NationStates Jolt Archive

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.



Another term I don't know! lol

What the heck is "plinking"?



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 write. It can be changed, if that's what people want. A right isn't necessarily an absolute, in practice.

lol.. plinking is target shooting at unorthodox targets. Tin cans, paint cans, rocks... just plinking away (guess it comes from the sound it makes when you hit a can, with smaller caliber guns of course)

If rights can be changed, if that's what the people want.... Could then, the majority of people, say 80%, wished to reinstitute slavery, and make red heads the target of said slavery, should the red heads rights be removed? We are talking about rights guaranteed in our Constitution. Removing the right to own guns is on par with removing the right to free speech, or free press, or freedom of religion.

I would suggest that regardless of the number of people who wish to remove the right to free speech, it could not be done. Not without changing the country as a whole we live in.

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.

Yea, it's deliberate.

Life was lived prior to the advent of TV, cars, electronic gaming. Many people in NYC fare just fine with no cars. Life continued during the blackout.

It's not needed. It sure makes life more fun, more enjoyable. Almost more worth living. Not necessarily more productive.

Let's see.. how did you put it.... IT'S.NOT.NEEDED.

Yea, it's deliberate.

Life was lived prior to the advent of TV, cars, electronic gaming. Many people in NYC fare just fine with no cars. Life continued during the blackout.

It's not needed. It sure makes life more fun, more enjoyable. Almost more worth living. Not necessarily more productive.

Let's see.. how did you put it.... IT'S.NOT.NEEDED.
it is needed to close the extreme space gap between areas in the united states, without tv/radio and cars there would be no united states, not as we know it at least, the radio and tv and car shrink if not eliminate that gap

it is needed to close the extreme space gap between areas in the united states, without tv/radio and cars there would be no united states, not as we know it at least, the radio and tv and car shrink if not eliminate that gap

It's been said that I do not need guns. Im saying that it's not a matter of need, but one of rights. I proposed, as an analogy (if you choose not to accept it, that's your decision, but it doesnt invalidate my analogy) that there is no real need for modern conveniences. However, modern conveniences make life better and Im all for them. I enjoy target practice, and plinking, therefore Im all for the responsible ownership of guns.

It's been said that I do not need guns. Im saying that it's not a matter of need, but one of rights. I proposed, as an analogy (if you choose not to accept it, that's your decision, but it doesnt invalidate my analogy) that there is no real need for modern conveniences. However, modern conveniences make life better and Im all for them. I enjoy target practice, and plinking, therefore Im all for the responsible ownership of guns.
that is a FALSE ANALOGY, its called a LOGICAL FALLACY, you cannot logically relate the owning of firearms to the owning of cars and technology

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


How do you know they aren't dangerous?

If there is someone making a racket in your house after making an effort to break in, how do you know their motive?

Do you want to give them the benefit of the doubt?

No, I don't believe in shooting people over posessions, but if there is any doubt then I have no problem.

My life is worth more than anyone who violates my property and is a potential threat to me and my family. I'm not going to risk my life and hope that the invader means me no harm.
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.

You could easily have become a corpse that day.

The only reason that you can still type messages to this forum is luck. The gun owners on this forum had something else to rely on.

Seriously, I don't believe in shooting someone unless it is in self defence. In fact, where I live (New Zealand) it is illegal to defend yourself with a firearm so my guns are in a cabinet in the basement. But on that day, if the robber had decided to come into your room, wouldn't you rather have had an extra option than luck? Isn't your life worth more than that?

You don't have to have a rambo mindset to use a gun in self defence.

Craig

lol.. plinking is target shooting at unorthodox targets. Tin cans, paint cans, rocks... just plinking away (guess it comes from the sound it makes when you hit a can, with smaller caliber guns of course)

Gotcha. After I posted I thought it might be something like that. I paintball, and that's exactly the sound you get when you shoot at plastic milk jugs. :)

If rights can be changed, if that's what the people want.... Could then, the majority of people, say 80%, wished to reinstitute slavery, and make red heads the target of said slavery, should the red heads rights be removed? We are talking about rights guaranteed in our Constitution. Removing the right to own guns is on par with removing the right to free speech, or free press, or freedom of religion.

Of course it could come to pass like that, I hope it doesn't. All I meant by "rights can be changed" is that they're not absolutes.

That said, I think it's very possible that the single greatest right ever enacted was/is freedom of speech. The knock-off effects of this are staggering, reaching into the economy, philosophy, judiciary, and countless other systems that people live in.

Yes, it means we put up with a lot of garbage as it means that people with very loud voices but very little substance get their say, but that is far outweighed by the benefits. And I'd rather a bright and noisy place to a dark and quiet one. ;)

I would suggest that regardless of the number of people who wish to remove the right to free speech, it could not be done. Not without changing the country as a whole we live in.

I agree with you there, as should be evident by what I said just above it. But I don't personally equate freedom of speech with gun ownership. ;)

and that's how it should and hopefully will be here, I mean if you want to live under socialism, move to england, or europe.........theres plenty of places to go for that kind of ideology..........


some people said read the 2nd amendment carefully..........well I have........

I'm sure Thomas Jefferson did as well.........heres what he intended the 2nd amendment for......

“For I agree with you that there is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talent. Formerly, bodily powers gave place among the aristoi. But since the invention of gunpowder has armed the weak as well as the strong with missile death, bodily strength, like beauty, good humor, the politeness and other accomplishments, has become but an auxiliary ground for distinction.”



So as President, Jefferson successfully urged Congress to appropriate federal funds to provide firearms to state militiamen who did not own their own guns. Congress complied, and during Jefferson’s second term and Madison’s first, “public arms” were supplied at federal expense to state militias all over the nation.

The militia was intended to prevent the conquest of America by a foreign power, but it was also intended to prevent the conquest of America by a CENTRAL NATIONAL GOVERNMENT AND ITS STANDING ARMY. At his first inaugural, Jefferson explained that “a well-disciplined militia” is “our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war, till regulars may relieve them” and also a guarantee of “the supremacy of the civil over the military authority; [and] economy in the public expense.”

CIVIL AUTHORITY..............well we've lost that over time to good old karl marx and the socialism of the 1930's.........hell that's when the "populist" (read socialists) dominated supreme court ruled that the 2nd amendment applied only to the governments ability to make an army.....

.......of course they were just trying to strip us of an essential liberty.......




“A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprize, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore by the constant companion of your walks

Jefferson’s views on the importance of arms for youth remained strong two decades later, as expressed in his 1818 Report of the Commissioners or the University of Virginia: “the manual exercise, military maneuvers, and tactics generally, should be the frequent exercise of the students, in their hours of recreation.”

nowadays we have Socialism and the "OH MY GOD WHAT ABOUT THE FUTURE", SHUT YER YAPPER, WE EXIST IN THE NOW PEOPLE, ALL OF US WILL BE DEAD IN ABOUT 50-60 YEARS TOPS.........then it's all over, no cares for the future, hell you're next life might be in the past.........

but of course nowadays these losers would prefer the comfortable servitude of a nanny state run by people like the Clintons.



oh yea to fubaria..................."Those that give up an essential liberty for a little temporary security deserve neither liberty or security" -Benjamin Franklin


The Jeffersonian intellectual revolution, however, was only beginning. When writing in 1824 to the great English Whig John Cartwright, Jefferson could observe: “The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people;… that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed…”

....................
............................
and yes, someday perhaps the socialists all over the world will come to dominate this once liberty loving country...........but they'll have to kill me and awhole lot of others before that day ever comes..............I know I won't ever see the day when I don't own so called "Assault rifles" or "High capacity" magazines
...............
.............
............
......
....
.....


...
Criminals will always have good weapons, and they're not stealing them from honest citizens, they can get it from organized crime, good old no economy having mexico..............................................I'd have replied to some of the people in this thread but it was half BS/ Half idiocy

I had to chase off some people that were trying to kick in my backdoor yesterday to rob me of my stuff................

and yes it would have been perfectly fine to blast them to hell had they not turned tail and ran...........

..........only the english would say don't shoot a criminal..........god socialists are such idiots

How do you know they aren't dangerous?

I'd like to stop you right there and say "How do you know they are dangerous?".

If you're going to respond to something with deadly force, in my opinion, the burden of proof is on you to show later why you chose as you did.

My life is worth more than anyone who violates my property and is a potential threat to me and my family. I'm not going to risk my life and hope that the invader means me no harm.

And because you feel threatened and gun someone down in that situation, who later turns out to be unarmed and based on their record (which you wouldn't know at the time of course) was never a threat to you, you've killed someone unnecessarily because you had a gun and were thinking with that. Without the gun, perhaps other options would come to mind?

Hmmm, I just realized that may have sounded sarcastic. Not my intent. :)

You could easily have become a corpse that day.

I suppose. But not by him.

The only reason that you can still type messages to this forum is luck. The gun owners on this forum had something else to rely on.

A little more detail - it happened when I was fourteen. I was home from school and someone knocked on the door. As I was in my pajamas and didn't want to answer the door like that, I looked out the window. It was nobody I knew, so I felt okay about ignoring it. The guy then went through the hedge between my house and the next house and vanished.

I had a feeling about it, so I called the next door neighbour, and asked her if someone had knocked on her door. She was immediately alarmed (it was just an odd way to get to the next house, that's why) and wanted me to call the police. I thought that was silly and declined.

A few minutes later I heard a loud banging. I looked around but couldn't figure out where it was coming from. We later learned it was from the guy attempting to kick in the mandoor at the back of the garage, where we'd been broken into six months before. However, securing it with a 2x4 from the inside stopped his kicks. ;)

I finally looked out the window and saw him in the backyard pulling on his gloves while sitting under a tree. At this point, I called next door again and told her, and asked if she'd be so kind as to call the cops for me now. ;)

Of course she said "Get out of the house!" but by that point I could hear the basement window open (forced with a screwdriver we later learned) and the guy was moving around down there. Since I'd have had to go perilously near him to get out, I instead elected to hide.

My mom had a walk-in closet, with lots of long dresses hanging in it. So I ducked in there (moving silently of course) and stood behind the clothes. Of course, guess which room the guy came straight into? :P

He was pulling out the drawers in the cabinets when the police came. He ran out, taking the staggering load of a single costume jewelry earring. ;)

No, he wasn't armed. No, he had no history of violence. No, I don't think having a gun would have made me any safer that day.

Seriously, I don't believe in shooting someone unless it is in self defence. In fact, where I live (New Zealand) it is illegal to defend yourself with a firearm so my guns are in a cabinet in the basement. But on that day, if the robber had decided to come into your room, wouldn't you rather have had an extra option than luck? Isn't your life worth more than that?

Well, I gave my little story. And no, I wouldn't have wanted that particular option. Even if there had been a gun available, I doubt I would have thought to pick it up. I'd have preferred to run, since I had great confidence in my speed over his. :)

If a weapon had been readily available (I'm thinking a bat or some other bludgeon which I could have used to threaten him with if he came near me), I may have interposed it between us. But as it went, he never saw me. I'm pretty satisfied with how it turned out.

Incidentally, the police were there within about three minutes of my telling the neighbour to call the police. So after that she would have called them, gave a location, etc and they responded. About a minute after that a dog patrol showed up. A minute later a helicopter was over my house.

And you know what? I felt perfectly safe in my house the moment he was gone. I feel safe now. I didn't and don't feel the need for a firearm. :)

You don't have to have a rambo mindset to use a gun in self defence.

Yeah, but I'm a terror with a paintball gun. ;)

nowadays we have Socialism and the "OH MY GOD WHAT ABOUT THE FUTURE", SHUT YER YAPPER, WE EXIST IN THE NOW PEOPLE, ALL OF US WILL BE DEAD IN ABOUT 50-60 YEARS TOPS.........then it's all over, no cares for the future, hell you're next life might be in the past.........

Don't have kids. Don't save money for your old age. Don't offer your advice to any project that has to last beyond the immediate.

You quoted all sorts of things that were written a long time ago. Many of which still have an effect on the present, and will into the future. And in the same post you mock people who consider the future ramifications of what they do and choose today?

Go live in a bunker in the woods somewhere and whittle your toilet paper out of poplar. The rest of us will contribute to the world we want to live in, and the society we'll leave to our descendants.

You're right to own a dangerous weapon IS NOT greater than someone elses right to live...

That right is greater when it is not dangerous to someone's right to live. As is my legal ownership of my firearms and many many millions of other legal owner's of thier firearms. The new york times (liberal leaning at least they say) poll states that there are a split of Americans by 1/3 not caring if assualt weapon ban expires or renews, 1/3 were for repealing it and 1/3 are are for extending it. That would mean most likely we have 100 million at least assault weapon owners (conservative estimate) due to how many years of flooding these to civilian consumers, over 100. also throw in the fact that most assault weapon owners do not want the government (or anyone else) to know that they have them. So they legally purchased them without any registration since it is not required in many of our states due to a thing called states rights.

You are widdling away at an inferior idea as long as states rights exist. Until you can rid America of that little problem your utopia could never happen. Even with the current so called ban (that still allowed you to own assualt weapons and purchase anything in circulation, how many hundreds of millions out there?) that expires in 3 days. Also recongnize that the house already voted to repeal the awb in 96 by a vote of 239-173 (with 56 democrats voting to repeal it) and the fact that the Democrats lost a total of 20 seats in the House and Senate that voted for the awb (As even president Clinton acknowledges).

At least you linked an assualt weapon to its class. Dangerous weapons IE: Any blunt object/ Fertilizer/any firearm/ any mobile or movable or operatable object/ Diesal/ any sharp object/ immonium nitrates(fertilizers)/paint thinners&laquers/mogas/nails/bleach/ball bearings/insecticides/ Shall we continue because the fact is any half wit brain could devise a way to do harm to many more people than any single semi automatic firearm could. This is about getting rid of the most dangerous and available weapons is it not?

...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.

Owning and using a car is a priveledge, owning and using a Preban assualt weapon (for another 3 days then its any assualt weapon) is a Right.

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:

You must of missed this in Government and Phylosophy class, were you not a political science major? Or is this someone else? :

"Rights do not need reasons to exist, but you do need a reason to limit or hinder that right".

> Hunting? Nope.

You're Personal opinion of how it should be, some states give you the right to use an assualt weapon for hunting, some limit you to a 5 round mag and some don't give you the right.

> Target shooting? Nope.

All 50 states give you the right to use an assault weapon for target shooting, 48 give you the right to use your own and 2 give you the right to rent one at your local gun range.

> Home defence? (Totally aside from the fact that I do not consider home defence a legit use of a gun) Nope.

Again it is you considering what is a legit use of a gun and not the law. The Right to Self-defense : "No one is subject to a legal duty to wait for the “first strike” of an adversary"
"The Supreme Court in the last five years has offered dicta twice which suggest that the Court shares past academy's views of the Second Amendment as an individual right" as long as legal scholars continue to back this interpretation this will be another roadblock in your wishes. Another 200+ years?

Read this carefully: Section 27. Right to bear arms; military subordinate to civil power. The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.]

How many other state Constitutions also state this as a legitimate use for dangerous weapons?

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...

I heard that you could have your utopia in a vast aray of other countries if you want that to happen in you're or childrens ect... lifetime.

I heard that you could have your utopia in a vast aray of other countries if you want that to happen in you're or childrens ect... lifetime.

Now now, you don't want to come across as having the attitude "America - love it or leave it" do you? :)

Now now, you don't want to come across as having the attitude "America - love it or leave it" do you?

No of course not, But I do believe that everyone should have the right to pursue happiness! I just want to make sure he gets his chance thats all. See I am looking out for everyone else not just myself man :)

Again it is you considering what is a legit use of a gun and not the law. The Right to Self-defense : "No one is subject to a legal duty to wait for the “first strike” of an adversary"

Heh, I couldn't resist. I went to have a peek at your country, since I've been enjoying your posts. And what do I find in your Inoffensive Centrist Democracy?

"Nervous homeowners have been blamed for rising death rates amongst carol singers and locksmiths"

lmao

;)

No of course not, But I do believe that everyone should have the right to pursue happiness! I just want to make sure he gets his chance thats all. See I am looking out for everyone else not just myself man :)

[tongue firmly in cheek] And as you are armed, with the above quote in mind, I'm reminded of (I think) Winston Churchhill: "I may not agree with your words, my good man, but I'll defend to the death your right to say them."

BLAM! BLAMBLAMBLAM!

lol

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

Oh my . . . I never thought I'd see anyone post something like this . . . let's just say that it was luck nature didn't select your genes to be elimanated.

Heh, I couldn't resist. I went to have a peek at your country, since I've been enjoying your posts. And what do I find in your Inoffensive Centrist Democracy? "Nervous homeowners have been blamed for rising death rates amongst carol singers and locksmiths" lmao

lol yea well you know how situations are magnified when you pass a law that states you have a right to bear arms hehe Usualy they do not happen, although I have not ever heard of something that extreme happening I wouldnt put it past the human race lol

The Government should outlaw all firearms from public reach as soon as possible.


Thank you, Heinrich Himmler.....

Me!

Oh my . . . I never thought I'd see anyone post something like this . . . let's just say that it was luck nature didn't select your genes to be elimanated.

Because I don't think that mere robbery is cause for shooting somebody? Ugh, glad you weren't one of those eugenics doctors the Nazis had, because if you had your way I'd have been flushed. :P

Although I'd like to think my views are a result of my life, not my genetics.

lol yea well you know how situations are magnified when you pass a law that states you have a right to bear arms hehe Usualy they do not happen, although I have not ever heard of something that extreme happening I wouldnt put it past the human race lol

That's fair - my country has no prisons, and no crime.

But a bit of a tax burden. :P

OK, too lazy (forgive me) to requote what you were repsonding to, so I'll mark your points with numbers:

1.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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.


5. 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: .



6. Again, it's not a matter of need. It's a matter of rights.

1. That is exactly the point - you are just refusing to acknowledge it, either through genuine noncomprehension, or deliberately so as to add weight to your argument. Let me giove you an example: a school playground is full of rocks, and some of the kids throw them at each other. The school janitor goes out one day and removes all the loose rocks from the schoolyard. The kids with rocks already in their pockets will still throw them, and kids will pick up those that are thrown, but THE NUMBER WILL BE REDUCED EVENTUALLY. We are talking about LONG TERM REDUCTION IN GUN CRIME, not an overnight total and utter stop. You do understand the difference bewteen a reduction and a total stop, yes?

2. Is that straight out of the NRA handbook? Again, it is about REDUCTION. Not to mention - home manufactured guns are more likely to be single shot zip guns or Saturday Night specials. Very, very few people will have the ability to manufacture professional quality assualt weapons (that whole pesky reduction thing again). Will more guns come in from overseas? Probably...but highly unlikely that it will anywhere equal the number of "legal" guns used for illegal purposes. P.S. As such an avid gun enthusiast, please provide me with some details of these "home made cannons" you think you have seen at portests.

3. See # 1. Also, your right to defend yourself is not greater than your legally owned gun potentially being used on an innocent third party, if it gets stolen. Out of interest: do you store your guns at home in a secure gun storage device, or sleep with them under the bed? Do you have children?

4. Again you somehow seem to think I'm talking about a total ban. Plinking with semi-autos may well be fun, but is it neccessary? I'm sorry, but the buzz that you or anyone else gets over your semi-auto guns doesn't legitimize their existence in the hands of untrained civilians.

5. Guns, dude. We're talking about guns. Try to stick to the topic at hand. Applying the same logic to other home appliances is flawed in the extreme. Other devices aren't designed to kill multiple people at long ranges. I'd rather take my chances with someone throwing a PC at me than popping me with a gun.

6. Please to show me the constitutional right to bear high capacity semi-auto weapons? You know, the same constitution you throw in people's faces all the time with the right to bear arms?

To recap my stance for people who can't (or won't) understand it -

> Ban ALL guns? No.

> Ban some guns with a high capacity for killing large numbers of people in a short amount of time at a long distance? Yes.

> Do I believe that banning said weapons will miraculously stop crime, or even gun crime, overnight? No.

> Do I believe that baning said weapons will save a significant number of lives every year? Yes. (And sorry, but I rate even 1 life per year high above the pesudo-sexual attachment some people seem to have to assault weapons)

> Require some common sense regulations be enforced about storing your guns at home? Yes.

> Make registration process more thorough? Yes.

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...


I think you have good intentions, but you know the saying about the road to hell :-)

Has making marijuana illegal had any effect on it's availability?

The fact is, guns last a LONG time (I just sold a perfectly functioning rifle made in 1911), guns can be easily made and smuggling is just as easy (you will NEVER stop every country in the world producing arms.)

The fact of there being less guns to steal will be offset when criminals realise that the bother of getting a gun will give them a huge advantage over the disarmed population.

Then there is the fact that if you drastically reduce the number of legally owned firearms while the number of illegally owned firearms remains largely unchanged, you are affecting the ratio of armed criminals to armed citizens, giving more power to the crims and making their jobs less dangerous (and therefore, more attractive)

Basically, guns (like drugs) are too easy to obtain for bans or heavy regulation to have any worthwhile effect and making guns illegal (like making drugs illegal) simply puts the power in the hands of the criminals.

Craig

Oh my . . . I never thought I'd see anyone post something like this . . . let's just say that it was luck nature didn't select your genes to be elimanated.

Fact - the vast majority of home breakins do not result in death, or even physical harm, of the occupants.

