Who is responsible for deaths caused by guns? [Archive] - Page 2

Kecibukia

02-08-2005, 22:24

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.

.

Wait a minute. I thought you were a proponent of Gov't control of firearms. All of those arms deals were to legitimate gov'ts w/ governmental approval. Are you saying that the Gov'ts are irresponsible and should be held accountable?

You also realize that the former primary dealer, the USSR, went away during that time and that the weapons sold previously don't just miraculously disappear. Instead of throwing out percents to skew the data, howabout some raw numbers and a source.

I noticed that you ignored the "hypotheticals" I presented to you. Why would that be?

Colerica

02-08-2005, 22:55

Of course, whomever pulled the trigger is the one responsible. Don't give me crap about indirect responsibility. If I stab my younger sister in the eye as she sits next to me with this shiny orange mechanical pencil I have on my computer desk, do you blame Unison for making it? What about Family Dollar for selling it to me? Or is it more of "blame the victim" that so many want to play today (blame goes to all but the person responsible, it seems), which, in this case, would mean that my sister is at fault for being in the same room as I.

Celtlund

02-08-2005, 23:49

1) If you kill someone with a frozen leg of lamb, should we sue the farmer? Execute sheep?

Hey, Alfred Hitchcock did a story about that. A policeman came home from work and got into an argument with his wife. The wife went to the freezer, took out a leg of lamb, and smacked her husband in the head with it killing him.

She then put the still frozen leg of lamb in the oven to cook, left the house, and went shopping for several hours. When she came home, she called the police and told them she found her husband dead when she came home.

While they were investigating, she pulls the leg of lamb out of the oven and makes a remark that the investigators should have some. She feeds the whole thing to them. Needless to say, they never found the murder weapon.

Celtlund

02-08-2005, 23:55

...but a gun is ALWAYS a lethal weapon

Not true. Ever heard of target practice and competition target shooting. Ever hear of skeet and trap?

Lyric

03-08-2005, 03:32

**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.

but they CAN...and often ARE used to hurt and kill people. Maybe you'd fucking feel differently about it if someone YOU loved got killed with a gun!!

Can you say you had a dear friend fucking MURDERED with a gun? I can. And the bastard that did it has yet to be caught.

so now maybe you understand why I feel as I do about guns. IF THEY DIDN'T MAKE THE MOTHERFUCKING THINGS, MY DEAR FRIEND WOULD STILL BE ALIVE!!!!!! GET IT????

Wizard Glass

03-08-2005, 03:35

but they CAN...and often ARE used to hurt and kill people. Maybe you'd fucking feel differently about it if someone YOU loved got killed with a gun!!

Can you say you had a dear friend fucking MURDERED with a gun? I can. And the bastard that did it has yet to be caught.

so now maybe you understand why I feel as I do about guns. IF THEY DIDN'T MAKE THE MOTHERFUCKING THINGS, MY DEAR FRIEND WOULD STILL BE ALIVE!!!!!! GET IT????

While I'm sorry for your loss, I can't agree with that last statement.

If someone wants someone else dead, they don't need a gun. In the absence of a gun, there are plenty of other things that are just as deadly... just not as common since the invention of the gun.

Cynigal

03-08-2005, 04:00

but they CAN...and often ARE used to hurt and kill people. Maybe you'd fucking feel differently about it if someone YOU loved got killed with a gun!!

Can you say you had a dear friend fucking MURDERED with a gun? I can. And the bastard that did it has yet to be caught.I'm sorry to hear it. No one in my immediate circle of aquaintances has been killed with anything. (Though I have been shot at... I live near Gary after all...)

At least you are correctly stating that your loved one was killed WITH a gun, not BY a gun. But would it makeyour pain any easier if they had been killed with a pitchfork? Or pair of panty hose? Obviously the problem isn't the think used to kill your loved one, it is the bastard that did it. And the Bastard got no justice. And your loved one didn't (couldn't because he/she was mandatorily disarmed?) shoot the bastard him/herself - leaving his/her tragic murder to fall into the cracks of the InJustice system. Wouldn't the CHOICE and ABILITY to defend yourself from evil bastards have been a good thing? Wouldn't it have been a far better thing if all you had to do was comfort your friend over the trauma of having to (scare away/injure/kill) his/her attacker rather than bury him/her?

so now maybe you understand why I feel as I do about guns. IF THEY DIDN'T MAKE THE MOTHERFUCKING THINGS, MY DEAR FRIEND WOULD STILL BE ALIVE!!!!!! GET IT???? No, I don't. Firearms have existed in one form or another since the (Deng?) Dynasty - for over 700 years. You can't unmake history. Pandoras box was opened long ago. All you can do is CHOOSE to do your best to survive when the Bastards come for you. Your friend was killed by an evil (or "possessed") person. If the Bastard was intent on killing your friend, there is verry little that anyone, or more appropriately any LAW, could have done about it.

It's too bad your loss has made you irrational on this point, but it doesn't make you any less irrational. Guns are tools. Moreover, they are easily made tools. Your insistance on invalidating my CHOICE because of your trauma and distaste is exactly the sort of thing you rightly rail against in the anti-abortion threads. Now, if you would like to debate the topic from a position of rationality, I would welcome your comments - but irrational/emotional outbursts, as poingant as they may be, will get you nowhere.

Lyric

03-08-2005, 06:23

I'm sorry to hear it. No one in my immediate circle of aquaintances has been killed with anything. (Though I have been shot at... I live near Gary after all...)

At least you are correctly stating that your loved one was killed WITH a gun, not BY a gun. But would it makeyour pain any easier if they had been killed with a pitchfork? Or pair of panty hose? Obviously the problem isn't the think used to kill your loved one, it is the bastard that did it. And the Bastard got no justice. And your loved one didn't (couldn't because he/she was mandatorily disarmed?) shoot the bastard him/herself - leaving his/her tragic murder to fall into the cracks of the InJustice system. Wouldn't the CHOICE and ABILITY to defend yourself from evil bastards have been a good thing? Wouldn't it have been a far better thing if all you had to do was comfort your friend over the trauma of having to (scare away/injure/kill) his/her attacker rather than bury him/her?

No, I don't. Firearms have existed in one form or another since the (Deng?) Dynasty - for over 700 years. You can't unmake history. Pandoras box was opened long ago. All you can do is CHOOSE to do your best to survive when the Bastards come for you. Your friend was killed by an evil (or "possessed") person. If the Bastard was intent on killing your friend, there is verry little that anyone, or more appropriately any LAW, could have done about it.

It's too bad your loss has made you irrational on this point, but it doesn't make you any less irrational. Guns are tools. Moreover, they are easily made tools. Your insistance on invalidating my CHOICE because of your trauma and distaste is exactly the sort of thing you rightly rail against in the anti-abortion threads. Now, if you would like to debate the topic from a position of rationality, I would welcome your comments - but irrational/emotional outbursts, as poingant as they may be, will get you nowhere.

No. My friend, I believe, was the target of a "hit." she was gunned down in her own front yard, as she was exiting her vehicle. she woulda had no chance to defend herself, even if she DID have a weapon, and I do not know for sure she did.

BUT, because it was done with a GUN...my friend had no chance to defend herself. If the bastard who shot her had had to get up close in order to kill her, my friend might be alive, or maybe the bastard would have been caught. Instead, BECAUSE HE HAD A GUN he was able to shoot from a distance, take out my friend, and make a nice, clean, quick getaway...and four years later...still, no suspects, no justice...and my friend is STILL DEAD!!

The reason I believe it was a "hit" is because my friend was a local civil rights activist, and was, at the time, making a huge stand against Winn-Dixie, and causing them a shitpile of well-deserved bad PR. And I believe someone at Winn-Dixie ordered her killed. Not that it'll ever get proved...especially not if the cops are in cahoots, which often happens when the biggest employer in town wants something done.

My friend had ZERO cahnce of defending herself, BECAUSE her attacker did NOT have to get up close and personal...and it is also why her attacker was able to make a clean, quick getaway. IF THERE WERE NO MOTHERFUCKING GUNS, MY FRIEND WOULD HAVE HAD A GOODAMN CHANCE TO BE ALIVE RIGHT NOW!!

Lyric

03-08-2005, 06:27

INow, if you would like to debate the topic from a position of rationality, I would welcome your comments - but irrational/emotional outbursts, as poingant as they may be, will get you nowhere.

YOU TRY FUCKING BEING RATIONAL WHEN YOU KNOW GODDAMN WELL THAT THE ONLY REASON YOUR FRIEND HAD NO CHANCE WHATSOEVER TO DEFEND HERSELF IS BECAUSE HER ATTACKER HAD A GODDAMN MOTHERFUCKING GUN, AND WAS ABLE TO SHOOT FROM A DISTANCE, HIDDEN, LIKE A GODDAMN COWARD...AND BECAUSE OF THAT, WAS ALSO ABLE TO MAKE A NICE CLEAN GETAWAY.

LET'S SEE HOW FUCKING RATIONAL YOU WANT TO BE WHEN SOMEONE YOU LOVE GETS KILLED WITH A MOTHERFUCKING GUN??

Wizard Glass

03-08-2005, 06:33

Valosia

03-08-2005, 07:44

My friend, I believe, was the target of a "hit."

Dude, if she was the target of a hit, they definitely could've found other ways to kill her other than guns and it wouldn't have mattered if they were that intent on killing her. Anyway, the gun that was used could've been illegally carried as well, or an illegal model. What good is banning guns when violent criminals still carry them? In Washington DC, guns are banned, and yet people still shoot up those neighborhoods.

Gun technology is old. Any country with an shred of manufacturing capability can make them. They will always be a part of the criminal element. If they weren't made here, they'd be getting shipped over from Mexico or somewhere.

Zaxon

03-08-2005, 11:29

but they CAN...and often ARE used to hurt and kill people. Maybe you'd fucking feel differently about it if someone YOU loved got killed with a gun!!

Can you say you had a dear friend fucking MURDERED with a gun? I can. And the bastard that did it has yet to be caught.

so now maybe you understand why I feel as I do about guns. IF THEY DIDN'T MAKE THE MOTHERFUCKING THINGS, MY DEAR FRIEND WOULD STILL BE ALIVE!!!!!! GET IT????

Hi, Bucksnort, long time no see.

And you're still blaming the gun. <sigh>

If you'll recall, my aunt was shot in Las Vegas. Yes, it's terrible and horrible--I know. But the gun isn't to blame. It's the person that shot her that bears the burden of responsibility--well, he would have, if he hadn't committed suicide along side her.

Beer and Guns

03-08-2005, 14:22

Hi, Bucksnort, long time no see.

And you're still blaming the gun. <sigh>

If you'll recall, my aunt was shot in Las Vegas. Yes, it's terrible and horrible--I know. But the gun isn't to blame. It's the person that shot her that bears the burden of responsibility--well, he would have, if he hadn't committed suicide along side her.

I never could understand how a rational thinking being could blame an inanimate object for an action done by an thinking animate being .

What did the gun do ...sneak into the house ...do a mind meld....controll the human like a puppet and force it to pull the trigger ? Maybe we should elect smart rocks and put guns in charge of the army . Next time I want to go someplace I'll just walk up to my car and demand it take me .

Syniks

03-08-2005, 15:13

YOU TRY FUCKING BEING RATIONAL WHEN YOU KNOW GODDAMN WELL THAT THE ONLY REASON YOUR FRIEND HAD NO CHANCE WHATSOEVER TO DEFEND HERSELF IS BECAUSE HER ATTACKER HAD A GODDAMN MOTHERFUCKING GUN, AND WAS ABLE TO SHOOT FROM A DISTANCE, HIDDEN, LIKE A GODDAMN COWARD...AND BECAUSE OF THAT, WAS ALSO ABLE TO MAKE A NICE CLEAN GETAWAY.

Uh huh. You obviously don't know much about contract personel.
:rolleyes: (If it were my job, I would have wired the car, but that's just my proclivity/fondness of explosives.)
If your friend was "Hit" there was almost NOTHING that could have been done to prevent it. Even the Secret Service knows this. Professional hit jobs have a 99% or better success rate BECAUSE the contractor is a professional the target doesn't know what's happening. Good wet work is done with knives, suppressed handguns or explosives. Sniping is too loud and there is a chance of missing.

Even if guns had been banned, what makes you think a contractor intent on shooting your friend would not have been able to acquire a gun? Hell, I MAKE (black powder) guns. Sniping with a good Flintlock is every bit as easy and effective as with a modern rifle (smellier though...)A Full Auto 9mm Submachine gun (with suppressor) can be made with hand tools in a couple of days... (http://spaces.msn.com/members/Syniks/PersonalSpace.aspx?_c01_photoalbum=showdefault&_c=photoalbum) and will be totally untracable.

LET'S SEE HOW FUCKING RATIONAL YOU WANT TO BE WHEN SOMEONE YOU LOVE GETS KILLED WITH A MOTHERFUCKING GUN??
I would be rational enough to get some help to get control of my anger/greif issues.

Zaxon

03-08-2005, 15:28

I would be rational enough to get some help to get control of my anger/grief issues.

<Dons mod-threat-resistant suit with anti-psychoanalysis-rant-resistant vest>

It's 'a comin'. I would know--I tried to get her to do it before.

Syniks

03-08-2005, 15:52

<Dons mod-threat-resistant suit with anti-psychoanalysis-rant-resistant vest>

It's 'a comin'. I would know--I tried to get her to do it before.
She's not Tom Cruise. What do Unitarians have against Therapy/Psychoanalysis? Besides, IIRC she has intimated has a pretty good working knowledge of the DSM...

But whatever. I'm not trying to psychoanalyze, I am just noting that someone seems to be stuck in ALLCAPS aneurysm mode.

Lyric

03-08-2005, 16:02

Uh huh. You obviously don't know much about contract personel.
:rolleyes: If it were my job, I would have wired the car, but that's just my proclivity toward explosives.
If your friend was "Hit" there was almost NOTHING that could have been done to prevent it. Even the Secret Service knows this. Professional hit jobs have a 99% or better success rate BECAUSE the contractor is a professional the target doesn't know what's happening. Good wet work is done with knives, suppressed handguns or explosives. Sniping is too loud and there is a chance of missing.

Even if guns had been banned, what makes you think a contractor intent on shooting your friend would not have been able to acquire a gun? Hell, I MAKE (black powder) guns. Sniping with a good Flintlock is every bit as easy and effective as with a modern rifle (smellier though...)A Full Auto 9mm Submachine gun (with suppressor) can be made with hand tools in a couple of days... (http://spaces.msn.com/members/Syniks/PersonalSpace.aspx?_c01_photoalbum=showdefault&_c=photoalbum) and will be totally untracable.

I would be rational enough to get some help to get control of my anger/greif issues.

Still...If guns HAD NEVER FUCKING BEEN INVENTED then my friend would be alive, or at least would have had a chance to defend herself, goddamnit.

No, she was killed by a piece of shit coward who had to hide long distance away, where my friend could not know what was coming, and thus, could not defend herself.

And the GUN is what ENABLED the piece of shit who killed my friend...to do it in that manner. Because her attacker had a gun, her attacker was able to take out my friend, in a manner in which she had no possible way to defend herself, and that allowed her attacker to make a nice, clean, quick getaway! Fucking cowardly little piece of shit didn't have the nerve to give her a chance to defend herself! AND THAT...that is why I fucking hate guns! You can't fucking defend yourself against a gun! If some asshole wants to take you out with a gun, there's nothing in the world you can do to stop them, or to defend yourself.

Zaxon

03-08-2005, 16:07

She's not Tom Cruise. What do Unitarians have against Therapy/Psychoanalysis? Besides, IIRC she has intimated has a pretty good working knowledge of the DSM...

It's not any of the groups she's associated with. It's just her. She doesn't see anything wrong with her, internally. She's got a lot of pain and anger, and she's not doing anything to reconcile and get rid of it. She seems to want to wallow in it, lashing out at everything she believes is attacking her, and won't do anything to get rid of the bile buildup in her psyche. Angsting and railing at the unfairness of the world was part of life as a teenager--not an adult.

There I go again, with my non-professional analyzing again... I better duck.

But whatever. I'm not trying to psychoanalyze, I am just noting that someone seems to be stuck in ALLCAPS aneurysm mode.

Yah, 'tis a symptom.

Syniks

03-08-2005, 16:22

Still...If guns HAD NEVER FUCKING BEEN INVENTED then my friend would be alive, or at least would have had a chance to defend herself, goddamnit. If guns had never been invented she would have been shot with a crossbow. Or a Long/Compound/Recurve bow. Or a Blow Gun. Or Atlatl. Or Hunting Boomerang. Or a Sling (David & Goliath?). Ranged weapons have been around for a long time. The oldest atlatls in the world date back over 25,000 years in N.W Africa. The late Upper Paleolithic Magdalenian peoples of Europe made beautifully carved specimens from antler and bone 17,000 years ago.

Unless you want to go around wearing Full Plate armor, nothing is going to stop someone killing you from a distance with one of those either. Trust me, contractors can get very creative when the need arises.
No, she was killed by a piece of shit coward who had to hide long distance away, where my friend could not know what was coming, and thus, could not defend herself. I don't disagree with you here.
And the GUN is what ENABLED the piece of shit who killed my friend...to do it in that manner. Because her attacker had a gun, her attacker was able to take out my friend, in a manner in which she had no possible way to defend herself, and that allowed her attacker to make a nice, clean, quick getaway!No. See above. There were a variety of ranged weapons a contractor could have used, all of which would have been equally lethal and allowed a clean getaway.
Fucking cowardly little piece of shit didn't have the nerve to give her a chance to defend herself!Can't argue with you here.
AND THAT...that is why I fucking hate guns! You can't fucking defend yourself against a gun! If some asshole wants to take you out with a gun, there's nothing in the world you can do to stop them, or to defend yourself.Except to wear body armor if you have a high-risk job (as I have done) or have a reasonable concern of a "hit" (you can get one from the Police) but why quibble?... modern body armor won't stop an arrow, and plate armor won't stop a bullet. If someone wants you dead badly enough nothing is going to save you.

