NationStates Jolt Archive

I just have a question for all of the anti-gun people here. What makes your position or beliefs on the issue so perfect? Who are you to say what I can and cant own, being a law abiding citizen? If I want to own a machine gun (of which I own many), and have the liscence to do so, then I should be able to own it and shoot it anytime I want. No questions asked.

A Gun ban in the US will be impossible to implement, and all it will do is take away law abiding citizens rights away, criminals will not be affected in the least, since they do not get them legally in the first place.

I just have a question for all of the anti-gun people here. What makes your position or beliefs on the issue so perfect? Who are you to say what I can and cant own, being a law abiding citizen? If I want to own a machine gun (of which I own many), and have the liscence to do so, then I should be able to own it and shoot it anytime I want. No questions asked.

A Gun ban in the US will be impossible to implement, and all it will do is take away law abiding citizens rights away, criminals will not be affected in the least, since they do not get them legally in the first place.

they wont get them from me, arent you allowed to shoot someone if the tresspass in your house and you feel unsafe or that they are going to steal something by force, how exactly do they plan on getting them from us? My guess is theys come in your house (prob with a handgun on their belt) and try to steal them from us. lol

they wont get them from me, arent you allowed to shoot someone if the tresspass in your house and you feel unsafe or that they are going to steal something by force, how exactly do they plan on getting them from us? My guess is theys come in your house (prob with a handgun on their belt) and try to steal them from us. lol

yeah you can, just make sure you shoot the intruder in the chest and not in the back. If he is facing away from you, get his attention somehow and get him to face you, then shoot him. And use the magic words...."I feared for my life" ;).

I just have a question for all of the anti-gun people here. What makes your position or beliefs on the issue so perfect? Who are you to say what I can and cant own, being a law abiding citizen? If I want to own a machine gun (of which I own many), and have the liscence to do so, then I should be able to own it and shoot it anytime I want. No questions asked.

A Gun ban in the US will be impossible to implement, and all it will do is take away law abiding citizens rights away, criminals will not be affected in the least, since they do not get them legally in the first place.

They want to take away our freedoms because their statist elitest scum. They hate the Constitution. They hate firearms because they don't understand them. They're afraid of them because they've been brainwashed to believe Sarah Brady & Clinton anti-gun scare-tactics.......

i think that ALL semi and full auto weapons should be banned.

All full-auto firearms have been banned since their creation. You can't make something "more illegal," but Heaven knows, the Left will try......

Single shot rifles only.. that way we could prevent a large scale massacre like that at columbine and many other schools and even homes.

I can just as easily kill someone with a single-shot rifle as I can with a semi-auto rifle. Again, at Columbine, the killers also had pipe-bombs. If they didn't have firearms, they would have used their bombs. And killed even more people than they did.....

I do not think the public can be trusted with any semi or rapid fire weapons as proven time and time again as the death toll rises all over the world day by day as individual citizens shoot eachother for numerouse reasons ranging from accidents to blind rage, to insanity.

Why do you consider the public to be so ignorant? Why do you think we're stupid? We can't be trusted to own firearms for recreation and defense?

Bad analogy time: Hitler was European. He raised a mighty military and killed millions in WWII. Thusly, no European nation can be trusted to have a military ever again.

Your logic sucks royal blue monkeys......

Of couse a gun may fall into the hands of a sensible person but we are refering to how many people could be killed with a semi-auto weapon in the hands of a maniac, 0 kills for sensible, 10 kills for insane- it doesnt balance.

Their are two hundred million plus sensible gun owners in America. Why do you think we're all ignorant, irresponsible children?

In my opinion guns should be kept by the military and police..

So you hate freedom so much that you want a police state? Wow. I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for clearing up your positition......

Me!

if you must quote facts quote .gov sites or non partisan statistics sites or i could care less

addition: international crime vicitmization survery based on telephone calls, not recorded information

Ha! That's rich. 'Specially coming from the person who quotes Sarah Brady and claims her to be unbias and credible......

Me!

yeah you can, just make sure you shoot the intruder in the chest and not in the back. If he is facing away from you, get his attention somehow and get him to face you, then shoot him. And use the magic words...."I feared for my life" ;).

lol but u gotta make sure u kill them good because if they run outside and die your screwed. lol

1. No. For hunting and target shooting purposes, bolt action or double-barrelled weapons are sufficient. IMHO, these are the only two legitimate reasons for owning a gun (outside of security personnel, farmers or other occupations that require it). If you want to get your rocks off blasting away on full/semi auto (and I'll be the first to admit, this IS a lot of fun), regulated firing ranges could be set up where you hire a gun on site, and return it when finished.

So pump shotguns are deadly weapons that can't we can't be trusted to hunt with? (They're not on your list of acceptable firearms). I hunt geese, duck, and grouse with my Ithaca Model 37 12 gauge (poly chokes kick ass!). Is that an inappropriate firearm? Hell no. I hunt whitetails with my .250 Savage lever-action. Is that an inappropriate firearm? Hell no. Could I still kill many people with both types? Yes. Yes, I could.

2. No. If you don't feel safe in your own home without a gun, something is seriously f****ed up in your society. Instead of demanding to own an AK, you should be demanding more of your police force (and/or more police) and more of your government in terms of welfare and rehabilitation programs. If you still feel unsafe - buy a guard dog; fit your home with deadlocks and security shutters; get an alarm system.

There goes the Left with the solution to everything. Throw more gov't at it it and it will fix itself. More gov't is never the solution to anything......

3. Registration should be required for all guns - no one should own a gun that is not registered. Personally, I'd like to see ballistics records kept for all registered guns, and for gun license applications to be accompanied by a basic psyche evalutation.

I'm sorry if I don't want the gov't to have a master-list of every firearm I own and where I live.....

4. Guns kept at home should be kept in a locked gun safe - to keep them out of the reach of children, and to help keep them out of the hands of potential thieves. Also, to help prevent rage killings i.e. husband comes home and finds wife in bed with the milkman. (see also my answer for number 2)

Great! More private invasion by the government! Just what everyone wants..... :rolleyes:

5. Anyone with a (violent) criminal history, and/or history of serious mental illness should be disallowed.

That's already in effect......

Me!

Ha! That's rich. 'Specially coming from the person who quotes Sarah Brady and claims her to be unbias and credible......

Me!
ignore people get ignored. ie you

ignore people get ignored. ie you

Wait, are you ignoreing him because he ignored you, or are you ignoring him because he brought up a valid point against you?

Colerica - well said!

Wait, are you ignoreing him because he ignored you, or are you ignoring him because he brought up a valid point against you?
i am ignoring him because he wont listen to point other than his own. read the past 3 pages. apparently guns are not designed to kill or wound. ANYTHING, ANY GUN. apparently cars ARE designed to kill. and apparently the pro-gun NRA touted people quoting statistics 4 years after the AWB (low crime not hgih crime rates) for the removal of the assault weapons ban is more reliable and unbias than the brady bill website listing the reasons for the bill and what it includes

ignore people get ignored. ie you

The last resort of the soundly defeated.......face it, you've been owned....several times....

Me!

On a related note....That Bullshiat assault weapon ban expires in 6 days. Its about time!

you're right maybe we shouldnt take away guns.. i mean they influence the world too much i mean look at these emoticons.,. :sniper: :mp5: :gundge:

Everyone here is always talking about "their rights" please expalin waht are the consitutional rights concirning guns in america and please no answers from gun hicks here.. lol

you're right maybe we shouldnt take away guns.. i mean they influence the world too much i mean look at these emoticons.,. :sniper: :mp5: :gundge:

Everyone here is always talking about "their rights" please expalin waht are the consitutional rights concirning guns in america and please no answers from gun hicks here.. lol

come to where i live and call us gun hicks, we'll see what happens

Everyone here is always talking about "their rights" please expalin waht are the consitutional rights concirning guns in america and please no answers from gun hicks here.. lol

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution reads, quote, "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."

And enough with the generalizations here, people. Just because we own firearms doesn't mean we're toothless redneck hicks.....

Me!

you callin all gun owners hicks is like me callin all non gun owners liberal democratic yankees, or european, but thats a broad generalazation.

i think that ALL semi and full auto weapons should be banned. Single shot rifles only.. that way we could prevent a large scale massacre like that at columbine and many other schools and even homes. I do not think the public can be trusted with any semi or rapid fire weapons as proven time and time again as the death toll rises all over the world day by day as individual citizens shoot eachother for numerouse reasons ranging from accidents to blind rage, to insanity. Of couse a gun may fall into the hands of a sensible person but we are refering to how many people could be killed with a semi-auto weapon in the hands of a maniac, 0 kills for sensible, 10 kills for insane- it doesnt balance. In my opinion guns should be kept by the military and police.. the public can access them at ranges or designated fields, private controlled shooting/hunting clubs and not to own one individually or especially not to keep it at home. i am not saying this to be bias at all for those who are hateing the words i am writing. First of all i love guns! I own two rifles, one semi auto and the other bolt action, i go airsofting regularly and am always interested in the new foreign design of guns. I am willing to give both of them up in a second if someone offered to place more legal restrictions on gun laws, and take guns out of public hands (including my own). Remeber, if everyone disarms there is not much to fear by the way of gun related crime. Other countries already have and in many places gun crime is practically non existant, as the world's only hyperpower, the united states, set an example to the rest of the world and disarm the citizens.


Doing it your way is the fastest way to Tianamen. THAT is what happens when the populace is disarmed.

if you must quote facts quote .gov sites or non partisan statistics sites or i could care less

addition: international crime vicitmization survery based on telephone calls, not recorded information

Oh, now you think the GOVERNMENT is telling you the truth...? You're pretty misinformed.

I think someone else brought it up as well, if you're going to tell us not to use partisan sites, the Brady Bunch crap is out as well. Now what are you going to use????

they wont get them from me, arent you allowed to shoot someone if the tresspass in your house and you feel unsafe or that they are going to steal something by force, how exactly do they plan on getting them from us? My guess is theys come in your house (prob with a handgun on their belt) and try to steal them from us. lol

I think it depends on municipality and some are a bit more strict than others but the strickest of them in the US still allows you to use deadly force on anyone that is threatening the life of yourself or another as long as that deadly force could save you or another's life.

Like I was saying earlier in Eugene/Springfield Oregon a man's daughter let him know that her drug dealer had threatened to take her life if she did not pay up. He followed the man to a Carl's Jr. and killed him in broad daylight inside the Cjr's. The drug dealer was not armed and after further questioning the killing was viewed as justified.

The leading cause of deaths in the US (of all ages) as of september 16, 2002 is as follows as compiled from data reported by the National Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 50, No. 15, September 16, 2002

Out of all causes combined deaths of 2,403,351.
Major Cardiovasular Diseases: 39.0%
Malignant Neoplasms: 23.0%
Chronic Lower Resperitory Dis: 5.1%
Diabetes Mellitus: 2.9%
Influenza and Pneumonia: 2.7%
Alzheimers: 2.1%
Motor Vehicle Accidents: 1.8%
Renal Failure: 1.5%
Septicemia: 1.3%
Firearms: 1.2%

Leading Causes of *Accidental* Death (of all ages) in the United States:
as compiled from data reported by the National Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 50, No. 15, September 16, 2002

Motor Vehicle: 44.3%
Unspecified nontransport accid'ts: 17.8%
Falls: 13.6%
Poisoning and Noxious Subst's: 13.0 %
Drowning: 3.9 %
Exposure to Smoke, Fire, Flames: 3.4 %
Other Land Transport Accidents: 1.5 %
Complications of Med/Surg Care: 3.1%
Accidental Discharge of Firearms: 0.8 %

Why does the UK have so much less gun crime than the US?Let me think...

Why is gun crime in the UK shooting upwards and gun crime in Shall Issue CCW states dropping?

Let me think...

Because in the UK, only criminals and police have guns, and the police can't be everywhere.

And in the CCW states, criminals don't know what potential victim might be able to fight back.

For god's sake, why can no-one see that banning something DOES NOT keep criminals from getting it! :headbang: Look at drugs and prohibition! And you are all trying to do it again!

guns are designed to WOUND or KILL, stop being stupid please
tell me the purpose of a .22 bolt action rifle


The rifle I was talking about is used for 25yard indoor target shooting and is practically useless for anything else.


small game hunting, can be used for target practice as well. seeing as how i HAVE killed something with a .22 that means they are designed to kill


So if someone is killed by a car, the car is designed to kill? Same logic for a knife?


and again, even a PAINTBALL gun can wound some one, stop being stupid gun nuts people. reality is there, just look at it.

So what?

ANYTHING can wound someone!


go stand down range and have some one aim at you, see if you die or are wounded when shot.


So if I told you to stand on the motorway and see if you die when you are run over, that would be a logical arguement that cars are designed to kill?


bows are designed to kill, as per the invention of guns they are mainly used in games of skill, but there ARE bow hunting seasons, if you shoot an arrow at some one, they are injured. despite what you dumbfucks thing, people will die or be injured if shot by an arrow or a bullet. just because people arnt being shot at in gun ranges doesnt mean the guns arnt dangerous, how fucking stupid are you people?


I never claimed they weren't dangerous. They are. So are cars. It's a leap to go from saying they are dangerous when misused to saying they are all designed and used for killing.

You didn't answer this:

The shotput? Javelin?

The are all teaching you to cast a projectile, so they must be training you to kill, right?


name one rifle designed to shoot targets only.

Name one car designed to drive through empty space only.


the design of all guns is to move a projectile through the air to a target. a human being can be a target. and "target rifles" are small game rifles.
The design of all cars is to move itself from one place to another. A human being can be in the path of any car.

Face it, you have no logic on your side.
Craig

Oh, now you think the GOVERNMENT is telling you the truth...? You're pretty misinformed.

I think someone else brought it up as well, if you're going to tell us not to use partisan sites, the Brady Bunch crap is out as well. Now what are you going to use????
well im pretty sure the brady bill knows what the assault weapons ban part of it entails.

and its just as unbias as quoting assault gun statistics as being too low FOUR FUCKING YEARS after the AWB was put in place as a reason to remove it

The rifle I was talking about is used for 25yard indoor target shooting and is practically useless for anything else.



So if someone is killed by a car, the car is designed to kill? Same logic for a knife?


So what?

ANYTHING can wound someone!



So if I told you to stand on the motorway and see if you die when you are run over, that would be a logical arguement that cars are designed to kill?



I never claimed they weren't dangerous. They are. So are cars. It's a leap to go from saying they are dangerous when misused to saying they are all designed and used for killing.

You didn't answer this:

The shotput? Javelin?

The are all teaching you to cast a projectile, so they must be training you to kill, right?


Name one car designed to drive through empty space only.


The design of all cars is to move itself from one place to another. A human being can be in the path of any car.

Face it, you have no logic on your side.
Craig
you can make as many puppet accounts as you want, you are still an ignorant idiot, try not tagging posts in the same way, its suspicious

i think that ALL semi and full auto weapons should be banned. Single shot rifles only.. that way we could prevent a large scale massacre like that at columbine and many other schools and even homes.

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Just like most drugs except for alcohol and nicotine are banned?
That way we stop people taking drugs, right?


Of couse a gun may fall into the hands of a sensible person but we are refering to how many people could be killed with a semi-auto weapon in the hands of a maniac, 0 kills for sensible, 10 kills for insane- it doesnt balance.


And what stops a maniac getting a gun if they are banned? The same thing that stops a junkie getting cocaine?

You only stop legitimate gun users, and the potential victims of the maniacs, having guns when you ban them.


Remeber, if everyone disarms there is not much to fear by the way of gun related crime.


You think everyone is going to disarm?

I know a few people who won't. Muggers, murderers, burglars, rapists :mp5: .

Craig

Why is gun crime in the UK shooting upwards and gun crime in Shall Issue CCW states dropping?

Let me think...

Because in the UK, only criminals and police have guns, and the police can't be everywhere.

And in the CCW states, criminals don't know what potential victim might be able to fight back.

For god's sake, why can no-one see that banning something DOES NOT keep criminals from getting it! :headbang: Look at drugs and prohibition! And you are all trying to do it again!
and drugs are STILL illegal, try again

you can make as many puppet accounts as you want, you are still an ignorant idiot, try not tagging posts in the same way, its suspicious

Note: No answer to the post!!

And yes I have two accounts, sometimes I end up signed into one and no the other. I've made no attempt to hide who I am!

Craig (Under Kiwicrog and Rustpile Bike)

and drugs are STILL illegal, try again

Please anybody or someone please help this guy out. Honestly you do not understand that what you just said backs up the reason not to have complete bans of anything? I know you are smarter than you try to appear on here. You have to be.

the only way to secure true freedom for a nations citizens is to allow them to own heavy weapons. small arms are virtually useless in the defense of liberty
against a tryranical state.

In fact, it was mostly privately funded militias that fought for the US right up to the American Civil War. Heavy weapons and all. Then the Feds got their hooks in and created the AR & NG. These are purported to be the current equivalent of state militias.
We sure can rest easy now that the Reserves and National Guard are protecting us from a tyrannical or zealous turn of the government, despite being under its control and paid by it.

And IMO, the only acceptable form of Gun Control is being able to hit your target center of mass from maximum effective range.
:sniper:

Because in the UK, only criminals and police have guns, and the police can't be everywhere.

As I recall, the classic English Bobby doesn't generally carry either, so only the criminals have the guns. I hope for their sake that this has changed.

As I recall, the classic English Bobby doesn't generally carry either, so only the criminals have the guns. I hope for their sake that this has changed.

Hmm, if I were a criminal I'd sure be considering a move to England!

Far less risk than in the states. Could rape, steal and murder with little chance of personal injury! :(

Craig

I think the U.S. wouldn't have the right to ban Firearms if a militia were neccisary but its not. The government has the right to ban anything that the people do not need guns fall inot that category if we could spend more on social programs.

The government has the right to ban anything that the people do not need
Really?

We don't need free speech to live. Ban internet access and censor newspapers?

We don't need alcohol or cigarettes, ban them?

Ban fast cars, golf, beach volleyball?

Ban marriage? Ban music? Ban art?


:mad: How can you have that philosophy!?!? :mad:

Craig

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lott/lott30.html

Anti-gun nuts love to talk about the comparison between the UK and the US, so let's compare them....

"Crime was not supposed to rise after handguns were banned in 1997. Yet, since 1996 the serious violent crime rate has soared by 69%: robbery is up by 45% and murders up by 54%. Before the law, armed robberies had fallen by 50% from 1993 to 1997, but as soon as handguns were banned the robbery rate shot back up, almost back to their 1993 levels.

The 2000 International Crime Victimization Survey, the last survey done, shows the violent-crime rate in England and Wales was twice the rate in the U.S. When the new survey for 2004 comes out, that gap will undoubtedly have widened even further as crimes reported to British police have since soared by 35%, while declining 6% in the U.S."

Remember, guns don't kill people, rappas do.
Ahhhhh a link from a pro-gun site. Try getting the real stats?

BTW, if guns were banned in the UK in 1997, why does the link say that crime was up since 1996 (before guns were even banned)?

I am an avid gun owner, carry a concealed weapon at all times, and have a class 3 machine gun liscence. I do believe my right to own firearms, being a law abiding citizen, is worth fighting for. Charlton Heston put it better than I ever could..."Cold Dead Hands.." No one is taking any of the 46 rifles or 19 handguns I own without a big fight.

So if there is a ban on handguns or semi-automatic weapons, look in the news. I swear I will make Ruby Ridge look like a insignificant scuffle. Federal, State, County, and City law enforcement officials will just have to stand by......


^^^ Here he is folks, the poster boy for why weapons need tighter regulations.

The problem a lot of people seem to have is realising America is NOT the only country in the world where people can own firearms- New Zealand, for example, has a ridiculously low Murder Rate, yet it's still perfectly legal to own an AK-47 or an AR-15 for Hunting. Hell, you could own a semi-auto only Lewis Gun if you wanted to.

Australia, on the other hand, has strict gun laws and comparatively high rates of gun crime.

IMO, all Gun Control does is piss off legitimate firearms users, cost the public lots of money, and fail to keep guns out of the hands of Criminals.

Can you back that up with some figures?

^^^ Here he is folks, the poster boy for why weapons need tighter regulations.

*Sigh*

I do not support that attitude or action but FFS, isn't this a great example of why more regulations wouldn't work?

Craig

You don't need a semi-automatic to hunt.

Wrong. A semi-auto weapon is actually perfect for hunting. An automatic weapon is ridiculous, I grant that. However, a semi-auto weapon saves you the time and irritation of having to individually load every bullet. However, in the case of the 2nd amendment, the use of the term militia should be pointed out. Since all of the states had their own militia at this time, which was their own small army, the word is very easily deciphered. Therefore, the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the case of a single private citizen who owns a 30/30 for hunting. However, attempting to tighten gun control laws is really an excercise in futility. This is simply because after you do this, there will still be gun fairs. At a gun fair, you can buy an unregistered gun, and no one can trace it back to you. In fact, there are still numerous ways to get an unregistered gun. To make it more difficult for a law-abiding citizen to own one will only leave them helpless the next time an armed robber decides to break into their house.

small game hunting, can be used for target practice as well. seeing as how i HAVE killed something with a .22 that means they are designed to kill


I once killed a red squirrel with a hammer. Does that mean all hammers are designed to kill?


guns are designed to WOUND or KILL, stop being stupid please
tell me the purpose of a .22 bolt action rifle

Stop with the insults. It's really annoying....

and again, even a PAINTBALL gun can wound some one, stop being stupid gun nuts people. reality is there, just look at it.

Stop with the insults. It's really annoying....

bows are designed to kill, as per the invention of guns they are mainly used in games of skill, but there ARE bow hunting seasons, if you shoot an arrow at some one, they are injured. despite what you dumbfucks thing, people will die or be injured if shot by an arrow or a bullet. just because people arnt being shot at in gun ranges doesnt mean the guns arnt dangerous, how fucking stupid are you people?


Stop with the insults. It's really annoying....

you can make as many puppet accounts as you want, you are still an ignorant idiot, try not tagging posts in the same way, its suspicious

Stop with the insults. It's really annoying.....

I think the U.S. wouldn't have the right to ban Firearms if a militia were neccisary but its not. The government has the right to ban anything that the people do not need guns fall inot that category if we could spend more on social programs.

Why is more gov't the only solution you guys come up with for every problem? Government isn't the solution; it's the problem.....

Ahhhhh a link from a pro-gun site. Try getting the real stats?


As oppossed to using a link to an anti-gun site? What, are the stats on LewRockwell.com 'fake' stats?

Me!

Wrong. A semi-auto weapon is actually perfect for hunting. An automatic weapon is ridiculous, I grant that. However, a semi-auto weapon saves you the time and irritation of having to individually load every bullet. However, in the case of the 2nd amendment, the use of the term militia should be pointed out. Since all of the states had their own militia at this time, which was their own small army, the word is very easily deciphered. Therefore, the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the case of a single private citizen who owns a 30/30 for hunting.


Oh but that is where you are wrong. Oh so very wrong. Wherever the words "the right of the people" are mentioned in the United States Constitution, it refers to a right individually retained to each and every American citizen. And just a quick look at a few quotes from two of our Founding Fathers, Patrick Henry and George Washington, that show their intent.....

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense?" Patrick Henry.

"The great object is that every man be armed," Patrick Henry.

"When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour," George Washington.

I could list several more from several other of our Founders. Would you like me to do so?

Me!

Wrong. A semi-auto weapon is actually perfect for hunting. An automatic weapon is ridiculous, I grant that. However, a semi-auto weapon saves you the time and irritation of having to individually load every bullet. However, in the case of the 2nd amendment, the use of the term militia should be pointed out. Since all of the states had their own militia at this time, which was their own small army, the word is very easily deciphered. Therefore, the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the case of a single private citizen who owns a 30/30 for hunting. However, attempting to tighten gun control laws is really an excercise in futility. This is simply because after you do this, there will still be gun fairs. At a gun fair, you can buy an unregistered gun, and no one can trace it back to you. In fact, there are still numerous ways to get an unregistered gun. To make it more difficult for a law-abiding citizen to own one will only leave them helpless the next time an armed robber decides to break into their house.
which should not be legal even if we allowed the average citizen to own a fully automatic weapon

Wrong. A semi-auto weapon is actually perfect for hunting. An automatic weapon is ridiculous, I grant that. However, a semi-auto weapon saves you the time and irritation of having to individually load every bullet.
Bah, the preferred way of hunting is with bare hands, or maybe a small knife.

which should not be legal even if we allowed the average citizen to own a fully automatic weapon

Full-auto firearms have been banned since their creation....

Me!

Well, I'm all for responsible, regulated gun ownership.

To me the most relevant issues are:

1. Do the general public genuinely need to own semi- or full-auto firearms?
2. Is home defence really a legitimate reason to own a gun?
3. How thorough should the registration process be?
4. What regulations should be in place regarding gun storage?
5. On what basis should someone be disallowed form owning any firearms?

I'll give my own (brief) opinion on each -

1. No. For hunting and target shooting purposes, bolt action or double-barrelled weapons are sufficient. IMHO, these are the only two legitimate reasons for owning a gun (outside of security personnel, farmers or other occupations that require it). If you want to get your rocks off blasting away on full/semi auto (and I'll be the first to admit, this IS a lot of fun), regulated firing ranges could be set up where you hire a gun on site, and return it when finished.
2. No. If you don't feel safe in your own home without a gun, something is seriously f****ed up in your society. Instead of demanding to own an AK, you should be demanding more of your police force (and/or more police) and more of your government in terms of welfare and rehabilitation programs. If you still feel unsafe - buy a guard dog; fit your home with deadlocks and security shutters; get an alarm system.
3. Registration should be required for all guns - no one should own a gun that is not registered. Personally, I'd like to see ballistics records kept for all registered guns, and for gun license applications to be accompanied by a basic psyche evalutation.
4. Guns kept at home should be kept in a locked gun safe - to keep them out of the reach of children, and to help keep them out of the hands of potential thieves. Also, to help prevent rage killings i.e. husband comes home and finds wife in bed with the milkman. (see also my answer for number 2)
5. Anyone with a (violent) criminal history, and/or history of serious mental illness should be disallowed.

