NationStates Jolt Archive

the top 36 reasons to ban guns(using the anti-gun groups arguments against them-sarcasm intended)


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nice post, I agree on all points... sigh, hippies and their gun-control fancies...

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

That's the only one you really need.

I know a couple of those were more in jest than anything else, but that was fun anyway. :)

Ok, I'm convinced. I'm going to turn in my guns today.

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

How is 9 per 100,000 higher than 69 per 100,000?
Did you make a mistake?

:: Squees :: This was great! I hope you don't mind, I ganked it and put it in another thread (credited of course).

Heh, great list

awesome list.. lol

and i was getting all excited to go on a tirade against what i thought would be a whining post about the dangers of guns...

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

How is 9 per 100,000 higher than 69 per 100,000?
Did you make a mistake?
You missed the parenthetical phrase in the first line.

I agree hole heartedly but devils advocate time.
1. There's a lower crime rate in Somalia than here and everyone there has a gun.

2. If the president decides to shut down Congress (which he can legally do) and enact the War Powers Act where are you. That's right, :sniper: .

3. Without guns, there'd be no US. Be it that there wouldn't have been a strong enough government to send anyone to America.

4. Technically, Germany, France, Britian, Russia, China, and most of the rest Europe would still be oppressive kingships.

But aside from that, we should of banned guns long ago.

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

That is the one I found the most funny.


But seriously, this is a good list sowing why guns are necessary. Instead of banning guns, the government should just try to find a why to stop people who use them to kill others from getting them in the first place.

Without guns, we would have been overrun by those damn INJUNS! :p What killed Hitler, a luger pistol! Buffalo and wild, savage, rabid animals would be all over the place! Look where we would be if it weren't for guns!

aren't these taken directly off a pamphlet for gun-law removal

I support the cause and all, but copy-pasting is pretty gay, not to insult the homosexuals.

write some of your own material

everyone deserves a 50-cal beretta sniper-rifle :sniper: so they can defend their homes.

jk, I'm actually pro guns, but we have enough of them as we need

aren't these taken directly off a pamphlet for gun-law removal

I support the cause and all, but copy-pasting is pretty gay, not to insult the homosexuals.

write some of your own material
no, i spent like an hour typing it all up as a text file, i got it from a letter to the editor in soldier of fortune magazine and thought it was worth sharing.
;)

I'm pro-gun, to a point. Nobody needs an assault rifle that isn't in the military. Rifles? Needed for hunting. Pistols? Security guards and self-defense. Completely banning guns is stupid - the army needs them, hunters need them, and I believe somebody said it best when they said "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns."

Nobody needs an assault rifle that isn't in the military
incorrect
1.it's my right
2.it's my duty
10 USCS [Armed Forces]USC Title 10, Subtitle A, Part I, Chapter 13, Section 311

"311. MILITIA: COMPOSITION AND CLASSES

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of
the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are--
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National
Guard and the Naval Militia(coast guard); and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members
of the militia who are not members of the National Guard
or the Naval Militia."


3.it's a consumerist society of choice....unless of course you feel like giving up all those nice high priced items(electronic, vehiclular or otherwise) you don't really "need" to survive.

the top 36 reasons to ban guns(using the anti-gun groups arguments against them-sarcasm intended) :D
And now, by request, the original post from 2001 at rense.com with comments.
40 Reasons For Gun ControlRense.com

40 Reasons For Gun Control
4-27-1

1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, & Chicago cops need
guns.

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

3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but
statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just
statistics."

4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into
effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in violent crime
rates, which have been declining since 1991.

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

6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.

7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if
shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.

8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a
smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense
- give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman
Pete Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p. 125).

10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice
about guns; just like Guns & Ammo has some excellent treatises on
heart surgery.

11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a
civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for internal medicine, a
computer programmer for hard drive problems, and Sarah Brady for
firearms expertise.

12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard,
which was created 130 years later, in 1917.


Comment

From Thomas A. Caldwell, Jr.
5-4-1

I appreciate the humor of your web page. But on point #12, I must
offer this slight correction: Article II of Amendment was ratified on
December 15, 1791--not in 1787, and the National Guard was created on
January 21, 1903--not in 1917. Pease check Caldwell's Constitutional
Chronology at http://www.USchronology.com


13. The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land,
using federally-owned weapons vehicles buildings and uniforms,
punishing trespassers under federal law, is a "state" militia.

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

15. "The Constitution is strong and will never change." But we should
ban and seize all guns thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th
Amendments to that Constitution.

16. Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense! Of
course, the army has hundreds of thousands of them.

17. Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they aren't
"military weapons", but private citizens shouldn't have "assault
rifles", because they are military weapons.

18. In spite of waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting,
government forms, etc., guns today are too readily available, which is
responsible for recent school shootings. In the 1940's, 1950's and
1960's, anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus stores,
gas stations, variety stores, Sears mail order, no waiting, no
background check, no fingerprints, no government forms and there were
no school shootings.

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

20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them
properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.

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

22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with
a gun is "an accident waiting to happen" and gun makers'
advertisements aimed at women are "preying on their fears."

23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering
butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.

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

25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a
majority of the population supported owning slaves.

26. Any self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a
"weapon of mass destruction" or an "assault weapon."

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

28. The right of Internet pornographers to exist cannot be questioned
because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but
the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the
Bill of Rights.

