Correct me if I'm wrong, but AU didn't exactly have a problem with these things *before* they got tough on guns, did they?

I don't buy the argument that these problems in America are due to the presence of guns. Guns have been available all throughout the history of the country, but these problems didn't exist until recently. I'm afraid it's the the abandonment of personal responsibility that has lead us to this point, though I'll admit that I haven't been able to figure out a fix for it yet.

I think reality is that these things happen in America so commonly because of other problems, not because guns are pretty freely available. You take away the guns, and the same bad things are going to happen in different ways. The only *real* answer is to fix the root cause, not the vehicle. I don't know how that's going to be done, but I know that banning guns isn't going to do it.

In reference to an earlier post about being able to walk around free of fear...I don't think that's a function of guns or no guns either. You can walk through an armed crowd with nothing to worry about, or you can walk by one guy holding a beer bottle and get smashed over the head. Sad as it is to say, I think at this point Americans are just stupidly dangerous. Obviously, I'm not saying all Americans have this problem, but the percentage is much bigger than it should be.

I suspect this comes from people's mindset that they're free to do what they want...problem is, it's very rare that you'll hear them take responsibility for their actions. You only have to look as far as the Laker's championship last year. The team won, *won*, and these morons start setting fire to shit? I don't remember this stuff happening when I was a kid, so what's changed?

 

I lay blame on school shootings, drive bys, accidental shootings at the feet of the parents of the shooters, not the guns. Education will fix that (part of what the NRA is trying to do). Those kids at Columbine were going to not only shoot people, but set off pipe bombs too. They were going to commit some violent acts no matter what, so the instrument of violence is of little relevance. Why not try to understand why they did it rather than how they did it? Seems to me that understanding the cause would prevent it in the future. Ban the gun and they just choose a different weapon and you have the same outcome. "Ban the baseball bat!" "Ban the pointed stick!"

I think society in the United States as a whole has become very desensitized, and you see more acts of aggression than we have in the past. Guns have been in our country for over 200 years, yet the 1950's were a utopia compared to the mindset of people these days. Little Johnny could have got his hands on a gun in the 1950s, but he didn't. Maybe the kids back then were of a healthier mindset; maybe they had more of a purpose for living, maybe a sense of belonging, who knows. Today, drugs, alcohol, depression, poverty, haves/have nots, gangs, among a lot of other things have contributed to more acts of violence. I think guns by themselves are blamed way too much. People tend to look at the tool and not the act. If some guy wants to kill you, he will try it whether he has a gun or not. But I'd like to see him try it while staring down the business end of a .44.

Bottom line, guns are out there and always will be, and as long as a criminal has one, so shall I.



[Edited by Brett on 05-16-2001 at 08:42 AM]

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by josh3io
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by ElTianti
[b]The 9mm is not an adequate self-defense cartridge.

 

For a comprehensive discussion on the correlation between firearms and crime read "More Guns, Less Crime" by Yale economics profession John Lott.

The Crib Notes version is this: States that have enacted liberalized concealed carry laws have experienced *lower* crime rates.

Consider also that Gun ownership when up all thought the 90's while violent crime rates when down.

Bottom line, the more people that are armed the more likely is that the criminal will face an armed victim. Criminals prefer unarmed victims

 

my bad

 

I own an older Colt, Series 70. But I agree the Sig is a much better weapon.

I had the opportunity to fire almost every 9 mm at an indoor range. On 9 mm vs. 45 ACP, even though the FBI wants 10 mm, the 9's generally feed better. Don't start me on custom mods. Mine 45's been custom throated and only jams on crap ammo. I still like how the 9's feed, even the cheapo Taurus.

I like the look and feel of the Baretta 92 but my friends in the military tell me they don't wear well. The slides fall off after several thousand rounds (maybe they fixed that but ?).

If I was going to buy another weapon I'd look hard at the Glocks. I love the high-tech construction and the sights but the light weight means it bumps my aim more in double-taps.

For home defense, like others said, buy a pump shotgun and use a shot load. Nothing else intimidates like the sound of racking that slide and smaller shot will not damage your neighbor's house. Otherwise a revolver makes the most sense, definitely NOT a 357 Mag unless you want to be sued by a neighbor for the hole that runs through your house AND the next.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ElTianti
[B]For a comprehensive discussion on the correlation between firearms and crime read "More Guns, Less Crime" by Yale economics profession John Lott.

The Crib Notes version is this: States that have enacted liberalized concealed carry laws have experienced *lower* crime rates.

 

Trying to persuade americans that guns are bad and should be banned is like trying to take a brand new toy from the hands of a kid. He will not listen, he'll cry, use the most ridiculous reasons to justify his right to keep the toy, and just make a fool out of himself in the eyes of adults for refusing to be reasonable and logic.

 

Ok, so where is your logical input related to this? Calling us gun owners a bunch of crying juveniles contributes nothing. You say we make fools of ourselves in the eyes of adults for refusing to be reasonable and logic(al) but all you did was put us down. If you want to start throwing generalizations around I'm sure that we Americans could come up with plenty that we've heard about the French.

 

Quote:

Originally posted by le car
Trying to persuade americans that guns are bad and should be banned is like trying to take a brand new toy from the hands of a kid. He will not listen, he'll cry, use the most ridiculous reasons to justify his right to keep the toy, and just make a fool out of himself in the eyes of adults for refusing to be reasonable and logic.

How many wars did we bail France out of? Two of them I think. Maybe if their citizens were armed, Hitler may not have had such an easy time capturing Paris. I'd hate to see what would happen if an invading army tried to take over an American city.