Fact - the vast majority of people who break into homes are not packing a gun.

Fact - just because you happen to be the one who introduces the gun into a home breakin scenario, doesn't mean that the burglar will end up being the one shot. Given the chaos of the situation, it is entirely feasible that what may have been a simple snatch and run by an unuarmed thief may turn into you and/or your family members being shot.

but you dont need to own a gun, and some one jsut breaking into your house isnt threatening your life.
How the hell would you know? :headbang:

So if someone smashes a downstairs window and opens the door to your bedroom at two in the morning you should assume they just want to take the VCR?

How do you know they are:
Sane?
Sober?
Not on drugs?
Not after you or your family?
Not armed?

How dare you say that everyone should risk their own and their families lives on the gamble that the criminal in your house does not mean you harm.

You might be OK with putting your families lives on the roll of the dice, others prefer to be able to defend themselves against someone who is threatining them.

Craig

Can I just ask - are people who are for using deadly force (guns) on home intruders advocating a fire-on-sight policy? Do you give them a warning and tell them to leave, or to surrender?

Also, assuming you are advocating guns for home defence - this means guns need to be kept in easy reach. Do you have children? What's to stop them (deliberately or accidentally) using your gun? Do you still keep the gun under your bed if you've had a big night on the booze or other mind-altering substance?

Can I just ask - are people who are for using deadly force (guns) on home intruders advocating a fire-on-sight policy? Do you give them a warning and tell them to leave, or to surrender?

No I don't think anyone advocates that, more it is to continue the right to have discretion when your life or someone elses life is in danger. The only reason why they have the clauses so you can use deadly force on someone escaping is because if you believe they could become dangerous or be dangerous to the rest of society or yourself at a definite point in the future. The one where some states allow you to use deadly force stricly on anyone that is in your home unwelcomed armed or unarmed are really isolated incidences between few states.

Also, assuming you are advocating guns for home defence - this means guns need to be kept in easy reach. Do you have children? What's to stop them (deliberately or accidentally) using your gun? Do you still keep the gun under your bed if you've had a big night on the booze or other mind-altering substance?

My personal belief (some states have laws that differ and some agree and other's have no law). That if you have children then you should not be allowed to lay a gun somewhere that the child could obtain it by any practical means. It should be under lock and key or on your body.

Can I just ask - are people who are for using deadly force (guns) on home intruders advocating a fire-on-sight policy? Do you give them a warning and tell them to leave, or to surrender?

I think that's been answered already by a few, Fubaria. The people who've been with this thread for the last several pages that are more pro-gun than you and I are have mostly said that no, they're not out to execute people automatically in those situations, but when certain criteria are met.

I don't agree with most of their criteria, as I've said, but my current understanding is that confrontation is preferable for people with a gun, and the gun (they feel) stacks the odds of things going in their favour, without necessarily having to shoot.

Anybody who might fall into this category correct me if I'm misunderstanding. :)

Also, assuming you are advocating guns for home defence - this means guns need to be kept in easy reach. Do you have children? What's to stop them (deliberately or accidentally) using your gun? Do you still keep the gun under your bed if you've had a big night on the booze or other mind-altering substance?

And of course this is a concern - you can aim and fire a gun to deadly effect almost at the rate you can think. Something that's less deadly or requires a little more effort (I'm thinking a baseball bat you mooks, not poison in someone's drink lol) may still accomplish the same desired result, but not result in a fatality.

To shift your example slightly, despite all the warnings and known consequences, people still go to the bar, get drunk, then get behind the wheel when they're really in no shape to drive. It's even worse if they've done it before, because they use that as "evidence" that they can handle it.

So we try to have incentives for people to not do it, beyond the legislation. Bars offer free pop/coffee to the designated driver in a group. Bartenders will cut you off (sometimes) if you're looking fall-down-on-the-sidewalk drunk. Friends will take your keys and call you a cab.

None of which are perfect, but they help.

So what sort of similar incentives could we put in place to prevent people from shooting while intoxicated?

I think that's been answered already by a few, Fubaria. The people who've been with this thread for the last several pages that are more pro-gun than you and I are have mostly said that no, they're not out to execute people automatically in those situations, but when certain criteria are met.
I don't agree with most of their criteria, as I've said, but my current understanding is that confrontation is preferable for people with a gun, and the gun (they feel) stacks the odds of things going in their favour, without necessarily having to shoot. Anybody who might fall into this category correct me if I'm misunderstanding.

Yea it really is to maintain being treated as an adult with the discresion and faith in knowing when you're or another humans life is in immanent danger and needs to be protected under the specified criteria.


So we try to have incentives for people to not do it, beyond the legislation. Bars offer free pop/coffee to the designated driver in a group. Bartenders will cut you off (sometimes) if you're looking fall-down-on-the-sidewalk drunk. Friends will take your keys and call you a cab.None of which are perfect, but they help. So what sort of similar incentives could we put in place to prevent people from shooting while intoxicated?

Im not sure because I have never heard of someone who could legally (a licensed citizen) carry concealed ever doing anything illegal or killing anyone that was not in a justified manner. I'll have to see if I have the website that talks about it extensively. Im pretty sure there have been a case or two in the history of licensing of illegal discharges, but any illegal deaths I believe it has never happened.

Im not sure because I have never heard of someone who could legally (a licensed citizen) carry concealed ever doing anything illegal or killing anyone that was not in a justified manner. I'll have to see if I have the website that talks about it extensively. Im pretty sure there have been a case or two in the history of licensing of illegal discharges, but any illegal deaths I believe it has never happened.

It's more to set my own mind at ease about people not in their right mind (still fuzzy from sleep even) having to then put their possibly impaired judgement to the test with a firearm. I wasn't suggesting that there was lots of instances of it, but we are in a place to speculate. :)

OK, too lazy (forgive me) to requote what you were repsonding to, so I'll mark your points with numbers:



1. That is exactly the point - you are just refusing to acknowledge it, either through genuine noncomprehension, or deliberately so as to add weight to your argument. Let me giove you an example: a school playground is full of rocks, and some of the kids throw them at each other. The school janitor goes out one day and removes all the loose rocks from the schoolyard. The kids with rocks already in their pockets will still throw them, and kids will pick up those that are thrown, but THE NUMBER WILL BE REDUCED EVENTUALLY. We are talking about LONG TERM REDUCTION IN GUN CRIME, not an overnight total and utter stop. You do understand the difference bewteen a reduction and a total stop, yes?

What you are refusing to acknowledge, either through genuine noncomprehension, or deliberately so is that those kids without rocks, will go outside the school grounds and get rocks and bring them back into the school. If not, they will use something else. You will not ever get rid of illegal guns as there is a never ending supply of them. Restrictions only reduce the number of guns available for personal defense.

2. Is that straight out of the NRA handbook? Again, it is about REDUCTION. Not to mention - home manufactured guns are more likely to be single shot zip guns or Saturday Night specials. Very, very few people will have the ability to manufacture professional quality assualt weapons (that whole pesky reduction thing again). Will more guns come in from overseas? Probably...but highly unlikely that it will anywhere equal the number of "legal" guns used for illegal purposes. P.S. As such an avid gun enthusiast, please provide me with some details of these "home made cannons" you think you have seen at portests.

Im not talking about professional quality assault weapons. Im not talking about zip guns. It's not out of the NRA handbook. Watch some video's of protests where shooting breaks out between protestors and the police. Hell, I could build a gun now, out of what I have in my garage. I could even probably make a fairly decent mockup of a matchlock rifle. Whether or not these have the same capacity as a professional quality assault weapon is immaterial. They have the same killing capacity. That is what I want to defend against.

3. See # 1. Also, your right to defend yourself is not greater than your legally owned gun potentially being used on an innocent third party, if it gets stolen. Out of interest: do you store your guns at home in a secure gun storage device, or sleep with them under the bed? Do you have children?

Nowhere did I say that my right was greater than my responsibility if my gun happens to get stolen and used in a crime. People today, forget that with ever right comes responsibility. Too often they scream for their rights, yet disregard their responsibility.
I own several guns. Including a 1911A1 National Match Gold Cup which I use in indoor leagues, and a Taurus 9mm. Of course one of the most interesting pieces is a "Thommy gun" Chess Squares so despises. .45 cal Thompson sub-machine gun, fully automatic, Korean war vintage. All of the guns are in an upright gun safe, weighing approx 2400 lbs. secured in my bedroom closet, bolted to the foundation. All except for the 9mm which is in a quick combination lockbox near my bed. I have a 9 year old son, who is familiar with most of my guns and knows how to fire a .22. I have taught him to respect guns, and the mystery is gone for him.

4. Again you somehow seem to think I'm talking about a total ban. Plinking with semi-autos may well be fun, but is it neccessary? I'm sorry, but the buzz that you or anyone else gets over your semi-auto guns doesn't legitimize their existence in the hands of untrained civilians.

Why are you even talking about necessity. This has nothing to do with necessity. It has to do with fundamental rights. You seek to limit my rights to help you feel better about yourself and society. I seek to keep my rights to help me feel better about my security and my families security and about society.

5. Guns, dude. We're talking about guns. Try to stick to the topic at hand. Applying the same logic to other home appliances is flawed in the extreme. Other devices aren't designed to kill multiple people at long ranges. I'd rather take my chances with someone throwing a PC at me than popping me with a gun.

It's not flawed logic... it's exposing the illogic in your argument that guns are not needed. Guns are not needed. However, my right to own guns shouldnt be infringed because you dont like them.

6. Please to show me the constitutional right to bear high capacity semi-auto weapons? You know, the same constitution you throw in people's faces all the time with the right to bear arms?

Ah, you are confusing me with someone else. I have never thrown the constitution in people's faces. I have never once quoted the 2nd amendment. However, since you asked.... it's right there in the 2nd amendment. The right to keep and bear arms. It purposfully doesnt define what arms are because they knew that the definition would change. They knew history, they knew that mans desire to more efficiently kill their fellow man would not stop at flintlocks.

To recap my stance for people who can't (or won't) understand it -

> Ban ALL guns? No.

> Ban some guns with a high capacity for killing large numbers of people in a short amount of time at a long distance? Yes.

> Do I believe that banning said weapons will miraculously stop crime, or even gun crime, overnight? No.

> Do I believe that baning said weapons will save a significant number of lives every year? Yes. (And sorry, but I rate even 1 life per year high above the pesudo-sexual attachment some people seem to have to assault weapons)

> Require some common sense regulations be enforced about storing your guns at home? Yes.

> Make registration process more thorough? Yes.

So, not only do you wish to ban guns that fit your loose definition of "unnecessary" guns, you also seek to regulate my bedroom? And how are those "common sense regulations" going to be enforced? Random checks by the local police department? I didnt know socialists had so much in common with facists.

I think that's been answered already by a few, Fubaria. The people who've been with this thread for the last several pages that are more pro-gun than you and I are have mostly said that no, they're not out to execute people automatically in those situations, but when certain criteria are met.

Wild, you are a breath of fresh air. From some of the opinions coming from Chess Squares, New Fubaria et al. I was beginning to lose hope in common sense.

I don't agree with most of their criteria, as I've said, but my current understanding is that confrontation is preferable for people with a gun, and the gun (they feel) stacks the odds of things going in their favour, without necessarily having to shoot.

Anybody who might fall into this category correct me if I'm misunderstanding. :)

While you and I must agree to disagree as to the criteria for shooting a burglar, you seem to have an understanding of my position.

And of course this is a concern - you can aim and fire a gun to deadly effect almost at the rate you can think. Something that's less deadly or requires a little more effort (I'm thinking a baseball bat you mooks, not poison in someone's drink lol) may still accomplish the same desired result, but not result in a fatality.

As New Fubaria mentioned, most of the break ins are committed by someone who does not have a gun. They are usually armed however, be it with a knife, or club-like object, or a tool used in the break-in (screwdriver/crowbar). I could use a baseball bat in that situation, but then I would be in an even footing with the criminal. Im not about to envoke the marquis of queensbury rules here, Im not looking for a fair fight (neither is the criminal for that matter). Im looking to end the confrontation quickly with as little danger to myself or my family as possible. I choose a gun, to confront the criminal in a sense of, well.. superior firepower. It becomes his choice. He attacks, I shoot. I do not shoot to wound, I shoot to kill. Im not confident enough with my ability to only "wing 'em", but I am confident in my ability to put 3 bullets, center of mass.

To shift your example slightly, despite all the warnings and known consequences, people still go to the bar, get drunk, then get behind the wheel when they're really in no shape to drive. It's even worse if they've done it before, because they use that as "evidence" that they can handle it.

Not quite sure what you're trying to say, but was I get out of it is that criminals will continue to commit crimes, regardless of warnings or known consequences. And most criminals will result to commiting bodily harm in an effort not to get caught.

So we try to have incentives for people to not do it, beyond the legislation. Bars offer free pop/coffee to the designated driver in a group. Bartenders will cut you off (sometimes) if you're looking fall-down-on-the-sidewalk drunk. Friends will take your keys and call you a cab.

None of which are perfect, but they help.

So what sort of similar incentives could we put in place to prevent people from shooting while intoxicated?

Training, re-enforcement of a persons responsibility to owning a gun, and the fact (although I havent been that drunk in many a decade) if I were that drunk I couldnt get my lockbox open to save my butt.

Fact - the vast majority of home breakins do not result in death, or even physical harm, of the occupants.

Fact: Over 10% of home break-ins, according to the UK home office, end in a violent encounter.

This has dropped to a deabte about guns for home defence, rather than the ownership of guns.
What about guns for target shooting and collectors etc etc.

Fact: Over 10% of home break-ins, according to the UK home office, end in a violent encounter.

10% does not constitute a Majority, unless they've changed the way percentages worked since I left High School...

10% does not constitute a Majority, unless they've changed the way percentages worked since I left High School...
its the magical "its my opinion so its right" majority

Wild, you are a breath of fresh air. From some of the opinions coming from Chess Squares, New Fubaria et al. I was beginning to lose hope in common sense.
this must be one of those sum of 2 idiots = correct. um no, just because another moron has the same as you, you're not correct. i dont go around praising the other people in this thread because they agree with me, people agreeing with you doesnt fucking matter to your correctness. and im the one lacking common sense? that just proves how sad you are




As New Fubaria mentioned, most of the break ins are committed by someone who does not have a gun. They are usually armed however, be it with a knife, or club-like object, or a tool used in the break-in (screwdriver/crowbar). I could use a baseball bat in that situation, but then I would be in an even footing with the criminal. Im not about to envoke the marquis of queensbury rules here, Im not looking for a fair fight (neither is the criminal for that matter). Im looking to end the confrontation quickly with as little danger to myself or my family as possible. I choose a gun, to confront the criminal in a sense of, well.. superior firepower. It becomes his choice. He attacks, I shoot. I do not shoot to wound, I shoot to kill. Im not confident enough with my ability to only "wing 'em", but I am confident in my ability to put 3 bullets, center of mass.
you are not on footing with the criminal unless you are a bumbling idiot, take a martial art class and stop relying on your gun to kill some one simply tryring to steal your DVD player. people breaking into your house intending to steal something may be armed, that does not magically give them deadly intent to your family; however, if you get up and start shit, chances are you, or a member of your family may end up wounded or killed just because you had to go cowboy on the guy taking your CDs. GET A MOTHER FUCKING DOG and stop acting like a gun ois the best way to protect yourself in a break in situation, its not. lets see a good gun can cost alot of money and is only good in certain situations, by a st bernard for the same amount of money or cheaper, it becomes a family pet and keeps your family a shitload safer than if you decide a gun does the same job, ia criminal without deadly intent will not break into a house with a dog, especially a large one, even if they are armed, you are a gun nut, and anyone who agrees with your position without taking into account the realities of it is also one and does not deserve the right to keep a gun in their house.



Not quite sure what you're trying to say, but was I get out of it is that criminals will continue to commit crimes, regardless of warnings or known consequences. And most criminals will result to commiting bodily harm in an effort not to get caught.
ONLY in a confrontation, YOU start the confrontation, the only wat ot stop it is to prevent it or stop it before you can confront them. buy a big ass dog or get an alarm, wow look at that less crime, less injuries, less death. so unless the criminal is sneaking in your house to specficically kill you and your family, you are safe



Training, re-enforcement of a persons responsibility to owning a gun, and the fact (although I havent been that drunk in many a decade) if I were that drunk I couldnt get my lockbox open to save my butt.
you are not a responsible person, a responsible gun owner MAYBE in a sense, but a person able to clearly think through situations so that you can use your gun, you are not. people like you shouldnt have lethal arms for the safety of yourself, your family, and the community

10% does not constitute a Majority, unless they've changed the way percentages worked since I left High School...

No, but it's dangerous enough .

, and anyone who agrees with your position without taking into account the realities of it is also one and does not deserve the right to keep a gun in their house.

That's some insult!

That's some insult!
guns dont solve everything, hate to burst your bubble

V is a major requirement of excellent gun control

You bet. And we all know that it's been proven that gun control doesn't work in this country. Laws allowing (boy does my blood boil at the thought of a government actually in enough control to "allow" anything) law-abiding citizens to carry have reduced violent crime in the areas that have adopted said laws.

Oh wait, or was it that you want to use a faulty process that doesn't work to try to identify what gun a bullet was fired from? Your vaunted gun knowledge keeps astounding me with the number of holes in it. Face it, you really don't know all that much about firearms.

cant wre just make barrels non-interchangeable


So, you're suggesting that everyone turn in their current weapons, and force people to purchase new weapons that manufacturers would have to completely redesign, so they can't change a barrel out?

How about those that like the challenge of hunting with a pistol? They change their barrels to conform to local DNR regulations regarding length of barrel. Some have pistols that don't meet the requirements, due to the fact that a defensive pistol probably doesn't need a 5.5" or greater barrel for concealment and self-defense.

You're taking the typical socialist approach: Let's make everyone spend a ton of money for a "problem" that only scares a select few.

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

Yeah....nice nitpicking. Look at the global issue. You're talking about a forced redesign on ALL guns. If a manufacturer wants to reduce recoil on their own, they look to the market to decide something like that. If you force anything, number one, you're taking their rights away, and number two, you're making the American public pay for your insecurity and fear.

Unfortunately, the courts have given the federal government wide latitude with respect to 2nd ammendmant. They have also done this with the commerce clause.

No kidding....the courts have severely failed in their duties.

The right to bear arms is slightly less ludicrous than the right to arm bears

You are behind the times mate. SCOTUS has ruled, in US vs. Lopez 1995 that the FedGov has no authority to pass gun laws.

And yet they just did by allowing police officers to carry concealed in all 50 states....

Time to hold the branches of government responsible for the laws they are breaking.

No kidding....the courts have severely failed in their duties.
Indeed. "Limited govt" is a hopelessly utopian notion. It has never worked and will never work.

Make semi-auto shotguns that are reduced to 2 rounds capacity, to make them more or less equivalent to double barrell shotguns. ;)

Plugs are removable today, and to get plugs that aren't removable would involve, once again, making manufacturers design new models, and forcing everyone to turn in their old ones, causing them to have to spend more to replace what they rightfully owned in the first place.

C'mon people! This kind of thinking doesn't work in the real world!

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.

See, that's actually a myth. It's rate of fire that is the issue. And that's already covered by the BATF, with their different classes of weapons and licenses for them. We already have the laws.

If I have 10 magazines on me, each with 10 rounds, I can empty the gun they go with, and reload 10 times in a minute. Changing magazines is nothing to someone who has had any modicum of practice.

So, the cosmetic bans that the silly law in 1994 enacted didn't do anything. Just like the studies showed.

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.

Basic psychology: If someone wants to kill another bad enough, it will happen. You can't stop incidents like Columbine with gun laws.

Any you've never seen someone practiced with a rifle empty the internal magazine (yeah, most have magazines) in under a couple of seconds. And they'd be even more accurate with their shots, given the qualities of a bolt-action!

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.

I find it crazy that people feel the need to carry guns around with them of any kind. Especially automatic weapons.
In the rare possible occurance that a rouge government took over Amercia or any civillised Western country they would have so much power and organisation that they would kill you before you had even worked out which end you shot with.
You are not going to be invaded. You do not need a gun to defend yourself.
If everyone owned a gun you would not be safe. Because human beings are not rational beings. They have accidents. They like to muck about and joke around. Accidently shooting dead your children. Or a joke which ends in a gun going off and killing your wife is not a good thing. Your son stealing your gun and taking it to school to scare someone who bullied him is not a good thing.
Anyone who does not live in a war torn state or is fighting in a warzone does NOT need a gun.

I have a right to be safe from gun owners.


Yeah, that pesky old Constitution just keeps standing in the way of your dreams of an authoritarian Social Democracy, eh?

1) We are all guaranteed the right to be secure in our properties and abodes, and also have the right to bear arms in the pursuit of liberty and happiness.
Thomas Jefferson said: it is not just a right, but a duty of all citizens to remain armed against the potential of a tyrannical government. (paraphrasing)
2) Your rights end at the point where they infringe on anothers. You do not have any right, nor deserve any consideration of an imagined one, where it would interfere with the established right of a fellow citizen.


Get a hold of the English language, man. Come back when you have.

Despite being such a stickler for the english language, the phrase "shall not be infringed" somehow seems to elude you?

Fallacious arguements all.

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

Just because you can't convince me with Chess-logic as opposed to real logic and resort to name calling, am I a gun nut.