I know this will make me unpopular with many, but these are just my opinions.

1. So pump shotguns are deadly weapons that can't we can't be trusted to hunt with? (They're not on your list of acceptable firearms). I hunt geese, duck, and grouse with my Ithaca Model 37 12 gauge (poly chokes kick ass!). Is that an inappropriate firearm? Hell no. I hunt whitetails with my .250 Savage lever-action. Is that an inappropriate firearm? Hell no. Could I still kill many people with both types? Yes. Yes, I could.



2. There goes the Left with the solution to everything. Throw more gov't at it it and it will fix itself. More gov't is never the solution to anything......



3. I'm sorry if I don't want the gov't to have a master-list of every firearm I own and where I live.....



4. Great! More private invasion by the government! Just what everyone wants..... :rolleyes:



5. That's already in effect......

Me!

1. Are you hunting or exterminating pests? If you are just hunting to take down the maximum number of birds, then fine, use your pump gun. Any bird hunter with a modicum of skill can do very well with a single or double barrell shotgun. Why not just get yourself an AA flak cannon and sit back on a Laz-E-Boy and see how many you can bring down. ;) As for lethality - you can kill people with any firearm, even a meager .22 rifle. That's why my point has always been not a total ban, but a tighter control on more lethal weapons (higher ROF, bigger mag capacity = more killing power). It's a matter of degrees, not black and white - if it weren't then you'd be allowed to own LAWs, wouldn't you.

2. Well, yes. What's better - to fix a problem at it's roots, or to use a quick fix? I'm sorry if you feel scared in your own home - but sleeping with a gun under the bed isn't the best solution. Maybe you could spend some of your household "arms budget" on a guard dog and security system? Again I state - if you don't feel safe in your own home, maybe, just maybe, something is seriously wrong in society and needs to be addressed by LONG TERM solutions.

3. Why? Planning on killing someone, and don't want to get caught? Seriously dude, what do you have to hide? It's not like I'm asking you to have a government camera peeking in on you while you shower. Why the paranoia? Can you give me a legit reason why this would violate your rights?

4. Yes, heaven forbid that you make it harder for someone to steal your precious gun, or try to keep it out of the hands of kids. Maybe you just don't feel "manly" enough without your gun in easy reach? (I'd suggest some body building or martial arts lessons to increase your self condifence).

5. You must have missed it, but I have already stated that I know that is in effect, and just wanted clarification if it's uniform accross all states.

Can you not tell the difference between someone wanting a little common sense and control applied to gun ownership, and someone who wants all guns banned accross the board? I'll give you a hint - I'm in the earlier camp. I'm quite a gun and hunting enthusiast myself, I'd hate to see a total ban as much as you would. ;)

Bah, the preferred way of hunting is with bare hands, or maybe a small knife.
or a car because we all know those are designed to kill things, perfect for squirrel hunting :rolleyes:

*Sigh*

I do not support that attitude or action but FFS, isn't this a great example of why more regulations wouldn't work?

Craig

So, you consider the argument "if you make me give back my guns I'll go on a killing spree" a valid argument?

or a car because we all know those are designed to kill things, perfect for squirrel hunting :rolleyes:
I take it you've never even tried

It's actually quite easy. Just a couple months ago I had a nice wrestling match with a wolf.

1. Are you hunting or exterminating pests? If you are just hunting to take down the maximum number of birds, then fine, use your pump gun. Any bird hunter with a modicum of skill can do very well with a single or double barrell shotgun. Why not just get yourself an AA flak cannon and sit back on a Laz-E-Boy and see how many you can bring down. ;) As for lethality - you can kill people with any firearm, even a meager .22 rifle. That's why my point has always been not a total ban, but a tighter control on more lethal weapons (higher ROF, bigger mag capacity = more killing power). It's a matter of degrees, not black and white - if it weren't then you'd be allowed to own LAWs, wouldn't you.
they dont understand designed to kill small rodents means killing

2. Well, yes. What's better - to fix a problem at it's roots, or to use a quick fix? I'm sorry if you feel scared in your own home - but sleeping with a gun under the bed isn't the best solution. Maybe you could spend some of your household "arms budget" on a guard dog and security system? Again I state - if you don't feel safe in your own home, maybe, just maybe, something is seriously wrong in society and needs to be addressed by LONG TERM solutions.
dont need no stinking guard dog i need an AK so i can utterly mutilate the burglar in my house ! :rolleyes:

3. Why? Planning on killing someone, and don't want to get caught? Seriously dude, what do you have to hide? It's not like I'm asking you to have a government camera peeking in on you while you shower. Why the paranoia? Can you give me a legit reason why this would violate your rights?
bingo, they rather have the credit card company, outdoor magazine, hunting and fishing magazines and newspaper producer knowing their credit card number, where they live, what they like to buy , their or their mothers maiden name, how many people they live with and when they move rather than the government knowing if they own a gun and nothing else

4. Yes, heaven forbid that you make it harder for someone to steal your precious gun, or try to keep it out of the hands of kids. Maybe you just don't feel "manly" enough without your gun in easy reach? (I'd suggest some body building or martial arts lessons to increase your self condifence).
but nobody will find it if i stick it under my bed or on a shelf :rolleyes:

5. You must have missed it, but I have already stated that I know that is in effect, and just wanted clarification if it's uniform accross all states.

Can you not tell the difference between someone wanting a little common sense and control applied to gun ownership, and someone who wants all guns banned accross the board? I'll give you a hint - I'm in the earlier camp. I'm quite a gun and hunting enthusiast myself, I'd hate to see a total ban as much as you would. ;)
COMMON SENSE!?!?!?11//11/?! what the hellz iz you smoking!111!1

I encourage anyone who thinks that banning guns will make violent crimes go down to read this article.
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/BritainToyGunsWSJE.html
Possibly you should rethink your position.

1. Are you hunting or exterminating pests? If you are just hunting to take down the maximum number of birds, then fine, use your pump gun. Any bird hunter with a modicum of skill can do very well with a single or double barrell shotgun. Why not just get yourself an AA flak cannon and sit back on a Laz-E-Boy and see how many you can bring down. ;) As for lethality - you can kill people with any firearm, even a meager .22 rifle. That's why my point has always been not a total ban, but a tighter control on more lethal weapons (higher ROF, bigger mag capacity = more killing power). It's a matter of degrees, not black and white - if it weren't then you'd be allowed to own LAWs, wouldn't you.

I hunt for sport and natural meat substitution to my diet. Where do you draw the line, though? Once a part of something gets banned, pressure is put on to ban the rest. Once one branch of the liberty tree is cut off, more begin to be cut off.....

2. Well, yes. What's better - to fix a problem at it's roots, or to use a quick fix? I'm sorry if you feel scared in your own home - but sleeping with a gun under the bed isn't the best solution. Maybe you could spend some of your household "arms budget" on a guard dog and security system? Again I state - if you don't feel safe in your own home, maybe, just maybe, something is seriously wrong in society and needs to be addressed by LONG TERM solutions.

You're misunderstanding what I'm saying. Throwing more government at something never solves anything. It only adds to limiting people's rights and freedoms. Bigger government never helps; it only harms.....I live in a town of seventeen hundred people. I don't fear any criminals. I have a dog, (albeit he's a poodle/terrier). Why do you think that just because I want to be safe, I'm paranoid?


3. Why? Planning on killing someone, and don't want to get caught? Seriously dude, what do you have to hide? It's not like I'm asking you to have a government camera peeking in on you while you shower. Why the paranoia? Can you give me a legit reason why this would violate your rights?

I'm sorry if I want a little privacy from the government. Why are so many people up in arms against the PATRIOT Act? Do you want the gov't checking what library book you have out? I don't. Just as I don't want the gov't having a list of every firearm I own and where I live attached to that list. Because, sooner or later, the gov't would send its boys in blue to take my firearms from me. It's happened every time. The gov't says "well, we'll just have you register the guns." Then, to quote Emeril, "Bam!" The gov't snatches those registered firearms from its citizens......

4. Yes, heaven forbid that you make it harder for someone to steal your precious gun, or try to keep it out of the hands of kids. Maybe you just don't feel "manly" enough without your gun in easy reach? (I'd suggest some body building or martial arts lessons to increase your self condifence).

That's another thing. You people think that gun owners have self-confidence issues so we have to have firearms to over-compensate for whatever we're lacking. As my girlfriend will more than testify on my behalf; I'm not lacking anything. ;) It's not an issue about being 'manly' or anything. It's about civil liberties. I thought you people wanted more civil liberties, more freedom, and more rights? Oh wait, you only want the rights to subjects you agree with......I understand.....

5. You must have missed it, but I have already stated that I know that is in effect, and just wanted clarification if it's uniform accross all states.

It appears I did miss that. My bad.....


Can you not tell the sifference between someone watning a little common sense and control applied to gun ownership, and someone who wants all guns banned accross the boars? I'll give you a hint - I'm in the earlier camp. I'm quite a gun and hunting enthusiast myself, I'd hate to see a total ban as much as you would. ;)

By the line of the Constitution, any amount of gun restriction is against the Second Amenmdent. I'm glad that you're an avid gun owner and hunter....

Me!

dont need no stinking guard dog i need an AK so i can utterly mutilate the burglar in my house ! :rolleyes:

I'm not advocating the ownership of an AK-47. That's another thing. When the fringe anti-gunners, like you, get on this, all you can think about is AK's, M-16's, AT-4's, flak vests, and "cop-killer" bullets [sic].....

bingo, they rather have the credit card company, outdoor magazine, hunting and fishing magazines and newspaper producer knowing their credit card number, where they live, what they like to buy , their or their mothers maiden name, how many people they live with and when they move rather than the government knowing if they own a gun and nothing else

If you want the gov't breathing down your neck, go right ahead. Just don't cry when you're living in the totalitarian police state that you want.....

Me!

I encourage anyone who thinks that banning guns will make violent crimes go down to read this article.
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/BritainToyGunsWSJE.html
Possibly you should rethink your position.
it makes GUN crimes go down...which is the point.

it makes GUN crimes go down...which is the point.

And then every other violent crime goes through the roof......moreover, banning guns does nothing to remove the guns that are in the hands of criminals, as criminals -- FYI -- do not follow the law....

Me!

if you do not want to what i think look away now
guns are bad!!! in england we have an unarmed police force as there no need for guns because the baddies cant get em this saves millions and when peaple riot they dont have guns so they police just use tear gas a smack a few protesters with clubs and maybe some fisty cuffs

I hunt for the food and the sport.
also, the kids at columbine could have used whatever the hell they wanted to. no one else hwas armed, if your in a secured facility and you are the only one armed, you could kill just as many people with a black powder muzzle loader and a pistol.

Right. You shoot my wife with a muzzle loader and see how far you get in reloading before I break your neck.

funniest word ever: fisticuffs

Automatic weapons are not 'banned' - in the US you can get liscence, called a class 3 firearms liscence, and you can own any fully automatic weapon you want. They cost 300 dollars, and take about 2-4 months to get (I got mine in 3).

I cant remember how long it took me to get my FFL (so I can sell/deal weapons), but it wasnt as long to get that.

And then every other violent crime goes through the roof......moreover, banning guns does nothing to remove the guns that are in the hands of criminals, as criminals -- FYI -- do not follow the law....

Me!

I think you put that quite well Colerica, however, I feel sure that a certain someone feels that crimes committed with guns are somehow worse than other crimes.

if you do not want to what i think look away now
guns are bad!!! in england we have an unarmed police force as there no need for guns because the baddies cant get em this saves millions and when peaple riot they dont have guns so they police just use tear gas a smack a few protesters with clubs and maybe some fisty cuffs

You also have a high crime rate, and an inefficient police force.

I think you put that quite well Colerica, however, I feel sure that a certain someone feels that crimes committed with guns are somehow worse than other crimes.

I think you are deliberately missing the point.

Guns give people like the Columbine killers or Martin Bryant (Port Arthur) the ability to kill large numbers of people far more easily than other means.

Guns also make crime far easier for criminals than, say, a knife would.

Yes, of course they could go and make a home made bomb or such, but that requires far more planning, effort and resources than simply forking over cash for a gun.

P.S. For the record, I don't believe that any statistics (or at least unbiased ones) can link a rise in other crime to gun control. Please, prove me wrong.

---

A couple of other issues I'd also like to address (to all, not you in particular):

"But criminals have guns anyway!" - the vast majority of guns in the hands of criminals were once (or even still are) legally owned guns. Guns don't magically appear. The trade in guns being smuggled into America or illegally manufactured are a drop in the ocean compared to legally owned firearms. If you make registration more controlled, guns won't disappear out of criminal hands overnight, but will reduce the amount of illegal guns in circulation in the long run. Try to think about the future, and not just the next few weeks.

"People can kill with anything! What about home made bombs!" - see above. To recap, guns (in particular, high capacity semi auto guns) are the easiest tool for a killer to use. You don't have to have the knowledge, time and resources to make it yourself (bomb) and you don't have to risk getting up close with your victim (knife). Would tightening regulations on guns stop crime altogether? No. Would it lessen it significantly? Yes.

If you can prove either of these points wrong, please do. I'm not saying I have all the answers, but I am saying that the current situation can be improved on.

What will happen if you make any form of gun illegal? Only the government and 'bad' people will have them. Who in their sane mind would want the populace to be defenseless either against the government or against violent criminals?

Same works for abortion. What happens if you make abortion illegal? Well, I'll give you a hint, it won't stop if the mother is desperate. It just becomes a lot sicker and bloodier. I've heard of quite a few horror stories from South Carolina.

Likewise, what happens when you illegalize drugs? It makes it so the government has to spend tons of money enforcing the laws and the only people who profit from them are terrorists and drug dealers. I say legalize all drugs, have the government and government-licensed companies grow the drugs, and tax the hell out of them in order to cover the costs of rehabilitating those who get addicted and the necessary testing to make sure the drugs are safe or at least within the bounds of customer expectations. I believe all drugs should be labeled, but any drugs that aren't approved of by the FDA or properly labeled must be sold separately, with an added tax to process their requests for FDA approval.

Someone really needs to start up a solid, pro-choice movement in this country and label anything that goes against us as anti-choice and thereby authoritarian. Use the tactics of the Right wing; don't let them say they are pro-life, that just allows opposition be considered Anti-life. Label them as the anti-choice extremists they are.

A point I forgot: In regards to the heavier weapons and more destructive weapons, I believe that all people should have access to them, but they should all be kept in the local militia houses that should be in existence throughout the nation but sadly aren't... And while I know that local militias tend to lead to civil wars, they also serve as one of the most cost-effective methods to defend the nation from a foreign force if they actually manage to land. (If the shit is about to hit the fan, be like Saddam and spread out your stashes of guns among the local population and free all your criminals: in this regards he was actually smart)

To top it off, local militias would also provide a forum for the local community to get together to actually talk about issues and learn about the so-called democracy that they live in.


I believe that every single person in the country should be drafted into the military, but actual service in a foreign nation should be entirely optional and people should be allowed to duck out for any reason. If a country poses a serious threat, any well-speaking president can get people to volunteer for whatever war s/he wishes to make. If he can't, he can always pay the people well. (no, they wouldnt be mercenaries since they would all be US nationals: i have read enough of machiavelli to know about the mercenary risk, which is why i run contrary to the typical libertarian in that i generally oppose most privatization)

I think you are deliberately missing the point.

Guns give people like the Columbine killers or Martin Bryant (Port Arthur) the ability to kill large numbers of people far more easily than other means.

Guns also make crime far easier for criminals than, say, a knife would.

Yes, of course they could go and make a home made bomb or such, but that requires far more planning, effort and resources than simply forking over cash for a gun.

P.S. For the record, I don't believe that any statistics (or at least unbiased ones) can link a rise in other crime to gun control. Please, prove me wrong.
Sir(or madam) I admire your desire to halt violence, I really do. However, I am afraid that violence is very much a part of this world, and society as a whole. There will always be those who attempt to take advantage of those who can not defend themselves against their oppressors. The criminal element, of course, is not going to allow any silly rules about gun ownership keep them from getting one. In a situation such as this, the only recourse is to make yourself defensible. This is where the possible ownership of a gun comes into effect.
As to planning and research going into bomb-building, I could build a bomb in about the same amount of time it would take me to go to the store and buy a gun.
As to gun control causing a rise in crime, well, I never said that it did. However, it certainly doesn't stop crime.
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/BritainToyGunsWSJE.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/12/01/ncrime01.xml&sSheet=/news/2002/12/01/ixhome.html
http://www.stats.org/record.jsp?type=oped&ID=52

A couple of other issues I'd also like to address (to all, not you in particular):

"But criminals have guns anyway!" - the vast majority of guns in the hands of criminals were once (or even still are) legally owned guns. Guns don't magically appear. The trade in guns being smuggled into America or illegally manufactured are a drop in the ocean compared to legally owned firearms. If you make registration more controlled, guns won't disappear out of criminal hands overnight, but will reduce the amount of illegal guns in circulation in the long run. Try to think about the future, and not just the next few weeks.

If you make gun control laws tighter, you will reduce the amount of LEGAL weapons in circulation. The amount of illegal will remain the same, because, well, they're already illegal, and, therefore, none of the laws dealing with their circulation would be new.
"People can kill with anything! What about home made bombs!" - see above. To recap, guns (in particular, high capacity semi auto guns) are the easiest tool for a killer to use. You don't have to have the knowledge, time and resources to make it yourself (bomb) and you don't have to risk getting up close with your victim (knife).
I agree, people can kill with anything. I, however, would more than likely find it easier to kill with a knife or home-made bomb than a high-capacity semi-auto gun. Mainly because I can't hit the broad side of a barn. :D
Would tightening regulations on guns stop crime altogether? No. Would it lessen it significantly? Yes.

On the first I will agree with you. On the second I will not. Say that guns are illegal, and, in fact, actually nonexistent. A criminal will then use a knife, and don't say that he is then taking the risk of getting close to his victim, because it is much harder to dodge a man standing ten inches away from you wielding a knife than it is to put something between yourself and a man with a machine standing a hundred feet away. Crime has always, and will always, exist. You don't make screwdrivers illegal because people are using them to break into cars, you increase lighting and patrols, and encourage citizens to let you know if they see anything suspicious.
If you can prove either of these points wrong, please do. I'm not saying I have all the answers, but I am saying that the current situation can be improved on.
You are correct. The current situation can be improved on, but, while I do believe that guns should at least be registered, I do not believe that making them illegal would accomplish anything.

dont argue with gun nuts, they are called that for a reason


The World accoridng to the NRA

no such things as assault weapons
cars are a deadly weapon, a gun is not
guns are never used to kill things, ever
animals dont count as things that can be killed
regulating gun distribution is banning all guns
banning AK-47s is the same as banning a .22 bolt action
bullets only put holes in targets, people are immune
school shootings dont happen, they are created by the government to ban guns
every person is a member of the NRA military so need the heaviest weapon available to the world at large
its ok for the hunting and fishing magazine to know your credit card number but not the government to know you own a gun
guns should only be sold at gun shows without background checks, for safety of the gun buyer only

Chess squares wrote : dont argue with anti-gun nuts, they are called that for a reason
The World accoridng to Sarah Brady

no such things as ass on the job!
cars are statistically more dangerous than guns, damn!
guns are never used to help others, ever!
freedoms dont count as things that can be killed!
regulating gun distribution is not an infringement on our second ammendment!
banning AK-47s is the same as banning a .22 bolt action (finally they figured something out)
bullets only put holes in the targets that people aim them at and pull the trigger on. (damn can't we change that from happening?)
school shootings happen when the government ban guns in school for licensed ccw holders (oh well looked what happened when we tried)
every person that is a member of the NRA or military needs the heaviest weapon available at my discretion.

Here is what he really meant to say.

So, you consider the argument "if you make me give back my guns I'll go on a killing spree" a valid argument?

Hell no.

I consider it an example of why laws only affect the law abiding and criminals will not be put off by them at all.

Craig

guns are never used to kill things, ever

bullets only put holes in targets, people are immune


You are either being purposefully ignorant or you are just stupid!

All we have been trying to get through to you is that not all guns have been "designed to kill," billions of rounds are fired every year that kill absolutely nothing and that saying "all guns are designed to kill because they are capable of it" is the same as saying "all cars are designed to kill because they are capable of it"

No one on this thread has said that guns can not cause death. Go finish your homework and make lunch for playtime tommorow.

Craig

[QUOTE=Deathv2]If you make gun control laws tighter, you will reduce the amount of LEGAL weapons in circulation. The amount of illegal will remain the same, because, well, they're already illegal, and, therefore, none of the laws dealing with their circulation would be new.

I agree, people can kill with anything. I, however, would more than likely find it easier to kill with a knife or home-made bomb than a high-capacity semi-auto gun. Mainly because I can't hit the broad side of a barn. :D

QUOTE]
In the UK hand guns were banned. They were already very restricted and you could only really use them at a registered club. No one member of the public could carry a loaded weapon in a public place. There was a regrettable incident where some one went to a school and murdered children. As a knee jerk reaction and to try and win a few votes the PM banned handguns and weapons in general without adequate parliamentary time or discussion. This despite the fact that the in the incident in question the problem was that the current strict laws had not been applied properly. There was no problem with the system it was not applied correctly. Some may argue that regardless of this the ban was a good thing, fair enough if that is what you think. However since that date hand gun related crime (murders, shooting etc) has increased by 35%.
This is because of a change in culture and attitudes etc. So although I don’t see what any one would need a fully auto weapon I don’t see why a law abiding citizen and member of a gun club for 30 years should be punished for the transgressions of others. That’s not me by the way, although I have never owned a gun I have shot a few. All legally! I enjoyed it and would never think of using a gun to kill some one. There are far more intelligent and less traceable methods of doing that.

Listen I think all these gun control laws are crazy, I mean how the hell am I supposed to shoot elephants if i cant own a Barret M82 .50 cal BMG sniper rife? And how can u kill a rhino effectivly without armor piercing ammuniton. Come on this is ludicrous we need looser gun regulations ASAP!!!!! :sniper: :mp5:

Its forbidden to shoot elephants or Rhinos, but I guess you know that... You do know that, right?

Pistols: Sell non-lethal ammunition variants only. This excludes pistols like the Taurus Raging Bull, which is for all intents and purposes a rifle.

Rifles: Sell lethal ammo only at certified dealers, with intended use contracts filled out by buyer. Possible discounts rewarded for returning unused bullets.

Shotguns: Either method, luckily shotguns already have fairly extensive non-lethal options developed.

Machineguns: (...Yes, it is possible to acquire them legally at present...) Banned unless they are deactivated permanently. There is no concievable use for a machinegun in civilian hands, true, machinegun shows are fun and popular(In certain areas), but when someone with an MG34 decides they'd like to see how many ammo belts they can empty into Times Square, we can decide whether or not entertainment out-values human life.

During emergencies live ammo may be distributed as needed. Provide a situation where this is completely impractical and I'll try and find another solution.(And no, we aren't about to be invaded. You couldn't do all that much against trained enemy soldiers anyway. If you hate the Iraqi insurgents, don't mimic their behavior.)

Non-lethal rounds are still dangerous as hell, but at least they have less of a chance of killing. Rarely does anyone not specifically trying to murder someone want the person on the other end of the barrel dead(In the long run); there are way too many complications involved with actually killing someone when incapacitation is all thats needed.

if you do not want to what i think look away now
guns are bad!!! in england we have an unarmed police force as there no need for guns because the baddies cant get em this saves millions and when peaple riot they dont have guns so they police just use tear gas a smack a few protesters with clubs and maybe some fisty cuffs
Wrong. In the UK we have had an increase in gun crime since the ban on hand guns. We have a very well trained and armed police force, just not every officer. I can go and buy an illegal gun tomorrow, or I could make one. What has happened is that I can't buy one and put it in a locked cabinet and us it at a club, I can buy and keep one illegally easier now than any time since the end of WWII.

Pistols: Sell non-lethal ammunition variants only. This excludes pistols like the Taurus Raging Bull, which is for all intents and purposes a rifle.

Rifles: Sell lethal ammo only at certified dealers, with intended use contracts filled out by buyer. Possible discounts rewarded for returning unused bullets.

Shotguns: Either method, luckily shotguns already have fairly extensive non-lethal options developed.

Machineguns: (...Yes, it is possible to acquire them legally at present...) Banned unless they are deactivated permanently. There is no concievable use for a machinegun in civilian hands, true, machinegun shows are fun and popular(In certain areas), but when someone with an MG34 decides they'd like to see how many ammo belts they can empty into Times Square, we can decide whether or not entertainment out-values human life.

Non-lethal rounds are still dangerous as hell, but at least they have less of a chance of killing. Rarely does anyone not specifically trying to murder someone want the person on the other end of the barrel dead(In the long run); there are way too many complications involved with actually killing someone when incapacitation is all thats needed.

Well intentioned, but unlikely to work.

For a start, Non-Lethal rounds are useless for target shooting.

Secondly, it really shouldn't matter what I do with my ammo. Since it's pretty easy to make or reload your own, I think such "restrictions" are almost totally unenforceable and a waste of time.

As for MGs... people keep forgetting that Ammo isn't free. If you wanted to spend the thousand dollars or so you'd need to enough ammo (be it 7.92x57. .303, .30-06, .308, or 5.56mm) to fire your MG for more than a second or two, then you're obviously desperate enough to kill people to find another way of doing it without an MG.

Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it should be banned.