29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters,
computers, and typewriters, but self- defense only justifies bare
hands.

30. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts
of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other
parts of the Constitution.

31. Charlton Heston, a movie actor as president of the NRA is a cheap
lunatic who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas, a movie actor as a
representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who
is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.

32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need
larger capacity pistol magazines than do "civilians" who must face
criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.

33. We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns
because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.

34. Police officers have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns
that private citizens can never hope to obtain.

35. Private citizens don't need a gun for self- protection because the
police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says
the police are not responsible for their protection.

36. Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but
police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a
building filled with cops, need a gun.

37. "Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers
of people. The police need assault weapons. You do not.

38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft
preferential promotion, that's bad; but when the Federal government
pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that's good.

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

40. Handgun Control, Inc., says they want to "keep guns out of the
wrong hands." Guess what? You have the wrong hands.

MainPage
http://www.rense.com

This Site Served by TheHostPros

The differences are subtle, but good.

I'm pro-gun, to a point. Nobody needs an assault rifle that isn't in the military. Rifles? Needed for hunting. Pistols? Security guards and self-defense. Completely banning guns is stupid - the army needs them, hunters need them, and I believe somebody said it best when they said "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns."

Nobody has an assualt rifle that isn't in the military. Well, that is a generalization. Very few people do. The "Assualt Weapons Ban" which recently lapsed did nothing to ban assualt rifles, which were already regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934.

However, military style semi-automatic rifles do have their uses. Competition and practice shooting, for example. In certain cases, self defense, as well. They are ideal for hunting small game such as rabbits, which would be decimated by a larger caliber weapon.


That jedi-like mastery line did give my an idea. Muggers and rapists can only do their jobs at close ranges. At those ranges, a napalm-filled florecent lightbuld is far more deadly than a handgun. Lightabers for everyone!

<snip>That jedi-like mastery line did give my an idea. Muggers and rapists can only do their jobs at close ranges. At those ranges, a napalm-filled florecent lightbuld is far more deadly than a handgun. Lightabers for everyone!
When forced to operate in areas with strict gun prohibition - and I don't have the time or energy to circumvent them - I usually run a variant of that that involves a cheap squeeze-bottle of naptha and a piezo-electric ignighted butane torch (or flare pen if available).

Nice to roast marshmallows over on a dark street....

I could go after each one, but you know what? That's about as pointless as you using those arguments and trying to convince me.

Why don't you just go after the rest of our civil rights? You prefer security over liberty anyway. So why the hell would you care about the rest of the things that ensure our liberties are respected by the government?

I could go after each one, but you know what? That's about as pointless as you using those arguments and trying to convince me.

Why don't you just go after the rest of our civil rights? You prefer security over liberty anyway. So why the hell would you care about the rest of the things that ensure our liberties are respected by the government?


How did you get that out of the original thread? This is a fun poke at the anti-gun crowd. A gun is a civil right in my book.

Reason #1 to not ban guns:

I don't need a gun in order to kill you. I could break your neck, crush your throat, stab you, cut you in half with one of my swords, shoot you with a bow or crossbow or harpoon... etc etc etc...

Good post, entertaining. Will not change the mind of one anti-gunner.

No no no, the REAL reason why they shouldn't ban guns is because we all want one....on the inside!

I mean seriously...BAM BAM!

No no no, the REAL reason why they shouldn't ban guns is because we all want one....on the inside!

I mean seriously...BAM BAM!
:sniper: AMEN!

Military style firearms do have their uses. For those familiar with the Oka Crisis in Quebec in '91, the Mohawk warriors were only able to resist because they were effectively armed. If they hadn't been, then we can rest assured their burial grounds would be an 18 hole golf course.

Reason #1 to not ban guns:

I don't need a gun in order to kill you. I could break your neck, crush your throat, stab you, cut you in half with one of my swords, shoot you with a bow or crossbow or harpoon... etc etc etc...
Don't forget poison. A lady always uses poison, and crosses her ankles not her legs. :p

Oh, also, to get you pro-pot-legalizers out here:

Marijuana should be legal to buy, sell and smoke because in doing so, you are not harming anyone, correct? I fully support this notion. Noone should be persecuted for an item in their possession, when in fact they have harmed noone. But do you deny that every year, people get behind the wheels of cars while stoned or otherwise impaired, and kill people?

The same applies to firearms. Sometimes people die at the hands of a gunman. But buying, selling and shooting that firearm at a range is not hurting anyone at all, therefore it should be completely legal. The line on this can be drawn at "small arm", meaning a personal weapon. handheld rifles, pistols and shotguns fit into this category regardless of caliber or lenth.

4. Technically, Germany, France, Britian, Russia, China, and most of the rest Europe would still be oppressive kingships.



Nuts!

Your history grade: F- MINUS! Off to the corner with you! Let your head hang in shame!

making an assault rifle:

1.) Buy an AR-15.
2.) When your unit goes to the range, yank the 3rd burst sear out of your National Guard M16A4 while cleaning, replace with semi-auto sear from your private AR.
3.) Re-assemble your private AR at home with your 3rd burst sear, which is cool to have but you will never use (neither will the Guard). Smile like an idiot.

