NationStates Jolt Archive

I maintain it is the person who uses the gun who is responsible for deaths caused by guns. The manufacturer of the gun or the gun shop that sold the gun is no more responsible than an auto manufacturer or dealership is responsible for an automobile accident.

I am glad the Senate has taken this step.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/nationworld/sfl-aguns30jul30,0,2673450.story?coll=sfla-news-nationworld

I maintain it is the person who uses the gun who is responsible for deaths caused by guns. The manufacturer of the gun or the gun shop that sold the gun is no more responsible than an auto manufacturer or dealership is responsible for an automobile accident.

I am glad the Senate has taken this step.


Thank God for the Senate showing wisdom for once, it's about time you blamed the crime on the criminal instead of a law-abiding, legitimate franchise.

The people who made it, duh.

OBVIOUSLY they made it so people could go out and rob stores and randomly shoot people! I mean, it's just common sense!

[/sarcasm]

The gun users are of course the most responsible. They are not the only group responsible and if we were to give blame to everyone who was even partially responsible then we would blame a good percentage of the world. Blaming all of society for gun violence is something that I promote. We should try to prevent such violence through punishment, socio-psychological efforts at mind control :D and through banning types of guns that serve less purpose in the hands of civilians.(such as assualt rifles and hand-guns or at least from my line of thinking)

I maintain it is the person who uses the gun who is responsible for deaths caused by guns. The manufacturer of the gun or the gun shop that sold the gun is no more responsible than an auto manufacturer or dealership is responsible for an automobile accident.

I am glad the Senate has taken this step.
It is, in my opinion, the person(s) who used the gun. If guns were not manufactured/distributed, another weapon would take its place.

In a rare moment of common sense, a sensible piece of legislation gets passed. Should have been done years ago. I think the Democrats are slowly becoming aware that their anti-gun position has been costing them elections.

me

there's my jackass post for the day. :p

Don't worry too much on my view on guns. I am starting to loosen up on the issue anyway. I just view guns as dangerous to society because a gun is too much power to be held in the hands of someone that has not accepted a direct affiliation with the government and all of the required submission to the state(I can see a government regulated militia as a good thing)

By this logic, all drugs should be legalized. After all, the person who produced the ecstacy can't be held responsible for how it is used or who might OD and die on it. Just an innocent businessman who has nothing to do with use of the product. ;)

Actually, some gun manufacturers are worse than drug dealers. At least cocaine isn't produced for the sole purpose of killing someone. Unless automatic weapons and handguns are meant for deer hunting, the same does not hold true for the arms industry.

:mp5: GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, I KILL PEOPLE. :sniper:

By this logic, all drugs should be legalized. After all, the person who produced the ecstacy can't be held responsible for how it is used or who might OD and die on it. Just an innocent businessman who has nothing to do with use of the product.

Your logic is flawed. Guns are legal while some drugs are illegal. :eek:

I'd say whoever pulled the trigger.

Your logic is flawed. Guns are legal while some drugs are illegal. :eek:

You don't say. :rolleyes:

So where's the flaw in my reasoning? Keep in mind I was applying your logic to another issue, and showing you the resultant conclusion.

You don't say. :rolleyes:

So where's the flaw in my reasoning? Keep in mind I was applying yourlogic to another issue, and showing you the resultant conclusion.

You are saying that because manufacturers of legal guns cannot be held responsible for deaths caused by those legal guns then manufacturers of illegal drugs should not be held responsible for deaths caused by an illegal substance. That is not logical.

You are saying that because manufacturers of legal guns cannot be held responsible for deaths caused by those legal guns then manufacturers of illegal drugs should not be held responsible for deaths caused by an illegal substance. That is not logical.

Yes, it is logical, as the only thing differing is legality, not actions or responsibilities or effects of the product (mind you, drugs aren't designed to kill, while guns are).

By this logic, all drugs should be legalized. After all, the person who produced the ecstacy can't be held responsible for how it is used or who might OD and die on it. Just an innocent businessman who has nothing to do with use of the product. ;)

Actually, some gun manufacturers are worse than drug dealers. At least cocaine isn't produced for the sole purpose of killing someone. Unless automatic weapons and handguns are meant for deer hunting, the same does not hold true for the arms industry.



Until you can find a way for crack/cocaine to be used as a defense weapon to instantly incapacitate an assailant, that argument won't fly :D

Don't worry too much on my view on guns. I am starting to loosen up on the issue anyway. I just view guns as dangerous to society because a gun is too much power to be held in the hands of someone that has not accepted a direct affiliation with the government and all of the required submission to the state(I can see a government regulated militia as a good thing)

What the hell is the difference between an ordinary person and some guy with a badge? Some government officials may have some false sense of duty, but I'm sure not all do, and if they're given a license to kill they can't be touched, and they can't be stopped if they try to do something you don't want them to.

Submission to the state!?!

One may as well submit to the local mob! Would you only allow shop dealers who swear submission to the local mob to have guns? After all, they might otherwise try to stop the mob's extortion, theft, and murder. But of course this isn't a proper analogy, the state is far more powerful and can get away with far more extortion, theft, and murder while at the same time making fools like you believe that their actions are good and legitimate, and all who oppose them are evil criminals.

Unless the Gun shop or Manufacturer have broken the law by selling the firearm (to a felon, etc) it is exclusively the fault of the one pulling the trigger.

A primary factor in it passing this time is that a number of those who derailed it last time were "Daschled".

By this logic, all drugs should be legalized. After all, the person who produced the ecstacy can't be held responsible for how it is used or who might OD and die on it. Just an innocent businessman who has nothing to do with use of the product. ;)
I’m not pro-gun. I’m pro-choice, on everything.
Somebody is carrying that around in their sig, and I absolutely love it. :D

You are saying that because manufacturers of legal guns cannot be held responsible for deaths caused by those legal guns then manufacturers of illegal drugs should not be held responsible for deaths caused by an illegal substance. That is not logical.

Legality does not pertain to what I said, and I'm really not understanding how you feel it does. If lawmakers assembled tomorrow and decided that ecstacy should be legal, it would be. If they assemble tomorrow and decide that gun manufacturers are responsible for gun deaths and should be banned from making guns, that would make gun manufacturing illegal. If they decide tomorrow that hopping on one leg should be punishable by death... well you get the idea.

What I'm trying to show you is that the same logic you applied to drug manufacturing also applies to drug manufacturing. The fact that one is legal and the other is not is irrelevant. If the logic doesn't make sense to you in the latter than it shouldn't make sense to you in the former.

By this logic, all drugs should be legalized. After all, the person who produced the ecstacy can't be held responsible for how it is used or who might OD and die on it. Just an innocent businessman who has nothing to do with use of the product. ;)

Actually, some gun manufacturers are worse than drug dealers. At least cocaine isn't produced for the sole purpose of killing someone. Unless automatic weapons and handguns are meant for deer hunting, the same does not hold true for the arms industry.

Furthermore, I agree with the above, drug dealers should not be held responsible for abuses by users, after all that would have put all of the manufactuers of sleeping pills out of buisness long ago after so many people committed suicide with them. I don't know about you, but I would rather have more suicides by sleeping pills(of course suicides, like murders, will still be committed by other means because neither suicidal people nor murderers care whether they kill with pills or guns or razor blades) than a bunch of angry, groggy people at work in the morning, especially if I was one of them.

I think that all drugs should be legalized and the only people held responsible for their abuse should be the users themselves, because they made the choice, even if the substance is addictive, for there's always that first cigarette, that first line of cocaine, that first shot of heroin. The drug dealers didn't force the users to use the drugs, or to buy them. Gun manufacturers don't force people to use them(and often they go unused) or to buy them.

The only time either should be punished is if they committ fraud(selling faulty guns or drugs with unexpected substances in them).

Until you can find a way for crack/cocaine to be used as a defense weapon to instantly incapacitate an assailant, that argument won't fly :D

How about cocaine-laced pepper spray? :p

Good point. Not many directly good things can come of drug use. But on the other hand killing or maiming someone isn't all that great an action either, even if its a criminal on the receiving end. And in the end both drugs and guns can be solidly linked to crime. The question in both cases is whether the producer or the consumer is to blame (or both).

I'm sure someone on the Right will blame Clinton...

By this logic, all drugs should be legalized. After all, the person who produced the ecstacy can't be held responsible for how it is used or who might OD and die on it. Just an innocent businessman who has nothing to do with use of the product. ;)

Actually, some gun manufacturers are worse than drug dealers. At least cocaine isn't produced for the sole purpose of killing someone. Unless automatic weapons and handguns are meant for deer hunting, the same does not hold true for the arms industry.

lol then by all means please follow that logic and do legalize drugs along with all guns...

personally, I believe people have the right to do whatever they want, as long as they don't infringe upon other people's rights

I also think it's about time our society started letting the individual take responsibilty for himself ... blaming a problem on some idea is just giving into stereotypes and flawed logic, and only perpetuates the problem itself

I love this place, only here can discussions turn into conversations like the above :rolleyes:

How about cocaine-laced pepper spray? :p

Good point. Not many directly good things can come of drug use. But on the other hand killing or maiming someone isn't all that great an action either, even if its a criminal on the receiving end. And in the end both drugs and guns can be solidly linked to crime. The question in both cases is whether the producer or the consumer is to blame (or both).

Incorrect. On firearms, the levels of ownership in the US has risen over the past 15 years while crime has steadily decreased. Before that, ownership increased while crime increased. There is no correlation between firearm ownership and crime.

If your trying to argue that the use of firearms in crime has increased, then that shows a failing in gun control laws in the first place.

The obvious answer (being 'the one who pulled the trigger) doesn't always quite fit.

What if a child finds a gun and blows off their friends head? Is it entirely the childs fault or should the parent who owned the gun take a wee bit of the responsibility for not locking it away?

I’m not pro-gun. I’m pro-choice, on everything.
Somebody is carrying that around in their sig, and I absolutely love it. :D
If you like that, you can buy that bumper sticker at the LP.org store (http://www.lp.org/store/store.shtml).

"I'm Pro-Choice on Everything 1-800-ELECT-US"

I'm sure someone on the Right will blame Clinton...

I blame Clinton

I blame Clinton

I blame Canada.

http://intellectualize.org/images/invadecanada.gif

Directly responsible:

The person who used the gun.
The owner of the gun in certain instances.

Indirectly responsible:

The company that made the gun.
The person or company who sold the gun.
The owner of the gun.
Gun associations.
Legislators.

I'm sure someone on the Right will blame Clinton...



For what? He didn't mess up this piece of common sense legislation, nor did I hear of him trying to. He's no longer in power, I wouldn't give him the credit for trying to stall progress.

The obvious answer (being 'the one who pulled the trigger) doesn't always quite fit.

What if a child finds a gun and blows off their friends head? Is it entirely the childs fault or should the parent who owned the gun take a wee bit of the responsibility for not locking it away?



I'd say that in most of the cases the child knew the end result of pulling the trigger and thus would be responsible for the action.

The obvious answer (being 'the one who pulled the trigger) doesn't always quite fit.

What if a child finds a gun and blows off their friends head? Is it entirely the childs fault or should the parent who owned the gun take a wee bit of the responsibility for not locking it away?

The child is responsible for the death.

The Adults broke the law too, however, by letting the child get his hands on it, and not making sure he didnt kill anyone. I believe its called Involuntary manslaughter, though there is also a more specific term...

The child.

If you're going to have a gun AND a child in the house, you should at least take the time to let the kid know what happens if he shoots it, maybe even take him out and shoot it a few times to let him know exactly what happens to what it hits.

And keep it in a safe place where they can't get to it/keep it unloaded. If you keep it loaded and in an accessable place... I don't really pity you.

The obvious answer (being 'the one who pulled the trigger) doesn't always quite fit.

What if a child finds a gun and blows off their friends head? Is it entirely the childs fault or should the parent who owned the gun take a wee bit of the responsibility for not locking it away?

You are right. The parents do have responsibility in this case.

Directly responsible:

The person who used the gun.
The owner of the gun in certain instances.

Indirectly responsible:

The company that made the gun.
The person or company who sold the gun.
The owner of the gun.
Gun associations.
Legislators.

Pretty good assesment I think.

I think it's easy for everyone to turn around and say it's the users fault...mainly because it gets everyone else off the hook an we can all feel better knowing we had nothing to do witha gun murder.

Directly responsible:

The person who used the gun.
The owner of the gun in certain instances.

Indirectly responsible:

The company that made the gun.
The person or company who sold the gun.
The owner of the gun.
Gun associations.
Legislators.

Should we hold the manufacturer of an automobile and the dealership that sold the automobile responsible whenever someone has an automobile accident and a person is killed?

Who's to blame?

Rock music, video games, teenagers, "Urban" people, Divorcees, and atheists ;)

Should we hold the manufacturer of an automobile and the dealership that sold the automobile responsible whenever someone has an automobile accident and a person is killed?

Yes, if the something was wrong with the car.

It always depends on the circumstances. Who, why, how they got the gun. Obviously, if the gun and the buyer didn't go through the proper procedures then some blame would go to the store that sold the gone.

Of course the owner of a gun store could never be charged for the murder of someone, but some blame does lie there in the sense that what they did was illegal.

Blaming the company that made the gun, or sold it is a bit farfetched though. Guns are necessary for some people, and while there is a chance, if we were to assume that every gun is going to be used to kill someone, and therefore, should not be sold... Well, that would be a bit silly.

I'm never too sure if I make any sense when I try to make a point. Hm.

Should we hold the manufacturer of an automobile and the dealership that sold the automobile responsible whenever someone has an automobile accident and a person is killed?

I think the two things are very different. A gun is designed to kill someone...that's what they are designed to do. A car is a mode of transport. Personally I wouldn't blame the manufactuer too much.

Pretty good assesment I think.

I think it's easy for everyone to turn around and say it's the users fault...mainly because it gets everyone else off the hook an we can all feel better knowing we had nothing to do witha gun murder.

So, when someone uses a hammer to kill their neighbor, Sears and Stanley should be held responsible? That is what is being stated. Regardless of the original intent of the device, it was used in an act that is already illegal.

VERY fucked up logic kids.

Punishing the manufacturer only increases costs for everyone, and is a VERY underhanded (indirect, if you will) move at banning that device which is so feared. It doesn't help with stopping murders or assaults--that's a human problem, not a device problem.

Murder is murder, regardless the weapon--no responsibility lies with the manufacturer or reseller. A human is solely responsible for their actions. No one else "forced" them to pull the trigger while pointing the firearm at another person (or bash someone's skull in with a pound-and-a-half chunk of metal wth a flat head).

Jesus, it's time to let those ACTUALLY responsible (the shooter, not the maker, the seller, or the firearm itself) be punished, instead of spreading out the pain to those that didn't have anything to do with the assault/murder. Punish the individual who made the choice to assault another.

I think the two things are very different. A gun is designed to kill someone...that's what they are designed to do. A car is a mode of transport. Personally I wouldn't blame the manufactuer too much.

Some guns are designed to kill people, some are designed to wound people, some are designed for accurate target matches, some are designed for collecting. Generally the ones designed to "kill people" are highly regulated in the first place.

It all goes back to the end user.

Do you think Bushmaster should be held accountable for the DC Sniper who obtained his gun illegally? If you do, then Chevrolet should be held accountable because they were able to make modifications to the car (perfectly legal) that allowed it to become a hidden platform.

I think the two things are very different. A gun is designed to kill someone...that's what they are designed to do. A car is a mode of transport. Personally I wouldn't blame the manufactuer too much.

Then why is trying to run someone over classified as a felony assault with a lethal weapon?

Anything can be a weapon is my point.

Stop concentrating on what the device is, and concentrate on the intent of the user.

The only reason they are classified differently to you is because you choose to do so.

Clearly video games, movies, television, and rock music are the most responsible for deaths caused by guns, followed by atheists and minorities.

Clearly video games, movies, television, and rock music are the most responsible for deaths caused by guns, followed by atheists and minorities.

It's all marilyn manson's fault..

Clearly video games, movies, television, and rock music are the most responsible for deaths caused by guns, followed by atheists and minorities.

Well Hillary blames the video games especially. Incidentally she also voted against this bill and for every "poison pill" amendment that was attempted.

It's interesting to note that the Defense Dept. supported this bill so as to keep supplying the military w/ firearms.

1) The person who used the gun, obviously

2) The person who sold/or provided the gun, IF there were a reason to believe (previous record, knowing that the person asking has a grudge against someone/some entity, purchase of LARGE quantities of items that should raise questions) that something might not be right. Hint: If someone cannot legally get a gun on their own, and you provide it for them -- you should be held responsible when they use it in a criminal way.

3) The gun company should not be held culpable. If you kill someone with a frozen leg of lamb, should we sue the farmer? Execute sheep?

I maintain it is the person who uses the gun who is responsible for deaths caused by guns. The manufacturer of the gun or the gun shop that sold the gun is no more responsible than an auto manufacturer or dealership is responsible for an automobile accident.

I am glad the Senate has taken this step.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/nationworld/sfl-aguns30jul30,0,2673450.story?coll=sfla-news-nationworld
As am I. I'm hoping that this particular legislation marks a turning point in our understanding of the phrase "personal responsibility."

For many years now, people have, with the encouragement of personal injury lawyers, increasingly sought to blame someone else ... anyone else ... for everything that happened to them. Everyone has heard the stories: suing MacDonalds when you spill hot coffee in your own lap, suing the ladder manufacturer when you fall because you used the ladder improperly, and suing the manufacturer of a handgun because some violent crackhead used a stolen gun to rob you.

It's the spoiled child approach to life: "How dare you expect me to take responsibility for the stupid things I do! I need someone to sue!"

Ah, grow up, you friggin' spoiled brat! Nobody "owes" you a damned thing. Turn off the friggn' TV, quit bitchin' at your mom for trying to raise your sorry ass, pull up your pants 'cause no one's interested in what sort of stinky underwear you have on, turn your friggin' ball cap around, and go out and get a damned job![/rant]

So, when someone uses a hammer to kill their neighbor, Sears and Stanley should be held responsible? That is what is being stated. Regardless of the original intent of the device, it was used in an act that is already illegal.

VERY fucked up logic kids.


Perhaps because the hammer, axe, saw or whatever example is used in this mos tobvious of come backs is designed to do something other than kill, a hammer you maybe aware enables us to put nails into wood.

If you sell a hammer you have to presume (because this is what it is used for in the majority of cases) that it will be used to put a nail into wood.

With a gun you know that it is desinged to kill lots of people at long range, and therefore as that is it's primary use you have to act accordingly.

1) The person who used the gun, obviously

2) The person who sold/or provided the gun, IF there were a reason to believe (previous record, knowing that the person asking has a grudge against someone/some entity, purchase of LARGE quantities of items that should raise questions) that something might not be right. Hint: If someone cannot legally get a gun on their own, and you provide it for them -- you should be held responsible when they use it in a criminal way.

3) The gun company should not be held culpable. If you kill someone with a frozen leg of lamb, should we sue the farmer? Execute sheep?
Damned homicidal sheep! :D

Do you think Bushmaster should be held accountable for the DC Sniper who obtained his gun illegally? If you do, then Chevrolet should be held accountable because they were able to make modifications to the car (perfectly legal) that allowed it to become a hidden platform.

Duh did you not read the last part of my post?

Well Hillary blames the video games especially. Incidentally she also voted against this bill and for every "poison pill" amendment that was attempted.

It's interesting to note that the Defense Dept. supported this bill so as to keep supplying the military w/ firearms.

Adults on both sides of the political spectrum blame video games, movies, television, and rock music for adolescent violent crime. Remember after the Columbine massacre Christian groups were calling for Marilyn Manson's head because he somehow convinced those kids to blow away their schoolmates, and Democrats have had a hard-on for shutting down the video game industy since Doom (pandering to the ever important yuppie vote).

Then why is trying to run someone over classified as a felony assault with a lethal weapon?

Because a CAN be leathal a gun is always leathal...all these guns designed to wound are all bollocks quite frankly because if you get hit in the head or near the heart you are still gonig to have a very very bad day. You are right if the intention is there anything CAN be used as a leathal weapon...but a gun is ALWAYS a lethal weapon


Anything can be a weapon is my point.

Stop concentrating on what the device is, and concentrate on the intent of the user.

The only reason they are classified differently to you is because you choose to do so.

Okay so lets make exposives legal aorund the world, sure it can be a very useful tool but do you honestly want people having lots of explosives around their house?

suing MacDonalds when you spill hot coffee in your own lap

I wouldn't recommend getting Kat started on that case.

Adults on both sides of the political spectrum blame video games, movies, television, and rock music for adolescent violent crime. Remember after the Columbine massacre Christian groups were calling for Marilyn Manson's head because he somehow convinced those kids to blow away their schoolmates, and Democrats have had a hard-on for shutting down the video game industy since Doom (pandering to the ever important yuppie vote).
Just another instance of "the spoiled brat approach to life," except that in this case it's parents who refuse to accept responsibility for their own kids. "Why I should have known that my son had an arsenal in his room? You expect me to know what goes on in my own house?" Sigh.