You're the one not dealing in reality, kid.

but you dont need to own a gun, and some one jsut breaking into your house isnt threatening your life

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.

And yet history has already proved you wrong. What was done before all these things existed? We surely didn't "fucking go crazy" as you suggest.

And yet they just did by allowing police officers to carry concealed in all 50 states.... Time to hold the branches of government responsible for the laws they are breaking.

I agree and I do think it is absurd that they make a citizen get a permit to carry concealed over just going through the extensive background check (and other requirements) for all 50 states just as a police officer has and you do for each permit anyways. In order to carry in many of the states you have to get the permits that allow reciprocals. Currently I have 2 (san diego's Cal is no longer vaild since moving) permits that allow me to carry in 19 states.

Some states allow you to be a non resident and even do the complete process through the mail. You could obtain enough reciprocals though being a resident of any 50 states to have the right to carry concealed in the 35 shall issue states fairly easy, along with up to a dozen stricter states. but fairly expensive also. Is this catering to those with the money over allowing a poor person the same right? I think it is. I can barely afford the 2 I have now. I am looking to add Idaho next time I visit the wolf preserve, and possibly doing the mail order one through Florida which adds an additional 26 states.
I think the reason they can get away with a police officer getting to carry in all 50 states is due to waivers and thier indemnity.

Can I just ask - are people who are for using deadly force (guns) on home intruders advocating a fire-on-sight policy? Do you give them a warning and tell them to leave, or to surrender?


It's always a good idea to not shoot immediately. First, dial 911 (emergency number, for those of you outside the US that don't know it), and use that tax-funded recorder, so there aren't any discrepancies at the trial (which there will definitely be). Yes, tell 'em to drop whatever weapon (or stolen merchandise) and get on their knees. If they move quickly for any reason--yes, you shoot. You don't know what they were doing, and by the time you have discerned that they were bringing up a weapon, your reactions will be too late to do anything. All defensive shooting classes tell you to do this.


Also, assuming you are advocating guns for home defence - this means guns need to be kept in easy reach. Do you have children? What's to stop them (deliberately or accidentally) using your gun? Do you still keep the gun under your bed if you've had a big night on the booze or other mind-altering substance?

I do not have children, but I do keep the weapons locked up during the day. At night, it's in a special holster. You teach your children respect for the weapon at a very early age. If you slake their curiosity for it, they tend to stay away from the weapon more. If you just prohibit it, curiosity will get the kids into trouble.

Something of note. Those that are actually thinking about their own safety, and the safety of others tend to not get into the situation of being out of control via the use of alcohol or any other substance.

No, I'm not against people having a good time, but I like to be ready for just about any eventuality. I lay off the booze.

this must be one of those sum of 2 idiots = correct. um no, just because another moron has the same as you, you're not correct. i dont go around praising the other people in this thread because they agree with me, people agreeing with you doesnt fucking matter to your correctness. and im the one lacking common sense? that just proves how sad you are





you are not on footing with the criminal unless you are a bumbling idiot, take a martial art class and stop relying on your gun to kill some one simply tryring to steal your DVD player. people breaking into your house intending to steal something may be armed, that does not magically give them deadly intent to your family; however, if you get up and start shit, chances are you, or a member of your family may end up wounded or killed just because you had to go cowboy on the guy taking your CDs. GET A MOTHER FUCKING DOG and stop acting like a gun ois the best way to protect yourself in a break in situation, its not. lets see a good gun can cost alot of money and is only good in certain situations, by a st bernard for the same amount of money or cheaper, it becomes a family pet and keeps your family a shitload safer than if you decide a gun does the same job, ia criminal without deadly intent will not break into a house with a dog, especially a large one, even if they are armed, you are a gun nut, and anyone who agrees with your position without taking into account the realities of it is also one and does not deserve the right to keep a gun in their house.




ONLY in a confrontation, YOU start the confrontation, the only wat ot stop it is to prevent it or stop it before you can confront them. buy a big ass dog or get an alarm, wow look at that less crime, less injuries, less death. so unless the criminal is sneaking in your house to specficically kill you and your family, you are safe




you are not a responsible person, a responsible gun owner MAYBE in a sense, but a person able to clearly think through situations so that you can use your gun, you are not. people like you shouldnt have lethal arms for the safety of yourself, your family, and the community


And, thankfully, you don't have the right to stop him....sheesh. I remember when I knew everything....it was a great time.

guns dont solve everything, hate to burst your bubble

You're right. But then again, nothing solves everything.

I agree and I do think it is absurd that they make a citizen get a permit to carry concealed over just going through the extensive background check (and other requirements) for all 50 states just as a police officer has and you do for each permit anyways. In order to carry in many of the states you have to get the permits that allow reciprocals. Currently I have 2 (san diego's Cal is no longer vaild since moving) permits that allow me to carry in 19 states.

Some states allow you to be a non resident and even do the complete process through the mail. You could obtain enough reciprocals though being a resident of any 50 states to have the right to carry concealed in the 35 shall issue states fairly easy, along with up to a dozen stricter states. but fairly expensive also. Is this catering to those with the money over allowing a poor person the same right? I think it is. I can barely afford the 2 I have now. I am looking to add Idaho next time I visit the wolf preserve, and possibly doing the mail order one through Florida which adds an additional 26 states.
I think the reason they can get away with a police officer getting to carry in all 50 states is due to waivers and thier indemnity.


I'm sitting with just the Florida non-res permit, myself.

It's a nice class distinction, giving the police more rights than a citizen....grrr.

Through the quote you had on chess Zax I saw that he said on getting a dog lol.

I have a 132 lb rotty mastiff mix and I could kill his ass with one strike, if not it would suffocate him eventually and he would eventually drown from his own blood in his lungs. Dogs are not sure for anything other than a loving loyal companion. Any jack ass criminal can give any dog (unless your dog is vegitarian? lol) tainted meat that would kill or dibilitate them within seconds of swallowing it. Alarms are no sure bet neither, all you have to do is have a basic understanding of electricity, wireless data exploits, transmitters and responders and or fiber optics . In the use of self defense a gun is not there for a sole purpose of anything other than a last resort of protecting a life (in the majority of states, very few allow you to kill over property). I personally would hope that anyone armed is extremely fluent in understanding and operating that firearm in any situation. But as long as you have free will, states rights and the right to bear arms, then each community wills set thier own guidlines for the uses of such things.

You'll take it from my cold dead hands!
works for me

I'm sitting with just the Florida non-res permit, myself.

You do have the best one to have I think at least. I just can not believe how expensive some are, here in Oregon I only have to pay 50$ every 4 years. Not to bad but WA. is only 32$ for 5 years (renewals, not sure on new licenses). The Idaho one is 49$ or 59$ (have to look it up) for a new one I think for 4 years. But man that Florida one they want something like over $100 every 5 years even for renewals (non resident)?

Through the quote you had on chess Zax I saw that he said on getting a dog lol.

I have a 132 lb rotty mastiff mix and I could kill his ass with one strike, if not it would suffocate him eventually and he would eventually drown from his own blood in his lungs. Dogs are not sure for anything other than a loving loyal companion. Any jack ass criminal can give any dog (unless your dog is vegitarian? lol) tainted meat that would kill or dibilitate them within seconds of swallowing it. Alarms are no sure bet neither, all you have to do is have a basic understanding of electricity, wireless data exploits, transmitters and responders and or fiber optics . In the use of self defense a gun is not there for a sole purpose of anything other than a last resort of protecting a life (in the majority of states, very few allow you to kill over property). I personally would hope that anyone armed is extremely fluent in understanding and operating that firearm in any situation. But as long as you have free will, states rights and the right to bear arms, then each community wills set thier own guidlines for the uses of such things.


It comes down to how much you value your own life, and the lives of those you care about, and what measures you are prepared to take. You and I, Faithful, are willing to do more to increase our odds of making sure no harm comes to those we care about.

It's not that I think a large dog would be ineffective, I just don't think I have the right to shove a dog in the way of what I consider to be my responsibility. I'd prefer the little yelps-a-lot-and-runs-from-strangers to give me time to grab the pistol and surefire, to find out what's going on.

You do have the best one to have I think at least. I just can not believe how expensive some are, here in Oregon I only have to pay 50$ every 4 years. Not to bad but WA. is only 32$ for 5 years (renewals, not sure on new licenses). The Idaho one is 49$ or 59$ (have to look it up) for a new one I think for 4 years. But man that Florida one they want something like over $100 every 5 years even for renewals (non resident)?

Yeah, it's $117 for the initial, and $109 for the renewal, I believe. But, until WI actually gets rid of our ridiculous governor, or we get a few more firearm supporters in the legislature, we're stuck without a permit ourselves. With the FL permit, I can't really afford to be getting more than one at this time.

What really ticks me off is that all the states are supposed to be like VT or AK, no rules or regs.
:headbang:

Nations where the civilians were not allowed to own guns:

Nazi Germany
Soviet Russia
Communist China
Any petty dictatorship anywhere in the world

Governments can commit the most atrocious acts when they don't have to fear the citizens revolting. American citizens should be able to own any weapons they choose.

this must be one of those sum of 2 idiots = correct. um no, just because another moron has the same as you, you're not correct. i dont go around praising the other people in this thread because they agree with me, people agreeing with you doesnt fucking matter to your correctness. and im the one lacking common sense? that just proves how sad you are

Lol, I liked the term Zaxon used.. Chess-logic. True to form, since it has failed you Chess Squares, you result to insults and vulgar words to drive home a point, yet fail utterly in it's delivery.

you are not on footing with the criminal unless you are a bumbling idiot, take a martial art class and stop relying on your gun to kill some one simply tryring to steal your DVD player.

Again withthe insults. A gun is simply a tool of defense. It is a very effective tool. Why would you suggest that someone not use the most effective tool for self and home defense available? And I dont know how many times I have to say it, I will not shoot anyone for simply trying to steal anything of mine.

people breaking into your house intending to steal something may be armed, that does not magically give them deadly intent to your family

If they are armed, they have already made up the mind that they are ready and willing to commit bodily harm.

however, if you get up and start shit, chances are you, or a member of your family may end up wounded or killed just because you had to go cowboy on the guy taking your CDs. GET A MOTHER FUCKING DOG and stop acting like a gun ois the best way to protect yourself in a break in situation, its not. lets see a good gun can cost alot of money and is only good in certain situations, by a st bernard for the same amount of money or cheaper, it becomes a family pet and keeps your family a shitload safer than if you decide a gun does the same job, ia criminal without deadly intent will not break into a house with a dog, especially a large one, even if they are armed, you are a gun nut, and anyone who agrees with your position without taking into account the realities of it is also one and does not deserve the right to keep a gun in their house.

Yes, a simple one solution fits all. "if I get up and start shit", why is defending my home, my family, my possessions, my livelyhood such an evil thing to you? Do I not have that right? Do I not have the right to the fruits of my labor?And my son who is allergic to dogs, well.. he can go live somewhere else right?

You, sir, are an offensive person, who insults anyone who doesnt agree completly with your warped sense of reality.


ONLY in a confrontation, YOU start the confrontation, the only wat ot stop it is to prevent it or stop it before you can confront them. buy a big ass dog or get an alarm, wow look at that less crime, less injuries, less death. so unless the criminal is sneaking in your house to specficically kill you and your family, you are safe

No, I didnt start anything. The criminal did by breaking into my house. Why is it you always fail to understand that.


you are not a responsible person, a responsible gun owner MAYBE in a sense, but a person able to clearly think through situations so that you can use your gun, you are not. people like you shouldnt have lethal arms for the safety of yourself, your family, and the community

Im sorry, do I know you? You make some rather harsh judgements about me. You dont know me. You accuse me of being a danger to myself, my family and my community. Simply because I believe differently than you. Well, while I have shown (what I hope to be) huge restraint with you, I am very glad to say I do not know you.

Note that it is the anti-gun nuts who are the ones advocating the initiation of violence. The gun crew just want to protect themselves while the anti-gun crew want to use govt violence to confiscate the guns of innocent people, with threats of kidnapping (jail) and even murder if the gun owner resists the agression strongly enough. It is those who claim to be anti-gun who are most willing to use them, provided the gun user has a shiny badge, of course.

Note that it is the anti-gun nuts who are the ones advocating the initiation of violence. The gun crew just want to protect themselves while the anti-gun crew want to use govt violence to confiscate the guns of innocent people, with threats of kidnapping (jail) and even murder if the gun owner resists the agression strongly enough. It is those who claim to be anti-gun who are most willing to use them, provided the gun user has a shiny badge, of course.

/shock /faint

TheOneRule: I love you man....

Libertovania: You cant have my bud light.

/shock /faint

TheOneRule: I love you man....
Garth: Just say thanks.

Libertovania: You cant have my bud light.
I don't get it...

Note that it is the anti-gun nuts who are the ones advocating the initiation of violence. The gun crew just want to protect themselves while the anti-gun crew want to use govt violence to confiscate the guns of innocent people, with threats of kidnapping (jail) and even murder if the gun owner resists the agression strongly enough. It is those who claim to be anti-gun who are most willing to use them, provided the gun user has a shiny badge, of course.

VERY well stated, Libertovania!!!!

Unbelievable... The crime rate in america although they say it isn't is very high, the murders commited in the usa every year are way above the average of any nation (currently not involving in a civil war, war or attacks by terrorist organizations). You can buy guns in the supermarket and kill people freely (all you've got to say is that your nuts..) they'll prob put you away for a few years but it wont be life.. In the usa Gun's should be seen as outlaw.. Strictly only for use by federal employees noooo way the united states can handle the fast growing murders every year.. America please be smart and stop it be4 some lame president like george w. bush decides to start a civil war because of some stuppid reason... F. Guns!!! :rolleyes:

Just out of curiosity, are any of the gun users here Libertarians? If not (or if so, I guess) you might like to read either of these online books.

"For a New Liberty" by Murray Rothbard

http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty.asp

or "Healing Our World" by Mary Ruwart (better if you are Christian otherwise "uncle Murray" is best)

http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/rutoc.html

They'll show you all about govt violence and how we'd all be better off without it.

Unbelievable... The crime rate in america although they say it isn't is very high, the murders commited in the usa every year are way above the average of any nation (currently not involving in a civil war, war or attacks by terrorist organizations). You can buy guns in the supermarket and kill people freely (all you've got to say is that your nuts..) they'll prob put you away for a few years but it wont be life.. In the usa Gun's should be seen as outlaw.. Strictly only for use by federal employees noooo way the united states can handle the fast growing murders every year.. America please be smart and stop it be4 some lame president like george w. bush decides to start a civil war because of some stuppid reason... F. Guns!!! :rolleyes:
Wow! Intollerant of other peoples' cultures AND Dutch. Austin Powers' dad would love you!

Garth: Just say thanks.

I don't get it...

It's an older bud light tv commercial, where it shows a guy acting rather sensitive, and tells his friend "I love you man" (in hopes that his friend gives him his beer).. to which his friend replies "you cant have my bud light"

It's an older bud light tv commercial, where it shows a guy acting rather sensitive, and tells his friend "I love you man" (in hopes that his friend gives him his beer).. to which his friend replies "you cant have my bud light"
Ahhhh. I see. I thought you were questioning my manhood by suggesting I drink bud light!

You're either an anarchist, or you're being sarcastic.

Personally, this nation would probably be a lot safer without firearms being sold rampantly in our convinience stores and shoppingmalls. Yes, we'd then have a black market for them, but would that really make any difference?

The kids who massacred those students and teachers at Columbine didn't get any background checks.

The problem is, this nation is far, far too linient.

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

England has bans in force but they do not really work. There is still an increase in the number of illegal arms that are in the country. Also there are more criminials with guns then civilians, I personally feel safer with my concealed handgun when walking down the street.

Unbelievable... The crime rate in america although they say it isn't is very high, the murders commited in the usa every year are way above the average of any nation (currently not involving in a civil war, war or attacks by terrorist organizations). You can buy guns in the supermarket and kill people freely (all you've got to say is that your nuts..) they'll prob put you away for a few years but it wont be life.. In the usa Gun's should be seen as outlaw.. Strictly only for use by federal employees noooo way the united states can handle the fast growing murders every year.. America please be smart and stop it be4 some lame president like george w. bush decides to start a civil war because of some stuppid reason... F. Guns!!! :rolleyes:

Hmmm, where to start.
You can not buy guns in a supermarket.
I guess you can kill people freely in any country. Just be willing to accept the consequences.
You cant get away with murder simply by "saying you're nuts".
Guns cant be outlaws. Guns are inanimate object and are incapable of breaking the law.
Murder rate isnt "fast growing".
Some "lame" president wouldn't decide to start a civil war. Perhaps some "lame" militia group might decide to start a civil war against him, don't know abou that tho.

If you don't like guns, don't own one. Don't try to take away my rights tho. My right to own a gun is no less than your right to free speech.

Just out of curiosity, are any of the gun users here Libertarians? If not (or if so, I guess) you might like to read either of these online books.

"For a New Liberty" by Murray Rothbard

http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty.asp

or "Healing Our World" by Mary Ruwart (better if you are Christian otherwise "uncle Murray" is best)

http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/rutoc.html

They'll show you all about govt violence and how we'd all be better off without it.

You bet, I'm a card-carrying member of the Libertarian party!

You bet, I'm a card-carrying member of the Libertarian party!
Cool. Are you a small govt Libertarian, "minimal" govt libertarian or a no govt Libertarian?

You're either an anarchist, or you're being sarcastic.

Personally, this nation would probably be a lot safer without firearms being sold rampantly in our convinience stores and shoppingmalls. Yes, we'd then have a black market for them, but would that really make any difference?

The kids who massacred those students and teachers at Columbine didn't get any background checks.

The problem is, this nation is far, far too linient.

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

Ok, who in here is spreading around the 'fact' that guns are being sold rampantly in our convenience stores and shopping malls? Do people really believe that's how it works?

Cool. Are you a small govt Libertarian, "minimal" govt libertarian or a no govt Libertarian?

I'm a minimal government Libertarian....there needs to be a little bit of organization, in my opinion. We just need to stop it from growing so dang much.

Ok, who in here is spreading around the 'fact' that guns are being sold rampantly in our convenience stores and shopping malls? Do people really believe that's how it works?

I suppose if you include those Wal-Marts with grocery stores attached....

I'm a minimal government Libertarian....there needs to be a little bit of organization, in my opinion. We just need to stop it from growing so dang much.
Nearly there then ;)

Try Rothbard's book, the chapter on police, courts and law. I was extremely skeptical too until I read this. David Friedman also gives a good account of private law which is more succinct so maybe you'd like to read that first.

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_29.html

Nearly there then ;)

Try Rothbard's book, the chapter on police, courts and law. I was extremely skeptical too until I read this. David Friedman also gives a good account of private law which is more succinct so maybe you'd like to read that first.

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_29.html

I'll check it out. :)

Theres not enough guns,damnit! they should be subsidised,or given out to all citizens free!
"If i ruled the world,everyone would have a gun..."
-The Fugees-"Ready or not"

Nearly there then ;)

Try Rothbard's book, the chapter on police, courts and law. I was extremely skeptical too until I read this. David Friedman also gives a good account of private law which is more succinct so maybe you'd like to read that first.

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_29.html


Okay, I checked it, and though I think it has a lot of merit, it just seems too "neat and tidy" to work in real life. I know of business owners that would go the more costly route to be "right" (in their minds), rather than go the cost-effective route.

Doesn't mean I'm opposed to hearing more about it, however.

I would suggest starting it in another thread, or contact me directly (I hope I have it set up so you CAN contact me directly...) I haven't checked lately.

Back to the Gun Control Issue!!!!

Theres not enough guns,damnit!


I'll agree with you on that one.


they should be subsidised,or given out to all citizens free!


Eh....no.

Lol, I liked the term Zaxon used.. Chess-logic. True to form, since it has failed you Chess Squares, you result to insults and vulgar words to drive home a point, yet fail utterly in it's delivery.
you do not address the point i make: that having other peopel agree with you somehow magically makes you right, it doesnt. you jsut sit there and insult me and criticise me, you, sir, are a hypocrite



Again withthe insults. A gun is simply a tool of defense. It is a very effective tool. Why would you suggest that someone not use the most effective tool for self and home defense available? And I dont know how many times I have to say it, I will not shoot anyone for simply trying to steal anything of mine.
i dare you to tell me what is it a defense against and where. that is a blatant lie, if you suggest people are breaking into your hosue to kill or kidnap you or your family, i suggest you are quite frankly an idiot. people are breaking into your house to steal things, therefore your argument a gun is necesary for defense is a blatant and utter lie. a dog or security system can do 10 times the protection of a gun in the house when it comes to protecting your house from burglary. burglar target easy houses, easy means one they perceive to be easy, they cannot see your gun, they do not know you have one. a dog or security system therefore make you ultimately more safe as they will deter the criminal from breaking in. you logic is flawed if not non existant



If they are armed, they have already made up the mind that they are ready and willing to commit bodily harm.
then so are you, by what you just said and by the very fatc you own a gun for "defense" you are pre-disposed to use a gun in a lethal manner, which you already stated you would do. you, sir, are the definition of gun nut. you try to disguise is with fallacies of logic and simpel rhetoric. im so sorry i can see through the bullshit



Yes, a simple one solution fits all. "if I get up and start shit", why is defending my home, my family, my possessions, my livelyhood such an evil thing to you? Do I not have that right? Do I not have the right to the fruits of my labor?And my son who is allergic to dogs, well.. he can go live somewhere else right?
because deterrment is the best defense, a gun is not deterrent, you are already predisposed to kill an intruder in your house, where as they would not be in your house if you were an intelligent individual, as you are obviously not, you do not need a gun.

