NationStates Jolt Archive

He said he would sign the ban if it crossed his desk. It didn't, but I'm sure he would've if it did. That's one of the many reasons I don't care for the man. And the ban didn't have anything to do with full-auto weapons which are traditionally considered "assault weapons." If you really liked the "assault weapon ban", you can always live in California. Their ban doesn't expire.

IF HE WANTED THE BAN TO LIVE, HE COULDA PRESSURED CONGRESS TO GET HIM SOMETHING!! He didn't, because he didn't want it to live. He lied on the campaign. Ok, maybe not LIED, but he certainly was disingenuous. And look that one up in your Funk and Wagnall's if you don't know what it means.

Bucksnort, up until 1986, the Justice Department used to give advice on what to do if you were being robbed (i.e., a property crime). They had statistics to back up their advice. That advice changed, and as the years have progressed, the advice has become more specific, especially during the Clinton administration.

If you are being robbed or burglarized (a property crime) and the robber comes into contact with you (obvious in the first case, accidental in the second), you are ENCOURAGED by the Justice Department to take all means necessary to attack the criminal.

Why? Statistics show that there is now over a 90% chance that you will at the very least be physically abused. If you are a woman alone you face an over 70% chance of being raped. They *will* attempt to kill you - odds on.

And that is if you DO NOT RESIST.

So, the advice from a Democratic Justice Department is RESIST IMMEDIATELY and USE ALL FORCE AVAILABLE to STOP the crimes in progress.

The younger your perpetrator and the more separate from your race/ethnicity, the higher the odds that they will attempt to kill you for little or no reason.

So, you can be high minded, and be raped and killed, or you can kill him. Your choice. I suppose that if I find an unarmed corpse while on duty, I can assume that the victim was only being high-minded.

As a liberal, I don't see any reason why a sane, law abiding citizens can't own a gun. I think certain military-type weapons - bazookas & rocket launchers, etc. - should be banned, but that's more because of the likelihood of massively destructive accidents. However, 2nd amendment supporters really do have to grant that the community - embodied by the state - has a compelling interest in making sure that any psychotic felon who wants a gun, can't get one.
Law abiding should be an easy check - you could even restrict to violent felons; sane is rather more problematic. So much so, I have hard time coming up with a test that couldn't be completely abused to deny anybody a gun - sanity tests would probably NOT be practical.

To whoever said "Murder happened just as much before guns were invented. The tools don't make the difference." True, but I've never heard of an innocent bystander killed in a driveby stabbing. These restrictions are to prevent bystanders from getting killed for no better reason than bad luck.
The last thing I want said over my lifeless form is "OOPS".

There was just such a "driveby stabbing" in Alexandria, Virginia, just a few years ago. Some whackjob drove through a neighborhood, stopping to get out of his car, walk up to people, and cut their throats.

He killed a couple of children and some old people who just happened to be there.

It happens in Japan, too. A knife is just as lethal within arm's reach as a pistol. Just ask OJ Simpson.

Law abiding should be an easy check - you could even restrict to violent felons; sane is rather more problematic. So much so, I have hard time coming up with a test that couldn't be completely abused to deny anybody a gun - sanity tests would probably NOT be practical.


Does law abiding doesn't mean you're not dangerous, just that you're not a convicted felon yet. Every criminal was law abiding at some point or another.

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people, but so do monkeys, if they have a gun" - Eddie Izzard

Wrong. The criminal wants to get in, and get out as quickly as possible, with the cash he came for. They are far more likely to leave the clerk, in your scenario, alive, but incapacitated long enough for them to get away. The convenience store robber generally wants quick cash, not to kill someone. the gun, however, causes the death. If they had only a club, it is far harder, more time consuming, and more noisy to kill the clerk. More likely, they'd whack him upside the head two or three good licks until the clerk went down and stayed down...then they would empty the till and leave. the clerk would wake up maybe an hour later with a splitting headache, and in need of medical attention, but he'd LIVE.
That's the difference.

You take a baseball bat to the side of anyone's unprotected head, there's a VERY good chance, they're not getting up again.

It's not TV or the movies. Clubs can easily kill, with not much effort.

IF HE WANTED THE BAN TO LIVE, HE COULDA PRESSURED CONGRESS TO GET HIM SOMETHING!! He didn't, because he didn't want it to live. He lied on the campaign. Ok, maybe not LIED, but he certainly was disingenuous. And look that one up in your Funk and Wagnall's if you don't know what it means.

Cripes! ALL federal level politicians are disingenuous!

And that surely has nothing to do with the amounts of the two weapons that have historically been in battlefield use by militaries, right? Or, if you were referring to homicides committed with the two weapons, then we can safely conclude that availability is not a factor, right?

I was referring to all of it. Please note that I did not pick something like an AK or a M-16, which have been used in a great many more 20th century conflicts.

Bucksnort, up until 1986, the Justice Department used to give advice on what to do if you were being robbed (i.e., a property crime). They had statistics to back up their advice. That advice changed, and as the years have progressed, the advice has become more specific, especially during the Clinton administration.

If you are being robbed or burglarized (a property crime) and the robber comes into contact with you (obvious in the first case, accidental in the second), you are ENCOURAGED by the Justice Department to take all means necessary to attack the criminal.

Why? Statistics show that there is now over a 90% chance that you will at the very least be physically abused. If you are a woman alone you face an over 70% chance of being raped. They *will* attempt to kill you - odds on.

And that is if you DO NOT RESIST.

So, the advice from a Democratic Justice Department is RESIST IMMEDIATELY and USE ALL FORCE AVAILABLE to STOP the crimes in progress.

The younger your perpetrator and the more separate from your race/ethnicity, the higher the odds that they will attempt to kill you for little or no reason.

So, you can be high minded, and be raped and killed, or you can kill him. Your choice. I suppose that if I find an unarmed corpse while on duty, I can assume that the victim was only being high-minded.

There are other ways to resist than to pull out a gun. Example, some guy takes me, a woman, at gunpoint, and forces me into my own vehicle. I know already he intends me to drive him way out into nowhere, where he can rape and kill me at leisure, with lfew or no witnesses. What do I do?

I DELIBERATELY CRASH MY CAR!! The second the car comes to a stop after impact, my door is open and I'm out of the car.


Suppose I'm not driving and he is? OK, I wait for my opportunity, because he can't watch me and the road at the same time, and I jump from my own car.

Suppose he puts me in the trunk? That is what I have screwdrivers in the trunk for. I pop the trunk lid and jump.

Suppose he ties me up and throws me in the trunk? Well, chances are, that isn't gonna happen, I don't go to places so secluded that he could get enough TIME to do that...and meanwhile, I am damn well gonna scream. His intention is to kill me anyway, so his threats to do it if I scream are notwithstanding, I damn well am gonna scream.

I also know a few good self-defense tricks...enough to get away from my attacker. I took some classes in women's self-defense. My FIRST OBEJECTIVE is to get away from my attacker.

YOUR first objective seems to be to blow your attacker to kingdom come. Perhaps it's a gender difference.

Bucksnort would obviously rather believe what he sees on CSI than the statistics compiled by the Justice Department under Clinton.

Bucksnort, if you are unarmed, and you are being robbed, you are in substantially more danger if you do not resist. You are inviting abuse if you give the criminal your wallet. They are not beating you to make it more difficult for you to pursue them or call the police after they leave.

They are abusing you because they find it entertaining. And they don't care if you die in the process. They will sodomize you if the opportunity presents itself. They will mutilate you if it pleases them. And they will beat you until you aren't fun anymore. Not until you're unconscious - but until you're not fun.

The statistics of many studies since the mid-1980s bear this out.

There are other ways to resist than to pull out a gun. Example, some guy takes me, a woman, at gunpoint, and forces me into my own vehicle. I know already he intends me to drive him way out into nowhere, where he can rape and kill me at leisure, with lfew or no witnesses. What do I do?

I DELIBERATELY CRASH MY CAR!! The second the car comes to a stop after impact, my door is open and I'm out of the car.


Suppose I'm not driving and he is? OK, I wait for my opportunity, because he can't watch me and the road at the same time, and I jump from my own car.

Suppose he puts me in the trunk? That is what I have screwdrivers in the trunk for. I pop the trunk lid and jump.

Suppose he ties me up and throws me in the trunk? Well, chances are, that isn't gonna happen, I don't go to places so secluded that he could get enough TIME to do that...and meanwhile, I am damn well gonna scream. His intention is to kill me anyway, so his threats to do it if I scream are notwithstanding, I damn well am gonna scream.

I also know a few good self-defense tricks...enough to get away from my attacker. I took some classes in women's self-defense. My FIRST OBEJECTIVE is to get away from my attacker.

YOUR first objective seems to be to blow your attacker to kingdom come. Perhaps it's a gender difference.

I'd have to say you're more paranoid than the gun owners.

I'm in favour of gun control, but I'd say that compared to some classes in self defense, a gun probably is a safer bet. It's not about blowing your attacker to kingdom come, it's about what's necessary to survive

Wrong. The criminal wants to get in, and get out as quickly as possible, with the cash he came for. They are far more likely to leave the clerk, in your scenario, alive, but incapacitated long enough for them to get away. The convenience store robber generally wants quick cash, not to kill someone. the gun, however, causes the death. If they had only a club, it is far harder, more time consuming, and more noisy to kill the clerk. More likely, they'd whack him upside the head two or three good licks until the clerk went down and stayed down...then they would empty the till and leave. the clerk would wake up maybe an hour later with a splitting headache, and in need of medical attention, but he'd LIVE.
That's the difference.

I'm generally pretty nice on this board, but you, sir, are an idiot. If you really think that a person hit with a baseball bat in the side of the head is going to recover, then you really need to find another topic to debate about. A person can be killed with a well placed punch from a bare hand, and that generates much much less force than a bat.

However, 5 thugs with bats and knives against one c-store clerk with a Govt. model = 5 less stupid criminals.

Bucksnort, if there is more than one attacker, you're toast unless you're the reincarnation of Bruce Lee.

And it will be a gang rape. And then they will kill you.

If you had a gun, you would have a good chance that they would leave without you firing a shot.

2.5 million cases of crime stopped by the mere presence of a gun without firing a shot are documented every year. Would you rather that the 2.5 million crimes took place, or are you happier that no crime occured and no one got hurt?

I'd have to say you're more paranoid than the gun owners.


Is it paranoid to have a fire safety plan in your house? no. It is also not paranoid to know, in advance, what you aould do in other life-threatening situations. You hope you never get put into one, but you know what you would do if you were.

I'm in favour of gun control, but I'd say that compared to some classes in self defense, a gun probably is a safer bet. It's not about blowing your attacker to kingdom come, it's about what's necessary to survive

No, what I am about is what is necessary to survive. What YOU are about is...what is necessary to retaliate, and get revenge.

MY first objective is survival...getting away from my attacker.
YOUR first objective is to blow away your attacker. you don't just want to survive/get away...you want revenge, and to retaliate upon your attacker. which is why I am more likely to get what I want, and you aren't.

The attacker is expecting what you are going to do, and is prepared for it. He's NOT expecting what I am going to do. I get the element of surprise.

Do they shoot the whale in the eyes? A 7.62x39mm FMJ will penetrate all of 70cm into the whale, which for most whales is similar to trying to kill a human with tacks. The surface layers of the whale will turn into mincemeat before the whale dies...

Damn, now I want to find the article. I wanna say it was National Geographic, but maybe it was Discover. Anyway, they seemd pretty frustrated, but those are the biggest guns they're allowed to have. And it turns out, that you can kill whales with them. As I'm sure you could eventually kill a human with tacks.


If you've got time to empty the 30 rounds, it might. Still much less handy than, say, a lever-action .450 Marlin. An expanding 7.62x39mm won't get deep enough inside the bear to manage more than making it angrier, and a FMJ 7.62x39mm (http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/AK-47%20762x39mm.jpg) causes a wound cavity too small to bother the bear too much. A .45" 400gr JFP at 1900fps, now that might inconvenience the bear quite a bit.

You damn gun geeks... I should point out , that our Alaskan camper might not be able to afford such an exotic weapon. Of course, he can't afford a legal full-auto AK either, but he could if I had my way.

Because of the inaccuracy and very limited penetration/size of wound cavity, fully automatic weapons simply suck at hunting, except perhaps for certain types of small, dangerous game -- mountain lions, humans, etc.

I'm generally pretty nice on this board, but you, sir, are an idiot. If you really think that a person hit with a baseball bat in the side of the head is going to recover, then you really need to find another topic to debate about. A person can be killed with a well placed punch from a bare hand, and that generates much much less force than a bat.

However, 5 thugs with bats and knives against one c-store clerk with a Govt. model = 5 less stupid criminals.

READ, "IDIOT"...I am a MA'AM...not a SIR.
and don't you DARE call that flame, you called ME an idiot first. And you called me by the wrong gender.

Because you have a gun doesn't mean you're going to use it, the point is someone is likely to backdown if you have one. what exactly is your neat trick that will take down an armed opponent?

I'm not saying you have to pursue and kill your attacker, I'm not saying that you have to exact revenge, just that a gun is more effective as a deterrent than your self defence classes.

READ, "IDIOT"...I am a MA'AM...not a SIR.
and don't you DARE call that flame, you called ME an idiot first. And you called me by the wrong gender.

I apologize.

You, madam, are an idiot. I refuse to flame anyone and in my sincere, educated opinion, you are a dolt.

You have been talking, ranting, raving and yelling at everyone about an issue you obviously know nothing about. Have you ever even fired a gun? Have you ever been in a situation where having one saved your life? Do you have children that you need to protect? I do, and I'm not about to abandon that responsibility because the police have stenciled 'to protect and to serve' on the side of thier car. I know many police officers, and they will be the first to tell you that if something bad happens, if someone is coming after you, it's really up to you to stay alive, and for the police to take the report later.

Read the laws carefully, read the statistics carefully, and when you are well verse on the facts of the issue, and not the emotion, we would be happy to discuss.

Because they aren't thinking clearly? That's the excuse I use when I do that. What I should have said was "a political movement". Political parties (or other organizations) whose goal is the creation of an economy functioning on principles of socialism through political means are seen as a fringe group, at least where I'm from. The meaning of the term "social democracy" has changed, it is no longer used (around here anyway) about those who actually seek the establishment of a system of socialism. Also, the inclusion of the name Marx usually means you're talking more about the political issues connected to the birth of socialism than about the economical issues.

Ah, OK, you view income as property, yes? So that in order for private ownership to exist, the government (or any other collective entity) must not in any way interfere with the ownership or transfer of factors of production, goods or money?

Indeed in that case there are no political systems other than (some implementations of) anarchy which allow private ownership, and I am personally not aware of a significant political party or movement which calls for anarchy and socialism either. However, I am aware of individuals that do, and such systems have been attempted in the past in small communities (and, philosophically speaking, such a system is no more inherently flawed than an anarchocapitalistic system). Surprisingly, those attempts, along with all other attempts at anarchical societies, have failed, for one reason or another.

Actually, no - I don't really consider income as 'property' - since income is, in general, just a form of transfer, with no intrinsic value.

Also - the point of a true socialism isn't about 'property', but about the means of production and distribution, which is PART of property, but doesn't DEFINE property.

I don't know who told you that all 'anarchy' communities fail/have failed. Our diverse world is home to several (fairly) pure anarchies.

My wife was stalked for six years by her ex-husband. Restraining orders, protective orders did no good. Police often refused to show up when she called for their enforcement, because he would be gone by the time they showed up.

But not until he had either beaten or stabbed her. And he was arrested on occasion, but never convicted, because there were no witnesses. And life is not like CSI...

Now she has a carry permit, and a 357. And he knows it.

And he stays away now. He is very, very afraid. Which is a good thing.

I suppose that Bucksnort would rather that she either work for years to try to overcome her ex-husband's physical prowess (which is considerable - he is a fanatic weightlifter and martial arts buff), or submit to being beaten and stabbed on occasion (whenever he wants to, basically), or wait for the system to work (well, after six years it hasn't).

Oh, that would be so morally superior to carrying a gun - and watching him stay away. You'll notice that he hasn't been blown away - but his little rat-like mind knows true enforcement and a lethal threat when he sees one. And the violence STOPS...

I'm generally pretty nice on this board, but you, sir, are an idiot. If you really think that a person hit with a baseball bat in the side of the head is going to recover, then you really need to find another topic to debate about. A person can be killed with a well placed punch from a bare hand, and that generates much much less force than a bat.

However, 5 thugs with bats and knives against one c-store clerk with a Govt. model = 5 less stupid criminals.

I am seriously considering a mod report for this.

It's unnecessary - and, as far as I can tell, you are calling someone an 'idiot' just because they have a different perspective to you.

By the way, while I was in hospital for an operation a few years ago, I struck up a friendship with a young guy from Newcastle who arrived on my second day. He was a mess when he came in, since he had just recieved a blow (with a baseball bat) to the side of his head.

He disarmed the assailant, then called an ambulance on his cellphone.

See, sometimes, people DO get up after being hit with a bat.

It never pays to make assumptions.

I was referring to all of it. Please note that I did not pick something like an AK or a M-16, which have been used in a great many more 20th century conflicts.I think there was a slight misunderstanding: I was saying that the Winchester 94 is far more available and has seen more use in warfare, thus it would not be the least bit surprising if it had been used to kill more people.

The Galil has been the standard issue rifle of an army in, what, zero major conflicts? It was first issued after the Yom Kippur War, and throughout its issue life (~1975-1990) most grunts preferred M16-family weapons (which the US gladly offered to them in great numbers) and AKs over it. It was only widely used in the invasion of Lebanon in 1982. Compared to the Winchester 94, which has been used by soldiers, law enforcement and outlaws since 1894, with 5,000,000 sold from 1894 to 2001...

On the other hand, I'm pretty sure AKs (and direct copies) have by now been used to kill more people than Mauser 98s (Gewehr and Karabiner).

I should point out , that our Alaskan camper might not be able to afford such an exotic weapon. Of course, he can't afford a legal full-auto AK either, but he could if I had my way.The suggested retail price of a Marlin 1895M in .450 Marlin is $680, and you can buy used ones in excellent condition for $450-500. Quality AKs and clones aren't that much cheaper, and you can buy 1 .450 Marlin round for the price of 8 7.62x39mm's.

Actually, no - I don't really consider income as 'property' - since income is, in general, just a form of transfer, with no intrinsic value.That part of my message was addressed at Battery Charger (as should be obvious from the quote above what you replied to).

I don't know who told you that all 'anarchy' communities fail/have failed. Our diverse world is home to several (fairly) pure anarchies.Any long-lived, still-existing ones in civilized Western countries? My knowledge of anarchic societies is limited to those in Spain prior to the civil war and some small communities based in Europe throughout the 20th century. The former were, ehh, screwed even without the fascists, and the latter have mostly collapsed or seem like places I definitely would not want to live in.

If you have examples to the contrary, however, I would like to hear them.

There are other ways to resist than to pull out a gun. Example, some guy takes me, a woman, at gunpoint, and forces me into my own vehicle. I know already he intends me to drive him way out into nowhere, where he can rape and kill me at leisure, with lfew or no witnesses. What do I do?

I DELIBERATELY CRASH MY CAR!! The second the car comes to a stop after impact, my door is open and I'm out of the car.


Suppose I'm not driving and he is? OK, I wait for my opportunity, because he can't watch me and the road at the same time, and I jump from my own car.

Suppose he puts me in the trunk? That is what I have screwdrivers in the trunk for. I pop the trunk lid and jump.

Suppose he ties me up and throws me in the trunk? Well, chances are, that isn't gonna happen, I don't go to places so secluded that he could get enough TIME to do that...and meanwhile, I am damn well gonna scream. His intention is to kill me anyway, so his threats to do it if I scream are notwithstanding, I damn well am gonna scream.

I also know a few good self-defense tricks...enough to get away from my attacker. I took some classes in women's self-defense. My FIRST OBEJECTIVE is to get away from my attacker.

YOUR first objective seems to be to blow your attacker to kingdom come. Perhaps it's a gender difference.


First responsibilty in any conflict is to get away from the situation--that's common for most self-defense laws.

You're jumping to conclusions again.

Any long-lived, still-existing ones in civilized Western countries?


Why only western countires?

Is it paranoid to have a fire safety plan in your house? no. It is also not paranoid to know, in advance, what you aould do in other life-threatening situations. You hope you never get put into one, but you know what you would do if you were.


Funny, that's EXACTLY how people with guns for defensive purposes think.


No, what I am about is what is necessary to survive. What YOU are about is...what is necessary to retaliate, and get revenge.


YOU are putting that qualification on it. We aren't.

"I DELIBERATELY CRASH MY CAR!! The second the car comes to a stop after impact, my door is open and I'm out of the car"

incidentally, you don't want a gun in case you kill the attacker, but you're ok with putting both your lives at risk by crashing a car?

I am seriously considering a mod report for this.

It's unnecessary - and, as far as I can tell, you are calling someone an 'idiot' just because they have a different perspective to you.


How about reporting Bucksnort for calling us murderers? That's pretty insulting as well.

Especially since there's no proof.

Bucksnort has proven time and again, that she has no facts about gun crime, gun control, or law-abiding gun owners. While this doesn't qualify her as an idiot (by the psychological definition of an IQ of 20 or less), she is definitely ignorant of the subject.

Unless you're willing to defend everyone from ALL the insults being slung (I do believe she's actually thrown around the most of any of us), I would suggest stopping with the mod threats. It's rather hypocritical.

"I DELIBERATELY CRASH MY CAR!! The second the car comes to a stop after impact, my door is open and I'm out of the car"

incidentally, you don't want a gun in case you kill the attacker, but you're ok with putting both your lives at risk by crashing a car?

Not to mention everyone else's for driving erratically....

