NationStates Jolt Archive

Actually, as they are inanimate objects, they have done nothing for me, however, the possession of same has both defended my life from criminal assault and led to my missing the 1st Gulf War by 30 minutes.

Yes, I MISSED (or it missed me) Desert Shield/Storm by 30 minutes because I, an artillery grunt, legally had guns.

[true story]

I was rotating back to CONUS (well, OCONUS/Alaska actually) but knew that with the raised security levels it would be a huge PIA to ship my Ruger & two CZ-50s in baggage. (No way was I going to trust Transport...) So rather than take the tickets they were planning to give me, took simultaneous leave and requested a flight voucher. With that voucher I bought a Lufthansa ticket.

So, I get to Frankfurt and see all these poor GIs & their families queued up for miles to get the 3rd degree & a rectal exam just to get on a US carrier.

I went up to the Lufthansa terminal and checked in, and declared my guns to the handy Polizei officer who inspected my luggage.

He took my bag, said "Alles Klah" and sent me to my gate.

After I landed, I was told that about 30minutes after my plane departed, there was a general Recall and all Orders were rescended. Everyone standing in queue had to go back to their Unit(s). However, since I was (A) already in the US and (B) on Leave in route to my next assignment, my orders were still good. (I guess you can't recall an airplane...) [/true story]

So anyhow, because I had guns, I didn't have to spend all that time sweating in a 150deg. tent waiting for 100hrs of sandy Go.

But it was alright by me since I far prefer -70deg and Glaciers to +120deg and sand-fleas... :D

So never let it be said that the possession of firearms has not led to a Liberal-approved outcome (i.e. missing a War)... ;)

--------------------
Edit: Ok, Ok, I forgot "fun" (hunting/targets/competitions). I figured that was a given... :p

What have guns done for me?

Nothing.

I much prefer my trusty AK-97 rechargable ionizer...... ;)

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

They've given me some fun times at the shooting range and plinking targets in the woods. They've also helped me collect some money I was owed in my less law abiding and more stupid days.

Brought me back home safe from combat.
Allowed me to stop being robbed.
Allowed my wife to stop being attacked.

Let me shoot targets at 3 yards with air-rifles.

Bows and arrows have presented me with greater challenge and enjoyment. I cannot recall one time in my life when I feel carrying a gun would have done me good (and I have had a fair few scraps, about a 50/50 win/loss).

A .22 Browning pistol once taught me never to hold my thumb where the slide feels like moving whenever someone pulls the trigger. You know, the thing you only need to be taught once. ^_^
Actually it was quite good to learn it from a small weapon like that. I can imagine a service pistol would have made a more serious wound.

Brought me back home safe from combat.
Allowed me to stop being robbed.
Allowed my wife to stop being attacked.

Where you robbed by a guy with a gun and was your wife attacked by a guy with a gun?

They sure are damn fun, and it makes me feel safe to know I keep a mossberg within arms reach when I sleep.

They sure are damn fun, and it makes me feel safe to know I keep a mossberg within arms reach when I sleep.

If you're being serious, that's damn scary.

A mossberg 500 stopped someone from burglarizing my home with me in it.
(would you rob a naked, dripping-wet man holding a twelve-guage?)

a Ballester-moline on the dashboard stopped me from being carjacked one fine summer night in Louisiana-the guy bum-rushed the car at a stop, and saw the gun. He suddenly decided discretion was the better part of valour, I didn't have to do anything but sit there.

a .308 Mauser custom (I restocked it, rebarrelled it, bent the bolt, and mounted scope) provided meat to me and my honey for six months last year.

My Garand has provided me with many pleasant experiences at the range, once embarassing a hot-shot braggart with a bushmaster NM style AR-15.
It's also provided Meat for the table (Using the commercial 5-round reduced-capacity clip.)

My .22 has killed lots of paper, cans, litter, etc. on plinkin' trips. It's also harvested rabbits, squirrels, etc. for the table at various times.

My lady has developed a keen affection for her SKS (russian), she's a natural shot, and regularly embarasses me.

If you're being serious, that's damn scary.
What's wrong with having a weapon near your bed?

If you're being serious, that's damn scary.

Whats wrong with keeping a gun under your bed?

Okay, so you may need that guns for protection...but you only need it from protection from other guns.

I mean in Ireland, about maybe twenty people each year get killed by a gun, and most of them were already involved in illegal operations.

You see, if you get rid of guns, then you don't need guns.

I mean, if someone came into your home without a gun, would you still threaten him with yours?

They've given me some fun times at the shooting range and plinking targets in the woods. They've also helped me collect some money I was owed in my less law abiding and more stupid days.
Basically the same for me.

Okay, so you may need that guns for protection...but you only need it from protection from other guns.

I mean in Ireland, about maybe twenty people each year get killed by a gun, and most of them were already involved in illegal operations.

You see, if you get rid of guns, then you don't need guns.

I mean, if someone came into your home without a gun, would you still threaten him with yours?
Actually, in the United States, guns are used to stop about two-to-three million crimes a year, and typically no shots are fired. Criminals don't carry guns all that often, typically settling for knives and secrecy, when confronted with a gun, they typically just give up.

But for chirs sake's, can none of you realise how much MORE of a problem guns are?

It's barbaric to let any old brain dead hick to own a gun.

guns have fed me.

my parents had 7 kids, the deer and rabbits that my dad killed with his gun were a big help in keeping us all fed

Basically the same for me.
You used to be a criminal too?

Lots and lots of fun times at the range. :)

I'm one of the lucky ones that hasn't had to use a firearm in a self-defense or home-defense situation.

But for chirs sake's, can none of you realise how much MORE of a problem guns are?

It's barbaric to let any old brain dead hick to own a gun.
I think it's more barbaric to infringe on people's rights to own them.

You used to be a criminal too?
Nah, the first part, about plinking cans in the woods. Being a criminal takes too much effort.

look at England, violent crimes went up after ban on guns

Ban on guns?

Geez how many thousands of years ago was that?!

Think of it in proportion, there's an almost insignificant amount of guns crimes in Britain, Japan, Germany etc, and that's because there's a ban on guns.

If you feel you need a gun to protect yourself, you must truly be weak inside.

Or sadistic or whatever.

Guns have helped feed and protect me and my family. And they have afforded me the pleasure of hunting, competitive shooting, and collecting.

Why the hell do you want to hunt?!

Again it's barbaric. And you can of course collect de-activated guns.

Ban on guns?
Geez how many thousands of years ago was that?!


I believe it was the early 1900s for England, when its restrictions on firearms started going in. Someone wiser on the dates will have to decry or support me.


Think of it in proportion, there's an almost insignificant amount of guns crimes in Britain, Japan, Germany etc, and that's because there's a ban on guns.


Gun control only stops some crimes dealing with firearms. You'll find that the more stringent the laws are on firearms in a given area, the higher the actual criminal activity involving them tends to be. Besides, the murders, rapes, and assaults still continue, regardless of the weapon.


If you feel you need a gun to protect yourself, you must truly be weak inside.
Or sadistic or whatever.

If you're scared of an inanimate object, you must truly be weak inside. Or masochistic or whatever.

A mossberg 500 stopped someone from burglarizing my home with me in it. (would you rob a naked, dripping-wet man holding a twelve-guage?) <snip>
Heh. Reminds me of a story about a 5'3" 220lb (wrestler) SCAdian in Oklahoma who woke up one night to a burglar (it was hot, & he was sleeping naked). Grabbing the first weapon at hand (an unfortunately sharp double-bitted fantasy axe) he proceeded to open a gash in his leg.

The burglar thus encountered a cursing, bleeding, naked, axe-weilding bezerker dwarf aproaching apace from the bedroom. :eek:

He left through the (closed) sliding glass door. :D

(Note: this story may be apocraphal - I heard it at a RenFaire in Norman about 19 years ago, but I sure would have loved to have seen it...)

Ban on guns?

Geez how many thousands of years ago was that?!
Part one. Great Britain, as a nation, does not have a history of private firearm ownership, such as the United States. As such, aspects of the cultures of both nations have evolved in different ways. Espescially regarding guns and violence.

Think of it in proportion, there's an almost insignificant amount of guns crimes in Britain, Japan, Germany etc, and that's because there's a ban on guns.
Once again, see the cultural reference. Cultural structures are important.

If you feel you need a gun to protect yourself, you must truly be weak inside.

Or sadistic or whatever.
So, if I own a gun for self-defense (which I don't,) then my Kung-fu is weak? Bah, Guns top Kung-fu any day.

Why the hell do you want to hunt?!


Well, for one thing, we've (in the US) culled too many predators, so the herds of naturally occurring herbivores (like deer and such) grow out of control, causing starvation, disease, and a LOT of car accidents. It's up to us now to reintroduce native predators--but that will take a LONG time, so in the meantime, we need to keep the population in check. I am not an avid hunter--but I certainly see the need to maintain strict levels of deer herd population.


Again it's barbaric.

Your rather insulting opinion matters little in reality.

Why the hell do you want to hunt?!

Again it's barbaric. And you can of course collect de-activated guns.
So, it's somehow less barbaric to eat an animal that was beheaded or shocked to death or something?

But beyond that, hunting is vital in many places in the United States. Because of predator depopulation, certain species (such as the white-tailed deer in Ohio) have become massively overpopulated. This has resulted in car-deer accidents (which kill the deer, mess up the car, and can kill the driver of the car), the deer starving in the winter and dozens of other things. It's so bad, that communities near me have had police snipers killing deer during the off season.

People don't collect guns to look at them.

Why the hell do you want to hunt?!

Again it's barbaric. And you can of course collect de-activated guns.
People hunt to make their food budget stretch farther. People hunt for fun. It's not barbaric, it's something some ordinary people do.

You seem to be missing my point though.

To be scared of a gun is silly. To be scared of someone pointing a gun at you with their finger on the trigger is perfectly resonable.

And it seems that according to you, zaxon, the job of culling animals that breed to rapibly is left entirely in the hands of repuslive, masochistic, patriotic, mindless, racist hicks.

That makes sense I suppose, they'd be best at killing lots of innocent creatures.

Why the hell do you want to hunt?! Again it's barbaric. And you can of course collect de-activated guns.
Were hunting inthe US to end (as many would like it to) within one or two years at most the surplus population of Deer would be directly causal in more deaths (by highway fatality) than firearms.

Of course, letting the overpopulated buggers starve to death and rot is so much more humane than killing and eating them. :rolleyes:

People hunt to make their food budget stretch farther. People hunt for fun. It's not barbaric, it's something some ordinary people do.

It also happens to be the role of a predator. If we weren't supposed to eat meat, we wouldn't be able to digest it and use it to fuel and build our cells--like eating grass.

Assasinated the Archduke, thus the end of Austria in the Balkans!
AHAHAHAHA!!!!

You seem to be missing my point though.
To be scared of a gun is silly. To be scared of someone pointing a gun at you with their finger on the trigger is perfectly resonable.And you will stop this how?
And it seems that according to you, zaxon, the job of culling animals that breed to rapibly is left entirely in the hands of repuslive, masochistic, patriotic, mindless, racist hicks.You would prefer the Army?
That makes sense I suppose, they'd be best at killing lots of innocent creatures.I call Flame-bait.

You seem to be missing my point though.

To be scared of a gun is silly. To be scared of someone pointing a gun at you with their finger on the trigger is perfectly resonable.
And, who, might I ask, is doing that?

And it seems that according to you, zaxon, the job of culling animals that breed to rapibly is left entirely in the hands of repuslive, masochistic, patriotic, mindless, racist hicks.
I'd have to say that you're doing a quality job of stereotyping gun owners and hunters.

Would you use such terms to describe the optometrist who will be performing laser-eye surgery on me sooner or later? Would you use those terms to describe a computer programmer, or a suburban high school teacher? A VP of Manufacturing? A staffing coordinator at my University?

If anyone here has a prejudice, it's you my friend.

Were hunting inthe US to end (as many would like it to) within one or two years at most the surplus population of Deer would be directly causal in more deaths (by highway fatality) than firearms.

Of course, letting the overpopulated buggers starve to death and rot is so much more humane than killing and eating them. :rolleyes:

I'm not sure what you're getting at, but letting them starve to death rather than blowing their brains half a mile across a field is more humane.

And, what the hell, we now breed animals for our food. We are no longer hunters or predators and we never need to be again.

Okay, so you may need that guns for protection...but you only need it from protection from other guns.

I mean in Ireland, about maybe twenty people each year get killed by a gun, and most of them were already involved in illegal operations.

You see, if you get rid of guns, then you don't need guns.

I mean, if someone came into your home without a gun, would you still threaten him with yours?


Capital idea! Why didn't someone else think of it first?

Oh, yeah...In a country with more guns than people, it isn't an option to "gid rid of guns." If criminals are armed, than I will be as well, and I trust I'm a better shot than most. Besides, armed or not, if someone breaks into my home with the intent to steal my property or injuring my family, I have the right to kill them.

You seem to be missing my point though.

To be scared of a gun is silly. To be scared of someone pointing a gun at you with their finger on the trigger is perfectly resonable.

And it seems that according to you, zaxon, the job of culling animals that breed to rapibly is left entirely in the hands of repuslive, masochistic, patriotic, mindless, racist hicks.

That makes sense I suppose, they'd be best at killing lots of innocent creatures.

You reflect a mindset I've encountered entirely too often among those who believe food comes from a truck.

for forty dollars (average priice of a hunting license), I can provide more food to my family with a rifle (ten dollars for bullets) than spending it at the Grocery store. (Forty dollars would buy about a week's worth.)
Further, for your information, wild-game is healthier for you. It isn't force-grown on artificial hormone supplements, fed agricultural byproducts (including ground-up slaughterhouse waste), injected with colourants and water to increase weight and "Appearance", or handled in septic conditions by workers who didn't wash their damn hands before they packed it.