I love those threads from people about 'cutting you in half with one of my swords..." Just try it sometime. :-) I would place bets that my Federal Tactical rounds would punch through your chest and stop in your spine well outside of the 7m dead zone.

the Simpsons episode of this issue was just great...
The clerk at the gunshop tells something like (to Homer) "hmm...let's see...a couple of assault charges, caught drunk driving a few times etc. etc...that limits you to five handguns." Homer: -"what, just five?!"

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

I disagree. The woman in this example has the right to defend herself from the rapist even if that means killing him. Although i still dont condone gun use

Guess what, we ban guns in Britain and... hey! Less gun crime! Honestly... is there any particular reason that you won't take the lead from other countries? Am I missing something obvious? Please inform me if I am.

Guess what, we ban guns in Britain and... hey! Less gun crime! Honestly... is there any particular reason that you won't take the lead from other countries? Am I missing something obvious? Please inform me if I am.

I have a rock. I have never been attack by a tiger. I can conclude that this is a magical rock that magically keeps tigers at bay or I can conclude that I live in a country where there are no wild tigers and I have not lived in close proxmity to any zoo that has had a tiger escape in my lifetime.

Two things happening near the same time does not cause and effect make.

I have a rock. I have never been attack by a tiger. I can conclude that this is a magical rock that magically keeps tigers at bay or I can conclude that I live in a country where there are no wild tigers and I have not lived in close proxmity to any zoo that has had a tiger escape in my lifetime.

Two things happening near the same time does not cause and effect make.

Are you then saying that there is a completely different temperament in the population of Britain than in the US? I'd like to point out that i'm not supporting either side of this argument I would just like some clarification

Are you then saying that there is a completely different temperament in the population of Britain than in the US? I'd like to point out that i'm not supporting either side of this argument I would just like some clarification Strange, but... Canada has less gun crime than most American states even though its laws are similar... am I right? Maybe it is something to do with American culture... I'm just saying that you're not going to solve gun crime by giving everyone guns. It works the opposite way in most countries, in fact.

Strange, but... Canada has less gun crime than most American states even though its laws are similar... am I right? Maybe it is something to do with American culture... I'm just saying that you're not going to solve gun crime by giving everyone guns. It works the opposite way in most countries, in fact.

It could be due to the lack of gun related crime in other countries although i'm not completely sure if there is a greater drugs problem, etc in Canada. Crime is quite often interlinked and this could be a reason for increased gun crime in certain countries

I love the fact that half the people who posted on this happen to have totally misinterpreted the intention :P
Personally i'm wary of lax gun laws but not totally for or against. There are one or two interesting points out of the 36, and one or two worthless ones that destroy the credibility of the good ones imo.

I have a rock. I have never been attack by a tiger. I can conclude that this is a magical rock that magically keeps tigers at bay ...


Karas, i would like to buy your rock.

Are you then saying that there is a completely different temperament in the population of Britain than in the US? I'd like to point out that i'm not supporting either side of this argument I would just like some clarification


Yes. I am. I'd also like to point out that the United States have far fewer instances of football hooliganism and happy slapping. So it balances out.

If guns were controlled, would lunatics and children get hold of guns easier or more difficult? If more difficult, will there still be such a great need to carry a gun to protect yourself.

The core of the problem is not gun control. That's just scratching the surface. The real problem is the structure of American society and American mentality.

Poverty, discrimination, rampant alcoholism, a sucky education system and many other society's problem do make gun ownership necessary. If these problems were alleviated, the freedom to bear arms would not lead to more violence and murder.

Guns are for sissies!

If guns were controlled, would lunatics and children get hold of guns easier or more difficult? If more difficult, will there still be such a great need to carry a gun to protect yourself.That depends on your definition of Lunatics and Children. If you say that all under-18 Gang Bangers are Children, or you define all homicidal activity as the action of a Lunatic, then maybe you would be correct(ish). However, the vast MINORITY of all firearms incidents are at the hands of true Lunatics or true Children. Most of the deaths related to firearms use are between criminals (or families/friends of criminals) in gang/drug related hostilities. Another large percentage comes from criminal activity against law abiding citizens. Those are not the actions of lunatics. Lunacy is not taking the opportunity to protect yourself from the actions of criminals.

The core of the problem is not gun control. That's just scratching the surface. The real problem is the structure of American society and American mentality.Agreed. Urban America has some sort of fascination with violent criminal behavior and tends to glorify it. I have never understood it myself.
Poverty, discrimination, rampant alcoholism, a sucky education system and many other society's problem do make gun ownership necessary. If these problems were alleviated, the freedom to bear arms would not lead to more violence and murder.
Agree up until the last sentance, which is a nonsequiteur. The tool is not causal in the behavior. The behavior necessitates a tool. If there were no firearms, criminals would use other implements. The tool does not make the criminal.