Adults on both sides of the political spectrum blame video games, movies, television, and rock music for adolescent violent crime. Remember after the Columbine massacre Christian groups were calling for Marilyn Manson's head because he somehow convinced those kids to blow away their schoolmates, and Democrats have had a hard-on for shutting down the video game industy since Doom (pandering to the ever important yuppie vote).


This is because too many people want to abdicate their responsibilities. I once had a parent ask me to talk to her 13 year old -- whom I'd seen four times in three months -- because she could not handle the child and had twice had the child arrested.

I referred her to the child's guidance counselor, who is actually given SOME training in this, and the woman insisted *I* should talk to the kid -- to which I responded, "I've seen her four times, and you've raised her for 13 years -- what make you think she'll listen to ME?"

This is because too many people want to abdicate their responsibilities. I once had a parent ask me to talk to her 13 year old -- whom I'd seen four times in three months -- because she could not handle the child and had twice had the child arrested.

I referred her to the child's guidance counselor, who is actually given SOME training in this, and the woman insisted *I* should talk to the kid -- to which I responded, "I've seen her four times, and you've raised her for 13 years -- what make you think she'll listen to ME?"

Just another reason why I quit education.

I wouldn't recommend getting Kat started on that case.

Why, just because McDonald's has tried to spin it so that it was not their fault people have gotten grievously injured from their product?

http://www.snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.asp
http://caoc.com/facts.htm
http://www.citizen.org/congress/civjus/tort/myths/articles.cfm?ID=785


Note: I have zero sympathy for anyone suing McDonald's because of their ill-health after eating it 3x a day 7 days a week. You eat this crap over a long period of time, and start getting ill, and keep eating it -- that's YOUR responsibility.

Why, just because McDonald's has tried to spin it so that it was not their fault people have gotten grievously injured from their product?

http://www.snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.asp
http://caoc.com/facts.htm
http://www.citizen.org/congress/civjus/tort/myths/articles.cfm?ID=785


Note: I have zero sympathy for anyone suing McDonald's because of their ill-health after eating it 3x a day 7 days a week. You eat this crap over a long period of time, and start getting ill, and keep eating it -- that's YOUR responsibility.

Yes, I know. I agree with you, too. I've just seen you get pretty passionate arguing with people about it. :)

Yes, I know. I agree with you, too. I've just seen you get pretty passionate arguing with people about it. :)

Who, me? Get passionate about an argument? Never. ;)

The bill has decent exceptions; however, if a suit gets broguht up that would fall under one of these exceptions I will bet you the gun lobby will be up in arms (more or less literally)

Perhaps because the hammer, axe, saw or whatever example is used in this mos tobvious of come backs is designed to do something other than kill, a hammer you maybe aware enables us to put nails into wood.

If you sell a hammer you have to presume (because this is what it is used for in the majority of cases) that it will be used to put a nail into wood.

With a gun you know that it is desinged to kill lots of people at long range, and therefore as that is it's primary use you have to act accordingly.

So you're saying if you own a gun you HAVE to go out and kill someone? There is no other purpose for it?

So continuing the analogy, if I buy a car that is designed to go fast, I can sue the car company when I get a speeding ticket. I was just acting according to its design.

Duh did you not read the last part of my post?

If you were talking about both types of manufacturers, I apologize (not too sincerely as the "duh" was rude). The way you have it written makes it sound auto exclusive.

In the case of the DC sniper, the gun was purchased illegally. The dealer broke the law by selling it to him and was in violation of several other laws as well. That dealer should be held accountable and can be according to the new bill as he broke the law in the transaction.

What it stops, however, is the type of lawsuit that goes after the manufacturer "alledging" that the company "knew" the dealer wasn't up to code yet continued to sell. As well as the dealer in cases of legal transactions where the gun gets sold several more times (legally or illegally) then gets used in a crime.

There have been dozens of lawsuits by cities and groups like the NAACP as "public nuisances" whose express purpose was not to win, but to bankrupt the industry. That is what this bill is about.

Obviously, the person who fired the gun is responsible. The company that made it would only be responsible if the death was caused by a defect in the gun.

The Gun itself is responsible.

Perhaps because the hammer, axe, saw or whatever example is used in this mos tobvious of come backs is designed to do something other than kill, a hammer you maybe aware enables us to put nails into wood.

If you sell a hammer you have to presume (because this is what it is used for in the majority of cases) that it will be used to put a nail into wood.

With a gun you know that it is desinged to kill lots of people at long range, and therefore as that is it's primary use you have to act accordingly.

Neat. I assume that a rifle would be used in hunting or target shooting, a shotgun for home defense or clay shooting and a pistol for self defense or target shooting. WHAT THEY ARE MOST COMMONLY USED FOR. Murder is the last stat that guns are used for (though a Glock CAN fill in as a hammer, given its 62 rockwell hardness rating...)--they're used more for more constructive uses for the most part--as evidenced by the 300 million guns in the US, with fewer than 15,000 used to commit murder.

YOU are the one that thinks it is primarily used for killing people--and that's SO wrong. The numbers prove it. I can guarantee that more deer are killed in Wisconsin alone by guns, than humans are in the entire US in a year. Your fear is really screwing with your view of reality.

The point is, it doesn't matter what the weapon in an assault is--it's just sad that it would occur in the first place. That's what needs to be defended against, not the weapon itself. What's really messed up is that anti-gunners tend to ignore those devices whose "purpose" was something other than the niche that guns fill, and yet kill many more humans annually. They want to put some sort of band-aid on a flesh wound, when the heart is arresting.

Because a CAN be leathal a gun is always leathal...all these guns designed to wound are all bollocks quite frankly because if you get hit in the head or near the heart you are still gonig to have a very very bad day. You are right if the intention is there anything CAN be used as a leathal weapon...but a gun is ALWAYS a lethal weapon


Oh? Then how come there are those that SURVIVE being shot? more often than not. I believe the last stat I saw said 60% survive. That even sounds like a MAJORITY of survivability. Wow.

Stop using movie physics and try learning about REAL firearms. Have you ever shot a gun? If so, what kind? How accurate were you?


Okay so lets make exposives legal aorund the world, sure it can be a very useful tool but do you honestly want people having lots of explosives around their house?

Depends. How stupid and irresponsible are you? If you are neither, why on earth should I have a problem with you having them? You have done nothing to anyone else with them. If you did, then you'd have to be punished. But mere possession of the item....not good enough to swoop in and try to take it just because someone is afraid of what you might do.

Obviously, the person who fired the gun is responsible. The company that made it would only be responsible if the death was caused by a defect in the gun.

Holy crap. Fifth sign of the apocalypse (were I christian, that is): Swimmingpool and I agreed on something.

The Gun itself is responsible.
Then charge it with murder, try it before a jury of its peers, find it guilty, and lock it away. :p

Perhaps because the hammer, axe, saw or whatever example is used in this mos tobvious of come backs is designed to do something other than kill, a hammer you maybe aware enables us to put nails into wood.

If you sell a hammer you have to presume (because this is what it is used for in the majority of cases) that it will be used to put a nail into wood.

With a gun you know that it is desinged to kill lots of people at long range, and therefore as that is it's primary use you have to act accordingly.

Guns aren't designed to kill people, they are designed to propell a projectile at extremely high speeds accurately at a target. Hammers aren't designed to kill people, they're designed to amplify the ammount of force a person applies to an object. The functions of both of these tools can be used to kill people, but they are used for other purposes far more often.

The vast majority of guns owned in the U.S. are owned for target shooting or hunting. A secondary reason for ownership of most guns is to kill people in the event that it becomes necessary. Now these are just the reasons people own guns, very few guns are ever used to kill people(including in self defence), a few more are used to threaten people(including in self defense), the vast majority are used for target practice and hunting. Guns, for the most part, are useful and benign tools.

Because guns are so effective at killing people, as compared to other methods, if guns are banned murder rates may go down slightly(all things being equal), but attempted murders will not go down because few if any people kill others because they have guns, if you are willing to kill someone with a gun, you are going to be willing to do it by some other means, the problem isn't guns, it's people.

I think the blame falls on whomever used the gun.

Here is greg Palasts take on it:


LAWYERS GUNS AND MONEY
"Just Put Down That Law Suit, Pardner, and No One Gets Hurt."

Saturday, July 30, 2005
Originally published in The Guardian (London)

by Greg Palast

NEW YORK - There are 200 million guns in civilian hands in the United
States. That works out at 200 per lawyer. Wade through the foaming
websites of the anti-Semites, weekend militiamen and Republicans, and it
becomes clear that many among America's well-armed citizenry have
performed the same calculation. Because if there is any hope of the ceasefire
that they fear, it will come out of the barrel of a lawsuit.

And that is why a shoot-to-kill coalition in the Senate, led by Wild
Bill Frist (R-Tenn) and his simpering sidekick, Scary Harry Reid (D-Nev),
voted yesterday to grant immunity from law suits to gun makers.

First, the score. Gunshot deaths in the US are way down - to only 88 a
day. Around 87,000 lucky Americans were treated for bullet wounds last
year; 32,436 unlucky ones died, including a dozen policemen by their
own weapons.

For Americans, America remains more deadly than Iraq.

In one typical case, a young man, Steven Fox, described feeling pieces
of his brain fly from his skull after a mugger shot him. He is
permanently paralyzed.

But, hey, that's business for you. And what a business it is. Guns,
ammo and accessories are a $6 billion-a-year honey pot for several
corporations: Glock, Smith & Wesson, Colt and too many others.

But, the gun-o-philiacs say, what does po' widdle Smith & Wesson have
to do with a mugger who uses its gun in an unsocial manner?

This cop-out drives Elisa Barnes crazy. Barnes is the lawyer who
brought the groundbreaking lawsuit against handgun manufacturers which, for
the first time, were found negligent in abetting a criminal.

It's lawyers like Barnes -- and victims like Fox -- that the Senate
went gunning for.

Barnes thought it was just too convenient for gun makers to blame the
criminal alone. Through investigation and statistical analysis she
concluded that sales to criminals are a much-valued - if unpublicized -
market segment sought out and provisioned by these upstanding
manufacturers.

Her calculations are compelling. Gun companies dumped several million
weapons into outlets in states with few curbs on purchases,
super-saturating the legal market so that excess would flow up the "Iron Pipeline"
to meet black market demand in New York and other big cities.

Like the company that sells cigarette rolling papers in quantities far
outstripping sales of legal tobacco, gun manufacturers have a
nod-and-wink understanding of where their products end up. Their market models
cannot account for half the gun sales in loose-law states such as
Georgia.

Nor can industry executives fail to have noticed the 800,000 requests
to them from the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms agency to trace guns
recovered from crime scenes.

The Fox case jury found a dozen gun makers guilty of negligent
distribution. The shooter's gun was never found. Unable to determine which
company made the gun that fired the bullet into Fox's head, the jury
ordered all the makers of .25 caliber weapons in the case to pony up $5
million for Fox's care and pain.

Fox's victory burst the dam. Several hundred lawyers - including the
Costanza group, the combine of firms that mangled the tobacco industry -
filed suits to make sure the gun industry feels our pain. New Orleans
was the first of thirty cities in court demanding that gun purveyors pay
the cost of gathering the wounded off the streets, and the cost of
arming the municipal police force in self-defense. The legal profession
might have finally accomplished what a cowering Congress dare not
consider: shutting down firearms sales at source.

The NAACP weighed in with a massive class-action suit on behalf of
thousands of the wounded and dead, based on yet another theory: product
liability. I spoke to one of their counsel, Mike Hausfeld, just after he
returned from beating Hitler in a US courtroom.

Fifty years after WWII, Hausfeld's firm brought a suit against
Mercedes-Benz, Siemens, BASF and others who used slave labor from concentration
and prison camps under the Nazi regime. The defendants agreed to create
a $1.2 billion compensation fund.

Hausfeld concedes the companies were acting under orders of the Reich,
but points out: "Contemporary industrial empires were made from those
profits. In 1938 Henry Ford received a medal from the Führer, and his
German plants continued to provide Ford income through 1942. Those
profits belong to the victims."

Hitler's manufacturers finally coughed up their blood money when the
defense, "We were only taking orders," failed to impress US judges.

Glock's profits belong too its victims as well. But as soon as our
President signs the new immunity law, "We were only taking orders" (for
more guns) will be a Bush-blessed defense.

Republican Majority Leader Frist makes a big deal about being a doctor.
He must believe the Hippocratic Oath changed from, "First, do no harm,"
to "Shoot first, then run for President."

It's not nice to say, but there's only one way to stop Doctor Death. In
2008, I hope to see the headline, "Senator Frist Slain in a Hail of
Ballots."

I think the blame falls on whomever used the gun.

Here is greg Palasts take on it:

Wow....what an idiot that Palast. No one dies by a Glock. If anything they'd die by the hand of someone USING a Glock. Or a Ruger. Or a Boker steak knife. Or a Stanley hammer.

Nice to know that my five Glocks can just spring up at any time and just shoot someone if they get too close, or the Glocks got very hungry....I better get rid of them. :rolleyes:

Its questions like this that i let tv answer

"Guns dont kill people, Dangerous minorities do."
:sniper: :mp5:

I’m not pro-gun. I’m pro-choice, on everything.
Somebody is carrying that around in their sig, and I absolutely love it. :D That would be me.

Actually, some gun manufacturers are worse than drug dealers. At least cocaine isn't produced for the sole purpose of killing someone. Unless automatic weaponsNot legal in the US except for VERY restrictive permit holders... and handguns are meant for deer hunting, the same does not hold true for the arms industry. I hunt deer with a pistol... (.44/.45LC/.454 Revolver) I have hunted Moose and Bear with a pistol (.454). What do you have against hunting with pistols? They can be quite effective - and they are easier to carry in the brush.

With a gun you know that it is desinged to kill lots of people at long range, and therefore as that is it's primary use you have to act accordingly. Ummm. The only "gun" I can think of that is designed "to kill lots of people at long range" is a Howitzer. Even the M2 .50 BMG Machine Gun does not fit that criteria as it is an anti-vehicular weapon. Military (full auto) "Assault Rifles" are designed to wound "lots of people at intermediate to short range. Sniper Rifles (modified hunting rifles) are designed "to kill individual people at long range". You hyperbole is showing...
Okay so lets make exposives legal aorund the world, sure it can be a very useful tool but do you honestly want people having lots of explosives around their house? You already do. A Hack Chemist can turn the most simple things into some pretty amazing "go-boom". Thus "The Anarchist's Cookbook" (a fun read. lousy tech, but fun read. I prefer my "Improvised Explosives & Munitions" Field Manual...) I could level you house with the contents of your kitchen... and not even need to turn on the Gas. :eek: :D

...

So you're saying if you own a gun you HAVE to go out and kill someone? There is no other purpose for it?

So continuing the analogy, if I buy a car that is designed to go fast, I can sue the car company when I get a speeding ticket. I was just acting according to its design.

Don't try and put words in my mouth you know exactly what I'm saying. You don't have to go out and shoot someone but the entire purpose of a gun is to injure and kill a person. Are you seriously trying to say to me that a gun maker designed a gun not to hurt someone geez.

Guns aren't designed to kill people, they are designed to propell a projectile at extremely high speeds accurately at a target. Hammers aren't designed to kill people, they're designed to amplify the ammount of force a person applies to an object.


Well then If you want to take that rediculous line the job or expolisves is to cause vibration in the air. :rolleyes:

At the end of the day are you seriously telling me that (apart from a few specialist guns) when a manufacturer designes a gun they don't look at stopping power or other such things?

Don't worry you can carry on thinging what you do but at my house we like to live in reality and there is a cup of tea with your name on it if you ever feel like comming to join us.

Don't try and put words in my mouth you know exactly what I'm saying. You don't have to go out and shoot someone but the entire purpose of a gun is to injure and kill a person. Are you seriously trying to say to me that a gun maker designed a gun not to hurt someone geez.


....yeah.

Gun makers may design a gun to go hunting, as other people have said. For PROTECTION. Not to shoot someone, but to warm that there is the possibility of being shot if they don't stop whatever they're doing to cause someone to pull the gun on 'em.

But no, of course... guns are used to kill people and nothing else, because most aren't planned for hunters... :rolleyes:

....yeah.

Gun makers may design a gun to go hunting, as other people have said. For PROTECTION. Not to shoot someone, but to warm that there is the possibility of being shot if they don't stop whatever they're doing to cause someone to pull the gun on 'em.

But no, of course... guns are used to kill people and nothing else, because most aren't planned for hunters... :rolleyes:

So at no point when they desing that hunting gun do not think the manufactures look at maybe the effects on a person...you know stopping power that sort of thing...nah didn't think so.

And when people design guns for protection do you not think part of being a good devise for protection is that it works...is that it will stop a man dead if they threaten them...no of course not because guns that protect people don't kill and never have been designed to kill. :headbang:

So at no point when they desing that hunting gun do not think the manufactures look at maybe the effects on a person...you know stopping power that sort of thing...nah didn't think so.


Humans are no different from animals in what happens when a bullet hits them, to my knowledge. Unless humans react different to being hit, in which case they'd probably HAVE to stop to look at the effects on a person.

But you know what? People will find ways to get guns anyway. "Safe" guns or not. Or they'll use bows for hunting, which can be JUST as deadly.

Your average person with a gun isn't out to kill every human you see. The ones that are... they don't really need guns to kill people; there are other ways.



Note: I didn't say a gun for protection wouldn't kill. I said they didn't get it to kill anyone particularly.

Don't try and put words in my mouth you know exactly what I'm saying. You don't have to go out and shoot someone but the entire purpose of a gun is to injure and kill a person. Are you seriously trying to say to me that a gun maker designed a gun not to hurt someone geez.

YEAH. We ARE. They designed them to do something other than kill humans. Like I stated before, more deer die in Wisconsin by hunters than people are killed and injured by firearms--and the numbers more than support that.

YOU are the one saying that a gun maker designed guns only to hurt a person (and I'm talking about today's manufacturers). Yes, there are some military contractors out there that design anti-personnel weaponry. However, the overwhelming majority of firearms are produced for sporting or self-defense applications.

Time to come back to reality.

Well then If you want to take that rediculous line the job or expolisves is to cause vibration in the air. :rolleyes:

At the end of the day are you seriously telling me that (apart from a few specialist guns) when a manufacturer designes a gun they don't look at stopping power or other such things?

Don't worry you can carry on thinging what you do but at my house we like to live in reality and there is a cup of tea with your name on it if you ever feel like comming to join us.

You don't live in reality, kid, you live in a world making decisions on no factual basis, seeming to believe anything the media (or some other sensationalist with an agenda) would tell you as fact.

If you ever actually try the experience, you might figure out that A) hitting your target isn't as easy as Hollywood makes it look, and B) that firearms don't turn their user into a rampaging murderer.

So at no point when they desing that hunting gun do not think the manufactures look at maybe the effects on a person...you know stopping power that sort of thing...nah didn't think so.


I'll use small words:

Nope. A bolt action rifle is made to take down game animals. And since humans are not game animals, they aren't designed to kill humans. There ARE rounds that are designed to work on humans--they're generally restricted to the military and military contractors, though.


And when people design guns for protection do you not think part of being a good devise for protection is that it works...is that it will stop a man dead if they threaten them...no of course not because guns that protect people don't kill and never have been designed to kill. :headbang:

Okay, smart guy, how come 60% of the people shot LIVE? They are designed to stop an assailant, not necessarily kill an assailant. Your brilliant LACK of experience with firearms is showing greatly. I love how the antis love to think we all want to kill our assailants. I want to stop my assailant--that's it. Not kill them, not cripple them, not anything else. Just stop them from attacking me or my family.

Should we hold the manufacturer of an automobile and the dealership that sold the automobile responsible whenever someone has an automobile accident and a person is killed?
Ahhh the old car argument.

In certain cases, the manufacturer of certain cars and/or equipment manufacturers (tires) have been held accountable. Perhaps that is why many manufacturers use the recall system to correct the defects, and protect their asses.

The simple fact that gun manufacturers produce deadly weapons, makes them indirectly responsible for any deaths that occur through usage of their product.

Also, I am certain that some weapons will end up in the hands of disreputable merchants through dishonest activities of their employees.

Ahhh the old car argument.

1. In certain cases, the manufacturer of certain cars and/or equipment manufacturers (tires) have been held accountable. Perhaps that is why many manufacturers use the recall system to correct the defects, and protect their asses.

2. The simple fact that gun manufacturers produce deadly weapons, makes them indirectly responsible for any deaths that occur through usage of their product.

3. Also, I am certain that some weapons will end up in the hands of disreputable merchants through dishonest activities of their employees.

1. And faulty products fall under the exemptions in the bill therefore they can be held accountable in these cases.

2. In your opinion...

3. And if in violation of already established law, there is accountability on the employee, not the company, unless the company willingly encourages it and that should be fun to prove.

You do realize that companies keep the initial records of firearms right? If one "disappears" from the factory, its pretty easy to isolate as most don't emloy more than a hundred people.

The simple fact that gun manufacturers produce deadly weapons, makes them indirectly responsible for any deaths that occur through usage of their product.


Then we're back to Stanley and hammers, if one is used to bash in someone's skull...they're somehow responsible for the terrible behavior? I don't think so.

I'm sorry, I just don't see how someone who makes a product is in any way responsible for a free-willed human deciding to use that particular tool to kill someone.