Value-for-effort, it's a good trade, and the process of stalking is challenging, and pleasant, while going to the store and listening to canned, neutered, pop-music under artificial lighting on tiled concrete floors surrounded by stressed-out, bickering, snarling, bitching suburbanites and city people isn't.

And, who, might I ask, is doing that?


I'd have to say that you're doing a quality job of stereotyping gun owners and hunters.

Would you use such terms to describe the optometrist who will be performing laser-eye surgery on me sooner or later? Would you use those terms to describe a computer programmer, or a suburban high school teacher? A VP of Manufacturing? A staffing coordinator at my University?

If anyone here has a prejudice, it's you my friend.

Oh yes, I'm afriad you've done a good job of glorifying gun culture now. If I new that my laser eye surgeon felt he needed a gun just 'to be safe' then I wouldn't question his ability, however, I definently would question his morals and basic ethics.

I'm not sure what you're getting at, but letting them starve to death rather than blowing their brains half a mile across a field is more humane.

And, what the hell, we now breed animals for our food. We are no longer hunters or predators and we never need to be again.
Do you have deer where you live? I do. In NJ hunting has declined a little. The deer population is huge. They run across the road while you're driving at night. Imagine 100 kilograms of muscle, bone and antlers smashing through the windshield of your car while you travel at 45 miles per hour. It's sometimes fatal. Hunting reduces the deer population and saves lives.

I'm not sure what you're getting at, but letting them starve to death rather than blowing their brains half a mile across a field is more humane.
And thus you demonstrate your ignorance of firearms, animal husbandry and bioethics.

And, what the hell, we now breed animals for our food. We are no longer hunters or predators and we never need to be again.
Which, many would (somtimes correctly) claim is also inhumane.

Ghod I love Tofu... :rolleyes:

I'm not sure what you're getting at, but letting them starve to death rather than blowing their brains half a mile across a field is more humane.
Slow, painful death...Instant, near painless death...I'd personally choose the latter.

You seem to be missing my point though.


No, I think I hit it on the head. You're blaming an inanimate object for a crime. If banning that weapon would cure the crime, it would have been shown in other countries. But crime is still there. Cure the cause instead--treat the cancer, not just the pain associated with it.


To be scared of a gun is silly.


We definitely agree on that.


To be scared of someone pointing a gun at you with their finger on the trigger is perfectly resonable.


Again, we agree.


And it seems that according to you, zaxon, the job of culling animals that breed to rapibly is left entirely in the hands of repuslive, masochistic, patriotic, mindless, racist hicks.


Nope, I said it was left to those who hunt. You're the one putting the insulting adjectives in. I don't hunt. My uncles, cousins, and brother do. They're fairly educated and well mannered--and nowhere near racist. Masochistic? They like to hurt themselves, or be hurt? No, I don't think so. I said you did because you didn't want a firearm as a potential defensive weapon. You're purposely limiting your defensive options. That's masochistic.


That makes sense I suppose, they'd be best at killing lots of innocent creatures.

I really hope you don't eat meat, otherwise, you're quite the hypocrite for supporting the meat industry--they perform a great many physical insults to "innocent creatures" (more so than hunters--a .308 round through the vitals kills faster and better than a shock and bleeding them live). And if you are a vegetarian, I really hope you realize the number of critters killed annually by harvesting machines.

They've given me some fun times at the shooting range and plinking targets in the woods. They've also helped me collect some money I was owed in my less law abiding and more stupid days.

Remind me not to cross you! hehe

But for chirs sake's, can none of you realise how much MORE of a problem guns are?

It's barbaric to let any old brain dead hick to own a gun.

For most gun owners, guns have been a boon, not a bane. I have NEVER had an adverse experiance with a firearm (well, unless you count the bruising after a dozen rounds of trap). I have, however, stopped one burglary and a mugging that probably would have become a rape if it wasn't for my shotgun.

As for being barbaric, welcome to the world. This is where we live, I don't like it, but I'd rather lose my illusions and be able to defend myself then be a happy victim.

Remind me not to cross you! hehe
I'm a good boy now. No more crime for me.

Capital idea! Why didn't someone else think of it first?

Oh, yeah...In a country with more guns than people, it isn't an option to "gid rid of guns." If criminals are armed, than I will be as well, and I trust I'm a better shot than most. Besides, armed or not, if someone breaks into my home with the intent to steal my property or injuring my family, I have the right to kill them.

So a guy, comes into your house to take (GOD FORBID!) your precious T.V you can go right ahead and shoot him up some?

Yeah, you truly are a king among men.

And did I hear the words 'city people'. Oh I think I did.
As much as I don't like stereotyping, get with the times you moronic red neck.

I'm not sure what you're getting at, but letting them starve to death rather than blowing their brains half a mile across a field is more humane.


Yeah, you sure know balistics, kid.

Oh yes, I'm afriad you've done a good job of glorifying gun culture now. If I new that my laser eye surgeon felt he needed a gun just 'to be safe' then I wouldn't question his ability, however, I definently would question his morals and basic ethics.
I'm challenging your statement that hunters are:

repuslive, masochistic, patriotic, mindless, racist hicks.

I'm not glorifying anything. I'm saying that your stereotype is incorrect.

"You see, if you get rid of guns, then you don't need guns."

How can we get rid of guns? We can not stop drugs from coming into the US, and drugs are much easier to find. No gun sniffing dogs...

In the US, guns rights are not protected so some red neck can blow away Bambi. Nor so some scared home owner can shoot himself in the foot trying to kill the burgler.

The fourth admendment is to keep "W" from declaring himself King. When the Bill of Rights were drafted, we had just come out of a war. Before the Revolution, King George had tried to disarm the colonies. He tried to take our guns away so we would be more tractable.

So a guy, comes into your house to take (GOD FORBID!) your precious T.V you can go right ahead and shoot him up some?

Yeah, you truly are a king among men.

And did I hear the words 'city people'. Oh I think I did.
As much as I don't like stereotyping, get with the times you moronic red neck.
You typically don't even need to load the damn gun to stop a robber, they see the gun pointed at them, and they surrender.

I'm a good boy now. No more crime for me.

yeah, sure...

;)

So a guy, comes into your house to take (GOD FORBID!) your precious T.V you can go right ahead and shoot him up some?

Yeah, you truly are a king among men.

And did I hear the words 'city people'. Oh I think I did.
As much as I don't like stereotyping, get with the times you moronic red neck.
Who's to say he won't decide to rape your wife or children while he's there? Maybe he'll decide that he doesn't want to leave any live witnesses behind. Who are you to force others to take that chance?

Ban on guns?

Geez how many thousands of years ago was that?!

Think of it in proportion, there's an almost insignificant amount of guns crimes in Britain, Japan, Germany etc, and that's because there's a ban on guns.

If you feel you need a gun to protect yourself, you must truly be weak inside.

Or sadistic or whatever.

Well, the latest round was 8 years ago, 1997. There is less guncrime in Britain because there are less people. Germany was disarmed in the 30s, and Japan has a culture so radically different from the US that you're comparing sociological apples to oranges.

So, call me weak. Call me a coward. Call me a sadist. If push comes to shove I WILL NOT be a victim, especially not in my own home. If that means that I have to have a 3 1/2" shell packed with broken razors, so be it. I refuse to take chances with my life or the lives of those I love.

And, what the hell, we now breed animals for our food. We are no longer hunters or predators and we never need to be again.

Not true. We breed SOME animals for food.

We don't breed squirrel, we don't breed deer or elk or caribou (usually), we don't breed duck for a reasonable price most times, etc.

I happen to like a little variety, other then mass-produced beef and chicken.

So a guy, comes into your house to take (GOD FORBID!) your precious T.V you can go right ahead and shoot him up some?

Yeah, you truly are a king among men.

And did I hear the words 'city people'. Oh I think I did.
As much as I don't like stereotyping, get with the times you moronic red neck.

the fact that someone is willing to break into your house is reason enough to point a gun at him and tell the freaking burglar he's got three seconds to leave.

yeah, sure...

;)
Jail time, fines, lawyer bills, and all the associated headaches have cured me of my youthfull gangster fantasies. It was fun for a while, but consequences are a bitch.

Who's to say he won't decide to rape your wife or children while he's there? Maybe he'll decide that he doesn't want to leave any live witnesses behind. Who are you to force others to take that chance?


WHO THE HELL ARE YOU TO DECIDE HE 'MIGHT' DECIDE TO DO THAT!

Not true. We breed SOME animals for food.

We don't breed squirrel, we don't breed deer or elk or caribou (usually), we don't breed duck for a reasonable price most times, etc.

I happen to like a little variety, other then mass-produced beef and chicken.

buffalo!

Ban on guns?

Geez how many thousands of years ago was that?!

Think of it in proportion, there's an almost insignificant amount of guns crimes in Britain, Japan, Germany etc, and that's because there's a ban on guns.

If you feel you need a gun to protect yourself, you must truly be weak inside.

Or sadistic or whatever.
as i recall canada has more guns than the US per person. (even if im wrong, they have alot of them). they are a hunting nation. and yet somehow they have fewer gun deaths than all the places you mentioned. you cant blame gun deaths in america on guns alone.

Why the hell do you want to hunt?!

Again it's barbaric. And you can of course collect de-activated guns.
1. its fun
2. it tastes good
3. some people dont have the luxury of buying whatever food they want whenever they want.

You seem to be missing my point though.

To be scared of a gun is silly. To be scared of someone pointing a gun at you with their finger on the trigger is perfectly resonable.

And it seems that according to you, zaxon, the job of culling animals that breed to rapibly is left entirely in the hands of repuslive, masochistic, patriotic, mindless, racist hicks.

That makes sense I suppose, they'd be best at killing lots of innocent creatures.

Allright, kid, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you haven't had much interaction with the gun culture. But you ad hominum attacks are disgusting. If you are unable to approach the conversation rationally, please remove yourself from it.

as i recall canada has more guns than the US per person. (even if im wrong, they have alot of them). they are a hunting nation. and yet somehow they have fewer gun deaths than all the places you mentioned. you cant blame gun deaths in america on guns alone.

True!

In fact my entire arguement has been about those republican pigs who use absolutley any excuse to keep guns legal.

WHO THE HELL ARE YOU TO DECIDE HE 'MIGHT' DECIDE TO DO THAT!

Um, the guy already knows that they shouldn't be there. He's already lost his rights by being someplace he shouldn't be.

There is NO excuse for breaking into someone else's property.

1. its fun
2. it tastes good
3. some people dont have the luxury of buying whatever food they want whenever they want.

Yeah, neither do I.

But guess what. I live with it.

WHO THE HELL ARE YOU TO DECIDE HE 'MIGHT' DECIDE TO DO THAT!
I'm the guy peacefully sitting at home when some unpredictable criminal turd decides to break in. That's who I am.

EDIT: I'm also the guy who'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6. Prison terms end. Death doesn't.

WHO THE HELL ARE YOU TO DECIDE HE 'MIGHT' DECIDE TO DO THAT!
He won't do that if, while he's carting a television around, he discovers a displeased homeowner pointing a gun at him. At which point he sets down the television, sticks his hands in the air and the homeowner calls the police. The police come and cart the guy off to jail. No one is hurt. A criminal goes to jail.

WHO THE HELL ARE YOU TO DECIDE HE 'MIGHT' DECIDE TO DO THAT!

Man, you must be a lawyer for burglars... i've never heard anyone defend their "rights" as zealously as you do.

or are you a burglar?

a)A person has a right to defend his life, his family's lives, his home and the property inside his home.

b)A burglar has NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to enter another person's home without said person's consent, and NO RIGHTS WHATSOEVER once inside that person's home except that which the owner deems he deserves.

c)Should a burglar break into a person's home, the person who lives there absolutely has a right to defend himself, his family, his property, etc., from the criminal.

True!

In fact my entire arguement has been about those republican pigs who use absolutley any excuse to keep guns legal.

Hi. I'm LIBERTARIAN. Not REPUBLICAN. I support the right to self defense, hence my support of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution. Nice to know your assumptions are REALLY generalized.

Um, the guy already knows that they shouldn't be there. He's already lost his rights by being someplace he shouldn't be.

There is NO excuse for breaking into someone else's property.

But why should you absolutely destroy him just for breaking into your house?
Imagine you had no choice to break into someone's house to steal a little bit of money, and then some guy comes up to you and blows your stomach open with a sawn off shotgun.

I USE MY BIG BORE BLOWGUNS WITH THE BROAD HEAD DART IT HAS A WIDE SWATH

http://store.yahoo.com/csstoreonline/blowguns.html

But why should you absolutely destroy him just for breaking into your house?
Imagine you had no choice to break into someone's house to steal a little bit of money, and then some guy comes up to you and blows your stomach open with a sawn off shotgun.

Nobody has a right to break into anyone else's house and steal their stuff, and should they be shot for doing it, they're getting what they deserve. Man, you're messed up.

If it were me whose house was being broken into, i'd slide the rack on my gun, point it at him, and if he's not armed, point to the door and holler at him to leave... if he tried to put his light fingers on my stuff, he might lose those fingers.

i HATE thieves.

I USE MY BIG BORE BLOWGUNS WITH THE BROAD HEAD DART IT HAS A WIDE SWATH

http://store.yahoo.com/csstoreonline/blowguns.html
Do they sell curare too? I need both if I'm to go hunting monkeys in the Amazon.

True!

