NationStates Jolt Archive

I know. 8" rocks! :D
I had to FO for a while at Grafenwoehr. I got so I could get FDC & the Guns to hit (not just hit close to) almost anything I wanted in the impact area. (Edit: that, and I figured out how to play chess with the FDC guys via VFMED.)

I never had a battery Capitan so mad at me as when I did a call for fire and (intentionally) destroyed the target on the first "bracket" round.

(Of course, that's not quite so important with ICM or "specials"...)

I did, however, have one battery shoot out and drop an HE about 200m down-slope from my OP. I gave the (outgoing) battery commander the 7"x4" piece of shell casing I removed from a tree above my cot.

My Baby (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m-110a2-dvic498.jpg)

Charge 9 Red Bag... go get me some new equilibrators guys....

Here's what firearms has done for me...

My brother is 16 years my senior. Married and gone to Houston, Texas before I reached Kindergarten. Four years ago he moved back to Arkansas. We started talking guns one day. Virtually the only thing we had in common was an interest in shooting. For the first time in my life I know my big brother from us shooting together, eating out afterwards and teaching each other.

Feel safer. Three meth sellers in our neighborhood went to prison because of my minimal involvement. Knowing I and my wife have the ability to kill them if they try to harm my family makes it easier to take stands against them.

I had to FO for a while at Grafenwoehr. I got so I could get FDC & the Guns to hit (not just hit close to) almost anything I wanted in the impact area. (Edit: that, and I figured out how to play chess with the FDC guys via VFMED.)

I never had a battery Capitan so mad at me as when I did a call for fire and (intentionally) destroyed the target on the first "bracket" round.

(Of course, that's not quite so important with ICM or "specials"...)

I did, however, have one battery shoot out and drop an HE about 200m down-slope from my OP. I gave the (outgoing) battery commander the 7"x4" piece of shell casing I removed from a tree above my cot.

My Baby (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m-110a2-dvic498.jpg)

Charge 9 Red Bag... go get me some new equilibrators guys....

I knew a Captain Luedtke who showed me a picture from when he was an LT. It was a pic of an 8 inch that had the round detonate in the barrel before it went downrange.

About 2/3 of the barrel disintegrated. The gun chief had to be put out of the service on a medical because it shook him up so bad - but no one got a scratch.

I knew a Captain Luedtke who showed me a picture from when he was an LT. It was a pic of an 8 inch that had the round detonate in the barrel before it went downrange. About 2/3 of the barrel disintegrated. The gun chief had to be put out of the service on a medical because it shook him up so bad - but no one got a scratch.Bad VT fuse?

Plugged tube & PD fuse (who was checking the bore!?)?

I'm not disputing it, but JEEZ, the number of things that would have to go wrong for that to happen is phenominal.

Bad VT fuse?

Plugged tube & PD fuse (who was checking the bore!?)?

I'm not disputing it, but JEEZ, the number of things that would have to go wrong for that to happen is phenominal.

I didn't believe it until he showed me the photo. Apparently, it didn't faze him in the least - he said that those things "just happen".

I could tell you the story about how a 105 battery set up 180 degrees off and fired a spotting round into downtown Clarksville and destroyed the McDonalds at 2 AM.

I remember hearing the "shot out" and then minutes went by before I heard a panicked, "check fire, check fire".

I can't for the life of me figure out how someone can set up a gun line and not know (and have no one say) that "we're not pointed towards the North Impact Area, so something's wrong".

it lacks the metal capacity to stop terrorism.

.............................
If you're talking about the whole, middle eastern terrorism stereotype, then that has absolutely nothing to do with Ireland.

If you're talking about northern Ireland, then you have to realise that it just can't be solved so simply.

The IRA are absolutely mad, but as I said they have quite a bit of power and support.

They're not just gonna wade in, all guns blazing and kill them all.

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)

Surely it's best to have a sense of morals due to a sense of empathy, rather being God-fearing?

Here's what firearms has done for me...

My brother is 16 years my senior. Married and gone to Houston, Texas before I reached Kindergarten. Four years ago he moved back to Arkansas. We started talking guns one day. Virtually the only thing we had in common was an interest in shooting. For the first time in my life I know my big brother from us shooting together, eating out afterwards and teaching each other.

Feel safer. Three meth sellers in our neighborhood went to prison because of my minimal involvement. Knowing I and my wife have the ability to kill them if they try to harm my family makes it easier to take stands against them.

But jesus christ! So if they tried to attack you, you'd rather kill them, then have them incarcirated?!

I also amazed that people are more afraid of drugs that guns! It's ridiculous, drugs have the power to blow your mind, but guns have the power to blow your mind out of your skull.

And by the way, I haven't ever used, or intend to use drugs.

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).

Understandable. As far as "higher-powered military weapons" (or assault weapons) thats kind of a misnomer. An AR-15 (the civilian model of the M-16) is actually less powerful than most hunting rifles. Really, assault weapons are not defined by any specific functionality, but by appearance. Real military grade weapons (Class III weapons which include machine guns and artillery) are only legal in a handful of states and have some very stringent checks on them. You have to have a liscense through your state, then pay a $200 tax to the feds, then actually find someone to sell you one, then register the weapon with BATF. At every step there is a background check, and you are likely to have life-long attention from the feds.

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

Or sadistic or whatever.

Call me weak, call me sadistic, but you won't call me "victim". And nobody will call me "D.O.A.", either.

Women and the Elderly have the most to benefit from firearms. But even a large, aggressive and healthy male like myself is weak compared to a gang who assaults me or simply a larger, more aggressive person. And my size is meaningless when faced with weapons! Even a small child could cut me or shoot me in a fight.

I'm not sure if all you anti-gun people are under the mistaken impression that you cannot lose a street-fight or if you simply believe "it can't happen to me."

However, the facts are this: Most career violent felons (there are THOUSANDS of them) are in excellent physical condition due to prison workouts and the manual labor that comes from drifting from job-to-job. They are also usually experienced street fighters and will improvise weaponry. They are often under the influence of alcohol or other drugs, reducing both their inhibitions and possibly their pain sensations.

If you are the average US Liberal or "Thenthitive" European, they are going to tear through you like a hammer through wet tissue paper. You will be "owned".

How do I know? I'm a Jail Gaurd. If I had one dollar for every Pacifist but Hard-Ass Submission Wrestler or Un-Certified Criminal Psychology Expert that told me I didn't NEED a gun, I wouldn't still be working at my jail! I'd be living well in the Caymans. :)

You cannot always talk a violent predator down. You cannot always deploy cheesy and hard-to-apply joint locks, submission holds or magic feng-shui pressure points against these guys in a fight. A cop must try to de-escalate and reduce the violence, to make arrests with a minimum of bloodshed, but an attack victim's only goal should be to SURVIVE.

If you are attacked, it is because you were found to be incapable (in their estimation) of defending yourself. The only surefire way to avoid being hurt is to produce a ranged deadly weapon and skillfully use it if necessary. (Although 99 times out of 100 they will run like little schoolgirls.)

I am not armed with a gun in my facility. And occasionally, I go TOE-TO-TOE, MANO-A-MANO with some of the worst, most violent offenders. I know how to fight, and I am a giant of a man. I am 6'6" and 350 lbs of heavy muscle and fat (I'm no olympic runner, but people do compare me to Grizzlies on occasion). I have a high pain tolerance and lots of training. And sometimes I lose.

Sometimes, unbelievably enough, somebody gets the upper hand and I need help. Sometimes, shocking though it may be, I am NOT ABLE to "talk down", "reason" or "visually intimidate" a violent felon. Sometimes, and always at THEIR discretion, I am forced to fight.

While I am well-insured on-duty and off, I am no fool and have no intention of dying for my badge. In the unit, I have my backup Officers. But when I roll along on the streets, I also have backup in the form of a 10mm Glock Pistol.

It says, "Bad Doggie. No biscuit. Go Away." It has kept me safe before and will do so again. Yes, I have drawn it three times off-duty, but never had to fire it, thankfully. (I am not bloodthirsty, but I won't allow myself or my family to be victimized so you anti-gunners can sleep better at night.)

I am a Law Enforcement Officer, so many of you Europeans might think this is fine- Cops SHOULD have guns, right? Wrong.

Everybody should have guns.

Me and my partners who work the streets cannot be everywhere at once. The innocent public respects the badge, but the violent criminals only respect the gun. When they see one appear (a gun, not a badge), they flee for easier prey.

Prospective gunowners need to get educated about the following issues:

1) BASIC SAFETY. SO, SO, SO Critical. The anti-gun movement takes every accident, every time, and creates armaggeddon out of it. Especially where children are concerned. Just like pool drownings, accidents with guns are AVOIDABLE. Rules are as follows- "Keep your finger off the trigger unless you want to kill" --- "The gun is ALWAYS loaded, even if you just unloaded it" --- "Never, ever point it at anyone or anything you don't want to kill" ---
These are the three basic safety rules, but more definately come into play.

2) THE LAW. When can you justifiably take the life of another person? In my State, I can kill with legal protection if I reasonably and immediately fear for my life or the lives of my family and friends. Your laws may be different. In Europe, the governments usually reserve the right to take life for themselves and their agents only.

3) THE SKILLS. Gun Control is keeping your bullets on the target. You need realistic, scenario-based training and education about real-life shootouts and violence. You need a certain level of proficiency so that, in the unlikely event that you do have to shoot, you hit the target and only the target. This training is inexpensive and widely available to people in the USA. In Europe, you'll have to pay dearly for it and might pay more dearly if you use it. And, if you visit me in the South-Western USA and want it, I'll train you for free. :)

Nobody wants to hand out pistols to children and/or irresponsible and untrained adults. But for those willing to undergo a littly scrutiny (basic background check), a little training (a day or two of classroom and another day or two of range/scenario experience) and a little bit of FUN, guns are a safe and lawful (in the USA) hobby that can double as a source of food or self-defense, as well as a legitimate sport.

I am not a Felon and I won't be treated like one. You cannot take my Rights away BEFORE I make a mistake, because we are all INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. I am a safe and responsible gun owner who is willing to expend my time and energy and money to ensure a future for self-defensive pistol use and civilian concealed-carry, in accordance with the Constitution and the laws of the USA.

My goal is this: The Bad Guys Lose, the Good Guys Win. Be safe out there, it's a big, dangerous world.

(P.S.- Just a disclaimer, I do not speak for my agency in an official capacity, my opinions are my own. I am off-duty and referencing my knowledge of the law and my personal experiences from my job in that capacity. Thanks.)

Nice statement... but I think at one point, you should have included that this is only the case in some countries, including the USA.

I live in Europe, and as I said before, I've never seen nor touched a gun in my life. And neither has anybody I know. Nobody of my friends, family, colleagues and aquaintances have ever been attacked in their life, nobody ever felt the need to protect themselves by owning a gun.

I've been reading a number of threads on this topic, and from what I gathered, the society in the United States seems to be a lot more inclined towards violence than societies in Europe.
And I live in a country where the police generally DON'T carry firearms..

Nice statement... but I think at one point, you should have included that this is only the case in some countries, including the USA.

I live in Europe, and as I said before, I've never seen nor touched a gun in my life. And neither has anybody I know. Nobody of my friends, family, colleagues and aquaintances have ever been attacked in their life, nobody ever felt the need to protect themselves by owning a gun.

I've been reading a number of threads on this topic, and from what I gathered, the society in the United States seems to be a lot more inclined towards violence than societies in Europe.
And I live in a country where the police generally DON'T carry firearms..

And people aren't generally told to panic at all times by their government.

And people aren't generally told to panic at all times by their government.

And drugs aren't regarded as the devil incarnate... and media aren't scaring people out of their mind on a daily basis... :)

And drugs aren't regarded as the devil incarnate... and media aren't scaring people out of their mind on a daily basis... :)

Thus is the power of the us government.

There would be little debate if the individuals who don't feel endangered would not attempt to disarm those who do. In the US firearms are pro-choice. Ownership is not mandatory.

Nice statement... but I think at one point, you should have included that this is only the case in some countries, including the USA.

I live in Europe, and as I said before, I've never seen nor touched a gun in my life. And neither has anybody I know. Nobody of my friends, family, colleagues and aquaintances have ever been attacked in their life, nobody ever felt the need to protect themselves by owning a gun.

I've been reading a number of threads on this topic, and from what I gathered, the society in the United States seems to be a lot more inclined towards violence than societies in Europe.
And I live in a country where the police generally DON'T carry firearms..

True. You British guys go "old school":
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8941178&postcount=1

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...



What kind of Black Powder shooting do you do?


About 90% of my recreation involves guns. I shoot a match just about every weekend of every month. Some weekends I shoot both Saturday and Sunday. During the week I dry fire practice. I have met tons of great people from all over the country who participate in the sport. Many, many of those people are as close to me as family now.


I've spent a lot of time around guns since before I was even old enough to shoot. My grandfather used to take me to turkey shoots with him when I was just a wee thing. My brother and I used to spend hours plinking with our BB guns and then later when we both got older we put many, many rounds downrange together.

Guns have and always will be a large part of my life but you can't look at me and tell that and unless the subject comes up inadvertantly you can't talk to me and tell that. :D That is unless you happen to catch me at the range.

True. You British guys go "old school":
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8941178&postcount=1

Wrong, I'm afraid. I live in the Republic of Ireland...

There would be little debate if the individuals who don't feel endangered would not attempt to disarm those who do. In the US firearms are pro-choice. Ownership is not mandatory.

As I said, in this country, not even the police carry guns, and I'm grateful for that. I would feel threatened if I knew that my crazy neighbour might own guns....

As for disarming people, you are allowed to own guns in this country, they are not outlawed. But you will have to prove that you are capable of dealing with a gun in a responsible way and you will have to state what you need it for.

My dad once shot a viking in our backyard...He would have plundered our house if my dad hadn't owned a "Teh MegaVikingStopper2000" hunting rifle.

Wrong, I'm afraid. I live in the Republic of Ireland...

Ah! You keep all your gun enthusiasts in the North... all the shooting statistics go to the other country. Clever!! ;)

Ah! You keep all your gun enthusiasts in the North... all the shooting statistics go to the other country. Clever!! ;)

that's why I decided to move to Dublin, not to Belfast ;)

What kind of Black Powder shooting do you do?

Mostly Semi-modern. I have a stainless Ruger Old Army .45 Cap & Ball, a 40year old H&R .45 inline. a .50 barrel for my Mossberg 500 and a Traditions "Buckhunter" 12" pistol in .50.

Most of the people here in the group are traditionalists though...

Ah! You keep all your gun enthusiasts in the North... all the shooting statistics go to the other country. Clever!! ;)

Guns are of course illegal in northern Ireland of course.

Guns are of course illegal in northern Ireland of course.

Aha! So no one ever gets shot in Northern Ireland then, yeah? :D

As I have said too many times, just about every single shooting involves the IRA. And as I have said they illegally own weapons. And they mostly shoot themselves anyway.

As I have said too many times, just about every single shooting involves the IRA. And as I have said they illegally own weapons. And they mostly shoot themselves anyway.

Kinda sounds like the drug/gang related murders here in the US--mostly performed by criminals on criminals.

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

and who do you suggest starts?

Guns are of course illegal in northern Ireland of course.

Yes, passing gun control laws guarantees that both law-abiding citizens and criminals will simply hand over their weapons...

Mostly Semi-modern. I have a stainless Ruger Old Army .45 Cap & Ball, a 40year old H&R .45 inline. a .50 barrel for my Mossberg 500 and a Traditions "Buckhunter" 12" pistol in .50.

Most of the people here in the group are traditionalists though...

How fast is it to reload one of those? I've read novels with them in etc, but have never seen a video or a demostration of their use, except at Leeds Armouries near me, but they were like 50ft away so couldn't see much detail.

As I said, in this country, not even the police carry guns, and I'm grateful for that. I would feel threatened if I knew that my crazy neighbour might own guns.... As for disarming people, you are allowed to own guns in this country, they are not outlawed. But you will have to prove that you are capable of dealing with a gun in a responsible way and you will have to state what you need it for.

The practical issue in the US is that the legal gun owner is not committing crimes with his firearm, and any self-defense shooting (probably less common than one may think) is investigated by police and errors in judgement are prosecuted. The criminal obtains guns illegally or uses other means of violence. Legislation has so far been ineffective in preventing criminals from using violence.

The focus on further regulation of legal firearms (which, by the way, require an FBI background check) is not productive in reducing the rate of crime. It is an illusion that gun bans protect the public. This has been well documented in several countries including the US. The data are plentiful but I'll pass along this as an example:

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=nr&id=570

Mostly Semi-modern. I have a stainless Ruger Old Army .45 Cap & Ball, a 40year old H&R .45 inline. a .50 barrel for my Mossberg 500 and a Traditions "Buckhunter" 12" pistol in .50.

Most of the people here in the group are traditionalists though...

Black Powder Competition Shooting?


:eek: I didn't know that they made inline pistols now!!!!

As I have said too many times, just about every single shooting involves the IRA. And as I have said they illegally own weapons. And they mostly shoot themselves anyway.

Science and arts, if the IRA haven't given up their guns even though the UK has banned guns... do you think inner-city gangs and other criminals will willingly give up theirs here in the US?

You know the assumption i'm making:

That if there is a massive gun-control bill passed in the US, these things are likely to happen:

a)(Guaranteed) People's rights to protect themselves will be diminished.

b)Law-abiding people will turn in their weapons, if grudgingly... while criminals will likely not turn in their guns.

c)Criminals will be able to break into people houses and rob/rape/kill the owners because the criminals still have their guns while the law-abiding people do not.

d)Police still won't be able to do anything to prevent most violent crimes like those stated in C.

e)Police and the government will have a much easier time oppressing an unarmed populace should an evil dictator along the lines of Hitler or Stalin take over.

<snip>

e)Police and the government will have a much easier time oppressing an unarmed populace should an evil dictator along the lines of Hitler or Stalin take over.

You're kidding, right?

The first statements are logical and are possibilities that need to be taken into account in case the gun-laws in the United States ever should be changed. But this last one??? Hitler at least was democratically elected, and I haven't seen the population of the US up in arms after Bush declared himself president without legal basis...

