Girl shoots herself with grandma's gun at SC store

[Dc'1]

Guns should be banned... But, it would be impossible... Like drugs, they are illegal but a lot of people still take them.

I hope she is OK.

[+Warwagon MVC]

Side note; Everyone that's wanting to ban guns, esp hand guns I say to you, how are you going to take my guns when you don't have any? Makes it kinda hard.

Your right. If we ban guns, the bad guys will still have them. How will we get them away from the bad guys if we don't have any guns? Do we walk up to them and say tisk tisk, you shouldn't have those. You need to give those to us right now!.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Your right. If we ban guns, the bad guys will still have them. How will we get them away from the bad guys if we don't have any guns? Do we walk up to them and say tisk tisk, you shouldn't have those. You need to give those to us right now!.

Banning guns makes it harder to get a hold of them, and it would bump prices in buying them illegally due to the lesser availability of them and risks attached for the criminals to get them/sell.

I'm sure if Cocaine was legal, it wouldn't cost as much as it does.

Weapons go up in price, availability is lower, and sellers face steep charges of being in possession = less guns out in the wild and less petty criminals/muggers (those you are likely to face) being in possession of them - Why is a burglar going to spend a decent hit on buying a gun when he can get a baseball bat to enter your house?. Not every damn criminal out there will be able to get a hold/afford a gun in those circumstances - Hell do you wonder why there is basically no reports of robberies in the UK at gun point? Criminals who do petty crimes aren't going to go out there way to first of all find a gun, and then pay the premium for the gun, just to go rob a house...

Right now just about anyone could get a hold of a fire arm in certain states in the USA, which then raises the fear factor and it's why you see people taking guns to go shopping... It's also why it's more likely for criminals to own them.

So no, legalising guns to give people "protection" does not help the problem, it makes it worse (N) Banning guns won't stop all gun crime but it will sure as hell lessen it.

If you want to use them for sports, or are a collector (in which case nothing will be loaded/guns will be out of order) that is a different matter. People in the UK can do those two things just fine.

[RAID 0]

How old are you? Are you saying that if guns were banned, you would take up arms to fight it? Literally!?! That is a sure sign of irresponsibility/immaturity, in which case you obviously don't respect the lethal force of guns and should not own one/them.

See, resort to name calling (typical lib) instead of answering my question. Here it is again for wanna be gun grabbers: HOW ARE YOU GOING TO TAKE MY GUNS WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE ANY?

The answer: You can't. You have no recourse to try and dis-arm me.

To answer your question, yes... I'd take up arms if they tried to ban guns. I have no problem fighting for OUR freedoms. What are you going to do when they ban the freedom of speech? How will you save your rights? You can't. You'll rely on people like me to protect you. I just pray it never comes to that.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

See, resort to name calling (typical lib) instead of answering my question. Here it is again for wanna be gun grabbers: HOW ARE YOU GOING TO TAKE MY GUNS WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE ANY?

The answer: You can't. You have no recourse to try and dis-arm me.

To answer your question, yes... I'd take up arms if they tried to ban guns. I have no problem fighting for OUR freedoms. What are you going to do when they ban the freedom of speech? How will you save your rights? You can't. You'll rely on people like me to protect you. I just pray it never comes to that.

You're comparing freedom of using a weapon to freedom of speech?

Jeeez you seem to be just as gun fanatical as the criminals who'd have no problem shooting at innocent people...

Sad really that everyday people (not sport related people) are that attached to products that only serve purpose to hurt/kill/cause destruction when used.

[RAID 0]

It's a group effort. You like? I like! Well, who knows... any of these guns could just get up on their own and start hurting people! OH lawdy! Time to ban them all! Don't punish people who hurt others and break the law, ban the guns! They're the problem. Yep.

/right to bear arms is a right

//just like the freedom of speech

[Deletedforeverhaha]

The US should never even think of banning possession of guns. All they should do is only allow people who pass a background check to purchase guns. The only thing that distinguishes America from the rest of the world is individual freedom to do anything as long as it doesn't harm anyone else and being the "Land of Opportunity."

(Note: Experiences can differ due to idiotic administration in power or ridiculous state laws)

It is of no concern to others whether a person buys guns or not. It's great for self defense. Martial arts can only do so much when the assailant is armed.

[Malfunctional]

I'm no gun expert but to load and fire a gun you have to put the clip it, pull the bolt back, turn the safety off and then fire, I can see how the kid could have turned the safety off but it takes more strength than most 4 year old have to pull the bolt back. Do most gun owners carry their guns after pulling back the bolt?

[ev0|]

Although it might seem like banning weapons will reduce crime, (which it might) people need to have weapons access in case a forcible overthrow of the government becomes necessary, or in the case where society breaks down and people must defend themselves against outlaws. Taking that away from people is a bad idea.

[Semental]

Granny expected to be robbed in broad daylight at a shopping center ? :huh: Must be a tuff area.

Could at least keep some type of lock on the gun.

What good is a gun with a lock on it? If you need a gun in a hurry to protect yourself, a lock only helps the person commiting a crime against you.