In fact my entire arguement has been about those republican pigs who use absolutley any excuse to keep guns legal.
I'll let you in on a little secret. I'm a libertarian, not a republican.

And I don't even own a gun.

I'm not sure what you're getting at, but letting them starve to death rather than blowing their brains half a mile across a field is more humane.

And, what the hell, we now breed animals for our food. We are no longer hunters or predators and we never need to be again.
so youd prefer that they be in massive amounts of pain for weeks rather than a quick bullet to the head. just because you cant stomach the image of a deer getting shot doesnt mean that its less humane. i could show you pictures of perfectly helpful legitimate medical procedures that would make you throw up, does that make them bad?

Man, you must be a lawyer for burglars... i've never heard anyone defend their "rights" as zealously as you do.

or are you a burglar?

a)A person has a right to defend his life, his family's lives, his home and the property inside his home.

b)A burglar has NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to enter another person's home without said person's consent, and NO RIGHTS WHATSOEVER once inside that person's home except that which the owner deems he deserves.

c)Should a burglar break into a person's home, the person who lives there absolutely has a right to defend himself, his family, his property, etc., from the criminal.


Am I a burgular? No of course not, and if someone broke into my house in the middle of the night, I might either, call the police or attempt to incapacitate him. I would never try to kill him. Yes, perhaps if he was pointing a gun at my and was totally willing to shoot me at any moments notice, then I might try to kill him before he kills me.

So a guy, comes into your house to take (GOD FORBID!) your precious T.V you can go right ahead and shoot him up some?

Yeah, you truly are a king among men.

And did I hear the words 'city people'. Oh I think I did.
As much as I don't like stereotyping, get with the times you moronic red neck.

Love you too, kid. Actually I'm a graduate student in Chicago, born and raised here. As for being a king among men, I'm just a man who refuses to be a victim. If someone tries to infringe upon my rights I will put them down. There is no joy in it, but it is something that has to be done. It makes me sick that in a city with a high crime rate my wife (who is under 100 pounds) cannot carry a gun to protect herself, even though theres no way she could physically stand up to an assailant. Guess what, she can't have a stun gun, a combat knife, or mace either. Basically, her choices are to wait to become a victim or be a criminal and carry an illegal gun. Can you see something wrong with that situation?

so youd prefer that they be in massive amounts of pain for weeks rather than a quick bullet to the head. just because you cant stomach the image of a deer getting shot doesnt mean that its less humane. i could show you pictures of perfectly helpful legitimate medical procedures that would make you throw up, does that make them bad?

Yeah of course they need to be culled, but there is better ways. Painless, and far less messy ways. You don't need to shoot them, full stop.

WHO THE HELL ARE YOU TO DECIDE HE 'MIGHT' DECIDE TO DO THAT!

He is there. He is on my property without my consent. The ONLY reason for him to do that is to commit a crime. I'm not going to wait to see what one he plans on. I am going to react.

True!

In fact my entire arguement has been about those republican pigs who use absolutley any excuse to keep guns legal.

You just need one. Its the same reason you get to call them pigs, worship whatever god you choose to (or not), and generally be a free individual.

Love you too, kid. Actually I'm a graduate student in Chicago, born and raised here. As for being a king among men, I'm just a man who refuses to be a victim. If someone tries to infringe upon my rights I will put them down. There is no joy in it, but it is something that has to be done. It makes me sick that in a city with a high crime rate my wife (who is under 100 pounds) cannot carry a gun to protect herself, even though theres no way she could physically stand up to an assailant. Guess what, she can't have a stun gun, a combat knife, or mace either. Basically, her choices are to wait to become a victim or be a criminal and carry an illegal gun. Can you see something wrong with that situation?

The fact that she couldn't use mace or a stun gun is abbohrent.

But why should you absolutely destroy him just for breaking into your house?
Imagine you had no choice to break into someone's house to steal a little bit of money, and then some guy comes up to you and blows your stomach open with a sawn off shotgun.

There is ALWAYS a choice. There is NO scenario where someone is "forced" to steal.

If they had something in their hands other than a weapon, I'd give them a chance to surrender or flee. If they had a weapon in their hands, I don't give them a chance to use it. This isn't the movies.

I really hope you realize the number of critters killed annually by harvesting machines.
millions in case anyone was wondering

Yeah of course they need to be culled, but there is better ways. Painless, and far less messy ways. You don't need to shoot them, full stop.
please elaborate on these "painless and far less messy ways."

So a guy, comes into your house to take (GOD FORBID!) your precious T.V you can go right ahead and shoot him up some?
whats your adress? id like to come into your house to take your T.V.

Yeah of course they need to be culled, but there is better ways. Painless, and far less messy ways. You don't need to shoot them, full stop.

Instant death from a rifle IS painless.

There is ALWAYS a choice. There is NO scenario where someone is "forced" to steal.

If they had something in their hands other than a weapon, I'd give them a chance to surrender or flee. If they had a weapon in their hands, I don't give them a chance to use it. This isn't the movies.

It isn't the movies you're right.
So d'you know what, give them a chance.
If you were pointing a gun at him first, there's no chance he try to shoot you then.

The fact that she couldn't use mace or a stun gun is abbohrent.

That's Chicago for ya. They like to keep their "subjects" helpless. Or as helpless as possible. The rest of the state is starting to fight back, though.

But why should you absolutely destroy him just for breaking into your house?
Imagine you had no choice to break into someone's house to steal a little bit of money, and then some guy comes up to you and blows your stomach open with a sawn off shotgun.

Actually its a 26 inch barrel. And they get a choice. Kneel with their hands behind their head and wait for the police to take them to Hotel Statsville Pen. If they choose not to...

the fact that someone is willing to break into your house is reason enough to point a gun at him and tell the freaking burglar he's got three seconds to leave.
incorrect. upon setting foot in your house you have the legal right and moral obligation to pull the trigger.

The fact that she couldn't use mace or a stun gun is abbohrent.

As is the fact that she cannot use the one tool that is most likely to incapacitate.

whats your adress? id like to come into yor hose to take your T.V.

Oh, your wit astounds me.
Okay then, come over and I'll knock you out, call the police and have you taken away before you know what happened.

It isn't the movies you're right.
So d'you know what, give them a chance.
If you were pointing a gun at him first, there's no chance he try to shoot you then.

They had their one chance not to break into my house.

There is always a chance someone will take a shot, even covered with a firearm. If caught, they know there is jail time, and will take just about any course of action to avoid that.

WHO THE HELL ARE YOU TO DECIDE HE 'MIGHT' DECIDE TO DO THAT!
so your saying that the probability that someone will rape you goes down when an uninvited stranger who is in the act of performing a crime comes into your home?

Oh, your wit astounds me.
Okay then, come over and I'll knock you out, call the police and have you taken away before you know what happened.

Oh, so you DO get to assault the theif? What if you hit too hard?

As is the fact that she cannot use the one tool that is most likely to incapacitate.

THAT tool is most likely to kill.

Can't you realise that you don't have to kill someone because they attacked, or are going to attack you?

You don't have the RIGHT to dictate whether that person dies.

I don't care what it says in your precious constitution, it's ethically wrong on far more levels than it is right.

Oh, your wit astounds me.
Okay then, come over and I'll knock you out, call the police and have you taken away before you know what happened.
Of course, here's the problem, how do you know you'll knock him out? How do you know he won't knock you out first?

Oh, your wit astounds me.
Okay then, come over and I'll knock you out, call the police and have you taken away before you know what happened.

but you don't have a gun, and he does... so how are you going to knock him out?

And do you think the police are going to get there fast enough to stop him?

Is it now finally dawning on you...?

Yeah, neither do I.

But guess what. I live with it.
as is your right in this great land.

Hi. I'm LIBERTARIAN. Not REPUBLICAN. I support the right to self defense, hence my support of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution. Nice to know your assumptions are REALLY generalized.
*shakes fist in air in general direction of libertarian*

buffalo!

Gotta have that spicy buffalo jerky. :)

THAT tool is most likely to kill.

Can't you realise that you don't have to kill someone because they attacked, or are going to attack you?

You don't have the RIGHT to dictate whether that person dies.

I don't care what it says in your precious constitution, it's ethically wrong on far more levels than it is right.

There is no choice. You do not know what someone else will do, you do not know what they can withstand. At my weight, size, and pain tollerance, a tazer isn't much likely to effect me. If I happen to be on crack or PCP, mace won't either. I don't care who the other person is or if they got hugged enough as a child, when someone attacks me there is a need to kill them. Anything less and you open yourself up to being victimized. They started it, they decided to play a dangerous game.

I'll let you in on a little secret. I'm a libertarian, not a republican.

And I don't even own a gun.
*shakes fist at other libertarian*

Why, should you kill him?

Tell me why, you should decide that that person will die.

Because he's in your house? Is it because there's a hugely remote chance he came in there for the sole purpose of killing YOU?

There's very little difference between that, and shooting someone who was in a bar fight with you. In fact it's even more wrong than that.

I USE MY BIG BORE BLOWGUNS WITH THE BROAD HEAD DART IT HAS A WIDE SWATH

http://store.yahoo.com/csstoreonline/blowguns.html

Yeah, but does it have an exploding hypodermic tip, like mine? ;)

http://www.blowgunsnorthwest.com/guns/accessories.htm

What have guns done for me? They've kept me employed. They keep food on my table and a roof over my head.

Now with that said, I hate guns.

THAT tool is most likely to kill.


Actually, in the US, 60% of gun shot "victims" live.


Can't you realise that you don't have to kill someone because they attacked, or are going to attack you?


If someone attacks me, again, their rights are forfeit.


You don't have the RIGHT to dictate whether that person dies.


You're right, and I don't. I shoot the center of mass, and let the forces of nature and the universe sort that type of thing out.


I don't care what it says in your precious constitution, it's ethically wrong on far more levels than it is right.

In your flawed opinion.

as is your right in this great land.

I don't live in your 'great' land, I live in overall a far more enlightened one.

Yeah of course they need to be culled, but there is better ways. Painless, and far less messy ways. You don't need to shoot them, full stop.
name them.

We usually just murder infidels with home made bombs, swords and attack camels.

Oh, your wit astounds me.
Okay then, come over and I'll knock you out, call the police and have you taken away before you know what happened.
What makes you think you can knock out any intruder? What if he's huge and knows how to fight well? What if he's armed? What if he brings friends?

Why, should you kill him?

Tell me why, you should decide that that person will die.

Because he's in your house? Is it because there's a hugely remote chance he came in there for the sole purpose of killing YOU?

There's very little difference between that, and shooting someone who was in a bar fight with you. In fact it's even more wrong than that.

You just don't get it. If you do not kill, there is a chance, however small, that the person will hurt you or those you love. Already they are there to do something illegal. This is not a random person on the street. There is a whole line of planing and intent that lead them to your door. If you want to love others beyond yourself, thats your right. But I will not put myself in danger to protect someone who, at best, came to steal from me.

*shakes fist at other libertarian*

Andaluciae, should we wave or something?

It isn't the movies you're right.
So d'you know what, give them a chance.
If you were pointing a gun at him first, there's no chance he try to shoot you then.
is that a joke?

Andaluciae, should we wave or something?

Nah, us Libs do best keeping our heads down and corrupting otherwise upstanding members of "real" parties. ;)

whats your adress? id like to come into yor hose to take your T.V.

Take his computer -- save us all the trouble. :D

What have guns done for me? Well, the helped me take a decent-sized buck (his rack wasn't big, but he himself was, so I was content with the wondeful meat -- Venison tastes 100 times better than beef), as well as multiple squirrels, and two phesants. And that was just my first year hunting.

Oh, and some awesome times at the range, plus two merit badges in the Boy Scouts of America.

I, having just turned fifteen years old, do not personally own a gun and have not had the chance to use it hunting much (I'm pretty busy), but it's fun.

WHO THE HELL ARE YOU TO DECIDE HE 'MIGHT' DECIDE TO DO THAT!

a REalist. You know what? I think you've 'lived' a life of insulated comfort without once experiencing the real-world.
I suspect, when mummy and daddy's money run out or they give you the boot, you're in for some remarkably rude shocks about the nature of reality. I hope it doesn't happen anywhere near where I live, the sounds of ambulances and police cars are quite disturbing at three a.m.

Fact: If he's coming in uninvited through the window (or breaking in the door) he isn't there to sing "Kumbaya" and share insights into peace and love, he's there to steal from, hurt, and possibly kill you, in that order.
Criminals know that if they can be identified, they will likely be arrested. Intimidation or Elimination of witnesses is quite common.

Further, if the criminal is arrested, he's often back on the street looking for his next victim before the ink on the arrest-report is dry. If he isn't, he's succeeded, reinforcing a pattern of criminal behaviours and guaranteeing someone else is going to be a victim.

Provided you survive your first encounter, you can look forward (with your attitude) to being a repeat client for this scumbag and his friends. Criminals are inherent cowards, they will always, always target those they believe to be weak. People in lala-land are prime targets.

The Police are NOT required to protect you-they protect society. As an individual, you are disposeable. They are only required to draw the chalk line around your body and investigate your killing. This usually doesn't take long, since unless you're very wealthy (or famous), they won't put much effort into it (best bet is if they find your corpse within three or four hours of the deed, or if your killer is still present.)
As a common person, you get to be a statistic.

Please try to endeavour not to contribute to the statistics anywhere near where I live, okay?

We usually just murder infidels with home made bombs, swords and attack camels.

I far prefer my infidels be unarmed. Unfooted too.

Why, should you kill him?

Tell me why, you should decide that that person will die.


I'm not.


Because he's in your house? Is it because there's a hugely remote chance he came in there for the sole purpose of killing YOU?