You, sir, are an offensive person, who insults anyone who doesnt agree completly with your warped sense of reality.
its not that hard to comprehend you do not need a gun to kill burglars if you have a dog or security system to keep them out


something about you not starting stuff but gburglar did by brekaing into your house
LIE. the burglar's ONLY intention would be to steal stuff, by your getting involved with a weapon escalates it to a conflict in which the burglar, you, or your family can be needlessly injured because you are a gun nut

Note that it is the anti-gun nuts who are the ones advocating the initiation of violence. The gun crew just want to protect themselves while the anti-gun crew want to use govt violence to confiscate the guns of innocent people, with threats of kidnapping (jail) and even murder if the gun owner resists the agression strongly enough. It is those who claim to be anti-gun who are most willing to use them, provided the gun user has a shiny badge, of course.
that is bullshit, proposing the government confiscate guns is not an act of violence unless the gun nuts, who dont udnerstand the word, start violence by shooting those people. government confiscating weapons could be a something where people come in and turn in their guns and get paid a sum of moeny for them and get to leave

England has bans in force but they do not really work. There is still an increase in the number of illegal arms that are in the country. Also there are more criminials with guns then civilians, I personally feel safer with my concealed handgun when walking down the street.
criminals are civilians

A loaded semi-automatic .45 spends a whole lot of the day on my belt. It's never killed anyone. It did pinch my finger once. Most that know me wouldn't consider me a danger to others. Several know that the gun is there.
My wife "doesn't like guns," but when we're in a bad neighborhood late at night she'll ask if I have it with me...

LIE. the burglar's ONLY intention would be to steal stuff

Oh really.....
http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/police/news/home_invasions.html

that's the definition, now for a small sampling of the statistics.....
http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/2001339/detail.html

Here we see that in one county in Michigan 2939 occurances of home invasion in 2001, 3052 in 2002.

Criminals who break into others homes are not some wayward mischievious waifs like in Dickens-esque Oliver Twist fantasy where the criminal would much rather share tea and biscuits with you than take your belongings. In the current age "home invasion" is a right of passage of many gangs. Not to steal your belongings but to "terrorize" the occupants. They specifically target occupied homes. These events often happen in broad daylight.

you sir, are a moron I never insulted you. You are the one that must insult with every other post.

i dare you to tell me what is it a defense against and where. that is a blatant lie, if you suggest people are breaking into your hosue to kill or kidnap you or your family, i suggest you are quite frankly an idiot. people are breaking into your house to steal things, therefore your argument a gun is necesary for defense is a blatant and utter lie. a dog or security system can do 10 times the protection of a gun in the house when it comes to protecting your house from burglary. burglar target easy houses, easy means one they perceive to be easy, they cannot see your gun, they do not know you have one. a dog or security system therefore make you ultimately more safe as they will deter the criminal from breaking in. you logic is flawed if not non existant


So, if you walk downstairs, when someone is robbing you and just stand there, they'll just peacably go about their business and not worry about being identified? Many folks are attacked when a robber is discovered, Chess. They won't just leave to be IDed later.


then so are you, by what you just said and by the very fatc you own a gun for "defense" you are pre-disposed to use a gun in a lethal manner, which you already stated you would do. you, sir, are the definition of gun nut. you try to disguise is with fallacies of logic and simpel rhetoric. im so sorry i can see through the bullshit


Hoo boy....there's a difference here--you're the one creating the said bullshit. One is initiating the offense, and the other is defending against it. You can volunteer your life up to the scum bag, but you can't make us do the same.


because deterrment is the best defense, a gun is not deterrent, you are already predisposed to kill an intruder in your house, where as they would not be in your house if you were an intelligent individual, as you are obviously not, you do not need a gun.


Of all the immature responses. Just because someone doesn't agree with you, suddenly they're idiots. You're only spouting off opinion, which can neither be proven or disproven. This is why I continue to call you a child. You've proven time and again you aren't in any kind of condition to be debating with adults. You know, that's not really fair to the minors on this board. There are some kids on here that make a lot of sense. You, however, have tantrums.


its not that hard to comprehend you do not need a gun to kill burglars if you have a dog or security system to keep them out


You really don't know how easy it is to disable a dog, do you? Security systems can always be circumvented as well.


LIE. the burglar's ONLY intention would be to steal stuff, by your getting involved with a weapon escalates it to a conflict in which the burglar, you, or your family can be needlessly injured because you are a gun nut

No...there are facts that support the position that criminals aren't only there to steal. Many like to cover their tracks by killing their victims. Go look up some crime stats for once.

A loaded semi-automatic .45 spends a whole lot of the day on my belt. It's never killed anyone. It did pinch my finger once.

Damn, dirty guns! They'll pinch ya when you're not looking!!!! Gah!!!!
:D

Criminals who break into others homes are not some wayward mischievious waifs like in Dickens-esque Oliver Twist fantasy where the criminal would much rather share tea and biscuits with you than take your belongings. In the current age "home invasion" is a right of passage of many gangs. Not to steal your belongings but to "terrorize" the occupants. They specifically target occupied homes. These events often happen in broad daylight.

oh really, do youhave a source to quote for that, unless you do it is only as valid as my statement if not less

THIS proves MY point and its YOUR link


"Are you living alone? Do not broadcast that information. Make your home appear as if there are a number of people and possibly pets around. Put out toys, dog dishes or extra large boots. Do not be predictable. Vary your shopping times and shop with friends or neighbours. "

"In violent crimes there is normally a connection between the victim and offender. Strangers to stranger unprovoked attacks are very rare"

http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/police/news/home_invasions.html

bravo, prove my points with your own links, i appreciate it

My wife "doesn't like guns," but when we're in a bad neighborhood late at night she'll ask if I have it with me...
which is a wholly different situation than pretending a gun in your house protects it from burglars, and more so than a dog or security system

which is a wholly different situation than pretending a gun in your house protects it from burglars, and more so than a dog or security system

My home has been burglarized. We weren't there at the time, but there were two cars in the drive. I don't think they were worried about us being there. I have a shotgun in my closet. It isn't to protect my home. It is to protect my family if my home is broken into again. My shotgun doesn't eat as much as a dog or cost as much as a security system.

I'm not looking to kill anybody. I'm scared that I might someday be forced to shoot someone to protect my family. I'm more scared of being defenseless when someone brings harm to my loved ones though. You don't have to go looking for trouble. Sometimes it comes looking for you.

If a gun isn't for you then that is your decision. My guns are no threat to you unless you become a threat to me.

that is bullshit, proposing the government confiscate guns is not an act of violence unless the gun nuts, who dont udnerstand the word, start violence by shooting those people. government confiscating weapons could be a something where people come in and turn in their guns and get paid a sum of moeny for them and get to leave

I believe on page 10 of this thread you wrote this (gonna change or delete it now that I'm actually using your words against you? Well, you won't be able to delete this one....):

again, what the fuck is it with you gun nuts and the "I MUST HAVE A FUCKING UBER ASSAULT WEAPON OR IM NOT SAFE AHAHAHA IM FUCKING CRAZY AHAHA" people complaining that they cant get assault weaponry dont need ANY gun at all

i honestly hope you die by an M4 round, in all honesty. i hope every gun nut fighting for the destruction of the bradley law dies by a round from a previously banned weapon.

The original point TheOneRule was making was that YOU and many of the other anti-gunners advocate violence toward us. And this proves it.


The government doesn't own us or rule us. You've just been brainwashed into thinking that they do or can. They don't have the right to take anything from us.

oh really, do youhave a source to quote for that, unless you do it is only as valid as my statement if not less

THIS proves MY point and its YOUR link


"Are you living alone? Do not broadcast that information. Make your home appear as if there are a number of people and possibly pets around. Put out toys, dog dishes or extra large boots. Do not be predictable. Vary your shopping times and shop with friends or neighbours. "

"In violent crimes there is normally a connection between the victim and offender. Strangers to stranger unprovoked attacks are very rare"

http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/police/news/home_invasions.html

bravo, prove my points with your own links, i appreciate it


Uh yeah....those would be Canadian rules--victims in the US and their attackers aren't always so closely related. Those suggestions aren't far from the UK's rules which tell you to lock yourself in a bathroom if your home is invaded. They also tell you to curl up in a ball, if you're being attacked, as fighting back would just "escalate the situation by making the intruder mad."

Brilliant.

oh really, do youhave a source to quote for that, unless you do it is only as valid as my statement if not less

THIS proves MY point and its YOUR link


"Are you living alone? Do not broadcast that information. Make your home appear as if there are a number of people and possibly pets around. Put out toys, dog dishes or extra large boots. Do not be predictable. Vary your shopping times and shop with friends or neighbours. "

"In violent crimes there is normally a connection between the victim and offender. Strangers to stranger unprovoked attacks are very rare"

http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/police/news/home_invasions.html

bravo, prove my points with your own links, i appreciate it

What's your plan if a violent criminal calls your bluff? Maybe you could explain to him that you did everything right and that you're a pacifist so he should just wander off...

My home has been burglarized. We weren't there at the time, but there were two cars in the drive. I don't think they were worried about us being there. I have a shotgun in my closet. It isn't to protect my home. It is to protect my family if my home is broken into again. My shotgun doesn't eat as much as a dog or cost as much as a security system.

I'm not looking to kill anybody. I'm scared that I might someday be forced to shoot someone to protect my family. I'm more scared of being defenseless when someone brings harm to my loved ones though. You don't have to go looking for trouble. Sometimes it comes looking for you.

If a gun isn't for you then that is your decision. My guns are no threat to you unless you become a threat to me.
and a dog counts for more than just for protection, its still a family pet. it is far more useful than a gun in your closet, and since you said it was broken into WHILE YOU WERE GONE, they would probably steal the fucking gun and auction it, good job, your logic circuits are broken.

and YES, you ARE looking to kill some one, by the very fact the shotgun is in your house to protect your famiyl from some one breaking in, but that doesnt make sense seeing as how it happened when you WERNT HOME.

think about that if you havnt yet, making it look like people are there and SEEING people there are not the same thing, buy a dog, a big loud dog, you get a security system and a family pet, its doubly good for your health

What's your plan if a violent criminal calls your bluff? Maybe you could explain to him that you did everything right and that you're a pacifist so he should just wander off...
dont bluff it, buy a dog. and what good is a gun. if your not home, is a good steal item, you an sell guns to gun ntus to protect their hoems then steal the guns again when they are gone, i should be a robber, i'd make a meant off of half intelligent gun nuts. and the thing also stated violent criminals are very rare, and thats also where a big dog comes in, if some one breaks into your house and the ysee a big loud dog, they still arnt going to want to break in. a fight with you is one thing, even if you have a gun, a fight with a big angry dog is a whole nother thing, unless they are dedicated and of a sturdy courage, they arnt going to break in.


you pretend a gun fixes everything, what if you cant get to your gun, what if you dont hear them break in. how do you know they are violent, they probably wont turn violent against you unless you threaten them, in which case you have just needlessly endangered yourself and your family. guns are not deterrents, and having one doesnt mean you are safe, it more than likely means you are less safe by pretending having one makes you safe

and a dog counts for more than just for protection, its still a family pet. it is far more useful than a gun in your closet, and since you said it was broken into WHILE YOU WERE GONE, they would probably steal the fucking gun and auction it, good job, your logic circuits are broken.

and YES, you ARE looking to kill some one, by the very fact the shotgun is in your house to protect your famiyl from some one breaking in, but that doesnt make sense seeing as how it happened when you WERNT HOME.

think about that if you havnt yet, making it look like people are there and SEEING people there are not the same thing, buy a dog, a big loud dog, you get a security system and a family pet, its doubly good for your health

You're going to find this hard to believe, but some people don't want a dog. I don't have a yard big enough to let a "big loud dog" run in. I work 70+ hours a week, so I am not home enough to care for that "family pet," and I'm smart enough to keep the guns accessible yet hidden, which is why they weren't stolen in the last break-in.

I am NOT looking to kill someone. I want to protect my family. I can replace a DVD player or a laptop. My wife gets upset when I talk about replacing her.
Do you think young women buy pepper spray because they WANT to spray an attacker? Do the police carry their guns because they're chomping at the bit to kill people? Do you put your seatbelt on when you get into your car because you're looking for an accident? You're clearly close-minded. I did not get the guns to kill people anymore than I have a fire extinguisher in my kitchen because I hope to put out a fire. It would ruin my day to have that fire and not have the extinguisher though, don't you think?

Wild, you are a breath of fresh air. From some of the opinions coming from Chess Squares, New Fubaria et al. I was beginning to lose hope in common sense.

All I was really doing was stating my understanding of your stance on the issue(s) at hand. Now it's all down to wrangling. ;)

As New Fubaria mentioned, most of the break ins are committed by someone who does not have a gun. They are usually armed however, be it with a knife, or club-like object, or a tool used in the break-in (screwdriver/crowbar). I could use a baseball bat in that situation, but then I would be in an even footing with the criminal. Im not about to envoke the marquis of queensbury rules here, Im not looking for a fair fight (neither is the criminal for that matter). Im looking to end the confrontation quickly with as little danger to myself or my family as possible. I choose a gun, to confront the criminal in a sense of, well.. superior firepower. It becomes his choice. He attacks, I shoot. I do not shoot to wound, I shoot to kill. Im not confident enough with my ability to only "wing 'em", but I am confident in my ability to put 3 bullets, center of mass.

Of course I'm not advocating a "fair fight" between a homeowner and a (possibly) armed intruder. But it seems to me that you can kill (or permanently disable someone severely) out of all proportion to the threat they exhibit, and that people who are under the stress of such a situation may not at that time have the very best judgement.

Yes, I'm aware that you can do similar damage with a knife through the eye, or enough whacks on the head with a heavy object, but I see a difference there. If the guy retreats, which is what I want, I'm not going to be likely to hurt him with my baseball bat or knife, unless I chase him down to do it. Everybody lives. Bear in mind that's an important consideration for me, I realize that other's mileage may vary.

Not quite sure what you're trying to say, but was I get out of it is that criminals will continue to commit crimes, regardless of warnings or known consequences. And most criminals will result to commiting bodily harm in an effort not to get caught.

Oh, I was saying that a legally licensed and otherwise competent driver could get drunk and be a terror behind the wheel. And I was drawing the analogy to a licensed and otherwise responsible gun owner who's faced with a situation on a night he/she has been drinking heavily, or getting stoned, or is fuzzy from being asleep when awakened. That sort of thing.

Training, re-enforcement of a persons responsibility to owning a gun, and the fact (although I havent been that drunk in many a decade) if I were that drunk I couldnt get my lockbox open to save my butt.

Fair enough. I'm just considering minutae. Since we're talking about situations in which someone could die, I'm just playing with scenarios.

this must be one of those sum of 2 idiots = correct. um no, just because another moron has the same as you, you're not correct. i dont go around praising the other people in this thread because they agree with me, people agreeing with you doesnt fucking matter to your correctness. and im the one lacking common sense? that just proves how sad you are

Uh, Chess Squares? Remember how you and I are both not in favour of people carrying and possessing guns with the intent to shoot people with them?

No need to quote something by/about me and calling me an idiot. In point of fact, me and the poster I was talking to in that particular conversation don't agree on a lot of this. However, we do agree that we more or less understand the other person's position. That's all that was.

You're going to find this hard to believe, but some people don't want a dog. I don't have a yard big enough to let a "big loud dog" run in. I work 70+ hours a week, so I am not home enough to care for that "family pet," and I'm smart enough to keep the guns accessible yet hidden, which is why they weren't stolen in the last break-in.

I am NOT looking to kill someone. I want to protect my family. I can replace a DVD player or a laptop. My wife gets upset when I talk about replacing her.
Do you think young women buy pepper spray because they WANT to spray an attacker? Do the police carry their guns because they're chomping at the bit to kill people? Do you put your seatbelt on when you get into your car because you're looking for an accident? You're clearly close-minded. I did not get the guns to kill people anymore than I have a fire extinguisher in my kitchen because I hope to put out a fire. It would ruin my day to have that fire and not have the extinguisher though, don't you think?
and pepper spray isnt designed to kill some one, its a - get this - DETERRENT, its designed to stop the attack without killing some one. and pepper spray is for use in an ALREADY dangerous situation, not one you create by using the pepper spray.

what the fuck is it with these forums and false analogies

cops have guns because they are needed to intimidate people if they become violent or in a fire fight, which believe it or not, cops can get into. a cops job description is one of violence and portection, THEY need a gun to do their job. you just want a gun because you want to shoot some one, maybe not consciously, but sub consciously you just want to shoot some one.

AGAIN, seatbelts are a DETERRENT measure to PREVENT accidents.


one more post that stupid and you get ignored for being a purposefully ignorant git

dont bluff it, buy a dog. and what good is a gun. if your not home, is a good steal item, you an sell guns to gun ntus to protect their hoems then steal the guns again when they are gone, i should be a robber, i'd make a meant off of half intelligent gun nuts. and the thing also stated violent criminals are very rare, and thats also where a big dog comes in, if some one breaks into your house and the ysee a big loud dog, they still arnt going to want to break in. a fight with you is one thing, even if you have a gun, a fight with a big angry dog is a whole nother thing, unless they are dedicated and of a sturdy courage, they arnt going to break in.


you pretend a gun fixes everything, what if you cant get to your gun, what if you dont hear them break in. how do you know they are violent, they probably wont turn violent against you unless you threaten them, in which case you have just needlessly endangered yourself and your family. guns are not deterrents, and having one doesnt mean you are safe, it more than likely means you are less safe by pretending having one makes you safe

Not everybody can have a dog. I told you in an earlier post that I'm not interested in protecting my home. I want to protect my family.
Violent crimes are very rare? Do you read the paper? Sure, the chances of being attacked are pretty low. Does that mean that you want to be a helpless victim in the event it happens?
I didn't claim for a second that the gun fixes everything. It's a tool just like any other. But when you're faced with a nail, you'd better have a hammer or you're screwed.
Are you honestly suggesting that I just hope that a home invader doesn't happen to be violent?!?!
How about this scenario for you. A violent criminal breaks into your home. Maybe he's in a drug induced rage or maybe he's just looking to rape your wife. He's not impressed by your dog. He's coming upstairs to chat with you. Which person would you rather be? Me, with a loaded shotgun warning him not to come upstairs and ordering him to leave my home? Or you, with a death-grip on your phone hoping that he hasn't killed you and raped your wife in the 20 minutes it takes the police to arrive? It doesn't happen often, but it only takes once to ruin your life.
You say that I must think a gun solves every problem, which I don't. You act as though there is no situation in which a gun would be good to have. I think that's ridiculous.

and YES, you ARE looking to kill some one, by the very fact the shotgun is in your house to protect your famiyl from some one breaking in, but that doesnt make sense seeing as how it happened when you WERNT HOME.


No they're not. They're looking to stop a specific threat. Not kill all who invade. It's anti-gunners that continue to portray us in that light.

More people live than die after being shot. It's just not that way in the movies--where it seems a large portion of your perspective stems from.

Uh, Chess Squares? Remember how you and I are both not in favour of people carrying and possessing guns with the intent to shoot people with them?

No need to quote something by/about me and calling me an idiot. In point of fact, me and the poster I was talking to in that particular conversation don't agree on a lot of this. However, we do agree that we more or less understand the other person's position. That's all that was.
did i reply to you? and i thought you supported guns, meh im confused

Uh, Chess Squares? Remember how you and I are both not in favour of people carrying and possessing guns with the intent to shoot people with them?

No need to quote something by/about me and calling me an idiot. In point of fact, me and the poster I was talking to in that particular conversation don't agree on a lot of this. However, we do agree that we more or less understand the other person's position. That's all that was.

Sounds to me like the "rabid" is on the other foot.....Chess is attacking those who support his/her ideas. Neat.

Not everybody can have a dog. I told you in an earlier post that I'm not interested in protecting my home. I want to protect my family.
Violent crimes are very rare? Do you read the paper? Sure, the chances of being attacked are pretty low. Does that mean that you want to be a helpless victim in the event it happens?
I didn't claim for a second that the gun fixes everything. It's a tool just like any other. But when you're faced with a nail, you'd better have a hammer or you're screwed.
Are you honestly suggesting that I just hope that a home invader doesn't happen to be violent?!?!
How about this scenario for you. A violent criminal breaks into your home. Maybe he's in a drug induced rage or maybe he's just looking to rape your wife. He's not impressed by your dog. He's coming upstairs to chat with you. Which person would you rather be? Me, with a loaded shotgun warning him not to come upstairs and ordering him to leave my home? Or you, with a death-grip on your phone hoping that he hasn't killed you and raped your wife in the 20 minutes it takes the police to arrive? It doesn't happen often, but it only takes once to ruin your life.
You say that I must think a gun solves every problem, which I don't. You act as though there is no situation in which a gun would be good to have. I think that's ridiculous.
... this load of trip isnt worth pointing out the inane bullshit made up scenarios, i can make up scenarios all i want, but it doesnt mattewr to you because you dotn agree with me. your scenarios are inane, and do you realise the paper prints what will get it readers? stuff like the johnsons had a break in and the guy got away arnt as great as a guy broke into the johnsons johnson took out his gun and the robber shot mr johnson

and pepper spray isnt designed to kill some one, its a - get this - DETERRENT, its designed to stop the attack without killing some one. and pepper spray is for use in an ALREADY dangerous situation, not one you create by using the pepper spray.

what the fuck is it with these forums and false analogies

cops have guns because they are needed to intimidate people if they become violent or in a fire fight, which believe it or not, cops can get into. a cops job description is one of violence and portection, THEY need a gun to do their job. you just want a gun because you want to shoot some one, maybe not consciously, but sub consciously you just want to shoot some one.

