HAVE U LESS RIGHT TO DEFEND YOUR LIFE IF U R STUDYING ?

guns were in absolutely NO respect "some of the first machines." that is just completely crap. the first guns had ZERO moving parts. they were not machines, they were tools.

and no, david, we do not know that making guns is "e z." this is only your assertion but in no way a fact. the production of precision weapons requires more than average know-how and tools that most people would not have, would not buy or could not afford.

as for ammo, many people do make their own - military snipers, however, do not. there are regulations about what sorts of ammo must be used (and before you ask, yes, i was trained by the military on an M-16). it would be extremely difficult to produce ammo with no casings, blasting caps or gun powder. i imagine if we had the intellect to ban all guns, the parts used in their production would also be banned.

and seriously, you've said several times that when you ere 8 you had a gun... blah blah blah. that doesn't really say anything except that your parents were exceptionally lacking in common sense. you've already said yourself that they left you alone for long periods of time... perhaps this lack of parenting has something to do with your lack of spelling.

i agree. banning guns would not stop all guns from entering the country. but BY FAR it would reduce the gun violence today.

AGROTE

you still have not provided a viable solution to unregistered guns.
for every two registered guns there is at least 1 unregistered.
the millions of guns that you fail to take into account are just as dangerous as ones that are legally owned. this is a huge loophole in your plan of attack on gun violence.

i view your plan as a bandaid treatment to a severed arm.
you are not effectively controlling the bleeding, and you arent reattaching it the arm. you are just making it seem better but it is really not.

as for being able to make a gun, who needs to if they can still obtain obtain an unregistered gun.

any idiot with commonsense can make a sten gun, if they had to.
for those that dont know the sten gun is british genious at work, it is simple reliable, cheap to manufacture, and can be built with simple hand tools.


as for the availability of ammunition, the average gun owner can have from 100 rounds to 5000 rounds. ammunition is not regulated.

even of you did outlaw ammunition, there would still be trillions of cartridges circulating in america.


i just cant believe that you are saying that knife violence is less harmful than gun violence. both kill and maim people.

knives in my opinion are more dangerous. they are silent. you would rather have cho attack and kill people in secret, and not get caught. which our media says is commonplace, for knife murders to occur in the uk and
and be unsolved. at least firearms are traceable and produce a loud noise.
this noise allowed some students to time to barricade the classroom.


as for making cartridges from scratch, it is easily done.
but unnecessary due to brass cartidges being common.



you may think it is idiotic that we americans protect the rights of the individual, i feel that in order to protect the rights of society the rights of the individual must be upheld. what kind of goverment would not trust a citizen with a sharp knife, obviously does not trust the general populace.
the american government works, the government does not guarantee for your protection, but guarantees individual the right the defend himself if they so choose.

in america the general populace does own firearms,
a large percentage of US citizens serve in the military, and police.
and a large percentage are retired from armed forces.
a large percentage of americans are raised in a household with a firearm.


you paint a picture of all gun/knife owners being evil. that is the same as saying that the majority of americans are evil and are criminals. this is false, and serves to prove that you know little about america. as a gun and knife owner, i resent you labelling all gun owners as rampaging gunmen.

your prejudice against guns, drove you to the conclusion of eliminating guns, even though it will not help.



you dont seem to understand the fact that firearms are commonplace.

your plan could take 100 years to work, i am interested in what to do now.

the supreme court of the us has overturned DCs gan ban, after the appeal it will set a precedent for all states and cities.

my goal is to try and eliminate the criminal.
my goal is to make crime not worth commiting, if no crimes are worth commiting then there will be less crime. i think that we need to make the penalties more severe.


as for disregarding important documents, does your government still uphold the Magna Carta , or is it just a peace of history?


vikorr

you can make anything you want to make. any person who has the time can research and produce anything
you can make gunpowder, a gun, or any component of a gun.

a simple understanding of chemistry and the internet is all you need to build anything you desire.

usaf hokie

you do not have to make a precise gun. most shootings that you are trying to prevent occur within 15 feet. at that distance you just need the gun to fire and not malfunction.

if you are talking about long distance, a handgun cannot save you anyway, as it is extremely difficult to hit a target a 100+ yards with a pistol.

if you ban all new product what will happen to existing parts and ammo.
please note that parts are not traceable, ammo is not traceable. the parts are small and easy to hide.

how will you deal with this?