I don't like Reality TV, but there's no chance that will get outlawed anytime soon...

Pistols: Sell non-lethal ammunition variants only. This excludes pistols like the Taurus Raging Bull, which is for all intents and purposes a rifle.

Rifles: Sell lethal ammo only at certified dealers, with intended use contracts filled out by buyer. Possible discounts rewarded for returning unused bullets.

Shotguns: Either method, luckily shotguns already have fairly extensive non-lethal options developed.

Machineguns: (...Yes, it is possible to acquire them legally at present...) Banned unless they are deactivated permanently. There is no concievable use for a machinegun in civilian hands, true, machinegun shows are fun and popular(In certain areas), but when someone with an MG34 decides they'd like to see how many ammo belts they can empty into Times Square, we can decide whether or not entertainment out-values human life.

During emergencies live ammo may be distributed as needed. Provide a situation where this is completely impractical and I'll try and find another solution.(And no, we aren't about to be invaded. You couldn't do all that much against trained enemy soldiers anyway. If you hate the Iraqi insurgents, don't mimic their behavior.)

Non-lethal rounds are still dangerous as hell, but at least they have less of a chance of killing. Rarely does anyone not specifically trying to murder someone want the person on the other end of the barrel dead(In the long run); there are way too many complications involved with actually killing someone when incapacitation is all thats needed.

actually "pistols" would be more like a glock. the raging bull is class "revolver" im pretty sure, then there are "derringers"

Well intentioned, but unlikely to work.

For a start, Non-Lethal rounds are useless for target shooting.

Secondly, it really shouldn't matter what I do with my ammo. Since it's pretty easy to make or reload your own, I think such "restrictions" are almost totally unenforceable and a waste of time.

As for MGs... people keep forgetting that Ammo isn't free. If you wanted to spend the thousand dollars or so you'd need to enough ammo (be it 7.92x57. .303, .30-06, .308, or 5.56mm) to fire your MG for more than a second or two, then you're obviously desperate enough to kill people to find another way of doing it without an MG.

Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it should be banned.

I don't like Reality TV, but there's no chance that will get outlawed anytime soon...
and jsut because you (mayben ot you specifically) dont understand the meaning of the words banned and regulated doesnt mean guns shouldnt be regulated

Full-auto firearms have been banned since their creation....

Me!

Actually, no, they're not banned at all, at least not by the federal government. They're heavily regulated. Some states won't allow them at all, though.

You must purchase a class III license for every class III feature on a firearm. For instance, if you want a firearm that is fully automatic AND has a silencer on it, you have to buy two class III licenses totalling $400 ($200 each).

So, you get your class III license and your fully automatic AR-15, all for $1200. Well, probably quite a bit more at this point, due to the ban still in effect. Once that goes away in a week, prices will start to drop.

It's really not that much of an extra step. Let's see how many people THAT scares on this list....whee...!

go to the doctor, see what is the oldest you can see a pediatrician

and you are claiming the guy smith person is using facts? he is quoting stats FOUR YEARS after the assault weapons ban, yeah i do suppse the nubmer of deaths by assault weapon wouldve dropped by then

Yeah, I already KNOW what the definition of a child is. UNDER 18. Like I said, the Bradys are using 24 year-olds in their "children killed by guns" stats. THEY'RE the ones that don't know the meaning of the word child.

its obvious im surrounded by simpletons who have no idea of the history and purpose of a gun, the bow and arrow, or any other WEAPON.

nor do they understand the reality of FACTS and the difference between facts and TWISTED facts

addition: didnt you just say you grew up and stopped assumgin you know everything? you might want to reread your bullshit post. the WHOLE of it is based around an ASSUMPTION of who i am that is wholly inaccurate

Is it really inaccurate? How old are you, kid?

When was the last time you actually went to a shooting range to actually KNOW what shooting a gun is like?

good luck getting all handguns banned, or even the glock alone

And the several models of Glock are worse than other pistols how, again? Let's see your "vaunted" gun knowledge at work here....

Something to clarify terminology for the non-shooters, collectors, and gun owners out there.

"Pistol" and "Handgun" are synonyms. The exact definition differs from jurisdiction, but the commonly accepted definition is a firearm less than 75cm long and designed to be fired with one hand (ie, not a rifle).

"Revolver" refers to a firearm which contains bullets in a cylinder that rotates each time the hammer is pulled back or the trigger is pulled, aligning the chamber in the cylinder with the barrel and allowing the gun to be discharged.

Revolvers hold between 5-10 rounds, most hold 6. Some of the Snubnose .38 Specials and larger calibre revolvers hold 5 rounds, whilst the Nagant M1895 revolver (Standard Russian sidearm 1895-1945) holds seven. Some .22 revolvers hold 10 rounds.

"Semi-Automatic" and "Self-Loading" handguns are loaded from a magazine, usually in the butt of the pistol (but not always- the Mauser M1898 "Broomhandle" being the most notable exception, along with a lot of target pistols). Each time the trigger is pulled, the slide on the top blows back, ejects the spent shell, and loads a new one. Things like the Colt M1911A1, Glock 17, Browning Hi-Power, and the IMI Desert Eagle are all Semi-Automatic Pistols.

"Derringers" are small pistols, usually double barrelled (not always- some are 4 barrelled), chambered for small cartridges- .22LR, .32 Auto, and some are in .357 magnum and .44 Magnum. Originally designed to be carried in a Lady's Handbag, they are almost entirely useless at ranges beyond about 6ft.

"Single Shot" pistols are exactly what the name suggests. One round at a time, the Thompson/Centre Contender being the best example of one at present.

"Black Powder" refers to the old Civil War era Revolvers and Flintlocks.

"Machine Pistols" are fully automatic pistols- the VZ-61 Skorpion, IMI Uzi, H&K MP-5K, Glock 18, and the Beretta M83R are the best known examples of this.

Hope that's clarified a few things...

Pistols: Sell non-lethal ammunition variants only. This excludes pistols like the Taurus Raging Bull, which is for all intents and purposes a rifle.
Rifles: Sell lethal ammo only at certified dealers, with intended use contracts filled out by buyer. Possible discounts rewarded for returning unused bullets.
Shotguns: Either method, luckily shotguns already have fairly extensive non-lethal options developed. Machineguns: (...Yes, it is possible to acquire them legally at present...) Banned unless they are deactivated permanently. There is no concievable use for a machinegun in civilian hands, true, machinegun shows are fun and popular(In certain areas), but when someone with an MG34 decides they'd like to see how many ammo belts they can empty into Times Square, we can decide whether or not entertainment out-values human life.

Very noble Ideas you have in deed, the problem is that it could and won't ever work in a country like the US due to a thing that lets the states to decide for each of its own populaces. Go into and pass this idea off onto each and every community and see if they will bite. I dont know why people get so worked up about the awb expiring in less than 5 days or even that it was in place since it did nothing to either side in respects of buying aw's. But what I do know is that Bush had such a close election to Gore all because of the awb. Clinton admitted that "having the awb cost him and his fellow democrats 20 seats in congress". So I say keep pushing such ideas, and you will continue to see a loss of democratic legislators across this country along with fewer Presidents in the future. I think commiting suicide is stupid but apprently some democrats believe it is worth it. I would like to see the democrats and republicans come back to mainstream America and get out of thier lala lands of restricted narrow mindedness.

If Bush wins this year which is looking quite like he will since he had an over 70% approval rating following 9-11 that is 20% of democrats loving Bush solely for the reason of a terrorist attack (just imagine if there is a terrorist attack remotley close to election day). It will be a landslide for Bush. Republicans having the majority in the Senate, the House, and the SCOTUS. I really do think it might actually end up being a landslide for Bush this year possibly even without a terrorist attack close to election. I wasnt even going to vote for Bush (I was going to vote for the libertarian or Constitutional) but after seeing what kind of people I would be in bed with If I were to throw away my vote (especially coming from a swing state, that almost 75% are Gun owners) I am pretty sure that people like you in the end will only help your buddy Bush.

Has this thread worn itself out?

Has this thread worn itself out?
YES!

Yeah, I already KNOW what the definition of a child is. UNDER 18. Like I said, the Bradys are using 24 year-olds in their "children killed by guns" stats. THEY'RE the ones that don't know the meaning of the word child.
go to a doctor, ask the oldest you can be to see a pediatrician

Is it really inaccurate? How old are you, kid?

When was the last time you actually went to a shooting range to actually KNOW what shooting a gun is like?
i have fired a gun, which is irrelevant to the obvious logic required to realise guns and bows and arrows are weapons

ok... ok.... It took me hours but I read through most of this Thread... or should I say BALL OF YARN... haha Anyway, everybody is going to have a different view on the subject. I like the saying Guns don't kill people, people kill people. If someone really wanted to kill someone, and they did not have a gun, they would still without a doubt kill that person, it would just make their crime harder to commit. Yes tragedies do happen, and that is what turns a lot of people against guns, but think about how many people are killed by cars each day, how about we ban CARS and walk our tails everywhere that will be fun.

go to a doctor, ask the oldest you can be to see a pediatrician

And a doctor knows what again? When a child becomes an adult? Uh huh....right.

As soon as you have the right to enlist in the military, you are an adult. As soon as you have the right to vote for your elected officials, you are an adult.

I'm guessing by your own definition of "child", you still fit in that category. Grow up.

i have fired a gun, which is irrelevant to the obvious logic required to realise guns and bows and arrows are weapons

GASP! You've touched a weapon, and it didn't turn you into a murderous sociopath????

You are fortunate indeed.....

ok... ok.... It took me hours but I read through most of this Thread... or should I say BALL OF YARN... haha Anyway, everybody is going to have a different view on the subject. I like the saying Guns don't kill people, people kill people. If someone really wanted to kill someone, and they did not have a gun, they would still without a doubt kill that person, it would just make their crime harder to commit. Yes tragedies do happen, and that is what turns a lot of people against guns, but think about how many people are killed by cars each day, how about we ban CARS and walk our tails everywhere that will be fun.

See, that's where Chess seems to have the logic breakdown. We should be concentrating on where the most are dying and try to rectify that, as opposed to vilifying a weapon and turning it into the root of all evil.

You just called me a mass murderer. I do not appreciate that.
No, read what he (she?) said carefully- "But if you plan on killing large numbers of PEOPLE..." (emphasis added). This is a conditional statement, meaning that "you do" is contigent upon this being true.

And a doctor knows what again? When a child becomes an adult? Uh huh....right.

As soon as you have the right to enlist in the military, you are an adult. As soon as you have the right to vote for your elected officials, you are an adult.

I'm guessing by your own definition of "child", you still fit in that category. Grow up.

I'm guessing you're a fan of Starship Troopers? :p

Right. You shoot my wife with a muzzle loader and see how far you get in reloading before I break your neck.

you break in my ouse and see how far you get for i intrduce you to my 12 guage, and why the hell are you getting on me, when did i ever say i was gunna shoot anybody whois not a threat and was being serious? I said nothing about shooting up a school or shooting you wife, so get the hell off my back and stop with all yalls dadgum gun owner sterotypes!

ok... ok.... It took me hours but I read through most of this Thread... or should I say BALL OF YARN... haha Anyway, everybody is going to have a different view on the subject. I like the saying Guns don't kill people, people kill people. If someone really wanted to kill someone, and they did not have a gun, they would still without a doubt kill that person, it would just make their crime harder to commit. Yes tragedies do happen, and that is what turns a lot of people against guns, but think about how many people are killed by cars each day, how about we ban CARS and walk our tails everywhere that will be fun.

thank you bro, your on the same page as me!

I am pretty sure that people like you in the end will only help your buddy Bush.
you dang right, why would i wanna vote for someone like Kerry who couldn't run the atv i hunt with much less the country! And i use atv to hunt with to show the fact that nowmatter how much he clamis he dosen't give a dern about hunters rights!

dont argue with gun nuts, they are called that for a reason


The World accoridng to the NRA

no such things as assault weapons
cars are a deadly weapon, a gun is not
guns are never used to kill things, ever
animals dont count as things that can be killed
regulating gun distribution is banning all guns
banning AK-47s is the same as banning a .22 bolt action
bullets only put holes in targets, people are immune
school shootings dont happen, they are created by the government to ban guns
every person is a member of the NRA military so need the heaviest weapon available to the world at large
its ok for the hunting and fishing magazine to know your credit card number but not the government to know you own a gun
guns should only be sold at gun shows without background checks, for safety of the gun buyer only

and im sure you feel the same way about whatever it is you enjoy! SO SCREW THAT LIBERAL ATTITUDE!

Lucas IV: Cars are an integral part of everyday life and commerce, they are designed to be able to carry people here and there and carry goods hither and thither. The fact that people can die in them or from them is a side effect, and a gaurunteed one.

Guns are a special application tool and weapon that see very little use in everyday life. Guns are, with few exceptions, designed to kill stuff.

If you are naive enough to think cars could be banned(You use it as a demonstrator, which means you feel it is a valid comparison), you really aren't intelligent enough to be trusted with weapons...

Jhas: Quadruple posting is bad... Also, we all know Kerry is more of a sailing person, while Bush is more of a dodge easy tasks and snort coke person. SO SCREW THAT CONSERVATIVE ATTITUDE!

If you are naive enough to think cars could be banned(You use it as a demonstrator, which means you feel it is a valid comparison), you really aren't intelligent enough to be trusted with weapons...


A point I would like to make is that banning anything has never really done anything other than make more criminals.

I'm for concentrating on making driving safer, as opposed to trying to ban something that can be used by individuals to hurt far fewer people.

you break in my ouse and see how far you get for i intrduce you to my 12 guage, and why the hell are you getting on me, when did i ever say i was gunna shoot anybody whois not a threat and was being serious? I said nothing about shooting up a school or shooting you wife, so get the hell off my back and stop with all yalls dadgum gun owner sterotypes!

Sorry, I haven't read the entire thread, so if this has been answered already I apologise.

But... you'd do the physical harm to someone that a 12 gauge would do because someone broke into your house? Not in self defense?

Because someone who breaks into your house doesn't equal someone that needs to die or have parts of their anatomy blasted away.

Sorry if you disagree. Yes, I'd defend myself (I don't have any guns, btw) as best I could if it came to that (including running away) but what next? Someone hops your fence and starts stealing your tomatos and you open fire on them? Scary. :P

But... you'd do the physical harm to someone that a 12 gauge would do because someone broke into your house? Not in self defense?
Because someone who breaks into your house doesn't equal someone that needs to die or have parts of their anatomy blasted away.

It depends on the state, I know Oregon allows you to use deadly force on anyone that breaks into your home armed or not.

the problem is that we have thousands upon thosands of gun laws and very few people acually get charged with them. we need tighter restrictions and tougher(an accually enforced) penalties.

the problem is that we have thousands upon thosands of gun laws and very few people acually get charged with them. we need tighter restrictions and tougher(an accually enforced) penalties.

I agree if you are saying we need to better enforce the laws we have on the books now. It is useless to keep adding laws if you don't even enforce the existing ones. That goes for every law on the books why have them if you are not going to enforce them. Like jaywalking, you can jaywalk in front of any officer in downtown Eugene and they just look the other way (might be who I am though). Im sure they wrongfully harrass people that look like whatever it is they look for though. Who knows, has anyone been stopped or anything about jaywalking?

Bust my window and I bust you up! Breaching the social contract creates a state of war!

Bust my window and I bust you up! Breaching the social contract creates a state of war!

Yep I agree, if your talking about your home window and see the person coming through it, you can blast them right back out of it (depends on your state, so check local laws, some like mine allow you to kill unarmed thiefs). However if you catch someone breaking your car window and you confront them (most likely they used something to break it) and they have a screwdriver or any other possible weapon in hand then thier life is fair game.

And a doctor knows what again? When a child becomes an adult? Uh huh....right.

As soon as you have the right to enlist in the military, you are an adult. As soon as you have the right to vote for your elected officials, you are an adult.

I'm guessing by your own definition of "child", you still fit in that category. Grow up.
there is a legal limit as to when a person must stop seeing a pediatrician, i was making a point, however you are too stupid to even bother looking it up, you just sit there making inane arguments. we live in a world of laws and beauracracy, not opinions. you are an adult when the government tells you you are an adult, and oddly enough, that changes depending on what you are doing, and THAT, sir, is how 24 are and CAN be placed in death statistics with hand guns, they are not doing that out of some distorted gun facts to make them look more evil, 24 year olds could medically be put down as children on a list.

you, sir, are a flaming idiot. you get ignored

See, that's where Chess seems to have the logic breakdown. We should be concentrating on where the most are dying and try to rectify that, as opposed to vilifying a weapon and turning it into the root of all evil.
stupidity is the root of evil, and judging by your posts you need to be locked up for the safety of society

Chess Squares, why do you repeatedly insult people?

Me!

Chess Squares
This message is hidden because Chess Squares is on your ignore list.

You can fix it real easy. Especially since I have never seen him have a debate without calling someone a name or using some other self defeating measure. So I take it, he still calls people stupid, dumb and so on when he can not find an argument to defend himself with? lol

Yep I agree, if your talking about your home window and see the person coming through it, you can blast them right back out of it (depends on your state, so check local laws, some like mine allow you to kill unarmed thiefs). However if you catch someone breaking your car window and you confront them (most likely they used something to break it) and they have a screwdriver or any other possible weapon in hand then thier life is fair game.

Hmmm, I think you missed my point earlier. I wouldn't say that breaking and entering is a reason to end a human life, would you?

(This is reference to someone talking about introducing an intruder to his shotgun)

Law aside, if someone (to use your above example) breaks into your car window, they could just be looking to steal your stereo. I'd expect them to have some sort of tool for that. But saying "He broke into my car and has a screwdriver, which could conceivably hurt me" as justification in using deadly force against him is just ridiculous.

If you're from the US and in a state with the death penalty, you wouldn't expect capital punishment for theft, or B&E, so why exactly would you use force out of all proportion against such an act?

Note that I'm from Canada, so I'm not in a place where the death penalty is an option, nor is some badly-interpreted "right" to possess a firearm an issue. I'm more talking about the careless use of such things, like shooting a trespasser.

Do you really feel that it's necessary to do? Nobody's said "if they threaten me with a weapon", it's just been "if he breaks into my place" or "if he's holding a potential weapon like a screwdriver".

I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but I am trying to understand the rush to shoot somebody, and why you'd be so afraid of the people around you that you feel you need a deadly weapon.

Chess Squares, why do you repeatedly insult people?

Me!

Maybe because people (or one person in particular) keeps insulting him?

Dude, THE GUNS. Remember the guns

Maybe because people (or one person in particular) keeps insulting him?

Even if this were true, is that a reason to insult all of us who are trying to debate him/her in a civil manner?

Me!

Hmmm, I think you missed my point earlier. I wouldn't say that breaking and entering is a reason to end a human life, would you?

(This is reference to someone talking about introducing an intruder to his shotgun)

Law aside, if someone (to use your above example) breaks into your car window, they could just be looking to steal your stereo. I'd expect them to have some sort of tool for that. But saying "He broke into my car and has a screwdriver, which could conceivably hurt me" as justification in using deadly force against him is just ridiculous.

If you're from the US and in a state with the death penalty, you wouldn't expect capital punishment for theft, or B&E, so why exactly would you use force out of all proportion against such an act?

Note that I'm from Canada, so I'm not in a place where the death penalty is an option, nor is some badly-interpreted "right" to possess a firearm an issue. I'm more talking about the careless use of such things, like shooting a trespasser.

Do you really feel that it's necessary to do? Nobody's said "if they threaten me with a weapon", it's just been "if he breaks into my place" or "if he's holding a potential weapon like a screwdriver".

I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but I am trying to understand the rush to shoot somebody, and why you'd be so afraid of the people around you that you feel you need a deadly weapon.

I agree with this 100%. No one likes to be the victim of theft - but cutting loose like Charles Bronson in Deathwish is a complete overreaction.

Completely putting aside the fact that you are killing someone over a car - what if a stray bullet misses (or overpenetrates) the car thief, and hits an innocent bystander? For an example - your car is parked in your driveway, you hear a noise and go outside. You find someone prying open your car door with a tyre iron. You have your gun out (say, a 9mm pistol). You get spooked - BLAM BLAM. One bullet hits the perp and stays in his body. The other misses by a couple of inches, flies into your neighbours kitchen window, and nails poor old Mrs Smith who didn't even WTF was going on outside and was doing her dishes...did she deserve to die to stop your car from being boosted?

Hmmm, I think you missed my point earlier. I wouldn't say that breaking and entering is a reason to end a human life, would you?

(This is reference to someone talking about introducing an intruder to his shotgun)

Law aside, if someone (to use your above example) breaks into your car window, they could just be looking to steal your stereo. I'd expect them to have some sort of tool for that. But saying "He broke into my car and has a screwdriver, which could conceivably hurt me" as justification in using deadly force against him is just ridiculous.

If you're from the US and in a state with the death penalty, you wouldn't expect capital punishment for theft, or B&E, so why exactly would you use force out of all proportion against such an act?

Note that I'm from Canada, so I'm not in a place where the death penalty is an option, nor is some badly-interpreted "right" to possess a firearm an issue. I'm more talking about the careless use of such things, like shooting a trespasser.

Do you really feel that it's necessary to do? Nobody's said "if they threaten me with a weapon", it's just been "if he breaks into my place" or "if he's holding a potential weapon like a screwdriver".

I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but I am trying to understand the rush to shoot somebody, and why you'd be so afraid of the people around you that you feel you need a deadly weapon.

You are missing the point I believe. If someone were breaking and entering my house, and I had reason to fear for my life or my families life, I am completely justified in shooting the breakee.

If someone were breaking into my car with a screwdriver, or a tireiron whatever, and I confront him, if he comes at me in a threatening manner, I would be justified in shooting him.

If my family werent at home during the first example, and I was not in the vacinity, I would not be in fear of my life or that of my families, therefor shooting the perpetrator would not be justified. If I confronted the person breaking into my car, and he ran away, I would not be threatened, I would not be justified in shooting him.

Understand the difference?

I still say a good guard dog, security system and secure locks and shutters are a far better home defence than a gun under the bed. By the time you need to whip out a gun, the intruder is already in your house - the other measures will likely stop him getting in, in the first place.

What happens if the intruder is an unarmed bum just looking for a DVD player to steal? What could be a simple snatch and grab may end up with your own gun being turned on you and your family... The vast majority of home break-ins are simple burglaries, not the night stalker wanting to put a slug into you...

How about mace or a taser as an non-lethal alternative, if you really think the unwashed hoardes are lurking outside your home just waiting to invade...

(...and then someone says "But what if they DO have a gun when they break in?" and I reply "Yes, probably a gun that was stolen from another legal gun owner", and we go around in an infinity loop...)

Even if this were true, is that a reason to insult all of us who are trying to debate him/her in a civil manner?

Me!

OK, I see what you're saying - I thought you were complaining about him retaliating to that particular poster.

You are missing the point I believe. If someone were breaking and entering my house, and I had reason to fear for my life or my families life, I am completely justified in shooting the breakee.

If someone were breaking into my car with a screwdriver, or a tireiron whatever, and I confront him, if he comes at me in a threatening manner, I would be justified in shooting him.

If my family werent at home during the first example, and I was not in the vacinity, I would not be in fear of my life or that of my families, therefor shooting the perpetrator would not be justified. If I confronted the person breaking into my car, and he ran away, I would not be threatened, I would not be justified in shooting him.

Understand the difference?

Yes, I understand the difference. Do you understand the difference between being qualified to confront someone who's breaking into your car and just confronting them while armed and having them react in any way you don't particularly like when you're already predisposed to react unfavourably to them is made so much worse when you're carrying a deadly weapon?

Just out of curiousity, when you say "if I had reason to fear for..." what are the criteria you would use? Or would you be armed against the possibility of such a thing? Because if a guy breaks into your car, and you confront him and he starts coming towards you, that's still not reason to shoot him. You would be the one that entered into that scenario and pushed things to that point. That doesn't then give you the right to harm someone.

As for being in your house, I'll tell you this: someday you might be homeless, someday you might be poor, you might be hungry. It may come to the point where your concern with the "social contract" (which has failed you, if you're at this point) is outweighed by the feeling of your stomach touching your back.

You may very well consider breaking into a nice warm house full of luxury goods in the hope of taking a one dollar bag of bread and some fruit from the kitchen of the people that obviously have so much, especially compared to you.

Because you're in their house, they don't get to shoot you. I don't care about your concept of "property" - they haven't done anything worthy of such a response.

If they're there to rob you for whatever reason, that's not a reason to shoot them either.

And while you can certainly confront them if you so desire, if it's your confrontation that escalates things to the point where violence is imminent, then you're to blame (at least partially) for the situation in which someone gets shot.

And if you're going to shoot someone over possessions, or because you're not comfortable with a situation, then you've broken the social contract. These are human beings you're talking about.

If you truly are defending yourself, then defend yourself. But an awful lot of people seem to get shot because "they were on my property". Some of the people in this thread have said they'd do exactly that.

With that particular attitude in mind, consider that with that attitude, it ought to be okay to shoot five years olds on their way home from school for cutting across the corner of your lawn. It ought to be okay to shoot the kids in your driveway throwing eggs at your front door and toilet papering your house. It ought to be okay to shoot somebody who didn't clean up after their dog when it dropped a steaming pile of recycled dogfood on your grass.

And, if you're so afraid of what someone may do in your yard, to your car, in your house... why the hidden solution of having a gun in your house ready to shoot them dead? Why aren't you preventing them from getting into your house, your car, your yard? A four meter iron fence with razor wire across the top and no bushes in your yard and a gate across your driveway along with motion-activated lights all along your house and yard will discourage people from attempting it, since it's extra bother.

A dog running around behind that fence (clearly visible of course) is good too. Clean out your garage and park your car in there. Buy an alarm system and be diligent about using it.