If I choose to pick up a rock and bash someone's skull in, is the DNR responsible? Is the person who owns the land that I took it from responsible? Is a god responsible (just tossing it out there) since they may have created the rock? Is the earth responsible for causing an ice age to move rocks to that land to drop the rock off for me to use?

You can't blame someone or something completely removed from the situation for a single person's decision to murder another. The gun doesn't make someone do it. The choice is always with the human performing the assault. Always.

I love how the antis love to think we all want to kill our assailants. I want to stop my assailant--that's it. Not kill them, not cripple them, not anything else. Just stop them from attacking me or my family.

Then I guess soon you'll be switching to all those peaceful alternatives that are hitting the market. You know stun guns, tasers, rubber bullets...

You do use rubber bullets right? All the stopping power of a gun but without the vigilante-tinged lethality.

Then I guess soon you'll be switching to all those peaceful alternatives that are hitting the market. You know stun guns, tasers, rubber bullets...

You do use rubber bullets right? All the stopping power of a gun but without the vigilante-tinged lethality.

I do. My shotguns' initial loads are a 3 rubber ball round and a pepper round (cayane). If that doesn't "encourage" them to leave, it then goes to shot. If it gets close, the heavy stock becomes a club.

By that time, the wife should have called the police and her folks (also armed and close by) while loading the rifle JIC.

I'll use small words:
Okay, smart guy, how come 60% of the people shot LIVE? They are designed to stop an assailant, not necessarily kill an assailant. Your brilliant LACK of experience with firearms is showing greatly. I love how the antis love to think we all want to kill our assailants. I want to stop my assailant--that's it. Not kill them, not cripple them, not anything else. Just stop them from attacking me or my family.

First up what is really funny is that I've worked with fire arms for the past 30 years...I perhaps have more expirence here than anyone else. :rolleyes:


And when you say stop your assainlent that great but that is also will at sometime involve killing someone. Shooting someone with a 9mm isn't just going to make a nice whole it's going to rip the muscle of the bone and shred arteries if someone doesn't die after being shot my a modern fire arm it's got far more to do with the lack of skill than people actually posessing any great level of skill and being able to shoot someone in just the right place.

Unless of course all these 40% of people that don't die are being shot at by marksmen or sociopaths...which one is it?


All this shot someone to stop them I'm afraid is someone just living in denial. Let me put it to you this way a guy breaks into your house, you hear, at night, you go down stair with the gun and he goes for you...how amny shots are you going to put in him EXACTLY to stop him? You know hurt him a lot but just so much that lives...so he's in that 40%. Fact is you don't know, when you pull the trigger you are shitting yourself you always fire off more rounds than you want or need and the guy is dead.

That is a real life scenario played out from the family home to the police to the battlefield. You don't believe it, you don't don't believe it won't happen to you?

Like I said denial.

The simple fact that gun manufacturers produce deadly weapons, makes them indirectly responsible for any deaths that occur through usage of their product.

A lot of people think I'm directly attacking a manufacturer for a gun death, that is in no way the point, I've argued since my first post that we are all resposible and that just blaming the guy with the trigger is as bad as someone blaming Mcdonalds because their apple pies are too hot...we all don't have to feel resposable for our actions.

Then I guess soon you'll be switching to all those peaceful alternatives that are hitting the market. You know stun guns, tasers, rubber bullets...


If only they were legal in Wisconsin....


You do use rubber bullets right? All the stopping power of a gun but without the vigilante-tinged lethality.

I'd try 'em--provided they were proven to be as effective as regular ones at stopping the immediate conflict.

Yes, there are some military contractors out there that design anti-personnel weaponry. However, the overwhelming majority of firearms are produced for sporting or self-defense applications.

What does that mean? A gun to be a safe form of defense needs to be able to hurt someone else and if against another gun to work better than the other gun with a gun (or at least you to shoot better) what do these new self defense guns do, create some sort of sheild around you or fire Patriot bullets which take out the other bad bullets...sorry I'm being daft their but am I alone in thinking a gun designed for self defense a bunch of gun manufacturer speak?

First up what is really funny is that I've worked with fire arms for the past 30 years...I perhaps have more expirence here than anyone else. :rolleyes:


And yet you still blame the tool....very interesting.


And when you say stop your assainlent that great but that is also will at sometime involve killing someone. Shooting someone with a 9mm isn't just going to make a nice whole it's going to rip the muscle of the bone and shred arteries if someone doesn't die after being shot my a modern fire arm it's got far more to do with the lack of skill than people actually posessing any great level of skill and being able to shoot someone in just the right place.

Unless of course all these 40% of people that don't die are being shot at by marksmen or sociopaths...which one is it?


Okay, I guess I'm not quite as worried about a criminal dying in my house as you are. I'm still going for a stop, not a kill.


All this shot someone to stop them I'm afraid is someone just living in denial. Let me put it to you this way a guy breaks into your house, you hear, at night, you go down stair with the gun and he goes for you...how amny shots are you going to put in him EXACTLY to stop him? You know hurt him a lot but just so much that lives...so he's in that 40%. Fact is you don't know, when you pull the trigger you are shitting yourself you always fire off more rounds than you want or need and the guy is dead.


I will put as many rounds down range as necessary, until the assailant falls. And like I said, I'm not as worried about the person dying in the process as you are. They shouldn't be there, they know they shouldn't be there. And it's 60% live, not 40%. But no, I'm not going to try for a leg shot or something like that--it's COM shots.


That is a real life scenario played out from the family home to the police to the battlefield. You don't believe it, you don't don't believe it won't happen to you?

Like I said denial.

I'm not denying that they can't die. And I've stated I'm not worried if they do die. But I'm not trying to kill them. There's the difference. Intent. I'm only trying to stop them.

First up what is really funny is that I've worked with fire arms for the past 30 years...I perhaps have more expirence here than anyone else. :rolleyes:


And when you say stop your assainlent that great but that is also will at sometime involve killing someone. Shooting someone with a 9mm isn't just going to make a nice whole it's going to rip the muscle of the bone and shred arteries if someone doesn't die after being shot my a modern fire arm it's got far more to do with the lack of skill than people actually posessing any great level of skill and being able to shoot someone in just the right place.

Unless of course all these 40% of people that don't die are being shot at by marksmen or sociopaths...which one is it?


All this shot someone to stop them I'm afraid is someone just living in denial. Let me put it to you this way a guy breaks into your house, you hear, at night, you go down stair with the gun and he goes for you...how amny shots are you going to put in him EXACTLY to stop him? You know hurt him a lot but just so much that lives...so he's in that 40%. Fact is you don't know, when you pull the trigger you are shitting yourself you always fire off more rounds than you want or need and the guy is dead.

That is a real life scenario played out from the family home to the police to the battlefield. You don't believe it, you don't don't believe it won't happen to you?

Like I said denial.

If I translated this correctly...

1. You have your stats backwards, it is 40% that DON't live.

2. What he said was his intention was to STOP the criminal. That may include death, maiming, etc. but neither are the intention

What does that mean? A gun to be a safe form of defense needs to be able to hurt someone else and if against another gun to work better than the other gun with a gun (or at least you to shoot better) what do these new self defense guns do, create some sort of sheild around you or fire Patriot bullets which take out the other bad bullets...sorry I'm being daft their but am I alone in thinking a gun designed for self defense a bunch of gun manufacturer speak?

No. You've been brainwashed somewhere along the way to believe that guns only kill humans and have no other legitimate use. That's what you've presented throughout the course of your argument.

And that is one of the LEAST common uses of a firearm is to kill another human--at least in the US....we use them for several other uses millions of times annually--many more times than shooting to kill a person.

How about cocaine-laced pepper spray? :p

Good point. Not many directly good things can come of drug use. But on the other hand killing or maiming someone isn't all that great an action either, even if its a criminal on the receiving end. And in the end both drugs and guns can be solidly linked to crime. The question in both cases is whether the producer or the consumer is to blame (or both).
Yes and no, as correlation does not imply causation. There are several things about the drug trade that are important when determining the causes of drug related crime. Firstly, it is illegal, which means that there is no safe legal venue to get it from. Second, because there is demand an entire shadow industry has built around it. Given the risks involved the price is astronomically raised from what it would naturally be if it were legal. Obviously something that expensive will cause people who are hooked to try and support their habit. Since they are already criminals in the eyes of the law, what's really that bad about attempted robbery. Third, given that the industry is not legal it must resort to other measures in order to protect it's business. This explains a large majority of gang-related violence. If you acknowledge these factors then the link between the drugs themselves and crime becomes tenuous at best.

I just killed a bunch of people with a large stick. Since God created the tree the stick came from, he is to blame, not me. I accept no responsability.

First up what is really funny is that I've worked with fire arms for the past 30 years...I perhaps have more expirence here than anyone else. :rolleyes: In what capacity have you this "experience" of "working with" "fire arms" (sic)? Manufacture? Sales? Military? Law Enforcement (who "use" their firearms less than the average civillian target shooter and are statistically more likely to injure themselves when they do) or does your "work" simply mean "working to eliminate firearms ownership?"

And when you say stop your assainlent that great but that is also will at sometime involve killing someone. Not so far, at least not in the 3 times I have had to stop an assault with my handgun. Didn't even need to pull the trigger. Shooting someone with a 9mm isn't just going to make a nice whole um... that is exactly how "military ball" FMJ ammo works... it's going to rip the muscle of the bone and shred arteries please learn somthing about terminal ballistics. There are things called the "temporary wound cavity" and "kenetic energy transfer" which have much more to do with shock trauma and "fight stopping" than wound-channels. if someone doesn't die after being shot my a modern fire arm it's got far more to do with the lack of skill than people actually posessing any great level of skill and being able to shoot someone in just the right place.Bull. You continue to prove you don't know squat about ballistics or trauma. In the early 1990s the FRG Polezi gave up their CZ-50 .32 ACP pistols in favor of the 9mm because the .32s were so inneffective with ball amo that they were FORCED to kill their opponents in order to stop them. Fight stoppage comes from the delivery of energy to the target in excess of body weight. Whether that comes from a sledgehammer to the chest or a bullet is immaterial. If you want to stop a 300lb assailant quickly you either have to hit him with more than 300ftlbs of energy or damage the central nervous system. Period. Big heavy bullets placed in non-lethal areas accomplish the first, small fast bullets or knives to vital areas the second - that's why assasians use .22s.

Unless of course all these 40% of people that don't die are being shot at by marksmen or sociopaths...which one is it?When I was an EMT I treated a character who managed to get himself shot in the throat with a .38 wadcutter. He lived. Didn't even (completely) lose the use of his voice. Google "shot in the head and lived" some time.

All this shot someone to stop them I'm afraid is someone just living in denial. Let me put it to you this way a guy breaks into your house, you hear, at night, you go down stair with the gun and he goes for you...how amny shots are you going to put in him EXACTLY to stop him? You know hurt him a lot but just so much that lives...so he's in that 40%. Fact is you don't know, when you pull the trigger you are shitting yourself you always fire off more rounds than you want or need and the guy is dead.The fantasy of the untrained Anti. What you are doing is somthing called "projection". Read about it sometime.
That is a real life scenario played out from the family home to the police to the battlefield. You don't believe it, you don't don't believe it won't happen to you? Hasn't in the 3 times I've had to draw my handgun...
Like I said denial.Like I said - hysterical projection... :rolleyes:

No. You've been brainwashed somewhere along the way to believe that guns only kill humans and have no other legitimate use. That's what you've presented throughout the course of your argument.

And that is one of the LEAST common uses of a firearm is to kill another human--at least in the US....we use them for several other uses millions of times annually--many more times than shooting to kill a person.

Like if you want to turn the TV off and can't reach the remote, gain everyone's attention at a mass rally or open a bottle of wine if you can't find the corkscrew.

Like if you want to turn the TV off and can't reach the remote, gain everyone's attention at a mass rally or open a bottle of wine if you can't find the corkscrew.

Nice Simpsons reference.

Nice Simpsons reference.

You have to admit that the episode was funny, in a controlled scary sort of way. :D

I maintain it is the person who uses the gun who is responsible for deaths caused by guns. The manufacturer of the gun or the gun shop that sold the gun is no more responsible than an auto manufacturer or dealership is responsible for an automobile accident.

I am glad the Senate has taken this step.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/nationworld/sfl-aguns30jul30,0,2673450.story?coll=sfla-news-nationworld
Hear, hear! Three cheers for the Senate and a clean bill. May it pass the House and out of committee in the same style.

Hear, hear! Three cheers for the Senate and a clean bill. May it pass the House and out of committee in the same style.

I would prefer they take out the mandatory gun lock with each firearm bit. It's ALMOST clean, but not completely.

I maintain it is the person who uses the gun who is responsible for deaths caused by guns. The manufacturer of the gun or the gun shop that sold the gun is no more responsible than an auto manufacturer or dealership is responsible for an automobile accident.

I am glad the Senate has taken this step.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/nationworld/sfl-aguns30jul30,0,2673450.story?coll=sfla-news-nationworld
Agreed. I miss personal responsibility...can we bring that fad back into style?

I would prefer they take out the mandatory gun lock with each firearm bit. It's ALMOST clean, but not completely.
Agreed. It worries me in that it is eerily similar to the way they created the Mandatory Seatbelt Laws... :headbang:

First force the manufacturers to install them, then start having random checkpoints to ensure compliance - except with gun locks it means random home checks.

Bye Bye 4th & 5th Amendments. :(

Agreed. I miss personal responsibility...can we bring that fad back into style?

I dunno...too many want to leech off social programs and put misplaced faith toward tax programs (IE Social Security, where there is no guarantee any money will be given back to retirees--at least according to two Supreme Court rulings...this is now, not 40 years from now--the government doesn't have to give any money to anyone if they decide it's for the "best").

Republicans and Democrats both want to continue to grab our cash and use it for their special groups and programs. They're almost the same party now--just take, take, take, take--then go buy votes.

It will mean having to pay as you go--and not get special treatment.

Personal responsibility is one of the main tenets of Libertarianism--I'd say check that out.

Agreed. It worries me in that it is eerily similar to the way they created the Mandatory Seatbelt Laws... :headbang:

First force the manufacturers to install them, then start having random checkpoints to ensure compliance - except with gun locks it means random home checks.

Bye Bye 4th & 5th Amendments. :(

Didn't we already lose those with the Patriot Act?

Anyway, yeah, you're right, that's exactly how seat belt laws worked.

Except I think this would go further, and go for eventual disarmament.

In the case of shooting deaths, whoever fired the gun is responsible. If a child gets ahold of a gun, the owner of the gun is responsible, and guilty of not properly storing the firearm.

Perhaps because the hammer, axe, saw or whatever example is used in this mos tobvious of come backs is designed to do something other than kill, a hammer you maybe aware enables us to put nails into wood.

If you sell a hammer you have to presume (because this is what it is used for in the majority of cases) that it will be used to put a nail into wood.

With a gun you know that it is desinged to kill lots of people at long range, and therefore as that is it's primary use you have to act accordingly.

Just as someone selling a hammer would assume the hammer will be used to put nails into wood, someone selling a gun will assume the gun will be used to either hunt or defend.

In the case of shooting deaths, whoever fired the gun is responsible. If a child gets ahold of a gun, the owner of the gun is responsible, and guilty of not properly storing the firearm.

What about the parents for not properly watching the child?

What about the parents for not properly watching the child?


Sorry, I left that part out, but hopefully that is understood. Parents don't take enough responsibility for the effect their actions have on children.

Sorry, I left that part out, but hopefully that is understood. Parents don't take enough responsibility for the effect their actions have on children.

I guess I have a problem that if friends of mine are coming over, and that because they made a choice (to bring a child into the world), why is it suddenly my responsibility to child-proof the house (not just guns, but cleaners in lower cabinets, pans, etc.)?

I think the onus of responsibility is still to be shouldered by the parents--not the gun owner. Maybe if the gun owners were the parents, then yeah. But if it's not my child, it's not my responsibility to "administer" the child--nor the child's environment.

I guess I have a problem that if friends of mine are coming over, and that because they made a choice (to bring a child into the world), why is it suddenly my responsibility to child-proof the house (not just guns, but cleaners in lower cabinets, pans, etc.)?

I think the onus of responsibility is still to be shouldered by the parents--not the gun owner. Maybe if the gun owners were the parents, then yeah. But if it's not my child, it's not my responsibility to "administer" the child.

Your "friends" should keep a close watch over the child, and your gun should have a trigger lock on it or at least be stored somewhere (hell, my dad kept a 9mm in the breadbox when I was a kid!) whether there is a child in the house or not. Also, it's usually not a great idea to leave a gun loaded when it's out in the open anyway. I understand that it is your right to keep a gun for self-defense. It is also your responsibility to safely use the firearm when it is necessary.

However, it is not your respobsibility to child-proof your house if a child is visiting. That child's parents should be able to keep the little trog out of your cabinets, or they shouldn't bring the kid over.

Your "friends" should keep a close watch over the child, and your gun should have a trigger lock on it or at least be stored somewhere (hell, my dad kept a 9mm in the breadbox when I was a kid!) whether there is a child in the house or not. Also, it's usually not a great idea to leave a gun loaded when it's out in the open anyway. I understand that it is your right to keep a gun for self-defense. It is also your responsibility to safely use the firearm when it is necessary.

However, it is not your respobsibility to child-proof your house if a child is visiting. That child's parents should be able to keep the little trog out of your cabinets, or they shouldn't bring the kid over.

Sorry fella's there is no excuse what so ever for leaving a fire arm around where a kid or idiot can get to it . As far as child proofing your house thats easy ... dont them them in :p

Your "friends" should keep a close watch over the child, and your gun should have a trigger lock on it or at least be stored somewhere (hell, my dad kept a 9mm in the breadbox when I was a kid!) whether there is a child in the house or not.


I'll ask again: why? When did I become responsible for someone else's child? I'm just trying to find out where you think my responsibility starts, that's all.


Also, it's usually not a great idea to leave a gun loaded when it's out in the open anyway.


I'll do it again: why?


I understand that it is your right to keep a gun for self-defense. It is also your responsibility to safely use the firearm when it is necessary.


I am using it safely at all times. The presence of a child doesn't change that a whit. I'm wondering why you think it does.


However, it is not your respobsibility to child-proof your house if a child is visiting. That child's parents should be able to keep the little trog out of your cabinets, or they shouldn't bring the kid over.

Then they would be able to keep them out of drawers, cabinets, and safes, yes? So....again, why do I need to put a trigger lock on the gun when the only difference in the environment is the presence of a child?

To be honest, the gun stays on my hip regardless of who's in the house. Generally, it's under a shirt, but the shirt's untucked, and someone of a shorter stature would be able to see the outside-the-waistband holster. It's quite loaded with one in the pipe. I have yet to have a child be able to sneak up on me, though. Plus, they'd find that there was a very inconvenient retaining snap holding the pistol in.

Sorry fella's there is no excuse what so ever for leaving a fire arm around where a kid or idiot can get to it.

I'll ask you as well: why?

I maintain it is the person who uses the gun who is responsible for deaths caused by guns. The manufacturer of the gun or the gun shop that sold the gun is no more responsible than an auto manufacturer or dealership is responsible for an automobile accident.

You have fallen into an anti-gunner's fallacy, so I HAD to vote "manufacturer" (with this puppet). :eek:

The party responsible for a death caused by a gun is the gun manufacturer... (unless the gun has been altered and warantee voided...) Of course, the only way a gun can kill anyone is to blow up in one's face, so that is already covered by Product Liability laws. H&R went tits up in large part because of lawsuits stemming from poor design of their Huntsman series of black powder rifles.

The party responsible for a death caused with (through the use of) a gun is the party holding the gun when the trigger is pulled.

Grammar is important. The Anti Gun faction has, through willing media misuse, changed changed the meaning of "by" sufficiently that even pro-choice people use it incorrectly. :mad:

I'll ask again: why? When did I become responsible for someone else's child? I'm just trying to find out where you think my responsibility starts, that's all.



I'll do it again: why?



I am using it safely at all times. The presence of a child doesn't change that a whit. I'm wondering why you think it does.



Then they would be able to keep them out of drawers, cabinets, and safes, yes? So....again, why do I need to put a trigger lock on the gun when the only difference in the environment is the presence of a child?

To be honest, the gun stays on my hip regardless of who's in the house. Generally, it's under a shirt, but the shirt's untucked, and someone of a shorter stature would be able to see the outside-the-waistband holster. It's quite loaded with one in the pipe. I have yet to have a child be able to sneak up on me, though. Plus, they'd find that there was a very inconvenient retaining snap holding the pistol in.


Well, from your current post, I can see that you're not the kind of moron who'd leave a gun loaded, unlocked, and on the coffee table, so my suggested precautions should be disregarded. My warnings are for that particular kind of moron, not you. You are a responsible individual, apparently. (You obviously don't live anywhere near me, because I swear I'm surrounded by idiots.)


Anyway, the holster is proper storage, so you're already doing what I suggested.