Meh, overused reason that only incites fear amongst people.

People carrying guns to go do their shopping.... *facepalm*

Ah well, guess being brought up in the UK means I have different values on guns, and find there very little justifiable reasons to carry a gun around with you (for things like shopping anyway, if you're away hunting, then duh, you'll have a gun). Unless you go shopping on a battlefield.

Here are a few reasons:

"Over the course of a few days in the summer of 2001, gun-toting men burst into an English court and freed two defendants; a shooting outside a London nightclub left five women and three men wounded; and two men were machine-gunned to death in a residential neighborhood of north London. And on New Year's Day this year a 19-year-old girl walking on a main street in east London was shot in the head by a thief who wanted her mobile phone. London police are now looking to New York City police for advice."

Source: http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html

Agreed. It certainly feels like the easy availability of guns costs a lot more innocent lives than it saves.

Cough, cough...

"In reality, the English approach has not re-duced violent crime. Instead it has left law-abiding citizens at the mercy of criminals who are confident that their victims have neither the means nor the legal right to resist them. Imitating this model would be a public safety disaster for the United States."

Edit: Here are some more interesting statistics:

"The International Crime Victims Survey, conducted by Leiden University in Holland, found that England and Wales ranked second overall in violent crime among industrialized nations.

Twenty-six percent of English citizens -- roughly one-quarter of the population -- have been victimized by violent crime. Australia led the list with more than 30 percent of its population victimized.

The United States didn't even make the "top 10" list of industrialized nations whose citizens were victimized by crime."

Source: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=21902

Edited June 12, 2008 by Semental

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Here are a few reasons:

"Over the course of a few days in the summer of 2001, gun-toting men burst into an English court and freed two defendants; a shooting outside a London nightclub left five women and three men wounded; and two men were machine-gunned to death in a residential neighborhood of north London. And on New Year's Day this year a 19-year-old girl walking on a main street in east London was shot in the head by a thief who wanted her mobile phone. London police are now looking to New York City police for advice."

Source: http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html

I have no issue with police having guns.

[RAID 0]

You're comparing freedom of using a weapon to freedom of speech?

Jeeez you seem to be just as gun fanatical as the criminals who'd have no problem shooting at innocent people...

Sad really that everyday people (not sport related people) are that attached to products that only serve purpose to hurt/kill/cause destruction when used.

Well, you know who spoke and cause millions to get killed? This guy!

/Godwinned

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Well, you know who spoke and cause millions to get killed? This guy!

/Godwinned

What on earth are you on about?

How does Hitler have anything to do with this....

[Neoauld]

well honestly the world isnt a safe place

id imagine the old lady needed her gun

but arent there safeties and stuff?

[wst50]

Banning firearms is stupid. There are better things to do than shoot at people with a firearm. It is a perfectly legit hobby that enforces strict safety rules, if you go through official routes.

It is also a justifiable defence if your house gets burgled. But of course, the criminal hasm ore uhman rights than the victim. >_>

[Dysphoria]

Although it might seem like banning weapons will reduce crime, (which it might) people need to have weapons access in case a forcible overthrow of the government becomes necessary, or in the case where society breaks down and people must defend themselves against outlaws. Taking that away from people is a bad idea.

Wow maturity level is running quite low here....

If you really think that you can overthrow the government with couple of hand guns you are up for rude awakening.

That's not even the point.. You live in the 21st century and you are thinking about the possibility of the US government loosing grasp with reality and loosing control of the country which is being overtaken by vicious criminals armed to the teeth.

Just by reading your response and seeing your process of thinking one can deduct that you are either watching to much SciFi or you are still in your rebellious teen years, no offence to all the teenagers on this forum.

Cheers

Edit: The response was also aimed at few other people here, I am having a lunch break so I just started reading and laughing :)

I am not sure if some people responding here are doing it in sarcastic manner or are they really serious with their pro guns statements... Right to bear arms was a law written couple of hundred years back, and is quite archaic if you ask me. Society has evolved since than and the need for people to bear arms is long gone... I do assume that you live in a civilised society...

Edited June 12, 2008 by Euphoria

[wst50]

Wow maturity level is running quite low here....

If you really think that you can overthrow the government with couple of hand guns you are up for rude awakening.

That's not even the point.. You live in the 21st century and you are thinking about the possibility of the US government loosing grasp with reality and loosing control of the country which is being overtaken by vicious criminals armed to the teeth.

Just by reading your response and seeing your process of thinking one can deduct that you are either watching to much SciFi or you are still in your rebellious teen years, no offence to all the teenagers on this forum.

Cheers

Um, do an @ whoever, a few posts were made I think since you started typing...

[redfish]

Most Americans don't own guns anyway, so its a bit of a misunderstanding to believe that every neighborhood mother is toting a gun. But I don't think most Americans would be for a total gun ban; people want background checks and and licensing and required training and restrictions and carry laws, but not a total ban.