Because you know what? You not taking steps to keeping these things you claim are so important to you safe and then using such a drastic "solution" when the (probably) avoidable situation comes to pass makes you irresponsible. And irresponsible people who can't look forward and see the consequences of their actions (and inactions) isn't the kind of person you want with a deadly weapon.

Yes, I know this went on and became rather preachy. But I get along without a gun in my home. So do the people around me that I know. And yes, I live in a place with drugs, and the homeless, and crime. In my life I've been robbed a couple of times. Once when I was in the house in fact (and not sleeping). I sure felt threatened then, it scared the crap out of me. But I didn't become a murderer by killing anybody that day. And that's what a lot of these so-called "defending myself" people are - murderers. It's not defense because you were scared, or pissed off, or indignant.

So why do you have a gun? What are you afraid of, and what do you have to deal with that I don't?

the problem is that we have thousands upon thosands of gun laws and very few people acually get charged with them. we need tighter restrictions and tougher(an accually enforced) penalties.

We don't need tighter restrictions. I do agree with the tougher penalties, though.

Everyone seems to think that pre-emptive strikes are okay to inflict upon people. And that's what all this legislation is.

Fewer gun laws and much tougher penalties to those that abuse those laws.

The more restrictions there are, the more loopholes exist.

a large breed dog is infinately better than a gun, with a gun you assume you will wake up. you could be dead before you know whats going on. its not that loud to break into a house unless the person doing it is either stupid or clumsy

and dont try to reason with the gun nuts, they will shoot you for it

BTW, MOST burglars ARE stupid and/or clumsy. There's not really a large sect of "Burglar Schools" out there to train 'em.

Actually there are. We call them "prisons"

a large breed dog is infinately better than a gun, with a gun you assume you will wake up. you could be dead before you know whats going on. its not that loud to break into a house unless the person doing it is either stupid or clumsy

and dont try to reason with the gun nuts, they will shoot you for it

Actually, we won't shoot for that reason. That's a myth propagated by the anti-gunners. We will just "shoot" your emotion-laden, logic-lacking arguments down with rational discussion.

You're the one that uses the same rhetoric over and over, and when that doesn't work (because it's not based in logic), you revert to childish name calling and vulgar language. Real convincing, kid.

A dog IS a nice addition to one's home defenses, however. One that barks, though, not one that attacks--this wakes you up, and you reach for the shotgun, pistol, or handy-dandy AK.

BTW, MOST burglars ARE stupid and/or clumsy. There's not really a large sect of "Burglar Schools" out there to train 'em. Keep your doors and windows locked, and someone pretty much has to make some sort of ruckus to get in. Unless you think all burglars have diamond-tipped glass cutters with them?

Actually there are. We call them "prisons"

You may have something there....

In my opinion I would say they should be illegal.
But then I'm from a city, can't see any reason why someone would need a gun.

For the people that are interested in hunting and such. Are there not huntinh clubs and such. Would they not be able to keep the guns and when you want to shoot bambi or bugs bunny coud you not simply rent one from the club?? (licenses and such permiting).

Guys only asking, not familiar with american guns laws.

Hmmm, I think you missed my point earlier. I wouldn't say that breaking and entering is a reason to end a human life, would you?(This is reference to someone talking about introducing an intruder to his shotgun)Law aside, if someone (to use your above example) breaks into your car window, they could just be looking to steal your stereo. I'd expect them to have some sort of tool for that. But saying "He broke into my car and has a screwdriver, which could conceivably hurt me" as justification in using deadly force against him is just ridiculous.If you're from the US and in a state with the death penalty, you wouldn't expect capital punishment for theft, or B&E, so why exactly would you use force out of all proportion against such an act?Note that I'm from Canada, so I'm not in a place where the death penalty is an option, nor is some badly-interpreted "right" to possess a firearm an issue. I'm more talking about the careless use of such things, like shooting a trespasser.Do you really feel that it's necessary to do? Nobody's said "if they threaten me with a weapon", it's just been "if he breaks into my place" or "if he's holding a potential weapon like a screwdriver".I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but I am trying to understand the rush to shoot somebody, and why you'd be so afraid of the people around you that you feel you need a deadly weapon.

You say breaking and entering is not a reason to end some poor losers life. Many of the states in the US and myself disagree. When I caught a guy breaking into my brothers car in a shopping center in broad daylight last year. The police said I would of been justified in ending his life when he walked towards me with a screwdriver (instead I severely beat him and let the police hold him for less than 24 hours after being released from the hospital). I had compassion that day, since I very well knew I could of used my chl on him at the time.

So you think the US laws are ridiculous on allowing citizens to use deadly force for when a thieve is just stealing a stereo and has a possible weapon, or when they enter your dwelling unarmed?
Again the heavy majority of states and the US population disagree's with you.
In the state of Oregon (as I imagine many others) the criminal is responsible for any action or actions resulting in death or injury to any bystanders that a law abiding citizen commits during the use of deadly force or physical force on the criminal. Meaning that since he made the situation happen he has the full responsibility from the actions of anyone trying to use deadly force or physical force upon him. You should not create the situation if you are not willing to accept the responsibility of actions caused by your actions.

A person may use physical force upon another person in self-defense or in defending a third person, in *defending property*, in making an arrest(including citizen arrest) or in preventing an escape, as hereafter prescribed in chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971. [1971 c.743 §21; 1981 c.246 §1]

A person may use Deadly force upon another person if any criteria is met:
1) Committing or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person; or
(2) Committing or attempting to commit a *burglary in a dwelling*; or
(3) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force against any person. [1971 c.743 §23]

You do not like the US mentality that a criminal is solely responsible for any damage to property or person during the criminal act. For one I personally do agree that thieves yes even bums doing a quick snatch n grab can and should be killed if any of the mitigating circumstances arise. Also I must add that if I could have my way I would go a step further and use capital punishment on any thieve in the US. Including kenneth lay all the way to the bum that does the quick snatch n grab. Thieves are the real economical-terrorists and deserve to be treated as such, and luckily here in the US they pretty much are.

Your idea that your personal feelings or emotions are what everyone else should have is like saying the feelings and emotions of a Anti-Abortion person should be universal. We all have our own feelings and emotions that make us tick, so there will never be any universal emotional thought inside a free country where you are allowed to have your own beliefs. You can keep trying but I am glad each and every American realizes that individuality extends beyond any personal emotions.

In my opinion I would say they should be illegal.
But then I'm from a city, can't see any reason why someone would need a gun.

For the people that are interested in hunting and such. Are there not huntinh clubs and such. Would they not be able to keep the guns and when you want to shoot bambi or bugs bunny coud you not simply rent one from the club?? (licenses and such permiting).

Guys only asking, not familiar with american guns laws.

One of the major reasons to have a firearm is for defense. Here, in the US, the Supreme Court has determined that the police are not responsible for the protection of individuals.

That leaves the American citizen responsible for their own safety. With the banning of any firearm, that reduces our options for protecting ourselves.

You live in a city, and that's fine. I do, too. If someone attacks you, how long will it take for you to get to a phone, call the police, wait for them to arrive, and take the attacker away? Probably longer than it takes for that attacker to kill you. By several minutes, or in the case of most major cities in the US, hours.

That is the underlying logic for owning a firearm. Defense. This is what most anti-gun folk don't understand. Some think firearms aren't necessary. They've never had to defend themselves--or if they have, they have quite the philosophy that they live by.

It's very simple. You are responsible for your own safety. Firearms are a great way to protect yourself. Can a tool be used for nefarious purposes? You bet. Can a person be held responsible for their actions and severely punished? You bet. Is is right to pre-emptively take away people's freedoms when they've done nothing wrong? No way.

BTW, MOST burglars ARE stupid and/or clumsy. There's not really a large sect of "Burglar Schools" out there to train 'em. Keep your doors and windows locked, and someone pretty much has to make some sort of ruckus to get in. Unless you think all burglars have diamond-tipped glass cutters with them?

Hm... You know, that reminds me of an intereseting thought I had yesterday. I just read one of those funny threads where people get ridiculous amounts of money because they fail to realize that coffee is usually served hot and other things like that.

There were this one burglar, breaking into a house stealing everything valuable while inside (business as usual). He wanted to leave the house through the garage, but he was unable to open the garage from inside. He also couldn't get back into the house for some reason. he stayed within that garage for eight days, he survived because he found a big bag of dogfood and bottle of Pepsi Soda... when the family came back and released him from his"prison" he sued them and in the end, won... they had to pay them, if my memory doesn't fail me, half a million dollars compensation for pain and suffering (both physicaly and mentaly)...

It may not be my usual point of view, but that guy would have deserved being shot....

You say breaking and entering is not a reason to end some poor losers life. Many of the states in the US and myself disagree. When I caught a guy breaking into my brothers car in a shopping center in broad daylight last year. The police said I would of been justified in ending his life when he walked towards me with a screwdriver (instead I severely beat him and let the police hold him for less than 24 hours after being released from the hospital). I had compassion that day, since I very well knew I could of used my chl on him at the time.

So you think the US laws are ridiculous on allowing citizens to use deadly force for when a thieve is just stealing a stereo and has a possible weapon, or when they enter your dwelling unarmed?
Again the heavy majority of states and the US population disagree's with you.
In the state of Oregon (as I imagine many others) the criminal is responsible for any action or actions resulting in death or injury to any bystanders that a law abiding citizen commits during the use of deadly force or physical force on the criminal. Meaning that since he made the situation happen he has the full responsibility from the actions of anyone trying to use deadly force or physical force upon him. You should not create the situation if you are not willing to accept the responsibility of actions caused by your actions.

A person may use physical force upon another person in self-defense or in defending a third person, in *defending property*, in making an arrest(including citizen arrest) or in preventing an escape, as hereafter prescribed in chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971. [1971 c.743 §21; 1981 c.246 §1]

A person may use Deadly force upon another person if any criteria is met:
1) Committing or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person; or
(2) Committing or attempting to commit a *burglary in a dwelling*; or
(3) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force against any person. [1971 c.743 §23]

You do not like the US mentality that a criminal is solely responsible for any damage to property or person during the criminal act. For one I personally do agree that thieves yes even bums doing a quick snatch n grab can and should be killed if any of the mitigating circumstances arise. Also I must add that if I could have my way I would go a step further and use capital punishment on any thieve in the US. Including kenneth lay all the way to the bum that does the quick snatch n grab. Thieves are the real economical-terrorists and deserve to be treated as such, and luckily here in the US they pretty much are.

Your idea that your personal feelings or emotions are what everyone else should have is like saying the feelings and emotions of a Anti-Abortion person should be universal. We all have our own feelings and emotions that make us tick, so there will never be any universal emotional thought inside a free country where you are allowed to have your own beliefs. You can keep trying but I am glad each and every American realizes that individuality extends beyond any personal emotions.

So, you want to tell us that you stereo is more worth than a human life?

Hm... You know, that reminds me of an intereseting thought I had yesterday. I just read one of those funny threads where people get ridiculous amounts of money because they fail to realize that coffee is usually served hot and other things like that.

There were this one burglar, breaking into a house stealing everything valuable while inside (business as usual). He wanted to leave the house through the garage, but he was unable to open the garage from inside. He also couldn't get back into the house for some reason. he stayed within that garage for eight days, he survived because he found a big bag of dogfood and bottle of Pepsi Soda... when the family came back and released him from his"prison" he sued them and in the end, won... they had to pay them, if my memory doesn't fail me, half a million dollars compensation for pain and suffering (both physicaly and mentaly)...

It may not be my usual point of view, but that guy would have deserved being shot....


Definitely. And the legal system failed everyone that was in the right, and helped the idiot that was in the wrong. :headbang:

Hm... You know, that reminds me of an intereseting thought I had yesterday. I just read one of those funny threads where people get ridiculous amounts of money because they fail to realize that coffee is usually served hot and other things like that.

There were this one burglar, breaking into a house stealing everything valuable while inside (business as usual). He wanted to leave the house through the garage, but he was unable to open the garage from inside. He also couldn't get back into the house for some reason. he stayed within that garage for eight days, he survived because he found a big bag of dogfood and bottle of Pepsi Soda... when the family came back and released him from his"prison" he sued them and in the end, won... they had to pay them, if my memory doesn't fail me, half a million dollars compensation for pain and suffering (both physicaly and mentaly)...

It may not be my usual point of view, but that guy would have deserved being shot....


There has got to be more to that story.

Yes, I understand the difference. Do you understand the difference between being qualified to confront someone who's breaking into your car and just confronting them while armed and having them react in any way you don't particularly like when you're already predisposed to react unfavourably to them is made so much worse when you're carrying a deadly weapon?

Again, you are choosing to misunderstand, or misrepresent the situation I was speaking of. If I confront someone who is damaging my property, or damaging any property for that matter, and they then turn toward me in a threatening manner and I am in fear for my life, I am justified in defending myself, using lethal force if necessary. If the person runs away instead, I am not justified. What you are saying is that I have no right to confront the criminal in the first place. You are very very wrong. Not only is it my right to do so, it is my duty as a citizen.

Just out of curiousity, when you say "if I had reason to fear for..." what are the criteria you would use? Or would you be armed against the possibility of such a thing? Because if a guy breaks into your car, and you confront him and he starts coming towards you, that's still not reason to shoot him. You would be the one that entered into that scenario and pushed things to that point. That doesn't then give you the right to harm someone.

Way way off base. If he came toward me in a threatening manner such that I was in fear of my life, I would be justified using lethal force. You are attempting to absolve the criminal of his own actions. If he had not chosen to perform said criminal act in the first place, no confrontation would take place. Ultimately sole responsibility lies on the criminal.

As for being in your house, I'll tell you this: someday you might be homeless, someday you might be poor, you might be hungry. It may come to the point where your concern with the "social contract" (which has failed you, if you're at this point) is outweighed by the feeling of your stomach touching your back.

I dont give a rat's hairy arse how hungry someone is. It does not give them the right to take what I have worked for. Period. Knock on my door, ask me for some food I will probably feed you better than what you could steal. I have been known to, when asked for a "dollar to buy something to eat man" take the person instead to Denny's and give them a meal. Buy someone a "value meal" when I saw them digging through the trash. But it is my choosing, not theirs. I will not give money to anyone, I will give food, sometimes the shirt off my back, but it is MY choosing.

You may very well consider breaking into a nice warm house full of luxury goods in the hope of taking a one dollar bag of bread and some fruit from the kitchen of the people that obviously have so much, especially compared to you.

Please, read above answer.

Because you're in their house, they don't get to shoot you. I don't care about your concept of "property" - they haven't done anything worthy of such a response.

If they are just in my house, no I wont shoot them. If when I confront them, and I have every right to do so, and they run away I let them go. If they instead attempt to harm me, or threaten me, things will get nasty.

If they're there to rob you for whatever reason, that's not a reason to shoot them either.

You are right, except that you still suggest I do not have the right to defend my property. I can not use lethal force to defend my property, but I can confront the criminal. We, as a society, can not "justify" a criminals behavior, nor mitigate thier responsibility. It's a little principle called "But for their actions". But for thier actions, no confrontation would ever take place.

And while you can certainly confront them if you so desire, if it's your confrontation that escalates things to the point where violence is imminent, then you're to blame (at least partially) for the situation in which someone gets shot.

No. I am completely within my rights to confront someone who is breaking the law. I am not escalating anything not already started by the criminial. Even after confrontation, ultimately the decision is left to the criminal whether to run away, or threaten me.

And if you're going to shoot someone over possessions, or because you're not comfortable with a situation, then you've broken the social contract. These are human beings you're talking about.

Putting words in my mouth here. I did not say I would shoot anyone over posessions, or that I was "uncomfortable". I specifically stated if I was in fear of my, or my families life.

If you truly are defending yourself, then defend yourself. But an awful lot of people seem to get shot because "they were on my property". Some of the people in this thread have said they'd do exactly that.

Yes, people get shot when they are on anothers property. Not because so though. They are shot because they have made another fear for his life. You have no right to judge how or why someone else fears for his life. If the criminal had not placed themselves in that situation, they would not be shot. Period.

With that particular attitude in mind, consider that with that attitude, it ought to be okay to shoot five years olds on their way home from school for cutting across the corner of your lawn. It ought to be okay to shoot the kids in your driveway throwing eggs at your front door and toilet papering your house. It ought to be okay to shoot somebody who didn't clean up after their dog when it dropped a steaming pile of recycled dogfood on your grass.

Talk about taking something to it's illogical extreme :rolleyes:. A five year old cutting across a lawn does in no way make someone fear for their life. I am being reasonable, try to be the same.

And, if you're so afraid of what someone may do in your yard, to your car, in your house... why the hidden solution of having a gun in your house ready to shoot them dead? Why aren't you preventing them from getting into your house, your car, your yard? A four meter iron fence with razor wire across the top and no bushes in your yard and a gate across your driveway along with motion-activated lights all along your house and yard will discourage people from attempting it, since it's extra bother.

Afraid of what somene may do, does not lead to that someone getting shot. I carry a gun because of what someone may do. I use a gun because of what someone does. Understand that difference?

A dog running around behind that fence (clearly visible of course) is good too. Clean out your garage and park your car in there. Buy an alarm system and be diligent about using it.

All any of those suggestions do is keep "honest people honest". Best guard dog in the world is mollified with a steak. Alarm systems are easly circumvented. If a criminal is determined to assail me or my property, nothing I can do can or will deter him, save forcing him to acknowledge my willingness to end his life if he threatens mine.

Because you know what? You not taking steps to keeping these things you claim are so important to you safe and then using such a drastic "solution" when the (probably) avoidable situation comes to pass makes you irresponsible. And irresponsible people who can't look forward and see the consequences of their actions (and inactions) isn't the kind of person you want with a deadly weapon.

Again, you are asserting that I am willing to shoot someone because they assail my property. I never said that. But I will always assert that I have the right to confront someone to protect my property. You are arguing that I do not. You are wrong.

Yes, I know this went on and became rather preachy. But I get along without a gun in my home. So do the people around me that I know. And yes, I live in a place with drugs, and the homeless, and crime. In my life I've been robbed a couple of times. Once when I was in the house in fact (and not sleeping). I sure felt threatened then, it scared the crap out of me. But I didn't become a murderer by killing anybody that day. And that's what a lot of these so-called "defending myself" people are - murderers. It's not defense because you were scared, or pissed off, or indignant.

In your self-rightous opinion they are murderers. You choose not to defend your property. That is your choice. I choose to. It is not my decision to escalate the situation to lethal force. It is always ultimately the criminals.

So why do you have a gun? What are you afraid of, and what do you have to deal with that I don't?

Again, you choose not to defend your property. Your choice, which is your right to do so. I choose to defend mine. That is my right. You can keep your self-rightous attitude about the criminal's right to steal or damage my property to yourself.

Definitely. And the legal system failed everyone that was in the right, and helped the idiot that was in the wrong. :headbang:

hehe or that other guy that tried to steal his neighbours hub caps, while his neighbour was inside his car, starting the motor to drive away... You imagine the result both hands of that guy got under the car (he was lucky indeed, his hands were not damaged permanentely) he sued his neighbour and won too, got 14500 Dollars compensation for pain and suffering, though he had to pay 500 Dollars for the damaged hub cap...

So, you want to tell us that you stereo is more worth than a human life?

You break into my house, scaring/hurting my family, damaging and stealing my property? You bet you'll be taking your life into your own hands if you do that to my house.

So, you want to tell us that you stereo is more worth than a human life?
The general prohibition on stealing is infinitely more important than a single thief's life. Without property rights human suffering would be immense as can be seen from countries that deny them. Besides, if someone is on your property stealing then you must assume that you are in personal danger. Such a person may well be armed and is a potential danger to you and your family, your priority should be defending your property without exposing yourself and family to any more danger than is necessary. I'm not saying you should always shoot them, just if you are endangered.

You say breaking and entering is not a reason to end some poor losers life. Many of the states in the US and myself disagree. When I caught a guy breaking into my brothers car in a shopping center in broad daylight last year. The police said I would of been justified in ending his life when he walked towards me with a screwdriver (instead I severely beat him and let the police hold him for less than 24 hours after being released from the hospital). I had compassion that day, since I very well knew I could of used my chl on him at the time.

So you think the US laws are ridiculous on allowing citizens to use deadly force for when a thieve is just stealing a stereo and has a possible weapon, or when they enter your dwelling unarmed?
Again the heavy majority of states and the US population disagree's with you.
In the state of Oregon (as I imagine many others) the criminal is responsible for any action or actions resulting in death or injury to any bystanders that a law abiding citizen commits during the use of deadly force or physical force on the criminal. Meaning that since he made the situation happen he has the full responsibility from the actions of anyone trying to use deadly force or physical force upon him. You should not create the situation if you are not willing to accept the responsibility of actions caused by your actions.

A person may use physical force upon another person in self-defense or in defending a third person, in *defending property*, in making an arrest(including citizen arrest) or in preventing an escape, as hereafter prescribed in chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971. [1971 c.743 §21; 1981 c.246 §1]

A person may use Deadly force upon another person if any criteria is met:
1) Committing or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person; or
(2) Committing or attempting to commit a *burglary in a dwelling*; or
(3) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force against any person. [1971 c.743 §23]

You do not like the US mentality that a criminal is solely responsible for any damage to property or person during the criminal act. For one I personally do agree that thieves yes even bums doing a quick snatch n grab can and should be killed if any of the mitigating circumstances arise. Also I must add that if I could have my way I would go a step further and use capital punishment on any thieve in the US. Including kenneth lay all the way to the bum that does the quick snatch n grab. Thieves are the real economical-terrorists and deserve to be treated as such, and luckily here in the US they pretty much are.

Your idea that your personal feelings or emotions are what everyone else should have is like saying the feelings and emotions of a Anti-Abortion person should be universal. We all have our own feelings and emotions that make us tick, so there will never be any universal emotional thought inside a free country where you are allowed to have your own beliefs. You can keep trying but I am glad each and every American realizes that individuality extends beyond any personal emotions.

On the contrary, I agree with you. The person breaking into the car came towards you. You had the right to feal threatened, therefor you had the right to defend yourself. If the person ran away instead, you would not have had that right (in my opinion, I am not a criminal law student, I cant say what the law is)

There has got to be more to that story.

Maybe, but not usually for similar situations.

The lawyers just argue and argue until they get the money (oh yeah, and the dirtbag gets out of trouble).

You say breaking and entering is not a reason to end some poor losers life. Many of the states in the US and myself disagree. When I caught a guy breaking into my brothers car in a shopping center in broad daylight last year. The police said I would of been justified in ending his life when he walked towards me with a screwdriver (instead I severely beat him and let the police hold him for less than 24 hours after being released from the hospital). I had compassion that day, since I very well knew I could of used my chl on him at the time.

I'm not sure what a "chl" is, sorry.

And I'm not too interested in what you say the police told you about being "justified" either. Regardless of whether you would have been able to use deadly force and escaped any legal consequences is quite outside of what I was talking about. I'm talking about the basic devaluing of human life in your reasoning for what's justified.

So you think the US laws are ridiculous on allowing citizens to use deadly force for when a thieve is just stealing a stereo and has a possible weapon, or when they enter your dwelling unarmed?
Again the heavy majority of states and the US population disagree's with you.
In the state of Oregon (as I imagine many others) the criminal is responsible for any action or actions resulting in death or injury to any bystanders that a law abiding citizen commits during the use of deadly force or physical force on the criminal. Meaning that since he made the situation happen he has the full responsibility from the actions of anyone trying to use deadly force or physical force upon him. You should not create the situation if you are not willing to accept the responsibility of actions caused by your actions.

Well, short of knowing the census data on such issues, it's impossible to know if the majority of the US population disagrees with me, or agrees with you. :) And yes, I'm aware of how the laws in these situations seem to work. And I don't agree (nor would logic, or even common sense) that if a criminal is breaking into a car, and the police arrive and train guns on him, and he twitches or runs and the police open fire... that the guy who was breaking into the car is responsible for one of the cop's stray bullets hitting a passerby. Because the cops are irresponsibly using deadly force on someone who runs. Guess what? The cops can coordinate by radio. They have multiple forces while the thief is an army of one. Because he's getting away they get to cut him down? What is this, the old west? Will they rope him next and drag him back to town behind their horses?

A person may use physical force upon another person in self-defense or in defending a third person, in *defending property*, in making an arrest(including citizen arrest) or in preventing an escape, as hereafter prescribed in chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971. [1971 c.743 §21; 1981 c.246 §1][/i]

The first bit makes perfect sense to me. But the "defending property" and the "preventing an escape" simply don't. Again, this means you can shoot the teenager that runs when he broke into your home looking to raid your liquor cabinet. Regardless of the statute, does that make sense to you?

[quote]You do not like the US mentality that a criminal is solely responsible for any damage to property or person during the criminal act. For one I personally do agree that thieves yes even bums doing a quick snatch n grab can and should be killed if any of the mitigating circumstances arise. Also I must add that if I could have my way I would go a step further and use capital punishment on any thieve in the US. Including kenneth lay all the way to the bum that does the quick snatch n grab. Thieves are the real economical-terrorists and deserve to be treated as such, and luckily here in the US they pretty much are.

Okay, this is your stated mentality. I don't agree with it. What can I say? I'm glad you're not living here near me. ;)

However, that bit about "Thieves are the real economical-terrorists": say it if you must. When I see the news from the US (because we get all of your channels up here) it sounds like this: "terroristsimmediatedangerrunhidemilitaryGod'sblessingmoreMoreMORE". No joke. This isn't what the news used to sound like down there, and it's not what the news sounds like here.

And at the risk of sounding anti-American (which I'm truly not), controlling (or influencing) the trade of entire countries (read: anywhere there have ever been US troops) is economic terrorism. As a country, feeling that you have a right to continue your own way of life at the expense of other countries ways of life and destroying/limiting their means to feed themselves and other basic human necessities except by your intervention is economic terrorism.