<snip>To be honest, the gun stays on my hip regardless of who's in the house. Generally, it's under a shirt, but the shirt's untucked, and someone of a shorter stature would be able to see the outside-the-waistband holster. It's quite loaded with one in the pipe. I have yet to have a child be able to sneak up on me, though. Plus, they'd find that there was a very inconvenient retaining snap holding the pistol in.
There is only one loaded gun in my house, and it is the one I am carrying. All the other cartridge guns are unloaded and secured. Accessible, but in a fall-back mode.


Sorry fella's there is no excuse what so ever for leaving a fire arm around where a kid or idiot can get to it. Sure there is. Google the "Carpenter Murders" or just read this:

April 20,2001

North Carolina General Assembly
To Whom It May Concern,

To my understanding you are debating the passage of laws requiring trigger locks and mandatory storage of guns. I am a second generation resident of the State of California, a mother and a grieving grandmother. I wish to express to you how trigger locks and mandatory storage laws in the State of California affected my family. I hope my testimony may save someone in your state from sharing the pain we must now endure for the remainder of our lives. No law you can pass will keep the irresponsible from shooting accidents or a felon from stealing a gun. I am enclosing a portion of a letter I wrote to my own state legislators concerning the constant progression of laws restricting our guns in my state.

Depending on whether or not you truly care, you may or may not recognize my name. I am the paternal grandmother of the two children who were brutally murdered inside their rural Merced California home on August 23, 2000 by a stranger with a pitchfork.

Instead of suing gun manufacturers, I am of the opinion it is our lawmakers who need to be sued. It was you who created the laws that kept my grandchildren from being able to defend themselves with any weapon greater than their bare hands. All of my son's children had been trained in the use of firearms but were unable to get to their Dad's weapon because of California State Law.

You, who have CCW permits or armed body guards, or both expect me to face a society gone mad because of drug altered brains and lax laws on the perpetrators of crime? You had no room in your prisons for the killer of my grandchildren though his wife had reported to the police in Mojave California in June of 1997 that he had forced her and their infant son into his car (kidnapping) while living in southern California? At that time she also reported how she had managed to escape from him in Mojave after he held a gun to her head (assault with a deadly weapon) threatening to kill her and their one-month-old child?

Though more recently she had given to the Dos Palos California Police Dept. the tape from her message minder threatening to kill her present husband? Though he had assaulted a police officer while resisting arrest for drug charges? Though he had violated his parole by not appearing at his hearing and they had a warrant out for his arrest? Though they knew where he lived, and also his mother and grandmother, yet failed to pick him up? Will you then find room for my son in your prisons should his fourteen year old daughter have access to his gun while she is babysitting her siblings?

There is a growing list, in my area alone, of people (mostly women) who might still be alive had they not been in a state where the use of a gun was prohibited.

Juli Sund, Carole Sund, Selvina Pelosso, Joie Armstrong, Ashley and John William Carpenter to name a few. Lawmakers talk big about a woman's right to choose yet don't allow me the very basic right to choose to defend myself? If teachers were allowed to carry a concealed weapon to school you would see the school shootings disappear. The same is true with the citizen on the street. The reason is, these killers are cowards. You can tell by their choice of victims. They operate best where they know there are no guns.

Look at your child tonight and imagine him or her with their eyes jabbed out, their skulls splintered, their brains pierced, and their spines broken with the heavy tines of a spading fork. In defending her sisters to the death with the only weapon you allowed her, Ashley had 138 puncture wounds. Twenty-nine of them were on the right side of her face, five on the back of her head, and thirty-seven to her chest and lower neck. (Obviously he was trying to behead her.) She was nine years old. While committing no crime greater than sleeping in his parents bed, in his own house, John William, 7 years old, was stabbed 46 times, with most of them in the chest, neck, and head. Depending on the condition of your heart, you may or may not feel a small measure of the pain my family and I must endure for the remainder of our lives.

Now, imagine all the gun laws you can dream up and honestly admit whether or not they would have stopped such a mad dog as this. This man was a total stranger to the family, and other than a trace of marijuana, was not on drugs at the time. However, by the testimony of his wife and girlfriend, he was a drug user who became frightening whenever he used them. All your imagined gun laws will do is insure someone's children will die again. Take a drive downtown and see for yourself all the drug addled brains.

You may declare gun free zones, but you cannot declare killer free zones. This tragedy has made me realize I am not even safe in my locked home, my barn, or my backyard. I dare you to request the autopsy reports of John William & Ashley Danielle Carpenter done on August 28,2000 from Sheriff Tom Sawyer of the Merced County Sheriffs Dept. Also ask him for the police interview with the killer's wife and girlfriend telling about his drug use and devil worship. Ask Detective Parsley about his fetish for horror movies produced by a John Carpenter, (no relation to us), and one he especially liked, that we have learned depicts a killing done with a pitchfork.

His last employment was as a telemarketer in Merced. If you have an honest bone in your body you will see this country is in desperate need of a change of heart not the gun laws that have been in place for over two hundred years. All the gun laws you can imagine cannot change the heart of a killer and you know it. Until man's heart is changed, we will be like sheep led to the slaughter without our weapons of defense.

May you stand before God and man as my two precious grandchildren's killer if you pass any more gun legislation that will make me a felon should I own a handgun or any other gun for that matter.

Sincerely,

Mary Carpenter

Children can learn to use tools... if they are not locked up. Only irresponsible adults teach them to fear tools.

I'll ask you as well: why?
The same reason you dont put poison in front of a dog . Or light a match in a room steeped in gasoline fumes . Or give your car keys to your 12 year old son and ask him to go buy beer for you .

Well, from your current post, I can see that you're not the kind of moron who'd leave a gun loaded, unlocked, and on the coffee table, so my suggested precautions should be disregarded. My warnings are for that particular kind of moron, not you. You are a responsible individual, apparently. (You obviously don't live anywhere near me, because I swear I'm surrounded by idiots.)

We all have our days in the seas of humanity... :) Some are good days, others...not so much.

There's the central issue with Libertarians--we need a LOT of reason to go and make laws to have even the barest of force on our fellow person.

Usually, we (Libertarians) tend to favor punishements once someone has proved themselves to be irresponsible, not to pre-emtively punish (restrict) everyone because of what may or may not actually occur.

I see it as the parents' responsibility to educate the child, to give the kid a leg up in the world in the knowledge department. Kids should be taught about firearms at an early age--so they can grow up respecting them, as opposed to fearing them, or worse yet, have an uneducated obsession with what they see on TV as cool. If a kid goes out and shoots someone accidentally or on purpose, regardless the situation (barring self-defense that is), the failure lies with the parents.

The same reason you dont put poison in front of a dog . Or light a match in a room steeped in gasoline fumes . Or give your car keys to your 12 year old son and ask him to go buy beer for you .
Uh huh. And, I take it, you "child proof" your home by removing all poisonous/sharp/fragile/incindiary/electrical things and locking them up every time someone under 21 enters your home?

Some people teach their children to keep their hands to themselves and not touch other people's things without permission.

Should firearms be left lying around willy-nilly? Of course not. As I said, the only loaded firearm in my home is the one I'm carrying. But you can bet your sweet bippy that if I had to leave a child/children home alone all the ones capable of rational thought would know how and when to use the shotgun.

We all have our days in the seas of humanity... :) Some are good days, others...not so much.

There's the central issue with Libertarians--we need a LOT of reason to go and make laws to have even the barest of force on our fellow person.

Usually, we (Libertarians) tend to favor punishements once someone has proved themselves to be irresponsible, not to pre-emtively punish (restrict) everyone because of what may or may not actually occur.

I see it as the parents' responsibility to educate the child, to give the kid a leg up in the world in the knowledge department. Kids should be taught about firearms at an early age--so they can grow up respecting them, as opposed to fearing them, or worse yet, have an uneducated obsession with what they see on TV as cool. If a kid goes out and shoots someone accidentally or on purpose, regardless the situation (barring self-defense that is), the failure lies with the parents.


I agree with you on that, but only up to a certain age. Teenagers (and pre-teens; the line is fuzzy to me) who decide to shoot someone are generally able to be aware of the consequences, and should face them.

Anyway, the holster is proper storage, so you're already doing what I suggested.

I'm still trying to get an answer, though...why is it my responsibility to make sure that someone else's child doesn't get to my gun in my house? Since when did I assume parental responsibility?

PS. Did you guys ever have that mandatory sweet-tea in all restaurants law actually go through? Just saw the Georgia location... :)

I'm still trying to get an answer, though...why is it my responsibility to make sure that someone else's child doesn't get to my gun in my house? Since when did I assume parental responsibility?

PS. Did you guys ever have that mandatory sweet-tea in all restaurants law actually go through? Just saw the Georgia location... :)

I don't mean that it is your responsibility to keep it out of the child's hands. I mean that I personally would not feel safe with a loaded, unlocked gun lying in plain sight, unattended. Maybe there have just been a few too many shootings in my neighborhood.

PS. ROFL Please tell me that's a joke..

You have to admit that the episode was funny, in a controlled scary sort of way. :D

I also get a kick out of the Family Guy and King of the Hill spoofs. Unfortunately some people take them as reality.

The same reason you dont put poison in front of a dog . Or light a match in a room steeped in gasoline fumes . Or give your car keys to your 12 year old son and ask him to go buy beer for you .

That doesn't exactly tell me when I assumed guardian responsibility of that child.

A child can think--and can be taught about guns. Dogs have a tough time telling the difference between poo and kibble.

A gas fume laden room....that's a cause and effect scenario--not the same as putting an intelligent child in the same room as a firearm. Just because the gun is there, doesn't mean the child will immediately go to it and pull the trigger (especially if said child's parents did their jobs...).

Giving the car keys to the kid to buy beer violates a couple of laws, if I recall correctly. I don't necessarily agree with them, mind you, but they're there.

Don't get me wrong B&G, I've seen your posts before, and have a great deal of respect for ya--I need a reason, though, not just other examples of situations.

I also get a kick out of the Family Guy and King of the Hill spoofs. Unfortunately some people take them as reality.

Too true. :(

I agree with you on that, but only up to a certain age. Teenagers (and pre-teens; the line is fuzzy to me) who decide to shoot someone are generally able to be aware of the consequences, and should face them.

And I'll agree with you on that. I guess if the kid isn't taught by age 12 or so, not to touch other people's things, it's probably too late...

Just an extra comment.

http://i.spotted.augusta.com/user/1/gallery/34363.jpg


The above is an editorial comic from my local paper. Maybe it'll clear things up about my area. Murphey Middle is a school I was zoned for at that age. The school's reputation implies such danger that I was put into a private school to avoid enrollment.

And I'll agree with you on that. I guess if the kid isn't taught by age 12 or so, not to touch other people's things, it's probably too late...

The case recently about the kid who stole a car and then shot police is similar to this. He was supposedly a "good kid" who was brainwashed by a video game to steal cars and shoot people.

So far, I've seen people blaming everything but the kid and the parents.

Video games, RPG's, music, firearms, twinkies... All just excuses for people to avoid taking responsibility for thier own actions.

I don't mean that it is your responsibility to keep it out of the child's hands. I mean that I personally would not feel safe with a loaded, unlocked gun lying in plain sight, unattended. Maybe there have just been a few too many shootings in my neighborhood.


I can definitely understand feeling uncomfortable about it. At which point, I'd probably ask my friends if they could do something about the situation. If they didn't try to do something (like putting the gun on the hip, instead of leaving it on the table), I'd probably rethink bringing my child over, or even think about how valuable the friendship is.

But I can't see creating a law.


PS. ROFL Please tell me that's a joke..

Unfortunately no...but thanks for making me look it up--now I know! :)

"A number of other bills also died in the Georgia legislature last night, including the state's video gaming bill, and one that would have mandated that all restaurateurs who serve iced tea provide sweet tea, which Capitol Hill publication The Hill called "an eye-popping sweet beverage served in the South." The bill would have made it a misdemeanor for those who refused to provide sweet tea."

http://www.nacsonline.com/NR/exeres/00005c1fqinhgjwlkkccdhgy/NewsPosting.asp?NRMODE=Published&NRORIGINALURL=%2fNACS%2fNews%2fDaily_News_Archives%2fApril2003%2fnd0410033%2ehtm&NRNODEGUID=%7bBA4985F7-58AB-4141-8AB0-048494C1DF21%7d&NRQUERYTERMINATOR=1&cookie%5Ftest=1

Just an extra comment.

http://i.spotted.augusta.com/user/1/gallery/34363.jpg


The above is an editorial comic from my local paper. Maybe it'll clear things up about my area. Murphey Middle is a school I was zoned for at that age. The school's reputation implies such danger that I was put into a private school to avoid enrollment.

It brings up a good point. What is the school doing to make it safer? What are the parents doing to prevent thier children from committing illegal activities or violent acts?

I can definitely understand feeling uncomfortable about it. At which point, I'd probably ask my friends if they could do something about the situation. If they didn't try to do something (like putting the gun on the hip, instead of leaving it on the table), I'd probably rethink bringing my child over, or even think about how valuable the friendship is.

But I can't see creating a law.



Unfortunately no...but thanks for making me look it up--now I know! :)

"A number of other bills also died in the Georgia legislature last night, including the state's video gaming bill, and one that would have mandated that all restaurateurs who serve iced tea provide sweet tea, which Capitol Hill publication The Hill called "an eye-popping sweet beverage served in the South." The bill would have made it a misdemeanor for those who refused to provide sweet tea."

http://www.nacsonline.com/NR/exeres/00005c1fqinhgjwlkkccdhgy/NewsPosting.asp?NRMODE=Published&NRORIGINALURL=%2fNACS%2fNews%2fDaily_News_Archives%2fApril2003%2fnd0410033%2ehtm&NRNODEGUID=%7bBA4985F7-58AB-4141-8AB0-048494C1DF21%7d&NRQUERYTERMINATOR=1&cookie%5Ftest=1


I can't understand making a law either. I'd just take care of it in person, on a case-by-case basis.

The case recently about the kid who stole a car and then shot police is similar to this. He was supposedly a "good kid" who was brainwashed by a video game to steal cars and shoot people.


Hmmm...I'm not exactly sure about the parenting and the reality awareness capabilities of the kid if Grand Theft Auto is the "cause" of a real crime spree... You have to be pretty damn weak willed to be brain washed by a game (though I do know of several folks that have lost themselves in things like EverQuest, World of Warcraft, and Asheron's Call--again, if they can't put it down, there's a problem).


So far, I've seen people blaming everything but the kid and the parents.


Heh...I guess I started typing before I read everything completely... :) Yeah, responsibility has almost gone the way of the dodo. I blame lawyers--and the PC movement. "Victims" are convinced that nothing is ever their fault.


Video games, RPG's, music, firearms, twinkies... All just excuses for people to avoid taking responsibility for thier own actions.

Boy howdy! Where can I get me some o' them get-out-of-jail-free cards?

I can't understand making a law either. I'd just take care of it in person, on a case-by-case basis.

Bingo! We just landed on the same wavelength!

I can't understand making a law either. I'd just take care of it in person, on a case-by-case basis.
And that, like not leaving guns just lying about, is just good common sense. Too bad there isn't more of it.

It brings up a good point. What is the school doing to make it safer? What are the parents doing to prevent thier children from committing illegal activities or violent acts?


The school installed metal detectors, and the county has a rent-a-cop on campus all day. Neither have done much good. Parents are doing jack shit. A few years ago, a special ed student stabbed his teacher in the head with a pair of broken scissors. His parents blamed the school. Students have also been caught having sex in bathrooms, the library, and even in the gym. There seems to be a lack of parenting in this city.

It brings up a good point. What is the school doing to make it safer? What are the parents doing to prevent thier children from committing illegal activities or violent acts?

Too much of the former going on--needs more of the latter these days. But I don't know if that will ever happen, with that responsibility issue flying out the window again... :mad:

The school installed metal detectors, and the county has a rent-a-cop on campus all day. Neither have done much good. Parents are doing jack shit. A few years ago, a special ed student stabbed his teacher in the head with a pair of broken scissors. His parents blamed the school. Students have also been caught having sex in bathrooms, the library, and even in the gym. There seems to be a lack of parenting in this city.

Not just that city. Everywhere in the US.

Boy howdy! Where can I get me some o' them get-out-of-jail-free cards?

Sorry, they're only good for people w/o the moral fortitude to be accountable for themselves.

Sorry, they're only good for people w/o the moral fortitude to be accountable for themselves.

Dammit! Dammit! DAMMIT! :headbang:

Too much of the former going on--needs more of the latter these days. But I don't know if that will ever happen, with that responsibility issue flying out the window again... :mad:


I hate to bring this up, but Augusta is mostly poor and non-white. It has what has been referred to as a "hip-hop" generation. This generation is under the impression that an education is not "cool"; that getting shot, or having children with five different women, or dealing drugs is a proper thing to do. This is the same type of thinking that motivated certain individuals to harass me for being the only white kid on the bus, and for attending a school for the gifted. (I'm sorry,but when an American, who cannot properly speak English, is telling me that I'm the moron for attending a magnet school, I get just a little pissy.)

Not just that city. Everywhere in the US.


Sadly, I expected that.

The school installed metal detectors, and the county has a rent-a-cop on campus all day. Neither have done much good. Parents are doing jack shit. A few years ago, a special ed student stabbed his teacher in the head with a pair of broken scissors. His parents blamed the school. Students have also been caught having sex in bathrooms, the library, and even in the gym. There seems to be a lack of parenting in this city.

Kids of the "not my fault" generation. "But johnny would never have done that, it must be their/your/his/her fault"

Like the case in Kansas (?) where a good portion of the class was caught cheating and the school board overturned the failing grades after parental complaints.

My kid would have done that, I would have asked the teacher, seen the proof, then commenced punishment.

Same thing w/ guns. I was showing my nephew how to hold a shotgun(unloaded), he acted stupid after being told (pointed it at his sister intentionally), lesson ended and I won't help him again until he proves himself more responsible.

I maintain that it is all of the above. Obviously, the person who used the gun bears the greatest responsibility....but the other players...the company that made the gun...and the store that sold the gun...the company that made and sold the bullets...they are a ENABLERS to the one who used the gun.


The person who used the gun could not have done so if the gun wasn't made...or if it wasn't sold...or if bullets were not made and sold for it.

It's like a bartender who overserves someone. and then the guy goes out and kills someone by driving drunk. The bartender shoulda known the guy was already wasted, and not served him. Yet the bartender did. So he bears some responsibility for the death causeed by said drunk driver. This is the rationale the law uses to convict bartenders.

I think it is no different. If you ENABLE someone to kill someone else...by supplying that person with the implement by which they cause the death...then you bear some responsibility. It is only in this way can we insure that gund stay out of the hands of people who should not have guns. Or, at the very least, we make it difficult for bad people to obtain guns.

In this capitalist world, where the God-Almighty buck is the beginning and end of everything...and where everything is justified in terms of how much money it makes (the ends justify the means) this is the only way we can make the companies...and gunsellers CARE what is done with what they make and what they sell...and to force them into doing their part to insure that it remains difficult for bad people to get guns.

The fact is...quite frankly, I know of only TWO products that, when used as directed, kill. One is cigarettes (which I consume, incidentally.) The other is guns. Both products kill when used as directed. Thus, those who make and supply them should bear some responsibility in what is done with the goods they produce.

Then we're back to Stanley and hammers, if one is used to bash in someone's skull...they're somehow responsible for the terrible behavior? I don't think so.
The major difference is that hammers are made to nail lumber together, whereas guns are made to shoot people, animals or targets. When they are used to shoot people, the manufacturer is indirectly responsible. It is fairly straightforward?

Why do people tend to kill people with a gun than a Stanley hammer? The answer is obvious, in that it is far easier to kill someone with a gun.


I'm sorry, I just don't see how someone who makes a product is in any way responsible for a free-willed human deciding to use that particular tool to kill someone.
Well I certainly do, and so do some legislators.

If I choose to pick up a rock and bash someone's skull in, is the DNR responsible? Is the person who owns the land that I took it from responsible? Is a god responsible (just tossing it out there) since they may have created the rock? Is the earth responsible for causing an ice age to move rocks to that land to drop the rock off for me to use?
Certainly this argument is a non starter.

You can't blame someone or something completely removed from the situation for a single person's decision to murder another. The gun doesn't make someone do it. The choice is always with the human performing the assault. Always.
If the gun owner or the manufacturer were irresponsible in any way, then they should be held accountable.

Computers allow us to make more errors per second than handguns and tequila combined.

I hate to bring this up, but Augusta is mostly poor and non-white. It has what has been referred to as a "hip-hop" generation. This generation is under the impression that an education is not "cool"; that getting shot, or having children with five different women, or dealing drugs is a proper thing to do. This is the same type of thinking that motivated certain individuals to harass me for being the only white kid on the bus, and for attending a school for the gifted. (I'm sorry,but when an American, who cannot properly speak English, is telling me that I'm the moron for attending a magnet school, I get just a little pissy.)

I feel ya! I was the same way. I, too, attended a magnet school. And because I did, I also rode one of the short busses. And I was put through HELL by neighborhood kids because of it. I was egghead, nerd, uncool...because I wanted to be educated, and to be smart...which was "not cool."

As a culture and a society, we have our priorities so fucked up that I am amazed we even still HAVE a country, or a civilization!

And yet, we STILL care more about them scary gays getting married, than making sure our children are actually getting a good education, and are being taught critical thinking skills.

