap handgun like Sarah Bradys did?

I would be pretty PO'd at the psyco. Not take my rath out on handguns.

[PGJPJ]

I think "Gun Control" is kind of a loaded phrase. I don't think you have to be totally for or against gun control, there can be a reasonable medium. I'm an honest citizen, so I would like to have as many guns as I want (or as my wife will allow me to have...or is that also considered gun control?). But don't want some hardened criminal just walking out of prison to be able to walk down a pick up a 9mm. That's gun control!

The whole issue of not wanting gun control measures I believe revolves around setting precedence. Similar to how the abortion crowd (to take an equally loaded phrase) doesn't want increased restrictions on abortions. Everyone fears that if they give in at all, even to reasonable measures, they will later loose what they have today.

It's unfortunate that we sometimes just can't be reasonable.

[HeavyMetal BankFisherman]

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

In 1791 when the ammendmant was added to the constitution there was a definate threat to the security of our country.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state"

I don't see much regulation with felons being able to buy guns at unregulated gun shows. Or all the people running around carrying concealed weapons because they can.

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms"

I support that right. However, that right is tied into:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state"

We now have the most powerful military in the world. Is that not our well regulated militia? Are they not protecting the state?

Why does the average Joe need an assault rifle? This isn't Somalia.

Just like the anti-gun lobby, there are plenty of ridiculous claims made by the pro-gun lobby. And some of thier websites are pretty hillarious with thier doom and gloom about what will happen to our country if they don't have the right to have an assault rifle. Other claims are just plain wrong. I have read articles claiming that the drop in crime over the last forty years is because there are more people carrying concealed weapons. There has been a drop in crime. But that is due to our law enforcement agencies.

We top the list of wealthy nations for gun deaths. So more guns have not made us any safer.

There is nothing wrong with people having rifles for hunting or having a handgun stored SAFELY at home for protection. I am concerned with the GI Joe mentality I have seen plenty of times. I know people that carry a gun when they go to downtown Portland. If people are so afraid someone is going to get them I really feel sorry for them.

And then what about the gun companies doing anything they can to get around common sense gun laws and flood the market with guns that ultimately end up in the hands of criminals and gangs.

I don't see how any rights are taken away when assault weapons are banned. You can still buy rifles and handuns. The right to keep and bear arms has never been taken away.

So what's the problem?

I am not anti-gun. I do believe in regulations. Read the second ammendment. Regulated is in there. Gun ownership was never meant to be a free for all.

[MetalHead]

The biggest problem with gun control is that the only people it will effect is the law abiding citizen. Criminals will continue to get guns then everyone who obeys the law will become a easy target for criminals. Dont believe it look at the statistics in the countries that have abolished private gun ownership.

I don't think you have to be totally for or against gun control, there can be a reasonable medium.

We have several law's on the books now, you cannot own automatic weapons without special licensing and registration. And I know of no law's that allow the private ownership of RPG's, LAW's or other weapons of that variety.

But don't want some hardened criminal just walking out of prison to be able to walk down a pick up a 9mm. That's gun control!

As soon as they figure out how to stop that from happening I will be all for it, but for now I will be armed.

I have read articles claiming that the drop in crime over the last forty years is because there are more people carrying concealed weapons. There has been a drop in crime. But that is due to our law enforcement agencies.

Can you document this or is it just your opinion? There are several law enforcement agencies that aline themselves with the NRA.

Why does the average Joe need an assault rifle? This isn't Somalia

The problem with this statement is that the term assault rifle was coined by Gun Control Advicates and the Media. And by that definition the Model 12 Winchester and Model 500 Mosberg shotguns would be classified as Assault weapons as they were both used extensively in Viet Nam.

In 1791 when the ammendmant was added to the constitution there was a definate threat to the security of our country

There still is or have you missed the news stories on terrorism.

As for the UN and treaty's if this comes to pass and they want my guns their going to have to come and get them. And I for one will not give them up freely.

[Salty Walty]

http://www.ifish.net/forum/showflat....;page=0#574924

And from the AUP;

Although the constitution of the US guarantees that “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech”, ifish.net is not Congress. Freedom of speech rights do not extend to this privately owned website. The AUP/Guidelines of this website governs the behaviors and activities of the members. If you choose not to follow the guidelines agreed to during registration, the result is a disabling of your account. Editting of posts and removal of topic is also a result of AUP violations.


Before you reply please read Jennies Post and the above portion of the AUP. The Moderator staff is trying to let some of these more controversial topics work themselves out. But, if the discussion degrades into partisan politics, name calling or other violations, posts will be editted or the topic will be moved.
Thank you for your understanding, The Moderator Staff

[HntnFsh]

Part,but not all of the problem with assault weapon bans is the definition of an assault weapon by the people that want to push a ban through.

