Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I find the amount reported incredible. Their definition includes "estimated" illicit firearms.
There are only 114,800,000 households in the US according to the 2010 US census. I find it hard to believe that there are that many guns per household on average
I suggest that their estimated illicit firearms are inflated.
Found a story on a gallup poll that suggests that 47% of US households have a gun. This seems much more reasonable on this polarizing issue and make sense to me.
I find this thread depressing. I talk about Canada because I have friends who live there and because I have been and it is a beautiful country.
Yeah, we have a gun problem in the US. That does not make our society sick. In fact Canada and the US are very much alike and we also come from the same parent: England.
So it is sad to hear y'all going at each other with snide remarks. Let us deal with our gun problems on our own. If you don't want to visit the US then it will be your loss. The majority of us are pretty nice folks.
Canadian citizens in Iran put themselves in danger to get our citizens out of the country during the hostage crisis and that is why I always stand when I hear "O Canada." It's a sign of love and respect. We are not only related, we are also allies.
If we need to batter another country verbally let's go after France.
Then the law abiding citizen wont have guns and the criminals will. Gee I wonder what will happen then. Its not the gun its the criminal that needs to be dealt with and we have all the laws in the books to deal with them. Inforce the laws we have.
It's not that simple.
It's not going to happen all at once but we can make things better. Gun control will gradually get the guns out of people's hands, good people and bad people both. I don't think many law abiding people really walk around in their homes with guns strapped to them so that they are prepared to shoot criminal intruders.
If they have the guns locked up the way they should be, they wouldn't be able to get to their guns in time anyway. It's a false sense of security.
If fewer guns are in general circulation, there will be fewer guns available for criminals and gradually there won't be that many at all. Rifles for hunting would still be available for true hunters, as they always have been. Why would you need anything else? To kill PEOPLE! That's why.
But it's more complicated than just guns because obviously we need to address the situation of mentally ill people who feel like killing people. Mental institutions that used to contain them were done away with (rightfully so) but nothing was put in their place. If someone like last week's shooter, who had serious mental problems and had become so out of control that his mother had even TOLD people that she could no longer reach him, had a place to live with professional supervision and help, this tragedy could have been prevented.
I think a lot of people are too selfish to give up their guns for the better good---to save the lives of others. All US citizens have a right to live, not to be killed by guns. There are a lot of us who are sick and tired of being bossed around by the gun lovers of this country.
I find this thread depressing. I talk about Canada because I have friends who live there and because I have been and it is a beautiful country.
Yeah, we have a gun problem in the US. That does not make our society sick. In fact Canada and the US are very much alike and we also come from the same parent: England.
So it is sad to hear y'all going at each other with snide remarks. Let us deal with our gun problems on our own. If you don't want to visit the US then it will be your loss. The majority of us are pretty nice folks.
Canadian citizens in Iran put themselves in danger to get our citizens out of the country during the hostage crisis and that is why I always stand when I hear "O Canada." It's a sign of love and respect. We are not only related, we are also allies.
If we need to batter another country verbally let's go after France.
While I might disagree with your selection of France to batter, I agree with everything else you've said. I'm Canadian and when attending a recent Santa caluse parade in Lakeland Fla; I stood when the local military marched by with the Stars and Bars and was astounded at the numbers of people who did not. Also surprising were the folks who didn't button their lip or turn off their cel-phones when the Local Car club played The Star Spangled Banner during a show on the anniversary of Pearl Harbour.
We might treat each other like siblings who don't get along from time to time but we are still family and blood is thicker than water.
While I might disagree with your selection of France to batter, I agree with everything else you've said. I'm Canadian and when attending a recent Santa caluse parade in Lakeland Fla; I stood when the local military marched by with the Stars and Bars and was astounded at the numbers of people who did not. Also surprising were the folks who didn't button their lip or turn off their cel-phones when the Local Car club played The Star Spangled Banner during a show on the anniversary of Pearl Harbour.
We might treat each other like siblings who don't get along from time to time but we are still family and blood is thicker than water.
I agree with your reasoning that the right to bear arms was primarily as a protection against our own government. HOWEVER, we don't allow people to own bazookas, or .50 caliber machineguns, or hand grenades, all of which could be even more effective against our own government. So the argument is not about having ANY gun control, it is about which guns should be controlled.