AGAIN, seatbelts are a DETERRENT measure to PREVENT accidents.


one more post that stupid and you get ignored for being a purposefully ignorant git

The last thing any police officer wants to do is "intimidate" someone with their gun. That gun is to protect them if their life is threatened. They also have a duty to protect you if someone threatens yours. I'm lucky enough only to have to worry about myself and my loved ones. I DO NOT want to shoot anybody.

You want ignorant? How does a seatbelt prevent an accident? It's something to protect you in the event of an accident. It doesn't stop the accident from occuring. Feel free to ignore my posts if you can't handle having your narrow views challenged.

The last thing any police officer wants to do is "intimidate" someone with their gun. That gun is to protect them if their life is threatened. They also have a duty to protect you if someone threatens yours. I'm lucky enough only to have to worry about myself and my loved ones. I DO NOT want to shoot anybody.

You want ignorant? How does a seatbelt prevent an accident? It's something to protect you in the event of an accident. It doesn't stop the accident from occuring. Feel free to ignore my posts if you can't handle having your narrow views challenged.
you are ignored, congratulations

even though i like arguing with stubborn people, overwhelmingly stubborn people who cant even think are quite annoying

and i meant prevent injuries

... this load of trip isnt worth pointing out the inane bullshit made up scenarios, i can make up scenarios all i want, but it doesnt mattewr to you because you dotn agree with me. your scenarios are inane, and do you realise the paper prints what will get it readers? stuff like the johnsons had a break in and the guy got away arnt as great as a guy broke into the johnsons johnson took out his gun and the robber shot mr johnson

This isn't made up. It happens. And maybe if you lost a loved one to a violent criminal you might realize that sometimes they aren't going to simply pick up and leave because you were considerate enough to be a helpless victim.

Nations where the civilians were not allowed to own guns:

Nazi Germany
Soviet Russia
Communist China
Any petty dictatorship anywhere in the world

Governments can commit the most atrocious acts when they don't have to fear the citizens revolting. American citizens should be able to own any weapons they choose.

Just on a side note, not all of us that aren't on the side of gun owners want to ban the ownership of guns. My own country (Canada) has as many or more guns per capita than the US does. However, they tend to be rifles and shotguns. You can't buy guns or ammunition without being certified.

We attempted a registry program a few years ago and it was a debacle. I still think it's a good idea to know where weapons are and who has them, but in this case it fell apart due to the imcompetance of the bureaucracy assigned. Okay, that sucks. Cost us a lot more, and we've still got a broken system. I'd pay to do it again, only correctly.

My position in all my posts haven't so much been banning guns, but trying to figure out why some people are more willing to use them on human beings than I am.

With all the guns here, our count for shooting deaths is something like 1% of the US total (yearly), even accounting for per capita. So there's obviously a difference going on. I personally (no offense to anybody) think it's a bit more callousness towards other people that might be the culprit. Or it might be that guns and "cowboy justice" (not derogatory, just trying to use a label that isn't too long) are a part of the US mythology. You broke away from Britain in an armed conflict, and that certainly entered into the thinking at the time that your famous and founding papers were inked. We never did that here. So different outlook.

People pull out the Nazi scarewagon to throw opponents into all sorts of bad light. I had relatives that were Nazis. Had relatives that were Allies too. Some don't remember Germany as being all that bad (for a country in a war), and some remember Canada as an unpleasant place to be during that same war (mostly from the shortages). But it's a bit of a silly comparison to say "countries where citizens were not allowed to own guns" and list these places that have become boogeymen to us.

Because there sure were lots of awful places before people could afford guns, or even before guns were made.

Okay, rant off. It's my first of the day. :P

overwhelmingly stubborn people who cant even think are quite annoying


Finally this tool and I agree on something.

Oh really.....
http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/police/news/home_invasions.html

Heh. When you quoted this, did you read it? Property crimes are high (this includes spraypainting and vandalism like that too, at least here) but crimes of violence are low. This is where I live, incidentally. :)

The last thing any police officer wants to do is "intimidate" someone with their gun. That gun is to protect them if their life is threatened. They also have a duty to protect you if someone threatens yours. I'm lucky enough only to have to worry about myself and my loved ones. I DO NOT want to shoot anybody.

You want ignorant? How does a seatbelt prevent an accident? It's something to protect you in the event of an accident. It doesn't stop the accident from occuring. Feel free to ignore my posts if you can't handle having your narrow views challenged.

I love your posts, NMR, so it pains me to tell you that the police are not responsible for protecting you. Only society's laws. The Supreme Court has ruled that way... :(

I love your posts, NMR, so it pains me to tell you that the police are not responsible for protecting you. Only society's laws. The Supreme Court has ruled that way... :(

Absolutely true. I guess the officers I know feel that they have a duty to protect innocent people.

This isn't made up. It happens. And maybe if you lost a loved one to a violent criminal you might realize that sometimes they aren't going to simply pick up and leave because you were considerate enough to be a helpless victim.

Unfortunately, Chess won't understand that logic. In his/her world, everyone does everything one way--the wrong way, due to the fact that it's not his/her way.

did i reply to you? and i thought you supported guns, meh im confused

After a fashion - you replied to another that was quoting me and saying I was a breath of fresh air because I'm not on his side but was able to repeat his position back to him in my own words, indicating a level of understanding.

If you read over the last hundred posts or so, I'm the one saying that I value human life over my car or tv. That I don't like the thought that some people who own guns (but not all of them, including several in this thread) will quote the law in their area as a justification for shooting someone when (in my opinion) someone doesn't have to be shot.

Again, note that I don't live in the US so I'm coming from a different way of doing things that doesn't necessarily reflect the situation of things in the US.

I'm pretty much at the point now (thanks to a couple of patient and succinct posters) where I understand some different positions (which I don't personally agree with) and am now banging out ideas for harm reduction.

Sounds to me like the "rabid" is on the other foot.....Chess is attacking those who support his/her ideas. Neat.

I was going to turn your post into a lame and stretched example of "see how people can turn and fire (their opinion ;) ) in all directions when they get excited in a stressful situation?" but I decided not to. lol

Absolutely true. I guess the officers I know feel that they have a duty to protect innocent people.

You have some good officers around ya, sir!

You have some good officers around ya, sir!

Hmmm, are police in the US not supposed to enforce the laws of the land, and help to maintain an atmosphere where people can do all that liberty and pursuit of happiness stuff?

I'm not being sarcastic, I'm genuinely asking. Because if not that, what are they there for then?

I was going to turn your post into a lame and stretched example of "see how people can turn and fire (their opinion ;) ) in all directions when they get excited in a stressful situation?" but I decided not to. lol
i like how they accuse me of blindly agreeing with everyone on my side

i like how they accuse me of blindly agreeing with everyone on my side

I was just having a bit of fun with Zaxon since we're on different sides of the issue(s) at hand.

That said, Chess Squares, you seem to be a bit of an absolutist. Of course, this is a forum and not a group of people talking in real life where body language and tone and all of those other important indicators can be seen.

I'm not of the opinion that guns are inherently evil. Or even bad. The uses to which they're put (intentionally or unintentionally) bother me more often than not. But I can't get all Pollyanna about it and say "The world be so much better if there were no guns!".

It might very well be, but there are all these guns here now, so what happens with them now is what we have to consider. The future too, but we have to understand why things are as they are now before we can intelligently address the future.

And of the people in this thread that are perhaps a little quicker to harm someone than you I are, they've fairly clearly explained their outlook on things. This I can accept. I can't necessaril understand how they came to that, but I'm sure my views are as difficult for them to see as practical or ethical as theirs seem to me.

Except for a few, most of the gun advocates in the last several pages of this thread have said that having a weapon at the ready in a confrontation with an intruder does not necessarily mean they'll shoot, or shoot to kill. This is an excellent attitude, at least from my point of view. And it's a bridge to commonality between our sides, since I know you don't want people to be killed either.

Except for a few, most of the gun advocates in the last several pages of this thread have said that having a weapon at the ready in a confrontation with an intruder does not necessarily mean they'll shoot, or shoot to kill. This is an excellent attitude, at least from my point of view. And it's a bridge to commonality between our sides, since I know you don't want people to be killed either.

The second to last thing I ever want to do is kill an attacker. It costs tens of thousands of dollars and you have to live with what you've done for the rest of your life. The only thing worse would be to lose a family member because of my inaction.

I was just having a bit of fun with Zaxon since we're on different sides of the issue(s) at hand.

That said, Chess Squares, you seem to be a bit of an absolutist. Of course, this is a forum and not a group of people talking in real life where body language and tone and all of those other important indicators can be seen.

I'm not of the opinion that guns are inherently evil. Or even bad. The uses to which they're put (intentionally or unintentionally) bother me more often than not. But I can't get all Pollyanna about it and say "The world be so much better if there were no guns!".

It might very well be, but there are all these guns here now, so what happens with them now is what we have to consider. The future too, but we have to understand why things are as they are now before we can intelligently address the future.

And of the people in this thread that are perhaps a little quicker to harm someone than you I are, they've fairly clearly explained their outlook on things. This I can accept. I can't necessaril understand how they came to that, but I'm sure my views are as difficult for them to see as practical or ethical as theirs seem to me.

Except for a few, most of the gun advocates in the last several pages of this thread have said that having a weapon at the ready in a confrontation with an intruder does not necessarily mean they'll shoot, or shoot to kill. This is an excellent attitude, at least from my point of view. And it's a bridge to commonality between our sides, since I know you don't want people to be killed either.
i do not and have never argued or advocated the banning of all guns. people just assume that because after i state my position i spend 30 pages trying to reason with people who think guns are the best thing that happened sicne magical beans and are just as magical

The second to last thing I ever want to do is kill an attacker. It costs tens of thousands of dollars and you have to live with what you've done for the rest of your life. The only thing worse would be to lose a family member because of my inaction.

And yet, the murder rate in your country (I'm assuming the US) is so much higher per capita than similar countries. Doesn't that bother you? Doesn't it add a bit to any fear you might have, either in your own home or when you're in the stereotypical "bad neighbourhood" after dark?

And since many many of those murders are from guns, isn't it worth possibly considering other options and possibly shifting the direction of your country that way?

Not criticising you, understand. Just asking if you'd like things to be different, or if you prefer the "I'll defend myself and leave others to do what they want" approach.

i do not and have never argued or advocated the banning of all guns. people just assume that because after i state my position i spend 30 pages trying to reason with people who think guns are the best thing that happened sicne magical beans and are just as magical

I don't know dude, I got the impression you'd like it if people treated guns like magical beans and buried them in the ground. ;)

And yet, the murder rate in your country (I'm assuming the US) is so much higher per capita than similar countries. Doesn't that bother you? Doesn't it add a bit to any fear you might have, either in your own home or when you're in the stereotypical "bad neighbourhood" after dark?

And since many many of those murders are from guns, isn't it worth possibly considering other options and possibly shifting the direction of your country that way?

Not criticising you, understand. Just asking if you'd like things to be different, or if you prefer the "I'll defend myself and leave others to do what they want" approach.

It certainly bothers me. But I live in that stereotypical bad neighborhood. Look at it from my point of view. If you know that gun crime is a problem where you live, do you think that not having a gun is the way to improve the situation?

I'd absolutely like things to be different. I'd like people to stop killing one another for no good reason. But things are as they are and relieving myself of my guns doesn't change anything but me (into a better victim).

I don't know dude, I got the impression you'd like it if people treated guns like magical beans and buried them in the ground. ;)
i'd tell them that if i didnt think they were dumb enough to complain later that nothing is growing

It certainly bothers me. But I live in that stereotypical bad neighborhood. Look at it from my point of view. If you know that gun crime is a problem where you live, do you think that not having a gun is the way to improve the situation?

I'm just not sure that having a gun improves the situation. I think there's something to be said for the saying "violence begets violence".

If you didn't have access to a gun (just you, the rest of the neighbourhood is however it is), what would you do differently while you lived there?

I'd absolutely like things to be different. I'd like people to stop killing one another for no good reason. But things are as they are and relieving myself of my guns doesn't change anything but me (into a better victim).

But see, I don't know that I necessarily see that. While I realize percentages only apply to a group, not an individual, what are the odds of you being in a life-threatening situation where a gun is the best way to get you out safely?

Again note that I'm in Canada. We've got our bad neighbourhoods too, but with much less shooting, so I don't have a feel for what your particular situation might be.

i'd tell them that if i didnt think they were dumb enough to complain later that nothing is growing

Heh. I don't know that our "opponents" are particularly dumb, they just seem to have different priorities.

Since you seem to be a bit more extreme than me (not a slur), aside from passing laws to ban or restrict weapons, how could you induce someone to not feel they need a gun for protection? Or alternately, how could you convince someone who has a gun not to use it in the sorts of situations we've been talking about?

Long-run benefits are all good, but they're a small consideration in the heat of the moment. So what can you offer these people to have them not shoot?

You know, I could have dealt with the pun. :)

Not everybody could. lol

I was going to turn your post into a lame and stretched example of "see how people can turn and fire (their opinion ;) ) in all directions when they get excited in a stressful situation?" but I decided not to. lol

You know, I could have dealt with the pun. :)

I'm just not sure that having a gun improves the situation. I think there's something to be said for the saying "violence begets violence".

If you didn't have access to a gun (just you, the rest of the neighbourhood is however it is), what would you do differently while you lived there?


It's not as though I DO anything with the guns now. What would you do differently if you lived without a fire extinguisher in your house. It's not as though I draw my pistol and twirl it around in my front yard waving it at passing cars. I'd guess that nobody in the neighborhood has any idea that I'm armed.
Violence begets violence isn't a fair statement. I'm not doing anything violent.


But see, I don't know that I necessarily see that. While I realize percentages only apply to a group, not an individual, what are the odds of you being in a life-threatening situation where a gun is the best way to get you out safely?


What are the odds that I'll ever wish that I didn't have it. I understand that there are lots of gun accidents, but I've had a lot of gun training.


Again note that I'm in Canada. We've got our bad neighbourhoods too, but with much less shooting, so I don't have a feel for what your particular situation might be.

Just to give you a good idea, people deal drugs out of their car under the streetlight in the alley immediately behind my home. Sometimes I have to drive around them to get into my parking spot when I get home late at night. I have never had any confrontations with them. Does this mean that I shouldn't be concerned that I might?

What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?



Didn't they take parents' guns?



Who are you to tell me I don't "need" semi-automatic firearm? As I recall, Klebold and Harris only had one semi-automatic weapon.

You just called me a mass murderer. I do not appreciate that.

Of course, we're sidestepping the real issue here which is that semi-automatic weapons are still available.
ahem....i did some research to prove you wrong about columbine! they bought ammo from friggin k-mart....K-MART! thats pathetic a "family" store selling bullets and rifles and shit?! and they used 2 9mm semi-auto weapons n 1 pump action shotgun n 1 breach loader....NO i dont think columbine was right it was wrong....but still....i wanted to prove you wrong =P........and we shouldnt ban them.....make the rules more efficent......those kids bought them.....used there dads ID or something.....just make the laws more strict? anything more than a muzzleloader 5 day waiting time.....not just handguns....anything fully auto should be 10 days......just my oppinion....

It's not as though I DO anything with the guns now. What would you do differently if you lived without a fire extinguisher in your house. It's not as though I draw my pistol and twirl it around in my front yard waving it at passing cars. I'd guess that nobody in the neighborhood has any idea that I'm armed.

What I meant was, picture a situation in which you'd draw/use your weapon. Now, imagine the same situation but this time you don't have the gun. How would you deal with it?

Not that I'm asking you to actually do this and post it, but that's what I meant by my earlier statement.

Violence begets violence isn't a fair statement. I'm not doing anything violent.

Well... if someone had a gun in my neighbourhood and had expressed a willingness to use it on someone, I'd feel it was an act of violence to have brought a weapon into the mix. Just to have it in a place where I live for that purpose. Call me a wuss.

What are the odds that I'll ever wish that I didn't have it. I understand that there are lots of gun accidents, but I've had a lot of gun training.

Fair enough, and when I end up making sweeping statements (and I do that a lot), they aren't aimed at anybody in particular, and I do realize that individual cases all have their own specifics. I'm not trying to force anybody into a one-size-fits-all mold here.

Just to give you a good idea, people deal drugs out of their car under the streetlight in the alley immediately behind my home. Sometimes I have to drive around them to get into my parking spot when I get home late at night. I have never had any confrontations with them. Does this mean that I shouldn't be concerned that I might?

Maybe. I live in a very similar area, except that most people here don't deal out of their car, it's just what they carry on them. That way if they're robbed, they lose less. Also, if they're stopped by the police, having less on you goes a long way when it comes to trial.

I do have some junkies who regularly sit just outside the door of the stairwell I come out of to shoot up. When my girlfriend went down one time to toss some trash and found a used needle on the ground, I got rid of it and the next time I saw them I asked if they'd be so good as to take their waste with them, as there are lots of places they can dispose of it where I won't get pricked.

They agreed and were reasonable about it. I don't mind them shooting up there, since they're going to shoot up anyway and it doesn't in any way affect my quality of life if they do it where I live.

Do you find that dealers (and the people they deal to) are dangerous to you?

What I meant was, picture a situation in which you'd draw/use your weapon. Now, imagine the same situation but this time you don't have the gun. How would you deal with it?

Not that I'm asking you to actually do this and post it, but that's what I meant by my earlier statement.

I wouldn't be able to deal with it. If a situation has deteriorated to the point where I feel that I need to draw and fire then not having a gun will likely lead to my injury/death. I don't take producing a weapon lightly.


Well... if someone had a gun in my neighbourhood and had expressed a willingness to use it on someone, I'd feel it was an act of violence to have brought a weapon into the mix. Just to have it in a place where I live for that purpose. Call me a wuss.

It's all semantics. But I have it so that nobody uses a weapon on me.


Do you find that dealers (and the people they deal to) are dangerous to you?

Not so far. But somebody did break into my house. And my shed has been burglerized twice. Was the person that broke into my house dangerous? I don't know. I'm glad I wasn't there to find out. Had I been there, I would have been glad to have the option to defend myself however I felt was necessary

I wouldn't be able to deal with it. If a situation has deteriorated to the point where I feel that I need to draw and fire then not having a gun will likely lead to my injury/death. I don't take producing a weapon lightly.

Glad to hear it. :)

It's all semantics. But I have it so that nobody uses a weapon on me.

Well, it's not like having a gun will prevent someone from using a weapon on you.

Not so far. But somebody did break into my house. And my shed has been burglerized twice. Was the person that broke into my house dangerous? I don't know. I'm glad I wasn't there to find out. Had I been there, I would have been glad to have the option to defend myself however I felt was necessary

If you read back a few pages (if you're so inclined), I related a time when I was in the house when it was being robbed. Didn't particularly interest me in having a firearm after that. But that's me. :)

If I recall correctly, your constitution was made back in the days when "a weapon" was still much more likely to be a sword of some sort rather than a gun.

That, and I live in a country where you can't get a gun unless you fill in 2000 forms, are above a certain age and have absolutely no criminal record whatsoever. That, and you have to have a license showing you're actually capable and allowed to use the thing in the first place.

Works for us.
I believe its the NRA that says "Guns don't kill people, people kill people", to which i say "correct, guns just make it a ton easier, faster and deadlier"

As far as I am concerned, I'd rather see all guns gone, but since thats impossible, I'd rather see only people who are qualified, trained and checked to get them.

If I recall correctly, your constitution was made back in the days when "a weapon" was still much more likely to be a sword of some sort rather than a gun.

Not quite correct. The flintlock was invented in the early 1600's and because it was simpler and better than it's predecessors it quickly replaced the older matchlocks. The matchlock however proved the undoing of armor since armor had to be prohibitively heavy inorder to protect against firearms. As guns became easier and quicker to produce, and just about anybody and their brother could shoot firearms with effectiveness, they became the weapon of choice in the 1700's. Fewer and fewer people owned or used swords by this time.

That, and I live in a country where you can't get a gun unless you fill in 2000 forms, are above a certain age and have absolutely no criminal record whatsoever. That, and you have to have a license showing you're actually capable and allowed to use the thing in the first place.


Works for us.
I believe its the NRA that says "Guns don't kill people, people kill people", to which i say "correct, guns just make it a ton easier, faster and deadlier"

"Guns dont kill people, people kill people". This is used as an attempt to remind people that creating laws against guns is a fruitless endeavor and efforts should rather be directed towards the people commiting the crimes with guns... not the guns themselves.

As far as I am concerned, I'd rather see all guns gone, but since thats impossible, I'd rather see only people who are qualified, trained and checked to get them.

We agree on this one. Im all for a NRA approved training and certification course for gun ownership. It doesnt hurt for people to know which end of the gun the bullet comes out of.

pepper spray is for use in an ALREADY dangerous situation, not one you create by using the pepper spray.


