and keep em away from gangs

Originally Posted by: Dulak 

Er...

1. I thought a .22 was a varmint rifle. (Probably because when dad and I went small-game hunting when I was a lad, that's what we used. Everyone else used shotguns, but "if you can't hit a squirrel or rabbit with a .22, you shouldn't be hunting squirrels or rabbits." Dad didn't believe in "sport" hunting; you only hunted what you were willing to eat; and willingness to eat declines with the amount of shot one has to pick out of the dead animal.

2. If I ever go deer hunting again, it'll be with a 30-30.

3. I don't expect to ever buy a "defense" gun (for reasons I've said before), but if I did, it would be a 12-gauge. Does Remington still make the 870?

Originally Posted by: Wade 

http://news.yahoo.com/around-world-gun-rules-results-vary-wildly-075244259.html

read this article - was quite interesting.

Not sure what to take over it. What I get from it is that if you give more and more people guns and like the article suggested that you treat them as a right to own (for everyone). Then there will be more crime. Or if you 'allow' unsavory types (gangs etc) have them then there will be gun crime.

I tend to agree with the way japon does things - guns only for those that can prove they need them and deserve them and quite limited.

and keep em away from gangs

Originally Posted by: Dulak 

This kind of post SOUNDS nice on the surface, but it's not realistic.
Again, bad people don't care about the laws. That's why they are bad people.Taking guns away from law abiding American citizens won't solve ANY crime problems.
And "prove they need them?" Well, how do you do that? Let some scumbag attack you or your loved ones, maybe getting raped or killed, and that proves it then?
Having a gun can be a HUGE deterent to criminals trying to attack you.
Back when i was imn my late teens, some guys were messing around with my car which was in the driveway. It was night, and there were at least 3 of them. I pulled out my rifle, opened the door and said "I have a gun and you can choose to leave on your own, or be carried away". With that, they took off running, got to their car and without turing the lights on, sped away. We never saw anyone mess with my car again.
I didn't have to fire a shot. But had i gone out without a weapon, who knows what they might have done.

Originally Posted by: Cheesey 

why isnt it realistic? - the stats show how japan, the UK and other places have much less gun deaths. And they have a system based on less access.

personally I dont mind not having a gun to protect my home as long as others out there have less of a chance to have guns too.

reminds me of the cold war where both sides were arming themselves; problem is as you know lots of people have access to guns whom should not. People want to point the finger at the individual that is unstable like its such a rare occurance; but we keep hearing about gun deaths in circumstances that make us have these discussions.
They painted that guy whom shot that senator as a wacko and the batman guy and the school shooting guy, columbine etc etc ... so we can keep arming all the wackos out there or we can limit the guns ...

Originally Posted by: Dulak 

For the same reasons why the United States can't have blazing fast internet for 99.9% of its citizens subsidized affordably by the government (different geography and population density by far), and why violent crime rates not involving guns are also significantly higher than most of the first world (societal issues). In short, you can't directly compare a densely populated island country in Asia to Europe to the United States. Social attitudes and values greatly differ, the approach to work greatly differs, income levels and vacation days greatly differ which significantly impacts mental health. While it would be stupid to not look to the rest of the world for ideas to fix our own problems, you can't just take someone else's system, slap it on your own and expect it to work.

Originally Posted by: Porforis 

I agree Porforis, the first thing the USA needs to do is own up to its addiction to violence, and come to a logical solution. The solution is less guns, but who'll give an inch - it'll take decades to sort out. It scares me more that every swinging dick out there thinks he has the right to be "packing" than does the fact that I know criminals have guns. I don't want to live in the old west, but I do believe a homeowner has the right to defend his home with a weapon if necessary.

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 

Holy shit, I agree with (almost) everything you had to say? Wait a second - let's enjoy this moment.

Originally Posted by: Porforis