NationStates Jolt Archive

Today the Gun ban on certain guns expired. (there is a poll) That allows certain weapons such as uzi's, AK-47's, etc. (anything with full-auto capability) To be sold i want to here some opinions to this such as this is not a good idea or this is a bad idea and then explain your reasoning.

Today the Gun ban on certain guns expired. (there is a poll) That allows certain weapons such as uzi's, AK-47's, etc. (anything with full-auto capability) To be sold i want to here some opinions to this such as this is not a good idea or this is a bad idea and then explain your reasoning.

it's expired? finally.


Well come Feb, I'm buying myself an AR-15 with 3 round burst, carbine with a telescoping buttstock, a rail system, a Bayonet Lug and 30 round magazines.


SWEET!

I might even get a red dot scope, definetly a 3 point tactical sling

Worst thing possible

Today the Gun ban on certain guns expired. (there is a poll) That allows certain weapons such as uzi's, AK-47's, etc. (anything with full-auto capability) To be sold i want to here some opinions to this such as this is not a good idea or this is a bad idea and then explain your reasoning.

You are misinformed about the assault weapons ban. It has nothing to do with full-auto capability.

I can say yes and no? I can follow in the tradition of great statesmen like John Kerry!

ooooooooohhhhhhhh Controversy.... I like it.

As far as the gun ban goes, I can't obey it sorry.

Right where's that troublesome rat...AHA :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: Got Him! :D :D

You are misinformed about the assault weapons ban. It has nothing to do with full-auto capability.

Really i was reading all these articles on the internet that claim otherwise.
So either My sources from major t.v. stations (cnn,nbc,etc.) are wrong or you are.

I can say yes and no? I can follow in the tradition of great statesmen like John Kerry!

Yeah don't you love that!

Really i was reading all these articles on the internet that claim otherwise.
So either My sources from major t.v. stations (cnn,nbc,etc.) are wrong or you are.
he doesnt understand that most semi auto guns that are full automatic models turned into semi-auto can easily be switched back.
doing so is completely illegal without the class 3 weapons license, but whos going to stop them? the gun nuts dont want the government to know they have a gun, though they probably know what they like for lunch, so they obviously arnt going to have anybody watching for this to happen inside their homes

It certainly wasn't the smart way to go, and I hope we don't end up with our own Beslan tragedy complete with legally purchased weapons to show for it. Any situation like that is horrific, but can you imagine the political backlash from something like that?

I really just don't understand this administration's political strategy. Time and time again, they've taken stands against the majority of the population in order to satisfy a very small constituency that, to be frank, has nowhere else to go. That doesn't make political sense, and yet they continue to do it.

Really i was reading all these articles on the internet that claim otherwise.
So either My sources from major t.v. stations (cnn,nbc,etc.) are wrong or you are.

No, he's right. All the ban did was change cosmetic features. Full-auto firearms have been regulated since the mid 1930s.

That's the problem. Those major media news outlets aren't telling the truth. They are propagating falsehoods.

No one's done their homework on the ban itself, and are believing the news agencies that want guns banned in the first place.

http://www.AWbansunset.com

Ban all guns, so there won't be a semi/full discussion. What the big difference anyway? You pull the trigger -> a bullet fires from the gun. With full-auto the bullets keep firing, but why would anyone need that?

Congrats Bush! You just made your country a little less safe!

Ban all guns, so there won't be a semi/full discussion. What the big difference anyway? You pull the trigger -> a bullet fires from the gun. With full-auto the bullets keep firing, but why would anyone need that?

Congrats Bush! You just made your country a little less safe!

Uh huh....just like the ban did anything to crime rates in the first place....

Funny, the NIJ doesn't agree with you.

Uh huh....just like the ban did anything to crime rates in the first place....

Funny, the NIJ doesn't agree with you.
Hey Zaxon, up for the discussion again?

It does not matter what it does to the crime rates (some studies they go up, some say the go down, some say nothing happens). It's just that people have no business owning a (full automatic) firearm. You have the police, you have the FBI, you have the CIA, you have a military. What protection do you want?

Ban all guns, so there won't be a semi/full discussion. What the big difference anyway? You pull the trigger -> a bullet fires from the gun. With full-auto the bullets keep firing, but why would anyone need that?

Congrats Bush! You just made your country a little less safe!

Again, the ban has nothing to do with full automatic.

End the rhetorical, long debunked, emotion-loaded arguments!

Hey Zaxon, up for the discussion again?

It does not matter what it does to the crime rates (some studies they go up, some say the go down, some say nothing happens). It's just that people have no business owning a (full automatic) firearm. You have the police, you have the FBI, you have the CIA, you have a military. What protection do you want?

It's worth noting that the weapons remained available throughout the ban.

It's worth noting that the weapons remained available throughout the ban.
no, people should not own a gun

[Posted after Zaxon]

I'm a bit cautious about lifting the NFA after Al Capone inspired it, but I agree.

Hey Zaxon, up for the discussion again?

It does not matter what it does to the crime rates (some studies they go up, some say the go down, some say nothing happens). It's just that people have no business owning a (full automatic) firearm. You have the police, you have the FBI, you have the CIA, you have a military. What protection do you want?

Sure.

Here's what I want. I want protection that I can count on and am fully responsible for.

The police won't ever be there in time (not to mention that the supreme court has already ruled they don't have to try to protect an individual), and depending on which stories you read about the FBI or CIA, they're either a bunch of bumbling, petty idiots, or already secretly watching your every move. The military is still controlled by the government, not directly by us, and therefore suspect in its motivation to protect me.

It's still your opinion that people have no business owning a certain type of firearm. And that's fine. I'm certainly not going to try to force one on you.

And that's where your rights end, and mine begin. I have the right to own those firearms, if I choose to.

There is no proof out there that fully-automatic weapons increase crime rates.

Hey Zaxon, up for the discussion again?

It does not matter what it does to the crime rates (some studies they go up, some say the go down, some say nothing happens). It's just that people have no business owning a (full automatic) firearm. You have the police, you have the FBI, you have the CIA, you have a military. What protection do you want?

Someone who I actually trust.

The police, FBI, CIA, and Military are some of the reasons we need weapons for ourselves, so we don't end up dissapearing in the middle of the night.

Ban all guns, so there won't be a semi/full discussion. What the big difference anyway? You pull the trigger -> a bullet fires from the gun. With full-auto the bullets keep firing, but why would anyone need that?

Congrats Bush! You just made your country a little less safe!

I see where your coming from but what would happen if the king of England came up and started to push you around would you stand for that you'd probably take him down. And what if we were invaded what would happen then?

Again, the ban has nothing to do with full automatic.

End the rhetorical, long debunked, emotion-loaded arguments!

What the hell did it ban then?

no, people should not own a gun

Why not i collect military weapons with these new ones available i could get alot more.

I see where your coming from but what would happen if the king of England came up and started to push you around would you stand for that you'd probably take him down. And what if we were invaded what would happen then?
because of course england has a very powerful controlling monarchy and a king.

Again, the ban has nothing to do with full automatic.

End the rhetorical, long debunked, emotion-loaded arguments!
It did in a related way, since it banned a number of weapons that hed been full automatic and had been modified into semi-auto weapons--weapons that were easily modifiable back into full-auto. That's not the thrust of the argument behind the ban, no question, but it was a factor nonetheless.

guys, i dont wanna offend any conservative sensibilities, but...

i hear the argument that these guns owned by civilians can protect against invasions, or oppression by the federal government. i laugh at you if you can really believe this

how would you like to, say, try to use, a "legally-protected" AK-47, to try to shoot an M-1 Abram?

im just trying to say that the thought that these guns would protect u against the might of the entire imperialist army of the US is a totally ridiculous idea. even if the army wasnt using tanks, the well-trained soldiers would kick your asses.

banning guns, all guns, make all the sense in the world. since the moronic second amendment keeps us from banning ALL guns, we can at least settle for the assault weapon ban, which will at least ban some of the most destructive guns around.

you really dont need an UZI to "keep yourself safe". guns have not only NOT made the average american safer, america has the greatest gun death rate of all first world countries, and that is percentage-wise. i mean, u dont see two kids in, say, england, taking their parent's guns and shooting up the entire school (columbine).

if you really want defense, get yourself a taser, bbgun, or paintball gun. they work pretty well, and cant really be used to murder.

PS: if you are desperate to collect military guns, i would allow for guns that have a solid barrel (basically, a metal rod that isnt hollow and cannot allow for bullets to be shot out). that way, they can neither be used to shoot nor activated to shoot.

Actually Uzis and AKs are still unavailable for sale in the US- has to do with importation laws.

The fact that the United States has such a high per-capita murder rate has nothing to do with the number of guns in the hand of civilians. It has more to do with the fact that in this country, unless you get lucky or born rich your mostly screwed. The hopelessness of the public and the Pro-violence stance of the Feds feeds the murder rate. Banning all weapons would insure that only criminals and the police have them. I do not wish to live in a police state. I have a completely opposite view to the people saying "Ban em all!" Everyone in the country SHOULD own and be trained to use the firearm of their choice. As long as they pass a psycological test and background check. Of course the Federal Government needs to tone down the amount of violence they induce and denouce acts of war instead of playing them up as our duty as "Gods Gun Nuts" or whatever. The most important issue is not what people are killed with but why they're being killed or killing in the first place.

I posted this in the other thread, but I wrote this on another forum that I visit.






So the media is coming strongly on the side of the anti-gun nuts in this assault weapons ban expiry issue. Even Jon Stewart, who I usually agree with was strangely shortsighted — and forgetful — in his mocking of assault weapons and their owners. Kerry is of course against the guns, and remember that it was Bush Sr. that created the ban in the first place. Ronald Reagan signed the Mulford Act, and both Giuliani and Pataki have run the most anti-gun administrations in history.
The second amendment, the right to form a militia and of the people to keep and bear Arms, was enacted by the Founding Fathers for a very clear reason;


"A free people ought to be armed."

- George Washington

"An unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man... Let your gun be your constant companion of your walks."
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."

- Thomas Jefferson

"To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them."

- George Madison

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms."

- James Madison

Thomas Jefferson also said that "all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right" — and, most importantly their "duty to be at all times armed." Jefferson didn't think people needed guns for hunting or self defense. They were all very clear and singular — an armed populace is the final check-and-balance protecting the liberty of the people of the United States against a government running amok. They'd seen it happen in Europe, and they wanted to make sure it could never happen in America.

To defend America against foreign and domestic threats, an assault weapon is an ideal and highly effective tool for the individual doing so — as Stephen Colbert pointed out on the Daily Show, it's been very successful for the Iraqi insurgents! Now, maybe you're saying it could never happen in modern times, or to a culture as sophisticated as America. Don't bet on it. The German government, democratically elected by a well educated and culturally sophisticated populace killed ten million people in death camps, and the people never resisted it once. It's also happened across several Eastern European nations in recent time as well. It is not uncommon. It will happen again, and it could easily happen in America.

You probably won't get in a car accident either, but hey, why buy car insurance?

Maybe you're saying the odds of all this is slim, and in any case, most people support the ban, so democracy says the ban should stay. Wrong. Most people don't think piercing should be legal either. In the past, most people thought blacks shouldn't vote. The point of the Constitution and Bills of Rights all over the world is to protect the minority from the majority — to make sure the nation can protect against a worst case scenario. When we start violating these radical freedoms because "most people don't mind", we set the stage not just for losing our rights, but losing our freedom completely or even our lives.

Do you want to die in a death camp, or do you want to die free?

Yeah, I'm sure you're thinking you're real clever, getting ready to reply "well i don't want to die at all". Well, put your head back into the sand. It's not always your decision what day you're going to die on. It is however always your decision whether you die with your liberty intact.

it's expired? finally.


Well come Feb, I'm buying myself an AR-15 with 3 round burst, carbine with a telescoping buttstock, a rail system, a Bayonet Lug and 30 round magazines.


SWEET!

I might even get a red dot scope, definetly a 3 point tactical sling
And that's why bans can be good.

And that's why bans can be good.
Actually I took that post to be sarcastic.. but since Im American, I cant understand sarcasm so, who really knows.

But even then, suppose he is not being sarcastic. Why is it wrong for him to want a gun like that? Sure it sounds scary, sure it's a lot of potential to cause harm. But in this country, he is presumed innocent until proven guilty. If and when he proves himself unresponsible in the owning of his firearm, then take it away from him, put him away, and forbid him from owning a gun anymore.

Actually I took that post to be sarcastic.. but since Im American, I cant understand sarcasm so, who really knows.

But even then, suppose he is not being sarcastic. Why is it wrong for him to want a gun like that? Sure it sounds scary, sure it's a lot of potential to cause harm. But in this country, he is presumed innocent until proven guilty. If and when he proves himself unresponsible in the owning of his firearm, then take it away from him, put him away, and forbid him from owning a gun anymore.
In fairness, my reply was a one-liner bordering on flippancy. I don't know... it's tricky. The thing is, one individual's unrestricted personal rights inevitably impinge on another's. Guns have the potential for massive harm and I'm uncertain as to how great a capacity to cause harm we should all grant ourselves.

In fairness, my reply was a one-liner bordering on flippancy. I don't know... it's tricky. The thing is, one individual's unrestricted personal rights inevitably impinge on another's. Guns have the potential for massive harm and I'm uncertain as to how great a capacity to cause harm we should all grant ourselves.
Everyone who owns a car has a great capacity to cause harm. Many more deaths are atributed to car accidents than to guns every year. Cars have the ability to travel substantially faster than the fastest speed limit (in the US).
Want to seriously lower the mortality rates? Ban cars.

The thing is, one individual's unrestricted personal rights inevitably impinge on another's. Guns have the potential for massive harm and I'm uncertain as to how great a capacity to cause harm we should all grant ourselves

The right to bear arms trumps your imagined right to tell another person how they should exercise those rights. You said it yourselve, 'potential'. That is not enough to trump a right. Every human being has the potential to do harm to another with or without a gun, and for you to say this right makes it easier for a criminal to perform an act that does harm. That is the exact reasoning of why we do not let criminals exploit law abiding citizens rights. It always falls back to the 'one' doing the wrong deed, and never effects the 'one' doing the right deeds under that right. If you are in the wrong then you are in the wrong. We get rid of those that do wrong by not allowing them legal access to the right that all law abiding people enjoy.
This logic has been found to be flawed that you present. That is why when timothy mcveigh stole that ryder truck and killed over a 100 people. Me and you are still able to rent a ryder truck. Criminals can not impede upon a legal right for people that are in fact within that legal right.

"A free people ought to be armed."
- George Washington

"An unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man... Let your gun be your constant companion of your walks."
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson

"To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Madison

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms."
- James Madison
It is interesting to note that all of these things were said by people who lived, what, 250 years ago? In a different age? In an age where military might was measured in muskets and cannons, rather than tanks, aeroplanes and nukes.

Sure, in a 1700 setting a gun can protect you from an oppressive government. But in a 2000 setting, the only weapons which can protect you from a truly oppressive government are weapons which no sane person wants the 'public' to own. I'm talking about missile launchers, rpgs, nukes, landmines, artillery and poison gas. You know, they type of weapon a terrorist would just *love* to get his hands on.

In todays day and age you cannot use weapons to protect yourself against the government. If the army decides to level your town using tanks, planes and artillery, no amount of ak-47s or desert eagles are going to stop them.

The only good anti-government weapon we have is freedom of speech and free media. Plus the minor things, like elected officials, habeas corpus, responsible judiciaries, the right to assemble and so on.

The right to bear arms trumps your imagined right to tell another person how they should exercise those rights. You said it yourselve, 'potential'. That is not enough to trump a right. Every human being has the potential to do harm to another with or without a gun, and for you to say this right makes it easier for a criminal to perform an act that does harm. That is the exact reasoning of why we do not let criminals exploit law abiding citizens rights. It always falls back to the 'one' doing the wrong deed, and never effects the 'one' doing the right deeds under that right. If you are in the wrong then you are in the wrong. We get rid of those that do wrong by not allowing them legal access to the right that all law abiding people enjoy.
This logic has been found to be flawed that you present. That is why when timothy mcveigh stole that ryder truck and killed over a 100 people. Me and you are still able to rent a ryder truck. Criminals can not impede upon a legal right for people that are in fact within that legal right.
Excuse me, but I'm not trying to present a dogmatic view here. I'm trying to understand your position by questioning it. I should point out that I'm in the UK and gun ownership ain't a big deal over here, so the importance it holds for Americans was somewhat bemusing to me.

It is interesting to note that all of these things were said by people who lived, what, 250 years ago? In a different age? In an age where military might was measured in muskets and cannons, rather than tanks, aeroplanes and nukes.

Military might is not measured to a right, the people's voice is what equates to our rights.

Sure, in a 1700 setting a gun can protect you from an oppressive government. But in a 2000 setting, the only weapons which can protect you from a truly oppressive government are weapons which no sane person wants the 'public' to own. I'm talking about missile launchers, rpgs, nukes, landmines, artillery and poison gas. You know, they type of weapon a terrorist would just *love* to get his hands on.

The public do not own the weapons you speak of. This is in the best interst of National Security.

In todays day and age you cannot use weapons to protect yourself against the government. If the army decides to level your town using tanks, planes and artillery, no amount of ak-47s or desert eagles are going to stop them.

You seem to think the government wants to do harm to the people that voted them in and pay their salaries. The people are the government, there is no seperate government from the people. The people rule this country, we vote in those that coincides with our beliefs.

The only good anti-government weapon we have is freedom of speech and free media. Plus the minor things, like elected officials, habeas corpus, responsible judiciaries, the right to assemble and so on.

This is opinion that is rather shallow. Every right is essential to freedom, that is why we have that thing called the bill of rights. If you dont like those rights then attempt to get 2/3 of the states to decide along with 3/4 to ratify it.

It is interesting to note that all of these things were said by people who lived, what, 250 years ago? In a different age? In an age where military might was measured in muskets and cannons, rather than tanks, aeroplanes and nukes.

Sure, in a 1700 setting a gun can protect you from an oppressive government. But in a 2000 setting, the only weapons which can protect you from a truly oppressive government are weapons which no sane person wants the 'public' to own. I'm talking about missile launchers, rpgs, nukes, landmines, artillery and poison gas. You know, they type of weapon a terrorist would just *love* to get his hands on.

In todays day and age you cannot use weapons to protect yourself against the government. If the army decides to level your town using tanks, planes and artillery, no amount of ak-47s or desert eagles are going to stop them.

The only good anti-government weapon we have is freedom of speech and free media. Plus the minor things, like elected officials, habeas corpus, responsible judiciaries, the right to assemble and so on.
Actually, if the government were ever to turn really oppresive and truely needed to be overthrown, the government couldn't stop it. 300 million people vs a standing army of how many 1.4 million?

Excuse me, but I'm not trying to present a dogmatic view here. I'm trying to understand your position by questioning it. I should point out that I'm in the UK and gun ownership ain't a big deal over here, so the importance it holds for Americans was somewhat bemusing to me.

Ahhh, I apoligise then. I figured you for someone in the US that didn't understand their own countries rights. It is not something anyone in a forum will ever be able to explain to you. It is also never possible for one of us to understand some of the UK's dealings. Mainly because we both would have a preconcieved bias from what we are used to. Things work differently for different countries. People hold things closer to them than others from another country might.

Actually, if the government were ever to turn really oppresive and truely needed to be overthrown, the government couldn't stop it. 300 million people vs a standing army of how many 1.4 million?

Not to include the fact that the people are also the people in the military. They do and would not follow illegal orders.

Military might is not measured to a right, the people's voice is what equates to our rights. I don't understand this sentence, so I can't comment on it very much.
The public do not own the weapons you speak of. This is in the best interst of National Security. Thats precisely my point. The people don't own those weapons.
You seem to think the government wants to do harm to the people that voted them in and pay their salaries. The people are the government, there is no seperate government from the people. The people rule this country, we vote in those that coincides with our beliefs.The above posters (can't remember exactly who) said that "weapons are our defence against the CIA, FBI and the army, so they don't decide to carry us off into the night". I'm don't agree with either the letter or the spirit of that. It was what I was arguing against. But if you don't want weapons to protect yourself from the government, who are you protecting yourself against?
This is opinion that is rather shallow. Every right is essential to freedom, that is why we have that thing called the bill of rights. If you dont like those rights then attempt to get 2/3 of the states to decide along with 3/4 to ratify it.What do you mean "Every right"? The right to piss in the streets? The right to kill my neighbour? Or just every right written in the Bill of Rights? Or every so-called "Human Right"?

Freedom is such an elusive conecept. I consider myself to be "free", but there are any number of things I am not allowed to do. There are any number of things barred from accomplishing. That doesn't matter. I am still free. I am not allowed to own an automatic sniper rifle or an UZI. Excellent, I say. Neither is my neighbour. That means he can't sneak into my house and kill me with them.

Ahhh, I apoligise then. I figured you for someone in the US that didn't understand their own countries rights. It is not something anyone in a forum will ever be able to explain to you. It is also never possible for one of us to understand some of the UK's dealings. Mainly because we both would have a preconcieved bias from what we are used to. Things work differently for different countries. People hold things closer to them than others from another country might.
Still, if we gaina little understanding here and there it can only be a good thing. Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions.

Actually, if the government were ever to turn really oppresive and truely needed to be overthrown, the government couldn't stop it. 300 million people vs a standing army of how many 1.4 million?
300 million largely untrained, undisciplined, poorly armed (relatively) and uncordinated people wouldn't stand a chance against an army of 1.4 million well trained, well armed and disciplined soldiers.

It it true that the army might refuse to fight the 300 million civilians, but looking at military coups in the past, a lot of them might. And as long as the coup-people retain control over the armouries, even 100,000 soldiers would be plenty.

Everyone who owns a car has a great capacity to cause harm. Many more deaths are atributed to car accidents than to guns every year. Cars have the ability to travel substantially faster than the fastest speed limit (in the US).
Want to seriously lower the mortality rates? Ban cars.
Sorry for the late reply to this, I wasn't ignoring it, just trying to respond to umpteen people in a multitude of threads that all seem to be about weaponry...

In short, I have no response! It's a fair point.