Science and arts, if the IRA haven't given up their guns even though the UK has banned guns... do you think inner-city gangs and other criminals will willingly give up theirs here in the US?

You know the assumption i'm making:

That if there is a massive gun-control bill passed in the US, these things are likely to happen:

a)(Guaranteed) People's rights to protect themselves will be diminished.

b)Law-abiding people will turn in their weapons, if grudgingly... while criminals will likely not turn in their guns.

c)Criminals will be able to break into people houses and rob/rape/kill the owners because the criminals still have their guns while the law-abiding people do not.

d)Police still won't be able to do anything to prevent most violent crimes like those stated in C.

e)Police and the government will have a much easier time oppressing an unarmed populace should an evil dictator along the lines of Hitler or Stalin take over.

I know, but in Ireland about 99% of all crimes are stopped without the police ever having to use guns. And criminals do have guns in Ireland, but really how often are they used in crimes?

And the last point is a joke right?
oh wait sorry, it's already happened.

I know that this thread wasnt designed to support legal gun ownership, so I'll give the answer people against legal gun ownership want-

My guns are an extension of my manhood. They are all absolutely huge.

How fast is it to reload one of those? I've read novels with them in etc, but have never seen a video or a demostration of their use, except at Leeds Armouries near me, but they were like 50ft away so couldn't see much detail.
The Cap & Ball revolver is a PIA to reload, but you get six shots.

I can reload either of my rifles in about 1.5 minutes in a pinch (using patched ball) or about 1/2 that using minie-ball and paper reloads.

The Pistol is about the same, but I use exclusively 360 gr minies (http://blackjackhill.com/zencart/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=1_7&products_id=28).

And yes, it is an inline using a #11 cap.

Ok since the thread has already been hijacked I won't feel guilty about hijacking it in a different way.



Syniks...do you use black or a substitute?

The registration of all guns is required in my country. Not only that, but I sample of a fired bullet and the serial number of the weapon it was fired from must be given and is entered into a data base so that it can be compared if and when it is used in a criminal act.

The Cap & Ball revolver is a PIA to reload, but you get six shots.

I can reload either of my rifles in about 1.5 minutes in a pinch (using patched ball) or about that using minie-ball and paper reloads.

The Pistol is about the same, but I use exclusively 360 gr minies (http://blackjackhill.com/zencart/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=1_7&products_id=28).

And yes, it is an inline using a #11 cap.

Blimey, those things must put a huge hole in the target.

But thanks for the answer :)

I know that this thread wasnt designed to support legal gun ownership, <snip>
That's news to me, and I started it.

The registration of all guns is required in my country. Not only that, but I sample of a fired bullet and the serial number of the weapon it was fired from must be given and is entered into a data base so that it can be compared if and when it is used in a criminal act.

Now, that really makes sense. What country is that?

Ok since the thread has already been hijacked I won't feel guilty about hijacking it in a different way. Syniks...do you use black or a substitute?
I can hijack my thread any way I want.... :D

I use Hodegon 3F 777. I have also had good luck with Black Mag 3, but it's hard to get at a reasonable price.

The only Black I use is what I make.... and that's too big a PIA to do often, so I usually only do it when also trying to do "authentic" casting & stuff.

That's news to me, and I started it.


Well, then I sincerely appologize. My fault is I assumed it would be anti-gun, which is often the case. And with that in mind, the title of the thread took on that tone. Sorry.

Now, that really makes sense. What country is that?



Really doesn't. Most guns used in crimes are stolen or came in on the black market. Ballistic fingerprinting does no good in those situations. Besides ballistic fingerprints change over time and are easy to alter.

It's just another feel good tactic that is a waste of taxpayers time and money.

The registration of all guns is required in my country. Not only that, but I sample of a fired bullet and the serial number of the weapon it was fired from must be given and is entered into a data base so that it can be compared if and when it is used in a criminal act.
Except that the "as-fired" profile begins changing immediately on subsequent firing - faster if you "lap" the bore to intentionally change it. Anyway, after 50 rounds or so, the bullets would be balistically incomparable.

The only reason forensic testing of bullets works at all is because they were able to capture the suspect firearm before very many more bullets were put through it after the crime.

my firearms have allowed me to shoot at random people if they walk too close to my house. I just shoot their legs unless they get really close. My beretta has also kept me company late at night when the toothpick I was chewing on disentegrated and has gotten stuck in my digestive system and I start vomiting blood. In all, I own 32 weapons. Thanks to the end of the Brady bill, I am able to finally buy three MP-5s, which I've been looking forward to ever since my father got trampled by one of our horses. I also have sixteen 12 gauge shot guns, all strewn across my barn in the open in case I ever need to shoot something. My guns are my best friends. I hope to buy a CIWS weapons system and mount it on the roof of my house and I know pretty soon, Bush will let me do that. God bless the U.S. of A!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Really doesn't. Most guns used in crimes are stolen or came in on the black market. Ballistic fingerprinting does no good in those situations. Besides ballistic fingerprints change over time and are easy to alter.

It's just another feel good tactic that is a waste of taxpayers time and money.

First of all, you've got no idea how bloody stupid some criminals can be.
Second, what's bad about being able to trace a gun back to where it was stolen from? If nothing else, it'll at least give you some information as to the area in which the person who fired the gun may be found.
Third, I don't know much about ballistics, as I've never even seen a gun, sorry.
I just find it strange that you can live happy and save in countries with strict gun laws and you (obviously) constantly have to feel threatened in a country without gun laws...

I can hijack my thread any way I want.... :D

I use Hodegon 3F 777. I have also had good luck with Black Mag 3, but it's hard to get at a reasonable price.

The only Black I use is what I make.... and that's too big a PIA to do often, so I usually only do it when also trying to do "authentic" casting & stuff.


We got a match coming up in August that I'm gonna shoot black powder in. Looking at the 777 FFg, about 20 grs, under a 200 gr bullet with a grits filler. Shooting .45s. I've not shot black powder before so it's gonna be fun. A lot of smoke and FLAMES!!!

I know that this thread wasnt designed to support legal gun ownership, so I'll give the answer people against legal gun ownership want-

My guns are an extension of my manhood. They are all absolutely huge.

Good of you to admit it, time to tell us about teh big SUV as well...American men must have the smallest manhoods in the world.. :p ;)

We got a match coming up in August that I'm gonna shoot black powder in. Looking at the 777 FFg, about 20 grs, under a 200 gr bullet with a grits filler. Shooting .45s. I've not shot black powder before so it's gonna be fun. A lot of smoke and FLAMES!!!

Accuracy is going to suck using 2F in a revolver. IMO never use 2F on anything smaller than .50. Even in .50 I use FFF.

Here is the bullet I use...cuts nice clean holes (http://blackjackhill.com/zencart/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=1_6&products_id=11): It works both in a .45 rifle and the Ruger Old Army.

Here's my take on the Gun control argument:
All hand guns and assault rifles should be restricted to police and military use ONLY. There is ABSOLUTELY NO reason why any civilian ought to own these weapons. That said, any one who like's to hunt wild game ought to be able to own a rifle or shot gun, provided they have taken the propper saftey courses and have their wepon licensed with their local authoritys. I appreciate the job hunters do in culling deer herds so that the stupid beasts don't total my car and kill me. However, any one who has any criminal record that involves a violent crime, or anyone who can't be bothered to take a gun/hunter safety course should not be allowed to own a gun.
As for home protection, you can keep your loaded shot gun on a rack above your bed... Just don't come crying to me when your kid blows his fucking head off.

I just find it strange that you can live happy and save in countries with strict gun laws and you (obviously) constantly have to feel threatened in a country without gun laws...

Not true...there are violent crimes in all countries. There are areas in all cities that some people feel that it's best that you don't wander into. If these places are so safe because of gun control then why do people feel the need to avoid them?

I think that people from places that have strict gun control laws misunderstand the arguments that people from places where control is not so strict present. In most cases, there are extremes every where of course, people don't walk around thinking that any minute they are going to be attacked. It's not constantly on their mind and they aren't paranoid about it. The fact is that is does happen though and being prepared to defend yourself in case it does it no different than preparing yourself for a thunderstorm by taking an umbrella with you or keeping a spare tire in your car. Chances are that you won't have to use them but if you do you have them there.

I live out in a fairly rural area in a house that was built in 1910. It would not be any problem for someone to break into my house. I keep all of my guns in a gun safe and keep them locked. Just recently my neighbors son has started hanging out at their house quite a bit. He gives me the creeps. If I'm out the yard he stares at me and watches everything that I'm doing. I have taken to keeping a gun out when I am home. It's in my desk next to where I work. The fact is that he is 6' and well over 200 lbs while I'm 5'4" and 130. If he did decide to come in my house and attack me I would not have a chance against him in hand to hand combat. When the chance presents itself I will be moving but right now that is not an option.

Good of you to admit it, time to tell us about teh big SUV as well...American men must have the smallest manhoods in the world.. :p ;)

um...it's Housewives who buy the SUV's. Most men are satisfied with a medium size pickup. (you know the kind, big enough bed for a sheet of plywood, but small enough to get between the trees...)

Accuracy is going to suck using 2F in a revolver. IMO never use 2F on anything smaller than .50. Even in .50 I use FFF.

Here is the bullet I use...cuts nice clean holes (http://blackjackhill.com/zencart/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=1_6&products_id=11): It works both in a .45 rifle and the Ruger Old Army.


Accuracy won't be a big problem. The targets will be large and fairly close. I'll check into the 2F though. It's going to be a one time thing and I already have the 200 grain bullets on hand.

my firearms have allowed me to shoot at random people if they walk too close to my house. I just shoot their legs unless they get really close. My beretta has also kept me company late at night when the toothpick I was chewing on disentegrated and has gotten stuck in my digestive system and I start vomiting blood. In all, I own 32 weapons. Thanks to the end of the Brady bill, I am able to finally buy three MP-5s, which I've been looking forward to ever since my father got trampled by one of our horses. I also have sixteen 12 gauge shot guns, all strewn across my barn in the open in case I ever need to shoot something. My guns are my best friends. I hope to buy a CIWS weapons system and mount it on the roof of my house and I know pretty soon, Bush will let me do that. God bless the U.S. of A!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

wow i know youre lying on that one lol. Hmmm... a CIWS system eh?....ive been dying to own a minigun too. oh and a bill like that would never be signed. full auto small arms mabee but theyd still need registration and cost a shitload of money like they do now. noone would buy a full auto M-16 for 15,000 dollars when they could get a semi for 1,000. if they did they would get it from a gun runner anyways.

I live in a country where I guns are outlawed (obviously) and I live in one ******* nieghbourhood, but strangely enough, I never feel threatened.

Same goes for just about in most countries that aren't america.

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.

I want to come over to your house... :mp5: :sniper: :D

Here's my take on the Gun control argument:
All hand guns and assault rifles should be restricted to police and military use ONLY. There is ABSOLUTELY NO reason why any civilian ought to own these weapons. That said, any one who like's to hunt wild game ought to be able to own a rifle or shot gun, provided they have taken the propper saftey courses and have their wepon licensed with their local authoritys. I appreciate the job hunters do in culling deer herds so that the stupid beasts don't total my car and kill me. However, any one who has any criminal record that involves a violent crime, or anyone who can't be bothered to take a gun/hunter safety course should not be allowed to own a gun.
As for home protection, you can keep your loaded shot gun on a rack above your bed... Just don't come crying to me when your kid blows his fucking head off.

dude you keep your gun where your kids cant get them but you can in case of an emergency like in a drawer next to your bed and then you can lock it up later. Also assault rifles and hand guns should be kept legal, but i think scopes should be restricted and you should need a background check to buy one. Scopes can only really be used offensively and not defensively. Keep them legal though so hunters and people like that can get them

<snip>

About the first part : If your country is just as save as mine is, why do people in your country feel the need to defend themselves with firearms? Please keep in mind that here, hardly anybody ever wastes so much as a thought on guns. Yes, there are areas in my town that I avoid, but they are very much on the outskirts. Why should I get a gun to go to a place I don't want to go to anyway?

The second part : I spent some years in my childhood in a very remote and small village in Austria (all in all 30 inhabitants), and we never even used to lock our door when we weren't home. After all, one of the neighbours might drop by because they want to borrow something.

Good of you to admit it, time to tell us about teh big SUV as well...American men must have the smallest manhoods in the world.. :p ;)


I'm more than secure with my manhood. My wife and I have two cars that are all paid off and the insurance is low. Part of me would like an SUV, but at $2.00 a gallon for gas,, thats just stupid.
I'd love a little pickup-like CG stated, for that sheet of plywood or sheetrock I hate to tie on the roof of a Taurus wagon, or bags of leaves and brush to the recycling center. We may get a minivan at some point, as we have three kids. An SUV wouldnt compensate for me-maybe a status symbol. But not needed.

Part of me would like an SUV, but at $2.00 a gallon for gas,, thats just stupid..

Stupidly low for the rest of the world ;) :p :D

dude you keep your gun where your kids cant get them but you can in case of an emergency like in a drawer next to your bed and then you can lock it up later. Also assault rifles and hand guns should be kept legal, but i think scopes should be restricted and you should need a background check to buy one. Scopes can only really be used offensively and not defensively. Keep them legal though so hunters and people like that can get them

I was being sarcastic about keeping it above your bed. :rolleyes:
Any weapon you own ought to be kept locked up, unloaded, with a trigger lock on it and the ammunition ought to be locked away in a separate location from the weapon.

As for hand guns and Assault rifles, those guns kill more innocent people than they save. There is no reason you need or even ought to have an assault rifle and hand guns are too easily concealable to be allowed to the general public.

As for hand guns and Assault rifles, those guns kill more innocent people than they save. There is no reason you need or even ought to have an assault rifle and hand guns are too easily concealable to be allowed to the general public.

Actually, there are estimates as high as 2.5 million crimes PREVENTED in the US through the use of firearms--most without firing a shot.

The actual successful crimes using a firearm are MUCH lower.

One of the points of having a pistol is to conceal it, so no one knows who is armed and who isn't--a deterent to anyone thinking they might try something.

About the first part : If your country is just as save as mine is, why do people in your country feel the need to defend themselves with firearms? Please keep in mind that here, hardly anybody ever wastes so much as a thought on guns. Yes, there are areas in my town that I avoid, but they are very much on the outskirts. Why should I get a gun to go to a place I don't want to go to anyway?

You missed it. I did not try to argue that one place was as safe as another. What I said was that every country has places in it that are unsafe.

Firearms are the best form of self-defense that there is if you are properly trained in how to use one. Why settle for less if you don't have to? In your case you do have to settle for less.

You shouldn't go get a gun to go into a place that you don't want to go. However, if you should get lost and end up in such a place it's really nice to have a security blanket of type. I have been in an unknown town and ended up in just such a place and made it my objective to get away from where I was and back to where I was supposed to be in the quickest manner possible. In the mean time I was in a very violent, very bad part of town and it was nice to know that if I was attacked I did have to "just be a victim".




The second part : I spent some years in my childhood in a very remote and small village in Austria (all in all 30 inhabitants), and we never even used to lock our door when we weren't home. After all, one of the neighbours might drop by because they want to borrow something.

Ahh...childhood days. So nice. No one ever kept their doors locked. People didn't even think about sitting at their bus stops with their kids because kids were fairly safe every where. People didn't worry about their kids mates taking them off by the trains tracks and bludgening them to death. Nice to remember those days.


Do you keep your doors locked now?

Actually, there are estimates as high as 2.5 million crimes PREVENTED in the US through the use of firearms--most without firing a shot.

The actual successful crimes using a firearm are MUCH lower.

One of the points of having a pistol is to conceal it, so no one knows who is armed and who isn't--a deterent to anyone thinking they might try something.

Yeah, it's just (barely) keeping the peace through fear, something that america seems to be all about.

Yeah, it's just (barely) keeping the peace through fear, something that america seems to be all about.


Have you ever been to America? Doesn't sound like it.

Actually, there are estimates as high as 2.5 million crimes PREVENTED in the US through the use of firearms--most without firing a shot.

The actual successful crimes using a firearm are MUCH lower.

One of the points of having a pistol is to conceal it, so no one knows who is armed and who isn't--a deterent to anyone thinking they might try something.

Ah! The old "An armed society is a polite society" arguement.
Keep you polite society thanks. I'd rather not spend my life stressing over whether or not that crazy looking guy over there has a pistol under his coat.

If no one had hand guns(except the police and military), no one would need them. It's pretty difficult to conceal a long barrel gun with out making illegal mods to it.

Furthermore, I'd rather take a punch to the face than a bullet to the chest should I have a verbal disagreement with some one. Like wise, I'd rather give a punch to the face than have to draw a wepon on some one over a verbal disagreement.

Firearms are the best form of self-defense that there is if you are properly trained in how to use one. Why settle for less if you don't have to? In your case you do have to settle for less.

I don't have to settle for anything, because I never had to defend myself, and most likely never will have to. Nobody I know or heard of ever had to. I have one friend who happend to get beaten up by two prostitutes on one occasion, but he was to drunk to defend himself anyway. besides, firing a gun in that situation would have been completely inappropriate.




Do you keep your doors locked now?

First of all, I now live in a city with a population of 1.5 million.
And no, when I'm at home my door is open and unlocked. I lock it when I leave for more than just a short while

Yeah, it's just (barely) keeping the peace through fear, something that america seems to be all about.

Oh yeah, you know SO much about us. Maybe we should just turn our decisions over to you.

I have firearms in the hope I never have to use one in a defensive situation. But should that need arise, I would like to be well versed and practiced in the use of them. If you choose not to use them, that's fine. We're not here to force a firearm on you. But neither do you have the right to to disarm us.

You don't know anything about why we do what we do. But you sure as hell think you do. Maybe you should analyze your own fear of that inanimate object that can turn folks "evil".

Ah! The old "An armed society is a polite society" arguement.
Keep you polite society thanks. I'd rather not spend my life stressing over whether or not that crazy looking guy over there has a pistol under his coat.

If no one had hand guns(except the police and military), no one would need them. It's pretty difficult to conceal a long barrel gun with out making illegal mods to it.

Oh yeah, and just how would you possibly remove the millions of hand guns from circulation? The criminals surely won't turn theirs in.