Actually, once you've been determined to have seen the robber, your chances of being attacked go up drastically in the US. They don't like witnesses here.


There's very little difference between that, and shooting someone who was in a bar fight with you. In fact it's even more wrong than that.

If someone attacks me in any fashion, they are assumed to be using deadly force. You don't attack people. You get shot when that happens.

Actually, in the US, 60% of gun shot "victims" live.



If someone attacks me, again, their rights are forfeit.



You're right, and I don't. I shoot the center of mass, and let the forces of nature and the universe sort that type of thing out.



In your flawed opinion.

If someone attacks you, they become subject to the punishment of the crime, they do not forfeit themselves to you.
Flawed? Oh I see, because you disagree. I get it.
If some guy in the street shot a bunch of innocent bystanders would you say the one's who had died were killed by the forces of the universe, not the person who shot at them?

Oh, your wit astounds me.
Okay then, come over and I'll knock you out, call the police and have you taken away before you know what happened.
but i can shoot you and rape your family because i know there isnt a gun in the house.

I don't live in your 'great' land, I live in overall a far more enlightened one.

"Enlightened" and "Evolved" are terms generally used by those countries that used to be in power, but no longer are, and have to cling to an ideal to make themselves feel better.

Think of it in proportion, there's an almost insignificant amount of guns crimes in Britain, Japan, Germany etc, and that's because there's a ban on guns.



Despite the fact that there is a gun ban in Japan, and the country has one of the lowest crime rates in the world, it actually has little to do with the ban. What it has to do with is the crime lords of the Yakuza not wanting have their homes over run by gangs, and having a treaty with the government. I saw plenty of guns while I was in Hiroshima, the city of peace, and they were all carried by the yakuza. But what I saw more of was an ungodly amount of blades being carried.

In Tokyo, you can't walk through Harajuku without finding someone with some sort of weapon. You also fail to take the culture of the country into account. The Japanese are generally an honorable people. They don't do much of what other cultures do, because they want their families to be the best possible, the most upstanding and respectable. In public. Behind closed doors, it can be terrifying. I've seen worse damage done with pencils and chopsticks than I ever have with a gun. Thinking of it in proportion, there are a hell of a lot more chopsticks in Japan than guns, why not ban them too?

Why, should you kill him?

Tell me why, you should decide that that person will die.

Because he's in your house? Is it because there's a hugely remote chance he came in there for the sole purpose of killing YOU?

There's very little difference between that, and shooting someone who was in a bar fight with you. In fact it's even more wrong than that.
Bullshit. An intruder in your house is much more of a threat than some idiot in a barfight. First of all, there are no witnesses besides you in your house. Nobody's there to calm the situation down if the intruder decides to get violent. Secondly, most bar fights are between two more or less willing participants. Nobody ever invites burglars over. Third, burglars may decide to eliminate the witnesses if they happen to break into a house where the residents are home.

Once you force your way into another person's house you must expect to be shot/stabbed/beaten to death.

Why, should you kill him?

Tell me why, you should decide that that person will die.

Because he's in your house? Is it because there's a hugely remote chance he came in there for the sole purpose of killing YOU?

There's very little difference between that, and shooting someone who was in a bar fight with you. In fact it's even more wrong than that.
it's less remote than you'd think.

We usually just murder infidels with home made bombs, swords and attack camels.

How many hard points are on the average attack camel?

I don't live in your 'great' land, I live in overall a far more enlightened one.
canada?

Nah, us Libs do best keeping our heads down and corrupting otherwise upstanding members of "real" parties. ;)

Oh yeah....<slinks off into the darkness to continue whispering in the ears of the blinded majority>

a REalist. You know what? I think you've 'lived' a life of insulated comfort without once experiencing the real-world.
I suspect, when mummy and daddy's money run out or they give you the boot, you're in for some remarkably rude shocks about the nature of reality. I hope it doesn't happen anywhere near where I live, the sounds of ambulances and police cars are quite disturbing at three a.m.

Fact: If he's coming in uninvited through the window (or breaking in the door) he isn't there to sing "Kumbaya" and share insights into peace and love, he's there to steal from, hurt, and possibly kill you, in that order.
Criminals know that if they can be identified, they will likely be arrested. Intimidation or Elimination of witnesses is quite common.

Further, if the criminal is arrested, he's often back on the street looking for his next victim before the ink on the arrest-report is dry. If he isn't, he's succeeded, reinforcing a pattern of criminal behaviours and guaranteeing someone else is going to be a victim.

Provided you survive your first encounter, you can look forward (with your attitude) to being a repeat client for this scumbag and his friends. Criminals are inherent cowards, they will always, always target those they believe to be weak. People in lala-land are prime targets.

The Police are NOT required to protect you-they protect society. As an individual, you are disposeable. They are only required to draw the chalk line around your body and investigate your killing. This usually doesn't take long, since unless you're very wealthy (or famous), they won't put much effort into it (best bet is if they find your corpse within three or four hours of the deed, or if your killer is still present.)
As a common person, you get to be a statistic.

Please try to endeavour not to contribute to the statistics anywhere near where I live, okay?

Oh of course, when I oppose guns, I'm instantly put into the upper class braket.

Listen, I seem some pretty strange things, I have had my house broken into, so I do speak with authority. When we heard him, downstairs, in our tiny house (since my parents don't have that much money at all) my dad, guess what, called the police. My dad waited for him upstairs with a baseball bat, so he could knock him out as he came up the stairs without knowing my dad would be right behind him. However, he went out the window, and straight into the arms of the police.

Nah, us Libs do best keeping our heads down and corrupting otherwise upstanding members of "real" parties. ;)
hey you cant say Libs! in the words of homer simpson "thats our name"

Bullshit. An intruder in your house is much more of a threat than some idiot in a barfight. First of all, there are no witnesses besides you in your house. Nobody's there to calm the situation down if the intruder decides to get violent. Secondly, most bar fights are between two more or less willing participants. Nobody ever invites burglars over. Third, burglars may decide to eliminate the witnesses if they happen to break into a house where the residents are home.

Once you force your way into another person's house you must expect to be shot/stabbed/beaten to death.

Because the other persons obviously as morally corrupt as you?
Of course!

If someone attacks you, they become subject to the punishment of the crime, they do not forfeit themselves to you.
Flawed? Oh I see, because you disagree. I get it.
If some guy in the street shot a bunch of innocent bystanders would you say the one's who had died were killed by the forces of the universe, not the person who shot at them?

Yes, flawed. You are making your opinionated judgements on your VAST lack of experience with firearms. So, yeah, your opinion is very flawed--you're making assumptions instead of using actual fact.

I'm saying that a gun shot is not an automatic death sentence--did you not even see the 60% figure I gave? Jesus, if you can't read either....

Oh of course, when I oppose guns, I'm instantly put into the upper class braket.

Listen, I seem some pretty strange things, I have had my house broken into, so I do speak with authority. When we heard him, downstairs, in our tiny house (since my parents don't have that much money at all) my dad, guess what, called the police. My dad waited for him upstairs with a baseball bat, so he could knock him out as he came up the stairs without knowing my dad would be right behind him. However, he went out the window, and straight into the arms of the police.
Great. You got lucky. Maybe next time you won't.

Yes, flawed. You are making your opinionated judgements on your VAST lack of experience with firearms. So, yeah, your opinion is very flawed--you're making assumptions instead of using actual fact.

I'm saying that a gun shot is not an automatic death sentence--did you not even see the 60% figure I gave? Jesus, if you can't read either....

Guess what? 60% of all statistics mean jack shit.

Oh of course, when I oppose guns, I'm instantly put into the upper class braket.

Listen, I seem some pretty strange things, I have had my house broken into, so I do speak with authority. When we heard him, downstairs, in our tiny house (since my parents don't have that much money at all) my dad, guess what, called the police. My dad waited for him upstairs with a baseball bat, so he could knock him out as he came up the stairs without knowing my dad would be right behind him. However, he went out the window, and straight into the arms of the police.

Shame on you! If you come from a poor family, you should know better, you should know the value of what you have worked for! Why should you father have to wait in fear with a bat? Why should he have to hope the police come in time? Why should your family be relegated to the role of prey? Why should he not be able to defend what he has fought and clawed and worked to earn?

Oh of course, when I oppose guns, I'm instantly put into the upper class braket.

Listen, I seem some pretty strange things, I have had my house broken into, so I do speak with authority. When we heard him, downstairs, in our tiny house (since my parents don't have that much money at all) my dad, guess what, called the police. My dad waited for him upstairs with a baseball bat, so he could knock him out as he came up the stairs without knowing my dad would be right behind him. However, he went out the window, and straight into the arms of the police.

I'm glad it turned out that way for you. For many, it doesn't. The burglar gets the drop on the people in the house, and they die.

hey you cant say Libs! in the words of homer simpson "thats our name"

We had it first. :) Liberal has been turned into something other than the original meaning, in the US.

Oh of course, when I oppose guns, I'm instantly put into the upper class braket.

Listen, I seem some pretty strange things, I have had my house broken into, so I do speak with authority. When we heard him, downstairs, in our tiny house (since my parents don't have that much money at all) my dad, guess what, called the police. My dad waited for him upstairs with a baseball bat, so he could knock him out as he came up the stairs without knowing my dad would be right behind him. However, he went out the window, and straight into the arms of the police.
At least you have admitted that you don't have the life experience to have developed an informed opinion "authority" or no...

Have you ever actually attempted to "knock someone out" with a baseball bat? The cuncussive/percussive force generated by a swung bat, sufficient to cause unconsiousness, is a gnat's ass away from sufficient force to split a skull like a mellon.

Oh yeah, clubbing is so much more humane and sensible. Just ask a baby seal... :rolleyes:

Guess what? 60% of all statistics mean jack shit.

Then do your own damn research, instead of just spewing out assumptions from inexperience and movies. You'll find the same number on your own.

Because the other persons obviously as morally corrupt as you?
Of course!
Morally corrupt? I was once. I used to be a criminal. Now I'm a pretty moral person. I don't steal, I don't lie (except to spare other's feelings), I don't attack anyone. If someone attacks me, however, I feel it's well within my rights to defend myself by whatever means I feel are appropriate. Just because I'm not a pacifist victim doesn't make me "morally corrupt".

Why should he murder the person who made him wait in fear?
We've all been made afraid by someone else at some point. That doesn't give you the right to kill them. You may 'fear for your own life', but the concept is incredibly open to interpitation.

I'm guessing that as all of you condone the use of guns, you believe in the death sentece right?

Oh of course, when I oppose guns, I'm instantly put into the upper class braket.

Listen, I seem some pretty strange things, I have had my house broken into, so I do speak with authority. When we heard him, downstairs, in our tiny house (since my parents don't have that much money at all) my dad, guess what, called the police. My dad waited for him upstairs with a baseball bat, so he could knock him out as he came up the stairs without knowing my dad would be right behind him. However, he went out the window, and straight into the arms of the police.
what if he had a gun? what if he saw your dad with the bat and shot him? have you ever seen a desert eagle .50 AE fired? it will decapitate you in one shot.

Guess what? 60% of all statistics mean jack shit.

That depends greatly on the kind of statistic. Pure correlations are generally worthless. You cannot simply assume causation from correlation. Advanced statistics, on the other hand, aren't really something that can be easily argued against. Take guns, for example. There is a statistically significant decrease in crime in poor urban counties when concealed carry laws are passed. Why? Because criminals pick easy targets. When there is a concealed carry law on the books, suddenly the old lady in a walker is just as dangerous as the 220 pound guy in a black leather trenchcoat. So that criminal moves to crimes where he won't run into his victim.

I get the impression that the people who want to own guns either have a use for them that does not involve defence (hunting) or are too paranoid of other people. I'm not saying this is how it is, but honestly, it really sounds as if some of you people who say you need guns to defend yourselves do not trust a soul where you live.

Personally, if I cannot feel safe being somewhere without owning a gun, I will not live there. Any place that puts the requirement on me that I may have to kill someone to defend myself is just a wrong place to be. I know many places where it isn't necessary to kill. I won't name them, because it's my own opinion and some people are bound to disagree with it.

But my point stands: If you do not feel safe where you are without a gun, you are not in a very safe place.

At least you have admitted that you don't have the life experience to have developed an informed opinion "authority" or no...

Have you ever actually attempted to "knock someone out" with a baseball bat? The cuncussive/percussive force generated by a swung bat, sufficient to cause unconsiousness, is a gnat's ass away from sufficient force to split a skull like a mellon.

Oh yeah, clubbing is so much more humane and sensible. Just ask a baby seal... :rolleyes:
I've been hit with a baseball bat before. Downward strike onto the top of my head. No real damage done. I won the fight. Baseball bats aren't all that effective unless you know how to use them or unless your opponent is not very determined.

At least you have admitted that you don't have the life experience to have developed an informed opinion "authority" or no...

Have you ever actually attempted to "knock someone out" with a baseball bat? The cuncussive/percussive force generated by a swung bat, sufficient to cause unconsiousness, is a gnat's ass away from sufficient force to split a skull like a mellon.

Oh yeah, clubbing is so much more humane and sensible. Just ask a baby seal... :rolleyes:

When the hell did I EVER suggest that clubbing was either neccessary or right?!
I never did, but you just go ahead and say it anyway.

You see to kill animals, what they do is put them to sleep (literally) and then slit their thorats while they sleep. (It's not perfect, but it far better than getting brains blown out).

Why should he murder the person who made him wait in fear?
We've all been made afraid by someone else at some point. That doesn't give you the right to kill them. You may 'fear for your own life', but the concept is incredibly open to interpitation.

I'm guessing that as all of you condone the use of guns, you believe in the death sentece right?
No, actually not. At least not in the manner it is currently applied.