Not to mention everyone else's for driving erratically....

possibly a few pedestrians

You have been talking, ranting, raving and yelling at everyone about an issue you obviously know nothing about. Have you ever even fired a gun? Have you ever been in a situation where having one saved your life?

i'm just pondering how nicely this argument could be used in defense of abortion. specifically something to the effect of "have you ever even HAD an abortion? have you ever been in a situation where having one saved your life?"

and then the implication that if you haven't, you're "talking, ranting, raving and yelling at everyone about an issue you obviously know nothing about."

it's an amusing way to approach politics. "have you ever been tortured? then how do you know torture is bad?

conversely, it seems totally remarkable that you're not considering the inverse. it doesn't seem, even remotely, to occur to you that being the victim of gun violence, having someone point a gun at you, threaten your life or someone else's with a gun, could have just as profound an effect, and give you an equally valid position to speak about gun issues.


Read the laws carefully, read the statistics carefully, and when you are well verse on the facts of the issue, and not the emotion, we would be happy to discuss.

clearly you are approaching this with a cool and level head. (this is sarcasm)

sure, madness lies the way of putting your faith in the police. but mutually assured destruction is just as insane a way of ensuring safety. how about building community, getting to the point where your neighbors are people you know and can trust, where you can count on other people to look out for you, and they can count on you the same.

and before you tell me that's absurd, unrealistic, and unsustainable, think about how sustainable it is to have everyone going through life not giving a shit for anyone else, terrified to death of everyone they meet, and packing heat to keep them safe from the rest of the world.

Why only western countires?Cultural tendencies. Something that works for natives in Africa or for a religious/lifestyle "cult" in South Asia might not work in a civilized western country.

Still, if you've got examples of anarchic societies from any other civilized countries, I'm listening.

That part of my message was addressed at Battery Charger (as should be obvious from the quote above what you replied to).

Any long-lived, still-existing ones in civilized Western countries? My knowledge of anarchic societies is limited to those in Spain prior to the civil war and some small communities based in Europe throughout the 20th century. The former were, ehh, screwed even without the fascists, and the latter have mostly collapsed or seem like places I definitely would not want to live in.

If you have examples to the contrary, however, I would like to hear them.

Civilised Western Countries?

Why are we being so specific geographically?

But, in very real, very western, and one would have thought - very civilised, terms:

How about Christiania?

http://www.christiania.org/

Cultural tendencies. Something that works for natives in Africa or for a religious/lifestyle "cult" in South Asia might not work in a civilized western country.

Still, if you've got examples of anarchic societies from any other civilized countries, I'm listening.

Don't know a lot about the topic tbh

I am seriously considering a mod report for this.

It's unnecessary - and, as far as I can tell, you are calling someone an 'idiot' just because they have a different perspective to you.

By the way, while I was in hospital for an operation a few years ago, I struck up a friendship with a young guy from Newcastle who arrived on my second day. He was a mess when he came in, since he had just recieved a blow (with a baseball bat) to the side of his head.

He disarmed the assailant, then called an ambulance on his cellphone.

See, sometimes, people DO get up after being hit with a bat.

It never pays to make assumptions.

I disagree. If you read many of Bucksnorts posts, they are volatile, inflamatory, and accusatory. She basically compared all gun owners to murderers, and has yet, as far as I can tell has yet to post anything but mean spirited rhetoric, and I think I should consider reporting her.

Furthermore, that young man is extremely lucky to be alive. It only takes (if I remember correctly) 60 lbs. of force to crush the human skull. And even a moderate blow to the head can cause severe brain damage. And, while I am not a doctor myself, I come from a family of medical practitioners and have learned a bit through osmosis.

I, for one, do not appreciate the comparisons between myself and hardened criminals just because I choose to take reponsibility for myself and my family. I also find her shrill cries to offensive and inappropriate for civilized debate and discourse. I would be happy to discuss this with a mod and do not feel I was out of line by my assertions.

It's one thing to say 'you're wrong, and here's why', it is another thing entirely to say 'you're a deranged killer'.

I disagree. If you read many of Bucksnorts posts, they are volatile, inflamatory, and accusatory. She basically compared all gun owners to murderers, and has yet, as far as I can tell has yet to post anything but mean spirited rhetoric, and I think I should consider reporting her.

Furthermore, that young man is extremely lucky to be alive. It only takes (if I remember correctly) 60 lbs. of force to crush the human skull. And even a moderate blow to the head can cause severe brain damage. And, while I am not a doctor myself, I come from a family of medical practitioners and have learned a bit through osmosis.

I, for one, do not appreciate the comparisons between myself and hardened criminals just because I choose to take reponsibility for myself and my family. I also find her shrill cries to offensive and inappropriate for civilized debate and discourse. I would be happy to discuss this with a mod and do not feel I was out of line by my assertions.

It's one thing to say 'you're wrong, and here's why', it is another thing entirely to say 'you're a deranged killer'.


I'd agree
I'd rather be called an idiot than a murderer

How about reporting Bucksnort for calling us murderers? That's pretty insulting as well.

Especially since there's no proof.

Bucksnort has proven time and again, that she has no facts about gun crime, gun control, or law-abiding gun owners. While this doesn't qualify her as an idiot (by the psychological definition of an IQ of 20 or less), she is definitely ignorant of the subject.

Unless you're willing to defend everyone from ALL the insults being slung (I do believe she's actually thrown around the most of any of us), I would suggest stopping with the mod threats. It's rather hypocritical.

Has she specifically targetted you, individually, to call a 'murderer'?

You have specifically targetted her, above, to call an 'idiot'.

How is it hypocritical? I have used no insulting terms... so, referring an insulting term to the mods would not be hypocrisy, for me.

and then the implication that if you haven't, you're "talking, ranting, raving and yelling at everyone about an issue you obviously know nothing about."

it's an amusing way to approach politics. "have you ever been tortured? then how do you know torture is bad?

conversely, it seems totally remarkable that you're not considering the inverse. it doesn't seem, even remotely, to occur to you that being the victim of gun violence, having someone point a gun at you, threaten your life or someone else's with a gun, could have just as profound an effect, and give you an equally valid position to speak about gun issues.

I've read her posts, and no, you don't need to have experienced something first-hand in order to debate a topic, however, rudimentary knowlege of some of the basics of the gun control issue IS required, other than the Mr. Mackey replie 'guns are bad mmmkay'.



clearly you are approaching this with a cool and level head. (this is sarcasm)

sure, madness lies the way of putting your faith in the police. but mutually assured destruction is just as insane a way of ensuring safety. how about building community, getting to the point where your neighbors are people you know and can trust, where you can count on other people to look out for you, and they can count on you the same.

and before you tell me that's absurd, unrealistic, and unsustainable, think about how sustainable it is to have everyone going through life not giving a shit for anyone else, terrified to death of everyone they meet, and packing heat to keep them safe from the rest of the world.

Well, I'll tell ya. When there are enough houses for everyone in the world, we will no longer need hammers, will we?

A gun is a tool. Hopefully, one day, people will see the foolishness and waste brought about by senseless war a violence. Untill that day, like the Boy Scouts teach, be prepared. It is better to have and not need, than to need and not have.

Has she specifically targetted you, individually, to call a 'murderer'?

You have specifically targetted her, above, to call an 'idiot'.

How is it hypocritical? I have used no insulting terms... so, referring an insulting term to the mods would not be hypocrisy, for me.

So if i say anyone who feels the same way as Bucksnort is an idiot, would that be acceptable as i am not targetting anyone in particular?

I should like to point out that I am not implying that Bucksnort is an idiot, but that generalisation does not make something less insulting

Christiania? No thank you. I rather not have biker gangs enforcing illegal drug trafficking.

So if i say anyone who feels the same way as Bucksnort is an idiot, would that be acceptable as i am not targetting anyone in particular?

I should like to point out that I am not implying that Bucksnort is an idiot, but that generalisation does not make something less insulting

Maybe it's just the way I see it, but, in debate, if you said that 'people for gun control are idiots' - that is an opinion... although I would still consider it a little 'flamey'.

If you said "XXX" (person's name) is an idiot, I don't see that there is any 'wiggle' room - that is a direct flame.

Maybe it's just the way I see it, but, in debate, if you said that 'people for gun control are idiots' - that is an opinion... although I would still consider it a little 'flamey'.

If you said "XXX" (person's name) is an idiot, I don't see that there is any 'wiggle' room - that is a direct flame.

I would think that they are both a bit flamey, but also both opinions. Either one should be reported or neither

Right, I'm curious, time to stick my head in again.

OK, this question is for the people in favour of weapons for self-defense.

What if (and please, just go with it) you had to spend a not-insignificant amount of time a country that doesn't allow you to carry guns? Say a month or so, I don't know, because you lost your documentation while on holiday, or your company sent you abroad and it's too inconvenient to quit your job right now.

How would you feel going about the place without your gun? Would you change your social habits much?

Not trying to pick on any one group with this, just curious. Since I'm from the UK, this is a reality for me.

I no longer travel to such places. I moved to Virginia to be able to carry at all times.

Maybe it's just the way I see it, but, in debate, if you said that 'people for gun control are idiots' - that is an opinion... although I would still consider it a little 'flamey'.

If you said "XXX" (person's name) is an idiot, I don't see that there is any 'wiggle' room - that is a direct flame.

But if you said 'we should melt down all cars because I almost got run over one day, and all drivers must be crazy to get into a car because of hpw many people they kill', that's just leaving yourself open to being called and idiot.

:(

I did ask for people to go with the situation. But, fair do's.

Anyone else?

I suggest that all people who don't want to carry firearm or own them mark their homes, cars, and clothing with bright yellow stripes so that criminals will know in advanced who is not armed. By extension, all armed people must carry at all times and mark all of their property and clothing with bright red stripes, so that criminals will know that they are armed, and will be able to avoid them.

Also, armed people should be under no obligation to defend or rescue people unarmed people, no matter what the circumstance. Police are already in this category, as of the decision Wilson vs. District of Columbia (SCOTUS). They don't have to protect you, and cannot be blamed or held to account if they never even show up.

I bet within six months, a lot of yellow striped victims will be buying a gun.

Christiania? No thank you. I rather not have biker gangs enforcing illegal drug trafficking.

What was that? A quick google search of the weird and speculative?

The "Biker Gangs" (sort of the Denmark equivalent of the Hells Angels meeting the Mafia) you refer to do not operate in Christiania - they are the organised crime that is prevalent in Denmark, but have very little presence in Christiania itself.

The "trafficking" you refer to is pretty much exclusively Marijuana - since Chrisitianites have overwhelming opposed the traffick of harder drugs within their community - and ONLY Christianites are allowed to trade Marijuana in the community.

Since they are autonomous, trading in Marijuana ISN'T illegal in Christiania - although Denmark exerts control on an ad hoc basis, because they consider Christiania not to be sovereign.


But, of course, all that is irrelevent - since we were not originally discussing Denmark's drug culture - but were debating a sustained Western Anarchy.

o_0 roffle :)

How would you feel going about the place without your gun? Would you change your social habits much?

Not trying to pick on any one group with this, just curious. Since I'm from the UK, this is a reality for me.


I can't speak from direct personal experience as I don't actually own a gun, though it is certainly a Constitutionally guarenteed right. In fact, I sometimes feel guilty about it as one of the main principles for this law was to provide for the real possibility of the people to rise up and overthrow the Gov. should it ever become oppressive. I don't believe it is there yet, but with all the laws being passed by both sides of the ilse "for our protection" we're definetly moving in that direction.

Now, to answer your question. My Step-Father, was a Drill Sargent in the Army during Nam, he slept with a gun under his pillow or by the bed and pretty much was always carrying. In most of the States we lived in over the years he did so legally, by getting conceal and carry permits, but if we didn't live in one he always found a way. I think he'd have been inclined to either not go to a country where he couldn't carry or would have found a way around security.

An interesting side note, his carrying of guns actually stopped a potentially lethal situation. Guy robbed a grocery store in East St. Louis with a little .380. Stupid!!!!!! store clerks chased the man out of the store and ran down the street behind him while he fired in their general direction. My Step-Dad got the drop on him and the guy gave himself up. The clerks mistook him for an FBI agent.

I suggest that all people who don't want to carry firearm or own them mark their homes, cars, and clothing with bright yellow stripes so that criminals will know in advanced who is not armed. By extension, all armed people must carry at all times and mark all of their property and clothing with bright red stripes, so that criminals will know that they are armed, and will be able to avoid them.

Also, armed people should be under no obligation to defend or rescue people unarmed people, no matter what the circumstance. Police are already in this category, as of the decision Wilson vs. District of Columbia (SCOTUS). They don't have to protect you, and cannot be blamed or held to account if they never even show up.

I bet within six months, a lot of yellow striped victims will be buying a gun.
Evilness: 1 vs Humanity: 0

:(

I did ask for people to go with the situation. But, fair do's.

Anyone else?

I'm assuming you're talking about the travel question. Right?

When traveling, I carry a little pocket knife that I can open with one hand. I put it in checked luggage. It has a nasty looking wavy edge like a kris knife.

More importantly, I stay out of rough areas, by asking the locals at the hotel where not to go. I stay on well lit streets and do not consume so much drink that I'm incapacitated. Nor do I get involved in any protests or marches or large gathering of people. Yeah, I worry, but I'm not going to not go places, and I also am careful about where I go. Northern Africa (say Egypt or Algeria) is not on the list, niether is sub-Saharan Africa. I'll probably stay out of northern Thailand and Cambodia and Laos for a great many years and Moscow has gotten a bit seedy for my tastes.

Make sense? Or was that not quite where you were going?

Yup, pretty much where I was going with my question Roach Cliffs :)

I find it quite funny that some are trying to crack down on our 'knife culture'. Short of stopping each and every person on the street, there's no real way to stop people carrying something as small as a knife.

As for Personal Responsibilty (the poster of course), interesting, when not allowed, your dad simply broke the law and did a good job hiding it? Fair enough.

Yup, pretty much where I was going with my question Roach Cliffs :)

I find it quite funny that some are trying to crack down on our 'knife culture'. Short of stopping each and every person on the street, there's no real way to stop people carrying something as small as a knife.

As for Personal Responsibilty (the poster of course), interesting, when not allowed, your dad simply broke the law and did a good job hiding it? Fair enough.

I'm curious about the knife banning, will I need to get a permit for my knife collection?

I'm guessing that at some point, somebody is going to re-classify my 12" chefs knife as a sword...

But if you said 'we should melt down all cars because I almost got run over one day, and all drivers must be crazy to get into a car because of hpw many people they kill', that's just leaving yourself open to being called and idiot.

Or Amish.

I'm curious about the knife banning, will I need to get a permit for my knife collection?

I'm guessing that at some point, somebody is going to re-classify my 12" chefs knife as a sword...

Jeez, I hope they don't find my hand-and-half swords then :D

Jeez, I hope they don't find my hand-and-half swords then :D

What's even funnier is that my biggest, scariest, sharpest knife is called a 'vegatable knife'. Cutting anything but vegatables would ruin the edge.

You know there is some nut case out there screaming, we must think of the zuchini's!!

Yup, pretty much where I was going with my question Roach Cliffs :)

I find it quite funny that some are trying to crack down on our 'knife culture'. Short of stopping each and every person on the street, there's no real way to stop people carrying something as small as a knife.

As for Personal Responsibilty (the poster of course), interesting, when not allowed, your dad simply broke the law and did a good job hiding it? Fair enough.

Like I said, I don't own a gun. If I had to use one to protect some one, I know what I'm doing, but I've never had a practical use for a gun. If I lived in a place where I believed the likely hood of my needing one exceded 10% or 15% I would probably carry. Not so much for myself as wanting to have the capacity to protect others.

My Step-Dad on the other hand was highly paranoid. He was always worried about the "Commies" (please know I am just describing his perspective and mean nothing offensive by that) coming, even after the fall of the Iron Curtain. I grew up with a gun cabinet in the house that was more like an arsenal than a gun cabinet. I enjoyed target shooting with him and learning how to properly use a gun and even got good enough to beat him in sharp shooting with several of his weapons (yes, more than one of his guns was an assult rifle that never got used for anything but target practice), but I never had a desire to use or carry any of the for myself.

To reply to the thread in its initial spirit of hasty generalization:

Why do Conservatives value the prinicple of acquiring any sort of gun whatsoever without any background checks more than they value the lives such free access to weapons will claim? I thought they proport to be a culture of life?

I mean shizzle, if that kook in Wisconsin had access to larger magazines, he probably could have scored a few more brain shots before he ran dry. But wait, now that the assault weapon ban has lapsed, folks can get longer magazines! Huzzah!

I get the "defend the country against invaders" argument, but to follow that to its logical conclusion, civilians need access to effective anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons as well, or else they will be totally at the mercy of a modern invading army. So now we need unchecked access to shoulder-launched SAMs in order to fulfill the second amendment. I suggest w put those puckers over the counter at Wal-Mart and watch how the domestic aviation industry drops off. It'll look like Fourth of July every night out the end of the JFK tarmac.

So exactly how do Conservatives reconcile the desire to protect the nation from harm with the concept of allowing anyone in the country to get whatever ordnance they want w/o background checks?

What was that? A quick google search of the weird and speculative?A quick Google search based on what I remember seeing on the news about Christiania in the past few years

The "Biker Gangs" (sort of the Denmark equivalent of the Hells Angels meeting the Mafia) you refer to do not operate in Christiania - they are the organised crime that is prevalent in Denmark, but have very little presence in Christiania itself.That's basically what a "biker gang" generally refers to in Finland, too. Hells Angels took over the whole place in the 1970s and turned the place into a red light district before being booted out. And now they excert significant influence into the community through dominating the drug supply, according to articles such as this (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03.n1949.a01.html).

The "trafficking" you refer to is pretty much exclusively Marijuana - since Chrisitianites have overwhelming opposed the traffick of harder drugs within their community - and ONLY Christianites are allowed to trade Marijuana in the community.I am aware they have mostly steered clear of harder drugs, and cocaine and heroin are (according to some) a smaller problem in Christiania than in many other areas of Denmark. But a drug is a drug, and there is significant trafficking in Christiania. A large part of (or the majority of, depending on the source) the trade goes to people who don't live in Christiania.

Since they are autonomous, trading in Marijuana ISN'T illegal in Christiania - although Denmark exerts control on an ad hoc basis, because they consider Christiania not to be sovereign.Calling them autonomous is a bit of an overstatement. They have, in the past, negotiated several deals with the government so that authorities leave the place alone.

And, in fact, I wouldn't really give a damn about marijuana being traded openly where I live. I do have a problem with armed gangs enforcing that trade.

But, of course, all that is irrelevent - since we were not originally discussing Denmark's drug culture - but were debating a sustained Western Anarchy.Yup. It has more or less managed to exist for about 30 years, depending on where you consider it to have been created. Apart from the takeover, there has been no collapse as such. I just pointed out that it's certainly not a place I would like to live in, and the influence of the gangs could be considered a major fault in the system.

Boss Hawg, each year in the US, there are 2.5 million documented cases where a crime was averted by a citizen who merely displayed the fact that they were armed with a handgun.

2.5 million crimes that would have occurred, had it not been for the presence of a weapon.

In areas where concealed carry is the law, there are fewer murders, fewer assaults, and fewer rapes after the law goes into effect.

Places with laws against guns in the US have much higher gun murder rates, much higher rape rates, higher assault rates, and higher crime rates in general. The crime gets worse with each additional restriction.

These are US Department of Justice statistics over Republican and Democratic presidencies since 1986.

You don't have to shoot or kill anyone to prevent these crimes. You just have to have a gun, and show your willingness not to submit to crime.

By that line of reasoning, wouldn't a replica work as well?

I mean obviously for this to work, the majority of people would have to carry proper guns or the jig would be up, as they say.

I get the "defend the country against invaders" argument, but to follow that to its logical conclusion, civilians need access to effective anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons as well, or else they will be totally at the mercy of a modern invading army. So now we need unchecked access to shoulder-launched SAMs in order to fulfill the second amendment. I suggest w put those puckers over the counter at Wal-Mart and watch how the domestic aviation industry drops off.

Wait a second, I think we already have most of what we need as far as anti-tank weapons are concerned. Molotov cocktails and stump removers, if used correctly could do a great deal of damage to a tank. Not that it would really be needed, once an army gets into a city or suburb, it's mostly house to house fighting, and tanks and airpower loose most of thier effectiveness at the close ranges required to fight in a city. Helicopters would be used in a city conflict, and it doesn't really take any special weapons to bring a chopper down.

Besides, most AA doesn't do a lick of good against high altitude bombing or ICBM's.

By that line of reasoning, wouldn't a replica work as well?

I mean obviously for this to work, the majority of people would have to carry proper guns or the jig would be up, as they say.

Sure, right up to the point the perp called your bluff...then I think you'd REALLY be in trouble.

"My gun not yours" - You have earned the rank of "Jesus" in my eyes. Thank you.

So therefore, logically, you MUST be willing to shoot a criminal to prevent these crimes.

And if you think yourself incapable of pulling a trigger when pointing at another human, it is better to not carry, rather than to draw, point, not go through with it and have it taken by the criminal.

My Gun, you're missing my point. I'm not in favor of banning guns. I agree completely that the potential of an armed citizenry is a great deterrent. I'm a competitive handgun marksman. I go to NRA meets. I'm also a Liberal and I bristle that Imperial Porto Rock begins with the blanket claim that all Liberals want to ban all weapons. There's a big difference between "control" and "ban"
and PR's reductive reasoning deepens a plenty deep blue-red divide. I believe such essentialism causes people to make bad decisions on relevant issues because they're bundled in with red herrings.

That said, I'm in favor of waiting periods and background checks and I think the standards of the expired assault weapon legislation were pretty damn reasonable. I mean who really needs a folding stock, a forty-round magazine, and a grenade launcher? I don't think anyone should be able to go to a show and buy whatever they want whenever they want it. And there are plenty of left-leaning moderates with similar viewpoints. How does this model of control interfere with your deterrence figures? Simply because a three-day wait leaves a three-day window where the gun buyer isn't out stopping crimes?

A quick Google search based on what I remember seeing on the news about Christiania in the past few years

That's basically what a "biker gang" generally refers to in Finland, too. Hells Angels took over the whole place in the 1970s and turned the place into a red light district before being booted out. And now they excert significant influence into the community through dominating the drug supply, according to articles such as this (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03.n1949.a01.html).

