[Hades]

If they want to kill you, they'll probably do it before you get a chance to do anything about it. If they want to mug you the best thing you can do is comply.

My mom had a friend who was mugged, he complied and still got shot in the back. He's still alive though.

My grandfather a year or two ago was mugged with a shotgun as well, thankfully they didn't decide to shoot him.

[General Battuta]

If they want to kill you, they'll probably do it before you get a chance to do anything about it. If they want to mug you the best thing you can do is comply.

My mom had a friend who was mugged, he complied and still got shot in the back. He's still alive though.

My grandfather a year or two ago was mugged with a shotgun as well, thankfully they didn't decide to shoot him.

I said 'best thing' not 'foolproof thing'.

[NGTM-1R]

In order to register a gun in Ch-go you need 5 hrs of training, a background check (2 DUIs, any violent  crime or crime with the use of weapons disqualifies for life), and pay a fee of $115. Oh yeah, a legal weapon costs hundreds.

In order to buy an illegal gun you go to a local dealer, pay and go home with whatever you need, no b/g check, no questions asked.

Five hours training is just enough time to convince you you know something, but not enough that you actually do.

[StarSlayer]

I'll be sure to swagger through Chicago with a DL-44 riding low on my right hip next time I go there.

[BengalTiger]

I've personally fired an M4, and M14, an AK-47, a Sig-Sauer 9 mm, and an FN FAL. It takes about 30 seconds (or less) to figure out how to operate a gun with an instructor to assist, a gun is far simpler than a car or cell phone.

[FUBAR-BDHR]

Actually the place to start is population control.  Until we quit trying to stick all these people into small areas problems will arise. Less people = more elbow room for everyone.  You didn't hear about all this gun violence years ago except maybe the mob in big cities.  Did it happen?  Yes.  Lot less disputes when you actually have to walk to see a neighbor instead of going outside and seeing 50 most of who have some kind of bad feelings toward each other.

we dont stick them there, they go there. i prefer to live places with fewer than 100,000 residents. right now i live in a place with about 3000 people. cities have their advantages. products are cheaper, the internet is faster, theres always somewhere to go, and if you so choose you can make a somewhat decent living on some menial job. i really dont see why people want to live in cities. in war they make excellent targets, you can bet your ass all you city dwellers have someone pointing nukes in your general direction. there might be more people but they tend to be a tad more shady, its noisy, and everything is so regulated theres hardly any room to breathe. but here its nice that the stores, the bars, the airport, the hospital, and the ferry terminal are all in walking distance, which is really nice. makes me regret all the time i wasted waiting at bus stops in phoenix. it doesnt matter how big the population has been, people still flock to cities in droves. always have, always will. its a place they can go and get away with being a total douche.

Actually a lot of them were stuck there.  Welfare and low income housing projects.  Same is happening here now but with HUD homes.  People are placed into these groups with no real way out or ability to keep up the homes.  Economy goes down and more are pushed there.  They turn to drugs (if they weren't already on them) and the violence follows.  And this is in a city that may not even be a city after this years census.  It's spill over from the bigger cities.  Pittsburg and Columbus down to Steubenville down to where I live.

[NGTM-1R]

I've personally fired an M4, and M14, an AK-47, a Sig-Sauer 9 mm, and an FN FAL. It takes about 30 seconds (or less) to figure out how to operate a gun with an instructor to assist, a gun is far simpler than a car or cell phone.

And I've fired a Lee-Enfield #3 (which I will maintain to this day is the finest rifle it has ever been my pleasure to use), an MP-5K, and an FN-P90 (that was configured to only fire semiauto admittedly).

I would not under any circumstances want any of those weapons when people's lives are on the line because I don't know them well enough they are effective extensions of my body. Try shooting with a string of firecrackers going off at your feet unexpectedly; when you can do that accurately, then you are qualified to carry and use a firearm in a lifethreatening situation. Anything else you pose at least as much danger to anyone standing in front of you as you do to the target.

[FUBAR-BDHR]

I've personally fired an M4, and M14, an AK-47, a Sig-Sauer 9 mm, and an FN FAL. It takes about 30 seconds (or less) to figure out how to operate a gun with an instructor to assist, a gun is far simpler than a car or cell phone.

Actually that's the only reason I don't have one on me now is I don't know how to operate it properly and haven't had time to head to the range to figure out how to load/unload it.  Well I know how to unload it.  