And being in a wealthy and affluent country and having incredible riches standing alongside grinding poverty is domestic economic terrorism. /rant

Your idea that your personal feelings or emotions are what everyone else should have is like saying the feelings and emotions of a Anti-Abortion person should be universal. We all have our own feelings and emotions that make us tick, so there will never be any universal emotional thought inside a free country where you are allowed to have your own beliefs. You can keep trying but I am glad each and every American realizes that individuality extends beyond any personal emotions.

Um... no, it's not quite like anti-abortion doctrine. You have posted many times in this thread about your personal feelings and views, and they are no more valid than mine, since they are just your feelings. And to then point to the laws and say "See? So I must be right." doesn't do much to prove it, that just shows how things currently are.

Wear a top hat in Kansas on a Sunday or eat an icecream cone upside down in Nebraska (both spurious laws meant to illustrate a point) and when you get arrested, let's not hear you complain about how the laws are wrong or pointless. Because that would just be your feelings, and nobody wants to hear those that dissent, right? :)

One more thing about the last part of your post that I quoted. "a free country where you are allowed to have your own beliefs". In a free country, (most likely you meant a country with extensive liberty since you do have laws there) such as yours, many states have the death penalty. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but the police don't execute people on the street for these property crimes that you've offered as examples. In fact, it seems that the police are willing to accept a fair amount of danger so they can bring a suspect in alive so that the courts, and often a "jury of his peers" can pass judgement.

When you shoot someone (whether lawful or not) you're throwing that entire judicial concept away and becoming a jury of one. And you're issuing a sentence that you can't later change. Exactly when did you and your judgement supercede the writings and proof-in-action of all those centuries of American thought and wisdom?

There has got to be more to that story.

nope, not really. That guy was just impudent enough to do that and he won. There are some other famous people who did nearly the same, and those people won, too. Like that old lady that splashed some hot McDonalds coffe upon ferself. She sued McDonalds because
Nobody told her, that coffe is served hot unless you order it cold.
She won and got 1.750000 Dollars compensation.

Now you can read it on every McDonalds coffecup "carefull, hot!"

Does the goverment have the right to ban guns such as semiauto shotguns/rifles? I use those for hunting and i don't feel anyone has the right to come to my house and take them away from me.

You hunt with a semi-automatic rifle or a shotgun!? By 'hunt' do you mean 'annihilate'? Whatever happened to getting a good ol' single shot rifle and hunting with that? 'Hunting' as an excuse to own semi-automatic rifles is, in my opinion, the most ridiculous excuse ever. I don't really care but for the crime it allows. That's a reflection of the country though; Canada is more lenient with weapons, but it has a fraction of the gun deaths that the USA has.

Besides.... we don't need gun control; we need some BULLET control. :D

nope, not really. That guy was just impudent enough to do that and he won. There are some other famous people who did nearly the same, and those people won, too. Like that old lady that splashed some hot McDonalds coffe upon ferself. She sued McDonalds because

She won and got 1.750000 Dollars compensation.

Now you can read it on every McDonalds coffecup "carefull, hot!"

The McDonalds thing had more to it(not that I agree with the ruling). McDonalds kept their coffee hotter than other places. They had good reason for this(people like their coffee hot when they arrice at work) but nonetheless, it was hotter that other equivilant places. The Judge also reduced the ruling to $600,000, Most of which went to the lawyers and medical bills. She had pretty extensive damage(I think this was also a function of the clothes she was wearing) and needed plastic surgery.

So what I am asking for is if there is something like the "coffee was hotter" in your case about the dumbass burglar. Something like the garage was rigged so that it would specifically trap an unwary person or some other such thing.

I'm not sure what a "chl" is, sorry.


Concealed Handgun License


When you shoot someone (whether lawful or not) you're throwing that entire judicial concept away and becoming a jury of one. And you're issuing a sentence that you can't later change. Exactly when did you and your judgement supercede the writings and proof-in-action of all those centuries of American thought and wisdom?

Not so, really. You have the right to defend yourself. Even to the point of using lethal force. It was the criminal that decided to break into your house, terrorize you, and attempt to take that which you worked for.

The only reason all those laws defining what constitutes the use of lethal force are on the books is due to families suing police officers and municipalities. The police aren't necessarily trying to bring them in alive out of the kindness of their hearts. They'll be prosicuted if they don't try.

Why do some of us have the philosophy of using lethal force? Well, when your legal system is utterly corrupt and ridiculous, allowing those who should be punished for their actions to go free because a police officer missed ONE word of the miranda code (one example), and punishing those that did nothing wrong other than drive slightly faster than the person next to them, people tend to want to see justice actually done.

The more laws, the more loopholes. The more loopholes, the more lawyers. The more lawyers, the more dirtbags out on the street instead of in prison.

So what I am asking for is if there is something like the "coffee was hotter" in your case about the dumbass burglar. Something like the garage was rigged so that it would specifically trap an unwary person or some other such thing.
That's still ridiculous, I'm sure your not saying you agree with this. If I'm doing aids research and someone breaks into my lab and injects themselves with the HIV virus is that my fault too?

That's still ridiculous, I'm sure your not saying you agree with this. If I'm doing aids research and someone breaks into my lab and injects themselves with the HIV virus is that my fault too?

I don't agree with how it would work out, but yes, you are the one considered liable for not security the virus well enough.

This is what's screwed up with our country today.

Again, you are choosing to misunderstand, or misrepresent the situation I was speaking of. If I confront someone who is damaging my property, or damaging any property for that matter, and they then turn toward me in a threatening manner and I am in fear for my life, I am justified in defending myself, using lethal force if necessary. If the person runs away instead, I am not justified. What you are saying is that I have no right to confront the criminal in the first place. You are very very wrong. Not only is it my right to do so, it is my duty as a citizen.

Duty as a citizen aside (because I'm not a citizen of the US and thus haven't taken any classes informing me of a citizen's duties), what if you didn't own a gun and "someone came towards you in a threatening manner" in way you describe? What then?

If they are just in my house, no I wont shoot them. If when I confront them, and I have every right to do so, and they run away I let them go. If they instead attempt to harm me, or threaten me, things will get nasty.

I'm so glad you said this. This is what I was hoping someone would finally say. So maybe you do place more value on human life than some of your earlier posts lead me to believe. I'd be a little less alarmed at having you for a neighbour now. ;)

You are right, except that you still suggest I do not have the right to defend my property. I can not use lethal force to defend my property, but I can confront the criminal. We, as a society, can not "justify" a criminals behavior, nor mitigate thier responsibility. It's a little principle called "But for their actions". But for thier actions, no confrontation would ever take place.

And if you didn't have a gun and confronted them, you'd not be able to shoot someone down. It seems to me (and reading this thread overall hasn't dissuaded me) that many people who possess a firearm are a little too quick to pull the trigger, for whatever reason. Those of your fellow citizens in the US that don't have a gun... are they the victims of theft/violence more often than those with ready access to a gun?

I ask because I wonder if having a gun ever escalates the final results of any of these situations.

No. I am completely within my rights to confront someone who is breaking the law. I am not escalating anything not already started by the criminial. Even after confrontation, ultimately the decision is left to the criminal whether to run away, or threaten me.

I can't see how you can say that if you confront someone, who is for example, breaking into your car, isn't escalating a situation. There's no violence in someone taking your stereo, or even your car. But once you move yourself into the situation, things change. You really don't see it like that?

And since it was your move to bring yourself into the situation, that's you doing the escalating. I'm not saying it's the wrong thing to do, but I do think you're wrong about responsibility and how the situation changes.

Putting words in my mouth here. I did not say I would shoot anyone over posessions, or that I was "uncomfortable". I specifically stated if I was in fear of my, or my families life.

Fear. Just finding an intruder in my home would give me fear. If my family was at home at the time, I'd fear for them as well. And yet with that example you gave earlier, if he ran away you wouldn't shoot him. So it's obviously not just based on fear. In the same way that if you were afraid to be in a certain part of the city after dark, if you found yourself there you wouldn't blast anything that moves. I don't even have to ask if that's true, since your words have shown me that you wouldn't.

Though I'm a bit stumped at how you arrive at your justification for when you'd shoot, and when you wouldn't. I'm not being deliberately obtuse.

Yes, people get shot when they are on anothers property. Not because so though. They are shot because they have made another fear for his life. You have no right to judge how or why someone else fears for his life. If the criminal had not placed themselves in that situation, they would not be shot. Period.

Yes, I do have a right. I knew a girl who was afraid of green (no joke lol). If she had a gun and the intruder happened to be dressed in green, things might go very differently than someone dressed in yellow.

Or seeing a very large man with a goatee dressed in denim with bare arms covered in tattoos might elicit a different response from someone than seeing a teenager in her school uniform if either were found breaking into your garage.

So I'm sorry, but "fear" just isn't enough. The big guy (even wearing a green shirt ;) ) might not be the one you have to worry about, but a frightened person with a gun isn't really qualified to decide, at least in my opinion.

Talk about taking something to it's illogical extreme :rolleyes:. A five year old cutting across a lawn does in no way make someone fear for their life. I am being reasonable, try to be the same.

Look, I'm from Canada. The situations you've described already seem like an illogical extreme to me. It's not often that someone gets shot here, certainly not on the scale you have there. And while we love our familes just as much, we don't seem to find it necessary to blast people who make us afraid. It happens, don't get me wrong. But at a way lower rate compared to the US than even per capita calculations would allow for. So help me out - why is it different for you? I'm trying to understand, truly I am. I can't imagine we're all that different (our countries I mean).

Do you (collectively) feel safer that we do with all this talk of being justified to shoot at this or that, as the situation warrants?

Note that we've got as many or more guns per capita here as you do, they just tend to be rifles and shotguns. And we're allowed to defend ourselves. So why the difference?

Afraid of what somene may do, does not lead to that someone getting shot. I carry a gun because of what someone may do. I use a gun because of what someone does. Understand that difference?

Vaguely. You mentioned fear earlier as being a reason for some, but in this above quote you're saying that for you fear isn't a consideration. Instead, you're saying that you'll use your gun in response to what someone actually does.

Did I get that right?

All any of those suggestions do is keep "honest people honest". Best guard dog in the world is mollified with a steak. Alarm systems are easly circumvented. If a criminal is determined to assail me or my property, nothing I can do can or will deter him, save forcing him to acknowledge my willingness to end his life if he threatens mine.

I'd just like to note that assailing your property isn't threatening you.

Again, you are asserting that I am willing to shoot someone because they assail my property. I never said that. But I will always assert that I have the right to confront someone to protect my property. You are arguing that I do not. You are wrong.

Well, it was in the same post. :) You can't hammer at me for not having read your clarifications if you're still on my same post. :P

In your self-rightous opinion they are murderers. You choose not to defend your property. That is your choice. I choose to. It is not my decision to escalate the situation to lethal force. It is always ultimately the criminals.

Self-righteous? In way that you're not when you say "I can do this and I can do that. I have the right."?

Again, you choose not to defend your property. Your choice, which is your right to do so. I choose to defend mine. That is my right. You can keep your self-rightous attitude about the criminal's right to steal or damage my property to yourself.

Since I never once said that a criminal has a right to steal or damage property, you're misquoting me somewhat.

What I've said is that someone stealing or damaging something (presumably we're not talking about a truck full of fertilizer being detonated next to your house, we're talking about broken glass and such) isn't an executable offense. If you can't get sentenced to death in the courts for doing it, then individual citizens shouldn't take it into their own hands to dispense such punishment.

THAT'S what I said about criminals.

I'm so glad you said this. This is what I was hoping someone would finally say. So maybe you do place more value on human life than some of your earlier posts lead me to believe. I'd be a little less alarmed at having you for a neighbour now. ;)
Alarmed? I'd love to have a neighbour with so much respect for me and my property.

Concealed Handgun License

Ah thank you. :)

Not so, really. You have the right to defend yourself. Even to the point of using lethal force. It was the criminal that decided to break into your house, terrorize you, and attempt to take that which you worked for.

I agree that you have the right to defend yourself. I don't agree that you have the right to use deadly force unless that's the very last alternative.

The only reason all those laws defining what constitutes the use of lethal force are on the books is due to families suing police officers and municipalities. The police aren't necessarily trying to bring them in alive out of the kindness of their hearts. They'll be prosicuted if they don't try.

Well, I'm aware that there's a lot of suing going on in your country of police. But I'm pretty sure one of the mandates is that the police are to bring suspects back to be tried in court, isn't it?

[/i]Why do some of us have the philosophy of using lethal force? Well, when your legal system is utterly corrupt and ridiculous, allowing those who should be punished for their actions to go free because a police officer missed ONE word of the miranda code (one example), and punishing those that did nothing wrong other than drive slightly faster than the person next to them, people tend to want to see justice actually done. [/i]

Absolutely, and our system here has its problems too. Does shooting people help/change any of that? I'm not being sarcastic, I'm just not coming from a place where I can understand the mindset.

The more laws, the more loopholes. The more loopholes, the more lawyers. The more lawyers, the more dirtbags out on the street instead of in prison.

The prisons are full anyway. Maybe it's time to shift out the minor offenders and start effectively capturing and prosecuting the worse offenders.

Perhaps the police should be constantly wired for video and sound, so that there's a record to look at when the various people are testifying in court. :P

Sorry, I know this thread isn't about the courts. And thanks for not taking my dissenting remarks personally. :)

Alarmed? I'd love to have a neighbour with so much respect for me and my property.

Alarmed because I'd be worried having someone living near me with a willingness to open fire long before I would.

But in the bit you quoted from me, I was saying that after reading his response, I was someone less alarmed by his attitudes now, because he'd clarified some things.

Can anyone tell me why someone who has no respect for the law of the land and breaks into someone's house can then subsequently rely on the law of the land to protect them from a good maiming/decapitation?

Can anyone tell me why someone who has no respect for the law of the land and breaks into someone's house can then subsequently rely on the law of the land to protect them from a good maiming/decapitation?
because American law does not recognize the "two wrongs make a right" system of morality.

because American law does not recognize the "two wrongs make a right" system of morality.

Beautifully said. :)

That's still ridiculous, I'm sure your not saying you agree with this. If I'm doing aids research and someone breaks into my lab and injects themselves with the HIV virus is that my fault too?

I already said I dont agree with the ruling. But it happened, and the "hotter coffee" was what made the argument work in the juries eyes. So I was asking if there was something like that in the trapped burglar case.


If the guy injects himself then I doubt its your fault. But what if you had intentionally labeled them as "morphine" and the robber injects himself with them and contracts the AIDS virus. Then the courts might find you at fault.

Personally, I think the robber is at fault the moment he breaks into a place and anything that happens to him afterward(including getting eaten by a pet lion) is his tough luck.

because American law does not recognize the "two wrongs make a right" system of morality.

surely we shouldn't be able to pick and choose which laws to obey. either you respect the law, or you don't. If you choose to ignore the laws of the land, how can you justify using them in your defense?

And besides. You don't need a semi-automatic to hunt.


The 2nd amendment wasn't set up by our founding fathers to protect our right to hunt. It was written to protect the new citizens of The United States from their own government. The founding fathers understood all too well that in an historical perspective that all governments have the potential for corruption and that no democracy has ever lasted. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe our government here in the U.S. is out of control and needs to be overthrown from within. My question is, if it does become intolerable, how will we as citizen’s fight, flintlock muskets?

Semper Fi,

The Berserk....
:headbang:

Ah thank you. :)

Not so, really. You have the right to defend yourself. Even to the point of using lethal force. It was the criminal that decided to break into your house, terrorize you, and attempt to take that which you worked for.

I agree that you have the right to defend yourself. I don't agree that you have the right to use deadly force unless that's the very last alternative.

The only reason all those laws defining what constitutes the use of lethal force are on the books is due to families suing police officers and municipalities. The police aren't necessarily trying to bring them in alive out of the kindness of their hearts. They'll be prosicuted if they don't try.

Well, I'm aware that there's a lot of suing going on in your country of police. But I'm pretty sure one of the mandates is that the police are to bring suspects back to be tried in court, isn't it?

[/i]Why do some of us have the philosophy of using lethal force? Well, when your legal system is utterly corrupt and ridiculous, allowing those who should be punished for their actions to go free because a police officer missed ONE word of the miranda code (one example), and punishing those that did nothing wrong other than drive slightly faster than the person next to them, people tend to want to see justice actually done. [/i]

Absolutely, and our system here has its problems too. Does shooting people help/change any of that? I'm not being sarcastic, I'm just not coming from a place where I can understand the mindset.

The more laws, the more loopholes. The more loopholes, the more lawyers. The more lawyers, the more dirtbags out on the street instead of in prison.

The prisons are full anyway. Maybe it's time to shift out the minor offenders and start effectively capturing and prosecuting the worse offenders.

Perhaps the police should be constantly wired for video and sound, so that there's a record to look at when the various people are testifying in court. :P

Sorry, I know this thread isn't about the courts. And thanks for not taking my dissenting remarks personally. :)

No prob. It's a discussion list, not an attack list. I give Chess a tough time due to previous posts, though I'm sure he/she is a fairly smart cookie. ;)

You and I are fairly close in opinion on who the jails should be housing.

Lethal force probably should be the last alternative. And yes, you need to be in fear for your life or someone else's (excluding the criminal in front of you) before shooting.

I didn't put enough detail in my previous posts as to when *I'd* shoot.

Threatening manner, speech, etc. to anyone that I'm around. However, I'm not the type to back down and run from the situation--call it a character flaw. And yes, if someone is stealing my stuff, I will chase them. Some might call that escalating the situation, but hey I paid for the stuff, and my insurance premiums will definitely go up, when the theft is reported. Why should I have to pay, when a criminal gets away with something?

I do have different levels of human life. Not everyone is equal. They are when I first encounter them, but interaction changes that.

In studies conducted in prisons, the number one fear of a criminal is an armed target. There is a reason violent crime has been declining in every state that has adopted a shall issue concealed carry permit system. Carrying guns and using them (brandishing or firing) works at deterring crime.

Can anyone tell me why someone who has no respect for the law of the land and breaks into someone's house can then subsequently rely on the law of the land to protect them from a good maiming/decapitation?
because its proscribed in the law of the land.

because American law does not recognize the "two wrongs make a right" system of morality.
when i became dictator of the world i appoint you supreme judge

[quote]A person may use physical force upon another person in self-defense or in defending a third person, in *defending property*, in making an arrest(including citizen arrest) or in preventing an escape, as hereafter prescribed in chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971. [1971 c.743 §21; 1981 c.246 §1][/i]

The first bit makes perfect sense to me. But the "defending property" and the "preventing an escape" simply don't. Again, this means you can shoot the teenager that runs when he broke into your home looking to raid your liquor cabinet. Regardless of the statute, does that make sense to you?

lets not forget to mention that that says PHYSICAL FORCE, not DEADLY FORCE


And at the risk of sounding anti-American (which I'm truly not), controlling (or influencing) the trade of entire countries (read: anywhere there have ever been US troops) is economic terrorism. As a country, feeling that you have a right to continue your own way of life at the expense of other countries ways of life and destroying/limiting their means to feed themselves and other basic human necessities except by your intervention is economic terrorism.
omg you said the t word against america, you are unpatriotic !1!1!eleven!!!911!1!1

Alarmed because I'd be worried having someone living near me with a willingness to open fire long before I would.

But in the bit you quoted from me, I was saying that after reading his response, I was someone less alarmed by his attitudes now, because he'd clarified some things.
if i lived near these people, i would move, id wait for them to shoot something and have a bullet hit my house then sue them to bullet proof my house from the gun nuts

This thread grows too damn fast. I was going to reply to something but it's now 2 pages back and that was only a couple hours ago.

Anyway, I cant say for Canada, but in the US, most police are "wired for sound and video" for just that reason. "Frivilous" lawsuits resulting in police brutality. Actual police brutality cases that I know of... perhaps a half a dozen. Number of cases police use physical force to apprehend criminals? It boggles the mind how many. Funny how very few people can understand the simple phrase "put your hands behind your back".

I do feel it's my civic responsibility to defend my and my neighbors property. It's my civic duty to confront criminals of all sorts. You asked if I hadnt had a gun what would I do? Situations differ, and according to the situation at hand I would make the judgment call. If the criminal attacks me with his hands I will respond with a (generally) non-lethal object. I personally have some training in baton sufficient in my own personal defense. If the criminal attacks me with a knife or a club of some sort.... well I have a sword and Im not afraid to use it (yes I have training with that as well). If the criminal uses a gun, and I dont have one... I do my best to aquiesce to his demands, or remove myself from the situation. But you see.. that's why I do carry a gun, so that Im not in a situation where I give complete control to the criminal.

Contrary to popular belief, I do not shoot first and ask questions later. You will find most gun owners are of the same mind.

if i lived near these people, i would move

Then I would have done my job, and made my neighborhood safer :p

Contrary to popular belief, I do not shoot first and ask questions later. You will find most gun owners are of the same mind.
those must not be the ones that use this forum i take it

Then I would have done my job, and made my neighborhood safer :p
safer from what? some one with fucking common sense?

it seems common is one hell of a oxymoron, so few people have it

Hey, in a way i feel i'm invading this poll because i'm not an American citizin, I live other side of the big blue sea in the United Kingdom. Over here in Europe gun laws are A LOT tighter, and our crime and murder rates are a lot lower as well. The public has no need for firearms, why would it? America will never be invaded by a horrible dictator so the public will never need to enter combat. And as for hunting, it's just an unjustified excuse. It's not like your hunting big game, so there is no need for large weapons. To be honest, hunting itself is outdated because i doubt any American who owns a gun needs to hunt to survive. Over here America is seen as a violent nation, with the highest murder rates in the Western Civilised world. British tourists are advised not to be on the streets in places like New York after dark. It's a real shame an old British Colony, has turned into such a scary place for us to visit. It's not even that America has been through generations of War, The World War's happend over here in Europe, Britain has been in countless more wars than America has yet America is so, for the lack of better words, War Crazy and Gun Nuts.

Hey, in a way i feel i'm invading this poll because i'm not an American citizin, I live other side of the big blue sea in the United Kingdom. Over here in Europe gun laws are A LOT tighter, and our crime and murder rates are a lot lower as well. The public has no need for firearms, why would it? America will never be invaded by a horrible dictator so the public will never need to enter combat. And as for hunting, it's just an unjustified excuse. It's not like your hunting big game, so there is no need for large weapons. To be honest, hunting itself is outdated because i doubt any American who owns a gun needs to hunt to survive. Over here America is seen as a violent nation, with the highest murder rates in the Western Civilised world. British tourists are advised not to be on the streets in places like New York after dark. It's a real shame an old British Colony, has turned into such a scary place for us to visit. It's not even that America has been through generations of War, The World War's happend over here in Europe, Britain has been in countless more wars than America has yet America is so, for the lack of better words, War Crazy and Gun Nuts.

actually here in america we still do have big game..you ever seen a bear or a moose? those mothers are BIG.

actually here in america we still do have big game..you ever seen a bear or a moose? those mothers are BIG.

Would you really need a semi-automatic shotgun though? And in Europe we have just as large Animals, big game means animals from African etc. As far as i'm concerned, guns should be within the military and that's it. The public has no need to own them at all.

Would you really need a semi-automatic shotgun though? And in Europe we have just as large Animals, big game means animals from African etc. As far as i'm concerned, guns should be within the military and that's it. The public has no need to own them at all.
the bigger game in europe is hard to find, and i never said anything about assault weapons, im talking about hunting weapons

the bigger game in europe is hard to find, and i never said anything about assault weapons, im talking about hunting weapons

Semi-automatic shotguns are used by certain special forces for detatching doors from frames. But the main issue is WHY do the American public need to be armed AT ALL? If firearms were totally illegal wouldn't crime levels fall to roughly the same in Europe?

Semi-automatic shotguns are used by certain special forces for detatching doors from frames. But the main issue is WHY do the American public need to be armed AT ALL? If firearms were totally illegal wouldn't crime levels fall to roughly the same in Europe?
learn to read or go away

"i never said anything about assault weapons, im talking about hunting weapons"

semi-auto SHOTGUN is an assault weapon

Semi-automatic shotguns are used by certain special forces for detatching doors from frames. But the main issue is WHY do the American public need to be armed AT ALL? If firearms were totally illegal wouldn't crime levels fall to roughly the same in Europe?

There is no indication that removing firearms (an impossibility, anyway) would alter the crime rate. The difference is in the culture, not the tools.

Chess, is it difficult for you to not insult people? I find it hard to take anything you say seriously because it is usually followed by some insane personal attack. Which is sad, because you do have some valid points, sometimes...but nobody really notices them anymore because of your ever-present insults...just a thought.

Regardless they are still legal in the U.S and if they are assault weapons, it's even worse. Guns are made to end lives, no public, European or American should be allowed them. Are you not avoiding the topic? About gun control? The Government should outlaw all firearms from public reach as soon as possible. No man or women needs them, do they?

Regardless they are still legal in the U.S and if they are assault weapons, it's even worse. Guns are made to end lives, no public, European or American should be allowed them. Are you not avoiding the topic? About gun control? The Government should outlaw all firearms from public reach as soon as possible. No man or women needs them, do they?
in all honesty, you are annoying

in all honesty, you are annoying

What ever mate, your clearly avoiding the topic using mindless insults because you obviously have no evidence to back up the public's right to guns whatever type and make. Grow up or dont enter mature conversations.

Regardless they are still legal in the U.S and if they are assault weapons, it's even worse. Guns are made to end lives, no public, European or American should be allowed them. Are you not avoiding the topic? About gun control? The Government should outlaw all firearms from public reach as soon as possible. No man or women needs them, do they?