I absolutely believe in the death penalty for recidivist violent criminals, since they are a proven societal cancer and need permenant removal. But I also believe enough in false convictions and genuine remorse that I am not willing to execute non-recidivists.

Guess what? 60% of all statistics mean jack shit.
good job, you have proven yourself to be a moron. it is statistically unreasonable to assume that someone will die after being shot. i guess using the word statistically makes my argument invalid huh?

Why should he murder the person who made him wait in fear?
We've all been made afraid by someone else at some point. That doesn't give you the right to kill them. You may 'fear for your own life', but the concept is incredibly open to interpitation.

I'm guessing that as all of you condone the use of guns, you believe in the death sentece right?
I don't. I don't think it's acceptable to kill someone who is in custody and therefore not a threat. I think it's perfectly acceptable to kill someone who you beleive to be a threat to your life or your family member's lives.

We had it first. :) Liberal has been turned into something other than the original meaning, in the US.
but i want it :(

I get the impression that the people who want to own guns either have a use for them that does not involve defence (hunting) or are too paranoid of other people. I'm not saying this is how it is, but honestly, it really sounds as if some of you people who say you need guns to defend yourselves do not trust a soul where you live.

Personally, if I cannot feel safe being somewhere without owning a gun, I will not live there. Any place that puts the requirement on me that I may have to kill someone to defend myself is just a wrong place to be. I know many places where it isn't necessary to kill. I won't name them, because it's my own opinion and some people are bound to disagree with it.

But my point stands: If you do not feel safe where you are without a gun, you are not in a very safe place.

This is precisely what I mean.

And what if the robber did have a gun? Well, according to 'statistics' there's basically absolutley no chance he did, because we live in Ireland.
Where guns are outlawed.

Why should he murder the person who made him wait in fear?
We've all been made afraid by someone else at some point. That doesn't give you the right to kill them. You may 'fear for your own life', but the concept is incredibly open to interpitation.

I'm guessing that as all of you condone the use of guns, you believe in the death sentece right?

I believe in the death sentance, but not for any high intellectual ideal. There are simply some crimes for which rehabilitation is impossable and warehousing is too expensive. You can't cure a repeat rapist, recidivism rates show that. You can't trust a murderer on the street. Society only has so much money. I'd rather put dollars into education, try to prevent a future generation of criminals, than waste money feeding and housing failed humans. Is it cold? Yeah.

Whats the moral of the story? Lifes a bitch, get a helmet.

The fact that she couldn't use mace or a stun gun is abbohrent.


Mace, pepper sprays, whatever else usually don't do much to many criminals. mainly because a good deal of them are used to it. Hell, mace doesn't work on bears or dogs and they aren't used to it. And I've heard tell that it makes a great steak tenderizer...

Stun guns and tasers are pretty much a tingly feeling for people who have more than 40% body fat. Supposedly they hurt like a bitch for anyone who's just muscle, which makes sense since all the muscles lock up.

Over all, neither of these are terribly effective, where as a gun you can fire, likely miss and scare the shit out of them. Of course, if they have a weapon, and mace/stun gun are, in comparison, short range weapons, then the victim is pretty much in deep trouble.

When the hell did I EVER suggest that clubbing was either neccessary or right?! I never did, but you just go ahead and say it anyway. Um, you said your dad was prepared to render him unconsious (from concealment) with a baseball bat. You therefore intimated it might have been necessary.
You see to kill animals, what they do is put them to sleep (literally) and then slit their thorats while they sleep. (It's not perfect, but it far better than getting brains blown out).And how will we do this to deer and other wild animals?

This is precisely what I mean.

And what if the robber did have a gun? Well, according to 'statistics' there's basically absolutley no chance he did, because we live in Ireland.
Where guns are outlawed.
Ok, and if we outlawed guns in the USA all the criminals would immediately turn their guns in to the police station, right? Nobody would have guns. It would be just like Ireland, right?

what if he had a gun? what if he saw your dad with the bat and shot him? have you ever seen a desert eagle .50 AE fired? it will decapitate you in one shot.

I actually hope that if I ever have to face a firearm its a desert eagle. Even if it doesn't jam up, its inaccurate, hard to aim, hard to fire (ever felt the trigger pull on one of those?!), and theres no way to fire it quickly. Not to mention, the kind of people drawn to Desert Eagles aren't the kinds of people who spend too much time on the range with it.

good job, you have proven yourself to be a moron. it is statistically unreasonable to assume that someone will die after being shot. i guess using the word statistically makes my argument invalid huh?

So, you shoot him in the leg. He won't die immediately, but he can bleed to death.

This is precisely what I mean.

And what if the robber did have a gun? Well, according to 'statistics' there's basically absolutley no chance he did, because we live in Ireland.
Where guns are outlawed.And boy that has sure stopped the Troubles... :rolleyes:
Please grow up.

Why should he murder the person who made him wait in fear?
We've all been made afraid by someone else at some point. That doesn't give you the right to kill them. You may 'fear for your own life', but the concept is incredibly open to interpitation.

I'm guessing that as all of you condone the use of guns, you believe in the death sentece right?
do you have brain damage? i strongly disagree with the death sentence. their is no relationship what-so-ever. as was stated before the chance of you dying from a gsw is only 60%. with the death sentence they keep electrocuting you until you die. didnt you see Green Mile?
and listen up this is the important bit
using a gun for self-defence is exactly that, self-defence. the death sentence is not self-defence as the criminal can be imprisoned for life.

Ok, and if we outlawed guns in the USA all the criminals would immediately turn their guns in to the police station, right? Nobody would have guns. It would be just like Ireland, right?

Yeah, but guns would then be actively looked for by the police, there would be a gigantic reduction in the amount of guns availabe.

Ok, and if we outlawed guns in the USA all the criminals would immediately turn their guns in to the police station, right? Nobody would have guns. It would be just like Ireland, right?

Actually, i've got a far better suggestion.

We all know that the US has a deep gun culture.

If this gun culture or the crime that the US has makes you feel uncertain of your safety then you can:
Either get a gun and feel safe
Or
You could leave and go somewhere where you don't feel the need to have a gun

I realise this may not be possible for everyone, but I think that sometimes, you have to accept the environment as what it is, instead of trying to manipulate your environment into what you want it to be.

If you cannot or will not leave, but still refuse to have a gun and realise the danger you may face every day, I am certain that a bit of creativity and imagination can think up good ways of scaring off robbers or altogether stopping them.

So, you shoot him in the leg. He won't die immediately, but he can bleed to death.
So you hit him with your pop's baseball bat. He may not die, but you may fracture his spine and paralyze him for life. Or he just might die.

Yeah, but guns would then be actively looked for by the police, there would be a gigantic reduction in the amount of guns availabe.And then you turn to blowing up parliment and small children with home made bombs.... when you are not shooting at the SAS with your "illegal" guns... git.

And boy that has sure stopped the Troubles... :rolleyes:
Please grow up.

Yeah, and for about seventy years it worked. You're obviously incredibly badly educated. All you ever hear about Ireland is the north. That's six tiny counties. There's another 26 which are called the republic of Ireland that have a gun crime once in a blue moon.

I just started playing the game a few days ago and am interested in how you get weapons?? can anyone help me out??

Yeah, but guns would then be actively looked for by the police, there would be a gigantic reduction in the amount of guns availabe.
Yeah, we can suspend all the protections against illegal search and seizure in the constitution and allow police to enter anyone's house at will and ransack the place looking for guns. Great idea.

BTW, police look for guns now. It's fairly common for police to search cars during traffic stops and to pat down people who they stop for questioning. It still doesn't get the majority of illegal guns off the streets.

I get the impression that the people who want to own guns either have a use for them that does not involve defence (hunting) or are too paranoid of other people. I'm not saying this is how it is, but honestly, it really sounds as if some of you people who say you need guns to defend yourselves do not trust a soul where you live.

Personally, if I cannot feel safe being somewhere without owning a gun, I will not live there. Any place that puts the requirement on me that I may have to kill someone to defend myself is just a wrong place to be. I know many places where it isn't necessary to kill. I won't name them, because it's my own opinion and some people are bound to disagree with it.

But my point stands: If you do not feel safe where you are without a gun, you are not in a very safe place.
where do you live? i dont trust anyone i dont know in a major city in america. in canada, i probably would trust the people though :)

I just started playing the game a few days ago and am interested in how you get weapons?? can anyone help me out??
You would do that in the Roll Playing section(s). With one young Irish exception, we are discussing what role possessing firearms in Real Life has had for you personally.

And then you turn to blowing up parliment and small children with home made bombs.... when you are not shooting at the SAS with your "illegal" guns... git.

I honestly find it hilarious that you immediately think that I'm part of the IRA.

That makes absolutely no sense, because you see, they USE guns.

Honestly most of you americans no absolutely nothing about any other countries, you just use the sensationalist stories you see on Fox news to create your own little picture of the country.

I just started playing the game a few days ago and am interested in how you get weapons?? can anyone help me out??
What, real guns, or in the game?

I real life...I live in Caracas Venezuela...in the game my region is called Aisee Iesee

:rolleyes: I honestly find it hilarious that you immediately think that I'm part of the IRA.

That makes absolutely no sense, because you see, they USE guns.

Honestly most of you americans no absolutely nothing about any other countries, you just use the sensationalist stories you see on Fox news to create your own little picture of the country.
Yes, that's right. We all think the Irish are drunken brawlers, the Greeks are all homosexuals, the Poles are as dumb as the Italians, and the Italians are all dumb gangsters. You obviously know the USA better than we know you. :rolleyes:

:rolleyes:
Yes, that's right. We all think the Irish are drunken brawlers, the Greeks are all homosexuals, the Poles are as dumb as the Italians, and the Italians are all dumb gangsters. You obviously know the USA better than we know you. :rolleyes:

I'm going on the basis of many, many americans I've seen in real life, the news, just about everything to be honest.

Okay, tell me one thing about the Irish political system then.

I honestly find it hilarious that you immediately think that I'm part of the IRA. That makes absolutely no sense, because you see, they USE guns. Honestly most of you americans no absolutely nothing about any other countries, you just use the sensationalist stories you see on Fox news to create your own little picture of the country.
I honestly find it hilarious that you can't understand irony, and that I certainly don't have any knowledge or even care if you are Green or Orange.
Of course the IRA uses guns, you little git. That was the point. Their being illegal has not stopped criminal factions from possessing them.

I was wondering about guns in the game. In real life Guns have been significant to me. Ive been robbed at gun point, my friends live in areas where gun fights happen every week, I think guns are a very serious issue in the states. why do you think they have the highest homicide numbers in the world??

Yeah, but guns would then be actively looked for by the police, there would be a gigantic reduction in the amount of guns availabe.
Hmm..... I just couldnt leave this one alone. That may sound like a good idea,
remeber how well it worked in, oh I dont know, early 1930s? A funny man with a little moustache decided to take away all firearms from all of the citizens? Remember him? then didnt he take the disarmed population over to these little camps? Believe me, they werent your every day summer camps.
Does this ring a bell to you???

I'm going on the basis of many, many americans I've seen in real life, the news, just about everything to be honest.

Okay, tell me one thing about the Irish political system then.
They've taken Catholic values to heart and have laws which restrict abortion and other things the Catholic church finds objectionable.

I honestly find it hilarious that you can't understand irony, and that I certainly don't have any knowledge or even care if you are Green or Orange.
Of course the IRA uses guns, you little git. That was the point. Their being illegal has not stopped criminal factions from possessing them.

Irony, that's funny. I also like the way that you either label me as green or orange. As I said, there is a place called the republic or Ireland.

And the IRA makes their own guns. The thing is, they have too much political power with Sinn Féin. Random thugs that break into your house have far less political power than IRA y'know.

Ah, it's a gun control thread. Yummy!

Rather than let the pro-gunners play target-practice with "Science and Arts" (an exercise akin to shooting fish in a barrel), let's see who's interested in taking aim at my position!


I support the right of ordinary people to use deadly weapons in self-defense; in the hypothetical TV-robber example, this doesn't extend to a robber who's just stealing the TV, but it does extend to a robber who, when confronted with the armed home-owner, does anything other than surrender or flee. (I don't support shooting a robber who flees while still carrying valuables - theft is not a capital offense.)
However, I believe that limited gun-control legislation does not infringe on that. I do not see a compelling need for registration, but I do support licensing - basic competency tests, background checks (but not waiting periods - as soon as you get the license, you can go to a store and walk out with a gun, and you get the license as soon as you finish the test and the background check comes back).
To prevent abuse of licensing, I would require anyone who wants to carry a gun to pass the same tests, background checks, etc. - even the police and military. This has the effect of ensuring that the tests won't be too restrictive, as the police and military would fight any licensing legislation that got in the way of their work.


Flame on!

Ah, it's a gun control thread. Yummy!

Rather than let the pro-gunners play target-practice with "Science and Arts" (an exercise akin to shooting fish in a barrel), let's see who's interested in taking aim at my position!


I support the right of ordinary people to use deadly weapons in self-defense; in the hypothetical TV-robber example, this doesn't extend to a robber who's just stealing the TV, but it does extend to a robber who, when confronted with the armed home-owner, does anything other than surrender or flee. (I don't support shooting a robber who flees while still carrying valuables - theft is not a capital offense.)
However, I believe that limited gun-control legislation does not infringe on that. I do not see a compelling need for registration, but I do support licensing - basic competency tests, background checks (but not waiting periods - as soon as you get the license, you can go to a store and walk out with a gun, and you get the license as soon as you finish the test and the background check comes back).
To prevent abuse of licensing, I would require anyone who wants to carry a gun to pass the same tests, background checks, etc. - even the police and military. This has the effect of ensuring that the tests won't be too restrictive, as the police and military would fight any licensing legislation that got in the way of their work.


