NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.axewound.com/images/funnay/kerrygun.jpg
:sniper:

lol stupid computer/politcal nerdz














lol

How quickly was that man tackled by the Secret Service? :D

Um.... Kerry doesn't ban guns. He is a hunter. Bush however has yet to hunt so I'd worry over him. Can't trust non-hunters...

How quickly was that man tackled by the Secret Service? :D
d'oh


that foto was doctored. you knew that, right?

Um.... Kerry doesn't ban guns. He is a hunter. Bush however has yet to hunt so I'd worry over him. Can't trust non-hunters...

Listen to the NRA: Kerry is the most anti-gun Presidential candidate in history. He has a perfect anti-gun voting record. Last year, he cosponsored legislation that effectively would have banned every gun in existence.

Listen to the NRA: Kerry is the most anti-gun Presidential candidate in history. He has a perfect anti-gun voting record. Last year, he cosponsored legislation that effectively would have banned every gun in existence.heh heh, let's see the text of this bill to ban every gun in existence

Listen to the NRA: Kerry is the most anti-gun Presidential candidate in history. He has a perfect anti-gun voting record. Last year, he cosponsored legislation that effectively would have banned every gun in existence.

If, as he claims, Kerry is "for the people," why does he fear them owning guns? Interesting question!

heh heh, let's see the text of this bill to ban every gun in existence

The ban would've included all firearms with a "pistol grip", which just about every gun on today's market has iirc.

banning guns will cause more deaths because gun smuggling will increase :mp5: :sniper:

The ban would've included all firearms with a "pistol grip", which just about every gun on today's market has iirc.a Congress number and a bill number like "106th Congress s.407" will suffice. Repeating what someone told you about John Kerry won't suffice

a Congress number and a bill number like "106th Congress s.407" will suffice. Repeating what someone told you about John Kerry won't suffice

Wow, what a jump to conclusions :rolleyes:
No one "told" me anything about Kerry, this is something I looked up myself, a skill lacking in many Chicken Littles in this forum. The actual number escapes me at the moment, being 2AM where I am and all :gundge:

Um.... Kerry doesn't ban guns. He is a hunter. Bush however has yet to hunt so I'd worry over him. Can't trust non-hunters...


Can you prove he is a hunter? Doubt it.

Kerry the hunter??? (http://www.sportsmenforkerryedwards.com/jkhunting.htm)

He doesn't handle guns like a hunter. Looks clumsy, likes to crawl around on the ground when hunting deer. You walk, not crawl as it makes too much noise.

Um.... Kerry doesn't ban guns. He is a hunter. Bush however has yet to hunt so I'd worry over him. Can't trust non-hunters...
You might want to review Kerry's political history there chief. Kerry tried to implement an assault weapon ban that would have coincidentally banned every type of firearm in existence by its ambiguous wording :D

a Congress number and a bill number like "106th Congress s.407" will suffice. Repeating what someone told you about John Kerry won't suffice
Fine, S.1431
http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:SN01431:@@@P



(42) PISTOL GRIP- The term `pistol grip' means a grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip.

Basically, any weapon you can hold on to will be banned. So that means no more guns until they invent an anti-gravity firearm that floats in front of you.

If, as he claims, Kerry is "for the people," why does he fear them owning guns? Interesting question!
If people claim they want protection, why do they want more guns? Intereting question!

If people claim they want protection, why do they want more guns? Intereting question!
... because the police can't be everywhere, and they can't always get there in time to protect you.




Actually, they have no legal requirement to protect you if it puts them in harms' way.

Since BoomChakalaka posted the senate bill number, I read the proposed legislation in 108th Congress 1st Session S. 1431. It doesn't ban the pistol grip in general. It bans

1) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine, and that has a pistol grip.
2) A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine, and has a second pistol grip.
3) A semiautomatic shotgun that has a pistol grip.

Pelleon would have known that if he had actually looked up the legislation himself instead of relying on what other people told him about it. Now that I've got the bill text stored in a word processor, I can copy/paste it every time someone repeats the lie about John Kerry trying to ban all guns

Since BoomChakalaka posted the senate bill number, I read the proposed legislation in 108th Congress 1st Session S. 1431. It doesn't ban the pistol grip in general. It bans

1) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine, and that has a pistol grip.
2) A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine, and has a second pistol grip.
3) A semiautomatic shotgun that has a pistol grip.

Pelleon would have known that if he had actually looked up the legislation himself instead of relying on what other people told him about it. Now that I've got the bill text stored in a word processor, I can copy/paste it every time someone repeats the lie about John Kerry trying to ban all guns
You seem to have missed a more telling paragraph of that bill however.
`(J) A frame or receiver that is identical to, or based substantially on the frame or receiver of, a firearm described in any of subparagraphs (A) through (I) or (L).
`(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.'.

On first glance this all seems understandable. However the vagueness of the wording actually works to ban all semi-automatic firearms. Since even firearms designed for the sole purpose of target practice are "based" on firearm technology designed for military or law enforcement, it could be applied to all semi-auto weapons.

I did like the line in there... a gun isnt determined suitable for sporting purposes just because it's suitable for sporting purposes. Talk about government double talk.

Kerrys a freakin idiot... he went to Vietnam for gods sake and he still cant even hold a gun correctly... lololol

Banning guns doesn't increase gun crime / gun smuggling. Look at Britain, we have hardly any gun crime proportionatly to the US

Banning guns actually does makes it harder for someone to possess a gun..with less pple getting their hands on guns, there would obviously be less pple committing crime with guns.

Dun u americans see that? :headbang: From what i see here, all u americans are basically red neck southerners, terribly insecured without that gun in yr side pocket or something.

you dont need to ban all guns all you need to do is limit the sale of say m16's, g3a3's, ak47's, as "hunting rifles" by not selling them. its ok to have a gun (.22 rifle, shtgun or a pistol) look at canada almost every housegold owns at least one firearm

Um.... Kerry doesn't ban guns. He is a hunter. Bush however has yet to hunt so I'd worry over him. Can't trust non-hunters...
well hes republican so they have to let you keep you right to own a gun until they take away all your other rights so you wont notice them doing it

well hes republican so they have to let you keep you right to own a gun until they take away all your other rights so you wont notice them doing it

Huh??? Can you restate what you just typed?

being a gun nut is about the only good reason left to be a republican.
if the 2nd ammendment is the most important part of the constitution in your opinion, you shouldnt vote democrat

but really

kerry could be in favor of forciing all americans to turn in their firearms and it woudlnt matter

it would be unconstitutional. there are very few things that will pass a constitutional test in banning guns

it would never get past the republican congress. they take care of gun owners almost as well as they take care of rich people

so why not calm down and think about the rest of the constitution?

and didnt i see photos of bush doing some kind of bird hunting? i think he IS a hunter.

I love how people never seem to think about when the Constitution was drafted. Over 200 years ago they decided to allow firearms to ever person. Now, let's think about what fire arms existed back then. Rifles that took time to reload them, not a automatic blow-a-hole-in-you-the-size-of-a-grapefruit assault rifle.
I do believe that people should be able to own guns, but some, likethe ones from the newly lapsed assault weapons ban, don't deserve to be on the market.

If, as he claims, Kerry is "for the people," why does he fear them owning guns? Interesting question!

Perhaps because he's for less people being shot.

You will never change the "left"'s minds about gun control. Ever.

Nor will they convince me to change my mind about not having gun control. Ever.

Arguing is pointless.

You seem to have missed a more telling paragraph of that bill however.
`(J) A frame or receiver that is identical to, or based substantially on the frame or receiver of, a firearm described in any of subparagraphs (A) through (I) or (L).
`(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.'.

On first glance this all seems understandable. However the vagueness of the wording actually works to ban all semi-automatic firearms. Since even firearms designed for the sole purpose of target practice are "based" on firearm technology designed for military or law enforcement, it could be applied to all semi-auto weapons.

I did like the line in there... a gun isnt determined suitable for sporting purposes just because it's suitable for sporting purposes. Talk about government double talk.translation: It's possible to go duck hunting with an M16 but that doesn't make the weapon particularly suitable for duck hunting.