Several points of the list repeat the ironic statement that the more helpless you are, the safer you are.
And several points of the list repeat the statement that women without guns get raped frequently, but of course you're by no means aiming at any fear any women could have. :rolleyes:
Some places have gun control laws and some places don't.
Some places have a high criminal rate and some places don't. Many factors apply on the criminal rate, not just your suggestible theory of an immdiate connection between concealed carry and low murder rate.
Can guns by absolutely no means ever become a risk? Is that the reason why people are strongly encouraged to bring their assault-rifles to transcontinental flights and even more to intercontinental flights? :rolleyes:
One more question for all those who saved the world from criminals with their spray of bullets: How do you carry your auto-pistol?
Let's assume, someone behind you on the parking-lot says "stick it up". Of course all of you can turn round, evaluate the situation, get your concealed weapon ready, aim carefully and disable the bad guy with as few shots as necessery. All in the fraction of a second. Much faster than the bad guy - who knows you carry a weapon and expects your move - can react.
But how do you do it? Carry a auto or semi-auto weapon ready to fire immediatly with no risk of unvoluntary discharge, no risk of it or being stolen or lost?
Might there possibly a chance that it's not that easy to fend an attacker off, just because you have a gun in your pocket? Might there possibly a chance that the assumption of constant successful self defense against an endless stream of robbers and rapists and murderers is slightly exaggerated?

Do not get me wrong, if gun-ownership were legal where I live, I'd buy one too. But I'm also convinced, that guns are not an angelic gift to humanity and people in this forum who are obsessed with the sacredness of all guns in the hands of all people, make me nervous. And the fact that these people are the first to carry guns makes me more nervous.
You may claim to be absolutely the most responsible people in the world, but the way you insist in your mission of bringing *gun* to the world, makes it hard to believe.

Yes. I am. I'd also like to point out that the United States have far fewer instances of football hooliganism and happy slapping. So it balances out.

Getting beaten up or slapped in worse then getting shot

Liskeinland
Guess what, we ban guns in Britain and... hey! Less gun crime! Honestly... is there any particular reason that you won't take the lead from other countries? Am I missing something obvious? Please inform me if I am.
guess what, it's a proven fact that britain currently has a higher overall crime rate than the USA and it is climbing including gun crimes....is ther any particular reason you won't research the facts from your own country before you suggest them to others?



Parduna
One more question for all those who saved the world from criminals with their spray of bullets: How do you carry your auto-pistol?
an auto-pistol is an automatic weapon and requires a special permit (there are also ver few models of said firearm) to own, most people use semi-automatic pistols or revolvers.

Let's assume, someone behind you on the parking-lot says "stick it up". Of course all of you can turn round, evaluate the situation, get your concealed weapon ready, aim carefully and disable the bad guy with as few shots as necessery. All in the fraction of a second. Much faster than the bad guy - who knows you carry a weapon and expects your move - can react.
criminals are opportunists it is more likely the criminal will not even attempt to rob you if he even thinks you have a gun.
secondly being aware of your surroundings is one of the most basic rules of self defense training.
thirdly if a gunman is stupid enough to get that close to me(assuming he is sticking the gun in my back or something) with a handgun, i can easily disable the firearm and disarm him almost instantly.

But how do you do it? Carry a auto or semi-auto weapon ready to fire immediatly with no risk of unvoluntary discharge, no risk of it or being stolen or lost?
first it is illegal in just about every state i know to carry a firearm with a round chambered simply because it does produce an accident danger.
to live is to risk. if your afraid of a little risk you better wall yourself into a little padded room right now. if it is stolen or lost then you follow the law and report it to the police and fill out the neccisary paperwork.

Banning firearms (except for those made for hunting) would be the best way to control crime. It is never going to happen but it would work. Mere possesion of a gun, say 10 years prison? Commit a crime with one add another 10 plus the crime commited itself? Other First World nations get by without them I'm sure Americans could also.

Banning firearms (except for those made for hunting) would be the best way to control crime.
ROFLOL
sorry did you just fall off a log?
that will not work!
why you may ask?
1.the law abiding would have no guns
2.criminals being criminals would still have guns because they break said law
3.threatening with prison time is already in the law.....and it doesn't stop them now.

just last month here where i live 3 convicted felons(it is illegal for them to even posses a firearm) were arrested for illegally possesing and selling military style firearms and explosives on the black market. all the laws and threats did nothing to prevent them from doing this because they are criminals

the comments of lewis county sheriff john mccroskey (2003)
quote:

i don't believe restricting law-abiding citizen's ownership of firearms does anything but make them easier victims. if it was as easy as passing laws, then there would be no crime. but it isn't. law-abiding people are law-abiding because they follow the law. lawbreakers don't care what the law is, and will find a way to get guns.

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside... Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them..."-- THOMAS PAINE, I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 (1894)

"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." ~~ The Dalai Lama, (May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times)

Civilized people are taught by logic, barbarians by necessity, communities by tradition; and the lesson is inculcated even in wild beasts by nature itself. They learn that they have to defend their own bodies and persons and lives from violence of any and every kind by all means in their power. - Cicero

The 5th and 14th Amendments demand equal protection for all citizens under the law. The rich can buy bodyguards for defense, the police get guns for self-defense, but with "gun control" what is left for the poor and middle class?

Gun Control advocates want to make it as hard for criminals and children to get Guns as it is for criminals and children to gets Drugs.

Self Defense advocates want to make it as easy for honest citizens to get guns for self-defense as it is for criminals to get guns to commit violence.

Libertarians want to make it as easy for honest adults to get both guns and drugs, as it is for criminals to get guns and drugs . . . maybe then there would be fewer criminals - because violent crime would not be needed to get guns and drugs.

Just as you cannot allow someone to take away your freedom of speech because someone else threatens violence, you cannot allow anyone to take away your right to self-defense because others commit violence.

