Gun Control

[AgentofGaming]

The police take a couple minutes at most here. So people owning guns is considered uncivilized and provocative. There's a very strong push to have all firearms banned too, but I guess if you live rural it's a different story.

[Riverratt]

The police take a couple minutes at most here. So people owning guns is considered uncivilized and provocative. There's a very strong push to have all firearms banned too, but I guess if you live rural it's a different story.


What is uncivilized, and provocative about being able to protect yourself and your loved ones?

That is some flawed logic.

I am a husband and a father, IT IS A MAJOR FAILURE, to not be able to defend my loved ones.

[AgentofGaming]

Weapons provoke violence, ranged weapons hit bystanders. Having almost never seen weapons in my life. I feel different when sitting in a room with a rifle in it, an object made purposely to kill.
Downtown has a problem there are street gangs, there have been dozens of bystanders hit in the crossfire.

Everyone wants to protect their loved ones, but isn't it a bad mentality defending ourselves from each other, our neighbours, our friends? The slightest misunderstanding and there could be violence. I could leave my door unlocked and no one is going to come in and steal anything here.
It's rare here to find people who think they need to defend themselves in a modern society. It's been delegated to trained professionals who know how to handle the situation far better.
Everyone arming themselves seems like the world is after you.

[Lights]

Weapons provoke violence, ranged weapons hit bystanders. Having almost never seen weapons in my life. I feel different when sitting in a room with a rifle in it, an object made purposely to kill.
Downtown has a problem there are street gangs, there have been dozens of bystanders hit in the crossfire.

Everyone wants to protect their loved ones, but isn't it a bad mentality defending ourselves from each other, our neighbours, our friends? The slightest misunderstanding and there could be violence. I could leave my door unlocked and no one is going to come in and steal anything here.
It's rare here to find people who think they need to defend themselves in a modern society. It's been delegated to trained professionals who know how to handle the situation.
It seems like action first ask questions later.

Yeah, we are a scary country at times. 11,000 gun related deaths each year. I don't really support gun control, but I think our mentality is a little twisted.

[Riverratt]

Weapons provoke violence, ranged weapons hit bystanders. Having almost never seen weapons in my life. I feel different when sitting in a room with a rifle in it, an object made purposely to kill.
Downtown has a problem there are street gangs, there have been dozens of bystanders hit in the crossfire.

Everyone wants to protect their loved ones, but isn't it a bad mentality defending ourselves from each other, our neighbours, our friends? The slightest misunderstanding and there could be violence. I could leave my door unlocked and no one is going to come in and steal anything here.
It's rare here to find people who think they need to defend themselves in a modern society. It's been delegated to trained professionals who know how to handle the situation far better.
It seems like action first ask questions later.

That's odd, all my neighbors, heck even my KIDS, have guns, right now, as I type this, their is a Walther P38 Pistol IN, the computer desk, awaiting its turn to be cleaned..

NONE of these guns have ever "provoked any kind of violence" on other people, but they have cut holes in paper, and cans. Been to many many gun shows as well...NEVER no violence their...

But, why do mass killings tend to happen where guns are BANNED???

Just now, I shouted "KILL KILL MAIM" at the P-38, it just sits their...immobile...ODD, I thought they where violent.

[AgentofGaming]

That's odd, all my neighbors, heck even my KIDS, have guns, right now, as I type this, their is a Walther P38 Pistol IN, the computer desk, awaiting its turn to be cleaned..

NONE of these guns have ever "provoked any kind of violence" on other people, but they have cut holes in paper, and cans. Been to many many gun shows as well...NEVER no violence their...

But, why do mass killings tend to happen where guns are BANNED???

Just now, I shouted "KILL KILL MAIM" at the P-38, it just sits their...immobile...ODD, I thought they where violent.
OK, if you like your society with the ability to kill anybody easily, it's not my area to overbear.

However a guy with a gun in his hand is more likely to do something fatal to another than a guy without. Can you buy tanks there? Just imagine what happens if it's misused.

Mass Killing? University shootings, High School shootings? I wonder where most of these are happening?

Country------ % firearms homicide per 100000
United States 39------- 7.52
Canada------ 25------- 2.12

Yeah, we are a scary country at times. 11,000 gun related deaths each year. I don't really support gun control, but I think our mentality is a little twisted.

Good thing I don't live there. A land of people with weapons in their closets, who are very paranoid.

[Gonzo]

What is uncivilized, and provocative about being able to protect yourself and your loved ones?

That is some flawed logic.

I am a husband and a father, IT IS A MAJOR FAILURE, to not be able to defend my loved ones.

Just a quick question: What exactly are the odds of someone coming into your home and try to hurt or murder your family? If you fear this your just being paranoid, or theres something really wrong with where you live.

I only know 2 people who keeps a gun, in fear of what might happen if they need to defend them selfs. Their both speed freaks who's mentally insane and paranoid, from repeatedly sitting up 7 nights in a row.

Weapons provoke violence, ranged weapons hit bystanders. Having almost never seen weapons in my life. I feel different when sitting in a room with a rifle in it, an object made purposely to kill.
Downtown has a problem there are street gangs, there have been dozens of bystanders hit in the crossfire.

Everyone wants to protect their loved ones, but isn't it a bad mentality defending ourselves from each other, our neighbours, our friends? The slightest misunderstanding and there could be violence. I could leave my door unlocked and no one is going to come in and steal anything here.
It's rare here to find people who think they need to defend themselves in a modern society. It's been delegated to trained professionals who know how to handle the situation far better.
Everyone arming themselves seems like the world is after you.

Couldn't agree more...

[thod]

What is uncivilized, and provocative about being able to protect yourself and your loved ones?

That is some flawed logic.

I am a husband and a father, IT IS A MAJOR FAILURE, to not be able to defend my loved ones.

Put yourself in the killers shoes. Is the other guy owning a gun going to help him? Nope if you want to kill him you will pick your time and place and shoot before he can react.
Even president Reagan got shot, you wont stop someone who is minded to shoot you.

So how about the house break in. Well once again you are in the same situation. Whenever you enter a gunfight there is a 50/50 chance you will die. No matter how much of superman you think you are that is the facts. So you are going to lose some property. Lets phrase it another way. Would you play russian roulette with the gun with half the chambers empty. If you win you get to keep your property, no gain just to keep it. If you lose you die. It doesnt seem like a good deal.

Well you may say it wouldnt be 50/50 because you would shoot first. Well how is that different from the guy shooting you first after breaking in. If he thinks you are going to do that he will shoot at you before you get to the gun. So gun ownership has turned a theft into a murder.

Where guns are banned the organised mafia can still get them. But then they dont get involved with guys like you. The ones you worry about are the street punks. These have their supply of guns cut off.

You cannot defend your family except in limited circumstances. If there are several of them then pulling a gun means you will die, hollywood superheros dont exist in real life. You are not doing your family a favor by getting killed. Let them take the stuff and leave.

From a systemic perspective you lose more people to gunfights than you would lose to psycho killers. Contrary to popular opinion most people are not out to get you. You would go your whole life without ever using a gun. However now you have one the temptation to use it is much greater to justify owning it.

[Riverratt]

I still, trust myself, and my neighbors to defend ourselves better than the police, Crime is NOT, a problem in our community, we leave our doors unlocked and key are in the ignitions of our cars..

My wife and I, BOTH have CCW permits, we BOTH practice regularly, we BOTH carry 1911 .45's...

We made a solemn vow, to each other, at our weddings. we intend to honor those vows.

Frankly, I don't care what ANYONE thinks about it....Until they offer to give us 24 hr armed guards, they may as well shut up about it.

[thod]

We made a solemn vow, to each other, at our weddings. we intend to honor those vows.

Frankly, I don't care what ANYONE thinks about it....Until they offer to give us 24 hr armed guards, they may as well shut up about it.

Aye there is no need to to shout about it. Ban the manufacture of guns and ammo problem solved. Without ammo there is nothing to shoot with. The existing guns can then be rounded up. Offer a reward for a hand in, such as a tax credit. Its no different to banning heroin.

Frankly I couldnt care less about your wedding vows. You do what you are told like everyone else. You see you are exactly the sort of person that shouldnt have a gun. Anyone that wants to own a gun is too unstable to own one.

I dont own one, nobody in my country is allowed to own one, there is as a result little gun crime. I dont fear criminals, I could pick up a knife or baseball bat i suppose. If I caught a burgler he would attempt to run to avoid arrest. I dont want to shoot him and dont want him shooting me.

[Riverratt]

Aye there is no need to to shout about it. Ban the manufacture of guns and ammo problem solved. Without ammo there is nothing to shoot with. The existing guns can then be rounded up. Offer a reward for a hand in, such as a tax credit. Its no different to banning heroin.

Frankly I couldnt care less about your wedding vows. You do what you are told like everyone else. You see you are exactly the sort of person that shouldnt have a gun. Anyone that wants to own a gun is too unstable to own one.

Essence of prohibitionism: my morals are more moral than your morals.

Good thing, we have the RIGHT, to keep and bear arms. and do you think for a moment that folks, will hand over their guns??

Do you propose to go door to door, to get them?

[thod]

There is no such right except in the minds of a few.
Most countries dont recognise it as a right it is a local custom of the USA.
I would simply remove it, thats what government is for.
Or reinterpret it thats what lawyers are for. You can bear arms, but buying one, selling one, or manufacturing one are illegal.

[Riverratt]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[thod]

Clearly its not working you still have criminals. And you have far more gun crime than in places where guns are banned. Even the cops over here dont carry guns. The criminals dont have guns so the cops dont need them either. Nobody ever gets shot, there is no more crime. The case has already been proven.

Why not take it further and have a personal nuke or nerve gas sprayers. You cant because the government wont let you own such weapons. What about missiles, you never know when an aircraft may attack your home, better be prepared. Anti tank weapons too, in case someone drives over your lawn and the landmines dont get them.

[Riverratt]

Very wrong, Anti-tank guns are legal for civilian ownership, actually ALL, manors of Artillery are legal.

As long as you can afford the weapon, have a clean record, and pay the $200 dollar tax stamp.

Here is a link to a Machine gun shoot, just up the road from ME...Notice the artillery, grenade launchers, and heavy machine guns ALL, perfectly legal!

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

here is an nice, German MG42, that a Vet, brought back from Germany, very nice...

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Here is a link to a late WW2 era 90mm Anti tank gun, if you want it, can pass the check,and Have the money, its YOURS..

It's owners, took it out, for some target practice!
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

BTW, ONLY ONCE, was a LEGALLY owned machine gun ever used in crime in the US, And yes, their are legally owned and possessed RPGs and other assorted rockets.

I actually collect older military weapons myself, mainly older bolt actions, but I do have a few semi-autos.

[Gonzo]

Essence of prohibitionism: my morals are more moral than your morals.

Good thing, we have the RIGHT, to keep and bear arms. and do you think for a moment that folks, will hand over their guns??


Well not that I'm an expert or anything, but somehow I doubt that your founding fathers meant that all civilians should be able to purchase an anti- tank weapon, or a fully automatic, 7.62mm assault rifle. But hey I'm Norwegian so what the hell do I know... :p

BTW, ONLY ONCE, was a LEGALLY owned machine gun ever used in crime in the US

And how many of the ILLEGAL guns were once LEGAL? I'm betting alot...

[Riverratt]

Well not that I'm an expert or anything, but somehow I doubt that your founding fathers meant that all civilians should be able to purchase an anti- tank weapon, or a fully automatic, 7.62mm assault rifle. But hey I'm Norwegian so what the hell do I know... :p


And how many of the ILLEGAL guns were once LEGAL? I'm betting alot...

Just like our founding fathers did not intend for the "freedom of speech" to only apply to hand cranked printing presses..

Actually, NO. practically ALL, illegal machine guns picked up in this country are illegally modified semi-auto's, homemade guns, or machine guns smuggled in from Mexico.

[Ace1337]

American government doesn't care about people getting hurt. They just care about taxes and more money. I'm surprised that drugs aren't legal in the USA.
It's a crazy country if u ask me. Why doesn't Canada, Sweden or Belgium have so many crimes and gun related deaths? Everything can be taken care of with laws, but the problem is that US government only passes laws that benefit the country financially.

[1OFMANY]

Only the opinions of people FROM the US really matter on this issue. It's something you wouldn't understand or have any business judging others on IMO.


Besides, gun control is a dead issue. Get over it. Enforce the laws already in place and you wont have any problems.

[AgentofGaming]

Actually, NO. practically ALL, illegal machine guns picked up in this country are illegally modified semi-auto's, homemade guns, or machine guns smuggled in from Mexico.

And most of the illegal guns in Canada are smuggled from the US.
Maybe they came from Mexico.

Doesn't the US have a huge weapons industry?
I heard Walmart sells firearms there.

[Riverratt]

American government doesn't care about people getting hurt. They just care about taxes and more money. I'm surprised that drugs aren't legal in the USA.
It's a crazy country if u ask me. Why doesn't Canada, Sweden or Belgium have so many crimes and gun related deaths? Everything can be taken care of with laws, but the problem is that US government only passes laws that benefit the country financially.

Actually, according to the UN...SCOTLAND is the most VIOLENT "civilized country" in the world...YOU ARE 3 TIMES MORE LIKELY to be harmed in Scotland than America...England and Wales is almost as bad as scotland...

Well I'm glad all that gun control -- make that gun ban and confiscation -- in the British Isles is working out so well. And look! England and Wales have more than double the percent of the population who have been victims of assault compared with here in the Wild West... ;D Please bring facts, not hyperbole to the table, this is an INTJ forum.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Lucid]

Personally, I don't like guns. I don't need one and don't particularly enjoy being around them because, no matter how careful, responsible, well trained etc. you are, accidents do happen.

However, having said that, it honestly does offend me when people from other countries talk about how uncivilized we Americans are for allowing guns. Quite frankly, I think monarchy is rather stupid but I realize that there are places where it's a part of their culture. It could, of course, be argued that monarchy doesn't kill people and guns do, but what most people from other countries don't realize is that in the US it's the illegal guns that do most of the killing. Not the legal, registered, licensed guns.
Our nation is only about 100 years away from being a frontier land. That's not much if you think about it and I think that's why guns are the part of our culture that they are.

I don't like guns so I don't own one and I don't hang out at places where they are likely to be out.
The next argument from the other side is, "Well you can refuse to be around guns and still be hurt by them," and this is true, but usually the guns being used in those situations are already illegal. Besides, there's lots of ways to hurt people without guns.

Yes, you can buy guns at Walmart. But you have to submit to a background check. You must be 18 to purchase a hunting rifle and 21+ to purchase a hand gun. It varies by state, but many places require people to take gun safety courses before they are allowed to purchase them and there is a mandatory waiting period. People with restraining orders, felonies, violent misdemeanors, or mental issues are not allowed to own guns of any kind. To carry a hand gun on you, you must have a license and to get that license you have to pay some money and complete a lot of gun safety courses.

Most of the people who call Americans uncivilized for allowing guns to be legal are ignorant of our gun control systems and our culture. Get off your high horses.

[Bossy Mom]

Well not that I'm an expert or anything, but somehow I doubt that your founding fathers meant that all civilians should be able to purchase an anti- tank weapon, or a fully automatic, 7.62mm assault rifle. But hey I'm Norwegian so what the hell do I know... :p



And how many of the ILLEGAL guns were once LEGAL? I'm betting alot...

You don't know anything about our Constitution, obviously. U.S. citizens are allowed to own guns to (1) protect themselves and their families; and (2) to protect themselves from a tyrannical government.

[James Revell]

Weapons provoke violence, ranged weapons hit bystanders. Having almost never seen weapons in my life. I feel different when sitting in a room with a rifle in it, an object made purposely to kill.
Downtown has a problem there are street gangs, there have been dozens of bystanders hit in the crossfire.

Everyone wants to protect their loved ones, but isn't it a bad mentality defending ourselves from each other, our neighbours, our friends? The slightest misunderstanding and there could be violence. I could leave my door unlocked and no one is going to come in and steal anything here.
It's rare here to find people who think they need to defend themselves in a modern society. It's been delegated to trained professionals who know how to handle the situation far better.
Everyone arming themselves seems like the world is after you.

Okay, I hate to be so controntational but this is complete crap and I'm pulling out my soapbox.

Anything can be a weapon! Guns are more efficient than rocks and clubs, but I can stick a pencil through your eyesocket and kill you just as dead. People are pretty much smarter tool-using animals, and even non-carnivorous animals defend themselves. Heck, the first tools we made were intended for violence! The world has not progressed nearly as far as you think we have.

Failing to admit you are capable of violence is hiding from the truth, not confronting it. I haven't had a need to defend myself physically since I was a teenager, but you can bet I know how to and would do so once it became the best alternative. I live in a peaceful low-crime area and do leave my doors unlocked, but I have a gun in my house if I need to resort to it. That's unlikely since my three large dogs are a far more effective deterrent.

Handing your defense over to someone else is a recipe for eventual disaster as you are now defenseless if they so chose. I'm in no way calling for everyone to arm themselves, but everyone should be able to defend themselves. Even if they eliminate guns, the rocks and clubs will still be there.

End soapbox

[Wapiti]

Guns are in this world and always will be, get over it.

[AgentofGaming]

Okay, I hate to be so controntational but this is complete crap and I'm pulling out my soapbox.

Anything can be a weapon! Guns are more efficient than rocks and clubs, but I can stick a pencil through your eyesocket and kill you just as dead. People are pretty much smarter tool-using animals, and even non-carnivorous animals defend themselves. Heck, the first tools we made were intended for violence! The world has not progressed nearly as far as you think we have.
The issue is it is more efficient. A pencil won't kill me or a bystander by accident from a 50m distance.
The goal is to have less people killed, a firearm is remarkably efficient at killing, it's the means available. Deaths should be avoided that's why these days a lot of police forces use non-lethal methods now.
The world has not progressed toward trusting each other, that is in certain places

Failing to admit you are capable of violence is hiding from the truth, not confronting it. I haven't had a need to defend myself physically since I was a teenager, but you can bet I know how to and would do so once it became the best alternative. I live in a peaceful low-crime area and do leave my doors unlocked, but I have a gun in my house if I need to resort to it. That's unlikely since my three large dogs are a far more effective deterrent.

Handing your defense over to someone else is a recipe for eventual disaster as you are now defenseless if they so chose. I'm in no way calling for everyone to arm themselves, but everyone should be able to defend themselves. Even if they eliminate guns, the rocks and clubs will still be there.
I never said I am unable to commit violence where did I say that? Anyone can be violent, the problem is increasing their potential, giving them the means to be efficient at being violent. The results of violence become more dire then.

I'm sure it's perfectly fine to protect yourself. However if someone is out to get you there's really very little you can do, you could go out and someone could get you with a concealed weapon. You can arm yourself with a firearm? What if you get bombed? Do you have to turn your house into a bunker? Where is the limit? what is effective? And if there is a well co-ordinated death plot against you, how can you protect yourself then? not go out?

When was the last time rocks and clubs have been used? You mean knives right? well... at least clubs have a lesser chance of killing innocent bystanders.

Guns are in this world and always will be, get over it.
They are but distributing them isn't going to advocate peace.
It's already out, like the abomb. Many countries have atomic weapons and when they all fire at each other, than humanity will cease to exist.
(better start building that bunker :thumbsup: just kidding)

[blueback]

This is a fun discussion!

I've always enjoyed the gun control debate because I'm a bit conflicted on it myself.

On the one hand, I think that handguns should be outlawed. They are a unique class of "gun" that is just not appropriate for civilians to own. They are easy to conceal, which means it's easier to hide them from authorities, it's easier to get close to your target for a reliable shot, and they are small enough for a child to shoot themselves with. The most common reason cited for owning a handgun is "home defense", but a handgun is not a good defensive weapon. A defensive weapon is used by a person who doesn't have a reason to use a gun offensively, which means they don't have enough incentive to put in the necessary time and money for practice. It takes a lot of time and money to learn how to use a handgun when you've just woken up, you're heart is beating fast, and the house is dark. A shotgun is a much better defensive weapon because it solves all the problems mentioned above. It's too big to hide, too long for kids to shoot themselves with, and has too much spread to miss easily.

On the other hand, I think that long-arms should be legal. Most long guns are used for hunting or target practice, not crime (as opposed to hand guns). They are just too hard to hide from anyone and they are too heavy and akward to be carrying when you happen to get angry.

On the other hand, full-auto weapons and explosives should be illegal. They are pretty much impossible to use for legal purposes and the costs aren't prohibitive enough to stop people from getting them.


The above interpritation of the 2nd amendment seems to me to maintain the spirit and intent while accounting for technological changes. When they wrote "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" they were writting with a feather. If they'd had any idea how deadly firearms would become through technological inovations they would have included more restrictions. The idea was that a "well regulated militia" was important to the maintenance of liberty, which I agree with. However, if you spend some time on survivalist and militia websites you will quickly notice that very few of them show off handguns. Handguns just aren't very useful in a war.

Basically it comes down to which classes of firearm are part of a well organized militia. Handguns are for crime, so they're out. Rifles are for hunting, so they're in. Military hardware (heavy machineguns and explosives) are for wholesale destruction and slaughter, so they're out.

[Wapiti]

They are but distributing them isn't going to advocate peace.


And banning them won't either.

[iamnotspock]

When one considers Hitler's cake-walk across the continent -- and the amount of sheer American gun power required to roust him -- the notion of the 2nd Amendment is not so theoretical or absurd. To argue against a citizen's militia is to argue for Hitler and Stalin, no less. Who here wants to be the next Poland?

[elsdfr]

When one considers Hitler's cake-walk across the continent -- and the amount of sheer American gun power required to roust him -- the notion of the 2nd Amendment is not so theoretical or absurd. To argue against a citizen's militia is to argue for Hitler and Stalin, no less. Who here wants to be the next Poland?

Wow, living in the past. Don't you have a law enforcement office or are you really living in the Wild West?

Who are you afraid of, China?

I find the need to carry a weapon in order to keep your self safe and so you can leave your house and car door unlocked about as nonsensical as the death penalty.

I think its a failure of Government to change with the times. A failure of social welfare and Capitalist zeal at the expense of a brain washed population.

[Mr Zip]

I own a few guns, and go years sometimes without really thinking about them. I also have a wife and 3 young daughters, and theres been times that I thought someone had broke into my house, and I'm glad I have them.

Ill never register my guns. I'm a responsible gun owner, and theyre for me and my families protection. I'm not going to live with regret to think that someone harmed my family and I didnt do anything about it. It will probably never happen, and I hope it doesnt, but if it does, I'm as ready as Ill ever be.

[Riverratt]

All guns, have their place...Those that say their is "no proper use" for handguns are not thinking clearly...

The point it, the Police will NOT, be their to protect you, you only call them when a crime is being committed....they show up in time to write reports..

This 911 call illustrated this FACT, beyond a shadow of a doubt....

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Here is the news paper article about the incident.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Listen to that audio, and tell THAT woman, that she is "uncivilized" and "out of step" Tell her that "Guns are evil" and will only get you killed... TELL HER...

Tell her that she is morally inferior because she owns a firearm, than take it from her....

She did it all correctly, she even had pieces of paper protecting her (restraining orders) and was on the phone with 911 the WHOLE TIME. And STILL, the police could not protect her.





Riverratt added to this post, 22 minutes and 36 seconds later...


Who are you afraid of, China?


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[elsdfr]

Sure if you grow up or live in an environment where anyone with two brain cells can carry a lethal weapon with little trouble then I would agree with you, everyone should arm themselves to the teeth just in case.

Gun control in the US is a lost cause.

My naive belief though is that a correct society shouldn't need to allow its citizens to be armed in order to feel safe. *shrug*

[Riverratt]

My naive belief though is that a correct society shouldn't need to allow its citizens to be armed in order to feel safe. *shrug*

That statement says it all.... "Need to allow its citizens"

I feel that the government, derives its power, from the people, not vise-versa. It is WE, the PEOPLE that "allow" the government power.

We have the right to rescind that power at anytime.

It is my view that an armed citizenry is a FREE citizenry, after all....Slaves don't own guns, Free men do.

I fear the government that fears my firearms.

[elsdfr]

That statement says it all.... "Need to allow its citizens"

I feel that the government, derives its power, from the people, not vise-versa. It is WE, the PEOPLE that "allow" the government power.

We have the right to rescind that power at anytime.

It is my view that an armed citizenry is a FREE citizenry, after all....Slaves don't own guns, Free men do.

I fear the government that fears my firearms.

What kind of things would require the people to rescind this power and why should it require the PEOPLE to use firearms?

[Riverratt]

Rescind ?? It is a "Right", I would not give it up under ANY circumstances.

Why are you so worried about guns anyway, their are 90 MILLION gun owners in America, only a TINY percentage of them are the problem.

My criminal record is SPOTLESS, I am a completely peaceful person. Why should anyone care, what I have in my gun cabinet?

Another thing to think about...Heirloom firearms...

Most of the families that I know of, they have heirloom guns, these are firearms that are passed down from generation to generation I for example, own my great grandfathers shotgun, my fathers hunting rifles, and my grandfathers .45 pistol, that he carried during World War II

You can see it here...

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

That old well worn army pistol, is PRICELESS, I would rather my house burn to the ground than to loose it.

That pistol will be passed down, to future generations of my family, it is MY responsibility to see that it is done.