And how does that paragraph ban all guns, as BoomChakalaka and Pelleon have said? I checked the NRA website and didn't find an accusation like that in the John Kerry articles

banning guns will cause more deaths because gun smuggling will increase :mp5: :sniper:

Gun smuggling would increase the cost of a gun many fold over, keeping them out of the hands of petty criminals and therefore decreasing the number of guns in the street, leading to less people getting shot.

Banning guns actually does makes it harder for someone to possess a gun..with less pple getting their hands on guns, there would obviously be less pple committing crime with guns.

Dun u americans see that? :headbang: From what i see here, all u americans are basically red neck southerners, terribly insecured without that gun in yr side pocket or something.
2,000,000 defensive uses of guns occur in this country every year.
Dun u non americans see that? Guns are only a tool. It can be used for good or for bad. Don't attack the tool, go after the people who use the tool for ill.

Can you prove he is a hunter? Doubt it.

Kerry the hunter??? (http://www.sportsmenforkerryedwards.com/jkhunting.htm)

He doesn't handle guns like a hunter. Looks clumsy, likes to crawl around on the ground when hunting deer. You walk, not crawl as it makes too much noise.

At least he's sober at the time which is more than I can say for many of the guys my dad used to go hunting with.

I know those guys hunted drunk, something you are definitely NOT supposed to do but they were hunters nonetheless.

And you want to pick on a finger's position and an awkward appearance?

Give me a break.

NOTE: when my Dad was nearly shot by a drunk hunter he decided to quit, and he was hunting since he was 8.

My poor dad...looking like a deer with that neon orange vest on...

translation: It's possible to go duck hunting with an M16 but that doesn't make the weapon particularly suitable for duck hunting.

And how does that paragraph ban all guns, as BoomChakalaka and Pelleon have said? I checked the NRA website and didn't find an accusation like that in the John Kerry articles
First off, I never said it banned all weapons, just all semi-automatic guns.

Second, if you read the comment I made on the relavent paragraph you would see that because of the vague wording of the bill it could be used to ban all semi-auto guns. Since the technology of the semi-auto was designed for military use in mind.

Face it.. Kerry is anti-gun/pro-gun control. He's pro banning of "assault weapons", pro-restriction of gun purchasing, pro-restriction of gun shows, pro government search without warrants of said gun shows, pro regulation of gun ownership, anti-gun ownership.

He even sponsored a bill making it illegal for someone in the US military to own a firearm. The bill attempted to raise the age limit on possession of firearms (currently defined as "juvinile") to 21. Meaning someone in the military who's 18-20 years old, while required by their job to possess and operate firearms, can not personaly own one .

I can't believe Americans don't see that because guns that are so easy to get a lot of innocent people die every year.

You must have pretty thick skull if you believe guns will make your country safer... the odds are higher your own kid will find it and kill a friend/brother (or himself) while playing with it than it will help you "defend" your home.

2,000,000 defensive uses of guns occur in this country every year.
Dun u non americans see that? Guns are only a tool. It can be used for good or for bad. Don't attack the tool, go after the people who use the tool for ill.


'Defensive'...I wouldn't discount that.

Makes me wonder how many bullets are fired 'offensively'.

A hunting rifle can be a tool. I can see a legit use for it.

Handguns and assault rifles, those I would question the label of 'tool'.

At least he's sober at the time which is more than I can say for many of the guys my dad used to go hunting with.

I know those guys hunted drunk, something you are definitely NOT supposed to do but they were hunters nonetheless.

And you want to pick on a finger's position and an awkward appearance?

Give me a break.

NOTE: when my Dad was nearly shot by a drunk hunter he decided to quit, and he was hunting since he was 8.

My poor dad...looking like a deer with that neon orange vest on...

Drunks are not hunters, they are loose cannons. Besides kerry just loves those "manly" photo-ops. He looks so stiff with a gun. Just read what he said in Iowa. I didn't know John loved to kill animals for food. But one thing is if you say this try to get your facts straight. You don't hang-up doves when you shoot them, plus in order to get a meal out of doves, you would need to slaughter at least 25-30 of the beasts. So is Kerry saying he likes to go on a killing rampage with his "trusty double barrel 12 gauge"?

He even sponsored a bill making it illegal for someone in the US military to own a firearm. The bill attempted to raise the age limit on possession of firearms (currently defined as "juvinile") to 21. Meaning someone in the military who's 18-20 years old, while required by their job to possess and operate firearms, can not personaly own one .

Why would you want anyone to have fire-arms at home? It's not as if anyone in the military would squeeze a few rounds off in the backyard?

If a soldier need to practice, simply go to his base and use the firing range.

Don't you think it's just crazy American kids aren't allowed to drink untill 21 but are allowed to shoot guns before that age???

He even sponsored a bill making it illegal for someone in the US military to own a firearm. The bill attempted to raise the age limit on possession of firearms (currently defined as "juvinile") to 21. Meaning someone in the military who's 18-20 years old, while required by their job to possess and operate firearms, can not personaly own one .

Oh, for God's sake.

Do you honestly think they'll prevent a soldier from using a gun on the firing range or in a war?

Even for a soldier, there is no reason to have a gun outside the times when he will certainly need it.

Its not like a former military man got a gun and went nuts before. :rolleyes:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/10/24/muhammad.profile/

'Defensive'...I wouldn't discount that.

Makes me wonder how many bullets are fired 'offensively'.

A hunting rifle can be a tool. I can see a legit use for it.

Handguns and assault rifles, those I would question the label of 'tool'.
Why question the label of tool? Handguns can be and are a tool of defense. Handguns can be and are a tool of recreation.
Assault weapons (not really talking about assault rifles here... we're talking about assault weapons) can be and are a tool of defense. Assault weapons can be and are a tool of recreation.

Oh, for God's sake.

Do you honestly think they'll prevent a soldier from using a gun on the firing range or in a war?

Even for a soldier, there is no reason to have a gun outside the times when he will certainly need it.

Its not like a former military man got a gun and went nuts before. :rolleyes:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/10/24/muhammad.profile/
The point I was trying to make was that while they are trusted with guns and to shoot guns and even trusted to fight in a war they can't be trusted with guns in thier own home? How does that make any sense at all?

Assault weapons can be and are a tool of recreation.

I agree, but simply leave the gun in a secure locker at the firing range...

Why don't you look at Canada, their system works a lot better. A lot less people die every year in incidents that have guns involved.

Personally I am very happy I live in the Netherlands, if you want to join a shooting club you are screened... only the worst criminals use and have guns, you don't have to worry about a neighbour going postal on you ;)

Drunks are not hunters, they are loose cannons.

Trust me if they hunt for meat they are hunters despite their blood alcohol level.


Besides kerry just loves those "manly" photo-ops.


*snort* And Bush doesn't?

Don't mess with Texas.


He looks so stiff with a gun.


He always looks stiff!


Just read what he said in Iowa. I didn't know John loved to kill animals for food. But one thing is if you say this try to get your facts straight. You don't hang-up doves when you shoot them, plus in order to get a meal out of doves, you would need to slaughter at least 25-30 of the beasts. So is Kerry saying he likes to go on a killing rampage with his "trusty double barrel 12 gauge"?

He can do with his kill what he likes and kill as many as he needs. Its not like the man risks starvation.

Maybe he's just not 'down with the lingo' as you are.

I really think your picking at silly details here.

The point I was trying to make was that while they are trusted with guns and to shoot guns and even trusted to fight in a war they can't be trusted with guns in thier own home? How does that make any sense at all?

The point is: they don't need a gun at home! What "good" could a soldier possibly do with a full-automatic rifle at home??? If there's a war, he'll go to his base and get a gun/rifle there... simple isn't it :)

The point is: they don't need a gun at home! What "good" could a soldier possibly do with a full-automatic rifle at home??? If there's a war, he'll go to his base and get a gun/rifle there... simple isn't it :)
Again, we are not talking about a full-automatic rifle. Learn the difference.

It's also very simple that it's a givin right to own and possess a firearm in this country. And fortunately one doesn't need a reason to exorcise a right. Just as you do not need a reason to exorcise your right to free speech.

And I've said before, it's not a matter of need. It's a matter of rights. If you choose not to own a gun (or choose to live in a country where owning a gun is illegal) that's your choice. I choose to own several firearms. I think it is very intolerant of you to decide how others should live, isn't it?