Gun Control advocates are willing partners in crime. They obviously do not care about disarming criminals... they focus on removing the potential for armed self defense from honest citizens, thereby making victims of us all.

Gun Control advocates want to remove the potential for armed self-defense and armed resistance to the institution of a Police State (where only the Police - and criminals - have guns).

Liberals, the biggest proponents of "gun control" seem to hold as much animosity to the police now as they did when they called them "Pigs" in the '60s. If they get their way and only the Police have "easy" access to guns, cops will die by the thousands - just so violent criminals can take police guns from police corpses.

Police have no duty to defend individuals, only society. They do this by Investigating, Apprehending and Incarcerating (IAI), by nature ex-post-facto actions, and in many ways may be considered retributive.

Retributive Justice is NOT self-defense.

Self-defense is the absolute moral and ethical right of self-preservation from unjustified aggression.

Self-defense is the justified use of necessary force to stop unjustified aggression.

Self-defense requires willingness, ability and above all means.

Regulating "guns" is regulating the means to self-defense.

Self-defense regulated is self defense denied.

Denial of the right to self-defense is the denial of the right to exist, and is absolutely immoral and unethical.

To those who say the application of self defense is passing judgment, and "judge not..." there is no "judgment" in the application of self defense, it is the instantaneous application of techniques and means to stop unjustified aggression. Judgement, by its definition, comes after the fact.

When an animal attacks we do not judge its motives - we simply defend ourselves and kill it, or die.

Self-defense is an action performed by an individual for an ethical purpose.

Crimes are unethical actions against another individual or individuals.

At what point does carrying/holding/possessing a weapon (or anything) become a violent action or an action against anything? Indeed, how can possession be an action at all?

Oh, BTW: Any attempt to pass or enforce an unconstitutional law -- especially any law that violates the first ten amendments to the Constitution, commonly known as the Bill of Rights -- is a crime punishable by ten years in prison and a ten thousand dollar fine for each offense (Title 18 U.S.C, Sections 241 and 242). "Hello, Senator?"

"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

"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion; the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission, which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force."-Ayn Rand

3.threatening with prison time is already in the law.....and it doesn't stop them now.

10-20-life program. 'Nuff said. And this is in Florida, one of the most hick-ass states.

10-20-life (http://www.dc.state.fl.us/oth/10-20-life/)

Wow you liberals have never look into the history of prohibition

Yeah prohibition works soooooooo well.....not

Think it will be like the alchol smuggling of the 1930's. MAFIAS and criminal organizations proping up to sell firearms on the street for high prices, since its ban. And what should we do to combat this smuggling ring..pass another patriot act. Add more security and the risk of civil freedom

Heart diease and Car accidents kill more people then guns so how bout we ban fast food and cars as well (oh yeah lets not forget about smoking..dam cancer). Since the government wants to treat its citizens like children. We have to take away the toys if it gets to dangerous right?

Guns are for sissies!
Try putting 40 rounds through a Mosin-Nagant M44.

The big black/green/blue patch on your shoulder will make you think otherwise.

Canada has gun laws that are similar to those in California, a little laxer perhaps. We also don't have the problem the U.S. does, including California.

People are making a big error here: Your seperating "gun crime" from other violent crimes as though it makes a difference what kind of weapon the perp used. If there are more guns, naturally there will be more "gun crime", but there will also be less "knife crime".

Now, couple that with the fact that it is simply wrong to imprison someone for possession of a firearm when in fact they have harmed noone (tell me, where is the justice in that?) you see the senslessness in taking away the firearms of law abiding people. Its not right.

Nice post, I agree on all points... sigh, hippies and their gun-control fancies...

Ahem, not all "hippies" are pro gun control.

Oh, also, to get you pro-pot-legalizers out here:

Marijuana should be legal to buy, sell and smoke because in doing so, you are not harming anyone, correct? I fully support this notion. Noone should be persecuted for an item in their possession, when in fact they have harmed noone. But do you deny that every year, people get behind the wheels of cars while stoned or otherwise impaired, and kill people?

The same applies to firearms. Sometimes people die at the hands of a gunman. But buying, selling and shooting that firearm at a range is not hurting anyone at all, therefore it should be completely legal. The line on this can be drawn at "small arm", meaning a personal weapon. handheld rifles, pistols and shotguns fit into this category regardless of caliber or lenth.


See above.

Liskeinland

an auto-pistol is an automatic weapon and requires a special permit (there are also ver few models of said firearm) to own, most people use semi-automatic pistols or revolvers.

I know. But the constitutional right ro have rifles, shotguns and military hardware is part of the position of the pro-gunners.

Liskeinland

criminals are opportunists it is more likely the criminal will not even attempt to rob you if he even thinks you have a gun.
secondly being aware of your surroundings is one of the most basic rules of self defense training.
thirdly if a gunman is stupid enough to get that close to me(assuming he is sticking the gun in my back or something) with a handgun, i can easily disable the firearm and disarm him almost instantly.

Yep, just what I wrote. You're James Bond. No, you're superman. Better than superman. Every single one of you. And of course no-one with the least bit of training will ever become a criminal. Whoever gets some training like self-defense and shooting, logically must be a saint.