I can understand, and dissagree with, the position that no one should be allowed access to firearms. But it is pathologically irrational to so FORCEFULLY wish somthing had never been invented. Imagine Pat Robertson wishing that surgery hadn't been invented so you couldn't have had your operation...

Edit: PS, Terrianne was shot in the back of the head, remember? That type of killing doesn't require a gun. It can just as easily be done with a strong slingshot and a steel ball bearing.

Kecibukia

03-08-2005, 17:58

Still...If guns HAD NEVER FUCKING BEEN INVENTED .

IIRC, in your previous incarnation, you OWNED a gun that you kept at home and went through all the licensing requirements. Your arguement at the time was effectively that no one else should be allowed to have them because "you" didn't know what they "might" do w/ it.

Have you sold said gun and changed your position? If you haven't, you're just being a hypocrite.

How's the dog BTW?

Kecibukia

03-08-2005, 18:22

I'd have to say the silly son of a bitch who made me shoot him ;)

That's the kind of logic used when people say that criminals are "forced" to arm themselves against armed homeowners.

Thekalu

03-08-2005, 18:24

I'd have to say the silly son of a bitch who made me shoot him ;)

Zaxon

03-08-2005, 19:30

Kecibukia

03-08-2005, 20:56

Good memory....wow.

Psychotic rants tend to be memorable.

Colerica

03-08-2005, 21:12

Still...If guns HAD NEVER FUCKING BEEN INVENTED then my friend would be alive, or at least would have had a chance to defend herself, goddamnit.

No, she wouldn't have. If it was actually a 'hit' as you believe it to be, than she would still be as dead as Jimmy Hoffa and Elvis. It does not require a gun to kill someone at a distance.

No, she was killed by a piece of shit coward who had to hide long distance away, where my friend could not know what was coming, and thus, could not defend herself.

And she would have been able to defend herself if the man walked up to her and stabbed her?

And the GUN is what ENABLED the piece of shit who killed my friend...to do it in that manner.

No, the gun is what the man used. Nothing more; nothing less. He could have shot her with a crossbow bolt or an arrow or, hell, thrown a rock at her. It does not require a gun to kill someone from a distance.

Because her attacker had a gun, her attacker was able to take out my friend, in a manner in which she had no possible way to defend herself, and that allowed her attacker to make a nice, clean, quick getaway!

How did the firearm allow her attacker to make a getaway? Did he straddle the gun and ride like the wind? Did he trade the gun for a car and blaze off, never to be seen again? Peddle his way out on a unicycle?

AND THAT...that is why I fucking hate guns!

I had a family member who was shot and killed. Do I hate firearms? No.

You can't fucking defend yourself against a gun!

Shoot first.

If some asshole wants to take you out with a gun, there's nothing in the world you can do to stop them, or to defend yourself.

If some asshole wants to take you out with a bow, there's nothing in the world you can do to stop them or to defend yourself. If some asshole wants to take you out with a knife, there's nothing in the world you can do to stop them or to defend yourself. If some asshole wants to take you out with a watermelon, there's nothing in the world you can do to stop them or to defend yourself.

Get the picture?

Kecibukia

03-08-2005, 21:18

I put Non of the Above on the poll. My explanation? Very simple:

Guns don't kill people. People don't kill people. BULLETS kill people. Tax the snot out of bullets making them extremely expensive. Hard to kill someone with a gun when you have no ammo....

Kind of like what California's trying to do. So instead of the firearms companies going bankrupt, the ammunition companies will. Great plan. I'm sure the military and police will appreciate having to buy their ammo from overseas.

Irico

03-08-2005, 21:18

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 put None of the Above on the poll. My explanation? Very simple:

Guns don't kill people. People don't kill people. BULLETS kill people. Tax the snot out of bullets making them extremely expensive. Hard to kill someone with a gun when you have no ammo....

Syniks

03-08-2005, 21:22

<snip>And she would have been able to defend herself if the man walked up to her and stabbed her? <snip> It is quite possible she could have. Lyric is proposing that she was closely associated with Terrianne Summer, a 51 y/o transgendered activist that was killed, assaination style, in front of her home in Jacksonville FL in December 2001.

Ms. Summer was known to carry pepper spray and at least own a firearm.

There are only 2 ways in which someone can be shot in the back of the head (while not restrained). One is to be sniped, the other is to be approached by an otherwise trusted person and shot at close range. I haven't found the medical report, so I don't know what kind of bullet made the hole.

Given her status as an agitator/activist either situation could apply. I tend to agree that the Summer killing was a "hit" (rather than a random "driveby") and therefore her death was essentially unpreventable.

Syniks

03-08-2005, 21:24

Guns don't kill people. People don't kill people. BULLETS kill people. Tax the snot out of bullets making them extremely expensive. Hard to kill someone with a gun when you have no ammo....Sorry. I make my own. No "tax" can stop that.

Kecibukia

03-08-2005, 21:28

I didn't say there weren't any problems with my plan, i just offered it up as one possible solution. Maybe the military and police could get a discount or something

Even still, the majority of ammuntion is bought by civilians. Making ammo to expensive will drive the companies out of business leaving our police and military at the whims of foreign interests.

It would also destroy the reloading industry.

It would also do nothing to stop black market imports => once again, leaving Law abiding citizens at the mercy of criminals.

Irico

03-08-2005, 21:30

Kind of like what California's trying to do. So instead of the firearms companies going bankrupt, the ammunition companies will. Great plan. I'm sure the military and police will appreciate having to buy their ammo from overseas.

I didn't say there weren't any problems with my plan, i just offered it up as one possible solution. Maybe the military and police could get a discount or something

Zaxon

03-08-2005, 21:46

I put None of the Above on the poll. My explanation? Very simple:

Guns don't kill people. People don't kill people. BULLETS kill people. Tax the snot out of bullets making them extremely expensive. Hard to kill someone with a gun when you have no ammo....

Also hard for anyone to practive and actually be able to hit their intended target, instead of the innocent bystander off to the side. Yeah, brilliant.

Kecibukia

03-08-2005, 21:55

Sorry. I make my own. No "tax" can stop that.

Unless they so some sort of serialization or registration thing, like CA.

Syniks

03-08-2005, 22:01

Unless they so some sort of serialization or registration thing, like CA.
How do you mean? I make my own Nitrocellulose Powder, I cast my own lead, I have plenty of brass, primers are a pain, but they are reusable if you do it right.

More practically, I have a cap & ball revolver and can make #11 caps all day. So taxation of ammunition can't stop me from staying armed any more than banning guns can.

Kecibukia

03-08-2005, 22:07

How do you mean? I make my own Nitrocellulose Powder, I cast my own lead, I have plenty of brass, primers are a pain, but they are reusable if you do it right.

More practically, I have a cap & ball revolver and can make #11 caps all day. So taxation of ammunition can't stop me from staying armed any more than banning guns can.

What I'm saying is if they require ammo to be serialized and registered like the CA plan, then home-loading would be illegal unless you bought engravers and had the capabilities to register your ammo.

I'm sure they would find some way to make the C&B revolver illegal as a "loop-hole"

Syniks

03-08-2005, 22:32

What I'm saying is if they require ammo to be serialized and registered like the CA plan, then home-loading would be illegal unless you bought engravers and had the capabilities to register your ammo.

I'm sure they would find some way to make the C&B revolver illegal as a "loop-hole"
Well, since Cali can barely keep container ships full of AKs out of the State, I'm not too worried that any "bullet serialization" law will have any effect.

Kecibukia

03-08-2005, 22:50

Well, since Cali can barely keep container ships full of AKs out of the State, I'm not too worried that any "bullet serialization" law will have any effect.

Well sure, that had nothing to do w/ disarming LAC's. If it had, they would have gone all out. :)

Lyric

03-08-2005, 22:55

If guns had never been invented she would have been shot with a crossbow. Or a Long/Compound/Recurve bow. Or a Blow Gun. Or Atlatl. Or Hunting Boomerang. Or a Sling (David & Goliath?). Ranged weapons have been around for a long time. The oldest atlatls in the world date back over 25,000 years in N.W Africa. The late Upper Paleolithic Magdalenian peoples of Europe made beautifully carved specimens from antler and bone 17,000 years ago.

Unless you want to go around wearing Full Plate armor, nothing is going to stop someone killing you from a distance with one of those either. Trust me, contractors can get very creative when the need arises.
I don't disagree with you here.
No. See above. There were a variety of ranged weapons a contractor could have used, all of which would have been equally lethal and allowed a clean getaway.
Can't argue with you here.
Except to wear body armor if you have a high-risk job (as I have done) or have a reasonable concern of a "hit" (you can get one from the Police) but why quibble?... modern body armor won't stop an arrow, and plate armor won't stop a bullet. If someone wants you dead badly enough nothing is going to save you.

I can understand, and dissagree with, the position that no one should be allowed access to firearms. But it is pathologically irrational to so FORCEFULLY wish somthing had never been invented. Imagine Pat Robertson wishing that surgery hadn't been invented so you couldn't have had your operation...

Edit: PS, Terrianne was shot in the back of the head, remember? That type of killing doesn't require a gun. It can just as easily be done with a strong slingshot and a steel ball bearing.

I'm amazed you remembered her name. Did you go thru previous postings or did you just remember? Well, they still haven't caught the piece of shit that killed Terrianne, and I doubt they ever will...in fact, I doubt law enforcement, or hardly anyone else...even gives a fuck! Why should they...after all, she was a "freak" that probably deserved to get killed, don't you know it?

Bitter? Bet your ass I am!

Lyric

03-08-2005, 22:59

IIRC, in your previous incarnation, you OWNED a gun that you kept at home and went through all the licensing requirements. Your arguement at the time was effectively that no one else should be allowed to have them because "you" didn't know what they "might" do w/ it.

Have you sold said gun and changed your position? If you haven't, you're just being a hypocrite.

How's the dog BTW?
Quite correct. I did own a gun. I sold it, because I have since moved in with my mom, who would not want a gun in her household, and I can respect that. My gun, incidentally, was a Mossberg 12-gauge pistol-grip shotgun, intended for home defense only, and it sat in a closet gathering dust, mostly. I said before, that I hoped to God I never had to use it. Thankfully, I never did.

I chose that particular gun, incidentally, because I'm a lousy shot. You don't have to be a good shot with the kind of gun I had...the spread would get the bad guy.

As I said, thankfully, I never had to use it. The only reason I had it, back then, was because I lived in the sort of neighborhood that pretty much REQUIRED it, if you can understand what I'm saying. Nowadays, I live out in the middle of the sticks. Good luck to anyone trying to find me out here, and so, there's no real NEED to have a gun here, anyway. Not likely anyone's even gonna FIND this place!

By the way, the dog is good. She loves her new home, cuz she's got over an acre of land to run on. and thanks for askin' about the dog.

Lyric

03-08-2005, 23:05

No, she wouldn't have. If it was actually a 'hit' as you believe it to be, than she would still be as dead as Jimmy Hoffa and Elvis. It does not require a gun to kill someone at a distance.

And she would have been able to defend herself if the man walked up to her and stabbed her?

No, the gun is what the man used. Nothing more; nothing less. He could have shot her with a crossbow bolt or an arrow or, hell, thrown a rock at her. It does not require a gun to kill someone from a distance.

How did the firearm allow her attacker to make a getaway? Did he straddle the gun and ride like the wind? Did he trade the gun for a car and blaze off, never to be seen again? Peddle his way out on a unicycle?

I had a family member who was shot and killed. Do I hate firearms? No.

Shoot first.

If some asshole wants to take you out with a bow, there's nothing in the world you can do to stop them or to defend yourself. If some asshole wants to take you out with a knife, there's nothing in the world you can do to stop them or to defend yourself. If some asshole wants to take you out with a watermelon, there's nothing in the world you can do to stop them or to defend yourself.

Get the picture?

wrong. If some asshole wants to take you out with a knife, at least they gotta get up close to do it. Then you get a chance to defend yourself...maybe even take the knife away from the son of a bitch, and use it against him.

See, a gun, or any other distance weapon, enables a piece of shit coward the element of complete surprise, you are dead before you even HEAR the shot that kills your ass!

At least, with a knife, or a crow bar, or any number of other things that can be used to kill...they gotta get up close. where you get a chance to defend yourself.

And, because the attacker WAS at a distance, he/she would very easily be able to "go native" seconds after the shooting. No high-speed getaway needed, because there were no witnesses!

My friend never had a chance to even SCREAM, to attract witnesses.

You see, a GUN does ENABLE some cowardly piece of shit...more so than other insturments that can be used to kill.

Lyric

03-08-2005, 23:13

It is quite possible she could have. Lyric is proposing that she was closely associated with Terrianne Summer, a 51 y/o transgendered activist that was killed, assaination style, in front of her home in Jacksonville FL in December 2001.

Ms. Summer was known to carry pepper spray and at least own a firearm.

There are only 2 ways in which someone can be shot in the back of the head (while not restrained). One is to be sniped, the other is to be approached by an otherwise trusted person and shot at close range. I haven't found the medical report, so I don't know what kind of bullet made the hole.

Given her status as an agitator/activist either situation could apply. I tend to agree that the Summer killing was a "hit" (rather than a random "driveby") and therefore her death was essentially unpreventable.

Holy Jesus Christ...have you done some RESEARCH on my friend?? You nailed it! Terrianne Summers, of Jacksonville, Florida...is indeed exactly who I was talking about. And, indeed you are quite correct in that she was a 51 year old transgender activist (and incidentally, she taught me everything I know about activism...that's how we came to be friends) and yes...she carried pepper spray and packed a gun at all times. and yes, she was shot in the back of the head, on her own front lawn....from a distance. All correct.

And, as you know she was an agitator/activist, who was currently engaged in a negative-PR campaign against Winn-Dixie grocery stores for their firing of Peter Oiler, a 24-year veteran truck driver with the company, who had a perfect safety record. The only reason Oiler was fired was because he sometimes liked to cross-dress off duty, and off company premises. Oiler was fired for activities he engaged in on his own time, and off company premises! And the activities in which he engaged were entirely legal! and so Winn-Dixie deserved every last bit of negative PR and HELL that Terrianne knew how to give them!

And because she was SO GOOD as an agitator/activist...I really DO believe her murder was a hit. But no one will ever be able to prove it. I doubt anyone will ever even be punished for the crime.

Kecibukia

03-08-2005, 23:15

Quite correct. I did own a gun. I sold it, because I have since moved in with my mom, who would not want a gun in her household, and I can respect that. My gun, incidentally, was a Mossberg 12-gauge pistol-grip shotgun, intended for home defense only, and it sat in a closet gathering dust, mostly. I said before, that I hoped to God I never had to use it. Thankfully, I never did.

I chose that particular gun, incidentally, because I'm a lousy shot. You don't have to be a good shot with the kind of gun I had...the spread would get the bad guy.

As I said, thankfully, I never had to use it. The only reason I had it, back then, was because I lived in the sort of neighborhood that pretty much REQUIRED it, if you can understand what I'm saying. Nowadays, I live out in the middle of the sticks. Good luck to anyone trying to find me out here, and so, there's no real NEED to have a gun here, anyway. Not likely anyone's even gonna FIND this place!

By the way, the dog is good. She loves her new home, cuz she's got over an acre of land to run on. and thanks for askin' about the dog.

It's interesting to note that the Mossburgs are frequently targeted by various gun banning organizations/politicians.

I also live out in the country and find just as much need for a firearm as in the city. Where I live there are packs of coyotes & coy-dogs that have been known to attack livestock and children.

I never want to have to use my guns in self-defense. Most of mine are actually for sporting purposes. However, if the need arises, I don't want to be unprepared.

I support "tough on crime" laws that actually affect criminals (especially those using firearms or committing sexual assaults) and tougher border policy/ immigration laws. I can't support laws whose only purpose (in deed if not word) is to disarm people who actually follow the laws or just blame the instrument.

Glad the pooch is doing well.

Syniks

03-08-2005, 23:15

I'm amazed you remembered her name. Did you go thru previous postings or did you just remember?Simple deduction.

(A) You are a TS.
(B) There has been only one killing within recent memory that meets the facts AND the criteria of being of personal interest to a TS.
(C) A TS friend of mine & I discussed the incident not long after it happened.
(D) A quick Google refreshed my memory for names and dates.

Well, they still haven't caught the piece of shit that killed Terrianne, and I doubt they ever will...in fact, I doubt law enforcement, or hardly anyone else...even gives a fuck! Why should they...after all, she was a "freak" that probably deserved to get killed, don't you know it?Law enforcement RARELY gets involved in contract killings. Professionals rarely make mistakes that LE can follow up on. Contractors usually don't get caught until somebody rats them out or somebody shoots back first.

Homicides are solved because there is usually some relationship between the deceased and the killer - either by Drug Connection, Familial Ties, Aquaintance or whatever, or by following hints of braggadocio, or by witness recognition/evidence traceable back to local enviorns.

Pros rarely live where they work and look very normal and unassuming. Their weapons are undocumented, sterile and disposable. LE could have the murder weapon in their hand, spend their entire budget looking for the Pro and come up with nothing. They would much rather spend less and come up with more. Can you blame them when there are serial rapists and Child molesters out there?

Bitter? Bet your ass I am! What you need to be doing (though it is probably too late now) is a "Silkwood". Figure out within X% reasonableness that Winn-Dixie had somthething to do with it and sue. Who knows, maybe you'll get a sympathetic jury - but you are not going to catch a Pro... someone will have to give him/her up.

Lyric

03-08-2005, 23:21

Simple deduction.

(A) You are a TS.
(B) There has been only one killing within recent memory that meets the facts AND the criteria of being of personal interest to a TS.
(C) A TS friend of mine & I discussed the incident not long after it happened.
(D) A quick Google refreshed my memory for names and dates.

Law enforcement RARELY gets involved in contract killings. Professionals rarely make mistakes that LE can follow up on. Contractors usually don't get caught until somebody rats them out or somebody shoots back first.