. I am not allowed to own an automatic sniper rifle or an UZI.
Just for the sake of being obnoxious, I am going to point out that there is no such thing as an automatic sniper rifle. At least fully automatic. Sniper rifles are a one shot, one kill type of deal. An automatic sniper rifle would be pointless and stupid.
..............
As for Britains gun laws, anybody remember operation sealion from their history books? Hitler was going to invade Britain, and Britain knew it. As Hitler amassed his coming attack, the UK sent out an urgent appeal to the US government for firearms that would be used by British citizens against Hitlers ground troops. American citizens contributed their own rifles and handguns to give British common people atleast a chance that, if Hitler really did take england, there might atleast be an underground resistance(seeing as Britain was much in the state it is now, with only the most wealthy owning family heirloom double shotguns). There was even a published ad in the NRA's magazine, American Rifleman. Fortunatly before Hitler could land troops on Britains shore, he had to have good air cover. The newly invented radar working in conjunction with Britains few remaining Spitfires and Hurricanes denied him that. So Operation Sealion never came to pass, and most or all of the contributed guns destroyed in the Britain's attempt at a making a safer country through banning almost every type of gun. Think about that, and draw your own conclusion.

The american army is actually approximately 70 million people, just thought you'd like to know.

Just for the sake of being obnoxious, I am going to point out that there is no such thing as an automatic sniper rifle. At least fully automatic. Sniper rifles are a one shot, one kill type of deal. An automatic sniper rifle would be pointless and stupid.
Just for the sake of being obnoxious :) I am going to point out that there is such a thing as an automatic sniper rifle.
Carlos Hatchcock, marine sniper from Vietnam, stated that one of his favorite sniper weapons was the .50 cal machine gun. It had an etremely long range, relatively flat trajectory over the course of the flight, very stable platform, a devestating punch, and such a slow cyclic rate that it was relatively easy to shoot one round at a time. He speaks of one time when seeing a kid pedaling a bicycle with a basket full of guns and ammunition he shoots out the front forks of the bicycle (rather than the kid) at about 2500 yards.

The american army is actually approximately 70 million people, just thought you'd like to know.
Please, where did you get that number from?

Please, where did you get that number from?
I believe that person may be speaking of the number of Americans "available" for military duty.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html#Military

It is interesting to note that all of these things were said by people who lived, what, 250 years ago? In a different age? In an age where military might was measured in muskets and cannons, rather than tanks, aeroplanes and nukes.

Sure, in a 1700 setting a gun can protect you from an oppressive government. But in a 2000 setting, the only weapons which can protect you from a truly oppressive government are weapons which no sane person wants the 'public' to own. I'm talking about missile launchers, rpgs, nukes, landmines, artillery and poison gas. You know, they type of weapon a terrorist would just *love* to get his hands on.

In todays day and age you cannot use weapons to protect yourself against the government. If the army decides to level your town using tanks, planes and artillery, no amount of ak-47s or desert eagles are going to stop them.

The only good anti-government weapon we have is freedom of speech and free media. Plus the minor things, like elected officials, habeas corpus, responsible judiciaries, the right to assemble and so on.

With 80 million guns out there, it gives a government reason to pause before attacking.

And, in case you didn't notice, our right to assemble is being limited as well. There were "authorized" protest zones for both conventions, and they even went so far as to tell us we couldn't use Central Park (in NYC) for protests at all.

The "free" media spreads just as much in the way of lies and deceptions as the US government. They couldn't even report on what the ban actually covered and did not cover. They just showed AK-47s--which had nothing to do with the ban itself.

I'm sorry. My last two sentences were somewhat sarcastic. All those things: elected officials, habeas corpus, responsible judiciaries and the right to assemble are being slowly but surely phased out. Can you look at for example Guantanamo and say "Habeas Corpus"? Or look at McDonalds suits and say "responsible judiciary"? Or look at the Supreme Court circus during the 2000 election and say "elected officals"?

300 million largely untrained, undisciplined, poorly armed (relatively) and uncordinated people wouldn't stand a chance against an army of 1.4 million well trained, well armed and disciplined soldiers.


Relatively poorly armed, untrained, undiscliplined and uncoordinated people in Iraq seem to be giving US troops in Iraq a run for their money. However, I'll concede that an AR-15 in the hands of Joe Smoe isn't going to do anything against a tank or a team of snipers.

With 80 million guns out there, it gives a government reason to pause before attacking.

And, in case you didn't notice, our right to assemble is being limited as well. There were "authorized" protest zones for both conventions, and they even went so far as to tell us we couldn't use Central Park (in NYC) for protests at all.

The "free" media spreads just as much in the way of lies and deceptions as the US government. They couldn't even report on what the ban actually covered and did not cover. They just showed AK-47s--which had nothing to do with the ban itself.
Good point, Zaxon. In addition, I'd like to point out that several hundred people were arrested for 'protesting' before the protesting even began. Is the state of our civil rights in this country so shoddy that we can be pre-emptively arrested? Arrested for a 'thought crime?' if protesting can even be construed as a crime... Its sick and pathetic. But the truth behind the medias lies is that they are controlled by 6 giant corporations, who basically own the federal govt as well. So is it any kind of surprise?

it's expired? finally.


Well come Feb, I'm buying myself an AR-15 with 3 round burst, carbine with a telescoping buttstock, a rail system, a Bayonet Lug and 30 round magazines.


SWEET!

I might even get a red dot scope, definetly a 3 point tactical sling

Uhh, riiiight. So when are the men in long white coats going to take you to the happy hotel?

Am i allowed to swear? Well, what the f*** is the point of having the above? You can shoot humans (bloody obvious). You can't shoot animals, as you don't use such a weapon for hunting. If you want to be a wannabe special forces, just get a f*****g replica or bb gun, you bloody wacko.

Criminals will always be criminals, and there always will be them wherever there exists society. So there will never be an absolute dissappearence of guns. On the other hand, theere will be a lot less, because the majority of the gun nuts are probably too lazy to go get one on a black market.

Uhh, riiiight. So when are the men in long white coats going to take you to the happy hotel?

Am i allowed to swear? Well, what the f*** is the point of having the above? You can shoot humans (bloody obvious). You can't shoot animals, as you don't use such a weapon for hunting. If you want to be a wannabe special forces, just get a f*****g replica or bb gun, you bloody wacko.

Criminals will always be criminals, and there always will be them wherever there exists society. So there will never be an absolute dissappearence of guns. On the other hand, theere will be a lot less, because the majority of the gun nuts are probably too lazy to go get one on a black market.
Please explain why you feel that since "theere will be a lot less, because the majority of gun nuts are probably too lazy to go get one on the black market" is a good thing.

The only thing you came up with in your post is you dont understand the "point" of owning guns (at least the gun described in the post you quoted).

You know I guess I just don't understand. I live in the city where we don't have those rabid deer, birds, and elk that come right for you even though you shot them with ANY type of gun. I guess after the first couple rounds they just get angry and charge at you...so you DEFINITELY need that automatic weapon...oh..you don't want it for hunting? Then I guess you want that fingerprint proof automatic weapon to protect your family (any gun will do for this) from either a government overthrow or possibly another countries attempt at taking over the good 'ole U.S. of A...well i don't think you have to worry about that...with all of you talking about how you can't blame the guy with the gun before he shoots someone "innocent until proven guilty" i believe i read a couple of you write...I guess you guys definitely weren't backing the pre-emptive strike on a certain dictator put into power by the same government that decided to ouster him. So don't worry, we'll "stick to our guns" and preempt anyone who looks suspicious...So, let's see maybe you need it for just pleasure...well who can blame you, squeezin off a few hundred rounds per couple of seconds can be invigorating...but don't come crying to me when your son or daughter is playing "Daddy" and shoots themselves or a friend...i say good it probably was willed by God...that kid coulda been the next Hitler! I know God loves guns...if anyone, the Creator of life sure has to love pleasure of being able to kill multiple beings of His creation with one clip. God Bless America. :sniper:

I'm sorry. My last two sentences were somewhat sarcastic. All those things: elected officials, habeas corpus, responsible judiciaries and the right to assemble are being slowly but surely phased out. Can you look at for example Guantanamo and say "Habeas Corpus"? Or look at McDonalds suits and say "responsible judiciary"? Or look at the Supreme Court circus during the 2000 election and say "elected officals"?

Gotcha.

You know I guess I just don't understand. I live in the city where we don't have those rabid deer, birds, and elk that come right for you even though you shot them with ANY type of gun. I guess after the first couple rounds they just get angry and charge at you...so you DEFINITELY need that automatic weapon
It's been said many times, it's not a matter of need. If you insist on arguing that no-one needs guns, then I have to counter with the fact you do not need cars, need tv's, need movies, need music, need books, need freedom of speech, need sex, need electronic games. You can live without any of those things.
...oh..you don't want it for hunting? Then I guess you want that fingerprint proof automatic weapon to protect your family (any gun will do for this) from either a government overthrow or possibly another countries attempt at taking over the good 'ole U.S. of A
Why did you include "fingerprint proof". You are the first person to bring that point up. And if you think any gun is good for that.. lets see you even try to load and fire a flintlock/matchlock/wheellock.
...well i don't think you have to worry about that...with all of you talking about how you can't blame the guy with the gun before he shoots someone "innocent until proven guilty" i believe i read a couple of you write
So, you believe in "guilty until proven innocent"? In that case, Im issuing an arrest warrent for you for aggrivated assault and assault with intent of commiting murder. Not guilty you say? Prove it.
...I guess you guys definitely weren't backing the pre-emptive strike on a certain dictator put into power by the same government that decided to ouster him. So don't worry, we'll "stick to our guns" and preempt anyone who looks suspicious...
So you are against innocent until proven guilty, but now you are for innocent until proven guilty. Go figure.
Well, in some peoples opinion, Saddam proved himself guilty.
So, let's see maybe you need it for just pleasure...well who can blame you, squeezin off a few hundred rounds per couple of seconds can be invigorating...but don't come crying to me when your son or daughter is playing "Daddy" and shoots themselves or a friend...
Dont worry, no one will go crying to you for anything. If someone who owns a gun is irresponsible enough to allow his children to do that.....
I teach my 9 year old son about guns and gun safety. He understands what a gun is capable of, and how it is not a toy.
i say good it probably was willed by God...that kid coulda been the next Hitler! I know God loves guns...if anyone, the Creator of life sure has to love pleasure of being able to kill multiple beings of His creation with one clip. God Bless America. :sniper:
I dont even understand what you are trying to say with this last one.

congrats to bungeria for making some excellent comments, and i think it's time for me to say something once again

it seems to me the pro-gun people have the following arguments:

1) Guns protect against the government:

i find this ridiculous. as bungeria explained, 250 years ago guns did work, as guns were limited to muskets, flintlock pistols, and cannons, which both civilians and military had (except the cannon thing, which is irrelevant, as cannons weren't good against people till the grapeshot, which came during Napoleon). the civilian-military technology gap increased as time went on. by the time AUTOMATIC (hint hint, subject at hand) weapons came out, the military had a huge advantage.

so you pro-gun people say, let the civilians had them too. but that won't solve anything. now, the military has tanks, armored humvees, and a whole lot of other technology that would rip civilians apart.

i heard the argument that untrained iraqi civilians doing very well against well armed americans. true, i do not deny it, but they arent untrained. ever wonder how so many, say, republican guards, escaped and werent found? well, here they are! many of the "untrained" civilians are former soldiers, foreign volunteers, and other more or less trained men.

this country's civil right status is already going to hell. guns will not help. if guns would help, then our civil rights should be good right now, as we are allowed to buy guns.

i heard something from someone saying, "i don't want a police-state". Well, how would you like a state in which people are shooting each other with assault weapons? fine, let's pretend they are reasonable. how would you like a military-state? you know, like Sparta.

oh, and, about the holocaust thing, well, Germans were in support of it, as they had been fanned by the fascists, and i dont think the 10 million jews or others would have done too well, even with guns, against the power of the weapon-SS, which had kicked around every continental European army for years.

is there any way in which the government can be affected by civilian guns?

2) Guns protect against foreign invasion:

this is a foolishly invalid argument. americans dont even have to be concerned about this at all the way things are going now.

3) Guns protect individuals:

this is only partly true. indeed, by owning a gun, i would be protecting myself, but the person who wants to kill me will also be able to have a gun. the pro-gun people who, when faced with an anti-gun person, immediately talk about self-protection, forget that the person who is threatening you can get a gun too, and probably does have one. the second amendment lets ALL people have guns, and no matter how there are "background checks" and "tests" to see whether you are fit, the US civilian gun-death rate is still unbearably high. y? because many of the 2nd amendment protected guns are stolen, and there are frequent accidents in which the gun owner misfires and shoots him/herself, or a family member.

someone said this is irrelevant with crime rate, and just to clear that up, i wasn't talking about crime rate, i was talking about gun death-rate.

even if guns do help individuals protect themselves, there is no need for assault weapons, since you're not really protecting yourself from a band of theiving special forces. if you insist on "protecting yourself", then one gun, one bullet at a time, is really enough.

Come on people, there is absolutely no reason for letting civilians have assault weapons!

he doesnt understand that most semi auto guns that are full automatic models turned into semi-auto can easily be switched back.
doing so is completely illegal without the class 3 weapons license, but whos going to stop them?

...

So you admit that the laws against owning a full-auto are ineffective, as they are ignored by criminals, yet still want to make other regulations and bans on guns that will be just as ignored by the criminals?
:headbang:
Craig

Come on people, there is absolutely no reason for letting civilians have assault weapons!

Many already know what I am going to say to this.

You do not need a reason to exercise a right, you only need reason's to limit them. Here in the US the people have found any reason to limit them to be disingenuous. So unless you have some new *reason* you are just wasting your breath and bandwith.

First of all you can't really catch sarcasm in writing...it is tough to read between the lines.

It's been said many times, it's not a matter of need. If you insist on arguing that no-one needs guns, then I have to counter with the fact you do not need cars, need tv's, need movies, need music, need books, need freedom of speech, need sex, need electronic games. You can live without any of those things.

I was being sarcastic in saying need....of course no one NEEDS assault weapons, you reacted before you kept reading...it seems you do this often reading your previous posts.

[QUOTE]Why did you include "fingerprint proof". You are the first person to bring that point up. And if you think any gun is good for that.. lets see you even try to load and fire a flintlock/matchlock/wheellock.

I included "fingerprint proof" because it is an accessory that the law forbade. And said to stop corrosion of a gun...but the gun owners I know, clean their guns religiously...so who are these for? I'll let you figure that out.

So, you believe in "guilty until proven innocent"? In that case, Im issuing an arrest warrent for you for aggrivated assault and assault with intent of commiting murder. Not guilty you say? Prove it.

Once again you spoke before you read on.

So you are against innocent until proven guilty, but now you are for innocent until proven guilty. Go figure.
Well, in some peoples opinion, Saddam proved himself guilty.

I was always for innocent until proven guilty. I was just showing that the people who were writing pro-gun most likely were all for a "pre-emptive" war even though they don't want pre-emption when it comes to their guns. I agree that Saddam had proved himself guilty..um...i believe it was in the first Gulf War when he actually attacked a sovereign nation...then Papa Bush let him stay as long as he sold us his oil....well Jr. decided that was enough of them "selling" it to us...let's just get it for ourselves...My point...there are Hundreds of mass graves and dictators killing their people in a lot of nations...why aren't we going and helping those people? because they have nothing to give us. Way off the point...but had to be said.

Dont worry, no one will go crying to you for anything. If someone who owns a gun is irresponsible enough to allow his children to do that.....
I teach my 9 year old son about guns and gun safety. He understands what a gun is capable of, and how it is not a toy.

Yeah I am sure he does...I am not sure you know this but "accidents" do happen regardless of how much a child knows about how a gun is not a toy...they are KIDS, I was told not play with fire...guess what I did...guess what every child does...REBEL...i just fear for you son that you don't have to learn the hard way.

I dont even understand what you are trying to say with this last one.

What I am trying to say is....most of these gun owners are religious as well and enjoy de-creating the living things that their Creator left for us. It seems to me any God would not enjoy this. As for the Hitler comment I was just refering to the pre-emptive attacks with some very dark humor.

In the end. I am not trying to say take all Guns away...that doesn't seem feasible...but for christs sake try and keep some of the more lethal and effective killing machines out of the hands of stoopid people. Wait...don't say it...I know this law didn't do that...but it was inching ever closer.

(snipped)
What I am trying to say is....most of these gun owners are religious as well and enjoy de-creating the living things that their Creator left for us. It seems to me any God would not enjoy this. As for the Hitler comment I was just refering to the pre-emptive attacks with some very dark humor.

In the end. I am not trying to say take all Guns away...that doesn't seem feasible...but for christs sake try and keep some of the more lethal and effective killing machines out of the hands of stoopid people. Wait...don't say it...I know this law didn't do that...but it was inching ever closer.
If I missed the sarcasm in your previous post, I appologize. Perhaps I do write before I concider.

As to this last part however, isn't it a bit disengenious to equate gun ownerships with religioius beliefs? And isnt a bit more disengenious to equate gun ownership with "enjoy de-creating the living things..."?
I live in an ubran area. None of the gun owners I know like to hunt at all. Not that they are against hunting, but they just dont like to participate. Since most of the shooting I do is in an indoor gun range, most of the gun owners I know have no desire to harm or "de-create" anyone or anything, except paper targets.
Taking away guns does not make the "public" safer, taking away certain guns does not make the "public" safer. Other than the obligatory argument "Come ON, cant you guys see that?" about gun restrictions, can you give any argument that shows that gun restrictions have had any affect what-so-ever on "public" safety?

As a gun owner who owns several semiauto rifles, I've been trying to avoid flame fests, but this mindset is baffling me enough to repond.
i heard the argument that untrained iraqi civilians doing very well against well armed americans. true, i do not deny it, but they arent untrained. ever wonder how so many, say, republican guards, escaped and werent found? well, here they are! many of the "untrained" civilians are former soldiers, foreign volunteers, and other more or less trained men.
Actually, the majority of America's problem in Iraq lately has been instituted by the fundamentalist Shiite majority, which was specifically excluded from any type of advanced military training because Saddam was afraid they'd overthrow him (they tried more than once). The majority of damage being done to American interests in Iraq today is being inflicted by average joes who have picked up cheap AK47's or who are whipping up explosives in their basements. While former Republican Guard members and other Iraqi ex-military can no doubt be found in the Iraqi resistance, they are not the majority.this country's civil right status is already going to hell. guns will not help. if guns would help, then our civil rights should be good right now, as we are allowed to buy guns.Guns only protect people who are willing to use them, and history shows us that people are willing to tolerate some pretty serious oppression before they become sick enough of it to revolt. The U.S. isn't anywhere near that point yet, but I can assure you that if we reach it, there will be NO chance of winning if we are UN-armed.i heard something from someone saying, "i don't want a police-state". Well, how would you like a state in which people are shooting each other with assault weapons? fine, let's pretend they are reasonable. how would you like a military-state? you know, like Sparta.Funny, I remember the years preceding 1994 quite clearly when new "assault weapons" could be bought at any neighborhood gun dealer, and I don't remember anything like you're describing. Attacks with repeating rifles are, and always have been rare. The entire law was created in response to ONE SINGLE INCIDENT...the attack at 101 California in San Francisco.oh, and, about the holocaust thing, well, Germans were in support of it, as they had been fanned by the fascists, and i dont think the 10 million jews or others would have done too well, even with guns, against the power of the weapon-SS, which had kicked around every continental European army for years.Actually, most Germans WEREN'T in support of it, but they were powerless to stop it once Hitler had consolidated his power. Since the Nazi's controlled the press, they were also able to keep information about the concentration camps out of the realm of general knowledge. I'm firmly convinced that, had the German populace and the Jewish citizenry been armed, WW2 would not have happened, and we would have had situations like the Warsaw uprising all over Germany. Could the Nazi's have killed them all anyway? Maybe, but the world wouldn't have been able to stick its head in the sand, and the Nazi's would have been forced to keep a sizeable portion of its army home to defend against domestic insurrection, weakening its ability to mount an offensive war.is there any way in which the government can be affected by civilian guns?Government fears an armed citizenry. That is a good thing, as ALL governments should fear their populace.this is a foolishly invalid argument. americans dont even have to be concerned about this at all the way things are going now.
Tell that to the residents of Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and the California desert who are having their homes invaded, their wives raped, their property stolen, and their property rights trampled by coyotes and runners crossing the border from Mexico with their loads of illegals and drugs.
this is only partly true. indeed, by owning a gun, i would be protecting myself, but the person who wants to kill me will also be able to have a gun. the pro-gun people who, when faced with an anti-gun person, immediately talk about self-protection, forget that the person who is threatening you can get a gun too, and probably does have one.
This is the line that made me comment. I'd be willing to gurantee that I'm probably the ONLY person on this messageboard who has ever actually shot one human being in defense of another. In 1995 my wife was attacked in our own home by a rapist who held a knife to her throat while he assaulted her. Unfortunatly for him, I was upstairs at the time, heard the commotion and screaming, came down with my gun, and put two rounds through the guys back (he lived, and was just recently released from prison). Now, this guy was 30 feet away from me, had his prick in my wife, and his knife at her throat. Please tell me HOW THE **** I WAS SUPPOSED TO SAVE HER WITHOUT A GUN? Should I have called the police, and calmly sat by for 8-10 minutes watching him **** my wife while I waited for the police to arrive? Should I have grabbed a baseball bat and charged him, giving him plenty of time to slit her throat while I crossed the room? Maybe I should have tackled him and then allowed him to stab ME to death, considering that he was about twice my size? I did none of these. Instead, I raised my gun, fired three shots, and ended the assault without any innocent injuried.