Have you seen the list of so-called assault weapons that were listed to be banned on the last bill? Its pretty pathetic.Do a search and check it out.

Once the get that ban through.The foothold is there to steal more rights from us.It just makes it easir and easier.

Is that your definition of the 2nd amendment? Ive seen several.Seems like most people or groups interpret it to fit their needs.

[HeavyMetal BankFisherman]

There is a threat to our country, but I think we already have a well regulated militia and they typically wear uniforms.

Banning certain models of guns does not infringe on the right to own a firearm.

Sure some law enforcement agencies are going to align themselves with the NRA. Many in law enforcement are avid gun owners. But I doubt many would say a drop in crime is related to your next door neighbor having a gun.

The second ammendment says it all:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Well Regulated is spelled out very clearly. What about Militia? Was the intent of giving citizens the right to bear arms for the purpose of forming a militia in defense of the country? Are all the gun owners organized into well regulated militias defending the security of the state?

I guess I interpret the second ammendment in the context in which it was written. Many people only want to read one part of it. This part:
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

But when read in it's enirety:
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

It is clear that the right was given for the purpose of forming a militia.

I don't see how anyone can use the second ammendment as an argument against gun control/regulation when it clearly states regulated.

This whole issue is pointless. You can own a gun. Maybe not that one, but you can own a gun. You can go buy a gun at GI Joes so how are any rights infringed upon.

[Joe Schwab]

I would bet good money that if for some unknown reason, the present administration came out in favor of gun control, the liberals would be all over it screaming, "they are taking our rights away from us!" Anybody disagree?

Every other right has been broadened over the years except this one.

[northriver1]

So far the Supreme Court has not agreed with your view of our rights to bear arms Mr. Heavy Metal. You have failed to take into consideration we the people need a little protection from our own government as our founding fathers hinted to. That my be offensive to some but a conerstone to our freedoms, IMO.

[Catching Nemo]

Girl Accidentally Shot at Md. Day Care
By Associated Press
2 hours ago

GERMANTOWN, Md. - A gun brought to a day care center by an 8-year-old boy accidentally went off Tuesday, wounding a 7-year-old girl in the arm, police said.

The boy had the gun in the backpack and was playing with it when it went off at the For Kids We Care center, Montgomery County police spokesman Derek Baliles said.

The girl was taken to Children's Hospital in Washington, he said. Her injury was not considered life-threatening.

There were six children in the center at the time of the shooting, which happened around 7 a.m. No one else was hurt.

Police said they do not know where the child got the gun. Names of the children, both from Germantown, a suburb of Washington, were not released.

Police spokeswoman Nancy Nickerson visited the scene shortly after the shooting and said the children were watching television.

"The day care provider there did an excellent job of keeping the children safe and secure and calm," she said.

For Kids We Care Inc. operates two medium-size daycare centers in Germantown, according to its Web site.

..............................................

Here is the flipside to the RKBA. It is our right but it is also our responsibility. Whoever was responsible, for the safe keeping of this firearm, should got to jail for an extended period of time and also permanently lose their 2nd Amendment right.

I have a CHL, an 03 FFL, and I own over 30 different firearms. They are all kept in safes, when not in use or physically on my body, and the ammunition is also secured. How many owners just store firearms by throwing them in a closet or under the bed? Whether it is your child, your child's friend, or a ******* (who broke into your house) - you should take prudent measures to make sure your firearms are not easily accessible. If you fail to take those proper measures....

We should (as responsible gun owners) be crying out, as loud, for this person's punishment as we would for our RKBA.

[Fish mojo]

[img]http://rds.yahoo.com/S=96062883/K=can+of+worms/v=2/SID=w/l=IVS/SIG=12dj4vmh9/EXP=1138211421/*-http%3A//www.raceworx.com/imabandwidththief/can_o_worms.jpg[/img]

[Catching Nemo]

[img]http://rds.yahoo.com/S=96062883/K=can+of+worms/v=2/SID=w/l=IVS/SIG=12dj4vmh9/EXP=1138211421/*-http%3A//www.raceworx.com/imabandwidththief/can_o_worms.jpg[/img]

If you want to play you got to pay.

Or

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

[alaskan]

The second amendment ensures that all the others will be enforced. History has proved over and over that an unarmed society cannot stand up to an oppressive goverment.
As far as "You don't need an AK47 to hunt with," nobody needs a corvette to go to work in either but it's still allowed. That's what makes america great.
Uncle Ted said it best "if guns kill people, mine are all defective" Guns are tools, they can only do what the operator makes them do. A baseball bat can kill people, a hammer, a knife, cars kill more people every year than guns in the USA but anyone can still walk into a store and buy them, no questions asked. So why should I give up my right to own a gun?