Homicides are solved because there is usually some relationship between the deceased and the killer - either by Drug Connection, Familial Ties, Aquaintance or whatever, or by following hints of braggadocio, or by witness recognition/evidence traceable back to local enviorns.

Pros rarely live where they work and look very normal and unassuming. Their weapons are undocumented, sterile and disposable. LE could have the murder weapon in their hand, spend their entire budget looking for the Pro and come up with nothing. They would much rather spend less and come up with more. Can you blame them when there are serial rapists and Child molesters out there?

What you need to be doing (though it is probably too late now) is a "Silkwood". Figure out within X% reasonableness that Winn-Dixie had somthething to do with it and sue. Who knows, maybe you'll get a sympathetic jury - but you are not going to catch a Pro... someone will have to give him/her up.

well, even if I could prove Winn-Dixie was behind it...I have no grounds to sue. Being as I am not blood-related...we were just good friends...I don't have grounds to sue them.

But, dammit, I WANT SOMEONE TO PAY FOR TERRIANNE'S MURDER!!

Do you understand NOW why I want to hold gun manufactureres, /sellers, and ammo sellers/manufacturers accountable?? Goddamnit I want SOMEONE to pay for it, and, at this point, I don't even give a shit who. I just want someone to pay! you'd feel the same way.

Incidentally, if your TS friend knew Terrianne, there's a good chance she knows ME, too. But you put all the links together, and you figured out exactly who my friend was...and the circumstances surrounding her murder.

I'm tipping my hat to you on the thoroughness of your research, and the accuracy of your deductions...you would make a decent Sherlock Holmes! and I mean that as a compliment.

Syniks

03-08-2005, 23:28

wrong. If some asshole wants to take you out with a knife, at least they gotta get up close to do it. Then you get a chance to defend yourself...maybe even take the knife away from the son of a bitch, and use it against him.

See, a gun, or any other distance weapon, enables a piece of shit coward the element of complete surprise, you are dead before you even HEAR the shot that kills your ass!

At least, with a knife, or a crow bar, or any number of other things that can be used to kill...they gotta get up close. where you get a chance to defend yourself.

And, because the attacker WAS at a distance, he/she would very easily be able to "go native" seconds after the shooting. No high-speed getaway needed, because there were no witnesses!

My friend never had a chance to even SCREAM, to attract witnesses.

You see, a GUN does ENABLE some cowardly piece of shit...more so than other insturments that can be used to kill.Now you see, here is the interesting bit:

Terrianne, as you say, carried pepper spray and a gun. Had she been attacked with a crowbar she COULD have defended herself. But your stance on firearms would have denied her that Right and Choice.

Had she been disarmed and beaten to death, would you feel any less greif?

A murder is a murder. It is not the fault of the tool used, but the fault of the murderer. I prefer that people maintain the Right to Choose whether or how they can defend themselves from physical confrontation. All in all, Sniper-murders are blessedly rare - even more so than professional jobs - so all most people have to worry about is Close Quarters, visible defense. Terrianne knew this, sho she carried appropriate tools. She just wasn't any more capable of dealing with a sniper than any Combat Troop is. A good sniper will get you every time... whether it be with a gun or bow.

Kecibukia

03-08-2005, 23:32

well, even if I could prove Winn-Dixie was behind it...I have no grounds to sue. Being as I am not blood-related...we were just good friends...I don't have grounds to sue them.

But, dammit, I WANT SOMEONE TO PAY FOR TERRIANNE'S MURDER!!

Do you understand NOW why I want to hold gun manufactureres, /sellers, and ammo sellers/manufacturers accountable?? Goddamnit I want SOMEONE to pay for it, and, at this point, I don't even give a shit who. I just want someone to pay! you'd feel the same way.

Incidentally, if your TS friend knew Terrianne, there's a good chance she knows ME, too. But you put all the links together, and you figured out exactly who my friend was...and the circumstances surrounding her murder.

I'm tipping my hat to you on the thoroughness of your research, and the accuracy of your deductions...you would make a decent Sherlock Holmes! and I mean that as a compliment.

I can understand where you're coming from partially. I lost my dad to an industrial accident and the company worked hard to cover up faulty/uncompleted maintenance. It will be in court for years.

Blaming the manufacturers will not do anything to reduce incidents like what happened to your friend (or my dad). It will only make it harder for regular people to protect themselves from criminals along with all the other effects of not having a native firearm industry.

If you want a cause, go after the criminals, the ones who actually commit the crimes, who are allowed free by the revolving door "criminal justice" system.

Syniks

03-08-2005, 23:44

well, even if I could prove Winn-Dixie was behind it...I have no grounds to sue. Being as I am not blood-related...we were just good friends...I don't have grounds to sue them.

But, dammit, I WANT SOMEONE TO PAY FOR TERRIANNE'S MURDER!!

Do you understand NOW why I want to hold gun manufactureres, /sellers, and ammo sellers/manufacturers accountable?? Goddamnit I want SOMEONE to pay for it, and, at this point, I don't even give a shit who. I just want someone to pay! you'd feel the same way. No, I wouldn't. You ase saying that you would find it Ethical and Just to punish innocent people for no other reason than your hurt feelings. Would you punish all the employees of D-Con, and the stores that sell it, and the people that use it legally, because a criminal used their Rat Poison to kill your mother? Sure, Rat Poison is made to kill but it was not made to kill your mother. Neither was the gun that was used to kill Terrianne made for the purpose of killing her.

That is what you are suggesting, that every law abiding gun owner, that every law abiding employee of gun manufacturers and retailers, be punished because someone used their product for a purpose for which it was not intended.
Incidentally, if your TS friend knew Terrianne, there's a good chance she knows ME, too. But you put all the links together, and you figured out exactly who my friend was...and the circumstances surrounding her murder.
As far as I know they never met. It is possible, as both had been in the Navy, but they were of different ages. But at the time we were on the opposite corner of the country and just picked it up from the GLBT grapevine.
I'm tipping my hat to you on the thoroughness of your research, and the accuracy of your deductions...you would make a decent Sherlock Holmes! and I mean that as a compliment.Thank you.

Secret aj man

04-08-2005, 01:39

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.

guns are also produced to defend helpless or weaker people to defend themselves against stronger or more dangerous attackers.

people use hanguns for deer hunting,camp protection from bears,self defense...etc.

very myoptic view you have.

the illicit drug manufacturer is a very poor analogy.i am all for legalising drugs,though i really dont partake any more.the simple fact is you cant compare a illicit/unregulated drug dealer(who has no responsibility for his products safety)with a legitimate business that is heavily regulated,and i might add,if the gun maker makes a defective product,they will be sued(firestone tires comes to mind)and be held accountable and be forced to implement corrections to their product.
the drug dealer has neither responsibilities(unless you are a legit pharma company)

sounds like you have a very closed mind towards guns and gun ownership.

i have many guns and take my ownership of lethal weapons quite seriously,as i do while driving my 3000 pound lethal weapon car.

if i am drunk and act recklessly driving...sue the car company?

i am not responsible for my behaviour with a lethal device?

hate to say it,but you are unbeliavably naive or friggen brainwashed by utopian lefties

how about if i am a guy that makes guns out of my garage(i can but it is illegal so i dont)actually anyone can make a gun,if i make an ilegal weapon that is used in a crime..i can damn sure bet i would be held accountable.

gun manufacturers follow federal rules,as do car makers,kids toys,you name it.if they make a defective product,they are held accountable.

"using YOUR logic"if tyco or mattel makes a baseball bat,and your 10 year old bashes someone in the head with it,tyco or mattel is responsible?

wow i am incredulous at some people,i can understand fear of guns or not liking guns...but your argument is flat out without merit...period.

dare i say you are probably a liberal college student that has bought the leftist bs about...gee if we got rid of guns we will all be dancing in fields of flowers...lol...if not..i apologize..just i am floored at how,how to say this nicely,stupid your reasons are and show alot about your influences.

by the by...i have never ever fired a gun in anger in 40+ years.

and i am not a neo con,conservative or a liberal. :headbang:

Secret aj man

04-08-2005, 01:56

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]

amen and amen ;)

Secret aj man

04-08-2005, 02:50

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.

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

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

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.

america isn't a democracy by the way..it is a constitutional republic..ie...bill of rights.

to the quote...democracy is 3 wolves and a deer deciding on the dinner menu...funny i thought

Colerica

04-08-2005, 04:00

america isn't a democracy by the way..it is a constitutional republic..ie...bill of rights.

Thank you! Finally, someone else who gets it. :)

Lyric

04-08-2005, 05:46

Thank you! Finally, someone else who gets it. :)

Actually...not quite!

In theory, we, the United States, are a Representative Republic...and governed by the rule of law (the Constitution.)

In actuality, this country is any of the following, take your pick, there's elements of all of them in our current setup, and they all suck...

An Oligarchy
A Theocracy
A Corporatocracy
A Plutocracy

The idea, or notion, that the common man is represented is fucking laughable.

Colerica

04-08-2005, 06:53

Actually...not quite!

In theory, we, the United States, are a Representative Republic...and governed by the rule of law (the Constitution.)

In actuality, this country is any of the following, take your pick, there's elements of all of them in our current setup, and they all suck...

An Oligarchy
A Theocracy
A Corporatocracy
A Plutocracy

The idea, or notion, that the common man is represented is fucking laughable.

Actually....you're wrong. The United States of America is indeed a Constitutional Republic where the people are subject to the law of the land (the Constitution) and are represented by elected officials. Moreover, we are far from an oligarchy; theocracy; 'corporatocracy;' or -- though it may seem to be the opposite way -- a plutocracy (money can't control everything and it doesn't, contrary to what the Left wants us all to believe). The US executive branch is undisputedly the most powerful of the three branches and has been that way since the mid-1800's (Caeser Lincoln, can you hear me?) and was further strengthened (to extreme amounts) by FDR in his grabs for executive power (anyone up for attempting to pack the Supreme Court?). In that sense, we feature an uber-strong executive flanked by a paper tiger legislature and a step-over-their-legal-bounds court system (judges intrept laws; they don't make them). The idea, however, that the nation isn't properly represented, I will agree with.

Zaxon

04-08-2005, 11:41

Naturality

04-08-2005, 11:45

I am sooo glad majority of voters chose the one with the gun. This being a liberal leaning site.. that answer gives me hope.

Lyric

04-08-2005, 15:55

I am sooo glad majority of voters chose the one with the gun. This being a liberal leaning site.. that answer gives me hope.

You know, I wouldn't mind conservatives so much if they would stay the fuck out of my private life!!

Syniks

04-08-2005, 15:59

You know, I wouldn't mind conservatives so much if they would stay the fuck out of my private life!!
Which is exactly what Conservatives say about Liberals, and I say to both! :D

Colerica

04-08-2005, 16:54

You know, I wouldn't mind conservatives so much if they would stay the fuck out of my private life!!

Hah! The irony!

Syniks

04-08-2005, 16:56

<snip>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
Back to the original Topic... I'm all for keeping product (manufacturer) liability restrained to manufacturing defects, but I'm fairly concerned about this bill.

I've been especially concerned with Part One of Sec. 6, which gives an awful lot of arbitratry power to the Attorney General.

*edit* http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:2:./temp/~c109kGS7wJ:e20799:

THIS SECTION COULD ALLOW ALL CENTERFIRE (hunting) RIFLE AMMUNITION TO BE BANNED

Here's how.

Part One of Sec. 6 makes it illegal to make, import, sell or deliver any "armor-piercing" ammunition EXCEPT:

1) For the use of state and federal government departments or agencies.
2) For export
3) For Attorney General-approved testing.

Part Two "enhances" criminal sentences for anyone who possesses "armor-piercing" ammunition during the commission of a crime. (an incident factor currently so low as to be statistically, if not in reality ZERO)

Part Three is where the trap is really sprung. Because this part instructs the U.S. Attorney General to "conduct a study to determine whether a uniform standard for the testing of projectiles against Body Armor is feasible."

NOTE WELL: The tests to determine whether or not ammo is "armor piercing" are NOT to be conducted against armor plate, such as that used on military combat vehicles. The tests are to be conducted against body armor. And as anyone knowledgeable about firearms knows, VIRTUALLY ALL RIFLE AMMUNITION WILL PENETRATE BODY ARMOR. So will some pistol ammunition.

(firearms manufacturer)"This gives the A.G. the power to say what is and is not "armor piercing." There is no language for what type of test is to be conducted (other than ballistic vests). If the test were on 1 inch "rolled homogeneous armor plate" then there would be no problem. If the test is a level I "vest" material, then EVERYTHING including .22 longs, are going to be illegal ammo."
The bill would effectively give the power to decide to ONE person. NO vote, NO appeal, NO rights. Imagine Janet Reno with that power.

Of course there would be born a "black market" for ammunition, very close to the black market for marijuana, in size, scope, and risks. Next will be the sentencing recommendations for possession, and distributing (dealing). Components will be viewed as constructive intent of illegal manufacturing of "terrorist material."

This is a dangerous path for America. I am forced to ask myself: Why the continued (and in this case, stealth) attack and obvious methodical disarming of American Citizens? There is only one answer: control and power."

Just as "Saturday-Night specials," "military-style assault weapons," "cop-killer bullets," and "sporting purposes" have all been used as deceptive, emotionally loaded key words to justify regulations and outright bans, it now appears that the designation "armor-piercing ammunition" is likely to be mis-applied in an attempt to deprive Americans of their rights.

We should all be asking some serious questions about the real impact S. 397 will have on our freedoms if it becomes law. One important question is: Why are our "leaders" so desperate that they would attempt to slip such a potentially draconian provision into a supposedly pro-gun bill?

Zaxon

04-08-2005, 20:14

Which is exactly what Conservatives say about Liberals, and I say to both! :D

Ditto that.

Dominant Redheads

04-08-2005, 22:22

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:

I absolutely do NOT believe this. Your ignorance of guns is far too great for this to be true in any way.

There are at least as many guns manufactured for competition these days as there are for hunting. Finely tuned pistols, shotguns and rifles that are far too expensive to ever be considered seriously for carry. Many people that have competition guns don't even have ammo for them that would be suitable for self-defense or for killing a person.

Many types of handgun competitions use strictly lead bullets with no jacketing. As soon as they touch something they fragment. Granted they could hurt someone but the design is certainly not to kill. There are many 3 gun competitions where the rifles are also required to be loaded with lead ammo, no jackets. The FPS is required to be UNDER a certain number.

Look at the .22s they use in the Olympics. Oh boy there is one gun that is designed with the mass killing of people from long distances :rolleyes:

You really need to learn more about the subject before you try to argue it. There are many, many guns that are designed around many many things other than killing.

Oh yeah, don't forget the tons of guns that are designed purely for collection. Very expnsive guns that are fully functional and in most cases the person who buys them will never have any idea how the action of the gun feels.

Lyric

04-08-2005, 23:02

Which is exactly what Conservatives say about Liberals, and I say to both! :D

Well, see, here's the thing...the areas of private life that Liberals want to involve themselves in...I AGREE with the government NEEDING involvement in it.

The areas of private life Conservatives want to involve themselves with...Government has NO FUCKING BUSINESS involving themselves in...most of the shit conservatives want to intrude in is churchy-related bullshit, and they want the government to enforce THEIR church doctrine, which is pure horseshit, and illegal per the Constitution.

Conservatives need to go back to economics, and actually BE economic conservatives. They need to get the fuck out of the social arena completely. Their ideas are archaic, unwanted, undesired, and are, quite frankly, not only oppressive, but by law, illegal to have the government enforce, because the Freedom of Religion also fucking includes the Freedom FROM Religion. and I don't want any fucking religion telling me how to live MY goddamn life, thank you very much...I'll decide for myself.

And in the end, it is between me and God and no one else. I'll answer to God in the end, as will everyone else...if what I believe is correct. However, I didn't ever ask for any fucking man-made RELIGION to interpose themselves into MY relationship with God, or to stick their goddamn noses into MY FUCKING PRIVATE LIFE!!

Beer and Guns

04-08-2005, 23:12

Back to the original Topic... I'm all for keeping product (manufacturer) liability restrained to manufacturing defects, but I'm fairly concerned about this bill.

I've been especially concerned with Part One of Sec. 6, which gives an awful lot of arbitratry power to the Attorney General.

*edit* http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:2:./temp/~c109kGS7wJ:e20799:

THIS SECTION COULD ALLOW ALL CENTERFIRE (hunting) RIFLE AMMUNITION TO BE BANNED

Here's how.

Part One of Sec. 6 makes it illegal to make, import, sell or deliver any "armor-piercing" ammunition EXCEPT:

1) For the use of state and federal government departments or agencies.
2) For export
3) For Attorney General-approved testing.

Part Two "enhances" criminal sentences for anyone who possesses "armor-piercing" ammunition during the commission of a crime. (an incident factor currently so low as to be statistically, if not in reality ZERO)

Part Three is where the trap is really sprung. Because this part instructs the U.S. Attorney General to "conduct a study to determine whether a uniform standard for the testing of projectiles against Body Armor is feasible."

NOTE WELL: The tests to determine whether or not ammo is "armor piercing" are NOT to be conducted against armor plate, such as that used on military combat vehicles. The tests are to be conducted against body armor. And as anyone knowledgeable about firearms knows, VIRTUALLY ALL RIFLE AMMUNITION WILL PENETRATE BODY ARMOR. So will some pistol ammunition.

The bill would effectively give the power to decide to ONE person. NO vote, NO appeal, NO rights. Imagine Janet Reno with that power.

Of course there would be born a "black market" for ammunition, very close to the black market for marijuana, in size, scope, and risks. Next will be the sentencing recommendations for possession, and distributing (dealing). Components will be viewed as constructive intent of illegal manufacturing of "terrorist material."

This is a dangerous path for America. I am forced to ask myself: Why the continued (and in this case, stealth) attack and obvious methodical disarming of American Citizens? There is only one answer: control and power."