First off, I never said it banned all weapons, just all semi-automatic guns.

Second, if you read the comment I made on the relavent paragraph you would see that because of the vague wording of the bill it could be used to ban all semi-auto guns. Since the technology of the semi-auto was designed for military use in mind.First off, you said that I seemed to have missed a more telling paragraph of that bill when I was debunking the story about John Kerry trying to ban all guns. If you're gonna say that I missed a paragraph in debunking the ban on all guns, you'd better be ready to copy/paste a paragraph from the bill that bans all guns.

Second, the paragraph that is not relevant to banning all guns makes an exception for sporting purposes so John Kerry can go hunting with a semiautomatic gun.

Even if the bill did ban all semiautomatic guns, which it does not, it still wouldn't be the strawman that people tear down as they whine about John Kerry trying to ban all guns

The point I was trying to make was that while they are trusted with guns and to shoot guns and even trusted to fight in a war they can't be trusted with guns in thier own home? How does that make any sense at all?

It makes plenty of sense.

They use the guns to kill when at war.

If a soldier is a nutbag, giving him a gun in war makes sense. He'd be damn good at killing and probably enjoy the hell out of it.

Give him a gun back home and he'll shoot his own countrymen.

(Of course this doesn't mean all soldier or nutbags, naturally. Did I really have to point that out :confused: )

See? Provide guns when needed and refuse them when not. Just because its okay in one example does not mean its okay in another example.

For example:

I can swear loudy at home, no problem.

Try that shit at a movie theatre and you'll find 'freedom of speech' has its limitations.

If you want an occupational example:

A NASCAR driver drives his car very fast on a racetrack.

Try that on city roads and he's got another thing coming.

EDIT

What you are pointing out is 'irony' not an 'injustice'.

And I've said before, it's not a matter of need. It's a matter of rights.

I don't see how owning a "tool" that is mainly used to "end life" can be a right, personally I am appaled you dare to compare the "right to bear arms" and "freedom of speech".

Here in Europe we have evolved, became more civilised, decided people aren't allowed to take right into their own hands... why do Americans still think they live in the Wild West?

It makes plenty of sense.
To you maybe, but then you are already predisposed to gun control, where I feel it's unconstitutional.

They use the guns to kill when at war.
Of this we agree.

If a soldier is a nutbag, giving him a gun in war makes sense. He'd be damn good at killing and probably enjoy the hell out of it.

Give him a gun back home and he'll shoot his own countrymen.

(Of course this doesn't mean all soldier or nutbags, naturally. Did I really have to point that out :confused: )
I guess giving a "nutbag" a gun in war makes sense to you. If he's capable of shooting his own countrymen at home, he's as capable of shooting his countrymen in war. He's even more likely to shoot his countrymen, because they would make easier targets.

See? Provide guns when needed and refuse them when not. Just because its okay in one example does not mean its okay in another example.
You seem to feel you are capable to determine when a gun is needed. I would not presume to identify myself as so omniscient. :rolleyes:
It's not a matter of need. I do not need a reason to exorcise my right to own a gun. Period.

For example:

I can swear loudy at home, no problem.

Try that shit at a movie theatre and you'll find 'freedom of speech' has its limitations.
Actually, you have the right to swear loudly at the theater... they also have the right to refuse service to you. It's their business Im afraid.

If you want an occupational example:

A NASCAR driver drives his car very fast on a racetrack.

Try that on city roads and he's got another thing coming.
Ah, so you are in favor of limiters on all production cars that are driven on city roads that prevent cars from exceeding a maximum speed limit? No? I thought not.

You do not know when something is "needed" or not, neither do I. You choose to impose your will on others, I do not. I choose to let others have a choice.

For example:

I can swear loudy at home, no problem.

Try that shit at a movie theatre and you'll find 'freedom of speech' has its limitations.

If you want an occupational example:

A NASCAR driver drives his car very fast on a racetrack.

Try that on city roads and he's got another thing coming.

.

Bad analogies.

Swearing in a moving theatre and speeding are both actions. owning a gun, having the capability to swear and owning a car capable of exceeding the speed limit are not.

Punish actions. Punish the guy swearing, the guy speeding, and the guy misusing a firearm. Dont sew people mouths shut, ban fast cars or guns.

I don't see how owning a "tool" that is mainly used to "end life" can be a right, personally I am appaled you dare to compare the "right to bear arms" and "freedom of speech".

Here in Europe we have evolved, became more civilised, decided people aren't allowed to take right into their own hands... why do Americans still think they live in the Wild West?
Without the right to bear arms, there would be no right to free speech.

Im appaled that you would deny someone a basic human right to defend their own lives as they see fit.

It is more accurate to say that guns are tools used mainly to defend life than to end life.

... because the police can't be everywhere, and they can't always get there in time to protect you.

Actually, they have no legal requirement to protect you if it puts them in harms' way.

Vigilante justice grows exponentially in your scenario. That's a bad thing. The Wild West wasn't exactly devoid of gun deaths.

And at what point will the police be unable to protect you? When you are caught in the middle of a riot? Yeah, I can see a problem there. Are you caught in riots often? Your definition of 'harms' way' is lacking. Its in situations like riots or gunfights where they will lose control and can't keep track of the law-abiding. In such a case it is your job to GET TO SAFETY! RUN! Don't hang around and join in any gun fights.

The police put themselves in harms way all the damn time. Its part of the job. All to protect ungrateful people like yourself. By your definition police are useless the minute they leave the police station since that's the instant they are in 'harms' way'. The instant they get the call and arrive at the scene of a call they are in harms' way. Every traffic stop can end in disaster.

You sir are an idiot.

Bad analogies.

Swearing in a moving theatre and speeding are both actions. owning a gun, having the capability to swear and owning a car capable of exceeding the speed limit are not.

Punish actions. Punish the guy swearing, the guy speeding, and the guy misusing a firearm. Dont sew people mouths shut, ban fast cars or guns.
ok, pro-active preventative actions are bad

why are we in a pro-active preventative war with the middle east?

Vigilante justice grows exponentially in your scenario. That's a bad thing. The Wild West wasn't exactly devoid of gun deaths.

And at what point will the police be unable to protect you? When you are caught in the middle of a riot? Yeah, I can see a problem there. Are you caught in riots often? Your definition of 'harms' way' is lacking. Its in situations like riots or gunfights where they will lose control and can't keep track of the law-abiding. In such a case it is your job to GET TO SAFETY! RUN! Don't hang around and join in any gun fights.

The police put themselves in harms way all the damn time. Its part of the job. All to protect ungrateful people like yourself. By your definition police are useless the minute they leave the police station since that's the instant they are in 'harms' way'. The instant they get the call and arrive at the scene of a call they are in harms' way. Every traffic stop can end in disaster.

You sir are an idiot.
Yep, name calling sure helps make your point :rolleyes:

What Boom is trying to say is that the police can't be everywhere crime is occuring, when it's occuring. Police are great after the crime has occured. They investigate crime and assist in the capture of criminals.

They are not so good at protecting citizens from the crime occuring in the first place.

And no, they are not legally required to put themselves in harms way to protect citizens. They do, and should be applauded for it.

im sorry but i think guns in civilans should be banned unless they are going to be used to hunt for food not game.

I don't see how owning a "tool" that is mainly used to "end life" can be a right, personally I am appaled you dare to compare the "right to bear arms" and "freedom of speech".

