Courts strike down Washington DC handgun ban...

[GTX]

Many people in my area own handguns, rifles and shotguns. In the rural areas of the country, law enforcement officers, conservation officers and animal control officers are scarce, almost nonnexistent, especially in the winter months. We carry handguns, and semi-auto rifles in all our personal & service vehicles and in our campers & boats. We've never had to shoot anyone, but we've pulled our weapons a few times, held people at gunpoint & shot dangerous dogs and potentially dangerous wild animals. The last time I used my gun was to put a wounded deer hit by a car out of its misery.

[Reflex]

That constitution was written a long time ago - it was a different world back then. Don't you think its time for an update?

No, not really.  It was written with universal freedoms in mind, such freedoms don't simply 'dissapear' one day.

You are right.  Not in 'one day'.  But maybe perhaps after 200 years when our country no longer fears invasion and every state has their own standing military along side the national military, maybe times have changed?  I dont think the constitution is black and white, nor do I think its meant to be.  It was a compromised document then, it is still today.

Well your certainly welcome to your opinion, but I'm less willing to throw out the baby with the bath water.  Plenty of regions of the country have high gun ownership rates and low violence.  Other nations, like Canada, have high gun ownership rates with low gun violence.  Its certainly doable, and I don't think government should be about taking away the rights of the many because of the abuses of the few.

[Rocky]

That constitution was written a long time ago - it was a different world back then. Don't you think its time for an update?

No, not really.  It was written with universal freedoms in mind, such freedoms don't simply 'dissapear' one day.

You are right.  Not in 'one day'.  But maybe perhaps after 200 years when our country no longer fears invasion and every state has their own standing military along side the national military, maybe times have changed?  I dont think the constitution is black and white, nor do I think its meant to be.  It was a compromised document then, it is still today.

Well your certainly welcome to your opinion, but I'm less willing to throw out the baby with the bath water.  Plenty of regions of the country have high gun ownership rates and low violence.  Other nations, like Canada, have high gun ownership rates with low gun violence.  Its certainly doable, and I don't think government should be about taking away the rights of the many because of the abuses of the few.

Sort of the argument for legalizing marijuana I guess.  

Of course its doable, but in a lot of areas it isnt doing.  Like in Washington DC, where gun violence is a major problem, hence the ban issue, hence the topic.

[Maturin]

I don't own a gun and have never used one, but the right to use one in self defense is something you should never deny a person.

[Rocky]

I don't own a gun and have never used one, but the right to use one in self defense is something you should never deny a person.

Can I ask what type of self defense should be denied?  Should you be able to shoot someone entering your home?  Should you be able to shoot someone to stop from stealing your car?  Should you be able to shoot them with a sawed off shotgun?  Should the be able to defend themselves with an AK-47?

Your statement is what many people feel, but I think you'll find yourself drawing a line at somepoint.  What is reasonable to defend yourself with.  Are stun guns not good enough defense?

[Reflex]

Actually those issues are already handled in existing law, so I don't see what your point is.

BTW, the ban in DC has not reduced the violent crime rate at all, its still consistantly one of the top three cities for homicide in the nation, with and without the ban.  As pointed out repeatedly, a 'ban' dosen't stop a criminal.

[VorLonUK]

Correct me if I'm wrong. Back in the old days, the idea of letting ppl own guns were to have themselves protected and fight against the wrong doings of the authorities, corrupted cops for example.

But time has changed. Even you own a gun, you can't fight the corrupted police officers any more. Their fire power just simply outclass yours. No matter what the reason might be, if you dare to raise any threat against a police, you'll get the guarantee of being shot.
Guns are no longer protecting ourselves, instead they make threat to the society.

That's exactly true, but most American's won't/can't see it as it's all part of their heritage, essentially they are indoctrinated to many parts of the constitution, even if those are no longer "fit for purpose". In a way it's understandable, it's their heritage, but in another it completely disregards any common sense - especially in these modern times.