Also, if someone's going to go out and do something illegal, like killing someone, they aren't going to worry about the illegality of sawing off a rifle barrel. :rolleyes:

I don't have to settle for anything, because I never had to defend myself, and most likely never will have to. Nobody I know or heard of ever had to. I have one friend who happend to get beaten up by two prostitutes on one occasion, but he was to drunk to defend himself anyway. besides, firing a gun in that situation would have been completely inappropriate.


And yet, if the situation ever arises, you will be utterly unprepared. That is your choice--the choice that is not yours to make, though, is if *I* can be prepared.


First of all, I now live in a city with a population of 1.5 million.
And no, when I'm at home my door is open and unlocked. I lock it when I leave for more than just a short while

Cities with that population in the US have fairly high crime rates.

First of all, I now live in a city with a population of 1.5 million.
And no, when I'm at home my door is open and unlocked. I lock it when I leave for more than just a short while

You must live in Canada then? I'm the same way. No need to lock up untill I go out or go to bed.

.............................
If you're talking about the whole, middle eastern terrorism stereotype, then that has absolutely nothing to do with Ireland.

If you're talking about northern Ireland, then you have to realise that it just can't be solved so simply.

The IRA are absolutely mad, but as I said they have quite a bit of power and support.

They're not just gonna wade in, all guns blazing and kill them all.

Well, not anymore, anyway...

Thus is the power of the us government.

Thus is the power of weak will sheep prone to accepting propaganda. Governments only have as much power as the populace allows them. Oh...wait...that only applies when the populace is armed.

Oh yeah, and just how would you possibly remove the millions of hand guns from circulation? The criminals surely won't turn theirs in.

True. In the US it would take a long time to remove all of the hand guns.
But as long as you can't legally buy them, police officers would simply have the task of getting those wepons already out in society off of the streets. If you owned one legallly, I suppose the Govt would have to compensate you for it before the seized it.

Also, if someone's going to go out and do something illegal, like killing someone, they aren't going to worry about the illegality of sawing off a rifle barrel. :rolleyes:

True. However it will simply add to the time they get on their sentence when they are caught. It's a further deterrent.

And yet, if the situation ever arises, you will be utterly unprepared. That is your choice--the choice that is not yours to make, though, is if *I* can be prepared.


So... how do you prepare for an sudden shift in earth climate? Or an alien invasion? Or do you learn Spanish, just in case you ever get kidnapped and taken to Mexico? All these situations are just as likely, at least to me. Why should I prepare for a completely unlikely situation???


Cities with that population in the US have fairly high crime rates.
that's what I said earlier on... the US has serious problems there, and for all I see guns don't solve them.

Drunken FratBoy Island - No, I live in Dublin, Ireland. But I behaved the same way when growing up in Austria and Germany.

The registration of all guns is required in my country. Not only that, but I sample of a fired bullet and the serial number of the weapon it was fired from must be given and is entered into a data base so that it can be compared if and when it is used in a criminal act.

The "ballistic fingerprint" is kind of useless. Even normal bullet are often times too deformed after impact to get accurate ballistics. You can't fingerprint a shotgun, and any kid of highly lethal or soft slug rounds simply won't have the barrel marks on them once they've hit something. It sounds like a good idea, but it just doesn't work.

I don't have to settle for anything, because I never had to defend myself, and most likely never will have to.


That part there in bold is what gets you. You never can tell if you're going to have to or not. The difference is that some people make the choice to just hope that they never will have to and take the chance that if they do need to they won't be able to while others hope that they will never have to but if they do they are able to.

No one walks around hoping to have to defend themself against a violent attack. In reality though people do get attacked every day. Here, where ever you are and every other place that people that are posting on the board is from. It happens every single day and people don't get an advance warning.

You wanna know something? I have a generator in my garage too. You know why? Because sometimes the power goes out. Most of the time it's just for an hour or so but sometimes it's for days. I have only had to use that generator one time since it was bought. There was a huge ice storm that knocked the power out for 4 days for me, a week or more for others. I could easily have gone somewhere and kept warm and ate well but I have a 90 gallon fish tank and every fish in there would have died. It's all about being prepared for the unknown when the stakes are life and death.

You may think that is an extreme comparison but I bet money that the fish that are still in my tank don't think so. :p

Drunken FratBoy Island - No, I live in Dublin, Ireland. But I behaved the same way when groing up in Austria and Germany.
Ah yes. The UK has a similar gun control policy as Canada right? And Austria and Germany? How about their gun control? Or perhaps it's a difference in the local culture and general accepted behaviour of each society? Who knows?

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.

Ummm... No they don't. Please find a single fact, quote or citation to back that up. In England, you are allowed to defend yourself with reasonable force, based on your knowledge of the situation. The onus is on the prosecution to prove that you WEREN'T in mortal danger, according to your knowledge of the situation.

And if you are going to put forward the case of Tony Martin, Ill laugh in your face. Ok, so he had been burgled in the past, was mentally unbalanced (although whether that was an excuse in his favor or not, is up for debate), and wouldn't have shot anyone had he not been defending his home. But the facts remain that:

1) He used an illegally modified pump action shotgun.

2) He shot at two burglers. The adult was wounded and got away with serious injuries, but his accomplice the 16 year old boy was the one killed. He was shot in the back of the head at a distance of four feet, while trying to run away.

3) He claims that he woke up, heard them smashing a window, and was walking down the stairs to investigate when he was caught in a torch beam, and fired in fear for his life. Forensic evidence found that he was lying. He was actually crouched downstairs by the doorway, and then by all accounts fired as soon as the torch beam came onto him.

4) The guy got charged with one count of "manslaughter". He got five years, of which he served three. Nothing for illegal possession of the shotgun, nothing for lying under oath in court, nothing for not reporting the incident to the police, trying to evade arrest and (presumably) flee the country. Yay England's policy of making one charge stick at all costs. Bah.

That doesn't sound to me like we are unfairly biased towards burglars.

Ah yes. The UK has a similar gun control policy as Canada right? And Austria and Germany? How about their gun control? Or perhaps it's a difference in the local culture and general accepted behaviour of each society? Who knows?

First I simply must state the Ireland is not part of the UK.

And no the UK has a complete ban on guns, bar a few hunting ones.

Here's my take on the Gun control argument:
All hand guns and assault rifles should be restricted to police and military use ONLY. There is ABSOLUTELY NO reason why any civilian ought to own these weapons. That said, any one who like's to hunt wild game ought to be able to own a rifle or shot gun, provided they have taken the propper saftey courses and have their wepon licensed with their local authoritys. I appreciate the job hunters do in culling deer herds so that the stupid beasts don't total my car and kill me. However, any one who has any criminal record that involves a violent crime, or anyone who can't be bothered to take a gun/hunter safety course should not be allowed to own a gun.
As for home protection, you can keep your loaded shot gun on a rack above your bed... Just don't come crying to me when your kid blows his fucking head off.

Please define assault rifle before you use the term. As for handguns, they are vital to self defense, especially outside of one's own home.

Ah yes. The UK has a similar gun control policy as Canada right? And Austria and Germany? How about their gun control? Or perhaps it's a difference in the local culture and general accepted behaviour of each society? Who knows?

Dude, Dublin isn't in the UK by a very very long way.

That part there in bold is what gets you. You never can tell if you're going to have to or not. The difference is that some people make the choice to just hope that they never will have to and take the chance that if they do need to they won't be able to while others hope that they will never have to but if they do they are able to.


The difference is, it seems to happen a lot in the US. It hardly ever happens here. I might as well build a hurricane-shelter in my back yard, it would make just as much sense.
Sure, nobody hopes for a hurricane, but it happens every year.
It does, but not HERE. Statistically, I'm more likely to win the lottery than to fall victim to any kind of violent crime... so I better prepare for that as well?

True. However it will simply add to the time they get on their sentence when they are caught. It's a further deterrent.

IF they are caught.

Stupidly low for the rest of the world ;) :p :D

I refuse to feel guilty because my country has lower taxes than yours. Oil costs the same everywhere in the world. Gas is cheap in the US because we have lots of refineries and very low federal taxes on gasoline.

So... how do you prepare for an sudden shift in earth climate?


I have coats and shorts. :)


Or an alien invasion? Or do you learn Spanish, just in case you ever get kidnapped and taken to Mexico?


I have a gun, in the case that an attempt at kidnapping me is made. Also, I do know a little Spanish.


All these situations are just as likely, at least to me. Why should I prepare for a completely unlikely situation???


Just because it's unlikely, doesn't mean it won't ever happen. A firearm works for many situations, not just one thing, like a climate shift.


that's what I said earlier on... the US has serious problems there, and for all I see guns don't solve them.


They have proven to be a very effective deterrent against attacks.

I refuse to feel guilty because my country has lower taxes than yours. Oil costs the same everywhere in the world. Gas is cheap in the US because we have lots of refineries and very low federal taxes on gasoline.

Calm down it was a joke. :rolleyes:

I was being sarcastic about keeping it above your bed. :rolleyes:
Any weapon you own ought to be kept locked up, unloaded, with a trigger lock on it and the ammunition ought to be locked away in a separate location from the weapon.

As for hand guns and Assault rifles, those guns kill more innocent people than they save. There is no reason you need or even ought to have an assault rifle and hand guns are too easily concealable to be allowed to the general public.

Keeping guns locked where you can't get them defeats the purpose of having one for self defense. Your fears about children are one thing, but most kids who grow up with guns learn a healthy respect for the destruction they can bring. My wife and her brother grew up in a home with alot of guns and they knew better than to touch them.

As for "assault rifles" you'd be hard pressed to find many crimes using them. They draw alot of attention, cost alot of money, and aren't much more destructive than any other gun.

As for handguns. Carrying concealed is legal in 38 states in the US.

First I simply must state the Ireland is not part of the UK.

And no the UK has a complete ban on guns, bar a few hunting ones.

Same in Germany and Austria. But I think it also has to do with the general mentality and culture of the people...
Having a gun is not regarded as normal in any way, unless you are a hunter.

Yeah, it's just (barely) keeping the peace through fear, something that america seems to be all about.

Better muggers and rapists live in fear than citizens with actual worth.

First I simply must state the Ireland is not part of the UK.
Oops. My bad. I thought it was.
And no the UK has a complete ban on guns, bar a few hunting ones.
That's what I meant. Hunting weapons only. Though it sounds like the UK has a tougher stance on gun control then? In Canada, you can apply to receive a special permit from the Police to own a Hand gun to be used for target shooting in a licensed gun club. The weapon must be locked up at all times, can only be fired in the gun club and if you are out in public with the weapon you must be either on the way to or home from the gun club. No stopping to grocery show and leave the gun in the trunk. Also, if you owned an assault rifle before the ban (back in 1980 something) you may still legally own it and may pass it on in your will (with the propper paper work). Some one I know has an AK-47 they purchased before the ban in fact.

The difference is, it seems to happen a lot in the US. It hardly ever happens here. I might as well build a hurricane-shelter in my back yard, it would make just as much sense.
Sure, nobody hopes for a hurricane, but it happens every year.
It does, but not HERE. Statistically, I'm more likely to win the lottery than to fall victim to any kind of violent crime... so I better prepare for that as well?

Really? Wow, some of our lotterys have a 1 in 54,000,000 chance of winning the big jackpot--you're actually more likely to be attacked by a terrorist (before 911) or kill yourself on a baby's pacifier (even if you don't have a child).

We have a better chance of being assaulted in some fashion than winning the lottery. I should invest in yours. I'd be rich in no time.

Same in Germany and Austria. But I think it also has to do with the general mentality and culture of the people...
Having a gun is not regarded as normal in any way, unless you are a hunter.

And what of their neighbor, Switzerland???

Just because it's unlikely, doesn't mean it won't ever happen. A firearm works for many situations, not just one thing, like a climate shift.


Such as... ? As far as I know, a gun can do one thing only, that's killing people (or threatening to kill them). Do you use guns to open your beer cans?

So, just because it's unlikely doens't mean I'll never win the lottery? Just because it's unlikely means I have to be prepared for a plane crash and spending the rest of my life on a small island in the Pacific?
It's true, you have to be prepared for some things, but violent crime is something I really don't have to be prepared for any more than I have to be prepared for winning the Nobel price for chemistry....

And what of their neighbor, Switzerland???

I don't know, I've never been there.
For all I know, you are allowed to take your gun home from your time in the army (which is very much like the amry in Israel, compulsory and lifelong)
You have to bring it with you for every manoeuver you attend (compulsory as well), and the weapon and the bullets are property of the army, which means you have to account for them at all times.

Such as... ? As far as I know, a gun can do one thing only, that's killing people (or threatening to kill them). Do you use guns to open your beer cans?


I target shoot. No lives threatened or harmed there.


So, just because it's unlikely doens't mean I'll never win the lottery? Just because it's unlikely means I have to be prepared for a plane crash and spending the rest of my life on a small island in the Pacific?
It's true, you have to be prepared for some things, but violent crime is something I really don't have to be prepared for any more than I have to be prepared for winning the Nobel price for chemistry....

Well, if I'm unprepared for the Nobel....that doesn't really threaten to do bodily harm to me.

I don't know, I've never been there.
For all I know, you are allowed to take your gun home from your time in the army (which is very much like the amry in Israel, compulsory and lifelong)
You have to bring it with you for every manoeuver you attend (compulsory as well), and the weapon and the bullets are property of the army, which means you have to account for them at all times.

Point is, ownership is mandatory. They don't have any Wild West shoot-outs, either.

Point is, ownership is mandatory. They don't have any Wild West shoot-outs, either.

Wrong. The guns AND the bullets are owned by the army. And god have mercy on you if one of the bullets should go missing...

homicide rates (http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph-T/cri_mur_cap&int=-1)

Oh, my God.
I have heard many pro ans anti gun debates in my time but this is the king!!!

New Bunnie has some excellent ideas.

Science and arts...where do I begin. You sound like the kind of well moneyed liberal whom has never had to live by his wits not venture to the realms of the real world. I pray that you are still in adolescence and will out grow your naiveté.

First off the United States is not like any other country on Earth me are made of those that have fled or been banished from every other country. We have Irish, who fled British persecution, Jews from eastern Europe who fled pogroms and the Holocaust we have Persians, who fled from the Ayatollah, and Iranians who fled the Shah (ironic ain't it). We com from persecuted people we do not forget the stories of are forbearers and we know here we are safe. Why are we safe? We are armed! We can resist. Hunting, sport etc are fine things but fundamentally guns are about freedom, especially freedom from fear. We need fear no intruder nor jack booted thug because we have the means to resist. Our forefather saw this as so fundamental that they enshrined it in the Bill of Rights, second only to the freedoms of speech and worship. Should a black day ever rise that I need to defend my life or that of my family or even a neighbor I may, those without that ability are at the mercy of their government and any other form of human predator that may choose to prey on them.

The US may be a violent people but we have good reason a land full of formerly repressed people now free has a long and deep memory and we tend to be edgy.

Ask those in massacred in Sudan, Bosnia and Rwanda about fighting back.

Do you even live in our world ?

homicide rates (http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph-T/cri_mur_cap&int=-1)

Oh, my God.
I have heard many pro ans anti gun debates in my time but this is the king!!!

New Bunnie has some excellent ideas.

Science and arts...where do I begin. You sound like the kind of well moneyed liberal whom has never had to live by his wits not venture to the realms of the real world. I pray that you are still in adolescence and will out grow your naiveté.
Do you even live in our world ?

From what I can tell, is that you gun nuts are using absolutely ANY excuse neccessary to keep guns legal.
Because the ancestors of people many years ago were repressed the descendant who had nothing to do with their ancestors must fight back with lethal force when someone enteres their home or tries to rob from them or attacks them?
I hope that you realise that you are going to absolute extremes
And no, there's absolutely no-way you could call me naiive.
I mean, the stuff I see in my neighbourhood, my school.
I mean, most people in my class think I'm doing heroein but I've never gone near the stuff. I've learned so much about drugs and the crimes the people in my class do, it would shock you beyond belief.

I hope you finally realise

The framers of the constitution understood the necessity of American citizens to keep and bear arms. Unfortunately, our society has been infected by so many of those on the left, that many of us now believe that we should give up that right...Thus leaving ourselves, our homes, and even our loved-ones at the mercy of the criminals. You see, gun laws only affect the law-abiding.

We constantly hear about the importance of background checks being implemented by gun store owners. Criminals do not now, nor have they ever purchased their weapons in legitimate gun shops. It is cost prohibitive (Why would they pay several hundreds of dollars for a gun, when they can buy one on the street for a fraction of the price?), and it leaves a paper trail. However, those on the left choose to ignore this fact. Background checks and waiting periods do nothing, except put barriers between American citizens and their ability to defend themselves.

In most states, one needs a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Once again, the only people who observe this law are of course...The law-abiding, thus making this measure useless. Here in Virginia, legislators recently passed a bill which banned citizens from carrying concealed weapons into an establishment which serves alcohol. Even with a concealed-carry permit, it is a felony to enter a bar with a gun which is hidden from plain view...Another piece of legislation giving an upper hand to the criminals.

The idea of gun control is not a new one. Much has been said on the subject (even before guns were invented). The need to protect you and yours is as natural as breathing. Of course, as with all natural instincts...the left will try to legislate them away.

Since people have had the opportunity as well as the need to arm themselves, there have been those attempting to rob them of this right. It was true in Stalin's Soviet Union and it was true in Hitler's Germany. In 1938, the Nazis enacted a gun-control act, which robbed Jews, among others of the right to defend themselves.

The fact is, the police cannot be everywhere at once. If you choose not to defend yourself or your family...that is your absurd decision and I wish you luck. However, for those of us who tend to pay attention to what the founders of this nation put forth...Keep your hands off of our guns! I will defend myself and my family, regardless of what Rosie O'Donnell or Diane Fienstein may say (Both of whom enjoy the luxury of armed bodyguards.)!

A few more FACTS about why gun control is good for everyone. And the United Nations wants this for us all!! NEVER!!!

