The raging debate on gun ownership..

[Ram]

There's been a shooting massacre in Finland, yesterday. A 22 year old apparently opened fire on students, killing 9 of them, before shooting himself. The debate on gun ownership has has always raged on for years. The pro- gun ownership lobby say its the individual's right to protect himself from his threats and has every right to carry a weapon, even to work and school. The anti- gun ownership group says gun ownership leads to gun crime. Quite frankly its hard to decide which side is right.

[triam]

There's been a shooting massacre in Finland, yesterday. A 22 year old apparently opened fire on students, killing 9 of them, before shooting himself. The debate on gun ownership has has always raged on for years. The pro- gun ownership lobby say its the individual's right to protect himself from his threats and has every right to carry a weapon, even to work and school. The anti- gun ownership group says gun ownership leads to gun crime. Quite frankly its hard to decide which side is right.

I think the pro gun ownership's view is outdated and redundant, it was useful when the law and order was not so much organized etc, more than that, the question is ok you can have guns, but why do you need guns that can be concealed easily?? give them hunting rifles and shot guns etc so people know when someone carries a gun and not be surprsed about.

[CC1981]

The anti- gun ownership group says gun ownership leads to gun crime. Quite frankly its hard to decide which side is right.

Neither side is right but the anti-gun ownership side is far more in error. It is a proven fact that during prohibition, murder rates etc. remained largely unaffected as the number of stabbings and gang-beatings skyrocketed to compensate for gun-violence. Australia as well as USA proves this fact categorically. Gun-related violence,as well as all violence, is a function of social stability and cohesiveness and the false potrayal of these neo-liberal nitwits that guns cause more shootings is quite frankly, fearmongering propaganda. Switzerland has one of the HIGHEST per capita gun ownerships in the world, yet one of the LOWEST gun-related violence. Furthermore, what the anti-gun lobby UTTERLY ignore/misdirect the public with, is that 98.5% of gun-related crimes are committed by ILLEGAL weaponry and UNREGISTERED guns. Ie, banning guns will hardly see a dent in gun-related crimes these days, as ease of transportation means the criminals who own illegal and unregistered guns through the black market, will remain unaffected, while law abiding gun owners like me, who treat guns as PURELY a sport, will get shafted. Guns don't kill people- people kill people. that is what the neo-liberal hacks fail to understand. Note- i am speaking from a Canadian perspective here, where concealable firearms( small pistols for eg) and automatic weapons are banned, with tons of regulations as to gun ownership protocols and safety procedures, where even one-time violation can see revoking of the license and confiscation of guns. I agree that the US laws are a bit too lenient on gun ownership, but on the fundamental issue of whether the public should have the right to own guns, my vote is absolutely in favour of it. PS: I am a proud gun owner. I own a shotgun, a high powered rifle, a target rifle and several handguns. I also use them ONLY at the range ( i would only HUNT if i really needed the food- ie, i am in the middle of nowhere and cant get out easily) and i'd NEVER hunt for sport (infact, if i were present and had a gun, i'd shoot the sorry excuse for human being who kills for fun/sport). MOST people i meet at the gun range are of the same nature(though not as hardcore as me when it comes to anti-sport hunting). I'd only shoot at a person if they broke into my house and tried to kill me(even then it'd be hard, as my guns are in a safe with the firing mechanism locked up- as per regulations here). I see no reason why we should have to put up with this neo-liberal fearmongering ninnys, especially since it'd mean loss of livelyhood/sport for thousands with near-zero discernable decrease in gun-related violence.

[triam]

Neither side is right but the anti-gun ownership side is far more in error. It is a proven fact that during prohibition, murder rates etc. remained largely unaffected as the number of stabbings and gang-beatings skyrocketed to compensate for gun-violence. Australia as well as USA proves this fact categorically. Gun-related violence,as well as all violence, is a function of social stability and cohesiveness and the false potrayal of these neo-liberal nitwits that guns cause more shootings is quite frankly, fearmongering propaganda. Switzerland has one of the HIGHEST per capita gun ownerships in the world, yet one of the LOWEST gun-related violence. Furthermore, what the anti-gun lobby UTTERLY ignore/misdirect the public with, is that 98.5% of gun-related crimes are committed by ILLEGAL weaponry and UNREGISTERED guns. Ie, banning guns will hardly see a dent in gun-related crimes these days, as ease of transportation means the criminals who own illegal and unregistered guns through the black market, will remain unaffected, while law abiding gun owners like me, who treat guns as PURELY a sport, will get shafted. Guns don't kill people- people kill people. that is what the neo-liberal hacks fail to understand. Note- i am speaking from a Canadian perspective here, where concealable firearms( small pistols for eg) and automatic weapons are banned, with tons of regulations as to gun ownership protocols and safety procedures, where even one-time violation can see revoking of the license and confiscation of guns. I agree that the US laws are a bit too lenient on gun ownership, but on the fundamental issue of whether the public should have the right to own guns, my vote is absolutely in favour of it.

That is exactly my problem wth the US laws, why do you need a sub automatic or an automatic to protect yourself or hunt?? and concealable guns are a big no-no too

[CC1981]

That is exactly my problem wth the US laws, why do you need a sub automatic or an automatic to protect yourself or hunt?? and concealable guns are a big no-no too

That is because the NRA has too much clout in the US politics and as with entities with too much clout, they delve in excesses. As a gun-user, i can tell you that automatic rifles are NOT suitable for hunting, unless you are talking about a heavy-duty belt-fed machine gun that can be fired only when lying prone on your belly. And even then, you can only use them very limitedly in wide fields (where animals dont hang around anyways!!) Automatic assault rifles are notoriously inaccurate beyond 50-100 yards. semi-auto is better suited for hunting and it is actually a fairly good weapon- in terms of hunting and self defence, a bolt-action single-shot weapon is virtually useless. And yes, i agree- i see no point in those high callibre tiny pistols which you can hide in a woman's g-string. They are concealable and the high callibre + tiny barrel size means you are gonna be ridiculously inaccurate : try hitting an elephant at 50 meters with those tiny pistols and i will kiss your feet as an arjuna-callibre marksman.