[HeavyMetal BankFisherman]

So far the Supreme Court has not agreed with your view of our rights to bear arms Mr. Heavy Metal. You have failed to take into consideration we the people need a little protection from our own government as our founding fathers hinted to. That my be offensive to some but a conerstone to our freedoms, IMO.

That is what it is. My view. I don't want to impose it on anyone. But there is no harm in one stating thier view. I am not involved in any anti gun anything. As a matter of fact, I never really gave it much thought. But this post has been hanging around and it got me thinking about the second ammendment. I never gave it much thought over the years because I am not big into guns so I never have worried about my right to bear arms. I interpret the second ammendment one way while others reading the same words will interpret it differently. The Supreme Courts interpretation is the final word. And I respect that.

I am sure I am on the same side of many issues with the same people who's views are different than mine on this one.

I just don't see the erosion of rights based on how I interpret the ammendment. But maybe when they added the ammendment they meant it to be interpreted differently. If I had a time machine I could find out.

[Straydog]

The second amendment ensures that all the others will be enforced.

But it isn't working....

Right to privacy.
Gonner.

Right to free speech.
Gonner.

Right to assemble.
Gonner.

And the list keeps growing as big brother extends it's reach.

[Fish mojo]

[partisan politics removed - cb]

[northriver1]

Fair enough Mr. Heavy Metal.. but in fairness you did not allow to to much wiggle room in your previous post.
[partisan politics removed - cb]

[FinFansea]

Well I wonder how you would act if your spouse had brain damage due to some psycho with a cheap handgun like Sarah Bradys did?

I would go after the psycho not the gun!

[MetalHead]

NEMO you hit it right on the head, Responsible gun ownership. I keep my weapons under lock and key with ammunition locked up seperatly with the exception of my carry weapon which is on my person or in the gun vault in my vehicle or beside the bed. Irresponsible gun owners should be prosocuted to the fullest extent of the law when incidents such as the one you posted occur. Children should be taught firearm safety. Mine where and they understood that firearms were not toys.

I understand both sides of the arguement, as with many issues today, abortion, gay rights, gun control, animal rights (PETA).
I respect all of your feelings and opinions but do not expect me to agree with them. We live in a society where to many people follow public opinion and push agenda's because they only hear one side of the story (hollywood, Television).

[garyk]

It is our right but it is also our responsibility.

That's the heart of the matter...and sorry, but the NRA's Eddie Eagle just doesn't cut it.

It's remarkable that you can go into a store, lay out the money and walk out with a high-velocity weapon with absolutely no clue as to how to safely use it.

Contrast with our boats, where now you need operators permits.

If I was the ruler, I'd be more concerned with people having to prove their profeciency with a weapon than memorizing "right red return".

Time and again and again it's been my bad luck to be around irresponsible gun owners -

* shooting without a backstop
* shooting down a trail
* shooting the wildlife waterer at Mann Lake
* shooting around campgrounds and keeping everyone else awake and tense
* thinking a rotten stump would stop the round (it didn't) and spraying rounds out over and into the McKenzie River, keeping us litterally pinned down.

That's just the recent memorable incidents.

With rights come responsibilities and our nation will be a whole lot better when you have to pass some kind of test proving you can safely handle a gun before being able to take it off your property.

That's my and

gary(the-safe-and-well-armed-rural-dweller)k

[Stratocaster]

Banning certain models of guns does not infringe on the right to own a firearm.

Who decides what models? Ignorant politicians? :whazzup:

Like when California bans the .50cal. But its legal to own a .510 DTC Europ. :grin: So if it was up to you HMBF, would you take my AR-15 away from me? My hi-cap Glock?

I just wish machine guns were legal in Washington as they are in Oregon. :grin:

[2LEYS]

We top the list of wealthy nations for gun deaths. So more guns have not made us any safer.

Because we top the list in gun ownership and population. We are far from the top of the list of violent crimes. The countries that top the list of violent crimes are consistently the ones that have strict gun control.

And then what about the gun companies doing anything they can to get around common sense gun laws and flood the market with guns that ultimately end up in the hands of criminals and gangs.

Could you explain this?

Well Regulated is spelled out very clearly. What about Militia? Was the intent of giving citizens the right to bear arms for the purpose of forming a militia in defense of the country? Are all the gun owners organized into well regulated militias defending the security of the state?