THEIR IS NO POLITICIAN ANYWHERE, THAT WILL STAND IN THE WAY OF THAT HAPPENING, frankly it is NONE of their business..

Most of the people I know, feel the same way.

[prometheus]

Sure if you grow up or live in an environment where anyone with two brain cells can carry a lethal weapon with little trouble then I would agree with you, everyone should arm themselves to the teeth just in case.

Gun control in the US is a lost cause.

My naive belief though is that a correct society shouldn't need to allow its citizens to be armed in order to feel safe. *shrug*


The amount of wrong information in this thread is shocking. Aren't we all thinking types? If an abundance of personal firearms is as dangerous as you are implying, everyone in Switzerland should be dead already. Switzerland and perhaps Israel are the only places I can think of that have a higher per capita rate of firearm ownership than my beloved Montana. Ever since England and Australia banned firearms their violet crime rates have soared (Didn't the Aussies just get sword laws, what's next clubs and rocks?). All of the US cities that have restrictive gun laws have high crime rates, check the stats on Montana cities. Every genocide in the history was always preceded by firearm confiscation.

I'd like to second the opinion that those who want to take my guns, come and get them personally. I'll give you the bullets first. ;)

[elsdfr]

The amount of wrong information in this thread is shocking. Aren't we all thinking types? If an abundance of personal firearms is as dangerous as you are implying, everyone in Switzerland should be dead already. Switzerland and perhaps Israel are the only places I can think of that have a higher per capita rate of firearm ownership than my beloved Montana. Ever since England and Australia banned firearms their violet crime rates have soared (Didn't the Aussies just get sword laws, what's next clubs and rocks?). All of the US cities that have restrictive gun laws have high crime rates, check the stats on Montana cities. Every genocide in the history was always preceded by firearm confiscation.

I'd like to second the opinion that those who want to take my guns, come and get them personally. I'll give you the bullets first. ;)

I stated that in my view a correct and just society wouldn't need to have its citizens armed.

I never said a lack of firearm controls leads to less crime. Even if it doesn't I wouldn't expect a gun buy back (Australian example) that you stated to have immediate effects. It would take a lot of time for the black market in guns to be depleted... say ten years at least? Hell if I had ten guns and knew the market was goign to be short in ten years I'd stock pile, pitty I was underage at the time huh?

I think your quote of Switzerland being heavily armed is a bit scued if comparing it to the US. Their population is 3 million and something like 500k of them work for the military. These people are trained professionals and are required to have a weapon at all times. To point and say they should have killed themselves already is somewhat irrational in my view. Their gun controls laws are actually quite strict and comparable to Australia and England. You basically need to prove you need the gun for work etc. before anyone will talk to you.

From what I know Iraq had no gun control laws and it was ruled by a Dictator for many years. You needn't look far into history to see that a gun isn't going to save you from the tyranny of Government. In fact they probably still don't have gun laws and look how well that stopped the invasion! (China reference there) Well it probably did "help" but look at the lawlessness that prevailed. Its going to take decades to reconstruct.

I really haven't looked at gun control laws and US crime stats before but I can imagine there's a mess of misinformation floating around on the web but hey I'll be sure to check it out sometime.


I'd like to second the opinion that those who want to take my guns, come and get them personally. I'll give you the bullets first. ;)

Is that an invite?

[Riverratt]

I stated that in my view a correct and just society wouldn't need to have its citizens armed.
......

....Is that an invite?

Now you are talking about "ideal"...and with human nature being the way that it is, it is an impossibility.

Just look at Communism for example...Sure, it looks great on paper, but it cannot work out in practice, for the simple fact that people ARE, greedy..

As for the last part of your post, all I have to say is this...

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

It will be a dark day in this nation and my grandfather's .45 will speak against tyrants once more.

Along with some of my other "acquisitions" nearly all of them, had fought against tyranny, some had even fought FOR tyranny, but...They will speak again. For a common and just cause...FREEDOM

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Dreamer]

For all those who think that the police will always help younwhen you need it.

Consider the case of the Dawson college shootings where two policemen were inside the building while the shootings took place.Didn't prevent the shooter from killing his victims.Only a policeman(or an armed citizen) in the immediate viscinity of the shooter while the shooting started would have made a difference.

Yes,the guns used by the shooter were legal,but there is little evidence that the police is able to do anything when it comes to limiting the black market supply of firearms in Canada or elsewhere (consider that the Jews were able to smuggle firearms into nazi ghettos...).

I don't carry a gun, but I certainly don't want to deprive a citizen of his/her right to defend him/herself if he ever needs it.

I think your quote of Switzerland being heavily armed is a bit scued if comparing it to the US. Their population is 3 million and something like 500k of them work in for the military. These people are trained profesionals and are required to have a weapon at all times. To point and say they should have killed themselves already is highly irrational in my view. Their gun controls laws are actually very strict and compareable to Australia and England. You basically need to prove you need the gun before anyone will talk to you. The gun laws in Switzerland have nothing to do with the gun laws in England and Australia. The majority of swiss citizens working in the military are part of the militia and not the regforce. They are civilians for most of the year and the only mandatory training they have to undergo is basic training and a mandatory annual 3-week refresher training. They are NOT "professionals" in the sense that the military is their main occupation and their daily activities do not require them to have a weapon at all time.

Also they don't need to prove that you "need" a gun, they are issued two(a military rifle and a pistol) by the government as part of their national obligations.

[thod]

All the arguements are about protection. Its the street punk that people want to keep away from guns. He is the guy that is likely to shoot you as he mugs you. Yet that punk has the same rights as everyone else and he will say he needs it for protection too. So has anyone got any solutions to ensure only responsible people can get guns?

[Bossy Mom]

Guns are in this world and always will be, get over it.

Governments fear ripping all rights from citizens who have guns in their homes. Also, anyone can make a gun in their garage with a few instructions.

[blueback]

Possible moral reasons to have a firearm:

1) The country is invaded by a foreign power

Not likely.
If it did happen, it would be an organized and well-equiped military force. Your handgun would be useless, a rifle/shotgun would be the minimum power of weapon you would need to accomplish anything useful. Any military grade hardware above that you happened to have would be more useful. However, the more useful (powerful) it is the more you would have to participate in coordinated maneuvers. Therefore, the more powerful your weapon(s) the more responsibility you have to be part of an organized militia at a minimum.

2) The country's governemnt turns the military on the citizens

Not likely.
If it did happen, the same restrictions on what is practical apply as to number (1) above. However, if the situation was such that a significant percentage of the all-volunteer American military was willing to turn on their own countrymen then the situation would have also split the non-military citizens into those for and those against the government. Unless there is some obvious geographical dividing line (civil war) you are looking at a state of anarchy. In that case, handguns, rifles, machineguns, bombs, sharp sticks, it's all good.

3) A group of citizens revolts against the national government

Not likely, at least not on a large enough scale to matter.
However, if it did happen the geography would likely be very well defined. So most of the loyal citizens wouldn't even get a chance to be involved in any fighting, but a few would. Those who were in the vicinity of the combat would be more likely to be shoved aside by the police and military who are fighting the rebels then get a chance to contribute. In this case, owning any kind of gun would be enough to have the police/military be very suspicious of you (insurgent warfare). If you try to explain that you aren't a rebel and you only keep your AR-15 around for target practice they probably won't believe you. If you try to make a "rights" issue out of it you will only distract them from the real rebels and probably cause a lot more unnecessary grief.

4) Someone threatens you/your family with lethal force

Possible, depending on where you live and how valuable your stuff is.
There are many ways this could happen. However, most of those ways involve the criminal plotting to put you at a disadvantage. If a criminal is stalking you, you'd have to carry your firearm on you at all times or they'd just attack you when you were unarmed/distracted. If you do manage to get your firearm out, ready to fire, and pointed in the general direction of the threat then you also have to be trained and willing to use it. If you've got a handgun, statistics say that you will most likely miss your target; you might scare them off, though. If you're in a situation where you can grab a rifle/shotgun your chances of using it effectively increase dramatically, however you'll have fewer opportunities to use it.

Another situation that is worth mentioning is one in which no one intended to commit a crime, but someone(s) gets very angry. If both people are carrying sidearms, cuz they like to protect themselves from crime, all it takes is one person reaching for their gun to cause a lot of trouble. When both people are armed they enter a state of mutually assured destruction in which they have to act faster then their opponent, and even if they do they will probably both get shot. The problem is compounded if a cop is constantly surrounded by people with pistols. In that case, it is his job to respond to crime and protect innocents, but he is surrouned by people who could kill multiple times before he has a chance to act. You really don't want your police officers that paranoid.

5) You like to hunt/practice marksmanship

Very likely.
I enjoy target shooting and the occasional meal of rabbit. This is actually the most common use of civilian owned firearms in the country. Guns tailored to these purposes are typically difficult to use for crime. However, there is still the danger of someone getting ahold of them when they're not supposed to, and they are more limited in their defense utility.

6) You like to collect/pass on firearms

Likely.
This is kind of like all other collections, it doesn't have to make any sense except to the collector. Usually, collectors like their pieces to be fully functional, just like they want their action figures to stay in the origianl packaging. If they never keep any ammo for the guns around the chance of them being use for anything, let alone something bad, is very small.



No matter how finely you slice it, all guns are intended to kill. Some of them only ever get pointed at paper targets or clay pidgeons, but those are training devices for killing. Just because you sit on the bench, doesn't mean you aren't ready to play.

That being established, you can either use your gun to kill legally or illegally. The difficulty then becomes trying to figure out who is going to use them appropriately and who isn't. That is a problem humans have had since their ancestors stood up on two feet for the first time.

Handguns: You can only use them legally at the shooting range, in the woods, or in a limited set of circumstances for self-defense. If you want to shoot paper targets or animals you can just as easily use a rifle. If you want to use one for self-defense you have to first prove that you are ONLY going to use if for self-defense and that you will use it correctly when you do. Basically that means they should be expensive, they should require a lot of training, and they should be tracked.

Rifle/Shotgun: The legal uses are basically target practice and hunting, with home defense a real possibility. Additionally, a tiny possibility exists that you might be able to contribute to the national defense. These should be pretty much unregulated.

Machinegun: The only legal uses are quickly filling a paper target full of holes, or getting into a very unfair fight with a large animal.

Everything else: No legal uses.

[pavman]

Yeah, we are a scary country at times. 11,000 gun related deaths each year. I don't really support gun control, but I think our mentality is a little twisted.

Hmm, based on your logic, cars should be banned...they kill a helluvalot more people than guns do.


pavman added to this post, 3 minutes and 29 seconds later...

Possible moral reasons to have a firearm:

1) The country is invaded by a foreign power

Not likely.
If it did happen, it would be an organized and well-equiped military force. Your handgun would be useless, a rifle/shotgun would be the minimum power of weapon you would need to accomplish anything useful. Any military grade hardware above that you happened to have would be more useful. However, the more useful (powerful) it is the more you would have to participate in coordinated maneuvers. Therefore, the more powerful your weapon(s) the more responsibility you have to be part of an organized militia at a minimum.

2) The country's governemnt turns the military on the citizens

Not likely.
If it did happen, the same restrictions on what is practical apply as to number (1) above. However, if the situation was such that a significant percentage of the all-volunteer American military was willing to turn on their own countrymen then the situation would have also split the non-military citizens into those for and those against the government. Unless there is some obvious geographical dividing line (civil war) you are looking at a state of anarchy. In that case, handguns, rifles, machineguns, bombs, sharp sticks, it's all good.

3) A group of citizens revolts against the national government

Not likely, at least not on a large enough scale to matter.
However, if it did happen the geography would likely be very well defined. So most of the loyal citizens wouldn't even get a chance to be involved in any fighting, but a few would. Those who were in the vicinity of the combat would be more likely to be shoved aside by the police and military who are fighting the rebels then get a chance to contribute. In this case, owning any kind of gun would be enough to have the police/military be very suspicious of you (insurgent warfare). If you try to explain that you aren't a rebel and you only keep your AR-15 around for target practice they probably won't believe you. If you try to make a "rights" issue out of it you will only distract them from the real rebels and probably cause a lot more unnecessary grief.

4) Someone threatens you/your family with lethal force

Possible, depending on where you live and how valuable your stuff is.
There are many ways this could happen. However, most of those ways involve the criminal plotting to put you at a disadvantage. If a criminal is stalking you, you'd have to carry your firearm on you at all times or they'd just attack you when you were unarmed/distracted. If you do manage to get your firearm out, ready to fire, and pointed in the general direction of the threat then you also have to be trained and willing to use it. If you've got a handgun, statistics say that you will most likely miss your target; you might scare them off, though. If you're in a situation where you can grab a rifle/shotgun your chances of using it effectively increase dramatically, however you'll have fewer opportunities to use it.

Another situation that is worth mentioning is one in which no one intended to commit a crime, but someone(s) gets very angry. If both people are carrying sidearms, cuz they like to protect themselves from crime, all it takes is one person reaching for their gun to cause a lot of trouble. When both people are armed they enter a state of mutually assured destruction in which they have to act faster then their opponent, and even if they do they will probably both get shot. The problem is compounded if a cop is constantly surrounded by people with pistols. In that case, it is his job to respond to crime and protect innocents, but he is surrouned by people who could kill multiple times before he has a chance to act. You really don't want your police officers that paranoid.

5) You like to hunt/practice marksmanship

Very likely.
I enjoy target shooting and the occasional meal of rabbit. This is actually the most common use of civilian owned firearms in the country. Guns tailored to these purposes are typically difficult to use for crime. However, there is still the danger of someone getting ahold of them when they're not supposed to, and they are more limited in their defense utility.

6) You like to collect/pass on firearms

Likely.
This is kind of like all other collections, it doesn't have to make any sense except to the collector. Usually, collectors like their pieces to be fully functional, just like they want their action figures to stay in the origianl packaging. If they never keep any ammo for the guns around the chance of them being use for anything, let alone something bad, is very small.



No matter how finely you slice it, all guns are intended to kill. Some of them only ever get pointed at paper targets or clay pidgeons, but those are training devices for killing. Just because you sit on the bench, doesn't mean you aren't ready to play.

That being established, you can either use your gun to kill legally or illegally. The difficulty then becomes trying to figure out who is going to use them appropriately and who isn't. That is a problem humans have had since their ancestors stood up on two feet for the first time.

Handguns: You can only use them legally at the shooting range, in the woods, or in a limited set of circumstances for self-defense. If you want to shoot paper targets or animals you can just as easily use a rifle. If you want to use one for self-defense you have to first prove that you are ONLY going to use if for self-defense and that you will use it correctly when you do. Basically that means they should be expensive, they should require a lot of training, and they should be tracked.

Rifle/Shotgun: The legal uses are basically target practice and hunting, with home defense a real possibility. Additionally, a tiny possibility exists that you might be able to contribute to the national defense. These should be pretty much unregulated.

Machinegun: The only legal uses are quickly filling a paper target full of holes, or getting into a very unfair fight with a large animal.

Everything else: No legal uses.

Wow... I'm not even gonna start on this right now... flawed logic all around.

We must first start with the premise of what is government and why is it that a police force exists. Then we must move to the obvious...if you are the victim of a violent [gun involved] crime, do you really believe the police will be able to 1. protect you 2. seek restitution for the harm that may have occurred?

You, my friend, live in a fantasy world if you believe that.

The individual must always maintain his sovereignty, otherwise there is no purpose to society and anarchy should be loosed upon the world. The government has NEVER been MORE or AS EQUALLY important as individuals and individual liberty.

This is why the constitution of the United States allows for the People to overthrow her government. Because all governments become corrupt.

E.G.: The German free and elected government, before the Nazi's came to power, banned guns. The Nazi's then used this to enslave the German people through force. Its a-hell-of-a-lot harder to fight a government if you are defenseless against it.

Ergo: Individuals should have the ability to overthrow the government when the government becomes tyrannical and unjust.

This is why Jefferson pushed for state sovereignty and worked against the Federalists (and helped, along with Samuel Adams, to push Madison to add the Bill of Rights to the Constitution).

Just keep that in mind, ya commie pinko fascist marxists. More to come when I'm not as busy (perhaps tomorrow I will dissect this). Or perhaps another intelligent INTJ will come to my aid....

pavman added to this post, 14 minutes and 21 seconds later...

All the arguements are about protection. Its the street punk that people want to keep away from guns. He is the guy that is likely to shoot you as he mugs you. Yet that punk has the same rights as everyone else and he will say he needs it for protection too. So has anyone got any solutions to ensure only responsible people can get guns?

Unfortunately, the street punk, as you call him, uses illegal guns most of the time. The only people hurt by banning guns are the upstanding citizens who do not trust the local, state, or federal government to come to their aid quick enough in the event of an incident.

Great lesson we teach our children... if there's trouble, call 911. Don't fight it...go hole up in your room and lock the door, and hope you live in a good enough neighborhood that the police show up in time to prevent your death.

:o) See, its easy to understand when we view the world through reality.

[Riverratt]

Since when did "needs" become qualifiers to a "right"???

Silly me, for thinking it is a Bill of RIGHTS. :rolleyes:

When someone can restrict a "right" because of "needs" we will invite the same to the REST of the Bill of Rights...

After all, you don't NEED freedom of speech, or you don't NEED, Protection from unreasonable search and seizure, as set out in the 4th Amendment.. :idea:

Heck!! Think of how much simpler it would be if we applie the "needs" argument to the 6th Amendment...
Do away with the " Trial by jury"

Naw, drug dealers don't NEED a trial by jury .....and since they don't what about the rest of us..





Riverratt added to this post, 10 minutes and 25 seconds later...

Ergo: Individuals should have the ability to overthrow the government when the government becomes tyrannical and unjust.

This is why Jefferson pushed for state sovereignty and worked against the Federalists (and helped, along with Samuel Adams, to push Madison to add the Bill of Rights to the Constitution)..

EXACTLY....let me elaborate a bit on a comment I made several posts back...

The Government, should FEAR THE PEOPLE, the people should NOT fear the government...

When people fear the government, we are going into dark times my friends.

Let me refer to some of America's wise founders for guidance on this subject..

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..." - Samuel Adams

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed and that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press." - Thomas Jefferson

"Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ...the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." - Tench Coxe, 20 Feb 1788

[AgentofGaming]

And banning them won't either.
Perhaps, but it'll make it more harder/costlier for criminals to acquire them.

Hmm, based on your logic, cars should be banned...they kill a helluvalot more people than guns do.
so what you're saying is cars are meant to kill and a homicide weapon of choice?

how often are cars used to deliberately hurt people?
Car deaths mostly come from accidents and reckless or impaired driving, which are as likely to affect the user instead.


EXACTLY....let me elaborate a bit on a comment I made several posts back...

The Government, should FEAR THE PEOPLE, the people should NOT fear the government...

That doesn't seem so ideal in some ways.
What about the army? should they fear the people too?
Also criminals are people, should the government fear them?

[thod]

The primary function of govenment is not welfare or liberties. The primary function of any govenment is the maintenence of order. Places like Somalia where there is no government order, there is no government. It doesnt matter if the people are happy or fearful it is only order that counts. After a period of anarchy the people will accept anyone on any terms that restores order to their lives.

[Riverratt]

Perhaps, but it'll make it more harder/costlier for criminals to acquire them.


so what you're saying is cars are meant to kill and a homicide weapon of choice?

how often are cars used to deliberately hurt people?
Car deaths mostly come from accidents and reckless or impaired driving, which are as likely to affect the user instead.

Wow....It is common to hear about some one running a car thru a crowd of people, many do it deliberately..

People are hurt far more by cars, than legal owned firearms.

By your very flawed logic, someone should come and take my cars, because I, MIGHT run my car thru a crowd...ONE day, or someone may take my car, and run thru a crowd.... LOL What flawed thinking on an INTJ forum.

Why the hell is it, that when ever their is a shooting somewhere, their is people trying to take the guns from THOSE WHO DID NOT DO IT???





Riverratt added to this post, 8 minutes and 3 seconds later...

The primary function of govenment is not welfare or liberties. The primary function of any govenment is the maintenence of order. Places like Somalia where there is no government order, there is no government. It doesnt matter if the people are happy or fearful it is only order that counts. After a period of anarchy the people will accept anyone on any terms that restores order to their lives.


Let us go to our basic documents. To paraphrase the Declaration of Independence, (which was the Mission Statement for the soon to be ratified US Constitution) humankind, has the right (natural rights) to LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT of HAPPINESS. To secure (that is to protect) those rights governments are created, and government gets it power from the governed.

[thod]

By your very flawed logic, someone should come and take my cars, because I, MIGHT run my car thru a crowd...ONE day, or someone may take my car, and run thru a crowd.... LOL What flawed thinking on an INTJ forum.


If cars had no use other that running through crowds of people than, yes, take your car. The only reason you would want one is your intent to commit mass murder.

The ability of a car to be used as a weapon is an secondary property much like kitchen knives could be used a weapon or baseball bats. Killing people is not a secondary property of handguns. They have no other use than to kill people.

Let us go to our basic documents. To paraphrase the Declaration of Independence, (which was the Mission Statement for the soon to be ratified US Constitution) humankind, has the right (natural rights) to LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT of HAPPINESS. To secure (that is to protect) those rights governments are created, and government gets it power from the governed.

Nobody here cares about local documents like the US constitution. You are argueing with people around the world. I can interpret that to my ends to ensure LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT of HAPPINESS I will ban handguns. It is my duty to do so to ensure those qualities.

[Riverratt]

If cars had no use other that running through crowds of people than, yes, take your car. The only reason you would want one is your intent to commit mass murder.

The ability of a car to be used as a weapon is an secondary property much like kitchen knives could be used a weapon or baseball bats. Killing people is not a secondary property of handguns. They have no other use than to kill people.

So your telling me, that the early knifes where not for Killing? That Clubs, that came before Bats, where used to play an early form of waffler ball called "full o' crapt"

WOW....Never would have thought of that. :rolleyes:

I own lots of guns, I have fired literally tens of thousands of rounds...and NO one got hurt...I must be doing something wrong...

[pavman]

The primary function of govenment is not welfare or liberties. The primary function of any govenment is the maintenence of order. Places like Somalia where there is no government order, there is no government. It doesnt matter if the people are happy or fearful it is only order that counts. After a period of anarchy the people will accept anyone on any terms that restores order to their lives.

Wow. INTPs.. I'll tell ya... fooked in da head!

The primary function of government is civility. Its government that keeps people from killing each other, and also keeps the corporations in check (along with those in position of power) from taking advantage of its citizens. Well, sometimes. In fact, lately the US Federal Government doesn't seem to have a very solid track record of this...

The early Americans who emigrated here from England lived in small communities that eventually became the 13 colonies (its actually a rather fascinating history). The point of society is to maintain order, but the order must be a just order in order to justify the existence of any government. The fascinating history of the original colonies is that they lived in a sort of pseudo-utopia where laws were harsh, but just, and agreed upon by all members of the little society that shared the Virginia soil. When survival is at stake, its amazing how the pettiness of our lives falls to the way side and we band together to help our neighbor.

Your pointing out Somalia and the need for order is a perfect example of *why* guns should never be banned. If the citizens had been armed properly, and had the right training, perhaps they wouldn't have had to succumb to tribal wars that tore their country apart, and get to the point where they would take any form of governmental order over what was obviously a series of tyrannical, oppressive attempts by minorities to remove individual sovereignty.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Its always been about independence and freedom in Somalia, which is why to this day the civil strife continues, as yet another oppressive regime attempts to control individual liberty by imposing specious moral beliefs on an unwilling populace.

The solution here is to split the country into pieces and form new, sovereign nations which can then live out their specific brand of liberty as they see fit. This, in fact, is what the tribes have been trying to do without being official. Of course, this must allow for the free and independent migration to/from different regions, otherwise there will still be strife.

[thod]

The primary function of government is civility. Its government that keeps people from killing each other, and also keeps the corporations in check (along with those in position of power) from taking advantage of its citizens. Well, sometimes. In fact, lately the US Federal Government doesn't seem to have a very solid track record of this...


This is the maintence of order. Someone kills someone then the family kills one of them back. The situation is out of control that means there is no order. Things that you decree will not happen will not happen.

The early Americans who emigrated here from England lived in small communities that eventually became the 13 colonies (its actually a rather fascinating history). The point of society is to maintain order, but the order must be a just order in order to justify the existence of any government.

Nope Saddam maintained order much better than the US forces. There is no requirement that government be just. Being just is simply to ease the maintenence of order.

Your pointing out Somalia and the need for order is a perfect example of *why* guns should never be banned. If the citizens had been armed properly, and had the right training, perhaps they wouldn't have had to succumb to tribal wars that tore their country apart, and get to the point where they would take any form of governmental order over what was obviously a series of tyrannical, oppressive attempts by minorities to remove individual sovereignty.


It is because they had guns. The tribes are able to shoot each other to pieces with AK47 and nobody is going to stop them. The libertarians dont want me to say that the ethiopian army simply went in and swept away all the little war lords and islamic councils. Light infinitry is no match for heavy armor. Having those guns didnt do a thing to stop an organised military. Keep hiding behind those pea shooters and telling yourself that you will stop the military. Those guys at waco, TX had to be taught a lesson too.

[AgentofGaming]

So your telling me, that the early knifes where not for Killing? That Clubs, that came before Bats, where used to play an early form of waffler ball called "full o' crapt"

WOW....Never would have thought of that. :rolleyes:

I own lots of guns, I have fired literally tens of thousands of rounds...and NO one got hurt...I must be doing something wrong...