Turkey established gun control in 1911. From 1915 through 1917, 1.5 MILLION Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

The Soviet Union established gun control in 1929. From 1929 through 1953, 20 MILLION political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938. From 1939 through 1945, 13 MILLION Jews, Gypsies, HOMOSEXUALS, the mentally ill, and other "mongrolized" people, were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1949 through ???, 20 MILLION political dissidents and others, unable to defend themselves, have been rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 through 1977, 1 MILLION "educated people", unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 through 1981, 100,000 native Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 through 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

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.
Tell me about it. I can't stand Daley. The city's gun ban is just taking guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens and allowing criminals who get guns anyways through illegal methods to run rampant. I can't stand the city. How much longer until our dictator gets taken out of office? Daley's only redeeming attribute is that he's a Sox fan.

I mean, most people in my class think I'm doing heroein but I've never gone near the stuff. I've learned so much about drugs and the crimes the people in my class do, it would shock you beyond belief.

I hope you finally realise

Maybe when your exposed to the real world, you'll realize that you are living in a time where you will be stabbed, beaten, or shot just because someone wants your shoes.

There is no one who will be able to protect your right to life other then your self. The police that you see everywhere? They aren't looking after your well-being, in fact if you ask them they'll personally tell you that your protection is not their priority, never was and never will be. The only thing they have to do is uphold the law, and fortunatly your life falls into one of those laws.

After all........most police arrive at the scene after the crime has occured.

Let me ask you this, science and arts, when you purchase a house and start a family...how will you protect them? If someone breaks into your house how will you stop them?

Or you'll just let kill/rape/abduct your children, and live with the fact that you couldn't protect them.

Some people never believe it can happen to them, untill they become a statistic published yearly by the fbi.

Maybe when your exposed to the real world, you'll realize that you are living in a time where you will be stabbed, beaten, or shot just because someone wants your shoes.

There is no one who will be able to protect your right to life other then your self. The police that you see everywhere? They aren't looking after your well-being, in fact if you ask them they'll personally tell you that your protection is not their priority, never was and never will be. The only thing they have to do is uphold the law, and fortunatly your life falls into one of those laws.

After all........most police arrive at the scene after the crime has occured.

Let me ask you this, science and arts, when you purchase a house and start a family...how will you protect them? If someone breaks into your house how will you stop them?

Or you'll just let kill/rape/abduct your children, and live with the fact that you couldn't protect them.

Some people never believe it can happen to them, untill they become a statistic published yearly by the fbi.

Maybe a good alarm system.
Because over here, that's all we need. Fact.

Maybe a good alarm system.
Because over here, that's all we need. Fact.

Funny how so many cars have car-alarms, yet so many get stolen. The fact is no alarm will ever stop a desperate criminal, much less one know actually knows what they are doing. Crime is a profession, not a game. There are no set rules, or referees....they don't always back down when they hear a little bit of noise.

Such as... ? As far as I know, a gun can do one thing only, that's killing people (or threatening to kill them). Do you use guns to open your beer cans?

So, just because it's unlikely doens't mean I'll never win the lottery? Just because it's unlikely means I have to be prepared for a plane crash and spending the rest of my life on a small island in the Pacific?
It's true, you have to be prepared for some things, but violent crime is something I really don't have to be prepared for any more than I have to be prepared for winning the Nobel price for chemistry....

you're a sitting duck then, a sheep ripe for slaughter at the hands of a criminal who decides to rade your home

i don't want to be a victim. i will be armed and ready.

you're a sitting duck then, a sheep ripe for slaughter at the hands of a criminal who decides to rade your home

i don't want to be a victim. i will be armed and ready.

I mean you have to realise that this doesn't happen all the time!

SO many of you who have posted in favour of guns are IMMENSELY pararnoid!

God, get over it!

1. Provided hours of fun plinking.

2. Scared off a criminal.

<< when you purchase a house and start a family...how will you protect them? If someone breaks into your house how will you stop them?>>

Looking around my room I see at least a half-dozen instantly accessible, potentially lethal and very painful weapons. Aerosol can, metal chair, chairleg from school (god only knows why, probably nostalgia) modelling knife, glass bottle...

Combine this with an utter lack of compunction about where I hit, kick or pinch you, total knowledge of the arena and a spouse/older child on my side and I'd give me a damn good chance against anyone that isn't either a) really tough and well-trained (ie. army) or b) packing a sawn-off shotgun or SMG. And in either of those cases I should still have surprise on my side.

<< when you purchase a house and start a family...how will you protect them? If someone breaks into your house how will you stop them?>>

Looking around my room I see at least a half-dozen instantly accessible, potentially lethal and very painful weapons. Aerosol can, metal chair, chairleg from school (god only knows why, probably nostalgia) modelling knife, glass bottle...

Combine this with an utter lack of compunction about where I hit, kick or pinch you, total knowledge of the arena and a spouse/older child on my side and I'd give me a damn good chance against anyone that isn't either a) really tough and well-trained (ie. army) or b) packing a sawn-off shotgun or SMG. And in either of those cases I should still have surprise on my side.

Houses don't get robbed during the day, how will surprise be on your side when you wake up 3 am and hear some one comming up the stairs? You aren't jackie chan, you don't have extra ordinary perception, you don't know how a knife handles against flesh and blood, I doubt you even know how to use one. Remember, your dealing with people who are the masters of their trade.

Your think you can overpower 1 person who is also armed and fully awake with a leg chair? And remember.....chances are if someones going to rob your house they'll bring some buddies along.....or a gun.

Criminals don't victimize people who they know can fight back, or look as if they can without doing something to even the odds or push them towards their side.

I wake up in the middle of the night to the burglar alarm (and believe me, I'll have a good one) if the guy hasn't run already I'll be alert and with a weapon in my hand by the time they enter my sight. OK, I assume I get the drop on him, (which is likely whatever they do, that's what hiding behind doors is for) but even without it, unless they have a gun (which they send not to in the UK) then I reckon I can take them.

I don't need to know how to use a knife to threaten someone with one or stab them. If I try something fancy with one I deserve a pounding for being an idiot.

Such as... ? As far as I know, a gun can do one thing only, that's killing people (or threatening to kill them). Do you use guns to open your beer cans?
It's so nice to see that someone actually read my little story... :rolleyes:

My guns kept me from having to play soldier in Gulf 1 (I played soldier on the Yukon Delta instead). I'm sure you would agree that was a good outcome?

From what I can tell, is that you gun nuts are using absolutely ANY excuse neccessary to keep guns legal.
Because the ancestors of people many years ago were repressed the descendant who had nothing to do with their ancestors must fight back with lethal force when someone enteres their home or tries to rob from them or attacks them?
I hope that you realise that you are going to absolute extremes
And no, there's absolutely no-way you could call me naiive.
I mean, the stuff I see in my neighbourhood, my school.
I mean, most people in my class think I'm doing heroein but I've never gone near the stuff. I've learned so much about drugs and the crimes the people in my class do, it would shock you beyond belief.

I hope you finally realise

Fact is, Americans don't need an excuse. We have a constitutional right to be armed. We're a brutal, violent, dangerous people. We are the children of people who had what was necessary to fight for survival. We aren't the Europe. We didn't petition a monarch for our freedom. We didn't suffer oppression so long ago that we accept it as a matter of course. We do not have a history of diplomacy. We are surviors.

I wake up in the middle of the night to the burglar alarm (and believe me, I'll have a good one) if the guy hasn't run already I'll be alert and with a weapon in my hand by the time they enter my sight. OK, I assume I get the drop on him, (which is likely whatever they do, that's what hiding behind doors is for) but even without it, unless they have a gun (which they send not to in the UK) then I reckon I can take them.

I don't need to know how to use a knife to threaten someone with one or stab them. If I try something fancy with one I deserve a pounding for being an idiot.

You assume too much

1. Your alarm will work.
2. There will only be 1 attacker
3. You will be able to get a knife
4. You will be able to hide perfectly, without making a noise
5. You will get the first drop on your opponent
6. You will disable him with 1 hit. (Good luck trying this when it's pitch black)
7. You also assume that your opponent will be weaker then you, whether it be in body mass, or lack of a weapon/intelligence.

When your adrenaline gets going, good luck controlling your breathing, keeping quiet, controlling your movements with percision, etc.

Your attacker will either be

1. bigger and stronger
2. carrying a gun
3. brought his buddies along.
4. on a drug binge, making him immune to pain.

The only thing which you can assume is that YOU will be at a disadvantage when you are attacked. If you haven't realized this, you don't know how the real world works.

Fact is, Americans don't need an excuse. We have a constitutional right to be armed. We're a brutal, violent, dangerous people. We are the children of people who had what was necessary to fight for survival. The children of. You do not now need to stretch to those limits anymore, be glad of it!
We aren't the Europe. Thank the lord.
We didn't petition a monarch for our freedom. Neither did we, we had a civil war (unfamiliar term?) and used a couple of smart bits of politics to remove monarchical power. We threw off that oppression a long time ago.
We didn't suffer oppression so long ago that we accept it as a matter of course. We consider it oppressive to live in fear such that we go armed in the streets. Your government is as oppressive as ours, your society moreso.
We do not have a history of diplomacy. Well you'll have to learn someday, why not try now, before everyone considers you a bunch of deranged loonies.
We are surviors. As are the rest of us, Britain has lasted 939 years without being invaded or losing national identity in some way, we just learned diplomacy as a handy skill to help us do it.

Replies in bold.

Just to illustrate the fact that NO ONE, will ever help you in the real world take a look at this news story....

http://www.wkyc.com/video/player.aspx?aid=10443&sid=30596&bw=

Did the people watching help the man? You try stopping someting like that with a knife, or a broken leg chair -_-......

Well, then I sincerely appologize. My fault is I assumed it would be anti-gun, which is often the case. And with that in mind, the title of the thread took on that tone. Sorry.
No problem. It was intentionally vague to try to get people to read my story about how guns can be beneficial in unusual ways.

Someone mentioned Switzerland, the most heavily armed country in Europe. Well, there's Austria and Germany with restrictive gun laws and there's Switzerland with 14% of the households owing a pistol - not a military weapon with it's required 72 rounds - a personal pistol permitted by the government! The second highest rate of handgun ownership in the world!

From a Saint Louis University School of Law publication:

"Does low handgun density and/or stricter handgun control *299 lead to a lower total homicide rate? The comparative evidence suggests not necessarily. In Great Britain, handguns may only be obtained after an extremely rigorous licensing process involving police inspections of the applicant's home and months of delay. [46] Carrying a loaded or unloaded handgun is absolutely forbidden without a license, and licenses are virtually never granted. [47] Every handgun transaction must be approved in advance by the police, and every legally-owned handgun is registered. [48] In Switzerland, handguns are readily obtainable after a person obtains a simple police permit which is valid for three months. [49] During the three months, the permit holder may buy as many handguns as he wishes, and purchases are generally not registered. Fifteen of the twenty-six cantons, representing about 57% of the population, have permit procedures for carrying handguns (some of which make permits difficult to obtain); the other cantons, representing 43% of the population, have no rules requiring a person carrying a loaded handgun to obtain any permission at all. [50] In England and Wales, the homicide rate per 100,000 population is 1.1; in Scotland (for which government statistics have always been recorded separately) the rate is 1.7. In Switzerland, where the handgun laws are immensely more lenient than in Great Britain, the rate is 1.1. [51] In the nine-country study detailed above, Switzerland had the third-lowest homicide rate, even though its handgun laws are less restrictive than all countries in the study except the United States. [52] (Indeed, most of the American states with high homicide rates have stricter handgun laws than Switzerland.) [53]

As Dixon points out later, Switzerland has a higher rate of handgun homicide than the other countries he analyzes, such as Australia, Canada and Britain. [54] Yet Switzerland, with a murder rate of 1.1 per 100,000 has a much lower murder rate than Australia (2.7) *300 and Canada (2.5), and a somewhat lower murder rate than Great Britain (1.1 for England and Wales, 1.7 for Scotland). [55] The data suggest that there is not necessarily a relationship between the handgun homicide rate and the overall homicide rate.

American data also fails to provide support for a strict relationship between handgun density and total homicide. Population groups which are highest in handgun ownership rates-namely wealthier people, Protestants, whites, and rural populations-all have lower homicide rates than other groups. [56] In addition, the American homicide rate rose tenfold in the first three decades of the twentieth century [57] but U.S. per capita handgun ownership remained stable. Between 1937 and 1963, handgun ownership rose by 250 percent, but the homicide rate fell by 35.7 percent. Homicide fell again in the early to mid 1980s, even as handgun ownership was surging. [58] Of course there were likely confounding factors in the historical American data. One reason that the American homicide rate rose so sharply in the 1920s was the violence caused by alcohol prohibition, and one reason that the homicide rate fell from 1937 to 1963 was the improved quality of medical care. I am not suggesting that the evidence presented thus far proves that increased handgun density does not cause increased total homicide. I do suggest, however, that the evidence developed so far by Dixon shows no reason to believe that lower handgun density would save lives, although lower handgun density may, arguably, be associated with lower number of handgun homicides."

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:G-bY0z-o0c8J:www.foac-pac.org/laws/Kopel20.html+switzerland+%22rate+of+handgun+ownership%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Britain has lasted 939 years without being invaded or losing national identity in some way, we just learned diplomacy as a handy skill to help us do it.Maybe you are thinking of Mr. Chamberlain? He was really good with diplomacy...

More likely it was Mr Churchil's "Diplomacy skills"... That and a whole piss-load of privately owned firearms sent by gun-nutter Yanks to arm the Home Guard while you helped us roll over Germany. :rolleyes:

Just to illustrate the fact that NO ONE, will ever help you in the real world take a look at this news story....
http://www.wkyc.com/video/player.aspx?aid=10443&sid=30596&bw=
Did the people watching help the man? You try stopping someting like that with a knife, or a broken leg chair -_-......Or anything short of an extremely high proficiency in KravMaga...

Nothing says "STOP THAT RIGHT NOW!" than a gun. but no one had one.

That level of beating by someone that large could easily have been fatal. He's damn lucky.

You assume too much

1. Your alarm will work. This is why you test alarms periodically, same for fire.
2. There will only be 1 attacker Or that I can meet them on even numbers another way.
3. You will be able to get a knife Or one of a half-dozen other weapons. Considering that, in my current room it lies on a desk between me and the door... Sure I'm 17 and not moved out but my parent's room is similar enough
4. You will be able to hide perfectly, without making a noise Or, more accurately, I will be in the dark with an alarm masking my moves, it goes both ways but he's the one exploring here.
5. You will get the first drop on your opponent Big assumption I know but it's more likely than vice-versa.
6. You will disable him with 1 hit. (Good luck trying this when it's pitch black)Any solid hit with a metal stick or knife will be a hell of a distraction to most people
7. You also assume that your opponent will be weaker then you, whether it be in body mass, or lack of a weapon/intelligence. Actually I assume that with the home advantage and a weapon/willingness to attack anyhow I can drive off most people, it won't be 2on1 against me because my spouse will be with me carrying another weapon under your scenario.

When your adrenaline gets going, good luck controlling your breathing, keeping quiet, controlling your movements with percision, etc.

Your attacker will either be

1. bigger and stronger It will need to be a significant difference. My brother is bigger and stronger by a fair margin, I can still take him down on a 50%+ basis, especially if I am angry.
2. carrying a gun Unlikely, this is the UK I live in
3. brought his buddies along.
4. on a drug binge, making him immune to pain. Then I'm fucked, unless the drugs make him less controlled which seems to be a common side-effect.

The only thing which you can assume is that YOU will be at a disadvantage when you are attacked. If you haven't realized this, you don't know how the real world works. I live in one of the worst areas of town and have since I was 11. Never been assaulted. Never been threatened. Felt threatened once or twice, never enough threat to make me do more than move to a more crowded bit of street. This is my 'real world' I'd hate to live in yours.

bold replies

Maybe you are thinking of Mr. Chamberlain? He was really good with diplomacy...

More likely it was Mr Churchil's "Diplomacy skills"... That and a whole piss-load of privately owned firearms sent by gun-nutter Yanks to arm the Home Guard while you helped us roll over Germany. :rolleyes:

Chaimberlain bought time, whether he knew it or not. Without it we'd have lost and you americans would be best of friends with Hitler's heirs today.

The Home Guard never saw action (barring a couple of 'friendly fire' incidents and the odd downed German airman) which rendered those guns redundant. And

I guess Russia never did anything to help win the war though, it was all the Yanks with us brits bumbling around getting in the way.

Chaimberlain bought time, whether he knew it or not. Without it we'd have lost and you americans would be best of friends with Hitler's heirs today. Ghod I love how you kids think... :rolleyes: Besides being counterfactual and absurd, Why would we have cosied up to Hitler??
The Home Guard never saw action (barring a couple of 'friendly fire' incidents and the odd downed German airman) which rendered those guns redundant. And wouldn't have been redundant if there had been a German landing would they? Oh yeah, better to be unprepared than prepared. Right. You need to take remedial History. The call for firearms came from Brittian and the Americans responded. Maybe those guns weren't needed...but they sure were wanted, and people were grateful for them. Talk to a vet on Remembrance Day sometime before they all die off.
I guess Russia never did anything to help win the war though, it was all the Yanks with us brits bumbling around getting in the way.
Sigh. I gess I have to be absolutely precise or you can't understand the point. Do I really need to name ALL the Allies. The point still stands.

True. In the US it would take a long time to remove all of the hand guns.
But as long as you can't legally buy them, police officers would simply have the task of getting those wepons already out in society off of the streets. If you owned one legallly, I suppose the Govt would have to compensate you for it before the seized it.



True. However it will simply add to the time they get on their sentence when they are caught. It's a further deterrent.

The problem with your solution is that it breaks, not one, but two Constitutional Amendments. If that solution worked so well, why don't we have cops search every home in America for drugs and that way we could solve that problem as well. If a cop knocked on my door and asked if I had any guns in my house, I could show him the guns and a few kilos of cocaine and he can't do anything about it without a warrant.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath of affirmination, and particularly describing the place to be seachred, and the persons things to be seized." - Fourth Amendment

<<Besides being counterfactual and absurd, Why?>>

The US suported Hitler in many ways, I believe he was voted 'person of the year' or some-such. If the war had started in 38 Britain would have lost because it lacked the airforce to do mouch more than Poland did (aka, die bravely). The US would almost certainly the stay back as it did in the Cold War.

