who has a Hand Gun ?

[Sioux-cia]

Research, real valid research like the U.S. Justice Department's, has proven gun control does not reduce the incidence of violent crimes including murder in our country and others. The town in Georgia where everyone owns a gun has proven that owning a gun deters violent crime behavior.

So, tell us, DaveK, how will gun control benefit us?

[THETRIOUXPER]

I don't have facts to back this up either, but I would tend to believe that a lot of them were probably done via the drive-by method. I don't think you can drive-by stab or choke somebody, can you?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not wild about people carrying knives around any more than I like them to be carrying guns. I guess the difference is there aren't a bunch of knife zealots trying to say how great knives are. If there were, then perhaps I would be just as passionate about that topic.

It really doesn't matter dave, you're trying to split hairs. The bottom line is murder is murder, be it with a gun, knife, bare hands, whatever. It is THE PERSON committing the act, not the instrument used to commit said act. It doesn't matter if you are in a car, or on foot, or at what distance the crime is committed at, the bottom line is that A PERSON makes a conscious decision to end another's life. That's where the problem lies.

[Sioux-cia]

It may not deter them, but it puts them away (which was my point that seems to have gone over your head).

My point which you keep ignoring is that the number of violent crimes is not reduced by gun control. The fear of jail time or death does not deter the number of violent crimes. There are states with the 'three strikes your in for life' law, there has not been a reduction of violent crimes in those states.

Nothing you have posted has 'gone over' my head. I just don't see the validity of what you post because the only statistics you cite are those uttered during someones comedy act.

[Sioux-cia]

Your so-called research doesn't prove anything. It's just the right-wing spin, nothing more and nothing less.

The U.S. Treasury's research is tainted? And your 'non-research' posts are real because comedian said they were?

[sprig]

Yes, but it can't possibly hurt to take away one of their potential weapons. Let's try to reduce the number of ways they can do it.

Who are "they". Felons cannot posses firearms, period. I'd guess you're asking for firearms to be taken away from honest citizens. Anyone who may want to shoot at you will get one illegally, you can bet on that.

[THETRIOUXPER]

Yes, but it can't possibly hurt to take away one of their potential weapons. Let's try to reduce the number of ways they can do it.

If you follow what's going on in GF you would know that someone has been lighting fires in the downtown neighboorhoods. It hit home with me this weekend as a friend of mine who lives three blocks away lived in an apartment building where these idiots try to start a fire. Thank goodness it was out out before any severe damage was done or anyone was killed or badly hurt. This violent act had nothing to do with guns but was potentially just as dangerous. So I ask you dave, should we ban all matches, cigarette lighters and anything that is flamable? How about cutting off people's hands and feet so they cannot beat someone to death, as was the case outside the Broken Drum last fall. You just don't get it dave, it is THE PERSON, not the object. Taking guns away only makes people find different ways. It comes down to THE PERSON committing the crime plain and simple.

[Bison Dan]

His extremely over the top right-wing views. I thought that was implied by the label "right-wing nutjob". Anybody who loves guns as much as he does makes me very nervous. I would never want to pi$$ the guy off, he might shoot me.

Of all the guys that you may pi$$ off Davek, I think Ted would be the least likely to shoot you. Actually Ted is a bow man. He mainly hunts with bow and arrow. Your fear of guns is like all the other lefty's out there, they fear things they don't know or understand.

[Sioux-cia]

So, tell us, DaveK, how will gun control benefit us?

You've avoided answering the question, DaveK. How will gun control benefit us?

[Sioux-cia]

Your fear of guns is like all the other lefty's out there, they fear things they don't know or understand.

Hey now!!! Quit picking on the lefty's, I'm one. The only thing I fear is the country being run by people who would use a comedian's stand up act as a resource with which to run the country!!!!

[Bison Dan]

If more teeth are put into those background checks it will put more of a limit on who can and who can't legally own a gun. If tougher prison sentences are given out to those individuals who are caught illegally possessing a gun it'll take a lot of scumbags off the streets.

Gee, how could that possibly benefit us?

Your on the wrong side of the dial if you want tougher prison sentences for anything.

[Sioux-cia]

I'm tired of bickering with people who refuse to see the other side of this issue.

We see it and don't agree with it.

[GeauxSioux]

I'm tired of bickering with people who refuse to see the other side of this issue. At this time I would like to defer all opposition of my views on this topic to the following website:

http://www.bradycampaign.org/

At this time, I would like all of you on Dave's side of the argument to visit Dave's website.

Sorry, Dave. I don't agree with your point of view on this issue. There are already plenty of gun laws in place and the courts just don't enforce them. We don't need more laws. We need to enforce the ones that we have.

We don't need to take away the rights of law abiding citizens because there are people who will violate the law.

I'm glad that the Supreme Court handed down a decision in favor the 2nd Amendment. What surprises me is that there were 4 dissenting judges. That is what really scares me. Did they decide that they want to change the constitution from the bench? Truly frightening.

[THETRIOUXPER]

Education on guns is another way of improving responsible gun ownership. The only problem is this only works for those who follow the laws. I suggest dave before you spew all of your anti gun rhetoric you get yourself educated. That way you at least have some credibility. Take a hunters safety class, or check out a gun safety class at the local range. If you really want to make a difference go to the source and find the information, then once you are properly informed about the subject people may be more receptive to your opinions. If not then stay out of a discussion that you have zero experience in.

[THETRIOUXPER]

That would be a conflict of interest, similar to somebody who is against pornography going out and renting a bunch of skin flicks.

Well then stay out of the discussion if you are not even willing to educate yourself on the matter, cause you really have no clue what you are talking about.