WHY do we, as a society...care so much about things that DON'T FUCKING MATTER....and care so little about the things that DO??

I maintain that it is all of the above. Obviously, the person who used the gun bears the greatest responsibility....but the other players...the company that made the gun...and the store that sold the gun...the company that made and sold the bullets...they are a ENABLERS to the one who used the gun.


The person who used the gun could not have done so if the gun wasn't made...or if it wasn't sold...or if bullets were not made and sold for it.

It's like a bartender who overserves someone. and then the guy goes out and kills someone by driving drunk. The bartender shoulda known the guy was already wasted, and not served him. Yet the bartender did. So he bears some responsibility for the death causeed by said drunk driver. This is the rationale the law uses to convict bartenders.

I think it is no different. If you ENABLE someone to kill someone else...by supplying that person with the implement by which they cause the death...then you bear some responsibility. It is only in this way can we insure that gund stay out of the hands of people who should not have guns. Or, at the very least, we make it difficult for bad people to obtain guns.

In this capitalist world, where the God-Almighty buck is the beginning and end of everything...and where everything is justified in terms of how much money it makes (the ends justify the means) this is the only way we can make the companies...and gunsellers CARE what is done with what they make and what they sell...and to force them into doing their part to insure that it remains difficult for bad people to get guns.

The fact is...quite frankly, I know of only TWO products that, when used as directed, kill. One is cigarettes (which I consume, incidentally.) The other is guns. Both products kill when used as directed. Thus, those who make and supply them should bear some responsibility in what is done with the goods they produce.


Along that logic: buying a car that goes faster than the speed limit "enables" one to break the law and car companies should be held accountable for speeding tickets and accidents caused by speeding.

Most guns, when used as directed, as stated previously ad nauseum, are not "designed" to kill people. That already is an illegal use and therefore companies should NOT be held responsible.

I feel ya! I was the same way. I, too, attended a magnet school. And because I did, I also rode one of the short busses. And I was put through HELL by neighborhood kids because of it. I was egghead, nerd, uncool...because I wanted to be educated, and to be smart...which was "not cool."

As a culture and a society, we have our priorities so fucked up that I am amazed we even still HAVE a country, or a civilization!

And yet, we STILL care more about them scary gays getting married, than making sure our children are actually getting a good education, and are being taught critical thinking skills.

WHY do we, as a society...care so much about things that DON'T FUCKING MATTER....and care so little about the things that DO??


I'm not alone! *whew*

1.The major difference is that hammers are made to nail lumber together, whereas guns are made to shoot people, animals or targets. When they are used to shoot people, the manufacturer is indirectly responsible. It is fairly straightforward?

2.Why do people tend to kill people with a gun than a Stanley hammer? The answer is obvious, in that it is far easier to kill someone with a gun.



3.Well I certainly do, and so do some legislators.


4.Certainly this argument is a non starter.


5.If the gun owner or the manufacturer were irresponsible in any way, then they should be held accountable.

1. Once again, most guns are not made to shoot people. If they are used that way it is normally an illegal use of the product.

2. Depends on the situation.

3. And thankfully, as proven the other day, you and they are in the minority.

4. It's silly, but it makes a point.

5. Define "in any way". It's subjective terms like that that make lawyers cream themselves.

I maintain that it is all of the above. Obviously, the person who used the gun bears the greatest responsibility....but the other players...the company that made the gun...and the store that sold the gun...the company that made and sold the bullets...they are a ENABLERS to the one who used the gun.

The person who used the gun could not have done so if the gun wasn't made...or if it wasn't sold...or if bullets were not made and sold for it.

It's like a bartender who overserves someone. and then the guy goes out and kills someone by driving drunk. The bartender shoulda known the guy was already wasted, and not served him. Yet the bartender did. So he bears some responsibility for the death causeed by said drunk driver. This is the rationale the law uses to convict bartenders.

I think it is no different. If you ENABLE someone to kill someone else...by supplying that person with the implement by which they cause the death...then you bear some responsibility. It is only in this way can we insure that gund stay out of the hands of people who should not have guns. Or, at the very least, we make it difficult for bad people to obtain guns. OH GOODY! That means if the Government takes away my ability to defend myself from someone bigger and stronger then me, the Government has ENABLED the criminal! Do I get to sue the Government now? :rolleyes:

In this capitalist world, where the God-Almighty buck is the beginning and end of everything...and where everything is justified in terms of how much money it makes (the ends justify the means) this is the only way we can make the companies...and gunsellers CARE what is done with what they make and what they sell...and to force them into doing their part to insure that it remains difficult for bad people to get guns. Psst, bad people have been able to get guns for as long as guns have existed. A fully automatic 9mm submachine gun can be made at home with no experience and no powertools for less than $300...

The fact is...quite frankly, I know of only TWO products that, when used as directed, kill. One is cigarettes (which I consume, incidentally.) The other is guns. Both products kill when used as directed. Thus, those who make and supply them should bear some responsibility in what is done with the goods they produce.Damn. Then I must not be using my guns correctly (as directed) because after firing thousands of rounds I have yet to kill anything with them. (I took a deer with a Bow once though... does that count?)

Damn. Then I must not be using my guns correctly (as directed) because after firing thousands of rounds I have yet to kill anything with them. (I took a deer with a Bow once though... does that count?)

Every one I've ever shot must also be defective, including the ones while qualifying in the Army.

I'm also an enabler. I've taught several people how to shoot and bought guns for them . However I must not have done it right as they've never killed anything either.

Every one I've ever shot must also be defective, including the ones while qualifying in the Army.

I'm also an enabler. I've taught several people how to shoot and bought guns for them . However I must not have done it right as they've never killed anything either.
So, how does it feel to be a failure...? ;)

Sniffle... WAAAHHH We can't even follow the directions and kill people with our evil guns! :headbang:

We must be so mentally defective that the "must kill people" rays that come out of every gun just can't affect us. :(

Please, Canuck, tell us what we can do to make us as suceptible as you to these mind rays you see coming out of our guns, 'cause we can't see them. :confused:

:rolleyes:

OH GOODY! That means if the Government takes away my ability to defend myself from someone bigger and stronger then me, the Government has ENABLED the criminal! Do I get to sue the Government now? :rolleyes:

Psst, bad people have been able to get guns for as long as guns have existed. A fully automatic 9mm submachine gun can be made at home with no experience and no powertools for less than $300...

Damn. Then I must not be using my guns correctly (as directed) because after firing thousands of rounds I have yet to kill anything with them. (I took a deer with a Bow once though... does that count?)

---------------------------------------------------
The government should have protected you by
A- providing police assistance to stop the bigger guy from hurting you.
B- stopping, or hindering the bigger guy from obtaining weapons with which to hurt you.

They did not enable the criminal, because they did not supply the criminal with the means by which he hurt you....but they DID fall down on their job of protecting you from him.

That is why there are CRIME VICTIMS FUNDS that make restitution to victims of crimes. Because the government can't POSSIBLY stop all crime. But they recognize they have a responsibility to do so. and when they fail in this responsibility, the least they can do is compensate you for having been a victim. So, no, you can't sue the government.
---------------------------------------------------
I never said you could keep bad guys from getting guns...but you can at least make it difficult. And, by the way, a gun without bullets won't do jack-shit. They still gotta get their bullets somewhere, now, don't they?
---------------------------------------------------

Third, guns ARE designed to KILL. If you are not using them properly that is your problem. I maintain that a gun is one of very few products that, when used as directed...KILLS.

It is INTENDED to be used to kill. If you don't use it for it's intended purpose, then that's your problem. What else do you need with a device that expels a projectile at a high rate of speed? The only use for such a device...is to KILL.

So, how does it feel to be a failure...? ;)

Sniffle... WAAAHHH We can't even follow the directions and kill people with our evil guns! :headbang:

We must be so mentally defective that the "must kill people" rays that come out of every gun just can't affect us. :(

Please, Canuck, tell us what we can do to make us as suceptible as you to these mind rays you see coming out of our guns, 'cause we can't see them. :confused:

:rolleyes:

what on Earth would you possibly want with a gun...if not to KILL?

what other use does a gun have??

1. Once again, most guns are not made to shoot people. If they are used that way it is normally an illegal use of the product.
Actually, most guns are made to shoot a person. The US is the largest poliferater of weapons in the world.

2. Depends on the situation.
Not really. What is the ratio of murders by Stanley hammers to guns? Guns are by and large the weapon of choice of murderers.

3. And thankfully, as proven the other day, you and they are in the minority.
Giving manufacturers a clean bill is not smart at all.

4. It's silly, but it makes a point.
I will agree, it is a silly point to make.

5. Define "in any way". It's subjective terms like that that make lawyers cream themselves.
I will give you one example. Joe allows Jack to borrow his gun and Jack uses it to murder someone. Joe is an accomplice?

1.Actually, most guns are made to shoot a person. The US is the largest poliferater of weapons in the world.


2.Not really. What is the ratio of murders by Stanley hammers to guns? Guns are by and large the weapon of choice of murderers.


3.Giving manufacturers a clean bill is not smart at all.


4.I will agree, it is a silly point to make.


5. I will give you one example. Joe allows Jack to borrow his gun and Jack uses it to murder someone. Joe is an accomplice?

1. Actually most guns in the US are designed to hunt animals. Can you show proof of gun proliferation?

2. You said nothing about ratios. the statement was on ease of. Is this going to turn into another bout of numbers?

3. And this didn't happen. If the Company or dealer commits an illegal act by providing the firearm, they are held accountable.

4. Nice twist on words.

5. One hypothical does not a definition make. Is Joe a legal owner? Is Jack allowed to own firearms by law? Did Joe know what Jack was going to do w/ it? Was it premeditated?

How about this. Police department buys gun from manufacturer. Later PD sells gun to Licensed dealer, dealer legally sells to citizen A, citizen A legally sells to citizen B, Citizen B illegally sells to criminal who committs a crime.


Is the manufacturer an accomplice and accountable? Is the Dealer? Some lawyers and legislators , including many who you apparently support, say yes.

Or this. Juvenile breaks into home of legal firearm owner. Juvenile steals a firearm and later commits a crime w/ it. Should Legal Owner be held accountable as an accomplice? Some lawyers and legislators say yes.


Guess which scenario actually happened?

what on Earth would you possibly want with a gun...if not to KILL? what other use does a gun have??
Ooooh! Hysterical Projection. Have I got a bit of psychoanalysis for YOU (http://www.defendu.com/psycharticle.htm)!

What he was really saying was that if he had a gun, he might murder his neighbors if he had a bad day, or if they took his parking space, or played their stereos too loud. This is an example of what mental health professionals call projection – unconsciously projecting one's own unacceptable feelings onto other people, so that one doesn't have to own them.3 In some cases, the intolerable feelings are projected not onto a person, but onto an inanimate object, such as a gun,4 so that the projector believes the gun itself will murder him.

Projection is a defense mechanism. Defense mechanisms are unconscious psychological mechanisms that protect us from feelings that we cannot consciously accept.5 They operate without our awareness, so that we don't have to deal consciously with "forbidden" feelings and impulses. Thus, if you asked my e-mail correspondent if he really wanted to murder his neighbors, he would vehemently deny it, and insist that other people want to kill him.

Projection is a particularly insidious defense mechanism, because it not only prevents a person from dealing with his own feelings, it also creates a world where he perceives everyone else as directing his own hostile feelings back at him.6 You really need to get a grip and stop projecting your own paranoia onto everyone else.

My guns are used rather like golf clubs - a sporting tool for things like (A) Competition target shooting - rather like golf tourneys (B) Non-Competition target shooting - rather like a Sunday round of 18 (C) Showing them off to people I like - Ohh look at my new Calloway Driver! (D) Showing them off to people I don't like (in the hopes they will run away... I'm 3 for 3 with a handgun so far, but it's hard to carry a Nine-Iron every where you go :rolleyes: ) and finally

(E) Occasionally (about once a year) wandering about in the woods looking for overpopulated deer herds that need culling. (I've tried this with my sand wedge & moles... but it just doesn't work) :D

what on Earth would you possibly want with a gun...if not to KILL?

what other use does a gun have??

Let's see...


1)Target shoot
2)Historical reenactments
3)Hunting
4)Skeet/clay shooting
5)Collecting
6)Home Defense
7) Teaches discipline
8) I find it very relaxing cleaning them

I personally don't hunt and none of the others involve killing. Strange that.

---------------------------------------------------
The government should have protected you by
A- providing police assistance to stop the bigger guy from hurting you.
B- stopping, or hindering the bigger guy from obtaining weapons with which to hurt you.

They did not enable the criminal, because they did not supply the criminal with the means by which he hurt you....but they DID fall down on their job of protecting you from him.

That is why there are CRIME VICTIMS FUNDS that make restitution to victims of crimes. Because the government can't POSSIBLY stop all crime. But they recognize they have a responsibility to do so. and when they fail in this responsibility, the least they can do is compensate you for having been a victim. So, no, you can't sue the government.
---------------------------------------------------
I never said you could keep bad guys from getting guns...but you can at least make it difficult. And, by the way, a gun without bullets won't do jack-shit. They still gotta get their bullets somewhere, now, don't they?
---------------------------------------------------

Third, guns ARE designed to KILL. If you are not using them properly that is your problem. I maintain that a gun is one of very few products that, when used as directed...KILLS.

It is INTENDED to be used to kill. If you don't use it for it's intended purpose, then that's your problem. What else do you need with a device that expels a projectile at a high rate of speed? The only use for such a device...is to KILL.


Incorrect. In the US, according to the courts, the police have NO obligation to protect you, the individual, from crime. Most police actually encourage people to resist nowadays after the failed campaign of "putting up no defense".

The Bigger guy doesn't need a weapon to harm you, hence the point of equalization.

"Crime Victim Funds" are all well and good. They are also after the fact. I for one wouldn't take solice in it after my wife or daughter has been raped or beaten for want of self-protection.

You have a very limited vision. I feel sorry for you.

I hate to bring this up, but Augusta is mostly poor and non-white. It has what has been referred to as a "hip-hop" generation. This generation is under the impression that an education is not "cool"; that getting shot, or having children with five different women, or dealing drugs is a proper thing to do. This is the same type of thinking that motivated certain individuals to harass me for being the only white kid on the bus, and for attending a school for the gifted. (I'm sorry,but when an American, who cannot properly speak English, is telling me that I'm the moron for attending a magnet school, I get just a little pissy.)

Yeah, many larger cities are facing the same issues. But the PCers tend to ignore reality. And everyone wonders why those that dug themselves out of poverty want to move away, instead of "giving back". Why give back to a community that just sucks more and more in?

Without welfare, people generally change or...well, die. I say go with Darwin on this one. More people will survive than not.

The major difference is that hammers are made to nail lumber together, whereas guns are made to shoot people, animals or targets. When they are used to shoot people, the manufacturer is indirectly responsible. It is fairly straightforward?


No it isn't. You're making an arbitrary, deliberate, INSIDE-the-box distinction between two tools. A hammer is made to direct force in one direction. A firearm is made to launch a projectile at high speed. The way they are used is solely up to the wielder.


Why do people tend to kill people with a gun than a Stanley hammer? The answer is obvious, in that it is far easier to kill someone with a gun.


Yes, but like I've stated, you can use a G lock to drive a nail. Yes, the person choosing the tool is going for the more effective one, in either circumstance, however, that doesn't mean that one will definitely be used for killing while the other is used for clubbing.


Well I certainly do, and so do some legislators.


Here's the problem--in a free nation, you have to convince me, in order for me to agree to follow a law. If it doesn't make sense, I'm not going to "follow". I know there are others just as scared as you of an inanimate object. I deal with them on a daily basis. Gun control is definitely not about saving people--it's about controlling them. Vilifying the item, breaking the backs of manufacturers, and saying that an inanimate object can do things on its own are the hallmarks of controllers of people.


Certainly this argument is a non starter.


Ah yes, if I come up with an argument that you can't combat, you disparage. The point is, since there is no manufacturer of the rock, you can't blame someone for the creation of the tool used by the individual. The logic extends to anything used to kill someone. It's the individual--not the creator--that is completely responsible for moving forward with the choice to kill another person.


If the gun owner or the manufacturer were irresponsible in any way, then they should be held accountable.

If the gun blows up due to faulty construction--you have something. If the gun blows up because the owner didn't maintain it--you have something. Whoever fires the weapon is responsible where that bullet goes, and what it does--no other.

Actually, most guns are made to shoot a person.


I would SO love to see where you got that info! Then we in the US are doing it all wrong....you have so many more targets, clay pigeons, and deer being shot than humans. Damn, we're so BACKWARD.... :rolleyes:


The US is the largest poliferater of weapons in the world.


REALLY? Then why is the AK-47 so numerous around the globe? They didn't come from the US...


Not really. What is the ratio of murders by Stanley hammers to guns? Guns are by and large the weapon of choice of murderers.


Your point? Yes, the firearm is more effective when using it in that fashion. But murder is far and away NOT the most common use.


Giving manufacturers a clean bill is not smart at all.
[/qtuoe]

Sure it is--they had no part in any decision made by an individual.

[QUOTE=CanuckHeaven]
I will give you one example. Joe allows Jack to borrow his gun and Jack uses it to murder someone. Joe is an accomplice?

Nope, Joe is stupid if he couldn't read his friend. If Jack was not Joe's friend, then Joe was REALLY stupid by loaning out something to an aquaintance. By the laws today, yes, Joe is an accomplice, but then again, I don't agree with several laws in the US.

I voted none of the above, but really meant some of the above and others not listed!

I think society has a lot to do with deaths by gunshot. I'm not removing all responsibility from the shooter, but you have to ask, why did they do it? And I think that often the answer will boil down to the problems with the society to which they belong.

Let's see...


1)Target shoot
2)Historical reenactments
3)Hunting
4)Skeet/clay shooting
5)Collecting
6)Home Defense
7) Teaches discipline
8) I find it very relaxing cleaning them

I personally don't hunt and none of the others involve killing. Strange that.

Home defense may or may not involve killing. You would probably find that most people who shoot an intruder do actually kill them or intend to.

Dictionary definition of a firearm:

fire·arm
n.
A weapon, especially a pistol or rifle, capable of firing a projectile and using an explosive charge as a propellant.

And of weapon:

weap·on
n.
1. An instrument of attack or defense in combat, as a gun, missile, or sword.
2. Zoology. A part or organ, such as a claw or stinger, used by an animal in attack or defense.
3. A means used to defend against or defeat another: Logic was her weapon.

See definition 1. Those who say that a firearm is not designed to kill should consider looking in a dictionary.

http://inventors.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.silcom.com/%257Evikman/isles/scriptorium/firearm/handgonn.html
The first ever firearm, invented for the purpose of killing in battle. It may not have been very efficent at achieving this, but that was its sole purpose. And mankind has strived to increase the weapon's efficiency at acheiving its purpose. To say that a gun isn't designed to kill is like saying that a chair isn't made to be sat on - it may be used for other things, but its primary purpose is to be sat on!

By this logic, all drugs should be legalized. After all, the person who produced the ecstacy can't be held responsible for how it is used or who might OD and die on it. Just an innocent businessman who has nothing to do with use of the product. ;)Well said. I competely agree that all drugs should be legalized.

Actually, some gun manufacturers are worse than drug dealers. At least cocaine isn't produced for the sole purpose of killing someone. Unless automatic weapons and handguns are meant for deer hunting, the same does not hold true for the arms industry.Gun makers make guns because there is a market for them. People buy them for different reasons. Based on the actions of gun owners, it should be quite clear that the intent of the great majority of them is not to kill people, at least not without justification.

Just so my edit didn't get buried by other posts:


Certainly this argument is a non starter.


The point is, since there is no manufacturer of the rock, you can't blame someone for the creation of the tool used by the individual. There is none. This logic then extends to ANYTHING used to kill someone. It's the individual--not the creator of the tool or device--that is completely responsible for moving forward with the choice and action to kill another person.

I keep seeing the " guns are made to shoot people " theme ...did it ever occur to you that some people really need to be shot ?

fire·arm
n.
A weapon, especially a pistol or rifle, capable of firing a projectile and using an explosive charge as a propellant.

And of weapon:

weap·on
n.
1. An instrument of attack or defense in combat, as a gun, missile, or sword.
2. Zoology. A part or organ, such as a claw or stinger, used by an animal in attack or defense.
3. A means used to defend against or defeat another: Logic was her weapon.

See definition 1. Those who say that a firearm is not designed to kill should consider looking in a dictionary.


I don't see the word killing anywhere. I see attack and defense.


http://inventors.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.silcom.com/%257Evikman/isles/scriptorium/firearm/handgonn.html
The first ever firearm, invented for the purpose of killing in battle. It may not have been very efficent at achieving this, but that was its sole purpose. And mankind has strived to increase the weapon's efficiency at acheiving its purpose. To say that a gun isn't designed to kill is like saying that a chair isn't made to be sat on - it may be used for other things, but its primary purpose is to be sat on!

Yup, the first was designed for the killing in battle. You'll see that today, that is not the case, given the general marketing out there. I have yet to see a billboard shouting, "Here, this gun was designed to kill people! Go at it!" Rather, you'd see something about hunting these days.