Here in Europe we have evolved, became more civilised, decided people aren't allowed to take right into their own hands... why do Americans still think they live in the Wild West?
Europeans are no more civilised because of gun laws.
Anywhere in Europe that you can purchase cocaine or heroine illegally you can purchase guns.
Anywhere in Europe there are criminals there guns.
The fact is simple and seems to escape these sheepish Eurocentric psuedo-intellctuals. Gun laws are only obeyed by people who already obey the law, if someone already is breaking laws breaking another gun law is no different.
I am unaware of any civilised European nation that has managed to stop the influx of cocaine or opiates(and guns).
The worst of Europeans are represented on these boards ill-informed children who goose step to European popculture. No different then American teens who do the same.
As difficult as it may be for your feeble mind to grasp, the second amendment to the constitution is not designed to protect hunting, it is designed to ensure that should the Government attempt to remove the civil libertys of the people they have at their immediate disposal a means of resistance.
A secondary usage is the defense of the nation from outside threat.
The second amendement was created so that the average American could stand and defend his rights.
Rights not granted under Eurocentric ideology.
The Right of Self rule and Self determination.
They may have been European concepts but they were first implemented here, in America.
Defense of those civil liberties is the ingrained reason for that Right.
It has nothing to do with the "Old West"-"Wild West" this is another ignorant battle for Europeans who hold disdain for yet another thing that Americans cling to in their endless pursuit of Self Determination, a concept alien to the cowed European mind.
It doesnt matter if you (yes you) agree or not it is a constitutional right to bear arms not for Hunting but arms capable of supporting a militia, and no law shall infringe upon that Right.
It is that RIght that ensures that you personally may defend every other Right held dear in this country.
Thomas Jefferson covered the issue plainly: "Anyone who would give over Civil Liberties for Temporary Security deserve neither."

I believe it was Tolstoy who said: "The Difference between Citizens and Subjects is force of Arms.".

The very concept of resistance to a tyrannical government is beyond the modern Eurocentric mind, and that feebling corruption of spirit spills over into the American mentality everyday that we seek the emulate that which was left behind.
The constitution is not ment to be grasped by those who do not hold dear the rights of the individual. It is a document ment to inspire those who grasp that true freedom lays in the hands of each man alone, and united this is the force of a nation driven ahead by the will of the people.
The Right to bear arms is to prevent subversion of the Ideal of Freedom by those who have power and hold it hostage there by holding the people hostage.
Bang Bang.

Without the right to bear arms, there would be no right to free speech.


I don't know about that. I can say whatever I please and I'm from Canada.

Then there is Saddam's Iraq. Gun are legal. Free speech not.

Guns =! Free Speech


Im appaled that you would deny someone a basic human right to defend their own lives as they see fit.


So you must take poison to protect yourself from being poisoned.

My God! I gotta start smoking or else I'll get lung cancer!

Just because its how someone chooses to defend themselves it doesn't make it a good idea. Even if its my choice, exploding a gas tank to light a candle is not a good idea, or even smart.


It is more accurate to say that guns are tools used mainly to defend life than to end life.

I can't even argue this comment logically. It defies logic.

If you must defend yourself, it means someone is attacking you. If they are attacking with a gun they will likely win since they shot first. In which case you are dead and can't fire back. If the shooter so wants he could loot the corpse and own a nice new gun.

No one has been brought back to life by being shot. Make no mistake, they are used to kill.

If you want to stop drowning, drink more water. Right?

im sorry but i think guns in civilans should be banned unless they are going to be used to hunt for food not game.

Guns in civilians should be banned because having something like that in you probably isn't good for your innards.

It is more accurate to say that guns are tools used mainly to defend life than to end life.

This might be true in an perfect world... but the "bad guys" out there also have guns, and whilst you might think before you would use a gun a lot of criminals don't think and end up shooting people.

For instance, no burglar in the Netherlands would think of carrying a gun... simply because if he gets caught with a gun he will receive a much higher punishment.... he doesn't carry a gun because he doesn't have to worry about getting shot.

When you are stopped by the police in the Netherlands you don't have to put your hands on the wheel because they also don't have to worry about getting shot and it means you are treated with a lot more respect and a lot less suspicion.

It's all so simple if you think about it, if there are less guns there are less incidents involving guns...

This whole discussion is basically a waste of time, there are simply too many guns in America... guns that will cost the lives of a lot of innocent people...

im sorry but i think guns in civilans should be banned unless they are going to be used to hunt for food not game.

Well that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. I , however, am of the opinion that a law-abiding citizen of the U.S. is entitled to own a firearm in accordance to the U.S constitution and the SCOTUS. It is this difference in opinions that has generated such intense debate on these boards.

This might be true in an perfect world... but the "bad guys" out there also have guns, and whilst you might think before you would use a gun a lot of criminals don't think and end up shooting people.
"The bad guys out there also have guns..." that is the most compelling reason to own and be proficient with a gun.

For instance, no burglar in the Netherlands would think of carrying a gun... simply because if he gets caught with a gun he will receive a much higher punishment.... he doesn't carry a gun because he doesn't have to worry about getting shot.
It's been shown that higher punishments are not deterents to crime. During the middle ages it was common practice to behead pick-pockets. Where did most pick-pocketing occur? At the very same beheadings.
However, is there any violent crime in the Netherlands? If there is... and there certainly is in the US, I would like the option to be able to defend myself with my gun.

When you are stopped by the police in the Netherlands you don't have to put your hands on the wheel because they also don't have to worry about getting shot and it means you are treated with a lot more respect and a lot less suspicion.

It's all so simple if you think about it, if there are less guns there are less incidents involving guns...
Im not as concerned with incidents involving guns as I am about the vastly higher number of violent crimes (with or without a gun). Im concerned with being able to protect my familiy from bodily harm. Im concerned with protecting what is mine and what I have worked had for to provide for my family.

This whole discussion is basically a waste of time, there are simply too many guns in America... guns that will cost the lives of a lot of innocent people...
Those same guns will save the lives of innocent people.

Yep, name calling sure helps make your point :rolleyes:

What Boom is trying to say is that the police can't be everywhere crime is occuring, when it's occuring. Police are great after the crime has occured. They investigate crime and assist in the capture of criminals.

They are not so good at protecting citizens from the crime occuring in the first place.


If people were capable of defending themselves so easily there would be no victims.

No one expects to be violently assaulted (or some other crime that would require a gun's use). In any case the assaulter has the immediate upper hand, leaving you messed up or dead in a ditch somewhere. Chances of a person using a gun in time to save themselves are rare enough and at the end of the day the criminal has a new weapon (and some pocket change).

And if someone is robbing your house the smart move is to run out of the house to a neighbors and call the police NOT to try and confront the burglar.

Having guns easily available ensures that people who shouldn't have one will get them if they want one bad enough. Take alcohol. Perfectly legal but not for the underaged. However, since its easy to get just steal a beer from parents, friends' parents or pay some legal age guy to buy some for you.

Easily bypassed system. Just like all systems meant to limit legal stuff.


And no, they are not legally required to put themselves in harms way to protect citizens. They do, and should be applauded for it.

*nods*

It is this difference in opinions that has generated such intense debate on these boards.

It generates such intense debate because your opinion kills innocent people...

I don't know about that. I can say whatever I please and I'm from Canada.

Then there is Saddam's Iraq. Gun are legal. Free speech not.

Guns =! Free Speech
No Guns were not Legal in Saddam's Iraq, except for those in power.
The ones in Power had the weapons so the ones in power denied freedom of speech.
Idiotic statement made by an obviouly uneducated person.



So you must take poison to protect yourself from being poisoned.

Oh, you saw the Pirncess bride was on the other day, I watched it as well.
Pointless idiocy, as if people buy guns and then go home and shoot themselves as self defense. Pitiful attempt at an anology.

My God! I gotta start smoking or else I'll get lung cancer!

Another pitiful attempt at an anology.

Just because its how someone chooses to defend themselves it doesn't make it a good idea. Even if its my choice, exploding a gas tank to light a candle is not a good idea, or even smart.
I would appreciate...since your belive yourself to be in a position to decide for an entire nation what "smart" selfdefence is, to provide:
1. An alternative to the current usage of guns as tools for self defense.
2.Facts supporting your alternative is superior to the current method.
3. Statistical data from at least two independent sources supporting your facts.


I can't even argue this comment logically. It defies logic.

You don't appear to be able to argue any comment logically.

If you must defend yourself, it means someone is attacking you. If they are attacking with a gun they will likely win since they shot first. In which case you are dead and can't fire back. If the shooter so wants he could loot the corpse and own a nice new gun.

This statement is conjecture, uninformed conjecture actually, as I doubt you are a Law enforcement officer.
Produce statistical data showing how many people are on record successfully defending themselves with firearms versus failures.

No one has been brought back to life by being shot. Make no mistake, they are used to kill.
This is the closest to an intlligent statement you have come.