[THETRIOUXPER]

I did bow out of the discussion when I referred all opposition to the bradycampaign.org website, only because of the ignorance and stubbornness of those on the other side of the issue. But I do take exception to your crazy idea that you aren't allowed to have an opinion on guns if you haven't taken a hunter's safety class. You are dead wrong to say that. That's like saying that somebody who is offended by porn and refuses to watch it has no right to have an opinion about it. That's just wrong. Baed on that logic, you shouldn't speak out against drugs unless you've tried them. Silly.

You have made it plain as the nose on your face that you have and never will own, handle or otherwise have anything to do with a firearm. That includes hunting, recreation, or self defense. Therefore, your over the top view on the subject means absolutely nothing. Your disdain for guns is clear, however, the discussion here was about who owns a gun, not about the evils of firearms according to dave. So, once again, unless you are going to educate yourself on the subject please stick to something you know well, like youth hockey.

[Goon]

AGAIN I'm going to say I would be in favor of tougher sentences for illegal possession of a gun. I keep saying that, but it seems to be falling on deaf ears. As for who can and who can't legally own a gun, those background checks need to be much tougher than they are currently. Also, you should have to license and register a gun the way you do a motor vehicle. That would be a couple of steps in the right direction.

You're getting it, read what you just said Illegal Possession. We (collective us on SS.com) are legal gun owners. We don't need anymore background checks than we already have. Like I said already you do not know what you are talking about, every gun that I bought I did a back ground check and a it was registered. I don't need anymore checks and balances.

[Sioux-cia]

...only because of the ignorance and stubbornness of those on the other side of the issue.

And if I called you ignorant and stubborn because you're on the other side of the issue you're going to call me a bitch. Hmmm,.....

[Sioux-cia]

....please stick to something you know well, like youth hockey.

[Slamdance]

You're getting it, read what you just said Illegal Possession. We (collective us on SS.com) are legal gun owners. We don't need anymore background checks than we already have. Like I said already you do not know what you are talking about, every gun that I bought I did a back ground check and a it was registered. I don't need anymore checks and balances.

Awww DaveK,

Here I thought you were a reasonable man. Someone who believed in PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!!!

Just like you were annoyed, upset, etc. that the CHOICE was being taken away in Fargo for smokers, why would you want to remove anyone's choice to legally possess a firearm?

No one is forcing you to own a gun. I happen to enjoy owning guns. I happen to have enjoyed being taught by my father and grandfather responsible gun ownership and I am looking forward to teaching my children the same. Why would you want to take that from me?

I find it incredibly ironic that I am on the same page here as Goon and the Triouxper, being as we have had philosophical differences in the past. Just proves no reasonable person is 100% conservative or liberal.

[Sioux-cia]

My sister and niece were murdered by my niece and nephew's father. Her two month old son, my nephew, survived the fire. (He's my son now.) They had been in a relationship long enough for her to have two children with him. He physically abused her the entire time. She finally left him. He set fire to her apartment and she burned to death. We all know he did it but could not prove it, so he walked. Five years later he was breaking into his new ex-girlfriend's apartment. He was unarmed. She shot him five times with her registered gun and killed the ba$tard. Because of his history of domestic abuse, she was NOT arrested.

Had she not had a gun, he would have killed her, too.

[sprig]

It's way too easy for potentially dangerous individuals to legally own a gun.

And it's even easier than that for those individuals to illegally own a gun. After all the rules you want non-dangerous citizens to abide by, only the dangerous individuals will have guns.

[THETRIOUXPER]

So, based on your (flawed) logic, if I make it very clear that I never have and never will try drugs I'm therefore not entitled to have an opinion about the damage drugs can do to people. Got it.

No, that's not it dave. There are plenty of resources a person can find to learn about the danger of drug abuse. The same goes for guns. I'm simply saying before you condemn all firearms, please educate yourself. Finding info about firearms has nothing to do with owning, or shooting them. If you look, I'm sure you could find more credible info on firearms than what a comedian satarizes in his act. I was merely suggesting hunter's safety, or a local gun range as a source for info, or local law enforcement. I was not suggesting that you take a hands on course, but merely looking for a more informed opinion before you come on here and make yourself look stupid, again.

[Sioux-cia]

After all the badgering you've done to me on this message board, all apparently over something you heard a biased version of, I think the shoe fits.

And based on you're ignorant, stubborn attacks on people who disagree with you, I and everyone else who heard the story of your attacking a young hockey coach because your kid's team lost to his team, have no doubt you acted like a bully in that instance. And when adults came to his defense, you blame them for bad behavior. Ha!!

And if not accepting drivel that's posted in this forum as fact makes me a bitch, well, I embrace the title.

[THETRIOUXPER]

Again, tougher sentences. All part of the plan according to bradycampaign.org.

The problem we are having here is that you (dave) are talking about criminals who illegally obtain and use firearms for criminal intent. The rest of us are talking about people who legally and responsibly own guns. To use your own analogy, you can't punish people who don't use drugs just because there are some dummies that do illegally use them. The same goes for firearms, why punish those who use them responsibly for hunting, recreation, and competition. You have given me no reason why guns should be taken out of the hands of law abiding citizens.

[Goon]

The flaw in the background checks is that you must have a felony on your record to be denied the right to buy a gun, but an extensive history of misdemeanors is apparently no problem. It's way too easy for potentially dangerous individuals to legally own a gun. Not continuing the argument, just stating an additional piece of information for you gun nuts to disregard.

YOU'RE Missing the logic; you can not re-write the laws to your liking, it is CONSTITUTIONALLY Protected right that was reaffirmed by the supreme court to have a right to own a gun. This shall not just be taken away from you.