I keep seeing the " guns are made to shoot people " theme ...did it ever occur to you that some people really need to be shot ?

Well, there is that. Unfortunately, today's society won't allow for it, though I agree, there are those that need to be taken out of the gene pool, and karma's way too slow these days.

Home defense may or may not involve killing. You would probably find that most people who shoot an intruder do actually kill them or intend to.



Since Zaxon covered the dictionary definition, I'll cover this.

You seem to assume that a home defense use of a firearm automatically involves firing dozens of rounds at the intruder.

You WOULD find that most defensive uses of guns do not involve discharging the firearm at all.

You WOULD also find (as stated previously) that most intruders that are hit, survive.

And we're back to intentions. Once again, as stated previously, I'm sure you would probably find that the person defending their home against the illegal intruder has the intention of getting that criminal the hell away from their family and property by any means necessary.

Ooooh! Hysterical Projection. Have I got a bit of psychoanalysis for YOU (http://www.defendu.com/psycharticle.htm)!



When I see your Ph.D. you may psychoanalyze me. Until then, you may not. This could be considered FLAME, so keep it in mind, because if you, an unqualified person, dares to suggest once again, that I need psychoanalysis for having a different opinion than you, I WILL report that to Mods as being a flame. You are, by making such a statement, attacking me personally, and that falls under the definition of flame. Especially being as you have shown none of the certifications required to render an opinion that anyone NEEDS psychoanalysis.

In short...when I see your Ph.D. you may render such an opinion. Until then, you can keep your trap shut. And believe me, I wanted to use stronger language than this.

Since Zaxon covered the dictionary definition, I'll cover this.

You seem to assume that a home defense use of a firearm automatically involves firing dozens of rounds at the intruder.

You WOULD find that most defensive uses of guns do not involve discharging the firearm at all.

You WOULD also find (as stated previously) that most intruders that are hit, survive.

And we're back to intentions. Once again, as stated previously, I'm sure you would probably find that the person defending their home against the illegal intruder has the intention of getting that criminal the hell away from their family and property by any means necessary.

By any means necessary? Including killing them I presume?

To be fair, I don't live in America, I don't know what it's like to live in that culture. I'm lucky enough to come from a country where it is widely considered to be the job of the police to protect its citizens. A burgler in the UK isn't likely to be carrying anything more dangerous than a crow bar, so we don't have the same view about the best way to secure ones home.

A friend of mine had his house broken into recently, while he and his girlfriend were asleep. They heard glass break and he went downstairs, turning lights on and making noise - a common tactic here to attempt to scare the intruder away. He got to the front door and opened it to find a guy standing there in the porch. After a very English confrontation
("What are you doing?",
"Er, I thought this was my mate's house.",
"Right.",
"Are you going to call the police?",
"Yes."
"I'll just wait here then.") my friend grabbed his phone and the guy ran off! It was apparently a very silly moment and the police turned up a minute or two after he called them. Point is, no one was hurt. The police did their job and my friend did what anyone here would do, called them. From what I've heard, some Americans see the police as only relevant becasue they carry guns, so if they carry a gun themself it cuts out the middle man. We see our police as being the people specially trained to deal with these situations, people who choose to protect the people at great personal risk, who we respect for that.

We secure our homes by having double glazed windows and doors, alarm systems, neighbourhood watch schemes and so on. Most burglars here break into places to steal, not to harm the occupants. And realising that there are people in the house will often scare them away before they can steal anything. We don't really have that attitude of believing our lives to be at risk.

The subject fascinates me because of the vast difference between our societies though!

I keep seeing the " guns are made to shoot people " theme ...did it ever occur to you that some people really need to be shot ?
Like, maybe, perhaps...anyone who disagrees with you??

WHO needs to be shot? You wanna specify on that, bud?

I don't see the word killing anywhere. I see attack and defense.



Yup, the first was designed for the killing in battle. You'll see that today, that is not the case, given the general marketing out there. I have yet to see a billboard shouting, "Here, this gun was designed to kill people! Go at it!" Rather, you'd see something about hunting these days.

Generally, when one "attacks" another, they intend to hurt, maim, or kill whatever it is they are attacking.

Let's look at dictionary.com....

at·tacker n.

Synonyms: attack, bombard, assail, storm, assault, beset
These verbs mean to set upon, physically or figuratively. Attack applies to offensive action, especially to the onset of planned aggression: The commandos attacked the outpost at dawn. Bombard suggests showering with bombs or shells (The warplanes bombarded the town) or with words (The celebrity was bombarded with invitations). Assail implies repeated attacks: Critics assailed the author's second novel. Storm refers to a sudden, sweeping attempt to achieve a victory: “After triumphantly storming the country, [the President] is obliged to storm Capitol Hill” (The Economist). Assault usually implies sudden, intense violence: Muggers often assault their victims on dark streets. Beset suggests beleaguerment from all sides: The fox was beset by hunters and hounds.

When I see your Ph.D. you may psychoanalyze me. Until then, you may not. This could be considered FLAME, so keep it in mind, because if you, an unqualified person, dares to suggest once again, that I need psychoanalysis for having a different opinion than you, I WILL report that to Mods as being a flame. You are, by making such a statement, attacking me personally, and that falls under the definition of flame. Especially being as you have shown none of the certifications required to render an opinion that anyone NEEDS psychoanalysis.

In short...when I see your Ph.D. you may render such an opinion. Until then, you can keep your trap shut. And believe me, I wanted to use stronger language than this.

Wow. I don't have degree in computer science, yet I'm pretty well seated in my info tech security analyst job...I've been doing it for years.

I've been rated as highly qualified for my position--I keep getting hired.

You may want to rethink your "certification" requirement. Besides, with amendment number one (in the US anyway), they can voice an opinion.

But an attack on your character, due to forum rules, is prohibited.

Personally, I think everyone should be psychoanalyzed at least once in their lives (sometimes more)--and saying that one might want to think about what is spawning what opinions isn't flaming.

Not to mention that you are the one that was thinking the only use of a gun was to kill. That is a little nuts. Were that the case, the 300 million guns owned in the US would lead you to believe that we're all dead (one gun per american citizen on average used on one american citizen--since they're only used to kill).

When I see your Ph.D. you may psychoanalyze me. Until then, you may not. This could be considered FLAME, so keep it in mind, because if you, an unqualified person, dares to suggest once again, that I need psychoanalysis for having a different opinion than you, I WILL report that to Mods as being a flame. You are, by making such a statement, attacking me personally, and that falls under the definition of flame. Especially being as you have shown none of the certifications required to render an opinion that anyone NEEDS psychoanalysis.

In short...when I see your Ph.D. you may render such an opinion. Until then, you can keep your trap shut. And believe me, I wanted to use stronger language than this.
Uh huh. A bit sensitive are we? That's called Defensiveness and Denial. Note that there is a link to the article, written by one Dr. Sara Thompson, a PhD and Psychiatrist. At no point did I claim to have the authority to psychoanalyze you, just point out that your responses, like the one I am now responding to, fall neatly into the parameters outlined in the article.

Maybe you should try reading before accusing.

Generally, when one "attacks" another, they intend to hurt, maim, or kill whatever it is they are attacking.

Let's look at dictionary.com....

at·tacker n.

Synonyms: attack, bombard, assail, storm, assault, beset
These verbs mean to set upon, physically or figuratively. Attack applies to offensive action, especially to the onset of planned aggression: The commandos attacked the outpost at dawn. Bombard suggests showering with bombs or shells (The warplanes bombarded the town) or with words (The celebrity was bombarded with invitations). Assail implies repeated attacks: Critics assailed the author's second novel. Storm refers to a sudden, sweeping attempt to achieve a victory: “After triumphantly storming the country, [the President] is obliged to storm Capitol Hill” (The Economist). Assault usually implies sudden, intense violence: Muggers often assault their victims on dark streets. Beset suggests beleaguerment from all sides: The fox was beset by hunters and hounds.


Oh...! Oh...! Oh....! I see now! :rolleyes: I already know what attack means. You said kill. Evidently, you seem to think attack and kill are synonyms, however.

Wait--you forgot DEFENSE.

You're the one concentrating solely on the minority usage of firearms. Defensive uses of firearms vastly outnumber the offensive uses of them. Not to mention all the sporting applications--outnumbering even the defensive uses of firearms.

Generally, when one "attacks" another, they intend to hurt, maim, or kill whatever it is they are attacking.

Let's look at dictionary.com....

at·tacker n.

Synonyms: attack, bombard, assail, storm, assault, beset
These verbs mean to set upon, physically or figuratively. Attack applies to offensive action, especially to the onset of planned aggression: The commandos attacked the outpost at dawn. Bombard suggests showering with bombs or shells (The warplanes bombarded the town) or with words (The celebrity was bombarded with invitations). Assail implies repeated attacks: Critics assailed the author's second novel. Storm refers to a sudden, sweeping attempt to achieve a victory: “After triumphantly storming the country, [the President] is obliged to storm Capitol Hill” (The Economist). Assault usually implies sudden, intense violence: Muggers often assault their victims on dark streets. Beset suggests beleaguerment from all sides: The fox was beset by hunters and hounds.Projection again. I am quite capable of attacking someone without killing them. Police use water cannons all the time to attack rioters without killing them.

Why do you see evil killers everywhere you look?

I don't see the word killing anywhere. I see attack and defense.



Yup, the first was designed for the killing in battle. You'll see that today, that is not the case, given the general marketing out there. I have yet to see a billboard shouting, "Here, this gun was designed to kill people! Go at it!" Rather, you'd see something about hunting these days.

Guns are used for many purposes, true, I didn't deny it. But you deny that they are often designed as weapons for attacking (and killing) things. What purpose does an AK-47 have if not to gun people down? If guns are not intended to kill then why are they considered the weapon of choice in warfare?

If you believe that the firearm isn't still used for the purpose it was first invented for then you are incredibly niave. No, not every gun owner has or will kill somebody, that isn't what I'm saying here, but people do undeniably use guns to kill with, as they were originally intended. Ok?

By any means necessary? Including killing them I presume?


As a last resort, to save others, yes.


To be fair, I don't live in America, I don't know what it's like to live in that culture. I'm lucky enough to come from a country where it is widely considered to be the job of the police to protect its citizens.


Better make sure you have that particular police responsibility in legal writing. If you just assume it, you may be in for a shock. I hope you aren't, though.


A burgler in the UK isn't likely to be carrying anything more dangerous than a crow bar, so we don't have the same view about the best way to secure ones home.


Ever been hit by the pointy end of a crowbar? It'll kill quite easily. Especially when the wielder doesn't know how much force it would take to pierce or crush a skull.


A friend of mine had his house broken into recently, while he and his girlfriend were asleep. They heard glass break and he went downstairs, turning lights on and making noise - a common tactic here to attempt to scare the intruder away. He got to the front door and opened it to find a guy standing there in the porch. After a very English confrontation
("What are you doing?",
"Er, I thought this was my mate's house.",
"Right.",
"Are you going to call the police?",
"Yes."
"I'll just wait here then.") my friend grabbed his phone and the guy ran off! It was apparently a very silly moment and the police turned up a minute or two after he called them. Point is, no one was hurt. The police did their job and my friend did what anyone here would do, called them. From what I've heard, some Americans see the police as only relevant becasue they carry guns, so if they carry a gun themself it cuts out the middle man. We see our police as being the people specially trained to deal with these situations, people who choose to protect the people at great personal risk, who we respect for that.


If police could be everywhere at once I'd think about giving up the guns. Then I'd regain my sanity and realize I was in the middle of a literal police state. :D The police aren't actually relevant in individual safety since the US Supreme Court ruled yet again that the police are not responsible for citizenry safety--only enforcing the law. In the US there is only one source of responsibility of protecting individuals--the individuals themselves. That is the only legal source at this time.

Something to think about: a minute or two is life or death in some situations.


We secure our homes by having double glazed windows and doors, alarm systems, neighbourhood watch schemes and so on. Most burglars here break into places to steal, not to harm the occupants. And realising that there are people in the house will often scare them away before they can steal anything. We don't really have that attitude of believing our lives to be at risk.


There is a growing, disturbing trend in the US. Criminals aren't waiting for houses to be vacant, but are worried about being identified--so they kill the witnesses. Our lives are at risk--and it isn't up to anyone else as to how I choose to defend mine. I wouldn't dream of forcing a gun on someone who doesn't want one, but because they don't want me to have one isn't enough reason for me to give mine up. Not until I've proved myself irresponsible and an active threat to others.


The subject fascinates me because of the vast difference between our societies though!

It is rather intriguing, yes.

By any means necessary? Including killing them I presume?

To be fair, I don't live in America, I don't know what it's like to live in that culture. I'm lucky enough to come from a country where it is widely considered to be the job of the police to protect its citizens. A burgler in the UK isn't likely to be carrying anything more dangerous than a crow bar, so we don't have the same view about the best way to secure ones home.

A friend of mine had his house broken into recently, while he and his girlfriend were asleep. They heard glass break and he went downstairs, turning lights on and making noise - a common tactic here to attempt to scare the intruder away. He got to the front door and opened it to find a guy standing there in the porch. After a very English confrontation
("What are you doing?",
"Er, I thought this was my mate's house.",
"Right.",
"Are you going to call the police?",
"Yes."
"I'll just wait here then.") my friend grabbed his phone and the guy ran off! It was apparently a very silly moment and the police turned up a minute or two after he called them. Point is, no one was hurt. The police did their job and my friend did what anyone here would do, called them. From what I've heard, some Americans see the police as only relevant becasue they carry guns, so if they carry a gun themself it cuts out the middle man. We see our police as being the people specially trained to deal with these situations, people who choose to protect the people at great personal risk, who we respect for that. To be fair, in the US the same would probably obtain because the burglar was not yet in the home and could flee. The problem comes when the burglar is INSIDE the home and has no intention of flight. Somthing you see in the US more than you do in the UK.

We secure our homes by having double glazed windows and doors, alarm systems, neighbourhood watch schemes and so on. Most burglars here break into places to steal, not to harm the occupants. And realising that there are people in the house will often scare them away before they can steal anything. We don't really have that attitude of believing our lives to be at risk.Unfortunately, in the US it's not an attitude. There are sufficient examples of violent home invasions (often not involving firerarms) to warrant our caution.

The subject fascinates me because of the vast difference between our societies though! Agreed.

Guns are used for many purposes, true, I didn't deny it. But you deny that they are often designed as weapons for attacking (and killing) things. What purpose does an AK-47 have if not to gun people down? If guns are not intended to kill then why are they considered the weapon of choice in warfare?Psst, the AK is not made in the US...

If you believe that the firearm isn't still used for the purpose it was first invented for then you are incredibly niave. No, not every gun owner has or will kill somebody, that isn't what I'm saying here, but people do undeniably use guns to kill with, as they were originally intended. Ok? Yep. Personal firearms were originally intended as fowling pieces as matchlocks were worse than useless in combat. It wasn't until the development of the Flint ignition system that any (hand held) guns were really specifically designed for combat.

Guns are used for many purposes, true, I didn't deny it. But you deny that they are often designed as weapons for attacking (and killing) things. What purpose does an AK-47 have if not to gun people down? If guns are not intended to kill then why are they considered the weapon of choice in warfare?


Ah! There is one that was designed to be anti-personnel. But to wound more than kill--and for suppressive fire (making soldiers keep their heads down). It takes more opponents away from the battle if you wound as opposed to kill.


If you believe that the firearm isn't still used for the purpose it was first invented for then you are incredibly niave. No, not every gun owner has or will kill somebody, that isn't what I'm saying here, but people do undeniably use guns to kill with, as they were originally intended. Ok?

I'm not saying that they aren't used to kill people. They definitely are. I'm saying that people are concentrating more on the VAST minority of use rather than the majority. It's not just that not every gun owner will kill someone--it's that almost EVERY gun owner won't kill someone. Too many portrayals give the impression that every gun will kill someone someday.

Let's see...


1)Target shoot
2)Historical reenactments
3)Hunting
4)Skeet/clay shooting
5)Collecting
6)Home Defense
7) Teaches discipline
8) I find it very relaxing cleaning them

I personally don't hunt and none of the others involve killing. Strange that.

How did I miss that one?! Number 7 - teaches discipline! I dread to think what exactly you mean by that. Do you threaten your children with it or something! If you mean it teaches self-discipline, please enlighten me on how you use a gun to teach yourself discipline. I honestly don't see what you mean.

How did I miss that one?! Number 7 - teaches discipline! I dread to think what exactly you mean by that. Do you threaten your children with it or something! If you mean it teaches self-discipline, please enlighten me on how you use a gun to teach yourself discipline. I honestly don't see what you mean.

Target shooting takes a lot of time and a lot of dedication. Some would say that could teach someone self-discipline. I can't speak for hunting, as I don't hunt.

is this based in america (or other places where guns are somewhat legal)? or places where guns aren't legal ?

How did I miss that one?! Number 7 - teaches discipline! I dread to think what exactly you mean by that. Do you threaten your children with it or something! If you mean it teaches self-discipline, please enlighten me on how you use a gun to teach yourself discipline. I honestly don't see what you mean.
In the same way any skill requiring fine motor control requires dicipline.
It takes extreme skill and dicipline to shoot well - otherwise I'd have an Olympic Gold Medal.

But to be long winded:

You have to take care of a firearm or it won't work. That means cleaning and oiling. Depending on the firearm that can be either a simple or complex task, but it MUST be done... rather like walking a puppy.

Hand Eye coordination and Breathing control. Since you don't have a firearm to play with, take a 1m length of pipe and hold it as you would point a rifle. Now do it with a 1p piece balanced on the far end. Now move it around and keep the 1p piece balanced on the end. That takes patience, dicipline and skill.

Better make sure you have that particular police responsibility in legal writing. If you just assume it, you may be in for a shock. I hope you aren't, though.

Whether it is in writing or not doesn't matter much here. The fact that it is the common perception means the civilians aren't taking it upon themselves. We see the upholding of the law the same as protecting the people, since that is exactly what laws are intended to do.

Ever been hit by the pointy end of a crowbar? It'll kill quite easily. Especially when the wielder doesn't know how much force it would take to pierce or crush a skull.

I'm sure you realise that I meant that burglers aren't armed with guns in Britain.

Something to think about: a minute or two is life or death in some situations.

Absolutely, but not when the criminal has fled the scene!

There is a growing, disturbing trend in the US. Criminals aren't waiting for houses to be vacant, but are worried about being identified--so they kill the witnesses. Our lives are at risk--and it isn't up to anyone else as to how I choose to defend mine. I wouldn't dream of forcing a gun on someone who doesn't want one, but because they don't want me to have one isn't enough reason for me to give mine up. Not until I've proved myself irresponsible and an active threat to others.

That is disturbing and I had no idea it was such a huge problem. Maybe you should all address this problem and consider why it may be occuring. I don't have the answers, I'm not by any means an expert on your society. But perhaps arming up more heavily might not be the best solution? Maybe? (Please don't shoot the messenger!)

I also wouldn't dream of interfering in your politics to such an extent. But I am aware that there is a anti-gun movement in America, perhaps it might be worth having a reforendum, find out what most people want. That is, afterall, what democracy is all about.

To argue the gun company is no more guilty than the car company is ridiculous. The car is not made with the intent of killing something. The gun company has to know that a handgun is usually not going to be used for something other than killing (and sadly killing a person). The vast majority of the responsibility must rest with the person, but there must be some responsibility with the company. If I had a bomb making factory that sold the bombs to the general public you can not logically argue that when some innocent person is killed I am not to blame at all.

<snip>I also wouldn't dream of interfering in your politics to such an extent. But I am aware that there is a anti-gun movement in America, perhaps it might be worth having a reforendum, find out what most people want. That is, afterall, what democracy is all about.
Well, we would have all the criminals and big-city liberals voting FOR gun prohibition (why not? the criminals will get their guns anyway - just remember the attempted delivery of full auto Chinese AK's to the Californian Gangs?) and all of the rural folks and self-defense rationalists voting against it. (look at the US "red & Blue" maps)

I'm not willing to give up my right to my harmless hobby and to defend myself just because a bunch of Criminals and City Dwellers decide to tell me it's bad.

A gun is a tool. It is a tool like any other tool--- like a wrench or a hammer, without someone to use it, it is worthless.

The people who make that tool warn you, over and over, what this tool is capable of. It is capable if defending you. It is also capable of, sadly, ending lives.

If you use this tool to end a life meaninglessly, it is your fault. Your fault, because you were given all warning, all notice. It is YOUR tool, not the companies. YOU used the tool, not the company. YOU ended a life, not the gun-producer.

Uh huh. A bit sensitive are we? That's called Defensiveness and Denial. Note that there is a link to the article, written by one Dr. Sara Thompson, a PhD and Psychiatrist. At no point did I claim to have the authority to psychoanalyze you, just point out that your responses, like the one I am now responding to, fall neatly into the parameters outlined in the article.

Maybe you should try reading before accusing.

Once again, when I see your Ph.D. then you have a right to advance such an opinion. Until then, you can keep your trap shut.

I'm not going to read anything you give me to read, because it is likely to be biased...and, more to the point, you are not qualified to tell me that I need psychoanalysis. and if you suggest again that I am in need of it...without showing some sort of qualification to make such a statement, I will consider it a personal attack.

