Omega, what I want to do is get the assault rifles off the street. I want to make sure that people who buy firearms know how to use them, and aren't likely to go psycho and shoot other people for reasons known only to themselves. I do want registration, but more sinister, I want people to go to a shrink so that we know the guy (or gal) getting an Uzi isn't likely to go use it on the holiday shoppers at the local shopping mall.

At least I'm working towards a better society: all you seem able to do is cower under the "real world" cover that you enjoy so much. Your real world apparently consists of hypocritical Christians who proclaim His word on one hand, yet support the death penalty on the other. Now, I'm a (non-practicing) Roman Catholic, but I'm well aware that the Pope came out and quite clearly said that the Death Penalty is an abomination to God. Even if you're not a Roman Catholic, the Bible clearly says, "Thou Shalt Not Kill", yet that doesn't stop you from buying guns (which, don't kid yourself, are only made to take human life), or supporting the Death Penalty.

You know what? I'm even a card-carrying member of the ACLU.

But at least I'm working to making a difference for the better in this world, Omega. If the worst you can attack me with is that I'm an Idealist, than take your best shot.

Also, the Pope is a mockery of all men are equal, with this one man being supposedly closer to God than anyother, which I suppose should be in a thread of its own.

Meanwhile, if I ever find a society without weapons, I'm conquering it with a hammer.

Omega, what I want to do is get the assault rifles off the street.

As do I. However, they are already illegal, so more laws are not the answer. Increased funding for law enforcement, on the other hand, would seem like a good idea, as would an Attourney General who actually enforces the law.

I want to make sure that people who buy firearms know how to use them, and aren't likely to go psycho and shoot other people for reasons known only to themselves.

How do you intend to do this? Do you know how utterly rare it is that someone snaps and goes postal like that? Do you know how few of the people that snap can be determined to be risk factors beforehand? Also, since you say that you don't want guns taken away completely, do you really trust the people that DO not to do it? Once you allow the government to set the standards by which one may defend one's self, what's to prevent them from upping the standards to an impossible level? Why should you trust them NOT to do the things they say that they want to do?

I want people to go to a shrink so that we know the guy (or gal) getting an Uzi isn't likely to go use it on the holiday shoppers at the local shopping mall.

IIRC, it's illegal to even OWN, much less buy an Uzi in the US. We're talking handguns and rifles, here.

At least I'm working towards a better society

Exactly how do you define "better?" You don't seem to have any clear-cut ideas. You say you want to get rid of assault weapons, then you say that you want people who want to BUY an assault weapon to go through psychiatric screening. You also don't seem to take into account the effects of an immensely powerful government.

Your "better society" doesn't seem very well thought through.

guns (which, don't kid yourself, are only made to take human life)

No, they're made to fire a lead projectile at high velocity. What the user intends determines what it does.

Say I point a gun at you. What's the first thing you're going to do. How do you react? I don't mean saying anything, what PHYSICALLY are you doing, and therefore what effect has my pointing the gun had on you?

There's your other use for a gun.

Then there's the hunters, and the people who just like to shoot at targets...

I suppose water is meant only for rain?

If the worst you can attack me with is that I'm an Idealist, than take your best shot.

ME, attack an idealist? Heck, no. I'm pointing out flaws in your ideals themselves.

------------------
"Still one thing more fellow-citizens--A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government..."
-Thomas Jefferson

"This will make mowing my lawn MUCH easier!"

Just how many uses can a gun be put to that don't involve killing? Lets see. Hammering in a nail. Unplugging a sink. Levering a boulder. A walking stick. A prop for a roof. A spare door handle.

As you can see, guns have many varied uses!

------------------
Re: Russia in WWII

"Hey, we butchered Poles! Thats OK."
- DT.

Now, that fella up in Massachussets is a good example. He's on anti-depressents, yet he gets his hands on some guns. Why would you want someone on anti-depressents having a gun? What if he decided to go off his meds? I mean, this is a pretty clear-cut case why some people should not have guns.