I am aware they have mostly steered clear of harder drugs, and cocaine and heroin are (according to some) a smaller problem in Christiania than in many other areas of Denmark. But a drug is a drug, and there is significant trafficking in Christiania. A large part of (or the majority of, depending on the source) the trade goes to people who don't live in Christiania.

Calling them autonomous is a bit of an overstatement. They have, in the past, negotiated several deals with the government so that authorities leave the place alone.

And, in fact, I wouldn't really give a damn about marijuana being traded openly where I live. I do have a problem with armed gangs enforcing that trade.

Yup. It has more or less managed to exist for about 30 years, depending on where you consider it to have been created. Apart from the takeover, there has been no collapse as such. I just pointed out that it's certainly not a place I would like to live in, and the influence of the gangs could be considered a major fault in the system.

I checked the article you referenced, I have seen fairly similar articles, if not this very same one...

The thing is - the police have made all these claims, about criminal gangs, and turf wars, and the Biker Bandidos, or whatever - but there seems to be precious little evidence. Most of the Marijauna traded is claimed as locally grown, by Christianites - meaning that the drug economy doesn't demand the same level of 'criminal' involvement as otherwise might be needed - there is much less need for covert trafficking and extortion of 'security' when you are trading in a homegrown product, in a 'semi-legalised' setting.

I believe Christiania is dated at 32 years, so far - although Denmark has the political firepower, this year, to bring an unpopular end to the little community.

So - we have a relatively long-standing anarchy, largely (if not entirely) socialistic, and yet retaining capitalist viability - which is an example of what I was claiming.

The influence of gangs is irrelevent - cities like New York or Los Angeles are home to massive amounts of gang disturbance and organised crime - but they are not used to discredit capitalism or (so-called) democracy.

I suppose you could carry an Airsoft replica, but you might hope the bad guy doesn't figure it out.

On the other hand, there was a recent (six months or so ago) attempt by a bad guy to rob a pizza restaurant with a fake gun. One of the patrons decided to call his bluff, and beat the bad guy several times with a sledgehammer.

Didn't kill him, but came close. They have a saying:

"If you find yourself in a situation where you need a gun, you REALLY need a gun."

Roach, following that line, if it's cities that are most in need of gun ownership to protect themselves, why is it that cities are the areas most in favor of gun control?

I feel that I can end this debate entirely by looking at the levels of gun-related crime proportional to population in the US and UK. Whilst in the UK it is relatively unheard of (indeed one shooting of a policeman in my area recently became national news and was seen as entirely shocking and unexpected - perhaps explained more by the fact that the murderer was an American with a gun that he'd bought because back home guns are legal), in the US there are for more incidents ranging from minor shootings to genocide.

How can anyone seriously sustain an argument that the only way to protect yourself from other gun wielders is to own a gun yourself? Surely, were there no guns in the first place there would be nothing to defend yourself from...? I agree with a couple of posts - guns are for killing, they are not to keep your family safe. If you want to keep your family safe, elect a government who tackles the real issues and doesn't have a society of massive inequality - it only breeds resentment.

And I love the way the right-wing claim owning a gun as their "right". It isn't a right at all, it is a priveledge (if you live in the US), and moreover surely because everyone has a <b>right</b> to live in a safe society free from harm, allowing anyone to walk into a shop to buy a gun is more than a slight infringement?

The bottom line is that in countries where guns are legal there are far more cases of guncrime. Is that not a case of "enough said"?

Fear drives America these days. Fear of crime, fear of crimals, and it is such a crippling fear that they are even afraid of stopping the crime or punishing the criminals.

Agree with the above entirely. American needs to look at its entire system - guns are symbolic of a problem in the US that has been increasingly apparent to everyone apart from Americans themselves. And what do they do? Re-elect Bush.

Molotov cocktails and stump removers, if used correctly could do a great deal of damage to a tank.Yet, surprisingly, they don't. Anywhere in the world where urban populations have ran into armored vehicles in the recent history, it has been mines/large explosives and anti-tank rockets that have proven effective. Sure, most modern MBTs can still be disabled with molotov coctails in theory -- in practice, you're infinitely more likely to get yourself blown apart.

And, using that logic, why do you need assault rifles or other fully automatic weapons anyhow? Bolt action hunting rifles, if used correctly, kill humans too. As do bows and arrows. Maybe we shouldn't have firearms at all, then?

Not that it would really be needed, once an army gets into a city or suburb, it's mostly house to house fighting, and tanks and airpower loose most of thier effectiveness at the close ranges required to fight in a city. Helicopters would be used in a city conflict, and it doesn't really take any special weapons to bring a chopper down.Bradleys have proven incredibly useful in Falluja. High mobility, invulnerability to conventional small arms, massive firepower. If all you've got against such vehicles are molotov coctails, you're in a world of shit.

No "special weapons" to bring a chopper down? Military transport helos are a bitch and a half to take down without HMGs at the very least. You need to pepper an unarmored UH-60 full of holes before it needs to return home. To effectively engage any armored helos, you need rockets, missiles or cannons.

Besides, most AA doesn't do a lick of good against high altitude bombing or ICBM's.Absolutely correct. You need long-distance, very fast, heavy SAMs against those kinds of threats. Most AA works just fine against helos and fighter/attack aircraft, however -- at least the threat of shoulder-fired SAMs keeps the enemy from doing CAS with aircraft such as the AC-130s or hovering about the battlefield with AHs and ground attack planes. Had the Habr Gidr militia in Mogadishu had SA-7s, Task Force Ranger wouldn't have had a snowflake's chance in hell.

I feel that I can end this debate entirely by looking at the levels of gun-related crime proportional to population in the US and UK. Whilst in the UK it is relatively unheard of (indeed one shooting of a policeman in my area recently became national news and was seen as entirely shocking and unexpected - perhaps explained more by the fact that the murderer was an American with a gun that he'd bought because back home guns are legal), in the US there are for more incidents ranging from minor shootings to genocide.

How can anyone seriously sustain an argument that the only way to protect yourself from other gun wielders is to own a gun yourself? Surely, were there no guns in the first place there would be nothing to defend yourself from...? I agree with a couple of posts - guns are for killing, they are not to keep your family safe. If you want to keep your family safe, elect a government who tackles the real issues and doesn't have a society of massive inequality - it only breeds resentment.

And I love the way the right-wing claim owning a gun as their "right". It isn't a right at all, it is a priveledge (if you live in the US), and moreover surely because everyone has a <b>right</b> to live in a safe society free from harm, allowing anyone to walk into a shop to buy a gun is more than a slight infringement?

The bottom line is that in countries where guns are legal there are far more cases of guncrime. Is that not a case of "enough said"?


Fine, please explain Switzerland and Finland, and while you're at it, please explain how the crime rate in your own country go up with every weapon restriction, and how the general crime rate in the UK is higher than our own?

Well Boss, I am inclined to believe that the NICS check is sufficient at this point. I suppose that you could take a check further, but given the abuse that "checks" have suffered from in other jurisdictions (the State of Maryland, and their "inability" to issue concealed weapon permits, for instance), I would have to set a firm time limit as well as a "shall issue" condition.

That is, if we can't find anything wrong with you in a short, reasonable, fixed period of time, you get to purchase a firearm, and get to carry concealed, and the law enforcement CANNOT prevent you from taking possession.

I don't shoot at public ranges because even so-called "trained" people are completely stupid with their firearms. I have almost been shot twice during a ceasefire at a public range.

I do not believe in registration. It is a waste of money and time. I do not believe it prevents any crimes, as only law abiding people will register their firearms. As proof, I offer the fact that since 1934, no person who registered a NFA firearm or component ever committed a violent crime with that weapon. On the other hand, there are plenty of full auto shooting incidents with completely illegal unregistered firearms. So the criminals are obviously not going to the store and filling out their ATF forms.

Waiting periods don't work, either. Most people who go postal already own the firearms (or have access to them) in advance. Same with suicides by gun. Domestic violence isn't something that happens today and you cool off later and never do it again. Men who beat women will beat them again in a few weeks.

Before going to certain schools in the Army, I had to receive a psychological evaluation. I am not a believer in those, either. I passed, and I bet that doesn't make some of the "liberals" feel any better, although among us, the Army is of the belief that I am one of the last people on Earth who would kill without justification.

Roach Cliffs - tell me where I can find evidence of our general crime rate being larger than yours, and I'll willingly answer your question.

But answer mine - if you banned guns, would there not be far less guncrime?

Actually, "while you're at it" explain how there could possibly be a link between weapon restriction and general crime - what, are the British so annoyed that they can't run around with an AK47? And also, when was the last case of British anti-gun legislation? It seems our gun handling is fairly simple, we don't allow guns, and therefore their regulation isn'y very probable (in all but the vast minority of cases).

The thing is - the police have made all these claims, about criminal gangs, and turf wars, and the Biker Bandidos, or whatever - but there seems to be precious little evidence.Google finds a great many articles and comments written by locals not linked to law enforcement or the government in general which more or less state that organized crime and gangs are serious problem in Christiania. It's not just the police and the government saying so, although undoubtedly they play up that factor.

Most of the Marijauna traded is claimed as locally grown, by Christianites - meaning that the drug economy doesn't demand the same level of 'criminal' involvement as otherwise might be needed - there is much less need for covert trafficking and extortion of 'security' when you are trading in a homegrown product, in a 'semi-legalised' setting.A large amount, certainly. Most, perhaps. All, absolutely not. Several sites about the Christiania marijuana market mention prices for drugs from all over the world and certainly from places other than Christiania itself. The raids earlier this year netted close to a metric ton of drugs, which I doubt an area the size of Christiania would manage to produce by itself (although I admit I don't know anything about growing marijuana).

The influence of gangs is irrelevent - cities like New York or Los Angeles are home to massive amounts of gang disturbance and organised crime - but they are not used to discredit capitalism or (so-called) democracy.Correct, because they aren't the only places where you can find (so-called) capitalism or (so-called) democracy. There are plenty of towns, cities, societies of all sizes, which function politically and economically on similar standards, yet have very gang disturbance or organized crime. If you can only provide one example of an anarchy which has not collapsed in short order, and it happens to have high levels of the same, then it's much easier to draw conclusions from.

Here's the proof of escalating gun crime in the UK

http://www.guardian.co.uk/gun/Story/0,2763,416575,00.html

Roach Cliffs - tell me where I can find evidence of our general crime rate being larger than yours, and I'll willingly answer your question.

But answer mine - if you banned guns, would there not be far less guncrime?

Actually, no, there would not be far less guncrime, just as drug use has (probably, i should look that up) soared.

outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns, as in the UK

How would the outlaws get guns if they were totally banned?

Just to back up a former point, I read quite frequently the argument that Americans have the RIGHT to own a gun. Well...following that logic, didn't Saddam Hussein have the right to own wmd's?

Roach, following that line, if it's cities that are most in need of gun ownership to protect themselves, why is it that cities are the areas most in favor of gun control?

Wow, that's a good question. I'll do my best to answer it.

I think that there has been a philosophical change in many parts of the country from that of the Libertarian ideal of personal responsibility to that of a Democratic/lberal idea of close to zero personal responsibility, and that people should be basically a ward of the state, and that the state has ultimate reponsibility, and not the individual. I, personally, find that line of thinking, flawed at best and utterly stupid at it's worst.

If someone commits a crime under the former philosophy, it's thier fault. They did it, they should be punished (not that I believe that punishment generally works, I think that punishment is kind of an outdated concept, and that people who are proven a consistent danger to society, should simply be removed and isolated from it).

I find that some people believe if someone commits a crime, that it's not really thier fault, that it was the environment, or the culture or that the weapon was available and they were tempted and because of the upbringing and education that there was no way that person could have known the implications of what they were doing. Well, I think that liine of thinking is just bullshit, but the people who think and feel that way (probably, I have absolutely nothing to back up this assumption) have been educated, and subsequently live and work near institutions that espouse these ideologies. Ya?

I have to admit, I used to agree with some of that, but not anymore. I really think that everyone, as an individual, needs to take and be responsible for thier own actions. I know I'm slipping into Libertarian/Objectivist philosphizing here, but I sincerely believe that people who are free, free from intereference from government and religious 'interventions' (I was about to use the word oppression, but that's a little extreme, and I can't think of another word) are generally less likely to persue avenues of violence and crime, as the freedoms and opportunities to do as they wish and try to make a living as they wish are more available to them.

Ya? Maybe? Does that answer the question?

Hey, My Gun Not Yours, I think that artical put guncrime down to drugs...not the fact that the general public can't own their own weapons, "gun murders are often linked to drugs" - I don't see any mention of:

a) That loosening up gun legislation would help. In fact the Guardian seems to suggest more that social problems are the reasons.

b) That the increase in crime is linked to anti-gun legislation.

Dafydd, if drugs are illegal, how is it that drugs are so cheap and commonly available?

Please. Let's back up and review the statistics, shall we? US Dept of Justice statistics show increases in gun crime and *other* violent crime in areas where firearms are restricted or banned. So does the UK. So does Australia. So does New Zealand.

All violent crime drops in areas where people own guns legally. Where people have concealed carry permits.

Fine, please explain Switzerland and Finland [...]Allow me?

Nearly all the weapons in private households in Finland are hunting rifles and shotguns, handguns are much less common. A civilian may not under any circumstance carry a firearm, concealed or unconcealed, in a public space. Unless you want to assault a police officer or attack someone in his home so that he can prepare himself, you can be quite certain your mark does not have a firearm with him. Thus the amount of firearms in Finland doesn't do anything to reduce the amount of crime.

I'm also waiting for Dafydd to explain how he would prevent the 2.5 million potential crimes in the US - crimes that each year are documented as prevented by the display of a firearm by a civilian.

In his mind, I'm sure this is ok. Crime is ok, carrying guns is not.

Here in the US, if you're not a member of a socioeconomically deprived group, and you live in an area where you can own and carry a firearm, you will experience a life more free of violent crime than Switzerland. Statistically speaking, that's pretty low.

And, the Guardian may be onto something. Rather than ban guns, maybe they should legalize drugs. Of course, with socialized medicine, you'll have to take care of the addicts instead of letting Darwinism take place. If addicts had free drugs from the government, the gangs would go out of business. Look what happened in the US when Prohibition ended - there was a sharp reduction in gangster violence, only brought back by their involvement in the drug trade.

Erewhon, I bet it's fair to say that Finns don't shoot each other a lot. The mere presence of guns implies to some liberals that there will be a field day of "going postal" or "school shootings" or "dunblane massacres".

Hmmm. Pretty quiet in Finland.

the right to bear arms was written at a time when it was neccessary to do so. However, the difference between military grade arms and arms was not specified because at the time there was no difference. A rifle was roughly as hi-tech as the arms industry went.

now, advances in weapons technology has created a whole new spectrum of advanced weapons which, quite frankly, a person doesn't need. An assault rifle or automatic weapon is not, I believe, what was being referred to.

allow small arms and rifles, etc. don't allow automatic weaponry, etc.

Not a precise analogy. With a belt-fed machinegun, there are instances in history where a single man with a single gun killed over 700 people in a few minutes, and wounded again nearly that number.

Better than a Cape Buffalo could do.
i dont really no about that, Ill have to look it up so i will know what you are talking about. However a Sergant in WW2 captured 170 odd well defended german unit by himself with a single rifle, by demoralizing the german troops by slaughtering their men as they charged after him.

The Founding Fathers never intended free speech to apply to anything except speaking in the public square. Obviously, something as advanced as the Internet should be strongly regulated, and some people should be forbidden to spread their ideas using such an advanced medium.

This is true. Drugs can get into the country easily, and can be easily sold. But, let's be honest, it's easier to recognise a gun that a quarter of weed. In the UK people are allowed guns under license, country folk often take out their rifles to keep animal numbers down. There is a legal gun trade in the UK.

Your link to drugs is interesting - guncrime can frequently be linked to drugs we well as appaulling social conditions, etc. We need to look at why people own guns in the first place. In America, it seems that people own guns to protect themselves from people that own guns. They think that the way to solve guncrime is to get one themselves and use it as a deterrent. My point is that governments need to look at why people are committing the crimes, not encourage retaliation attacks or whatnot by actively persuading people to own a gun themselves in order to protect themselves.

If somebody comes to rob you with a handgun, in the UK you step off and let them rob you. In America, if you have a gun yourself, you pull out your gun. What happens next? Nobody is in a superior position - guns aren't really second chance weapons, one shot and that's pretty much it. Can't you see how easily it could escalate into an unnecessary death? Ok, you get your wallet nicked. But nobody's been killed in the process.

Looking at this from an idealist perspective...

If you completely ban guns from a country, and tighten up around the black market to the point that it becomes impossible to bring in weaponry, one of three things would happen:

a. People make their own guns.
b. Guns aren't made, but ammunition is, so the amount of guns in the country stays roughly the same, lowering if / when they're used for illegal purposes.
c. Without any extra ammo, the guns become useless, and are abandoned.

However, this is a very unrealistic goal.

Urgh... Yes, most of their heavy weaponry was old, from around the WW2 era. That doesn't mean they didn't have them. Viet Cong used tanks, most notably T34/85s, though not in large numbers. The use of RPGs (mostly RPG-2 and some RPG-7) by the VC was prolific. They had plenty of light mortars (60mm's) for fire support. Read any of millions of combat reports from battles against the Viet Cong if you don't believe me.
well i still think you are confusing the vc with the nva, which did use tanks the vc did not, and their small arms were mainly the ak47 and other assualt rifles, they did not have many heavy machine guns, or rpgs, because of the style of combat used was more effective with assualt rifles. tanks would be ineffective for gorilla warfare. however the nva which often enough mimiced the vc and used gorilla warfare as well did have plenty of tanks, heavy weapons, and a wider array of small arms, that way they could fight conventionaly and unconventionaly.

In the US, the government has discovered that it is an invitation to abuse and death for you to NOT resist. You are therefore, encouraged to resist by all means possible.

People here are not like they are in the UK. When they rob you, and they determine that you are submissive, a host of abuse occurs, from beatings to rape and murder. They are not satisfied with taking your money or belongings here anymore. There is a lot of anger.

The 2.5 million crimes prevented here by the display of a firearm by a law abiding citizen are cases where the bad guy has no gun and the good guy does. So it's not generally an invitation to a gunfight, which is comparatively rare.

Statistically speaking, an armed citizen that shoots is twice as likely per shot fired to hit the bad guy as compared to a trained policeman. Policemen are more likely to be involved in unjustified homicide than civilians with carry permits - and the policeman receives more training and is paid to pay attention to the rules.

Here in the US, police are NOT required to help you. Wilson vs District of Columbia, 1976 (SCOTUS). If you are being raped and pillaged by thugs, if you call the police, they do not have to show up - ever. They do not have to even try to catch the bad guys. Ever.

Look, all those crimes that were stopped by waving a gun, how many began by the aggressor having a firearm and thinking he/she can pull it off?

Also, how many weren't stopped?

Ok, I'll go along with you for the sake of argument. You manage to put off a handgun carrying bloke who wants your trousers (or whatever). What's the outcome - you both go back to doing what you do carrying a gun. In the case of the attacker, they will just move on and find someone else. Putting off an attacker in one incident doesn't mean that they will never try it again. In fact it's probable that they're more likely to.

If the situation escalates and one of you ends up being shot, one of you has been shot. Here in the UK, the aggressor would have just got what they wanted. Nobody dead.

I'm going to point out a couple of things about why here is different than there:

Yet, surprisingly, they don't. Anywhere in the world where urban populations have ran into armored vehicles in the recent history, it has been mines/large explosives and anti-tank rockets that have proven effective. Sure, most modern MBTs can still be disabled with molotov coctails in theory -- in practice, you're infinitely more likely to get yourself blown apart.

And, using that logic, why do you need assault rifles or other fully automatic weapons anyhow? Bolt action hunting rifles, if used correctly, kill humans too. As do bows and arrows. Maybe we shouldn't have firearms at all, then?

[QUOTE=Erehwon Forest]Bradleys have proven incredibly useful in Falluja. High mobility, invulnerability to conventional small arms, massive firepower. If all you've got against such vehicles are molotov coctails, you're in a world of shit.

Keyword here is 'conventional' small arms, which means AKs and M16 type weapons. A well hidden sniper can knock the gunner off a Bradley with no problems, and when America is lush with hunting rifles, some in large exotic (.404 Jeffery, .416 Rigby, .458 Winmag) calibers, I would say that that poses a threat to Bradleys and the infantry inside the Bradley that is not encountered overseas.



No "special weapons" to bring a chopper down? Military transport helos are a bitch and a half to take down without HMGs at the very least. You need to pepper an unarmored UH-60 full of holes before it needs to return home. To effectively engage any armored helos, you need rockets, missiles or cannons.

Same thing as above, urban fighting within the US and cities in the US would be entirely different than fighting in someplace like Iraq. I'm not sure of the ballistics, but I would imagine that several large bore hunting rifles fired at the pilot and pilot controls or tail rotor could really make for an unhappy day within that chopper.


Absolutely correct. You need long-distance, very fast, heavy SAMs against those kinds of threats. Most AA works just fine against helos and fighter/attack aircraft, however -- at least the threat of shoulder-fired SAMs keeps the enemy from doing CAS with aircraft such as the AC-130s or hovering about the battlefield with AHs and ground attack planes. Had the Habr Gidr militia in Mogadishu had SA-7s, Task Force Ranger wouldn't have had a snowflake's chance in hell.

Ahh, but they had crappy little Rusky made RPG's and still managed to take down two black hawks. Again, once inside the city, troops have to get out of thier armored vehicles in order to take ground. And once, outside of that vehicle, the hunting weapons here, even the bolt action ones, are much more deadly than the little .22 M16. Body armor don't mean jack against a .404, because even if you are wearing a vest, the bullet will still pass through you and the shock wave will probably shatter most of your internal organs. They don't hunt elephant with it fer nothin'.

