Americans Speak on Gun Control

[Gunny]

When madmen go on killing sprees in America, they use guns. Inevitably, in the aftermath, the arguments about gun control begin. But a poll conducted in the days after the Virginia Tech massacre found that the majority of Americans don't fully align themselves with either the pro- or anti-gun arguments.

The MSN-Zogby poll found that 59 percent of Americans do not believe stricter gun control policies would have prevented Cho Seung-Hui from killing 32 people and then himself in the worst mass murder in America's history. The poll found that only 36 percent of those polled believe stronger gun control could have prevented the shootings.

However, arming more Americans with guns is not the answer either, most people say. Slightly more than half of those polled—54 percent—say that more guns would not stop killing sprees. Thirty-eight percent believe a better-armed populace could help prevent such mayhem. (The interactive survey of 1,336 adults nationwide was conducted April 17-18, 2007, and carries a margin of error of +/- 2.7 percentage points.)

Despite the noisy debate that is likely to occur in the coming weeks and months about gun rights, only a minority of Americans believes the massacre in Virginia will lead to more gun control. Nearly half—45 percent—do not think the deaths will result in stricter gun laws, and another 40 percent are unsure whether changes would occur.

The most vocal and powerful opponent of gun restrictions, the National Rifle Association, so far has been quiet on the issue, offering only a brief statement on its Web site of condolence to those who lost loved ones on the Blacksburg, Va., campus.

But others groups, from both sides of the gun control issue, are speaking out: "We're all in a state of shock and very sad at what happened," says Daniel Vice, senior attorney for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. "Now is not the time to be raising political questions, but soon our country will have to ask why do we make it so easy for dangerous people to get access to these high firepower weapons. … What we're doing now certainly is not working. We have very weak gun laws, and 32 people plus the gunman were killed in this shooting. But 30 people are killed in gun homicides every day."

Meanwhile, a gun advocacy group, the Second Amendment Foundation, issued this statement: "80 million law-abiding gun owners in this country did not go to Virginia Tech or some other college campus yesterday to unleash carnage. They have harmed no one, and their civil rights should not be erased in response."

According to 2004 statistics, the most recent available, of all the deaths in the U.S. more than 11,500 were from gun-related homicides, and 16,750 people committed suicide by firearm. There's no official count of the number of guns in America, but one survey estimates that the number is 192 million.
cont ...http://men.msn.com/articlepollgc.aspx?cp-documentid=4732850&gt1=9311

[Gaffer]

We these killers are all registered gun owners with permits for concealed carry, then its time to worry about more gun controls.

[loosecannon]

We these killers are all registered gun owners with permits for concealed carry, then its time to worry about more gun controls.

I swear to God he actually said that, and only God has any idea wtf he meant.

[Abbey Marie]

Guess which side of the debate Granny's on?

Armed Miss America 1944 stops intruder
Fri Apr 20, 8:16 PM ET

WAYNESBURG, Ky. - Miss America 1944 has a talent that likely has never appeared on a beauty pageant stage: She fired a handgun to shoot out a vehicle's tires and stop an intruder.

Venus Ramey, 82, confronted a man on her farm in south-central Kentucky last week after she saw her dog run into a storage building where thieves had previously made off with old farm equipment.

Ramey said the man told her he would leave. "I said, 'Oh, no you won't,' and I shot their tires so they couldn't leave," Ramey said.

She had to balance on her walker as she pulled out a snub-nosed .38-caliber handgun.
"I didn't even think twice. I just went and did it," she said. "If they'd even dared come close to me, they'd be 6 feet under by now."

Ramey then flagged down a passing motorist, who called 911.

Curtis Parrish of Ohio was charged with misdemeanor trespassing, Deputy Dan Gilliam said. The man's hometown wasn't immediately available. Three other people were questioned but were not arrested.
...

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20070420/capt.b7124e2091a3401d9099e61867732065.brave_beauty _queen_kytij103.jpg?x=179&y=236&sig=u5_ZOsJZZ6mbGpF5qNu3hQ--

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070421/ap_on_re_us/brave_beauty_queen

[Trigg]

Guess which side of the debate Granny's on?