Facts are that US law Enforcement have to up the ante and also be ready "guns wise" on a wider range of apprehensions because they can't take the risk that the person they are arresting/pursuing isn't armed. Now how can that be modern civilised progress? But then again if American's like the sentiment of their constitution which appears to be outdated in some areas, then it's up to them.

In the same way, I've grown up with the police NOT having guns, it's bloody great and totally civilised. I know if I wished I could commit endless motoring offences say in one go and know that when I was eventually apprehended I wouldn't have a dozen police, guns drawn approaching my vehicle.

From what i gather from over the years of chatting to Americans that it seems to be a US "Comfort Blanket" in so many ways the US Love for guns. However in reality that "Comfort Blanket" is highly inflammable - so what's the point, escalation for the sake of it?
Basically its an impotent aspect of the constitution, because in reality a mass uprising (armed) would never happen now. If any American's think that it could and that is a reason that they still bear arms, then they are clearly delusional. Just how many armed civilians would actually make it to the White house anyway??

But it's up to American's, who am I to comment? If they like shooting each other because of a "right", let them go ahead. One day they might just figure it out lol.

[Rocky]

Actually those issues are already handled in existing law, so I don't see what your point is.

BTW, the ban in DC has not reduced the violent crime rate at all, its still consistantly one of the top three cities for homicide in the nation, with and without the ban.  As pointed out repeatedly, a 'ban' dosen't stop a criminal.

Im not sure which issues you think are already handled by law.

As far as your information on DC.  Let me add some actual numbers to the debate instead of heresay.  In 1991, DC had 482 homicides, that number has gone down almost every year and in 2005 it was 195.  I think thats a pretty drastic decline, even if still bad today.  

I think you'll also find that because of the small nature of DC and the many surrounding states you have a negative influence from there.  For instance, the Beltway sniper incident that happened a short while ago.  That all took place within the beltway I beleive and with a legal gun.

[VorLonUK]

Actually those issues are already handled in existing law, so I don't see what your point is.

BTW, the ban in DC has not reduced the violent crime rate at all, its still consistantly one of the top three cities for homicide in the nation, with and without the ban.  As pointed out repeatedly, a 'ban' dosen't stop a criminal.

Im not sure which issues you think are already handled by law.

As far as your information on DC.  Let me add some actual numbers to the debate instead of heresay.  In 1991, DC had 482 homicides, that number has gone down almost every year and in 2005 it was 195.  I think thats a pretty drastic decline, even if still bad today.  

I think you'll also find that because of the small nature of DC and the many surrounding states you have a negative influence from there.  For instance, the Beltway sniper incident that happened a short while ago.  That all took place within the beltway I beleive and with a legal gun.

from the linkage:-

Today's decision flies in the face of gun laws that have helped decrease gun violence in the District of Columbia," Mayor Adrian Fenty said. The city will likely appeal for a hearing of the full appeals court before any appeal to the Supreme Court, he said.

What I would like to know, regardless of figures (ie lives saved) how many Americans on here would still support their "Constitutional" Gun Right even if it was well proven in many states that gun bans eventually reduced gun crime and more importantly fatalities? Honest answers please. I want to see where the line of indoctrination and common sense is drawn.

[Rocky]

Correct me if I'm wrong. Back in the old days, the idea of letting ppl own guns were to have themselves protected and fight against the wrong doings of the authorities, corrupted cops for example.

But time has changed. Even you own a gun, you can't fight the corrupted police officers any more. Their fire power just simply outclass yours. No matter what the reason might be, if you dare to raise any threat against a police, you'll get the guarantee of being shot.
Guns are no longer protecting ourselves, instead they make threat to the society.

That's exactly true, but most American's won't/can't see it as it's all part of their heritage, essentially they are indoctrinated to many parts of the constitution, even if those are no longer "fit for purpose". In a way it's understandable, it's their heritage, but in another it completely disregards any common sense - especially in these modern times.

Facts are that US law Enforcement have to up the ante and also be ready "guns wise" on a wider range of apprehensions because they can't take the risk that the person they are arresting/pursuing isn't armed. Now how can that be modern civilised progress? But then again if American's like the sentiment of their constitution which appears to be outdated in some areas, then it's up to them.