It does take a lot longer to actually become good with a weapon.  I've only missed one target with a rifle in the last 3 years but made up for it by hitting 2 with one shot. Can't say the same for a pistol.  Only fired a few rounds but it's a lot easier to miss even with a scope.  

[StarSlayer]

Actually the place to start is population control.  Until we quit trying to stick all these people into small areas problems will arise. Less people = more elbow room for everyone.  You didn't hear about all this gun violence years ago except maybe the mob in big cities.  Did it happen?  Yes.  Lot less disputes when you actually have to walk to see a neighbor instead of going outside and seeing 50 most of who have some kind of bad feelings toward each other.

Hold on...

Not to be a jerk, but I seem to recall a certain period in our history when there was an extremely high land to population ratio and lets just say gun violence was very prevalent.   

[General Battuta]

I've personally fired an M4, and M14, an AK-47, a Sig-Sauer 9 mm, and an FN FAL. It takes about 30 seconds (or less) to figure out how to operate a gun with an instructor to assist, a gun is far simpler than a car or cell phone.

No offense, but with an attitude like that, I pray you are never placed in a crime situation with a gun in your hands, because odds are you'll get someone killed when there otherwise would have been no bloodshed. If you're merciful it'll only be yourself.

Basically what NGTM-1R said.

[Nuclear1]

Yeah, just because you fired a gun once and played a lot of COD4 doesn't mean you're going to be an expert marksman.

I get evaled at least once a year on the Beretta 9mm and M4 and I still don't think I'm comfortable enough with either to handle myself in an emergency.

[Nuke]

Actually the place to start is population control.  Until we quit trying to stick all these people into small areas problems will arise. Less people = more elbow room for everyone.  You didn't hear about all this gun violence years ago except maybe the mob in big cities.  Did it happen?  Yes.  Lot less disputes when you actually have to walk to see a neighbor instead of going outside and seeing 50 most of who have some kind of bad feelings toward each other.

Hold on...

Not to be a jerk, but I seem to recall a certain period in our history when there was an extremely high land to population ratio and lets just say gun violence was very prevalent.   

in a frontier situation when there is little law enforcement or any real governing body other than the town sheriff, youre bound to attract the same kind of people that are drawn into cities today. its the kind of situation where somone on the run is totally attracted to. there are places here in alaska that are still like that. of course i wouldnt consider westerns as a reliable source of data.

[FUBAR-BDHR]

Perfect example of this.  Just had a critter in my back yard that I've been trying to remove.  Granted I can only use a pellet gun since I'm in the city limits (don't have a silencer) but it's a custom built .22 rated for small game and lethal at close range.  Had a shot but I checked before firing.  There was a piece of metal that I could have hit causing a ricochet into the neighbors yard or bounce back.  I didn't take the shot. 

Now how many idiots out there would have?

[Snail]

In England we use flamethrowers dogs, horses and birds of prey.

[StarSlayer]

In England we use flamethrowers dogs, horses and birds of prey.

I do say old boy the neighbors are giving us nasty looks.

Somehow i doubt that would fly in Ohio

[FUBAR-BDHR]

Take care of my critter problem but I'm allergic to dogs.

i do have trained Blue jays though.  i apparently trained them to sit on the nut dish and look at me until I feel guilty and feed them.

[Flipside]

My cats have got about 50% of the idea of hunting mice, they've got as far as finding and catching, however, they struggle with 'killing', instead they prefer 'bringing it into the house, playing with it whilst still alive and accidentally allowing it to escape'. Thus, I now have a mouse somewhere under the radiator in the hall :/

Anyway, on topic, it's hard to give an opinion, but it does seem like one of those tricky situations, it's strange how people will argue for hours over the interpretation of the First Amendment, and yet the Second is like some unshakeable, undebatable constant?

[Dilmah G]

I'll be sure to swagger through Chicago with a DL-44 riding low on my right hip next time I go there.

Whoaaaaa! No beef homeboy!

 

PEW PEW

In England we use flamethrowers dogs, horses and birds of prey.

I thought you use sawn-off shotguns, kill each others ex-girlfriends, and spark a North-England wide manhunt involving an RAF Tornado?