Just as "Saturday-Night specials," "military-style assault weapons," "cop-killer bullets," and "sporting purposes" have all been used as deceptive, emotionally loaded key words to justify regulations and outright bans, it now appears that the designation "armor-piercing ammunition" is likely to be mis-applied in an attempt to deprive Americans of their rights.

We should all be asking some serious questions about the real impact S. 397 will have on our freedoms if it becomes law. One important question is: Why are our "leaders" so desperate that they would attempt to slip such a potentially draconian provision into a supposedly pro-gun bill?

Who is the sponsor of this bill do you know ?

Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by Senate)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SEC. 6. ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION.

(a) Unlawful Acts- Section 922(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking paragraphs (7) and (8) and inserting the following:

`(7) for any person to manufacture or import armor piercing ammunition, unless--

`(A) the manufacture of such ammunition is for the use of the United States, any department or agency of the United States, any State, or any department, agency, or political subdivision of a State;

`(B) the manufacture of such ammunition is for the purpose of exportation; or

`(C) the manufacture or importation of such ammunition is for the purpose of testing or experimentation and has been authorized by the Attorney General;

`(8) for any manufacturer or importer to sell or deliver armor piercing ammunition, unless such sale or delivery--

`(A) is for the use of the United States, any department or agency of the United States, any State, or any department, agency, or political subdivision of a State;

`(B) is for the purpose of exportation; or

`(C) is for the purpose of testing or experimentation and has been authorized by the Attorney General;'.

(b) Penalties- Section 924(c) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(5) Except to the extent that a greater minimum sentence is otherwise provided under this subsection, or by any other provision of law, any person who, during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime (including a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime that provides for an enhanced punishment if committed by the use of a deadly or dangerous weapon or device) for which the person may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, uses or carries armor piercing ammunition, or who, in furtherance of any such crime, possesses armor piercing ammunition, shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such crime of violence or drug trafficking crime or conviction under this section--

`(A) be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 15 years; and

`(B) if death results from the use of such ammunition--

`(i) if the killing is murder (as defined in section 1111), be punished by death or sentenced to a term of imprisonment for any term of years or for life; and

`(ii) if the killing is manslaughter (as defined in section 1112), be punished as provided in section 1112.'.

(c) Study and Report-

(1) STUDY- The Attorney General shall conduct a study to determine whether a uniform standard for the testing of projectiles against Body Armor is feasible.

(2) ISSUES TO BE STUDIED- The study conducted under paragraph (1) shall include--

(A) variations in performance that are related to the length of the barrel of the handgun or center-fire rifle from which the projectile is fired; and

(B) the amount of powder used to propel the projectile.

(3) REPORT- Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit a report containing the results of the study conducted under this subsection to--

(A) the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate; and

(B) the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives.
Passed the Senate July 29, 2005.

This version make you feel better ?

Kecibukia

04-08-2005, 23:15

Well, see, here's the thing...the areas of private life that Liberals want to involve themselves in...I AGREE with the government NEEDING involvement in it.

The areas of private life Conservatives want to involve themselves with...Government has NO FUCKING BUSINESS involving themselves in...most of the shit conservatives want to intrude in is churchy-related bullshit, and they want the government to enforce THEIR church doctrine, which is pure horseshit, and illegal per the Constitution.

Conservatives need to go back to economics, and actually BE economic conservatives. They need to get the fuck out of the social arena completely. Their ideas are archaic, unwanted, undesired, and are, quite frankly, not only oppressive, but by law, illegal to have the government enforce, because the Freedom of Religion also fucking includes the Freedom FROM Religion. and I don't want any fucking religion telling me how to live MY goddamn life, thank you very much...I'll decide for myself.

And in the end, it is between me and God and no one else. I'll answer to God in the end, as will everyone else...if what I believe is correct. However, I didn't ever ask for any fucking man-made RELIGION to interpose themselves into MY relationship with God, or to stick their goddamn noses into MY FUCKING PRIVATE LIFE!!

I agree w/ you on the conservative intervening. However, I also feel that way about "liberals" intervening in my economic and social life. for example, it was mostly "liberal" judges that voted against property rights in "Kelo" while the "conservatives" supported property rights.

What "areas of private life" do you feel needs "involvement" by the gov't and why?

Kecibukia

04-08-2005, 23:16

Who is the sponsor of this bill do you know ?

Check out NRA.org

It lists the full text, sponsorship, and roll calls for the bill and the amendments.

Beer and Guns

04-08-2005, 23:19

I cant find anything on the amended version that was actually passed so I guess they are cool with it. I pasted it in my post above after an edit .

(c) Study and Report-

(1) STUDY- The Attorney General shall conduct a study to determine whether a uniform standard for the testing of projectiles against Body Armor is feasible.

(2) ISSUES TO BE STUDIED- The study conducted under paragraph (1) shall include--

(A) variations in performance that are related to the length of the barrel of the handgun or center-fire rifle from which the projectile is fired; and

(B) the amount of powder used to propel the projectile.

(3) REPORT- Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit a report containing the results of the study conducted under this subsection to--

(A) the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate; and

(B) the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives.
Passed the Senate July 29, 2005.

At any rate I have always wondered who would even want to live in a society where only the military and the police could have guns .
( of course the criminals would have them.... but then again , they are criminals.... so what do you expect ? ) .

Greek Maniacs

04-08-2005, 23:24

Kecibukia

04-08-2005, 23:24

I cant find anything on the amended version that was actually passed so I guess they are cool with it. I pasted it in my post above after an edit .

(c) Study and Report-

(1) STUDY- The Attorney General shall conduct a study to determine whether a uniform standard for the testing of projectiles against Body Armor is feasible.

(2) ISSUES TO BE STUDIED- The study conducted under paragraph (1) shall include--

(A) variations in performance that are related to the length of the barrel of the handgun or center-fire rifle from which the projectile is fired; and

(B) the amount of powder used to propel the projectile.

(3) REPORT- Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit a report containing the results of the study conducted under this subsection to--

(A) the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate; and

(B) the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives.
Passed the Senate July 29, 2005.

The point of it being w/i two years is good. That includes it under the current administration. For all of its arguable points, it is gun friendly.

Syniks

04-08-2005, 23:27

Well, see, here's the thing...the areas of private life that Liberals want to involve themselves in...I AGREE with the government NEEDING involvement in it.

The areas of private life Conservatives want to involve themselves with...Government has NO FUCKING BUSINESS involving themselves in...most of the shit conservatives want to intrude in is churchy-related bullshit, and they want the government to enforce THEIR church doctrine, which is pure horseshit, and illegal per the Constitution.

Conservatives need to go back to economics, and actually BE economic conservatives. They need to get the fuck out of the social arena completely. Their ideas are archaic, unwanted, undesired, and are, quite frankly, not only oppressive, but by law, illegal to have the government enforce, because the Freedom of Religion also fucking includes the Freedom FROM Religion. and I don't want any fucking religion telling me how to live MY goddamn life, thank you very much...I'll decide for myself.

And in the end, it is between me and God and no one else. I'll answer to God in the end, as will everyone else...if what I believe is correct. However, I didn't ever ask for any fucking man-made RELIGION to interpose themselves into MY relationship with God, or to stick their goddamn noses into MY FUCKING PRIVATE LIFE!!I don't disagree except to the extent I don't agree with the government "needing" to be involved in the areas of private life that Liberals want to involve themselves in. I think the Government should stay out of the private lives of everybody, and - through the judicial system - should ensure that everybody stays out of the private business of everybody else.

You should be familiar with Peter McWilliams' book "Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do". If you're not you can read it (and all of his other books) here: http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/books/ FREE. (McWilliams, a california Gay Activist, died a few years ago from AIDS while arguing for medicinal marijauana...)

I think you will find his conclusions interesting.

Beer and Guns

04-08-2005, 23:33

Of course its not feasible to test against body armor so you might ask " whats the point " ? There is alot of rifle amunition that will pierce some body armor now . All armor is not created equal . It seems like its a throw in to placate idiots who do not know any better . I would improve armor up to the standard that it defends against all small arms ammo . teflon coating and frangible along with bi metals are illegal now anyway , except for the military...and the military can only use ball to satisfy geneva...What would concern me is criminals by nature will use what they can get ...no matter if its legal...and you should defend against what the enemy could do not what he's supposed to do . But hey since when did common sense ever enter this argument.
If it did laws would be addressed to criminals and not the law abiding .

Syniks

04-08-2005, 23:36

Who is the sponsor of this bill do you know ?

<snip> This version make you feel better ?
Uh, B&G? Did you notice the link to Thomas I had in my post? My point is that the "study and report" part in Section six could easily be used to define "armor piercing" in a completely anti-ammunition way. All it would take is making the definition of Armor = Type I kevlar and we'd be SOL - since virtually anything can penetrate "Type I Body Armor". Like Mr. Savage said, if it were about testing vs. Plate Steel, it would be one thing, but they are talking about "Body Armor Piercing" not "Armor Piercing". There's a BIG difference.

(*edit* as you note above.)

I don't like stuff added to placate idiots... because every once and a while the Idiots end up in charge.

All laws need to be read with the worst case government abuse scenerio in mind, because that is exactly what will happen somewhee down the line.

Beer and Guns

04-08-2005, 23:41

Uh, B&G? Did you notice the link to Thomas I had in my post? My point is that the "study and report" part in Section six could easily be used to define "armor piercing" in a completely anti-ammunition way. All it would take is making the definition of Armor = Type I kevlar and we'd be SOL - since virtually anything can penetrate "Type I Body Armor". Like Mr. Savage said, if it were about testing vs. Plate Steel, it would be one thing, but they are talking about "Body Armor Piercing" not "Armor Piercing". There's a BIG difference.

(*edit* as you note above.)

I don't like stuff added to placate idiots... because every once and a while the Idiots end up in charge.

I did note the link it did not work so I googled the bill . It has two versions .
The ammended version changed it into a study subject to review within two years only on the question of feasibilty . Its stupid ...its already not feasible but I expect it was easy to get over on the idiots by changing the wording to make it a moot point .

Kecibukia

04-08-2005, 23:42

Syniks

04-08-2005, 23:45

But the report has to be done w/i two years.
I hate to put that much Stake in the hopes that it will get hadled correctly before we get a new AG.

#1, it has to get through the House first, maybe it goes back to the Senate once more before it goes to the President. That puts it into 2006. Elections are in 2008. That's cutting it mighty close...

Beer and Guns

04-08-2005, 23:48

Right a report on a study. It means nothing its just a reccomendation. its been watered down to mud. Plus look who its going to to make the decision .

3) REPORT- Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit a report containing the results of the study conducted under this subsection to--

(A) the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate; and

(B) the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives

Then even if its judged feasible by some strange twist of logic , its got to be
acted on in another bill because this bill has no mechanism to include the results. Do you see what I mean ?

Here's a link to both bills...you can see the difference .
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:2:./temp/~c109UAcJpH:e20799:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.397:

Dominant Redheads

05-08-2005, 00:25

Just a note...most hunting ammo will NOT penetrate body armor. Hunting ammo is designed to fragment or deform fairly easy. That's probably why the NRA does not have an issue with the bill as it is written.

Beer and Guns

05-08-2005, 00:37

Vote On S. 397 Expected This Month,
Contact Your Lawmakers While They Are Home!

Friday, July 01, 2005

Congress's "Independence Day District Work Period" is scheduled for July 4-July 8. During this time, your Senators and Representative will be back home in their respective states and districts. Many lawmakers use this time to hold town hall meetings, where they can report on what they've been doing in Washington, and take questions from their constituents. These meetings offer a tremendous opportunity for you to personally voice your strong support for S. 397 and H.R. 800—the Senate and House versions of the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act," (which hopefully will be voted on by the Senate this month). Please contact your lawmakers' Washington, D.C., and district offices and ask when they plan to hold their town hall meetings during the break. If you do not know the number for your lawmakers' district offices, you can use the "Write Your Representatives" tool at www.NRAILA.org, or call the NRA-ILA Grassroots Division at (800) 392-8683.

Once again, if you get a chance to meet with your lawmakers, please be sure to urge your Senators to cosponsor and support S. 397/H.R. 800.

http://www.nraila.org/CurrentLegislation/Read.aspx?ID=1670

S. 397 Passes U.S. Senate!!!

Friday, July 29, 2005

Thanks to your efforts, today, the U.S. Senate passed S. 397 by a strong bipartisan vote of 65-31! While this doesn't assure the bill will be enacted into law, it represents a MAJOR first step toward ending the anti-gun lobby's reign of extortion through reckless lawsuits against the firearm industry. The fight now moves to the U.S. House of Representatives, so it is critical that you once again contact your U.S. Representative and urge him/her to pass S. 397--"The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act."

As reported yesterday, an amendment by Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wisc.) passed, which requires federally licensed dealers to provide a "secure gun storage or safety device" with the sale/transfer of every handgun (does not apply to long guns). It does not require gun owners to use the device, does not apply to private transfers, and does not create any new civil liability for gun owners who choose not to use these storage devices. Virtually all new handguns today are sold with some type of secure storage or safety device. The amendment has no significant impact on current law or S. 397 itself.

The U.S. Senate rejected a slew of anti-gun amendments to S. 397 including:

Special "carve out" amendments by Sens. Corzine (D-N.J.) and Lautenberg (D-N.J.) that would have permitted reckless lawsuits by law enforcement and juveniles to continue unabated. Both were soundly defeated;

A ban on "armor piercing" ammunition (Kennedy-D-Mass.) (by a vote of 31-64) that would have banned virtually all hunting ammunition. Similar efforts have been continuously defeated by Congress, and Sen. Kennedy's most recent attempt was nothing more than anti-gun political posturing. (The Senate did adopt an amendment by Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) calling for increased penalties if "armor piercing" handgun ammunition is used in the commission of a crime.), and;

A "gutting" amendment by Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) that sought to continue to allow the very types of suits S. 397 prohibits (by a vote of 33-63).

http://www.nraila.org/CurrentLegislation/Read.aspx?ID=1692

I think that covers it .

Zaxon

05-08-2005, 02:08

Well, see, here's the thing...the areas of private life that Liberals want to involve themselves in...I AGREE with the government NEEDING involvement in it.

The areas of private life Conservatives want to involve themselves with...Government has NO FUCKING BUSINESS involving themselves in...most of the shit conservatives want to intrude in is churchy-related bullshit, and they want the government to enforce THEIR church doctrine, which is pure horseshit, and illegal per the Constitution.

Conservatives need to go back to economics, and actually BE economic conservatives. They need to get the fuck out of the social arena completely. Their ideas are archaic, unwanted, undesired, and are, quite frankly, not only oppressive, but by law, illegal to have the government enforce, because the Freedom of Religion also fucking includes the Freedom FROM Religion. and I don't want any fucking religion telling me how to live MY goddamn life, thank you very much...I'll decide for myself.

And in the end, it is between me and God and no one else. I'll answer to God in the end, as will everyone else...if what I believe is correct. However, I didn't ever ask for any fucking man-made RELIGION to interpose themselves into MY relationship with God, or to stick their goddamn noses into MY FUCKING PRIVATE LIFE!!

Lyric, c'mon...we know your stance, but if you just continue to rant the bile rant, no one's going to want to help, due to the negativity you keep pumping out a mile a minute.

Syniks has done a decent job of trying to reach at least a half-way point (much better than I could ever have done), but you also have to try as well, instead of just staying in the "spewing hate shell".

Syniks and I are both Libertarians--at least we both lean toward a lot of what Libertarians stand for--staying out of people's lives and letting them make their own decisions. If you still say you want Republicans out of meddling in your life, but it's okay for Democrats to meddle, it does sound hypocritical--controlling people is controlling people, regardless whether you support exactly what is being controlled.

Basically, if you say it's okay to control people how you'd want to be controlled...well, someone with a differing opinion can do the same thing, but with a position that you probably don't like.

Colerica

05-08-2005, 02:18

Well, see, here's the thing...the areas of private life that Liberals want to involve themselves in...I AGREE with the government NEEDING involvement in it.

How about having a government that doesn't involve itself in your private life at all? Ever thought about that? The federal government's only role is to maintain the peace (military; police) and protect property (punishing criminals).

Lyric

05-08-2005, 03:44

I agree w/ you on the conservative intervening. However, I also feel that way about "liberals" intervening in my economic and social life. for example, it was mostly "liberal" judges that voted against property rights in "Kelo" while the "conservatives" supported property rights.

What "areas of private life" do you feel needs "involvement" by the gov't and why?

Areas of private life that have an actual ability to cause actual, real harm to another person. My alternative lifestyle, for example...while you may not approve of it, may not like it, it may make you uncomfortable, or may even make you feel "icky." But it DOES NOT CAUSE YOU ANY REAL, ACTUAL HARM. Thus, the government needs to stay out of it.

In the area of guns...we need background checks and such, to at least TRY to make sure guns do not end up in the hands of people with a propensity to go out and hunt humans!

Product/worker safety, regulations on companies...these are things that are in the best interests of PEOPLE...and people should always take priority over corporations.

Just a couple of examples.

Lyric

05-08-2005, 03:45

How about you fuckin liberals teaching my 10 year old daughter about sex, and gay marriages without my fuckin consent , be for real liberals have there own agenda and im not FUCKIN interested.

Who asked you?

Lyric

05-08-2005, 03:55

Lyric, c'mon...we know your stance, but if you just continue to rant the bile rant, no one's going to want to help, due to the negativity you keep pumping out a mile a minute.

Syniks has done a decent job of trying to reach at least a half-way point (much better than I could ever have done), but you also have to try as well, instead of just staying in the "spewing hate shell".

Syniks and I are both Libertarians--at least we both lean toward a lot of what Libertarians stand for--staying out of people's lives and letting them make their own decisions. If you still say you want Republicans out of meddling in your life, but it's okay for Democrats to meddle, it does sound hypocritical--controlling people is controlling people, regardless whether you support exactly what is being controlled.

Basically, if you say it's okay to control people how you'd want to be controlled...well, someone with a differing opinion can do the same thing, but with a position that you probably don't like.