In the same way, I've grown up with the police NOT having guns, it's bloody great and totally civilised. I know if I wished I could commit endless motoring offences say in one go and know that when I was eventually apprehended I wouldn't have a dozen police, guns drawn approaching my vehicle.

From what i gather from over the years of chatting to Americans that it seems to be a US "Comfort Blanket" in so many ways the US Love for guns. However in reality that "Comfort Blanket" is highly inflammable - so what's the point, escalation for the sake of it?
Basically its an impotent aspect of the constitution, because in reality a mass uprising (armed) would never happen now. If any American's think that it could and that is a reason that they still bear arms, then they are clearly delusional. Just how many armed civilians would actually make it to the White house anyway??

But it's up to American's, who am I to comment? If they like shooting each other because of a "right", let them go ahead. One day they might just figure it out lol.

I think its also important to remember the America actually still has wildlife, we havent killed them all off like in other places of the world.  Guns do have more of a purpose than protection.

[VorLonUK]

Correct me if I'm wrong. Back in the old days, the idea of letting ppl own guns were to have themselves protected and fight against the wrong doings of the authorities, corrupted cops for example.

But time has changed. Even you own a gun, you can't fight the corrupted police officers any more. Their fire power just simply outclass yours. No matter what the reason might be, if you dare to raise any threat against a police, you'll get the guarantee of being shot.
Guns are no longer protecting ourselves, instead they make threat to the society.

That's exactly true, but most American's won't/can't see it as it's all part of their heritage, essentially they are indoctrinated to many parts of the constitution, even if those are no longer "fit for purpose". In a way it's understandable, it's their heritage, but in another it completely disregards any common sense - especially in these modern times.

Facts are that US law Enforcement have to up the ante and also be ready "guns wise" on a wider range of apprehensions because they can't take the risk that the person they are arresting/pursuing isn't armed. Now how can that be modern civilised progress? But then again if American's like the sentiment of their constitution which appears to be outdated in some areas, then it's up to them.

In the same way, I've grown up with the police NOT having guns, it's bloody great and totally civilised. I know if I wished I could commit endless motoring offences say in one go and know that when I was eventually apprehended I wouldn't have a dozen police, guns drawn approaching my vehicle.

From what i gather from over the years of chatting to Americans that it seems to be a US "Comfort Blanket" in so many ways the US Love for guns. However in reality that "Comfort Blanket" is highly inflammable - so what's the point, escalation for the sake of it?
Basically its an impotent aspect of the constitution, because in reality a mass uprising (armed) would never happen now. If any American's think that it could and that is a reason that they still bear arms, then they are clearly delusional. Just how many armed civilians would actually make it to the White house anyway??

But it's up to American's, who am I to comment? If they like shooting each other because of a "right", let them go ahead. One day they might just figure it out lol.

I think its also important to remember the America actually still has wildlife, we havent killed them all off like in other places of the world.  Guns do have more of a purpose than protection.

I'll take that onboard Rocky   .See my new post above.

[Rocky]

Correct me if I'm wrong. Back in the old days, the idea of letting ppl own guns were to have themselves protected and fight against the wrong doings of the authorities, corrupted cops for example.

But time has changed. Even you own a gun, you can't fight the corrupted police officers any more. Their fire power just simply outclass yours. No matter what the reason might be, if you dare to raise any threat against a police, you'll get the guarantee of being shot.
Guns are no longer protecting ourselves, instead they make threat to the society.

That's exactly true, but most American's won't/can't see it as it's all part of their heritage, essentially they are indoctrinated to many parts of the constitution, even if those are no longer "fit for purpose". In a way it's understandable, it's their heritage, but in another it completely disregards any common sense - especially in these modern times.

Facts are that US law Enforcement have to up the ante and also be ready "guns wise" on a wider range of apprehensions because they can't take the risk that the person they are arresting/pursuing isn't armed. Now how can that be modern civilised progress? But then again if American's like the sentiment of their constitution which appears to be outdated in some areas, then it's up to them.