Remember, for some of us, self defense isn't "theoretical". the second amendment lets ALL people have guns, and no matter how there are "background checks" and "tests" to see whether you are fit, the US civilian gun-death rate is still unbearably high. y? because many of the 2nd amendment protected guns are stolen, and there are frequent accidents in which the gun owner misfires and shoots him/herself, or a family member.Nope, background checks are perfectly constitutional. Because the second amendment referres to a well regulated militia, courts have ruled that the government has the right to ensure that "militia capable" gun owners aren't criminals, and that they don't suffer mental defects. And most Americans support reasonable gun laws that allow the prosecution of people who's improperly secured firearms lead to the death of innocents. Most states already have laws like this in place, so federal action has never been necessary.someone said this is irrelevant with crime rate, and just to clear that up, i wasn't talking about crime rate, i was talking about gun death-rate.The gun death rate in the United States is skewed by an unfortunatly large number of people who commit suicide with firearms. Removing firearms won't help this problem though, because suidical people in other nations simply throw themselves off tall buildings, slit their wrists, or hand themselves, and suicidal Americans deprived of firearms would simply do the same. While the death by firearms rate in the U.S. is still too high even with suicides factored out, banning firearms isn't the answer.
even if guns do help individuals protect themselves, there is no need for assault weapons, since you're not really protecting yourself from a band of theiving special forces. if you insist on "protecting yourself", then one gun, one bullet at a time, is really enough.Again, powerful weapons ownership has nothing to do with self defense or hunting, but protection against government intrusion into our lives.Come on people, there is absolutely no reason for letting civilians have assault weapons!This quote, I think, reveals the fundamental difference in some peoples perception of government. In my opinion, it is not the duty of government to LET us do anything. Certain things may be prohibited when they prove to be a hinderance to the public good, but it is not the governments role to grant or deny us anything outside of that. If the government can show that a bayonet lug or a folding stock presents an emminent threat to public safety, and not using rhetoric but using factual data, then I would probably support a ban on them. But the simple fact is that they can't, because they never have been. Of the millions of semi-automatic rifles that have been sold in the United States since the Federal Firearms Act of 1932 banned all fully automatics, only the tiniest fraction of a percent of them have been used in any sort of crime. 99%+ of the repeating rifles sold in the United States are only used for lawful purposes, and the citizenry here knows that, which is why the vast majority of Americans oppose laws banning them.

Yes, that was wrong of me to lump everyone into a religious gun toter...for that I'm sorry.

A recent study analyzing FBI data shows that 20% of the law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty from 1998 to 2001 were killed with an assault weapon

The law really didn't do that much...as gun companies boast about how easy it is to work around the laws...sound genuine to you?

You know, I could show you stats and go on and on about how the people who own guns kill people (a small percentage, but enough to kill a lot of people) and the fact that making it harder to obtain guns reduces mortality rates, but you obviously aren't going to listen...You obviously don't see any problems with everyone owning guns. Take a stroll down to Harlem or Watt or Detroit and you tell the Police officers and Mothers of the dead children...."Well I own an AR-15 and shoot it at paper targets, what's wrong with that?" I am sure they can tell you a whole lot wrong with it. It's all a matter of personal experience...you see it as a recreational object that doesn't bother anyone, while others see it as the thing that killed there son or daughter. Personally, I have shot many a squirrel with a 22. I didn't see any problems until my next door neighbor's house got shot up with a semi-automatic...it was his neighbor who they wanted...funny thing...it took him a day to get that gun.

I personally have nothing against guns I think their beautiful. I do have a problem however with big nasty weapons such as Uzi's and AKs that's the only reason I think the weapons ban should be reinstated.

Take a stroll down to Harlem or Watt or Detroit and you tell the Police officers and Mothers of the dead children...."Well I own an AR-15 and shoot it at paper targets, what's wrong with that?" I am sure they can tell you a whole lot wrong with it.
Thing is, the dead kids in Watts, Harlem, South Central, Oakland, and Detroit aren't killing each other with assault weapons. Why should they? Why spend $400+ bucks on a well equipped yet bulky and hard to conceal AK-47 when you can pick up a cheap 9mm for $169 that will fit in your pocket, shoot just as fast, and make your enemy just as dead? Some guns like the TEC 9 and UZI (semi-auto) may be favored by gang members, but at $600-$1000 they are really just status symbols and are rarely used in real shootings (gang members typically dump their guns after using them in crimes, and don't like dumping their "show" guns).

If you want to save the inner city kids, start by getting rid of the cheap throwaway junk guns that dominate most inner-city gun stores. THOSE are the weapons that are actually killing most of the people in our country, and most American gun enthusiasts wouldn't complain one bit (they are poorly made, inaccurate, jam often, and serve no genuinely useful role in society). Attack the guns that do the damage and kill the majority of people, not the ones that look "scary" but harm few.

Yes, that was wrong of me to lump everyone into a religious gun toter...for that I'm sorry.


The law really didn't do that much...as gun companies boast about how easy it is to work around the laws...sound genuine to you?
Please explain how the assault weapon ban did anything to keep assault weapons off the street. Please explain how a ban on collapsable stocks, flash suppressors, bayonet lugs, grenade launchers, or pistol grips had any affect on removing or preventing assault weapons from getting to the street.
You know, I could show you stats and go on and on about how the people who own guns kill people (a small percentage, but enough to kill a lot of people) and the fact that making it harder to obtain guns reduces mortality rates, but you obviously aren't going to listen
Show me something, anything about responsible gun owners are killing people. Your statement "people who own guns kill people" is simply a gross overgeneralization. Show me anything that explains how making it harder to obtain guns would in any way affect criminals and their possession of guns.
You obviously don't see any problems with everyone owning guns. Take a stroll down to Harlem or Watt or Detroit and you tell the Police officers and Mothers of the dead children...."Well I own an AR-15 and shoot it at paper targets, what's wrong with that?" I am sure they can tell you a whole lot wrong with it. It's all a matter of personal experience...you see it as a recreational object that doesn't bother anyone, while others see it as the thing that killed there son or daughter.
How many deaths in Harlam, Watts, or Detroit were committed with an AR-15? How many were committed with a handgun of some sort? Because some people have chosen to vilify an inanimate object rather than the people responsible for the killing of their sons and daughters we should ban that object?
Personally, I have shot many a squirrel with a 22. I didn't see any problems until my next door neighbor's house got shot up with a semi-automatic...it was his neighbor who they wanted...funny thing...it took him a day to get that gun.
For some reason, your last points are always very difficult for me to grasp. Are you saying that someone shoots up your neighbors house with a "semi-automatic" because they made a mistake and were looking for your house? And those people were looking to shoot up your house because you kill squirrels with a 22? Or are you saying that your neighbor was the unfortunate victim of a drive by shooting, and you blame your 22. I have a thought... instead of blaming the "semi-automatic", why dont you blame the people responsible for the shooting?

Or is that too much?

I personally have nothing against guns I think their beautiful. I do have a problem however with big nasty weapons such as Uzi's and AKs that's the only reason I think the weapons ban should be reinstated.
:rolleyes:
So, you are for banning all the mean, nasty, scary looking guns huh?
Yea, that'll be effective.

Like I said, the assault weapon ban did nothing except make people feel safer.

he doesnt understand that most semi auto guns that are full automatic models turned into semi-auto can easily be switched back.
doing so is completely illegal without the class 3 weapons license, but whos going to stop them? the gun nuts dont want the government to know they have a gun, though they probably know what they like for lunch, so they obviously arnt going to have anybody watching for this to happen inside their homes
Actually, this is a myth and a holdover from the gun control arguments of the 1980's. The 1986 Automatic Firearms Ban which Ronald Reagan instituted to prevent the manufacture or import of fully automatic weapons, even for people WITH a FFW, also placed restrictions on the production of semi-automatic weapons capable of being converted. No semi-automatic gun can be produced or imported into the United States with the hardware capable of making it fully automatic, even if that hardware is disabled. One of the gun laws (I can't remember if it was the 1986 Reagan ban, or the 1989 Bush ban) also set a minimul legal limit, saying that any firearm that could be PROFESSIONALLY modified from semiautomatic to fullautomatic in under 4 hours without the use of specialized equipment (read:machine shop) is illegal too. The receivers used on rifles like the AK's or the Bushmaster Sports use a completely different design than their full auto cousins, and are NOT capable of being easily converted. That argument hasn't been valid in over a decade.

BTW, if someone has access to a machine shop, they could easily manufacture their own receiver in under a week. There was also a case in Nevada recently where a guy was arrested for building his own full-auto machine gun from scratch, in violation of every firearms law since 1934. Your argument about banning the weapons because of what one MIGHT do is moot. That is, unless you plan on banning machine shops too... :rolleyes:

Two different points...I was in a hurry at the end there...I was saying that I like shooting guns...I forgot to say that it took me 10 days and a background check to get that 22..and it only took the guy who shot up my neighbor's house 1 day and no bg check for the AR (in a "reputable" gun store).

Look what I am saying is, I don't think that just gun owners are the problem...I don't think that just assault weapons are the problem...Put the two together though in a certain situation and that's when the problems arise. How do you get a happy medium between trying to "protect yourself from a government" (apparently that seems to be the reason) and protecting the people from mass murders? You really can't. People don't want to give up their 2nd ammendment right. I don't blame them really, I want to keep my 1st, so why not the 2nd? So, the problem is: guns kill, people kill...which are easiest to get rid of?

1. The assault weapon ban the just expired never removed any guns from civilian possession. It restricted supply.
2. It had nothing to do with automatic/select fire/burst weapons. It only had to do with semi-automatic firearms.
3. People that most strongly support gun rights don't necessarily support President Bush and the Republican party.


If anyone cares, I'll be voting Badnarik this year. Screw the Republicrats.

So, the problem is: guns kill, people kill...which are easiest to get rid of?

The people.

Heck,most states don't just melt down that gun but the criminal that used it for that illegal act also. :)

The assault-weapon ban (AWB) was a ridiculous piece of legislation--thats coming from me and if I could, I'd vote Kerry this election.

The AWB was ineffectual--as is most gun control. I will say, with 99.99% assurance, that it did not stop one crime from being commited, nor did it stop one life being lost to a firearm.

Heres a small list of some items the AWB prevented on firearms made after the ban:

Could not have an easily exposed threaded muzzle (to attach flash-hiders/muzzle breaks* or suppressors*. Keep in mind suppressors are tracked by the gov't and are only allowed in certain states. It is illegal EVERYWHERE in the US to just 'slap one on'.)

Could not have a retractable/foldable stock.

Magazines with a capacity of 10+ rounds could not be made/imported for the civilian market.

Now heres the breakdown on the flaws/loopholes of this:

You could have still put a flash-hider/muzzle break on the end of your firearm made after the ban if it was "permanently attached". IE welded/soldered on, pinned on, etc. The job costs less than $50 to do from a gunsmith, or about $25 to buy a kit to do it yourself.

A retractable/foldable stock you could argue would make it easier to conceal. Honestly however, if you are concealing a rifle you probably aren't trying to be law-abiding. It takes about 10 seconds with a dremel to change a pinned retractable stock into a normal, fully functioning retractable stock. A law abiding person won't do this, do you think a bank robber will care?

Perhaps the largest thing the ban affected was the production of high capacity magazines. The flaw: there are already millions upon millions upon millions of these magazines in the US, made prior to the date of the ban so they were 100% civillian legal, that you could buy a 30 round m16 magazine new in the warp for $20, or a 30 round ak47 magazine new for as low as $10. The only affect the ending of the ban will have on magazines is that high capacity magazines will now be ever so slightly cheaper.

"Assault weapons" themselves were never directly affected as to my knowledge (aka, AK47s were never banned. I could have wandered down to Wade's gun store and bought an Ak47 or M16 for 3-800 dollars before the ban. I can still wander down to Wade's and buy an Ak47 or M16 for 3-800 dollars.) Fully automatic firearms were never in question--that is not handled federally but by the state. (In Washington for example full autos are illegal. Oregon, go for it)

I would not consider myself pro-gun but rather anti-anti-gun. I see no real good reason for not letting people own firearms. True they can be dangerous but personally I am much more scared of getting killed by a car than getting shot by a gun (the odds are wayyy in favor of the car). If the government wanted me to feel safer they'd up the driving permit age to 18 (so I wouldnt be able to drive right now), lower/take away the legal drinking age (sounds counterproductive but I think otherwise), and require more safety features on cars.

Why does everyone keep saying citizens armed with guns couldn't do anything against a military? There have been sucessful civilain uprisings, revolts, and resistances throughout history that have disrupted and even beaten a well trained army. It's called guerilla warfare, some Iraqis are finding it works pretty well.

I can shoot at soldiers from windows

I can molotov their APCs with just a beer bottle and gasoline.

I can blow the tracks off tanks with bombs made from fertilizer.

You have the police, you have the FBI, you have the CIA, you have a military. What protection do you want?

http://www.uploadyourimage.com/1/s_colors3.jpg
http://www.uploadyourimage.com/1/s_order.jpg
http://www.uploadyourimage.com/1/s_solution2.jpg
http://www.uploadyourimage.com/1/s_monopoly.jpg
http://www.uploadyourimage.com/1/1984.jpg
http://www.uploadyourimage.com/1/panther_s.jpg

i can sit around and make pictures and post them too, it doesnt make me magically right

Did you even bother to look at them?

Did you even bother to look at them?
let me try this again

i can sit around and make pictures too, it doesnt make me magically right

let me try this again

i can sit around and make pictures too, it doesnt make me magically right

I can sit around and make worthless posts, but that doesn't make me magically right either.

I can sit around and make worthless posts, but that doesn't make me magically right either.
let me put this into a simple and inherently hilarious quote from Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Dennis: Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

just because you can make stupid pictures and post them doesnt make your point any more valid or correct

let me put this into a simple and inherently hilarious quote from Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Dennis: Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

just because you can make stupid pictures and post them doesnt make your point any more valid or correct
They're only stupid because you haven't looked at them. Who is going to police the police eh?

Is it just me, or does anyone else find the pro-gun propoganda pics hilarious?

Is it just me, or does anyone else find the pro-gun propoganda pics hilarious?

Hilarious, but true.

Oh please, they are blatant attempts to appeal to emotion rather than reason...they remind me of the "Reefer Madness" campaign more than anything...

So are you stating that Jews were not disarmed in 1938 in Hitler's Germany when they trusted the government and willingly gave up their weapons?

The only difference between Nazi Germany, and the United States, or any country for that matter, is the form of government. In Nazi Germany, the government became an oppresive regime and people who complied to this regime's new laws ended up being killed. Now, I am not stating that if armed no Jew would of been killed, but something such as the 2nd Ammendment would of given them a chance. It is much harder to oppress an armed society of citizens as opposed to a disarmed one. This is exactly why the 2nd Ammendment was created in the first place.

That being said, it is better to be safe than sorry.

Since when did you listen to everything that the media has to offer? The ban limits bannet lugs, flash supressors, and colapsable stocks to be sold. Also newly made 30 round magizines can be sold. Only 30 rounders from before sometime during the mid 70's could be sold (Which really did NO difference whatsoever if you take care of your magizines, they should work fine, shouldn't be determined on age) That's the problem though, the media is misinforming everyone about the law. Full auto's have always been legal as long as you had a Class-3 license.

Firearm bans simply remove registered firearms from the hands of law abiding citizens.
There is also a cost involved, by giving criminals the knowledge that people are very likely not in possesion of firearms it removes a quite large deterrant to the actual commiting of a crime. And the criminals will not be disarmed, they will either have blackmarket guns, guns stolen from the government, smuggled guns, knives, nail guns, hammers, high heels, scissors...

And,
Originally Posted by Legless Pirates
"You have the police, you have the FBI, you have the CIA, you have a military. What protection do you want?"

When government agencies are able to teleport on a moments notice when at 3am a guy armed with a butcher knife breaks through my window to slit my families throat and steal my riches. The last time i checked, the police take 15 mins-1 and a half hours to get to a lot of their calls.

i'll go make anti-assault weapons pictures tomorrow and post them, thus making me automatically right

i'll go make anti-assault weapons pictures tomorrow and post them, thus making me automatically right
Make em funny too, I need new pics

Make em funny too, I need new pics
i could always use this though..

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v206/Reaper2k3/why.jpg

So are you stating that Jews were not disarmed in 1938 in Hitler's Germany when they trusted the government and willingly gave up their weapons?

The only difference between Nazi Germany, and the United States, or any country for that matter, is the form of government. In Nazi Germany, the government became an oppresive regime and people who complied to this regime's new laws ended up being killed. Now, I am not stating that if armed no Jew would of been killed, but something such as the 2nd Ammendment would of given them a chance. It is much harder to oppress an armed society of citizens as opposed to a disarmed one. This is exactly why the 2nd Ammendment was created in the first place.

That being said, it is better to be safe than sorry.

I think the term I'm looking for is "specious reasoning" - sure, your propoganda pics contain kernels of fact, but little to tie those facts to the end argument that guns = freedom.

I could just as easily say "The Jewish faith forbids eating pork. Therefore, because a Holocaust was committed on the Jews, eating pork prevents Holocausts" (note: this in NOT my opinion, but an outrageous analogy to illustrate my point).

Besides, whoever said that "blatant attempts to appeal to emotion rather than reason" couldn't contain facts? I suggest you look up the meaning of propoganda, sometime...;)

Hey Zaxon, up for the discussion again?

It does not matter what it does to the crime rates (some studies they go up, some say the go down, some say nothing happens). It's just that people have no business owning a (full automatic) firearm. You have the police, you have the FBI, you have the CIA, you have a military. What protection do you want?



Protection from the CIA, FBI, military, and criminals, who will get the guns anyway...

i'll go make anti-assault weapons pictures tomorrow and post them, thus making me automatically right

I've got the perfect one for you:

http://www.uploadyourimage.com/1/s_doors1.JPG

I think the term I'm looking for is "specious reasoning" - sure, your propoganda pics contain kernels of fact, but little to tie those facts to the end argument that guns = freedom.

I could just as easily say "The Jewish faith forbids eating pork. Therefore, because a Holocaust was committed on the Jews, eating pork prevents Holocausts" (note: this in NOT my opinion, but an outrageous analogy to illustrate my point).

Besides, whoever said that "blatant attempts to appeal to emotion rather than reason" couldn't contain facts? I suggest you look up the meaning of propoganda, sometime...;)

Well I know.

It's just fun playing Devil's Advocate.

I just think it's a little sad that people think they need to arm themselves against their own government in a country that's been a (more or less) stable democracy for around 200 years...I could understand if you lived in certain areas of the Middle East or Africa where military coups aren't uncommon, but America? I just can't get my head around the culture that has fostered this type of paranoia...I mean, why not take the next step - go live in a fortified bunker in the middle of the wilderness, just to be sure...

...honestly, I'm not trying to put you down, but I genuinely can't understand the mindset...

Well I know.

It's just fun playing Devil's Advocate.

Fair 'nuff, I do a bit of that myself ;)

Well it is moreso the preservation of the ammendment itself to a time where it might actually need to be used.

If we effectively destroy the second ammendment now, who's to say in 50 years we will need it?

I use a couple of weapons :)

1. The assault weapon ban the just expired never removed any guns from civilian possession. It restricted supply.
2. It had nothing to do with automatic/select fire/burst weapons. It only had to do with semi-automatic firearms.
3. People that most strongly support gun rights don't necessarily support President Bush and the Republican party.


If anyone cares, I'll be voting Badnarik this year. Screw the Republicrats.

Here, here!!!

I just think it's a little sad that people think they need to arm themselves against their own government in a country that's been a (more or less) stable democracy for around 200 years...I could understand if you lived in certain areas of the Middle East or Africa where military coups aren't uncommon, but America? I just can't get my head around the culture that has fostered this type of paranoia...I mean, why not take the next step - go live in a fortified bunker in the middle of the wilderness, just to be sure...

...honestly, I'm not trying to put you down, but I genuinely can't understand the mindset...

And I'm sorry for those that actually believe that the government actually knows what's best for them, and they accept it. But it's not my job to save them--especially if they don't want to be saved. Hell, I don't know what's best for you, either. Only you do.

The reason our government has been a stable democracy is because we've had our guns for all this time. Haven't you found it the least bit interesting that the most oppressive laws against our rights in the US have come during the last 20 years, and happens to coincide with the most gun legislation being passed? I certainly do. The grab for power has been slowly gaining ground for years.

That's how you do it--start the frogs in room temperature water, and slowly raise the heat until they're happily boiling.

I'm not a frog. I'm not going to stand by and let a nebulous body of folks I've never even met decide my fate like that. They don't rule me.

in response to your response about Iraq:

according to the 9/20 TIME magazine, the most trouble given to american soldiers had come from the Sunni triangle, which contains many former Saddam-loyalists, who most probably received at least Iraqi National Guard training, if not full military training.

in response to your second paragraph about resistance:

there is indeed, no chance of winning if unarmed, but there is also no chance of winning if armed. someone on your side made a comment about the government not being willing to attack its own support constituents, well, he was right in that way. plus, the chance of winning lies in a small part of the existing imperialist army refusing to obey, and then taking your side, which had happened in every major revolution (excluding, perhaps, the american, which was barely a revolution).

in response to your third paragraph:

so what? this doesn't show why we shouldn't have a ban on assault weapons.

in response to your fourth paragraph about Nazis:

had germans not been in support of hitler, he wouldn't have been voted in in the first place, and yes, indeed, propaganda caused german citizens to actually believe in hitler's lies. just look at how the jews were treated by average germans. the warsaw uprising was awesome, but it did virtually nothing, and even if there were more, there werent enough jews.

in response to your fifth paragraph about government fear:

government fears populaces armed with weapons that are good enough to work against them. the romans did not fear celt bronze longswords when they had iron swords and good organization, european kings did not fear peasants armed with pitchforks when they had knights, and now, the US does not fear people armed with miserable shotguns, pistols, and, if the assault weapon ban isnt renewed, AK's, because they have M-1 abrams, M-16's, and all sorts of gadgets that would kick your ass.

in response to your sixth paragraph about invasion:

if the government would do more to secure its borders, that might help (see TIME 9/20 edition)

in response to your seventh paragraph about self-defense:

actually, a way you could have done it is by using a) a taser (one of the newer ones that shoot decently, see "Collateral Damage" for use on the character Arnie acted), b) a paintball gun (both fun, safer than guns, and painful, or c) a bb-gun, cause that can hurt too.

see, your case does happen, but while that happens, there was a case on Feb. 29, 2000, at Mount Morris Township near Flint, Michigan, when a six year old, using his uncle's .32 caliber hand gun, shot fellow 6 year old classmate Kayla Rolland. this is serious. school shootings are most rampant in america, and so many guns were owned by parents, that it isnt even funny. you can protect yourself well enough with a taser, paintball gun, or bb-gun, without having side effects such as having your kid take the gun and shooting up the school. an accident or incident with a taser would at most seriously wound someone, but would rarely kill, and same with a paintball gun or bb-gun.

in response to your 8th paragraph:

i dont think you understood what i was saying. i was saying that background checks and waiting periods are good, at least, the best possible, but they do not prevent such things as accidents and gun stealing. i know they are constitutional, thank Earth.

in response to your 9th paragraph about suicides:

im sorry about having to use 1998 stats, but in 1998 there were 30,708 firearm deaths, 17,424 from suicide. alright, fine, there are a lot of suicides. but consider the other 13,284 deaths for a second. isn't that still much higher, percentage-wise, than other first world countries? after all, japan's firearm death rate is no more than 500 (about 1/26 of the US's), and it has more than 1/3 of america's population. japan bans guns.

in response to your 10th paragraph about government intrusion:

if you insist on getting a RPG, or whatever you think works on US army stuff, go ahead, get arrested.

in response to your conclusion:

the vast majority of americans SUPPORT gun-control. again, according to TIME magazine, 68% of americans say they support the assault weapon ban. get yourself a taser to protect yourself, and keep firearms away.

congrats to bungeria for making some excellent comments, and i think it's time for me to say something once again

it seems to me the pro-gun people have the following arguments:

1) Guns protect against the government:

i find this ridiculous. as bungeria explained, 250 years ago guns did work, as guns were limited to muskets, flintlock pistols, and cannons, which both civilians and military had (except the cannon thing, which is irrelevant, as cannons weren't good against people till the grapeshot, which came during Napoleon). the civilian-military technology gap increased as time went on. by the time AUTOMATIC (hint hint, subject at hand) weapons came out, the military had a huge advantage.