Armed Miss America 1944 stops intruder
Fri Apr 20, 8:16 PM ET

WAYNESBURG, Ky. - Miss America 1944 has a talent that likely has never appeared on a beauty pageant stage: She fired a handgun to shoot out a vehicle's tires and stop an intruder.

Venus Ramey, 82, confronted a man on her farm in south-central Kentucky last week after she saw her dog run into a storage building where thieves had previously made off with old farm equipment.

Ramey said the man told her he would leave. "I said, 'Oh, no you won't,' and I shot their tires so they couldn't leave," Ramey said.

She had to balance on her walker as she pulled out a snub-nosed .38-caliber handgun.
"I didn't even think twice. I just went and did it," she said. "If they'd even dared come close to me, they'd be 6 feet under by now."

Ramey then flagged down a passing motorist, who called 911.

Curtis Parrish of Ohio was charged with misdemeanor trespassing, Deputy Dan Gilliam said. The man's hometown wasn't immediately available. Three other people were questioned but were not arrested.
...

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20070420/capt.b7124e2091a3401d9099e61867732065.brave_beauty _queen_kytij103.jpg?x=179&y=236&sig=u5_ZOsJZZ6mbGpF5qNu3hQ--

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070421/ap_on_re_us/brave_beauty_queen


I just read this story today and I had to clap. GOOD FOR HER!!!!!!!!

[Trigg]

As far as gun control, my husband and I disagree and it is a subject that we don't discuss.

I agree with people have rifles and shotguns.

Handguns, on the other hand, are only meant to kill other people. They're not for hunting (the husband has brought up trapping, but for the other 98% of the people that's not a reason). I don't like handguns.

I do agree with people who say only the people getting them legally would give them up and I agree. STILL DO NOT LIKE HANDGUNS.

[Hobbit]

As far as gun control, my husband and I disagree and it is a subject that we don't discuss.

I agree with people have rifles and shotguns.

Handguns, on the other hand, are only meant to kill other people. They're not for hunting (the husband has brought up trapping, but for the other 98% of the people that's not a reason). I don't like handguns.

I do agree with people who say only the people getting them legally would give them up and I agree. STILL DO NOT LIKE HANDGUNS.

For the last frickin' time, the purpose of the Second Ammendment IS NOT HUNTING! The purpose of the Second Ammendment is to place the power of lethal force in the hands of everyday citizens so that they may protect themselves from criminals and, in extreme cases, overthrow the government. The purpose of handguns, that is, to kill human beings, is right in line with the purpose of the Second Ammendment.

[gabosaurus]

The purpose of handguns is to kill human beings. For whatever damm reason you wish to kill them for. You could be defending your property. Of you could just get angry with the guy drinking beer next to you.
Let's say you are waiting for a light to change and the guy next to you makes a disparaging comment about Houston Nutt. You take your gun out and blow his head off.
Look at what happened at the Johnson Space Center yesterday. Some poor schmuck got a bad job review from his supervisor. The answer, of course, was to bring in a gun and blast the idjut. He'll never threaten anyone's job again!
Or the couple who came home drunk from a party. They had an argument that had the man making a few choice, tasteless remarks. The woman grabbed a gun out of her drawer and killer. Told the police that she "made a poor choice."
Demasculating much? :laugh2:

[Hobbit]

First off, if somebody said something bad about Houston Nutt, I'd buy him a drink. Second off, what about the millions of robberies, rapes, and murders stopped every year by law-abiding citizens in possession of a handgun? Are we supposed to tell them they have no right to protect themselves just so we can maybe stop a couple fo murders every year, most of which would probably still happen, anyway?

[gabosaurus]

Millions, Hobbit? Millions?
Get a grip! You have fallen victim to hysteria.

[5stringJeff]

Millions, Hobbit? Millions?
Get a grip! You have fallen victim to hysteria.

Scholars estimate 2.5 million crimes are deterred every year because of the presence of a gun. Most are never reported.

[theHawk]

As far as gun control, my husband and I disagree and it is a subject that we don't discuss.

I agree with people have rifles and shotguns.