In the same way, I've grown up with the police NOT having guns, it's bloody great and totally civilised. I know if I wished I could commit endless motoring offences say in one go and know that when I was eventually apprehended I wouldn't have a dozen police, guns drawn approaching my vehicle.

From what i gather from over the years of chatting to Americans that it seems to be a US "Comfort Blanket" in so many ways the US Love for guns. However in reality that "Comfort Blanket" is highly inflammable - so what's the point, escalation for the sake of it?
Basically its an impotent aspect of the constitution, because in reality a mass uprising (armed) would never happen now. If any American's think that it could and that is a reason that they still bear arms, then they are clearly delusional. Just how many armed civilians would actually make it to the White house anyway??

But it's up to American's, who am I to comment? If they like shooting each other because of a "right", let them go ahead. One day they might just figure it out lol.

I think its also important to remember the America actually still has wildlife, we havent killed them all off like in other places of the world.  Guns do have more of a purpose than protection.

I'll take that onboard Rocky   .See my new post above.

I dont think it should be a constitutional right myself.  I think that part is dated.  But I am all for allowing people to own guns if its proven its needed and not hindering society.  In DC, its most definately hindering society.  In North Dakota, where I am from, everyone owns guns, and theres no crime.  There is also a very large hunting/tourism market.  Yes a few people die in accidents every year, but more peopel die from snowmobiling, so its not really because of guns.  Im ok with that, its an accepted risk.  But to try to make a blanket law across the whole land on something like this is ridiculous.

[Maturin]

Off topic, but I saw a great bumper sticker the other day. It said: "If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?"

[Fontaine]

When you fight, you do it with your fists but I rather just don't.

Anyways I am happy that we don't got them and swords are also not allowed here.

But you can buy stilleto's but don't get caught carrying them!

And guess what pistols our cops are wearing (when they wear a pistol...)
Big bad  Walther P5  :vampire:

[VorLonUK]

Correct me if I'm wrong. Back in the old days, the idea of letting ppl own guns were to have themselves protected and fight against the wrong doings of the authorities, corrupted cops for example.

But time has changed. Even you own a gun, you can't fight the corrupted police officers any more. Their fire power just simply outclass yours. No matter what the reason might be, if you dare to raise any threat against a police, you'll get the guarantee of being shot.
Guns are no longer protecting ourselves, instead they make threat to the society.

That's exactly true, but most American's won't/can't see it as it's all part of their heritage, essentially they are indoctrinated to many parts of the constitution, even if those are no longer "fit for purpose". In a way it's understandable, it's their heritage, but in another it completely disregards any common sense - especially in these modern times.

Facts are that US law Enforcement have to up the ante and also be ready "guns wise" on a wider range of apprehensions because they can't take the risk that the person they are arresting/pursuing isn't armed. Now how can that be modern civilised progress? But then again if American's like the sentiment of their constitution which appears to be outdated in some areas, then it's up to them.

In the same way, I've grown up with the police NOT having guns, it's bloody great and totally civilised. I know if I wished I could commit endless motoring offences say in one go and know that when I was eventually apprehended I wouldn't have a dozen police, guns drawn approaching my vehicle.

From what i gather from over the years of chatting to Americans that it seems to be a US "Comfort Blanket" in so many ways the US Love for guns. However in reality that "Comfort Blanket" is highly inflammable - so what's the point, escalation for the sake of it?
Basically its an impotent aspect of the constitution, because in reality a mass uprising (armed) would never happen now. If any American's think that it could and that is a reason that they still bear arms, then they are clearly delusional. Just how many armed civilians would actually make it to the White house anyway??

But it's up to American's, who am I to comment? If they like shooting each other because of a "right", let them go ahead. One day they might just figure it out lol.

I think its also important to remember the America actually still has wildlife, we havent killed them all off like in other places of the world.  Guns do have more of a purpose than protection.

I'll take that onboard Rocky   .See my new post above.