Knives today don't have a primary function of killing. "most of them"
People aren't arming themselves with longswords and cutlasses for cooking.

[Riverratt]

Knives today don't have a primary function of killing. "most of them"
People aren't arming themselves with longswords and cutlasses for cooking.


LOL...Than why are they trying to ban them in Britain?

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[prometheus]

Welcome to Montana, you know your helmet looks a little bit blue.











To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.





prometheus added to this post, 15 minutes and 30 seconds later...

Wow. INTPs.. I'll tell ya... fooked in da head!


Try debating an INFJ sometime, SHEESH.





prometheus added to this post, 4 minutes and 57 seconds later...

LOL...Than why are they trying to ban them in Britain?

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ...and Australia.





prometheus added to this post, 7 minutes and 13 seconds later...

Did everyone see the EBR (Evil Black Rifle) in the first pic? (nice girly gun, eh?) That sonnabeetch has killed just as many innocent civilian bystanders as myself......... 0 However she does lust for tyrant blood on regular basis..... Did I mention my 50BMG???

[AgentofGaming]

LOL...Than why are they trying to ban them in Britain?

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

At least I get to keep plastic knives and butter knives. :thumbsup:


Did everyone see the EBR (Evil Black Rifle) in the first pic? (nice girly gun, eh?) That sonnabeetch has killed just as many innocent civilian bystanders as myself......... 0 However she does lust for tyrant blood on regular basis..... Did I mention my 50BMG???

I'm sure smart criminals will use larger rifles so as to attract more attention to themselves so they can have more police to fight after....

[JusVisiting]

I'm not sure how the belief that Bush drove us into war to secure cheap oil can coexist with the belief a fascist like Hitler could never take over again? I agree with some of the things people have said but some of this doesn't make any sense. Like what weird world are you living in? I'll add more later when I have some time to devote. Interesting read so far.

[anul]

I know that it's my right to own a gun if I wished to. As an American my countries founding father put in my constitution that it's my right to own arms. So if I need to protect myself from violence I can, or a government gone mad. If we outlaw guns that gangs that commit the violence will still have them. Gangs tend to have access to illegal things anyways. So if we outlaw it you will only be taking guns away form law abiding citizens. Instead of violent gangs, who will still have their illegal guns. Also while there are less shootings in Canada it seems that there are more stabbings in Canada.

If you want to fix the problem if you need to make the jail systems more efficient.

[AgentofGaming]

Also while there are less shootings in Canada it seems that there are more stabbings in Canada.
There seems to be co-ordination (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)between guns and overall homicide rates.

Zimbabwe seems a lot more safer than Columbia
Australia seems a lot safer than the US

Thailand must have Wildwest shootouts.

[anul]

T
Australia seems a lot safer than the US



While you may be concerned about being shot. I'm concerned about poisonous animals killing me. So Australia wouldn't be safer than America from my perspective.

[Dreamer]

There seems to be co-ordination (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)between guns and overall homicide rates.

Zimbabwe seems a lot more safer than Columbia
Australia seems a lot safer than the US

Thailand must have Wildwest shootouts.

Wow,if the graph was actually meant to prove that guns=evils + murder,I am laughing hard.

The problem with it is that it assumes that the more guns there are, the more gun-related homicides there are. What makes you think that it is not a criminal elite, armed with few illegal guns(out of reach of the idiotic untrained unwashed civilian masses) doing the killing?

We haven't been able to stop the influx of drugs into western countries. Nazis could not stop the influx of guns into occupied France.What makes you think that our police (fortunatly) bound by democratic restrictions, could stop the influx of guns into the western world?

It doesn't take into account Switzerland(which has been brought up earlier,but for some reason everybody has been ignoring it),which has among the highest gun per capita in the world and yet a much much lower crime rate than other western nations with much stricter gun laws.

[AgentofGaming]

While you may be concerned about being shot. I'm concerned about poisonous animals killing me. So Australia wouldn't be safer than America from my perspective.
Well at least no hurricanes and snakes here just snow.
poisonous insects might be a threat... but I'll save that for a different topic.

Wow,if the graph was actually meant to prove that guns=evils + murder,I am laughing hard.

The problem with it is that it assumes that the more guns there are, the more gun-related homicides there are. What makes you think that it is not a criminal elite, armed with few illegal guns(out of reach of the idiotic untrained unwashed civilian masses) doing the killing?
Of course it's not that simple, but it's just my personal sight of a pattern.

The basis for argument is you can't commit gun crimes without guns.

Like how a theft becomes a murder with the single twitch of the finger.

We haven't been able to stop the influx of drugs into western countries. Nazis could not stop the influx of guns into occupied France.What makes you think that our police (fortunatly) bound by democratic restrictions, could stop the influx of guns into the western world?

It doesn't take into account Switzerland(which has been brought up earlier,but for some reason everybody has been ignoring it),which has among the highest gun per capita in the world and yet a much much lower crime rate than other western nations with much stricter gun laws.
Now countries haven't been able to stop drugs yes, but what if countries stopped trying to?
What if countries stopped trying to catch those doing impaired driving?

Certainly availability of guns is not the only factor, lifestyle plays a factor too.
Any European want to make an analysis?

[prometheus]

It doesn't take into account Switzerland(which has been brought up earlier,but for some reason everybody has been ignoring it),which has among the highest gun per capita in the world and yet a much much lower crime rate than other western nations with much stricter gun laws.

I brought that up and have every intention of explaining further to the short bus crowd, but I have multiple guests (with their evil, evil guns) here for a few days.

[Dreamer]

Of course it's not that simple, but it's just my personal sight of a pattern. I suggest you refrain from making such simple arguments in the future.

It not only insults the intelligence of all involved, it also lowers the quality of the discussion.

The basis for argument is you can't commit gun crimes without guns.

Like how a theft becomes a murder with the single twitch of the finger. And you believe that pitting the general unarmed populace against a fit young criminal populace is a wise decision? Right.

I certainly don't see how disarming both parties will nescessarly make it better.

Without weapons,the citizenry have the deck stacked against it. The young criminal male does not choose the 250 pound bodybuilder,he chooses the 120 pound chick walking alone at night. In a typical western country,only a minority is fit to defend themselves against physical assaults.

And since homicide rates does not have a corrolation with gun per capita...well.


Now countries haven't been able to stop drugs yes, but what if countries stopped trying to?
You cannot interrupt the flow of weapons significantly no more than you can interrupt the flow of drugs. Drug prices have not really dropped despite the much-publiscized "war on drugs",what does it tell you about the efficiency of anti-smuggling measures?

The police has already been established as being inefficient as quick-reaction force in violent crimes.By outlawing guns,you are really only disarming the citizen and leaving him without efficient protection while the criminal still has access to decent weaponnry.


Certainly availability of guns is not the only factor, lifestyle plays a factor too.
Aah,so maybe the problem does not lie with guns?

But rather a morally corrupt culture...

[blueback]

Guns are simply tools. They are incapable of acting on their own, so whenever a gun is used for something it is an extension of a person. Therefore, you should look too the person for answers, not too the gun.

Most people have no intention of harming other people, let alone killing them. In fact, most people go out of their way to avoid harming or killing other people. Therefore, only a small percentage of the population will intentionally try to harm or kill other people.

Therefore, the small percentage of the population that is dangerous is independant of the tools available to them to cause damage. More tools capable of harming or killing people does not increase the percentage of people who intentionally harm or kill people.

However, the tools available do increase the amount of damage that small percentage is capable of inflicting. Very few people are capable of harming or killing dozens of people with only a knife (unless everyone was asleep and they did it really quickly); it takes them so long that they are subdued by bystanders or caught by police. Anyone who isn't severely handicapped is capable of harming or killing dozens of people with a semi-automatic weapon; the damage is done so fast that there isn't time for bystanders to respond or for police to catch them.

The situation therefore becomes a question of how much unintentional damage is acceptable. If you allow everyone to operate firearms, you will have people use them inappropriately. The exact same balance is found in automobiles and prescription medication. Most people make an effort to use them correctly, but a few will inevitably use them to cause intentional harm.

Any law which attempts to regulate people's intentions is doomed to fail. Morality cannot be regulated, nor decreed, nor enforced successfully. Laws which basically amount to "We're not sure what your intentions are, but we're going to assume that whatever you were planning to do was illegal, so if you do it you're in trouble" are only so much wasted effort.

On the other hand, laws which change the environment in which people make their decisions can be quite successful, limited only by each human being's natural inclination to do whatever the hell they want no matter what the consequences are. For example, requiring a waiting period before someone can buy a gun is specifically targeted. It means that all gun purchases are premeditated, and it is impossible to buy and use a gun while you're angry. Another example is requiring participation in a certified gun safety class. That rule is targeted such that those who use guns know exactly how and when they should and can legally be used. Additionally, such laws force the gun buyer/user to invest more in the purchase. A person who has waited 2 weeks and taken the time to pass a 4 hour class is more reliable and trustworthy then a person who has to have a gun "right now" and isn't even sure how to "turn it on."

[Provoker]

What is uncivilized, and provocative about being able to protect yourself and your loved ones?

That is some flawed logic.

I am a husband and a father, IT IS A MAJOR FAILURE, to not be able to defend my loved ones.


Guns create a security dilemma. It results in an arms race in both the political and personal realm. Guns are only logical when everyone has them, and are illogical to have when no one has them since acquiring a gun in this case will start the dilemma again. Both situations are based on reciprocity, but the latter is more rational since it will save more lives.

[AgentofGaming]

I suggest you refrain from making such simple arguments in the future.

It not only insults the intelligence of all involved, it also lowers the quality of the discussion.

No it's not a simple argument, a picture is worth a thousand words. We should see trends, the big picture, not every minute detail. Trends and modelling aren't perfect there will be anomalies and I haven't discounted them directly.

The goal of models is to simplify some outstanding details so as to focus on the main picture. It is definitely not my intent to lower the discussion. I admit though that it is inappropriate of me to not explain it throughly and assume that we'd be able to see a patterns.

Of course if you want a full argument to exact detail we'd each have to live in those countries.


And you believe that pitting the general unarmed populace against a fit young criminal populace is a wise decision? Right.

I certainly don't see how disarming both parties will nescessarly make it better.

Without weapons,the citizenry have the deck stacked against it. The young criminal male does not choose the 250 pound bodybuilder,he chooses the 120 pound chick walking alone at night. In a typical western country,only a minority is fit to defend themselves against physical assaults.

And since homicide rates does not have a corrolation with gun per capita...well.
Well is making arms widely available to the whole unarmed criminal populace wise?

Well like provoker says its situational. If most people don't have guns, than it is better. If most people have guns then it isn't. Then we have to factor in cultural factors.

Well that's no fairer than a 120lb criminal with a gun threatening to shoot the 250 lb man.

The problem is access, and even the most weakest in society would be able to inflict mass murder.
Like the situation Blueback described, I would not like to see high school students in my country with semi-automatics, and definitely not in a cafeteria shooting people.

You cannot interrupt the flow of weapons significantly no more than you can interrupt the flow of drugs. Drug prices have not really dropped despite the much-publiscized "war on drugs",what does it tell you about the efficiency of anti-smuggling measures?

The police has already been established as being inefficient as quick-reaction force in violent crimes.By outlawing guns,you are really only disarming the citizen and leaving him without efficient protection while the criminal still has access to decent weaponnry.
If you say it is ineffective, then do you agree that resources and effort should not be spent to stop drugs? That society should stand by and let youth intoxicate and addict themselves or let the drug dealers sell to elementary schools without stopping them?

I think at this point we are arguing for different things.
-For less deaths caused by weapons
-For the ability to defend oneself

Aah,so maybe the problem does not lie with guns?

But rather a morally corrupt culture...

The problem can lie in guns, the possibility cannot be discounted. The countries with the most homicides have a high gun homicide ratio. I can't account for Poland of course.

Although a morally corrupt culture certainly plays a role.

If everyone in a society was ideal it would not matter if everyone had guns or not.
If guns didn't make a difference then the countries with unusually high homicide rates wouldn't have unusually high gun homicide percentages as well. A weapon is a means of power and power corrupts.

[prometheus]

.
If guns didn't make a difference then the countries with unusually high homicide rates wouldn't have unusually high gun homicide percentages as well. A weapon is a means of power and power corrupts.

Is this statement not a contradiction to these statistics.

Using the United States as a point of reference, we arrive at the following conclusions:

Burglary – Widely believed as the gravest of property crimes, burglary is lower in US today than in the 80s. As of 2000, US has lower rates than Australia, Canada, Denmark, England, Finland, and Wales. It has higher rates than Korea, Saudi Arabia, and Spain.
Homicide – US had been consistently high in homicide rates than most of the Western countries from 1980 – 2000. Though the rate was cut almost in half in the 90s, it is still higher than all nations without political and social turmoil with the 2000 rate of 5.5 homicides per 100,000 people. Countries entrenched in turmoil like Colombia and South Africa, had 63 homicides per 100,000 and 51, respectively.

Rape – In the 80s and 90s, US rates were higher than most of the Western countries, but by 2000, Canada is leading. Rape reports are lower in Asia and the Middle East.

Robbery – The past 2 decades saw a steady decline in the US. Countries with more reported robberies than US include England, Wales, Portugal, and Spain. Those with fewer are France, Germany, and Italy, and Asian countries plus the Middle East.

In overall crimes (the total of all mentioned crimes), US ranks the highest, followed by Germany, United Kingdom, France, and South Africa.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
-- Cathie Madsen, Dec 2006.


Really revealing is how Canada's rape rate is now higher than any other industrialized country. All those new strict guns laws sure are working. A drastic rise in rape make complete sense since the rapists know that their victim will have no easily lethal way to protect themselves. The deterrence is gone.

[Riverratt]

Their is also many other "socio-economic" factors to high gun crime. It is uncomfortable to talk about but the flat honest truth of the matter is..

If you take the most of America's LARGEST CITIES out of the equation, like, Chicago, LA, Detroit etc..etc...

You will find that America is an amazingly peaceful place, Also take into account the FACT, that the vast majority of gun crimes committed, are committed by "repeat offenders" I.E. people that have committed crime after crime, and continue to commit crimes when they are let out of jail..

It is HIGHLY ILLEGAL for these people to even touch a firearms, and yet it is NO deterrent, they know that for the most part, their is a revolving door on the jail house.

How about dealing with the repeat offenders who have never shown the ability to follow laws, and LEAVE THE REST OF US, THAT DO FOLLOW THE LAWS ALONE?!?!

[AgentofGaming]

Really revealing is how Canada's rape rate is now higher than any other industrialized country. All those new strict guns laws sure are working. A drastic rise in rape make complete sense since the rapists know that their victim will have no easily lethal way to protect themselves. The deterrence is gone.

but Canada has higher gun ownership (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) than most countries in the Middle-East or Asia...?

Well the rapist's victims could taser or pepper spray them or know self-defence techniques.
A rapist could also have a gun, then where is the deterrence?


How about dealing with the repeat offenders who have never shown the ability to follow laws, and LEAVE THE REST OF US, THAT DO FOLLOW THE LAWS ALONE?!?!
I thought your country had capital punishment.

[Dreamer]

Well is making arms widely available to the whole unarmed criminal populace wise? The point is, the criminal populace even in areas where guns are extremly restricted, is far from unarmed... and to reach the desired point(from a liberal point of view) where everybody but the state is disarmed,
the police neither have the nescessary ressources nor the capacity to achieve it.


Well that's no fairer than a 120lb criminal with a gun threatening to shoot the 250 lb man.

The problem is access, and even the most weakest in society would be able to inflict mass murder.
Like the situation Blueback described, I would not like to see high school students in my country with semi-automatics, and definitely not in a cafeteria shooting people But then the weakest citizen might also be able to defend himself.

The ONLY reliable counter to random mass murder is an armed populace. The police cannot respond fast enough to mass murderers as evidenced by Virginia tech and the Dawson college shootings. However,several armed students would have easily dispatched the shooter in both cases.

But then you will say "Yes but what if NOBODY had weapons?".See the impossibility of enforcing gun laws.



If you say it is ineffective, then do you agree that resources and effort should not be spent to stop drugs? I am relatively indifferent on whether or not drugs should be allowed in a civilized society. I am not a user and none of my friends are.However, of the two positive aspects I can think of, it would help dispatch the addicts faster, it would somewhat unclog the prisons and help free ressources for more important cases.

I brought up drugs not because there is a clear parallel between the two cases but that the premise upon which gun control is based upon(the onw which claims law enforcement can curb black market response to high demand in a democratic country) is a house of cards.


The law have not only not been able to stop the influx of drugs,it has not even helped drug prices fall down.

If guns were outlawed all of the sudden,there is no reason to think why the law will have more success in stopping the inevitable supply of black market weapons.


That society should stand by and let youth intoxicate and addict themselves or let the drug dealers sell to elementary schools without stopping them? It is the responsability of the parents and the school to interdict the access to drugs to their children. For my part, it is none of my business if someone is too idiotic to keep their children from taking drugs.


The problem can lie in guns, the possibility cannot be discounted. The countries with the most homicides have a high gun homicide ratio. I can't account for Poland of course.

If guns didn't make a difference then the countries with unusually high homicide rates wouldn't have unusually high gun homicide percentages as well. Your graph is being highly selective. There are a number of examples (that have already been mentionned) who trump your conclusions.
The only thing it shows is that with an environment with poor police efficiency , homicides of all types go up.


Well the rapist's victims could taser or pepper spray them or know self-defence techniques. Because you believe that the majority of the populace have the capacity to defend themselves against criminals?

Wouldn't the criminal have the deck stacked in his favour ? Taser and pepper spray are not guns and a number of perps can keep on fighting in spite of them as several police officers can attest.

However,try fighting in spite of a bullet in the head.


A rapist could also have a gun, then where is the deterrence?
Well for once,a rapist will much less be likely to commit a crime if he knows he might encounter armed opposition.

Criminals are looking for easy victims. They are looking for those who will not fight back or who can be easily overcome.

Would you rape someone knowing that there is a 45 % chance your victim might be armed and have decided to fight no matter how frail she might look?

There are a number of psychopaths who are completely undeterred by the threat of grave bodily injuries but they are few and far inbetween.





Dreamer added to this post, 2 minutes and 14 seconds later...

but Canada has higher gun ownership (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) than most countries in the Middle-East or Asia...? What is the point of having a gun if you do not have the right to carry it concealed?

In Canada, you probably would have an easier time getting Queen Elizabeth on the phone then getting a concealed carry permit.

[AgentofGaming]

I brought up drugs not because there is a clear parallel between the two cases but that the premise upon which gun control is based upon(the onw which claims law enforcement can curb black market response to high demand in a democratic country) is a house of cards.


The law have not only not been able to stop the influx of drugs,it has not even helped drug prices fall down.
Marijuana busts are on the new everyday, they confiscate hundreds of millions of it. That has to at least have some impact.

It is the responsability of the parents and the school to interdict the access to drugs to their children. For my part, it is none of my business if someone is too idiotic to keep their children from taking drugs. I doubt a school or parents would have much power if large influential entities get involved be it criminal or corporate. Just look at the tobacco industry, and teen defiance.

Also guns and drugs go together. Those who deal with drugs tend to have guns.

Your graph is being highly selective. There are a number of examples (that have already been mentionned) who trump your conclusions.
The only thing it shows is that with an environment with poor police efficiency , homicides of all types go up.
It's not my graph though.
Poor police efficiency and weapon availability.


Because you believe that the majority of the populace have the capacity to defend themselves against criminals?
Where did I say that?
Well the rapist's victims could taser or pepper spray them or know self-defence techniques.

Wouldn't the criminal have the deck stacked in his favour ? Taser and pepper spray are not guns and a number of perps can keep on fighting in spite of them as several police officers can attest.

However,try fighting in spite of a bullet in the head.
umm... let me taser you twice and see if you can fight me while suffering convulsions on the ground.


The point is, the criminal populace even in areas where guns are extremly restricted, is far from unarmed... and to reach the desired point(from a liberal point of view) where everybody but the state is disarmed,
the police neither have the nescessary ressources nor the capacity to achieve it.

But then the weakest citizen might also be able to defend himself.

The ONLY reliable counter to random mass murder is an armed populace. The police cannot respond fast enough to mass murderers as evidenced by Virginia tech and the Dawson college shootings. However,several armed students would have easily dispatched the shooter in both cases.

But then you will say "Yes but what if NOBODY had weapons?".See the impossibility of enforcing gun laws.
...
Well for once,a rapist will much less be likely to commit a crime if he knows he might encounter armed opposition.

Criminals are looking for easy victims. They are looking for those who will not fight back or who can be easily overcome.

Would you rape someone knowing that there is a 45 % chance your victim might be armed and have decided to fight no matter how frail she might look?

There are a number of psychopaths who are completely undeterred by the threat of grave bodily injuries but they are few and far inbetween.

What is the point of having a gun if you do not have the right to carry it concealed?

In Canada, you probably would have an easier time getting Queen Elizabeth on the phone then getting a concealed carry permit.
Sure mass killing everyone armed has a chance of fighting back, but he will take out one at least. Not to mention he and accomplices will be better armed and trained as an aggressor with all the intent and conviction.

So the point is when you mention defending yourself you seem to be forgetting:

A firearm is an aggressor advantage weapon.

By intent he aims first.

I don't care how well armed or how prepared you are, once they have aimed at you, it is very often the case you lose. If you make the wrong move you are dead, so a sufficiently wise criminal will have you disarmed. Shooting another is illegal, so it is unlikely you have aimed at him first, not to mention if you aim first what if he's not a criminal. The criminal being out to break the laws has less qualms about shooting you.
Criminals are aggressors, victims are defenders. You can't guard yourself from everyone, imagine aiming a gun at everyone passing by. An aggressor can have you ambushed out of no where by being a member of the crowd.
Very likely he's aimed you're not.

[iamnotspock]

Outlawing guns would be like outlawing liquor and drugs. Prices go up, quality goes down, and the government loses the tax revenue.

The better solution is to tax guns in proportion to their social cost. If handgun injuries account for a billion in healthcare costs, recover that in a tax that raises one billion per year on handgun sales.

[Lights]

Outlawing guns would be like outlawing liquor and drugs. Prices go up, quality goes down, and the government loses the tax revenue.

The better solution is to tax guns in proportion to their social cost. If handgun injuries account for a billion in healthcare costs, recover that in a tax that raises one billion per year on handgun sales.

Uh ohs. Yuz dun it now. Da big bad livertarians are gunna makes yuz wish yuz hadn't said that. :laugh:

[pavman]

Try debating an INFJ sometime, SHEESH.


I dated one. I already know ;o)

I'm not gonna sit here and read this BS. The fact that Thod is coming from the perspective that its all about maintaining order says a lot about Thod. Order for orders sake is pointless. And if you really believe its all about order, then you don't really know your history. Most governments were formed for protection against outside interlopers who were hell-bent on expanding their territory.

The reality is that civility is only maintained as long as people believe that the government will be just, ie. enforce civility among ALL members of society. Especially in a free, liberal society.

This is why Jefferson fought for local [state] sovereignty OVER Federal sovereignty in the US. At the Federal level, the government is less accessible to the common individual, and thus more open to corruption and manipulation by those in power.

Finally, Iraq is a poor example for your viewpoint, Thod. The usurpers where ready to rise up and remove Saddam in '91, but Bush Sr. screwed 'em, after making promises, and they were slaughtered. In fact, this just underscores my point regarding a free and just society.

As for Somalia, its true. But reality is that if the government had not failed in Somalia, then there would have not been uprisings and factions fighting each other. The fact is, the government failed in Somalia, causing the warlords to rise and try to regain control over the area, with differing views on how to run the country. Last I checked, this was considered "revolution" and, from an American viewpoint, is somewhat healthy for an oppressed people to use as a vehicle towards true liberty and justice within the governmental framework. Of course, the converse is true too...that others have used revolution successfully to shift power and form more oppressive governments.





pavman added to this post, 15 minutes and 14 seconds later...

...Though the rate was cut almost in half in the 90s

This may be attributed to the fact that 48/50 states now allow, via permit, conceal carry of firearms. This greatly decreases crime, as criminals no longer know who has weapons.

Case in Point: In Florida, when they passed the resolution for conceal carry, crime rates increased for out-of-state visitors, but decreased greatly for in-state residents. Why? Because criminals aren't stupid...they know that the guy with the enterprise rental car isn't going to have a weapon to defend himself.

This is exactly how society should function...brother protecting brother from criminals. If we could get to a place where we had a natural affinity for this type of thing, perhaps we wouldn't even need governance to begin with.

Sadly, there's always wolves who want to take advantage of the defenseless sheep.

[Rick]

Outside of cities, there is no need of gun control. I'll have to think about the situation within large cities.

Nevermind. I believe that if every household had a gun and knew how to use it, criminals would think twice about trying theft or worse.

I'll even take it a step farther. If we want to control crime, let's bring back public executions and make justice swift. If you do the crime, you don't get 10 years of appeals. The trial happens, the appeal is right away, then, if guilty, the execution is right away in the public square.

Let's put the crime and punishment together, instead of separating them.

[yondyr]

<whistles approval and gets out my knitting.. wait, it will be the guillotine won't it?

[Scooby]

Outside of cities, there is no need of gun control. I'll have to think about the situation within large cities.