I was asked what I was okay with...and I answered. What's wrong with honestly answering a question I was asked?

There are certain areas of private life I'm perfectly okay with government involving themselves in. Generally, those areas are areas that have the potential to cause REAL, ACTUAL HARM to other people.

For example, I fucking HATE the way Eminent Domain laws are being used nowadays to kick people out of homes they have lived in all their lives, just because some fucking Super Wal Mart wants the goddamn land, and can pay higher taxes. That is NOT what Eminent Domain was intended for! And Government needs to quit using this to the benefit of the bigbox retailers.

I think there is a point on which we can both agree...me being a Liberal, and you being a self-professed Libertarian.

I think government needs to quit worrying about it if someone wants to come home after work and toke up a joint or fire up a water-bong. I don't use drugs, don't like 'em, and don't want 'em...but it does not hurt me if my next-door neighbor wants to spark up a doobie, does it? I mean, who's the guy hurting, except possibly his own self? no-one. So I think that, for drugs like marijuana, the government needs to get it's nose out of people's private lives, too.

There's another point we can probably agree on, me being a Liberal, and you being a Libertarian.

My poiont is...if it hurts no one...and does not have the potential to hurt someone else...then government needs to just leave it the hell alone.

does that clarify my position somewhat?

Lyric

05-08-2005, 03:56

How about having a government that doesn't involve itself in your private life at all? Ever thought about that? The federal government's only role is to maintain the peace (military; police) and protect property (punishing criminals).

How about PREVENTING CRIME IN THE FIRST PLACE...instead of just sweeping up after it already happened?

Beer and Guns

05-08-2005, 03:58

Areas of private life that have an actual ability to cause actual, real harm to another person. My alternative lifestyle, for example...while you may not approve of it, may not like it, it may make you uncomfortable, or may even make you feel "icky." But it DOES NOT CAUSE YOU ANY REAL, ACTUAL HARM. Thus, the government needs to stay out of it.

In the area of guns...we need background checks and such, to at least TRY to make sure guns do not end up in the hands of people with a propensity to go out and hunt humans!

Product/worker safety, regulations on companies...these are things that are in the best interests of PEOPLE...and people should always take priority over corporations.

Just a couple of examples.

ummmm before you can buy a hand gun you have to have a criminal background check done . Its been that way for years . a person with the propensity to hunt humans more than likely is anti -social and is most likely already a criminal and therefore will not go to a legit dealer and will get his weapon by criminal means . now maybe you can figure out how to stop this from happening . :rolleyes:

corporations are made up of stock holders and workers . to my knowlage they are people . human type people too . Not a robot among them ...or even a pod person...a few ass holes ...but they are everywhere .
OSHA takes care of the workers . public safety in a broad sense is handled by local and federal government .

The government needs to stay out of the bedroom .
The government needs to stay out of church .And stay away from religion .
I wish they could stay out of my pocket...but I'll settle for my bedroom .
morality should not be legislated .

"He who made us would have been a pitiful bungler, if he had made the rules of our moral conduct a matter of science. For one man of science, there are thousands who are not. What would have become of them? Man was destined for society. His morality, therefore, was to be formed to this object. He was endowed with a sense of right and wrong merely relative to this. This sense is as much a part of his nature, as the sense of hearing, seeing, feeling; it is the true foundation of morality... The moral sense, or conscience, is as much a part of man as his leg or arm. It is given to all human beings in a stronger or weaker degree, as force of members is given them in a greater or less degree. It may be strengthened by exercise, as may any particular limb of the body. This sense is submitted indeed in some degree to the guidance of reason; but it is a small stock which is required for this: even a less one than what we call Common sense. State a moral case to a ploughman and a professor. The former will decide it as well, and often better than the latter, because he has not been led astray by artificial rules." --Thomas Jefferson

Colerica

05-08-2005, 04:47

How about PREVENTING CRIME IN THE FIRST PLACE...instead of just sweeping up after it already happened?

That's implied. And -- to tie in with the thread's actual topic -- more crime would be prevented if more citizens packed heat, but of course, you want to take that right away from law-abiding people. How typical.

Secret aj man

05-08-2005, 04:47

Hah! The irony!

Originally Posted by Lyric
You know, I wouldn't mind conservatives so much if they would stay the fuck out of my private life!!

now we have the solution....the libs and the cons can stay the f$#$ outta my life and concern themselves with national security/safety nets for the poor and RESPECT the bill of rights as written,rather then pushing their respective agendas down my throat.

i would vote for anyone that wants to leave me in peace...seems they want to tell me how to live or reach in my pocket(for the children of coarse or my safety)or both.

if i want to marry my blue haired freak friend and shoot off guns at the reception in my yard...and no one is in jeapordy...then i should be able too.

take my tax dollars to secure our borders and fund the military and some social programs to protect the poor and i will be 1 happy camper.

Lyric

05-08-2005, 06:30

That's implied. And -- to tie in with the thread's actual topic -- more crime would be prevented if more citizens packed heat, but of course, you want to take that right away from law-abiding people. How typical.

With the way tempers flare anymore...at the drop of a hat...over political differences...or even something as stupid as road rage, where people get shot because they flicked someone off...I'm not sure I WANT more people packing heat, thank you very much!

I'm just not so sure that most people are capable of handling the responsibility of a gun. And i'm not sure that most people, if pushed too hard...would be able to resist using the gun to "solve their problems" or settle a dispute.

sorry, but I do not believe most people are actually responsible enough to be allowed to have guns.

Excerpts from "Let's Play U.S.A." by Peter Schilling

Where oh where is Mickey Mouse
He's alive and well in the White House
What's the word on common sense
It's been sitting on the fence
Leaders, saints and honest men
What's become of them today?

Let's play U.S.A.
How I love the life I lead
Cannot think and cannot read
Watch our values slip away
Play the game of U.S.A.

The world could be a lot of fun
Every man will own a gun
Shoot the ones whose point of view
Makes a point that bothers you...

Zaxon

05-08-2005, 11:43

I was asked what I was okay with...and I answered. What's wrong with honestly answering a question I was asked?

Absolutely nothing. :)

There are certain areas of private life I'm perfectly okay with government involving themselves in. Generally, those areas are areas that have the potential to cause REAL, ACTUAL HARM to other people.

For example, I fucking HATE the way Eminent Domain laws are being used nowadays to kick people out of homes they have lived in all their lives, just because some fucking Super Wal Mart wants the goddamn land, and can pay higher taxes. That is NOT what Eminent Domain was intended for! And Government needs to quit using this to the benefit of the bigbox retailers.

I think there is a point on which we can both agree...me being a Liberal, and you being a self-professed Libertarian.

Definitely!

I think government needs to quit worrying about it if someone wants to come home after work and toke up a joint or fire up a water-bong. I don't use drugs, don't like 'em, and don't want 'em...but it does not hurt me if my next-door neighbor wants to spark up a doobie, does it? I mean, who's the guy hurting, except possibly his own self? no-one. So I think that, for drugs like marijuana, the government needs to get it's nose out of people's private lives, too.

There's another point we can probably agree on, me being a Liberal, and you being a Libertarian.

Again, spot on.

My poiont is...if it hurts no one...and does not have the potential to hurt someone else...then government needs to just leave it the hell alone.

does that clarify my position somewhat?

Sort of. I know what you DON'T want government to mess with. What WOULD you be in favor of the government monkeying with? The part that harms people--I could posit, though I don't believe in it, that when someone is addicted to drugs, the drugs "cause" someone to go out and steal to get more money to buy drugs, or causes motor skill loss, so it was the drugs' fault that the person walked off a cliff. Now, I don't believe in either of these (I think they're totally absurd, but I've heard them as "excuses"), since I believe in personal responsibility in all things (including the responsibility of oneself to NOT be by a cliff when monkeying with hallucinogenics), but that's the kind of argument that can be turned around on guns as well--if they didn't have the gun, they wouldn't have killed someone.

Logic doesn't change just because emotions regarding the particular topic do.

Now, I DO have a problem when a firearm is used to murder someone--or any other device, but the device doesn't matter. I'm just as adamant about people using rocks to kill others.

Zaxon

05-08-2005, 11:44

In the area of guns...we need background checks and such, to at least TRY to make sure guns do not end up in the hands of people with a propensity to go out and hunt humans!

How about "mean" drunks?

Zaxon

05-08-2005, 11:50

With the way tempers flare anymore...at the drop of a hat...over political differences...or even something as stupid as road rage, where people get shot because they flicked someone off...I'm not sure I WANT more people packing heat, thank you very much!

I'm just not so sure that most people are capable of handling the responsibility of a gun. And i'm not sure that most people, if pushed too hard...would be able to resist using the gun to "solve their problems" or settle a dispute.

sorry, but I do not believe most people are actually responsible enough to be allowed to have guns.

Excerpts from "Let's Play U.S.A." by Peter Schilling

Where oh where is Mickey Mouse
He's alive and well in the White House
What's the word on common sense
It's been sitting on the fence
Leaders, saints and honest men
What's become of them today?

Let's play U.S.A.
How I love the life I lead
Cannot think and cannot read
Watch our values slip away
Play the game of U.S.A.

The world could be a lot of fun
Every man will own a gun
Shoot the ones whose point of view
Makes a point that bothers you...

I guess that's where the Libertarian in me hops up and says, "Why can some stuff be regulated, like guns, while other things that have been "blamed" for incidents/accidents/deaths, like drugs, can't? Having a gun doesn't make any decision to kill another "easier". It's the psyche that does that--again, it's the human responsible, not the device.

I don't want either because it's the person that is responsible. You'll find that most law-abiding gun owners try to avoid confrontations as best they can, rather than looking to do the vigilante thing.

The guy that just shot and killed that mother and kid--he needs to die.

HOWEVER, the reports came in that the kid was spitting at the other guy's car--I know, no justification for shooting, but the person with the gun didn't do all the escalation by himself. Someone learned a lesson the hard way--push some too far, and it won't matter what laws are in place, consequences can be final. This is why people need to be a LOT more polite (myself included).

[NS]Amestria

05-08-2005, 11:58

"Look, it's not our fault if people don't use our products safely", the gunsales-men remarks as he shows his customer the latest Reaper 400, with fingerprint resistence and built in granade launcher (no granades though, as those are illegal).

Zaxon

05-08-2005, 12:04

Amestria']"Look, it's not our fault if people don't use our products safely", the gunsales-men remarks as he shows his customer the latest Reaper 400, with fingerprint resistence and built in granade launcher (no granades though, as those are illegal).

And it isn't. The mere presence of a device would cause you to go on a killing spree? Are you that weak willed? I'm fairly certain that you're not.

It's not the fault of the manufacturer or the device, regardless how much you wish to make it so.

It doesn't matter what the device was designed to do--firearm: device created to make a projectile go very fast (or if you go back to the very beginnings, it was used to confuse and scare)--hammer: device created to direct force on a particular spot--the item can't hurt anyone else without a person. That is the difference in all murders--it was a human that committed the act.

Beer and Guns

05-08-2005, 13:16

" well now yer honor ...that there pistol was sure lookin at me pretty...I just knew what she wanted...yes'r that damm pistol wanted action...I admit yer hon'r to hav'n feelings for the bastard but can ya blame me ..you saw her ....all polished and hungry with them open cylinders lookin so invitin' Sleek stainless barrell just pulsin' with energy..and that voice...common honey ya know what I need lets go shoot up some civilians real good now ...ya know you want it....how could I resist ?

Kecibukia

05-08-2005, 14:28

I was asked what I was okay with...and I answered. What's wrong with honestly answering a question I was asked?

There are certain areas of private life I'm perfectly okay with government involving themselves in. Generally, those areas are areas that have the potential to cause REAL, ACTUAL HARM to other people.

For example, I fucking HATE the way Eminent Domain laws are being used nowadays to kick people out of homes they have lived in all their lives, just because some fucking Super Wal Mart wants the goddamn land, and can pay higher taxes. That is NOT what Eminent Domain was intended for! And Government needs to quit using this to the benefit of the bigbox retailers.

I think there is a point on which we can both agree...me being a Liberal, and you being a self-professed Libertarian.

I think government needs to quit worrying about it if someone wants to come home after work and toke up a joint or fire up a water-bong. I don't use drugs, don't like 'em, and don't want 'em...but it does not hurt me if my next-door neighbor wants to spark up a doobie, does it? I mean, who's the guy hurting, except possibly his own self? no-one. So I think that, for drugs like marijuana, the government needs to get it's nose out of people's private lives, too.

There's another point we can probably agree on, me being a Liberal, and you being a Libertarian.

My poiont is...if it hurts no one...and does not have the potential to hurt someone else...then government needs to just leave it the hell alone.

does that clarify my position somewhat?

For the most part I agree w/ you. The problem comes w/ the definition of "real, actual harm". Many people argue that drugs cause RAH. The same can be said about , drinking, smoking, firearms, loud music, video games, big cars, big companies, home-schooling,etc, including your "lifestyle".

I don't agree w/ these things. Some regulation is necessary, however. I support the National Instant Check System (NICS). It is non intrusive but keeps known criminals from legally purchasing firearms. I oppose registration because it has been used countless times to harass law-abiding citizens, confiscate previously legal firearms, and ban firearms by ending it. There are those who also reccomend "psychological tests" for firearm purchases. Would you be willing to take a Psych test to purchase a legal product?

My basic view is one of personal accountability. If your neighbor wants to light up, fine w/ me. He gets in his car and runs over 10yr old Sally down the street, the hammer falls. He wants to buy a "scary" gun, fine w/ me. He takes it down to the local mall and takes out Sally & her classmates, 60 hertz shuffle for him.

Kecibukia

05-08-2005, 14:47

With the way tempers flare anymore...at the drop of a hat...over political differences...or even something as stupid as road rage, where people get shot because they flicked someone off...I'm not sure I WANT more people packing heat, thank you very much!

I'm just not so sure that most people are capable of handling the responsibility of a gun. And i'm not sure that most people, if pushed too hard...would be able to resist using the gun to "solve their problems" or settle a dispute.

sorry, but I do not believe most people are actually responsible enough to be allowed to have guns.

That's the reasoning that the gun banning groups (hci, mmm, naacp, etc) have used to try and prevent concealed carry laws. That there would be "blood in the streets", shootouts like the OK corrall, and so forth. It hasn't happened. Over 2 doz states have passed CC laws over the past 15 years and crime/murders didn't increase because of it.

The majority of murders and crimes committed w/ firearms are not committed by your average firearm owner. The majority, and this is true of Canada as well, are committed by criminal on criminal. No amount of testing, registration, background checks, etc. are going to stop these kinds of people from obtaining a firearm and committing a crime. You make the indigenous companies go away and they'll just come in from south of the border.

Once again we get into the area of semantics. Who, then, determines if a citizen is "responsible"? The Gov't? Is not having a criminal record enough? You feel (and rightly so) that the Gov't is intruding too much into your private life. Do you want them to intrude even further?

La diosa

05-08-2005, 14:55

The person who pulled the trigger is ultimately responsible but lets take this oportunity to throw some mud at the government. They only allow guns to be on sale in shops so they can collect a fat tax off of them, making a profit on an instrument of death is pretty damn immororal and irresponsible in my view. But then I live in England, guns are just something we see on bad American T.V!!

Kecibukia

05-08-2005, 14:59

Syniks

05-08-2005, 15:19

an "instrument of death"? You have been watching to much bad TV.

The taxes on them are just the regular sales tax. Which, depending on where you live is still a pretty penny... :rolleyes:

Lyric

05-08-2005, 15:51

How about "mean" drunks?

Having grown up the child of a MEAN DRUNK...let's say i'm glad MY dad never owned a firearm, and just leave it right there, okay?

Lyric

05-08-2005, 15:59

I guess that's where the Libertarian in me hops up and says, "Why can some stuff be regulated, like guns, while other things that have been "blamed" for incidents/accidents/deaths, like drugs, can't? Having a gun doesn't make any decision to kill another "easier". It's the psyche that does that--again, it's the human responsible, not the device.

I don't want either because it's the person that is responsible. You'll find that most law-abiding gun owners try to avoid confrontations as best they can, rather than looking to do the vigilante thing.

The guy that just shot and killed that mother and kid--he needs to die.

HOWEVER, the reports came in that the kid was spitting at the other guy's car--I know, no justification for shooting, but the person with the gun didn't do all the escalation by himself. Someone learned a lesson the hard way--push some too far, and it won't matter what laws are in place, consequences can be final. This is why people need to be a LOT more polite (myself included).

Now, see, you've just made my case for me, and I thank you. What was the kid doing?? Spitting on his car?? Ohhhhh, geeeee...REAL harmful behavior!! And for that, the guy pulls out a gun and plugs the kid....and the kid's MOM!!

Like I said, there's a lot of people out there for whom it does not take much push for them to use their gun as a FINAL SOLUTION to their little problem, or to settle a dispute or settle a score.

that is a prime example of a guy who should never have been allowed to have a gun. But how do you tell apart those who would...and would not...engage in such activity with a gun?

The gun may not be RESPONSIBLE...but the gun is an ENABLER...it makes it that much easier for the guy using the gun to do his dastardly work than if he didn't have the gun.

I don't like guns. Never have. Never will. Yes, I owned one once, and prayed I'd never have to use it. fortunately, I didn't. Then, I sold it, because I was moving out of state, and it would not have been legal for me to carry the weapon over state lines. More to the point, my mother would not have wanted a gun in her home. so I sold it. hopefully, I will never have to own a gun again in my life.

The problem is...how do you tell apart the law-abiding gun owners from the vigilantes? I'd rather not deal with it, and just say no one can have a gun, period. Easier that way.

Zaxon

05-08-2005, 16:02

Having grown up the child of a MEAN DRUNK...let's say i'm glad MY dad never owned a firearm, and just leave it right there, okay?

I'm sorry you had to endure that growing up.

But to the topic: if drugs aren't going to be regulated, what is to be done about "mean" drunks who become physically abusive?

