H. R. 1022

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

I may not be understanding you correctly, but why is the collecting issue dumb? People collect guitars, hummels and some even collect pirate memorabilia. What's so wrong about collecting guns? And furthermore, what's wrong with collecting grenades or rpgs if they are used in a law abiding and and non-life threatening manner?

 

I can see your point about the tactical nuke though. It's just really tough to find a range where you could light one of those off.

 

 

I think i'm going to start collecting biological and chemical weapons. Anyone got a spare vial of bubonic plague or maybe some VX nerve gas they can't seem to get rid of on e-Bay?

[Furd]

Yes, I'd feel much better if my skull was blown apart by a legitimate weapon as opposed to an illegitimate weapon.

 

Ban all guns...period.

 

 

 

Okay. So no rifles for hunting or target shooting?

[TimC]

Only the Gubment should have weapons and control what we put in our bodies. I trust them 100% to save ourselves from ourselves.

 

Everyone march in step!

[DMD]

Only the Gubment should have weapons and control what we put in our bodies. I trust them 100% to save ourselves from ourselves.

 

Everyone march in step!

 

 

Why do I picture you wearing a bandolier of ammo and a beret while holding a carton of cigarettes and saying "viva la revolution?"

[TimC]

Why do I picture you wearing a bandolier of ammo and a beret while holding a carton of cigarettes and saying "viva la revolution?"

 

 

Where are you hiding the camera?

[Savage Beatings]

Why do I picture you wearing a bandolier of ammo and a beret while holding a carton of cigarettes and saying "viva la revolution?"

 

 

Badges? We don't need no stinking badges!

[Front Row]

Yes, I'd feel much better if my skull was blown apart by a legitimate weapon as opposed to an illegitimate weapon.

 

Ban all guns...period.

Surely you jest. The entire meaning of the term "assault weapon" has been misused to the extent that any semi-automatic rifle is considered an "assault weapon" by the ignorant. In fact, many ignorant people even think the term "semi-automatic" is synonymous with "fully-automatic". Those opposed to these rifles are simply uninformed. Period.

[i_am_the_swammi]

Those opposed to theseANY rifles, guns or weapons are simply uninformed looking out for the best interest of the majority. Period.

 

 

Fixed.

[i_am_the_swammi]

Okay. So no rifles for hunting or target shooting?

 

 

hate to say it, but yes, since there are too many people who abuse guns, they should be banned.

 

In my opinion, two of our biggest social concerns are drugs and guns. Our country has outlawed drugs not because of the damage they do to a person thru use, but the damage they do to the fabric of our nation thru illicit sales and mis-use. While many recreational users pose no threat to the overall health of our nation, they are none-the-less banned legally.

 

In my mind, guns should follow the same argument.

 

And don't go throwing the constitution at the argument...it was written 230 years ago, in a completely different enviornment...even slavery was legal at that time.

 

Times change...as a worried father of four that my kids might be shot by anyone (hunter/criminal/friend playing with guns), its time for our nation to put its foot down....though some in the minority might object, the majority of Americans would be thrilled if Congress stopped the production of guns altogether.

 

JMO...

[bushwacked]

 

In my opinion, two of our biggest social concerns are drugs and guns. Our country has outlawed drugs not because of the damage they do to a person thru use, but the damage they do to the fabric of our nation thru illicit sales and mis-use. While many recreational users pose no threat to the overall health of our nation, they are none-the-less banned legally.

 

In my mind, guns should follow the same argument.

 

 

 

 

I think the most drugs should be legalized to some degree and equating guns to drugs is extremely flawed anyway.

[HowboutthemCowboys]

....though some in the minority might object, the majority of Americans would be thrilled if Congress stopped the production of guns altogether.

 

 

If you believe what you typed you're kidding yourself.

 

Outlaw guns and only the Outlaws will have guns.

[yo mama]

Outlaw guns and only the Outlaws will have guns.

 

Wouldn't that make it easier for the cops to find the bad guys?

[Front Row]

JMO...

I think that your opinion on guns is formed by emotion. I'm not belittlling your opinion just trying to comprehend how you came about your conclusion .

 

No need to take OUR guns IMO, just prosecute to the fullest extent of the law the criminals that USE guns in commiting crimes. Pretty easy really.

 

This is a pretty good analogy imo.

