well said King. i'll bet most of those murders were in cities with "strict" gun laws. also, how many illegal immigrants do ya'll have flooding your border? the cats been out of the bag with guns here for a LONG time. i'm damn glad i have a "couple".

Just to put mortality in perspective......

In that same country over a typical one-year period, 260,000 people are killed by their own doctors due to malpractice -- a statistic universally-and-deliberately ignored by both the American Medical Association and the United States Government.

Arjay

_________________
"Here's why reliability is job one: A great sounding amp that breaks down goes from being a favorite piece of gear to a useless piece of crap in less time than it takes to read this sentence." -- BRUCE ZINKY

From the NHTSA

Cars kill more people than guns.
2010 32,885
the high point was
1972 54,589

_________________
-T

"You can't spend what you ain't got, you can't lose what you ain't never had" ~ McKinley Morganfield

almost spit my coffee all over my computer monitor!

I voted for another guitar. I wouldn't tell other Americans they can't legally carry, but personally I don't want a gun. And if O.P. is in another country, I certainly wouldn't offer up any opinions (hint, hint).

_________________
Please subscribe to my Channel!
https://www.youtube.com/user/b7567

I'm not saying banning guns will stop gun crime. Nor am I saying banning guns will stop people owning them. However if they weren't readily available they would be much harder to come by. Gun crime rates would drop. You use the example of illegality of pot. Yes it is illegal and you are right, people do still use it. However if it was legal far more people would use it.

If more people have guns, the likelihood of something bad happening is much more likely. What about the many shootings that have happened by people who weren't criminals before they done anything i.e. the recent dark knight shooting or numerous high school shootings there have been. These people weren't seedy criminals who had to go to some back alley to buy a gun. The guns were readily available in their homes. These people had mental issues, or had a deeply disturbing emotional event. Had guns not been so commonplace I'm sure a number of these awful tragedies would never have happened.

Yes, I agree that banning them won't stop some people from using them. However let's apply that logic to everything shall we? Heroin, it's banned but people still get it. Let's legalize that then.
In the U.K there is gun crime, despite gun's being largely illegal. But the rate of gun crime here, compared to somewhere where guns are legalized is so much lower.

And on the statistical point, I'm not saying guns are the biggest killer in the world. But I was making the point of the proportionality of murders involving guns compared to murders. Yes cars kill a lot of people, but when almost everyone is the country owns a metal case capable of traveling over 100mph there are going to be accident. Lot's. Whereas the amount of people who go to commit s crime, or murder someone is, thankfully, a lot lower. Those two statistics aren't comparable as they relate to totally different situations. The malpractice thing, again that is an entirely different debate. And yes it is an appalling figure that something needs to be done about. Malpractice and medical accidents are a huge issue that needs to be addressed somehow, in most countries.


I just can't see the logic in saying that the more people who have dangerous weapons, the safer I'll be.

And yes I do stay in another country. I'm not trying to tell people how their laws should be, I'm just expressing my opinion on the matter.

And yes I realize, this being the internet and all, we will all get worked up, shout at the computer, post some stuff and leave with exactly the same opinion as we had when we started, only now feeling mightily defensive of it. I would much rather sit down with you guys and speak at length about this, but that's obviously not going to happen.

I enjoy a good debate, but over the internet, when not face to face it seems that sometimes things come across wrong and fathers get rustled. I don't want that. I respect everyone's opinions.

And on topic, this being a guitar forum and all, wouldn't we all enjoy a bit more guitar porn if the OP buys a new guitar...?

I already carry a Glock 36 daily, so I would take the guitar..... How the heck did you get the idea for this useless poll ?


but...... what if Glock made some tenifer coated hardware for a Glock signature Stratocaster?
then you could have both
It could have a gun compartment on the back.

_________________

Right.
Sell the 4 guitars.
Purchase a Custom Shop Fender.
Gun can wait.

_________________
FIGHT!

Fender already makes numerous products with this feature......

They're called "combo amps".



Arjay

_________________
"Here's why reliability is job one: A great sounding amp that breaks down goes from being a favorite piece of gear to a useless piece of crap in less time than it takes to read this sentence." -- BRUCE ZINKY

You're not ruffling my feathers. I enjoy discussions like this. Notice in your post above this that you said "gun crime" would be lower. Of course it would. I readily admit that.

What you, and others who feel as you do, seem to not understand is that violent crime doesn't drop. Just crime that involves guns.

Does it really matter what you get murdered by? A knife or a gun? Either way you are a dead victim. So if banning guns only lessens, but does not eliminate gun crime, then why is the gun the issue?

Because it's about the superiority of force. You have been raised to believe that the gun is the criminal, not the person perpetrating the crime. Why on earth would any government want to mislead you this way? (and many have in the past)

Simple. A citizenry that cannot overthrow it's own government is simply a commodity to those in power. Whomever they might be. Even in this country where the gun is still a very integral part of our national identity, at least to some. Why is it that I am not allowed to own an automatic weapon, or why I must go through ridiculous paperwork and "training" to own a handgun? Simple. Control of the populace and fire superiority. As a veteran there is absolutely no logical argument against against public safety to me having my rights more restricted then say an officer of the law. I have superior training, experience and skills then the average patrolman or agent. Yet our government not only restricts my rights, it actively is trying to encroach upon he rights of other veterans. This can only mean one thing. They are trying to stifle any thought of resistance to what they are doing through fear.

If you across the pond are happy with your situation, more power to you! I hope it turns out well for you. History would inform us otherwise, but good luck anyhow.