Handguns, on the other hand, are only meant to kill other people. They're not for hunting (the husband has brought up trapping, but for the other 98% of the people that's not a reason). I don't like handguns.

I do agree with people who say only the people getting them legally would give them up and I agree. STILL DO NOT LIKE HANDGUNS.

Some people, as the above story illustrates, aren't capable of handling a large shotgun or rifle. Handguns give the power to defend oneself to little meek old ladies and handicapped people as well. God forbid the weak be given a chance to survive by defending themselves, as much as Darwinian nutcases might hate it.

[Mr. P]

Trigg, many hunters hunt with handguns. But like Hobbit said, the second is NOT about hunting.

[Gaffer]

Guns are an intimidation factor. Someone with a gun more often uses it to intimidate others to stay away or go away. It's also used to commit crimes where the victim is unarmed.

People that don't like guns are intimidated by those that have them because they have no power over those people.

[Trigg]

Trigg, many hunters hunt with handguns. But like Hobbit said, the second is NOT about hunting.

Hunting with handguns is the exception, not the rule.

Also, I understand what the 2nd ammendment is, I simply don't agree with handguns.

A rifle/shotgun is a much more affective way to protect oneself, and little children can't accidently shoot each other with them. They're also harder to do a drive by with.

[5stringJeff]

A rifle/shotgun is a much more affective way to protect oneself, and little children can't accidently shoot each other with them. They're also harder to do a drive by with.

Handguns are much easier (and more effective) in close quarters, such as a bedroom. Rifles are harder to wield, and shotguns can cause collateral damage.

Little kids die much less frequently from handguns than you might think. IIRC, it's an average of something like one per day.

[Trigg]

Handguns are much easier (and more effective) in close quarters, such as a bedroom. Rifles are harder to wield, and shotguns can cause collateral damage.

Little kids die much less frequently from handguns than you might think. IIRC, it's an average of something like one per day.

Trust me I understand the arguments here. My husband and I have this one in the don't discuss pile.

Never the less. I don't like handguns and I really do wish they were MUCH harder to get.

Rifles/shotguns are harder to use, kind of my point. People aren't going to walk up to you on the street with one and drivebys would probably be a thing of the past.

[manu1959]

Trust me I understand the arguments here. My husband and I have this one in the don't discuss pile.

Never the less. I don't like handguns and I really do wish they were MUCH harder to get.

Rifles/shotguns are harder to use, kind of my point. People aren't going to walk up to you on the street with one and drivebys would probably be a thing of the past.

drive by dudes use mac10's and spray the street....mac10s are illegal

[Trigg]

drive by dudes use mac10's and spray the street....mac10s are illegal

Alrighty then...............learn something new everyday.

[Mr. P]

Hunting with handguns is the exception, not the rule.

Also, I understand what the 2nd ammendment is, I simply don't agree with handguns.

A rifle/shotgun is a much more affective way to protect oneself, and little children can't accidently shoot each other with them. They're also harder to do a drive by with.

Yea know what? I seen far fewer kids injured or killed buy a firearm than I have seen killed by the hands of an adult.

I don't think you know much about guns because of the above statement about rifles/shotguns and kids. You're not alone, most folks without real hands on knowledge are like that, and they are afraid of firearms of any kind.

[Trigg]

Yea know what? I seen far fewer kids injured or killed buy a firearm than I have seen killed by the hands of an adult.

I don't think you know much about guns because of the above statement about rifles/shotguns and kids. You're not alone, most folks without real hands on knowledge are like that, and they are afraid of firearms of any kind.

Where did I say kids are not killed more often by an adult than by firearms??????

As for the second, wrong again. I have plenty of knowledge. My father was a dedicated deer hunter and I know how to handle and shoot the rifles he has. I am also damn good at skeet shooting, thank you very much. My husband owns a 22, which I am fine with.

I JUST DON"T LIKE HANDGUNS, AND I WOULD LIKE THEM TO BE HARDER TO GET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Joe Steel]

Handguns exist to make killing fast, safe and easy. They have no place in civilized society.

[Hobbit]

Handguns exist to make killing fast, safe and easy. They have no place in civilized society.