<<wouldn't have been redundant if there had been a German landing would they?>>

No, but there wasn't one because the paid and trained armed forces did their job.

<<Oh reah, better to be unprepared than prepared. Right.>>

How effective was the German Home Guard? I suspect it was about as effective as the british would have been. A last-ditch defense against a massively superior enemy.

We got prepared by building weapons, Hurricanes and Spitfires and getting Lend-Lease (which I am grateful for). We did that because Chamberlain managed to keep Germany from cutting loose before we were faintly ready to fight.

<<Besides being counterfactual and absurd, Why?>>

The US suported Hitler in many ways, I believe he was voted 'person of the year' or some-such. If the war had started in 38 Britain would have lost because it lacked the airforce to do mouch more than Poland did (aka, die bravely). The US would almost certainly the stay back as it did in the Cold War.

<<wouldn't have been redundant if there had been a German landing would they?>>

No, but there wasn't one because the paid and trained armed forces did their job.

<<Oh reah, better to be unprepared than prepared. Right.>>

How effective was the German Home Guard? I suspect it was about as effective as the british would have been. A last-ditch defense against a massively superior enemy.

We got prepared by building weapons, Hurricanes and Spitfires and getting Lend-Lease (which I am grateful for). We did that because Chamberlain managed to keep Germany from cutting loose before we were faintly ready to fight.



Hah, first of all, Hitler was not voted "person of the year" this was a title given to him because in order to be the "person of the year" Times magazine is saying that you are the most influential person of that year. Obvious this is true of Hitler, the title person of the year has neither a positive nor negative conotation.

Also, I can say that the US did pledge much support for Britain but there wasn't much FDR could do with a isolationist Congress. Besides, we were beginning to see a few millenia old theme of Europeans killing each other so there wasn't much incentive to join the fight.

However, I would like you to think of another way the United States supported Hitler. Because as far as I know, FDR personaly was just looking for a good enough reason to help Britain.

Waste of time....there are sheeples and there are those who are not sheeples. The sheeples will always wander around hoping that when the wolf comes that the sheep dog will save them and when it doesn't they will wonder what they did that was so bad that they deserved what they are getting. Nevermind that they didn't deserve any of it they just left themselves open to it.

It makes me look cool. :sniper:

I keep experiencing the following responses from our European friends:

But, nobody has guns here! Our nation is safe.

And we Americans keep repeating:

EVERYBODY has guns here, our nation is safe because of this!

Americans are quite happy with this situation, but the Europeans keep wanting to change us "for the better". I'm not suggesting Ireland and Britain change their laws, I'm just glad I don't live there. :)

You would think gun-owning Americans are crusading for guns to be airlifted to Britain and France, but that's not true. We could care less.

Europe is just seething mad at us and looking for any excuse to come over here and piss in our pot, so to speak. Why fix what ain't broken, guys? You live disarmed, I'll live armed, we can have "diplomacy" over issues that aren't so devisive.

Oh, and all the anti-gun Americans can move to britain, canada, france, or ireland, that's the best solution! ;P

Well the claims that we are oppressed due to our lack of firearms don't help.

Can we call a moratorium on gun threads?

Well the claims that we are oppressed due to our lack of firearms don't help.


I haven't see anything that even looked like that kind of a claim. I do know some Europeans who would make such a claim though. :p

I keep experiencing the following responses from our European friends:

But, nobody has guns here! Our nation is safe.

And we Americans keep repeating:

EVERYBODY has guns here, our nation is safe because of this!

Americans are quite happy with this situation, but the Europeans keep wanting to change us "for the better". I'm not suggesting Ireland and Britain change their laws, I'm just glad I don't live there. :)

You would think gun-owning Americans are crusading for guns to be airlifted to Britain and France, but that's not true. We could care less.

Europe is just seething mad at us and looking for any excuse to come over here and piss in our pot, so to speak. Why fix what ain't broken, guys? You live disarmed, I'll live armed, we can have "diplomacy" over issues that aren't so devisive.

Oh, and all the anti-gun Americans can move to britain, canada, france, or ireland, that's the best solution! ;P

True- i suppose as has been mentioned before, its the cultural diff more than anthing else that seperates the mindsets of Americans from others- Europeans, Japanese, Canadians etc.
It just seems odd that in those places fatalities rarely breach the lower end of the 3 figure mark per annum, while it numbers in the tens of thousands in the states.

After the Dunblane massacre in Scotland a few years back, severe restrictions came in regarding gun ownership- and for the large part, fatalities did drop. After Columbine and the recent ones in Arizona?, the deaths and outrage from school shootings would, logically to Europeans, result in restrictions on gun laws- not the allowance of restrictions on heavier assault rifles and other military weapons to be relaxed! :p

Cultural diffs i suppose ;)

Australians are learning the lessons of indiscriminate, draconian gun control laws the hard way. In 1996, a criminally insane man shot to death 35 people at a Tasmanian resort. The government immediately responded by passing stringent gun control laws, banning most firearms, and ordering their confiscation. More than 640,000 guns were seized from ordinary Australian citizens.

As a result, there has been a sharp and dramatic increase in violent crime against the disarmed law-abiding citizens, who in small communities and particularly in rural areas are now unable to protect themselves from brigands and robbers. That same year in the state of Victoria, there was a 300 percent increase in homicides committed with firearms. The following year, robberies increased almost 60 percent in South Australia. By 1999, assaults had increased in New South Wales by almost 20 percent. Two years following the gun ban/confiscation, armed robberies rose by 73 percent, unarmed robberies by 28 percent, kidnappings by 38 percent, assaults by 17 percent and manslaughter by 29 percent, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

In Great Britain. Following a 1996 massacre of school children by a madman in Dunblane, Scotland, the British government banned and ordered the confiscation of most firearms. Since then a horrific crime wave has taken place in England and Scotland. In 1998, the U.S. Department of Justice declared that the rate of muggings in England had surpassed that in the U.S. by 40 percent, while assault and burglary rates were nearly 100 percent higher in England than in the U.S.

To make matters worse for England --- and this is also true for Canada --- in those countries where citizens are disarmed in their own homes, day burglary is commonplace and dangerous because criminals know they will not be shot at if caught flagrante delicto. Not so in the U.S., where burglars not only prefer night burglaries but try to make sure homeowners are not at home to avoid being shot at by the intended victim.


Just because you can not purchase a gune legally, doesn't mean a criminal can get it illegaly.

Australians are learning the lessons of indiscriminate, draconian gun control laws the hard way. In 1996, a criminally insane man shot to death 35 people at a Tasmanian resort. The government immediately responded by passing stringent gun control laws, banning most firearms, and ordering their confiscation. More than 640,000 guns were seized from ordinary Australian citizens.

As a result, there has been a sharp and dramatic increase in violent crime against the disarmed law-abiding citizens, who in small communities and particularly in rural areas are now unable to protect themselves from brigands and robbers. That same year in the state of Victoria, there was a 300 percent increase in homicides committed with firearms. The following year, robberies increased almost 60 percent in South Australia. By 1999, assaults had increased in New South Wales by almost 20 percent. Two years following the gun ban/confiscation, armed robberies rose by 73 percent, unarmed robberies by 28 percent, kidnappings by 38 percent, assaults by 17 percent and manslaughter by 29 percent, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

In Great Britain. Following a 1996 massacre of school children by a madman in Dunblane, Scotland, the British government banned and ordered the confiscation of most firearms. Since then a horrific crime wave has taken place in England and Scotland. In 1998, the U.S. Department of Justice declared that the rate of muggings in England had surpassed that in the U.S. by 40 percent, while assault and burglary rates were nearly 100 percent higher in England than in the U.S.

To make matters worse for England --- and this is also true for Canada --- in those countries where citizens are disarmed in their own homes, day burglary is commonplace and dangerous because criminals know they will not be shot at if caught flagrante delicto. Not so in the U.S., where burglars not only prefer night burglaries but try to make sure homeowners are not at home to avoid being shot at by the intended victim.


Just because you can not purchase a gune legally, doesn't mean a criminal can get it illegaly.

Thats true- but the public has more of a tendancy to rely on the police force rather than vigilantism- however successful the police may be, they have to have ultimate authority, not some nut job with a 12 gauge. In the past few years, crime has gone up and down in England- i don't know of this 'horrific crime wave' you speak of in either England or Scotland so i can't really comment on it.

In Ireland, there are less than 25-30 gun related fatalities per annum.

After the Dunblane massacre in Scotland a few years back, severe restrictions came in regarding gun ownership- and for the large part, fatalities did drop.

Psychotic - please, do you have sources for this opinion?

Wrong. The guns AND the bullets are owned by the army. And god have mercy on you if one of the bullets should go missing...

So all guns in Switzerland are militarily owned?

From what I can tell, is that you gun nuts are using absolutely ANY excuse neccessary to keep guns legal.


Love the insulting generalization, sir. Your sweeping wisdom has shown me the light; I recant my firearms!

If you're going to try to get someone to "realise" something, first rule is to not insult them.

Tell me about it. I can't stand Daley. The city's gun ban is just taking guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens and allowing criminals who get guns anyways through illegal methods to run rampant. I can't stand the city. How much longer until our dictator gets taken out of office? Daley's only redeeming attribute is that he's a Sox fan.

What I love is the high percentage of those illegal firearms that are coming from the police confiscation of previous weapons. The cops are crooked in the Windy City.

Maybe a good alarm system.
Because over here, that's all we need. Fact.

If that's the case, you'd have no murders whatsoever, if only the government would provide you with alarms.

Bullshit. You'll still have the wacko that doesn't care if they live or die in the process.

I mean you have to realise that this doesn't happen all the time!

SO many of you who have posted in favour of guns are IMMENSELY pararnoid!

God, get over it!

And you're willing to bet your life. We're not so much for that theory. We'd rather be prepared.

Why the hell do you want to hunt?!

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

Hunting is not barbaric. Its how I get meat for the table. I dont buy beef, ever, unless I am dining out. Having someone else kill your meat for you, far away so that you never have to see where it really comes from because you can't handle the fact that it was a very happy cow, is just sad.

Plus its healthier. Wild game isn't full of bovine growth hormones or anti-biotics, and has a healthy amount of fat, unlike storebought beef.

It also gets me camping out for about 4+ days at a time, per hunt.
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.
I dont feel I need a gun for protection, I choose to have one. You make the point that there are fewer "guns crimes" where there are fewer guns. Very true. But does it matter what kind of weapon is used to kill someone? If there are no guns people use other things instead.

I would also re-examine your statement that we are "weak inside"; you have just slandered every gunowner on this board with a statement that has no basis in fact.

Chaimberlain bought time, whether he knew it or not. Without it we'd have lost and you americans would be best of friends with Hitler's heirs today.


Bullshit. Hitler had standing orders to march back out of Czechoslovakia, had ANYONE put up resistance. That would have bought even more time.


The Home Guard never saw action (barring a couple of 'friendly fire' incidents and the odd downed German airman) which rendered those guns redundant.


Oh yeah, an armed populace would have been so useless in an invasion....boy, you really know your tactics, don't 'cha?


And I guess Russia never did anything to help win the war though, it was all the Yanks with us brits bumbling around getting in the way.

The Brits were amazing during WWII, I don't know what version of history you were reading....and the Russians were most certainly there, but do we have to name all the nations on the side of the allies every time? There are quite a few of them.

Oh yeah, an armed populace would have been so useless in an invasion....boy, you really know your tactics, don't 'cha?


Admiral Yamamoto, when asked by the Japanese general staff about the possibility
of invading the American homeland, replied that there were fifty million lunatics in this country who owned military style weaponry, and that there would be "a rifle behind every blade of grass". This apparently bothered him a great deal more than the 200,000 or so guys in uniform prior to the war.

:)

If the US should do anything to reduce it's crime rate, it should seal up it's borders with latin america.

you're a sitting duck then, a sheep ripe for slaughter at the hands of a criminal who decides to rade your home

i don't want to be a victim. i will be armed and ready.

You really ARE paranoid...
I obviously live in a city of 1.5 million sitting ducks, in a country of 4.5 million sitting ducks, on a continent of 460 million sitting ducks. And yet, there's but 0.2% of the population of this country assaulted each year, and the murder and manslaughter numbers are so low they are almost non-existent.

The US suported Hitler in many ways, I believe he was voted 'person of the year' or some-such. If the war had started in 38 Britain would have lost because it lacked the airforce to do mouch more than Poland did (aka, die bravely). The US would almost certainly the stay back as it did in the Cold War.

:rolleyes:

Yeah because th German army at the time could have launched an invasion of the UK. :rolleyes: You do know that the German high command were still terriffied of the Royal Navy during the whole of the 30s? Hitler and the High command also rated the french and BEF a lot higher than their performance warrented, so war would never have been declared in '38 unless the allies had moved first.

Besides, the German Armed forces were suprisingly stretched even in early 39. If there had been any serious defence in czech or poland then the Nazis would have been even more stretched and their offensive against France would have postponed. Their invasion of France only happened after all the units that had gained experience in Poland and Czech had been brought back to the Western front. Why do you think the Phoney War lasted so long?

As for your comment about the airforce, there were already 306 Spitfires in service in '38 and also over 500 Hawker Hurricanes, so its not like we were completely undefended. And needless to say, if war had been declared, production would have been increased.

Psychotic - please, do you have sources for this opinion?
Yeah ok....

http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/summaries/reader/0,2061,566886,00.html

From the webpage (according to the Scottish Parliament)

"As a result of a gun-amnesty program and a ban on pistols, Scotland has reduced its rate of gun crime by nearly half in the past 10 years, the Scotsman reported Sept. 24.

According to the Scottish Executive, there was a 2-percent drop in the number of firearms offenses in 2002, and an overall 48-percent decline since 1992. In addition, crimes committed with shotguns reached the lowest level ever last year."

Im not advocating a stance that the US should ban its guns; just making an observation that its not merely the fact that gun restrictions result in a rise/ or fall in murders as some here put forward- society is more complicated than the simple corollation between the two; for instance;

"Gun control laws are uniform throughout the United Kingdom, but murder rates are not -- in 1989 the murder rate per 100,000 people was 0.6 in England and Wales, 3.3 in Scotland and 7 in Northern Ireland." is a load of pants. Using northern Ireland as an example is flawed- there was a bloody war going on there until recently!

:rolleyes:

Yeah because th German army at the time could have launched an invasion of the UK. :rolleyes: You do know that the German high command were still terriffied of the Royal Navy during the whole of the 30s? Hitler and the High command also rated the french and BEF a lot higher than their performance warrented, so war would never have been declared in '38 unless the allies had moved first.

Besides, the German Armed forces were suprisingly stretched even in early 39. If there had been any serious defence in czech or poland then the Nazis would have been even more stretched and their offensive against France would have postponed. Their invasion of France only happened after all the units that had gained experience in Poland and Czech had been brought back to the Western front. Why do you think the Phoney War lasted so long?

As for your comment about the airforce, there were already 306 Spitfires in service in '38 and also over 500 Hawker Hurricanes, so its not like we were completely undefended. And needless to say, if war had been declared, production would have been increased.

Had Churchill not gotten back into office when he did, the Battle of Britain would not have been a victory.

Had Churchill not gotten back into office when he did, the Battle of Britain would not have been a victory.

Maybe, not doubt he had an effect, but as to whether it was he himself that swung it to victory is debateable. But his one speech "We shall fight them on the beaches..." etc brought out much of the best in people.

In class!!! I was right no "real world" life for you, you're tucked in by Mummy and Dadakins every night.

To quote Winston (he let me call him that cuz we were tight) Any man not a Liberal at 20 is a misanthrope, and any man not a Conversative by 30 is a fool.

You're not even old enough to be a liberal yet.


From what I can tell, is that you gun nuts are using absolutely ANY excuse neccessary to keep guns legal.
Because the ancestors of people many years ago were repressed the descendant who had nothing to do with their ancestors must fight back with lethal force when someone enteres their home or tries to rob from them or attacks them?
I hope that you realise that you are going to absolute extremes
And no, there's absolutely no-way you could call me naiive.
I mean, the stuff I see in my neighbourhood, my school.
I mean, most people in my class think I'm doing heroein but I've never gone near the stuff. I've learned so much about drugs and the crimes the people in my class do, it would shock you beyond belief.

I hope you finally realise

I've got 2 words for you.... HOME INVASION.

at 4:15 in the afternoon some meth-head kicks in your door demanding everything ...what are you going to do?


I wake up in the middle of the night to the burglar alarm (and believe me, I'll have a good one) if the guy hasn't run already I'll be alert and with a weapon in my hand by the time they enter my sight. OK, I assume I get the drop on him, (which is likely whatever they do, that's what hiding behind doors is for) but even without it, unless they have a gun (which they send not to in the UK) then I reckon I can take them.

I don't need to know how to use a knife to threaten someone with one or stab them. If I try something fancy with one I deserve a pounding for being an idiot.

In class!!! I was right no "real world" life for you, you're tucked in by Mummy and Dadakins every night.

You're not even old enough to be a liberal yet.
Why? You bitter that someone is getting something out of an education?

In my 'class' we study the reasoning why people go to war, why bans on religious identifications in the public arena might have political ramifications in later generations and how and why the patronising fools such as yourself end up having a voice in the political sphere when they have nothing constuctive to add to the debate.
Oh, 'class' in my case means a Masters Degree- don't assume that the word 'class' means high school or youth- and don't confuse youth with inexpericence and lack of intelligence.

I've got 2 words for you.... HOME INVASION.

at 4:15 in the afternoon some meth-head kicks in your door demanding everything ...what are you going to do?
Well normal people are at work in the afternoon.

Don't corollate the drug problems of your state with the lack of gun ownership in another different state- they aren't compatible- its like comparing hurling and baseball.

Academia reguardless of level is an ivory tower of theory devoid of substance.


Why? You bitter that someone is getting something out of an education?

In my 'class' we study the reasoning why people go to war, why bans on religious identifications in the public arena might have political ramifications in later generations and how and why the patronising fools such as yourself end up having a voice in the political sphere when they have nothing constuctive to add to the debate.
Oh, 'class' in my case means a Masters Degree- don't assume that the word 'class' means high school or youth- and don't confuse youth with inexpericence and lack of intelligence.