"***Analogy of HR1022*** I think we should ban automobiles since they are responsible for more than 40,000 deaths on America's highways each year. Yeah, ban the cars - it's not the driver's fault even if they are drunk or a felon. It's those evil car's fault, especially those real fast, expensive ones that go over 65mph and use a lot of bullets; I mean gasoline. Yeah, then let's start suing the car manufacturers because they produced a deadly weapon that exceeds 65mph - yeah, it's their fault not the drivers fault. I think we should start the ban with cars that are valued at more than $3000 because those are the real "evil" ones with all those "evil" parts, things like "high capacity" gas tanks, "muzzle" disc-brakes, "pistol-grip" stick shifters, "collapsible/folding" convertible tops, and "detachable" radios. Yeah - it's those ones we need to ban with all those "evil" parts. Yeah, that'll stop the deaths on our highways. Yeah, that'll do it. *** Analogy of HR1022 ***"

[HowboutthemCowboys]

Wouldn't that make it easier for the cops to find the bad guys?

 

No.

 

Worried that even showing a starting pistol in a car ad might encourage gun crime in Britain, the British communications regulator has banned a Ford Motor Co. television spot because in it a woman is pictured holding such a "weapon." According to a report by Bloomberg News, the ad was said by regulators to "normalize" the use of guns and "must not be shown again."

 

What's next? Toy guns? Actually, the British government this year has been debating whether to ban toy guns. As a middle course, some unspecified number of imitation guns will be banned, and it will be illegal to take imitation guns into public places.

 

And in July a new debate erupted over whether those who own shotguns must now justify their continued ownership to the government before they will get a license.

 

The irony is that after gun laws are passed and crime rises, no one asks whether the original laws actually accomplished their purpose. Instead, it is automatically assumed that the only "problem" with past laws was they didn't go far enough. But now what is there left to do? Perhaps the country can follow Australia's recent lead and ban ceremonial swords.

 

Despite the attention that imitation weapons are getting, they account for a miniscule fraction of all violent crime (0.02%) and in recent years only about 6% of firearms offenses. But with crime so serious, Labor needs to be seen as doing something. The government recently reported that gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled in the four years from 1998-99 to 2002-03.

 

Crime was not supposed to rise after handguns were banned in 1997. Yet, since 1996 the serious violent crime rate has soared by 69%: robbery is up by 45% and murders up by 54%. Before the law, armed robberies had fallen by 50% from 1993 to 1997, but as soon as handguns were banned the robbery rate shot back up, almost back to their 1993 levels.

 

The 2000 International Crime Victimization Survey, the last survey done, shows the violent-crime rate in England and Wales was twice the rate in the U.S. When the new survey for 2004 comes out, that gap will undoubtedly have widened even further as crimes reported to British police have since soared by 35%, while declining 6% in the U.S.

The high crime rates have so strained resources that 29% of the time in London it takes police longer than 12 minutes to arrive at the scene. No wonder police nearly always arrive on the crime scene after the crime has been committed.

 

As understandable as the desire to "do something" is, Britain seems to have already banned most weapons that can help commit a crime. Yet, it is hard to see how the latest proposals will accomplish anything.

 

• Banning guns that fire blanks and some imitation guns. Even if guns that fire blanks are converted to fire bullets, they would be lucky to fire one or two bullets and most likely pose more danger to the shooter than the victim. Rather than replace the barrel and the breach, it probably makes more sense to simply build a new gun.

 

• Making it very difficult to get a license for a shotgun and banning those under 18 from using shotguns also adds little. Ignoring the fact that shotguns make excellent self-defense weapons, they are so rarely used in crime, that the Home Office's report doesn't even provide a breakdown of crimes committed with shotguns.

 

Britain is not alone in its experience with banning guns. Australia has also seen its violent crime rates soar to rates similar to Britain's after its 1996 Port Arthur gun control measures. Violent crime rates averaged 32% higher in the six years after the law was passed (from 1997 to 2002) than they did the year before the law in 1995. The same comparisons for armed robbery rates showed increases of 74%.

[DMD]

Banning all guns will never, ever happen and even if such folly was attempted it would result in no lowering of crime. I can assure you that no one I ever grew up with would ever turn in their firearms. Just would never happen.

 

The attitude towards guns has much to do with what you grew up with and where you live.

 

This is an interesting article that discusses how different parts of the country view gun ownership.

 

From the SF Chronicle (which is in the heart of "non-gun country" so if it slanted in any way, it would be towards gun control since I believe guns are banned in SF despite actually having gun crimes)

 

Rights and regulations

Americans want firearms -- and federal restrictions, poll finds

 

By HARVY LIPMAN

Copyright 1997 Albany Times Union

 

ALBANY, N.Y. -- Most Americans think the average citizen should have the right to own a handgun, but they also want the government to regulate gun ownership.

 

Nearly two-thirds of Americans think the Constitution should guarantee that right. About half say handgun ownership should be "government-controlled" -- and half of those who feel that way think those controls should come at the federal level.