Nevermind. I believe that if every household had a gun and knew how to use it, criminals would think twice about trying theft or worse.

I'll even take it a step farther. If we want to control crime, let's bring back public executions and make justice swift. If you do the crime, you don't get 10 years of appeals. The trial happens, the appeal is right away, then, if guilty, the execution is right away in the public square.

Let's put the crime and punishment together, instead of separating them.

Yeah buddy! I fully agree. Gun control means hitting your target. The reason that people THINK that gun violence is so high is because they watch the news. Tell me, oh gun haters, how many people died from car wrecks today versus gun deaths, how about cancer deaths, and heart disease? You see where I am going. The statistics that show other countries with lower crime statistics are taken out of context. Look at this site To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (home), then this one on international violence levels To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. . There is also a like that says that criminals in jail avoid homes were they think the owner is at home and may own a gun!

Don’t ever tell me I shouldn’t own a gun. It is my life and, supposedly, my right as an American. It is better to have one and not need it, than to need it and not have it. So don’t piss down my back and tell me it’s raining.

Proud owner of over 60 fine firearms! Proud father of three, who shoot with a passion, and hit what they aim at! Proud defender of the Constitutional rights we all have as Americans, even if some want to throw them away.

[Dreamer]

Marijuana busts are on the new everyday, they confiscate hundreds of millions of it. That has to at least have some impact.Naturally, bureaucracies tend to display trophy cases in order to keep their organization intact and keep the populace away from the big picture:


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Note that the ensuing disscussion is completely pointless because there is no evidence that the police can stop the influx of weapons in the western world.



I doubt a school or parents would have much power if large influential entities get involved be it criminal or corporate. Just look at the tobacco industry, and teen defiance. I bet you could be persuaded to smoke marijuana by a large influencial entity but a kid who have been taught proper values will abstain from it.


It's not my graph though.
Poor police efficiency and weapon availability.No relation whatsoever, as evidenced by the Switzerland case,where the avaibility of weapon is plenty but police efficiency is high.

High police,high guns=low crime
Low police, low guns=high crime
Low police,high guns=high crime(think Washington DC)


Where did I say that? As an alternative to firearms,you have suggested "self-defense techniques". The majority of this world's populace is unable to use them efficiently. And pepper spray and taser cannot be expected to stop a criminal everytime.


umm... let me taser you twice and see if you can fight me while suffering convulsions on the ground.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"In terms of active resistance, suspects most often wrestled with or struck officers (27% and 13.5% of resistance respectively). Less than 5% of resistance involved armed suspects threatening or using weapons against officers. Taser was the most frequent less-lethal option used in response to offenders with weapons. "

Factor in that cops have the advantage of a partner, and that the badge will result in quicker compliance by the criminal than a mere civilian. Factor in that they have had training and that they happen to miss despite of that. Factor in that the Taser is a weapon who has to be reloaded after each shot.
I maintain that there would be less fight remaining in you with a bullet in the head than in me with two taser prods on my chest.:rolleyes:


Sure mass killing everyone armed has a chance of fighting back, but he will take out one at least. It sure beats being able to kill the unarmed everybodys without a shred of opposition.

Not to mention he and accomplices will be better armed and trained as an aggressor with all the intent and conviction. Again better to have a gunfight between untrained citizens and trained criminals. Then a gunfight between trained criminals and fleeing civilians.

Even Schwarzenegger have to take cover and is slowed down by armed opposition. If the citizen cannot contain a threat,he can at least pin down the criminal or slow him down, allowing a police response.


A firearm is an aggressor advantage weapon.

By intent he aims first.I don't care how well armed or how prepared you are, once they have aimed at you, it is very often the case you lose. So? By nature the criminal has an advantage over the victim. Is it better to be ambushed with no weapon at all or to be ambushed with one?

Are you really better suited by being weaponless while you're inside a criminal's sights? What if he misses?

What if you go down but your girlfriend happens to have a gun and kills him? What if she doesn't?


If you make the wrong move you are dead, so a sufficiently wise criminal will have you disarmed. Usually through legal means...

Why would you want to let yourself be disarmed? Forgetting for a moment financial and legal obstacles? And how can a sufficiently wise criminal disarm you unless you have your head so far up your ass that you are clueless about what's going on around you?

Unless the criminal is close to you but then he can safely kill you with almost anything while your back is turned.

Shooting another is illegal, so it is unlikely you have aimed at him first, Unless of course the self-defense laws make it permissible for a citizen to shoot a criminal when there is credible cues that he may is willing to shoot you.


not to mention if you aim first what if he's not a criminal. The criminal being out to break the laws has less qualms about shooting you. That's a problem in mindset,and I agree that both the self-defense laws of most western countries are extremly inadequate and that simple ownership of guns is of little use if you are not willing to use it.


Criminals are aggressors, victims are defenders. You can't guard yourself from everyone, imagine aiming a gun at everyone passing by. You can't agressively guard yourself from everyone. You can however,scan for cues and avoid danger areas.

An aggressor can have you ambushed out of no where by being a member of the crowd. Very likely he's aimed you're not.
In that particular scenario,do you think that a rational criminal may be deterred by an unknown but certain percentage of armed citizen in the crowd?

Suppose you have a serious psychopath who does not really care about getting shot. Is it better to let him mow down the crowd, or to have a few citizen have a go at him with their pistols?

[JusVisiting]

I'm still trying to think about this. By the time I have anything worth saying this will be an abandoned thread! hehe. My brain is soggy by the time I get to this after school so please correct me if I'm wrong.

From the information I've gathered so far DC has the highest firearms death rate per 100,000 people (statehealthfacts.org). I am trying to find out whether suicide with firearms is included in that figure. However, the violence policy center website has an article To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
that says suicide rate with firearms is .90 per 100,000 people in DC while the national average is 5.75 per 100,000. The article suggests that the low incidence of firearms suicide is due to strict gun laws, some of the strictest in the USA. Wikipedia has a short article about the Firearms Controls Regulations Act of 1975 that bans ownership of handguns, automatic fire-arms, semi-automatic fire-arms, and unregistered fire-arms by residents in the DC area. The fact there is a low incidence of suicide with firearms suggests that it does take effort to acquire a firearm; so some amount of enforcing the law against firearms is taking place -- but this is not stopping criminals from acquiring firearms. I can sort of sense a Michael Moore guns from the suburb being brought into the city argument coming on and I'm very excited so please SCHOOL ME! :)

Interesting, that a place that has strict gun laws is also one of the most crime ridden in the country. While a place like Vermont that has laughable gun control laws is one of the safest states in the USA.

[yondyr]

population density? i.e. rats crowding

[JusVisiting]

per 100,000 people? I'm not sure what you mean by this. Please explain.

[AgentofGaming]

Naturally, bureaucracies tend to display trophy cases in order to keep their organization intact and keep the populace away from the big picture:


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Note that the ensuing disscussion is completely pointless because there is no evidence that the police can stop the influx of weapons in the western world. Not purposely continuing but it isn't complete to me without a chart for demand.

I bet you could be persuaded to smoke marijuana by a large influencial entity but a kid who have been taught proper values will abstain from it. I don't know, you'd probably lose money on the bet I don't consume alcohol or gamble
Kids can be influenced. The media alone is enough. (Smokers in movies)

No relation whatsoever, as evidenced by the Switzerland case,where the avaibility of weapon is plenty but police efficiency is high.

High police,high guns=low crime
Low police, low guns=high crime
Low police,high guns=high crime(think Washington DC) Well gun crimes is rather proportional to ownership.

As an alternative to firearms,you have suggested "self-defense techniques". The majority of this world's populace is unable to use them efficiently. And pepper spray and taser cannot be expected to stop a criminal everytime. Just like you said you can go out and get a gun, you can go out a get something non lethal. Would you consider those in a different country are not unable to but don't see the need to.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"In terms of active resistance, suspects most often wrestled with or struck officers (27% and 13.5% of resistance respectively). Less than 5% of resistance involved armed suspects threatening or using weapons against officers. Taser was the most frequent less-lethal option used in response to offenders with weapons. "
Factor in that cops have the advantage of a partner, and that the badge will result in quicker compliance by the criminal than a mere civilian. Factor in that they have had training and that they happen to miss despite of that. Factor in that the Taser is a weapon who has to be reloaded after each shot.
I maintain that there would be less fight remaining in you with a bullet in the head than in me with two taser prods on my chest.:rolleyes:
Subduing someone and handcuffing them is different than disabling them and running away. They can still squirm while on the floor, so they obviously can resist.
Training you can receive, and if reloading is so fearful, you should carry flashbangs and smoke grenades no matter what weapon you have.
Yes it's obviously easier if I shoot you. The discussion is about how to have less deaths and not to kill, otherwise if I tasered you I could kick you or throw a brick on your head.


It sure beats being able to kill the unarmed everybodys without a shred of opposition.

Again better to have a gunfight between untrained citizens and trained criminals. Then a gunfight between trained criminals and fleeing civilians.

Even Schwarzenegger have to take cover and is slowed down by armed opposition. If the citizen cannot contain a threat,he can at least pin down the criminal or slow him down, allowing a police response.
Well since the average American citizen is so well armed, how come most of the school shooters ended up killing themselves when the police came?
How often was a good citizen with a firearm able to help?

So? By nature the criminal has an advantage over the victim. Is it better to be ambushed with no weapon at all or to be ambushed with one?

Are you really better suited by being weaponless while you're inside a criminal's sights? What if he misses?

What if you go down but your girlfriend happens to have a gun and kills him? What if she doesn't?
If this is about optimizing chance, does that mean I should go out with smoke grenades, flashbangs, kevlar, and a sniper rifle? Afterall I could be sniped and he could miss. Maybe everyone should join the army for training?
To prevent being shot should I go everywhere in an armoured vehicle?

Going back to the base of this, what if he only has weapons because they were so easily made available to him?


Usually through legal means...

Why would you want to let yourself be disarmed? Forgetting for a moment financial and legal obstacles? And how can a sufficiently wise criminal disarm you unless you have your head so far up your ass that you are clueless about what's going on around you?

Unless the criminal is close to you but then he can safely kill you with almost anything while your back is turned.
Well disarmed, do you have a choice when someone has a gun aimed at you at close range?
So to get these clues are you going to bring a mirror around every corner?
What if you were in a crowd and someone shoots you with a concealed arm at close range through his coat?


Unless of course the self-defense laws make it permissible for a citizen to shoot a criminal when there is credible cues that he may is willing to shoot you.
An assailant would be awfully stupid to give you cues.
What if a cue is not credible? What if it was completely mistaken and by aiming your weapon at him, he gets his weapon out thinking you are his assailant? Then it becomes a who shoots first between two people with no intent. This is the weapon mentality.


You can't agressively guard yourself from everyone. You can however,scan for cues and avoid danger areas.
Well I've never had a weapon or had a criminal act committed to me.
I feel I have no need to have a weapon, because I don't go into other's business.
Besides petty criminals are only after money, money is not worth risking life over or risking gun battles.


In that particular scenario,do you think that a rational criminal may be deterred by an unknown but certain percentage of armed citizen in the crowd?

Suppose you have a serious psychopath who does not really care about getting shot. Is it better to let him mow down the crowd, or to have a few citizen have a go at him with their pistols?
Nope, but a rational criminal, would use the crowd. A random shot from a crowd and no one knows who it was, don't tell me citizens would go shooting at other citizens where the gun sound came from. That would lead to a gun battle.
A psychopath who really wanted to kill would carry high explosives, that way he saves himself a lot of trouble.

[thod]

Well March 9th is when the supreme court decides. We can then get to work banning hunting.

[yondyr]

JusVisiting. The population density of Vermont is quoted as around 65 people per square mile whereas DC has around 9,378psm - certainly more room in the former not to get on the nerves of a neighbour.

[Mr Galt]

Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

As stupid as it sounds, the conservatives aren't completely insane when they say the right to bear arms keeps the government from assuming complete control. It does in some ways. Society cannot always trust the government to act properly. This is apparent a lot with inner city cops, who have a reputation for being corrupt (although this may be a lie perpetrated by people who are fishing for sympathy).

It is also important to note that "bad" people are not limited by laws that say they cannot own a firearm. There would be no case in which a person would think to themselves "I want to kill that guy! If only it were legal for me to have a gun!" The law is not an issue when you hope to kill. Gun control laws help wrongdoers in their pursuits.

[Riverratt]

. Society cannot always trust the government to act properly. This is apparent a lot with inner city cops, who have a reputation for being corrupt


Here are a few, Cop "incidents" from the past few days, none of these incdents, are over a few days old.....

BUFORD, Georgia (AP) -- Two off-duty officers from different police departments wounded each other in a gunfight in the middle of a road in an Atlanta suburb, authorities said.
Neither officer's wounds were life-threatening, police said. Their conditions were not immediately known on Saturday.
Officer Jay Daily, a five-year veteran of the Duluth Police Department, exchanged multiple gunshots Friday afternoon with Fulton County Officer Paul Phillips, police said.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Investigators say he took cash bonds during traffic stops and then pocketed the money between June of 2006 and March of 2007.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

A Chicago police officer, Sean P. Ryan is accused of selling a semi-automatic assault rifle to a gang member who is a convicted drug dealer. Ryan is also accused of selling that person four magazines of ammunition.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Authorities have charged the husband of missing Walker County 911 dispatcher Theresa Parker with murder in her death."...."Police said Parker had been fired from his job as sergeant for the LaFayette Police Department after authorities found explosives in his locker at work."...
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Charged last month by Pennsylvania State Police with driving under the influence, a sergeant with the Mercersburg Police Department submitted his resignation Wednesday, Mayor James Zeger said
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

A Tarpon Springs police officer is accused of doctor shopping to get prescription painkillers.
Susan Gorman allegedly went to several doctors over a 30-day period to get Hydrocondone and Oxycodone.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"A Coeburn police officer has been removed from the town police force and charged with two misdemeanors in connection with a December incident during which he fired his gun outside of the police station."
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"A special agent returning to Mitchell International Airport left her firearm in a bathroom there Tuesday night, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives said."
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Tim White threw away his career as a Lubbock police officer when he left the scene of an accident without checking on those involved, police officials said."

"White rear-ended a car ... causing a chain-reaction accident with four cars, Esparza said. Instead of checking on the people or helping, he just backed up and left."
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"A New York City tow truck driver claims that police are harassing him for enforcing the law against them on private property. John Montalvo, 43, filed a lawsuit in the Brooklyn Supreme Court Tuesday alleging that the 72nd Precinct police arrested him on trumped up car theft charges, the New York Daily News reported. Montalvo had angered the officers by towing their private vehicles which had parked illegally at the Atlantic Terminal Mall."

"The mall had hired Montalvo to enforce parking rules, but officers from several precincts use a private mall road, Fort Greene Place, to store their vehicles contrary to the owner's wishes. Following established procedures, Montalvo reported each car towed to the police
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The officer, 24, a two-year veteran who works in Manhattan, according to sources, was cleaning the gun in his second-floor apartment in Mill Basin when the weapon dropped and discharged at about 3 p.m.

The boy was in a playpen with his twin brother in a first-floor apartment when the bullet came through the ceiling
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Mr Galt]

I don't know if you're trying to prove my point or refute it. I like the prior.

[Riverratt]

I don't know if you're trying to prove my point or refute it. I like the prior.

Just expanding on your comment about corrupt Police. which is a very valid point, not just corrupt, but incompetent in many cases...Like that cop shooting the baby...PURE INCOMPETENCE...:suspicious:

Here is a GOLDEN OLDIE...LOL!! Watch this TOTALLY incompetent DEA agent, shoot himself in the foot, in a class room full of kids... As he said, ONLY HE, is "qualified" to handle that weapon..

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Nice touch, after he shoots himself, he reaches for an "assault rifle" LOL ;D

In this thread, their are many people, so willing to "just let the police take care of it"....

Like this quadriplegic woman...she called 911, because she woke in the night, with her bed on fire...THEY PUT HER ON HOLD...She died...

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I cannot even bring myself to listen to the audio of that call, just imagine the horror, of burning to death in your own bed, while being put on hold by some 911 operator.

[Mr Galt]

Well it's a known fact that nobody ever became a cop because they were top of their class geniuses at Harvard.

[Riverratt]

Well it's a known fact that nobody ever became a cop because they were top of their class geniuses at Harvard.

Very true, but no one is willing to admit that, I KNOW, that the vast majority of cops are good people, that are doing their best. But when you get a bad one, it is REALLY BAD, and people tend to get hurt, and die.

People don't realize that, when you call, 911, you CALL, because some "bad juju" is going down, RIGHT NOW!!!

The best cop in the world, cannot get to you right THEN. Even during the VT Shooting, Their was a huge police presence on campus, their was at least 30 officers, within half a mile of Cho.....As hard as they tried, (and they did everything right, I live very close to Virginia Tech and know or am related to lots of people involved) they could not get too him in time.

This cops did their BEST, and it was not anywhere near enough....You add "incompetence" or "corruption" to the mix, it gets much worse.

The Cold reality is, When you call 911, because of a crime, that is happening, RIGHT NOW RIGHT WHERE YOUR AT, and 9 times out of 10, they will get their far to late, to do anything, but rope off the scene, take photos, and write reports.

People need to have a plan, and an ability, to hold out, till the police can arrive, they need to stop relying, of the benevolence of criminals for their survival.

If you have time to call 911, you have time to arm yourself....

[wolf]

Can you buy tanks there?
Yes, they are legal for private ownership.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I'm glad to see a fine, upstanding young man with good trigger control. I feel safer in a world with more of these fine young men in it.

Doesn't the US have a huge weapons industry?
I heard Walmart sells firearms there.
Yeah, I've bought a couple there. I usually buy private-party or from a gun shop, though. For some reason every time I walk into a Walmart I walk out with at least another box of .22LR, and often .357 Magnum and 9mm as well. This may reflect the fact I almost never go to Walmart, or it could reflect how nervous the place makes me feel.

Personally, I don't like guns. I don't need one and don't particularly enjoy being around them because, no matter how careful, responsible, well trained etc. you are, accidents do happen.
To each their own. I have never had a single misfire and I practice proper handling for safety reasons anyway. Diligently maintaining your firearms and practicing proper handling goes a long way toward avoiding misfires and other accidents.

The next argument from the other side is, "Well you can refuse to be around guns and still be hurt by them," and this is true, but usually the guns being used in those situations are already illegal.
Many people miss this fact. Legal guns are almost never used in crimes. Also, the violent crime rate involving firearms is lower in places where concealed carry licenses are offered, especially places with a high rate of licensees.

Yes, you can buy guns at Walmart. But you have to submit to a background check. You must be 18 to purchase a hunting rifle and 21+ to purchase a hand gun. It varies by state, but many places require people to take gun safety courses before they are allowed to purchase them and there is a mandatory waiting period. People with restraining orders, felonies, violent misdemeanors, or mental issues are not allowed to own guns of any kind. To carry a hand gun on you, you must have a license and to get that license you have to pay some money and complete a lot of gun safety courses.
Some states allow for open and/or concealed carry without a license. I have never been subjected to a waiting period, though I do prefer to go to states where they only do the federal FBI/ATFE checks, because the state ones are usually slower, annoying, and you have to pay some stupid fee.

Most of the people who call Americans uncivilized for allowing guns to be legal are ignorant of our gun control systems and our culture. Get off your high horses.
Agreed.

[JusVisiting]

JusVisiting. The population density of Vermont is quoted as around 65 people per square mile whereas DC has around 9,378psm - certainly more room in the former not to get on the nerves of a neighbour.

New York City has a population density of 27, 083 per square mile. Yet has less crime than DC. The gun laws are similar to DC, if not slightly more lenient since people can apply for a concealed firearms permit in NYC.

[denaria]

I used to be a fervent advocate of gun control laws as we had them in England. But gun control hasn't saved us from mass murderers - and the perpetrators usually seem to have managed to get hold of (illegal) firearms somehow. Recently in London there has been a spate of murders of young black teenagers - they say that it's easier than ever to get hold of a firearm.

I read a very intereresting book called "Guns and Violence: the English Experience" which used detailed evidence to show that violent crime had increased in England as gun ownership had been more and more tightly controlled, whereas in the US as guns became more and more widely held by the law-abiding majority, rates of violent crime had actually decreased.

So now I've changed my mind completely and rather than accepting the knee-jerk reaction of British governments to the (still very rare) spree killers, I would personally relax firearms controls for the law abiding majority, and let us defend ourselves properly from the monsters.

[prometheus]

Very true, but no one is willing to admit that, I KNOW, that the vast majority of cops are good people, that are doing their best. But when you get a bad one, it is REALLY BAD, and people tend to get hurt, and die.

People don't realize that, when you call, 911, you CALL, because some "bad juju" is going down, RIGHT NOW!!!

The best cop in the world, cannot get to you right THEN. Even during the VT Shooting, Their was a huge police presence on campus, their was at least 30 officers, within half a mile of Cho.....As hard as they tried, (and they did everything right, I live very close to Virginia Tech and know or am related to lots of people involved) they could not get too him in time.

This cops did their BEST, and it was not anywhere near enough....You add "incompetence" or "corruption" to the mix, it gets much worse.

The Cold reality is, When you call 911, because of a crime, that is happening, RIGHT NOW RIGHT WHERE YOUR AT, and 9 times out of 10, they will get their far to late, to do anything, but rope off the scene, take photos, and write reports.

People need to have a plan, and an ability, to hold out, till the police can arrive, they need to stop relying, of the benevolence of criminals for their survival.

If you have time to call 911, you have time to arm yourself....

When I was a volunteer EMT, a call came in for a standby EMS response for a woman hiding her her closet while an armed intruder was ransacking her home. One of our Med units arrived and was staged 2 miles away. 15 minutes later the first LEO arrived and staged 1 mile away, the whole time the 911 dispatcher was telling us of the woman terrified in the closet. Another 15 minutes and a second LEO unit arrived and staged with the first, they both decided they wanted additional units. 20 minutes later a couple more units arrive and they start planning an entry, before they could "spring into action" the homeowner called and said she had searched the house and the intruder had left. This was a rural area, but I've heard similar stories in urban areas.

911 will not save you. There was a court decision, that said there is NO legal obligation for LEO to help people in need. This would never have happened in my home, my biggest concern would be stain remover for the carpet.





prometheus added to this post, 5 minutes and 42 seconds later...

Some states allow for open and/or concealed carry without a license.

Here in Montana we can conceal carry without a permit in all unincorporated areas anytime, and even in incorporated areas when preparing for, or returning from an outdoor sporting activity. You would be surprised by how many people are planning a lil' hike on their way home from the big city every time they go there. ;)

[Riverratt]

Yes, people don't realize, it is SETTLED LAW, that the Police has NO duty, to protect individuals,

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Let me reiterate, under NO circumstances, will I, or my family, be disarmed.

Their are SEVERAL court cases, that point on the same findings as in that movie above..

An excerpt, from the newspaper article,

WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

For those, that like to read court decision, here is a list of them, that find the same...

Barillari v. City of Milwaukee533 N.W.2d 759 (Wis. 1995). (3)Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982). (4), 489 U.S. 189 (1989). [/FONT]Ford v. Town of Grafton 693 N.E.2d 1047 (Mass. App. 1998). (6) Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981)....a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..."

Riss v. New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579,293 N.Y.S.2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 806 (1958).
-"What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of NY which now denies all responsibility to her." Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)"Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public."

[AgentofGaming]

You must live in a bad place...
How can professionals/civil service not be held responsible for negligence? That leaves no accountability at all, why even bother having a police force then?

[Riverratt]

You must live in a bad place...
How can professionals/civil service not be held responsible for negligence? That leaves no accountability at all, why even bother having a police force then?

Nope, it is completely peaceful here in the area in which I live, Violent crime is a very uncommon occurrence here where I live.

As I said before, we sleep with our doors unlocked and keys are in our cars...

[prometheus]

Nope, it is completely peaceful here in the area in which I live, Violent crime is a very uncommon occurrence here where I live.

As I said before, we sleep with our doors unlocked and keys are in our cars...

Same here, and guns are in damn near all homes and vehicles.

[pavman]

You must live in a bad place...
How can professionals/civil service not be held responsible for negligence? That leaves no accountability at all, why even bother having a police force then?

Getting the point eh?

Begs the question what is the point of the police force... I wonder if an argument could be made that the police are then the government's enforcers... if they have no duty to protect individuals...
Suppose that's why they fall under the executive branch in the US.

[AgentofGaming]

Same here, and guns are in damn near all homes and vehicles.

Are you sure that's good? aren't you afraid of accident? what if children might get a hold and play with them?

Getting the point eh?

Begs the question what is the point of the police force... I wonder if an argument could be made that the police are then the government's enforcers... if they have no duty to protect individuals...
Suppose that's why they fall under the executive branch in the US.
Our police are getting sued for not bringing a drunk girl home.
They knocked on her parent's house but no one was there and so they put her in a cell. She wasn't happy after she sobered up. :thumbsup:

[prometheus]

Are you sure that's good? aren't you afraid of accident? what if children might get a hold and play with them?


My kids are both great shots, my son shot his first rifle at the age of 4. We don't childproof our guns, we gun proof our children. I worry less about him having a gun related accident than a traffic accident, he will be getting his license in the spring at the age of 14. Here is a pic of him from last year. FYI: The gun in a Marlin '94 in .44 Remington Magnum.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[AgentofGaming]

You know the first thing I thought was those poor deer :p and the blood.