Flame on!

You da man!

I was wondering about guns in the game. In real life Guns have been significant to me. Ive been robbed at gun point, my friends live in areas where gun fights happen every week, I think guns are a very serious issue in the states. why do you think they have the highest homicide numbers in the world??
Well, if you mean non-govt/military-action-related/rebellion-related homicides, it largely has to do with population density and "drug-crime".

In the low density areas there is really very little, but the Blue States skew it to hell and gone.

They've taken Catholic values to heart and have laws which restrict abortion and other things the Catholic church finds objectionable.

Again, you're thinking of about ten years ago. Abortion is still illegal, that was down to the population, not the government.

Nobody in power likes the church anymore, they've lost all credibility.
Ireland is now an enormously multicultural society. Catholic values no have little place, thankfully.

I honestly find it hilarious that you immediately think that I'm part of the IRA.

That makes absolutely no sense, because you see, they USE guns.

Honestly most of you americans no absolutely nothing about any other countries, you just use the sensationalist stories you see on Fox news to create your own little picture of the country.
alright, in this post you start of with the first two paragraphs on the right track. someone has insulted you in an idiotic manner. however upon coming extremely close to making a valid post, you immediately veer off into hypocrisy.
try rereading your third paragraph and tell me if you spot any hypocrisy. if you dont, then smash you head against the desk until numb. then tell me if you spot any hypocrisy. repeat until you have found it.

Oh well, would you look at the time I gotta go!

See you tomorrow folks!

Ah, it's a gun control thread. Yummy!

Rather than let the pro-gunners play target-practice with "Science and Arts" (an exercise akin to shooting fish in a barrel), let's see who's interested in taking aim at my position!


I support the right of ordinary people to use deadly weapons in self-defense; in the hypothetical TV-robber example, this doesn't extend to a robber who's just stealing the TV, but it does extend to a robber who, when confronted with the armed home-owner, does anything other than surrender or flee. (I don't support shooting a robber who flees while still carrying valuables - theft is not a capital offense.)
However, I believe that limited gun-control legislation does not infringe on that. I do not see a compelling need for registration, but I do support licensing - basic competency tests, background checks (but not waiting periods - as soon as you get the license, you can go to a store and walk out with a gun, and you get the license as soon as you finish the test and the background check comes back).
To prevent abuse of licensing, I would require anyone who wants to carry a gun to pass the same tests, background checks, etc. - even the police and military. This has the effect of ensuring that the tests won't be too restrictive, as the police and military would fight any licensing legislation that got in the way of their work.

Flame on!
Your position is imminantly sensible, therefore it will never be accepted by the Political "Gun Gontrol" faction - simply because it doesn't say "guns are evil, "Ban them!" (nicely and incrementally if we must)...

alright, in this post you start of with the first two paragraphs on the right track. someone has insulted you in an idiotic manner. however upon coming extremely close to making a valid post, you immediately veer off into hypocrisy.
try rereading your third paragraph and tell me if you spot any hypocrisy. if you dont, then smash you head against the desk until numb. then tell me if you spot any hypocrisy. repeat until you have found it.

I know what you're talking about, and obviously a very large proportion are enlightened americans, but there is an even bigger proportion of racist, uneducated, morons

(From IImperIIum of Man) Something that might amuse a great deal of you, and point out that the same arguments that a good many americans are making are falling short. (Since the topic has shifted to America not knowing, I figured that perhaps it would be pertinent to let the Irish guy see it. Since he lives here and all and has claimed that our country should be the same as his even though we're very simply not the same culture, of the same ideals, same population or land mass. The latter two, including the fact that we border Mexico, makes gun control immensely difficult.)


1. washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control

2. statisitics showing high murder rates justify gun control. but statitics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics".

3. the brady bill and the assault weapons ban, both of which went into effect in 1994, are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991.

4. we must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time, and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is just paranoid.

5. the more helpless you are, the safer you are from criminals.

6. an intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 magnum he will get angry and kill you.

7. a woman who is raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman witha smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

8. the new england journal of medicine is filled with expert advice about guns, just like guns and ammo has some excellent treatises in heart surgery.

9. the second ammendmant ratified in 1787, refers to the national guard, which was created 130 year later in 1917.

10. the national guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land, using federally owned weapons, vehicles, buildings and uniforms, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a "state" militia.

11 .the phrases "right of the people to peaceably assemble"," right of the people to be secure in thier homes", "enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people", and "the powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people", all refer to individuals. but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the state.

12. "the constitution is strong and will never change" but we should ban and seize all guns, thereby violating the 2nd, 4th and 5th ammendmants of the constitution.

13. rifles and handguns aren't neccisary to national defense. thats why the US armed forces have millions of them.

14. private citizens ahould not have handguns because they are not "military weapons", but private citizens should not have "assault rifles" because they are military weapons.

15. in spite of waiting periods, background checks, finger printing, government forms, etc.. guns today are to readily available, which is responsible for recent school shootings. in the 1940's, 50's, and 60's, anyone could buy guns at hardware stores military surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, sears mail order, with no waiting, no background checks, no finger prints, no government forms, and there were no school shootings.

16.the NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity.

17. guns are so complex that special training is neccisary to use them properly, and so simple they make murder easy

18. a handgun, with 4 controls, is far to complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.

19. women are jjust as intelligent and capable as men, but a woman with a gun is "an accident waiting to happen" and gun makers advertisements aimed at women are "preying on thier fears".

20. ordinary people in the presense of guns turn into slaughtering butchers, but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.

21. guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.

22. any self loading small arm can legitimately be considered a "weapon of mass destruction" or an "assult weapon"

23. most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which all criminals will abide by because they can be trusted.

24. the right of internet pornographers to exhist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the bill of rights, but the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the bill of rights.

25. free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self defense only justifies bare hands.

26. the ACLU is good because it uncomprimisingly defends certain parts of the constitution. but the NRA is bad because it uncomprimisingly defends certain parts of the constitution.

27. charlton heston a movie actor when president of the NRA was a cheap lunatic who should be ignored.
but micheal douglas, a movie actor as a representative of handgun control, inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.

28. police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines, as opposed to civilians who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.

29. we should ban inexpensive handguns because it isn't fair that poor people have access to self-defense guns to.

30. police officers have some special jedi-like mastery over handguns that private citizens can never hope to attain.

31. private citizens don't need a gun for self-protection, because the police are there to protect them, even though the supreme court says the police are not responsible for thier protection.

32. "aussalt weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people,. the police need assault weapons, you do not.

33. trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on thier duty weapon.

34. balistic fingerprinting, works so well, that of the 19,000 balistic fingerprints available in the maryland database, not a single one has helped solve a crime commited with a firearm.

35. rosie o'donnell doesn't think that a firearm ius neccisary for self protection. which is why her personal bodyguards have handguns.

36. senator diane feinstein (D-CA) thinks that a conceal carry permit will not help prevent personal crime, which is why she has one.

Again, you're thinking of about ten years ago. Abortion is still illegal, that was down to the population, not the government.

Nobody in power likes the church anymore, they've lost all credibility.
Ireland is now an enormously multicultural society. Catholic values no have little place, thankfully.
The reason many people don't know much about Ireland is because Ireland doesn't really do much on the world stage. There's no reason for the world to take notice of you guys.

I was wondering about guns in the game. In real life Guns have been significant to me. Ive been robbed at gun point, my friends live in areas where gun fights happen every week, I think guns are a very serious issue in the states. why do you think they have the highest homicide numbers in the world??
why does canada have the lowest?

Okay, tell me one thing about the Irish political system then.
it lacks the metal capacity to stop terrorism.

Again, you're thinking of about ten years ago. Abortion is still illegal, that was down to the population, not the government.

Nobody in power likes the church anymore, they've lost all credibility.
Ireland is now an enormously multicultural society. Catholic values no have little place, thankfully.

So I guess people trying to live a healthy life, with some sort of faith is bad in your opinion? What about living your life with good morals? Catholic values have no place? Look how great thats working out here in the states. No religion, but do what you feel is your opinion is good and do what you want. Didnt you notice that when people are a lot more religious, people tend to act more decently than without it? (Not to drag on any non-religious people here)

Your position is imminantly sensible, therefore it will never be accepted by the Political "Gun Gontrol" faction - simply because it doesn't say "guns are evil, "Ban them!" (nicely and incrementally if we must)...

Does it help that I'm a registered Democrat, and fully intend to fight like hell in the primaries against candidates who prefer more restrictive legislation? Not sure if it'd swing my vote in the general election, assuming that the anti-gun candidate won the primary (there are other issues, such as religious freedom, gay rights, or biology education that I consider more important), but it'd certainly put some weight against them.

alright, in this post you start of with the first two paragraphs on the right track. someone has insulted you in an idiotic manner. <snip>
I'm hurt. It was not an insult. I was attempting to be ironic. I know very well (odds-on anyway) that he personally was not a member of the IRA.

I didn't insult him until I called him a git. :D

Does it help that I'm a registered Democrat, and fully intend to fight like hell in the primaries against candidates who prefer more restrictive legislation? Not sure if it'd swing my vote in the general election, assuming that the anti-gun candidate won the primary (there are other issues, such as religious freedom, gay rights, or biology education that I consider more important), but it'd certainly put some weight against them.It doesn't hurt... but it sounds like you are more Libertarian than Democrat and vote the issues not the Party. I'm all for that.

(From IImperIIum of Man) Something that might amuse a great deal of you, and point out that the same arguments that a good many americans are making are falling short. (Since the topic has shifted to America not knowing, I figured that perhaps it would be pertinent to let the Irish guy see it. Since he lives here and all and has claimed that our country should be the same as his even though we're very simply not the same culture, of the same ideals, same population or land mass. The latter two, including the fact that we border Mexico, makes gun control immensely difficult.) <snip>
Actually, there are 40 to that list... I just don't have time to see which ones you missed...

Only thing I use a gun for is A.Paintball, but that's not a real gun so it doesn't count, and B. WWII reenacting, atm I don't own one personally, but I've ordered one. I also have several Civil War remade pistols, I don't shoot, I just keep them because they were a gift. Hopefully one day I'll be able to get a Sharpe's Carbine, Springfield Rifled Musket, and a Martini-Henry.

Random thugs that break into your house have far less political power than IRA y'know.


Perhaps in Ireland, but in Britain, one of the countries you quoted about earlier, the random thugs that break into your house have more rights than you do. That's a bit scary, that someone else has more rights in your home than you do. And a baseball bat would be considered a weapon in Britain for just such circumstances.

Actually, there are 40 to that list... I just don't have time to see which ones you missed...


Oh, really? I'd like to see them, when you find the time.

"This day will go down in History. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"

The above quote was said by that cute, friendly, cuddly teddy bear named Adolf Hitler. He supported gun control! He must be a good guy with strong moral values! After all, the civilians can't kill each other now!

I'm not all that libertarian. I also support national health care, for example (if you want to argue that one, start a separate thread! :) ), and I believe that most of the anti-tax advocacy groups are displaying an irrational hatred of government.

But I do support liberalization of the drug laws (not full legalization of everything, but at least pot for example). Again, separate thread. :)

But for chirs sake's, can none of you realise how much MORE of a problem guns are?

It's barbaric to let any old brain dead hick to own a gun.

Aren't you cute. :)

Personally I find it far more dangerous to let any old brain dead hick have free speech, but yet you are here and we allow it. So I'd like to keep my guns.

:sniper:

You seem to think that getting rid of the guns is the solution, but you are forgetting several important points:

A. Our Constitution says we get to have them. You wanna change that (legally) you have to get 3/4's of the population to change that. Or you can try to do it the way they are now by ignoring the part where it says, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be INFRINGED" and create enough regulation that it becomes difficult for people to have firearms because of the red-tape and regulation, even though they are technically legal.

B. Take away guns and the big guy or the biggest group wins. In an alley, three guys with sticks can kill you. In an alley with a gun, three guys with sticks will run from you. Since I happen to KNOW I'm a good guy, I'd like to continue to carry my gun to defend myself - and perhaps you. I am certain I won't be robbing anyone with it, so what's your beef with me having one? More to the point, why are you trying to take away my ability to protect myself?

C. I trust you to carry a gun, why don't you trust me?

D. To suggest getting rid of guns in America is an "I don't have to live in reality, I'm an idealist!" statement. The REALITY is that guns are here - hundreds of millions of them. You can - by definition - only take them away from law-abiding citizens. The criminals will keep theirs. So you are - in essence - saying, "let's disarm society, and leave only criminals and lawbreakers with guns." I have a problem or two with that plan...

E. People who don't trust others with guns are usually afraid because they don't trust themselves with guns and they are too arrogant to allow that other people might be more able than they are at something.

-Tom Steele
CWP Holder in SC and FL

"This day will go down in History. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"

The above quote was said by that cute, friendly, cuddly teddy bear named Adolf Hitler. He supported gun control! He must be a good guy with strong moral values! After all, the civilians can't kill each other now!

Um, no it wasn't.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcbogus.html

I'm guessing that as all of you condone the use of guns, you believe in the death sentece right?

And that has what to do with the other?

Only thing I use a gun for is A.Paintball, but that's not a real gun so it doesn't count, and B. WWII reenacting, atm I don't own one personally, but I've ordered one. I also have several Civil War remade pistols, I don't shoot, I just keep them because they were a gift. Hopefully one day I'll be able to get a Sharpe's Carbine, Springfield Rifled Musket, and a Martini-Henry.
IIRC Museum Replicas Limited was offering a bunch of Imperial British BP firearms found recently in India...

