There is no greater pain than a loved being murdered. In some untimely deaths firearms are used, and subsequently take a measure of blame in the crime committed. Is this fair, and if so what should be done about it? Is furthering gun regulations, restrictions or an all out ban the answer? No, its not for several reasons. Furthering gun regulations and restrictions would only have an effect, a negative one, on law abiding citizens. Is an all out ban on firearms the answer then? No, it is not either. If an all out ban is imposed, much in the way seen by the ban on cannibus, the government will loose all control of firearms vice the moderate control they do now. So whats the answer? Collateral regulation from education is the answer.

Do people kill others with guns? Yes, people do use guns to hurt or kill people, but this is only a means of which a person intenting to inflict harm on another achieves his goal. In prison systems, inmates do not have the means to obtain a gun to kill others. However, with a little enginuity they obtain other weapons such as home made knives or "shanks" to acheive the same goal. The United States Navy defines Deadly Force as, "the force with which a person knows or should know to cause death or serious bodily harm". Never in their definition does one see "gun" mentioned. Society has taken what a gun is out of context. A gun is a weapon, and weapons such as the prisoners "shank" kill people. Society would find the ability to ban devices which could be used to harm others (weapons) impossible. They would have to ban guns, swords, knives, bats, rocks, whips, sling shots, Mike Tysons teeth, Jackie Chan's hands, etc.

Did you know that most crimes involving guns are of a nature that the weapon used is already illegal? So what would furthering restrictions on guns do? Increasing gun control regulations would only seek to further restrict the law abiding citizen's ability to defend himself. Regulations are already of a nature that the criminal or the person intent on commiting an unlawful act has more rights than that of the accosted. For example, if a person whom is armed breaks into your house, you are not permited to use leathal force until that person actualy draws (aims) the weapon at you. Unless you, the homeowner, are the reencarnation of Billy the Kid, you will not be able to draw your weapon and fire a shot before the burglar, whom already has his weapon pointed at you, proceeds to squeeze his pointer finger. Furthering regulations on firearms would not have positive effect on society, and more-so neither would a ban on fire-arms

The 1937 Marijuana tax effectively created a ban on distrubution and consumption of cannibus. According to October 2002 Time/CNN poll, nearly half of Americans (47 percent) have smoked pot at least once. So let me ask you now, how effective was the governments ban on marijuana? Much like a stick of butter, the more the government has tried to get a firmer grip on marijuana the more it has escaped through there fingers. If the government passes a ban on firearms we can expect the same results. They will loose all control. While the subject is heatly debated, most would stipulate that Marijuana usage is far from lethal. However, when firearms follow marijuana's example following the ban and usage spirals beyond all control the consequences will be extremely grave. The best intentions often have the worse results.

The point is, if guns are further regulated or banned then the average citizen will not have a chance of defending themselves. Even if we could keep both criminals and law abiding citizens from obtaining guns the only true means of being completely safe is for everyone to be confined to a straight jacket and reside in a padded room.

- Ian

I think it's absolutely absurd, it almost seems that the justice system favors criminals. They want to remove guns from our homes, that way criminals are the only ones who have them. They don't want us to use self-defense with our guns, that way criminals get the first draw. What is with this?! I'm telling you right now if someone is breaking my windows and doors to get into my house, they obviously aren't welcome. So as a gun owner (Hypothetically speaking; I don't own any guns)I would draw my firearm to the criminal and overpower him to avoid any attack on myself or anybody else in the home. Problem solved, but no..I'm not allowed to pull my gun out until the criminal has already placed his gun behind my head. Makes perfect sense!..not

And then lets say that the criminal who just broke into my house attacked with me a blunt object and I fire my weapon injuring him and making it very difficult for him to move and then I go and control him while I wait for the police to arrive. Well, doesn't that sound like a safe story? The criminal receives a non fatal wound and my household is secure..

Nope! I find out a week later that I'm being sued by the person who broke into my home..Whats the case you ask? For NOT killing him, yes you can sue somebody for not killing you. It's happened plenty of times before, a convicted criminal will sue their target and WIN. Yes they actually win, I could get sued for not killing another human being in an act of self-defense.

I don't know about you, but I definitely think we need some gun reform, at least in terms of laws and situations that allow us to use our guns.

-vic