Well I also see lifestyle differences, I'm more of a city guy. Have never experienced the wilderness before. I've only seen log cabins less than 5 times in my life.

I heard two gr.1 students were playing with pistols and one got killed in the US, that's one I was thinking about. Also hear about bringing weapons to school and teenagers stabbing each other locally.

[prometheus]

You know the first thing I thought was those poor deer :p and the blood.

They are quite tasty. ;D

Well I also see lifestyle differences, I'm more of a city guy. Have never experienced the wilderness before. I've only seen log cabins less than 5 times in my life.

I heard two gr.1 students were playing with pistols and one got killed in the US, that's one I was thinking about. Also hear about bringing weapons to school and teenagers stabbing each other locally.

The frontier style code of self-responsibility is still alive and well up here.

[AgentofGaming]

The frontier style code of self-responsibility is still alive and well up here.

Heh some teens exchange a few words and they can start fisting each other.
Worse is when other people get accidentally involved in the fray.
Those are the people weapons should be kept from.

[prometheus]

Heh some teens exchange a few words and they can start fisting each other.
Worse is when other people get accidentally involved in the fray.
Those are the people weapons should be kept from.


Funny story:

A couple months ago I was involved (as a minor backer) in a bar brawl. We all (10-12 of us) we out on the sidewalk exchanging swings, when one idiot went to his truck to grab his rifle (of coarse we all had guns in our own trucks) EVERYONE stopped fighting whoever they were with and proceeded to "explain" to the idiot escalating a brawl to a gun fight was not proper Montana behavior.

[Lights]

I don't have to compensate for a small penis, so I don't own a gun. ;)

After living in Wyoming, I've come to the conclusion that people are just as likely to hurt themselves or friends with a gun as somebody who is a threat. I challenge anyone who doesn't believe me to go hunting with Dick Cheney. :laugh:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[prometheus]

I don't have to compensate for a small penis, so I don't own a gun. ;)


The greatest psychoanalyst of all time would disagree with you.


"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
Sigmund Freud, in his A General Introduction to Psychoanalysis

[Mr Galt]

The greatest psychoanalyst of all time would disagree with you.


"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
Sigmund Freud, in his A General Introduction to Psychoanalysis

He also said that I would want to have my mother.

I'd like a gun though...

[elsdfr]

Funny story:

A couple months ago I was involved (as a minor backer) in a bar brawl. We all (10-12 of us) we out on the sidewalk exchanging swings, when one idiot went to his truck to grab his rifle (of coarse we all had guns in our own trucks) EVERYONE stopped fighting whoever they were with and proceeded to "explain" to the idiot escalating a brawl to a gun fight was not proper Montana behavior.

Whats the point of having a gun to protect yourself if its in the truck? "ARGH RAPE, MURDER! where's that gun carrying truck when you need it!"

It is a funny story though. I can imagine it now "Ya'll just wait here a minute while I go get my gun, don't go anywhere ya'll 'cause I'm gonna kill ya."

[prometheus]

Whats the point of having a gun to protect yourself if its in the truck? "ARGH RAPE, MURDER! where's that gun carrying truck when you need it!"

It is a funny story though. I can imagine it now "Ya'll just wait here a minute while I go get my gun, don't go anywhere ya'll 'cause I'm gonna kill ya."



The guns were in the trucks because we were all getting shit faced. Back to the self-responsibility thing.

To do list: Find Light's mom's grave.

[elsdfr]

The guns were in the trucks because we were all getting shit faced. Back to the self-responsibility thing.


What, prior to driving home?

Ahh guns and alcohol... now would be a fun weekend away.

[Chris3900]

There needs to be gun control due to the fact that were are the number one country in the world with Gun Homicides, a statistic which does not shine brightly on the wonderful image this country tries to portray.

[prometheus]

There needs to be gun control due to the fact that were are the number one country in the world with Gun Homicides, a statistic which does not shine brightly on the wonderful image this country tries to portray.

Here is what happens with "gun free" zones.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Why some people can't, or refuse to see the fact that in the areas where the people are disarmed there are higher crime rates baffles me.

If criminals KNOW of a location where the HONEST citizens (read victims) will be unarmed they will seek these out for their crimes. D'uh D'uh D'uh.........

MTA: I will now go bang my head against a tree till I feel I've lowered my intelligence to the level necessary to debate people who believe victim disarmament laws equal less crime. Sheesh.

[pavman]

You know the first thing I thought was those poor deer :p and the blood.

First thing I thought was ...boy am I hungry.

You know for $10 worth of bullets, you can live off of deer meat for about 3 months... put that in your urban pipe and smoke it, ya flamin liberals!

[prometheus]

First thing I thought was ...boy am I hungry.

You know for $10 worth of bullets, you can live off of deer meat for about 3 months... put that in your urban pipe and smoke it, ya flamin liberals!

We have bigger deer, and elk, and moose up here, Ace Hardware has their hunting season sale and for $10 you can pick up a box of 20 cartridges and eat off those for years.

Organic, Hormone free, antibiotic free, and free range too, for the big city hippies. You just have to accept the responsibility that with eating meat something died for you. I just choose to cut out the middleman and his blood money.

[iamnotspock]

We have bigger deer, and elk, and moose up here, Ace Hardware has their hunting season sale and for $10 you can pick up a box of 20 cartridges and eat off those for years.

Organic, Hormone free, antibiotic free, and free range too, for the big city hippies. You just have to accept the responsibility that with eating meat something died for you. I just choose to cut out the middleman and his blood money.

I wish it were so simple, guys. The toxic waste of the cities often ends up going north. Witness mercury levels in Alaska. In fact, we get pollution on the East Coast from Africa. There are not pristine places left... Also, wild deer populations have been found with mad-cow disease.

But I am with you on killing what you eat. Meat-eating animal-lovers are an oxymoron -- or at least they are extremely biased by species.

[prometheus]

I wish it were so simple, guys. The toxic waste of the cities often ends up going north. Witness mercury levels in Alaska. In fact, we get pollution on the East Coast from Africa. There are not pristine places left... Also, wild deer populations have been found with mad-cow disease.

But I am with you on killing what you eat. Meat-eating animal-lovers are an oxymoron -- or at least they are extremely biased by species.


You know really thinking about it seems like all problems start in cities; crime, gangs, hippies, pollution, toxic waste, politicians (feel free to add to these). We need a political group with the platform of a "War on Cities" Kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out.

[pavman]

We have bigger deer, and elk, and moose up here, Ace Hardware has their hunting season sale and for $10 you can pick up a box of 20 cartridges and eat off those for years.

Yeah I know, one of my old roommates is from Idaho...he came back with a mule deer and an elk. We ate off of that for like a year and a half. It was great.

But not being one to hunt often, I thought I'd stay conservative so as not to be incorrect. Never know when robot-boy is gonna start asking me to cite a source ... ;D

pavman added to this post, 3 minutes and 55 seconds later...

You know really thinking about it seems like all problems start in cities; crime, gangs, hippies, pollution, toxic waste, politicians (feel free to add to these). We need a political group with the platform of a "War on Cities" Kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out.

Hey, didn't you see that quote I posted from Jefferson?

"I think our governments will remain virtuous for many centuries as long as they are chiefly agricultural; and this will be as long as there shall be vacant lands in any part of America. When they get piled upon one another in large cities as in Europe, they will become corrupt as in Europe." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. Papers 12:442

Long live the Anti-Federalists! :o)

[prometheus]

Hey, didn't you see that quote I posted from Jefferson?

Yup, but another "Here Here" wouldn't be out of place.

[Lights]

Yay guns!

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Here we go again. :rolleyes:

[prometheus]

Yay guns!

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Here we go again. :rolleyes:

Beat ya to it, with my another "gun free" zone post earlier. Ha, that's a joke.

Now if that room was fun of Montana boys, that idiot might of killed one person before being rightly gunned down, like the chicken shit who choses victims he knew would be unarmed.

The blame here lays equally on the shooter, and the wussy, pussy, liberal, chicken shits who are afraid of anyone being able to defend themselves...............in other words people like you have blood on your hands for these policies also.

[Lights]

Beat ya to it, with my another "gun free" zone post earlier. Ha, that's a joke.

Now if that room was fun of Montana boys, that idiot might of killed one person before being rightly gunned down, like the chicken shit who choses victims he knew would be unarmed.

The blame here lays equally on the shooter, and the wussy, pussy, liberal, chicken shits who are afraid of anyone being able to defend themselves...............in other words people like you have blood on your hands for these policies also.

:suspicious: Yes, we must arm the masses! If everyone carried a gun the world would be a safer place. They are especially essential in...university lecture halls. :undecided: I guess it's the victims' fault for not challenging the corrupt policies and demanding the right to carry a firearm on campus. Those buggers got what they deserved. :rolleyes:

[AgentofGaming]

School shooting is more of a North American thing.
Gun free zones don't work as well in a gun filled country.

[Riverratt]

I don't have to compensate for a small penis, so I don't own a gun. ;)



Until my penis can expel .30 or .45 caliber metallic projectiles out to at least 100 yards, that can defend my family from felons, and put food on the table.. :rolleyes:

I see no reason to get rid of my guns.

[prometheus]

Until my penis can expel .30 or .45 caliber metallic projectiles out to at least 100 yards, that can defend my family from felons, and put food on the table.. :rolleyes:

I see no reason to get rid of my guns.


Dude you'd get no play at all.





prometheus added to this post, 172 minutes and 10 seconds later...

I just realized in all the cases of school shootings there is something they all have in common............they all take place at schools..........WE MUST BAN ALL SCHOOLS.....THINK OF ALL THE CHILDREN AND THEIR SUFFERING.
;)

[Allie]

If someone has it in his mind to shoot someone, he'll find a way to get his gun, whether there's a ban or no ban.

Bottom line: What do the Nazis, Communists, Fascists do when they're in power? Unarm the population.

[elsdfr]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

If its your right to own or carry a gun then why in this case did they take it off her?

[prometheus]

Looters, moochers, parasites, bureaucrats, is there a differences? Give 'em all some lead, eh?

[Kfbr]

What part of "shall not be infringed" isn't clear enough in the constitution?

Everything America has, all our wealth, all our power, everything we've accomplished and everything we will accomplish is in place because of the constitution and not the other way around. I am a rabid supporter of the 2nd amendment because it is part of the document that has led way to the way of life I enjoy today.

I see a lot of slippery slope arguments in here like the gem on page one about "WHAT IF WE SOLD TANKS!!1" Well, what if we allowed gays to marry, then they will want to marry goats!! That's about the same logic.

The simple fact is that a gun is a tool, a tool is harmless unless used with ill intent. So maybe the real problem in America is our violent tendencies and not our independence. Our independence is what this country was founded on. The first thing the King of England did to suppress an American rebellion was to disarm the populace. The second amendment exists for good reason.





Kfbr added to this post, 11 minutes and 14 seconds later...

:suspicious: Yes, we must arm the masses! If everyone carried a gun the world would be a safer place. They are especially essential in...university lecture halls. :undecided: I guess it's the victims' fault for not challenging the corrupt policies and demanding the right to carry a firearm on campus. Those buggers got what they deserved. :rolleyes:

This is exactly the reason I want to get a concealed weapons permit. I attend the University of Utah and it's still legal to carry concealed weapons on campus so if some little chicken shit, as prometheus put, tries anything on my watch I'm not going down without a fight.

Hiding behind a desk isn't going to do much against an armed crazy. People call me idealist for some of my political ideas, but do you honestly think you can get rid of every gun in this country?

We had a mall shooting here in Salt Lake not too long ago and you know what stopped him from killing even more? An off duty armed police officer. I think weapons training should be part of any high school curriculum. Teach people at a young age to respect firearms.

[AgentofGaming]

Are there any ethics tests as a pre-requisite for a firearm license?

[yondyr]

Could you write one and let us analyse it?

[Lights]

This is exactly the reason I want to get a concealed weapons permit. I attend the University of Utah and it's still legal to carry concealed weapons on campus so if some little chicken shit, as prometheus put, tries anything on my watch I'm not going down without a fight.

Hiding behind a desk isn't going to do much against an armed crazy. People call me idealist for some of my political ideas, but do you honestly think you can get rid of every gun in this country?

We had a mall shooting here in Salt Lake not too long ago and you know what stopped him from killing even more? An off duty armed police officer. I think weapons training should be part of any high school curriculum. Teach people at a young age to respect firearms.

I'm not saying that the guns are the problem. I'm saying that America's fucked up mentality about guns is the problem. The people who go on campus shootings are always those people who want to be famous, who want to be remembered as the "shooter". They are the people who want their own kind of personal justice and use their right to own a gun to obtain it. Guns are a tool and how that tool is used depends upon the person. So why are Americans so mentally screwed up that we are consistently using that tool to kill each other? That is the problem, so what is the solution? More guns? Less guns? Bullshit! :laugh:

I don't know of many people from Littleton Colorado who don't know at a young age how to respect a firearm, did it do them a hell of a lot of good? :laugh:

It's backwards mentality. People are so focused on keeping guns from being seen as the problem, that nobody can be bothered to address the real problem. The reason a lot of people favor gun control isn't to take the guns out of the hands of those who would use them responsibly, but to keep them from those who aren't capable of using them responsibly. Can you think of a better solution? I'm not a huge fan of gun control, but until people can start providing better answers to the real problem, that is going to be the solution that people try to implement. The opposite, giving everyone a gun is just as stupid because accidents inevitably happen and there are times when even responsible people shouldn't have a gun on hand.

A funny story I heard once. Here in Idaho, there was a man who got out of jail and sued the state based on an old law that was still on the books. The law stated, "Once a man is let out of jail, he is to be given a silver dollar, a gun, and a horse." He was a felon, so they couldn't give him a gun, but they did give him a silver dollar and a horse. They then repealed the law.

[AgentofGaming]

Could you write one and let us analyse it?

Well the problem is I don't have much reason to write one, it's not like a government is going to pick it up, but what the heck, I'm bored.

Ethics Test (please answer truthfully: any information that is not truthful could result in application withdrawal):
Name__________ Address_________ Telephone_________

Please circle each that applies: [Wrong choices will be penalized 1 point, Public harm choices will be penalized 2 points]
1.) "With great power comes great ________"
ego boosts gunfights fun responsibility
2.) Shooting innocents is
funny good because they deserve it wrong going to happen anyways
3.) When is it permissible to use a firearm?
self-defence assaulting someone to threaten non-lethal entertainment
4.) Before discharging a firearm you are required by law to:
offer warning reload wave know their name
5.) Which targets are illegal to shoot it provided they are not violent?
students seniors solicitors shoppers
6.) The goal of a fire arm is to:
protect maim attack commit mass-murder
7.) Which of these is legal with a firearm?
self-defence practice assault vandalism
and... I'm getting too silly so someone else can continue this...

Then whoever can set a minimum pass-fail.

[yondyr]

lol great questions. Searching old files, I find some I made for this subject, taking the legal tack. I'll add them too and let's see what emerges...

Conspiracy/killing
1.Given provocation, threat to self or loved ones, or imagined threat, is everyone capable of killing?
2.If I give a gun to someone who, a year later, uses it to kill, am I guilty?
3. If I give a gun to someone I know is capable of killing, since I know everyone is capable in certain circumstances, and they use it for such, am I guilty?
4. How much time should elapse between my providing the means, and the event, before I'm absolved of responsibility?
5. Barring other evidence, how can it be determined I knew that person would kill if I don't admit it?
6. If instead, that person used my car to kill someone, knowing they were in a killing mood, my having lent my keys, would I be guilty?
7. Should my mind/intent/thoughts be subject to scrutiny regarding the actions of others?

[prometheus]

Are there any ethics tests as a pre-requisite for a firearm license?

Firearms license? They might have those back east. Up here, the stringent requirements to purchase a firearm are "tall enough to slap the money on the counter".

No I was kidding you have to be 18 for rifles and 21 for handguns. There are about ten yes or no questions about if you are a criminal, mentally ill, a druggy, a US citizen, etc..

[Kfbr]

"Guns are deeply rooted within Swiss culture - but the gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept.

The country has a population of six million, but there are estimated to be at least two million publicly-owned firearms, including about 600,000 automatic rifles and 500,000 pistols. "

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Instead of having the general population, the sane and law abiding citizens, afraid of weapons we should train people on what they do and how to use them. Switzerland seems to be having a grand ol' time with automatic assault rifles in the streets, perhaps we could learn something.

[iamnotspock]

I totally want to meet the babe in the pic with the shotgun. Who is she? What happened to her? Does she load double aught buck or slugs?

[prometheus]

I totally want to meet the babe in the pic with the shotgun. Who is she? What happened to her? Does she load double aught buck or slugs?

The cartridges on the railing are slugs.

[iamnotspock]

The cartridges on the railing are slugs.

See, I need a shotgun babe b/c I don't know shit about guns ... yet ;-)

But that said, wouldn't the buckshot be a better choice for home defense against looters?

[schmidt]

I don't see why anyone should be entitled to carry guns. Not even cops (although it is a neccessity since guns still exist). I feel umcomfortable around guns (but also around authority figures like security staff in the subways etc).

And I don't think the discussion is so simple as "I have to defend myself" there a much deeper problem, I think it's about fear.

[Chrgr]

I don't believe gun control could ever work in America, here are some reasons why I believe this way. It is impossible to track every gun in America, far too many have been around that have never been registered. In order to round up guns you would have to go door to door, and that seems a little too much like Nazi Germany for most Americans taste. Prohibition did not stop people from aquiring alcohol, enterprising individuals and groups made and distributed alcohol even though police did their best to stop it. We have not stopped Illegal Immigration or Illegal drug traffic, even with the help of technology. Anyone with some knowhow could make a gun. My dad made guns in shop class years back, if he could do it, anyone with access to machining equipment could. If guns were made illegal the black market for guns would increase and they would still be available to those willing to pay.

Guns have become an emotional issue on both sides, not one person here would like to go through the horror of losing a friend or loved one to a gun related accident or gun violence. There are also people who carry and have guns so they have a better chance of not becoming victims. When our state issued Right to Carry legislation there were groups of people who said it would lead to gunfights in the streets, just like the old west. In actuality the violent crime rate went down. I believe those people who want to do harm to others will always find a way. I prefer to counter the threat and most of all, be aware of my surroundings. Back when my father was young, kids did bring guns to school, some even had shooting programs. It was not unheard of during hunting season for most vehicles in the school parking lot to have a rifle in them. These thing happened with no gun violence, the kids realized they were responsible for their actions, unlike today when it's always someone else's fault.

[prometheus]

See, I need a shotgun babe b/c I don't know shit about guns ... yet ;-)

But that said, wouldn't the buckshot be a better choice for home defense against looters?


Depends on range, and possibility of body armor, cover etc. I'd load 3 rounds of 00 buck and then 2 rounds of 3 / 3.5" Mag slugs. (Firing order is reversed) I don't live in the city with neighbors, and there is a chance I'll have to make 100M+ shots at fleeing coyotes, foxes, weasel etc. so I keep my EBR (Evil Black Rifle aka AR15) Loaded with a thirty round magazine of 5.56 NATO SS109 Armor piercing green tips.

I couldn't agree with our new member more, fear is what all gun laws are about, people are afraid of guns so they attempt to (impossibly) eliminate them from society, when all they really need to do is (with a psychologist if necessary) find the basis of this fear and eliminate it.

[Lights]

And I don't think the discussion is so simple as "I have to defend myself" there a much deeper problem, I think it's about fear.

You nailed it. This solution isn't gun control or guns. The problem is fear. Fear of the government, fear of neighbors, and fear of of people who have guns. People buy guns because they are afraid and they delude themselves into thinking because it's rational to own an instrument meant for killing just so they can defend themselves. (Hunters and practitioners aside of course. :p) People want guns because they don't know how to deal with their own fear. The solution is teaching people healthy ways of dealing with their fears.

[blueback]

People buy guns for the same reason people buy cars. It's a labor saving device.

If you want to be safer from having force used on you then you have to use, or be able to use, force yourself. You have a lot of options. You can move away from all other humans. You can isolate yourself and only deal with trusted friends and family members. You can spend years learning martial arts. You can watch your back every second of the day and keep people at a safe distance. Or you can get a gun. With a gun you don't even really have to practice. A few hours every now and then to familiarize yourself with its basic function and you have a decent level of force at your disposal.

A gun is an addition to your life that requires you to change very little but provides a disproportionate access to force. A person who is powerless can, in a matter of minutes and with very little money, become a force to be reckoned with. The only thing keeping everyone in America from having a gun is fear of that force.

I mean, a gun is as close as anyone has ever gotten to providing the average human with the power to kill at will.

[Lights]

So if I'm not afraid of anyone using force on me, what is the purpose of having a gun?

[Riverratt]

Those that pound their swords into plows, will plow for those that do not.

[Lights]

Those that pound their swords into plows, will plow for those that do not.

So your assumption is that if I don't own a gun, someone with a gun will use force on me? I just said I'm not afraid of people using force on me, especially since it is unlikely. Can you provide me with a purpose to own a gun that doesn't rely on unsubstantiated fear of somebody using force?

[Rick]

Anyone at present who has a firearm has no hope of overthrowing the government. The government has too much overwhelming force.

Having said that, I think think that the US is heading downhill, and it would be beneficial for citizens to have a means to defend themselves along with a way to provide food in the near future.

Firearms will become essential.

The question that government keeps bringing up is whether firearms are necessary. On the other hand, the question that citizens keep bringing up is whether our present means of government is essential. Go figure.

[Lights]

Anyone at present who has a firearm has no hope of overthrowing the government. The government has too much overwhelming force.

What? You are saying a rifle or shotgun is no match for an Apache helicopter that can shoot several rounds per second with perfect accuracy in the dead of night from over half a mile away? No way! I totally could take the US government!

Having said that, I think think that the US is heading downhill, and it would be beneficial for citizens to have a means to defend themselves along with a way to provide food in the near future.

Firearms will become essential.

The question that government keeps bringing up is whether firearms are necessary. On the other hand, the question that citizens keep bringing up is whether our present means of government is essential. Go figure.

Yes, because once the third World War starts, small arms will be very beneficial in our fight against nuclear strikes and biological weapons.

[liger0]

Hey, guys, it's a dead horse! Let's beat it!

Seriously, though, this is a non-issue as far as I'm concerned.

Either take everyone's weapons away (not just guns, EVERYTHING), or give everybody weapons. As long as you do neither, people will argue either side.

I'm tired of hearing about it.

If someone wants to harm me, they will probably do it anyway. That said, I'm not going to spend my time worrying about it.

[Lights]

Hey, guys, it's a dead horse! Let's beat it!

Seriously, though, this is a non-issue as far as I'm concerned.

Either take everyone's weapons away (not just guns, EVERYTHING), or give everybody weapons. As long as you do neither, people will argue either side.

I'm tired of hearing about it.

If someone wants to harm me, they will probably do it anyway. That said, I'm not going to spend my time worrying about it.

THANK YOU! :thumbsup:

[iamnotspock]

> If someone wants to harm me, they will probably do it anyway. That said, I'm not going to spend my time worrying about it.

Defeatist, dude. Be prepared. If someone wants to harm me, they are gonna get a hell of a fight!

[blueback]

THANK YOU! :thumbsup:

If you don't have any use for your life, someone else will find one.

[Lights]

If you don't have any use for your life, someone else will find one.

Eh? Is that another one of those assumptions that people will use force on me? You guys may be consumed by that fear, but I'm certainly not.

[blueback]

Sounds like denial to me.

[Lights]

Sounds like denial to me.

Denial of an irrational fear. Sure. :thumbsup:

[sonofone]

I think if someone wants a gun they should and they can put it under their pillow at night and feel safe. I personally feel that if someone wants to kill you, they can put themselves in a position where you won't have the chance to put up "one hell of a fight." If some punk breaks into your house, you probably have a better chance getting shot trying to be all Jame Bond on the guy than if you just stayed in your room and called the police. Ultimately, I don't think guns are the problem, I think the problem is a lot of gun owners are paranoid schizophrenic nut jobs. Saying things like, "If someone wants to harm me, they are gonna get a hell of a fight!" and "If you don't have any use for your life, someone else will find one." There in lies the problem with guns, not that they exist but that a good chunk of the gun owning population happens to be the least fitting candidates. Personally, I like to fire a sniper rifle every now and then, but thats just clean fun, and I don't own it.





sonofone added to this post, 2 minutes and 29 seconds later...

Hey, guys, it's a dead horse! Let's beat it!


We're not beating a dead horse... We're Shooting It!!!! hahaha, get it? shooting, like with a gun. hahahha. still don't get it? because we're talking about guns and you brought up the dead horse; I figured it would just make more sense that we were shooting it... with a gun.

well... I get it.

[blueback]

I don't own a gun. . .yet. . .but the voices are so hard to resist!

[RunAmuck]

I can't post links yet due to my low post count (This is my first).

There is a great paper that reflects on gun rights and the gun mentality in the US called "A Nation of Cowards" that can be found on-line by searching for it by its title.

Enjoy.

[blueback]

Wow, that was a really good article. Thanks! It's not often I read something that makes me think.

[Solaris]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I was reading this article, and that brought me to this thread. I can see how everyone is sort of confused about the Amendment, it's not worded very clearly, and there's nobody around anymore who was there to explain it.