Liskeinland
first it is illegal in just about every state i know to carry a firearm with a round chambered simply because it does produce an accident danger.
to live is to risk. if your afraid of a little risk you better wall yourself into a little padded room right now. if it is stolen or lost then you follow the law and report it to the police and fill out the neccisary paperwork.

??? Is the accusation of cowardice referring to those, who abide the law by not carrying a firearm with a round chambered?
Or is it referring to the commie-mutant-traitors, who are too cowardly to leave the house with a gun, in general?

Honestly, can anyone of the pro-gun position tell me, that the feeling of being ruler about life and death of others has absolutly nothing to do with the desire to carry a weapon? Honest answer, please.

Gun abuse is simply a symptom of a greater societarial ill and we (should) now know experientially that acting against the symptom fails to address the underlying problem. Banning spoons doesn't address the desire to overeat, and treating a cough with coughdrops doesn't cure anyone of walking pneumonia.

Parduna: for some people, I'm sure it does. For others, it probably does not even enter their consciousness because they have an entirely different set of motivations. I know it doesn't enter into my mind as anything positive; if anything, the power of life or death over another human being is something negative. However, the world is a dangerous place and it does not hurt to be trained and be prepared, and a weapon is no more than a tool with a defined purpose and a defined time of use.

One should not take medicine when one is well; one should not hit things with a hammer when they are not trying to build (or perhaps take down what needs to be); one should not try to use a Phillips-head screwdriver as a chisel. All these are tools which, if misused, can be harmful to the user or others. If not used at all, they are harmless. If only used appropriately, they only harm those that are intended to be harmed...

...and before the argument comes around concerning the ease of abuse, I have to unfortunately admit that yes, that is true, but where does that slope of deciding "this can be abused (an indefinite potential), and therefore it must be regulated (a definite action)?" Steak knives can be abused too, as can forks, and they can be deliberately used to hurt people--their design function is to cut or spear meat, after all. Hammers can be abused, intentionally, and hurt people; so can screwdrivers, nailguns, lengths of chain, pipes and wooden planks of all shapes and sizes. Concrete can be abused, in powder, liquid, and solid forms; bricks can be abused; shovels and garden hoes can be abused. I think it is safe to say that nearly any physical tool can be abused to harm another person; does this mean that any physical tool, if it should meet a completely arbitrary minimum value of "abuse" by a population, be regulated? Could you imagine a steak-knife permit? A brick permit?

The solution is more complex (and therefore more un-American :( ) than that. If people are abusing each other more or less, it has nothing to do with the tools involved. Weapons and tools have existed, and have been abused in varying degrees, throughout all of human history. The motivations driving those that abuse them are the matter, and if they're motivated enough, they will use whatever they have to to achieve their ends. One could argue that by controlling guns, one makes such things difficult and thus it requires additional motivation, and that is probably true. However, it's like saying that because one is doped up on cough medicine and not coughing, they do not have a respiratory tract infection--covering up symptoms is not equivalent to curing the underlying disease. The real problem lies in changing the attitudes and culture that leads to the abuse, not actually the abuse itself; the goal is to push a populace towards virtue and internal self-regulation, not merely point at a particular lack of virtue and say "you cannot do that any more."

Honestly, can anyone of the pro-gun position tell me, that the feeling of being ruler about life and death of others has absolutly nothing to do with the desire to carry a weapon? Honest answer, please.

Certainly not to me. I hope to <insert deity of choice here> that I never have to even bring my pistol out for the purpose of self-defense. But if I am ever attacked, yes, my life, and the lives of those I care about are definitely more important than the assailant's.

It is not about controlling someone else's life, or the termination of said life. That's what seems to be lost in all this. Many anti-gunners think it's about controlling others (which is what they are trying to do, when banning anything--controlling others), when in reality, most of the pro-gunners are just fighting for control of themselves, and to not be controlled by others (like being attacked, robbed, raped, killed, ruled over, etc.).

I carry a gun for defense. I also target shoot. I'm not in it for the "glamour cowboy" aspect that all guns seem to elicit for those who have no experience with them. I'm not a hero. I'm not a superman. I'm an average guy who just wants to not be attacked. But if I am, it's going to be a very bad day--for both myself and the assailant. I do not take lightly the prospect of potentially ending a person.

Try putting 40 rounds through a Mosin-Nagant M44.


No shit! I finally found a way to hold mine where it dosen't do as much damage.

Gun abuse is simply a symptom of a greater societarial ill and we (should) now know experientially that acting against the symptom fails to address the underlying problem. Banning spoons doesn't address the desire to overeat, and treating a cough with coughdrops doesn't cure anyone of walking pneumonia.<snip>The real problem lies in changing the attitudes and culture that leads to the abuse, not actually the abuse itself; the goal is to push a populace towards virtue and internal self-regulation, not merely point at a particular lack of virtue and say "you cannot do that any more."
YAY! :fluffle: (and I don't give those lightly...)

See the thing is the American society is just generally stupider. I don't give a crap if ya'l run around blowin each others heads off. Nothing works for you people, guns fans just blame other things, gun haters blame everything, it's your own fault in the end. A super controlling country that can't control itself seems a lil shallow. To those for guns, can you just move to texas and hate everything and have your crazy lil gatherings were you talk about how the monarchy and governments gonna come and randsack you or how the deers are 'comin right for us!' or how you gotta protect yourself from peoples with guns. In the end your countries still one of the most violent in the world and you have no excuses for it. Keep guns, who cares, at the end of the day you have saved nothing but the gun itself.