I think to own or sell a automatic weapon can and should be illegal. I think rifles with more than six-eight round clips should be illegal for everyone but police officers. Saying no to any kind of reasonable control is in effect placing your vote for children dying to protect your right to have a gun that is far beyond home defense. A shotgun will work just fine for that. And if your government is going to use military to "take us over", they will be running Abrams tanks down the street and then you need the bazooka or a LAW. Are you really proposing we let those be legal, because that's the only way you can be sure citizens can fight a modern, technologically advanced military?
in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms makes no mention of allowing people to own bazookas, .50 caliber machine guns or hand grenades (which would certainly serve citizens far more effectively against the government should the citizenry decide) maybe because in 1791 the available arms
did not include bazookas, .50 caliber machine guns or hand grenades.
The Right to Bear Ye Olde Arms
The ACS/Federalist Society-sponsored discussion/debate on DC v. Heller – the first SCOTUS case since 1939 to address the meaning of the Second Amendment – won't begin for another 2 hours, but I am prepared to upstage the speakers by offering a workable solution for Second Amendment jurisprudence in the 21st Century.
My proposal: The Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms as such arms existed at the ratification.
Arms in 1791
Let's look at arms – specifically, guns – as they existed at the time of the ratification.
Guns in 1791 WOULD
...be made by a gunsmith.
...have rudimentary rifling.
...be single-shot weapons.
...be loaded through the muzzle.
...fire by means of a flintlock.
Guns in 1791 WOULD NOT
...have interchangeable parts. (Popularized in 1798)
...be revolvers. (Invented in 1835)
...be breachloaded. (Popularized in 1810)
...use smokeless powder. (Invented in 1885)
...use a percussion cap, necessary for modern cartridged bullets. (Invented in 1842)
...load bullets from a clip. (Invented in 1890)
Courts can't wish the Second Amendment away, but they can construe it in a manner that works in today's society.
Then the law abiding citizen wont have guns and the criminals will. Gee I wonder what will happen then.
Its not the gun its the criminal that needs to be dealt with and we have all the laws in the books to deal with them.
Inforce the laws we have.
This old lame argument is a pure BS. Nothing will happen then.
More laws will not reduce your crime rate. Social programs and rehabilitation will, and they are cheaper than paying to house people in jails and having to pay for the many externalized costs associated with the crime rate.
Wrong, they will.
Social programs and reabilitation for whom: For wachos who kill dozens innocent people before they blow their own brains? No social programs or rehabilitation will help them in this "chronic" condition.
Many people who commit gun related crimes were considered to be law abiding citizens, just maybe a little polite, quite and shy. How do you know they need rehabilitation before they commit a crime? Do you want to screen any citizen starting with age of three for a possible future event of a psychotic reaction?
Maybe, social programs and rehabilitation may help in some cases, but only as an additional measure to strict gun laws. In no way will they substitute gun laws.
Social programs and reabilitation for whom: For wachos who kill dozens innocent people before they blow their own brains? No social programs or rehabilitation will help them in this "chronic" condition.
Many people who commit gun related crimes were considered to be law abiding citizens, just maybe a little polite, quite and shy. How do you know they need rehabilitation before they commit a crime? Do you want to screen any citizen starting with age of three for a possible future event of a psychotic reaction?
Maybe, social programs and rehabilitation may help in some cases, but only as an additional measure to strict gun laws. In no way will they substitute gun laws.
Oh, I didn't mean to suggest they were a substitute, by all means, I support reasonable gun control programs (although the LGR was poorly executed). What I'm saying is the violent crime rate in the US is multi-factorial and is, in some ways, the result of a mentality that the vulnerable are on their own and society ought not offer them support. I'm saying that in a myriad of fields, from free mental health programs, poverty reduction measures that eliminate the incentives for crime, anti-bullying campaigns etc., building a kinder, gentler society reduces the number of people who are going to go on to commit violent crimes. That's a piece of the puzzle.
Hardly, the LGR covered only single shot rifles. Most weapons are still strictly controled.
No. The LGR covered most non-restricted firearms, which includes single-shot, bolt-action, pump-action, lever-action, semi-automatic and falling-block action rifles and shotguns. Crossbows, most air rifles, paintball guns and flintlock rifles were exempt from the registry.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We the People of The United States...
How do you know they need rehabilitation before they commit a crime? Do you want to screen any citizen starting with age of three for a possible future event of a psychotic reaction?