A lot of people have argued that school shootings like at Vtech could have actually been avoided if the campus didn't ban firearms, because a responsible teacher with a permit could have had a gun and stopped the shooter before he killed any students.

I don't know how many people outside the US here know the reasoning behind the 2nd amendment, but the idea was that having the means to protect yourself was a fundamental liberty equal to free speech; it was a defense against a tyrannical government, where the government could be armed and force its rule on the public. Many people misinterpret the meaning of the 2nd amendment by pointing to the clause about the need for a "well regulated militia", but the militia was meant to refer to the entire public, taking up arms voluntarily, rather than the nation having a standing army. A regulated militia was one trained and ready for combat. The framers were adamantly against having any sort of standing army, like we do today.

That's fair enough, you might say, but we don't have the same sort of fears about government today. Well I don't think it makes sense to take away the right of free speech either, because we have no reason to fear the government will abuse that. Certain Canadian politicians, saying 'we don't have the concept of free speech that Americans do', have excused many speech criminalization statutes. Historically, banning guns is one of the first thing dictators do, and something Hitler did on coming to power. You may not be able to overthrow the US government, but you can prevent dictators from consolidating power if the country keeps certain ideals about the rights of citizens.

From a practical perspective, that the government can't institute that kind of control, also means that we don't have to rely on the government to be functioning right for everything to go right. Arguably, situations like school shootings could be avoided, because people wouldn't have to wait for the police to arrive.

The UK might have banned guns, but then they had to look at a ban for "long knives" and "samurai swords", and they'll continue banning weapons until rubber bands will need permits, because you can poke people's eyes out with them.

Edited June 12, 2008 by brianshapiro

[laz45]

Lets ban cars, they hurt/kill people...

[redfish]

What on earth are you on about?

How does Hitler have anything to do with this....

But he does; one of the first thing dictators do when they get power, including Hitler, is ban private ownership of guns.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

But he does; one of the first thing dictators do when they get power, including Hitler, is ban private ownership of guns.

Other countries have a ban on guns with no issues at all.

I don't see why anyone is playing devils advocate and even thinking something like that is going to happen again in todays day and age, and especially in powerful/sensible enough nations such as the USA of all places.

But I guess the people worrying about overtaking the government and all that nonsense are those seemingly afraid to walk down a street in-case they get mugged, or have their house gunned up to kill the burglar when he comes round.

Lets ban cars, they hurt/kill people...

Could we please stop with the absolutely daft comparisons?

Cars are not made as forms of killing/destruction and/or to hurt as their main function. It's when idiots are behind the wheel people get hurt.

As I said earlier in this thread, every day items being turned into weapons. I can kill someone with a wooden stool, but it's hardly in a position to be banned.

Guns are made for the sole purpose of killing/destruction and hurt, so it's even worse when you get an idiot behind a gun, than an idiot behind a car.

Guns can't be turned into weapons, as they are weapons in the first place :blink:

[Dysphoria]

But he does; one of the first thing dictators do when they get power, including Hitler, is ban private ownership of guns.

You do know that the government takes a big chunk of the gun sales profits, not only through taxes but also through various donations and charities, and you do understand that if they really want you dead they can take you down without even waking you up.

If a sniper can take a target from 1.4 miles away, how safe do you really think you are? It's all relative...

Also I don't really see the point of getting Hitler involved in this conversation. Do you really think that Right to bare arms in Germany would have prevented WW1 and WW2?

[redfish]

Other countries have a ban on guns with no issues at all.

I don't see why anyone is playing devils advocate and even thinking something like that is going to happen again in todays day and age, and especially in powerful/sensible enough nations such as the USA of all places.

I'm not worried about it at the moment, but its part of the set of reasons that justify gun rights. I'm not worrying about the government criminalizing my political opinion either right now (despite some people claiming I'll be dragged away and be tortured in Guantanamo), but I think there's a reason for our law protecting speech.

I also explained in my previous post, how I think the point is it just makes us rely less on government. Countries that have bans on guns usually do have issues with power being centralized in the state. The UK is a good example , yes:/

[Dysphoria]

people worrying about overtaking the government and all that nonsense are those seemingly afraid to walk down a street in-case they get mugged, or have their house gunned up to kill the burglar when he comes round.

+1

[redfish]

You do know that the government takes a big chunk of the gun sales profits, not only through taxes but also through various donations and charities, and you do understand that if they really want you dead they can take you down without even waking you up.

If a sniper can take a target from 1.4 miles away, how safe do you really think you are? It's all relative...

Also I don't really see the point of getting Hitler involved in this conversation. Do you really think that Right to bare arms in Germany would have prevented WW1 and WW2?

Its moot because the societies that existed in Europe at the time led to the two world wars. They could have been prevented with a culture and legal system that promoted civil liberties, including gun rights.

The same thing with free speech rights. And aren't people worried now that even though wiretapping isn't a big deal, its part of an erosion of our laws on privacy?

The thing about gun rights is also that it gives the courts a legal precedent on which to defend other rights, which can extend far beyond gun rights.

Edited June 12, 2008 by brianshapiro