Should they be punished more because of the alcohol? Should they be cut off by law from alcohol because they abused someone when under the influence?

Or should they just be punished for their actions, regardless if they were drunk or not?

The point I'm making is: It doesn't matter how altruistic or how much you're trying to help society, if you control one thing, you can control all things due to precedent, be it what you put in your body, owning a firearm, or choosing who you can love. We need to limit what we try to control beyond ourselves--on all sides of the political spectrum.

Lyric

05-08-2005, 16:03

For the most part I agree w/ you. The problem comes w/ the definition of "real, actual harm". Many people argue that drugs cause RAH. The same can be said about , drinking, smoking, firearms, loud music, video games, big cars, big companies, home-schooling,etc, including your "lifestyle".

I don't agree w/ these things. Some regulation is necessary, however. I support the National Instant Check System (NICS). It is non intrusive but keeps known criminals from legally purchasing firearms. I oppose registration because it has been used countless times to harass law-abiding citizens, confiscate previously legal firearms, and ban firearms by ending it. There are those who also reccomend "psychological tests" for firearm purchases. Would you be willing to take a Psych test to purchase a legal product?

My basic view is one of personal accountability. If your neighbor wants to light up, fine w/ me. He gets in his car and runs over 10yr old Sally down the street, the hammer falls. He wants to buy a "scary" gun, fine w/ me. He takes it down to the local mall and takes out Sally & her classmates, 60 hertz shuffle for him.

Yep, and that "60 hertz shuffle" does a whole lot to bring back Sally and her classmates, doesn't it? Why not prevent the guy from having the gun in the first place, then Sally and her classmates get to LIVE.

Lyric

05-08-2005, 16:07

That's the reasoning that the gun banning groups (hci, mmm, naacp, etc) have used to try and prevent concealed carry laws. That there would be "blood in the streets", shootouts like the OK corrall, and so forth. It hasn't happened. Over 2 doz states have passed CC laws over the past 15 years and crime/murders didn't increase because of it.

The majority of murders and crimes committed w/ firearms are not committed by your average firearm owner. The majority, and this is true of Canada as well, are committed by criminal on criminal. No amount of testing, registration, background checks, etc. are going to stop these kinds of people from obtaining a firearm and committing a crime. You make the indigenous companies go away and they'll just come in from south of the border.

Once again we get into the area of semantics. Who, then, determines if a citizen is "responsible"? The Gov't? Is not having a criminal record enough? You feel (and rightly so) that the Gov't is intruding too much into your private life. Do you want them to intrude even further?

As far as I am concerned...if I want a lethal weapon, which can be used to cause real, actual harm and/or death to another person...then the Gov't has every right...and an obligation...to intrude just as far as possible to find out WHY I want the device, and how I am likely to use said device. I have no problem with Gov't intrusion into this area whatsoever.

When I owned my gun, I got the intrusion. It didn't bother me. My intentions were honest. If your intentions are honest, then why does it bother you so much if someone checks up on it? I mean, if ya got nothing to hide, then why does it bother you?

Lyric

05-08-2005, 16:10

I'm sorry you had to endure that growing up.

But to the topic: if drugs aren't going to be regulated, what is to be done about "mean" drunks who become physically abusive?

Should they be punished more because of the alcohol? Should they be cut off by law from alcohol because they abused someone when under the influence?

Or should they just be punished for their actions, regardless if they were drunk or not?

The point I'm making is: It doesn't matter how altruistic or how much you're trying to help society, if you control one thing, you can control all things due to precedent, be it what you put in your body, owning a firearm, or choosing who you can love. We need to limit what we try to control beyond ourselves--on all sides of the political spectrum.

Yes, I think a mean drunk should be forced into rehab, forced to dry out, and forced to get counseling. You have no idea how much damage a mean drunk does to his/her family. I still have emotional/mental, and yes, some physical scars...that are reminders of 23 years of hell.

I wish the government HAD intervened.

Zaxon

05-08-2005, 16:18

Now, see, you've just made my case for me, and I thank you. What was the kid doing?? Spitting on his car?? Ohhhhh, geeeee...REAL harmful behavior!! And for that, the guy pulls out a gun and plugs the kid....and the kid's MOM!!

<sigh> No, I didn't make your case for you. The mother was being just as much of an asshole driver as the guy who shot her. And she allowed the kid to participate in the escalation. She was incredibly stupid, aggressive, and irresponsible, but didn't deserve to die. People keep forgetting that laws don't ultimately stop action.

The asshat who shot them proves that--and deserves to fry.

Like I said, there's a lot of people out there for whom it does not take much push for them to use their gun as a FINAL SOLUTION to their little problem, or to settle a dispute or settle a score.

And until they step over that line, it's only thought. Unless you're for regulating thought now? I'm pretty sure you aren't.

that is a prime example of a guy who should never have been allowed to have a gun. But how do you tell apart those who would...and would not...engage in such activity with a gun?

You CAN'T. Not without restricting a vast majority more that would never do anything like that. It's infringing upon their freedoms and rights.

The gun may not be RESPONSIBLE...but the gun is an ENABLER...it makes it that much easier for the guy using the gun to do his dastardly work than if he didn't have the gun.

No, it's not an enabler. He could have just as easily used his car to kill them. It was there, it even would have been easier than working to pull the firearm out and use it.

I don't like guns. Never have. Never will.

And you are free to feel that way. I would fight to the death to make sure you could feel that way.

Yes, I owned one once, and prayed I'd never have to use it.

I still own several, and still hope (since I don't really pray) that I never have to use any of them on a living being.

fortunately, I didn't. Then, I sold it, because I was moving out of state, and it would not have been legal for me to carry the weapon over state lines. More to the point, my mother would not have wanted a gun in her home. so I sold it. hopefully, I will never have to own a gun again in my life.

Again, 'tis your right.

The problem is...how do you tell apart the law-abiding gun owners from the vigilantes? I'd rather not deal with it, and just say no one can have a gun, period. Easier that way.

And in that one action, you rip rights from 300 million people, instead of punishing the fewer than 15,000 that commit murder with a gun in this country. You curtail the ability of citizens to stop the 2 million crimes per year that a firearm assist in stopping. More successful crimes will be created with that ban.

It seems you can make that choice just because it wouldn't affect your choice in how you go about your life. I'm not saying that's what you're doing--just that it is the way your statements are coming across.

Freedom is never easy. It is ALWAYS difficult (as your activism probably has taught you). If you want to keep the freedom of controlling your body, you may not want to be so willing to give up the other freedoms you don't use. It just paves the way to the freedoms you'd rather not do without. Lawyers like to call that precedent.

Zaxon

05-08-2005, 16:19

Yes, I think a mean drunk should be forced into rehab, forced to dry out, and forced to get counseling. You have no idea how much damage a mean drunk does to his/her family. I still have emotional/mental, and yes, some physical scars...that are reminders of 23 years of hell.

I wish the government HAD intervened.

Okay, so drug use CAN be regulated now? This is an all or nothing kind of thing--that's how laws work.

Which is it? Government should regulate the use of drugs or it shouldn't?

Zaxon

05-08-2005, 16:22

When I owned my gun, I got the intrusion. It didn't bother me. My intentions were honest. If your intentions are honest, then why does it bother you so much if someone checks up on it? I mean, if ya got nothing to hide, then why does it bother you?

Didn't John Ashcroft say something to that effect a couple of years ago? It scared me then, and it scares me now.

Personal life is just that--personal. I don't have the right to go looking into your life any more than you do mine. And the government is made up of citizens. The same rules apply. They don't become superheroes by being elected.

If you want them out of your business, you probably shouldn't support them coming in the back door.

Tarkaania

05-08-2005, 16:23

Has to be said: "Guns don't kill people - rappers do" :D
Have listened to too much GLC :(

Zaxon

05-08-2005, 16:23

Yep, and that "60 hertz shuffle" does a whole lot to bring back Sally and her classmates, doesn't it? Why not prevent the guy from having the gun in the first place, then Sally and her classmates get to LIVE.

Because it will cause 2 million more to be robbed, raped, assaulted, killed, etc., on an annual basis. Guns stop a lot of crime in the hands of the law-abiding citizen. Stop much more than allow.

Syniks

05-08-2005, 16:36

As far as I am concerned...if I want a lethal weapon, which can be used to cause real, actual harm and/or death to another person...then the Gov't has every right...and an obligation...to intrude just as far as possible to find out WHY I want the device, and how I am likely to use said device. I have no problem with Gov't intrusion into this area whatsoever.

When I owned my gun, I got the intrusion. It didn't bother me. My intentions were honest. If your intentions are honest, then why does it bother you so much if someone checks up on it? I mean, if ya got nothing to hide, then why does it bother you?Which is why none of us really object to the Instant Check. What we object to is people insisting that the government keep intruding in our lives after the sale and/or people insisting that we are somehoe "bad people" for having made the purchase.

We go back to my Rat Poison argument. Unlike firearms, which DO hav a non lethal sporting function, Rat Poison is only useful if it causes death. Its design and manufacture, however is not to kill humans, though it will do so admirably.

Does the Government have the right to enter your home and look for your rat poison? After all, you might use it to kill someone... Why should firearms be treated any differently?

The real problem comes in in begining the argument by asuming that persons wanting to own guns are somehow unstable and shuld be tracked. IMO, not only is that an unethical opinion based on paranoia and projection, but it is, from a regulation and LE standpoint an unfeasable one.

Think about which is easier: An Internet Database of all convicted violent felons (prohibited from purchasing firearms) accessible to anyone wanting to sell a firearm either personally or profesionally, or a database of every resident of the united states categorized by graduated levels of "acceptable to own" (as has been suggested by others on this thread). Essentially, this is what the NCIS tries to do... which is why it is slow, cumbersome, inaccessible to non-gun-dealers, and error ridden.

We certainly should keep firearms out of the hands of violent felons and those adjudicated mentally unstable, but we should do that by punishing/tracking felons/mental cases, not punishing everybody else.

Syniks

05-08-2005, 17:06

Disarmament would take this away:
http://www.a-human-right.com/armed-dykes_s.jpghttp://www.a-human-right.com/colors4_s.jpg
http://www.a-human-right.com/s_pp-ar-glock.jpghttp://www.a-human-right.com/s_bashthis.jpg
Leaving only this behind:

Gay bashing is a hate crime
By Diane Carman, Denver Post Staff Columnist

Arthur Dong is a gay man who has experienced more than one beating at the hands of homophobic psychopaths. In 1996, he decided to fight back. Video camera in hand, Dong entered the belly of the beast.

What he found was even more horrible than he imagined.

Dong won an award at the Sundance Film Festival for his 1997 documentary, "Licensed to Kill," which features a series of prison interviews with seven men convicted of murdering gay men.

The movie, which screened in Denver last year, allows the murderers to tell their own stories. Some of them had come to realize the severity of their crimes. Some remained unrepentant. Some even recalled their crimes with pride.

But in many ways the most revealing aspect of the film is that it illustrates how a culture that ridicules, dehumanizes and demonizes homosexuals bears shameful responsibility for these crimes.

The verbal taunts and persecution of people because of their sexual orientation are so commonplace they set the stage for murderers who think it's no crime to hate gays and to act on that hate.

In our culture, the victim of gay bashing is considered the sinner. That's why so often the crimes against homosexuals go unpunished until someone is found beaten, burned and tied to a fence post outside of town.

The attack this week on Matthew Shepard, the 21-year-old gay University of Wyoming student, is unusual only in its level of savagery. Since hate crimes laws in Colorado and 28 other states do not cover crimes against homosexuals, vast numbers of these crimes go unreported. Still, FBI data indicate that 11.6 percent of all hate crimes nationally target gays. It's the third largest category of hate crimes reported to the bureau.

In June, when the story of the vicious racially inspired murder of James Byrd Jr. of Jasper, Texas, was reported, it horrified Americans. Attorney General Janet Reno called for an investigation to see if federal civil rights laws had been violated. The U.S. House of Representatives voted unanimously to send "heartfelt condolences" to Byrd's family.

There was no argument about what constitutes a hate crime, only collective shame and grief.

That same level of compassion does not exist for the Shepard family. Once again, there will be a chorus screaming "special rights" when the subject of gay bashing being punished as a hate crime arises. But near as anybody can tell, the opportunity to be threatened, humiliated and to live in fear of being beaten to death is the only "special right" our culture bestows on homosexuals.

If you listened to the opponents of laws designating gay bashing as a hate crime, you'd think there really was some fundamental difference between being a black man, who is beaten and dragged behind a truck, and being a gay man, who is beaten, his skull crushed, and left tied to a fence to die.

The only real difference is the epithet the killers use to describe the victim.

The one used for the black man is considered an obscenity so appallingly offensive, it can't be printed in most newspapers.

The one used for the gay man is a common expression. It's familiar in comedy routines, on elementary school playgrounds and on street corners all across America.

Diane Carman's commentaries appear here Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. E-mail: dicarman@aol.com

Are you sure taking away the most effective means of self defense for honest, law abiding people, gay, straight, TS/G or whatever is a good idea in the US?

Zaxon

05-08-2005, 17:08

Dude, the Pink Pistols rock. :)

Colerica

05-08-2005, 17:18

Colerica

05-08-2005, 17:30

For example, I fucking HATE the way Eminent Domain laws are being used nowadays to kick people out of homes they have lived in all their lives, just because some fucking Super Wal Mart wants the goddamn land, and can pay higher taxes. That is NOT what Eminent Domain was intended for! And Government needs to quit using this to the benefit of the bigbox retailers.

I hate it, too. It's a hideous abuse of Constitutional power and it's being pushed by the Left (no surprise there) to further the power of the federal government (now that the states have no real power and haven't, effectively, since federalism died in 1865...but that's another tub of pandas....

I think government needs to quit worrying about it if someone wants to come home after work and toke up a joint or fire up a water-bong.

I'd have no problem with the government legalizing marijuana. Someone wants to ruin their life -- be my guest. Just don't come shoving it my face or encouraging my [future] children to do it, too. The only problem I could see with legalized pot is a potential rise in marijuana-related traffic accidents...but again, another tub of those damned panda bears....

the government needs to get it's nose out of people's private lives, too.

My poiont is...if it hurts no one...and does not have the potential to hurt someone else...then government needs to just leave it the hell alone.

You have the right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness entiteld to you by the Constitution of the United States of America. The government can only take away one or more of those said rights if you have done something so heinous as to warrent it. Frankly, I think the government's been doing too much taking away of those rights (though, I wholeheartedly advocate the death penalty -- I know; more pandas) for the past, say, hundred forty plus years.

Kecibukia

05-08-2005, 18:08

Yep, and that "60 hertz shuffle" does a whole lot to bring back Sally and her classmates, doesn't it? Why not prevent the guy from having the gun in the first place, then Sally and her classmates get to LIVE.

Now read the first part about the guy under the influence.

Why not prevent the guy from having the drugs in the first place, then Sally (and whomever else) gets to live.

Kecibukia

05-08-2005, 18:14

As far as I am concerned...if I want a lethal weapon, which can be used to cause real, actual harm and/or death to another person...then the Gov't has every right...and an obligation...to intrude just as far as possible to find out WHY I want the device, and how I am likely to use said device. I have no problem with Gov't intrusion into this area whatsoever.

When I owned my gun, I got the intrusion. It didn't bother me. My intentions were honest. If your intentions are honest, then why does it bother you so much if someone checks up on it? I mean, if ya got nothing to hide, then why does it bother you?

The "intrusion" you experienced was minor compared to the checks that many want for firearms. Would you have accepted phone calls questioning your friends/family? A financial background check? Medical history? Psych tests? Would you have agreed to unwarranted checks by the authorities to see if you had your firearm "safely stored"?

Putting up the Slippery slope, You have seen what the Gov't does when it gets one power, it nickel & dimes it until it becomes more expansive. Perfect example is the emminent domain ruling by the SCOTUS, and that was by "liberal" judges.

Gun Laws work the same way. Chicago and Wash. DC are prime examples. They both instituted "common sense" firearm registration. "It will help solve crime", and " If you have nothing to hide..." were the standard arguements then as well. Shortly after, registration was ended. If you hadn't registered it by then, you couldn't own one. Then the laws were changed that you couldn't own one at all. Guess how they found out who owned them?

Why do you want those drugs? Why do you want alcohol? What "need" do you have for a high end computer? You "might" do something illegal w/ it.

I don't agree that the Gov't has an "obligation" to ask "why" I want something legal.

Hogsweat

05-08-2005, 18:28

Kecibukia

05-08-2005, 18:34

Hogsweat

05-08-2005, 18:50

The mindset of the subject, the Gov't "allows" you to do things.

BTW, M16's need a Federal license to obtain.

Do you really think the only crimes involving firearms are "hate crimes"?

For a historical point, the UK requested firearms to arm its citizens during WWII. US citizens donated thousands of them to help in its defense. Following the war, instead of thanking the US, or even returning them, the UK Gov't rounded them up and dumped them in the sea.

The UK also has no indigenous firearms industry to arm its military. It is all (including most of its ammo) outsourced. Guess what happens when that country decides it doesn't like a political/military move by the UK? Guess what has already happened?

-I used the M16 because it was the first American weapon to come to mind.
-No, I didn't say that. That was in regards to a prior post.
-Good riddance. Maybe, you know, after all our major cities were reduced to rubble (something Americans will NEVER know), countless children were left without fathers or mothers, and millions of families were ruined, we were pretty pissed off with war.

Have you ever heard of
-Thales UK
-British Aerospace

Britain is slowly renationalising it's military, or at least making a bit of dependence from the US. Our new T45s and CVFs and A Classes are going to be British built and equipped. Huzzah. Pretty much everything is owned by BAe now.
http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b245/ComradeMatt/image016.gif

Kecibukia

05-08-2005, 19:35

-I used the M16 because it was the first American weapon to come to mind.
-No, I didn't say that. That was in regards to a prior post.
-Good riddance. Maybe, you know, after all our major cities were reduced to rubble (something Americans will NEVER know), countless children were left without fathers or mothers, and millions of families were ruined, we were pretty pissed off with war.