Actually it is to protect our country from from other countries as well as proectecting our country from our country.

This whole issue is pointless. You can own a gun. Maybe not that one, but you can own a gun. You can go buy a gun at GI Joes so how are any rights infringed upon.

For now. You can't buy a handgun in San Fransico now. You can't even own one in Massachusetts.

With rights come responsibilities and our nation will be a whole lot better when you have to pass some kind of test proving you can safely handle a gun before being able to take it off your property.

And I would agree with this if they would stop there. But they wouldn't. They would keep pushing the envelope until it was rediculously difficult and expensive to meet the requirements. They would also force gun registration down our throats. That is why most of the gun guys have a "don't budge and inch" attitude.

[MetalHead]

It's remarkable that you can go into a store, lay out the money and walk out with a high-velocity weapon with absolutely no clue as to how to safely use it.

Contrast with our boats, where now you need operators permits.

Yes Gary you can if you pass the background checks. And compairing that to Oregons Boater Education Card is laughable. The Boater Card is a joke that amounts to a one time tax to operate a boat in Oregon waters. You go to a website and take the test over and over until you can pass then send your $10 to the OSMB and your legal. As I see it that will do a lot to improve boating safety in Oregon.

[STGRule]

Yes, but as you are taking the test over and over again you must be learning the correct answers or you couldn't pass. How is that a bad thing? If you can't pass it the first time, maybe you really shouldn't be operating a boat until you can. I'll pass on the gun control thing as I think there IS a middle ground.

[HeavyMetal BankFisherman]

Stratocaster, I don't want to take anything away from responsible gun owners. I may not think someone needs an assault rifle but that is my opinion.

Garyk's post and others about responsible gun ownership sum up my concerns.

I am more concerned with some of the people with the guns than the gun itself. All guns have the same effect. Some just do it with more bang. I still don't see the need for an assault rifle though.

I am not a gun hater or someone that has never shot a gun. I have enjoyed the adrenaline rush of pulling that trigger and will again. Target shooting of course. In fact, I am trying to get my mother to get a small pistol for protection. I want her to be able to defend herself in her home if she needed to.

It is like a teeter totter. It takes two. In this case Pro/Anti gun. One year lose some gun rights, next year get some back. That is the way it should work. Keeps everything balanced. But you can never make everyone happy.


2LEYS

We are far from the top of the list of violent crimes. The countries that top the list of violent crimes are consistently the ones that have strict gun control.

Murders with firearms (per capita)

#1 South Africa 0.719782 per 1,000 people
#2 Colombia 0.509801 per 1,000 people
#3 Thailand 0.312093 per 1,000 people
#4 Zimbabwe 0.0491736 per 1,000 people
#5 Mexico 0.0337938 per 1,000 people
#6 Belarus 0.0321359 per 1,000 people
#7 Costa Rica 0.0313745 per 1,000 people
#8 United States 0.0279271 per 1,000 people

Rapes

#1 South Africa 1.19538 per 1,000 people
#2 Seychelles 0.788294 per 1,000 people
#3 Australia 0.777999 per 1,000 people
#4 Montserrat 0.749384 per 1,000 people
#5 Canada 0.733089 per 1,000 people
#6 Jamaica 0.476608 per 1,000 people
#7 Zimbabwe 0.457775 per 1,000 people
#8 Dominica 0.34768 per 1,000 people
#9 United States 0.301318 per 1,000 people

Assaults

#1 United States 2,238,480
#2 South Africa 535,461
#3 United Kingdom 450,865
#4 Mexico 255,179
#5 India 236,313

Quote:

And then what about the gun companies doing anything they can to get around common sense gun laws and flood the market with guns that ultimately end up in the hands of criminals and gangs.

Could you explain this?

The 1994 law that was not renewed defined an assault weapon as one that had at least two combat features, such as a folding stock, bayonet mount or flash suppressor. By removing some of these the weapons were legal. Same gun. You can always add the features later. It was a poorly written law. I probably would have done the same thing if I was running a gun company.

For now. You can't buy a handgun in San Fransico now. You can't even own one in Massachusetts.

I don't agree with Proposition H.

You guys are sure giving me a working over. But I understand your point of view on the issue. And I think that there are some very responsible gun owners out there. Unfortunately you guys are the minority. That is why there has to be some form of regulation in place.

[garyk]

you can if you pass the background checks.

Metalhead,

The point is, in Oregon at least, you're required to pass a proficiency test for something as unthreatening as a motorboat. How many bystanders have been killed by motorboats recently?

Criminal background checks have absolutely nothing to do with knowing which end of gun to point away from you (and others).