15' is more than enough that an imprecise weapon would be useless. also, even if someone managed to make this gun, the chances that they could produce a semi-automatic or fully auto weapon is highly unlikely. that does take precision.

and yes, parts are traceable. EVERYTHING is traceable. that's all forensic science does. realistically, it could be as easy as recording the information of a buyer. of course, there are people that have some materials at their homes already, but they won't last forever.

you SERIOUSLY overestimate the average intelligence. i dare say that the majority of the persons who feel the need/desire to attempt to make their own gunpowder probably didn't graduate from high school and probably lack that very basic chemistry (among other) skill.

CZJAY, your posts are very long, and they jump all over the place. You bombard me with various points and arguments, many of which just don't apply to what I've said. For example, you criticise my "plan of attack on gun violence", when I don't even have one. All I'm saying is that there needs to be an attack on gun violence, and that it makes perfect logical sense that getting rid of guns would get rid of gun violence. That means all guns: registered and unregisted. But I don't have a plan; I down't know how you could get rid of both registered and unregistered guns. All I know is that you need to find a way to do it.

I have many more objections to your previous post, but I fear that if I make too many points at once, you will respond with yet another incredibly long and chaotic bombardment of misinformation. I don't have the energy to respond to your badly-written manifestos. If you feel like being concise and to the point, and if you feel like reading my posts carefully and responding only to the points I actually make*, then this conversation might get somewhere.

*I don't think gun-owners are 'evil'. I never said that, and I don't believe it. Try arguing with what I say, not what I don't say.

CZJAY,

My question was not asked of you. David has said numerous times he can make a gun. I was curious to know if he can make gunpowder.

Of course, evem if one had the knowhow to make gunpowder, should the govt choose to ban gunpowder, then sourcing the ingredients for gunpowder in secrecy would pose some risk.

In relation to Agrotes plan...it could well take 100 years.

usaf hokie

for those shots fired at less than 15 feet, 90% occurence are at at 5-7feet
distance. that does not take bullseye accuracy, or a precise weapon to hit a man sized target at twice arms distance.

gunpowder is known to last for hundreds of years.
metal parts last forever if kept oiled, and away with water.

gun parts can be traced back to the "original buyer", there is no record of swapping hands, usually. a lot of times people throw old parts away, will they be accused of a crime, if parts cant be found.

using forensic science to track down every single part, and piece of metal, would take forever, 100s of years.


what do you think of the new counter measures they are going to put into place at va tech?

are off duty police attending class allowed to carry at va tech?
i could not find anything specific on their website.
just says that



agrote

i did view your post as a plan.
your plan was to get rid of all the guns, in order to prevent gun violence.

i was simply stating that the high number of unregistered guns, is why you cant get rid of gun violence this way.

a majority of gun violence in america, possibly 90% of gun crime, is performed by illegal weapons.

it would not be efficient to eliminate gun crime in this manner. the US has researched this avenue of approach it simply takes too much resources, and yields little results.

as a result the general assembly has passed laws to deter crime
such as concealed carry, castle doctrine, and others. to make criminals think twice about robbing a person or residence. in my opinion criminals are not "threatened by death", that is just simply one of the possible consequences of their actions.


i have read about gun laws in your country from wikipedia. it seems that the UK never had as many guns as the US. UK parliamentry sovereignty stopped firearms ownership in its tracks, back in 1870. the only time firearms willbe allowed is when london has the olympics in 2012.

i would go to say that americans have more unregistered small arms than the all of the UK armed forces, police, and special police combined. you admited it is next to impossible track down so many guns.

my entire point with this argument is that since controlling firearms is near impossible, why should a law abiding citizen with a permit to carry concealed, not be able to protect themselves?