You know, it all comes back to taxes. The Howard County police last year were going to buy new sidearms (SigSauers, I believe) for the force ... 300 or so officers. Unfortunatly, they didn't have enough dinero, so they were going to partially fund it by selling their existing weapons back to the company, which could then in turn put those guns back on the street. Isn't it sad when the only way a Police Department can arm its officers is by putting guns BACK on the streets? Needless to say, the citizens of Howard County weren't very happy with that, and the County Executive funneled the PD some more money. Still, if a raise in taxes goes to fund the police, I more than support it. As it is, a reduction in taxes would only hurt our already over-stretched law enforcement agencies.

Re: The Uzi. It is hardly illegal. True, you've got to be a member of the Secret Service to use them, but ... actually, the UZI was just an analogy. There are loopholes which allow private citizens to own MP-5s (which are suposed to be only for police and military), so I wouldn't be surprised if a regular citizen could find one for an UZI somehow. But ... the point of the argument was to keep deadly weapons out of the hands of people who aren't mentally equipped to handle them, and might cause great harm to innocent bystanders if s/he decides to go on a shooting rampage inside a Barnes & Noble. An argument that you completely avoided, I noticed ...

Of course the end-goal is to get rid of all weapons completely. We'll make an exemption for certain weapons used for hunting, because, hey, that's fine. I've no doubt this won't happen before I die, but I'm more than happy to work for it. The first step to create a safer society is to make sure that the nut cases don't get their hands on weapons. Again, Mr. McDermont up in Massachussets is a clear example. That would be step 1.

As for the government grabbing weapons, that is just plain and simple paranoia. NRA-sponsered paranoia, as it is. Why you refuse to accept that people buy guns legally then commit illegal acts with them is again beyond me.

If people are loonies, LOCK THEM UP. THEN treat them. DON'T punish US for their doings. Have you SEEN a picture of this McDermont guy? Practically SCREAMS 'abberant'

The percentage of legally owned firearms used to commit crimes is something like .0045% I'll try to look the exact numbers up for you later.

This is what we people in the technical fields generally term as 'insignificant.'

Did it occur to you that the drop in Baltimore could be due to new standards of enforcement? I understand that they're finally starting to enforce the mandatory extra jail time if you use a gun in a crime. That seems to work about everywhere they try it.

------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master

"The following people please report to the county lock-up, Sol System, that is all."

That still doesn't explain why the crime rate in Austin went UP. Aren't you a supporter of the theory that if everyone carries a gun, less crime will occur? Seems to be the opposite in Texas.

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 6.83 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
***
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier ... just as long as I'm the dictator." - George "Dubya" Bush, Dec 18, 2000

All things being equal, yes. However, I would wager that all things are not equal.

I freely admit, and everybody else should realize, that there are other factors which influence the crime rate BEYOND an armed populace. Including, but not limited to, law enforcement strategies, methods of counting and surveying crime statistics (HCI, for example, is great at 'cooking' statistics to say what they want them to), racial tension, economics, et cetera.

However, if none of these or any other circumstances change, then generally adding a concealed carry permit to the mix (obtainable, as it is, only through sherrifs departments and via a small legal hassle during which you are tested and investigated) tends to reduce crime levels.

That reminds me of something else. The Handgun Control people always react, whenever a state passes a handgun concealed carry law, as though now ANYBODY could go in and get one.

This is patently untrue. Round here, it is required that one pursue a permit through the sherrif's department, have it signed by two reputable citizens (preferably police officers), and submit to an extensive FBI background check before being approved.

As for carrying unconcealed, while legal without a permit, it isn't done for the simple reason that a guy walking down the street with a visible gun will attract a LOT of negative attention. If a cop spots him, he'll most likely put him up against the wall, take the weapon, handcuff him, and take him in for questioning.

------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master