[Nuke]

My cats have got about 50% of the idea of hunting mice, they've got as far as finding and catching, however, they struggle with 'killing', instead they prefer 'bringing it into the house, playing with it whilst still alive and accidentally allowing it to escape'. Thus, I now have a mouse somewhere under the radiator in the hall :/

Anyway, on topic, it's hard to give an opinion, but it does seem like one of those tricky situations, it's strange how people will argue for hours over the interpretation of the First Amendment, and yet the Second is like some unshakeable, undebatable constant?

not that theres a gun control bone in my body, i always make the point that while the second amendment gives us the right to bear arms, it doesnt at all specify the kind of arms you can bear. for all we know it was some law forbidding amputation as a form of capital punishment. but seriously their idea of "arms" were smooth bore muskets, blunderbusses, and innacurate single shot pistols. it didnt say anything about repeating rifles, six shooters, thompson sub machine guns, semi-auto 9mms with 20 round clips, ak forty ****ing sevens, uzis, mag 10s, .50 calibur machine guns, gau-8s, nuclear artilliary or lady gaga. the line has to be drawn somewhere.

the purpose of the second amendment, was to allow for legitimate militias to act as an interim military and police force until a point where the government could establish police forces and an actual military. and it was a good policy up till the point where the frontier was used up. that would have been a good time to repeal the amendment. it doesnt make a whole lot of since for people who live in the city to own firearms, unless its full of criminals who also have them. you also had (and still have) those who live in more rural locations, where its cheaper and often better to go hunting than it is to buy meat. i dont want to take guns away from people who use them to feed their families (i have at least 10 pounds of venison in the freezer and it makes damn good chili).

id simply pass a law to ban anti-personnel weapons, namely handguns. id still allow hunting rifles, shotguns, and the like, nothing that would conveniently fit in oversived pants worn at the knee. of course certain groups would probably take offense to such a law. banning guns out right would seriously piss off those rural people, who conveniently seem to gather, collect and sell any raw materials that the urbanites among you need to build their cities. the gravel pit my inlaws run makes the gravel for concrete used in this part of the state. guns certainly make their jobs easier, so they dont have to kill the porcupines that chew on the hydraulic lines on the machines with their bare hands. or (and this is my favorite option), people can stop *****ing about guns, and accept the small amount of death they cause.

[Liberator]

My cats have got about 50% of the idea of hunting mice, they've got as far as finding and catching, however, they struggle with 'killing', instead they prefer 'bringing it into the house, playing with it whilst still alive and accidentally allowing it to escape'. Thus, I now have a mouse somewhere under the radiator in the hall :/

Anyway, on topic, it's hard to give an opinion, but it does seem like one of those tricky situations, it's strange how people will argue for hours over the interpretation of the First Amendment, and yet the Second is like some unshakable, undebatable constant?

not that theres a gun control bone in my body, i always make the point that while the second amendment gives us the right to bear arms, it doesn't at all specify the kind of arms you can bear. for all we know it was some law forbidding amputation as a form of capital punishment. but seriously their idea of "arms" were smooth bore muskets, blunderbusses, and inaccurate single shot pistols. it didn't say anything about repeating rifles, six shooters, Thompson sub machine guns, semi-auto 9mm with 20 round clips, AK forty ****ing sevens, Uzis, mag 10s, .50 caliber machine guns, gau-8s, nuclear artillery or lady gaga. the line has to be drawn somewhere.

the purpose of the second amendment, was to allow for legitimate militias to act as an interim military and police force until a point where the government could establish police forces and an actual military. and it was a good policy up till the point where the frontier was used up. that would have been a good time to repeal the amendment. it doesn't make a whole lot of since for people who live in the city to own firearms, unless its full of criminals who also have them. you also had (and still have) those who live in more rural locations, where its cheaper and often better to go hunting than it is to buy meat. i dint want to take guns away from people who use them to feed their families (i have at least 10 pounds of venison in the freezer and it makes damn good chili).

id simply pass a law to ban antipersonnel weapons, namely handguns. id still allow hunting rifles, shotguns, and the like, nothing that would conveniently fit in oversized pants worn at the knee. of course certain groups would probably take offense to such a law. banning guns out right would seriously piss off those rural people, who conveniently seem to gather, collect and sell any raw materials that the urbanites among you need to build their cities. the gravel pit my in-laws run makes the gravel for concrete used in this part of the state. guns certainly make their jobs easier, so they don't have to kill the porcupines that chew on the hydraulic lines on the machines with their bare hands. or (and this is my favorite option), people can stop *****ing about guns, and accept the small amount of death they cause.

Except that it doesn't say anything about only being relevant unless and until there is an organized army.  It says that citizens have the right to keep and bear arms.  What is implicit in that statement is that they would be around to be wielded against the leadership(implicitly Congress and The President) if they begin to behave as England had.