Have you ever heard of
-Thales UK
-British Aerospace

Britain is slowly renationalising it's military, or at least making a bit of dependence from the US. Our new T45s and CVFs and A Classes are going to be British built and equipped. Huzzah. Pretty much everything is owned by BAe now.
http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b245/ComradeMatt/image016.gif

as you completely miss the point. Having disarmed its populace, it needed to call on an armed society to help defend itself when the SHTF.

"In response to the "OMG ARM URSELF 4 DEFENSE" would be unnecessary if hate crimes were treated alot more harshly than they are being now."

SO there you are stating that there would be no need to defend yourself w/ more stringently punished hate crimes. Implying that there are no other reasons to defend yourself. So.. you did say that.

Try again. Bae ,unless you know something I don't, closed its small arms manufacturing plant in 2002. It also sold off H&K. WHile it is the final supplier of ammo & parts, most of that is currently outsourced, such as the 7.62 which is primarily produced for the UK by FN.

Cute picture. Care to show me anywhere that the NRA "supports" criminal actions?

Praetonia

05-08-2005, 19:57

Kecibukia

05-08-2005, 19:59

Dude, the Pink Pistols rock. :)

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_pp-ar-glock.jpg

Kecibukia

05-08-2005, 20:04

Kecibukia - BAe built all of the US Bradley IFVs, did you know that? In fact your department of defence views BAe as an American company for purposes of allocating contracts. BAe is gaining an ever increasing role in previously US dominated markets selling to the US government itself.

A fact I don't like and write to my congressmen about.

And the Bradley is a small arm?

BAe produces, not supplies but produces, small arms where?

Syniks

05-08-2005, 20:06

Kecibukia - BAe built all of the US Bradley IFVs, did you know that? In fact your department of defence views BAe as an American company for purposes of allocating contracts. BAe is gaining an ever increasing role in previously US dominated markets selling to the US government itself.
Yes, beut we are talking about Small Arms, not Heavy Weapons.

The point is, not a single rifle, pistol or bit of ammunition carried by the British Services is manufactured or purchased from a British company. Thus, matters of economic retaliation can have wide-reaching military consequences.

Syniks

05-08-2005, 20:08

Originally Posted by Zaxon
Dude, the Pink Pistols rock.

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_pp-ar-glock.jpg
;) He posted that because I already inlined that image... :p :D

Hogsweat

05-08-2005, 20:13

Er, we may not do it now, but we have the capabilities to do it..The British designed alot of history's great weapons and if we needed to we can produce it ourselves again.
Just we don't need to.

Kecibukia

05-08-2005, 20:19

Er, we may not do it now, but we have the capabilities to do it..The British designed alot of history's great weapons and if we needed to we can produce it ourselves again.
Just we don't need to.

You did, past tense.

Do you know what it takes to retool a factory? Pray they didn't sell off the machinery.
Say that again when FN decides to stop exporting (again) and you find yourselves in need of a new combat rifle. What country will you most likely turn too? The whole point of this thread was that the Senate passed a bill preventing lawyers from bankrupting OUR indigenous firearms industry so we wouldn't have to rely exclusively on foreign good will or be forced to retool in case of an emergency.

Syniks

05-08-2005, 20:20

Er, we may not do it now, but we have the capabilities to do it..The British designed alot of history's great weapons and if we needed to we can produce it ourselves again. Just we don't need to.
And when you needed to during WWII and had a small arms production capacity in place you couldn't keep up with the demand and had to rely on the good graces of a generous US civillian population.

Zaxon

05-08-2005, 20:53

Originally Posted by Zaxon
Dude, the Pink Pistols rock.

;) He posted that because I already inlined that image... :p :D

It's a great example of the isosceles stance! :D How can I not love it?

Hogsweat

05-08-2005, 20:54

And when you needed to during WWII and had a small arms production capacity in place you couldn't keep up with the demand and had to rely on the good graces of a generous US civillian population.
Excuse me, considering Britain was also the owner of over fourty battleships and battlecruisers at the start of world war two, considering we had to make PLANES during the battle of britain, you know, just a little important thing considering the Germans objective was to smash our airforce (you know, planes+airforce=mutually inclusive?) you can hardly blame us for not spamming enfields out of factories, considering our factories were BOMBED and the CIVILIANS working in them killed (how many US civilians killed in WWII? number has to be under a hundred, British losses? over a thousand times that in civilian numbers~ remember the fact our morale was smashed after all our major cities were just rubble and houses dotted with AA guns. A great deal of british culture was destroyed as was civilian lives and your worried about a FEW FUCKING GUNS?
Typical American though, values material (especially if it can cause harm to someone) over human life, and oh, the resistance of an evil empire bent on world domination and the anihalation of several races and ethnicities.

Syniks

05-08-2005, 21:14

Excuse me, considering Britain was also the owner of over fourty battleships and battlecruisers at the start of world war two, considering we had to make PLANES during the battle of britain, you know, just a little important thing considering the Germans objective was to smash our airforce (you know, planes+airforce=mutually inclusive?) you can hardly blame us for not spamming enfields out of factories, considering our factories were BOMBED and the CIVILIANS working in them killed (how many US civilians killed in WWII? number has to be under a hundred, British losses? over a thousand times that in civilian numbers~ remember the fact our morale was smashed after all our major cities were just rubble and houses dotted with AA guns. A great deal of british culture was destroyed as was civilian lives and your worried about a FEW FUCKING GUNS?Whhrrr? Someone needs a nice hot cup of tea. We were simply making the point that corporate divestiture in small arms has made Brittian even more vulnerable to wartime small-arms shortages than it was during WWII.
Typical American though, values material (especially if it can cause harm to someone) over human life, and oh, the resistance of an evil empire bent on world domination and the anihalation of several races and ethnicities.Just exact what are you talking about? The reason the civillians of the US sent Brittian their personal firearms was because you were getting the shit bombed out of you by an evil empire and couldn't produce enough yourselves... because your civillians were in deadly peril from invasion... because we had them and didn't need them as much as you did.

I'm trying to figure out just where you got off our plane of reality to say we valued our "material" (which can't be causal in anything BTW) more than the lives of Brittons? That's seriously out of line.

Zaxon

05-08-2005, 21:18

Excuse me, considering Britain was also the owner of over fourty battleships and battlecruisers at the start of world war two, considering we had to make PLANES during the battle of britain, you know, just a little important thing considering the Germans objective was to smash our airforce (you know, planes+airforce=mutually inclusive?) you can hardly blame us for not spamming enfields out of factories, considering our factories were BOMBED and the CIVILIANS working in them killed (how many US civilians killed in WWII? number has to be under a hundred, British losses? over a thousand times that in civilian numbers~ remember the fact our morale was smashed after all our major cities were just rubble and houses dotted with AA guns. A great deal of british culture was destroyed as was civilian lives and your worried about a FEW FUCKING GUNS?
Typical American though, values material (especially if it can cause harm to someone) over human life, and oh, the resistance of an evil empire bent on world domination and the anihalation of several races and ethnicities.

Uh, last I checked, the US helped with that last part. Just a little.

It's time to remember what the hell actually happened over there. Your ancestors kicked some major ass in the sky, over your land. HOWEVER, had an actual invasion occurred, the difference of a "few fucking guns" would have been the difference between English and German being spoken on your island.

I'm sorry that so many lives were lost, and much of your historic landmarks decimated, but I seem to recall a Mr. Chaimberlain who could have prepared a bit better, instead of leaving everything to Mr. Churchill (starting a dozen paces behind the actual start line, tends to make for a rough going of it--though provokes a very impressive finish when you win) to fix and maintain.

You were in a war, yes. Things are broken in war. People are killed in war. Your country survived, and your culture continued. THAT is the only result of "winning" a war. Wars in general, suck. That's why we're supposed to try to avoid them.

You're worried about loss of British culture? Good--you should be. You have a lot of history worth preserving. Me, I'm worried about loss of American culture, which includes the ability to defend oneself by use of firearms.

Swimmingpool

05-08-2005, 21:40

How is this thread so long? The majority believes that it's blindingly obvious that responsibility lies with he that shoots the gun!

Typical American though, values material (especially if it can cause harm to someone) over human life, and oh, the resistance of an evil empire bent on world domination and the anihalation of several races and ethnicities.
Stop flaming.

Colerica

05-08-2005, 22:35

None of the Above:
It's the GOVERNMENT'S fault for allowing people to own guns for the sake of shooting them, or to be PATRIOTIC. Stupid Colonials, waving round their bill of rights in the left hand and their M16 in the other...

In response to the "OMG ARM URSELF 4 DEFENSE" would be unnecessary if hate crimes were treated alot more harshly than they are being now.

Hi lobby, how's it going? You're awfully full of rage, you know. It's not good for your health...just like the ad hominem (in bold) isn't good for the thread. It would help, Mr. Lobster, if you understood a bit of what you were talking about, but apparently you don't. It requires a Class III Federal Firearms License (which includes an extensive background check among other things) to own and operate an M-16A2 assault rifle. So, no, not many people are waving about M-16's to and fro for the sake of doing so. A few things, also:

1) Your reliance in -- stratch that, dependance on -- government sickens me. But what else should I expect from a British Leftist? You rely *so* much on big government that you would love for nothing short of complete regulation of all things within your life. Rights are not given to people by a government or a constitution.
2) The term 'hate crime' is, perhaps, the most absurd item to come from the Left since 'cop-killer bullets.' What murder isn't done in hate of the victim? But again, more of the 'let the police handle it *after* the damage has been' mindset of the anti-freedom crowd.
3) I find one of the ultimate reasons for ownership of a firearm is for defense against the government.

-Good riddance. Maybe, you know, after all our major cities were reduced to rubble (something Americans will NEVER know), countless children were left without fathers or mothers, and millions of families were ruined, we were pretty pissed off with war.

And we can accredit that to possessing the best military the world has ever known. A part of me sometimes wishes for a third large European war to erupt (or, perhaps, the Soviet Union to re-emerge; but the Leftists would love for that to happen), just so the modern European generation can experience what is like to have your soveirgnty threatened and, in many cases, removed...what is like to lose your freedoms to a genocidal tyrant and to have to fight for what's right; to fight for liberty. I feel that's lost on many Euro's in the newer generations. That value has been lost to the ages of World War II. Confrontation builds character; peace breeds apathy.

Of course...if another great war were to erupt in Europe, guess who come rushing in as the savior once more. ;)

how many US civilians killed in WWII?

Actually, many. Factory accidents killed along the lines of six thousand people (yes, those deaths count; aren't all lives sacred?) The Merchant Marine lost 9,300+. British civillian losses hovers at about 60,000 due to the Nazi bombing campaign.

Also, Hogsweat, have you ever heard of the Lend-Lease Act?

Kriegorgrad

05-08-2005, 23:06

How is this thread so long? The majority believes that it's blindingly obvious that responsibility lies with he that shoots the gun!

Stop flaming.

You're an 05er, you don't have the right to enforce rules. Shutup.

And majority rule isn't necessarily right rule, the fact is that the majority of the people in this thread are from the US, the US, I may add, has a pro-gun outlook and this is reflected in its extremely streamlined media, a system of information/control that would've made Josef Goebbels weep with envy. The USA has a very powerful economy and seeing as it goes off on so many wars, it'll most likely use the guns and the ammunition, thereby giving the arms industry an amazing boost.

Britain doesn't have this same reckless streak of warfare, the UK has been relatively peaceful by comparison to the US, despite its conflicts, and therefore the gun industry in Britain wouldn't make as much sense as it isn't an integral part of the economy.

And Colerica, you sound a bit...well ignorant by saying "the leftists", they aren't a different species, regardless of what you'd like to think...

The USA doesn't have the best military the world has ever seen, in fact, your military has suffered a large share of defeats and it has proven its ineptitude to fight against guerrilla warfare, due to the large lumbering nature of the United States military.

It is a large misconception that the US were the saviours in World War II, while they did fight shoulder-to-shoulder with their European allies in taking the beaches of Normandy and the rest of the campaign, the Russians inflicted far more damage on the German war machine than the west ever did.

Also, if you think Britain and Europe would gladly be taken over by a foreign force, you really have no idea as to how Britain's populous thinks...

Kecibukia

05-08-2005, 23:13

You're an 05er, you don't have the right to enforce rules. Shutup.

And majority rule isn't necessarily right rule, the fact is that the majority of the people in this thread are from the US, the US, I may add, has a pro-gun outlook and this is reflected in its extremely streamlined media, a system of information/control that would've made Josef Goebbels weep with envy. The USA has a very powerful economy and seeing as it goes off on so many wars, it'll most likely use the guns and the ammunition, thereby giving the arms industry an amazing boost.

Britain doesn't have this same reckless streak of warfare, the UK has been relatively peaceful by comparison to the US, despite its conflicts, and therefore the gun industry in Britain wouldn't make as much sense as it isn't an integral part of the economy.

The media is pro-gun! HEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEE [breath]HEEHEEHEEHEEHEE!!!!!

Zaxon

05-08-2005, 23:15

The media is pro-gun! HEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEE [breath]HEEHEEHEEHEEHEE!!!!!

I'll second that with a BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Evidently, they've never read a major American newspaper....

Kriegorgrad

05-08-2005, 23:19

Wow, you only go for the one part of my arguement that's flawed, funny that...

Syniks

05-08-2005, 23:22

You're an 05er, you don't have the right to enforce rules. Shutup. No, but he does have the right to point out when they are being broken. (*edit* and you sure don't seem to be involved enough in NS as an "03er" with that low a post count... :rolleyes: )
And majority rule isn't necessarily right rule,I agree. If it were then Jim Crow would have never been abolished and the East and Left coasts of the US would have virtual total say over everything that happens in the US. the fact is that the majority of the people in this thread are from the US, the US, I may add, has a pro-gun outlook and this is reflected in its extremely streamlined media, a system of information/control that would've made Josef Goebbels weep with envy.You must only watch Fox. The majority of the US media is heavily anti gun, pro-corporate, and pro-Democrat. An odd mix that would have confused the hell out of Goebbels.... Though I hear George Soros is vying for his job... :rolleyes: a The USA has a very powerful economy and seeing as it goes off on so many wars, it'll most likely use the guns and the ammunition, thereby giving the arms industry an amazing boost.it got us out of the Depression didn't it? Seriously, we're talking about civillian firearms anyway. The only thing (this current) war does to the civillian firearms market is make it more difficult for to buy certain products made by Winchester/Olin - namely .223/5.56mm, .308/7.62, 9mm, .50BMG, powder and primers.
Britain doesn't have this same reckless streak of warfare, the UK has been relatively peaceful by comparison to the US, despite its conflicts, only since the inception of the US... and only if you don't count all of the colonial conflicts... and therefore the gun industry in Britain wouldn't make as much sense as it isn't an integral part of the economy.Ah, yes, the "Imperial Military Industrial Complex" rubber biscut. It's just as stale and keeps bouncing back. Please cite some GDP figures when saying how much of an "integral part of the economy" it is so we can really laugh at you.

*edit* Nice of you to make substantial additions to your post after 12 minutes and 2 responses...

And Colerica, you sound a bit...well ignorant by saying "the leftists", they aren't a different species, regardless of what you'd like to think...

The USA doesn't have the best military the world has ever seen, in fact, your military has suffered a large share of defeats and it has proven its ineptitude to fight against guerrilla warfare, due to the large lumbering nature of the United States military.No it is due to our stubborn reluctance to fight guerrillas on their own terms, that and an institutional distaste for shooting non-uniformed people.
It is a large misconception that the US were the saviours in World War II, while they did fight shoulder-to-shoulder with their European allies in taking the beaches of Normandy and the rest of the campaign, the Russians inflicted far more damage on the German war machine than the west ever did.And took more casualties as well... So? All it would have meant if the US had stayed out of it would have been that either Hitler would have finished his heavy water experiments and got the Bomb or Stalinand "Europe" would have beaten Germany and Stalin would have kept all of it and whatever else he could have gotten hold of.
Also, if you think Britain and Europe would gladly be taken over by a foreign force, you really have no idea as to how Britain's populous thinks...Sort of like how Hogsweat insisted that the Blitz "demoralized" the Britons? I thought the Britons "stiff-upper-lipped" the Blitz rather well, but Hogsweat, being English seems to misunderstand "how Britain's populous thinks" as well. Or am I wrong?

Kecibukia

05-08-2005, 23:43

Wow, you only go for the one part of my arguement that's flawed, funny that...

Not the only part that's flawed but the funniest.

Lyric

06-08-2005, 04:00

Now read the first part about the guy under the influence.

Why not prevent the guy from having the drugs in the first place, then Sally (and whomever else) gets to live.

Fuck it. I give up. You gun nuts are never going to see or CARE that I have a VERY LEGITIMATE concern about guns...that my life has been forever altered by a gun...someone I love was taken from me because someone was allowed to have a gun...but you don't give a crap.

Nothing I can ever say is going to change your minds.

Nothing you can ever say is going to change mine either. So fuck it. I've had it with this back-and-forth bullshit, I've had it with you having a smart-assed answer to every single point I make...you mouth words of sympathy for my friend, but the rest of your words tell the true story...you do not give a shit about my pain...you do not give a shit about my loss, and you do not give a shit about my legitimate fear of what someone might want a gun for.

I fear the next hate crime victim may well be ME...and if someone's taking me out, I hope that they have the fucking courtesy to come up close and do it so I at least get a chance to defend myself.

Fuck it, this is useless, and it's a waste of my time. You gun nuts will never ever ever validate a single point of mine. You think I ought to have no fear of anyone who wants a gun...when murders are higher in the US than any other industrialized country in the world.

Hate crimes are rampant in this county. One TG person a mnonth, on average, gets killed. Most of them with guns.

I fucking hate guns, I wish the motherfucking things had never been invented, I wish every last one of the goddamn things would be melted the fuck down and made into something worthwhile.