So spraying someone that is trying to rape you is defence, but shooting someone who is trying to rape you is murder?

Craig

I'd rather see all guns gone, but since thats impossible, I'd rather see only people who are qualified, trained and checked to get them.

... and the criminals who won't listen to your laws.

Craig

Guns kill people. Too many guns kill too many people.

Well, it's not like having a gun will prevent someone from using a weapon on you.

Really? I know at least one person that was attacked by someone with a knife. He wasn't stabbed and the attacker ended up getting plenty of time in prison to think about his missing arm.

Really? I know at least one person that was attacked by someone with a knife. He wasn't stabbed and the attacker ended up getting plenty of time in prison to think about his missing arm.

You pulled my quote out of context - simply having a gun won't prevent someone from using a weapon on you.

And how exactly did this person you know get attacked by someone with a knife but didn't get stabbed?

Are you saying someone with a knife came towards him or something?

You pulled my quote out of context - simply having a gun won't prevent someone from using a weapon on you.

And how exactly did this person you know get attacked by someone with a knife but didn't get stabbed?

Are you saying someone with a knife came towards him or something?

More than likely. The threatening and moving toward someone is part of an attack. It's still an attack, even if the metal did not get to the victim's skin.

You still get all the emotional trauma associated with an attack, even if you weren't physically wounded.

You pulled my quote out of context - simply having a gun won't prevent someone from using a weapon on you.

And how exactly did this person you know get attacked by someone with a knife but didn't get stabbed?

Are you saying someone with a knife came towards him or something?
his friend probably shot him just incase he has a knife

his friend probably shot him just incase he has a knife

Wow, your insight into the psyche of a firearms owner is just amazing. I don't understand why you're not in absolute control of everyone's lives in the US.

You can just see to the root cause of everything, can't you?

We should just bow down to your brilliance and never worry about anything ever again....


:rolleyes:

You pulled my quote out of context - simply having a gun won't prevent someone from using a weapon on you.

And how exactly did this person you know get attacked by someone with a knife but didn't get stabbed?

Are you saying someone with a knife came towards him or something?

His truck broke down at the side of the road. He stopped, got the parts, returned, and fixed the truck. As he was closing the hood and about to get back in and leave a man walked up to him and said 'Thanks for fixing my truck.' He told the guy to get lost at which point the man produced a large knife and started towards him. He drew his gun and told him to stop once more. The guy kept coming so he shot. He hit him in the shoulder. The police found him at the scene with the knife still in his hand.

Having the gun did not provoke the attack. It probably did keep him from being stabbed (they later found out that the guy had hurt other people in the past).

It IS possible to produce a gun and stop an attack. Sometimes (as in this case) you have to actually use the gun.

His truck broke down at the side of the road. He stopped, got the parts, returned, and fixed the truck. As he was closing the hood and about to get back in and leave a man walked up to him and said 'Thanks for fixing my truck.' He told the guy to get lost at which point the man produced a large knife and started towards him. He drew his gun and told him to stop once more. The guy kept coming so he shot. He hit him in the shoulder. The police found him at the scene with the knife still in his hand.

Having the gun did not provoke the attack. It probably did keep him from being stabbed (they later found out that the guy had hurt other people in the past).

It IS possible to produce a gun and stop an attack. Sometimes (as in this case) you have to actually use the gun.

Unfortunately, the world media rarely, if ever, puts a positive use of firearms on the air or in print, even though there are more positive uses with firearms than negative.

Anywhere from 80,000 to 2.5 million attacks are halted annually, due to a firearm in the victim's possession. The 80,000 came from an anti-gunner. On the flip side, in 2000, a little over 10,000 homicides were committed with a firearm.

There's no cogent argument for getting rid of guns.

I really believe that if citizens want to own a firearm then they should be able to.

I may have all the reasons in the world to think otherwise, especially after what happened to Dante, but I still believe that people should be allowed to own them.

Oh, and to everyone saying that somebody with a knife proves no threat at all, well I call BS. In certain circumstances (whenever somebody's close-in) a knife is deadlier than a gun.

Within 7 yards, a attacker can close before the average person can draw, aim, and fire a pistol. That means they can get within striking range of a icepick, crowbar, baseball bat, knife, etc. And within that range, such a weapon can be extremely deadly - the weapon is natural extension of your body, and severing the right artery can leave you unconscious within moments. Tendons can be cut, leaving your muscles useless. It is not unreasonable to shoot a knife-wielding attacker. FYI, the legally-accepted "range of self defense" - the maximum range at which a melee-weapon wielding assailant can be shot in legitimate self-defense - is 7 yards.

More than likely. The threatening and moving toward someone is part of an attack. It's still an attack, even if the metal did not get to the victim's skin.

I was just trying to get the right picture in my mind before I started making statements about it. :P

You still get all the emotional trauma associated with an attack, even if you weren't physically wounded.

For some. Some shrug it off. I'm not sure why some people get trauma for seemingly minor things, and others come away from seemingly major things with no baggage.

His truck broke down at the side of the road. He stopped, got the parts, returned, and fixed the truck. As he was closing the hood and about to get back in and leave a man walked up to him and said 'Thanks for fixing my truck.' He told the guy to get lost at which point the man produced a large knife and started towards him. He drew his gun and told him to stop once more. The guy kept coming so he shot. He hit him in the shoulder. The police found him at the scene with the knife still in his hand.

Having the gun did not provoke the attack. It probably did keep him from being stabbed (they later found out that the guy had hurt other people in the past).

It IS possible to produce a gun and stop an attack. Sometimes (as in this case) you have to actually use the gun.

Even though this is just semantics, merely possessing the gun didn't do anything. By producing it, he was using it.

Like I said, just semantics. :)

Unfortunately, the world media rarely, if ever, puts a positive use of firearms on the air or in print, even though there are more positive uses with firearms than negative.
Anywhere from 80,000 to 2.5 million attacks are halted annually, due to a firearm in the victim's possession. The 80,000 came from an anti-gunner. On the flip side, in 2000, a little over 10,000 homicides were committed with a firearm.
There's no cogent argument for getting rid of guns.

Since many people here that aren't on my side of the fence seem willing to speculate (that's nicely meant), with your last sentence in mind, would you encourage people here (Canada) for instance to change the way they look at guns and shoot people more often for things that we tend not to shoot them for now?

Hmmm, that didn't come out right.

We have property crime and personal assaults and such too, but very rarely do we shoot someone (our criminals tend not to either). With that in mind, do you think our general attitude towards guns ought to change?

Oh, and to everyone saying that somebody with a knife proves no threat at all, well I call BS. In certain circumstances (whenever somebody's close-in) a knife is deadlier than a gun.

Nobody said that someone with a knife isn't a threat.

FYI, the legally-accepted "range of self defense" - the maximum range at which a melee-weapon wielding assailant can be shot in legitimate self-defense - is 7 yards.

Not all of us are from your area, so if you're going to cite a law please say where it's in effect for those of us with different local laws. :)

Since many people here that aren't on my side of the fence seem willing to speculate (that's nicely meant), with your last sentence in mind, would you encourage people here (Canada) for instance to change the way they look at guns and shoot people more often for things that we tend not to shoot them for now?

Hmmm, that didn't come out right.

We have property crime and personal assaults and such too, but very rarely do we shoot someone (our criminals tend not to either). With that in mind, do you think our general attitude towards guns ought to change?

Heavens no, if it aint broke, don't fix it.

Not all of us are from your area, so if you're going to cite a law please say where it's in effect for those of us with different local laws. :)
It's not a hard and fast law, as far as I know. The law pertaining to self defense as I recall (it may veary in your area, but I live in the US) is that if a attacker has
1. the ability to do you harm - he's wielding a weapon, or even if he's balled his fists
2. the opportunity - he's in a place to do you harm. With melee weapons that means he's within 7 yards, roughly. Ranged weapons, the effective range of the weapon.
3. and the intent - by his actions, body language, and/or words, he's showing that he wants to harm you,

then reasonable self defense is authorized. That means if somebody's hitting you, you can't shoot him and kill him.

UNLESS there's what's known as "overmatch" - that is, he has such a physical advantage, whether it's strength, or bad body positioning, or you're hurt/physically disadvantaged, etc.

But that does mean you can shoot to stop a man with a knife within 7 yards. And the 7 yard rule holds true worldwide. It's not like people in Canada can magically draw and fire faster than Americans.

ith that in mind, do you think our general attitude towards guns ought to change?

Yes.

I dont feel the Governemnt has the right to ban any type of small arm from law abiding citizens(and yes I know exactly what falls under the term small arms, and I still mean it).


Terrorist were once law abiding citizens too. You blind idiots. If you think I'm cruel look at your gun caused death rates. How stupid can you people be? I mean I don't usually sling insults but christ wake up and stop being so rediculously arrogant! It makes me so angry when people just say I need a gun to protect me...from people with guns!

All I know is I'm glad to be an Australian wheere gun laws a tight and there are no semi's allowed anywhere and even small "harmless" weapons as you people seem to think they are, are accompanied with long tedious back ground checks, general check-ups and many training sessions so stupid egotistical men don't blow there kids heads off whilst trying to protect there family. There will never be a gun in my house.

Glinde:


"25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy. However, 4 out of 5 US murders are committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?"
-- Andrew Ford

Glinde:


"25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy. However, 4 out of 5 US murders are committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?"
-- Andrew Ford

And it's so hard to cross a border with those guns? WHo's crazy? Your president, yourself and people who own semi-automatics to shoot deer...yes cause you REAAALLLLLYYY need a semi to shoot a deer.

Terrorist were once law abiding citizens too. You blind idiots. If you think I'm cruel look at your gun caused death rates. How stupid can you people be? I mean I don't usually sling insults but christ wake up and stop being so rediculously arrogant! It makes me so angry when people just say I need a gun to protect me...from people with guns!

Im quoting you here for effect so please take only the offense you meant for others... How stupid can you be? Dont you realize that criminals will use whatever weapon they can find to harm innocent civilians? Wake up and stop being so rediculously arrogant in your opinion that you know what's the right way to solve this issue. I could not care any less wheter you have a gun to protect yourself or not, it's your call. I have the right to defend myself and the lives of my family. It makes me so angry that people like you say that I do not. Others have even said that I need to use something equivalent to what the attacker is using, rather than a gun... that's complete horsecrap. I want the situation over, now. I dont care if I give the criminal a fair fight.

All I know is I'm glad to be an Australian wheere gun laws a tight and there are no semi's allowed anywhere and even small "harmless" weapons as you people seem to think they are, are accompanied with long tedious back ground checks, general check-ups and many training sessions so stupid egotistical men don't blow there kids heads off whilst trying to protect there family. There will never be a gun in my house.

That's fine and it's your right. Dont presume to take my rights away from me tho.

And it's so hard to cross a border with those guns? WHo's crazy? Your president, yourself and people who own semi-automatics to shoot deer...yes cause you REAAALLLLLYYY need a semi to shoot a deer.

Oh God, again with the "need" argument. No, no one needs a semi-automatic to shoot a dear.

You dont need a car that can travel faster than your speed limit either do you. Suggesting that cars should be designed to be unable to go faster than that?

Oh God, again with the "need" argument. No, no one needs a semi-automatic to shoot a dear.

You dont need a car that can travel faster than your speed limit either do you. Suggesting that cars should be designed to be unable to go faster than that?

Hey sure, why the hell not.

I only think it's arrogant that people don't realise the amount of unintentional deaths caused by guns. Guns are designed for the purpose of killing, cars are not, not comparable. Guns = Killing, Cars = Driving. Don't give that "But cars can kill" either, because still, Guns are specifically designed for KILLING. Having a gun means you are considering the idea of killing someone and are ok with that. I think that's just sad.

Whatever, you think I'm BS, I think your BS.

Heavens no, if it aint broke, don't fix it.

:)

Then at the risk of opening things up into a philosophical debate... what's the difference between Canada and the US that we have such different basic attitudes towards guns and when to use them?

Hey sure, why the hell not.

I only think it's arrogant that people don't realise the amount of unintentional deaths caused by guns. Guns are designed for the purpose of killing, cars are not, not comparable. Guns = Killing, Cars = Driving. Don't give that "But cars can kill" either, because still, Guns are specifically designed for KILLING. Having a gun means you are considering the idea of killing someone and are ok with that. I think that's just sad.

Whatever, you think I'm BS, I think your BS.
i tried that OBVIOUS logic 20 pages ago, cars are still designed to be deadly weapons and guns are toys everyone should have

But that does mean you can shoot to stop a man with a knife within 7 yards. And the 7 yard rule holds true worldwide. It's not like people in Canada can magically draw and fire faster than Americans.

Er, that's true. lmao

However, you're reaching a bit far when you say the "7 yard rule hold true worldwide". For one, we don't use yards here and neither does most of the world.

If you're talking about an average distance at which someone can or can't do something, then fair enough.

But we have no such laws/rules here that I'm aware of that formally uses distance as criteria for when it's acceptable to shoot someone.

Oh God, again with the "need" argument. No, no one needs a semi-automatic to shoot a dear.

You dont need a car that can travel faster than your speed limit either do you. Suggesting that cars should be designed to be unable to go faster than that?
two words: false analogy

apples dont taste like oranges and oranges arnt apples

Guns = Killing, Cars = Driving.


Guns are designed for shooting.

Depending on the type of weapon and the ammunition they can be used to kill.

Something being used to kill is not nessacarily bad. Better a dead rapist than a young woman raped and murdered, IMO. Others may think differently.

Guns are used to save lives many more times then they are used to take them.


Having a gun means you are considering the idea of killing someone and are ok with that. I think that's just sad.


So you'd never kill another person, no matter what they did to you, your wife/girlfriend, your children?

I value my life and the lives of the people I care about more than the life of a thug, junkie or rapist. You may not, but don't stop me having the choice to defend myself.

Craig

Im quoting you here for effect so please take only the offense you meant for others... How stupid can you be? Dont you realize that criminals will use whatever weapon they can find to harm innocent civilians?

Assuming that someone's intent is to harm innocent people.

However, it occurs to me that if I was down in the US (because this is where we're mostly talking about the whole issue) I'd be a much more successful, say, car thief if I had a gun, because so many more people down there are armed. If I was just going to steal an unattended car, why would I want or need a gun? Unless, of course, I think it's likely that someone would shoot me if I ran away after being confronted. Then I might want to have one just to disuade someone from shooting at me while I backed away to cover before I ran. :P

Something being used to kill is not nessacarily bad. Better a dead rapist than a young woman raped and murdered, IMO. Others may think differently.

I'm not going to make a judgement call for whether an individual wants to live or not, I just wanted to say that during the escalation of hostility against the Jews living in German (Nazi) occupied regions, sometimes the Jewish women and girls would be under pressure to have sex with the soldiers.

Of course, both from the prevailing attitude at the times and their particular religious beliefs, this was a worse thing that just not wanting to. And people are sometimes willing to die for their beliefs.

But many rabbis advised the women that were in their groups to submit, because the sin or dishonour of being raped (because it was still unwilling) was less that the infinitely greater loss of being killed. God would forgive, because living was deemed to be more important.

Some may not agree, but I always thought it was remarkably pragmatic. Note that I'm not a woman and I've never been raped. Your feelings may differ.

Hey sure, why the hell not.


Oh, excellent! Think of all the bad things we can get rid of that be don't need.

TV should be first to go, let people get out and have exercize. Video games have to go too.

What do we need elections for? We don't need to be able to choose who runs the country.

Sex should be out, imagine the world without unwanted pregnancies and STD's! So sex only for reproduction.

Skiing, snowboarding, tramping, flying, skydiving, bungy jumping, cycling. All of these can cause death or injury! And no one really needs any of this! It all better go.

In fact, the only things we need are food, water, air and shelter!

Let's ban everything that causes any harm, pop people in government containment centres and have universal supplies of rice, water and air.

We don't need cars or motorbikes if we are all housed together, another awful thing we don't need.

Then the country will be great, without these awful things we don't need.

Craig

...the infinitely greater loss of being killed. God would forgive, because living was deemed to be more important.

Some may not agree, but I always thought it was remarkably pragmatic. Note that I'm not a woman and I've never been raped. Your feelings may differ.

Obviously in some circumstances there may be only those two options.

But in circumstances that are more common to modern western society, I'd rather a woman be allowed another option that isn't die, be raped or both.

The point I was making was that, if it were an option, I'd rather be willing and able to kill than be killed (or, worse, have something happen to someone I care about)

Craig

Oh God, again with the "need" argument. No, no one needs a semi-automatic to shoot a dear.

You dont need a car that can travel faster than your speed limit either do you. Suggesting that cars should be designed to be unable to go faster than that?

Probably not a bad idea - it would probably reduce the road toll, but anyway...face facts, you need to stop hiding behind your "right" to own a sem-auto...fess up, you get a boner using one, dontcha! ;)

- Signed, a "socialist" who thinks high capacity semi-autos have greater killing capacity than homemade black-powder flintlocks... :p

[j/k]

Anyway, as a serious question: if the constitutional right to bear arms is (according to you) deliberately vague on what constitues arms, why aren't private citizens allowed to own Tomahawk missiles? Could it be that, at some point in the past, someone made a common sense ruling on what weapons the public should be allowed to own?

Laws (and even the constitution) are not static, stagnant entities - they need regular updating to keep up with the times. Taking your arument at it's base - if and when someone develops a feasible man-portable weapons grade laser or other energy weapon, then the public should automatically have access to it, because it falls under the category of arms?

I'm sorry, sometimes rights (no, not basic human rights - and if you class owning an Armalite as a basic human right, then there is no point debating with you further) do need to be reviewed for the public good - especially grey areas like what firearms public citizenry can own...

Guns are designed for shooting.

Depending on the type of weapon and the ammunition they can be used to kill.

Something being used to kill is not nessacarily bad. Better a dead rapist than a young woman raped and murdered, IMO. Others may think differently.

Guns are used to save lives many more times then they are used to take them.

So you'd never kill another person, no matter what they did to you, your wife/girlfriend, your children?

I value my life and the lives of the people I care about more than the life of a thug, junkie or rapist. You may not, but don't stop me having the choice to defend myself.

Craig

Save, so you save the murderers life by killing them instead of preventing them by never letting them have the gun? What if you become a killer? What if I consider you a thug? I value life, thus why I value tough gun laws.

Yes a Volvo is a designed to be a deadly weapon...

And yes if someone threatened my boyfriend or husband I would consider killing him, but I don't plan to set up a war front out side of my house as I know I am considerably safe in Australia with our laws. Although I am not christian I agree with the saying "If someone slaps one cheek, turn and show him the other." If someone threatens me with a knife for my watch, my car, my house or my money, I will throw it at his feet. Life is not worth loosing over material or for the point of having a gun. In the case of rape well it's awful and punishment should be castration, yet I still won't concede having a gun weighs up the risk or improves a girls chances of getting raped since most victims are pounced upon how would you have time to get your weapon from your carefully locked draw were the kids can't find it...or in some cases from the cupboard in the kitchen, where the kids can find it and 'play with it' with there friends.

Oh, excellent! Think of all the bad things we can get rid of that be don't need.

TV should be first to go, let people get out and have exercize. Video games have to go too.

What do we need elections for? We don't need to be able to choose who runs the country.

Sex should be out, imagine the world without unwanted pregnancies and STD's! So sex only for reproduction.

Skiing, snowboarding, tramping, flying, skydiving, bungy jumping, cycling. All of these can cause death or injury! And no one really needs any of this! It all better go.

In fact, the only things we need are food, water, air and shelter!

Let's ban everything that causes any harm, pop people in government containment centres and have universal supplies of rice, water and air.

We don't need cars or motorbikes if we are all housed together, another awful thing we don't need.

Then the country will be great, without these awful things we don't need.

Craig

Congrats Mr sarcasm, what a waste of your energy. You know why, everyone else knows that statement was pointless. I am not going to throw my tv at you to protect myself. Why did you go on that voting rampage. Votings great, infact I think America should be forced to vote. Settle pettle, don't get your gun powder laced nickers in a knot.

Obviously in some circumstances there may be only those two options.

But in circumstances that are more common to modern western society, I'd rather a woman be allowed another option that isn't die, be raped or both.

The point I was making was that, if it were an option, I'd rather be willing and able to kill than be killed (or, worse, have something happen to someone I care about)

I understand completely. I've felt the mingled rage and frustration that comes with the thoughts of someone being raped. I'm not certain that I'd kill someone that was doing it. Stop them, certainly. If I could.

Er, that's true. lmao

However, you're reaching a bit far when you say the "7 yard rule hold true worldwide". For one, we don't use yards here and neither does most of the world.

If you're talking about an average distance at which someone can or can't do something, then fair enough.

But we have no such laws/rules here that I'm aware of that formally uses distance as criteria for when it's acceptable to shoot someone.
It's the distance that matters. If it's 6.38 meters or 4.86 cubits or whatever, it's still the same distance. The distance is roughly 7 yards, converted to whatever units your country uses. The average trained shooter can draw, aim, and fire a pistol center of mass in the time it takes someone to cover 7 yards from a standstill.

It's the distance that matters. If it's 6.38 meters or 4.86 cubits or whatever, it's still the same distance. The distance is roughly 7 yards, converted to whatever units your country uses. The average trained shooter can draw, aim, and fire a pistol center of mass in the time it takes someone to cover 7 yards from a standstill.