I dont think it should be a constitutional right myself.  I think that part is dated.  But I am all for allowing people to own guns if its proven its needed and not hindering society.  In DC, its most definately hindering society.  In North Dakota, where I am from, everyone owns guns, and theres no crime.  There is also a very large hunting/tourism market.  Yes a few people die in accidents every year, but more peopel die from snowmobiling, so its not really because of guns.  Im ok with that, its an accepted risk.  But to try to make a blanket law across the whole land on something like this is ridiculous.

Couldn't that be reversed though Rocky? I'm assuming from what you have said that because of the US's physical spance there are some areas that are more suited to the use of guns, ie hunting.
What I'm saying is why couldn't that constitutional bit (gun right) be withdrawn and the way to gun ownership reversed, ie you need to have a valid reason to own a firearm.

From what i gather, there is already a "ceiling" on the type of firearm allowed, so limitations to a degree are already in force, constitution or not. Is the Constituition broad and individual states restrict up to it?
Does that Ceiling vary from state to state Rocky? or in theory does the constitution allow upto RPG's or beyond etc

[Reflex]

Actually those issues are already handled in existing law, so I don't see what your point is.

BTW, the ban in DC has not reduced the violent crime rate at all, its still consistantly one of the top three cities for homicide in the nation, with and without the ban.  As pointed out repeatedly, a 'ban' dosen't stop a criminal.

Im not sure which issues you think are already handled by law.

As far as your information on DC.  Let me add some actual numbers to the debate instead of heresay.  In 1991, DC had 482 homicides, that number has gone down almost every year and in 2005 it was 195.  I think thats a pretty drastic decline, even if still bad today.  

I think you'll also find that because of the small nature of DC and the many surrounding states you have a negative influence from there.  For instance, the Beltway sniper incident that happened a short while ago.  That all took place within the beltway I beleive and with a legal gun.

The number is meaningless unless you can demonstrate that the decline was at a greater rate than the surrounding areas and other similiar metropolitan areas.  After all, Seattle also declined precipitously during the 90's in its homicide rate, but handguns were never made illegal.

For data to be meaningful, all factors have to be taken into account.

BTW, just out of curiosity, why do some champion one 'right' in the constitution, yet they feel that another right that they do not personally exercise is 'outdated' or not important?  I'm personally very willing to champion the first amendment, but it is somewhat frustrating that many of those who are first amendment champions would have no issue removing my second amendment rights.

I defend the whole document.  Not just the parts that are personally applicable to myself.

[Rocky]

Correct me if I'm wrong. Back in the old days, the idea of letting ppl own guns were to have themselves protected and fight against the wrong doings of the authorities, corrupted cops for example.

But time has changed. Even you own a gun, you can't fight the corrupted police officers any more. Their fire power just simply outclass yours. No matter what the reason might be, if you dare to raise any threat against a police, you'll get the guarantee of being shot.
Guns are no longer protecting ourselves, instead they make threat to the society.

That's exactly true, but most American's won't/can't see it as it's all part of their heritage, essentially they are indoctrinated to many parts of the constitution, even if those are no longer "fit for purpose". In a way it's understandable, it's their heritage, but in another it completely disregards any common sense - especially in these modern times.

Facts are that US law Enforcement have to up the ante and also be ready "guns wise" on a wider range of apprehensions because they can't take the risk that the person they are arresting/pursuing isn't armed. Now how can that be modern civilised progress? But then again if American's like the sentiment of their constitution which appears to be outdated in some areas, then it's up to them.

In the same way, I've grown up with the police NOT having guns, it's bloody great and totally civilised. I know if I wished I could commit endless motoring offences say in one go and know that when I was eventually apprehended I wouldn't have a dozen police, guns drawn approaching my vehicle.

From what i gather from over the years of chatting to Americans that it seems to be a US "Comfort Blanket" in so many ways the US Love for guns. However in reality that "Comfort Blanket" is highly inflammable - so what's the point, escalation for the sake of it?
Basically its an impotent aspect of the constitution, because in reality a mass uprising (armed) would never happen now. If any American's think that it could and that is a reason that they still bear arms, then they are clearly delusional. Just how many armed civilians would actually make it to the White house anyway??