Problem is, the cat's out of the bag, and the military and cops need them, anyway, so you have to either remove handguns from the hands of all the normal citizens, leaving only police, soldiers, and criminals with them, or you're going to have to let the normal citizens have them to protect them from the criminals. No matter what it's intended purpose is, a tool is exactly as good as its user.

And Trigg, what's the benchmark you want to set? How hard do you think they should be to get? Right now, to get anything other than a crappy target shooter that isn't even semi-automatic, you need a 3-day waiting period and a background check. In addition to that, you have to either acquire a conceal carry permit, which is typically pretty difficult to get for anybody who hasn't lived a squeaky clean life, or keep the thing in plain sight at all times. What do you want to add to that and how to you justify these changes?

And yes, machine pistols are the mainstay of drivebys, be it an Ingram M10 (MAC10) or a Glock 18. These are very illegal.

[Trigg]

And Trigg, what's the benchmark you want to set? How hard do you think they should be to get? Right now, to get anything other than a crappy target shooter that isn't even semi-automatic, you need a 3-day waiting period and a background check. In addition to that, you have to either acquire a conceal carry permit, which is typically pretty difficult to get for anybody who hasn't lived a squeaky clean life, or keep the thing in plain sight at all times. What do you want to add to that and how to you justify these changes?

And yes, machine pistols are the mainstay of drivebys, be it an Ingram M10 (MAC10) or a Glock 18. These are very illegal.

I never could figure out why it's so terrible that I think handguns should only be allowed for the military or police. Why is that so bad????? That leaves rifles and shotguns for the hunters and home security.

Instead of making handguns harder to get how about limiting who can buy bullets for them? That would idealy leave only the law abiding people buying the ammo for their legally accuired handgun.

Other than that suggestion, I guess I'll quit this argument. As mentioned before this is a no go topic for my husband and I since we disagree completely.

[Mr. P]

Where did I say kids are not killed more often by an adult than by firearms??????

As for the second, wrong again. I have plenty of knowledge. My father was a dedicated deer hunter and I know how to handle and shoot the rifles he has. I am also damn good at skeet shooting, thank you very much. My husband owns a 22, which I am fine with.

I JUST DON"T LIKE HANDGUNS, AND I WOULD LIKE THEM TO BE HARDER TO GET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

See "I don't like them" is NOT a valid reason to restrict others..pretty lame, IMO.
Why don't you like them? Legally, they're not all that easy to get now...How many barriers would you like to see? What would make 'you' happy, Why?

[Mr. P]

Handguns exist to make killing fast, safe and easy. They have no place in civilized society.

:laugh2: :link: :lame2:

[Joe Steel]

Problem is, the cat's out of the bag, and the military and cops need them, anyway, so you have to either remove handguns from the hands of all the normal citizens, leaving only police, soldiers, and criminals with them, or you're going to have to let the normal citizens have them to protect them from the criminals. No matter what it's intended purpose is, a tool is exactly as good as its user.

But it multiplies its user's capacity for evil. Seung-Hui Cho probably would have lived and died an unknown except for the guns.

[Mr. P]

But it multiplies its user's capacity for evil. Seung-Hui Cho probably would have lived and died an unknown except for the guns.

Coulda been a knife, no?

[Hobbit]

But it multiplies its user's capacity for evil. Seung-Hui Cho probably would have lived and died an unknown except for the guns.

He probably would have just made a bomb, or acquired the guns illegally. I could do a lot more damage than he did from stuff you can find at your neighborhood grocery store.

In fact, the guns he used were about the least lethal things you could pick up. If I had to be shot, but I got to pick the gun I would be shot with, I'd pick the .22 pistol he used.

[Joe Steel]

Coulda been a knife, no?

No. He couldn't have done as much damage.

Guns with high-capacity magazines are made for what Cho did and they're easy to get in Virginia.

Virginia is for killers.

[Gunny]

Handguns exist to make killing fast, safe and easy. They have no place in civilized society.

Neither do uncivilized people.

[Gunny]

But it multiplies its user's capacity for evil. Seung-Hui Cho probably would have lived and died an unknown except for the guns.