_________________
http://www.reverbnation.com/casanovafrankensteinandthevoodoomachine
https://www.facebook.com/CFandtheVM

2012 Fender Custom Shop 55 Precision Bass
2012 Fender American Vintage 57 Precision Bass RI
2014 Fender Super Bassman and Bassman 100T/410 Neo

martynr2, you deliver a valid point of view of your opinion on guns. please understand this. they will never confiscate every gun in the USA. ever. you mention that the disturbing crimes here may not have happened without guns. that would have only caused this mentally ill person to do something else to kill. maybe a well planned fire by the exits? who knows. if someone wants to kill, they will kill. period. do semi-autos make it easier? yes. thats why i carry one of my own. why in the hell would someone want to take away my right to fight fire with fire? why? i've spent alot of time on hand to hand combat and i lift 5 days a week. using my gun to defend myself is the LAST thing i want to do. i have zero desire to take a human life and then spend my retirement cash defending myself in court. think about it.
i'm happy for you wherever you are that you have no fear of crime involving a gun. i mean that. here where i live, i carry one or two at all times. i won't even mention that my passion is hunting. i've been in a few slaughter houses and to me, that is as cruel as it gets. my method may offend alot of folks but i promise it is more humane than the bloodhouse. i guess folks don't hunt where you are. we do here. alot.
guns are big revenue here for everyone. they want to ban them but they will sure miss that almighty dollar. thats why they don't. its all posturing for political gain. simple. so if ya'll dont mind, i have 4 guns i need to clean. i shot them all over the weekend at targets. not people.
i love the 2nd amendment. our forefathers were brilliant. unlike the "leaders" we have now.

I agree with you on the point that governments should be afraid of their people and not the other way around. Politics unfortunately is all to do with appearance, and more often than not there is more than meets the eye when it comes to government statistics, statements and policies.

You're totally right in saying that the gun is only the instrument of the crime, it all boils down to the person wielding it. Yes, if someone is determined to kill or commit a violent act, gun or no gun they will find a way to do it. It reminds me of airline restrictions - if they believe that I can take down a plane with some nail clippers then I'm pretty sure I could do it without the nail clippers...

The thing is with guns, they are very impersonal when it comes to the act of using one. A knife, a baseball bat or fists all involve getting close to the victim. A gun takes that closeness away. There is research into this (the infamous Milgram experiment). When people are detached, or have something they can shift the focus of the blame onto, no matter how trivial, they are more likely to go further and more likely to commit questionable acts. It's the reason people get so angry at other cars on the road and so worked up on various flame wars on the internet (no face to face contact). The gun gives that trivial detachment, and as such is more likely to end up being used.

The thing I find most unsettling is the range of guns available. I know that it is totally unrealistic to ban all guns in the U.S.A. It would be hugely unpopular and hugely impractical. The unsettling thing is the amount of firepower available. Assault rifles. Really? I know that there is strict rules regarding ownership, but the very fact that someone can have one seems crazy to me. All arguments about self defence go out the door when assault rifles come into it. That is grossly in-proportionate firepower.

Our opinions are a product of our environment. I live in a quiet rural village in a country where guns are for the most part, illegal. If I grew somewhere where guns were commonplace I would probably have different views. I can understand where the arguments are coming from. But i can't understand why there would be assault rifles and large handguns available. And I don't see how the self defeOn a nce argument defends owning any more than one gun. Unless you're planning on being in a war zone, I'm sure one gun is enough.

On the hunting issue, that has been contested in my country. I'm not opposed to it. As you said some people are too barbaric with it. Good natured, honest hunting is alright with me so long as it's not just for the sake of killing. Shoot a deer, eat it.

On the issue of the second amendment, it was made in 1791. This is my problem with constitutions (although, maybe this just comes from living in a country with no written constitution). Constitutions are regarded as higher law, that is law's that is above ordinary status. In practice it means that it is unlikely to be revoked or changed without unanimous consensus. And it was written more than 200 year ago. Laws that applied then cannot be all be universally taken and applied today. The most important reason the second amendment was made was because of national defence. This amendment was made not long after the Revolutionary war, in a time where peace and safety were not guaranteed. The founding fathers didn't like the idea of a standing army. They believed that was a trait of dictatorships, and were fearful of what a future government may do with one. In practice, at the time it was an effective solution to protection, and an effective check on the government. These days I feel that it does not necessarily apply as it once did.

Wow, I think I've rattled on enough. Opinions I feel are much like a $@!&#, it's alright to have one, it's alright to be proud of it, but for the love of God don't show it off and shove it in folks faces

You shouldn't feel like an $@!. As you said we all have opinions and they are formed by where we come from and what we've experienced. As a former member of the Military Industrial Complex I can tell you that our military, your military, EVERY military, views you as a commodity. or atleast the Brass does. Why would you need an assault rifle for self defense? Well, I guess that would depend if the person you were trying to defend yourself against was a common criminal or a member of a criminal or government organization. That's not paranoia. That's learning from history. You've been very polite in expressing your opinions. That's cool.

_________________
http://www.reverbnation.com/casanovafrankensteinandthevoodoomachine
https://www.facebook.com/CFandtheVM

2012 Fender Custom Shop 55 Precision Bass
2012 Fender American Vintage 57 Precision Bass RI
2014 Fender Super Bassman and Bassman 100T/410 Neo

+1
What a $@!&#* , idiotic thread Not much music related - and I consider the OP a troll

_________________
A-man

a person needs to be mentally stable and mature to possess a firearm.

Get the guitar....