Okay, I'll accept that as true since I don't know any better. What does that have to do with shooting someone at all?

Did you read my original posts?

A person with a knife is not immediately a non-threat. Within 7 yards a knife user can kill you before you can shoot him. Within 7 yards it's legitimate self defense to shoot somebody.

I was just clarifying the accepted conditions required for legitimate self defense.

Guns are designed for shooting.
Guns are designed for killing.

Depending on the type of weapon and the ammunition they can be used to kill.
Depending on the weapon and type of ammunition guns can be used to kill a few people or many at a time.

Something being used to kill is not nessacarily bad. Better a dead rapist than a young woman raped and murdered, IMO. Others may think differently.
So if a woman didn't like a particular person and shot him dead claiming that the man was trying to rape her, who will the courts believe......the woman or the dead man?

Guns are used to save lives many more times then they are used to take them.
Guns have been used to end human life far more then they have been used to save them. There is NO way you could ever win that argument.

So you'd never kill another person, no matter what they did to you, your wife/girlfriend, your children?
Do you want a whole world full of "instant" judge, jury, and executioner?

I value my life and the lives of the people I care about more than the life of a thug, junkie or rapist. You may not, but don't stop me having the choice to defend myself.
Sounds like you live in a bad part of town? You could move? You could learn self defense? You could lobby for tougher sentencing laws? You could support gun control legislation that will reduce the number of guns and calibre of person who could obtain guns, who have no business being able to own a gun in the first place?

Save, so you save the murderers life by killing them instead of preventing them by never letting them have the gun? What if you become a killer? What if I consider you a thug?


If you knew about the nature of defensive gun uses, you'd know that a very small percentage of them result in the gun being fired, let alone someone being killed.

That's because most crims will not continue an attack with a weapon pointed at them.


I value life, thus why I value tough gun laws.

So that no-one can defend their lives? Come on, I can't believe anyone still believes that a ban stops criminals having an item. It makes no difference.

Prohibition, war on drugs. We've got to face it, banning something is NOT the way to stop criminals getting it.

And yes if someone threatened my boyfriend or husband I would consider killing him, but I don't plan to set up a war front out side of my house as I know I am considerably safe in Australia with our laws.

I don't plan to set up a "war front" either. If my countries laws permitted it, I might have a shotgun somewhere close to hand so that I have that extra option if I need it.

Although I am not christian I agree with the saying "If someone slaps one cheek, turn and show him the other." If someone threatens me with a knife for my watch, my car, my house or my money, I will throw it at his feet. Life is not worth loosing over material or for the point of having a gun.

I agree, I wouldn't shoot someone to defend material goods.

However I would shoot someone if the alternative was harm to me or someone I love. Even if you wouldn't choose to have something to defend yourself, don't you think that others should have that choice?


In the case of rape well it's awful and punishment should be castration, yet I still won't concede having a gun weighs up the risk or improves a girls chances of getting raped since most victims are pounced upon how would you have time to get your weapon from your carefully locked draw were the kids can't find it...or in some cases from the cupboard in the kitchen, where the kids can find it and 'play with it' with there friends.

Well all you've written there are big assumptions and nothing based on any real evidence.

You won't believe any statistics I post, but have a look at what concealed carry does to the occurances of rape.

Also, even if you don't think you'd use that option, how would you like to face someone who was disarmed because of the laws you support and ended up being raped, in a situation where they could have prevented it with a weapon?


Congrats Mr sarcasm, what a waste of your energy. You know why, everyone else knows that statement was pointless. I am not going to throw my tv at you to protect myself. Why did you go on that voting rampage. Votings great, infact I think America should be forced to vote. Settle pettle, don't get your gun powder laced nickers in a knot.

I'm sick of people saying that guns should be banned because we don't "need" them.

We don't "need" anything past basic nutrition to survive. Saying that we should ban guns because we don't "need" them is not logical. As I said, by that logic, we should ban everything that we don't need that has an element of harm to them.

Craig

Guns are designed for killing.

Depending on the weapon and type of ammunition guns can be used to kill a few people or many at a time.

Or, like the VAST majority of guns, they can kill no people at all!


So if a woman didn't like a particular person and shot him dead claiming that the man was trying to rape her, who will the courts believe......the woman or the dead man?

Right, so no-one should ever be allowed to defend themselves?
Women should never consider harming an attacker, in case they claim assault against them?


Guns have been used to end human life far more then they have been used to save them. There is NO way you could ever win that argument.

We are talking in the context of domestic use.

As an earlier poster mentioned, there are about 10,000 gun homicides a year in the states and the most conservative estimates of defensive gun uses place it at 80,000.


Do you want a whole world full of "instant" judge, jury, and executioner?


What the hell?!?! :mad:

So if you came home to find your family being terrorized, raped and beaten, you wouldn't dare try to stop the attackers, because then you'd be "judge, jury, and executioner"?


Sounds like you live in a bad part of town?

No, and I don't have a firearm for self defence (not allowed to by law).

I simply think it is stupid to give the guns only to the crims and the police, and think that people have the right to defend their own lives.

You could move?

What about poor people who don't have the opportunity to move?

They should simply have to rely on luck to be safe?

You could learn self defense?

What a joke, what are you going to do against anyone with a nice shiny new black-market pistol, baseball bat or knife?

"Self defence" courses are not a magic cure-all, they will NOT help you in a lot of situations.

You could lobby for tougher sentencing laws?

I do.

You could support gun control legislation that will reduce the number of guns and calibre of person who could obtain guns, who have no business being able to own a gun in the first place?

And who has no business owning a gun? The insane and criminals.

The insane already are prohibited from buying guns and criminals aren't going to be stopped by a law.

That's like saying, "To ban drug use, stop criminals owning drugs." It ain't gonna happen.

No, I'd rather that, like your sentencing idea, there were more disincentives to criminals to commit crimes. The main one being, the risk of being stopped.

Police can't be everywhere, and when people aren't allowed guns, the criminals can do whatever the hell they want.

Craig

Welcome to the wild, wild west, ladies and gentlemen. No one trusts the law to keep them safe, so everyone packs a sixgun, "just in case"...

Is "social de-evolution" a term? If not, it should be...

sounds like thou shalt not lie knows absolutely everything! could you tell us the winning lotto numbers since you have the answers to everything else?

i think we should be able to have guns to protect ourselves. and it is true that outlawing guns or trying to control them is not going to keep a criminal from getting it. if you can buy cars and drugs on the black market, you can certainly get a gun. you want to deter criminals? go back to public execution. next time some piece of crap pedophile rapes a 9 year old child.....torture and whip him for 30 minutes, poor gas on the wounds, set him on fire but put it out before he dies so he can really suffer. put some kind of carnivorous animal at the same level as his penis and let it slowly consume his genitals. let him hang there until he bleeds to death and let all of that be televised. a caption will be on the bottom of the screen "this is the penalty for rape". if i were a criminal and saw all that-id change my line of work. im not some insane crazy person. im a 30 year old mother of 2 . if i walked in on my daughter being raped by some bastard, would i shoot him dead? no-id torture him for 3 days and make him beg me to kill him. then maybe....if he was lucky....i might shoot him.

Another question: for the people arguing how responsible they are with their guns - do you assume that every legal gun owner is as responsible as you?

Another question: for the people arguing how responsible they are with their guns - do you assume that every legal gun owner is as responsible as you?

perhaps instead of more strict gun laws, they should mandate gun safety training for all those who purchase weapons. and if someone is caught without their "gun safety card" they can have their weapon taken until they complete the course. that would be a way to take weapons away from people who dont have them registered as well.

i think we should be able to have guns to protect ourselves. and it is true that outlawing guns or trying to control them is not going to keep a criminal from getting it. if you can buy cars and drugs on the black market, you can certainly get a gun.

Yep, any ideas where that gun may have come from in the first place? Stolen from a legal owner, in the majority of cases...

I think some of the poeple arguing to "pro-guns" side of the argument are either incredibly short sighted, have an "I'm OK Jack, screw the rest of you!" attitude, or don't comprehend basic cause and effect. Maybe a little of all three.

perhaps instead of more strict gun laws, they should mandate gun safety training for all those who purchase weapons. and if someone is caught without their "gun safety card" they can have their weapon taken until they complete the course. that would be a way to take weapons away from people who dont have them registered as well.

I can agree with you on that. :)

when i click your name,why cant i see your nation new fubaria? im new to nation states and i swear i need a manual on how everything works. it says i have a buddy list. WHERE? and how do you use it?

So that no-one can defend their lives? Come on, I can't believe anyone still believes that a ban stops criminals having an item. It makes no difference.
Prohibition, war on drugs. We've got to face it, banning something is NOT the way to stop criminals getting it.

I don't plan to set up a "war front" either. If my countries laws permitted it, I might have a shotgun somewhere close to hand so that I have that extra option if I need it.

However I would shoot someone if the alternative was harm to me or someone I love. Even if you wouldn't choose to have something to defend yourself, don't you think that others should have that choice?

You won't believe any statistics I post, but have a look at what concealed carry does to the occurances of rape.

I'm sick of people saying that guns should be banned because we don't "need" them.

We don't "need" anything past basic nutrition to survive. Saying that we should ban guns because we don't "need" them is not logical. As I said, by that logic, we should ban everything that we don't need that has an element of harm to them.

Craig
What consists of an element Craig, you talk about guns as if they inspire the violence of death, they are the violence of death! Tv is were kids will see the guns, tv won't kill anyone. Anyone who uses Tv as an excuse for killing is an idiot and deserves no place within public society. Anyone who thinks owning a gun will make them safer is gravely mistaken. Can you explain why your countries gun related deaths are so much higher than every other country in the worlds? Is it maybe because of this aggresive pro gun attitude, the "from my cold dead hands" crap, from this "it's my right to own a deadly weapon designed to kill in my house." I agree with the statement made earlier, is it my right to own a grenade launcher? Maybe I just want to hunt deer, with my new Black Hawk Helicopter?

when i click your name,why cant i see your nation new fubaria? im new to nation states and i swear i need a manual on how everything works. it says i have a buddy list. WHERE? and how do you use it?

Hmm, I''m probably not the best on the technical side of things here - but if I was to take a guess, your browser isn't java applet compatible?

Try asking in the Tech Support forum.

Welcome to the wild, wild west, ladies and gentlemen. No one trusts the law to keep them safe, so everyone packs a sixgun, "just in case"...

Is "social de-evolution" a term? If not, it should be...

Do This:

1) Lie down on your bed
2) Make the sound of smashing glass
3) Pick up the phone and pretend to dial 911
4) Look at your watch and wait 5-60 minutes

How is the law going to keep you safe? The police are there to put a tag on your toe and clean up the mess. You can't rely on them to protect your life.

Craig

Do This:

1) Lie down on your bed
2) Make the sound of smashing glass
3) Pick up the phone and pretend to dial 911
4) Look at your watch and wait 5-60 minutes

How is the law going to keep you safe? The police are there to put a tag on your toe and clean up the mess. You can't rely on them to protect your life.

Craig

Funny, I don't pack heat for home defence, either does anyone in my social circle. We all seem to have survived 30+ years...

i wonder what would happen if they outlawed ammunition. disposed of it all. then guns would be good for say, backscratching. :sniper:

Yep, any ideas where that gun may have come from in the first place? Stolen from a legal owner, in the majority of cases...

So does most cocaine come from legal owners? Oh wait...

Prohibition doesn't work. How many more times must humans try it in history before we realise that?

I think some of the poeple arguing to "pro-guns" side of the argument are either incredibly short sighted, have an "I'm OK Jack, screw the rest of you!" attitude, or don't comprehend basic cause and effect. Maybe a little of all three.

I think some of the people arguing gun bans don't realise that bans don't apply to criminals, because they ignore them, and all you do by banning guns is make a criminals job easier.

Craig

Funny, I don't pack heat for home defence, either does anyone in my social circle. We all seem to have survived 30+ years...

For christs sake...

So because you feel safe, no-one has the right to defend themselves?

Just because you are relatively safe does not mean you should stop everyone else from protecting themselves.

I don't have a firearm for self defence either, because I feel relatively safe in the location where I live. But I believe in the right for people who aren't to defend themselves.

You talked before about a "screw everyone else" mentality, are you sure you aren't in a "I'm safe where I live, screw everyone who can't afford to live somewhere nice and safe" mindset?

Craig

So does most cocaine come from legal owners? Oh wait...



Craig

but guns are legal to own. cocaine isnt

For christs sake...

So because you feel safe, no-one has the right to defend themselves?

Just because you are relatively safe does not mean you should stop everyone else from protecting themselves.

I don't have a firearm for self defence either, because I feel relatively safe in the location where I live. But I believe in the right for people who aren't to defend themselves.

You talked before about a "screw everyone else" mentality, are you sure you aren't in a "I'm safe where I live, screw everyone who can't afford to live somewhere nice and safe" mindset?

Craig


Everyone is free to defend themselves - it's how they do it that is the question.

How about flamethrowers? Or maybe a few claymores in the front yeard? It's a matter of degrees - you think guns are reasonable for home defence - I don't.

What consists of an element Craig, you talk about guns as if they inspire the violence of death, they are the violence of death!

Oh come on, guns are like anything else. They are a tool. they are not good or evil, they only do what the person operating them make it.

A gun can shoot a child or kill a murderer.

Tv is were kids will see the guns, tv won't kill anyone. Anyone who uses Tv as an excuse for killing is an idiot and deserves no place within public society.

No kidding.
I don't think TV is an excuse for doing anything, not my point though.


Anyone who thinks owning a gun will make them safer is gravely mistaken.

There are thousands of people that would disagree with you.

Thousands of rapes stopped and lives saved through the use of firearms.


Can you explain why your countries gun related deaths are so much higher than every other country in the worlds? Is it maybe because of this aggresive pro gun attitude, the "from my cold dead hands" crap, from this "it's my right to own a deadly weapon designed to kill in my house." I agree with the statement made earlier, is it my right to own a grenade launcher? Maybe I just want to hunt deer, with my new Black Hawk Helicopter?

First things first, "my" country? If you'd read the thread properly before jumping in you'd know I am from New Zealand, not the states.

There are many, many countries with the same or higher rates of firearm ownership. Firearm owners aren't the problem.

Craig

So does most cocaine come from legal owners? Oh wait...

Prohibition doesn't work. How many more times must humans try it in history before we realise that?
That's a completely false analogy, in both cases. I have said NUMEROUS times in this thread that tighter gun control won't STOP gun-related deaths but will REDUCE them, both long term and short term. I place human lives, even if it's only a few a year, above the warm fuzzy feeling and apparewnt sense of security someone get's cradling his gun.
I think some of the people arguing gun bans don't realise that bans don't apply to criminals, because they ignore them, and all you do by banning guns is make a criminals job easier.

Craig
Wrong. Can I see some (unbiased) figures on number of home invasions thwarted by civvies with guns vs. number of accidental gun deaths, domestic homicide/suicides, and even guns being turned on their owners per year...I think you'd be genuinely surprised.

For christs sake...

So because you feel safe, no-one has the right to defend themselves?

Just because you are relatively safe does not mean you should stop everyone else from protecting themselves.

I don't have a firearm for self defence either, because I feel relatively safe in the location where I live. But I believe in the right for people who aren't to defend themselves.

You talked before about a "screw everyone else" mentality, are you sure you aren't in a "I'm safe where I live, screw everyone who can't afford to live somewhere nice and safe" mindset?

Craig

Craig you know you have exactly the same mind-set, being the negative side means my choice leaves me with nothing but my opinion, and yours leaves you with a gun. I wouldn't feel safe around you if you had a gun, thus you are imducing your opinion on my choice to live in an area without guns. If someone owns a gun that scares me, because guns have the ability to kill. But hey (time for cynicalism) you shouldn't feel pressured by our opinion, what are we gonna do throw sticks at you? You should feel totally safe cause we only have an opinion and no gun at all. In fact you could feel like the king if you had a gun in my area, since no one had a gun, everyone would be afraid of you. You would be imposing on absolutely everyone in the area's lifestyle choice, but hey, same shit different smell eh? Cept your shit kills.

Then again Craig, if you had no weapon, the whole area would have a 100% gun safety net, making everyone, including you, unthreatened by the possibility of a gun going off and killing you. Wouldn't that be friggin fantastic.

Stop comparing opinions with weapons.

Here's an interesting tidbit - Australia's own Martin Bryant, the man who holds (or held) the dubious destinction of higher number of kills in one spree (35) was using a legal, registered gun (from memory it was an SKS, or AK series).

Now, I know some people out there will argue "oh, but if he didn't have a gun, he'd have a made a bomb". But we'll never know that, will we? Neither will 35 families who lost a loved one that day...

Look, in general I am against punishing the majority of law abiding citizens over the actions of a few nutjobs - but as I've said all along, who really needs high capacity semi-auto military style weapons for civilian use? I know some will never agree with me on the "needs vs. rights" issue, but still, do you at least see my point?

A friend of mine grew up in Johannesberg. If you think things are tough in the USA, try speaking to him some time - when he hears stories about how rough the Bronx is, he laughs out loud. Funny thing is, he never kept a gun in his house while he lived there. He served in the SA army for a few years, so it wasn't like he was gun-shy or didn't know how to use one. He got robbed, once or twice, but both he and his family are all still alive and well...

Here's an interesting tidbit - Australia's own Martin Bryant, the man who holds (or held) the dubious destinction of higher number of kills in one spree (35) was using a legal, registered gun (from memory it was an SKS, or AK series).

Now, I know some people out there will argue "oh, but if he didn't have a gun, he'd have a made a bomb". But we'll never know that, will we? Neither will 35 families who lost a loved one that day...

Look, in general I am against punishing the majority of law abiding citizens over the actions of a few nutjobs - but as I've said all along, who really needs high capacity semi-auto military style weapons for civilian use? I know some will never agree with me on the "needs vs. rights" issue, but still, do you at least see my point?

I see, agree, and promote this point.

Gun laws have now been inforced and thousands of guns in Australia are destroyed in the voluntary buy-back scheme and we have an extremely low homocide rate.

Perhaps what needs to happen, is get truckloads of assault weapons with millions of rounds of ammo, drive trough the US and just drop them off everywhere there is people, seal the borders and let you people get to it?

Perhaps what needs to happen, is get truckloads of assault weapons with millions of rounds of ammo, drive trough the US and just drop them off everywhere there is people, seal the borders and let you people get to it?

Or maybe there should be a law that everyone should have a missile launcher, kids, teenagers, adults, the elderly, sick, blind, people with parkinsons disease, ex-crims. Very good idea's here, suggest them to the NRA and Bush, I'm sure they'd love em!

Or maybe there should be a law that everyone should have a missile launcher, kids, teenagers, adults, the elderly, sick, blind, people with parkinsons disease, ex-crims. Very good idea's here, suggest them to the NRA and Bush, I'm sure they'd love em!
Sure they would love it. Just think what it would do for the weak job market. There would be millions of vacancies? Funeral directors would be running full bore and think of all the spin off industries from that?

I was just trying to get the right picture in my mind before I started making statements about it. :P


Makes sense.


For some. Some shrug it off. I'm not sure why some people get trauma for seemingly minor things, and others come away from seemingly major things with no baggage.

Ah yes, psychology....

Since many people here that aren't on my side of the fence seem willing to speculate (that's nicely meant), with your last sentence in mind, would you encourage people here (Canada) for instance to change the way they look at guns and shoot people more often for things that we tend not to shoot them for now?

Hmmm, that didn't come out right.

We have property crime and personal assaults and such too, but very rarely do we shoot someone (our criminals tend not to either). With that in mind, do you think our general attitude towards guns ought to change?

Not necessarily. I think our biggest problem is that we are comparing two different cultures. Convincing one another that theirs is "wrong" isn't going to work, ever.

This is where we need to realize that we need to keep the issue contained in each others' cultural context. Guns are a huge part of the ethnic landscape in the US. It's part of our historical identity.

This is why I try to use stats from within the US, as opposed to comparing them to the UK's crime stats or any other nations stats--unless someone specifically uses another country.

So, I'm not going to try to convince you that Canada suddenly should develop laws allowing it's citizens to carry concealed. I only have issues when the world tells us we shouldn't be (not necessarily you--you're trying to understand why we won't give it up).

If I didn't have my gun, how could I keep the immigrants under control that work for me?

Liberals want abortion for population control reasons, but damn us for wanting guns to atleast enjoy the sport of population control on our own terms.

And it's so hard to cross a border with those guns? WHo's crazy? Your president, yourself and people who own semi-automatics to shoot deer...yes cause you REAAALLLLLYYY need a semi to shoot a deer.

You do know the difference between a semi-automatic and a fully-automatic firearm, right?

There are several modes of semi-automatic designed for the hunter. Usually, they don't hold more than 5 rounds, and pretty much all don't hold more than 10, these days.

Hey sure, why the hell not.

I only think it's arrogant that people don't realise the amount of unintentional deaths caused by guns. Guns are designed for the purpose of killing, cars are not, not comparable. Guns = Killing, Cars = Driving. Don't give that "But cars can kill" either, because still, Guns are specifically designed for KILLING. Having a gun means you are considering the idea of killing someone and are ok with that. I think that's just sad.

Whatever, you think I'm BS, I think your BS.

Man, I have a gun, and I'm not entertaining the idea of killing anyone. I target shoot. Should I ever need to use a gun in self defense, it's to stop the threat, plain and simple. Stop, not necessarily kill.

A .45 or 10mm round will definitely knock someone down. It won't necessarily kill them.

You people take to much away from the sport of people hunting. It's not all that bad...judging by the differences on these boards, we really need more guns!!!

If we have to pick sides, I'm taking Ann Coulter first, she can smack down Maureen Dowd with her automatic rifle anyday!

:)

Then at the risk of opening things up into a philosophical debate... what's the difference between Canada and the US that we have such different basic attitudes towards guns and when to use them?

Government, media, and the entertainment industry.

Those would be my top three guesses.

Guns are designed for killing.

Again, you are mistaken. Firearms were originally developed and designed increasing killing efficiency. Today however, with things like target shooting being a viable passtime, guns are being designed for the sole purpose of shooting paper targets. The overgeneralization anti-gun nuts keep making, while helping their points (somewhat) is just plain wrong.

Depending on the weapon and type of ammunition guns can be used to kill a few people or many at a time.

Well gee... depending on the type of car a drunk driver drives it can kill a few people or many at a time. Someone in a mini-cooper just wouldnt do the damage that a H2 would do. Maybe we should all have to drive vehicles weighing less than say 1000 lbs?

So if a woman didn't like a particular person and shot him dead claiming that the man was trying to rape her, who will the courts believe......the woman or the dead man?

That would be up to a jury to decide. But since you are using a hypothetical scenario, if a woman who would have had a gun for personal defense had it taken away from her because of some gun restriction laws being enacted gets raped and murdered by a criminal with an illegal gun.... you finish the thought.

Guns have been used to end human life far more then they have been used to save them. There is NO way you could ever win that argument.

Actually the estimates range from 80,000 (from an anti-gun activist) a year to 2,000,000 a year. Substantially higher than the number of times a gun is used in crimes.

Do you want a whole world full of "instant" judge, jury, and executioner?

No, but I want the world full of people comfortable in their own defense... however they choose to defend it.

Sounds like you live in a bad part of town? You could move? You could learn self defense? You could lobby for tougher sentencing laws? You could support gun control legislation that will reduce the number of guns and calibre of person who could obtain guns, who have no business being able to own a gun in the first place?

Show me anything that might actually suggest that gun bans would reduce the number of guns in circulation. Anything objective at all. Not just your opinion.

Welcome to the wild, wild west, ladies and gentlemen. No one trusts the law to keep them safe, so everyone packs a sixgun, "just in case"...

Is "social de-evolution" a term? If not, it should be...

Criminals, by definition, disregard laws. How then do those disregarded laws keep anyone at all safe.

Police can only keep people safe if they are there when the crime happens. But since criminals dont commit crimes when police are around... they arent much help protecting anyone.

Perhaps what needs to happen, is get truckloads of assault weapons with millions of rounds of ammo, drive trough the US and just drop them off everywhere there is people, seal the borders and let you people get to it?

So, your suggestion with people who disagree with your view of life is to encourage genocide. Yea, you thought that out well didnt you :rolleyes:

I dont believe anyone in here that has been on the side for gun ownership has ever advocated that gun responsibility never be concidered.

This is just another example of the anti-gun nuts seeing things in black or white. All or nothing. "Gun nuts believe in the right to own guns, therefor they believe everyone should own a gun." "Gun nuts all are dangerous individuals and should be locked up" or in the case of CanuckHeaven we should all be killed.

If I didn't have my gun, how could I keep the immigrants under control that work for me?

Disgusting.

As for the comment about the amount of bullets in an auto compared to a fully, it only takes a single bullet to ruin someones life.

This was a great debate before Perrien came 'trolling' in *yawn* Trolling bores me.

Good luck America, 11000 per year, and rising.

After this comment I'm officially excluding myself from this debate.

As for the comment about the amount of bullets in an auto compared to a fully, it only takes a single bullet to ruin someones life.

This was a great debate before Perrien came 'trolling' in *yawn* Trolling bores me.

Good luck America, 11000 per year, and rising. That's all for now.

2,000,000 defensive uses of guns per year, and rising. That's all for now.

So, your suggestion with people who disagree with your view of life is to encourage genocide. Yea, you thought that out well didnt you :rolleyes:

I dont believe anyone in here that has been on the side for gun ownership has ever advocated that gun responsibility never be concidered.

This is just another example of the anti-gun nuts seeing things in black or white. All or nothing. "Gun nuts believe in the right to own guns, therefor they believe everyone should own a gun." "Gun nuts all are dangerous individuals and should be locked up" or in the case of CanuckHeaven we should all be killed.

Um he was using Satire...Go read a Modest Propsoal or something and learn.

TheOneRule, if the guns weren't there, would there be less, or more to defend against?

Um he was using Satire...Go read a Modest Propsoal or something and learn.

TheOneRule, if the guns weren't there, would there be less, or more to defend against?

Ummm you dont learn from history do you? Ever heard of a little thing called Prohibition? Go read about it and learn.

Are guns the only thing needed to be defended against? Oh wait, they are evil incarnate and if there were no guns in the world, it would be a utopia. On second thought, dont go read anything, grow up and learn might be a better suggestion

Ummm you dont learn from history do you? Ever heard of a little thing called Prohibition? Go read about it and learn.

Are guns the only thing needed to be defended against? Oh wait, they are evil incarnate and if there were no guns in the world, it would be a utopia. On second thought, dont go read anything, grow up and learn might be a better suggestion

If growing up makes me turn out like you, I would rather not. Wow so you grow up by 'not reading anything', you just roll with assumptions and agree with everyone else, wow sounds like the R word. But I commend you on avoiding my question :)

If growing up makes me turn out like you, I would rather not. Wow so you grow up by 'not reading anything', you just roll with assumptions and agree with everyone else, wow sounds like the R word. But I commend you on avoiding my question :)

Ok, so you didnt read my response.... understandable I guess.

I used a question to answer your question, perhaps you just didnt see that.

Hypothetically (since gun restrictions and gun bans wont do a darn thing about reducing the number of guns in circulation, but just to humor you) I dont believe that if guns weren't there, there would be any less to defend against, since I dont think I need to defend myself against an inanimate object (if you do, perhaps you need some professional help). I do believe that I need to defend myself from criminals. And magically removing guns from the world wouldnt do anything to reduce the number of criminals.

Or do you believe that guns are the cause of crime? Interesting proposition.... nope, dont believe that.

As to growing up vs reading to learn... I cant say how many times I've posted in this thread, posting links about gun defensive uses, reasons for defense. If you read anything, you obviously didnt learn anything so I was suggesting an alternate method of learning.

Ok, so you didnt read my response.... understandable I guess.

I used a question to answer your question, perhaps you just didnt see that.

Hypothetically (since gun restrictions and gun bans wont do a darn thing about reducing the number of guns in circulation, but just to humor you) I dont believe that if guns weren't there, there would be any less to defend against, since I dont think I need to defend myself against an inanimate object (if you do, perhaps you need some professional help). I do believe that I need to defend myself from criminals. And magically removing guns from the world wouldnt do anything to reduce the number of criminals.

Or do you believe that guns are the cause of crime? Interesting proposition.... nope, dont believe that.

As to growing up vs reading to learn... I cant say how many times I've posted in this thread, posting links about gun defensive uses, reasons for defense. If you read anything, you obviously didnt learn anything so I was suggesting an alternate method of learning.

You speak as if your solely correct. Your becoming what you were occusing me of. Anywho, I'm gonna try and get away from these debates, they achieve little with the excurtion of to much. My opinion wasn't at all swayed by a thing you said and yours not swayed by the opposing sides opinion. IT's a shame you brought it down to petty comparison's of intelligence. You can't be subjective in intelligence, if so I could say your unintelligent for not understanding Brechtian Theatre or Jiri Kylian dance and you could say I'm unintelligent for not knowing every detail about, I don't know, lets say the extreme American homicide rates. Your right I don't understand, I don't understand your views on guns at all. I apoligise if I've wasted your time.

Ummm you dont learn from history do you? Ever heard of a little thing called Prohibition? Go read about it and learn.

Are guns the only thing needed to be defended against? Oh wait, they are evil incarnate and if there were no guns in the world, it would be a utopia. On second thought, dont go read anything, grow up and learn might be a better suggestion
then lets make all drugs legal

then lets make all drugs legal

Yes, lets.

The drug war has caused more harm than good.

It has done the same thing(except on a wider/more painful scale) that alcohol prohibition did.

1) created a rational for an international network of criminals(growers to refiners to transporters to wholesalers to retail distributers) .
2) provided funding for that network
3) wasted enourmous amounts of taxpayer money(that could be used for more important things like healthcare) without even reducing the symtoms, let alone addressing the cause of the problem.
4) encouraged widespread corruption within law enforcement throughout various nations.
5) incarcerated millions of NON violent people for engaging in consenual behaviour(people who were leading otherwise productive lives). also leading to the parole of VIOLENT people because of lack of prison space.
6) provided a good deal of incentive for people who might have otherwise been productive to become criminals.

I think people who do drugs are stupid. But dont make the rest of society suffer from increased and more organized crime because of some stupid people. Use the money to help those people overcome their problems instead. Rehab is a lot cheaper and more effective(I believe) that global enforcement.

Another question: for the people arguing how responsible they are with their guns - do you assume that every legal gun owner is as responsible as you?

With the concept of freedom, you kind of have to assume that. Freedom means you have the right to choose what to do with your existence.

The US is supposed to be a free country. The more gun laws there are, the less freedom we all have.

I'm not proposing anarchy. Just a much more limited scope of government. With serious penalties for breaking the few laws remaining.

Funny, I don't pack heat for home defence, either does anyone in my social circle. We all seem to have survived 30+ years...

Yup, but all it takes is one incident to change all that. You never know when that incident may take place, if it takes place at all.

I hope that I never have to use one of my firearms for self defense, but if I ever have to, I sure want it with me.

i wonder what would happen if they outlawed ammunition. disposed of it all. then guns would be good for say, backscratching. :sniper:

I'd say, good luck with that fantasy. Too many people know how to make their own ammunition.

but guns are legal to own. cocaine isnt

Something else of note. Many firearms are imported illegally. They aren't always stolen. Criminals will always find a way around the system.

That's a completely false analogy, in both cases. I have said NUMEROUS times in this thread that tighter gun control won't STOP gun-related deaths but will REDUCE them, both long term and short term. I place human lives, even if it's only a few a year, above the warm fuzzy feeling and apparewnt sense of security someone get's cradling his gun.


You've drilled down too far. If your only concern is to stop gun violence at the expense of everything else, yes, your way will work.

However, it has been proven that violent crime rates go UP in the US, when stricter gun controls are put in place. Look at NY City, LA, and DC. Everywhere that gun laws have been relaxed or more lenient, violent crime goes DOWN.

I'm looking at all violent crime, not just gun related. Anti-gunners keep getting stuck on the little problem, when "fixing" said little problem makes the more prevalent big problem worse.

Here's an interesting tidbit - Australia's own Martin Bryant, the man who holds (or held) the dubious destinction of higher number of kills in one spree (35) was using a legal, registered gun (from memory it was an SKS, or AK series).

Now, I know some people out there will argue "oh, but if he didn't have a gun, he'd have a made a bomb". But we'll never know that, will we? Neither will 35 families who lost a loved one that day...

Look, in general I am against punishing the majority of law abiding citizens over the actions of a few nutjobs - but as I've said all along, who really needs high capacity semi-auto military style weapons for civilian use? I know some will never agree with me on the "needs vs. rights" issue, but still, do you at least see my point?

Once again, an anti-gunner has missed the intent of the 2nd Amendment in the US. It is meant to be a deterrent to the government to stay in line. That is its primary function. So, yes, we're supposed to have the weapons that our government has (regardless if you're scared of it or not), to keep the necessary evil (a government) on a leash.

A friend of mine grew up in Johannesberg. If you think things are tough in the USA, try speaking to him some time - when he hears stories about how rough the Bronx is, he laughs out loud. Funny thing is, he never kept a gun in his house while he lived there. He served in the SA army for a few years, so it wasn't like he was gun-shy or didn't know how to use one. He got robbed, once or twice, but both he and his family are all still alive and well...

And that was his choice. No one can fault him for it. I'm glad he and his came out safely.

However, you don't have the right to tell ME what to choose. There's the difference. Just like I can't tell you to go get a gun. Freedom, remember?

Sure they would love it. Just think what it would do for the weak job market. There would be millions of vacancies? Funeral directors would be running full bore and think of all the spin off industries from that?

Wow. I really love how you guys just love to wish violence upon us.

All we really want is to be left in peace, so we will never have to use a weapon again. I certainly don't go around thinking, "What violent activity can my neighbor possibly wreak upon me? I'll come up with something! And I'll stop it before they can perpetrate this heinous crime!"

Fear tends to make others want to come out and control the actions of others, when those others haven't done a thing to anyone else. Isn't it nice to be ruled by fear?

You speak as if your solely correct. Your becoming what you were occusing me of. Anywho, I'm gonna try and get away from these debates, they achieve little with the excurtion of to much. My opinion wasn't at all swayed by a thing you said and yours not swayed by the opposing sides opinion. IT's a shame you brought it down to petty comparison's of intelligence. You can't be subjective in intelligence, if so I could say your unintelligent for not understanding Brechtian Theatre or Jiri Kylian dance and you could say I'm unintelligent for not knowing every detail about, I don't know, lets say the extreme American homicide rates. Your right I don't understand, I don't understand your views on guns at all. I apoligise if I've wasted your time.

Heh heh....he said "Brechtian"....heh heh....

then lets make all drugs legal

Holy crap. Chess and I just agreed on something.

<waiting for world to end, that had to have been the seventh sign>

Did you read my original posts?

A person with a knife is not immediately a non-threat. Within 7 yards a knife user can kill you before you can shoot him. Within 7 yards it's legitimate self defense to shoot somebody.

I was just clarifying the accepted conditions required for legitimate self defense.

And to your first post I replied "that's not an accepted condition here". What you say about the distance in which someone can get to you before you react may be all true, but it doesn't then automatically follow that therefore it's legitmate to shoot somebody.

If you have local laws that say it's so, that's fine. But it's not a universal thing. That's all I originally replied with. I wasn't doubting the veracity of who manage to do ____ in such and such a distance.

i wonder what would happen if they outlawed ammunition. disposed of it all. then guns would be good for say, backscratching. :sniper:

Heh. In Canada, ammunition is almost as restricted as guns are. Of course if you've got your certification card on you, you can buy it. And the purchase is noted.

But you can't waltz into every second store (Wal-Mart, and especially pawnshops!) and just pick up a pistol and ammo for it and a stylish holster.

Would those of you on the pro-gun side be willing to see tighter restrictions to get ammunition if you're in the US? A gun is effectively immortal, but ammunition isn't, since once you've used it it's gone.

Thoughts?

But you can't waltz into every second store (Wal-Mart, and especially pawnshops!) and just pick up a pistol and ammo for it and a stylish holster.


Of course, you cannot do that in the US either......

Matt

Not necessarily. I think our biggest problem is that we are comparing two different cultures. Convincing one another that theirs is "wrong" isn't going to work, ever.

Well, I'd hate to go so far as to say it's "wrong", but I'd like to think there's maybe a better way to live. :P I keep comparing your country to mine because aside from specific history (the way each of us became independant countries, for instance), our demographics, geography, values, etc are fairly similar. Yes, on your political scale we'd be considered more left than you, but that hasn't affected, for instance, on the number of guns we have per person in the slightest. But we're not using them in the way that you (your country, not you) are, and more people are dying there than here. And I wonder if the attitudes that bring you to that point are systemic.

While many talk about "defending themselves" and give explicit detailed scenarios in which there literally is no other way, many others are more general, saying they'd shoot someone breaking into their car. Or automatically if someone broke into their house. Someone a while back (sorry, can't remember who) quoted a law (either a federal one, or one from Oregon) that said in essence that you're allowed to shoot someone who runs away from you when you're trying to make a citizen's arrest. You have no idea how appalling that sounds to me.

This is where we need to realize that we need to keep the issue contained in each others' cultural context. Guns are a huge part of the ethnic landscape in the US. It's part of our historical identity.

I know they are. Does that mean they must continue to be? I understand that nobody wants to be the first to give up something they feel they're entitled to, and especially not when the perceived "enemy" (criminals) isn't somehow forced to give theirs up first.

It seems to me that this is mirrored in your military. I often hear Americans say that their military is the best in the world, and I hear that echoed in your news. That aside, it's definitely the best funded in the world, with a staggering percentage of your economy tied into it. more More MORE!

And for what? Has all of that made you safer than places that spend less (either in dollars, which is everybody, or in percentages) on "defense"?

I know that many feel it's a dangerous world, or in the case of guns that it's a dangerous country you live in. There are bad guys out there that may very well harm you if given the opportunity and motive. No question.

But it seems to me, on the outside looking in, that when you can devalue someone's life enough to shoot them dead (again, there are cases in which you may very well have to end someone's life, but I submit that this is a tiny tiny fraction of the people that get shot, and not just by criminals) you can devalue anybody. And if you can devalue people, then people's lives and interests mean less to you. That sort of thinking can end up affecting everything that you do, whether you cut someone off in traffic because you don't give a rat's ass about them, or when you end up being a bastard to your spouse because you literally don't care what they have to say.

My, that went on for a long time. I hope that nobody is going to quote all of that verbatim and quote me statistics or analyse individual sentences or anything. Note that I enclosed it all as "opinion". :)

This is why I try to use stats from within the US, as opposed to comparing them to the UK's crime stats or any other nations stats--unless someone specifically uses another country.

This is very fair. When I compare, it's only to say that some of these things I'm saying can work, and here's an example. Any adoption of these things would definitely have to have an American twist on them, because that's what you are - Americans. You're human beings too though, which is why I want you to be safe and not shoot each other. ;)

So, I'm not going to try to convince you that Canada suddenly should develop laws allowing it's citizens to carry concealed. I only have issues when the world tells us we shouldn't be (not necessarily you--you're trying to understand why we won't give it up).

It seems to me that if you want to carry around a weapon concealed, it sort of indicates that you want to do something illicit. Wouldn't you prefer to carry such a weapon openly holstered on your hip or clipped to your bag (like you do with a cell phone) so that people who would potentially cause you problems are aware that you're armed and leave you alone?

Government, media, and the entertainment industry.

Those would be my top three guesses.

lol

If you'd added "economic web", you'd have pretty much gathered everything under one roof. :P

Of course, you cannot do that in the US either......

Matt
never been to wal-mart or k-mart i take it?

With the concept of freedom, you kind of have to assume that. Freedom means you have the right to choose what to do with your existence.

The US is supposed to be a free country. The more gun laws there are, the less freedom we all have.

I'm not proposing anarchy. Just a much more limited scope of government. With serious penalties for breaking the few laws remaining.

Or, you could look at laws as an attempt to set up a more level playing field for everybody to exercise their freedom.

While there's not much of a libertarian movement here, I do hear a lot of rumblings about it in the US. May I propose an alternative? More transparency and accountability built-in to your government. You don't necessarily need less government, but maybe you need to re-establish that it's a "government of the people, for the people". You don't really benefit by crippling or intentionally weakening something that's supposed to be a tool to let you live the kind of life (you collectively, not you the individual) you want. People are fond of bringing up Nazi Germany, and Russia at it's revolution towards communism - both of those came about in part because of weak ineffective governements at the time.

When you have potholes in your road, or the traffic signals aren't working, you don't go and fix them yourself, you complain to your government representative that they aren't doing their job and to get moving on it.

If you're not feeling generally safe and feel that you need to defend yourself, why aren't you complaining to the tool/structure that you've got in place that's supposed to be insuring your right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness?

If your politicians take note of "big" issues like abortion and defense spending when enough of the public is muttering about them, why aren't people talking about what we're talking about right here?

From Canada, the only time I hear on the news that American politicians are talking about guns is when there's a specific narrow piece of legislation to allow a given type of ammo, or to restrict weapons with a certain rate of fire. These are often cosmetic issues, at best.

Of course, you cannot do that in the US either......Matt

Something must have changed then, because you can't buy firearms here at a pawnshop, but when I go down to the US I see guns in the windows of just about every one of them. And there are a lot of places to buy guns there, and I'm talking pistols, not hunting guns. There seem to be as many places that sell guns as places that sell hamburgers. I'm still waiting to see a modified icecream truck driving down the street with 9 mils and grenades for sale. lol

Something must have changed then, because you can't buy firearms here at a pawnshop, but when I go down to the US I see guns in the windows of just about every one of them. And there are a lot of places to buy guns there, and I'm talking pistols, not hunting guns. There seem to be as many places that sell guns as places that sell hamburgers. I'm still waiting to see a modified icecream truck driving down the street with 9 mils and grenades for sale. lol

It depends on the state. The Federal govt also requires that if a person/company sells more than a certain amount of guns a year(either 18 or 50, im not sure) they must get a FFL license and do background checks on purchasers.

A few decades ago, a person used to be able to by guns by mail order. Hardware stores used to sell guns. Kids used to take guns in the nyc subways to their high school and be part of their shooting team. There was almost no crime back then and guns were available EVERYWHERE. The easily availability of guns does not lead to increases in crime.

If I could just throw out an unbacked opinion, I would say that the increase in crime stems more from the A)the failed war on drugs and B) the anti establishment movement that was an offshoot of the civil rights movement.