When the hell did I EVER suggest that clubbing was either neccessary or right?!
I never did, but you just go ahead and say it anyway.

You see to kill animals, what they do is put them to sleep (literally) and then slit their thorats while they sleep. (It's not perfect, but it far better than getting brains blown out).

And if they wake up???

but i want it :(

This is where we start to talk money. :D

So, you shoot him in the leg. He won't die immediately, but he can bleed to death.

Still haven't looked up that survival rate for a gunshot, have ya?

If you're going to continue to disbelieve what others say, the least you could do is find out for yourself.

"This day will go down in History. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"

The above quote was said by that cute, friendly, cuddly teddy bear named Adolf Hitler. He supported gun control! He must be a good guy with strong moral values! After all, the civilians can't kill each other now!
IIRC Unproven/disproven.

How many hard points are on the average attack camel?

It is surely easier to count the soft points. Camels are Mean! And they spit.

I support the right of ordinary people to use deadly weapons in self-defense; in the hypothetical TV-robber example, this doesn't extend to a robber who's just stealing the TV, but it does extend to a robber who, when confronted with the armed home-owner, does anything other than surrender or flee. (I don't support shooting a robber who flees while still carrying valuables - theft is not a capital offense.)

Well, that is pretty much the way the laws read in most of the States I travel in already. You can generally only use deadly force to combat deadly force. Most laws read that you have to REASONABLY (and that is usually a fairly strict legal term, that doesn't allow you to shoot someone on a whim) believe your life, or someone else's life, was in imminent danger.


However, I believe that limited gun-control legislation does not infringe on that. I do not see a compelling need for registration, but I do support licensing - basic competency tests, background checks (but not waiting periods - as soon as you get the license, you can go to a store and walk out with a gun, and you get the license as soon as you finish the test and the background check comes back).


Biggest problems with this are as follows:

1. Is the licensing reasonable. If it followed automobile licensing structure, I'd go for it. Automobiles kill about twice as many people each year in the U.S. as guns though, so maybe we are too footloose and fancy-free with that licensing?

2. It is very impractical. There are hundreds of millions of guns already out there. You will instantly create hundreds of millions of criminals if you enact this law. Many, many people will resist it. We can barely keep up with the unpractical and unreasonable war on drugs. A war on gun ownership would likely destroy the nation in one shot.


To prevent abuse of licensing, I would require anyone who wants to carry a gun to pass the same tests, background checks, etc. - even the police and military. This has the effect of ensuring that the tests won't be too restrictive, as the police and military would fight any licensing legislation that got in the way of their work.


I agree with this wholeheartedly. It is one of the reasons the Police Chiefs and such sometimes get on board with gun control laws. They know they won't be affected. Truth be known, law officers have a higher than average domestic violence record. Right now, in some States, they are exempt from laws that would prevent them from carrying after a conviction for domestic violence. If we ALL played by the same rules (Congressmen, Senators, their family and friends and body guards) then laws would be more carefully considered. When the lawmakers are exempt from the rules, then they can do what they want.

Not a bad discussion.

-Tom Steele

Um, no it wasn't.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcbogus.html

Good research! I'd always believed that quote was true.

However, the following is authentic:

The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.

-- Adolf Hitler (1889-1945), April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitlers Tischegesprache Im Fuhrerhauptquartier 1941-1942. [Hitler's Table-Talk at the Fuhrer's Headquarters 1941-1942], Dr. Henry Picker, ed. (Athenaum-Verlag, Bonn, 1951)

A related article: "Nazi Firearms Laws and the Disarming of the German Jews", by Stephen Halbroook

-Tom Steele

If you feel you need a gun to protect yourself, you must truly be weak inside.

Or sadistic or whatever.

I'll choose whatever. Hey, I support your right to come on here and spout nonsense. But PLEASE tell us WHY you believe statements like that so we can pick you apart. It's a pretty inflammatory statement, yet you provide not one whit of evidence or argument to support your position.

I believe a gun greatly equalizes me with a threat. I can potentially defend myself against a larger person, or group of persons than I would be able to without my gun. I have no desire to shoot anyone. I have never shot anyone. I am nearly 40 years old and have had Concealed Weapons Permits since the mid 1990's and I have never misused or abused my gun. I am not sadistic. I just want the ability to defend myself if I encounter someone who wishes me harm.

I'm don't consider myself weak on the inside, as you put it - but I am certain that I am weaker than many people - some of whom might wish me harm - on the outside. Why don't you think I should be able to defend myself from them?

-Tom Steele

So, you shoot him in the leg. He won't die immediately, but he can bleed to death.

If you're shooting at someone, chances are you get one or two aimed shots. Maybe three if you train hard and spend lots of cash on ammunition. Hitting a moving target in the leg is not easy. If you want to hit someone, you aim at what everyone who puts their lives on the line (cops, soldiers) are trained to aim at--center mass. You have a better chance of hitting, and a better chance of stopping even if it doesn't kill. Regardless of pain tollerance, its hard to do anything strenuous if you have a collapsed lung.

Why the hell do you want to hunt?!

Honest question: Do you not see a trend in that you seem to like to tell other people what to do?

WHY do you care if someone wants to hunt? I have a 12-gauge shotgun by my bed for protection at night. I keep a .40 semi-auto on my person most times for personal protection. I have a .45 semi-auto in a lock box in the closet. I used to keep it by the bed until I got the shotgun. I don't hunt. Don't care for it, don't see the need for it.

But damn if I'm gonna tell someone else that they can't because I don't like it.

I realize that I am a die-hard libertarian. But what exactly about you makes you want to tell everyone else what to do? Let's skip the typical gun control wars for a second.

Why do you want to tell everyone else what they can and cannot do?

Sincerely curious.

-Tom Steele

My own take on gun licenses, written "back in the day..." and published in the local paper.

License & Registration Please?

Perhaps it's time to call their bluff.

In his state of disunion show President Clinton, that famous duck hunter, once again voiced the anti-gun mantra of "why don't we treat guns like cars..." and this time I think we in the pro gun community should take heed. I mean this only half factiously. Really.

The President has said, "Should people ought to have to register guns like they register their cars? Do I think that? Of Course I do...", and this time proposed a national “drivers license” (picture ID and all) for gun owners.
Hello! We have been given an absolutely splendid opportunity to stand up to the anti-freedom crowd and CALL THEIR BLUFF. We should take them up on their leader's offer (especially since it will only get shot down – by their side no less) and show the world once and for all how meaningless (and un-thought-out) their anti-gun talking points are.

Let's look at their "Guns = Cars" proposal not as another rights infringement, but (potentially) as a liberalization of the already oppressive gun control system and turn it back in their face. How so? Examine what Driver's licensing & vehicle registration truly entails.

Drivers Licenses.
1: Drivers Licenses are Shall Issue permits with universal reciprocity, requiring only a basic knowledge of safe handling and use regulations.
2: Licenses are NOT required for purchase of a vehicle.
3: Licenses are NOT required for off (public) road use, i.e. agricultural use (farms/farm roads), racetracks, private land, USFS/BIA/BLM dirt trails etc.
4: Drivers education / auto safety classes are MANDATORY in many public school districts.

Vehicle Registration:
1: Registration of a motor vehicle is NOT required unless said vehicle is to be USED on public roads. Custom/show cars, racecars, farm equipment, antiques are exempt unless they are to be commonly USED on public roadways. If I am towing a '32 roadster (or ’99 dragster) through town, I cannot be cited for its' lack of registration.
2: Registration of vehicles exceeding "fleet" quantities is not required. I may maintain as many unregistered vehicles on my private property as I desire (provided they do not constitute an "eyesore" or some such other visibly property-devaluing neighborhood gripe.)
3: Registration and extra taxation of High Performance vehicles is NOT required, unless they are to be used on public roads. A 13,000 hp Pratt & Whitney Jet Car (which has no "practical" or "sporting" use) may be owned and kept, unregistered, alongside a VW powered off-road-only dune buggy, and used in non-public spaces with impunity.

Law enforcement of DMV rules:
As we know, there are literally thousands of people out there driving without a license. The only time they get punished is if they are caught violating some other driving law (i.e. causing harm to or endangering another’s person or property). Vehicle registration is somewhat easier to spot, as registration is denoted by a sticker of some sort, visible while the vehicle is in use. (Someone sees you use it without a tag, you get a ticket.)
This is all well understood and simple enough, so, let's apply this exact legal paradigm to guns, on a national level, as the panderer in chief (and others) say they want.

“Gun” Licenses: Gun owners would "get":
1: A genuinely nationally reciprocal, truly "shall-issue" concealed carry license. Now, while everyone hates DoL and the Licensing dept., you can't say they just arbitrarily deny licenses (as some "authorizing agencies" for CCW permits have done.) Only a basic knowledge of safe handling and use regulations would be required.
2: Licenses would NOT be required for purchase of a gun.
3: Licenses would NOT be required for non-urban public land use, i.e. agricultural use (hunting/varmint control), ranges, private land, USFS/BIA/BLM hunting areas etc.
4: True gun safety could be taught in schools, not just anti-gun rhetoric.

“Registration” DMV style… Gun owners would “get”:
1: A Licensing & registration system that is useful (to the government) only after the fact, i.e. after the shooting stops (ignoring for the moment the fact of door-to-door tracking and confiscation – see California and NYC).
Registration of a firearm would NOT be required unless said firearm is to be USED in a public place. Custom/show guns, race-guns, long-arms or side arms, antiques, etc would be exempt unless they are to be commonly USED in public.
2: A DMV style registration system would deny “arsenal” registration rhetoric just as it currently does not apply to off-road “fleets”.
3: Removal of the National Firearms Act (1934) provisions against Class III (high performance/ specialized) weapons. If guns were to be treated as cars, the substantial similarity rules would apply. Just as "High Performance" or specialty vehicles are not restricted, except in their place of use (not on public roads), neither then could the law be justified in restricting the possession of "high performance" (Class III) firearms.

Law Enforcement:
Like Cars, so Guns. It can be truthfully stated that a gun in my possession, regardless of type, in a public place, is NOT being USED, only carried (much like towing a dragster), and therefore it need not be registered nor I licensed. However, should I use that firearm in said public place without License and Registration, I may be subject to penalty upon the assured following inquest … (to be judged by twelve) … perhaps.

Herein we see another potential benefit to "DMV style" gun laws... the principle of reasonable justification and good-Samaritan laws. I may speed, drive an unregistered car, drive without a license, etc in the commission of a life saving act. Judges and juries routinely throw out charges (if charges are even filed) of "rule violation" in such cases. Similar dismissals have obtained (and will continue to obtain) for many “rule violations” of current gun laws. Criminals would obviously receive no such benefit.

Admittedly, this “DMV-ing” argument plays into the Rights vs. Privileges debate, however, it has similarly been argued (with some precedent setting success) that motor vehicle ownership has grown from a privilege to a Right within today's society. (If motor vehicle ownership is now a Right (guaranteed nowhere) then how much more so is gun ownership?)

A dose of Reality:
You and I know that my “best-case” writing of a “motor-vehicle” style of registration & licensing scheme would never be allowed, for precisely the benefits I’ve mentioned. That’s probably a good thing. A Right regulated is a Right denied. (There are NO (non-federal) firearm possession/carry restrictions for the law abiding in Vermont. Theirs is a true right to bear arms.) But it sure would be fun to throw it in the face of the anti-gun establishment and watch them be forced to dump one of their longest standing talking points.

Oh well. Fight the good fight & keep your powder dry.

(Syniks) student, philosopher, political analyst …and armed.

Yeah, but guns would then be actively looked for by the police, there would be a gigantic reduction in the amount of guns availabe.

Well, lets try that theory out. Here in Chicago, it has been pretty much illegal to own a handgun for 23 years. The police engage in buyback programs buying guns off the street for $500 a pice, no questions asked. Any handguns collected are melted down, etc. Guess what, not a dent.

I honestly find it hilarious that you immediately think that I'm part of the IRA.

That makes absolutely no sense, because you see, they USE guns.

Honestly most of you americans no absolutely nothing about any other countries, you just use the sensationalist stories you see on Fox news to create your own little picture of the country.

Fox news has been around for what, three years? I personally dislike the channel because its filled with talkshows that generally do little other than lower the level of public discourse.

Northern Ireland gets alot of airtime, especially in America, because alot of people care about it. There are alot of Irish in the States, and I can name a half dozen bars in Chicago that cator almost exclusively to Irish expats that hold fundraisers once a month for IRA outlets. Americans care about the situation in Ireland because alot of us see a bit of our past in the conflict. I never assumed you were IRA. Hell, I didn't even think you were from the north, if you were, you'd at least know a bit about how guns work and what their actual effects are.

What have guns done for me? Apart from the continuing struggle of freeing my land they help me kill rodents..ie, brits

I'm going on the basis of many, many americans I've seen in real life, the news, just about everything to be honest.

Okay, tell me one thing about the Irish political system then.


It's had a good view of it's own ankles since the Tudors and only a handful have had the will to try to change that.

I'm going on the basis of many, many americans I've seen in real life, the news, just about everything to be honest.

Okay, tell me one thing about the Irish political system then.

One bit, economically:

You cut taxes and some programs back in '96, which caused a tremendous rise in your GDP of over 7% in the last 9 years.

Ah, it's a gun control thread. Yummy!

Rather than let the pro-gunners play target-practice with "Science and Arts" (an exercise akin to shooting fish in a barrel), let's see who's interested in taking aim at my position!


