US Gun Laws

I would just like to know your opinion on American regulation of firearms. Personally, though not being an expert on the subject, I find them to be fine. It's not like you just walk up and say, "Hand me the M60 so I can go Rambo." So I cannot really find fault with it.

But you can get a gun in 5 days and kill someone with it right?
Why do Americans even need guns? It's safer if you don't have one...

I live in Arizona, one of the states that have alot of Gun enthusiasts.

A day at the gunshow is pretty awe inspiring, guns f'ing everywhere!

I live in an area where many guns ranges are around, but everyone doesn't go to the range and pop off rounds in the desert nearby.

As for Gun laws, I believe it is pretty regulated all guns with serial numbers are fair game and you can get a rifle here when your 18 and 21 for handgun out the door.

I have a couple guns but only for defence and killing snakes and what-not.

So yeah..

Tell that to Switzerland, where every male is given an assault rifle (fully automatic, which they can keep after they are done with their duty but it gets downgraded to semi-automatic) for militia duty but has a lower homicide and armed robbery rate than Britain where guns are banned. Homicide is caused by a willingness to resort to violence, the mere presence of a fire arm does not influence people one way or another. Guns are banned in most third world countries but they have the highest rate of homicide, explain that to me.

Some of the most backward laws in the world.

You can't compare 1st world and 3rd world countries...
The presence of a firearm removes some of the obstacles that are in the way for criminals.
Why would you want people to have firearms? It's better to leave that to the police.

For sport, or just as a whim. Trust me, most premeditated crimes are probably committed by guns procured illegally.

How so?

Why not? Are poor people more likely to commit violent crime?

Might as well ban fertilizer and propane because I can easily make a bomb out of that. Or maybe you want to play a numbers game with me, in that case we should ban doctors.

I want every male in the US to be given an assault rifle and become part of a militia, like Switzerland. Because as stated previously Switzerland is safer than England which bans most firearms.

I get it, guns are big and scary and make loud noises. That does not mean that they are the most dangerous things out there nor should we ban them. Case in point:

We have gun laws and the right to bear arms so that the government can't have complete control over us. It's hard to start a revolution over a oppressive government when nobody has a weapon of any kind. It's also hard for a government to have complete control over people when the people have weapons of their own.

For reference, the US gun laws vary by state. I'm pretty sure New York has the harshest gun laws. I think that it is okay for people to own firearms. If someone wanted to do something illegal with a firearm, chances are that they'ed be able to acquire a gun through illegal means anyway. Not to sound cliché, but people, not guns, kill other people.

It's a little different then that, but still, that's basically what the Second Amendment intended. The Founding Fathers didn't mean people could own military weapons, but that people could own some kind of firearm for hunting or self-defense. This was a fairly bold statement: the Amendment clearly intended to let citizens arm themselves. While the guns that they would own would not stack up against an army, they were intended to benefit a revolt against an oppressive government. So much for a backwards law.

The gun registration systems vary from state to state, but most of them require background checks and proof that the person purchasing the firearm knows both how to use it and the basics of legal use. Legal use OBVIOUSLY does not include being able to walk up to a random person and kill them.

It is a matter of historical perspective or somesuch. The Second Amendment to the Constituation of the United States of America in the Bill of Rights was set up in responce to the British having tried to take away the weapons of the American Colonies prior to the Revolution. In retrospect, the Right to Bear Arms was actually made more to defend the citizen against his own government more than to enable him to aid in defending the country. As such, the Right is fundemental to Americans and is deeply rooted in their history and traditions.
As for being safer, well, that is a matter of prespective. I have heard from many an attorney, law-enforcement group, and judges hailing from the US that the possession of firearms does not constitute either a drop or a rise in violence in a country.

Thank you for posting your opinion. Now can you please post some reasons?

True, but as Mayor pointed out, there are many ways to kill a person. Haven't you ever heard of the idea that anything can be used as a weapon?

Besides the aboved mentions of the protection of the civilian against the government?
So people can defend themselves. The weapons are not intended to allow for illegal use.

Yes and no.
Many of the more widely-reported crimes involving firearms included weapons that were not necessarily obtained illegally, but rather that the weapons were obtained when the regulations were rather lacking and some people failed to connect the dots. The Virginia Tech shooter [the one a few years back] is one such case.
Or you could be refering to the Cartels in which case it is a little too muddled and confused in a case-to-case scenario for me to say.

Edit: Disturbing that the beginning to my post resembles the person above though I wrote mine seperately before I saw his.

Yes and no.
Many of the more widely-reported crimes involving firearms included weapons that were not necessarily obtained illegally, but rather that the weapons were obtained when the regulations were rather lacking and some people failed to connect the dots. The Virginia Tech shooter [the one a few years back] is one such case.
Or you could be refering to the Cartels in which case it is a little too muddled and confused in a case-to-case scenario for me to say.[/quote]
Well, in Philly they're having huge problems with people purchasing guns legally, but then giving them to others in order to commit crimes. While not completely black market, it is not legal in any way. I know the DA and police have been making noise on crackdowns on that sort of thing, but I'm not the most knowledgeable on the subject.

The u.S> has very backward laws especially Arizona. To my knowledge in Arizona you can carry concealed handguns in public that is just as stupid as it gets. Only 50 people in Canada are licensed to carry one in public as the government has decided they need one for personal protection. It also reduces our crime rate at least the areas with the strictest regulations have the lowest crime rates. 30% of homicides committed in Canada were with a firearm while in the U.S. it's 70%. I also find it rather stupid people in the U.S. can own assault rifles as they are far too powerful for the civilian population to own. It also has to do with our culture here especially in Quebec gun regulation is what people want and is almost political suicide to get rid of it.

You have to carry a permit to conceal a weapon, but whatever. Speaking of good ol' Canada, me and Coex had a grand old laugh when we found out that Canadian border guards were not permitted to carry firearms on their person. While I do think that states like Arizona need to up their gun control laws significantly, I find Canada's opposite extreme of sorts to be just as repulsive.

Sounds more like there is a regulation problem - a problem in how they are distributing lisences. Apparently, they have to do more thourough background checks on individuals to determine who is at risk to sell a weapon off and who is not.

Are you arguing that people will NOT commit homicides if guns are outlawed? Do you have proof that gun being allowed actually leads to MORE crimes being committed?
As far as I have been told [by law-enforcement officers, attorneys, and judges out of the US no less], there is no real proof that there is a direct correlation between the legality of firearms and the prevailence of crime. Obviously there is a correlation between gun allowence and gun crimes, but no evidence that I have been made aware of to connect guns and a greater degree of crimes in general. The position is that guns or no guns, those who commit crimes will do so anyways. Taking them away is no guarentee for an end to violence.

Yeah, Leon and I were working a community fair for our township and a guy walked in with a pistol on his hip. He was asked to leave because it was making people nervous.

When you say without licensing do you mean with a permit to own a gun as well?

Well our border guards don't need them Americans aren't coming up to our border with weapons. People here are fine with it the only people who have a problem with it are the people who have to go through all the paper work, background checks, safety training, etc. it keeps us safe so why should we get rid of it people don't have a right to guns. I would also like to know how the hell needs an assault rifle, pistol, or anything that's not a hunting shotgun or a hunting rifle. It's also public attitude towards people against it because of things like the Ecole Polytechnique Massacre. Also Coex there was a guy spotted near my town with just a pistol, SWAT Teams were called in and some military forces all with assault rifles hunting the guy down so again a prime example of how we don't like guns.

So you hunt deer with napalm? Really, you couldn't have an armed officer go up to him and say, "Hey buddy. Why are you carrying an open firearm. That is illegal and you are under arrest." I cannot imagine how you guys would react to serious crime.

Well it's better than last time where half of the military base including armoured vehicles were called in over a hunting rifle.