In the same way any skill requiring fine motor control requires dicipline.
It takes extreme skill and dicipline to shoot well - otherwise I'd have an Olympic Gold Medal.

But to be long winded:

You have to take care of a firearm or it won't work. That means cleaning and oiling. Depending on the firearm that can be either a simple or complex task, but it MUST be done... rather like walking a puppy.

Hand Eye coordination and Breathing control. Since you don't have a firearm to play with, take a 1m length of pipe and hold it as you would point a rifle. Now do it with a 1p piece balanced on the far end. Now move it around and keep the 1p piece balanced on the end. That takes patience, dicipline and skill.

Oh, I see what you mean now. Fair enough.

But there are other ways of increasing ones discipline, no doubt you are right and this does the trick, but you don't need a gun to do this. You could take up modelling, builing ships, planes etc. Or a physical discipline like yoga!

Sorry, I fully admit to being a raging hippy, but I'm just applying some humour to the situation!

Truth is, if you didn't have guns, you would find another way of learning this discipline.

As for the AK-47 thing, I know they're Russian, but that's just semantics. I admit to knowing jack about different guns. Point is, something like that is not designed and built for people to hunt deer with, or do target practice or many of those other uses for guns. They are intended to shoot people with, whether it kills them or not.

Oh...! Oh...! Oh....! I see now! :rolleyes: I already know what attack means. You said kill. Evidently, you seem to think attack and kill are synonyms, however.

Wait--you forgot DEFENSE.

You're the one concentrating solely on the minority usage of firearms. Defensive uses of firearms vastly outnumber the offensive uses of them. Not to mention all the sporting applications--outnumbering even the defensive uses of firearms.

PLANNED AGGRESSION need I say more? Call it "defense" or anything else you want...justify it anyway you want it is still AGGRESSION

And usually, when you are planning aggression against another, you are planning on hurting very badly...or killing...the target of the planned aggression

Projection again. I am quite capable of attacking someone without killing them. Police use water cannons all the time to attack rioters without killing them.

Why do you see evil killers everywhere you look?

Maybe because you SO VEHEMENTLY want an instrument that is capable of causing great harm, and often death. One has to wonder why you so vehemently want such an instrument, if you don't intend to hurt or kill with it.

Used when:

Hunting - The animal is responsible, for being such a noble beast that its head just has to be mounted on the hunter's wall.

Shooting a perp - The perp... a person has a right to defend himself. Obviously if the perp weren't breaking into a house not his own, the owner wouldn't feel compelled to defend the property and shoot the perp.

hehe

Once again, when I see your Ph.D. then you have a right to advance such an opinion. Until then, you can keep your trap shut.

I'm not going to read anything you give me to read, because it is likely to be biased...and, more to the point, you are not qualified to tell me that I need psychoanalysis. and if you suggest again that I am in need of it...without showing some sort of qualification to make such a statement, I will consider it a personal attack.
:confused: I have yet to suggest that you need anything. It is only you that are insisting that I am. I said I had somthing FOR you, not that I was going to psychoanalyze you. You have drawn you own conclusions and it is obvious that no amount of reading, research or facts will disuade you from the righteousness of your path. :rolleyes:

is this based in america (or other places where guns are somewhat legal)? or places where guns aren't legal ?

Well a recent bill went through the US Senate determining that firearm manufacturers were not to be held liable for their products being used in assaults and murders. And rightly so.

I'm guessing that this was the impetus for the thread. I could very well be wrong, however.

Maybe because you SO VEHEMENTLY want an instrument that is capable of causing great harm, and often death. One has to wonder why you so vehemently want such an instrument, if you don't intend to hurt or kill with it.
Because I happen to like winning trophies and I can't do that playing Golf? :headbang:

Try telling people that their golf clubs are bad and they shouldn't be allowed to keep them and see what happens. Or that Sports Cars (that go really fast and are capable of causing great harm, and often death) are so bad that no one but the Government should have them. I think THEN you will see some REAL vehemence.

I'm not willing to give up my right to my harmless hobby and to defend myself just because a bunch of Criminals and City Dwellers decide to tell me it's bad.

LOL! That bit reminded me of the pro-hunt people over here going all defensive about hunting with hounds!

But the thing is, if the majority want something like this they should get it, that's what democracy is. You don't have to live in a democracy, you can move away to a nice little dictatorship somewhere if you like. I'm not saying that the majority would vote for tighter gun control, I don't know, but if they did you would bow to democracy if you believe in it.

Your owning a gun may be harmless to you, but isn't it worth contemplating the possibility that your society isn't made better by people owning guns?

Whether it is in writing or not doesn't matter much here. The fact that it is the common perception means the civilians aren't taking it upon themselves. We see the upholding of the law the same as protecting the people, since that is exactly what laws are intended to do.


Okay, so it's an assumption that British police are there to protect individuals. I was just saying to watch your back and make sure that they're really there for that purpose--legally.


I'm sure you realise that I meant that burglers aren't armed with guns in Britain.


Yeah, I was just pointing out that anything can be lethal, that's all. Especially when one is inexperienced at using the object as a weapon.


Absolutely, but not when the criminal has fled the scene!


Indeed. You just have time to start to calm the hell down.


That is disturbing and I had no idea it was such a huge problem. Maybe you should all address this problem and consider why it may be occuring. I don't have the answers, I'm not by any means an expert on your society. But perhaps arming up more heavily might not be the best solution? Maybe? (Please don't shoot the messenger!)


Heh...tougher laws on guns themselves have been tried in places like Chicago and LA--they're finding that violent crime is highest where the gun laws are the most restrictive. Gun control just doesn't work in the US. It leaves criminals armed and law-abiding citizens defenseless (again, our police officers are not responsible for protecting us). That's inhumane, to leave a citizenry defenseless.


I also wouldn't dream of interfering in your politics to such an extent. But I am aware that there is a anti-gun movement in America, perhaps it might be worth having a reforendum, find out what most people want. That is, afterall, what democracy is all about.

I know some would love to have that go through. However, democracy is actually a glorified mob rule, where individual freedoms are overridden. I can't go for that. I don't think people should smoke, but I cannot support a vote on making it illegal (even if I'm in the majority). It's not my call what responsible adults do (sex with consenting adults, drugs, owning weaponry of all kinds, etc.). Only when they threaten others (doesn't matter if they are a threat to themselves--they own themselves already--they get to choose what they do with what is theirs) do I believe others have a right to step in.

I can't support a law making gun ownership mandatory either. I'm a pro-choice guy (like Syniks' sig says: On everything).

To argue the gun company is no more guilty than the car company is ridiculous. The car is not made with the intent of killing something. The gun company has to know that a handgun is usually not going to be used for something other than killing (and sadly killing a person). The vast majority of the responsibility must rest with the person, but there must be some responsibility with the company. If I had a bomb making factory that sold the bombs to the general public you can not logically argue that when some innocent person is killed I am not to blame at all.

Yeah, I can. You weren't there, you didn't force the person to detonate the bomb....or are you one of those psychic mutants???? AAAAAA!!!!

:D

Because I happen to like winning trophies and I can't do that playing Golf? :headbang:

Try telling people that their golf clubs are bad and they shouldn't be allowed to keep them and see what happens. Or that Sports Cars (that go really fast and are capable of causing great harm, and often death) are so bad that no one but the Government should have them. I think THEN you will see some REAL vehemence.

Again, golf clubs and fast cars are NOT designed with the primary intent to hurt or kill other creatures.

What else do you need with an instrument that lauches a projectile at great velocity, if not to harm or kill something?

The fact is...a gun's primary purpose is to hurt or kill. Not so golf clubs or cars.

PLANNED AGGRESSION need I say more? Call it "defense" or anything else you want...justify it anyway you want it is still AGGRESSION

And usually, when you are planning aggression against another, you are planning on hurting very badly...or killing...the target of the planned aggression

I'll leave it at this--it's not planned agression. It's planned defense.

If someone who already broke the law to get into my house in the first place ends up getting hurt--I'm not going to be all that concerned. There are VERY few legitimate reasons to break into someone else's property. Survival is just about all I can think of.

Maybe because you SO VEHEMENTLY want an instrument that is capable of causing great harm, and often death. One has to wonder why you so vehemently want such an instrument, if you don't intend to hurt or kill with it.

He's already used it a few times WITHOUT killing anyone....

We vehemently want the ability to defend ourselves--as is our human right. You're the one turning it into an offensive posture.

Again, golf clubs and fast cars are NOT designed with the primary intent to hurt or kill other creatures.

What else do you need with an instrument that lauches a projectile at great velocity, if not to harm or kill something?

The fact is...a gun's primary purpose is to hurt or kill. Not so golf clubs or cars.

Yes, if the gun nuts' best argument is that more people are killed by cars or whatever than by guns, they don't have a case. Like you said, cars are not designed for the primary purpose of killing someone. Guns are.

Okay, so it's an assumption that British police are there to protect individuals. I was just saying to watch your back and make sure that they're really there for that purpose--legally.

Yeah, I was just pointing out that anything can be lethal, that's all. Especially when one is inexperienced at using the object as a weapon.

Indeed. You just have time to start to calm the hell down.

Heh...tougher laws on guns themselves have been tried in places like Chicago and LA--they're finding that violent crime is highest where the gun laws are the most restrictive. Gun control just doesn't work in the US. It leaves criminals armed and law-abiding citizens defenseless (again, our police officers are not responsible for protecting us). That's inhumane, to leave a citizenry defenseless.

I know some would love to have that go through. However, democracy is actually a glorified mob rule, where individual freedoms are overridden. I can't go for that. I don't think people should smoke, but I cannot support a vote on making it illegal (even if I'm in the majority). It's not my call what responsible adults do (sex with consenting adults, drugs, owning weaponry of all kinds, etc.). Only when they threaten others (doesn't matter if they are a threat to themselves--they own themselves already--they get to choose what they do with what is theirs) do I believe others have a right to step in.

I can't support a law making gun ownership mandatory either. I'm a pro-choice guy (like Syniks' sig says: On everything).

Even though we disagree, I totally respect your position. Now that I've heard more from you I can understand your position too.

I wouldn't suggest just removing all the guns overnight btw! I would only suggest it a wothwhile cause to examine the causes of the attitudes and crimes in America and see what can be done to improve the situation in a way most suitable to most people.

LOL! That bit reminded me of the pro-hunt people over here going all defensive about hunting with hounds! Different situation. I have lived where cougar (mountain lion) and bear attacks are a real concern. The deer population in both rural and suburban US is often so large that herd starvation and human vehicular fatality is an urgent concern. The US is a much bigger country than the UK. We have a far greater breadth of animals and SPACE than the UK.
But the thing is, if the majority want something like this they should get it, that's what democracy is. You don't have to live in a democracy, you can move away to a nice little dictatorship somewhere if you like. I'm not saying that the majority would vote for tighter gun control, I don't know, but if they did you would bow to democracy if you believe in it.The US is not a Democracy - God forbid it should ever become one. We are a Representative Republic BECAUSE there are such huge variances in terrain, biology and lifestyle. A "democracy" as you describe it has been rightly called "the Tyrany of the Majority." To see how fallacious that line of thinking is, I pose to you this question:

Should the voters of high density urban areas be able to tell farmers how best to grow food? They are the Majority, so if they decide that water for irrigation is not as important as water for suburban lawns then the farmers should just suck it up, right?

Your owning a gun may be harmless to you, but isn't it worth contemplating the possibility that your society isn't made better by people owning guns?There is a difference between people "owning" guns and people possessing guns. Criminals possess guns since they are not legally allowed to "own" them. Society is not made worse by people owning guns, it is made worse by criminals illigitamately possessing guns. Look at a map of the US again. If we can't keep our borders secure from drugs or tens of thousands of illegal border crossings, how will we keep out the firearms that the criminal black market will demand? I point you again to the California case where several thousand illegal automatic SK rifles were confiscated from a Chinese container ship. Those were most definately NOT going to be "owned" in any legal sense by any legal individual. They were destined for the Gangs of Southern California. We just got lucky that time. :(

Heh...tougher laws on guns themselves have been tried in places like Chicago and LA--they're finding that violent crime is highest where the gun laws are the most restrictive. Gun control just doesn't work in the US. It leaves criminals armed and law-abiding citizens defenseless (again, our police officers are not responsible for protecting us). That's inhumane, to leave a citizenry defenseless.
Indeed, exceptionally so. So why not work on getting the people who are supposed to defend the citizenry (Armed forces and police) to actually do their job? If someone else is protecting you properly, you have no need to attempt to do so yourself.

I also fail to see how shooting someone is defense.

LOL! That bit reminded me of the pro-hunt people over here going all defensive about hunting with hounds!

But the thing is, if the majority want something like this they should get it, that's what democracy is. You don't have to live in a democracy, you can move away to a nice little dictatorship somewhere if you like. I'm not saying that the majority would vote for tighter gun control, I don't know, but if they did you would bow to democracy if you believe in it.


The US is a federal republic, not a democracy. Just wanted to get that out there. Democracy is bad--the rights of the individual are overridden in a democracy. If you can have individual rights preserved in it, I'd be all for it.


Your owning a gun may be harmless to you, but isn't it worth contemplating the possibility that your society isn't made better by people owning guns?

Ah! There's the root of it! Many of us believe that the society is secondary to the individual, as opposed to the society being more important. However, if there was no possiblity of an attack by someone or something else, I might be inclined to give up the gun--but that can't possibly ever happen when free will exists (and bears! :) ).

What else do you need with an instrument that lauches a projectile at great velocity, if not to harm or kill something?


You mean like a jet engine?

Yes, if the gun nuts' best argument is that more people are killed by cars or whatever than by guns, they don't have a case. Like you said, cars are not designed for the primary purpose of killing someone. Guns are.

The majority of guns today are not designed with a primary purpose of killing a person. Get it through your head.

Better yet, prove your stance. I've already proved mine through examples of hunting and targeting sports--they're used and designed for those purposes moreso than even the broad category of anti-personnel use.

Again, golf clubs and fast cars are NOT designed with the primary intent to hurt or kill other creatures.

What else do you need with an instrument that lauches a projectile at great velocity, if not to harm or kill something?

The fact is...a gun's primary purpose is to hurt or kill. Not so golf clubs or cars.
Oh yeah, like this (http://www.championshooters.com/2012big.htm) multi thousand dolar rifle is desighed to "hurt or kill".

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y180/MrMisanthrope/2012big.jpg

Oh baby, just wait untill I take one of these into combat! :rolleyes:

Grow up Troll.

The US is not a Democracy - God forbid it should ever become one. We are a Representative Republic BECAUSE there are such huge variances in terrain, biology and lifestyle.
Perhaps someone should take a moment to remind your government of that.

There is a difference between people "owning" guns and people possessing guns. Criminals possess guns since they are not legally allowed to "own" them. Society is not made worse by people owning guns, it is made worse by criminals illigitamately possessing guns. Look at a map of the US again. If we can't keep our borders secure from drugs or tens of thousands of illegal border crossings, how will we keep out the firearms that the criminal black market will demand? I point you again to the California case where several thousand illegal automatic SK rifles were confiscated from a Chinese container ship. Those were most definately NOT going to be "owned" in any legal sense by any legal individual. They were destined for the Gangs of Southern California. We just got lucky that time. :(
Er, in relative terms, you're no worse off than the UK. The only real difference is that in the UK, the majority of criminals don't feel they need guns, since they are much less likely to get their foot blown off by someone they're robbing. Not needing to have a gun means less risk, and an easier sentence if they get caught.

Even though we disagree, I totally respect your position. Now that I've heard more from you I can understand your position too.

I wouldn't suggest just removing all the guns overnight btw! I would only suggest it a wothwhile cause to examine the causes of the attitudes and crimes in America and see what can be done to improve the situation in a way most suitable to most people.

And I respect yours--you have a totally different situation across the pond than we do.

I'm all for looking into why things happen, however, the law-abiding citizenry should be the last body to be affected by legislation regarding the potential for self-defense.

I just don't see how we'd be able to reduce the crime rates to something that would allow everyone to be out and about without a defensive weapon of some sort. Humans will always be humans.

Different situation. I have lived where cougar (mountain lion) and bear attacks are a real concern. The deer population in both rural and suburban US is often so large that herd starvation and human vehicular fatality is an urgent concern. The US is a much bigger country than the UK. We have a far greater breadth of animals and SPACE than the UK.

Yes, all I said was that your comment reminded me of huntsmen here in the UK, I said nothing about hunting in the USA. It was a throw away comment, sorry if that wasn't clear!

The US is not a Democracy - God forbid it should ever become one. We are a Representative Republic BECAUSE there are such huge variances in terrain, biology and lifestyle. A "democracy" as you describe it has been rightly called "the Tyrany of the Majority." To see how fallacious that line of thinking is, I pose to you this question:

Should the voters of high density urban areas be able to tell farmers how best to grow food? They are the Majority, so if they decide that water for irrigation is not as important as water for suburban lawns then the farmers should just suck it up, right?

I'm really glad you realise that. So many "patriots" defend their democratic nation, with the rest of the world looking at them and thinking "What democracy?" But a Representative Republic still has a responsibility to provide policy applicable to its people, including considering what the people want and need.

Your example is a rediculous one. If that ever made it to the polling stations no one would turn up to vote on it anyway! And even if they did, those urban dwellers who genuinely valued their own lawns more than irrigation would be in such vast minority the vote would clearly go the other way.

Oh yeah, like this (http://www.championshooters.com/2012big.htm) multi thousand dolar rifle is desighed to "hurt or kill".

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y180/MrMisanthrope/2012big.jpg

Oh baby, just wait untill I take one of these into combat! :rolleyes:


OH MY GOD, NO!!!! You know how EXPENSIVE that is??

Too valuable to use in a combat situation.

Then again, I think that's part of the point you were trying to make... :D

Indeed, exceptionally so. So why not work on getting the people who are supposed to defend the citizenry (Armed forces and police) to actually do their job? If someone else is protecting you properly, you have no need to attempt to do so yourself.

I also fail to see how shooting someone is defense.

like shooting fish in a barrel...

a)Police cannot be fast enough to be able to protect people all of the time (or most of the time, for that matter). Unless we can put an armed cop in every home to defend the family that lives there, the best way for a home to be defended is for someone in it to own and know how to use a gun. To illustrate my point, consider: I get home to find an armed burglar in my home. IF I'm armed, I might have a chance to shoot the burglar and live. If not, I am at his mercy. What am I supposed to do, call the cops? lmao. And even if I could get a call through, somehow avoiding the bullets of the criminal's gun, i'd still have to be able to waste about 5 more minutes while a cop was on his way to defend me. lol. Police cannot protect me from a burglar who wants to enter my home. Police can't even protect me on the street. Cops' main function these days is that of a tax collector.

b)Shooting someone is defense if you feel that the perp is going to hurt you or your family, or steal from you or your family, or burn down your house, etc. We have a right to defend ourselves and our property. People, on the other hand, do not have a right to enter our property, try to harm us, or steal from us, etc.

Indeed, exceptionally so. So why not work on getting the people who are supposed to defend the citizenry (Armed forces and police) to actually do their job? If someone else is protecting you properly, you have no need to attempt to do so yourself.


Except that it's NOT the job of the police to protect citizens. And even if it were, they can't be everywhere, and they can't teleport. Time is of the essence when someone is coming at you.


I also fail to see how shooting someone is defense.

If you're being attacked, any kind of return force to stop an attack is termed defense, regardless if you agree with the method of returned force. That's what it is.

I just don't see how we'd be able to reduce the crime rates to something that would allow everyone to be out and about without a defensive weapon of some sort. Humans will always be humans.

It would be hard, but possible. Afterall, other countries manage it. There will always be exceptions, but generally speaking, folks in Britain honestly don't carry defensive weapons around with them! A few women carry rape alarms, that's about the extent of it. But, and I will check on this, I believe that proportionately to population figures, the crime rate here isn't that much different to over there.

It is a case of changing the way people think about crime and how to tackle it, not just bringing crime rate down.

It would be hard, but possible. Afterall, other countries manage it. There will always be exceptions, but generally speaking, folks in Britain honestly don't carry defensive weapons around with them! A few women carry rape alarms, that's about the extent of it. But, and I will check on this, I believe that proportionately to population figures, the crime rate here isn't that much different to over there.


Our murder rate is a lot higher, but some of your rates are higher than ours--can't remember which ones offhand, though...sorry...

I guess my point is, since there are approximately 2 million defensive uses of a firearm annually in the US vs. 13,000 homicides....I still see the firearm being viable.

If I have the opportunity to increase my family's chances of survival by .01% by owning and utilizing a firearm--it's worth it to me.


It is a case of changing the way people think about crime and how to tackle it, not just bringing crime rate down.

I'm definitely all for both, actually. But enforcing thought is a bit tougher, when so many media outlets portray the criminal element as being romantic.

It would be hard, but possible. Afterall, other countries manage it. There will always be exceptions, but generally speaking, folks in Britain honestly don't carry defensive weapons around with them! A few women carry rape alarms, that's about the extent of it. But, and I will check on this, I believe that proportionately to population figures, the crime rate here isn't that much different to over there.