The government could outlaw all they wanted, but it wouldn't change anything, in my opinion. America is a culture that enjoys firearms. We have a different outlook about them, because we are allowed to have them and have always been allowed to have them. Firearms have become (fortunately or unfortunately, depending on perspective) an ingrained, inexorable fixed part of Americana. Laws wouldn't change that. It would be like asking the government to outlaw sex. They could make all the laws they want, but sex will still happen (yippeeeee!).

There should be controls, to be sure, and very stiff penalties for firearm abuse or crimes with a firearm. In my opinion, the problem lies not in the presence of firearms, but in the lax judicial system which continues to be soft on the misuse of firearms.

Also, an overwhelmingly staggering majority of americans are pro gun ownership ( I'm afraid I don't have exact figures). No politician is going to go against that many voters. They would no longer be representing the will of the people.

The polarizing issue is not gun ownership, or even gun control, but gun misuse. If noone shot anyone, it wouldn't be an issue.

There is a much tighter debate about what types of guns to allow, but even that won't get very far. Most guns that are involved in crimes are illegal weapons (either by type or method of procurement) anway.

The government could outlaw all they wanted, but it wouldn't change anything, in my opinion. America is a culture that enjoys firearms. We have a different outlook about them, because we are allowed to have them and have always been allowed to have them. Firearms have become (fortunately or unfortunately, depending on perspective) an ingrained, inexorable fixed part of Americana. Laws wouldn't change that. It would be like asking the government to outlaw sex. They could make all the laws they want, but sex will still happen (yippeeeee!).

There should be controls, to be sure, and very stiff penalties for firearm abuse or crimes with a firearm. In my opinion, the problem lies not in the presence of firearms, but in the lax judicial system which continues to be soft on the misuse of firearms.

I can see where your coming from, with the amount of firearms in the U.S i guess it would be impossible to outlaw them, but things like Columbine? Education about it needs to be stepped up in my opinion and laws need to be tightened as you said.

What ever mate, your clearly avoiding the topic using mindless insults because you obviously have no evidence to back up the public's right to guns whatever type and make. Grow up or dont enter mature conversations.
read the last 3-6 pages, whatever it is now, i should be arguing for at least 4 pages for gun control against hardcore gun nuts, why dont you read before posting mindless dribble

I can see where your coming from, with the amount of firearms in the U.S i guess it would be impossible to outlaw them, but things like Columbine? Education about it needs to be stepped up in my opinion and laws need to be tightened as you said.

I believe that there should be controls over who is allowed to have a gun, and you're right that education is paramount.

Hey, in a way i feel i'm invading this poll because i'm not an American citizin, I live other side of the big blue sea in the United Kingdom. Over here in Europe gun laws are A LOT tighter, and our crime and murder rates are a lot lower as well. The public has no need for firearms, why would it? America will never be invaded by a horrible dictator so the public will never need to enter combat. And as for hunting, it's just an unjustified excuse. It's not like your hunting big game, so there is no need for large weapons. To be honest, hunting itself is outdated because i doubt any American who owns a gun needs to hunt to survive. Over here America is seen as a violent nation, with the highest murder rates in the Western Civilised world. British tourists are advised not to be on the streets in places like New York after dark. It's a real shame an old British Colony, has turned into such a scary place for us to visit. It's not even that America has been through generations of War, The World War's happend over here in Europe, Britain has been in countless more wars than America has yet America is so, for the lack of better words, War Crazy and Gun Nuts.

On the contrary, your violent crime rates have RISEN in the UK.

The second amendment was put in to defend us from our own government, more than an invading army--though it would help with that as well.

Something we did screw up by killing off most of the wolf population would be the controls for the herd animals. More people are injured in car accidents by deer running across the road than killed by firearms in Wisconsin. We have to hunt to control the deer population.

New York is scary BECAUSE it has very tight gun laws and doesn't allow the average law-abiding citizen to have them. Criminals know that most of the populace has been disarmed for their convenience (you won't ever be able to take them all away, regardless of whatever laws are passed--there's this thing called the black market) and regular citizens and visitors are the criminals' prey.

read the last 3-6 pages, whatever it is now, i should be arguing for at least 4 pages for gun control against hardcore gun nuts, why dont you read before posting mindless dribble

I'm pretty sure they read it. You really don't have anything to back up your position. Time to realize it.

I can see where your coming from, with the amount of firearms in the U.S i guess it would be impossible to outlaw them, but things like Columbine? Education about it needs to be stepped up in my opinion and laws need to be tightened as you said.

Columbine was perpetrated by criminals. They were kids. They weren't legally allowed to be handling those types of firearms. The laws were there. They didn't stop anything.

Gun control doesn't work.

I would love it if every kid took a hunters' safety or firearms training of some sort. It would take the villification of an inanimate object away from the liberal media.

Gun control means using both hands.

Don't be an asshole, don't kill people, and everyone should co-exist very nicely.

Gun control means using both hands.

Don't be an asshole, don't kill people, and everyone should co-exist very nicely.

I thought gun control meant hitting the target.
:D

I like that non-asshole philosophy....!

I thought gun control meant hitting the target.
:D

I like that non-asshole philosophy....!

Yes, not being an asshole is always appreciated. ;)

Neo-Ultramar's Basic Guide to Gun Control:

I. Felony criminals and multiple misdemeanor criminals are not allowed to purchase or own guns.
II. The mentally inept/handicapped/retarded/unstable are not allowed to purchase or own guns. Also you must pass basic firearm safety and usage tests before purchase.
III. Individuals who committ heinous crimes (murder, rape) by using firearms are executed.
IV. Individuals who threaten public safety with firearms are not allowed to purchase own guns (Mr. A gets drunk, starts shooting at things in the neighborhood and endangering the lives of citizens, gets his firearm rights revoked)
V. All firearms must be registered and have 3 day waiting period. Every firearm is test fired and a bullet and shell casing are registered with the criminalist/forensic laboratory national database. (Gun A, Bullet A, Shell Casing A).

A paraphrasing of Penn & Tellers rules for firearms.

I. Always assume a gun is loaded unless you, yourself have checked it.
II. Know what is to the left, right, above, below and behind your target.
III. Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to fire.
IV. Only point a gun at something that you intend to destroy.

If these rules were followed there would be a lot fewer accidental shootings.

Neo-Ultramar's Basic Guide to Gun Control:

I. Felony criminals and multiple misdemeanor criminals are not allowed to purchase or own guns.
II. The mentally inept/handicapped/retarded/unstable are not allowed to purchase or own guns. Also you must pass basic firearm safety and usage tests before purchase.
III. Individuals who committ heinous crimes (murder, rape) by using firearms are executed.
IV. Individuals who threaten public safety with firearms are not allowed to purchase own guns (Mr. A gets drunk, starts shooting at things in the neighborhood and endangering the lives of citizens, gets his firearm rights revoked)
V. All firearms must be registered and have 3 day waiting period. Every firearm is test fired and a bullet and shell casing are registered with the criminalist/forensic laboratory national database. (Gun A, Bullet A, Shell Casing A).

It all sounds good except for V.

It all sounds good except for V.

I agree. Balistic profiling doesn't actually work. The only way you can get a close match is if the shell that is the "signature" version is from the exact same manufacturer, and in most cases, the same lot--fired within 20-50 rounds of each other.

Different jackets, how much is in the grooves of the barrel, and a whole slew of other factors make bullets fired from the same gun not match.

Also, I don't like the feds having a ton of lists with my name on them--so no registration.

It all sounds good except for V.
V is a major requirement of excellent gun control

there haft to kill me befor i give up my guns :sniper: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :D











Ahhhh MOtherlan!!!!!!!!

No, they bought them at gun shows.


They had one apeice and I'm sure most would agree, that was more than enought to kill the amount of people they did.

Who am I to tell you? I'm a citizen of the United States of America, and I have a damn right to be safe. I don't want semi-automatic firearms to be in the hands of ordinary citizens such as yourself.

Firearms are things for the military and the police. Both of which having formal educations and deep background checks.


Which is yet another reason to restrict arms sales.


Red Guard address that well.

Military, Backround checks, ::Laughs::

Only if your in an MOS that requires Clearance

other than that. Recruiters could give two shits what you did before

You know, on the hunting issue, an old friend of my grandfather's family hunted deer with bows.

Maybe it is easier to hunt with better guns, but doesn't that take the fun out of it? The sportsmanship? I've never hunted, nor do I plan on it, or support it, but it seems to me using more powerful weapons is something like playing baseball with a six foot wide super-light magically enchanted cork bat. If it doesn't take any skill, what's the point?

V is a major requirement of excellent gun control


No it isnt.

a) ballistic fingerprinting doesnt work. It doesnt work it is very easy to
1) change the barrel
2) alter the barrel
3) even repeated firings changes the "fingerprint" of the barrel.
4) it is extremely expensive for both the state and gun makers to comply with it.(This wouldnt bother me if it actually worked)

5) MOST IMPORTANT... criminals do not go around committing crimes with guns registered to them. Maybe some crimes will be solved by tracing the back the gun to where it was stolen from ect., but it will not justify #4.

The same money would be better spent on say gun education or even cracking down on the 6% of FFL dealers who account for a large percentage of guns used in crimes.

6) waiting periods dont stop criminals from getting guns because they get guns from the black market(where there is no waiting period or background check)

The waiting period MIGHT work in the case of some suicides(doubtful because nobody wakes up one day and decides to kill themselves, its a long term thing).

I can provide some anecdotal evidence about how lives where lost BECAUSE of a waitingperiod, but that type of evidence really doesnt prove anything.

I was raised on a farm numbnuts, I can deal with killing animals. If you wanna hunt, make it a little sporting. I'm so tired of lazy SOB's who have no skill and whine because they need a semi-auto. You'll get no sympathy from me, real hunting is done with a bow.
You do realize that some individuals are more recoil sensitive simply because of the fact that they have less mass. Semi-auto shotguns reduce the felt recoil because of their design. They do have a legitimate place in hunting for these people.

No it isnt.

a) ballistic fingerprinting doesnt work. It doesnt work it is very easy to
1) change the barrel
2) alter the barrel
3) even repeated firings changes the "fingerprint" of the barrel.
4) it is extremely expensive for both the state and gun makers to comply with it.(This wouldnt bother me if it actually worked)
cant wre just make barrels non-interchangeable

5) MOST IMPORTANT... criminals do not go around committing crimes with guns registered to them. Maybe some crimes will be solved by tracing the back the gun to where it was stolen from ect., but it will justify #4.
thats the idea



6) waiting periods dont stop criminals from getting guns because they get guns from the black market(where there is no waiting period or background check)
thats not what waiting periods are for, waiting periods are for crimes of passion

You do realize that some individuals are more recoil sensitive simply because of the fact that they have less mass. Semi-auto shotguns reduce the felt recoil because of their design. They do have a legitimate place in hunting for these people.
then redesign normal shotguns

I'm not sure what a "chl" is, sorry.

Concealed Handgun license. I knew I could of rightfully killed him but obviously I did not feel threatened by a dude weighing less than 120 lbs with a screwdriver coming at me because of my own confidence in my own abilities in that situation. However if it would of been a guy of equal size or anything about the situation that would of gave me alarm for my own life I would not of hesitated to hold a gun on him, and if they continue to come at you then no choice is left. Just to answer your question a penny is worth more to me than any criminals life, and no amount of money or any property is worth a law abiding citizens life. They lost thier value of life when they devalue another's life by taking what is not thiers and breaking our frickin laws.
You act as though people should change thier ways and feel compassion for the criminal, that is only your opinion also. Here in America you get to choose (as long as it is legal) who what and where you give your compassion to. I have more compassion for something I saved up to buy, than the life a criminal saved up to exploit.

not too interested in what you say the police told you about being "justified" either. Regardless of whether you would have been able to use deadly force and escaped any legal consequences is quite outside of what I was talking about. I'm talking about the basic devaluing of human life in your reasoning for what's justified.

Read the above post. Value of criminal life is not equal to value of any legal law abiding citizen, or whatever that law abiding citizen values as being more valuable than the prick that thought he could just take it.


Well, short of knowing the census data on such issues, it's impossible to know if the majority of the US population disagrees with me, or agrees with you. And yes, I'm aware of how the laws in these situations seem to work. And I don't agree (nor would logic, or even common sense) that if a criminal is breaking into a car, and the police arrive and train guns on him, and he twitches or runs and the police open fire... that the guy who was breaking into the car is responsible for one of the cop's stray bullets hitting a passerby. Because the cops are irresponsibly using deadly force on someone who runs. Guess what? The cops can coordinate by radio. They have multiple forces while the thief is an army of one. Because he's getting away they get to cut him down? What is this, the old west? Will they rope him next and drag him back to town behind their horses?

Well considering that it is our people that vote on these measures and vote in the represenatives that make the laws we want them to make. It is obvious the American public agrees more with me than you. Why else would they want the laws we have in place, in place? You say logic and common sense would not agree, who's logic and common sense are you talking about? Canadians? Now you think common sense and logic is universal from one country to another? Hey if you want to say the US is just like the old west then that is your opinion. We have our laws in place and if you do not abide by them then you are not going to just be able to say that well where I come from this does not seem logical. Go to Kuwait and brew some alcohol up and then be hung by a tree. That is thier logic not anyone elses. I can not understand how you think that another country should abide by another countries *logic*. That is not the way it works man. You go into a country or do a crime in whatever state or country then you are liable for and by whatever means that society has in place.


The first bit makes perfect sense to me. But the "defending property" and the "preventing an escape" simply don't. Again, this means you can shoot the teenager that runs when he broke into your home looking to raid your liquor cabinet. Regardless of the statute, does that make sense to you?

Again it does not need to make sense to you, it needs to make sense to the people that enact and vote in the people to enact the laws we want. You do not agree with how Americans value real property over a real criminals life. If you can convince enough people that your way of thinking is somehow better then I guess it is right, just as the current way of thinking is right. Now are you somehow superior and everyone else should listen to your logic? I will say this one more time,Rights (not privaledges) do not need reason's to exist or be excercised however you do need a reason to limit or hinder that right.
And yes it makes sense to me and tens of millions of other Americans to be able to kill a devalued criminal life for something we value more.


Okay, this is your stated mentality. I don't agree with it. What can I say? I'm glad you're not living here near me.

the same would be said about you being a neighbor to any American that believes this way, so what they are only opinions.

And at the risk of sounding anti-American (which I'm truly not), controlling (or influencing) the trade of entire countries (read: anywhere there have ever been US troops) is economic terrorism. As a country, feeling that you have a right to continue your own way of life at the expense of other countries ways of life and destroying/limiting their means to feed themselves and other basic human necessities except by your intervention is economic terrorism.

Ahh so I guess you trying to control how another person thinks or what they value over another is no different than our country trying to control other countries way of lives. So you feel that you have a right to destroy or limit the ways our country goes about its own business and you are not being hypocritical at all by saying this is how your country should be handling these situations, otherwise it is wrong lol.


Um... no, it's not quite like anti-abortion doctrine. You have posted many times in this thread about your personal feelings and views, and they are no more valid than mine, since they are just your feelings. And to then point to the laws and say "See? So I must be right." doesn't do much to prove it, that just shows how things currently are.

On the contrary my opinions are more in tune with my own countries doctrines with dealing with criminals than yours is. Those beliefs are obviously shared by the majority of my fellow Oregonians or they would not be current laws. Just to let you know the laws we have on the books now are much more leniant than past laws.


Wear a top hat in Kansas on a Sunday or eat an icecream cone upside down in Nebraska (both spurious laws meant to illustrate a point) and when you get arrested, let's not hear you complain about how the laws are wrong or pointless. Because that would just be your feelings, and nobody wants to hear those that dissent, right?

Hey you calling a law stupid is no different than any other criminal that calls a law stupid. If you do not like the laws in your state then try to change them or move to a state that has laws that you agree with.


One more thing about the last part of your post that I quoted. "a free country where you are allowed to have your own beliefs". In a free country, (most likely you meant a country with extensive liberty since you do have laws there) such as yours, many states have the death penalty. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but the police don't execute people on the street for these property crimes that you've offered as examples. In fact, it seems that the police are willing to accept a fair amount of danger so they can bring a suspect in alive so that the courts, and often a "jury of his peers" can pass judgement.

Do you not get why we have the laws in place to allow our citizens to be the executor over the police officer? Maybe its because it is the citizen that gets to choose what the value of thier own property is over someone that has no interest or value in that property. Also just to let you know look around the 50 states and tell me police officers do not execute *petty*
criminals on the streets for property crimes. You seem to think that we should reverse our laws that allows our citizens to decide what is of value to them over the police officer that has no value in your property. Our country allows the citizen to make the decision when a police officer is not present. Try to change it if you dont like it, but remember you got 50 states to change. All 50 states have thier own Constitutions that back up our Federalist papers and Constitution. Through the states Constitutions they get to decide what they themselves (the populace of each state) values or not.


When you shoot someone (whether lawful or not) you're throwing that entire judicial concept away and becoming a jury of one. And you're issuing a sentence that you can't later change. Exactly when did you and your judgement supercede the writings and proof-in-action of all those centuries of American thought and wisdom?

Again your thinking like every American should be like the Canadians. Here the the citizen having the right to use deadly force and physical force by whatever means neccasary under the law is a part of our judicial concept. Quit thinking that we should somehow be the same as your country, that is not the way it works down here. Do you know anything at all about the History of this country? It was based on three basic principles :
1) Private property
2)Individual liberty
3) States rights
That means that each individual state's populace gets to decide (due to the history of our writings in American thought and wisdom) what is right and what is wrong for each individual state.

Like any mechanical part, a barrel will eventually wear out. So every time we wear out a barrel, you want us to go out and purchase a entirely new firearm? So do you think every time we wear out our tires, we should buy a new car? After all, tire tread patterns are a useful tool in law enforcement, but they can easily be changed by getting new tires.

then redesign normal shotguns
How?
I take it you're not mechanical engineer. It's not easy to redesign a complex mechanical device on a whim. Tell me how you would do it. It's like taking a car designer and telling him to make all cars float indefinitely.

How?
I take it you're not mechanical engineer. It's not easy to redesign a complex mechanical device on a whim. Tell me how you would do it. It's like taking a car designer and telling him to make all cars float indefinitely.
you are the one that stated the design of the semi autoi shotgun reduces recoil, then you tell me you can make normal shotguns produce less recoil, hmm how would we do that? maybe dedesign them to be more like semi auto ones, jesus christ, you dont even listen to yourself

In America, weapons are here to stay people. It's time you all realize that.

You know, on the hunting issue, an old friend of my grandfather's family hunted deer with bows.Maybe it is easier to hunt with better guns, but doesn't that take the fun out of it? The sportsmanship? I've never hunted, nor do I plan on it, or support it, but it seems to me using more powerful weapons is something like playing baseball with a six foot wide super-light magically enchanted cork bat. If it doesn't take any skill, what's the point?

First off I have bow hunted deer, spear hunted (wild boar), rifle hunted deer,bear, cougar and Elk and handgun hunted bear. I choose not to hunt anything anymore other than criminals for personal reasons (see I value any animals life more than any criminals life now days) I was the last person on earth to ever become an animal rights person, however I still would never tell a person they should not hunt either (I let them make thier own decisions in life, and care for whatever it is they care for).

Trying to say that one or the other takes out the sport from another is like saying a blonde is better than a brunette or redhead. Its all about preference.

hmmm lets make a repeating mechanism more like a semi-auto mechanism

I know how, make it Gas Operated and SEMI AUTOMATIC

You can fire damn near as fast with a pump action as you can with a Semi-Auto.

and a Double barrel weapon can fired quickly for 2 shots, as fast as a Semi.

whats your point.

What is the evil of Semi-automatic?

cant wre just make barrels non-interchangeable

No, that would not be wise at all. Though the gun industry would love it if a person had to buy a new gun whenever his barrel got worn or was damaged. I am also curious how I could properly clean my weapons if I couldnt remove the barrels,(I do have 1 gun that the barrel cannot easily be removed, much harder to keep in good shape).

Even if barrels were stuck to the gun for life though, it is still very easy to alter the "fingerprint"


thats the idea

Notice I deleted that post because I caught a typo..I left out the word DOESNT justify #4



thats not what waiting periods are for, waiting periods are for crimes of passion

How is it a crime of passion if the person is willing to leave the area where the passion is taking place, go to the gun store, buy a weapon and then come back to the scene of the passion and then commit a crime with the weapon.

Doesnt it make more sense that any nearby object will be used like fists or a knife or a baseball bat?

5) MOST IMPORTANT... criminals do not go around committing crimes with guns registered to them. Maybe some crimes will be solved by tracing the back the gun to where it was stolen from ect., but it will not justify #4.

I've heard this argument from a lot of different people. But if it's true, then where are the criminals stealing their guns from? Because if at any point it turns out that they're stealing them from people who legally own them, then that's the source you should go after.

For that matter, why are guns still manufactured in the US? Unless they're being exported to other countries (and why supply them to places where people can easily get them and bring them back into your own country?) surely the demand for additional weapons is less than the rate they're turned out, isn't it?

Anyway, my original point is that if Joe Schmo doesn't have any guns in his house when it's robbed, then the criminals aren't getting a gun from there. Wouldn't restricting and ultimately outlawing firearm possession (unless there's a valid reason for you having one) address your point about criminals using stolen guns?

And if this is a stupid idea of mine, could you suggest an alternative other than "harsher penalties"? Because from what I've read of US studies, harsher penalties do very little.

you are the one that stated the design of the semi autoi shotgun reduces recoil, then you tell me you can make normal shotguns produce less recoil, hmm how would we do that? maybe dedesign them to be more like semi auto ones, jesus christ, you dont even listen to yourself
It's inherent in the design. It's like how 4 wheel drive cars have better traction than rear-wheel drive cars. There's things you can do to give rear-wheel drive cars better grip, but you can do the same things to the 4-wheel drives.

Most semi-auto shotguns divert part of the gas produced by the burning gunpowder to power a piston to extract the fired shell out of the chamber and feed a new one. They actually use some of the recoil producing gas to power the weapon and pushing it towards the user instead of away, giving it less recoil overall.

Pump action shotguns don't have that. Very roughly, the pump is attached to the "piston" so you do what the piston did.

You can't vent the gas into open air towards the user, because that would be plain dangerous. People have been killed by standing too close to blanks.

And I don't trust some mechanical doohicky that I added onto a perfectly fine design after the fact, which a gas tube with a spring-loaded piston would be on a pump or break gun.

First off I have bow hunted deer, spear hunted (wild boar), rifle hunted deer,bear, cougar and Elk and handgun hunted bear. I choose not to hunt anything anymore other than criminals for personal reasons (see I value any animals life more than any criminals life now days) I was the last person on earth to ever become an animal rights person, however I still would never tell a person they should not hunt either (I let them make thier own decisions in life, and care for whatever it is they care for).

Trying to say that one or the other takes out the sport from another is like saying a blonde is better than a brunette or redhead. Its all about preference.
*Shrug*
That is a valid veiwpoint, but it is true that there are those who would prefer things as easy as possible, regardless of how rewarding working hard for something is.

Anyway, my original point is that if Joe Schmo doesn't have any guns in his house when it's robbed, then the criminals aren't getting a gun from there. Wouldn't restricting and ultimately outlawing firearm possession (unless there's a valid reason for you having one) address your point about criminals using stolen guns?



Okay, lets play a little game.

Tomorrow, all guns in the USA(except for police and military) magically dissapear.

given that a gun can be made using equipement found in most peoples garages, how long would it be before criminals started arming themselves with these weapons?

Given that many types of drugs are illegal yet manage to find their way throughout the USA(cocaine and heroin are NOT grown within the USA), how long would it be before guns were being imported into the USA? You could basically set up a gun factory in a warehouse in MEXICO and no one would ever be ableto find it. Dont need fields and fields of plants to make guns.

Within a few years, the only thing that would have changed is that the price MIGHT go up a little bit(probably not because they wont have the costs that a legitimate business does, taxes, regulations, quality control) AND the ONLY people with guns will be the military, police and criminals.

Also keep in mind that while the police provide a general deterant effect, they do not actually(for the most part) STOP crime. They track down and arrest people after a crime has taken place.

So what does a criminal have to fear now? He doesnt have to worry about the victim putting up an effective resistance and if he doesnt leave witnesses it is unlikely he will be convicted.

who is better off in this situation?

I've heard this argument from a lot of different people. But if it's true, then where are the criminals stealing their guns from? Because if at any point it turns out that they're stealing them from people who legally own them, then that's the source you should go after.

So under your logic we should go after the car manufacurers that make the most stolen car? We should go after the convienence stores that get robbed the most? We should go after the candy makers and clothes makers that get shoplifted the most? Dude be real and have some real answers that the Americans will go with, like the fact the blame never shift's from the one commiting the crime to the one the crime is being commited upon. You are starting to sound like someone that doesn't believe in victims rights but only criminal rights, is that the case sir or mam?

For that matter, why are guns still manufactured in the US? Unless they're being exported to other countries (and why supply them to places where people can easily get them and bring them back into your own country?) surely the demand for additional weapons is less than the rate they're turned out, isn't it?Anyway, my original point is that if Joe Schmo doesn't have any guns in his house when it's robbed, then the criminals aren't getting a gun from there. Wouldn't restricting and ultimately outlawing firearm possession (unless there's a valid reason for you having one) address your point about criminals using stolen guns?

Umm do I really need to answer this? The demand for weapons has never even came close to the demand of people turning them in. Most of the weapons turned in are found to be stolen (maybe because they offer money wiht no questions asked) shit the criminals have another way of making money lol. omg lmao Have you been to the US? Ever? Any place besides NY or Cali? Americans wouldn't give up thier right to own firearms even if we knew it would curb a few criminal acts. We value our rights more than we value someone elses feelings or wants and needs. One more time Name a right (not priveledge) that needs a reason to be excercised? Rights do not need a reason to be used however you do need a reason to limit or hinder that right. In the US and all 50 states you are allowed to be stupid (thats why we have states that have no seatbelt or helmet laws). When you say because this idea would decrease a criminal act, therefor we should try it out. Well if the people of that state agree with you then I guess you will be trying it out lol.