Erewhon, I bet it's fair to say that Finns don't shoot each other a lot. The mere presence of guns implies to some liberals that there will be a field day of "going postal" or "school shootings" or "dunblane massacres".Perhaps. Guns are certainly present in Finland. We also have very strict gun control, much stricter than in, say, Germany, though obviously not as strict as in the UK. To get a permit to own a gun, you need to prove you are capable of handling the gun responsibly and safely, and you need to provide a good reason to get a gun (hunting being the main one). There are all the usual background checks, etc.

Every year about 70-100 drunk men take up their shotguns or hunting rifles and go murder a friend or an acquaintance that has pissed them off/made them feel less of a man -- and invariably gets caught within the month. Slaughters, massacres and shooting sprees are much less common, though.

Oh dear, It's really not making me want to move to the US. Hostility is ENCOURAGED, and police dont have to do anything???

What a wonderful place to live! No wonder it's in such a state.

As for aggressors getting what they want, ask the next woman you meet if she would mind being raped. Ask yourself if you would like to be sodomized against your will.

Here in the US, that is the definition of "giving them what they want". And, if they don't find that entertaining enough, you get beaten to death.

In the US, the government has discovered that it is an invitation to abuse and death for you to NOT resist. You are therefore, encouraged to resist by all means possible.

People here are not like they are in the UK. When they rob you, and they determine that you are submissive, a host of abuse occurs, from beatings to rape and murder. They are not satisfied with taking your money or belongings here anymore. There is a lot of anger.

The 2.5 million crimes prevented here by the display of a firearm by a law abiding citizen are cases where the bad guy has no gun and the good guy does. So it's not generally an invitation to a gunfight, which is comparatively rare.

Statistically speaking, an armed citizen that shoots is twice as likely per shot fired to hit the bad guy as compared to a trained policeman. Policemen are more likely to be involved in unjustified homicide than civilians with carry permits - and the policeman receives more training and is paid to pay attention to the rules.

Here in the US, police are NOT required to help you. Wilson vs District of Columbia, 1976 (SCOTUS). If you are being raped and pillaged by thugs, if you call the police, they do not have to show up - ever. They do not have to even try to catch the bad guys. Ever. yea well my dad is a cop and his job is to "protect and serve". Cops are paid to put their lives on the line to protect civilians and prevent crime, and detain criminals. you do however provide an interesting point, wheter or not your statistics are true or not i do not know. But i am tired of debating this issue so i bid you all adue.

The Founding Fathers never intended free speech to apply to anything except speaking in the public square. Obviously, something as advanced as the Internet should be strongly regulated, and some people should be forbidden to spread their ideas using such an advanced medium.

Eeek!! Please tell me that's sarcasm!?! :confused:

It also says freedom of the press, which is printed material, like we're printing here.

Interesting to note, as the UK is thought of by its citizens as a safe place, at least when compared to a state of America like texas.

.4% of women in the UK were raped in 2000.

Population of the UK in 2000? 58,789,194.

.005% of women in Texas were raped in 2000.

Population of Texas in 2000: 20,851,820

.009% raped in total America. pwned.

http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page60.asp
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/txcrime.htm
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

Yes Roach, it's sarcasm. Someone just posted the same sort of thing about guns.

I suppose we can all go back to flintlocks and manual printing presses...

Whoops, i messed up my math.. heh. i just calculated texas' violent crime versus population and my windows calc didn't throw up e4 at the end of a long number. Violent crime vs. total population? ~0.005% and there were roughly 16 times more violent crimes than rapes reported.

Look, all those crimes that were stopped by waving a gun, how many began by the aggressor having a firearm and thinking he/she can pull it off?

Also, how many weren't stopped?

Ok, I'll go along with you for the sake of argument. You manage to put off a handgun carrying bloke who wants your trousers (or whatever). What's the outcome - you both go back to doing what you do carrying a gun. In the case of the attacker, they will just move on and find someone else. Putting off an attacker in one incident doesn't mean that they will never try it again. In fact it's probable that they're more likely to.

If the situation escalates and one of you ends up being shot, one of you has been shot. Here in the UK, the aggressor would have just got what they wanted. Nobody dead.

Do all Briton's have so little self respect that anyone who walks up and demand's money, property, sex or life should be entitled to it?

Ask of me, and I might give it, demand of me and you can piss off -or- (more eloquently)

I would much rather die on my feet, than live on my knees.

Apparently, around 235,156 women reported being raped in the UK in 2000. America, whose population is roughly five times larger, had only 90,186 reported cases.


But America is dangerous. oh yeah.

Yes Roach, it's sarcasm. Someone just posted the same sort of thing about guns.

I suppose we can all go back to flintlocks and manual printing presses...

Whew, this thread is moving kinda fast, I must've missed the previous post.

But I like the idea of going back to muzzle loading.
:p

Next time we're in the UK, let's go over to Dafydd's house (and his relative's houses), ask them for all their money and whatever we can carry (which they will gladly give us), then we can hold them prisoner in their own homes (during which they won't resist and will do whatever we say), rape and pillage to our heart's content, then tie them up when our vacation is over, and dump them live into a canal.

It should require very, very little effort, and will be great fun with no risk, as they will never, ever, offer the slightest resistance. I bet we could get pretty cheap tickets in the winter...

Do Amerians have so little respect for others that they will kill someone who tries to take a material object from them? Life is sacred, and will always be many times more important than any object, no matter what the price.

Do Amerians have so little respect for others that they will kill someone who tries to take a material object from them? Life is sacred, and will always be many times more important than any object, no matter what the price.

Right, because, you know, its better to be raped than to kill someone.

The problem is not the object. The problem in the US is that when people commit violent crimes in order to take something, they usually commit further violence that has nothing to do with the object.

It's called rape and beating. Mayhem and mutilation. It is a common element of robbery in the US.

Sure, give up your wallet. But the moment you do that, statistics show you're inviting the next step, which has more to do with increasing the diameter of your sphincter than lightening your wallet.

Is that worth killing someone? IMHO, yes.

*frowns*

That's quite close to insulting, Roach Cliffs, but you didn't mean it as such, so I'll let it slide.

Anyway.

I would say that we have more confidence in our police service. Whether or not that makes us wiser, or more misguided, is something I leave to others. If confronted for our (insert object), I'd like to believe that most Brits would comply, memorise the bas*ard's face, tell the cops and laugh merrily as the criminal is locked up and their possessions are returned (in one way or another).

As for The Messiers, I believe that we in the UK have a more open definition (believe, I don't know for a fact) which covers date rape, pressurised sex and other misguided sexual adventures, not just violent rape. If your figures take these into account for both countries, I'll take this back.

As for myself? If I knew the criminal wasn't going to cause me harm, I'd comply, wait till they present a target and beat the living **** out of them. In other situations, I'm not sure what I'd do. It's easy to speculate until it actually happens.

Do Amerians have so little respect for others that they will kill someone who tries to take a material object from them? Life is sacred, and will always be many times more important than any object, no matter what the price.

American's have a great deal of value for personal life and property, and we are willing to fight to protect it.

Life is sacred, and when a person takes it upon themselves to threaten and violate the life and property of another, then they have chosen to put themselves into harms way.

Roach, for a lot of words, that basically boils down to "because cities are a blue base." I'd argue that the reason is that there is a fundamental disconnect between the Founders' constitutional argument for gun freedoms versus the contemporary arguments over the issue.

In the Founders' day, there wasn't the tremendous gap between civilian and military technologies that we see today. Aside from Brits having more fieldpieces, the major equipment difference between the British and American militiamen was the uniform. Under these circumstances, a rifle was not only a working tool for hunting, but it puts the Minuteman on perfectly equal footing (equipment wise) with a British regular. That is if you accept the idea that the second amendment is based on protecting yourself and your country from an invading army. Today, to achieve this end, you need a much greater arsenal and much more expensive equipment. I'm not arguing about which tactics and gear would be most appropriate for a setting, I'm saying that if you accept that the fundamental goal of the second amendment is to allow for defense of country, then civilians need to be able to shoot down aircraft and blow up tanks. Saying molotov cocktails will do the job does not avoid this point, because the same logic can be used to say that you can kill a soldier with a knife, so you don't need a gun. This view calls for unlimited access to military-competitive weapons.

The second way to look at it is that the point of the second amendment is that you've got the right to defend yourself and your property against less massive threats, like the guy holding up the liquor store. You don't want to be the guy in your bedroom with a bat while the burglar in your living room has a pistol. This, I believe, is where the modern arguments come into play. And I think it has two major divides, the first being how to allow defenders access to weapons while denying offenders access to weapons, the second being the issue of how much firepower is permissible. I suppose with the first issue, you can give anybody whatever they want and let the dice fall where they will, but this isn't something we encourage in a civilized society. With the second issue, I see it as an attempt to limit ridiculous escalation. If you accept that the idea of the second amendment is to protect citizens from loss of life or property, then we run into a bind, because gun control legislation is aimed at precisely these ends by denying criminals the means to harm life or property. There's a second bind when we invoke "Personal Responsibility" because this is a way for government to pass the buck of bad lawmaking onto the individuals who suffer under these bad decisions. You've got a citizen who finds the idea of shooting people distasteful and who has two young children in his household, now when the federal government says, "we're letting the assault weapon ban lapse," they're putting a greater pressure on this citizen to get a gun and take his defense into his own hands. I know, your safety is always in your own hands, but in this scenario, the government is creating a relatively more hazardous situation for this guy.

I think the reason we see the urban/rural divide on gun control is that rural folks can identify more closely with the historical justification of guns as self/national defense, they're more closely tied to gun use for hunting, and in some areas there's the connection with frontier heritage. Meanwhile, in relatively high-crime urban centers, the vigilante model ain't working out so well and folks are more willing to accept gun control as a safety measure. Also, automatic weapons take on a whole new meaning when you've got crowds of people on the streets. In these settings, it's hard to justify certain types of weapons for "defense of self and property" because of their enormous potential for collateral damage. The defender turns into the aggressor. This also ties in to the escalation thing above.

Anyway, blah, blah, blah.

The problem is not the object. The problem in the US is that when people commit violent crimes in order to take something, they usually commit further violence that has nothing to do with the object.

It's called rape and beating. Mayhem and mutilation. It is a common element of robbery in the US.

Sure, give up your wallet. But the moment you do that, statistics show you're inviting the next step, which has more to do with increasing the diameter of your sphincter than lightening your wallet.

Is that worth killing someone? IMHO, yes.

I'm surprised that many people actually think like this. I could never live with my conscience having killed someone. But if you banned guns then surely the prospective thief/rapist/assaulter would lack his/her weapon? One of the reasons why you feel you are in danger is because your opponent has a gun. If they were banned, you would be in less danger.

the right to bear arms was written at a time when it was neccessary to do so. However, the difference between military grade arms and arms was not specified because at the time there was no difference. A rifle was roughly as hi-tech as the arms industry went.

now, advances in weapons technology has created a whole new spectrum of advanced weapons which, quite frankly, a person doesn't need. An assault rifle or automatic weapon is not, I believe, what was being referred to.

allow small arms and rifles, etc. don't allow automatic weaponry, etc.


The problem is that the original intent was to have a populace that had the capacity to defend itself against Gov. If Gov. has assult weapons the populace should have access to them as well. The point was that everyone was supposed to stay on an even playing field. I'm not suggesting the Gov. should provide people with weapons, but the Consititution does state that it is a "right"! not a privilege under US law. Restricting who has access should only be a part of loss of rights for having committed a crime with a weapon.

On a note I've sounded before, my wife was stalked, beaten, stabbed, and harassed by her ex-husband for six years before meeting me.

The police did nothing to enforce the restraining orders, protective orders, etc. He was never prosecuted for the stabbing, because there were no witnesses.

He attacked us both on our first date (I wasn't carrying at the time).

Now she carries a 357, and I carry a 45. He knows it, and he stays well away from us.

He used to follow us everywhere, all the time, and now he stays away. Something the courts and the law never accomplished. Could Dafydd assure me that all stalked and abused women are guarded 24/7 by police to prevent all assaults? Don't even try, because my wife runs an anti-stalking network - and half the women are in the UK - where they get even less protection than women in the US.

Women who attempt to defend themselves in the UK go to jail for lengthy prison terms.

That's really fair, Dafydd. Maybe I could be a serial wife beater in the UK as well.

Looking at this from an idealist perspective...

If you completely ban guns from a country, and tighten up around the black market to the point that it becomes impossible to bring in weaponry, one of three things would happen:

a. People make their own guns.
b. Guns aren't made, but ammunition is, so the amount of guns in the country stays roughly the same, lowering if / when they're used for illegal purposes.
c. Without any extra ammo, the guns become useless, and are abandoned.

However, this is a very unrealistic goal.

For your benefit Cheesemongerland.

Without confiscating all weapons from both owners and stores in America, removing the means to create these weapons, and tightening their borders to a quite considerable degree, your solution won't happen.

When you remove something from a long-established situation, most people will try to get it back, by any means, rather than change the situation.

*frowns*

That's quite close to insulting, Roach Cliffs, but you didn't mean it as such, so I'll let it slide.


What did write? I certainly was not trying to be insulting.

But the USA seems quite happy to persecute gays and lesbians by withdrawing their constitutional rights to marry. If the constitution can be amended to hinder love, can't it also be hindered to hinder needless deaths?

As far as I can note so far, there isn't an official ruling from the Supreme Court of the United States that says that gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marriage. So you're off to an inaccurate note.

Secondly, what does gay marriage have to do with gun ownership?

Ah, I see. You know, there's a gay shooting organization (I'm not joking) that says that if Matthew Shepard had owned and carried a gun, he would be alive today.

The police weren't protecting a gay man. The society wasn't protecting him. And bad men came to kill him. If Matthew had owned a gun, he would be here today.

I'm surprised that many people actually think like this. I could never live with my conscience having killed someone. But if you banned guns then surely the prospective thief/rapist/assaulter would lack his/her weapon? One of the reasons why you feel you are in danger is because your opponent has a gun. If they were banned, you would be in less danger.


Again, another person forgets that when you outlaw teddy bears, only outlaws will have teddy bears.

Cheesemonger, this is more or less where I came into this thread. I'm brassed off at the oversimplifying arguments that more or less decide politics now. "Why do Liberals want to completely ban guns" is one of these lines, like the civil unions issue, that are not only inaccurately summarized, but that convince people to make knee-jerk (or lever-jerk) decisions that will affect other issues that impact them far more directly.

But the USA seems quite happy to persecute gays and lesbians by withdrawing their constitutional rights to marry. If the constitution can be amended to hinder love, can't it also be hindered to hinder needless deaths?


If you look up the definition of Marriage in any American dictionary at the time the Constitution was written, you'll see it is very clearly not a "right" given to "homosexual" couples. And, this clearly has nothing to do with Gun related laws. Is there a reason you jumped off subject?

The men who beat Matthew Shepard to death and left him to die on a frozen fence in the middle of nowhere did not have guns.

If he had been holding a gun, he would be alive today.

Roach, for a lot of words, that basically boils down to "because cities are a blue base." I'd argue that the reason is that there is a fundamental disconnect between the Founders' constitutional argument for gun freedoms versus the contemporary arguments over the issue.

I really didn't want to paint with that broad of strokes.

...

Anyway, blah, blah, blah.

Well, I think what we're both saying is 'this is a grey area', and I would definitely agree with that. We all agree we shouldn't ever have to need a gun, but there is a difference of opinion whether to keep them.

What did write? I certainly was not trying to be insulting.

One of your posts had the line:

"Do all Britons have so little self-respect that [snip]"

I certainly wouldn't like the implication that I have very low respect for myself BUT as I said, you didn't go that far, and didn't mean it like that, so it matters not.

The men who beat Matthew Shepard to death and left him to die on a frozen fence in the middle of nowhere did not have guns.

If he had been holding a gun, he would be alive today.

Incorrect. He would have a good chance of being alive.

Incorrect. He would have a good chance of being alive.

Semantics??

Ok, I'll say he would have had a much better chance than just being dead.

well i still think you are confusing the vc with the nvaI'm only confusing the two if most of the US armed forces and war historians do. Like I said, go read a few action reports from the Vietnam war, or some general overviews on VC tactics -- they all agree that VC used RPGs and light mortars extensively. Google is your friend.

A well hidden sniper can knock the gunner off a Bradley with no problems, and when America is lush with hunting rifles, some in large exotic (.404 Jeffery, .416 Rigby, .458 Winmag) calibers, I would say that that poses a threat to Bradleys and the infantry inside the Bradley that is not encountered overseas.The basic armor on Bradleys cannot be breached with HMGs, chambered in rounds such as 12.7x99mm (.50 BMG), 12.7x104mm and 14.5x114mm firing FMJs. These put out in excess of 14,000 ft-lbs of kinetic energy at the muzzle and fire solids with massive jackets, designed to penetrate vehicle hulls and engines (of aircraft or lightly armored vehicles).

The .458 Winchester Magnum and .416 Rigby manage around 5,000 ft-lbs, a fourth of the 14.5x114mm. The .404 Jeffery clocks at 4,600 ft-lbs at best, a third of even the .50 BMG. These kinds of rifles don't have a god damn chance of blowing through the armor plating on an M113, let alone a fricken Bradley. Dedicated vehicle armor piercing rounds for the .50 BMG have serious problems managing any penetration of a Bradley, or even older and less armored IFVs like the Russian BMP-2. Unless you have a habit of hunting elephants with heavy AMRs firing dedicated armor piercing rounds, your hunting rifles will be utterly useless against IFVs and heavier armored vehicles.

Yes, you can shoot the commander of the vehicle if he's stupid enough to show his mug. But, again, I urge you to view some of the footage from Falluja. See any Bradleys with the commander out or the hatch open when under the threat of incoming fire?

I'm not sure of the ballistics, but I would imagine that several large bore hunting rifles fired at the pilot and pilot controls or tail rotor could really make for an unhappy day within that chopper.On a transport helo, you could indeed hit the pilot. Theoretically. Good luck trying that when it circles in a complex pattern 200 yards overhead, moving at 60-100mph. The tail rotor? Not a chance, unless you hit the assembly repeatedly, severing all the oil lines, or perhaps hit square on the shaft a few times.

Assault rifles can penetrate the frame of an unarmored helo just fine, and will break through most things they encounter inside. Yet some of the Black Hawks on Oct 3rd 1993 sustained hundreds of hits through the engine compartment from AKs, PKs, G3s, and other assorted small arms, and managed to fly the few kilometers back to the airport. The armor on attack helos is often rated to survive HMGs and non-AP autocannon rounds, thus no legal (in the US) hunting weapon will penetrate.

Ahh, but they had crappy little Rusky made RPG's and still managed to take down two black hawks.They had thousands of mediocre Russian RPGs and foreign military advisors teaching them to engage helicopters effectively with them. Unlike in the movie, in the real event the sky was full of the smoke trails of the militia firing the RPGs at the helos. They managed 2 good hits and one poor one on 10-15 helos. Yet most of you aren't even standing up for your right to own RPGs.

Again, once inside the city, troops have to get out of thier armored vehicles in order to take ground. And once, outside of that vehicle, the hunting weapons here, even the bolt action ones, are much more deadly than the little .22 M16.And again, the armored vehicles are still there. Check video footage of Falluja, or the Israeli raids into Palestine, etc. etc.

Assuming you actually hit someone, most hunting rifles will indeed prove more lethal than the 5.56x45mm M855 standard ball ammunition fired from M16s. If, however, it were true that bolt action hunting rifles were overall more deadly than assault rifles, then armies would be using those instead, do you not agree?

Body armor don't mean jack against a .404, because even if you are wearing a vest, the bullet will still pass through you and the shock wave will probably shatter most of your internal organs. They don't hunt elephant with it fer nothin'.Big game hunting rifles are not that common, certainly not as common as rifles meant for deer and other medium-sized game. Loads meant for hunting anything but very large game tend to deform easily, which means most loadings meant for hunting up to the .300 magnums and others in the 3500 ft-lbs range will be stopped readily by the same armor that stops the 5.56x45mm M855s (which happen to have a steel penetrator) and 7.62x51mm M80s.

Level IV body armor, meant to protect against armor piercing rifle rounds, should easily stop 0.4" solids with 4500 ft-lbs of energy. Some of the large-caliber ultramagnums, such as .378 and greater Weatherby magnums might get through, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Also, there is not such thing as "shock waves" produced by conventional small arms. Theoretically it could happen with ultra-magnum saboted armor piercing reverse-ogive, but in practice it never happens. The hefty pressure waves combined with the fragmenting bullet do fuck up the insides of a human being quite nicely, though. But that happens with 5.56x45mm FMJs fired from M16s within 100-150 meters anyway.

Roach, I guess what I was reaching for there was that different areas have very different needs. I've lived in Fairbanks, I've lived in Brooklyn. A rifle is a much different item in the bush than it is on the roof of a housing project. But because interstate transport is easy, it is an issue that cannot be left to states. Which force the two sides of the issue to collide in the most absolute of terms.

This debate is kind of foolish don't you think? Firstly nobody except the extreme left loonies want to ban "all" guns. And they should be no more listened to than the far right nuts who think if the war in Iraq goes suffiecently bad it will mark the beginning of the rapture and Jesus will come. Secondly one needs only compare per capita number of gun deaths in the United States to anyother civilised nation in the world, and most uncivilised ones for that matter, it everycase the U.S rate is bettween 10 and 100X greater than the country it is being compared with, If as you the gun lobby insist, more guns makes the country safer, than the United States with it's estimated 300 million guns should be the safest place in the world, yet Americans manage to kill each other at unprecedented rights. Thirdly the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to provide for the defense of the country, it is A unlikely that anybody will prevent any serious threat to american soveirgnty that the armed forces can't deal with, further the National Guard subsumes the role that an armed citizenry would be required to fulfill. And lastly if your simply afraid that the government will become a theocracy or the United Nations is going to take over than you really are quite ignorant and need to stop relying on Anne Coulter as your guide to the world, If you consider yourself a Conservative/realist i would instead recomend you go back and read some Kenneth Waltz or Hans Morgenthou and learn what realism really is.

Semantics??

Hardly semantics. You cannot make the logical leap that having a gun prevents any and all crime against yourself. Matthew Shepard may have paniced, not drawn his gun, had his gun taken from him and used against him, fired, missed and the above happened, or may well have driven them off.