The technology gap isn't that dramatic. There are very few tanks, bombers, and fighter planes in the hands of civilians, but that doesn't matter that much. When government agents come to your house to take you, your guns, or other property away, they don't normally bring tanks. And, while there might be people in positions of power who get off on the idea of bombing people, I tend to think few, if any, of our pilots would follow such orders to bomb their countrymen.

Also, civilians did have cannons 250 years ago. In fact, many of the American rebel fighters had better firearms than the redcoats.




so you pro-gun people say, let the civilians had them too. but that won't solve anything. now, the military has tanks, armored humvees, and a whole lot of other technology that would rip civilians apart.

i heard the argument that untrained iraqi civilians doing very well against well armed americans. true, i do not deny it, but they arent untrained. ever wonder how so many, say, republican guards, escaped and werent found? well, here they are! many of the "untrained" civilians are former soldiers, foreign volunteers, and other more or less trained men.


That assume the government would just lauch total war against civilians shows a great deal of ignorance about history and politics.

Some of the Iraqi resistance may have recieved formal military training, but many have not and they're all poorly equiped, in comparison. The possible exception being that the AK-47 rifle is largely considered superior to our own M-16/M-4 rifle. The fact that our military (which is supposed to the best money can buy) uses inferior firearms speaks volumes about the nature of the military indurstrial complex.



this country's civil right status is already going to hell. guns will not help. if guns would help, then our civil rights should be good right now, as we are allowed to buy guns.

i heard something from someone saying, "i don't want a police-state". Well, how would you like a state in which people are shooting each other with assault weapons? fine, let's pretend they are reasonable. how would you like a military-state? you know, like Sparta.

oh, and, about the holocaust thing, well, Germans were in support of it, as they had been fanned by the fascists, and i dont think the 10 million jews or others would have done too well, even with guns, against the power of the weapon-SS, which had kicked around every continental European army for years.

is there any way in which the government can be affected by civilian guns?


Nobody's said that civilian gun ownership is some magic potion that keeps governments from infringing on other rights. People have to care about such things and act accordingly. Owning a gun doesn't mean you'll do anything to prevent losing your life or liberty to government thugs, it only means you can.

A military state is a police state. It's also one where people are shooting each other.

Say what you want about what the jews could've or would've done. You can't prove it, but can be proven is that their guns were confiscated first. Why do you think that might be?



2) Guns protect against foreign invasion:

this is a foolishly invalid argument. americans dont even have to be concerned about this at all the way things are going now.


You have no idea, do you. As we speak, there are American civilians on the southern border of Arizona defending against the invasion from the south. It's true that most of those crossing the border are basically harmless, but there are also drug and high-paying crossers with armed Mexican military escorts. There are shootouts, and my fellow Arizonans are keeping the foreign invaders out.


3) Guns protect individuals:

this is only partly true. indeed, by owning a gun, i would be protecting myself, but the person who wants to kill me will also be able to have a gun. the pro-gun people who, when faced with an anti-gun person, immediately talk about self-protection, forget that the person who is threatening you can get a gun too, and probably does have one. the second amendment lets ALL people have guns, and no matter how there are "background checks" and "tests" to see whether you are fit, the US civilian gun-death rate is still unbearably high. y? because many of the 2nd amendment protected guns are stolen, and there are frequent accidents in which the gun owner misfires and shoots him/herself, or a family member.

someone said this is irrelevant with crime rate, and just to clear that up, i wasn't talking about crime rate, i was talking about gun death-rate.

even if guns do help individuals protect themselves, there is no need for assault weapons, since you're not really protecting yourself from a band of theiving special forces. if you insist on "protecting yourself", then one gun, one bullet at a time, is really enough.

Come on people, there is absolutely no reason for letting civilians have assault weapons!

Do you know what an assault weapon is? Do you know how they were defined by the just expired ban? Did you know that magazines were limited to 10 round capacity?

I work with a guy who shot a man 11 times in the chest and shoulder with a .40 caliber pistol. The man who was shot not only survived, but was still able to walk to a nearby phone to call himself an ambulance. He was a very large man who was high on something. He's still alive, but lost the use of one of his arms. My point is that, in this case, 10 rounds wasn't enough to stop the guy. It took an "assault weapon" to stop him.

The guy I work with was apparently acting in self-defense, considering that he went to court and managed to avoid prison. He doesn't go anywhere without his pistol today.

i dont think you quite understood me the first time, and i will explain.

the technology gap is dramatic. if the government were to put down some kind of protest, such as the Tiananmen square protest, then their tanks would have a definite advantage, and a technology that the US army possesses is frightningly advanced. A molotov cocktail or fertilizer bombs would not really help, as newer models of M-1's can easily resist such weapons that are old and mostly useless.

i know few american soldiers would follow such orders, which is one of the reasons we dont really need the weapons to "protect ourselves against the government" in the first place. most successful revolutions did not require a population that had the "right to bear arms" anyway.

And, american civilians during the War for Independence did NOT have better weapons till the french came. the kentucky and brown bess muskets were about evenly matched, and the british certainly had more weapons. the gap back then wasnt as great as it is now, because both had muskets that had about the same range and same firepower, unlike civilian and military weapons of today.

i'm not the one assuming that the government is about to launch some large scale war on the people, if i were to do so, i would be a gun nut!

the AK-47 is inferior, actually, to the M-16/M-4. you might be thinking Vietnam era, which would have been true, but the AK-47 is really just the cheapest decent assault weapon nowadays. the M-16 is slightly less reliable, but improvements since the 70's have made it far more reliable. also, the fact the iraqi insurgents are poorly equipped just enforces the fact that there is a huge gap, and that they cannot bridge the gap with their pitiful arms.

And no, owning a gun doesnt mean you can prevent the government from becoming thugs, after all, look at the modern japanese government, they're nicely democratic, their citizens dont have guns, look at the english government, they also have a nice democracy, no guns, look at scandinavia, look at other modern european countries.

correct me if im wrong, but i dont think anyone in germany was allowed to own a gun back then, even before hitler.

i realize of the unfortunate case in southern US right now, but that just means the government isnt doing enough to stop them, and should be having a stronger border patrol force (i kno i mention TIME a lot, but please do read the article for 9/20)

about the guy your friend shot, you see, your friend could have prevented the guy from doing harm with one well placed bullet, or, if we all do the right thing, one taser shot, one paintball shot, or one bb shot. i think that out of the three (four if you include a non-assault weapon) the taser is the best option, but either way, an assault weapon is not necessary, or should be there, as the guy who your friend shot could easily have had a weapon of his own.

I hate this f***in' debate, it's become another dramatic stalemate. I guess we all have to wait until Progress takes its own course, and the conservatives are washed away just like they had been. Oh gee!

I quit from this debate! If anyone has any personal issues, or wants to send me some hatemail, my country is the One and Indivisible Soviet of Proletarian Continents, easily found in the New Communist International.

"The Revolution is not yet over, Comrades, you must carry on!" - Dr. Sun Yat-sen, on his deathbed in 1925.

This is the message I give to my valiant anti-gun comrades.

And I'm sorry for those that actually believe that the government actually knows what's best for them, and they accept it. But it's not my job to save them--especially if they don't want to be saved. Hell, I don't know what's best for you, either. Only you do.

The reason our government has been a stable democracy is because we've had our guns for all this time. Haven't you found it the least bit interesting that the most oppressive laws against our rights in the US have come during the last 20 years, and happens to coincide with the most gun legislation being passed? I certainly do. The grab for power has been slowly gaining ground for years.

That's how you do it--start the frogs in room temperature water, and slowly raise the heat until they're happily boiling.

I'm not a frog. I'm not going to stand by and let a nebulous body of folks I've never even met decide my fate like that. They don't rule me.
...I think you need a tinfoil hat more than you need a gun, to protect you from government mind control rays...:rolleyes:

...I think you need a tinfoil hat more than you need a gun, to protect you from government mind control rays...:rolleyes:

Considering previous events in the world where citizens were unarmed, than mercilessly slaughtered, I consider you reconsider your stand on the issue.

It is better to be safe than sorry.

You cannot trust the government to do what is best for you.

You cannot rely on others, including the police, to protect you.

And on the bit about the M16/a1/a2/a3/a4, every single variant of the original M16 is horrible. The feeding system is absolute shit, not to mention the fact that the 5.56mm NATO is a big joke; the same round we are using to kill enemies is sold as Varmint ammo at Wal*Mart for taking out gophers and squirrels. The M16 has been getting soldiers killed since Vietnam, and it needs to be stopped.

That being said, the Armed Forces needs to revert back to the M14, and submachineguns.

Get rid of the shitty M16, and replace it with a true rifle, the battle-tested M14. For an urban environment, revert to a submachinegun. I say the M1A1 Thompson could be brought back and put to good use, and would no doubt serve the soldiers better in the Middle-East than what the current M16 is doing.

A link for you:

http://www.rkba.org/research/fackler/wrong.html

Considering previous events in the world where citizens were unarmed, than mercilessly slaughtered, I consider you reconsider your stand on the issue.
...and I guess countries where citizens are armed are guaranteeed to be democratic paradises? Take a look around some African and South American countries where the civilians ARE armed - people's revolutions can be just as bloody as government and military coups...

of course some state laws still have these weapon bans in place... therefore the weapons are still illegal

doesnt mean im not gonna own them though

...I think you need a tinfoil hat more than you need a gun, to protect you from government mind control rays...:rolleyes:

Oooo! Thanks for reminding me <dons hat>

It is better to be safe than sorry.

You cannot trust the government to do what is best for you.

You cannot rely on others, including the police, to protect you.

And on the bit about the M16/a1/a2/a3/a4, every single variant of the original M16 is horrible. The feeding system is absolute shit, not to mention the fact that the 5.56mm NATO is a big joke; the same round we are using to kill enemies is sold as Varmint ammo at Wal*Mart for taking out gophers and squirrels. The M16 has been getting soldiers killed since Vietnam, and it needs to be stopped.

That being said, the Armed Forces needs to revert back to the M14, and submachineguns.

Get rid of the shitty M16, and replace it with a true rifle, the battle-tested M14. For an urban environment, revert to a submachinegun. I say the M1A1 Thompson could be brought back and put to good use, and would no doubt serve the soldiers better in the Middle-East than what the current M16 is doing.

A link for you:

http://www.rkba.org/research/fackler/wrong.html

The US is going to an new model, one that uses a 6.5mm (approximately) round. I forget who's making it, though.

EDIT: 6.8mm round.

It's just that people have no business owning a (full automatic) firearm. You have the police, you have the FBI, you have the CIA, you have a military. What protection do you want?


To be as nice as I can... you DUMB ASS. Don't tell me what I have any right owning. I may just very well want to take a fully auto gun (which by the way the ban has jack and shit to do with fully auto weapons which have been regulated since after the depression) to the range and have fun. I may want to shoot competitively with it. I may just want to mount it on a wall or use it to prop open my screen door.

Our founding fathers wrote all those amendments, not because they loved democracy, but because they hated it. They saw the need for every willing citizen to own a gun.

And guns don't kill people and more than a paintbrush just ups and paints a picture when no one is around. It is a tool.

...and I guess countries where citizens are armed are guaranteeed to be democratic paradises? Take a look around some African and South American countries where the civilians ARE armed - people's revolutions can be just as bloody as government and military coups...


I'm sure you're really smart when it comes to things like knitting, raising taxes and abortion. When it comes to comparing America to the world? At least compare us to Italy. England is another good choice. You can't compare us to Africa. They still sacrifice chickens to volcanoes over there and believe having more sex will cure AIDS. Americans are intelligent. Africans are not, except the one or two who will read this post and be offended. Oh well... truth hurts.

I can't resist saying something, cause the last two posts were really, no offense to anyone, idiotic. Prop open doors? What!?

Owning a gun is a responsibility, you can't just own one because you "may want to". I might want to own an M-1 Abram to drive to the nearest Stop and Shop, but that doesn't give me the right to. I know it's not about full-auto, but the 19 models that are going to be allowed are by no means safe.

I know a gun is a tool, but out of the near 300 million possible users of this tool, there are millions I can't trust.

Oh, and about the illegal immigrant thing. Since a lot of you are conservatives, I need to tell you that the corporations are responsible for trying to get these immigrants here, where they can be paid 5 cents an hour to work. The feds are in bed with the corporations, resulting in a pitifully weak border patrol.

Someone brought up civil right violations came roughly at the same time as gun control acts. Ironically, the PATRIOT Act, probably the biggest violations of our time, came during BUSH, as pro-gun president and conservative. I guess it's up to one group of republicans to shoot another...

What's with the insults on Africa? They're superstitions come from deeply rooted traditions, and the upholding of these traditions is called CONSERVATISM! Should you guys be rejoicing that at least someone in the world is against Progress?

Ignore the last paragraph if you find it weird, it's just one of my little sarcasm rants.

I just think it's a little sad that people think they need to arm themselves against their own government in a country that's been a (more or less) stable democracy for around 200 years...I could understand if you lived in certain areas of the Middle East or Africa where military coups aren't uncommon, but America? I just can't get my head around the culture that has fostered this type of paranoia...I mean, why not take the next step - go live in a fortified bunker in the middle of the wilderness, just to be sure...

...honestly, I'm not trying to put you down, but I genuinely can't understand the mindset...

The US has not been stable for 200 years. There was a little something that usually refered to as the Civil War. Over half a million Americans were killed by fellow Americans. That war forever changed the nature of the US federal government. Following that, the nature was again changed very dramatically under FDR. Today's US government didn't exist 200 years ago. Back then, the US Consitution was more or less followed. I would argue that the US is less stable than most of western Europe.

I think the reason we actually value the right to keep and bear arms has a little something to do with the how our country was founded. It all began with a pen and paper, but that paper wouldn't have had much impact if Americans were unarmed. Don't worry though, that revolutionary spirit isn't exactly alive and well. According to the polls, 2/3 Americans would support renewal of the so-called assault weapon ban.

I can say yes and no? I can follow in the tradition of great statesmen like John Kerry!

[snorts and giggles]

The ban did bugger all since a quick name change or vague changes to a gun's appearence often saved it from being banned. Which makes this a pointless law in of itself.

i dont think you quite understood me the first time, and i will explain.

the technology gap is dramatic. if the government were to put down some kind of protest, such as the Tiananmen square protest, then their tanks would have a definite advantage, and a technology that the US army possesses is frightningly advanced. A molotov cocktail or fertilizer bombs would not really help, as newer models of M-1's can easily resist such weapons that are old and mostly useless.

i know few american soldiers would follow such orders, which is one of the reasons we dont really need the weapons to "protect ourselves against the government" in the first place. most successful revolutions did not require a population that had the "right to bear arms" anyway.


You're arguing out of both sides of your mouth. You talk about all the military force the USG has, then concede that the people who operate the weapons won't necessarily use them against civilians. If that's true, your "resistance is futile" argument is flawed. And I think it is true, to an extent. I can't imagine that a US bomber pilot would bomb a US city, but in other circumstances federal agents will kill civilians.
Try a google search of "ruby ridge" or "waco branch davidians", and you'll find modern examples of US Federal agents murdering innocent civilians. What greater proof can anyone possibly need that government cannot be trusted with a monopoly of force?


And, american civilians during the War for Independence did NOT have better weapons till the french came. the kentucky and brown bess muskets were about evenly matched, and the british certainly had more weapons. the gap back then wasnt as great as it is now, because both had muskets that had about the same range and same firepower, unlike civilian and military weapons of today.

i'm not the one assuming that the government is about to launch some large scale war on the people, if i were to do so, i would be a gun nut!


Then why do you go on and on with the "resistance if futile" argument? This is the essence of what your saying. If the US Government cannot or will not put the full force of it's military and police against civilians or rebels or whatever, your argument is fataly flawed. There's also another bigger flaw. You're basically saying, "you're weapons are no match for the government's, therefore you need less". That's bass-ackwards. If, in fact, the American public is not well armed enough to resist its government, it needs more firepower, not less.


the AK-47 is inferior, actually, to the M-16/M-4. you might be thinking Vietnam era, which would have been true, but the AK-47 is really just the cheapest decent assault weapon nowadays. the M-16 is slightly less reliable, but improvements since the 70's have made it far more reliable. also, the fact the iraqi insurgents are poorly equipped just enforces the fact that there is a huge gap, and that they cannot bridge the gap with their pitiful arms.


It's a matter of opinion, I guess. From everything I understand, the AK is a fundamentally more reliable design. I am familiar with the M-16A2. I spent 4 years in the US Army. I can say for sure, today's M-16 is far from the most reliable weapon available today.



And no, owning a gun doesnt mean you can prevent the government from becoming thugs, after all, look at the modern japanese government, they're nicely democratic, their citizens dont have guns, look at the english government, they also have a nice democracy, no guns, look at scandinavia, look at other modern european countries.


Huh? Name a heavily armed civilian population that gets bossed around by government thugs.
Anyway, I have great respect for Japan and it's culture. There are many things about their way of life I would like to see in the US. However, I fear they have future lessons to learn the hard way.


correct me if im wrong, but i dont think anyone in germany was allowed to own a gun back then, even before hitler.

i realize of the unfortunate case in southern US right now, but that just means the government isnt doing enough to stop them, and should be having a stronger border patrol force (i kno i mention TIME a lot, but please do read the article for 9/20)


Of course the government isn't doing it's job. But when voting and excersising your right to speak freely doesn't change that, what do you expect people to do? You can't count on your government to protect you.


about the guy your friend shot, you see, your friend could have prevented the guy from doing harm with one well placed bullet, or, if we all do the right thing, one taser shot, one paintball shot, or one bb shot. i think that out of the three (four if you include a non-assault weapon) the taser is the best option, but either way, an assault weapon is not necessary, or should be there, as the guy who your friend shot could easily have had a weapon of his own.

You're high. What in the hell makes you think a guy can be stopped one bb shot, if 11 .40 caliber bullets can't knock the bastard out? I suppose you could kill a guy with a bb if you managed to fire it with a rail gun. BB guns aren't even considered weapons here.
And the guy did have a gun on his own. Why do you think he was shot in SELF-DEFENSE?

Just for the sake of being obnoxious :) I am going to point out that there is such a thing as an automatic sniper rifle.
Carlos Hatchcock, marine sniper from Vietnam, stated that one of his favorite sniper weapons was the .50 cal machine gun. It had an etremely long range, relatively flat trajectory over the course of the flight, very stable platform, a devestating punch, and such a slow cyclic rate that it was relatively easy to shoot one round at a time. He speaks of one time when seeing a kid pedaling a bicycle with a basket full of guns and ammunition he shoots out the front forks of the bicycle (rather than the kid) at about 2500 yards.

That is awesome. I had not heard of that. Not something I would carry, for its lack of mobility, but I might have to try that some time. :D

As much as all this disscussion is fun one thing that no one seems to consider is Switzerland.

Quick thing on violent crime: the US has a higher percentage than Britian of violent crime per person but Switzerland has less than Britian.

This is signifigant because the US lets lots of people own them but few have them with them <b>all the time</b>. Britian prevents people from owning guns but Switzerland allows people to keep the guns on them most of the time.

Think about it are you going to shoot someone when the likelyhood is that 90% of the people around you have a gun.

Disclaimer: All this information is skety or old and may be wrong or changed recently but the point is that if no one has an assualt weapon and <b>every single person is always carrying a pistol with them</b> few people are going to whip out a gun and kill someone since they will probably get killed.

Disclaimer 2: Yes anyone who is willing to commit suicide can easily kill someone, but as 9/11 showed they have that option without guns. And how can you hijack a plane if every single passenger has a 9mm in their jacket?

As much as all this disscussion is fun one thing that no one seems to consider is Switzerland.

Quick thing on violent crime: the US has a higher percentage than Britian of violent crime per person but Switzerland has less than Britian.

This is signifigant because the US lets lots of people own them but few have them with them <b>all the time</b>. Britian prevents people from owning guns but Switzerland allows people to keep the guns on them most of the time.

Think about it are you going to shoot someone when the likelyhood is that 90% of the people around you have a gun.

Disclaimer: All this information is skety or old and may be wrong or changed recently but the point is that if no one has an assualt weapon and <b>every single person is always carrying a pistol with them</b> few people are going to whip out a gun and kill someone since they will probably get killed.