But it's up to American's, who am I to comment? If they like shooting each other because of a "right", let them go ahead. One day they might just figure it out lol.

I think its also important to remember the America actually still has wildlife, we havent killed them all off like in other places of the world.  Guns do have more of a purpose than protection.

I'll take that onboard Rocky   .See my new post above.

I dont think it should be a constitutional right myself.  I think that part is dated.  But I am all for allowing people to own guns if its proven its needed and not hindering society.  In DC, its most definately hindering society.  In North Dakota, where I am from, everyone owns guns, and theres no crime.  There is also a very large hunting/tourism market.  Yes a few people die in accidents every year, but more peopel die from snowmobiling, so its not really because of guns.  Im ok with that, its an accepted risk.  But to try to make a blanket law across the whole land on something like this is ridiculous.

Couldn't that be reversed though Rocky? I'm assuming from what you have said that because of the US's physical spance there are some areas that are more suited to the use of guns, ie hunting.
What I'm saying is why couldn't that constitutional bit (gun right) be withdrawn and the way to gun ownership reversed, ie you need to have a valid reason to own a firearm.

From what i gather, there is already a "ceiling" on the type of firearm allowed, so limitations to a degree are already in force, constitution or not. Is the Constituition broad and individual states restrict up to it?
Does that Ceiling vary from state to state Rocky? or in theory does the constitution allow upto RPG's or beyond etc

Im not an expert on this, but there is a federal ceiling as well.  The ban on many firearms actually just expired, Washington has yet to reinstate it.  Even though Bush says he supports the ban, the NRA says they also do not oppose the ban of some firearms, and demcorats control congress.  I assume its only a matter of time. But states also have certain ceilings as you put it, different lisencing requirements and safety requirements.  In my state there are hunting seasons, so its not a free for all.  So again Ill state I dont think it needs to be in the constitution, but its easier to pass localized ceilings than it is to change the constitution.

[Rocky]

Actually those issues are already handled in existing law, so I don't see what your point is.

BTW, the ban in DC has not reduced the violent crime rate at all, its still consistantly one of the top three cities for homicide in the nation, with and without the ban.  As pointed out repeatedly, a 'ban' dosen't stop a criminal.

Im not sure which issues you think are already handled by law.

As far as your information on DC.  Let me add some actual numbers to the debate instead of heresay.  In 1991, DC had 482 homicides, that number has gone down almost every year and in 2005 it was 195.  I think thats a pretty drastic decline, even if still bad today.  

I think you'll also find that because of the small nature of DC and the many surrounding states you have a negative influence from there.  For instance, the Beltway sniper incident that happened a short while ago.  That all took place within the beltway I beleive and with a legal gun.

The number is meaningless unless you can demonstrate that the decline was at a greater rate than the surrounding areas and other similiar metropolitan areas.  After all, Seattle also declined precipitously during the 90's in its homicide rate, but handguns were never made illegal.

For data to be meaningful, all factors have to be taken into account.

BTW, just out of curiosity, why do some champion one 'right' in the constitution, yet they feel that another right that they do not personally exercise is 'outdated' or not important?  I'm personally very willing to champion the first amendment, but it is somewhat frustrating that many of those who are first amendment champions would have no issue removing my second amendment rights.

I defend the whole document.  Not just the parts that are personally applicable to myself.

Ironic.  Really.  You said that DC was one of the top 3 homicide cities (assuming you based this on numbers).  So then I showed you the actual numbers and then you claim numbers are meaningless?  You just debunked your own argument there...

To your other point, I dont think you have to champion the entire constitution in order to agree with parts of it.  Just like I am proud to be American, but Im not proud of all Americans.  The constitution is a series of compromising and I understand that. Its not something everyone agrees with 100% but its the best agreement we could reach as a country at that given time.