"The 27 words and three enigmatic commas of the Second Amendment have been analyzed again and again by legal scholars, but hardly at all by the Supreme Court.

The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." -- from the article

Did they mean to write "and" someplace, we don't know. Were they simply referring to members of military? Although, I think most people agree that, historically, Americans have owned guns, lots of them. We are a country that loves its guns. Since we formed, and rose to a world power so quickly, stories of guns in our growth are still relativelly fresh. We, by which I mean the country, came of age in the time of guns. I can certainly be wrong, but I don't think any other country really parallels us with this. By coming of age (again, I mean the country as whole, not individuals) during the time when guns were becoming popularized, rapidly advancing in quality, and then more available, isn't it unsurprising that we would be so gun loving? I'm getting away from the point here, which is: What the hell does that Amendment really mean anyway? Even literal interpreters, I think, would have a hard time with this one.

[RunAmuck]

If you really want to try and understand this, tune into CSPAN Radio (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) to hear the SCOTUS arguments live.

Right now they are interviewing some supreme court reporter.

[Dreamer]

I don't know, you'd probably lose money on the bet I don't consume alcohol or gamble
Kids can be influenced. The media alone is enough. (Smokers in movies)If you lack the brains not to be influenced by medias,then good for you! You deserve whatever is coming to you because of your lack of responsability.


Well gun crimes is rather proportional to ownership.Actually no,take Switzerland for example,who have both high gun ownership and low gun crimes. There is no corrolation between the two.


Training you can receive, and if reloading is so fearful, you should carry flashbangs and smoke grenades no matter what weapon you have.
If you try using a flashbang instead of reloading and shooting,the perp you are fighting will most likely take your head and bang it into a fine pink mist.


Yes it's obviously easier if I shoot you.I'm not gonna hurt you in any way or fashion. The perp who will find you defenseless would most likely bang your brain into a fine pink mist.


The discussion is about how to have less deaths and not to kill,There is a breed of the civilian populace that does not merit to live,such as violent criminals. If a violent criminal is found dead in the process of commiting a violent crime,it saves the state a lot of paperwork.


Well since the average American citizen is so well armed, how come most of the school shooters ended up killing themselves when the police came?
How often was a good citizen with a firearm able to help? There were instances were the good citizen was there to help, only the libs are too incompetent to look for that for themselves.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. CNAT20020917a.html
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.(scroll down to "What columbine should have been)

And more. But I think you should educate yourself.


If this is about optimizing chance, does that mean I should go out with smoke grenades, flashbangs, kevlar, and a sniper rifle? If you actually carry that in a civilian setting,you will be covered in ridicule, much like this argument.


Afterall I could be sniped and he could miss. In my very limited opinion, you would be better off running off for cover,and let the pros handle it.I will let you question others with more experience in such matters than I

Maybe everyone should join the army for training?A wonderful idea! I will personally write you a recommendation if you have the balls!


To prevent being shot should I go everywhere in an armoured vehicle? Armor is not offensive by nature, but I warn you that it is expensive. If you feel safe in an armored vehicle,by all means! Go buy it!

I do not feel threatened one bit by some random hippie driving in an armoured Volkswagen beetle.


Going back to the base of this, what if he only has weapons because they were so easily made available to him? Going back tot he base of this,switzerland is a very well armed nation, and weapons are plentily availble but the crime levels trump your theory.


Well disarmed, do you have a choice when someone has a gun aimed at you at close range?By this point you should already have tried to evade the potential threat.

The most common place where attacks come from are relatively isolated. And if you can't spot somebody coming up and invading your personal space then you certainly deserve what's coming to you.


So to get these clues are you going to bring a mirror around every corner? You can do that. I'd much rather simply keep my ears and eyes open.


What if you were in a crowd and someone shoots you with a concealed arm at close range through his coat?Then sucks to be you, pull up your pistol and shoot the fucker if he aimed for the chest.

If he shoots you in the head, well you have to ask yourself the question: "What the FUCK did I do to get shot in the head in a crowd at random?". If it has to do with Chinese intelligence or the mafia,then you should not have gone into that crowd in the first place.


An assailant would be awfully stupid to give you cues.Those cues are actually subconscious, more like a body language type of things rather than a blatant warning.


What if a cue is not credible? Then you go away, in case.

A credible cue should be something like an open threat or flashing a weapon. Criminality is not limited to the perfect rational serial killer who kills without warning.


What if it was completely mistaken and by aiming your weapon at him, he gets his weapon out thinking you are his assailant? Then give him your wallet instead of pulling your weapon.


Then it becomes a who shoots first between two people with no intent. This is the weapon mentality.An armed society is a polite society.

You have to have cojones to pull a gun at a table where everyone else is armed.


Well I've never had a weapon or had a criminal act committed to me.
I feel I have no need to have a weapon, because I don't go into other's business.
Besides petty criminals are only after money, money is not worth risking life over or risking gun battles.


Nope, but a rational criminal, would use the crowd. A random shot from a crowd and no one knows who it was, don't tell me citizens would go shooting at other citizens where the gun sound came from. That would lead to a gun battle.
A psychopath who really wanted to kill would carry high explosives, that way he saves himself a lot of trouble.[/QUOTE]

[blueback]

On the one hand I support gun rights, on the other I support the state's responsibility to enforce gun ownership limitations and safety training.

We want the 'good' people to have guns specifically because they will have no trouble using them appropriately. We want the 'bad' people to not have guns specifically because they will have no trouble using them inappropriately. The gray area in between, the people who might use them correctly and might use them incorrectly, are what the debate is really about.

Very few people use gun-crimes as a justification for making guns illegal. They realize that those criminals need to be stopped and the best way is for their victim to be armed. The examples that are cited as justification for anti-gun ownership legislation are usually the crazies. The kids who killed at Columbine were in that gray area. Maybe they would use their guns inappropriately or maybe they wouldn't. No one had enough reason to distrust them before they slipped into the murdering side of their mentality.

Therefore, the debate isn't really about guns, it's about how to predict and control crazy people. Good luck figuring that one out.

[TheLastMohican]

On the one hand I support gun rights, on the other I support the state's responsibility to enforce gun ownership limitations and safety training.

We want the 'good' people to have guns specifically because they will have no trouble using them appropriately. We want the 'bad' people to not have guns specifically because they will have no trouble using them inappropriately. The gray area in between, the people who might use them correctly and might use them incorrectly, are what the debate is really about.

Very few people use gun-crimes as a justification for making guns illegal. They realize that those criminals need to be stopped and the best way is for their victim to be armed. The examples that are cited as justification for anti-gun ownership legislation are usually the crazies. The kids who killed at Columbine were in that gray area. Maybe they would use their guns inappropriately or maybe they wouldn't. No one had enough reason to distrust them before they slipped into the murdering side of their mentality.

Therefore, the debate isn't really about guns, it's about how to predict and control crazy people. Good luck figuring that one out.

That's an excellent summary of the debate, and I agree completely. I think that the most efficacious solution is just remove most restrictions on the weapons. Then criminals would be paranoid, since they would see everyone as potentially toting a .38 Magnum and years of sharpshooting experience.
But we cannot really know that until we try it. I think the backup is simply the principle of consistent freedom wherever practical.

Of course, I am not one to be affected by the debate anyway. I just use my bare hands. ;)

[blueback]

Never bring a fist to a gun fight.

[TheLastMohican]

Never bring a fist to a gun fight.

That's for people whose fists are not bulletproof.

And besides, I could go around saying, "Behind this mask is more than a man; Behind it is an idea. And ideas, sir, are bulletproof."

[prometheus]

Then criminals would be paranoid, since they would see everyone as potentially toting a .38 Magnum and years of sharpshooting experience.


.38 Special, or .357 Magnum perchance?

Just a lil' ball busting for you. ;)

I've posted on this thread before so all I'll add is Molon Labe.

[TheLastMohican]

.38 Special, or .357 Magnum perchance?

Just a lil' ball busting for you. ;)

I've posted on this thread before so all I'll add is Molon Labe.

38. Special, of course, the most powerful handgun in the world, which would blow your head clean off. So all you have to ask yourself is, 'Do I feel lucky?'
Well, do ya, punk?

[nzashadow]

Anyone ever realize that if any gun control law would be passed... the law abiding citizens would give up their guns, sure. But more importantly the criminals with guns will not... thus leaving the criminals who manage to keep they're guns at a ridiculously high power when they decide to rob someone.

Every gun ban in history follows up with increased violent crimes.

Hell, I saw this town that actually passed a law requiring citizens to have a gun in their house... the population their say it's a very peaceful place to live, and they don't have to be afraid. They're statistics seem to back this up pretty well too.

[TheLastMohican]

Anyone ever realize that if any gun control law would be passed... the law abiding citizens would give up their guns, sure. But more importantly the criminals with guns will not... thus leaving the criminals who manage to keep they're guns at a ridiculously high power when they decide to rob someone.

Precisely. The allowance of guns will decrease crime, not increase it. It's rather like the peace that results from having an arsenal of nuclear weapons.

Every gun ban in history follows up with increased violent crimes.

Where did you get this statistic? I didn't know that had been studied, but I would like to see it.

Hell, I saw this town that actually passed a law requiring citizens to have a gun in their house... the population their say it's a very peaceful place to live, and they don't have to be afraid. They're statistics seem to back this up pretty well too.

A good case study.

Of course, I find such a law just as abominable as a total ban on guns. Government has no business regulating that.

[Younggun88]

two things one Switzerland has one of the lowest crime rates and it required to own a gun due to everyone one is part of the national guard. Two even if guns are outlawed criminals don't follow rules. Weed is illegal here and people still smoke it. if gun were illegal people would still own guns and use them against the good citizens who don't.

A few people for Gun Control:
Adolf Hitler
Joesph Stalin
Fidel Castro

Dictators take the weapons away from the citizens in order to control them.

[Kas Ka]

I agree that this is a dead horse we're beating. I'm 100% against Gun Control. I'm a gun enthusiast. I collect, target shoot, and hunt with them. They're magnificent tools and works of art and have never caused any violence from my hands. I think its wrong to punish everyone just because there are a few rotten apples. And yes, banning guns won't prevent criminals from getting them. The gun trade will probably skyrocket just like the drug trade.

[Uberfuhrer]

I support gun control. I support controlling a gun to shoot those assholes! :thumbsup:

[sriv]

I do not support gun control. I think they should put better child locks or protectants on them, but they should be available to adults without a record. We have to be able to overthrow the government if it does not go our way, right?

[BallentineChen]

Ideally, we'd live in a world where guns were not necessary. I would be happy to live in a society where guns were not allowed or existed, but this is all a moot point. This is not the world we live in. The pro-gun/anti-gun debate doesn't concern me. When I have my own family, I will purchase a gun because other people have guns.

[thod]

I would be happy to live in a society where guns were not allowed or existed, but this is all a moot point. This is not the world we live in.

Its world I live in. Even policemen dont have guns. Only place I have seen guns is TV and airport security.

[blueback]

I saw a DVD once that was nothing but a bunch of fights outside this group of bars in Canada. They set up a camera and left it rolling for a year, then made a DVD out of the best fights. A whole year of crowds of 100 drunken guys fighting every night and not one single gun ever showed up.

Of course, as much as I wish for idealism, I'm actually a realist.

I don't live in a place where no one has guns, which means I need a gun. It's just irresponsible to not ensure the continuation of my own life.

[Theodoric]

two things one Switzerland has one of the lowest crime rates and it required to own a gun due to everyone one is part of the national guard. Two even if guns are outlawed criminals don't follow rules. Weed is illegal here and people still smoke it. if gun were illegal people would still own guns and use them against the good citizens who don't.

A few people for Gun Control:
Adolf Hitler
Joesph Stalin
Fidel Castro

Dictators take the weapons away from the citizens in order to control them.



When you disarm the people, you commence to offend them and show that you distrust them either through cowardice or lack of confidence, and both of these opinions generate hatred.
Niccolo Machiavelli


And this is why we have the second amendment. So that should the government become tyrannical and overbearing to the citizenry, the citizenry can oppose and overthrow the government. Gun control advocates are nothing more than tyrants in disguise. Some may be well meaning tyrants, who only wish to protect the people from themselves, but they are tyrants nonetheless. And I would rather be able to defend myself, rather than wait 15 minutes for the police to arrive, assuming I've been able to contact them, which may (read probably) be much too long.

Can someone point me in the direction of where a decrease in weapon ownership directly correlated to a decrease in crime? If you can't, all the arguments for gun control are moot.

[blueback]

I think that being pro-gun betrays a philosophy which assumes that people are inherently bad.

If you assumed that people were inherently good, you wouldn't need a gun, because the odds are good that no one will ever try to do anything bad to you. If you assume that people are inherently bad you might feel you need a gun because someone will eventually try to do something bad to you.

I mean 'bad' in the broadest possible terms. People are selfish, lazy and short-sighted (IMHO). They will often forget the moral standards they held yesterday if they need to survive today and if they never had any moral standards then they have nothing to forget. Then there are the people who simply enjoy doing bad things.

As Ben Franklin said "The person who would give up their liberty, to obtain a little bit of safety, deserves neither liberty nor safety." If your plan is to rely on other people to take care of you, that's fine. If your plan is to force me to depend on other people to take care of me, that's not fine.

[Jakalwarrior]

I can't believe how many people are in favor of living in a castrated society controlled by a big powerful government that rules your life. Government is supposed to be a MINOR thing that allows people to keep order. Not a huge force that dominates your life telling you what you can and cant do. The American government has already overstepped its authority and I really wish I lived somewhere else. They rule state government by taking in lots of taxes that the states need to run (non optional) and then not giving the state any of that share unless they do as they are told.



Things I do or would use guns for....

Dog or aggressive wild animal in my yard. Your pitbull attacking my child or eating my dog? I will kindly turn him into fertilizer.

Venomous snake in my yard (yes I bother to look and see). A shovel will suffice if its on the ground. A shotgun works well if its up a tree or in a bush.

Person attempting to enter my home or already in my home and attempting to break down my bedroom door. Shotgun makes short work of this sort of situation (handguns bad for this, they penetrate walls like paper)

Government does something the populace doesnt agree with and we turn on them (shouldnt techincally be possible since "they" should be "us")

[TheLastMohican]

Person attempting to enter my home or already in my home and attempting to break down my bedroom door. Shotgun makes short work of this sort of situation (handguns bad for this, they penetrate walls like paper)


And shotgun rounds penetrate walls like air, leaving behind a foot-wide wake.

[Jakalwarrior]

And shotgun rounds penetrate walls like air, leaving behind a foot-wide wake.

Slugs or buck shot yes, bird shot, no. Bird shot going through two layers of sheetrock isn't going to kill anyone.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
They actually said its not really even effective enough to use as a defensive round since it may not even knock down or stop somone.
"In fact, tests have shown that even #4 Buckshot lacks the necessary penetration to reach the vital organs. Only 0 Buck, 00 Buck, and 000 Buck penetrate enough to reach the vital organs."

They also make pistol rounds and slugs made specifically to fragment into nothingness when they hit anything. They vary widely in quality though.

[thod]

Dog or aggressive wild animal in my yard. Your pitbull attacking my child or eating my dog? I will kindly turn him into fertilizer.

Venomous snake in my yard (yes I bother to look and see). A shovel will suffice if its on the ground. A shotgun works well if its up a tree or in a bush.

Person attempting to enter my home or already in my home and attempting to break down my bedroom door. Shotgun makes short work of this sort of situation (handguns bad for this, they penetrate walls like paper)

Government does something the populace doesnt agree with and we turn on them (shouldnt techincally be possible since "they" should be "us")

Not needed in the UK

1) Pitbulls are illegal (Dangerous dogs act 1991).
2) No venomous snakes or other dangerous animals.
3) My bedroom door has no lock.
4) The government has no worries because we are monitored by the most CCTV in the world. You walk down any street you are captured multiple times on film. The computerized car licence plate recognition systems know every journey you make, when and where. They can track your cell phone and listen to all your calls/emails etc. Think 1984.

[Jakalwarrior]

Not needed in the UK

1) Pitbulls are illegal (Dangerous dogs act 1991).
2) No venomous snakes or other dangerous animals.
3) My bedroom door has no lock.
4) The government has no worries because we are monitored by the most CCTV in the world. You walk down any street you are captured multiple times on film. The car licence plate recognition systems know every journey you make, when and where.

And if the CCTV systems were like that in america, we would shoot the cameras out with our horrible guns. You may love it there but sounds like a horrible place to me, and it sounds like it will only get worse. Have you ever tasted freedom before? Ever had privacy?

[Tuesday]

My husband is a police officer and I will tell you that all the gun control in the world is not going to stop evil. You CANNOT legislate evil intentions. What will you ban next? Knives, sticks, stones. Don't give me the argument that you could survive an attack by such methods so it's moot. Have you heard of Cain and Abel?

[thod]

Yep its for our own safety of course. But the surveillance society will head over to the US soon enough, these things always do. They want to fingerprint and DNA profile everyone next. As I see it this would only help them to convict me if I ever wanted to commit a crime. They say if you have nothing to hide then you should do it, you are safer from everyone else committing crimes. The truth is you end up with a passive society where everything is watched by computer systems, like a small child bing watched by its mother.

Yes they are calling for bans on knives too. I saw a report saying that some chefs say pointy knives are not needed, we should all have knives with rounded ends for kitchen use. You may not be able to stop evil but you can make sure you know who was where and when to catch them first time.

[Tuesday]

While man is inherently evil, we are given free will to act. Governments should not be "watching" us, controlling us. It's a deeper issue than some government trying to take care of us poor dumb fools.

I have talked with police officers from the UK, South Africa and Australia where guns are banned. Their crime rates have in some areas may have gone down, but violent crime with weapons on innocent individuals has risen. Why? Because citizens no longer have the right to protect themselves.

It's idealistic to think that cameras and DNA is always going to convict someone. It just doesn't work that way. Do you remember OJ?

Some of the mass shootings that have happened lately could have been stopped had someone had gun to shoot the perpetrator. And in fact that has happened in places. But you don't hear those reports on the news.

[Riverratt]

Well, the Brits and former "commonwealth" nations can keep banning guns...

That just leaves MORE Lee Enfields for me :thumbsup:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

And here is three more, one Canadian Long Branch, No4 MkII*, a Australian No1 MkIII* and a mildly sporterized 1916 No1 Mk III* with many early features

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[thod]

Well all the youth wear hooded sports gear (hoodies), like medieval hooded monks, to hide their identities. But Murdoch and his newspapers are campaigning to get such clothing banned so that they can be identified. Some shopping malls have already banned anything over the head. I have already heard of cases where a judge banned a youth form wearing any form of hat.

[Jakalwarrior]

Yep its for our own safety of course. But the surveillance society will head over to the US soon enough, these things always do. They want to fingerprint and DNA profile everyone next. As I see it this would only help them to convict me if I ever wanted to commit a crime. They say if you have nothing to hide then you should do it, you are safer from everyone else committing crimes. The truth is you end up with a passive society where everything is watched by computer systems, like a small child bing watched by its mother.

Yes they are calling for bans on knives too. I saw a report saying that some chefs say pointy knives are not needed, we should all have knives with rounded ends for kitchen use. You may not be able to stop evil but you can make sure you know who was where and when to catch them first time.

Im glad that you are happy with that. We do something similar over here, in prisons and mental institutions were we consider the people to be incompetent or highly violent. The people that are likely to hurt themselves or others.
Lets just go ahead and put a little GPS chip in everyone that disables your body if you act bad or go somewhere you shouldn't. While we are at its, lets go ahead and let the government have complete control of all industries and land. We will just be their obedient little slaves. /wrists

[Riverratt]

What we need isn't gun control, but bullet control!:thumbsup:

No problem their....I can make my own bullets, with this bullet mold, out of old wheel weights...

I can use strike anywhere match heads, for the powder, and primers...

And here is some basic reloading gear that I also have...

The brass cases are reusable, many times over...

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You ban, or put a high tax on bullets, you just gave me, and thousands more Americans a lucrative way to make lots of money. ;D

[Tuesday]

Wow.......and that's how you want to live? So do you prefer the fig leaves for clothing and sticks and stones for killing? Don't you see how far off this is going?

Gun control does not work. Governments do not have the right to infringe on people's rights. Where does it stop. You want them telling you how to run every aspect of you life, watch you to make sure you do it right and then punish you if you don't? That's God's job, not the government.

We as human beings have to grapple with our temptations via Original Sin. We are supposed to grow and learn how to behave in society.

There are many responsible gun owners who do no harm to anyone and so they are to be punished?

Someone in the town where my husband works, an older gentleman, 90 years old. His house was constantly getting broken into. He had been beaten. No one could identify the thugs, no tangible DNA evidence was found so nothing could be done. What did he do? He got a gun, the next time the thugs tried to break in, he yelled a warning to them, they broke in anyway. As they tried to approach him he warned them again, they didn't stop so he protected himself and shot them. They died. That's why we have rights! To take care of things that government fails to do, cannot do, should not do.

[DrEast]

Not to mention that laws, by definition, just don't apply to criminals anyway, as others have said. Gun control laws equally so.

[Riverratt]

Not to mention that laws, by definition, just don't apply to criminals anyway, as others have said. Gun control laws equally so.


Actually it is settled law, that

A. Criminals cannot be found guilty of having a "non registered" firearm. In states that have "registration" a crook, found with a firearm, cannot be charged with failing to register that gun..because, since "he is a prohibited possessor" that registration is closed to them. This is settled law, the supreme court has ruled.

B. The Police have NO DUTY, to protect individuals, ONLY "society as a whole" this too is settled law.

The only people the Police must protect, are people in their direct custody.





Riverratt added to this post, 22 minutes and 25 seconds later...

NICE....For those of you, that THINK the Police will protect you...read this, in TODAYS news.. :suspicious:

Police: Okla. Sheriff Ran Sex-Slave Operation From Jail

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Who will protect you, when "your protectors" run amoke?

[md21017md]

Are you a Democrat, a Republican or a redneck?

Are you a Democrat, Republican or Redneck?
Here is a little test that will help you decide.
The answer can be found by posing the following question:

You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, an Islamic Terrorist with a huge knife comes around the corner locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, praises Allah, and raises the knife and charges at you. You are carrying a Glock 40 cal, and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do?
.................................................. .............
Democrat's Answer:
Well, that's not enough information to answer the question! Does the man look poor! Or oppressed? Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack? Could we run away? What does my wife think? What about the kids? Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand? What does the law say about this situation? Does the Glock have appropriate safety built into it? Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children? Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me? Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me? If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me? Should I call 9-1-1? Why is this street so deserted? We need to raise taxes, have a paint and weed day and make this a happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior.
.................................................. .................
Republican's Answer:BANG!
.................................................. .................
Redneck's Answer:
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
Click... (Sounds of reloading). BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
Click.
Daughter: "Nice grouping, Daddy! Were those the Winchester Silver
Tips or Hollow Points?
Son: Can I shoot the next one?
Wife: You ain't taking that to the Taxidermist!





md21017md added to this post, 24 minutes and 40 seconds later...

This is such a ridiculous argument. The question as to whether or not guns should be outlawed? In what country? Every country has different laws, customs. I think none of us has a right to spek of another country and how they should conduct their affairs, and state what should be legal or not in the others country.
That said, in the US we had a constitutional right to bear arms. If you look at the period of time when the constitution was written, the US was just being formed out of a tyrannical government. A powerful central government was a serious fear of the people at the time. This later surfaced in the form of the American Civil war. Despite the claims of slavery being the cause, it was really states rights, of which slavery was an issue.
Target shooting, hunting, self defense; these were deemed to not need protection as the people at the time could not envision a society of 24 hour 7-11’s and grocery stores. Hunting was the only way, and assumed it always would.
We have had how many government sponsored genocides in the past 100 years? Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pott, Mao. Even in recent times, we’d had issues in Rwanda, Darfur, Somolia, Bosnia. I wonder how many people would have been killed had they access to a weapon? If two of the six million jews during WW2 had guns, I wonder if the total number of Jews killed would have been 6,000,000? We can only speculate, but the first thing these dictators did when they came into power was get rid or weapons.
See the problem is that we humans like to kill each other, and we are willing to do so by any means. The liberal anti-gun types like to compare gun statistics between the US and other “Gun-less” countries, and of course the stats are drastically against the US. However, if you just compare murders by any means, then the numbers are much more balanced. Of course if you look at areas like Darfur, Rwanda, somolia, then the US has far fewer murders per capita. It’s all in how you slice the pie.
The problem is not guns, or lack of gun laws. The US has something like 14,000 laws pertaining to guns on the books. Problem is we do not enforce them. Some asshole rapes a woman, and it wasn’t his fault “he was molested as a child”. Another robs a store, and the excuse is “he had a bad child hood”. The problem is not guns but lack of accountability, lack of responsibility.
I remember as a kid doing something wrong, don’t remember, just some dumb thing kids do. What I do remember is the old guy in the neighborhood literally kicking me in the ass for doing it. I mean he literally grabbed me and kicked me right in the ass. Do that now and you get arrested; the parents want to sue you, so people shut up. There is no longer this sense of community where people watched out for each other, put a foot in the kid next door for doing something stupid. That is the problem. You can outlaw guns all you want. Right now most of the people causing problems that have them are breaking numerous laws in the process, how is an additional law going to help (that is making guns 100% illegal)?
As I said, humans like to kill each other. Tens of thousands were killed in Rwanda – by machete. During the middle ages of Japan and Europe, hundreds of thousands were killed and not one damn gun in site. Guns are not the problem, and getting rid of them will not solve the problem. If you could magically erase every gun from the planet, the murder rate would not decrease, and in fact would probably increase – there would be no deterrent.