<snip>Oh, 'class' in my case means a Masters Degree- don't assume that the word 'class' means high school or youth- and don't confuse youth with inexpericence and lack of intelligence.
Both Science and Wurzelmania have identified themselves as high-schoolers still living at home. They have the teenager's advantage of believing they are super-human and/or invunurable to attack... that's why militaries like teenagers.

They have neither the life experience nor the cultural experience to have anything but a media/government slanted opinion about firearms and their use.

I don't expect their arguments to be rational.

Most stay at home moms and their children are home at 4:15, and a 90kg meth-head is more than a match for a 45kg with a couple of small kids.


Well normal people are at work in the afternoon.

Don't corollate the drug problems of your state with the lack of gun ownership in another different state- they aren't compatible- its like comparing hurling and baseball.

Maybe, not doubt he had an effect, but as to whether it was he himself that swung it to victory is debateable. But his one speech "We shall fight them on the beaches..." etc brought out much of the best in people.

I was more referring to his role as First Lord of the Admiralty in 1939, where defense appropriations (especially for aircraft) were given massive priority. Winston knew that if the RAF didn't expand quickly after the failure at Munich, that the "jig was up".

Both Science and Wurzelmania have identified themselves as high-schoolers still living at home. They have the teenager's advantage of believing they are super-human and/or invunurable to attack... that's why militaries like teenagers.

They have neither the life experience nor the cultural experience to have anything but a media/government slanted opinion about firearms and their use.

I don't expect their arguments to be rational.

:D touche

Unspeakable, actually read the last 2 lines of the post of mine you quoted before continuing on your scenario. The cultural differences of the US and gun ownership vs non US states and their gunownerships are the issues- nit the societal problems of drug abuse which are not common across the boards, and therefore can't be used as an accurate comparison.

'Meth-heads' and their 'Home invasions' aren't an issue in Europe, or at least a VERY teeny tiny issue compared to the States.

I was more referring to his role as First Lord of the Admiralty in 1939, where defense appropriations (especially for aircraft) were given massive priority. Winston knew that if the RAF didn't expand quickly after the failure at Munich, that the "jig was up".

Ah, in that case you have my agreement. The building of the radar network and the spotters on the ground with the interconnecting defense system were one of the best defense networks ever developed.

Ah, in that case you have my agreement. The building of the radar network and the spotters on the ground with the interconnecting defense system were one of the best defense networks ever developed.
" Here's to the boys in the back rooms...." clink!

" Here's to the boys in the back rooms...." clink!

As ever, its the whole and not the parts of the whole :)

My family is a good example of that:

Grandad on one side- Comms Chief in the Navy on an MTB, fought in the Atlantic, North Sea, the English Cannel, the Pacific and the Indian Ocean.

Grandad on the other side: R&D. His team developed the machanical gearing to lower the pipe line of Operation Pluto.

Originally posted by: Science and arts

If you're being serious, thats damn scary.

I'll admit its a bit unorthodox, but there is a big grain of truth in what he posted: Hunting- any kind of hunting, so long as your companions are responsible- is a hell of a good time. Its not the fact that you're taking an animal's life, but a big part of certain types of hunting( for example duck hunting) is waiting. That gives you an ample chance to socialize with your buddies( if you're duck hunting anyway. With deer and turkey hunting you have to be still and silent) but it gets old after a while.

Also, believe it or not, there are people who shoot automatic weapons for recreational purposes. I've done it myself. Is that to say i think there should be no gun control over pistols and automatics? Heck no. I actually think there should be more. Not too much, but more. I'm just saying we need to keep in mind that they are out there, and that a lot of guns used to kill people are purchased illegally.

The only thing that would get me ticked really ticked is if people took away our shotguns. :mad:

Americans are quite happy with this situation, but the Europeans keep wanting to change us "for the better". I'm not suggesting Ireland and Britain change their laws, I'm just glad I don't live there. :)

You would think gun-owning Americans are crusading for guns to be airlifted to Britain and France, but that's not true. We could care less.

Europe is just seething mad at us and looking for any excuse to come over here and piss in our pot, so to speak. Why fix what ain't broken, guys? You live disarmed, I'll live armed, we can have "diplomacy" over issues that aren't so devisive.

Oh, and all the anti-gun Americans can move to britain, canada, france, or ireland, that's the best solution! ;P

Not quite true... the argument I was making is : I have never seen nor touched a gun, nor has anybody I know, nobody I know cares about guns, nobody ever felt the need to get one. For ONE simple reason : We don't need them. It's not true that we are forbidden to own guns. All you would have to do is join a club, get a membership card and you can get guns if you want to. It's just that nobody wants to. That's the situation in Europe.

I completely understand that in a country with an increased number of violent crime, such as the US, people will feel different about this issue. Historical factors, geographic factors, social factors....
the reaction of Americans to this statement was to call me irresponsible, childish and a liar when I pointed out that my country just IS a lot safer (see the post I made about locking my door...)
If that's "couldn't care less" I wouldn't want to see how you react if somebody actually gave YOU some advice...

What I love is the high percentage of those illegal firearms that are coming from the police confiscation of previous weapons. The cops are crooked in the Windy City.

Wait, let me get this straight...are you actually suggesting that some police in Chicago might be IN LEAGUE with criminals? In Chicago? Surely you jest! To quote the father of our dear mayor "The police are not here to create disorder, they are here to preserve disorder!" Besides, the police are here to protect us from all those awful criminals and immigrants! I mean...without the police, how could I possably protect myself? Its a well know fact that only insane hicks and black crack addicts can successfully use a firearm.

*goes and vomits the ballance of his vitrol in a bucket*

Well normal people are at work in the afternoon.

Don't corollate the drug problems of your state with the lack of gun ownership in another different state- they aren't compatible- its like comparing hurling and baseball.

Baseball, the only sport on earth that moves more slowly than hunting. With the possable exception of televised golf.

Baseball, the only sport on earth that moves more slowly than hunting. With the possable exception of televised golf.

Golf is actually faster, since the pan away from hole to hole. :D

BTW: Baseball is the only sport played where the defense starts with the ball.

Academia reguardless of level is an ivory tower of theory devoid of substance.\

You know, I've stepped up to the plate for guns on a number of occasions, but I gotta call bullshit on that. With education, especially higer education, you get exactly what you seek. Sure, you can spend four years studying underwater basket weaving with a minor in bongsmithing, but you can also spend four years becoming a more productive, useful citizen. Once you move past the undergraduate level, this becomes even more true. There are only two reasons to resent academia, ignorance or sour grapes.

And before you even consider it, go back and take a look at my previous posts before you spew some kinda "classic liberal" crap back at me.

Baseball, the only sport on earth that moves more slowly than hunting. With the possable exception of televised golf.

Ap, Women's Golf.. :D

Baseball- reeeeaaaallllly slllooowwww.
Hurling- the fastest field sport in the world :D

\

You know, I've stepped up to the plate for guns on a number of occasions, but I gotta call bullshit on that. With education, especially higer education, you get exactly what you seek. Sure, you can spend four years studying underwater basket weaving with a minor in bongsmithing, but you can also spend four years becoming a more productive, useful citizen. Once you move past the undergraduate level, this becomes even more true. There are only two reasons to resent academia, ignorance or sour grapes.

And before you even consider it, go back and take a look at my previous posts before you spew some kinda "classic liberal" crap back at me.

I like a good debate- particularly with someone who doesn't agree with my pov necessarily- but i HATE uneducated posters raggin' on those on both sides who know what they are talking about.

'Meth-heads' and their 'Home invasions' aren't an issue in Europe, or at least a VERY teeny tiny issue compared to the States.

Thats part of it. Part of the issue is also that Europe has a very different philosophy than the United States. Europeans have 500 years of culture and domestication to look back on. You have a strong liberal tradition in many countries. You have a radically different way of governing. You also have a Catholic respect for the value of human life hardwired into your culture. The US has a different history. What works for us, indeed what is essential to us, might not be the answer for Europe.

America has a constitution that puts ultimate value in maximum freedom. That is going to lead to a certain level of conflict and lawlessness. Europe (especially over the past 20 years or so) has made a decision to look to the public good over individual freedom. We are unable to do that. Our constitution, our system of government, all the precedent of our courts, all of it is aim directly at maximizing individual freedom, even at the expense of public concerns. It is a fundamental difference in philosophy.

Which is better? Well, I've got a bias, but for me, freedom is more important than security. Its why I hate the Patriot Act and look askance at Junior.

Golf is actually faster, since the pan away from hole to hole. :D

BTW: Baseball is the only sport played where the defense starts with the ball.

You're probably right. My perception of speed in sports is kinda spoiled. Even football (American or International) looks slow when you grew up with hockey, lol.

Thats part of it. Part of the issue is also that Europe has a very different philosophy than the United States. Europeans have 500 years of culture and domestication to look back on. You have a strong liberal tradition in many countries. You have a radically different way of governing. You also have a Catholic respect for the value of human life hardwired into your culture. The US has a different history. What works for us, indeed what is essential to us, might not be the answer for Europe.

America has a constitution that puts ultimate value in maximum freedom. That is going to lead to a certain level of conflict and lawlessness. Europe (especially over the past 20 years or so) has made a decision to look to the public good over individual freedom. We are unable to do that. Our constitution, our system of government, all the precedent of our courts, all of it is aim directly at maximizing individual freedom, even at the expense of public concerns. It is a fundamental difference in philosophy.

Which is better? Well, I've got a bias, but for me, freedom is more important than security. Its why I hate the Patriot Act and look askance at Junior.

*ding ding ding ding ding*

God i wish i could frame that for every argument that descends into US vs Europe. :D

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

Guns have done nothing for me. Other then, say, kill people I probobly wouldn't have enjoyed meeting.

um...it's Housewives who buy the SUV's. Most men are satisfied with a medium size pickup. (you know the kind, big enough bed for a sheet of plywood, but small enough to get between the trees...)

It seems you have no sense of humour as well, or amybe your getting defensive about your lack of balls. ;) :D

It would that i have to tell you when I'm joshing with you so...i was joshing with you just then...okay? :)

Thats part of it. Part of the issue is also that Europe has a very different philosophy than the United States. Europeans have 500 years of culture and domestication to look back on. You have a strong liberal tradition in many countries. You have a radically different way of governing. You also have a Catholic respect for the value of human life hardwired into your culture. The US has a different history. What works for us, indeed what is essential to us, might not be the answer for Europe.

America has a constitution that puts ultimate value in maximum freedom. That is going to lead to a certain level of conflict and lawlessness. Europe (especially over the past 20 years or so) has made a decision to look to the public good over individual freedom. We are unable to do that. Our constitution, our system of government, all the precedent of our courts, all of it is aim directly at maximizing individual freedom, even at the expense of public concerns. It is a fundamental difference in philosophy.

Which is better? Well, I've got a bias, but for me, freedom is more important than security. Its why I hate the Patriot Act and look askance at Junior.

Very good point, thank you. You sum up and elaborate a statement for which I have been called irresponsible already. :D
Although I really doubt that the Patriot Act serves the public good, but that belongs to another thread.
I think, many Europeans, me included, cannot imagine freedom without security. For the simple fact, that if you don't provide security for the weaker members of society, they won't be free. This absolute form of freedom that the US seems to strive for clearly favours one part of society, while completely dropping another into dependancy and poverty. I'm thinking about labour laws and trade unions, a health system, in short a state trying to even out the odds for ALL its citizens.

One of the very very obvious difference between Europe and America is that you will be hard put to find a slum in Europe.
Personally, I think this huge clash between rich and poor might be one of the reasons why violence and theft are more of a problem in the States than they are in Europe. It's determination to keep what's yours on the one side and frustration and envy on the other.
As I said before, the situation and the society in the USA appear to require gun possession, but I personally am happy to live in Europe. I can live in peace here, I don't have to worry or fear for my possessions, I don't need a gun for protection.

In class!!! I was right no "real world" life for you, you're tucked in by Mummy and Dadakins every night.

To quote Winston (he let me call him that cuz we were tight) Any man not a Liberal at 20 is a misanthrope, and any man not a Conversative by 30 is a fool.

You're not even old enough to be a liberal yet.


How dare you just assume that because I'm younger than you, I'm not mature enough to know myself!

Of course I know where I stand religiously and politically.

And to make your sweeping generalisation is very hypocritical of you. ;)

Very good point, thank you. You sum up and elaborate a statement for which I have been called irresponsible already. :D
Although I really doubt that the Patriot Act serves the public good, but that belongs to another thread.
I think, many Europeans, me included, cannot imagine freedom without security. For the simple fact, that if you don't provide security for the weaker members of society, they won't be free. This absolute form of freedom that the US seems to strive for clearly favours one part of society, while completely dropping another into dependancy and poverty. I'm thinking about labour laws and trade unions, a health system, in short a state trying to even out the odds for ALL its citizens.

One of the very very obvious difference between Europe and America is that you will be hard put to find a slum in Europe.
Personally, I think this huge clash between rich and poor might be one of the reasons why violence and theft are more of a problem in the States than they are in Europe. It's determination to keep what's yours on the one side and frustration and envy on the other.
As I said before, the situation and the society in the USA appear to require gun possession, but I personally am happy to live in Europe. I can live in peace here, I don't have to worry or fear for my possessions, I don't need a gun for protection.


Some in the States would argue that the clash is good. It keeps the poor on their toes, and those who have the drive/desire to transcend their born place in society can. American class is considerably more fluid than European. Coming from a good family here doesn't have nearly the same pull as it does in many places in Europe. In most parts of America (a few enclaves in the Northeast and the Old South excluded) your social class is determined solely by your personal wealth. We don't have a legacy of royalty. We barely even have "old money" families (most of the wealthiest families in America earned their money only a few generations ago, at most). Europe seems to value a system that has a fairly high minimal standard of living, but that tends to promote the status quo. The United States tends to favor a much lower bottom, but much more movement between classes. Again, its an issue of values and philosophy.

Some in the States would argue that the clash is good. It keeps the poor on their toes, and those who have the drive/desire to transcend their born place in society can. American class is considerably more fluid than European. Coming from a good family here doesn't have nearly the same pull as it does in many places in Europe. In most parts of America (a few enclaves in the Northeast and the Old South excluded) your social class is determined solely by your personal wealth. We don't have a legacy of royalty. We barely even have "old money" families (most of the wealthiest families in America earned their money only a few generations ago, at most). Europe seems to value a system that has a fairly high minimal standard of living, but that tends to promote the status quo. The United States tends to favor a much lower bottom, but much more movement between classes. Again, its an issue of values and philosophy.

Yes, i suppose that the Americas in general has a more fluid version of 'social mobility'- a left over from the ideology of the 'New World'. The gulf is a result of this and why in Europe the need for advancment, while still there, is tempered by the egalitarian ethos of most liberal democracies. Again, merely cultural and societal differences are the reults- no one is particularly 'at fault'.

hey, Psychotic and Glorious - really enjoyed your observations and discourse. Well said.

How dare you just assume that because I'm younger than you, I'm not mature enough to know myself!

Of course I know where I stand religiously and politically.

And to make your sweeping generalisation is very hypocritical of you. ;)

Ignorance knows no age-limit, but it's a lot more common among those with limited or no life-experience to draw upon.
When I was 13, I was enamoured of the writings of Marx. I even read english translations of Das Kapital and thought it was a great idea.

I haven't been a Communist since before I started Shaving, because I met someone who escaped that system at great personal risk, and he set me straight on the difference between "Truth" and "Pravda". (That, and my first Income Tax filing where I found out how much mamagovernment was taking away...)

You're still on "Pravda", which is understandable-you haven't lived in the Real World yet.

Some in the States would argue that the clash is good. It keeps the poor on their toes, and those who have the drive/desire to transcend their born place in society can. American class is considerably more fluid than European. Coming from a good family here doesn't have nearly the same pull as it does in many places in Europe. In most parts of America (a few enclaves in the Northeast and the Old South excluded) your social class is determined solely by your personal wealth. We don't have a legacy of royalty. We barely even have "old money" families (most of the wealthiest families in America earned their money only a few generations ago, at most). Europe seems to value a system that has a fairly high minimal standard of living, but that tends to promote the status quo. The United States tends to favor a much lower bottom, but much more movement between classes. Again, its an issue of values and philosophy.

This kind of reminded me...
Years ago, there was a country called the Democratic Republic of Germany, don't know if you remember it. It definitely wasn't a free country. What most people in that country really hated was the fact that they were not allowed to leave their country, most of them would have returned anyway, they only wanted to go for holiday in more interesting places.
Then, 15 years ago, the country seized to exist and the citizens suddenly found themselves citizens of another counrty, a free country. They were free to go on holiday wherever they wanted. But they still couldn't. Because now they were unemployed and didn't have the money.
That way, having no social security made them just as unfree and oppressed as their old country who had just told them to stay at home.

Thats part of it. Part of the issue is also that Europe has a very different philosophy than the United States. Europeans have 500 years of culture and domestication to look back on. You have a strong liberal tradition in many countries. You have a radically different way of governing. You also have a Catholic respect for the value of human life hardwired into your culture. The US has a different history. What works for us, indeed what is essential to us, might not be the answer for Europe.

America has a constitution that puts ultimate value in maximum freedom. That is going to lead to a certain level of conflict and lawlessness. Europe (especially over the past 20 years or so) has made a decision to look to the public good over individual freedom. We are unable to do that. Our constitution, our system of government, all the precedent of our courts, all of it is aim directly at maximizing individual freedom, even at the expense of public concerns. It is a fundamental difference in philosophy.

Which is better? Well, I've got a bias, but for me, freedom is more important than security. Its why I hate the Patriot Act and look askance at Junior.
well put :)
like (i think) i've said before, observational studies dont prove causality.

Ignorance knows no age-limit, but it's a lot more common among those with limited or no life-experience to draw upon.
When I was 13, I was enamoured of the writings of Marx. I even read english translations of Das Kapital and thought it was a great idea.

I haven't been a Communist since before I started Shaving, because I met someone who escaped that system at great personal risk, and he set me straight on the difference between "Truth" and "Pravda". (That, and my first Income Tax filing where I found out how much mamagovernment was taking away...)

You're still on "Pravda", which is understandable-you haven't lived in the Real World yet.
just because you were incapable of critical thinking at that age doesn't mean the rest of us weren't.