It is a case of changing the way people think about crime and how to tackle it, not just bringing crime rate down.

I've heard stories on here, from brits, about how they've been robbed and were unable to do anything about it.

I don't ever want the citizens of the US to be at the mercy of criminals, or for there to be widespread empathy for the plight of the poor criminal. People need to be taught to respect others and their property; if they don't, they are privy to the defensive tactics of those whom they attack/steal from. Such criminal acts must be condemned, and the gun is one way to help prevent them from happening in the first place.

My heart goes out to the poor UK soul who has no way to defend his life or his property from a psycho who decides to take something (his watch? his life?) from him.

Being poor is no excuse for stealing from someone.. Get a freaking job. Besides, if the welfare is so great (and the welfare state and unemployment rates so huge/high) in Europe, people shouldn't have to steal to be able to eat. In the US, anyone can get a job digging ditches. Note to perps: stop being a criminal, and greatly curb your chances of being shot upon trespassing into someone else's home! Contact your local road construction/house construction crew for a job.

hehe

a)Police cannot be fast enough to be able to protect people all of the time (or most of the time, for that matter). Unless we can put an armed cop in every home to defend the family that lives there, the best way for a home to be defended is for someone in it to own and know how to use a gun. To illustrate my point, consider: I get home to find an armed burglar in my home. IF I'm armed, I might have a chance to shoot the burglar and live. If not, I am at his mercy. What am I supposed to do, call the cops? lmao. And even if I could get a call through, somehow avoiding the bullets of the criminal's gun, i'd still have to be able to waste about 5 more minutes while a cop was on his way to defend me. lol. Police cannot protect me from a burglar who wants to enter my home. Police can't even protect me on the street. Cops' main function these days is that of a tax collector.

Can anyone say "burglar alarm"? That's what we do here. Not many thieves are honestly going to stick around once that siren fires up. Or better yet, get a silent alarm that alerts the police, so the burglar does stick around, ignorant of the alarm and gets caught in the act when police turn up!

It's a real shame that your poice service is so bad. Not that ours is perfect, but at the end of the day burglary is a crime, police are there to uphold the law, let them deal with doing so. If you come home to find a buglar, run to a neighbour and call the police, don't face the criminal yourself. Seems simple to us Brits because of the aforementioned differences between us. It works over here, maybe, just maybe it could eventually work over there too if you tried it.

b)Shooting someone is defense if you feel that the perp is going to hurt you or your family, or steal from you or your family, or burn down your house, etc. We have a right to defend ourselves and our property. People, on the other hand, do not have a right to enter our property, try to harm us, or steal from us, etc.

I have long held the opinion that just becasue something is a right, doesn't mean it always the right thing to do. Fact: there are other ways to defend yourself, your family and your house. You just prioritise things upside down, it's have a gun to shoot an intruder as the first line of defence, instead of the last.

Anyway, I think I've put across my view thoroughly enough already on this thread, I won't repeat myself!

The usual US vs. Europe gun debate..... :rolleyes:

Differences of culture is the easiest way to describe the way US uses guns, Europe uses police.

Can anyone say "burglar alarm"? That's what we do here. Not many thieves are honestly going to stick around once that siren fires up. Or better yet, get a silent alarm that alerts the police, so the burglar does stick around, ignorant of the alarm and gets caught in the act when police turn up!


It's a nice theory, but again, since the police aren't there instantly, and maybe not for at least 15 minutes to two hours...criminals know this, and may still take a crack at it--and do.


It's a real shame that your poice service is so bad. Not that ours is perfect, but at the end of the day burglary is a crime, police are there to uphold the law, let them deal with doing so. If you come home to find a buglar, run to a neighbour and call the police, don't face the criminal yourself. Seems simple to us Brits because of the aforementioned differences between us. It works over here, maybe, just maybe it could eventually work over there too if you tried it.


I really don't think the independent and rebellious nature we have over here would allow us to be "protected" by others too much....


I have long held the opinion that just becasue something is a right, doesn't mean it always the right thing to do. Fact: there are other ways to defend yourself, your family and your house. You just prioritise things upside down, it's have a gun to shoot an intruder as the first line of defence, instead of the last.


Ah, I'd have to say, at least for this American, that it is not the first line. I have lights, locks, speed dial on the phone for emergency services, and then the gun. The gun is last.


Anyway, I think I've put across my view thoroughly enough already on this thread, I won't repeat myself!

Aw, c'mon, we keep doing it! :D :fluffle:

The usual US vs. Europe gun debate..... :rolleyes:

Differences of culture is the easiest way to describe the way US uses guns, Europe uses police.

Well, there IS Switzerland... :)

I've heard stories on here, from brits, about how they've been robbed and were unable to do anything about it.

True, I've been robbed and didn't even report it because at the end of the day, there are much, much worse crimes than that and I knew the police wouldn't be able to anything about it. I can live with having my wallet stolen, I cancelled my cards and got new ones. It seems that in the States robbery is too often coupled with murder, that's not such a problem here to be honest.

Such criminal acts must be condemned, and the gun is one way to help prevent them from happening in the first place.

And what makes you think that? Take a look at Canada, they have guns, but don't use them to kill each other to anywhere near the extent of the USA. They have lower crime rates because their society is different, it has a compassionate attitude, rather than an aggressive one. That is how they prevent crimes in the first place, not by shooting each other.

My heart goes out to the poor UK soul who has no way to defend his life or his property from a psycho who decides to take something (his watch? his life?) from him.

Well, over 50% of us are female, but I won't take that too personally! And I've already told you how we defend ourselves, alarms, locks, double glazed windows. Add to that list: self-defence classes and a handy blunt object by the door! But I did also state that it is different here because we can be reasonably sure the burglar won't have a gun. We're not at great risk of being shot ourselves, so shooting the intruder isn't necessary in any case.

Being poor is no excuse for stealing from someone.. Get a freaking job. Besides, if the welfare is so great (and the welfare state and unemployment rates so huge/high) in Europe, people shouldn't have to steal to be able to eat. In the US, anyone can get a job digging ditches. Note to perps: stop being a criminal, and greatly curb your chances of being shot upon trespassing into someone else's home! Contact your local road construction/house construction crew for a job.

Wow man, where did this come from?! No one said anything about being poor as an excuse for stealing, you brought it up so that's your issue.

True, I've been robbed and didn't even report it because at the end of the day, there are much, much worse crimes than that and I knew the police wouldn't be able to anything about it. I can live with having my wallet stolen, I cancelled my cards and got new ones. It seems that in the States robbery is too often coupled with murder, that's not such a problem here to be honest.


I'm sorry you had to go through that. Regardless of the outcome, traumatic experiences are still just that. :(


And what makes you think that? Take a look at Canada, they have guns, but don't use them to kill each other to anywhere near the extent of the USA. They have lower crime rates because their society is different, it has a compassionate attitude, rather than an aggressive one. That is how they prevent crimes in the first place, not by shooting each other.


Oh man...there's the problem. The world seems to think that we always shoot. On average, we have around 2 million legal defensive uses of a firearm a year--most of those encounters don't involve a bullet coming out of the gun. Most of those homicides by firearm stats you see from the US are committed by criminals on criminals.

True, I've been robbed and didn't even report it because at the end of the day, there are much, much worse crimes than that and I knew the police wouldn't be able to anything about it. I can live with having my wallet stolen, I cancelled my cards and got new ones. It seems that in the States robbery is too often coupled with murder, that's not such a problem here to be honest.



And what makes you think that? Take a look at Canada, they have guns, but don't use them to kill each other to anywhere near the extent of the USA. They have lower crime rates because their society is different, it has a compassionate attitude, rather than an aggressive one. That is how they prevent crimes in the first place, not by shooting each other.



Well, over 50% of us are female, but I won't take that too personally! And I've already told you how we defend ourselves, alarms, locks, double glazed windows. Add to that list: self-defence classes and a handy blunt object by the door! But I did also state that it is different here because we can be reasonably sure the burglar won't have a gun. We're not at great risk of being shot ourselves, so shooting the intruder isn't necessary in any case.



Wow man, where did this come from?! No one said anything about being poor as an excuse for stealing, you brought it up so that's your issue.

hehe. just doing my daily "digression from the subject" routine.

<snip>I'm really glad you realise that. So many "patriots" defend their democratic nation, with the rest of the world looking at them and thinking "What democracy?" But a Representative Republic still has a responsibility to provide policy applicable to its people, including considering what the people want and need. The point is tat such polict cannot be rationally applicable to all the people in a country as large and diverse as the US. It's easy to say "Don't kill humans" (for fun and profit) and make it applicable across the country. It's quite a different thing to say somthing like "wood burning stoves are illegal" because in some places they are a necessity of life.

Your example is a rediculous one. If that ever made it to the polling stations no one would turn up to vote on it anyway! And even if they did, those urban dwellers who genuinely valued their own lawns more than irrigation would be in such vast minority the vote would clearly go the other way.Rediculous? How can it be when it is an NS (game) Issue? :eek: :D

Actually, it's not rediculous. It is an issue that crops up in the Colorado River drainage every few years. (Pheonix likes its lawns... :rolleyes: ) and is totally congruant with the issue at hand. Urban dwellers should have no say in the lifestyles of Rural dwellers. (Can you imagine Londoners outlawing the Highland Games because the Caber could be dangerous?!??)

I say the person who pulls the trigger. He made a decision to pull it while the gun was pointed at someone.

The people who sold the gun shouldn't be blamed, because that's their business. If someone steps in to buy a gun, then they sell it to them.

But it's sort of a different story if the shooter bought his gun on the blackmarket. The blackmarket is bad for the economy and they shouldn't be there anyway :D

So I'm at a seventy-thirty here.

Perhaps someone should take a moment to remind your government of that. Don't I know it. :(

Er, in relative terms, you're no worse off than the UK. The only real difference is that in the UK, the majority of criminals don't feel they need guns, since they are much less likely to get their foot blown off by someone they're robbing. Not needing to have a gun means less risk, and an easier sentence if they get caught.
I'm sorry, that's just so ass backwards. Somehow I'm responsible for a criminal's behavior? Period. You are saying that my refusal to become a victim of violence directed toward my person is responsible for the criminal's attack.

I'm not going to shoot anyone who isn't attacking me. If a criminal breaks into my home but runs away (or surrenders) when I approach, then he's not going to get hurt. There will be no gunplay. Hell, if he runs away fast enough he might never even get to see a gun.

I am not responsible for the criminal's possession of a weapon. Criminals in the US do not carry weapons to defend themself from their victims, they carry weapons to victimize. If there was such a big threat to criminals from victim-held firearms that they "need guns, since they are much less likely to get their foot blown off by someone they're robbing", there would be far more wounded/dead criminals than there have been.

Oh yeah, like this (http://www.championshooters.com/2012big.htm) multi thousand dolar rifle is desighed to "hurt or kill".

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y180/MrMisanthrope/2012big.jpg

Oh baby, just wait untill I take one of these into combat! :rolleyes:

Grow up Troll.

DON'T YOU FUCKING DARE CALL ME A TROLL JJUST BECAUSE I HAPPEN TO HAVE AN OPINION DIFFERENT FROM YOURS!!!

DON'T YOU FUCKING DARE!!!

DON'T YOU FUCKING DARE CALL ME A TROLL JJUST BECAUSE I HAPPEN TO HAVE AN OPINION DIFFERENT FROM YOURS!!!

DON'T YOU FUCKING DARE!!!
Well, let's see: If the shoe fits...

(A) Unlike Froudland, with whom I also disagree, You have yet to argue an opinion with valid points. Rather, you have only repeatedly stated an asertion that has been proven to be patently false.

(B) Continuing to repeat such an assertion in the face of contrary evidence, supplied by multiple posters, begs the question of what your purpose for responding might be. Since it cannot be to argue points on their merits, it must be other than to have a reasonable debate.

A+B=Troll-like behavior.

You are really quite funny though. Your indignant outbursts are rather like those of a small child stamping feet because grownups stopped listening to their absurdities. At least I can laugh at you, so maybe your posts add some value to the debate. :rolleyes:

BTW: I don't see how you can call yourself "Pro Choice" when you are so hell bent on taking my Choices away from me. Your position on guns makes you about as Pro Choice as Pat Robertson.

But, as someone once said (I wonder who? :rolleyes: )

You accuse others of "presenting an argument with bias" yet refuse to acknowledge your own habit of doing the same thing, by referring to (pro-gun) people as being "pro-death." You are the pot calling the kettle black.

If you refuse to acknowledge your own bias, then you better not respond to this at all, because if you do respond...and refuse to acknowledge your bias, you will be added to my ignore list. You are pissing me off far too much, and I'll not get banned because of you. I'd rather stick my fingers in my ears and say "I can't heeeeeeearrrrr youuuuuuuu!!!" You are rather good at that last bit, aren't you?

Guns may be used in numerous ways without being used to injure. Your saying otherwise will not change that.

Again, a little familliar snippit:
Axiom: Judge people by their ACTIONS...not their words. Listen not to their words. Listen instead to their ACTIONS. What do their ACTIONS tell you? I have never killed anyone with my guns. The closest I have ever come to killing someone was with my bare hands. Time to judge people by their ACTIONS not their POSSESSIONS. Thanks for playing.

DON'T YOU FUCKING DARE CALL ME A TROLL JJUST BECAUSE I HAPPEN TO HAVE AN OPINION DIFFERENT FROM YOURS!!!

DON'T YOU FUCKING DARE!!!

**Well, he's already answered....dammit. :)**

I think he has a problem because it's a very limited, uninformed, unsupportable opinion--not just because it's different. **Whoo hoo! I was right!**

You were saying that firearms exist only to hurt or kill (or to that effect anyway). Several examples were posted to the contrary--you kept with your original stance. They're used, much more often than not, for purposes other than hurting or killing humans.

It did seem rather trollish, ignoring facts and points to the contrary that were presented to you, and just barrelling ahead saying that the primary purpose of a firearm was to hurt and kill, when the majority of the use of firearms is clearly not to do so. Majority of use translates to current primary purpose, regardless of the original purpose in the 1300s.

Here's an example: the primary purpose of a car is to transport people, but can be quite a weapon if need be. This means that target and sporting endeavors are the primary purpose of a gun (since they are used for that purpose more than any other), but a secondary use would be for self-defense.

I'd just suggest getting a beer and calming down (I get to have one in an hour and a half! Whoo Hoo! And not any of that mass-produced swill we Americans have to put up with!)--maybe get over the emotionally damaging tie you seem to have in regard to firearms while you're at it, and look at the situation objectively. With facts and reality, not emotions or hearsay.

There are 300 million legally owned guns in America. Very few of them are used in the illegal killing of people here. Most of the guns that are used for murder are imported illegally, stolen, or manufactured by those that are already legally barred from possessing. More laws means more law-abiding citizens are hampered--the criminals using the guns for nefarious purposes aren't affected at all. That's the way it works in the US.

Again, golf clubs and fast cars are NOT designed with the primary intent to hurt or kill other creatures.

What else do you need with an instrument that lauches a projectile at great velocity, if not to harm or kill something?

The fact is...a gun's primary purpose is to hurt or kill. Not so golf clubs or cars.

You're partially right. People, like you, who believe that a firearms only purpose is to kill another human being should be prevented from owning firearms as the only thing you could possibly imagining doing w/ it is killing someone.

Its the people who sell the guns that are responisble for deaths caused by guns. They shouldnt just get a basic background check on the person, they should get a full background check, from pyschological history, to criminal records, to even school grades! heh, i sound like im writing a resoultion... but anyways, if they do that, then they probably wont sell a gun to a person who will use it to kill people!

I would SO love to see where you got that info! Then we in the US are doing it all wrong....you have so many more targets, clay pigeons, and deer being shot than humans. Damn, we're so BACKWARD.... :rolleyes:
Yeah guns were made to shoot clay pigeons that weren't in existence and targets that were actually human, before they invented the cardboard targets. For a proponent of gun ownership you really should know that guns were made for killing the enemy.

REALLY? Then why is the AK-47 so numerous around the globe? They didn't come from the US...
Yes...REALLY!!

The United States, Britain, Russia, France and China dominate today's $32 billion global arms trade. But the United States has pulled out in front. According to the U.S. government's own estimates, Washington's share of the business jumped from 16 percent in 1988 to 50 percent between 1992 and 1994. The sky seems to be the limit. According to a 1995 Pentagon forecast, the United States accounts for 63 percent of worldwide arms deals already signed for the period between 1994 and 2000.

I guess "target" shooting is the worlds' fastest growing fad?

I guess this is where the true irresponsibility of gun manufacturers is measured. Selling deadly weapons is truly big business.

Your point? Yes, the firearm is more effective when using it in that fashion. But murder is far and away NOT the most common use.
More people are killed by firearms in the US (66%) than any other weapon. The point is really self evident? BTW, when was the last drive by Stanley hammer incident?

Nope, Joe is stupid if he couldn't read his friend. If Jack was not Joe's friend, then Joe was REALLY stupid by loaning out something to an aquaintance. By the laws today, yes, Joe is an accomplice, but then again, I don't agree with several laws in the US.
Well at least we agree that Joe is an accomplice. If Joe had lent Jack his Stanley hammer, he wouldn't get charged as an accomplice.

Its the people who sell the guns that are responisble for deaths caused by guns. They shouldnt just get a basic background check on the person, they should get a full background check, from pyschological history, to criminal records, to even school grades! heh, i sound like im writing a resoultion... but anyways, if they do that, then they probably wont sell a gun to a person who will use it to kill people!


yes... because someone who pulls As in school won't go out and kill anyone...

Juv. records are locked, I believe, so even if you did check they may robbed/stabbed/insert your own action someone but it can't be seen. I might be wrong on this, but I think they're locked.

Pyschologically sound people may also suddenly snap and go on a murderous rage, as well.

Yeah guns were made to shoot clay pigeons that weren't in existence and targets that were actually human, before they invented the cardboard targets. For a proponent of gun ownership you really should know that guns were made for killing the enemy.

As Zaxon stated, what guns were originally invented for does NOT mean that's the only thing they're used for today!

edit for grammar and spelling. And to add Zaxon, since he remembers he wrote it.

Its the people who sell the guns that are responisble for deaths caused by guns. They shouldnt just get a basic background check on the person, they should get a full background check, from pyschological history, to criminal records, to even school grades! heh, i sound like im writing a resoultion... but anyways, if they do that, then they probably wont sell a gun to a person who will use it to kill people!

So, when I buy a car, they should perform all the same background checks, since I could use it to deliberately kill someone else--quite easily.

The logic doesn't extend....which, I'm afraid, means it isn't logic.

As someone else stated (Can't remember the name), what guns were originally invented for does NOT mean that's the only thing they're used for today!

edit for grammar and spelling

T'would be me. :)

<snip>Majority of use translates to current primary purpose, regardless of the original purpose in the 1300s. <snip>
A bit of "gun trivia" for everybody.

it has long been held that the early guns were of little use, and were more of a psychological threat than physically dangerous. This may stem from a well known manuscript - Froissart's Chroniques of the battle of Crécy in 1346; "The English fired of some cannons which they had brought to the battle to frighten the Genoese". If one takes this extract literally, it would seem that the purpose of the guns was only to create fear within the enemy, however Froissart does not mention why they were afraid, the noise alone would not neccessarily create panic within a contingent of hardened Genoese mercenaries, but seeing their comrades fall from unseen missiles shot from afar would allmost certainly create consternation in the ranks! http://www.middelaldercentret.dk/cannon2.htm

So the initial purpose of guns was to instill fear... and incidentially, maybe, the projectile would hit somthing.

Yeah guns were made to shoot clay pigeons that weren't in existence and targets that were actually human, before they invented the cardboard targets. For a proponent of gun ownership you really should know that guns were made for killing the enemy.


They were made for that in the 1300s, yes. The majority are designed and made for sporting purposes today.


I guess "target" shooting is the worlds' fastest growing fad?


Entirely possible. Cool!


I guess this is where the true irresponsibility of gun manufacturers is measured. Selling deadly weapons is truly big business.


Creating an item does not confer responsibility to those implementing the item. The item does not control the wielder--sorry.


More people are killed by firearms in the US (66%) than any other weapon. The point is really self evident? BTW, when was the last drive by Stanley hammer incident?


You will never see anything but an evil item. That's the terribly illogical part. You see a hammer, and there's nothing wrong there, but you see a gun, and oh my god, get away!!!


Well at least we agree that Joe is an accomplice. If Joe had lent Jack his Stanley hammer, he wouldn't get charged as an accomplice.

No, we don't. We agree that by law Joe is an accomplice. I don't agree with that law at all. Joe is not responsible for Jack's actions. Only Jack is responsible for Jack's actions. You're right, if Joe had lent the hammer, Joe wouldn't be an accomplice--that's how fucked up the law is--and why I don't agree with it.

A bit of "gun trivia" for everybody.

http://www.middelaldercentret.dk/cannon2.htm

So the initial purpose of guns was to instill fear... and incidentially, maybe, the projectile would hit somthing.

VERY interesting to know. THANKS! :)

http://www.corporatemofo.com/stories/021208guns.htm

Assuming this has become the usual *guns=god's gift to the world/guns=satans children* argument I'll leave that (rather good) article to state my beliefs on the subject.