Disclaimer 2: Yes anyone who is willing to commit suicide can easily kill someone, but as 9/11 showed they have that option without guns. And how can you hijack a plane if every single passenger has a 9mm in their jacket?
this is all assuming several things

1) everyone has the gun on them at all times
2) you actually know wtf is going on in switzerland
3) people would be inclined to shoot some one who busts out a pistol
4) people would be inclined to shoot some one after they shot some one
5) and who is going to use a 9mm on a plane? no one thats who.

at least you dont pretend automatic weapons create magical barriers and if everyone has them in their house they will never be robbed, even though everyone else has the same weapon and can break in and shoot you before you do anything

And, american civilians during the War for Independence did NOT have better weapons till the french came. the kentucky and brown bess muskets were about evenly matched, and the british certainly had more weapons. the gap back then wasnt as great as it is now, because both had muskets that had about the same range and same firepower, unlike civilian and military weapons of today.
I'd like to stick in my piece, once again. The Kentucky rifle was primarily for hunting. The fact is that the length of barrel, and the rifling, made the rifle extremely accurate, but hard to reload. The brown bess musket, on the other hand, had no rifling, and a significantly shorter barrel, making it good for the warfare of the times, lining up, letting off a volley, then kneeling and reloading while the line behind you shot. So, to comapare the two is somewhat like comparing a .308cal. sniper rifle to the standard 7.62x39 AK-47, or the .223 ar-15. It is all in the tactics.

You still don't get what I was trying to say.

The government would have a monopoly of force either way, regardless of assault weapons, because, as I have stated repeatedly before, tank armor or APC armor cannot be penetrated by assault weapons. Unless you're talking SMAW, you'll get your ass kicked.

And I do believe that soldiers would not follow orders to attack all civilians. Thus, my logic, which you can't seem to understand, is that the government would have a monopoly on force, but one that they would not be able to use, for soldiers are human too.

The attacks on civilians that you presented would not have been well prevented even if the civilians had guns. The government could easily have gasses people with assault weapons, such as the way the hostage crisis in Moscow was handled (not the recent one, the theatre one earlier on).

Basically, what I was saying is that 1) The government would not be able to fully mobilize the army against the people, and 2) if they did, were completely f***ed, no matter how many AK's or Uzi's we have, let alone 9mm's.

Let's forget the M-16 thing, as there are many different versions and professional analyses that tell of different things, and it really doesn't matter.

Actually, in response to your question "name a country with heavily armed...", I can say, former Saddam-controlled Iraq. Doesn't that sound ironic? They could buy AK-47's for $200, and most people had some kind of 7.62 mm rifle, if not automatic. They're were nicely oppressed weren't they?

The Mexican thing isn't all because of the feds, it's because of corporate pressure on the feds. As you know, our government is full of corporate whores, since corporations profit nicely from immigrants who can work for 5 cents an hour (still more than what they can earn in Mexico), so corporations pressure the feds to let many pass. The border patrol can't possibly do enough with what they have, and the government isn't trying, as the corporations tell it not to.

Oh, and about the bb thing, fine, I agree, bb's don't work that well, but at least we can agree that a paintball gun or taser would have worked nicely. If you know anything about tasers, they zap with much power, but rarely kill healthy people. I own a VL Orion semi-auto paintball gun, which shoots paintballs very nicely, and would at most shoot some's eye out, meaning I can't bring it to school and kill all my fellow students, but I could severely maim a Catholic child-f***er.

Oh, on the Switzerland thing, I used to live there, and no one carries guns, let alone on an airplane!

If you guys want some proof on why gun control works in Switzerland, click here:
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-switzerland.htm

If you don't want to read it, basically what it proves (using statistics) is that Switzerland does issue assault weapons to people, since it has a small army and needs a standing militia, but it also has STRICT gun controls, and the second highest handgun murder rate in the world (after the US), thus proving that Switzerland is not "the best example why guns work". Either way, Switzerland kind of does need the militia, since it has historically been surrounded by powers that fight all the time, and has too small of an army to survive.

You still don't get what I was trying to say.


Just because I strongly disagree with you doesn't mean I don't understand. I understand the "resistance is futile" problem, but my solution is opposite of yours. Yours is one of submission, mine is one of freedom.

Good point on Saddam Huissein, though.

Mine is not one of submission, mine is one of practicality.

Freedom is awesome, as long as it's safe.

And, by the way, I didn't mean the "Catholic" thing, and I think I'm far too old and ugly to be attracted by child-f***ers. Either way, I can protect myself fine with my paintball gun.

Either way, I can protect myself fine with my paintball gun.

You're joking, right?

Surely if you own a paintball gun to play paintball, you know that the only effect a paintball impact has is an "Ouch" and a "Tag!"?

Unless you routinely keep your marker set to riot-control pressure levels :-)

Craig

I can say yes and no? I can follow in the tradition of great statesmen like John Kerry!
But you really don't have what it takes to be President? :eek:

Actually, if I fire fast enough, it goes beyond "ouch" and "tag", it goes like "holy Sh** stop shooting at me if f***in hurts!"

Still, that is beyond the point, what I was saying is, I can protect myself with a taser OR paintball gun.

Satisfied?

Actually, if I fire fast enough, it goes beyond "ouch" and "tag", it goes like "holy Sh** stop shooting at me if f***in hurts!"

Still, that is beyond the point, what I was saying is, I can protect myself with a taser OR paintball gun.

Satisfied?

You are a damn fool if you think a paintball gun is adequate protection.
That would be like me hunting bear with a .22. If I was in your house attempting to steal something, and you shot me with a Tippman, I'd blow your damn head off. I wouldn't say "ohh please stop!". I'd just point, and pull the trigger. Of course I am never going to commit an act like that, but if you are going to shoot at a criminal, make it something lethal. You simply do not want them to be able to retaliate.


And would you believe that Oregon Police do not want their citizens to own tazers?

It is as if they do not want their citizens protecting themselves.

You are a damn fool if you think a painthball gun is adequate protection.

That would be like me hunting bear with a .22.

And would you believe that Oregon Police do not want their citizens to own tazers?

It is as if they do not want their citizens protecting themselves.
ever played paintball?

ever played paintball?

Yes, I have played paintball.

Chess Squares, let's have a little scenario at your house.

I get a .45, you get a Tippman.

Yes, I have played paintball.

Chess Squares, let's have a little scenario at your house.

I get a .45, you get a Tippman.
we arnt talking about a duel, we are talking about non lethal defense, and fine ill freeze the paintballs.

we arnt talking about a duel, we are talking about non lethal defense, and fine ill freeze the paintballs.

Non-lethal defense beyond tazers simply does not work with an armed criminal.

You go ahead and freeze your paintballs, I'll just grab a few more magazines of Hollow Points.

Non-lethal defense beyond tazers simply does not work with an armed criminal.

You go ahead and freeze your paintballs, I'll just grab a few more magazines of Hollow Points.
let me try this again

we are NOT dueling, and how do you know, has the situation ever come up for you? ever? have you EVER confrotned an armed criminal with a gun yourself? ever? or are you excersinig that republican psychic ability

Really i was reading all these articles on the internet that claim otherwise.
So either My sources from major t.v. stations (cnn,nbc,etc.) are wrong or you are.


The stations are wrong, this law, not the one that just passed, bans automatic weapons - http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/nfa.htm

Dubya, you seem to think that you can just come in my house, and I would point my VL Orion at you, and you point you 0.45 at me, and you shoot first.

That rarely happens.

Now, your .45 would probably be 2nd amendment protected (yuck).

Even if I had a .45, you would have the first shot if you came into my house (assuming I would be scrambling to protect myself, and you would be battle ready).

If you don't, I would start fingerin (don't get the wrong picture here) my trigger, shooting at you at about 5 (? maybe more) shots a second, as I'm not as good as some players are.

You would be reeling in pain, as I would either aim for the dick or face.

Dubya, you seem to think that you can just come in my house, and I would point my VL Orion at you, and you point you 0.45 at me, and you shoot first.

That rarely happens.

Now, your .45 would probably be 2nd amendment protected (yuck).

Even if I had a .45, you would have the first shot if you came into my house (assuming I would be scrambling to protect myself, and you would be battle ready).

If you don't, I would start fingerin (don't get the wrong picture here) my trigger, shooting at you at about 5 (? maybe more) shots a second, as I'm not as good as some players are.

You would be reeling in pain, as I would either aim for the dick or face.

When adrenaline is pumping in that kind of a situation, pain is lessened to a manageable degree (and yes, life and death situation ARE different than playing with paintball guns). That's why it sometimes takes several shots from an actual gun to knock people down.

Besides, if someone were to get the first shot off (just one!) with an actual firearm, you'd be ducking to save your behind (or you'd be freezing, since you might not have trained to react to something that loud).

Why are we comparing paintball guns to the real deal, anyway?

Your tazer has one shot to hit. How much to you train with it? Firearms hold a lot more ammo, and it's a lot easier to train with them. One tazer shot doesn't always do it, either.

Then there's that nifty thing about some states BANNING tazers.

When adrenaline is pumping in that kind of a situation, pain is lessened to a manageable degree (and yes, life and death situation ARE different than playing with paintball guns). That's why it sometimes takes several shots from an actual gun to knock people down.

Besides, if someone were to get the first shot off (just one!) with an actual firearm, you'd be ducking to save your behind (or you'd be freezing, since you might not have trained to react to something that loud).

Why are we comparing paintball guns to the real deal, anyway?

Your tazer has one shot to hit. How much to you train with it? Firearms hold a lot more ammo, and it's a lot easier to train with them. One tazer shot doesn't always do it, either.

Then there's that nifty thing about some states BANNING tazers.
well now they are developing area of effect tazers and tazer streams, so you can hit multiple targets at range (30-40ft) and don't have to be too accurate. Down side of course is that they aren't too accurate (e.g. they could affect people near the target, but hey ho at least you didn't kill em.

I'm all for non-lethal deterrence, when it can hit the reliability statistics of a firearm.

But, it still doesn't address those states that ban tazers.

Is anyone concerned about area-of-effect weapons? And fully-auto firearms are not area-of-effect. They're extremely fast--still not a one shot, knock down many, though. The tool listed above is the equivalent of a non-lethal grenade (for the majority of targets--tazers still can kill). I thought most of you didn't want that type of thing.
I'd prefer to get hit by accident by a police tazer or the tazer of some deranged nut than accidentaly hit by a JHP 9mm.

well now they are developing area of effect tazers and tazer streams, so you can hit multiple targets at range (30-40ft) and don't have to be too accurate. Down side of course is that they aren't too accurate (e.g. they could affect people near the target, but hey ho at least you didn't kill em.

I'm all for non-lethal deterrence, when it can hit the reliability statistics of a firearm.

But, it still doesn't address those states that ban tazers.

Is anyone concerned about area-of-effect weapons? And fully-auto firearms are not area-of-effect. They're extremely fast--still not a one shot, knock down many, though. The tool listed above is the equivalent of a non-lethal grenade (for the majority of targets--tazers still can kill). I thought most of you didn't want that type of thing.

Ban all guns, so there won't be a semi/full discussion. What the big difference anyway? You pull the trigger -> a bullet fires from the gun. With full-auto the bullets keep firing, but why would anyone need that?

Congrats Bush! You just made your country a little less safe!
Pretty soon it'll be legal to kill someone and claim that the person was an enemy combatant

I'd prefer to get hit by accident by a police tazer or the tazer of some deranged nut than accidentaly hit by a JHP 9mm.

Don't have a pacemaker, do ya? :)

hmm i was shocked to read that the ban of automatic weapons
was not "renewed"(???) i come from a country were all firearms are illegal
( ecxept hunting rifles of course) even knifesn are iololegal if they are bigger
than (7cm??? including butterfly knifes )
I did fire a weapon during military training and must admit i dont feel comfortable around firearms whatever way they are pointed
and would prefer to leave shooting to professionals

hmm i was shocked to read that the ban of automatic weapons
was not "renewed"(???) i come from a country were all firearms are illegal
( ecxept hunting rifles of course) even knifesn are iololegal if they are bigger
than (7cm??? including butterfly knifes )
I did fire a weapon during military training and must admit i dont feel comfortable around firearms whatever way they are pointed
and would prefer to leave shooting to professionals
Fine, feel free to leave the shooting to professionals, and to people who chose to exorcise their rights.

And the ban that expired had nothing to do with automatic weapons. I think that has been pointed out about a billion times so far in the different threads... just a little light reading there.

Chess, if you feel safer with a paintball gun by all means, you use a paintball gun.

Everyone who feels they are safer with a paintball gun, feel free to use a paintball gun for personal defense.

However, dont try to force your opinions on others who chose to exorcise their rights.

We dont try to force you to own a firearm, dont try to force us to get rid of ours.

[QUOTE=TheOneRule]Chess, if you feel safer with a paintball gun by all means, you use a paintball gun.

Everyone who feels they are safer with a paintball gun, feel free to use a paintball gun for personal defense.[QUOTE]

No way, everyone needs to get an automatic Airsoft FN P90 with a silencer and a laser sight! This will severely hamper crime because, you know, it's very scary and military looking and that means that its 6MM BBs are severely more dangerous than the 9MM the other guy has.

No way, everyone needs to get an automatic Airsoft FN P90 with a silencer and a laser sight! This will severely hamper crime because, you know, it's very scary and military looking and that means that its 6MM BBs are severely more dangerous than the 9MM the other guy has.
See? Sometimes americans can get sarcasm... at least I got it.

Chess, if you feel safer with a paintball gun by all means, you use a paintball gun.

Everyone who feels they are safer with a paintball gun, feel free to use a paintball gun for personal defense.

However, dont try to force your opinions on others who chose to exorcise their rights.

We dont try to force you to own a firearm, dont try to force us to get rid of ours.
No, but you force an excess of firearms onto the American market by flexing your "rights"...and the flowon effect from this, whether you can see it or not, is more guns in the hands of criminals - not to mention that previously law-abiding gun owners DO commit violent crimes with legally owned weapons.

You say we are trying to force you how to live your life - I say your lifestyle is forcing others to live with fear and with greater amounts of violence...

*whining voice* But criminals will always get guns...*sigh*

I give up - crouch in your bunkers with your M60s for all I care - heck, put claymores in your front yard. It's painfully apparent that some people just cannot see other's point of view...

No, but you force an excess of firearms onto the American market by flexing your "rights"...and the flowon effect from this, whether you can see it or not, is more guns in the hands of criminals - not to mention that previously law-abiding gun owners DO commit violent crimes with legally owned weapons.

You say we are trying to force you how to live your life - I say your lifestyle is forcing others to live with fear and with greater amounts of violence...

*whining voice* But criminals will always get guns...*sigh*

I give up - crouch in your bunkers with your M60s for all I care - heck, put claymores in your front yard. It's painfully apparent that some people just cannot see other's point of view...
As not a single one of my guns has ended up in the hands of any criminals, nor have I even been investigated for any sort of violent crime, no, my lifestyle has no affect whatsoever on anyone else, outside my family.

And as for not seeing other's point of view.... speaking for yourself as well I see.

As not a single one of my guns has ended up in the hands of any criminals, nor have I even been investigated for any sort of violent crime, no, my lifestyle has no affect whatsoever on anyone else, outside my family.And your case is representative of every gun owner? Oh I forgot - as long as you're OK, to hell with everyone else outside of your family fortress...And as for not seeing other's point of view.... speaking for yourself as well I see.Yes, actually I was...
http://a.abcnews.com/media/SciTech/images/at_infinity_040304_nh.jpg

let me try this again

we are NOT dueling, and how do you know, has the situation ever come up for you? ever? have you EVER confrotned an armed criminal with a gun yourself? ever? or are you excersinig that republican psychic ability

I know people who have done so, and I deserve the right to do the same.

guys, i dont wanna offend any conservative sensibilities, but...

i hear the argument that these guns owned by civilians can protect against invasions, or oppression by the federal government. i laugh at you if you can really believe this

how would you like to, say, try to use, a "legally-protected" AK-47, to try to shoot an M-1 Abram?

im just trying to say that the thought that these guns would protect u against the might of the entire imperialist army of the US is a totally ridiculous idea. even if the army wasnt using tanks, the well-trained soldiers would kick your asses.

.


I'll say it once, i'll say it again... I do believe citizens deserve the right to own whatever the government does, be it tanks, attack helicopters, stinger missiles, or RPGs.

no, people should not own a gun

Then come and take mine, and take the 80 million legally owned guns too. That won't cause a civil war.... :rolleyes:

let me try this again

we are NOT dueling, and how do you know, has the situation ever come up for you? ever? have you EVER confrotned an armed criminal with a gun yourself? ever? or are you excersinig that republican psychic ability

I know people who have done so, and I deserve the right to do the same.

Are you actually ridiculous enough to think that people should own what the government owns?

Well, then, kids similar to those at Columbine High would be blowin' each other up with grenades stolen from their parents instead of normal guns, and you would see Greens like me LAW'in your fuckin' gas-guzzlin' SUV's.

You wanna see that? Do you have any idea how fuckin' crazy this country will get?

Oh, and you skeptics of tasers and paintballs, I wish I could show you the pain involved in those two.

I guess I will have to stick to words...

I'm sure you all know how a taser works. Point, aim, shoot, zap. Electrical shock to the victim, doesn't usually kill except in cases of heart problems and such. Good defense weapon.

I'm also pretty sure you all know paintball guns. When I talk about one, I'm saying something from $50 to $150, not one of those thousand dollar beauties, but more like, Tippman, Spyder, or Viewloader (all affordable). I also mean semi-automatic. Now, these guns shoot as fast as your fingers can pull the trigger, and I think most people can at least get 3 shots per second. If I'm protecting myself, I would probably shoot faster than usual, and I wouldn't care about how much pain I would be causing. Usually a shot to any body part causes a bruise, but if I keep shooting I could cause many, and if I get lucky I could blind you, as the pressure from the paintball can squeeze your eyeballs into liquid.

See, I realize firearms provide protection, but they are also far more lethal than tasers and paintball guns. There are many cases when legal guns provided protection, but also many cases when legal guns were used to kill innocents. As a student, I naturally fear school shootings, even though Massachusetts is one of the safest states. There have been so many cases of school shootings or other shootings in which legal guns were used.

Think about it, if those kids were using tazers, or paintball guns, they might have caused injuries, but would not as likely have killed their victims. Doesn't that make sense to you guys?

And the gun owners who protected themselves, they could have easily defended themselves by shocking the intruder, or causing a lot of pain with a paintball gun.

The trade-off works, people!

Are you actually ridiculous enough to think that people should own what the government owns?

Well, then, kids similar to those at Columbine High would be blowin' each other up with grenades stolen from their parents instead of normal guns, and you would see Greens like me LAW'in your fuckin' gas-guzzlin' SUV's.


So, you'd seriously do that, if you had a rocket? Please answer truthfully. If so, you're the one that needs his head examined. If not, you're with the VAST majority of firearms owners, in that we don't go on rampages, just because we have the weapon.


You wanna see that? Do you have any idea how fuckin' crazy this country will get?


I think you're a bit off your logic rocker if you think that everyone would go nuts as soon as the metal hit their hands....


Oh, and you skeptics of tasers and paintballs, I wish I could show you the pain involved in those two.

I guess I will have to stick to words...

I'm sure you all know how a taser works. Point, aim, shoot, zap. Electrical shock to the victim, doesn't usually kill except in cases of heart problems and such. Good defense weapon.


Gotta hit first, and their range is much more limited.


I'm also pretty sure you all know paintball guns. When I talk about one, I'm saying something from $50 to $150, not one of those thousand dollar beauties, but more like, Tippman, Spyder, or Viewloader (all affordable). I also mean semi-automatic. Now, these guns shoot as fast as your fingers can pull the trigger, and I think most people can at least get 3 shots per second. If I'm protecting myself, I would probably shoot faster than usual, and I wouldn't care about how much pain I would be causing. Usually a shot to any body part causes a bruise, but if I keep shooting I could cause many, and if I get lucky I could blind you, as the pressure from the paintball can squeeze your eyeballs into liquid.


If I recognize that it's a paintball gun, I would sure as hell step up and shoot with lead, regardless of how many hits I'd take(really, how good are you that you can hit something the size of a half-dollar, each and every time, when someone else is shooting at you?).


See, I realize firearms provide protection, but they are also far more lethal than tasers and paintball guns.


They also have a better record with protection and effectiveness in stopping threats.


There are many cases when legal guns provided protection, but also many cases when legal guns were used to kill innocents. As a student, I naturally fear school shootings, even though Massachusetts is one of the safest states. There have been so many cases of school shootings or other shootings in which legal guns were used.


Define SO many. Seriously. Hundreds? Thousands? Or a helluva lot fewer than that?


Think about it, if those kids were using tazers, or paintball guns, they might have caused injuries, but would not as likely have killed their victims. Doesn't that make sense to you guys?


Your heart's in the right place. However, you can't pre-emptively strip someone of their rights when they haven't done anything wrong.


And the gun owners who protected themselves, they could have easily defended themselves by shocking the intruder, or causing a lot of pain with a paintball gun.

The trade-off works, people!

No, it doesn't. Firearms stop more crimes than they "cause" (since that's how everyone seems to see it). Hell, tazers are illegal in Wisconsin. I'd be completely disarmed, then.

I've actually defended myself with a paintball gun, it doesn't work too well.

Are you actually ridiculous enough to think that people should own what the government owns?

Well, then, kids similar to those at Columbine High would be blowin' each other up with grenades stolen from their parents instead of normal guns, and you would see Greens like me LAW'in your fuckin' gas-guzzlin' SUV's.


:eek: In other words, "if you let me have weapons, I'll use them to commit crimes"



You wanna see that? Do you have any idea how fuckin' crazy this country will get?

Oh, and you skeptics of tasers and paintballs, I wish I could show you the pain involved in those two.


If paintball guns and tasers were adequate for self-defense, cops wouldn't need to carry guns.

If paintball guns and tasers were adequate for self-defense, cops wouldn't need to carry guns.
cops carry guns because they have to assume everyone has a gun, and they are engaging people at range. remove all guns and paintball guns and tasers and bill clubs will work, billy clubs are just fun anyway

Dubya, you seem to think that you can just come in my house, and I would point my VL Orion at you, and you point you 0.45 at me, and you shoot first.

That rarely happens.

Now, your .45 would probably be 2nd amendment protected (yuck).