[Rocky]

Reflex, the murder rates in both Maryland and Virginia have not really declined significantly since 1991, they ranged from higher to lower and are still relatively similar.  However the ones in DC have dramatically dropped.  Yes there is no way to perfectly tell what this is from.  But it does show something, it also proves your comments on DC are outdated.  So unless you want to provide actualy information to back up your argument, Ill have to assume you are making it up as you go.

[Balthaser]

When things are going wrong, then we needa do something to stop it.
Being idealist is not a bad thing. And I can understand ppl wanna hold the constitution tightly.
But I prefer not getting shot on the sreet.


Banning guns across the country may be too unpractical.
I think we should look into those cities/counties with high crime rates associating with guns. I'm pretty sure cops have this kinda numbers. In these places, guns should be banned.

[Balthaser]

My friend once made fun with gun controls.

He said while it's impossible to get firearms banned, why not just banned bullets or made the bullets very expensive.

I think somehow his joke could be part of the solution.

[Rocky]

When things are going wrong, then we needa do something to stop it.
Being idealist is not a bad thing. And I can understand ppl wanna hold the constitution tightly.
But I prefer not getting shot on the sreet.


Banning guns across the country may be too unpractical.
I think we should look into those cities/counties with high crime rates associating with guns. I'm pretty sure cops have this kinda numbers. In these places, guns should be banned.

Its funny how on the China issue you claim nations culture and customs and you bash idealism as unrealistc.  And here you do the same thing except in the complete opposite.  Im sure you will say why its different, and it is different, but the math behind your logic shows its the same way of thinking.  I guess everyone can make their argument right as long as we compartmentalize it.

[Fontaine]

Trying it somewhere isn't that bad and just look if things improve or not.

Also its something that must come in your mind, with that I say, smoking was allowed like 5-10 years on workfloor and most had no problems with it and it's just a normal thing and accepted that you don't smoke on the workfloor and most are happy with it TODAY.

I must say; you can't compare the two fully but aslong its printed in the mind; as a right/freedom and a normal thing it always stays that way and it's not a thing you can change fast but possible. But it rather looks like mission impossible today though

[Intuit]

I think its also important to remember the America actually still has wildlife, we havent killed them all off like in other places of the world.  Guns do have more of a purpose than protection.

SideTrack:  You're right but telative to the human perspective, especially Europeans North America is very recently inhabited so it may not really be a fair compairson.  Wherever we have taken hold to a greater extent, there is very little wildlife if any.  BlueJays, Hummingbirds, rabbit and deer were a rare sight when I was little and even increasingly so now... BlueJays I don't see at all.  According to things I've heard in the past, larger animals like bears and lions used to roam this state where as now the only playce they're found is in a zoo. (or a circus) Farther West people get more sparse with newer and newer settlements and so bears have been able to survive in relative isolation there... for now.   Whenever a bear attack is reported everybody with a gun used to take to the hills and kill-up a pile of bears.  Conservationists have thankfully quelled these retaliatory measures to a degree in more recent events however.  Thanks to the efforts of these conservationsists we have a better informed populace and so the continuing process of bio-deversification relaive to human activities, should slow as compared to the past.

[Balthaser]

When things are going wrong, then we needa do something to stop it.
Being idealist is not a bad thing. And I can understand ppl wanna hold the constitution tightly.
But I prefer not getting shot on the sreet.


Banning guns across the country may be too unpractical.
I think we should look into those cities/counties with high crime rates associating with guns. I'm pretty sure cops have this kinda numbers. In these places, guns should be banned.

Its funny how on the China issue you claim nations culture and customs and you bash idealism as unrealistc.  And here you do the same thing except in the complete opposite.  Im sure you will say why its different, and it is different, but the math behind your logic shows its the same way of thinking.  I guess everyone can make their argument right as long as we compartmentalize it.

you might have misunderstood my words, Rocky, I mean totally.
in this debate, in my dictionary, idealistic=guns shouldn't be banned at all because of the constitution

and obviously, I don't agree with it, do I?
It's just I haven't bashed it that hard this time.
understand != support or agree
not a bad thing != correct