You're probably right. My perception of speed in sports is kinda spoiled. Even football (American or International) looks slow when you grew up with hockey, lol.

Hockey is just soccer on ice. :)

Hockey is just soccer on ice. :)

Strange, i thought hockey was hockey on ice ;)

Very good point, thank you. You sum up and elaborate a statement for which I have been called irresponsible already. :D
Although I really doubt that the Patriot Act serves the public good, but that belongs to another thread.
I think any reasonably (classical) Liberal person agrees with that.
I think, many Europeans, me included, cannot imagine freedom without security. For the simple fact, that if you don't provide security for the weaker members of society, they won't be free. This absolute form of freedom that the US seems to strive for clearly favours one part of society, while completely dropping another into dependancy and poverty. I'm thinking about labour laws and trade unions, a health system, in short a state trying to even out the odds for ALL its citizens.
I don't know if I posted this before, but it is relevant. The "leveling" of society (oooh! oooh! remember the French Revolution?) has some very noxious effects on the psycology, productivity and growth of the very members of society it is trying to "protect". (bold added)

"Without freedom there can be no morality".

All the highest achievements of virtue, as well as the blackest villainies, are individual. The larger a community is, and the more the sum total of collective factors peculiar to every large community rests on conservative prejudices detrimental to individuality, the more will the individual be morally and spiritually crushed, and, as a result, the one source of moral and spiritual progress is choked up. Naturally the only thing that can thrive in such an atmosphere is sociality and whatever is collective in the individual. Everything individual in him goes under, i.e., is doomed to repression. The individual elements lapse into the unconscious, where, by the law of necessity, they are transformed into something essentially baleful, destructive, and anarchical. Socially, this evil principle shows itself in the spectacular crimes-regicide and the like-perpetrated by certain prophetically inclined individuals; but in the great mass of the community it remains in the background, and only manifests itself indirectly in the inexorable moral degeneration of society as a whole society. It is a notorious fact that the morality of a society as a whole is in inverse ratio to its size; for the greater the aggregation of individuals, the more the individual factors are blotted out, and with them morality, which rests entirely on the moral sense of the individual and the freedom necessary for this. Hence every man is, in a certain sense, unconsciously a worse man when he is in society than when acting alone; for he is carried by society and to that extent relieved of his individual responsibility. Any large company composed of wholly admirable persons has the morality and intelligence of an unwieldy, stupid, and violent animal. The bigger the organization, the more unavoidable is its immorality and blind stupidity (Senatus bestia, senatores boni viri). Society, by automatically stressing all the collective qualities in its individual representatives, puts a premium on mediocrity, on everything that settles down to vegetate in an easy, irresponsible way. Individuality will inevitably be driven to the wall. This process begins in school, continues at the university, and rules all departments in which the state has a hand. In small social body, the individuality of its members is better safeguarded, and the greater is their relative freedom and the possibility of conscious responsibility. Without freedom there can be no morality.

Carl G. Jung:The Assimilation of the Unconscious; The Collected Works vol.7,Para. 240
A mediocre Humanity will never Evolve.

One of the very very obvious difference between Europe and America is that you will be hard put to find a slum in Europe.Maybe, but some of the working-class neighbourhoods I visited when I was last in England (1989) came pretty close...
Personally, I think this huge clash between rich and poor might be one of the reasons why violence and theft are more of a problem in the States than they are in Europe. It's determination to keep what's yours on the one side and frustration and envy on the other.That's a common opinion, but the really Poor people I've known (of any ethnicity) are too busy working to be criminals and have a damnsight harder life than the welfare pimps - but they are proud of themselves and their children. It's called the Self Respect earned from hard work and adversity. They are honest hard working folk who SAVE rather than buy cable TV, Internet, pimped-up cars or other luxuries. SES can be used as an excuse for criminality, but it is just that - an excuse.
As I said before, the situation and the society in the USA appear to require gun possession, but I personally am happy to live in Europe. I can live in peace here, I don't have to worry or fear for my possessions,You live in a good neighbourhood. There are bad spots in Europe too.
I don't need a gun for protection.Probably not, and that's good for you in your situation.

This kind of reminded me...
Years ago, there was a country called the Democratic Republic of Germany, don't know if you remember it. It definitely wasn't a free country. What most people in that country really hated was the fact that they were not allowed to leave their country, most of them would have returned anyway, they only wanted to go for holiday in more interesting places.
Then, 15 years ago, the country seized to exist and the citizens suddenly found themselves citizens of another counrty, a free country. They were free to go on holiday wherever they wanted. But they still couldn't. Because now they were unemployed and didn't have the money.
That way, having no social security made them just as unfree and oppressed as their old country who had just told them to stay at home.

But now they could leave. They could work. They could emmigrate. They could speak out against their government. I'd rather be poor and free, than comfortable but enslaved. Freedom isn't about going on a vacation. It isn't about having everything you want. Freedom is about having control over your own destiny. Freedom is about having the right to the things that allow you to live as an individual rather than as a unit of labor. Life, liberty, and property. Those are the things that define freedom.

just because you were incapable of critical thinking at that age doesn't mean the rest of us weren't.

I've never met a 13 year old that was really able to think critically. Hell, I haven't met many 30 year olds who are. Lets be honest, though. There is a reason society sees a difference between children and adults. There is a reason most nations don't allow you to vote until 18 (at least). People need a certain amount of experiance and maturity before they can be considered adults. Wehn I was a teen, I didn't understand that. No one does.

Hockey is just soccer on ice. :)

Well yeah, at twice the speed. Oh! and the puck is a frozen pice of rubber moving at 90+ mph. You're right, there are alot of similarities, but the speed factor is still different.

That way, having no social security made them just as unfree and oppressed as their old country who had just told them to stay at home.

Cabra - Ok, though it seems a tad general. Was it worth doing for their children, though, who will not need a period of social adjustment? The next generation may be able to accomplish more with the freedom than their parents.

I lived (with my 85 year-old grandfather) and worked in West Germany in 1970. I have a rough sense of what the issues were and am interested in your opinion.

I've never met a 13 year old that was really able to think critically. Hell, I haven't met many 30 year olds who are. Lets be honest, though. There is a reason society sees a difference between children and adults. There is a reason most nations don't allow you to vote until 18 (at least). People need a certain amount of experiance and maturity before they can be considered adults. Wehn I was a teen, I didn't understand that. No one does.

Well I'm fifteen and I can easily understand that. However, there are some teenagers who aren't complete morons as you would think, most of the people I know, wouldn't really no that, but I do, and I know it as a fact.

But now they could leave. They could work. They could emmigrate. They could speak out against their government. I'd rather be poor and free, than comfortable but enslaved. Freedom isn't about going on a vacation. It isn't about having everything you want. Freedom is about having control over your own destiny. Freedom is about having the right to the things that allow you to live as an individual rather than as a unit of labor. Life, liberty, and property. Those are the things that define freedom.

You're aware that this is an illusion? No person ever is completely free. They will have friends and family, reaponsibilities that keep them from emmigrating. They can speak out against the government, but that is not going to change their situation. they can't work, because there is no work in their country any more.
True, now it's up to them to decide. But the result is the same, because they aren't given any practical options.

just because you were incapable of critical thinking at that age doesn't mean the rest of us weren't.

Some people still aren't, in fact, a lot of people aren't. they'll believe anything an "Authority" tells them is true, merely on the strength of that authority's accumulated degress, fame, or Celebrity.

There are a number of such people right here on this forum. MOST of them are below the age of eighteen and still dependents of someone else.

Cabra, I don't understand. In 1970 I saw a big wall preventing East Germans from leaving their country. People died every year trying to leave. Perhaps I misunderstand you, but the burden of freedom must lighter than living under an oppressive regime with few freedoms.

Cabra - Ok, though it seems a tad general. Was it worth doing for their children, though, who will not need a period of social adjustment? The next generation may be able to accomplish more with the freedom than their parents.

I lived (with my 85 year-old grandfather) and worked in West Germany in 1970. I have a rough sense of what the issues were and am interested in your opinion.

Have a look at any town or village in, say, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (one of the former East German laender). Unemployment is around 60-80 %, both for the old and the new generation. People are voting for the PDS, the succesor of the SED (used to be the only legal party in Eastern Germany)
I studied in Leipzig (East Germany) from 1997-2001, and I hardly could believe how many times I heard "The old times were better". It took some time for me to understand the reason, because being brought up in Westrn Germany, I believed that they should be happy to be free now. They could choose to do anything they wanted... only they couldn't. After a while I came to realise that. It's not enough to give people freedom and then not giving them options.
I'm not saying that there aren't people who didn't profit from the new system. Many of my fellow-students found positions in the west and in other countries. But, as I said before, they had advantages : They were bright enough to go to university, and they had parents who managed to finance their education. Those who weren't as lucky remain behind, unemployed, disillusioned, frustrated and slowly turning fanatic and dangerous.
The point I'm trying to make here is, freedom only works if you make sure that everybody has equal opportunities. If you don't give people the social and financial security to use their freedom, only part of society will actually truely be free.

You're aware that this is an illusion? No person ever is completely free. They will have friends and family, reaponsibilities that keep them from emmigrating. They can speak out against the government, but that is not going to change their situation. they can't work, because there is no work in their country any more.Too often "no work" simply means "no work the government will allow me to do". Cas in point - the variety of laws that keep unemployed people with automobiles from hiring themselves out as cabbies - or "minimum wage" laws that make employees elsewhere more desireable, or enviornmental regulations so absurd as to make industry too expensive to operate. (Did you know that the city of Anchorage Alaska was ordered by the EPA to add fish processing waste to their sewage/ocean outflow because it was TOO clean?!?) Or "unofficial" hiring "quotas" created by government fiat that keep otherwise qualified people from being eligible for work? (yes, I know these are US specific issues, but the principle applies)

Free markets = more work. It doesn't necessarily mean more money or an "equitable" distribution of money just a more equitable distribution of work.
True, now it's up to them to decide. But the result is the same, because they aren't given any practical options.[/QUOTE]

<snip> If you don't give people the social and financial security to use their freedom, only part of society will actually truely be free.But to Give, you must first Take. Government does not create opportunity, it uses the resources of others for non or unproductively in an effort to shore up a system that was damaged by other bad government policy. It is simultaneously unsustainable, self perpetuating and self destructive. If nothing else, the economics of the French Revolution and Soviet Russia showed us that.

Wealth must be both Created as well as Spent. No government program EVER has created Wealth. Without Wealth Creation, the well will run dry.

Cabra, I don't understand. In 1970 I saw a big wall preventing East Germans from leaving their country. People died every year trying to leave. Perhaps I misunderstand you, but the burden of freedom must lighter than living under an oppressive regime with few freedoms.

Don't get me wrong, there's no way I'm going to defend honecker and the government of Eastern Germany. No way.
BUT living there for for years a while after the reunification was an eye-opener. yes, people died trying to flee from that country. And others lived, stayed there and tried to change it for the better. It was an oppressive and tyranical government, there is no excuse for the artrocities it commited.
And yet I heard and saw people being nostalgic for it. Only 7 years after it had disappeared. Have you ever seen the movie "Good bye, Lenin"? If not, go and see it. It will tell you a few things about the east...

Now, morally, I think it is better to be free than to be safe but watched. Oh, just let me explain HOW safe they were if they decided to just play along: They were guaranteed a job, there was no unemployment. They were guaranteed housing, there were hardly homeless people (those that were mostly had some psychological problems). They were guaranteed education, if their parents were party-members they were guaranteed free university. They were guaranteed health care and pensions.
I wouldn't wnat to have lived there, despite all that. But I can imagine that most people felt safer AND more free under the old regime.

But to Give, you must first Take. Government does not create opportunity, it uses the resources of others for non or unproductively in an effort to shore up a system that was damaged by other bad government policy. It is simultaneously unsustainable, self perpetuating and self destructive. If nothing else, the economics of the French Revolution and Soviet Russia showed us that.

Wealth must be both Created as well as Spent. No government program EVER has created Wealth. Without Wealth Creation, the well will run dry.

"Property means responsibility" - Otto von Bismark, 1870

True, governments don't create wealth. That's not their job. They were created to give structure to society, to keep peace and to take care of their subjects.
I believe that extremes - in both directions - are bad. It's just as bad for a government to interfere with every aspect of life and business as it is to completely keep out of both. In both cases the government is not doing the job it was created for.

Well I'm fifteen and I can easily understand that. However, there are some teenagers who aren't complete morons as you would think, most of the people I know, wouldn't really no that, but I do, and I know it as a fact.

Just because it was mentioned that you don't have the experience doesn't mean you are a moron.

There's a large difference between wisdom (which is ONLY garnered through years of experience) and intelligence.

You could be the smartest person in the world, but if you don't have the wisdom to temper the use of said intelligence, it causes problems.

Have a look at any town or village in, say, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (one of the former East German laender). Unemployment is around 60-80 %, both for the old and the new generation. People are voting for the PDS, the succesor of the SED (used to be the only legal party in Eastern Germany) I studied in Leipzig (East Germany) from 1997-2001, and I hardly could believe how many times I heard "The old times were better". It took some time for me to understand the reason, because being brought up in Westrn Germany, I believed that they should be happy to be free now. They could choose to do anything they wanted... only they couldn't. After a while I came to realise that. It's not enough to give people freedom and then not giving them options. I'm not saying that there aren't people who didn't profit from the new system. Many of my fellow-students found positions in the west and in other countries. But, as I said before, they had advantages : They were bright enough to go to university, and they had parents who managed to finance their education. Those who weren't as lucky remain behind, unemployed, disillusioned, frustrated and slowly turning fanatic and dangerous. The point I'm trying to make here is, freedom only works if you make sure that everybody has equal opportunities. If you don't give people the social and financial security to use their freedom, only part of society will actually truely be free.

Cabra - Most Americans under these circumstances would say "if you don't like it do something to change it or leave". It's hard for me to understand that freedom is not prized for its essence, as a concept, by all people. Or that temporary safety is worth trading for Liberty.

Nonetheless, I understand your explanation and don't feel the impulse to "educate" you on why you're wrong. As I mentioned I have lived and traveled in Germany - I was raised bi-lingually and still have family there. Gives me an idea of the psyche of the people.

I do wonder, though, whether the second or third generation E. German's will view their opportunities better. After they square away the unemployment and all.

Cabra - Most Americans under these circumstances would say "if you don't like it do something to change it or leave". It's hard for me to understand that freedom is not prized for its essence, as a concept, by all people. Or that temporary safety is worth trading for Liberty.

Hey, that's why I left :)


Nonetheless, I understand your explanation and don't feel the impulse to "educate" you on why you're wrong. As I mentioned I have lived and traveled in Germany - I was raised bi-lingually and still have family there. Gives me an idea of the psyche of the people.

I do wonder, though, whether the second or third generation E. German's will view their opportunities better. After they square away the unemployment and all.

Oh, educate me all you like. I'm curious, otherwise I wouldn't post here.

So, what you're saying, as soon as they can have secure jobs again, they will value liberty? No doubt ;)

When you think about it, your government isn't really that much different, they were also put in place to keep the peace and keep the country secure, right? If you didn't want that, you would have done away with it some time ago, stopped paying taxes and live happily and free, wouldn't you?
I was just thinking back some time, and remembered the LA riots. Police and army were called in to restore order if I remember correctly. Would you really like to live in a country without forces like these? And only protect yourself and your property?
The real difference seems to lie in the amount of safeties our governments provide for us...
Btw, I don't really see myself as living in a less free country, just because I would have to register my gun if it ever came into my mind that I would own one.

Just a general statement:

If I don't WANT to own a gun, but I am forced to own one to protect myself, how free am I?

Just a general statement:

If I don't WANT to own a gun, but I am forced to own one to protect myself, how free am I?
Why would you be forced to own one? Nobody here is stopping you from becoming another sheeple statistic. I prefer to not go quietly into the night.. :sniper:

Oh, educate me all you like. I'm curious, otherwise I wouldn't post here. So, what you're saying, as soon as they can have secure jobs again, they will value liberty? No doubt When you think about it, your government isn't really that much different, they were also put in place to keep the peace and keep the country secure, right? If you didn't want that, you would have done away with it some time ago, stopped paying taxes and live happily and free, wouldn't you? I was just thinking back some time, and remembered the LA riots. Police and army were called in to restore order if I remember correctly. Would you really like to live in a country without forces like these? And only protect yourself and your property? The real difference seems to lie in the amount of safeties our governments provide for us... Btw, I don't really see myself as living in a less free country, just because I would have to register my gun if it ever came into my mind that I would own one.

Cabra - ah, what I said about resisting the 'impulse to educate you" was intended as tongue in cheek; we Americans have a tendency to lecture - I'm sure you understand.

You raise some interesting thoughts which conjure up images of incredibly clever responses I intend make, and visions of interesting further discussions about freedom. Unfortunately I need to close the office, I have some pressing obligations.

Perhaps we can pick this up again? Actually, it's a shame that such conversations can't be conducted in person - it would be so much easier. And it would "generate so much more light than heat".

As a side note I'm not a user of emoticons, nor am I an experienced forum user, but I can see how they diffuse misunderstandings.

Why would you be forced to own one? Nobody here is stopping you from becoming another sheeple statistic. I prefer to not go quietly into the night.. :sniper:

Well, here I don't need a gun to feel safe. From the way you describe the US to me, I would need a gun there to feel safe. So, if I ever went there, I would have no choice but getting a gun. No choice = no freedom.

Perhaps we can pick this up again? Actually, it's a shame that such conversations can't be conducted in person - it would be so much easier. And it would "generate so much more light than heat".


Sure we can. Open another thread with that topic and I'm almost certin to post there ;)

Or else write a telegram to my nation, if you like.

Sure we can. Open another thread with that topic and I'm almost certin to post there Or else write a telegram to my nation, if you like.

Cabra - I was just closing down and saw your post. May I humble myself and ask how one sends a telegram? I mean, how do I get to the page where I can do that?

Thanks in advance.

Cabra - I was just closing down and saw your post. May I humble myself and ask how one sends a telegram? I mean, how do I get to the page where I can do that?

Thanks in advance.

If you visit the page of my nation, you'll have the option to send me a telegrma there at the bottom. Can't miss it.