If you want to stop drowning, drink more water. Right?
Actually drinking water wouldnt effect drowning, now inhaling water might hold some relation, but then you arent interested in the reality of things just in the way you think reality should be.

It generates such intense debate because your opinion kills innocent people...
So does yours.

Easily bypassed system. Just like all systems meant to limit legal stuff.


And yet you are advocating limiting gun ownership?

It generates such intense debate because your opinion kills innocent people...

My "opinion" kills people? Cool, I should get it registered and trademarked. Maybe sell it to the military.

(snipped) but then you arent interested in the reality of things just in the way you think reality should be.
While you made some points... your prevailing attitude in the post was one of insulting Upitatanium. I believe he(she) is deserving better than that.

I guess this discusion is a waste of time... there are too many rednecks that believe it is their godgiven right to have a "tool" that used for killing people in their homes.

Have a look at Canada's crime-rate... I wonder why there are a lot less gun-crimes/accidents compared to America... I just hope your kids never find your gun and accidentally kill their own brother/sister.

I guess this discusion is a waste of time... there are too many rednecks that believe it is their godgiven right to have a "tool" that used for killing people in their homes.

Have a look at Canada's crime-rate... I wonder why there are a lot less gun-crimes/accidents compared to America... I just hope your kids never find your gun and accidentally kill their own brother/sister.
The discussion is a waste of time when one side continues to result to insults to "prove" their point.

Look at Canada. Gun ownership is nearly as high as the US. So gun ownership alone isnt the cause of violent crimes. Something else must be.

I don't see why Americans in general seem to be so fond of there constitution. Sure it says a lot of god things, but I feel that some of the things should be put in its context of when and why it was written.
My guess is that the rights to arms was given at a time when states were awfully afraid of revolutions, and by giving the citizens the right to arm themselves made the risk of an coupe d'etat less likley. Wasn't the part of it being forbidden to have a standing army for more than two years also written for that reason?
When you could be flexible and changing to a standing army just cos times were changing also mean that you would see that the very guns aimed to protect you now serves the opposite pourpose? I'm no expert of American politics, but my guess is that "Indians" now a days also have to pay taxes, something the constitution forbids.
Guns in combination with people kill. People without guns are a lot safer.

Can't spell. Sorry.

Something else must be.

I guess it must be common sense ;)

I'm sorry if I offended you, but I simply don't understand why you would want kids to handle guns.

Have a look at Europe, when some kid brings a gun school it's big news! When some American kid wipes out his class it just another day at school...

I guess this discusion is a waste of time... there are too many rednecks that believe it is their godgiven right to have a "tool" that used for killing people in their homes.

Have a look at Canada's crime-rate... I wonder why there are a lot less gun-crimes/accidents compared to America... I just hope your kids never find your gun and accidentally kill their own brother/sister.

First off, I'm not a redneck. I grew up in Chicago and now live adjacent to a university.

I also don't believe in "God" so it doesn't follow that I believe it is a "godgiven right" It is a right given to me in the U.S. Constitution and upheld by the Supreme Court.

I have looked at Canada's crime rate. I have also looked at population densities and cultural differences. I would like our rates to get as low as thiers but banning firearms won't accomplish it.

My kids will never "find" my guns. I keep them in the open and they are being taught the safety measures and proper use of them.

Guns in combination with people kill. People without guns are a lot safer.

I fully agree :)

I guess it must be common sense ;)

I'm sorry if I offended you, but I simply don't understand why you would want kids to handle guns.

Have a look at Europe, when some kid brings a gun school it's big news! When some American kid wipes out his class it just another day at school...
You didnt offend me. You insulted me. However, your opinion of me has no affect on me, so no offense taken.

However, Im curious how you got the impression that I was for kids handling guns? I do not believe that I ever posted anything that remotely resembled "I believe that kids should handle guns". My own son has handled some of my guns, he knows how they work, knows what they can do. He also knows where they are locked up, and does not know how to get them.

As for your assertion that in America kids "wiping out his class is just another day at school"... is that based on anything remotely resembling fact? Or are you exagerating for effect?

Guns in combination with people kill. People without guns are a lot safer
I fully agree :)
People without guns are less safe vs. criminals who wish to harm them.

People without guns are less safe vs. criminals who wish to harm them.

I belive that your average criminal goal isn't to kill/harm you. I think his after something you've got. If he doesn't have to be afraid of you having a gun, he in turn is less likly to have one. And trust me, this works in a lot of countries. Surly one could argue that it would lead to more theft when the bad guys hasn't got anything to fear. But the people in general wouldn't get hurt, and nothing you own is more important than your life. And really, I don't think that there would be more crimes if ordinary people didn't bear arms.

As for your assertion that in America kids "wiping out his class is just another day at school"... is that based on anything remotely resembling fact? Or are you exagerating for effect?

There have been several incidents where some kid killed his class/schoolmates, all I meant to say was: kids shouldn't be allowed to handle guns.

I don't think Americans will ever give-up the right to bear arms... but aleast put some laws into place that make sure people store their guns safely and get screened before they are allowed to have a gun.

Perhaps you have made sure no accidents happen with your guns, but there are plenty of people out there that think their kids will never find their gun on the top shelf in that old wooden box.

To you maybe, but then you are already predisposed to gun control, where I feel it's unconstitutional.

Which is where both sides usually end up in this debate. One says its okay just because they can and the other says its a bad idea regardless.


Of this we agree.

I love it when opposing sides say that.


I guess giving a "nutbag" a gun in war makes sense to you. If he's capable of shooting his own countrymen at home, he's as capable of shooting his countrymen in war. He's even more likely to shoot his countrymen, because they would make easier targets.

To be fair, nutbaggery usually emerges after they get the sniper training. THEN they go all rampagy. Killing presidents and the like.

Why would he want to kill the guys keeping him alive? Plenty of other juicy targets around that want you dead. Makes more sense to just kill the enemy.

Then there is the whole evolution of turning into a whacko. The God-like feeling of being a sniper. The invincibility of being in a tank. Domination over life. Getting drunk on all that power is easy for inferior types and gives them superiority they never had before. I could go on.


You seem to feel you are capable to determine when a gun is needed. I would not presume to identify myself as so omniscient. :rolleyes:
It's not a matter of need. I do not need a reason to exorcise my right to own a gun. Period.

Just because you can doesn't make it a good idea. (see bottom post on 'need')


Actually, you have the right to swear loudly at the theater... they also have the right to refuse service to you. It's their business Im afraid.

I should have clarified as 'swear loudly and endlessly'. You can of course DO IT but this will get you kicked out. One of many things that can get you booted out.


Ah, so you are in favor of limiters on all production cars that are driven on city roads that prevent cars from exceeding a maximum speed limit? No? I thought not.

I should have clarified it being his racing car. And you don't need limiters. Its called a speeding ticket. Breaking the speed limit is illegal. There are laws against it.


You do not know when something is "needed" or not, neither do I. You choose to impose your will on others, I do not. I choose to let others have a choice.

Please. 'Need' is regulated all the time. Water is rationed in a drought. Just because you like to keep your lawn green doesn't mean you can violate regulations and use all that water that everyone else needs to live. These laws are in place for the public good. Your sense of comfort does not overpower another's right to live comfortably (or live at all for that matter).

I can predict what the response wil be to this one. "We use guns to protect our rights/lives". Now I would like to see which right other than the right to bear arms that owning guns is protecting. I would also like to see how lives are being saved by gun ownership. 2,000,000 defensive uses of a gun isn't going to cut it. I could show you how banning guns has decreased deaths in other countries but what we really need is an American model to prove the point. Sadly, we must ban guns (non-hunting ones) for a while in America in order to find out if it does in fact have an effect.

Good luck getting that one through :p

Chances of a person using a gun in time to save themselves are rare enough and at the end of the day the criminal has a new weapon (and some pocket change).


Statistics state otherwise.

Every single year, firearms are used in self-defenses between 1.5 and 2.5 million times.

Chances are *not* that the criminal is going to escape with your gun.