But My Gun Not Yours conceeded this, so arguing this point is moot :)

erehwon, I don't think anyone's determined a clear velocity break for when hydrostatic shock occurs, primarily because nobody's figured the precise speed of sound through human tissue. But most conventional weapons are way supersonic. And who the hell uses fragmenting bullets? I though the Geneva Convention outlawed anything more vicious than tumblers.

Wait. Does that make the guys who penned the Geneva Convention . . . Liberals?

Hardly semantics. You cannot make the logical leap that having a gun prevents any and all crime against yourself. Matthew Shepard may have paniced, not drawn his gun, had his gun taken from him and used against him, fired, missed and the above happened, or may well have driven them off.

But My Gun Not Yours conceeded this, so arguing this point is moot :)

You're correct, it's not a gaurentee, but as you stated, the likely is very small that an unarmed individual would attack an armed one.

I'm only confusing the two if most of the US armed forces and war historians do. ......100-150 meters anyway.

Uncle!! :p

Alright, alright already, you are definitely the reigning ballistics man here on the board.

But I will disagree on the bolt action thing, if autoloaders were more powerful and accurate then we wouldn't still be using the M24 Sniper's Rifle, would we? I submit to you that a group of hunter's who are well versed use of a bolt action, and experienced in the outdoors could do a lot of damage to a greater sized force of less experieced, but better armed invaders.

erehwon, I don't think anyone's determined a clear velocity break for when hydrostatic shock occurs, primarily because nobody's figured the precise speed of sound through human tissue. But most conventional weapons are way supersonic.This article (http://www.amershamhealth.com/medcyclopaedia/medical/volume%20I/SPEED%20OF%20SOUND.ASP) says: "The speed of sound is therefore very similar in all tissues, the average speed in human soft tissue being approximately 1 540 m/s." And it looks as though it knows what it's talking about. The speed of sound is different in different kinds of tissue, but we do know what it is for most tissues -- otherwise using ultrasound to look at babies wouldn't work too well, for example.

At 1540m/s, you'd need a perfect reverse ogive that enters the human at about 1600-1650m/s to get a limited shock wave. That's way faster than any bullets fired by conventional small arms these days. We can barely manage 1300m/s -- and there really is no point trying to get faster than that, or even that fast.

And who the hell uses fragmenting bullets? I though the Geneva Convention outlawed anything more vicious than tumblers.There are conventions that outlaw fragmenting or severely deforming bullets, yes. They are completely ignored. Witness the M193 (http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/M193.jpg) and M855 (http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/M855.jpg), old and new NATO standard issue FMJ ammunition for 5.56x45mm weapons, which have a tendency to tumble and then violently fragment when entering tissue at high enough speeds (which will be within 100-200 meters for M16s and M249s, less for M4s and M177s). These rounds were specifically designed to fragment. Additionally, US armed forces currently use other types of deforming 5.56x45mm ammunition, and are pushing to use certain ammunition types for 7.62x51mm sniper rifles that also have a tendency to deform and fragment.

So, to answer your question about who uses fragmenting bullets: The US armed forces and most of NATO.

To me getting shot by some overzealious asshole infringes on my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. :cool:

what has this got to do with the right to bear arms???

if you guys dindnt have the 2nd you could still get shot by some overzealious asshole.

Okay, I don't know where people got the idea that the 2nd ammendment was soully about defense against outside opression or self-defense from criminal attack.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

This is what the 2nd ammendment is about.

But I will disagree on the bolt action thing, if autoloaders were more powerful and accurate then we wouldn't still be using the M24 Sniper's Rifle, would we?There is no inherent difference between how powerful autoloaders and bolt action weapons are. At the same barrel length, a recoil-operated automatic weapon and a bolt action rifle firing the same ammunition will have the same muzzle velocity and will thus be equally powerful. Some of the most powerful rifles are available in both semi-automatic and bolt-action versions. The Barrett M82s and M95/M99s, for example.

Bolt action weapons tend to be more accurate. For the most part, this has to do with how reliably the action cycles in the exact same way time and time again. I'm not completely clear on the principle there, but basically a semi-automatic weapon cycles so violently and slightly unpredictably that the bolt and the barrel are might be slightly "misaligned". A good bolt action weapon is cycled smoothly and the bolt will lock into the exact same spot time and time again. This is why sniper rifles are often bolt action, but just about nothing else in the military is.

I submit to you that a group of hunter's who are well versed use of a bolt action, and experienced in the outdoors could do a lot of damage to a greater sized force of less experieced, but better armed invaders.Certainly. The point is that they could do a lot more damage to that force if they had more than those bolt action hunting rifles.

*sits back and listens to the gun-spec conversations*

Wrong. The criminal wants to get in, and get out as quickly as possible, with the cash he came for. They are far more likely to leave the clerk, in your scenario, alive, but incapacitated long enough for them to get away. The convenience store robber generally wants quick cash, not to kill someone. the gun, however, causes the death. If they had only a club, it is far harder, more time consuming, and more noisy to kill the clerk. More likely, they'd whack him upside the head two or three good licks until the clerk went down and stayed down...then they would empty the till and leave. the clerk would wake up maybe an hour later with a splitting headache, and in need of medical attention, but he'd LIVE.
That's the difference.
The gun causes the death?

You're talking to me like I've never really bothered to think thru a scenario like this. I'm not stupid. Of course the robbers would probably not want to leave behind a dead clerk. This is the case no matter what they carry with them. I would doubt a typical robber with a club would necessarily try to incapacitate the guy to begin with. There's a damn good chance that would be fatal, and even it wasn't they'd still be facing attempted murder charges. Hand the bastard a gun and he's probably even less likely to try and incapacitate they clerk as he would certainly face at least an attempted murder charge.

The problem though, is that the clerk cannot predict what any given robber will actually do. Sometimes, robbery escalates to murder becuase the robber panics. If the clerk is armed with a gun, he has the option to attempt to threaten or shoot his assailant(s). If the clerk wants to survive he must carefully and quickly calculate the risks of any given course of action. Let's hope our clerk has had some training in how handle such a situation. Having already thought and practiced thru the scenario will greatly aid him in his judgement.

If our clerk has only a club, his options are much more limited. As long as he's outnumbered, his survival is pretty much dependent on the actions of the criminals whether or not they have guns themselves. He has no realistic way to gain control of the situation. No training will be much help, save maybe a lifetime of strict kung-fu.

My original point being that while the existance of guns makes it easier for criminals to threaten and use force, said existance makes it possible for the would-be victim to have a say in what happens.

There is no inherent difference between how powerful autoloaders and bolt action weapons are. At the same barrel length, a recoil-operated automatic weapon and a bolt action rifle firing the same ammunition will have the same muzzle velocity and will thus be equally powerful. Some of the most powerful rifles are available in both semi-automatic and bolt-action versions. The Barrett M82s and M95/M99s, for example.

I was referring to accuracy, and not power of the round. I have always been taught that bolt actions and single shots are much more accurate than an semi auto. And that someone well trained and well practised with a bolt action would be much deadlier than just an average soldier with a full auto. Ya?

Has she specifically targetted you, individually, to call a 'murderer'?

You have specifically targetted her, above, to call an 'idiot'.

How is it hypocritical? I have used no insulting terms... so, referring an insulting term to the mods would not be hypocrisy, for me.

The hypocrisy would be defending her for being called an idiot, and not defending those she deems gun-nuts and murderers.

IF HE WANTED THE BAN TO LIVE, HE COULDA PRESSURED CONGRESS TO GET HIM SOMETHING!! He didn't, because he didn't want it to live. He lied on the campaign. Ok, maybe not LIED, but he certainly was disingenuous. And look that one up in your Funk and Wagnall's if you don't know what it means.
Who said he wanted it? I don't think he really cares. I think he just likes being the president and signing laws.

*Pops in to say: "Not all liberals want to ban guns"*

ok then...

Roach, following that line, if it's cities that are most in need of gun ownership to protect themselves, why is it that cities are the areas most in favor of gun control?

I can answer that one. Media and corrupt governmental control. They've actually fooled the populace into thinking that more controls actually work, when they most certainly don't.

yea well my dad is a cop and his job is to "protect and serve". Cops are paid to put their lives on the line to protect civilians and prevent crime, and detain criminals. you do however provide an interesting point, wheter or not your statistics are true or not i do not know. But i am tired of debating this issue so i bid you all adue.

Your dad's a good man. I hope there are several more like him.

However, the Supreme Court of the US has already ruled that he doesn't not have any responsibility to protect individuals--just the laws. So, should one of his coworkers decide not to help a person because it was too dangerous for them to do so, and have an opportunity to take the perpetrator down after the victim has been killed or otherwise assaulted, they are within the limits of the law to do so. They don't have to protect the victim.

I was referring to accuracy, and not power of the round. I have always been taught that bolt actions and single shots are much more accurate than an semi auto. And that someone well trained and well practised with a bolt action would be much deadlier than just an average soldier with a full auto. Ya?Correct about the accuracy, I was going to address it but lost the thought halfway into the message. I was editing it in when you replied.

If the only purpose is to kill an enemy or several, a well-trained sniper with a bolt action rifle can do just as well as and often better than an average soldier with an assault rifle or even a machine gun. That's not saying much, though, since training is extremely important anyway. And even if you had 9 such snipers, they would be incapable of stopping a mechanized infantry platoon -- a well-trained infantry squad with anti-tank weaponry would not be.

As an armed civilian, I am three times more likely to kill a criminal than a policeman. I am far less likely to misidentify an innocent person as a criminal (policemen make more errors than armed civilians). I am far more likely to hit what I shoot at than a policeman.

And, I'm far more likely to be around than a policeman.

If we ever happen to be together somewhere, and you don't want me to act to protect you on the off chance that something goes bad, just let me know, and I'll just inform that bad guy (after pointing my gun at him) that I'll be leaving, and you'll be staying for the rape.

I can answer that one. Media and corrupt governmental control. They've actually fooled the populace into thinking that more controls actually work, when they most certainly don't.

You can't possibly be arguing that in a nation with an estimated 300 million guns, the problem is in fact, that there aren't enough guns. If less control and more guns were the solution than the United Staters would be the safest country in the world, yet with the least amount of control and the largest number of guns in the civilised world the United States enjoys a per capita gun death rate 10-100x that of any other civilised nation in the world, and most uncivilised ones as well

But the USA seems quite happy to persecute gays and lesbians by withdrawing their constitutional rights to marry. If the constitution can be amended to hinder love, can't it also be hindered to hinder needless deaths?

As you may or may not have heard--there is no such amendment at this time. There is also no constitutional right to marry (regardless of genders), last I checked....

Wow. That last statistic certainly isn't true.

I'd be more quick to blame certain violent pursuits, such as competitive drug dealing, or bad lifestyles such as complete indolence, for the violence in America.

For people not involved in those two factors, gun violence is very low in the US, and there is no connection in those groups between per capita gun ownership and gun violence.

Go figure. Guns don't make people angry and violent. Drug dealing, taking drugs, and being poor and miserable with nothing to lose makes people violent.

1) not all liberals want to ban guns. some of us see them as necessary for personal or military defense use. some of see them as desirable for hunting, or for sport. some of us see them as necessary for political action.
2) most liberals, even very progressive ones, even radical ones, just want more stringent laws regarding gun safety and responsible ownership.
3) this is far from unconstitutional. the "right to bear arms," if you actually *gasp* read the United States constitution, is only in the interest of having a well-regulated militia.
4) this means that regulations and rules concerning gun safety and ownership are not only in the interest of the common good, they are CONSTITUTIONAL.

next time y'all start quoting things from the constitution, the bible, the declaration of independence, or any other document conservatives like to wave in the face of liberals as though it belongs to you and proves your superiority, please read the whole thing and make an effort to understand it.

There are other ways to resist than to pull out a gun.

...

I also know a few good self-defense tricks...enough to get away from my attacker. I took some classes in women's self-defense. My FIRST OBEJECTIVE is to get away from my attacker.

This is all very good. It is good that you reckognize that such a risk exists and that while a gun generally a good means of resistance, it is not the only way and not always the best.

For instance, if someone attempt to car-jack you, hitting the gas might be preferable to pulling a gun.

You can't possibly be arguing that in a nation with an estimated 300 million guns, the problem is in fact, that there aren't enough guns. If less control and more guns were the solution than the United Staters would be the safest country in the world, yet with the least amount of control and the largest number of guns in the civilised world the United States enjoys a per capita gun death rate 10-100x that of any other civilised nation in the world, and most uncivilised ones as well

Yup. Look where all that gun violence is happening. In the municipalities with the MOST gun control laws.

The ones that actually allow the citizenry to arm themselves, the numbers drop drastically.

So, yes, I AM arguing that more legally owned guns save lives than take.

So Briton, Japan, Germany, Canada, France and the rest of the civilizied world don't have drug problems and poverty? Maybe if the pro gun crowd stopped arguing that the best way to protect themselves from these problems was owning bigger guns, and instead set about attempting to constructivly address these issues, like virtually every other nation in the world America would be a safer place.

Correct about the accuracy, I was going to address it but lost the thought halfway into the message. I was editing it in when you replied.

If the only purpose is to kill an enemy or several, a well-trained sniper with a bolt action rifle can do just as well as and often better than an average soldier with an assault rifle or even a machine gun. That's not saying much, though, since training is extremely important anyway. And even if you had 9 such snipers, they would be incapable of stopping a mechanized infantry platoon -- a well-trained infantry squad with anti-tank weaponry would not be.

Well, I am trying to specifically put this into the context of an invasion of the continental US, which, even though highly unlikely, is what we're talking about here. First, that mechanized infantry would have to get here, and second, in order to control an area, soldiers have to be on the ground. If they are hiding in the armored vehicles for fear of be sniped, then they really don't have control, do they?

Think about what would happen if foreign troops tried to land on Florida, or Georgia, or even further north, like Maryland? How far would those tanks get? How far would that infantry get through the forests of Georgia, or the waters of Florida? Even without the automatic weapons, I would imagine that any attempt at an invasion of this country would be put down very quickly, even without the National Guard (which is good, since the NG is all in Iraq anyway).

1) not all liberals want to ban guns. some of us see them as necessary for personal or military defense use. some of see them as desirable for hunting, or for sport. some of us see them as necessary for political action.
2) most liberals, even very progressive ones, even radical ones, just want more stringent laws regarding gun safety and responsible ownership.
3) this is far from unconstitutional. the "right to bear arms," if you actually *gasp* read the United States constitution, is only in the interest of having a well-regulated militia.
4) this means that regulations and rules concerning gun safety and ownership are not only in the interest of the common good, they are CONSTITUTIONAL.

next time y'all start quoting things from the constitution, the bible, the declaration of independence, or any other document conservatives like to wave in the face of liberals as though it belongs to you and proves your superiority, please read the whole thing and make an effort to understand it.


Not according to the Federalist Papers, the 2nd amendment doesn't only apply to the militia. These are the documents with ALL the meaning and intent behind the bill of rights. Check 'em out sometime.

The suggested retail price of a Marlin 1895M in .450 Marlin is $680, and you can buy used ones in excellent condition for $450-500. Quality AKs and clones aren't that much cheaper, and you can buy 1 .450 Marlin round for the price of 8 7.62x39mm's.

Oops. I guessed wrong, I uh... guess.

Nevermind.

There are several Supreme Court rulings that defined "the People" as individuals. There are NO rulings to the contrary. If that were true, then we wouldn't have any of the other rights enumerated in the Constitution as individuals.

Well, I am trying to specifically put this into the context of an invasion of the continental US, which, even though highly unlikely, is what we're talking about here.That's so incredibly, incomprehensibly unlikely, that I would never have imagined it was being discussed. Ultra-right wingers turning the government into completely authoritarian seems more likely to me (although still very unlikely), looking at current events. In which case all that armor, infantry, air power, etc. is already there.

First, that mechanized infantry would have to get here, and second, in order to control an area, soldiers have to be on the ground. If they are hiding in the armored vehicles for fear of be sniped, then they really don't have control, do they?Certainly the infantry would be outside of the armored vehicles much of the time. But the armored vehicles are still there, and they are a powerful force in their own right. Even if you drop a soldier or two and pin down the squad, the Bradley can reduce whatever building you're hiding in into rubble.

One again, I recommend you watch some of the real action that went down in Falluja. They were fighting mostly against small groups of enemies in hiding, trying to use sniper-like techniques. The Bradleys and Abrams' were crucial in overcoming the insurgents.

next time y'all start quoting things from the constitution, the bible, the declaration of independence, or any other document conservatives like to wave in the face of liberals as though it belongs to you and proves your superiority, please read the whole thing and make an effort to understand it.

Been there, done that and read enough commentary on the "original intent" along with supporting documenation to have the very strong impression that the second ammendment was about defending one's self against one's own gov. if necessary in addition to self-protection and national defense.

erehwon, I'm glad NATO is around to tell the peacenik bongheads where to get off regarding dumdums. Here's another take on hydrostatic shock.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrostatic_shock

Not setting anything down as concrete, just saying it's a disputed effect.

Not setting anything down as concrete, just saying it's a disputed effect.The whole term "hydrostatic shock" is, as the Wikipedia article puts it, errant nonsense. Bullets simply are not fast enough to cause shock waves in human tissue, and if that weren't enough, there cannot be such a thing as a "static shock wave".
The other popular contemporary misconception results from the assumption that the kinetic energy of the bullet is "transferred" to the target, thereby somehow killing it through "hydrostatic shock".

I don't know where this term originated, but it is pseudoscience babble. In the first place, these are dynamic - not static - events. Moreover, "hydrostatic shock" is an oxymoron. Shock, in the technical sense, indicates a mechanical wave travelling in excess of the inherent sound speed of the material; it can't be static. This may be a flow related wave like a bow shock on the nose of a bullet in air or it may be a supersonic acoustic wave travelling through a solid after impact. In terms of bullets striking tissue, shock is never encountered. The sound speed of water (which is very close to that of soft tissue) is about 4900 fps. Even varmint bullets do not have an impact velocity this high, let alone a penetration velocity exceeding 4900 fps.

Some people use "shock" in the colloquial sense to describe a violent impact, but it is confusing, especially in connection with the term "hydrostatic" and lends undeserved quasi-scientific merit to the slang. It also tends to get confused with the medical expression attending trauma. We are not describing any medical shock.

Before I become too dogmatic and overstate the situation, let me concede that there may be some merit to the idea that hydrodynamic (not hydrostatic) impulse created by bullets which have a high kinetic energy and generally exhibit violent cavitation, can cause some secondary effects due to pressure on the nervous system or heart. It is possible to kill manually by nerve "strangulation". In this case actual damage to the central nervous system is not caused, but the signals governing the heart or diaphragm are shut off, resulting in instantaneous unconsciousness or even death. Certain rare sports fatalities have been definitely attributed to a swift blow which interrupts the cardiac rhythm. Acoustic pressure on the spine can also cause temporary paralysis. These phenomena may account for the rapid effectiveness of some high-velocity hollow-point pistol bullets, especially in cases in which the victim is not mortally wounded and recovers consciousness within a few minutes. Several special handgun loads have been designed with no regard whatsoever to penetration (e.g., the THV bullet) in order to achieve this result. Unfortunately, this is an unreliable mechanism of incapacitation, generally obtained at the expense of effective penetration. No bullet yet designed will produce this effect even 10% of the time. Many of the bullets designed to utilize this effect can be defeated by common barriers, such as glass, sheetrock, and even clothing. Doing this deliberately by hand, even with a profound understanding of the mechanism and vital points, is extremely uncertain; using the passage of a pressure wave from a bullet to accomplish this falls into the freak event category. Such is never an acceptable mechanism for the hunter.
http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ballistics/myths.html#energy
It doesn't take a whole lot of work to dispute this effect, since it's patent bullshit.

I feel that I can end this debate entirely by looking at the levels of gun-related crime proportional to population in the US and UK. Whilst in the UK it is relatively unheard of (indeed one shooting of a policeman in my area recently became national news and was seen as entirely shocking and unexpected - perhaps explained more by the fact that the murderer was an American with a gun that he'd bought because back home guns are legal), in the US there are for more incidents ranging from minor shootings to genocide.The #1 reason for the high level of crime in US cities is the War on Drugs. I implore you to resist attempts by your government to wage war on innanimate objects.

How can anyone seriously sustain an argument that the only way to protect yourself from other gun wielders is to own a gun yourself? Surely, were there no guns in the first place there would be nothing to defend yourself from...?
Murder and mayhem predate the invention of the gun. Do you know anything about the ancient and middle age history of the British Ilses you speak of?


I agree with a couple of posts - guns are for killing, they are not to keep your family safe. If you want to keep your family safe, elect a government who tackles the real issues and doesn't have a society of massive inequality - it only breeds resentment.Very nice advise. You speak as though a typical American has some sort of significant say it the operations their government. It's impossible to elect a government that cares about me, my familiy, and my stuff as much as I do. Fuck the police state!


And I love the way the right-wing claim owning a gun as their "right". It isn't a right at all, it is a priveledge (if you live in the US), and moreover surely because everyone has a <b>right</b> to live in a safe society free from harm, allowing anyone to walk into a shop to buy a gun is more than a slight infringement?The right to keep and bear arms has been respected by freedom-loving people since before guns were invented. The recently invented humanitarian, UN-empowering "rights" are total bullshit. I strongly advise you consider them appropriately. If governments are empowered to protect people from people, who is there to protect against the government?

The bottom line is that in countries where guns are legal there are far more cases of guncrime. Is that not a case of "enough said"?
There are many cases disprove the cause-effect relationship you imply.

That's so incredibly, incomprehensibly unlikely, that I would never have imagined it was being discussed. Ultra-right wingers turning the government into completely authoritarian seems more likely to me (although still very unlikely), looking at current events.

Ya, I know it's pretty far fetched, for the former, and I think they're succeeding on the latter.

It's one of the points about why 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' is in the Constitution, in the event that it does happen, how ever unlikely or improbable, we are to be prepared for any such contingency, right?

Oh dear, please don't let's get started on this whole freedom of speech thing. The logic that places the freedom to buy a gun in the same catagory as the freedom to post what you wish on the internet is completely illfounded.

The fact of the matter is that you can quote statistics all you wish, and the right wing can campaign as much as they want for guns and the freedom to buy them. But in reality, I live in the UK in which every second citizen does not feel the need to own a gun to protect themselves from some other citizen who may or may not have a gun.

America has this lovely Laissez-faire way of treating politics - they prescribe guns as the antidote to guncrime, and conveniently ignore the fact that the people that commit the autrocities do so because of the terrible conditions in which they have been brought up. If you had no money, they you would be forced to steal. If you are addicted to drugs, you would find yourself having the overwhelming urge to rob people of their money in order to finance your addiction. And the US fail to recognise this, or at least do anything about it, becuase it is too much of a burden to the taxpayer to set up a decent welfare state in which everyone is guaranteed a base standard of living.

If the US began to address the real issues here; the fact that there is awful social inequality amongst American citizens, far more pronounced than in the UK, levels of crime, whether it be gun-related or not, will continue to worry the population. Each government has a responsibility to look after its population and this has overlooked in America for far too long. If you lived in relative poverty for a sustained period of time then I'm sure that you would lose faith in society and become resentful.

The fact is that the vast minority who do perform horrendous crimes will always do so. Illegalising guns, entirely, prevents those on the edge of commiting a crime (like those in a drunken rage, as previously stated) from doing so with a lethal weapon. It is very easy to kill someone with a gun.

Addressing those who see owning a gun as a human right, do you see protecting your nation as a human right? Therefore, what is the American argument against any rogue (or at least rogue in American terms - perhaps moderately left-wing even) nations developing WMD's in order to protect themselves against the possible onslaught of fellow WMD capable nations? And what happens when the criminals of America see that everyone has a gun, and go one better...perhaps to grenades? Bombs? Does the rest of the population carry them as a matter of course in order to protect themselves? That kind of logic is what started World War 1 and caused millions of deaths.

It's the logic that allowed us to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Did you see us suffer any sanctions for that?

No, we'll kick the world's ass and take names. And the rest of the world will take it.

Dear Battery Charger,

Yes, I realise that muder and mayhem, as you put it, were about before the invention of firearms. That doesn't mean that you should legalise them. Following that logic, why not let the average Joe Bloggs carry around rocket launchers...after all murders took place before rocket launchers were invented too. Doesn't a government have to make it as difficult as possible for the murder to commit said murder? Or is it OK to give everyone a gun and let them fend for themselves? Don't make me point to America's recent attack on Iraq for their WMD's again...you can cause genocide without WMD's (in fact Iraq proved it) so then it's ok for Saddam to develop them?

And, being an American as you obviously are, don't you believe passionately in democracy, and the freedom of choice? Can you not, therefore, elect in another President to carry out your democratic wishes? If they're not doing what you want, you can elect them out. That answers both the average American not having control shite, oh, and the "protect against the government" nonsense - you are. According to American constitution, the American majority gets what the American majority wants. It follows that, if you get a poor government, its your stupid fault for electing them. Or, you could just elect them for another term and let them do even more damage, giving them power over all levels of authority...mentioning no names. Super democracy!

Hahaha, just noticed the My Gun Not Yours post. If lacking a logical argument, you can do what all Americans do and profess your superiority by a mass of firepower. Sure, you can blow us all up (i'll skip over the fact that all WMD carrying nations could do the same) but who would be left for you arrogant people to brag to?

I'm surprised that many people actually think like this. I could never live with my conscience having killed someone. But if you banned guns then surely the prospective thief/rapist/assaulter would lack his/her weapon? One of the reasons why you feel you are in danger is because your opponent has a gun. If they were banned, you would be in less danger.
Most rapists don't need guns.

But the USA seems quite happy to persecute gays and lesbians by withdrawing their constitutional rights to marry. If the constitution can be amended to hinder love, can't it also be hindered to hinder needless deaths?
Yes ammending the Constitution to prohibit firearm possession would be somewhat consistant with using it prohibit gay marriage. Throw in a few more things you think people ought not doing and you can call it "The Bill of Wrongs"

Most rapist don't need guns...so they could do them with or without guns. What has rape got to do with guncrime? Unless, of course, the guns are used as a weapon in the rape, in which case the rapists shouldn't have them, but of course in America they can go buy one from the local cornershop.

Criminy, dude. You're going to have a hard time following this because you are a subject to the crown, and not a true citizen, but I'll try and walk you through it:

The fact of the matter is that you can quote statistics all you wish, and the right wing can campaign as much as they want for guns and the freedom to buy them. But in reality, I live in the UK in which every second citizen does not feel the need to own a gun to protect themselves from some other citizen who may or may not have a gun.

Science is based on the collection of statistics, so if you're not going to believe the statistics in either country (*ahem* especially when they don't agree with what you think) then you are making emotional decisions with which to govern society. Decisions based on fact and research are much better than decisions based on emotion and whimsy, wouldn't you agree?

America has this lovely Laissez-faire way of treating politics - they prescribe guns as the antidote to guncrime, and conveniently ignore the fact that the people that commit the autrocities do so because of the terrible conditions in which they have been brought up. If you had no money, they you would be forced to steal. If you are addicted to drugs, you would find yourself having the overwhelming urge to rob people of their money in order to finance your addiction. And the US fail to recognise this, or at least do anything about it, becuase it is too much of a burden to the taxpayer to set up a decent welfare state in which everyone is guaranteed a base standard of living.

If the US began to address the real issues here; the fact that there is awful social inequality amongst American citizens, far more pronounced than in the UK, levels of crime, whether it be gun-related or not, will continue to worry the population. Each government has a responsibility to look after its population and this has overlooked in America for far too long. If you lived in relative poverty for a sustained period of time then I'm sure that you would lose faith in society and become resentful.

That's like 6 different issues all rolled into one! But, you are correct, if we fixed other societal problems, the gun problem would probably solve itself. But that begs the question, if by solving those other problems, we also solve the gun problem, would there need to be a reason to solve the gun problem, if it wasn't a problem? The was on drugs is stupid and destructive, and the corporate governance problems here in that states are being worked out. But, keep in mind, you have more crime than we do, and much higher unemployment, so you're kind of calling the kettle black, aren't you, pot?

The fact is that the vast minority who do perform horrendous crimes will always do so. Illegalising guns, entirely, prevents those on the edge of commiting a crime (like those in a drunken rage, as previously stated) from doing so with a lethal weapon. It is very easy to kill someone with a gun.

It is also very easy to kill someone with a knife. Or a car. Or poison. What you don't want to address is that if the intended victim is armed, they could stop the person in the drunken rage.

Addressing those who see owning a gun as a human right, do you see protecting your nation as a human right?

It is a civil right and a responsibility put forth to all free men and citizens. You, technically, are not a citizen, but a subject, you don't not hve the same rights and responsibilities according to the classical definitions of each.

Therefore, what is the American argument against any rogue (or at least rogue in American terms - perhaps moderately left-wing even) nations developing WMD's in order to protect themselves against the possible onslaught of fellow WMD capable nations? And what happens when the criminals of America see that everyone has a gun, and go one better...perhaps to grenades? Bombs? Does the rest of the population carry them as a matter of course in order to protect themselves? That kind of logic is what started World War 1 and caused millions of deaths.

we are talking about the private ownership of weapons by individuals, not the armaments of the states. That is NOT what started WWI by the way, it was a terrorist act that tested the web of treaties and agreements that had been established by the ruling royal families of Europe. And for the record, the only WMDs are nuclear weapons, and I say anyone who can afford to buy one, you can have one. Seeing as how the cheapest nuke is about $1 billion or so, I'll definitely stay away from Bill Gates and Richard Branson.

Yes ammending the Constitution to prohibit firearm possession would be somewhat consistant with using it prohibit gay marriage. Throw in a few more things you think people ought not doing and you can call it "The Bill of Wrongs"

Maybe there should be more "Bills of Wrongs" and America might be a safer place. How the hell can you compare gays and lesbians marrying to banning some gun-obsessed lunatic from marching around with a rifle?? The difference is, that whilst allowing anyone to marry, regardless of sex, you are promoting tolerance and understanding, allowing anyone to own guns places a direct danger on the rest of the population who do not wish to be sucked into a who's-got-the-biggest-gun battle, and see them as what they are, weapons. Do all Americans go by the constitution like it is some bible, and as if disobeying it would result in immediate death? It has many many many flaws, one of which being the right to bear arms. That particular part has resulted in dreadful gun murder rates. If everyone is allowed to walk around the streets with a gun, how can anyone tell the murderers from those simply wishing to "protect themselves" until they actually do something with that gun of theirs?

And the US fail to recognise this, or at least do anything about it, becuase it is too much of a burden to the taxpayer to set up a decent welfare state in which everyone is guaranteed a base standard of living.



And just who gave you or the Government or anyone else for that matter the right to take what I have worked for an give it to someone else? Granted, there isn't much to take in my case, but the point is neither you nor anyone else has the moral authority to be my conscience.

As you may or may not have heard--there is no such amendment at this time. There is also no constitutional right to marry (regardless of genders), last I checked....
You could certainly argue that pre-existing common law dictates that free people naturally have a right enter a marriage or any other social/religious/economic arrangement. IMO, this means states should not be in the buisness of lisencing marriage at all and that 2 men or 3 women or 2 men and 3 women have every legal right to enter the same sort of arrangement, but that doesn't mean it should necessarily be legally called marriage. Doing that could reader existing law regarding marriage meaningless. The 9th Ammendment says that such rights not specifically mentioned still need to be respected.

Maybe there should be more "Bills of Wrongs" and America might be a safer place. How the hell can you compare gays and lesbians marrying to banning some gun-obsessed lunatic from marching around with a rifle?? The difference is, that whilst allowing anyone to marry, regardless of sex, you are promoting tolerance and understanding, allowing anyone to own guns places a direct danger on the rest of the population who do not wish to be sucked into a who's-got-the-biggest-gun battle, and see them as what they are, weapons. Do all Americans go by the constitution like it is some bible, and as if disobeying it would result in immediate death? It has many many many flaws, one of which being the right to bear arms. That particular part has resulted in dreadful gun murder rates. If everyone is allowed to walk around the streets with a gun, how can anyone tell the murderers from those simply wishing to "protect themselves" until they actually do something with that gun of theirs?

Ugh!! :mad:

Please go back and read the Constitution!! The Constitution outlines FEDERAL (read: national) powers. Marriage is regulated by the STATES (read: regional to local level), and there's a big difference. State and Federal laws are often at odds with each other, and the Federal government can only enforce laws essentially through the commerce clause in the Constitution.

You Brits have horrible burglary and mugging rates, and the rape rates, holy smokes!! Don't you think you should be handing out pistols to your girls so they at least have a chance? I would much rather pick my mom or my girlfriend up from the police station after they shot an assailant, rather than visit them in the hospital after being beaten or worse by one.

We have a syaing in these parts: it's better to be tried by twelve than carried by six.

jeez...

And just who gave you or the Government or anyone else for that matter the right to take what I have worked for an give it to someone else? Granted, there isn't much to take in my case, but the point is neither you nor anyone else has the moral authority to be my conscience.

I gotta second you on that one. The fruits of a man's labors should be his own.

Science is based on the collection of statistics, so if you're not going to believe the statistics in either country (*ahem* especially when they don't agree with what you think) then you are making emotional decisions with which to govern society. Decisions based on fact and research are much better than decisions based on emotion and whimsy, wouldn't you agree?

Of course I agree. The point I was making there was that although you see owning a gun as a right to protect oneself, in the UK we don't all own them. There are less guns, and less gun-related murders, and the numbers of gun-related murders are falling, not rising. Whilst in the US, on the other hand, loads of you own guns and you're still killing each other with them!


That's like 6 different issues all rolled into one! But, you are correct, if we fixed other societal problems, the gun problem would probably solve itself. But that begs the question, if by solving those other problems, we also solve the gun problem, would there need to be a reason to solve the gun problem, if it wasn't a problem? The was on drugs is stupid and destructive, and the corporate governance problems here in that states are being worked out. But, keep in mind, you have more crime than we do, and much higher unemployment, so you're kind of calling the kettle black, aren't you, pot?

Have you looked at the unemployment figures lately? You have a lower unemployment rate by oh-so-little, its fractions of a percent. We're basically equal - 1998 UK - 4.7% US - 4.5%. And don't forget that our rates have lowered since then, quite remarkably! In fact we both have unemployment of 4.2% so I'd check your sources. Also may I also add that our rates would be even lower were we to have the left-wing government we thought we elected - in the 70's our unemployment rates were around 2%, much better than the US even now, when we had a socialist government.

Oh, and also your economy is in a pathetic state. If you want an example of a good economy, look at places like Sweden and Iceland - massive taxes and government spending, but the best standard of living - crime, wealth etc all taken into account, in the world. They don't go through massive booms and busts, they're pretty much always constant. And pretty much constantly good.

And you need to solve the gun problem in many ways, permenantly by tackling inequality, but also by limiting gun use..how can that be a negative thing if the target is eradicating guns?

It is also very easy to kill someone with a knife. Or a car. Or poison. What you don't want to address is that if the intended victim is armed, they could stop the person in the drunken rage.

Don't start this again! You can kill people with anything, it's just how easy it is. With a gun, it's point and click. With poison, it isn't quite as spur-of-the-moment. A knife, this is true. But a gun is easier, and this debate is not about banning knives now is it? Just because you can kill someone with something else, doesn't mean you shouldnt ban it. Even American recognise that the average citizen shouldnt carry a WMD.


ACTUALLY:

World War one was started, as you pointed out, by the Serbian 'Black Hand' terrorist group who assasinated the Bosnian Franz Ferdinand. However, this is like saying WW2 began when Hitler invaded Poland, other stuff happened before that. Specifically, Britain and Germany had been involved in an arms/naval race because, like the guns issue, they were afraid of what each other could do to them, so they got bigger. And this fear led to the outbreak as a long-term cause. Also, the alliance system was a factor in the outbreak of war, a major one, and this also was because of fear of what the enemy might do. So, like guns, everyone having a weapon because the minority do has disasterous consequences.

Oh and may I add, regarding this whole "our unemployment is better than yours", just look at the type of employment you have. Because of your free market, all your big corporations like to do things like hire temps, fire them before they legally become full time, then rehire them again. They don't have to pay the basic full time wages, and they dont have many worker rights because the American coroporations just keep screwing them over. What a super kind of employment! Your working-class workforce is almost entirely made up of people in unsure and unstable jobs, with no rights and no prospects of promotion. Forget the American dream, all youre doing is encouraging unskilled workers to get stuck in a rut where the unmonitored companies can do whatever they want with them. This isn't a sustaining workforce, it's one that has no choice - and since you American love choice for choice's sake, you should mind this. But you don't, because youre inherently afraid of taxes and threatening the corporate prowess. Look at the gap between the rich and the poor in the USA and explain how far right economics, like Bush, has helped it.

But this isn't about economies, is it?

Of course I agree. The point I was making there was that although you see owning a gun as a right to protect oneself, in the UK we don't all own them. There are less guns, and less gun-related murders, and the numbers of gun-related murders are falling, not rising. Whilst in the US, on the other hand, loads of you own guns and you're still killing each other with them!

Legalizing and better regulating drugs would do more good than banning guns. Again, we have the right to keep and bear arms, and according to the founders of the country, a responsibility to do so. Also, in the states that passed CCW laws, the violent crime rates dropped dramatically.

Have you looked at the unemployment figures lately? You have a lower unemployment rate by oh-so-little, its fractions of a percent. We're basically equal - 1998 UK - 4.7% US - 4.5%. And don't forget that our rates have lowered since then, quite remarkably! In fact we both have unemployment of 4.2% so I'd check your sources. Also may I also add that our rates would be even lower were we to have the left-wing government we thought we elected - in the 70's our unemployment rates were around 2%, much better than the US even now, when we had a socialist government.

I didn't check, so ya got me there.

Oh, and also your economy is in a pathetic state. If you want an example of a good economy, look at places like Sweden and Iceland - massive taxes and government spending, but the best standard of living - crime, wealth etc all taken into account, in the world. They don't go through massive booms and busts, they're pretty much always constant. And pretty much constantly good.

I wouldn't call it pathetic, but it's been better.

And you need to solve the gun problem in many ways, permenantly by tackling inequality, but also by limiting gun use..how can that be a negative thing if the target is eradicating guns?

Here's one, I don't think we have a gun problem. I think we have other social problems and the use of guns is a symptom, not the underlying problem.



Don't start this again! You can kill people with anything, it's just how easy it is. With a gun, it's point and click. With poison, it isn't quite as spur-of-the-moment. A knife, this is true. But a gun is easier, and this debate is not about banning knives now is it? Just because you can kill someone with something else, doesn't mean you shouldnt ban it. Even American recognise that the average citizen shouldnt carry a WMD.

Again, Weapons of Mass Destruction are Nuclear Weapons, you cannot just carry them around. Even the smallest ones are very heavy. Furthermore, citizens have traditionally been allowed to keep weapons and have a weapon on thier person for self defence. Subjects have not. I am a citizen of the US. I have the right to own property and defend it, with a firearm if need be. And, just because I can kill someone with a gun, doesn't mean I will, and thus, by your statement, doesn't mean I need to ban them, do I?


ACTUALLY:

World War one was started, as you pointed out, by the Serbian 'Black Hand' terrorist group who assasinated the Bosnian Franz Ferdinand. However, this is like saying WW2 began when Hitler invaded Poland, other stuff happened before that. Specifically, Britain and Germany had been involved in an arms/naval race because, like the guns issue, they were afraid of what each other could do to them, so they got bigger. And this fear led to the outbreak as a long-term cause. Also, the alliance system was a factor in the outbreak of war, a major one, and this also was because of fear of what the enemy might do. So, like guns, everyone having a weapon because the minority do has disasterous consequences.

Again, most would say that the treaties and alliances produced by the non-elected royal families had more to do with the way the sides lined up than with what kind of weapons they had.

Dear Battery Charger,

Yes, I realise that muder and mayhem, as you put it, were about before the invention of firearms. That doesn't mean that you should legalise them. Following that logic, why not let the average Joe Bloggs carry around rocket launchers...after all murders took place before rocket launchers were invented too. Doesn't a government have to make it as difficult as possible for the murder to commit said murder? Or is it OK to give everyone a gun and let them fend for themselves? Don't make me point to America's recent attack on Iraq for their WMD's again...you can cause genocide without WMD's (in fact Iraq proved it) so then it's ok for Saddam to develop them?

You conceeded that you're wrong to think eliminating guns eliminates their necessity. Thanks, but there's no more logic to follow into rocket launchers.
It is not a reasonable goal of government to make it as difficult as possible for people to commit murder. There are many things a powerful government could feasibly do that would effectively eliminate murder (at least by non-governmet people) that I'm sure you'd object to. Regarding crime, government's job is to provide a means for justice.
It is not okay to "give everyone a gun." I advocate no such thing. You should buy your own damn gun. It is okay to "let everyone fend for themselves." Is it really better that they be required to fend (whatever 'fend' means) for each other?
Don't worry, I won't make you do anything. I should let you know that I'm militantly opposed to practically all of my federal government's policies, especially the foreign policy. I will never support any unconstitutional, un-declared, un-provoked, pointless war.

And, being an American as you obviously are, don't you believe passionately in democracy, and the freedom of choice? Can you not, therefore, elect in another President to carry out your democratic wishes? If they're not doing what you want, you can elect them out. That answers both the average American not having control shite, oh, and the "protect against the government" nonsense - you are. According to American constitution, the American majority gets what the American majority wants. It follows that, if you get a poor government, its your stupid fault for electing them. Or, you could just elect them for another term and let them do even more damage, giving them power over all levels of authority...mentioning no names. Super democracy!Wow, your blanket generalization is accurate for me. I don't passionately believe in democracy. It's a false god. Having said that, it is a very popular false god in the US. Freedom of choice is a meaningless term.
No, I cannot elect another President. I voted against our President, and somehow he still won. I only had one out of about 100 million votes. I have virtually no control over who my overlords are or what they do. Yay democracy!
You dare speak as if you know anything about the US Constitution. It does not empower absolute power to a majority. In fact, it has many provisions designed prevent a tyranny of the majority. Constitutionally, the US federal government is extremely limited in power. What currently exists is mostly unconstitutional.
It is not my own "stupid" fault that people I don't vote for still manage to win.
Your ignorance and generic hatred for me and my fellow countrymen puts you in the same category as the limited number of Americans who arguably deserve your contempt.

Most rapist don't need guns...so they could do them with or without guns. What has rape got to do with guncrime? Unless, of course, the guns are used as a weapon in the rape, in which case the rapists shouldn't have them, but of course in America they can go buy one from the local cornershop.
Normally, rape is not a gun crime, but that's not the point. You seem to have trouble following conversations in which you participate. The point is that guns can be used by potential victims to prevent rape.

Of course I agree. The point I was making there was that although you see owning a gun as a right to protect oneself, in the UK we don't all own them. There are less guns, and less gun-related murders, and the numbers of gun-related murders are falling, not rising. Whilst in the US, on the other hand, loads of you own guns and you're still killing each other with them!

I think you will have a hard time proving that statement. One of your own papers refutes it.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/story.jsp?story=314832
Unfortunately, they charge for the news, so it's just a headline. There's plenty more statistical evidence that the U.K. is a crime magnet. Plus, your parliment is trying to re-instate the right to defend oneself.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/story.jsp?story=590086
That's something that is apparently frowned upon by righteous Britains.



Have you looked at the unemployment figures lately? You have a lower unemployment rate by oh-so-little, its fractions of a percent. We're basically equal - 1998 UK - 4.7% US - 4.5%. And don't forget that our rates have lowered since then, quite remarkably! In fact we both have unemployment of 4.2% so I'd check your sources. Also may I also add that our rates would be even lower were we to have the left-wing government we thought we elected - in the 70's our unemployment rates were around 2%, much better than the US even now, when we had a socialist government.

Oh, and also your economy is in a pathetic state. If you want an example of a good economy, look at places like Sweden and Iceland - massive taxes and government spending, but the best standard of living - crime, wealth etc all taken into account, in the world. They don't go through massive booms and busts, they're pretty much always constant. And pretty much constantly good.


This is just funny. You can't compare rates of employment from six years ago. We are now at the 4-5 percent range. I can prove that. What is the unemployment rate in UK? Give me a reference.

Plus, you are really stretching the comparison between a socialist and a capitalist country. What is that last innovation that came from Sweden? Dynamite? Socialism saps the economy of any innovation because the enterpreur can't benefit from his own ideas. The lazy, ignorant slackers that make up the rest of the population are the only ones who really benefit from socialism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucksnort
1. You adopted them as your whackjobs when you spoke up to defend them.

Reply:
1. Ok, wiseacre: I challenge you to PUT UP or SHUT UP. I want you to quote me defending somebody assassinating someone. I want you to quote the post #. Go for it.
YOU SAID IT, I DID NOT!!
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost....0&postcount=641 http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost....9&postcount=634

Can you tell me how on EARTH you took "b) What if the fire had not been contained and set 50,000 acres on fire? In much of California, fire is the WORST THING POSSIBLE. It destroys homes, displaces and kills people."
to
"B. What if I had a beard made of green spinach? What if, what if what if? It didn't happen. Stop tryiing to paint it worse than it was to justify your whackjobs."

Do you know how to debate something without making up the other person's platform for them?!?

My Answer:
When you had the AUDACITY to compare property crimes with crimes against ACTUAL HUMANS, you defended the guys committing crimes against humans. You did so by say, yes, they do that but, but, but...YOUR guys do THIS...as if that is supposed to make the other guys okay.

Oh my goodness! I have an opinion that YOU DON'T LIKE!! I must be Satan or somebody. :D
BTW, you failed to quote me, therefore your answer is not acceptable. Thank you for playing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucksnort
3. so, burning Hummers is a "terrorist activity" and bombing clinics and shooting doctors isn't? Interesting take.

Reply:
Fine. Name every bombed abortion building in the past 10 years. Heck, name 3. I can name DOZENS of attacks and riots by ELF/Greenpeace/PETA/WTO.

My Answer:
The fact that you CAN only proves my point, once again, that you are more angered over crimes against property than you are angered over crimes against people.

Um, no. You amazingly keep missing that I said they are AS bad, not worse. The same way that Better Midler sucks as bad as Rosie O'Donnell. Neither is worse, they both suck EQUALLY.
Did you even LOOK at the links again? Again, you failed to quote.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucksnort
4. I say it ISN'T equally as bad, and never could be. One is a crime against STUFF...against INANIMATE OBJECTS. the other is a crime against humans...against human life. One does not take human lives, the other does. No comparison.

Reply:
And who owns those objects? Who's livelihood/family gets ruined?
There are *countless* cases in history of people committing suicide or murder because they lost everything due to such crimes. And you say that isn't as tragic?

My Answer:
Yes, I say it is not as tragic. Property CAN be replaced. Whose fault is it if the people who bought the stuff didn't insure it? And you can't compare committing suicide, regardless of reason, with someone being MURDERED. One is committed by one's own hand. the other is committed by the hand of someone else! Again, your very words indicate that your anger over the property crimes exceeds your anger over the crimes committed against humans.

Right. So if I go to your house and set fire to your family's photo album, I'm sure that the $16.72 you get in recompese for a roll of film and a book will make you feel better. And that's a petty example.

Wanna bet? You can't feed your kid so you kill yourself in depression because someone else ruined your life? THAT IS CERTAINLY AS TRAGIC.

Again, your being close minded is amazing. I KEEP saying that it is AS bad, not WORSE. You know, they are equally bad the same way that National Healthcare would be a drain the country JUST as much as welfare did before the reform in the 90s.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucksnort

I stand by my statement. your words bear out my initial reaction...you truly ARE more angered over the burning of the Hummers, than you are about clinic bombings and doctor shootings. You truly ARE more angered over a crime against STUFF than a crime against PEOPLE.

Reply:
Um... no. How on Earth can you say what I feel? I said MULTIPLE TIMES that it isn't worse, but that it CAN be as bad.

My Answer:
No you DID say it was as bad, on several occasions...not that it CAN be as bad...YOU ASSERTED THAT IT WAS AS BAD!!

You failed to quote me, therefore your answer is not acceptable. Thank you for playing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucksnort
To elevate a crime against stuff to the level of a crime against humans...that tells me everything I NEED to know about you. You obviously value property over life. Sorry to hear that.

Reply:
Actually, it tells me that you cannot read, as BY REPOSTING my posts, I've proven that you can't even follow a simple debate. Sorry to hear that.

My Answer: No, actually, you have proven my case for me. Thank you. Anyone reading this stuff can CLEARLY see you are more angered over crimes against property than you are crimes against humans.
I rest my case.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

BTW, I'm done talking to you. It's obvious that you are so closeminded that I may as well try to convert a goldfish to eating sushi as try to debate you.

How would the outlaws get guns if they were totally banned?

Just to back up a former point, I read quite frequently the argument that Americans have the RIGHT to own a gun. Well...following that logic, didn't Saddam Hussein have the right to own wmd's?

The same way they get illegal drugs. Or liquor during Prohibition: smuggling.

Um... that's actually a pretty good question. I'm not an expert on International Law, but I am sure that since he's not a US citizen that Saddam has no 2nd Amendement rights. :D

i dont really no about that, Ill have to look it up so i will know what you are talking about. However a Sergant in WW2 captured 170 odd well defended german unit by himself with a single rifle, by demoralizing the german troops by slaughtering their men as they charged after him.

You'll find that Sgt. Alvin York served in WW1.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_York

There are other ways to resist than to pull out a gun. Example, some guy takes me, a woman, at gunpoint, and forces me into my own vehicle. I know already he intends me to drive him way out into nowhere, where he can rape and kill me at leisure, with lfew or no witnesses. What do I do?

I DELIBERATELY CRASH MY CAR!! The second the car comes to a stop after impact, my door is open and I'm out of the car.


Suppose I'm not driving and he is? OK, I wait for my opportunity, because he can't watch me and the road at the same time, and I jump from my own car.

Suppose he puts me in the trunk? That is what I have screwdrivers in the trunk for. I pop the trunk lid and jump.

Suppose he ties me up and throws me in the trunk? Well, chances are, that isn't gonna happen, I don't go to places so secluded that he could get enough TIME to do that...and meanwhile, I am damn well gonna scream. His intention is to kill me anyway, so his threats to do it if I scream are notwithstanding, I damn well am gonna scream.

I also know a few good self-defense tricks...enough to get away from my attacker. I took some classes in women's self-defense. My FIRST OBEJECTIVE is to get away from my attacker.

YOUR first objective seems to be to blow your attacker to kingdom come. Perhaps it's a gender difference.
Height and weight please.

Whew, this thread is moving kinda fast, I must've missed the previous post.

But I like the idea of going back to muzzle loading.
:p

Sure, but do you also want to go back to outhouses, oil lamps and horse drawn wagons? ;)

IMHO, the flush toilet may well be the most important invention of the 19th Century!

i'm just pondering how nicely this argument could be used in defense of abortion. specifically something to the effect of "have you ever even HAD an abortion? have you ever been in a situation where having one saved your life?"
The order of events is reversed in the scenario. To defend oneself with a gun, one must have the gun and then be attacked. For an abortion, one must first get pregnant and then get the abortion; also, far less than .1% of abortions have anything to do with saving the mother from injury, let alone death.

Civilised Western Countries?

Why are we being so specific geographically?

But, in very real, very western, and one would have thought - very civilised, terms:

How about Christiania?

http://www.christiania.org/
Population? And from the info page in english, I understand they have gotten help from outside sources from people who live and work in the surrounding countries. This means that it is not completely autonomous and it is unknown whether it could survive on it's own.

Right, I'm curious, time to stick my head in again.

OK, this question is for the people in favour of weapons for self-defense.

What if (and please, just go with it) you had to spend a not-insignificant amount of time a country that doesn't allow you to carry guns? Say a month or so, I don't know, because you lost your documentation while on holiday, or your company sent you abroad and it's too inconvenient to quit your job right now.

How would you feel going about the place without your gun? Would you change your social habits much?

Not trying to pick on any one group with this, just curious. Since I'm from the UK, this is a reality for me.
I would carry my daggers. As to why I have daggers, I bought them at a Ren Faire but they are of surprisingly good quality and small enough to be hidden upon my person..

Sure, but do you also want to go back to outhouses, oil lamps and horse drawn wagons? ;)

IMHO, the flush toilet may well be the most important invention of the 19th Century!

But think of all the water you're wasting!! Don't let the environmentalists hear you say that!! And the paper!! All those trees being killed!!

You're not going to make a very good liberal, are you now? ;)

Roach, following that line, if it's cities that are most in need of gun ownership to protect themselves, why is it that cities are the areas most in favor of gun control?
Because the cities are mostly controlled by Dummiecrats like good ol Mayor Daley.

But that infringes the right to bear arms. To me that is unconstiutional.

well seeing as the bill of rights was written 200 years ago, a lot of things have changed, the right to bear arms really isnt neccessary anymore. sure you can but you want everyone you know owning a gun? i know a lot of people who should never have guns within 20 feet of them. and the odds of a bear attacking your homestead or an indian raid are pretty low anymore, so what do you even needs gun for? killing people, or killing animals. both inhumane and unjust

I feel that I can end this debate entirely by looking at the levels of gun-related crime proportional to population in the US and UK. Whilst in the UK it is relatively unheard of (indeed one shooting of a policeman in my area recently became national news and was seen as entirely shocking and unexpected - perhaps explained more by the fact that the murderer was an American with a gun that he'd bought because back home guns are legal), in the US there are for more incidents ranging from minor shootings to genocide.

How can anyone seriously sustain an argument that the only way to protect yourself from other gun wielders is to own a gun yourself? Surely, were there no guns in the first place there would be nothing to defend yourself from...? I agree with a couple of posts - guns are for killing, they are not to keep your family safe. If you want to keep your family safe, elect a government who tackles the real issues and doesn't have a society of massive inequality - it only breeds resentment.

And I love the way the right-wing claim owning a gun as their "right". It isn't a right at all, it is a priveledge (if you live in the US), and moreover surely because everyone has a <b>right</b> to live in a safe society free from harm, allowing anyone to walk into a shop to buy a gun is more than a slight infringement?

The bottom line is that in countries where guns are legal there are far more cases of guncrime. Is that not a case of "enough said"?
No, we have this little thing called a BIll of Rights. Not Bill of Priveledges. Priveledges can inherently be taken away by those in power. Rights, cannot. Actually if you take away both the inner city black on black shootings and the inner city black population our murder rate drops to the level of Canada's, which is below yours. When a single group has a firearm murder rate of 29 out of 100,000 there is a Major SOCIAL problem. A big part of that problem can be attributed to welfare and the entitlement mindset.

well seeing as the bill of rights was written 200 years ago, a lot of things have changed, the right to bear arms really isnt neccessary anymore. sure you can but you want everyone you know owning a gun? i know a lot of people who should never have guns within 20 feet of them. and the odds of a bear attacking your homestead or an indian raid are pretty low anymore, so what do you even needs gun for? killing people, or killing animals. both inhumane and unjust

Yeah exactly, and now we have police to take care of all crazy people robbing a bank so we dont need vigilantes or random bank owners coming out to protect their towns, or shops anymore. Hence with what I said, and what he said, the only guns necesary are single shot hunting rifles, with some exceptions (such as 300 year old pistols just as matel ornaments)

Hahaha, just noticed the My Gun Not Yours post. If lacking a logical argument, you can do what all Americans do and profess your superiority by a mass of firepower. Sure, you can blow us all up (i'll skip over the fact that all WMD carrying nations could do the same) but who would be left for you arrogant people to brag to?

What all Americans do, huh? Some of us don't.

Because the cities are mostly controlled by Dummiecrats like good ol Mayor Daley.

Mmm, hmm, that explaisn why red states, such as Mississippi have much lower IQs than blue states.

You could certainly argue that pre-existing common law dictates that free people naturally have a right enter a marriage or any other social/religious/economic arrangement. IMO, this means states should not be in the buisness of lisencing marriage at all and that 2 men or 3 women or 2 men and 3 women have every legal right to enter the same sort of arrangement, but that doesn't mean it should necessarily be legally called marriage. Doing that could reader existing law regarding marriage meaningless. The 9th Ammendment says that such rights not specifically mentioned still need to be respected.

Well, personally, I don't think government has any right to say boo about marriage, since the term is a religious one.

Civil Unions--that's a different matter. If they want to start making laws about that, there is nothing restricting state governments from doing so.

Is there any point to debating about the various types of small arms? As time goes on, the restraints based on mere paradigms of idealistic justice will become more and more restrictive to gun ownership. I'd like to point out to everyone that the point of guns was not originally made to kill people. The Chinese invented gunpowder in the 11th century with no military intent. It was not really used in war for a long time after. Hunting arquebuses and muskets were used for centuries and were virtually essential to life in most countries by the 17th century. If we look back to the definition of a gun, it is merely a tube or device out of which shrapnel is fired with explosive power. Drawing the line against certain types of guns and not others is black-and-white morality that is just not right. It's furthermore patent idiocy to believe that guns should suddenly go away in this century. Guns protect people and kill people. We may as well outlaw cars because the rate of vehicular manslaughter in accidents is so high in America. Yay, guns are gone! The world is a perfect place! Whatever... That is not the world we live in, and for my money I'm glad some people have the guts to stand up for their right to bear arms, even if I don't need one myself.

yea well my dad is a cop and his job is to "protect and serve". Cops are paid to put their lives on the line to protect civilians and prevent crime, and detain criminals. you do however provide an interesting point, wheter or not your statistics are true or not i do not know. But i am tired of debating this issue so i bid you all adue.
Sadly they are correct, and while many cops do protect and serve by law they are not required to do so.

Apparently, around 235,156 women reported being raped in the UK in 2000. America, whose population is roughly five times larger, had only 90,186 reported cases.


But America is dangerous. oh yeah.
Hmmm, you could probably at least triple the number of rapes that occur in the US because of unreported ones, but then you could probably double the amount in the UK as well.

I'm surprised that many people actually think like this. I could never live with my conscience having killed someone. But if you banned guns then surely the prospective thief/rapist/assaulter would lack his/her weapon? One of the reasons why you feel you are in danger is because your opponent has a gun. If they were banned, you would be in less danger.
Not true, unless one is 6' 200 lbs. The problem with eliminating guns means it will then come down mainly to size, assuming the criminals don't get ahold of guns anyway since they are criminals. Soo, anyone medium to small in stature would be in even greater harms way.

Well, personally, I don't think government has any right to say boo about marriage, since the term is a religious one.

Civil Unions--that's a different matter. If they want to start making laws about that, there is nothing restricting state governments from doing so.

Agreed. It's all part of the seperation of church and state.

While our currency says "In God We Trust", it's not as if the Holy See (or whatever religion you care to mention) gets to influence the federal reserve system.

Personally, I would take it a step further. Let's face it -- some people NEVER get married/CU'd. Why can't people just form a "living partnership"? If some woman in Hartford lives in her house with her daughter (and neither intends to ever marry), why can't they act as each's other's "spouse"?

Why the IRS cares whom we sleep with is beyond me. :D

Yeah exactly, and now we have police to take care of all crazy people robbing a bank so we dont need vigilantes or random bank owners coming out to protect their towns, or shops anymore.

I love sarcasm, but you should give some hint. Some people might think you're serious.

But that infringes the right to bear arms. To me that is unconstiutional.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Read the bold and especially the Italics, they are the key words
The militia is the cost guard.


And hey, I'm not against the gun laws. I'm actually all for issuing everybody above the age of 16 an assult rifle and requiring them every summer to train with it for 2 weeks. That would keep all the Criminal's head low.

"Hey, lets rob a bank!"
*30 guns point at robber*
"Just kidding?"

But think of all the water you're wasting!! Don't let the environmentalists hear you say that!! And the paper!! All those trees being killed!!

You're not going to make a very good liberal, are you now? ;)

But, though I endorse indoor plumbing, I am not its inventor. :)

Thanks, but I know many (and am a!) conservative environmentalists, most notably the guys I go fishing with. By and large, most hunters, fishers, and hikers are pro-environmental protection.

I would carry my daggers. As to why I have daggers, I bought them at a Ren Faire but they are of surprisingly good quality and small enough to be hidden upon my person..

Keep in mind:
In most jurisdictions, any weapon with more than 4" of sharpened edge is illegal to carry about one's person. Local statues of course will vary.

Mmm, hmm, that explaisn why red states, such as Mississippi have much lower IQs than blue states.

I hope you're from a red state... I'd hate to think a blue stater can't spell "explains". ;)

Seriously, that's a great Internet joke, http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm
but I'd hardly call it a scientific study... (and I'm from Connecticut!).

(Note that this is based on SAT/ACT test scores... and folks whom go into the military, work a trade or a farm typically don't TAKE the SAT. There are very few farms left in CT, RI or MA these days. I dont know about other states.)

In Virginia, it's possible to get a concealed carry permit for a pistol but not for knives.

Knives are an evil no-no. Pistols are good. Remember that.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Read the bold and especially the Italics, they are the key words
The militia is the cost guard.


The key phrase is "the people", which has been held by several SCOTUS decisions to mean individual persons. There has been no SCOTUS opinion that contradicts this interpretation of "the people", as it would invalidate all our other individual rights. Also, if you read the background material for the writing of the Constitution, you'll realize that from George Mason to Thomas Jefferson, they all believed that the "militia" is composed by default of all able-bodied males between 18 and 45 years of age. This has been enshrined in US Law, which formalizes that age group. Most males in the US on this board are in the militia whether we want to be or not, and under law must obey an order to be called up.

The militia is NOT the Coast Guard, or National Guard. It is the body of males in the US.

The Founding Fathers believed that if every man had a rifle in his house, then a "well regulated" militia could be called out to defend the nation on a moment's notice. The government was not going to buy those weapons - we were expected to keep them.

A very prominent historian named Belisiles tried to debunk this - and he was discredited and laughed out of academia.

Mmm, hmm, that explaisn why red states, such as Mississippi have much lower IQs than blue states.
Firstly, IQ is a very, very questionable measuring tool, and secondly the list that your supposed proof comes from has on multiple occasions been proven highly suspect.

Keep in mind:
In most jurisdictions, any weapon with more than 4" of sharpened edge is illegal to carry about one's person. Local statues of course will vary.
Considering that I plan on carrying in Chicago and how much of complete BS it is to get a CC license here, I don't really care.

Considering that I plan on carrying in Chicago and how much of complete BS it is to get a CC license here, I don't really care.

Careful, concealed knives can get you busted in Chicago too. They stop people on the interstate and arrest them for legally owned weapons from their own state in sealed containers.

AFAIK, CC is not allowed at all in Illinois. Can you reference? (I live down near EIU BTW).

Plus, you are really stretching the comparison between a socialist and a capitalist country. What is that last innovation that came from Sweden? Dynamite? Socialism saps the economy of any innovation because the enterpreur can't benefit from his own ideas. The lazy, ignorant slackers that make up the rest of the population are the only ones who really benefit from socialism.I suppose it's because of those lazy, ignorant slackers that Nordic countries like Finland, Sweden and Norway keep ranking in the Top 10 on all world-wide economic competitiveness indices, with Finland again taking the lead before the USA and Sweden on the World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness ranking for 2004-2005 (http://www.weforum.org/site/homepublic.nsf/Content/Global+Competitiveness+Programme%5CGlobal+Competitiveness+Report), same as in 2003-2004.

The lack of innovation is probably because of the horrible state of our education system (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4073753.stm). Damn those lazy, ignorant slackers!

There is a place for people who want to use firearms and that place is the military. Or better yet, the police service. If more people joined the police, then they would be able to respond more quickly and less people would take the law into their own hands.

Oh, and just as a side note: there is no connection between owning a gun or being around people who own guns, and shooting someone with a gun or being shot yourself. Right? Everyone knows that guns are for people with small penises. Proven fact.

Careful, concealed knives can get you busted in Chicago too. They stop people on the interstate and arrest them for legally owned weapons from their own state in sealed containers.

AFAIK, CC is not allowed at all in Illinois. Can you reference? (I live down near EIU BTW).
You can get it in chicago but you basically have to be rich or important enough to be considered a target. Of course, those people generally aren't in areas where they would need a CC license but the bureaucracy never let facts stop them.

I suppose it's because of those lazy, ignorant slackers that Nordic countries like Finland, Sweden and Norway keep ranking in the Top 10 on all world-wide economic competitiveness indices, with Finland again taking the lead before the USA and Sweden on the World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness ranking for 2004-2005 (http://www.weforum.org/site/homepublic.nsf/Content/Global+Competitiveness+Programme%5CGlobal+Competitiveness+Report), same as in 2003-2004.

The lack of innovation is probably because of the horrible state of our education system (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4073753.stm). Damn those lazy, ignorant slackers!
Remind me what Finland DOES exactly?

Remind me what Finland DOES exactly?It exists? Or do you mean what we export? Traditionally it's been forest industry related and heavy machinery (paper, paper machinery, ships and components, etc). Lately it's been more electronics, (bio)chemistry and software. Maybe you've heard of Nokia, which holds a 30-35% market share on the global mobile phone sales.

Of course it's more difficult to quantify such things for a country that has a population 1/55th the size of the US -- we don't hold large market shares in many industries. By the same token, China produces shitloads of stuff, yet it doesn't have a particularly competitive economy, nor is it necessarily a very nice place to live in.

I suppose it's because of those lazy, ignorant slackers that Nordic countries like Finland, Sweden and Norway keep ranking in the Top 10 on all world-wide economic competitiveness indices, with Finland again taking the lead before the USA and Sweden on the World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness ranking for 2004-2005 (http://www.weforum.org/site/homepublic.nsf/Content/Global+Competitiveness+Programme%5CGlobal+Competitiveness+Report), same as in 2003-2004.

The lack of innovation is probably because of the horrible state of our education system (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4073753.stm). Damn those lazy, ignorant slackers!

That explains all the "Made in Finland, Sweden, and Nordic land" stickers I keep seeing on all the stuff I buy. Got to cut back on that lutefisk.

So what was the last innovative product to be invented in Finland? or Sweden? I mean "world-changing" innovation, like a privately constructed spacecraft, for instance.

How 'bout it?

I mean "world-changing" innovation [...]What was the last world-changing innovation to come out of Indiana?

Okay, here goes: A Finnish company, Nanoway Oy, developed the world's first product based on nanoelectronics, the primary thermometer. (http://www.tekes.fi/eng/news/uutis_tiedot.asp?id=3088&paluu=) Let's see 56 innovations in the of similar importance in the field of electronics from the US, and I'll get back to you.

That explains all the "Made in Finland, Sweden, and Nordic land" stickers I keep seeing on all the stuff I buy. Got to cut back on that lutefisk.You see Made in Mexico and Made in China all over. So does that mean Mexico and China are full of enterprising, innovative, well educated, intelligent, competitive people who support economically sound theories?

One that's underway is the construction of a working quantum computer by HP.

I apologize.

You, madam, are an idiot. I refuse to flame anyone and in my sincere, educated opinion, you are a dolt.

You, sir, crack me up. First you call me an idiot. And use the wrong gender to refer to me. Then you call me a dolt. THEN you say you refuse to flame anyone! What the hell do you think you are doing to me? You think calling someone an idiot and a dolt is NOT flaming? And you can take your apology and stick it right up where the sun don't shine. It isn't accepted, because it's obviously insincere. One does not apologize to someone, and in the next breath call them a dolt. I happen to have a different opinion than you.


You have been talking, ranting, raving and yelling at everyone about an issue you obviously know nothing about. Have you ever even fired a gun? Have you ever been in a situation where having one saved your life? Do you have children that you need to protect? I do, and I'm not about to abandon that responsibility because the police have stenciled 'to protect and to serve' on the side of thier car. I know many police officers, and they will be the first to tell you that if something bad happens, if someone is coming after you, it's really up to you to stay alive, and for the police to take the report later.

Again, if you had READ things I was saying, you would know the answers to your questions. but since you obviously haven't read...and can only shoot off your own mouth, I'll answer then for you again, since you're obviously too lazy to do your own homework, and to busy shooting off your mouth to listen to anyone else.
1. I have fired a gun. I own one. I have fired it on a range, to keep myself in practice using it. I hope I never have to actually use it for it's intended purpose. It's a Mossberg 12-gauge pump-action, pistol-grip shotgun. It's for home defense ONLY. I have no problem with someone having a gun for HOME DEFENSE. I have a problem with carry and concealed carry laws.
2. I do not have children. i am single, and live alone, with just my dog. You would know that if you bothered to read my posts thoughout this thread. But you were too busy popping off and foaming at the mouth to actually READ the words of one who holds a different opinion. So like the average right-wing American.
3. No. I have never been in a situation where a gun saved my life. But I HAVE been in a situation where a gun has TAKEN the life of someone I love! Ever stop to consider that maybe this is why I have such strong feelings about guns?
4. I am not advocting abandoning resposibility for self-protection to the police! If you'd READ my posts, you'd know full well what my opinion of the police is. And I'll give you a hint...it's not good. When I make a statement like "I'll be damned if I am gonna wait for a fat-assed pig to wipe the powdered sugar and chocolate frosting off his fingers before coming to help me, you got another thing coming!" Does that make my attitude about the cops perfectly clear? You'd have that attitude, too, if the cops took four fucking hours to get to you after some asshole tried to steal your car! It was after THAT incident that I got the gun.


Read the laws carefully, read the statistics carefully, and when you are well verse on the facts of the issue, and not the emotion, we would be happy to discuss.

How about you READ DIFFERING OPINIONS carefully? Maybe I could give you something to think about, instead of you spewing more pabulum puking. I'm not opposed to guns themselves. I'm opposed to the relatively easy access to guns that exists in this country, and I favor stronger background checks and longer waiting periods before one is able to obtain a gun...and I DO favor banning certain types of guns. I'm not for banning the types of guns one could use for home defense. I'm for banning the types of guns that allow psychopaths to go apeshit in a McDonald's and kill, like, oh, I dunno, about 20 fucking innocent people! And anyone with two ounces of brains ought to be against those kinds of weapons, too.

Not only should such weapons not be available for purchase...their fucking MANUFACTURE ought to be illegal!

And THAT, you "dolt" is my opinion...straight from the horse's mouth, as they say. And turnabout is fair play. you called ME a "dolt" first. How do YOU like it, when someone calls YOU a "dolt" just for having a different opinion?

Keep in mind:
In most jurisdictions, any weapon with more than 4" of sharpened edge is illegal to carry about one's person. Local statues of course will vary.

Hell, in Wisconsin, it's 3".

"I DELIBERATELY CRASH MY CAR!! The second the car comes to a stop after impact, my door is open and I'm out of the car"

incidentally, you don't want a gun in case you kill the attacker, but you're ok with putting both your lives at risk by crashing a car?

Did I say I crash it at high speed?

I just crash it enough to spook him for a second. A second is all the surprise I need to get out, get away...and, an accident attracts ATTENTION...which is exactly what I want, and the perp doesn't...in an abduction situation.

Chances are real good that the second that happens, the perp get out of the car and takes to his heels! He doesn't want witnesses! I do!!

Therefore, I find a way to GET witnesses!

possibly a few pedestrians

I crash the car into an inanimate object!! and who said anything about driving erratically? I said I DELIBERATELY crash the car. That means I also pick what I crash into. And I am in full control of the car when I do crash it.

Considering that I plan on carrying in Chicago and how much of complete BS it is to get a CC license here, I don't really care.

Don't tell us!

That socialist Mayor (and the Governor he owns) may just try to track ya down. They're already doing it with the state police, and "expired" firearms licenses. They're wasting the Illinois taxpayer dollars, tracking down old people, and confiscating their firearms, instead of solving murders and such.

Bucksnort, my wife tells me you would never survive even one encounter with her ex-husband.

The moment he gets in the car, he hits you in the face with a brick, and then begins beating your chest with it as you fall over.

Then it gets worse...

She wants to know how it is that her carrying a gun is keeping him away now, because by your logic, it shouldn't work, and there should be a gunfight.

There hasn't been a gunfight. He stays away now. It's worked for two years, far, far better than any court document or police intervention.

It exists? Or do you mean what we export? Traditionally it's been forest industry related and heavy machinery (paper, paper machinery, ships and components, etc). Lately it's been more electronics, (bio)chemistry and software. Maybe you've heard of Nokia, which holds a 30-35% market share on the global mobile phone sales.

Of course it's more difficult to quantify such things for a country that has a population 1/55th the size of the US -- we don't hold large market shares in many industries. By the same token, China produces shitloads of stuff, yet it doesn't have a particularly competitive economy, nor is it necessarily a very nice place to live in.

Fiskars! :)

Great pruning shears. ;)

I disagree. If you read many of Bucksnorts posts, they are volatile, inflamatory, and accusatory. She basically compared all gun owners to murderers, and has yet, as far as I can tell has yet to post anything but mean spirited rhetoric, and I think I should consider reporting her.

Furthermore, that young man is extremely lucky to be alive. It only takes (if I remember correctly) 60 lbs. of force to crush the human skull. And even a moderate blow to the head can cause severe brain damage. And, while I am not a doctor myself, I come from a family of medical practitioners and have learned a bit through osmosis.

I, for one, do not appreciate the comparisons between myself and hardened criminals just because I choose to take reponsibility for myself and my family. I also find her shrill cries to offensive and inappropriate for civilized debate and discourse. I would be happy to discuss this with a mod and do not feel I was out of line by my assertions.

It's one thing to say 'you're wrong, and here's why', it is another thing entirely to say 'you're a deranged killer'.

You, sir, were the first one to launch a direct personal attack, calling ME an idiot. You haven't a leg to stand on here. So stop acting all morally superior.

I'd agree
I'd rather be called an idiot than a murderer

Ah, but I never called him SPECIFICALLY a murderer. How about my lesbian friend who was killed? Some people called her a "child molester" just because she was gay. They did it by making comparisons.
I made a comparison. If my comparison bothered you, perhaps it's because the shoe was a bit too comfortable?

Honestly, if you worry about what someone who doesn't even know you really thinks...I have severe doubts about your ability, and suitability...to carry firearms.

After all, someone just might make one of those comparions to your face...and judging by your style here, I'd say that would lead to a heated exchange, that could escalate into gunfire.

The problem, Bucksnort, is that my wife knows exactly who her attacker is.

Or will be. And what he thinks. And what he plans to do.

She's not the only woman in that situation. And you would condemn her to a lifetime of that hell.

Her gun is the only thing keeping him away. The ONLY thing.

Not the courts, not the law, not the police. Six years of trying it that way resulted in having her teeth knocked out of her head, endless nights of terror, stab wounds, the forcible removal of a finger by having it ripped out, and many, many beatings.

Do you think the police and courts are actually interested in prosecuting someone whose mother always says, "well, he was here the whole time" and there were no other witnesses?

THEY ARE NOT.

Now he stays away. Out of fear of being killed.

You, sir, crack me up. First you call me an idiot. And use the wrong gender to refer to me. Then you call me a dolt. THEN you say you refuse to flame anyone! What the hell do you think you are doing to me? You think calling someone an idiot and a dolt is NOT flaming? And you can take your apology and stick it right up where the sun don't shine. It isn't accepted, because it's obviously insincere. One does not apologize to someone, and in the next breath call them a dolt. I happen to have a different opinion than you.


I believe he was making the reference that since it is such a rare occurance fpr him to flame someone, that you might be acting completely irrationally, with your "logic". Most who might understand the English language probably picked that up the first time.


Again, if you had READ things I was saying, you would know the answers to your questions. but since you obviously haven't read...and can only shoot off your own mouth, I'll answer then for you again, since you're obviously too lazy to do your own homework, and to busy shooting off your mouth to listen to anyone else.
1. I have fired a gun. I own one. I have fired it on a range, to keep myself in practice using it. I hope I never have to actually use it for it's intended purpose. It's a Mossberg 12-gauge pump-action, pistol-grip shotgun. It's for home defense ONLY. I have no problem with someone having a gun for HOME DEFENSE. I have a problem with carry and concealed carry laws.


You're really stuck on that gender thing, aren't you? Get over it. Hmmm...the next AWB was going to ban the very gun you possess for self defense. Pistol grips on any long gun were going to be banned. Your support of such a ban would have been extremely hypocritical (I can only assume you support it because you gave a rather negative opinion of the president because he wouldn't do anything to push another one through--if you don't, you may want to clarify or perhaps RESEARCH before you type).


2. I do not have children. i am single, and live alone, with just my dog. You would know that if you bothered to read my posts thoughout this thread. But you were too busy popping off and foaming at the mouth to actually READ the words of one who holds a different opinion. So like the average right-wing American.


You're too busy popping off and foaming at the mouth making the assumption that all gun supporters are right winged. I posted my political beliefs--but then, you've already closed off and put me on an ignore list, so you couldn't possibly have all the facts for you to get an accurate picutre. Good way of making choices.


3. No. I have never been in a situation where a gun saved my life. But I HAVE been in a situation where a gun has TAKEN the life of someone I love! Ever stop to consider that maybe this is why I have such strong feelings about guns?


You know, we never did really get it straight if you were actually there, when your friend was tragically murdered. Were you? If you weren't, then you've faced no worse than I have.


4. I am not advocting abandoning resposibility for self-protection to the police! If you'd READ my posts, you'd know full well what my opinion of the police is. And I'll give you a hint...it's not good. When I make a statement like "I'll be damned if I am gonna wait for a fat-assed pig to wipe the powdered sugar and chocolate frosting off his fingers before coming to help me, you got another thing coming!" Does that make my attitude about the cops perfectly clear? You'd have that attitude, too, if the cops took four fucking hours to get to you after some asshole tried to steal your car! It was after THAT incident that I got the gun.


This is one of the things we actually agree on. But, it took tragedy and the near theft of your car to make you come to the conclusion that criminals aren't scared of the cops, and the cops aren't always there. Some of us learned from others' unfortunate, and sometimes tragic, experiences. However, it's your opinion that only matters in which weapon we choose to use to defend ourselves. The thing that boggles me is that you think it's okay for you to tell me, and anyone else, what to do.


How about you READ DIFFERING OPINIONS carefully? Maybe I could give you something to think about, instead of you spewing more pabulum puking. I'm not opposed to guns themselves. I'm opposed to the relatively easy access to guns that exists in this country, and I favor stronger background checks and longer waiting periods before one is able to obtain a gun...and I DO favor banning certain types of guns. I'm not for banning the types of guns one could use for home defense. I'm for banning the types of guns that allow psychopaths to go apeshit in a McDonald's and kill, like, oh, I dunno, about 20 fucking innocent people! And anyone with two ounces of brains ought to be against those kinds of weapons, too.


And several examples of those guns that you hate have been given, to show that they ARE used for self-defense at times. Was it an AK-47 that killed your friend? Or was it a pistol?


Not only should such weapons not be available for purchase...their fucking MANUFACTURE ought to be illegal!


Your opinion based on fear and pain--you still have no proof that banning them does anything, while the government has TWO studies showing that gun control of ANY sort doesn't do a damn thing in regard to violent crime.


And THAT, you "dolt" is my opinion...straight from the horse's mouth, as they say. And turnabout is fair play. you called ME a "dolt" first. How do YOU like it, when someone calls YOU a "dolt" just for having a different opinion?

Dolt tends to be one of the lesser slings. You've already called me an insane murderer.

You, sir, were the first one to launch a direct personal attack, calling ME an idiot. You haven't a leg to stand on here. So stop acting all morally superior.

You lost your logic legs a long time ago--you have yet to point to ANY statistics or proof of anything, regarding any of your posts. It's all been emotional-based rhetoric.

Ah, but I never called him SPECIFICALLY a murderer. How about my lesbian friend who was killed? Some people called her a "child molester" just because she was gay. They did it by making comparisons.
I made a comparison. If my comparison bothered you, perhaps it's because the shoe was a bit too comfortable?


No, you called ALL those that support gun rights murderers. So, yes, you called every individual who supports them murderers. Don't you know the English language????

Or how about this: I think anyone that was present at the murder of their friend (we still don't know if you were actually there, or saw any of the aftermath), and hasn't gone to a counselor for the two years since it has happened is an insane fool. Does that make it any less hurtful? I didn't call YOU specifically that, just the group you may or may not be in. Here is another example of your logic being used against you.


Honestly, if you worry about what someone who doesn't even know you really thinks...I have severe doubts about your ability, and suitability...to carry firearms.


We've already stated our concerns about you having one as well, however, we wouldn't take it from you, like you would us.


After all, someone just might make one of those comparions to your face...and judging by your style here, I'd say that would lead to a heated exchange, that could escalate into gunfire.

I've already posted, first person to hit is the criminal. Words are no justification for violence. You're the one that assumes that anyone who has access to a firearm will immediately use it at the first perceived opportunity. You're the one making all the assumptions.

MGNY, if I may step in for a minute...

Surely in any civilised society, it should be the job of the police and courts to prevent crime and mete out justice?

Now, do not misunderstand me, I fully support your wife's right and need for a weapon.

I'm just saying, if this guy attacks her, from the sounds of it he's brutal enough to leave DNA evidence in wounds he creates / places it shouldn't be if he was with his mom. And with crimes as serious as the ones he is committing, obtaining a sample from him to compare with would be no miscarriage of justice. As this is in the past though, it's no consolation to your wife.

So would you support the view of someone aiming for gun control more, if changes were made to your legal + policing services to make them more proactive and less reactive? Or would you see it as a good thing, but still advocate the level of rights regarding guns you enjoy now?

Bucksnort, please stop flaming. Everyone else too. Seriously, dolt ain't that bad compared to murderer. Here's my posisition, shotguns, rifles, bows, yes. Pistols, I dunno can you use a pistol to hunt? If not than no. There really isn't any need for non-hunting guns, and pistols? well how do most murdered people die? A rifle will work just as well for self defence. In regard to what's his name's question about what killed his friend, Of course it was a pistol! fyi assault weapons were um banned.

The problem, Bucksnort, is that my wife knows exactly who her attacker is.

Or will be. And what he thinks. And what he plans to do.

She's not the only woman in that situation. And you would condemn her to a lifetime of that hell.

Her gun is the only thing keeping him away. The ONLY thing.

Not the courts, not the law, not the police. Six years of trying it that way resulted in having her teeth knocked out of her head, endless nights of terror, stab wounds, the forcible removal of a finger by having it ripped out, and many, many beatings.

Do you think the police and courts are actually interested in prosecuting someone whose mother always says, "well, he was here the whole time" and there were no other witnesses?

THEY ARE NOT.

Now he stays away. Out of fear of being killed.

Well, then, why doesn't she MOVE??? As in, out of state, no forwarding address? I did that to escape a stalker, and you know what? To this day he hasn't found me. It's been eight years now. I doubt he even thinks about me anymore.

MGNY, if I may step in for a minute...

Surely in any civilised society, it should be the job of the police and courts to prevent crime and mete out justice?

Now, do not misunderstand me, I fully support your wife's right and need for a weapon.

I'm just saying, if this guy attacks her, from the sounds of it he's brutal enough to leave DNA evidence in wounds he creates / places it shouldn't be if he was with his mom. And with crimes as serious as the ones he is committing, obtaining a sample from him to compare with would be no miscarriage of justice. As this is in the past though, it's no consolation to your wife.

So would you support the view of someone aiming for gun control more, if changes were made to your legal + policing services to make them more proactive and less reactive? Or would you see it as a good thing, but still advocate the level of rights regarding guns you enjoy now?


My wife and I have discovered that the courts and police do not work like they do on CSI.

Ever.

We have been laughed at by magistrates when we tried to get stalking warrants. Laughed at by police when we report the assaults. Laughed at by doctors when she showed up in the hospital wounded.

Police don't want to show up to stop something in progress. They will delay until it's over - and then, unless it's really, really bad (i.e., a dead body), they won't work too hard on the rest. The DA wants murders and drug busts to prosecute - not domestic violence, stalking, or abuse.

There are women in your jurisdiction who are living through the same hell. Women in the US and the UK and other countries.

I am a man, and I did not realize that things were this bad until I saw it myself.

The only way to keep him away is to have an armed presence with her at all times. The police would NEVER do this, ever. I can't even be there all the time.

But her gun can. And she knows the situation better than any policeman. And she is a better shot than most policemen.

Someone should not be forced to uproot themselves and potentially make a lot of life-altering decisions because the police are not performing their job correctly, Bucksnort.

MGNY, if I may step in for a minute...

Surely in any civilised society, it should be the job of the police and courts to prevent crime and mete out justice?

Now, do not misunderstand me, I fully support your wife's right and need for a weapon.

I'm just saying, if this guy attacks her, from the sounds of it he's brutal enough to leave DNA evidence in wounds he creates / places it shouldn't be if he was with his mom. And with crimes as serious as the ones he is committing, obtaining a sample from him to compare with would be no miscarriage of justice. As this is in the past though, it's no consolation to your wife.

So would you support the view of someone aiming for gun control more, if changes were made to your legal + policing services to make them more proactive and less reactive? Or would you see it as a good thing, but still advocate the level of rights regarding guns you enjoy now?


Unfortunately, in a free society, everything has to be reactive, without infringing on those who haven't committed, and will never commit attrocities, rights.

In a free society, since only reactive options are available, we want to create reactive options that are easily to employ on a much quicker scale. Like being able to solve the issue of your own assault.

Police forces weren't around until the late 1800s. They still are never around in time of crisis--it's just not possible. We all have the right to defend ourselves, and if someone is stupid enough to attack another person, they get what they deserve. We all know it's wrong to attack someone else. Why do it?

The justice system in this country is screwed up. Too many get out of punishment.

Why allow for another chance? "You killed someone, but now that you REALLY know it's wrong, we trust you not to do it again."

If I'm in my house, and someone is breaking in and coming at me, they're getting two .45s in the chest. May just knock them down, it may kill them. All I know is the threat to my house and my family is done. Their basis, REGARDLESS of what it is, for breaking in is secondary to the safety of the lives of those I love.

There was a magistrate in Loudoun County who told me to come back and make a complaint only if my wife were actually dead.

Bucksnort, please stop flaming. Everyone else too. Seriously, dolt ain't that bad compared to murderer. Here's my posisition, shotguns, rifles, bows, yes. Pistols, I dunno can you use a pistol to hunt? If not than no. There really isn't any need for non-hunting guns, and pistols? well how do most murdered people die? A rifle will work just as well for self defence. In regard to what's his name's question about what killed his friend, Of course it was a pistol! fyi assault weapons were um banned.

HEY, who asked you to stick YOUR oar in?? How about YOU publicly rebuke Roach Cliff for flaming ME!! I never DIRECTLY called him a murderer...but he damn well TWICE directly flamed me...once, calling me "idiot" and the second time, calling me "dolt!" And yet you rebuke ME?? What sort of shit is this?

My wife and I have discovered that the courts and police do not work like they do on CSI.

Ever.

We have been laughed at by magistrates when we tried to get stalking warrants. Laughed at by police when we report the assaults. Laughed at by doctors when she showed up in the hospital wounded.

Police don't want to show up to stop something in progress. They will delay until it's over - and then, unless it's really, really bad (i.e., a dead body), they won't work too hard on the rest. The DA wants murders and drug busts to prosecute - not domestic violence, stalking, or abuse.

There are women in your jurisdiction who are living through the same hell. Women in the US and the UK and other countries.

I am a man, and I did not realize that things were this bad until I saw it myself.

The only way to keep him away is to have an armed presence with her at all times. The police would NEVER do this, ever. I can't even be there all the time.

But her gun can. And she knows the situation better than any policeman. And she is a better shot than most policemen.


Again, I appreciate your situations, but would you change your position in light of a better legal system, or would you still consider it valid?