Well I'm fifteen and I can easily understand that. However, there are some teenagers who aren't complete morons as you would think, most of the people I know, wouldn't really no that, but I do, and I know it as a fact.

You know, maybe its cause of all the Nietzsche I read and a creeping sense of moral relativism, but the older I get the fewer things I know as "facts." ;)

You're aware that this is an illusion? No person ever is completely free. They will have friends and family, reaponsibilities that keep them from emmigrating. They can speak out against the government, but that is not going to change their situation. they can't work, because there is no work in their country any more.
True, now it's up to them to decide. But the result is the same, because they aren't given any practical options.

Those are not restrictions on freedom, those are weaknesses in personal will. The issue is that there IS a choice. It might not be an easy one, it might not be a palatable one, but it exists. Work exists for those who are willing to take it. I can think of quite a few people who have survived in this country without a "job." Freedom doesn't mean being happy and comofrtable. Freedom means being beholden to no one.

Just a general statement:

If I don't WANT to own a gun, but I am forced to own one to protect myself, how free am I?

Freedom is the choice. You can either exist in the hope that others will not prey upon you, or you can exist with the understanding that should someone choose to prey upon you you have a chance. Freedom is the ability to fight the fate that the world has chosen for you. Freedom is the ability to transcend the cards you were dealt.

You know how...

DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY KRAUTS I'VE KILLED!?!?!

Freedom is the choice. You can either exist in the hope that others will not prey upon you, or you can exist with the understanding that should someone choose to prey upon you you have a chance. Freedom is the ability to fight the fate that the world has chosen for you. Freedom is the ability to transcend the cards you were dealt.

I don't know how many times I posted that already, but ok, here is it again :

If I WANT to get a gun here, I can legally do it. I need to register it, I need to join a club and then I can get it. If you came over here and felt the desperate need to get a gun, you could. Legally. BUT, as I said, you will have to register it and you will have to proof that you can handle it (that's what those clubs are for. You get a certificate there that you are capable of handling a gun)
Only, nobody here really needs a gun apart from hunters.

Now, from the way you picture it, you NEED guns. For whatever reasons, I think I heard them all numerous times.

So, we both have the legal possibility to get guns, but you need them, I don't. Which in turn means that I'm free to decide if I want to spend money on a gun, but you are not, because you need one, otherwise you couldn't remain free/alive/unopressed...

Those are not restrictions on freedom, those are weaknesses in personal will. The issue is that there IS a choice. It might not be an easy one, it might not be a palatable one, but it exists. Work exists for those who are willing to take it. I can think of quite a few people who have survived in this country without a "job." Freedom doesn't mean being happy and comofrtable. Freedom means being beholden to no one.

There are some things you are not free to decide as long as you are alive.
If you are alive, you need to eat, you need to breath, you need shelter. Being a human being and thus a social animal, you need human contact (true, there's the occasional loner who doesn't want humans around, but as these are extreme cases I suggest we leave them out of the argument). These are matters you have no choice about, so there is no absolute freedom in life. All of them have nothing whatsoever to do with weakness in personal will.

To return to my example:
Please note that I didn't say that objectively they wouldn't be free. They are. They are free to say what they like, they are free to go or stay, they are free to do as they please. But to them, subjectively, the situation hasn't changed. As their security of employment (and with that, in many cases, their dignity, Germans tend to identify immensly with their work) was taken away, their possibility of getting to travel (for example) remained the same. They can't.

There is ALWAYS a choice. There is NO scenario where someone is "forced" to steal.
Not quite true, there was that case a few years back where some bank robbers locked a collar filled with some radio-detonated explosives around a guy's neck. They ordered him to go rob a bank and when he refused and the cops showed up they detonated it.

I don't mind shooting guns, I just hate cleaning them.

Not quite true, there was that case a few years back where some bank robbers locked a collar filled with some radio-detonated explosives around a guy's neck. They ordered him to go rob a bank and when he refused and the cops showed up they detonated it.

Okay, you found the one unique instance.

What are the details of that particular icky scenario?

What have guns done for you (personally)?

made me feel insecure.

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.
That Ireland's politicians are at the least smarter than most of those in the EU since they have instituted an economic system that is for the most part capitalist.

Given me a sore shoulder now and again.

So, we both have the legal possibility to get guns, but you need them, I don't. Which in turn means that I'm free to decide if I want to spend money on a gun, but you are not, because you need one, otherwise you couldn't remain free/alive/unopressed...

Well, by your logic I would own one cheap, reliable firearm. At the moment I own three, and that number will likely increase as time goes on and money becomes more pleantiful. Sure, guns are wonderful protection. They are also a hell of alot of fun to shoot and, if you're interested in it, more fun to customize than cars.
*Gets all mooney over his Cx4*

Well, by your logic I would own one cheap, reliable firearm. At the moment I own three, and that number will likely increase as time goes on and money becomes more pleantiful. Sure, guns are wonderful protection. They are also a hell of alot of fun to shoot and, if you're interested in it, more fun to customize than cars.
*Gets all mooney over his Cx4*

Ok, so it's your hobby as well. Fine with me, no problem.
What I was pointing out was, you would be irresponsible not to own a gun (at least that's what I keep hearing from americans all the time, so I'll just take their word for it), so you have to pay for one. If you choose to buy more and have fun with them, that's up to you.
In my country, there is no necessity to own one, so I'm free to spend money on one if I choose to, or leave it. I'm not irresponsible by choosing not to buy one. Sounds to me a bit like you have to buy your freedom ;)

What have guns done for me?

Absolutely nothing. I've fired a BB gun before, and that's a lot of fun [/sarcasm]. That said, I could definitely live without guns.

Ok, so it's your hobby as well. Fine with me, no problem.
What I was pointing out was, you would be irresponsible not to own a gun (at least that's what I keep hearing from americans all the time, so I'll just take their word for it), so you have to pay for one. If you choose to buy more and have fun with them, that's up to you.
In my country, there is no necessity to own one, so I'm free to spend money on one if I choose to, or leave it. I'm not irresponsible by choosing not to buy one. Sounds to me a bit like you have to buy your freedom ;)

Freedom has NEVER been free.

made me feel insecure.

An inanimate object scares you?

An inanimate object scares you? A gun lying in a glass case - no
A gun in the hands of a human being - yes.

Freedom has NEVER been free.

So... we are both buying our freedom, is that what it boils down to? You are buying it by buying guns and bullets, I'm buying it by paying taxes and going voting to ensure that my country remains safe for everybody?

That Ireland's politicians are at the least smarter than most of those in the EU since they have instituted an economic system that is for the most part capitalist.
Wow, theres real insightful piece of info about the economy. :rolleyes:
Capitalist as opposed to what exactly?
Thats like saying... hum, Vietnam is Communist... well duh. :p

A gun lying in a glass case - no
A gun in the hands of a human being - yes.

So you're afraid of the police, then?

So you're afraid of the police, then?

The police here in Ireland don't carry guns.

The police here in Ireland don't carry guns.

Ok then. Does this follow to other instruments, then? Are you afraid of knives? How about cricket bats? Oars? Frying pans? Hammers?

Ok then. Does this follow to other instruments, then? Are you afraid of knives? How about cricket bats? Oars? Frying pans? Hammers?

Why would I be afraid of a person cutting some veggies, playing cricket, rowing a boat, frying breakfast or putting a nail in the wall?

Why would I be afraid of a person cutting some veggies, playing cricket, rowing a boat, frying breakfast or putting a nail in the wall?

Because any of those item can be used to kill, just like a gun.
If you're not afraid of those items, you're simply afraid of something you've no experience of.

Because any of those item can be used to kill, just like a gun.
If you're not afraid of those items, you're simply afraid of something you've no experience of.

The Empress Elisabeth of Austria was assassinated with a nail file. Have you ever tried to pull of a drive-by shooting with one of these? :rolleyes:
The items you quoted have another primary use, guns have the primary use to kill or injure people (apart from hunting guns, of course) The number of people worldwide killed by a gunshot is exponentially larger that the number of those clubbed to death by a frying pan....

So... we are both buying our freedom, is that what it boils down to? You are buying it by buying guns and bullets, I'm buying it by paying taxes and going voting to ensure that my country remains safe for everybody?

Actually, gun ownership in America is guarenteed in part to ensure that those we vote for are ensuring that my country remains safe for everybody.
By paying taxes and going to vote you buy nothing but the hope that those you elect do indeed work for the people. A disarmed population is at the mercy of government with no recourse when it goes astray, as Europe and Asia have seen time and time again throughout history.

The Empress Elisabeth of Austria was assassinated with a nail file. Have you ever tried to pull of a drive-by shooting with one of these? :rolleyes:
The items you quoted have another primary use, guns have the primary use to kill or injure people (apart from hunting guns, of course) The number of people worldwide killed by a gunshot is exponentially larger that the number of those clubbed to death by a frying pan....

Ooo! Good choice! (She's also one of the very few Habsburg women to be present at a duel...)
How common do you think drive-bys are? :eek:

My guns primary use is to deliver a projectile a distance.
My hammer's primary use is to hit an object.

...and the number of people shot is exponentially lower than the number that are stabbed to death.
(PS: that's only because frying pans are harder to conceal... :D)

Actually, gun ownership in America is guarenteed in part to ensure that those we vote for are ensuring that my country remains safe for everybody.
By paying taxes and going to vote you buy nothing but the hope that those you elect do indeed work for the people. A disarmed population is at the mercy of government with no recourse when it goes astray, as Europe and Asia have seen time and time again throughout history.

Honey, are you really naive enough to think that an armed German population would have even tried to stop Hitler?


As for my government and society as a whole : human beings live in society because it's their nature, they are social animals. Every society needs rules, you will find that among ants as well as lions and chimps. To make sure these rules are obeyed by everyone, a group of animals has one or more leaders, whose responsibility it is to make sure that the group does well, who will have to act as intermediates to end arguments etc. These leaders are chosen in different ways, they can fight their way to the top, they can be the most experienced, but they rule by general consent.
A human state doesn't work any differently : Rulers rule by consent. As soon as they no longer fulfil their duty, society will get rid of them. It's either an election or a revolution, depending on the chosen system.
With a democratic system, you are guaranteed to decide on a regular basis, in a totalitarian system the population will overthrow the leader once it deems the situation intolerable. And in that case, even the most disarmed society finds the means to defend themselves. Look at the fall of the Berlin Wall, as a shining example. Look at Ghandi's liberation of India as another...

Overall, my government is just doing a better job protecting its population and keeping the crime rate to a minimum, that's all.

Ooo! Good choice! (She's also one of the very few Habsburg women to be present at a duel...)
How common do you think drive-bys are? :eek:

My guns primary use is to deliver a projectile a distance.
My hammer's primary use is to hit an object.

...and the number of people shot is exponentially lower than the number that are stabbed to death.
(PS: that's only because frying pans are harder to conceal... :D)

Knifes... ok, now that would depend on the situation. somebody cutting veggies or bread wouldn't scare me, somebody with a butterfly knife does.

And I think if you take all the victims into consideration (and I take the liberty here to include war victims, guns are guns) you'll find the number of people dying of bullet wounds IS higher

Edit :
If guns weren't more effective than knifes at killing people, armies today would still fight with sword and shield, I guess...

Knifes... ok, now that would depend on the situation. somebody cutting veggies or bread wouldn't scare me, somebody with a butterfly knife does.

And I think if you take all the victims into consideration (and I take the liberty here to include war victims, guns are guns) you'll find the number of people dying of bullet wounds IS higher

Edit :
If guns weren't more effective than knifes at killing people, armies today would still fight with sword and shield, I guess...

Then you're afraid of dangerous situations and not the object (gun, knife, angry dog, et al). Good. You have an excellent survival instinct. :)
That said, you shouldn't be afraid with a policeman with a gun or a hunter if they're going about their tasks, right?

Nope.
Guns have been used in combat for about 400 years (I'm not counting oddities and ends).
Knives are still being used, and swords were in use (as weapons, not as ceremonial pieces) until about 1870. Heck, even in the 1930s, many battles in India and the far east were by bow & arrow and sword... even as recently as East Timor in the 1990s!
Most humans to die have died by cold steel: lance, bayonet, sword, whatever... over the past 8000 years. Most armies of today still have some form of bayonet training.

People always fight with the closest thing at hand that will do the job. :(

Then you're afraid of dangerous situations and not the object (gun, knife, angry dog, et al). Good. You have an excellent survival instinct. :)
That said, you shouldn't be afraid with a policeman with a gun or a hunter if they're going about their tasks, right?

Nope.
Guns have been used in combat for about 400 years (I'm not counting oddities and ends).
Knives are still being used, and swords were in use (as weapons, not as ceremonial pieces) until about 1870. Heck, even in the 1930s, many battles in India and the far east were by bow & arrow and sword... even as recently as East Timor in the 1990s!
Most humans to die have died by cold steel: lance, bayonet, sword, whatever... over the past 8000 years. Most armies of today still have some form of bayonet training.

People always fight with the closest thing at hand that will do the job. :(

Ok, if you're going historically, you are right of course. I was more thinking on the lines of, say, the last 5 years or so.

The thing about guns is that they are very easily very dangerous. To really hurt somebody with a frying pan needs some strength, let alone determination. Knifes are easier, true, but they still require more physical effort than shooting a gun at somebody. I guess that's really the one thing that scares me :
Guns make it too easy to hurt other people.

Ok, if you're going historically, you are right of course. I was more thinking on the lines of, say, the last 5 years or so.

The thing about guns is that they are very easily very dangerous. To really hurt somebody with a frying pan needs some strength, let alone determination. Knifes are easier, true, but they still require more physical effort than shooting a gun at somebody. I guess that's really the one thing that scares me :
Guns make it too easy to hurt other people.

Thanks. (BTW: there are many, many more stabbings in New York every days than shootings. I'd assume this is true of most cities, since knives are easier to get.)

So: it's not the gun, it's the intention of the person.

It's the intention of the person.

Why facilitate the realisation of that intention by giving the person a gun?

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?

i agree. and for food you can use bow. it's what i do, almost all of the food in my life is from bow or gun, and the things from gun(except probably the moose and bears) could have been gotten with bow.

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.

That... is scary, remind me never to fly to the US, seems that they're the true crime capital of the western world. At least around here you can go shopping without needing an APC.

Also, and armed population is no guarantee for freedom. Sorry, but the common citizen can't do much against a Main Battle Tank with a standard gun bought in a gunstore. And he'd get his butt owned by a professional soldier with modern equipment. Thinking that armed people guarantee freedom is delusional. Some weirdass militia can't do much against a modern army.

Saying that Europe and Asia prove that an armed population guarantees freedom is pretty much stupid and blatantly ignores historical facts. No armed population would have stopped Hitler. Hitler was elected after all and there was basically no public opposition to him, and people still cheered at him in large crowds when the war had already started. Agreed, he removed any opposition, but well, there wasn't basically anyone to even attempt to stop that either. And why's that? Because Hitler already had them all in his hands. Because people believed him and because he kept his promises (take the unemployment he dealt with, you think anyone would have protested against him after he dealt with that? Mhmmm... surely *rolls eyes*)

If you consider Asia, please... get a few history books and read up how militarism in Japan came to triumph before making weirdass assumptions that only prove that you're basically a victim of a shitty school system.

Ah, the Berlin Wall, Cabra... I'll always remember people suddenly standing on it chanting "Wir sind das Volk! Wir sind das Volk!". I always get tears in my eyes when I think of that.

What have guns done for me? Nothing, a friend of mine owns a few, but I consider them merely nice toys, that's about it.

i agree. and for food you can use bow. it's what i do, almost all of the food in my life is from bow or gun, and the things from gun(except probably the moose and bears) could have been gotten with bow.

Must be an interesting flora and fauna where you live... :rolleyes:

Guns make it too easy to hurt other people.

Yes, this is true, which is why I prefer my swords to guns, as swords are for the honorable battlefield. Problem is, with swords, you need a VERY large army, as, like you addressed, non-firearm weapons require brute force, and a heck of a lot of it. Guns make it easier, yes. Frankly, I'm all for my nation being able to kill the enemy with less risk to our soldiers. Why else do we have such great tech to go along with the weaponry?

On a side note -- I can't hunt with a sword (well, I COULD, but I'd be mauled by the bear I'm trying to kill before I slice its head off with a katana), but with a gun, I can.

OKay, I noticed the bow and arrow being addressed. Yes, a bow and arrow works -- for most game. Big game, such as moose, bear, elk, as you addressed, could only be gotten with a bow and arrow if you have that grenade-tipped arrow, and what's the point of hunting if you can't eat your kill?

Besides, I like guns a lot more than bow and arrow. I'm not sure why, but I find shooting guns fun -- especially the large calibre ones, such as the impractical .50 calibre. But hey, who cares if it's impractical? It's my right to own one, and frankly, they look cool. :D

Yes, this is true, which is why I prefer my swords to guns, as swords are for the honorable battlefield. Problem is, with swords, you need a VERY large army, as, like you addressed, non-firearm weapons require brute force, and a heck of a lot of it. Guns make it easier, yes. Frankly, I'm all for my nation being able to kill the enemy with less risk to our soldiers. Why else do we have such great tech to go along with the weaponry?

On a side note -- I can't hunt with a sword (well, I COULD, but I'd be mauled by the bear I'm trying to kill before I slice its head off with a katana), but with a gun, I can.

OKay, I noticed the bow and arrow being addressed. Yes, a bow and arrow works -- for most game. Big game, such as moose, bear, elk, as you addressed, could only be gotten with a bow and arrow if you have that grenade-tipped arrow, and what's the point of hunting if you can't eat your kill?

Besides, I like guns a lot more than bow and arrow. I'm not sure why, but I find shooting guns fun -- especially the large calibre ones, such as the impractical .50 calibre. But hey, who cares if it's impractical? It's my right to own one, and frankly, they look cool. :D

You better not get me started on soldiers and wars, friend ;)

Attacking a bear with a Katana would even out the odds, wouldn't it? I mean, what chance does the bear have against a gun?

As for looking cool... you can't argue with bad taste, I guess :D

Do airguns count? One gave me a tiny cut when I was shooting at something hard and the bullet bounced back against my arm