Even if I had a .45, you would have the first shot if you came into my house (assuming I would be scrambling to protect myself, and you would be battle ready).

If you don't, I would start fingerin (don't get the wrong picture here) my trigger, shooting at you at about 5 (? maybe more) shots a second, as I'm not as good as some players are.

You would be reeling in pain, as I would either aim for the dick or face.


I can shoot just as fast as you can, but unlike your VL Orion, my gun shoots bullets.

You shoot me in the head with the paintball gun, and I can still kill you.

You shoot me in the crotch, and perhaps the family line would stop with me, but I could still kill you.

Would you prefer me to be dead so I cannot harm you or your loved ones, or in pain but still holding a lethal weapon in my hand?

I myself know I'd take a dead goblin over a live one in my house any day of the week.

If paintball guns and tasers were adequate for self-defense, cops wouldn't need to carry guns.

... well, in London the cops don't have guns, where's your problem with that?

I can shoot just as fast as you can, but unlike your VL Orion, my gun shoots bullets.

You shoot me in the head with the paintball gun, and I can still kill you.

You shoot me in the crotch, and perhaps the family line would stop with me, but I could still kill you.

Would you prefer me to be dead so I cannot harm you or your loved ones, or in pain but still holding a lethal weapon in my hand?

I myself know I'd take a dead goblin over a live one in my house any day of the week.
Now imagine you both would not have weapons. What does the burglar/intruder/whatever do? Run or knock down the protector. Either option is not very lethal. Both are human lives which both are reluctant to give their own or take the others.

So what would be safer? No guns, or with guns?

Ban arms? - Of course! Only the military and my personal Death Guards are allowed to own weaponry. What sort of monarch allows peasants to own weapons?

What do you think this is? Wales?

This all comes from republicanism. Don't think we didn't warn you. Once you let the serfs have a say in day to day affairs and the running of the nation, all Hell breaks loose. Pretty soon they'll want to be paid to farm. Utter chaos!

Besides. They shouldn't have what they don't need. Televisions, cars, sweaters and multiple daily meals are all unnecessary trifles. You're only going to spoil your workforce rotten with such hedonistic Western ways.

Now imagine you both would not have weapons. What does the burglar/intruder/whatever do? Run or knock down the protector.

You silly little man. The only reason that burglar is stealing is because you let the peasants accumulate wealth. Not many successful chicken thieves around. Besides, our Death Guards publically execute thieves not part of an established and Crown-approved thieves' guild.

Someone who I actually trust.

The police, FBI, CIA, and Military are some of the reasons we need weapons for ourselves, so we don't end up dissapearing in the middle of the night.

lol, Amerika turns Nazi-state. FBI and CIA fuse and rename itself into Gestapo...

And what if we were invaded what would happen then?
Well, WE have the army to protect us from invasions...

Now imagine you both would not have weapons. What does the burglar/intruder/whatever do? Run or knock down the protector. Either option is not very lethal. Both are human lives which both are reluctant to give their own or take the others.

So what would be safer? No guns, or with guns?

Something that hasn't been said (or may have, I'm operating on four hours of sleep right now):

When someone breaks into my house or attacks me, their rights are now forfeit.

They aren't equal, they aren't respected. While I'd try to just stop them (not automatically shooting with the intent to kill, but still aiming for the center of mass--yeah, there really is a difference), I'm not going to pull any punches, so to speak. If they die, so be it. They made the ininformed decision to attack someone armed.

I call that Darwinism.

Well, WE have the army to protect us from invasions...

And who's going to protect you from the standing army that we're not actually supposed to have?

Quote:
So, you'd seriously do that, if you had a rocket? Please answer truthfully. If so, you're the one that needs his head examined. If not, you're with the VAST majority of firearms owners, in that we don't go on rampages, just because we have the weapon

I guess you guys don't understand sarcasm. I do hate SUV's, but I would rather work to ban gas guzzlers through legislature than through RPGs/LAWs.

I'm not saying you WILL go on rampages, but you CAN, and there are thousands of cases when some people DO!

Quote:
They also have a better record with protection and effectiveness in stopping threats.

They also have a better record with killing people, as America has the greatest percentage of handgun murders in the world.

Quote:
Define SO many. Seriously. Hundreds? Thousands? Or a helluva lot fewer than that?

Hundreds, maybe thousands now, and you can add that to the thousands of handgun murders every year.

Quote:
Your heart's in the right place. However, you can't pre-emptively strip someone of their rights when they haven't done anything wrong.

I'm not stripping anyone of their rights, I'm using COMMON SENSE, the kind that other people in other countries (first world, mind you), that America seems to lack (oh wait, I forgot, 68% of America is for the assault weapon ban)

Quote:
If I recognize that it's a paintball gun, I would sure as hell step up and shoot with lead, regardless of how many hits I'd take(really, how good are you that you can hit something the size of a half-dollar, each and every time, when someone else is shooting at you?).

I'm not saying I would hit the same place again and again, but I could cause so much pain the first dozen times I pull the trigger, that you will be hurt badly.

Quote:
No, it doesn't. Firearms stop more crimes than they "cause" (since that's how everyone seems to see it). Hell, tazers are illegal in Wisconsin. I'd be completely disarmed, then.

Yes it does. Firearms cause more crimes. I don't think tasers should be illegal.

Moving on...

Quote:
I can shoot just as fast as you can, but unlike your VL Orion, my gun shoots bullets.
You shoot me in the head with the paintball gun, and I can still kill you.
You shoot me in the crotch, and perhaps the family line would stop with me, but I could still kill you.
Would you prefer me to be dead so I cannot harm you or your loved ones, or in pain but still holding a lethal weapon in my hand?
I myself know I'd take a dead goblin over a live one in my house any day of the week.

Why is it you seem to think that getting hit by a paintball gun is like nothing? Would you like a taste?

Quote:
And who's going to protect you from the standing army that we're not actually supposed to have?

Well, the Iraqi civilians had plenty of guns back during Saddam days, and it didn't seem to help them very much...

Quote:
Something that hasn't been said (or may have, I'm operating on four hours of sleep right now):
When someone breaks into my house or attacks me, their rights are now forfeit.
They aren't equal, they aren't respected. While I'd try to just stop them (not automatically shooting with the intent to kill, but still aiming for the center of mass--yeah, there really is a difference), I'm not going to pull any punches, so to speak. If they die, so be it. They made the ininformed decision to attack someone armed.
I call that Darwinism.

Yeah well, too bad, their previous "rights" probably already had guaranteed them a nice 9mm to kill you with.

I find the idea of people opposed to their own army in the USA baffling - do you really believe local militias can conceivably defend a nation as well as an organised, standing army?

Something that hasn't been said (or may have, I'm operating on four hours of sleep right now):

When someone breaks into my house or attacks me, their rights are now forfeit.

They aren't equal, they aren't respected. While I'd try to just stop them (not automatically shooting with the intent to kill, but still aiming for the center of mass--yeah, there really is a difference), I'm not going to pull any punches, so to speak. If they die, so be it. They made the ininformed decision to attack someone armed.

I call that Darwinism.

I genuinely pity you if you value your DVD player over someone's life, even a criminals...

Newsflash - the VAST majority of home breakins are committed by unarmed intruders who simply want to snatch something of value and get out as fast as they can. There aren't hordes of "Son of Sam" or "Nightstalker" murderers out there battering down people's doors.

Rehashing (again) but some food for thought -

1. No guarnatee that the gun YOU introduce to a scenario won't end up being used on you and your family, in what otherwise may have been a simple grab and run...

2. No guarantee that you don't get twitchy and blow the hell out of poor old cousin Bob who you forgot you gave a housekey to...

3. No guarantee that your kids (if any) won't take daddy's shiny 9mm out of the draw to play with, despite how much time you have spent teaching him gun safety...

4. No guarantee that an armed burglar who would have simply tied you up and left with your valuables won't be scared for his own life when he sees that you are packing too, and a shootout ensues...

-----

No, I am not asking people to simply cower in fear and allow people to ransack their homes at any time. Get a guard dog; get a security system; get better locks and security shutters; get a taser or mace (if they aren't legal in your state, that should be of greater concern to you than gun control); keep a baseball bat next to your bed, if you feel you need to; have the police on speed dial on your landline and cellphone...there are a lot of better, less lethal and more effective home defense solutions than a gun in the nightstand...

1. No guarnatee that the gun YOU introduce to a scenario won't end up being used on you and your family, in what otherwise may have been a simple grab and run...


It is a choice weather to introduce a gun to the scenario or not. Personally, if I were allowed a firearm for self defence, my action on hearing an intruder would be to secure myself in my room and load my gun.

Then if they are just smashing and grabbing, I don't have to confront them, but if they are after me I have one extra option than I did before.


2. No guarantee that you don't get twitchy and blow the hell out of poor old cousin Bob who you forgot you gave a housekey to...


See above.


3. No guarantee that your kids (if any) won't take daddy's shiny 9mm out of the draw to play with, despite how much time you have spent teaching him gun safety...


Yeah, no guarantee that they leave the car alone either. Or the medicine cupboard, the knives.

If you can't rely on your kids following safety instructions then you shouldn't be comfortable with the hundreds of things around your home that can do harm.

Another point: Someone who hates guns, but who has never fired one in their life, will probably bring up the kids the same way. This gives guns a sort of "forbidden fruit" image, and if these kids stumbled across a gun, they'd be naturally curious and probably pick it up (not knowing any gun-safety because of the father).

Whereas some hunters take their kids out and teach them to shoot a .22 safely when they are 8 years old.

Which kids do you think would be better around firearms?


4. No guarantee that an armed burglar who would have simply tied you up and left with your valuables won't be scared for his own life when he sees that you are packing too, and a shootout ensues...


See above.


No, I am not asking people to simply cower in fear and allow people to ransack their homes at any time. Get a guard dog; get a security system; get better locks and security shutters; get a taser or mace (if they aren't legal in your state, that should be of greater concern to you than gun control); keep a baseball bat next to your bed, if you feel you need to; have the police on speed dial on your landline and cellphone...

Dogs are impractical for a lot of properties (mine included).
Security systems aren't likely to be much help when you are at home.
Tasers or mace are illegal in my country too...
Trying to use a baseball bat for the defence of your life is a hell of a gamble
and the police sure as hell won't get there in time to save you.

[QUOTE=New Fubaria]
there are a lot of better, less lethal and more effective home defense solutions than a gun in the nightstand...

Less lethal I will give you, but "better" and "more effective" are subjective and entirely dependant on the circumstances.

For me, a firearm for self defence simply gives you an extra option.

Yes, I would call the police, I would love to be able to have a taser or mace as a first option, no I wouldn't shoot someone if they don't threaten me.

But in the end, I'd rather have that option than not. When used properly, the risks to you are very small and you are protecting the most important thing you have.

If it were legal: Lock on the bedroom door, shotgun unloaded in the bedside table (locked at daytime), air taser in holster on side of bed.

Yes or no?

Cheers,
Craig

Actually, I can agree with a lot of what you say:

It is a choice weather to introduce a gun to the scenario or not. Personally, if I were allowed a firearm for self defence, my action on hearing an intruder would be to secure myself in my room and load my gun.

Then if they are just smashing and grabbing, I don't have to confront them, but if they are after me I have one extra option than I did before.
Extremely sensible - the only difference is I would do the same, but without a gun. Unfortunately, that is not what a lot of others seem to be putting forward - a lot are saying (or implying, at least) that they would actively confront the intruder.
Yeah, no guarantee that they leave the car alone either. Or the medicine cupboard, the knives.

If you can't rely on your kids following safety instructions then you shouldn't be comfortable with the hundreds of things around your home that can do harm.

Very true. I believe that around young children, all of these things (and guns) should be kept in a secure area that kids cannot readily reach. Most people who keep a gun for home defence tend to keep it somewhere within easy reach, such as in a nightstand drawer or under the bed. Additionally, all of the things you list are less likely to result in instant death than guns. Medicine poisoning, cuts and even car crashes are less likely to result in instant death than a gunshot wound to the abdomen or head, allowing parents or anyone else a greater chance to discover and save the child. But I do see your point.
Another point: Someone who hates guns, but who has never fired one in their life, will probably bring up the kids the same way. This gives guns a sort of "forbidden fruit" image, and if these kids stumbled across a gun, they'd be naturally curious and probably pick it up (not knowing any gun-safety because of the father).

Whereas some hunters take their kids out and teach them to shoot a .22 safely when they are 8 years old.

Which kids do you think would be better around firearms?
True, the kids taught how to use a gun safely would generally be better. Although, children are never 100% predictable. In my personal opinion, guns are too dangerous to simply trust kids to do the right thing. If I had kids, I would keep my firearms in a guns safe just to be sure (which I do anyway, as it is required by law where I live, even though I have no kids).
Dogs are impractical for a lot of properties (mine included).
Security systems aren't likely to be much help when you are at home.
Tasers or mace are illegal in my country too...
Trying to use a baseball bat for the defence of your life is a hell of a gamble
and the police sure as hell won't get there in time to save you.
OK, I have to take you to task with some of these. No, a dog will not always be practical depending on where you live. And yes, security systems (depending on the exact type) are more designed for when you are not at home. But better locks and security shutters etc. are more effective than guns, for the simple reason that if they are more likely to stop the intruder from getting into your home in the first place. With the baseball bat, it will be enough to deter all but the most determined of intruders. This also goes back to the point of actively seeking out the intruder, or securing yourself. If you are actively seeking the intruder, than yes, a bat is a risky propisition. But so is a gun. In the confined space of most houses, you will often find yourself in arms reach of the intruder when you first see him. This could easily result in a wrestling match for the gun - and which is more dangerous - two people wrestling for control of a gun, or a baseball bat?
If you don't believe that the cops in your neighborhood can respond to a home intrusion fast enough to make a difference, I think you should be lobbying your government for better funding, training and personnel for your police force. I realise that the cops aren't going to appear out of thin air as soon as you finish dialling, but if you have barracaded yourself in your bedroom, called the cops, and yell out "the police are on their way!", I would like to think it will make a big difference to the potential outcome.
Assuming you have kids that you cannot barracade in with you, well, that's a different story. But if the intruder is on your kids rooms, do you really trust yourself, pumped up with adrenaline and just out of a deep sleep, to start firing with your child potentially in the line of fire? I would feel much better charging him with my fists or the ubiqutous b'ball bat - naturally, after calling the police.
Less lethal I will give you, but "better" and "more effective" are subjective and entirely dependant on the circumstances.

For me, a firearm for self defence simply gives you an extra option.

Yes, I would call the police, I would love to be able to have a taser or mace as a first option, no I wouldn't shoot someone if they don't threaten me.

But in the end, I'd rather have that option than not. When used properly, the risks to you are very small and you are protecting the most important thing you have.

If it were legal: Lock on the bedroom door, shotgun unloaded in the bedside table (locked at daytime), air taser in holster on side of bed.

Yes or no?
Again, I agree with most of your points. But I think you will find many "guns for home defense" advocates here would disagree with you. That's the whole point with gun control, and most other laws - unfortunately, you have to frame the laws with the most irresponsible individuals in mind, not the most responsible.

Actually, I can agree with a lot of what you say:


Extremely sensible - the only difference is I would do the same, but without a gun. Unfortunately, that is not what a lot of others seem to be putting forward - a lot are saying (or implying, at least) that they would actively confront the intruder.

Very true. I believe that around young children, all of these things (and guns) should be kept in a secure area that kids cannot readily reach. Most people who keep a gun for home defence tend to keep it somewhere within easy reach, such as in a nightstand drawer or under the bed. Additionally, all of the things you list are less likely to result in instant death than guns. Medicine poisoning, cuts and even car crashes are less likely to result in instant death than a gunshot wound to the abdomen or head, allowing parents or anyone else a greater chance to discover and save the child. But I do see your point.

True, the kids taught how to use a gun safely would generally be better. Although, children are never 100% predictable. In my personal opinion, guns are too dangerous to simply trust kids to do the right thing. If I had kids, I would keep my firearms in a guns safe just to be sure (which I do anyway, as it is required by law where I live, even though I have no kids).

OK, I have to take you to task with some of these. No, a dog will not always be practical depending on where you live. And yes, security systems (depending on the exact type) are more designed for when you are not at home. But better locks and security shutters etc. are more effective than guns, for the simple reason that if they are more likely to stop the intruder from getting into your home in the first place. With the baseball bat, it will be enough to deter all but the most determined of intruders. This also goes back to the point of actively seeking out the intruder, or securing yourself. If you are actively seeking the intruder, than yes, a bat is a risky propisition. But so is a gun. In the confined space of most houses, you will often find yourself in arms reach of the intruder when you first see him. This could easily result in a wrestling match for the gun - and which is more dangerous - two people wrestling for control of a gun, or a baseball bat?
If you don't believe that the cops in your neighborhood can respond to a home intrusion fast enough to make a difference, I think you should be lobbying your government for better funding, training and personnel for your police force. I realise that the cops aren't going to appear out of thin air as soon as you finish dialling, but if you have barracaded yourself in your bedroom, called the cops, and yell out "the police are on their way!", I would like to think it will make a big difference to the potential outcome.
Assuming you have kids that you cannot barracade in with you, well, that's a different story. But if the intruder is on your kids rooms, do you really trust yourself, pumped up with adrenaline and just out of a deep sleep, to start firing with your child potentially in the line of fire? I would feel much better charging him with my fists or the ubiqutous b'ball bat - naturally, after calling the police.

Again, I agree with most of your points. But I think you will find many "guns for home defense" advocates here would disagree with you. That's the whole point with gun control, and most other laws - unfortunately, you have to frame the laws with the most irresponsible individuals in mind, not the most responsible.


Good points. I keep most of my guns locked up. I do however keep one loaded within reach of the bed. My kids at this time are too little to do anything w/ it. When they get older I'm going to indoctrinate them thouroughly on gun safety and the repercussions of "horse-play" .

One point I disagree w/ you partly on is the police response time issue. I live in a rural area about 15 min. from the local police. Others I know are even more remote. This area is also a prime meth center w/ a large amount of drug related crimes. That, combined w/ the near out of control coyote population makes it sensible locally to keep a firearm handy.

I guess you guys don't understand sarcasm. I do hate SUV's, but I would rather work to ban gas guzzlers through legislature than through RPGs/LAWs.

I'm not saying you WILL go on rampages, but you CAN, and there are thousands of cases when some people DO!


I do understand sarcasm, but I wanted to make a point.

There aren't thousands of rampages. There are thousands of individual instances. Quit sensationalizing. You are smart enough to go around killing people with a knife and not get caught, but for some reason, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, and trusting that you won't go and do that. Why can't you do the same?


They also have a better record with killing people, as America has the greatest percentage of handgun murders in the world.


Like I said, I want the best thing to defend myself and stop my attacker. Should they die in the process--I'm not exactly worried about some scum that would try to attack me. But I'm not trying to kill them. I'm trying to stop them.


Hundreds, maybe thousands now, and you can add that to the thousands of handgun murders every year.


Thousands of school shootings??? You sure you live in the US? That's what I was asking you to point to. I know how many people are killed by PEOPLE that use firearms. But there are VERY few school shootings.


I'm not stripping anyone of their rights, I'm using COMMON SENSE, the kind that other people in other countries (first world, mind you), that America seems to lack (oh wait, I forgot, 68% of America is for the assault weapon ban)


You ARE trying to strip rights. If you were using common sense, you'd stop being afraid of what people "might" do, as opposed to what people ARE doing. Penalize those that actually break the laws. Not penalize pre-emptively. You're scared of furniture on firearms, too? The ban had nothing to do with the capabilities of those firearms.


I'm not saying I would hit the same place again and again, but I could cause so much pain the first dozen times I pull the trigger, that you will be hurt badly.


Then you don't really know what adrenaline does in a life-or-death situation. If it can take several bullets to take someone down, paintballs aren't going to be nearly as effective.


Yes it does. Firearms cause more crimes.


Firearms cause fewer crimes than are prevented with them.


I don't think tasers should be illegal.


Neither do I.


Why is it you seem to think that getting hit by a paintball gun is like nothing? Would you like a taste?


We don't. However, it's only pain. Pain can be overcome by will alone. It takes more than just will to overcome cavity wounds. I have been hit by a paintball. Yeah, it smarts, but by no means debilitating.


Well, the Iraqi civilians had plenty of guns back during Saddam days, and it didn't seem to help them very much...


Different mentality. Plus, the US was helping Saddam! Completely different scenario. And, don't forget that I'm one of those that thinks we should be keeping relative pace with our military's weapons.


Yeah well, too bad, their previous "rights" probably already had guaranteed them a nice 9mm to kill you with.

No, their previous rights guaranteed a 9mm to defend themselves with. Not to attack. I thought that was obvious by now. No one has the right to pre-emptively attack. Only defend. Being in someone else's house uninvited is threatening.

You know, your sarcasm doesn't help your arguments one whit, and it's a shame you resort to them, instead of keeping it civil.

I find the idea of people opposed to their own army in the USA baffling - do you really believe local militias can conceivably defend a nation as well as an organised, standing army?

Defend a nation? Yes. Attack other nations? No.

I genuinely pity you if you value your DVD player over someone's life, even a criminals...


Pity away, I don't really care if you waste your energy. I worked for the things I have, and if someone comes into my house, I don't know if they are stealing something, stealing something and killing the witnesses, or just there to kill. I'm not really interested in finding out, while they try to kill me.


Newsflash - the VAST majority of home breakins are committed by unarmed intruders who simply want to snatch something of value and get out as fast as they can. There aren't hordes of "Son of Sam" or "Nightstalker" murderers out there battering down people's doors.


And I'm not willing to take the chance of giving them the opportunity to draw down on me. They are on my property, damaging the things I've spent effort to obtain. They know they're not supposed to be there. They get a second chance? No.


1. No guarnatee that the gun YOU introduce to a scenario won't end up being used on you and your family, in what otherwise may have been a simple grab and run...


No guarantee, but that's a very small chance, given my and my wife's level of training.


2. No guarantee that you don't get twitchy and blow the hell out of poor old cousin Bob who you forgot you gave a housekey to...


Heh, funny you should mention that. I can name every single person I've given a key to my place. It's a very rare occurance. There are all of four keys not in my direct possession. And they don't just drop by in the middle of the night--cause, gee, they know I have guns.


3. No guarantee that your kids (if any) won't take daddy's shiny 9mm out of the draw to play with, despite how much time you have spent teaching him gun safety...


No kids. And during the day, the firearms are all snug in their safes, or on me. And yes, kids that are taught about firearms at an early age, are much less likely to use them in a toy sense.


4. No guarantee that an armed burglar who would have simply tied you up and left with your valuables won't be scared for his own life when he sees that you are packing too, and a shootout ensues...


That's why you still use tactics. And make sure that first shot hits. Unless they have night-vision goggles, you have the advantage in your own home.


No, I am not asking people to simply cower in fear and allow people to ransack their homes at any time. Get a guard dog; get a security system; get better locks and security shutters; get a taser or mace (if they aren't legal in your state, that should be of greater concern to you than gun control); keep a baseball bat next to your bed, if you feel you need to; have the police on speed dial on your landline and cellphone...there are a lot of better, less lethal and more effective home defense solutions than a gun in the nightstand...

I have all but the security shutters and dog. I want as much defensive capability as I possibly can. That means including the firearm. It's the last line of defense. And yes, you always call 911 first. It's a nice recording device, for the trial, when the scumbag, or the scumbag's family comes for you in court.

Your opinions on how self-defense work for you are only better because you deem them so, and that's fine. But you alone. You can't force someone else to use what works for you, and maybe not for them. Why won't you guys get that through your heads? It's all about controlling others that we're against. And that's exactly what you're trying to do. You don't have that right.

Well...the weapons is now history and there has been no rush to run out and buy the things. There is no anarchy in the streets. The whole thing has been a real let down for those who were so sure that this would be the downfall of society.

Well...the weapons is now history and there has been no rush to run out and buy the things. There is no anarchy in the streets. The whole thing has been a real let down for those who were so sure that this would be the downfall of society.

Yeah, but with no rush, it could be stated that we don't actually want the weapons in the first place. :(

For me, I'm waiting for PRICES to drop. :D

... well, in London the cops don't have guns, where's your problem with that?

What part of imaginary London were YOU in? I've spent about five weeks in London over the past two years, and have seen armed police EVERY DAY I've been there. True, a lot of them were in front of Parliament, but I spent a very enjoyable lunch break talking to a London motorcycle cop about the merits of 40 S&W over 9mm Glocks (he was carrying a Glock). He was bowled over by the fact that he's got more range time than the average cop from Illinois.

And he's got a standing invitation to come over and fire mt 20mm BOYS antitank rifle any time he's in the states...

To those who still think guns prevent more crimes that they cause, here are some sites with some stats.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/8Comparison.htm
(Look in the CRIME section)

http://www.drugwardistortions.org/distortion13.htm

And no, I didn't say there are thousands of school shootings a year, I said there are thousands in total. Either way, handgun murders and armed robberies are much higher in the US.

And what I meant by rampages is that if we allowed people to own RPG's, LAW's, and whatever other weapons they need to "protect themselves against the government", there will easily be such rampages.

You seem to think that guaranteeing someone the right to buy a gun but not giving the right to murder will prevent him from murdering. Some people just don't care about the law, and will happily pop someone dead with the 9mm he bought some weeks ago. I know you will say that despite banning guns people will still get them, but there will be a lot less supply, and thus less use of the guns.

And to those who still think guns protect you against the government, I urge you to look at Iraq, when Saddam was in power. They had the guns, all 7.62 mm, some even automatic, but they were oppressed.

I was using sarcasm because of my natural reaction to your arguments, not because I want to use them to reinforce my own arguments.

Today the Gun ban on certain guns expired. (there is a poll) That allows certain weapons such as uzi's, AK-47's, etc. (anything with full-auto capability) To be sold i want to here some opinions to this such as this is not a good idea or this is a bad idea and then explain your reasoning.

You dont know what your talking about. The assult weapon ban NEVER stopped people from buying ANY of the above weapons, it just made them harder to get.

ALSO, the ban you speak of was against weapons that LOOK Like assult weapons, not weapons that ARE assult weapons.

And what I meant by rampages is that if we allowed people to own RPG's, LAW's, and whatever other weapons they need to "protect themselves against the government", there will easily be such rampages.

You seem to think that guaranteeing someone the right to buy a gun but not giving the right to murder will prevent him from murdering. Some people just don't care about the law, and will happily pop someone dead with the 9mm he bought some weeks ago. I know you will say that despite banning guns people will still get them, but there will be a lot less supply, and thus less use of the guns.


Right. Like prohibition worked at killing the supply of alcohol. Banning doesn't work in the US, period. We're a nation of people that don't like to be told what to do. You ban drugs, there's the black market. Pretty easy to get drugs. Same goes for weapons. LA, DC, and NY--where do those guns come from? They aren't all stolen from legal owners. Not even the majority are. Yet, still they're there. How's that possible? Because even if the guns are banned (or severely regulated) the criminals STILL get a hold of them. It will not decrease the illegal supply.

What would make rockets be more likely to cause someone to go on a rampage? That's just your fear talking. There is nothing that an object can do, to cause a mental shift in a person's morals. The majority of people who don't go out on rampages with rifles now are just as likely to still not go out on rampages if they had a rocket launcher.

I do not think giving rights to own guns but not the right to not murder will stop murder. People are going to kill, regardless the weapon available. That's human nature. However, those rights listed in the constitution are for individuals to be able to protect themselves from those that do kill and oppressive governments. You seem to keep missing that point.


And to those who still think guns protect you against the government, I urge you to look at Iraq, when Saddam was in power. They had the guns, all 7.62 mm, some even automatic, but they were oppressed.


But he also didn't have 60 million gun-owners fighting against him, either.


I was using sarcasm because of my natural reaction to your arguments, not because I want to use them to reinforce my own arguments.

So, when you come across someone that won't accept your viewpoint, you automatically go snide on them? That's a mature method of debate?

Sorry about the tardiness of this response, I've had a lot of homework this week, mostly AP course related.

Quote:
Right. Like prohibition worked at killing the supply of alcohol. Banning doesn't work in the US, period. We're a nation of people that don't like to be told what to do. You ban drugs, there's the black market. Pretty easy to get drugs. Same goes for weapons. LA, DC, and NY--where do those guns come from? They aren't all stolen from legal owners. Not even the majority are. Yet, still they're there. How's that possible? Because even if the guns are banned (or severely regulated) the criminals STILL get a hold of them. It will not decrease the illegal supply.

Indeed, but guns are a different case. Many countries, such as France, England, Spain, and others used to allow guns in households. In later periods of the 19th century and early 20th century, guns were taken away, and there was no massive black market for them. Progressives understand when a law is too outdated. A lot of the weapons in the cities you mention are stolen from legal sources, even though, you are right, many are illegal. Yet, countries that HAVE banned guns do not have such a huge market. This also has to do with how progressive the nation's society is in total. I pity this nation, and I'm glad Massachusetts is one of the safer and most liberal states.

Quote:
What would make rockets be more likely to cause someone to go on a rampage? That's just your fear talking. There is nothing that an object can do, to cause a mental shift in a person's morals. The majority of people who don't go out on rampages with rifles now are just as likely to still not go out on rampages if they had a rocket launcher.

People will not more likely go on rampages. You are right. BUT, the amount of damage they do will be DRASTICALLY increased. Just think about it. How much damage does a bullet do in comparison with a RPG?

Quote:
I do not think giving rights to own guns but not the right to not murder will stop murder. People are going to kill, regardless the weapon available. That's human nature. However, those rights listed in the constitution are for individuals to be able to protect themselves from those that do kill and oppressive governments. You seem to keep missing that point.

I understand what you are saying. BUT, by giving them guns, you are making murder FAR EASIER, since a gun is much more deadly than a knife (or whatever else they could use to kill). And, I have proved many times, the "right" listed in the Constitution (a little outdated of a document by the way), do not protect you against the government. And you can protect against those that do kill in other ways.

Quote:
But he also didn't have 60 million gun-owners fighting against him, either.

Actually, most Iraqi civilians did own guns, and I believe there would be millions of civilian gun owners if you did a tally. Proportionally, they had just as many gun owners (and I mean percent) as America.

Quote:
So, when you come across someone that won't accept your viewpoint, you automatically go snide on them? That's a mature method of debate?

No, that's not what I meant, I meant that I was being sarcastic because that is, unfortunately, the humorous part of my nature, and I apologize if you don't like it.

One last comment before I have to outline a chapter in my AP US History book, a "civil right" is a right that is ABSOLUTELY needed, an inseparable and unalienable right. Owning guns is not such a right, as demonstrated by many other democratic countries in the world.

Indeed, but guns are a different case. Many countries, such as France, England, Spain, and others used to allow guns in households. In later periods of the 19th century and early 20th century, guns were taken away, and there was no massive black market for them. Progressives understand when a law is too outdated. A lot of the weapons in the cities you mention are stolen from legal sources, even though, you are right, many are illegal. Yet, countries that HAVE banned guns do not have such a huge market. This also has to do with how progressive the nation's society is in total. I pity this nation, and I'm glad Massachusetts is one of the safer and most liberal states.


I don't pity the nation. We're actually able to defend ourselves (well, sorta--a great many of our options have been greatly hobbled, due to gun legislation).


People will not more likely go on rampages. You are right. BUT, the amount of damage they do will be DRASTICALLY increased. Just think about it. How much damage does a bullet do in comparison with a RPG?


Yes, a rocket with some kind of payload can do more damage. However, the argument was that it doesn't matter what the weapon is, it's not more or less likely to cause someone to go out and use it.


I understand what you are saying. BUT, by giving them guns, you are making murder FAR EASIER, since a gun is much more deadly than a knife (or whatever else they could use to kill). And, I have proved many times, the "right" listed in the Constitution (a little outdated of a document by the way), do not protect you against the government. And you can protect against those that do kill in other ways.


The whole reason the 2nd amendment was created was to protect us from our own government. If I have all options open to me, I'll take the tool that has the proven record at stopping people from continuting an attack.


Actually, most Iraqi civilians did own guns, and I believe there would be millions of civilian gun owners if you did a tally. Proportionally, they had just as many gun owners (and I mean percent) as America.


Hmm. No. Before 1990, Iraq had the fourth largest army in the world (I believe that was the stat I read). Now, considering that they didn't have 300 million people, I think the proportion of private gun owners to military was a bit skewed in Saddam's favor. Now, anyone is free to do the research and prove it either way.


No, that's not what I meant, I meant that I was being sarcastic because that is, unfortunately, the humorous part of my nature, and I apologize if you don't like it.


Coming back with something nasty isn't funny. It's nasty. Sarcasm generally doesn't have any sort of light-hearted tone to it. It's meant to be biting and rather condescending.

sar·casm Audio pronunciation of "sarcasm" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (särkzm)
n.
1. A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound.
2. A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.
3. The use of sarcasm. See Synonyms at wit1.

It's not a matter of don't like. I have issues with attacks. Go figure.


One last comment before I have to outline a chapter in my AP US History book, a "civil right" is a right that is ABSOLUTELY needed, an inseparable and unalienable right. Owning guns is not such a right, as demonstrated by many other democratic countries in the world.

Or maybe it's those that refuse to recognize it, further subjugating their populations. The right to defend oneself is an unalienable right. Gun control infringes upon that right. And we're not a democracy, remember?

Out of interest, you know that basically any semi-auto weapon can be easily converted to full-auto by anyone with some basic machine tools and an ounce of knowledge. I won't go into the "how" of it, but trust me, it's very easy. Anyway, that's not strictly relevant to this debate, I guess...

Out of interest, you know that basically any semi-auto weapon can be easily converted to full-auto by anyone with some basic machine tools and an ounce of knowledge. I won't go into the "how" of it, but trust me, it's very easy. Anyway, that's not strictly relevant to this debate, I guess...
Not any, but many can. Most aren't designed for the functionality, so doing so is a pointless excercise anyway. It can be amusing though, I once saw a fully automatic .45 handgun.

Ok, I guess the debate hasn't ended.

Quote:
I don't pity the nation. We're actually able to defend ourselves (well, sorta--a great many of our options have been greatly hobbled, due to gun legislation).

Yeah, and I guess that is why America has the highest handgun murder rate in the world, and while those who love civil rights don't want guns, those who want to limit civil rights (gay marriage ban, Patriot Act) scream for more guns.

Quote:
Yes, a rocket with some kind of payload can do more damage. However, the argument was that it doesn't matter what the weapon is, it's not more or less likely to cause someone to go out and use it.

A big part of the gunny feeling is the macho factor. People just FEEL stronger with a gun in their hands, and would feel even better with an RPG. With that feeling of power, there is usually a feeling of arrogance, and other bad things that come. Plus, do you think that an RPG can actually blow up a tank in one shot? Not unless the shooter is extremely lucky. My point is, the feeling of power causes the feeling of arrogance, pride, and can easily lead to aggressive behavior. Even if they aren't more likely to use it, the casualty toll due to weapons in this country would rise, and it would rise greatly.

Quote:
The whole reason the 2nd amendment was created was to protect us from our own government. If I have all options open to me, I'll take the tool that has the proven record at stopping people from continuting an attack.

Yeah, back in the "good old days", when everyone used muskets. That TOOL, also has a proven record of causing the greatest number of handgun murders in a country in the world.

Quote:
Hmm. No. Before 1990, Iraq had the fourth largest army in the world (I believe that was the stat I read). Now, considering that they didn't have 300 million people, I think the proportion of private gun owners to military was a bit skewed in Saddam's favor. Now, anyone is free to do the research and prove it either way.

http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/primer-iraq.cfm

This has more facts. Even if it was more powerful before 1990, after 1990 the people supposedly should have been able to overthrow him, right? I guess not.

Quote:
Coming back with something nasty isn't funny. It's nasty. Sarcasm generally doesn't have any sort of light-hearted tone to it. It's meant to be biting and rather condescending.

sar·casm Audio pronunciation of "sarcasm" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (särkzm)
n.
1. A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound.
2. A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.
3. The use of sarcasm. See Synonyms at wit1.

It's not a matter of don't like. I have issues with attacks. Go figure.

And your point is? I mean, after all, we are arguing about GUNS, not sarcasm.

Quote:
Or maybe it's those that refuse to recognize it, further subjugating their populations. The right to defend oneself is an unalienable right. Gun control infringes upon that right. And we're not a democracy, remember?

So England, France, Sweden, Spain, and many other renowned democracies, "subjugate their populations"? The right to defend oneself is fine, but it doesn't have to be done with guns. Guns are a poor excuse of "self-defense". I realize you good intentions, but I'm afraid there are too many out there who don't have the same intentions with guns.

American democracy has been hurt more by pro-gun people than anti-gun people. Feel free to argue with me about that.

[QUOTE=Proletarian Continents]Ok, I guess the debate hasn't ended.

Quote:
I don't pity the nation. We're actually able to defend ourselves (well, sorta--a great many of our options have been greatly hobbled, due to gun legislation).

Yeah, and I guess that is why America has the highest handgun murder rate in the world, and while those who love civil rights don't want guns, those who want to limit civil rights (gay marriage ban, Patriot Act) scream for more guns.

Quote:
Yes, a rocket with some kind of payload can do more damage. However, the argument was that it doesn't matter what the weapon is, it's not more or less likely to cause someone to go out and use it.

A big part of the gunny feeling is the macho factor. People just FEEL stronger with a gun in their hands, and would feel even better with an RPG. With that feeling of power, there is usually a feeling of arrogance, and other bad things that come. Plus, do you think that an RPG can actually blow up a tank in one shot? Not unless the shooter is extremely lucky. My point is, the feeling of power causes the feeling of arrogance, pride, and can easily lead to aggressive behavior. Even if they aren't more likely to use it, the casualty toll due to weapons in this country would rise, and it would rise greatly.

Quote:
The whole reason the 2nd amendment was created was to protect us from our own government. If I have all options open to me, I'll take the tool that has the proven record at stopping people from continuting an attack.

Yeah, back in the "good old days", when everyone used muskets. That TOOL, also has a proven record of causing the greatest number of handgun murders in a country in the world.

Quote:
Hmm. No. Before 1990, Iraq had the fourth largest army in the world (I believe that was the stat I read). Now, considering that they didn't have 300 million people, I think the proportion of private gun owners to military was a bit skewed in Saddam's favor. Now, anyone is free to do the research and prove it either way.

http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/primer-iraq.cfm

This has more facts. Even if it was more powerful before 1990, after 1990 the people supposedly should have been able to overthrow him, right? I guess not.

Quote:
Coming back with something nasty isn't funny. It's nasty. Sarcasm generally doesn't have any sort of light-hearted tone to it. It's meant to be biting and rather condescending.

sar·casm Audio pronunciation of "sarcasm" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (särkzm)
n.
1. A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound.
2. A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.
3. The use of sarcasm. See Synonyms at wit1.

It's not a matter of don't like. I have issues with attacks. Go figure.

And your point is? I mean, after all, we are arguing about GUNS, not sarcasm.

Quote:
Or maybe it's those that refuse to recognize it, further subjugating their populations. The right to defend oneself is an unalienable right. Gun control infringes upon that right. And we're not a democracy, remember?

So England, France, Sweden, Spain, and many other renowned democracies, "subjugate their populations"? The right to defend oneself is fine, but it doesn't have to be done with guns. Guns are a poor excuse of "self-defense". I realize you good intentions, but I'm afraid there are too many out there who don't have the same intentions with guns. American democracy is hurt, not by liberals who don't like guns, but by conservatives policies that limit other ESSENTIAL freedoms.

Yeah, and I guess that is why America has the highest handgun murder rate in the world, and while those who love civil rights don't want guns, those who want to limit civil rights (gay marriage ban, Patriot Act) scream for more guns.


Funny, I don't have anything against any consenting adults doing anything with any other consenting adults. I'm also heavily against the Patriot Act. I don't care about the actual handgun murder rate--when you have a country with guns, there will be a gun murder rate. I'm care about the statistics showing that more crimes are stopped with firearms than murders committed with them. That's the important figure. I love rights just as much as the next--I'm a Libertarian. Just because you like guns doesn't mean you want rights stripped. Now, the right to not live in fear ever is NOT a right. The right to defend yourself IS.


A big part of the gunny feeling is the macho factor. People just FEEL stronger with a gun in their hands, and would feel even better with an RPG.


Your own experience, or your own assumption? My weapon is my mind. I just choose to use effective tools. I don't feel stronger with a gun. I feel a bit safer, due to my hours of range time and pratice.


With that feeling of power, there is usually a feeling of arrogance, and other bad things that come.


Oh geez...more assumptions. I was confident in my abilities well before I ever owned a firearm.


Plus, do you think that an RPG can actually blow up a tank in one shot? Not unless the shooter is extremely lucky. My point is, the feeling of power causes the feeling of arrogance, pride, and can easily lead to aggressive behavior. Even if they aren't more likely to use it, the casualty toll due to weapons in this country would rise, and it would rise greatly.


Maybe it does for you. I know I'm stronger than my wife. Does that mean I get aggressive with her? Funny, for some reason, I don't. It may lead to aggressive behavior on your part, but not mine.


Yeah, back in the "good old days", when everyone used muskets. That TOOL, also has a proven record of causing the greatest number of handgun murders in a country in the world.


The availability of the item doesn't create anything. It's the people who are willing to use it in such a fashion.


This has more facts. Even if it was more powerful before 1990, after 1990 the people supposedly should have been able to overthrow him, right? I guess not.


The didn't resist--at least not anything organized.


And your point is? I mean, after all, we are arguing about GUNS, not sarcasm.


My point is, I haven't leveled any attacks at you, and you decide to go be a jerk, just because you think it's a side-effect of your sense of humor. That's my point. You add barbs to your argument, you discredit yourself AND your argument.


So England, France, Sweden, Spain, and many other renowned democracies, "subjugate their populations"?


No offense intended for the Europeans, but some political historians or sociologists would say they've been ruled for so many years that the obey behavior is almost ingrained on certain subjects. They may elect their leaders, but the leaders still rule. The US is a country founded on rebellion. We don't like being told what to do. We constantly fight it.


The right to defend oneself is fine, but it doesn't have to be done with guns. Guns are a poor excuse of "self-defense".


In your opinion only. For statistical comparissons, they work better than any other weapon for stopping an attack.


I realize you good intentions, but I'm afraid there are too many out there who don't have the same intentions with guns. American democracy is hurt, not by liberals who don't like guns, but by conservatives policies that limit other ESSENTIAL freedoms.

See, there's the rub. You're trying to control a population because you're uncomfortable with an object. That's the problem I have with your viewpoint. You don't have any inherent rights to tell me what to do, unless I'm actually infringing upon yours. Your level of discomfort with me owning and using a firearm is not protected by a right. You get to choose to own and carry, or not. That's it.

Here we go again...

Quote:
"Funny, I don't have anything against any consenting adults doing anything with any other consenting adults. I'm also heavily against the Patriot Act. I don't care about the actual handgun murder rate--when you have a country with guns, there will be a gun murder rate. I'm care about the statistics showing that more crimes are stopped with firearms than murders committed with them. That's the important figure. I love rights just as much as the next--I'm a Libertarian. Just because you like guns doesn't mean you want rights stripped. Now, the right to not live in fear ever is NOT a right. The right to defend yourself IS."

I've already showed you the statistics, but here they are again:
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/8Comparison.htm
Go to the CRIME section.

I never said you don't have the right to defend yourself, you can go get a taser if you want. Still if you assume that all guns are used in self defense, you are wrong, take another look at the stats. Remember, you wouldn't be the only one with a gun.

Quote:
"Your own experience, or your own assumption? My weapon is my mind. I just choose to use effective tools. I don't feel stronger with a gun. I feel a bit safer, due to my hours of range time and pratice."

Good for you, but YOU are ASSUMING that your case is like the case of every gun owner in America. That, however, is not the case. Not every gun owner is some kind of angel who only fires in defense. People do feel stronger with a gun. Ever seen the play "Bang-bang, you're dead"? It explains some more.

Quote:
"Oh geez...more assumptions. I was confident in my abilities well before I ever owned a firearm."

Oh geez, more assumptions that you are the only case that is absolutely correct, that every gun owner is like you.

Quote:
"Maybe it does for you. I know I'm stronger than my wife. Does that mean I get aggressive with her? Funny, for some reason, I don't. It may lead to aggressive behavior on your part, but not mine."

You usually don't get aggressive with someone you love, usually with someone you hate, and THAT is why people get aggressive, enough to use a firearm. And that was what I was trying to say.

Quote:
"The availability of the item doesn't create anything. It's the people who are willing to use it in such a fashion."

Yes yes, the classical pro-gun argument. But you are wrong to ASSUME that you can keep people from willingly using the tools, especially when you make the item so available. By banning guns, there will indeed be a black market, but the availability will be MUCH less (as proven by other non-gun nations in the world).

Quote:
"The didn't resist--at least not anything organized."

Actually, after the first Gulf War, both the Shiites and the Kurds had uprisings, which ended in failure. Proof that guns don't really work, especially not against strong government (even when weaker than before) forces.

Quote:
"My point is, I haven't leveled any attacks at you, and you decide to go be a jerk, just because you think it's a side-effect of your sense of humor. That's my point. You add barbs to your argument, you discredit yourself AND your argument."

So now you level attacks at me and call me a jerk? Fine, I don't care.

Quote:
"No offense intended for the Europeans, but some political historians or sociologists would say they've been ruled for so many years that the obey behavior is almost ingrained on certain subjects. They may elect their leaders, but the leaders still rule. The US is a country founded on rebellion. We don't like being told what to do. We constantly fight it."

Wait, so the leaders aren't supposed to rule? Everyone has been ruled for many years, just that both Europe and the US have had democracies. And in both places, people vote, and leaders rule. If you think Europeans never have rebellions and revolutions, you are most definitely wrong. France has had many, Spain has had a few, Germany also. England is relatively docile, but then it has had them. The US has had the American "Revolution" which can barely be considered a revolution, and yes, some rebellions (Shays's, Whiskey), but either less or same in amount. The US does not "constantly" fight it. I kind of wish it would.

Quote:
"In your opinion only. For statistical comparissons, they work better than any other weapon for stopping an attack."

For statistical comparisons, look above.

Quote:
"See, there's the rub. You're trying to control a population because you're uncomfortable with an object. That's the problem I have with your viewpoint. You don't have any inherent rights to tell me what to do, unless I'm actually infringing upon yours. Your level of discomfort with me owning and using a firearm is not protected by a right. You get to choose to own and carry, or not. That's it."

Well, at least my discomfort is proven by some statistics. Well, at least I live in a relatively gun-free state, MA, whose crime rates are about average. I'm not infringing on your rights, I'm just making sure guns are out of reach of those who shouldn't have them. If you want to "protect yourself", do get a taser of some kind...

Somehow I don't think this debate will ever end...

Somehow I don't think this debate will ever end...

You're right. It won't ever end, due to the fact that you fail to see that you are trying to control me and what I do, when I have yet to do anything to prove that I'm a menace to society, in any sense.

You are attacking my rights and my freedom--because you're scared of an object. Sorry, you're scared of what an object can do in the hands of someone "evil".

So, this is your justification for infringing everyone else's (the vast majority) rights--because less than one percent may use them for nefarious purposes.

I say it's time to concentrate on the larger threats that kill more law-abiding people (yes, I'm implying that a great many deaths by firearms are committed against criminals by their own peers).

Here we go again...

I've already showed you the statistics, but here they are again:
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/8Comparison.htm
Go to the CRIME section.

I never said you don't have the right to defend yourself, you can go get a taser if you want. Still if you assume that all guns are used in self defense, you are wrong, take another look at the stats. Remember, you wouldn't be the only one with a gun.

When guns are used responsibly 2,000,000 times every year defensively, that shows the vast majority of gun owners are indeed as responsible with their ownership as Zaxon.

Good for you, but YOU are ASSUMING that your case is like the case of every gun owner in America. That, however, is not the case. Not every gun owner is some kind of angel who only fires in defense. People do feel stronger with a gun. Ever seen the play "Bang-bang, you're dead"? It explains some more.

When guns are used responsibly 2,000,000 times every year defensively, that shows the vast majority of gun owners are indeed as responsible with their ownership as Zaxon.

Oh geez, more assumptions that you are the only case that is absolutely correct, that every gun owner is like you.

When guns are used responsibly 2,000,000 times every year defensively, that shows the vast majority of gun owners are indeed as responsible with their ownership as Zaxon.

You usually don't get aggressive with someone you love, usually with someone you hate, and THAT is why people get aggressive, enough to use a firearm. And that was what I was trying to say.

But your own statistics dont bare that out. This is a nation of 300,000,000. Amazingly enough, there isn't more violence. As in the old definition of stress: Stress is where the brain overrides the bodies desire to choke the ever loving shit out of someone who desperately deserves it.

Yes yes, the classical pro-gun argument. But you are wrong to ASSUME that you can keep people from willingly using the tools, especially when you make the item so available. By banning guns, there will indeed be a black market, but the availability will be MUCH less (as proven by other non-gun nations in the world).

Yea, and the availability of drugs in this country is SO much less with the ban on them isn't it :rolleyes:

Actually, after the first Gulf War, both the Shiites and the Kurds had uprisings, which ended in failure. Proof that guns don't really work, especially not against strong government (even when weaker than before) forces.

He said organized. The major difference is that Saddam's troops had no objection to killing their own people. Saddam's systematic torture, raping, killing of his own peolple personally and with his underlings led to that. Our own military would not be so willing to kill our people. Rather, portions of our own military would assist in the overthrow of the government if it became even remotely close to Saddam's.

So now you level attacks at me and call me a jerk? Fine, I don't care.

Wait, so the leaders aren't supposed to rule? Everyone has been ruled for many years, just that both Europe and the US have had democracies. And in both places, people vote, and leaders rule. If you think Europeans never have rebellions and revolutions, you are most definitely wrong. France has had many, Spain has had a few, Germany also. England is relatively docile, but then it has had them. The US has had the American "Revolution" which can barely be considered a revolution, and yes, some rebellions (Shays's, Whiskey), but either less or same in amount. The US does not "constantly" fight it. I kind of wish it would.

Barely considered a revolution? What was it, tea and crumpits?

For statistical comparisons, look above.

When guns are used responsibly 2,000,000 times every year defensively, that shows the vast majority of gun owners are indeed as responsible with their ownership as Zaxon.

Well, at least my discomfort is proven by some statistics. Well, at least I live in a relatively gun-free state, MA, whose crime rates are about average. I'm not infringing on your rights, I'm just making sure guns are out of reach of those who shouldn't have them. If you want to "protect yourself", do get a taser of some kind...

Somehow I don't think this debate will ever end...

Tasers are a tool, firearms are a tool. Firearms are more efficient. It's stupid to handicap oneself, and use a less efficient tool, particular when you are up against someone with out the "sensibilities" such as yourself.

Quote:
"You're right. It won't ever end, due to the fact that you fail to see that you are trying to control me and what I do, when I have yet to do anything to prove that I'm a menace to society, in any sense.

You are attacking my rights and my freedom--because you're scared of an object. Sorry, you're scared of what an object can do in the hands of someone "evil".

So, this is your justification for infringing everyone else's (the vast majority) rights--because less than one percent may use them for nefarious purposes.

I say it's time to concentrate on the larger threats that kill more law-abiding people (yes, I'm implying that a great many deaths by firearms are committed against criminals by their own peers)."

You are still using yourself as though every gun owner is like you. Heck, I don't even know if you are as good as you describe. Please look at the stats again.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/8Comparison.htm

Quote:
"When guns are used responsibly 2,000,000 times every year defensively, that shows the vast majority of gun owners are indeed as responsible with their ownership as Zaxon."

Please look at the stats again.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/8Comparison.htm

Quote:
"But your own statistics dont bare that out. This is a nation of 300,000,000. Amazingly enough, there isn't more violence. As in the old definition of stress: Stress is where the brain overrides the bodies desire to choke the ever loving shit out of someone who desperately deserves it."

This isn't a statistical thing, it's part of psychology, and I don't see how your definition of stress has anything to do with what I was talking about.

Quote:
"Yea, and the availability of drugs in this country is SO much less with the ban on them isn't it?"

Guns cannot be planted and harvested like drugs can.

Quote:
"He said organized. The major difference is that Saddam's troops had no objection to killing their own people. Saddam's systematic torture, raping, killing of his own peolple personally and with his underlings led to that. Our own military would not be so willing to kill our people. Rather, portions of our own military would assist in the overthrow of the government if it became even remotely close to Saddam's."

Which further justifies my argument. I had said before that American soldiers wouldn't do that kind of thing. Thank you for repeating my words.

Quote:
"Barely considered a revolution? What was it, tea and crumpits?"

The American Revolution started out as a civil war, when one British group fought another, and then turned into a war of independence. A revolution is within one country and REPLACES an existing form of government, but the British government stayed in place.

Quote:
"Tasers are a tool, firearms are a tool. Firearms are more efficient. It's stupid to handicap oneself, and use a less efficient tool, particular when you are up against someone with out the "sensibilities" such as yourself."

Tasers are efficient enough for self-defense, but not for murder (unless I want to kill Dick Cheney). It is stupid to allow tools that are dangerous enough to cause what my stats above show.

The statistics you keep posting (from 1991 btw) point to one thing, 8,915 murders from firearms each year. Compare that to 2,000,000 defensive uses and you find that guns are 224 times more likely to save a life than to take it. Does that mean anything at all?

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm shows that murder rate drops from 9.8 in 1991 to 5.5 in 2000. The rate continued to drop into 2004.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2419705.stm shows that gun crime rates on the rise in England, despite the fact that gun controls are much more strict.

http://home.overflow.net.au/~nedwood/guns.html A pretty good site about Australian gun control laws.

http://www.universalway.org/guncontrol.html Another good site comparing gun control and violent crime rates.

And finally, http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/Japanese_Gun_Control.htm about Japanese gun control laws. A telling part is in it's conclusion:
Summing up the perspective of many gun prohibitionists, one Japanese newspaper reporter writes, 'It strikes me as clear that there is a distinct correlation between gun control laws and the rate of violent crime. The fewer the guns, the less the violence'.[126] But the claim that fewer guns correlates with less violence is plainly wrong. America experienced falling crime and homicide rates in the 1940s, 1950s, and early 1980s, all periods during which per capita gun (p.40)ownership, especially handgun ownership, rose.[127] And Japan, with its severe gun control, suffers no less murder than Switzerland, one of the most gun-intensive societies on earth.[128]

Japan's gun control does play an important role in the low Japanese crime rate, but not because of some simple relation between gun density and crime. Japan's gun control is one inseparable part of a vast mosaic of social control. Gun control underscores the pervasive cultural theme that the individual is subordinate to society and to the Government. The same theme is reflected in the absence of protection against Government searches and prosecutions. The police are the most powerful on earth, partly because of the lack of legal constraints and particularly because of their social authority.

I never said you don't have the right to defend yourself, you can go get a taser if you want. Still if you assume that all guns are used in self defense, you are wrong, take another look at the stats. Remember, you wouldn't be the only one with a gun.


Estimates for defesive gun uses range from 80,000 to 2,000,000 a year. WE can probably assume it is somewhere in between, but even the lowest estimate far outweighs firearm crimes.


By banning guns, there will indeed be a black market, but the availability will be MUCH less (as proven by other non-gun nations in the world).


The availability will only be smaller among those who obey the law. Which means a bigger ratio of criminals to citizens will have firearms.

Guns cannot be planted and harvested like drugs can.


Actually making a gun is absurdly easy. There are plans for a Sten gun (Read: fully automatic sub-machine gun) available that anyone with a little knowledge and a few tools could make.

Not to mention that not all drugs are produced in the US.

Just imagine how many handguns you could fit in one container. Your bans would definately make some criminal very rich when they smuggle in a whole bunch of handguns to keep the criminals in their position of power over citizens.

Quote:
Tasers are efficient enough for self-defense

Not if the criminal has a gun. Or if there are more than one of them. Or if they have a longer reach than you do.


It is stupid to allow tools that are dangerous enough to cause what my stats above show.

It is stupid to put in place policies that would give criminals a monopoly over such a dangerous tool.

Craig

It is stupid to allow tools that are dangerous enough to cause what my stats above show.

There ya go again, THINKING A TOOL CAUSES MURDER. This will go on forever, until you figure out it's not the tool doing the damage. It's the person behind the tool causing the deaths.

Taking away the tool doesn't fix anything. Of the 8900 or so murders per annum perpetrated with a firearm (that your page with statistics supplies), that's still only 33% of murders in total. Most murders aren't with firearms at all! The weapon will change. The murder rate will stay the same. Changing the weapon doesn't matter.

But because you're scared of their capability and have bought into your state's huge propaganda machine, you are concentrating on the smaller avenue, rather than stopping the much larger issue.

I'm done arguing with someone that foolishly believes inanimate objects cause murder. And, unless you really are terrible at the literacy game, that is indeed what you wrote. It might have been a freudian slip on your part, but it's there.

You have proven time and again in your posts that you believe that the percentage of the population that commits murder using a firearm (less than .003% of the population of this country was killed--by your stats--with a firearm--that's three one thousandths of one percent) outweighs the rights that are inalienable to all.

You don't support freedom. You support pre-emptive punishment of law-abiding citizens that did nothing to you or anyone else by restricting their rights. You may not think exactly this way, but in the end, this is what you are supporting.

Estimates for defesive gun uses range from 80,000 to 2,000,000 a year. WE can probably assume it is somewhere in between, but even the lowest estimate far outweighs firearm crimes.

The availability will only be smaller among those who obey the law. Which means a bigger ratio of criminals to citizens will have firearms.
The estimates I've seen ranged from 80,000 (anti-gun lobbyists) to 3.4 million (pro-gun lobbyists). That's why I choose 2 million... roughly in the middle.

The estimates I've seen ranged from 80,000 (anti-gun lobbyists) to 3.4 million (pro-gun lobbyists). That's why I choose 2 million... roughly in the middle.

By the way, One, thanks for the backup. It's appreciated. I was getting way too emotional in there with Proletarian. I get that way when someone wants to strip me of my rights.

By the way, One, thanks for the backup. It's appreciated. I was getting way too emotional in there with Proletarian. I get that way when someone wants to strip me of my rights.
De nada, mi amigo.
I agree with you on most things... I hoped I wasn't stepping on your toes speaking up for you.
And on some of the things I don't agree with you on, well... my wife is working on me, and I've come around to where Im voting no on 36 here in Oregon in Nov.... the one man/one woman amendment ballot measure.

I’m not going to use quotes, since that would make the response too long, I’ll just respond in order.

I understand that guns are used in self defense a lot. However, they don’t need to be there in the first place. In other countries, there are fewer cases of self defense, but also fewer cases of crime. By allowing such defense weapons such as pepper spray, tasers, and other useful but far less deadly tools, one can defend oneself well enough, as most cases of crime don’t involve a far away shooter sniping at you.

Your stats that show crime decrease don’t necessarily have to do with more guns being available. In fact, they are not related to anything at all (except maybe that the Brady Bill and Assault Weapon Ban were implemented in the early 90’s, thereby reducing crime).

The BBC (a good source, and I seriously mean that) report merely states that gun deaths from gang wars are more common, but doesn’t say (or indicate) that British gun control laws have anything to do with it.

The Australian site is not only biased (which I can tolerate, for we all have some degree of bias), but it should contemplate checking its facts. I found a few important facts for which it is incorrect. First, most Americans are FOR the assault weapon ban (68% according to TIME). Second, 20 million Chinese citizens died between 1937 and 1949, which were years of WWII (China Conflict) and the Chinese Civil War (between Nationalists and Communists). The reason was not because guns were deprived, it was because the Japanese killed any Chinese who may or may not have put up some form of resistance, especially those who were armed. Later on, during the Civil War, those who were armed would join a side (usually), resulting in more deaths. And the other cases the page presents were either back when guns could actually have been used effectively against the government, or when the groups oppressed never had guns to begin with. The part about the airplanes can be resolved relatively easily. Tasers and pepper spray. Think about it for a moment. Tasers present no danger to the plane itself (in terms of damaging the hull), and in the short range involved, can disarm a terrorist very easily.

The third site is also biased (and again, I can deal with that), and also does nothing but present a book, one that may or may not be factually correct.

The Japan site is correct, but Japan is not a clear representation of most anti-gun countries. Also, most of the site shows that gun control works anyway. Still, other countries are better for examples (and there are plenty).

And again, there may be less cases of gun defense, but in other countries there doesn’t have to be as many cases, since their crime rate is lower anyway.

Criminals wouldn’t have a monopoly on guns. If they did, many countries in the world would have rampant criminal gun murders, but they do not. Don’t forget that law enforcement has guns also.

I don’t think the tool by itself causes murders. The tool, however, can easily be used by humans to murder. The easiness allows for America to have this high handgun murder rate, and allows non-gun countries to have both less handgun murder rate and less crime rate.

No matter what, guns are at best the short-term answer to a long-term problem. The better answers are reform and progress. The society as a whole must be improved, with better education, more equality, and more opportunities for those who don’t have them. A hierarchal society’s lower classes sometimes have little choice but to turn to crime. A sad thing this is indeed. Progressive nations that have gun control are fine, they are not unsafe.

This, by the way, is my last post. If you still have issues with me, or want to send me hate-mail, my country is Proletarian Continents (no shit), in the region of New Communist International.

Thank you for your time and the valuable learning experience you have given me, you have made me more prepared in arguing with other conservatives.

*bump*

Criminals wouldn’t have a monopoly on guns. If they did, many countries in the world would have rampant criminal gun murders, but they do not. Don’t forget that law enforcement has guns also.


The police will not be there in time to defend you if you are in danger.


I don’t think the tool by itself causes murders. The tool, however, can easily be used by humans to murder. The easiness allows for America to have this high handgun murder rate, and allows non-gun countries to have both less handgun murder rate and less crime rate.

But the problem isn't the gun. There is obviously a bigger problem that needs to be solved, and anti-gunners who just push for gun bans are not going to solve anything. Without guns, Americans would be killing each other just as much with other things (and guns).


No matter what, guns are at best the short-term answer to a long-term problem.

As is the banning of them. But I agree


This, by the way, is my last post.


Yeah, but I felt like replying anyway :-)

And I am a libertarian, not a conservative!

Cheers,
Craig

ever see the bumper sticker guns dont kill people i do... its true... owning a gun actaully makes people feel secure and good in a way that they have the power to blow someones head off... but they dont, i do believe they should do a little background check and tests and so on to make sure the guns are falling into the right hands.. not niggers to kill eachother after a crack deal goes bad. and the spics too and white trash i guess... hope everyone saw the picture of kerry recieving a gift of a shotgun with a huge lurch like smil eon his face ... oh wait he voted to ban that gun...god i looooove bush... too bad the news didnt show him out killing some animal on his ranch with a 12 gage or something that would make the lefties and greenies sizzle..

I find the idea of people opposed to their own army in the USA baffling - do you really believe local militias can conceivably defend a nation as well as an organised, standing army?

Yes.

I genuinely pity you if you value your DVD player over someone's life, even a criminals...

You're projecting, but use of lethal force to protect property is legitimate. I don't know that I'd go so far as to kill someone to prevent the theft of my DVD player, unless maybe I was broke and homeless and was on my way to pawn shop with the machine to get some money for food.


Newsflash - the VAST majority of home breakins are committed by unarmed intruders who simply want to snatch something of value and get out as fast as they can. There aren't hordes of "Son of Sam" or "Nightstalker" murderers out there battering down people's doors.


No kidding. However, there are also gang-bangers that conduct home invasions and kill the occupants apparently to gain respect, and probably also because they have a death wish. Also, unarmed thiefs still pose a threat. Someone who has no respect for the property rights of other people, especially the property in the home where they sleep, already has insufficient respect for human life. And, one who acts on his desire to steal is already desperate enough to risk his life and liberty for a few hundred dollars. He may quickly become desperate enough to use violence to save his ass.


Rehashing (again) but some food for thought -

1. No guarnatee that the gun YOU introduce to a scenario won't end up being used on you and your family, in what otherwise may have been a simple grab and run...

Of course not. Nobody ever said there was such a guarantee. However, that's a bit unlikely, as most home invaders don't intend to kill the occupants, and the ones who do already have lethal weapons. And, guns are not that difficult to operate; if you initially have sufficient distance from the invader there's practically no reason you should lose control of the situation.


2. No guarantee that you don't get twitchy and blow the hell out of poor old cousin Bob who you forgot you gave a housekey to...

3. No guarantee that your kids (if any) won't take daddy's shiny 9mm out of the draw to play with, despite how much time you have spent teaching him gun safety...

4. No guarantee that an armed burglar who would have simply tied you up and left with your valuables won't be scared for his own life when he sees that you are packing too, and a shootout ensues...


Again, nobody in his right mind ever guaranteed these things can't happen. However, all such risks are negligible compared with the benefit provided by firearms.

-----

No, I am not asking people to simply cower in fear and allow people to ransack their homes at any time. Get a guard dog; get a security system; get better locks and security shutters; get a taser or mace (if they aren't legal in your state, that should be of greater concern to you than gun control); keep a baseball bat next to your bed, if you feel you need to; have the police on speed dial on your landline and cellphone...there are a lot of better, less lethal and more effective home defense solutions than a gun in the nightstand...

I think having a dog in the house is probably the number one protection against having your home invaded, besides perhaps staying home all the time. However, unlike a gun, a sufficently powerful dog is capable of killing you, your friend Bob, or your kid without any human "pulling a trigger". Yet, like a gun, the benefits of having a powerful dog around the house is again worth the risks, unless you're talking about a particullarly violent breed/dog.

Having the police on speed dial is probably a good idea in general, but it will more than likely be of no help if your home is broken into. I've witnessed emergency police response times of 30-40 minutes in central phoenix.

make sure the guns are falling into the right hands.. not niggers to kill eachother after a crack deal goes bad. and the spics too and white trash i guess...

Yeah, definately.

I reckon we should ban handguns everywhere.

Then all the gang members will rock up to the police stations, "pop their nines" down on the counter and walk back out unarmed.

:rolleyes:
Craig