 

 

Paul Buckowski photos / Albany Times Union

A gun buyer fills out a federal Firearms Transaction Record Part 1 as the gun seller does paperwork for a .22-cliber rifle in New York state.

Those are the key findings of a national survey of Americans' attitudes about guns conducted for The Hearst Newspapers by International Communications Research.

 

One in five Americans owns a handgun. About one-third have owned a handgun at some time in their lives, and almost half have owned some type of gun. Nearly 60 percent of gun owners got their first gun by their 20th birthday.

 

The attitudes expressed in the poll come from a society that has conflicting views of firearms. There's wide disagreement, for example, between Northeasterners -- who are most anti-handgun and pro-gun control -- and Southerners.

 

"There's a competing set of positive and negative symbols attached to guns in this country," notes Tom W. Smith, director of the General Social Survey at the University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center -- which collects data on public opinion for academics around the country.

 

"The negative, of course, is that guns are used to commit crimes," Smith says. "But on the positive side you have our history, the frontier."

 

Whether it's because Americans grew up watching John Wayne and Clint Eastwood or learning about the Minutemen at Concord, the result is that most simply believe they have the right to own a gun. It's as ingrained in the national culture as the idea that people should be free to travel wherever they want.

 

In fact, Smith says, there's a great similarity between U.S. attitudes toward guns and automobiles.

 

"They believe, just like you license drivers, regulate cars and subject them to safety checks, there should be a parallel set of regulations for guns." But, Smith says, "If you take it a step further and ask, `Should we allow the average, law-abiding citizen to own a gun?' they're for it, just as they think the average, safe driver should be allowed to own a car."

 

Nearly three out of four Americans oppose banning people from owning handguns (more than 60 percent, however, want to see assault rifles and automatic weapons banned). Half think having a gun in the home makes it safer for the people who live there versus about one-third who feel the opposite way.

 

Despite this broad support for keeping gun ownership legal, more than half think it should be "government-controlled."

 

Two-thirds think the current laws vary too much from state to state, and about half would solve the problem by putting gun control completely in the hands of the federal government. About half think the current gun regulations aren't strict, even though slightly more Americans think they're adequate than think they're inadequate.

 

Nelson Lund, a law professor at George Mason University Law School in Virginia, says those last numbers don't necessarily conflict with each other. Lund, an expert on the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution -- which deals with the right to bear arms -- suggested the American people have a "common sense" approach which says they want gun laws, but not strict ones.

 

"People don't see major problems being caused by gun control laws, and they don't see major problems being solved by stronger gun control laws," Lund says.

 

Or as Tom Wyld, director of public relations for the National Rifle Association, puts it, "People favor reasonable laws as long as they're enforced reasonably."

 

Most people agree, however, on a range of actions they'd like to see government take. Overwhelming majorities think gun companies should be required to put safety devices such as trigger locks on their weapons to makes sure they can't be fired by anyone but the owner. They also think gun manufacturers should be subjected to consumer safety regulations which would make sure the weapons work the way they're supposed to and are put together correctly.

 

Most think anyone who wants to buy a gun should have to attend a clinic on how to properly use one. Nearly 90 percent agree with the provision of the federal Brady Law requiring that gun buyers wait five days before the sale goes through so that their backgrounds can be checked by law enforcement.

 

There's also widespread agreement that felons and known drug users should be barred from owning guns. More than half would take away a convicted drunken driver's right to have a firearm.

 

Those national figures supporting gun ownership and government regulation, however, hide a range of divergent views between different regions, those who live in cities and those who don't, men and women, blacks and whites, and, of course, gun owners and non-gun owners.

 

People who live in the Northeast (New England and the Mid-Atlantic states) are far less likely to have ever owned a gun than those in the rest of the country. Fewer than one in seven Northeasterners has been a handgun owner, compared with almost one-third of Westerners and 40 percent of Southerners.

 

The South is the only region where a clear majority say having a gun in your home makes it safer to live there; all the other regions split on that question. Southerners are also more likely to keep guns in several locations (in their cars, for instance, at work or even carried with them) in addition to having them at home.

 

The Northeast is the only region where a majority of people favor government control of handguns. More than 60 percent of Northeasterners back handgun regulations of some sort. It's also the only region where more people think gun laws are inadequate rather than adequate.

 

Those from the Northeast who have owned guns are the most likely to have kept them locked up, and -- perhaps as a result -- they're only about one-third as likely as the rest of the nation's gun owners to have had one stolen.

 

At least some of the difference between attitudes in the Northeast and the rest of the country may be caused because it's the most urbanized part of the nation -- and city dwellers have very different attitudes about guns than those living in the suburbs or rural communities.