note: US concealed carry permits are not the same as english permits.

from what i understand, english permits allow a citizen to buy a pistol, not to carry it.

in America there are three common types of permits.

a permit to buy a firearm
similiar to english permits, these entitle the holder to buy a single handgun. these permits expire and the holder will have to reapply before regaining permission.

a permit to carry a handgun in the open and in plain view.
this permit allows the holder to carry a handgun in public places.
at private places it is up to the establishment whether or not you are allowed to carry. detailed backgound checks, are performed regularly to see if applicant is still fit to carry.

a permit to carry a handgun concealed and hidden from plain view.
the permit is legal to carry in all public places.
concealed carry permits are the hardest to obtain.
some requirements are:

no drug related offenses, including traffic incidents
no felony charges against you
may not have been ordered to recieve mental help for the last 5 years.
may not be a danger to yourself and/or others
not have certain misdemeanor charges
have not been arrested for crimes of violence.
have not been charged with a violent crime.
may not have restraining orders against you.
pass a thorough background check.
pass an interview with the chief of police or sheriff.
pass an interview with the local magistrate or judge.
pass a pistol course and show proficiency with handguns.
not have a dishonorable discharge from the military.
have good knowledge of laws in your area.
must be 21 years of age.


it is usually easier to become a police officer, than a concealed permit holder. many localities give similiar rights to concealed carry permit holders as off duty police. only permit holders do not have the authority to write summons and make arrests. we still have to call 911 after a crime has been committed. we just do what we can until police arrive.



to all posters,

nobody has given me a straight answer on why concealed carry permit holders cannot carry at a campus as they do in other places. do you reject undercover police at campus as well, as they carry concealed as well?

are the requirements to get a concealed carry permit not enough to gain your trust?


viktorr
100 years...
in the mean time how will you protect yourself from an armed threat.
from agrotes analysis all gun owners are potential maniacal gunmen.
80% of americans own guns, what will you do?

So, CZJAY, how do you feel about Snood?

cjay:

your posts are SERIOUSLY too long. you need to keep it a little shorter if you expect people to read.

anyway... what i meant by "last forever" was that a given supply of gunpowder cannot be used over and over. eventually it will be used up.

and as for the distance at which most guns are discharged... i'm not sure where you get the stats for that, but i don't really care... at that range, you could just as easily use a knife. the point is that a semi- for fully- automatic gun has the potential to kill many more and at a greater distance.

usaf hokie

i know my posts are long but i mean to inform as well as present my argument.

agrote is from another country i simply wanted to show that our system of gun licensing is different than theirs.

agrote was probably thinking that i propose all people be able to carry firearms to class. that is not the case, off duty police and CC permit holders would have that ability.

as for tracking down the ammo/ gunpowder.
i think my rights will be violated when they expect me to have x amount of ammo and i cant produce it. i presume they will go into my house and turn it upside down trying to obtain one bullet.

violating my right to arms, as well as privacy. surely you would not give up your right to privacy.

as for forensic researching invoices
i would like them to count how much ammo i bought last year. it might have been 20,000+rounds. i expended most of it, but whose keeping track of that.

are you are saying that a knife is more dangerous than a gun at that distance? if so you are correct.

i dont know how big the classrooms are but on the news cho was firing in the middle of it. could not have been more than 15-20 ft radius. some students had to be within arms distance.

you are missing my point as well....

you have to understand that to defending yourself is a right not a privilege. it is a privilege in the UK.

va tech violated your rights as you could not have even carried an effective knife to combat cho's assault. my entire point is that you should have a choice in your defense. even if it is only a fixed blade knife. if not they had better provide for your safety, by the means of metal detectors or guards.

my logic
i would not have to provide for my own security if it was provided for me.


agrote

what good is a hypothesis when you dont even provide a procedure for its success?

Hi CZJAY

That is up to the residents of the US, not me. It seems most of them have voted in favour of having guns.