[Tuesday]

Thank you md21017md! I was trying to explain that. We always here about how all these countries who have banned guns have it so great and it simply isn't so. While it may seem ridiculous to discuss the laws of other countries, those laws are used in arguments to promote gun control here.

I will say it again, gun control does not work!





Tuesday added to this post, 5 minutes and 24 seconds later...

Actually it is settled law, that

A. Criminals cannot be found guilty of having a "non registered" firearm. In states that have "registration" a crook, found with a firearm, cannot be charged with failing to register that gun..because, since "he is a prohibited possessor" that registration is closed to them. This is settled law, the supreme court has ruled.

B. The Police have NO DUTY, to protect individuals, ONLY "society as a whole" this too is settled law.

The only people the Police must protect, are people in their direct custody.





Riverratt added to this post, 22 minutes and 25 seconds later...

NICE....For those of you, that THINK the Police will protect you...read this, in TODAYS news.. :suspicious:

Police: Okla. Sheriff Ran Sex-Slave Operation From Jail

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Who will protect you, when "your protectors" run amoke?

Sorry riverratt, police do have a duty to serve and protect. Pointing out bad cops and then lumping all cops in that category is like saying everyone who owns a gun is a redneck. Do you like that?

Every profession has their bad apples. Let me say this clearly......MOST cops are honest, hard working individuals who put their lives on the line every day. Something most don't have the kahunas to do.

I ask you to go to the website for Concerns of Police Survivors. Check out the National Peace Officer Week and National Memorial for Fallen Officers. If you've ever known any officer gunned down in cold blood you'd understand..........trust me If you've ever known a police officer who's witnessed this or had to take a life you'd understand. They are there to protect!!!!!!

[blueback]

Yeah, it seems to me that the vast majority of people are well-intentioned. Only a small minority is responsible for crime and a minority of that for violent crime.

Therefore, if you gave everyone guns you would, by default, be giving most of the guns to people who won't misuse them. If you make all guns illegal then the well-intentioned people won't have guns, but the criminals will still get them.

The only way you could argue that we need to take guns away from everyone is if simply having a gun makes someone more likely to commit crimes. I don't think you're going to come up with much evidence for that.

[Tuesday]

I totally agree. My husband watched two of his fellow officers get gunned down by someone who had been in prison on a felony count of attempted murder. He had an intent that day to kill. He had made it known that he wanted to kill a police officer. That man should not have had a gun or had access to one. Nothing stopped him, no law, no criminal background check, NOTHING. So all these so-called measures didn't help. He got a gun on the black market and killed two people, just doing their jobs! Banning guns and gun control don't stop those with and evil intent.

Most gun owners are responsible and have no desire to harm others.

[thod]

So what you have just said is that policemen, well trained and carrying guns still got shot. Their guns did nothing to protect them.

Perhaps you don't realize just how difficult it is to get guns in other countries. The street punk doesn't have the cash or connections to obtain one. The criminals don't go around shooting people, because they don't carry guns. Yes, its true, they don't have guns. The penalty for being caught with a gun is so much higher than without. They wont ever encounter a homeowner with a gun, or a policeman with a gun, so they don't need one. The only ones that can get a gun are hardened criminals involved with organized crime. These don't target the general populace with house breaking and mugging and they are dealt with by specialized armed police units.

The real problem is that you have never lived in a place without guns. Where you reach retirement having never seen a real life gun. Where owning a gun is like owning cannisters of nerve gas, and makes you a nut job. This is the problem with the US. If nobody else had guns, including criminals, you would not feel the need to have one.

[Jakalwarrior]

Just face it, the American culture doesn't like the thought of being powerless sheep under surveilance. It scares me that your culture embraces such things. My fear of losing my freedom and living in a government controlled world FAR outweighs my fear of being shot.

[Tuesday]

So what you have just said is that policemen, well trained and carrying guns still got shot. Their guns did nothing to protect them.

Perhaps you don't realize just how difficult it is to get guns in other countries. The street punk doesn't have the cash or connections to obtain one. The criminals don't go around shooting people, because they don't carry guns. Yes, its true, they don't have guns. The penalty for being caught with a gun is so much higher than without. They wont ever encounter a homeowner with a gun, or a policeman with a gun, so they don't need one. The only ones that can get a gun are hardened criminals involved with organized crime. These don't target the general populace with house breaking and mugging and they are dealt with by specialized armed police units.

The real problem is that you have never lived in a place without guns. Where you reach retirement having never seen a real life gun. Where owning a gun is like owning cannisters of nerve gas, and makes you a nut job. This is the problem with the US. If nobody else had guns, including criminals, you would not feel the need to have one.


First of all. The LAWS did nothing to protect them. Secondly, while the gun may have been fired, it was NOT the gun's to decision to kill, it was the criminal's decision to kill. A gun is an inanimate object, subject to it's owner's will! As for our officers, they never even had the opportunity to react. They were shot point blank at the door. Fortunately, my husband DID react and laid that sh!tbag out with 5 bullets, saving the taxpayers a lot of money. I don't think you fully understand the mind of a criminal.

It's supposed to be hard to get guns here. We do have laws you know. We also have laws against committing crime yet they don't seem to work. Again because someone with an intent will find a way and some lawyer will find a way to get that criminal off the hook!

I personally do NOT wish to live in a society totally run by the government, constantly watching my every move. That's communism or worse.

There will always be crime. What will you do when the criminal, intent on harming you, uses some other method, will you then ban that method. Dead is dead, no matter how you're killed. People are strangled, stabbed, poisoned, etc. to death all the time too. What then? To say that if we don't have guns, the criminals will have no need to use a gun against us is ludicrous. Crimes are committed all the time against innocent people who are not carrying guns. And they aren't mafia types.

I keep harping on this, but most gun owners do not wish to harm anyone, they are responsible with their weapons. Some like target shooting. Some like hunting. Some like knowing they have that protection when or if the day comes that they have to protect themselves from their own government.

[thod]

So you believe that you owning a gun influences government policy. That the government is afraid to do whatever it wants simply because you are armed. I would suggest that if a SWAT team shows up you will hand over your weapon and stay alive, rather than shoot it out and die for the cause. The government can do just about anything it wanted to, you still wouldn't choose to die to their superior firepower. They go after individuals and take them out one by one. There is no way your firearm will protect you or change anything.

The second amendment is all about forming militias to defend against oppression. I have yet to hear of any cases of people forming militias in armed opposition to the government. I doubt any Americans would be able to do something like group with others in a militia since they are all individualists. You would at best have numerous militias with different aims shooting at each other. If any such group did form, and that area became off limits to the US, it would be crushed by the superior fire power of the army. The people would support the army because they want a quite life and couldn't care less about the cause.

You owning a gun does not influence the government or stop them oppressing. Armed populations are common in other countries. The people have experience of death and warfare, and it doesn't stop government doing what it likes. The real reason is you want to own a gun, because it makes you feel more powerful, even though intellectually you know it wont help against government.

The minimum penalty for possession of a firearm is 5 years imprisonment, possibly more. It just doesn't make sense for a petty criminal to have one.

[blueback]

So you believe that you owning a gun influences government policy.

I'm going to have to say "duh." Of course owning a gun influences governemnt policy.

That the government is afraid to do whatever it wants simply because you are armed.

Those two thoughts are not the same thing.

"the government" doesn't exist. At least, not in America. We wrote our constitution specifically to break up the otherwise monolithic powers of the government. What we have are seperate players who compete with each other for power.

Certain government actors, those who do things on behalf of some office in the governemnt, are pefrectly capable of overwhelming just about any group within the country. However, there is a difference between a government actor, say, enforcing the law and a government actor violating the law. The highest law in our land specifically allows individuals to own firearms. Therefore, denying people that right is something that no one in "the government" does flippantly.

I would suggest that if a SWAT team shows up you will hand over your weapon and stay alive, rather than shoot it out and die for the cause.

Sure, but the SWAT team can't disarm everyone in the country and they can't magically find weapons that are hidden.

Besides, we generally trust our government to operate according to the rule of law. For example, in Colorado recently the state troopers went around to the roughly 2000 people with FFLs (federal firearm license) and investigated them. FFLs can handle the paperwork necessary to buy things like assault rifles. The troopers probed their businesses, financial history, parking tickets, etc until they found something wrong. Then, they told the person they could pay whatever they owed, go to court, or surrender their FFL license. Now there are something like 50 FFL licenses in Colorado. Technically, they didn't do anything wrong. They simply strictly enforced the rules that were already in place. Everyone in Colorado who still has their FFL is so clean and law-abiding that the troopers couldn't find anything on them.

They didn't need SWAT teams to revoke the licenses. People who can't fully obey the law don't get to hide behind it. Enforcing standards is different from forcibly denying individual rights.

The government can do just about anything it wanted to, you still wouldn't choose to die to their superior firepower. They go after individuals and take them out one by one. There is no way your firearm will protect you or change anything.

You sound confused. Try to remember that our country was founded by a revolution and immediately afterwards we established an entirely new form of government. In that context, is it any suprise we wanted to be able to overthrow the governemnt if it turned abusive? Additionally, our country still had several enemies even after we were established. Our population was fighting on almost every border and was fighting the Native Americans inside our borders.

If "the government" starts "going after individuals one by one" they won't get very far before everyone else notices. There are 300 million people in the US and the most heavily armed ones are the most spread out. Besides, the police, national guard, and military are all volunteers. When someone joins the military they swear an oath to "support and defend the constitution of the united states" (I did) and that is all, there's no oath of allegiance to any person or institution. Our police swear to "serve and protect" again, with no allegiance to a person or institution. The world would have to change drastically from where it is today before our police and military are willing to fight the population they are part of.

If it did come to that, where "the government" turned all the armed government actors against the US population, then all the guns in America definitely would help. Storm troopers, just like criminals, are going to be wary of entering a house where the residents might be armed. When people did start to organize against "the government" then even if they didn't have a single gun among them they would have experience with guns and so would be better able to use the ones the captured, fashion similar weapons, or obtain guns from the black market.

The second amendment is all about forming militias to defend against oppression. I have yet to hear of any cases of people forming militias in armed opposition to the government.

So. . . .the system works. . . .or are you saying that since the gov. hasn't turned authoritarian yet that it never will? If there's one thing you should have learned from history it's that nothing stays the same except people, and people are guaranteed to fuck up a good thing eventually.

I doubt any Americans would be able to do something like group with others in a militia since they are all individualists.

There are so many things wrong with this that I'm not sure where to start.

Are you an American? Do you know a lot of them? Have you lived in America for a significant period of time? Well, I am American, I know a lot of them, and I've lived here all my life. You can doubt me all you want, but I recommend you trust my evaluation more than your own. Since, you know, this is where I live and all.

We value individual rights, but that doesn't mean we can't work as a team. How do you think we broke away from your country?

You would at best have numerous militias with different aims shooting at each other.

Possibly. I don't doubt our ability to disagree with each other. But as soon as the oppressive government forces showed up you can bet your bottom dollar they'd all start shooting at the gov. troops.

If any such group did form, and that area became off limits to the US, it would be crushed by the superior fire power of the army. The people would support the army because they want a quite life and couldn't care less about the cause.

This sounds like you are taking your cultural assumptions and projecting them onto us.

Americans are pretty idealistic. Our entire country was founded on the principle that the government draws its power from the people it governs and by operating that way we have become the only super-power in the world. You aren't going to convince very many Americans that it's better to give up their liberty for safety. Just look at how upset we get when you try to find out what books we've checked out of the library. Your country is full of video cameras, ours if full of rednecks and hippies. Neither rednecks, nor hippies, like video cameras.

Besides, where is the Army going to get its troops? Our military is all volunteer. I can't even imagine how much change it would take to replace all those guys with conscripts and the brutal officer corps necessary to get them to fight. That is why our military is specifically prohibited from being used for police functions. It helps keep us visibly off the slippery slope.

You owning a gun does not influence the government or stop them oppressing.

This coming from a person who's never owned a gun?

Lets look at it theoretically. If you were a government, who would you rather oppress: someone with a gun, or someone with a sharp stick?

Armed populations are common in other countries. The people have experience of death and warfare, and it doesn't stop government doing what it likes.

Maybe not, but it sure does slow them down.

The real reason is you want to own a gun, because it makes you feel more powerful, even though intellectually you know it wont help against government.

Well thanks for explaining my reasoning to me. <-sarcasm

I want to own a gun because it will help me protect myself, my loved ones, and my property from crime. I don't think I'm going to need to fight the government any time soon.

Maybe if our country had been gun free from the beginning it would be practical to disarm everyone, but that isn't the case. When it comes down to it, I'd rather put up with a few kids shooting themselves in the face every year if it means I have a fighting chance against violent crime. That's just the way I am. I'd rather have something and not need it than need it and not have it. Other people being stupid isn't my problem. People stab themselves in the eye with screwdrivers every year but no one wants to take screwdrivers away.

[Tuesday]

Wow thod,

Blueback did a wonderful job so where do I begin? Do you know anything about American history? Do you understand that as Americans we may be individualists but we pull together to fight for our rights. I repeat... OUR RIGHTS! And I can damn well guarantee you that if our government tried to take away guns, started shooting citizens, it would get ugly. You'd have plenty of militias with their own weapons and yes there are plenty of people who have already died to guarantee our rights, so they wouldn't hesitate to gather, fight and die.

We have a constitution for a reason. We are a government by the people ,for the people, of the people. We determine our laws.

As for this owning a gun as a power trip, most don't look at it as a power trip. And even if they do, so what! We aren't a society of people afraid to assert ourselves for our rights. Your society has given in to governmental rule.

You tout everything coming out of the UK as the next best thing and we should just blindly follow suit. Plenty of long held ideas, ways of thinking and laws in the UK are now being questioned and some are failing. So why would we want to jump on the band wagon. I would encourage you to read the book 'America Alone: The end of the world as we know it' by Mark Steyn.

[Kas Ka]

So you believe that you owning a gun influences government policy.

I don't. I am well aware that the government is just the bureaucracy with a monopoly on violence.

I would suggest that if a SWAT team shows up you will hand over your weapon and stay alive, rather than shoot it out and die for the cause.

I would.

I know what you're saying, and I can't say I disagree. But its more the principle of the thing for me.

And they're are groups that call themselves "militias". But you're right, they don't have the strength to stand up to the government. But I would HOPE that in dire times, where opposition by force was the only option available, that the American people would stand together.

Of course I know that logically, its just not probable. Unfortunately we live in a country where the people have been so domesticated by the government, that I'll bet that the thought of revolution would never enter their minds.

[Moriarty]

I often hear that the second amendment is the most important because it guarantees all the others. If armed opposition didn't rise up to challenge the Patriot Act, it never will. To think the American people have that kind of collective devotion to *anything* besides reality TV is pure fancy.

There's an old saying that comes to mind about frogs and boiling water.

[Kas Ka]

I often hear that the second amendment is the most important because it guarantees all the others. If armed opposition didn't rise up to challenge the Patriot Act, it never will. To think the American people have that kind of collective devotion to *anything* besides reality TV is pure fancy.

There's an old saying that comes to mind about frogs and boiling water.

Well, the Patriot Act is too long to read anyway. ;)

And it is a generalization to say the American people won't rise up. I'm sure there will alway be some (me included, :cool:). But its the numbers that make the difference in this situation. So, no. I think that we've been FAR too domesticated. That's why most people are sheep. But who fights off the wolves? Or rather........who are the wolves? :blank:

[Riverratt]

Sorry riverratt, police do have a duty to serve and protect. Pointing out bad cops and then lumping all cops in that category is like saying everyone who owns a gun is a redneck. Do you like that?

Every profession has their bad apples. Let me say this clearly......MOST cops are honest, hard working individuals who put their lives on the line every day. Something most don't have the kahunas to do.

I ask you to go to the website for Concerns of Police Survivors. Check out the National Peace Officer Week and National Memorial for Fallen Officers. If you've ever known any officer gunned down in cold blood you'd understand..........trust me If you've ever known a police officer who's witnessed this or had to take a life you'd understand. They are there to protect!!!!!!

I should have worded my post better :embarassed: I agree with you about the few bad apples, and like you say, they do have a "duty" to protect..But they are under NO legal obligation to protect us, the great "unwashed" :thumbsdown:

Like this woman, in today's news found out..

Slain woman's family blames 911 dispatchers

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Here are a few choice quotes from the article.


Franklin County 911 dispatchers heard a woman’s cries for help, her face being repeatedly slapped and her phone being ripped from the wall but did not explain the seriousness of the domestic-violence call to the responding police officer, the woman’s family claims in a wrongful-death trial that began today.


Very nice.... All the "best intentions" in the word do not matter if it is YOUR life on the line, you can crap in one hand, and wish in the other, lets see which gets filled first...

I know that MOST cops are good, and that a few, give the rest a black eye, but NOTHING CHANGES the fact, that it is settled law, that the police have NO LEGAL OBLIGATION to protect individuals.

I refer to this court case...Their are more....

Reference: Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App.181)

In this case three rape victims sued the city and its police department under the following facts: Two of the victims were upstairs when they heard the other being attacked by men who had broken in downstairs. Half an hour having passed and their roommate's screams having ceased, they assumed the police must have arrived in response to their repeated phone calls. In fact their calls had somehow been lost in the shuffle while the roommate was being beaten into silent acquiescence. So when the roommates went downstairs to see to her, as the court's opinion graphically describes it, "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands" of their attackers.

Having set out these facts, the court promptly exonerated the District of Columbia and its police, as was clearly required by the fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.

HERE is a News Story, about a Supreme Court case, that says basically the same thing..

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[md21017md]

In what country do you live?

In response to your comments about militia, and people not revolting against the government, I suggest you read about an ugly period in our history. The American civil war. The south ceceeded from the union, and for the most part had no standing army. All the fighting was carried out by civilians - farmers and laborers from the south for the most part. Most of them used thier own horses, thier own guns and had little training. It has an can happen.

An armed populace is also seen a deterant and final stop to an invasion by a foriegn power. Watch the movie Red Dawn. While totally fictional, I guarentee than any invading power would be met by every redneck for miles around.

Another comment you made; something about if no one had guns it would be safer, no one would feel the need for a gun? Keep this in mind, a gun instantly levels the field. A 90 pound woman now has a chance to defend her self against a 200 pound man. Do you think you can defend your self against another man with a knife? What about 3-4 people attacking you?

Living in this fantasy world you envision with no guns doesn't mean it will be any safer.

Check this page out. When looking at murder rates exclusive of the method, the US isn't even close to the top 10

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



Bottom line my friend, you are using the laws and morals of your country and trying to impose that on us. How would you like us to do the same to you? If living in a gun free country works for you, great, but leave us to our own affairs.

[blueback]

We can argue about what's right all day long but, when it comes down to it, the person who thinks they should have a gun is going to dominate the conversation. The person who thinks they shouldn't have a gun is bringing harsh language to a gun fight. . .not a long-term survival strategy.

[Riverratt]

Yep...Blueback..

It also shows, who does not seriously plan on protecting themselves, or their loved ones..Those that plan to depend on a government intenty for their bodily protection.

And those that do.

[thod]

In what country do you live?

scroll back

In response to your comments about militia, and people not revolting against the government, I suggest you read about an ugly period in our history. The American civil war. The south ceceeded from the union, and for the most part had no standing army. All the fighting was carried out by civilians - farmers and laborers from the south for the most part. Most of them used thier own horses, thier own guns and had little training. It has an can happen.

They lost.

Another comment you made; something about if no one had guns it would be safer, no one would feel the need for a gun? Keep this in mind, a gun instantly levels the field. A 90 pound woman now has a chance to defend her self against a 200 pound man. Do you think you can defend your self against another man with a knife? What about 3-4 people attacking you?

Living in this fantasy world you envision with no guns doesn't mean it will be any safer.

A real land, that exists, that you can visit, is not a fantasy land. There are many such fantasy lands around the world.

If I was to be attacked I would prefer them to punch me out than to shoot me. There is no problem with 200 pound guys beating on 90 pound women. I would suggest that even in the US most such problems are dealt with by the law rather than gunfire.

Check this page out. When looking at murder rates exclusive of the method, the US isn't even close to the top 10


I hardly think that comparing Columbia and S Africa to the US is valid. Try comparing the democracies with advanced economies in Europe and Japan.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

It is clear that the US is a very violent place and that most of that violence is due to gun crime. I have yet to hear of a drive by knifing.

Bottom line my friend, you are using the laws and morals of your country and trying to impose that on us. How would you like us to do the same to you? If living in a gun free country works for you, great, but leave us to our own affairs.

You start out by taking an "us and them" stance, the us being the citizens of the US. You are either with us or against us. Hell, it someone doesn't agree with you then they must be unpatriotic, right? Get used to the internet, we live all over the world and nobody cares. Nobody gives a damn where you happened to be born, what you say matters, who you are, not at all. Its almost laughable to hear you argue that you are right because you are American. I am sure other Americans don't think being American is special enough to give them greater insight.

You say that I am imposing on you by debating in an internet forum. How exactly is that done. Is the purpose of debate not to decide truth. When people make good points I couldn't care less who made them. I incorporate them into the model. Are you saying the INTJ forum is for Americans only.

You tell me to leave us to our own affairs. This is simply a crude way of trying to censor those who don't agree. I have as much right to debate as anyone else, including you. Perhaps you don't want to hear the points. However others will take input on the argument from any source. What matters to them is building a mental model for themselves from the viewpoints offered.

You don't hesitate to offer you views on law and morality to others. I don't appreciate the bullying tactic and you will find a sharp retort when you try it. Try using your wits to convince the audience of the justice of your case.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Riverratt]

Hmmm

Scotland has been named the most violent country in the developed world by a United Nations report..


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



The figure for Scotland dwarfs that of other developed nations such as Japan, where people are 30 times less likely to be attacked.

The study, based on telephone interviews conducted between 1991 and 2000, said 3% of people in Scotland had suffered an assault, while the figure for England and Wales was second highest at 2.8%.
Both Australia and New Zealand had the next highest proportion of assaults among their population at 2.4%, exactly double the level reported for the United States.


WOW, it is not all "kittens and rainbows" is it??

[thod]

Nah it sucks up in Scotland. Sucks all over really. I live in a nice town with high policing and property prices. Full of professionals and conservative voters. Let the ghetto rats beat each up. They cant afford to live here.

[md21017md]

First off, I didn't insult you, show me the same respect. Second, I am not trying to tell you your country is wrong for outlawing guns. If you read my post, I said if it workd for you great, so I am in fact not trying to impose my morals or judgement on you and by extension and not trying to bully you.


Just because the Sounth lost doen't negate the right of the people to bear arms. They lost mainly because they didn't have the industrial development of the North. They also didn't have a well trained standing army. Despite all this it was not a lopsided victory.

A real land, that exists, that you can visit, is not a fantasy land. There are many such fantasy lands around the world.

A real land where in the UK for example where my UK friends tel me home burgleries are very common. This mainly due to the fact that everyone knows that there is no gun to fear, and further that if you were to kill an intruder you could be tried for murder. We have break ins, but for the most part, the criminal has no idea what he will face, and in most areas of the US shooting someone in your home is justifiable, and has a deterant effect.


If I was to be attacked I would prefer them to punch me out than to shoot me. There is no problem with 200 pound guys beating on 90 pound women. I would suggest that even in the US most such problems are dealt with by the law rather than gunfire.


The comment on the police protecting the 90 pound woman is equally stupid. We alread have laws that say murder is illegal right? We still have murders don't we? So how protective is that law? For the most part, the number of murders and rapes STOPPED by police is quite low. Thier typical interaction is after the fact to investigate and arrest.

You want to debate to find the truth, but completly discount the evidence in your face. See in a theoretical world maybe you are right. Unfortunately, humans are in that world. We like to kill each other and will do so with any tool available. Hell it is even theorized that our ancestors killed off the Neanderthals. If there were no guns available, then the strongest would bully the weakest. Women for the most part are not going to stop a man that wants to kill or rape her. For the most part, simply having a knife gives an attacker a huge advantage over an unarmed defender. Two or three men attacking another are usually going to win. A gun levels all this out. Unless we can change the will of man to stop killing each other, then whether guns are around or not will matter little.

The US is a perfect example of this. See while we have the 2nd ammendment, there are local laws that vary on the subject. Washington DC for example has the strictest gun laws in the country, and one of the highest murder rates. In Pennsylvania it is legal to carry conceled with a permit anywhere in the state except Philly. Guess what, Philly has the highest murder rate. Same in NY city, yet out side the city the rate is far lower.

If you completly removed guns from the plante, I will grant you one segment of deaths would drop. That would be accidental shootings, people killed in crossfire etc. That is it. Other than that, we killed eath other quite successfully for thousands of years.





md21017md added to this post, 4 minutes and 39 seconds later...

It is clear that the US is a very violent place and that most of that violence is due to gun crime. I have yet to hear of a drive by knifing.

Most of our violence is drug related and inner city ghetto related. The US refuses to legalize and control drugs, and as a result made a very lucretive black market. You have a lot of people killed and killing over drugs and drug money. The city in which I live has one of the highest murder rates in the US. I have no problems walking around at night because I don't go into the ghetto areas where 95% of the murders happen.