I belive that your average criminal goal isn't to kill/harm you. I think his after something you've got. If he doesn't have to be afraid of you having a gun, he in turn is less likly to have one. And trust me, this works in a lot of countries. Surly one could argue that it would lead to more theft when the bad guys hasn't got anything to fear. But the people in general wouldn't get hurt, and nothing you own is more important than your life. And really, I don't think that there would be more crimes if ordinary people didn't bear arms.
Well, what you believe the goal of the avg criminal, is immaterial. Violent crime, while may or may not have the goal of robbery, occurs. Violent crime by definition is a crime that causes harm/death to the victim. Home invasions occur. Rapes occur. Assaults occur.

You wish to limit my ability to defend myself, and to defend my family. I wish to avail myself of the most efficient means necessary to do whatever I can to ensure thier safety. This also includes a gunsafe to keep the guns from the wrong hands.. i.e. other than mine or my wifes hands.

And my property is more important to me than the life of the criminal who choses to threaten me or mine.

There have been several incidents where some kid killed his class/schoolmates, all I meant to say was: kids shouldn't be allowed to handle guns.

I don't think Americans will ever give-up the right to bear arms... but aleast put some laws into place that make sure people store their guns safely and get screened before they are allowed to have a gun.

Perhaps you have made sure no accidents happen with your guns, but there are plenty of people out there that think their kids will never find their gun on the top shelf in that old wooden box.
Several incidents is a huge cry from "just another day at school". Try to keep the exagerating to a minimum.

There are laws in place... people are choosing to disregard those laws. Perhaps there is need to enforce the laws against those who disregard them, rather than make new laws to affect the law abiding citizens but do not affect the criminals.

And my property is more important to me than the life of the criminal who choses to threaten me or mine.

But is your property worth the chance of being killed, or putting your family at risk? My guess is that trying to use a gun "to protect" yourself is a really good way of increasing your own, or someone close to you, chanse of getting hurt

And yet you are advocating limiting gun ownership?

No. Advocating bans on gun types.

The trick is to ban those guns. Its not like banning alcohol where its easily made and/or smuggled in and even though more expensive than when legal, is still affordable (although used more sparingly and with good reason).

Guns are expensive to make. Harder to smuggle and the cost will keep them out of the hands of petty criminals or angry average joes (aka "soon-to-be-criminals").

But is your property worth the chance of being killed, or putting your family at risk? My guess is that trying to use a gun "to protect" yourself is a really good way of increasing your own, or someone close to you, chanse of getting hurt

Are you willing to have your life in your own hands, or in the hands of the criminal in your living room at 3 in the morning?

Are you willing to have your life in your own hands, or in the hands of the criminal in your living room at 3 in the morning?

I would rather give him my vcr than risking that bullets starts to fly around inside my home. And just cos I'm against weapons doesn't mean that I don't know anything about them, I've done military service.

you dont need to ban all guns all you need to do is limit the sale of say m16's, g3a3's, ak47's, as "hunting rifles" by not selling them. its ok to have a gun (.22 rifle, shtgun or a pistol) look at canada almost every housegold owns at least one firearm


And of course, we should all do as the Canadians...

Now, I live in Denmark, not the US, so I may be missing out on something here...but could somebody please explain to me why any civilian would NEED to acquire an assault gun (for legal purposes, whatever they might be) ?

Statistics state otherwise.

Every single year, firearms are used in self-defenses between 1.5 and 2.5 million times.

Chances are *not* that the criminal is going to escape with your gun.

That's just when they are able to be used. Given the fact you could fight back its best to end that fight before its starts. Why should a criminal makes his job harder for himself by putting his life at risk?

But is your property worth the chance of being killed, or putting your family at risk? My guess is that trying to use a gun "to protect" yourself is a really good way of increasing your own, or someone close to you, chanse of getting hurt

Someone entering my home has "already" put my family at risk. Personally I won't take the chance that the good will of a criminal will keep him from shooting us, raping my wife or hurting any on my kids w/o provocation. He's already proven he doesn't care about society.

(snipped)

I should have clarified it being his racing car. And you don't need limiters. Its called a speeding ticket. Breaking the speed limit is illegal. There are laws against it.
Ah, you have stumbled onto my point. There are laws against the use of guns in crimes. Therefor, we do not need regulation. Using a gun to commit a crime is already illegal.

Please. 'Need' is regulated all the time. Water is rationed in a drought. Just because you like to keep your lawn green doesn't mean you can violate regulations and use all that water that everyone else needs to live. These laws are in place for the public good. Your sense of comfort does not overpower another's right to live comfortably (or live at all for that matter).
Again, you help make my point. A person's right to live comfortably (in a gun free world) does not overpower my right to live comfortably in my own defense.
I can predict what the response wil be to this one. "We use guns to protect our rights/lives". Now I would like to see which right other than the right to bear arms that owning guns is protecting. I would also like to see how lives are being saved by gun ownership. 2,000,000 defensive uses of a gun isn't going to cut it. I could show you how banning guns has decreased deaths in other countries but what we really need is an American model to prove the point. Sadly, we must ban guns (non-hunting ones) for a while in America in order to find out if it does in fact have an effect.

Good luck getting that one through :p
I could also show you where banning guns has increased crime rates including murder and other violent crimes.
I could also show you where completely removing all restrictions (other than mentally ill and felons) from gun ownership has decreased crime rates including murder and violent crimes.

Your question "I would like to see which right other than the right to bear arms that owning guns is protecting." is confusing to me. Exactly what woudl you like me to show you?

Someone entering my home has "already" put my family at risk. Personally I won't take the chance that the good will of a criminal will keep him from shooting us, raping my wife or hurting any on my kids w/o provocation. He's already proven he doesn't care about society.

Why should he shoot you? And why do you think that criminals in other countries, where families don't have guns, uses guns themselves when comiting theese kind of crimes? The percentage of criminals just wanting to kill someone who he knows don't prove a threat to him is very low, in my opinion.

But is your property worth the chance of being killed, or putting your family at risk? My guess is that trying to use a gun "to protect" yourself is a really good way of increasing your own, or someone close to you, chanse of getting hurt
As much as I hate to say this, you are making a guess, and it's not really based on facts.
Me defending my family decreases the chance of my family getting hurt. If by the simple fact that they have a better chance of escape while I have the criminals attention.

Why should he shoot you? And why do you think that criminals in other countries, where families don't have guns, uses guns themselves when comiting theese kind of crimes? The percentage of criminals just wanting to kill someone who he knows don't prove a threat to him is very low, in my opinion.

Why? Because he is a criminal. Why did he break into my home?

The second question is unclear, please restate.

IYO. That's fine. You keep your opinion when said individual is in your home. I'm not going to let my family be hurt based on percentages.

No. Advocating bans on gun types.

The trick is to ban those guns. Its not like banning alcohol where its easily made and/or smuggled in and even though more expensive than when legal, is still affordable (although used more sparingly and with good reason).

Guns are expensive to make. Harder to smuggle and the cost will keep them out of the hands of petty criminals or angry average joes (aka "soon-to-be-criminals").
We are arguing semantics here.. ban on gun types is limiting my gun ownership of said types.

What makes you think guns are harder to smuggle? Millions of pounds of illegal drugs are smuggled into this country every year. It would require almost no effort to smuggle guns in along with the drugs.

And it's pure conjecture that a ban would keep guns out of the hands of petty criminals. Rather, if the criminals knew that guns were out of the hands of law abiding citizens, they would more likely get a gun to ensure they "had the upper hand".

Statistics prove that gun ownership has a deterent to crime. That city in Georgia, where it became mandatory for the head of the household to have a loaded gun in the house saw a virtual cessation of home break ins. That's just common sense.

Why should he shoot you? And why do you think that criminals in other countries, where families don't have guns, uses guns themselves when comiting theese kind of crimes? The percentage of criminals just wanting to kill someone who he knows don't prove a threat to him is very low, in my opinion.

This is going to sound crazy to some of you...but can you imagine a bank robbery, in which the robbers were armed only with knives?
Such a robbery took place in Denmark, earlier this year.

Fine, S.1431
http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:SN01431:@@@P




Basically, any weapon you can hold on to will be banned. So that means no more guns until they invent an anti-gravity firearm that floats in front of you.


Ooh I'd vote for him then

As much as I hate to say this, you are making a guess, and it's not really based on facts.
Me defending my family decreases the chance of my family getting hurt. If by the simple fact that they have a better chance of escape while I have the criminals attention.

No one "defends" themselves with a gun, they do however attack people with them.

This is going to sound crazy to some of you...but can you imagine a bank robbery, in which the robbers were armed only with knives?
Such a robbery took place in Denmark, earlier this year.

How in the...? Just out of curiousity, was it sucessful?

No Guns were not Legal in Saddam's Iraq, except for those in power.
The ones in Power had the weapons so the ones in power denied freedom of speech.
Idiotic statement made by an obviouly uneducated person.


http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/2003/09#0922

Did the Iraqis own lots of guns under Saddam?
Alex Tabarrok has some more on the question of whether Iraqis were well armed while Saddam was in power. (My earlier comments are here.)

He points to a New York Times article that states: “Mr. Hussein, never one to tolerate competition, forbade private citizens to carry weapons, effectively outlawing the security industry.”, and suggests that contradicts an earlier New York Times article that reported that guns were easy and legal to obtain in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Tabarrok concludes:

Clearly, the New York Times is wrong. But where does the truth lie?

However, it is possible that Iraqi civilians might have been allowed to own guns and keep them in their homes, but not to carry them in public, so there isn’t necessarily a contradiction between the two reports.

-------

In fact US soldier confiscate weapons all the time when they searched homes. One of the first acts of the interim gov't was to ban gun ownership (which meant they were legal beforehand)

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=123&art_id=qw1070624700608B262&set_id=1


Oh, you saw the Pirncess bride was on the other day, I watched it as well.
Pointless idiocy, as if people buy guns and then go home and shoot themselves as self defense. Pitiful attempt at an anology.[QUOTE]

Not a bad analogy, actually.

Poisoning yourself = something you do to yourself.
Others poisoning you = something others do to you.

Your analogy:

Buying gun = something you do yourself
Shooting yourself = something you do to yourself

Your missing the influence from the other party.

[QUOTE]
Another pitiful attempt at an anology.
I would appreciate...since your belive yourself to be in a position to decide for an entire nation what "smart" selfdefence is, to provide:
1. An alternative to the current usage of guns as tools for self defense.
2.Facts supporting your alternative is superior to the current method.
3. Statistical data from at least two independent sources supporting your facts.


1) With less guns around there are less deaths.
2) If you are being robbed try to run, or throw some money to the ground and run while the robber picks the money up. Its what he's after anyway. If a burglar is in your house, run out and call the police and avoid confronting the person at all costs. That is what's 'smart'.
3) Okee dokee

http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/gunaus.htm

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir_cap

http://www.uncjin.org/Documents/6comm/4e.pdf

(Probably others. I see John Lott's, the NRA's and FoxNews' articles come up so much on the searches these were pretty hard to find. They really got Google swamped good.)

I hate statistics, really. Often incomplete, open to translation, and they differ in methods in how they are taken in different countries. But we must slog through them I guess.


You don't appear to be able to argue any comment logically.

Sure I can. :)


This statement is conjecture, uninformed conjecture actually, as I doubt you are a Law enforcement officer.
Produce statistical data showing how many people are on record successfully defending themselves with firearms versus failures.

If cops say get rid of assault rifles then I say they are right. The pres saw it differently somehow.

That my good sir is a difficult statistic to find. Besides, the stat I'm looking for won't exist until guns are banned and we see what happens.

No one "defends" themselves with a gun, they do however attack people with them.

How in the...? Just out of curiousity, was it sucessful?

What, pray tell, is the basis for your statement that no one defends themselves with a gun?
How then, in your view, does someone defend themself?

One of my favorite anecdotes....
Driver in a car sitting at red light.
Someone opens the passanger door in an appearent carjacking attempt.
Driver pulls out gun and points it at carjacker and says "What do you want?"
Carjacker says "To be somewhere else" and promptly flees.

This is going to sound crazy to some of you...but can you imagine a bank robbery, in which the robbers were armed only with knives?
Such a robbery took place in Denmark, earlier this year.

I'll give them credit for balls. At least there will be no shoot-outs with the police when they are caught (if they were caught).

(snip)
2) If you are being robbed try to run, or throw some money to the ground and run while the robber picks the money up. Its what he's after anyway. If a burglar is in your house, run out and call the police and avoid confronting the person at all costs. That is what's 'smart'.
And a rape victim should just lay back and enjoy it? There are many more crimes being committed than simple robbery.

If cops say get rid of assault rifles then I say they are right. The pres saw it differently somehow.
Assault weapons, not rifles. Assault rifle ownership is already highly restricted to the point of being nearly banned.
The police chief of LA, in his statement concerning the ban used some horibly skewed statistics to make his point. Im sure that there are a lot of police and police commissions would like the complete banning of all private ownership of firearms. That doesn't make them right.

That my good sir is a difficult statistic to find. Besides, the stat I'm looking for won't exist until guns are banned and we see what happens.
Look at Washington DC. Look at NYC. The statistics are out there if you look.

ok, pro-active preventative actions are bad

why are we in a pro-active preventative war with the middle east?

There is a differance how governments deal with their own citizens and how govts deal with one another.

...(non-hunting ones)...

Although I disagree with you on gun control, I must say thanks for at least thinking of us hunters out there.


And I'm not a red-neck, asshole. I get reeeaal PISSY when people start that bullshit. Just because I own a gun does not make me a redneck nor a mass murderer.

Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my gun.


Deer, on the other hand...... ;) 'sides, venison tastes better than cow and is a hell of a lot better for you.

Although I disagree with you on gun control, I must say thanks for at least thinking of us hunters out there.


And I'm not a red-neck, asshole. I get reeeaal PISSY when people start that bullshit. Just because I own a gun does not make me a redneck nor a mass murderer.

Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my gun.


Deer, on the other hand...... ;) 'sides, venison tastes better than cow and is a hell of a lot better for you.
But Venison tastes a lot worse than Bear which does taste great!

But Venison tastes a lot worse than Bear which does taste great!

I unfortunately did not have the oppertunity to go big game hunting yet. I am looking forward to heading to the Rockies or to Canada to get myself a moose. I want a moose to mount on my wall, and I want to shoot a squirrl and mount that next to it. Under it would be a gold plaque saying:

This is why the Rocky and Bullwinkle Show was cancelled. :)

And Upitatanium, I was NOT reffering to you as "asshole."

lol... i think i may do that. anyway time for my 2 cents.

For one thing, people say there are less gun related crimes in canada. True cause theres less people :l (stupid idiot fact). Yes, I agree that some guns should be banned, but not all of them. The fact is, guns are usefull for defense, but you need to have them ready in order for them to be usefull, where as a criminal that carries one already has his ready. Which I wouldn't want everyone to carry a loaded gun at all times either. It would make me nervous.

There can't really ever be a right way on how to do gun-control laws since they are effective killing machines, defensivly, offensively, or accidentally. And theres no way that the world is going to degrade back to swords and spears.

Theres always gonna be someone with a gun that wants to hurt someone else out there. Most people that support using a gun in defence realises this and people who want to upmost banish guns dont realise that there are other easy ways to smuggle guns in. Even if you banish them all across the world, some nutcase is going to manually make a gun and use it to gain power.

lol... i think i may do that. anyway time for my 2 cents.

For one thing, people say there are less gun related crimes in canada. True cause theres less people :l (stupid idiot fact). Yes, I agree that some guns should be banned, but not all of them. The fact is, guns are usefull for defense, but you need to have them ready in order for them to be usefull, where as a criminal that carries one already has his ready. Which I wouldn't want everyone to carry a loaded gun at all times either. It would make me nervous.

There can't really ever be a right way on how to do gun-control laws since they are effective killing machines, defensivly, offensively, or accidentally. And theres no way that the world is going to degrade back to swords and spears.

Theres always gonna be someone with a gun that wants to hurt someone else out there. Most people that support using a gun in defence realises this and people who want to upmost banish guns dont realise that there are other easy ways to smuggle guns in. Even if you banish them all across the world, some nutcase is going to manually make a gun and use it to gain power.

No, we want to ban non-hand guns. Hand guns are good for self defense and have been used to defend homes good. Why not just have a hand gun?

There can't really ever be a right way on how to do gun-control laws since they are effective killing machines, defensivly, offensively, or accidentally. And theres no way that the world is going to degrade back to swords and spears.

On a side note... Australia, having already banned most ownership of handguns is now going after swords. People who own swords are going to have to turn them over the the local police.

lol, 8 pages

I rule

No one "defends" themselves with a gun, they do however attack people with them.



How in the...? Just out of curiousity, was it sucessful?

Yes, it was...well, sort of. The police apprehended the culprits only hours later.

Danish banks are not constructed like fortresses, nor do they employ armed guards. The philosophy is to have the bank robbers leave as quickly as possible, thereby limiting the amount of danger posed to staff and customers. Let the police catch the robbers - that is their job.

Make no mistake though, the banks still use time-locked safes and vaults, silent alarms, (hidden) cameras and colour bombs (destroying all notes)...and these are just the ones known to the public. Add in the fact that the police is fairly good at solving this type of crime (more than 75 % within a year).

No one "defends" themselves with a gun, they do however attack people with them.
Actually, firearms are used in self defense many many times every year. In most cases, simply brandishing the weapon brings the situation down to a controllable level, so shots are usually not ever fired in defensive situations.

I personally scared two home invaders off when I came charging out of my bedroom with a shotgun. So yes, they are used for defense.

Actually, firearms are used in self defense many many times every year. In most cases, simply brandishing the weapon brings the situation down to a controllable level, so shots are usually not ever fired in defensive situations.

I personally scared two home invaders off when I came charging out of my bedroom with a shotgun. So yes, they are used for defense.
and what would happen had they had guns

No, we want to ban non-hand guns. Hand guns are good for self defense and have been used to defend homes good. Why not just have a hand gun?
you can defend your home with something other than a handgun, handguns are useless other than to hide and shoot people with.

you can defend your home with something other than a handgun, handguns are useless other than to hide and shoot people with.

Good idea, Chess. I'll defend my home with a bat, or a stick or rock, or something, while the criminal (who will have a weapon (read - gun) regardless of the law, stands back, giggles, and shoots me in the ass. Great idea.

and what would happen had they had guns
I would have shot them without giving them a chance to leave. What you fail to realize is that not everyone is a pussy like you, and that some people are willing to take a little risk to defend their persons and property.

Living in the UK, where guns are illegal, I know that there is a massively higher rate of gun crime in the USA, and the fact that so many people own them is usually thought of as a bad thing in the UK. so maybe Kerry isn't wrong to ban them after all.

Living in the UK, where guns are illegal, I know that there is a massively higher rate of gun crime in the USA, and the fact that so many people own them is usually thought of as a bad thing in the UK. so maybe Kerry isn't wrong to ban them after all.
Sure you guys have lower gun crime, but your violent crime is right up there with ours. You're still killing as many people as we do, but you're using knives instead. Somehow I doubt the fact that the assailant is armed with an icepick makes the woman feel safer as she's being raped and murdered.

Living in the UK, where guns are illegal, I know that there is a massively higher rate of gun crime in the USA, and the fact that so many people own them is usually thought of as a bad thing in the UK. so maybe Kerry isn't wrong to ban them after all.

WARNING: The following is a Devil's Advocate position:

Maybe the crime rate with guns is so high because only some people own them. Perhaps gun ownership should be compulsory, not banned...then everybody would have a gun. Yippeeeee

WARNING: The following is a Devil's Advocate position:

Maybe the crime rate with guns is so high because only some people own them. Perhaps gun ownership should be compulsory, not banned...then everybody would have a gun. Yippeeeee
I wonder how willing someone would be to hold up a bank if they knew for a fact that every employee and customer in there was packing.

I wonder how willing someone would be to hold up a bank if they knew for a fact that every employee and customer in there was packing.

Yep yep...

Actually, I like Chris Rock's idea: Make every bullet cost $5,000. People would be hella more discretionary with whom they shoot at. :)

During the LA riots, the safest place was Chinatown. Why? Because the Chinese were armed and not afraid to shoot people trying to loot them.

During the LA riots, the safest place was Chinatown. Why? Because the Chinese were armed and not afraid to shoot people trying to loot them.

In Louisiana there is the "shoot the carjacker" law. It was enacted due to the high rate of carjackings. The law read that if you are INSIDE your vehicle, and someone tries to carjack you, you may shoot them.

In Louisiana, most people have a gun. Carjackings are done, significantly...

Normal citizens should leave law enforcement to the pple who are best at it- the police.

In my country, guns are banned and it is almost impossible to get yr hands on one. Open the newspapers and u will never ever see reports on criminals wrecking havoc with guns, kids killing classmates in schools, or kids killing their siblings at home accidentally with a loaded gun left carelessly ard.

The 2nd amendment to the constitution was written..what? a cople centuries back when the social conditions were much different from what it is today.

Bottomline is guns=trouble. Minimise the access to guns or banning them completely minimises trouble.

Normal citizens should leave law enforcement to the pple who are best at it- the police.

In my country, guns are banned and it is almost impossible to get yr hands on one. Open the newspapers and u will never ever see reports on criminals wrecking havoc with guns, kids killing classmates in schools, or kids killing their siblings at home accidentally with a loaded gun left carelessly ard.

The 2nd amendment to the constitution was written..what? a cople centuries back when the social conditions were much different from what it is today.

Bottomline is guns=trouble. Minimise the access to guns or banning them completely minimises trouble.

What is the crime rate in your country? Did banning guns change human nature?

I'm frm Singapore. Okay, we only gained independence from the Brits only a couple of decades ago. And yeah we have banned guns rite from the onset of our independence.

I noe we cannot entirely attribute the extremely low serious crime rate to the ban on guns.

But looking at the neighbouring countries in the region of South east asia, such as the Philippines where armed kidnappings and other gun related crime is terrible, i say it does play a large part in keeping our serious crime rate low.

We dun wake up in the middle of the nite because we hear a noise downstairs, and with our hearts in our mouth, worry whether the guy is armed with a gun.

We dun worry when its 2am and we're walkin in the dark alley, whether there would be anyone with a gun hiding in the corner.

On a side note... Australia, having already banned most ownership of handguns is now going after swords. People who own swords are going to have to turn them over the the local police.

Those evil people! Swords are decorative and awesome -- there are collectors everywhere. They have gone too far.

Does that mean Austrailia no longer has a fencing team?

Normal citizens should leave law enforcement to the pple who are best at it- the police.

In my country, guns are banned and it is almost impossible to get yr hands on one. Open the newspapers and u will never ever see reports on criminals wrecking havoc with guns, kids killing classmates in schools, or kids killing their siblings at home accidentally with a loaded gun left carelessly ard.

The 2nd amendment to the constitution was written..what? a cople centuries back when the social conditions were much different from what it is today.

Bottomline is guns=trouble. Minimise the access to guns or banning them completely minimises trouble.

Ever found a cop at 125th street in NYC at 2am?
Social conditions are no different. The firearms just shoot faster, is all.

I'm frm Singapore. Okay, we only gained independence from the Brits only a couple of decades ago. And yeah we have banned guns rite from the onset of our independence.

I noe we cannot entirely attribute the extremely low serious crime rate to the ban on guns.

But looking at the neighbouring countries in the region of South east asia, such as the Philippines where armed kidnappings and other gun related crime is terrible, i say it does play a large part in keeping our serious crime rate low.

We dun wake up in the middle of the nite because we hear a noise downstairs, and with our hearts in our mouth, worry whether the guy is armed with a gun.

We dun worry when its 2am and we're walkin in the dark alley, whether there would be anyone with a gun hiding in the corner.


We also don't whip people for vandalism, put drug dealers to death (although not a bad idea), and is chewing gum still illegal? I recall making a hefty profit on bubbliscoius when I was there.

We also don't whip people for vandalism, put drug dealers to death (although not a bad idea), and is chewing gum still illegal? I recall making a hefty profit on bubbliscoius when I was there.

Well..lookin at the crime rate in yr country and comparing it with mine, i must say that whatever we're doing here must obviously be working.

32 states (if i'm not wrong) in America has the death penalty for a whole range of crime. Having the death penalty is not such a bad idea if yr legal system is rigourous.