Were I a resident of the US, then the argument would be between allowing people to protect themselves (due to a heightened death toll) vs not allowing them to protect themselves now in the interests of a long term declining death toll. I am presuming the former would be the most popular view.

It would be interesting to see stats on how many peoples lives have been saved by having guns vs how many peoples lives have been killed...don't think anyone keeps any sort of stats like that though (and even if they did, it'd only be someones best guess on the necessity of the death).

I keep saying I won't post any more, but I can't seem to help it...



Yes, you're right. And it would be worth it. It's called building a better world for our children and grandchildren. It's similar to the global warming issue... maybe nothing terrible is going to happen in our life times, but it still makes sense to reduce carbon emissions for the sake of future generations. Of course, in the case of guns, terrible things are happening in our lifetimes... many many people are getting shot.

If America doesn't do something drastic about gun violence, the problem will remain. Things might even get worse.



What you're basically saying is: you can't get rid of all the unregistered guns, because there are lots of them.

This sounds to me like a challenge rather than an impossibility. Why can't you get rid of lots of unregistered guns? If you can get rid of one, why not all of them? It'll be hard work, sure, but isn't it possible?



If it's near impossible, that means it's possible.



Presumably by 'hypothesis' you mean my claim that America needs to get rid of all its guns. What good is that hypothesis? Well if it's true, then making Americans realise that it is true would be a step towards achieving it. One of your country's many aims should be to vastly reduce gun violence. Right? There are a lot of shootings in your country, and it would be better if there weren't so many. I am trying to argue that the most effective way to achieve this would be to (somehow) get rid of all your guns. I think that your goal should be to get rid of guns (and thus get rid of gun violence). I imagine that, before determining that he needed send British troops into the second world war, Churchill came to realise the following: Hitler needs to be stopped. After identifying this goal, or this desired outcome, he did what he needed to do to achieve it. Identifying 'getting rid of all guns' as a desired outcome, or goal, is the first step towards achieving it. The next step is to plan what needs to be done to achieve it, and I am not qualified to do that. I'm not an expert. But I can have a go if you want me to. Here is a rough plan of how America could get rid of all its guns:

1) Stop making guns (but don't confiscate them from permit holders yet).

2) Stop selling guns, close gun shops, melt down any guns that were going to be sold (but still let the permit holders hang onto theirs).

3) Crack down on illegal possession of guns... I mean really crack down. I don't know how, because I'm not a policeman. But perhaps one method would be to tell criminals that if they come forward with an illegal firearm, and hand it in to the police, they will not be charged for their crime. Whereas if they hang on to the weapon, they could face a severe jail sentence. Something like that could work, but I don't know what would be the best method. Destroy every gun that is confiscated.

4) Once the illegal gun problem is under control, ask the permit holders to give up their guns, and then destory them. Destroy the guns, I mean... don't destroy the permit holders.

5) Once gun ownership is down to an absolute minimum, the police would not longer need to be armed and their guns could be destroyed as well (or donated to the army... whatever).

Now as I said, I'm not an expert in these matters, so the above is bound to be a very naive idea of how guns could be eradicated. I'm sure that you will find many things wrong with it. But every problem with my plan is a clue as to what would be a more effective plan. For example, if there is a problem with step 1 (e.g. unemployment), then that problem may indicate how the plan could be modified to be more effective (e.g. by securing jobs for people who currently make guns for a living).

So rather than ripping my plan to shreds and writing an incredibly long post about why it will never work, why don't you take my plan as a first draft which could be improved upon by an expert. Hopefully I have added some plausibility to my claim that it is possible for America to rid itself of all guns.

Anyway, I think you agree with that claim. You only said that it was 'near impossible'... not that it was impossible to get rid of all guns. And when vikorr suggested that it would take 100 years, you didn't say, "no it wouldn't... it could never be done". You seemed to accept that it could happen in 100 years, and then you just complained about what would happen in the meantime.