But fuck it. I'm not arguing anymore, because it's obvious I cannot change your mind. All you are doing now is pissing me off.

Origami Tigers

06-08-2005, 04:11

The Sniper Fairy: A demented, sadistic little pucker who hitches a ride on any free-flying bullet and directs it towards the poor hapless folks who pissed the fairy off. The Sniper Fairy ensures the course of the bullet that kills. I know I'll be shot come morning because I told you all about him.

Cynigal

06-08-2005, 04:49

Fuck it. I give up. You gun nuts are never going to see or CARE that I have a VERY LEGITIMATE concern about guns...that my life has been forever altered by a gun...someone I love was taken from me because someone was allowed to have a gun...but you don't give a crap.Actually, I do. The Criminal who shot Terrianne, as a professional, was not in legal possession ofthe firearm. I can guarantee that the firearm he had was NOT a gun ANYONE was "allowed" to have since odds are it was not acquired through legal channels.

Nothing I can ever say is going to change your minds.No. Because I believe everyone, GLBT or Breeder, maintains the Human Right of Self Defense by the most efficient means available. It's not perfect, but nothing is.

Nothing you can ever say is going to change mine either. So fuck it. I've had it with this back-and-forth bullshit, I've had it with you having a smart-assed answer to every single point I make...you mouth words of sympathy for my friend, but the rest of your words tell the true story...you do not give a shit about my pain...you do not give a shit about my loss, and you do not give a shit about my legitimate fear of what someone might want a gun for.The someone you legitimately fear is not the everyone else that owns firearms - those who would use them to come to your aid if necessary.
I fear the next hate crime victim may well be ME...and if someone's taking me out, I hope that they have the fucking courtesy to come up close and do it so I at least get a chance to defend myself.I agree. I would hope you are quite able to do so. I also fervently hope your choice to be unarmed won't be your undoing.
Fuck it, this is useless, and it's a waste of my time. You gun nuts will never ever ever validate a single point of mine. You think I ought to have no fear of anyone who wants a gun...when murders are higher in the US than any other industrialized country in the world. And 99% of those murders are committed by people who, under current US law, have no legal right to own one.
Hate crimes are rampant in this county. One TG person a mnonth, on average, gets killed. Most of them with guns.Please cite that for me. My admittedly limited research has shown just the opposite - that Gays & TG/TSs are more likely to be the victims of non-weapon (blade or firearm) physical assault.
I fucking hate guns,Extreme, but understantable. I wish the motherfucking things had never been invented,utterly irrational, I wish every last one of the goddamn things would be melted the fuck down and made into something worthwhile.a common sentiment. But as I have demonstrated time and again. If every gun in the world, and all the too and die equipment set up to make them, would vanish tonight there would still be too many murders in the US, too many Bashings, and there would be new guns by tomorrow evening.
But fuck it. I'm not arguing anymore, because it's obvious I cannot change your mind. All you are doing now is pissing me off.Am I pissing you off? Short of my calling you a Troll, for which I apologize as I now understand was not the case, (though the behavior was indicitave), I have tried to discuss this with you in a rational, sensitive, GLBT friendly manner. Since your outburst at my troll comment, and my subsequent identification with Terianne, you have stopped engaging me on the points that I see as relevant to the GLBT community (as well as everyone else).

If I didn't see the possession of firearms as an overall positive to the GLBT community, why would I have posted the images I did? Events such as Terrianne's murder are anomolies even in the "gun crime" statistics. Assanation style killings, for all their ease, are blessedly rare. Unfortunately, common thuggery is not - and the best way to defend oneself from thuggery is to be better able to dispense pain than they are... thus a gun - both, as you say, an "enabler" (as is any weapon at hand), and a equalizer.

GLBT activisim is about being treated equally. Bashers don't want you to be equal, they want you to be helpless. Give them equality - and don't be squeemish about using an equalizer to do it. Terrianne wasn't.

Zaxon

06-08-2005, 13:40

Fuck it. I give up. You gun nuts are never going to see or CARE that I have a VERY LEGITIMATE concern about guns...that my life has been forever altered by a gun...someone I love was taken from me because someone was allowed to have a gun...but you don't give a crap.

I'm sorry, Lyric, but you have a skewed concern about guns--not a legitimate one. Any argument that you apply to it can be mirrored for anything else (to not let peole use drugs, cars, etc.)--you just choose to use it only on guns because you still blame the gun for Terrianne's death. It wasn't the gun. It was the bastard behind the gun, and the bastards that paid them to use that gun.

Nothing I can ever say is going to change your minds.

You're right. But only because there's no logic behind it--but a lot of pain. And you don't deserve to have to hold on to that pain. It just hurts you more, and doesn't allow you to heal--and I'm guessing it will make relationships with others rather difficult as well.

Nothing you can ever say is going to change mine either.

I sincerely hope that will not always be the case. It would mean that you'd never reconciled your feelings about the situation. And that would suck to hang on to so much pain for so long.

So fuck it. I've had it with this back-and-forth bullshit, I've had it with you having a smart-assed answer to every single point I make...you mouth words of sympathy for my friend, but the rest of your words tell the true story...you do not give a shit about my pain...you do not give a shit about my loss, and you do not give a shit about my legitimate fear of what someone might want a gun for.

That's the point--it's all fear. Fear is not rational, not logical, and is nonsensical. You need to find a way to deal with it, or else it will cripple you for the rest of your life. And you don't deserve that.

I fear the next hate crime victim may well be ME...

I honestly hope no harm ever befalls you. You've been through more than enough.

and if someone's taking me out, I hope that they have the fucking courtesy to come up close and do it so I at least get a chance to defend myself.

If someone wants you gone, there is absolutely no way to stop them. This has been proven time and time again throughout the centuries.

Fuck it, this is useless, and it's a waste of my time. You gun nuts will never ever ever validate a single point of mine.

It's only because you're using the smokescreen of the firearm as the reason for your troubles, when it's not. It's the loss of a dear friend, who was ruthlessly murdered for her beliefs. I can understand that. I would be devastated, angry, hurt, and a whole host of other things.

What I can't understand is how you actually managed to pin the blame on a device.

You think I ought to have no fear of anyone who wants a gun...when murders are higher in the US than any other industrialized country in the world.

And there are countries that have a higher per capita of gun ownership than the US (Canada, Switzerland), yet have lower crime rates with them. It's not the gun. It's the society.

Hate crimes are rampant in this county. One TG person a mnonth, on average, gets killed. Most of them with guns.

And those that perpetrate those crimes deserve to fry in hell. But it's not because of the gun. The gun doesn't cause it. It's all people and relations.

I fucking hate guns,

I'd say that you have misplaced your anger to cover up your fear of them.

I wish the motherfucking things had never been invented, I wish every last one of the goddamn things would be melted the fuck down and made into something worthwhile.

Like shackles for our new owners/masters, once we can no longer defend ourselves from them?

But fuck it. I'm not arguing anymore, because it's obvious I cannot change your mind. All you are doing now is pissing me off.

<sigh> yeah, we know--it always ends this way. You can't convince us because you don't have an actual argument for your side (but your pain won't allow you to see that), so you blow up, insult everyone as best you can, so we can somehow have some pain of our own to deal with (since we don't "share" it with you), and then you disappear for a while.

This is human to human, here, Lyric: Talk to a psychologist or some other counselor type. You deserve to live a long and happy life--you won't get there, if you continue to have this unlimited fountain of bile that's always percolating underneath the surface, only to rear it's head every time someone says, "It doesn't work that way, really."

Now, I'll wait for you to rant at me for not having a PhD, or qualifications, or just being an asshat for even attempting to tell you what you feel, and your threats of moderator involvement....

You really don't deserve all the pain--why the hell won't you try to fix it?

<dons armor and waits with resignation>

Lyric

06-08-2005, 16:19

Colerica

06-08-2005, 17:09

Quoth Zaxon: "It's only because you're using the smokescreen of the firearm as the reason for your troubles, when it's not. It's the loss of a dear friend, who was ruthlessly murdered for her beliefs. I can understand that. I would be devastated, angry, hurt, and a whole host of other things.

What I can't understand is how you actually managed to pin the blame on a device."

What the fuck ELSE do I have to blame?? No one knows WHO killed Terrianne...and after this much time, no one ever will. No one even seems to GIVE A SHIT.

All's I have left is the fucking gun. someone or something needs to take the goddamn blame...it sure as HELL wasn't Terrianne's fault!

Blame the fucking killer. Why do you have to have a name and face to blame her death on? Stop blaming an inanimate, inheritely innocent object that was used for devious purposes in the death of your friend. She was killed for her ideals; not because the gun hopped up one day and said to itself, "you know, self, I'm going to kill that Terrianne 'cause I don't like her." I had an uncle who was killed in a car accident. Do I blame Chevrolet for making the vehicle that he was riding in?

Colerica

06-08-2005, 17:38

You're an 05er, you don't have the right to enforce rules. Shutup.

You possess no right to boss around another user simply because you've been here longer.

And majority rule isn't necessarily right rule, the fact is that the majority of the people in this thread are from the US, the US, I may add, has a pro-gun outlook and this is reflected in its extremely streamlined media, a system of information/control that would've made Josef Goebbels weep with envy.

You know so little. The media has *never* been pro-gun and I doubt that it ever will. They will use any misinformed trick in the book to play to the anti-gun crowd and they always do. News breaks that someone gets killed with a .22 rifle; they show footage of someone firing an AR-15. No joke. Your ignorance of the US media is astounding....but expected.

The USA has a very powerful economy and seeing as it goes off on so many wars, it'll most likely use the guns and the ammunition, thereby giving the arms industry an amazing boost.

Only to those companies that have government contracts, perhaps.

Britain doesn't have this same reckless streak of warfare,

:)

and therefore the gun industry in Britain wouldn't make as much sense as it isn't an integral part of the economy.

It doesn't make an integral, essential part of the Ameircan economy, either.

And Colerica, you sound a bit...well ignorant by saying "the leftists", they aren't a different species, regardless of what you'd like to think...

No, the Left isn't a different species, it's just perhaps the lowest form of this species. I don't take a kind liking to any group, faction, or affiliation that makes it their goal to snatch my freedoms from me. And your direct ad hominem at me was entirely unnecessary as I did not insult you. ;)

The USA doesn't have the best military the world has ever seen, in fact, your military has suffered a large share of defeats and it has proven its ineptitude to fight against guerrilla warfare, due to the large lumbering nature of the United States military.

On the contrary, we have the mightiest military force the world has ever known. If we actually wanted to, the United States could, in fact, take over the world with relative ease. Great casualities, but relative ease. The US military has suffered defeats, yet that was prior to the conception of the modern fighting force we have today. The US military of 1945 wouldn't stand a chance against the US military of 2005; ditto goes the comparison for 1975 to the present. We are the most technologically advanced force in the world right now. No military could defeat us presently. Our 'ineptitude' of fighting a guerilla war doesn't come from the state of our military, it comes from the fact that we're presently fighting a political war. If we wanted to end this guerilla war once and for, we could wholeheartedly...but we're being restrained by Washington. But that would involve falling to the level of the terrorists themselves and using their own tactics against them. Outside the box think mode: Ever seen Swordfish? Care to recall the speech the Gabe character makes about making terrorism so horrific that no one will ever think of attacking the United States again?

It is a large misconception that the US were the saviours in World War II,

No, not really. Tell that to the three hundred thousand plus men we left in your ground.

while they did fight shoulder-to-shoulder with their European allies in taking the beaches of Normandy and the rest of the campaign,

Europe would have completely fallen -- yes, stubborn Brits, you too -- to the Nazi's had America not intervened. You owe us your freedom, though you'll never admit it.

the Russians inflicted far more damage on the German war machine than the west ever did.

That's because we allowed them to coupled (America/Britian would rather a hundred dead Russians over one of their own dead; why do you think they took Berlin?) with the fact that Hitler was stupid enough to break his non-agression pact with Stalin. Had America not been drawn into the war, Britian would have fallen and become Hitler's weekend island retreat. He would have then been able to completely concentrate his forces on the Soviets where they would have most likely dueled to a complete draw and, sooner or later, drawn up a cease-fire. Or....Germany would have just defeated them. Take your pick.

Also, if you think Britain and Europe would gladly be taken over by a foreign force, you really have no idea as to how Britain's populous thinks...

Who said anything about the Euro's being glad about being taking over? When has a soveirgn population ever been glad to be taken over, save for maybe the rare liberation? This is a matter of not having a choice in the issue, just as you did in World War II. When you have a powerful war machine such as Nazi Germany had bearing down on your own nation's force, you don't really have a chance to contemplate whether or not you'll be glad about being taken over.

Zaxon

06-08-2005, 18:05

Quoth Zaxon: "It's only because you're using the smokescreen of the firearm as the reason for your troubles, when it's not. It's the loss of a dear friend, who was ruthlessly murdered for her beliefs. I can understand that. I would be devastated, angry, hurt, and a whole host of other things.

What I can't understand is how you actually managed to pin the blame on a device."

What the fuck ELSE do I have to blame?? No one knows WHO killed Terrianne...and after this much time, no one ever will. No one even seems to GIVE A SHIT.

All's I have left is the fucking gun. someone or something needs to take the goddamn blame...it sure as HELL wasn't Terrianne's fault!

Most assuredly it was not Terrianne's fault. I already know this. You don't have to convince me.

You can't blame something without will and conscience, though. At least not rationally.

I know you want a target and that the target that is supposed to be there isn't, but what you're doing isn't the answer. I wish I had one for you. I wish I could make it go away or at least somewhat better or less frustrating. But I don't. Maybe someone who was better or more experienced in human relations could help lead you to a better or more satisfying answer--hence my suggestion of talking to someone.

Cynigal

07-08-2005, 03:31

<snip>
What the fuck ELSE do I have to blame?? No one knows WHO killed Terrianne...and after this much time, no one ever will. No one even seems to GIVE A SHIT.

All's I have left is the fucking gun. someone or something needs to take the goddamn blame...it sure as HELL wasn't Terrianne's fault!
How about blaming the Winn Dixie corporate structure that put Terrianne in harm's way in the first place?

Let's approach loss & pain from a few different directions...

If Planes had never been invented there would have never been 9/11.
If Cars had never been invented there would never have been hundereds of thousands of road fatalities.
If Boats had never been invented there would have never been the Achille Loro (sp?) or Lusitania or Titanic.
If Tea (Tax) had never been invented there would have never been the US Revolution.
If Wheels had never been invented there never would have bee War Chariots.
If Cord had never been invented, there never woulg have been Bows.
If Flint Napping had never been invented, there never woulg have been knives.

Where does it stop?

Blame Evil People for Evil actions, not the inanimate thing they used.

Lyric

07-08-2005, 04:07

How about blaming the Winn Dixie corporate structure that put Terrianne in harm's way in the first place?

Let's approach loss & pain from a few different directions...

If Planes had never been invented there would have never been 9/11.
If Cars had never been invented there would never have been hundereds of thousands of road fatalities.
If Boats had never been invented there would have never been the Achille Loro (sp?) or Lusitania or Titanic.
If Tea (Tax) had never been invented there would have never been the US Revolution.
If Wheels had never been invented there never would have bee War Chariots.
If Cord had never been invented, there never woulg have been Bows.
If Flint Napping had never been invented, there never woulg have been knives.

Where does it stop?

Blame Evil People for Evil actions, not the inanimate thing they used.

Oh, believe me, I've plenty of anger and resentment for Winn-Dixie! I laughed my ass off when they had to close all their Texas stores...and now they are also out of my former home in Louisville, Kentucky. They are going bankrupt, and I'm giggling the whole way, watching it, too. Couldn't happen to a more-deserving group of assholes.

But, meantime, I still have no one to pin the blame on...and I'm not seeing anyone PAY for Terrianne's death. I'm not seeing anything positive come out of that death, I'm being given no closure of any kind. Don't you get it? My people are mad as hell, and we aren't going to take it anymore!

We are going to do every fucking thing we can to make sure that what happened to Terrianne, does not happen to more of us! and make sure that what Terrianne stood for...and died for...was not in vain!

And the only way we can do that, since we can't make her killer PAY...is to find some way to make sure this NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN! And making guns harder and harder to acquire is, in my humble opinion, a damn good place to start.

Cynigal

07-08-2005, 04:34

Oh, believe me, I've plenty of anger and resentment for Winn-Dixie! I laughed my ass off when they had to close all their Texas stores...and now they are also out of my former home in Louisville, Kentucky. They are going bankrupt, and I'm giggling the whole way, watching it, too. Couldn't happen to a more-deserving group of assholes.

But, meantime, I still have no one to pin the blame on...and I'm not seeing anyone PAY for Terrianne's death.Neither will the families and friends of the 9/11 victims see anyone "PAY" for 9/11... unless you think Iraq is about payback for 9/11... I'm not seeing anything positive come out of that death, I'm being given no closure of any kind. Don't you get it? My people are mad as hell, and we aren't going to take it anymore! We are going to do every fucking thing we can to make sure that what happened to Terrianne, does not happen to more of us!By taking away an effective means of defense from other types of physical violence toward GLBTs? How will that help "your people" (who are simply "people" IMO...) How will being disarmed help keep people from being dragged behind pickups and tied to fences? and make sure that what Terrianne stood for...and died for...was not in vain!She stood for standing up for GLBT Rights.... ALL OF THEM. She demonstrated this through an agressive 1st Ammendment Vioce and defended it with a 2nd Ammendment tool. That she was killed by someone who was intent on suppressing GLBT Rights should give you pause over why you would support suppressing some of them yourself.
And the only way we can do that, since we can't make her killer PAY...is to find some way to make sure this NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN! And making guns harder and harder to acquire is, in my humble opinion, a damn good place to start.Ok. I can understand that. The bit I bolded is a rational opinion. It is counter factual, and will never work to prevent professionals from killing anyone, but it is at least a common political goal - and a debatable position, unlike "wishing guns had never been invented".

NationStates Jolt Archive

Who is responsible for deaths caused by guns? - Page 2