See the thing is the American society is just generally stupider. I don't give a crap if ya'l run around blowin each others heads off. Nothing works for you people, guns fans just blame other things, gun haters blame everything, it's your own fault in the end. A super controlling country that can't control itself seems a lil shallow. To those for guns, can you just move to texas and hate everything and have your crazy lil gatherings were you talk about how the monarchy and governments gonna come and randsack you or how the deers are 'comin right for us!' or how you gotta protect yourself from peoples with guns. In the end your countries still one of the most violent in the world and you have no excuses for it. Keep guns, who cares, at the end of the day you have saved nothing but the gun itself.

Perhaps if you got your information from somewhere besides South Park, you might have a few less stereotypes in your mind.

Guns don't kill people, People kill people

A gun is only a tool, and any tool can be misused, I could buy a tool to help me get into my car when I lock myself out, and use it instead to break into other people's cars. Does this mean that tool should be banned? Guns, in their intended use, Do NOT kill innocent people.

No, really, guns are intended for use in war, to help soldiers defend themselves, they are intended for use in hunting, so you and I can eat,(ok, maybe not vegetarians, unless you want to shoot your vegetables, or bread or something,) and they are intended for recreation, as seen in trap shooting. It's when PEOPLE MISUSE guns that they become a problem. And we don't need more anti-gun laws, we can inforce the ones we have and do a perfectly outstanding job of getting guns out of the hands of people that will and do abuse them.

Besides, if we ban guns, that takes them away from only the good, law abiding citizens. Will criminals turn their guns in? NO. They would go to jail or prison for having them in the first place. That's the beauty of one of my favorite amendment, the 5th amendment. You have the right to not incriminate yourself. Therefore, if it's illegal for someone to have a gun, they don't have to tell anyone they have it. However, for the portion of the populace that can legally own guns, they have to register them. So when more gun laws are passed, and more guns made illegal, it's only the law abiding citizens who lose out. Suddenly by owning a gun, they're breaking the law, and the government already knows they have it. So they turn their guns in. At the same time, the criminal living next door to you laughs and polishes whatever guns he/she has and thinks about how much it must suck for everyone else to have to get rid of their guns. Sure, if they're caught, they catch hell. Big deal, they've probably already done their damage.

So, what does banning guns do? A whole lot of nothing, besides descriminating against people who deserve the right to have them.

Location: Not AmericaYou do know that negative definitions (defining things by what they are not instead of by what they are) are generally considered to be inferior, right? Especially when applied to the self, given that negative self-definition suggests a lack of self-confidence and self-presence, as it were. ;)

That being said, it's my opinion that world stupidity is essentially a universal constant that simply manifests itself in different ways according to the culture it occurs in. Declaring any one group of people to be inherently 'stupider' and claiming it as objective fact is probably no more than evidence of an unfortunately strong example of internal bias not actively identified as such. In the end, though, this isn't the topic at hand and so it may as well be dropped.

Anyway, Syniks: glad to see my opinions aren't instantaneously derided. I'm not quite a libertarian, although I find their concentration on personal responsibility refreshing; I am more like a heartless liberal (in the American sense). FDResque with a definite concentration on liberality (world sense of 'minimal restrictions') metered by the reality of the world at large.

Banning firearms (except for those made for hunting) would be the best way to control crime. It is never going to happen but it would work. Mere possesion of a gun, say 10 years prison? Commit a crime with one add another 10 plus the crime commited itself? Other First World nations get by without them I'm sure Americans could also.

Actually the best way to control crime would be to barcode everybody and have barcode scanners at every intersection which people had to go through, emplace government cameras in all public places, have an omnipresent police with the ability to execute people summarily, remove all civil liberties, enforce a strict curfew, and hire many informants from among the populace. Stop crimes dead in it's tracks.

Either that or nuke the world. With no more people there would be no more crime.

As you can see neither option is all that good.

A more reasonable option, rather than banning guns, that would be more effective in stopping crime would be to have strict, harsh penalties for violent crime that were rapidly and effectively implemented. This would be far better and more effective than banning guns. But sadly, those who want to control guns, also beleive that prisoners should be treated kindly, not punished.

But sadly, those who want to control guns, also beleive that prisoners should be treated kindly, not punished.





Ain't that the truth :headbang:

<snip>Anyway, Syniks: glad to see my opinions aren't instantaneously derided. I'm not quite a libertarian, although I find their concentration on personal responsibility refreshing; I am more like a heartless liberal (in the American sense). FDResque with a definite concentration on liberality (world sense of 'minimal restrictions') metered by the reality of the world at large.
Fshaw. Don't get your hopes up. I'll deride an FDResque opinion with a quickness, but at least I'll read it first. :D If something makes sense I'll say so. Anyway, "not quite Libertarian" is better than "Nanny Stater" any day.

Actually the best way to control crime would be to barcode everybody and have barcode scanners at every intersection which people had to go through, emplace government cameras in all public places, have an omnipresent police with the ability to execute people summarily, remove all civil liberties, enforce a strict curfew, and hire many informants from among the populace. Stop crimes dead in it's tracks.

Either that or nuke the world. With no more people there would be no more crime.

