Ted Nugent on Gun Control

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

Proponents of gun rights generally oppose any gun control laws. For example, as you note, the NRA opposes a 5 day waiting period for background checks. Usually the people who need a gun within the next 5 days are the types of people who should be forced to wait an eternity to get a gun. Proponents of gun rights also generally subscribe to the theory that our society would be safer if more people were packing heat (hence their opposition to conceal & carry restrictions). So, if proponents of gun rights are not in favor of the proliferation of weapons, they damn sure are not advocating for restricting access to them.

The NRA opposes just about any limitations on access to guns. That they oppose a 5 day period for a background check and "cooling off" scares me. As for your free speech analogy, I don't think the two are even in the same ballpark.

I obviously believe that everyone has the right to defend oneself against attack. However, I don't believe that the right of self-defense is synonymous with the right to have unlimited access to firearms. I also believe that when criminals are buying weapons legally or illegally acquiring weapons that were once purchased legally, you don't solve the problem by making weapons easier to obtain.

Finally, I think shotguns and rifles should be legal. I think almost all other firearms should be illegal.

As has been pointed out over and over in excruciating detail, gun control doesn't work because it only applies to the law abiding. Criminals will not abide by a five day waiting period or any other form of gun control by virtue of the fact that they are criminals. Therefore, only the innocent, law abiding citizens will have to jump through all the legal hoops, while thugs can run rampant with any type of firearm they want without restriction. Disarming the law abiding, leaving them without any effective means to protect themselves will only make the problem far, far worse.

Intelligent people can disagree, but I see our fundamental rights to speak freely, express ourselves politically, and to safeguard those fundamental rights by force against tyranny, as one in the same.

[724Skinsfan]

Every time I read this thread I always ask myself, "What do the people in England think about their gun ban?". Finally, I googled the question and came upon this fairly interesting piece:

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by 724Skinsfan

Every time I read this thread I always ask myself, "What do the people in England think about their gun ban?". Finally, I googled the question and came upon this fairly interesting piece:

I came up with this.

[steveo395]

http://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/papers/Lon...ime-EW.xls.pdf

Guns were banned in 1997 and violent crime rates increased dramatically.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by steveo395

http://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/papers/Lon...ime-EW.xls.pdf

Guns were banned in 1997 and violent crime rates increased dramatically.

I bought my first car 12 years ago and my aunt died the next week. The lesson being, your aunt will die if you buy a car.

Sorry to be a smart ass, but those stats don't prove anything.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

but those stats don't prove anything.

How do they not prove anything? I am all for hearing your take on this, cause it seems this argument is just about put to bed with these stats. Of course, it's hard to fully judge without a valid argument to the contrary...but so far your arguments to this have been smoke and mirrors at best. So please tell us why these stats don't prove anything.
(disclaimer, I am being 100% genuine, not sarcastic)

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by jsarno

How do they not prove anything? I am all for hearing your take on this, cause it seems this argument is just about put to bed with these stats. Of course, it's hard to fully judge without a valid argument to the contrary...but so far your arguments to this have been smoke and mirrors at best. So please tell us why these stats don't prove anything.
(disclaimer, I am being 100% genuine, not sarcastic)

The stats do not prove anything because it does not establish a causal relationship between the gun laws and crime. If I told you that the SEC increased securties fraud prosecutions in 2007 and the weather in 2008 was much nicer than in 2007, would you believe that securities fraud prosecutions improve weather conditions?

Since you have decided to label my arguments "smoke and mirrors," let me just say that most of the arguments I've seen around here sound like cheap talking points of the NRA (e.g., "gun control laws only hurt the innocent").

Finally, I don't think you really want to get into a comparison between the U.S. and the U.K. with regard to gun control laws. In the U.S., it is extremely easy to gain access to firearms. In the U.K., it is difficult to gain access to firearms. The U.S. gun crime stats make us look like a third world country in the midst of a civil war when compared with U.K. gun crime stats.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

I came up with this.

Sorry SSG, but that article does not help your argument. OF COURSE they want stricter gun laws, look at how their crimes INCREASED. Who wouldn't want the gun laws to be stricter when crime is rampant because of short sighted politicians.
It's been said 100 times here, but the only people you will hurt with stricter gun laws are the law abiding. England is proof.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by 724Skinsfan

Every time I read this thread I always ask myself, "What do the people in England think about their gun ban?". Finally, I googled the question and came upon this fairly interesting piece:

Excellent, excellent find and post.
40% increase in firearm crimes! wow.
One of those protesters stuck out in my mind with his sign that read "I LOVE my country, but I fear my government".

If that is not evidence that we need to keep guns, then what is?

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

As has been pointed out over and over in excruciating detail, gun control doesn't work because it only applies to the law abiding.

As you might expect, I disagree. For example, a 5 day waiting period for a background check burdens the innocent and the guilty. The innocent are burdened with waiting less than one week to obtain a handgun. Felons are burdened because they can't got to the nearest gun store to buy a hangun. Sure the felons can try to buy a gun on the black market, but the innocent can buy a shotgun or a rifle if they desperately need a firearm within a week. So, I fail to see how the innocent are so woefully burdened by the 5 day waiting period; provided they don't desperately need to blow someone away with a 9mm instead of a shotgun slug.

Gun control laws also restrict the sale of fully automatic, high caliber machine guns. Are the innocent really so burdened by not having ready access to anti-aircraft guns like a fully automatic 50 caliber browning machine gun? Those gun control laws seem to have a damn good job keeping heavy machine guns off of the black market.

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Criminals will not abide by a five day waiting period or any other form of gun control by virtue of the fact that they are criminals. Therefore, only the innocent, law abiding citizens will have to jump through all the legal hoops, while thugs can run rampant with any type of firearm they want without restriction.

Jump through what legal hoops? Show a driver's license, fill out a form, and wait 5 days to purchase a handgun instead of a 12 gauge? Would you rather there be no background checks whatsoever so a felon can walk into the neighborhood store and buy a uzi?

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Disarming the law abiding, leaving them without any effective means to protect themselves will only make the problem far, far worse.

The gun control laws on the books only disarm felons and persons who shouldn't be in possession of firearms. So, I don't know who you think is being unjustifiably disarmed.