Implementing hunter safety courses didn't end hunting, and I don't think mandatory gun safety training as a condition of purchasing a gun will abolish the 2nd Amendment.
Backgroun

[crabbait]

There is regulation in place. Lots of it. Unfortunately, only law abiding people pay any attention to it.

[Dave's not here]

Stew,If mt Wife got hit by a drunk driver I wouldn't be mad at Ford or Jim Beam . The problem is people want to blanket the blame with guns cars and etc. Blame the people who do the crime not the what they did the crime with.

[Straydog]

I have spent the last 30 years in the gun business. People would be blown away (pun inadvertant, but not bad! ) if they knew how many guns are purchased a year, just in my small territory.

They would be scared if they had witnessed some of the people buying guns that I have over the years.

I am talking people that are really not educated or anywhere as well versed in the safe, responsible handling of firearms as they should be.

Frankly, while I agree that Eddie Eagle, alone, dosen't cut it, I think if an Eddie Eagle like program were taught in every elementary school, we would see less gun violence and more respect for the consequences of mishandling such a powerful tool.

I know......... 'dream on sucker!!'

[2LEYS]

There is regulation in place. Lots of it. Unfortunately, only law abiding people pay any attention to it.

That statement right there sums it up. If you take away the law abiding citizens right to bear arms then the criminals will be the only ones with guns. I wish that the politicians could realize that. Coccaine is illegal but I pretty confident that I could find some in the next 24 hours.

Some info on the British gun control measures.

In a phone interview, Malcolm argued that restrictive British gun laws dating back to 1953 haven't worked in the way legislators intended.

"They have, in fact, had a perverse effect," Malcolm said. "When there were no or relatively few restrictions on guns in Britain, there was a very low level of violent crime. Since the ban on handguns, crime has skyrocketed."

Government statistics released this month showed a year-on-year gun crime increase of 35 percent.

"Current gun laws in Britain are not making people safe," she said.

Per-capita violent crime rates in Britain are now greater than in the United States for all categories except murder and ****, Malcolm said. According to statistics released by British police last year, a Londoner is about six times more likely to be mugged than a New Yorker.

Malcolm said gun laws were part of the larger issue of self-defense and stated that successive British governments have largely done away with the average British citizen's right to self-protection.

"This really is a larger self-defense issue," she said.

Gun restrictions have made burglars and muggers more bold, she said, and pointed to statistics that show only about 13 percent of U.S. burglaries occur when people are at home, compared to 53 percent in England.

If gun laws in Britain were relaxed, Malcolm said, "burglars would never know who would be armed."

I will have to find more data on the violent crime stuff. But violent crime in the U.S. is decreasing while in the gun restricted countries it is increaing. In Britian they are even considering a ban on pointy knives because they are being used in robberies now. And the people can defend themselves against them.

This is a quote from an NRA mag. "Gun controls in the British Isles took hold at the end of a 500-year decline in violent crime. After 50 years of those laws, Scotland is now the most violent country in the deleloped world."

I'll pass on the gun control thing as I think there IS a middle ground.

There IS a middle ground. BUT, both sides will have to give in for this to happen. But in this case, one side wants all guns banned and the other side wants to be able to own almost any firearm.

The pro-gun side wont budge. If they budge first then the anti-gun crowd will take the momentum and try to get an all out ban.

The anti-gun crowd will not budge because they want an all out ban. If they budge first then the pro-gun side will take the momentum and try to get their way. This will never be over.

[2LEYS]

Frankly, while I agree that Eddie Eagle, alone, dosen't cut it, I think if an Eddie Eagle like program were taught in every elementary school, we would see less gun violence and more respect for the consequences of mishandling such a powerful tool.

That would require the schools to "accept" guns as OK.

[Straydog]

Just as guns don't kill people, people do; schools don't accept or not accept guns, people do.

[SteelheadBum2]

Straydog, you also hit the nail on the head Many people think that they will be safer if anti- gun laws are insituted, but this will not happen. If guns are banned for good, criminals will still obtain them illegally anyway. Criminals will also know that the majority of people, who are law abiding citizen's could not legally own a fire arm thus they don't have a defence against an inavder with a illegaly obtained gun, or other proven deadly "non firearm" weapons.

I say make it very hard for a convicted criminal to obtain one; dont take them away all together. Don't be foolish enough to think that our country will change for the better if all citizen's are stripped of their guns. Our government can inforce what ever they want onto us, because they are the ones who own the guns and the standing army.

"Disarmament will stop the people resisting when the powerful take over"

That is my opinion, I'm totally for a limited gun control to prevent convicted criminals from purchasing them with back ground checks, but dont bane them for good