[Riverratt]

Now you know, it's NOT politically correct, to state facts like that...:rolleyes:

We shant point out that it is the "underclass" causing 95% of the problem....O NO....

Someone may get *GASP* offended :irked:

[JasonM]

The bottom line is whether gun control raises or lowers the crime rate. Until some authority can provide some convincing statistics as to whether gun control raises or lowers the crime rate, arguments for either side are just hot air. Personally, I have no issue with gun control. I only want the policy that will bring about the best results. Issues such as people feeling safer owning a gun don't hold weight if it turns out that it's bad for crime. The same thing goes for people who simply feel safer with gun control.

[Moriarty]

JasonM, the stats you're looking for are out there. They're compiled by the FBI. I'm too lazy to find them for you right now, but a little effort and the crime stats should come into focus for you.

It basically comes down to legislation having no measurable effect on gun crime. It doesn't appear to.

There are arguments in favor of the instant background check which cite the number of potential nefarious by people who have attempted to purchase guns over the counter and been flagged or declined the transaction.

Those arguments in and of themselves don't seem to validate any facts except that those particular people were denied those particular transaction.

[Riverratt]

I really don't care what the statistics say...

It is my RIGHT, to own a gun.

Rights are not based on "needs" or "wants"

EDIT: Or statistics...

[Moriarty]

Rights aren't based on needs or wants, huh? Feel free to support that.

[Riverratt]

Certainly....

Rights should NOT be based on needs and wants...

If we start having "qualifiers" for rights, we run the risk of having the same arguments used against ONE right, used against the others..

Case in point;

The argument, that since the 2nd Amendment was written in the late 1700's that it ONLY applies to weapons from that time...IE Muzzle loaders and such...

This is a wide spread belief held by many who advocate gun control.

But say that argument was SUCCESSFULLY used to restrict the 2nd Amendment...

What would happen if the same standard was applied to the 1st Amendment?!?!

Restricting free speech, to technologies available in the late 1700's...

Their goes the Telephone, TV, Radio, and Internet... :deal:

Since after all, if it was okay to restrict the 2nd Amendment on the basis of it being written in the 1700's than their is NOTHING to stop those same rules being applied to the rest of the Bill of Rights.

It amazes me, to NO END, that the Democratic Political Party, that prides itself on "protecting our rights" want to read the Bill of Rights as broadly as possible, with the exception of the 2nd amendment, where they try to read it as NARROWLY as possible. :rolleyes:

They can have pushed the 1st Amendment so far that it even includes burning the Flag, and piles of feces smeared on paper, payed for by the taxpayer, and called it a "form of free speech"

But yet say their is no way that the 2nd Amendment in anyway allows you to have a gun. :whip:

IMHO, they are so intellectually bankrupt that their is no hope for a return. The Bill of Rights, are NOT like a cheap Chinness Buffet, where you can pick and choose what you want, and what you don't want...it is ALL or nothing.

These "Liberals" are too dumb to see, that limitations on the 2nd, sets a precedent, that the same arguments can be used against the rest of the document,

[Moriarty]

You've done a great job of answering someone's question, but not mine. Let me rephrase it.

You claim that "rights are not based on 'needs' or 'wants". Do you believe that the drafters of the Bill of Rights didn't think the amendments were needed or wanted? If they didn't base them upon the needs or wants of the people, then what did they base them on?

[Riverratt]

"Rights" are just that RIGHTS, they pre-exist, they are not granted..

When folks start talking about Needs and Wants, they are adding "qualifiers" in effect, restricting themselves.

The US Bill of Rights, does not grant ANY RIGHTS, it protects pre-existing ones...That is an important distinction.

Rights are not privileges.

The US Bill of Rights, in effect, is a document, that RESTRICTS THE POWER OF GOVERMENT, not resticting the citzens.

[Moriarty]

Rights...pre-exist? As in always have, always will?

Are you making this up?

Humans *invented* the concept of rights. How can they have pre-existed?

[Riverratt]

Preamble to the US Declaration of Independence....

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by the creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness....

They PRE-EXISTED the US government.

[Moriarty]

I've read the Preamble (and the rest of the Declaration of Independence). Quoting it (which has nothing to do with the Constitution) doesn't answer the question. Are you going to answer the question?

Just for the sake of argument, I'll play along. If the rights you claim always existed actually did, why did we (the US) need to declare independence from the King in the first place? I think you're confusing "these rights exist" with "they don't exist, but we think they should, so let's start our own country based upon that idea".

Formulate an argument. Don't quote documents that I've already read and understood.

[Kas Ka]

I agree with you concerning the rights of the U.S, Riverratt.

But let's remember that rights are only what the strong give the weak to appease them.

[blueback]

Right have to be guaranteed, which means they have to be backed up with force. A person living all on their own has to enforce their own "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" on nature. A group of people living among a larger group of people has to rely on the government to enforce that right for them.

There's no such thing as a "right to life" in the natural world. You get the life you can carve out for yourself. There is no "right to liberty" in the natural world. You are as free as you are capable of defeating those who would enslave you. There is no "right to the pursuit of happiness" in nature. You get a chance to pursue happiness only to the extent that you can guarantee those previous rights for yourself.

The rights we have now are a political instrument which helps people govern each other. They are only guaranteed to the extent that most of us still agree on them.

[Moriarty]

Cha-ching.

[md21017md]

There needs to be gun control due to the fact that were are the number one country in the world with Gun Homicides, a statistic which does not shine brightly on the wonderful image this country tries to portray.

We? What country are you refering to? The US is not even in the top 10, and get off the liberal "gun homicide" slant. Murder is murder, the dead person probably doesn't care much how they died, only that they are dead. Dead with a knife is just as dead as with a gun.

[blueback]

Yeah, after nearly completing a bachelor's degree that was relatively heavy in math I have reached a conclusion:

You can safely assume that EVERYONE who uses statistics in their arguments is wrong.

People, humans, just don't understand how to use them correctly. I'm not confident that I know how to use them correctly but at least I'm fully aware of how little I know.

For example, claiming that the US has the most gun-murders in the world is fine, but basing a conclusion on that is incredibly misguided. Who compiled the data? Who funded the people that compiled the data? Where did they get the data? What techniques did they use to analyze it? What data did they throw out? What about people who were killed with a gun but their body was never found? What about people who were wounded with a gun? What about people who would have used a knife, but used a gun only because it was closer? What about the people who meant to wound them with the gun but accidentally killed them?

All of these questions are important to understanding exactly what your "number of gun-murders" means. The number is pretty much useless without all the supporting information. Since NOONE provides the supporting information when they use statistics, it is safe to ignore them because they don't know what they're talking about.

[brettsnyder]

In my mind, firearms are just tools, and any firearm is just as much a tool as a knife, though that isn't the best comparison, since knives are obviously more utilitarian than firearms. I believe that if someone really wants to kill somebody, he/she will find a way, whether it has anything to do with firearms or not. Likewise, if a criminal really wants a firearm, that person will get it legally or not. Criminals/outlaws by definition live outside the law, and if they are going to disobey laws regarding murder, what are gun laws to them? I know that this saying is probably overused in debates like this, but here goes anyway: "When all guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." Oversimplified, but it only makes sense. As far as relying on the police goes, what travels faster, a bullet or a cop car? (In this case, the bullet refers to a shot that a criminal may have fired). By the time the police arrive, the crime may well have been committed.
All that being said, I don't believe that everybody should be legally able to own any type of firearm, with no paperwork. My exceptions are:

1. Automatic firearms (Firearms that are designed or modified to fire more than one shot per pull of the trigger) should be prohibited, with extremely limited and rare exceptions, such as for the manufacturing company, or a collector with a deactivated automatic weapon, etc. Civilians have absolutely no purpose with these, and any situation in which a firearm is required (hunting, self-defense, etc.) can be dealt with just as well, or even more effectively, with a semi-automatic. As well, any firearms that can be easily converted to automatic firing should be prohibited. (Easily being the key word, as with enough work, many or most semi-automatics can be converted to automatic, if someone is appropriately determined). Any other type of firearm not easily convertable to automatic firing should be perfectly legal. This includes your normal hunting rifles, pistols, revolvers, the semi-automatic only versions of the AR-15 (M16) and Kalashnikov design.

2. Firearms or weapons designed or modifed to fire explosive ammunition (grenade launchers, anti-tank weapons, etc.) as a standard should be prohibited with similiar exceptions. Again, civilians have no reasonable purpose for these items.

3. Anyone wishing to legally own a firearm should be required to obtain a licence. Licences should be available to anyone who has no criminal record, has no obligations to the courts, and is deemed mentally fit. To obtain a licence, one should need to take a comprehensive test covering basic firearm mechanics and workings, advanced safety and handling, as well as a psychological test for determining if they are indeed mentally fit or not. Once someone has got their licence, they should be able to own any firearm not falling under the above 2 categories, with no registration and minimal paperwork.

[Chainsaw Dundee]

I don't understand the fear of guns. Nor going through the hassle of regulations of having "registered" guns. You got a registered gun, now your name is on a list. If the situation ever escalates and they deem your arsenal obscene enough, they will raid you. And guess what...It will be easy for them to find you, because your name is on a list.

In San Francisco, handguns are illegal. This doesn't mean they are unheard of. It just means criminals have guns, and the law abiding people don't. Of course, that could be an exception. San Francisco is very socialist. Maybe it is their way of bringing equality to the poor disadvantaged criminals by making their job easier and less hazardous.

[BlackHawk]

In my mind, firearms are just tools, and any firearm is just as much a tool as a knife, though that isn't the best comparison, since knives are obviously more utilitarian than firearms. I believe that if someone really wants to kill somebody, he/she will find a way, whether it has anything to do with firearms or not. Likewise, if a criminal really wants a firearm, that person will get it legally or not. Criminals/outlaws by definition live outside the law, and if they are going to disobey laws regarding murder, what are gun laws to them? I know that this saying is probably overused in debates like this, but here goes anyway: "When all guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." Oversimplified, but it only makes sense. As far as relying on the police goes, what travels faster, a bullet or a cop car? (In this case, the bullet refers to a shot that a criminal may have fired). By the time the police arrive, the crime may well have been committed.
All that being said, I don't believe that everybody should be legally able to own any type of firearm, with no paperwork. My exceptions are:

1. Automatic firearms (Firearms that are designed or modified to fire more than one shot per pull of the trigger) should be prohibited, with extremely limited and rare exceptions, such as for the manufacturing company, or a collector with a deactivated automatic weapon, etc. Civilians have absolutely no purpose with these, and any situation in which a firearm is required (hunting, self-defense, etc.) can be dealt with just as well, or even more effectively, with a semi-automatic. As well, any firearms that can be easily converted to automatic firing should be prohibited. (Easily being the key word, as with enough work, many or most semi-automatics can be converted to automatic, if someone is appropriately determined). Any other type of firearm not easily convertable to automatic firing should be perfectly legal. This includes your normal hunting rifles, pistols, revolvers, the semi-automatic only versions of the AR-15 (M16) and Kalashnikov design.

2. Firearms or weapons designed or modifed to fire explosive ammunition (grenade launchers, anti-tank weapons, etc.) as a standard should be prohibited with similiar exceptions. Again, civilians have no reasonable purpose for these items.

3. Anyone wishing to legally own a firearm should be required to obtain a licence. Licences should be available to anyone who has no criminal record, has no obligations to the courts, and is deemed mentally fit. To obtain a licence, one should need to take a comprehensive test covering basic firearm mechanics and workings, advanced safety and handling, as well as a psychological test for determining if they are indeed mentally fit or not. Once someone has got their licence, they should be able to own any firearm not falling under the above 2 categories, with no registration and minimal paperwork.


This is probably the best post I've seen in the entire ten pages of discussion here that represents my views.

As a side point, an extreme desire for gun control usually stems from those who do not know anything about guns and fear the unknown. I believe that if firearms were more familiar to a larger portion of the American populace, the desire for gun control would go down because the "familiars" notice the facts: that there is less violent crime where private gun ownership is more prevalent.

[blueback]

Maybe it is their way of bringing equality to the poor disadvantaged criminals by making their job easier and less hazardous.

Ha ha! The criminals are sort of "pure" socialist in their redistribution of wealth.

[md21017md]

Brett, you are missing the 2nd ammendment. Hunting and self-defense are not what that is all about. It was created to give the citizens of ths country a last ditch method of getting rid of a totolarian government. In such a case, an automatic weapon does have a plce.

A shotgun has as much or more lead delivery than an automatic within 75 yards or so. No offense, but your arguement is sort of like the liberals that didn't understand guns and outlawed flash suppressors and ovr 10 round magazines because the seem scarrier.

A legally owned auto is a pain to get, ($200 stamp, back ground check, 6 months of time) and none have ever been traced to a crime in the US.

[blueback]

Oh, well that settles that. You should call up the Supreme Court and let them know that you figured out exactly what the 2nd amendment meant. Oh, and don't forget all the consitutional lawyers, and the scholars, and the historians, they'll all want to know too. While you're at it you might as well bring the founding fathers back from the past to back you up. <-sarcasm

There is no such thing as a definitive decision on what the founders meant when they wrote the 2nd amendment. At the time it wasn't really a big deal, I guess they just assumed everyone would understand it and moved on to more contentious things. Then there is the question of whether or not the constitution is a living document or not. Claiming that you have it all figured out and it's really simple is just ignorant.

[thod]

Brett, you are missing the 2nd ammendment. Hunting and self-defense are not what that is all about. It was created to give the citizens of ths country a last ditch method of getting rid of a totolarian government. In such a case, an automatic weapon does have a plce.

An argument for personal nukes, the government has them after all. The more firepower the easier to turn it on a crowd for a quick mass killing. Showing up in your tank at a football game and trying to get the whole crowd is sure to be a lot of fun. After all the government has tanks. Not all men are sane (tank buyers) and even sane ones have breakdowns. If you allowed personal nukes, well I never did like Chicago, the cities would empty.

[md21017md]

Read on

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


If you read the constitution, all the rights listed apply to citizens as an individual. In other words, you don't need to be part of a group (malitia) to have the right to free speach. The 2nd is the only ammendment so interpreted - my the gun banning liberals.


I don't have it figured out, I simply am reading something in black and white, there isn't much there to figure out.

Thod,

Simply put, we have a right to bear arms, plain and simple. If you don't like it, then don't come to the US, but to argue the point is a huge waste of time. Now, if you want to argue the point for another country with out such a gaurentee, tht is another thing.

As has been stated time and again, if you could snap your fingers and make every gun on the planet disappear, we would still probably have the same number of murders. Murder comes from mans heart, not an inanimate object. A gun is simply a tool, and we humans are great at adapting when we don't have the proper tool.


We were killing each other very effectively long before guns came around. To be hones, the iraq war, WW2 (minus the nukes and fire bombing of tokyo), WW1, there would have been far more deaths. Japan had 500 years of civil war. It was not uncommon for 20-30,000 men to die in one battle. It was only after guns were introduced and used did the stalemate end.

The Samurai had a saying, I forget it exactly, but it was in essence that sword saved lives by being in existance. The gist was that by virtue of being armed a samurai prevented violence and saved lives. I think this can equally apply to guns.

[thod]

Perhaps a compromise then and simply ban handguns.

All military style battles against the government will be using long guns. Hand guns play very little part in battles. Hunting is achieved with long guns never hand guns. You can protect your home by picking up a long gun as easily as a hand gun.

Very few people would be prepared to carry a long gun around with them as they walk the street looking for a crime. The role of the hand gun can be taken by tasers. This allows the criminal to taser you and steal your wallet but you live. You can taser him and escape. It is handguns that cause most of the problems.

I don't expect much from a supreme court packed with conservatives but they can be replaced and the motion brought again.

Simply put, we have a right to bear arms, plain and simple. If you don't like it, then don't come to the US, but to argue the point is a huge waste of time.

Not so easy to dismiss as that. If you want to bear arms then the issue of what arms are allowed is very relevant. You may wish to store cannisters of nerve gas for your self protection. I would worry about accidental fires wiping out the town or the owner losing his sanity. After all a gun is not much use if the whole of the townsfolk wants to get you. You need better weapons to defend yourself from them all.

If you want to murder someone then, I agree, you will find a way. However most gun crime is not committed by assassins. It is a spontaneous crime with one man losing his cool and producing a gun. Thus it is not a rational act but one of sudden emotion.

Here is an interesting article To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. A society without state enforced laws.

[brettsnyder]

Brett, you are missing the 2nd ammendment. Hunting and self-defense are not what that is all about. It was created to give the citizens of ths country a last ditch method of getting rid of a totolarian government. In such a case, an automatic weapon does have a plce.

A shotgun has as much or more lead delivery than an automatic within 75 yards or so. No offense, but your arguement is sort of like the liberals that didn't understand guns and outlawed flash suppressors and ovr 10 round magazines because the seem scarrier.

A legally owned auto is a pain to get, ($200 stamp, back ground check, 6 months of time) and none have ever been traced to a crime in the US.

I understand and respect what you are saying, but realise that I am Canadian, so the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to me, and I am not aware of current events in America. I have no problem with any magazine size, and you do have a very good, legitimate point with the automatics, I'll think about it. I am not entirely against automatics, despite what one may infer from my post. I just don't see much of a point point of a civilian owning a working automatic. I mean to offend no Americans with my next comment, or get into a historical debate, but you have to understand, as your country wnet through a revolution for independence, there will always be some revolutionary attitude in your culture, for better or for worse. What is seen as a totalitarian government by you will not necessarily be seen as such by someone from Canada like me, although I do have a fairly libertarian stance towards politics. Judging by what you typed in the bottom half of your last post, we hold more opinions in common than you seem to think. As far as our differing views go, I'm holding on to my views for now, but I won't discount your comments, as they are quite insightful. I appreciate that. I'll take a logical argument from a different point of view over an illogical argument from the same point of view as me.

As well md21017md, I'd like to hear your view on concealed carry laws. I for one believe that concealed carry should be perfectly legal with a firearms licence.

[blueback]

"Chief Justice John Roberts said at his confirmation hearing that the correct reading of the Second Amendment was "still very much an open issue." To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Well, based on the article you linked to, it looks like there is quite a lot to figure out. I win.

[md21017md]

Perhaps a compromise then and simply ban handguns.

All military style battles against the government will be using long guns. Hand guns play very little part in battles.

How do you know? The allies dropped very simple basic pistols behind German lines during WW2. They were small and easily made, and easily conceled by the local partisans.




Hunting is achieved with long guns never hand guns.

There are quite a few people that hunt with pistols.


You can protect your home by picking up a long gun as easily as a hand gun.

That is a point that could be depated, but is more a personal preferance. Again,. you are missing the point of the purpose of the second ammendment

Very few people would be prepared to carry a long gun around with them as they walk the street looking for a crime.

A long gun could easily be made concelable by cutting the barrel and stock, not the same as a pistol, but still could get the job done.


The role of the hand gun can be taken by tasers. This allows the criminal to taser you and steal your wallet but you live. You can taser him and escape. It is handguns that cause most of the problems.

Do you really thing a mugger is going to buy a taser when he can use a knife? If you think a taser is so great, I'll take a knife, and you can have a taser, willing to bet your life on it?



I don't expect much from a supreme court packed with conservatives but they can be replaced and the motion brought again.

Since you are not a US citizen, why would you expect anything?

Quote:
Thod, that is just a dumb assed comment detracting from the issue.

Not so easy to dismiss as that. If you want to bear arms then the issue of what arms are allowed is very relevant. You may wish to store cannisters of nerve gas for your self protection. I would worry about accidental fires wiping out the town or the owner losing his sanity. After all a gun is not much use if the whole of the townsfolk wants to get you. You need better weapons to defend yourself from them all.

You are just using liberal gibberish to cloud the issue.

If you want to murder someone then, I agree, you will find a way. However most gun crime is not committed by assassins. It is a spontaneous crime with one man losing his cool and producing a gun. Thus it is not a rational act but one of sudden emotion.

How do you know what most gun crime is?

Yes a lot is spontaneous, and exactly why gun control will not work. That same person in rage is just as likely to grab a knife or a rock to kill the object of his rage.



I have no problem with any magazine size, and you do have a very good, legitimate point with the automatics, I'll think about it. I am not entirely against automatics, despite what one may infer from my post. I just don't see much of a point point of a civilian owning a working automatic.

Glad you are at least open minded to the subject. Trying to say 1 gun is more dangerous than another is feel good stupidity at its best. A .38 special with 5 shots can be just as effective as a 9MM with 18 rounds. The extra capacity just allows one to be a worse shot, and maybe eventually hit thier target.

Go read "93 confirmed kills" It's about a guy named Carlos Hathcock. He was a sniper in Vietnam. Using a 4 shot 30/06 huntig rifle he and his spotter (who had an m-16, more capacity, but 1/2 the range) pinned down an NVA company for a couple days. They literally were not able to move out of the rice paddy he had them in until additianal troops came to finish the job. The type of weapon really matters little to a determined person.



I mean to offend no Americans with my next comment, or get into a historical debate, but you have to understand, as your country wnet through a revolution for independence, there will always be some revolutionary attitude in your culture, for better or for worse.

Absolutely, we as a rule do not take well to people telling us what to do.


What is seen as a totalitarian government by you will not necessarily be seen as such by someone from Canada like me, although I do have a fairly libertarian stance towards politics.

That is a given, and our constitution is to protect us, and give us liberties, not the rest of the world.


As far as our differing views go, I'm holding on to my views for now, but I won't discount your comments, as they are quite insightful.

As you are entitled to do. As I said many many times on here, if gun control works for your country, great, have at it. As a general rule, human nature is such that we will kill with any means, so gun control truley is a moot point, unless you are going to go extremes of punishment like in Saudi where you are beaten or executed for minor infractions. If that is how you want to live, again, have at it, just dont demand I agree or accept your lifestyle.



As well md21017md, I'd like to hear your view on concealed carry laws. I for one believe that concealed carry should be perfectly legal with a firearms licence.

It depends on how it's done. In my state, you can only get a carry permit to protect money, or a place of business (such as if you are a guard). You can not simply get a carry permit for self defense. The next state over where I once lived and did have a permit, has to give you the permit usless they can show cause not to. My state has far more problems that the other. Arizona has an open carry law - no permit so long as it's not conceled. Life is good there, much better than were I live. The long and short of it, it's another feel good legislation. The only ones that will follow it are honest people. Criminals will carry what and how they want.


See the problem is that there are plent of laws on the book, but once someone commits a crime, is sentenced, all the damn bleeding hear liberals come to his rescue. If' he's to be executed, they will pay his legal fees, write letters to the govenor, ther is no fear of punishment, because in reality there is none. The gun issue would be easily solved if we put someone in jail for life that used or possesed a gun during a crime. Or, even better, just being caught with an unregistered gun, you went to jail for life, well, I bet few would take the chance. But if we encated and enforced a law like that all the bleeding hearts would be all over itsawing it was unfair, that he didn't do anything with it yet. It's catch 22.





md21017md added to this post, 2 minutes and 41 seconds later...

Well, based on the article you linked to, it looks like there is quite a lot to figure out. I win.

You don't win shit, the fact that it's even being addressed by the court is a huge step ahead. They've refused to hear any cases because they knew they couldn't read it the way the liberals wanted

[TheLastMohican]

Hunting is achieved with long guns never hand guns.

So exactly what about this case would you not consider to be hunting?
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[blueback]

You don't win shit, the fact that it's even being addressed by the court is a huge step ahead. They've refused to hear any cases because they knew they couldn't read it the way the liberals wanted

Well, the article you used to support your argument specifically contradicted your argument and in fact supported my argument. . .I win. (I'm sticking out my tongue at the computer right now)

You seem to be awfully certain of your ability to know things for certain. Do you know one of the justices personally or something? Otherwise I can't see how you could possibly be so sure of a opinion which is based on the same information that conflicting opinions are based on.

[Wapiti]

Hunting is achieved with long guns never hand guns.


Hmmmm, simple google search shows otherwise.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Lets bust some caps on some pigs.

[Riverratt]

Perhaps a compromise then and simply ban handguns.

All military style battles against the government will be using long guns. Hand guns play very little part in battles. Hunting is achieved with long guns never hand guns. You can protect your home by picking up a long gun as easily as a hand gun.
.

WOW.....I am a hunter, whose last 5 kills where made with a handgun..

BTW, here is "one" of my firearms, that can be used for defence of property... ;D

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

BTW, it is MINE, and yes, it is completely legal....I don't care what any future laws say, that is MY personal property.

And for those of you that talk tough, about banning ammo...I have that covered too...

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Ahh, I also have the Ban "Primers, powders, and Bullets" crowd covered, but hey, 20 bucks will purchase A THOUSAND primers. so I can stock up!!

Brass is reusable, MANY times over..

I can make primers, out of "Strike anywhere" match heads....I can make gun powder, and in a pinch, I can make it too out of match heads as well...as for the bullets....LOL I have bullet molds, and tire wheel weights are everywhere...

But, hey, if you ban ammunition, you just created for ME, a HUGE BLACK MARKET :thumbsup:

Not only that, but the current political realities are that , gun control is dead, gun rights are the rule of the day. Gun control is being weakened all over the US in the past several years..

[elsdfr]

q: Whats worse than arguing on the Internet?

a: Arguing gun control with gun loving Americans... on the Internet. :p