I think the right to bear arms is an important one, if only for the sake of protecting one's self from an armed government organization. As it stands, I'd rather have no gun control than no guns for the public. I also think that if that right is somehow compromised, the country will go berserk.

It's a sad thing to admit, too, that that right in America needs to be preserved. People point to Britain as an example of a country without guns (not even police officers carry them); however, I think its perhaps a reflection of the values of each society. The British, from an outside perspective, appear to be more civil than Americans, in that two people might exchange angry words and a few fists, but probably will not murder each other.

I fail to see any direct relation between the availability of guns in the US and the amount of crime. I think I'm convinced its a result of the values (or lack thereof) in our society.

Got this synopsis from a VERY biased source, so the full report may have lots of extra info.

CRIME IN ENGLAND: THE PRICE OF GUN CONTROL

In March of 1996, a deranged man walked into a school in Dunblane, Scotland and killed sixteen children and one teacher. In the aftermath of this heinous tragedy, British politicians sought to reduce violent crime by enacting an injudicious ban on all handguns. Handgun owners were given a February 1998 deadline to turn in their firearms--and they did. The UK was supposed to become a much safer place--but it didn`t. Not by a long shot.

As reported in a May 14 article in the Edmonton Journal, England`s recently released gun-crime statistics for the first five years following the gun-ban indicate a very different outcome than that which was forecast. According to the article, "the incidence of gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled from 13,874 in 1998 to 24,070 in 2003. And the incidence of firearms murder, while thankfully still very small, has risen 65 per cent," (emphasis added).

The article details statistics from another report issued last year by Britain`s Home Office, which reveal that there has also been a dramatic increase in robberies in recent years. They report that robberies, "rose by 28 per cent in 2002 alone and, since 1998, there has been an increase in the annual average of muggings of more than 100,000. England alone has nearly 400,000 robberies each year, a rate nearly one-quarter higher per capita than that of the United States," (emphasis added).

Do gun bans serve to reduce violent crime? When law-abiding citizens are disarmed, is their society a safer one? England`s plight is just the latest example to show us, yet again, that the answer is "NO."

as soon as a gun gets life without parole i'll be for gun control, until then... happy hunting.

__________________
support search and rescue... Get Lost

go Coast Guard

My opinion on guns is this: Why would you need one? If you need to live with a gun on your dining room table for safety, you should seriously consider rethinking the way you live your live. Further more, you are 22 times more likely to shoot a family member with your gun than defend yourself. (http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=home)

But I suppose it is a right protected under the Constitution, to own a gun. Though our idea of a “gun” and the Framers idea of a “gun” are nothing alike. This is why I support gun control. The fewer guns, the fewer murders – its an obvious fact that can’t be denied. After all, it’s hard to eat without food, just as it is hard to murder without a gun.

well let you check the criminals houses to see if they have given up there gun or not...

__________________
support search and rescue... Get Lost

go Coast Guard

*We'll?
**Their?

What is your point? Are you saying I should know who the criminals are? Or merely that I should violate the forth amendment? Or maybe you mean the criminals attained all their guns illegally. Sure, there’s probably some merit to that, but if you place restrictions on guns, there will be less of them, therefore harder to get.

The anti-gun lobby relies on emotional support to gain ground because they ignore facts and sometimes deliberatley misrepresent them. The Deptartment of Justice lists millions of violent crimes prevented by people with guns. Roughly 20% of those crimes were sexual assaults. Neighborhoods with a high rate of gun ownership have a low rate of violent crime. These are facts. Criminals are opportunists, they will always attack where the resistence to crime is the lowest. But gun control advocates don't care about facts. That's why Michael Marx, I mean, Michael Moore shouted at senile old Charlton Heston and accused him and the NRA of being directly responsible for the death of a little girl. He, like many liberals, do not believe in personal responsibility. It's not the parents fault, it's the NRA's fault. If it wasn't for the NRA, everyone in the world would be holding hands and singing Peace Train, right? Does anyone have a VALID argument for gun control? Just curious.

Note: Holding up a picture of a dead child and yelling, "Look at this little girl!! Look at her!!" doesn't count as an argument.

nicely put

__________________
support search and rescue... Get Lost

go Coast Guard

First, what do you mean by gun control?

i don't like people baring their arms either. all that fat flab is disgusting! And what about on the beach! Baring their butts in those thongs, baring their breasts in Rio, and dogs baring their teeth! It's ridiculous. i wish no one was allowed to bare their arms, or their faces for that matter. bare things just make me feel naked and ashamed. OK, i'm done. please don't shoot, i'm unarmed!