And if this is a stupid idea of mine, could you suggest an alternative other than "harsher penalties"? Because from what I've read of US studies, harsher penalties do very little.

Sure how about more laws like the ones in Vermont and Oregon and the 33 other states, where when you apply for a concealed handgun license and after the requirements being met (usualy extensive background check and weapons familiararity class) the police are required by law to give you the chl,ccw ect... How come the crime in these 35 states are lower than the ones that do not have shall issue requirements? If you really cared about decreasing crime with weapons and guns then why wouldnt you even look at the facts over your feelings? Maybe because you are biased no matter what against guns? Couldnt be since you are all as fair and balanced as fox news claims to be is it?

Sure how about more laws like the ones in Vermont and Oregon and the 33 other states, where when you apply for a concealed handgun license and after the requirements being met (usualy extensive background check and weapons familiararity class) the police are required by law to give you the chl,ccw ect... How come the crime in these 35 states are lower than the ones that do not have shall issue requirements? If you really cared about decreasing crime with weapons and guns then why wouldnt you even look at the facts over your feelings? Maybe because you are biased no matter what against guns? Couldnt be since you are all as fair and balanced as fox news claims to be is it?


I believe you are mistaken. Vermont has no carry permits(open or otherwise). You go into a gun store, I think you might have to prove you are a Vermont resident, pass a background check and you get a gun.

Carry it however you want wherever you want.

Vermont is ranked 47th in terms of crime. Means there are only 3 states with less crime than Vermont.

*Shrug*
That is a valid veiwpoint, but it is true that there are those who would prefer things as easy as possible, regardless of how rewarding working hard for something is.

Oh completly man. But the fact that people want to be lazy is not an excuse to hinder the people that are not being lazy. Thats like saying that because the people in a company that made the profit for that company should not reap the rewards because we still have people working among us that drain those profits. The US is based on individuals not a group or commune way of life. We truly do reap what we sow one way or another by eventually weeding out the idiots among us.

Long one here, feel free to skip.


You act as though people should change thier ways and feel compassion for the criminal, that is only your opinion also. Here in America you get to choose (as long as it is legal) who what and where you give your compassion to. I have more compassion for something I saved up to buy, than the life a criminal saved up to exploit.

Which I don't get, and am trying to understand.

Read the above post. Value of criminal life is not equal to value of any legal law abiding citizen, or whatever that law abiding citizen values as being more valuable than the prick that thought he could just take it.

Well, you can say that for yourself of course. But I'm trying to understand the mentality that life is something that is disposable before the cost of some item is.

Well considering that it is our people that vote on these measures and vote in the represenatives that make the laws we want them to make. It is obvious the American public agrees more with me than you. Why else would they want the laws we have in place, in place? You say logic and common sense would not agree, who's logic and common sense are you talking about? Canadians? Now you think common sense and logic is universal from one country to another? Hey if you want to say the US is just like the old west then that is your opinion. We have our laws in place and if you do not abide by them then you are not going to just be able to say that well where I come from this does not seem logical. Go to Kuwait and brew some alcohol up and then be hung by a tree. That is thier logic not anyone elses. I can not understand how you think that another country should abide by another countries *logic*. That is not the way it works man. You go into a country or do a crime in whatever state or country then you are liable for and by whatever means that society has in place.

Whoa whoa whoa. I'm not saying that Canada is better than the US, so you can hop off of that particular bus. When I say that I'm Canadian, it's to let you know that I'm coming from a different place and mindset, and so I'm saturated in my own culture, not yours. So many of the things you take for granted aren't going to be the same for me. The same way that a poster a couple of pages ago mentioned he/she was from Great Britain. It was just a courtesy.

Also, I don't speak for my country. I speak just for myself. Let's not get all nationalistic here.

And you don't vote on laws, last I checked. You vote for your representatives of course, but since you only have two parties to choose from (any others are of such minor influence that they can probably be discounted for this discussion) you maybe don't get people voting for who they want, perhaps you'll find some people vote to prevent the worse choice from winning.

You also (I believe) get to vote on constitutional ammendments, but I've never heard of you guys getting to vote on laws. Do you?

Again it does not need to make sense to you, it needs to make sense to the people that enact and vote in the people to enact the laws we want. You do not agree with how Americans value real property over a real criminals life. If you can convince enough people that your way of thinking is somehow better then I guess it is right, just as the current way of thinking is right. Now are you somehow superior and everyone else should listen to your logic? I will say this one more time,Rights (not privaledges) do not need reason's to exist or be excercised however you do need a reason to limit or hinder that right.

I suppose it doesn't have to make sense to anybody. And I'm not even trying to sway you from your opinion, misguided though I personally think it is. I started posting because I wanted to understand a particular mindset. And I have the society I live in to offer as an example of another way to deal with things. There's no need for you to feel defensive.

And yes it makes sense to me and tens of millions of other Americans to be able to kill a devalued criminal life for something we value more.

Just out of curiousity, if for tens of millions of your fellow citizens it makes sense (a stretch, because we're interpreting polls and such rather than asking everybody), doesn't that mean that for the other tens of millions of your population they don't agree with you? What about for them? The laws don't represent them do they?

Ahh so I guess you trying to control how another person thinks or what they value over another is no different than our country trying to control other countries way of lives. So you feel that you have a right to destroy or limit the ways our country goes about its own business and you are not being hypocritical at all by saying this is how your country should be handling these situations, otherwise it is wrong lol.

Control? I'm in no position to control anything you do, nor would I want to. I don't want to force you to agree with me, if you're going to agree I'd much rather you did it of your own accord.

And as for you talking about "limit the ways our country goes about its own business...", in Canada when there's an assault or murder done with a handgun, they invariably trace back the US. You know, that place that has the incredibly lax gun laws compared to here. So it's not just your own business, the way you deal with guns. Because it's affecting other countries than you own.

And I never said "your country should be handling things like this ______". I've just tried to follow the logic, and I've asked some questions, and taking some of those lines of thinking (as I see them) to an extreme and not liking what I found. So I've asked more questions, and said what I think. Your country's sovreignty are in no danger from me, I assure you.

On the contrary my opinions are more in tune with my own countries doctrines with dealing with criminals than yours is. Those beliefs are obviously shared by the majority of my fellow Oregonians or they would not be current laws. Just to let you know the laws we have on the books now are much more leniant than past laws.

You talk about being more in tune with the majority of Americans, but now you're narrowing down to a smaller region (Oregon)? I see that some of the people in this thread dissenting against how guns are currently dealt with are also Americans. Am I to believe they're the minority?

Hey you calling a law stupid is no different than any other criminal that calls a law stupid. If you do not like the laws in your state then try to change them or move to a state that has laws that you agree with.

I don't live in a state, and I don't plan to move to one to change the laws. :) And I can call a law stupid. So can a criminal. So can a law-abiding citizen like you. Does it matter?

You seem to think that we should reverse our laws that allows our citizens to decide what is of value to them over the police officer that has no value in your property. Our country allows the citizen to make the decision when a police officer is not present. Try to change it if you dont like it, but remember you got 50 states to change. All 50 states have thier own Constitutions that back up our Federalist papers and Constitution. Through the states Constitutions they get to decide what they themselves (the populace of each state) values or not.

Truly, I don't know why you're so hostile to some of the things I've asked or said. And I'm not looking to change your laws, nor have I told YOU to do anything like that. Do I think it's unfortunate that some people believe that human life has a price, and it's less than the cost of their tv? Yes. Why does it offend you when I say things like that?

Again your thinking like every American should be like the Canadians.

No, I'm thinking that I'm a Canadian, and that's some of the background for my opinions and reasoning.

I could just as easily say that you think that everybody should be an American and you'll blow away anbody who doesn't agree. Makes as much sense as saying that I want everybody to think like a Canadian. Not all Canadians will agree with me, and I don't claim to speak for them. Or even a majority.

Here the the citizen having the right to use deadly force and physical force by whatever means neccasary under the law is a part of our judicial concept. Quit thinking that we should somehow be the same as your country, that is not the way it works down here. Do you know anything at all about the History of this country? It was based on three basic principles :
1) Private property
2)Individual liberty
3) States rights
That means that each individual state's populace gets to decide (due to the history of our writings in American thought and wisdom) what is right and what is wrong for each individual state.

The first line from your constitution:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The first bit from your declaration of independence:

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

Note that LIFE is first. Note that Liberty is second. Note that the pursuit of happiness is third. Note that property isn't mentioned at this point, although you put it first on your list.

Note also that if the only way for you to have these things is to deny them to another, then you need laws.

And while property in your opinion ranks #1, the source you cited for it being there doesn't support you.

Does the goverment have the right to ban guns such as semiauto shotguns/rifles? I use those for hunting and i don't feel anyone has the right to come to my house and take them away from me.

Government has no rights. Governments have powers.

The United States Federal Government is legally limited to the functions overtly granted to it by the constitution. IF the power is not specifically listed in Article 8, Clause 1 of the USC, there's no such power.

End of debate.

Okay, lets play a little game.

Tomorrow, all guns in the USA(except for police and military) magically dissapear.

given that a gun can be made using equipement found in most peoples garages, how long would it be before criminals started arming themselves with these weapons?

Given that many types of drugs are illegal yet manage to find their way throughout the USA(cocaine and heroin are NOT grown within the USA), how long would it be before guns were being imported into the USA? You could basically set up a gun factory in a warehouse in MEXICO and no one would ever be ableto find it. Dont need fields and fields of plants to make guns.

Within a few years, the only thing that would have changed is that the price MIGHT go up a little bit(probably not because they wont have the costs that a legitimate business does, taxes, regulations, quality control) AND the ONLY people with guns will be the military, police and criminals.

Also keep in mind that while the police provide a general deterant effect, they do not actually(for the most part) STOP crime. They track down and arrest people after a crime has taken place.

So what does a criminal have to fear now? He doesnt have to worry about the victim putting up an effective resistance and if he doesnt leave witnesses it is unlikely he will be convicted.

who is better off in this situation?

I couldn't tell you. Especially since a part of reducing guns overall would be having people think of others in a different way.

Even though I'm not recommending you necessarily do it this way, look at Canada. You don't get all the people shooting. You don't have laws giving permission to use deadly force as much as in the US. And Canada manages and maintains a level of life that's comparable to the US. So what's the difference?

Government has no rights. Governments have powers.

The United States Federal Government is legally limited to the functions overtly granted to it by the constitution. IF the power is not specifically listed in Article 8, Clause 1 of the USC, there's no such power.

End of debate.


Unfortunately, the courts have given the federal government wide latitude with respect to 2nd ammendmant. They have also done this with the commerce clause.

I believe you are mistaken. Vermont has no carry permits(open or otherwise). You go into a gun store, I think you might have to prove you are a Vermont resident, pass a background check and you get a gun. Carry it however you want wherever you want. Vermont is ranked 47th in terms of crime. Means there are only 3 states with less crime than Vermont.

Thanks for catching that,Vermont should of not been added as one of the 35 states because you do not need a permit to carry concealed or open. You do not need to be a resident to carry concealed or open in Vermont. As far as purchasing a firearm in Vermont I would say it is like the other states where you do need to be a resident to buy a firearm in whatever state you are in. But actually that has many different exceptions like if you are active military and all that. So actually Vermont being 47th in crime proves the point that having no regulations on firearms on if you carry one or not concealed or open puts the mindset that a armed populace maintains a polite populace.

Who would I rather rob, a person from a state A that makes it nearly impossible for my victim to be armed or state B that says be armed however whenever you like as long as you follow the laws. Damn Im sticking to the victims in state A.

You are behind the times mate. SCOTUS has ruled, in US vs. Lopez 1995 that the FedGov has no authority to pass gun laws.

Which I don't get, and am trying to understand.

Ok fair enough, before I respond and read the rest of your post. I will admit that I didn't know that you were trying to understand the mindset more than you were trying to bash it, for that I apoligise completly.

Ok fair enough, before I respond and read the rest of your post. I will admit that I didn't know that you were trying to understand the mindset more than you were trying to bash it, for that I apoligise completly.

Not a problem. And I can tell that you're not an unreasonable person, but you sure were quick to take offense. :P

Must be my winning words. ;)

How?
I take it you're not mechanical engineer. It's not easy to redesign a complex mechanical device on a whim. Tell me how you would do it. It's like taking a car designer and telling him to make all cars float indefinitely.
Make semi-auto shotguns that are reduced to 2 rounds capacity, to make them more or less equivalent to double barrell shotguns. ;)

You are behind the times mate. SCOTUS has ruled, in US vs. Lopez 1995 that the FedGov has no authority to pass gun laws.
that is NOT the ruling in US v Lopez, the court ruled the commerce clause has been abused to make laws to far outside commerce, you saying that deals with guns specifically is gibberish

hmmm lets make a repeating mechanism more like a semi-auto mechanism

I know how, make it Gas Operated and SEMI AUTOMATIC

You can fire damn near as fast with a pump action as you can with a Semi-Auto.

and a Double barrel weapon can fired quickly for 2 shots, as fast as a Semi.

whats your point.

What is the evil of Semi-automatic?

The main problem in terms of lethality and potential use in mass killings is magazine capacity, not so much the fact that it is semi-auto.

Columbine was perpetrated by criminals. They were kids. They weren't legally allowed to be handling those types of firearms. The laws were there. They didn't stop anything.

Gun control doesn't work.

I would love it if every kid took a hunters' safety or firearms training of some sort. It would take the villification of an inanimate object away from the liberal media.

Yes, but what if high capacity semi-auto and (to a lesser degree) pump action weapons weren't legally available. If they came to school with a couple of double barrell shotguns and a bolt-action rifle, the would not have killed nearly as many people before they were stopped.

I couldn't tell you. Especially since a part of reducing guns overall would be having people think of others in a different way.

Even though I'm not recommending you necessarily do it this way, look at Canada. You don't get all the people shooting. You don't have laws giving permission to use deadly force as much as in the US. And Canada manages and maintains a level of life that's comparable to the US. So what's the difference?


There are many differances. While the USA has higher rates of homicide, we have less overall crime(per capita) than Europe. For example(Im trying to find the source of this data, it was a joint FBI home ministry analysis if I remember correctly) while the murder rate in NYC is higher than London's, you are 6 times more likely to be a victim of violent crime in London than you are in NYC.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the bulk of murders in the US occur between criminals killing other criminals. I dont know how you feel about this, but It doesnt bother me so much when 1 criminal kills another.

We also have a situation here in the US where 1 particular racial group commits and is the victim of a large proportion of gun homicides. Why that is I have no idea. I was just looking at the source for this today(I wasnt aware of it before) and I will try to find it for you. here you go, he gives links to fbi and interpol data, but interpol isnt permitting me to look at their site.


check out this pdf, it has a thorough explination of many of the things discussed with source material referances. make sure to use the bookmarks to jump to topics that your are interested in because it is a long document
http://www.gunfacts.info/GunFacts3.3Screen.pdf

You are behind the times mate. SCOTUS has ruled, in US vs. Lopez 1995 that the FedGov has no authority to pass gun laws.

So how are the Federal regulations pertaining to Full Auto firearms still standing? I wish the 2nd prevented states from regulating them also.

So under your logic we should go after the car manufacurers that make the most stolen car? We should go after the convienence stores that get robbed the most? We should go after the candy makers and clothes makers that get shoplifted the most? Dude be real and have some real answers that the Americans will go with, like the fact the blame never shift's from the one commiting the crime to the one the crime is being commited upon. You are starting to sound like someone that doesn't believe in victims rights but only criminal rights, is that the case sir or mam?

Er, not shifting blame. Just offering a way to address what someone else said about "most of the guns being used by criminals are stolen". If there were no guns to steal, then there'd be fewer guns in the hands of the criminals. If fewer criminals were armed, people who are afraid of criminals wouldn't be as afraid because the chance of that criminal being armed would be less. That was all.

Have you been to the US? Ever? Any place besides NY or Cali? Americans wouldn't give up thier right to own firearms even if we knew it would curb a few criminal acts. We value our rights more than we value someone elses feelings or wants and needs. One more time Name a right (not priveledge) that needs a reason to be excercised? Rights do not need a reason to be used however you do need a reason to limit or hinder that right. In the US and all 50 states you are allowed to be stupid (thats why we have states that have no seatbelt or helmet laws).

Yes I have. :) In fact, I once walked from the border down as far as central Washington state. In the winter, I might add. :P

And three different people picked me up to give me a ride to the next town, just to be nice. I wasn't hitchhiking. And all three of them had guns in their glove compartments. It was pretty shocking for me, because of course it's totally unheard of here.

Actually it was seeingthat that made me a bit nervous about being down there. Because, I reasoned, if so many people have guns and are carrying them around, what happens when someone loses their temper over a missed parking space or someone that flipped them off? Some people take quite a while to calm down when they're pissed off. Some can do it in a minute. Takes a couple of seconds to draw and shoot a gun. <shakes head>

It was just outside of my common experience. Note that Canada (not bragging, just saying) has helmet and seatbelt laws. Since we have national healthcare, it does affect the rest of us when you go flying through the windshield and then expect to be patched up. I don't think many people resent it, and indeed some people don't buckle up or put on their helmet. But they get fined if it's noticed. We still patch them up just the same.

Sure how about more laws like the ones in Vermont and Oregon and the 33 other states, where when you apply for a concealed handgun license and after the requirements being met (usualy extensive background check and weapons familiararity class) the police are required by law to give you the chl,ccw ect... How come the crime in these 35 states are lower than the ones that do not have shall issue requirements? If you really cared about decreasing crime with weapons and guns then why wouldnt you even look at the facts over your feelings?

Decreasing crime in your country, you mean? Remember, I'm not from the States. :)

I'd be interested in knowing, if there are reasonably complete statistics for how many people have been charged with a shooting-related crime while using a weapon that's legally registered to them. Are such statistics compiled?

Maybe because you are biased no matter what against guns? Couldnt be since you are all as fair and balanced as fox news claims to be is it?

I am biased in favour of people not having guns readily available to shoot others, definitely. I can't deny that, nor would I want to. My stepbrother hunts extensively and has a fair selection of rifles he's ended up with. Locked up, with trigger locks. Ammunition locked up in a totally different location. And when he confronts someone in his house or on his property, he doesn't go dig them out. Works for me. :)

I'd be interested in knowing, if there are reasonably complete statistics for how many people have been charged with a shooting-related crime while using a weapon that's legally registered to them. Are such statistics compiled?



Well, there have been studies done looking at crimes committed by people with CCW permits in Florida(people watned that gun crime would be rampant when it became a shall issue state in 1987). I try and look it up for you. I think the gunfacts pdf I linked to in an earlier post might point out these numbers.

for now look at this http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgcon.html

Another thing to keep in mind is that the bulk of murders in the US occur between criminals killing other criminals. I dont know how you feel about this, but It doesnt bother me so much when 1 criminal kills another.

I understand what you're saying here, but criminal or not they're still people. Just my view.

check out this pdf, it has a thorough explination of many of the things discussed with source material referances. make sure to use the bookmarks to jump to topics that your are interested in because it is a long document
http://www.gunfacts.info/GunFacts3.3Screen.pdf

In the first minute of reading this, varying statistics were given. Specifically, it said that "Just over 2% of criminals that used guns used "assault weapons"." and then a single tap of the PageDown button brought me to "Only 8% of criminals use anything that is classified (even incorrectly) as an assault weapon.".

A little bit of discontinuity there. :P There are a few other examples, but it definitely looks like someone went to some lengths to compile a lot of information, so thank you for pointing me to that. :)

However, I find I disagree with most, if not all, of the author's conclusions. I'm a hardass. :P

In the first minute of reading this, varying statistics were given. Specifically, it said that "Just over 2% of criminals that used guns used "assault weapons"." and then a single tap of the PageDown button brought me to "Only 8% of criminals use anything that is classified (even incorrectly) as an assault weapon.".

A little bit of discontinuity there. :P There are a few other examples, but it definitely looks like someone went to some lengths to compile a lot of information, so thank you for pointing me to that. :)

However, I find I disagree with most, if not all, of the author's conclusions. I'm a hardass. :P

Lotsa studies used, there will be variations.

Well, there have been studies done looking at crimes committed by people with CCW permits in Florida(people watned that gun crime would be rampant when it became a shall issue state in 1987). I try and look it up for you. I think the gunfacts pdf I linked to in an earlier post might point out these numbers.

for now look at this http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgcon.html

This is interesting (and much shorter) than the last link you provided. It also is very much in the flavour of the axiom "An armed society is a polite society.".

His original data sets weren't exactly what I hoped for, but they're not abyssimal either.

Now a speculative question for you: I know what you said about homicides being down in Europe (I think you were speaking specifically about Great Britain) but the chance of being a victim of violent crime was higher than in the US.

Do you attribute that to your gun laws? A sort of balancing act that gives you more homicides per year, but reduces overall violent crime?

Lotsa studies used, there will be variations.

Of course. :)

And your personal opinion on gun control, in your country of origin?

Of course. :)

And your personal opinion on gun control, in your country of origin?

I just checked the pdf, look carefully at the sources cited. you will see different studies in different years, and upon differant populations eg New Jersey vs Nationwide.

I live in the US, I have a CCW.

I think background checks are important, but thats about all the gun control I am really for.

I think the other forms cause more harm than they help.

Lower crime comes from making crime unpaletable for criminals vs their other choices. These include(but not limitted to)

Assuming criminals are rational(I make this assumption)

1) a better economic environment(so that it makes more sense for people to be lawful vs earning their money by committing a crime)

2) Harsh punishments for people who intentionally commit crimes(again, this is incentive to not commit a crime)

3) Re habilitation of criminal(so they have the skills to remain lawful once they serve their sentences)

4) Allow the people to possess and carry effective means of self protection.(Criminals dont want a fair fight, they want to take advantage of people that are weaker than them)

5) get rid of drug laws. Illegal drugs provide so much potential money that people are often making a rational choice when they choose to get into that business.

Sheesh.. I go watch the movie Hero and come back to find 5 more pages of posts here.

Eventually this has got to end.

Really Wild Stuff... You value human life, that is very good. Dont believe that "gun nutjobs" as Chess Squares likes to sumarize all of us do not value human life. The difference is that I (and I assume to some extent we nutjobs) believe that a persons "value" can be affected by the choices they make in life. John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy, Jeff Dahlmer, they had devalued their own lives to a point where it mattered not whether they lived or died.

The common criminal chooses to devalue his own life. No matter where one is in life, there are always choices. They can choose to avoid crime, and try to bring their lives around, or they can take the relatively easier way out and turn to crime. I'll do whatever I can to help those that choose to avoid crime. Those that dont, dont deserve a second thought.

As for not having guns "readily available to shoot others"... well... one must be responsible for ones actions. I believe in benifit of the doubt in trusting someone to act responsibility. Until they mess up that is.

This is interesting (and much shorter) than the last link you provided. It also is very much in the flavour of the axiom "An armed society is a polite society.".

His original data sets weren't exactly what I hoped for, but they're not abyssimal either.

Now a speculative question for you: I know what you said about homicides being down in Europe (I think you were speaking specifically about Great Britain) but the chance of being a victim of violent crime was higher than in the US.

Do you attribute that to your gun laws? A sort of balancing act that gives you more homicides per year, but reduces overall violent crime?

Actually, crime has gone down all across America, regardless if they permit guns or not. NYC decline in crime came specifically an improved economy, a get tough stance on crime(both the police and the courts)

That being said, crime has gone down the most in places that allowed lawful citizens to possess and carry arms.

And you don't vote on laws, last I checked. You vote for your representatives of course, but since you only have two parties to choose from (any others are of such minor influence that they can probably be discounted for this discussion) you maybe don't get people voting for who they want, perhaps you'll find some people vote to prevent the worse choice from winning.

It depends on your state. In Oregon I do not know why we even have legislators since we always have everything of any importance reffered to the voters via ballot measures for our laws. We voted to legalize medical marijuana for our sick or people meeting 1 of 9 criterias. We will be voting on an ammendment to our states Constitution about gay marriage. I am not sure if other states enjoy being so involved as we do here in Oregon but we vote on just about every single issue including any tax increases. Propery rights and so on. The state of Oregon does not allow any cities or local ordinances to restrict our second ammendment in any way. Actually in states like Oregon we have a number of Libertarian represenatives and the usual democrats and republicans. I agree the idea that Americans have to choose between the lesser of two evils is all to common.

You also (I believe) get to vote on constitutional ammendments, but I've never heard of you guys getting to vote on laws. Do you?

Yep we vote on laws also. Oregon must be a parinoid state or something because we don't have all that much faith in our overpaid legislators. I think we would rather pay them to stay out of our business than be involved with making any decisions for the rest of us lol.

I suppose it doesn't have to make sense to anybody. And I'm not even trying to sway you from your opinion, misguided though I personally think it is. I started posting because I wanted to understand a particular mindset. And I have the society I live in to offer as an example of another way to deal with things. There's no need for you to feel defensive.

I respect that 100%, again I apoligise for coming off as I did.


Just out of curiousity, if for tens of millions of your fellow citizens it makes sense (a stretch, because we're interpreting polls and such rather than asking everybody), doesn't that mean that for the other tens of millions of your population they don't agree with you? What about for them? The laws don't represent them do they?