Not if he was trained to use a samurai sword. Where there's a will, there's a way.

[Gunny]

No. He couldn't have done as much damage.

Guns with high-capacity magazines are made for what Cho did and they're easy to get in Virginia.

Virginia is for killers.

I love this blame the inanimate object argument. What happened at VT is a perfect example of a criminal who is going to be armed anyway vs a disarmed citizenry.

[Gaffer]

I love this blame the inanimate object argument. What happened at VT is a perfect example of a criminal who is going to be armed anyway vs a disarmed citizenry.

Exactly, well said.

[Hobbit]

If guns cause crime, forks cause obesity.

[Pale Rider]

The purpose of handguns is to kill human beings. For whatever damm reason you wish to kill them for. You could be defending your property. Of you could just get angry with the guy drinking beer next to you.
Let's say you are waiting for a light to change and the guy next to you makes a disparaging comment about Houston Nutt. You take your gun out and blow his head off.
Look at what happened at the Johnson Space Center yesterday. Some poor schmuck got a bad job review from his supervisor. The answer, of course, was to bring in a gun and blast the idjut. He'll never threaten anyone's job again!
Or the couple who came home drunk from a party. They had an argument that had the man making a few choice, tasteless remarks. The woman grabbed a gun out of her drawer and killer. Told the police that she "made a poor choice."
Demasculating much? :laugh2:

So... according to you.... so far you've said that making one wear their underwear on their head is the same as sawing someone's head off. Now... you're comparing legaly protecting your life with some idiot, breaking the law packin' a loaded piece in his car and blowing someone's head off just because he gets pissed?

You are one fucked up girl. Probably the MOST fucked up person I know. You're reasoning is completely out to lunch.

[Pale Rider]

If guns cause crime, forks cause obesity.

And it's your keyboards fault you misspell words.

[Hobbit]

And it's your keyboards fault you misspell words.

Yeah, words like "keyboard's."

[Pale Rider]

Yeah, words like "keyboard's."


Hey, I ain't the one who's denying what mother nature has set right in front of my eyes and calling it a chauvanistic conspiracy. Hell, even loosecannon isn't asking me for links that tell how men are more aggressive and competitive, and she? is usually a jerk about that kind of thing. You don't have a high ground to go to here, missie. I also seem to remember something about 'pugnacious men who can't stand having a woman blah blah blah.' That seemed like a personal insult.

Oh, and you are a nagging harpy. Inane means empty. My personal insult has meaning.

Yup... and like "chauvinistic."

[Joe Steel]

I love this blame the inanimate object argument. What happened at VT is a perfect example of a criminal who is going to be armed anyway vs a disarmed citizenry.

Nobody's blaming the object. We're saying the object made the deed easier. Easy things happen more frequently than hard things. If we made killing hard it wouldn't happen as often.

[KitchenKitten99]

I can't see anyone here posting about legal gun shows. Collectors gather and sell to the public, and as far as I know, they only ask for ID for age. Background checks take longer than the number of days the gun shows are on and cost money.

[shattered]

And it's your keyboards fault you misspell words.

Noo.. Gunny says that I pushed misspelled words through his IP.. They're spelled correctly when he types them, but by the time they get posted....

So, it can't be the typists fault.. Has to be mine.

:cool:

[Mr. P]

I can't see anyone here posting about legal gun shows. Collectors gather and sell to the public, and as far as I know, they only ask for ID for age. Background checks take longer than the number of days the gun shows are on and cost money.

No they can't just buy at a gun show. The sellers are licensed dealers. They do background checks there like anywhere else, and background checks only take minutes (most of the time) it's all computerized.

[KitchenKitten99]

No they can't just buy at a gun show. The sellers are licensed dealers. They do background checks there like anywhere else, and background checks only take minutes (most of the time) it's all computerized.

I have been to a few, and about half of the vendors that weren't licensed dealers. They were collectors and hobbyists.

[Mr. P]

I have been to a few, and about half of the vendors that weren't licensed dealers. They were collectors and hobbyists.

Collectors fall in a different category than dealers. Typically collectible firearms do not require background checks for various reasons. Basically it amounts to the firearm being non-usable.