 

For example, nearly 40 percent of all the Americans who say they've ever owned a handgun live in a rural area, even though people in rural communities make up less than 30 percent of the nation's population. Several sociologists and public opinion pollsters pointed out that the most important factor in determining people's feelings about guns is whether they grew up in a home where firearms were kept.

 

Many cities have tough laws limiting who can own a gun; most rural communities don't. People who live in the country can often hunt nearby; city dwellers have to drive, often for hours, to get to places where hunting is legal. So it's not surprising that people in rural areas are far more likely to have grown up in a culture where guns are commonplace. And that's reflected in the split in opinions about guns between Americans who live in cities and those who live in rural areas.

 

For example, more than 60 percent of big-city residents (those in cities with 500,000 people or more) favor gun control; only about 40 percent of rural residents do. Those percentages flip on the question of whether having a gun in the home makes it safer: Sixty percent of rural residents say it does, but only 40 percent of big-city people agree.

 

Perhaps the biggest differences in attitudes toward guns come between men and women. Fifty-five percent of women favor handgun control versus 40 percent of men. Three-fourths of men say the Constitution should guarantee the right to own guns; a little more than half of women think so.

 

Women are nearly twice as likely to favor banning handguns -- although a majority of women oppose such bans.

 

Women think having a gun in the home makes it less safe to live there; a large majority of men think just the opposite. Women would also be much harsher in determining who should lose their right to own a gun. Less than half of men think someone convicted of drunken driving should be barred from gun ownership, but two-thirds of women feel that way. Only one-third of men would take the right to own a gun away from someone convicted of a misdemeanor (less serious crimes), but almost two-thirds of women would do so.

 

One other national figure, however, may summarize America's mixed emotions toward guns best of all. Even though a large majority of the people think gun ownership should be a constitutional right and almost half have owned guns at some time, almost two out of every three Americans think their society as a whole views gun owners in a negative way.

 

[yo mama]

No. [/b]

 

I asked whether outlawing guns would make outlaws easier to identify (which it would); not how it might or might not affect crime rates.

 

FYI, I'm not in favor of banning all guns.

[Bill Swerski]

I'm not a gun-control guy, but there's no need for citizens to own assault weapons.

[godtomsatan]

Because they have no common sense. They claim to support groups such as hunters. A real outdoorsmen has no need for assault rifles. The only groups that benefit from a complete lack of any gun control are those that wish to obtain said weapons for illicit purposes. And yes, I know even with gun control laws in place that a black market exists and some things get through. That still is no excuse for at least some common sense gun control laws to protect our citizens and our law enforcement officers.

 

 

A better comparison to the NRA is Planned Parenthood. They both will fight anything remotely infringing to their particular pet issues.

[Yukon Cornelius]

I love firing high-capacity rifles like AK-47s, AR-15s, Mini-14s, 10/22s.

 

I don't like, but I understand, if the government wanted to preclude Americans from certain weapons like the AKs, M-16/AR-15, Tec-9s.

 

The problem is, what do you ban and how do you ban it? When you start getting into descriptions of grips, barrels, magazines and whatnot, you start, IMO, crossing into "legitimate" weapon territory. Its too goddamn complicated.

 

Its not that much of a problem. They should just leave it alone.

 

this is true... but the nra is a bunch of loonies and im a member , not buy choice

Edited March 2, 2007 by Yukon Cornelius

[Yukon Cornelius]

A better comparison to the NRA is Planned Parenthood. They both will fight anything remotely infringing to their particular pet issues.

 

very nice comparison

[The Holy Roller]

As a former NRA member I got tired of all the junk mail and the constant pleading for donations. I believe the 2nd Amendment gives ordinary citizens the right to "bear arms" however you want to define it. DMD's article points out that it is where and how you grew up that mostly affects your attitude towards guns. Maybe the REAL answer would be mandatory military service for all (like Isreal) and this fear of guns would be lessened. JM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you want to ban something make it RAP music.

[untateve]

I think all adults, once they reach the age of 25, should be required to wear sidearms. Bad guys are gonna think twice when soccer mom starts poppin' caps in they asses.

[The Holy Roller]

I think all adults, once they reach the age of 25, should be required to wear sidearms. Bad guys are gonna think twice when soccer mom starts poppin' caps in they asses.

 

 

That would be hysterical. I'd go to a lot more soccer games.

[Big John]

That would be hysterical. I'd go to a lot more soccer games.

 

and go after moneymakers' 70 people?

[skins]

That would be hysterical. I'd go to a lot more soccer games.

 

 

I will go to the soccer game with you.