Actually it probably is in more of the 100 million or so range and the rest either dont care or are against the beliefs. That would be the only explanation of the 35 states that have the laws they do that are so relaxed with firearms. I agree that with non Constitutional issues both sides should be required to comprimise with the other (since were all from the same damn country and all. Why shouldnt we try to work with each other, I dont get it?) But of course the zealots from both sides wont have that. But as far as Constitutional matters we have alot of people democrat,republican,libertarian and Constitutional that would never budge with changing something in our Constitution. I am one of those people as are a whole lot of other people from every political fray or we wouldn't have kept it in the same shape it has been for so long.

Control? I'm in no position to control anything you do, nor would I want to. I don't want to force you to agree with me, if you're going to agree I'd much rather you did it of your own accord.

More misguidedness from me. Im the same way I dont like telling anyone how to live that doesnt bother how I live.

And as for you talking about "limit the ways our country goes about its own business...", in Canada when there's an assault or murder done with a handgun, they invariably trace back the US. You know, that place that has the incredibly lax gun laws compared to here. So it's not just your own business, the way you deal with guns. Because it's affecting other countries than you own.

I agree man completly again, but this is a criminal matter not the law abiding citizens who have a specific right that has been exploited by these criminals.

And I never said "your country should be handling things like this ______". I've just tried to follow the logic, and I've asked some questions, and taking some of those lines of thinking (as I see them) to an extreme and not liking what I found. So I've asked more questions, and said what I think. Your country's sovreignty are in no danger from me, I assure you.

Again I feel like a broken record, I am sorry for jumping the gun :)

You talk about being more in tune with the majority of Americans, but now you're narrowing down to a smaller region (Oregon)? I see that some of the people in this thread dissenting against how guns are currently dealt with are also Americans. Am I to believe they're the minority?

I narrow down to Oregon because that is where I currently reside. When I resided in Missouri, Washington, Virginia, Idaho, Wyoming, North Carolina and Colorado I saw the exact same thing as I see in Oregon, when it comes to guns and how its populace takes to them. So maybe I am narrow in the whole of the 50 states, but from my life experience and from what I have studied on the majority of the other states (excluding California and New york and I lived in cali once for almost 5 years and also had a ccw while I was in the service in San Diego). But the mind set of those two states seem to be completly different than any other state I have lived in or visited or studied (state laws) on gun issues.


I don't live in a state, and I don't plan to move to one to change the laws. And I can call a law stupid. So can a criminal. So can a law-abiding citizen like you. Does it matter?

Yes because it hurts my feelings when another law abiding person calls my states laws stupid, because it was most likely the people from the state that voted to have that so called stupid law. So don't call us stupid! hehe :)

Truly, I don't know why you're so hostile to some of the things I've asked or said. And I'm not looking to change your laws, nor have I told YOU to do anything like that. Do I think it's unfortunate that some people believe that human life has a price, and it's less than the cost of their tv? Yes. Why does it offend you when I say things like that?

It is because I have such a hatred for people that want to control another persons right or freedoms (not saying you, talking about Americans from the extreme right and left). They always say the same thing from either side. "because I would not excercise this right or freedom I do not want anyone else to have this right or freedom" I just hate controlling people thats all, and I made a mistake on thinking you were one of them. :(

The first line from your constitution:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
The first bit from your declaration of independence:
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"
Note that LIFE is first. Note that Liberty is second. Note that the pursuit of happiness is third. Note that property isn't mentioned at this point, although you put it first on your list. Note also that if the only way for you to have these things is to deny them to another, then you need laws. And while property in your opinion ranks #1, the source you cited for it being there doesn't support you.

I only list the three basics because that is the one common agreeance I have seen with Liberals and Conservatives as far as what our Constitution (via Federalist papers) spoke of in principle.

I usually comment on the Federalist papers in regard to our Constitution because that is what our forefathers used in determination of adopting the Constitution.

"The utility of the union to your political prosperity
the insufficiency of the present confederation to preserve that union
the necessity of a government at least equally energetic with the one proposed, to the attainment of this object the conformity of the proposed constitution to the true principles of republican government its analogy to your own state constitution and lastly, the additional security which its adoption will afford to the preservation of that species of government, to liberty, and to property."

I listed it # 1 just so it was not passed over as not being one of the more important features to our own Liberty.

"The right to private property is the social-political principle that adult human beings may not be prohibited or prevented by anyone from acquiring, holding and trading (with willing parties) valued items not already owned by others. Such a right is, thus, unalienable and, if in fact justified, is supposed to enjoy respect and legal protection in a just human community."

"There are at least two answers to that question. One is that when you resist people taking something from you, by taxation, theft or any other means, it is important to know, even if only implicitly, that the resistance is justified. That it is a kind of self-defense, akin to resisting someone assaulting or raping someone else."

"Private property ownership, including the right to use the property, and to exclude others from it, is one of the fundamental principles of freedom"

http://federalistpatriot.us/fedpapers/fedpapers.html

I just checked the pdf, look carefully at the sources cited. you will see different studies in different years, and upon differant populations eg New Jersey vs Nationwide.

I noticed that too. I was mostly looking at nationwide averages because I don't know enough of the ins and outs of New Jersey versus Boulder.

Lower crime comes from making crime unpaletable for criminals vs their other choices. These include(but not limitted to)
Assuming criminals are rational(I make this assumption)
1) a better economic environment(so that it makes more sense for people to be lawful vs earning their money by committing a crime)
2) Harsh punishments for people who intentionally commit crimes(again, this is incentive to not commit a crime)
3) Re habilitation of criminal(so they have the skills to remain lawful once they serve their sentences)
4) Allow the people to possess and carry effective means of self protection.(Criminals dont want a fair fight, they want to take advantage of people that are weaker than them)
5) get rid of drug laws. Illegal drugs provide so much potential money that people are often making a rational choice when they choose to get into that business.

These are all fairly good, but I'd add

6) Increase the chances of a given criminal being caught and prosecuted.

I'll have to find it, and it was for 1997 or so, but I read somewhere that of the crimes commited in the US, of which an estimated 1/3 are reported, something like 1.5% are successfully caught and prosecuted. With odds like that, crime's got to look like a good risk to a lot of people.

Really Wild Stuff... You value human life, that is very good. Dont believe that "gun nutjobs" as Chess Squares likes to sumarize all of us do not value human life. The difference is that I (and I assume to some extent we nutjobs) believe that a persons "value" can be affected by the choices they make in life. John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy, Jeff Dahlmer, they had devalued their own lives to a point where it mattered not whether they lived or died.

Note that I don't consider you a nutjob. You're just armed and using different criteria than me. I'm comfortable with that, even if I don't agree with you.

The common criminal chooses to devalue his own life. No matter where one is in life, there are always choices. They can choose to avoid crime, and try to bring their lives around, or they can take the relatively easier way out and turn to crime. I'll do whatever I can to help those that choose to avoid crime. Those that dont, dont deserve a second thought.[quote]

I can't agree with this, but this is consistant with what you've said in many of your other posts so at least you've shown that you're just disagreeing just for the sake of it. So I'll again respect your opinion and just choose to not agree. :)

[quote]As for not having guns "readily available to shoot others"... well... one must be responsible for ones actions. I believe in benifit of the doubt in trusting someone to act responsibility. Until they mess up that is.

I've heard worse philosophies. Beer time?

Sheesh.. I go watch the movie Hero and come back to find 5 more pages of posts here.

Eventually this has got to end.

Really Wild Stuff... You value human life, that is very good. Dont believe that "gun nutjobs" as Chess Squares likes to sumarize all of us do not value human life. The difference is that I (and I assume to some extent we nutjobs) believe that a persons "value" can be affected by the choices they make in life. John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy, Jeff Dahlmer, they had devalued their own lives to a point where it mattered not whether they lived or died.

The common criminal chooses to devalue his own life. No matter where one is in life, there are always choices. They can choose to avoid crime, and try to bring their lives around, or they can take the relatively easier way out and turn to crime. I'll do whatever I can to help those that choose to avoid crime. Those that dont, dont deserve a second thought.

As for not having guns "readily available to shoot others"... well... one must be responsible for ones actions. I believe in benifit of the doubt in trusting someone to act responsibility. Until they mess up that is.
i only group the gun nuts into gun nuts, you for some shit you said, zaxon for EVERYTHING he says, and faithful freedom and other people i cant remember

Actually, crime has gone down all across America, regardless if they permit guns or not. NYC decline in crime came specifically an improved economy, a get tough stance on crime(both the police and the courts)

That being said, crime has gone down the most in places that allowed lawful citizens to possess and carry arms.

I'll assume that all of that is true.

If you could have the same result, but do it without all of the guns, would you be interested? Or indifferent?

Understand that my motivation is a preservation of human life as much as possible, and a lessening of genuine fear.

Also I may add that Oregon is the only state in the union that allows doctor assisted suicide for people that have a terminal illness and have less than 6 months to live. It is more about compassion of people in pain than about a religous belief or all that. Even though it goes against me being a Christian I can also see the sense in allowing someone who is going through constant pain with less than 6 months left to live to have mercy on them. It is really an odd law (the people of Oregon voted this law in). I know a guy that will be using it, and know his children. I would never want someone to go through the pain he is in every second of this painfull life he is living. Sorry way off topic

Yep we vote on laws also. Oregon must be a parinoid state or something because we don't have all that much faith in our overpaid legislators. I think we would rather pay them to stay out of our business than be involved with making any decisions for the rest of us lol.

Actually, I notice this when I talk politics with people from your country, or indeed when I watch the news. Even though we moan and complain about the people we elect (and the attendant bureaucracy that we don't elect) you guys seem to have less faith in your government than we do.

Note that ours sucks as much as yours, when they suck. :P

I respect that 100%, again I apoligise for coming off as I did.[/i]

No need to apologise, or we'll be doing it in every post as we try to keep up with each other. I probably came off accusingly myself.


Actually it probably is in more of the 100 million or so range and the rest either dont care or are against the beliefs. That would be the only explanation of the 35 states that have the laws they do that are so relaxed with firearms. I agree that with non Constitutional issues both sides should be required to comprimise with the other (since were all from the same damn country and all. Why shouldnt we try to work with each other, I dont get it?) But of course the zealots from both sides wont have that. But as far as Constitutional matters we have alot of people democrat,republican,libertarian and Constitutional that would never budge with changing something in our Constitution. I am one of those people as are a whole lot of other people from every political fray or we wouldn't have kept it in the same shape it has been for so long.

Well, isn't changing something from the constitution what an amendment is all about? :)

And I think we can hear what the zealots on all sides have to say, but they shouldn't be the ones guiding policy. I find that zealots are not only rarely open to compromise, they tend to be less than pragmatic about things, and you can't live solely in an ideal.

[quote]I agree man completly again, but this is a criminal matter not the law abiding citizens who have a specific right that has been exploited by these criminals.

I know. That was the nebulous connection I drew when I said "If citizens didn't have handguns, criminals couldn't steal guns from them, blahblahblah, and we wouldn't see the criminals up here get them". :P

I narrow down to Oregon because that is where I currently reside.

I figured it was either that, or perhaps because Oregon had some particularly famous or infamous laws and statutes.

I live in the west of Canada too - we hold some attitudes that the more populous provinces back east don't. But that's okay, we still like them. Kind of. ;)

Yes because it hurts my feelings when another law abiding person calls my states laws stupid, because it was most likely the people from the state that voted to have that so called stupid law. So don't call us stupid! hehe :)

lol you reminded of me something. Feel free to laugh. ;)

As you know, Canada didn't support the US attacking Iraq (this latest time I mean). So while you had your own protests going on, we protested too. Many times. :) And a typical protest (in my city, anyway) would consist of people assembling at the Vancouver Art Gallery, listening to the usual speeches and eyewitness accounts and such, then marching through the streets to... the American consulate.

What did we do there, you ask? Did we block the doors? Harass the people that worked there? Nah, not our style up here.

We gave the building a big group hug. ;)

The effectiveness of protests and demonstrations aside, do you see a bit of the difference in mindset between our countries? It's that difference that makes it hard for me to understand some of the attitudes about weapons and rights to own them sometimes.

It is because I have such a hatred for people that want to control another persons right or freedoms (not saying you, talking about Americans from the extreme right and left). They always say the same thing from either side. "because I would not excercise this right or freedom I do not want anyone else to have this right or freedom" I just hate controlling people thats all, and I made a mistake on thinking you were one of them. :(

Zero perspiration, and when we finally annex your country with smiles and flowers, we'll make the transition as painless as possible. But you'll have to learn how to spell all the names of the provinces correctly, damnit! :P

I only list the three basics because that is the one common agreeance I have seen with Liberals and Conservatives as far as what our Constitution (via Federalist papers) spoke of in principle.

I usually comment on the Federalist papers in regard to our Constitution because that is what our forefathers used in determination of adopting the Constitution.

Ah, I haven't read the Federalist papers. So I won't quote the bits you wrote for me because I haven't read them in perspective. But I see you included a link for me to go read them myself, so thanks for that. :)

Also I may add that Oregon is the only state in the union that allows doctor assisted suicide for people that have a terminal illness and have less than 6 months to live. It is more about compassion of people in pain than about a religous belief or all that. Even though it goes against me being a Christian I can also see the sense in allowing someone who is going through constant pain with less than 6 months left to live to have mercy on them. It is really an odd law (the people of Oregon voted this law in). I know a guy that will be using it, and know his children. I would never want someone to go through the pain he is in every second of this painfull life he is living. Sorry way off topic

No, not off topic. I threw in my two cents worth (well, by now I must be up to a US dollar, even with the exchange rates) primary because of a compassion for people's lives.

Doctor assisted suicide always seemed to me to be blown way out of proportion. Yes, the basic oath for a doctor has them swear to keep life as their prime directive, but on the other hand if someone decides of their own sovreign will that they want to cease thier life, better with a doctor's assistance to make it as peaceful as possible and to therefore not let them suffer (from an attempt that leaves them lingering in pain, even for a moment).

To make sure that a barrage of court cases and suings don't occur, it would be good if everything is documented and agreed to ahead of time. Treat it like a marriage or a will - however many witnesses you need for those ought to satisfy for a suicide agreement.

If the person is unable to speak for themselves, and didn't leave a living will, that's a much more difficult situation. Easy to give general guidelines, but it's really got to be a case by case thing, in my opinion.

Heh. If we've exhausted the gun control topic to everybody's satisfaction, we could always run with this one. ;)

Sheesh.. I go watch the movie Hero and come back to find 5 more pages of posts here.

Eventually this has got to end.

Really Wild Stuff... You value human life, that is very good. Dont believe that "gun nutjobs" as Chess Squares likes to sumarize all of us do not value human life. The difference is that I (and I assume to some extent we nutjobs) believe that a persons "value" can be affected by the choices they make in life. John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy, Jeff Dahlmer, they had devalued their own lives to a point where it mattered not whether they lived or died.

The common criminal chooses to devalue his own life. No matter where one is in life, there are always choices. They can choose to avoid crime, and try to bring their lives around, or they can take the relatively easier way out and turn to crime. I'll do whatever I can to help those that choose to avoid crime. Those that dont, dont deserve a second thought.

As for not having guns "readily available to shoot others"... well... one must be responsible for ones actions. I believe in benifit of the doubt in trusting someone to act responsibility. Until they mess up that is.

So by that logic, people who park their cars illegally have no value, and should be dragged from their cars and executed on the spot?

You cannot put serial killers like the ones you cited above on a par with burglars. I'm not saying that burglars are good guys, but someone who breaks in to steal some home entertainment equipment doesn't deserve death. I think even the law in Texas (the hang-em-high state) would agree with me on that one :p

Well, isn't changing something from the constitution what an amendment is all about?

Heck I am for ammendments just not ones that ban anything that is a current right or even something that goes against the basis that every man is created equal. Like the Constitutional ammendment to ban gay marriages, sorry I think this issue should be left to the states to decide until we as a country can make a formal decision without bias.

Plus I plainly dont like banning anything, unless your talking about slavery or anything else that is a oxymoron to the phrase that every person is created equal ok they say man I say every human. It is what we do with our lives and our actions that can make us appear sub human. I just wish you or I or someone damn it had all the answers without pushing one anothers view onto another. So when you locate it let me know :)

Heck I am for ammendments just not ones that ban anything that is a current right or even something that goes against the basis that every man is created equal. Like the Constitutional ammendment to ban gay marriages, sorry I think this issue should be left to the states to decide until we as a country can make a formal decision without bias.

We've got three provinces that allow for gay marriage now. And even though they're putting it off, I expect Ottawa will declare something along those lines federally eventually.

Plus I plainly dont like banning anything, unless your talking about slavery or anything else that is a oxymoron to the phrase that every person is created equal ok they say man I say every human. It is what we do with our lives and our actions that can make us appear sub human. I just wish you or I or someone damn it had all the answers without pushing one anothers view onto another. So when you locate it let me know :)

That would be me. So bow down and obey! Please?

I think even the law in Texas (the hang-em-high state) would agree with me on that one

I would be suprised to see that Texas had a more lax law on deadly force for someone entering your home armed or unarmed than Oregon, but heck anything is possible! I would look up thier state statutes but I gots to go pull a few weeds in my garden.

I just don't undertsand how poeple cannot see that the huge majority of crimes are committed with legally owned (or once legally owned) guns.

I think the problem may be short-sightedness. You can't see the flow-on effect from reducing the number (and type) of legally owned guns in circulation. All you can see is "but if you take away my right to own an assualt-style semi-auto rifle or high capacity pistol, it won't effect the numbers of illegally owned guns!". No, it won't - not today. But look a little further than that - IN THE LONG TERM it would mean less guns stolen from legitimate owners (either from their homes, from their vehicles etc.), less guns stolen from smash-n-grab after hours raids on gun shops, the number of "dodgy deals" where legit private owners or gun dealers who are strapped for cash sell their guns under the counter etc etc.

Tighter gun control (and note: I have never once said I agree with a total ban) WILL DEFINITELY reduce the number of illegally owned guns IN THE LONG TERM. Stop thinking only about yourself and tomorrow. Think about everyone, and the future. You're right to own a dangerous weapon IS NOT greater than someone elses right to live...

...oh, and give up on the "why not ban cars" comparison, eh? It's apples and oranges...besides which, you DO need to register cars, undergo training and pass a test to get a license for one.

Anyway, someone please explain to me something you need a high capacity semi auto weapon to do that you cannot do with a single shot, double barrell, or bolt-action weapon:

> Hunting? Nope.

> Target shooting? Nope.

> Home defence? (Totally aside from the fact that I do not consider home defence a legit use of a gun) Nope.

The only people (that I can think of, anyway) that truly need high-cap semi-autos are police, military, security guards or someone culling pest animals...

So by that logic, people who park their cars illegally have no value, and should be dragged from their cars and executed on the spot?

You cannot put serial killers like the ones you cited above on a par with burglars. I'm not saying that burglars are good guys, but someone who breaks in to steal some home entertainment equipment doesn't deserve death. I think even the law in Texas (the hang-em-high state) would agree with me on that one :p

This post is an example of an illogical extreme. Nowhere did I say that criminals remove all value from their lives... I said they devalue their lives.

And I never said burglars deserve the death penalty. You are putting those words into my posts.

Im saying all life has worth, until they choose to lessen that worth by their own actions. Yes, an illegal parker lessens their own worth in my opinion because they feel they can disregard the law as they see fit. Not much of a lessening, no where near that of a burglar.

Why is it that people must argue either or. They cant have varying degrees of anything.

I just don't undertsand how poeple cannot see that the huge majority of crimes are committed with legally owned (or once legally owned) guns.

This argument is without merit. All guns were "once legally owned", ergo all crimes involving guns are committed with once legally owned guns. But that is not the point.

I think the problem may be short-sightedness. You can't see the flow-on effect from reducing the number (and type) of legally owned guns in circulation. All you can see is "but if you take away my right to own an assualt-style semi-auto rifle or high capacity pistol, it won't effect the numbers of illegally owned guns!". No, it won't - not today. But look a little further than that - IN THE LONG TERM it would mean less guns stolen from legitimate owners (either from their homes, from their vehicles etc.), less guns stolen from smash-n-grab after hours raids on gun shops, the number of "dodgy deals" where legit private owners or gun dealers who are strapped for cash sell their guns under the counter etc etc.

My wife loves to watch tv show like COPS and Wildest Police Videos. Lately on the latter one, I've started to see videos of "peaceful" protests that turn violent. Usually, somewhere in the back of the protesters are truely violent people, firing homemade weapons at the police. They are like hand held cannons. Removing legally owned guns will have no long term affect on illegally owned guns. Period. All that would do is remove my means of defense.

Tighter gun control (and note: I have never once said I agree with a total ban) WILL DEFINITELY reduce the number of illegally owned guns IN THE LONG TERM. Stop thinking only about yourself and tomorrow. Think about everyone, and the future. You're right to own a dangerous weapon IS NOT greater than someone elses right to live...

As I said above, tighter gun control will have NO AFFECT on illegaly owned guns. Period. Long term, short term, no affect. If they do not make their own, then guns from another country would simply be smuggled in. My right to defend myself is greater than someone elses right to live, if that person is the one threatening my life, or that of my families.

...oh, and give up on the "why not ban cars" comparison, eh? It's apples and oranges...besides which, you DO need to register cars, undergo training and pass a test to get a license for one.


Anyway, someone please explain to me something you need a high capacity semi auto weapon to do that you cannot do with a single shot, double barrell, or bolt-action weapon:

> Hunting? Nope.

> Target shooting? Nope.

> Home defence? (Totally aside from the fact that I do not consider home defence a legit use of a gun) Nope.

That isnt the point. It isnt a matter of need. I have the right to own guns. I happen to enjoy both target shooting, and plinking. I happen to enjoy plinking with a high capacity semi-auto weapon.

By your argument, since you have no need for a computer, or a car, or a television, or a playstation they all should be "regulated" and reduced in number in circulation. There is no need for movies, music, social events, more regulation here I guess :rolleyes: .

The only people (that I can think of, anyway) that truly need high-cap semi-autos are police, military, security guards or someone culling pest animals...

Again, it's not a matter of need. It's a matter of rights.

That isnt the point. It isnt a matter of need. I have the right to own guns. I happen to enjoy both target shooting, and plinking. I happen to enjoy plinking with a high capacity semi-auto weapon.
but you dont need to own a gun, and some one jsut breaking into your house isnt threatening your life

By your argument, since you have no need for a computer, or a car, or a television, or a playstation they all should be "regulated" and reduced in number in circulation. There is no need for movies, music, social events, more regulation here I guess :rolleyes: .
tvs are needed as an efficient means of wide communication, cars are needed to deliver a person quickyl from one place to another (both cars and televisions seriously reformed and changed the united states by making it be able to be closer together in a sense).playstations and computer games are extremely helpful in increasing hand eye coordination. movies are plays plays, music and social events are NEEDED unless you want people to fucking go crazy

great job with the logical fallacy attempts to, its called false analogy, now shutup.

but you dont need to own a gun, and some one jsut breaking into your house isnt threatening your life

I guess you are trying to be deliberatly dense? I said, it's not a matter of need.
And I said that I wouldnt shoot anyone who's breaking into my house, unless they by their actions threaten my life, or that of my families. If that person runs away I let them go.

tvs are needed as an efficient means of wide communication, cars are needed to deliver a person quickyl from one place to another (both cars and televisions seriously reformed and changed the united states by making it be able to be closer together in a sense).

There are others means of wide communication, radio, bull horns from tops of buildings. TV's only make it simpler, they are not needed.
There is an ever increasing means of public transportation. Busses, light rails, taxi's. Look at NYC. Cars are not needed.

playstations and computer games are extremely helpful in increasing hand eye coordination. movies are plays plays, music and social events are NEEDED unless you want people to fucking go crazy

lol. Playstations/computer games do nothing for hand-eye coordination. You might argue finger-eye coordination.....

great job with the logical fallacy attempts to, its called false analogy, now shutup.

Ah, you sure put me in my place there, with your well informed opinions and well stated positions. :rolleyes:

As I said above, tighter gun control will have NO AFFECT on illegaly owned guns. Period. Long term, short term, no affect. If they do not make their own, then guns from another country would simply be smuggled in.

Not necessarily. The countries (I feel weird citing my own as often as I do, so I'm going to go general here) that have tighter restrictions find that there are fewer shooting deaths. Fewer murders. Perhaps there's something unique about the US that would make this not work there, but I don't know what that would be.

That isnt the point. It isnt a matter of need. I have the right to own guns. I happen to enjoy both target shooting, and plinking. I happen to enjoy plinking with a high capacity semi-auto weapon.

Another term I don't know! lol

What the heck is "plinking"?

Again, it's not a matter of need. It's a matter of rights.

Rights can be changed, remember. Both given and taken away. Neither should be done easily and without exhaustive debate and research, but at the end of it the bill of rights you have is just a piece of paper with some rules written on it, it's not holy writ. It can be changed, if that's what people want. A right isn't necessarily an absolute, in practice.

I guess you are trying to be deliberatly dense? I said, it's not a matter of need.
And I said that I wouldnt shoot anyone who's breaking into my house, unless they by their actions threaten my life, or that of my families. If that person runs away I let them go.



There are others means of wide communication, radio, bull horns from tops of buildings. TV's only make it simpler, they are not needed.
There is an ever increasing means of public transportation. Busses, light rails, taxi's. Look at NYC. Cars are not needed.



lol. Playstations/computer games do nothing for hand-eye coordination. You might argue finger-eye coordination.....



Ah, you sure put me in my place there, with your well informed opinions and well stated positions. :rolleyes:


FALSE. ANALOGY. look it up


http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/news_rels/2000/00-063.html
http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2004/05/03/prsc0503.htm
http://www.childdevelopmentinfo.com/health_safety/video_games_and_children.shtml

adn the advent of the car and radio connected the united states and still do, use of personal transportation FAR outpaces that of public trans. and tv added the visual element tv making it easier to convey more news easier and faster.