As you can see neither option is all that good.

A more reasonable option, rather than banning guns, that would be more effective in stopping crime would be to have strict, harsh penalties for violent crime that were rapidly and effectively implemented. This would be far better and more effective than banning guns. But sadly, those who want to control guns, also beleive that prisoners should be treated kindly, not punished.

Hey, as long as the accused rights are followed, in my opinion use a gun in a crime and be punished severely. I believe I heard of a 5 year added sentence if a gun is used in the commission of a felony?

Fshaw. Don't get your hopes up. I'll deride an FDResque opinion with a quickness, but at least I'll read it first. :D If something makes sense I'll say so. Anyway, "not quite Libertarian" is better than "Nanny Stater" any day.By "FDResque" I primarily mean workfare. "You want government support? Fine. You're gonna do some work for it, ranging from digging drainage ditches to doing paperwork for us. No exceptions except for the 100% out-of-it sick."

And to Urantia: crime is crime. If I walk outside and stab someone with my pocketknife, it's assault. The pocketknife is a tool whose use I just abused... what would make it any different from using a gun or a tire iron or a bicycle lock? The crime is identical. If I use a knife to mug someone instead of a gun, or hold up a bank with a bomb instead of a gun, what is the difference besides means? Does the additional sentencing vary if I stab someone with, say, an apple corer instead of a cutlass?

Crime is crime whether it be committed with a main battle tank or a spoon. Additional punishment for means is pointless as it still doesn't address the underlying reason for the person desiring to commit that crime in the first place. Most criminals don't plan on getting caught anyway.

By "FDResque" I primarily mean workfare. "You want government support? Fine. You're gonna do some work for it, ranging from digging drainage ditches to doing paperwork for us. No exceptions except for the 100% out-of-it sick.".
Damn. There you go and ruin my perfectly good comeback. Pbthblth! :p

Oh, by the way, you are a Libertarian.

So you think--I haven't shown my "fascist" (very tongue-in-cheek) or socialist sides yet... but that's a different story for a different time. I'm less Libertarian than I am "whatever works." I'm certainly too powerful-state-minded for the Libertarian Party.

Honestly, I don't think evoking harsh penalties for violent crime that were rapidly and effectively implemented, would lower crime. Considering harsh penalties are in place for violent offenders, and that it's not our abundance of guns that are killing people rather than our culture that is violent. There are countries that have a high number of personally owned weapons, but their violent crime rate is not a significant percentage of the U.S.'s. I don't know if gun control is the answer to crime in this country, but civilian-owned guns aren't a real deterrent to crime. People that are criminal-minded aren't that way because the "lack" of personal firearms in America. We probably have more guns than anywhere, supposedly for defense, but that hasn't stopped this from being one of the most dangerous countries to live in. Guns aren't the solution or the problem.

<snip> We probably have more guns than anywhere, supposedly for defense, but that hasn't stopped this from being one of the most dangerous countries to live in. Guns aren't the solution or the problem.
It hasn't stopped American CITIES (Yay Blue States! :rolleyes: ) from being the most dangerous of any non-revolutionary-prone world cities to live in. Big difference there. The Rats in the Cage are over-populated (density wise), under educated, under employed, over drugged and over coddled. Violent crime is the result - guns or no. People who live there need better, immediate defense from predation than a telephone and a 5+ minute wait time. Guns are a legitimate tool for this - at the discression of the individual. I wouldn't dream of forcing a gun on anyone.

The rest of Suburban/Rural America is pretty much safe from everything but the Government and the encroaching Urban Pestilance. They like guns for primarily for non-defensive/sporting use, but bad things can happen there too. That's why police carry guns and some citizens do as well.

It's not the gun, it's the attitude of the possessor.

So you think--I haven't shown my "fascist" (very tongue-in-cheek) or socialist sides yet... but that's a different story for a different time. I'm less Libertarian than I am "whatever works." I'm certainly too powerful-state-minded for the Libertarian Party.
Not much wrong with properly applied police state tactics... I operate the "Libertarian Police State HQ" region.

"Freedom or Else". :D

Perhaps if you got your information from somewhere besides South Park, you might have a few less stereotypes in your mind.

Darling, just because you can quote a fortune cookie doesn't mean you don't eat lobster. And I get more stereotypes from watching videos of NRA meetings.

You do know that negative definitions (defining things by what they are not instead of by what they are) are generally considered to be inferior, right? Especially when applied to the self, given that negative self-definition suggests a lack of self-confidence and self-presence, as it were. ;)


Well aware, but all I can see in guns in negative. Negative, negative, negative. Self presence my darling I have plenty of...ooh even without carrying a weapon GASP!

My anger stems from the incapability of others to see the deaths in response violent American society, not in Iraq and Afghanistan but in America itself. All I have to do is point to murders and accidents in America. Your countries homicides are rediculous. Fear, anger, insulism? What is it that makes America such a devided country over EVERYTHING? It's either totally for or totally against. Crazy.

Darling, just because you can quote a fortune cookie doesn't mean you don't eat lobster. And I get more stereotypes from watching videos of NRA meetings.

Right, and you get these alledged videos from where exactly?

Well aware, but all I can see in guns in negative. Negative, negative, negative. Self presence my darling I have plenty of...ooh even without carrying a weapon GASP!



You seem like a very negative person.