So it seems that you might actually agree with me that America could get rid of all its guns. And I think you'd have to be insane to suggest that there would be any gun crime if guns simply did not exist. So presumably your main problem with my arguments is that you want to be able to defend yourself from the armed threats that exist at the moment, and which are likely to continue to exist within your lifetime. Getting rid of guns would be all well and good for future generations, but for your generation it would be hard and dangerous work. Right? Well that's understandable. But if some form of my above plan were implemented, then perhaps this would not be too much of a problem... as a permit holder, you would be able to defend yourself right up until there is nobody for you to defend yourself from (i.e. no armed criminals).

agrote

you seem to agree with my point as well.
as it is only fair to let permit holders and off duty police carry at va tech and elsewhere, until armed threats are removed from our society.

in my posts i have never used "absolute" discriptions. your plan may or may not work. nothing is ever 100%.

the only problem is that you rely on the criminal to give up the gun.
i just dont trust them to do so. areas like chicago and new york have had gun turn in programs. all they usually get is junk that would not fire in the first place.


usaf hokie

i got those stats from the FBI. that is why handguns dont have to be accurate. many of the FBI encounters started at 30 feet but the criminal charged them within arms distance in about 2 secs. that single statistic is why the FBI has a different shooting style than police.

hmm... well then i would say those stats are somewhat irrelevant as most gun encounters do not include the FBI and criminals "charging"

whats the difference between how fbi and police shoot?

firstly, the fbi is trained to remove the safety while drawing their weapon. the police are trained to draw the weapon and then remove safety before firing. not really sure about any other differences.

usaf hokie

your post says that a handguns have to be precise, accurate machines.
i disagree, it seems the FBI also disagrees. due to their stats the FBI trains its agents with both point and aimed shooting. the FBI proves that accurate aimed fire is only effective at 30-50 feet. at less than 30 feet agents are trained not to use sights and engage their adversaries with point shooting. police are usually trained in aimed fire only, swat is a different story.

my point is that
if accurate fire was so important, why does the FBI place so much importance on unaimed shooting?

this applies to our scenario because cho was close to his victims. he for sure didnt take time to aim, as his hit/miss ratio was horrible. he still would have been just as deadly if he had an imprecise/ homemade gun, as long as it was reliable. cho still would have the advantage over his forcefully disarmed classmates.

you may have trained with an M16, but that is a rifle. you have probably trained with a m9 or 1911a1 based on when you joined the military. rifle accuracy at long range is based on precision components. handgun accuracy at close range is based on the shooter. they are two different things.

your argument is flawed - completely.

suppose the entire reason that aiming is not required at sub-30-feet distance is because of the precision of the gun. if the barrel isn't straight or there are other imperfections, the gun on a whole is not accurate and just pointing at something even further reduces the chances of hitting it.

usaf hokie

they are made to be loaded quickly, despatch a target with a tumbling bullet, be hidden, and be safe to the shooter. they are usually smoothbore, and are able to fire shotshells.


you are going to have to explain how you define precision.

how much precision are you going to need to fire into a crowded room?

do you need a five shot group of 1" at 100yds.
a five shot group of 8" at 1000yds.
a five shot group of 2" at 25yds pistol.
a five shot group of 1" at 50yds .22lr pistol.
a twelve shot group of 6" at 50ft m9 pistol.


improvised/ homemade firearms are not made to be accurate by military standards.

if you are used to shooting 1" five shot groups at 100yards,
a five shot group of 12" at 10' is not going to seem accurate at all. but it is still dangerous as it gives a criminal 100% chance of hitting a man sized target at 10'. if the criminal was using a shotshell based weapon it would definately be worse for the victims.

barrel isnt straight...
common, the barrel would have to be bent at a thirty degree angle to miss at the distance inside a classroom. besides, no criminal would be dumb enough to produce a firearm with intentional damage.

imperfections
i have shot guns with rusted barrels, dinged crowns, and dented barrels. they are not as detrimental to accuracy as you would believe.

i think that shooting military grade guns has given you a high expectation of what a firearm should do. the m16 is an inherently accurate rifle by design. you should not compare it to a handgun.

my point is that you do not need a military grade gun, at distances as confined as a classroom.