I support the right of ordinary people to use deadly weapons in self-defense; in the hypothetical TV-robber example, this doesn't extend to a robber who's just stealing the TV, but it does extend to a robber who, when confronted with the armed home-owner, does anything other than surrender or flee. (I don't support shooting a robber who flees while still carrying valuables - theft is not a capital offense.)
However, I believe that limited gun-control legislation does not infringe on that. I do not see a compelling need for registration, but I do support licensing - basic competency tests, background checks (but not waiting periods - as soon as you get the license, you can go to a store and walk out with a gun, and you get the license as soon as you finish the test and the background check comes back).
To prevent abuse of licensing, I would require anyone who wants to carry a gun to pass the same tests, background checks, etc. - even the police and military. This has the effect of ensuring that the tests won't be too restrictive, as the police and military would fight any licensing legislation that got in the way of their work.


Flame on!


I agree with you with only a few small quibbles. First weapons cannot be lumped into one group, you do not need military proficiency to use a shotgun. Second, I do not think that citizens who defend themselves in a dangerous situation should have to worry about being second guessed. If you are in your own home, you have the right to kill if the intruder refuses to comply with orders to surrender. If you are outside of your own home, then we can look to Florida's new statute. All in all, yours is one of the more well-thought out stance I've seen in quite some time.

I was wondering about guns in the game. In real life Guns have been significant to me. Ive been robbed at gun point, my friends live in areas where gun fights happen every week, I think guns are a very serious issue in the states. why do you think they have the highest homicide numbers in the world??

It's not because of the guns, I'll tell you that much. It's the society.

If you feel you need a gun to protect yourself, you must truly be weak inside.
Funny, no. I'm weak on the outside. That's why I'm considering obtaining a weapon.
It has been said before that guns are the great equalizer(or something of the sort, I forget exactly what), and that is a statement I agree with.

Ah, it's a gun control thread. Yummy!

Rather than let the pro-gunners play target-practice with "Science and Arts" (an exercise akin to shooting fish in a barrel), let's see who's interested in taking aim at my position!


I support the right of ordinary people to use deadly weapons in self-defense; in the hypothetical TV-robber example, this doesn't extend to a robber who's just stealing the TV, but it does extend to a robber who, when confronted with the armed home-owner, does anything other than surrender or flee. (I don't support shooting a robber who flees while still carrying valuables - theft is not a capital offense.)
However, I believe that limited gun-control legislation does not infringe on that. I do not see a compelling need for registration, but I do support licensing - basic competency tests, background checks (but not waiting periods - as soon as you get the license, you can go to a store and walk out with a gun, and you get the license as soon as you finish the test and the background check comes back).
To prevent abuse of licensing, I would require anyone who wants to carry a gun to pass the same tests, background checks, etc. - even the police and military. This has the effect of ensuring that the tests won't be too restrictive, as the police and military would fight any licensing legislation that got in the way of their work.


Flame on!

Having the same licensing for the military and civilians is a mistake. A person with a criminal record can enter the military and allowed to carry weapons(I am comfortable with this). A civillian with a criminal record should not be allowed to purchase/own firearms, which they would be able to do if there was a similar standard.

Either that or criminals would be barred from the military. I think military service is a good thing for criminals. The military provides a means of gaining discipline and self respect along with a career and a means of developing job skills. All in all probably the best way to reform a criminal, I would not like to see this practice stopped.

Otherwise I agree with your post.

I agree with you with only a few small quibbles. First weapons cannot be lumped into one group, you do not need military proficiency to use a shotgun. Second, I do not think that citizens who defend themselves in a dangerous situation should have to worry about being second guessed. If you are in your own home, you have the right to kill if the intruder refuses to comply with orders to surrender. If you are outside of your own home, then we can look to Florida's new statute. All in all, yours is one of the more well-thought out stance I've seen in quite some time.

On point 1, a long-barreled shotgun would only require minimum licensing standards (do you know which end the bullets come out of? Do you know the basicmost basics of firearms law?) - which should be dead simple for anyone in the police military to pass, and reasonable for ordinary people to pass. As for higher-powered military weapons - well, I'm not at all sure that the assault-weapons ban is a worthwhile idea anyway, but I do support restrictions on the ownership of military personal weapons - more stringent background checks and the like. But see my response to Isanyonehome below.

On point 2, the exact details can be argued - my principle is that you should be within your rights to defend yourself with deadly force if you are in reasonable fear for your life or the life of your family, but not if only your property is at risk. I'm also open to a reasonably wide definition of what's reasonable (fleeing, I'm willing to acknowledge, is kind of iffy, as the robber may simply be seeking a more defensible position to fire back from).

Having the same licensing for the military and civilians is a mistake. A person with a criminal record can enter the military and allowed to carry weapons(I am comfortable with this). A civillian with a criminal record should not be allowed to purchase/own firearms, which they would be able to do if there was a similar standard.

Either that or criminals would be barred from the military. I think military service is a good thing for criminals. The military provides a means of gaining discipline and self respect along with a career and a means of developing job skills. All in all probably the best way to reform a criminal, I would not like to see this practice stopped.

Otherwise I agree with your post.

Interesting thought. Now, it is possible to for a convicted felon to petition to have the right to keep and bear arms restored, although the process is pretty cumbersome. I do think that a convicted felon who's dedicated enough to self-reform to join the military ought to be a good candidate for having their civil rights restored - but perhaps it still makes sense to maintain a distinction (or perhaps someone who joins the military may be eligible to have their right to keep and bear arms restored only for the purpose of military service).

Oh, really? I'd like to see them, when you find the time.
Posted back on ImperiumII's thread.

Funny, no. I'm weak on the outside. That's why I'm considering obtaining a weapon.
It has been said before that guns are the great equalizer(or something of the sort, I forget exactly what), and that is a statement I agree with.

You've come a long way, Baby... (smack! OW!, ok, ok, I didn't mean it....) :p

Welcome (almost) to the club. We RKBA-ers have been trying to explain all of this to the people of Female for a while, and they are finally starting to get it.

The quote you are looking for was a bit of Ad copy from the Colt manufacturing company from the late 1800s. (IIRC) "Be not afraid of any man, no matter what his size, just call on me in time of need and I will equalize."

Hook up with a local Women's NRA group and have them lead you through the paces. See if gun ownership is realy a responsibility you want to take on, then Go For It!


"Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who kept their swords." -Benjamin Franklin

So I guess people trying to live a healthy life, with some sort of faith is bad in your opinion? What about living your life with good morals? Catholic values have no place? Look how great thats working out here in the states. No religion, but do what you feel is your opinion is good and do what you want. Didnt you notice that when people are a lot more religious, people tend to act more decently than without it? (Not to drag on any non-religious people here)
1. who said that?
2. sounds good to me no one said their is anything wrong with that
3. they have little place. im assuming she means that they are being imposed on society less. this is a good thing
4. looks pretty good to me
5. ok, whats wrong with that
6. thats a generalization impossible to support. i have noticed no such thing. in fact, ive noticed the exact oppossite. i see people protesting abortion trying to impose their morals, i see christians outlawing sodomy because the bible said so, i see christians banning gay marriage (but may have ended :) ) because god said so, i see "faith based initiatives" supported by my tax dollars, i see idiots in Kentucky trying to pass creationism off as an accepted scientific theory, but for some reason i don't see any morals being imposed on me by atheists...

This is where we start to talk money. :D
damn you and your free market.

Guns? I guess alot of tv programs would be quite boring if the actors weren't pretending to shoot at each other once in a while...

I like guns, they often let me borrow their cars. Of course the people in the cars at the time generally complain that they own the cars, but then I logically and patiently let them see the gun in question and explain that the gun has allowed me to borrow his car. They generally realize the soundness of my argument then, and I get to drive Mr. Gun's car until it runs out of gas. Then we run away and laugh and laugh.

What have guns ever done for me?

Nothing. Absolutely, totally nothing.

I've never ever seen a gun (outside a movie), I've never touched a gun, let alone fired one, I was never threatened by one, I don't know a single person who owns one.
And I'm really happy about that, too.

I guess that's one of the major differences between Europe and the United States. Few people have guns here, and even fewer need them.

damn you and your free market.

Well, it's better than working your tail off, watching others sit around, and still having to give everything to the government.

Ah well.

I'll stick with the free market. :)

What have guns ever done for me?

Nothing. Absolutely, totally nothing.

I've never ever seen a gun (outside a movie), I've never touched a gun, let alone fired one, I was never threatened by one, I don't know a single person who owns one.
And I'm really happy about that, too.

I guess that's one of the major differences between Europe and the United States. Few people have guns here, and even fewer need them.

I guess that's why the 104 women I've helped to carry guns aren't beaten by their ex-husbands anymore. And why women in your country continue to die by being beaten to death. Here, women who don't take my advice continue to die.

Happens in every country - domestic abuse knows no boundaries and the weapon of choice for domestic abuse is the fist.

Well, lets try that theory out. Here in Chicago, it has been pretty much illegal to own a handgun for 23 years. The police engage in buyback programs buying guns off the street for $500 a pice, no questions asked. Any handguns collected are melted down, etc. Guess what, not a dent.
Well Discord, if you are into black powder at all, you can catch the South Shore (or take 94) into Michigan City early (before 9am) on the 1st sunday of each month and I'll drag you to a Black Powder shoot...

I have this very interesting .50 pistol... :D

(You can Telegram or email me from the link under my name and we'll hook up.)

Actually, as they are inanimate objects, they have done nothing for me, however, the possession of same has both defended my life from criminal assault and led to my missing the 1st Gulf War by 30 minutes.

Yes, I MISSED (or it missed me) Desert Shield/Storm by 30 minutes because I, an artillery grunt, legally had guns.

[ snippage ]

So never let it be said that the possession of firearms has not led to a Liberal-approved outcome (i.e. missing a War)... ;)

--------------------
Edit: Ok, Ok, I forgot "fun" (hunting/targets/competitions). I figured that was a given... :p
What have guns done for me? Saved my butt any number of times! :)

What have guns done for me? Saved my butt any number of times! :)
That was kind of the point I was making. There are many and varied ways simply owning a gun can have a salutory effect. While I would have certainly done my job, and only whined the requisite amount allotted to grunts, I was certainly glad to miss the Gulf. Not because it was combat, but I prefer my Suckage to be bitter cold rather than Blistering hot. (Of course, I proceeded to spend the next winter in a GP Small or a snow-trench at the NWTC at -70dF.) But in that respect, my butt was "saved" (from the horrors of SP Artillery combat :rolleyes: ) because I had personally owned firearms.

(Be glad I didn't go Legs... I was a "special weapons" tech when I wasn't VIP escorting my Liaison officer...)

That was kind of the point I was making. There are many and varied ways simply owning a gun can have a salutory effect. While I would have certainly done my job, and only whined the requisite amount allotted to grunts, I was certainly glad to miss the Gulf. Not because it was combat, but I prefer my Suckage to be bitter cold rather than Blistering hot. (Of course, I proceeded to spend the next winter in a GP Small or a snow-trench at the NWTC at -70dF.) But in that respect, my butt was "saved" (from the horrors of SP Artillery combat :rolleyes: ) because I had personally owned firearms.

(Be glad I didn't go Legs... I was a "special weapons" tech when I wasn't VIP escorting my Liaison officer...)
You REMF! :D

You REMF! :D
It's ok. He didn't really miss anything, as even the combat in the 1991 Gulf War wasn't even a sporting proposition.

I stopped shooting at them after a while - even when they shot at me, because they were doing ridiculous things like standing up in the open several hundred yards away firing from the hip. Other people shot them down, but I got tired of it, as they were completely unable to hit any of us.

And that was when they shot at us. Most of the time, they ran or gave up. Lot of rifles there only dropped once.

You REMF! :D
Oh yeah? Just see what happens the next time YOU call back to the firebase for support... pthplbth!

(Hey FDC... plot the next one "danger close" for me OK?...)

It's ok. He didn't really miss anything, as even the combat in the 1991 Gulf War wasn't even a sporting proposition.

I stopped shooting at them after a while - even when they shot at me, because they were doing ridiculous things like standing up in the open several hundred yards away firing from the hip. Other people shot them down, but I got tired of it, as they were completely unable to hit any of us.

And that was when they shot at us. Most of the time, they ran or gave up. Lot of rifles there only dropped once.
So I heard. You do realize I was kidding with him, yes? :)

Oh yeah? Just see what happens the next time YOU call back to the firebase for support... pthplbth!

(Hey FDC... plot the next one "danger close" for me OK?...)
Hehehe! ( shrug ) I've called in fire on my own position more than once ... still here! :D

Hehehe! ( shrug ) I've called in fire on my own position more than once ... still here! :D

If you've learned that a decent amount of overhead cover is a valuable insurance policy, you can appear to have a big set of balls when you call for fire on your own position.

If you've learned that a decent amount of overhead cover is a valuable insurance policy, you can appear to have a big set of balls when you call for fire on your own position.
Yeah, but remember, if I'm involved in the shot, "Danger Close" is about 1.5km.... if you are dug in... or you like permenant sunburn.

8" guns are fun that way. :p

If you've learned that a decent amount of overhead cover is a valuable insurance policy, you can appear to have a big set of balls when you call for fire on your own position.
Son, I don't need to call fire in on my own position to know I've got a big set. :D

Yeah, but remember, if I'm involved in the shot, "Danger Close" is about 1.5km.... if you are dug in... or you like permenant sunburn.

8" guns are fun that way. :p
I know. 8" rocks! :D

I know. 8" rocks! :D
I was always more afraid of tac air.

What have guns done for me?

Nothing.

I much prefer my trusty AK-97 rechargable ionizer...... ;)

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

Is that a WASTELAND reference?!? :eek: